Codorus Creek Watershed

Codorus WIPFront11/15/2018

CODORUSCREEKNONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

PADEP 319 Watershed Improvement Program

Prepared by:

York County Conservation District

Prepared for:

Codorus Creek Watershed Association

PO Box 2881

York, PA17405

February 2007

Version 4.0

Acknowledgements

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

Contributing Individuals:

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

Codorus Watershed Restoration Partnership:

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

Executive Summary

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

The Codorus Creek watershed has a wide diversity of land uses including agricultural, forest,

residential, commercial, and industrial. The water quality of the Codorus drainages varies from thosesupporting wild trout populations, to those heavily influenced by watershed modifications. Field observationsindicate good water quality, supporting a diversity of benthicmacro-invertebrate and fish populations. Thestreams in the watershed however are far from reaching their full potential as a biological and recreationalresource due to severe bank erosion, high sediment loads, and thermal warming.

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

Introduction

1.Identification of Causes and Sources of Impairment

1.1Watershed concerns, issues, goals, and other problems

1.2Land Use

1.3Geology

1.4Soils

1.5Applicable Water Quality Standards

1.6 Water Quality Quantified and Mapped by Category

1.7 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) and Previous Studies

1.8Watershed Priorities

2.Pollutant Load Reductions Required to Meet TMDL’s

2.1Total Maximum Daily Load Reductions Needed

2.2Watershed Assessment Findings

2.3 Consider impacts on downstream waters

2.4 Watershed Restoration and Protection Priorities

3.Management Measures to Achieve Watershed Goals

3.1 Levels of Stream Restoration Efforts

3.2 Best Management Practices

3.3East Branch Management Measure Milestones by

Subwatershed and Aggregate for Watershed as a Whole

3.4South Branch Management Measure Milestones by

Subwatershed and Aggregate forWatershed as a Whole

3.5West Branch Management Measure Milestones by

Subwatershed and Aggregate for Watershed as a Whole

3.6Funding, Construction and Maintenance Activities

4.Implementation Schedule

4.1Parties responsible for meeting implementation milestones

4.2Consideration of local priorities for restoration, availability of funding/ personnel/

equipment, seasonal weather conditions, coordination opportunities, etc.

4.3Schedule and parties responsible for monitoring andreporting progress

5.Interim Milestones to Track Implementation of Management Measures

5.1Documented Best Management Practices (BMPs) alreadyimplemented or

planned in the watershed and assessment of their effectiveness

5.2Designate and Map Target Areas for Additional Controls

5.3Selected appropriate BMPs for designated and mapped targeted areas for

additional controls based on nature and magnitude of the pollutant, nature and location of the source, engineering feasibility, cost effectiveness

5.4Model performance of selected BMP’s to estimate operational efficiencies, load

reductions achieved, maintenance requirements, etc.

5.5PRedICT Model Results

6.Criteria to Measure Progress Toward Meeting Watershed Goals

6.1Milestones for pollutant load and water quality leading to achievement of DEP

standards for water quality and recommended use

6.2Milestones tailored to the character and magnitude of impairments in each

subwatershed, specifing parameters, location and frequency of sampling

6.3Consideration of local priorities for implementation,

availability of funding/personnel/analytic capability, seasonal weather conditions,

coordination with existing monitoring programs, etc.

6.4Schedule and parties responsible for monitoring and reporting progress

7.Monitoring Component

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

prescribed milestones

7.2Select a Combination of Indicators

7.3Codorus Creek Restoration Efficacy Program (CCREP)

7.4Provisions for reevaluation of implementation efforts, project milestones,

restoration measures and/or TMDLs if progress is less than expected

7.5Logic Model Used to Develop an Evaluation Framework

8.0Public information and participation

8.1Stakeholders and sources of information and influence in the watershed

8.2Designated watershed advisory group from those identified to sponsor project,

review planning products, set priorities, gain landowner cooperation and secure

funding for implementation

8.3Strategy outline for informing citizens about watershed issues and soliciting their

involvement in plan development and implementation

9.Technical and Financial Assistance Needed to Implement BMPs

9.1Estimated costs of design, installation and maintenance

9.2Evaluation of sources of funding for plan implementation

9.3Implementation shortfalls identified

References

Glossary

Appendices

Appendix A – Best Management Practices Typical Drawings

Apendix B – Project Planning Worksheets

Figures

Figure 1-1. Codorus Creek Watershed

Figure 1-2. East Branch Codorus Creek

Figure 1-3. South Branch Codorus Creek

Figure 1-4. West Branch Codorus Creek

Figure 1-5. Geology of Codorus Creek Watershed

Figure 1-6. Soil Associations of Codorus Creek Watershed

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

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

Figure 1-9. OilCreekTMDLSubbasin

Figure 1-10. Water Quality Hazards Analysis.

Figure 1-11. Land Use Analysis.

Figure 2-1. Classification Key for Natural Waters

Figure 2-2. Stream Evolution Changes

Figure 2-3. Codorus Creek Watershed Regional Curves

Figure 2-4. Stream Survey Procedures

Figure 2-5. Watershed Assessment Field Data Form

Figure 2-6. SBCC-026 Bank Erosion Monitoring

Figure 2-7. SBCC-015 Bank Erosion Monitoring

Figure 2-8. Chain of Events Due to Disturbance.

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

Figure 7-1. Logical Model Components

Tables

Table 1-1. Land Use East Branch Codorus Creek

Table 1-2. Land Use West Branch Codorus Creek

Table 1-3. Applicable Water Quality Standards of Codorus Creek Watershed

Table 1-4. 303(d) Impaired Streams Listings of Codorus Creek Watershed

Table 1-5. Sources of Stream Bank Erosion of Codorus Creek Watershed

Table 1-6. TMDL Load Allocations of SouthBranchCodorusCreekSubbasin 1

Table 1-7. TMDL Load Allocations of SouthBranchCodorusCreekSubbasin 2

Table 1-8. TMDL Load Allocations & Reductions of Oil Creek

Table 2-1. Codorus Creek Watershed Drainage Areas

Table 2-3. Stream Bank Erosion Monitoring

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

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

Table 2-6. West Branch Watershed Assessment Summary

Table 2-7. West Branch Streambank Erosion Monitoring

Table 2-8. Summary of Watershed Assessments

Table 2-9. Watershed of Priority Restoration Activity By Subwatershed and Aggregate

for the Watershed as a Whole

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

Types

Table 3-2. East Branch Watershed Goals and Management Measure Milestones by

Subwatershed and Aggregate for Watershed as a Whole

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

Table 3-4. South Branch Watershed Goals and Management Measure Milestones by

Subwatershed and Aggregate for Watershed as a Whole

Table 3-5. West Branch Watershed Goals and Management Measure Milestones by

Subwatershed and Aggregate for Watershed as a Whole

Table 3-6. Stream Reaches Recommended for Riparian Planting

Table 3-7. Stream Reaches Recommended for Streambank Fencing

Table 3-8. Stream Reaches Recommended for Stormwater Management

Table 3-9. Estimated Costs of BMP Construction and Maintenance Activities by

Subwatershed and Aggregated for Watershed as a Whole.

Table 3-10. Estimate Costs of Riparian Forest Buffer (RFB) Construction and