Brandywine Creek
Watershed Action Plan
Note: This Plan is being made available as an intermediate step in the development of the Brandywine Creek Watershed Conservation Plan by the Brandywine Valley Association.
December 2002 Mission Watersheds Statement To protect, sustain, and enhance the quality and quantity of all water resources to insure the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens, and preserve the diverse natural resources and aesthetic and recreational assets of Chester County and its watersheds.
Disclaimer The maps, data and information presented herein were compiled by the Chester County Water Resources Authority for the County of Chester, PA and are hereby referenced to the Chester County, Pennsylvania Water Resources Compendium (2001). These information and data are pro- vided for reference and planning purposes only. This document is based on and presents the best information available at the time of the preparation.
Funding Partners Chester County and the Chester County Water Resources Authority express their appreciation to those entities who provided financial support for this effort. This project was funded by: • Chester County Board of Commissioners. • Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation, Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund Program. • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program. • Brandywine Valley Association and William Penn Foundation. • U. S. Geological Survey.
Chester County Board of Commissioners Karen L. Martynick, Chairman Colin A. Hanna Andrew E. Dinniman Watershed Action Plan
December 2002
Prepared by:
Chester County Water Resources Authority Chester County Planning Commission Camp Dresser and McKee Gaadt Perspectives, LLC
Prepared as a component of: Chester County, Pennsylvania Water Resources Compendium
______Prepared under a Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Grant funded by Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Table of Contents
Section 1. Watershed Setting ...... 1
Section 2. Planning Framework...... 3
Section 3. Watershed Characteristics ...... 5 Population ...... 5 Land Use ...... 5 Impervious Cover...... 5 Geology ...... 5 Watershed Water Budgets...... 6 Ground Water Balances ...... 7 DE River Basin Commission Southeastern PA Ground Water Protected Area ...... 9 Ground Water Quality ...... 9 Stream Water Quality ...... 9 State Water Protected Use Designations...... 10 Stream Water Quality Assessments – Impaired Waters ...... 11 Total Maximum Daily Load Regulations ...... 11 Nonpoint Source Pollutant Loads ...... 11 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Regulations....12 Biological Diversity Monitoring...... 12 Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index (PNDI) ...... 13 Cultural, Recreational and Historic Resources ...... 13 First Order Streams...... 14 Land Use Analysis within Stream Corridors ...... 14 Sources of Water Supplies...... 15 Surface Water Withdrawals and Discharges...... 16 Integrated Water Resources Planning to Meet Future Needs ...... 16
Section 4. Watershed Management Needs and Priorities ...... 19 Inventory of Watershed Management Needs...... 19 Watershed and Subbasin Priorities ...... 19
Section 5. Priority Watershed Management Objectives and Actions ...... 22 Goals and Objectives ...... 22 Recommended Priority Management Actions...... 23 Other Recommended Management Actions ...... 23 Ongoing Initiatives...... 23
Section 6. Indicators of Progress ...... 24 Landscapes Indicators ...... 24 Watersheds Indicators ...... 24
Section 7. References ...... 25
Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan i Tables 1 Subbasins within the Watershed 2 Snapshot of Watershed Characteristics 3 Population – 1998 Estimates and 2020 Projections by Subbasin 4 Land Use in the Watershed 5 Percent Impervious Cover by Subbasin 6 Estimated 1998 Net Ground Water Withdrawals by Subbasin 7 Protected Water Use Designations 8 Listing of Impaired Streams (PA and DE) 9 Average Yearly Brillouin’s Diversity Index Values for the Watershed 10 PNDI Sites Located Within the Watershed 11 Inventory of Mapped County and State Owned Recreational Resources 12 Inventory of Mapped Historic Resources 13 First Order Stream Miles 14 Drainage Areas to First Order Streams 15 Land Use Within Corridors of First Order Streams - East Branch Brandywine Creek Subbasins 16 Land Use Within Corridors of First Order Streams - West Branch Brandywine Creek Subbasins 17 Land Use Within Corridors of First Order Streams - Main Stem Subbasins 18 Land Use Within Corridors of Higher Order Streams - East Branch Brandywine Creek Subbasins 19 Land Use Within Corridors of Higher Order Streams - West Branch Brandywine Creek Subbasins 20 Land Use Within Corridors of Higher Order Streams - Main Stem Subbasins 21 Estimated Annual Water Withdrawals and Future Needs by Subbasin – 1998 and 2020 22 List of Small Community Water Systems (shown on Figure 23) 23 Inventory of Watershed Management Needs 24 Subbasin Priorities 25 Recommended Priority Management Actions 26 Components of the Landscapes Index 27 New Watersheds Indicators for Landscapes Index
Figures 1 Basemap of Watershed 2 Subbasins 3 Municipalities within the Watershed 4 Inventory of Problems and Potential Concerns 5 Stream Resources and Competing Water Uses 6 1995 Land Use 7 Estimated Percent Impervious Cover in Subbasins - 1998 8 Generalized Geology 9 1998 Net Ground Water Withdrawals as a Percent of the 1 in 25 Year Average Annual Baseflow
ii Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan Figures (continued) 10 2020 Net Ground Water Withdrawals as a Percent of the 1 in 25 Year Average Annual Baseflow 11 Municipalities Located within the DRBC Ground Water Protected Area 12 State Protected Water Use Designations 13 Municipalities Required to Implement NPDES Phase II Regulations 14 Location of USGS Biological Monitoring Sites 15 Cultural, Recreational and Historic Resources 16 Drainage Areas of First Order Streams 17 Land Use Within One-Quarter Mile Corridor of First Order Streams 18 Land Use Within One-Quarter Mile Corridor of Higher Order Streams 19 Recommended Integrated Water Resources Planning Regions 20 Recommended Net Ground Water Withdrawal Management Thresholds 21 Chester County Areas of Planned Growth and Future Needs - Water 22 Chester County Areas of Planned Growth and Future Needs - Wastewater 23 Community Water Supply Systems Operating Within or Near Chester County
Appendices A Water Balance Data Sheet B Watershed and Subbasin Data Sheets C Watershed and Subbasin Nonpoint Source Loadings Data Sheets D Additional Recommendations of Management Actions E Ongoing Initiatives
Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan iii Section 1. Watershed Setting
The Brandywine Creek watershed has several primary characteristics that lay the foundation for the priority management needs:
S The land use of the watershed is approximately equally represented by wooded, developed, and agricultural lands. S The watershed is a source of public drinking water supplies for much of Chester County, Pennsylvania and New Castle County, Delaware. S In several areas, surface and ground water quality suffers from current and historic pollutant runoff from developed and agricultural lands, resulting in 140 miles (or 25% of total stream miles) listed by Pennsylvania and Delaware as “impaired” waters. S Extensive growth (27% population increase) is projected within the watershed over the next 20 years. S The watershed includes an extensive assembly of natural, historic, cultural and recreational features, making the watershed and all of its resources collectively a significant and important regional resource.
The Brandywine Creek watershed is located in the central portion of the study area and while the majority of the watershed is located within Chester County, there are headwaters in northeastern Lancaster County (PA), and the watershed includes portions of Delaware County (PA) and northern New Castle County (DE) as shown in Figure 1. It consists of fifteen subbasins covering about 325 square miles (Figure 2 and Table 1) and flows into the Christina River at Wilmington, Delaware. All together, there are 48 municipalities in the two states that are either fully or partially within the watershed, as illustrated in Figure 3. The Brandywine Creek is part of the Christina River Basin, which flows into the Delaware River at Wilmington, Delaware.
As summarized in Table 2, major land use groups within the Brandywine Creek watershed include a mix of agricultural, with 37% of the land area, developed (26%) and other (37%) uses. The estimated population for the Brandywine Creek watershed in 1998 is 220,700. This is about 1.1 people per acre (680 people per square mile). In 2020, the projected population in the watershed is 281,000 or an increase of 27% from the 1998 estimate.
Approximately 25% of the stream segments in the watershed have been identified by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and State of Delaware as not meeting their designated water use due to runoff from developed and agricultural lands. These “impaired” streams must be addressed and the sources and causes of the impairments need to be resolved. In addition, a 27% increase in growth is projected for the watershed by 2020, raising concerns about additional stormwater and pollutant runoff problems and increased flooding. Based on data available in 1998, estimated impervious cover in the watershed is 11% and is estimated to increase to over 13% by 2020 due to population growth. Agricultural operations have been a major historical and current land use, resulting in nonpoint source pollutant runoff in several areas of the watershed. Ongoing efforts by numerous agencies and agricultural operators have made significant progress in reducing agricultural runoff in the watershed, but much more reduction is needed. The watershed serves as a major source of drinking water supplies with four reservoirs and several public water supply wells that provide water supply to much of Chester and New Castle Counties. Thus, collectively, the priority management needs and actions must provide source water protection throughout the watershed. Figure 4 presents the problems and concerns identified in Brandywine Creek watershed.
Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan 1 A watershed-wide inter-agency effort is currently underway to develop estimates of nonpoint source pollutant loadings that can be assimilated by the streams in the watershed while still achieving the states’ designated uses of each stream segment. The development of these loadings (referred to as Total Maximum Daily Loads, or TMDLs) are under development by U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DE-DNREC), Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in conjunction with county agencies, conservation districts, conservation organizations, and other entities, to reduce nutrients and bacteria levels.
In addition to the problems identified, the Brandywine Creek watershed has many significant resources that provide benefits to the community and environment that must be protected and preserved. As discussed above, the four reservoirs, Chambers Lake Reservoir, Hoopes Reservoir, Marsh Creek Reservoir, and Rock Run Reservoir, are regional public drinking water supply reservoirs for central Chester County and Northern New Castle County. Six surface water intakes and numerous public water supply wells are located within the watershed for public water supplies. The watershed also has areas that contain or may contain rare and endangered species as noted in the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index (PNDI). Beaver Creek is designated as naturally reproducing trout waters. Brandywine Creek is designated as a PA Scenic River from the PA-DE state line upstream to Mortonville Dam (West Branch Brandywine Creek) and to Downingtown (East Branch Brandywine Creek). The headwaters of the watershed are designated as High Quality waters, and Broad Run is designated as an Exceptional Value watershed. Virtually hundreds of historic resources dot the watershed, evidence of the economic development of the 18th and 19th centuries as numerous mills were built to utilize the extensive water power found in high gradient streams of the watershed. Figure 5 presents the mapped resources and competing needs identified in Brandywine Creek watershed.
A more comprehensive description of the characteristics of Brandywine Creek watershed is presented in Section 3: Watershed Characteristics. Unless otherwise noted, all data and information presented in this document are taken from the Chester County, Pennsylvania Water Resources Compendium (Chester County Water Resources Authority, 2001).
2 Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan Section 2. Planning Framework
One of the most challenging aspects to those working in watershed protection is to determine which areas are most in need of their efforts, and what strategies will yield the most benefit to the watershed. The information presented here is intended to summarize key information on watershed characteristics, present results from various analyses that were conducted and described in the Chester County, Pennsylvania Water Resources Compendium, and to develop a broad structure of goals and priorities that reflect the needs and challenges for the watershed consistent with the guidance and framework of the Chester County Watersheds Plan.
It is important to recognize that the goals and priorities presented here are intended to be flexible and change over time. The value of this Watershed Action Plan will decrease over time unless the citizen groups, watershed organizations, land trusts, municipalities, and other governmental organizations communicate and work together to make revisions and improvements where possible. With that in mind, strong efforts to coordinate watershed planning and implementation must be stressed.
The purpose of the Watersheds Plan is to provide a framework of guidance and implementation strategies to achieve the following seven goals:
S Engage and Educate Individuals, Communities and Governments in Watershed Stewardship. S Enhance Water-Based Recreational and Cultural Resources. S Preserve Natural Resources. S Improve Water Quality. S Reduce Stormwater Runoff and Flooding. S Protect Watershed Water Balances. S Integrate Utility and Municipal Planning to Meet Future Water Supply and Wastewater Needs.
Watersheds was adopted by the Chester County Board of Commissioners in September 2002 as the water resources element of Landscapes, Chester County’s comprehensive plan. In 1996, the Chester County Board of Commissioners adopted Landscapes as the County’s comprehensive plan policy document. The vision of Landscapes is to “preserve and enhance the unique character of Chester County’s landscapes by concentrating growth in the most appropriate areas.” Landscapes sets forth a vision of the growth patterns of Chester County based on public input. It also includes goals and related policies that lay the foundation for the protection and use of the County’s natural resources, including (among other goals):
S Resources Goal – to sustain and enhance the natural, scenic, and historic resources for the benefit of current and future generations while accommodating planned growth. S Utilities Goal – to provide utility facilities and services to meet all needs in the County, protect the environment and public health, and support development consistent with the future landscapes pattern.
Watersheds builds upon these goals and provides detailed recommendations for all stakeholders to enhance and protect the natural water resources of the County’s watersheds. This includes better management of water for domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, and natural uses. On a broader scale, the intent is to accommodate existing land uses and planned growth in a manner that maintains or re-establishes the natural hydrologic characteristics of the
Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan 3 watersheds. Furthermore, we must strive to preserve and protect the historic and cultural resources, scenic rivers, and areas of natural habitats and diversity that comprise the County’s natural landscape and character.
The inter-related nature of water and society, and the need to involve all stakeholders, present overlapping and complex challenges. Sound planning can provide effective, achievable strategies that are based on sound science, Landscapes, local land use planning, and Pennsylvania’s existing regulatory framework.
The Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan was prepared as part of the Chester County, Pennsylvania Water Resources Compendium to assist in implementation of the Chester County Watersheds Plan. The Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan is part of a series of action plans developed for each of the 15 major watersheds that are part of the Compendium study area, and collectively the action plans represent Part 4 of the Compendium.
The Compendium, Watersheds, and this Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan were prepared to provide the planning and strategies necessary to accommodate existing land use and planned growth in a manner that is consistent with the natural characteristics of our streams and aquifers, and to sustain:
S ground water recharge, S stream baseflows, S stable stream channels, S the flood-carrying capacity of streams and their floodplains, S the water quality of streams and ground water, and S riparian and aquatic living resources.
Brandywine Creek watershed has the benefit of a long-established watershed association (Brandywine Valley Association (BVA)) to coordinate overall implementation of watershed management actions and public participation. The organization is currently managed by a small staff and has a large volunteer base. The long-term viability of this organization and the long-term success of watershed-wide cooperative implementation strategies will be greatly facilitated by maintaining the staff to lead watershed stewardship. This Watershed Action Plan includes numerous recommendations for implementation by numerous entities. However, the role of this citizen-based non-governmental watershed organization has been demonstrated to be a key asset to truly successful long-term watershed management efforts.
Through this Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan, substantial data, conclusions, and summaries of analyses are presented. All data, information and mapping presented herein were compiled by the Chester County Water Resources Authority for the County of Chester, PA and are hereby referenced to the Chester County, Pennsylvania Water Resources Compendium (published 2001), unless otherwise stated. These information and data are provided for reference and planning purposes only. This document is based on, and presents, the best information available at the time of preparation.
4 Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan Section 3. Watershed Characteristics
Population Population estimates for the Brandywine Creek watershed indicate that the watershed has approximately 220,700 people as of 1998. This is about 1.1 people per acre (680 people per square mile). In 2020, the projected population in the watershed is 281,000 or an increase of 27% from the 1998 estimate. Table 3 presents the breakdown by subbasin of the population within the watershed.
Land Use Major land use groups within the Brandywine Creek watershed includes a mix of agricultural, with 37% of the land area, wooded (31%), and single-family residential (19%) uses. Table 4 and Figure 6 present the percent of land area within the watershed in each land use category.
Impervious Cover One way to evaluate the impacts of land use on the health of a watershed is to evaluate the pervious and impervious land cover in the watershed. Generally, where impervious surfaces (pavement, concrete, rooftops, etc.) cover less than 10% of the land area, the watershed functions well and supports sensitive resources. As the percent of impervious surface area increases above 10%, impacts to both water quantity and quality occur. Watersheds with more than 20% of the land area covered with impervious surfaces often show flow patterns and water quality that are indicative of a degraded (or impaired) watershed.
The percent of impervious cover for the entire watershed is estimated to be 10.9% in 1998 (Figure 7). It is projected to increase by 2.3% to 13.3% by 2020. The estimates of percent impervious cover for each subbasin within the watershed for 1998 and 2020 are presented in Table 5.
Geology The geology of the Brandywine Creek watershed is mostly crystalline rocks with a band of carbonate rocks in the north-central part of the watershed (Figure 8). The predominant geologic rock types found in the watershed are described below:
S Crystalline Geology: Ground water in crystalline rocks moves through intergranular openings in the weathered zone, and through a network of interconnecting secondary openings (fractures and joints) in the unweathered rock. Permeability of the unweathered rock depends on the number and size of the fractures, as well as how well interconnected they are. The ground water table reflects the topography of the land, and the ground water flow is usually local, with streams acting as the discharge points. Usually the ground water and surface water divides coincide. In general, well yields for the crystalline rocks are significantly lower than well yields in other geologic formations.
S Carbonate Geology: Ground water in carbonate rocks flows through a network of secondary openings (fractures and solution cavities) in the rock that are enlarged as the carbonate rock is dissolved by flowing water. Fractures can vary from a fraction of an inch wide to several feet wide, and are capable of transmitting large quantities of water. For this reason, carbonate rocks form some of the most productive aquifers in the study area. Permeability depends on the degree of solution that has occurred. Where fractures are enlarged, permeabilities can be very high, elsewhere, they can be very low. The most active zone of solution is near the water table. Most of the ground water system is under
Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan 5 water table conditions, however local areas of confined flow can be found. Ground water flow in the carbonate rocks has both local and regional components. Locally, ground water discharges to gaining reaches of streams, however, regional flow components can result in underflow from one surface water basin to another.
Watershed Water Budgets Water budgets are often used to describe the distribution of water as it moves through the natural hydrologic cycle within the watershed system. Water budgets typically use the volume of average annual precipitation as the expression of total water in the system (expressed as inches per year, in/yr). The typical components used to describe water budgets are:
S Precipitation: the volume of average annual precipitation determined from meteorological records. S Baseflow: the annual average volume of water discharged from ground water aquifers to streams. S Recharge: the annual average portion of precipitation that moves through the unsaturated soils and recharges the ground water system. S Runoff: the annual average portion of the precipitation that flows over the land surface and into surface water bodies, primarily into streams. S Evaporation: the annual average portion of precipitation expected to return to the atmosphere as water vapor from open water surfaces, surface soils, or water landing on vegetation, pavement, and other surfaces that allow the water to be converted to water vapor. S Transpiration: the annual average portion of precipitation that is absorbed by roots of plants and returned to the atmosphere via the process of photosynthesis through the leaves of the plants.
Because evaporation and transpiration are very difficult (and often impossible) to measure, they are typically combined into a component referred to as “evapotranspiration” (ET) and used to represent the portion of precipitation that is not recharge or runoff.
Water budgets vary from watershed to watershed, depending on the geology, rainfall patterns during the period of record, topographic features such as slope, soils, and degree of development and impervious cover. The USGS has prepared watershed water budgets for several watersheds in Chester County. Because average water budgets are calculated by averaging each component over the period of record, the results are often not additive to the total average annual precipitation. The following is an average water budget for several watersheds of Chester County calculated by USGS:
S Precipitation 47.6 in/yr. S Runoff 7.9 in/yr. S Evapotranspiration 26.2 in/yr. S Baseflow 13.5 in/yr.
The average water budget components calculated by USGS for Brandywine Creek watershed are:
S Precipitation 45.9 in/yr. S Runoff 7.2 in/yr. S Evapotranspiration 25.9 in/yr. S Baseflow 12.8 in/yr.
6 Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan S Recharge 14.8 in/yr.
A more detailed discussion of water budgets and those developed by USGS are presented in the Compendium.
Ground Water Balances Ground water balances were developed for each subbasin to provide an indication of the sustainability of current and projected ground water use within the watershed. These budgets also assist in:
S Providing an understanding of the magnitude and use of water within each subbasin. S Identifying subbasins where sufficient ground water resources are available to support all or a portion of projected future water demand. S Identifying subbasins where ground water resources may already be stressed or approaching stressed conditions. S Establish a framework of “ground water withdrawal management targets” that could be applied on a voluntary basis to assist in evaluating current or proposed ground water development projects.
To assess the “sustainability” of ground water to support current and projected withdrawals, it was necessary to establish a “target” of total withdrawals for each subbasin that would represent an acceptable volume of depletion of ground water resources. This “target” was then used for comparison with estimates of the total volume of current ground water withdrawals and for comparison with estimates of projected future water withdrawals to ascertain whether or not total net ground water withdrawals now or in the future will exceed that “target”.
To maintain consistency with the current regulatory structure for ground water withdrawals, the methodology developed by USGS for use by the DRBC was used. The regulations for the DRBC Southeastern Pennsylvania Ground Water Protected Area (GWPA) have established the volume of the “1 in 25 year average annual baseflow” of the main tributary of each subbasin (at the downstream mouth of the subbasin) to represent the acceptable volume of ground water that can be consumed from a subbasin without causing significant impact to the aquifer and baseflow of the subbasin. The “1 in 25 year average annual baseflow” is a statistically derived flow and is expressed as cubic feet per second (cfs) or million gallons per year (MGY). It is used to represent the annual average flow that is expected to occur within the stream at the mouth of the subbasin during an extended dry weather period that would occur on average only once in every 25 years. This statistical flow could be described as the “1 in 25 year low flow” – the opposite of the “1 in 25 year flood flow.” The volume of the 1 in 25 year average annual baseflow for the subbasins of this watershed are shown in column 3 of Table 6.
Watersheds further recommends that certain subbasins may contain “sensitive resources” that are dependent upon reliable stream baseflows, and for such subbasins a more protective ground water withdrawal management target may be appropriate. For this purpose, “sensitive resources” are defined to include Exceptional Value and/or High Quality streams, designated Scenic or Wild and Scenic Rivers, instream sources of community water supply systems (where instream withdrawals are not directly and continuously supported by reservoir storage), and state-designated instream fisheries. In addition, Watersheds recommends that drainage areas to first order streams also be evaluated to determine if more protective ground water withdrawal management targets are appropriate. For subbasins that contain “sensitive resources” and for drainage areas to first order streams, Watersheds recommends that the ground water withdrawal targets be set at 50% of the 1
Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan 7 in 25 year average annual baseflow, unless a hydrogeologic or other instream flow study has established that a larger volume can be withdrawn while sustaining the resources of the subbasin or drainage area. For this watershed, the recommended net ground water withdrawal management targets for the subbasins of this watershed are listed in column 4 of Table 6.
To evaluate the “sustainability” of current and future ground water withdrawals, the total volume of “net cumulative ground water withdrawals” was calculated for each subbasin and compared to the above net withdrawal targets. Data were taken from annual reports submitted to state agencies and river basin commissions by entities holding permits for ground water withdrawals and combined with estimates of individual residential well withdrawals that were based on current (1998) and projected (2020) population. The total volume of well withdrawals was summed. In addition, the total volume of estimated ground water recharges (from anthropogenic sources such as injection wells, land application systems for treated wastewater, estimated recharges from onlot septic systems, etc.) was also calculated from reports and records of regulatory agencies (for permitted activities) and from population estimates and projections (for estimating recharges from onlot septic systems). The total recharges were subtracted from the total withdrawals to calculate the “net cumulative ground water withdrawals” for each subbasin. The net cumulative ground water withdrawals for 1998 are listed in column 7 of Table 6.
Comparing the net volume of withdrawals to the target withdrawal volume yields a percentage that can be used to evaluate the overall “sustainability” of current withdrawals. When the percent of net withdrawals is less than 50% of the subbasin’s target, the ground water resources are considered non-stressed. Net withdrawals greater than 50% are considered potentially stressed. Net withdrawals near or exceeding 100% are considered stressed. For these subbasins, the net withdrawals are shown in Table 6 as a percent of the total 1 in 25 year average annual baseflow (column 8) and as a percent of the recommended withdrawal management target (column 9).
Net withdrawals in the subbasins are well below the recommended withdrawal targets, with the exception of West Valley Creek (at 90% of its recommended withdrawal target). This indicates that substantial ground water resources are available to support future water demands throughout all other areas of the watershed. In West Valley Creek, surface water sources should be considered for meeting future water needs and opportunities to increase ground water recharge should be pursued. While this provides some perspective on overall subbasin ground water balances and availability, it is crucial to note that localized problems can occur from ground water withdrawals. Any proposed ground water withdrawal of significant size should be fully evaluated for its potential impacts to existing users and environmental resources as well as to the overall subbasin ground water balance.
The subbasin water balance data sheets (Appendix A) provide the detailed water balance data that were used in this analysis for each subbasin. Appendix B provides additional information on ground and surface water withdrawals and water needs for the watershed and subbasin. Figures 9 and 10 present the results of estimated net ground water withdrawals for 1998 and 2020 as a percent of the total 1 in 25 year average annual baseflow.
Table 6 summarizes the ground water balances for the subbasins in the watershed. These data show 1998 total ground water withdrawals and recharges, and the net ground water withdrawals as a percentage of each subbasin’s withdrawal management target. For the watershed, an estimated 4.05 billion gallons per year are withdrawn from the ground water supplies. There is an estimated 1.6 billion gallons per year recharged back to the aquifers, for a net ground water withdrawal of 2.5 billion gallons per year for the Brandywine Creek watershed in 1998. The methodology and data used to develop these estimates are presented in the Compendium.
8 Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan Delaware River Basin Commission Southeastern PA Ground Water Protected Area Much of the Brandywine Creek watershed is under special ground water protection status by the DRBC in the GWPA. More stringent regulations apply to ground water withdrawals than they do in the rest of the Delaware River Basin. The GWPA and its associated regulations were established by the Commission in 1980 at the request of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania after it became evident that development was negatively impacting ground water levels. The purpose of the GWPA is to prevent depletion of ground water and protect the interests and rights of lawful users of the same water source, as well as balance and reconcile alternative and conflicting uses of limited water resources in the region.
The DRBC applies a two-tiered system of water withdrawal limits to protect the ground water within the GWPA:
S The first tier serves as a warning that a subbasin is "potentially stressed." In potentially stressed subbasins, applicants for new or expanded ground water withdrawals are now required to implement one or more programs to mitigate adverse impacts of additional ground water withdrawals. Acceptable programs include: conjunctive use of ground water and surface water, expanded water conservation programs, programs to control ground water infiltration, and artificial recharge and spray irrigation. S The second tier serves as the maximum withdrawal limit. Under the regulations, net ground water withdrawals cannot exceed that limit.
The municipalities of this watershed that are within the Ground Water Protected Area include: Birmingham Township, Charlestown Township, East Bradford Township, East Whiteland Township, Thornbury Township, West Bradford Township, West Chester Borough, West Goshen Township, West Whiteland Township, and Westtown Township (Figure 11).
Ground Water Quality The data used for the water quality analyses came from three sources, the Chester County Health Department (CCHD), the USGS, and USEPA’s STORET database. Since the analysis centered on identifying trends, any source that had few data points was not included in this analysis. Where there were no data for total nitrate plus nitrite, individual nitrate and nitrite data were used, if available, then added together for each data point.
In the Brandywine Creek watershed, ground water quality data show relatively high concentrations of biological oxygen demand (BOD) at 3.4 milligrams per liter (mg/l). Nitrate/Nitrite (NO2/NO3) is above background concentration at 3.6 mg/l, but not near the drinking water standard of 10 mg/l. Copper (Cu) is low. Total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is also low. Total and dissolved phosphorus are relatively high. Lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn) are low.
Stream Water Quality A snapshot of surface water quality in the watershed was done using available CCHD data. Since the analysis centered on identifying trends, any source that had few data points was not included in this analysis. Where there was no total nitrate plus nitrite, individual nitrate and nitrite data were used, if available, then added together for each data point.
Surface water quality data show relatively low concentrations of BOD. Nitrate/Nitrite concentrations are moderate at 3.5 mg/l. Copper is low. Lead is low. Zinc is low. Total phosphorus (TP) is moderate, but dissolved phosphorus is relatively high. Total suspended solids are low. Trend plots for most of the data do not suggest any upward or downward trend in water
Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan 9 quality. Some exceptions might be a slight rise in BOD and TP in the last four years, and a slight drop in TKN from the 1980s to the 1990s. The potential upward trend in Zn concentrations cannot be evaluated because the data are not sufficient to confirm. Additional water quality issues are discussed below.
State Protected Water Use Designations The designated uses of all surface waters are established by each State. Certain water quality criteria are established for each type of designated use, and these standards must be maintained and protected. It is these standards that are considered when withdrawal or discharge permits are reviewed and in selection of land use management activities. There are programs in place to set guidelines if these standards, and corresponding uses, are not achieved. These programs, Total Maximum Daily Load programs, are outlined later in this plan. Table 7 presents the various water use designations for the Brandywine Creek watershed for both Pennsylvania and Delaware, which are illustrated in Figure 12. The categories of protected uses for each state are listed below:
S Pennsylvania (taken from Pennsylvania Code website, www.pacode.com, Pennsylvania Title 25, Chapter 93. Water Quality Standards, March 21, 1998 amended September 4, 1998) Water Uses Protected:
S EV – Exceptional Value Waters S HQ – High Quality Waters S CWF – Cold Water Fishes S MF – Migratory Fishes S TSF – Trout Stocking S WWF – Warm Water Fishes.
S Delaware (taken from State of Delaware Surface Water Quality Standards, as amended, August 11, 1999; DE-DNREC) Water Uses Protected:
S Public Water Supply (Designated for freshwater segments only.) S Industrial Water Supply S Primary Contact Recreation S Secondary Contact Recreation S Fish, Aquatic Life & Wildlife S Cold Water Fish (Put-and-take) – Designated use from March 15 to June 30 on:
S Beaver Run from PA/DE line to Brandywine. S Wilson Run Route 29 through Brandywine Creek State Park.
S Agricultural Water Supply (Designated for freshwater segments only.) S ERES Waters (Waters of Exceptional Recreational or Ecological Significance) – Designated use from PA/DE line to Wilmington city line.
These regulations are subject to change. It is important to check with each State for current regulatory information regarding the designated uses for any of the streams within the watershed.
10 Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan Stream Water Quality Assessments – Impaired Waters Under the Clean Water Act, each state is required to assess all waters and list those that do not meet their designated uses even after pollution controls required by law are in place. For these waters, frequently called “impaired waters”, the state must determine the cause of the impairment and the sources of that cause. Once the cause and sources of the impairment are identified, a total maximum daily load (TMDL) process is developed to address the impairment.
As part of the guidelines from the USEPA, states are required to submit lists of the impaired waters, also called “Section 303(d) lists” in reference to the Section of the Clean Water Act that requires the assessment. Table 8 and Figure 4 present the best available information, as listed, for the impaired waters within the Brandywine Creek Watershed that have been published on Section 303(d) lists in 1998 (or proposed for listing in 2000) by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and State of Delaware.
Total Maximum Daily Load Regulations As described above, each state is required to assess whether the existing stream water quality meets the designated water uses. If the stream does not meet the designated water uses, a TMDL is developed to determine what the allowable pollutant load that can be that will meet the water quality standard. The states are required to calculate the pollutant quantity that the stream is capable of receiving and still meet the standards. This quantity includes a wasteload allocation for point sources and/or a load allocation for non-point or background sources. The sum of the allocation is divided between the sources in the watershed and the final pollutant quantity includes a margin of safety.
TMDL programs have been established in the Brandywine Creek watershed for chlordane in the lower mainstem Brandywine Creek. There are also a number of other TMDL’s underway in the watershed. A TMDL is currently being developed for chlordane and PCB in the West Branch Brandywine Creek from Business Route 30 to the confluence with Buck Run. Additional TMDLs were promulgated in 2001 to address nutrients and dissolved oxygen water quality concerns under low flow conditions, from point source wastewater dischargers. Also, a high flow (or stormwater runoff) TMDL is currently being developed for the Christina River Basin to address nutrients and bacteria water quality concerns. Since the Brandywine Creek Watershed is part of the larger Christina River Basin, the TMDLs that have been and are being developed for the Christina River Basin also affect the Brandywine Creek Watershed.
Nonpoint Source Pollutant Loads A key tool used for characterizing surface water quality impacts across the study area is a pollutant loading model called the Watershed Management Model (WMM). WMM helps to establish an overall "framework" for assessing pollution loading rates under existing and future land use scenarios, and to develop conceptual approaches for control strategies within the watersheds, subbasins, and municipalities. WMM is also the primary tool used for estimating the percent impervious of each subbasin and watershed, and for estimating annual average runoff.
Results of WMM analysis are presented in the Water Quality Data Sheets for both the watershed and each subbasin (Appendix C). Brandywine Creek has a high percentage of land in agriculture, wooded and residential – single family land uses. For this reason, in the 1998 WMM run the chemical oxygen demand (COD) and BOD loading was not very high, and in the 2020 worst case scenario these increase by 8% and 5% respectively. However, it has high total suspended solids (TSS) loading which increase only by about 0.5% in the 2020 worst case scenario due to the loss of agricultural lands. It also has the second highest load of any watershed in TP loading from
Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan 11 baseflow in the 1998 run, which increased by 6% in the 2020 worst case scenario; other parameters are in the normal range in that model run. For the 2020 scenario with best management practices (BMPs) all parameters decrease with TSS having the greatest drop of 55%. TP in the 2020 scenario with BMPs is the third highest of any watershed but decreased by 4% from the 1998 WMM run.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Regulations Phase II of the NPDES Stormwater Program was published in November 1999. The Phase II Rule requires NPDES permit coverage - mostly under general permits - for stormwater discharges from most small urbanized areas that are classified by USEPA as municipal small stormwater systems (MS4s) and construction activities that disturb from 1 to 5 acres of land. The Phase II Rule will require the NPDES permitting authority to develop a set of designation criteria and apply them, at a minimum, to all MS4s outside of an urban area located in an area with a population of at least 10,000 and a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. Any MS4 located in an area meeting the designation criteria would have to be brought into the program by the NPDES permitting authority and be required to obtain a permit.
The USEPA has provided a listing of those municipalities within the study area that will be required to have a stormwater management program (Figure 13). In the Brandywine Creek Watershed, 40 municipalities are expected to be required to meet the Phase II regulations. Those municipalities are Bethel Township, Birmingham Township, Caln Township, Charlestown Township, Coatesville City, Concord Township, Downingtown Borough, East Bradford Township, East Brandywine Township, East Caln Township, East Fallowfield Township, East Goshen Township, East Marlborough Township, East Whiteland Township, Easttown Township, Honey Brook Borough, Kennett Township, Londonderry Township, Modena Borough, Newling Township, Parkesburg Borough, Pennsbury Township, Pocopson Township, Sadsbury Township, Salisbury Township, South Coatesville Borough, Thornbury Township, Upper Uwchlan Township, Uwchlan Township, Valley Township, Wallace Township, West Bradford Township, West Brandywine Township, West Caln Township, West Chester Borough, West Goshen Township, West Sadsbury Township, West Vincent Township, West Whiteland Township, and Westtown Township.
Biological Diversity Monitoring Biological diversity of streams is an excellent indicator of the cumulative impact of watershed influences on stream quality. Since 1969, the USGS, in cooperation with Chester County, has conducted a program to annually evaluate stream ecology and water-quality conditions using benthic macroinvertebrates and stream-water chemistry. The Stream Conditions of Chester County Program has sampled Chester County streams every fall for the past 32 years. The initial goals of the program were to evaluate stream-water quality and to further the understanding of changes in the stream ecosystem in response to urbanization. The current goals of the program are to use the data to monitor conditions in response to changing land uses and to determine long- term trends.
Several USGS sampling stations have been located in the Brandywine Creek watershed since 1970 (Figure 14). In order to present a year by year snapshot, the diversity index for all the stations have been averaged on an annual basis. Table 9 shows the year by year average of the index. The index indicates that conditions in the Brandywine Creek watershed steadily improved between 1975 and 1981, and have been holding steady since then. Brillouin’s diversity values below 1.0 are associated with waters receiving heavy levels of organic wastes. Brillouin’s diversity values between 1.0 and 3.0 are associated with waters receiving moderate levels of organic wastes and Brillouin’s diversity values between 3.0 and 5.0 are associated with waters
12 Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan receiving little or no organic wastes. Overall the biological community indicates good to very good water quality in the Brandywine Creek watershed.
Results of the 1998 and 1999 biological diversity monitoring program indicate that:
S Overall the biological community indicates good water-quality in West Branch Brandywine Creek near Honey Brook (Site 57), but there are indications that some organic and pesticide pollution is affecting the benthic macroinvertebrate community. S Overall the biological community indicates good water-quality in West Branch Brandywine Creek at Modena (Site 56), but there are indications that organic and industrial pollution is affecting the benthic macroinvertebrate community. S Overall the biological community indicates very good water-quality in Buck Run at Doe Run (Site 46). Nitrate levels are moderately high but this does not seem to be affecting the benthic macroinvertebrate community. S The biotic index for the sample collected from Broad Run at Romansville (Site 69) in 1999 indicates good water-quality with some impairment. There are very large numbers of midge larvae, which suggests organic pollution. S The biotic index for the samples collected from Broad Run at Northbrook (Site 70) indicates very good water-quality with little or no organic pollution. S Overall, the biological community indicates very good water-quality in East Branch Brandywine Creek at Glenmoore (Site 42). Nitrate levels are moderate but this does not seem to be affecting the benthic macroinvertebrate community. S Overall, the biological community indicates very good water-quality in Culbertson Run at Lyndell (Site 65). Culbertson Run at Lyndell was not sampled in 1999. S Overall the biological community indicates very good water-quality in Shamona Creek at Dowlin (Site 67). S The biotic index for the sample collected from East Branch Brandywine Creek below Downingtown (Site 54) in 1998 indicates very good water-quality with little or no organic pollution. S Overall the biological community indicates good water-quality in the West Valley Creek at Clover Mill Road near Exton (Site 66). This station was not sampled in 1999. S The biotic index for the sample collected from Brandywine Creek at Chadds Ford (Site 40) indicates good water-quality with some organic pollution. This station was not sampled in 1998.
Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index (PNDI) There are a number of sensitive natural areas that are listed in the Natural Areas Inventory of Chester County, Pennsylvania (1994 with 2000 Update). Within the Brandywine Creek watershed, there are 27 areas that contain or may contain rare and endangered species as noted in the PNDI (Figure 5). Land and habitat preservation efforts should be directed towards these areas, which include the Great Marsh on Marsh Creek in the East Branch of Brandywine, and the Unionville Serpentine Barrens in the West Branch Brandywine/Broad Run subbasin. A listing of PNDI sites within the watershed are presented in Table 10.
Cultural, Recreational and Historic Resources A number of recreational, historic, and cultural resources have been identified in the Brandywine Creek watershed, as illustrated in Figure 15. A detailed inventory of the resources shown on Figure 15 is presented in Table 11 (recreational resources) and Table 12 (historic resources).
Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan 13 Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers System Portions of the lower Brandywine Creek are designated as “Scenic River” in the PA Scenic Rivers System. These are shown on Figure 5. These include stream segments that pass through the East Branch Brandywine/Beaver Creek, Taylor Run and West Valley Creek, Main Stem Brandywine above and below Chadds Ford and Pocopson Creek, and the West Branch Brandywine/Buck Run, Doe Run and Broad Run subbasins. The lower Brandywine Creek, both East and West Branch and Main Stem are excellent canoeing streams. These areas should be considered as high priority areas for minimum flow and water quality requirements in watershed planning.
Sensitive Habitat Streams Sensitive habitat streams, which include trout reproducing waters, include Indian Run on the Upper East Branch of the Brandywine and Beaver Creek on the East Branch Brandywine. These areas should be considered as high priority areas for minimum flow and water quality requirements in watershed planning.
First Order Streams First order streams are the “roots” of a watershed. They typically comprise over half of the total stream miles and drainage areas of any watershed. Yet individually they exhibit very small flows and are highly vulnerable to impacts of pollutants, stormwater flows, and ground water withdrawals. In an effort to provide information to assist in protecting these valuable resources, several analyses were conducted for first order streams:
S Analysis of total stream miles and total first order streams. S Analysis of total drainage areas and total drainage areas of first order streams. S Analysis of land use within one-quarter mile corridors of first order streams and one- quarter mile corridors of higher order streams.
Total Stream Miles of First Order Streams Based on USGS mapped streams, a GIS (geographic information system) analysis was conducted to determine how many of the streams are first order streams. Presented in Table 13 are the breakdown of total stream miles, first order stream miles and the percent of first order stream miles in each subbasin. The final row sums each category for the watershed, and illustrates that of the 567 stream miles in the watershed, 58% or 328 miles are first order streams.
Drainage Area of First Order Streams As described above, the first step of developing information on first order streams was to delineate the streams themselves. The study also used terrain models and GIS to compute the land areas draining to the first order streams (Table 14). Areas draining to first order streams are presented in Figure 16. The results indicate that over 55% of the land area within the Brandywine Creek watershed drains to first order streams.
Land Use Analysis within Stream Corridors As discussed above, analyses of first order stream miles and drainage areas were conducted to gain a perspective on the vulnerability of headwater streams to the impacts of adjacent land uses. Tables 15 through 20 provide information on what type of land uses (as of 1995) exist within the quarter-mile corridor along each side of the first order streams and higher order streams by subbasin. This information is also presented in Figures 17 and 18. The table is shaded to highlight categories that comprise a significant portion of the corridor (typically 20% or more) and thus represent potential risks of stream impacts or potential opportunities for stream
14 Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan protection. Mapping of land uses along the corridors of all streams is presented in the Compendium.
Corridors of First Order Streams Throughout the watershed, all 15 subbasins have over 20% of the one-quarter mile corridor around first order streams classified as wooded. Also, 12 of the 15 subbasins have over 20% of the one-quarter mile stream corridor around first order streams in agriculture.
Corridors of Higher Order Streams Throughout the watershed, 14 subbasins have over 20% of the one-quarter mile corridor around higher order streams classified as wooded. Also, 9 of the 15 subbasins have over 20% of the one- quarter mile stream corridor around higher order streams in agriculture.
Sources of Water Supplies As presented above (Ground Water Balances), substantial ground water resources exist within the vast majority of the watershed to serve as a significant source of water supplies to help meet future needs. Several existing community water supply systems in the watershed rely on ground waters sources. In addition, several surface water intakes and treatment plant facilities for public supplies exist in the Brandywine Creek watershed. Such sources may offer opportunities for future supplies both within and adjacent to their corresponding subbasins. Typically, these systems are designed and permitted with specific planning areas and needs in mind. However, as new needs arise, they should be evaluated to determine if they can be used or expanded to help meet those needs. Specific information for these intakes are as follows:
S Rock Run Reservoir (Pennsylvania American Water Company, current allocation is 3 MGD; current average daily withdrawal volume is approximately 2.5 MGD). S West Branch Brandywine Creek (Pennsylvania American Water Company, current allocation is 4 MGD; current use of this intake is only on an as needed basis, generally during prolonged drought events, to supplement the Rock Run Reservoir. During recent drought events, maximum daily withdrawal volume was approximately 2 MGD). S East Branch Brandywine Creek/Downingtown (Downingtown Municipal Water Authority (DMWA), current maximum allocation is 2.5 MGD; DMWA has additional water supply storage allocation available in Marsh Creek Reservoir to support a total allocation of 3.8 MGD; DMWA’s current average daily withdrawal volume is approximately 1.1 MGD). S East Branch Brandywine Creek/Ingram’s Mill (Philadelphia Suburban Water Company (PSWC), current allocation is 6.0 MGD, with a 1-day maximum of 8.5 MGD; PSWC’s current average daily withdrawal volume at this intake is approximately 2.8 MGD). S Lower Mainstem Brandywine Creek (City of Wilmington, DE).
These existing surface water intakes potentially represent sources of additional water for other subbasins depending on the proximity of connecting infrastructure to the area of need and impact to subbasin water balances. Several inter-basin and inter-watershed transfers of water already exist in Chester County’s watersheds. Examples of the distribution of water from surface water sources include:
S The Pennsylvania American Water Company’s Coatesville regional distribution system serves water from 3 sources of surface waters including the Rock Run and West Branch Brandywine intakes listed above, and an intake on upper West Branch Octoraro Creek.
Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan 15 S The Downingtown Municipal Water Authority’s intake on East Branch Brandywine provides water for the immediate Downingtown region. S The Ingram’s Mill intake (PSWC) on East Branch Brandywine Creek serves water to much of the greater West Chester region. S City of Wilmington’s source of water for its water distribution system is in the lower Brandywine Creek watershed. The City also operates Hoopes Reservoir for use when extended dry weather events necessitate additional water to meet demands.
Similarly, the collection areas for wastewater treatment plants connect areas from various watersheds and subbasins for transport, treatment and disposal. Numerous municipalities and municipal authorities collect wastewater for treatment and disposal at a central location. In the East Branch Brandywine Creek watershed, the Downingtown Area Regional Authority provides wastewater disposal for numerous municipalities. In the West Branch Brandywine Creek watershed, the Pennsylvania American Water Company’s Coatesville Regional wastewater system provides wastewater disposal for several municipalities. Near the mouth of the Brandywine Creek watershed, the City of Wilmington’s wastewater system collects wastewater from areas within the watershed for treatment and disposal into the Delaware River estuary. In addition, several other small community wastewater systems as well as individual packaged systems are in operation within the watershed.
Surface Water Withdrawals and Discharges The Brandywine Creek watershed has numerous surface water withdrawals for public water supply, commercial and industrial uses. A total of 37 surface water withdrawals are inventoried in the watershed, and in 1998, it was estimated that there were over 15 billion gallons withdrawn from the watershed. As described above, certain withdrawals were either partially or fully offset by waters stored in Marsh Creek Reservoir or Chambers Lake.
There are 55 known discharges with NPDES permits in the watershed as of 1998. The total volume discharged to the watershed in 1998 is estimated to be 5.3 billion gallons.
Integrated Water Resources Planning to Meet Future Water and Wastewater Needs Table 21 summarizes the total volumes of ground and surface waters withdrawn for public and individual water systems, and estimates of future (2020) water demand in each subbasin. This information provides a basis for understanding the magnitude of current water withdrawals and the volume of additional ground water resources available for future withdrawals in each subbasin. It is estimated that in 1998, total water withdrawals (including ground water, surface water, and individual residential wells) within the watershed were approximately 19.5 billion gallons per year (BGY). The total volume of water used within the watershed in 1998 was estimated to be 8.2 BGY. An increase of 2.0 BGY is projected to be needed for use within the watershed by 2020.
Planning to meet future water needs requires viewing water use by subbasins, as waters naturally occur within subbasin or watershed boundaries and not municipal borders. Strategies presented in the Watersheds Plan, recommend that multi-municipal Integrated Water Resource Plans (IWRP) be developed to determine future water and wastewater needs. Once the total additional water demand is determined, it must be compared against the available water sources. This should consider the amount of water currently being used from nearby ground water and streams and whether the additional need can be supported by those resources (either through existing or new infrastructure).
16 Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan Considering water withdrawals and availability on a subbasin basis also allows for evaluating what demands are being placed on those resources by others. Most subbasins support water supplies to multiple municipalities. If a single municipality evaluates only their withdrawals of water, the available remaining resource may be significantly over-estimated. By looking at cumulative withdrawals on the entire subbasin, all municipalities supported by those subbasins can use consistent information for planning.
Municipalities, utilities and other relevant stakeholders located within the Brandywine Creek watershed are encouraged to consider developing IWRPs to link land use and water resources needs and management objectives together in a consistent planning framework. Guidance, tables of data, and other information for use in preparing IWRPs are presented in Watersheds. Several of the aspects to be addressed within IWRPs are presented here in the following figures for the Chester County portion of the watershed. Mapping of this information should be developed for the remainder of the watershed if IWRPs are undertaken.
Figure 19 presents recommended IWRP planning regions within Chester County portions of the watershed. This figure suggests what municipalities should be involved in developing IWRPs for different subbasins. Figure 20 presents recommended thresholds for net ground water withdrawals (net total of all ground water withdrawals and recharges). This provides a planning framework for evaluating the availability of ground water resources for future withdrawals on a subbasin basis. It is important to understand that individual withdrawals may not contribute to the overall stress of ground water on a subbasin basis, but may contribute to localized impacts that should be evaluated and mitigated before approval is given for the withdrawal to occur.
Figures 21 and 22 present the identified growth areas of Chester County (as defined by Landscapes) and areas where public water and wastewater services are currently in place. Also shown on these figures are locations of localized problems. Figure 23 presents the locations of community water supply systems within the watershed, and Table 22 presents a list of small community water systems that are illustrated on Figure 23.
These figures and information provide a context of the types of water and wastewater planning issues that confront the watershed. These issues need to be addressed jointly by the municipalities and utilities, as well as other relevant stakeholders. In addition, joint planning (or development of IWRPs) MUST address source water protection issues.
Public water and wastewater planning issues identified for Brandywine Creek include:
S Several designated growth areas are located upstream of water supply intakes and reservoirs. This will necessitate land use management strategies that protect the receiving streams from impacts of stormwater runoff that will ultimately impact downstream reservoirs and water supply intakes. S Portions of the watershed are included within service and/or franchise areas of two Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PA-PUC) regulated utilities and the City of Wilmington service area (DE), as well as service areas of several smaller municipal authorities. Thus, any IWRP efforts must involve the appropriate utilities and the municipalities to insure needs are met and in a manner consistent with local planning and zoning. S Source water assessments are underway for all surface water supply intakes in the watershed by PADEP (5 intakes in Chester County) and DE-DNREC (1 intake in New Castle County). These assessments, when completed, should be used to develop source water protection plans for those intakes, and should involve the appropriate utilities
Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan 17 (water supply and wastewater), upstream municipalities, and owners/operators of key potential pollutant sources. S Wellhead protection planning efforts are underway for the Honey Brook Borough Water Authority, and similar plans should be prepared for the wells presented within the Brandywine Creek Watershed Conservation Plan for which wellhead protection zones have been delineated. S The water quality of the 4 reservoirs should be monitored by the reservoir owners to determine the existence and or severity of impacts by factors such as: algal blooms and eutrophication; large geese populations contributing significant nutrient loadings; excessive erosion in contributing tributaries causing excessive sedimentation and associated phosphorus loadings; discharges of individual wastewater package plants or other discharges upstream of the reservoirs; and bacteria from nonpoint sources.
18 Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan Section 4. Watershed Management Needs and Priorities
Inventory of Watershed Management Needs Presented in Table 23 is an inventory of the specific management needs for the watershed. These management needs reflect the final conclusions of the data collection and analyses presented in the Compendium and Watersheds, and summarized in Section 3. The inventory lists the specific characteristics, problems, and resources of the watershed that should be considered in restoration, protection, land use, and water use planning. This inventory can assist municipalities and other stakeholders in understanding the critical needs within the watershed. The following six categories of needs are presented:
S Resources to be Protected, lists the natural, cultural and recreational resources and related characteristics that may warrant particular attention. S Growth and Land Use, presents statistics for subbasins and/or watersheds regarding density or rate of growth, and the extent of land uses that may impact the integrity of water resources. S Water Availability and Use, describes what significant water uses and withdrawals currently exist, what additional resources exist that may be options for meeting future water demands, as well as particular constraints that exist that warrant consideration as additional water use is planned. S Runoff, presents physical and natural characteristics that may contribute to or are caused by excessive stormwater and nonpoint source pollutant (NPS) runoff. S Water Quality, lists the types of stream impairments and ground water quality problems found to exist in the watersheds that warrant restoration or that present potential concerns for protecting sources of drinking water supplies. S Regional Prioritizations, present the results from the prioritization exercises that apply (if any) for each watershed or their subbasins.
This inventory provided the basis for defining the priority management objectives and management actions that are recommended in Section 5 of this plan.
In addition to the management needs identified in Table 23, the Brandywine Valley Association has been existence since 1948 providing community-based stewardship of the watershed resources for Brandywine Creek. This organization has a strong record of accomplishments and effective stewardship and education within the watershed. The Brandywine Valley Association has also undertaken the preparation of a comprehensive Rivers Conservation Plan (RCP), which will incorporate the information presented within this Watershed Action Plan as well as other relevant material. Continuing support for the administration, programs, initiatives, and activities of this organization is crucial to improving and sustaining the overall health of the Brandywine Creek.
Watershed and Subbasin Priorities To identify the most pressing needs in each watershed and across the region, a series of multi- criteria evaluations and prioritization exercises were conducted to identify regional priorities among the 21 watersheds, identify priorities among the subbasins within each watershed, and identify priorities among the 78 subbasins across the study region. The prioritizations addressed five categories of watershed needs:
S Restoring Stream Water Quality (water quality conditions and resources at risk) - Federal and State Law mandates three major programs dealing with reducing polluted
Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan 19 stormwater runoff. These are: the development of TMDLs for water quality impaired stream segments, the new NPDES Phase II Stormwater Permitting Program, and the Section 319 (Federal Clean Water Act) Nonpoint Source Management Program. Because 70% of the watersheds are source waters for public water supply intakes, prioritization for source water protection planning and implementation is also critical. This prioritization exercise considered water quality conditions as well as “sensitive resources” and cultural features that are at risk from increased stream impairments. Both watersheds and subbasins were prioritized for water quality restoration. S Restoring Stream Water Quality (water quality conditions only) – This prioritization is similar to the one described above except that the criteria representing the value of the stream in terms of sensitive resources or cultural/recreational values were not included. This prioritization focussed solely on water quality parameters, with more highly impaired streams ranked higher in the priority list. It provides information to help prioritize watersheds for implementation and funding for water quality related programs. Both watersheds and subbasins were prioritized for water quality restoration. S Reducing Stormwater Runoff and Flooding – If conventional development following the historical sprawl pattern continues, the rate and volume of stormwater runoff will continue to increase, the magnitude and occurrence of flooding will increase, and the destruction of streams by the force of these waters will be exacerbated. Municipal comprehensive stormwater management is needed in all areas to minimize these problems. The study area watersheds and subbasins were prioritized to identify those areas in most critical need of stormwater management programs to reduce the rate and volume of runoff. This prioritization will also assist Chester County in determining the sequence of conducting stormwater management plans under Act 167. S Protecting Stream Resources – Because of the extensive number of “sensitive resources” (i.e., designated habitats), the regional importance of the aesthetic, recreational and cultural values of the watersheds, and the widespread use of the streams for public water supply, it is important to focus preservation and protection efforts to maintain these vital resources. The study watersheds and the subbasins were prioritized for protecting resources. S Protecting Ground Water (used for subbasin prioritization only) - Because of the high reliance on ground water to support water supply needs and stream baseflows throughout the region, ground water protection efforts are extremely important. This includes managing water use decisions to protect against over-withdrawal, protecting ground water from contamination attributable to land uses and septic wastewater disposal, and source water protection of public water supply wells. Only subbasins were prioritized for ground water protection because subbasins provide a more appropriate size of land area for evaluating impacts of ground water withdrawals.
The prioritization process compared each of the watersheds or subbasins against the other watersheds or subbasins using relevant evaluation criteria. Because of the number of criteria selected and the inherent subjectivity in attempting to weight criteria, all criteria were considered equally important and therefore were assigned equal weight. Final priorities were assigned based on the evaluation results and several discussions held with the Water Resources Task Force. Each evaluation resulted in a comparative ranking of the watersheds or subbasins, with the highest ranking ones recommended for immediate attention and funding.
Based on the final rankings of all 21 watersheds, each watershed was categorized as high, medium, or low priority for regional management decisions. The priorities are intended as a guide for deciding which watersheds should be targeted first. A “low” priority only means that other
20 Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan watersheds may require more pressing action, not that the “low priority” watershed should not come into consideration for restoration or protection measures. The following summarizes the overall ranking of this watershed among the 21 watersheds in the study area for each of the 4 categories used for ranking watersheds:
S Restoring Stream Water Quality (water quality conditions and resources at risk): High priority. S Restoring Stream Water Quality (water quality conditions only): High priority. S Reducing Stormwater Runoff and Flooding: High priority. S Protecting Stream Resources: High priority.
Table 24 presents how the various subbasins ranked when evaluated as part of the entire watershed. This was done to provide insight on how to direct limited resources to address the most pressing needs. These lists indicate how each subbasin ranked within 5 categories. The lower the number, i.e., 1 or 2, the higher the relative need for action in that subbasin. It is important to stress that subbasins with lower priority rankings are not to be thought of as not in need of protection or improvements, but rather that the highest ranking subbasins are recommended for immediate action and funding. Figure 2 presents the location of subbasins and their corresponding subbasin code.
It should be noted that West Valley Creek subbasin ranked first or second among all 15 subbasins in each of the 5 categories. Thus, West Valley Creek should be considered as a priority for future actions within the watershed. This subbasin also ranked as first or second within each of these categories when ranked against the entire set of 78 subbasins within the study watersheds.
Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan 21 Section 5. Priority Watershed Management Objectives and Actions
Goals and Objectives As previously described, the Brandywine Creek watershed covers 325 sq. mi., 48 municipalities in two states, and includes approximately 528 miles of flowing stream. Numerous watershed management needs were identified (Table 23). While the watershed has benefited for decades from the stewardship of many individuals and entities, there is much to be done. It is therefore necessary to establish priorities to help guide efforts to the most important problems and in a way that will provide the greatest overall benefits within the limits of the financial and human resources available.
The overall goals for watershed management of the Brandywine Creek watershed are:
S Engage and educate individuals, communities and governments in watershed stewardship. S Enhance recreational and cultural resources. S Preserve natural resources. S Improve water quality. S Reduce stormwater runoff and flooding. S Protect watershed water balances. S Integrate utility and municipal planning to meet future water supply and wastewater needs.
These seven goals are taken from and are consistent with the goals presented within Watersheds for all of Chester County’s watersheds. However, they are particularly relevant to the Brandywine Creek, given the nature of the watershed, the extensive listing of watershed management needs, the presence of unique natural resources, the widespread reliance on the waters of the watershed for public and private water supplies, and the patterns and potential impacts of rapid development that is quickly advancing across the watershed.
To assist in focusing stewardship and restoration efforts within the framework of the goals listed above, a list of seven priority management objectives was developed for the Brandywine Creek watershed:
1. Reduce stormwater runoff and flooding throughout the watershed. 2. Restore water quality of “impaired” streams and protect unimpaired streams from further degradation. 3. Protect and enhance vegetated riparian corridors, particularly for first order streams. 4. Increase public access to streams. 5. Undertake Integrated Water Resources Planning for growth areas to guide water supply and wastewater to meet future needs. 6. Implement other source water protection measures for water supply intakes, reservoirs and wells. 7. Protect and enhance the cultural and recreational resources of the watershed.
While this list presents the overall priorities for the watershed, it should not be interpreted to preclude other efforts. Expanded efforts in public education and involvement in watershed stewardship should be considered a “routine” and ongoing need. Activities that promote or address any aspect of watershed stewardship should be supported and encouraged regardless of
22 Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan whether or not they address these specific management priorities. All watershed stewardship efforts are important.
Recommended Priority Management Actions Achieving these management objectives will require implementation of several types of actions. Most actions will contribute to more than one management objective. A specific list of recommended management actions is provided in Table 25 to address the priority management objectives. Recommendations regarding lead entities to undertake the individual actions are also indicated. Management objectives and actions are listed in order of their recommended priority for implementation, although many will be (or are being) undertaken simultaneously by various entities. Locations of initial projects should be placed to afford maximum protection of existing sensitive resources of the watershed as shown on Figure 5. Many of these management actions have been identified within the Christina Basin Clean Water Strategy.
Generalized approximate costs for implementing each action are given, but are intended to provide only an order of magnitude approximation of expected implementation costs and were not developed through any detailed cost estimating procedures. Approximate total costs for implementing all recommended actions for this watershed are $219,814,200 (or $69,814,200 excluding the remediation of combined sewer overflows, or CSOs, for the City of Wilmington). This translates to $676,351 per square mile of watershed (or, $198,336 per sq. mi. excluding the CSOs), or $387,679 per stream mile (or $123,129 per stream mile excluding the CSOs). This total cost does NOT include costs of acquisition of easements or lands, or costs of maintaining, modifying or retrofitting built stormwater or other infrastructure systems. It is likely that a 15% to 25% cost reduction could be achieved by implementing multiple actions simultaneously. The costs reflected in Table 25 are for a 5 year planning period.
Other Recommended Management Actions In addition to the priority management actions listed in Table 25, there are numerous other municipal, government and/or community based strategies that can contribute to addressing the watershed needs over time. Some recommendations of additional actions are presented in Appendix D.
Ongoing Initiatives Numerous efforts and activities are underway or recently completed by a wide array of entities and stakeholders within the watershed. A partial listing of such activities is presented in Appendix E.
Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan 23 Section 6. Indicators of Progress
Consistent with the goals of Watersheds is the desire to measure progress towards achieving those goals over time. Like Landscapes, Watersheds is a long-range plan that can only be realized over a period of years. To this end, Watersheds proposes to add measurable indicators to the Landscapes Progress Report, first published in 2000, to monitor trends and assist in water resources decision making.
The Landscapes Progress Report was developed to fulfill the County’s commitment to review the “state of the County,” including the desire to measure progress towards achieving the goals of Landscapes and the desire to keep the Plan active and functional. The intent of the Report is to review recent advancements, identify areas of success, and identify areas where work is needed.
Landscapes Indicators The Landscapes Progress Report (Report) includes an overall Landscapes Index and an assessment of 18 indicators within seven categories. The Report provides a reliable account of the indicators measured so that long-term trends towards achieving the goals of Landscapes can be assessed. Positive trends indicate a measure of success while negative trends indicate where both deficiencies exist and where actions are needed. As a way of measuring cumulative progress, the Landscapes Index provides a generalized picture of overall progress based on the trends of all of the indicators. Individual indicators show trends for specific subjects and can show where the greatest progress is being made and where greater efforts should be focused.
The intent of the Landscapes Index is to show a trend line indicating the degree to which progress has been made towards achieving the goals of Landscapes. At present, the indicators that monitor specific subjects are not a complete measure of all aspects of Landscapes. To that end, indicators developed as part of Watersheds will further contribute to the value of the Landscapes Index as an overall tool for measuring change.
The existing 18 indicators that contribute to the Index were selected for their relevance to Landscapes, their understandability by the general public, and their measurability on a yearly basis. Each indicator has a base year which serves as a starting point for measuring trends. In addition, the data for each indicator have been converted to a base year value of 100. This permits the calculation of a single index from different types of data, provides a common base year for each type of indicator, and allows for the comparison of yearly data to the base year. The Landscapes Index is calculated by combining all of the indicators into an average value. The current indicators used to develop the Landscapes Index are included in Table 26.
Watersheds Indicators Several of the existing indicators included in the Landscapes Index will also serve as indicators for the Watersheds Plan, including: Protected Farmland, Eased Land, Park Land, Community Water & Sewer, Stream/Water Protection (Exceptional Value watersheds), Historic Resources and Plans, and municipalities with ordinances consistent with Landscapes and Watersheds. Given the clear desire to create additional indicators that will further add to the value of the Landscapes Index, two additional Watersheds indicators will be established (Table 27) to expand the series of water resource-based indicators aimed at measuring progress towards both Landscapes and Watersheds goals.
24 Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan Section 7. References
Chester County Water Resources Authority, Chester County, Pennsylvania Water Resources Compendium – Part 1: Technical Report of Assessment of 21 Watersheds Originating in Chester County, Pennsylvania, 2001.
Chester County Board of Commissioners and Chester County Water Resources Authority, Watersheds – An Integrated Water Resources Management Plan for Chester County, Pennsylvania and Its Watersheds, September 17, 2002.
Brandywine Creek Watershed Action Plan 25 Table 1. Subbasins within the Watershed Size (in Square Subbasin Name Subbasin Code Miles) Brandywine Creek above Chadds Ford B1 10.06 Brandywine Creek at Wilmington B2 6.06 Brandywine Creek below Chadds Ford B3 30.36 Brandywine Creek/ Pocopson Creek B4 19.74 Buck Run B5 26.89 Doe Run B6 21.68 East Branch Brandywine Creek/ B7 17.76 Shamona Creek East Branch Brandywine Creek/ Taylor Run B8 12.89 East Branch Brandywine Creek/ Beaver Creek B9 26.06 Marsh Creek B10 20.31 Upper East Branch Brandywine Creek B11 25.66 Upper West Branch Brandywine Creek B12 30.24 West Branch Brandywine Creek/ Broad Run B13 29.09 West Branch Brandywine Creek/ Rock Run/ B14 27.08 Sucker Run West Valley Creek B15 20.67
Table 2. Snapshot of Watershed Characteristics Land area 325 sq. miles 1995 Land Use as % of Total Land Area Agriculture 37% Developed 26% Other 37% Total Stream Miles 567 1st Order Stream Miles 315 % 1st Order Stream 55% Impaired Stream Miles 140 1998 Estimated Population 220,700 2020 Projected Population 281,000 % Population Increase by 2020 27% 1998 Estimated Withdrawals 19,463 MGY 1998 Population on Public Water 62% Predominant Geology Crystalline Table 3. Population – 1998 Estimates and 2020 Projections by Subbasin Subbasin 1998 Est. 2020 Est. Area in People per Code Subbasin Name Population Population Square Sq. Mi. miles (1998) B1 Brandywine Creek above 4,966 7,250 10.06 497 Chadds Ford B2 Brandywine Creek at 37,841 41,905 6.06 6,307 Wilmington B3 Brandywine Creek below 15,958 19,498 30.36 526 Chadds Ford B4 Brandywine Creek/ Pocopson 16,528 21,735 19.74 826 Creek B5 Buck Run 8,275 9,718 26.89 306 B6 Doe Run 2,100 2,606 21.68 97 B7 East Branch Brandywine 13,407 18,276 17.76 755 Creek/ Shamona Creek B8 East Branch Brandywine 15,252 18,037 12.89 1,183 Creek/ Taylor Run B9 East Branch Brandywine 26,430 33,649 26.06 1,014 Creek/ Beaver Creek B10 Marsh Creek 6,555 11,375 20.31 323 B11 Upper East Branch 6,199 8,580 25.66 205 Brandywine Creek B12 Upper West Branch 8,499 11,424 30.24 281 Brandywine Creek B13 West Branch Brandywine 9,895 13,754 29.09 340 Creek/ Broad Run B14 West Branch Brandywine 25,050 31,954 27.08 925 Creek/Rock Run/ Sucker Run B15 West Valley Creek 23,778 31,231 20.67 1,150 Total 220,734 280,993 324.6 679
Table 4. Land Use in the Watershed - 1995 Land Use Percent Agriculture 37.0% Commercial/Services 1.7% Community Service 0.6% Industrial 0.9% Large Confined Feeding Operation 0.0% Mining 0.2% Parking 0.5% Recreation 2.8% Residential - High Density 0.8% Residential - Multi-family 1.8% Residential - Single Family 19.3% Transportation/Utility 1.6% Urban 0.0% Vacant 1.5% Water 1.1% Wetlands 0.0% Wooded 31.2% Table 5. Percent Impervious Cover by Subbasin 1998 % 2020 % Subbasin Subbasin Impervious Impervious Change from 1998 Code Cover Cover to 2020 B1 Brandywine Creek above 9.9 13.1 3.2 Chadds Ford B2 Brandywine Creek at 44.6 47.4 2.8 Wilmington B3 Brandywine Creek below 12.7 14.8 2.1 Chadds Ford B4 Brandywine Creek/Pocopson 10.7 13.5 2.8 Creek B5 Buck Run 6.1 6.5 0.5 B6 Doe Run 3.9 4.3 0.5 B7 East Branch Brandywine 11.4 14.5 3.1 Creek/Shamona Creek B8 East Branch Brandywine 12.8 15.9 3.2 Creek/Taylor Run B9 East Branch 13.8 16.3 2.5 Brandywine/Beaver Creek B10 Marsh Creek 11.6 15.4 3.8 B11 Upper East Branch Brandywine 7.2 8.7 1.5 Creek B12 Upper West Branch Brandywine 7.5 8.8 1.3 Creek B13 West Branch Brandywine 7.3 8.8 1.5 Creek/Broad Run B14 West Branch Brandywine/Rock 13.6 16.5 2.9 Run/Sucker Run B15 West Valley Creek 18.2 24.1 5.9 Total 10.9 13.3 13.3 Table 6. Estimated 1998 Net Ground Water Withdrawals by Subbasins (in million gallons per year, MGY) Ground Water Net Net 1 in 25 Year Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Average Targets as % of as % of 1 in as % of Annual Base 1 in 25 Yr Volume Volume Net 25 Year Withdrawal Subbasin Code and Name Flow Baseflow Withdrawn Recharged Withdrawal Baseflow Target B1 Brandywine Creek above Chadds 1,098 50% (549 MGY) 65 133 -68 -6% -12% Ford B2 Brandywine Creek at Wilmington 661 100% (661 MGY) 17 14 3 <1% <1% B3 Brandywine Creek below Chadds 3,313 100% (3,313 MGY) 112 31 81 2% 2% Ford B4 Brandywine Creek/Pocopson Creek 2,154 100% (2,154 MGY) 283 173 110 5% 5% B5 Buck Run 2,925 100% (2,925 MGY) 121 82 38 1% 1% B6 Doe Run 2,358 100% (2,359 MGY) 46 39 7 <1% <1% B7 East Branch Brandywine 1,938 50% (969 MGY) 216 104 112 6% 12% Creek/Shamona Creek B8 East Branch Brandywine 1,407 50% (704 MGY) 174 67 108 8% 15% Creek/Taylor Run B9 East Branch Brandywine/Beaver 2,825 50% (1,412 MGY) 627 172 455 16% 32% Creek B10 Marsh Creek 2,217 50% (1,109 MGY) 274 149 126 6% 11% B11 Upper East Branch Brandywine 2,800 50% (1,400 MGY) 166 104 63 2% 4% Creek B12 Upper West Branch Brandywine 3,300 50% (1,650 MGY) 302 120 182 6% 11% Creek B13 West Branch Brandywine 3,175 50% 1,588 MGY) 310 230 80 3% 5% Creek/Broad Run B14 West Branch Brandywine/Rock 2,945 50% (1,472 MGY) 290 106 184 6% 12% Run/Sucker Run B15 West Valley Creek 2,233 50% (1,116 MGY) 1,046 45 1,000 45% 90% Total for Watershed: 4,049 1,568 2,480 Table 7. Protected Water Use Designations Exceptions Stream Zone County Water Uses to Specific Protected Criteria 4—West Branch Main Stem, T 437 Bridge to Chester TSF, MF None Brandywine Creek Dam at Valley Station 5—Unnamed Basins, T 437 Bridge to Dam Chester TSF, MF None Tributaries to West at Valley Station (except Branch Brandywine those in West Brandywine Creek Township) 5—Unnamed Basins, in West Brandywine Chester HQ-TSF, MF None Tributaries to West Township Branch Brandywine Creek 5—Birch Run Basin, Source to Hibernia Chester HQ-CWF None Park Dam 5—Birch Run Basin, Hibernia Park Dam to Chester TSF, MF None Mouth 5—Unnamed Basin Chester HQ-CWF, MF None Tributary to West Branch Brandywine Creek at RM 21.2 (UNT # 00215) 5—Rock Run Basin Chester TSF, MF None 4—West Branch Main Stem, Dam at Valley Chester WWF, MF None Brandywine Creek Station to Dennis Run 5—Unnamed Basins, Dam at Valley Chester WWF, MF None Tributaries to West Station to Dennis Run Branch Brandywine Creek 5—Sucker Run Basin Chester WWF, MF None 5—Dennis Run Basin Chester WWF, MF None 4—West Branch Main Stem, Dennis Run to Chester WWF, MF None Brandywine Creek Buck Run 5—Unnamed Basins, Dennis Run to Buck Chester WWF, MF None Tributaries to West Run, except unnamed Branch Brandywine Tributary to West Branch Creek Brandywine at RM 12.3 (UNT # 00193) 5—Unnamed Basin, Source to Unnamed Chester CWF, MF None Tributary to West Tributary to UNT # 00193 at Branch Brandywine RM 0.3 (UNT # 00194) Creek at RM 12.3 (UNT # 00193) 6—Unnamed Basin Chester EV, MF None Tributary to UNT # 00193 at RM 0.3 (UNT # 00194) 5—Unnamed Basin, Unnamed Tributary to Chester CWF, MF None Tributary to West UNT #00193 at RM 0.3 Branch Brandywine (UNT # 00194) to Mouth Creek at RM 12.3 (UNT # 00193) 5—Buck Run Basin Chester TSF, MF None Table 7. Protected Water Use Designations Exceptions Stream Zone County Water Uses to Specific Protected Criteria 4—West Branch Main Stem, Buck Run to Chester WWF, MF None Brandywine Creek Confluence with East Branch 5—Unnamed Basins, Buck Run to Chester WWF, MF None Tributaries to West Confluence with East Branch Branch Brandywine except Unnamed Tributaries Creek to West Branch Brandywine at RM’s, 10.0, 9.48, 9.14, 8.0 & 5.2 (UNT’s # 00130, 00126, 00124, 00119, 00108) 5—Unnamed Basins Chester CWF, MF None Tributaries to West Branch Brandywine Creek at RM’s 10.0, 9.48, 9.14 & 8.0 (UNT’s # 00130, 00126, 00124, 00119) 5—Unnamed Basin Chester EV, MF None Tributary to West Branch Brandywine Creek at RM 5.2 (UNT # 00108) 5—Broad Run Basin Chester EV, MF None 4—East Branch Main Stem, Source to Chester HQ-TSF, MF None Brandywine Creek Shamona Creek 5—Unnamed Basins, Source to Shamona Chester HQ-TSF, MF None Tributaries to East Creek Branch Brandywine Creek 5—Indian Run Basin Chester HQ-CWF None 5—Culbertson Run Basin Chester HQ-TSF, MF None 5—Marsh Creek Basin Chester HQ-TSF, MF None 5—Shamona Creek Basin Chester HQ-TSF, MF None 4—East Branch Main Stem, Shamona Creek Chester WWF, MF None Brandywine Creek to Confluence with West Branch 5—Unnamed Basins, Shamona Creek to Chester WWF, MF None Tributaries to East Confluence with West Branch Brandywine Branch (except those in East Creek Brandywine and Uwchlan Townships) 5—Unnamed Basins, in East Brandywine Chester HQ-TSF, MF None Tributaries to East and Uwchlan Townships Branch Brandywine Creek 5—Beaver Creek Basin, East Brandywine-Cain Chester TSF, MF None Township Border to Mouth 5—Valley Creek Basin, Source to Broad Run Chester CWF, MF None 6—Broad Run Basin Chester HQ-CWF, MF None 5—Valley Creek Basin, Broad Run to Mouth Chester CWF-MF None 5—Taylor Run Basin Chester TSF, MF None Table 7. Protected Water Use Designations Exceptions Stream Zone County Water Uses to Specific Protected Criteria 5—Blackhorse Run Basin Chester TSF, MF None 3—Brandywine Creek Main Stem, Confluence of Delaware WWF, MF Add TON East and West Branches to PA-DE State Border 4—Unnamed Basins (all sections in PA), Chester- WWF, MF None Tributaries to Confluence of East and West Delaware Brandywine Creek Branches to PA-DE State Border 4—Plum Run Basin Chester WWF, MF None 4—Radley Run Basin Chester WWF, MF None 4—Pocopson Creek Basin Chester TSF, MF None 4—Bennetts Run Basin Chester WWF, MF None 4—Brinton Run Basin Chester WWF, MF None 4—Ring Run Basin Chester WWF, MF None 4—Harvey Run Basin Chester WWF, MF None 3—Brandywine Creek (DE) 4—Unnamed Basins (all sections in PA), Delaware WWF, MF None Tributaries to PA-DE State Border to Brandywine Creek Mouth Table 8. List of Impaired Streams - Pennsylvania (Proposed 2000, from PA-DEP website 11-1-00) Targeted for TMDL Source of *Year Development Segment ID Mile Data Source Impairment Cause of Impairment Priority Listed by 2002? Beaver Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 313, SWP: 03H) 970804-1332-GL 0.68 Unassessed Project Natural Sources Water/Flow Variability Low 1998 No
Brandywine Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 26, SWP: 03H) 27 1.28 Surface Water Other Nutrients Medium 1996 No Monitoring Program
Buck Run, Unt (Stream Code: 185, SWP: 03H) 970710-1040-GL 1.55 Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Habitat Other Habitat Alterations Low 1998 No Modification
Buck Run, Unt (Stream Code: 186, SWP: 03H) 970710-1040-GL 0.91 Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Habitat Other Habitat Alterations Low 1998 No Modification
Buck Run, Unt (Stream Code: 187, SWP: 03H) 970710-1340-GL 1.04 Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Habitat Other Habitat Alterations Low 1998 No Modification Table 8. List of Impaired Streams - Pennsylvania (Proposed 2000, from PA-DEP website 11-1-00) Targeted for TMDL Source of *Year Development Segment ID Mile Data Source Impairment Cause of Impairment Priority Listed by 2002? East Branch Brandywine Creek (Stream Code: 229, SWP: 03H) 970703-1500-AC 0.56 Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Hydromodification Flow Alterations Low 1998 No
970707-1120-GL 2.86 Unassessed Project Hydromodification Flow Alterations Low 1998 No
Unassessed Project Hydromodification Siltation Medium 1998 No
East Branch Brandywine Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 295, SWP: 03H) 971007-1326-GL 2.18 Unassessed Project Habitat Other Habitat Alterations Low 1998 No Modification Unassessed Project Urban Cause Unknown Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
East Branch Brandywine Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 296, SWP: 03H) 971007-1326-GL 0.14 Unassessed Project Habitat Other Habitat Alterations Low 1998 No Modification Unassessed Project Urban Cause Unknown Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
East Branch Brandywine Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 371, SWP: 03H) 970707-1120-GL 1.46 Unassessed Project Hydromodification Flow Alterations Low 1998 No
Unassessed Project Hydromodification Siltation Medium 1998 No Table 8. List of Impaired Streams - Pennsylvania (Proposed 2000, from PA-DEP website 11-1-00) Targeted for TMDL Source of *Year Development Segment ID Mile Data Source Impairment Cause of Impairment Priority Listed by 2002?
East Branch Brandywine Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 372, SWP: 03H) 970707-1120-GL 0.72 Unassessed Project Hydromodification Flow Alterations Low 1998 No
Unassessed Project Hydromodification Siltation Medium 1998 No
East Branch Brandywine Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 64954, SWP: 03H) 970707-1120-GL 1.06 Unassessed Project Hydromodification Flow Alterations Low 1998 No
Unassessed Project Hydromodification Siltation Medium 1998 No
Plum Run (Stream Code: 76, SWP: 03H) 971023-1320-GL 3.42 Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Urban Cause Unknown Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
Plum Run, Unt (Stream Code: 77, SWP: 03H) 971023-1320-GL 0.73 Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Urban Cause Unknown Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers Table 8. List of Impaired Streams - Pennsylvania (Proposed 2000, from PA-DEP website 11-1-00) Targeted for TMDL Source of *Year Development Segment ID Mile Data Source Impairment Cause of Impairment Priority Listed by 2002?
Plum Run, Unt (Stream Code: 78, SWP: 03H) 971023-1320-GL 1.35 Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Urban Cause Unknown Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
Plum Run, Unt (Stream Code: 79, SWP: 03H) 971023-1320-GL 1.41 Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Urban Cause Unknown Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
Plum Run, Unt (Stream Code: 80, SWP: 03H) 971023-1320-GL 0.18 Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Urban Cause Unknown Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
Pocopson Creek (Stream Code: 53, SWP: 03H) 971021-1108-GL 1.15 Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No Table 8. List of Impaired Streams - Pennsylvania (Proposed 2000, from PA-DEP website 11-1-00) Targeted for TMDL Source of *Year Development Segment ID Mile Data Source Impairment Cause of Impairment Priority Listed by 2002? Pocopson Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 54, SWP: 03H) 971021-1108-GL 0.49 Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
Radley Run (Stream Code: 71, SWP: 03H) 971024-1120-GL 2.22 Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
Radley Run, Unt (Stream Code: 72, SWP: 03H) 971024-1120-GL 0.94 Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
Sucker Run (Stream Code: 202, SWP: 03H) 970930-1437-GL 3.63 Unassessed Project Agriculture Nutrients Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Urban Water/Flow Variability Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
Sucker Run, Unt (Stream Code: 203, SWP: 03H) 970930-1437-GL 1.62 Unassessed Project Agriculture Nutrients Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Urban Water/Flow Variability Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers Table 8. List of Impaired Streams - Pennsylvania (Proposed 2000, from PA-DEP website 11-1-00) Targeted for TMDL Source of *Year Development Segment ID Mile Data Source Impairment Cause of Impairment Priority Listed by 2002? Sucker Run, Unt (Stream Code: 204, SWP: 03H) 970930-1437-GL 0.87 Unassessed Project Agriculture Nutrients Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Urban Water/Flow Variability Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
Sucker Run, Unt (Stream Code: 205, SWP: 03H) 970930-1437-GL 0.67 Unassessed Project Agriculture Nutrients Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Urban Water/Flow Variability Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
Taylor Run (Stream Code: 236, SWP: 03H) 971006-1127-GL 2.33 Unassessed Project Habitat Other Habitat Alterations Low 1998 No Modification Unassessed Project Urban Siltation Medium 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers 971006-1409-GL 2.35 Unassessed Project Urban Cause Unknown Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
Taylor Run, Unt (Stream Code: 237, SWP: 03H) 971006-1127-GL 1.08 Unassessed Project Habitat Other Habitat Alterations Low 1998 No Modification Table 8. List of Impaired Streams - Pennsylvania (Proposed 2000, from PA-DEP website 11-1-00) Targeted for TMDL Source of *Year Development Segment ID Mile Data Source Impairment Cause of Impairment Priority Listed by 2002? Unassessed Project Urban Siltation Medium 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
Taylor Run, Unt (Stream Code: 238, SWP: 03H) 971006-1127-GL 0.34 Unassessed Project Habitat Other Habitat Alterations Low 1998 No Modification Unassessed Project Urban Siltation Medium 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
Taylor Run, Unt (Stream Code: 239, SWP: 03H) 971006-1127-GL 0.97 Unassessed Project Habitat Other Habitat Alterations Low 1998 No Modification Unassessed Project Urban Siltation Medium 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
Taylor Run, Unt (Stream Code: 240, SWP: 03H) 971006-1409-GL 0.9 Unassessed Project Urban Cause Unknown Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
Taylor Run, Unt (Stream Code: 241, SWP: 03H) 971006-1409-GL 0.57 Unassessed Project Urban Cause Unknown Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers Table 8. List of Impaired Streams - Pennsylvania (Proposed 2000, from PA-DEP website 11-1-00) Targeted for TMDL Source of *Year Development Segment ID Mile Data Source Impairment Cause of Impairment Priority Listed by 2002? Taylor Run, Unt (Stream Code: 242, SWP: 03H) 971006-1409-GL 0.57 Unassessed Project Urban Cause Unknown Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
Taylor Run, Unt (Stream Code: 243, SWP: 03H) 971006-1409-GL 0.98 Unassessed Project Urban Cause Unknown Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
Taylor Run, Unt (Stream Code: 244, SWP: 03H) 971006-1409-GL 0.77 Unassessed Project Urban Cause Unknown Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
Taylor Run, Unt (Stream Code: 245, SWP: 03H) 971006-1409-GL 0.34 Unassessed Project Urban Cause Unknown Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
Valley Creek (Stream Code: 254, SWP: 03H) 971010-1053-AC 7.23 Unassessed Project Source Unknown Cause Unknown Low 1998 No Table 8. List of Impaired Streams - Pennsylvania (Proposed 2000, from PA-DEP website 11-1-00) Targeted for TMDL Source of *Year Development Segment ID Mile Data Source Impairment Cause of Impairment Priority Listed by 2002? Valley Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 267, SWP: 03H) 971010-1053-AC 0.73 Unassessed Project Source Unknown Cause Unknown Low 1998 No
Valley Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 268, SWP: 03H) 971010-1053-AC 0.77 Unassessed Project Source Unknown Cause Unknown Low 1998 No
Valley Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 269, SWP: 03H) 971010-1053-AC 2.45 Unassessed Project Source Unknown Cause Unknown Low 1998 No
Valley Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 270, SWP: 03H) 971010-1053-AC 0.58 Unassessed Project Source Unknown Cause Unknown Low 1998 No
Valley Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 271, SWP: 03H) 971010-1053-AC 0.77 Unassessed Project Source Unknown Cause Unknown Low 1998 No
Valley Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 272, SWP: 03H) 971010-1053-AC 1.06 Unassessed Project Source Unknown Cause Unknown Low 1998 No Table 8. List of Impaired Streams - Pennsylvania (Proposed 2000, from PA-DEP website 11-1-00) Targeted for TMDL Source of *Year Development Segment ID Mile Data Source Impairment Cause of Impairment Priority Listed by 2002? Valley Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 273, SWP: 03H) 971010-1053-AC 2.05 Unassessed Project Source Unknown Cause Unknown Low 1998 No
Valley Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 274, SWP: 03H) 971010-1053-AC 3.46 Unassessed Project Source Unknown Cause Unknown Low 1998 No
Valley Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 275, SWP: 03H) 971010-1053-AC 1.03 Unassessed Project Source Unknown Cause Unknown Low 1998 No
Valley Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 276, SWP: 03H) 971010-1053-AC 1.92 Unassessed Project Source Unknown Cause Unknown Low 1998 No
Valley Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 277, SWP: 03H) 971010-1053-AC 0.9 Unassessed Project Source Unknown Cause Unknown Low 1998 No
Valley Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 278, SWP: 03H) 971010-1053-AC 1.22 Unassessed Project Source Unknown Cause Unknown Low 1998 No Table 8. List of Impaired Streams - Pennsylvania (Proposed 2000, from PA-DEP website 11-1-00) Targeted for TMDL Source of *Year Development Segment ID Mile Data Source Impairment Cause of Impairment Priority Listed by 2002? Valley Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 279, SWP: 03H) 971010-1053-AC 0.89 Unassessed Project Source Unknown Cause Unknown Low 1998 No
Valley Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 280, SWP: 03H) 971010-1053-AC 0.42 Unassessed Project Source Unknown Cause Unknown Low 1998 No
Valley Run (Stream Code: 305, SWP: 03H) 970730-1330-GL 3.42 Unassessed Project Urban Flow Alterations Low 1998 No Runoff/Storm Sewers
West Branch Brandywine Creek (Stream Code: 85, SWP: 03H) 970618-1118-GL 2.98 Unassessed Project Agriculture Nutrients Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
970618-1340-GL 1.48 Unassessed Project Agriculture Nutrients Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No Table 8. List of Impaired Streams - Pennsylvania (Proposed 2000, from PA-DEP website 11-1-00) Targeted for TMDL Source of *Year Development Segment ID Mile Data Source Impairment Cause of Impairment Priority Listed by 2002? West Branch Brandywine Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 224, SWP: 03H) 970619-1222-GL 4.59 Unassessed Project Agriculture Nutrients Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
970619-1345-GL 2.58 Unassessed Project Agriculture Nutrients Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
West Branch Brandywine Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 225, SWP: 03H) 970619-1222-GL 0.92 Unassessed Project Agriculture Nutrients Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
West Branch Brandywine Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 226, SWP: 03H) 970619-1345-GL 1.41 Unassessed Project Agriculture Nutrients Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
West Branch Brandywine Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 227, SWP: 03H) 970618-1340-GL 1.31 Unassessed Project Agriculture Nutrients Medium 1998 No Table 8. List of Impaired Streams - Pennsylvania (Proposed 2000, from PA-DEP website 11-1-00) Targeted for TMDL Source of *Year Development Segment ID Mile Data Source Impairment Cause of Impairment Priority Listed by 2002? Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No
West Branch Brandywine Creek, Unt (Stream Code: 228, SWP: 03H) 970618-1340-GL 0.78 Unassessed Project Agriculture Nutrients Medium 1998 No
Unassessed Project Agriculture Siltation Medium 1998 No Table 8. List of Impaired Streams - Delaware (Proposed Year 2000 from DE-DNREC website 11-1-00) WATERBODY ID WATERSHED SIZE POLLUTANT(S) AND PROBABLE YEAR TARGET DATE (TOTAL SIZE) NAME SEGMENT DESCRIPTION AFFECTED OR/STRESSORS SOURCES LISTED FOR TMDL
DE040-001 Brandywine Lower Mainstem Lower 3.8 Miles Nutrients and PCB’s PS, NPS, SF 1996 1999 (For Nutrients) (3.8 Miles) Creek Brandywine Brandywine
2009 (for PCB’s)
Bacteria PS, NPS 2000 2004
Mainstem Lower 3.8 Miles Habitat NPS 1998 2009 Brandywine
1999 (for Nutrients) DE040-002 Brandywine Upper From State Line to 9.3 miles Bacteria, PCBs, and PS, NPS, SF 1996 (9.3 Miles) Creek Brandywine Wilmington Nutrients 2004 (for Bacteria)
2009 (for PCB’s)
From State Line to the 8.0 miles Habitat NPS 1998 2009 Confluence with the Christina River
DE040-003 Brandywine All Eastern tributary of Beaver .96 miles Biology and Habitat NPS 1998 2009 (19.4 Miles) Creek tributaries on Creek, from headwaters to Brandywine the confluence with Creek from mainstem Beaver Creek the Tributary originating in .26 miles Biology and Habitat NPS 1998 2009 headwaters at PA on the western side of PA-DEP line Brandywine Creek to the Tributary of Brandywine .92 miles Habitat NPS 1998 2009 confluence Creek, Off Route 100 with the (near PA-DE Border) Christina River Table 8. List of Impaired Streams - Delaware (Proposed Year 2000 from DE-DNREC website 11-1-00) WATERBODY ID WATERSHED SIZE POLLUTANT(S) AND PROBABLE YEAR TARGET DATE (TOTAL SIZE) NAME SEGMENT DESCRIPTION AFFECTED OR/STRESSORS SOURCES LISTED FOR TMDL Tributary of Brandywine .85 miles Habitat NPS 1998 2009 Creek just below Beaver Creek Eastern tributary of the 1.16 miles Habitat NPS 1998 2009 headwaters of Rocky Run (upper half) Eastern tributary of the 1.16 miles Biology and Habitat NPS 1998 2009 headwaters of Rocky Run (lower half) From the confluence of the .64 miles Habitat NPS 1998 2009 headwaters of Wilson Run to the next larger stream order (lower half) From the confluence of the .64 miles Biology and Habitat NPS 1998 2009 headwaters of Wilson Run to the next larger stream order (upper half) Wilson Run, from start of .88 miles Biology NPS 1998 2009 the third order stream to the confluence with Brandywine Creek Tributary of Wilson Run .45 miles Habitat NPS 1998 2009 on Mintchanin Road from the headwaters to the first confluence Table 9. Average Yearly Brillouin’s Diversity Index Values for the Watershed Brillouin’s Brillouin’s Number of Stations Diversity Number of Stations Diversity Year Sampled Index Year Sampled Index 1970 3 1.11 1984 11 2.98 1971 4 0.96 1985 11 3.15 1972 5 1.98 1986 11 3.30 1973 10 1.80 1987 11 3.21 1974 10 1.86 1988 11 3.16 1975 10 2.19 1989 11 3.34 1976 11 2.41 1990 11 3.29 1977 11 2.46 1991 11 3.15 1978 11 1.75 1992 11 3.38 1979 12 2.30 1993 11 3.59 1980 12 2.78 1994 11 3.50 1981 12 3.14 1995 11 3.60 1982 12 3.00 1996 4 3.53 1983 11 3.11 1997 6 3.46 Table 10. PNDI Sites Located Within the Watershed Great Marsh (NC 513, SA 520, SA545, SA546, SA549) S East Nantmeal, West Nantmeal and Wallace Townships S Largest, inland freshwater marsh and wetland complex in southeastern PA; two natural communities and several animal species of special concern; partially protected by The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Brandywine Conservancy, French & Pickering Creeks Trust.
SP520 S East Brandywine and Uwchlan Townships S This aquatic plant (TU) was found at two locations in the East Branch Brandywine Creek; no longer considered a species of special concern in PA, however it is an indicator of relatively clean water.
Marsh Creek Lake (SA532) S Upper Uwchlan Township S A PA-threatened animal species was found at this site in 1994. More searching is needed to determine the extent of the population and the crucial habitat areas.
SP513 S West Brandywine Township S Fair population of a S3S4, TU aquatic plant occurs in 2 locations in West Branch Brandywine Creek including part through Hibernia County Park.
Mill Rd. Woods (SP508) & Rock Run Railroad Site (SP538) S Valley Township S A poor population of a G4, TU plant; monitoring is the only recommendation.
Rock Valley Woods (SP520, SP521) S Valley Township and Coatesville City S A fair population of a TU plant and a good population of a S3, PE Shrub; easement and some management to maintain openings suggested.
Buck Run Tributary (SP533) S East Fallowfield Township S A fair population of a TU plant; mowing needed in early summer to restrict growth of shrubs.
SA528, SP515 S West Marlborough Township S Excellent population of PR plant and a pop of a G3S2 animal at King’s Ranch; monitor population.
Green Lawn South (SP529) S West Marlborough Township S Fair to good population of a S3, TU plant; site under easement; monitor. Table 10. PNDI Sites Located Within the Watershed Apple Grove Road Site (SP532) S West Marlborough Township S A poor population of a S3S4, PT grass; limit mowing to early summer to maintain population.
(SP534) S Newlin Township
(SP535) S East Marlborough Township S Fair to good populations of a S3, TU wildflower (SP534) and a S2, PT plant (SP535) occur on wet rock faces and along the creek at Laurel Run Natural Area; monitor population.
East Green Valley Road Site (SP530) S Newlin Township S A S2, TU plant was found at this location; further survey needed to assess population size.
East Upland Site (SP531) S East Marlborough and West Marlborough Townships S A poor population of a S3S4, PT grass; limit mowing to early summer to maintain population.
NC537, NC540 S West Bradford Township S Broad Run is an EV Stream and a High Gradient Clearwater Creek Natural Community. It is a tributary to West Branch Brandywine Creek; monitor water quality and promote vegetated buffers.
North Valley Hills (SP525, SP526) S West Whiteland Township S Small populations of a S1, PE tree and a S3, PE shrub along pipeline, notify pipeline company.
Embreeville West Site (SP539) S Newlin Township S A plant species whose status has not yet been determined occurs on a steep wooded slope along the West Branch Brandywine Creek; monitor and protect from any roadwork in area.
Myrick Forest (SP519) S Pocopson Township S Contains good population of S3, PR plant and diversity of more common species; part of site is within Myrick Conservation Center (Brandywine Valley Association); maintain canopy. Table 10. PNDI Sites Located Within the Watershed Unionville Serpentine Barrens (NC505) S Newlin Township S Serpentine Barrens Natural Community, seven rare plant species. Partially protected by Natural Lands Trust; in need of management to control exotics.
SP503 S Newlin Township S This species occurs on the steeper open slopes that are facing south or southwest. Xeric conditions have excluded many woody species and reduced the amount and size of many others. This species appears to thrive where conditions are driest and competition is reduced. This population is small but will probably persist as long as the openings are maintained; it has been known from this site since at least 1883.
SP504 S Newlin Township S This serpentine endemic is found throughout the grassy and gravel barrens. Although the population is in good shape, its size does not compare to populations at other areas.
SP517 S Newlin Township S The small sedge is scattered over the dry, open, bluestem-dominated grassland. The species appears to be doing very well and should continue to do so as long as the openings remain.
SP522 S Newlin Township S All dry grassy openings contain this species; should remain a part of the flora as long as the openings are maintained by burning or some other method.
SP530 S Newlin Township S Ranked C, population is relegated to small prairie like openings; population may be in trouble if there is no effort toward managing the site. Found growing near the edge of a glade where trees and shrubs are encroaching.
SP531 S Newlin Township S This species was reported during a field survey in 1990. No field data was provided and it could not be relocated during subsequent surveys. This grass is common in the Midwest, here it is found on the serpentine grasslands and on limestone glades.
Wawaset Marsh (SP511) S East Bradford and Pocopson Townships S Small population of S3, PR plant in cattail-sweetflag marsh; maintain wetland; monitor (population may vary year-to-year). Table 10. PNDI Sites Located Within the Watershed Marshallton Barrens (SP512, SP541) S East Bradford and West Bradford Townships S Fair populations of 3 S2, PT plant species occur in grassy openings; site is the best of the small serpentine outcrops on PA; protected by Natural Lands Trust easement but may need management.
Saw Mill Road Pond (SP546) S West Bradford S A fair-quality population of an S2 plant species was found at this site in 1995. It occurs on a moist shaded bank at the west end of an artificial pond.
Fern Hill Serpentine Barrens (NC504) S West Goshen Township S A small Serpentine Barrens Natural Community; six plants and two animal species of special concern; management will be needed to preserve serpentine elements. TNC registry; conservation easement or public or private preserve would enhance long-term protection.
SP502 S West Goshen Township S This species is scattered throughout the open barrens but is most common near the old quarry; may be a problem with yard waste and other trash; requires open gravel areas to survive.
SP503 S West Goshen Township S This species is scattered throughout the barrens in areas where there are no competing species; can tolerate high temperatures and extreme drought.
SP521 S West Goshen Township S This species is found in an area that carries water during some portion of the year and remains moist much of the year. The species is reproducing and apparently secure. The seedbank must contain enough seeds of the species to overcome most temporary disturbances, but it could be wiped out easily by fill material or other debris.
SP522 S West Goshen Township S Thousands of flowering culms have been estimated to be growing over the western half of the barren. In places it is dominant or codominant with little bluestem grass. There are no present threats to this species.
SP533 S West Goshen Township S A fairly large population of this species grows in the xeric, sparsely vegetated grassland areas along with other grasses and drought resistant forbs. The only threat to this species is succession to a dense grassland or invasion of woody species. Table 10. PNDI Sites Located Within the Watershed SA547, SA548 S West Goshen Township S The area has not been resurveyed for these 2 species since 1985, but good to excellent populations were observed then.
SP560 S West Goshen Township S Only a small population of this species, but well distributed throughout the grassland and gravel areas. Yard waste may be the most immediate threat.
SP520 S Birmingham, Thornbury, and Westtown Townships S A good to fair population of this species were observed; more monitoring is needed.
SP542 S Birmingham, Thornbury, and Westtown Townships S Only a small number of this species were found but they appear healthy and are reproducing; an immediate threat is shading and crowding from woody plants.
SP543 S Birmingham, Thornbury, and Westtown Townships S *This species is the second most common plant after little bluestem grass; monitoring is recommended to ensure that woody plants do no threaten the population
Smith Bridge Woods (SP512) S Birmingham Township S Fair population of a S3, TU plant. Table 11. Inventory of Mapped County and State Owned Recreational Resources
S Marsh Creek State Park: 1,705 acres with a 535-acre lake S Struble Lake, 146 acres S Hibernia County Park, 890 Acres S Chambers Lake, 90 Acres within Hibernia County Park S Springton Manor Farm, 300 Acres S Struble Trail S Brandywine Park (Delaware), and S Brandywine Battlefield Revolutionary War site adjacent to Brandywine Creek along US Route 1 near Chadds Ford Table 12. Inventory of Mapped Historic Resources
S Historic Structures: Isabella Furnace, Pleasant Hill Plantation, William Ferguson Farm, Springton Manor Farm, Sandy Hill Tavern, Hibernia House in Hibernia Park, Bridge Mill Farm, Uwchlan Friends Meetinghouse, Caln Friends Meetinghouse, Roger Hunt Mill Complex, Downingtown Log House, General Washington Inn, National Bank of Coatesville Bldg, Lukens, Main Office Bldg, Abram Hudson Home and Carriage House, Terracina, Collins Mansion, Col. John Hannum House, Taylor House, Daniel Meredith House, Benjamin Rush House, Autun (Meadowcourt), Greenwood School, David Ashbridge Log House, Francis W. Kennedy House, Kinbawn, Hannah White Log House, Riter Boyer House, George Hoffman House, Newlin Miller's House, Colebrook Manor, Wee Grimmet, West Whiteland Inn, Hunt Downing House, Woodledge, Charles Thomas House, Oaklands, Thomas Marble Quarry Houses, Joseph Price House, Whitford Station House, Thomas Mill and Miller's House, Whitford Hall, Whitford Garne, Sleepy Hollow Hall, Zook House #2, Jacob Zook House, Zook House #1, Exton Hotel, William's Deluxe Cabins, Benjamin Jacobs House, Fox Chase Inn, Evan Lewis House, Lochiel Farm, Ship Inn, Hewson Cox House, Solitude Farm, Benjamin Pennypacker House, Pickwick/Kane House ( John Kent Jr. House), St. Paul's Church, Parkesburg National Bank, Moses Ross House, John Ferron House, St. Malachi Roman Catholic Church, House at Springdale, Cyrus Hoopes House and Barn, Philip Dougherty House, Philip Dougherty Tavern, Edward Dougherty House, Mansel Passmore House, John Bailey Farm, Martha Pennock House, Asa Walton House, Harry DeHaven House, Isaac Pawling House, Thomas Scott House, David Scott House, Drover's Inn (Jesse Bently House), Lukens Pierce House (Fallowfield Octagonal House), John Wentz House, Robert Young House, White Horse Tavern, Rev. Joshua Vaughan House, Powell Farm, John Powell House, Robert Wilson House, Joseph Gladden House, Brandywine Bldg. and Loan Assoc. Devt (Italianette Row), John Hanna Farm, Robert Steen House, Upper Laurel Iron Works House, John Pusey House, Mortonville Hotel, Lower Laurel Iron Works Worker's House, Spruce Grove School House, Joseph Young House, Mountain Meadow Farm, Hayes Homestead, Hayes Mill House, Harlan House, Jacob Hayes House, Como Farm, Baily Farm, Temple/Webster/Stoner House, Marshallton Inn (The Gen. Wayne Inn), Bradford Friends Meeting, Carter/Worth House and Farm, Indian Deep Farm, Derbydown Homested, Wilkenson House, Joseph Hance House and Barn, East Bradford Boarding School for Boys, Strode's Mill (Etter's Mill), Daniel Davies House and Barn, Birmingham Friends Orthodox Meetinghouse, Edgewood (Charles Sharpless House), Edward Brinton House, George Brinton House [Twp OSP refers to it as "Roundelay), Brinton's Mill, Gideon Wickersham Farm, Oskar G. Stonorov House, Pennsbury Inn, Old Kennett Friends Meetinghouse, Peter Harvey House and Barn, Springdale Farm (Elwood Mendenhall Farm), Oakdale, William Peters House, Barnes/Brinton House, William Harvey House
S Historic Districts Hatfield/Hibernia Historic District, East Lancaster Avenue Historic District, Coatesville Historic District, West Chester State University Quadrangle Historic District, Paradise Valley Historic District, Taylor/Cope Historic District, Grove Historic District, Church Farm School Historic District, Glen Rose Historic District, Doe Run Historic District, Ercildoun Historic District, Embreeville Historic District, Green Valley Historic District, Marshallton Historic District, Northbrook Historic District, Trimbleville Historic District, Strode's Mill Historic District, Dilworthtown Historic District, Hamorton Historic District Table 12. Inventory of Mapped Historic Resources S Historic Landmarks Lukens, Humphrey Marshall House, Brandywine Battlefield
S Covered Bridges Gibson or Harmony Hill Bridge, Second Hayes Clark Bridge, Larkin Bridge, Speakman #1 Bridge, Speakman #2 or Mary Ann Pyle Bridge
S Historic Bridges Larkin Covered Bridge, Marshall's Bridge, County Bridge #124, Pennsylvania Railroad High Bridge, Gibson's Covered Bridge, Cope's Bridge, Speakman Covered Bridge, Hayes- Clark Covered Bridge, Mortonville Bridge, Mortonville Mill Race Bridge, Lenape Bridge Table 13. First Order Streams Miles Total Stream 1st Order % of Total Subbasin Name Subbasin Code Miles Stream Miles Stream Miles East Branch B9 47.4 24.6 51.8 Brandywine/Beaver Creek Marsh Creek B10 34.6 20.1 58.2 East Branch Brandywine B7 28.2 17.4 61.9 Creek/Shamona Creek East Branch Brandywine B8 27.4 17.5 64.0 Creek/Taylor Run Upper East Branch B11 34.4 17.5 50.8 Brandywine Creek West Valley Creek B15 37.2 24.4 65.7 Brandywine Creek above B1 22.3 14.7 65.8 Chadds Ford Brandywine Creek below B3 64.2 40.5 63.1 Chadds Ford Brandywine Creek/Pocopson B4 40.3 23.9 59.3 Creek Brandywine Creek at B2 6.8 2.1 30.5 Wilmington West Branch Brandywine B13 66.4 39.3 59.2 Creek/Broad Run Buck Run B5 43.7 22.1 50.6 Doe Run B6 39.4 23.7 60.0 West Branch B14 38.1 21.0 55.2 Brandywine/Rock Run/Sucker Run Upper West Branch B12 36.6 18.9 51.7 Brandywine Creek Total 567 328 57.8 Table 14. Drainage Areas to First Order Streams Subbasin Acres in 1st Order % of Total Subbasin Name Code Total Acres Drainage Areas Acres East Branch Brandywine/Beaver B9 16,677 8,106 48.6 Creek Marsh Creek B10 13,000 7,304 56.2 East Branch Brandywine B7 11,368 7,177 63.1 Creek/Shamona Creek East Branch Brandywine B8 8,247 5,080 61.6 Creek/Taylor Run Upper East Branch Brandywine B11 16,425 8,570 52.2 Creek West Valley Creek B15 13,227 8,658 65.5 Brandywine Creek above B1 6,437 3,954 61.4 Chadds Ford Brandywine Creek below B3 19,432 10,891 56.0 Chadds Ford Brandywine Creek/Pocopson B4 12,633 7,457 59.0 Creek Brandywine Creek at B2 3,877 399 10.3 Wilmington West Branch Brandywine B13 18,620 10,653 57.2 Creek/Broad Run Buck Run B5 17,208 8,631 50.2 Doe Run B6 13,872 8,751 63.1 West Branch Brandywine/Rock B14 17,331 9,760 56.3 Run/Sucker Run Upper West Branch Brandywine B12 19,353 9,751 50.4 Creek Total 207,707 115,142 55.4% Table 15. Land Use Within Corridors of First Order Streams - East Branch Brandywine Creek Subbasins (Percent of Total Land Use) Beaver Marsh Shamona Taylor Upper East West Land Use Creek Creek Creek Run Branch Valley Cr Agriculture 0.26 0.36 0.28 0.31 0.45 0.16 Commercial/ 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.04 Services Community Service 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.01 Industrial 0.01 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.02 Mining 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.02 Recreation 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.03 Residential – 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 High Density Residential – 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.02 Multi-family Residential – 0.22 0.20 0.34 0.29 0.10 0.29 Single Family Transportation/ 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 Utility Urban 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vacant 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 Water 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.0 Wooded 0.38 0.38 0.32 0.29 0.40 0.33
Table 16. Land Use Within Corridors of First Order Streams - West Branch Brandywine Creek Subbasins (Percent of Total Land Use) Rock Run/ Upper West Land Use Broad Run Buck Run Doe Run Sucker Run Branch Agriculture 0.44 0.61 0.76 0.30 0.49 Commercial/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.01 Services Community Service 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 Mining 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recreation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.01 Residential – 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 High Density Residential – 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 Multi-family Residential – 0.16 0.10 0.02 0.25 0.10 Single Family Transportation/ 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 Utility Urban 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vacant 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.01 0.04 Water 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.01 Wooded 0.34 0.25 0.20 0.37 0.32 Table 17. Land Use Within Corridors of First Order Streams - Main Stem Subbasins (Percent of Total Land Use) Brandywine Brandywine Brandywine Brandywine Creek above Creek below Creek/ Pocopson Creek at Land Use Chadds Ford Chadds Ford Creek Wilmington Agriculture 0.26 0.18 0.43 0.08 Commercial/ 0.01 0.04 0.0 0.32 Services Community Service 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09 Mining 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 Recreation 0.0 0.17 0.01 0.06 Residential – 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 High Density Residential – 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.0 Multi-family Residential – 0.28 0.22 0.27 0.02 Single Family Transportation/ 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.04 Utility Urban 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vacant 0.01 0.0 0.04 0.0 Water 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Wooded 0.39 0.35 0.21 0.38
Table 18. Land Use Within Corridors of Higher Order Streams - East Branch Brandywine Creek Subbasins (Percent of Total Land Use) West Beaver Marsh Shamona Taylor Upper East Valley Land Use Creek Creek Creek Run Branch Creek Agriculture 0.16 0.23 0.18 0.33 0.34 0.18 Commercial/Services 0.05 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.05 Community Service 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 Industrial 0.01 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.03 Mining 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 Parking 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 Recreation 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Residential – 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 High Density Residential – 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.03 Multi-family Residential – 0.21 0.17 0.26 0.21 0.10 0.15 Single Family Transportation/ 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 Utility Urban 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vacant 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.05 Water 0.01 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.01 Wooded 0.43 0.44 0.48 0.38 0.46 0.36 Table 19. Land Use Within Corridors of Higher Order Streams - West Branch Brandywine Creek Subbasins (Percent of Total Land Use) Rock Run/ Upper West Land Use Broad Run Buck Run Doe Run Sucker Run Branch Agriculture 0.40 0.53 0.80 0.18 0.46 Commercial/Services 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 Community Service 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.0 Mining 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 Recreation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.01 Residential – 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 High Density Residential – 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Multi-family Residential – 0.12 0.05 0.01 0.21 0.09 Single Family Transportation/ 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 Utility Urban 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vacant 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.02 0.04 Water 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 Wooded 0.42 0.38 0.16 0.42 0.35
Table 20. Land Use Within Corridors of Higher Order Streams - Main Stem Subbasins (Percent of Total Land Use) Brandywine Brandywine Brandywine Brandywine Creek above Creek below Creek/ Pocopson Creek at Land Use Chadds Ford Chadds Ford Creek Wilmington Agriculture 0.20 0.18 0.40 0.02 Commercial/Services 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.10 Community Service 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.20 Mining 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recreation 0.0 0.14 0.03 0.14 Residential – 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 High Density Residential – 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.10 Multi-family Residential – 0.25 0.13 0.23 0.09 Single Family Transportation/ 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.08 Utility Urban 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vacant 0.01 0.0 0.03 0.0 Water 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.05 Wooded 0.47 0.48 0.26 0.22 Table 21. Estimated Average Annual Water Withdrawals and Future Needs by Subbasin - 1998 and 2020 (MGY) 1998 Withdrawals 2020 Projected Needs Surface Total Additional Subbasin Code and Name Ground Water Water Total Water Water Additional Wastewater Withdrawals Withdrawals Withdrawals Used Water Demand Capacity Needs Brandywine Creek B1 Brandywine Creek above Chadds Ford 65 0 65 159 74 67 B2 Brandywine Creek at Wilmington 17 9,905 9,921 1,726 185 167 B3 Brandywine Creek below Chadds Ford 112 74 186 613 119 107 B4 Brandywine Creek/Pocopson Creek 283 22 305 601 166 149 B5 Buck Run 121 0 121 266 43 39 B6 Doe Run 46 0 46 46 11 10 B7 East Branch Brandywine 216 379 596 439 157 142 Creek/Shamona Creek B8 East Branch Brandywine Creek/Taylor 174 1,480 1,654 628 96 87 Run B9 East Branch Brandywine/Beaver Creek 627 648 1,275 929 237 213 B10 Marsh Creek 274 0 274 188 145 131 B11 Upper East Branch Brandywine Creek 166 2 168 143 54 48 B12 Upper West Branch Brandywine Creek 302 0 302 212 71 64 B13 West Branch Brandywine Creek/Broad 310 0 310 255 100 90 Run B14 West Branch Brandywine/Rock 290 1,777 2,067 988 261 235 Run/Sucker Run B15 West Valley Creek 1,046 1,128 2,174 966 303 273 Totals for Watershed: 4,049 15,415 19,463 8,159 2,023 1,820 Table 22. List of Small Community Water Systems (as shown in Figure 23)
No. System Name No. System Name 1 Appleville Mobile Home Park 33 Londonderry Court 2 Avonwheel Estate Mobile Home Park 34 Longwood Gardens 3 Brandywine Terrace Mobile Home Park 35 Malvern Courts Inc. 4 Caln Mobile Home Park 36 Maplewood Mobile Home Park 5 Camp Hill Special School 37 Martin’s Mobile Home Village 6 Camphill Village USA Inc. 38 Movern Mushroom Farms 7 CFS – School at Church Farm 39 Mount Idy Mobile Home Park 8 Chatham Acres Nursing Home 40 Nottingham Manor Mobile Home Court 9 Chatwood Water Company 41 Oxford Village Mobile Home Park 10 Coatesville Veterans Administration Hospital 42 Perry Phillips Mobile Homes 11 Cochranville Mobile Home Park 43 Phoenix Mobile Homes 12 Coventry Garden Apartments 44 Phoenixville Mobile Homes Inc. 45 Philadelphia Suburban Water Co. – 13 Coventry Manor Nursing Home Culbertson Run 46 Philadelphia Suburban Water Co. – 14 Coventry Terrace Brandywine Hospital 15 Devereux Foundation 47 Ridgeview Mobile Homes 16 East Fallowfield Utilities, Inc. 48 Riveredge 17 Echo Valley 49 S. E. PA Veterans Center 18 Gregory Courts Inc. 50 Shady Grove Mobile Home Park 19 Heatherwood Retirement 51 Shady Side Mobile Home Park 20 Hideaway Mobile Home Park 52 Springton Court Mobile Homes 21 Highland Court 53 St. Mary’s of Providence 22 Icedale Mobile Home Courts 54 St. Stephens Green 23 Imperial Mobile Home Park 55 Stone Barn 24 Independence Park 56 Stony Run Mobile Home Park 25 Indian Run Village 57 Taylor’s Mobile Home Park 26 Kendal Crosslands/Consiston 58 Tel Hai Rest Home 27 Keystone Court 59 Valley Springs Water Co. 28 Lake Road Mobile Home Park 60 Valley View Mobile Home Park 29 Lazy Acres Mobile Home Park 61 Warwick Mobile Home Park 30 Lincoln Crest Mobile Home Park 62 Wetherhill Estates 31 Loags Corner Mobile Home Park 63 Willowdale Water Company 32 London Grove Mobile Home Park Table 23. Inventory of Watershed Management Needs
RESOURCES TO BE PROTECTED GROWTH AND LAND USE (cont) WATER AVAILABILITY AND USE (cont) S st Subbasins B1, B2, B3, B9, B10, B11, and B14 – 1 S S Order Stream Corridors >35% Wooded and/or Scattered Growth Throughout Remainder of Brandywine Creek Watershed Accounts for 32% of Wetlands Watershed All Combined Surface and Ground Water S Withdrawals in Study Watersheds (17.6 Billion S Designated Trout Fishery - Beaver Creek Increased Residential and Commercial Water/Wastewater Demand in Growth Areas Gallons/Year) S EV Watersheds (Subbasin B13) S Increased Residential Water / Wastewater Need for S Predominant Source of Water Supply for Much of S HQ Streams (Subbasins B7, B10, B11, B12, B14, New Developments in Rural Areas Chester Co. and Northern New Castle Co. and B15) S Increasing Number of New Septic Systems, Aging S Relatively High Net Ground Water Withdrawals S Designated Cold-Water Streams Septic Systems, and Cumulative Septic Discharges 1998 – West Valley Cr. S Chambers Lake and Marsh Creek Water Supply S Subbasins B1, B6, B7, B8, and B15 >60% of Land S Projected 2020 Net Ground Water Withdrawals Near Reservoirs and Fisheries Area in Drainage Areas to 1st Order Streams Net Withdrawal Threshold – West Valley Cr. S Rock Run Water Supply Reservoir S Subbasin B6 - 1st Order Stream Corridors > 70% S Relatively High Volume of Surface Water S Struble Lake Recreational Lake and Fishery Agricultural Land Use Withdrawals (Although Water Supply Withdrawals S Surface Water Intakes for Public Water Supplies S Subbasin B5 - 1st Order Stream Corridors > 60% Supported by Reservoir Storage) (East Branch - Downingtown, Ingram’s Mill, Agricultural Land Use S High Volume of Surface Water Discharges Wilmington; West Branch – Embryville, Rock Run, S Subbasins B4, B11, B12, and B13 - 1st Order Stream S Subbasins B1, B3, B6, B7, B8, and B15 >60% of Wagontown) st S Corridors > 40% Agricultural Land Use Total Stream Miles are 1 Order Streams Great Marsh S S S Increasing Pressures to Expand Water and Water Supply Reservoirs Subject to NPS Nutrients >25 PNDI Sites and Sediments Loadings (Subbasins B10, B12, and S Wastewater Infrastructure, Sometimes in Areas Non- 11 Historic Bridges Contiguous to Existing Infrastructure B14) S Carbonate Aquifer Underlying Extensive Portions of S Wastewater Discharges May Affect Water Quality, Watershed WATER AVAILABILITY AND USE Introduce Pathogens and Taste and Odor Causing S Struble Trail and Planned Inter-Connecting Regional S Brandywine Creek Watershed Accounts for 32% of Compounds for Water Supply Intakes Chester Valley Trail S Low Instream Flows During Droughts Threaten S All Combined Surface and Ground Water Designated Pennsylvania Scenic Corridor Withdrawals in Study Watersheds (17.6 Billion Instream Water Supply Intakes S Multiple Recreational/Eco-Tourism Uses Gallons/Year) S Need to Evaluate Effects of Quarry Pumping and S 56% of Total Stream Miles are First Order Streams S Predominant Source of Water Supply for Much of Operations on Baseflow of West Valley Creek S 10 Large Instream Wastewater Discharges Chester Co. and Northern New Castle Co. S Need for Source Water Protection for Reservoirs and S Relatively High Net Ground Water Withdrawals Water Supply Intakes GROWTH AND LAND USE 1998 – West Valley Cr. S Need for Wellhead Protection Plans for Public Water S Projected 2020 Net Ground Water Withdrawals Near Supply Wells S Substantial Projected Population Growth by 2020 Net Withdrawal Threshold – West Valley Cr. S Portions of Watershed in DRBC GWPA (Subbasins B5, B7, B9, B10, B14, and B15) S Rapid Growth and Development – Route 100 North Corridor, Route 30 Corridor, North of Route 30, Strasburg Road Corridor Table 23. Inventory of Watershed Management Needs RUNOFF WATER QUALITY WATER QUALITY (continued) S > 40% Estimated Impervious Cover – Subbasin B2 S 25% of Total Stream Miles Listed as Impaired on S Fish Consumption Advisories Posted Below S >20% Estimated Impervious Cover – Subbasin B 15 303(d) List Coatesville, at Chadds Ford, and in Delaware – S >10% Estimated Impervious Cover – Subbasins B1, S 303(d) Listed – Mainstem Segments and Some PCBs, Chlordane, and Dioxin B3, B4, B7, B8, B9, B10, and B14 Tributaries (Nutrients, Pathogens and Chlordane) S Need to Address Combined Sewer Overflows at S Subbasin B2 – 1st Order Stream Corridors > 40% S 303(d) Listed – West Branch Segments and Some City of Wilmington Impervious Cover Tributaries (Nutrients and Siltation from Agriculture S Relatively High Mean BOD, COD, TP and S Excessive Estimated Average Annual Rainfall and Chlordane) Dissolved P Concentrations for Watershed from Runoff – Subbasin B2 (20 in/yr), B6, and B15 S 303(d) Listed – East Branch Segments and Some Available Surface Water Quality Data S Excessive Increase in Estimated Average Annual Tributaries (Flow Alteration and Siltation) S Relatively High Total Lead, BOD and COD in Rainfall Runoff by 2020 – Subbasins B2 and B15 S TMDL Promulgated for Chlordane in Mainstem Ground Water from Available Water Quality Data S Flooding – Downingtown (Parke Run ,East Branch Brandywine S USGS/Chester Co Biological Monitoring Indicates Brandywine Creek), West Valley Creek (Route S NPS TMDLs Under Development for Sediment, Slightly Impacted Conditions (West Valley Cr.; 100), Lower East and West Branches, Mainstem in Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Bacteria West Branch below Honey Brook and Coatesville) Chester Co. and New Castle Co., Upper East and S Low Flow TMDLs Promulgated for Phosphorus, S Malfunctioning Sewer System at Sadsbury, West Branches in Honey Brook Twp., Caln Twp Nitrogen and Dissolved Oxygen Pomeroy and Pomeroy Heights (from Rt. 30 Runoff); Valley Run Creek; Business S Some Locations of Ground Water Contamination S Scattered Locations of Aging Septic Systems Rt. 30 (Valley Twp); Doe Run at Rt. 82; Doe Run at Due to Failing Septic Systems and Superfund / Rt. 841; Marchwood Develop.; Whitford Rd. Contaminated Waste Sites S Instream Erosion/Sedimentation and S NPS Runoff – Agricultural and Developed Areas REGIONAL PRIORITIZATIONS S Hydromodifications in Some Segments and S Lower Brandywine Creek – Elevated Levels Of West Valley Creek Subbasin Identified as Highest Tributaries Downstream of Developed Areas Suspended Solids, Nitrogen And Phosphorus Ranking Overall Priority Subbasin Among All Subbasins in Brandywine Creek Watershed and in (Marchwood, Exton, West Chester, Downingtown, S Upper East And West Branches – Elevated Levels County for Water Quality Restoration, Stormwater Coatesville, Sadsbury, Parksburg), Several Of Phosphorus Locations on Buck Run, Sadsbury Twp. Management, Stream Preservation, and Ground S Elevated Bacteria Concentrations Throughout S Water Management 20 Municipalities to be Required to Comply with Watershed, Including Upstream Of 3 Water Supply S Brandywine Creek Watershed Ranked Among NPDES Phase II Stormwater Management Reservoirs Requirements Highest Overall Priority Watersheds for Water S Widespread Areas of High Levels of Naturally S Quality Restoration and Stormwater Management No PA Act 167 Plans Yet Developed Occurring Radon in Ground Water S S Brandywine Creek Watershed Ranked Among 5 Flood Control and/or Water Supply Dams in PA S Exploding Populations of Resident and Migratory Portion of Watershed Highest Overall Priority Watersheds for Stream / Geese Contributing to Nutrients in Reservoirs and Resources Preservation Streams S Subbasins B15, B2, B4, and B9 Ranked Highest Overall Priority Subbasins in Brandywine Creek Watershed for water Quality Restoration, Stormwater Management and Stream/ Resources Preservation Table 24. Subbasin Priorities Water Quality Water Quality 303(d) Stormwater Stream Preservation Ground Water Subbasin Priority Subbasin Priority Subbasin Priority Subbasin Priority Subbasin Priority West Valley 1 Wilmington 1 Wilmington 1 West Valley 1 West Valley 1 Sucker 2 West Valley 2 West Valley 2 Beaver Creek 2 Beaver Creek 2 Run/Rock Run Wilmington 3 Doe Run 3 Above Chadds 3 Pocopson Creek 3 Wilmington 3 Ford Marsh Creek 4 Marsh Creek 4 Beaver Creek 4 Marsh Creek 4 Pocopson Creek 4 Beaver Creek 5 Above Chadds 5 Pocopson Creek 5 Sucker 5 Marsh Creek 5 Ford Run/Rock Run Shamona 6 Buck Run 6 Broad Run 6 Shamona Creek 6 Above Chadds 6 Creek Ford Upper West 7 Sucker Run/Rock 7 Marsh Creek 7 Above Chadds 7 Sucker 7 Branch Run Ford Run/Rock Run Above Chadds 8 Upper West 8 Taylor Run 8 Upper East 8 Shamona Creek 8 Ford Branch Branch Broad Run 9 Broad Run 9 Below Chadds 9 Broad Run 9 Taylor Run 9 Ford Upper East 10 Beaver Creek 10 Sucker 10 Below Chadds 10 Broad Run 10 Branch Run/Rock Run Ford Pocopson 11 Taylor Run 11 Upper East 11 Taylor Run 11 Upper West 11 Creek Branch Branch Below Chadds 12 Shamona Creek 12 Buck Run 12 Doe Run 12 Upper East 12 Ford Branch Taylor Run 13 Below Chadds 13 Upper West 13 Buck Run 13 Below Chadds 13 Ford Branch Ford Buck Run 14 Upper East Branch 14 Shamona Creek 14 Wilmington 14 Buck Run 14 Doe Run 15 Pocopson Creek 15 Doe Run 15 Upper West 15 Doe Run 15 Branch Table 25. Recommended Priority Management Actions Total Recommended Generalized Priority Action Description Lead Entities Estimated Cost Reduce Stormwater Runoff to Reduce Flooding, Erosion and Sedimentation, to Improve Water Quality and to Restore Stream and Riparian Habitats. 1 Implement comprehensive stormwater $3,000 for outreach and information exchange Chester County Planning $323,000 management ordinances in all 32 PA to each municipality by County agencies; Agencies, Chester County Water municipalities (located primarily or solely $10,000 per municipality to revise ordinances. Resources Authority, and within Brandywine Creek watershed). Chester County Conservation District. 2 Implement NPDES Phase II requirements Up to $50,000 to at least $150,000 per 16 regulated PA municipalities $1,600,000 in regulated municipalities (located municipality, depending on size of existing (primarily or solely located primarily or solely within Brandywine municipal stormwater facilities, intensity of within Brandywine Creek Creek watershed). new development, and available staff watershed), conservation resources to conduct work in-house versus districts, and PADEP. need to hire consultants. 3 Implement stream bank fencing , Installing treatments on 30 stream miles will NRCS, conservation districts, $1,594,000 livestock crossings and reforestation of improve approximately 735 acres of riparian agricultural land operators. riparian corridors along at least 30 miles corridor and eliminate unnecessary direct (15%) of agricultural streams. impacts of livestock to streams. ($10,000 for outreach and information exchange to land owners and farmers; $10 per linear foot for fencing, plant stock, materials, installation, and management plans). 4 Prepare, update and implement soil and Assuming 20% of agricultural lands in NRCS, conservation districts, $2,250,000 water conservation plans and practices on watershed are farmed for food crops, then agricultural land operators. all crop farm lands. approximately 151,400 acres (about 150 farms) would require plans and implementation ($15,000 per farm). 5 Implement manure management plans Approximately $60,000 per farm for plan and NRCS, conservation districts, $1,200,000 and facilities to eliminate runoff from 20 management facility. agricultural land operators. barnyards to streams or infiltration to ground water and to avoid winter spreading of manure. Table 25. Recommended Priority Management Actions Total Recommended Generalized Priority Action Description Lead Entities Estimated Cost 6 Implement 4 pilot urban stormwater 2 projects in Chester County to be designated Chester County – municipality $1,100,000 runoff improvement projects within or at urban centers; and 2 projects in New Castle where project is located, Chester (not including downstream of developed areas to reduce County, to be designated. Prepare design County Conservation District, land acquisition impacts of urban runoff. plans, bid specifications, and pursue and PADEP. New Castle County or construction). construction and installation of the projects, – municipality where project is and development of long-term operation and located, Water Resources maintenance plan. $50,000 to $500,000 per Agency/University of Delaware, site for site. Additional costs of land or New Caste Conservation easement acquisitions not included. District, DE-DNREC. 7 Implement City of Wilmington Combined City of Wilmington, USEPA, $150,000,000 Sewer Overflow Remediation Plan. DE-DNREC. (over 10 yrs) 8 Implement pilot geomorphology based Pike Creek and 2 other sites to be designated Chester County – municipality $1,386,000 stream restorations for 6 severely in New Castle County, and Buck Run (3 in which project is located, degraded stream reaches to restore reaches including West Marlboro Twp. and 2 conservation district, BVA. instream flow regime and habitats. other sites to be designated). Estimated overall New Castle County – costs, $175/linear foot for design, bidding, conservation district, DE- construction, planting, monitoring and DNREC. maintenance, and approximately one-quarter mile stream reaches. 9 Implement 4 suburban runoff retrofit 2 in Chester County including 1 in West Chester County – municipality $160,000 projects to reduce peak rate and/or Valley Creek subbasin, and 1 to be where project is located, (not including volume of runoff and reduce nonpoint designated, and 2 in New Castle County, to be Brandywine Valley Association, land acquisition source pollutant runoff. designated. $40,000 per site, additional costs Chester County Conservation or construction) of land and/or easement acquisition not District, and PADEP. New included. Castle County – municipality where project is located, Water Resources Agency/University of Delaware, New Caste Conservation District, DE Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Table 25. Recommended Priority Management Actions Total Recommended Generalized Priority Action Description Lead Entities Estimated Cost 10 Complete development, promulgation and Costs are already programmed for USEPA, DRBC, PADEP, DE- na implementation of High Flow TMDLs. development and promulgation. DNREC. Implementation will be achieved through other projects in this listing.
11 Establish a Long-Term Water Quality and Expand ongoing monitoring for stream water PADEP, DE-DNREC, USGS, $382,500 BMP monitoring program to monitor quality, biodiversity, ground water levels and DRBC, CCWRA, conservation (for 5 years) progress and identify problems in the quality, and runoff and maintenance of districts. watershed. installed BMPs at strategic locations. Add 10 biodiversity monitoring sites ($3,000 each site per year); install and maintain continuous water quality monitors at 7 gaging stations ($10,000 each for installation and $2,500 each per year for maintenance); annual inspection of 35 BMPs ($5,000 per year for all); semi- annual outfall water quality monitoring from 10 BMPs ($10,000 per year for all). 12 Eliminate uncontrolled runoff of Stabilize and control runoff of pollutants from DE-DNREC, USEPA, property na pollutants from contaminated industrial hazardous waste, Superfund and RCRA sites owners, WRA/UDE. sites. upstream of water supply intakes in New Castle County. Costs to be developed. 13 Implement residential pollutant runoff Continue rain barrel, Smart Yards, and Home- Conservation districts, BVA, $30,000 reduction programs. Assist programs to educate and engage UDE/WRA. (total for 5 years) residential lawn owners in watershed stewardship practices ($6,000 per year). 14 Establish an expanded Watershed Watch Limited Watershed Watch program is BVA $175,000 program throughout the watershed. currently underway. Expanding the program watershed-wide will involve training, public outreach, materials, and volunteer efforts. Estimated $50,000 to develop and initiate the program watershed wide, and $25,000 per year to maintain the program. Table 25. Recommended Priority Management Actions Total Recommended Generalized Priority Action Description Lead Entities Estimated Cost Protect and Expand Forested Riparian Buffer Networks, Particularly for First Order Streams 15 Adopt forested riparian buffer $3,000 for outreach and information exchange 32 Municipalities (solely or $323,000 requirements in ordinances of all to PA municipalities by County agencies; and primarily in watershed) and municipalities to protect and/or establish $10,000 per municipality to revise or develop County agencies, USDA/NRCS. buffers, with a priority emphasis on ordinances. establishing forested buffer networks along first order streams.
16 Establish and protect forested riparian There are an estimated 315 stream miles of USDA Natural Resources $5,275,700 buffers where they do not currently exist first order streams in the watershed. Conservation Service (NRCS), along at least 15% of first order streams Establishing a total of 200 foot width non-governmental land in headwaters of the watershed; first order (combined both sides of stream) buffer on 47 conservancies, county streams of tributaries to reservoirs; and stream miles (15% of total) would create conservation districts, immediately surrounding reservoirs to approximately 1,150 acres of buffer. Focus Brandywine Valley Association. protect watershed headwaters and efforts in areas where new development is downstream waters (including reservoirs) most likely to occur and opportunities for from impacts of runoff in watershed. protection are therefore greatest. ($25,000 for outreach and information exchange to land owners and farmers; $20 per linear foot for planting plans, plant stock and volunteer installation; $2,500 per acre to administratively establish easements or land owner participation, and management plans on 10% of buffered lands). 17 Protect at least an additional 30% of Approximately one-third of the watershed is Recommended lead entities – $2,165,000 existing forested riparian buffers in first wooded, (and approximately 55% of all land conservancies, County order streams of watershed to protect streams are first order streams), Thus, conservation districts. watershed headwaters and downstream approximately 105 miles of first order streams waters (including reservoirs) from may currently have forested buffers. Providing impacts of runoff in watershed. permanent protecting of at least one-third of those streams (35 miles) with over 200 foot buffers (combined on both sides of water body) would protect approximately 856 acres of forested buffers. Focus efforts in areas Table 25. Recommended Priority Management Actions Total Recommended Generalized Priority Action Description Lead Entities Estimated Cost where new development is most likely to occur and opportunities for protection are therefore greatest, and above water supply reservoirs and intakes. $25,000 for outreach and education by land conservancies and County agencies; $2,500 per acre to administratively establish easements and/or land owner participation, and management plans. Water Supply/Wastewater Planning and Protection to Meet Future Needs 18 Prepare and implement Integrated Water Involve municipalities (approximately 5 in Municipalities, county agencies, $735,000 Resources Plans (IWRPs) for 3 growth each regional planning area), water suppliers, purveyors. regions including: East Branch county agencies and other key stakeholders. Brandywine Creek above Downingtown, Approximately $120,000 per plan; Honey Brook, West Branch Brandywine approximately $25,000 per municipality to below Coatesville. revise comprehensive plans and ordinances. 19 Complete Source Water Assessments Assessments are underway for all 6 intakes in PA-DEP, DE-DNREC, water $240,000 underway for all 6 surface water supply the Brandywine Creek watersheds. Estimated suppliers, county agencies, intakes, and prepare Source Water $40,000 for development of each source water UDE/WRA. Protection Plans. protection plan. 20 Prepare Wellhead Protection Plans for Wellhead protection zones are presented for Public water supply well owner, $400,000 public water supply wells addressed 10 public water supply wells. Estimated municipality where well is within this Rivers Conservation Plan. $40,000 for development of wellhead located, county agencies, BVA. protection plans for each well system to include inventories of existing and potential contaminant sources and current and projected land uses. 21 Complete Wellhead Protection Plan for Planning currently funded and underway. Honey Brook Borough Water na Honey Brook Borough Water Authority. Authority, Honey Brook Twp, PADEP. 22 Develop and implement lake management Approximately $40,000 per plan, $3,000 per Reservoir owners. $220,000 plans and water quality monitoring year for water quality monitoring. Plan (for five years) programs (where they do not exist) for 4 implementation costs to be determined. water supply reservoirs. Table 25. Recommended Priority Management Actions Total Recommended Generalized Priority Action Description Lead Entities Estimated Cost
23 Provide Ground Water Budget Ground Water budgets were prepared and CCWRA, BVA. $50,000 information and data to municipalities for published for all subbasins and municipalities use in decision making. within the watershed in the Chester County, PA Water Resources Compendium. Providing outreach and materials to communicate the data and how they can be applied by municipalities will include outreach events and preparation of expanatory materials. Estimated $30,000 for outreach meetings and $20,000 for preparation of guidance documents. 24 Protect stream water quality and ground Work with existing and new dischargers to PA-DEP, BVA, county agencies. na water recharge through conversion of evaluate land application alternatives and point source discharges of treated effluent implement alternatives where practicable. to land application systems. Costs to be determined. Protect and Enhance Cultural, Natural and Historic Resources 25 Focus open space land preservation in the Apply goals and strategies of Chester Non-governmental land $50,180,000 drainage areas of first order streams and County’s Linking Landscapes to preserve total conservancies, land owners, (Over 5 years, water supply reservoirs and intakes; land areas each year equal to the area of lands developers, County planning plus cost of wellhead protection zones; woodlands; developed each year. Estimate 25 agencies. acquisition of and floodplains . developments built per year on parcels easements, lands, averaging 50 acres in size, with 20% protected and or open space, yields approximately 1,000 acres development per year converted to developed lands, and a rights) target of an additional 1,000 acres per year to be protected as open space. Revise and implement municipal ordinances ($20,000 for outreach and information exchange to municipalities by land conservancies and County planning agencies; $5,000 per 32 PA municipality to revise ordinances; $5,000 to $50,000 per acre to administratively establish Table 25. Recommended Priority Management Actions Total Recommended Generalized Priority Action Description Lead Entities Estimated Cost easements, or acquisition of land or development rights. 26 Provide additional stream access Conduct outreach and information exchange County agencies. $25,000 locations in new developments and land to municipalities to emphasize the need for preservation efforts. including stream access in subdivision plans, and incorporating stream access in parks, recreation lands, and land preservation activities. Estimated $25,000 for outreach efforts to municipalities.
Total $219,814,200 ($69,814,200 w/out CSOs) Table 26. Components of the Landscapes Index Category Indicators Preserved Land Sub-Index Protected Farmland * Eased Land * Park Land * Proposed Development Sub-Index Proposed Housing Units Consistent with Landscapes Non-Residential Development Consistent with Landscapes Community Water & Sewer * Housing Sub-Index Housing Affordability Residential Loans in Urban Areas Residential Lot Size Transportation Sub-Index Traffic Safety Public Transportation Use Travel Time Economy Sub-Index Farm Production Employment Performance Resources Sub-Index Stream/Water Protection * Historic Resources & Plans * Municipal Initiatives Sub-Index Municipal Ordinance Amendments Consistent with Landscapes * Municipal Volunteerism * Will also be used as Watersheds indicators.
Table 27. New Watersheds Indicators for Landscapes Index Indicator Measurement Value Source Data Non-Impaired Streams Miles PADEP 303 (d) Assessments Biological Diversity Hilsonhoff Biotic Index USGS Appendix A: Water Balance Data Sheet Summary of Water Balance Data For Subbasin: Brandywine Creek above Chadds Ford Subbasin Code: B1 Watershed Brandywine Creek Major Basin: Delaware River Precipitation: Population and Size: Withdrawals: Recharges: Discharges: Average Annual Area (Sqm) 10.06 Total GW Withdrawals: Total SW Withdrawals: Total Ground Water Recharges: Total Surface Water Discharges: Precipitation: 46.25 inches 65 MGY 0 MGY 133 MGY 1998 Estimated 1.1 MGY Population: 4,966 Land Use: Estimated Domestic Withdrawals - On-Lot Wells: Estimated Domestic Recharges - On-Lot Septic: Total: 1,058,500 gal/yr = 0.0061 in/yr 0.9 MGY EDW(in/yr): 0.005 87.2 MGY EDR(in/yr): 0.499 Facility Name gal/day Type Area Sqm. Municipalities: ID Agriculture 2.78 75 Unionville - Chadds Ford Elem. School 2,900 Commercial/Services 0.07 Name Area (sqm) Ground and Surface Water Permited Withdrawals: Ground Water Permited Recharges: Birmingham 3.45 Community Service 0.04 Total: 971,700gal/yr = 0.0056 in/yr Total: 45,655,000gal/yr = 0.2611 in/yr Parking 0.01 Chadds Ford 0.57 East Marlborough0.03 Recreation 0.02 ID Facility Name gal/day ID Facility Name gal/day Residential - Multi-family 0.23 Kennett 1.13 Residential - Single Family 2.82 Pennsbury 4.88 142 Fibre-metal M-t-d - Withdraw Well 120 6 Kendall/Crosslands 125,000 Transportation/Utility 0.11 Pocopson 0.00 215 Kendal Crosslands Well # 1 2,580 87 Fibre-metal M-t-d - Septic 120 Vacant 0.10 Water 0.13 Wooded 3.73
Public Sewer Areas: Facility Name Area Sqm. Temp Sewered 0.57 Unknown/None 9.49
Base Flows (MGY): Median: 1,924 Public Water Areas: 10-Year: 1,109 Facility Name Area Sqm. 25-Year: 1,098 Chester Water Authority 1.67 PSWC - Philadelphia Suburban W 2.21 50-Year: 757 Unknown/None 6.18
Geology: Rock type: Sq. Miles carbonate rocks 0.01 crystalline rocks 10.05
Note: Facility ID 1-599 are ground water withdrawal and 700+ are surface water withdrawal points
12/16/02 Summary of Water Balance Data For Subbasin: Brandywine Creek at Wilmington Subbasin Code: B2 Watershed Brandywine Creek Major Basin: Delaware River Precipitation: Population and Size: Withdrawals: Recharges: Discharges: Average Annual Area (Sqm) 6.06 Total GW Withdrawals: Total SW Withdrawals: Total Ground Water Recharges: Total Surface Water Discharges: Precipitation: 46.25 inches 17 MGY 9,905 MGY 14 MGY 1998 Estimated 342.3 MGY Population: 37,841 Land Use: Estimated Domestic Withdrawals - On-Lot Wells: Estimated Domestic Recharges - On-Lot Septic: Total: 342,297,000 gal/yr = 3.2511 in/yr 16.6 MGY EDW(in/yr): 0.157 13.8 MGY EDR(in/yr): 0.131 Facility Name gal/day Type Area Sqm. Municipalities: ID Agriculture 0.10 117 Release from Hoopes Reservoir to Porter Syst 937,800 Commercial/Services 0.96 Name Area (sqm) Ground and Surface Water Permited Withdrawals: Ground Water Permited Recharges: Delaware-Brandywi 2.14 Industrial 1.15 Total: 9,904,786,000gal/yr = 94.0738 in/yr Total: gal/yr = in/yr Recreation 0.78 Delaware-Christiana 0.00 Wilmington 3.92 Residential - Multi-family 1.19 ID Facility Name gal/day ID Facility Name gal/day Residential - Single Family 0.35 Transportation/Utility 0.45 746 Wilmington - Brandywine Pump and 17,233,800 Water 0.15 747 Wilmington -Wills Pump Station Port 8,861,800 Wooded 0.83 750 Wilmington Piece Dye (Wilmgtn Finis 311,400 754 Hoopes Reservoir-from Brndywn to 729,400
Public Sewer Areas: Facility Name Area Sqm. Deleware - 3 0.09 Deleware - 0 4.16 Deleware - 19 0.00 Deleware - 4 1.81
Base Flows (MGY): Median: 1,159 Public Water Areas: 10-Year: 668 Facility Name Area Sqm. 25-Year: 661 City of Wilmington 6.06 50-Year: 455
Geology: Rock type: Sq. Miles crystalline rocks 5.29 unconsolidated sed. 0.77
Note: Facility ID 1-599 are ground water withdrawal and 700+ are surface water withdrawal points
12/16/02 Summary of Water Balance Data For Subbasin: Brandywine Creek below Chadds Ford Subbasin Code: B3 Watershed Brandywine Creek Major Basin: Delaware River Precipitation: Population and Size: Withdrawals: Recharges: Discharges: Average Annual Area (Sqm) 30.36 Total GW Withdrawals: Total SW Withdrawals: Total Ground Water Recharges: Total Surface Water Discharges: Precipitation: 46.25 inches 112 MGY 74 MGY 31 MGY 1998 Estimated 37.9 MGY Population: 15,958 Land Use: Estimated Domestic Withdrawals - On-Lot Wells: Estimated Domestic Recharges - On-Lot Septic: Total: 37,887,000 gal/yr = 0.0718 in/yr 4.9 MGY EDW(in/yr): 0.009 30.9 MGY EDR(in/yr): 0.059 Facility Name gal/day Type Area Sqm. Municipalities: ID Agriculture 5.07 20 Birmingham TSA 21,000 Commercial/Services 1.66 Name Area (sqm) Ground and Surface Water Permited Withdrawals: Ground Water Permited Recharges: 42 Keating Herbert & Elizabeth 500 Bethel 0.26 45 Knight's Bridge Corp./Villages at Pa 47,500 Community Service 0.05 Total: 74,663,829gal/yr = 0.1415 in/yr Total: 306,080gal/yr = 0.0006 in/yr Industrial 0.04 Birmingham 0.20 51 Mendenhall Inn 16,000 Chadds Ford 7.53 86 Winslow Nancy Ms. 500 Parking 0.06 ID Facility Name gal/day ID Facility Name gal/day Recreation 5.38 Concord 1.19 87 Winterthur 18,300 Residential - High Density 0.07 Delaware-Brandywi 7.17 253 Logtown Fence Co - Withdraw Well 308 160 Sawdust Shops Inc - On Lot Septic 870 Residential - Multi-family 0.19 Delaware-Christiana 9.76 462 Southpoint Homeowners Asso Well 1,370 168 Spitz Space Systems - Septic 508 Residential - Single Family 6.42 Kennett 0.22 463 Southpoint Homeowners Asso Well 1,360 Transportation/Utility 0.31 Wilmington 0.05 702 Brandywine C.C. - Pond 52,900 Vacant 0.15 Pennsbury 3.98 712 DuPont C.C. - Brandywine Creek 6,387 Water 0.31 713 DuPont C.C. - Husbans Run 91,100 Wooded 10.37 748 Wilmington C.C. - Adams Dam 93,250 749 Wilmington C.C. - Irrigation Reservoi 101,500
Public Sewer Areas: Facility Name Area Sqm. Deleware - 3 1.38 Deleware - 4 0.44 Deleware - 5 1.27 Deleware - 0 11.72 Deleware - 1 0.19 Deleware - 19 0.09 Deleware - 3 0.05 Deleware - 4 1.76 Temp Sewered 8.98 Unknown/None 4.47 Base Flows (MGY): Median: 5,818 Public Water Areas: 10-Year: 3,353 Facility Name Area Sqm. 25-Year: 3,313 Bethel Water Co. 0.83 Chester Water Authority 3.09 50-Year: 2,287 City of Wilmington 8.96 Unknown/None 17.31 Geology: Rock type: Sq. Miles carbonate rocks 0.17 crystalline rocks 29.41 unconsolidated sed. 0.78
Note: Facility ID 1-599 are ground water withdrawal and 700+ are surface water withdrawal points
12/16/02 Summary of Water Balance Data For Subbasin: Brandywine Creek/Pocopson Creek Subbasin Code: B4 Watershed Brandywine Creek Major Basin: Delaware River Precipitation: Population and Size: Withdrawals: Recharges: Discharges: Average Annual Area (Sqm) 19.74 Total GW Withdrawals: Total SW Withdrawals: Total Ground Water Recharges: Total Surface Water Discharges: Precipitation: 46.25 inches 283 MGY 22 MGY 173 MGY 1998 Estimated 35.7 MGY Population: 16,528 Land Use: Estimated Domestic Withdrawals - On-Lot Wells: Estimated Domestic Recharges - On-Lot Septic: Total: 35,660,500 gal/yr = 0.1039 in/yr 4.4 MGY EDW(in/yr): 0.013 169.2 MGY EDR(in/yr): 0.493 Facility Name gal/day Type Area Sqm. Municipalities: ID Agriculture 7.94 21 Birmingham Twp. STP 70,900 Commercial/Services 0.10 Name Area (sqm) Ground and Surface Water Permited Withdrawals: Ground Water Permited Recharges: 50 McGlaughlin Jeffrey 500 Birmingham 2.75 58 Radley Run C.C. 9,200 Community Service 0.29 Total: 158,979,000gal/yr = 0.4634 in/yr Total: 4,018,120gal/yr = 0.0117 in/yr Industrial 0.01 East Bradford 2.52 59 Radley Run Mews 16,600 East Marlborough2.65 65 Schindler 500 Parking 0.11 ID Facility Name gal/day ID Facility Name gal/day Recreation 0.48 Newlin 0.92 Residential - High Density 0.06 Pennsbury 0.82 81 Chester County Prison #3 Well 6,340 26 Lenape Forge Inc - Gr Water Rch 10,200 Residential - Multi-family 0.13 Pocopson 6.64 82 Chester County Prison #6 Well 60,400 34 Radley Run C C - Ground Recharge 12,300 Residential - Single Family 5.96 Thornbury 0.74 83 Chester County Prison #7 Well 20,500 109 Jacob Associates Inc 442 Transportation/Utility 0.08 West Chester 0.30 240 Lenape Forge Inc - Well #2 2,880 121 Lenape Forge Inc - On-lot Septic 1,690 Vacant 0.60 West Goshen 0.67 241 Lenape Forge Inc - Well #3 2,880 Water 0.13 Westtown 1.74 242 Lenape Forge Inc - Well #4 846 Wooded 3.85 243 Lenape Forge Inc - Well #8 846 244 Lenape Forge Inc - Well 7 2,880 245 Lenape Forge Inc.- Well #1 2,880 260 Longwood Corp Center South A 3,600 261 Longwood Corp. Center South B 3,000 363 Phila Sub Water Co-radley Mews-w# 106,000 376 Pocopson Home Well #5 32,200 402 Pswco-gv Div-mt Bradford Well 3,280 404 Pswco-gv Div-pomona Park Well 30,000 422 Pswco-gv Div-radley Run Well 104,000 Public Sewer Areas: 734 Radley Run C C - Radly Run Creek 91,400 Facility Name Area Sqm. Birmingham Twp. STP 0.62 Boro. of West Chester SA 1.10 Unknown/None 17.37 West Goshen Twp. SA 0.64
Base Flows (MGY): Median: 3,775 Public Water Areas: 10-Year: 2,176 Facility Name Area Sqm. 25-Year: 2,154 PSWC - Philadelphia Suburban W 5.67 PSWC - Philadelphia Suburban W 0.30 50-Year: 1,484 PSWC - Philadelphia Suburban W 0.20 Unknown/None 13.57 Geology: Rock type: Sq. Miles crystalline rocks 19.74
Note: Facility ID 1-599 are ground water withdrawal and 700+ are surface water withdrawal points
12/16/02 Summary of Water Balance Data For Subbasin: Buck Run Subbasin Code: B5 Watershed Brandywine Creek Major Basin: Delaware River Precipitation: Population and Size: Withdrawals: Recharges: Discharges: Average Annual Area (Sqm) 26.89 Total GW Withdrawals: Total SW Withdrawals: Total Ground Water Recharges: Total Surface Water Discharges: Precipitation: 46.25 inches 121 MGY 0 MGY 82 MGY 1998 Estimated 11.9 MGY Population: 8,275 Land Use: Estimated Domestic Withdrawals - On-Lot Wells: Estimated Domestic Recharges - On-Lot Septic: Total: 11,934,100 gal/yr = 0.0255 in/yr 1.6 MGY EDW(in/yr): 0.003 82.5 MGY EDR(in/yr): 0.177 Facility Name gal/day Type Area Sqm. Municipalities: ID Agriculture 15.47 14 Somat Corp - Waste Haulers 135 Commercial/Services 0.15 Name Area (sqm) Ground and Surface Water Permited Withdrawals: Ground Water Permited Recharges: 46 Lincoln Crest MHP STP 32,600 East Fallowfield 7.13 Community Service 0.12 Total: 16,717,000gal/yr = 0.0358 in/yr Total: gal/yr = in/yr Industrial 0.01 Highland 8.59 Newlin 0.94 Mining 0.01 ID Facility Name gal/day ID Facility Name gal/day Parking 0.03 Parkesburg 1.11 Recreation 0.05 Sadsbury 5.88 124 East Fallowfield Elem School 10,000 Residential - High Density 0.04 West Caln 0.86 125 East Fallowfield Elem School 10,000 Residential - Multi-family 0.02 West Marlborough1.09 181 Highland Court M H Park Highc1 Wel 1,630 Residential - Single Family 2.74 West Sadsbury 1.29 182 Highland Court M H Park Highc2 Wel 1,630 Transportation/Utility 0.40 247 Lincoln Crest M H Park Well # 1 7,520 Vacant 0.23 248 Lincoln Crest M H Park Well # 2 7,510 Water 0.13 249 Lincoln Crest M H Park Well # 3 7,510 Wooded 7.49
Public Sewer Areas: Facility Name Area Sqm. Parkersburg Boro. Auth. 3.18 Unknown/None 23.71
Base Flows (MGY): Median: 5,239 Public Water Areas: 10-Year: 3,020 Facility Name Area Sqm. 25-Year: 2,925 City of Coatesville Authority 3.02 Penn American (Proposed) 0.27 50-Year: 2,060 Unknown/None 23.60 Valley Twp. 0.00 Geology: Rock type: Sq. Miles carbonate rocks 1.45 crystalline rocks 25.44
Note: Facility ID 1-599 are ground water withdrawal and 700+ are surface water withdrawal points
12/16/02 Summary of Water Balance Data For Subbasin: Doe Run Subbasin Code: B6 Watershed Brandywine Creek Major Basin: Delaware River Precipitation: Population and Size: Withdrawals: Recharges: Discharges: Average Annual Area (Sqm) 21.68 Total GW Withdrawals: Total SW Withdrawals: Total Ground Water Recharges: Total Surface Water Discharges: Precipitation: 46.25 inches 46 MGY 0 MGY 39 MGY 1998 Estimated 0.0 MGY Population: 2,100 Land Use: Estimated Domestic Withdrawals - On-Lot Wells: Estimated Domestic Recharges - On-Lot Septic: Total: gal/yr = in/yr 0.0 MGY EDW(in/yr): 0.000 38.9 MGY EDR(in/yr): 0.103 Facility Name gal/day Type Area Sqm. Municipalities: ID Agriculture 16.75 Commercial/Services 0.07 Name Area (sqm) Ground and Surface Water Permited Withdrawals: Ground Water Permited Recharges: East Fallowfield 0.05 Community Service 0.03 Total: 69,610gal/yr = 0.0002 in/yr Total: 39,520gal/yr = 0.0001 in/yr Parking 0.00 East Marlborough0.54 Highland 4.70 Recreation 0.01 ID Facility Name gal/day ID Facility Name gal/day Residential - Single Family 0.59 Londonderry 6.69 Transportation/Utility 0.25 Newlin 0.07 15 Annan Run - Withdraw Well 118 152 Practical Horseman- On-lot Septic 152 Vacant 0.08 West Fallowfield 0.50 378 Practical Horseman- Withdraw Well 152 Water 0.08 West Marlborough9.13 Wooded 3.83
Public Sewer Areas: Facility Name Area Sqm. Unknown/None 21.68
Base Flows (MGY): Median: 4,286 Public Water Areas: 10-Year: 2,471 Facility Name Area Sqm. 25-Year: 2,358 Unknown/None 21.68 50-Year: 1,685
Geology: Rock type: Sq. Miles carbonate rocks 2.11 crystalline rocks 19.56
Note: Facility ID 1-599 are ground water withdrawal and 700+ are surface water withdrawal points
12/16/02 Summary of Water Balance Data For Subbasin: East Branch Brandywine Creek/Shamona Creek Subbasin Code: B7 Watershed Brandywine Creek Major Basin: Delaware River Precipitation: Population and Size: Withdrawals: Recharges: Discharges: Average Annual Area (Sqm) 17.76 Total GW Withdrawals: Total SW Withdrawals: Total Ground Water Recharges: Total Surface Water Discharges: Precipitation: 46.25 inches 216 MGY 379 MGY 104 MGY 1998 Estimated 27.3 MGY Population: 13,407 Land Use: Estimated Domestic Withdrawals - On-Lot Wells: Estimated Domestic Recharges - On-Lot Septic: Total: 27,295,600 gal/yr = 0.0884 in/yr 2.7 MGY EDW(in/yr): 0.009 83.1 MGY EDR(in/yr): 0.269 Facility Name gal/day Type Area Sqm. Municipalities: ID Agriculture 4.65 38 H S Crocker Co Inc - STP 1,660 Commercial/Services 0.14 Name Area (sqm) Ground and Surface Water Permited Withdrawals: Ground Water Permited Recharges: 47 Little Washington Drainage Co. 19,800 Caln 0.58 77 Uwchlan Twp. Municipal Authority 53,800 Community Service 0.15 Total: 433,238,880gal/yr = 1.4034 in/yr Total: 21,293,000gal/yr = 0.0690 in/yr Industrial 0.12 Downingtown 0.61 East Brandywine 6.33 Parking 0.09 ID Facility Name gal/day ID Facility Name gal/day Recreation 0.14 East Caln 0.79 Residential - High Density 0.06 Upper Uwchlan 0.92 48 Brandywine Machine- Withdraw Well 200 7 Kimberwick 58,200 Residential - Multi-family 0.10 Uwchlan 5.55 315 Mt Idy Mobile Home Park Well # 1 1,363 57 Brandywine Machine- On-lot Septic 200 Residential - Single Family 5.97 Wallace 1.36 381 PSWC - Friendship Water Colittle Ti 31,200 Transportation/Utility 0.21 West Brandywine 1.62 382 PSWC - Friendship Water Colittle W 31,200 Vacant 0.15 383 PSWC - Friendship Water Colittle W 31,300 Water 0.16 417 Pswco-kimberwick # 1 49,000 Wooded 5.83 452 Shryock Bros Inc - Well 329 465 Springton Rd Mobilehome Court W# 3,020 711 Downingtown MWA- East Branch Br 1,020,000 738 Shryock Bros Inc-brandywine Div 13,900 780 Downingtown Mwa brandywine Sprin 33,500
Public Sewer Areas: Facility Name Area Sqm. Downingtown Area Regional Authority 7.67 Little Washington Drainage Company 1.02 Unknown/None 8.73 Uwchlan Twp. Sanitation Dept. 0.35
Base Flows (MGY): Median: 3,469 Public Water Areas: 10-Year: 2,000 Facility Name Area Sqm. 25-Year: 1,932 Downingtown Borough Water Dept. 0.91 PSWC - Friendship Water Co. Littl 0.32 50-Year: 1,364 PSWC - Philadelphia Suburban W 4.69 Unknown/None 11.84 Geology: Rock type: Sq. Miles carbonate rocks 1.08 crystalline rocks 16.68
Note: Facility ID 1-599 are ground water withdrawal and 700+ are surface water withdrawal points
12/16/02 Summary of Water Balance Data For Subbasin: East Branch Brandywine Creek/Taylor Run Subbasin Code: B8 Watershed Brandywine Creek Major Basin: Delaware River Precipitation: Population and Size: Withdrawals: Recharges: Discharges: Average Annual Area (Sqm) 12.89 Total GW Withdrawals: Total SW Withdrawals: Total Ground Water Recharges: Total Surface Water Discharges: Precipitation: 46.25 inches 174 MGY 1,480 MGY 67 MGY 1998 Estimated 445.7 MGY Population: 15,252 Land Use: Estimated Domestic Withdrawals - On-Lot Wells: Estimated Domestic Recharges - On-Lot Septic: Total: 445,688,560 gal/yr = 1.9901 in/yr 5.4 MGY EDW(in/yr): 0.024 65.9 MGY EDR(in/yr): 0.294 Facility Name gal/day Type Area Sqm. Municipalities: ID Agriculture 3.83 82 West Chester Borough MUA/Taylor Run 1,220,900 Commercial/Services 0.18 Name Area (sqm) Ground and Surface Water Permited Withdrawals: Ground Water Permited Recharges: 119 Schramm Inc - Goose Creek Discharge 231 East Bradford 6.94 Community Service 0.13 Total: 1,586,525,140gal/yr = 7.0842 in/yr Total: 852,024gal/yr = 0.0038 in/yr Industrial 0.10 West Bradford 1.86 West Chester 1.04 Parking 0.11 ID Facility Name gal/day ID Facility Name gal/day Recreation 0.24 West Goshen 3.05 Residential - High Density 0.02 1 Accurate Tool Inc - Fernhill #1 122 37 West Chester G & C C - Gr Water R 19,200 Residential - Multi-family 0.24 22 Appleville M H Park Stayman Well E 728 59 C & D Fence Co Inc - Septic 234 Residential - Single Family 3.81 23 Appleville M H Park Stayman Well E 722 111 Keebar Enterprises - On Lot Septic 135 Transportation/Utility 0.21 24 Appleville M H Park Stayman Well E 722 154 Richard M Armstrong Co - Septic 300 Vacant 0.18 28 Armstrong Co Richard M 300 Water 0.14 58 C-k Systematics Inc - Withdraw Well 450 Wooded 3.70 206 J F Chobert Mfg - Withdraw Well 255 207 J M Schmidt Precision Tool - Well 350 366 Phila Swco-west Ches White Well # 280,000 530 West Chester G & C C -williams Well 96,100 730 Phila Sub Water Co - Ingrams Mill 4,045,000 773 West Chester G & C C - Pond 96,100
Public Sewer Areas: Facility Name Area Sqm. Boro. of West Chester SA 2.23 Unknown/None 7.44 West Goshen Twp. SA 3.21
Base Flows (MGY): Median: 2,468 Public Water Areas: 10-Year: 1,423 Facility Name Area Sqm. 25-Year: 1,407 PSWC - Philadelphia Suburban W 6.77 Unknown/None 6.12 50-Year: 970
Geology: Rock type: Sq. Miles carbonate rocks 0.06 crystalline rocks 12.83
Note: Facility ID 1-599 are ground water withdrawal and 700+ are surface water withdrawal points
12/16/02 Summary of Water Balance Data For Subbasin: East Branch Brandywine/Beaver Creek Subbasin Code: B9 Watershed Brandywine Creek Major Basin: Delaware River Precipitation: Population and Size: Withdrawals: Recharges: Discharges: Average Annual Area (Sqm) 26.06 Total GW Withdrawals: Total SW Withdrawals: Total Ground Water Recharges: Total Surface Water Discharges: Precipitation: 46.25 inches 627 MGY 648 MGY 172 MGY 1998 Estimated 2,377.4 MGY Population: 26,430 Land Use: Estimated Domestic Withdrawals - On-Lot Wells: Estimated Domestic Recharges - On-Lot Septic: Total: 2,377,362,100 gal/yr = 5.2494 in/yr 6.5 MGY EDW(in/yr): 0.014 152.4 MGY EDR(in/yr): 0.336 Facility Name gal/day Type Area Sqm. Municipalities: ID Agriculture 6.73 10 Hess Oil - SS #38291 3,900 Commercial/Services 0.79 Name Area (sqm) Ground and Surface Water Permited Withdrawals: Ground Water Permited Recharges: 11 Lambert Earl R. 300 Caln 7.06 15 Sonoco Products - Outfall #1 806,300 Community Service 0.28 Total: 1,012,604,656gal/yr = 2.2359 in/yr Total: 19,292,230gal/yr = 0.0426 in/yr Industrial 0.36 Downingtown 1.56 27 Downingtown Area Regional Auth 4,714,500 East Bradford 1.02 44 Khalife Paul 700 Mining 0.07 ID Facility Name gal/day ID Facility Name gal/day Parking 0.33 East Brandywine 5.04 66 Sonoco Products - Outfall #2 651,400 Recreation 0.63 East Caln 1.97 2 Ackworth Materials Corp - With Well 162 23 Ingleside G C - Ground Recharge 3,970 69 Spring Run Estates 49,000 Residential - High Density 0.12 East Fallowfield 0.32 50 Brandywine Village Associates 1,300 97 Good Machining Co - On Lot Septic 135 76 Utilities Inc. of PA/Broad Run STP 224,400 Residential - Multi-family 0.35 West Bradford 5.72 51 Brandywine Village Associates 1,300 167 Spanco Inc - On-lot Septic 375 114 Pepperidge Farms 51,000 Residential - Single Family 6.42 West Brandywine 3.37 63 Caln Mobile Home Park Well 1,200 174 The Davey Company - On Lot Septi 75,400 118 Reynolds Metals- Instream Discharge 14,100 Transportation/Utility 0.43 92 Coatesville Veterans Adm Hosp 82,500 Vacant 0.50 128 Edge Wallboard Mach Co - With Wel 104 Water 0.11 139 Faddis Concrete Products - Well #2 481 Wooded 8.94 140 Faddis Concrete Products Well #1 721 164 Good Machining Co - Withdraw Well 135 316 Mt Idy Mobile Home Park Well # 2 1,363 317 Mt Idy Mobile Home Park Well # 3 1,363 355 Pepperidge Farm - Well #f-1 70,200 359 Phila Sub Water Co - Locust Knoll#2 21,000 379 PSWC - Friendship Water Co Well # 24,000 380 PSWC - Friendship Water Co Well#2 27,000 388 PSWC - Spring Run Water Co Cw 1 9,630 Public Sewer Areas: 389 PSWC - Spring Run Water Co Cw 2 9,630 Facility Name Area Sqm. 390 PSWC - Spring Run Water Co Cw3 ( 9,630 Broad Run Sewage Company 2.25 392 PSWC - Spring Run Water Co Sr 1 ( 10,700 City of Coatesville Authority 3.79 393 PSWC - Spring Run Water Co Sr 2 ( 10,700 Downingtown Area Regional Authority 6.84 406 Pswco-gv Div-utma-bell Tavern # 1 305,000 Little Washington Drainage Company 0.29 407 Pswco-gv Div-utma-bell Tavern # 2 433,000 Unknown/None 12.88 428 Reynolds Metals- Withdraw Well 2,290 464 Spanco Inc - Withdraw Well 375 703 Brandywine Paperbord-brandywine D 16,000 707 Coatesville Veterans Adm Hosp 82,500 739 Sonoco Prod Co-e Br Brandywine Cr 1,647,900 740 The Davey Company-brandywine Div 38,000 Base Flows (MGY): 762 Ingleside G C - Withdraw Pond #2 13,200 Median: 5,413 Public Water Areas: 10-Year: 3,122 Facility Name Area Sqm. 25-Year: 2,825 City of Coatesville Authority 3.65 Downingtown Borough Water Dept. 2.19 50-Year: 2,129 PSWC - Friendship Water Co. Littl 0.71 PSWC - Friendship Water Co. Loc 0.43 PSWC - Philadelphia Suburban W 0.37 PSWC - Spring Run Water Co. Spr 2.46 Geology: Unknown/None 16.25 Rock type: Sq. Miles carbonate rocks 6.46 crystalline rocks 19.60
Note: Facility ID 1-599 are ground water withdrawal and 700+ are surface water withdrawal points
12/16/02 Summary of Water Balance Data For Subbasin: Marsh Creek Subbasin Code: B10 Watershed Brandywine Creek Major Basin: Delaware River Precipitation: Population and Size: Withdrawals: Recharges: Discharges: Average Annual Area (Sqm) 20.31 Total GW Withdrawals: Total SW Withdrawals: Total Ground Water Recharges: Total Surface Water Discharges: Precipitation: 46.25 inches 274 MGY 0 MGY 149 MGY 1998 Estimated 7.1 MGY Population: 6,555 Land Use: Estimated Domestic Withdrawals - On-Lot Wells: Estimated Domestic Recharges - On-Lot Septic: Total: 7,109,975 gal/yr = 0.0201 in/yr 0.8 MGY EDW(in/yr): 0.002 118.6 MGY EDR(in/yr): 0.336 Facility Name gal/day Type Area Sqm. Municipalities: ID Agriculture 6.86 4 Budd Co-trailer Div. 989 Commercial/Services 0.16 Name Area (sqm) Ground and Surface Water Permited Withdrawals: Ground Water Permited Recharges: 8 Dunnington Co - Waste Haulers 218 East Nantmeal 7.42 28 Eaglepoint Dev. Assoc. 1,700 Community Service 0.02 Total: 170,976,750gal/yr = 0.4843 in/yr Total: 29,930,000gal/yr = 0.0848 in/yr Industrial 0.03 Upper Uwchlan 8.31 56 Pennsylvania Turnpike/Caruiel Service 14,700 Uwchlan 0.12 91 Budd Co-trailer Div. 2,900 Mining 0.02 ID Facility Name gal/day ID Facility Name gal/day Parking 0.02 Wallace 2.64 Recreation 0.06 West Nantmeal 1.07 54 Budd Co-trailer Div 3,890 9 Marsh Harbor 82,000 Residential - High Density 0.00 West Vincent 0.75 118 Dunnington Co/glennel Diamond-well 728 Residential - Multi-family 0.04 408 Pswco-gv Div-utma-milford # 7 132,000 Residential - Single Family 3.76 410 Pswco-gv Div-utma-saybrooke # 10 65,000 Transportation/Utility 0.38 411 Pswco-gv Div-utma-saybrooke # 9 229,000 Vacant 0.23 414 Pswco-gv Div-utma-stonehedge # 8 39,000 Water 0.92 Wooded 7.80
Public Sewer Areas: Facility Name Area Sqm. Downingtown Area Regional Authority 0.21 Unknown/None 20.10
Base Flows (MGY): Median: 3,886 Public Water Areas: 10-Year: 2,240 Facility Name Area Sqm. 25-Year: 2,217 Elverson Water Company 0.06 PSWC - Philadelphia Suburban W 3.20 50-Year: 1,528 Unknown/None 17.06
Geology: Rock type: Sq. Miles carbonate rocks 0.02 crystalline rocks 20.28 diabase 0.01
Note: Facility ID 1-599 are ground water withdrawal and 700+ are surface water withdrawal points
12/16/02 Summary of Water Balance Data For Subbasin: Upper East Branch Brandywine Creek Subbasin Code: B11 Watershed Brandywine Creek Major Basin: Delaware River Precipitation: Population and Size: Withdrawals: Recharges: Discharges: Average Annual Area (Sqm) 25.66 Total GW Withdrawals: Total SW Withdrawals: Total Ground Water Recharges: Total Surface Water Discharges: Precipitation: 46.25 inches 166 MGY 2 MGY 104 MGY 1998 Estimated 12.6 MGY Population: 6,199 Land Use: Estimated Domestic Withdrawals - On-Lot Wells: Estimated Domestic Recharges - On-Lot Septic: Total: 12,556,000 gal/yr = 0.0281 in/yr 0.1 MGY EDW(in/yr): 0.000 103.0 MGY EDR(in/yr): 0.231 Facility Name gal/day Type Area Sqm. Municipalities: ID Agriculture 11.35 40 Indian Run Village MHP 33,400 Commercial/Services 0.07 Name Area (sqm) Ground and Surface Water Permited Withdrawals: Ground Water Permited Recharges: 70 Stoltzfus Ben Z. 500 Honey Brook Twp 6.99 74 Topp John & Jane 500 Community Service 0.04 Total: 38,704,220gal/yr = 0.0868 in/yr Total: 46,800gal/yr = 0.0001 in/yr Industrial 0.06 Wallace 7.95 West Brandywine 1.74 Mining 0.03 ID Facility Name gal/day ID Facility Name gal/day Parking 0.03 West Nantmeal 8.99 Recreation 0.17 25 Aptec Inc - Well 180 50 Aptec Inc - Septic 180 Residential - High Density 0.14 117 Devereux Foundation Well 1 13,300 Residential - Single Family 3.09 145 Foxcroft Equip & Svc - With Well 300 Transportation/Utility 0.28 193 Icedale M H Park Well # 1 9,820 Vacant 0.25 194 Icedale M H Park Well # 2 9,820 Water 0.50 201 Indian Run Village M H Park Well #1 15,000 Wooded 9.66 202 Indian Run Village M H Park Well #2 23,000 252 Loags Corner Mobile Home Park We 17,500 427 Rangin Inc Well 4,000 466 St Marys Of Providence Center W # 1,917 467 St Marys Of Providence Center W # 1,917 468 St Marys Of Providence Center W # 1,917 469 St Marys Of Providence Center W # 1,917 783 Mast Oliver S Spring Withdrawal 1,020,000
Public Sewer Areas: Facility Name Area Sqm. Glen Moore WWT - Wallace Twp. MA 0.36 Northwest Chester County MA 0.63 Unknown/None 24.67
Base Flows (MGY): Median: 4,909 Public Water Areas: 10-Year: 2,829 Facility Name Area Sqm. 25-Year: 2,800 PSWC - Grandstaff Water Co. 0.28 Unknown/None 25.39 50-Year: 1,930
Geology: Rock type: Sq. Miles crystalline rocks 25.66
Note: Facility ID 1-599 are ground water withdrawal and 700+ are surface water withdrawal points
12/16/02 Summary of Water Balance Data For Subbasin: Upper West Branch Brandywine Creek Subbasin Code: B12 Watershed Brandywine Creek Major Basin: Delaware River Precipitation: Population and Size: Withdrawals: Recharges: Discharges: Average Annual Area (Sqm) 30.24 Total GW Withdrawals: Total SW Withdrawals: Total Ground Water Recharges: Total Surface Water Discharges: Precipitation: 46.25 inches 302 MGY 0 MGY 120 MGY 1998 Estimated 155.4 MGY Population: 8,499 Land Use: Estimated Domestic Withdrawals - On-Lot Wells: Estimated Domestic Recharges - On-Lot Septic: Total: 155,380,500 gal/yr = 0.2956 in/yr 0.5 MGY EDW(in/yr): 0.001 119.2 MGY EDR(in/yr): 0.227 Facility Name gal/day Type Area Sqm. Municipalities: ID Agriculture 14.64 54 NW Chester Co. Municipal Authority 378,600 Commercial/Services 0.17 Name Area (sqm) Ground and Surface Water Permited Withdrawals: Ground Water Permited Recharges: 72 Tel Hai Rest Home 47,100 Caernarvon 0.30 Community Service 0.10 Total: 139,487,685gal/yr = 0.2654 in/yr Total: 664,958gal/yr = 0.0013 in/yr Industrial 0.03 East Earl 0.00 Honey Brook Boro 0.48 Large Confined Feeding Operation 0.02 ID Facility Name gal/day ID Facility Name gal/day Mining 0.14 Honey Brook Twp 15.69 Parking 0.09 Salisbury 2.80 49 Brandywine Terrace M H Park Well 1,550 101 Hartman Plastics - Septic 101 Recreation 0.22 West Brandywine 3.13 169 Gregory Court M H Park Well # 1 3,640 114 King Tables - On Lot Septic 225 Residential - High Density 0.15 West Caln 7.85 170 Gregory Court M H Park Well # 2 3,640 159 Sanders Saw Inc - On Lot Septic 2,250 Residential - Multi-family 0.47 173 Heatherwood Retirement Home Well 6,510 Residential - Single Family 3.47 174 Heatherwood Retirement Home Well 6,510 Transportation/Utility 0.29 178 Hickory House Nursing Home Well # 7,200 Unknown 0.03 179 Hickory House Nursing Home Well # 1,600 Urban 0.00 188 Honey Brook Boro Authority Well # 5 50,000 Vacant 0.77 189 Honey Brook Boro Authority Well # 6 22,400 Water 0.22 190 Honey Brook Boro Authority Well # 7 126,000 Wetlands 0.08 191 Honey Brook Boro Authority Well # 8 30,000 Wooded 9.35 220 Keystone Court M H Park Well #1 11,512 238 Lazy Acres M H Park Well # 1 1,000 239 Lazy Acres M H Park Well # 2 1,000 396 Pswco -grandstaff Well # 1 18,000 484 Tel Hai Retirement Comm Well 1 27,844 Public Sewer Areas: 485 Tel Hai Retirement Comm Well 2 19,350 Facility Name Area Sqm. 501 Valley Forge Stone- Withdraw Wells 7,230 City of Coatesville Authority 0.17 507 Valley View M H Park Well # 2 8,722 Northwest Chester County MA 2.53 508 Valley View M H Park Well # 3 8,722 Unknown/None 27.54 509 Valley View M H Park Well # 4 4,822 510 Valley View M H Park Well # 5 4,822 511 Valley View M H Park Well # 6 11,245 758 Valley Forge Stone-reservoir Intake 2,000
Base Flows (MGY): Median: 5,826 Public Water Areas: 10-Year: 3,358 Facility Name Area Sqm. 25-Year: 3,300 City of Coatesville Authority 0.65 Honey Brook Borough Water Autho 1.48 50-Year: 2,291 PSWC - Friendship Water Co. Littl 0.00 PSWC - Grandstaff Water Co. 0.00 Unknown/None 28.11 Geology: Rock type: Sq. Miles carbonate rocks 0.65 crystalline rocks 29.59
Note: Facility ID 1-599 are ground water withdrawal and 700+ are surface water withdrawal points
12/16/02 Summary of Water Balance Data For Subbasin: West Branch Brandywine Creek/Broad Run Subbasin Code: B13 Watershed Brandywine Creek Major Basin: Delaware River Precipitation: Population and Size: Withdrawals: Recharges: Discharges: Average Annual Area (Sqm) 29.09 Total GW Withdrawals: Total SW Withdrawals: Total Ground Water Recharges: Total Surface Water Discharges: Precipitation: 46.25 inches 310 MGY 0 MGY 230 MGY 1998 Estimated 18.6 MGY Population: 9,895 Land Use: Estimated Domestic Withdrawals - On-Lot Wells: Estimated Domestic Recharges - On-Lot Septic: Total: 18,615,000 gal/yr = 0.0368 in/yr 0.7 MGY EDW(in/yr): 0.001 164.9 MGY EDR(in/yr): 0.326 Facility Name gal/day Type Area Sqm. Municipalities: ID Agriculture 13.12 30 Embreeville Hospital 49,500 Commercial/Services 0.03 Name Area (sqm) Ground and Surface Water Permited Withdrawals: Ground Water Permited Recharges: 35 Gramm Jeffery 500 East Bradford 1.19 60 Redmond Michael 500 Community Service 0.21 Total: 127,791,055gal/yr = 0.2527 in/yr Total: 64,764,560gal/yr = 0.1281 in/yr Industrial 0.07 East Fallowfield 4.00 88 Woodward Raymond Sr. STP 500 East Marlborough0.95 Parking 0.02 ID Facility Name gal/day ID Facility Name gal/day Recreation 0.04 Modena 0.11 Residential - High Density 0.09 Newlin 10.14 17 Appleville M H Park Jnathn Well W1 10,141 130 Luria Bros & Co Inc -on Lot Septic 1,630 Residential - Single Family 4.40 Pocopson 1.69 18 Appleville M H Park Locust Well E1 2,569 162 Sealed Air Corp - Septic 256,000 Transportation/Utility 0.54 West Bradford 11.01 19 Appleville M H Park Locust Well E2 2,569 Vacant 0.35 West Marlborough0.00 20 Appleville M H Park Melba Well W14 4,282 Water 0.21 21 Appleville M H Park Melba Well W17 4,282 Wooded 10.01 34 B & E Water Co Be1 (ug17) 17,500 35 B & E Water Co Be2 (ug18) 17,500 213 Keebar Enterprises - Withdraw Well 135 265 Luria Bros & Co Inc - Withdraw Well 1,630 384 PSWC - Spring Run Wa Co Marshall 3,940 385 PSWC - Spring Run Wa Co Marshall 3,940 386 PSWC - Spring Run Water Co Bg1 ( 125,000 387 PSWC - Spring Run Water Co Br1 (u 76,000 391 PSWC - Spring Run Water Co Gr1 ( 80,900
Public Sewer Areas: Facility Name Area Sqm. Boro. of South Coatesville STP 0.39 Broad Run Sewage Company 0.94 Unknown/None 27.76
Base Flows (MGY): Median: 5,573 Public Water Areas: 10-Year: 3,212 Facility Name Area Sqm. 25-Year: 3,175 City of Coatesville Authority 1.83 PSWC - Spring Run Water Co. B & 0.56 50-Year: 2,191 PSWC - Spring Run Water Co. Mar 0.17 PSWC - Spring Run Water Co. Spr 0.98 Unknown/None 25.54 Geology: Rock type: Sq. Miles carbonate rocks 0.14 crystalline rocks 28.94 diabase 0.01
Note: Facility ID 1-599 are ground water withdrawal and 700+ are surface water withdrawal points
12/16/02 Summary of Water Balance Data For Subbasin: West Branch Brandywine/Rock Run/Sucker Run Subbasin Code: B14 Watershed Brandywine Creek Major Basin: Delaware River Precipitation: Population and Size: Withdrawals: Recharges: Discharges: Average Annual Area (Sqm) 27.08 Total GW Withdrawals: Total SW Withdrawals: Total Ground Water Recharges: Total Surface Water Discharges: Precipitation: 46.25 inches 290 MGY 1,777 MGY 106 MGY 1998 Estimated 1,472.0 MGY Population: 25,050 Land Use: Estimated Domestic Withdrawals - On-Lot Wells: Estimated Domestic Recharges - On-Lot Septic: Total: 1,471,954,000 gal/yr = 3.1275 in/yr 8.1 MGY EDW(in/yr): 0.017 104.8 MGY EDR(in/yr): 0.223 Facility Name gal/day Type Area Sqm. Municipalities: ID Agriculture 7.33 24 Coatesville City Authority 2,715,700 Commercial/Services 0.31 Name Area (sqm) Ground and Surface Water Permited Withdrawals: Ground Water Permited Recharges: 31 Farmland Industries Inc./Turkey Hill 400 Caln 1.05 48 Lukens Steel Co. 480,000 Community Service 0.32 Total: 1,915,789,689gal/yr = 4.0705 in/yr Total: 1,303,800gal/yr = 0.0028 in/yr Industrial 0.71 Coatesville 1.85 52 Mitchell Rodney 500 East Fallowfield 4.17 67 South Coatesville Borough 282,100 Mining 0.10 ID Facility Name gal/day ID Facility Name gal/day Parking 0.17 Modena 0.22 79 Vreeland Russell Dr. 500 Recreation 0.37 Sadsbury 0.36 103 Cornerboard Inc - Withdraw Well 865 70 Cornerboard Inc - On Lot Septic 288 95 Coatesville Water Plant 69,400 Residential - High Density 0.10 South Coatesville 1.81 115 Delaware Valley Water Co Well 6,020 102 Herbert Leslie Printing - Septic 105 106 Lukens Inc-w Br Brandywine & Sucker 495,000 Residential - Multi-family 0.10 Valley 5.98 126 East Fallowfield Utilities Well#1 8,220 106 International Mill- On-lot Septic 192 Residential - Single Family 6.93 West Brandywine 3.46 138 Fabricated Metals Inc - With Well 303 123 Lido Mills Inc - On Lot Septic 452 Transportation/Utility 0.70 West Caln 8.17 175 Herbert Leslie Printing - Well 105 124 Lipsett Steel Prdst Inc 815 Vacant 0.47 184 Hilltop Mobile Home Park Well 1 3,190 147 Pacer Industries Inc - Septic 173 Water 0.22 185 Hilltop Mobile Home Park Well 2 8,450 149 Penguin Industries Inc - Septic 1,880 Wooded 9.27 186 Hilltop Mobile Home Park Well 3 4,530 164 Simon Lg Ind Inc - On Lot Septic 550 197 Imperial Mobile Home Park Well # 1 5,878 166 Somat Corp - On Lot Septic 577 198 Imperial Mobile Home Park Well # 2 435 199 Imperial Mobile Home Park Well # 3 2,386 223 Kings Hwy Sch 35,000 272 Maplewood Mobile Home Park Well 1,220 273 Maplewood Mobile Home Park Well 1,210 293 Modena Foundry - Withdraw Well 102 357 Perry Phillips M H Park Well 4,770 Public Sewer Areas: 358 Petrocon Corp 4,800 Facility Name Area Sqm. 425 Rainbow Elementary School 36,000 Boro. of South Coatesville STP 2.07 433 S Brandywine Middle School 31,000 City of Coatesville Authority 10.37 453 Simon Lg Ind Inc - Well 627 Parkersburg Boro. Auth. 0.72 500 V A Medical Center Well #63 148,600 Unknown/None 13.92 502 Valley Twp-valley Springs Sys Well1 9,470 503 Valley Twp-valley Springs Sys Well2 12,700 504 Valley Twp-valley Springs Sys Well4 51,500 550 Woodbrooke Water Authority 6,000 708 Coatesville W Br Brandywine Cr Intk 1,327,800 716 Hawthorne Byron L Pond Withdrawal 88,000 719 Lukens Inc-W Br Brandywine Crk 990,800 Base Flows (MGY): 720 Lukens Inc. - Sucker Run 431,300 736 Selaed Air Corp - Dennis Run Ck Div 25,000 Median: 5,328 752 Coatesville Mun Auth Rock Run 3,082,000 761 Hawthorne Byron L Pond Withdrawal 15,000 Public Water Areas: 10-Year: 3,071 782 International Mill- Withdraw Spring 6,920 Facility Name Area Sqm. 25-Year: 2,945 City of Coatesville Authority 7.24 Penn American (Proposed) 1.77 50-Year: 2,095 PSWC - Friendship Water Co. Littl 0.07 PSWC - Woodbrooke System 0.14 Unknown/None 13.30 Valley Twp. 4.56 Geology: Rock type: Sq. Miles carbonate rocks 2.23 crystalline rocks 24.85
Note: Facility ID 1-599 are ground water withdrawal and 700+ are surface water withdrawal points
12/16/02 Summary of Water Balance Data For Subbasin: West Valley Creek Subbasin Code: B15 Watershed Brandywine Creek Major Basin: Delaware River Precipitation: Population and Size: Withdrawals: Recharges: Discharges: Average Annual Area (Sqm) 20.67 Total GW Withdrawals: Total SW Withdrawals: Total Ground Water Recharges: Total Surface Water Discharges: Precipitation: 46.25 inches 1046 MGY 1,128 MGY 45 MGY 1998 Estimated 353.7 MGY Population: 23,778 Land Use: Estimated Domestic Withdrawals - On-Lot Wells: Estimated Domestic Recharges - On-Lot Septic: Total: 353,742,500 gal/yr = 0.9848 in/yr 8.2 MGY EDW(in/yr): 0.023 42.3 MGY EDR(in/yr): 0.118 Facility Name gal/day Type Area Sqm. Municipalities: ID Agriculture 3.50 13 Mobil SS#16-GPB 44,000 Commercial/Services 0.72 Name Area (sqm) Ground and Surface Water Permited Withdrawals: Ground Water Permited Recharges: 41 Johnson Ralph & Gayla 500 Charlestown 0.07 101 General Crushed Stone-valley Ck Discharge 1,350,000 Community Service 0.23 Total: 2,055,595,355gal/yr = 5.7226 in/yr Total: 3,160,960gal/yr = 0.0088 in/yr Industrial 0.34 Downingtown 0.00 East Bradford 3.65 Mining 0.35 ID Facility Name gal/day ID Facility Name gal/day Parking 0.45 East Caln 0.96 Recreation 0.42 East Whiteland 0.67 5 Air Products Div - Withdraw Well 175 39 Whitford C C - Gr Water Rch 65,200 Residential - High Density 0.35 Uwchlan 1.90 9 American Davey Corp 365 46 American Davey Corp 365 Residential - Multi-family 0.42 West Goshen 1.06 16 Apple Press Ltd - Withdraw Well 204 51 Architectural Systems - Septic 177 Residential - Single Family 5.91 West Whiteland 12.34 26 Architectural Systems - With Well 369 52 Ardmore Flagstone Co - Septic 125 Transportation/Utility 0.66 27 Ardmore Flagstone Co -withdraw We 144 55 Ball & Ball- On-lot Septic 602 Vacant 0.71 70 Cfs-school At Church Farm 6,333 67 Communication Test Design 582 Water 0.10 88 Church Farm School Well #2 4,300 84 Exton Press- On-lot Septic 105 Wooded 6.51 96 Communication Test Design 582 93 General Crushed Stone-on-lot Septi 3,900 137 Exton Press- Withdraw Well 105 113 Kiley Electric- On-lot Septic 288 152 Gen Crushed Stone (main Plant) #2 3,900 161 Screening Room Inc - On Lot Septic 115 153 Gen Crushed Stone (scale House) # 280 172 Taylor's Pet Foods- On-lot Septic 120 154 Gen Crushed Stone(secondary Plt) # 4,800 184 Wamac Industries Inc -on Lot Septi 180 203 Industrial Systems Design-with Well 600 221 Kiley Electric- Withdraw Well 288 250 Lionville Systems- Withdraw Well 148 268 Main Line Concrete & Supply-well 4,370 Public Sewer Areas: 286 Milestone Material-secondary Plt #3 8,000 Facility Name Area Sqm. 287 Milestone Materials Main Plant #2 79,200 Downingtown Area Regional Authority 15.62 288 Milestone Materials-scale House #1 3,960 Unknown/None 3.89 321 National Mail Graphics - With Well 450 Valley Forge SA 0.03 401 Pswco-gv Div-highland Glen 119,000 West Goshen Twp. SA 1.13 405 Pswco-gv Div-pottstown Pk Hollow R 116,000 409 Pswco-gv Div-utma-robt Dean # 5 415,000 412 Pswco-gv Div-utma-shoen Rd # 3 736,000 413 Pswco-gv Div-utma-shoen Rd # 4 158,000 415 Pswco-gv Div-wwma Hillside Well # 160,000 416 Pswco-gv Div-wwma Hillside Well # 349,000 423 Pswco-gv Div-utmarobt Dean # 6 189,000 Base Flows (MGY): 440 Screening Room Inc - With Well 115 478 Strut Service Co - Well 180 Median: 4,390 483 Taylor's Pet Foods- Withdraw Wells 120 495 United Plastics Machinery-with Well 5,290 Public Water Areas: 10-Year: 2,533 505 Valley View Business Condo 6,000 Facility Name Area Sqm. 516 Wamac Industries Inc - Withdr Well 180 25-Year: 2,233 524 Waterloo Gardens Well 2 81,000 Downingtown Borough Water Dept. 0.17 525 Waterloo Gardens Well One 119,000 PSWC - Philadelphia Suburban W 13.09 50-Year: 1,727 545 Whitford C C - Well 8,700 Unknown/None 7.40 546 Whitford Flowers Ground Withdrawal 6,000 715 General Crushed Stone-valley Creek 466,000 725 Milestone Materials -valley Creek 698,000 Geology: 745 Whitford C C - Colebrook Farm Ck 60,000 Rock type: Sq. Miles 778 Church Farm School Spring 2,790 carbonate rocks 6.58 792 General Crushed Stone-west Quarry 1,620,000 crystalline rocks 14.08 795 Milestone Materials - East Quarry 1,180,000 796 Milestone Materials -west Quarry 480,000
Note: Facility ID 1-599 are ground water withdrawal and 700+ are surface water withdrawal points
12/16/02 Appendix B: Watershed and Subbasin Data Sheets Watershed Data Summary for: Brandywine Creek
Population: Estimated Estimated 1998-2020 1998 2020 Est. Population Population Population Percent Change 220,734 280,993 27
Estimated 1998 Estimated 2020 Population Density Population Density (People/acre) (People/acre) 1.1 1.4
Utilities and 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. 1998 Est. Water Use: on Individual Connected to Population on Population on Septic Systems Public Sewer Private Wells Public Water
75,437145,297 83,390 137,343
1998 Surface 1998 Ground 1998 Ground Water Withdrawals Water Withdrawals Water Recharges (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr)
15,415 4,049 1,568
Additional Public Additional Private Total Additional Add'l Wastewater Water Needed Well Water Needed Water Needed Generated (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr)
1,352 671 #Name? #Name?
Land Use: 1998 Percent 2020 Percent 1998-2020 Percent Impervious Impervious Change In Impervious
10.9% 13.2% 21.2
Percent Agriculture Percent Agriculture 1998-2020 Difference Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 in Percent Agriculture 37.0% 33.1% -4.0%
Percent Developed Percent Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Developed 26.3 35.3 9.0
Percent Not Developed Percent Not Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Not Developed 36.5 31.5 -5.0
Notes: Agriculture Lands consist of agriculture and animal feeding operations Developed lands are commercial, community, residential, urban, parking,transportation/utility, and industrial lands Undeveloped lands are wetlands, water, wooded, vacant and recreation areas
12/16/02 Subbasin Data Summary for: B1 Brandywine Creek above Chadds Ford in Brandywine Creek Watershed
Population: Estimated 1998 Estimated 2020 1998-2020 Est. Population Population Population Percent Change
4,966 7,250 46.0
Estimated 1998 Population Estimated 2020 Population Density (People/acre) Density (People/acre) 0.8 1.1
Utilities 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. 1998 Est. and on Individual Connected to Population on Population on Water Use: Septic Systems Public Sewer Private Wells Public Water 4,778206 2,904 2,080
1998 Surface 1998 Ground 1998 Ground Water Withdrawals Water Withdrawals Water Recharges (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) 0 65 133
Additional Public Additional Private Total Additional Add'l Wastewater Water Needed Well Water Needed Water Needed Generated (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr)
4628 74 67
Ground Water 1 in 25 Yr. Annual 1998 Net Ground Net Withdrawal as a Subbasin Withdrawal Average Baseflow Water Wthdrawals Percent of 1 in 25 Yr Target as a Percent of Balance: (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) Average Ann. Baseflow 1 in 25 Yr Baseflow
1,098 -68 -6% 50
Land Use: 1998 Percent 2020 Percent 1998-2020 Percent Impervious Impervious Change In Impervious 9.9 13.1 32.0
Percent Agriculture Percent Agriculture 1998-2020 Difference Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 in Percent Agriculture 27.6% 21.3% -6.3%
Percent Developed Percent Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Developed 32.7 47.6 14.9
Percent Not Developed Percent Not Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Not Developed 39.7 31.0 -8.7
Notes: Agriculture Lands consist of agriculture and animal feeding operations Developed lands are commercial, community, residential, urban, parking,transportation/utility, and industrial lands Undeveloped lands are wetlands, water, wooded, vacant and recreation areas
12/16/02 Subbasin Data Summary for: B2 Brandywine Creek at Wilmington in Brandywine Creek Watershed
Population: Estimated 1998 Estimated 2020 1998-2020 Est. Population Population Population Percent Change
37,841 41,905 10.7
Estimated 1998 Population Estimated 2020 Population Density (People/acre) Density (People/acre) 9.8 10.8
Utilities 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. 1998 Est. and on Individual Connected to Population on Population on Water Use: Septic Systems Public Sewer Private Wells Public Water 75737,074 757 37,074
1998 Surface 1998 Ground 1998 Ground Water Withdrawals Water Withdrawals Water Recharges (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) 9,905 17 14
Additional Public Additional Private Total Additional Add'l Wastewater Water Needed Well Water Needed Water Needed Generated (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr)
1850 185 167
Ground Water 1 in 25 Yr. Annual 1998 Net Ground Net Withdrawal as a Subbasin Withdrawal Average Baseflow Water Wthdrawals Percent of 1 in 25 Yr Target as a Percent of Balance: (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) Average Ann. Baseflow 1 in 25 Yr Baseflow
661 3 0% 100
Land Use: 1998 Percent 2020 Percent 1998-2020 Percent Impervious Impervious Change In Impervious 44.6 47.4 6.2
Percent Agriculture Percent Agriculture 1998-2020 Difference Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 in Percent Agriculture 1.6% 1.3% -0.2%
Percent Developed Percent Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Developed 67.6 72.8 5.2
Percent Not Developed Percent Not Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Not Developed 29.1 24.1 -5.0
Notes: Agriculture Lands consist of agriculture and animal feeding operations Developed lands are commercial, community, residential, urban, parking,transportation/utility, and industrial lands Undeveloped lands are wetlands, water, wooded, vacant and recreation areas
12/16/02 Subbasin Data Summary for: B3 Brandywine Creek below Chadds Ford in Brandywine Creek Watershed
Population: Estimated 1998 Estimated 2020 1998-2020 Est. Population Population Population Percent Change
15,958 19,498 22.2
Estimated 1998 Population Estimated 2020 Population Density (People/acre) Density (People/acre) 0.8 1.0
Utilities 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. 1998 Est. and on Individual Connected to Population on Population on Water Use: Septic Systems Public Sewer Private Wells Public Water 1,69214,208 5,083 10,816
1998 Surface 1998 Ground 1998 Ground Water Withdrawals Water Withdrawals Water Recharges (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) 74 112 31
Additional Public Additional Private Total Additional Add'l Wastewater Water Needed Well Water Needed Water Needed Generated (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr)
8039 119 107
Ground Water 1 in 25 Yr. Annual 1998 Net Ground Net Withdrawal as a Subbasin Withdrawal Average Baseflow Water Wthdrawals Percent of 1 in 25 Yr Target as a Percent of Balance: (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) Average Ann. Baseflow 1 in 25 Yr Baseflow
3,313 81 2% 100
Land Use: 1998 Percent 2020 Percent 1998-2020 Percent Impervious Impervious Change In Impervious 12.7 14.8 16.4
Percent Agriculture Percent Agriculture 1998-2020 Difference Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 in Percent Agriculture 16.7% 14.4% -2.3%
Percent Developed Percent Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Developed 29.0 36.2 7.2
Percent Not Developed Percent Not Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Not Developed 53.4 48.5 -4.9
Notes: Agriculture Lands consist of agriculture and animal feeding operations Developed lands are commercial, community, residential, urban, parking,transportation/utility, and industrial lands Undeveloped lands are wetlands, water, wooded, vacant and recreation areas
12/16/02 Subbasin Data Summary for: B4 Brandywine Creek/Pocopson Creek in Brandywine Creek Watershed
Population: Estimated 1998 Estimated 2020 1998-2020 Est. Population Population Population Percent Change
16,528 21,735 31.5
Estimated 1998 Population Estimated 2020 Population Density (People/acre) Density (People/acre) 1.3 1.7
Utilities 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. 1998 Est. and on Individual Connected to Population on Population on Water Use: Septic Systems Public Sewer Private Wells Public Water 9,2707,204 6,666 9,808
1998 Surface 1998 Ground 1998 Ground Water Withdrawals Water Withdrawals Water Recharges (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) 22 283 173
Additional Public Additional Private Total Additional Add'l Wastewater Water Needed Well Water Needed Water Needed Generated (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr)
10066 166 149
Ground Water 1 in 25 Yr. Annual 1998 Net Ground Net Withdrawal as a Subbasin Withdrawal Average Baseflow Water Wthdrawals Percent of 1 in 25 Yr Target as a Percent of Balance: (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) Average Ann. Baseflow 1 in 25 Yr Baseflow
2,154 110 5% 100
Land Use: 1998 Percent 2020 Percent 1998-2020 Percent Impervious Impervious Change In Impervious 10.7 13.5 26.3
Percent Agriculture Percent Agriculture 1998-2020 Difference Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 in Percent Agriculture 40.2% 31.7% -8.5%
Percent Developed Percent Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Developed 34.2 49.0 14.8
Percent Not Developed Percent Not Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Not Developed 25.6 19.2 -6.3
Notes: Agriculture Lands consist of agriculture and animal feeding operations Developed lands are commercial, community, residential, urban, parking,transportation/utility, and industrial lands Undeveloped lands are wetlands, water, wooded, vacant and recreation areas
12/16/02 Subbasin Data Summary for: B5 Buck Run in Brandywine Creek Watershed
Population: Estimated 1998 Estimated 2020 1998-2020 Est. Population Population Population Percent Change
8,275 9,718 17.4
Estimated 1998 Population Estimated 2020 Population Density (People/acre) Density (People/acre) 0.5 0.6
Utilities 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. 1998 Est. and on Individual Connected to Population on Population on Water Use: Septic Systems Public Sewer Private Wells Public Water 4,5193,750 4,760 3,509
1998 Surface 1998 Ground 1998 Ground Water Withdrawals Water Withdrawals Water Recharges (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) 0 121 82
Additional Public Additional Private Total Additional Add'l Wastewater Water Needed Well Water Needed Water Needed Generated (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr)
2221 43 39
Ground Water 1 in 25 Yr. Annual 1998 Net Ground Net Withdrawal as a Subbasin Withdrawal Average Baseflow Water Wthdrawals Percent of 1 in 25 Yr Target as a Percent of Balance: (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) Average Ann. Baseflow 1 in 25 Yr Baseflow
2,925 38 1% 100
Land Use: 1998 Percent 2020 Percent 1998-2020 Percent Impervious Impervious Change In Impervious 6.1 6.5 7.7
Percent Agriculture Percent Agriculture 1998-2020 Difference Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 in Percent Agriculture 57.5% 56.5% -1.1%
Percent Developed Percent Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Developed 13.1 14.7 1.6
Percent Not Developed Percent Not Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Not Developed 29.4 28.8 -0.6
Notes: Agriculture Lands consist of agriculture and animal feeding operations Developed lands are commercial, community, residential, urban, parking,transportation/utility, and industrial lands Undeveloped lands are wetlands, water, wooded, vacant and recreation areas
12/16/02 Subbasin Data Summary for: B6 Doe Run in Brandywine Creek Watershed
Population: Estimated 1998 Estimated 2020 1998-2020 Est. Population Population Population Percent Change
2,100 2,606 24.1
Estimated 1998 Population Estimated 2020 Population Density (People/acre) Density (People/acre) 0.2 0.2
Utilities 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. 1998 Est. and on Individual Connected to Population on Population on Water Use: Septic Systems Public Sewer Private Wells Public Water 2,132032 2,100
1998 Surface 1998 Ground 1998 Ground Water Withdrawals Water Withdrawals Water Recharges (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) 0 46 39
Additional Public Additional Private Total Additional Add'l Wastewater Water Needed Well Water Needed Water Needed Generated (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr)
01111 10
Ground Water 1 in 25 Yr. Annual 1998 Net Ground Net Withdrawal as a Subbasin Withdrawal Average Baseflow Water Wthdrawals Percent of 1 in 25 Yr Target as a Percent of Balance: (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) Average Ann. Baseflow 1 in 25 Yr Baseflow
2,358 7 0% 100
Land Use: 1998 Percent 2020 Percent 1998-2020 Percent Impervious Impervious Change In Impervious 3.9 4.3 11.6
Percent Agriculture Percent Agriculture 1998-2020 Difference Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 in Percent Agriculture 77.3% 76.2% -1.1%
Percent Developed Percent Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Developed 4.3 5.6 1.3
Percent Not Developed Percent Not Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Not Developed 18.4 18.2 -0.2
Notes: Agriculture Lands consist of agriculture and animal feeding operations Developed lands are commercial, community, residential, urban, parking,transportation/utility, and industrial lands Undeveloped lands are wetlands, water, wooded, vacant and recreation areas
12/16/02 Subbasin Data Summary for: B7 East Branch Brandywine Creek/Shamona Creek in Brandywine Creek Watershed
Population: Estimated 1998 Estimated 2020 1998-2020 Est. Population Population Population Percent Change
13,407 18,276 36.3
Estimated 1998 Population Estimated 2020 Population Density (People/acre) Density (People/acre) 1.2 1.6
Utilities 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. 1998 Est. and on Individual Connected to Population on Population on Water Use: Septic Systems Public Sewer Private Wells Public Water 4,5548,952 7,418 6,088
1998 Surface 1998 Ground 1998 Ground Water Withdrawals Water Withdrawals Water Recharges (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) 379 216 104
Additional Public Additional Private Total Additional Add'l Wastewater Water Needed Well Water Needed Water Needed Generated (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr)
9760 157 142
Ground Water 1 in 25 Yr. Annual 1998 Net Ground Net Withdrawal as a Subbasin Withdrawal Average Baseflow Water Wthdrawals Percent of 1 in 25 Yr Target as a Percent of Balance: (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) Average Ann. Baseflow 1 in 25 Yr Baseflow
1,932 112 6% 50
Land Use: 1998 Percent 2020 Percent 1998-2020 Percent Impervious Impervious Change In Impervious 11.4 14.5 26.8
Percent Agriculture Percent Agriculture 1998-2020 Difference Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 in Percent Agriculture 26.2% 19.6% -6.5%
Percent Developed Percent Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Developed 38.5 52.7 14.2
Percent Not Developed Percent Not Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Not Developed 35.3 27.6 -7.7
Notes: Agriculture Lands consist of agriculture and animal feeding operations Developed lands are commercial, community, residential, urban, parking,transportation/utility, and industrial lands Undeveloped lands are wetlands, water, wooded, vacant and recreation areas
12/16/02 Subbasin Data Summary for: B8 East Branch Brandywine Creek/Taylor Run in Brandywine Creek Watershed
Population: Estimated 1998 Estimated 2020 1998-2020 Est. Population Population Population Percent Change
15,252 18,037 18.3
Estimated 1998 Population Estimated 2020 Population Density (People/acre) Density (People/acre) 1.8 2.2
Utilities 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. 1998 Est. and on Individual Connected to Population on Population on Water Use: Septic Systems Public Sewer Private Wells Public Water 3,61211,657 3,094 12,175
1998 Surface 1998 Ground 1998 Ground Water Withdrawals Water Withdrawals Water Recharges (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) 1,480 174 67
Additional Public Additional Private Total Additional Add'l Wastewater Water Needed Well Water Needed Water Needed Generated (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr)
6828 96 87
Ground Water 1 in 25 Yr. Annual 1998 Net Ground Net Withdrawal as a Subbasin Withdrawal Average Baseflow Water Wthdrawals Percent of 1 in 25 Yr Target as a Percent of Balance: (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) Average Ann. Baseflow 1 in 25 Yr Baseflow
1,407 108 8% 50
Land Use: 1998 Percent 2020 Percent 1998-2020 Percent Impervious Impervious Change In Impervious 12.8 15.9 24.9
Percent Agriculture Percent Agriculture 1998-2020 Difference Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 in Percent Agriculture 29.7% 23.3% -6.4%
Percent Developed Percent Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Developed 37.2 50.5 13.4
Percent Not Developed Percent Not Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Not Developed 33.1 26.3 -6.8
Notes: Agriculture Lands consist of agriculture and animal feeding operations Developed lands are commercial, community, residential, urban, parking,transportation/utility, and industrial lands Undeveloped lands are wetlands, water, wooded, vacant and recreation areas
12/16/02 Subbasin Data Summary for: B9 East Branch Brandywine/Beaver Creek in Brandywine Creek Watershed
Population: Estimated 1998 Estimated 2020 1998-2020 Est. Population Population Population Percent Change
26,430 33,649 27.3
Estimated 1998 Population Estimated 2020 Population Density (People/acre) Density (People/acre) 1.6 2.0
Utilities 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. 1998 Est. and on Individual Connected to Population on Population on Water Use: Septic Systems Public Sewer Private Wells Public Water 8,34817,736 11,959 14,125
1998 Surface 1998 Ground 1998 Ground Water Withdrawals Water Withdrawals Water Recharges (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) 648 627 172
Additional Public Additional Private Total Additional Add'l Wastewater Water Needed Well Water Needed Water Needed Generated (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr)
15185 237 213
Ground Water 1 in 25 Yr. Annual 1998 Net Ground Net Withdrawal as a Subbasin Withdrawal Average Baseflow Water Wthdrawals Percent of 1 in 25 Yr Target as a Percent of Balance: (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) Average Ann. Baseflow 1 in 25 Yr Baseflow
2,825 455 16% 50
Land Use: 1998 Percent 2020 Percent 1998-2020 Percent Impervious Impervious Change In Impervious 13.8 16.3 18.4
Percent Agriculture Percent Agriculture 1998-2020 Difference Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 in Percent Agriculture 25.8% 22.4% -3.4%
Percent Developed Percent Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Developed 35.1 44.4 9.3
Percent Not Developed Percent Not Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Not Developed 39.0 33.1 -5.9
Notes: Agriculture Lands consist of agriculture and animal feeding operations Developed lands are commercial, community, residential, urban, parking,transportation/utility, and industrial lands Undeveloped lands are wetlands, water, wooded, vacant and recreation areas
12/16/02 Subbasin Data Summary for: B10 Marsh Creek in Brandywine Creek Watershed
Population: Estimated 1998 Estimated 2020 1998-2020 Est. Population Population Population Percent Change
6,555 11,375 73.5
Estimated 1998 Population Estimated 2020 Population Density (People/acre) Density (People/acre) 0.5 0.9
Utilities 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. 1998 Est. and on Individual Connected to Population on Population on Water Use: Septic Systems Public Sewer Private Wells Public Water 6,499132 4,709 1,922
1998 Surface 1998 Ground 1998 Ground Water Withdrawals Water Withdrawals Water Recharges (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) 0 274 149
Additional Public Additional Private Total Additional Add'l Wastewater Water Needed Well Water Needed Water Needed Generated (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr)
7769 145 131
Ground Water 1 in 25 Yr. Annual 1998 Net Ground Net Withdrawal as a Subbasin Withdrawal Average Baseflow Water Wthdrawals Percent of 1 in 25 Yr Target as a Percent of Balance: (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) Average Ann. Baseflow 1 in 25 Yr Baseflow
2,217 126 6% 50
Land Use: 1998 Percent 2020 Percent 1998-2020 Percent Impervious Impervious Change In Impervious 11.6 15.4 32.4
Percent Agriculture Percent Agriculture 1998-2020 Difference Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 in Percent Agriculture 33.8% 26.1% -7.6%
Percent Developed Percent Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Developed 21.8 38.1 16.2
Percent Not Developed Percent Not Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Not Developed 44.4 35.8 -8.6
Notes: Agriculture Lands consist of agriculture and animal feeding operations Developed lands are commercial, community, residential, urban, parking,transportation/utility, and industrial lands Undeveloped lands are wetlands, water, wooded, vacant and recreation areas
12/16/02 Subbasin Data Summary for: B11 Upper East Branch Brandywine Creek in Brandywine Creek Watershed
Population: Estimated 1998 Estimated 2020 1998-2020 Est. Population Population Population Percent Change
6,199 8,580 38.4
Estimated 1998 Population Estimated 2020 Population Density (People/acre) Density (People/acre) 0.4 0.5
Utilities 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. 1998 Est. and on Individual Connected to Population on Population on Water Use: Septic Systems Public Sewer Private Wells Public Water 5,645319 5,918 47
1998 Surface 1998 Ground 1998 Ground Water Withdrawals Water Withdrawals Water Recharges (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) 2 166 104
Additional Public Additional Private Total Additional Add'l Wastewater Water Needed Well Water Needed Water Needed Generated (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr)
35451 48
Ground Water 1 in 25 Yr. Annual 1998 Net Ground Net Withdrawal as a Subbasin Withdrawal Average Baseflow Water Wthdrawals Percent of 1 in 25 Yr Target as a Percent of Balance: (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) Average Ann. Baseflow 1 in 25 Yr Baseflow
2,800 63 2% 50
Land Use: 1998 Percent 2020 Percent 1998-2020 Percent Impervious Impervious Change In Impervious 7.2 8.7 20.5
Percent Agriculture Percent Agriculture 1998-2020 Difference Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 in Percent Agriculture 44.2% 41.4% -2.8%
Percent Developed Percent Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Developed 14.6 20.5 6.0
Percent Not Developed Percent Not Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Not Developed 41.2 38.0 -3.2
Notes: Agriculture Lands consist of agriculture and animal feeding operations Developed lands are commercial, community, residential, urban, parking,transportation/utility, and industrial lands Undeveloped lands are wetlands, water, wooded, vacant and recreation areas
12/16/02 Subbasin Data Summary for: B12 Upper West Branch Brandywine Creek in Brandywine Creek Watershed
Population: Estimated 1998 Estimated 2020 1998-2020 Est. Population Population Population Percent Change
8,499 11,424 34.4
Estimated 1998 Population Estimated 2020 Population Density (People/acre) Density (People/acre) 0.4 0.6
Utilities 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. 1998 Est. and on Individual Connected to Population on Population on Water Use: Septic Systems Public Sewer Private Wells Public Water 6,5331,943 7,428 1,048
1998 Surface 1998 Ground 1998 Ground Water Withdrawals Water Withdrawals Water Recharges (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) 0 302 120
Additional Public Additional Private Total Additional Add'l Wastewater Water Needed Well Water Needed Water Needed Generated (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr)
1358 71 64
Ground Water 1 in 25 Yr. Annual 1998 Net Ground Net Withdrawal as a Subbasin Withdrawal Average Baseflow Water Wthdrawals Percent of 1 in 25 Yr Target as a Percent of Balance: (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) Average Ann. Baseflow 1 in 25 Yr Baseflow
3,300 182 6% 50
Land Use: 1998 Percent 2020 Percent 1998-2020 Percent Impervious Impervious Change In Impervious 7.5 8.8 18.0
Percent Agriculture Percent Agriculture 1998-2020 Difference Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 in Percent Agriculture 48.4% 45.9% -2.5%
Percent Developed Percent Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Developed 16.3 21.8 5.5
Percent Not Developed Percent Not Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Not Developed 35.3 32.3 -3.0
Notes: Agriculture Lands consist of agriculture and animal feeding operations Developed lands are commercial, community, residential, urban, parking,transportation/utility, and industrial lands Undeveloped lands are wetlands, water, wooded, vacant and recreation areas
12/16/02 Subbasin Data Summary for: B13 West Branch Brandywine Creek/Broad Run in Brandywine Creek Watershed
Population: Estimated 1998 Estimated 2020 1998-2020 Est. Population Population Population Percent Change
9,895 13,754 39.0
Estimated 1998 Population Estimated 2020 Population Density (People/acre) Density (People/acre) 0.5 0.7
Utilities 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. 1998 Est. and on Individual Connected to Population on Population on Water Use: Septic Systems Public Sewer Private Wells Public Water 9,038897 8,302 1,633
1998 Surface 1998 Ground 1998 Ground Water Withdrawals Water Withdrawals Water Recharges (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) 0 310 230
Additional Public Additional Private Total Additional Add'l Wastewater Water Needed Well Water Needed Water Needed Generated (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr)
2971 100 90
Ground Water 1 in 25 Yr. Annual 1998 Net Ground Net Withdrawal as a Subbasin Withdrawal Average Baseflow Water Wthdrawals Percent of 1 in 25 Yr Target as a Percent of Balance: (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) Average Ann. Baseflow 1 in 25 Yr Baseflow
3,175 80 3% 50
Land Use: 1998 Percent 2020 Percent 1998-2020 Percent Impervious Impervious Change In Impervious 7.3 8.8 20.3
Percent Agriculture Percent Agriculture 1998-2020 Difference Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 in Percent Agriculture 45.1% 41.7% -3.4%
Percent Developed Percent Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Developed 18.4 24.3 5.9
Percent Not Developed Percent Not Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Not Developed 36.5 34.0 -2.5
Notes: Agriculture Lands consist of agriculture and animal feeding operations Developed lands are commercial, community, residential, urban, parking,transportation/utility, and industrial lands Undeveloped lands are wetlands, water, wooded, vacant and recreation areas
12/16/02 Subbasin Data Summary for: B14 West Branch Brandywine/Rock Run/Sucker Run in Brandywine Creek Watershed
Population: Estimated 1998 Estimated 2020 1998-2020 Est. Population Population Population Percent Change
25,050 31,954 27.6
Estimated 1998 Population Estimated 2020 Population Density (People/acre) Density (People/acre) 1.4 1.8
Utilities 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. 1998 Est. and on Individual Connected to Population on Population on Water Use: Septic Systems Public Sewer Private Wells Public Water 5,74519,470 6,894 18,321
1998 Surface 1998 Ground 1998 Ground Water Withdrawals Water Withdrawals Water Recharges (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) 1,777 290 106
Additional Public Additional Private Total Additional Add'l Wastewater Water Needed Well Water Needed Water Needed Generated (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr)
21150 261 235
Ground Water 1 in 25 Yr. Annual 1998 Net Ground Net Withdrawal as a Subbasin Withdrawal Average Baseflow Water Wthdrawals Percent of 1 in 25 Yr Target as a Percent of Balance: (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) Average Ann. Baseflow 1 in 25 Yr Baseflow
2,945 184 6% 50
Land Use: 1998 Percent 2020 Percent 1998-2020 Percent Impervious Impervious Change In Impervious 13.6 16.5 21.7
Percent Agriculture Percent Agriculture 1998-2020 Difference Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 in Percent Agriculture 27.1% 22.2% -4.9%
Percent Developed Percent Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Developed 34.9 46.1 11.2
Percent Not Developed Percent Not Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Not Developed 38.1 31.8 -6.3
Notes: Agriculture Lands consist of agriculture and animal feeding operations Developed lands are commercial, community, residential, urban, parking,transportation/utility, and industrial lands Undeveloped lands are wetlands, water, wooded, vacant and recreation areas
12/16/02 Subbasin Data Summary for: B15 West Valley Creek in Brandywine Creek Watershed
Population: Estimated 1998 Estimated 2020 1998-2020 Est. Population Population Population Percent Change
23,778 31,231 31.3
Estimated 1998 Population Estimated 2020 Population Density (People/acre) Density (People/acre) 1.8 2.4
Utilities 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. Population 1998 Est. 1998 Est. and on Individual Connected to Population on Population on Water Use: Septic Systems Public Sewer Private Wells Public Water 2,31521,455 5,399 18,371
1998 Surface 1998 Ground 1998 Ground Water Withdrawals Water Withdrawals Water Recharges (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) 1,128 1,046 45
Additional Public Additional Private Total Additional Add'l Wastewater Water Needed Well Water Needed Water Needed Generated (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr)
26934 303 273
Ground Water 1 in 25 Yr. Annual 1998 Net Ground Net Withdrawal as a Subbasin Withdrawal Average Baseflow Water Wthdrawals Percent of 1 in 25 Yr Target as a Percent of Balance: (mgal/yr) (mgal/yr) Average Ann. Baseflow 1 in 25 Yr Baseflow
2,233 1,000 45% 50
Land Use: 1998 Percent 2020 Percent 1998-2020 Percent Impervious Impervious Change In Impervious 18.2 24.1 32.4
Percent Agriculture Percent Agriculture 1998-2020 Difference Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 in Percent Agriculture 16.9% 11.8% -5.1%
Percent Developed Percent Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Developed 45.6 62.7 17.1
Percent Not Developed Percent Not Developed 1998-2020 Change Lands in 1998 Lands in 2020 In Percent Not Developed 37.4 25.5 -11.9
Notes: Agriculture Lands consist of agriculture and animal feeding operations Developed lands are commercial, community, residential, urban, parking,transportation/utility, and industrial lands Undeveloped lands are wetlands, water, wooded, vacant and recreation areas
12/16/02 Appendix C: Watershed and Subbasin Nonpoint Source Loadings Data Sheets WMM Pollutant Loading Results for: Brandywine Creek
1998-2020 1998-2020 BOD: 1998 BOD 2020 BOD 2020 BOD % Change BOD % Change BOD Biologic lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Oxygen Demand 35.6 37.5 33.9 5.4% -4.8%
COD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Chemical 1998 COD 2020COD 2020COD % Change COD % ChangeCOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 116.1 124.8 103.5 7.5% -10.8%
TSS: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Total 1998 TSS 2020 TSS 2020 TSS % Change TSS % Change TSS Suspended lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Solids 337.9 339.5 151.3 0.5% -55.2%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TKN: 1998 TKN 2020 TKN 2020 TKN % Change TKN % Change TKN Total lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Kjeldahl Nitrogen 5.2 5.8 5.2 10.6% -1.0%
1998-2020 1998-2020 NO23: 1998 NO23 2020 NO23 2020 NO23 % Change NO23 % Change NO23 Nitrate/ lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Nitrite 14.6 15.0 14.8 3.2% 1.7%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TP: 1998 TP 2020 TP 2020 TP % Change TP % Change TP Total lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 1.88 2.00 1.81 6.0% -3.7%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TSP: 1998 TSP 2020 TSP 2020 TSP % Change TSP % Change TSP Total lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Soluble Phosphorus 0.38 0.44 0.39 15.5% 2.4%
1998-2020 1998-2020 CU: 1998 CU 2020 CU 2020 CU % Change CU % Change CU Copper lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.20 0.20 0.19 1.5% -1.6%
1998-2020 1998-2020 PB: 1998 PB 2020 PB 2020 PB % Change PB % Change PB Lead lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.03 0.03 0.02 13.3% -26.5%
1998-2020 1998-2020 ZN: 1998 ZN 2020 ZN 2020 ZN % Change ZN % Change ZN Zinc lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.34 0.39 0.29 13.8% -13.9%
1998-2020 1998-2020 RO: 1998 RO 2020 RO 2020 RO (in/yr) % Change RO % Change RO Runoff (in/yr) no BMPS (in/yr) no BMPS with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 9.4 9.7 9.7 3.3% 3.3%
Note: Relative estimated indicators of loading for comparitive puposes only
12/16/02 WMM Pollutant Loading Results for: B1 Brandywine Creek above Chadds Ford inBrandywine Creek Watershed
BOD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Biologic 1998 BOD 2020 BOD 2020 BOD % Change BOD % Change BOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 26.3 27.6 24.0 4.8% -8.7% COD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Chemical 1998 COD 2020COD 2020COD % Change COD % ChangeCOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 87.0 94.2 75.4 8.2% -13.3%
TSS: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Total 1998 TSS 2020 TSS 2020 TSS % Change TSS % Change TSS Suspended lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Solids 265.8 262.3 101.0 -1.3% -62.0% 1998-2020 1998-2020 TKN: 1998 TKN 2020 TKN 2020 TKN % Change TKN % Change TKN Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Kjeldahl Nitrogen 3.5 3.8 3.3 10.2% -5.9% 1998-2020 1998-2020 NO23: 1998 NO23 2020 NO23 2020 NO23 % Change NO23 % Change NO23 Nitrate/ lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Nitrite 16.2 16.6 16.4 2.3% 0.8%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TP: 1998 TP 2020 TP 2020 TP % Change TP % Change TP Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.57 0.65 0.46 12.6% -19.7%
TSP: 1998-2020 1998-2020 1998 TSP 2020 TSP 2020 TSP Total % Change TSP % Change TSP lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs Soluble without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.27 0.30 0.25 11.2% -7.1% 1998-2020 1998-2020 CU: 1998 CU 2020 CU 2020 CU % Change CU % Change CU Copper lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.11 0.11 0.11 3.6% -2.2%
1998-2020 1998-2020 PB: 1998 PB 2020 PB 2020 PB % Change PB % Change PB Lead lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.02 0.03 0.02 20.3% -28.9%
1998-2020 1998-2020 ZN: 1998 ZN 2020 ZN 2020 ZN % Change ZN % Change ZN Zinc lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.18 0.23 0.14 30.9% -19.1%
1998-2020 1998-2020 RO: 1998 RO 2020 RO 2020 RO (in/yr) % Change RO % Change RO Runoff (in/yr) no BMPS (in/yr) no BMPS with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 7.8 8.1 8.1 3.0% 3.0%
Note: Relative estimated indicators of loading for comparitive puposes only
12/16/02 WMM Pollutant Loading Results for: B2 Brandywine Creek at Wilmington inBrandywine Creek Watershed
BOD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Biologic 1998 BOD 2020 BOD 2020 BOD % Change BOD % Change BOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 68.3 72.3 60.7 5.8% -11.1% COD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Chemical 1998 COD 2020COD 2020COD % Change COD % ChangeCOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 264.2 279.9 229.4 5.9% -13.2%
TSS: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Total 1998 TSS 2020 TSS 2020 TSS % Change TSS % Change TSS Suspended lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Solids 472.8 501.1 239.8 6.0% -49.3% 1998-2020 1998-2020 TKN: 1998 TKN 2020 TKN 2020 TKN % Change TKN % Change TKN Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Kjeldahl Nitrogen 8.7 9.2 8.1 5.6% -6.7% 1998-2020 1998-2020 NO23: 1998 NO23 2020 NO23 2020 NO23 % Change NO23 % Change NO23 Nitrate/ lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Nitrite 17.4 18.0 17.3 3.3% -0.3%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TP: 1998 TP 2020 TP 2020 TP % Change TP % Change TP Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 1.91 2.00 1.61 4.4% -15.8%
TSP: 1998-2020 1998-2020 1998 TSP 2020 TSP 2020 TSP Total % Change TSP % Change TSP lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs Soluble without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.70 0.74 0.59 4.8% -15.7% 1998-2020 1998-2020 CU: 1998 CU 2020 CU 2020 CU % Change CU % Change CU Copper lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.46 0.46 0.44 0.8% -3.5%
1998-2020 1998-2020 PB: 1998 PB 2020 PB 2020 PB % Change PB % Change PB Lead lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.07 0.08 0.05 5.2% -35.3%
1998-2020 1998-2020 ZN: 1998 ZN 2020 ZN 2020 ZN % Change ZN % Change ZN Zinc lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.93 0.99 0.69 6.1% -25.8%
1998-2020 1998-2020 RO: 1998 RO 2020 RO 2020 RO (in/yr) % Change RO % Change RO Runoff (in/yr) no BMPS (in/yr) no BMPS with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 20.2 21.3 21.3 5.1% 5.1%
Note: Relative estimated indicators of loading for comparitive puposes only
12/16/02 WMM Pollutant Loading Results for: B3 Brandywine Creek below Chadds Ford inBrandywine Creek Watershed
BOD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Biologic 1998 BOD 2020 BOD 2020 BOD % Change BOD % Change BOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 25.9 27.6 23.5 6.6% -9.0% COD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Chemical 1998 COD 2020COD 2020COD % Change COD % ChangeCOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 96.0 103.4 83.3 7.7% -13.3%
TSS: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Total 1998 TSS 2020 TSS 2020 TSS % Change TSS % Change TSS Suspended lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Solids 250.8 258.0 116.9 2.9% -53.4% 1998-2020 1998-2020 TKN: 1998 TKN 2020 TKN 2020 TKN % Change TKN % Change TKN Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Kjeldahl Nitrogen 3.7 4.0 3.5 8.8% -5.4% 1998-2020 1998-2020 NO23: 1998 NO23 2020 NO23 2020 NO23 % Change NO23 % Change NO23 Nitrate/ lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Nitrite 12.0 12.3 12.1 2.8% 0.8%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TP: 1998 TP 2020 TP 2020 TP % Change TP % Change TP Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.95 1.01 0.84 6.5% -11.1%
TSP: 1998-2020 1998-2020 1998 TSP 2020 TSP 2020 TSP Total % Change TSP % Change TSP lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs Soluble without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.33 0.35 0.30 8.6% -8.8% 1998-2020 1998-2020 CU: 1998 CU 2020 CU 2020 CU % Change CU % Change CU Copper lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.6% -1.1%
1998-2020 1998-2020 PB: 1998 PB 2020 PB 2020 PB % Change PB % Change PB Lead lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.03 0.03 0.02 11.2% -35.2%
1998-2020 1998-2020 ZN: 1998 ZN 2020 ZN 2020 ZN % Change ZN % Change ZN Zinc lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.37 0.40 0.30 10.0% -17.1%
1998-2020 1998-2020 RO: 1998 RO 2020 RO 2020 RO (in/yr) % Change RO % Change RO Runoff (in/yr) no BMPS (in/yr) no BMPS with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 8.1 8.6 8.6 5.1% 5.1%
Note: Relative estimated indicators of loading for comparitive puposes only
12/16/02 WMM Pollutant Loading Results for: B4 Brandywine Creek/Pocopson Creek inBrandywine Creek Watershed
BOD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Biologic 1998 BOD 2020 BOD 2020 BOD % Change BOD % Change BOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 30.6 31.2 27.6 2.1% -9.7% COD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Chemical 1998 COD 2020COD 2020COD % Change COD % ChangeCOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 102.1 105.7 87.5 3.5% -14.3%
TSS: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Total 1998 TSS 2020 TSS 2020 TSS % Change TSS % Change TSS Suspended lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Solids 359.3 335.1 141.3 -6.7% -60.7% 1998-2020 1998-2020 TKN: 1998 TKN 2020 TKN 2020 TKN % Change TKN % Change TKN Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Kjeldahl Nitrogen 4.2 4.5 3.9 7.5% -7.9% 1998-2020 1998-2020 NO23: 1998 NO23 2020 NO23 2020 NO23 % Change NO23 % Change NO23 Nitrate/ lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Nitrite 6.3 6.6 6.3 3.5% -0.4%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TP: 1998 TP 2020 TP 2020 TP % Change TP % Change TP Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.74 0.81 0.61 10.6% -16.6%
TSP: 1998-2020 1998-2020 1998 TSP 2020 TSP 2020 TSP Total % Change TSP % Change TSP lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs Soluble without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.18 0.22 0.17 20.3% -8.7% 1998-2020 1998-2020 CU: 1998 CU 2020 CU 2020 CU % Change CU % Change CU Copper lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.26 0.26 0.26 1.5% -1.0%
1998-2020 1998-2020 PB: 1998 PB 2020 PB 2020 PB % Change PB % Change PB Lead lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.02 0.03 0.01 21.6% -32.4%
1998-2020 1998-2020 ZN: 1998 ZN 2020 ZN 2020 ZN % Change ZN % Change ZN Zinc lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.20 0.25 0.17 26.3% -17.8%
1998-2020 1998-2020 RO: 1998 RO 2020 RO 2020 RO (in/yr) % Change RO % Change RO Runoff (in/yr) no BMPS (in/yr) no BMPS with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 9.2 9.1 9.1 -1.3% -1.3%
Note: Relative estimated indicators of loading for comparitive puposes only
12/16/02 WMM Pollutant Loading Results for: B5 Buck Run inBrandywine Creek Watershed
BOD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Biologic 1998 BOD 2020 BOD 2020 BOD % Change BOD % Change BOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 39.8 40.1 38.4 0.8% -3.6% COD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Chemical 1998 COD 2020COD 2020COD % Change COD % ChangeCOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 118.4 120.1 93.9 1.5% -20.7%
TSS: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Total 1998 TSS 2020 TSS 2020 TSS % Change TSS % Change TSS Suspended lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Solids 403.0 402.0 192.1 -0.2% -52.3% 1998-2020 1998-2020 TKN: 1998 TKN 2020 TKN 2020 TKN % Change TKN % Change TKN Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Kjeldahl Nitrogen 3.8 3.9 3.3 1.5% -13.7% 1998-2020 1998-2020 NO23: 1998 NO23 2020 NO23 2020 NO23 % Change NO23 % Change NO23 Nitrate/ lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Nitrite 18.1 18.2 18.1 0.3% -0.3%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TP: 1998 TP 2020 TP 2020 TP % Change TP % Change TP Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 1.19 1.20 1.06 1.1% -10.5%
TSP: 1998-2020 1998-2020 1998 TSP 2020 TSP 2020 TSP Total % Change TSP % Change TSP lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs Soluble without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.20 0.20 0.18 3.0% -11.4% 1998-2020 1998-2020 CU: 1998 CU 2020 CU 2020 CU % Change CU % Change CU Copper lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.4% -1.2%
1998-2020 1998-2020 PB: 1998 PB 2020 PB 2020 PB % Change PB % Change PB Lead lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.02 0.02 0.02 3.2% -17.7%
1998-2020 1998-2020 ZN: 1998 ZN 2020 ZN 2020 ZN % Change ZN % Change ZN Zinc lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.14 0.15 0.11 7.3% -25.5%
1998-2020 1998-2020 RO: 1998 RO 2020 RO 2020 RO (in/yr) % Change RO % Change RO Runoff (in/yr) no BMPS (in/yr) no BMPS with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 9.6 9.7 9.7 0.5% 0.5%
Note: Relative estimated indicators of loading for comparitive puposes only
12/16/02 WMM Pollutant Loading Results for: B6 Doe Run inBrandywine Creek Watershed
BOD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Biologic 1998 BOD 2020 BOD 2020 BOD % Change BOD % Change BOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 43.7 44.0 43.0 0.9% -1.5% COD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Chemical 1998 COD 2020COD 2020COD % Change COD % ChangeCOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 124.6 126.7 102.9 1.7% -17.4%
TSS: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Total 1998 TSS 2020 TSS 2020 TSS % Change TSS % Change TSS Suspended lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Solids 490.2 489.4 239.8 -0.2% -51.1% 1998-2020 1998-2020 TKN: 1998 TKN 2020 TKN 2020 TKN % Change TKN % Change TKN Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Kjeldahl Nitrogen 4.1 4.1 3.5 1.2% -14.8% 1998-2020 1998-2020 NO23: 1998 NO23 2020 NO23 2020 NO23 % Change NO23 % Change NO23 Nitrate/ lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Nitrite 20.6 20.6 20.6 0.2% 0.0%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TP: 1998 TP 2020 TP 2020 TP % Change TP % Change TP Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 1.21 1.22 1.09 0.9% -9.9%
TSP: 1998-2020 1998-2020 1998 TSP 2020 TSP 2020 TSP Total % Change TSP % Change TSP lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs Soluble without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.11 0.11 0.09 4.6% -15.5% 1998-2020 1998-2020 CU: 1998 CU 2020 CU 2020 CU % Change CU % Change CU Copper lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.3% -0.4%
1998-2020 1998-2020 PB: 1998 PB 2020 PB 2020 PB % Change PB % Change PB Lead lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.01 0.01 0.00 10.7% -26.5%
1998-2020 1998-2020 ZN: 1998 ZN 2020 ZN 2020 ZN % Change ZN % Change ZN Zinc lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.16 0.17 0.14 7.3% -10.8%
1998-2020 1998-2020 RO: 1998 RO 2020 RO 2020 RO (in/yr) % Change RO % Change RO Runoff (in/yr) no BMPS (in/yr) no BMPS with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 10.8 10.9 10.9 0.6% 0.6%
Note: Relative estimated indicators of loading for comparitive puposes only
12/16/02 WMM Pollutant Loading Results for: B7 East Branch Brandywine Creek/Shamona Creek inBrandywine Creek Watershed
BOD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Biologic 1998 BOD 2020 BOD 2020 BOD % Change BOD % Change BOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 28.5 29.8 25.7 4.7% -9.6% COD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Chemical 1998 COD 2020COD 2020COD % Change COD % ChangeCOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 95.8 103.2 82.7 7.7% -13.7%
TSS: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Total 1998 TSS 2020 TSS 2020 TSS % Change TSS % Change TSS Suspended lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Solids 276.4 269.7 102.5 -2.4% -62.9% 1998-2020 1998-2020 TKN: 1998 TKN 2020 TKN 2020 TKN % Change TKN % Change TKN Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Kjeldahl Nitrogen 3.8 4.2 3.6 9.8% -5.5% 1998-2020 1998-2020 NO23: 1998 NO23 2020 NO23 2020 NO23 % Change NO23 % Change NO23 Nitrate/ lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Nitrite 13.5 13.8 13.5 2.6% 0.6%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TP: 1998 TP 2020 TP 2020 TP % Change TP % Change TP Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 1.21 1.30 1.10 6.8% -9.7%
TSP: 1998-2020 1998-2020 1998 TSP 2020 TSP 2020 TSP Total % Change TSP % Change TSP lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs Soluble without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.23 0.27 0.21 16.1% -8.2% 1998-2020 1998-2020 CU: 1998 CU 2020 CU 2020 CU % Change CU % Change CU Copper lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.15 0.15 0.14 2.7% -2.3%
1998-2020 1998-2020 PB: 1998 PB 2020 PB 2020 PB % Change PB % Change PB Lead lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.02 0.03 0.02 18.3% -32.7%
1998-2020 1998-2020 ZN: 1998 ZN 2020 ZN 2020 ZN % Change ZN % Change ZN Zinc lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.26 0.32 0.21 21.4% -18.0%
1998-2020 1998-2020 RO: 1998 RO 2020 RO 2020 RO (in/yr) % Change RO % Change RO Runoff (in/yr) no BMPS (in/yr) no BMPS with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 8.1 8.3 8.3 2.3% 2.3%
Note: Relative estimated indicators of loading for comparitive puposes only
12/16/02 WMM Pollutant Loading Results for: B8 East Branch Brandywine Creek/Taylor Run inBrandywine Creek Watershed
BOD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Biologic 1998 BOD 2020 BOD 2020 BOD % Change BOD % Change BOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 35.5 39.2 34.5 10.6% -2.6% COD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Chemical 1998 COD 2020COD 2020COD % Change COD % ChangeCOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 116.7 130.6 120.2 12.0% 3.0%
TSS: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Total 1998 TSS 2020 TSS 2020 TSS % Change TSS % Change TSS Suspended lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Solids 319.3 319.1 130.5 0.0% -59.1% 1998-2020 1998-2020 TKN: 1998 TKN 2020 TKN 2020 TKN % Change TKN % Change TKN Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Kjeldahl Nitrogen 7.6 9.6 8.9 25.8% 17.2% 1998-2020 1998-2020 NO23: 1998 NO23 2020 NO23 2020 NO23 % Change NO23 % Change NO23 Nitrate/ lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Nitrite 16.4 17.8 17.5 8.4% 6.6%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TP: 1998 TP 2020 TP 2020 TP % Change TP % Change TP Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 2.00 2.42 2.20 21.3% 10.4%
TSP: 1998-2020 1998-2020 1998 TSP 2020 TSP 2020 TSP Total % Change TSP % Change TSP lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs Soluble without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.76 0.99 0.93 30.6% 22.5% 1998-2020 1998-2020 CU: 1998 CU 2020 CU 2020 CU % Change CU % Change CU Copper lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.10 0.10 0.10 4.1% -3.8%
1998-2020 1998-2020 PB: 1998 PB 2020 PB 2020 PB % Change PB % Change PB Lead lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.02 0.02 0.01 26.2% -48.3%
1998-2020 1998-2020 ZN: 1998 ZN 2020 ZN 2020 ZN % Change ZN % Change ZN Zinc lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.21 0.27 0.15 31.1% -26.9%
1998-2020 1998-2020 RO: 1998 RO 2020 RO 2020 RO (in/yr) % Change RO % Change RO Runoff (in/yr) no BMPS (in/yr) no BMPS with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 9.1 9.4 9.4 3.4% 3.4%
Note: Relative estimated indicators of loading for comparitive puposes only
12/16/02 WMM Pollutant Loading Results for: B9 East Branch Brandywine/Beaver Creek inBrandywine Creek Watershed
BOD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Biologic 1998 BOD 2020 BOD 2020 BOD % Change BOD % Change BOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 37.2 40.3 35.4 8.3% -4.8% COD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Chemical 1998 COD 2020COD 2020COD % Change COD % ChangeCOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 136.4 150.4 149.6 10.3% 9.7%
TSS: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Total 1998 TSS 2020 TSS 2020 TSS % Change TSS % Change TSS Suspended lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Solids 317.1 325.6 140.9 2.7% -55.6% 1998-2020 1998-2020 TKN: 1998 TKN 2020 TKN 2020 TKN % Change TKN % Change TKN Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Kjeldahl Nitrogen 11.9 14.1 13.4 17.9% 12.5% 1998-2020 1998-2020 NO23: 1998 NO23 2020 NO23 2020 NO23 % Change NO23 % Change NO23 Nitrate/ lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Nitrite 17.4 18.9 18.6 8.6% 6.9%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TP: 1998 TP 2020 TP 2020 TP % Change TP % Change TP Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 2.54 2.90 2.69 14.1% 5.8%
TSP: 1998-2020 1998-2020 1998 TSP 2020 TSP 2020 TSP Total % Change TSP % Change TSP lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs Soluble without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 1.21 1.47 1.40 20.8% 15.5% 1998-2020 1998-2020 CU: 1998 CU 2020 CU 2020 CU % Change CU % Change CU Copper lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.11 0.11 0.10 3.0% -4.5%
1998-2020 1998-2020 PB: 1998 PB 2020 PB 2020 PB % Change PB % Change PB Lead lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.05 0.05 0.04 7.2% -19.3%
1998-2020 1998-2020 ZN: 1998 ZN 2020 ZN 2020 ZN % Change ZN % Change ZN Zinc lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.31 0.36 0.23 16.3% -24.7%
1998-2020 1998-2020 RO: 1998 RO 2020 RO 2020 RO (in/yr) % Change RO % Change RO Runoff (in/yr) no BMPS (in/yr) no BMPS with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 9.3 9.7 9.7 4.8% 4.8%
Note: Relative estimated indicators of loading for comparitive puposes only
12/16/02 WMM Pollutant Loading Results for: B10 Marsh Creek inBrandywine Creek Watershed
BOD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Biologic 1998 BOD 2020 BOD 2020 BOD % Change BOD % Change BOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 28.0 30.0 26.5 7.3% -5.3% COD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Chemical 1998 COD 2020COD 2020COD % Change COD % ChangeCOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 91.0 101.9 83.0 11.9% -8.8%
TSS: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Total 1998 TSS 2020 TSS 2020 TSS % Change TSS % Change TSS Suspended lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Solids 286.5 281.3 114.7 -1.8% -60.0% 1998-2020 1998-2020 TKN: 1998 TKN 2020 TKN 2020 TKN % Change TKN % Change TKN Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Kjeldahl Nitrogen 4.1 4.5 3.9 10.1% -3.2% 1998-2020 1998-2020 NO23: 1998 NO23 2020 NO23 2020 NO23 % Change NO23 % Change NO23 Nitrate/ lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Nitrite 11.2 11.6 11.4 3.8% 1.8%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TP: 1998 TP 2020 TP 2020 TP % Change TP % Change TP Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.69 0.78 0.60 13.1% -12.4%
TSP: 1998-2020 1998-2020 1998 TSP 2020 TSP 2020 TSP Total % Change TSP % Change TSP lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs Soluble without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.16 0.20 0.15 23.9% -4.9% 1998-2020 1998-2020 CU: 1998 CU 2020 CU 2020 CU % Change CU % Change CU Copper lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.70 0.71 0.70 0.7% -0.1%
1998-2020 1998-2020 PB: 1998 PB 2020 PB 2020 PB % Change PB % Change PB Lead lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.02 0.02 0.01 29.5% -23.6%
1998-2020 1998-2020 ZN: 1998 ZN 2020 ZN 2020 ZN % Change ZN % Change ZN Zinc lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 1.51 1.59 1.50 4.9% -1.3%
1998-2020 1998-2020 RO: 1998 RO 2020 RO 2020 RO (in/yr) % Change RO % Change RO Runoff (in/yr) no BMPS (in/yr) no BMPS with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 9.5 9.8 9.8 3.2% 3.2%
Note: Relative estimated indicators of loading for comparitive puposes only
12/16/02 WMM Pollutant Loading Results for: B11 Upper East Branch Brandywine Creek inBrandywine Creek Watershed
BOD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Biologic 1998 BOD 2020 BOD 2020 BOD % Change BOD % Change BOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 28.8 29.8 27.9 3.6% -3.1% COD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Chemical 1998 COD 2020COD 2020COD % Change COD % ChangeCOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 90.1 95.6 83.1 6.0% -7.8%
TSS: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Total 1998 TSS 2020 TSS 2020 TSS % Change TSS % Change TSS Suspended lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Solids 326.0 326.6 154.2 0.2% -52.7% 1998-2020 1998-2020 TKN: 1998 TKN 2020 TKN 2020 TKN % Change TKN % Change TKN Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Kjeldahl Nitrogen 3.5 3.7 3.2 5.6% -8.7% 1998-2020 1998-2020 NO23: 1998 NO23 2020 NO23 2020 NO23 % Change NO23 % Change NO23 Nitrate/ lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Nitrite 14.6 14.8 14.6 1.4% 0.6%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TP: 1998 TP 2020 TP 2020 TP % Change TP % Change TP Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 1.11 1.15 1.02 4.0% -7.8%
TSP: 1998-2020 1998-2020 1998 TSP 2020 TSP 2020 TSP Total % Change TSP % Change TSP lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs Soluble without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.25 0.27 0.24 7.2% -4.2% 1998-2020 1998-2020 CU: 1998 CU 2020 CU 2020 CU % Change CU % Change CU Copper lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.16 0.16 0.16 1.2% -0.8%
1998-2020 1998-2020 PB: 1998 PB 2020 PB 2020 PB % Change PB % Change PB Lead lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.01 0.02 0.01 14.4% -21.7%
1998-2020 1998-2020 ZN: 1998 ZN 2020 ZN 2020 ZN % Change ZN % Change ZN Zinc lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.15 0.19 0.13 20.5% -12.6%
1998-2020 1998-2020 RO: 1998 RO 2020 RO 2020 RO (in/yr) % Change RO % Change RO Runoff (in/yr) no BMPS (in/yr) no BMPS with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 8.8 9.0 9.0 1.9% 1.9%
Note: Relative estimated indicators of loading for comparitive puposes only
12/16/02 WMM Pollutant Loading Results for: B12 Upper West Branch Brandywine Creek inBrandywine Creek Watershed
BOD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Biologic 1998 BOD 2020 BOD 2020 BOD % Change BOD % Change BOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 38.0 39.0 36.9 2.8% -2.8% COD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Chemical 1998 COD 2020COD 2020COD % Change COD % ChangeCOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 112.4 117.4 94.0 4.5% -16.4%
TSS: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Total 1998 TSS 2020 TSS 2020 TSS % Change TSS % Change TSS Suspended lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Solids 370.7 371.4 180.0 0.2% -51.4% 1998-2020 1998-2020 TKN: 1998 TKN 2020 TKN 2020 TKN % Change TKN % Change TKN Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Kjeldahl Nitrogen 4.2 4.5 3.9 6.6% -6.7% 1998-2020 1998-2020 NO23: 1998 NO23 2020 NO23 2020 NO23 % Change NO23 % Change NO23 Nitrate/ lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Nitrite 13.7 13.9 13.8 1.8% 0.9%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TP: 1998 TP 2020 TP 2020 TP % Change TP % Change TP Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.64 0.70 0.55 8.9% -13.8%
TSP: 1998-2020 1998-2020 1998 TSP 2020 TSP 2020 TSP Total % Change TSP % Change TSP lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs Soluble without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.21 0.24 0.20 13.8% -2.0% 1998-2020 1998-2020 CU: 1998 CU 2020 CU 2020 CU % Change CU % Change CU Copper lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.09 0.09 0.09 2.0% -2.0%
1998-2020 1998-2020 PB: 1998 PB 2020 PB 2020 PB % Change PB % Change PB Lead lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.03 0.03 0.03 6.9% -13.7%
1998-2020 1998-2020 ZN: 1998 ZN 2020 ZN 2020 ZN % Change ZN % Change ZN Zinc lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.20 0.23 0.17 14.4% -13.8%
1998-2020 1998-2020 RO: 1998 RO 2020 RO 2020 RO (in/yr) % Change RO % Change RO Runoff (in/yr) no BMPS (in/yr) no BMPS with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 9.3 9.5 9.5 1.6% 1.6%
Note: Relative estimated indicators of loading for comparitive puposes only
12/16/02 WMM Pollutant Loading Results for: B13 West Branch Brandywine Creek/Broad Run inBrandywine Creek Watershed
BOD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Biologic 1998 BOD 2020 BOD 2020 BOD % Change BOD % Change BOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 37.0 37.8 35.3 2.2% -4.6% COD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Chemical 1998 COD 2020COD 2020COD % Change COD % ChangeCOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 113.4 118.0 89.2 4.0% -21.3%
TSS: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Total 1998 TSS 2020 TSS 2020 TSS % Change TSS % Change TSS Suspended lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Solids 346.5 342.7 157.4 -1.1% -54.6% 1998-2020 1998-2020 TKN: 1998 TKN 2020 TKN 2020 TKN % Change TKN % Change TKN Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Kjeldahl Nitrogen 3.7 3.8 3.3 4.1% -10.9% 1998-2020 1998-2020 NO23: 1998 NO23 2020 NO23 2020 NO23 % Change NO23 % Change NO23 Nitrate/ lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Nitrite 12.1 12.2 12.1 1.2% 0.0%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TP: 1998 TP 2020 TP 2020 TP % Change TP % Change TP Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 1.16 1.19 1.04 2.9% -10.0%
TSP: 1998-2020 1998-2020 1998 TSP 2020 TSP 2020 TSP Total % Change TSP % Change TSP lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs Soluble without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.19 0.20 0.17 8.1% -10.6% 1998-2020 1998-2020 CU: 1998 CU 2020 CU 2020 CU % Change CU % Change CU Copper lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.06 0.06 0.06 3.1% -3.4%
1998-2020 1998-2020 PB: 1998 PB 2020 PB 2020 PB % Change PB % Change PB Lead lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.02 0.02 0.02 10.3% -21.9%
1998-2020 1998-2020 ZN: 1998 ZN 2020 ZN 2020 ZN % Change ZN % Change ZN Zinc lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.16 0.19 0.12 19.2% -22.6%
1998-2020 1998-2020 RO: 1998 RO 2020 RO 2020 RO (in/yr) % Change RO % Change RO Runoff (in/yr) no BMPS (in/yr) no BMPS with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 8.9 9.0 9.0 1.2% 1.2%
Note: Relative estimated indicators of loading for comparitive puposes only
12/16/02 WMM Pollutant Loading Results for: B14 West Branch Brandywine/Rock Run/Sucker Run inBrandywine Creek Watershed
BOD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Biologic 1998 BOD 2020 BOD 2020 BOD % Change BOD % Change BOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 45.4 48.5 43.8 6.8% -3.6% COD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Chemical 1998 COD 2020COD 2020COD % Change COD % ChangeCOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 143.1 156.0 131.3 9.0% -8.2%
TSS: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Total 1998 TSS 2020 TSS 2020 TSS % Change TSS % Change TSS Suspended lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Solids 319.1 323.9 144.5 1.5% -54.7% 1998-2020 1998-2020 TKN: 1998 TKN 2020 TKN 2020 TKN % Change TKN % Change TKN Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Kjeldahl Nitrogen 9.0 9.9 9.3 9.9% 3.2% 1998-2020 1998-2020 NO23: 1998 NO23 2020 NO23 2020 NO23 % Change NO23 % Change NO23 Nitrate/ lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Nitrite 15.9 16.7 16.4 4.6% 2.9%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TP: 1998 TP 2020 TP 2020 TP % Change TP % Change TP Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 2.47 2.68 2.47 8.6% 0.2%
TSP: 1998-2020 1998-2020 1998 TSP 2020 TSP 2020 TSP Total % Change TSP % Change TSP lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs Soluble without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.81 0.90 0.84 12.2% 4.9% 1998-2020 1998-2020 CU: 1998 CU 2020 CU 2020 CU % Change CU % Change CU Copper lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.08 0.09 0.08 4.5% -4.4%
1998-2020 1998-2020 PB: 1998 PB 2020 PB 2020 PB % Change PB % Change PB Lead lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.03 0.03 0.02 14.3% -28.0%
1998-2020 1998-2020 ZN: 1998 ZN 2020 ZN 2020 ZN % Change ZN % Change ZN Zinc lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.34 0.41 0.28 18.8% -17.6%
1998-2020 1998-2020 RO: 1998 RO 2020 RO 2020 RO (in/yr) % Change RO % Change RO Runoff (in/yr) no BMPS (in/yr) no BMPS with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 9.4 9.8 9.8 4.3% 4.3%
Note: Relative estimated indicators of loading for comparitive puposes only
12/16/02 WMM Pollutant Loading Results for: B15 West Valley Creek inBrandywine Creek Watershed
BOD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Biologic 1998 BOD 2020 BOD 2020 BOD % Change BOD % Change BOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 37.0 44.2 36.0 19.4% -2.7% COD: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Chemical 1998 COD 2020COD 2020COD % Change COD % ChangeCOD Oxygen lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Demand 139.5 168.9 130.7 21.1% -6.3%
TSS: 1998-2020 1998-2020 Total 1998 TSS 2020 TSS 2020 TSS % Change TSS % Change TSS Suspended lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Solids 316.7 347.7 122.2 9.8% -61.4% 1998-2020 1998-2020 TKN: 1998 TKN 2020 TKN 2020 TKN % Change TKN % Change TKN Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Kjeldahl Nitrogen 4.7 5.5 4.7 18.2% 0.3% 1998-2020 1998-2020 NO23: 1998 NO23 2020 NO23 2020 NO23 % Change NO23 % Change NO23 Nitrate/ lb/acre no lb/acre no BMPS lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Nitrite 16.4 17.4 16.9 6.1% 3.3%
1998-2020 1998-2020 TP: 1998 TP 2020 TP 2020 TP % Change TP % Change TP Total lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 10.48 10.65 10.34 1.6% -1.3%
TSP: 1998-2020 1998-2020 1998 TSP 2020 TSP 2020 TSP Total % Change TSP % Change TSP lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs Soluble without BMPs with BMPs Phosphorus 0.30 0.36 0.26 21.5% -11.5% 1998-2020 1998-2020 CU: 1998 CU 2020 CU 2020 CU % Change CU % Change CU Copper lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.06 0.06 0.05 14.4% -8.9%
1998-2020 1998-2020 PB: 1998 PB 2020 PB 2020 PB % Change PB % Change PB Lead lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.03 0.04 0.02 28.1% -40.7%
1998-2020 1998-2020 ZN: 1998 ZN 2020 ZN 2020 ZN % Change ZN % Change ZN Zinc lb/acre no lb/acre no lb/acre with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 0.52 0.66 0.44 25.8% -15.8%
1998-2020 1998-2020 RO: 1998 RO 2020 RO 2020 RO (in/yr) % Change RO % Change RO Runoff (in/yr) no BMPS (in/yr) no BMPS with BMPs without BMPs with BMPs 10.1 11.6 11.6 14.6% 14.6%
Note: Relative estimated indicators of loading for comparitive puposes only
12/16/02 Appendix D: Additional Recommendations of Management Actions Appendix D Additional Recommendations of Management Actions
Stormwater Runoff Management Priority Subbasin(s): West Valley Creek subbasin and Above Chadds Ford subbasin Rationale: While high risk to life is not a problem in the watershed, there is damage to property, closings of major roadways and damage to the stream channel as a result of stormwater runoff. In addition, runoff contributes to flooding in lower portions of this watershed and the Christina River. In addition, substantial development is projected for much of the Brandywine Creek watershed over the next twenty years and opportunities to minimize impacts to the stream from this development should be taken.
Focus Location: Throughout the subbasins
Other Areas of Pressing Need: Wilmington; Beaver Creek & Pocopson Subbasins
Recommended Actions: Municipal Stormwater Management for New Construction Example: Implement Comprehensive Stormwater Management Criteria – for new construction, implement criteria to reduce the quantity of stormwater generated and increase the quantities of runoff infiltrated. Example: Review/Revise municipal ordinances – review/revise ordinances to reduce unnecessary requirements for impervious cover. Example: Restoration of floodplains – When possible, efforts should be made to reclaim floodplains if they have been developed, and the floodplains could be utilized for recreation/parkland. Example: Wet detention ponds – a stormwater management BMP that is a combination of a permanent pool of water with extended detention or shallow wetlands. These require a minimum drainage area of 10 acres or more to remain wet. Example: Bioretention/Biofiltration – these BMP’s combine open space with stormwater treatment. Instead of a sand filter, the water is stored in an area of soil and plantings, with an underdrain to collect water not used in the root zone. Example: Provide Incentives for Conservation Design – Provide incentives for subdivisions incorporating conservation design practices and stormwater reduction/treatment BMP’s. Example: Limited Pavement in Turnarounds - Most ordinances require that cul de sacs have a paved radius of 45 to 50 feet. This is intended to give adequate space for emergency vehicles to turn around. Developers could be required to provide paved radius for vehicles, but leave a vegetated area in the center of the turnaround. Runoff could be treated in this vegetated area. Example: Smaller front yard setbacks - By allowing smaller setbacks, driveway and walkway lengths can be reduced for each house, thus reducing the amount of impervious cover. Example: Runoff Management System - A system for controlling excess runoff caused by construction operations at development sites, changes in land use, or other land disturbances. This is done to minimize such undesirable effects as flooding, erosion, sedimentation and to maintain or improve water quality. Continue Implementation of Agricultural BMP’s Example: Conservation Cover - Establishing and maintaining perennial vegetative cover to reduce rate and volume of runoff and protect soil and water resources on land retired from agricultural production. This will help reduce soil erosion and sedimentation, thus protecting water quality and creating or enhancing wildlife habitat. Example: Grassed Waterway - A natural or constructed channel that is shaped or graded to required dimensions and established in permanent or continuous vegetation for the stable conveyance of runoff. The purpose of this structure is to convey runoff from terraces, diversions or other water concentrations without causing erosion or flooding and to improve water quality.
Management of Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Properties Example: Catch Basin Clean-out - maintaining the volume of catch basins as well as their infiltration capacity improves the quality of the stormwater released to the streams. It also avoids re-suspension of fine material during larger storm events. Example: Open Grass Channel – Using grass channels and swales to carry runoff to biofiltration systems and infiltration systems allow for infiltration and pollutant removal. Example: Utilizing wetlands and other biofiltration systems in landscape design – Making stormwater systems attractive and part of landscape designs is preferable to isolating them. Utilizing wetlands and other biofiltration/infiltration BMP’s can provide for both stormwater management and landscape amenities. Example: Capture and Treatment of Stormwater from “Hotspots” - it is important to account for pre-treatment of some heavily contaminated stormwaters prior to infiltration. This is a particular concern at locations referred to as “hotspots” where very toxic contaminants can be carried off in stormwater. Examples include organic compounds such as oils, transmission fluids, gasoline, etc. from automobile repair and parking areas, etc. A detailed discussion of managing infiltration from stormwater “hotspots” is provided in Section 13.3.9 (Reducing Stormwater and Flooding Impacts).
Additional examples of BMP’s that mange stormwater can be found throughout Section 13 of the Compendium.
Source Water Protection Priority Subbasin(s): Sucker Run/Rock Run; Marsh Creek; and Upper West Branch Subbasins Rationale: With three reservoirs that either fully or partially support public surface water suppliers, numerous surface water intakes throughout the watershed and numerous ground water wells for public water supply, protection of source waters is a critical objective in the Brandywine Creek watershed.
Focus Location: All areas draining or discharging to reservoirs, surface water intakes or public water supply wells
Other Areas of Pressing Need: Entire watershed Priority Actions Utility Management Example: Watershed based cooperation – Since many utilities, municipalities and other interested parties have similar goals for source water protection, efforts should be coordinated to maximize benefits of protection efforts. Example: Develop and/or implement a source water protection program - Guidance is available from PA-DEP, DE-DNREC and professional organizations, such as AWWA, to develop and implement source water protection programs. Example: Potential Contaminant Source Inventory – Potential contaminant source inventories include activities that use, store, transport or dispose of contaminants such as Giardia & Cryptosporidium, the EPA contaminant candidate list, and others. Example: Developing well head protection programs – Utilizing stakeholder groups, GIS and other models, well head protection areas can be identified and measures put in place to protect the quality of water that is being recharged in those zones.
Local Government Example: Watershed based cooperation - Since many utilities, municipalities and other interested parties have similar goals for source water protection, efforts should be coordinated to maximize benefits of protection efforts. Example: Develop and/or implement a source water protection program – Guidance is available from PA-DEP, DE-DNREC and professional organizations, such as AWWA, to develop and implement source water protection programs. Example: Integration of Water Supply Protection with Municipal Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance – Programs that protect supply wells, surface intakes or reservoirs should be integrated with municipal plans and ordinances to provide for their protection.
Implement Agricultural BMP’s to reduce runoff Example: Sediment Basin - A basin constructed to collect and store sediment and debris. This practice applies where conditions preclude the installation of erosion control measures to keep soil in place or where a sediment basin offers the most practical solution to containing erosion. Example: Completion of mandatory and voluntary Nutrient Management Plans - The Pennsylvania legislature passed the Nutrient Management Act requiring high-density livestock and poultry farms in the Commonwealth to develop and implement approved nutrient management plans. Plans developed under this law are written by certified specialists who have met the criteria of Pennsylvania's Nutrient Management Specialist Certification Program. Plans are submitted to the county conservation districts for review and approval, if they meet program requirements. Example: Cover Crop/Green Manure - A crop of close-growing grasses, legumes or small grain grown primarily for seasonal protection and soil improvement. It usually is grown for one year or less to control erosion during periods when major crops do not furnish adequate cover.
Monitoring/Reduction of Unregulated Constituents Example: Watershed Based Cooperation – Coordination between those with permitted withdrawals and permitted discharges should be strengthened, possibly through sponsored meetings. The coordination would be geared to sharing data and resources to reduce unregulated constituents which may be discharged to a stream but which cause treatment problems for water suppliers. Note: This coordination must include large and small discharges/withdrawals.
Restore Surface Water Quality Priority Subbasin(s): West Valley Creek & Sucker Run/Rock Run Subbasins Rationale: Many stream segments within the Brandywine Creek watershed, and particularly the West Valley Creek subbasin, are currently listed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on the Proposed Year 2000 303(d) list. The West Valley Creek & Marsh Creek Subbasins also contribute to water supply intakes in downstream portions of the watershed.
Focus Location: All areas draining or discharging to 303(d) listed segments (reference Figure BC-3: State Listed Impaired Waters), particularly lands adjacent to first order streams.
Other Areas of Pressing Need: Wilmington, Marsh Creek & Beaver Creek Subbasins
Priority Actions: Develop and Implement TMDL’s for stream segments listed on the 303(d) list Example: Implementation of final Christina Basin Low Flow TMDL being developed – Current efforts are underway by the Christina Basin Water Quality Management Committee, PA-DEP, DE-DNREC and US EPA to develop a Low Flow TMDL for the Christina River Basin (which includes the Brandywine Creek watershed) to address impairments due to dissolved oxygen and nutrients. Example: Continue developing Christina Basin High Flow TMDL and implement when done - Current efforts are underway by the Christina Basin Water Quality Management Committee, PA-DEP, DE-DNREC, USGS and US EPA to develop a High Flow TMDL for the Christina River Basin (which includes the Brandywine Creek watershed) to address impairments due to dissolved oxygen and nutrients. Example: Implementation of Chlordane and PCB TMDL’s – TMDL’s have been established in the Brandywine Creek watershed for chlordane in the mainstem of the Brandywine Creek. Another TMDL is currently being developed for chlordane and PCB in the West Branch Brandywine Creek from Business Route 30 to the confluence with Buck Run. The measures required by these TMDL’s should be followed to address the impaired waters.
Accelerate Implementation of Agricultural BMP’s Example: Stream corridor protection - To protect streams from nonpoint source pollution loadings, stream corridor protection should be encouraged through the installation of streambank fencing, livestock crossings, vegetative filter strips and tree plantings. Example: Sediment Basin - A basin constructed to collect and store sediment and debris. This practice applies where conditions preclude the installation of erosion control measures to keep soil in place or where a sediment basin offers the most practical solution to containing erosion. Example: Farmer Training and Certification – Through programs offered by State, County and Federal agencies, farmers should be strongly encouraged to attend training such as “Producer Educational Training” which discusses new techniques for managing farm and livestock operations. Example: Completion of mandatory and voluntary Nutrient Management Plans - The Pennsylvania legislature passed the Nutrient Management Act requiring high- density livestock and poultry farms in the Commonwealth to develop and implement approved nutrient management plans. Plans developed under this law are written by certified specialists who have met the criteria of Pennsylvania's Nutrient Management Specialist Certification Program. Plans are submitted to the county conservation districts for review and approval, if they meet program requirements. Example: Manure Management Facilities – Capture and control of manure runoff to protect receiving streams during storm events.
A more complete description of best management practices that can be effective in improving water quality in agricultural areas can be found in Section 13.3.8.2: Agricultural Conservation Planning; 13.3.8.3: Agricultural Sedimentation and Erosion Control; and 13.3.8.4: Agricultural Best Management Practices.
Implement Urban BMP’s Example: Street sweeping - more frequent street sweeping has been shown to reduce nutrient loading to streams from wash-off during storm events to a limited degree. Research has shown, however, that street sweeping is most effective at removing floatable trash from storm water. Example: Periodic storm drain clean-outs – Removing debris from storm drains to make certain that the debris does not flush into the receiving streams. Example: Solid Waste Management - in addition to street sweeping, programs to provide litter baskets (with frequent pickup) can reduce litter that eventually finds its way into the streams via the storm sewers. Example: Storm Sewer Inlet Labeling - many communities are identifying and labeling entry points of storm drainage systems with permanent stencils. The purpose is to educate the public about where stormwater goes, and to limit dumping of household pollutants into storm drains.
A more complete description of best management practices that can be effective in improving water quality in urban and suburban areas can be found in Section 13.3.9.3: “Approved Recommended” BMPs to Achieve Quality/Quantity Criteria Best Management Practices.
Expand forested riparian buffer networks, particularly along first order streams Example: Education Programs - Throughout the Brandywine Creek watershed, groups that provide educational materials to home-owners, such as watershed associations, governmental agencies, etc., should stress the role that riparian corridors play in the health of the stream. Landowners should be given guidance on establishing or preserving a forested riparian buffer, no-mow zones, use of native species and other tips that improve the riparian corridor management. Example: Incorporate Forester Riparian Buffer Incentives – Within subdivision ordinances, incorporate forested riparian buffer incentives and requirements. Example: Conservation Site Design - Provide incentives for developers to utilize conservation design principles to allow for creating a site development plan that protects riparian corridors and still allows for appropriate densities consistent with local zoning, as well as equitable value per unit. Water and Wastewater Planning Priority Subbasin(s): Upper West Branch & Upper East Branch Subbasins Rationale: A combination of projected growth in the watershed, and limited existing utility infrastructure in these subbasins highlight the need for careful consideration of utility needs and land use planning.
Focus Location: Throughout subbasin
Other Areas of Pressing Need: Entire watershed
Priority Actions: Municipal Governance Example: Identify areas of expected increased demand and growth – Evaluation of current zoning, building patterns and areas that will require water and/or wastewater service is necessary for proper planning of utility needs. Example: Determine planned water and wastewater service areas – After identifying areas of expected need, a planned service area map can be created to outline where future utility service will be needed and the general timeframe as a planning tool (i.e. 10 year timeframe, 5 year timeframe, etc.). Example: Coordination/Cooperation with utilities – Municipalities should enter into agreements with utilities operating within its borders regarding a process for coordination, planning, approval and limitations for extension of service or infrastructure.
Example: Incorporation with Comprehensive Plan and Zoning - it is critically important that municipalities update their zoning to reflect their comprehensive plans and water supply plans immediately upon their completion. Effective decision making for utility service is made based on zoning. Example: Coordinate utility planning with County Planning – Communication of planning needs and objectives should be shared between municipalities and counties to coordinate water and wastewater management.
Utility Management Example: Coordination/Cooperation with municipalities – Working with municipalities to provide for their needs in a manner that complements the utility and land use planning efforts. Example: Coordinate utility planning with County Planning – Communication of planning needs and objectives should be shared between utilities and counties to coordinate water and wastewater management. Example: Develop a range of alternatives – Develop a complete range of alternatives (including the no-action alternative, i.e. use of residential wells or on-lot septic systems) for meeting projected needs and planned service areas. Example: Identify environmental constraints – Identify sensitive surface water and ground water resources and assess the impacts of potential discharge/recharge or withdrawal to the water quality.
Local Governance Example: Coordinate utility planning with municipalities and utilities – Communication of planning needs and objectives should be shared between municipalities, utilities and counties to coordinate water and wastewater management. A more complete discussion of guidance on utility needs planning can be found in Section 15: Recommendations for Water and Wastewater Planning – Chester County, PA.
Protect Ground Water Supplies (Quality and Quantity) Priority Subbasin(s): West Valley Creek & Beaver Creek Subbasins Rationale: With under-lying geology that is predominately carbonate rocks; impervious surface that is currently estimated at 18% and 12% respectively for West Valley Creek and Beaver Creek subbasins; and significant ground water withdrawals already in place (West Valley Creek Subbasin is estimated at 40% of 1 in 25 year average annual baseflow in 1998) protection of ground water resources is important to both the ground water supply and baseflow to the streams.
Focus Location: Throughout the subbasin, particularly adjacent to public water supply wells.
Other Areas of Pressing Need: Pocopson Creek and Marsh Creek Subbasins
Priority Actions: Municipal Governance Example: Ground water recharge/infiltration - Provide technical requirements and incentives to recharge ground water in new construction through infiltration BMP’s. Care must be taken in carbonate geologies due to the potential for sinkholes, however recharge can work if the water to be infiltrated is not concentrated. Example: Septic system clean-outs - Municipal programs to encourage/require periodic septic system clean out and maintenance benefit the quality of water that is infiltrating through the septic system.
Additional information on infiltration BMP’s can be found in Section 13.3.9.3.2 Infiltration BMP’s. Also, Section 13.3.6 Protecting Ground Water Quality presents further information on actions to protect the ground water resources.
Utility Management Example: Examine land application of treated wastewater as opposed to stream discharge – Returning treated effluent to the ground water system through land application techniques can offset ground water withdrawals and provide for stream baseflow. Example: Develop and implement wellhead protection programs – Utilizing stakeholder groups, GIS and other models, well head protection areas can be identified and measures put in place to protect the quality of water that is being recharged in those zones.
Industrial/Commercial Practices Example: Monitoring underground storage tanks - installing monitoring wells around underground storage tanks can help with early detection and remediation in case of a leak in the tank. Appendix E: Ongoing Initiatives Appendix E Ongoing Initiatives
Pennsylvania Rivers Conservation Program The Pa Rivers Conservation Program has been developed to conserve and enhance river resources through preparation and accomplishment of locally initiated plans. The program provides technical and financial assistance to municipalities and river support groups to carry out planning, implementation, and acquisition and development activities. A registry is established to recognize local river conservation efforts. This program is administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources Conservation.
The initial step within the Rivers Conservation Program is to prepare a Rivers Conservation Plan (RCP) for the watershed. This plan is prepared by local groups that best understand local needs and opportunities. Some issues typically found in a RCP include:
S Background information; Brief history of planning activities. The Steering Committee and the roles played. Processes used to gather and evaluate resource data. S A map of the planning area. S An inventory of resources gathered. S An analyses of the appropriate resources. S Listing of issues, concerns, opportunities and threats to river values. Management options (issues, opportunities, concerns, and solutions); S Other appropriate information.
For the Brandywine Creek watershed, two separate coordinated rivers conservation plans are being prepared. The Brandywine Conservancy is preparing a plan for the Upper East Branch Brandywine Creek, while the Brandywine Valley Association will develop a RCP for the remainder of the watershed. It is anticipated that this Action Plan and the Watersheds Plan, being prepared by the Chester County Water Resources Authority, will provide a foundation for that planning effort. The plans are intended to complement each other and be used in conjunction to assist in wise watershed resources management and protection. One work element in the rivers conservation plan involves a pilot program to delineate wellhead protection zones for approximately 20 wells in the watershed. Delineation of public water supply wellhead protection areas will allow municipal governments to take active measures towards protecting public water supplies, including adoption of regulations preserving and protecting wellhead areas. In addition, this effort could contribute to cooperation in municipal/utility planning. The DCNR identification numbers are RCP-5-2 & RCP-5-5.
Delaware Source Water Protection Program The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) has the lead role in the development and implementation of the Delaware Source Water Assessment and Protection Program (SWAPP). Its work is closely supported by the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services - Division of Public Health (DPH) and the Water Resources Agency/ University of Delaware.
The SWAP outlines how source water assessments will be conducted for all of the public water systems in Delaware. These assessments will consist of three major components: S A determination will be made of where the source(s) of the water used by each system originates. S Develop an inventory of significant existing and potential sources of contaminants located within the source water assessment areas. S These two components (source water assessment areas and potential contaminant sources) will then be used to determine the susceptibility of each public water supply source to contamination.
For additional information on this program, reference the SWAPP website at http://www.wr.udel.edu/swap/swap1.htm.
Delaware’s Whole Basin Management Approach The Whole Basin Management approach developed by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) focuses on protecting Delaware’s environment by managing it in a comprehensive and coordinated fashion — by drainage basin. Using major drainage basins as the chief management units, DNREC can assess, monitor, and protect the health of Delaware’s environment.
DNREC’s Whole Basin Management approach aims at managing all the biological, chemical, and physical environments of geographic areas in Delaware defined on the basis of drainage patterns. Five major drainage basins encompass the state: the Piedmont, Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay, Delaware Estuary, and Inland Bays/Atlantic Ocean basins. Each basin consists of smaller management units, or sub-basins, known as watersheds.
The first basin DNREC is assessing under Whole Basin Management is the Piedmont Basin in northern New Castle County. Named after the geological province, in which it resides, this basin encompasses the White Clay Creek, Red Clay Creek, Brandywine Creek, Shellpot Creek, Naamans Creek, and Christina River watersheds. This Piedmont Basin Preliminary Assessment Report —written by the 28-member Piedmont Team representing every division in DNREC — depicts the current state of the basin, issues of concern, and assessment needs.
For additional information on this program, including the full text of the Piedmont Basin Preliminary Assessment Report, reference the DNREC website: http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/Admin/WholeBasin/WBM.htm.
Inter-State Efforts There are numerous groups and organizations that are currently involved in water resources within the Brandywine Creek Watershed. Since the watershed spans two states and is part of a larger River Basin (the Christina River Basin) there have been significant activities to manage the watershed in a coordinated manner through the Christina Basin Water Quality Management Committee. The watershed is also part of the Delaware River Basin Commission and that Commission has various programs that result in planning opportunities and actions in the watershed.
There are two sets of sources that were used to compile the list of ongoing initiatives: 1) the Watershed Restoration Action Strategy for Subbasin 03H and 03I (Draft – DEP Bureau of Watershed Conservation) and 2) synthesis of correspondence and grant materials. There may be some overlap between the two lists. Initiatives listed in PADEP Watershed Restoration Action Strategy for Subbasin 03H and 03I (Draft – PADEP Bureau of Watershed Conservation)
Pennsylvania Growing Greener Projects
S $85,500 (2000) to Chester County Conservation District for mushroom farm environmental management, planning, and implementation. S $83,810 (2000) to the Brandywine Valley Association for the watershed watch training program. S $150,000 (1999) to Chester County Conservation District for continuation of the Brandywine, Red Clay, White Clay Creek restoration project. Agricultural BMPs will be used to reduce nonpoint source pollution. S $131,250 (1999) to Downingtown Main Street, Inc. for the Park Run restoration project to continue the ongoing cleanup and conversion of a brownfields site in the Borough of Downingtown. Eroding streambanks will be planted with native vegetation. S $13,000 (1999) to Chester County Conservation District to develop a self-guided tour through the Christina River basin and Valley Creek watershed to showcase stormwater management practices. S $12,905 (1999) to the Brandywine Conservancy to restore the original hydrology to a 6.5-acre disturbed wetland in their reserve. Ditches will be backfilled and diked and a selection of native plants will be reintroduced. S $239,811 (1999) to Downingtown Borough to construct an enhanced detention basin on Park Run. Other components of the project include a stormwater feasibility study and public outreach and education. S $15,468 (1999) to the Natural Lands Trust for streambank and wildlife habitat restoration in the Buck Run watershed. Components of the project will include streambank fencing and crossings, tree and shrub plantings for riparian buffers, and alternative watering sources for livestock.
US EPA Clean Water Act Section 319 Projects
S $75,986 (2001) to the Brandywine Conservancy/Environmental Management Center for a restoration initiative in Broad Run. Projects will include restoration of riparian buffers, streambank stabilization, and wetland restoration. S $58,400 (2001) to Chester County Conservation District for an assessment and development of a protection/restoration plan for Marsh Creek Lake watershed. S $170,000 (2000) to Chester County Water Resources Authority for an assessment and management plan for Chester County streams, which includes subbasins 03H and 03I. S $60,000 (1998) to DRBC for the one year Christina basin stormwater monitoring program. A model will be developed to generate a TMDL to achieve water quality standards. S $50,000 (1998) to Chester County Conservation District and Water Resources Agency of New Castle County (WRANC) to develop a comprehensive strategy to address water quality problems in the Christina basin. The goal is to develop TMDL’s for point and nonpoint source discharges in the basin. S $82,000 (1996) to Chester County CD for the Christina Basin Water Quality Management Program. This project funded the second year of a five-year multi-agency study to develop a strategy to address water quality issues. S 319 National Monitoring Program grants from FY96-99 to Stroud Center for research on forested buffers. The goals of this 5-year project are to monitor, evaluate and document the benefits of experimental riparian reforestation in an agricultural watershed.
DCNR Rivers Conservation Grants
S $123,000 (1997) and $100,000 (1998) to Chester County to develop a rivers conservation plan for Chester County streams, includes subbasins 03H and 03I. S $25,000 (1998) to Brandywine Conservancy to develop a rivers conservation plan for the East Branch Brandywine Creek.
Other
S Buck Run Stream Stabilization Project repaired stream banks at the Sadsbury Township Park. This project is planning for stabilization and plantings of native grasses in this trout stocked portion of Buck Run at the main line railroad tracks. A combination of soft and hard remediation will be used. Some of the tree seedlings used were from the DEP Stream Releaf Program. S Buck Run Farm Protected Stream Crossing Project on the William Elkins farm, part of the original King Ranch, which is under easement to the Brandywine Conservancy. Other conservation practices used have been rotational grazing and warm season grasses. S Henry J. Stoltzfus Demonstration Project near Honey Brook, which received a Christina Basin Demonstration Project Grant to improve barnyard runoff treatment by installing a 30-foot long pipe to direct barnyard runoff to the pasture and control excess erosion.
Initiatives Synthesized from Correspondence and Other Materials
S CCCD has a Dirt and Gravel Roads program to address sediment from these sources. S Envirothon – an environmental education program for school students throughout Chester County. S Brandywine FLOW’s – education program for high school students. S Priorities for Land Conservation Initiative – Brandywine Conservancy Grant application. S Riparian Resource Plans and Demonstration Projects – grant application by CCP&RD. S Low flow and high flow TMDL’s are being developed for nutrients and oxygen demand for the Christina River Basin. S Chlordane and PCB TMDL is being developed for West Branch Brandywine Creek. S Chlordane TMDL for Main Stem Brandywine Creek has been established. S Delaware Nature Society assists landowners find funding for stream bank fencing. S States are requiring environmental education by 2002. S Music video made on non-point source, contact Ed Magargee Delaware County Conservation District. S Broad Run Stream Restoration (Part of Brandywine Conservancy Growing Greener application). S Buck Run Restoration project at Sadsbury Woods Preserve (Growing Greener grant to Natural Lands Trust). S Buck Run Riparian Corridor Planting (program by CCCD). S BVA Watershed Watch & Stream Watch. S Implementation of Watershed Restoration Projects for Pocopson Township – BVA Growing Greener application. S Low Impact Conservation Design Guidance Document Preparation – Brandywine Conservancy Growing Greener application. S Marsh Creek Watershed Assessment. S Ongoing or planned project: Riparian Corridor enhancement (West Chester Fish, Game, and Wildlife). S Ongoing or planned project: Acquisition of lands adjacent to Shamona Creek and Brandywine Creek for open space. S Ongoing or planned project: Applied for EV for Brinton Run, Wylie Run & Berwick Run. S Ongoing or planned project: Culvert replacement, stormwater diversion, and stream bank stabilization (Marshall Dr & Hillside Dr) - West Chester Borough. S Ongoing or planned project: Drip irrigation at Brandywine at Thornbury. S Ongoing or planned project: Pond Storage – Downing Forge. S Ongoing or planned project: Pond Storage – Hills of Thorndale. S Ongoing or planned project: Riparian corridors & stream bank stabilization (West Marlborough Twp). S Ongoing or planned project: Stormwater retention on site for golf course watering (Caln Twp – Thorndale Green Dev.). S Ongoing or planned project: Stormwater retrofit & ground water recharge projects (WCFGW). S Ongoing or planned project: Stream Bank Stabilization of Buck Run @ Greenbelt Drive. S Ongoing or planned project: Wallace Twp water resource study. S Ongoing or planned project: Citizens monitoring water quality and sediment (DNS). S Outdoor Classroom – Lionville Middle School Growing Greener application. S Potential park and rec project: Dredge Pond to allow for more storage at Church Farm School. S Potential park and rec project: Dredge Pond to allow for more storage at Meadowbrook Manor Park. S Potential park and rec project: Park and Trails along Radley Run (Westtown Twp). S Potential park and rec project: Park land from former Strasburg landfill site (Newlin Twp). S Potential park and rec project: Provide bridge between community park and Marsh Creek State Park across Brandywine Creek (Wallace Twp). S Potential park and rec project: Stream bank restoration at Brandywine at Thornbury – Radley Run (Thornbury Twp). S Potential park and rec project: Wetlands area along Beaver Creek @ Lloyd. S Potential park and rec project: Wetlands area at Valley Run/Beaver Run (Caln Municipal). S Sadsbury/Buck Run Streambank Restoration. S Shamona Creek Stream Bank Stabilization. S Upper East Branch Brandywine Rivers Conservation Plan, Brandywine Conservancy. S Watershed Assessment of Broad Run in West Bradford Twp. S Watershed Restoration Strategy (WRAS). S Watershed Watch Program – BVA Growing Greener application. S Wetland Enhancement Project (West Marlborough Twp). S Design and Construction an Innovative Stormwater Management & Treatment Facility (at Lincoln Ave on Parke Run) – Growing Greener application. S Parke Run Streambank Restoration/Remediation Project, Downingtown Main Street Association, Inc. S Ongoing or planned project: Citizens monitoring water quality and sediment (DNS). S Brandywine State Park expanded. Delaware Greenways has developed.