v.8/28/2012
DRAFT Critical Area Resource Plan Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Adams County, Pennsylvania
Prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Grant No. 4300222545
Prepared by Heidi L.N. Moltz James B. Palmer
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, Suite PE-08 Rockville, MD 20850
August 2012
ICPRB Report No. ICPRB-12-2
v.8/28/2012
Cover Photo Natural Dam on Marsh Creek, August 1, 2010. Flow on this day was estimated at less than 1 cfs. Photo by Emily Knowles-Kellett.
Disclaimer The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policies of the United States government or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.
ii v.8/28/2012
Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... iii List of Tables ...... v List of Figures ...... viii List of Appendices ...... xi Abbreviations ...... xii Units of Measurement ...... xiii 1 Executive Summary ...... 1 2 Introduction ...... 5 2.1 Numeric Precision and Spatial Resolution ...... 6 2.2 Demographics ...... 7 2.3 Watershed Characteristics ...... 8 2.3.1 Elevation ...... 9 2.3.2 Land Use and Land Cover ...... 9 2.3.3 Precipitation ...... 10 2.3.4 Geology ...... 10 2.3.5 Soils ...... 11 3 CARP Elements ...... 12 3.1 Stakeholder Participation ...... 12 3.2 Water Resources Issues ...... 13 3.2.1 Water Availability ...... 14 3.2.2 Water Storage ...... 14 3.2.3 Water Quality ...... 14 3.2.4 Stormwater ...... 15 3.2.5 Policy and Management ...... 15 3.2.6 Data Availability ...... 15 3.2.7 Communication ...... 15 3.2.8 Summary ...... 15 3.3 Technical Analyses ...... 15 3.3.1 Existing Reasonable and Beneficial Uses ...... 16 3.3.1.1 Withdrawal Uses ...... 16 3.3.1.2 Nonwithdrawal Uses ...... 39 3.3.1.3 Summary ...... 47 3.3.2 Water Availability and Future Water Uses ...... 47 3.3.2.1 Water Budgets ...... 48 3.3.2.2 Water Use Budgets...... 65 3.3.2.3 Future Water Uses ...... 71 3.3.2.4 Comparisons of Water Use and Water Availability ...... 87 3.3.2.5 Groundwater Sustainable Yield ...... 94 3.3.2.6 Summary ...... 100 3.3.3 Water Quality Issues ...... 101 3.3.3.1 Regulatory ...... 101 3.3.3.2 Ground and Surface Water Samples ...... 104 3.3.3.3 Impacts to Aquatic Benthic Communities ...... 117 3.3.3.4 Impacts to Public Water Supplies ...... 118 3.3.3.5 Summary ...... 119 3.3.4 Stormwater and Floodplain Management ...... 120 3.3.4.1 Current Land Uses ...... 120 3.3.4.2 Future Land Uses ...... 124 3.3.4.3 Stormwater as a Resource ...... 126
iii v.8/28/2012
3.3.4.4 Stormwater Impacts to Public Water Supplies ...... 126 3.3.4.5 Stormwater Management ...... 127 3.3.4.6 Floodplains ...... 128 3.3.4.7 Stormwater and Floodplain Regulations ...... 132 3.3.4.8 Summary ...... 132 3.4 Management Alternatives ...... 132 3.4.1 Evaluation of Management Alternatives ...... 133 3.4.1.1 Scoring Approach ...... 133 3.4.1.2 Evaluation and Prioritization of Alternatives by Water Resources Issue ...... 134 3.4.2 Adverse Impacts and Conflicts ...... 163 3.4.2.1 Avoiding Conflicts ...... 164 3.4.2.2 Adverse Impacts ...... 164 3.5 Management Recommendations and Implementation ...... 164 3.5.1 Management Recommendations ...... 164 3.5.1.1 Other Activities ...... 168 3.5.2 Implementation ...... 169 3.5.2.1 Case Study ...... 169 4 Conclusions ...... 172 5 References ...... 174 6 Acknowledgements ...... 180
iv v.8/28/2012
List of Tables Table 1. 2010 population counts for each CWPA sub-watershed (estimated utilizing 2010 U.S. Census data) ...... 8 Table 2. Municipalities in the CWPA ...... 8 Table 3. Meetings held in association with development of the CARP ...... 12 Table 4. Factors considered during the CWPA nomination process (DEP 2009c) ...... 13 Table 5. Registered agricultural water use in gallons per year (gal/y) by sub-watershed (2004-2009) ..... 17 Table 6. Percent of registered agricultural withdrawals from surface water sources by sub-watershed (2004-2009) ...... 17 Table 7. Estimated acres of irrigated row crops and orchards in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds .. 18 Table 8. Annual average daily water use for irrigation in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds in gallons per day (gpd) ...... 19 Table 9. Irrigation water use in the sub-watersheds within Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (gpd) ...... 19 Table 10. Total number of livestock by animal type in Marsh and Rock creek watersheds from 2002 and 2007 USDA Ag Census ...... 20 Table 11. Estimated daily livestock water use (gpd) in each sub-watershed within Marsh and Rock creek watersheds ...... 21 Table 12. Commercial and industrial water uses in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, annual average withdrawals (gpd) ...... 22 Table 13. Estimated commercial and industrial employees in the Marsh and Rock creek sub- watersheds ...... 23 Table 14. Estimated commercial and industrial water use (gpd) in the Marsh and Rock creek sub- watersheds ...... 23 Table 15. Percent of the sub-watershed areas that fall within public water supply and sewer service districts ...... 25 Table 16. Population within the sub-watersheds with and without public water supply and sewer service ...... 25 Table 17. Per capita water use in the 13 public water supply systems ...... 28 Table 18. Total self-supplied domestic water use by sub-watershed and total for all of the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (2010) ...... 29 Table 19. Seasonal water use for non-community water systems by sub-watershed in gallons per season (gal/seas) ...... 30 Table 20. Average seasonal discharge by sub-watershed (Mgpd) ...... 31 Table 21. Maximum seasonal discharge by sub-watershed (Mgpd) ...... 31 Table 22. Discharge to septic systems by sub-watershed in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds ...... 31 Table 23. Typical consumptive use values by water use sector for 1985, 1990, and 1995 in areas climactically similar to the Great Lakes region (Shaffer and Runkle 2007) ...... 35 Table 24. Average seasonal consumptive use of water by sub-watershed (gal/seas) ...... 36 Table 25. Recreational and non-recreational fish observed in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (based on a compilation of DEP and National Park Service fish data) ...... 41 Table 26. Variables for trout survival ...... 42 Table 27. Modified from “Effect of PFBC trout biomass classification system on SRBC water withdrawal permitting (Fish and Boat Commission 2009)” ...... 42 Table 28. Annual streamflow and baseflow amounts (in) and baseflow (BF) as a percentage of streamflow (SF) from 1997-2010 in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds ...... 52 Table 29. Total annual precipitation by year for each sub-watershed (in) ...... 55 Table 30. Number and surface area (acres) of water bodies by sub-watershed ...... 59 Table 31. Annual water budget for the Upper Rock sub-watershed (1997-2010) ...... 61 Table 32. Seasonal water budget for the Upper Rock sub-watershed ...... 62 Table 33. Annual water budget for the Lower Rock sub-watershed (1997-2010)...... 62
v v.8/28/2012
Table 34. Seasonal water budget for the Lower Rock sub-watershed ...... 63 Table 35. Annual water budget for the Little Marsh sub-watershed (1997-2010) ...... 63 Table 36. Seasonal water budget for the Little Marsh sub-watershed ...... 63 Table 37. Annual water budget for the Upper Marsh sub-watershed (1997-2010) ...... 64 Table 38. Seasonal water budget for the Upper Marsh sub-watershed ...... 64 Table 39. Annual water budget for the Lower Marsh sub-watershed (1997-2010) ...... 65 Table 40. Seasonal water budget for the Lower Marsh sub-watershed (1997-2010) ...... 65 Table 41. Annual water use budget for the Upper Rock sub-watershed (1997-2010) ...... 67 Table 42. Seasonal water use budget for the Upper Rock sub-watershed ...... 67 Table 43. Annual water use budget for the Lower Rock sub-watershed (1997-2010) ...... 68 Table 44. Seasonal water use budget for the Lower Rock sub-watershed...... 68 Table 45. Annual water use budget for the Little Marsh sub-watershed (1997-2010) ...... 69 Table 46. Seasonal water use budget for the Little Marsh sub-watershed ...... 69 Table 47. Annual water use budget for the Upper Marsh sub-watershed (1997-2010) ...... 70 Table 48. Seasonal water use budget for the Upper Marsh sub-watershed ...... 70 Table 49. Annual water use budget for the Lower Marsh sub-watershed (1997-2010) ...... 71 Table 50. Seasonal water use budget for the Lower Marsh sub-watershed ...... 71 Table 51. Projected CWPA population growth according to ACOPD and DEP data (% change from 2000) ...... 72 Table 52. Population counts (2010) and projections (2020 and 2030) for each sub-watershed ...... 72 Table 53. Estimates of self-supplied industrial water use (gpd, 2010-2030) ...... 74 Table 54. Estimates of self-supplied commercial water use (gpd, 2010-2030) ...... 74 Table 55. Self-supplied domestic water use estimates (gpd) ...... 79 Table 56. Amount of water discharged to septics by sub-watershed (gpd, 2000-2030) ...... 80 Table 57. Projected future non-community water uses (gal/y) by sub-watershed ...... 81 Table 58. Population estimates for the public water systems (2009-2030) ...... 82 Table 59. Total annual water use for agricultural irrigation in each sub-watershed (gal/y) ...... 84 Table 60. Total annual water use for livestock by sub-watershed (gal/y) ...... 85 Table 61. Select additional daily flow metrics (cfs, 1977-2011) ...... 87 Table 62. Average annual daily withdrawal minus 7Q10 by sub-watershed (gpd) ...... 94 Table 63. Average seasonal daily withdrawal minus 7Q10 by sub-watershed (gpd) ...... 94 Table 64. Summary of total number of samples and number of sample MCL exceedances for EASI surface water testing ...... 110 Table 65. Summary of surface water samples collected in Rock Creek and tributaries by WAAC, February to July 2005 ...... 111 Table 66. Percent impervious cover by sub-watershed ...... 122 Table 67. Land use percentages in each sub-watershed ...... 123 Table 68. Proposed future developments and 2006 impervious cover information ...... 124 Table 69. Water deficit by season calculated as total average seasonal withdrawals minus 7Q10 (in, 1997-2010) ...... 126 Table 70. Average seasonal stormflows (in, 1997-2010) ...... 126 Table 71. Value and function of floodplains ...... 128 Table 72. Flood prone locations in the CWPA by sub-watershed ...... 129 Table 73. Land uses in the 500-year floodplain ...... 131 Table 74. Management alternatives associated with water resources issues #1 and #2, water availability and storage ...... 134 Table 75. Management alternatives associated with water resources issue #3, water quality ...... 145 Table 76. Management alternatives associated with water resources issue #4, stormwater ...... 147 Table 77. Management alternatives associated with water resources issue #5, policy and management ...... 149 Table 78. Management alternatives associated with water resources issue #6, data ...... 158
vi v.8/28/2012
Table 79. Management alternatives associated with water resources issue #7, communication ...... 162 Table 80. Differing viewpoints that may result in conflict ...... 164 Table 81. Tier 1 CARP management recommendations ...... 165 Table 82. Tier 2 CARP recommendations ...... 167 Table 83. CAAC organizations and primary representatives ...... 181 Table 84. Potomac Regional Committee members ...... 182
vii v.8/28/2012
List of Figures Figure 1. Location of CWPA in Adams County, Pennsylvania ...... 6 Figure 2. 12-digit hydrologic units in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds ...... 7 Figure 3. Elevations in the CWPA ...... 9 Figure 4. Geologic formations of the CWPA ...... 11 Figure 5. Total registered agricultural water use in million gallons per year (Mgal/y) by year in Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (2004-2009) ...... 17 Figure 6. Average daily irrigation water use in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds using water use factors of 1,867 gpd/ac and 1,350 gpd/ac for years 2002 through 2010 plus an estimate for 2010 using an irrigated acreage estimate based on ACOPD data ...... 19 Figure 7. Average livestock daily water use in Marsh and Rock creek watersheds by month (2007) in million gallons per day (Mgpd) ...... 21 Figure 8. Comparison of average daily water use for irrigation and livestock (2002-2010) ...... 22 Figure 9. Areas served by public water supply and public sewer systems ...... 24 Figure 10. Total annual water use by public water supplier in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (1997-2009) ...... 26 Figure 11. Public water supplier water use by watershed (1997-2009) ...... 27 Figure 12. Water use by public water supplier (1997-2009) ...... 28 Figure 13. Locations of non-community water systems in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, according to DEP ...... 30 Figure 14. Major watersheds of the Adams County...... 32 Figure 15. Seasonal water use by registered users in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds ...... 36 Figure 16. Seasonal registered consumptive use of water, calculated using consumptive use coefficients from Shaffer and Runkle (2007) ...... 37 Figure 17. Seasonal estimated water use by unregistered users in the Marsh and Rock watersheds ...... 37 Figure 18. Seasonal estimated consumptive use of water, calculated using consumptive use coefficients from Shaffer and Runkle (2007) ...... 38 Figure 19. Distribution of withdrawal water uses in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (2007) ...... 38 Figure 20. Designated uses, approved trout waterways, and naturally reproducing trout populations in the CWPA ...... 40 Figure 21. Locations of natural heritage sites, the Eisenhower Least Shrew Site (an Important Mammal Area), and Michaux State Forest in the CWPA ...... 44 Figure 22. Tourist spending in Adams County, PA, according to the Gettysburg Convention and Visitors Bureau (2002-2009) (personal comm., 4/27/2011) ...... 45 Figure 23. Sach’s Bridge on Marsh Creek ...... 46 Figure 24. Estimated streamflow for the CWPA, Marsh Creek, and Rock Creek and observed USGS flows at Bridgeport, MD (1997-2011) ...... 49 Figure 25. Locations of water level monitoring wells and stream staff gages ...... 50 Figure 26. Streamflow at Moncoacy River near Bridgeport, Maryland, compared to the sum of streamflow at Marsh Creek at Harpers Hill near Fairplay, Pennsylvania and at Rock Creek near Harney, Maryland ...... 51 Figure 27. Streamflow at Moncoacy River near Bridgeport Maryland compared to the combined streamflow at Marsh Creek at Harpers Hill near Fairplay, Pennsylvania and at Rock Creek near Harney, Maryland with flood peaks removed ...... 51 Figure 28. The average of total seasonal baseflow amounts for the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (1997-2010) ...... 53 Figure 29. Comparison of 2010 streamflow and baseflow in the Marsh Creek watershed ...... 53 Figure 30. Comparison of 2010 streamflow and baseflow in the Rock Creek watershed ...... 54 Figure 31. Locations of precipitation recording stations and USGS groundwater observation well ...... 54
viii v.8/28/2012
Figure 32. Total annual precipitation for each sub-watershed (in) ...... 56 Figure 33. Annual growing season soil moisture deficit by sub-watershed (in) ...... 56 Figure 34. Annual change in groundwater level in AD 146 and AD 808 (in) ...... 58 Figure 35. Surface water bodies in the CWPA ...... 59 Figure 36. Spatial distribution of projected population change by municipality (2000-2030) ...... 73 Figure 37. Location of Adams County’s designated growth areas and proposed developments ...... 73 Figure 38. Estimated industrial self-supplied water use by sub-watershed (gpd; 2000-2030) ...... 75 Figure 39. Estimated commercial self-supplied water use by sub-watershed (gpd; 2000-2030) ...... 75 Figure 40. Projected water use for registered commercial and industrial users (Mgal/y) ...... 76 Figure 41. Current and anticipated future sewer service areas ...... 77 Figure 42. Distribution of 2020 population receiving public water and sewer services by sub- watershed ...... 77 Figure 43. Distribution of the 2030 population, under the low growth scenario, receiving public water and sewer services by sub-watershed ...... 78 Figure 44. Distribution of the 2030 population, under the high growth scenario, receiving public water and sewer services by sub-watershed ...... 78 Figure 45. Self-supplied domestic water use estimates by sub-watershed, not including the projected impact of the expanded GMA service area near Hunterstown ...... 79 Figure 46. Self-supplied domestic water use estimates in the Marsh and Rock creek sub- watersheds, including the projected impact of the expanded GMA service area near Hunterstown ...... 80 Figure 47. Projected total annual non-community water use (Mgal/y) ...... 81 Figure 48. Water use by public water suppliers (2009-2030) ...... 82 Figure 49. Total annual public water supplier water use by sub-watershed (2009-2030) ...... 83 Figure 50. Total annual water use for agricultural irrigation by sub-watershed...... 84 Figure 51. Total annual water use for livestock by sub-watershed (Mgal/y; 2002-2030) ...... 85 Figure 52. Projected registered agricultural water use (Mgal/y; 2010-2030) ...... 86 Figure 53. Total annual agricultural water use (estimated irrigation, estimated livestock, and reported agricultural use) by sub-watershed (1997-2030) ...... 86 Figure 54. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by year compared to median annual flow and the 7Q10 in the Marsh Creek watershed (combined Upper, Little, and Lower Marsh sub-watersheds) (Mgpd; 1997-2030) ...... 88 Figure 55. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by year compared to median annual flow and the 7Q10 in the Little Marsh sub-watershed (Mgpd; 1997-2030) ...... 89 Figure 56. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by year compared to median annual flow and the 7Q10 in the Upper Marsh sub-watershed (Mgpd; 1997-2030) ...... 89 Figure 57. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by year compared to median annual flow and the 7Q10 in the Rock Creek watershed (combined Upper and Lower Rock sub- watersheds) (Mgpd; 1997-2030) ...... 90 Figure 58. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by year compared to median annual flow and the 7Q10 in the Upper Rock sub-watershed (Mgpd; 1997-2030) ...... 90 Figure 59. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by season compared to median seasonal flow and the 7Q10 in the Marsh Creek watershed (Mgpd; 1997-2010) ...... 91 Figure 60. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by season compared to median seasonal flow and the 7Q10 in the Little Marsh sub-watershed (Mgpd; 1997-2010) ...... 92 Figure 61. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by season compared to median seasonal flow and the 7Q10 in the Upper Marsh sub-watershed (Mgpd; 1997-2010) ...... 92 Figure 62. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by season compared to median seasonal flow and the 7Q10 in the Rock watershed (Mgpd; 1997-2010) ...... 93 Figure 63. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by season compared to median seasonal flow and the 7Q10 in the Upper Rock sub-watershed (Mgpd; 1997-2010) ...... 93
ix v.8/28/2012
Figure 64. Estimates of long-term recharge in the Marsh and Rock creek sub-watersheds ...... 97 Figure 65. Estimates of sustainable yield in the CWPA ...... 98 Figure 66. Comparison of estimate of sustainable yield, annual withdrawals, 7Q10, and median annual flow for Marsh Creek ...... 98 Figure 67. Comparison of estimate of sustainable yield, annual withdrawals, 7Q10, and median annual flow for Little Marsh Creek ...... 99 Figure 68. Comparison of estimate of sustainable yield, annual withdrawals, 7Q10, and median annual flow for Upper Marsh Creek ...... 99 Figure 69. Comparison of estimate of sustainable yield, annual withdrawals, 7Q10, and median annual flow for Rock Creek ...... 100 Figure 70. Comparison of estimate of sustainable yield, annual withdrawals, 7Q10, and median annual flow for Upper Rock Creek ...... 100 Figure 71. Designated uses, approved trout waterways, and naturally reproducing trout populations in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds ...... 102 Figure 72. Locations and causes of impaired waterways in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds ...... 103 Figure 73. Locations of wells sampled for major ions by the USGS, EPA and FSN ...... 105 Figure 74. Well locations analyzed for minor ions from USGS, EPA, and FSN data ...... 106 Figure 75. Well locations with analysis for nutrients from USGS, EPA, PennAg, and FSN data ...... 107 Figure 76. Locations of well water samples tested for coliform bacteria by ACCD ...... 108 Figure 77. Locations of well water samples tested for E. coli bacteria by ACCD...... 109 Figure 78. Surface water sample locations collected by EASI and WAAC ...... 110 Figure 79. Locations of surface water samples analyzed for nitrates ...... 112 Figure 80. Locations of surface water samples analyzed for phosphates with sample values ...... 113 Figure 81. Locations of surface water samples analyzed for dissolved oxygen ...... 114 Figure 82. Locations of surface water samples analyzed for sulfates with sample values ...... 115 Figure 83. Locations of surface water samples with field measured pH values ...... 116 Figure 84. Benthic macroinvertebrate health in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds ...... 117 Figure 85. Frequency distribution of Chessie B-IBI scores in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds ... 118 Figure 86. Impervious cover in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds ...... 121 Figure 87. Land uses in the CWPA (2006 NLCD) ...... 122 Figure 88. Land uses in the Rock Creek watershed (NLCD 2006) ...... 123 Figure 89. Land uses in the Marsh Creek watershed (NLCD 2006) ...... 124 Figure 90. Locations of proposed future developments ...... 125 Figure 91. The FEMA 100- and 500-year floodplains of the CWPA as well as flood prone locations ... 129 Figure 92. Locations and land uses in the 500-year floodplain ...... 131 Figure 93. Distribution of withdrawals by use type in the Upper Marsh sub-watershed ...... 170 Figure 94. Average annual water budget in the CWPA (1997-2010) ...... 173
x v.8/28/2012
List of Appendices Appendix A. Seasonal and annual water uses by water use type and sub-watershed Appendix B. Riverine habitat suitability criteria for the recreational fish species found in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds Appendix C. USGS stage discharge relationships for the four CWPA staff gages Appendix D. Water quality standards Appendix E. Scoring definitions for management alternatives Appendix F. Water conservation including non-discharge of wastewater, water reclamation, and water reuse in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, Adams County, Pennsylvania Appendix G. Evaluation of management alternatives by water resources issue Appendix H. Meeting agendas and minutes
xi v.8/28/2012
Abbreviations ACCD Adams County Conservation District ACOPD Adams County Office of Planning and Development AMA Agricultural Management Assistance AWUDS Aggregate Water Use Data System AWWA American Water Works Association BMP Best Management Practice CAAC Critical Area Advisory Committee CARP Critical Area Resource Plan CBP Chesapeake Bay Program CWPA Critical Water Planning Area DEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection DL&I Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GIS Geographic Information System GMA Gettysburg Municipal Authority HACC Harrisburg Area Community College HGMR Hydrogeomorphic Region HUC Hydrologic Unit Code ICPRB Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin ILBM Integrated Lentic/Lotic Basin Management ILEC International Lake Environment Committee IMA Important Mammal Area LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LID Low Impact Development MDE Maryland Department of Environment NAICS North American Industry Classification System NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service NLCD National Land Cover Dataset NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service SRBC Susquehanna River Basin Commission TAC Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Center TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load USDA United States Department of Agriculture USGS United States Geological Survey WAAC Watershed Alliance of Adams County WAST Water-Analysis Screening Tool WRAC Adams County Water Resources Advisory Committee WUF Water Use Factor WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
xii v.8/28/2012
Units of Measurement cfs Cubic feet per second ft Feet gal Gallons gal/seas Gallons per season gal/y Gallons per year gpcd Gallons per capita per day gpd Gallons per day gpd/ac Gallons per day per acre in Inches mg/L Milligrams per liter Mgal Million gallons Mgal/y Million gallons per year Mgpd Million gallons per day mL Milliliter
xiii v.8/28/2012
1 Executive Summary The Marsh and Rock creek watersheds in Adams County were designated as a Critical Water Planning Area (CWPA) by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in January 2011 under the authority of Act 220 of 2002. Development of the Critical Area Resource Plan (CARP), required for CWPAs under the legislation, was undertaken by the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) under guidance from the Act 220 Potomac Regional Committee, the local Critical Area Advisory Committee (CAAC), and DEP with funding by DEP and ICPRB. The primary purposes of the non-regulatory CARP are to 1) identify and evaluate water resource issues affecting water availability for human and ecosystem use, and 2) identify management actions to address the issues and enhance the sustainability of water resources in the area. As required by DEP guidance, the CARP process included establishing the CAAC, engaging the public, conducting technical analyses to verify and evaluate water resources issues, and identifying practical solutions to identified water resources issues. The CARP stakeholder participation process included a number of activities (Section 3.1). The CAAC, as approved by the Potomac Regional Committee, consisted of nearly 60 community members and stakeholders representing diverse water resource interests. The purpose of the committee was to provide oversight, guidance, and review throughout the planning process. A total of eleven meetings were held including a project kick-off, CAAC quarterly meetings, public meetings, and meetings on special topics of interest. On average, approximately half of the CAAC members were in attendance at each quarterly meeting. Public and CAAC meetings were announced in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, in the local newspaper, posted on the DEP “What’s New” web page and the project blog, and occasionally by radio on Gettysburg College Radio and WGET-AM 1320 Radio. Communication efforts also included public meetings, a project blog, and newspaper publications. Technical analyses were conducted by ICPRB to verify and evaluate the water resource issues in the CWPA on topics including current and future water uses, water availability, water quality, and stormwater and floodplain management. As a result of these and previous assessments and in communication with the CAAC, seven water resources issues were identified that affect water availability in the CWPA; namely, water availability, water storage, water quality, stormwater, policy and management, data availability, and communication (Section 3.2). The technical analyses began with an examination of existing uses of water resources within the watersheds (Section 3.3.1). The current use and distribution of water including withdrawals by use type (e.g. public supply, commercial and industrial, agricultural, etc.), discharges, transfers in and out of the watersheds, and non-withdrawal uses of water resources were evaluated. Approximately 44% of the water uses were estimated while the remainder was calculated based on reported withdrawal data from DEP. Public and self-supplied domestic water supply was shown to be the largest water use type in the CWPA followed by agriculture and industry. Water availability was evaluated on an annual and seasonal basis utilizing a water budget approach including development of water budgets and water use budgets by sub-watershed (Section 3.3.2). Precipitation, evapotranspiration, and streamflow are the largest components of the average annual water budget in the CWPA, representing 39, 22, and 16 inches, respectively. Withdrawals (4 inches), discharges to stream (2 inches), land discharges that subsequently recharge groundwater (1 inch), water imports (0.5 inches) and exports (0.5 inches), and consumptive use (1 inch) are relatively small percentages of the overall water budget.
1 v.8/28/2012
A comparison was made of water availability under low and median flow conditions to current and future uses (Section 3.3.2.4). Surface- and ground-water resources, on average, are greater than the water uses in the CWPA, indicating a typical abundance of water to meet the human and ecosystem needs. During dry periods, however, both the surface- and ground-water resources become depleted and may no longer be sufficient to meet the water needs. Future developments may exacerbate this problem without proactive water resources management. Water quality issues that have a direct and substantial effect on water resource availability were also evaluated; specifically, the assessment 1) identified designated uses and impaired waterways, 2) quantitatively compared water quality data to established water quality criteria, 3) evaluated the quality of the aquatic benthic communities, and 4) identified existing or potential impacts to public water supplies in the CWPA (Section 3.3.3). All designated uses and stream impairments relating to these uses were identified for the watersheds. Existing water quality data, including ground- and surface-water samples, were reviewed to identify existing problems in the watersheds. Water quality impacts from point sources are most notable during low flows, when concentration of contaminants peaks. Non-point source pollutant transport, however, is primarily driven by unmanaged stormwater which carries diverse pollutants across the landscape and into the waterways. Generally, source waters meet water quality criteria for public water suppliers with some seasonal variations. Additional water quality concerns include the potential contamination of private wells with microorganisms, emerging contaminants, atmospheric deposition, and contaminated industrial sites such as Superfund sites. These water quality concerns do not appear to present immediate risks to human uses of ground- or surface-waters; however, aquatic benthic communities are severely impaired at most CWPA sampling locations. Stormwater has traditionally been treated as a nuisance due to negative effects such as flooding, overwhelming urban drainage systems, and carrying pollutants. However, when properly managed, stormwater can enhance groundwater recharge and increase the amount of water available for human and ecosystem uses (Section 3.3.4). The stormwater section assesses 1) current and future land uses in the watersheds as related to stormwater, 2) stormwater impacts to public water supplies, 3) stormwater management practices, 4) the locations and characteristics of floodplains, and 5) the regulations and enforcement of regulations that govern stormwater and floodplains in the CWPA. An average year brings enough stormwater to cover the CWPA in approximately 9 inches of water. Seasonal stormflows by sub-watershed range from 5.19 to 0.53 inches and are highest in the winter and lowest in the summer. In all seasons and for all sub-watersheds, the amount of stormwater moving through the system is sufficient to meet the potential water deficit. Proactive management of stormwater resources, therefore, may help address the water availability issues in the CWPA. Stormwater problems are associated with increasing amounts of impervious cover. In turn, stormwater has ecological effects including habitat and streambank degradation and local flooding. Approximately 8.2% of the CWPA is above the 10% threshold for the ecological impact of impervious cover. Future developments are proposed that would cover approximately five square miles of the CWPA. The additional impervious area associated with these developments will likely increase stormflows if not managed properly. With consideration for potential conflicts and adverse impacts (Section 3.4.2), CARP management alternatives were compiled from CAAC meetings, communication with general stakeholders and advisory committee members, literature reviews, and written submissions by organizations and interested parties (Section 3.4). Management alternatives were scored for implementability as well as
2 v.8/28/2012 environmental, economic, regulatory, land use planning, engineering, and social implications, per DEP’s CARP guidance. Based on the scoring results and evaluations of the management alternatives, a list of CARP management recommendations was compiled (Section 3.5.1). Two categories of recommendations were developed, Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 recommendations have the potential for substantial or moderate measurable progress towards addressing the water resources issue. Tier 2 recommendations are those that were not as high scoring but are still viable options for solving a piece of the puzzle in the CWPA as implementation of a suite of alternatives will be required to address the complex water resources issues. The recommendations are listed below by water resources issue. Water resource issue numbers correspond to those in Section 3.2.
Tier 1 recommendations: 1-2. Water availability and storage Community water supply systems should perform a water audit at least once a year to manage water loss. Import water into the CWPA. 4. Stormwater Implementation of stormwater management program(s). 5. Policy and management Establish groundwater protection ordinances for well construction and geothermal wells. All municipalities in the CARP area should adopt and enforce ordinances regarding private well construction standards, including geothermal systems. All municipalities in the CARP area should adopt and enforce ordinances regarding on-lot septic system maintenance and the establishment of sewage management districts. All municipalities in the CARP area should adopt and enforce ordinances regarding protecting and creating riparian buffers. Encourage land preservation (purchasing conservation easements) targeting the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. Establish groundwater protection ordinance for yield analysis (for large wells); need common methodology for municipalities to determine sustainable groundwater yields. Establish groundwater protection ordinance for water quality protection; need inspections to ensure proper construction and testing of finished water to make sure treatment is adequate and well is functioning properly. Encourage the adoption of a wellhead protection ordinance to protect community water supply sources within the CWPA. Prepare a Joint Comprehensive Plan for the CWPA that includes sound land use policies and a strong water supply and protection component. Foster implementability of recommendations - develop a list of projects requiring additional funding for future grant-seeking efforts. Establish a water conservation program that can respond to water supply/demand conditions, especially for businesses and institutions affected by an influx of tourists during summer months when water supply typically is low. 6. Data availability
3 v.8/28/2012
Mason Dixon Utilities to fund a USGS (or similar) stream gage. Installation of additional stream or staff gages and continued maintenance and operation of existing gages. Community systems in the CWPA should prepare and get DEP approval for Source Water Protection Plans for all wells and surface intakes. Monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented management recommendations. 7. Communication Encourage communication between large water users on conservation measures being used within the community to foster idea sharing and long-term sustainability. Develop a Strategic Communication Plan for the general public and targeted stakeholders (including all levels of education: school districts, colleges, universities), a marketing plan. Enhance water resources education in the CWPA.
Tier 2 recommendations: 1-2. Water availability and storage Implement more water efficient irrigation practices. Seek, promote, and implement wastewater treatment system reuse, beneficial reuses of wastewater. Investigate use of quarries as water storage facilities, particularly in the diabase. Creation of a new or rehabilitation of an old reservoir in/near the CWPA (ex. Birch Run). Creation of additional agricultural ponds. New developments should include/incentivize water conservation equipment in homes when built. New developments need to provide additional storage capacity. Percolate water back into the ground from sewage treatment plants where feasible. Enhanced or additional treatment mechanisms should be developed to provide additional sources of water. 3. Water quality Quantify maximum contaminant loads for pollutants of concern in impaired waterways by developing TMDLs. Public water suppliers in the CWPA should participate in the Potomac Drinking Water Source Protection Partnership to leverage resources and enhance communications with other suppliers in the basin. 4. Stormwater Implementation of stormwater and gray water reuse program(s). 5. Policy and management Foster implementability of recommendations - develop incentives or credits for implementation of practices. Develop a sub-committee of WAAC to coordinate volunteers to implement improvement projects in the CWPA. Implement local drought preparedness activities including establishment of a CWPA drought advisory group.
4 v.8/28/2012
Encourage the development and maintenance of riparian buffers along designated greenways (including the Rock and Marsh creek greenways) as specified in the County Greenway Plan. Create a Marsh and Rock Creeks Water Management Council. 6. Data availability Encourage/increase water use registrations and/or metering. Encourage identification and documentation of delineated wetlands. As the CARP is a non-regulatory document, implementation of the management recommendations will require voluntary adoption by organizations, governmental entities, and private citizens (Section 3.5.1.1). Many of the recommendations are especially dependant on collaboration. Further, implementation of a number of these recommendations may take place over a year or two while others are long-term solutions requiring years of effort prior to implementation. In combination, the recommendations are designed to address both the short- and long-term needs of the community. Implementation of a number of recommendations will be required as no single recommendation resolves all the issues.
2 Introduction The 143 square mile Marsh and Rock creek watersheds in Adams County, Pennsylvania were designated as Critical Water Planning Areas (CWPA) by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in January 2011 under the auspices of Act 220 of 2002 (Figure 1) utilizing criteria presented in DEP (2006a). This action was taken as a result of an assessment that found that demand exceeds water supply under certain conditions in the watersheds; the commitment of watershed stakeholders; and the availability of funding. The 2002 legislation requires that a Critical Area Resource Plan (CARP) be developed for CWPAs in the Commonwealth. The purpose of the CARP is to identify water resources issues in the CWPA that affect water availability and to develop practical, implementable solutions to identified problems. This document and the participatory and technical processes utilized to develop it were conducted to meet these objectives.
5 v.8/28/2012
Figure 1. Location of CWPA in Adams County, Pennsylvania. Note: The Marsh and Rock creek watersheds extend into Maryland. The CWPA is comprised of the Pennsylvania portion of the watersheds.
Marsh Creek (on the western side of the CWPA) and Rock Creek (on the eastern side of the CWPA) come together to form the Monocacy River in Maryland, just south of the Maryland- Pennsylvania border. The Monocacy River then flows almost 58 miles before entering the Potomac River, a major tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. Management of these watersheds, therefore, is of local and interstate concern. The Marsh and Rock creek watersheds were combined into one CWPA due to the interconnections of the two watersheds. Specifically, the Borough of Gettysburg and surrounding areas are located in both the Marsh Creek and Rock Creek watersheds. The major water supplier in the Gettysburg area, Gettysburg Municipal Authority (GMA), has groundwater withdrawal wells in both watersheds and a surface water withdrawal on Marsh Creek. Wastewater from the public supply service area is then routed to treatment plants located in both the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, discharging to both creeks (DEP 2009c).
2.1 Numeric Precision and Spatial Resolution To provide spatially explicit information for the CWPA, CARP evaluations were conducted at the 12-digit hydrologic unit (HUC) scale where possible. The hydrologic unit system was originally
6 v.8/28/2012 developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as a standardized way of numbering and delineating watershed systems throughout the country. There are five such sub-watersheds for evaluation in the CWPA: Upper Marsh Creek (020700090202), Little Marsh Creek (HUC 020700090201), Lower Marsh Creek (HUC 020700090203), Upper Rock Creek (HUC 020700090101), and Lower Rock Creek (HUC 020700090102) (Figure 2).
Figure 2. 12-digit hydrologic units in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. The five sub-watersheds are Upper Marsh Creek, Little Marsh Creek, Lower Marsh Creek, Upper Rock Creek, and Lower Rock Creek.
Numeric results from the CARP data analyses are presented at the greatest level of detail available; however, all of the data sources have inherent uncertainty. Readers are cautioned to utilize the results at a level of precision that is consistent with the uncertainty in the underlying data. Data sources and calculation methodologies are presented in the description of each technical analysis. The physical and anthropogenic characteristics of the watersheds form the basis for many of the water resources issues currently being experienced in the watersheds. To this end, a discussion of these characteristics follows.
2.2 Demographics In 2010, the population of the CWPA was 29,090 according to the 2010 Census1 (Table 1). This represents a 7.5% increase between 2000 and 2010. The majority of the population, 68%, currently resides in the Rock Creek watershed while the remainder is in the Marsh Creek watershed. The population is expected to continue growing in the CWPA, with an anticipated 22% increase from the 2000 population level by 2020 and a 29% increase from the 2000 level by 2030 according to the Adams County Office of Planning and Development (ACOPD) future population projections.
1 http://2010.census.gov/2010census, accessed 5/30/2012.
7 v.8/28/2012
Table 1. 2010 population counts for each CWPA sub-watershed (estimated utilizing 2010 U.S. Census data). Sub-watershed Population Upper Rock 11,757 Lower Rock 8,000 Little Marsh 1,986 Upper Marsh 2,350 Lower Marsh 4,997 Total 29,090
The CWPA occupies all or portions of twelve municipalities. Table 2 provides a list of the municipalities and the percentage of the CWPA which they occupy. Franklin Township covers the largest percentage of the CWPA (24.8%) followed by Cumberland Township (23.5%) and Mount Joy Township (13.2%). Liberty Township occupies the smallest portion of the CWPA, with only 0.1% of the township in the CWPA.
Table 2. Municipalities in the CWPA. Municipalities % of CWPA Franklin Township 24.8 Cumberland Township 23.5 Mount Joy Township 13.2 Straban Township 12.7 Highland Township 7.6 Freedom Township 5.7 Mount Pleasant Township 5.6 Hamiltonban Township 3.0 Butler Township 2.0 Gettysburg Borough 1.2 Bonneauville Borough 0.7 Liberty Township 0.1
2.3 Watershed Characteristics Physical characteristics of the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds play a major role in the local water cycle and in the health of the local environment. For example, steeper slopes speed up surface run- off thereby increasing erosion; vegetative land covers provide habitat, reduce surface temperatures, and encourage infiltration by slowing down surface run-off; precipitation patterns drive the local streamflow regime; local geologic characteristics determine the magnitude and timing of baseflows; and the physical properties of the soils make them more or less susceptible to erosion and infiltration. Each of these physical characteristics (elevation, land use and land cover, precipitation, geology, and soils) is discussed in more detail in this section.
8 v.8/28/2012
2.3.1 Elevation According to the National Elevation Dataset2, elevation in the CWPA ranges from approximately 350 ft to approximately 1,975 ft above sea level (Figure 3). The highest elevations are found in the northwest portion of the watersheds, in the South Mountain section of the Blue Ridge physiographic province. The lowest elevations are found near the watershed outlets, as the creeks flow downstream to form the Monocacy River in Maryland.
Figure 3. Elevations in the CWPA. Data source: National Elevation Dataset.
2.3.2 Land Use and Land Cover According to ACOPD’s land parcel information, the vast majority (67%) of parcels are on ten or more acres of land with buildings of various types (e.g. trailer/mobile home, residential, agricultural, and commercial). The second most common type of land use is residential on less than ten acres of land (10.2%). This is followed by commercial land use (6.4%). Vacant land occupies approximately 15.3% of the watersheds, while industrial parcels occupy only a small percentage (0.8%). According to the 2006 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), both the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds are primarily agricultural (52 and 59%, respectively). Overall, the Marsh Creek watershed has a higher percentage of forest than the Rock Creek watershed (35% compared to 15%), while the Rock Creek watershed has a higher percentage of urban area (9% compared to 17%). A complete description of the land uses in the watersheds is available in Section 3.3.4.
2 http://ned.usgs.gov, accessed 5/30/2012.
9 v.8/28/2012
2.3.3 Precipitation Precipitation is the primary source of the water in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. The average annual precipitation in the CWPA from 1997 to 2010 was 39 inches per year. However, this varies across the sub-watersheds. During that same period, the Little Marsh sub-watershed had the highest average annual rainfall at 42 inches per year, followed by Upper Marsh at 41, Lower Marsh at 40, Upper Rock at 38, and Lower Rock at 35 inches. A complete description of annual and seasonal precipitation by sub-watershed is available in Section 3.3.2.1.
2.3.4 Geology Approximately 85% of the CWPA is located in the Mesozoic Lowlands section of the Piedmont physiographic province (Brakebill and Kelley 2000). The other 15% of the CWPA, in the northwest corner of the Marsh Creek watershed, is located in the Blue Ridge Province. The Mesozoic Lowlands Section is underlain by Triassic and Jurassic age sedimentary rocks of sandstone, shale, small amounts of carbonates, and conglomerate with numerous Jurassic-age diabase igneous intrusions (Low and Dugas 1999). The sedimentary rocks are moderately resistant to weathering and form broad valleys while the diabase intrusions are highly resistant to weathering and form hills and ridges. The Lower Marsh, Upper Rock, and Lower Rock sub-watersheds are underlain by these rocks. The rocks that form the ridges of the Blue Ridge Province consist of Precambrian age metavolcanic rocks of the Catoctin Formation, and members of the Cambrian age Chilhowee Group; mostly quartzites of the Loudoun, Weverton, and Harpers Formations (Low et al. 2002). Little Marsh and Upper Marsh sub-watersheds are underlain by these rocks. Figure 4 shows the geologic formations of the CWPA.
10 v.8/28/2012
Figure 4. Geologic formations of the CWPA.
2.3.5 Soils There are more than 100 types of soil in Adams County. They vary widely in texture, natural drainage, depth, and other characteristics (USDA 2005). In the CWPA, 79% of the soils are classified as well drained, moderately well drained, or somewhat excessively well drained and 21% of the soils are classified as poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained, or very poorly drained. Of the four hydrologic soil group classifications of soils, only three groups are represented in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. Group C (slow infiltration rate when wet) soils have the highest percentage of ocurrance making up 48% of the soils. Group B (moderate infiltration rate) soils are the next highest with 40%, Group D (very slow infiltration rate) soils cover 11% of the watersheds, and 1% of the soils in the watersheds are assigned to dual group Group B/D (USDA 2005). The CWPA soils have only moderate to very slow infiltration rate, resulting in most precipitation moving quickly over the ground to nearby streams as surface run-off. Only a small portion of precipitation in the CWPA recharges the groundwater, a major source of water supply, due to the soil and geologic characteristics described above. As a result, excessive stormwater run-off is a frequent occurrence in the CWPA.
11 v.8/28/2012
3 CARP Elements Act 220 of 2002 requires inclusion of a number of elements in the CARP, each of which is considered in turn in this section. These elements include: Stakeholder participation, a verification and statement of problems, evaluation of existing reasonable and beneficial uses, determination of the quantity of water available for current and future water uses, assessment of water quality issues, evaluation of stormwater and floodplain management, investigation of potential adverse impacts and conflicts, documentation and evaluation of supply-side and demand-side alternatives, and development of recommendations.
3.1 Stakeholder Participation Water resources management in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds is benefited by a diverse group of committed stakeholders. As required by Act 220, a CAAC was established to provide input on the development of the CARP. In total, there were almost 60 committee members including alternates (Table 83). This membership was approved by the Potomac Regional Committee at the November 12, 2010 meeting. A total of eleven meetings were held over the duration of the project including a project kick-off, CAAC quarterly meetings, public meetings, and meetings on special topics of interest (Table 3). Meeting agendas and minutes are available for review in Appendix H. Typically, CAAC quarterly meetings were held from 1-3pm on the second Wednesday of the month at the Agriculture and Natural Resources Center in Gettysburg. Other meetings were scheduled at times identified as most convenient for meeting participants utilizing online scheduling software. On average, approximately 30 committee members were in attendance at the quarterly meetings. Public and CAAC meetings were announced in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, in the local newspaper, posted on the DEP “What’s New” web page and the project blog, and occasionally by radio on Gettysburg College Radio and WGET-AM 1320 Radio.
Table 3. Meetings held in association with development of the CARP. # of Meeting Name Date Participants Topic Seek nominations for CAAC, project Project Kick-off 9/21/2010 50 background info Establish committee structure, project CAAC Kick-off 1/12/2011 40 background info CAAC Quarterly 4/13/2011 32 Water quality Meeting of Agricultural Representatives 5/19/2011 12 Estimates of agricultural water use CAAC Quarterly 7/13/2011 34 Draft results of water use analysis CAAC Quarterly 10/12/2011 26 CWPA drought preparations/management York Water - GMA Interconnection 11/15/2011 26 York Water - GMA interconnection
12
v.8/28/2012
# of Meeting Name Date Participants Topic CAAC Quarterly 1/11/2012 26 Brainstorm management alternatives Feasibility scoring of management CAAC Workshop 2/15/2012 30 alternatives CAAC Quarterly 4/11/2012 33 CARP management recommendations Combined Regional Committee and CAAC Quarterly 7/11/2012 39 Draft CARP review
In addition to the meetings outlined above, several other mechanisms were utilized to encourage stakeholder participation during the development of the CARP including a project flier, blog, newspaper articles, and attendance at meetings of local organizations. A project flier was developed to communicate the purpose of the project to a broad audience. It was distributed as widely as possible via email, regular mail, posting at the Ag Center, and in-person distribution at local meetings (e.g. quarterly Watershed Alliance of Adams County, or WAAC, meeting). The project blog was developed to communicate with advisory committee members and the general public between meetings (www.marshrockwaterplan.blogspot.com). To date, the blog has received approximately 4,000 page views. Newspaper articles were also prepared and submitted. For example, an article was submitted upon request to the Gettysburg Times (February 11, 2011 issue) that included a project description and an invitation for community members to participate in the process. CAAC members and project staff also attended meetings of local organizations (e.g. Farm Bureau, Adams County Water Resources Advisory Committee - WRAC, WAAC) to encourage participation in the CARP process.
3.2 Water Resources Issues Identification and evaluation of water resources issues have been underway in the CWPA for some time. Factors considered during the CWPA nomination process for the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds are provided in Table 4 (DEP 2009c). Other problems identified in the verification study include anecdotal evidence of streams going dry and proposed future developments, indicating that conditions may worsen if action is not taken (DEP 2009c).
Table 4. Factors considered during the CWPA nomination process (DEP 2009c). Category of Factor Factor Applied to this watershed Proposed interbasin transfer of water to address Water supplies Water supply issues demands. Water quality. Negative SI, SIP numbers at pour 14 out of 20 pour points are negative (Marsh) points and 7 out of 16 (Rock) Relatively high magnitudes of Negative Screening negative SI, SIP Up to -2223% in Marsh, up to -257 in Rock Indicators (SI) and/or Mid to boundary with Maryland (Marsh) and Percentage (SIP) at pour upper watershed of Rock Creek (above sewage points Groupings of negative pour points discharge) Population Population densities Highly developed in Gettysburg High projected population growth High growth rate and potential
13
v.8/28/2012
Category of Factor Factor Applied to this watershed Potential increases in commercial sector may Projected water demand from industry relate to increases in demands in addition to Development and other sectors public water demands. Watershed size Small watersheds <50 mi2 143 mi2 combined Stream designation Extent of HQ/EV streams None, CWF for Marsh WWF for Rock Existing water resource issues such as Impairments in both watersheds. Noted impacts flooding, stormwater, drought, water from sedimentation, nutrients, dry wells, Existing problems quality stormwater issues among other issues. Presence of Storm Water 167 plans, Existing planning river conservation plans, source water Source water protection, conservation projects. investment protection plans, etc. Stormwater County-wide planning underway. Solutions to problems Potential for viable solutions
These preliminary water resources issues were verified in early stages of the CARP process. A number of technical analyses were conducted and vetted through a stakeholder process to identify, evaluate, and quantify (where applicable) the water resources issues in the CWPA. A combination of the stakeholder and technical processes resulted in a stakeholder-approved, scientifically sound list of water resources issues affecting availability in the watersheds. The resulting water resources issues are briefly discussed below. The issues include water availability, water storage, water quality, stormwater, policy and management, data availability, and communication.
3.2.1 Water Availability Although sufficient water is available under median streamflow conditions to meet the water demands in the CWPA, the average amount of water withdrawn in each CWPA sub-watershed on a daily basis in every season is greater than low-flow conditions represented by the lowest weekly average flow likely to occur once every 10 years (7Q10). The quantified water deficits represent the potential shortfall of water under stressed conditions and are an indication of the magnitude of necessary management actions. Future growth is expected to exacerbate this problem.
3.2.2 Water Storage Due to natural and anthropogenic conditions in the watersheds, water storage is limited. For example, the 13 public water suppliers have a reported treated water storage capacity of 5.1 million gallons (Mgal) (as of 2004 reporting) and a usable raw water storage capacity of 1.5 Mgal (personal comm., GMA, 4/25/2012). In total, this represents four days of average use. The issue of storage is pervasive in the watersheds and is not limited to public water suppliers.
3.2.3 Water Quality Impaired waterways (or waterways that do not meet water quality standards under the Clean Water Act) exist in all five sub-watersheds of the CWPA. Actions taken in the watersheds should strive to maintain, if not improve, existing water quality conditions to prevent costly impacts to water users such as public water suppliers. For example, the flow in Rock Creek is effluent dominated under low-flow conditions. Sufficient quantities of water should be maintained or a limited amount of pollutants should be allowed in the creek during low-flow conditions to ensure the nutrient (and other pollutant)
14 v.8/28/2012 concentrations are within established water quality requirements. Further, the amount of effluent leaving the treatment plants should not exceed the capacity of the stream, causing deterioration of stream and habitat stability.
3.2.4 Stormwater Uncontrolled stormwater run-off affects Marsh and Rock creek water quality in terms of sediments, nutrients, erosion, and flooding. Proactive stormwater management may reduce local and Chesapeake Bay water quality issues. Regarding stormwater quantity, sufficient stormwater is available to meet the water deficit in all seasons for all CWPA sub-watersheds indicating that stormwater is a valuable resource that may be utilized to address water availability issues.
3.2.5 Policy and Management There is a lack of integrated, coordinated oversight and management of water resources at the CWPA scale that includes authority for implementation (due primarily to regulatory limitations at the state and county level). Interest and concern in water resources management does exist in the CWPA, however, and is evident by participation in the WRAC and the CAAC.
3.2.6 Data Availability Data availability is a concern for the management of water resources in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. There are two reasons for this: 1) A significant portion of the water used in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds is currently estimated due to lack of available, reported water use data and 2) limited long-term surface- and ground-water level and quality data is available for assessment of water resources issues.
3.2.7 Communication There is a need for a strategic water resources communication effort to engage the general public, municipalities, students, and other stakeholders throughout the CWPA on the water resources problems and the implications of those problems.
3.2.8 Summary The CARP management recommendations, discussed in subsequent sections, were developed to address these seven water resources issues (water availability, water storage, water quality, stormwater, policy and management, data availability, and communication). The magnitude and extent of the problems, however, first needed to be understood. To this end, a number of technical analyses were undertaken to quantify the issues where possible.
3.3 Technical Analyses Evaluations of current and future water uses, water availability, water quality, and stormwater and floodplain management were conducted to more fully understand and quantify, where possible, the water resources issues in the CWPA. The methodologies and results of the analyses are presented in this section. Numerous assumptions were made during the analyses due to the limited availability of observed water resources data in the watersheds. Future data collection efforts may improve the results of these analyses.
15 v.8/28/2012
3.3.1 Existing Reasonable and Beneficial Uses An analysis was undertaken to identify and quantify the myriad uses of water in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. This section is presented in two major parts, withdrawal uses and non-withdrawal uses. The withdrawal use section is sub-divided by water use type and analysis type (e.g. reported or estimated). The non-withdrawal use section is sub-divided by water use type. In subsequent sections of this document, water uses are compared to availability in order to identify current and potential water stresses in the watersheds.
3.3.1.1 Withdrawal Uses Withdrawal uses of water are categorized by their intended use (e.g. agriculture, commercial, industrial, public water supply, self-supplied domestic, etc.). These withdrawals can either be from surface or groundwater. To quantify the amount of water withdrawn in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, data was obtained from multiple sources including DEP, Penn State, the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and ACOPD. Due to differences between data collection methods and time periods of data availability, assumptions were made in some cases to allow for aggregation and/or comparison. These assumptions are defined where applicable. Depending on the nature of the water use type and the specific data set utilized, water use was calculated for the entire CWPA, the individual watersheds, and/or the 12-digit HUCs (Figure 2). Furthermore, both annual and seasonal water use amounts were obtained or estimated for each water use type.
Agriculture Agriculture represents a part of the culture of the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds as well as an important part of the local economy. Due to registration requirements for large users in Act 220 of 2002, several of the largest agricultural producers in the watershed report water use to DEP. The associated data is included in the online DEP registration and reporting database3. Where possible, registered water use quantities were utilized in this analysis; however, many of the agricultural producers in the watersheds are relatively small water users and are not required to report the use to DEP. Estimates of livestock and irrigation water uses were generated for these smaller producers utilizing previously established methodologies.
Registered Three registered agricultural users reported water use to DEP between 2004 and 2009 in the CWPA, all occurring in the Marsh Creek watershed. The water was used for crop irrigation and livestock production. The total registered agricultural withdrawals for the years 2004 to 2009 are provided by sub- watershed in Table 5. Figure 5 summarizes the total registered agricultural water use for the CWPA. The large increase in registered use in 2007 is primarily due to the reported values of a single user and is not present in previous or subsequent years.
3 http://www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/StateWaterPlan/WaterDataExportTool/WaterExportTool.aspx, accessed 5/29/2012.
16 v.8/28/2012
Table 5. Registered agricultural water use in gallons per year (gal/y) by sub-watershed (2004-2009). Sub-watershed 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Little Marsh 20,263,400 20,413,800 21,637,500 24,999,050 4,003,150 2,498,000 Upper Marsh 3,878,000 5,393,800 5,393,800 6,586,600 0 3,074,600 Lower Marsh 23,126,400 23,126,400 0 88,762,978 53,837,880 38,732,760
Figure 5. Total registered agricultural water use in million gallons per year (Mgal/y) by year in Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (2004-2009).
The water source for registered agricultural water users in the Little Marsh sub-watershed was primarily surface water, while the source for the Upper and Lower Marsh sub-watersheds was primarily groundwater (Table 6).
Table 6. Percent of registered agricultural withdrawals from surface water sources by sub-watershed (2004-2009). Sub-watershed 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Little Marsh 76.8% 75.6% 77.3% 78.1% 72.0% 0.96% Upper Marsh 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.2% -- 0.0% Lower Marsh 0.0% 0.0% -- 56.3% 27.9% 0.0%
Estimated Agricultural water use by unregistered users was estimated for irrigation and livestock production. A study performed for DEP on the animal and irrigation water use in Pennsylvania in 2002, 2010, 2020, and 2030 was used for estimations of acreage of irrigated cropland, irrigation application rates, animal populations, and livestock water use rates (Jarrett and Roudsari 2007). This study was also utilized in the development of the Water-Analysis Screening Tool (WAST) for the Pennsylvania State Water Plan (Stuckey 2008).
17 v.8/28/2012
Irrigation Water use for irrigation was estimated by applying a water use factor (WUF) to estimates of the irrigated acres of cropland and orchards in the Marsh and Rock watersheds. The first step in this process was to determine the amount of total cropland in the watersheds. Estimates were reviewed from several sources. The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) produces a Census of Agriculture (Ag Census) every five years for every county in the nation. This census includes the number of farms, the farmed acreage, and the irrigated acreage among other statistics (USDA 2009; USDA 2004). The data from the 2002 Ag Census4 was used in the Jarrett and Roudsari (2007) study to provide the acres of cropland and the farmed acres of major crop types. The most recent Ag Census data for 2007 were also reviewed as was the USGS 2006 NLCD and a Geographic Information System (GIS) dataset of 2010 land use by parcels in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds provided by ACOPD. Utilizing the total cropland estimates, the next step was to obtain the amount of those croplands under irrigation. The total irrigated acres of cropland for Adams County in 2002 and 2007 were obtained from the Ag Census data. Irrigated cropland was estimated from the total cropland amounts in the USGS 2006 NCLD and ACOPD 2010 datasets using the ratio of irrigated cropland to total cropland in the Ag Census 2002 and 2007 data (Table 7). The area of irrigated orchards was also estimated. According to the ACOPD land parcels, there are 16,788 acres of orchards in the watersheds. Based on county-wide estimates from the 2007 Ag Census and personal communication with local agricultural representatives, 81% of these orchards were assumed to be in apples (not irrigated) and 11% in peaches (irrigated). Utilizing these land use estimates, approximately 1,175 acres of cropland were determined to be irrigated in 2010, of which 794 acres were irrigated orchards (Table 7).
Table 7. Estimated acres of irrigated row crops and orchards in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. Note that irrigated cropland is the sum of irrigated row crops and irrigated orchards.
2002* 2007* 2010+ 2010& Irrigated Cropland (acres) 1,198 915 1,175 1,304 Irrigated Orchard (acres) 867 755 794 883 Sources of irrigated crop acreage: *USDA Ag Census data, +ACOPD parcel GIS dataset, &Jarrett and Roudsari (2007) regression equations
A WUF was developed to estimate the monthly water needed by each crop type during the growing season utilizing values from Jarrett and Roudsari (2007) for 2002 and 2007. This WUF was also used in the State Water Plan screening tool (Stuckey 2008) to estimate unregistered irrigation water uses. The annual average daily water use for crop irrigation in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds was estimated using two methods (Table 8). The first used a WUF of 1,867 gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac) and the estimate of irrigated acres from Jarrett and Roudsari. The second uses an adjusted WUF of 1,350 gpd/ac and irrigated acres based on input from local agriculture operators. Since both components of the equations (irrigated acres and irrigated water per acre) are estimated values, the two
4 http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Pennsylvania/, accessed 5/29/2012.
18 v.8/28/2012
WUF’s provide a range of likely total estimated irrigation water needs. Figure 6 shows the trend in daily water use for irrigation in the watersheds using these methods (2000-2010).
Table 8. Annual average daily water use for irrigation in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds in gallons per day (gpd). 2002 2007 2010 WUF 1,867 2,236,958 1,708,258 2,434,854 WUF 1,350 1,250,762 1,235,216 1,425,644 Percent difference 44% 28% 41%
Figure 6. Average daily irrigation water use in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds using water use factors of 1,867 gpd/ac and 1,350 gpd/ac for years 2002 through 2010 plus an estimate for 2010 using an irrigated acreage estimate based on ACOPD data.
The estimated irrigation use in each of the five sub-watersheds was determined using the spatial distribution of irrigation use developed for the WAST and described in Stuckey (2008). Table 9 shows the estimated daily irrigation use for each of the sub-watersheds using the locally based water use factor (1,350 gpd/ac).
Table 9. Irrigation water use in the sub-watersheds within Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (gpd). Sub-watershed 2002 2007 2010 Upper Rock 201,160 198,660 229,286 Lower Rock 258,012 254,805 294,088 Little Marsh 258,829 255,612 295,018 Upper Marsh 274,742 271,327 313,156 Lower Marsh 258,019 254,812 294,096 Total 1,250,762 1,235,216 1,425,644
The trend in water use for irrigation is increasing from 2002 to 2010 overall. However, water used in 2007 is noticeably lower than either 2002 or 2010. A potential explanation for this may be water
19 v.8/28/2012 conservation measures that were implemented due to a drought watch that was in effect for Adams County from August 2007 to February 2008.
Livestock Livestock production is a part of the local economy in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. Water is used in several stages of this process including washing of the facilities, animal cooling, and consumption. For the purposes of this project, the amount of water used by and for livestock in the watersheds was estimated from several available data sources. The development of the WAST for the update of the State Water Plan used data from Jarrett and Roudsari (2007) containing estimations of water use by county, animal type, and water use per head factors for each of eleven animal types (Stuckey 2008). The results from Jarrett and Roudsari (2007) were updated for the purposes of this study with animal counts from the 2007 USDA Ag Census. Based on the methodology of Stuckey (2008), the distribution of livestock by sub-watershed was determined using the assumption that livestock are located in the row crop areas. Row crop areas were determined in a GIS from the USDA NASS 2010 Pennsylvania Cropland Data Layer. This raster dataset provides a crop type characteristic for every 30 meter-by-30 meter grid cell. In the GIS, the distribution and area of each crop type was calculated for the whole county and for each sub-watershed. Additionally, the area of all row crop types was totaled and the percentage of row crops in each of the sub-watersheds was calculated. The county-wide water use amount for livestock was determined from the estimated number of head of each animal type and a per head WUF for each animal type. Each sub-watershed was assigned a water use amount relative to its percentage of row crop area in the county. The Ag Census data for 2002 and 2007 shows an increase in the number of milk cows, chickens, horses, swine, sheep, and goats while there was a decrease in the number of non-milking cows and turkeys in Adams County from 2002 to 2007 (Table 10).
Table 10. Total number of livestock by animal type in Marsh and Rock creek watersheds from 2002 and 2007 USDA Ag Census. Year Swine Sheep Goats Horses Chickens Turkeys Milk Cows Non-Milking Cows 2002 15,122 1,375 206 2,850 2,678,071 738,090 7,280 19,895 2007 18,738 2,183 2,153 3,539 3,055,893 726,129 8,166 18,412
The water use amount per head of livestock varies significantly for some animals based on the air temperature. Chickens, turkeys, and cattle have a known use factor that is dependent on temperature. To reflect the seasonality of water use by livestock, a monthly water use factor (calculated based on the average monthly temperature for Gettysburg, PA) was applied to generate an average daily water use for each month. Figure 7 shows the monthly total livestock water use for 2007 as an example of this calculation. The sum of the monthly amounts was used to calculate the total annual water use amount for each of the five sub-watersheds (Table 11).
20 v.8/28/2012
Figure 7. Average livestock daily water use in Marsh and Rock creek watersheds by month (2007) in million gallons per day (Mgpd).
Table 11. Estimated daily livestock water use (gpd) in each sub-watershed within Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. Sub-watershed 2002 2007 2010 Upper Rock 65,665 70,502 72,535 Lower Rock 128,886 138,380 142,370 Little Marsh 34,301 36,828 37,890 Upper Marsh 59,090 63,443 65,272 Lower Marsh 104,255 111,934 115,162 Total 392,198 421,088 433,229
In summary, the trend in agricultural water use for both irrigation and livestock increased between 2002 and 2010 (Figure 8). Further, livestock production utilizes less water in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds than irrigation.
21 v.8/28/2012
Figure 8. Comparison of average daily water use for irrigation and livestock (2002-2010).
Commercial and Industrial Registered Nine commercial entities are registered in the DEP database, representing three categories of water use; namely, general commercial, mining, and golf courses. Of these, six are registered general commercial water users. The reported average use for general commercial facilities ranges from under 0.04 Mgpd to 0.23 Mgpd between 2004 and 2009. The golf course withdrawals are taken from on-site ponds and utilized for irrigation of the course and associated grassy areas. One of the golf courses closed in 2007 and another opened in 2007. The single mining quarry withdraws groundwater from an excavation pit for dewatering and discharges the water to Rock Creek, with a small evaporative loss. The registered commercial users and the quarry are all located in the Upper Rock sub-watershed. One registered golf course is located in the Lower Rock sub-watershed and withdraws from on-site ponds and Rock Creek. The ponds receive run-off from the surrounding land surface for replenishment. The other golf course is located in the Lower Marsh sub-watershed and also utilizes both ground and surface water for irrigation purposes. There is one registered industrial user, located in the Marsh Creek watershed, whose withdrawals range from 0.13 to 0.178 Mgpd between 2004 and 2009. Table 12 shows the commercial and industrial registered uses in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds.
Table 12. Commercial and industrial water uses in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, annual average withdrawals (gpd). 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Commercial 38,018 120,859 95,089 115,780 229,731 115,585 Mining 574,035 590,412 590,458 605,374 734,710 713,064 Golf Courses 54,970 54,914 48,659 202,878 61,224 * Industrial 178,171 160,900 132,132 154,067 162,087 171,883 *Data not reported.
22 v.8/28/2012
Estimated All commercial water uses in the Marsh and Rock watersheds outside of the public water supply service areas were assumed to be self-supplied by on-site groundwater wells. These are commercial and industrial facilities relying on private wells to supply their process and potable water uses. For this study, industrial users included manufacturing sites (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes of 31 – 33) and commercial users consisted of non-manufacturing businesses. For the development of the WAST (Stuckey 2008), employment data was obtained from the Department of Labor and Industry (DL&I) for 2002 to estimate the water use in unregistered commercial and industrial facilities. Employment data was obtained for 2000, 2005, and 2010 from DL&I for this revised estimation of commercial and industrial water use. The WAST (Stuckey 2008) used a WUF of 42 gpd per employee for commercial users and 665 gpd per employee for industrial users. Water use estimates of commercial and industrial users were calculated for each census block and assigned to the centroid point of each census block. In a GIS, the centroid points for all commercial and industrial users from the WAST were then joined with the layer of the sub-watersheds represented in the WAST. The employment data received from DL&I contained geographic locations which were subsequently assigned to a CWPA sub-watershed in a GIS. The employment data also contained the NAICS code and the number of employees for each employer. The number of employees in each NAICS group was totaled by year for each sub-watershed (Table 13). The WAST water use factors were applied to the number of employees to calculate the water use by the commercial and industrial sectors in each sub-watershed (Table 14).
Table 13. Estimated commercial and industrial employees in the Marsh and Rock creek sub-watersheds. Data source: DL&I 2000, 2005, and 2010 population data. 2000 2005 2010 Sub -watershed Commercial Industrial Commercial Industrial Commercial Industrial Upper Rock 1,175 111 974 578 1,920 422 Lower Rock 228 4 385 8 485 7 Little Marsh 155 0 178 0 114 44 Upper Marsh 178 12 243 2 249 25 Lower Marsh 248 49 442 65 411 66
Table 14. Estimated commercial and industrial water use (gpd) in the Marsh and Rock creek sub-watersheds. Data source: WAST water use factors and DL&I 2000, 2005, and 2010 populations. 2000 2005 2010 Sub -watershed Commercial Industrial Commercial Industrial Commercial Industrial Upper Rock 49,333 73,704 40,908 384,592 80,622 280,852 Lower Rock 9,573 2,937 16,149 5,542 20,387 4,600 Little Marsh 6,517 0 7,462 0 4,767 29,371 Upper Marsh 7,466 7,869 10,188 1,496 10,444 16,902 Lower Marsh 10,434 32,640 18,543 43,003 17,276 44,056
The estimated commercial water use described above accounts for the potable water used by the employees of the commercial establishments in the Marsh and Rock creek sub-watersheds. In addition,
23 v.8/28/2012 two commercial golf courses with unregistered withdrawals in the Lower Rock sub-watershed use water for irrigation. Not being registered users, these establishments have not documented their water use with DEP. However, the operators of these courses were contacted and the general water use was estimated. Both course operators use surface water ponds and groundwater wells for their sources of irrigation water. Irrigation is applied only during the spring, summer, and part of the fall seasons. Each golf course is estimated to use 11.5 Mgal/y.
Public Water Supply and Sewer Service Areas Areas currently served by public water and sewer were identified geospatially to understand the distribution of these areas throughout the watersheds (Figure 9). The public water supply areas were obtained from DEP. Sewer service areas were determined for systems on an individual basis. The Franklin sewer service area was obtained from ACOPD. The Cumberland areas were digitized utilizing paper maps from the sewer authority. GMA provided a GIS shapefile of their current and future water and sewer service areas. Other sewer providers were discovered to have the same distribution system as the corresponding water supply area.
Figure 9. Areas served by public water supply and public sewer systems.
The majority of the CWPA and the population therein do not have public water or sewer services (Table 15). Only in the Upper Rock sub-watershed does the majority of the population have public water and sewer services (Table 16).
24 v.8/28/2012
Table 15. Percent of the sub-watershed areas that fall within public water supply and sewer service districts. Public Water Supply Public Water Sewer Service No Public Water and Sewer Service Supply Only or Sewer Service Sub-watershed (% of area) (% of area) (% of area) (% of area) Upper Rock 15.8 9.5 3.7 71.0 Lower Rock 8.9 0.8 0.5 89.8 Little Marsh 0.5 0.2 0.4 98.8 Upper Marsh 0.3 0.0 4.9 94.8 Lower Marsh 4.9 8.8 1.3 85.1
Table 16. Population within the sub-watersheds with and without public water supply and sewer service. Population values obtained from the 2010 U.S. Census by census block. Public Water Supply and Public Water Sewer Service No Public Water or Sewer Service Supply Only Sewer Service Sub-watershed (Population) (Population) (Population) (Population) Upper Rock 9,345 392 289 1,731 Lower Rock 3,795 5 170 4,030 Little Marsh 64 25 19 1,877 Upper Marsh 29 0 451 1,870 Lower Marsh 1,465 465 183 2,884
Public Water Supply Public water suppliers comprise a major portion of the water uses in the CWPA. The water use amounts are described in three sections: community systems, self-supplied domestic, and non-community systems.
Community Systems There are thirteen public water suppliers in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, ranging from hotels to mobile home parks to municipal authorities. Water use data was obtained from DEP for the years 1997-2009 for each of the suppliers. The primary source of water for public supply is surface water, specifically GMA’s Marsh Creek withdrawal. This one surface water source supplies 75.2% of the total amount of water for public water supply in the watersheds. The additional 12 public water suppliers utilize 100% groundwater, comprising 24.8% of the total water use for public water supply in the watersheds. The average annual water use by these suppliers from 1997-2009 is 630 Mgal/y (Figure 10). These estimates include water that is unaccounted for in the system and water withdrawn by public water suppliers for domestic, commercial, bulk sales, industrial, institutional, and other uses such as fire protection. Overall, water use by public water suppliers has decreased from 697 Mgal/y in 1997 to 592 Mgal/y in 2009. In particular, the lower values in 2008 and 2009 may be attributable to several factors including economic conditions, conservation programs implemented by GMA, and/or an increasing accuracy of reported water use amounts (personal comm., CAAC, 07/13/2011).
25 v.8/28/2012
Figure 10. Total annual water use by public water supplier in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (1997-2009). Note: Where values were not reported by a supplier for a particular year, the average annual use for the supplier was used.
Trends were also analyzed for the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds independently based on the withdrawal location (Figure 11). The Marsh Creek watershed shows an overall increasing trend in water use from 1997-2009. The Rock Creek watershed, on the other hand, has an overall decreasing trend. The trends in water use in the two watersheds are heavily dependent on the sources of water that GMA uses in a particular year, given that they are the major water supplier and that they have water sources in both the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds.
26 v.8/28/2012
Figure 11. Public water supplier water use by watershed (1997-2009).
The public water supply systems were also evaluated individually (Figure 12). GMA demonstrated the largest reduction in water use, down from 553 Mgal in 2003 to 441 Mgal in 2009. Per capita water use in these systems was calculated using the USGS’ Aggregate Water Use Data System (AWUDS) methodology (total reported withdrawal by the public water system divided by the total population served by the system)5. The Meadows Property Owner’s Association system was shown to have the lowest per capita water use at 33 gpd (Table 17). The average per capita water use amongst these systems is 72 gpd. This calculated per capita use is comparable to the 80 gpd estimated by Stuckey (2008).
5 http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/wudata.dictionary.html, accessed 5/29/2012.
27 v.8/28/2012
Figure 12. Water use by public water supplier (1997-2009). Note: Gettysburg Municipal Authority water use falls on the secondary (right) vertical axis.
Table 17. Per capita water use in the 13 public water supply systems. Water use values were obtained from data reported by the systems to DEP. The most recent year for which water use was reported was used for this analysis. Population Water Use Per Capita Water Use System Name Served* (gallons/day) Water Use Data Year Bonneauville Borough Water System 2,347 150,518 64 2009 Aqua PA Links System 270 18,009 67 2008 Meadows Property Owners Association 126 4,125 33 2007 Lincoln Estates Mobile Home Park 300 36,375 121 2009 Anchor Mobile Home Park Association 265 13,602 51 2009 Cavalry Heights Mobile Home Park 90 4,897 54 2008 PA American Water Company – Lake Heritage District 1,542 120,425 78 2009 Franklin Township Municipal Authority Water System 441 21,232 48 2009 Castle Hill Mobile Home Park 120 10,216 85 2009 Hoffman Homes for Youth 116 10,660 92 2009 Timeless Towns of Americas 760 25,700 34 2009 Round Top Mobile Home Park 150 16,239 108 2009 Gettysburg Municipal Authority 11,500 1,195,374 104 2009 Average per capita water use 72 * Source: EPA SDWIS database (http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/sdwis/search.html, accessed 5/29/2012).
28 v.8/28/2012
Self-Supplied Domestic Water Use Areas of the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds outside of the public water supply service areas were assumed to be self-supplied by on-site groundwater wells. Total water use in these areas depends on the population. Census block population data and a GIS layer of the census blocks for Adams County were downloaded from the U.S. Census Bureau for the 2010 Census and the boundaries of the public supplier service areas were provided by DEP. The block population and area were used to calculate a population density for each census block. A GIS was used to select the blocks located within the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds and outside the service areas. For census blocks where the watershed boundary or the service area crossed the census block, the population was adjusted by area weighting the population of the census block. Census block centroids were determined and assigned with the adjusted population of that block. The centroids were then assigned to one of the five sub-watersheds. A water use factor of 80 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) was used in the WAST (Stuckey 2008) and in this study. This water use factor amount was determined by Camp, Dresser, and McKee in a study conducted in the Lehigh River watershed (David Sayers, in Stuckey 2008). This factor was arrived at based on data from 21 water suppliers and was similar to results from statewide and local analyses. This water use factor was applied to the population of each census block as assigned to the centroid point to calculate the estimated water use. The estimated water use for each of the five sub-watersheds was calculated and totaled for the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (Table 18).
Table 18. Total self-supplied domestic water use by sub-watershed and total for all of the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (2010). Values were rounded for display purposes. Self-Supplied Self-Supplied Domestic Domestic Estimated Sub-watershed Population Use (gpd) Upper Rock 2,020 161,606 Lower Rock 4,200 335,999 Little Marsh 1,897 151,722 Upper Marsh 2,322 185,721 Lower Marsh 3,068 245,416 Total 13,506 1,080,464
Non-Community Water Systems The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines non-transient non-community water systems as “a public water system that regularly supplies water to at least 25 of the same people at least six months per year, but not year-round.” Non-transient water systems include schools, factories, and office buildings to name a few. The EPA defines transient non-community waters systems as “a public water system that provides water in a place such as a gas station or campground where people do not remain for long periods of time.6” There are 47 non-community water systems in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. The location of these systems is known (Figure 13); however, many are not required to report withdrawal amounts. Therefore, the usage amounts from these systems are estimated at 42 gpd for non-transient populations and 10.5 gpd for the transient population. The number of days used per year were estimated
6 http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/factoids.cfm, accessed 5/29/2012.
29 v.8/28/2012 at 365 for commercial facilities, 104 for churches (2 days per week), and 151 for campgrounds assuming an operating season of April 1 – October 31 (personal comm., Gettysburg campground owner, 9/6/2011). Lower Rock Creek has the largest water use by non-community water systems while Upper Marsh has the smallest (Table 19).
Figure 13. Locations of non-community water systems in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, according to DEP.
Table 19. Seasonal water use for non-community water systems by sub-watershed in gallons per season (gal/seas). Sub-watershed Fall Winter Spring Summer Lower Marsh 9,019,697 4,536,197 9,019,697 11,298,197 Lower Rock 8,598,398 8,598,398 8,598,398 8,598,398 Upper Rock 4,864,611 3,839,811 4,864,611 5,385,411 Little Marsh 1,214,023 445,423 1,214,023 1,604,623 Upper Marsh 455,109 455,109 455,109 455,109
Discharges The withdrawals described in previous sections are typically associated with a discharge, either to the land or a nearby water body. Two forms of discharges were evaluated including DEP reported values and estimated septic system discharges.
30 v.8/28/2012
Reported Discharge Monitoring Reports were obtained from DEP for the years 2008 to 2010. Utilizing included location information, discharges were summarized by sub-watershed in terms of average and maximum flows. The Little Marsh sub-watershed had no reported discharges. Average daily discharges in the other sub-watersheds ranged from 0.04 Mgpd in the Upper Marsh sub-watershed throughout winter, spring, and summer to 2.05 Mgpd during the spring for the Upper Rock sub-watershed (Table 20). The largest maximum daily discharges (5.94 Mgpd) were found in the Upper Rock sub-watershed during the winter (Table 21). Discharges from the Gettysburg Sewer Treatment Plant comprised an average of 54% of the total discharges in the CWPA.
Table 20. Average seasonal discharge by sub-watershed (Mgpd). The data used were from 2008 to 2010. Note: Discharges in the Lower Marsh sub-watershed do not include the GMA stream augmentation well. Sub-watershed Spring Summer Fall Winter Upper Rock 2.06 1.46 1.70 1.97 Lower Marsh 0.39 0.29 0.31 0.40 Lower Rock 0.33 0.22 0.26 0.34 Upper Marsh 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 Little Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Table 21. Maximum seasonal discharge by sub-watershed (Mgpd). The data used were from 2008 to 2010. Sub-watershed Spring Summer Fall Winter Upper Rock 5.75 2.69 5.36 5.94 Lower Marsh 1.25 0.52 0.97 1.22 Lower Rock 0.77 0.54 0.74 1.14 Upper Marsh 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 Little Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Self-Supplied Domestic (Septic) Areas not within a sewer service district were assumed to discharge via septic systems. Because many of the associated water withdrawals are non-metered, a standard value of 80 gpcd was used (Stuckey 2008). This value is comparable to the average per capita water use estimated for the Marsh and Rock creek systems (72 gpcd). The resulting estimated discharges are provided in Table 22.
Table 22. Discharge to septic systems by sub-watershed in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. This assumes an 80 gpcd water use both for those with no public water or sewer service and for those on public water supply only.
Discharge to Septic Sub-watershed Systems (Mgal/y) Upper Rock 61.99 Lower Rock 117.83 Little Marsh 55.54 Upper Marsh 54.61 Lower Marsh 97.79 Total 387.78
31 v.8/28/2012
Interbasin and Interwatershed Transfers As a headwater system, water does not flow into the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. All waters originating in the watersheds flow downstream into the Monocacy River (Figure 14). Four interbasin or interwatershed transfers are currently either underway, approved but yet to begin, or under review for permitting.
Figure 14. Major watersheds of the Adams County.
Hunterstown WWTP Discharge to Susquehanna Basin The Hunterstown Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), operated by GMA, currently services users in both the Potomac and Susquehanna basins and discharges into the Susquehanna basin. Of the 0.232 Mgpd hydraulic capacity of the WWTP, up to 0.123 Mgpd (peak day) of the water originates in the Potomac basin – resulting in an interbasin transfer from the Potomac to the Susquehanna basin. The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) approved this diversion on 9/16/2010 (approval number 20100916).
GenOn (formerly Reliant Energy) To supplement water withdrawn from two on-site (Potomac basin) groundwater wells, GenOn began importing water from the Conewago Creek watershed of the Lower Susquehanna for make-up cooling water at the power generation facility in 2005. Between 2005 and 2009, withdrawals have occurred for select days between June and September, indicating that this trucking is underway on an as- needed basis. The average annual transfer is 569,583 gallons. The largest annual transfer, 1,950,000
32 v.8/28/2012 gallons, occurred in 2007. Once transferred, approximately 70% of the water is evaporated during the cooling process. The remainder of the water, up to 65,000 gpd, is discharged through the Hunterstown WWTP to the Susquehanna basin.
Mason-Dixon Utilities DEP approved a water allocation permit (WA-1025) for Mason-Dixon Utilities in May of 2010. According to the permit: The average daily withdrawal rate from Marsh Creek may not exceed 205,000 gpd on an annual basis, 500,000 gpd on a thirty-day basis, and 2,000,000 gpd on a peak day basis. A minimum pass-by flow of 18.9 cfs is required. Two onsite wells will be used to supplement the surface water supplies, up to an additional 144,000 gpd. The maximum combined withdrawal from the ground- and surface-water sources may not exceed 411,000 gallons in any given day. Wastewater associated with this withdrawal will be utilized primarily for golf course irrigation, a highly consumptive practice. Surface water discharges will be made to Middle Creek when necessary, causing an out of watershed transfer. The majority of the time, however, there will not be an associated surface water discharge.
York Water Interconnection GMA and York Water Company submitted applications to SRBC on 10/27/2006, requesting to divert water for public water supply. The interconnection would divert a maximum of 3 Mgpd from the York Water Company system. The pending SRBC application number is 2006-049. Water brought into the GMA system from York Water would be discharged via four wastewater treatment plants; namely, Gettysburg WWTP, Cumberland South WWTP, Cumberland North WWTP, and the Hunterstown WWTP. Of these, only the Hunterstown WWTP discharges back to the Susquehanna basin, making this primarily an interbasin transfer of waters from the Susquehanna basin into the Potomac basin’s Marsh and Rock creek watersheds.
Existing Water Conservation Programs and their Effects CWPA water conservation programs may reduce water demand from withdrawal uses, thereby reducing water stress. A number of conservation programs are already in place by a number of organizations. Information on a selection of those practices was provided by local stakeholders and CAAC members, detailed in this section.
Rain Barrels Adams County Conservation District (ACCD) began a rain barrel program in 2003. To date, approximately 800 55-gallon rain barrels have been distributed. Approximately 44,000 gallons of resulting water storage has been made available through this program across Adams County. The rain barrels are not tracked over time so it cannot be determined how many are installed in the CWPA.
33 v.8/28/2012
Gettysburg Municipal Authority Conservation As of January 1, 2011, the water and sewer rates charged by GMA were increased 15%. The stated reasons on the GMA website were to “cover increased operation and maintenance expenses, as well as mandated capital improvement projects.” However, this increase may have the indirect effect of encouraging future water conservation in the service area. GMA also has a conservation tip webpage to inform community members on ways to conserve both inside and outside of the home. GMA has had a leak detection and prevention program in place since the early 1990s. The program takes approximately two weeks per year and is performed by an outside contractor. It is a system-wide program and consists of listening on hydrants, main valves, and service lines. Over the past six years, an average of approximately 91,000 gpd was detected each year. At the beginning of the program, the average daily production was 1.6 Mgpd, with approximately 3,400 customers. Currently, the average is approximately 1.3 Mgpd, with approximately 4,000 customers (personal comm., GMA, 5/6/2011).
Agricultural Conservation Members of the agricultural community in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds have implemented numerous conservation measures. Much of the water withdrawn for agricultural purposes (e.g. irrigation, livestock) undergoes multiple uses on the farm such as for cooling water and energy production. Approximately 20 farms in Adams County create their own energy from manure, according to the 2007 USDA Ag Census. In addition, no-till farming is commonly practiced in the watersheds. No- till farming, according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)7, has many benefits including reduced erosion and increased infiltration.
Stormwater Management Practices Best Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented in the CWPA for stormwater management. The purposes of the BMPs are to minimize the negative impacts of stormwater and facilitate its use as a resource. Examples of stormwater management practices in the watersheds include the following (personal comm., CAAC, 4/13/2011 and 7/13/2011): Gettysburg National Military Park museum’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification; McDonald’s (on Route 30) underground stormwater storage; stormwater retrofit demonstrations at the Harrisburg Area Community College (HACC) Gettysburg campus which includes five BMPs; Welfare Office in Gettysburg; self-guided BMP tour at the Agriculture and Natural Resources Center in Gettysburg with an educational demonstration of more than 20 BMPs; and 2,000 square foot green roof installed at Gettysburg College’s Majestic Theater.
Further, all municipalities in the CWPA have adopted stormwater management ordinances consistent with the Monocacy River Watershed Stormwater Management Plan of 2002. A complete discussion of stormwater regulations and management in the CWPA is presented in Section 3.3.4.7.
7 http://www.pa.nrcs.usda.gov/No-Till/Documents/BetterSoils.pdf, accessed 5/29/2012.
34 v.8/28/2012
Knouse Foods The Orrtanna plant of Knouse Foods, Inc. implements numerous water conservation measures in their fruit handling, production, and plant operations. Water is reused in plant operations wherever possible. The final wastewater is reused for irrigation purposes.
Compliance with Withdrawal Permit Limits and Conditions Two methods were utilized to identify potential violations of withdrawal permit limits and conditions. Firstly, Adams County violations were identified in Pennsylvania’s eFACTS database and in EPA’s EnviroFacts database. The only violations noted for withdrawals in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds were related to reporting and/or record keeping. The second method compared permit capacity to annual water use, both of which are provided in the PA water use database. No reported withdrawals in the watersheds exceeded the permit limits.
Consumptive Use Average consumptive use estimates by water use type from the USGS for the years 1985, 1990, and 1995 are shown in Table 23. Irrigation typically has the highest consumptive use rate at 82%, followed by livestock at 78%. The power sector typically has the lowest consumptive use rate, depending on the technology implemented, at 3%.
Table 23. Typical consumptive use values by water use sector for 1985, 1990, and 1995 in areas climactically similar to the Great Lakes region (Shaffer and Runkle 2007). Water Use Sector % Consumptive Use Domestic and public supply 11 Irrigation 82 Livestock 78 Industrial 9 Mining 15 Power 3
In addition to the consumptive use percentages provided above, consumptive use from septic systems was also estimated. Although some of the water may percolate into the groundwater, the amount of recharge from septic systems in the watersheds is unknown. For the purposes of this study discharges to septic systems are considered to be 10% consumptive (personal comm., CAAC, 7/13/2011). An estimated 387.78 Mgal/y of domestic water use (from public water suppliers and that which is self- served) is discharged to septic systems in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, making a 10% consumptive loss of 38.78 Mgal/y. By applying these consumptive use fractions to the average monthly total amount of water used by sector, a seasonal estimate of consumptive use by sub-watershed was obtained (Table 24). The Lower Marsh sub-watershed has the highest consumptive use amount, while the Upper Marsh sub-watershed has the smallest.
35 v.8/28/2012
Table 24. Average seasonal consumptive use of water by sub-watershed (gal/seas). Sub-watershed Fall Winter Spring Summer Upper Rock 32,805,233 18,316,510 33,159,785 37,828,315 Lower Rock 36,160,220 16,476,006 36,104,395 43,246,888 Little Marsh 35,175,800 14,334,191 34,535,136 50,184,533 Upper Marsh 25,103,706 6,050,716 24,596,345 32,438,124 Lower Marsh 44,992,448 25,458,612 45,149,971 65,219,270
Seasonal Water Use The amount of water use in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds varies throughout the year due to irrigation needs of crops, changing water requirements corresponding to average daily temperature by people and livestock, and other seasonal activities. To capture this temporal variation, seasonal water use has been calculated for each of the water use types. Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the seasonal water withdrawals and consumptive use of water, respectively, by registered use type. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show the seasonal estimated water withdrawals and consumptive use, respectively, by unregistered users.
Figure 15. Seasonal water use by registered users in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds.
36 v.8/28/2012
Figure 16. Seasonal registered consumptive use of water, calculated using consumptive use coefficients from Shaffer and Runkle (2007).
Figure 17. Seasonal estimated water use by unregistered users in the Marsh and Rock watersheds.
37 v.8/28/2012
Figure 18. Seasonal estimated consumptive use of water, calculated using consumptive use coefficients from Shaffer and Runkle (2007).
Summary Figure 19 summarizes the withdrawal water uses in the CWPA as of 2007. Domestic and public supply were the primary uses, followed by agriculture, industry, and mining. Appendix A provides the seasonal and annual water use amounts by water use type and sub-watershed.
Figure 19. Distribution of withdrawal water uses in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (2007).
Limitations Much of the withdrawal water use analysis was based on estimated values, given limited reported data. Consumptive use data is also limited for most usage types. A major step towards improved water resources management in the CWPA may be to address the data shortage. Management alternatives resulting from this analysis can be found in Section 3.4.
38 v.8/28/2012
3.3.1.2 Nonwithdrawal Uses While flowing in the streams, the surface waters of the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds serve diverse functions from sustaining wildlife and their habitats to enhancing tourist experiences. Nonwithdrawal uses, or instream uses, of the surface water resources can have ecological, social, and economic implications and, as such, management for these uses is important. The purpose of this section, in accordance with the DEP Guidelines for Development of Critical Area Resource Plans (DEP 2009a), is to identify “nonwithdrawal or instream uses, including existing and designated stream uses, and where possible assess the flows and base flows needed to protect those uses based upon established standards.” This section is divided into five major sections by use type: regulatory uses, recreation, wildlife and ecosystems, tourism, and education.
Regulatory - Designated Uses Designated uses are assigned for each waterway by DEP under the authority of the U.S. Clean Water Act. Potable, industrial, and livestock water supply, irrigation, warm and cold water fishes, boating, fishing, and water contact sports are examples of designated uses in Pennsylvania. Water quality criteria are established for each designated use and waterways are evaluated to determine whether they meet the established criteria. The water quality criteria for the designated uses in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds can be found in §93.7 of the Pennsylvania code and will be discussed in more detail in the water quality portion of this assessment (Section 3.3.3). Rock Creek and its tributaries as well as Willoughby Run (a tributary to Marsh Creek) are designated for use as a warm water fishery. Warm water fisheries are defined as areas suitable for the “Maintenance and propagation of fish species and additional flora and fauna which are indigenous to a warm water habitat8.” Marsh Creek and the remainder of its tributaries are designated for use as a cold water fishery. According to Pennsylvania code §93.3, cold water fisheries are defined as those areas suitable for “Maintenance or propagation, or both, of fish species including the family Salmonidae and additional flora and fauna which are indigenous to a cold water habitat.” Three waterways in the Marsh Creek watershed are also considered approved trout waterways (Figure 20). Approved trout waters are defined as areas that “contain significant portions that are open to public fishing and are stocked with trout,” according to the Fish and Boat Commission9. Two stretches of the creek that are upstream of the approved trout waters are known to be naturally reproducing. These waters are also called wild trout waters10.
8 http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter93/s93.3.html, accessed 5/29/2012. 9 http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/MetadataDisplay.aspx?entry=PASDA&file=Approved_Trout_Waters201003.xml&da taset=963, accessed 5/29/2012. 10 http://www.fish.state.pa.us/trout_repro.pdf, accessed 5/29/2012.
39 v.8/28/2012
Figure 20. Designated uses, approved trout waterways, and naturally reproducing trout populations in the CWPA.
Recreation Creeks, rivers, wetlands, and other water resources provide an opportunity for relaxing, exploring, exercising, and outdoor recreation. The water resources are generally thought to increase the quality of life for community members (personal comm., CAAC meeting, 4/13/2011).
Fishing Fishing is a common recreational activity in the watersheds and diverse fish species have been identified in DEP fish surveys (Table 25). To this end, management of water resources availability in the CWPA should consider the physiological and habitat requirements these fish species. For this purpose, riverine habitat suitability criteria for the recreational fish species are provided in Appendix B. Management efforts should also take into consideration the water quality needs of the fish species. A thorough assessment of CWPA water quality conditions is presented in Section 3.3.3.
40 v.8/28/2012
Table 25. Recreational and non-recreational fish observed in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (based on a compilation of DEP and National Park Service11 fish data). Recreational Fish Non-Recreational Fish American eel Banded killifish Eastern silvery minnow River chub Black crappie Blacknose dace Fantail darter Rosyface shiner Bluegill Bluntnose minnow Fathead minnow Satinfin shiner Green sunfish Central stoneroller Golden shiner Shield darter Largemouth bass Comely shiner Greenside darter Silverjaw minnow Pumpkinseed Common shiner Longnose dace Spotfin shiner Redbreast sunfish Creek chub Margined madtom Spottail shiner Rock bass Cutlips minnow Northern hog sucker Tessellated darter Smallmouth bass Eastern banded killifish White sucker Yellow bullhead Note: There are no Fish and Boat Commission Biologist Reports in Adams County12.
Trout Stocking The Fish and Boat Commission stocks trout in select surface waters across the state, including three stream reaches in the Marsh Creek watershed. Trout season for Marsh and Rock creek watersheds is early April through early September13. The locations of these segments are shown in Figure 20 and include Marsh Creek from the Cashtown Road Bridge to the U.S. Rt 30 Bridge (stocked for Brown and Rainbow trout); Little Marsh Creek from SR 3018 to Bridge Road (stocked for Brook Trout); and Little Marsh Creek from Bridge Road to Knoxlyn Road (stocked for Brook and Brown Trout)14. Requirements necessary to sustain Rainbow and Brown trout populations are documented in Molony (2001). Important variables for trout survival in rivers and streams are provided in Table 26. Although the Approved Trout Waterways in Marsh Creek are not officially state designated Trout Stocked Waters, the PA water quality criteria for the trout-stocked waters may also be illustrative of water quality conditions required to support trout communities. These water quality criteria can be found in §93.7 of the Pennsylvania code.
11 http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/midn/InventoriesBio.cfm, accessed 5/29/2012. 12 http://www.fish.state.pa.us/afm.htm, accessed 5/29/2012. 13 http://www.fish.state.pa.us/fishpub/summary/inland.html, accessed 5/29/2012. 14 http://www.fish.state.pa.us/county.htm, accessed 5/29/2012.
41 v.8/28/2012
Table 26. Variables for trout survival. Modified from (Molony 2001). Variable Criteria Higher flows support more trout. Average daily late summer flow > 55% Late summer stream flow of average daily flow rate for the year. Annual stream flow variation Trout depend on minimum variation in flow rate throughout the year. Water velocity Trout prefer the fastest flowing waters. Trout numbers are higher in areas with cover (snags, logs, etc.) to rest and/or hide. The best conditions were found in areas with >55% cover, Trout cover while the worst had <10% cover. Worst streams are very narrow or very wide. Ideal conditions are Stream width probably a function of the ratio of stream width to cover available. Highest abundance of trout are located in areas with little or no Eroding stream banks streambank erosion. Aquatic vegetation provides habitat for food and is correlated with higher Stream substrate (vegetation) density of trout. Most trout recorded in areas with moderate nitrate nitrogen concentrations Nitrate-nitrogen concentration (0.15-0.25 mg/L) Most successful in cool water temperatures, between 41°F and 68°F. Minimum temperature for normal function is around 34°F. Maximum Water temperature temperature for normal function is around 79°F. pH range for trout survival is between 5 – 9 with some negative impacts pH to embryo survival at the far ends of this range. Trout presence recorded in 2.6 – 8.6 mg/L. Sub-lethal effects possible below 6 mg/L, meaning that trout are highly sensitive to dissolved oxygen Dissolved oxygen concentrations.
Water and land management efforts in approved trout waters by DEP may include seasonal restrictions to minimize conflicts with trout fishing in the cases of stream and wetland encroachment permits. A management method utilized by the SRBC combines the biomass stream classification of the Game Commission with hydrologic modeling to implement protection measures. The biomass stream classification distinguishes classes A-E based on the trout biomass found in the stream section, with class A segments having the most and class E having none. The SRBC established acceptable ranges of habitat change associated with each class to facilitate evaluation of new withdrawal requests, which are also typically followed by DEP (Table 27) (Fish and Boat Commission 2009).
Table 27. Modified from “Effect of PFBC trout biomass classification system on SRBC water withdrawal permitting (Fish and Boat Commission 2009).” Category Habitat Loss Criteria Exceptional Value in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93 Less than 5% High Quality Cold Water Fishes or Class A Less than 5% (7.5% with justification) Cold Water Fishes; Class B Less than 10% Cold Water Fishes; Class C and D Less than 15%
42 v.8/28/2012
Birding According to the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s eBird database, 185 species and 4 other taxa of birds were recorded in Adams County between 2009 and 2011 (as of April 18, 2011)15. Amongst these are bald eagles, listed in Pennsylvania as threatened and protected under the Game and Wildlife Code. The osprey, a threatened bird in Pennsylvania, has also been observed in the watersheds16. Due to the diversity of bird species, birding is a common recreational activity in the CWPA.
Swimming and Boating Lake Heritage, southeast of Gettysburg, is used for swimming, fishing, and boating and has at least one marina. According to RiverFacts.com, the 3.8 mile section of Marsh Creek from Old U.S. Route 15 to Horner Road is used for whitewater kayaking, rafting, and paddling. American Whitewater classifies this section of the river as a class 2-3 section under normal flow conditions and the Monocacy Canoe Club classifies it as requiring low-intermediate skills. According to the Fish and Boat Commission’s County Guide17, there are no official boat access points in the CWPA.
Wildlife and Ecosystems “Protection of the reservoirs, wetlands, rivers, and creeks of Adams County is vital, especially those that protect biodiversity, supply drinking water, and are attractive recreational resources. Many of the sites containing rare species, natural communities or locally significant habitats in Adams County are associated with water. Protection of these watersheds is the only way to ensure the viability of natural habitats and water quality. Cooperative efforts on land use among municipal, county, state, and federal agencies, developers, and residents can lessen the impact of development on the watersheds and plant communities of the county. Protecting natural areas around municipal water supply watersheds provides an additional protective buffer around the water supply and habitat for wildlife and may also provide low-impact recreation opportunities (The Nature Conservancy 2002).”
According to the Natural Areas Inventory of Adams County (The Nature Conservancy 2002), quoted above, 17 core habitat sites were identified within the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (Figure 21). The sites are primarily identified based on “animals, natural communities, and habitats most at risk of extinction at the global or local level18.” In the report, protection measures are recommended to sustain the wildlife and habitats in each of the 17 areas. For example, one area is the Marsh Creek Wetlands, identified as a high priority for the protection of biological diversity in Adams County due to the occurrence of a state recognized endangered animal. Some grazing is needed to protect this habitat, while mowing is a potential threat. Maintaining the wetlands and meadows in the area is essential for the continuation of this critical habitat. Overall, the inventory process found that protection of the area’s water resources is critical to the sustainability of these habitats.
15 http://ebird.org/ebird/pa/eBirdReports?cmd=Start, accessed 5/29/2012. 16 http://www.nps.gov/gett/naturescience/animals.htm, accessed 5/29/2012. 17 http://www.fish.state.pa.us/county.htm, accessed 5/29/2012. 18 http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/cnhi/cnhi.htm, accessed 5/29/2012.
43 v.8/28/2012
Figure 21. Locations of natural heritage sites, the Eisenhower Least Shrew Site (an Important Mammal Area) 19, and Michaux State Forest in the CWPA.
Additional areas that are important to wildlife and ecosystems in the watersheds include Gettysburg National Military Park, Michaux State Forest, and the designated Important Mammal Area. Gettysburg National Military Park contains 5,989 acres of diverse habitats such as woodlands, agricultural fields, pastures, and streams. The park provides habitat for 187 bird, 34 mammal, 17 reptile, and 15 amphibian species along with 553 species of vascular plants20. Michaux State Forest occupies more than 85,000 acres in Cumberland, Franklin, and Adams counties. Of this, almost 2,250 acres fall within the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (Figure 21). The forests contain several species of oak, red maple, black birch, blackgum, hickory, pine, and tuliptree on the hillsides and oak and pitch pine at higher elevations21. The Pennsylvania Game Commission identified a 6,679 acre Important Mammal Area (IMA) on the south and southwest sides of Gettysburg because it “sustains a confirmed viable local population of a Species of Greatest Conservation Need;” specifically least shrews – a state endangered species. The largest threats for the survival of the species in this area are habitat succession and urbanization.
Tourism Tourism contributes significantly to the economy of Adams County. Further, tourist spending in Adams County is increasing over time (Figure 22). Approximately 3 million tourists visited the county
19 http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=814362&mode=2, accessed 5/29/2012. 20 http://www.nps.gov/gett/naturescience/animals.htm, accessed 5/29/2012. 21 http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/stateforests/michaux/index.htm, accessed 5/29/2012.
44 v.8/28/2012 in 2009 alone. Approximately 1.8 million people visit the Gettysburg National Military Park every year according to the park22. Over 5,800 people were employed, either directly or indirectly, by the tourism industry in Adams County.
Figure 22. Tourist spending in Adams County, PA, according to the Gettysburg Convention and Visitors Bureau (2002-2009) (personal comm., 4/27/2011). Note: No data was collected in 2008; therefore, the trend shown between 2007 and 2009 assumes a linear increase.
The water resources of Adams County played a role in the history of the Gettysburg area and are sought out by tourists to the Gettysburg National Military Park and the Eisenhower National Historic Site. Several tributaries within the Gettysburg National Military Park have historical significance to tourists including, but not limited to, Spangler’s Spring, Plum Run, and White Run. Spangler’s Spring is located at the southern end of Culp’s Hill. The spring is a historic source of drinking water. According to the National Park Service, “Due to the possibility of groundwater contamination, the waters of Spangler’s Spring are no longer available for public consumption23.” Anecdotal evidence suggests that the spring may no longer flow (personal comm., advisory committee member, 4/21/2011). Plum Run flows between Devils Den and Little Roundtop. In July 1863 the stream became known as Bloody Run as it flowed with soldier’s blood24. The White Run area was home to the Rock Creek/Union Hospital Complex. The hospital complex was dependent on the availability of clean water, making the area an ideal location25.
22 http://www.nps.gov/gett/naturescience/index.htm, accessed 5/29/2012. 23 http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/getttour/tstops/tstd2-17.htm, accessed 6/24/2011. 24 http://www.visit-gettysburg.com/bloody-run-at-gettysburg.html, accessed 5/29/2012. 25 http://www.mtjoytwp.us/Tour/text12.html, accessed 5/29/2012.
45 v.8/28/2012
Figure 23. Sach’s Bridge on Marsh Creek. Tourism opportunities outside of the National Military Park dependent on the water resources of the watersheds include ghost hunting at Sach’s covered bridge (Figure 23), camping, and apple orchard and winery tours. Sach’s Bridge is visited by many tourists each year because of its unique history and the ghosts that are rumored to inhabit it. Camping locations in the watersheds include Gettysburg Campground on Marsh Creek. The creekside location is advertised to attract potential visitors to the facility26. Several campgrounds, like Gettysburg Battlefield Resort, Round Top Campground, and Artillery Ridge Camping Resort are located along the perimeter of the battlefield for easy access to those attractions. Camping is also permitted in the Michaux State Forest.
Education Institutions in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds utilize the creeks as an educational experience. Students of the undergraduate course in the Environmental Studies Department at Gettysburg College conduct water quality analyses of Steven’s Run on campus in the Rock Creek watershed (Strock et al. 2010). Daily samples are collected on the upstream and downstream ends of campus for two weeks for air and water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, nitrate-N, phosphate-P, and turbidity. Data sets are then compared to evaluate the water quality impacts of the campus. Another Environmental Studies course at Gettysburg College samples the Quarry for coliform bacteria and dissolved oxygen and the drinking fountains in the school’s Science Center. Yet another course encourages students to conduct their course research project on environmental issues in the community, including the creeks (personal comm., Gettysburg College Environmental Science Department, 5/3/2011). The Biology Department at Gettysburg College takes students to both Marsh and Rock creeks as part of Introductory Biology (students sample the creeks for macroinvertebrates and water quality variables like temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen and flow velocity), Invertebrate Zoology, and Freshwater Biology (to examine benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, algae, and macrophytes). Some of these sampling efforts have been ongoing for 17 years (personal comm., Gettysburg College Biology Department, 5/3/2011). Gettysburg College also promotes and facilitates a Gettysburg Environmental Concerns Organizations (GECO) that encourages protection of the water resources in the region. Classes in the Upper Adams School District study the biological and chemical characteristics of the waterways to underscore concepts such as watersheds, point and non-point source pollution, food webs, and energy transfers within watersheds (personal comm., Upper Adams School District, 5/4/2011). Further, Gettysburg High School conducts stream studies in Rock Creek as part of their environmental science class (personal comm., ACCD, 5/10/2011). Several organizations in the watersheds are dedicated to getting students, teachers, and community members outside to learn about their natural environment, including its water resources. These organizations WAAC, the Strawberry Hill Nature Preserve, Adams County Senior Environment Corps, Water Systems Council, and Pennsylvania Ground Water Association. Specifically, WAAC
26 http://gettysburgcampground.com, accessed 5/29/2012.
46 v.8/28/2012
“performs stream clean-ups to educate the public about trash pollution in the watershed. They also perform staff gage monitoring to educate the public about 7Q10.” ACCD has a rain barrel program that educates the public about stormwater run-off and groundwater conservation along with vernal pool workshops. In cooperation with Penn State Extension, ACCD provides well and septic management workshops biannually along with providing groundwater testing. ACCD and Adams County Trout Unlimited support four “Trout in the Classroom” programs. Adams County Senior Environment Corps conducts stream monitoring to educate the public about trends. The 2011 children’s water festival, sponsored by the Water Systems Council and Pennsylvania Ground Water Association, taught approximately 1,700 fourth and fifth graders about drinking water, groundwater, watersheds, surface water, and water quality.
3.3.1.3 Summary The withdrawal and non-withdrawal uses described in this section affect not only the local economy but ecosystem health as well. The quantifications of these use amounts are utilized in subsequent sections to compare the magnitude of water used with the amount of water available. Identifying seasons and geographic areas where uses may exceed availability illustrate the need for proactive water resources management. A limitation to this analysis is the shortage of reported water use data in the watersheds. As previously described, only large water users are required to report to DEP. Use amounts by small users, therefore, must be estimated for water resources management purposes. These estimates provide a ballpark range of possible water use, however, reported values from small water users would improve confidence in the results of this analysis.
3.3.2 Water Availability and Future Water Uses Availability of clean water supplies is necessary for many purposes in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, from human and animal drinking water to agricultural irrigation. In previous studies (DEP 2009c), demand was shown to exceed the available water under some conditions. This section takes another look at this issue. The purpose of this analysis was fourfold:
1. Quantify the availability of water in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds on an annual and seasonal basis utilizing the water budget approach documented in Sloto and Buxton (2005)27, including development of water budgets and water use budgets by sub-watershed; Note: The water budget assessed the sources of water, outputs of water, and changes in the amount of water stored in the watersheds. The water use budget accounts for the water inputs and outputs, withdrawals, discharges, and consumptive uses. 2. Calculate the magnitude of water use expected through 2030, utilizing high and low estimates of plausible future water use; 3. Compare availability of water with current and future uses; and 4. Determine sustainable yields of the CWPA groundwater resources under average conditions and compare with surface water availability and current water uses.
27 A major driving factor of the amounts and rates of water transfer through the system is land use. A complete analysis of the CWPA land use is presented in Section 3.3.4.
47 v.8/28/2012
3.3.2.1 Water Budgets Water budgets were calculated on an annual and seasonal basis for the 1997-2010 period by sub- watershed, taking into consideration the following components as applicable: streamflow, baseflow, precipitation, soil moisture deficit, groundwater storage, surface water storage, consumptive use, imported and exported water, and evapotranspiration. Subsequent sub-sections of this report describe the methodology for quantifying the water budget components. Annual budgets were calculated utilizing the total annual amount of water for each component. Seasonal water budgets were calculated as the average total seasonal amount over the 1997 to 2010 time period. That is, seasonal amounts were calculated for every year from 1997 to 2010, for which there was observed data. Interpolated years were not included in the averaging process. These totals were then averaged by season.
Streamflow To compare streamflows to the demand for withdrawal and non-withdrawal water uses, it was necessary to generate a long-term flow time series for each sub-watershed. The USGS streamflow gage on the Monocacy River at Bridgeport, Maryland (USGS station 01639000) is the closest long-term streamflow station downstream of the CWPA with records dating back to 1942. The gage is about 5 miles downstream from the confluence of Marsh and Rock creeks and includes contributions from other, smaller tributaries in addition to Marsh and Rock creeks. Due to the limited availability of observed low- flow data in the Marsh and Rock watersheds, modeled data was utilized to understand the relationship of Marsh and Rock creek flows to observed Bridgeport flows under low flow conditions. To this end, the Chesapeake Bay Program’s HSPF model, coupled with the VA Department of Environmental Quality’s Online Object Oriented Meta Model, was utilized to estimate daily streamflows from 1984-2005 in the Marsh Creek watershed and the Monocacy River watershed at Bridgeport. A relationship between Marsh Creek flow and the Monocacy River at Bridgeport flow was developed using the two simulated flow time series. The Rock Creek flows were calculated as the remainder of CWPA area-weighted contribution to Bridgeport. The resulting hydrographs demonstrate similar flow patterns as the Monocacy at Bridgeport gage but have area-appropriate magnitudes (Figure 24). To generate sub-watershed flows from the Rock Creek flow time series, the Rock Creek watershed flows were sub-divided utilizing two methodologies – one during high flow periods and another during low flow periods. During periods of low flows, less than five cfs, Upper Rock is effluent dominated due to the wastewater treatment plant discharges. Under these conditions, the Upper Rock sub-watershed was attributed 85% of the flows in the Rock Creek watershed based on the relative amount of discharges in the two sub-watersheds. During higher flow conditions, greater than five cfs, the larger Lower Rock sub-watershed has a higher contribution of streamflow because it drains a larger land area. Under these conditions, the Upper Rock sub-watershed was attributed 40.37% of the flows in the Marsh Creek watershed, an area weighting percentage. The Marsh Creek watershed flows were sub-divided into flow time series for each sub-watershed (Little Marsh, Upper Marsh, and Lower Marsh) based on the land area of each sub-watershed utilizing an area weighting approach. In reality, the upstream watersheds may have hydrographs of a different nature depending on land uses, population, soils, and geology among others. This is an area for improvement once additional flow data is available.
48 v.8/28/2012
Figure 24. Estimated streamflow for the CWPA, Marsh Creek, and Rock Creek and observed USGS flows at Bridgeport, MD (1997-2011).
It was necessary for the purposes of this study to obtain streamflow measurements from within the watersheds to verify the simulated amount and timing of streamflows in each sub-watershed. To this end, four staff gages were installed by USGS under contract with ICPRB in October of 2010 (Figure 25). A staff gage was located at a downstream site on each stream at the crossing of Mason Dixon Road (USGS station 01638845 - Marsh Creek at Harpers Hill near Fairplay, PA and USGS station 01638970 - Rock Creek near Harney, MD28). The downstream gages are important as they capture information on the total amount of water leaving each watershed. Staff gages were also placed in the headwaters section of each watershed to capture the upstream streamflow contributions. The upstream locations are the Fairfield Road (Rt. 116) bridge over Marsh Creek (USGS station 01638800 - Marsh Creek near Gettysburg, PA) and at the Old Harrisburg Road (Business Rt. 15) bridge over Rock Creek (USGS station 01638870 - Rock Creek on Old Route 15 near Gettysburg, PA). USGS collected flow measurements at the staff gage locations to construct rating curves. These curves relate the stream stage (water depth) and the stream flow (discharge). Using the rating curve, the stage reading from the staff gage can be translated into a flow value. The initial rating curve for each station was developed by USGS (Appendix C) and additional measurements were taken to improve the rating curves and to adjust for changes in stream channel configuration due to high flows. Staff gage measurements were taken at all four stations by USGS, ICPRB, and local volunteers throughout the CARP planning process.
28 USGS stream gage data can be obtained by searching by site number at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv/?referred_module=sw, accessed 5/29/2012.
49 v.8/28/2012
Figure 25. Locations of water level monitoring wells and stream staff gages.
The long-term USGS flows recorded at the Bridgeport gage are a valuable resource in understanding CWPA flows prior to measurements within the CWPA. To better understand the Marsh and Rock creek flow contributions to Bridgeport, ICPRB also installed continuous water level data loggers at the two downstream staff gages in November 2010. The water level data was related to the stage reading on the staff gage and then converted flow values utilizing the rating curves. The sum of the flows at these stations provides a continuous record that represents the majority of the flow measured at the USGS Bridgeport gage (Figure 26). Due to the configuration of the stream channels at the monitoring stations and the fixed length of the staff gages, the rating curves have an upper limit above which the stage cannot be measured and flow values cannot be estimated. These upper limits represent flood conditions where the stream has risen above its banks. For Marsh Creek gage 01638845, the maximum stage is 4.5 feet (ft) and maximum flow is 420 cfs. For Rock Creek gage 01638970, the maximum stage is 4.0 ft and 290 cfs. These maximums are visible as flat tops to the peaks in Figure 26. Figure 27 shows an X-Y plot of the flows at Bridgeport compared to the CWPA flows with the flood peaks removed (due to the data collection limitations mentioned above). If the CWPA flows equaled those at Bridgeport, the regression line would fall along the 1:1 line. The fact that the regression line falls above the 1:1 line indicates that the flows at Bridgeport are greater than the flows for the CWPA, as expected. Additional stage-discharge measurements by USGS at the staff gages will improve the rating curves, thereby improving the accuracy of flows predicted from stage data. Further, additional flow measurements will enhance understanding of the relationship between the CWPA flows and those recorded at the Bridgeport gage.
50 v.8/28/2012
Figure 26. Streamflow at Moncoacy River near Bridgeport, Maryland, compared to the sum of streamflow at Marsh Creek at Harpers Hill near Fairplay, Pennsylvania and at Rock Creek near Harney, Maryland.
Figure 27. Streamflow at Moncoacy River near Bridgeport Maryland compared to the combined streamflow at Marsh Creek at Harpers Hill near Fairplay, Pennsylvania and at Rock Creek near Harney, Maryland with flood peaks removed.
51 v.8/28/2012
Baseflow Baseflow is the portion of water that reaches the stream via sub-surface sources such as groundwater or shallow flows through the soil layers. Baseflows prolong streamflows during periods of little or no precipitation because it takes water longer to travel underground than over the earth’s surface. USGS’s PART software program (Rutledge 1998) was utilized to quantify the amount of baseflow in each sub-watershed from 1997 to 2010. Because point source discharges in the watersheds occur at a relatively constant amount, the PART software is likely to interpret the discharges as baseflow. Therefore, the raw baseflow amounts are provided as well as adjusted baseflow amounts which remove the influence of discharges. On average, the unadjusted baseflow comprises 59% of the streamflow in the Rock Creek watershed and 36% of streamflow in the Marsh Creek watershed (Table 28). Baseflow is highest in the winter and spring, dropping off considerably in the summer and fall (Figure 28). In the winter and spring, baseflows are higher in Marsh Creek than in Rock Creek, while this relationship is reversed in the summer and fall.
Table 28. Annual streamflow and baseflow amounts (in) and baseflow (BF) as a percentage of streamflow (SF) from 1997-2010 in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. Marsh Creek Rock Creek BF/SF Adjusted Adjusted BF/SF Adjusted Adjusted Year SF BF (%) BF BF/SF (%) SF BF (%) BF BF/SF 1997 11.8 5.4 45.7 5.1 43.3 7.8 5.1 66.2 4.6 58.9 1998 29 9 31.0 8.7 30.1 12.4 7.4 59.6 6.8 55.0 1999 14.4 4.8 33.4 4.5 31.5 8.7 4.8 55.1 4.2 48.5 2000 18.8 7 37.5 6.8 36.0 10.2 6.1 59.7 5.5 54.1 2001 9.3 4.2 45.2 3.9 42.2 6.1 4.1 66.4 3.5 57.1 2002 13.5 4.3 31.7 4 29.6 8.2 4.3 52.4 3.7 45.4 2003 41.3 13.5 32.7 13.2 31.9 18.5 10.5 56.8 9.9 53.8 2004 26.2 8.7 33.3 8.4 32.1 14 7.9 56.8 7.4 52.8 2005 22 7.6 34.7 7.3 33.3 11.5 6.8 58.8 6.2 54.0 2006 18.7 5.9 31.6 5.6 30.0 9.9 5.7 57.2 5.1 51.6 2007 14.9 5.7 38.1 5.4 36.2 7.9 5 63.7 4.5 56.6 2008 24.4 7.9 32.5 7.7 31.5 11.9 6.9 57.7 6.3 52.9 2009 23.5 7.4 31.5 7.1 30.3 12.2 6.6 54.1 6 49.0 2010 18.1 7.4 41.0 7.1 39.4 9.6 6.3 65.1 5.7 59.5 Average 20.4 7.1 35.7 6.8 33.2 10.6 6.2 59.3 5.7 53.4 SF=streamflow; BF=baseflow
52 v.8/28/2012
Figure 28. The average of total seasonal baseflow amounts for the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (1997-2010).
Hydrographs showing the magnitude, timing, and distribution of streamflows and baseflows in the watersheds illustrate 1) the seasonal variation in baseflows and 2) the effect of area weighting Bridgeport flows to generate baseflow amounts (Figure 29 and Figure 30). The timing of the hydrographs are the same, but the magnitude of streamflows and baseflows in Marsh Creek are more extreme. That is, they are higher during high flows because Marsh Creek has a larger drainage area than Rock Creek and are lower during low flows because Rock Creek flows are maintained by significant discharges. Baseflows are lowest in the summer and highest in the winter and spring. The amount of stormwater (volume of water represented by the difference between streamflow and baseflow) is a potential resource for supplementing water availability in the watersheds. A stormwater analysis is presented in Section 3.3.4.
Figure 29. Comparison of 2010 streamflow and baseflow in the Marsh Creek watershed.
53 v.8/28/2012
Figure 30. Comparison of 2010 streamflow and baseflow in the Rock Creek watershed.
Precipitation Precipitation is the primary source of the water in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds since there are no inflowing streams. Precipitation amounts vary widely throughout the watersheds. While a number of people and organizations measure rainfall, few keep long-term records. A total of eleven rainfall record stations were identified (Figure 31). The period of available records varied among these stations. Between 1997 and 2010, the number of stations with precipitation data in any year ranged from four to ten. When precipitation was reported as inches of snow, it was converted to inches of rainfall at a ratio of ten inches of snow equaling one inch of rain.
Figure 31. Locations of precipitation recording stations and USGS groundwater observation wells.
54 v.8/28/2012
The average daily precipitation for each sub-watershed was estimated using the Thiessen-polygon method of distributing point rainfall data throughout a watershed (Eq. 1). The rainfall stations can be inside the watershed or, if outside the watershed, nearby in a similar terrain and climatic region. In GIS, a polygon was constructed around each active rainfall station, defining the area that is closer to that station than any other station. The value of daily rainfall recorded at that station was then assigned to the part of the watershed covered by the polygon. This procedure was applied using all the active rainfall stations for every day of the period of interest. The total rainfall for each sub-watershed was the area-weighted sum of the rainfall amounts from all the closest rainfall stations. A timeseries of daily precipitation amounts for each of the five sub-watersheds was the final product of this procedure. Table 29 and Figure 32 show the total precipitation in the five sub-watersheds (1997-2010). In 2001, all sub- watersheds received less rainfall than other years in the period.
n n
P = ∑AiPi / ∑Ai Eq. 1 i=1 i=1 Where P = average depth of rainfall in the watershed th Ai = the area of the i polygon th Pi = precipitation of the i polygon
Table 29. Total annual precipitation by year for each sub-watershed (in).
Upper Lower Little Upper Lower Year Rock Rock Marsh Marsh Marsh 1997 37.3 33.7 35.2 35.8 35.3 1998 44.0 43.6 48.8 47.5 46.6 1999 39.6 38.7 48.0 46.0 42.9 2000 37.0 31.3 38.5 39.9 41.0 2001 24.7 23.9 24.1 25.4 26.0 2002 40.4 37.9 39.9 40.7 40.5 2003 43.0 37.9 54.9 54.5 50.1 2004 44.4 39.9 49.3 50.7 47.5 2005 39.0 33.0 42.6 31.9 39.3 2006 27.9 29.7 46.5 44.5 35.0 2007 35.7 26.8 28.7 30.9 36.9 2008 36.0 35.5 47.4 47.2 40.6 2009 49.6 41.5 47.6 51.5 48.1 2010 29.0 30.3 39.0 31.1 24.0
55 v.8/28/2012
Figure 32. Total annual precipitation for each sub-watershed (in).
Soil Moisture Deficit The soil moisture deficit is the amount of water needed by crops that is not available from natural precipitation and must, therefore, be supplied through irrigation. Jarrett and Roudsari (2007) used the results from a Department of Environmental Resources study in 1978 to estimate the soil moisture deficit for crops of different rooting depths and hardiness types in Adams County with four return periods (1.01 years, 2 years, 10 years, and 50 years). The total monthly precipitation and return period were calculated from the precipitation time series for each sub-watershed. The precipitation return period was then used to select the average soil moisture deficit value under that climactic condition. Figure 33 shows the total annual deficit for the growing season by sub-watershed in inches. The deficit is overcome in the wetter, non-growing season, resulting in an annual net soil moisture change of zero. Therefore, the soil moisture deficit component was not included in the annual water budgets. On a seasonal basis, the soil moisture deficit was included in the evapotranspiration term.
Figure 33. Annual growing season soil moisture deficit by sub-watershed (in).
56 v.8/28/2012
Groundwater Storage Annual changes in groundwater storage are caused by variations in local groundwater recharge, discharge to surface water bodies, groundwater pumping, or evapotranspiration by plants. The change in groundwater storage is calculated by multiplying the change in groundwater level by the specific yield of the aquifer. Specific yield is the ratio of the volume of water that will drain out of an aquifer under gravity to the total volume of the aquifer. Groundwater levels change depending on many factors including the local rock formations. Three CWPA sub-watersheds (Lower Marsh, Upper Rock and Lower Rock) are underlain by shales of the Gettysburg Formation and Diabase. This shale formation continues into a portion of the other two sub- watersheds (Little Marsh and Upper Marsh) while the remainder of the area is underlain by Metarhyolite and Metabasalt of the South Mountain section of the Blue Ridge physiographic province (Figure 4) (Low et al. 2002). The annual change in groundwater level was determined from daily water level records from two similarly situated USGS groundwater wells in Adams County (AD 146 near York Springs, Pa29 and AD 808 in Carroll Valley, Pa30). The change in groundwater level in the two sub-watersheds influenced by Metarhyolite and Metabasalt was calculated using water level records from both USGS wells. The change in groundwater level for the other three sub-watersheds was calculated utilizing data from the USGS well that is most representative of the geologic formations, AD 146. USGS well AD 808 has a record starting in September of 2003. To create a 1997 to 2010 record for this site, two methods were used. First, a time series of groundwater level change from January 1997 through August 2003 was simulated from the relation of monthly water level to precipitation from a nearby precipitation station. The remainder of the time period, September 2003 to December 2010, utilized the observed data from well AD 808. Annual change in groundwater level at each of the two wells was calculated by subtracting the January 1 water level from the December 31 water level, converting the difference from feet to inches and multiplying the result by the specific yield of the aquifer. The specific yield is 0.007 for the Gettysburg Shale and Diabase (AD 146) and 0.002 for the Metabasalt of the Catoctin Formation (AD 808) (Figure 34) (Low et al. 2002).
29 USGS 395846077040601 AD 146 Adams County Observation Well. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv/?site_no=395846077040601&agency_cd=USGS&referred_module=gw, accessed 5/29/2012. 30 USGS 394430077225001 AD 808 Adams County Observation Well. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv/?site_no=394430077225001&agency_cd=USGS&referred_module=gw, accessed 5/29/2012.
57 v.8/28/2012
Figure 34. Annual change in groundwater level in AD 146 and AD 808 (in). The average change in groundwater level measured in the water level monitoring wells in 2011 is also provided.
Monthly groundwater levels were taken in the 14 CWPA water level monitoring wells beginning in December 2010 (Figure 31). Because water level measurements were only taken in the water level monitoring network wells for eight months, an annual value was not calculated. However, the change in groundwater storage during the period of measurement was 0.10 inches. The change in groundwater storage in the AD 146 and AD 808 wells during this same period was 0.07 inches and 0.14 inches, respectively. The seasonal change in groundwater storage was calculated by subtracting the water level on the first day of the season from the water level on the last day of the season, converting to inches and multiplying by the specific yield. Each season consisted of the following months: Winter = December, January, and February Spring = March, April, and May Summer = June, July, and August Fall = September, October, and November
Surface Water Storage Another water budget component is the change in surface water storage. To this end, an analysis was undertaken to understand the distribution and number of surface water storages. These can include ponds, reservoirs, and other storage facilities. Community water systems report water supply storage capacities to DEP. Utilizing the reported information, water storage capacities for the 13 public water supply systems were quantified. The storage available for public water supply is reported as both raw and treated water storage. Treated water storage was approximately 5.1 Mgal. This represents 0.8% of the average annual water use for public water supply between 1997 and 2009 (630Mgal/y). In addition to the treated water storage, 3 Mgal is available in GMA’s Marsh Creek Reservoir which is formed by a run-of-river dam on Marsh Creek. Of this, 1.5 Mgal is usable storage (personal comm., GMA, 4/25/2012). The combined available usable storage
58 v.8/28/2012 constitutes four days of storage for all combined public water suppliers at the total daily withdrawal rate for 2009 (1.62 Mgpd). Additional surface water storages in the watershed include ponds for agricultural and other purposes. Information on these features was obtained from the 2003 USGS National Hydrography waterbody dataset and verified and augmented with aerial photography from GoogleEarth using March 2007 imagery. A total of 661 water bodies were identified, the largest of which is Lake Heritage at 140 acres (Figure 35). There are no conservation releases for any of the impoundments; however, withdrawals from Marsh Creek by GMA have a pass-by requirement of 6.68 cfs (DEP 2009c).
Figure 35. Surface water bodies in the CWPA. The water bodies were outlined to facilitate visualization, making them appear larger.
The surface area of each water body was calculated in GIS utilizing the Calculate Geometry tool (Table 30). Given that surface area is a function of the hydrologic conditions at the time the aerial imagery was developed, these estimates are a snapshot of surface area. The Lower Rock sub-watershed has the most water bodies and the largest average surface area. The Little Marsh sub-watershed has the fewest water bodies, while the Upper Rock sub-watershed has the smallest average surface area.
Table 30. Number and surface area (acres) of water bodies by sub-watershed. Number of Average Minimum Maximum Sub-watershed Water Bodies Surface Area Surface Area Surface Area Upper Rock 111 0.52 0.02 3.93 Lower Rock 196 1.27 0.03 139.9 Upper Marsh 98 0.57 0.04 5.79 Little Mars 81 0.72 0.02 4.99 Lower Marsh 173 0.77 0.04 10.77
59 v.8/28/2012
The county parcel layer was obtained from ACOPD to determine the percentage of land parcels greater than ten acres (containing “A” in the designation) containing ponds. These parcels were predominantly agriculture. Of the 1,195 “A” parcels (including A, AC, AT, and AX), 860 (72%) do not have an on-site pond, lake, or reservoir. Additional information is required to calculate volume of water stored in the ponds. Specifically, bathymetry data is required to determine depth and volume. Understanding the volume of water available for use from these ponds would facilitate water use planning, particularly under low-flow conditions. It is recommended that this analysis be completed and integrated into the water budget analysis once the necessary data become available.
Consumptive Use Consumptive use was estimated utilizing the method described in Section 3.3.1.1. The calculation included multiplying a consumptive use factor for a given water use type, by the total amount of water withdrawn for that water use type. Irrigation has the highest consumptive use factor at 82%, while power generation has the lowest at 3%.
Imported and Exported Water Imported water was quantified utilizing the DEP water use database. Water was imported into the Upper Marsh and Upper Rock sub-watersheds between 1997 and 2010. The Upper Marsh sub- watershed has one water import. Water is withdrawn through the Franklin water system intakes in the Lower Marsh sub-watershed and is subsequently discharged from the wastewater treatment plant into the Upper Marsh sub-watershed. Water is imported into the Upper Rock sub-watershed from the Lower Rock watershed through the GMA system and from the Susquehanna basin for cooling water at GenOn (formerly Reliant Energy). On average, 82% of the total GMA discharges are made to the Upper Rock sub-watershed. Each water import listed above is associated with a water export. For example, the water imported into the Upper Marsh sub-watershed from Lower Marsh is also documented as an export from the Lower Marsh sub-watershed. The Hunterstown WWTP exports water to the Susquehanna basin from users within the service area, including GenOn. Exported water was calculated as 30% of the reported withdrawals from GenOn (approximately 70% is lost to evaporation) plus the remainder of the average daily Hunterstown transfer amount, 10,570 gpd.
Water Budget Equation The generalized water budget equation, Eq. 2, was utilized to quantify the water budget of each sub-watershed on an annual and seasonal basis. The equation was modified for each sub-watershed to include only appropriate terms, the values of which were determined by the methods explained above. The equation, as modified for each sub-watershed, will be presented along with the sub-watershed’s table of results.
60 v.8/28/2012
P + IMP = SF + ΔGWS + EXP + CON +ET (Eq. 2) Where P = precipitation IMP = imported water SF = streamflow ΔGWS = change in groundwater storage EXP = water exports CON = consumptive use ET = evapotranspiration and uncertainty
The water budget equation is solved for evapotranspiration. This results in an evapotranspiration term that includes both an estimate of the physical parameter and uncertainty. Uncertainty in the water budgets arise from water use estimations and limitations of the input data sets. The annual and seasonal water budgets for each sub-watershed are presented below. All units are in inches to enable simple comparisons of relative amounts within and between watersheds31.
Results Upper Rock The water budget used in the Upper Rock sub-watershed was represented by the generalized water budget equation, Eq. 2. Each component was calculated utilizing the previously described methodologies. The resulting quantitative water budget components are shown in Table 31 and Table 32.
Table 31. Annual water budget for the Upper Rock sub-watershed (1997-2010). All units are inches except evaporation as a percentage of precipitation, the last column. Values are rounded for display purposes. Year P IMP SF Δ GWS EXP CON ET Evap:Precip 1997 37.28 0.60 8.06 0.00 0.000 0.27 30.84 82.71% 1998 44.04 0.54 12.82 0.09 0.000 0.28 29.74 67.54% 1999 39.63 0.56 8.91 -0.07 0.000 0.28 31.84 80.35% 2000 37.04 0.53 10.25 0.01 0.000 0.26 27.20 73.44% 2001 24.65 0.68 6.44 0.05 0.000 0.25 19.83 80.45% 2002 40.43 0.68 8.45 -0.12 0.000 0.25 33.24 82.22% 2003 43.01 0.74 18.49 0.05 0.009 0.25 22.48 52.26% 2004 44.44 0.72 14.02 0.02 0.009 0.25 30.86 69.45% 2005 39.00 0.63 11.63 -0.02 0.009 0.27 27.62 70.83% 2006 27.88 0.67 10.18 0.00 0.009 0.22 18.32 65.73% 2007 35.73 0.73 8.27 -0.01 0.010 0.27 28.22 78.97% 2008 35.96 0.65 12.12 0.02 0.009 0.31 23.60 65.64% 2009 49.55 0.68 12.26 -0.02 0.010 0.28 37.46 75.60% 2010 28.99 0.66 9.88 0.07 0.009 0.27 19.75 68.14% Average 37.69 0.65 10.84 0.01 0.005 0.26 27.22 72.38%
31 Quantities of each water budget component were computed in inches by first converting the volume of water to cubic inches and dividing by the watershed size in units of square inches.
61 v.8/28/2012
Table 32. Seasonal water budget for the Upper Rock sub-watershed. All units are inches except evaporation as a percentage of precipitation, the last column. Season P IMP SF Δ GWS EXP CON ET Evap:Precip Fall 9.41 0.16 1.90 0.21 0.002 0.07 7.93 84.31% Winter 8.34 0.13 3.83 -0.04 0.002 0.04 4.25 50.93% Spring 10.70 0.17 3.92 -0.02 0.002 0.07 6.72 62.75% Summer 9.45 0.18 1.24 0.04 0.003 0.09 8.61 91.05%
Lower Rock The Lower Rock water budget only includes the geographic area designated by the 12-digit hydrologic unit. It does not include the Upper Rock sub-watershed. The water budgets for the entire Rock Creek watershed can be computed as the combination of the Lower and Upper Rock sub-watershed budgets. The Lower Rock sub-watershed does not have imported or exported water, creating a modified annual water budget equation (Eq. 3).
P = SF + ΔGWS + CON +ET (Eq. 3)
The resulting annual water budget for the Lower Rock sub-watershed is shown in Table 33. The resulting seasonal water budget is provided in Table 34.
Table 33. Annual water budget for the Lower Rock sub-watershed (1997-2010). All units are inches except evaporation as a percentage of precipitation, the last column. Year P SF Δ GWS CON ET Evap:Precip 1997 33.70 7.55 0.00 0.17 26.76 79.40% 1998 43.56 12.16 0.09 0.17 28.83 66.19% 1999 38.67 8.56 -0.07 0.17 30.42 78.67% 2000 31.34 10.1 0.01 0.18 21.06 67.20% 2001 23.88 5.87 0.05 0.18 18.44 77.24% 2002 37.85 8.01 -0.12 0.18 30.04 79.38% 2003 37.94 18.47 0.05 0.18 16.74 44.11% 2004 39.92 13.97 0.02 0.18 25.70 64.37% 2005 33.01 11.37 -0.02 0.18 21.09 63.88% 2006 29.72 9.78 0.00 0.18 19.53 65.70% 2007 26.77 7.66 -0.01 0.22 18.57 69.36% 2008 35.45 11.71 0.02 0.21 22.55 63.60% 2009 41.54 12.12 -0.02 0.21 28.84 69.43% 2010 30.29 9.43 0.07 0.22 20.45 67.52% Average 34.55 10.48 0.01 0.19 23.50 68.29%
62 v.8/28/2012
Table 34. Seasonal water budget for the Lower Rock sub-watershed. All units are inches except evaporation as a percentage of precipitation, the last column. Season P SF Δ GWS CON ET Evap:Precip Fall 9.49 1.74 0.21 0.05 7.88 83.02% Winter 5.11 3.80 -0.04 0.03 0.92 18.06% Spring 10.05 3.92 -0.02 0.05 5.93 59.00% Summer 9.83 1.06 0.04 0.07 8.82 89.77%
Little Marsh The annual and seasonal water budgets for the Little Marsh sub-watershed are shown in Table 35 and Table 36. Similar to the Lower Rock sub-watershed, Little Marsh does not have imports or exports and, thus, also follows Eq. 3.
Table 35. Annual water budget for the Little Marsh sub-watershed (1997-2010). All units are inches except evaporation as a percentage of precipitation, the last column. Year P SF Δ GWS CON ET Evap:Precip 1997 35.20 11.68 0.16 0.22 22.54 64.03% 1998 48.75 28.71 0.06 0.22 21.32 43.74% 1999 48.00 14.19 -0.17 0.22 32.70 68.13% 2000 38.50 18.58 0.00 0.23 19.45 50.51% 2001 24.11 9.15 0.00 0.23 14.00 58.08% 2002 39.85 13.3 -0.05 0.23 25.58 64.19% 2003 54.93 40.86 0.10 0.23 15.55 28.31% 2004 49.28 25.94 0.01 0.24 22.87 46.42% 2005 42.58 21.77 0.22 0.24 20.74 48.71% 2006 46.52 18.49 -0.08 0.24 27.56 59.24% 2007 28.67 14.73 0.14 0.24 13.71 47.84% 2008 47.39 24.1 -0.09 0.21 23.40 49.38% 2009 47.58 23.19 -0.21 0.22 23.94 50.31% 2010 39.02 17.9 0.24 0.25 20.97 53.74% Average 42.17 20.19 0.02 0.23 21.74 52.33%
Table 36. Seasonal water budget for the Little Marsh sub-watershed. All units are inches except evaporation as a percentage of precipitation, the last column. Season P SF Δ GWS CON ET Evap:Precip Fall 11.43 3.23 -0.02 0.09 8.02 70.16% Winter 9.11 7.88 -0.10 0.04 1.26 13.86% Spring 11.42 7.61 -0.05 0.09 3.70 32.43% Summer 10.58 1.69 -0.01 0.13 8.61 81.38%
Upper Marsh Eq. 4 was utilized to describe the annual and seasonal water budget in the Upper Marsh sub- watershed. The resulting annual and seasonal water budgets are provided in Table 37 and Table 38, respectively.
63 v.8/28/2012
P + IMP = SF + ΔGWS + CON +ET (Eq. 4)
Table 37. Annual water budget for the Upper Marsh sub-watershed (1997-2010). All units are inches except evaporation as a percentage of precipitation, the last column. Year P IMP SF Δ GWS CON ET Evap:Precip 1997 35.84 0.00 11.86 0.16 0.18 23.22 64.78% 1998 47.54 0.00 29.15 0.06 0.18 20.15 42.39% 1999 46.04 0.00 14.41 -0.17 0.18 30.78 66.86% 2000 39.88 0.00 18.86 0.00 0.19 20.87 52.32% 2001 25.41 0.00 9.29 0.00 0.19 15.34 60.38% 2002 40.70 0.00 13.51 -0.05 0.19 26.47 65.04% 2003 54.48 0.00 41.49 0.10 0.19 15.14 27.79% 2004 50.66 0.00 26.34 0.01 0.19 24.31 47.98% 2005 31.86 0.00 22.1 0.22 0.19 10.07 31.60% 2006 44.45 0.00 18.78 -0.08 0.19 25.54 57.45% 2007 30.91 0.00 14.96 0.14 0.20 16.00 51.77% 2008 47.21 0.00 24.47 -0.09 0.19 23.24 49.24% 2009 51.54 0.00 23.55 -0.21 0.20 27.91 54.16% 2010 31.13 0.01 18.18 0.24 0.21 13.12 42.15% Average 41.26 0.00 20.50 0.02 0.19 20.87 50.99%
Table 38. Seasonal water budget for the Upper Marsh sub-watershed. All units are inches except evaporation as a percentage of precipitation, the last column. Season P IMP SF Δ GWS CON ET Evap:Precip Fall 10.99 0.00 3.28 -0.02 0.06 7.61 69.29% Winter 8.61 0.00 8.01 -0.10 0.01 0.79 9.15% Spring 11.18 0.00 7.72 -0.05 0.06 3.49 31.27% Summer 10.69 0.00 1.71 -0.01 0.07 8.78 82.13%
Lower Marsh The Lower Marsh water budget only includes the geographic area designated by the 12-digit hydrologic unit. It does not include the upstream sub-watersheds. The water budgets for the entire Marsh watershed can be computed as the combination of the Upper, Little, and Lower sub-watershed budgets. The annual and seasonal water budgets for the Lower Marsh sub-watershed are shown in Table 39 and Table 40, respectively, utilizing Eq. 5.
P = SF + ΔGWS + EXP + CON +ET (Eq. 5)
64 v.8/28/2012
Table 39. Annual water budget for the Lower Marsh sub-watershed (1997-2010). All units are inches except evaporation as a percentage of precipitation, the last column.
Year P SF Δ GWS EXP CON ET Evap:Precip 1997 35.32 11.82 0.00 0.46 0.30 21.96 62.18% 1998 46.59 29.03 0.09 0.41 0.29 18.71 40.16% 1999 42.94 14.35 -0.07 0.43 0.29 27.25 63.45% 2000 40.95 18.79 0.01 0.40 0.29 21.43 52.34% 2001 25.95 9.25 0.05 0.52 0.31 15.29 58.94% 2002 40.45 13.45 -0.12 0.52 0.31 25.52 63.08% 2003 50.05 41.31 0.05 0.56 0.31 9.97 19.92% 2004 47.48 26.23 0.02 0.55 0.29 20.47 43.12% 2005 39.28 22.01 -0.02 0.48 0.29 16.67 42.44% 2006 34.98 18.7 0.00 0.51 0.26 15.57 44.51% 2007 36.90 14.9 -0.01 0.56 0.40 21.09 57.15% 2008 40.62 24.37 0.02 0.49 0.32 16.14 39.73% 2009 48.09 23.45 -0.02 0.52 0.31 24.03 49.97% 2010 24.03 18.1 0.07 0.50 0.31 5.24 21.82% Average 39.55 20.41 0.01 0.49 0.31 18.52 47.06%
Table 40. Seasonal water budget for the Lower Marsh sub-watershed (1997-2010). All units are inches except evaporation as a percentage of precipitation, the last column. Season P SF Δ GWS EXP CON ET Evap:Precip Fall 9.74 3.27 0.21 0.12 0.08 6.55 67.27% Winter 9.52 7.97 -0.04 0.10 0.04 1.86 19.53% Spring 10.93 7.69 -0.02 0.13 0.08 3.36 30.79% Summer 9.73 1.71 0.04 0.14 0.11 7.75 79.63%
3.3.2.2 Water Use Budgets Water use budgets were calculated on an annual and seasonal basis for the 1997-2010 time period by sub-watershed. The water use budgets trace the source and destination of water uses. The components of the water use budgets are imported and exported water, withdrawals, groundwater recharge, surface water discharges, and consumptive use. Similar to the annual water budgets, the annual water use budgets were calculated utilizing the total annual amount for each component for each year. Seasonal water budgets were calculated as the average total seasonal amount over the 1997 to 2010 time period. That is, seasonal totals were calculated for every year from 1997 to 2010 for which there was observed data. These totals were averaged by season for use in the seasonal water budget. Interpolated years were not included in the averaging process.
Withdrawals Data sources and methodologies for quantifying water withdrawals were documented in Section 3.3.1.1. The water use amounts for each sector were calculated for years where available data existed.
65 v.8/28/2012
To develop 1997-2010 annual and seasonal water use budgets, water uses were estimated using linear interpolation between years of known values to obtain a complete time series. Sources of water (ground or surface) are documented in Section 3.3.1.
Groundwater Recharge Groundwater recharge, as represented in the water use budget, is the amount of water withdrawn for use, returned to the land’s surface, and subsequently recharged the groundwater. These estimates do not include the amount of water recharging groundwater from non-discharge uses (e.g. infiltration and percolation during storm events). Estimates of total groundwater recharge, including non-discharge sources, are provided at the end of the availability section. Land uses where water is returned to the earth’s surface include agricultural operations (both irrigation and livestock), industry where the primary operation is agriculture, golf courses, and discharge to septic systems. The amount of groundwater recharge from each of these sources was calculated as the inverse of the consumptive use. Therefore, 18% of the water used for irrigation was assumed to recharge the groundwater. This percentage was also utilized for industrial irrigation and golf courses. Groundwater recharge from livestock operation water use was assumed to be 22%. For septic systems, 90% of the water discharged was considered groundwater recharge.
Surface Water Discharges Discharge data was obtained from DEP in the form of Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) for 2003, 2008, 2009, and 2010. A linear interpolation was utilized to estimate discharges between 2003 and 2008. The average annual amount of the reported years was used for 1997 to 2002. Uncertainty is increased for estimated years.
Water Use Budget Equation The generalized water use budget equation was utilized to quantify the water use budget by sub- watershed on an annual and seasonal basis (Eq. 6). Again, all units are in inches to enable simple comparisons of relative amounts within and between watersheds.
IMP + WITH – EXP – GWR – SWD – CON = RES (Eq. 6) Where IMP = imported water WITH = groundwater and surface water withdrawals EXP = water exports GWR = groundwater recharge SWD = surface water discharge CON = consumptive use RES = residual
Theoretically, the water use budgets balance to zero when all water is accounted for. Due to uncertainty, however, the equations do not balance to zero. Instead, they balance to a residual term (RES) that is a quantification of the uncertainty. All input quantities were converted to units of inches to enable simple comparisons of relative amounts within and between watersheds.
66 v.8/28/2012
Results Upper Rock The Upper Rock sub-watershed annual water use budget was represented utilizing the generalized water use budget equation, Eq. 6. The resulting annual and seasonal water use budgets are shown in Table 41 and Table 42, respectively.
Table 41. Annual water use budget for the Upper Rock sub-watershed (1997-2010). All units are inches. A negative residual indicates that the amount of water accounted for in the use side of the equation is greater than the amount of water accounted for through imports and withdrawals. Values are rounded for display purposes. Year IMP WITH EXP GWR SWD CON RES 1997 0.60 1.41 0.000 0.13 1.54 0.27 0.06 1998 0.54 1.46 0.000 0.14 1.54 0.28 0.04 1999 0.56 1.41 0.000 0.14 1.54 0.28 0.01 2000 0.53 1.27 0.000 0.14 1.54 0.26 -0.16 2001 0.68 1.12 0.000 0.15 1.54 0.25 -0.13 2002 0.68 1.11 0.000 0.15 1.54 0.25 -0.14 2003 0.74 1.13 0.009 0.15 1.66 0.25 -0.20 2004 0.72 1.18 0.009 0.15 1.65 0.25 -0.16 2005 0.63 1.36 0.009 0.15 1.64 0.27 -0.08 2006 0.67 1.33 0.009 0.15 1.63 0.22 -0.01 2007 0.73 1.33 0.010 0.15 1.62 0.27 0.01 2008 0.65 1.58 0.009 0.16 1.61 0.31 0.14 2009 0.68 1.34 0.010 0.16 1.54 0.28 0.03 2010 0.66 1.25 0.009 0.16 1.36 0.27 0.11 Average 0.65 1.30 0.005 0.15 1.57 0.26 -0.03
Table 42. Seasonal water use budget for the Upper Rock sub-watershed. All units are inches. Season IMP WITH EXP GWR SWD CON RES Fall 0.16 0.39 0.002 0.04 0.36 0.07 0.08 Winter 0.13 0.33 0.002 0.03 0.38 0.04 0.01 Spring 0.17 0.40 0.002 0.04 0.43 0.07 0.02 Summer 0.18 0.42 0.003 0.04 0.31 0.09 0.17
67 v.8/28/2012
Lower Rock The Lower Rock sub-watershed annual water use budget was represented utilizing Eq. 7. The resulting annual water use budget is shown in Table 43. The seasonal water use budget is shown in Table 44.
WITH – GWR – SWD – CON = RES (Eq. 7)
Table 43. Annual water use budget for the Lower Rock sub-watershed (1997-2010). All units are inches. Year WITH GWR SWD CON RES 1997 0.57 0.16 0.28 0.17 -0.05 1998 0.57 0.17 0.28 0.17 -0.05 1999 0.57 0.17 0.28 0.17 -0.06 2000 0.58 0.18 0.28 0.18 -0.06 2001 0.61 0.18 0.28 0.18 -0.04 2002 0.59 0.18 0.28 0.18 -0.05 2003 0.61 0.18 0.28 0.18 -0.04 2004 0.60 0.18 0.28 0.18 -0.04 2005 0.62 0.19 0.28 0.18 -0.03 2006 0.62 0.19 0.28 0.18 -0.03 2007 0.68 0.20 0.28 0.22 -0.03 2008 0.65 0.20 0.28 0.21 -0.04 2009 0.66 0.20 0.31 0.21 -0.06 2010 0.67 0.20 0.27 0.22 -0.02 Average 0.61 0.18 0.28 0.19 -0.04
Table 44. Seasonal water use budget for the Lower Rock sub-watershed. All units are inches. Season WITH GWR SWD CON RES Fall 0.20 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.03 Winter 0.13 0.04 0.08 0.03 -0.02 Spring 0.20 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.02 Summer 0.23 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.05
68 v.8/28/2012
Little Marsh As there is no imported or exported water in the Little Marsh watershed, the water use budget follows the same equation as the Lower Rock sub-watershed (Eq. 7). The annual and seasonal water use budgets for the Little Marsh sub-watershed are shown in Table 45 and Table 46, respectively.
Table 45. Annual water use budget for the Little Marsh sub-watershed (1997-2010). All units are inches. Year WITH GWR SWD CON RES 1997 0.54 0.18 0.01 0.33 0.02 1998 0.54 0.18 0.01 0.33 0.02 1999 0.54 0.19 0.01 0.33 0.02 2000 0.54 0.19 0.01 0.33 0.01 2001 0.55 0.19 0.01 0.33 0.01 2002 0.55 0.19 0.01 0.33 0.01 2003 0.55 0.20 0.01 0.33 0.01 2004 0.60 0.20 0.01 0.37 0.01 2005 0.58 0.20 0.01 0.35 0.01 2006 0.56 0.20 0.01 0.34 0.02 2007 0.52 0.19 0.01 0.30 0.02 2008 0.57 0.20 0.01 0.33 0.03 2009 0.58 0.20 0.01 0.33 0.04 2010 0.61 0.21 0.01 0.36 0.04 Average 0.56 0.19 0.01 0.33 0.02
Table 46. Seasonal water use budget for the Little Marsh sub-watershed. All units are inches. Season WITH GWR SWD CON RES Fall 0.15 0.04 0.003 0.09 0.02 Winter 0.09 0.03 0.001 0.04 0.01 Spring 0.15 0.04 0.003 0.09 0.01 Summer 0.21 0.05 0.004 0.13 0.01
69 v.8/28/2012
Upper Marsh The annual and seasonal water use budgets for the Upper Marsh sub-watershed were described by Eq. 8. The resulting water use budgets are shown in Table 47 and Table 48, respectively.
IMP + WITH – GWR – SWD – CON = RES (Eq. 8)
Table 47. Annual water use budget for the Upper Marsh sub-watershed (1997-2010). All units are inches. Year IMP WITH GWR SWD CON RES 1997 0.00 0.35 0.13 0.002 0.18 0.04 1998 0.00 0.35 0.13 0.002 0.18 0.04 1999 0.00 0.36 0.14 0.002 0.18 0.03 2000 0.00 0.36 0.14 0.002 0.19 0.03 2001 0.00 0.36 0.14 0.002 0.19 0.03 2002 0.00 0.37 0.14 0.002 0.19 0.03 2003 0.00 0.37 0.14 0.002 0.19 0.03 2004 0.00 0.37 0.15 0.002 0.19 0.03 2005 0.00 0.37 0.15 0.002 0.19 0.03 2006 0.00 0.38 0.15 0.002 0.19 0.04 2007 0.00 0.39 0.15 0.002 0.20 0.04 2008 0.00 0.38 0.15 0.002 0.19 0.04 2009 0.00 0.40 0.15 0.004 0.20 0.04 2010 0.01 0.42 0.16 0.037 0.21 0.03 Average 0.00 0.37 0.14 0.004 0.19 0.04
Table 48. Seasonal water use budget for the Upper Marsh sub-watershed. All units are inches. Season IMP WITH GWR SWD CON RES Fall 0.00 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.002 Winter 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.003 Spring 0.00 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.003 Summer 0.00 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.07 0.003
70 v.8/28/2012
Lower Marsh The annual and seasonal water use budgets are shown in Table 49 and Table 50, respectively. These budgets were developed utilizing Eq. 9.
WITH – EXP – GWR – SWD – CON = RES (Eq. 9)
Table 49. Annual water use budget for the Lower Marsh sub-watershed (1997-2010). All units are inches. Year WITH EXP GWR SWD CON RES 1997 1.17 0.46 0.17 0.26 0.30 -0.02 1998 1.11 0.41 0.17 0.26 0.29 -0.04 1999 1.13 0.43 0.18 0.26 0.29 -0.04 2000 1.09 0.40 0.19 0.26 0.29 -0.05 2001 1.21 0.52 0.19 0.26 0.31 -0.07 2002 1.20 0.52 0.19 0.26 0.31 -0.08 2003 1.25 0.56 0.19 0.32 0.31 -0.13 2004 1.22 0.55 0.19 0.30 0.29 -0.11 2005 1.16 0.48 0.19 0.29 0.29 -0.09 2006 1.15 0.51 0.18 0.28 0.26 -0.08 2007 1.36 0.56 0.22 0.26 0.40 -0.07 2008 1.21 0.49 0.20 0.25 0.32 -0.06 2009 1.21 0.52 0.20 0.25 0.31 -0.06 2010 1.20 0.50 0.20 0.24 0.31 -0.06 Average 1.19 0.49 0.19 0.27 0.31 -0.07
Table 50. Seasonal water use budget for the Lower Marsh sub-watershed. All units are inches. Season WITH EXP GWR SWD CON RES Fall 0.31 0.12 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.01 Winter 0.23 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.04 -0.02 Spring 0.32 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.08 -0.01 Summer 0.38 0.14 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.02
3.3.2.3 Future Water Uses An evaluation of future water uses was undertaken to understand the impacts of anticipated future water use changes on water availability in the CWPA. To this end, water use projections were developed on a ten year interval through 2030.
Population Projections Population counts for 1990, 2000 and 2010 and a 2020 population projection were provided by the ACOPD for the boroughs and townships in Adams County. Another available population projection was developed by DEP in 2006 and utilized in the verification study (DEP 2009c). DEP projected a higher growth rate than ACOPD (Table 51). Because the ACOPD data is more recent, local, and incorporates the 2010 census data, the ACOPD data set was selected for use in this study.
71 v.8/28/2012
Table 51. Projected CWPA population growth according to ACOPD and DEP data (% change from 2000). Data Source 2010 2020 2030 ACOPD, 2011 7.5 22.4 29.3 DEP, 2006 20.5 44.9 52.4
CWPA population projections for the CWPA were calculated from the ACOPD projections utilizing the following methodology. The percentage of each municipality’s population falling within the CWPA was determined using the spatially distributed 2010 census block population data. This percentage was applied to the total municipal population to determine the population of each municipality residing in the CWPA. Then, the municipality’s growth rate was applied to the population to obtain the 2020 projected population. To provide a range of potential water use estimates for the 2020 to 2030 period, estimates of 2030 population were calculated using 0.5 and 1.5 times the 2010 to 2020 growth rate. Growth rates outside this range are possible, but this provides a range of plausible future populations. Table 52 shows 2010 to 2030 populations and population projections.
Table 52. Population counts (2010) and projections (2020 and 2030) for each sub-watershed. The 2030 projections are based on 50% of the 2010 to 2020 growth rate (low growth) and 150% of the 2010 to 2020 growth rate (high growth). Low Growth High Growth Sub-watershed 2010 2020 2030 2030 Upper Rock 11,757 13,257 14,103 15,794 Lower Rock 8,000 9,142 9,794 11,100 Little Marsh 1,986 2,185 2,294 2,514 Upper Marsh 2,350 2,547 2,653 2,866 Lower Marsh 4,997 5,609 5,952 6,639
To understand the spatial distribution of projected population growth in the CWPA, several spatial layers were examined in GIS. Firstly, the spatial distribution of projected growth rates by municipality is shown in Figure 36. Highland Township and the Borough of Bonneauville have the highest projected growth rates in the CWPA. The location of proposed developments was also provided by ACOPD (Figure 37). The developments do not always correspond to the designated growth areas.
72 v.8/28/2012
Figure 36. Spatial distribution of projected population change by municipality (2000-2030).
Figure 37. Location of Adams County’s designated growth areas and proposed developments. Spatial data sets provided by ACOPD.
73 v.8/28/2012
Utilizing these population projections, the next section of this report presents the methodology for estimating future water uses by sector. Future water uses will then be compared to availability in the subsequent report section.
Commercial and Industrial Estimated Estimates of business employment in Adams County were provided by DL&I for 2008 to 2018. This data provides an estimate of the number of employees in the County for all employers listed by NAICS employer classification code. DL&I provided similar data for 2000, 2005, and 2010 that was used to estimate the commercial and industrial self-supplied water use in Section 3.3.1.1. Geographic coordinates provided with each employer record were used to select employers located in the CWPA but not located in public water service areas. Estimates were made of the number of employees using two methods to obtain a range of likely employment numbers for 2020 and 2030. The first method used a linear growth rate based on the number of employees in 2000, 2005, and 2010 in each sub-watershed. The same growth rate was used to estimate the 2020 and 2030 number of employees. The second method used the average 2008 to 2018 change in employees estimated by DL&I for each NACIS code present in the watersheds. The industrial and commercial water use factor per employee was then applied to determine water use. The same growth rate was assumed for the 2020 and 2030 estimates. The resulting water uses are shown in Table 53 and Table 54 and Figure 38 and Figure 39.
Table 53. Estimates of self-supplied industrial water use (gpd, 2010-2030). Linear estimate DL&I estimate Sub -watershed 2010 2020 2030 2020 2030 Upper Rock 280,852 415,625 515,375 254,125 229,942 Lower Rock 4,600 6,853 8,516 4,162 3,766 Little Marsh 29,371 38,388 50,003 26,576 24,047 Upper Marsh 16,902 22,305 31,338 15,294 13,838 Lower Marsh 44,056 57,024 68,440 39,864 36,070
Table 54. Estimates of self-supplied commercial water use (gpd, 2010-2030). Linear estimate DL&I estimate Sub -watershed 2010 2020 2030 2020 2030 Upper Rock 80,622 92,400 117,600 82,632 84,691 Lower Rock 20,387 31,592 42,407 20,896 21,416 Little Marsh 4,767 3,624 1,874 4,886 5,008 Upper Marsh 10,444 13,834 16,812 10,704 10,971 Lower Marsh 17,276 25,681 32,524 17,707 18,148
74 v.8/28/2012
Figure 38. Estimated industrial self-supplied water use by sub-watershed (gpd; 2000-2030). The Upper Rock sub- watershed data is plotted on the right-hand y-axis.
Figure 39. Estimated commercial self-supplied water use by sub-watershed (gpd; 2000-2030). The Upper Rock sub-watershed data is plotted on the right-hand y-axis.
Registered Because the registered commercial and industrial water users represent various types of water uses, the future use projections were developed utilizing several different methodologies. The industrial water growth was assumed to be the same as the percent growth of the municipality, as described in the population projection description. Assuming that future mining practices will not differ from current practices, the 2030 high scenario was estimated at the highest annual reported water use to date. Water uses were linearly regressed from 2010 to obtain the 2020 and 2030 low estimates. The same procedure
75 v.8/28/2012 was applied to the golf course. The three superfund sites within the general commercial category are not anticipated to change water use and therefore were given the average reported water use value for 2020, 2030 low, and 2030 high estimates. For the remaining general commercial uses, an average rate of change was calculated for the reported years. This rate of change was projected out to 2020. The 2030 low scenario assumed growth at 50% of this rate and the 2030 high scenario assumed the full growth rate from 2020-2030 (Figure 40).
Figure 40. Projected water use for registered commercial and industrial users (Mgal/y).
Domestic Future spatial extents of public systems were provided by DEP and GMA (Figure 41). The population projections provided by ACOPD were spatially sub-divided into the populations served by public water and sewer supplies utilizing GIS (Figure 42, Figure 43, and Figure 44). According to GMA, approximately 10.6 square miles of service area in Straban Township will be added to the Hunterstown wastewater treatment plant. This expansion impacts the Upper and Lower Rock creek sub- watersheds.
76 v.8/28/2012
Figure 41. Current and anticipated future sewer service areas.
Figure 42. Distribution of 2020 population receiving public water and sewer services by sub-watershed. These estimations include the effect of the additional GMA service area.
77 v.8/28/2012
Figure 43. Distribution of the 2030 population, under the low growth scenario, receiving public water and sewer services by sub-watershed. These estimations include the effect of the additional GMA service area.
Figure 44. Distribution of the 2030 population, under the high growth scenario, receiving public water and sewer services by sub-watershed. These estimations include the effect of the additional GMA service area.
Self-Supplied Self-supplied domestic water is water supplied for domestic use by homeowners located outside public water supplier service areas. It is assumed that all such users are supplied by private on-lot wells. The water use is estimated based on the population and a per capita water use factor of 80 gpcd (Table 55). This is the same water use factor used in the current water use analysis. Although the population is expected to increase between 2010 and 2030, the self-supplied water uses are expected to decrease with the initiation of public water and sewer services by GMA in the Hunterstown area. Figure 45 and Figure
78 v.8/28/2012
46 show the estimated water use for the sub-watersheds without and with the effect of the expanded GMA service area, respectively.
Table 55. Self-supplied domestic water use estimates (gpd). These estimates include impacts from the expanded Hunterstown service area by GMA. Sub-watershed 2010 2020 2030 low 2030 high Upper Rock 161,606 108,367 110,908 118,854 Lower Rock 335,999 343,669 366,120 412,585 Little Marsh 151,722 166,943 175,317 192,065 Upper Marsh 185,721 201,246 209,658 226,480 Lower Marsh 245,416 275,465 292,328 326,056 Total 1,080,464 1,095,691 1,154,330 1,276,040
Figure 45. Self-supplied domestic water use estimates by sub-watershed, not including the projected impact of the expanded GMA service area near Hunterstown. The 2020 to 2030 short dashed lines are the high growth rate estimates and the 2020 to 2030 long-short dashed lines are the low growth rate estimates.
79 v.8/28/2012
Figure 46. Self-supplied domestic water use estimates in the Marsh and Rock creek sub-watersheds, including the projected impact of the expanded GMA service area near Hunterstown. The 2020 to 2030 short dashed lines are the high growth rate estimates and the 2020 to 2030 long-short dashed lines are the low growth rate estimates.
The amount of water discharged to septic systems in the watersheds was also calculated from the spatial data of public sewer service areas and future population projections. The population in areas not served by public sewer was then multiplied by 80 gpcd to obtain water use estimates (Table 56). In the water budget calculations, 90% of the water discharged to septics is assumed to recharge the groundwater, while 10% is consumed.
Table 56. Amount of water discharged to septics by sub-watershed (gpd, 2000-2030). Sub-watershed 2000 2010 2020 2030 low 2030 high Upper Rock 157,579 169,853 101,549 103,691 109,667 Lower Rock 291,910 322,823 328,261 349,615 393,862 Little Marsh 140,552 152,186 167,453 175,853 192,652 Upper Marsh 141,127 149,631 162,139 168,916 182,470 Lower Marsh 253,380 267,917 300,721 319,131 355,951 Total 984,547 1,062,410 1,060,123 1,117,206 1,234,602
Non-Community Water Systems Future non-community water uses were estimated by spatially associating each location with the municipality in which it’s located. Each point was then associated with the projected population growth of that municipality. The municipality’s population growth was applied to the reported 2010 non- community system populations to project for 2020, 2030 low, and 2030 high scenarios (Table 57 and Figure 47).
80 v.8/28/2012
Table 57. Projected future non-community water uses (gal/y) by sub-watershed. Sub-watershed 2020 2030 low 2030 high Upper Rock 21,693,901 23,265,726 26,409,376 Lower Rock 39,747,625 42,841,926 49,030,528 Little Marsh 5,114,623 5,480,869 6,213,359 Upper Marsh 1,966,032 2,044,652 2,201,891 Lower Marsh 39,227,122 42,341,643 48,570,686
Figure 47. Projected total annual non-community water use (Mgal/y).
Community Water Systems Future water use in the public water systems was calculated utilizing the current system populations, as reported to DEP, and per capita water use rates. The system was spatially associated with the municipality (or municipalities) in the service area utilizing GIS. The 2020, 2030 low, and 2030 high rates of change for each municipality were then applied to the current populations, utilizing an area weighted approach where multiple municipalities are serviced, to determine future estimates of population served by each public water system (Table 58). These population projections were then multiplied by the current per capita water use rates to calculate future projected water uses by the public water supply systems. This approach does not take into account future changes in per capita water uses. Further, this approach assumes that all public water system populations will grow at a rate equal to the municipality in which it’s located. In reality, some systems such as the mobile home parks may not grow as rapidly. The resulting water uses by public water supply system are shown in Figure 48.
81 v.8/28/2012
Table 58. Population estimates for the public water systems (2009-2030).* Current 2020 2030, Low 2030, High Population Population Population Population System Name Served Served Served Served Bonneauville Borough Water System 2,347 2,849 3,154 3,764 Aqua PA Links System 270 312 336 384 Meadows Property Owners Association 126 147 159 184 Lincoln Estates Mobile Home Park 300 350 379 438 Anchor Mobile Home Park Association 265 282 291 310 Cavalry Heights Mobile Home Park 90 98 102 111 PA American Water Company – Lake Heritage District 1,542 1,742 1,855 2,082 Franklin Township Municipal Authority Water System 441 476 495 533 Castle Hill Mobile Home Park 120 135 143 160 Hoffman Homes for Youth 116 134 144 165 Timeless Towns of Americas 760 887 961 1,110 Round Top Mobile Home Park 150 175 190 219 Gettysburg Municipal Authority 11,500 13,052 13,932 15,693 *Estimates of future populations served do not include the effects of potential water importation activities.
Figure 48. Water use by public water suppliers (2009-2030). Note that water use by the GMA system is on the secondary (left) y-axis (Mgpd). All other suppliers correspond to the primary (left) y-axis (gpd).
Public water supplier water use was then evaluated by sub-watershed (Figure 49). GMA is the only system with withdrawals in multiple sub-watersheds. The proportional use of supplies from each sub-watershed by GMA varies annually. To determine how much of the projected future use should be
82 v.8/28/2012 allocated to the Lower Marsh and Upper Rock sub-watersheds, the average percentages were taken for the 2005-2009 timeframe. During that period, an average of 82% of the annual withdrawal came from the Lower Marsh sub-watershed (values ranged from 78 to 86%). Therefore, 82% of the annual projected water use was assigned to the Lower Marsh sub-watershed, with the remaining amount assigned to the Upper Rock sub-watershed.
Figure 49. Total annual public water supplier water use by sub-watershed (2009-2030).
Agriculture Estimated Water is used by agricultural operations for irrigation of crops, water intake by livestock, and washing of livestock facilities. Estimates of agricultural water use in 2020 and 2030 were developed by Jarrett and Roudsari (2007) using regression equations based on water use from 1982 to 2007 and climate data from 1964 to 2004. The projection does not take into account changes in land use affecting the amount of cropland, the number of head of livestock, or any changes in agricultural practices affecting water use efficiency. Feedback from the CAAC suggests that agricultural water use efficiency may change in the future (personal comm., CAAC, 7/13/2011). This is an area of future improvement to this analysis once quantitative information becomes available. To address changes in land use, a second projection of agricultural water use was made with the area of agricultural land adjusted to account for cropland lost to development. In GIS, a data layer of proposed developments in the CWPA was combined with a layer of land parcels with the land use type indicated. Both of these spatial data sets were obtained from ACOPD. The area of the parcels within the proposed developments with an agriculture land use designation was removed from the total acres of cropland used in the water use calculations. The majority of the proposed developments are in the Upper Rock or Lower Marsh sub-watersheds; therefore, the change in agricultural water use is not evenly distributed throughout the watersheds. For instance, there are no proposed developments in the Upper
83 v.8/28/2012
Marsh sub-watershed and one is only partially in the Little Marsh sub-watershed. Table 59 and Figure 50 show the total annual agricultural irrigation water use by sub-watershed with a high projection (Jarrett and Roudsari 2007) and a low projection using development-reduced cropland acres.
Table 59. Total annual water use for agricultural irrigation in each sub-watershed (gal/y). The second 2020 and 2030 columns were calculated using the cropland areas reduced by development. High Low Sub-watershed 2010 2020 2030 2020 2030 Upper Rock 56,175,070 68,813,608 74,694,230 48,854,035 46,371,003 Lower Rock 72,051,560 88,262,067 95,804,702 70,428,756 66,849,177 Little Marsh 72,279,410 88,541,179 96,107,667 70,798,794 67,200,407 Upper Marsh 76,723,220 93,984,779 102,016,461 75,151,574 71,331,955 Lower Marsh 72,053,520 88,264,468 95,807,308 67,519,904 64,088,169 Total 349,282,780 427,866,100 464,430,368 331,530,297 314,680,093
Figure 50. Total annual water use for agricultural irrigation by sub-watershed. The short dashed lines are the Jarrett projections and the long-short dashed lines are projection using the development-reduced cropland.
The number of livestock head was also reduced based on the development projections, which reduced the number of acres available for livestock production. Table 60 shows the total annual water use for livestock by sub-watershed. The first pair of 2020 and 2030 data are projections using the Jarrett assumptions of livestock estimates and the second column of 2020 and 2030 data are projections using the development-reduced livestock estimates. Figure 51 shows this data graphically. The short dashed lines are the high projection values and the long-short dashed lines are the development-reduced projections.
84 v.8/28/2012
Table 60. Total annual water use for livestock by sub-watershed (gal/y). High Low Sub -watershed 2010 2020 2030 2020 2030 Upper Rock 26,475,325 28,546,951 30,618,577 25,345,758 27,185,076 Lower Rock 51,965,105 56,031,240 60,097,375 55,914,649 59,972,323 Little Marsh 13,829,734 14,911,875 15,994,016 14,910,237 15,992,259 Upper Marsh 23,824,416 25,688,615 27,552,814 25,688,615 27,552,814 Lower Marsh 42,034,133 45,323,195 48,612,257 43,359,661 46,506,231
Figure 51. Total annual water use for livestock by sub-watershed (Mgal/y; 2002-2030).
Registered Future water use projections for the three registered agricultural users in the Marsh Creek watershed were quantified using the estimated rates of change from the Jarrett and Roudsari (2007) study for irrigation and the Census of Agriculture projections for livestock water use (Figure 52). The rate of change for livestock water use was averaged with the rate of change for irrigation water use to determine the average rate of change between 2010-2020 and 2020-2030. The low estimate of 2030 water use was calculated using half of the projected rate of increase as described previously.
85 v.8/28/2012
Figure 52. Projected registered agricultural water use (Mgal/y; 2010-2030).
By combining the estimated irrigation, estimated livestock, and registered water uses, the total annual agricultural water use by sub-watershed was calculated (Figure 53). The Lower Marsh sub- watershed had the highest agricultural water use, followed by the Lower Rock sub-watershed. The Upper Rock sub-watershed had the lowest agricultural water use.
Figure 53. Total annual agricultural water use (estimated irrigation, estimated livestock, and reported agricultural use) by sub-watershed (1997-2030). Projected future uses are marked in dashed lines. Each sub-watershed has a high and low projected future use. The spikes around 2007 are due to large deviations in a single reported agricultural operation’s water use from that time period.
86 v.8/28/2012
3.3.2.4 Comparisons of Water Use and Water Availability By comparing the estimates of water use in the CWPA (Section 3.3.1) with the estimates of water availability (Section 3.3.2.1), an evaluation of when and where water demands may exceed supply was conducted. The CARP management recommendations (Section 3.5.1) were designed to address these potential deficits, taking into account confounding factors such as water quality, stormwater, etc.
Withdrawal Uses An analysis was undertaken to determine how the current and future water uses compare to normal and low-flow conditions. For this analysis, average daily withdrawals were calculated for each year from 1997 to 2010. This is a measure of how much water would be used if each user was withdrawing simultaneously at the average daily rate, calculated per year. In reality, every withdrawal is not operating on any given day. So this is a conservatively high estimate of the total daily withdrawal. The consumptive use is calculated as a fraction of the withdrawal, according to the factors by water use type. This is not a regulatory definition of consumptive use, like those used by neighboring interstate commissions. Instead, consumptive use refers here only to the amount of a withdrawal that is not returned to the CWPA (or a respective sub-watershed’s) hydrologic system. Withdrawal and consumptive use amounts were compared to flow conditions to quantify potential shortfalls. Median annual flow and 7Q10 are presented here as one example of such comparisons. Median annual flow was calculated as the median daily flow that occurred each year. The 7Q10 is the 7 day low-flow that is statistically expected to occur once every 10 years. This value was calculated based on water years (October 1 – September 30) utilizing EPA’s DFLOW program32. To calculate the 7Q10 statistic, a long-term flow time series was developed for each sub-watershed from the Bridgeport record dating back to January 1, 1977 utilizing the method previously described (Section 3.3.2.1). The full Bridgeport gage record dating back to 1942 was not utilized as it is anticipated that the estimating methods would not hold for the earlier time periods. The methodology yields a 7Q10 of 1.37 cfs at the Bridgeport gage, 1.17 cfs for Rock Creek, and 0.0025 cfs for Marsh Creek. During the verification study (DEP 2009c), 50% of 7Q10 was utilized as an initial screening criterion in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. A more conservative threshold of 30% 7Q10 was utilized as a screening criterion for Class A trout streams throughout the Commonwealth. Several additional daily flow metrics for the developed time series are shown in Table 61.
Table 61. Select additional daily flow metrics (cfs, 1977-2011). Little Upper Upper Flow Metric CWPA Marsh Rock Marsh Marsh Rock 1st Percentile 1.90 0.01 1.89 0.004 0.005 1.60 5th Percentile 4.38 0.32 4.06 0.09 0.10 3.03 10th Percentile 7.02 1.84 5.18 0.50 0.59 3.45 Median 57.83 32.03 25.80 8.65 10.25 10.42 Average 185.02 133.13 51.90 35.94 42.60 21.32 75th Percentile 156.15 96.38 59.77 26.02 30.84 24.13 Maximum 11,318.94 11,143.35 497.03 3,008.70 3,565.87 200.65
32 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/models/dflow/index.cfm, accessed 5/29/2012.
87 v.8/28/2012
Comparisons of water availability and use are shown in Figure 54 through Figure 58. In each case, the consumptive use is greater than the 7Q10. The results of this analysis can be utilized to inform development of recommendations. The difference between the amount of water withdrawn and the amount of water available under low-flow conditions provide an indication of the magnitude of the potential water shortfall. This is the amount of additional water needed to meet demands under historic low-flow conditions.
Figure 54. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by year compared to median annual flow and the 7Q10 in the Marsh Creek watershed (combined Upper, Little, and Lower Marsh sub-watersheds) (Mgpd; 1997-2030).
88 v.8/28/2012
Figure 55. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by year compared to median annual flow and the 7Q10 in the Little Marsh sub-watershed (Mgpd; 1997-2030).
Figure 56. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by year compared to median annual flow and the 7Q10 in the Upper Marsh sub-watershed (Mgpd; 1997-2030).
89 v.8/28/2012
Figure 57. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by year compared to median annual flow and the 7Q10 in the Rock Creek watershed (combined Upper and Lower Rock sub-watersheds) (Mgpd; 1997-2030).
Figure 58. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by year compared to median annual flow and the 7Q10 in the Upper Rock sub-watershed (Mgpd; 1997-2030).
90 v.8/28/2012
Utilizing the same calculation methods, seasonal comparisons were developed to determine how the water withdrawals and consumptive uses compare to the median daily streamflow per season and the long-term 7Q10. The resulting plots are shown in Figure 59 through Figure 63.
Figure 59. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by season compared to median seasonal flow and the 7Q10 in the Marsh Creek watershed (Mgpd; 1997-2010).
91 v.8/28/2012
Figure 60. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by season compared to median seasonal flow and the 7Q10 in the Little Marsh sub-watershed (Mgpd; 1997-2010).
Figure 61. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by season compared to median seasonal flow and the 7Q10 in the Upper Marsh sub-watershed (Mgpd; 1997-2010).
92 v.8/28/2012
Figure 62. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by season compared to median seasonal flow and the 7Q10 in the Rock watershed (Mgpd; 1997-2010).
Figure 63. Average daily withdrawals and consumptive use by season compared to median seasonal flow and the 7Q10 in the Upper Rock sub-watershed (Mgpd; 1997-2010).
93 v.8/28/2012
By comparing the difference in amount of water withdrawn on an annual and seasonal basis to low-flow conditions, the volume of potential water deficit under those low-flow conditions can be estimated. The differences between daily withdrawals and 7Q10 are shown in Table 62 and Table 63.
Table 62. Average annual daily withdrawal minus 7Q10 by sub-watershed (gpd). Average (2020- Max (2020-2030, Average Max 2030, high and low high and low Sub-watershed (1997-2010) (1997-2010) scenario) scenario) Upper Rock 1,163,410 1,414,943 1,302,796 1,741,731 Lower Rock 1,038,105 1,117,712 1,549,174 2,259,838 Little Marsh 682,086 749,332 860,283 976,434 Upper Marsh 539,032 604,136 690,250 792,636 Lower Marsh 2,047,323 2,218,064 2,299,144 2,367,899
Table 63. Average seasonal daily withdrawal minus 7Q10 by sub-watershed (gpd). Sub-watershed Fall Winter Spring Summer Upper Rock 1,276,285 972,475 1,304,912 1,387,860 Lower Rock 1,366,284 831,128 1,367,135 1,526,751 Little Marsh 688,381 359,551 674,342 841,190 Upper Marsh 564,197 265,628 554,304 611,816 Lower Marsh 2,066,719 1,512,572 2,066,541 2,415,678
Non-Withdrawal Uses The CWPA non-withdrawal uses are documented in Section 3.3.1.2. They include the cold and warm water fishery designation, recreation, wildlife and ecosystems, tourism, and education. Non- withdrawal uses depend on sufficient supplies of clean water. These uses are potentially threatened under low-flow conditions, particularly because the withdrawal uses in each sub-watershed are greater than low flows represented by 7Q10. For example, trout prefer the fastest flowing waters which would be restricted during low-flow periods. Other recreational fish species such as black crappie, green sunfish, bluegills, yellow bullhead, and rock bass prefer slower moving waters; however, adequate supplies of water must be present to maintain the populations. A complete description of the non-withdrawal uses and the associated flow requirements (where available) is provided in the water use technical report.
3.3.2.5 Groundwater Sustainable Yield Water users in the CWPA are dependent on both the surface- and ground-water resources in the watersheds. In fact, all public water suppliers in Marsh and Rock creek watersheds withdraw solely from groundwater sources with the exception of GMA who withdraws from both ground and surface water. But, how much groundwater is available for sustainable use? Alley et al. (1999) defined groundwater sustainability as development and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained for an indefinite period of time without causing unacceptable environmental, economic, or social consequences. Such a definition implies a long-term perspective in the management of the resource and is subjective in that it relies on the determination of “unacceptable consequences.” Groundwater is neither nonrenewable like petroleum resources nor completely renewable like solar energy. It is replenished by precipitation but
94 v.8/28/2012 usually at a much slower rate than withdrawals and the rate of replenishment is variable seasonally and from year to year. Groundwater development may take place over many years and the effects can take years to manifest themselves (Alley et al. 1999). The effects of groundwater development on surface water bodies and groundwater dependent vegetation may not be evident for years after pumping begins. The extent and degree of the effects that are deemed acceptable are subjective decisions that have to be made by society at large. One method of estimating the available groundwater resources in a watershed uses an estimate of the safe yield of the groundwater resource. The SRBC defines safe yield as being less than or equal to the average annual recharge for a groundwater basin (Ballaron et al. 2005). This amount includes any withdrawals and the natural discharge to or from streams, springs, or wetlands. Withdrawals equal to the safe yield would result in substantial impact to such natural uses of the groundwater. Sustainable yield is defined by SRBC (2005) as equal to the safe yield minus the amount of water needed to maintain discharge to surface water bodies to meet the ecosystem needs. It is also defined as the average annual recharge available in the watershed during the 1-in-10-year drought, or about 60 percent of the average annual recharge. Withdrawals at this rate are expected to exceed the annual recharge only once every ten years. Aquifer depletion during this period would be recovered during the intervening years. Water that falls as precipitation may follow a number of possible paths through the hydrologic cycle. It may run off the land surface to a nearby surface water body or evaporate directly from the land surface or from the shallow soil. Another alternative is that the water infiltrates the soil and is taken up by plants. Otherwise, the water is likely to recharge the local groundwater aquifer. The amounts of recharge, infiltration, and evapotranspiration are very difficult to measure even indirectly. Due to this difficulty, several methods have been used to estimate recharge. Recharge for each of the five CWPA sub-watersheds was estimated using three methods; namely, a recharge estimate for the conterminous Untied States by the USGS (Wolock 2003), an estimate based on a groundwater model in a similar geologic setting in the Lower Susquehanna basin in Pennsylvania and Maryland (Gerhart and Lazorchick 1988) that is incorporated into SRBC’s Ground Water Management Plan (Ballaron et al. 2005), and estimates of recharge approximated by baseflow estimated using regression equations for the Monocacy River basin (ICPRB 2005). The USGS estimated mean annual natural recharge for the 48 conterminous United States was generated using a dataset of Base Flow Index (BFI) which is a long-term estimate of average natural groundwater discharge and a dataset of mean annual run-off from 1951-1980 which is long-term average streamflow expressed on a per unit area basis. This dataset uses 2 main assumptions: 1) that long-term recharge is equal to long-term natural groundwater discharge, and 2) that the BFI represents long-term groundwater discharge. Regarding the first assumption: this dataset may underestimate recharge if evapotranspiration is significant (as in arid areas), if long-term near-stream pumping is significant or if the streams are “losing” streams where groundwater discharge does not occur. Some of these conditions may occur in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds but only on a short-term basis in the warmest parts of the year and not over the long-term. Regarding the second assumption, the BFI may be higher than natural recharge in watersheds that are heavily snowmelt dominated or heavily regulated (Wolock 2003), neither of which apply to the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. The 1-kilometer grid data of the original dataset was extracted in a GIS and averaged for each of the 5 sub-watersheds. The recharge data was converted from millimeters per year to gallons per year based on the total area of each sub-watershed. Gerhart and Lazorchik (1988) created a groundwater model of the Lower Susquehanna River basin to evaluate the groundwater resources in the basin. One of the required inputs for the model is
95 v.8/28/2012 recharge from precipitation due to assumptions in the conceptual model that recharge is dependant only on the amount of precipitation and the underlying lithology and could be expressed as a percentage of precipitation. To this end, a recharge value as a percentage of precipitation was assigned to each of the 21 lithologic units within the Lower Susquehanna basin, only some of which are present in the CWPA. To calculate recharge for the Marsh and Rock creek sub-watersheds, the area of each geologic unit was determined in a GIS and a recharge percentage was assigned for each geologic unit based on the similarity of the rock types to the lithologic units used by Gerhart and Lazorchick (1988). For each sub- watershed, the total recharge was calculated by multiplying the average annual precipitation (Section 3.3.2.1) by the recharge percentage assigned to each of the geologic units by the percentage of the sub- watershed area in that geologic unit (Eq. 10). The recharge calculated for each sub-watershed and for the CWPA was converted from inches per year to gallons per year.
Ri = Pi*Gi*Ai (Eq. 10)
Where i = sub-watershed number R = recharge in inches G = percentage of precipitation for the geologic unit A = area of the sub-watershed in the geologic unit
ICPRB conducted a study of the groundwater resources in the Monocacy River and Catoctin Creek watersheds in Frederick, Carroll, and Montgomery Counties in Maryland and Adams County and a small area of Washington County in Pennsylvania (ICPRB 2005). In this study, annual groundwater recharge was estimated from annual stream baseflows at gaged watersheds in the study area and a multiple linear regression was used to develop equations relating stream baseflow to watershed drainage area and percentage of the watershed area in each of four hydrogeomorphic regions (HGMRs). The equation used to predict the 365-day baseflow with a 20-year recurrence interval computed was Eq. 1133.
-0.51871 1.04195 -1.09795 0.39841 1.42868 Q 20-year = 1.06*10 *DA *ML *BR *PCA (Eq. 11)
Where DA = the drainage area of the watershed ML = the percent of the watershed in the Mesozoic Lowland HGMR BR = the percent of the watershed in the Blue Ridge HGMR PCA = the percent of the watershed in the Piedmont Carbonate HGRM
No portion of the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds are in the Piedmont Carbonate HGMR so this term was removed from the equations used for the estimation of recharge in the Marsh and Rock creek sub-watersheds. The percent of each sub-watershed in each of the two HGMRs was calculated in a GIS using a HGMR dataset of the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Brakebill and Kelley 2000) clipped to the CWPA. The percentages produced were used in the above equation to estimate the baseflow which over the long term
33 See ICPRB 2005 for a full description of the development of this equation.
96 v.8/28/2012 is equivalent to groundwater recharge (ICPRB 2005). The resulting recharge estimates were converted from the dataset’s units of millimeters per year to gallons per year. The average annual recharge calculated for the sub-watersheds using the three different methods ranges from approximately 6.1 Mgpd to 13.2 Mgpd. The average of the estimates of long-term recharge ranges from 7.5 Mgpd to 10.7 Mgpd for the five sub-watersheds. A chart comparing the results of the recharge estimations are shown in Figure 64.
Figure 64. Estimates of long-term recharge in the Marsh and Rock creek sub-watersheds.
Estimates of the sustainable yield as defined by SRBC (2005) were calculated by taking 60% of the average of the long-term average annual recharges calculated using the three methods above. These are compared to the annual withdrawals, median annual flow and 7Q10 in Marsh and Rock creek watersheds and their upstream sub-watersheds in Figure 65 through Figure 70 below. Note that because these are long-term estimates of groundwater availability, they are comparable to mean annual flow and are not indicative of groundwater availability during drought or water stressed conditions.
97 v.8/28/2012
Figure 65. Estimates of sustainable yield in the CWPA.
Figure 66. Comparison of estimate of sustainable yield, annual withdrawals, 7Q10, and median annual flow for Marsh Creek. Note: Because these are long-term estimates of groundwater availability, they are comparable to mean annual flow and are not indicative of groundwater availability during drought or water stressed conditions.
98 v.8/28/2012
Figure 67. Comparison of estimate of sustainable yield, annual withdrawals, 7Q10, and median annual flow for Little Marsh Creek. Note that because these are long-term estimates of groundwater availability, they are comparable to mean annual flow and are not indicative of groundwater availability during drought or water stressed conditions.
Figure 68. Comparison of estimate of sustainable yield, annual withdrawals, 7Q10, and median annual flow for Upper Marsh Creek. Note that because these are long-term estimates of groundwater availability, they are comparable to mean annual flow and are not indicative of groundwater availability during drought or water stressed conditions.
99 v.8/28/2012
Figure 69. Comparison of estimate of sustainable yield, annual withdrawals, 7Q10, and median annual flow for Rock Creek. Note that because these are long-term estimates of groundwater availability, they are comparable to mean annual flow and are not indicative of groundwater availability during drought or water stressed conditions.
Figure 70. Comparison of estimate of sustainable yield, annual withdrawals, 7Q10, and median annual flow for Upper Rock Creek. Note that because these are long-term estimates of groundwater availability, they are comparable to mean annual flow and are not indicative of groundwater availability during drought or water stressed conditions.
3.3.2.6 Summary Precipitation, evapotranspiration, and streamflow are the largest components of the overall water budget in the CWPA, representing 39, 22, and 16 in, respectively. In the Rock Creek watershed, 68% of the average annual precipitation is lost to evapotranspiration. In the Marsh Creek watershed, 50% of the average annual precipitation is lost to evapotranspiration. These rates are comparable to the findings of Taylor and Royer (1981), who found that Adams County experiences 61% evapotranspiration under normal conditions and up to 75% evapotranspiration under dry conditions. Withdrawals (4 in), discharges to stream (2 in), land discharges that subsequently recharge groundwater (1 in), water imports
100 v.8/28/2012
(0.5 in) and exports (0.5 in), and consumptive use (1 in) are relatively small percentages of the overall water budget (see Figure on the front cover). Seasonally, the watersheds are likely to experience the most water stress in the summer due to lower streamflows, increased evapotranspiration, and increased water uses. In two of the five sub- watersheds, summer withdrawals are greater than summer median flows. Winter is the least water stressed season due to a decrease in water uses and general increases in streamflow. Withdrawals, water imports, and water exports are a relatively small component of the overall water budgets in the CWPA. The majority of water entering the CWPA leaves as evapotranspiration or streamflow to the Monocacy River. Under historic and current water use conditions, all sub-watersheds in the CWPA have withdrawal amounts that are higher than the 7Q10. Quantification of the difference between the withdrawals and low-flow conditions provides insights into the magnitude of necessary mitigation measures. Future developments may exacerbate this problem without proactive water resources management. Average annual sustainable groundwater yields are comparable to median daily streamflows. Both these surface- and ground-water resources, on average, are greater than the water uses in the CWPA, indicating a typical abundance of water to meet the human and ecosystem needs. During dry periods, however, both the surface- and ground-water resources become depleted, as indicated by the 7Q10 values for each sub-watershed, and may no longer be sufficient to meet the water needs.
3.3.3 Water Quality Issues Deterioration in water quality limits the availability of clean water for human and ecosystem use, thereby eliminating otherwise viable supplies or increasing treatment costs. To this end, the development of a CARP should include “an assessment of water quality issues that have a direct and substantial effect on water resource availability,” including impaired waters and sources of impairments (DEP 2009a). The purposes of this analysis are to 1) identify designated uses and impaired waterways, 2) quantitatively compare water quality data to established water quality criteria, 3) evaluate the quality of the aquatic benthic communities, and 4) identify existing or potential impacts to public water supplies in the CWPA.
3.3.3.1 Regulatory Water quality regulations across the country are based primarily on the U.S. Clean Water Act, which provides authority for federal, and subsequently state, protection of water quality. The U.S. Clean Water Act is based on the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The goal of the Act is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”
101 v.8/28/2012
Designated uses are assigned for each waterway by the state under the authority of the Act. Potable, industrial, and livestock water supply, irrigation, warm and cold water fishes, boating, fishing, and water contact sports are examples of designated uses in Pennsylvania. Water quality criteria are established for each designated use and waterways are evaluated to determine whether they meet the established criteria. The water quality criteria for the designated uses in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds can be found in §93.7 of the Pennsylvania code and in Appendix D. Under the Act, water quality criteria are then established for each designated use. If a water body does not meet established water quality criteria for its designated use, it is considered impaired and is placed on the 303(d) list. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must be developed for each water body/pollutant combination on the list. This section documents the designated uses and impaired waterways in the CWPA.
Designated Uses Designated uses in the CWPA include cold water fisheries and warm water fisheries. The area also contains approved trout waterways and two stretches of naturally reproducing trout waterways, called wild trout waters (Figure 71). A complete description of the designated uses in the CWPA is available in Section 3.3.1.2. Pennsylvania water quality criteria for cold and warm water fisheries and trout stocking are provided in Appendix D.
Figure 71. Designated uses, approved trout waterways, and naturally reproducing trout populations in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds.
102 v.8/28/2012
Impairments The Marsh and Rock creek watersheds are impaired for sediment and nutrients with additional problems relating to dry wells and stormwater (DEP 2009c). Mainstem segments of Rock Creek have recently been identified as impaired for dissolved oxygen, nitrite nitrate, and total phosphorus and are expected to be placed on the 303(d) list. The entire Rock Creek mainstem does not meet water quality standards for aquatic life use (DEP 2008). Causes for these impairments include agriculture, industry, development, and urban land uses (Figure 72).
Figure 72. Locations and causes of impaired waterways in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. Impairment data was obtained from eMapPA.
103 v.8/28/2012
3.3.3.2 Ground and Surface Water Samples Available surface- and ground-water quality data were collected to compare existing conditions with established thresholds, utilizing data collected by several agencies and organizations. The USGS compiled groundwater quality data collected in Pennsylvania from 1979 to 2004, contained in electronic databases (Low and Chichester 2006). WAAC collected and analyzed surface water samples for nutrient and field parameters as part of its Rock Creek Assessment project from February 2005 through March 2006 (WAAC). The Environmental Alliance for Senior Involvement (EASI) of the Adams County Office of Aging collected and analyzed surface water samples within Adams County from 2000-2011 with ACCD analyzing a portion of the samples. There are limitations in these water quality data sets. The groundwater data was collected over a 25 year period of time during which there have been many changes in the watersheds with impacts on the water quality. The surface water quality data available to date have, in general, not been collected during storm events, the times when surface water quality problems caused by stormwater run-off are present. Recommendations for future water quality monitoring include sampling during all flow conditions using approved, consistent monitoring procedures at geographic locations and frequencies sufficient to identify watershed causes for constituents of current and emerging concern.
Groundwater USGS compiled data from throughout the Commonwealth on groundwater samples collected for different studies from several sources including DEP - Ambient and Fixed Station Network (FSN), Pennsylvania Drinking Water Information System (PADWIS), Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PennAg), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and USGS. Only data from wells located within the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds were considered for the evaluation of water quality conditions in the CWPA. The sample analyses were performed for a large number of water quality parameters in several analyte groups: major ions, minor ions, nutrients, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, radiochemicals, volatiles, microorganisms, wastewater, and field parameters. The EPA has established maximum contaminant level (MCL) or secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) for some, but not all, of these water quality parameters. The following five sub-sections of this report will describe the observed groundwater quality data in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds by constituent type and compare the reported values to the MCLs and SMCLs, where available.
Major Ions A total of 332 analytical results for major ions were provided by USGS (22 wells), EPA (11 wells) and FSN (14 wells), collected from 1979 through 2003. There were 46 samples with iron above the EPA SMCL, 7 with manganese above the SMCL and 3 with sulfate above the SMCL, all other major ions were either not detected or detected but below the SMCL (Figure 73). The only parameter exceeding the EPA MCL was turbidity in 4 samples.
104 v.8/28/2012
Figure 73. Locations of wells sampled for major ions by the USGS, EPA and FSN. Locations with values exceeding the MCL or SMCL are outlined in red.
105 v.8/28/2012
Minor Ions A total of 34 sample analysis results for minor ions were provided by USGS for 11 wells, by FSN for 14 wells, and by EPA for 4 wells. There were 17 samples exceeding MCLs, 15 for cadmium, 1 for arsenic and 1 for lead (Figure 74). None of the samples had SMCL exceedances.
Figure 74. Well locations analyzed for minor ions from USGS, EPA, and FSN data. Locations with values exceeding the MCL or SMCL are outlined in red.
106 v.8/28/2012
Nutrients A total of 176 samples had analyses for nutrients provided by USGS (88 wells), EPA (55 wells), PennAg (5 wells) and FSN (15 wells). Seven of these samples exceeded the MCL for nitrates (Figure 75). Other parameters such as ammonia and phosphorous were analyzed, but the EPA has not established an MCL for these parameters. In the case of these other parameters, the values detected were less than 4 mg/L for ammonia and less than 1 mg/L for phosphorous.
Figure 75. Well locations with analysis for nutrients from USGS, EPA, PennAg, and FSN data. Locations with values exceeding the MCL or SMCL are outlined in red.
Other Parameters The USGS data included sample analyses for insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. None of these contaminates were detected in excess of their MCL. Analysis results for radiochemicals were available from 5 samples from USGS and PADWIS wells with 1 sample exceeding the MCL for gross beta particle activity.
Microorganisms The USGS and PADWIS data included 6 samples from 2003 and 2004 that were analyzed for the presence of microorganisms. Of these 6 samples, only one detected an E.Coli colony per 100 mL of
107 v.8/28/2012 sample. The Adams County Conservation District has a program of analyzing drinking water collected by County residents and submitted for testing. The samples were tested for total coliform bacteria and E. coli bacteria. A total of 367 samples from within the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds have been analyzed between 1990 and 2010. Of these, 247 samples detected the presence of coliform bacteria (Figure 76) and 31 samples had E. coli bacteria detected (Figure 77). For those locations where bacteria were not detected, the samples may have been taken from treated rather than raw water. Approximately 30% of these water samples were also analyzed for nitrates. Of the 109 samples tested for nitrates, 8 samples were above the MCL of 10 mg/L.
Figure 76. Locations of well water samples tested for coliform bacteria by ACCD. Where coliform bacteria were detected, the location is shown in red.
108 v.8/28/2012
Figure 77. Locations of well water samples tested for E. coli bacteria by ACCD. Where E. coli were detected, the location is shown in red.
Summary A number of groundwater samples have been collected by several agencies for many different purposes in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds and analyzed for a wide range of constituents. Many of the analyzed constituents were detected in small amounts, but there does not appear to be a widespread and consistent problem of groundwater contamination at or above drinking water standards for any of the constituents. The exception is bacteria. Total coliform and E.Coli bacteria have been detected in well water samples in all parts of the CWPA and in all parts of Adams County. Because the samples tested were submitted by homeowners, the sample collection procedures are a potential source of the contamination. However, this type of sample contamination should be infrequent and would likely not explain the wide distribution of contaminated water samples. This is an indication that proper water treatment system installation and maintenance on private water supply systems is important in the CWPA.
Surface Water There is a continuing effort by EASI to collect samples from surface water sites throughout the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds for nutrient analysis. Field parameters such as temperature, pH, and specific conductivity are recorded at the time of sample collection and the samples are returned to their facility for nutrient testing. At this time, there are 351 sample results available with analyses for pH, specific conductivity, temperature, nitrates, phosphate, sulfate, alkalinity, and dissolved oxygen. Table
109 v.8/28/2012
64 shows a summary of the total number of samples and the number of samples exceeding the DEP MCLs for drinking water in surface water samples collected in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds by EASI. Figure 78 displays the locations of the surface water samples collected by EASI and WAAC.
Table 64. Summary of total number of samples and number of sample MCL exceedances for EASI surface water testing. Total # Specific Dissolved of Conductivity Nitrates Phosphate Sulfate Alkalinity Oxygen Sample Location Name Records pH S/cm Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Marsh Creek 1 18 4 0 0 4 0 2 0 Marsh Creek-Sachs Bridge #5b 10 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 Rock Creek 2a 46 11 4 5 13 0 1 5 Little Marsh Creek 1 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 Rock Creek #1 30 4 0 3 5 0 1 3 Rock Creek #3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mummasburg Run #2 35 2 0 4 4 0 0 1 Mummasburg Run #1 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Marsh Creek #7 71 26 1 0 4 0 0 2 Willoughby Run 2 19 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 Rock Creek 11 61 20 1 10 0 0 0 0 Little Marsh Creek 3 46 2 0 2 1 0 0 0
Figure 78. Surface water sample locations collected by EASI and WAAC.
110 v.8/28/2012
The WAAC conducted an assessment of Rock Creek, with data collected from February to July 2005. The purpose of the project was to measure physical and chemical indicators of the health of Rock Creek and its tributaries by collecting monthly samples at 11 sites (Table 65). Physical parameters of temperature and turbidity were measured and samples collected for analysis of nitrates, phosphate, sulfate, and dissolved oxygen. One sample was collected that exceeded the MCL for nitrates. None of the samples exceeded the SMCL for sulfate. Four samples measured below the EPA target for dissolved oxygen of 5 mg/L for warm water streams. A total of 12 measurements were made where the turbidity was below 60 cm (approximately 8 NTU). The turbidity was measured using a turbidity tube which measures the depth at which a black and white disk can be seen. Depths of greater than 60 cm are approximately equivalent to turbidity value of less than 10 NTU. The drinking water standard for turbidity is less than 1 NTU. The locations of the monitoring sites and exceedances of established thresholds are displayed in Figure 79 through Figure 83.
Table 65. Summary of surface water samples collected in Rock Creek and tributaries by WAAC, February to July 2005. Dissolved Temperature Turbidity Oxygen Nitrates Phosphate Sulfate °C cm Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Number of samples 54 57 59 59 60 53 Minimum value 1.25 5.5 3 0 0 0 Maximum value 34 60 30.5 20 3.3 100
111 v.8/28/2012
Figure 79. Locations of surface water samples analyzed for nitrates. Locations with values exceeding the MCL are outlined in red.
112 v.8/28/2012
Figure 80. Locations of surface water samples analyzed for phosphates with sample values. The shape of the marker border indicates the data source.
113 v.8/28/2012
Figure 81. Locations of surface water samples analyzed for dissolved oxygen. Locations with samples below 5.0 mg/L are circled in red.
114 v.8/28/2012
Figure 82. Locations of surface water samples analyzed for sulfates with sample values. The shape of the marker border indicates the data source.
115 v.8/28/2012
Figure 83. Locations of surface water samples with field measured pH values. Sample locations with values below 6.5 and above 8.5 are circled in red.
.
Summary Compared to groundwater, there are fewer sampling events and locations for surface water quality monitoring in the CWPA. However, the surface water samples are generally more recent than the majority of the groundwater samples. The individual samples that do exceed drinking water limits appear to be intermittent and not restricted to a single location. Instead, the exceedances appear to be episodic and event driven. Water quality limits have been established for water sources designated for human consumption. There are few standards established for other uses such as agriculture or the protection of wildlife. Further, any industrial water quality limits are specific to the industrial application. Livestock are generally more tolerant of normal water quality issues such as total dissolved solids or nitrate than humans; therefore, water quality that is suitable for human consumption would be suitable for livestock. A possible exception to this is for pH. The MCL for pH is 6.5 to 8.5 (DEP 2006c) for humans but some sources indicate that the desirable range for cattle is 6.5 to 7.5 (Adams and Sharpe). Additional increases to the already high nutrient levels, especially in Rock Creek, may further damage the aquatic ecosystem. Many of the sources of these nutrients are associated with uncontrolled run-off during precipitation events. To this end, effective stormwater management is expected to facilitate water quality improvements.
116 v.8/28/2012
3.3.3.3 Impacts to Aquatic Benthic Communities Index of biological integrity data for the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds were obtained from DEP. The samples were collected between 2006 and 2009 using the 6-kick, 200 organism riffle-run method (personal comm., DEP, 5/20/2011). There are 23 benthic macroinvertebrate samples in the DEP database for Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (Figure 84). A frequency distribution of the rankings is provided in Figure 85. Of the 23 samples, 1 attains designated criteria but shows impacts none-the-less; 1 is slightly impaired; 6 are impaired; and 15 exhibit severely impaired conditions.
Figure 84. Benthic macroinvertebrate health in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds.
117 v.8/28/2012
Figure 85. Frequency distribution of Chessie B-IBI scores in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds.
3.3.3.4 Impacts to Public Water Supplies Although GMA is only one of thirteen public water suppliers in the CWA, it is by far the largest public water supplier and the only water supplier utilizing surface water sources. The GMA source water assessment for the surface water supplies on Marsh Creek (ICPRB 2003) indicated that raw water quality “is generally good, but is subject to seasonal fluctuations. During low-flow periods, extra measures have to be taken to comply with drinking water standards.” Pesticides utilized by orchard operations may persist in the environment and may enter both surface- and ground-water drinking water supplies during storm events. Further, nutrients from failing septic systems, agriculture, and development in the CWPA may reach the waterways, as indicated by the nutrient impairments in both Marsh and Rock creeks, and impact source water quality. A source water assessment was also conducted for the GMA groundwater wells by DEP (2003). The assessment concluded that three of the GMA wells have low source sensitivities because of the quality of the raw water. The other three GMA wells evaluated as part of the analysis had high sensitivity due to past or present organic or volatile organic carbon in the wells. At least one public water supply well in the CWPA has been impacted by naturally occurring radiochemicals. Very small amounts of radioactive elements occur in the rocks in this region. These radioactive materials decay releasing other, “daughter,” decay-product elements including radon gas that can enter the groundwater and even basements. Four protection priorities were identified for GMA groundwater sources including residential activities, railroad tracks, agriculture, and transportation corridors.
Emerging Contaminants Of recent interest is the occurrence of emerging contaminants including pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors, persistent organic pollutants, organic wastewater contaminants, and other contaminants of emerging concern. Recent studies are attempting to document the occurrence of these emerging contaminants in the CWPA waterways. Specifically, USGS and DEP conducted a joint emerging contaminant study which included sampling for flow, field parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, etc.), and chemistry. As part of this study, sampling was conducted from
118 v.8/28/2012
2007 to 2009 on Rock Creek within the Gettysburg National Military Park near the base of Culp’s Hill about a mile downstream of GMA’s sewer outfall (USGS station 0163880). Various chemical constituents were detected in samples of water and stream bottom sediments but standards or limits have not been established for most of these chemicals in drinking water supplies. The data collected as part of this study are available in the USGS annual reports (USGS 2007-2009)34,35. An analysis of the data is currently under review (Crawford et al. 2010).
Atmospheric Deposition A potential source of nutrients in surface waters is atmospheric deposition. The primary sources + of nitrogen are oxidized nitrogen, called NOx, and reduced nitrogen, called ammonia (NH4 ). The sources of NOx are industrial sources such as power plants and internal combustion engines. Sources of ammonia are primarily agricultural, mostly manure and fertilizers (CBP 2012a). The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Phase 5.3 Model uses as one of its input datasets the atmospheric deposition of nutrients over the period 1984 through 2005. The average of annual atmospheric deposition of all forms of nitrogen in Adams County was approximately 1.0 milligrams per Liter (mg/L) of precipitation (CBP 2012b). The trend of nitrogen loads from atmospheric deposition in this dataset have decreased over the 20-year period by about 32 percent with an annual nitrate load of 0.8 mg/L in 2005. The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) expects this declining trend to continue or even increase as clean air regulations take affect and fleets of older vehicles are replaced with less-polluting ones (CBP 2012a).
Superfund Sites There are four US EPA Superfund sites with known groundwater contamination within the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, all located in the Upper Rock sub-watershed. Three of these sites are in the process of cleanup. The original sources of contamination have been removed and groundwater pumping and treatment systems are installed and operating. These systems will need to be operated for years into the future to completely restore the groundwater to drinking water standards. Assuming the continued proper operation of the treatment systems it is expected that there will be no additional risk to public health from these systems. The other Superfund site has been cleaned up, is closed and is no longer on the active list of sites. There is another contaminated site, in the Lower Marsh sub-watershed that is on the list of Toxic Release Inventory sites. The site had a large amount of waste including some hazardous waste. The primary contamination was in the form of salts, metals, chlorides and ammonia. The surface and sub-surface sources of contamination have been removed and long-term ground and surface water monitoring at the site and in wells in the surrounding area is being performed by DEP to ensure contaminated water does not leave the site.
3.3.3.5 Summary Water quality parameters of concern in the CWPA include those for which impairments have been noted (sediments, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, and nitrite nitrate) because it is for these constituents that established water quality criteria are currently not being met. These water quality concerns do not appear to present immediate risks to human uses of ground- or surface-water quality in
34 http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2007/pdfs/01638880.2007.pdf, accessed 5/29/2012. 35 http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2009/pdfs/01638880.2009.pdf, accessed 5/29/2012.
119 v.8/28/2012 the watersheds; however, aquatic benthic communities are severely impaired at most CWPA sampling locations. Future growth and development may exacerbate these problems if not managed. Water quality impacts from point sources are most notable during low flows, when concentration of contaminants peaks. However, non-point source pollutant transport is primarily driven by unmanaged stormwater which carries diverse pollutants across the landscape and into the waterways. BMPs to prevent contamination include, but are not limited to, proper septic system maintenance, responsible application of fertilizers and pesticides, continuation of the annual DEA drug take back event, and community education and outreach among others.
3.3.4 Stormwater and Floodplain Management Stormwater has long been treated as a nuisance as it can cause localized flooding, overwhelm urban drainage systems, and transport pollutants (Dunne and Leopold 1978). However, when properly managed, stormwater can enhance groundwater recharge and increase the amount of water available for human and ecosystem uses (personal comm., CAAC, 4/13/2011). To this end, stormwater may prove to be a major resource to meet demands under low-flow conditions in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. In previous CARP analyses, it was determined that an average year brings enough stormwater to cover the entire CWPA in approximately 9 inches of water. This section will assess 1) current and future land uses in the watersheds as related to stormwater, 2) stormwater impacts to public water supplies, 3) stormwater management practices, 4) the locations and characteristics of floodplains, and 5) the regulations and enforcement of regulations that govern stormwater and floodplains in the CWPA.
3.3.4.1 Current Land Uses Stormwater is the water from a precipitation event that does not infiltrate the soils, but runs off over the earth’s surface, picking up pollutants along the way. Surface run-off often moves much faster than water that is allowed to infiltrate and move through the sub-surface soils or bedrock. The surface run-off can move even faster depending on the type of land cover over which it travels. For example, impervious urban areas such as parking lots and roads provide little resistance to the moving water. In these areas, the water travels quickly across the land’s surface to nearby waterways. The effect is a rapid increase in streamflow during storm events, an increased peak streamflow, and a rapid decrease in streamflow after the event (Novotny and Olem 1994; Dunne and Leopold 1978). Hence, urban areas are typically referred to as “flashy” hydrologic systems. Inversely, baseflows can be lower in urban areas because a larger percentage of the water is not able to infiltrate and quickly washes over the surface and out of the watershed. Impervious cover was estimated in the CWPA utilizing the 2006 NLCD impervious cover grid (Figure 86). The data set contains 30 m by 30 m cells, each assigned a percent impervious cover value ranging from 0 to 100%. The average impervious cover grid cell value across the entire CWPA is 2.7%. The average percent impervious cover in the Rock Creek watershed is 4.6%, while the Marsh Creek
120 v.8/28/2012 average is lower at 1.4%. Upper Rock Creek has the highest average percent impervious cover of the five sub-watersheds at 7%, while Little Marsh Creek has the lowest at 0.9% (Table 66). These compare to an average impervious cover of 3.4% across the entire Monocacy River watershed. Recent urbanization in the watersheds has led to increased impervious cover. Figure 86 shows areas in red where percent impervious cover increased between 2001 and 2006. A common threshold for the ecological impact of impervious cover is documented in the literature at 10% (Poff et al. 2006; Schueler and Holland 2000; Booth and Jackson 1997); however, some studies have identified impacts at much lower thresholds (King et al. 2011). Impacts of impervious cover have been noted at levels as low as 0.35% in a recent Potomac basin study36. Of the total area in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, 8.2% is above the 10% threshold. 13.6% of the CWPA has greater than 1% impervious cover, exceeding the minimum cited threshold for ecosystem impacts from impervious cover. These areas roughly correspond to the dark green and red areas on Figure 86.
Figure 86. Impervious cover in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. Data source: 30 m resolution 2006 NLCD impervious cover grid.
36 http://www.potomacriver.org/2012/projects/middle-pot-assess, accessed 5/29/2012.
121 v.8/28/2012
Table 66. Percent impervious cover by sub-watershed. The minimum value for impervious cover grid cells in all sub-watersheds is zero, meaning each sub-watershed has at least one 30 x 30 m grid cell with no impervious cover. A maximum value of 100 indicates there is at least one 30 x 30 m grid cell that is completely impervious. Maximum % Average % Impervious Impervious Sub-watershed Cover Cover Little Marsh 95 0.9 Lower Rock 100 2.1 Lower Marsh 96 2.0 Upper Rock 100 7.0 Upper Marsh 82 1.3
The 2006 National Land Cover Dataset (Fry et al. 2011) was utilized to estimate the percent of various land uses in the watersheds (Figure 87). The urban land use class includes developed open space, developed low intensity, developed medium intensity, and developed high intensity. Forests include deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forests. Agriculture includes pasture, hay, and cultivated crops. Wetlands include both woody and emergent herbaceous wetlands. Table 67 shows the break-down of these land uses by sub-watershed.
Figure 87. Land uses in the CWPA (2006 NLCD).
122 v.8/28/2012
Table 67. Land use percentages in each sub-watershed. The dominant land use type for each sub-watershed is bolded. Little Lower Lower Upper Upper Land Use Marsh Rock Marsh Rock Marsh Open Water 0.12% 0.55% 0.06% 0.05% 0.02% Developed, Open Space 5.76% 9.13% 8.24% 9.95% 6.20% Developed, Low Intensity 1.08% 2.84% 3.10% 9.83% 2.08% Developed, Medium Intensity 0.10% 0.27% 0.23% 3.20% 0.10% Developed, High Intensity 0.00% 0.04% 0.00% 0.53% 0.00% Barren Land 0.04% 0.03% 0.16% 0.50% 0.04% Deciduous Forest 47.83% 13.12% 18.54% 15.15% 38.35% Evergreen Forest 1.64% 0.60% 0.71% 0.37% 1.40% Mixed Forest 1.03% 0.97% 0.86% 0.59% 0.54% Shrub/Scrub 0.04% 6.01% 1.28% 7.62% 1.18% Grassland/Herbaceous 0.06% 0.52% 1.65% 2.20% 0.73% Pasture/Hay 14.28% 25.61% 24.11% 20.51% 17.88% Cultivated Crops 26.19% 39.37% 39.24% 28.32% 30.36% Woody Wetlands 1.82% 0.93% 1.81% 1.15% 1.09% Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 0.00% 0.01% 0.02% 0.04% 0.02%
Overall, the Marsh Creek watershed has a higher percent forest than the Rock Creek watershed (35% compared to 15%), while the Rock Creek watershed has a higher percent urban area (9% compared to 17%) (Figure 88 and Figure 89). All other things being equal, these land use differences may have a noticeable effect on the hydrology of the two watersheds.
Figure 88. Land uses in the Rock Creek watershed (NLCD 2006).
123 v.8/28/2012
Figure 89. Land uses in the Marsh Creek watershed (NLCD 2006).
3.3.4.2 Future Land Uses A GIS shapefile of proposed future developments was obtained from ACOPD in August of 2011. A total of 28 proposed developments were identified, representing just over 5 square miles of the CWPA. Individual developments range in size from 0.003 square miles to 1.2 square miles. Development in these areas will likely increase the amount of impervious cover and, therefore, the amount of stormflow. The names, areas, and the average 2006 impervious cover percentages in these proposed future development areas are provided in Table 68. The locations of these future developments are shown in Figure 90.
Table 68. Proposed future developments and 2006 impervious cover information. Average 2006 Area Development Name % Impervious Cover (sq. mi.) Gettysburg Commons 0.7 1.229 Historic Preserve, Gettysburg 0.8 0.483 Highland Overlook 0.2 0.426 Old Orchard Farm 0.0 0.325 Granite Lake 0.6 0.301 Sumerdale Crossing II 0.2 0.237 Marsh Creek Woods 0.4 0.207 Highland Acres 0.5 0.186 Kortney Meadow 1.4 0.171 Fields of Gettysburg 0.2 0.169 Cumberland Village II 0.7 0.168 Biglerville Crossing II 0.3 0.138 Connelly Farm 0.2 0.129
124 v.8/28/2012
Average 2006 Area Development Name % Impervious Cover (sq. mi.) The Meadows Community 0.4 0.107 The Crossings Central 1.3 0.106 Harvey Miller 2.0 0.100 Fairview Farm 0.1 0.094 Preserve at Plum Run 0.2 0.084 The Crossings I 0.4 0.081 Cambridge Crossing 1.9 0.054 The Willows 0.9 0.052 Sommerfield 1.0 0.050 Wheatland Acres Ph V 2.0 0.045 Misty Ridge 1.3 0.040 Picketts Choice 1.2 0.021 The Ridge 2.5 0.014 Goldenville Estates 1.5 0.011 Penn Square Townhomes 24.2 0.003 Total 5.031
Figure 90. Locations of proposed future developments.
125 v.8/28/2012
3.3.4.3 Stormwater as a Resource In Section 3.3.2.4, the potential water deficit under low-flow conditions was calculated as a comparison of total water withdrawals minus low-flow conditions represented by 7Q10 (the 7 day low flow statistically expected to occur once in ten years). The deficits are highest in the summer and range from 0.05 to 0.29 inches (Table 69).
Table 69. Water deficit by season calculated as total average seasonal withdrawals minus 7Q10 (in, 1997-2010). Values for the Rock Creek and Marsh Creek watersheds include the upstream sub-watersheds for direct comparison with stormflow amounts. Season Watershed Fall Winter Spring Summer Upper Rock 0.26 0.20 0.27 0.29 Rock 0.22 0.15 0.22 0.24 Little Marsh 0.17 0.09 0.16 0.21 Upper Marsh 0.12 0.05 0.12 0.13 Marsh 0.22 0.14 0.22 0.25
Average seasonal stormflows were computed by sub-watershed utilizing the USGS PART software. Outputs from the PART program are streamflow and baseflow amounts. Stormflows were calculated by subtracting baseflows from streamflows. Stormflows range from 5.19 to 0.53 inches and are highest in the winter and lowest in the summer (Table 70). In all seasons and for all sub-watersheds, the amount of stormflow moving through the system is sufficient to meet the potential water deficit.
Table 70. Average seasonal stormflows (in, 1997-2010). Note that stormflows for Rock Creek and Marsh Creek include contributions from upstream sub-watersheds. Season Watershed Fall Winter Spring Summer Upper Rock 0.90 1.46 1.39 0.53 Rock 0.92 1.52 1.46 0.53 Little Marsh 2.39 5.00 4.44 1.17 Upper Marsh 2.43 5.10 4.52 1.20 Marsh 2.45 5.19 4.68 1.23
3.3.4.4 Stormwater Impacts to Public Water Supplies Although stormwater can provide an additional source of water for the Marsh and Rock creek communities, understanding the potential negative impacts of stormwater is required. Because stormwater is associated with high amounts of energy and can move quickly across the land’s surface, it can readily transport contaminants. In fact, urban run-off can carry diverse quantities and types of pollutants including pathogens, heavy metals, organic compounds, pesticides, herbicides, nutrients, sediments, and salts (EPA 2010). According to the Gettysburg Municipal Authority Source Water Assessment, “Naturally occurring activities such as sediment run-off during storm events deliver nutrients into the raw water system and contribute to increased turbidity. Human activities, such as agriculture and
126 v.8/28/2012 development have the potential to release additional nutrient laden sediments which can further degrade the source waters within the watershed (ICPRB 2003).”
3.3.4.5 Stormwater Management Stormwater management can decrease flooding, enhance water availability, and protect source waters among other benefits. The ten principles of stormwater management, as provided in DEP (2006b), are: “1) managing stormwater as a resource; 2) preserving and utilizing existing natural features and systems; 3) managing stormwater as close to the source as possible; 4) sustaining the hydrologic balance of surface- and ground-water; 5) disconnecting, decentralizing and distributing sources and discharges; 6) slowing run-off down, and not speeding it up; 7) preventing potential water quality and quantity problems; 8) minimizing problems that cannot be avoided; 9) integrating stormwater management into the initial site design process; and 10) inspecting and maintaining all BMPs”. Due to Adams County’s adoption of the Monocacy River Watershed Stormwater Management Plan of 2002, municipalities within the CWPA (and throughout the County) adopted stormwater ordinances that were consistent with the Monocacy Plan at various times between 2002 and 2006. The Plan required that new land development incorporate features and facilities that limit volume and discharge as well as enhance water quality. The Plan included standards that required that run-off characteristics from new development must approximate the characteristics that existed prior to development utilizing BMPs, to the extent practicable. Examples of stormwater management practices currently being implemented in the watersheds include the Gettysburg National Military Park museum’s LEED certification; McDonalds on Rte 30’s underground stormwater storage; the Welfare Office in Gettysburg; and a self-guided GMP tour at the Agriculture and Natural Resources Center in Gettysburg (an educational demonstration of more than 20 BMPs). A 2,000 square foot green roof has also been installed at Gettysburg College’s Majestic Theater, among others in the watershed (personal comm., CAAC, 4/13/2011). Potential additional stormwater management practices are numerous and may include, but are not limited to, public education, reuse, constructed wetlands, retention ponds, detention basins, porous pavement, low impact development, green roofs, bioretention sites, land use controls, tree plantings, forest protection, and erosion and sediment controls. Technical specifications on implementation and effectiveness of these and other practices are available in the International Stormwater BMP database37. A comprehensive approach to stormwater management will likely require a combination of measures to: address varied contamination sources, include site-specific design based on watershed specific characteristics such as geology and land use, optimize costs versus benefits, minimize maintenance requirements while ensuring adequate performance, and considerations of public perceptions to name a few (EPA 2010). Issues facing the implementation of stormwater management practices in the CWPA include 1) evaluating post-implementation effectiveness, 2) ensuring proper installation, 3) adequate monitoring and maintenance, and 4) site-specific considerations such as poor soil infiltration (personal comm., CAAC, 4/13/2011). An example management practice that may alleviate water stress in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, particularly during the spring and summer months, is the on-site capture of stormwater for outdoor residential water use. Outdoor water use, particularly irrigation, can comprise approximately one-third of a household’s total water use during the spring and summer (EPA 2008b). In the Marsh and Rock watersheds, this amounts to a March through August total of approximately 65 million gallons of water in self-supplied domestic areas (not including residences on public water supplies). Capture of on-
37 http://www.bmpdatabase.org/index.htm, accessed 5/29/2012.
127 v.8/28/2012 site stormwater through rain barrels, cisterns, or other means to meet irrigation needs can make treated water available for other purposes. The Adams County Conservation District began a rain barrel program in 2003. To date, approximately 800 x 55 gallon rain barrels have been distributed. This program is a step towards additional on-site stormwater storage for subsequent reuse. Stormwater management alternatives recommended for implementation in the CWPA are presented in Section 3.5.1.
3.3.4.6 Floodplains According to FEMA (2003), a non-technical definition of a floodplain is “an area adjacent to a body of water.” Floodplains are particularly subject to flooding during heavy rains; however, they can be inundated from other sources such as levee or dam failure. Floodplains are valuable because of the diverse functions they provide. These values relate to the water, living, cultural, and cultivated resources and range from natural moderation of floods to recreation (Table 71). Protection and management efforts within floodplains can help ensure continued functioning of this valuable resource. For example, healthy riparian vegetation in the floodplain can help prevent flood damage. Also, maintaining un-compacted soils with high infiltration rates in the floodplain can encourage groundwater recharge.
Table 71. Value and function of floodplains. Modified from Louisiana Sea Grant (2010). Category Floodplain Function Water resource values Natural moderation of floods Water quality maintenance Groundwater recharge Living resource values Fish, wildlife, plant resources Fish, wildlife, plant habitat Cultural resource values Open space Natural beauty Scientific study Outdoor education Archaeological and historic sites Recreation Cultivated resource values Agriculture Aquaculture Forestry
Figure 91 shows the 100- and 500-year floodplains in the CWPA according to a FEMA spatial dataset acquired from DEP. The 100-year floodplain is the area that is statistically expected to be inundated once every one hundred years. However, this does not mean the area will, in actuality, only be inundated that often. There is a 1% chance in any given year that a flood will inundate the 100-year floodplain. The 500-year floodplain is a similar feature, but is statistically expected to be inundated once in every five hundred years. Approximately 10 square miles of the watersheds are located in the 100-year floodplain while 11 square miles are located in the 500-year floodplain. There are 30 locations in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds that were identified as flood prone locations in the county’s Stormwater Management Plan (ACCD and ACOPD 2011) (Figure 91). This is likely not a comprehensive inventory as these locations were compiled based on municipal input for those municipalities that voluntarily participated in a survey; however, it provides some indication of the spatial distribution of flood prone areas and the primary flooding problems. The vast majority, 16, of
128 v.8/28/2012 these locations occur in the Lower Marsh sub-watershed while the Upper Marsh has the fewest with no reported flood prone locations (Table 72). The primary cause of the flooding in the CWPA is roadway or bridge inundation, followed by stormwater run-off.
Figure 91. The FEMA 100- and 500-year floodplains of the CWPA as well as flood prone locations.
Table 72. Flood prone locations in the CWPA by sub-watershed. This data was obtained from Adams County Office of Planning and Development, gathered during the development of the county Stormwater Management Plan. Location Municipality Primary Problem Stream Sub-watershed Bonneauville Storm sewer Route 116 Borough overflow Chicken Run Lower Rock Horner Road Cumberland Twp Inundation Marsh Creek Lower Marsh Mason-Dixon Road Cumberland Twp Inundation Marsh Creek Lower Marsh Natural Dam Road Cumberland Twp Inundation Marsh Creek Lower Marsh Red Rock Road Cumberland Twp Inundation Marsh Creek Lower Marsh Water Works Road Cumberland Twp Inundation Marsh Creek Lower Marsh Black Horse Tavern Road Cumberland Twp Inundation Willoughby Run Lower Marsh Plank Road Cumberland Twp Inundation Marsh Creek Lower Marsh Willoughby Run Road Cumberland Twp Inundation Willoughby Run Lower Marsh Black Horse Tavern Road Cumberland Twp Inundation Marsh Creek Lower Marsh Black Horse Tavern Road Cumberland Twp Inundation Marsh Creek Lower Marsh Black Horse Tavern Road Cumberland Twp Inundation Marsh Creek Lower Marsh Black Horse Tavern Road Cumberland Twp Inundation Marsh Creek Lower Marsh
129 v.8/28/2012
Location Municipality Primary Problem Stream Sub-watershed Tiffany Lane Cumberland Twp SW Run-off Lower Marsh Lincoln Estates Cumberland Twp SW Run-off Lower Marsh Boyd's School – Patroit's Choice Cumberland Twp SW Run-off Upper Rock Cumberland/ HACC Shopping Center Straban Twp Property Floods Rock Creek Upper Rock Old Rt 30 to Orrtann Road Franklin Twp Inundation Muskrat Run Little Marsh Mount Carmel Road Hamiltonban Twp SW Run-off Little Marsh Hickory Bridge Road Hamiltonban Twp Inundation Little Marsh Creek Little Marsh Hickory Bridge Road Hamiltonban Twp Inundation Little Marsh Creek Little Marsh Gettysburg Campground Highland Twp Property Floods Marsh Creek Lower Marsh Route 116 Highland Twp Inundation Trib to Marsh Creek Lower Marsh Low Dutch Road Mount Joy Twp Clogs from Debris White Run Lower Rock Willow Road Mt. Pleasant Twp Inundation White Run Lower Rock Storm sewer Twin Oaks subdiv. Straban Twp overflow Upper Rock Riley/ Flickinger Roads Straban Twp Inundation Trib to Rock Creek Upper Rock Old Harrisburg Road Straban Twp Inundation Trib to Rock Creek Upper Rock Keller Road Straban Twp Inundation Rock Creek Upper Rock Goldenville Road Straban Twp Inundation Trib to Rock Creek Upper Rock
Land uses in the floodplains can either pose a threat to water quality, quantity, and ecosystem function, or conversely can minimize negative impacts of stormwater and flooding. Figure 92 shows land uses within the 500-year floodplain designated by FEMA for the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. For each sub-watershed, the dominant floodplain land uses are deciduous forest and cultivated crops, according to the 2006 NLCD data set (Table 73). Because floodplains are adjacent to waterways, activities should encourage sediment stability and minimize opportunity for pollutant transport.
130 v.8/28/2012
Figure 92. Locations and land uses in the 500-year floodplain.
Table 73. Land uses in the 500-year floodplain. For each sub-watershed, the primary two floodplain land uses are displayed in bold. Little Upper Lower Upper Lower Land Use Marsh Marsh Marsh Rock Rock Avg Open Water 0.8% 0.2% 0.6% 0.1% 6.5% 1.6% Developed, Open Space 7.6% 5.7% 7.3% 7.4% 9.2% 7.4% Developed, Low Intensity 0.4% 1.0% 3.3% 7.4% 2.7% 3.0% Developed, Medium Intensity 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 2.5% 0.1% 0.6% Developed, High Intensity 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% Barren Land 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% Deciduous Forest 43.8% 38.6% 24.1% 25.4% 26.2% 31.6% Evergreen Forest 3.7% 2.6% 0.8% 0.2% 0.8% 1.6% Mixed Forest 2.1% 0.6% 1.0% 0.6% 2.3% 1.3% Shrub/Scrub 0.0% 2.0% 0.5% 11.8% 12.4% 5.3% Grassland/Herbaceous 0.0% 0.6% 1.3% 2.3% 1.0% 1.0% Pasture/Hay 3.9% 7.5% 14.2% 10.5% 11.5% 9.5% Cultivated Crops 24.0% 34.0% 33.8% 23.1% 20.5% 27.1% Woody Wetlands 13.2% 6.9% 12.8% 7.6% 6.8% 9.5% Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
131 v.8/28/2012
3.3.4.7 Stormwater and Floodplain Regulations Several layers of stormwater regulations exist in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds including the county’s stormwater management plan, chapter 102 of the PA code, and municipal ordinances. As proposed future developments are created, they will be subject to these multiple layers of stormwater management regulations. The regulations were developed to minimize the negative impacts of stormflows including flooding and pollutant transport. The Adams County Stormwater Management Plan (ACCD and ACOPD 2011) was developed to fulfill requirements under PA Act 167 of 1978. The stormwater plan includes a model municipal ordinance to synchronize efforts of all municipalities throughout the county. The draft ordinance includes technical standards (volume control, peak rate control, water quality), recommendations for management efforts in special management areas, a Simplified Approach (SA) for small projects, detailed information on the type of stormwater management plan required for various projects, and a recommended review and approval process. In addition to the county’s Stormwater Management Plan, Chapter 102 of the PA code requires that stormwater management be included in all earth moving activities above a specified acreage with some exceptions such as agricultural tilling (personal comm., CAAC, 4/13/2011). Regarding floodplain regulations, according to the Adams County Stormwater Management Plan, “The Pennsylvania Floodplain Management Act (Act 166 of 1978) requires municipalities enact an ordinance which, at a minimum, meets the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). ACCD performs the responsibilities of floodplain monitoring in Adams County (ACCD and ACOPD 2011).” In addition to this requirement, some municipalities regulate floodplain development through zoning, subdivision, and/or land development ordinances.
3.3.4.8 Summary Stormwater management and reuse could aid in meeting current and future water demands in the CWPA. The water availability analysis demonstrated that sufficient quantities of stormwater typically exist to alleviate much of the potential water shortfall. A key to making this option a reality will be selecting effective stormwater practices for implementation, both in terms of cost and amount of water made available. Management of floodplain areas would also protect water quality and enhance water availability.
3.4 Management Alternatives Utilizing the results of the previously described technical analyses, management alternatives were developed to address the CWPA’s seven water resources issues. Management alternatives to be considered for inclusion in the CARP were compiled from CAAC meetings, communication with general stakeholders and advisory committee members, literature reviews, and written submissions by organizations
132 v.8/28/2012 and interested parties38. This was a brainstorming process and all ideas were welcome. Compiled management alternatives were then scored to determine implementability and technical merit. Evaluation of management alternatives also included consideration of the environmental, economic, regulatory, land use planning, engineering, social, and other implications of the alternatives, per DEP’s CARP guidance (DEP 2009a) (Appendix G). Given the diverse stakeholder views, differing perspectives arose regarding the identification and selection of management actions. These differing views are presented in the evaluations where applicable. Utilizing the evaluation process, CARP management recommendations were selected from the management alternatives to assure “an adequate supply of water to satisfy existing and future reasonable and beneficial uses” (Section 3.5.1). This section documents the management alternatives brainstormed to address the seven identified water resources issues (water availability, water storage, water quality, stormwater, policy and management, data, and communication), feasibility and technical scoring for each management alternative, the qualitative evaluation of the management alternatives, and a discussion of potential conflicts and adverse impacts.
3.4.1 Evaluation of Management Alternatives Management alternatives were developed by watershed stakeholders to address each of the seven water resources issues (Section 3.2). A scoring approach was utilized to evaluate the feasibility of each management alternative and determine the extent to which the alternative could address the associated water resources issue.
3.4.1.1 Scoring Approach Two scoring approaches were utilized to evaluate and winnow down the list of management alternatives into a prioritized list of feasible management recommendations that will address identified water resources issues in the CWPA. The first scoring approach, utilized to determine feasibility of management alternatives, was based on the Integrated Lentic/Lotic Basin Management (ILBM) methodology (RCSE-Shinga University and ILEC 2011), an internationally recognized approached developed by the International Lake Environment Committee (ILEC). The method consisted of an evaluation and scoring on six governance pillars (information, funding, policies, institutions, stakeholders, and timeframe) for each management alternative. The methodology is based on the assumption that strength in these pillars facilitates successful integrated water resources management. The scoring was conducted by the advisory committee at a workshop on February 15, 2012. Management alternatives were scored with a “Yes”, meaning the practice is feasible or implementation is already underway; “No”, meaning that the practice is not feasible and no more discussion is necessary; or a numeric score for those management alternatives requiring additional discussion. Numeric scoring criteria are provided in Appendix E. For the scoring presented in this report, a “Yes” received full credit (60 points) and a “No” received no credit (0 points). The second, or technical, scoring approach was developed and conducted by ICPRB to determine whether each management alternative has the potential to solve identified water resources issues in the CWPA. Technical scoring was conducted for groups of management alternatives, organized by the water
38 Additional funding was obtained to explore opportunities for one management alternative, wastewater reuse, (Appendix F).
133 v.8/28/2012 resources issue they are meant to address. Each water resources issue, therefore, has a distinct set of evaluation criteria. The numeric technical scoring criteria are provided in Appendix E. When combined, the two scoring systems yield a total score for each management alternative. Utilizing the total score and subsequent qualitative evaluations, management alternatives were identified that are both feasible and have the potential to successfully address the water resources issues in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds.
3.4.1.2 Evaluation and Prioritization of Alternatives by Water Resources Issue This section presents the results of the scoring process and an evaluation of each management alternative in order of descending total score39. For each water resources issue, the feasibility and technical score of the alternatives are provided in a table, along with the total score. Following the table is an evaluation of each management alternative in narrative form. A tabular evaluation of the management alternatives utilizing the DEP guidance categories (environmental, economic/cost, regulatory, land use planning, engineering, and social implications) is included in Appendix G. A No Action management alternative was considered in association with each water resources issue. Each No Action alternative received the highest score for feasibility because continuing with business as usual was considered a feasible alternative. Conversely, each No Action alternative received no points for the technical score. This was done to recognize the fact that addressing the known water resources issues will require a deviation from business as usual utilizing proactive management techniques.
Availability and Storage Thirteen management alternatives and a No Action alternative were considered to address the water availability and storage issues in the CWPA (Table 74) (Section 3.3.2.4). The highest scoring alternative was for community systems to perform an annual water audit to manage water loss. As the American Water Works Association (AWWA) offers a free software package with the potential to identify water losses to assist conservation efforts, this alternative received high scores for both feasibility and ability to reduce the water deficit. The second highest ranking alternative is importation of water from neighboring watersheds into the CWPA. This option received a high technical score because it may yield substantial, measurable progress towards reducing the water deficit.
Table 74. Management alternatives associated with water resources issues #1 and #2, water availability and storage. Alternatives are ranked by total score. The management alternative number (column “No.”) corresponds to the number on the combined list of alternatives from the February 15, 2012 advisory committee workshop. Feasibility Technical Total No. Management Alternatives Score Score Score Community water supply systems should perform a water 2 audit at least once a year to manage water loss. 60 60 120 6 Import water into the CWPA. 40 60 100 1 Implement more water efficient irrigation practices. 35 60 95
39 The first table of management alternatives in each issue’s section includes the complete description of the alternative while an abbreviated title for the management alternative is used in the evaluation. The management alternative number is consistent between the tables and the evaluations.
134 v.8/28/2012
Feasibility Technical Total No. Management Alternatives Score Score Score Seek, promote, and implement wastewater treatment system 3 reuse, beneficial reuses of wastewater. 31 60 91 Investigate use of quarries as water storage facilities, 8 particularly in the diabase. 30 60 90 Creation of a new or rehabilitation of an old reservoir in/near 9 the CWPA (ex. Birch Run). 21 60 81 11a Creation of additional agricultural ponds. 37 42 79 New developments should include/incentivize water 5 conservation equipment in homes when built. 34 42 76 New developments need to provide additional storage 10 capacity. 32 42 74 No Action 60 0 60 Percolate water back into the ground from sewage treatment plants where feasible. Examples include the use of sand 4 mounds, spray irrigation, constructed wetlands. 33 18 51 Enhanced or additional treatment mechanisms should be developed to provide additional sources of water by further 12 treating available surface- and ground-water sources. 29 18 47 GMA may consider alternative means of conveyance from the augmentation well to the public water supply intakes to reduce 7 consumptive loss. 26 18 44 Establish standardized pass-by for surface water withdrawals 13 to ensure the withdrawals do not de-water the streams. 16 18 34
Each of these management alternatives has strengths and weaknesses. Some are controversial in that general stakeholder agreement regarding the potential benefits is lacking. A discussion of each of the availability and management alternatives is documented below in order of highest to lowest total score.
Community water supply systems should perform a water audit at least once a year to manage water loss (management alternative #2). Controlling water loss in the supply system may reduce overall water use and enhance profitability of the system. Controlling water leaks can also prevent contamination of drinking water supplies (EPA 2009). As reducing water losses from water supply systems may decrease the required withdrawal amount, the environmental benefit of this management alternative is an increased availability of water resources for ecosystem uses. The four community water suppliers in the CWPA that reported water losses to DEP in 2009 are Franklin Township Municipal Authority Water System, Bonneauville Borough Water System, PA American Water Company – Lake Heritage District, and Aqua PA Links. These four community systems utilize approximately 19% of the water withdrawn for community supplies in the CWPA. Lake Heritage, Bonneauville, and the Links are located in the Lower Rock sub-watershed, while the Franklin system is located in portions of Little and Upper Marsh sub-watersheds. In 2009, water loss in these systems was approximately 27.7% for Bonneauville, 11.3% for Lake Heritage, and 16.2% for Aqua PA Links, and 50% for Franklin Township according to annual public water supply reporting to DEP. The remaining
135 v.8/28/2012 systems either reported zero losses or did not report losses. Although DEP records show a zero percent loss from the GMA system in 2009, personal communication with GMA suggests a loss from the system of approximately 16% during this time period (personal comm., CAAC, 4/11/2012). GMA represents 73% of the water withdrawn for community supplies in the CWPA for 2009. The GMA system spans portions of the Lower Marsh and Upper Rock sub-watersheds. As of 2009, approximately 592 Mgal/y of water were used for public water supply in the CWPA. The majority, 70%, of these withdrawals come from the Marsh Creek watershed while the remaining 30% come from the Rock Creek watershed. Multiplying the percent loss previously described by the amount of water withdrawn by the public water suppliers in the CWPA results in a total water loss (or potential water savings if these waters were conserved) of 94 Mgal/y. A free tool is available through the AWWA to assess water losses and identify areas for system improvement (AWWA 2009). The water losses can either be due to physical loss (i.e. real losses such as pipe leakage) or apparent losses. Apparent losses consist of water that reaches the customer but is not accounted for in the system’s billing process through theft, improper metering, or errors in the billing system, for example. The tool also provides an estimation of the validity of the data used to complete the assessment. Initially, the audit can be completed in less than a day using readily available or estimated data. Many systems do not have sufficient data to fully understand the water losses in the system; therefore, a system’s first audit will identify monitoring weaknesses and will assist in developing a program to effectively quantify the water losses in the system. The process of establishing and initiating a data collection effort for the system can take some time and effort, but is necessary to have reliable estimates of water loss. Once these estimates are obtained, a plan can be designed to reduce water loss in the system. For example, the California Urban Water Conservation Council is implementing a ten year program with the first five years dedicated to data collection to ensure that actions are taken to address water losses based on reliable data (personal comm., AWWA, 4/25/2012). A number of systems in the Mid-Atlantic region are already implementing the audit system including DC Water, Philadelphia Water Department, Pennsylvania American Water Company, and Aqua PA. Other water audit procedures are being implemented in some Marsh and Rock creek community supply systems such as GMA; however, the additional AWWA resources may improve the current practices. Additional water audit assistance is also available through PA Rural Water Association.
Import water into the CWPA (management alternative #6). Importing water into the CWPA may serve to alleviate the water deficit in each of the CWPA sub-watersheds. Further, imported water may be able to serve diverse water use types. The magnitude of the benefits depends on the specifics of a particular importation agreement.
Implement more water efficient irrigation practices (management alternative #1). More than 350 million gallons of water (estimated) were used for irrigation in the CWPA in 2010. Because irrigation can be a highly consumptive process (82% consumptive on average, according to USGS), a large percentage of the water is not available for use within the watersheds after it is used for irrigation. Instead, the water is primarily lost to evapotranspiration. Use of efficient irrigation practices may reduce irrigation water use by 50-70% and consumptive use by up to 25% (City of Santa Monica 2012). The quantity of water saved through the use of more efficient irrigation practices will depend on
136 v.8/28/2012 the specifics of each installation and the type of irrigation previously used; however, assuming an average reduction of 60%, water savings across the CWPA may be approximately 210 Mgal/y. Efficient irrigation systems for residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses not only conserve water, but also reduce the transport of pollutants into nearby waterways. The environmental impacts, therefore, include increased availability of surface and/or groundwater (depending on the irrigation water source) and improved quality of the surface waters receiving irrigation run-off. A range of irrigation practices are available, depending on the site-specific irrigation needs. Two examples include drip irrigation and adjusting the time of day for watering. Drip irrigation releases water at low-flow rates and under low pressure directly on or under the soil. This approach loses less water to evaporation than other traditional types of irrigation due to limited exposure to wind and reduced opportunities for surface run-off. The second water-saving irrigation practice, optimizing the time of day for irrigation, can be utilized with multiple types of watering infrastructure. More water is lost to evaporation during the heat of the day. Watering in the morning or evening can reduce this water loss. Specific irrigation methods will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis because some types of irrigation are not appropriate for all purposes. Educational efforts will be required to identify appropriate water efficient irrigation practices to apply at particular locations. Organizations exist within the CWPA to support these efforts for some water use sectors (e.g. Penn State); however, there is no agency that currently performs on-site visits to recommend practices. Costs of irrigation systems can also vary greatly. Due to the high potential costs of installing more efficient irrigation practices, the availability of funds may be a limiting factor for this management alternative. For example, the initial costs of a drip irrigation system are high and can vary significantly site to site; however, one organization40 gives a price range of $700 to greater than $1,500 per acre. One way to overcome these financial constraints may be through subsidies in the form of more efficient equipment. In fact, the advisory committee felt that stakeholders are likely to support this management alternative if it saves them money in the end, while they may be against it if it costs money overall (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012).
Seek, promote, and implement wastewater treatment system reuse, beneficial reuses of wastewater (management alternative #3). According to the DEP Reuse of Treated Wastewater Guidance Manual (DEP 2009b), wastewater reuse activities require a Water Quality Management permit from DEP. If the activity includes stream augmentation, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is also required. The EPA states that, “factors that should be considered in an industrial water reuse program include identification of water reuse opportunities; determination of the minimum water quality needed for the given use; identification of wastewater sources that satisfy the water quality requirements; and determination of how the water can be transported to the new use41.” Case studies of beneficial reuse of wastewater in the CWPA are presented in Appendix F. One resource available to assist in evaluating this management alternative is the 2012 book from the National Research Council titled Water Reuse: Potential for Expanding the Nation’s Water Supply through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater.
40 http://www.lavwcd.org/irrigation.html, accessed 4/2/2012. 41 http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/chap3.cfm, accessed 5/29/2012.
137 v.8/28/2012
Investigate use of quarries as water storage facilities, particularly in the diabase (management alternative #8). Several locations in the Potomac basin experiencing or anticipating water shortages are considering quarries as an alternative for water storage. One example is Loudoun Water, which plans to withdraw water from the Potomac River during high-flow conditions and store it in a quarry, where it can be treated for public water supply under low-flow conditions. The first quarry that may be available for use by Loudoun Water has a one billion gallon storage capacity42. This is a long-term water supply effort and may take years before being operational, depending on the rate of the mining operations. The first of the mines under consideration for Loudoun Water may be available in five years and the second may be operational sometime around 2030 or 2035. Two additional quarries that have been identified are longer term, future quarry options (Black and Veatch 2008). Unit costs of the Loudoun quarries range from 0.20 to 0.63 dollars per 1,000 gallons of safe yield (CH2M HILL 2003). Quarries in areas with diabase geology may be particularly well suited for water storage in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds because diabase is a geologic material that acts as a natural barrier to the passage of water. Diabase exists in all five CPWA sub-watersheds. The one existing mine in the CWPA operates just outside the diabase in the Upper Marsh sub-watershed. Implementing a quarry water storage operation in the CWPA would, therefore, likely require collaboration and planning to encourage locating a quarry in the diabase, a long-term timeframe for completion of mining operations, and an agreement by the mining company to utilize the mine for water supply purposes once the mining operation is complete. There are some regulatory constraints to this management alternative in the CWPA, but it can be permitted by DEP. Littlestown, for example, is looking at using their quarry for water storage purposes under the responsibility of the municipal authority. The advisory committee determined that stakeholder outreach and education may be needed to determine whether there is general support for this management alternative (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012). Economic factors in the CWPA that would have to be considered include the cost of moving the water from the quarry to the location of use. The environmental impacts of this management alternative vary depending on the site-specific conditions of the quarry and surrounding area. Potential impacts include the installation and maintenance of the infrastructure to transport the water into the water supply system and the ecological implications of creating a body of water. The site-specific impacts would need to be evaluated prior to agreement on a particular plan of action.
Creation of a new or rehabilitation of an old reservoir in/near the CWPA (management alternative #9). A reservoir has the potential to offset a major portion of the water deficit in the CWPA. Previous studies illustrate the challenges and impacts associated with a reservoir in the CWPA, while new reservoir siting ideas still require engineering assessments to determine feasibility. Several studies evaluated construction of reservoirs in or near the CWPA. A 2007 application was prepared by Buchart Horn for water allocation by GMA for the proposed York Water connection. A 1995 water allocation application was prepared by Gannett Fleming for GMA referencing a December 1977 water supply system improvement study by Gannett Fleming that also identified and evaluated
42 http://www.loudounwater.org/uploadedFiles/Loudoun_Water/Whats_Hot/Project%20Summary.pdf, accessed 5/29/2012.
138 v.8/28/2012 several possible reservoir projects. Some major conclusions from each of these studies are presented below. The Buchart Horn study evaluated a new reservoir in the headwaters of Conewago Creek, near Arendtsville. Negative aspects of this project that were cited in the evaluation include the location of PA State Route 234, parallel to the creek. Creating a new route would add significant expense and was determined to not be practical or affordable. Further, twice the distance of the pipeline required for the York Water interconnection would be required to connect this new reservoir with the GMA system, causing even greater expense. Overall, this option was evaluated as being “economically unfeasible.” The Gannett Fleming study evaluated several dam creation options, including one near Orrtanna and one near Caledonia (both on Marsh Creek), and creating an off-stream reservoir near Gettysburg. The Marsh Creek options were determined to be quite expensive because infrastructure would be required to cover the ten mile distance from the GMA system. Alternatively, the water could be discharged from the reservoir upstream and withdrawn at the existing treatment plant; however, other users could potentially take this water from the stream. The Gettysburg off-stream reservoir option, projected to hold 160 Mgal of raw water, would require approximately 50 acres of land and was determined to be difficult to implement and expensive. Birch Run Dam was originally constructed in 1937 to create Chambersburg Reservoir on Conococheague Creek. In 2004, the reservoir was drained. The next year, Birch Run Dam was breached (Manuel 2009). Prior to and since the breach of the dam, replacement of the dam has been under consideration (e.g. March 2000 Gannett Fleming Birch Run Dam Evaluation of Alternatives study). A potential alternative to address the shortage of water available for GMA during low-flow periods is a reservoir adjacent to Marsh Creek, just upstream of the GMA intake on Marsh Creek. The reservoir would take water from Marsh Creek during high flows and store the water until the natural flow in Marsh Creek falls and then release the stored water into Marsh Creek for withdrawal by GMA. This could, at a minimum, replace the augmentation well to allow withdrawal when natural flow is less than the pass-by flow. The off-stream reservoir could also potentially allow greater withdrawals from Marsh Creek during dry periods and thus increase total system availability. Several potential sites have been identified, all adjacent to Marsh Creek and upstream of the GMA intake on Marsh Creek (personal comm., CAAC member, 4/24/2012 and 5/9/2012). The drainage area above each of the potential sites is approximately 50 square miles, so there should be sufficient water available to fill the reservoir during even modest precipitation events. Construction or rehabilitation of a reservoir would first require a number of engineering analyses. An analysis should be conducted to determine the amount of water storage needed to accommodate a plausible drought period and the resulting low stream flows. A second analysis should investigate the feasibility of this type of reservoir at each of the potential locations, how much water could be stored, the amount of additional system capacity that could be provided, and the estimated construction and operation costs at each location. An environmental investigation would also be necessary prior to construction or rehabilitation of a reservoir in the CWPA. Depending on the site-specific conditions, the reservoir may provide flood control and water quality improvements, thereby maintaining and/or improving ecosystem conditions in the watersheds. Other environmental impacts include conversion of terrestrial habitats to aquatic habitats and the impacts associated with installation and maintenance of infrastructure required to transport the water from the reservoir to the water supply systems.
139 v.8/28/2012
In communications with the advisory committee (2/15/2012), it was determined that no funding currently exists to construct a reservoir and that it will likely be quite expensive (more than $28 million); however, bonds may be one way to proceed with reservoir funding. Further, this alternative may help meet the long-term needs of the community but it does not assist with the shorter term needs as it may take considerable time to complete the project.
Creation of additional agricultural ponds (management alternative #11a). Agricultural ponds can be a vital resource for livestock watering, irrigation, and other on-farm purposes. The total amount of water used for agriculture in the CWPA (including estimated and reported livestock water use and irrigation) as of 2010 was approximately 565 Mgal/y. In 2010, the largest portion of this water use occurred in the Lower Marsh sub-watershed (152 Mgal), followed by the Lower Rock sub-watershed (124 Mgal), Upper Marsh (104.6 Mgal), Little Marsh (101.7 Mgal), and Upper Rock (82.6 Mgal). The majority of this water use occurs in summer, followed by fall and spring. Agricultural water use is lowest in winter. Members of the CWPA agricultural community indicated that additional ponds would provide additional water security during water stressed conditions (personal comm., agricultural representatives, 5/19/2011). Creation of agricultural ponds requires a permit from DEP under Chapter 105. This permit requirement is waived if “1) The contributory drainage area is less than or equal to 100 acres. 2) The greatest depth of water at maximum storage elevation is less than or equal to 15 ft. 3) The impounding capacity at maximum storage elevation is less than or equal to 50 acre feet.” NRCS provides funding through the Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) program for new ponds to be used as irrigation water sources only. Ponds are typically funded as part of larger irrigation systems that include a pump and filter system, pipelines, and sprinklers or emitters that deliver the irrigation water to the crop. NRCS conducts the surveys and design for the pond itself and provides assistance to the landowner with obtaining necessary permits. NRCS tries to avoid the need for specialized permits by keeping pond size and location within DEP’s General Permit guidelines. The company supplying parts and materials for the project performs the design for the irrigation system itself. NRCS engineers must review and approve the design before installation (personal comm., NRCS, 2/6/2012). In Adams County, various kinds of irrigation systems have been installed through this program, ranging from pond-fed trickle irrigation systems for orchards and vegetables to well-based pivot sprinklers for corn. Once an application is received through the AMA program, the process typically takes one to two calendar years for completion. Approximately 60-90% of the project cost is typically covered by the NRCS program, with the rest covered by the landowner. However, funding is not guaranteed. The program has not received much funding over the last couple of years. And, funding available through this project is expected to continue to decline (personal comm., NRCS, 2/6/2012). According to the advisory committee (7/13/2011 and 1/11/2012), there are several potential complications to implementation of this alternative. Specifically, the DEP required permits can be cumbersome to obtain, building a pond may be more difficult and/or costly than installing a well, the desire to build ponds in wetlands is an environmental concern, and considerable efforts may be required to maintain the pond.
140 v.8/28/2012
New developments should include/incentivize water conservation equipment in homes when built (management alternative #5). Conserving water reduces the total amount needed to be withdrawn from the environment; therefore, more water becomes available for other human, instream, and ecosystem uses. Self-supplied domestic water users in the CWPA (i.e. those households on private wells) were estimated to use nearly 787 Mgal in 2010. That same year, community suppliers in the CWPA used approximately 586 Mgal (note: community suppliers provide water for commercial, industrial, residential, and other purposes). Implementing water conservation measures in homes, not including outdoor residential use, has been known to reduce water use by 20% or more (Penn State 2008). If half of the self-supplied domestic users in the CWPA implemented water conservation measures in their home, thereby reducing the water use by 20%, the anticipated water use reduction by sub-watershed would be: 16,161 gpd in Upper Rock, 33,600 gpd in Lower Rock, 15,172 gpd in Little Marsh, and 18,572 in Upper Marsh, 24,542 in Lower Marsh. This is a total water savings of over 108,000 gpd for the CWPA. Implementation of this management alternative at this hypothetical magnitude has the potential to reduce the water deficit in the CWPA by approximately 2%. If implemented in the community supply service areas as well, larger benefits would result. Historic steps toward including water conservation equipment in homes include the Energy Policy Act of 1992, requiring that all new toilets produced for home use must operate at 1.6 gallons per flush or less. Additionally, many municipalities around the country have implemented water conservation programs that incentivize water conservation in homes and business in various ways. For example, Denver Water initiated a New Home Water Conservation Initiative Program that provides a financial incentive for builders and developers or homeowners who install water efficient devices. The City of Austin, Texas developed the 3C business challenge that labels a business as an Austin Green Business Leader if the business commits to reducing water use by 10%. The benefits for the business are a positive perception from potential customers, reduced water and energy costs, and financial and technical assistance from the City of Austin. Current codes in the CWPA dealing with installation of water conservation equipment in homes include the 2009 energy and plumbing requirement and the uniform construction code (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012).
New developments need to provide additional storage capacity (management alternative #10). Continued growth and development is expected in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. The growth will likely be accompanied by increases in demands for water. Additional storage capacity will help to ensure sustainable water supplies, particularly during low-flow periods. The additional storage capacity would have the added benefit of reducing withdrawals from the streams and groundwater sources during low-flow periods, making more water available for ecosystem uses. For example, 14.5 Mgal of raw water storage is being proposed in association with the Mason Dixon Country Club. As an incentive for Mason Dixon Country Club, this additional storage allowed them a higher withdrawal rate during flows greater than 18.9 cfs43. Further, companies are now making available small- and medium-sized storage options that are cost effective, aesthetically appealing, and that conserve water44. Also available to water systems is the PENNVEST Drinking Water State Revolving Fund which “offers low interest loans with flexible terms to
43 http://files.dep.state.pa.us/RegionalResources/SCRO/SCROPortalFiles/MDU%20WA%20Pmt%20Report.pdf, accessed 5/29/2012. 44 http://www.waterefficiency.net/WE/Articles/15578.aspx, accessed 5/29/2012.
141 v.8/28/2012 assist a variety of borrowers for construction, expansion, and maintenance of drinking water facilities (treatment plants, distribution mains, storage facilities), and improvements and upgrades to water quality systems45” {emphasis added}. One step in implementing this management alternative is determining the quantity of storage necessary to meet human needs while maintaining the health of the ecosystem. The storage needed will likely be dependent on the location of future development, the water resources used for supplies, and the projected demand of the system. DEP recommends that water suppliers have one day of treated storage to act as a buffer for peak demands and emergencies and 180 days of raw water storage for systems relying solely on surface water sources. Another approach to determining the quantity of necessary storage is based on the amount of water consumed, or the amount of water withdrawn that is not returned to the source (e.g. Virginia §62.1-44.15:5.02). Additionally, storage amounts should take into consideration the amount of water needed to maintain the habitats and ecosystems and minimize negative environmental impacts. The existing water deficit for each CWPA sub-watershed also provides an indication of the amount of water needed to meet the existing needs. In the CWPA, much of the water used is from groundwater. In some geographic locations, groundwater injection for water supply storage may be appropriate; however, this is not an appropriate storage technique for the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds due to the fractured bedrock geology and the high groundwater recession rates. Overall, the ground and surface water systems are too interconnected to consider the aquifers to be a long-term water storage opportunity. The water naturally found in the aquifers may be considered short-term storage; however, relying solely on groundwater availability affords little protection during droughts, particularly in areas where groundwater wells have been known to go dry. In systems relying on groundwater, surface water storage can provide an opportunity for the conjunctive management of the sources to optimize efficient use of the surface- and ground-water sources. In terms of stakeholder acceptance of this recommendation, developers may be reluctant to approve as it represents an additional requirement, in the form of a permit; however, residents may approve of this management alternative as it provides them with additional water security (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012).
No Action The No Action alternative consists of continuing with business as usual in terms of water storage and making no enhancements to water availability to meet the growing water demands. Already, the negative effects of limited water availability are felt during water stressed conditions (e.g. streams and wells going dry). With increasing population, impervious cover, and stresses on the water resources, the conditions are expected to worsen if no action is taken. These impacts are likely to have negative implications for both the humans and ecosystems dependent on the water resources in the CWPA, particularly during low-flow conditions.
Percolate water back into the ground from sewage treatment plants where feasible (management alternative #4). According to the DEP Manual for Land Application of Treated Sewage and Industrial Wastewater46, an applicant must complete and have approval for Act 537 sewage facility planning
45 http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/programs/9322/drinking_water_%28dwsrf%29/541747, accessed 5/29/2012.
142 v.8/28/2012 modules as well as obtain a Clean Streams Law Part II Water Quality Management permit for land application of sewage. When conditions prevent land application, seasonal discharges to surface waters are allowable, but require a NPDES Part I discharge permit. Case studies that include percolation of wastewater are presented in Appendix F. Advisory committee members voiced concerns with this management alternative because it takes discharges that have been going to the stream (or could be going to the stream) and uses them to recharge the groundwater (2/15/2012 and 4/11/2012). The effects of this practice on the surface water uses of the stream, including ecosystem uses, are unclear. Additional analysis on appropriate locations for percolation given local soil conditions may also be necessary (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012). In Maryland, specific concerns about percolation of wastewater, particularly drip irrigation systems, include the subsequent discharge of partially treated wastewater into nearby streams due to lack of proper infiltration from various equipment malfunctions47. In response to these concerns, Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) recently re-evaluated drip irrigation system use in Maryland, resulting in additional guidelines requiring an approved operator and inclusion of operational requirements in the associated groundwater discharge permits48. Percolating water into the ground from sewage treatment plants instead of discharging the effluent directly to the stream may have a number of environmental impacts. Water that infiltrates the soil moves much more slowly through the hydrologic system than surface water that runs off over the surface. Therefore, percolating water into the ground can have the environmental benefit of maintaining the baseflow in streams for a longer period of time, where it may have previously declined more rapidly. Depending on the specific application, however, the practice may result in an increase in consumptive use. Spray irrigation of wastewater, for example, is likely to have a high evaporation rate and may subsequently reduce the overall amount of water returning to the system for human and ecosystem use.
Enhanced or additional treatment mechanisms should be developed to provide additional sources of water (management alternative #12). Public water suppliers in the CWPA solely utilize groundwater with the exception of GMA, who withdrawals from Marsh Creek in addition to groundwater wells in both Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. A number of water quality issues in the CWPA may affect availability of both sources for drinking water supplies. There are several stretches of surface water in the CWPA that are impaired for nutrients. Four (including GMA) of the thirteen public water suppliers in the CWPA are located within 0.5 miles of an impaired stream, indicating that a switch from groundwater to surface water would require treatment to remove these nutrients and microorganisms. Further, public water suppliers using surface water sources may be subject to different water treatment requirements than suppliers using groundwater sources. This management alternative may be a viable alternative during wet, average, and even mildly dry years because sufficient water should be available from multiple sources. During drought periods when supplies are stressed, however, availability from surface- and ground-water sources is limited regardless of treatment techniques. For example, it does not matter if sophisticated surface water treatment technologies exist if no surface water is available.
46 http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Version-48798/362-2000-009.pdf, accessed 5/29/2012. 47 http://ceds.org/applegreene/MDE_Sign-On_Letter.pdf, accessed 5/29/2012. 48 http://ceds.org/applegreene/MDE_Drip-Irrigation_Letter_2-7-2012.pdf, accessed 5/29/2012.
143 v.8/28/2012
A potential source of disapproval for this alternative is from stakeholders if water bills increase as a result of implementation of additional treatment technologies (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012). Further, there is the perception that increasing water availability through treatment technologies or other mechanisms may fuel additional growth in the CWPA. There are a number of potential environmental effects of this management alternative. For example, the conjunctive use of both ground and surface water resources may reduce the need to deplete any one resource to environmentally harmful levels. However, increasing water available for human use may encourage use of that water, therefore decreasing the water available for ecosystem uses.
GMA may consider alternative means of conveyance from the augmentation well to the public water supply intakes to reduce consumptive loss (management alternative #7). The GMA stream augmentation well is located in the Lower Marsh sub-watershed. During dry conditions, water is pumped from the well above the GMA intake to ensure that the Marsh Creek pass-by requirement is met. The water, or a portion of the water, is then withdrawn for drinking water purposes. The Lower Marsh sub-watershed has an average annual daily water deficit (withdrawal minus 7Q10) of approximately 2.1 Mgpd with a maximum daily water deficit of approximately 2.2 Mgpd. During the most water stressed season, summer, the two sub-watersheds have an average daily water deficit of approximately 2.4 Mgpd. In the Act 220 watershed screening process, evaporation from the Marsh Creek pool above the dam at the GMA intake was estimated to be an annual average 37,900 gpd. This evaporative loss is 0.9% of the minimum pass-by flow required under GMA’s withdrawal permit. The average number of days per year that the well was used to augment the natural flow from 2006 to 2010 was 55 days per year and the average daily discharge amount from the well was 0.5 Mgpd. Applying the percent of evaporative loss to this discharge gives an average of 4,400 gpd (or 1.6 Mgal/y) of the augmentation water lost to evaporation (approximately 0.2% of the average daily water deficit in the two sub-watersheds). Conveying well water to the water treatment plant intake blends the harder groundwater with the stream water, reducing the amount of pre-treatment required in the treatment plant. One potential alternative is for GMA to utilize the water directly from the well, without first discharging it to the stream. The water would then need to be piped into the GMA treatment and distribution system. There are likely significant costs and some potential water loss from the pipes that may occur as a result.
Establish standardized pass-by for surface withdrawals to ensure the withdrawals do not de-water the streams (management alternative #13). DEP has the authority to establish pass-by requirements via the withdrawal permitting process. For example, GMA has a pass-by requirement of 6.68 cfs on Marsh Creek. The new Mason Dixon County Club withdrawal permit requires a minimum pass-by of 18.9 cfs if the development proceeds. Establishing a pass-by for individual withdrawals throughout the CWPA would require site- specific analyses to determine an appropriate pass-by amount. A difficulty in implementing this management alternative is determining the pass-by criteria sufficient to protect the ecosystems while also allowing for the human uses of the waterways. Further, establishing the authority to implement this management alternative may require changes in the existing regulations to require pass-by amounts on small withdrawals that are not currently required to obtain a permit from DEP (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012). Although this alternative does not make more water available for human use in the CWPA; a
144 v.8/28/2012 substantial benefit of this management alternative is ecosystem protection under water stressed, low-flow conditions.
Water Quality Four management alternatives related to protecting and improving water quality were considered as part of the CARP process including a No Action alternative (Table 75). The highest ranking water quality alternative was quantification of maximum contaminant loads for future management efforts. The lowest scoring alternative was the installation of a filter to prevent debris from entering Rock Creek, an alternative that was found to cause localized flooding problems.
Table 75. Management alternatives associated with water resources issue #3, water quality. Alternatives are ranked by total score. The management alternative number (column “No.”) corresponds to the number on the combined list of alternatives resulting from the February 15, 2012 advisory committee workshop. Feasibility Technical Total No. Management Alternatives Score Score Score Quantify maximum contaminant loads for pollutants of concern in impaired waterways by developing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for impaired reaches 29 in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. 60 30 90 Public water suppliers in the CWPA should participate in the Potomac Drinking Water Source Protection Partnership to leverage resources and enhance 30 communications with other suppliers in the basin. 52 18 70 No Action 60 0 60 Install a filter or catchment near the outlet of Stevens 42 Run to prevent debris from entering Rock Creek. 0 42 42
A discussion of each of the water quality management alternatives is provided below, in order of highest to lowest total score.
Quantify maximum contaminant loads for pollutants of concern in impaired waterways by developing TMDLs (management alternative #29). A TMDL quantifies the amount of pollution that a water body can handle before it no longer meets water quality criteria established for its designated use. Quantifying this acceptable amount of pollution provides managers with a goal for pollution allocations and reduction activities, thereby reducing pollution, improving ecosystem health, and potentially making water treatment less expensive. A number of waterways in Adams County do not meet the water quality criteria assigned for their respective designated uses (e.g. public water supply, contact recreation, etc.). Two TMDLs are currently being developed in Adams County for Plum Run and Beaverdam Creek; however, neither of these are located in the CWPA. Any entity is able to petition DEP for development of a TMDL by submitting a form which can be obtained on the DEP website. DEP priority is given to certain watersheds, currently consisting of watersheds with primarily nutrient and sediment problems. If DEP selects a watershed for development of a TMDL, DEP typically covers the costs of the work. Alternatively, a third party can pay to develop the TMDL and submit it to DEP and EPA for approval. A suggestion that came out of the
145 v.8/28/2012
2/15/2012 advisory committee workshop was a recommendation to DEP that impaired waterways in the CWPA get priority over other areas for the development of a TMDL. New tools are being released that may assist in this process. For example, the EPA has released a new tool to make information on permitted discharges readily available. The tool is available online49 and uses permit and Discharge Monitoring Report data to calculate pollutant loadings in pounds per year.
Public water suppliers in the CWPA should participate in the Potomac Drinking Water Source Protection Partnership to leverage resources and enhance communications with other suppliers in the basin (management alternative #30). The Partnership50 is a voluntary association of water suppliers and government agencies focused on protecting drinking water sources in the Potomac River basin. This coalition of water utilities and management and regulatory agencies enables a comprehensive approach to protecting raw water supplies in the basin. Through work groups and active discussion at meetings, the Partnership has identified a strategy to carry forward source water protection as recommended by source water assessments prepared throughout the basin. The Partnership now has 20 member organizations and continues to expand throughout the basin. Participation is open to all water suppliers, however, a voluntary annual fee of 1) $300 or 2) $66 per average annual Mgpd is requested to cover costs.
No Action The No Action water quality alternative consists of not taking any additional measures to protect or improve water quality. Numerous stream reaches in the CWPA do not currently meet their designated uses. These conditions are expected to worsen if no action is taken with future population growth, increases in commercial and industrial uses, and more intensive agricultural practices. No improvement of the water quality conditions, therefore, will likely foster future deterioration of water quality and associated ecosystem conditions.
Install a filter or catchment near the outlet of Stevens Run to prevent debris from entering Rock Creek (management alternative #42). Debris has been noted in Stevens Run, near the confluence with Rock Creek in Gettysburg. Some type of debris removal device, such as a filter or a catchment, would assist in removing this debris before entering Rock Creek. This management strategy would require maintenance to remove the intercepted trash. During previous evaluations of this alternative conducted by local organizations, the installation of a debris filter at this location was determined to cause localized flooding, making this alternative not feasible for implementation (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012).
Stormwater Four stormwater management alternatives, including a No Action option, were evaluated as part of the CARP process (Table 76). The total scores range from 99 to 0. The management alternative with the highest total score was the implementation of a suite of stormwater management programs. All of
49 http://cfpub.epa.gov/dmr, accessed 5/29/2012. 50 http://www.potomacdwspp.org/index.php, accessed 5/29/2012.
146 v.8/28/2012 these programs with one exception were considered a “Yes” for feasibility, indicating it is fully feasible and/or is expected to proceed. The lowest scoring alternative is No Action.
Table 76. Management alternatives associated with water resources issue #4, stormwater. Alternatives are ranked by total score. The management alternative number (column “No.”) corresponds to the number on the combined list of alternatives resulting from the February 15, 2012 advisory committee workshop. Feasibility Technical Total No. Management Alternatives Score Score Score Implementation of stormwater management program(s). -- Continuation/expansion of the ACCD rainbarrel and rain garden programs; -- Implement efficient practices for control of run-off from ag land; -- Develop an Adams County specific stormwater BMP manual (e.g. Stormwater run-off from impervious surfaces could be reused for landscaping purposes and/or to enhance infiltration through rain gardens and constructed wetlands, Promote use of warm season grasses whenever possible as a best management practice (e.g. golf courses), Encourage the separation downspouts from storm drains by routing run-off to a pervious surface (lawn, rain garden, etc.)); -- Establish a collaboration with a developer in the CWPA to create a Low Impact Development (LID) showcase site to encourage 37 environmentally sensitive development practices. 57 42 99 Implementation of stormwater and gray water reuse program(s). Options include: -- Regional/neighborhood stormwater ponds for gray water distribution; -- Collaboration between neighboring industries/companies to distribute gray water; -- Use of either rainwater or gray water for industrial processes such as product washing or cooling, rather than using ground or potable water; and -- Golf courses within the CWPA should be encouraged to use gray 38 water for irrigation, wherever and to the extent possible. 30 60 90 36 Establishment of a stormwater authority in the CWPA. 0 60 60 No Action 60 0 60
Evaluation of management alternatives associated with stormwater are provided below in order of descending total score.
Implementation of stormwater management program(s) (management alternative #37). Stormwater management practices encourage infiltration thereby replenishing groundwater supplies and sustaining baseflows, reduce surface run-off thereby reducing flooding and pollutant transport, and encourage collection and use of this resource. Implementing practices that encourage these results will aid in meeting the water deficit in all sub-watersheds and will protect ecosystem degradation during storm events. A number of organizations including Adams County (via ACCD and the county commissioners), CWPA municipalities, and DEP are involved with implementing regulations to control stormwater
147 v.8/28/2012 management. A number of stormwater management activities are currently underway through these efforts in the CWPA. For example, ACCD conducts stormwater management activities across Adams County including rain barrels, county-wide planning, etc. These and additional opportunities are listed on the management alternatives spreadsheet. Existing tools and methodologies like the GIS water budgeting model proposed by Sellers (1996) may assist in local implementation of stormwater management programs and associated land use planning.
Implementation of stormwater and gray water reuse program(s) (management alternative #38). During the analysis of stormwater management in the CWPA, it was found that sufficient amounts of stormwater exist to meet the water deficit in all seasons in all sub-watersheds. Using, and re- using, the stormwater as a resource to meet non-potable water uses in the CWPA may go a long way to addressing the water quantity issues. Gray water is “domestic wastewater composed of wash water from kitchen sinks and tubs, clothes washers, and laundry tubs51.” This non-potable water is of sufficient quality for multiple uses including gardening, lawn maintenance, landscaping, and in toilets. A number of cities around the country have implemented a second distribution system for non-potable, gray water. Case studies of stormwater and gray water reuse in the CWPA are presented in Appendix F. One example is the Hundredfold Farm Cohousing Community, which received approval from DEP to proceed with a wastewater reuse and non-discharge project. The community treats domestic wastewater in a greenhouse system. The treated water is then distributed back to the homes for non-potable uses. If the amount of treated wastewater is greater than the demand, it is discharged to a sub-surface trickle irrigation system. Similar distribution systems, called stormwater reuse utilities, can also be utilized to convey non- potable stormwater to customers for use. The utility charges for the distribution of stormwater. Studies have demonstrated that these systems can be highly economically efficient52. A concern regarding the reuse of stormwater and gray water voiced by advisory committee members was the linkage between reuse of these water supplies and emerging contaminants. If, for example, emerging contaminants are carried in the stormwater which is subsequently applied to home gardens, the ability to safely consume those foods is unclear. Also, it was noted that there may be a general lack of education amongst stakeholders regarding reuse opportunities and benefits. Implementation of this alternative will require identifying a mechanism to encourage people to participate and funding mechanisms for specific reuse opportunities (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012).
Establishment of a stormwater authority in the CWPA (management alternative #36). Stormwater authorities are designed to obtain revenue for operation and maintenance of the stormwater system. In Pennsylvania, municipalities themselves do not have the authority to charge for maintenance and operation of the stormwater system, except through the use of tax dollars; however, municipal authorities are able to establish and implement such programs (e.g. PA Municipal Authorities Act; Senate Bill 1261 of 2012). The municipal authority is not geographically limited and can function across multiple municipal jurisdictions53.
51 http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/chap3.cfm, accessed 5/29/2012. 52 http://www.stormwater.ucf.edu/conferences/9thstormwatercd/documents/StormwaterReuse_PPT.pdf, accessed 5/29/2012. 53 http://www3.villanova.edu/vusp/Outreach/pasym05/pres/mun/developing-SWU-MA.pdf, accessed 5/29/2012.
148 v.8/28/2012
According to EPA Region 3, more than 500 stormwater utilities are in operation across the country (EPA 2008a). These utilities impose fees to cover the costs of stormwater management projects. Typical fees that a single family home may incur from these utilities averages about $11 per quarter. The establishment of a stormwater utility for financing of stormwater projects typically involves the following steps: 1) development of a feasibility study, 2) creating a billing system, 3) developing and implementing a public information program, 4) adopting an ordinance, 5) providing credits or exemptions, and 6) implementation.
No Action The No Action stormwater alternative continues with business as usual in the watersheds. There are a number of areas in the CWPA that experience damaging floods during high flows. With increasing impervious cover expected in the watersheds, maintaining the current number of stormwater management practices would serve to worsen flooding problems and water quality issues associated with stormflows.
Policy and Management Authority for water resources management in the CWPA is held primarily at the municipal level. The CWPA consists of portions of twelve municipalities, creating an inconsistent governance framework across the watersheds. Many of the CARP management alternatives would benefit from coordinated policy and management decisions across the CWPA. To this end, nineteen management alternatives were considered to improve water resources policy and management, including a No Action alternative (Table 77). Alternatives related to adopting and enforcing CWPA ordinances across municipal boundaries received the highest possible total score, 120.
Table 77. Management alternatives associated with water resources issue #5, policy and management. Alternatives are ranked by total score. The management alternative number (column “No.”) corresponds to the number on the combined list of alternatives resulting from the February 15, 2012 advisory committee workshop. Feasibility Technical Total No. Management Alternatives Score Score Score Establish groundwater protection ordinances for well construction 31a and geothermal wells. 60 60 120 All municipalities in the CARP area should adopt and enforce ordinances regarding private well construction standards, including 33c geothermal systems. 60 60 120 All municipalities in the CARP area should adopt and enforce ordinances regarding on-lot septic system maintenance and the 33d establishment of sewage management districts. 60 60 120 All municipalities in the CARP area should adopt and enforce 33e ordinances regarding protecting and creating riparian buffers. 60 60 120 Encourage land preservation (purchasing conservation easements) 41 targeting the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. 49 60 109 Establish groundwater protection ordinance for yield analysis (for large wells); need common methodology for 31b municipalities to determine sustainable groundwater yields. 41 60 101
149 v.8/28/2012
Feasibility Technical Total No. Management Alternatives Score Score Score Establish groundwater protection ordinance for water quality protection; need inspections to ensure proper construction and testing of finished water to make sure treatment is adequate and 31c well is functioning properly. 41 60 101 Encourage the adoption of a wellhead protection ordinance to 32 protect community water supply sources within the CWPA. 41 60 101 Prepare a Joint Comprehensive Plan for the CWPA that includes sound land use policies and a strong water supply and protection 17 component. Follow up with compatible zoning and SALDOs. 39 60 99 Foster implementability of recommendations - develop incentives 23b or credits for implementation of practices. 37 60 97 Develop a sub-committee of WAAC to coordinate volunteers to 26 implement improvement projects in the CWPA. 60 30 90 Implement local drought preparedness activities including 28 establishment of a CWPA drought advisory group. 60 30 90 Encourage the development and maintenance of riparian buffers along designated greenways (including the Rock and Marsh creek 34 greenways) as specified in the Adams County Greenways Plan. 60 30 90 Foster implementability of recommendations - develop a list of projects requiring additional funding for future grant-seeking 23a efforts. 47 42 89 Establish a water conservation program that can respond to water supply/demand conditions, especially for businesses and institutions affected by an influx of tourists (about 2 million) during summer months when water supply typically is low. Possibilities are: -- Encourage the adoption of water saving measures used in other tourist areas. The Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau can help with this. -- Issue low water supply advisories when appropriate. The Water Management Council (management alternative #25) could do this using data it collects. -- Adopt variable water and sewer rates based on water supply conditions (higher rates when supply is low). Municipal authorities 24 may be able to do this. 40 42 82
150 v.8/28/2012
Feasibility Technical Total No. Management Alternatives Score Score Score Create a Marsh and Rock Creeks Water Management Council. The Council would be composed of representatives from participating municipalities, municipal authorities, and county government. It would be funded by contributions from those participating organizations and grants if available. It would function as a mini- ICPRB, but would contract out for technical expertise. It would do for all the participating municipalities and municipal authorities what would be impractical or uneconomical for individual entities to do. It could: -- Collect and analyze CARP area water supply data. -- Advise municipalities and municipal authorities in the CARP area about water allocation. -- Furnish technical advice on water resources issues. -- Serve as a central resource for inspections and permits required 25 under municipal ordinances for water related matters. 31 30 61 No Action 60 0 60 All municipalities in the CARP area should adopt and enforce 33a ordinances regarding lawn fertilizer. 0 30 30 Surface water ponds for agricultural irrigation should be the 11b recommended practice over the use of wells. 0 0 0
Management alternatives associated with water resources policy and management in the CWPA are evaluated below in order of descending total score.
Establish groundwater protection ordinances for well construction and geothermal wells (management alternative #31a). Pennsylvania is one of only a few states without well construction standards. Standards ensure that wells are properly designed and constructed to prevent contamination of the aquifers. Adoption of a number of groundwater protection ordinances has been proposed for the CWPA, including well construction and geothermal wells (#33c). The first step in this process is developing an ordinance for adoption (#31a). A model well construction ordinance is currently being developed and reviewed in Adams County, under the leadership of the Pennsylvania Ground Water Association and ACCD. Geothermal well ordinances have been developed and adopted in other areas of the Commonwealth and are available for review and modification. One example of a model geothermal well ordinance is the Spring Creek Watershed Model Ordinance, presented at the 2010 Pennsylvania Water Symposium (Giddings 2010).
All municipalities in the CARP area should adopt and enforce ordinances regarding private well construction standards, including geothermal systems (management alternative #33c). Once the model well construction ordinance is developed and has stakeholder approval (#31a), the next step is adoption and enforcement by CWPA municipalities. Environmental benefits that can be expected from this ordinance are protection of groundwater quality and quantity. For example, concern has been expressed in multiple advisory committee meetings on the use of open-loop geothermal systems,
151 v.8/28/2012 which includes surface discharge of groundwater after use. This process results in water lost for local uses after the water travels downstream and out of the watersheds.
All municipalities in the CARP area should adopt and enforce ordinances regarding on-lot septic system maintenance and the establishment of sewage management districts (management alternative #33d). Septic systems that are not functioning properly can degrade water quality, primarily by leaking nutrients into the surface or groundwater. Some states in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed have even proposed banning septic systems in new housing developments for this reason54. The Adams County Water Supply and Wellhead Protection Plan (ACOPD 2001) suggests the need for on-lot septic system ordinances which assure siting, maintenance, pumping; and replacement of systems so as to minimize potential groundwater pollution. Alternatively the plan suggests municipalities create local sewer districts which charge each household a small annual fee. In return, the municipality takes responsibility for the maintenance and replacement of tanks. When Act 537 sewage facility plans are updated, DEP requires language that municipalities have on-lot septic system maintenance programs (personal comm., DEP, 2/29/2012). Through the completion and/or revisions of Act 537 plans, municipalities can implement this (and other) CARP management alternatives.
All municipalities in the CARP area should adopt and enforce ordinances regarding protecting and creating riparian buffers (management alternative #33e). Riparian buffers create numerous environmental and ecosystem benefits including habitat creation and water quality protection. Enforcement of riparian buffer ordinances will promote the implementation of these practices across the CWPA. Information on the development of a riparian buffer ordinance is available on the WAAC website55.
Encourage land preservation (purchasing conservation easements) targeting the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds (management alternative #41). Encouraging and identifying funding for land preservation in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds may maintain water quality and increase infiltration by limiting impervious surface. Two examples of land preservation in the CWPA include the following. The Marsh Creek watershed was targeted for preservation in the past utilizing monies from DEP to fund easement purchases. The project received awards from DEP and the EPA because of the resulting watershed protection. More recently, a Marsh Creek watershed conservation easement project was awarded to the Land Conservancy of Adams County through an American Rivers and EPA Potomac Highlands Restoration Grant Program. In general, there is a 75% stakeholder approval rate for these programs in the county. A similar approval rate may be expected in the CWPA (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012). Preserving areas with sufficient groundwater yields to support future water needs may also be important because a 400’ radius around a groundwater well is needed for a DEP permit. Once development occurs, identifying locations that meet this requirement and are suitable for groundwater development may be difficult. This type of land preservation would consist of approximately 16-20 acres
54 http://www.bayactionplan.com/2011/02/septic-solution-chesapeake, accessed 5/29/2012. 55 http://www.adamswatersheds.org/images/SOTW_Riparian_Buffer_Ordinace.pdf, accessed 5/29/2012.
152 v.8/28/2012 to protect a well’s Zone 1 area. These smaller areas may be more manageable than large scale land preservation (personal comm., CAAC, 4/11/2012). Another impetus for land preservation is the possibility for stormwater harvesting opportunities (Grenoble 2007). As mentioned previously, stormwater is a potentially major resource to address the water deficit in the CWPA.
Establish groundwater protection ordinance for yield analysis (for large wells); need common methodology for municipalities to determine sustainable groundwater yields (management alternative #31b). An ordinance requiring yield analysis procedures for large wells that is consistent across municipalities will ensure that developers meet the methodological expectations across the CWPA. The ordinance is intended to prevent exploitation of groundwater resources in CWPA areas with insufficient yields. A common municipal approach throughout the CWPA should be pursued by conducting a meeting of municipal engineers, hydrogeologic consultants, and the Adams County WRAC to discuss alternative approaches to yield analysis and select an appropriate methodology. Yield analysis methodologies vary from simple to complex approaches. Two options, discussed below, illustrate the varying complexity of these approaches. Either option may be viable for protecting the groundwater resources of the CWPA, but selection and implementation will depend on stakeholder acceptance. The first option is an ordinance prescribing a series of tests and aquifer monitoring following SRBC or similar regulations (includes a testing methodology56, monitoring, water availability considerations, etc.). The methodology would require that parties constructing wells with an average withdrawal of more than 10,000 gpd submit a copy of their hydrogeologic testing data and reports to the municipality. This assumes that any well with this level of expected withdrawal will have undergone some degree of hydrogeologic testing to ensure suitability for the intended use. To implement this approach, the municipalities would need to agree on acceptable hydrogeologic testing requirements. An alternative methodology to protecting the CWPA’s groundwater resources is to monitor the volume of total cumulative net groundwater withdrawals in relation to an estimate of the watershed’s total water resource. The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) uses a 1 in 25 year average annual baseflow as the estimation of the total amount of groundwater resource available in a watershed. To protect first-order streams and watersheds with “baseflow-sensitive resources” such as exceptional waters or wild trout streams, a target of less than 50% of the 1 in 25 year average annual baseflow is used to provide additional protection57. This methodology requires the calculation of the 1 in 25 year average annual baseflow for each sub-watershed, and maintaining the cumulative net groundwater withdrawals in the sub-watershed. As the municipal boundaries are not coincident with sub-watershed boundaries, either cooperative accounting of the net withdrawals in the sub-watershed or an adjustment of the calculations within the municipal boundaries is required. The calculation of the 1 in 25 year average annual baseflow may be calculated using either StreamStats or the estimated baseflow calculated in the CARP’s water availability analysis. To implement the DRBC approach in the CWPA, the municipalities would need to agree on a protection target, whether it is the 1 in 25 year average annual baseflow or some other
56 This suggested example of an aquifer testing guidance can be found at: http://www.srbc.net/policies/docs/Policy%202007_01.pdf, accessed 8/28/2012. 57 Watersheds—an integrated water resources management plan for Chester County, Pennsylvania and its watersheds, Chester County Board of Commissioners, 244p.
153 v.8/28/2012 measure. This approach would be more onerous on the municipality and the prospective well owner than the previously described methodology. A difficulty in implementing a groundwater protection ordinance in the CWPA is the burden on the municipalities of reviewing and approving the applications submitted. This review and approval process would likely require personnel with hydrologic and/or hydrogeologic expertise.
Establish groundwater protection ordinance for water quality protection; need inspections to ensure proper construction and testing of finished water to make sure treatment is adequate and well is functioning properly (management alternative #31c). Community water supply wells are already inspected to ensure proper construction, adequate quality, and functionality. Inspections of private, domestic supplies, however, are not currently conducted (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012). Benefits of instituting an inspection program for private, domestic supplies may include protection of human health from contaminated waters and protection of groundwater supplies from contamination. According to ACOPD, enforcement of the ordinance may be difficult if specific standards are included in the ordinance as this requires technical expertise for enforcement (personal comm., ACOPD, 5/2/2012). Enforcement may also require additional staff time.
Encourage the adoption of a wellhead protection ordinance to protect community water supply sources within the CWPA (management alternative #32). Pennsylvania’s Wellhead Protection Program was formally initiated, with approval from the EPA, in 1999. Recognizing the multiple levels of governmental authority and the diverse stakeholders involved in wellhead protection, DEP’s focus is on “technical, financial, and educational assistance to facilitate the development of voluntary local Wellhead Protection Programs58.” The purpose of the Adams County Water Supply and Wellhead Protection Plan is to “protect groundwater quality of public supply wells from potential contamination threats. Four pilot projects were completed for Abbottstown, Fairfield, Gettysburg, and Littlestown (ACCD and ACOPD 2011).” According to advisory committee members, a revision of this plan has been discussed although formal plans have not been made. The advisory committee suggested that perhaps DEP could make this a requirement for wells within the CWPA (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012); however, DEP does not currently have the authority to do so (personal comm., DEP, 2/29/2012).
Prepare a Joint Comprehensive Plan for the CWPA that includes sound land use policies and a strong water supply and protection component (management alternative #17). Land use planning in Pennsylvania is implemented at the municipal level. Therefore, development, approval, and implementation of a consistent land use plan for the CWPA will require collaboration between all involved municipalities. A number of municipalities in the CWPA are already included in joint municipal comprehensive plans. To prevent duplication of efforts, this management alternative is envisioned for specific municipalities; namely, Cumberland Township, Gettysburg Borough, Mount Joy Township, and Straban Township. Development of this plan should include collaboration with county planning agencies on the vision and planned actions for the future of the county. Funding for implementation could come from the municipalities, if they determine that this is a priority. ACOPD may also have some funding for preparation of a plan. Implementation of this
58 http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/subjects/srceprot/source/WHPPOVER.htm, accessed 5/29/2012.
154 v.8/28/2012 management alternative would require additional discussion with CWPA stakeholders, particularly the municipalities, because their approval is necessary for implementation.
Foster implementability of recommendations – develop incentives or credits for implementation of practices (management alternative #23b). Providing incentives for implementation may encourage stakeholders to see the personal benefit of water resources projects. Appropriate incentives will differ based on the management alternative being implemented. CARP management recommendations that are selected by stakeholders for implementation may serve as the basis for future efforts to develop incentives.
Develop a sub-committee of WAAC to coordinate volunteers to implement improvement projects (management alternative #26). This group, as proposed, would function as a sub-committee of the WAAC with a focus on the CWPA. The purpose is on-the-ground implementation and monitoring of practices through the use of volunteers. Benefits of this alternative are encouraging the use of adaptive management through monitoring and the human and environmental benefits associated with the implementation of on-the- ground measures. This alternative was presented to the WAAC at the 2012 annual meeting.
Implement local drought preparedness activities including establishment of a CWPA drought advisory group (management alternative #28). Pennsylvania’s system for declaring drought watches, warnings, and emergencies evaluates conditions at the county level. Proactive drought management not only benefits the local community by planning for water supplies during stressed conditions, it also benefits the environment by preventing further water depletion. This effort could complement and enhance existing drought related efforts of the Adams County Emergency Services, with special consideration for the fact that a portion of the county is a CWPA (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012). Due to the more critical conditions, it may be beneficial to evaluate drought status more frequently and locally, at the CWPA level. The current statewide program utilizes indicators such as precipitation deficit, streamflow, groundwater levels, and soil moisture to evaluate drought conditions. Numerous tools are available to assist with drought evaluation in the CWPA. Firstly, the DEP drought web page provides sources of information utilized in the evaluation of drought status59. These data sets are readily available to interested parties in the CWPA prior to or coinciding with DEP evaluations or designations. Additionally, the USDA is working on a tool, ALEXI, to map evapotranspiration estimates and irrigation impacts on water use. Once available, maps will be posted online at http://www.drought.gov. The US Drought Monitor offers a look at current and future drought conditions. The program also monitors climate, streamflow, and soil moisture outlooks across the country60. In addition to monitoring efforts, local outreach and education on drought conditions may inform the public and water suppliers on beneficial, voluntary reductions in water use. This could be accomplished via press releases and other outreach efforts. Encouraging management programs that increase local preparedness, like the ACCD rain barrel program, may also enhance public awareness and encourage voluntary conservation of water during drought conditions.
59 http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/drought_information/10606, accessed 5/29/2012. 60 http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu, accessed 5/29/2012.
155 v.8/28/2012
According to DEP, the CWPA stakeholders should seek legal counsel on the scope of the authority to implement local drought preparedness activities. For example, declaration of a drought emergency is a formal declaration made by the governor. Local groups do not have this authority.
Encourage the development and maintenance of riparian buffers along designated greenways (including the Rock and Marsh creek greenways) as specified in the Adams County Greenways Plan (management alternative #34). Riparian buffers have many benefits related to protecting water quality, enhancing aesthetics and recreation opportunities, slowing surface run-off, protecting stream health, and encouraging infiltration to name a few. The Adams County Greenways Plan was completed in 2010 as one component of the Adams County Comprehensive Plan (ACOPD 2010). It was created with the goal of “providing a vision and approach for establishing a comprehensive countywide greenway network that will protect Adams County’s natural and cultural resources for generations.” Pilot projects for the Adams County Greenway have been identified, including one along Rock Creek. The greenway proposed for Rock Creek, located in portions of Gettysburg Borough, Straban Township, Cumberland Township, and Mount Joy Township would be approximately 28.8 miles.
Foster implementability of recommendations – develop a list of projects requiring additional funding for future grant-seeking efforts (management alternative #23a). Implementation of management recommendations may require funding and/or incentives. Having a prioritized list of projects that need funding will foster the ability to pursue grants in a timely fashion when they become available. The prioritized list of management alternatives may serve as the basis of projects requiring additional funding. According to the advisory committee (2/15/2012), the CAAC or the WRAC may be willing to take on this role.
Establish a water conservation program that can respond to water supply/demand conditions, especially for businesses and institutions affected by an influx of tourists during summer months when supply is typically low (management alternative #24). Possible activities of the water conservation program include encouraging the adoption of water saving measures used in tourist areas, issuing low water supply advisories when appropriate, and adopting variable water and sewer rates based on water supply conditions. Collaboration with the Adams County Chamber of Commerce, the Gettysburg Convention and Visitors Bureau, and/or the WAAC may assist in identifying effective water saving measures (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012). Previously, WAAC purchased conservation related door hangers for hotel use. Other areas around the country have utilized a similar approach. For example, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce published an explanation of indoor conservation efforts (low flush toilets and urinals), landscaping options (soil moisture sensors, drought tolerant plants, more efficient irrigation methods), and opportunities for water conservation through effective communication (incorporating water saving policies into training, posting conservation fliers) (Barr Engineering Company 2008). This and other case studies from around the country may prove useful in developing a water conservation program in the CWPA. The water conservation program may include pricing strategies. “Price-based approaches to water conservation are more cost effective than non-price approaches.” Further, “raising water prices can be politically very difficult; perhaps as a result, water demand management through non-price techniques
156 v.8/28/2012 is the overwhelmingly dominant paradigm in the United States. However, the cost-effectiveness advantage of price-based approaches is now very clear. Thus, it would be useful to generate discussion of the political advantage to be gained by demonstrating this potential cost savings. Where water rate- setting officials are constrained by law from raising water prices, during droughts or in general, a discussion of the real costs of these constraints would be useful (Olmstead and Stavins 2007).” CWPA water utilities noted that instituting variable rates may be a cumbersome practice (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012).
Create a Marsh and Rock Creeks Water Management Council (management alternative #25). Equitable implementation across the CWPA of several management alternatives identified in this document would likely require coordinated collaboration between agencies with authority for implementation (municipalities). Management alternatives that may benefit from this proposed council include those dealing with establishment of ordinances and land use planning. It is expected by the advisory committee that funding would be available for this management alternative if the groups are willing to support the initiative. Some funding may be needed for monitoring efforts, for which grants would be needed.
No Action The No Action policy and management alternative is to proceed as usual with water resources management in the watersheds. Water resources management efforts in the CWPA are regulated at the state and municipal levels. As there are twelve municipalities in the CWPA, policies and regulations can vary significantly. Effective management of the critical watersheds will require consistent, proactive management across municipalities (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012).
All municipalities in the CARP area should adopt and enforce ordinances regarding lawn fertilizer (management alternative #33a). The Adams County Comprehensive Plan does not provide guidelines on lawn fertilizers but mentions that lawn fertilizer is a major cause of nitrate-related water quality issues. In addition, the Plan states that the use of fertilizer made from septic waste can cause bacterial issues in terms of surface- and ground-water pollution. Lawn fertilizer requirements have been developed and implemented elsewhere in Pennsylvania (e.g. Lake Meade). In the CWPA, however, implementation of a lawn fertilizer ordinance was considered a low priority for implementation. Lawn fertilizer management was considered more feasible and useful as an education management alternative, rather than an ordinance (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012).
Surface water ponds for agricultural irrigation should be the recommended practice over the use of wells (management alternative #11b). There was general consensus in the advisory committee with the regard to the use of surface versus groundwater for agricultural irrigation. It was determined that the appropriate water source should be decided on a case-by-case basis and should not be a general recommendation for the entire CWPA.
Data Seven data-related management alternatives were evaluated, including a No Action alternative (Table 78). The highest ranking alternative is for Mason Dixon Utilities to fund a USGS (or similar)
157 v.8/28/2012 gage. This alternative is included in the water withdrawal permit and will be implemented if development of the Mason Dixon Country Club proceeds. This permit requirement makes the alternative feasible in addition to contributing significantly to the availability of water resources data in the watersheds. The second highest scoring management alternative is the installation of additional stream gages and continued operation of existing gages. This alternative received a high technical score as it will yield critical pieces of data for water resources management. In terms of feasibility, the weakest link is funding as operation and maintenance of monitoring equipment can be costly. The lowest ranking alternative is No Action.
Table 78. Management alternatives associated with water resources issue #6, data. Alternatives are ranked by total score. The management alternative number (column “No.”) corresponds to the number on the combined list of alternatives resulting from the February 15, 2012 advisory committee workshop. Feasibility Technical Total No. Management Alternatives Score Score Score Mason Dixon Utilities to fund a USGS (or similar) stream gage 21 on Marsh Creek, if development proceeds. 60 60 120 Installation of additional stream or staff gages and continued 22 maintenance and operation of existing gages. 52 60 112 Community systems in the CWPA should prepare and get DEP approval for Source Water Protection Plans for all wells and surface intakes. Technical assistance is available from DEP 18 and PGWA. 60 30 90 Encourage/increase water use registrations and/or metering to more accurately understand the water uses in the watersheds 20 for future water resources decision-making. 28 60 88 Monitoring of ILBM pillars and physical environment should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of implemented management recommendations, particularly installed systems and practices. The monitoring results should be utilized to 19 adapt measure(s) to improve effectiveness. 52 30 82 Encourage identification and documentation of delineated wetlands. Develop county-wide effort for electronic submission of land development plans, inclusive of delineated 40 wetlands that could be placed in a GIS wetlands layer. 37 30 67 No Action 60 0 60
An evaluation of management alternatives, in order of high to low total score, is provided below.
Mason Dixon Utilities to fund a USGS (or similar) stream gage (management alternative #21). Reliable, long-term streamflow data is an integral part of understanding water resources in the CWPA. As part of the DEP withdrawal permit for the Mason Dixon Country Club, streamflow monitoring at a gage (with USGS approved methodologies) is required if the development proceeds. This flow data would contribute significantly to the body of water resources knowledge in the watersheds. To date, flow analyses have primarily depended on estimates generated from the downstream USGS gage on the Monocacy River at Bridgeport, MD.
158 v.8/28/2012
Installation of additional stream or staff gages and continued maintenance and operation of existing gages (management alternative #22). Streamflow and groundwater level measurements can be valuable assets to water resources management efforts. USGS is a reliable source for this type of data collection, analysis, and quality assurance. Additionally, USGS data is made available to water managers, decision-makers, and the public through the National Water Information System website. For example, groundwater levels being collected by ACCD as part of the CARP project undergo quality assurance procedures by USGS and are posted online61. USGS was sub-contracted as part of the CARP project to install, maintain, and operate four staff gages, develop rating curves at the staff gages, and conduct quality assurance procedures on the groundwater level data previously mentioned. The cost of USGS performing these activities from 2010 to 2012 as part of the CARP activities was $44,500. DEP and the WAAC are potential sources of funding for future flow monitoring activities (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012).
Community systems in the CWPA should prepare and get DEP approval for Source Water Protection Plans for all wells and surface intakes (management alternative #18). The 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act required DEP to develop a Source Water Assessment and Protection Program for public water supplies. The associated source water assessments included a delineation of the source water area, an inventory of potential contaminants, a susceptibility analysis, and a participatory process. These assessments were initially conducted by or contracted through DEP. A source water assessment was conducted for GMA, the largest public water supply system in the CWPA, in 2003. The ICPRB conducted the assessment for GMA’s surface water sources while DEP conducted the groundwater source assessment. Source water assessments were also conducted for the twelve other public water suppliers in the CWPA by Penn State utilizing a standardized GIS analysis approach. Source water protection plans, in comparison to the source water assessments, are voluntary plans that are locally developed and implemented to protect the drinking water sources from potential contaminant threats identified in the source water assessments. Development of these plans are not required by the amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act or by DEP; although DEP provides assistance to localities by making available guidelines and templates for the creation of the plans. Benefits to having a protection plan in place, in addition to proactively protecting source water supplies, include eligibility for the Conservation Reserve Program funding and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s Water Supply Area road signs. Several resources are available in the CWPA to assist other public water suppliers in the development of source water protection plans. For example, ACOPD has a Water Supply and Wellhead Protection Plan (ACOPD 2001); PA Rural Water Association works with communities to develop source water protection plans62; and DEP’s Source Water Protection Assistance Program (SWPTAP) “provides no cost support to community water systems, individual municipalities with a community water system, or a group of adjacent municipalities to develop local Source Water Protection programs63.”
61 http://groundwaterwatch.usgs.gov/countymaps/PA_001.html, accessed 5/29/2012. 62 http://www.prwa.com/content/source-water-protection, accessed 5/29/2012. 63 http://www.sourcewaterpa.org/?page_id=639, accessed 5/29/2012.
159 v.8/28/2012
Encourage/increase water use registrations and/or metering (management alternative #20). As regulated by DEP64, water use registrations and annual reporting are required for “public water supply agencies and hydropower facilities, irrespective of the amount of withdrawal, and any person whose total withdrawal from one or more points of withdrawal within a watershed operated as a system either concurrently or sequentially exceeds an average rate of 10,000 gallons per day of water in any 30- day period. Those persons who obtain their water through an interconnection with another person in an amount that exceeds an average rate of 100,000 gpd in any 30-day period also must register.” Collected water use data is then made available on the DEP website65. This data is valuable as it allows water resources managers to understand how much water is needed and at what time of the year. Withdrawals by small water users are currently estimated for water management purposes. In combination, these small users comprise a significant portion of the overall water use in the CWPA. Encouraging the smaller users to report their water use would benefit the management of water resources because it would allow for a snapshot of water uses based on actual data rather than estimates. Depending on the scope of implementation, there may be funding for this effort through the DEP water use program; however, this would likely not cover equipment such as meters (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012).
Monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented management recommendations (management alternative #19). Physical monitoring to determine effectiveness of implemented management recommendations is necessary to understand whether the practices are working as expected and provides the opportunity to adjust when necessary. At the CAAC meeting on 4/11/2011, it was noted that monitoring is often not conducted and BMPs are not evaluated for effectiveness. Depending on the methods used, monitoring can be expensive. In 2011, USGS estimated it would cost over $70,000 to seasonally measure 12 CWPA sites for water quality parameters. The cost estimates included preparation, reconnaissance, sample collection, and laboratory processing for field parameters, nutrients, major cations and anions, and total coliform and E. coli. Cost estimates for water quantity measurements by USGS are provided with management alternative #22. An alternative to USGS measurements is volunteer water quality monitoring, which is significantly less expensive and may be sufficient for screening purposes, but may be less desirable for decision-making purposes. Academic institutions may also provide an opportunity to foster environmental education and obtain cost efficient monitoring. Schools in the region with potential monitoring capabilities include Gettysburg College, Shippensburg University, Penn State, University of Maryland, and the University of the District of Columbia, to name a few. A combination of volunteer and professional monitoring may be the most cost efficient approach to meet the needs of the CWPA. Monitoring of the six ILBM practices is also important to understand whether the strength of the pillars is increasing. Resources are currently available to evaluate the ongoing effectiveness of the ILBM pillars.
64 http://www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/StateWaterPlan/WaterUse/WaterUse.aspx, accessed 5/29/2012. 65 http://www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/StateWaterPlan/WaterDataExportTool/WaterExportTool.aspx, accessed 5/29/2012.
160 v.8/28/2012
Encourage identification and documentation of delineated wetlands (management alternative #40). There is limited documentation of wetlands in the CWPA. This alternative is to develop a county-wide effort for electronic submission of land development plans, inclusive of delineated wetlands that could be placed in a GIS wetlands layer. Developers already submit watershed information in hard copy, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. To make the information useful to water resources managers in the watersheds, it needs to be made available in a spatially explicit, GIS compatible form. ACOPD may have staff resources to develop the GIS layer if data are made available by the developers (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012). Documenting wetlands in this way has strengths and weaknesses. A downside of obtaining wetlands information in this manner is that the wetland delineation occurs at the land parcel level for the areas under evaluation by the developer. Therefore, the delineation of wetlands ends at the property boundary. Wetland delineations on adjacent properties may be performed by different professionals, resulting in incompatible wetland boundaries. Further, wetland locations would be added to the GIS layer after the development plan is approved; therefore, this knowledge may not enhance the ability to proactively management water resources associated with wetlands. However, utilizing the existing information as a starting point is one way of compiling information on wetland locations with little cost.
No Action The No Action alternative would not add additional water resources data in the watersheds. Proactive and sustainable water resources management is improved with key pieces of data. This is true in various aspects of water resources management from, for example, managing droughts to quantifying ecological flow needs.
Communication Four communication alternatives, including a No Action alternative, were considered during the evaluation process (Table 79). The highest scoring alternative is to encourage communication between large water users. This alternative scored high in the technical category because it will engage large water users responsible for water conservation measures, with strong potential for changes in behavior. The weakest link in the feasibility of implementing this alternative is the availability of institutional capacity to promote and implement the project. The lowest scoring management alternative was No Action.
161 v.8/28/2012
Table 79. Management alternatives associated with water resources issue #7, communication. Alternatives are ranked by total score. The management alternative number (column “No.”) corresponds to the number on the combined list of alternatives resulting from the February 15, 2012 advisory committee workshop. Feasibility Technical Total No. Management Alternatives Score Score Score Encourage communication between large water users on conservation measures being used within the community to 14 foster idea sharing and long-term sustainability. 43 60 103 Develop a Strategic Communication Plan for the general public and targeted stakeholders (including all levels of education: school districts, colleges, universities), a marketing plan. Accent the positive of what can be done, such as the efficiencies that farmers have achieved to produce more with less. Because local grassroot support is needed for success, use the communication plan to develop a simple, comprehensive document for local people. The purpose of the document is to encourage participation in the protection of 15 water quality, quantity, and conservation. 46 60 106 Enhance education in the CWPA on the following: -- Outreach and field trips for school age kids as well as municipal and elected officials to familiarize them with the watershed, including both the positives and negatives; and -- Stormwater education and outreach with organizations and 16 the general public. 60 30 90 No Action 60 0 60
A more thorough description of each communication alternative is provided below, in order of descending total score.
Encourage communication between large water users on conservation measures being used within the community to foster idea sharing and long-term sustainability (management alternative #14). Approximately 56% of the water withdrawals in the CWPA are taken by fewer than 30 registered, or “large”, water users. Numerous large water users in the CWPA have reported on water conservation measures being implemented at their location. Communication among these users may assist in transfer of knowledge and cost-effective ideas. Perhaps there is an existing forum in the CWPA such as the Farm Bureau, WRAC, or Council of Governments that would be appropriate for this type of dialogue. DEP established a state-wide technical assistance center under Act 220 of 2002, but this center is not currently funded (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012).
Develop a Strategic Communication Plan for the general public and targeted stakeholders (including all levels of education: school districts, colleges, universities), a marketing plan (management alternative #15). There is general agreement within the advisory committee on the need for a simple, direct communication approach for targeted water resources communication within the CWPA. Communication on science-based topics such as water resources management requires thoughtful consideration in several areas, a couple of which are provided here. According to Christensen (2008), the
162 v.8/28/2012
7 C’s of successful communication are that it be correct, clear, concise, comprehensive, compelling, concrete, and concentrated. Communicating with the general public requires an understanding of the target group and the most effective communications environment for that target group. For example, what is the general level of understanding of water resources issues in the general public in the CWPA? What type(s) of media outreach will be most effective in reaching the target group? There are many types of media outreach mechanisms including press releases, community meetings, word of mouth, the internet, etc. An example outreach mechanism, the PA lottery brochure, was presented by an advisory committee member at the 2/15/2012 workshop. For successful implementation of this alternative, a process would need to be developed to assign responsibilities. An entity is needed to develop, design, and implement this alternative. WAAC is one possibility for leading this effort (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012).
Enhance water resources education in the CWPA (management alternative #16). Several studies have been conducted on the link between environmental education and action. The studies conclude that knowledge distribution alone is not sufficient to encourage action. Instead, a number of factors need to be addressed in order to encourage active participation and behavioral modifications. The steps are: 1) awareness of the problem, 2) knowledge of the issues, and 3) skills and knowledge of what actions that needs to be taken. Including these steps in a CWPA education campaign may enhance the local participation and subsequent actions taken by the community to improve the sustainability of water resources in the watersheds (Hungerford and Volk 1990). Further, hands-on approaches to education can increase retention and encourage connection with complex concepts. Pennsylvania state standards for K-12 education include teaching the hydrologic cycle, but there are no specific resources for teaching about Adams County water (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012).
No Action The No Action alternative does not initiate new communication measures regarding water resources management in the CWPA. New communication efforts are necessary to engage local citizens and encourage proactive management of the water resources (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012).
3.4.2 Adverse Impacts and Conflicts The DEP CARP guidelines acknowledge the potential for conflicts between stakeholders in the CWPA due to limited water supplies to meet water uses, as defined in the designation of the CWPA. A number of differing viewpoints, some conflicting, have been expressed during the stakeholder-driven evaluation of management alternatives. The differing viewpoints are enumerated in Table 80. The methodological approach is then described that has been employed to develop management recommendations that respect these different viewpoints while paving a path forward.
163 v.8/28/2012
Table 80. Differing viewpoints that may result in conflict. Issue Side A Side B Increasing water availability for current and Increasing water availability drives population Availability future water needs growth Availability Water availability for human use Water availability for ecosystem use Limited water availability during summer Increased water availability in winter during Availability when uses are greatest lowest usage Availability Wastewater effluent as a flow Quality stabilizer/enhancer A source of nutrients and other pollutants Registration of water withdrawals helps manage water resources to ensure long-term Registration of water withdrawals is a way to try Data availability to regulate individual water uses Policy Collaborative management of water across Management Managing by jurisdiction jurisdictions Policy Management Regulations at local and state level Management necessary at the watershed level Stormwater Stormwater as a nuisance Stormwater as a resource
3.4.2.1 Avoiding Conflicts To manage potential conflicts, a collaborative stakeholder process was utilized during the development of the Marsh and Rock CARP (Section 3.1). The methodology utilized to develop a prioritized list of management recommendations incorporated the collaborative, stakeholder-driven ILBM approach. Using this method, the strengths and weaknesses of each management alternative were evaluated and consensus was reached on the scoring and prioritization of each potential management recommendation. For more information on the ILBM methodology, see Section 3.4.1.1.
3.4.2.2 Adverse Impacts Positive and negative environmental impacts of each management alternative are documented in Appendix F. Some of the potentially negative impacts can be mitigated by proper installation, construction, and/or management while others are undesirable such that the management alternative was not included in the CARP recommendations (e.g. installing a debris filter on Stevens Run due to potential flooding).
3.5 Management Recommendations and Implementation Many of the management alternatives evaluated in Section 3.4.1 were recommended for implementation in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. This section documents the methodology for selecting recommended practices from the evaluated alternatives, provides the lists of CARP management recommendations, and discusses implementation efforts including how the information contained in this report can be utilized for implementation of the management recommendations.
3.5.1 Management Recommendations Based on the scoring results and evaluations of the management alternatives, a list of CARP management recommendations was compiled. Two categories of recommendations were developed, Tier 1 and Tier 2. Alternatives are recommended as Tier 1 if they fall within the top two technical scoring
164 v.8/28/2012 categories AND have a feasibility score of at least 38 (Table 81). Typically, the top two technical scoring categories require the potential for substantial or moderate measurable progress towards addressing the water resources issue. To obtain a score of 38, a management alternative must have either all pillars within the top two scoring categories or sufficiently high scores in some pillars to make up for weaker pillars in other areas. Tier 2 recommendations are those that were not as high scoring but are still viable options for solving a piece of the puzzle in the CWPA as implementation of a suite of alternatives will be required to address the complex water resources issues (Table 82). With one exception discussed below, evaluated management alternatives not included in these recommendations are those that were “No’s” for feasibility (score = 0) and those that upon evaluation were determined to not address the identified water resources issue. Establishment of a stormwater authority was originally considered a “No” in the feasibility scoring process, receiving a numeric score of zero. With the passage of Senate Bill 1261 in March of 2012; however, municipal authorities are explicitly allowed to engage in stormwater management planning and projects, removing some obstacles to implementing this management alternative. To this end, this management alternative is included in the Tier 2 management recommendations despite having an original feasibility score of zero.
Table 81. Tier 1 CARP management recommendations. Alternatives are grouped by water resources issue (column “Issue”). Alternatives are then ranked within each group according to the total score. The management alternative number (column “No.”) corresponds to the number on the combined list of alternatives resulting from the February 15, 2012 advisory committee workshop. A complete description of the management alternatives is provided in Table 74 through Table 79. No. Issue Type Management Recommendations Community water supply systems should perform a water 2 Availability Demand audit at least once a year to manage water loss.
6 Availability Supply Import water into the CWPA.
37 Stormwater Supply/Demand Implementation of stormwater management program(s).
Establish groundwater protection ordinances for well 31a Policy/Management Protection construction and geothermal wells. All municipalities in the CARP area should adopt and enforce ordinances regarding private well construction 33c Policy/Management Protection standards, including geothermal systems. All municipalities in the CARP area should adopt and enforce ordinances regarding on-lot septic system maintenance and the establishment of sewage management 33d Policy/Management Protection districts. All municipalities in the CARP area should adopt and enforce ordinances regarding protecting and creating riparian 33e Policy/Management Protection buffers. Encourage land preservation (purchasing conservation 41 Policy/Management Protection easements) targeting the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. Establish groundwater protection ordinance for yield analysis (for large wells); need common methodology for municipalities to determine sustainable groundwater 31b Policy/Management Protection yields.
165 v.8/28/2012
No. Issue Type Management Recommendations Establish groundwater protection ordinance for water quality protection; need inspections to ensure proper construction and testing of finished water to make sure treatment is 31c Policy/Management Protection adequate and well is functioning properly. Encourage the adoption of a wellhead protection ordinance to protect community water supply sources within the 32 Policy/Management Protection CWPA. Prepare a Joint Comprehensive Plan for the CWPA that includes sound land use policies and a strong water supply 17 Policy/Management Protection and protection component. Foster implementability of recommendations - develop a list of projects requiring additional funding for 23a Policy/Management Protection future grant-seeking efforts.
Establish a water conservation program that can respond to water supply/demand conditions, especially for businesses and institutions affected by an influx of tourists during 24 Policy/Management Demand summer months when water supply typically is low. Mason Dixon Utilities to fund a USGS (or similar) stream 21 Data Collection Protection gage. Installation of additional stream or staff gages and continued 22 Data Collection Protection maintenance and operation of existing gages. Community systems in the CWPA should prepare and get DEP approval for Source Water Protection Plans for all 18 Data Collection Protection wells and surface intakes. Monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented 19 Data Collection Protection management recommendations. Encourage communication between large water users on conservation measures being used within the community to 14 Communication Demand foster idea sharing and long-term sustainability. Develop a Strategic Communication Plan for the general public and targeted stakeholders (including all levels of education: school districts, colleges, universities), a 15 Communication Protection marketing plan.
16 Communication Protection Enhance water resources education in the CWPA.
166 v.8/28/2012
Table 82. Tier 2 CARP recommendations. Alternatives are grouped by water resources issue (column “Issue”). Alternatives are then ranked within each group according to the total score. The management alternative number (column “No.”) corresponds to the number on the combined list of alternatives resulting from the February 15, 2012 advisory committee workshop. A complete description of the management alternatives is provided in Table 74 through Table 79. No. Issue Type Management Alternatives 1 Availability Demand Implement more water efficient irrigation practices. Seek, promote, and implement wastewater treatment system 3 Availability Demand reuse, beneficial reuses of wastewater. Investigate use of quarries as water storage facilities, 8 Availability Supply particularly in the diabase. Creation of a new or rehabilitation of an old reservoir in/near 9 Availability Supply the CWPA (ex. Birch Run). 11a Availability Supply Creation of additional agricultural ponds. New developments should include/incentivize water 5 Availability Demand conservation equipment in homes when built. New developments need to provide additional storage 10 Availability Supply capacity. Percolate water back into the ground from sewage treatment 4 Availability Supply plants where feasible. Enhanced or additional treatment mechanisms should be 12 Availability Supply developed to provide additional sources of water. Quantify maximum contaminant loads for pollutants of 29 Quality Protection concern in impaired waterways by developing TMDLs. Public water suppliers in the CWPA should participate in the Potomac Drinking Water Source Protection Partnership to Quality, leverage resources and enhance communications with other 30 Communication Protection suppliers in the basin. Stormwater, Implementation of stormwater and gray water reuse 38 Availability Demand program(s). Foster implementability of recommendations - develop 23b Policy/Management incentives or credits for implementation of practices.
Develop a sub-committee of WAAC to coordinate volunteers 26 Policy/Management Protection to implement improvement projects in the CWPA. Implement local drought preparedness activities including 28 Policy/Management Protection establishment of a CWPA drought advisory group. Encourage the development and maintenance of riparian buffers along designated greenways (including the Rock and Marsh creek greenways) as specified in the County 34 Policy/Management Protection Greenway Plan. Create a Marsh and Rock Creeks Water Management 25 Policy/Management Protection Council.
20 Data Collection Protection Encourage/increase water use registrations and/or metering.
167 v.8/28/2012
No. Issue Type Management Alternatives Encourage identification and documentation of delineated 40 Data Collection Protection wetlands.
3.5.1.1 Other Activities One proposed activity that is currently under review is an interbasin transfer of water into the GMA system through York Water. The proposed interconnection would increase availability of water by transferring water from the York Water system in the Susquehanna basin into the GMA system in the Potomac basin. This interbasin transfer would require a permit from SRBC. The application to import water was originally submitted to SRBC approximately four years ago and is pending. The request is for a continuous connection that would be relied on in the long term. The original transfer request was for 300,000 gpd, with a peak transfer of 1 Mgpd. As demands on GMA grow in the long term, the transfer amount may increase to 3 Mgpd; however, the transfer rates are still under discussion at this time (personal comm., GMA, 4/11/2012). According to the permit request, the waters would be discharged into the CWPA, with the exception of those discharged through the Hunterstown WWTP. Discharges from the Hunterstown WWTP are returned to the Susquehanna basin. Although the interconnection could supply a significant amount of water if approved, this water would only be available within the GMA system. It is important, therefore, to note that implementation of this interconnection does not solve all of the water resource issues within the CWPA. Nor is it a single fix for the two sub-watersheds where the GMA system is located, which includes areas of the Upper Rock and Lower Marsh sub-watersheds. In combination, these two sub-watersheds have an average annual daily water deficit (withdrawal minus 7Q10) of approximately 3.2 Mgpd with a maximum daily water deficit of approximately 3.6 Mgpd. During the most water stressed season, summer, the two sub- watersheds have a combined average daily water deficit of approximately 3.8 Mgpd. Strengths of the interconnection are that the policies are in place through SRBC to allow for this transfer of water and the financing is available through the GMA system if approved. The initial costs of the pipeline are estimated at $2 to $2.5 million. The ongoing costs for the water transfer may be approximately $250,000 to $300,000 per year for 150,000 gpd and would increase as the transfer rate increases (personal comm., CAAC, 4/11/2012). Further, some stakeholder groups such as schools and hospitals may think of the transfer as a “relief” due to the additional water security (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012). Four major concerns have been voiced by a number of CAAC members and citizens about proceeding with the transfer. The first concern is that importation of water will foster additional growth. In the event of future growth, preventing excessive habitat, water quality, and water quantity degradation may require additional stormwater management practices to offset the impacts of urban development. The second concern is that if the new water supplies new developments, it may not reduce the existing water deficit. This concern is based on the perception that the imported water will be allocated to new users, not the current users and, therefore, will not alleviate the current deficit. The third concern is that if the application is approved, SRBC will likely maintain the right to stop the water transfer if or when the Susquehanna River and its tributaries are under drought conditions. This may be a misunderstanding, though. SRBC requires permit holders such as GMA to implement drought conservation and water reduction measures, but the SRBC would not order York Water to terminate the transfer while the permit is in effect. York Water would be obligated to insure that water resources are available to GMA at all
168 v.8/28/2012 times per the agreement between the two parties which would be part of the SRBC approval process (personal comm., York Water and GMA, 7/13/2012). A fourth concern is that the interbasin transfer would direct new growth to the GMA service area rather than the growth areas defined by the Adams County Comprehensive Plan. In addition to the concerns noted above, a potential environmental impact of the interconnection includes increased wastewater treatment plant discharges in the CWPA. As the majority of the waters would be discharged into the CWPA (with the exception of waters discharged from the Hunterstown treatment plant into the Susquehanna basin), the additional discharges could increase the streamflows in the CWPA causing erosion, streambank degradation, and overall habitat deterioration.
3.5.2 Implementation The CARP is a non-regulatory document; therefore, implementation will require voluntary adoption of the management practices by organizations, governmental entities, and private citizens. Collaboration across jurisdictions and stakeholder groups will be required to bring the benefits of the plan to fruition. Further, a combination of management alternatives will be necessary to address the water resources issues identified in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, comprised of large and small projects for the short and long term. In combination, the management efforts may address the diverse, complex issues facing the CWPA. The focus of this section is the implementation of management recommendations. It first addresses the points noted above, followed by a hypothetical example of how to utilize the information in this report to implement management practices to successfully address the water resources issues affecting availability in the CWPA. In many cases, the management recommendations will likely need to be implemented in combination to ensure success. Watershed hydrology is a multi-faceted system and management of any one component of the system is linked to the others. Take the seven water resource issues for example – water availability, storage, quality, stormwater, policy and management, data, and communication. Additional water storage will help address water availability concerns during low flows and may provide for flood control from stormwaters during high flows. Implementation of additional water storage, however, will require data analysis, dependent on the availability of data, to understand how much storage is necessary. And, ensuring that all systems have an adequate supply of water to reliably supply customers may require ordinances or policies to be put in place. In this way, the linked nature of the system and the management recommendations becomes apparent. Sustainable implementation of the recommendations should consider the multiple impacts. Coupling management alternatives may serve to combine strengths and minimize weaknesses. A number of the management recommendations also require multi-municipal cooperation. Due to the regulatory structure in Pennsylvania, management will likely occur at the municipal level, where authority for implementation exists. Working together, the municipalities can establish common standards across the CWPA to encourage sustainable development of the water resources for human and ecosystem uses. Several policy and management recommendations are aimed at developing this collaboration across municipal boundaries (e.g. the Marsh and Rock Creeks Water Management Council).
3.5.2.1 Case Study Utilizing information from this report including the quantified water deficits and evaluations of management recommendations, watershed stakeholders and managers can make informed decisions on
169 v.8/28/2012 the implementation of practices in the CWPA to proactively and sustainably manage the water resources. This section provides a hypothetical case study in the Upper Marsh sub-watershed to demonstrate how the information contained in this report can be utilized in the decision-making and implementation process. In 2010, the total water use in the Upper Marsh sub-watershed was approximately 183 Mgal. Human use of water in the Upper Marsh sub-watershed was primarily for agriculture and self-supplied domestic (Figure 93). Combined, the other human water uses only comprised 5% of the total66. The average annual historic (1997-2010) water deficit in the Upper Marsh sub-watershed was 539,032 gpd. The average historic (1997-2010) water deficit in this sub-watershed is most extreme during the summer at 611,816 gpd. The average annual deficit is expected to increase to 690,250 gpd by 203067.
Figure 93. Distribution of withdrawals by use type in the Upper Marsh sub-watershed.
Addressing the water deficit in the Upper Marsh sub-watershed will require either 1) increasing available storage for primarily agricultural and self-supplied domestic sources or 2) decreasing demand from these water uses, or some combination of both these actions. Example management recommendations associated with the water uses include68: Agriculture Implement more water efficient irrigation practices, and Creation of additional agricultural ponds. Self-supplied domestic New developments should include/incentivize water conservation equipment in homes when built, Seek, promote, and implement wastewater treatment system reuse, beneficial reuses of wastewater, and Implementation of stormwater and gray water reuse programs. Considering each of these potential management actions in turn, it is possible to quantify the likely reduction of the water deficit in the Upper Marsh sub-watershed. The first management action,
66 Water use information by sub-watershed can be obtained from Appendix A. 67 Water deficit information by sub-watershed can be obtained in Section 3.3.2.4. 68 Obtained from Section 3.5.1.
170 v.8/28/2012 implementation of more water efficient irrigation practices, for example, would result in a demonstrable reduction in the water deficit in the following way. It would not be appropriate to assume implementation of more water efficient irrigation practices on all agricultural lands in the Upper Marsh watershed because not all agricultural land is irrigated and some irrigators already use water efficient practices. If water efficient irrigation practices are installed on 25% of the agricultural lands and this is able to conserve 60% of the water69, approximately 42,979 gpd of water may be conserved. The amount of water provided by agricultural ponds would depend on the size and number implemented across the sub-watershed. Creation of seven additional 10 Mgal agricultural ponds would provide a source of water during water stressed conditions (this may be a conservative estimate given the construction that is underway for a 20 Mgal pond in the area). The seven ponds serve 100 acres of irrigated land each. Every day, only 25 of the acres receive irrigation water at a rate of 1,350 gpd/ac70. The total water use from each pond, therefore, is 33,750 gpd making the combined water use 236,250 gpd. This represents the additional water made available by the agricultural ponds in the Upper Marsh sub-watershed because the reservoir is re-filled during the wet season by precipitation and surface run-off. This minimizes any negative downstream environmental or human uses of the water during water stressed conditions. If 75% of the self-supplied domestic water users in the sub-watershed implement water conservation equipment in homes, reducing water use by 20%71, a water savings of 27,348 gpd would be achieved. Reuse of gray water, stormwater, and wastewater has the potential to further decrease the amount of self-supplied domestic withdrawals in the Upper Marsh watershed because the same water can be used for multiple purposes prior to being returned to the environment. If 20% of homes in the Upper Marsh watershed are able to reuse 80% of their gray and/or waste water for non-potable purposes, the additional water savings would be approximately 24,795 gpd. With these four management alternatives in place, the water deficit is reduced by approximately 331,372 gpd. Addressing the remainder of the current and increasing future water deficits would proceed by implementing additional management practices as appropriate. For example, the increasing future water deficit may be addressed by larger scale solutions such as creation of an off-stream reservoir in the Marsh Creek watershed or storing water in a quarry in the diabase of the Upper Marsh sub-watershed. Successful implementation of these management recommendations to decrease demand or increase supply, however, will likely require additional actions to obtain the appropriate data, funding, and policies. For example, assistance with creating incentives and identifying funding sources may be helpful because having funding sources and incentives available will encourage participation by households and agricultural operators. In order to effectively manage these programs across the Upper Marsh sub-watershed, a diverse stakeholder group with authority for implementation such as the Water Management Council will need to be established to direct these efforts. To ensure that the implemented practices are operating efficiently and, in fact, protecting the community from water stressed conditions, monitoring will be necessary to determine effectiveness. This is just one hypothetical example of how the information in this report can be utilized to identify water resource issues and select actions that can be taken to address the availability issues in the watersheds. These selections are purely hypothetical. Selection and implementation of recommendations
69 Estimate found in Section 3.4. 70 Estimates from Section 3.3.1.1. 71 Estimate found in Section 3.4.
171 v.8/28/2012 in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds will require collaboration, communication, and action on behalf of the community members.
4 Conclusions The CARP for the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds was developed over a two year period beginning in July 2010. The comprehensive planning process was undertaken after the DEP declared the watersheds a CWPA on the recommendation of the Potomac Regional Committee and the technical sub- committee of the Statewide Committee. The purposes of the CARP planning process were to 1) identify and evaluate water resource issues affecting water availability for human and ecosystem use, and 2) identify management actions to address the issues and enhance the sustainability of water resources in the area. A first step in the CARP process was verification of the previously identified CWPA water resources issues to ensure persistence of the problems. The verification process confirmed seven issues that affect water availability in the watersheds. The issues are:
water availability, water storage, water quality, stormwater, policy and management, data availability, and communication.
A number of quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to fully understand the magnitude and extent of these issues and based on guidance from DEP regarding CARP development. A summary of the results is provided below. Water demand in the CWPA was shown to exceed the amount of available water under low-flow conditions represented by the 7Q10, a common low-flow indicator72. Based on withdrawals for the period of 1997 to 2010, the summer, spring, fall, and winter withdrawals minus 7Q10 for the CWPA are 0.49 inches, 0.44 inches, 0.44 inches, and 0.29 inches respectively. These values indicate the magnitude of the potential water deficit under low-flow conditions. The largest deficits are found in the Upper Rock sub-watershed and the smallest deficits are found in the Upper Marsh sub-watershed. The water availability issues are only exacerbated by storage shortages driven by natural and anthropogenic sources. Due to local geologic characteristics that make poor aquifers (Schultz and Palmer 2008) and the thin, low permeability soils, the majority of the average annual rainfall (39 inches) is evaporated or is taken up by plants (22 inches) and very little of it (about 7 inches) actually infiltrates and recharges the ground water table. However, the average annual CWPA water budget indicates that a sufficient quantity of water is available to meet the water needs if properly managed (Figure 94).
72 The initial screening process to identify the CWPAs used a criterion of 50% of 7Q10. Some of the separate sub- watersheds in the CWPA have a7Q10 too low to meaningfully compare to the total withdrawals in the sub- watershed. The 7Q10 was used in the CARP to compare water availability to withdrawals.
172 v.8/28/2012
Figure 94. Average annual water budget in the CWPA (1997-2010).
Degradation of water quality limits the availability of clean water for human and ecosystem use, thereby eliminating otherwise viable supplies or increasing treatment costs. Water quality parameters of concern in the CWPA include those for which impairments have been noted; namely, sediments, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, and nitrite nitrate. It is for these constituents that established water quality criteria are currently not being met. Future growth and development may exacerbate these problems if not aggressively managed. An additional concern is the occurrence of emerging contaminants in the watersheds. Investigations are being conducted to assess and understand the potential impact emerging contaminants may have on human and ecosystem health. If not properly managed, stormwater can cause extensive damage with significant economic and environmental cost. The effects of poor stormwater management can include localized flooding, property damage, and pollutant transport to name a few. Proactive stormwater management efforts, however, can capture water run-off during precipitation events for future uses. In fact, the results of the stormwater analysis indicate that there is a sufficient quantity of stormwater in the CWPA to meet the water needs under water stressed conditions. Estimated CWPA stormflows range from 6.71 inches in the winter to 1.76 inches in the summer. Data availability was a limitation in the quantitative analyses described above. Future analyses would benefit from additional data (e.g. water levels, meteorology, water uses, etc.). For example, many of the withdrawal uses are estimated from available data rather than being based on reported data. Streamflow analyses are currently based on disaggregation of flows from Bridgeport, Maryland utilizing modeled data and limited observed records from within the CWPA. Additional water resources data
173 v.8/28/2012 could refine the quantitative analyses, provide additional confidence in the results, and help measure the effectiveness of implemented management actions. Given the complex nature of the water issues in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds and the many uses and users of the water, it is expected that disagreements will arise on how to manage the water resources. During meetings with stakeholders, differing viewpoints and potential conflicts were noted. A stakeholder-driven process to identify and evaluate management practices was utilized to ensure that all perspectives were included in the development of CARP management recommendations. Balancing environmental health and stakeholder perspectives while ensuring water supplies for current and future generations in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds will require proactive management of the water resources. A total of 21 Tier 1 and 19 Tier 2 management recommendations were developed to address the 7 water resources issues. A combination of management alternatives will be necessary to address the water resources issues identified in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, comprised of large and small projects for the short and long term. The CARP is a non-regulatory document; therefore, implementation will require voluntary adoption of the management practices by organizations, governmental entities, and private citizens. Collaboration across jurisdictions and stakeholder groups will also be required to bring the benefits of the plan to fruition. Clear communication of the water resources issues and implications for stakeholders will facilitate engagement in the process. A number of committees and organizations played an integral role in the development of the CARP. The local advisory committee (CAAC) met quarterly throughout the project to provide insights for the development of a practical, implementable plan. ICPRB was the technical lead while DEP provided guidance and oversight for the project. The Potomac Regional Committee initiated the CAAC, participated in the development of the plan, and had final approval of the plan before submission to the Statewide Committee. A complete description of contributors is provided in Section 6. Comments on the contents of this report are welcome and can be submitted via email to [email protected]; phone (301.274.8116); or mail to ICPRB, 51 Monroe Street, PE-08, Rockville, MD 20850.
5 References ACCD and ACOPD. 2011. Adams County Act 167 stormwater management plan. Gettysburg, PA. http://www.adamscounty.us/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=-La8JLsIx40%3d&tabid=82, accessed 5/28/2012.
ACOPD. 2001. Adams County Pennsylvania water supply and wellhead protection plan. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation and Gehringer-Roth Associates. 185p. http://www.adamscounty.us/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=25QEY5dhGDE%3D&tabid=154&mid=524, accessed 5/28/2012.
ACOPD. 2010. The Adams County greenways plan. 169p. http://adamscounty.us.dnnmax.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=j- B2_YoMNWI%3d&tabid=154&mid=759, accessed 5/28/2012.
Adams, R.S. and W.E. Sharpe. Water intake and quality for cattle. Department of Dairy and Animal Science, Pennsylvania State University. Report No. DAS 95-8.
174 v.8/28/2012
Alley, W.M., T.E. Reilly, and O.L. Franke. 1999. Sustainability of ground-water resources. USGS circular: 1186. 29p.
AWWA. 2009. Water audits and loss control programs. 3rd edition. AWWA Water Loss Control Committee.
Ballaron, P.B., A. Gavin, R.D. Pody, and D.S. Ladd. 2005. Groundwater management plan for the Susquehanna River Basin. SRBC Report No. 236. 176p.
Barr Engineering Company. 2008. Water withdrawal and conservation practices. Prepared for Michigan Chamber of Commerce. 75p. http://www.in.gov/dnr/files/wa-michiganwaterconservation.pdf, accessed 5/28/2012.
Black and Veatch. 2008. Central water supply plan final report. Prepared for Loudoun Water. Black and Veatch Project No. 161194.
Booth, D.B. and C.R. Jackson. 1997. Urbanization of aquatic systems: Degradation thresholds, stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33(5):1077-1090.
Brakebill, J.W. (ed) and S.K. Kelley (ed). 2000. Hydrogeomorphic regions in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 00-424. http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?hgmr, accessed 5/28/2012.
CBP. 2012a. Chesapeake Bay phase 5.3 model documentation, section 5. Nonpoint source nutrient inputs, ftp://ftp.chesapeakebay.net/Modeling/P5Documentation/SECTION_5.pdf, accessed 5/28/2012.
CBP. 2012b. Deposition summary input data worksheet. http://ches.communitymodeling.org/models/CBPhase5/datalibrary/model-input.php, accessed 5/28/2012.
CH2M Hill. 2003. Jennings Randolph Lake’s water supply costs and cost allocation compared with Luck Stone Quarries’. Technical Memorandum No. 7. http://www.loudounwater.org/uploadedFiles/TM7_Jennings_Randolph_Lake%27s_Water_Supply_Costs. pdf, accessed 5/28/2012.
Christensen, L.L. 2008. The hands on guide for science communicators: A step-by-step approach to public outreach. O’Reilly Media. ISBN: 978-0-596-52234-6.
City of Santa Monica. 2012. Landscape: Water efficient irrigation. http://www.smgov.net/Departments/OSE/Categories/Green_Building/Guidelines/Landscape/Water_Effici ent_Irrigation.aspx, accessed 5/28/2012.
175 v.8/28/2012
Crawford, J.K., C.A. Loper, A.G. Reif, A. Proctor, R. Manning, and R. Titler. 2010. Occurrence of pharmaceuticals, antibiotics, hormones, and other organic compounds in Pennsylvania waters – 2006- 2009.USGS Scientific Investigations Report. (under review)
DEP. 2003. Source water assessment for Gettysburg Municipal Authority, Adams County.
DEP. 2006a. Guidelines for identification of Critical Water Planning Areas. 17p. http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-77161/392-2130-015.pdf, accessed 9/8/2011.
DEP. 2006b. Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, Chapter 3: Stormwater Management Principles and Recommended Control Guidelines. Harrisburg, PA. http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/View/Collection-8305, accessed 5/29/2012.
DEP. 2006c. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Maximum Residual Disinfectant Levels (MRDLs). Division of Drinking Water Management.
DEP. 2008. 2008 Instream Comprehensive Survey (ICE), Rock Creek (Stream Code 59041), Adams County, PA. 17p.
DEP. 2009a. Guidelines for development of Critical Area Resource Plans. Report No. 392-2130-015. 20p.
DEP. 2009b. Reuse of treated wastewater guidance manual. Report No. 362-0300-009. 29p. http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-72495/362-0300-009.pdf, accessed 2/3/2012.
DEP. 2009c. Supporting documentation: Marsh Creek and Rock Creek, Adams County nomination for Critical Water Planning Area under Pennsylvania state water plan. 18p. http://www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/docs/TechnicalDocuments/SupportingDocumentation/Marsh_Roc k_Creeks_Report.pdf, accessed 5/28/2012.
Dunne, T. and L. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
EPA. 2008a. Funding stormwater programs. EPA 833-F-07-012. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/upload/region3_factsheet_funding.pdf, accessed 5/28/2012.
EPA. 2008b. Outdoor water use in the United States. Washington, DC: Water Sense Program. http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/pubs/outdoor.html, accessed 5/28/2012.
EPA. 2009. Review draft control and mitigation of drinking water losses in distribution systems. Report No. EPA 816-D-09-001. 128p. http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/pws/pdfs/analysis_wa- 03_water_loss_doc_final_draft_v62.pdf, accessed 5/28/2012.
176 v.8/28/2012
EPA. 2010. Managing stormwater runoff to prevent contamination of drinking water. Source Water Protection Practices Bulletin. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Water. 16p. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/pubs/fs_swpp_stormwater.pdf, accessed 5/28/2012.
FEMA. 2003. Do you live in a floodplain? Charleston, WV. Release No. 1474-71. http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=3866, accessed 5/28/2012.
Fish and Boat Commission. 2009. Strategic plan for management of trout fisheries in Pennsylvania 2010- 2014. Bureau of Fisheries, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 64p.
Fry, J., G. Xian, S. Jin, J. Dewitz, C. Homer, L. Yang, C. Barnes, N. Herold, and J. Wickham. 2011. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States. PE&RS 77(9):858-864.
Gerhart, J.M. and G.J. Lazorchick. 1988. Evaluation of the ground-water resources of the lower Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland. USGS Water-Supply Paper 2284. 128p.
Giddings, T. 2010. Protecting groundwater quality: The Spring Creek watershed drilling ordinance success story. In Pennsylvania Water Symposium. http://resources.cas.psu.edu/WaterResources/pdfs/Giddings.pdf, accessed 5/28/2012.
Grenoble, P.B. 2007. Stormwater harvesting: A project survey. Water Efficiency. March/April 2007. Pages 51-56.
Hungerford, H.R. and T.L. Volk. 1990. Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education 21(3):8-21.
ICPRB. 2003. Source water assessment and protection report for Gettysburg Municipal Authority. Prepared for DEP.
ICPRB. 2005. Annual and seasonal water budgets for the Monocacy/Catoctin drainage area. Report No. ICPRB-04-04. 56p.
Jarrett, A.R. and S.S. Roudsari. 2007. Animal and irrigation water use in Pennsylvania in 2002, 2010, 2020, and 2030. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Watershed Management, Harrisburg, PA. 167p.
King, R.S., M.E. Baker, P.F. Kazyak, and D.E. Weller. 2011. How novel is too novel? Stream community thresholds at exceptionally low levels of catchment urbanization. Ecological Society of America 21(5):1659-1678.
Louisiana Sea Grant. 2010. Glossary of frequently used FEMA/NFIP Terms-Acronyms. http://www.laseagrant.org/pdfs/FEMA_Glossary.pdf, accessed 5/28/2012.
177 v.8/28/2012
Low, D.J., D.J. Hippe, and D. Yannacci. 2002. Geohydrology of southeastern Pennsylvania. Water Resources Investigations Report, WRIR 00-4166. New Cumberland, PA: USGS. 347p.
Low, D.J. and D.C. Chichester. 2005. Ground-water-quality data in Pennsylvania – a compilation of computerized [electronic] databases, 1979-2004. USGS Data Series 150. 22p.
Low, D.J. and D.L Dugas. 1999. Summary of hydrogeologic and ground-water-quality data and hydrogeologic framework at selected sites, Adams County, Pennsylvania. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 99-4108. 86p.
Manuel, J.J. 2009. An investigation of the recently drained Chambersburg Reservoir in south-central Pennsylvania. Middle States Geographer 42:1-8. http://geographyplanning.buffalostate.edu/MSG2009/1_MANUEL.pdf, accessed 5/28/2012.
Molony, B. 2001. Environmental requirements and tolerances of Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Brown trout (Salmo trutta) with special reference to Western Australia: A review. Department of Fisheries, Government of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia. 28p.
Novotny, V. and H. Olem. 1994. Water Quality: Prevention, Identification, and Management of Diffuse Pollution. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Olmstead, S.M. and R.N. Stavins. 2007. Managing water demand: Price vs. non-price conservation programs. Pioneer Institute White Paper No. 39. 47p. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/Monographs_&_Reports/Pioneer_Olmstead_Stavins_Water.pdf, accessed 5/28/2012.
Penn State. 2008. Household water conservation. Agricultural Research and Cooperative Extension, Penn State. 8p. http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/freepubs/pdfs/uh164.pdf, accessed 5/28/2012.
Poff, N.L.R, B.P Bledsoe, and C.O. Cuhaciyan. 2006. Hydrologic variation with land use across the contiguous United States: Geomorphic and ecological consequences for stream ecosystems. Geomorphology 79(3-4F):264–285.
RCSE-Shinga University and ILEC. 2011. Development of ILBM platform process: Evolving guidelines through participatory improvement. 502p.
Rutledge, A.T. 1998. Computer programs for describing the recession of ground-water discharge and for estimating mean ground-water recharge and discharge from streamflow records - Update. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4148. Reston, VA. http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/part/, accessed 5/28/2012.
Schueler, T. and H. Holland. 2000. The practice of watershed protection: Techniques for protecting our nation's streams, lakes, rivers, and estuaries. Center for Watershed Protection. 742p.
178 v.8/28/2012
Schultz, C. and J. Palmer. 2008. Seasonal steady-state ground water/stream flow model of the Upper Monocacy River Basin. Report No. ICPRB 08-04. 46p.
Sellers, H.W. 1996. Water based land use regulations using GIS water budgeting model. In North American Water and Environment Congress and Destructive Water, Anaheim, CA June 22-28. American Society of Civil Engineers.
Shaffer, K.H. and D.L. Runkle. 2007. Consumptive water-use coefficients for the Great Lakes basin and climatically similar areas. USGS Scientific Investigations Report. 191p.
Sloto, R.A. and D.E. Buxton. 2005. Water budgets for selected watersheds in the Delaware River Basin, Eastern Pennsylvania and Western New Jersey. USGS Scientific Investigations Report. Reston, VA.
Strock, C., P. Di Salvo, and K. Blake. 2010. Analysis of the water quality of an intermittent stream, Steven’s Run, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Gettysburg College, Department of Environmental Science, Ecology Course, Gettysburg, PA. 17p.
Stuckey, M.H. 2008. Development of the Water-Analysis Screening Tool used in the initial screening for the Pennsylvania state water plan update of 2008. USGS, Reston, VA. 9p.
Taylor, L.E. and D.W. Royer. 1981. Summary groundwater resources of Adams County, Pennsylvania. Water Resources Report. Harrisburg, PA. Department of Environmental Resources Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey.
The Nature Conservancy. 2002. A natural areas inventory of Adams County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for ACOPD, Middletown, Pennsylvania. 179p. http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/cnai_pdfs/adams%20co%20nai%201996_2002.pdf, accessed 5/28/2012.
USDA. 2004. 2002 Census of agriculture, Pennsylvania state and county data, volume 1, geographic area series, part 38.
USDA. 2005. Soil survey of Adams County, Pennsylvania. 606p. http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Manuscripts/PA001/0/PA_Adams.pdf, accessed 5/28/2012.
USDA. 2009. 2007 Census of agriculture, Pennsylvania state and county data, volume 1, geographic area series, part 38.
USGS. 2007-2009. Water resources data for Pennsylvania water year 2007-2009. USGS Water-Data Report WRD-US-2007-2009. http://pa.water.usgs.gov/infodata/surfacewater/annual_rpt/, accessed 5/28/2012.
WAAC. Rock Creek assessment. http://www.adamswatersheds.org/chemicalindicators.html, accessed 5/28/2012.
179 v.8/28/2012
Wolock, D.M. 2003. Estimated mean annual natural ground-water recharge in the conterminous United States. USGS Open-File Report 03-311. http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/dsdl/rech48grd.zip, accessed 5/28/2012.
6 Acknowledgements DEP provided funding and oversight of this project. The tireless efforts of David Jostenski, Mike Hill, and Jay Braund are much appreciated. Completion of this CARP was made possible by the thoughtful participation and comments by CAAC members (Table 83) and the Potomac Regional Committee members (Table 84). Charles Bennett (CAAC chair) and Pat Naugle (CAAC vice-chair) personally contributed a significant amount of time and effort to this process. Beverly Saunders (a Master’s student at Texas State University-San Marcos) conducted the February 15th advisory committee workshop and ILBM scoring of management alternatives as part of her Master’s thesis. Dejan Senic (a Master’s student at the University of the District of Columbia, working as an intern for ICPRB) assisted with the evaluation of management alternatives. SRBC graciously offered time and expertise to participate in an information session on the potential GMA-York Water interconnection. Meeting facilities at the Agriculture and Natural Resources Center in Gettysburg were generously provided free of charge by ACCD and at the Emergency Services Center by the Adams County Department of Emergency Services. A number of citizens and organizations in the CWPA committed time and resources to submit water resources data from around the watersheds. These data sets were integral to the technical analyses. Precipitation data was submitted by Joe Lanza of Ardentsville, Charles Bennett of Knouse Foods in Orrtanna, Mark Guise of GMA in Gettysburg, Tammy Kunkel of Adams County Emergency Services, Todd Williams of Cumberland Township, and Bernard Shanebrook of Bonneauville Borough in Bonneauville. Volunteers also collected stream level data at four locations in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. Thank you to Vy Trinh of ACCD, Nathan Merkel of Pennsylvania Rural Water, Eric Flynn of Ski Liberty, and Hugh Lewis for their commitment to collecting the level data. Further, a number of citizens and organizations provided access to their property for collection of groundwater level data including Gary Schroeder, Bill Bucher, Tom Varish, Peg Daguem, Mr. and Mrs. Hartman, Robert Adams, Mark Guise of GMA, Rick Klein of The Links, Sara Koenig of the National Park Service, Charles Bennett of Knouse Foods, George Kritchen of the AllStar Sports Complex, Bernard Shanebrook of Bonneauville Borough, and the Former Gettysburg Country Club. In addition, USGS provided in-kind services to the data collection and quality assurance efforts totaling $5,880. Karin Bencala, ICPRB, edited and provided thoughtful comments for the improvement of this document. Jan Ducnuigeen, ICPRB, provided mapping and spatial analysis support. Jennifer Willoughby, ICPRB, developed and provided ongoing support for the project blog.
180 v.8/28/2012
Table 83. CAAC organizations and primary representatives. Note: Some advisory committee members represent multiple organizations or interests on the advisory committee. Those individuals are listed multiple times. Organization/Affiliation Primary Representative(s) Bonneauville Borough Bernard Shanebrook Straban Township Sharon Hamm Liberty Township Peter Soscato Butler Township Barry Towers Franklin Township Robert Cullison Freedom Township Paul Kellett Gettysburg Borough Scott Dellett, Florence Ford† Mount Joy Township John Garmont Hamiltonban Township Coleen Reamer Mount Pleasant Township Charles Wilson Highland Township Karl Keller Cumberland Township Ben Thomas, Dave Waybright† Council of Governments Barbara Underwood Representative Dan Moul Chris Kimple Representative Will Tallman Will Tallman Senator Richard Alloway Skip Strayer Pennsylvania Ground Water Association Bob Reichart Watershed Alliance of Adams County Adam McClain PA Rural Water Assoc. Matt Genchur, Nate Merkel† Penn State Extension Service Tom McCarty Penn State University, Biglerville Fruit Research Laboratory Jim Schupp Gettysburg College Salma Monani Harrisburg Area Community College Ron Cline Conewago Valley School District Daniel Trimmer Fairfield School District Bill Chain Upper Adams School District Eric Eshbach Gettysburg Area School District Larry Redding Adams County Conservation District Adam McClain Adams County Office of Planning Richard Schmoyer*, Nick Colonna Adams County Department of Emergency Services John Eline Adams County Chamber of Commerce Charles Bennett Gettysburg National Military Park Sarah Keonig, Zach Bolitho† Farm Bureau Dan Wilkinson, John Hess† GenOn (formerly Reliant Energy) John Brummer, Nathan Rozic† Mason Dixon Farm Bert Waybright Glenn Snyder*, George Weikert*, Lisa Moreno*, Adams County Commissioners Randy Phiel, Marty Qually, Jim Martin
181 v.8/28/2012
Organization/Affiliation Primary Representative(s) Adams County Winery John Kramb Ski Liberty Eric Flynn Fruit Growers Bicky Redman Gettysburg Municipal Authority Mark Guise Mason Dixon Country Club Duke Martin Adams County Economic Development Robin Fitzpatrick Charles Bennett, Pat Naugle, Mark Bream, Bob Select Regional Committee Members Reichart Adams County Fruit Growers Assoc Bicky Redman Knouse Foods Charles Bennett Joe McNally, Pat Bowling, Hugh Gilchrist Lewis, Concerned Citizens / Persons with Knowledge Dean Shultz †Alternate, *Primary representative during initial portion of the CARP development, but was not on committee during the latter part of the project
Table 84. Potomac Regional Committee members. Name Category Business/Organization Andrew Fitz conservation district Franklin County Conservation District Brent Ramsey professional Gannett Flemming Charles Bennett industrial Donald MacAskill industrial PA Chamber Fran Koch environmental Land Conservancy of Adams County George Fisanich local government Carroll Valley Borough James Richenderfer, Ph.D. geologist- professional SRBC Jeffry Kloss planning director Bedford County Planning Commission Joseph Hoffman compact commission ICPRB Mark Bream horticulture Mark Guise water supply Gettysburg Municipal Authority Michael Christopher local government Washington Twp Pat Naugle conservation district Adams County Conservation District Phyllis Chant wastewater Carroll Valley Sewer and Water Authority Ricky A. Leese production agriculture PA Farm Bureau Robert Reichart professional William W. Reichart, Inc. Ronald Stanley, Ph.D. environmental Retired from DEP Russell McLucas conservation district Fulton County Conservation District Vacant DEP Vacant industrial Vy Trinh environmental Adams County Conservation District William McLaughlin local government Chambersburg Borough William Reichart professional William W. Reichart, Inc.
182 v.8/28/2012 Appendix A Seasonal and annual water uses by water use type and sub-watershed Annual water uses by water use type and sub-watershed (1997-2010). Estimated livestock (Mgal/y) Sub-watershed 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Upper Rock 22.242 22.573 22.909 23.249 23.595 23.947 24.300 24.653 25.006 25.359 25.712 25.897 26.083 26.453 Lower Rock 43.655 44.305 44.964 45.633 46.312 47.001 47.694 48.387 49.080 49.773 50.466 50.830 51.194 51.922 Little Marsh 11.618 11.791 11.967 12.145 12.325 12.509 12.693 12.878 13.062 13.247 13.431 13.528 13.625 13.818 Upper Marsh 20.015 20.312 20.615 20.922 21.233 21.549 21.867 22.184 22.502 22.820 23.137 23.304 23.471 23.805 Lower Marsh 35.312 35.838 36.371 36.912 37.462 38.019 38.580 39.140 39.701 40.261 40.822 41.116 41.411 41.999
Estimated irrigation (Mgal/y) Sub-watershed 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Upper Rock 48.465 48.627 48.791 48.955 49.119 49.284 49.162 49.039 48.917 48.794 48.672 50.548 52.423 56.175 Lower Rock 62.162 62.371 62.580 62.790 63.001 63.213 63.056 62.899 62.742 62.584 62.427 64.833 67.239 72.052 Little Marsh 62.359 62.568 62.778 62.989 63.201 63.413 63.255 63.098 62.940 62.783 62.625 65.039 67.452 72.279 Upper Marsh 66.192 66.415 66.638 66.862 67.086 67.312 67.144 66.977 66.810 66.642 66.475 69.037 71.599 76.723 Lower Marsh 62.163 62.372 62.582 62.792 63.003 63.215 63.058 62.900 62.743 62.586 62.429 64.835 67.241 72.054
Estimated commercial (Mgal/y) Sub-watershed 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Upper Rock 16.469 16.469 16.469 18.007 17.392 16.776 16.161 15.546 14.931 17.831 20.730 23.629 26.528 29.427 Lower Rock 27.694 27.694 27.694 26.494 26.974 27.454 27.934 28.414 28.894 29.204 29.513 29.823 30.132 30.441 Little Marsh 2.551 2.551 2.551 2.379 2.448 2.517 2.586 2.655 2.724 2.527 2.330 2.133 1.937 1.740 Upper Marsh 3.222 3.222 3.222 2.725 2.924 3.123 3.321 3.520 3.719 3.737 3.756 3.775 3.793 3.812 Lower Marsh 5.288 5.288 5.288 3.808 4.400 4.992 5.584 6.176 6.768 6.676 6.583 6.491 6.398 6.306
183 v.8/28/2012
Estimated industrial (Mgal/y) Sub-watershed 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Upper Rock 83.639 83.639 83.639 26.902 49.597 72.292 94.986 117.681 140.376 132.803 125.230 117.657 110.084 102.511 Lower Rock 1.547 1.547 1.547 1.072 1.262 1.452 1.643 1.833 2.023 1.954 1.885 1.817 1.748 1.679 Little Marsh 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.144 4.288 6.432 8.576 10.720 Upper Marsh 1.709 1.709 1.709 2.872 2.407 1.942 1.476 1.011 0.546 1.671 2.795 3.920 5.045 6.169 Lower Marsh 13.805 13.805 13.805 11.914 12.670 13.427 14.183 14.940 15.696 15.773 15.850 15.927 16.004 16.080
Self-supplied domestic (Mgal/y) Sub-watershed 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Upper Rock 48.338 49.058 49.778 50.498 51.058 51.617 52.177 52.736 53.296 53.855 54.415 54.974 55.534 56.093 Lower Rock 105.885 107.463 109.040 110.617 111.843 113.069 114.294 115.520 116.745 117.971 119.197 120.422 121.648 122.874 Little Marsh 45.696 46.376 47.057 47.738 48.267 48.796 49.325 49.854 50.383 50.911 51.440 51.969 52.498 53.027 Upper Marsh 57.346 58.200 59.055 59.909 60.573 61.237 61.900 62.564 63.228 63.892 64.555 65.219 65.883 66.547 Lower Marsh 81.704 82.921 84.138 85.355 86.301 87.247 88.192 89.138 90.084 91.030 91.975 92.921 93.867 94.812
Public supply (Mgal/y) Sub-watershed 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 200 5 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Upper Rock 190.751 213.537 186.480 178.439 91.969 62.250 47.766 64.322 103.451 102.335 92.243 81.956 64.779 70.149 Lower Rock 100.272 100.226 98.361 103.110 115.437 102.408 110.399 105.836 113.517 115.432 116.309 110.844 113.658 114.061 Little Marsh 6.162 5.975 6.477 5.666 5.585 4.791 5.217 5.276 5.711 5.878 5.505 7.019 7.750 6.538 Upper Marsh 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lower Marsh 400.225 363.373 372.796 354.648 421.011 410.057 440.003 430.603 394.140 406.427 435.673 392.508 405.822 395.625
Registered commercial/industrial (Mgal/y) Sub-watershed 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Commercial - Upper Rock 29.997 29.997 29.997 29.997 29.997 29.997 29.997 13.957 26.798 18.902 27.558 68.112 24.654 29.997 Mining - Upper Rock 167.315 167.315 167.315 167.315 167.315 167.315 167.315 168.797 170.301 170.318 176.364 258.084 214.188 167.315 Golf Course -Lower Rock 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 31.293 15.000 15.000 15.000 Golf Course - Lower Marsh 7.498 7.498 7.498 7.498 7.498 7.498 7.498 9.847 9.836 9.652 15.653 0.000 0.000 0.000 Industrial - Little Marsh 53.141 53.141 53.141 53.141 53.141 53.141 53.141 65.711 57.962 48.955 27.558 60.047 58.615 53.141 184 v.8/28/2012
Registered agriculture (Mgal/y) Sub-watershed 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Little Marsh 15.636 15.636 15.636 15.636 15.636 15.636 15.636 20.263 20.414 21.638 24.999 4.003 2.498 15.636 Upper Marsh 4.054 4.054 4.054 4.054 4.054 4.054 4.054 3.878 5.394 5.394 6.587 0.000 3.075 4.054 Lower Marsh 37.931 37.931 37.931 37.931 37.931 37.931 37.931 23.126 23.126 0.000 88.763 53.838 38.733 37.931
Non-transient water systems (Mgal/year) Sub-watershed 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Lower Marsh 33.874 33.874 33.874 33.874 33.874 33.874 33.874 33.874 33.874 33.874 33.874 33.874 33.874 33.874 Lower Rock 34.394 34.394 34.394 34.394 34.394 34.394 34.394 34.394 34.394 34.394 34.394 34.394 34.394 34.394 Upper Rock 18.954 18.954 18.954 18.954 18.954 18.954 18.954 18.954 18.954 18.954 18.954 18.954 18.954 18.954 Little Marsh 4.478 4.478 4.478 4.478 4.478 4.478 4.478 4.478 4.478 4.478 4.478 4.478 4.478 4.478 Upper Marsh 1.820 1.820 1.820 1.820 1.820 1.820 1.820 1.820 1.820 1.820 1.820 1.820 1.820 1.820
185 v.8/28/2012 Seasonal water uses by water use type and sub-watershed (1997-2010). Estimated livestock (Mgal/seas) Sub-watershed Fall Winter Spring Summer Upper Rock 6.122 5.723 5.984 7.726 Lower Rock 12.017 11.233 11.744 15.164 Little Marsh 3.198 2.990 3.126 4.036 Upper Marsh 5.509 5.150 5.384 6.952 Lower Marsh 9.720 9.087 9.500 12.266
Estimated irrigation (Mgal/seas) Sub-watershed Fall Winter Spring Summer Upper Rock 16.042 0.000 16.042 19.293 Lower Rock 20.576 0.000 20.576 24.745 Little Marsh 20.641 0.000 20.641 24.823 Upper Marsh 21.910 0.000 21.910 26.350 Lower Marsh 20.577 0.000 20.577 24.746
Estimated commercial (Mgal/seas) Sub-watershed Fall Winter Spring Summer Upper Rock 5.197 5.197 5.197 5.197 Lower Rock 14.334 7.152 14.334 15.789 Little Marsh 0.570 0.570 0.570 0.570 Upper Marsh 0.855 0.855 0.855 0.855 Lower Marsh 1.407 1.407 1.407 1.407
Estimated industrial (Mgal/seas) Sub-watershed Fall Winter Spring Summer Upper Rock 22.482 22.482 22.482 22.482 Lower Rock 0.398 0.398 0.398 0.398 Little Marsh 0.893 0.893 0.893 0.893 Upper Marsh 0.799 0.799 0.799 0.799 Lower Marsh 3.641 3.641 3.641 3.641
Self -supplied domestic (Mgal/seas) Sub-watershed Fall Winter Spring Summer Upper Rock 14.023 14.023 14.023 14.023 Lower Rock 30.718 30.718 30.718 30.718 Little Marsh 13.257 13.257 13.257 13.257 Upper Marsh 16.637 16.637 16.637 16.637 Lower Marsh 23.703 23.703 23.703 23.703
186 v.8/28/2012
Registered public supply (Mgal/seas) Sub-watershed Fall Winter Spring Summer Upper Rock 56.323 46.768 59.523 62.886 Lower Rock 27.665 26.196 28.942 31.065 Little Marsh 1.544 1.727 1.426 1.515 Upper Marsh 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lower Marsh 99.581 83.249 105.166 110.585
Registered general commercial and industrial (Mgal/seas) Sub-watershed Fall Winter Spring Summer Upper Rock 46.758 48.096 47.988 50.514 Lower Rock 15.477 0.000 15.657 23.343 Little Marsh 15.134 12.009 14.605 13.814 Upper Marsh 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lower Marsh 7.686 0.000 3.906 11.592
Non -transient water systems (Mgal/seas) Sub-watershed Lower Marsh 9.020 4.536 9.020 11.298 Lower Rock 8.598 8.598 8.598 8.598 Upper Rock 4.865 3.840 4.865 5.385 Little Marsh 1.214 0.445 1.214 1.605 Upper Marsh 0.455 0.455 0.455 0.455
187 v.8/28/2012 Appendix B Riverine habitat suitability criteria for the recreational fish species found in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds73 Black Green Redbreast Crappie Sunfish Bluegill Sunfish Largemouth Bass Smallmouth Bass American Eel Yellow Bullhead Rock Bass Pumpkinseed White Sucker Fry: Alter diet Opportunistic zooplankton according to feeders of Varies by Juveniles: availability primarily fish lifestage. benthic and life stage Fry: eggs, larvae, and Microcrustaceans, organisms Primarily (zooplankton, microcrustaceans Alter diet juveniles. insect larvae. Insects, insect For adults, food terrestrial and aquatic and and small insects according to life Documented Adults are larvae, also includes aquatic terrestrial Terrestrial and Juveniles: insects stage feeding on insects, omnivores, Large aquatic mollusks, amphipods, Primarily insects. insects, aquatic insects, and small fish (microcrustaceans crayfish, snails, aquatic insects, snails, other gastropods, large small forage Some small and/or plant crustaceans, Adults: fish and to larger insects, worms, and small invertebrates and crayfish, and crustaceans, immature Food fish. fish. materials). and fish. crayfish. crayfish, and fish). fish. fish. small fishes and small fish. aquatic insects. Cool, clear, mid- Large, slow moving order streams with Normally Cover and rivers or pools of abundant shade found around velocity are streams with soft and cover, deep underwater Frequent pools most bottoms, some pools, moderate Found in wide rocks, stones, Like the quiet, and areas of important. aquatic vegetation, current, and a range of habitats. and boulder weedy slow to Usually found and relatively clear gravel or rubble Bottom dwellers, rubble. shallows of moderate in shallow water. First or substrate. hide in shelters Associated streams. velocity (~40 water near second order Movements of and the substrate with Active during cm/sec). Swift cover. When streams are adults in streams itself. In northern Warm water occurrence of the day. Rest shallow (<30cm) Clear water Pool areas of water temps generally poor are restricted habitats, lie pools and smallmouth at night near waters running with dense streams, need Abundance are high, may habitat. >60% during a single dormant in the backwaters or bass. Like the bottom or over gravel vegetation or 50% pool correlated to be found in backwater or pool season to a single substrates during lotic medium streams with in protected bottoms for Habitat cover. area. >60% pools. deeper waters. area is optimal. pool. winter. streams to rivers. rocky pools. areas. spawning.
73 Sources of information include: The applicable reports in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service habitat suitability index model series, available online at http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/hsi/hsiintro.htm (accessed July 2011); Cummins, J., C. Buchanan, C. Haywood, H. Moltz, A. Griggs, R.C. Jones, R. Kraus, N. Hitt, and R.V. Bumgardner. 2011. Potomac Basin Large River Environmental Flow Needs. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy of Maryland and the District of Columbia; Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission’s Gallery of Pennsylvania Fishes, available online at http://www.fish.state.pa.us/pafish/fishhtms/chapindx.htm (accessed July 2011); and Wisconsin Sea Grant’s Fish of the Great Lakes, available online at http://seagrant.wisc.edu/greatlakesfish/ (accessed July 2011). Jenkins, R.E., N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 188 v.8/28/2012 Black Green Redbreast Crappie Sunfish Bluegill Sunfish Largemouth Bass Smallmouth Bass American Eel Yellow Bullhead Rock Bass Pumpkinseed White Sucker Aquatic vegetation is necessary for growth and reproduction. Primary daytime habitat is Vegetative shallow water cover, but Cover is in dense less than used; vegetation and 80%. Greater however, too Adults most Strong cover- Occurrence around than this much cover Found in abundant with seeking behavior Prefer dense associated with Need cover submerged provides can inhibit shallow areas vegetation and other and desire aquatic vegetation Assumed macrophytes along the stream trees, brush, or protection for ability to near vegetation forms of cover (40- protection from and other types of similar to black and other types side and within Vegetation other objects. prey. obtain prey. or hard cover. 60%). light. cover. crappie. of cover. stream. May not be Prefer low velocity velocity waters dependent. that are absent Can survive a However, one of noticeable range of Prefer faster study found that current. Prefer areas velocities; waters than the sites with four Optimum Prefer low of low however, largemouth bass. velocity-depth velocity is velocities, velocity, < fluctuations Seasonal mean regimes had the Cover-seeking <10cm/sec. <10 cm/sec - 10 cm/sec, can impact Optimal current current velocity in highest densities behavior Will not will tolerate will tolerate recruitment, velocities < 6 one study varied of eels. Have Assumed increases as Water tolerate up to 25 up to 45 growth, and cm/sec, >20 cm/sec from 10.9 to 32 nocturnal activity Prefer backwaters similar to black velocity Velocities >60cm/sec. cm/sec. cm/sec. survival. is unsuitable. cm/sec. pattern. and slow currents. crappie. increases. Prefer low High species Typical turbidity abundance is Intolerant of smallmouth waters. positively Significant suspended solids habitat has very Significant correlated positive and sediment. low turbidity, positive with correlation Turbidity over Greatest survival usually <25 JTU correlation moderate between TDS 100 JTUs and growth in ponds and almost never Can survive between TDS (25-100JTU) levels of 100- associated with with turbidities < 25 >75 JTU (except turbid waters, levels of 100- turbidities, 350 ppm and decreased ppm. Intermediate under flood Prefer areas of but are more 350 ppm and but can occur sport-fish, reactive growth in ponds conditions which minimal common in sport-fish in both clear optimal <50 distance of the between 25-100 can be as high as Can tolerate high siltation and Can tolerate clearer streams Turbidity standing crop and turbid. ppm. fish. ppm. 250). turbidity waters. turbidity. muddy waters. (<50 JTU).
189 v.8/28/2012 Black Green Redbreast Crappie Sunfish Bluegill Sunfish Largemouth Bass Smallmouth Bass American Eel Yellow Bullhead Rock Bass Pumpkinseed White Sucker Most large catches in waters with DO Require >6 mg/L > 4 mg/L, with DO for optimal most between 5 Optimum DO Optimum DO Optimum DO growth. and 9. Survives >5mg/L, will >5mg/L, will >5mg/L, will Growth reduced at Reproduction better in air than Can tolerate Embryos cannot tolerate tolerate tolerate DO < 8 mg/L, with reduced 10% in poorly poor water survive below <4.5mg/L for <4.5mg/L for <4.5mg/L for substantial reduction when dissolved oxygenated or quality, 1.2 mg/L. short periods, short periods, short periods, Optimum <4 mg/L. Distress oxygen is lowered polluted water surviving Growth of fry Dissolved <1.4mg/L <1.4mg/L <1.4mg/L >5mg/L, may be evident at 5 to 3 mg/L at 15C because of its Assumed periods of low reduced at DO Oxygen cause cause cause prolonged <1 mg/L. < 1 mg/L is or 20% if lowered ability to breathe Can tolerate low similar to black dissolved levels < 2.5 (DO) mortality. mortality. mortality. mg/L lethal. lethal. to 4 mg/L at 20C. out of the water. oxygen waters. crappie. oxygen. mg/L. May inhabit Reported in mildly salinities up to Optimal Optimal brackish 4.7 ppt, but are salinities salinities Salinity levels Reported in 15% waters. more abundant <3.6 ppt, will <3.6 ppt, will above 4ppt cause Ability to survive salinity; however, Assumed Recorded in Maximum in fresher not tolerate not tolerate sharp declines in in oceanic salinity rare in salinity similar to black salinity up to recorded salinity Salinity headwaters. >5.6 ppt. >5.6 ppt. abundance. levels. >5%. crappie. 18.2%. is 1.53%. Tolerant of low Optimum is 7.9- pH, prolonged pH 5-10 for 8.1, but can occur pH 5-9 safe for exposure successful 5.7-9. Cover- freshwater below 4 and reproduction, but seeking behavior fish, 6.5-8.5 is Optimal 6.5- Optimal 6.5- above 10 can tolerate short- was reduced at Assumed Can tolerate essential for 8.5, mortality 8.5, mortality increases term exposures to levels <6, lower Tolerant of high similar to black acidic water as Marked declines pH food growth. <4 or >10.35. <4 or >10.35. mortality. 3.9 and 10.5. lethal level is 3. acidity. crappie. low as 4.1. at pH < 4.5.
190 v.8/28/2012 Black Green Redbreast Crappie Sunfish Bluegill Sunfish Largemouth Bass Smallmouth Bass American Eel Yellow Bullhead Rock Bass Pumpkinseed White Sucker Temperature is important in determining distribution. Growth begins when water temps reach 10-14C. Optimum Mean weekly Adults prefer 21- summer water July and Temps of 25- 27C, but temp of 24C. August water 30C results in sometimes sun Upper lethal temperatures maximum Temps of 24-30C themselves in Like cooler temp is 31.2C 23-32 degrees growth, Prefer result in maximum warmer waters than for suckers C, mean of 26. Optimal 27-29C, growth, Prefer 27- temperatures of other sunfish. acclimated at Optimum Prefer 28.2C, about 27C, maxima 36C 29C, maxima 36C. 26.7C. Lethal Require temps of Ideal water 26C. Can growth occurs avoid temps no growth (like Very little growth temps: >32.3C or 6-30C. Mean Assumed temperatures survive temps as Adult near the upper above 31C or below 10 or largemouth below 15 or above below/near preference is similar to black range from 24- low as 1 to 2 Specific end. below 26C. above 30. bass). 36C. freezing. 16.7C. crappie. 32C. degrees. Velocities >10cm/sec are Spawning avoided, as low as Develop at temps (March-July) Optimal temp Optimal 22- 40 may result in from 13-25. No Eggs collected water from 20-27C, 27C, develop fatalities of survival at DO < in streams with temperatures spawning 22-34C, not embryos. Ideal 2.5 ppm. >6ppm temps ranging 13-21C with will not occur found in 21-25C ideal temps 20-21, with a necessary for Assumed from 11-16C. Embryo 17.8-20C below 19 or velocities > spawning range of 13-26. maximum Larvae hatch in similar to black Maximum Specific being ideal. above 31C. 30 cm/sec. temperatures. Low survival >30C. survival. the Sargasso Sea. crappie hatching at 15C. Optimal: 25- Vulnerable to 32, will not fluctuating water survive Optimal velocities levels. Displaced below 11 or <4 cm/sec, cannot at high but not at above 34. Shallow water tolerate >27 cm/sec. moderate turbidity optimal with shelter, Optimal levels (250JTU). Appear in Optimal 18- velocities < 5 low current temperatures are 27- Low water temps spring when 26, will cm/sec, not velocity, same 30C, little growth during flooding Metamorphosis Assumed water temp is tolerate 10- found if > 7.5 temp and DO below 15 or above will reduce into transparent similar to black Fry Specific ~15C. 36. cm/sec. as adults. 32C. swimming ability. glass eels. crappie.
191 v.8/28/2012 Black Green Redbreast Crappie Sunfish Bluegill Sunfish Largemouth Bass Smallmouth Bass American Eel Yellow Bullhead Rock Bass Pumpkinseed White Sucker Highest growth rate at 30C, Prefer 28-31C. Optimal water growth range Similar to Maximum growth temp 22-25C, is 22-34C. adults, prefer from 25-29. no growth <11 Preferred slightly faster Upper lethal is Migrate toward Assumed Upper lethal of or above 30, Same as adult velocities > current 35C. Lower lethal the coast and/or similar to black temps are 26- Juvenile prefer 27-29C. green sunfish. 15 cm/sec. velocities. Same as adult. below 16C. upriver. crappie. 31C. Migrate in spring to early summer when January - March, the daily max juvenile (elver) in water temp migration to reaches 10C. estuaries Migration Spawning March - continues until season may Spawning September, water temp extend from occurs from juvenile and adult reaches ~18C. spring May - August, growth occurs in When water Initiation of Spawning through Egg and larval tributaries and temp reach 13- spawning begins in late summer. development Spawning, egg headwater streams 17 C (late migrations is March, April, Spawning is from August - and larval September - spring or early either or May typically September, development December, Adult summer), male temperature depending on found in Juvenile Spawning begins in occurs from April (yellow eel) pumpkinseeds dependent geographic quiet, growth the spring when - July emigration, high Assumed start to build and/or stream location and shallow September – water temperatures Juvenile growth, flows cue similar to black nests for discharge Timing temperature. water (1-3m). May. reach 12-15.5C. June – September. outmigration. crappie. spawning. dependent.
192 v.8/28/2012 Black Green Redbreast Crappie Sunfish Bluegill Sunfish Largemouth Bass Smallmouth Bass American Eel Yellow Bullhead Rock Bass Pumpkinseed White Sucker High flows Stable to slightly may cause negative males to desert midsummer nests, optimal fluctuations are egg optimal for adult Because development at largemouth bass due bluegills flow velocities to concentration of Shoreline spawn at 1- from 0-0.3 ft/s, prey. Flow velocity for development 3m depth, Nest Drawdowns during egg and larval can destroy reservoir construction spawning often development Large winter pumpkinseed drawdown and spawning result in poor requires low-flow flows may inhibit spawning during in shallow survival. refugia (<0.2m/s). upstream grounds, and spawning depths without Stable to increased Floods after migrations. increased silt Sudden should not siltation - flow summer water level spawning will Greatest from shoreline temperature exceed 3 m maintenance of is optimal for fry reduce survival emigration rates erosion can drops may during spring clean substrate because it increases rate if substrate over dams during cover diminish or stop Management and summer. is important. cover. scouring occurs. high flow events. spawning sites. migration.
193 v.8/28/2012
Appendix C USGS stage discharge relationships for the four CWPA staff gages74
74 Where two curves are presented for a particular staff gage, a change in site conditions required establishment of a new stage-discharge relationship. The use of a particular curve is dictated by the date of the stage reading.
194 v.8/28/2012
195 v.8/28/2012
196 v.8/28/2012
197 v.8/28/2012
198 v.8/28/2012
199 v.8/28/2012
Appendix D Water quality standards75 Parameter Warmwater Fishery (WWF) Coldwater Fishery (CWF) Trout Stocking Minimum 20 mg/l as CaCO3, except where natural conditions are less. Where discharges are to waters with 20 mg/l or less alkalinity, the discharge should not further reduce Alkalinity the alkalinity of the receiving waters. Same as WWF Same as WWF The maximum total ammonia nitrogen concentration (in mg/L) at all times shall be the numerical value given by: un-ionized ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) x (log-1[pKT-pH] + 1), where: un-ionized ammonia nitrogen = 0.12 x f(T)/f(pH) f(pH) = 1 + 101.03(7.32-pH) f(T) = 1, T ›= 10°C f(T) = 1 + 10(9.73-pH) , T ‹ 10°C 1 + 10(pKT-pH) and pKT = , the dissociation 0.090 + constant for ammonia in water.
2730 (T + 273.2)
The average total ammonia nitrogen concentration over any 30 consecutive days shall be less than or equal to the numerical value given by: un-ionized ammonia nitrogen (NH3- N) x (log-1[pKT-pH] + 1), where: un-ionized ammonia nitrogen = 0.025 x f(T)/f(pH) f(pH) = 1, pH ›= 7.7 f(pH) = 100.74(7.7-pH), pH ‹ 7.7 f(T) = 1, T ›= 10°C Ammonia f(T) = 1 + 10(9.73-pH) , T ‹ 10°C Nitrogen 1 + 10(pKT-pH) Same as WWF Same as WWF For the period February 15 to July 31 of any year, minimum daily For flowing waters, minimum daily average 6.0 mg/l; minimum 5.0 mg/l. average 6.0 mg/l; minimum 5.0 mg/l. For the remainder of the year, Dissolved Minimum daily average 5.0 mg/l; For lakes, ponds and impoundments, minimum daily average 5.0 mg/l; Oxygen minimum 4.0 mg/l. minimum 5.0 mg/l. minimum 4.0 mg/l. 30-day average 1.5 mg/l as total Iron recoverable. Same as WWF Same as WWF Osmotic Maximum 50 milliosmoles per Pressure kilogram. Same as WWF Same as WWF pH 6 – 9, inclusive Same as WWF Same as WWF
75 http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter93/s93.7.html
200 v.8/28/2012
Parameter Warmwater Fishery (WWF) Coldwater Fishery (CWF) Trout Stocking Maximum temperatures in the Maximum temperatures in the Maximum temperatures in the receiving water body resulting from receiving water body resulting from receiving water body resulting from heated waste sources regulated under heated waste sources regulated under heated waste sources regulated under Chapters 92, 96 and other sources Chapters 92, 96 and other sources Chapters 92, 96 and other sources where temperature limits are where temperature limits are where temperature limits are necessary to protect designated and necessary to protect designated and necessary to protect designated and existing uses. Additionally, these existing uses. Additionally, these existing uses. Additionally, these wastes may not result in a change by wastes may not result in a change by wastes may not result in a change by more than 2°F during a 1-hour more than 2°F during a 1-hour more than 2°F during a 1-hour period. period. period. January 1-31 40 January 1-31 38 January 1-31 40 February 1-29 40 February 1-29 38 February 1-29 40 March 1-31 46 March 1-31 42 March 1-31 46 April 1-15 52 April 1-15 48 April 1-15 52 April 16-30 58 April 16-30 52 April 16-30 58 May 1-15 64 May 1-15 54 May 1-15 64 May 16-31 72 May 16-31 58 May 16-31 68 June 1-15 80 June 1-15 60 June 1-15 70 June 16-30 84 June 16-30 64 June 16-30 72 July 1-31 87 July 1-31 66 July 1-31 74 August 1-15 87 August 1-15 66 August 1-15 80 August 16-30 87 August 16-30 66 August 16-30 87 September 1-15 84 September 1-15 64 September 1-15 84 September 16-30 78 September 16-30 60 September 16-30 78 October 1-15 72 October 1-15 54 October 1-15 72 October 16-31 66 October 16-31 50 October 16-31 66 November 1-15 58 November 1-15 46 November 1-15 58 November 16-30 50 November 16-30 42 November 16-30 50 Temperature December 1-31 42 December 1-31 40 December 1-31 42 Total Residual Four-day average 0.011 mg/l; 1-hour Chlorine average 0.019 mg/l. Same as WWF Same as WWF
201 v.8/28/2012
Appendix E Scoring definitions for management alternatives
Management alternatives under consideration by the CAAC underwent two rounds of scoring, one for feasibility and the other dealing with the ability of the alternative to address identified issues. The highest possible score for feasibility is 60. Likewise, the highest technical score possible is 60. In this way, the total score is equally a function of how feasible a management alternative is and how well it solves the water resources issue it is meant to address. The following section documents the criteria for both of the scorings.
Feasibility Score
The feasibility scoring protocol was developed utilizing the ILBM framework. Feasibility scoring was carried out by the CAAC at the February 15, 2012 workshop. Each management alternative was scored in terms of information, funding, policies, institutions, stakeholders, and timeframe. The purpose of these “pillars” is to identify how readily the alternative can be implemented.
Information Is the information needed to complete this project available? 0 = None of the needed information is available. 3 = Some of the information needed is available but more studies need to be conducted. 5 = The information exists but needs to be compiled. 7 = The information exists and is partially compiled. 10 = The information exists and is compiled.
Funding Are there known funding sources which can support this project? 0 = No funding opportunities exist for this project. 3 = Funding opportunities exist that could fund a portion of the project. 5 = Funding opportunities exist that could support the full project. 7 = The project is partially funded and funding opportunities exist to fund the rest. 10 = The project is fully funded.
Policies Do current policies (regulations, ordinances, etc.) support this project? 0 = Current policies are against this project. 5 = There are no policies that support or inhibit this project. 10 = There are policies in place that permit or encourage this project.
Institutions Does the institutional framework exist to complete this project? 0 = No institutions exist who can complete this project. 3 = Potential institutions may exist. 5 = Potential institutions exist but their institutional capacity is unknown. 7 = Institutions exist and have the capacity to complete the project. 10 = An institution or institutions can and have said they will complete the project.
Stakeholders Is there sufficient stakeholder support for this project? 0 = No stakeholders are generally against or totally unaware of this project. 5 = Some stakeholders are in support and some are against this project.
202 v.8/28/2012
10 = Stakeholders are generally in support of the project.
Timeframe In what timeframe is the project likely to be complete? 0 = 20+ years 3 = 10 years 5 = 5 years 7 = 3 years 10 = Less than 1 year
Technical Score
The technical scoring was developed and conducted to determine whether a management alternative has the potential to solve identified water resources issues in the CWPA. The technical scoring was conducted by groups of management alternatives, organized by the water resources issue they are meant to address. Each CWPA water resources issue, therefore, has a distinct set of evaluation criteria.
Availability and Storage (Issues #1 and #2) Will this management alternative reduce the calculated deficit in a quantifiable way? 0 = No, this alternative will not make any quantifiable progress towards reducing the water deficit. 18 = This alternative may make little measurable progress towards reducing the water deficit. 42 = This alternative may make moderate measurable progress towards reducing the water deficit. 60 = Yes, this alternative will make substantial, measurable progress towards reducing the water deficit.
Water Quality (Issue #3) Will this management alternative protect or improve water quality conditions in a quantifiable way? 0 = No, this alternative will not make any quantifiable progress towards protecting water quality. 18 = This alternative may make little measurable progress towards protecting water quality. 30 = This alternative will make substantial progress towards protecting water quality. 42 = This alternative will make measurable progress towards improving water quality. 60 = Yes, this alternative makes substantial measurable progress towards improving water quality.
Stormwater (Issue #4) Will this alternative manage stormwater in such a way to improve water quality and/or reduce the water deficit in a quantifiable way? 0 = No, this alternative will not make any quantifiable progress towards improving water quality and/or reducing the CWPA water deficit. 18 = This alternative may make little measurable progress towards improving water quality and/or reducing the CWPA water deficit. 42 = This alternative may make moderate measurable progress towards improving water quality and/or reducing the CWPA water deficit. 60 = This alternatives will make substantial measurable progress towards improving water quality and/or reducing the CWPA water deficit.
Policy/Management (Issue #5) Will this management alternative assist in the coordinated management of water resources in the CWPA in order to effectively implement CARP recommendations? 0 = No, this alternative will not assist in the coordinated management of water resources to implement CARP recommendations.
203 v.8/28/2012
18 = This alternative will be of little assistance in the coordinated management of water resources or has little ability to implement CARP recommendations. 30 = This alternative will be of substantial assistance in either the coordinated management of water resources or the ability to implement CARP recommendations. 42 = This alternative has substantial ability to accomplish coordinated management of water resources or has the ability to implement CARP. 60 = Yes, this alternative will be of substantial assistance in the coordinated management of water resources and has substantial ability to implement CARP recommendations.
Data (Issue #6) Will this management alternative result in the collection and availability of additional data necessary for improved management of the water resources? 0 = No, this alternative will not yield useful data for the management of water resources in the CWPA. 30 = This alternative will yield pieces of data that will be important to management of water resources in the future. 60 = This alternatives will yield pieces of data that are critical for the management of water resources in the future.
Communication (Issue #7) Will this management alternative engage stakeholders in the community and yield behavioral changes that will result in better management of water resources? 0 = No, this alternative will not engage stakeholders or yield behavioral changes resulting in a measurable benefit to the CWPA. 30 = This alternative may engage and educate stakeholders, but will likely not result in behavioral changes resulting in a measurable benefit to the CWPA. 60 = Yes, this alternative will engage and educate stakeholders and will likely result in behavioral changes resulting in a measurable benefit to the CWPA.
204 v.8/28/2012
Appendix F Water conservation including non-discharge of wastewater, water reclamation, and water reuse in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, Adams County, Pennsylvania
Prepared for Susquehanna River Basin Commission and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Prepared by Heidi L.N. Moltz James B. Palmer
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, Suite PE-08 Rockville, MD 20850
June 2012
205 v.8/28/2012
Table of Contents Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Units of Measurement Introduction Background Development Framework for Reuse Projects Wastewater Quality Technologies Storage Technologies Summary Identification of Potential Reuse Opportunities Local Knowledge Geospatial Analysis Summary Reuse Case Studies in the CWPA Hundredfold Farm Cohousing Community GenOn Knouse Foods JoBo Holstein Farm Harrisburg Area Community College (HACC) Conclusions References Acknowledgements
List of Tables Table F-1. Categories of wastewater reuse and potential constraints (modified from Asano 2011) Table F-2. Entities contacted to determine interest in wastewater reuse that did not respond to requests for information Table F-3. Permitted dischargers in the CWPA whose waste streams may be appropriate for reuse Table F-4. Withdrawals in the same or neighboring parcels to discharges, within 0.25 mi, and/or within 0.25 mi Table F-5. Four wastewater reuse candidates and the associated waste stream that may fulfill the water needs
List of Figures Figure F-1. Hundredfold Farm wastewater reuse system Figure F-2. Knouse Foods’ Orrtanna plant water conservation equipment
206 v.8/28/2012
Introduction The Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Center (TAC) was created under Act 220 of 2002. One aspect of the TAC is a website, Save Water PA76. The mission of Save Water PA is “to promote voluntary water conservation and provide technical assistance on water use issues, including practices and measures that reduce demand for water, improve water-use efficiency, reduce water leakage, and enhance groundwater recharge.” The website, maintained by the Pennsylvania Environment Council, is a forum designed to provide diverse users with reliable information about water conservation and use in the Commonwealth. As water conservation activities are implemented throughout Pennsylvania, integrating the results with the Save Water PA site, other aspects of the TAC, and throughout the Commonwealth enables others to learn from those activities. The Marsh and Rock creek watersheds of Adams County provide an ideal opportunity to showcase local, stakeholder implemented conservation practices. The Marsh and Rock creek watersheds in Adams County were designated as a Critical Water Planning Area (CWPA) by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in January 2011 under the authority of Act 220 of 2002. Development of the Critical Area Resource Plan (CARP), required for CWPAs under the legislation, was undertaken by the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) with guidance from the Act 220 Potomac Regional Committee, the local Critical Area Advisory Committee (CAAC), and DEP. Funding was provided by DEP and ICPRB. The CARP process included verification of water resources issues, a number of technical analyses, evaluation of management alternatives, and development of management recommendations77. A stakeholder process was instrumental in the effort, leading to the development of scientifically sound and socially acceptable management recommendations. Several of the management actions are related to the use and reuse of wastewater. More information on the recommended practices can be found in Section 3.5 of the CARP. Because implementation of the CARP management activities will require site-specific investigations and will provide useful information for others in the Commonwealth, ICPRB was contracted to identify case studies of current and potential future opportunities for wastewater reuse in the CWPA which are described in this report. Specifically, opportunities were identified for implementation of three water conservation management alternatives in the CWPA; namely, non-discharge of wastewater, water reclamation, and water reuse, all of which are management actions recommended in the CARP. These case studies will be documented in the CARP and Save Water PA and presented to various DEP advisory committees. The first part of this project was a literature review to understand wastewater reuse benefits and technologies. The second part was to identify potential reuse opportunities in the CWPA based on local knowledge and a spatial analysis of withdrawals close to dischargers. As a result, five case studies were identified. Detailed descriptions of wastewater reuse techniques being implemented in each case study are documented along with a description of the site. Implementation of additional reuse activities may serve to further alleviate the water deficits quantified in the CWPA78.
76 http://www.savewaterpa.org, accessed 6/18/2012. 77 The draft CARP can be downloaded from the projected blog, http://www.marshrockwaterplan.blogspot.com, accessed 6/25/2012. 78 Water deficits were calculated by sub-watershed in Section 3.3.2.4 of the CARP by subtracting the seven day low flow statistically expected to occur once in ten years (7Q10) from the average annual daily withdrawal.
207 v.8/28/2012
Background There are a number of factors for consideration when implementing wastewater reuse activities. Evaluation criteria may include, but are not limited to, environmental benefits and risks, stakeholder approval, and regulation of wastewater reuse. As there is no one-size-fits-all reuse scenario, determination of whether the benefits outweigh the risks will require a case-by-case decision-making process. Implementation will require backing by involved stakeholders and adherence to associated regulations. There are a number of environmental benefits to reusing wastewater. First, wastewater from some sources is constant and reliable despite meteorological conditions. For example, people flush toilets and wash clothes and dishes in homes regardless of the weather or season. Reusing the reliable waste streams for other purposes reduces the demands on fresh water resources during water stressed conditions. Secondly, the wastewater is likely discharged into the environment if not reused for other purposes. Traditional wastewater discharges can harm the environment through habitat degradation (e.g. erosion) or water quality impairments through the introduction of pollutants such as nutrients. If beneficially reused, however, the wastewater characteristics can become a resource. For example, the nutrients in wastewater can become a resource in agricultural applications. When wastewater is used for agricultural irrigation, for example, nutrients present in the wastewater result in a decrease in the amount of fertilizers that need to be applied to fields. Finally, reusing the wastewater prevents additional surface- or ground-water from needing to be withdrawn, thereby reducing the overall demand on the water resources (EPA 2004, Toze 2006). Risks from reused wastewater include the possibility of contaminants being present in the wastewater. Potential wastewater contaminants include pathogens, trace organics and heavy metals, endocrine disrupting chemicals, pharmaceutically active compounds, nutrients, and salinity (Toze 2006). The impacts of these contaminants depend on the use of the wastewater. For example, irrigating crops intended for human consumption with untreated domestic wastewater may cause health risks for those persons in contact with the wastewater and who consume the crops; leaching of pollutants into the groundwater; and increased concentrations of pollutants in the soil (Bahri 2010). Due to the potential human and ecosystem impacts, wastewater may need to be treated before reuse. Otherwise, reuse opportunities need to be identified where the level of contamination in the untreated wastewater is acceptable for the intended reuse. Stakeholder approval often depends on the purpose of the wastewater reuse. Often, stakeholders accept reuse based on proximity, the type of treated wastewater, and the level of treatment (Toze 2006). Specifically, greater approval is reached if the wastewater is not reused within close proximity to the stakeholders, does not contain municipal wastewater, and is treated to strict standards. A number of regulatory requirements and formal guidance documents govern the reuse of wastewater in Pennsylvania. The EPA produces numeric standards for regulated wastewater pollutants under the Clean Water Act79. According to the DEP (2009a), an applicant must complete and have approval for Act 537 sewage facility planning modules as well as obtain a Clean Streams Law Part II Water Quality Management permit for land application of sewage. When conditions prevent land application, seasonal discharges to surface waters are allowable, but require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Part I discharge permit. According to the DEP (2009b),
79 Example resources for the industrial regulations are available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/industry.cfm, accessed 06/27/2012.
208 v.8/28/2012
wastewater reuse activities require a Water Quality Management permit from DEP. If the activity includes stream augmentation, a NPDES permit is also required. A framework has been developed to assist reuse candidates in evaluating these (benefits and risks, stakeholder approval, and regulations) and other site-specific considerations (distance, quality, storage, and cost) to efficiently take a project from “potential” to “implemented.” The framework is presented in the next section.
Development Framework for Reuse Projects CH2MHill developed a WaterMatch project development framework to promote wastewater reuse. The focus of the framework is the use of municipal wastewater for industrial and agricultural purposes; however, the framework is also applicable for other types of reuse. The project development framework includes the steps listed below80. The WaterMatch website provides resources for completing each of these steps.
Determine if the user should consider external water reuse; Locate and contact nearby discharger to determine availability; Screen options for viability; Evaluate feasibility of viable options; Establish agreement of understanding with discharger; Perform basic design and cost estimate; Establish project agreement with discharger; Engineer and construct project; and Operate and maintain project.
The first step in this process is to determine if the user should consider external water reuse. Wastewater can be reused for a number of different purposes including agriculture, landscapes, industry, groundwater recharge, recreational and environmental uses, non-potable uses, and potable uses according to Asano (2011) (Table F-1). Each of these uses has unique environmental and human health constraints. Another potential constraint is the distance of the wastewater source to the end user. According to Levine and Asano (2004), “cost-effective use of reclaimed water for industrial or irrigation applications necessitates producing it relatively close to the potential user.” For systems that transport the water farther distances, such as centralized systems, transport typically becomes the largest cost of the reuse system. Even after installation of the transport system, operation and maintenance may cost approximately $5,500 per mile per year (Craddock Consulting Engineers 2007).
Table F-1. Categories of wastewater reuse and potential constraints (modified from Asano 2011). Wastewater reuse categories Potential constraints Agricultural irrigation: •Effect of water quality, particularly salts, on soils and crops Crop irrigation •Marketability of crops and public acceptance Commercial nurseries •Public health concerns, especially for unprocessed food crops
80 Resources for the WaterMatch project development framework are available online at http://www.ch2mhill.com/watermatch/ProjDev, accessed 6/16/2012.
209 v.8/28/2012
Wastewater reuse categories Potential constraints Landscape irrigation: Park School yard Freeway median Golf course Cemetery •Surface and groundwater pollution if not properly managed Greenbelt •Public health concerns related to pathogens Residential •Effect of water quality, particularly salts, on soils and plants Industrial reuse: •Reclaimed wastewater constituents related to scaling, Cooling corrosion, biological growth, and fouling Boiler feed •Public health concerns, particularly aerosol transmission of Process water organics and pathogens in cooling water and pathogens in Heavy construction various process waters Groundwater recharge: •Trace organics in reclaimed wastewater and their Groundwater replenishment toxicological effects Saltwater intrusion •Total dissolved solids, metals, and pathogens in reclaimed Subsidence control wastewater Recreational and environmental uses: Lakes and ponds Marsh enhancements •Health concerns of bacteria and viruses Streamflow augmentation •Eutrophication due to nutrients Fisheries •Aesthetics, including odor •Public health concerns about pathogen transmission by Non-potable urban uses: aerosols Fire protection •Effects of water quality on scaling, corrosion, biological Air conditioning growth, and fouling Toilet flushing •Potential cross-connections with potable water systems •Trace organics in reclaimed wastewater and their long-term toxicological effects Potable reuse (repurified water): •Aesthetics and public acceptance Bleeding in water supply •Public health concerns on pathogen transmission, including Pipe-to-pipe water supply viruses
Once it is determined whether a user should consider wastewater reuse, a discharger is located with an available waste stream, and it is determined that the waste is a practical option for the intended use, the remaining steps in the WaterMatch framework relate to implementation of the reuse activity. These steps include arranging agreements with the discharger, developing the designs and cost estimates, construction, and operation and maintenance. Case studies of water reuse for various purposes can be found around the globe. A number of case studies from the United States, Australia, Israel, Singapore, and Mexico are described in Anderson (2003). The Alliance for Water Efficiency also maintains a resource library containing information on water conservation programs, water loss programs, and alternative water supplies81. Pennsylvania case studies of wastewater reuse include the University Joint Authority in State College82.
81 http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/resource-library/default.aspx, accessed 6/18/2012. 82 The University Joint Authority website is http://www.uaja.com/planning/plan.htm, accessed 6/18/2012.
210 v.8/28/2012
Wastewater Quality Technologies Wastewater can be an inexpensive and sustainable source of water if the waste stream is close to the end user (i.e. expensive transport of the waste stream is not required) and if treatment requirements are minor prior to use (Asano 2011). If significant treatment or transport comes into play on a particular reuse project, more detailed engineering and planning designs will likely be required to thoroughly evaluate the costs and benefits of wastewater reuse. Utilizing one approach, operation and maintenance of a treatment system was estimated to comprise 5% of the capital cost of a system per year (Craddock Consulting Engineers 2007). Potential users of the waste stream are encouraged to consider not only the combined effluent for reuse, but individual waste streams to enhance cost effectiveness. A particular operation may have various waste streams that are used for different purposes, some of which are more consistent and of higher quality than others. Selecting the most appropriate waste stream may save treatment costs in the long run (Siemens 2006). Fortunately, there are a myriad of wastewater quality treatment options available if a nearby waste stream can be identified. Wastewater quality considerations include the quality of the input waste stream and the intended reuse purpose. Technologies available for treatment of wastewater quality are numerous and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The quality of the waste stream is determined by the water’s initial use, among other factors. For example, pollutants are introduced into domestic wastewater through a number of sources like the dish washer and showers. Pollutants from dish washers include bacteria, foam, food particles, high temperatures, oil, grease, organic matter, etc. Showers introduce bacteria, hair, high temperatures, oil, grease, soaps, oxygen demand, etc. (New Mexico State University 1994). Likewise, the pollution characteristics of industrial, commercial agricultural, and other waste streams are specific to the specific activities involved. The quality of the water required for reuse depends on the ultimate purpose of the waste stream. For example, water being reused for irrigation may only require nominal treatment. Water quality requirements for industrial purposes, on the other hand, vary widely. Boilers require high quality water while cooling towers can use water of a much lower quality (UNEP 2012). When selecting a treatment technology, managers should consider whether the technology can reliably provide a treated waste stream that is of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the desired use (Asano 2011). In general, the wastewater treatment will proceed through a progression of primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment until the required quality is met. Primary treatment includes removal of heavier solids via sedimentation and lighter, floating pollutants by skimming. Secondary treatment further cleans the waste stream through aerobic biological treatment such as activated sludge, trickling filters, and/or rotating biological contactors. Tertiary treatments are designed to remove particular pollutants of concern and can be used in lieu of or in addition to primary and secondary treatments (FAO 1992). Depending on the quality issue at hand, appropriate wastewater treatment technologies may include physical, chemical, and/or biological systems. Physical treatments include disinfection83 and coarse filtration. This approach is employed in applications such as non-potable domestic reuse where only minimal treatment is required, as the chemical composition of the wastewater remains unchanged. Another technology is physical-chemical systems that utilize sand and/or membranes, coagulation, and advanced oxidation. The result of these systems is the removal of organic pollutants and an associated
83 Physical disinfection techniques include ultraviolet radiation and microfiltration. There are also chemical mechanisms for disinfection including chlorine and ozonation and biological methods such as detention lagoons (EPA Victoria 2002).
211 v.8/28/2012
decrease in turbidity. Another type of treatment is biological treatment which removes organic pollution. Some systems combine treatment types to achieve multiple benefits. Other types of treatment include septic tanks, lagoons, wetlands, and natural treatment systems (Jefferson et al. 1999, Asano 2011). Numeric wastewater quality goals for applications with human contact such as irrigation for food crops, urban uses (fire protection, landscape irrigation on playgrounds, etc.), contact recreational uses (swimming and snowmaking), and environmental enhancements typically require filtration, disinfection, and secondary treatment. In these cases, the biological oxygen demand should be less than or equal to 10 mg/L, total suspended solids should be less than or equal to 2 mg/L, fecal coliforms should not be detected, a chlorine residual of 1 mg/L should be maintained, and the pH should fall between 6 and 9. Treatment goals for areas of restricted contact such as irrigation of non-food crops, irrigation of urban areas where public access is minimal, and non-contact recreation typically require only disinfection and secondary treatment. The biological oxygen demand should be less than or equal to 30 mg/L, total suspended solids should be less than or equal to 30 mg/L, fecal coliforms should be less than or equal to 200/100 mL, a chlorine residual of 1 mg/L should be maintained, and the pH should fall between 6 and 9 (Levine and Asano 2004). Standards for other parameters such as salinity, sodium, nutrients, and trace elements are documented in EPA (2004). There is an array of treatment technologies available for potential wastewater reuse sites. Selection of the appropriate tool(s) will depend on the quality of the source waste stream and the purpose for which it will be used. Coupling appropriate treatment technologies, nearby waste streams, and water uses suitable for recycled water can be a win-win for humans and the environment.
Storage Technologies Wastewater can be generated on a fairly consistent basis (e.g. domestic) or it can fluctuate temporally (e.g. agriculture). Temporal fluctuations in wastewater generation can occur diurnally, daily, weekly, or seasonally (Craddock Consulting Engineers 2007). Storage techniques may be implemented in the event that the timing of wastewater generation does not coincide with wastewater reuse demands. Diverse storage technologies are available for this purpose. In fact, markets for local wastewater storage are increasing and driving the development of new technologies. For example, aesthetically appealing storage tanks can now be integrated with the urban environment (Ritchie 2011). Ponds can be constructed in more rural or agricultural environments. Cisterns can be utilized for domestic, commercial, or industrial purposes. Rain barrels, comparable to small cisterns, are another means for storage water for reuse. Rain barrels capture the water as it runs off of rooftops and other impervious surfaces during storm events. The water can then be used for a number of purposes like irrigation. The Adams County Conservation District began a rain barrel program in 2003. To date, approximately 800 x 55 gallon rain barrels have been distributed throughout Adams County.
Summary The reuse of wastewater is of potential benefits to both humans and the environment. Design and implementation of reuse systems requires site-specific evaluations of the benefits and risks, stakeholder perspectives, and regulatory requirements. Tools, such as the WaterMatch framework developed by CH2MHill are available to assist reuse candidates in taking projects from the drawing board to fruition. Considerations in this process include the costs of installation, operation, and maintenance. The costs are heavily determined by the distance of wastewater transport, treatment requirements, and necessary storage capacity.
212 v.8/28/2012
Identification of Potential Reuse Opportunities Opportunities for the reuse of wastewater in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds were identified using two methodologies. The first was a qualitative identification of potential reuse candidates based on local knowledge. The second approach used a geospatial analysis to identify registered withdrawals that are in close proximity to permitted discharges. In this way, waste streams were linked to potential users. The detailed approach and results of each of these methods are described below.
Local Knowledge Water users in the watersheds that may be interested in wastewater reuse were identified based on local knowledge in communication with stakeholders and utilizing withdrawal and discharge data sets for the CWPA. A number of these water users were contacted to determine interest. The results of these efforts are described below. The Links at Gettysburg is a golf and housing development with a community water supply and sewer system. Both of these systems are operated by Aqua PA. The water supply system consists of groundwater wells for potable water supply and a withdrawal from Rock Creek and the capture of nearby stormwater runoff to fill irrigation ponds. The golf course turf and residential lawns are irrigated with water from the ponds. A wastewater reuse opportunity exists to utilize the treated wastewater to fill the irrigation ponds. Some modifications to the water and wastewater infrastructure systems would be necessary prior to implementation. Some adjustments to the treatment system may also be necessary. The volume of wastewater currently treated is not enough to justify the modifications, but the property owner is interested in pursuing this as the community is built-out in the future (personal comm., The Links Owner, 6/27/2012; personal comm., Aqua PA Regional Manager, 5/8/2012). Lake Heritage is a private community around a constructed lake. The community’s drinking water is supplied by PA American Water Company and sewer services are provided by White Run Regional Authority. Opportunities for wastewater reuse within the community include lawn irrigation and toilet flushing; however, wastewater reuse has not been considered between these systems to date. The cost/benefit ratio of installing the necessary infrastructure for either lawn irrigation or toilet flushing would appear to be prohibitive. Further, no known nearby industries or farms are interested in utilizing the wastewater (personal comm., White Run Regional Authority System Operator, 6/20/2012). Three entities with current and potential future wastewater reuse in the CWPA were identified including Hundredfold Farm, GenOn, and Knouse Foods. Hundredfold Farm Cohousing Community was designed as a planned sustainable community. Wastewater reuse is a part of the existing and planned future operations. GenOn is a power generation facility. The operation is an example of wastewater reuse in the CWPA as they reuse a considerable amount of water daily. Knouse Foods is a grower owned cooperative that produces fruit products. Knouse Foods implements a number of water conservation and reuse practices and is constantly looking for ways to improve their water efficiency. Details on the wastewater reuse activities at Hundredfold Farm, GenOn, and Knouse Foods are presented in subsequent sections of this appendix. A number of other entities were contacted as potential reuse candidates that did not respond to requests for information (Table F-2). These entities may serve as a list of potential future candidates, should interest arise.
213
v.8/28/2012
Table F-2. Entities contacted to determine interest in wastewater reuse that did not respond to requests for information. Facility All Star Sports Complex (Timeless Towns, Eisenhower Conference Center) Franklin Township Municipal Authority Cumberland Township Authority Round Top Mobile Home Park Gettysburg College, Gettysburg Hotel Gettysburg School District
Geospatial Analysis A geospatial analysis was undertaken to identify additional wastewater reuse candidates. The methodology consisted of a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) based spatial selection of registered withdrawals in close proximity to permitted dischargers. Entities producing waste streams are most likely to reuse their wastewater if they are in close proximity to the end user, as transport or piping may be expensive. However, the minimum distance a discharger would be willing to transport the waste for a beneficial reuse depends on multiple factors (e.g. economic, technological, social, and political). Therefore, several variations of the analysis were conducted to identify withdrawals in increasingly larger distances to the dischargers. The data used for this analysis was obtained from the Water-Analysis Screening Tool (WAST), developed as part of the update of the State Water Plan and the data verification process (Stuckey 2008). This approach was executed in three steps; namely, discharges were identified, withdrawals near the dischargers were selected, and appropriate withdrawal-discharge pairs were evaluated. The methodology first identified all NPDES dischargers in the CWPA according to the WAST data set. There are 18 permitted discharges in the watershed whose waste streams may be appropriate for reuse84. The discharge amounts from these systems in 2003 ranged from nominal to over 1.6 Mgal/d (Table F-3).
Table F-3. Permitted dischargers in the CWPA whose waste streams may be appropriate for reuse. Data was obtained from the WAST from 2003 information. Some dischargers on this list may no longer be active. New discharges initiated since 2003 include The Links at Gettysburg and Fort Heritage Lighthouse Chapel. Quantity* Discharger Discharge Location or Use Use Type (gpd) Pike Restaurant and Lounge Discharge, Un-named tributary to Rock Creek Not Listed 0 Baladerry Inn Bed and Breakfast Discharge, Un-named tributary to Rock Creek Not Listed 211 Waybrant Oil Company Discharge, Un-named tributary to Rock Creek Not Listed 340 Lower Marsh Creek Presbyterian Church Discharge, Un-named tributary to Marsh Creek Not Listed 621 Cooperative Milling Discharge, Un-named tributary to Rock Creek Industrial 772
84 The Gettysburg Municipal Authority (GMA) emergency well and stream augmentation well are not included, although they are permitted discharges, because they are discharged for the purpose of maintaining the flow-by on Marsh Creek. Therefore, it is not appropriate to reuse these withdrawal waters for other purposes.
214
v.8/28/2012
Quantity* Discharger Discharge Location or Use Use Type (gpd) Yingling Development Discharge, Un-named tributary to Plum Run Not Listed 1,097 Franklin Elementary Discharge, Un-named tributary to Marsh Creek Not Listed 1,592 Artillery Ridge Campground Discharge, Un-named tributary to Rock Creek Not Listed 3,930 Castle Hill Mobile Home Park Discharge, Un-named tributary to Rock Creek Water Supplier 4,171 Cavalry Heights Mobile Home Discharge, Dry swale to un-named tributary to Park White Run Water Supplier 5,083 Anchor Mobile Estates Discharge, Willoughby Run Water Supplier 7,875 Hoffman Homes for Youth Discharge, Un-named tributary to Lousy Run Water Supplier 13,000 Round Top Campground Discharge, Un-named tributary to Plum Run Water Supplier 16,875 Timeless Towns Discharge, Un-named tributary to Marsh Creek Water Supplier 33,833 White Run Regional Sewer Treatment Plant Discharge, White Run Not Listed 143,833 Cumberland Township North Sewer Treatment Plant Discharge, Rock Creek Not Listed 290,000 Cumberland Township South Sewer Treatment Plant Discharge, Willoughby Run Not Listed 410,000 Gettysburg Sewer Treatment Plant Discharge, Rock Creek Water Supplier 1,682,083 *Discharge quantities listed are based on the 2003 data in the WAST data set and are provided to give an indication of the relative magnitude of discharged water.
Having identified potential sources of wastewater for reuse, nearby water users were then identified in WAST to pair with a discharger for reuse. There are 91 registered withdrawal locations in the CWPA from 26 entities. Smaller, estimated WAST withdrawals were not included in this analysis. The smaller withdrawals may have opportunities for wastewater reuse; however, the focus of this effort was to identify the larger users that may have an overall more significant impact by reusing wastewater. Three geospatial analyses were conducted to ultimately pair water users with nearby dischargers. The analyses selected 1) withdrawals in the same or neighboring parcels to permitted discharge locations85, 2) withdrawals within 0.25 miles of a permitted discharge location, and 3) withdrawals within 0.5 miles of a permitted discharge location. Withdrawals occurring on the same or neighboring parcels to the permitted discharges are ideal because transport distance is short and permission to pipe across other properties is not required. There are 13 entities that withdrawal water within these selection criteria (Table F-4). After the selection of withdrawals within the specified distance of the discharges, potential reuse candidates were identified. Drinking water supply withdrawals were not considered candidates for reuse because of the stringent water quality standards in place for public health and safety. The Gettysburg Municipal Authority (GMA) augmentation well is not considered an opportunity for wastewater reuse because the withdrawal is for the purpose of maintaining the pass-by flows on Marsh Creek. The remaining withdrawals in close proximity to discharges in the CWPA are considered potential candidates for future reuse of wastewater (bolded in Table F-4).
85 Parcel information was obtained from Adams County Office of Planning and Development (ACOPD) in shapefile format.
215 v.8/28/2012
Table F-4. Withdrawals in the same or neighboring parcels to discharges, within 0.25 mi, and/or within 0.25 mi. Potential reuse candidates are displayed in bold. Note: Due to large parcel sizes in areas of the CWPA, some withdrawals meeting the “Neighboring Parcels” search criteria exceed the 0.25 and 0.5 mi search distance. In these cases, the “Search Parameter” is listed as “Neighboring Parcel” because the wastewater transport would not require additional landowner permissions, despite being farther than 0.25 or 0.5 mi from the discharge. Quantity* Withdrawal Type (gpd) Search Parameter Kellers Turkey Farm Agriculture 2,472 0.5 mi Cooperative Milling Industrial 6,849 0.5 mi Agricultural Commodities Industrial 680 Neighboring Parcel Kuhn Orchards Irrigation 97,297 Neighboring Parcel Round Top Mobile Home Park Water Supplier 13,359 Neighboring Parcel GMA Water Supplier 1,463,148 Neighboring Parcel Bonneauville Borough Water System Water Supplier 54,915 0.25 mi Castle Hill Mobile Home Park Water Supplier 3,536 Neighboring Parcel Anchor Mobile Home Park Association Water Supplier 12,013 Neighboring Parcel GMA Stream Well Water Supplier 519,000 Neighboring Parcel Hoffman Homes For Youth Water Supplier 12,136 Neighboring Parcel Timeless Towns Of Americas Water Supplier 24,368 Neighboring Parcel Cavalry Heights Mobile Home Park Water Supplier 5,000 Neighboring Parcel *Quantities listed are based on the 2003 data in the WAST data set and are provided to give an indication of the relative magnitude of discharged water. The four identified wastewater reuse candidates are listed below along with the discharger that may be able to supply the waste stream (Table F-5). In instances where the discharge quantity is greater than the withdrawal quantity, wastewater may be able to cover the entire use, thereby eliminating the need for the withdrawaler to take from surface- and/or ground-water sources. Where the discharge quantity is smaller than the withdrawal quantity, reuse may serve a portion of the withdrawal need.
Table F-5. Four wastewater reuse candidates and the associated waste stream that may fulfill the water needs. Withdrawal Discharge Quantity Name (gpd) Use Type Name Quantity (gpd) Use Type Agricultural Commodities 680 Industrial Cooperative Milling 772 Industrial Kuhn Orchards 97,297 Irrigation Franklin Elementary 1,592 Not Listed Castle Hill Water Kellers Turkey Farm 2,472 Agriculture Mobile Home Park 4,171 Supplier Cooperative Milling 6,849 Industrial Cooperative Milling 772 Industrial
Upon contact, it was determined that Cooperative Milling and Agricultural Commodities are not currently interested in pursuing wastewater reuse opportunities. These organizations may be candidates in the future if interests arise. Reuse of Franklin Elementary discharges by Kuhn Orchards and of Castle Hill Mobile Home Park discharges by Kellers Turkey Farm are also potential future reuse opportunities. Each of these candidates is discussed in more detail in subsequent paragraphs.
216 v.8/28/2012
Cooperative Milling is a fertilizer and feed seller. The organization also produces feed from locally sourced grains in their milling operations. Water is used in the milling process from an on-site well and is subsequently discharged as wastewater from their processing into an unnamed tributary of Rock Creek. When contacted, the company said they are not interested in implementing wastewater reuse at their facility. Although this is a potential reuse candidate, it appears that implementation of reuse measures at this facility will require considerably more communication, education, and development. The potential savings would be approximately 772 gpd (according to the 2003 WAST data) if all of the currently discharged water was reused for other purposes, a relatively small percentage of the 1.16 Mgpd water deficit in the Upper Rock CWPA sub-watershed86. Agricultural Commodities is a feed producer and seller that withdrawals groundwater from an on- site well, however, they do not have a registered discharge. It is possible that at least a portion of the withdrawal needs of Agricultural Commodities could be met through wastewater reuse. The Agricultural Commodities facility is near the Cooperative Milling discharge point, a potential waste stream for reuse purposes. When contacted, however, Agricultural Commodities asserted that they are not interested in implementing wastewater reuse practices. The 2003 Agricultural Commodities water use was 680 gpd, a relatively small percentage of the 1.16 Mgpd water deficit in the Upper Rock CWPA sub-watershed. Franklin Elementary is located in the Upper Marsh sub-watershed of the CWPA. The school has a discharge into an un-named tributary of Marsh Creek. Kuhn Orchards is located on a neighboring property and represents a potential reuse opportunity. Kuhn Orchards has just over 100 acres in production in the Little and Upper Marsh sub-watersheds, where they grow apples, peaches, nectarines, strawberries, asparagus, and red raspberries among other fruits, vegetables, and flowers. Kuhn Orchards participates in the Conservation Security Program under the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) based on meeting “the highest standards of conservation and environmental management.” On- farm activities include the installation and maintenance of forested riparian buffers and the use of trickle irrigation. Approximately 190 acres of the land has also been placed in preservation through the Adams County Agricultural Land Preservation Program, the Land Conservancy of Adams County, and the USDA’s Wetland Reserve Program. Castle Hill Mobile Home Park is located in the Upper Rock sub-watershed of the CWPA. The system withdrawals water for public supply and, after being treated, the wastewater is discharged to an un-named tributary of Rock Creek. Kellers Turkey Farm is located within 0.5 miles of the mobile home park and may be able to utilize the waste stream. Kellers Turkey Farm is a concentrated poultry operation on just under 20 acres in Straban Township in the Upper Rock sub-watershed. As of 2003, the turkey farm used approximately 2,472 gpd of water. The reuse of water at the turkey farm and also at Kuhn Orchards in the previous example may be constrained because these facilities produce food products. The geospatial analysis was one mechanism for identifying potential reuse candidates in the CWPA. Utilizing this process four candidates were identified, two of which are currently not interested. The others will require additional follow-up to determine whether implementation is feasible.
Summary Consultation with the local stakeholders and geospatial analysis resulted in identification of two entities that are not currently interested in implementing wastewater reuse (Agricultural Commodities and Cooperative Milling), two entities that may be interested in the future but are not currently set up to reuse
86 CARP analyses were conducted by CWPA sub-watershed. The sub-watershed descriptions are available in Section 2.1 of the CARP.
217 v.8/28/2012
wastewater (The Links and Lake Heritage), eight entities that could not be contacted but may serve as potential implementation sites (Table F-2, Franklin Elementary-Kuhn Orchards, and Castle Hill Mobile Home Park-Kellers Turkey Farm), and five entities that are implementing wastewater reuse technologies. Entities that are implementing wastewater reuse technologies are presented as case studies in the next section. The organizations include the Hundredfold Farm Cohousing Community, GenOn, Knouse Foods, JoBo Holstein Farm, and Harrisburg Area Community College (HACC).
Reuse Case Studies in the CWPA Additional information was obtained about the potential reuse candidates to provide case studies of wastewater reuse in the CWPA. The case studies include examples of water being reused for domestic, industrial, environmental, agricultural, and flood protection purposes. Each organization is discussed in detail in this section.
Hundredfold Farm Cohousing Community Hundredfold Farm is a 15-household, 82 acre87 rural cohousing community in the Cashtown area of the Little Marsh sub-watershed. This community is located in the metavolcanic geology on the east side of South Mountain, which is characterized by moderately thick regolith covering the fractured bedrock, providing storage for infiltrated water. Although the bedrock has low porosity, the permeability of secondary openings can be quite high (Low et al. 2002). The soils are moderately well drained and slopes range from nominal to steeper areas of 25% to 35% (USDA 2005). Soil textures are silts and silt loams with areas of Highfield, Catoctin, and Myersville soils that can be very stony. The drainage characteristics of the soil make this site a candidate for the land application of wastewater, a non- discharge opportunity. The cohousing model is characterized by private dwellings, clustered housing, pedestrian friendly design, and extensive common facilities. The property contains a working organic Christmas tree farm that is owned and operated by the community members. A primary community goal is to reduce the ecological footprint. This value underlies decisions about incorporating active and passive solar power into the homes, growing food, recycling, maintaining groundwater wells for drinking water, and initiating a wastewater reuse system for gray water reuse. The wastewater reuse system includes a series of steps. A sanitary “grinder” pump is installed at each house. The discharge slurry is sent to a series of septic tanks at the treatment facility for primary treatment. The output of these tanks is routed to two aeration tanks, followed by a clarification tank (Figure F-1a). The clarification tank discharges are then sent to the first of two constructed wetlands containing marsh plants whose roots create a habitat for microbes, bacteria, and other sewage-consuming organisms (Appendix F Cover Photo). The water is then transported to the first of three open-top lake tanks with aquatic plants and invertebrates for additional removal of fine particles (Figure F-1b). From these tanks, the water is pumped to the second constructed wetland (Figure F-1c). The water is then pumped to a final filter and UV light disinfection equipment (Figure F-1d). The finished gray water is then sent to a treated effluent storage tank for toilet flushing in the houses or drip irrigation fields (Figure F-1e).
87 According to the ACOPD parcels shapefile.
218 v.8/28/2012
Figure F-1. Hundredfold Farm wastewater reuse system: a) oxygenation and clarifying tanks (in the background) and plants in the first constructed wetland; b) lake tank; c) second constructed wetland; d) finished water filter, UV disinfection, and storage tank; and e) drip irrigation fields. Photos by Jim Palmer, ICPRB.
The treatment system has a design capacity of 4,000 gpd; however, the current load is approximately 1,300 gpd. The system is currently larger than necessary because system design requirements called for sizing the system using an industry standard water use of 75 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) (DEP 1997). The actual use is approximately 27 gpcd due to the use of only high water use efficiency appliances in all houses and the strong community adoption of rainwater harvesting. Over the past 6 months, the community treated approximately 0.25 Mgal of water, 42,000 gal of which was used for toilet flushing while the remainder was used for drip irrigation. The average total water use was 27 gpcd. The average fresh water used was 11 gpcd. Therefore, approximately 41% of the in-home water use was reused wastewater. Further, the average water deficit was calculated as approximately 0.68 Mgpd in the Little Marsh sub-watershed. The magnitude of wastewater reuse at Hundredfold Farm is approximately 0.2% of the water deficit for the sub-watershed. Implementation of this reuse system required obtaining necessary permits from DEP. Specifically, a wastewater system permit and a licensed treatment plant operator were required for operation of this system. One community member obtained a system operator license and served as the licensed treatment plant operator. Further, the DEP design standards necessitated a professionally created system. Most of the on-site construction was performed by residents.
GenOn The GenOn Wholesale Generation, LP Hunterstown Station is a power generation facility located in Straban Township in the Upper Rock sub-watershed of the CWPA. It is “an 810 megawatt combined-
219 v.8/28/2012
cycle power station located on 89 acres of a 307 acre Brownfield industrial site”88. The primary generation system uses waterless cooling. Heat in the exhaust from the gas-fired turbine engines is recovered by heat recovery steam generators (HRSG) to produce steam which turns other steam driven generators. Water is released from the HRSGs during blowdown in this steam-based system. The blowdown water is sent to a storage tank and then either recycled using an on-site Reverse Osmosis (RO) system or using Demineralizer Trailers. The onsite Demineralizer Trailers use a multi- stage ion exchange process contained in onboard tanks that capture dissolved and suspended impurities and return 100% of inlet volume, meaning no on-site waste stream. The trailers are taken off-site for resin bed regeneration. RO is generally less expensive than the Demineralizer Trailers. The RO technology uses a semipermeable membrane, allowing water molecules to pass through but blocking the passage of ions and larger molecules. This requires pumps to pressurize the input side of the membrane, forcing the water molecules to pass through to the outlet side. The dissolved impurities remain on the inlet side and must be discharged. The RO has a waste stream of rejected water that is discharged to the public sewer system. Using either technology, the water is processed to remove dissolved minerals and then reused in the HRSGs. The waste stream from the RO system is discharged through GMA’s Hunterstown WWTP to the Susquehanna basin. If there is more water than can be held in the storage tank, the excess is also discharged to GMA. Withdrawals from GenOn (as reported to DEP) were approximately 58,900 gpd for 2003. None of this water is returned to the Upper Rock sub-watershed, but discharges can be up to 65,000 gpd to the Susquehanna basin according to GMA’s permit from DEP. As this is a wholly consumptive operation to the Upper Rock sub-watershed, the wastewater reuse efforts at the plant contribute to maintaining and improving the potential water deficit in the Upper Rock sub-watershed (1.16 Mgpd).
Knouse Foods Knouse Foods is a fruit grower owned co-operative that produces fruit-based and bottled drink products. The Orrtanna plant was established in 1913 and purchased by Knouse Foods in 1949. Its products include apple sauce, apple juice, and aseptically packed bulk fruit products. Knouse Foods is located on 140 acres in the Little Marsh sub-watershed89. Land application of food processing wastewater from the plant occurs in the Gettysburg Formation geology, characterized by shallow regolith overlying the fractured bedrock (Low et al. 2002). The soils have slow to very slow infiltration rates and high run- off potential and are flat to gently sloping, less than 8% (USDA 2005). Due to the site conditions, Knouse has instituted a daytime only irrigation practice and maintains full time on-site employee management of irrigation operations. Knouse Foods uses a wide range of technologies to reduce water use in the Orrtanna plant and throughout their system of six plants in Pennsylvania and Michigan. Water resources planning and water conservation focus grew in the 1980’s and continues today. Efforts undertaken vary from eliminating all open ended water hoses (Figure F-2a) to replacing water-cooled compressors with air-cooled compressors throughout the plant. A partial list of the steps taken in the Orrtanna plant to conserve water in plant operations is provided below.
88 http://www.genon.com/company/stations/hunterstown.aspx 89 According to the ACOPD parcels shapefile.
220 v.8/28/2012
Elimination of all open ended water hoses in the plant. Installation of automatic shutoff nozzles on all hoses to eliminate uncontrolled flows (Figure F-2a). Re-circulate vacuum pump water rather than discharging it after a single pass through the pump. Reuse vacuum pump water in flumes to move fruit or for initial fruit washing. Refit container washing equipment with manufactured nozzles rather than fabricated holes in tubing to control the volume of water used. Reuse internal container rinse water as vacuum pump water. Reuse cooling water from hydraulic oil heat exchange systems. Install full-width conveyors on apple washers and eliminate washing “dead spots” where there are no apples. Eliminate flood and flush cleaning practices. Use more efficient high pressure cleaning of deep open tanks. Install belt wiping systems on flat belt transfer points to eliminate carryback of materials and additional cleanup. Install cooling water filtration and reuse systems. Implement dry dump methods for raw fruit rather than dumping into water tanks. Install water automated conserving water spigots and toilets, including testing waterless urinals. Maintain faucet aerator flow control screens on all spigots. Investigate to identify the source and correct all wet floor conditions. Install dry feed equipment on Atlas Pacific apple peeler systems to replace wet feed tank for orienting apples. Implement programmable water metering systems for product blending for accurate water use. Install air-cooled air compressors to replace water cooled compressors. Prevent overspray water losses by better direction control and curtains. Install probe-controlled solenoid valves on water tanks to prevent overfilling and overflow replacing float valves. Emphasize dry cleanup rather than water hose sweeping of floors. Install approximately 25 water meters (Figure F-2b) at numerous points in the plant to record and monitor water flow through key systems. This information is used to monitor water use to identify leaks or equipment wear that results in reduced water use efficiency. All plant wastewater (non-sanitary) is collected and discharged at DEP permitted spray irrigation fields near the plant. When necessary, institute a fresh water valve opening responsibility program that tags and then locks any opened fresh water valve (especially valuable during Pennsylvania declared drought conditions). Institute a water system repair tag program for communication of attention given and location of all repairs (for leaks that cannot be immediately corrected).
221 v.8/28/2012
Figure F-2. Knouse Foods’ Orrtanna plant water conservation equipment: a) one of the many fresh water hoses with automatic shutoff valve nozzles to prevent uncontrolled flow and b) one of approximately 25 installed water flow meters installed in the plant. Photos by Jim Palmer, ICPRB.
As this is a food processing plant, all source water is treated to meet drinking water standards before it is used for processing or if it comes in contact with the product at any stage of production. This limits what processes or equipment can use recycled water. Water used for equipment operations, such as washing or cooling equipment, can use recycled water. The final discharge of the wastewater is sent to an off-site spray irrigation field. As of 2004, Knouse Foods reported to DEP a water use of approximately 178,000 gpd. This amount has fluctuated since then from 132,000 gpd in 2006 to 171,883 gpd in 2009. The water deficit in the Little Marsh sub-watershed is approximately 0.68 Mgpd. Water conservation and reuse at the Knouse Foods plant will assist in maintaining and potentially reducing the deficit over time. Continuing enhancements to water conservation and reuse at the Knouse Foods Orrtanna plant are expected. Examples of these include 1) further conversion to “dry” movement of apples to eliminate fluming, 2) full conversion to waterless urinals, 3) pursuit of beneficial use by Knouse Foods or others of produced wastewater as a replacement to freshwater irrigation, and 4) continuation of water conservation efforts toward a general 5% reduction per year goal that creates production plant patters with water use averages that do not allow “back sliding”.
JoBo Holstein Farm JoBo Holstien Farm is a dairy farm in Mount Pleasant Township in the eastern part of the Lower Rock Creek watershed, straddling the Potomac and Susquehanna basins. Although the entire farm is not within the CWPA, the methods of water reuse implemented at JoBo Holstein Farm are typical of dairy farms and agricultural operations in the CWPA and Adams County (e.g. Mason Dixon Farms, Bream Orchards, El Vista Orchards, and others). Dairy production is highly dependent on water quantity and quality making it very important to dairy farmers (personal comm., meeting of agricultural representatives, 5/19/2011). JoBo Holstein Farm has approximately 1,500 head of dairy cows and approximately 800 acres of land under crops. The farm is located in the Gettysburg Shale geologic formation and has several
222 v.8/28/2012
groundwater wells. The wells are generally low yielding, typical of the Gettysburg Shale formation. The farm implements water reuse practices in its dairy operations to minimize groundwater use. Groundwater directly from the wells is used in a heat exchanger, or “plate cooler,” to cool the milk as soon as it is collected and before being sent to cooled storage tanks. The plate cooler uses the cool groundwater to rapidly cool the milk, slowing bacteria growth and thereby improving milk quality. The water exiting the plate cooler is warmed by the milk. This warmed water is preferred by the cows and increases milk production. The plate cooler itself is a simple device with no moving parts except in the pumps needed to circulate the milk and groundwater. The water exiting the plate cooler is then used to supply drinking water for the cows, washing the milking parlor, and in the barn for cooling the cows. The waste produced by the cows is collected in anaerobic lagoons where the solids separate from the water. Some of this water is reused for flushing the cattle barn and then returns to the lagoon. The manure is also spread on JoBo Holstein Farm and other neighboring farms as fertilizer. Aside from the plate cooler, other water handling equipment required to operate this system includes pumps, storage tanks, hoses, and spray equipment. The water savings from these reuse practices are difficult to quantify as meters are not used to measure the flow at the various stages in the operation. Each cow drinks about 30 to 50 gallons per day (estimated using several standard formulas), but it is difficult to measure the other amounts used. The existing wells at the JoBo Holstein Farm could not provide enough water for the current level of milk production without the water reuse practices. Additional reuse opportunities exist at JoBo Holstein Farm, pending availability of funding. Specifically, the water used to wash the milking parlor, water previously used in the plate cooler, could be recycled for additional uses with a water collection sump, pump, additional piping, etc. (personal comm., JoBo Holstein Farm, 6/25/2012). This is a potential opportunity that could be implemented with outside financial support. The CAAC requested documentation of these opportunities as part of the CARP development process (personal comm., CAAC meeting, 1/11/2012).
Harrisburg Area Community College (HACC) The HACC Gettysburg Campus is located on approximately 23 acres in the Upper Rock sub- watershed of the CWPA. The campus is a showcase site for the environmental reuse of waste utilizing a number of stormwater management activities, driven by on-site stormwater issues. Without proper management, the stormwater would quickly run-off into Rock Creek and flow downstream to the Monocacy. Management of this resource allows for on-site environmental reuses such as groundwater recharge and habitat creation. The site is underlain by Gettysburg Formation geology, characterized by shallow regolith overlying the fractured bedrock (Low et al. 2002). The soils have moderate to very slow infiltration rates, an indication of stormwater problems on the campus (USDA 2005). The land’s surface is flat to gently sloping towards Rock Creek, which flows adjacent to the property. Debris jams in Rock Creek are also a source of on-site flooding. When a flow barrier becomes jammed across the creek during high flow events, the flows are re-routed to certain areas of the HACC property. The site is a former shopping center with approximately 105,000 square feet of buildings and 388,000 square feet of parking lot areas. HACC has implemented several stormwater management and reuse systems. Rainwater from the building’s roofs is routed to constructed rain gardens in front of and behind the building. There is an oil/debris filter installed in the storm drain receiving runoff from their largest parking lot. This catches debris, reduces sediment, and traps oils running off the parking lot to
223 v.8/28/2012
prevent it from entering Rock Creek, just behind the property. Another parking lot is paved with permeable pavement to allow infiltration of rainwater. Several future improvements are also being planned for the HACC campus. A new parking lot is being planned. Surface run-off from the new lot will be directed to new rain gardens. An existing stream that runs through a concrete channel and culvert before being routed to a short open channel connected to Rock Creek will be re-channeled. This channel receives a large volume of stormwater from recently installed off-site sidewalks. The flow during heavy rains overwhelms the concrete channel creating a potentially hazardous condition for the students. Included in the new plan will be the re-routing of the stream into an open streambed able to handle the brief high flows. HACC is required to adhere to a number of regulatory requirements related to the described activities. The designs of the new parking lot plans required review and approval by DEP. Also, there are DEP requirements associated with re-routing the stream and re-directing run-off.
Conclusions Reuse of wastewater has the potential to reduce demands on surface- and ground-water resources. It can also minimize the amount of water entering the treatment system at any particular time. To this end, the wastewater reuse literature was evaluated to understand the implications of these technologies. Further, case studies of reuse projects were identified in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, a designated Pennsylvania CWPA. Additional reuse projects in this area may prove beneficial in reducing the water deficits under low flow conditions. Ongoing wastewater reuse projects in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds indicate the commitment of local stakeholders to address water availability issues in the watersheds. Organizations implementing reuse projects in the watershed include Hundredfold Farm, GenOn, Knouse Foods, JoBo Holstein Farm, and HACC. And still more projects are in the planning phases. Implementation of planned future projects by these organizations will require site-specific follow through. Identification and implementation of additional projects, not currently planned, may include following up with potential reuse candidates, enhancing education in the community, and utilizing spatial analyses such as the one described in this appendix. Implementing the practices may then proceed with the development framework developed by CH2MHILL. In general, community outreach and education will likely be a necessary next step to implementing wastewater reuse practices in the CWPA. This is evident in the concerns voiced by local stakeholders and the feedback received when contacting some potential reusers. For example, local stakeholders in the CWPA have voiced concerns with wastewater reuse because it takes discharges that have been going to the stream (or could be going to the stream) and uses them for other purposes. The effects of this practice on the surface water uses of the stream, including ecosystem uses, are unclear to these stakeholders (personal comm., CAAC, 2/15/2012). Because reused water reduces demand on fresh water supplies, however, the overall environmental benefits are well documented in the literature.
References Anderson, J. 2003. The environmental benefits of water recycling and reuse. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply 3(4):1-10.
224 v.8/28/2012
Asano, T. 2011. Water from water: closing the cycle. Stockholm Water Front: A Forum for Global Water Issues. Stockholm International Water Institute 1:4-6.
Bahri, Akica. 2010. Managing the other side of the water cycle: Making wastewater an asset. In World Water Week, Stockholm, Sweden September 5-11.
Craddock Consulting Engineers. 2007. Technical memorandum 3: Recycled wastewater system components and costs. In Metropolitan Council Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater for Industrial Water Use. Prepared in association with CDM and James Crook. Project No. 070186. 174p. http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/environment/RTMWIWU/RWRTechMemo3.pdf, accessed 6/27/2012.
DEP. 1997. Domestic wastewater facilities manual: A guide for the preparation of applications, reports and plans. Report No. 362-0300-001. 110p.
DEP. 2009a. Manual for land application of treated sewage and industrial wastewater. Report No. 362- 2000-009. 71p.
DEP. 2009b. Reuse of treated wastewater guidance manual. Report No. 362-0300-009. 29p.
EPA. 2004. Guidelines for water reuse. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Water. Report No. EPA/625/R- 04/108. 487p.
EPA Victoria. 2002. Guidelines for environmental management: Disinfection of treated wastewater. Report No. 730. 24p.
FAO. 1992. Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Papers. Chapter 3. ISSN: 0254-5284. http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0551E/T0551E00.htm, accessed 6/27/2012.
Jefferson, B., A. Laine, S. Parsons, T. Stephenson, and S. Judd. 1999. Technologies for domestic wastewater recycling. Urban Water 1:285-292. http://www.chs.ubc.ca/archives/files/pdf/Technologies%20for%20domestic%20wastewater%20recycling. pdf, accessed 6/19/2012.
Levine, A.D. and T. Asano. 2004. Recovering sustainable water from wastewater. Environmental Science and Technology 38(11):201A-208A.
Low, D.J., D.J. Hippe, and D. Yannacci. 2002. Geohydrology of southeastern Pennsylvania. Water Resources Investigation Report, WRIR 00-4166. New Cumberland, PA. USGS. 347p.
New Mexico State University. 1994. Safe use of household greywater. Guide M-106. http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_m/m-106.html, accessed 6/19/2012.
225 v.8/28/2012
Ritchie, E. 2011. The million gallon solution. Water Efficiency Jan-Feb 2012. http://www.waterefficiency.net/WE/Articles/15578.aspx, accessed 6/27/2012.
Siemens. 2006. Industrial wastewater reuse technologies. In SAWEA: What Can Industry do to Conserve Water? December 5.
Toze, S. 2006. Reuse of effluent water – benefits and risks. Agricultural Water Management 80:147-159.
UNEP. 2012. Wastewater and stormwater reuse. Division of Technology, Industry, and Economics. http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/publications/freshwater/sb_summary/12.asp, accessed 6/19/2012.
USDA. 2005. Soil survey of Adams County, Pennsylvania. 606p. http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Manuscripts/PA001/0/PA_Adams.pdf, accessed 5/28/2012.
Acknowledgements A number of organizations were contacted to obtain information on technologies available for implementation of the three management alternatives including the American Water Works Association, American Water Resources Association, the Water Environment Federation, and the WateReuse Association. The authors would like to thank the representatives from these organizations that responded to inquiries with valuable information. Dejan Senic, a graduate student with the University of the District of Columbia and an intern for ICPRB assisted in contacting potential reuse candidates and in the geospatial analysis. Compilation of the case studies would not have been possible without the assistance of numerous community members. Charles Bennett provided a tour of the Knouse Foods Orrtanna plant showing and describing the water conservation and reuse processes. Aaron Miller and Rosie Bolen gave a detailed tour and explanation of the wastewater treatment system at the Hundredfold Farm Cohousing Community. John Hess detailed the dairy operations and water reuse activities at of JoBo Holstein Farm. The stormwater management practices installed and planned at the Harrisburg Area Community College, Gettysburg campus were described and showcased by Ron Cline. Nate Rozic and others at GenOn Energy, Inc. provided information on their water use, reuse, and conservation practices at the Hunterstown Wholesale Generation Station.
226 v.8/28/2012
Appendix G Evaluation of management alternatives by water resources issue
Table G-1. Evaluation of management alternatives to address water availability and storage issues. Management Land Use No Alternatives Environmental Impact Cost Regulatory Planning Engineering Social No existing regulatory Cost of repairs oversight except as required Data collection and for other permits (e.g. SRBC and availability implementation Community water Controlling water loss will interbasin transfer); Some needed for reflected in supply systems should reduce the amount of water Low for audit; data inputs for audit are also No impact on accurate audit utility bills, perform a water audit at needed to be withdrawn, site specific required for DEP withdrawal land use and results; identification of least once a year to thereby making more water implementation permit reporting for large land use engineering gaps in utility 2 manage water loss. available for ecosystem uses costs users planning designs for repairs billing systems Known Increased WWTP discharges, Interbasin transfer permits May increase Connecting water stakeholder increased development, may be required (e.g. from growth by systems, water conflicts due to Import water into the additional need for stormwater SRBC if transfer is from the providing transport growth 6 CWPA. management High Susquehanna basin) water source technologies management Minimal Identification of Implement more water Reduction in consumptive use, impact on land applicable site- efficient irrigation making more water available No existing regulatory use and land specific 1 practices. for ecosystem uses Low-High oversight use planning practice(s) Reduction in streamflows associated with an increase the consumptive use
Reduction in total withdrawals Identification Infrastructure Known Seek, promote, and making more water available of appropriate required for stakeholder implement wastewater to the ecosystem/environment, Water Quality Management applications of wastewater concerns - treatment system reuse, reduction in discharge of permit from DEP and NPDES wastewater transport and perception of beneficial reuses of pollutants to stream by permit required if includes reuse and treatment re-using 3 wastewater. treating for secondary use Mid-High stream augmentation treatment technologies wastewater Potential recreation opportunities, noise reduction from quarry operations, Investigate use of Minimal with Extensive enhanced water quarries as water storage Site specific - would likely change in use engineering security during facilities, particularly in require environmental impact of quarry studies and drought 8 the diabase. investigation High DEP permit required lands designs required conditions
227 v.8/28/2012
Management Land Use No Alternatives Environmental Impact Cost Regulatory Planning Engineering Social Environmental impact DEP permit required at Adjustment of Creation of a new or investigation required minimum, other permits may land uses Extensive Enhanced water rehabilitation of an old Positives: potential flood be required depending on within and engineering security during reservoir in/near the control and water quality nature of reservoir (e.g. dam near proposed studies and drought 9 CWPA. improvements High safety) reservoir site designs required conditions Identification of Site specific, general impacts On-farm land applicable site- Creation of additional may include minimal aquatic DEP permit may be required use specific 11a agricultural ponds. habitat creation Mid - High under Chapter 105 modification practice(s) New developments Conserving water may reduce should the amount of water needed to Enhancing include/incentivize be withdrawn, consumed, and No impact on public water conservation discharged - thereby making 2009 energy and plumbing land use and Generic awareness and equipment in homes more water available for requirement and the uniform land use approaches sensitivity to 5 when built. ecosystem uses Low-Mid construction code planning available water issues Generic and innovative approaches available - System Identification of specific land applicable site- New developments need Reduces need to withdrawal and finances specific to provide additional from stream/ground during Can be included in DEP required for practice(s) Water security 10 storage capacity. water stressed conditions Mid - High withdrawal permitting process storage facility necessary during drought Increased water deficit under low-flow conditions with No impact on Increased water likely ecosystem impacts - land use and No additional scarcity during streamflow/baseflow changes, Implications of increased land use engineering drought No Action flooding, erosion, etc. Low water scarcity during drought planning requirements conditions For spray Increased groundwater irrigation: Percolate water back recharge and baseflows; Act 537 sewage facility Identification and odors, into the ground from Increased consumptive use planning module and Clean Land for implementation of atmospheric sewage treatment plants depending on application (e.g. Streams Law Part II Water application of available release of water 4 where feasible. spray irrigation) Low-High Quality Management permit wastewater technologies and pollutants Conjunctive use of ground and surface water may reduce need Determine Enhanced or additional to deplete any one resource to Additional treatment Known treatment mechanisms harmful levels; Surface water treatment water source technologies stakeholder should be developed to Increasing water available for requirements more extensive may affect sufficient for conflicts due to provide additional human use may decrease than groundwater treatment growth rate particular water growth 12 sources of water. water available for ecosystem Mid-High requirements and pattern uses management
228 v.8/28/2012
Management Land Use No Alternatives Environmental Impact Cost Regulatory Planning Engineering Social use, increased potential for urbanization
GMA may consider alternative means of conveyance from the Modify treatment augmentation well to the plant system to public water supply Obtain land treat groundwater intakes to reduce Environmental impact in land for pipeline to drinking water No social 7 consumptive loss. required for pipe easement High No regulatory implications easement standards implications DEP can authorize through Establish standardized withdrawal permitting Additional pass-by for surface process; however, changes withdrawals water withdrawals to would be required to existing Minimal Requires site- would fall ensure the withdrawals legislation to establish pass- impact on land specific analysis under new do not de-water the Environmental protection bys for those withdrawals not use and land to determine pass- regulatory 13 streams. during low-flow conditions High currently requiring permits use planning by criteria requirements
229 v.8/28/2012
Table G-2. Evaluation of management alternatives to address water quality problems. Environmental No Management Alternatives Impact Cost Regulatory Land Use Planning Engineering Social Minimal stakeholder impacts to quantify Quantify maximum contaminant pollutant loadings and loads for pollutants of concern in Reduction of Implementation of develop TMDLs, impaired waterways by pollutant loads may Legislative TMDLs may Significant Stakeholder participation developing total maximum daily improve authority through influence land use technical expertise required for TMDL 29 loads (TMDLs). habitat/ecosystem High Clean Water Act planning activities required implementation Minimizing negative land use activities Encourages Public water suppliers in the and protecting reduction in CWPA should participate in the source water quality negative land use Enhances Potomac Drinking Water Source to protect activities through communication, Protection Partnership to leverage ecosystems/habitats proactive land education, visibility of resources and enhance required by management and source water protection, communications with other organisms in the No regulatory source water No engineering allows suppliers to 30 suppliers in the basin. CWPA Low oversight protection requirements collaborate No improvement or Possible increase in cost fosters further of water treatment, deterioration of Deterioration of negative impact of use of water quality water quality not Minimal impact on the water resources for conditions in the permitted under land use and land No engineering both withdrawal and No Action CWPA Low Clean Water Act use planning requirements non-withdrawal uses If implemented, may have to consider Property damage Reduction of trash Low for land use associated with flooding, Install a filter or catchment near in Stevens Run and equipment, May require local implications in Engineering less trash in the streams, the outlet of Stevens Run to Marsh Creek; Addition $ for approval for vicinity of debris required to prevent volunteers or services prevent debris from entering Flooding in and installation and installation of filter due to or minimize crew needed for ongoing 42 Rock Creek. around the filter area maintenance device in stream increased flood risk flooding maintenance
230 v.8/28/2012
Table G-3. Evaluation of management alternatives to address stormwater issues. Management Land Use No Alternatives Environmental Impact Cost Regulatory Planning Engineering Social Land required for implementing Some practices require practices - ongoing maintenance - increasing associated costs and Adams County infiltration, labor, reduction in Stormwater reducing run-off; flooding and Management designs required trash/pollution in Plan; PA Act 167 of developer to Minimum to streams carried by Implementation of Decreased flooding, increased of 1978; Chapter ensure effective extensive stormwater run-off, stormwater infiltration, decreased flashiness, 102 of PA code; on-site engineering, enhanced water management streambank stabilization -- all part of a municipal stormwater depending on availability during dry 37 program(s). functioning ecosystem Low-High ordinances management project specifics periods Decrease in total amount withdrawn from streams and groundwater during gray water reuse, making more water available for ecosystem use; stormwater reuse decreases peak flows in streams and associated habitat degradation (e.g. erosion, flooding, Collection and Moderate to Implementation of etc.) DEP Reuse of distribution extensive stormwater and gray Treated infrastructure may engineering water reuse Longer lag time between withdrawal Wastewater require land use designs Perception issues 38 program(s). and discharge for gray water reuse Mid-High Guidance Manual planning required associated with reuse Minimal impact on land use and land use planning Low to for establishment, establish, Mid- Implementation Effective High for may require maintenance Establishment of a implementation infrastruture for and operation of stormwater authority Possible indirect impacts once depending on PA Municipal distribution the stormwater Imposition of new 36 in the CWPA. implemented -- see above. type of utility Authority Act system system stormwater fees Adams County Stormwater Minimal, if any, Management engineering Plan; PA Act 167 requirements in As growth continues, increased of 1978; Chapter Increase in addition to flooding, decreased infiltration, 102 of PA code; magnitude and those required Damage and associated increased flashiness, streambank and municipal extent of flood by economic impacts of No Action instream habitat deterioration Low ordinances prone areas municipalities increased flooding
231 v.8/28/2012
Table G-4. Evaluation of management alternatives to address policy and management issues. No Management Alternatives Environmental Impact Cost Regulatory Land Use Planning Engineering Social Moderate technical Opportunity to evaluation communicate the cause and Establish groundwater Adoption must required to impact of groundwater protection ordinances for well Protection of currently occur Minimal impact on adapt existing contamination, Potential construction and geothermal groundwater quality at municipal land use and land ordinances for changes in cost for well 31a wells. and quantity Low level use planning local use construction Private well construction standards may have Moderate All municipalities in the CARP minimal effects on engineering Possible small increase in area should adopt and enforce Low for Adoption must the development required to the cost for private systems, ordinances regarding private Protection of adoption, Low- currently occur pattern, depending adapt existing Improved well longevity well construction standards, groundwater quality Med for at municipal on requirements of ordinances for and reliability (quality and 33c including geothermal systems. and quantity enforcement level ordinance local use quantity) Municipalities have authority to Minimal -- create sewer perhaps management Potential additional Protection of water districts; Act implications for articulation of All municipalities in the CARP quality and the 537 plans; developments appropriate Communication/education area should adopt and enforce ecosystems that Ordinance associated with on- maintenance on the impacts of septic ordinances regarding on-lot depend on it; Low for adoption must lot septic systems standards for systems on water quality, septic system maintenance and Reduction in septic- adoption, Low- currently occur and pressures for CWPA from increased costs associated the establishment of sewage related non-point Med for at municipal community existing with proper septic system 33d management districts. source pollution enforcement level wastewater systems regulations maintenance Aesthetic appeal, Habitat protection and educational opportunity, connectivity, instream Identification and may have to incentivize land All municipalities in the CARP water quality Low for Adoption must targeting of most Moderate taken out of production, area should adopt and enforce protection (e.g. adoption, Low- currently occur effective areas for engineering to implementation will require ordinances regarding protecting nutrients, Med for at municipal riparian buffer enforce communication and 33e and creating riparian buffers. temperature, etc.) enforcement level implementation ordinances education of the community
232 v.8/28/2012
No Management Alternatives Environmental Impact Cost Regulatory Land Use Planning Engineering Social Identification and targeting of key areas for preservation Identification (groundwater and targeting of resource key areas for availability, preservation stormwater (groundwater Habitat protection, harvesting, etc.). resource Encourage land preservation water quality Ex. Agricultural availability, Communicate with and (purchasing conservation protection, Minimal, if any, Reserves for stormwater educate landowners on the easements) targeting the Marsh groundwater quantity regulatory preservation of ag harvesting, benefits of conservation 41 and Rock creek watersheds. augmentation High constraints land. etc.). easements, Aesthics Protection from depletion of groundwater supplies
Additional pressure Some stakeholder groups for water resources in Moderate to may not approve of yield Establish groundwater other geographic Impacts on land extensive analysis requirements, protection ordinance for areas / systems to use and land use engineering provides security for yield analysis (for large wells); accommodate Low for Adoption must planning in areas requirements to municipalities and residents need common methodology for growing demands in establishment, currently occur that do not meet develop/adapt that there will be sufficient municipalities to determine areas not meeting Med-High for at municipal yield analysis agreeable water supplies under dry(er) 31b sustainable groundwater yields. yield requirements implementation level requirements methodology conditions Low for Establish groundwater ordinance Minimal - Increase stakeholder protection ordinance for water development, moderate, awareness of groundwater quality protection; need Mid-High for adaption of quality protection, increased inspections to ensure proper implementation public supply cost for self-supplied construction and testing of if private Currently standards domestic users if required to finished water to make sure Protection of domestic required for Minimal impact on and/or domestic test for water quality treatment is adequate and well is groundwater quality supplies are community land use and land standards in depending ordinance 31c functioning properly. and quantity required supplies use planning other areas requirements Moderate Encourage the adoption of a engineering Increase stakeholder wellhead protection ordinance to Voluntary local required to awareness of wellhead protect community water supply wellhead May impact adapt existing areas, requires elimination sources within the Critical Protection of protection acceptable ordinances for of harmful activities in 32 Water Planning Area. groundwater quality Low for adoption programs activities near well local use vicinity of well if applicable
233 v.8/28/2012
No Management Alternatives Environmental Impact Cost Regulatory Land Use Planning Engineering Social Development of land use policies that support implementation of CARP Minimal new Will require collaboration Prepare a Joint Comprehensive Indirect Implementation recommendations engineering between municipalities and Plan for the CWPA that includes environmental impact at municipal and sound water required -- with county, consistent sound land use policies and a - depends on nature of level, resources primarily utilize framework for land use and strong water supply and final collaboration management in the results of water resources policies and 17 protection component. policies/components Mid with county watersheds existing studies protection Minimal impact on land use and land use planning for Combined development of Foster implementability of environmental effects incentives, recommendations - develop of all implemented Implementation No additional May encourage stakeholders incentives or credits for management impacts are engineering to see personal benefits of 23b implementation of practices. alternatives Practice specific Practice specific practice specific requirements implementation Environmental Develop a sub-committee of improvements depend WAAC to coordinate volunteers on improvement Minimal impact on No additional Encourages stakeholder to implement improvement project being land use and land engineering involvement and community 26 projects. implemented Low Voluntary use planning requirements awareness Drought declarations are Ongoing made at the state analysis of level, need drought Indirect Low, if included advise on triggers, Implement local drought environmental impact with ongoing authority and potential preparedness activities including - may reduce water activities through scope to Minimal impact on increased Encourages stakeholder establishment of a CWPA stress during low- Emergency implement in land use and land monitoring of awareness of drought 28 drought advisory group. flow conditions Services CWPA use planning drought triggers conditions Encourage the development and maintenance of riparian buffers along designated greenways Habitat creation and Identification and (including the Rock and Marsh maintenance, water targeting of key creek greenways) as specified in quality protection, areas for Design criteria the Adams County Greenways water temperature Adams County implementation of to ensure Aesthetic appeal, 34 Plan. protection Mid-High Greenways Plan riparian buffers effectiveness educational opportunity
234 v.8/28/2012
No Management Alternatives Environmental Impact Cost Regulatory Land Use Planning Engineering Social Enhanced stakeholder Foster implementability of Indirect awareness of projects recommendations - develop a environmental impact No impact on land needing implementation, list of projects requiring - project specific No direct use and land use No additional requires outreach and additional funding for future depending on projects regulatory planning for list engineering communication to generate 23a grant-seeking efforts. that obtain funding Low impact development requirements awareness of the list Establish a water conservation program that can respond to Indirect water supply/demand environmental impact Minimal conditions, especially for - possible protection Under existing engineering businesses and institutions of water resources Depends on framework, required - Encourages stakeholder affected by an influx of tourists needed for ecosystem scope of would be Minimal impact on perhaps for awareness of drought during summer months when use during low-flow implementation, advisory and not land use and land advisory conditions and possible 24 water supply typically is low. conditions Low for creation regulatory use planning determinations mitigation measures Adoption must currently occur at municipal No impact on land Indirect level. For the use and land use Encourages communication environmental impact council to have planning to amongst jurisdictions in the through implementation establish council, CWPA, requires agreeing implementation of Depends on authority, it implementation of Minimal, if on scope of the council, CARP management scope of would need to be activities may contracting out authority may be given to Create a Marsh and Rock Creeks recommendations and implementation, granted from the impact land use for technical the council from member 25 Water Management Council. other activities Low for creation municipalities planning expertise jurisdictions Indirect environmental impact - inconsistent implementation of management No direct No impact on land No additional Management efforts are alternatives across the regulatory use and land use engineering inconsistent across No Action CWPA Low impact planning requirements jurisdictions in the CWPA Enhance awareness of the effects of lawn fertilizer All municipalities in the CARP Possible protection of Low for Adoption must application, Lawn fertilizer area should adopt and enforce water quality by adoption, Low- currently occur Minimal impact on No additional ordinance not considered a ordinances regarding lawn reducing excessive Med for at municipal land use and land engineering priority by CAAC, more 33a fertilizer. nutrient run-off enforcement level use planning requirements important as education
235 v.8/28/2012
No Management Alternatives Environmental Impact Cost Regulatory Land Use Planning Engineering Social Creation of additional lentic habitat, Removes terrestrial habitat, Protects DEP Chapter Site-specific Surface water ponds for groundwater quality, Low for 105 permit for Minimal - analyses needed agricultural irrigation should be Increased recommending, installing, if conversion of land to determine Does not allow for site the recommended practice over consumptive water Mid for meets areas to surface recommended specific use of groundwater 11b the use of wells. loss to evaporation implementing requirements water bodies practices when/if more appropriate
236 v.8/28/2012
Table G-5. Evaluation of management alternatives to address data gaps. No Management Alternatives Environmental Impact Cost Regulatory Land Use Planning Engineering Social Improved data for Gage will facilitate education, quantification of No or minimal communication, and water resource additional decision-making on Mason Dixon Utilities to Indirect via improved Required in DEP availability for land engineering if water resources fund a USGS (or similar) water resources withdrawal use planning and USGS is availability in the 21 stream gage. management Mid/yr permit other efforts contracted CWPA Improved data for Gages will facilitate education, Mid/yr, if quantification of No or minimal communication, and Installation of additional professionally water resource additional decision-making on stream or staff gages and Indirect via improved collected, Low if No current availability for land engineering if water resources continued maintenance and water resources collected by regulatory use planning and outside contractor availability in the 22 operation of existing gages. management volunteers mandate other efforts is utilized CWPA Community systems in the 1996 Modified CWPA should prepare and amendments to behaviors/additional Moderate to Protection of get DEP approval for Source Indirect via improved the Safe protection in extensive scientific community water Water Protection Plans for all water resources Drinking Water delineated source analysis to develop supplies from potential 18 wells and surface intakes. management Mid Act water areas. plans contaminant sources Low-High, Depends on implementation scope - low costs for encouraging registration Existing through registration outreach, high requirements Outreach and costs for regulated by Minimal communication requiring DEP, engineering required to encourage increased implementation requirements - registration, changes Indirect via improved reporting may include No impact on land additional to regulations may Encourage/increase water use water resources through change changes to the use and land use metering may be meet resistance from 20 registrations and/or metering. management in regulations regulations planning required stakeholders Mid-High - Engineering depends on designs for Documents implementation, monitoring effectiveness of Monitoring to evaluate the Monitoring of effectiveness of practices to effectiveness of implemented Indirect via improved pillars less No current May indirectly affect structural stakeholders, adaptive management water resources expensive than regulatory future land use recommendations management, 19 recommendations. management physical mandate planning efforts (e.g. BMPs) Enhances transparency
237 v.8/28/2012
No Management Alternatives Environmental Impact Cost Regulatory Land Use Planning Engineering Social Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Currently, developers must submit results of No additional on- wetland site engineering Low-Mid, delineation requirements as depending on effort, but this wetlands are Encourage identification and Indirect via improved number of information is May indirectly affect already identified documentation of delineated water resources wetlands to needed in digital future land use by developers; GIS Increased awareness 40 wetlands. management digitize form planning efforts expertise required of wetland locations Indirect - continued management of water Education, outreach, resources utilizing Water resource communication reported, collected, component of land utilizing limited data - estimated, and synthetic No current use planning based No additional may affect perceived data rather than quality regulatory off of limited engineering reliability of No Action assured observed data Low mandate available data requirements management efforts
238 v.8/28/2012
Table G-6. Evaluation of management alternatives to address communication issues.
No Management Alternatives Environmental Impact Cost Regulatory Land Use Planning Engineering Social If communication leads Encourage communication to increased No regulatory between large water users conservation, then impacts, PA on conservation measures positive environmental Low for Technical Minimal land use being used within the impacts of reduction in communication, Assistance planning impacts, but Increased community to foster idea withdrawals and more Mid-High for Center formed may result in more communication, sharing and long-term water available for implementation under Act 220 efficient land use No engineering education, and 14 sustainability. ecosystem uses of practices of 2002 practices requirements awareness Develop a Strategic Communication Plan for the No direct environmental Increased general public and targeted impacts - indirect communication, stakeholders (including all environmental impacts education, and levels of education: school include enhanced awareness, General districts, colleges, environmentally sound Low-High, stakeholder acceptance, universities), a marketing behavior by community depending on No regulatory No land use planning No engineering Changes in behavior 15 plan. members scope impacts impacts requirements towards water resources No direct environmental impacts - indirect environmental impacts include voluntary implementation of stormwater management actions by the general Increased education and public and awareness, Changes in environmental awareness behavior towards water Enhance education in the by students and elected No regulatory No land use planning No engineering resources, General 16 CWPA. officials Low-Mid impacts impacts requirements stakeholder acceptance No direct environmental impacts, continued environmental Lack of communication degradation associated No regulatory No land use planning No engineering and public awareness of No Action with lack of awareness Low impacts impacts requirements water resources issues
239 v.8/28/2012
Appendix H Meeting agendas and minutes
A list of the CAAC meetings for which agendas and minutes are included is provided in Table H-1. For each meeting, the agenda and minutes are included in the order listed in the table.
Table H-1. List of meetings related to the development of the CARP. Meeting Name Date
Project Kick-off 9/21/2010
CAAC Kick-off 1/12/2011 CAAC Quarterly 4/13/2011 Meeting of Agricultural Representatives* 5/19/2011 CAAC Quarterly 7/13/2011 CAAC Quarterly 10/12/2011 York Water - GMA Interconnection 11/15/2011 CAAC Quarterly 1/11/2012
CAAC Workshop 2/15/2012 CAAC Quarterly 4/11/2012 Combined Regional Committee and CAAC Quarterly 7/11/2012 *A formal agenda was not prepared for this meeting.
240 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Water Resources Management Plan Project Kick-off Meeting Agenda
5:00-7:00pm, Tuesday, September 21, 2010 Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
Marsh and Rock creeks in Adams County were found to be at risk of water demand exceeding supply under low flow conditions during the PA Water Resources Planning Act verification process. Conducting a more detailed investigation of these problems and identifying solutions is the goal of this Water Resources Management Plan project, funded by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB).
Meeting Objectives: 1. Introduce the statewide planning process and the Water Resources Management Plan project for prospective advisory committee members and the general public; 2. Nominate advisory committee members for consideration by the Potomac Regional Committee; 3. Identify participants’ concerns on issues facing the watershed; and 4. Discuss implementation of recommendations resulting from this process.
Agenda: 5:00-5:15: Welcome and Introductions ...... Pat Bowling, DEP 5:15-6:00: Background ...... Charles Bennett, Potomac Regional Committee 6:00-6:15: Description of Project Goals/Timeline ...... Dave Jostenski, DEP 6:15-6:35: Q&A ...... Speaker Panel 6:35-6:45: Advisory Committee Nominations ...... Charles Bennett, Potomac Regional Committee 6:50-7:00: Discussion ...... Pat Bowling, DEP
241 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Water Resources Management Plan Project Kick-off Meeting
5:00-7:00 p.m. Tuesday, September 21, 2010 Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
Introduction: Moderator Pat Bowling (Hydrogeologist PA DEP)
Recent drought declaration underscores what we are doing here. Adams County has had 13 drought declarations since ~1997. As a result of analysis during PA Resources Planning Act verification process, Marsh and Rock Creeks were found to be at risk of water demand exceeding supply under low flow conditions. Conducting a more detailed investigation of the problems and identifying solution is the goal of this Water Resources management plan project funded by PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB).
Background: Charles Bennett (Chair, Potomac Regional Committee)
Tremendous turn out tonight (45 + attendees).
Background of Act 220 program:
Adams County has experienced a number of droughts in past. In 2002, the PA legislature passed Act 220 which required examination of state water resources and the development of a state water plan. As part of that program, the state was examined from the perspective of its 6 major drainage basins. Adams County falls within two of those basins. Generally, the Potomac basin in Adams County is south of Route 30. The Susquehanna basin is north of Route 30, generally. In the Potomac Basin, we have a 24 member regional committee that was appointed under Act 220.
A diverse interest is exactly what we hope to accomplish here tonight when we develop a committee for looking at Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. We are mandated under the program (Act 220) to have composition across the board: environmental concerns, municipal water supply concerns, health concerns, recreational concerns, business concerns, all interests are to be considered.
The PA Water Atlas was displayed and discussed. An electronic version of the document is available at: http://www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/statewaterplan/docroot/WaterAtlasLinks.aspx, accessed 5/30/2012.
Act 220 allows a watershed, a portion of a watershed, or a combination of watersheds to be nominated. In Adams County, water is drawn from Marsh Creek by Gettysburg Municipal Authority (GMA) and discharged through the municipal sewage treatment plant to Rock Creek. Due to this hydrologic interconnectedness, Marsh and Rock creeks were nomination as one Critical Water Planning Area (CWPA). The poster map of Marsh and Rock creek watersheds was displayed. The watershed maps are also available in the handout packet.
All of the following will be taken into account in the technical examination: (1) current watershed conditions in Adams County, (2) rate of residential growth, (3) challenging geological conditions for groundwater availability, (4) municipal system withdrawals, and (5) existing competing uses and their associated discharges.
242 v.8/28/2012
New terms from Act 220:
Critical Water Plan Area (CWPA): area where water use or availability may exceed or may be expected to exceed availability.
If the water planning process created under the act officially agrees that a nominated watershed does meet the criteria for a CWPA then a Critical Area Resources Plan (CARP) has to be written.
Fourteen watersheds were nominated to the state committee from the six basin committees across the state. Three were immediately supported for passing on to the state committee for further discussion and consideration. The combined area of Marsh and Rock creek watersheds were selected in February 2010 because
Funding for this cooperative project was available from (1) ICPRB and (2) DEP through the Growing Greener Program; and
Technical information provided to the committee since 2002, particularly the DEP report utilizing a Geographic Information System (GIS) based Water-Analysis Screening Tool (WAST), indicated that there was a deficit of water at a portion of the pour points. The report is available on-line (www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/docs/TechnicalDocuments/SupportingDocumentation/Marsh_Rock_Cr eeks_Report.pdf).
Cost of CARP: estimates run anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000.
Because the Rock and Marsh creek watersheds have been nominated but not officially approved and designated by the state as a CWPA, it is a pilot program. The work that ICPRB will be developing for this project can be used as templates in other watersheds.
Tonight’s meeting is being held to seek formation of an advisory committee for the development of a water management plan for Rock and Marsh creeks. If DEP and the state approve the nomination and agree that this is a CWPA, then the program converts into the DEP CARP program. Final committee membership will be selected from interested parties in coordination with DEP and upon discussion and recommendations by the Potomac Regional Committee. ICPRB is very familiar with the Potomac watersheds in Adams County and have been active at the Act 220 DEP committee meetings and are active participants in the Adams County Resources Advisory Committee.
Reads CARP guidelines (from DEP) and indicates that this is not going to be a simple plan to develop. The right players are needed to develop this program.
The critical area resource plans shall include: i. an identification of existing and future reasonable and beneficial uses; ii. a water availability evaluation, including a quantitative assessment of the available water resources and their relationship to the existing and future reasonable and beneficial uses; iii. an identification of the quantity of water available for new or increased uses of water in the foreseeable future and an identification of quantities required for future water uses associated with planned projects or developments;
243 v.8/28/2012
iv. an assessment of water quality issues that have a direct and substantial effect on water resource availability; v. a consideration of stormwater and floodplain management within the critical water planning area and their impacts on water quality and quantity; vi. identification of existing and potential adverse impacts on uses or conflicts among users or areas of the critical water planning area and identification of alternatives for avoiding or resolving such conflicts; and vii. an identification of practicable supply-side and demand-side alternatives to assure an adequate supply of water to satisfy existing and future reasonable and beneficial uses.”
Description of Project Goals/Timeline: Dave Jostenski (PA DEP)
This is a twenty-four month project. Not quick, but will be done methodically and done well. This is a pilot project in that we are ahead of the actual designation. On November 18, 2010, there will be a state-wide committee meeting that is open to the public in Harrisburg. The intention of that meeting is to finalize the designation of CWPAs. According to Act 220, the state-wide committee has the responsibility to make designations to the DEP Secretary who will likely make recommendations from those designations. This project is currently a water management plan, until designated by state-wide committee and approved by the Secretary. It is intended to be a problem solver. The project will actually identify problems and propose solutions. The project will look at conflicts between users and find alternatives to solve the problems. It will also look at supply side (diversions/storage) and demand side alternatives (water reuse/reduction of demand).
Missing content – technical difficulties with audio recorder.
Four core parts to the plan: problem solving, resolving conflicts, solutions, public participation.
Issues: Water quantity and availability and water quality Quantity: Proposed inner-basin transfer from Susquehanna basin Escalating growth/development/potential for growth Quality: Impairments within the watershed: sedimentation, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, nitrates, nitrites, phosphorus
Task 1 – Establishment and Management of a Critical Area Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) We are here tonight to establish a citizen’s advisory committee through your nominations. Nominations will go to the state water plan regional committees.
Task 2 – Establishment of a Ground and Surface Water Monitoring Network (Should go through June of 2011) Invites Jim to discuss.
Jim Palmer (ICPRB): Currently in the process of identifying unused wells in the area that we can routinely monitor to develop a database of water levels thru time and construct a map of the water table as it changes thru time. Water table levels, precipitation events, withdrawals will all be components of the overall water budget (in addition to streamflow). So far, five wells have been identified. There is a map in the packet of handouts that indicate locations of current monitoring well network. We are looking for additional wells.
244 v.8/28/2012
The project is also establishing four streamflow monitoring locations (two on Marsh Creek and two on Rock Creek). USGS will install, receive, and quality control the collected data to make sure it is reliable, supportable, and dependable. Data will be available to the public on USGS website. The closest long-term streamflow record was taken at the USGS streamflow monitoring gage (USGS gage 01639000) on the Monocacy River at Bridgeport, five miles downstream from the convergence of Marsh and Rock creeks. The Bridgeport gage measures flow in Marsh Creek, Rock Creek, and Alloway Creek. The USGS staff gages installed as part of this project will take measurements at the lower end of each of Marsh and Rock creek watersheds and will compare that data to the Bridgeport data. The Bridgeport gage is in potential jeopardy as USGS might lose funding for this gage due to budget constraints. (Discussion: it looks like the gage is safe for now). The Bridgeport gage has collected data for 64 years.
Task 3 – Verification and Statement of the Problems Dave Jostenski (PA DEP) Catalog and document historic issues in the watershed and look at new sources of information (through end of November)
Task 4 – Preliminary Data Collection in Support of CARP Elements Additional data collection will take us through April 2011.
Task 5 – Identify and Quantify Existing Reasonable and Beneficial Uses Water demand exploration: Who is using the water and where? Where are the future proposed uses located? This task will take us into the spring time.
Task 6 – Identify and Quantify Available Water Resources Takes us into the summer. Through modeling, look at historic data on available water resources in the watersheds including precipitation, streamflow, and groundwater level data from Gettysburg Municipal Authority, Watershed Alliance of Adams County, USGS, and other organizations as available. Integrate monitoring data with historic data. Develop seasonal ground water table maps to see where the levels are with ground water Quantify losses outside of the Marsh and Rock Creek watersheds including the Susquehanna interbasin transfer, what’s happening between water coming in and out of the basin. Develop water budgets.
Task 7 – Quantify Water Available and Required for Future Water Uses (Summer 2011) Look at projections over the next 10-20 years. Working with Adams County Planning Department and the Advisory Committee to develop future population, employment, and development projections including a spatially explicit assessment of where development is likely to occur and, therefore, where future water uses will occur. Also trying to segment into what kind of uses will occur in the future (e.g. agricultural, commercial, industrial).
Task 8 – Water Quality Assessment (Fall 2011) Taking information from past tasks and putting that into an assessment. This task looks at the historic surface- and ground-water quality data, assessing the water quality parameters, and determining the effects of current and proposed future wastewater disposal.
Task 9 – Stormwater and Floodplain Management
245 v.8/28/2012
(Fall/Winter 2011) Look at the future conditions of stormwater and floodplains and quantify them to identify the linkage to other uses. Investigate the potential impacts of existing and future land development and impervious surfaces on run-off volume and rate as well as groundwater infiltration. Looking at identifying local, state, and federal stormwater management and floodplain regulations
Task 10 – Assessment of Current or Potential Water Use Conflicts (Early 2012) Take all modeling for existing and future uses and try to understand potential conflicts. Why is one use perhaps overshadowing the use by another sector? How can we satisfy one and not take away from another?
Task 11 – Identification of Practical Alternatives to Satisfy Existing and Future Uses and Task 12 – Public Involvement (Early 2012) Weaved into it about that time, a draft will be prepared with all these assessments of quality and quantity about this time and public will be involved.
Task 13 – Development of Recommendations (Winter 2012) Review process for the draft plan: regional advisory committee→ regional state water planning committee→ state water committee → Secretary. If seen favorably, the Marsh and Rock creek plan will be adopted as part of the state water plan.
This entire process will take about 26 months. Charlie was unsure of cost. $341,000 is the new estimate. That includes contributions from ICPRB, the State contributing money through a Growing Greener Grant, USGS in- kind services, as well as Adams County Conservation District. Overall, that is the plan. DEP’s involvement here is oversight (technical and administrative). This plan is not being built by DEP, but locally through ICPRB.
Introductions around the Room
Questions: Paul Kellett: What qualifications are you looking for in the nominees and what is the time commitment? Charles Bennett: Regarding qualifications, “Right out of ‘the Act’ (http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document- 77161/392-2130-015.pdf) the composition of the committee includes: i. representatives of appropriate governmental agencies including each municipality, planning agency and conservation district of each county in the watershed(s); ii. representatives of agricultural, public water supply, industrial and other water users and dischargers in the watershed(s); iii. representatives of conservation and environmental organizations; iv. other persons who have knowledge of, background in or an understanding of water resources planning and management; and v. one or more members of the Regional Committee.
Time = tough question Discussion of possible time commitments: Days/times/lengths of meetings. Size of group is not stipulated in the Act. Discussion about the need to choose able/diverse group for the advisory committee. Discussion of the nominations as a recruitment type process.
246 v.8/28/2012
Participant: Why aren’t the wells that you are monitoring wells being used? What is the property that they are located on like? Are they close to town? Are they private? Are they on farms? How long will you need to monitor?
Jim Palmer: Short discussion of location of current monitored wells. Should not be under the influence of a pumped well. We would like to find wells in each of geologic types on map on handout. We would like to identify 10-12 wells throughout the watersheds. At minimum, the water levels will be checked once per month, ideally on the same day. In some wells, data loggers will take level and pressure levels continuously. After 24 months, the Adams County Watershed Advisory Committee Monitoring Sub-committee would like to establish network of water level monitoring wells throughout the whole county to understand countywide water resources.
Richard Schmoyer: Will the advisory committee be informal or voting? Charles Bennett: Will follow public meeting format with “Roberts Rules.” May consider back-up person or alternates.
Participant: Request for ICPRB fax number: 301-984-5841. Nomination due October 5, 2010.
Pat Bowling: Please provide perceived issues facing Rock and Marsh Creek watersheds
Participant: Pick up in development
Participant: Open loop pump and dump geothermal could affect every local well.
Charles Bennett: This has been a subject at Adams County Water Resources Advisory Committee meeting. The committee brought in a speaker to inform County Commissioners of the issue. The townships need to provide their own legislation for allowed development within township. This might be a part of this plan as recommendation for wise use.
Paul Kellett: Inter-basin transfer issues (from Susquehanna): capacity of headwater system, stream channel changes. Up to 2 million gallons some days coming in may change stream channel/environment. We have a seasonal shortage of water. Issues related to the retention of water (need ponding or reservoir system?) within the basin. How does it play out with growth projections? Know of some 12,000 proposed homes. Market shift may bring all those plans back.
Participant: At a minimum, we have 12 months to plan. Some locations may happen within 10 years, but not all. New census data will show that we did not quite meet projections due to economic downturn. New data might mean increase in number of persons living in each household. Young people are returning to parents homes, older people are “coupling up” and living with extended families. Kitchen and bathroom use may be up due to the increased number of people living in each household.
247 v.8/28/2012
Discussion of the potential influx of new families/visitors/commuter traffic due to MD Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission's (BRAC) in MD. Will also occur in New Jersey within 2 years.
Bob Gordon: In Hamiltonban, well regulations and geothermal regulations were adopted for close looped systems. The ordinance wording is available on the web. Pat Bowling: I have been compiling various ground source heat pump ordinances throughout the commonwealth. Get in touch and I will provide copies.
Pat Naugle: ICPRB is not regulatory. Land use decisions are made at the township level. Once the plan identifies the problems, they need to go to the townships for their comprehensive plans and subdivision and zoning ordinances. Since all of the waters go downstream, any convention for getting representation from MD on the advisory committee? Pat Bowling: DEP is involved with Potomac Drinking Water Source Protection Partnership (DWSPP), a cooperative of federal, state and DC metro water suppliers administered by ICPRB. No PA water suppliers involved yet, but the organization can accommodate regional groups. If someone from the county wanted to get involved, that would be an option.
Participant: Chesapeake Bay issues.
Paul Kellett: Any hope DEP will look to their regulation? Permitting part of plan? Not all townships regulate. The utilities commission and DEP regulate effluent and public water supply. No regulatory teeth in terms of new users. The townships can only do so much. Charlie Bennett (As a recap): Are you asking: If a CARP (or whatever we call it) is developed, if enforcement is needed where can we look? In some places there may not be a place to go to for enforcement, but it can investigate sources for enforcement. Lori Mohr: This plan will be incorporated into state water plan process. Info being collected can be used for permitting application/process. Pat Bowling: DEP is charged to take into account local land use decisions as part of the process. DEP does not have authority over ground water withdrawals, surface water withdrawals except for allocations of public water supplies. Deepest and biggest pump concept still wins. We are facing Marcellus shale challenges regarding withdrawals as well.
Dave Jostenski: New regulatory authority
Bicky Redman: Several conservation organizations within Adams County. It would be great to document the contributions of preserved lands. The South Mountain Conservation Landscape Initiative should also be looked at.
Pat Bowling: Must report to EPA GMAs intake numbers and preservation strategies in place. DEP does recognize the importance of those activities.
Wayne Belt: Concept of “backing off 100 feet” or so to create riparian buffer. Quality aspect.
Charles Bennett: In Hamiltonban water well ordinance, you must show water is there if you want to construct. Potomac Basin Committee wrote a white paper on this.
248 v.8/28/2012
Missing content – technical difficulties with audio recorder.
Pat Bowling: Movement within the DEP to support and push along water well issues. Charles Bennett: Original Act 220 included water well protection. Misguided publicity related to contents of plan – so was struck from the Act to gain consensus and get the Act passed. It took a drought in 2002 to get the act passed. It may take another drought to get the Act modified again.
Richard Schmoyer: Lots of jobs lost here due to closed manufacturing plants. There are growing concerns about what types of 21st century jobs will be attracted to the region. 20 years ago, an economic development study indicated that the town would not tolerate increase in trucks or heavy water users. This is not a new issue.
Sara Koenig: New to the state and Gettysburg. Does the state not have any in-stream flow for biological community protection? Charles Bennett: We do not. Sara Koenig: Need to consider this in the County, in the watersheds, and in the study.
Pat Bowling: Any other issues in the watershed we need to discuss? Have we missed anyone as you look around, have we captured all stakeholders for good representation on the committee? Roger Steele: Civic club organizations including Rotary Club and Lion’s Club…participants in these organizations are leaders in the community. Participant: Adam’s County Economic Development Pat Bowling: Service organizations
Roger Steele: Schools Pat Bowling: At implementation stage of the plan, there should be an outreach stage involving schools. Bob Reichart: Discussion and invitation to participate in kids Water Day Pat Bowling: So, already efforts underway for education/outreach efforts. Charles Bennett: Act 220 requires public education. Teachers can go to DEP website for materials. We also may want to get their input during this process.
Pat Bowling: Also looking for ways to collect precipitation data. Any ideas? Paul Kellett: DEP may have daily rainfalls. Charles Bennett and Jim Palmer: GMA has agreed to provide precipitation data as a part of this project. Cumberland Township has also agreed to provide precipitation data. Bicky Redman: EMS building and Penn State Fruit (can possibly be obtained through their website) Charles Bennett: Knouse Foods has also agreed to provide rainfall data and access to a monitoring well to obtain groundwater levels in Orrtanna. DMR also has precipitation data as a part of discharge data; however, it may be more reliable to obtain the data from the sources themselves.
Charlie Bennett and Pat Bowling: Thanks to everyone for attending!
249 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Critical Area Advisory Committee Kick-off Meeting Agenda 1:00pm-3:00pm, January 12, 2011: Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
Marsh and Rock creeks in Adams County were found to be at risk of water demand exceeding supply under low flow conditions during the PA Water Resources Planning Act verification process. Conducting a more detailed investigation of these problems and identifying solutions is the goal of this Water Resources Management Plan project, funded by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB). The charges of the advisory committee are to evaluate policy, program and management alternatives, and advise the Act 220 Potomac Regional Committee, DEP, and ICPRB throughout the planning process. The primary objectives of this kick-off meeting are to establish the procedures and organizational structure of the committee and develop a statement of watershed problems to guide the process.
Meeting Objectives: 1. Develop advisory committee procedures; 2. Establish an organizational structure of the committee; 3. Informational description of ongoing project technical analyses; and 4. Develop a statement of watershed problems to guide and focus the technical analyses.
Agenda: 1:00-1:15: Welcome and introductions ...... Charles Bennett, Potomac Regional Committee Chair 1:15-1:30: Act 220 updates ...... Dave Jostenski, DEP 1:30-1:45: Advisory committee procedures ...... Charles Bennett, Potomac Regional Committee Chair Meeting schedules and topics – selection of dates for 2011 meetings General committee member duties Advisory nature of committee 1:45-2:00: Organizational structure ...... Charles Bennett, Potomac Regional Committee Chair Committee leadership Membership list Communications needs – webpage, Facebook 2:00-2:10: Update on project technical analyses ...... Jim Palmer, ICPRB Monitoring network 2:10-3:00: Statement of watershed problems ...... Charles Bennett, Potomac Regional Committee Chair Presentation of problems from verification process and public comment Develop (prioritized?) statement of problems to guide the planning process
250 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Critical Area Advisory Committee Kick-off Meeting Minutes 1:00pm-3:00pm, January 12, 2011: Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
Attendees: Charles Bennett, David Jostenski, Mike Hill, Jim Palmer, Heidi Moltz, John Hess, Howie Kesser, Bill Chain, Bicky Redman, Joe McNally, Patrick Naugle, Chris Kimple, Paul Kellett, John Brummer, Nate Rozic, Sarah Weigle, Duke Martin, Mark Guise, Hugh Lewis, Zach Bolitho, Vy Trinh, Adam McClain, Jim Schupp, Bert Waybright, Skip Strayer, Nate Merkel, Matt Genchur, Robert Reichart, Charles Wilson, Ronald Stanley, Dan Trimmer, Ben Thomas, Eric Flynn, Patrick Bowling, Salma Monani, Richard Schmoyer, Flo Ford, Phyllis Chant, Rick Klein, Larry Redding
Handouts: Meeting agenda, tentative schedule of advisory committee meetings, committee membership list, potentially stressed and water challenged areas of Adams County map, water level monitoring well network map, statement of watershed problems document
Welcome and introductions: Charlie Bennett welcomed everyone to the meeting and announced that because the meeting was not announced in the PA bulletin and in the newspaper, as required by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the meeting is not “official” and all decisions arising from the discussion will be made at the beginning of the next meeting. Charlie Bennett mentioned that the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) was originally contracted to conduct a “pilot” water resources management plan. Now that the combined Marsh and Rock Creek watersheds have been designated as a Critical Water Planning Area, the product of this work will be a Critical Area Resource Plan. Charlie also discussed the previous and ongoing efforts related to this project by the Act 220 Potomac Regional Committee and the Adams County Water Resources Advisory Committee. Each person in attendance was invited to introduce themselves and say what organizations and interests they represent.
Act 220 updates: Dave Jostenski provided an update of the state water planning process. Secretary Hanger approved designation for 3 watersheds, based on recommendations from the Act 220 Statewide Committee, including Laurel Hill Creek and Back Creek in the Ohio Basin, and the combined Marsh Creek and Rock Creek watersheds in the Potomac Basin. Four additional watersheds have been identified as needing continued review and evaluation over the next year, including Little Lehigh Creek and Brodhead Creek in the Delaware Basin and Sugar Creek and Spring Creek in the Upper/Middle Susquehanna Basin. Dave then provided a brief review of the nomination and approval process leading to the designation as Critical Water Planning Areas. He also mentioned the ongoing planning work of DEP associated with the Act 220 process. Dave recommended the PA water plan website (http://www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/statewaterplan/docroot/default.aspx) as a source of additional information, which contains a digital water atlas and information on statewide water use under the “Mapping and Data Tools” tab. Charlie Bennett followed up by reviewing the Critical Water Planning Area definition and describing the flow of water in Adams County, highlighting various components of the water cycle.
251 v.8/28/2012
Advisory committee procedures Meeting schedules and topics – selection of dates for 2011 meetings The following dates were selected for 2011 advisory committee meetings: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 from 1-3pm; Wednesday, July 13, 2011 from 1-3pm; Wednesday, October 12, 2011 from 1-3pm. The meetings will be held at the Ag Center in Gettysburg (670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325).
General committee member duties Charlie Bennett presented on the topic of anticipated committee member duties, which included attending meetings, reviewing and commenting on information and draft documents, identifying watershed issues, and developing and reviewing recommended solutions to proposed problems.
Advisory nature of committee Charlie Bennett informed the committee of their advisory role in the development of the Critical Area Resource Plan. He continued by saying that during water management planning, the possibility of conflicting perspectives may exist. The group was challenged to be respectful of the positions stated by others as the plan is developed. Dave Jostenski read the committee responsibilities from the DEP Critical Area Resource Plan Guidance Document: “Act 220 requires that a Critical Area Advisory Committee be established by the Regional Committee to advise the Regional Committee and the Department in the critical area planning process,” (http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-77161/392-2130-015.pdf).
Organizational structure Committee leadership Pat Naugle nominated Charlie Bennett as the Chair of the committee, which was seconded by Paul Kellett. Bicky Redman nominated Pat Naugle as the Vice Chair. Paul Kellett nominated Heidi Moltz as the Secretary. No objections to these nominations were made.
Membership list Committee members were asked to review their information on the draft membership list and notify Heidi Moltz of needed corrections.
Communications needs – webpage, Facebook Charlie Bennett asked the committee whether they think a project webpage or a Facebook account would be helpful. Dave Jostenski provided some background on the idea and noted that this type of education/outreach may help keep committee members, the public, students, and other stakeholders apprised of the project’s progress and current activities. Several committee members made comments in support of the idea. Charlie mentioned a possible need for disseminated information to be approved by the Potomac Regional Committee. No one spoke against the idea.
Other organizational structure discussion topics Skip Strayer and Richard Schmoyer asked that Adams County Economic Development be included in the committee. It was noted that the planning efforts of that organization would/should dovetail with the planning
252 v.8/28/2012
efforts of this committee. It was agreed to open a seat on the committee. Charlie Bennett will contact Robin Fitzpatrick for this purpose. Charlie Bennett asked if any subcommittees should be formed and noted that there are natural groupings of people on the advisory committee including education, technical, planning, etc. As there is no immediate need for subcommittees, the discussion was tabled for a later date.
Update on project technical analyses Jim Palmer provided the committee with an update of ongoing monitoring efforts in the watersheds. Both ground and surface water monitoring is underway. Unused groundwater wells not under the influence of nearby pumping were identified throughout the watersheds in order to evaluate groundwater availability and seasonal fluctuations. To date, 14 wells are included in the network. Monthly water level measurements are taken in these wells by Adam McClain, Adams County Conservation District. Continuous level meters were installed in two of the wells. The monthly groundwater level measurements are available through the USGS website (http://groundwaterwatch.usgs.gov/countymaps/PA_001.html). Four staff gages have also been installed by USGS, two on Marsh Creek and two on Rock Creek. Continuous meters have been installed at the downstream staff gages on each creek. A map was distributed with the well and staff gage locations. Heidi Moltz described how the data will feed into the larger project. Specifically, current and future water uses and water availability will be quantified and compared in order to identify and quantify potential problems. Recommendations included in the plan will be developed to address identified problems. Pat Naugle asked what the recommendations will look like. Heidi responded that this is the reason for having diverse interests represented in the advisory committee – to develop practical and implementable solutions. The nature of the recommendations will be based on committee input.
Statement of watershed problems: Charlie Bennett provided a brief explanation of the pour point analysis utilized during the watershed screening process. For a complete description of the pour point analysis, see http://www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/docs/TechnicalDocuments/SupportingDocumentation/Marsh_Rock_Cree ks_Report.pdf. He again noted that multiple groups have been working on this problem, including the Act 220 Regional Committee, the Adams County Water Resources Advisory Committee, and now this Critical Area Advisory Committee. Charlie Bennett gave an overview of Marsh and Rock creek watershed issues identified thus far in the Act 220 process. A handout was provided that contains a summary of the verification study findings and additional watershed issues raised at the public kick-off meeting (September 21, 2010). Charlie asked if anyone knows of any other issues that should be considered. Bicky Redman raised the issue of the Superfund sites in the watersheds. No other issues were brought forward. Any additional issues may be submitted to Heidi Moltz.
Additional discussion: Skip Strayer asked if the information generated from this project could possibly hurt Adams County in the future. He provided a hypothetical example of future reservoir creation in Adams County based on the data collected and technical analyses associated with the Critical Area Resource Plan project. He also provided an example from Virginia where an upstream user put in a new surface withdrawal that hurt a downstream user. The downstream user won the lawsuit in court. Dave Jostenski gave a brief review of PA riparian law. Dave also mentioned that surface withdrawal issues have to go to court in PA since DEP does not regulate surface water withdrawals. Charlie Bennett further
253 v.8/28/2012
clarified by mentioning that SRBC has regulatory authority over large withdrawals in the Susquehanna Basin. In contrast, ICPRB does not have regulatory authority in the Potomac Basin. Dave Jostenski gave an overview of the hydrologic criteria used to determine if a watershed is “critical” under the state planning process. A threshold of 50% of the 7Q10 was used (7Q10 is defined as the lowest stream flow for seven consecutive days that would be expected to occur once in ten years). He said that alteration/degradation of fish habitat was used as the surrogate for determining if the withdrawals would cause irreparable harm. Greater than 5% change in habitat was determined to be unacceptable. 50% of 7Q10, when compared to net withdrawals, was found to exceed this threshold. Bill Chain asked if it is correct to infer that the combined Marsh and Rock creek watersheds are one of the three most critical areas in PA because it was one of the three that were designated as Critical Water Planning Areas. Bob Reichart said it may be safe to say these watersheds are within the top 15 most critical in the state, but it was also selected to move forward because the local people are ready and the funding is available. Dave Jostenski continued that there are some very small watersheds in the state that have horrendous water problems, but because they are so small the problems may be more readily solved at the local level rather than through the statewide planning process. Charlie Bennett noted that it can be concluded that there is reason to be concerned about how water is used in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds and that there is a need to implement measures where feasible. As an example, Pat Naugle cited a big power plant that uses very little water. Richard Schmoyer cited the Battelle study that investigated the need to attract a more diverse job base in Adams County. Different types of uses that may or may not be attracted to the region will have different impacts to the community and the natural resources. He also suggested that recommendations coming out of the Critical Area Resource Plan need to be conducted in a balanced context with planning and should be based on things like storage capacities rather than zoning. He also mentioned the need for accommodations to be made to future uses and the economy. Charlie Bennett showed a school district map and a watershed map for everyone to understand their locations in the watersheds. He also showed a drought map from the DEP website (http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/drought_information/10606).
Announcements: The next meeting of the Critical Area Advisory Committee will be Wednesday, April 13th, 2011 from 1-3pm at the Ag Center in Gettysburg. The next Adams County Water Resources Advisory Committee meeting will be held on January 25th from 1- 3pm at the Ag Center in Gettysburg. The 2011 PA water festival will be held May 24th at Gettysburg College (300 North Washington Street, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania). Volunteers are needed. Contact Bob Reichart for more information.
254 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Critical Area Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda 1:00pm-3:00pm, April 13, 2011: Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
The Critical Area Resource Plan will consider water quality and how it relates to the availability of water in these already stressed watersheds. Both Marsh and Rock creeks have water quality impairments, meaning they exceed established thresholds for certain pollutants. Funding is available for a water quality data collection effort; however, input is requested to ensure that the monitoring will yield key information. The main objectives of this meeting are to provide a status update on the project, provide background information on water quality issues in the watersheds, facilitate a discussion on other water quality issues, and request input on the design of a water quality monitoring regime.
Meeting Objectives: 1. Follow-up from the last meeting; 2. Update on project progress; 3. Discuss water quality in the watersheds; and 4. Identify water quality data collection needs.
Agenda: 1:00-1:05: Welcome and introductions ...... Charles Bennett, Chair 1:05-1:10: Approval of meeting minutes, comments from public ...... Charles Bennett, Chair 1:10-1:20: ICPRB update ...... Heidi Moltz/Jim Palmer, ICPRB 1:20-2:55: Water quality (10 min) Role in development of the CARP ...... Dave Jostenski, DEP (15 min) Background information ...... Pat Bowling, DEP (15 min) Issue: groundwater wells ...... Adam McClain, ACCD (15 min) Issue: stormwater ...... Larry Martick/Rusty Ryan, ACCD (25 min) Group discussion What are the water quality issues that you face? How do you feel these issues can be resolved? (15 min) Data collection needs ...... Heidi Moltz/Jim Palmer, ICPRB 2:55-3:00: Closing remarks ...... Charles Bennett, Chair
The next meeting will be Wednesday, July 13, 2011 from 1:00-3:00pm at the Ag Center.
255 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Critical Area Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 1:00pm-3:00pm, April 13, 2011: Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
Attendees: Charlie Bennett, Dave Jostenski, Mike Hill, Skip Strayer, Nate Merkel, Louise Mairs, Bob Reichart, George Fisanich, Sarah Weigle, Barry Towers, Jay Braund, Joe McNally, Pat Bowling, John Brummer, Dan Trimmer, Paul Kellett, Dean Shultz, Hugh Lewis, Eric Flynn, Alan Ferranto, Fran Koch, Pat Naugle, Conrad Richter, Scott Dellett, Rusty Ryan, Larry Martick, Vy Trinh, Adam McClain, Bob Gordon, Barbara Underwood, Jim Palmer, Heidi Moltz
Handouts: Minutes from the kick-off advisory committee meeting Meeting agenda
Welcome and introductions: Charlie Bennett, committee chair, welcomed the group and provided a brief background on the formation of the advisory committee through Act 220. He also discussed the process through which the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds were nominated as a Critical Water Planning Area (CWPA). Charlie mentioned that the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) was contracted by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to conduct the technical work on the Critical Area Resource Plan (CARP).
Approval of meeting minutes: Charlie asked if there were any concerns regarding the minutes from the advisory committee kick-off meeting, held on January 12, 2011. No concerns were voiced. Paul Kellett made a motion to accept the minutes. Barbara Underwood seconded the motion. The minutes were approved.
Citizen comments: N/A
ICPRB update: Heidi Moltz (ICPRB) reminded everyone that the project blog is up and running at www.marshrockwaterplan.blogspot.com. The intended purpose of the blog is for discussion and information sharing. Everyone is encouraged to participate by posting comments or questions and/or creating blog entries. Pat Naugle asked if anyone will make sure that any blog questions receive responses. Heidi said that ICPRB is moderating the blog and will make sure that responses are provided to posted questions. Because a main goal of the blog is to encourage communication between stakeholders, everyone is encouraged to post their perspectives on any given question. Dave Jostenski asked attendees to forward the blog address to anyone who might be interested and to link to it from other websites. Heidi presented a diagram of the major ICPRB project tasks and walked through the steps that have already been accomplished (e.g. establishment of the committee, previous and ongoing public participation, establishment of a ground and surface water monitoring network) and the work that’s ongoing. Currently, the technical work is focused on assessing current water uses in the watersheds, including both withdrawal and non- withdrawal uses. Heidi provided a couple of examples of non-withdrawal uses in the watersheds such as trout
256 v.8/28/2012
fisheries, whitewater kayaking, and aquatic habitat. She asked if anyone knows of other non-withdrawal uses in the watersheds. Suggestions from the group included bird watching, the ability to spend time down by the rivers – not necessarily in the water but walking the banks etc., tourism (e.g. Sachs Bridge), and education (e.g. taking students to the rivers to learn). Jim Palmer (ICPRB) discussed the methodology for obtaining the registered withdrawals from DEP as well as estimating non-registered uses based on land use type. To locally verify the methodology for estimating non-registered users, Jim requested a meeting with the agricultural members of the committee. Charlie Bennett said he would help schedule/coordinate that meeting. Vy Trinh said she has an email distribution list of agricultural representatives that could be used to advertise the meeting. It was also said that agriculture programs from the local school districts would be a good contact to include in the meetings. Joe McNally noted the availability of LIDAR mapping to assist in this process. Jim provided an update on the status of the stream gage network. There are four staff gages currently installed, two on Marsh Creek and two on Rock Creek. Stage-discharge relationships are under development by the USGS for the gage locations. The staff gages will be used to develop water budgets and assess water availability in the watersheds. Jim said that volunteers are needed to read the staff gages on a regular basis. Heidi wrapped up the ICPRB update by pointing out that the current focus of the technical analyses is on water uses. ICPRB plans to provide preliminary results of this analysis at the next advisory committee meeting in July. Looking forward to the next set of technical tasks, the meeting today is focused on water quality. Historic water quality data is currently being collected to identify data gaps and monitoring needs. Any feedback on the main water quality issues facing the watersheds is appreciated.
Water quality: Dave Jostenski (DEP) gave a presentation on the role of water quality in the development of a CARP, including the language in Act 220. The CARP will consider how water quality affects the availability of water as well as the affects of water demands on water quality under both current and future conditions. The CARP will include an assessment of water quality issues that have a direct and substantial affect on water resource availability, impact source water for public water supplies, protects existing and designated uses, and impairments. The Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report contains information about the impaired stream reaches90. The slides from Dave’s presentation are available online91. Pat Bowling (DEP) gave a presentation on surface and groundwater hydrology and related water quality implications. Background hydrology concepts that were presented include unsaturated versus saturated aquifer zones, primary and secondary porosity, confined and unconfined aquifers, and a general geology of Adams County. These concepts were then tied to water quality implications through a description of how land uses impact water quality. Land uses that can impact water quality include (but are not limited to) landfills, residential, roads, industry, agriculture, mining, underground storage tanks, domestic wells, and hazardous and household waste. Franklin Township was provided as an example of needing to install sewage treatment due to the effect of failing septic systems on water quality. Pat described the major water quality issues in Marsh Creek and in Rock Creek. Pat also made the point that water quality issues can arise from natural sources. Arsenic was given as an example. Naturally occurring arsenic can be found in the rocks surrounding diabase bedrock due to how diabase
90 http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/water_quality_standards/10556/integrated_water_quality_report_- _2010/682562, accessed 5/30/2012. 91 http://www.potomacriver.org/RoleofWaterQualityinDevelopmentofCARP.pdf, accessed 5/30/2012.
257 v.8/28/2012
is formed. Under certain circumstances, the naturally occurring arsenic can contaminate water sources. In another example, one well in the watershed has had to go offline from naturally occurring radionuclides. Pat then discussed a 1996 EPA publication on the “Benefits and costs of prevention: Case studies of community wellhead protection”92, which noted that responding to contamination is 200 times more expensive than prevention. The slides from Pat’s presentation are available online93. Adam McClain (ACCD) presented on the water quality issues found in Adams County groundwater wells. The Conservation District has been testing water samples from local groundwater wells for bacteria (total coliform and E. coli) and nitrates. A large percentage of the samples have tested positive for bacteria. To further assess these issues, people are counseled to remove the probable cause of the problems (such as installing a sanitary well cap), shock chlorinate the well, and test again. For those wells that are still positive for bacteria, individual treatment options are recommended, perhaps including chlorination or reverse osmosis. Local contamination issues include manure leaching into the groundwater, failing septic systems, muddy water coming out of the tap, and the lack of construction standards. The slides from Adam’s presentation are available online94. A question was asked about what agency is responsible for checking the bottled water coming out of Gettysburg. Pat Bowling responded that the FDA and/or DEP have a role in the monitoring and enforcing water quality standards in bottled water. Dave Jostenski said that the DEP Regional Office performs this work on behalf of DEP. Rusty Ryan (ACCD) presented on stormwater issues and the effects on water quality. Rusty articulated the need to view stormwater as a resource, not a nuisance. Regarding regulations, Chapter 102 requires that stormwater must be incorporated in all earth moving activities above a specified acreage with some exceptions such as agricultural tilling. The countywide stormwater management plan is expected to be complete this summer for submission to the commissioners. An ordinance is also being prepared. The stormwater permit process includes testing soils and determining if the applicant can meet the volume increase - which means maintaining the volume, rate, and water quality. If the development is not able to mitigate for these factors in their planning, there is a possible loophole through DEP in which development can move forward if water quality requirements are met. Rusty also mentioned problems associated with stormwater management. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required to mitigate the increase in stormwater from a development. A standard value is used to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs. As part of the CARP process, sampling BMPs to determine if installed BMPs are performing as expected would be beneficial. Secondly, Rusty raised the question of whether the BMPs are being installed correctly. Staffing and funding is not available to inspect all BMPs. Further, monitoring and maintenance is often the responsibility of the homeowners association. ACCD conducts administrative, but not technical review. Establishment of a stormwater authority, similar to a water authority, has been discussed previously. ACCD is also working on other programs such as installation of riparian buffers. A challenge to stormwater management in the watersheds is poor infiltration of the soils in the area. In line with the idea of treating stormwater as a resource, Heidi Moltz asked whether many stormwater management measures are currently being voluntarily implemented by homeowners. Rusty answered by saying that people want to do the right thing and have demonstrated that through voluntary participation in ACCD rainbarrel and rain garden programs. An additional incentive for on-site stormwater management exists for buildings less than 5,000 square feet. These locations can be exempted from a permit if they are disconnected from the stormwater system such that the water flows over permeable land on their property.
92 This publication is available online at http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=20001U4L.txt, accessed 5/30/2012. 93 http://www.potomacriver.org/GPBowlingMarshRockWQIntro.pdf, accessed 5/30/2012. 94 http://www.potomacriver.org/PrivateSupplyWells.pdf, accessed 5/30/2012.
258 v.8/28/2012
A group discussion ensued about stormwater management practices being implemented in the watersheds. Examples given included the Gettysburg National Military Park museum’s LEED certification; McDonalds on Rte 30’s underground stormwater storage; and the Welfare Office in Gettysburg. A 2,000 square foot green roof has also been installed at Gettysburg College’s Majestic Theater, among others in the watershed. Larry Martick (ACCD) mentioned that stormwater management in PA is complicated because it is governed under several different levels of government such as state (ex. PA clean streams law), county, and local government. And that any level of government can change their rules, which upsets the pieces of the puzzle.
Discussion: The floor was opened for discussion about water quality issues facing the watersheds. Pat Naugle made the point that deeper groundwater wells have higher total dissolved solids which cause scaling issues and make the wells unusable for large scale water supply. Rusty Ryan brought up the issue of geothermal well drilling and the concern of open loop geothermal systems. Pat Bowling said that DEP recommends closed loop systems over the open loop type. Pat also gave the example that in Centre County an ordinance was developed to manage ground source heat pumps. Bob Reichart said that making sure we have an adequate supply of water is the reason we’re here and that open loop wells should not be allowed because it causes the water resources to be moved downstream. Paul Kellett agreed that open sources should not be allowed. There was a general, informal consensus by the group on this point. Adam McClain asked if a draft ordinance will be available for review and adoption by other locales. Bob Reichart said that PGWA was going to develop a model ordinance, but may not now. Charlie pointed out that the well drillers are also behind the adoption of an ordinance and a small group of well drillers could be convened to discuss this issue. Many in the group were in agreement that an ordinance should be included in the plan. Bob Gordon pointed out that the process of adopting an ordinance has been done in other locations already (ex. Hamiltonban). Paul Kellett noted the importance of appropriate time interval considerations and the inclusion of wet and dry years as part of the plan’s technical analysis. He also mentioned the need for looking at the introduction of resources into the watershed (inter-basin transfers). Pat Naugle mentioned the impact of future development. As an example, he said that Cashtown put in a sewage treatment plant. Approximately 80% of the water used is from groundwater, then it’s discharged to surface water where it moves downstream and is no longer a resource within the watersheds. He then posed the concept of water storage requirements on development (ex. proposed Mason Dixon development). The planning process should include an assessment of the business-as-usual scenario of pumping from groundwater and discharging to surface waters as well as mitigation scenarios which may include sewage systems/water supplies/surface storage. Charlie Bennett mentioned that at the last ACCD meeting there was discussion of reverse engineered sewage treatment plants to encourage infiltration. But soils in the area are a limitation due to the low infiltration rates. Dave Jostenski also mentioned the necessity to consider the effects of diminishing baseflow on effluent dominated streams. Interbasin transfers were then discussed. Charlie Bennett said that interbasin transfers are a potential source of relief for GMA and, technically, can be considered. Pat Naugle noted a case where the inter-transfer is occurring in the other direction – where the withdrawal occurs in the Potomac Basin and the discharge occurs in the Susquehanna Basin. Skip Strayer brought up the 537 plan from GMA. Paul Kellett mentioned the need to calculate the maximum daily loads for nutrients, particularly in effluent driven streams, to inform the decision-making process.
259 v.8/28/2012
Dean Shultz said that permits are required to establish treatment systems, but follow-up is minimal to ensure compliance. Are the treatment systems meeting the discharge criteria? He also emphasized the need to determine how much groundwater is available to facilitate decision-making and noted the possibility of developing surface water reservoirs. Rusty Ryan said that the Birch Run Reservoir has just been lost. Charlie Bennett mentioned that the Chamber of Commerce is re-investigating Birch Run as a reservoir option. Pat Bowling pointed out that the downside of using surface water supplies as public drinking water sources is that the water has to be filtered, which can be expensive.
Closing: Charlie Bennett thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting.
Announcements: The next meeting of the Critical Area Advisory Committee will be Wednesday, July 13th from 1-3pm at the Ag Center in Gettysburg. Upcoming Adams County Water Resources Advisory Committee meetings will be held on April 28th and July 26th from 1-3pm at the Ag Center in Gettysburg. There is a DEA drug take-back event on Saturday, April 30, 2011 at the Ag Center in Gettysburg (670 Old Harrisburg Rd).
260 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Meeting of Agricultural Representatives, Minutes95 8:00am-10:00am, May 19, 2011: Knouse Foods, 1505 Orrtanna Rd, Orrtanna, PA 17353
Purpose: Estimates of agricultural water uses less than 10,000 gallons per day were utilized in the 2009 verification study. As part of the Critical Area Resource Plan water use assessment, verification of these estimates is underway. To this end, the purpose of this meeting was to verify coefficients used to quantify agricultural water uses in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds.
Attendees: Charlie Bennett, Jim Palmer, Heidi Moltz, Richard Waybright, Stan Wolf, David Benner, Mark Bream, John Hess, Dale Byers, Gary Deardorff, Mr. Werner, Dan Wilkinson
Handouts: List of questions regarding agricultural water use Quantity of agricultural water uses according to current estimation methods
Welcome and introductions: Charlie Bennett welcomed everyone and provided a brief introduction to the Act 220 process. He asked for a round of introductions that included name, affiliation, type of agricultural operation, and watershed.
Presentation of calculated water uses: Jim Palmer, ICPRB, presented the estimated amounts of predicted agricultural water use that are calculated using standard coefficients and available land use acreages. He proceeded to ask, in turn, if each of the coefficients sounds reasonable. A discussion on each of the coefficients followed.
Discussion: It was noted that, in general, the topography in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds is not conducive to irrigation.
Fruits Irrigation occurs on peaches, not on apples, and only at specific periods in the growth of the peaches. Peaches are irrigated approximately 1,000 gallons / acre on a seasonal basis (primarily July or August depending on the final swell).
Dairy Dairy water use peaks at approximately 80 gallons / day / head during the driest and hottest part of the year. The consumptive use of this water may be fairly low as only 8-9 gallons / day / head of that water actually leaves the farm in the milk truck. Dairies may use water for multiple purposes on site before discharging – example, water used for cooling.
95 A formal agenda was not prepared for this meeting.
261 v.8/28/2012
Row crops Row crops include corn, soybean, vegetables and soy in the watersheds. Row crops use a higher volume of water (ex. 800 gallons / minute), but have a lower acreage. A new farming trend is growing vegetables for farmers markets. These plants are typically drip irrigated; however, it is expected that the total amount of water used for farmers markets is a very small fraction of the total amount used for agriculture in the watersheds, though.
Drip irrigation Drip irrigation is applied to maintain soil moisture. SkyBit weather forecast was given as a resource for obtaining daily evaporation rates, which can be used to determine how much drip irrigation water to apply. Drip irrigation is installed in zones on timed clocks. It is a manual decision to turn the whole system on. Once the system is on, it is an automated system of rotating between zones. It was noted that many acres may have irrigation installed, but that all of those acres are never irrigated in a year – and only one zone is irrigated at a time. Drip irrigation runs each day for a specified number of hours on a specified number of acres each day at a design rate (ex. 120-200 gallons / minute).
Overhead irrigation Overhead irrigation was estimated at ~1,000 gallons / minute.
Center pivot irrigation An example of center pivot was given that runs at 135 gallons / minute.
Additional discussion It was noted that Marsh and Rock creek do not have a “water problem,” they have a “water management problem.” A potential solution for the problem is the development of additional storage reservoir(s) such as the existing site in the state forest. Farmers have developed their own mechanisms for water storage on-site through the use of farm ponds. Adams County has more of these ponds than neighboring counties and orchards are said to have larger farm ponds than row crop farms. However, these ponds are not sufficient to sustain the agricultural use under water stressed conditions. Water use analysis should assume dry year conditions to ensure water availability. Noted water quality issues include emerging contaminants such as estrogens. Also, it was noted that the pH is better in Marsh Creek than in Rock Creek.
262 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Critical Area Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda 1:00pm-3:00pm, July 13, 2011: Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
Mr. John Hines, Executive Deputy Director of Programs at PA Department of Environmental Protection, will be recognized at the meeting for his efforts as ICPRB commissioner and protector of Pennsylvania’s water resources. ICPRB will present draft results from the water use analysis conducted for the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds, including analysis by water use sector, water sources, registered uses, estimated uses, and consumptive uses among others. An overview of the next step in the technical analysis, assessment of water availability, will also be discussed.
Meeting Objectives: 1. Recognition of John Hines; 2. Presentation of preliminary water use analysis results; and 3. Discussion of next steps in the technical analysis.
Agenda: 1:00-1:05: Welcome and introductions ...... Charles Bennett, Chair 1:05-1:10: Approval of meeting minutes, comments from public ...... Charles Bennett, Chair 1:10-1:30: Recognition of John Hines ...... Andy Zemba, DEP 1:30-2:10: Preliminary results of the water use analysis ...... Heidi Moltz/Jim Palmer, ICPRB 2:10-2:30: Next steps in the technical analysis ...... Heidi Moltz/Jim Palmer, ICPRB 2:30-2:55: Discussion ...... Charles Bennett, Chair 2:55-3:00: Closing discussion and remarks ...... Charles Bennett, Chair
The next meeting will be Wednesday, October 12, 2011 from 1:00-3:00pm at the Ag Center.
263 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Critical Area Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 1:00pm-3:00pm, July 13, 2011: Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
Attendees: Charlie Bennett, Dave Jostenski, Mike Hill, Lori Mohr, Skip Strayer, Bob Reichart, Jay Braund, Joe McNally, Pat Bowling, Paul Kellett, Dean Shultz, Eric Flynn, Pat Naugle, Adam McClain, B. Isenberger, Barb Underwood, Hugh Lewis, Coleen Reamer, John Hess, Dick Waybright, Nick Colonna, John Brummer, Bicky Redman, Tom McCarty, Andy Zemba, Nathan Merkel, Charles Wilson, Sara Koenig, Fran Koch, Scott Dellett, Joe Hoffman, John Hines, Jim Palmer, Heidi Moltz
Handouts: Agenda; draft minutes from a meeting of agricultural representatives; draft minutes from April advisory committee meeting
Welcome and introductions: Charlie Bennett (committee chair) welcomed the group and requested introductions from those who have not previously participated in the CAAC meetings. He also asked if there were any citizens who would like to make a comment. No citizen comments were made.
Approval of meeting minutes: The meeting minutes were approved; however, the group requested that an electronic copy of the meeting minutes be distributed. Heidi Moltz will send an email with the April meeting minutes to the committee.
Recognition of John Hines: Andy Zemba presented a token of recognition to John Hines for his time as an ICPRB commissioner. Andy passed along some thoughts on John from the commissioners and noted his vision, leadership, and commitment among other contributions. John was presented with a plaque containing a photo of Sach’s Bridge and a written resolution from the commissioners. He then briefly addressed the group.
Preliminary results of the water use analysis: Heidi Moltz introduced the preliminary technical write-up of the water use analysis. Several copies were available to review during the meeting; however, each committee member will receive one via email the day after the meeting. Adam McClain volunteered to have a hard copy on hand at the Ag Center for review. Heidi noted that the analysis of current water uses is preliminary and encouraged discussion of missing or potentially erroneous information. The primary objective of the water use analysis is to identify and quantify, where possible, the current withdrawal and non-withdrawal uses of water in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. The spatial and temporal resolution of the analysis was as fine as possible for comparison with water availability in subsequent analyses. What follows is documentation of the discussions regarding the results of the current water use analysis. The results themselves are not documented here. For a copy of the technical report or to submit comments, please contact ICPRB via email ([email protected]), phone (301.274.8116), or mail (51 Monroe St. PE-08, Rockville, MD 20850).
264 v.8/28/2012
Estimated irrigation Pat Bowling asked what the ratio of irrigated to non-irrigated agriculture is in the watersheds. Members of the group estimated that about 1% of agricultural land is irrigated. Pat Naugle noted that no-till irrigation retains more moisture in the soil and is commonly practiced in Adams County. The estimated future trend in agricultural water use was discussed. There was some agreement that the amount of land under agricultural production will decrease in the future, as residential/sub-urban areas increase (Paul Kellett and others). Bicky Redman suggested looking at the preservation data. Charlie Bennett agreed to bring the agricultural water use trends before the Fruit Growers Association and the Farm Bureau to get their opinion on anticipated future trends in agricultural water use. It was also noted that as food costs increase, irrigation will likely increase because it becomes economically worthwhile for the farmer to irrigate (John Hess). Dave Jostenski asked about the users who have not yet registered. Is there a way to increase registrations to get a better snapshot of actual water use as opposed to utilizing estimated water uses? Charlie agreed to develop a registration request that could be distributed by the Chamber of Commerce and through the WRAC newsletter. John Hess pointed out that some farmers don’t want to register because they are worried about potential fees associated with water use or that water use for agriculture will be restricted in some way in the future. It was noted that only users with >10,000 for a 30 day average are required to register. Charlie B. noted that even if people do not want to install meters, maybe they could report a snapshot of their water use for the CARP process to ensure that the water use analysis is accurate. Preliminary estimates of irrigated agriculture, presented by Jim Palmer, show a decrease of water use in 2007. It was suggested that a possible explanation of this was the Plum Pox (Bob Reichart). Decreases in irrigation and other uses can also be evaluated to determine if water restrictions were being implemented at that time (Joe Hoffman). Joe McNally pointed out the seasonality of agricultural water use and asked if that was being taken into consideration. Jim P. said that the average annual values in the report were the amount of water used during a year divided by the number of days that irrigation is actually occurring. He also noted that the seasonal variation of water use by agriculture was calculated and is available in the report. Pat N. mentioned the importance of knowing the water source of the agricultural water uses and the importance of understanding the impact(s) on groundwater. Joe M. noted that there are multiple uses of water often at a particular site – this water should not be double counted in the analysis. Jim P. said that the values being utilized in the assessment are the amount of water withdrawn, not the amount used for each individual purpose. Heidi M. also noted that the agricultural representatives highlighted their conservation measures during the meeting in May, including using it for multiple purposes on site (cooling, cleaning, power generation, etc.). This is included in the water conservation program assessment. Dick Waybright said the primary objective of the agricultural assessment should be the long term sustainability of agriculture.
Estimated livestock John Hess pointed out that agricultural production per animal unit is increasing. The average dairy cow can now produce 20,000 lbs of milk, compared to the previous 15,000 lbs. Water use per cow increases as this milk production efficiency increases. To feed the increasing number of people, there has to be an increase in production per acre as well. Additionally, he pointed out that water is being used in new ways for agriculture, such as cooling water. Coleen Reamer noted the increasing productivity of agriculture and the decrease in the
265 v.8/28/2012
number of animals overall. She is not sure about the projected numbers of increasing livestock water use as presented in the analysis. Also it was noted and generally agreed that some of the livestock numbers seem high, particularly horses – and that these numbers should be decreasing over time. Charlie B. said he would show these numbers to the agricultural groups when he attends the meetings. Pat N. agreed with others that an increase in agricultural water use is likely not supported; however, it is good to be conservative in the water use estimates for planning purposes to ensure that the water needed will be available. A suggestion was made that increasing the number of ponds would help agriculture. Bicky Redman pointed out that the cost of installing ponds is often prohibitive. The average cost is about $80,000 and the availability of funding is changing as this is not a priority for organizations like the NRCS. John Hess said that if it becomes harder to take action we’re wasting our time. If studies indicate that a management option will work, we have to be able to use them. The management options can’t be suppressed from a regulatory/policy perspective. There was general agreement that increasing the number of ponds should be included in the recommendations.
Public water suppliers and self supplied domestic Pat Bowling asked if non-transient systems are included in the registrations. Pat will help to identify such systems that may have not been included. The question arose as to why the use by public water suppliers was shown to decrease in the last couple of years. Heidi and Coleen pointed out the potential economic drivers. Others suggested the conservation programs employed by GMA and possibly other public water suppliers. Bicky suggested that improved metering may account for the observed decrease by public water suppliers. That is, the more recently reported values may be more accurate. Regarding the per capita water use of these systems, it was asked whether the per capita use is based on population or number of taps. Heidi responded that the source of the population served estimates were the EPA SDWIS database and she can check to confirm but expects it is the number of people, not the number of taps. It was noted that for public water supply systems that have considerable industry and commercial components, using the population values for per capita may result in a higher calculated per capita water use in these systems. The average per capita water use of the 13 public water supply systems is 72 gallons per person per day. This is lower, but comparable to the commonly used 80. Because the systems vary widely in their per capita water use, the standard value of 80 was used to estimate self supplied domestic water use. Heidi asked if everyone is comfortable with this decision. Charlie B. says it might be high. Dave Jostenski pointed out that both numbers are within an appropriate range. There was general agreement that it was OK to move forward with the per capita estimate of 80 gallons per person per day.
Consumptive uses Pending updated discharge data, average consumptive use estimates were applied by water use type to arrive at an estimate of consumptive uses in these systems. Joe McNally and others brought up the issue of consumptive use by septic systems. Heidi noted a USGS study in Georgia that estimated the consumptive loss at ~17%. There was general agreement that the number should be lower in this area, ~10%. Pat N. asked if surface water moving downstream out of the watersheds is considered a consumptive loss since it is no longer available for use in the watersheds just as if it were bottled and shipped out.
Non-withdrawal uses
266 v.8/28/2012
Bicky suggested that apple orchards could be added to the list of tourist activities depending on water. The group also suggested inclusion of the winery tours. Sara K. noted that it is not only the Gettysburg National Military Park, but also (and maybe primarily – especially for international visitors) the Eisenhower National Historic site that attracts visitors to the area. Heidi made a plea for the group to submit information about conservation programs underway in the watersheds and noted that this section needs to be enhanced to ensure that the water balances are accurate as we move forward. If water is being conserved, that should be taken into account. Organizations are encouraged to submit a description of their conservation programs to be included. For example, Knouse Foods has a water conservation program and will be submitting information (Charlie B.). Adam McClain noted the stormwater BMPs that have been installed throughout the watersheds. Heidi said that an email was distributed to the CAAC education representatives to solicit input on the ways water resources are used for educational purposes. She received great responses from the group. If anyone knows of additional ways that they are used for education, please submit that information.
Additional Discussion: Open loop geothermal wells were discussed, including the availability of ordinances in some municipalities. It was asked if these are or could be included in the consumptive use analysis. Sources of the data included well drillers and the state survey were suggested. It was also noted that some municipalities are not allowed to have artesian, flowing wells, according to their ordinances. Sara K. noted the importance of considering instream flow requirements for the aquatic species documented in the watersheds.
Closing: Charlie Bennett thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting.
Announcements: The next meeting of the Critical Area Advisory Committee will be held on Wednesday, October 12th at the Ag Center in Gettysburg. If you have not received a copy of the preliminary technical write-up of current water uses in the watersheds and would like one, please email [email protected] or call 301.274.8116. Participate in the project blog at http://www.marshrockwaterplan.blogspot.com/.
267 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Critical Area Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda 1:00pm-3:00pm, October 12, 2011: Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
This fourth meeting of the Critical Area Advisory Committee has several objectives. First, Sue Weaver from DEP will present on drought declarations as they relate to the CWPA. Secondly, Beverly Saunders, a graduate student from Texas State University-San Marcos, will describe Integrated Lentic/Lotic Basin Management, a process being proposed to evaluate alternative recommendations in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. Third, ICPRB will provide an update on the status of the technical analyses, including the CWPA water budget and a comparison of water availability to current and future water uses. The final objective for the meeting is to schedule the 2012 advisory committee meeting dates.
Agenda: 1:00-1:05: Welcome and introductions ...... Charles Bennett, Chair 1:05-1:10: Approval of meeting minutes, comments from public ...... Charles Bennett, Chair 1:10-1:40: Drought declarations in PA ...... Sue Weaver, DEP 1:40-2:10: Technical update: water availability & future water uses ...... Heidi Moltz/Jim Palmer, ICPRB 2:10-2:45: Introduction of ILBM concept and proposed workshop ...... Beverly Saunders, Grad Student 2:45-2:55: Determine 2012 meeting dates...... Charles Bennett, Chair November meeting, SRBC January, April, July CAAC meetings February ILBM workshop 2:55-3:00: Closing remarks ...... Charles Bennett, Chair
268 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Critical Area Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 1:00pm-3:00pm, October 12, 2011: Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
Attendees: Charlie Bennett, Dean Schultz, Coleen Reamer, Pat Bowling, Matt Genchur, Robert Thaeler, Bicky Redman, Joe McNally, Frank Skomorucha, Mark Guise, Pat Naugle, Hugh Lewis, John Brummer, Jim Martin, Nate Merckel, Dave Jostenski, Jay Braund, Mike Hill, Susan Weaver, Barry Towers, Beverly Saunders, Scott Dellett, Tom McCarty, Paul Kellett, Jim Palmer, Heidi Moltz
Handouts: Agenda; draft minutes from July advisory committee meeting; chapter 118 of the PA code; drought management in PA handout; several copies of the two technical reports were also passed around
Welcome and introductions: Charlie Bennett welcomed the group and asked for introductions from anyone new to the group. Any citizen comments were also welcomed, but none were made.
Approval of meeting minutes: The July 2011 meeting minutes were approved pending a change in the attribution of a comment to a committee member. The change was incorporated to the draft meeting minutes and posted to the July 18th project blog96.
Drought declarations in PA: Charlie B. noted that there is concern about drought in the CWPA, including questions about whether the CWPA should be looking more carefully at drought declarations, perhaps before the rest of the county/region become declared. Charlie noted that Sue Weaver’s presence is meant to help the group develop understanding of the issues. Charlie then introduced Sue, DEP drought coordinator, who gave a presentation entitled “Managing Drought in PA”. The slides from Sue’s presentation will be available on the project blog. Questions regarding Sue’s presentation to the group include the following. Paul Kellett asked if one creek in Adams County is in a drought and another is not, how is it determined whether the county as a whole is in a drought. Sue responded that the USGS gage on the Monocacy River at Bridgeport, MD97 is used as the surface water indicator of drought for Adams County. Charlie B. asked if the Bridgeport gage is the best source of information for the Critical Water Planning Area. It was noted that there currently are no other long-term stream gages in the county. Perhaps one recommendation coming out of the Critical Area Resource Planning process should be to add one or two additional stream gages in Adams County. The large expense associated with stream gages was noted. Charlie pointed out that many other counties in the state do not have complete information and rely on data sources from outside the county. Adams County is not alone in this respect. Dean Schultz pointed out that one proposed development on Marsh Creek, if it proceeds, will be required to install a stream gage as part of the permitting process from DEP. Pat Naugle said that the majority of the time there is a correlation between flows at the Bridgeport gage and flows at the East Berlin gage, unless a storm hits only one part of the county. Sue Weaver said that PA is fortunate in that it uses real-time, long-term gages in the drought
96 http://www.marshrockwaterplan.blogspot.com, accessed 5/30/2012. 97 http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?01639000, accessed 5/30/2012.
269 v.8/28/2012
determination process, where some states rely on monthly written reports that can take longer to obtain and evaluate. Charlie asked if the wells used as groundwater drought indicators are owned by the state or an agency. Sue said she doesn’t currently have specific information about the Adams County wells on hand, but could report back to the group on that. Dave Jostenski said that the wells are not owned by the state or an agency. Charlie then asked Sue if, to the best of her knowledge, any county has developed a drought declaration system outside of the DEP administered program. Sue responded no, but that Somerset County has an active drought task force. The group has been proactive, but may not have authority for official drought declarations. The group is primarily attached to county emergency management related services. They make recommendations for voluntary drought declarations. Citizen groups do not have authority to declare drought emergencies, which are made by the governor. Before proceeding with local advisory group in Adams County, legal counsel should be sought to define scope and authority. Charlie asked if there are any problems with declaring local drought watch based on local reports/data. Sue asked what authority the county would be using. What actions would be expected with the declaration? Typically, local recommendations are advisory and voluntary. Again, it would be important to seek legal counsel to define scope and authority of a local committee. Charlie thanked Sue for taking the time to present to the committee. Her insights are greatly appreciated.
Technical update: water availability and future water uses: Heidi Moltz presented on the work that she and Jim Palmer from ICPRB have accomplished since the July technical advisory committee meeting. The slides from the presentation will be made available on the project blog. The most recent technical analysis focused on quantifying water availability in the watersheds and the amount of water expected to be used in the watersheds through 2030. The technical reports are available online98. Comments are welcome and can be submitted via email ([email protected]), phone (301.274.8116), or mail (ICPRB, 51 Monroe St., Suite PE-08, Rockville, MD 20850). Questions regarding Heidi’s presentation included the following. Pat Naugle pointed out that the generalized water budget for the Critical Water Planning Area is comparable to one study, but somewhat different from another. He then asked specifically about the baseflow component of the budget and whether baseflow included the groundwater recharge component. Heidi responded that the groundwater recharge component was part of the water use budget and only included the amount of withdrawals that were discharged to the lands surface (like septic discharges, agricultural irrigation, etc.), and subsequently recharge the groundwater. It is not an estimate of the total amount of water recharging the groundwater in the watersheds. Pat N. then asked if the geologic formations of the watersheds were considered in the estimates of baseflow. Heidi responded that the baseflow was calculated using the USGS PART program that separates the streamflow time series into baseflow and stormflow components. So a direct evaluation of the differing geologic formations was not considered in the baseflow analysis. To generate the streamflow time series (utilized to calculate 7Q10 for the watersheds), observed flows at Bridgeport were area weighted for the CWPA. Then, using observed data from the staff gages on Marsh and Rock creeks, it was determined that 70% of flows come from Marsh Creek and 30% of the CWPA flows come from Rock Creek. These watershed flows were then area weighted to determine the flows for the upstream sub- watersheds. Paul Kellett pointed out that the percent contribution of streamflows from Marsh and Rock creeks would not be constant during high and low flows, as Rock Creek is effluent dominated under low flow conditions.
98 http://www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/docs/TechnicalDocuments/MarshRockCks/CurrentWaterUses_122011.pdf, accessed 5/30/2012; http://www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/docs/TechnicalDocuments/MarshRockCks/WaterAvailability_122011.pdf, accessed 5/30/2012.
270 v.8/28/2012
Therefore, under low flow conditions, the relationship may be reversed. Heidi asked what additional data may be available to understand this low flow relationship. Pat Naugle offered that he has some additional flow measurements taken near the watershed outlet that may help. Heidi and Jim will work to explore the differences between the high and low flow contributions and will revise the streamflow time series to address this concern as appropriate. Pat Naugle also suggested a way of graphing the comparisons of water use and availability comparable to an approach used by SRBC. Heidi will follow up with Pat to incorporate this suggestion. Heidi described the timeline for completion of the Critical Area Resource Plan. The next round of technical work will be water quality and stormwater/floodplain management. Bicky Redman suggested reviewing the draft county stormwater management plan. The technical analyses will be completed by the end of January 2012. For the January advisory committee meeting, members are requested to brainstorm management alternatives to resolve the potential water shortfall under low flow conditions. ICPRB will also develop a list of possible alternative management recommendations. Dave Jostenski asked that as ICPRB identifies possible recommendations, that they be posted to the project blog. Alternatives will be compiled at the January advisory committee meeting. In February, a workshop will be held to evaluate and prioritize management alternatives. Then a final list of recommendations will be developed for the draft CARP, scheduled for completion in late May 2012.
Integrated Lentic/Lotic Basin Management (ILBM): Beverly Saunders presented on the ILBM framework, a proposed method for prioritization and evaluation of management recommendations in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds. Slides from her presentation will be available on the project blog. Dave Jostenski asked if there are any references of the ILBM framework that could be forwarded to the group. Beverly agreed to post a blog with ILBM links. She also said to contact her with any questions or for additional information. Dave J. followed up by asking if ILBM has been applied in the U.S. Beverly said that the Marsh and Rock watersheds will be the first application in the U.S. After Beverly’s presentation, Charlie asked for a vote on proceeding with a February workshop to implement this methodology. Pat Naugle made the motion and Paul Kellett seconded it. No objections were made.
Determination of 2012 meeting dates: Dates were selected for the 2012 quarterly advisory committee meetings. The meetings will be held from 1-3pm at the Ag Center. The dates are January 11th; April 11th, and July 11th. Two additional meetings are also being scheduled. The first is a November meeting with SRBC to discuss the York Water interconnection. The second is the February ILBM workshop with Beverly Saunders. Heidi will submit online surveys to the committee to determine the best day/time for these meetings.
Closing: Charlie thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting.
271 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Critical Area Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda 1:30pm-3:00pm, November 15, 2011: Emergency Services, 230 Greenamyer Ln, Gettysburg, PA 17325
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the SRBC’s decision-making process regarding the potential York Water - GMA interconnection and the implications for the Critical Water Planning Area.
Agenda: 1:30-1:35: Welcome and introductions, Charles Bennett, Chair 1:35-2:00: Status of Marsh/Rock CARP and implications of interconnection, Heidi Moltz, ICPRB 2:00-2:45: York Water - GMA interconnection, Tom Beauduy, Deputy Executive Director and Counsel, SRBC 2:45-3:00: Discussion, Charles Bennett, Chair
272 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Critical Area Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 1:30pm-3:00pm, November 15, 2011: Emergency Services, 230 Greenamyer Ln, Gettysburg, PA 17325
Attendees: Charlie Bennett, Dean Schultz, Coleen Reamer, Pat Bowling, Bicky Redman, Mark Guise, Pat Naugle, Jay Braund, Paul Kellett, Jim Palmer, Heidi Moltz, Joe Hoffman, Kim Frank, Andrew Dehoff, Chris Toms, Diana Young, Donna Murphy, Bill Hanne, Barbara Underwood, Sharon Sheppard, Duke Martin, Al Ferranto, Jim Pappock, Adam McClain, Sarah Weigle, Charles Wilson
Handouts: Agenda; SRBC diversion policy, SRBC handout outlining specifics of GMA-York Water interconnection
Welcome and introductions: Charlie Bennett, Critical Area Advisory Committee (CAAC) chair, welcomed the group. He noted that this is not a routine quarterly meeting of the CAAC, but is focused on gathering more information on the GMA- York Water interconnection. Charlie mentioned that the interconnection may change the perspective of water users, particularly those receiving the waters (ex. hospitals). Charlie noted that he plans to talk to other groups to get information on their water uses as well. For example, he talked to the Farm Bureau to try to improve/confirm the estimates for agricultural water use. He also plans to discuss the agricultural water use estimates with the fruit growers at an upcoming meeting. He then asked for an update of the Critical Area Resource Plan project from ICPRB.
Status of the Marsh/Rock CARP and implications of the interconnection: Heidi Moltz from ICPRB gave an update on the status of the CARP work. The purpose of the Critical Area Resource Plan (CARP) is a detailed comparison of availability and uses to identify availability issues and find practical solutions. She noted that the technical analysis and data collection are continuing. So far, there has been a confirmation of potential water shortfalls during all seasons when compared to low flow conditions. Three technical analyses have been completed to date; namely, current water uses, future water uses, and water availability. The associated two technical reports (water availability and future water uses are documented in a single report) are available in a couple of places: 1) on the DEP State Water Plan website under “What’s New”99, 2) linked from the project blog100, and 3) via hard copy from the Conservation District. Currently, ICPRB is working to wrap up the analyses on water quality, stormwater, and floodplain management. These technical reports will be complete by the end of the year. Then, the focus will shift to developing a list of management alternatives with the advisory committee and the community. This is where the York water interconnection comes into play with the CARP. Specifically, ICPRB has quantified the typical water use from all sectors and compared to 7Q10 (7 day low flow statistically expected to occur once in ten years). In all 5 sub-watersheds and for all seasons, water use is greater than 7Q10. The goal is to identify management alternatives that meet the potential deficit so that it doesn’t become a reality. The interconnection is 1 possible way to make up SOME of the shortfall for PART of
99 http://www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/docs/TechnicalDocuments/MarshRockCks/CurrentWaterUses_122011.pdf, accessed 5/30/2012; http://www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/docs/TechnicalDocuments/MarshRockCks/WaterAvailability_122011.pdf, accessed 5/30/2012. 100 http://www.marshrockwaterplan.blogspot.com, accessed 5/30/2012.
273 v.8/28/2012
the watersheds. If we think of the difference between low flows and water use as the entire amount of water that we’re looking to make up, then the GMA interconnection is just one piece of the puzzle to making this happen. Example: the summer deficits equal 1.9MGD in Upper Rock, 1.5MGD in Lower Rock, 0.7MGD in Little Marsh, 0.5MGD in Upper Marsh, and 2.3MGD in Lower Marsh. In total, that’s almost 7MGD of potential water shortfall across the watersheds. There were helpful suggestions at the last advisory committee meeting about the method for estimating streamflows and calculating 7Q10. ICPRB is working to incorporate the suggestions – so the deficit estimates will change using the new calculation methodology, but this provides an idea of the general magnitude. Assuming the total daily deficit from all sub-watersheds is around 7 MGD, this is much larger than the magnitude proposed for the GMA-York water transfer and, again, the GMA system does not cover the entire CWPA. The transfer is one step to solving the problem for the GMA system – not the watersheds as a whole. When evaluating possible management recommendations for the CARP, the goal will be to meet this entire deficit. Questions to help us understand the implications of the transfer to the Critical Water Planning Area include: How much water will be transferred? Where will the water be used, equally throughout the GMA system – or is it focused to only particular areas? Will the transfer be continuous or on an as-needed basis? Will the wastewater be returned to the Susquehanna basin or discharged into the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds? Either have implications. ICPRB appreciates GMA and SRBC for taking the time to discuss this with the group and helping everyone get on the same page about what this transfer is and what it is not.
SRBC decision-making process for the interconnection permit: Charlie Bennett asked participants from different sectors to raise their hands and identify themselves (ex. municipalities) to get a feel for who was represented in the room. He then gave a brief background of the Act 220 planning process, thanked SRBC for attending, and introduced the SRBC representatives, Andrew Dehoff and Chris Toms. Andrew presented information regarding the SRBC diversion policy in general and the proposed interconnection specifically. He noted that diversions have been an issue for some time in the Susquehanna Basin and that 13 years ago a formal policy was developed101. As part of the diversion permitting process, there are 11 categories that must be evaluated. The GMA-York Water interconnection is an existing request to divert water out of the Susquehanna Basin. He highlighted a sentence from the diversion policy that “…it shall be the policy of the Commission to discourage the diversion or transfer of water from the basin.” Then it was noted that in order for SRBC to consider/approve a diversion request, the applicant has to exhaust other possibilities and demonstrate that demand can’t be met. Noting a second handout102, Andrew provided some specific information regarding the proposed interconnection. The application requests for up to 3MGD in the Straban Township area. The application was originally submitted ~4 years ago. The request is for a continuous connection that would be relied on in the long term. The waters would be discharged into the Marsh/Rock watersheds, with the exception of those discharged through the Hunterstown WWTP. Discharges from the Hunterstown WWTP are made back to the Susquehanna Basin. After receiving the application, SRBC requested some additional information from GMA. Because of the complexity of the process, it has taken some time for GMA to complete all of the requests. There has been ongoing communication regarding the studies that were requested. Three standards for diversion include: 1) GMA has to ensure that all other in-basin supplies are evaluated prior to approval of the transfer (ex. installing
101 http://www.potomacriver.org/2012/pacarp/SRBC_DiversionPolicy.pdf, accessed 5/30/2012. 102 http://www.potomacriver.org/2012/pacarp/SRBC_GMA_DiversionSpecs.pdf, accessed 5/30/2012.
274 v.8/28/2012
new wells, rehabilitation of old wells, etc.). 2) The potential impacts in the Susquehanna Basin are also evaluated by SRBC. Can the needs in the Susquehanna still be met if the interconnection proceeds? This is one consideration. The amount of water that York Water discharges will decrease if some of the water is transferred to the Potomac Basin – increasing the overall consumptive use of the York Water system. SRBC also considered the effects of releasing water into the Potomac Basin. 3) The third consideration is that there is a reasonably foreseeable need for the quantity of water requested. Mark Guise, GMA, noted that the transfer request is for 300,000 gallon obligation on a daily basis, with a peak transfer of 1MGD. As GMA grows in the long term, the transfer amount may increase to 3MGD.
Discussion: Joe Hoffman, ICPRB, ask about the relationship of SRBC and DEP with regard to permitting and for a discussion on the wastewater issues associated with the transfer. Andrew noted that SRBC works closely with DEP to make diversion decisions while not duplicating efforts. DEP is responsible for the wastewater issues, including sedimentation and assimilation issues. SRBC accepts the decisions from DEP on this issue. Paul Kellett asked about the issues and effects of impervious surfaces. Andrew responded that if it’s demonstrated that the actions are consistent with local plans, then it is acceptable with SRBC. Paul Kellett asked whether the effects on 7Q10 in the Susquehanna Basin would be considered. He also asked about fracking. Andrew said they do quantify effects on 7Q10, making projections for the basin and in localized hot spots. And there are programs to address this locally (ex. reduction of water use during low flows). Regarding fracking, Andrew noted that this is an issue for short term and long term use, particularly in small watersheds like on the top of hills. The volume of water from those types of sources is problematic. However, the total water use from the fracking is comparable to one nuclear power plant. Paul Kellett asked about a potential disruption in service through the interconnection due to contamination concerns in the Susquehanna. Andrew responded that they are still in the early phases of data collection, but this will be evaluated. Pat Naugle asked about consumptive uses (allowed up to 20% of 7Q10 in the Susquehanna Basin). A follow up question was asked by another meeting attendee regarding what is a healthy consumptive use. Andrew said that in the SRBC comprehensive plan it is noted that the 1:20 year low flow should not be reduced – this is the standard used. So, the bottom 5% of flows shouldn’t be impacted. During these events, usage has to be curtailed. Sharon Sheppard noted that we are the architects of our own demise. There is not currently a correlation between water supply and growth areas. This is in conflict with municipalities planning code. Whether water is imported or more water is identified, growth expectations are needed to manage growth. She posed the question of whether we want to do this to sustain what we have or to grow in the future. We are going to have a profound impact – as a headwaters system, the impacts appear here before the rest of the state. We have to do a better job. Groundwater is already pulled out to be put into the stream. Water use is greater than the geophysical ability of land to recharge. It is a responsibility to balance the budget, like a family’s pocket book. The interconnection isn’t the long term solution. There is a need to identify areas of infiltration and to guide growth to areas with infrastructure. Also, there is a need to revisit the tax infrastructure. There is a presumption that people live where they work, but this doesn’t happen. Need to look at all of the pieces of the puzzle – this is not just about GMA, SRBC, etc. but about a comprehensive look at planning for the future of the area. Charlie noted that integrated management has been discussed at various meetings. He said to put a different spin on the same question: If in approving a request, the solution itself becomes a regulation in the municipality, can SRBC make it a stipulation that municipalities have to be on board? SRBC responded that if
275 v.8/28/2012
they are the applicant, municipalities are requested to specify usage. Paul Kellett asked if there is a legal obligation that GMA must meet the increasing demand. SRBC responded that approved applications are consistent with local planning. There may be a requirement to meet milestones along the way. Coleen Reamer noted that developments come look to municipalities for water. They turn to GMA to meet the demand, who turns to SRBC to request the water. She agrees with the point that there should be an inter-municipal agreement on land use. Pat Naugle noted that to SRBC it’s just water, but it means more people, more congestion, more schools, etc. There has to be a look to the region. If expansion happens, and the water comes from SRBC, if Susquehanna gets in trouble, SRBC can turn off the water. Then all of the new homes, people, etc. have no water. Andrew agreed and noted that the applicant is required to have an emergency back-up plan. It was asked why the emergency back-up isn’t just the primary plan. SRBC noted that the back-up plan usually isn’t the primary plan because it is often too expensive. Charlie asked whether the GMA augmentation well is a type of activity that that SRBC would like to see stopped. SRBC noted that augmentation wells do occur in the Susquehanna Basin. And since the GMA augmentation well is located in the Potomac Basin, SRBC does not have authority to decide. Bicky Redman noted that the county is updating their comprehensive plan. These county planning efforts include land preservation. Sharon said that the plan is a roadmap and only comes into play when/if someone passes it. Bicky encouraged the municipalities to be involved in the planning. Sharon noted that implementation of the plan is the issue. It was also noted that SRBC comes at this from a scientific perspective. It would be good to make the decisions based on science and planning, but that’s not how it happens. It was asked, when pulling water out of the streams, how is 7Q10 not impacted? Also, this is not just about the Chesapeake Bay. What about the declining water quality at 7Q10? SRBC responded that York Water has approval to proceed with the specified withdrawal. If the 3MGD to GMA changes their distribution and returns (most of the water is currently withdrawn and then returned to the local waterways), the permit may be reviewed again. If water use is greater than 10% of 7Q10, have to stop withdrawing well before conditions reach 7Q10. Adam McClain asked if GMA is required to have an alternative plan in place in the event that the big pipe transfer of water is stopped for some reason (such as the low flows previously discussed). SRBC responded that ways have to be developed so that if a diversion continues during a drought, some method has to be used to make up for it (returned water, monies, etc.). Mark Guise noted that the sewer treatment plants will be outfitted for the peak amounts. He said the entire system will not be fed by the transfer. He also mentioned that GMA is just one piece of the CWPA. Bicky asked about reservoirs as an option for additional water storage. SRBC noted that reservoirs are one example of a type of alternative that may be suggested by/for GMA. Paul Kellett asked about the average daily flow of Rock Creek at the WWTP. What is the impact of 3MGD being added to the system? Andrew noted that they are aware that the stream can be effluent dominated. SRBC looks for verification from DEP that the treatment plant is efficient and that it won’t harm the creek. Sharon asked whether high flow conditions are also considered when evaluating the WWTP. It was also noted that during storms raw sewage can get discharged through the system and also that there is infiltration into the pipes; however, GMA does not have a combined sewer system and has the capacity to treat during peak flows. Pat Naugle asked whether additional storage is something that SRBC might mandate because a major problem is that there isn’t any storage. SRBC responded that in order to be approved for the diversion, the applicant has to show conservation, ability to meet needs during low flows, etc., but that additional storage is not
276 v.8/28/2012
necessarily one of the requirements - especially as the system is outside of the Susquehanna Basin. But the applicant does have to ensure that all other possibilities besides diversion have been exhausted. Charlie Bennett asked if there is are ways for cooperative agreements to make all of this happen. Bill Hanne noted the lack of a comprehensive plan and integrated water plan. This will be the topic of the upcoming WRAC meeting. The Birch Run Reservoir was also noted. Charlie mentioned that the lack of reservoirs and the availability of land have been discussed by the Chamber of Commerce, WRAC, and others. Donna Murphy asked why enhancing recharge and other mechanisms have not been looked at. Mark Guise noted that GMA has to look for additional sources. A developer can develop additional water sources themselves, outside of the GMA system. To effectively manage all of the straws at the source, there is a need to meet the demand. Pat Naugle asked if there was additional opportunity for public input on the diversion request. It was noted by SRBC that comments are accepted up until the decision is made on the diversion request. Charlie wrapped up the conversation by saying that solving the problems in the Critical Water Planning Area is not a matter of finding one solution. It’s a matter of combining multiple options from various categories using the triple bottom line of social, economic, and environmental concerns – towards sustainability.
Closing: Charlie thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting.
Announcements: The next Critical Area Advisory Committee meeting will be held on January 11, 2012 from 1-3pm at the Ag Center in Gettysburg. The purpose of the January 11th advisory committee meeting is to compile a list of management recommendations. Please come to the meeting with a list that you, the people you represent on the committee (ag, municipalities, etc.) or the community in general could do to either reduce water usage or increase water availability in the Critical Water Planning Area. Please come prepared!
277 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Critical Area Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda 1:00pm-3:00pm, January 11, 2012: Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
The purpose of this Critical Area Advisory Committee meeting is to compile a list of possible CARP management recommendations. Recommendations obtained at this meeting will undergo initial technical evaluation through mid- February. A full feasibility evaluation for selection and prioritization will be conducted at the February 15th workshop.
Agenda: 1:00-1:05: Welcome and introductions ...... Charles Bennett, Chair 1:05-1:10: Approval of meeting minutes, comments from public ...... Charles Bennett, Chair 1:10-1:30: ICPRB update ...... Heidi Moltz/Jim Palmer, ICPRB Synthesis of watershed issues Introduction to CARP management recommendations 1:30-2:55: Facilitated compilation of management recommendations ...... Nicki Kasi, DEP Objective: Compile suggestions for CARP management recommendations for evaluation at the February 15th workshop, with sufficient detail to understand how and where the recommendation may be implemented and the watershed issue it is meant to address. Please note any specific technical questions that need to be addressed prior to the February evaluation, if applicable. 2:55-3:00: Closing remarks ...... Charles Bennett, Chair
The next meeting of the Critical Area Advisory Committee will be Wednesday, February 15, 2012 from 9am-3pm at the Ag Center.
278 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Critical Area Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 1:00pm-3:00pm, January 11, 2012: Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
Attendees: Charlie Bennett, Pat Bowling, Mark Guise, Pat Naugle, Charles Wilson, Sarah Weigle, Hugh Lewis, Adam McClain, Scott Dellett, Roger Steele, Rusty Ryan, Dick Waybright, Barbara Underwood, Nick Colonna, Chris Kimple, Eric Flynn, Nate Merckel, Dave Jostenski, Jay Braund, Mike Hill, Veronica (Nicki) Kasi, Beverly Saunders, Tom McCarty, Paul Kellett, Jim Palmer, Heidi Moltz
Handouts: Meeting agenda, Synthesis of water resources issues, Draft management alternatives
Welcome and introductions: Charlie Bennett welcomed the group and asked for introductions from anyone new to the group. Rusty Ryan from ACCD introduced himself. He noted his interest in stormwater issues, particularly the difficulty of volume control due to the soils in the county. He thinks a BMP manual containing BMPs that are appropriate for the local soils would be most useful. Volume control, retention, and reuse are all desirable components of stormwater management in the county.
Approval of meeting minutes: A motion was made by Dick Waybright to approve the October meeting minutes. The motion was seconded and no objections were made. A motion was made by Barbara Underwood to approve the November meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Paul Kellett and no objections were made. Therefore, both sets of meeting minutes were approved. Copies can be found on the project blog.103
ICPRB update: Charlie noted that the purpose of the meeting is to get management ideas documented and to flesh them out where possible. Discussions on implementability and feasibility will be conducted at a later date. He then asked Heidi Moltz to give an update from ICPRB. Heidi noted that two new technical analyses (stormwater and floodplain management and water quality) are available for review and comment. Revised versions of the current water uses and water availability technical reports are also available. The major revision to these documents was the method of disaggregating the streamflows from the Bridgeport USGS gage. The technical reports can be downloaded from the project blog.1 Two documents were presented to the group. The first is a draft of watershed issues, resulting from the technical analysis. Management actions in the watershed will be proposed to address water resources issues. This document attempts to explicitly define what those issues are. Additions to the list of issues and comments on the document are encouraged. It is a draft document and changes are expected. The second document presented to the group was a draft list of management alternatives. They were compiled based on previous CAAC discussions and based on literature review. Two primary purposes of this meeting are to add detail to the actions already on the list and add any actions that should be included but are not currently on the list. To this end, the document as it stands is not expected to be comprehensive. The list is grouped by recommendation type and is not in order of
103 http://www.marshrockwaterplan.blogspot.com, accessed 5/30/2012.
279 v.8/28/2012
importance or preference. Heidi then described the meaning of each column. Of particular importance is the “issue addressed” column which relates the suggested management alternative to a water resources issue facing the watershed (provided in the first document). Also of importance is the “questions for future evaluation” column which lists technical, funding, political, or other questions related to the alternative that will need to be considered during the evaluation process. It was noted that the goal of this meeting is not to answer these questions, only to identify what questions will need to be evaluated at a later date. Pat Naugle asked if it would be possible to look into gaged flow values from Bridgeport over a long period of time to understand changes in consumptive use over time and the effects of these changes on instream flows. Heidi pointed out that the consumptive use values that are currently available are estimated – so it was agreed that comparing the values to observed data would be an interesting analysis. Heidi M. and Jim Palmer noted that a challenge of this analysis would be to understand the causes of streamflow changes over time. Given two years with similar streamflow, one historic and one recent, differences may be attributable to changes in land use/land cover, soil characteristics, consumptive uses, or other factors. Barbara Underwood noted that not many municipalities were represented at the meeting and asked how best to get municipal participation. Charlie noted that 12 municipalities received invitations. Nick Colonna suggested that participation through the Economic Development Council and the COG may foster that participation. It was asked of Dave Jostenski how other CWPAs are doing with municipal participation. He said there is very little for comparison as this is one of only two advisory committees.
Facilitated discussion: Charlie turned the meeting over to Nicki Kasi (DEP) to facilitate the discussion. The purpose of the discussion is to flesh out the draft list of management alternatives and to add any additional alternatives. The rules are: only one person speaks at a time, there are no bad ideas, and alternatives will not undergo evaluation at this point. The discussion was recorded by adding new rows to the draft management recommendations. A new version of the spreadsheet, including all new suggestions, will be compiled and distributed for review prior to the February 15th advisory committee workshop. A preliminary technical evaluation of each alternative, including CAAC discussions on the topics from this meeting, will also be prepared prior to the February 15th advisory committee workshop.
Announcements: Ideas for management alternatives to address the water resources issues in the watersheds can be submitted after the meeting. If at all possible, please submit them by February 10th so all ideas can undergo evaluation at the February 15th workshop. The next meeting of the CAAC will be from 9-3pm at the Ag Center on February 15th. The purpose of the workshop will be to evaluate and prioritize management recommendations.
Closing: Charlie thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting.
280 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Critical Area Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda 9:00pm-3:00pm, February 15, 2012: Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
The purpose of this Critical Area Advisory Committee workshop is to prioritize and evaluate management recommendations that were compiled at the January 11th advisory committee meeting.
Agenda: 9:00-9:10: Welcome and introductions ...... Charles Bennett, Chair 9:10-9:15: Big picture, role of this workshop in the CARP process ...... Heidi Moltz, ICPRB 9:15-10:30: Preliminary screening of management practices ...... Beverly Saunders, Grad Student This will include a very brief discussion (~2 min.) of each management practice to designate it as a “yes”, “no”, or “maybe”. Yes indicates everyone agrees that the practice is feasible or implementation of the practice is already underway. No indicates that no one thinks the practice is feasible and no more discussion is necessary. Maybe indicates the item requires additional discussion. The maybe category will be the primary focus of the remainder of the workshop. 10:30-10:40: Break 10:40-12:00: Evaluation of management practices...... Beverly Saunders, Grad Student Management practices will undergo and evaluation utilizing the six pillars of ILBM (for more information, see blog post from 12/20/2011). A combination of scoring and open-ended questions will comprise the evaluation of each practice. Priority in the order of evaluation will be given to the management practices designated as “maybe.” If time permits, the “yes” category will also be evaluated. 12:00-12:15: Lunch break (pizza and drinks provided) 12:15-1:50: Working lunch, Evaluation of management practices (cont’d) ...... Beverly Saunders, Grad Student 1:50-2:00: Break 2:00-2:55: Evaluation of management practices (cont’d) ...... Beverly Saunders, Grad Student 2:55-3:00: Closing remarks and next steps ...... Heidi Moltz, ICPRB
The next meeting of the Critical Area Advisory Committee will be Wednesday, April 11, 2012 from 1-3pm at the Ag Center. The CARP blog is online at http://www.marshrockwaterplan.blogspot.com/.
281 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Critical Area Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 9:00pm-3:00pm, February 15, 2012: Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
Attendees: Charlie Bennett, Pat Bowling, Mark Guise, Pat Naugle, Sarah Weigle, Adam McClain, Bicky Redman, Bill Chain, Mark Bream, Eric Flynn, Robert Reichart, John Brummer, Frank Skomorucha, Fran Koch, Jay Braund, Mike Hill, Beverly Saunders, Tom McCarty, Larry Redding, Charles Wilson, Al Ferranto, Joe McNally, Dean Shultz, Roger Steele, Pat Bowling, Hugh Lewis, Paul Kellett, Dejan Senic, Jim Palmer, Heidi Moltz
Handouts: Agenda, draft spreadsheet of management alternatives, preliminary background information for each management alternative
Welcome and introductions: Charlie Bennett thanked everyone for coming and welcomed the group. He used a stress ball and an onion to convey to the group that it would be important to work together to discuss and evaluate the management alternatives. Although everyone might not always agree, it is important to be respectful of other opinions. He also made the point that the Act 220 process has been underway for some years and that we are now in the stage of developing the recommendations for actions that can be taken to address the water resources concerns.
Big picture, role of workshop: Heidi Moltz discussed how this workshop fits in with the overall CARP process. Over the last several advisory committee meetings, the results of the technical analyses have been presented and feedback has been requested. The results of the technical evaluations were utilized to identify and quantify, where possible, the water resources issues in the watersheds. Then, a list of management alternatives was compiled that address the identified water resources issues, based on previous advisory committee discussions, literature reviews, and submissions from individual committee members and other stakeholders. The purpose of this workshop is to evaluate the list of management alternatives in terms of feasibility. After the workshop, additional technical evaluations of the management alternatives will be conducted to understand the ability of each management alternative to solve the water resources issues. Information gathered, in addition to the feasibility scores, will be utilized to develop the recommendations for the CARP document. Heidi noted that there is a lot of ground to cover during the workshop. This is a great problem to have because it means there are a lot of ideas on the table to evaluate. Getting through the entire list of management alternatives, however, will require that the discussion stays on track. She then provided an overview of the day. The first section of the morning will focus on screening management alternatives to identify those that will proceed, those that are not at all feasible, and those that require further discussion. The remainder of the day will focus on scoring and discussing the management recommendations that were designated for such. Heidi also introduced Dejan Senic, a graduate student from the University of the District of Columbia’s Professional Science Masters in Water Resources Management. His area of expertise is hydrogeology. Dejan will be working with ICPRB on the technical evaluation of management alternatives.
282 v.8/28/2012
Preliminary screening of management practices: Beverly Saunders, a graduate student from Texas State University-San Marcos reminded everyone that this workshop is utilizing an ILBM methodology. Two hard copies of an ILBM report were made available for workshop participants to read. This report is also available online104. Beverly reminded the group that many advisory committee members are representing a stakeholder group – so while personal perspectives on the management alternatives are valued, answers to questions need to represent the general feeling of the entire stakeholder group. Beverly then explained the screening process. Five groups of management alternatives were designated. Each group has an allocated amount of time for screening purposes. For each group, the following questions were asked: 1) Which practices in this group of management alternatives are not feasible? These management alternatives were designated as a “No.” They will not undergo further evaluation during the workshop. 2) Which practices in this group are going to proceed and are feasible? These management alternatives were designated as a “Yes” and did not undergo further evaluation during the workshop. 3) The rest of the practices in the group are considered maybes. Of the maybes, the following question was asked: Which practices in this group do you consider the most important for the group to discuss today? These were designated as high priority maybes to ensure that time would permit discussion of these items. The results of the screening process will be made available in the revised management alternative spreadsheet. The score column contains a Yes, No, or a numerical score. The numerical score is a result of the subsequent evaluation process and indicates that the alternative was considered a Maybe during the screening process.
Evaluation of management practices: Each of the management practices identified as a maybe was then scored in terms of information, funding, policies, institutions, stakeholders, and timeframe. The results of the scoring process enable management alternatives to be ranked numerically in terms of feasibility. The scoring definitions and the results of the scoring process will be provided in a separate document. Discussion notes on each management alternative will also be presented in a separate document.
Announcements: The next meeting of the CAAC will be from 1-3pm at the Ag Center on April 11th. Comments are welcome on any of the technical reports. They can be downloaded from the 1/4/2012 project blog posting. Or you can request a copy by calling 301.274.8116.
Closing: Pat Naugle, CAAC vice-chair, thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting.
104 http://www.potomacriver.org/2012/pacarp/Development_of_ILBM_Platform_Process.pdf, accessed 5/30/2012.
283 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Critical Area Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda 1:00pm-3:00pm, April 11, 2012: Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
The purpose of this Critical Area Advisory Committee meeting is to discuss CARP management recommendation prioritization and implementation. ICPRB will present on the preliminary development of CARP management recommendations from the list of brainstormed management alternatives. Feedback on the process used and the results obtained are encouraged. The meeting will also include a series of presentations on the implementation of management recommendations from various stakeholder perspectives.
Agenda: 1:00-1:05: Welcome and introductions ...... Charles Bennett, Chair 1:05-1:10: Approval of meeting minutes, comments from public ...... Charles Bennett, Chair 1:10-1:30: ICPRB update ...... Heidi Moltz/Jim Palmer, ICPRB Complete list of management alternatives → CARP recommendations; Next steps 1:30-2:55: Implementation of CARP management recommendations ...... Charles Bennett, Chair Objective: To encourage discussion on the implementation of CARP management recommendations, a series of speakers representing various stakeholder groups will present their perspectives on the following questions: 1) what management alternatives are of greatest interest to you or your stakeholder group, 2) what are the steps that you or folks in your stakeholder group will need to proceed with in order to implement the management alternatives, 3) from your perspective, what are the major benefits/drivers for implementation of the management recommendations, 4) what are the challenges that your stakeholder group faces in implementing the management alternatives, and 5) how, if possible, can the challenges be addressed/overcome?
Speakers (~15 min. each, including Q&A): Nick Colonna, Adams County Office of Planning and Development Joe McNally, Geoservices Ltd. Mark Guise, Gettysburg Municipal Authority Adam McClain, Adams County Conservation District
What are your answers to the five questions listed above? After presentations by the speakers, the floor will be open to hear from all meeting participants. Your involvement is encouraged!
2:55-3:00: Closing remarks ...... Charles Bennett, Chair
The next meeting of the Critical Area Advisory Committee will be Wednesday, July 11, 2012 from 1-3pm at the Ag Center. The CARP blog is online at http://www.marshrockwaterplan.blogspot.com/.
284 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Critical Area Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 1:00pm-3:00pm, April 11, 2012: Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
Attendees: Charlie Bennett, Pat Naugle, Charlie Skopic, Bicky Redman, Pat Bowling, Joe McNally, Sarah Weigle, Eric Flynn, Joe Breighner, Conrad Richter, Chris Kimple, Barry Towers, Bob Feister, Jay Braund, Dave Jostenski, Mike Hill, Sharon Sheppard, Duke Martin, Dean Shultz, John Jess, Mark Guise, Adam McClain, Paul Kellett, Andy Wilson, Nick Colonna, Hugh Lewis, Al Ferranto, Tom McCarty, Matt Genchur, Dejan Senic, Beverly Saunders, Jim Palmer, Heidi Moltz
Handouts: Meeting agenda, Draft management alternatives spreadsheet, Feasibility scoring of management alternatives by pillar spreadsheet, Draft technical report on CARP management recommendations, ACOPD perspectives on implementation of CARP management recommendations (attached), ACCD perspectives on implementation of CARP management recommendations (attached)
Welcome and introductions: Charlie Bennett, committee chair, welcomed everyone and asked for introductions from anyone who is new to the group. Andy Wilson from Gettysburg College introduced himself and said that he is participating on behalf of the College as the usual participants are not able to attend today. Bob Feister also introduced himself as new to the meetings and interested in the process.
Approval of meeting minutes: Charlie Bennett asked if the meeting minutes for the January quarterly meeting and the February workshop were acceptable as written. Hearing no objections, the meeting minutes were approved. Copies of both sets of meeting minutes can be found on the project blog.105
ICPRB update: Heidi Moltz shared that ICPRB has been working on compiling the scoring of management alternatives in the CWPA and utilizing those scores to develop a prioritized list of CARP management recommendations. As a reminder, a feasibility scoring process was conducted at the Feb 15th workshop. This consisted, firstly, of a screening process where ach management alternative was screened as a Yes, No, or Maybe. Yes meant the group agreed the alternative was feasible and/or was moving forward. No meant the alternative was not feasible and/or was not going to happen. Maybe’s were scored for feasibility utilizing 6 pillars, each worth 10 points each for total of 60 possible points. The highest possible score, Yes, was assigned a score of 60 while the lowest possible score, No, was assigned a zero. The results of the scoring process can be found in the most recent management alternatives spreadsheet and the pillars scoring spreadsheet, both of which are available on the blog. The feasibility score, however, only provides information on how feasible implementation of a particular management alternative is. Another important aspect of the management alternatives is whether they are able to address the water resource issues in the CWPA. To this end, a second scoring system has been developed that indicates well a management alternative addresses the problem. The results of this process are available in the
105 http://www.marshrockwaterplan.blogspot.com, accessed 5/30/2012.
285 v.8/28/2012
draft technical report on CARP management recommendations. The new score is called the technical score and ranges from 0-60. Both sets of scoring criteria (technical and feasibility) are outlined at the end of the report. The two scores are then summed to determine a total score for each management alternative. Using the results of the scoring process, draft CARP recommendations were identified. In the technical report, the alternatives are grouped by water resources issue (e.g. availability, storage, communication, policy and management, data, etc.). Within each issue, all management alternatives and a No Action alternative are ranked by the total score. For each water resources issue, alternatives that scored in the top two categories for each of the scoring criteria were selected as recommendations because they were considered both feasible and addressing issue at hand. The write-up shows the list of management recommendations (25 of them) Feedback was requested from the advisory committee on a couple of items. Firstly, does this approach to generating CARP recommendations seem reasonable? If not, it can be modified. If there are management alternatives that should be included in the recommendations that are not, they can be added. This may also be indicative that the approach to identifying recommendations should be reviewed. Also, do the technical scores look reasonable? If you disagree with any of the technical scores, please let us know. In terms of project next steps, additional work on wastewater reuse is underway with some additional funding from DEP and SRBC. The plan is to identify opportunities for implementation of wastewater reuse and pair them with appropriate technologies to add to the list of recommendations. If you know of wastewater reuse opportunities, please let us know. Draft CARP prepared by end of May (likely will be distributed to full committee in June) with review over summer – currently incorporating received comments – please submit any that you have. Discussion regarding the scoring process and the selection of management recommendations included the following. Mike Hill, DEP, asked for a more detailed explanation of the technical scoring process. Heidi pointed out that the technical scoring criteria are documented in the new draft technical report. Basically, it is a 0-60 scoring (to be of equal weight with the feasibility scoring) that defines several grades of measurable progress towards solving the water resources issue. Dave Jostenski, DEP, noted that the scoring process takes only the most significant of the management alternatives. Perhaps, some of the alternatives that take smaller, incremental steps towards the goal should be considered as well and may be part of the overall puzzle. Sharon Sheppard noted that land use planning with growth expectations must be developed with true natural resource capacities in mind. GMA, for example, wants to bring in additional water, but this isn’t true water budgeting (and that’s not GMA’s responsibility). These decisions need to be made in a multi-faceted way. Heidi responded that there are a couple of management alternatives dealing with comprehensive planning, zoning, etc. If there is some additional/modified language to reflect these thoughts in the alternatives, they can certainly be added. On this same topic, Nick Colonna suggested an identification of the core items needed to help implement management alternatives at different levels. These could be used as umbrella recommendations, with some of the more specific, detailed ones listed underneath. Charlie Bennett provided the example of Knouse Foods installing waterless urinals. If Knouse is the only organization that implements these efforts, there will be little overall impact, however, if it is one step towards many organizations implementing this technology in the watersheds, then there is the potential for a larger, cumulative impact on the overall problem. Pat Naugle pointed out that this has been a simplified process from the beginning and that many of the management alternatives are complex issues with multiple sides. Previous discussions of the alternatives have been limited in length and a full discussion is needed to evaluate the alternatives in all of their complexity. Heidi noted that an evaluation of the alternatives is underway (first draft presented at the last advisory committee meeting) and is aimed to address the multiple aspects of each alternative.
286 v.8/28/2012
Paul Kellett noted that the screening process may need to be expanded to look at the various impacts of each alternative. He said that under the current scoring system that application of DDT would have a high score. He also noted the need for time to discuss additional details of the bullets. Beverly Saunders said that perhaps the scoring system needs some way of including environmental sustainability. Pat Naugle said that he thinks the screening tool works, but the alternatives need to be looked at from multiple directions. Dave J. agreed that more details is needed in evaluation of alternatives with complexity of issues versus less complexity, perhaps different tiers of issues, so the final plan embodies a more extensive look at the complex issues. Again, Heidi pointed out that an evaluation of the alternatives is underway and is aimed to address the multiple aspects of each alternative. Dean Shultz noted the need to determine how to provide water for future development. A method is needed to determine sustainable water yields. This varies depending on geology.
Panel discussion - implementation of CARP management recommendations: Nick Colonna, Joe McNally, Mark Guise, and Adam McClain presented perspectives on implementation of the CARP recommendations. Nick began by saying that quality of life is a major consideration. From the county planning perspective, the primary component needs to be about outreach/education. The Planning Department is going to take on the Water Resource Element of the county plan. Nick also provided a handout with recommendations of interest from the county planning perspective (handout attached to meeting minutes). Interests include the locations of appropriate sources of water and wastewater and how to implement water and wastewater reuse. Joe McNally, Geoservices Ltd, said he speaks primarily from a technical perspective and has worked to develop water supplies and has worked on a study of Conewago Creek in the past. He thinks reliable raw data is essential for supported, accepted recommendations – whatever those recommendations end up being. Regarding data collection, Joe noted the importance of stream gages. Stream gages are very important because they allow you to look at baseflow, which relates to the understanding the water budget (mentioned earlier in the meeting). Joe also noted that groundwater recharge of hundreds of thousands of gallons per square mile occurs in the area. Groundwater can also be considered storage, but perhaps not a whole lot dependent on the geology. Joe also mentioned land preservation. Purchasing areas now for protection for future groundwater use may be important because a 400’ radius around the well is needed for a DEP permit. Once development occurs, identifying locations that meet this requirement and are good for groundwater development may be difficult. Preserving the land ahead of time is a proactive way of solving this problem. Mark Guise, GMA, said there are a lot of alternatives under consideration that are important, but a major interest of GMA is water conservation and education (school presentations, fliers, etc.) GMA’s daily production in the early 1990’s was 1.5MGD. In 2011, it was 1.2MGD. So, water is being conserved as the population continues to grow. But, as people conserve, revenues go down. Perhaps a way around this is to investigate rate structures that can encourage conservation and meet budgeting needs. Water storage in tanks is limited. This is recognized. Trying to find additional storage locations can be an issue – in some areas, for example, water quality becomes an issue. Or, storage may not be feasible before growth necessitates service to a particular area. On another note, GMA has been conducting water audits for about 15 years to try to understand metered sales versus daily production. So, what is the loss from the system? Recently, it averages around 15-17%. Soon, GMA will complete installation of new meters to all customers (residential, businesses, etc.) to help with water accounting. GMA is continuing to pursue importation of water and is continuing to undergo the preliminary studies. The original plan for the water importation was 1MGD average with a max of 3MGD. GMA is taking a new look at these numbers to see if lower numbers will work. This revolved around the water needs on the system.
287 v.8/28/2012
Adam McClain, Adams County Conservation District, highlighted management alternatives that are of particular interest to the Conservation District (handout attached to meeting minutes). He also noted that the county has no authority for adoption of ordinances, related to the ordinance alternatives, but the county could likely help with model ordinances. Municipalities are the ones to implement many of the alternatives. Perhaps most important type of alternative for the Conservation District is outreach, as noted from others. Nick Colonna noted that the benefits/drivers for CARP implementation for the Planning Office is that good understanding in the CWPA will benefit the county-wide efforts. Bicky Redman said that it is a challenge to look at preservation of large areas of land. To this end, she noted using the “Official Map” planning tool to designate areas for future water supply, thereby allowing municipalities the opportunity to purchase these areas in the future. Joe said that he was thinking about Zone 1 for a well (16-20 acres) rather than large tracts of land. These smaller areas may be more manageable than large scale land preservation. One recommendation is for a conservation easement. Bicky said that provided the language is inserted into the easement agreement ahead of time, then it’s acceptable to put a well in an easement area. Pat Naugle pointed out that when we pull water out of wells, it often doesn’t make it back to the stream. It is important to plan for aquatic life use too. SRBC has new proposed guidance system based on 70% exceedance. There is a need to protect the ecosystem uses. Joe McNally noted that sometimes it is not considered because of problems, but there is a need for a whole process of investigation of potential resources while protecting ecosystems. Pat said that sometimes the best use/reuse of water is putting it back into the stream. Nick Colonna pointed out the need to put broad things on top with the screening tool, then all the details fall out under them. He thinks this is the reason why the screening system works. Sharon H. asked who performs the source water protection plans. Can this information be shared with municipalities to incorporate into local plans? Because municipalities are the only ones that can legitimately implement the recommendations - the county is an advisory entity. There is concern about the way to coordinate all of the different aspects so we’re not back here again. Charlie B. noted that if this process succeeds, then good. But once the door is open we may be involved forever. Nick pointed out that we can cultivate recommendations into framework where possible so we’re not back here in this same capacity. Charlie said that approximately 15 watersheds were originally nominated for CWPAs. This process is part of the tool, an example, for solving the other areas’ issues as well. Pat Bowling said that source water assessments were supposed to be widely distributed, but since 9/11, we have to be careful about how that information is shared. In a well’s zone 1 area, activities are precluded that are not related to drinking water protection. But conservation reserve program can be used for automatic wellhead protection enrollment. The program could be used to compensate agricultural operators for taking land out of protection. A 2000’ buffer is required in PA, but there are none or only very few examples in state. Perhaps this is an underutilized program. Charlie said that Arendtsville and Biglerville have source water protection efforts currently underway. It helps to seat municipalities on the committee. Also may help to have municipalities on GMA committee. The interconnection pipe is an issue that affects everyone here. Currently people are charged more water for increased water use (graduated charge). Tiered water use could encourage conservation which may help meet SRBC requirements for interconnection. Mark Guise said that GMA currently has a usage (flat) scale, but have to do some research on use of stepping scales. Investigations have already continued and may continue to be done. It was then asked whether GMA has considered a cap and trade system. Mark said no.
288 v.8/28/2012
A question was asked to the Planning Office about the greenspace program. Specifically, do people conserving land get tax break? Nick responded that the county can recommend this, but they don’t have the authority to implement it. A question was asked of GMA as to whether they have considered getting a balanced culture on GMA board (currently pro growth, economic growth, etc.). Mark says he doesn’t necessarily agree with this statement but that there are ongoing conservations about who is seated on the board. Board members have to understand municipal law, etc. you can’t just seat anybody. Folks that are appointed are seated elected officials from Gettysburg Borough. Charlie asked the panel about well testing to determine impacts on streams. If a new well is drilled, what type of study should be conducted (e.g. 24 hour pump test, flows then ok, etc.) for either public or private wells? Mark said that from the public well standpoint, he would recommend a 48-72 hour pump test with monitoring of nearby wells. Joe said that for municipal wells, SRBC has a good program in place that includes a description of how wells should be tested, rates, monitoring, availability (recharge, recharge area, etc.), etc. Private wells, at a minimum, need well construction standards (HB 1855). Nick said it is important to look at impacts of long term sustainability to meet environmental demands. Adam said that well construction standards for residential wells would be an improvement and that public suppliers already do this. Private well yield tests might be too expensive. Joe said it would be helpful to have some background study (e.g. well drilling in diabase). There are costs to the county residents and water users for the GMA-York Water interconnection. What information is there about increased cost of water from York versus other methods? Mark said that there is an economic impact of connecting the two companies by pipe, then there is the cost of paying for the daily water usage. The initial costs of the pipeline are estimated at $2-$2.5 million. The ongoing cost for the water transfer may be approximately $250,000-$300,000 per year for about 150,000 gallons/day. Bringing water into the CWPA is to improve redundancy, reliability, sustainability in the system. But GMA does not cover the entire CWPA area, only one portion. It was also asked whether the new water transfer could be cut off due to water restrictions/droughts in the Susquehanna. If water is stopped, then what happens to the development that depends on it? Mark and Charlie agree that this is one potential issue with the transfer. Charlie said that it is recognized that the transfer is a crutch, but at least GMA is working towards the long-term sustainability of the system. Pat Bowling asked what the cost is to install and permit a new public supply well. Mark said the cost is approximately $1 million. Charlie said that the cost for industrial wells with SRBC compliance is approximately $30,000. Paul Kellett asked how many rate payers the GMA system currently has. Mark said approximately 4,000. Sharon H. pointed out that GMA is a water supplier and is not responsible for watershed planning. Dave Jostenski said that currently, the area is still under normal conditions, but surface water conditions are deteriorating in terms of drought. But there is no significant precipitation expected in the near future. Future declarations are also under consideration – committee meetings are being initiated. The monitoring portion of the DEP webpage has current conditions while the drought map doesn’t change until formal declarations are made. It was also noted that a sustainability factor should be considered in the management alternative screening process.
Announcements: If you have any comments regarding the management alternative screening process or if you would like additional details regarding any of the management alternatives included in the evaluation, please submit the information at your earliest convenience via email to [email protected]; phone (301.274.8116); or mail to ICPRB, 51 Monroe St PE-08, Rockville, MD 20850.
289 v.8/28/2012
The next advisory committee meeting will be Wednesday, July 11 from 1-3pm at the Ag Center.
Closing: Charlie thanked everyone for attending and pointed out that there were comments heard at today’s meeting that have not been voiced before, which is great. He then closed the meeting.
290 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Combined Critical Area Advisory Committee and Potomac Regional Committee Meeting Agenda 1:00pm-3:00pm, July 11, 2012: Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
The purpose of this meeting is to introduce and discuss the draft CARP106 and the document review process and timeline. Revisions to the document are expected based on feedback received from DEP, the CAAC, the Potomac Regional Committee, and the general public. Future meeting dates, times, and objectives will also be determined.
Agenda: 1:00-1:05: Welcome and introductions ...... Charles Bennett, Chair 1:05-1:10: Approval of meeting minutes...... Charles Bennett, Chair 1:10-1:30: Introduction, draft CARP ...... Charles Bennett, Chair 1:30-1:50: Draft CARP review process and timeline ...... Jay Braund, DEP Establish upcoming meeting dates, times, and objectives (August 23 and September 27 ?) 1:50-2:55: Open discussion, draft CARP ...... All Objective: To obtain initial feedback from meeting attendants on the draft CARP and to provide clarification on any questions. 2:55-3:00: Closing remarks ...... Charles Bennett, Chair
106 The draft CARP is available for download at http://www.potomacriver.org/2012/pacarp/DRAFT_CARP_061512.pdf, accessed 8/28/2012.
291 v.8/28/2012
Marsh and Rock Creek Watersheds Critical Area Resource Plan Combined Critical Area Advisory Committee and Potomac Regional Committee Meeting Minutes 1:00pm-3:00pm, July 11, 2012: Ag Center, 670 Old Harrisburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA 17325
Attendees: Charlie Bennett, Al Ferranto, Bob Reichart, Bill Reichart, Conrad Richter, Charles Wilson, Barry Stone, Barbara Underwood, Mike Christopher, Sarah Weigle, Coleen Reamer, Bicky Redman, Phyllis Chant, David Jostenski, Mike Hill, Jay Braund, Ron Stanley, Dean Shultz, Patrick Bowling, Don MacAskill, Susan Naugle, Pat Naugle, Nick Colonna, Aaron Jolin, Matt Genchur, Wayne Belt, Joseph Breighner, Bill Hanne, Vy Trinh, Adam McClain, Sladjana Prozo, Charles Skopic, Jeff Hines, Mark Guise, Joe McNally, Jim Richenderfer, Dejan Senic, Jim Palmer, Heidi Moltz
Handouts: Meeting agenda, two hard copies of the draft CARP107, draft Adams County planning targets for the Phase II Chesapeake WIP108
Welcome and introductions: Charlie Bennett, chair, welcomed the CAAC and Potomac Regional Committee members as well any guest participants. He noted that the CAAC has been very busy since development of the Marsh/Rock CARP began in 2010 and extended a special welcome to the Potomac Regional Committee. Charlie pointed out that there are many different groups represented in the room and that it would be beneficial to do a round of introductions. Each meeting participant then introduced themselves to the group.
Approval of meeting minutes: Charlie Bennett asked if the meeting minutes for the April CAAC meeting were acceptable as written. Bob Reichart made a motion to approve the meeting minutes and Pat Naugle seconded the motion. Hearing no objections, the meeting minutes were approved. An electronic version of the April meeting minutes can be found on the project blog.109
Introduction to the CARP: Charlie Bennett said that the Act 220 process has been underway for years and that at the start no one knew what a CARP would look like. And now, we have a draft CARP in hand. So this is what a CARP can look like. But this is still just the beginning of the review and approval process. The draft CARP will undergo review by the Potomac Regional committee, formal review by organizations identified in the legislation (e.g. municipalities, planning office, etc.), public review, and review by the Statewide Committee. Heidi Moltz, ICPRB, then provided a brief status update. She pointed out that over the series of CAAC meetings, each technical analysis has been reviewed and comments have been received and incorporated from the CAAC. The interim reports were then concatenated to create the draft CARP. To this end, there are only a couple of significant changes since the version of the technical reports that the CAAC last saw. Those changes include the following. First, based on comments received from the last committee meeting, the cut-off threshold for CARP management recommendations was changed to leave lower scoring management recommendations in the CARP because the smaller actions might end up making a big difference to the watersheds when looked at cumulatively. The higher scoring recommendations became Tier 1 and the lower scoring recommendations
107 http://www.potomacriver.org/2012/pacarp/DRAFT_CARP_061512.pdf 108 http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/chesapeake_bay_program/10513/draft_county_planning_targets_fo r_the_phase_2_chesapeake_wip/1191702 109 http://www.marshrockwaterplan.blogspot.com/
292 v.8/28/2012
became Tier 2. Secondly, comments received at the last CAAC meeting also requested additional evaluations of the management alternatives. To achieve this, the draft CARP now includes the numeric scoring, a qualitative evaluation of the management alternatives, and a tabular presentation of considerations suggested by DEP (e.g. social, economic, and land use factors). Also, there is an increased consideration of ecological factors in the qualitative evaluations. Finally, the handling of the GMA-York Water interconnection was modified – see discussion notes below. Heidi also noted that revisions to the CARP from today’s discussion will be made in the next week or so and a new version will be posted to the blog and distributed to the committee in electronic version. The next version will also include a version of today’s meeting minutes and an appendix evaluating wastewater reuse opportunities in the CWPA. On another note, the draft Adams County planning targets for the Phase II Chesapeake WIP110 were released by DEP. The document contains nutrient planning targets for Adams County and BMPs that may be implemented to address these targets. It is interesting to note that a number of the BMPs recommended for Adams County to achieve water quality goals are also recommendations being made in the draft CARP. Several handouts of the document were distributed. Heidi then asked if there were any questions or comments from the group at this point. It was asked whether any hard copies of the draft CARP would be made available. Heidi noted that two hard copies were on hand at the meeting for anyone to look through. Those copies would be given to Adam McClain to be housed at the Conservation District for committee members and/or the public to review. It was discussed whether this is a sufficient number of hard copies. DEP agreed to print 20 copies to make available to committee members and the public and 1 copy to be made available at the library. It was also asked if an environmental sustainability component was included in the scoring system for the management recommendations. Heidi said that the qualitative evaluation of the management recommendations now includes a discussion of sustainability components where applicable. Environmental sustainability was not included as a scoring criterion because of the lack of consensus on a definition for “environmental sustainability” and a readily available way to assign a numeric score to this attribute. It was asked whether reservoirs are included in the draft CARP management recommendations. Heidi responded that they are included in the recommendations. In addition, investigations of the feasibility of three potential reservoir sites are underway by Paul Kellett.
Draft CARP review process and timeline: Jay Braund, DEP, noted that there are regulatory obligations for CARP review and approval. The Potomac Regional Committee needs to approve the document, local governments and other entities identified in the legislation need to have a 45 day formal review period, the Statewide Committee also will be reviewing the document. A decision needs to be made by the committees about when is the best time to hold the required meetings. A discussion ensued about the regulatory review requirements so that the group would understand what the options are. It was determined that the Potomac Regional Committee would meet in mid-late August to discuss the draft CARP. A Doodle survey will be distributed to Potomac Regional Committee members to find an agreeable date when a quorum can be reached. Once the Potomac Regional Committee feels comfortable with the document, it will be released for formal review by municipalities and others and a public meeting will be scheduled.
110 http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/chesapeake_bay_program/10513/draft_county_planning_targets_fo r_the_phase_2_chesapeake_wip/1191702
293 v.8/28/2012
Marsh/Rock tentative meeting schedule – for discussion. Final meeting dates to be determined.
During the discussion, it was also recommended that the document be distributed to local organizations for formal 45 day review both in hard copy and electronically. It was also noted that when the draft CARP is released, it should be as final as possible while allowing for modifications based comments received.
CARP discussion: The floor was then opened for comments and discussion on the draft CARP. The question was raised about how the GMA-York Water interconnection is handled in the CARP. Heidi noted that in the last version of the management alternative document that was reviewed by the committee, the interconnection was a high scoring recommendation. Because the interconnection is a decision being made between GMA, York Water, and SRBC, it was suggested to move this to a separate category (not a formal CARP recommendation). So, in the revised version of the CARP the interconnection is listed as a potential activity in the watershed, not a management recommendation. The approach to the presentation of the interconnection is to state the facts (e.g. amount of the transfer and amount of the water deficits) and then describe the differing viewpoints that have been obtained from committee members. Some meeting participants voiced concerns with removing the interconnection from the list of management recommendations – throwing the baby out with the bath water. Mark Guise, GMA, suggested moving it back to the recommendations as a more general activity like “importation of water.” The GMA-York Water interconnection could be listed as an example of a proposed importation activity. Investigating importation of water is part of the DEP CARP guidance. Dean Shultz asked about the recommendation for developing a common municipal approach for permitting development requests based on sustainable groundwater yield studies. He is interested in seeing a proposed methodology, rather than just a recommendation for a methodology. Heidi said the current document provides resources for methodologies that already exist and a recommendation for identification/implementation of a common methodology appropriate in the CWPA municipalities, taking into account not only technical factors but also the social, economic, and political factors. Ultimately it is a decision of which methodology is most agreeable from the perspective of the municipalities, where adoption of the ordinance would ultimately occur. It was discussed that perhaps a meeting with the engineers for the municipalities would be beneficial. The point was made that a common approach may be developed for the CWPA, but there is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem due to variability in the watershed and aquifer characteristics. The SRBC methodology is provided as one example for a sustainable yield analysis in the draft CARP. Jim Richenderfer, SRBC, pointed out that they are looking for an improved methodology. He applauds the conversation that is taking place and noted the importance of this issue for water resources management. The question was asked by two committee members about how county and municipal planning as well as zoning relate to development and implementation of the CARP. Nick Colonna, ACOPD, responded to the question by saying that the outcome of the CARP process will be used to inform ongoing and future planning efforts to understand what the impact on water resources is and what tool(s) need to be put into place in consideration of these issues. He also noted that the policies to be developed may come out of the CARP and/or use information/recommendations from the CARP, but are not necessarily contained within the CARP. The draft CARP may ultimately be used to inform and assist with county-wide planning in addition to CWPA planning.
294 v.8/28/2012
Barb Underwood noted that traditionally there is push-back from municipalities if the county says to do something. The CARP needs to be something new so that the recommendations are not pushed away but are actually implemented. Another suggestion arose from the group that engineering results might be more readily accepted if they’ve been hired by the municipalities, but what if the different engineers come up with different results. People know or are realizing that Adams County has water issues and they’re listening, but there could be lots of different viewpoints. Engineers themselves have different areas of interest and specialization. Maybe it would be helpful if the county had a person on staff that could spend time with the different municipalities to assist with this type of work. Bill Reichart pointed out that perhaps developers should be required to pay fees for independent investigation. The approach will necessarily vary from place to place because every situation is different. Water resources analyses have inherent uncertainty that typically arrives at plausible ranges of values rather than a discrete answer to the problem. A key factor for analysis may be to choose a larger factor of conservancy like designing for a 75 year drought rather than a 50 year drought. Bob Reichart said there is no answer to what you’re seeking (a one-size-fits-all approach to groundwater sustainability analysis). Many different methods have been tried. Geology is highly variable and groundwater availability is variable depending on meteorological conditions, etc. No one ultimate answer is available. A municipal complaint to this was voiced that the only way to battle development is through water or sewer. But the analyses are based on “voodoo water law.” Bob Reichart responded that he disagrees with the concept of “voodoo water law.” For example, Darcy made many contributions to the understanding an analysis of groundwater availability. But in specific applications, the analyses may depend on data that is insufficient or based on something wrong like the period of collection (wet v dry time periods). It was noted that it is necessary to get all municipalities at the table to agree to what they can and want to do in order to develop a consistent ordinance for all municipalities. It has been done in other counties. It is possible. And perhaps the benefit of the economic downturn is the ability to get ahead of the building curve in order to have a chance to take proactive steps. Charlie Skopic noted that the interconnection is a two edge sword, with pros and cons, and that both of these perspectives should be included. The pro is that it brings additional water into the watersheds and may serve to alleviate the water deficit. The con is that it may throw the impetus off of planning because the water will be available from the “big pipe.” It was asked if water conservation and the exclusion of open loop geothermal wells were included in the management recommendations. Both of these actions are included in the draft CARP recommendations. Charlie Bennett brought up for the benefit of the Potomac Regional Committee that it has been discussed at a number of CAAC meetings whether the CWPA should be treated differently than other places because of its designation – from DEP regulatory authority or other regulations.
Announcements: Up-to-date information about the CARP, including the electronic version of the draft CARP, is available on the blog at http://www.marshrockwaterplan.blogspot.com/.
Closing: Charlie Bennett thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting.
295