Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan Cumberland, York and Adams Counties, Pennsylvania August 2005

HRG Project No. 0243.180

369 East Park Drive Subconsultant: Harrisburg, PA 17111 (717) 564-1121 (717) 564-1158 (FAX) www.hrg-inc.com

YELLOW BREECHES CREEK RIVERS CONSERVATION PLAN

CUMBERLAND, YORK AND ADAMS COUNTIES PENNSYLVANIA

AUGUST 2005

FUNDED BY GROWING GREENER GRANTS

PROVIDED BY PA DEP AND PA DCNR

HRG Project No. 0243.180

Notes: This project was financed in part by a grant from the Community Conservation Partnerships Program, Rivers Conservation Program, under the administration of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Environmental Protection.

369 East Park Drive Harrisburg, PA 17111 (717) 564-1121 www.hrg-inc.com

©Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc., 2005 YELLOW BREECHES CREEK RIVERS CONSERVATION PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE TAB

PREFACE ...... A-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... A-3 STATEMENT OF NEED...... A-3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES...... A-3

PROJECT PARTNERS ...... A-4

INTRODUCTION ...... A-6

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS ...... B-1 LOCATION...... B-1 SIZE ...... B-1 TOPOGRAPHY...... B-1

LAND RESOURCES...... B-3 SOILS ...... B-3 HYDRIC SOILS...... B-4 AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY ...... B-5 STEEP SLOPES ...... B-7 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION...... B-7 GEOLOGY...... B-9 FORMATIONS ...... B-9 KARST TOPOGRAPHY ...... B-12 FREESTONE VERSUS LIMESTONE ...... B-13 GEOLOGICAL FEATURES ...... B-13

WATER RESOURCES...... B-16 CHAPTER 93 CRITERIA...... B-16 2004 PA INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT REPORT ...... B-18 WETLANDS ...... B-19 FLOODPLAINS ...... B-20 LAKES AND PONDS...... B-21 WATER SUPPLY ...... B-21 GROUNDWATER ...... B-21 PERMITTED DAMS...... B-23

i TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D.)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... B-24 HABITAT ...... B-24 VEGETATION...... B-25 WILDLIFE...... B-26 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES...... B-33

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... B-39 RECREATION...... B-39 TRAILS ...... B-39 SCENIC RAILS ...... B-40 PARKS AND PRESERVES ...... B-40 ECONOMY ...... B-43 LAND USE...... B-45 ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL ...... B-47 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION DATA...... B-47 NATIONAL REGISTER ...... B-48

WATERSHED CONCERNS ...... B-55

RESEARCH AND ONGOING PROJECTS ...... C-1

PUBLIC OUTREACH ...... D-1 FOCUS GROUP WORKSHOPS...... D-1 MUNICIPAL WATERSHED PROTECTION AUDITS ...... D-3 KEY PERSON INTERVIEWS...... D-4 PUBLIC MEETINGS ...... D-7

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR SOLUTIONS ...... E-1 EDUCATION...... E-1 LAND RESOURCES...... E-3 WATER RESOURCES...... E-4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... E-5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... E-6

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ...... E-7

REFERENCES ...... F-1

APPENDICES A – NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMITTEES B – KNOWN FLOODING AND STORMWATER PROBLEM AREAS C – HISTORY OF YELLOW BREECHES CREEK D – PENNSYLVANIA FISH AND BOAT COMMISSION STREAM SURVEYS E – PUBLIC AND MUNICIPAL COMMENTS

ii ACRONYMS

ACCD – Adams County Conservation District ACPC – Adams County Planning Commission CAPSEC- Capital Region Senior Environment Corps CCCD – Cumberland County Conservation District CCPC – Cumberland County Planning Commission CREP – Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program CSREES – Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services DER – Department of Environmental Resources EASI –Environmental Alliance for Senior Involvement FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency HQ-CWF – High Quality–Cold Water Fishes NHPA –National Historic Preservation Act NPDES – National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service NWI – National Wetlands Inventory PA DCNR – Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources PA DEP – Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection PAWC – Pennsylvania American Water Company PCB – Polychlorinated Biphenyl PEC – Pennsylvania Environmental Council PENNDOT – Pennsylvania Department of Transportation PFBC – Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission PGC – Pennsylvania Game Commission PHMC – Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission PIMAR – Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report PNDI – Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index SCS – Soil Conservation Service SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office SRBC – Susquehanna River Basin Commission US EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency USACE – United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA – United States Department of Agriculture USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS – United States Geologic Survey WQS – Water Quality Standard YBWA – Yellow Breeches Watershed Association YCCD – York County Conservation District YCPC – York County Planning Commission

iii TAB A PREFACE

This report was prepared by the Yellow Breeches Watershed Association (YBWA) as a collaborative effort with Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. and subconsultant Land Logics Group. YBWA would like to acknowledge the contributions of numerous government agencies, individuals, and other organizations that provided valuable information used to complete this report.

YBWA thanks Lower Allen Township for all of its support from the very beginning, when the watershed association was still only a concept idea, through the completion of the Watershed Assessment and the Rivers Conservation Plan. Lower Allen Township is recognized as a leader in its area and a strong supporter of cutting edge programs to protect the environment. The administration of the grants necessary to complete this work, in addition to numerous other efforts, was instrumental to the completion of this project. YBWA looks forward to a continued strong relationship with Lower Allen Township on future projects within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed.

YBWA also thanks the following organizations and individuals:

• Yellow Breeches Watershed Association • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) • Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PA DCNR) • 22 Municipalities within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed o Camp Hill Borough o Carroll Township o Cooke Township o Dickinson Township o Dillsburg Borough o Fairview Township o Franklin Township o Hampden Township o Lemoyne Borough o Lower Allen Township o Mechanicsburg Borough o Menallen Township o Monaghan Township o Monroe Township o Mount Holly Springs Borough o New Cumberland Borough o Penn Township o Shiremanstown Borough o Southampton Township o South Middleton Township

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan A-1 o South Newton Township o Upper Allen Township • Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) • Capital Region Senior Environment Corps (CAPSEC) • United States Geological Survey (USGS) • Cumberland County Conservation District (CCCD) • Cumberland County Planning Commission (CCPC) • York County Planning Commission (YCPC) • York County Conservation District (YCCD) • Adams County Planning Commission (ACPC) • Adams County Conservation District (ACCD) • Bob Rowland • Messiah College, Jeff Erikson • Dickinson College • Environmental Alliance for Senior Involvement (EASI) • Appalachian Audubon Society • Cumberland Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited • Pennsylvania Environmental Council • Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay • Shippensburg University • Oakes Museum

Homeland Security has become a major concern in the United States. In our post 9-11 world, it is everyone’s responsibility to safeguard lives and valuable resources in our own communities. Potential threats can come in many different forms and shapes. One of those forms is the intentional contamination of drinking water, known as water terrorism. Safeguarding sensitive water related information can diminish the risk of this and similar attacks. Sensitive water related data has been omitted from this report and these areas noted accordingly. The YBWA is committed to safeguarding the lives and valuable resources within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan A-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The PA DEP Title 25, Chapter 93, Water Quality Standards protected use for the Yellow Breeches Creek is for High-Quality Cold Water Fishes (HQ-CWF). In 1992, the Yellow Breeches Creek was given the Pennsylvania Scenic River designation1. The Yellow Breeches Creek and its tributaries consist of 368 river miles that start in the South Mountain area, Cumberland County, and flows east through Adams, York, and Cumberland Counties before draining into the Susquehanna River. The Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed drains a total area of 219 square miles.

The project has developed a Rivers Conservation Plan for the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed, based on the inventory of land, water, biological, social, and cultural resources. Public outreach efforts, including environmental audits and key person interviews, were conducted to involve municipalities and gather valuable information from public citizens. Numerous valuable resources were noted within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed, and specific management options and strategies were developed to protect and conserve these important areas.

Statement of Need

The need for a Rivers Conservation Plan is vital to the future planning, conservation and restoration efforts of the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. This project serves as an inventory of the land, water, biological, and cultural resources within the watershed and as a plan to preserve these valuable areas. The implementation plan to prioritize and protect these valuable resources is based specifically on technical data collected in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed Assessment. Grants have been awarded by both the PA DCNR and PA DEP with each set of funds spent on compiling information sought by the specific agency. The PA DEP Growing Greener Grant is an environmental stewardship and watershed protection program grant. The PA DCNR grant is a Keystone recreation, park, and conservation fund planning grant.

Goals and Objectives

The short-term goals for this project are to inventory resources in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed and formulate a comprehensive plan for the future of the watershed. The long-term goal of the plan is to prioritize projects that will benefit, improve and protect the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed, and therefore improve life for those who have a stake in the resource.

1 Classification Criteria: Rivers included in the Scenic Rivers System will be classified, designated and administered as Wild, Scenic, Pastoral, Recreational and Modified Recreational Rivers (Sections 4; (a) (1) of the Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers Act). A designated river may have more than one classification; each segment will have its own classification, and must be long enough to provide a meaningful experience. The number of different classified segments within the river should be kept to a minimum. Scenic rivers shall be free-flowing and capable of, or under restoration, to support water-cased recreation, fish and aquatic life. The view from the river or its banks shall be predominately wild, but may reveal some pastoral countryside. The segment may be intermittently accessible by road.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan A-3 PROJECT PARTNERS

Many partnerships have formed to ensure the success of both the project and the management of the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. Groups that have partnered and expressed interests in contributing to the watershed assessment project include the following:

• Yellow Breeches Watershed Association • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) • Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PA DCNR) • 22 Municipalities within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed o Camp Hill Borough o Carroll Township o Cooke Township o Dickinson Township o Dillsburg Borough o Fairview Township o Franklin Township o Hampden Township o Lemoyne Borough o Lower Allen Township o Mechanicsburg Borough o Menallen Township o Monaghan Township o Monroe Township o Mount Holly Springs Borough o New Cumberland Borough o Penn Township o Shiremanstown Borough o Southampton Township o South Middleton Township o South Newton Township o Upper Allen Township • Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) • Capital Region Senior Environment Corps (CAPSEC) • United States Geological Survey (USGS) • Cumberland County Conservation District (CCCD) • Cumberland County Planning Commission (CCPC) • York County Planning Commission (YCPC) • York County Conservation District (YCCD) • Adams County Planning Commission (ACPC) • Adams County Conservation District (ACCD) • Bob Rowland

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan A-4 • Messiah College, Jeff Erikson • Dickinson College • Environmental Alliance for Senior Involvement (EASI) • Appalachian Audubon Society • Cumberland Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited • Pennsylvania Environmental Council • Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay • Shippensburg University • Oakes Museum

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan A-5 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Plan is to serve as a guide for the future character and development of the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. This plan will address long-range conservation, land management and recreation development. The plan will continue the drive toward providing increased and varied economic, recreation and conservation opportunities for residents. A primary goal is to provide educational opportunities to the residents, while not infringing on personal property rights.

The specific purposes of the plan are the following:

• To define the characteristics, attributes and assets of the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed.

• To guide the future conservation and management of the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed and its resources.

• To recommend ways to promote the value and importance of the Yellow Breeches Creek to the quality of life of the residents, and to encourage awareness and use of its resources.

• To petition for a listing on the Pennsylvania Rivers Registry. The Pennsylvania Rivers Registry has been established to recognize local river conservation efforts as part of the Pennsylvania Rivers Conservation Program. The program provides technical and financial assistance to municipalities and river support groups to carry out planning, implementation, acquisition and development activities. Registry status must be achieved to qualify for implementation, development or acquisition grants.

• To identify and prioritize the needs for the protection of the Yellow Breeches Creek.

• To identify and prioritize the needs for the use of the Yellow Breeches Creek.

• To involve all stakeholders, including citizens, residential property owners, municipalities, local governments, county governments, industrial and commercial lands managers, agricultural landowners, water and wastewater utilities, and other community based conservation organizations.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan A-6 TAB B GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

Location

The Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed is located in Cumberland, Adams, and York Counties, Pennsylvania. The headwaters of the Upper Yellow Breeches Creek begin just west of the small town of Walnut Bottom and flow eastward toward Mount Holly Springs Borough. The headwaters of Mountain Creek begin in the northern portion of Adams County. The Upper Yellow Breeches Creek and Mountain Creek converge to form the Yellow Breeches Creek. The Yellow Breeches Creek continues to flow eastward until it converges with the Susquehanna River in New Cumberland Borough. For the purposes of this project, the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed will be defined by the Main Stem, located in Cumberland and York Counties, and its tributaries located in Cumberland, Adams and York Counties.

Size

The Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed drains a total area of 219 square miles and consists of 368 total river/stream miles. The total length of the main stem and the named tributaries totals approximately 120 miles. The Yellow Breeches Creek itself is approximately 49 miles in length as it flows through Cumberland and York Counties. For approximately 21.6 miles of its length, it serves as the boundary between Cumberland and York Counties.

Topography

Landforms of similar surface characteristics are classified into physiographic provinces, divisions, and sections. The Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed lies within three physiographic provinces. The major portion of the creek lies within the Great Valley section of the Valley and Ridge Province. The Great Valley is characterized by low, rolling topography with gentle slopes that incline westward at 100 to 150 feet per mile. This portion of the Great Valley, known locally as the Cumberland Valley, is underlain by soft carbonate rocks which are more susceptible to weathering than the rocks that comprise the ridges and hillsides. The headwaters region is in the Blue Ridge Province along the South Mountain. A short segment of the Yellow Breeches Creek along the York County boundary is in the Triassic Lowland section of the Piedmont province.

The Yellow Breeches Creek flows northeastward from its source on the crest of South Mountain south of the Village of Lees Cross Roads to the Borough of New Cumberland where it enters the Susquehanna River. The topography is characterized by moderate to steep mountain slopes in the headwater region and Cumberland Valley with rolling hills of relatively low relief.

A vertical drop from an elevation of 2,060 feet to an elevation of 290 feet over the creek’s length gives the channel an overall slope of 8.8 feet per mile. However, this statement does not reflect the actual topographic relief, which exists. The headwater streams and the Yellow Breeches Creek drop sharply from Big Flat Tower (elevation 2,060 feet) to Brookside (elevation 735 feet). The majority of the Yellow

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-1 Breeches Creek then flows over gentle slopes producing its characteristic long pools interspersed with various dams and riffles.

Table B.1 Lengths and Drainage Areas of Main Tributaries within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed

Tributary Approximate Length Drainage Area Main Stem, Source to Locust Point Road 26.0 mi. 91,153 ac. Hairy Springs Hollow 4.3 mi. 2,318 ac. Sthromes Hollow 5.0 mi 2,451 ac. Watery Hollow 4.6 mi. 2,592 ac. Peach Orchard Hollow 3.4 mi. 2,708 ac. Bettem Hollow 3.8 mi. 2454 ac. State Road Hollow 2.3 mi. 672 ac. Irishtown Gap Hollow 3.4 mi. 2,116 ac. King’s Gap Hollow 3.0 mi. 1,340 ac. Spruce Run 2.0 mi. 3,164 ac. Mountain Creek (Source to Toland) 12.1 mi. 21,605 ac. Mountain Creek (Toland to Mt. Holly Springs) 4.5 mi. 7,225 ac. Mountain Creek (Mt. Holly Springs to Mouth) 1.5 mi. 1,539 ac. Old Town Run 3.4 mi. 6,906 ac. Main Stem, Locust Point Road to Mouth 23.0 mi. 51,073 ac. Dogwood Run 5.7 mi. 5,561 ac. Stony Run 7.2 mi. 8,132 ac. Pippins Run 3.4 mi. 1,748 ac. Cedar Run 4.5 mi. 8,195 ac.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-2 LAND RESOURCES

A complete understanding of the soils and geology of the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed is necessary for development and land use planning purposes. Water quality characteristics of a watershed are closely linked to the geology and soils of the region. Geology and soils also play an important role in determining stream chemistry.

Soils

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS), has made detailed soil surveys of Adams, Cumberland, and York Counties. These surveys classify the soils according to depth, texture, natural drainage, thickness, and arrangement of the various layers, kind of parent material, slope, erosion, flooding, and other characteristics.

Using soil associations, general soil information can be provided. Soil associations are groups of soils, which ordinarily occur together in the landscape. Each soil has its characteristic place depending on slope or kind of material. The following soil associations occur in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed:

Athol-Neshaminy Association - Consists of deep, gently sloping and sloping, well-drained soils that formed in material weathered from conglomerate, breccias, and diabase; on uplands. (SCS, 1963, 1967, and 2002)

Berks-Weikert-Bedington Association – Consists of shallow to deep, gently sloping to very steep, well- drained soils that formed in material weathered from gray and brown shale, siltstone, and sandstone; on uplands. (SCS, 1963, 1967, and 2002)

Edgemont-Highfield Association – Consists of moderately deep and deep, well-drained, and medium textured soils that developed from basic rock on the slopes of ridges. (SCS, 1963, 1967, and 2002)

Hagerstown-Duffield Association – Consists of deep, nearly level to moderately steep, well-drained soils that formed in material weathered from limestone; on uplands. (SCS, 1963, 1967, and 2002)

Hazelton-Laidig-Buchanan Association – Consists of deep, nearly level to very steep, well-drained to somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in material weathered from gray and brown quartzite, sandstone, siltstone, and shale; on uplands. (SCS, 1963, 1967, and 2002)

Hazleton-Clymer Association - Consists of deep, nearly level to very steep, well-drained soils that formed in material weathered from gray sandstone and quartzite; on uplands. (SCS, 1963, 1967, and 2002)

Highfield-Glenville Association - Consists of deep, nearly level to moderately steep, well-drained to somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in material weathered from schist and rhyolite; on uplands. (SCS, 1963, 1967, and 2002)

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-3

Highfield-Myersville-Catoctin Association - Deep and well-drained, channery and stony soils on ridges, developed from metabasaltic and other basic rock. (SCS, 1963, 1967, and 2002)

Lewisberry-Steinsburg Association - Gently sloping to moderately steep, well-drained soils on dissected ridges and low hills, formed dominantly in residuum derived from sandstone and conglomerate. (SCS, 1963, 1967, and 2002)

Monongahela-Atkins-Middlebury Association – Consists of deep, nearly level and gently sloping, moderately well-drained to poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium; on terraces and floodplains. (SCS, 1963, 1967, and 2002)

Murrill-Laidig-Buchanan Association – Consists of deep, nearly level to moderately steep, well-drained to somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in colluvium from gray sandstone, conglomerate, quartzite, and limestone; on uplands. (SCS, 1963, 1967, and 2002)

Neshaminy-Lehigh Association – Consists of nearly level to very steep, deep, well-drained to somewhat poorly drained soils on ridges and hills, formed in residuum derived from diabase and porcelanite. (SCS, 1963, 1967, and 2002)

Penn-Lansdale-Readington Association – Consists of nearly level to strongly sloping, moderately deep, well-drained soils on rolling uplands, formed in residuum derived from shale, siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate. (SCS, 1963, 1967, and 2002)

Hydric Soils

The definition of a hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. The concept of hydric soils includes soils developed under sufficiently wet conditions to support the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. Soils that are sufficiently wet because of artificial measures are included in the concept of hydric soils. Also, soils in which the hydrology has been artificially modified are hydric if the soil, in an unaltered state, was hydric. Some series, designated as hydric, have phases that are not hydric depending on water table, flooding, and ponding characteristics. (Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2003) See Table B.2 for a complete list of hydric soils occurring in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. The majority of the hydric soils are generally distributed along the streams and within the floodplains, especially in the upper reaches of the watershed west of S.R. 15. The definition of prime soils includes prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance. These prime soils are well distributed throughout the watershed with the exception of the steeper areas west of S.R. 15, in the upper reaches of Mountain Creek and between Mountain Creek and Yellow Breeches Creek. See the Soils Map for the locations of hydric soils within the watershed.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-4 Table B.2 Hydric Soils Occurring in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed (ACCD, CCCD, YCCD, 2004)

Map Unit Soil AnB Andover gravely loam 0 to 8 percent slopes

Aob Andover very stony loam 0 to 8 percent slopes Aw Atkins silt loam 0 to 3 percent slopes BrA Brinkerton silt loam 0 to 3 percent slopes BrB Brinkerton silt loam 3 to 8 percent slopes Me Melvin silt loam 0 to 3 percent slopes Ba Baile silt loam 0 to 3 percent slopes Bo Bowmansville silt loam 0 to 3 percent slopes CrA Croton silt loam 0 to 3 percent slopes CrB Croton silt loam 3 to 8 percent slopes Hc Hatboro silt loam 0 to 3 percent slopes WaA Watchung silt loam 0 to 3 percent slopes

WbB Watchung bouldery silt loam 0 to 8 percent slopes

Agricultural Capability

Soils affect a variety of human activities from agriculture to the engineering and construction of roads, buildings, and sewage disposal systems within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. Soils are critical in determining the productivity and viability of agricultural operations within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. The USDA NRCS evaluates soils in terms of their capacity to support agriculture. These range from Class I soils, which are productive and easy to work, to Class VIII soils, which are not suitable for growing crops, pasture, or trees for profit. The eight classes in the capability system are:

Class I (Prime) - Soils that have few limitations that restrict their agricultural use. (NRCS, 2004)

Class II (Good) - Soils that have some limitations that reduce the choice of plants and require moderate conservation practices. (NRCS, 2004)

Class III (Fair) - Soils that have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require special conservation practices, or both. (NRCS, 2004)

Class IV (Poor) - Soils that have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants, require very careful management, or both. (NRCS, 2004)

Class V (Poor) - Soils that are not likely to erode but have other limitations, impractical to remove without major reclamation, that limits their use largely to pasture, woodland, or wildlife food and cover. (NRCS, 2004)

Class VI (Poor) - Soils that have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation and that limit their use largely to pasture, woodland, or wildlife food and cover. (NRCS, 2004)

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-5

Class VII (Poor) - Soils that have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation without major reclamation and that restrict their use largely to grazing, woodland, or wildlife. (NRCS, 2004)

Class VIII (Poor) - Soils and landforms that have limitations that preclude their use, without major reclamation, for commercial protection of plants and that restrict their use to recreation, wildlife, or esthetic purposes. (NRCS, 2004)

Prime soils are generally distributed across the majority of the lower watershed and the northern portion of the upper watershed.

See Table B.3 for a complete list of Capability Class I and II soils occurring in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. (SCS, 1963, 1967, and 2002) See the Soils Map for the locations of prime soils.

Table B.3 Capability Class I and II Soils Occurring in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed

Soil Series Map Unit Capability Class Soil Series Map Unit Capability Class ALLEGHENY AgA I HAZLETON HeB II ALLEGHENY AgB II HIGHFIELD HgB II ATHOL AtB II HUNTINGTON HuA I BEDINGTON BdB II LAIDIG LdB II BERKS BeB II LANSDALE LeB II BIRDSBORO BoA I LEGORE LgB II BIRDSBORO BgB II LEHIGH LhA II BRECKNOCK BrB II LEHIGH LhB II BUCHANAN BuB II LEWISBERRY LrB II CHAGRIN Cd II LINDSIDE Ls II CHAVIES Ch I LINDSIDE Lw II CLARKSBURG CkA II MIDDLEBURY Mf II CLARKSBURG CkB II MONONGAHELA MnA II CODOROUS Cm II MONONGAHELA MnB II DUFFIELD DuA I MORRISON MoB II DUFFIELD DuB II MOUNT LUCAS MdA II DUFFIELD DuC II MURRILL MuA I DUNCANNON DxA I MURRILL MuB II DUNCANNON DxB II MURRILL MvB II EDGEMONT EdB II NESHAMINY NeB II EDOM EdB II NESHAMINY NaB II ELK EkA I PENN PeB II ELK EkB II PENN PoB II ERNEST EtB II RARITAN RaB II GLENVILLE GnB II READINGTON ReA II GLENVILLE GdA II READINGTON ReB II GLENVILLE GdB II ROWLAND Rw II HAGERSTOWN HaA I TIOGA Tg I HAGERSTOWN HaB II

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-6 Steep Slopes

Overcoming constraints and hazards of structural development on steep slopes in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed can be very difficult and expensive. Municipalities, recognizing threats to resident life and health, can restrict inappropriate structural development on steep slopes (over 25%), as well as more moderate slopes where structural problems are likely for the landowner or municipality. These steep slopes are generally distributed throughout the central area of the upper portion of the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. Steep slopes have been plotted on the Topography Map based on soils data. Recommendations regarding steep slopes are being offered only as a guideline, as each municipality may have regulations that are specific to the needs of that respective area. The following are some guidelines often considered in controlling the development of sloping land:

Any site disturbance exceeding 15% shall be minimized. No site disturbance shall be allowed on slopes exceeding 25% except under the following circumstances: logging and woodcutting shall be by specific approval and shall be limited to highly selective removal of trees. Maximum precautions shall be taken to avoid destruction or injury of understory brush and trees, and grading for a portion of a driveway accessing a single-family dwelling when it can be demonstrated that no other routing which avoids slopes exceeding 25% is feasible. On slopes of 20-25%, the only permitted grading or earthmoving shall be in conjunction with the siting of a single-family dwelling unit and the access driveway. Tillage and nursery operations shall not be conducted on slopes exceeding 15%, and sod operations shall not be conducted on slopes exceeding 8%, except where minimum tillage methods approved by SCS or the County Soil Conservation District are followed. Grading or earthmoving on all sloping lands exceeding 15% shall not result in earth cuts or fills whose highest vertical dimension exceed 10 feet, except where no reasonable alternatives exist for construction of public roads, drainage structures, and other public improvements, in which case such vertical dimensions shall not exceed 20 feet. Finished slopes of all cuts and fills shall not exceed 3:1, unless the applicant can demonstrate that steeper slopes can be stabilized and maintained adequately. Soil maps can be used to develop stormwater management plans for areas as large as watersheds or as small as construction sites. The amount of water that runs off an area is dependent upon the soil’s ability to absorb water and the amount of the land that is covered by vegetation. The type of soil found in an area is largely determined by the underlying rock strata. (Department of Environmental Resources (DER), 1992)

Erosion and Sedimentation

Erosion is the process by which soil or rock material is loosened and moved from place to place on the surface. Erosion and sedimentation is a natural process, even in forested areas, but anthropogenic, or human influences, increase the rate of erosion and sedimentation. Through weathering, frost action, flowing water, wind and other causes, the cohesive properties of the soil are overcome. The loosened particles are then vulnerable to being transported by water, wind, or other forces. Flowing water tends to have the greatest erosion capability. Composition and cohesiveness, slope, vegetation, erosion control practices, and the intensity and duration of rainfall are factors that affect the amount of soil loss from water erosion in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. Not only does erosion result in the loss of

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-7 valuable soil, but it also allows particles to be deposited as sedimentation in stream channels. Eroded material that reaches the stream becomes a serious form of water pollution. The flooding potential also increases as the stream channel capacity decreases due to an increased sediment load. Stream health is also affected by sediment that destroys spawning grounds and aquatic habitat and alters the species composition of fish populations. The ecological balance of the stream is affected, as sediment reduces the depth of light penetration in the stream. (DER, 1992)

Erosion rates in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed are increased by disturbing the soil. Soil disturbances can be caused by agricultural practices, construction activity, removal of ground cover, and soil compaction. Carelessly plowed fields, uncontrolled construction procedures, and poor site stabilization contribute to substantial loss of soil. Erosion is increased when disturbed sites are located on steep slopes. Some farming processes can be harmful to the Yellow Breeches Creek. For example, grazing many cows on too small an acreage makes it difficult for vegetation to thrive. Lack of vegetation allows soil to flow in the stream when loosened by rainfall. Animal access to stream channels can also contribute to erosion and sedimentation. Nutrient build-up is another problem associated with cattle. After a rainstorm, runoff from fertilized fields can contribute high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous to the stream. Terracing the pasture areas along the Yellow Breeches Creek can help decrease erosion, however. It is particularly important to establish a vegetative buffer or strip along the stream, to prevent soil and nutrients from entering the stream. (DER, 1992)

Soil erosion can be greatly reduced through conservation practices such as strip farming, terraces, crop rotation, and improved pastures. Contour farming and strip cropping are common erosion control practices adopted for crop and pasture lands containing smooth, uniform slopes similar to those of Berks, Hagerstown, and Neshaminy soils. Minimizing tillage, cover cropping, and leaving crop residue on the surface help increase filtration and reduce the hazard of erosion. Any time soil is disturbed in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed, it is susceptible to erosion. Construction activities that strip vegetative cover and compact soils can pollute nearby streams with sediment. To decrease the potential detrimental effects that erosion and sedimentation can cause, state laws require erosion and sedimentation control plans for all soil disturbance activities. County conservation districts administer the erosion and sedimentation control program. Techniques for controlling erosion from disturbed terrain include decreasing the amount of land exposed at any one time, rerouting runoff into vegetation-lined channels around exposed areas with diversion terraces, slowing and diverting runoff into sedimentation basins, and replanting exposed areas as soon as possible. (DER, 1992)

Highly erodible soils in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed are associated with steep slopes generally distributed in the central portion of the upper watershed. See the Soils Map for locations of highly erodible soils. Development in the locations of these highly erodible soils should be discouraged.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-8 Geology

The valley area of the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed is composed largely of limestone. This less resistant rock creates small hills with gentle to rolling slopes. The area between the valley and the mountain is called colluvium. These are soils that were part of the South Mountain, but have fallen to this transition zone over time from gravity, wind, and erosion on the landscape. South Mountain is composed largely of resistant quartzite and sandstone. These resistant rocks create steep to moderate slopes and deep cut valleys. Rocks of three geologic periods are exposed along the Yellow Breeches Creek. From oldest to youngest, they are Cambrian, Ordovician, and Triassic. The Great Valley section is underlain by sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rocks, ranging from Early Cambrian to Triassic Age spanning millions of years from 190 million to 550 million years ago. South Mountain is composed of parallel ridges trending northeastward and separated by valleys. These ridges are formed by resistant quartzites, metabasalt, metarhyolite, and volcanic greenstone. The valleys are often different from each other and depend on the rock type which underlies them. The flattest and most fertile valleys are floored by limestone. (DER, 1992)

The Cambrian rocks are metamorphic quartzite, quartzitic conglomerate, and quartzitic schist. In addition, sedimentary rocks include purple shale and silicious limestone. The oldest exposed rock in the watershed is the Weverton and Loudoun Formations, undivided, of Early Cambrian Age, which is exposed in the uppermost headwaters portion of the stream along the western side of South Mountain in South Newton Township. Most of these rocks contain marine fossils, indicating early signs of life on the earth. The Ordovician rocks are sedimentary in origin and include limestone, conglomerate, dolomite, chert, and shale; these rocks form the floor of the Cumberland Valley. A small area in southeastern Cumberland County, along the York County boundary, has exposed rock from the Triassic age. The rocks are mostly coarse-grained quartzose sandstone with shale interbeds and quartz conglomerate. An intermittent diabase sill of gray plagioclase feldspar and black and green augite bisects the survey area. The youngest rock unit, Triassic-Age diabase, was originally molten magma that was intruded as dikes and sheets into the surrounding older rocks. An excellent example of this phenomenon is found at Boiling Springs. (DER, 1992)

The major structural features found within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed are two folds, the South Mountain anticlinorium on the east and the Massanutten synclinorium on the west. The South Mountain fold is a large asymmetrical overturned anticline, which dips to the southeast, while the Massanutten is a large scale downfold comprising locally the Cumberland Valley carbonates. Most of the major faults in the area are high-angle, reverse faults, some of which can be traced for tens of miles. The Yellow Breeches Creek thrust sheet, however, is a nearly horizontal structure, which truncates South Mountain structural features along the Yellow Breeches Creek fault. (DER, 1992)

Formations

The geology of the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed is classified according to geological formations. The following geological formations occur in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed:

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-9

Annville Formation (Oan): Light-gray, high-calcium limestone, mottled at base; maximum thickness is about 250 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Antietam Formation (Ca): Light-gray, buff-weathering quartzite and quartz schist; some ferruginous quartzite; fine-grained; maximum thickness is about 300 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Chambersburg Formation (Oc): Dark-gray limestone at the top, gray argillaceous limestone in the middle, and dark-gray cobbly limestone at the base; maximum thickness is about 770 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Diabase (Jd): Occurs primarily as dikes and sheets; the dikes are generally 5 to 100 feet thick and the sheets much thicker; in most places, the rock is dark gray to black, dense, and very fine grained, and consists of 90 to 95 percent labradorite and augite. (Socolow, 1982)

Elbrook Formation (Ce): Light-gray to yellowish-gray, finely laminated, siliceous limestone having interbeds of dolomite; cherty; thickness is about 3,000 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Epler Formation (Oe): Very finely crystalline, medium-gray limestone interbedded with gray dolomite; coarsely crystalline limestone lenses are present; approximately 1,000 feet thick. (Socolow, 1982)

Gettysburg Formation (Trg and Trgc): Coarse quartz conglomerate containing rounded pebbles and cobbles in a matrix of red sand; maximum thickness is 7,300 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Greenstone Schist (vs): Greenish-gray, lustrous phyllite and schist; some finely banded, light greenish gray, dusky yellow green, and grayish yellow green; thickness is generally less than 100 feet, locally up to 150 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Hamburg Sequence Rocks (Oh): Transported rocks of the Hamburg overthrust; gray, greenish-gray, and maroon shale, silty and siliceous in many places; dark-gray, and maroon shale, silty and siliceous in many places; dark-gray impure sandstone; medium to light-gray, finely crystalline limestone and shaly limestone; total thickness is about 3,000 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Harpers Formation (Ch): Dark-greenish gray phyllite and albite-mica schist; coarse-grained; abundant quartz; maximum thickness is about 1,500 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Heidlersburg Member of Gettysburg Formation (Trgh): Gray to white sandstone having interbeds of red shale and sandstone; some green, gray, and black shale; near diabase sheets; these rocks have been altered to white quartzite, white sandstone, and dark-purplish argillite; thickness is 4,800 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-10 Hershey Formation (Ohm): Dark-gray to black, argillaceous limestone; weathers medium gray to light brown, finely crystalline; basal conglomerate contains angular boulders of dolomite; maximum thickness may reach 1,000 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Limestone Fanglomerate (Trfl): Composed chiefly of limestone and dolomite pebbles and fragments; fragments are angular and up to 8 inches in diameter; fragments and pebbles are mostly yellow gray to light medium gray; a few shale Fanglomerate interbeds; very fine grained, red quartz matrix; approximately 200 feet thick. (Socolow, 1982)

Loudoun Formation (Cwl): Dark-gray, dusky-blue, and very dusky-red purple phyllite interbedded with fine-grained sandstone; phyllite may contain elongated, ivory-colored spots; contains conglomerate with gray quartz pebbles and pinkish-gray granite fragments, surrounded by a gray to greenish, micaceous to sandy matrix; maximum thickness is about 150 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Martinsburg Formation (Om and Oml): Buff-weathering, dark-gray shale, and thin interbeds of siltstone, metabentonite, and fine-grained sandstone; brown-weathering, medium-grained sandstone containing shale and siltstone interbeds that occurs in the middle of the formation; basal part grades into limy shale and platy-weathering, silty limestone; may be 12,800 feet thick. (Socolow, 1982)

Metabasalt (mb): Characteristically green, greenish-gray, and dark-gray; fine to medium grained; medium to coarse color banding; veins and masses of quartz; estimated thickness is in excess of 1,000 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Metarhyolite (mr): Moderate bluish-gray to grayish-blue, and grayish-red; some is banded; uniformly fine grained; some is porphyritic, containing phenocrysts of both quartz and feldspar; at least 1,000 feet thick. (Socolow, 1982)

Montalto Member of Harpers Formation (Chm): Light-gray, vitreous quartzite; sometimes green to bluish gray; dark-gray phyllite at top; approximately 75 feet thick, including 10+ feet of phyllite. (Socolow, 1982)

Myerstown Formations (Ohm): Medium to dark-gray, medium-crystalline limestone; dark-gray to black carbonaceous limestone at base; coarse calcarenite beds are common; average thickness is about 220 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Pinesburg Station Formation (Ops): Light to medium-gray, laminated to banded dolomite; contains black chert nodules and white quartz rosettes; interbeds of medium-gray limestone; maximum thickness is about 300 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-11 Quartz Fanglomerate (Trfq): Coarse conglomerate containing rounded cobbles and boulders of quartzite, sandstone, quartz, and some metarhyolite in a matrix of red sand; thickness is unknown. (Socolow, 1982)

Rockdale Run Formation (Orr): Very light gray, finely laminated, fine-grained limestone; pink to brown lenses of chert; a few dolomite beds; white quartz rosettes near the top of the formation; estimated to be 2,000 to 2,500 feet thick. (Socolow, 1982)

Shadygrove Formation (Csg): Light-gray to pinkish-gray, finely crystalline limestone; fossiliferous; abundant nodules of brown chert; few sandstone beds; few beds of laminated dolomite; estimated maximum thickness of 1,000 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

St. Paul Group (Osp): Buff-colored, magnesium limestone containing numerous layers of chert; high- calcium limestone in part; 580 feet thick. (Socolow, 1982)

Stonehenge Formation (Os): Gray, finely crystalline limestone and dark-gray laminated limestone; contains numerous flat-pebble breccia beds and shaly interbeds; maximum thickness is 1,500 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Tomstown Formation (Ct): Upper part is medium-dark-gray to dark-gray, medium-crystalline dolomite, oolitic and laminated; lower part is medium-light-gray to pinkish-gray, finely crystalline, sandy dolomite; maximum thickness is approximately 1,000 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Waynesboro Formation (Cwb): Sandy dolomite, containing fine-grained to silt-sized quartz; interbanded limestone and dolomite; chert and white vein quartz are common; limestone is dark gray to very light gray; near the top, beds of dark-red to purple sandy shale, siltstone, and sandstone occur; maximum thickness is approximately 1,000 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Weverton Formation (Cwl): Gray to purplish-gray, coarse-grained, feldspathic quartzite and quartzose conglomerate, containing rounded pebbles; maximum thickness is 1,200 feet. (Socolow, 1982)

Zullinger Formation (Cz): Interbanded medium-gray limestone and dolomite; interlaminated limestone and dolomite; thin dolomite; local thin quartzsand beds; probably 2,500 feet thick. (Socolow, 1982)

See the Geology Map for the locations of geological formations within the watershed.

Karst Topography

The Yellow Breeches Creek flows through an area of Pennsylvania that is known for its karst topography. The term karst is used to describe a type of topography that is formed over limestone or dolomite through dissolving or solution of the carbonate bedrock. A weak acid, known as carbonic acid, forms when water mixes with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As the water percolates through the soil, additional carbon dioxide is introduced from decaying organic material and bacterial activity to form more carbonic acid.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-12 When this weak acid comes in contact with carbonate bedrock, it begins to slowly dissolve the limestone and dolomite. This dissolution of the carbonate bedrock occurs along natural breaks or fractures within the bedrock. Over long periods of time, thousands to millions of years, the bedrock is continually dissolved. The fractures become enlarged allowing more of the acidic water to enter the system. Voids in the bedrock cause sinkholes and caves to be formed. Numerous sinkholes, depressions, and caves are found within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. The presence of this type of topography presents constraints to development, placement of utility systems (sewer and water lines), and a greater tendency for water contamination where development occurs. (DER, 1992)

Freestone Versus Limestone

A unique hydrogeology exists within the corridor of the Yellow Breeches Creek, which originates in the Michaux State Forest and extends approximately 49 miles to the Susquehanna River. The character of the creek changes as it flows from western, freestone areas to eastern, limestone areas. The differences between a freestone and limestone stream are formation, underlying bedrock, and source of water. Freestone streams gather their flow gradually as they grow from a tiny trickle into a broad river. Their main water source is from overland runoff, which causes these streams to have high fluctuations in water level. Limestone streams originate from underground sources like springs and form rather quickly. The limestone streams fluctuate very little due to a constant flow of groundwater. These streams also maintain a constant year-round temperature in the 50 to 60 degree range. (DER, 1992)

The headwaters of the Yellow Breeches Creek originates in the Michaux State Forest as a freestone stream. Freestone waters have naturally low fertility and are susceptible to acid precipitation, as well as other forms of pollution. While the state forest lands provide protection from some pollution sources, many of the freestone, headwater streams originating on South Mountain are impacted by acid rain. As the Yellow Breeches Creek flows into the limestone bedrock of the Cumberland Valley, the carbonate rocks dissolve to form carbonic acid that releases carbon dioxide and water. This nutrient-rich water is good for building viable natural communities accommodating increased plant photosynthesis and growth of microplankton, which enhances the food chain and provides for higher level biotic communities. The limestone along the main channel has allowed the stream to flourish not only because of its carbonate and carbon dioxide producing capabilities, but also its neutralizing capabilities, which protect the water from increased acidity. Being alkaline, it is a very good buffer of acidity and the source of the stream’s natural fertility. (DER, 1992)

Geological Features

Numerous outstanding geological features are present in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. The following features occur within the area of study:

Boiling Springs Caves is a group of three caves located near an abandoned limestone quarry in Boiling Springs.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-13 Boiling Springs is located at the head of a small lake, serving as the site of a community park in South Middleton Township. Boiling Springs has a median flow of 11,500 gallons per minute and ranks seventh in size within Pennsylvania. It is one of the most picturesque springs in Pennsylvania attributable to its unique origin. Boiling Springs was formed from folded limestones and dolomites, which were injected by a near vertical, thin diabase dike. This configuration forms a hydrologic barrier and confines the groundwater between the dikes creating pressure which sends its waters to the surface producing a bubbling/boiling effect.

Bowmansdale Cave is located in the limestone quarry at the west end of Bowmansdale in Upper Allen Township. The cave is a crooked crevice along one or more joints in the Jacksonburg limestone, with smooth flowstone walls. Stalagmites and stalactites are present. Access to the cave can be made by rope or ladder.

Centerville Cave is located off Route 233 at Centerville in Penn Township. The entrance is in a low outcrop, which opens into a 30-foot long room with an irregular and pitted ceiling and walls covered by flowstone.

Chimney Rocks is located in the southwestern corner of Penn Township. Chimney Rocks is a spire of quartzite in the shape of a chimney that rises above the surrounding ridge line. A USGS triangulation station and bronze marker are located at this site.

Craighead Cave is a small cave located four miles south of Carlisle in South Middleton Township in the north bank of the Yellow Breeches Creek. Craighead Cave, commonly referred to as “Bear Hole”, is often used as a retreat for wild animals and is frequently flooded by the creek.

Hammonds Rocks is located 4.4 miles southwest of Mount Holly Springs Borough on the crest of South Mountain and provides a magnificent overlook and view of the Blue Ridge province. Outcrops of Weverton conglomerate show pebbles that have been elongated due to deformation.

Huntsdale Hatchery Springs is located in Penn Township. These springs are owned and used by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission for its Huntsdale Hatchery. This group of three springs is the sixth largest in Pennsylvania, with a combined median flow of 12,000 gallons per minute.

Lewis Rocks is located in Southampton Township, approximately 13 miles north of Caledonia and Route 30, on Big Hill on South Mountain, within Michaux State Forest.

Lisburn Cave is located on the York County side of the Yellow Breeches Creek in Fairview Township. This cave formed in sediments containing limestone conglomerate and consists of approximately 700 feet of passages.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-14 Pole Steeple is located in Cooke Township about two miles east of the Village of Pine Grove Furnace, 0.3 miles north of the Appalachian Trail and 0.4 miles south of the Laurel Lake and Pine Grove Furnace State Park. This magnificent pillar of rock rises over South Mountain and provides an exceptional view of Mountain Creek Valley and the surrounding highlands. Pole Steeple is a hard, light-gray quartzite (Montalto member of the Harpers Formation, Cambrian age). Less resistant rocks in the valley to the north around Laurel Lake are metarhyolite and dolomite. These two rock types were faulted upward against the quartzite, and, because they erode more rapidly than the quartzite, they now occupy a lower topographic position.

Sunset Rocks is located in Cooke Township on Little Rocky Ridge, about one mile west of Pine Grove Furnace State Park. A balanced pinnacle about 15 feet high is a striking solitary feature of Sunset Rocks. Different rates of erosion have caused this hard, dense, light gray, coarse-grained sandstone and quartzite (Weaverton Formation, Cambrian age) to weather in relief against the surrounding rocks. Individual beds also may weather faster than others, causing the balanced pinnacle.

Walnut Bottom Cave is a small cave located 0.5 mile north of Walnut Bottom in South Newton Township. The cave has been filled and is no longer accessible.

White Rocks is located west of Dillsburg Borough on the north rim of South Mountain in Monroe Township. White Rocks is a pinnacle ridge of quartzite of the Antietam Formation crossed at Center Point Knob by the Appalachian Trail.

Williams Grove Caves is a group of two small caves located in an abandoned Williams Grove quarry in Carroll Township. Cave #1 is 70 feet long and ranges in height from 5 to 10 feet; it contains smoothly rounded walls that have thin, sharp, projecting quartz veins. Cave #2 is a 3-foot high fissure that dips downward for approximately 30 feet.

Yellow Breeches Cave is located north of Lisburn and 1,000 feet downstream from a steel truss bridge over the Yellow Breeches Creek in Fairview Township. The cave is a fissure in limestone at creek level that extends approximately 50 feet.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-15 WATER RESOURCES

An inventory of water resources within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed was completed as part of this report. The inventory of water resources included a review of Chapter 93 criteria and the 2004 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (PIMAR). Scenic resources including lakes, ponds, and wetlands were located on available maps. Available information related to water supply, groundwater, permitted dams, and floodplains was collected as part of this inventory. See the Water Features Map for the location of water resources within the watershed.

Chapter 93 Criteria

Chapter 93 sets forth water quality standards for surface waters of the Commonwealth, including wetlands. These standards are based upon water uses which are to be protected and will be considered by the Department in its regulation of discharges. When an interstate or international agency under an interstate compact or international agreement establishes water quality standards applicable to surface waters of the Commonwealth, including wetlands, more stringent than those in this title, the more stringent standards apply. See Table B.4 for a summary of the Chapter 93 criteria for the watershed. The following list of symbols applies specifically to protected uses of the Yellow Breeches Creek and its tributaries:

Aquatic Life

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

(TSF) Trout Stocking—Maintenance of stocked trout from February 15 to July 31, and maintenance and propagation of fish species and additional flora and fauna that are indigenous to a warm water habitat.

Special Protection

(HQ) High Quality Waters

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-16 Table B.4 Chapter 93 Criteria (PA DEP, 2003)

Water Uses Stream Class Zone County Protected Exceptions Yellow Breeches Creek 2 Main Stem, Source to LR 21012 Cumberland HQ-CWF None Unnamed Trib to Yellow Breeches Creek 3 Basin, Source to LR 21012 Cumberland HQ-CWF None Hairy Springs Hollow 3 Basin Cumberland HQ-CWF None Sthromes Hollow 3 Basin Cumberland HQ-CWF None Watery Hollow 3 Basin Cumberland HQ-CWF None Peach Orchard Hollow 3 Basin Cumberland HQ-CWF None Bettem Hollow 3 Basin Cumberland HQ-CWF None State Road Hollow 3 Basin Cumberland HQ-CWF None Irishtown Gap Hollow 3 Basin Cumberland HQ-CWF None Kings Gap Hollow 3 Basin Cumberland HQ-CWF None Spruce Run 3 Basin Cumberland HQ-CWF None Mountain Creek 3 Basin, Source to Toland Cumberland HQ-CWF None Mountain Creek 3 Basin, Toland to Mt. Holly Springs Cumberland CWF None Mountain Creek 3 Basin, Mt. Holly Springs to Mouth Cumberland TSF None Old Town Run 3 Basin Cumberland HQ-CWF None Yellow Breeches Creek 2 Main Stem, LR 21012 to Mouth Cumberland, York, Dauphin CWF Delete DO1, Add DO4 Unnamed Trib to Yellow Breeches Creek 3 Basin, LR 21012 to Mouth Cumberland, York CWF None Dogwood Run 3 Basin Cumberland CWF None Stony Run 3 Basin York CWF None Pippins Run 3 Basin York CWF None Cedar Run 3 Basin Cumberland CWF None

Notes: Locust Point Road is L.R. 21012. Class 2 is tributary to the Susquehanna River. Class 3 is tributary to Class 2.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-17 2004 PIMAR

For 2004, PA DEP has adopted an integrated format for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) reporting and Section 303(d) listing. This new report is entitled the “2004 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report” and satisfies the requirements of both Sections 305(b) and 303(d). The narrative report contains summaries of various water quality management programs including water quality standards, point source control and nonpoint source control. It also includes descriptions of programs to protect lakes, wetlands and groundwater quality. (PA DEP, 2004)

PA DEP has an ongoing program to assess the quality of waters in Pennsylvania and identify streams and other bodies of water that do not meet water quality standards (WQSs) as “impaired.” Water quality standards are comprised of the uses (including antidegradation) that waters can support and goals established to protect those uses. Uses include, among other things, aquatic life, human health, and recreation, while the goals are numerical or narrative water quality criteria that express the in-stream levels of substances that must be achieved to support the uses. (PA DEP, 2004)

Section 303(d) of the Act requires states to list all impaired waters not supporting uses even after appropriate and required water pollution control technologies have been applied. For example, a waterbody impacted by a point source discharge that is not complying with its effluent limits would not be listed on the 303(d) list. The Department would correct the water impairment by taking a compliance action against the discharger. If the waterbody still did not meet water quality standards after achieving compliance with its permit requirements, it would be included on the 303(d) list of impaired waters. The 303(d) list includes the reason for impairment, which may be one or more point sources (like industrial or sewage discharges), or non-point sources (like abandoned mine lands or agricultural runoff). (PA DEP, 2004)

Table B.5 summarizes tributaries within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed that are included on the 2004 PIMAR.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-18 Table B.5 2004 PIMAR (PA DEP, 2004) Chapter 93 Tributaries

List Impaired Tributary Length Impairment Cause of Impairment Study Length Hairy Springs Hollow 4.3 mi. 4.3 mi. pH Atmospheric Deposition Sthromes Hollow 5.0 mi. 3.3 mi. pH Atmospheric Deposition Watery Hollow 4.6 mi. 4.6 mi. pH Atmospheric Deposition Peach Orchard Hollow 3.4 mi. 1.9 mi. pH Atmospheric Deposition Bettem Hollow 3.8 mi. 2.1 mi. pH Atmospheric Deposition State Road Hollow 2.3 mi. 0.4 mi. pH Atmospheric Deposition Irishtown Gap Hollow 3.4 mi. 1.1 mi. pH Atmospheric Deposition King’s Gap Hollow 3.0 mi. 1.1 mi. pH Atmospheric Deposition Old Town Run 3.4 mi. 2.3 mi. Siltation Unknown Suspended Solids, Dogwood Run 5.7 mi. 2.6 mi. Organic Enrichment, Municipal Point Source Low D.O. Siltation, Organic Stony Run 7.2 mi. 1.4 mi. Enrichment, Low Agriculture D.O. Fishers Run 2.4 mi. 1.6 mi. Siltation, Low D.O. Agriculture,Construction Natural Sources, Urban Cedar Run 2.7 mi. 1.2 mi. Siltation, Nutrients Runoff/Storm Sewers, Unknown Source Total Impaired River Miles 27.9 mi.

Wetlands

Wetlands within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed were identified through a review of the National Wetlands Inventory. (NWI, 2004) Wetlands are defined in terms of a combination of hydrology, soils, and vegetation. The definition used the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is as follows:

Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adopted for life in saturated soil conditions, including swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

Types of wetlands are described based on their vegetation. Forested Wetlands are wet habitats where large woody trees such as American Sycamore, American Elm, Box Elder, Red or Silver Maple, River Birch, Blackgum, and Green Ash exist. Scrub-Shrub Wetlands are inhabited by small trees and low shrubby plants such as spice bush, swamp honeysuckle, highbush blueberry, winterberry, alder and willows. Emergent wetlands are vegetated by grasses, sedges, rushes, and other herbaceous plants that emerge from the water or soil surface. Emergent wetlands are only one-third as abundant as the forested, and only half as common as the scrub-shrub wetlands.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-19 Wetlands have unique environmental characteristics. They act as natural flood control devices to store floodwaters, slow and help purify runoff, and act to recharge groundwater. Wetlands also provide critical wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. The most notable wetland area in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed is the Mount Holly Preserve. The 913- acre Mount Holly Preserve is an exceptional value wetland area along South Mountain. This unique site, located in the Borough of Mount Holly Springs, South Middleton and Dickinson Townships, supports a diverse community of species. (Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, 2000) In March 1992, The Nature Conservancy donated the preserve to Cumberland County as the county’s first dedicated open space. The Nature Conservancy continues to manage the core 200-acre wetland and conduct trail maintenance. Hunting, fishing, and hiking is permitted on upland portions of the preserve. The majority of the wetlands within the watershed are found west of S.R. 15 and predominantly within the floodplains and along major streams such as Yellow Breeches Creek, Mountain Creek, Dogwood Run and Old Town Run. See the Water Features Map for the locations of mapped wetlands within the watershed.

Floodplains

Floodplains are defined as low-lying, flat areas adjacent to streams, which are subject to frequent, periodic flooding. For the purpose of land use planning, those areas delineated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as within the 100-year flood boundary and those areas delineated as floodplain soils in the Soil Survey of Cumberland and Perry Counties, Pennsylvania, issued April 1986, should be considered as floodplains.

Floodplains are an intrinsic and beneficial aspect of the natural landscape. They allow for an increase in drainage during rainy periods and buffer the stream from any detrimental effects of surrounding land uses.

Benefits to preserving floodplains include the following:

• To prevent unnecessary property damage • To minimize danger to the public health by protecting the water supply and promoting safe and sanitary drainage • To reduce the financial burdens imposed on communities by flooding • To comply with provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program and the Pennsylvania Flood Plain Management Act • To provide sufficient drainage courses to carry abnormal flows of stormwater during periods of heavy precipitation • To provide areas for groundwater absorption for recharge of subsurface water supplies

See the Water Features Map for the 100-year floodplain boundaries within the watershed.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-20 Lakes and Ponds

Significant lakes and large ponds were identified on USGS topographic maps as part of the water resources for this report. See Table B.6 for a summary of the lakes and ponds in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. These waterbodies are valuable recreation areas for residents of the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. Laurel Lake and Fuller Lake, in particular, cater to a variety of recreational activities including fishing, swimming, boating, camping and ice skating. See the Water Features Map for the location of lakes and large ponds within the watershed.

Table B.6 Significant Lakes and Large Ponds (USGS, 2004)

Name County Municipality Big Pond Cumberland Southampton/South Newton Twp. Children’s Lake Cumberland South Middleton Township Fuller Lake Cumberland Cooke Township Laurel Lake Cumberland Cooke Township

Water Supply

Community water services are provided throughout the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed by community water systems. These systems are owned by various entities including authorities, investors, water associations, and municipal governments. Some of the smaller water systems service mobile home parks. These smaller systems are self-contained and allow for minimal expansions to surrounding areas. Pennsylvania American Water Company (PAWC) is the largest water company in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. A table listing twenty-nine (29) water suppliers was compiled as part of the scope of this project, but this information is not included in the final report as a result of water related security concerns. (PA DEP, 2004; ACCP; CCCP; YCCP, 2004)

Population growth projections for the three counties were taken from the respective comprehensive plans; these trends were then applied to the municipalities within the watershed. Current approximate total permitted water use within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed, as per PA DEP records, is 17 million gallons per day. Assuming a constant per capita water use, it is estimated that total permitted water use by the year 2020 could be as high as 20.75 million gallons per day. (PA DEP, 2004)

Groundwater

The topography of the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed determines the drainage patterns and surface flow characteristics. Steeper slopes can contribute to increased runoff and erosion and decreased infiltration of water. The direction of groundwater flow is controlled in part by the topography. Bedrock geology has ultimate control on the storage and flow of groundwater. Geologic factors such as rock type, porosity, permeability, rock strata inclination, faults, joints, folds, bedding planes, and solution channels affect the supply and flow of groundwater. Natural groundwater quality is a result of interaction between

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-21 the groundwater and the bedrock with which it is in contact. The more soluble bedrock types will allow more compounds to become dissolved in the groundwater. Groundwater quality will eventually affect surface water quality as it percolates into surface streams as base flow. (DER, 1992)

The Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed is primarily located within the Ridge and Valley physiographic province. The mountains forming the northern and southern borders of Cumberland County are part of the ridge portion of the province. Rock types in the ridge section are quartzite, sandstones, and conglomerates. Most of these rock types are tightly cemented and have a low primary porosity; they are hard and brittle so that numerous joints have developed. In general, the number and size of joint openings decrease with depth. With quartzite, jointing is the most important factor in groundwater production. A major portion of the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed is recognized at the Great Valley, composed of limestone and dolomite. Often in the Great Valley, where limestone and dolomite occur at the surface or subsurface, serious problems may be expected from subsidence and sinkholes. Surface drainage passes directly into the groundwater systems through sinkholes creating a high potential for groundwater pollution. (DER, 1992)

Limestone geology usually produces a high groundwater yield. One of the highest yielding springs in Pennsylvania is located in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed – Boiling Springs in South Middleton Township. The remaining portion of the watershed is composed of Martinsburg shale. The Martinsburg shale provides about half of the wells of the Great Valley with an adequate amount of groundwater for domestic needs. The pore spaces in these shales are very small. Fortunately, joints break the shale and it is these joints, as well as spaces between bedding planes, that allow for some water movement. In hard, brittle shale, joints are more open and tend to have somewhat greater yields. (DER, 1992) See Table B.7 for a summary of the groundwater recharge rates within the watershed.

Landfills within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed could potentially impact both ground and surface waters. Considerable research, including inquiries to county officials and PA DEP, was conducted as part of this assessment to determine the locations of landfills, although no specific information was provided.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-22 Table B.7 Groundwater Recharge Rates1 (Taylor, Larry E. and William H. Werkheiser, 1984)

Average Annual Groundwater Hydrogeologic Unit Recharge (million gallons/day/mile2) Shale in the western Great Valley and shale containing significant graywacke 0.53 in the eastern Great Valley Shale of the eastern Great Valley not containing significant graywacke .44 Carbonate rocks in the eastern Great Valley .75 Carbonate rocks in the western Great Valley .64 Sedimentary rocks of the western Triassic Lowland section .34 Sedimentary rocks of the eastern Triassic Lowland section .51 Carbonate rocks of the western Conestoga Valley section .51 Carbonate rocks of the eastern Conestoga Valley section .70 Shale of the northern Conestoga Valley section .53 Metamorphic rocks of the Conestoga Valley section (west of the Susquehanna .31 River) Metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont Uplands section .47

1The combination of dominant lithology and physiographic location was used to define hydrogeologic units.

Permitted Dams

Many dams are located within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. Historically, these dams were used to provide water power to mills, factories and butcher shops.

Dam heights in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed are generally moderate to low, usually 10 feet or less. Most of the dams on the Yellow Breeches Creek are considered to be minor structures primarily used for irrigation, water supply, intakes, recreation, fish propagation, landscaping, water power, etc. The flood hazard potential is essentially nonexistent on these dams. Property losses would occur only in the reach just upstream from the dam. Four (4) dams in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed have larger drainage areas and are considered to have an intermediate flood hazard potential. These dams include Spanglers Mill, Yellow Breeches Milling Company, Mechanicsburg Gas and Water Company, and Riverton Water Company. The permitted dams in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed are constructed of a variety of materials such as earth, masonry, concrete, timber, and rockfill. (DER, 1992)

A table listing twenty-five (25) permitted dams within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed was compiled as part of the scope of this project and is shown on the Water Features Map. (PA DEP, 2004) Information in the table includes dam name, permittee, and location.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-23 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Habitat

The Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed supports an abundance of wildlife. There are a variety of non- game species of birds, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals. Game species include white-tailed deer, gray squirrel, cottontail rabbit, turkey, ruffed grouse, ring-neck pheasant, woodcock, mourning dove, and various waterfowl. There are also red and gray fox, mink, muskrat, raccoon, weasel, opossum, black bear, bobcat, and beaver. (DER, 1992)

The Yellow Breeches Creek is respected as an outstanding fishery resource. The limestone waters of the Yellow Breeches Creek provide an excellent habitat for trout. While brown trout are more commonly present throughout the portion of the Yellow Breeches Creek which extends from the PAWC intake in New Cumberland Borough to the vicinity of the Route 233 bridge approximately 41 miles upstream, other trout species including rainbow trout are found in the lower reaches as well and brook trout constitute an important resource in the headwaters. The trout stocking and special catch and release areas provide diversity for the fishermen. The Yellow Breeches Creek attracts fishermen from the local area, state, and surrounding states to its banks to enjoy this valuable fishery resource. (DER, 1992)

The portion of Michaux State Forest in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed is designated as an important bird area by the Audubon Society and provides habitat to many interior forest bird species. This area supports a mix of both northern and southern bird populations, including high densities of Hooded Warbler, Eastern Wood-Pewee, Canada Warbler, Hermit Thrush, Kentucky Warbler, and Worm- Eating Warbler. During migration and summers, the mixed forests attract Wood Thrush, Veery, and Ovenbirds. Laurel Lake and two large reservoirs attract waterfowl and wading birds including Wood Duck, Common Loon, Pied-Billed Grebe, Common Merganser, Canada Goose, Mallard, Great Blue Heron, and Green Heron. Whip-poor-wills are also present. Several rock outcroppings in this area provide views of raptors during the fall migration season. (National Audubon Society, 2004)

The United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) were contacted as sources of additional information for habitats of concern, but no additional information was available at the time of the writing of this report.

The Nature Conservancy lists two protected places within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. The first is the Mount Holly Preserve which was donated by the Nature Conservancy to Cumberland County in 1992. The second is the Kings Gap Environmental Education Center which was purchased in 1973 and then transferred to the Pennsylvania DER. (Nature Conservancy, 2005)

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-24 Vegetation

Forests surrounding the Yellow Breeches Creek are composed of second and third-growth hardwoods. The primary forest cover type is the oak-hickory association, which consists mainly of white oak, red oak, and hickory, although black oak and chestnut oak are dominant in places. The principal associated species are yellow-poplar, shagbark hickory, white ash, red maple, and American beech. Table B.8 shows other tree species located in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. The soils within the watershed are capable of supporting good stands of red oak, sugar maple, yellow-poplar, and white pine. Trees grow better in the deeper, well-drained soils than on the soils that are shallow to bedrock and poorly drained.

The Michaux State Forest covers approximately 43.6 square miles within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed, or 20% of the total watershed area. These woods provide recreational, wildlife and aesthetic value, while also helping to reduce erosion. American sycamores can be found along the streambanks of the Yellow Breeches Creek. Black walnut and pin oak are also species found within the watershed. (DER, 1992)

The Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed also provides habitat to numerous species of trees, shrubs, vines, and other herbaceous plants. See Threatened and Endangered Species below for vegetative species of special concern within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed.

Table B.8 Trees in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed (DER, 1992)

Common Name Scientific Name Ash, White Fraxinus americana Aspen, Bigtooth Populus grandidentata Aspen, Quaking Populus tremuloides Basswood Tilia Americana Beech, American Fagus grandifolia Birch, Black Betula lenta Birch, Gray Betula populifolia Birch, Yellow Betula alleghaniensis Cherry, Black Prunus serotina Cherry, Pin Prunus pennsylvanica Cucumbertree Magnolia acuminata Elm, American Ulmus Americana Elm, Slippery Ulmus rubra Gum, Black Nyssa sylvatica Hemlock, Eastern Tsuga Canadensis Hickory, Shagbark Carya ovata Maple, Red Acer rubrum Maple, Sugar Acer saccharum Oak, Black Quercus velutina Oak, Chestnut Quercus prinus

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-25 Common Name Scientific Name Oak, Pin Quercus palustris Oak, Red Quercus rubra Oak, Scarlet Quercus coccinea Oak, White Quercus alba Pine, Pitch Pinus rigida Pine, Shortleaf Pinus echinata Pine, Virginia Pinus virginiana Pine, White Pinus strobes Poplar, Tulip Liriodendron tulipifera Sycamore, American Platanus occidentalis Walnut, Black Juglans nigra

Wildlife

The Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed supports a broad variety of mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, and fish species. The following tables summarize species known to exist within the watershed.

Table B.9 Mammals in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed (DER, 1992)

Common Name Scientific Name Bat, Big Brown Eptesicus fuscus Bat, Evening Nycticeius humeralis Bat, Hoary Lasiurus cinereus Bat, Red Lasiurus borealis Bat, Silver-Haired Lasionnycteris noctivagans Bear, Black Ursus americanus Beaver Castor canadensis Bobcat Lynx rufus Chipmunk, Eastern Tamias striatus Cottontail, Eastern Sylvilagus floridanus Coyote Canis latrans Deer, Whitetail Odocoileus virginianus Fox, Gray Urocyon cinereoargenteus Fox, Red Vulpes vulpes Mink Mustela vison Mole, Eastern Scalopus aquaticus Mole, Star-Nosed Condylura cristata Mouse, Deer Peromyscus maniculatus Mouse, House Mus musculus Mouse, Meadow Jumping Zapus hudsonius Mouse, White-Footed Peromyscus leucopus Muskrat Ondatra zibethica Myotis, Keen’s Myotis keenii Myotis, Little Brown Myotis lucifugus

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-26 Common Name Scientific Name Myotis, Northern Myotis septentrionalis Opossum Didelphis virginiana Pipistrel, Eastern Pipistrellus subflavus Raccoon Procyon lotor Rat, Norway Rattus norvegicus Shrew, Least Cryptotis parva Shrew, Least Sorex dispar Shrew, Maryland Sorex fontinalis Shrew, Masked Sorex cinereus Shrew, Northern Shorttail Blarina brevicauda Shrew, Pygmy Sorex hoyi Shrew, Smoky Sorex fumeus Skunk, Striped Mephitis mephitis Squirrel, Eastern Gray Sciurus carolinensis Squirrel, Red Tamiascuiruus hudsonicus Squirrel, Southern Flying Glaucomys volans Vole, Meadow Microtus pennsylvanicus Vole, Pine Pitymys pinetorum Vole, Southern Red-backed Clethrionomys gapperi Weasel, Longtail Mustela frenata Woodchuck Marmota monax Woodrat, Eastern Neotoma magister

Table B.10 Birds in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed (DER, 1992)

Common Name Scientific Name Bittern, American Botaurus lentiginosus Blackbird, Red-Winged Agelaius phoeniceus Blackbird, Rusty Euphagus carolinus Bluebird, Eastern Sialia sialis Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Canvasback Aythya valisineria Coot, American Fulica americana Cormorant, Double-Crested Phalacrocorax auritus Cowbird, Brown-Headed Molothrus ater Crow, Fish Corvus ossifragus Dickcissel Spiza americana Dove, Mourning Zenaida macroura Dowitcher, Short-Billed Limnodromus griseus Duck, American Bolack Anas rubripes Duck, Ring-Necked Aythya collaris Duck, Ruddy Oxyura jamaicensis Duck, Wood Aix sponsa Dunlin Calidris alpina Eagle, Bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-27 Common Name Scientific Name Egret, Cattle Bubulcus ibis Egret, Great Casmerodius albus Egret, Snowy Egretta thula Falcon, Peregrine Falco peregrinus Finch, House Carpodacus mexicanus Gadwall Anas strepera Gallinule, Common Gallinula chloropus Goldeneye, Common Bucephala clangula Goose, Canada Branta canadensis Goose, White-Fronted Anser albifrons Grackle, Common Quiscalus quiscula Grebe, Pied-Billed Podilymbus podiceps Grosbeak, Blue Guiraca caerulea Gull, Bonaparte's Larus Philadelphia Gull, Herring Larus argentatus Gull, Ring-Billed Larus delawarensis Hawk, Red-Shouldered Bueteo lineatus Heron, Black-Crowned Night Nycticorax nycticorax Heron, Great Blue Ardea herodia Heron, Green Butorides striatus Heron, Yellow-Crowned Night Nyctanassa violacea Ibis, Glossy Plegadis falcinellus Kestrel, American Falco sparverius Kingfisher, Belted Megaceryle alcyon Kinglet, Golden-Crowned Regulus satrapa Kinglet, Ruby-Crowned Regulus calendula Loon, Common Gavia immer Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Merganser, Common Mergus merganser Merganser, Hooded Laphodytes cucullatus Merganser, Red-Breasted Mergus serrator Merlin Falco columbarius Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis Oriole, Northern Icterus galbula Oriole, Orchard Icterus spurius Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus Owl, Short-eared Asio flammeus Pintail, Northern Anas acuta Pipit, Water Anthus spinoletta Plover, Black-Bellied Pluvialis squatarola Plover, Lesser-Golden Pluvialis dominica Plover, Semipalmated Charadrius semipalmatus Rail, Virginia Rallus limicola Redhead Aythya americana Sandpiper, Pectoral Calidris melanotos Sandpiper, Semipalmated Calidris pusilla

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-28 Common Name Scientific Name Sandpiper, Solitary Tringa solitaria Sandpiper, Spotted Actitis macularia Sapsucker, Yellow-Bellied Sphyrapicus varius Scaup, Greater Aythya marila Scaup, Lesser Aythya affinis Scoter, Black Melanitta nigra Shrike, Loggerhead Laniu ludovicianus Shrike, Northern Lanius excubitor Snipe, Common Capella gallinago Sora Porzana carolina Sparrow, Henslow’s Ammodramus henslowii Sparrow, White-Throated Zonotrichia albicollis Starling, European Strunus vulgaris Swallow, Rough-Winged Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Swallow, Tree Iridoprocne bicolor Swan, Mute Cygnus olor Swan, Whistling Olor columbianus Teal, Blue-Winged Anas discors Teal, Green-Winged Anas crecca Tern, Black Chlidonias niger Thrush, Gray-Cheeked Catharus minimus Thrush, Hermit Catharus guttatus Thrush, Swainson’s Catharus ustulatus Thrush, Wood Hylocichla mustelina Veery Catharus fuscescens Vireo, White-Eyed Vireo griseus Vulture, Black Coragyps atratus Warbler, Canada Wilsonia canadensis Warbler, Hooded Wilsonia citrina Warbler, Kentucky Oporornis formosus Warbler, Worm-eating Helmitheros vermivora Warbler, Yellow Dendroica petechia Waterthrush, Louisiana seiurus motacilla Waterthrush, Northern Seiurus noveboracensis Waswing, Cedar Bombycilla cedrorum Wigeon, American Anas americana Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferous Woodcock, American Philohela minor Woodpecker, Pileated Dryocopus pileatus Wood-Pewee, Eastern Contopus virens Wren, Carolina Thryothorus ludovicianus Wren, Marsh Cistothorus palustris Wren, Sedge Cistothorus platensis Wren, Winter Troglodytes troglodytes Yellowlegs, Greater Tringa melanoleuca Yellowlegs, Lesser Tringa flavipes

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-29 Table B.11 Reptiles in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed (DER, 1992)

Common Name Scientific Name Lizard, Northern Fence Sceloporus undulates hyacinthinus Northern Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen Skink, Five-lined Eumeces fasciatus Snake, Black Rat Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta Snake, Eastern Garter Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis Snake, Eastern Hognose Heterodon platyrhinos Snake, Eastern Milk Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum Snake, Northern Black Racer Coluber constrictor constrictor Snake, Northern Brown Storeria dekayi dekayi Snake, Northern Redbelly Storeria occipitomaculata occipitomaculata Snake, Northern Ringneck Diadophis punctatus edwardsii Snake, Northern Water Nerodia sipedon Snake, Ribbon Thamnophis sauritus Snake, Queen Regina septemvittata Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus Turtle, Bog Clemmys muhlenbergi Turtle, Common Snapping Chelydra serpentina Turtle, Eastern Box Terrapene carolina Turtle, Map Graptemys geographica Turtle, Painted Chrysemys picta Turtle, Spotted Clemmys guttata Turtle, Stinkpot Sternotherusu odoratus Turtle, Wood Clemmys insculpta

Table B.12 Amphibians in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed (DER, 1992)

Common Name Scientific Name Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana Frog, Eastern Gray Tree Hyla versicolor versiculor Frog, Northern Cricket Acris crepitans Frog, Northern Green Rana clamitans melanota Frog, Northern Leopard Rana pipiens Frog, Pickerel Rana palustris Frog, Upland Chorus Pseudacris crucifer crucifer Frog, Wood Rana sylvatica Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Newt, Red-Spotted Notophthalmus viridescens Peeper, Northern Spring Hyla crucifer Salamander, Eastern Mud Pseudotriton montanus montanus Salamander, Four-toed Hemidactylium scutatum Salamander, Jefferson Ambystoma jeffersonianum Salamander, Longtail Eurycea longicauda Salamander, Marbled Ambystoma opacum Salamander, Northern Dusky Desmognathus fuscus

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-30 Common Name Scientific Name Salamander, Northern Red Pseudotriton rubber Salamander, Northern Spring Gyrinophilus porphyriticus Salamander, Northern Two-Lined Eurycea bislineata Salamander, Redback Plethodon cinereus Salamander, Slimy Plethodon glutinosus glutinosus Salamander, Spotted Ambystoma maculatum Toad, Eastern American Buto americanus americanus Toad, Eastern Spadefoot Scaphiopus holbrookii holbrookii Toad, Fowler’s Bufo woodhousii fowleri

Table B.13 Fish Species (S.R. 233 to Boiling Springs) (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), 1978)

Common Name Scientific Name Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys Atratulus Bluegill Lepomis Macrochirus Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales Notatus Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Brown Trout Salmo trutta Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Chain Pickerel Esox niger Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Cutlips Minnow Exoglossum maxillingua Fallfish Semotilus corporalis Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae Margined Madtom Noturus insignis Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris Shield Darter Percina peltata Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius Tessellated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-31 Table B.14 Fish Species (Boiling Springs to Mouth) (PFBC, 1978)

Common Name Scientific Name Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Brown Trout Salmo trutta Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Chain Pickerel Esox niger Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Cutlips Minnow Exoglossum maxillingua Fallfish Semotilus corporalis Fantail Darter Etheostoma flabellare Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae Margined Madtom Noturus insignis Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus River Chub Nocomis micropogon Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus Shield Darter Percina peltata Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius Swallowtail Shiner Notropis procne Tessellated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis

Fish species lists were compiled from stream survey data provided by PFBC.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-32 Threatened and Endangered Species

Pennsylvania endangered species are in imminent danger of extinction or extirpation throughout their range in Pennsylvania if the deleterious factors affecting them continue to operate. These are: 1) species whose numbers have already been reduced to a critically low level or whose habitat has been so drastically reduced or degraded that immediate action is required to prevent their extirpation from the Commonwealth; or 2) species whose extreme rarity or peripherality places them in potential danger of precipitous declines or sudden extirpation throughout their range in Pennsylvania; or 3) species that have been classified as Pennsylvania extirpated, but which are subsequently found to exist in Pennsylvania as long as the above first and second conditions are met; or 4) species determined to be endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Public Law 93-205. (PNDI, 2004)

Pennsylvania threatened species may become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout their range in Pennsylvania unless the casual factors affecting the organism are abated. These are: 1) species whose populations within the Commonwealth are decreasing or have been heavily depleted by adverse factors and, while not actually endangered, are still in critical condition; 2) species whose populations may be relatively abundant in the Commonwealth but are under severe threat from serious adverse factors that have been identified and documented; or 3) species whose populations are rare or peripheral and in possible danger of severe decline throughout their range in Pennsylvania; or 4) species determined to be threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. (PNDI, 2004)

The Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed provides habitat to several threatened and endangered species. The Bog Turtle and Eastern Mud Salamander are listed as Pennsylvania endangered species. The Sedge Wren is listed as a Pennsylvania threatened species.

The bog turtle is among the smallest North American turtles. Adults are 4 to 4½ inches long. The upper shell is dark brown with yellow to orange markings and covered with ridged plates that are eventually worn smooth; the lower shell is dark brown or black, sometimes with scattered light markings. A large red-orange or yellow blotch behind each eye is the most conspicuous color feature of an otherwise brown body lightly marked with orange or yellow. Mating takes place in May and early June. Each female then digs a nest and lays a clutch of three to five eggs during June or July. Eggs receive no parental care, and hatchlings leave the nest several months later. Adults and young feed on a variety of plant and animal food, such as berries, insects and even carrion. They do not wander far from hibernating sites in spring seepage, which they leave in April or May and return to in late summer. Summer hibernation (aestivation) may occur during July and August; individuals are otherwise encountered basking on sedge tussocks or moving slowly about in spring runs under concealing vegetation. When danger threatens, individuals burrow rapidly into the mucky bottom of spring runs. Bog turtles live in relatively open portions of sphagnum bogs, swamps or marshy meadows with slow moving, spring fed streams or spring runs with soft bottoms. The primary reason for the bog turtle’s status is the draining or other destruction of its habitat. Because bog turtles have always been considered the rarest of North American turtles, they are highly valued by turtle fanciers in this country, and possibly twice as much overseas. Many, therefore,

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-33 have been illegally removed for commercial purposes. Since their habitats are widely separated, other turtles are not likely to move in and replace those removed. (PFBC, 2004)

Bog Turtle

The eastern mud salamander ranges from 3½ to 6 inches. It most closely resembles the northern red salamander, but its eye color is brown, not yellow, and the dark spots are fewer in number and more circular. The back color is a darker red-brown that does not blend into the lighter red of the sides and belly. Nothing has been recorded concerning this species in Pennsylvania. In Virginia and the Carolinas, eastern mud salamanders engage in courtship in the fall and breed in early winter. Females deposit up to 200 eggs every other year. Transformation from larva to adult normally occurs in 17 months, but some take an additional year. Males mature in three years, females in four. Eastern mud salamanders may be found in the fine, black muck under stones and logs, or burrowing in spring seepages, spring-fed brooks or swamps, along the coastal plain or Piedmont regions from southern New Jersey to Georgia. The first specimen of the eastern mud salamander to be described was taken from South Mountain near Carlisle, Cumberland County. Despite repeated searches, additional specimens from this locality have not been found, but the animal has been found at a nearby site. Although occurring at higher elevations at the southern edge of its range, its occurrence in mountainous country in the north is unusual. (PFBC, 2004)

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-34

Eastern Mud Salamander

Sedge wrens (Cistothorus platensis) may appear and possibly breed in Pennsylvania almost any time from late spring to early fall. They are absent from much of their historic range in the state, even where there is suitable habitat. Sedge wrens are rare, irregular migrants and breeders, not known to occur at any particular location in Pennsylvania on a regular basis. Their apparent decline in Pennsylvania seems to parallel a slipping population in the northeastern United States. This presumed decline may be attributable to habitat loss, but could also be related to the difficulty in seeing them in their preferred habitat, dense grass. The bird was designated threatened in 1985’s Species of Special Concern in Pennsylvania, published by the Pennsylvania Biological Survey. Its status has not changed since then. The sedge wren, formerly known as the short-billed marsh wren, can best be distinguished from other wrens by its relatively small size and streaked head. It is only 4½ inches high, has a six-inch wingspan, streaked crown and back, faint buff-colored eye stripes, and a short tail that is often held upright. In summer, sedge wrens are found from southern Saskatchewan and Minnesota across the Great Lake states to the east. They winter along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, as far south as Mexico. Sedge wrens arrive in Pennsylvania in April and May, and migrate south to brackish coastal marshes from August to October. Among the last birds to nest in the state, sedge wrens may be found nesting here as late as August. They nest in wetland areas; a typical clutch of six or seven white eggs is laid in a globular nest built up to two feet off the ground. Young hatch in 12 to 14 days, and leave the nest at two weeks of age. Two broods can be produced each year. For nesting, sedge wrens require damp meadows and marshes where sedges and grasses are interspersed with small shrubs. They apparently do not thrive in cattail marshes. Sedge wrens are rare throughout their range. They used to be found nesting in scattered locations across Pennsylvania. Over the past several decades, however, they have disappeared from many of their former haunts, and numbers have dropped significantly in others. The loss of habitat and changing agricultural practices are thought to be responsible for this decline. (PFBC, 2004)

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-35

Sedge Wren

The Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) information system is maintained within the Ecological Services division of the PA DCNR. The inventory is a resource on species of special concern within the Commonwealth. Table B.15 lists the species of special concern within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed.

Table B.15 Species/Communities of Special Concern (PNDI, 2004)

Common Name Scientific Name A noctuid moth Apharetra purpuea A noctuid moth Elaphria festivoides A noctuid moth Platyperigia meralis A zale moth Zale submediana Acidic broadleaf swamp Acidic broadleaf swamp Allegheny woodrat Neotoma Magister American dragonhead Dracocephalum parviflorum Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii Broad sallow moth Xylotype capax Bull sedge Carex bullata Cranefly Orchid Tipularia discolor Dickcissel Spiza americana Dwarf iris Iris verna Eastern coneflower Rudbeckia fulgida Ephemeral/fluctuating natural pool Ephemeral/fluctuating natural pool Erosional remnant Erosional remnant Footpath sallow moth Metaxaglea semitaria

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-36 Common Name Scientific Name Forked-chickweed Paronychia fastigiata var. nuttallii Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea Lance-leaf loosestrife Lsimachia hybrida Lion's-foot Prenanthes Serpentaria Long-eared owl Asio otus Lupine Lupinus perennis Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris Netted chainfern Woodwardia areolata Nodding Trillium Trillium cernuum Northeaster bulrush Scirpus ancistrochaetus Northern appalachian acidic seep community Northern appalachian acidic seep community Northern myotis Myotis septentrionalis Northern water-milfoil Myriophyllum sibiricium Pine woods underwing Catocala sp Quercus icilifolia-kalmia latifolia-P. rigida Ridgetop dwarf-tree forest Quillwort Isoetes valida Red-head pondweed Potamogeton richardsonii Rough-leaved aster Aster radula Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis Short-leaf pine Pinus Echinata Showy goldenrod Solidago speciosa var speciosa Southern bog clubmoss Lycopodiella appressa Southern pine looper moth Caripeta Aretaria Southern variable dart moth Anomogyna elimata Springs Springs Sweet bay magnolia Magnolia virginiana Thyme-leaved pinweed Lechea minor Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus Tooth-cup Rotala ramosior Twisted yellow-eyed grass Xyris torta Variable sedge Carex polymorphia Virginia bunchflower Melanthium virginicum White water-crowfoot Ranunculus aquatilis var. diffuses Yellow-fringed orchid Platanthera ciliaris

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-37 Natural Areas Inventories completed for Cumberland and York Counties were reviewed as part of this assessment. Natural Area Inventories are completed to be utilized as a tool to protect environmentally significant areas. The inventory contains a detailed description of each natural area and its significant features. Table B.16 includes environmentally significant sites located in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed that are identified in the inventories. Complete detailed descriptions of each site can be found in its respective inventory document. Copies of the inventories can be obtained from each respective planning organization.

Table B.16 Natural Area Inventories

Site Municipality USGS Quad Map Andersontown Woods Monaghan Township Lemoyne Black Swamp Cooke Township Dickinson Dead Woman Hollow Cooke, South Newton Townships Dickinson Hunters Run Dickinson, South Middleton Townships Mount Holly Springs Huntsdale Floodplain/Kings Gap Road Penn Township Dickinson Kings Gap Ponds Cooke Township Dickinson Kings Gap Hollow Dickinson Township Dickinson Michaux Road Cooke Township Dickinson Mountain Creek Seeps Cooke Township Dickinson/Mount Holly Springs Mount Holly Marsh South Middleton Township Mount Holly Springs Peach Orchard Hollow Pond Penn Township Dickinson Tagg Run Dickinson Township Mount Holly Springs Trout Run Preserve Upper Allen Township Mechanicsburg Upper Mill Woods South Middleton Township Mount Holly Springs Yellow Breeches Creek – Leidighs to Carroll, Monroe Township Mechanicsburg Williams Grove Yellow Breeches/Rabold Site Fairview Township Lemoyne

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-38 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

The Yellows Breeches Creek Watershed is an area rich with social and cultural resources. Culture may be defined as a particular stage of advancement in civilization, with emphasis on the characteristic features of such a stage or state. While the Yellow Breeches Creek was settled by pioneers of Scotch- Irish descent and later by those of German ancestry, the agriculture, architecture, religion, arts, crafts and craftsmanship, language and oral traditions, food, land use and lifestyle blend into the style and patterns of surrounding areas, communities and counties. Unlike certain areas of the state where ethnic traditions and lifestyles which are unique prevail and are clearly evident, the area within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed has melded with the surrounding areas. (Cumberland County Planning Commission (CCPC), 2004)

An inventory of these resources was completed as part of this plan. This work included the review of available comprehensive plans, open space plans, and information provided by stakeholders and other organizations.

Recreation

A wide variety of recreational facilities are available to the residents of the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. Factors influencing the need for these services are dependent on the types and density of land development, the population distribution, and the financial resources of the municipalities providing the facilities and services. These diverse resources include areas for hiking, biking, picnicking, bird watching, organized sports, scenic enjoyment, fishing, boating, camping, and other activities. Following is an inventory of the available recreational facilities and services within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed:

Trails

The Appalachian Trail is a continuous marked footpath extending from Maine to Georgia. The Appalachian Trail traverses Cumberland County entering the county from the northeast along the Blue Mountain ridgeline and crossing the valley to South Mountain. The Appalachian Trail corridor in Cumberland County is approximately 40 miles long on lands of the National Park Service, Pennsylvania State Game Land, Pine Grove Furnace State Park, and Michaux State Forest. The trail is a footpath. Horseback riding and bicycle use are not permitted. The trail creates a corridor of protected land that varies in width outside of the state-owned parcels.

The Cumberland Hiker-Biker Trail is a 5.5 mile recreation trail that runs from Pine Grove Furnace east to Mountain Creek Campgrounds on the corridor of the Reading Rail Line that linked Carlisle, Mount Holly Springs Borough, and Michaux State Forest. Most users access the trail at Pine Grove Furnace State Park. The park has 300,000 visitors per year and two miles of the trail are within the park.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-39 The Fielding Belt and Wittlinger Trails are located in South Middleton Township. The Fielding Belt Trail connects two community parks, Spring Meadow Park and South Middleton Township Municipal Park. Spring Meadow Park has a planned connection to the South Middleton High School campus, and South Middleton Township Park is bordered by the Yellow Breeches Creek. Wittlinger Trail is a long nature trail located in the Donald L. Wittlinger Nature Preserve, which links to the Appalachian Trail south of Boiling Springs. The Wittlinger Trail is adjacent to the Yellow Breeches Creek stream corridor.

The Buck Ridge Trail is a six mile hiking trail that connects Kings Gap Environmental Center with Pine Grove Furnace State Park.

Scenic Rails

The Reading Rail Line connects Mount Holly Springs Borough and Carlisle. This abandoned rail line runs between Carlisle and Mount Holly Springs Borough. The northern portion is developed as the LeTort Spring Run Nature Trail. The five-mile length between the existing trail and Mount Holly Springs Borough is in South Middleton Township. The corridor is scenic, traversing the agricultural valley land of the county.

The Trolley Line between Mechanicsburg Borough and Dillsburg Borough linked the communities and Williams Grove in southern Cumberland County. The line has been abandoned since 1979, and most of the corridor has reverted to adjacent landowners. The corridor is six miles long.

Parks and Preserves

Pine Grove Furnace State Park is located in the heart of Michaux State Forest in southern Cumberland County. The historical character of the park is enhanced by its natural beauty. This park was once the site of the Pine Grove Furnace Iron Works, which was founded in 1764 and operated for over 100 years. Historical buildings include the ironmaster’s mansion, a gristmill, an inn, and several residences. A self- guided historical trail leads visitors through the remains of the iron works. This 696-acre park is developed around the 25-acre Laurel Lake and the 1.7-acre Fuller Lake. Recreational opportunities include: family camping, organized group camping, swimming, boating, picnicking, fishing, environmental education, hunting, bicycling, ice skating, ice fishing, cross country skiing, snowmobiling and hiking. In addition, the Appalachian Trail and Cumberland Hiker-Biker Trail pass through the park.

Kings Gap Environmental Center, situated on 1,454 acres of forest, offers environmental education programs from the pre-school environmental awareness program to environmental problem solving programs. In addition to educational programming, the park offers sixteen miles of hiking trails that interconnect three main day use areas.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-40 The Michaux State Forest is located in Adams, Cumberland, and Franklin Counties and includes more than 85,000 acres. Approximately 34,882 acres of Michaux State Forest is located in Cumberland County. The Michaux State Forest is managed for a variety of uses including timber and other wood products. Potable water may be the Michaux’s most valuable resource. Numerous local communities depend on its pure water for their municipal water supplies. The Michaux provides ample opportunities for both small game and deer hunting. There are many miles of trout waters and numerous lakes and reservoirs to support warm water fishing. Primitive camping, hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, and snowmobiling are but a few of many recreation pursuits that are available. In addition, 130 miles of state forest roads are maintained for pleasure driving and sightseeing. Picnic and day-use activities can be enjoyed at the Old Forge State Forest Picnic Area.

The Trout Run Nature Preserve is a locally significant area that consists of a streamside wetland formerly used as a cow pasture. The vegetation is a mixture of cattails, sedges, and grasses. The site has been used by various bird species, including the Great Blue Heron and the Great Egret. Trout Run Nature Preserve is a potential breeding habitat for several state-listed bird species. The site is currently protected as part of Appalachian Audubon’s Trout Run Nature Preserve. Currently, the Yellow Breeches Watershed Association is a cooperative partner with Upper Allen Township, Messiah College, Appalachian Audubon Society, Trout Unlimited, and the West Shore Evangelical Free Church to develop a community education program and environmental education trail system for the Trout Run Watershed. The Trout Run Preserve is a key component of this initiative.

A wide variety of municipal park facilities are available in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. See Table B.17 below for a summary of the municipal park facilities.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-41 Table B.17 Municipal Park Facilities (CCCP, 2004)

ID Municipal Park Township Location 1 Coover Park Dillsburg Borough 2 Creekwood Park Lower Allen Township 3 Donald Wittlinger Nature Preserve South Middleton Township 4 Fiala Field Camp Hill Borough 5 Friendship Park Upper Allen Township 6 Glaize Orchard Park Upper Allen Township 7 Grantham Pond Upper Allen Township 8 Hampden Park and Pool Complex Hampden Township 9 Hempt Ballfields Lower Allen Township 10 Highland Estate Playground Lower Allen Township 11 Historic Iron Works Park South Middleton Township 12 Holly Woodcrafters Park South Middleton Township 13 Indian Hills Park South Middleton Township 14 Joe Car Park Monroe Township 15 Leidigh Park Monroe Township 16 Allendale Park Lower Allen Township 17 Barnitz Mill at Stuart Park Dickinson Township 18 Beacon Hill Heights, Tract 2 Lower Allen Township 19 Beacon Hill Park Lower Allen Township 20 Butler Street Park Mount Holly Springs Borough 21 Center Square Park Upper Allen Township 22 Kings Gap Environmental Education Center Cooke Township 23 Logan Park Dillsburg Borough 24 Lower Allen Community Park Lower Allen Township 25 McCormick Park Upper Allen Township 26 Mimosa Open Space Upper Allen Township 27 Monroe Township Municipal Park Monroe Township 28 Mount Allen Park Upper Allen Township 29 Mount Holly Marsh Preserve Cumberland County 30 New Cumberland Borough Park New Cumberland Borough 31 Peters Field Lower Allen Township 32 Pine Grove Furnace State Park Cooke Township 33 Rose Garden Park Upper Allen Township 34 Sheepford Crossing Park Lower Allen Township 35 Shiremanstown Manor Park Shiremanstown Borough 36 Shiremanstown Memorial Park Shiremanstown Borough 37 Simpson Park Upper Allen Township 38 South Middleton Municipal Park South Middleton Township 39 South View Park South Middleton Township 40 Spring Lake/Beverly Park Camp Hill Borough 41 Spring Meadows Park South Middleton Township 42 Spring Run Park Upper Allen Township 43 The Bubble South Middleton Township 44 Trine Park Mount Holly Springs Borough 45 Trout Run Wetland Wildlife Preserve Upper Allen Township/Audubon Society

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-42 ID Municipal Park Township Location 46 Upper Allen Community Park (Fisher Park) Upper Allen Township 47 Vernon C. Wass Park Lower Allen Township 48 Willow Park Camp Hill Borough 49 Windsor Park Playground Lower Allen Township 50 Yellow Breeches Park Lower Allen Township

Planning of new recreational facilities and services is important to the growth and development of the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. The need or demand for new facilities was considered as part of the inventory of the recreational resources of the watershed. Municipalities within the watershed were contacted to determine the need for new recreational facilities, although only a limited amount of information was available. Planned recreational facilities include boat access areas in Monroe Township and a park along Mill Street in Mount Holly Springs Borough. Lower Allen Township has proposed a conceptual plan for the development of a trail between Creekwood and Beacon Hill, in addition to limited development of Yellow Breeches Park. Lower Allen Township is also in the beginning stages of creating a comprehensive plan for Lower Allen Community Park. Planning efforts for new recreational facilities within the watershed should be made in conjunction with Cumberland County open space planning.

The Cumberland County Open Space Preservation Plan discusses the need for new recreational facilities specific to the portion of the watershed within Cumberland County. The parks and greenways component, focusing on the recreational and leisure aspects of available open space, is a key element of this plan. Parks are defined as public and non-public sites where residents can escape the built environment for relaxation and play; greenways are the linear connections between these sites. Greenways, including riparian buffers, connect parks and other public sites with neighborhoods, providing safe passage for residents of all ages on foot, on bikes, or by other means. The Cumberland County Open Space Preservation Plan recognizes that parks and greenways are critical to community life. Goals of the plan include the development of new recreational facilities to meet the needs of all residents within the county and the creation of a comprehensive greenways system. Of particular interest in this context is the planned Yellow Breeches Water Trail. Scheduled for implementation during 2005, this will be modeled on the existing plan for the Conodoguinet Water Trail. The planning and implementation will be a joint effort between Cumberland County, PFBC, Yellow Breeches Watershed Association and local municipalities. (CCPC, 2004)

Economy

The economic future of the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed is based on a capacity to produce goods and services. In order to serve a growing population and provide employment for a growing labor force, the economic base will also have to grow. The economic health of the watershed will influence its future housing, transportation and land use decisions. Two key components to be considered in the economy are population data and major employers. Population becomes progressively denser per acre as the Yellow Breeches Creek flows toward the mouth of the stream. See Table B.18 for a summary of population data.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-43 Table B.18 Population in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed (CCPC, Adams County Planning Commission (ACPC), and York County Planning Commission (YCPC), 2004)

Municipality 2000 Population Square Miles Camp Hill Borough 7,636 2.1 Carroll Township 3,653 15.0 Cooke Township 117 19.9 Dickinson Township 4,702 45.6 Dillsburg Borough 2,125 0.8 Fairview Township 14,911 35.6 Franklin Township 4,552 18.7 Hampden Township 24,135 17.8 Lemoyne Borough 3,995 1.6 Lower Allen Township 17,437 10.3 Mechanicsburg Borough 9,042 2.6 Menallen Township 2,974 42.8 Monaghan Township 2,261 13.0 Monroe Township 5,530 26.1 Mount Holly Springs Borough 1,925 1.5 New Cumberland Borough 7,349 1.7 Penn Township 2,807 29.3 Shiremanstown Borough 1,521 0.3 Southampton Township 4,787 52.5 South Middleton Township 12,939 49.5 South Newton Township 1,290 11.0 Upper Allen Township 15,338 13.2

Table B.19 lists the major employers in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed for 2001. The table shows a number of diverse employers from public hospitals and school systems to communications, printing, drugstores, retail, and various manufacturing establishments. The employers with the highest levels of employment in the watershed tend to be public entities/government agencies, large industrial plants, and large retail firms.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-44 Table B.19 Major Employers in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed (CCPC, ACPC, and YCPC, 2004)

Representative Employers as identified by municipal representatives.

Employer Employer Ahlstrom Filtration Hempt Brothers Allen Distribution Huntsdale Hatchery Ashcombes Nursery JLG Beistle Company Karns Supermarkets Camp Hill Mall Knouse Foods Capital City Mall Land O' Lakes Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Lobar Country Market Nursery Mechanicsburg Area School District Cumberland County Messiah College Cumberland Valley School District Messiah Village Davis Ice Cream Pennsy Corporation DDRE/New Cumberland Army Depot United States Government Delta Dental Weis Markets ECI West Shore School District Giant Food Stores Whirlpool Health South Williams Grove Speedway & Amusement Park

Land Use

Land use in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed is affected by economic factors, development trends, cultural attitudes, and physical features. Large portions of the upper watershed are undeveloped agricultural areas or open space, while large portions of the lower watershed are developed areas. Each of the three counties represented within the watershed uses a different system of designations to differentiate land uses. Table B.20 shows a summary of the existing land use within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed.

Table B.21 shows a summary of the existing land use controls within the watershed. Nineteen (19) of the twenty-two (22) municipalities represented within the watershed have zoning ordinances. Penn Township is currently drafting a zoning ordinance. Information on land use controls for Cooke Township and South Newton Township was not available. From a land use perspective, areas in the upper watershed should be given a higher priority for future preservation and protection, as these areas are rural and are in the early stages of development.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-45 Table B.20 Land Use in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed (CCPC, ACPC, and YCPC, 2004)

ADAMS COUNTY Landuse Approximate Area (Acre) Percentage Parks, Permanent Open Space, & Preservation Areas 3850.55 96.21 Other 151.58 3.79

CUMBERLAND COUNTY Landuse Approximate Area (Acre) Percentage Commercial 1177.99 1.09 Industrial 2763.36 2.55 Public/Semi-Public 31279.12 28.87 Residential 11799.28 10.89 Service 118.27 0.11 Transportation 20.98 0.02 Undeveloped, Vacant, or Agricultural 61174.01 56.47

YORK COUNTY Landuse Approximate Area (Acre) Percentage A - Apartment 41.55 0.15 C - Commercial 764.19 2.80 E- Exempt* 1377.65 5.04 F - Farm 15337.9 56.16 I - Industrial 71.6 0.26 R - Residential 8097.44 29.65 U - Utility 2.51 0.01 Other 1618.34 5.93

*Exempt lands are held by government entities or charitable organizations, and are not required to pay real estate taxes.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-46 Table B.21 Land Use Controls in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed

Municipality Zoning Ordinance Camp Hill Borough Yes Carroll Township Yes Cooke Township No Dickinson Township Yes Dillsburg Borough Yes Fairview Township Yes Franklin Township Yes Hampden Township Yes Lemoyne Borough Yes Lower Allen Township Yes Mechanicsburg Borough Yes Menallen Township Yes Monaghan Township Yes Monroe Township Yes Mount Holly Springs Borough Yes New Cumberland Borough Yes Penn Township Draft Shiremanstown Borough Yes Southampton Township Yes South Middleton Township Yes South Newton Township No Upper Allen Township Yes

Archeological/Historical

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) Data

Historic landmarks and landscapes are important to the sense of place and history integral to the identity of communities. Preserving this history can either involve protecting a single structure or an entire district. Several federal and state programs and statutes are in place to enable local governments to preserve historic resources. Active steps need to be taken to protect historic structures and districts endangered by the pressures of development.

The earliest federal preservation statute was the Antiquities Act of 1906, which authorized the President to set aside historic landmarks, structures, and objects located on lands controlled by the United States as national monuments. Although the original intent of the act was to protect prehistoric cultural artifacts, the President’s proclamation authority has been interpreted more broadly to protect a wide range of natural and historical cultural resources. The Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act of 1935 was the second major piece of federal historic preservation legislation declaring a “national policy to preserve for the public use historic sites, building and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States.” It also empowered the Secretary of the Interior through the National Park Service to obtain, organize and preserve archival materials documenting historic resources;

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-47 inventory historical and archaeological sites significant to National History, and pursue research to substantiate their legitimacy and importance. (PHMC, 2004)

In response to increasing pressures of development and highway construction, Congress enacted in 1966 and amended in 1976 the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) which states the “historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people.” The Act authorized the Secretary of the Interior “to expand and maintain a National Register of Historic Places composed of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture.” It further recognizes the need for preservation not only to remain at the federal level but also to be undertaken by states, local governments, Indian tribes, and private entities. The Act also establishes the mechanisms to provide technical and financial assistance to facilitate efforts at a more local level. Congress has strengthened national preservation policy further by recognizing the importance of preserving historic aspects of the Nation’s heritage in several other statutes, among them the National Environmental Policy Act and several transportation acts. These laws require federal agencies to consider historic resources in their planning and decision-making and overlap with provisions of NHPA. Federal laws and funding programs acknowledge the need for the commitment to protect historic resources at the state and local level. Federal Tax Credit incentives and the Certified Local Government Program, as examples, are therefore administered by State Historic Preservation Offices and often require a local match. (PHMC, 2004)

The Bureau for Historic Preservation is part of PHMC and serves as the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The National Register of Historic Places, the Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey, and Pennsylvania Historic Resource Inventory are all compiled and administered by the Bureau.

Prominent historical locations are shown on the General Features Map. Additional data including condition, size per importance, and public versus private ownership was requested from PHMC, but was not available in the provided table.

National Register

The National Register of Historic Places is an official planning tool used by federal, state, and local governments, and serves as a guide to elements of historical significance. It is the official list of national cultural resources worthy of preservation. As a result of private and public initiatives, several historic resources which lie within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed have been listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Those sites found within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed, which are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, follow. (National Register of Historic Places, 2004)

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-48 • Boiling Springs National Historic District (South Middleton Township) – designated December 3, 1984 with the following boundaries: High Street, First Street, Boiling Springs Lake and the Yellow Breeches Creek. Boiling Springs is a unique 18th century “iron industry” settlement that became a 19th century village and recreational area. The 19th century homes consist of a variety of architectural styles and add to the village’s unique character and historical significance. Period of significance: 1700-1924.

Boiling Springs National Historic District

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-49 • John Williams Mansion House (Monroe Township) – designated July 28, 1977. Georgian style house built of limestone c. 1796-1799 from a quarry still existing on the property.

John Williams Mansion House

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-50 • Etters Bridge or Green Lane Bridge (Lower Allen Township) – designated February 27, 1986. The Etters Bridge is a simple-span, wrought iron, Phoenix bridge designed and constructed by Dean and Westbrook. It is the last of its type in the area in extensive use today (average daily capacity of 2,000 or more vehicles.) Period of significance: 1875-1899.

Etters Bridge

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-51 • Peace Church (Hampden Township) – added 1972. Also known as Friedens Kierche. Designed by Anderson, Thomas, Rupp, and Martin. Period of significance: 1750-1799.

Peace Church

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-52 • Pine Grove Furnace (Dickinson Township) – added 1977. Also known as Pine Grove Ironworks. Period of significance: 1750-1899.

Pine Grove Furnace

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-53 • Union Hotel (Upper Allen Township) – designated 1989. Also known as Shepherdstown Hotel. Located in Shepherdstown Historic District. Period of significance: 1850-1924.

Union Hotel

• Ashton-Hursh House (Fairview Township) – designated 2003. Federal, Greek revival architectural style. Period of significance: 1825-1849.

• Gilbert Bridge (Upper Allen Township) – designated 1989. Also known as Hall Estate Bridge. Designed and constructed by Wrought Iron Bridge Company. Period of significance: 1875- 1899.

Although not listed in the National Register, a large number of homes, mills, bridges, dams, and lime kilns considered to be of historic significance, as well as some which are eligible for National Register status, are located within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-54 WATERSHED CONCERNS

Upon review of all land, water, biological, and cultural resources inventoried as part of this report, the following areas were identified as valuable areas of scenic or historic importance. These areas are identified by number on the Watershed Concerns Map. The intent of the Watershed Concerns Map is to correlate the location of these valuable resources to the location of stream impairments. These areas of importance are being considered as “concerns”, as they are areas that should be targeted first for preservation efforts. Additional areas of importance not identified on the Watershed Concerns Map include areas inhabited by bog turtles and the locations of prime soils.

1. Appalachian Trail (Cultural Resource) 2. Boiling Springs (Land Resource) 3. Boiling Springs Caves (Land Resource) 4. Boiling Springs National Historic District (Cultural Resource) 5. Camp Michaux (Cultural Resource) 6. Children’s Lake (Water Resource) 7. Chimney Rocks (Land Resource) 8. Churchtown Historic District (Cultural Resource) 9. Fuller Lake (Water Resource) 10. Hammonds Rocks (Land Resource) 11. Huntsdale Hatchery Springs (Land Resource) 12. Kings Gap Environmental Center (Cultural Resource) 13. Laurel Lake (Water Resource) 14. Lisburn Historic District (Cultural Resource) 15. Michaux State Forest (Land Resource) 16. Mount Holly Preserve (Water Resource) 17. Pine Grove Furnace State Park (Land Resource) 18. Pole Steeple (Land Resource) 19. Rose Garden Historic District (Cultural Resource) 20. Shepherdstown Historic District (Cultural Resource) 21. McCormick Road Historic District (Cultural Resource) 22. Trout Run Nature Preserve (Biological Resource) 23. White Rocks (Land Resource) 24. Various Bog Turtle Habitat Areas1 25. Prime Soils (Capability Class I) Areas2

1 Bog turtles are a valuable and protected resource within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. The locations of areas known to be inhabited by bog turtles are not being released, as this is sensitive information related to the preservation of these reptiles. 2 Prime soils (Capability Class I) are of great agricultural value within the watershed and are identified on the Soils Map.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan B-55 TAB C RESEARCH AND ONGOING PROJECTS

Multiple projects associated with the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed are planned or ongoing at the present time.

Dr. David Foster (The Oakes Museum of Natural History, Messiah College, 2005) has provided information on three (3) ongoing projects:

• Palynology of Kimmel Pond - Pollen from a sediment core survey will be used to reconstruct past plant community structure for Kimmel Pond near Dillsburg Borough, PA. This pond is known to have existed for more than 11,000 years, and knowledge of the plant community around the pond will provide valuable insight into the rate of vegetation change with climate change since the last ice age. Insight will also be provided regarding change in forest structure due to human activities and forest composition change due to chestnut blight in the early 1900’s.

• Vernal Pond Inventory - This is the inventory of vernal ponds in the South Mountain area between Dillsburg Borough, Carlisle and the Maryland border. The goal is to determine the relationship between pond size, shape, vegetation, macroinvertebrates and diversity of breeding amphibians in order to prioritize ponds for conservation.

• Ambystomatid Salamander Demography - The purpose of this study is to increase knowledge about the age structure of breeding Ambystomatid salamanders in the northeastern U.S., by studying breeding individuals migrating into Kimmel Pond near Dillsburg Borough, PA. This study will establish a baseline age structure for monitoring recruitment in these specific populations, a baseline for use in determining recruitment to newly formed habitats, and a comparative data set for understanding how forest management practices impact Ambystomatid demography. Species studied will include A. opacum, A. jeffersonianum and A. maculatum.

Dr. Todd Hurd (Shippensburg University, 2005) has provided information on two (2) ongoing projects:

• Dye Trace - This first project, in an effort to determine source areas of water for Big Spring, examines the possible linkage or connection between the Big Spring Watershed and the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. It is thought that the Yellow Breeches Creek may be contributing to Big Spring via interbasin flow. Funding has been obtained for a dye trace, to be carried out later this year, which aims to provide insight into the potential pathways and flow rates that groundwater may be taking to the springs.

• Effects of Hatchery Effluent - The second project examines the effects of hatcheries in the watershed on the overall water quality of Yellow Breeches Creek. This project traced hatchery carbon into stream sediments and pollution-tolerant isopods using stable isotopes of carbon (13C). Isopods are dominant crustaceans (locally known as “cress bugs” or sow bugs) in limestone waters, particularly polluted ones, and have been shown to be a conduit of

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan C-1 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) into stream food webs below state hatcheries. The unique carbon “finger print” exists in hatchery food, because it is supplemented largely by marine fish, that are reflecting the carbon signature of phytoplankton at the base of their food web. During photosynthesis, different plants discriminate against the heavier 13C over 12C to different degrees. Therefore, local aquatic and riparian plants (at the base of the natural food web), have a different signature than the hatchery material. The results of this research show that large state hatcheries (Big Spring, while in operation, and Huntsdale) contribute substantially to diet of isopods. This influence lessens downstream of point source effluent, but is still detectable in isopods, and even more in sediment, kilometers downstream.

The Cumberland Valley chapter of Trout Unlimited has recently completed a project on Mountain Creek. On April 20 and 21, 2004, approximately 100 tons of #10 limestone sand was deposited into the upper reaches of Mountain Creek. Acid rain is a major problem in freestone mountain streams such as Mountain Creek. The terrain has little buffering capacity, resulting in increased acidity of the water, especially during spring snowmelt runoff. Both PA DEP and the PA Fish and Boat Commission supported this project. Additional limestone sand will be applied as required. Water quality and aquatic insect macro invertebrate samples will be taken periodically to monitor the results.

The Harrisburg office of the Nature Conservancy is currently developing projects within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed, specifically in the South Mountain area. Projects will specifically focus on areas with known important species and habitats. The overall goal of these projects will be the conservation of limestone tributaries and riparian zones.

Many municipalities have become actively involved in activities to preserve the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. For example, South Middleton Township in Cumberland County won the 2003 EPA Region III Source Water Protection Award. Two watersheds listed in Chapter 93 as “High Quality/Exceptional Value” are present within the municipality: Yellow Breeches Creek and LeTort Spring Run. The Township’s source water protection plan will help to protect and enhance both of these valuable natural resources.

Municipalities of the Northern York Regional Area have joined together as partners in the development of the Northern York Regional Water Resources Protection Plan. Primary goals of the plan are to protect the Northern York County water supply through watershed management and regional land use planning and to promote and implement land use management techniques and preventive measures at the municipal level. The plan is currently available in draft format.

The Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed will be part of the new Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay Strategy, launched in January 2005. The strategy encompasses a range of best management practices to meet Pennsylvania’s nutrient and sediment reduction goals. Some of the initiatives will include:

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan C-2 • Limiting Wastewater and Industrial Discharges. These regulations will be based on actual flows rather than design flows to determine real loads and results of the program. • Upgrading Existing Sewer and Water Infrastructure, with nutrient reduction being the main objective. • Enhancing Stormwater Management. • Preserving Agriculture, Communities and Rural Environments. This initiative puts in place new farm management regulations and water quality protection plans which will be effective in April 2005. • Accelerating Dam Removals and Building Fish Passageways. The goal for 2006 is to open 270 miles of streams in addition to the 384 miles already restored for purposes of enhancing fish passage and critical habitat. • Expanding the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) with the main goal of reducing the amount of polluted farm runoff entering streams. • Increasing Forested Buffers and Wetlands. This will tie in with the CREP as this will provide the greatest water quality benefits. • Promoting Manure-to-Energy programs that will ultimately reduce runoff into streams. • Nutrient Trading. The state is investing in a unique partnership to build a market-based program that will accelerate nutrient reduction and reduce compliance costs. • Securing Conservation Easements for Riparian Buffers. To protect existing investments in riparian buffers, Pennsylvania will provide the tools and resources to preserve these buffers permanently with conservation easements. • Increased support for Growing Greener II to build on the state’s existing watershed work.

(Office of the Governor, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2005)

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan C-3 TAB D PUBLIC OUTREACH

Focus Group Workshops

Focus Group Workshop meetings were held on June 1, 2, and 8, 2004. The purpose of the Focus Group Workshop meetings was to ascertain and prioritize the concerns, needs, and opinions of stakeholders within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed to aid in planning for the future management of the watershed. The format of the workshops involved an initial presentation by Land Logics Group to explain the planning and focus group process, followed by small group discussion to gain feedback on pertinent issues surrounding the watershed in its current state and its potential for the future. Following the small group discussion, participants were invited to indicate on large maps areas of the watershed that are personally important to them for any reason or are perceived to be of special concern. The meetings were held in three different areas within the watershed – in Lower Allen Township, Monroe Township, and Penn Township – in order to obtain a wide sampling of opinion.

Participants were asked to respond to three broad questions for discussion:

1) What do you like most about the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed? 2) What do you like least about the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed? 3) What are your expectations for the planning process?

The first two questions helped to identify both the positive and negative qualities of the watershed in its current state, as well as to identify the values and priorities of the participating stakeholders. The last question helped to determine the community’s hopes and goals for the watershed’s future and its expectations of the planning process.

Responses to the questions were listed on a flip chart. Each participant was then given the opportunity to choose four responses to each question that he or she considered of highest priority. This technique aided in developing a better understanding of the participants’ most significant concerns.

Across all three focus groups, the participants’ perceptions of the positive qualities and strengths of the Yellow Breeches Creek centered on its aesthetic value and its ability to provide various recreational opportunities. Participants cited the scenic nature of its rural setting, as well as its quaint historic features such as its many old bridges and mills. The diversity of the creek’s wildlife and its importance as a provider of habitat for plant and animal species were also considered to be of high priority. Participants also appreciated the ease of access to the creek’s various recreational offerings such as fishing, canoeing, hiking, and biking. Both personal, tranquil pursuits as well as opportunities for social interaction, such as organized community activities, were mentioned as valued experiences.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan D-1 Not surprisingly, the concerns and perceived negative aspects of the Yellow Breeches Creek in its current state revolve around threats to its perceived positive qualities. The most frequently cited concerns were bank erosion, sediment and runoff, the lack of riparian buffers, and the loss of natural habitats. Unplanned development, agricultural pollution, and lack of municipal concern and regulation were viewed as contributing factors to the watershed’s problems. Apathy of riparian landowners concerning the creek’s health as well as conflicts between these landowners and the users of the waterway and its environs were also mentioned as ongoing problems. Other concerns included safety and flooding issues, lack of stormwater management, and the inconvenience that dam obstructions pose to canoers.

In response to the third question regarding the participants’ expectations of the watershed planning process, water quality improvement and restoration of degraded resources were seen as the top priorities. Other expectations discussed actually encompass the means to achieving these goals. These included increased public education and awareness of issues involving watershed health, the engagement of developers and municipal entities in improvement efforts, and increased support for the YBWA. Participants hoped to see new strategies and ordinances to improve water quality, the enforcement of regulations surrounding pollution, increased cooperation between municipalities, and the development of new monitoring tools.

The focus group participants appreciate the varied benefits that the Yellow Breeches Creek and watershed offers. Most valued are its scenic, recreational, and ecological qualities. Participants recognize the fragility of the stream’s health and understand the important factors involved in protecting it. Problems including runoff, erosion, poorly maintained or nonexistent riparian buffers, poorly planned development, public apathy, and lack of regulation and enforcement were all seen as threats to the continued health and beauty of the Yellow Breeches Creek and its ecosystems.

The participants hope to see improved water quality, restoration of degraded resources, and protection of wildlife habitats through better public education and awareness. They hope to see both vigorous municipal regulation and enforcement, as well as increased voluntary efforts and cooperation among all stakeholders including landowners, recreation-seekers, and developers.

New tools will need to be developed to support adequate ongoing monitoring. It is hoped that increased public awareness will lend support to the goals and work of the YBWA. In order for the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed to realize the highest level of water quality, ecological health, and aesthetic value, the watershed planning process must continue to encourage the involvement of all stakeholders within the public and private realms. Funding opportunities for education, riparian improvements, and monitoring need to be sought and factored into the planning process. It is essential that the final plan be workable with inclusion of user-friendly tools for monitoring and measuring successes and problems.

All the focus group comments and ideas will be carried forward into the next phases of the planning process. These ideas will assist in shaping the statement of community goals and objectives, and will be addressed during the development of planning committee strategies and policies.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan D-2 Municipal Watershed Protection Audits

Municipal watershed audits were conducted as part of the public outreach portion of the watershed assessment. Completed audit forms were received from eight (8) municipalities and are summarized below.

Fairview Township. Stream and wetland buffers are not required. There is no restoration or riparian cover requirements, although erosion and sedimentation control measures are required on all construction sites. Stormwater plans, including maintenance measures, are required as part of the development process. Sanitary wastes are managed by onsite septic systems and centralized wastewater treatment plants. This municipality participates in an illicit connection detection program. Road salt and calcium chloride are typically used for road treatment during inclement weather. Pesticides are utilized on public lands, although fertilizers are not typically applied.

South Middleton Township. Stream buffers are required, although wetland buffers are not required. There is no restoration or riparian cover requirements, although erosion and sedimentation control measures are required on all construction sites greater than one acre in size. Stormwater plans, including maintenance measures, are required as part of the development process. Sanitary wastes are managed by onsite septic systems and centralized wastewater treatment plants. This municipality participates in an illicit connection detection program. Road salt and magnesium chloride are typically used for road treatment during inclement weather. Both pesticides and fertilizers are utilized on public lands.

Monroe Township. Stream and wetland buffers are not required. There is no restoration or riparian cover requirements, although erosion and sedimentation control measures are required on all construction sites. Stormwater plans, including maintenance measures, are required as part of the development process. Sanitary wastes are managed by onsite septic systems, centralized wastewater treatment plants, and package treatment plants. This municipality participates in an illicit connection detection program. Road salt and sand are typically used for road treatment during inclement weather. Both pesticides and fertilizers are utilized on public lands.

South Newton Township. Stream and wetland buffers are not required. There is no restoration or riparian cover requirements, although erosion and sedimentation control measures are required on all construction sites greater than one acre in size. Stormwater plans, including maintenance measures, are required as part of the development process. Sanitary wastes are managed by onsite septic systems. This municipality participates in an illicit connection detection program. Road salt is typically used for road treatment during inclement weather. Both pesticides and fertilizers are utilized on public lands.

Carroll Township. Stream buffers are required, but wetland buffers are not required. Protection of trees in common open space areas are required. Erosion and sedimentation control measures are required on all construction sites greater than one acre in size. Stormwater plans, including maintenance measures, are required as part of the development process. Both pesticides and fertilizers are utilized on public lands. This municipality does not conduct public street sweeping.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan D-3

Monaghan Township. Stream buffers and wetland buffers are not required. There is no restoration or riparian cover requirements, although erosion and sedimentation control measures are required on all construction sites greater than one acre in size. Stormwater plans, including maintenance measures, are required as part of the development process. Both pesticides and fertilizers are utilized on public lands. This municipality does not conduct public street sweeping.

Dillsburg Borough. Stream buffers and wetland buffers are not required, although a conservation district is specified as part of the zoning ordinance. Erosion and sedimentation control measures are required on all construction sites greater than one acre in size. Stormwater plans, including maintenance measures, are required as part of the development process. Both pesticides and fertilizers are utilized on public lands. This municipality conducts public street sweeping.

Franklin Township. Stream buffers and wetland buffers are not required. Regulations are not in place for open space developments. Erosion and sedimentation control measures are required on all construction sites greater than one acre in size. Stormwater plans, including maintenance measures, are required as part of the development process. Both pesticides and fertilizers are utilized on public lands. This municipality does not conduct public street sweeping.

Key Person Interviews

Key person interviews were conducted as part of the public outreach portion of the watershed assessment. The goals of the interviews were:

• To introduce the project • To collect additional planning documents and studies • To identify individual municipal concerns or issues within their community related to the watershed (this could be environmental, economic or social) • To get their support and involvement in future aspects of the planning process • To identify the best methods of communication for their community

The following key people within the watershed were selected as candidates for interviews:

• Terry Farner, Station Manager of Huntsdale State Fish Hatchery • Scott Hackenburg, Manager of Kings Gap Environmental Center • Michael Kusko, District Forester, South Mountain Area • Kenneth Boyles, Manager of Pine Grove Furnace State Park • John Eby, on behalf of Ray Rhodes, Manager of Lower Allen Township • Dianne Price, Manager of Carroll Township

The following standard questions were utilized in each interview. A summary of responses is included directly following each question:

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan D-4

• Are there areas of concern or specific issues within your community that you would like us to be aware of as we collate the information available for the Yellow Breeches Watershed (i.e. issues related to growth and development, the economy or social issues)?

The main concerns raised generally related to development within the watershed and, more specifically, the type of development and the perceived lack of planning and controls. Examples cited include:

1) Lack of effective planning instruments. 2) Lack of interest/commitment/involvement on the part of the municipalities. 3) Need to better manage farming and recreational activities.

• What do you think is the most important environmental issue related to the YB in your community (i.e. existing physical conditions of the YB, future use of the YB resources or access to it)? Why do you think this is the most important issue?

Once again, development and land use adjacent to the streams appear to be the greatest concern. Concerns included:

1) Residential developments, especially unsewered development. 2) Agricultural runoff. 3) Railroad and associated runoff and herbicide use. 4) Water quality and quantity; lower groundwater tables. 5) Invasive plant species, especially within Michaux State Forest.

• Within your community, are there adequate public access areas to the Yellow Breeches? If not, what type of access is needed?

There were a variety of answers to this question, with some people feeling that access was very good and others claiming that access was nearly non-existent.

The key points seem to be:

1) While some areas do indeed have good access, many other areas of the watershed do not have adequate access. 2) Access points are diminishing as more land is developed. 3) Some watercourses have fences across them, precluding any boating activities. 4) Rail lines make access impossible in some areas.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan D-5 Possible solutions suggested include developing existing undeveloped park sites along the Yellow Breeches and instituting an access program similar to the one developed by the Game Commission, giving hunters access to farmland.

• Are you aware of any current planning projects underway in your community or planned for the near future which would relate to this assessment and planning process?

Respondents directly associated with municipalities or public agencies were more aware of planning instruments in place or currently being developed. Several other people interviewed expressed concerns about the lack of planning.

Areas identified as needing appropriate planning and/or controls included residential and industrial development, timber harvesting and agriculture.

• Are you aware of any conservation projects underway in your community or planned for the near future which would have an effect on the Yellow Breeches Watershed?

With one exception, none of the respondents were aware of any projects currently underway within the watershed. The two projects identified are the instream liming trials to correct acidity, being conducted by Trout Unlimited, and the controlled burn trial for invasive weed species, being conducted by Michaux State Forest.

Several people expressed a desire for more conservation projects such as riparian buffers. The general feeling is that it is easier to get the public involved in hands-on projects rather than a long-term planning process.

• Have you ever attended or been involved in Growing Greener workshops?

Almost all of the people interviewed have been involved in Growing Greener workshops or have been involved in projects with Growing Greener funding.

• What are your expectations for this planning process?

Most of the interviewees expressed the hope that this process would provide a more complete and realistic picture of the watershed in a user-friendly format. Areas perceived as being of particular importance include:

1) Better identification of impaired areas and causes of pollution. 2) Identification of areas for improved recreational access. 3) Identification of existing assets and natural resources within the watershed. 4) Prioritization of watershed needs and objectives. 5) Increased levels of public and municipal awareness.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan D-6 • Would you be interested in volunteering to help with any upcoming meetings or presentations relative to the watershed?

Most people were interested in attending meetings but not overly enthusiastic about helping to organize and run events. In several cases, this reluctance stemmed from concerns related to employment and perceptions of their roles within the community.

Public Meetings

Public meetings were a key component of the public outreach portion of the Watershed Assessment and Rivers Conservation Plan. Presentations were given at both the 2003 and 2004 annual membership meetings of the YBWA. The purpose of the presentations was to provide the community with an update on the status of the watershed assessment project. The 2003 presentation provided an overview of recently completed fieldwork, while the 2004 presentation provided a short overview of the water quality results and a brief discussion on several key best management practices being considered as part of the final plan. Additionally, frequent project updates were provided at interim YBWA board meetings throughout 2003, 2004, and 2005. An additional public meeting is planned for April 2005.

Public and municipal meetings were held on May 10, 2005 at the Lower Allen Community Park barn to present draft reports and provide an opportunity for all interested parties to review the Watershed Assessment and Rivers Conservation Plan and to submit comments. A brief presentation was made at each meeting to provide an overview of the project status, including time allocated for questions and comments. Comments received over the thirty (30) day review period and associated responses are included as Appendix E.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan D-7 TAB E MANAGEMENT OPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR SOLUTIONS

The following categories of management options and strategies were developed to prioritize projects that will benefit, improve, and protect the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed, and therefore improve life for those who have a stake in the resource. The management options and strategies have been developed based on concepts set forth in the Chesapeake Bay Strategy. (www.chesapeakebay.net)

Education

Establish Environmental Advisory Committees in each municipality within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code enables municipalities to establish environmental advisory committees to advise local elected officials on environmental matters. Because of our location in close proximity to the State Capitol in Harrisburg, numerous environmental professionals employed with federal, state, county, local and private organizations live in the watershed. They are an important and abundant resource of qualified people well positioned to advise local officials on environmental matters, including the development of ordinances such as natural features conservation.

Raise the sensitivity and awareness of regional, county, and municipal planning organizations. Education of decision makers about the importance of the farmland and habitats of the watershed, along with available measures to protect these resources is essential to reducing their loss. Utilizing existing land use ordinances, in conjunction with modern design and open space planning, can allow for continued development without the excessive conversion of special habitat areas and agricultural settings.

Update comprehensive plans for the municipalities of the watershed that are over ten years old. Plans should include environmental resource inventories and protection of resources as part of the document. Multi-municipal plans should be completed where prudent and feasible. Comprehensive plans are living documents that need periodic review before they become outdated and irrelevant to the current conditions of the community. Periodic review and update of plans incorporates new issues and remove areas that are no longer relevant.

Support implementation of land conservation techniques in subdivision design. Rural open space, clustering and other modern design methods can greatly reduce the area of land utilized as part of a residential subdivision development. Utilizing incentives such as increased lot density can promote these conservation practices without the negative adversarial aspects associated with ordinances.

Assess how increasing population is impacting the watershed. Review identified growth areas in county comprehensive plans and the Tri-County Regional Growth Management Plan. Explore establishing growth areas and rural areas within the municipalities of the watershed. Utilizing planning funds to establish growth areas will allow for orderly development of municipalities, while protecting important open space and farmland. This situation allows municipalities to better allocate limited resources towards expensive infrastructure projects. It also reduces the costs of municipal services by directing growth in the areas that can best support such growth.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-1

Update and implement Act 537 sewage management plans that are over ten years old for the municipalities in the watershed and ensure that those plans are compatible and consistent with the local comprehensive plan. Identify and repair older failed systems and consider developing on-lot maintenance management programs. Increased population in the watershed increases demands for services including sewage. Proactive planning and development of management plans for sewage systems in the watershed is important to improve and maintain the quality of effluent discharges into the streams of the watershed.

Actively enforce land use controls for areas along waterways in the watershed, especially curbing development in floodplains. Develop strategies to protect riparian zones. Municipalities in the watershed have zoning ordinances and floodplain development regulations. However, increased encroachment on the stream corridor has been noted. Protecting these riparian and floodplain zones is critically important to the future health of waterways in the watershed. Recommendations regarding floodplain development are being offered only as a guideline, as each municipality may have regulations that are specific to the needs of that respective area. Efforts set forth in the Chesapeake Bay Strategy should be supported. Research supports leaving a natural buffer that results in significant positive impacts on the health of the stream.

Partner with local universities to develop mutually beneficial programs for student education, and protection and enhancement of the watershed. Identify other volunteer and non-profit groups to coordinate activities and projects to avoid duplication of effort. A major difficulty associated with volunteer groups is a lack of personnel/assistance in completing everyday tasks associated with running the organization. Utilizing college students would allow more time for projects in the watershed, as well as providing real world experience to the college students. One example is the Yellow Breeches Watershed Association partnership with Messiah College on the Trout Run Initiative in Upper Allen Township.

Utilize the Rivers Conservation Plan as a tool in protecting, managing, and preserving the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. The Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan is meant to be a living and working document. The management options developed are for issues identified as important during the course of the study. Changes in conditions and attitudes may also result in changes to the management options. This document should be periodically updated, especially the management options, to address changes in the watershed, as well as changes in attitudes concerning what issues are important in the watershed.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-2 Land Resources

Assist agricultural property owners with confidential environmental assessments. Farmers should be educated about the Farm*A*Syst program in an effort to minimize pollution and improve overall water quality. Farm*A*Syst fact sheets and worksheets are designed to help identify the behaviors and practices that are creating risks to the environment. Farm*A*Syst is a national program cooperatively supported by the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES), NRCS, and US EPA.

Assist residential property owners with confidential environmental assessments. Homeowners should be educated about the Home*A*Syst program in an effort to minimize pollution and improve overall water quality. Home*A*Syst fact sheets and worksheets are designed to help identify the behaviors and practices that are creating risks to the environment. Home*A*Syst is a national program cooperatively supported by the CSREES, USDA NRCS, and US EPA.

Develop watershed wide cleanup days. Cleanup days in the watershed are an excellent public outreach tool that can lead to positive changes, in turn improving the health of the watershed. Public education efforts can be closely coordinated with volunteer efforts on cleanup days. Watershed cleanup days can be coordinated with PA Cleanway efforts.

Support current recycling efforts within the watershed. Consider expanding these efforts as an alternative to further landfill development. Current recycling programs already in place should be supported, while also being reviewed for effectiveness. Public education efforts can be closely coordinated with this management option and strategy.

Develop an educational program to promote the importance of riparian buffers. Large portions of the watershed are still in agricultural use and controlled by farmers. The environment can be protected by educating future farmers about the environmental benefits of buffers to the watershed. This effort can be an expansion of programs already implemented by the Cumberland County Conservation District (CCCD), or possibly a new program implemented in the schools of the watershed.

Encourage local farmers to enroll their property in agricultural security areas, set aside programs, and conservation easements. Farmers control large areas of land in the watershed. Although pressure to develop these farmlands is high, there appears to be a desire for lands to stay in agriculture if economically feasible. Farmers should be assisted by informing them of tax advantages of conserving farmland and participating in set aside programs.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-3 Water Resources

Develop and implement streambank stabilization and habitat enhancement projects for the streams in the watershed. Addressing nonpoint source pollution often involves the stabilization and restoration of streambanks along the affected waterway. Likewise, stream habitat enhancement projects are utilized to increase the quality and quantity of habitat for fish and invertebrates.

Support initiatives planned by the Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC). One example of PEC initiatives is the development of a coldwater conservation plan for the Cedar Run Watershed; this initiative is still in the early stages, with a draft not due out until late Spring 2005. Some potential areas addressed in the coldwater conservation plan could be stormwater management improvements, removal of some small dams, and stream restoration near the headwaters. The development of the coldwater conservation plan is currently the only PEC initiative planned for the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed.

Develop coldwater conservation plans for coldwater subwatersheds with the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. Coldwater Conservation Plans are useful in building local awareness and support for the long-term stewardship of coldwater streams and their surrounding watersheds. The plans are meant to identify potential problems and opportunities for stream conservation, and may often lead to more detailed watershed studies or projects, ultimately improving the health of coldwater ecosystems. Possible candidates for coldwater conservation plans include reaches of Mountain Creek, Old Town Run, Tom’s Run, and Trout Run.

Develop a comprehensive management plan for the Cedar Run Watershed. Cedar Run is just one of several sub-watersheds subject to numerous potential impacts from surrounding residential, industrial and commercial properties. While the Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan addresses the needs of the overall watershed, it may be beneficial to narrow the focus to some of the smaller streams in subsequent studies. With a view to using this type of study as a template for other streams within the watershed, funding and organizational opportunities should be investigated.

Support and develop conservation efforts specific to Trout Run. The public has identified Trout Run as an area of importance. New programs closely coordinated with public education efforts can be initiated to protect this valuable resource. This initiative involves the development of a community education program including environmental education trails and information kiosks. The partners include the Yellow Breeches Watershed Association, Upper Allen Township, Messiah College, Trout Unlimited, Appalachian Audubon Society, and the West Shore Evangelical Free Church. One of the goals of this initiative is to develop interest and support for the development of a comprehensive management plan for the Trout Run Watershed.

Develop a plan of action to preserve the publicly owned lakes in the watershed, specifically Laurel Lake and Fuller Lake. Preservation of these two valuable resources is essential for their long-term survival and use. Public education programs should be coordinated with ongoing recreation programs at both Laurel Lake and Fuller Lake. Efforts for this strategy should be coordinated with PA DCNR.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-4

Develop an educational program for elementary and secondary schools on water quality and the responsible use of the watershed. Educating youth is the best chance for longer-term protection and improvement in the watershed. The better our younger population understands the threats and needs of our streams, the more likely they will work to protect them as they get older.

Develop a program to inventory riparian buffers in the watershed. Identify areas that need to have riparian buffers established. Riparian buffers serve a multitude of functions, from filtering runoff to providing thermal protection to streams, to providing travel corridors for wildlife. Identifying areas that need these buffers and developing buffers on them will provide all of these important functions. A riparian buffer inventory can be integrated into a riparian buffer management study that describes where and what types of buffers are needed throughout the watershed.

Expand sewage capacity in the areas of the watershed with the highest projected growth rates. Areas of high growth can overwhelm municipal treatment systems, and on-site septic systems have a limited life span. Therefore, expanded capacity in the treatment facilities is the most reasonable method of addressing potential degradation to local waterways. Biological nutrient reduction upgrades should be considered as part of this strategy.

Biological Resources

Support programs to preserve ecological and visual amenities in the watershed. The Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed offers a wealth of valuable biological resources to the community. Currently available PA DCNR programs include the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, the Invasive Species Management Program, and the Wild Resource Conservation Program.

Identify areas of significant invasive species within the watershed and develop a plan to control the species. Invasive species are a significant problem that can reduce diversity of other species within the watershed. Invasive species are of limited habitat value and provide little stabilization to streambank soils.

Develop a public outreach program to attract fishermen to the Yellow Breeches Creek. The Yellow Breeches Creek is widely respected as an excellent trout fishery resource. A fishing guide including a map with stream access areas could be developed as a resource to sportsmen. A fishing guide could also be included in a water trail guide.

Inventory wetlands in stream corridors for protection and possible enhancement. National Wetland Inventory maps, hydric soils, and other secondary resources can be used to determine the major locations of wetlands in the watershed, especially along the stream corridors. A study could be completed to determine which resources would be the best candidates for restoration and enhancement.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-5 Cultural Resources

Encourage and develop educational programs on the environment in the watershed. Future protection of natural resources and amenities in the watershed is dependent upon educating the youth of the watershed to their value and importance. Pine Grove Furnace State Park, King’s Gap Environmental Center, and other significant locations could be utilized to give students a hands-on look at the importance and needs of these features.

Develop improved access areas to the Yellow Breeches Creek and its tributaries for recreational use. Access areas can be identified as part of an access strategy study. Current access areas to the streams can be improved, while new access areas can be added. Developing more access areas along the streams will more evenly distribute usage and pressure along the streams and protect the resource.

Increase recreational opportunities within the watershed, including park, recreational fields, and stream access areas. Continued population growth in the watershed will tax and eventually overwhelm the park and recreation facilities of the area. Developing new recreational areas (both passive and active), especially along the Yellow Breeches Creek, would help address this need. New active recreation areas should be considered first for reaches in the more urbanized portion of the lower watershed, including the Yellow Breeches Creek, Cedar Run, and Trout Run.

Increase passive recreational opportunities in the watershed. Not all recreation is active. Developing areas for quiet recreational pursuits including scenic views and nature areas will protect significant features in the watershed and provide recreational enjoyment without the substantial cost of developing active recreational facilities. New passive recreation areas should be considered first in proximity to stream access points, prominent trails, historic bridges, and other landmarks.

Develop a plan for the preservation of historic resources in the watershed. Because the watershed extends over three different counties, historical resources are recorded at varying levels of detail. Compiling a synopsis of all of the information pertinent to the watershed would produce a comprehensive look as what information is available regarding the history of the watershed. This inventory should highlight numerous old stone arch and iron truss bridges between Cumberland and York Counties and the important role these valuable resources played in the development of areas along the Yellow Breeches Creek. This method could determine specific areas where adequate information is lacking.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-6 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements GOAL 1: Educate and engage the watershed's users about the resource

1.1 Municipal or multi-municipal Environmental Advisory Councils (EACs) Strategy Appoint three to seven members to serve for a three Municipal officials, Planning Low Short * year term on municipal Environmental Advisory commissions Councils. Work with Pennsylvania Environmental Council (EAC) EAC members, Municipal Low Short Network to promote the effectiveness of newly officials, Planning established councils. www.eacnetwork.org commissions

Prioritize and target projects for implementation EAC members, YBWA, Low Short according to needs identified in the Yellow Breeches Municipal officials, Planning Rivers Conservation Plan and Watershed Assessment. commissions

Develop natural features conservation ordinances to EAC members, Municipal Medium Short protect valuable resources in the watershed. officials, Planning commissions Develop an EAC project implementation plan targeting EAC members, Municipal Varies with project type Short projects. officials, Planning commissions Communicate regularly with local planning EAC members, Municipal Low Short commissions and elected municipal officials. officials, Planning commissions

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-7 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements 1.2 Leadership/Planner Environmental Awareness Strategy Assemble outreach materials targeted specifically for YBWA membership Medium Short planning commission members. Encourage support and/or membership among YBWA membership Low Short * planning commission members in local watershed associations. Monitor the Chesapeake Bay Strategy program for YBWA membership Low Short progress and updates. Encourage participation of planning commission Municipal officials Low Short members in Pennsylvania watershed conferences. Work with the local media to showcase important YBWA Low Short accomplishments and initiatives of EACs, planning membership/municipal staff commission members, and municipal officials. 1.3 Environmental Assessment Strategy Farm*A*Syst ACB

Assist agricultural property owners with confidential YBWA membership Low Mid environmental assessments. Work with Penn State Cooperative Extension Service Conservation districts Low Mid to provide information to farmers regarding the Farm*A*Syst Program.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-8 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements Offer informational workshops on the Farm*A*Syst Conservation districts Low Mid program throughout the watershed. Consider incentives for agricultural landowners to Conservation districts Medium Mid participate in the Farm*A*Syst Program. Recognize farmers who participate in the Farm*A*Syst YBWA, Conservation Low Mid Program. districts

1.4 Environmental Assessment Strategy - Home*A*Syst Promote the Home*A*Syst Program with support from YBWA Low Mid the Penn State Cooperative Extension Service.

Obtain copies of the Home*A*Syst program guidebook Counties Low Mid and make it available to all libraries in the watershed and at each municipal office. Target rural and suburban residential land owners for Penn State Cooperative Medium Mid participation. Extension Service Develop an incentive program to encourage Medium Mid community-wide participation. Work with local chambers of commerce or community businesses to explore community dollar programs.

1.5 Trout Run Community Education Program Develop education curriculum in association with Trout Run Partnership Low Short Messiah College, YBWA, Appalachian Audubon Society, and other partners.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-9 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements Develop educational displays along the designated Trout Run Partnership Medium Short * Trout Run greenway to support education outreach efforts. Plan and design environmental trails from the Trout Run Partnership High Short * headwaters of Trout Run to the confluence with Yellow Breeches Creek. Work with the Mechanicsburg Area School District to Trout Run Partnership Medium Short incorporate the local watershed protection efforts into the student science curriculum.

1.6 Other Education Programs Develop education program on water quality specific to School districts, Messiah Medium Short elementary and secondary schools. College, Dickinson College, Shippensburg University

Develop a plan to preserve historic resources within County planning Medium Long the watershed, including an inventory of historic farms, commissions homes, bridges, and other important areas.

Develop public outreach program to educate public on Conservation districts, Medium Long the importance of riparian buffer preservation and YBWA restoration. Promote PA DCNR programs, including the YBWA Low Mid Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, the Invasive Species Management Program, and the Wild Resource Conservation Program. *Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-10 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements GOAL 2: Improve and maintain the water quality of the Yellow Breeches and it's many tributaries

2.1 Streambank stabilization and habitat enhancement projects Based on the results of the watershed assessment, YBWA Medium Short prioritize stream banks for stabilization and enhancements by subwatershed. Identify areas of instability and work to address Conservation districts Medium Mid causes. Consider limited public access in areas where public intrusion may hinder restorative programs.

Restore stream banks near the headwaters as a first YBWA, Conservation High/Very High Long priority. districts

2.2 Subwatershed Management Strategy

Encourage the development of subwatershed Municipalities, WAY, YBWA Medium Mid management plans in conjunction with municipal and other watershed comprehensive planning. Specific tasks include 1) organizations, EAC conducting an audit of local watershed protection members capabilities. Audit initiated as part of this planning process should be completed and a work plan developed for each municipality that targets where communities could improve their codes, ordinances and programs to provide better watershed protection. 2) Developing specific management objectives for subwatersheds.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-11 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements Support the work of the Pennsylvania Environmental PEC, Municipalities, Civic Medium Short Council and other organizations such as the Trout Run organizations Partnership who are planning watershed * improvements on a subwatershed scale. Target projects in the Cedar Run, Dogwood Run, and Trout Run subwatersheds as a high priority.

Implement the cold water conservation plan for the YBWA Partners Medium Mid Cedar Run Watershed. Develop coldwater conservation plans for other subwatersheds. Candidates for plans include reaches of Mountain Creek, Old Town Run, Tom's Run , and Trout Run.

Protect drinking water resources by developing and Owners of public water Medium Long implementing source water protection plans for all systems and municipalities community water systems within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. Develop watershed cleanup days in conjunction with Civic Organizations, Low Short PA Cleanway efforts. Consider networking with local Municipalities, YBWA, business owners and community leaders to develop School districts and adopt-a-subwatershed program aimed at subwatershed scale cleanup events within the Yellow Breeches Watershed. Support and expand current recycling efforts. Municipalities, County solid Low Short Consider expanding recycling efforts as an alternative waste authorities to further landfill development.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-12

Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements 2.3 Forest Ecosystem Management Program Strategy Provide a packet of education information to forested YBWA membership, Low Mid land owners in the watershed. Include the publication Conservation districts Best Management Practices for Pennsylvania Forests. This free publication from the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences is available for download at http://pubs.cas.psu.edu. Partner with the Penn State Cooperative Extension Conservation districts Low Mid Service to sponsor educational workshops on forestry best management practices.

Manage riparian areas within forested lands. Care Municipalities Medium/High Mid should be taken to leave a variable width, unharvested buffer strip along all perennial streams to maintain sources of organic matter and coarse woody debris contributions to streams.

2.4 Golf Course Best Management Program Strategy Work with existing golf course superintendents to Appalachian Audubon Low Mid participate in the International Audubon Association Society Program to implement best management practices.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-13 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements Develop best management practices guidelines for Medium Mid new golf course developments. Guidelines should address the importance of integrating layout of the course with the natural features of the site, limits on pre-existing forest removal, and location of constructed ponds. Guidelines should emphasize water use conservation practices.

Consider requirements for the installation of Medium/High Long permanent sampling wells, in addition to periodic monitoring of storm runoff, groundwater, and the biological communities present in golf course streams.

2.5 Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Update Act 537 sewage management plans that are Municipal authorities, Medium Long over ten years old. Encourage cooperation between Municipal officials, EAC municipalities and water suppliers to address land use members * and growth management options that support community goals for growth and rural conservation.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-14 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements Promote the development of environmentally beneficial Medium/High Long constructed wetlands for water treatment systems as part of the Act 537 planning effort. Provide guidelines for environmental performance.

Plan for expanded sewage capacity in the areas of the Municipal officials High Long watershed targeted for growth as defined in municipal comprehensive plans. Consider implementation of biological nutrient reduction upgrades to current facilities. Plan should be in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay Strategy. Develop on-lot disposal system management plans for Conservation districts Medium/High Long all rural areas served by on-lot systems. Consider the use of GIS technology for effective management of OLDs.

GOAL 3: Minimize flooding, property damage, and stream impacts due to stormwater

3.1 Create and enhance a network of protected riparian buffers along perennial and intermittent streams

Update municipal codes to include riparian buffer Municipalities Low Short * protection in land development ordinances. Protect and enhance existing riparian buffers and Conservation districts Medium/High Mid create or restore forested riparian buffers.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-15 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements Where new development is occurring, through Municipalities Medium Mid ordinance provisions, utilize conservation development design techniques to delineate and integrate the protected riparian buffer within the subdivision design while accommodating development objectives.

Identify areas of significant invasive species within Conservation districts Medium Mid riparian buffers and develop plans to control species. Work with municipalities to target public lands first for invasive species control so that these sites can be used as educational demonstration sites.

Prioritize areas in each subwatershed for riparian YBWA High/Very High Long buffer enhancement based on needs for improved wildlife travel corridors. Target undeveloped property within areas zoned for Municipalities High/Very High Long growth within Cedar Run and Dogwood Run for multi- functional greenway systems for stormwater management, wildlife habitat, and passive recreation as this land under goes urban development.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-16 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements 3.2 Implement comprehensive stormwater management programs in each of the region's municipalities. Hold site planning roundtables at the subwatershed Municipalities, Watershed Medium Mid level to effectively revise land development design organizations, Conservation standards requiring excessive impervious surfaces. districts

Require the use of stormwater best management Municipalities, Conservation Medium Mid practices for all new land development. Requirements districts & DEP should address the following measures in accordance with PADEP stormwater management policy: 1) infiltrate or discharge stormwater within the same subbasin in which it originates, 2) pre-treatment for stormwater discharges from land uses with potential for very high pollutant loadings prior to infiltration, 3) disconnection of impervious land cover created during development, 4) where on-site conditions make any or all of these measures impracticable, allow off-site stormwater mitigation preferably within the same subwatershed.

Adopt design standards as detailed in the state Municipalities Medium Mid stormwater best management practice manual.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-17

Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements Where Act 167 stormwater management plans exist, Municipalities Medium Mid implement the net flood peak release rates and other ordinance provisions stipulated in the plan.

Municipal ordinances should incorporate the following Municipalities Medium Mid information to insure the permanent operation and maintenance of stormwater management facilities: 1) entity responsible for maintaining the facility, 2) operation and maintenance plan suitable for implementation by that entity, 3) requirement for initial escrow fund to cover initial maintenance expenses, and 4) establish the municipal right but to enter the property or facility to perform maintenance if needed and to be reimbursed for those expenses.

In urban areas and areas designated for concentrated Municipalities Medium Mid urban growth, provide flexibility in stormwater quantity control requirements and prioritize implementation of stormwater quality controls.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-18 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements Regularly monitor construction site sedimentation and Conservation districts Medium Mid erosion control devices in new development projects for effectiveness to control site runoff. Enforce maintenance and proper operation of E&S plans.

3.3 100-year Floodplain Protection Strategy

Enforce municipal floodplain management ordinances. Municipalities Medium Mid

Pursue opportunities for land preservation in 100-year Municipalities High Mid floodplains through conservation easements. Map all 100 year floodplains and related riparian areas Municipalities Medium Short to include riparian buffers for each of the Yellow Breeches Creek subwatersheds. An inventory of riparian buffers can be integrated into a riparian buffer management study. Expand stream buffer requirements when the 100-year Municipalities Medium Mid floodplain extends beyond the stream buffer that would be required according to adopted riparian buffer requirements.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-19 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements GOAL 4: Enhance water based recreation in the watershed 4.1 Yellow Breeches Public Access Plan Map existing public access and target locations for YBWA, Counties Low Short increased public access and improvements to existing * access points. Access areas can be identified as part of an access strategy study. Improve recreational access through signage. Signs YBWA, Counties Low Short should be prominently displayed at all access points for linear park, trail greenways and direct stream access with clearly designated parking areas.

Develop active and passive recreation areas in YBWA, Municipalities Medium Mid proximity to access areas, trails, and landmarks. Develop additional boat access points within the PAFBC Medium Short watershed. Provide automobile parking at access points. Signage YBWA, PAFBC Medium Mid should be prominently displayed at access points for linear park and trail greenways. 4.2 Yellow Breeches Water Trail Map Create a water trail map for the Yellow Breeches Creek YBWA, PAFBC, Medium Short * and its tributaries, including greenway connections and Cumberland County linear park designations. Indicate areas for launching and retrieving canoes or YBWA, PAFBC Low/Medium Short kayaks. Provide improved canoe portage areas along the waterways where obstructions prevent safe passage.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-20 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements Identify private or public sites with facilities for YBWA, PAFBC Low Mid overnight camping. Identify the locations of restroom facilities along portions of the water trail.

Develop a logo for the Yellow Breeches water trail. YBWA Low Mid Coordinate the development of the water trail with YBWA, Counties Medium/High Long Cumberland County's countywide plan for greenways.

Promote recreational events such as triathlons that YBWA membership Low Long could take place on the Yellow Breeches water trail and associated greenways. Organize seasonal canoe tours of the Yellow Breeches Exiting outfitters, YBWA and Low Long Creek. Include important cultural and historical other community information about key sites along the tour route. organizations

4.3 Recreation Development and Floodplain Management

Provide multipurpose use of floodplains for flood Municipalities Medium Mid protection and recreation.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-21 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements Develop and or update park master plans and Municipalities Medium Long maintenance programs for existing community recreation facilities to support riparian buffer restoration and wetlands protection to help guide sustainable parkland development and stewardship. Identified priorities include Coover Park in Dillsburg Borough, Messiah College athletic park, Logan Park in Carroll Township, and Lower Allen Middle School recreational facilities in the Cedar Run subwatershed.

4.4 Fisheries Management Plans Support and implement fisheries management plans to YBWA, Trout Unlimited, Medium Long sustain recreationally important species in the Yellow PAFBC Breeches Creek and its tributaries. Target areas for resource conservation greenways to YBWA, Trout Unlimited, Medium/High Long the Yellow Breeches Creek for trout fishing. PAFBC 4.5 Scenic Greenways Strategy Establish criteria for selecting priority scenic YBWA Medium Long * greenways for acquisition to establish a Yellow Breeches Creek greenway. Prepare a short public relations video and slide YBWA Medium Mid * presentation on greenway and rivers conservation for the Yellow Breeches Creek.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-22 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements Encourage each municipality in the watershed with YBWA, Counties Medium Mid lands directly adjacent to the Yellow Breeches Creek to develop a five year trails acquisition plan. Investigate funding options for the municipalities to Central Pennsylvania Land High/Very High Long acquire easements or key parcels in fee simple. Conservancy, Counties

Inventory existing publicly owned lands along the YBWA, Counties Medium Long Yellow Breeches Creek that should be included in the plan for a Yellow Breeches Greenway. Determine the site work that would be required to make these lands accessible to the public. Consider the inventory of existing trails completed for YBWA, Counties Medium Long the Cumberland County Open Space and Greenways project. Work to establish these trails into a watershed wide greenway network. Establish a link on the YBWA website about the Yellow YBWA, Counties Low Mid Breeches Greenway and Water Trail System.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-23 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements Prioritize cultural resources identified in the plan and Municipalities Medium Mid work to include those resources within greenways. The potential for historic interpretation makes these sites important for public access and scenic preservation. Coordinate the development of education programs YBWA Medium Mid about the Yellow Breeches Greenway.

GOAL 5: Ensure an adequate supply of quality water for aquatic ecosystems and wildlife resources.

5.1 Wetlands Protection and Enhancement Program Inventory wetlands in the Yellow Breeches Creek Counties Medium Mid Watershed. Target areas for wetlands mitigation, highlighting YBWA, Counties, Medium Long opportunities to restore and create wetlands. Consider Municipalities, EAC these areas and other sensitive lands with respect to members TDR programs in developing sending areas.

5.2 Municipal Comprehensive Plan Update Update comprehensive plans that are over ten years Municipalities, Counties Medium Mid old.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-24 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements Explore the designation of growth areas and rural Municipalities, Counties Medium/High Mid resource areas for each municipality within the watershed. Conduct environmental resource inventories and EAC members Medium Long * prepare community-wide mapping of the sensitive resources. Develop policy for the protection of the community EAC members Medium Long * inventory of environmental resources. Support conservation subdivision design techniques. Municipalities, EAC Medium Short members Conduct ordinance audits to support updates that Conservation districts, EAC Medium Short foster better site design principles for new land members development projects.

GOAL 6: ¨ Develop cooperation and partnerships among the watershed communities (municipalities) and other watershed stakeholders.

6.1 Community Development Strategy

Consider watershed based zoning to set targets for Municipalities Medium Mid total impervious cover within each of the Yellow Breeches Creek subwatersheds to support community growth and development objectives. Direct development away from sensitive groundwater recharge lands and toward targeted urban growth centers.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-25 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements Adopt Site grading and clearing standards. Conservation districts Medium Mid Use overlay zoning to further protect inventoried Municipalities, EAC Medium Mid conservation resources. members Adopt landscape standards for protecting native Conservation districts Medium Mid vegetation. For urbanized and targeted growth subwatersheds Municipalities, Counties Medium/High Mid including Cedar Run and Dogwood Run, consider the development of TDR programs to support municipal growth plans. Establish receiving areas within growth boundaries. Support the implementation of land conservation Municipalities Medium Mid techniques within the context of conservation subdivision design. Develop source water protection plans in conjunction Water companies Medium Mid with owners of public water supplies.

6.2 Conservation Easement Awareness Strategy Develop an educational brochure that explains the YBWA, PA DCNR Low Short environmental and tax benefits of placing a conservation easement on private property.

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-26 Yellow Breeches Rivers Conservation Implementation Plan ID_Strategy Action Items Responsible Party1 Funding2 Time Target3 Requirements Explain the necessary steps a property owner should YBWA, PA DCNR Low Short follow to donate a conservation easement. Make available a sample conservation easement PA DCNR Low Short document that can be easily tailored to meet the specific conditions and goals for a property. Hold workshops for local farmers to answer questions Cooperative Extension, PA Low Short about the state farmland preservation program and Department of Agriculture agricultural security areas. Provide assistance with agricultural preservation County Agricultural Land Low Short applications to farmers who are interested in Preservation Boards, preserving their farmland through the statewide Cumberland County agricultural preservation program. Planning Commission, Municipalities

*Priority Strategy 1Potential parties have been identified for the implementation of each strategy. Additional parties not listed could lead implementation efforts. 2Funding Requirements: Low $0 - $5,000/year Medium $5,000 - $20,000/year High $20,000+/year 3Time Target: Short <1 – 5 years Mid 3 – 10 years Long 5 – 20 years

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan E-27 TAB F REFERENCES

Adams County Conservation District, Agricultural Data. 2004.

Adams County Planning Commission. Adams County Comprehensive Plan. 1991.

Cumberland County Conservation District. Agricultural Data. 2004.

Cumberland County Planning Commission. Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan, Cedar Run Watershed, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2002.

Cumberland County Planning Commission. Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan, Upper Yellow Breeches Watershed, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2000.

Cumberland County Planning Commission. Cumberland County Comprehensive Plan. 2003.

Cumberland County Planning Commission. Cumberland County Open Space Preservation Plan. 2004.

Cumberland County Planning Commission. Cumberland Countywide Greenway Study. 2000.

Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Water Resources Management. Chesapeake Bay Foundation & Yellow Breeches Alliance. Yellow Breeches Creek Scenic River Study. 1992.

Dr. David Foster, personal conversation. Oakes Museum of Natural History, Messiah College, 2005.

Dr. Todd Hurd, personal conversation. Shippensburg University, 2005.

National Audubon Society. Habitat data. 2004.

National Register of Historic Places. Online: http://nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com. 2004.

National Resources Conservation Service. Soils data. Online: http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/intro.html. 2005.

National Wetlands Inventory. Wetlands data. 2004.

Nature Conservancy. Habitat data. 2005.

PA DEP. Annual Water Supply Reports. 2004.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Dams data. 2004.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. NPDES permittees. 2005.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. 2004.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Title 25, Chapter 93, Water Quality Standards. 2003.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan F-1 Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Endangered species data. 2004

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Fish species data. 1978.

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. Historical data. 2004.

Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index. Threatened and endangered species data. 2004

Pennsylvania Office of the Governor. Chesapeake Bay Strategy information. 2005.

Rowland, Bob. History of the Callapatschink/Yellow Breeches Creek. 2001.

Socolow, Arthur A. Engineering Characteristics of the Rocks of Pennsylvania. Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey. 1982.

Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Adams County, Pennsylvania. United States Department of Agriculture. 1967.

Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Cumberland and Perry Counties, Pennsylvania. United States Department of Agriculture. 1963.

Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of York County, Pennsylvania. United States Department of Agriculture. 2002.

Taylor, Larry E., and William H. Werkheiser. Groundwater Resources of the Lower Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania, Water Resource Report 57. Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, 1984.

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Natural Areas Inventory Cumberland, Dauphin, & Perry Counties. 2000.

United States Geologic Survey. Large lakes and ponds data. 2004

York County Conservation District. Agricultural Data. 2004.

York County Planning Commission. York County Comprehensive Plan. Adopted September 1997, amendments June 2003.

Mapping Layers:

Agricultural Conservation Easements. Cumberland County Agricultural Land Preservation Guide. Cumberland County Planning Commission. 1998.

Agricultural Security Areas. Cumberland County Agricultural Land Preservation Guide. Cumberland County Planning Commission. 1998.

Appalachian Trail. PA DCNR. 2003.

Contours. 7.5 Minute Digital Elevation Models. USGS. www.PASDA.psu.edu. 2001.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan F-2 Dams. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2004.

Floodplains of Adams, Cumberland and York Counties, PA. Pa Explorer CD-ROM Edition. www.PASDA.psu.edu. 1996.

Geology. Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey. PA DCNR. 2001.

Historical Sites. PHMC. 2004.

HRG Monitoring Points. HRG, Inc. 2005.

Local roadways of Adams, Cumberland and York Counties, PA. PENNDOT. www.PASDA.psu.edu. 2001.

Major Watershed. Environmental Resources Research Institute. www.PASDA.psu.edu. 1998.

Minor Watersheds. Environmental Resources Research Institute. www.PASDA.psu.edu. 1997.

Municipal Boundaries. PENNDOT. www.PASDA.psu.edu. 2004.

Municipal Parks. Cumberland Countywide Greenway Study, Cumberland County Planning Commission. 2000.

Railroads. Environmental Resources Research Institute. www.PASDA.psu.edu. 1996.

Quarries. HRG, Inc. Digitized from USGS. 2004.

Schools. HRG, Inc. 2005.

Sinkholes. United States Geologic Survey. 2003

State Forests. Environmental Resources Research Institute. www.PASDA.psu.edu. 1996.

State Gamelands. Environmental Resources Research Institute. www.PASDA.psu.edu. 1996.

State maintained roadways of Adams, Cumberland and York Counties, PA. PENNDOT. www.PASDA.psu.edu. 2004.

Streams of Adams, Cumberland and York Counties, PA. Pa Explorer Edition. www.PASDA.psu.edu. 1996.

Wetlands. National Wetland Inventory (NWI). US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003.

Yellow Breeches Creek Rivers Conservation Plan F-3 APPENDICES

A – NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMITTEES B – KNOWN FLOODING AND STORMWATER PROBLEM AREAS C – HISTORY OF THE YELLOW BREECHES CREEK D – PENNSYLVANIA FISH AND BOAT COMMISSION STREAM SURVEYS E – PUBLIC AND MUNICIPAL COMMENTS

APPENDIX A

NPDES PERMITTEES APPENDIX A NPDES PERMITTEES - NON-MUNICIPAL SEWAGE (PA DEP, 2005)

Permit No. Facility County Municipality Facility ID Stream PA0030473 FAIRVIEW ELEM York Fairview Township SN Yellow Breeches Creek PA0081060 MEADOWBROOK MHP York Fairview Township SN Yellow Breeches Creek PA0081361 MEMPHORD ESTATES York Monaghan Township SN Stony Run PA0081795 WILLIAMS GROVE MHP Cumberland Monroe Township SN Yellow Breeches Creek PA0081876 AUDUBON VILLAGE MHP York Monaghan Township SN Yellow Breeches Creek PA0082911 WELLINGTON HEIGHTS York Monaghan Township SN Yellow Breeches Creek PA0087114 CALVO, MANOLO & ROSALIE York Carroll Township SN Stony Run APPENDIX A NPDES PERMITTEES - STORMWATER DISCHARGES (PA DEP, 2005)

Permit No. Facility County Municipality Facility ID Stream PAR123503 QUAKER OATS Cumberland Hampden Township SWI Cedar Run PAR123546 ADM ALLIANCE NUTRITION Cumberland Camp Hill Borough SWI Not Available PAR123556 DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA Cumberland Lower Allen Township SWI Cedar Run PAR123557 KEEBLER DISTR CTR 465 Cumberland Mechanicsburg Borough SWI Cedar Run PAR203519 KEYSTONE RAILWAY EQUIP Cumberland Lower Allen Township SWI Cedar Run PAR203521 TRUE TEMPER HARDWARE Cumberland Hampden Township SWI Not Available PAR213510 ATLAS ENERGY ROOFING PLT CAMP HILL Cumberland Camp Hill Borough SWI Not Available PAR233530 LOWER ALLEN TWP LEAF COMPOSTING Cumberland Lower Allen Township SWI Cedar Run PAR503505 WASTE MGMT CAMP HILL TRANSF Cumberland Hampden Township SWI Cedar Run PAR603568 NEW CUMBERLAND AUTO PARTS York Fairview Township SWI Not Available PAR803512 ARNOLD TRUCKING TERMINAL Cumberland Camp Hill Borough SWI Not Available PAR803514 WARD TRUCKING CAMP HILL Cumberland Lower Allen Township SWI Cedar Run PAR803647 NEW PENN TRUCKING TERM CAMP HILL Cumberland Camp Hill Borough SWI Not Available APPENDIX A NPDES PERMITTEES - MUNICIPAL SEWAGE (PA DEP, 2005)

Permit No. Facility County Municipality Facility ID Stream PA0023183 MT HOLLY SPRINGS STP Cumberland Mount Holly Springs Borough SP Mountain Creek PA0024431 DILLSBURG STP York Dillsburg Borough SP Dogwood Run PA0024902 UPPER ALLEN TWP STP Cumberland Upper Allen Township SP Yellow Breeches Creek PA0027189 LOWER ALLEN STP York Lower Allen Township SP Susquehanna River PA0044113 SOUTH MIDDLETON STP Cumberland South Middleton Township SP Yellow Breeches Creek PA0024287 FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP STP York Fairview Township SP Susquehanna River APPENDIX A NPDES PERMITTEES - INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGES (PA DEP, 2005)

Permit No. Facility County Municipality Facility ID Stream PA0007862 PA AMER W CO YELLOW BREECHES WS York Fairview Township IW Yellow Breeches Creek PA0008150 MH TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Cumberland Mount Holly Springs Borough IW Mountain Creek PA0008486 AHLSTROM FILTRATION Cumberland Mount Holly Springs Borough IW Mountain Creek PA0014605 UNITED WATER-MECH RC RABOLD WS York Fairview Township IW Yellow Breeches Creek PA0037141 PA FISH COMM HUNTSDALE IW Cumberland Penn Township IW Yellow Breeches Creek PA0037141 PA FISH COMM HUNTSDALE IW Cumberland Penn Township IW Irishtown Gap Hollow PA0044911 LAND O LAKES Cumberland South Middleton Township IW Mountain Creek PA0080632 B & W HUNTSDALE Cumberland Penn Township IW Yellow Breeches Creek PA0084395 CAMP HILL ST CORR INST Cumberland Lower Allen Township IW Cedar Run PA0086487 PPG MT HOLLY STORM Cumberland South Middleton Township IW Yellow Breeches Creek PA0086711 SUN OIL / MECHANICSBURG Cumberland Hampden Township IW Not Available PA0086801 EXXON RAS #2-7395 GWCU Cumberland Upper Allen Township IW Yellow Breeches Creek PA0247162 PA AMER WEST SHORE REG WATER SYS York Fairview Township IW Yellow Breeches Creek APPENDIX B

KNOWN FLOODING AND STORMWATER PROBLEM AREAS APPENDIX B - KNOWN STORMWATER AND FLOODING PROBLEM AREAS

Municipality Location Description CarrollTownship Gettysburg Pike Channel and stream flooding CarrollTownship Spring Lane Road Channel and stream flooding CarrollTownship Stony Run Road Channel and stream flooding Dickinson Township Alexander Spring Road Channel and stream flooding Dickinson Township Stuart Road Channel and stream flooding Dickinson Township West Yellow Breeches Creek Road/Dickinson School Road Channel and stream flooding Dickinson Township Encks Mill Road Channel and stream flooding Dickinson Township Mont Sera Road Channel and stream flooding Fairview Township Old York Road/Ross Avenue Channel and stream flooding Fairview Township Old York Road/Lewisberry Road Channel and stream flooding Fairview Township Green Lane Farms/Yellow Breeches Drive Channel and stream flooding Lemoyne Borough Hummel Avenue Street flooding Lower Allen Township Windsor Park Area Stormwater drainage Lower Allen Township Bethany Village (White Field Road Area) Stormwater drainage/runoff Lower Allen Township Windsor Place Area Stormwater drainage/runoff Lower Allen Township Cumberland Road Area Stormwater drainage/runoff Lower Allen Township Linda Lane Channel and stream flooding Lower Allen Township Schuylkill Ave. Channel and stream flooding Lower Allen Township Cedar Cliff Mall Area Stormwater drainage/runoff Lower Allen Township Lisburn Road Bridge Floodplain resulting in road closure Lower Allen Township Sheepford Road Bridge Floodplain resulting in road closure Lower Allen Township Spanglers Mill Road Bridge Floodplain resulting in road closure Lower Allen Township Green Lane Bridge Area Floodplain resulting in road closure Lower Allen Township Sheepford Road Floodplain resulting in road closure Lower Allen Township Yellow Breeches Creek & Cedar Run Floodplain - entire stream corridor Lower Allen Township Hummel Avenue Street and intersection flooding Lower Allen Township Highland Circle to Carlisle Road Channel stream flooding Lower Allen Township Carlisle Road (Railroad Underpass) Street and intersection flooding Lower Allen Township Rosemont Avenue Channel and stream flooding Lower Allen Township Orchard Avenue Street and intersection flooding Lower Allen Township St. John's Road Street and intersection flooding Lower Allen Township Rockaway Drive Discharge to sinkhole Lower Allen Township Bethany Village Street and intersection flooding Lower Allen Township Gettysburg Road (4800 Block) Street and intersection flooding Lower Allen Township Simpson Ferry Road (5100 Block) Street and intersection flooding Lower Allen Township Gettysburg Road/Sheely Lane Channel and stream flooding APPENDIX B - KNOWN STORMWATER AND FLOODING PROBLEM AREAS (Cont'd.)

Municipality Location Description Monroe Township Criswell Drive Channel and stream flooding Monroe Township Cockley's Meadow Drive Channel and stream flooding Monroe Township Creek Road Channel and stream flooding Monroe Township Park Place Channel and stream flooding Monroe Township William's Grove Mobile Home Park Channel and stream flooding Monroe Township Spring Circle Channel and stream flooding Monroe Township Heisey Road Stormwater drainage New Cumberland Borough New Cumberland Borough Park Channel and stream flooding New Cumberland Borough Second Street Channel and stream flooding New Cumberland Borough Maple Alley Channel and stream flooding New Cumberland Borough Locust Alley Channel and stream flooding New Cumberland Borough Maple Alley/Second Street Stormwater drainage Upper Allen Township Bumble Bee Hollow Road Street flooding Upper Allen Township Shingus Circle/Grantham Road Stormwater drainage Upper Allen Township Gettysburg Road Channel and stream flooding Upper Allen Township Allendale Road Channel and stream flooding Upper Allen Township Eric Avenue Stormwater drainage/sinkhole Upper Allen Township East Winding Hill Road Channel and stream flooding Upper Allen Township Route 114/PA Turnpike Channel and stream flooding Upper Allen Township Georgetown Road/Elmwood Avenue Stormwater drainage Upper Allen Township Webercraft Development Channel and stream flooding Upper Allen Township South York Street Stormwater drainage Upper Allen Township York Street Channel and stream flooding Upper Allen Township Diehl Road Stormwater drainage

Sources: CCPC, 2000 CCPC, 2002 Municipalities, 2005 APPENDIX C

HISTORY OF THE YELLOW BREECHES CREEK HISTORY OF THE CALLAPATSCHINK/YELLOW BREECHES CREEK

PREPARED FOR YELLOW BREECHES WATERSHED ASSOCIATION By Bob Rowland August 2001

The first known occupancy of the Central Pennsylvania area was by the Susquehannock Indians and predated the arrival of the white man from Europe. Some evidence has been found on the West Shore area to confirm their presence, but not enough to confirm specific locations other than burials or their activities. With the demise of the Susquehannocks in the mid to late 1600s, the Shawnee Indians began moving from the south and west into Maryland and Pennsylvania. This was with the permission of the Penn Family and the Delaware Indians. By the 1720s, the Shawnees had established a village on the north side of the mouth of the Yellow Breeches. Little physical evidence has been found but their presence is well documented in various records.

Other Shawnee Villages along the Susquehanna River were south of the Yellow Breeches at an undefined location, and on the north side of the mouth of the Conodoguinet Creek, which was documented in property surveys as late as 1737. It was also reported that the Shawnee lodges could be seen on the bluffs opposite John Harris’ place.

The Indians had a burial ground approximately 2 miles up stream along the Yellow Breeches on Rich Hill at a loop in the Yellow Breeches. Rich Hill no longer exists due to a quarry operation. The property owner was of the opinion that there were also lodges there. There have been some undocumented reports of Indian villages further up stream and in the western portion of Cumberland County but no specific locations are known. Other than the obvious use of the Yellow Breeches for fishing and transportation, there is no known other use by the Indians. In 1728, the Shawnees departed the local area and headed out to western Pennsylvania and joined forces with the French to fight against the English.

In 1732, the three Lancaster Jurists wrote a letter to the Shawnee chief in an enticement to get the Indians to return, offering them a 7,500 acre manor along the Susquehanna River in what would later be known as Lowther Manor. Their description of the boundary included the “Shawna Creek” on the south side, the name by which the Shawnees knew the Yellow Breeches.

The only Indian that lived near the Yellow Breeches and left his mark in history was Peter Chartier (1700- 1759). He was the son of Martin Chartier, - 1718, a Frenchman from Canada and a noted Indian trader and interpreter. Martin’s wife, Peter’s mother, was a Shawnee. Peter Chartier established a trading post about a mile north of the Yellow Breeches along the Susquehanna River and competed with John Harris. Chartiers place or Chartiers Landing was located just off the river between 15th and 16th Streets in New Cumberland. While he departed with the Shawnees in the late 1720s, he frequently returned and he did obtain a deed to this property in 1739. As a Shawnee chief, he was frequently involved in negotiations with the Penn government, some of which took place at the mouth of the Yellow Breeches.

There are many opinions about the source of the name, Yellow Breeches, but no conclusions. The earliest recorded use of a variation of this name that the author has found is in the Blunston’s Licenses first issued to David Priest on May 2, 1734 for 200 acres of land on the south side of the “Yellow Britches” Creek. It is repeated as “Britches” in nine other licenses issued between 1734 and 1736, according to the transcription by Mrs. Harry Royes and published by the Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania. Local historian Robert G. Crist indicated that it was spelled “Breeches” in the Blunston Licenses. Smout’s survey of 1736 included the name “Yellow Breeches”. It appears that after 1737, the name “Yellow Breeches was used exclusively, i.e. Peter Chartier’s 1739 Deed to his tract in New Cumberland Borough.

One story is that some old “Geezer” in the early days washed his buckskin breeches in the creek and yellowed the water. Another story is that the name is a corruption from yellow beeches, from the great number of trees of that species that grew upon its banks. The presence of beech trees is confirmed in the 1740 survey of Peter Chartier’s tract which started at the mouth of the Yellow Breeches at the Susquehanna River, “…. beginning at a beech tree on the banks of the Susquehanna river…”. Or it may have been taken from an old song:

“Yellow Breeches, Full of stitches, Mammy sewed the buttons on: Daddy kicked me out of bed for sleeping with the breeches on” (4)

The Indians used a variety of names including: Callapus-Kinck, Callapus-Sink, Callapatscink, Shawna and Shawnee Creek. Use of the later names would have been limited to 30 years or less during the Shawnee occupancy.

The land on the west side of the Susquehanna River was not opened legally for settlement until the mid- 1730s. When the negotiations with the Indians were approaching completion, the Penn’s authorized the issuance of a temporary warrant called Blunston’s Licenses. These were issued for four years until October 1736 when the Penn’s repurchased the west side of the Susquehanna River from the Chiefs of the Five Nations. The land office then began issuing warrants for the west side.

The Blunston Licenses were issued by Lancaster County officials who at that time had jurisdiction over the new territory on the west side of the Susquehanna. As mentioned, the first license issued along the Yellow Breeches was for David Priest of Lancaster County. It included 200 acres and was described “To be bounded on the east with the River, on the north side with Yellow Britches Creek, to the west with Richard Ashton’s tract” (Ashton’s license was issued the same day). The 1736 survey of “The Proprietary’s Mannor” (later named Lowther Manor) by Edward Smout located the Priest and Ashton cabins on the south side of the Yellow Breeches. The hills to the south of the Yellow Breeches were later named the “Priest Hills” in Scull’s 1770 map of Pennsylvania. David Priest is the first person to get legal title and to settle along the Yellow Breeches. With the rapid settlement of the west banks of the Susquehanna River, the need for improved government developed. York County was established in late 1749 and several months later, in January 1750, Cumberland County was formed, both being carved out of Lancaster County.

The enabling legislation provided for representatives from the two Counties to meet and establish the common boundary line. A dispute quickly arose, as the Cumberland County representatives wanted the line to start at a point of the Susquehanna River opposite the mouth of the Swatara Creek and run along the ridge of the South Mountain, while the York representatives claimed it should follow the Yellow Breeches Creek. The issue was settled by an act passed on February 9, 1751, which established that the line should follow the Yellow Breeches from its mouth at the Susquehanna River to the mouth of Dogwood Run, and thence by a straight line to the ridge of South Mountain.

The new settlers needed lumber to build homes and mills to grind their grains. The Yellow Breeches was an obvious source of power for new mills. Since building permits and stream encroachment permits weren’t required, there are no records of when the first mills were constructed. Tax assessment lists were usually the first record of each mill. The first such records in Allen Township, Cumberland County was for the year 1766.

Five property owners are listed as owning mills:

John Anderson - fulling mill William Hammersley - saw mill Hugh Laird - grist mill & saw mill Robert Rosebury - grist mill & saw mill Ralph Whiteside - grist mill & saw mill

Legend has it that William Brooks, who came from Ireland in 1740 and squatted on 180 acres along the Yellow Breeches in what is now Lower Allen Township, built a house and mill between 1745 and 1750 on land that he did not have title to until 1794. Although he had made the improvements, the proprietors compelled him to pay the improved valuation when it was conveyed to him. This explains why he was not on the 1766 tax lists.

Further upstream, the following were known to have mills about in the 1760’s or earlier.

Glen Allen Mill/ Lantz Roger Cook Craigshead Michael Ege

The earliest known mill information pertains to a corn mill on the Cedar Run just above its mouth on the Yellow Breeches in what is now called Milltown or Eberly Mills. Benjamin Chambers, founder of Chambersburg, was granted a “corn mill and a plantation of 300 acres” by Thomas Penn for providing the leadership that stopped Cresap and the Marylanders in their intrusion into Pennsylvania. In one version, Chambers, a millwright, offered to build a corn mill, but since Penn offered him title to the land and mill, it must have then existed in 1736. The Land Office later denied Chamber’s claim to the land. This mill was located in Lowther Manor, which was not legally opened for settlement until 1767.

Another confirmation of early mills in Milltown was contained in John Armstrong’s survey of Lowther Manor in 1765. The plan notes “Mill seate” on proposed lot #11, which contains Cedar Run and its mouth on the Yellow Breeches. Surveyors record the facts observed on their field surveys and do not speculate about future land use.

In the book Callapatscink by John R. Miller, first read before the Cumberland County Historical Society in November 1909, there are identifications of 60 mills that existed at various times along the Yellow Breeches and detailed chain of ownership and type of mill for many of them. This includes mills in York and Cumberland Counties. Some of these mill buildings still exist and are used today as warehouses, residences, and the Brooks mill is used by the Mechanicsburg Water Co. as a water filtration facility.

Miller identifies the mills for the following uses:

Grist 13 Furnace 1 Saw 10 Plaster 1 Forge 3 Chopping 1 Oil 4 Iron Works 1 Fulling 3 Unknown 20 (Probably Grist & Saw) Clover 3 Forge 3

Locating mills by a given name is very difficult because they frequently changed names as the property was sold or the owner died. Many of these mills had dams along the Yellow Breeches or its tributaries to improve the flow through the mill. These initially were wooden or log dams using rock cribs, until concrete was introduced in the late 1800s. The Department of Environmental Protection, Dam Safety Unit lists 12 dams under open permits along the Yellow Breeches. There are other permitted dams on the tributaries.

Those on the Yellow Breeches are as follows:

Permit 21-007 New Cumberland, 6' high concrete gravity dam built in 1911 for the West Shore water supply and power for pumping. Constructed for Riverton Water Co. It was located immediately downstream from an old milldam. Still in use.

Permit 21-022 Green Lane Farms, 9' high concrete dam built in 1915 to run the gristmill on the north bank. Constructed for Yellow Breeches Milling Inc. It was located immediately downstream from an old crib dam built by Etter & Shanklin in the late 1800s. No longer in use.

Permit 21-021 Brook’s or Spangler’s Mill, 8' high gated concrete dam rebuilt in 1911, for power for grist and sawmill. Constructed for Spangler Flour Mills Inc. Replaced crib dam. No longer in use.

Permit 21-004 Boyer or Miller Dam, 10' high concrete dam built in 1908 for water supply. Constructed for Mechanicsburg Gas and Water Co. Still in use.

Permit 21-070 Lisburn, dam built about 1904 for power for flour, grist, cider and saw mills. Probably rebuilt for Jacob and James Kunkel.

Permit 21-077 Rosegarden dam provided power for gristmill and electric lights. McCormick was the 1919 0wner.

Permit 21-083 Williams Grove, a 2' high dam was built in 1919 for improvements of the spring.

Permit 21-086 Brandtville, an old rubble stone dam for generating electricity.

Permit 21-002 Boiling Springs, rebuilt in 1950 for electric generator.

Permit 21-089 Monroe Mill Dam #1, rubble masonry dam for flour and gristmill. Owner Leising.

Permit 21-003 Bucher Estate, rubble dam, formerly owned by Boiling Springs Light and Power. Used to divert water into Children’s Lake. In 1998, dam was reported as “Breached” and in disrepair. South Middleton Township considered rebuilding the dam for wetland and bird sanctuary in 1997.

Permit 21-029 One mile north of Mt. Holly Springs, rubble dam used for a flourmill of J. E. Martin. At a number of places along the Yellow Breeches Creek, the flow splits and then later rejoins creating islands of various sizes. About a mile and a half upstream from Boiling Springs, one of the islands is known locally as Island Grove, being a little downstream from Craigshead. This island had very dense undergrowth affording great shelter for escaped slaves and was used by those in sympathy with their cause as one of the important depots of the Underground Railroad. The slaves were harbored here until opportunity was afforded to move them on northward. From there, they were taken across Sterrett’s Gap where they could continue their trek. One of the houses in nearby Boiling Springs was also used as part of the Underground Railroad.

As the population increased, towns and villages began to develop along the Yellow Breeches. Working upstream, they are identified as follows (with the year of beginning, when known).

Town County Year New Cumberland Cumberland 1814 New Market York 1807 Lisburn Cumberland 1765 Bowmansdale Cumberland Grantham Cumberland Williams Grove Cumberland Boiling Springs Cumberland 1845

The need for drinking water and later sewage disposal to support these communities was provided by the Yellow Breeches. At the present time, there are two dams with water intakes for domestic purpose along the Creek. The Boyer Mill Building and dam (10' high concrete structure) are utilized by the Mechanicsburg Water Company. A modern filter plant is located within the old mill building, which is located in Fairview Township. Further downstream is a 6" high masonry structure, which impounds water for the Riverton Operation of the American Water Company. The plant is also on the south side of the Creek in Fairview Township.

As the quality of life improved, there was increasing need for bridges to end the fording of streams. Some small bridges were erected in the 1700s by Townships, such as the Huntsdale Bridge in what is now Penn Township. During the Bell vs. Drawbaugh hearings in 1883, there was testimony about a footbridge at Etters Mill being washed out in the spring floods of 1875. There were probably many footbridges across the Yellow Breeches for the convenience of the local inhabitants, which had short duration.

The first recorded bridge over the Yellow Breeches was a wooden bridge connecting New Cumberland with York County. The records are not clear whether the bridge was built in 1792 or was already in existence at that time. Gilbert W. Beckley, the New Cumberland historian, was of the opinion that this first bridge was located close to the present railroad bridge. By 1815, this bridge was replaced.

The County in 1795 for the first time began utilizing county funds for building bridges, which initially were of the stone arch type. The first county bridge to be built on the Yellow Breeches was a five arch stone bridge aligning with Market Street in New Cumberland in 1815. This bridge had a much longer life than the first wood bridge, being washed out in 1889. Since that time, there has been a third (iron) and the present (fourth) bridge. Three other stone arch bridges were built on the Yellow Breeches by the County during the nineteenth century. All three are still in use at this time. They are:

Boyer Mill Bridge - four arches, 1859 Bryson Bridge - four arches, 1857 Boiling Springs Bridge - three arches, 1854

After the New Cumberland Bridge, the next four erected on the Yellow Breeches were wooden covered bridges, during the period of 1828 to 1850. During the 1850s, several uncovered wooden bridges were erected. Several wood covered bridges were erected on the Yellow Breeches during the 1860s before the County Commissioners took an interest in iron bridges. All of the early iron bridges had to be replaced in their first decade except for the Givlers Bridge on the Yellow Breeches. The next wave of iron bridges was more successful with some of them still in use today (Etters, Bishops, and Gilberts).

Attached to this report is a listing of known bridge sites utilizing the map and identification prepared by Dick Meads in 1935. This basically covers county-built bridges and does not include Commonwealth built bridges on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the Interstates, and numerous state legislative routes, nor private bridges. Railroad bridges, of which there are several, have not been inventoried.

On the banks of the Yellow Breeches on the Hempt property was an early vacation complex. There were 12 cottages in a line along the stream that were built by people from Harrisburg. Two of these cottages would become year-round homes. They would lease the site from the Hempt’s and build their own cottage. A little removed from the line of cottages was another cottage called the Steelton Club, which was used by the young men of Steelton. Next to the Steelton cottage was the ball field, which was used by the Church of God team. The ball games were considered popular local events and drew large crowds. The park had a wooden chute that had water running down it, and the kids would ride sleds down the chute into the Yellow Breeches. There was a swimming area and diving board, a picnic area, a dance pavilion with a nickelodeon for music, but no bands. There was also a dressing and shower building and a refreshment stand.

The author’s former secretary told about taking the streetcar with her girlfriend from Harrisburg to the White Hill stop on Hummel Avenue. From there, they would then walk down 18th Street and Creek Road to the Hempt property to spend a weekend. The area at the end of the loop in the stream was also a popular camping site. One of the cottages was relocated from the stream to Lisburn Road opposite the Cedar Road School and still exists, though expanded. Expansion of the business and the Second World War brought an end to the recreational use of the site.

The Yellow Breeches Creek in the last century (and presumably always) has been noted for its water quality and aquatic life. The fish are only part of the system of fauna that includes 150 kinds of birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals. Numerous favorable factors in addition to the fauna contributed to the Yellow Breeches Creek being designated in 1993 as part of Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers System. The reach of 5½ miles from Spangler’s Mill to the Susquehanna River is classified as “recreational area” and the upstream portion is classified as “pastoral” meaning that the views from the banks are primarily farmland.

Sources:

• Beckley, Gilbert W. 1973 New Cumberland Frontiers • 1975 The Sampler from seventy six • Crist, Robert Grant 1957 The Land in Cumberland called Lowther • 1969 Manor on the Market • 1993 Lower Allen Township • DEP Dam Safety Unit Dam Permit Files • Egle, W.H. 1883 History of Dauphin Co. • Flower, Lenore Embick 1961 Blunston Licaneses And Their Background • Gill, Paul E. 1992 “…Drive the Road and Bridge the Ford…” Published by Cumberland County Historical Society • Kent, Barry C. 1984 Susquehanna’s Indians • Miller, John R. 1909 Callapatscink, The Yellow Breeches Creek • Royes, Mrs. Harry 1932 Blunston’s Licenses, Published in Genealogical Society of Pa. Vol. XI, 1932 • Rupp, I Daniel 1846 History and Topography of Dauphin, Cumberland Counties • Thomas, Evelyn H. 1981 Tracking the Crossings of the Yellow Breeches Creek • Wing, Rev. Conway P. 1879 History of Cumberland County • U.S. Circuit Court 1886 American Bell Telephone Co. vs. Peoples Telephone Co.

CALLAPATSCINK

I romp’d on the banks in my boyhood I bathed in thy pure silv’ry stream Where the birch bark canoes of the red man, Once flash’d, in the bright rosy beam, Of the sun, on the swift flowing waters. While the wild deer would come there to drink; Yes, -I’ve dream’d on the banks of the maidens who were wooed on the Callapatscink. Here the brave of the past had his wigwam, Here he sleeps his last sleep on the hill, With his bow and his stone-pointed arrows, His wampum and beads with him still, Yet the waters on which he disported, In search of the deer on the brink, Roll on-singing dirges of sorrow For the braves of the Callapatscink. On the hill ‘neath the boughs of the thorn-bush The bones of the red men were laid, Yet the spirit moans out on the night wind A response to the sighs of the maid That he loved, wooed and won by the camp-fire- As her cheek flushed the tints of the pink. They are gone! And the places that knew them Are here, -on the Callapatscink Yes, the red man has gone, and thy waters Still laughingly rush to the seas, And the that he gave thee- forgotten, With the lithe dusty maidens, and trees That shaded the banks, when they roved here, And gathered bright flowers on the brink, Now the white man has harness’d thy waters No longer the Callapatscink The white man enslav’d the swift rapids And has forced them to work in the mill- But thy braves were not conquered, - but broken- And their dust is at rest on the hill;- While their spirits-reposing in cloud-land- Gazing sadly down over the brink Of the storm clouds that hover above thee, Wave adieu to the Callapscink. Now, the sons of the whites who enslav’d thee, Are searching thy shores for a trace Of the homes, -and the deeds, -of a nation That here was the dominant race; But the story is sunk in tradition, We find here and there a short link Of truth, -mong the many last fragments Of the tale of the Calapascink We find here a stone pointed arrow, A thorn-bush that marks a lone grave, A cave in the rock with crude tracings, And the stone ax of some warlike brave; The wigwam’s long fallen in ruins, On its site we can ponder,-and think Of the squaws and the braves, and the children, Who once lived on the Callapatscink. By Dr. W.B. Bigler Of Dallastown, Pa.

Published 1909 APPENDIX D

PENNSYLVANIA FISH AND BOAT COMMISSION STREAM SURVEYS

APPENDIX E

PUBLIC AND MUNICIPAL COMMENTS APPENDIX E – PUBLIC AND MUNICIPAL COMMENTS

Following is a summary of public and municipal comments received during the 30-day review period. Responses and solutions to the comments are included where applicable.

- 1 - PA DCNR (Terry Hough)

The final plan must include the following citation on the inside front cover: “This project was financed in part by a grant from the Community Conservation Partnerships Program, Rivers Conservation Program, under the administration of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation.” Resolution: Statements added as described.

Are there any landfills within the Yellow Breeches watershed? If so, what impact do they have on the water quality and groundwater of the watershed? Resolution: Locations of landfills researched in depth, and no specific information available. Statement added to this effect.

Erosion and Sedimentation – Page B-8 – 1st full paragraph – second to last sentence – I recommend that the sentence that contains the reference to reduce the number of cows as an agricultural best management practice be eliminated. Resolution: Sentence deleted as recommended.

Threatened and Endangered Species – Page B-33 – County Natural Area Inventory (NAI) information should be incorporated within this section of the Plan. Resolution: NAI information added as recommended.

Page C-1 – The Northern York Region Water Resources Protection Plan should be mentioned as a project. Resolution: Information on the Northern York Region Water Resources Protection Plan added as recommended.

Public Meetings – Page D-7 –Were the public meetings held for the watershed assessment also done as part of the RCP process or were separate meetings held for the RCP? Resolution: Statements added as recommended.

Land Resources – Page E-3 – third recommendation – Develop watershed wide cleanup days. – You may want to consider coordinating with PA Cleanways on this effort. Resolution: PA Cleanways integrated into recommendation as described.

- 2 - Water Resources – Page E-4 – second recommendation – Support initiatives planned by the Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC) – I would retain this recommendation, but I would identify specific support initiatives that can benefit the watershed. However, Coldwater Conservation Plans are a plan that have been developed by the Coldwater Partnership Initiative and are managed by Deb Nardone of Pennsylvania Trout, Inc. PEC happens to be the grantee of the Cedar Run Coldwater Conservation Plan. Most of the funding for this initiative comes from DCNR’s Rivers Conservation Program. DCNR, PA Fish and Boat Commission, Canaan Valley Institute and Pennsylvania Trout are partners in the Pennsylvania Coldwater Partnership Initiative. Resolution: PEC was contacted to determine further specific PEC initiatives planned within the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed. The Cedar Run Cold Water Conservation Plan is currently the only proposed PEC initiative. Statement added to this effect.

Water Resources – Page E-4 – between second and third recommendations – I would add the following management option: - Develop Coldwater Conservation Plans for coldwater sub-watersheds within the Yellow Breeches Watershed. According to Deb Nardone, possible candidates for the Coldwater Conservation Plan are: sections of Mountain Creek, Old Town Run, Tom’s Run, Trout Run and an unnamed trib to Fishing Creek. Resolution: Management option added as described.

Water Resources – Page E-5 – seventh recommendation – Develop a program to inventory riparian buffers in the watershed. Biological Resources – Page E-5 – fourth recommendation – Identify riparian buffers in the major drainage areas of the watershed. – I would merge both recommendations together under water resources and recommend that the riparian buffers inventory be included as part of a riparian buffer management study that describes where the buffers are needed throughout the watershed and what types of buffers are needed. Resolution: Recommendations merged as described.

Biological Resources – Page E-5 – first recommendation – Develop specific programs to preserve ecological and visual amenities in the watershed. – This recommendation is too general. Either eliminate it or contact DCNR’s Office of Conservation Science about possible programs to include as part of this recommendation. Resolution: DCNR was contacted and current program specifics were added to this recommendation.

- 3 - Cultural Resources – Page E-6 – second recommendation – Develop improved access areas – You may want to suggest that an access strategy study be developed for the watershed and, within that study, the access areas would be identified. Resolution: Statement added as described.

Cultural Resources – Page E-6 – third and fourth recommendations – Increase active and passive recreational opportunities within the Watershed – Are there any specific opportunities that you would like to add to the recommendations? Resolution: Statements added as described.

- 4 - YORK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

The second to last sentence of the first full paragraph states reducing a cow heard is the best way to protect the Yellow Breeches. Proper pasture and grazing practices, as well as other agricultural BMPs, could protect the stream without necessarily reducing the herd size. Page B-8. Resolution: Updated statement as suggested by Terry Hough at DCNR.

Last paragraph of the analysis states Fishers Run is impaired. Table B.5 does not include Fishers Run as being impaired. Page C-57. Resolution: Added entry to table as described.

In the Threatened and Endangered Species section starting on B-33, no mention of the Natural Area Sites which are described in the Countys’ NAI’s are included. See York County Comprehensive Plan Natural Areas Inventory Component. These sites would be very beneficial for watershed planning purposes. Page B-33. Resolution: Added natural areas inventory information.

Second paragraph under “Land Use”…an effort should be made to obtain land use control information for Cooke and South Newton Townships. Typically, the County Planning Office can provide this type of information. If they don’t have zoning, it should be stated as such in the Plan. Table B.20 seems to be incomplete with N/A for these 2 municipalities. Also, other land use controls such as subdivision and land development ordinances, stowmwater management ordinances, and floodplain ordinances should be addressed. Page B-44 Land use information already discussed at great length during previous meetings; optimal solution already in place. Efforts to obtain specific information from Cooke and South Newton Townships were unsuccessful. Discussion of other controls as described above is beyond the scope of this project. Resolution: None required.

Table B.19 would be more valuable if General land use designations could be developed for each municipality so better comparisons could be made between these municipalities. At the very least, definitions of the land uses should be included (i.e., what does “Exempt” mean) and the sources of the information should be noted. Page B-45. Land use information already discussed at great length during previous meetings; optimal solution already in place. Definitions on Table B.19 are self-explanatory. Resolution: Added footnote describing only the term “exempt”.

- 5 - First full paragraph discusses related project; however, there is no mention of the Northern York Region Water Resources Protection Plan Project that includes the Yellow Breeches Watershed in Carroll, Monaghan, and Franklin Townships, and Dillsburg and Franklintown Boroughs. Page C-2. Resolution: Added statement as described.

Paragraph states “the final plan should be workable and user friendly”; isn’t this draft intended to become the final plan once comments are addressed? Also, the last 2 paragraphs on this page insinuate the fact that the plan’s analysis recommends that future planning should identify funding opportunities, BMPs, public involvement, strategies and policies that need to be developed. It is our understanding that one of the primary purposes of an RCP is to accomplish these tasks and prioritize recommendations to be implemented. As such, municipalities that adopt the plan should be able to open this plan and say, “Dogwood Run for example, needs riparian buffers along this reach and Growing Greener Funding Grants are available for us to IMPLEMENT this recommendation”. Specifics as described in this comment are beyond the scope of this project. The RCP is a planning document that provides general guidance to the user. Specific funding options, policies, etc. can be developed as the plan is implemented. Resolution: None required.

Management Options and Strategies…this section contains very basic strategies that are pertinent to any watershed or any project for that matter. The first sentence on page E-2 even suggests that someone should assess how the watershed has been impacted by increasing population. It is our understanding that part of this project included funding for a watershed assessment that would have completed such an assessment. This plan needs to suggest and prioritize specific fixes to what this project’s assessment revealed. Population was considered as part of this plan and relevant census data was included. Developing specific solutions to problems resulting from the growing population and urbanization are beyond the scope of this project. Resolution: None required.

A short-term goal of this project, as stated, is to develop a comprehensive plan not just an inventory. The second paragraph on this page also states that specific management options and strategies were developed to protect and conserve valuable resources within the watershed. However, the Recommendations and Strategies for Water Resources on page E-4 do not even mention Act 167 Planning. Although the plan suggests that streambank stabilization and habitat projects be developed (which is good), it does not identify the banks or areas that need these projects which is important and necessary for implementation purposes. Act 167 Plans are discussed in strategy 3.2 on page E-18. Specific recommendations as described above (identifying specific streambanks, etc.) are beyond the scope of this planning document. Resolution: None required.

- 6 - Page E-5 recommends developing a program to inventory riparian buffers. Also, it suggests identifying invasive species trouble spots. Overall, this plan should have inventoried, mapped, and delineated this data. Detailed delineation and inventory of specific features is beyond the scope of this planning document. Resolution: Update made to riparian buffer strategy per comment provided by Terry Hough at DCNR.

The implementation chart is too general and reiterates many regulations required by existing law. The Farm-A-Syst and Home-A-Syst action items are good and could be valuable in promoting this watershed’s health. Specific recommendations for access areas, restoration project sites, etc. would be helpful for municipal planners. Specific locations for projects can be developed as the plan is implemented. Developing specifics related to projects is beyond the scope of this planning document. Resolution: None required.

Strategy 2.3 recommends the publication “Best Management Practices for Pennsylvania’s Forests” in an educational information packet. It would be beneficial to identify where this publication can be obtained. Resolution: Added statement to report.

There is not a very clear tie between the watershed assessment and this RCP. What did the data from the assessment reveal? What did analysis of this data conclude should be done to protect the Yellow Breeches? More importantly…where does it need to be done? Statements within both documents describe the relationship between the WA and the RCP. Data from the WA was used to develop the RCP. Impairments were described and ranked in the WA. BMPs, management options, etc. based on the impairments were developed. Developing precise locations to implement BMPs and strategies are beyond the scope of this planning document. Resolution: None required.

There are numerous computer output-printer errors throughout the document (i.e. symbols in place of letter, letters/numbers superimposed, etc.) that should be corrected. In particular, take note of the first full paragraph on page C-2. No errors as described are evident in the report. User may have been viewing document in older version of Adobe Acrobat Reader. Resolution: None required.

- 7 - BILL APGAR (on behalf of CAPSEC/EASI)

Some of the CAPSEC monitoring sites need some tweaking, since they are not exactly where they are shown on the map. Possibly our calculation of stream mile index values was slightly different than yours. But the sites are where we know they are, irrespective of their SMIs. I’ve indicated the adjustments on the attached. Possibly we need a clarification to the reader that wherein there seems to be a conflict between a stated SMI value (for both EASI and your sites) that the actual map location takes precedent. I’ve asked Bob Tate to check his locations against those shown in your upper watershed concerns map. His one site obviously has an incorrect SMI, since it would put the site in the vicinity of McCormick Rd/Messiah College. Resolution: Updated EASI locations as described.

Should the report and the maps show locations of test results from other sampling entities including DEP, EPA and USGS? There is a brief mention of a USGS site on Cedar Run. Implementation of this comment would be complex and costly, resulting in considerable revisions to the map. Resolution: None required.

On page C-56, there is a brief notation of the DEP attainment/non-attainment process. Would it be worth giving a more complete explanation of exactly how this it done (how many test sites, how often, over what time period)? What concerns me is that the areas in which our testing, as well as yours, fails to substantiate the DEP decision. One reason that the lower portion of Dogwood Run is declared to be in non-attainment is due to reduced dissolved oxygen levels, yet all of our measurements as well as yours in Table D.3 show satisfactory DO levels. Table B.5 indicates pH (low) values as being the only “culprit” for declaring most of the upstream tributaries as non-attainment. Again, this is not reflected in your pH values, which (another issue) are consistently well above the EASI values (which do support a pH problem). The Department’s obligation is brining non-attainment areas into attainment and should also form a strong basis for future actions by the YBWA. Data collected in the WA was collected only in one location along the respective reach on a single date, greatly reducing the ability to discern trends, etc. similar to what is available in the DEP data. Resolution: Added general statement.

In those areas of the report where there is a description of stream bank conditions, it should be noted that this is based on looking downstream, as I presume it was. EASI does their evaluations looking upstream. Resolution: Added statement as described.

- 8 - SMI problem with Craighead. She is definitely between Ashford (which should be Ashcombe) and Stuart Road. Resolution: Corrected misspelling and updated the SMI value as described.

At the bottom of Table D.8 on page D-26 and in keeping with my earlier thoughts on DEP attainment/non-attainment procedures and what could be discrepancies with EASI or your data, the footnote might warrant expansion to indicate that our data is also not utilized in helping DEP reach their attainment/non-attainment decision. Current footnote is clear as it stands. To alter the footnote consistently throughout would require changing the footnotes on the maps. This is not a cost effective revision. Further, Bill Apgar agreed that the footnote does not need updated after all. Resolution: None required.

Will the final report have a section covering the public/municipal review aspects, including a listing of questions and comments, with the YBWA responses? i.e., a comment and response document. Resolution: Added section as described.

- 9 - FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP

The date for the development of New Market is 1807. Add this information to the appendices. Resolution: Added date to Appendix C in RCP.

Add the following known flooding areas in Fairview Township: Old York Road and Ross Avenue (across from New Cumberland Borough at iron bridge), Old York Road and Lewisberry Road (tributary of Yellow Breeches Creek and stormwater), Green Lane Farms (Yellow Breeches Drive). Resolution: Updated flooding problems in appendix.

- 10 - MUNICIPAL MEETING (5/10)

Upper tributaries are impacted by low pH, some 1999 data provided. Resolution: Added statement as described.

Trout Unlimited has liming project in upper sections. Resolution: Added statement as described.

Nature Conservancy has million dollar project planned for South Mountain. Resolution: Further researched Nature Conservancy projects and added statement.

Major problem is lack of group communication on projects. Resolution: None required.

- 11 - PUBLIC MEETING (5/10)

Use of weedkiller in stormwater drainage swales at golf course. Resolution: None required.

Question about level of York County involvement. York County closely involved throughout development of WA and RCP. Resolution: None required.

Noted Cedar Run PEC and alliance efforts. PEC efforts described in reports. Resolution: None required.

Discussion of erosion control measures to control sediment. Resolution: None required.

Enforcement of tree removal along stream and placing of trees in stream. Resolution: None required.

Questioned the role and function of EAs, local municipal formation. Development of EAs included in implementation plan. Resolution: None required.

Who should take the lead on the water trail formation? YBWA or municipal? Topic briefly discussed at meeting. Resolution: None required.

Need for educational seminars on building development related topics. Education is a strong component of the RCP. Resolution: None required.

Question on WA DEP plan acceptance and RCP DCNR plan recording. Acceptance process discussed at meeting. Resolution: None required.

- 12 - Additional sampling and water level monitoring needed? No additional monitoring is proposed and is beyond the scope of this project. Resolution: None required.

What is the cost of the items presented in the plan? Topic discussed at meeting. Resolution: None required.

Site specific projects in Cedar Run, Trout Run, and Dogwood Run dependent on funding partnerships and people. Value of collaboration on projects discussed at meeting. Resolution: None required.

- 13 - PFBC

Add Upland Chorus Frog to species list. Resolution: Added species to list.

- 14 - CUMBERLAND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (Stephanie Williams)

Page A-3. Goals and objectives from this page don’t match goal and objectives of implementation chapter. Listing 6 overall goals upfront may help provide plan with more direction and focus. How do the goals reflect the results of the public participation process? General goals and objectives are included in the executive summary. Detailed goals and objectives are included in the implementation plan. Resolution: None required.

Page B-5. Both Class I & II soils are considered “prime”, Class III considered “statewide important” Agricultural capability information describing soil classes I to VIII is based on USDA NRCS standards. Resolution: None required.

Page B-33. Recommend including Natural Area Inventory results for Cumberland. Map of sites would be helpful. NAI sites should be high priority for preservation Resolution: Natural Area Inventory information added to report.

Page B-39. Suggest including 913 acre Mt. Holly Preserve under parks/preserves. The Mount Holly Preserve is described in the wetlands section of the report. Resolution: None required.

Page B-42. Plan references a conceptual trail plan submitted to Cumberland County. Not exactly accurate. Lower Allen was considering submitting a PennDOT TE grant for the trail and the County planning staff was assisting Lower Allen with the grant application. Ultimately, the application goes to PennDOT not the County for approval. Resolution: Provided clarification to statement.

Recommend incorporating 2000 Countywide Greenway Study into the plan. YB, Hiker-Biker/Mountain Creek, AT, Trolley Line/Trindle Spring all identified as a regional greenway corridors in watershed and targeted for preservation. Reference to greenways included in strategy 4.5 of the implementation plan. Resolution: None required.

County Comp Plan also recommends preservation measures for 8 greenways. Regional greenways also shown on the county Future Land Use map as a greenway corridor. Reference to greenways included in strategy 4.5 of the implementation plan. Resolution: None required.

- 15 -

Page B-44. Land use section very brief, despite its significance to issue. All zoning, SALDO and Comp plans are available for review at CCPC office. Cooke Twp - NO zoning, has Comp plan & SALDO ordinance, Be mindful that 92% of Cooke Twp is State Forest. South Newton - Has zoning, Comp plan & SALDO ordinance. Resolution: Updated zoning information for Cooke Township and South Newton Township.

Plan indicates highest priority for preservation is upper watershed. I would recommend priority areas as those with highest development pressure and development potential (i.e. middle to lower watershed). Upper watershed was determined to be an overall priority based on data collected and considered in this plan. Resolution: None required.

TAB B. Overall, plan includes lots of lists and data, but it weak on analysis or interpretation of data. Analysis of included data was completed within the framework of the planning document. Resolution: None required.

Page E-1. Strategy 4 – give more info…list muni’s that need comp plan updates. CCPC has list of dates of comp plans, zoning, saldo ordinances. Determination of which plans require updates should be completed as the Rivers Conservation Plan is implemented. Resolution: None required.

Page E-2. Strategy 1 - See Tri-County Regional Growth Management Plan for additional info on PGA’s and population projections. Resolution: Added statement as described.

Strategy 5 – Seems same as strategy 3 on page E-1. Resolution: Merged two strategies as described.

Strategy 2 – give more info….list Act 537 plans that need updated. Determination of which plans require updates should be completed as the Rivers Conservation Plan is implemented. Resolution: None required.

Page E-4. Strategy 3 – Potential duplication of work. See Cedar Run Act 167 Stormwater Management Study completed 2001. The Act 167 plan can be considered as part of a larger comprehensive management plan for the watershed. Resolution: None required.

- 16 -

Strategy 5 –What is the goal here - Are you talking about water quality issues? Any effort must involve PA DCNR. Resolution: Added statement as described.

Strategy 6 – Potential duplication of work to develop an educational program. See DEP website for Educators, Encourage utilization of existing curriculum and activities developed for watersheds by PDE and DEP! See also Project WET, Project WILD, and many others! Further description of existing programs is included in the implementation plan. Resolution: None required.

Page E-5. Strategy 1 & 6 - appear similar. Strategies 1 and 6 are similar, although riparian buffer management is a key strategy both in the water and biological resources category. Resolution: None required.

Strategy 5 - Could be part of water trail guide. Conodoguinet guide provides access info for boaters & fisherman. Resolution: Added statement as described.

Page E-6. Strategy 2-3. Is there adequate amount of parkland in watershed? Recommend referencing Countywide parkland standards (10 acres/1000 population in Comp Plan) and/or draft parkland standard (15 acres/1000 population in Draft Open Space Plan) as a park and recreation goal. Detailed parkland standards can be evaluated and considered as the Rivers Conservation Plan is implemented. Resolution: None required.

Page E-7. Ultimately, all ordinance and plan development is the responsibility of planning commissions & municipal officials. They must be involved to get buy in! Resolution: Updated implementation plan as described.

Page E-12. Recycling programs are a responsibility of municipalities. County solid waste authority can offer technical assistance. Resolution: Updated implementation plan as described.

- 17 - Page E-16. Reference to Hess Farm – Developer working with Mech Boro to adopt TND ordinance to develop site. Resolution: Removed reference to Hess Farm.

Page E-20. 4.1 – Municipalities responsible for acquisition, development and maintenance of park and rec facilities (i.e. public access). Recommend striking Counties as responsible party. 4-2 – Cumberland County coordinating agency and funding source on water trail project. County should be listed as partner! Resolution: Updated implementation plan as described.

Page E-27. The CCPC staff administers the state farmland preservation program in coordination with the Ag Board. The responsible party should be the County Agricultural Land Preservation Board and CCPC (at least in Cumberland) not Ag Ext. Office. The Cumberland County Board conducts at least one information meeting a year on the program! Resolution: Updated implementation plan as described.

Management Options and Strategies (E-1-6) don’t correlate directly with Implementation Plan (E-7-26). This is confusing. I would assume they should directly correlate. Management Options and Strategies generally correlate with the implementation plan. Strategies are further described in detail in the implementation plan. Resolution: None required.

What priorities does the plan establish? How will you prioritize implementation? Strategies considered to be of the highest priority are denoted in the implementation plan. Time targets for each strategy are also established in the implementation plan. Resolution: None required.

Does the plan have a mapping component? Associated mapping is included with the Watershed Assessment and Rivers Conservation Plan. Resolution: None required.

- 18 -