MS4 CHEASAPEAKE BAY POLLUTANT REDUCTION PLAN CHEASAPEAKE BAY POLLUTANT REDUCTION P… · FACILITY TOTAL 0.785 1.483 2.268 SUSQUEHANNA SUSQUEHANNA 6. BULK STORAGE BUILDING ‐ This

DRAFT 6‐21‐16

CHEASAPEAKE BAY POLLUTANT REDUCTION PLAN

DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

PAG 133689

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION I BACKGROUND SECTION II DRAINAGE ARE DESCRIPTION SECTION III INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES SECTION IV EXISTING POLLUTANT LOADS SECTION V REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS SECTION VI CHESAPEAKE BAY POLLUTANT REDUCTION PLAN APPENDICES A DRAINAGE AREA MAPS FOR REGULATED FACILITIES B POLLUTANT LOADS FROM BAYFAST MODEL C BMP EFFECTIVENESS FROM BAYFAST MODEL D POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS FROM BAYFAST MODEL E REFERENCES

I. BACKGROUND

1. GENERAL INFORMATION The Table below includes general information relative to the Dauphin County MS4 permit. 2. DAUPHIN COUNTY PLANNING REQUIREMENTS. Entities regulated under an MS4 permit are required to develop plans to address both the Chesapeake Bay Pollutant Reduction requirements and to address any TMDLs for stream to which the regulated entity discharges stormwater. While Dauphin County has one regulated facility within the Paxton Creek watershed, for which there is an existing TMDL, Dauphin County was not assigned a Waste Load Allocation in this plan. Therefore, Dauphin County is currently responsible only for a Chesapeake Bay Pollutant Reduction Plan (PRP). This plan has been developed to meet those requirements. 3. REGULATED FACILITIES Within the Harrisburg Urbanized Area, Dauphin County owns or operates several facilities with separate storm sewer systems. Those facilities are as follows: 1. Dauphin County Prison and Judicial Center 2. Dauphin County Recycling Center 3. Schaffner Youth Center 4. Adult Probation Building 5. Fort Hunter Park 6. Bulk Storage Building 7. District Justice Office 29 th Street 8. District Justice Office Rolleston Street 9. District Justice Office Paxton Church Road 4. PLANNING APPROACH Although not required for this plan, each regulated facility was modelled using the BayFAST model. While current permit conditions require only a general plan for BMP implementation, the model was used to provide a better picture of the actual pollutant loads. This will facilitate BMP selection and will be beneficial when this plan is updated to include specific pollutant reduction in the future. The procedures used for modeling are discussed later.

PERMITTEE NAME Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

MAILING ADDRESS 1451 Peters Mountain Road

CITY, STATE ZIP Dauphin PA 17018

MS4 CONTACT PERSON AND TITLE Bob Christoff, Assistant District Manager

PHONE 717‐921‐8100

EMAIL [email protected]

NPDES PERMIT NUMBER PAG133689

EFFECTIVE DATE September 1, 2015

EXPIRATION DATE August 31, 2020

RENEWAL DATE March 8, 2020

CONSULTANT Herbert, Rowland and Grubic, Inc.

II. DRAINAGE AREA DESCRIPTION

Following are descriptions of the drainage area for each regulated facility included the total acres, acres of impervious cover, acres of pervious cover and discharges. For facilities with multiple discharges, the acreages will be broken down by subarea. The impervious and pervious areas were calculated based on field verification of on and off site drainage to the systems and digitization of the drainage areas as a GIS layer. Using 2014 aerial photography, pervious and impervious areas were then digitized. For each facility a map is provided in Appendix A. 1. DAUPHIN COUNTY PRISON AND JUDICIAL CENTER ‐ The Prison and Judicial Center facilities are located on Mall Road in Swatara Township. This facility contains two administratively separate buildings; the Dauphin County Prison and the Dauphin County Judicial Center. For MS4 permitting purposes, these facilities are considered one facility due to proximity, shared access road and maintenance responsibility. The maintenance staff for the prison also maintains the Judicial Center grounds. There are four separate storm sewer systems. All four systems discharge to Spring Creek, a tributary to the Susquehanna River which discharges to the Chesapeake Bay. Currently there is one detention basin located on the facility grounds. This basin receives stormwater discharge from system 3. The facility is largely impervious with many small pervious areas. A larger pervious area, primarily lawn, is located in the rear of the facility but does not drain to the storm sewer system. Impervious area at this facility is comprised of roof tops, macadam and sidewalks. IMPERVIOUS ACRES PERVIOUS ACRES TOTAL ACRES DISCHARGE TO WATERSHED

SUBAREA 1 0.142 0.106 0.248 SPRING CREEK SPRING CREEK




FACILITY TOTAL 6.250 2.242 8.492 SPRING CREEK SPRING CREEK

2. DAUPHIN COUNTY RECYCLING CENTER ‐ This facility is located on Cameron Park Drive in the City of Harrisburg. It is a relatively small facility with two separate storm sewer systems. Both systems discharge to storm sewer systems owned by the Lancaster Solid Waste Management Authority. The facility is nearly all impervious. Impervious area at this facility is comprised of roof tops, macadam and sidewalks. A significant portion of the facility does not drain to the storm sewer systems but flows off of the facility to pervious grass or woodland area. Currently, there are no stormwater management practices on site. IMPERVIOUS ACRES PERVIOUS ACRES TOTAL ACRES DISCHARGE TO WATERSHED

SUBAREA 1 0.343 0.089 0.432 LCSWMA SYSTEM SPRING CREEK

SUBAREA 2 0.496 0.107 0.603 LCSWMA SYSTEM SPRING CREEK

FACILITY TOTAL 0.839 0.196 1.035 LCSWMA SYSTEM SPRING CREEK

3. SCHAFFNER JUVENILE CENTER ‐ This facility is located on Gibson Boulevard in Swatara Township. There is a single storm sewer system draining this facility which discharges to Pelton Run, a tributary to Spring Creek. The draining area to the system is largely impervious. Impervious area at this facility is comprised of roof tops, macadam and sidewalks. IMPERVIOUS ACRES PERVIOUS ACRES TOTAL ACRES DISCHARGE TO WATERSHED

FACILITY TOTAL 2.463 1.506 3.969 PELTON RUN SPRING CREEK

4. ADULT PROBATION BUILDING ‐ This facility is located on Gibson Boulevard in Swatara Township. There are three storm sewer systems draining this facility which discharges to Pelton Run, a tributary to Spring Creek. There are currently four infiltration areas on site. The draining area to the systems is largely impervious. Impervious area at this facility is roof tops, macadam and sidewalks. IMPERVIOUS ACRES PERVIOUS ACRES TOTAL ACRES DISCHARGE TO WATERSHED

SUBAREA 1 2.157 0.500 2.657 PELTON RUN SPRING CREEK



FACILITY TOTAL 3.711 1.288 4.999 PELTON RUN SPRING CREEK

5. FORT HUNTER PARK ‐ Fort Hunter Park is located on Front Street in Susquehanna Township. There is one small system located on the west side of Front Street. This system discharges to the Susquehanna River. There are currently no PCSM facilities. The draining area to the system is largely pervious. Impervious area at this facility is comprised of macadam and sidewalks. IMPERVIOUS ACRES PERVIOUS ACRES TOTAL ACRES DISCHARGE TO WATERSHED

FACILITY TOTAL 0.785 1.483 2.268 SUSQUEHANNA SUSQUEHANNA

6. BULK STORAGE BUILDING ‐ This facility is located on 28th street in Swatara Township. The facility is drained by a single system which discharges to a state owned system. There is one small detention pond located on site. The draining area to the system is largely impervious. Impervious area at this facility is comprised of roof tops, macadam and sidewalks. IMPERVIOUS ACRES PERVIOUS ACRES TOTAL ACRES DISCHARGE TO WATERSHED

FACILITY TOTAL 1.439 0.537 1.967 PDOT SYSTEM SPRING CREEK

7. DISTRICT JUSTICE OFFICE – 29TH STREET ‐ This facility is located on 29thSstreet in the City of Harrisburg. There is one small system located on this site. The system discharges to the City of Harrisburg’s storm sewer system. The site in almost entirely impervious. Impervious area at this facility is comprised of roof tops, macadam and sidewalks. There are currently no PCSM facilities on site. IMPERVIOUS ACRES PERVIOUS ACRES TOTAL ACRES DISCHARGE TO WATERSHED

FACILITY TOTAL 0.544 0.000 0.544 HARRISBURG SYSTEM SPRING CREEK

8. DISTRICT JUSTICE OFFICE – ROLLESTON STREET ‐ This facility is located on Rolleston Street in the City of Harrisburg. There is one small system located on this site. The system discharges to the City of Harrisburg’s storm sewer system. The site in almost entirely impervious. Impervious area at this facility is comprised of roof tops, macadam and sidewalks. There are currently no PCSM facilities on site. IMPERVIOUS ACRES PERVIOUS ACRES TOTAL ACRES DISCHARGE TO WATERSHED

FACILITY TOTAL 0.348 0.100 0.448 HARRISBURG SYSTEM SPRING CREEK

9. DISTRICT JUSTICE OFFICE – PAXTON CHURCH ROAD ‐ This facility is located on Paxton Church Road in Susquehanna Township. There are two systems on site which discharge to an unnamed tributary to Paxton Creek. One system consists of a single inlet dropping into the UNT. The site is mostly impervious. Impervious area at this facility is comprised of roof tops, macadam and sidewalks. Currently, there are no PCSM facilities. IMPERVIOUS ACRES PERVIOUS ACRES TOTAL

ACRES DISCHARGE

TO WATERSHED

SUBAREA 1 0.313 0.433 0.747 PAXTON CREEK UNT PAXTON CREEK

SUBAREA 2 0.000 0.123 0.123 PAXTON CREEK UNT PAXTON CREEK

FACILITY TOTAL 0.313 0.556 0.870 PAXTON CREEK UNT PAXTON CREEK

III. INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES Typical infrastructure projects may include sewer and water line repair and replacement, road and bridge repair and construction, sidewalks, building construction or expansion and park improvements. There currently are no plans for future infrastructure upgrades at Dauphin County MS4 regulated facilities. There are, however, improvements currently underway at Fort Hunter. The improvements and associated BMPs are discussed below. 1. Construction of a driveway and parking areas on the southern end of the park on the west side of Front Street. The improvements will be impervious cover. Runoff from the improvements will flow overland into infiltration areas on the west side of the driveway. Included in these improvements will be the installation of one storm sewer that will discharge to the Susquehanna River. 2. Construction of a parking area adjacent to an existing building at the north end of the park on the east side of Front Street. The improvements will be impervious cover. Runoff will flow overland into two detention/infiltration ponds. The discharge from the ponds will be to a wetland area adjacent to Fishing Creek. The above improvements, as of the writing of this plan have just begun. Although plans are available for these improvements, exact amounts of pervious and impervious cover and draining patters will not be available in sufficient detail until the project is complete. Therefore, these improvements are not addressed in this plan but will be incorporated into the Pollutant Reduction Plan required under the 2018 permit.

IV. EXISTING POLLUTANT LOADS In order to derive existing pollutant loads for the regulated facilities, runoff conditions were modeled using the BayFAST model. The following procedure was employed: 1. Using existing storm sewer maps for regulated facilities, the drainage area for each facility was determined through field

verification. 2. Where a facility has more than one discharge point, subdrainage areas were determined for each discharge point. 3. The drainage and subdrainage areas, if applicable, were digitized using GIS. 4. Using 2014 aerial photography and based on field work, Impervious and pervious cover were digitized. 5. Acreages were calculated for each area of impervious and pervious cover based on the mapped features. 6. Using the BayFAST model, pollutant loads were derived for each facility by discharge point. These loads were considered a baseline

and did not model the use of any BMPs.

a. Each drainage or subdrainage area was entered into BayFAST as a facility.

b. The default acreage values were replaced by those calculated in the previous step for regulated impervious developed and regulated pervious developed cover.

7. If a planned BMP was to be modeled, a second set of pollution loads were derived.

a. The type of BMP was entered into the model.

b. The amount of land treated by that BMP was also entered into the model either as a specific number of acres or as a percentage of the total area.

8. Reduction values were calculated by using the BayFAST tools to compare the loads generated with and without BMPs in the two previous steps.

Detailed documentation regarding the BayFAST model can be found at www.bayfast.org/documentation.aspx, including the model’s land use and BMP definitions. Table IV.1 below summarizes the results of the modeling. The table lists pollutant loads by facility. Where there is more than one discharge point, the pollutant loads are summarized by subdrainage areas and by total loads for the facility. The table also lists total pollutant loads to each of the receiving streams and a total for all facilities.

TABLE IV.1 – SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT LOADS IN LBS/YEAR

IMPERVIOUS AREA PERVIOUS AREA SYSTEM TOTAL

ACRES PER CENT

TN TP TSS ACRES PER CENT

TN TP TSS ACRES TN TP TSS

PRISON

SYSTEM 1 SPRING CREEK 0.142 50.71 4.8 0.2 203.7 0.106 49.29 2.6 0.0 20.2 0.248 7.4 0.2 223.9

SYSTEM 2 SPRING CREEK 4.011 84.70 134.6 4.5 5,753.3 0.725 15.30 18.0 0.2 138.4 4.736 152.6 4.7 5,891.7



PRISON TOTAL SPRING CREEK 6.250 73.60 209.8 7.1 8,964.9 2.242 26.40 55.7 0.6 428.0 8.492 265.5 7.7 9,392.9

RECYCLING CENTER



RECYCLING TOTAL SPRING CREEK 0.839 81.06 28.1 1.0 1,203.4 0.196 18.94 4.9 0.0 37.4 1.035 33.0 1.0 1,240.8

SCHAFFNER JUVENILE CENTER


SCHAFFNER TOTAL SPRING CREEK 2.463 82.96 82.7 2.8 3,532.9 1.506 17.04 37.4 0.5 287.5 2.969 120.1 3.3 3,820.4

ADULT PROBATION




ADULT PROBATION TOTAL SPRING CREEK 3.711 74.23 124.5 4.2 5,322.9 1.288 25.77 32.0 0.5 245.9 4.999 156.5 4.7 5,568.8

FORT HUNTER

SYSTEM 1 SUSQUEHANNA 0.785 34.61 22.4 0.8 883.4 1.483 65.39 31.5 0.4 242.3 2.268 53.9 1.2 1,125.7

FORT HUNTER TOTAL SUSQUEHANNA 0.785 34.61 22.4 0.8 883.4 1.483 65.39 31.5 0.4 242.3 2.268 53.9 1.2 1,125.7

BULK STORAGE


BULK STORAGE TOTAL SPRING CREEK 1.439 72.82 48.3 1.6 2,064.1 0.537 27.18 13.4 0.2 102.5 1.976 61.7 1.8 2,166.6

DJ – 29TH STREET


DJ – 29TH TOTAL SPRING CREEK 0.544 100.00 18.3 0.6 780.3 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.544 18.3 0.6 780.3

DJ – ROLLESTON STREET


DJ – ROLLESTON TOTAL SPRING CREEK 0.348 77.68 11.7 0.4 499.2 0.100 22.32 2.5 0.0 19.1 0.448 14.2 0.4 518.3

DJ – PAXTON CHURCH ROAD

SYSTEM 1 PAXTON CREEK 0.313 41.96 10.5 0.4 449.0 0.433 58.04 10.8 0.1 82.7 0.746 21.3 0.5 531.7

SYSTEM 2 PAXTON CREEK 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.123 100.00 3.1 0.0 23.5 0.123 3.1 0.0 23.5

DJ – PAXTON CHURCH TOTAL PAXTON CREEK 0.313 36.02 10.5 0.4 449.0 0.556 63.98 13.9 0.1 106.2 0.869 24.4 0.5 555.2

TOTAL SPRING CREEK 15.595 72.66 523.4 17.7 22,367.7 5.869 27.34 145.9 1.8 1,110.4 21.464 669.3 19.5 23,488.1

TOTAL PAXTON CREEK 0.313 36.02 10.5 0.4 449.0 0.556 63.98 13.9 0.1 106.2 0.869 24.4 0.5 555.2

TOTAL SUSQUEHANNA RIVER 0.785 34.61 22.4 0.8 883.4 1.483 65.39 31.5 0.4 242.3 2.268 53.9 1.2 1,125.7

ALL FACILITIES TOTAL 16.693 556.3 18.9 23,700.1 7.908 191.3 2.3 1,458.9 24.601 747.6 21.2 25,169.0

SECTION V. REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS

As discussed previously, Dauphin County facilities subject to MS4 permit requirements are currently responsible only for development, approval and implementation of a Chesapeake Bay Pollutant Reduction plan. Applicable Chesapeake Bay Pollutant Reduction Plan requirements, as outlined in the current permit are as follows: 1. A narrative description of the area, including impervious area, draining to the regulated MS4. ‐ Include a description of planned municipal upgrades and the suitability for green infrastructure, ESD or LID BMPs. 2. The plan must include BMPs designed to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. ‐ Reductions must be consistent with the Pennsylvania Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan. ‐ The plan must be signed and sealed by a professional engineer. 3. Upon approval of the plan, the permittee must ensure implementation of the plan. 4. Submit an annual report including BMPs installed, pollutant reductions and a progress report narrative. Currently, the CBPRP provisions of the MS4 permit require only that BMPs be selected and implemented over a given scheduled time. There are no numerical pollutant reduction goals. The next NPDES MS4 permit will contain such numerical goals. Currently, the goals contained in the 2018 MS4 permit for regulated entities in Dauphin County are a 3% reduction in nitrogen, a 5% reduction in phosphorous and a 10% reduction in sediment. While current pollutant loads and corresponding pollutant load reductions have been developed for this plan, these figures serve only as a guide for this plan. In selecting BMPs to meet current requirements, the requirements of the next permit are considered. Existing pollutant loads and the corresponding reductions currently contained in the 2018 draft permit are shown in the table below by facility and by receiving watershed. Table V.1 below lists the pollutant reduction requirements by each facility and by each separate system at each facility. The table also lists the reduction requirements by receiving watershed.

FACILITY

WATERSHED

TN CURRENT LOAD

LBS/YR

TN REDUCTION

NEEDED LBS/YR (3%)

TP CURRENT LOAD

LBS/YR

TP REDUCTION

NEEDED LBS/YR (5%)

TSS CURRENT LOAD

LBS/YR

TSS REDUCTION

NEEDED LBS/YR (10%)

PRISON SPRING CREEK

SYSTEM 1 7.4 0.222 0.2 0.010 223.9 22.39

SYSTEM 2 152.6 4.578 4.7 0.235 5,891.7 589.17

SYSTEM 3 23.2 0.696 0.7 0.035 891.9 89.19

SYSTEM 4 82.3 2.469 2.1 0.105 2,385.4 238.54

TOTAL 265.5 7.965 7.7 0.385 9,392.9 939.29

RECYCLING CENTER SPRING CREEK

SYSTEM 1 13.7 0.411 0.4 0.020 509.0 50.90

SYSTEM 2 19.3 0.579 0.6 0.030 731.8 73.18

TOTAL 33.0 0.990 1.0 0.050 1,240.8 124.08

SCHAFFNER JUVENILE CENTER SPRING CREEK

SYSTEM 1 120.1 3.603 3.3 0.165 3,820.4 382.04

TOTAL 120.1 3.603 3.3 0.165 3,820.6 382.06

ADULT PROBATION SPRING CREEK

SYSTEM 1 84.8 2.544 2.6 0.130 3,189.4 318.94

SYSTEM 2 38.3 1.149 1.2 0.060 1,389.8 138.98

SYSTEM 3 33.4 0.999 0.9 0.045 989.6 98.96

TOTAL 156.5 4.692 4.7 0.235 5,568.8 556.88

FORT HUNTER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER

SYSTEM 1 53.9 1.617 1.2 0.060 1,125.7 112.57

TOTAL 53.9 1.617 1.2 0.060 1,125.7 112.57

BULK STORAGE SPRING CREEK

SYSTEM 1 61.7 1.851 1.8 0.090 2,166.6 216.66

TOTAL 61.7 1.851 1.8 0.090 2,166.6 216.66

DJ – 29TH STREET SPRING CREEK

SYSTEM 1 18.3 0.549 0.6 0.030 780.3 78.03

TOTAL 18.3 0.549 0.6 0.030 780.3 78.03

DJ – ROLLESTON STREET SPRING CREEK

SYSTEM 1 14.2 0.426 0.4 0.020 518.3 51.83

TOTAL 14.2 0.426 0.4 0.020 518.3 51.83

DJ – PAXTON CHURCH ROAD PAXTON CREEK

SYSTEM 1 21.3 0.639 0.5 0.025 531.7 53.17

SYSTEM 2 3.1 0.093 0.0 0.000 23.5 2.35

TOTAL 24.4 0.732 0.5 0.025 555.2 55.52

TOTAL SPRING CREEK 669.3 20.076 19.5 0.975 23,488.1 2,348.81

TOTAL PAXTON CREEK 24.4 0.732 0.5 0.025 555.2 55.52

TOTAL SUSQUEHANNA RIVER 53.9 1.617 1.2 0.060 1,125.7 112.57

TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 747.6 22.425 21.2 1.060 25,169.0 2,516.90

TABLE V.1 – POLLUTANT REDUCTION LOADS AND REQUIREMENTS BASED ON 2018 PERMIT

VI. CHESAPEAKE BAY POLLUTANT REDUCTION PLAN

The pollutant reductions listed in Table V.1 are based on the reductions outlined in the draft 2018 MS4 general permit. As stated earlier, these numeric goals will serve as guidance in the development of this plan. In addition to this, there are several other factors that are considered. 1. Opportunities and feasibility for BMP installation at each site were considered. Site conditions vary from facility to facility. There are several facilities where retrofitting the site for a BMP is not feasible. For example, the DJ office on 29th street is a small site (approximately 0.5 acres) and is completely covered by either a building or parking lot. There is not sufficient space to place a BMP. 2. Where site conditions do not allow for the placement of a BMP, BMPs will be considered at other sites within the same watershed to reduce pollutants beyond the reductions required to compensate for sites where BMPs are impractical. For example, BMPs may be installed at the prison site that reduce pollutants more than is required in order to compensate for other sites in the watershed. 3. The cost for design and construction of BMPs are considered. 4. Long term maintenance needs and cost are considered. 5. Key dates are considered. This plan is due to DEP by September 1, 2016. Approval is anticipated by the end of 2016. The milestones indicated below are based on this. While this plan is developed only to provide for current requirements, the results of the BayFast modelling are shown. The intent is to comply with current regulations by providing a plan that outlines the steps and time frames for progress and also to have a framework in place for making decisions and meeting future numeric reductions with an existing document that is easily modified for future use.

Table V.1 below shows the current pollutant loads for facilities in the Spring Creek watershed. Tables V.2 and V.3 show the same information for the Paxton Creek watersheds and Susquehanna River respectively. These tables also show the reductions needed by site and in total for the watershed. Each table shows the proposed BMP, site where the BMP is proposed to be installed, pollutant reduction for the site and for the watershed. The reductions shown in the tables below (In Pounds Per Year) are the reductions calculated by the model. The strategy incorporated into this plan is to meet overall pollutant reductions by watershed. This approach is expedient, efficient and necessary given that in the Spring Creek watershed there are several regulated facilities where the installation of BMPs to reduce pollutants is not practical. As there is only one facility located in the Susquehanna River and Paxton creek watersheds, pollutant reduction will need to be achieved at those facilities. Following the tables is a detailed discussion, by watershed, of the plan for each watershed.

TABLE VI.1 FACILITIES IN THE SPRING CREEK WATERSHED – BASED ON TREATMENT OF ENTIRE DRAINAGE AREA FOR SYSTEM WHERE BMP IS INSTALLED POUNDS REMOVED FIGURES ARE TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM MODEL RESULTS

NITROGEN PHOSPHOROUS SEDIMENT

HSG

CURRENT LOAD (lbs/yr)

REDUCTION NEEDED (lbs/yr)

PROPOSED BMP

BMP %

REDUCTION

POUNDS REMOVED (lbs/yr)



PROPOSED BMP

BMP % REDUCTION




PROPOSED BMP

BMP % REDUCTION


PRISON

SYSTEM 1 C 7.4 0.222 0.2 0.010 223.9 22.39

SYSTEM 2 C 152.6 4.578 4.7 0.235 5,891.7 581.97

SYSTEM 3 C 23.2 0.696 RAIN GARDEN ‐ NO UNDER DRAIN 25% 5.8 0.7 0.035 RAIN GARDEN ‐ NO UNDER DRAIN 45% 0.30 891.9 89.19 RAIN GARDEN ‐ NO UNDER DRAIN 55% 477.00

SYSTEM 4 C 82.3 2.469 WETLAND 20% 16.4 2.1 0.105 WETLAND 45% 1.00 2,385.4 238.54 WETLAND 60% 1,388.60

TOTAL 265.5 7.965 22.2 7.7 0.385 1.30 9,392.9 939.29 1,865.60

RECYCLING CENTER

SYSTEM 1 B 13.7 0.411 0.4 0.020 509.0 50.90

SYSTEM 2 B 19.3 0.579 0.6 0.030 731.8 73.18

TOTAL 33.0 0.990 1.0 0.050 1,240.8 124.08

SCHAFFNER JUVENILE

SYSTEM 1 B 120.1 3.603 3.3 0.165 3,820.4 382.04

TOTAL 120.1 3.603 3.3 0.165 3,820.4 382.04

ADULT PROBATION

SYSTEM 1 B 84.8 2.544 2.6 0.130 3,189.4 318.94

SYSTEM 2 B 38.3 1.149 1.2 0.060 1,389.8 138.98

SYSTEM 3 B 33.4 0.999 0.9 0.045 989.6 98.96

TOTAL 156.5 4.692 4.7 0.235 5,568.8 556.88

BULK STORAGE

SYSTEM 1 B 61.7 1.851 RAIN GARDEN ‐ NO UNDER DRAIN 80% 49.3 1.8 0.090 RAIN GARDEN ‐ NO UNDER DRAIN 85% 1.60 2,166.6 216.66 RAIN GARDEN ‐ NO UNDER DRAIN 90% 1,893.90

TOTAL 61.7 1.851 49.3 1.8 0.090 1.60 2,166.6 216.66 1,893.90

DJ 29

SYSTEM 1 D 18.3 0.549 0.6 0.030 780.3 78.03

TOTAL 18.3 0.549 0.6 0.030 780.3 78.03

DJ ROLLESTON B 14.2 0.426 0.4 0.020 518.3 51.83

SYSTEM 1 14.2 0.426 0.4 0.020 518.3 51.83

TOTAL

SPRING CREEK TOTAL 669.3 20.076 71.5 19.6 1.00 2.90 23,488.3 2,348.83 3,759.50

TABLE VI.2 FACILITIES IN THE PAXTON CREEK WATERSHED – BASED ON PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND TREATMENT OF A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE AREA FOR SYSTEM WHERE BMP IS INSTALLED POUNDS REMOVED FIGURES ARE TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM MODEL RESULTS

TABLE VI.3 FACILITIES IN THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER WATERSHED – BASED ON TREATMENT OF PARTIAL SITE

POUNDS REMOVED FIGURES ARE TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM MODEL RESULTS

NOTE: Two facilities, the prison and the DJ office on Paxton Church Road are proposed to be retrofit with rain gardens. These sites have soils that are hydrologic soil group C. The model does not provide for a rain garden with C soils without an underdrain. The reductions above are based on modelling a rain garden in C soils with an underdrain. Both facilities will have overdesigned soil modifications to accommodate this situation.


HSG CURRENT LOAD (lbs/yr)


PROPOSED

BMP

BMP %

REDUCTION

POUNDSREMOVED (lbs/yr)



PROPOSED BMP

BMP % REDUCTION




PROPOSED BMP

BMP % REDUCTION


DJ PAXTON CHURCH

SYSTEM 1 C 15.4 0.639 0.4 0.020 393.4 39.34

SYSTEM 2 C 9.0 0.093 RAIN GARDEN ‐ NO UNDER DRAIN 25 % 1.5 0.2 0.000 RAIN GARDEN ‐ NO UNDER DRAIN 45% 0.09 161.6 2.35 RAIN GARDEN ‐ NO UNDER DRAIN 55% 88.88

TOTAL 24.4 0.732 1.5 0.6 0.025 0.09 555.0 55.50 88.88

PAXTON CREEK TOTAL 24.4 0.732 1.5 0.6 0.025 0.09 555.0 55.50 88.88


HSG CURRENT LOAD (lbs/yr)


PROPOSED

BMP

BMP %

REDUCTION




PROPOSED BMP

BMP % REDUCTION




PROPOSED BMP

BMP % REDUCTION


FORT HUNTER

SYSTEM 1 B 53.9 1.617 RAIN GARDEN ‐ UNDER DRAIN 70% 30.3 1.2 0.060 RAIN GARDEN ‐ UNDER DRAIN 75% 0.90 1,125.7 112.57 RAIN GARDEN ‐ UNDER DRAIN 80% 877.3

TOTAL 53.9 1.617 30.3 1.2 0.060 0.90 1,125.7 112.57 877.3

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER TOTAL 53.9 1.617 30.3 1.2 0.060 0.90 1,125.7 112.57 877.3

SPRING CREEK WATERSHED POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS DISCUSSION

As can be seen from Table VI.1 above, there are seven regulated facilities located in the Spring Creek watershed. BMPs for pollutant reduction are shown for two facilities only. Several factors were considered in selecting location and type of BMPs to be used:

1. The size of the facilities

2. The nature of the existing land cover

3. Available BMPs

4. Opportunities at regulated sites for BMPs

5. Ability to achieve pollutant reduction in excess of requirements for the site

6. Expense related to BMP installation and maintenance

Of the seven regulated facilities, the Recycling Center, the DJ office on 29th Street and the DJ office on Rolleston Street were deemed to be impractical sites for BMP installation due primarily to land cover, available space, and cost.

1. All three sites are relatively small and contribute relatively small pollutant loads to receiving streams. Installation of BMPs at these sites would not provide a significant pollutant reduction relative to the cost of BMP installation.

2. All three sites have little pervious area for BMP installation. BMP installation at these sites would require removal of existing impervious area, thereby increasing the cost of installation.

3. Two of the sites, both DJ offices, are virtually 100 percent impervious cover. This cover is rooftop and parking. It would be impractical to remove parking space. The third site, the Recycling Center, is similar in that the area is largely impervious cover necessary for the activities that occur here.

The Adult Probation facility does have some available pervious land cover. A portion of this cover is already occupied by an infiltration area. Other pervious areas are small. Opportunity for BMP use at this facility does exist but was considered to be of lower desirability.

The Schaffner Juvenile facility does have a significant area of pervious land cover available. The cost for BMP construction was a determining factor in ruling out this site as the BMP construction would be a relatively large and new BMP versus smaller BMPs and retrofits of existing practices.

The two facilities selected for location of BMPs, the Prison and the Bulk Storage facilities, were selected based on the following:

1. Both sites provide opportunities for retrofits of existing stormwater detention ponds.

2. The prison provides an opportunity for installation of a relatively small rain garden. SUMMARY OF BMPS PROPOSED FOR THE SPRING CREEK WATERSHED Two BMPs are proposed for the Dauphin County Prison. The existing detention pond for system 4 is proposed to be converted to a wetland. A rain garden is proposed for the outfall at system 3.

PAXTON CREEK WATERSHED POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS

DISCUSSION

As there is only one regulated facility in the Paxton Creek Watershed, pollutant reductions will need to occur at this site. Table VI.2 above outlines the pollutant reductions for this facility. The proposed condition will entail rerouting a portion of the site runoff from system 1 to system 2. The rerouted drainage includes the rooftop runoff and a portion of the site behind the building. A rain garden area will be installed to which the rerouted runoff will discharge.

SUMMARY OF BMPS PROPOSED FOR THE PAXTON CREEK WATERSHED

One BMP, a rain garden is proposed for the DJ office on Paxton Church Road.

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER WATERSHED POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS

DISCUSSION

Given that there is only one regulated facility in the Susquehanna River Watershed, pollutant reductions will need to occur at this site. Table VI.3 above shows the pollutant reductions for this facility. A rain garden area will be installed to which a majority portion of the runoff will be rerouted.

SUMMARY OF BMPS PROPOSED FOR THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER

One BMP, a rain garden, is proposed for at6 Fort Hunter Park.

IMPLEMENTATION MILESTONES The implementation of this plan is complicated by proposed NPDES MS4 permit conditions that are included in the 2018 permit. In 2017, regulated entities are to submit permit renewal documents. Upon permit renewal, regulated entities are to develop another Chesapeake Bay Pollutant Reduction Plan. This plan will require numeric calculations of pollutant loads and reductions. Further, the instructions for this plan indicate that any BMPs installed to that point are to be includes in the model as baseline conditions. Nevertheless, the following milestones are established:

MILESTONE DATE Submit this plan to DEP for approval SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 Anticipated date of DEP approval of CBPRP DECEMBER 31, 2016 Complete designs for proposed BMPs JUNE 30, 2017 Submit Chapter 105 and/or Chapter 106 permit application for prison rain garden JULY 31, 2017 Submit General Permit renewal NOI to DEP for coverage under the 2018 permit SEPTEMBER 15, 2017 Receive general permit renewal authorization MARCH 16, 2018 Submit revised CBPRP with numeric loading and reduction requirements to DEP APRIL 30, 2018 Receive Chapter 105 permit authorization for prison rain garden JULY 31, 2018 Pending approval of Chapter 105 permits and revised CBPRP begin process of BMP construction OCTOBER 1, 2018 Prepare ESPC plans for BMP sites NOVEMBER 30, 2018 Select contractor for BMP installation DECEMBER 31, 2018 Begin BMP construction MAY 1, 2019 Complete BMP construction OCTOBER 31, 2021

The sequence of BMP construction will be determined at an appropriate time in the schedule shown above. Considerations in prioritizing BMP construction will include pollutant removal of the proposed BMP and budgetary considerations.

APPENDIX A MAPS FOR REGULATED FACILITIES

APPENDIX B POLLUTANT LOADS FROM BAYFAST MODEL

SectorId Sector Landuse PreBmpAcres PostBmpAcres NLoadEOS PLoadEOS SLoadEOS NLoadDEL PLoadDEL SLoadDEL

1 Agriculture alfalfa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Agriculture animal feeding operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Agriculture concentrated animal feeding operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 Urban CSS construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 Urban CSS extractive 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 Urban CSS impervious developed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 Urban CSS pervious developed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Agriculture degraded riparian pasture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 Forest harvested forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Agriculture hay with nutrients 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Agriculture hay without nutrients 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Agriculture hightill with manure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Agriculture hightill without manure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 Urban nonregulated extractive 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 Urban nonregulated impervious developed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 Urban nonregulated pervious developed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Agriculture nursery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Agriculture pasture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 Urban regulated construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 Urban regulated extractive 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 Urban regulated impervious developed 0.142 0.142 4.8 0.2 203.7 4 0.1 79.8

2 Urban regulated pervious developed 0.106 0.106 2.6 0 20.2 2.2 0 7.9

7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: COUNTY PRISON SYSTEM 1 CONDITION: BASELINE










3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0













2 Urban regulated impervious developed 4.011 4.011 134.6 4.5 5753.3 112.6 1.8 2253.4

2 Urban regulated pervious developed 0.725 0.725 18 0.2 138.4 15.1 0.1 54.2

7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0











3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0













2 Urban regulated impervious developed 0.607 0.607 20.4 0.7 870.7 17 0.3 341


7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0











3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0













2 Urban regulated impervious developed 1.49 1.49 50 1.7 2137.2 41.8 0.7 837.1

2 Urban regulated pervious developed 1.3 1.3 32.3 0.4 248.2 27.1 0.2 97.2

7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0











3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0













2 Urban regulated impervious developed 0.343 0.343 11.5 0.4 492 9.6 0.1 192.7

2 Urban regulated pervious developed 0.089 0.089 2.2 0 17 1.9 0 6.7

7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: RECYCLING CENTER SYSTEM 1 CONDITION: BASELINE










3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0














2 Urban regulated pervious developed 0.107 0.107 2.7 0 20.4 2.2 0 8

7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: RECYCLING CENTER SYSTEM 2 CONDITION: BASELINE










3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0















7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: SCHAFFNER JUVENILE CENTER CONDITION: BASELINE










3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0















7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: ADULT PROBATION SYSTEM 1 CONDITION: BASELINE










3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0













2 Urban regulated impervious developed 0.931 0.931 31.2 1.1 1335.4 26.1 0.4 523

2 Urban regulated pervious developed 0.285 0.285 7.1 0.1 54.4 5.9 0 21.3

7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0











3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0














2 Urban regulated pervious developed 0.503 0.503 12.5 0.2 96 10.5 0.1 37.6

7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0











3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0














2 Urban regulated pervious developed 1.483 1.483 31.5 0.4 242.3 26 0.2 94.9

7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: FORT HUNTER CONDITION: BASELINE










3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0















7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: BULK STORAGE CONDITION: BASELINE










3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0














2 Urban regulated pervious developed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: DISTRICT JUSTICE OFFICE 29TH STREET CONDITION: BASELINE










3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0















7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: DJ OFFICE ROLLESTON STREET CONDITION: BASELINE










3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0















7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: DJ OFFICE PAXTON CHURCH ROAD SYSTEM 1 CONDITION: BASELINE UNMODIFIED DRAINAGE










3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0















7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: DJ OFFICE PAXTON CHURCH ROAD SYSTEM 1 CONDITION: BASELINE MODIFIED DRAINAGE










3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0













2 Urban regulated impervious developed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: DJ OFFICE PAXTON CHURCH ROAD SYSTEM 2 CONDITION: BASELINE UNMODIFIED DRAINAGE










3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0













2 Urban regulated impervious developed 0.079 0.079 2.7 0.1 113.3 2.2 0 44.4


7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: DJ OFFICE PAXTON CHURCH ROAD SYSTEM 2 CONDITION: BASELINE MODIFIED DRAINAGE

APPENDIX C BMP EFFECTIVENESS FROM BAYFAST MODEL

The effectiveness for the BMPs shown below are values taken from the BayFast model. The BMPs listed are BMPs that have been selected for installation at county owned facilities as outlined earlier in this document.

BMP Land Use Average Nitrogen Average Phosphorus Average Sediment

Effectiveness (%) Effectiveness (%) Effectiveness (%)

Bioretention/raingardens ‐ A/B soils, no underdrain regulated pervious developed 80.00 85.00 90.00

Bioretention/raingardens ‐ A/B soils, no underdrain regulated impervious developed 80.00 85.00 90.00

Bioretention/raingardens ‐ A/B soils, underdrain regulated impervious developed 70.00 75.00 80.00

Bioretention/raingardens ‐ A/B soils, underdrain regulated pervious developed 70.00 75.00 80.00

Bioretention/raingardens ‐ C/D soils, underdrain regulated pervious developed 25.00 45.00 55.00

Bioretention/raingardens ‐ C/D soils, underdrain regulated impervious developed 25.00 45.00 55.00

Wet Ponds and Wetlands regulated impervious developed 20.00 45.00 60.00

Wet Ponds and Wetlands regulated pervious developed 20.00 45.00 60.00

APPENDIX D POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS FROM BAYFAST MODEL










3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0














2 Urban regulated pervious developed 0.111 0.111 2.1 0 10.1 1.7 0 4

7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: COUNTY PRISON SYSTEM 3 CONDITION: WITH PROPOSED BMP










3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0













2 Urban regulated impervious developed 1.49 1.49 40 0.9 889.8 33.5 0.4 348.5

2 Urban regulated pervious developed 1.3 1.3 25.9 0.2 107 21.6 0.1 41.9

7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: COUNTY PRISON SYSTEM 4 CONDITION: WITH PROPOSED BMP










3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0















7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: BULK STORAGE CONDITION: WITH PROPOSED BMP










3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0













2 Urban regulated impervious developed 0.079 0.079 2 0 52.7 1.7 0 20.6


7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: DJ OFFICE PAXTON CHURCH ROAD SYSTEM 2 CONDITION: WITH PROPOSED BMP AND MODIFIED DRAINAGE










3 Forest forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0















7 Water water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FACILITY: FORT HUNTER CONDITION: WITH PROPOSED BMP AND MODIFIED DRAINAGE

APPENDIX E REFERENCES

DAUPHIN COUNTY SPRING CREEK ACT 167 PLAN, DAUPHIN COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT, JULY 2005 DAUPHIN COUNTY PAXTON CREEK ACT 167 PLAN, DAUPHIN COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT, SEPTEMBER 2005 DAUPHIN COUNTY SOIL SURVEY, 1972, USDA SCS PENNSYLVANIA STORMWATER BMP MANUAL, DECEMBER 2006

Documents

MS4 CHEASAPEAKE BAY POLLUTANT REDUCTION PLAN CHEASAPEAKE BAY POLLUTANT REDUCTION P… · FACILITY TOTAL 0.785 1.483 2.268 SUSQUEHANNA SUSQUEHANNA 6. BULK STORAGE BUILDING ‐ This