Quittapahilla Creek

Watershed Implementation Plan

August 2018

Prepared for Quittapahilla Watershed Association

Prepared by Clear Creeks Consulting

Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Implementation Plan

Prepared for Quittapahilla Watershed Association

Prepared by Clear Creeks Consulting

August 2018

Acknowledgements

The Quittapahilla Watershed Association would like to acknowledge our partners and the following individuals and organization who provided technical and financial support in producing the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Implementation Plan.

Contributing Individuals: • Bill Beck, Project Identification & Prioritization Committee, Quittapahilla Watershed Association (QWA) • Russell Collins, President, Doc Fritchey Chapter Trout Unlimited, Participation & Outreach Committee and

Board of Directors, QWA • Kelly Cottingham, Public Education, Participation & Outreach Committee, QWA • Kent Crawford, Ph.D., Doc Fritchey Trout Unlimited, Board of Directors, QWA • Laurie Crawford, Executive Director, Lebanon Valley Conservancy, Inc. • Sean Droms, Ph.D., Mathematics Professor, Lebanon Valley College, Board of Directors, QWA • Karen M. Feather, Esq., Public Education, Participation & Outreach Committee, QWA • Edward Gibble, Treasurer, Lebanon Valley Conservancy, Inc. • Lynette Gelsinger, former District Manager, Lebanon County Conservation District • Stephanie Harman, Watershed Specialist, Lebanon County Conservation District • Bryan Hoffman, Cleona Borough Authority, Landowner Participation Committee, QWA • Michael Hoffman, Office of State and Watershed Partnerships, Water Protection Division, USEPA • Lee Irwin, Aquatic Resource Restoration Company • David Lasky, Ph.D., Founder and Former President, Quittapahilla Watershed Association • Ann Marie Lasky, Board of Directors, Quittapahilla Watershed Association • Alicia Norris, Project Identification & Prioritization Committee, Treasurer & Board of Directors, QWA • Rocky O. Powell, Clear Creeks Consulting • Michael J. Schroeder, Ph.D., History Professor, Lebanon Valley College, President & Board of Directors, QWA • Mike Snyder, Supervisory District Conservationist, USDA-NRCS • Fred L. Suffian, Non-Point Source Program Manager, Office of State and Watershed Programs, USEPA • Rebecca Urban, Ph.D., Biology Professor, Lebanon Valley College, Board of Directors, QWA • Stephan Vegoe, Doc Fritchey Trout Unlimited, Project Identification & Prioritization Committee, QWA • Gary Walters, Division of Water Quality, Monitoring Section, PADEP • Aaron Ward, Chief, Watershed Support Section, Office of Water Resources Planning, PADEP • Alan Wood, Project Identification & Prioritization Committee and Board of Directors, QWA

Quittapahilla Watershed Association and Restoration Partners: • Aquatic Resource Restoration Company • Clear Creeks Consulting • Cornwall Borough, Lebanon County • Doc Fritchey Chapter Trout Unlimited • Lebanon County Clean Water Alliance • Lebanon County Stormwater Consortium • Lebanon County Conservation District • Lebanon County Planning Commission • The Lebanon Valley Conservancy • National Fish and Wildlife Foundation • Natural Resource Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture • North Cornwall Township, Lebanon County • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) • United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Project Background and Introduction 1 II. Identification of Causes & Sources of Impairment 4

A. Watershed Assessment Methodology 4

1. Watershed Characterization 4 a. Climate 4 b. Basin Morphometry 5 c. Geology 5 d. Soils 5 e. Land Use and Land Cover 5 f. Hydrology 6

1) U.S. Geological Survey Stream Gage Record Analysis 6 2) Field Calibration of Bankfull Discharge 6 3) U.S. Geological Survey Regional Regressions 6 4) Hydrologic Modeling and Analysis 7 5) Mapping 100-Year Floodplains 7

2. Morphological Stream Assessment 8 a. Field Calibration of Bankfull Channel Field Indicators 8 b. Geomorphic Mapping of Quittapahilla Creek 8 c. Morphological Description and Assessment of Stream Condition 9 d. Stream Stability Validation Monitoring 9

3. Subwatershed Analysis 10 a. Level I - Geomorphic Characterization of the Major Tributaries 10 b. Field Reconnaissance 10

4. Ecological Assessment 10 a. Historic Biological Communities 11 b. Evaluation of Existing In-Stream Habitat 11 c. Existing Biological Communities 11

5. Water Quality Assessment 12 a. Historic Water Quality Conditions 12 b. Water Quality Monitoring 12 c. Evaluation of Sediment Discharge 12 d. Water Quality Modeling and Analysis 13 e. Point Source Discharges 13

B. Watershed Assessment Findings 14

1. Watershed Characterization 14 a. Physiography 14 b. Climate 14 c. Basin Morphometry 15 d. Geology and Soils 15

e. Land Use and Land Cover 16 f. Hydrology 22

1) U.S. Geological Survey Stream Gage Record Analysis 22 2) Field Calibration of Bankfull Discharge 22 3) U.S. Geological Survey Regional Regressions 23 4) 100 Year Floodplains 23 5) Hydrologic Modeling and Analysis 23

a) Modeling Points 25 b) Precipitation Inputs 26 c) Procedures and Parameters 26 d) Model Results 27 e) Comparison of Peak Flow Estimates 28

2. Morphologic Stream Assessment 29 a. Introduction 29 b. Field Calibration to Verify Bankfull Channel Field Indicators 29 c. U.S. Geological Survey Regional Regressions 29 d. Geomorphic Mapping of Quittapahilla Creek 30 e. Morphological Description and Assessment of Stream Condition 31 f. Stream Stability Validation Monitoring 35 g. Findings of Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment 36

1) General Overview of Stream Conditions 36 2) Detailed Descriptions of Main Stem Segments 36

Segment 1 37 Segment 2 38 Segment 3 40 Segment 4 42 Segment 5 46 Segment 6 48

3. Subwatershed Analyses 51 a. Introduction 51 b. Field Reconnaissance Findings 51

1) General Comments 51 2) Channel Stability 51 3) Agricultural Activities 52 4) Stream Bank Fencing Program 52 5) Other Streamside Agricultural Best Mgmt. Practices 53 6) Logging and Lumber Mills 55 7) Quarries 55 8) Development 55 9) Channel Alterations 55 10) Flow Diversions 56 11) Fish Barriers 57 12) Fish Habitat Structures 57

4. Ecological Assessment 57 a. Introduction 57 b. Historical Biological Communities 58 c. Trout Stocking in the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed 58 d. Evaluation of Existing In-Stream Habitat 59

1) Rationale 59 2) Detailed Description of Main Stem Segments 60

Segment 1 60 Segment 2 61 Segment 3 62 Segment 4 63 Segment 5 64 Segment 6 65

e. Existing Biological Communities 66 1) Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities 67 2) Fish Communities 76 3) Station by Station Summary of Existing Biological Communities 78

Station Q1 78 Station Q2 82 Station Q3 82 Station Q4 83 Station Q5 84 Station Q6 84 Snitz Creek 85 Beck Creek 86 Bachman Run 87 Killinger Creek 88

4) Ecological Assessment Summary 89

5. Water Quality Assessment 91 a. Introduction 91 b. Historic Water Quality Conditions 92 c. Existing Water Quality Conditions 92

1) Baseflow Water Quality Monitoring 93 2) Storm Flow Water Quality Monitoring 93 3) Findings of the Water Quality Monitoring Program 94 4) Evaluation of Sediment Discharge 98 5) Water Quality Modeling and Analysis 101

a) General Overview Rationale and Methodology 101 b) Refinements to Modeling Approach 102 c) Substitution of More Detailed Data 102 d) Model Calibration 105 e) Model Application and Results 107

d. Point Source Discharges 115

III. Expected Load Reductions 117

A. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 117 B. Modeling Pollutant Loadings in Quittapahilla Creek Watershed 118 C. Pollutant Loading Reductions 121

IV. Proposed Management Measures 135

A. Introduction 135

B. Restoration Approach 136

1. Traditional Approaches 136 2. Fluvial Geomorphologic (FGM) Approach 137 3. Level of Intervention 138 4. Designing the Stable Channel Form 141

a. Empirical Relations 141 b. Reference Reach Concept 141 c. Design Objectives 141

5. Channel Stabilization Techniques 141 a. Streambank Stabilization 141 b. Streambed Stabilization 144 c. Flow Diverting Techniques 149

6. Floodplain and Wetland Restoration 151

C. The Restoration and Management Plan 154

1. Identification of Potential Restoration and Management Measures 154 2. Evaluation of the Feasibility of Site Specific Measures 154 3. Prioritization of Site Specific Measures 154

D. Restoration and Management Measures Proposed for the WIP 155

1. The Current WIP Planning Process 155 2. Prioritized Projects 156

V. Schedule and Milestones 188

A. General 188 B. Subwatershed Restoration Projects 190

1. Phase 1 – Snitz Creek 190 2. Phase 2 – Killinger Creek 192 3. Phase 3 – Beck Creek 194 4. Phase 4 – Bachman Run 196

C. Mainstem Restoration Projects 198 1. Phase 1 – Upper Mainstem 198 2. Phase 2 – Lower Mainstem 200 3. Phase 3 – Unnamed Tributary 202

VI. Load Reduction Evaluation Criteria 204

A. Quantitative Measures of Implementation Progress and Pollution Reduction 204

B. Qualitative Measures of Overall Program Success 205 C. Water Quality Indicator Milestone 206

1. Baseline Conditions 206 2. Incremental Improvements 206

a. General 206 b. Biological 207 c. Physical In-Stream Habitat 207 d. Temperature 207 e. Dissolved Oxygen 207

D. Adaptive Management Approach 207

VII. Monitoring Program 209

A. General Approach 209 B. Pre-Implementation and Post-Implementation Monitoring 209

1. Program 1 – Regulatory Monitoring 209 2. Program 2 – WIP Subwatershed Project Reach Evaluations 210 3. Program 3 – Subwatershed TMDL Monitoring Stations 211 4. Program 4 – Mainstem TMDL Monitoring Stations 212

C. Funding Sources 218

VIII. Information, Education, and Public Participation 219

1

I. Project Background and Introduction The Quittapahilla Creek Watershed is situated in the Ridge and Valley physiographic region in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. Quittapahilla Creek is a tributary to Swatara Creek and is part of the Susquehanna River Basin. Its headwaters begin just southeast of Lebanon, Pennsylvania and it enters the Swatara Creek near North Annville, Pennsylvania. The major land use in the watershed is agricultural. There are significant areas of urbanization along the Route 422 corridor in the City of Lebanon, West Lebanon, Cleona, and Annville. In addition, new development in the watershed is replacing farms with suburban communities. Past and current land use and land management practices in the rural areas, suburban communities, and urban centers have resulted in degraded water quality, stream bank and bed erosion, sedimentation, flooding, and the loss of riparian and in-stream habitat throughout the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) conducted studies in the 1980’s and 1990’s that indicate impairment of aquatic resources in the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed. In fact, the mainstem as well as all of the major tributaries to the Quittapahilla Creek are listed as impaired in the 303(d) listings. The 2000 305(b) Report prepared by DEP indicates that there are 88.9 miles of stream in the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed. Only 1.82 miles of stream (2%) were found to support designated aquatic life uses. The identified land use activities contributing to impairment include agriculture, crop related agriculture, urban/storm sewers, and bank modification. Sources of impairment include nutrients, siltation, suspended solids, organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen concentrations, flow alteration, and other habitat alterations. The Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Report (PADEP, 2000) cites excessive sediment and nutrient levels as a major water quality problem in the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed. The report indicates that these pollutants are causing increased algae growth, large accumulations of fine sediments on the streambed, and degradation of in-stream habitat. Although the report attributes the excessive sediment and nutrient levels principally to agricultural activities, these pollutants are also associated with other upland sources (e.g., urban runoff) as well as in-stream sources (e.g., stream bed and bank erosion). Since 1998, the Quittapahilla Watershed Association (QWA) has been working with a number of private organizations and public agencies to improve the water quality and aquatic habitat of Quittapahilla Creek. However, until 2001 there had been no comprehensive assessment, nor coordinated effort to identify and prioritize water quality, habitat and stream channel stability problems throughout the watershed. As a consequence, targeting of stream reaches for improvements had been on a project-by-project basis. The QWA believed that their best chance for resolving the existing problems and avoiding future problems was to step back from the project-based approach and develop a comprehensive plan of action based on an assessment of the entire watershed. They believed that this approach would serve to focus funding and restoration and management efforts where they are most needed. They also believed that it is the approach that has the greatest chance for long-term success. Accordingly, in 2000 the QWA contracted Clear Creeks Consulting to conduct an assessment of Quittapahilla Creek Watershed and develop a restoration and management plan focused on

2

addressing the problems identified by the assessment. In cooperation with the QWA, Clear Creeks formed an interdisciplinary team that included; Skelly & Loy, Inc.; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office; Penn State Institutes of the Environment, Pennsylvania State University; Department of Biology, Lebanon Valley College; and U.S. Geological Survey, New Cumberland Field Office. Supported by Growing Greener Grants received from PADEP in 2001 and 2003, the Assessment Phase of Quittapahilla Watershed Project was completed between 2001 and 2005 and the Planning Phase between 2005 and 2006. The major components of the Assessment Phase included analysis of natural and man-made watershed characteristics and their influence on the hydrologic and sediment regime of the watershed; morphologic stream assessment; subwatershed reconnaissance and analysis; ecological assessment of habitat and biological communities; water quality modeling; water quality monitoring; and problem identification and prioritization. The Planning Phase of the project focused on identifying and prioritizing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address the problems identified in the subwatersheds and along the main stem of Quittapahilla Creek. This included a comprehensive evaluation and prioritization of general, as well as site specific BMPs for controlling agricultural and urban runoff; and a comprehensive evaluation of general, as well as site specific restoration measures to correct stream stability and habitat problems. In addition, county, city and township land use, land development, environmental, and resource protection policies and programs were evaluated. Recommendations were developed for policies and programs focused on stream, wetland and floodplain protection and management. The results of the assessment, including a detailed description of study methodology, findings of the study, and problem identification and prioritization is presented in the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Assessment Volume 1 – Findings Report (2006). The comprehensive evaluation of restoration and management measures and strategies and policy recommendations are presented in Quittapahilla Watershed Creek Assessment Volume 2 – Restoration and Management Plan. Geomorphic and Habitat Maps and Field Reconnaissance Maps are presented in Volumes 3 and 4, respectively. As noted, the Quittapahilla Watershed Restoration and Management Plan (2006) included BMPs identified for controlling runoff from urban land and agricultural land, as well as projects focused on streambank stabilization and riparian buffer plantings along unstable stream reaches of the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek and its major tributaries. However, the QWA was working under the assumption that they would spearhead the stream/riparian restoration efforts while the City of Lebanon and the other Townships in the watershed would move forward with implementation of the urban BMPs. They also assumed that USDA-NRCS and the Lebanon County Conservation District would take the lead on implementing agricultural BMPs. At the time the Restoration and Management Plan was prepared, deadlines for meeting MS4 requirements were still years away for the City of Lebanon and the other Townships in the watershed. Undeterred, the QWA resolved to move forward with implementation of the stream restoration projects identified in their Restoration and Management Plan. Utilizing Growing Greener Grants the QWA proceeded with design, permitting and construction of restoration projects along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek. The major obstacle slowing their restoration efforts has been a lack of funding. The QWA determined that they would seek other funding sources. In order to qualify for 319 funding they have prepared this Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP).

3

4

This Watershed Implementation Plan follows the USEPA’s WIP Elements and Evaluation Criteria and is formatted to include the following key elements:

1. Identification of Causes & Sources of Impairment 2. Expected Load Reductions 3. Proposed Management Measures 4. Schedule and Milestones 5. Load Reduction Evaluation Criteria 6. Monitoring Component 7. Information, Education, and Public Participation Component

II. Identification of Causes & Sources of Impairment In order to provide a full accounting of the watershed assessment phase of the project, the methodology and findings presented in the original document is presented herein. A. Watershed Assessment Methodology The major components of this study included watershed characterization, morphologic stream assessment, subwatershed analysis, ecological assessment, water quality modeling and water quality monitoring. The following outline describes the work involved in each component of the study.

1. Watershed Characterization Regional climatic conditions and watershed geology, soils, topography, land use and land cover have a significant effect on the volume, timing and routing of water and sediments from adjacent uplands into a stream, and along the stream to the outlet of the watershed. These factors interact to profoundly affect the nature of stream systems and how resistant they are to disturbance. Existing information was collected and compiled and additional information developed on regional weather patterns, natural watershed characteristics, and historic and current land use practices. This information was reviewed and evaluated to provide an understanding of how these characteristics may have affected or are affecting the hydrologic and sediment regime of the watershed and the water quality, habitat and channel stability of Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries. The types of data collected and compiled for review and evaluation included climatologic data, existing GIS databases, topographic maps, soils, geology, wetland and sensitive areas inventories, and land use maps, water quality data, biological data, hydrologic and hydraulic data, historic and recent aerial photography, as well as published and unpublished technical reports and management plans.

a. Climate Information on the regional weather patterns of the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed was obtained from the NOAA National Data Centers (NNDC) Climate Data Online.

5

b. Basin Morphometry Mapping the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed was the first step in the characterization process. The watershed boundaries, drainage area, basin profile and cross-section have been determined from the Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA) GIS Database and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle topographic maps at 1:24,000. The information on the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed was obtained from the Manheim, Fredericksburg, Richland, Lebanon, and Palmyra, PA quadrangles (USGS, 1995, 1994, 1974, 1995 and 1974).

c. Geology Evaluating the effects of geology on the hydrologic and sediment regime and stream channel morphology of Quittapahilla Creek began at the watershed level. The watershed map was overlain onto the geological map, noting geologic formations, where changes in rock type occur, and structural boundaries. Mapping data on the surface geology of the Quittapahilla Creek watershed was obtained from the PASDA GIS Database. A number of references were utilized to develop a picture of the geology of the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed (Gray and Lapham, 1961; Geyer, 1970; Van Diver, 1990; and Miller, 1995).

d. Soils The soil characteristics of the Quittapahilla Creek watershed were evaluated to determine their effects on runoff, erosion hazard and the potential for unstable hillslope and channel conditions. Information on the soils of the Quittapahilla Creek watershed was obtained from the PASDA GIS Database and the Soil Survey of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania (1981).

e. Land Use and Land Cover The Quittapahilla Creek watershed was evaluated relative to historic, current, and future land use and land cover. Particular attention was focused on land use activities, vegetation changes, and channel alterations that have a significant influence on hydrologic and sediment regimes, hillslope processes and channel stability. Information on the current land use and land cover was obtained from the PASDA GIS Database and revised based on information collected during the field reconnaissance. A history of land use activities, changes in vegetation patterns, as well as stream channel and floodplain alteration activities in Lebanon County, in general, and the Quittapahilla Creek watershed, in particular, was developed from historic aerial photographs, maps and plans obtained from records on file with the Lebanon County Board of Assessment (aerial photograph series 1936, 1967, 1984, and 1985), City of Lebanon Department of Public Works (historic survey maps 1851, 1888, 1906, and 1942). In addition, historical references and maps from the Lebanon County Historical Society (Beers, 1875; Egle, 1883; Dundore, 1951; and Richter, et. al., 1987) and the Lebanon Valley College Library, Special Collections Section (Shay, 1949; Aungst, 1968; Carmean, 1976; and Westenberger, et. al., 1990) were consulted. These records were supplemented with anecdotal information obtained through interviews with local officials and residents.

6

Information on future land use was developed from zoning maps and master plans obtained from the townships and the Lebanon County Planning Office.

f. Hydrology

1) U.S. Geological Survey Stream Gage Record Analysis U.S. Geological Survey records for the USGS stream gaging station on Quittapahilla Creek near Bellegrove were analyzed to develop estimates for mean annual stream flow, characterize seasonal variability in mean monthly streamflow, and evaluate annual peak discharges for the period of record (1975 – 1994). The most recent flood frequency analysis of the maximum annual peaks was used to develop estimates for peak discharges for the 1.25-yr, 1.5-yr, 2-yr, 10-yr, 50-yr and 100-yr recurrence interval (RI) flows. Records for the USGS stream gaging station on Beck Creek near Cleona (1963 to 1981) were also analyzed. However, there is some concern regarding the reliability of estimates for the less frequent, higher volume storms for this gage site. The Watershed Association will be requesting that USGS evaluate any effects the peak flows recorded during Hurricane Agnes in 1972 may have had on these estimates.

2) Field Calibration of Bankfull Discharge

When this study began regional regressions for estimating bankfull discharge and verifying bankfull channel geometry for Pennsylvania streams were not available. Therefore, field calibration surveys were conducted at five USGS gaging stations in the Ridge and Valley region of Pennsylvania and Maryland including Beck Creek, Quittapahilla Creek, Swatara Creek, Monocacy Creek, and Marsh Run. The watersheds draining these gages range in size from 7.87 – 116 square miles. This information was used to develop regional regression equations relating drainage area to bankfull discharge. The Beck Creek and Quittapahilla Creek are both inactive gage sites. In order to utilize these sites for the watershed assessment, their historic rating tables had to be validated and updated. The Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Association entered into a cooperative agreement with the USGS field office in New Cumberland, PA to validate/update the rating tables. The necessary field measurements and analytical work was completed and the rating tables updated. Utilizing the new rating tables, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted the gage calibration surveys at the five USGS gaging stations and developed the regional regressions for use in developing estimates of bankfull discharge and to verify bankfull channel indicators observed during the morphologic stream assessment. Unfortunately, the reliability of the regional regressions developed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service was significantly affected by the limited number of gage sites surveyed. It was determined that these regional regressions should not be used to develop discharge estimates or verify bankfull indicators.

3) U.S. Geological Survey Regional Regressions As noted above, it was originally intended that the field calibration work conducted by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service would be used to develop regional regressions for estimating bankfull discharge and for use in the morphologic stream assessment. However, due to the limited number of gage sites surveyed these regional regressions were not used for this study.

7

The U.S. Geological Survey published regional regressions that were developed utilizing data from 66 gage sites in Pennsylvania and Maryland (J. Chaplin, 2005). The large data set provided curves with good predictive capability. More importantly USGS also developed regressions specific to carbonate watersheds making them both reliable and directly applicable to Quittapahilla Creek. These regressions were used as part of this study to calibrate the HEC-HMS hydrologic model, estimate bankfull discharge, and verify the data collected during the morphologic stream assessment.

4) Hydrologic Modeling and Analysis A hydrologic analysis of the Quittapahilla Creek watershed was conducted to develop estimates of the 1-, 2-, 10-, 50- and 100-year 24-hour peak discharge rates for segments along the Quittapahilla Creek mainstem and for each of its major subwatersheds. The intent of developing this information was to characterize the existing hydrologic regime of the Quittapahilla Creek watershed. This information provided insight into how land use activities have altered peak flow characteristics and contributed to channel stability and flooding problems. In addition, the results of the hydrologic modeling were used to evaluate and select potential sites for best management practices for controlling stormwater runoff. This was accomplished by reevaluating peak discharge rate and the shape of the hydrograph for the 1-, 2-, 10-, 50- and 100-year 24-hour storms under existing and future land use conditions with and without best management practices. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) computer program was selected for conducting the hydrologic modeling and analysis of the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed. Essentially, this computer program is an improved version of the ACOE HEC-1 computer program. Several benefits are derived from the development of the Quittipahilla Watershed hydrologic model using HEC-HMS. First, peak stormwater runoff rates and hydrographs are the primary output parameters from the model. Second, the model can initially be used to evaluate and select potential sites for the construction of stormwater control facilities. Third, from the perspective of land use and stormwater management planning, the HEC-HMS model can also be used to evaluate the impact of proposed subdivisions and land developments. When a land development or subdivision plan application is submitted, the sub-area in which the proposed project is located is divided into the minimum number of smaller drainage areas that are required to accurately analyze the impact that the proposed project would have on stormwater runoff rates from the sub-area and at points of interest downstream in the watershed. Similarly, the stormwater runoff rate control provided by the stormwater management facilities proposed for the project can be analyzed.

5) Mapping 100-Year Floodplains To determine the extent of the Quittapahilla Creek watershed affected by flood flows, the approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain along the Quittapahilla Creek mainstem and its tributaries were determined from the PASDA GIS Database. In addition, historic flood studies conducted in the Quittapahilla Creek watershed were reviewed and evaluated

8

2. Morphologic Stream Assessment of Quittapahilla Creek The intent of the morphological stream assessment was: map current geomorphic features; assess current channel condition; identify factors influencing channel condition; identify the location and nature of channel stability problems; evaluate the direction, rate and nature of channel adjustments; evaluate the degree to which the existing channel conditions differ from an accepted range of morphological values for stable streams; and determine the sensitivity of the stream reaches assessed to alterations in hydrologic or sediment regime and/or direct disturbances. Following the assessment procedures of Rosgen (1996) the Team did: characterize the current channel morphology; determine the factors and processes influencing it; and determine its direction of adjustment.

a. Field Calibration of Bankfull Channel Field Indicators As indicated above, the U.S. Geological Survey published regional regressions that were developed utilizing data from 66 gage sites in Pennsylvania and Maryland (J. Chaplin, 2005). The large data set provided curves with very reliable predictive capability. More importantly USGS also developed regressions specific to carbonate watersheds making them both reliable and directly applicable to Quittapahilla Creek. These regressions were used as part of this study to calibrate the HEC-HMS hydrologic model, estimate bankfull discharge, and to verify channel geometry data that was based on bankfull channel indicators observed during the morphologic stream assessment.

b. Geomorphic Mapping of Quittapahilla Creek During summer 2001, the geomorphic features of Quittapahilla Creek were mapped from the headwaters south of the City of Lebanon to the confluence with Swatara Creek. The 1994 Quarter Quad aerial photographs were utilized for the geomorphic mapping in the field. The aerial photographs were developed at a scale of 1 inch = 100 feet and overlain with mylar sheets onto which the left and right stream banks of Quittapahilla Creek had been digitized. Stream channel and adjacent floodplain features were then hand drawn on these mylar base maps. Landscape features shown on the aerial photographs could be seen through the mylar sheets, thereby providing points of reference for orientation in the field. The geomorphic mapping effort focused on verifying existing land use activities and land cover including type and condition, identifying and documenting unstable conditions in upland and riparian areas, characterizing stream channel morphology and condition, and identifying point and non-point pollution sources. Observations on riparian and stream bank vegetation, meander pattern, depositional features, debris and channel blockages, vertical stability, streambed materials, streambed features (e.g., riffles, pools, runs and glides), bank height, stream bank erosion were mapped and recorded. The location of significant points in the field (e.g., storm drain outfalls, wastewater discharge outfalls, and springs) were noted on the maps and recorded to facilitate relocation with a Garmin Hand-Held GPS Unit. The Geomorphic and Habitat Maps submitted previously document the findings of this effort.

9

c. Morphological Description and Assessment of Stream Condition During spring 2003, a morphological stream assessment was conducted along the mainstem of Quittapahilla Creek. This work included the detailed levels of geomorphic assessment and was critical to evaluating the overall condition and stability of Quittapahilla Creek and completion of the geomorphic component of the watershed assessment. Quittapahilla Creek was classified into specific categories of stream types (i.e., B4, C4, E4, etc.) and assessed for channel condition utilizing a combination of the standard field procedures and the extrapolation field procedures recommended by Rosgen (1996). Fourteen reaches along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek were identified as being representative of stream type and stream condition along the mainstem. Detailed reach classification surveys were conducted of these fourteen representative reaches. The same reaches were assessed relative to existing channel morphology, vertical and lateral stability, sediment transport competence, and influencing factors including riparian vegetation, meander pattern, depositional pattern, debris and channel blockages, and sediment supply. In addition, all banks in meander bends and each eroding bank regardless of location along the mainstem were evaluated relative to bank erosion potential and near bank stress. Utilizing the information developed from the geomorphic mapping, the data collected from the Level II stream classification and Level III channel condition assessment of the representative reaches was extrapolated to the other thirty-eight reaches along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek. The information from the representative and extrapolated reaches was utilized to evaluate the current conditions of Quittapahilla Creek, and the degree to which the existing conditions of the representative reaches differ from an accepted range of morphological values documented for similar stable stream types.

d. Stream Stability Validation Monitoring Verification of the assessment data through monitoring is a critical component of the overall effort. It provided documentation of the problems along Quittapahilla Creek for state and federal permitting agencies, as well as funding agencies. It provided baseline data for evaluating restoration and management strategies. In addition, it was utilized in conjunction with water quality monitoring data to calibrate the water quality model. In order to document channel erosion rates, and develop in-field estimates of sediment loadings from in-stream sources, twenty-five permanent cross-sections established along the Quittapahilla Creek were monitored for channel stability over a period of eighteen months. This component of the study involved the installation of permanent cross sections, surveying the cross sections, and resurveying the cross sections at the end of eighteen months. The permanent cross sections were installed and surveyed during Summer 2001. They were resurveyed during Spring 2003. The work completed was documented in the Draft Geomorphic and Habitat Maps.

10

3. Subwatershed Analysis The physical features and current conditions of each of the major subwatersheds of Quittapahilla Creek watershed were assessed. The information utilized in the assessment was gathered from existing GIS databases, topographic maps, soil surveys and maps, geologic maps and reports, land use and land cover maps, as well as historic and recent aerial photography. Conducting a Level I - Geomorphic Characterization and field reconnaissance with photographic documentation of the subwatersheds provided additional information on current conditions.

a. Level I - Geomorphic Characterization of the Major Tributaries The geomorphic characterization focused on classifying stream reaches in these subwatersheds into the generalized stream types (i.e., A, B, C, D, etc.) described in A Classification of Natural Rivers (Rosgen, 1994). The stream reaches were classified based on information gathered from USGS quadrangle maps and aerial photography. This task provided information that was useful in focusing the field reconnaissance effort. Conversely, the field reconnaissance provided verification of the initial reach classifications.

b. Field Reconnaissance During summer 2001, the field reconnaissance and photographic documentation was conducted to assess and document existing conditions in each of the major subwatersheds from their headwaters to confluence with Quittapahilla Creek. A total of 62 miles of tributaries including Killinger Creek, Buckholder Run, Gingrich Run, Bachman Run, Beck Creek, Snitz Creek, an Unnamed Tributary draining South Lebanon, Brandywine Creek, and Unnamed Tributary draining North Annville were reconnoitered and mapped. The USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps were utilized as a base for the field reconnaissance maps used in the field. The field reconnaissance maps were developed at a scale of 1 inch = 660 feet to allow overlay with the Soil Survey and Conservation Plans prepared by the Lebanon County Conservation District for agricultural lands. The field reconnaissance focused on verifying existing land use activities and land cover including type and condition, identifying and documenting unstable conditions in upland and riparian areas, characterizing stream channel morphology and condition, and identifying point and non-point pollution sources. This information, in conjunction with information from other study components (i.e., hydrologic modeling, water quality modeling, water quality monitoring, and biological surveys) provided a basis for identifying and prioritizing problem areas in the subwatersheds.

4. Ecological Assessment Evaluating information and data from historic biological surveys can provide an understanding of how biological communities have changed with land use activities in a watershed. The available biological data was utilized to evaluate historic conditions and determine trends for the biological communities along Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries. As part of the watershed assessment, surveys were conducted to evaluate the existing habitat conditions and the biological communities in the Quittapahilla Creek watershed. Ten (10)

11

stations were identified along the Quittapahilla Creek and its major tributaries for macroinvertebrate and fish surveys. This component of the study provided information on existing conditions that was utilized in conjunction with water quality monitoring and geomorphic assessment data to identify and prioritize problems along the main stem Quittapahilla Creek and its major tributaries. The biological surveys also established baseline conditions prior to the implementation of any restoration or management measures.

a. Historic Biological Communities The data compiled from biological surveys (macroinvertebrate and fish) conducted by various state agencies (e.g. PA Fish Commission, PA DER, etc.) from the mid-1960’s through the late 1980’s were reviewed and evaluated. Data compiled from other investigations were also evaluated. For example, a study conducted by Bethlehem Steel Corporation between 1975 and 1978 was part of the NPDES monitoring program at their Lebanon Plant. More recent studies conducted by staff of the U. S. Department of Agriculture included macroinvertebrate sampling to evaluate the effects of the Watershed Association’s stream bank fencing projects. As part of this effort Beck Creek, Bachman Run, Snitz Creek and locations along Quittapahilla Creek were sampled in 1999 and 2000. The most recent data available included the results of macroinvertebrate sampling and habitat assessments conducted in spring 2001 by Pennsylvania DEP. Data from all these investigations was reviewed and evaluated.

b. Evaluation of Existing In-Stream Habitat During summer 2001, existing in-stream habitat along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek was mapped. Because this part of the assessment was focused on habitat criteria for naturally reproducing trout populations, habitat parameters relevant to spawning and sustaining embryos, fry, juvenile and adult fish were emphasized in the mapping/evaluation process. The habitat mapping effort focused on characterizing and documenting existing habitat including depth of pools and riffles/runs; percent of the total stream area that provides adequate cover for adult trout during the low flow period; an evaluation of channel substrate relative to potential spawning areas, fry and juvenile escape cover and resting areas, macroinvertebrate habitat in riffles/runs, and the % fine sediment (embeddedness) in riffles/runs; percent of stream length that is pools; a rating of the quality (i.e., size, depth, structure) of the pools; dominant stream bank vegetation; percent of the stream bank covered by vegetation; and the percent of the stream area shaded.

c. Existing Biological Communities During winter 2003 the benthic macroinvertebrate communities were assessed along the Quittapahilla Creek and its major tributaries. The biological sampling effort utilized the U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) and included field data collection at ten stations; taxonomic identification; development of Functional Group and Tolerance Indices for macroinvertebrate communities at each station; data interpretation; and data management. The fish communities were assessed during summer 2004. This biological sampling effort also utilized the U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) and included field data collection at the same ten stations; taxonomic identification; determination of tolerance value and trophic level; and calculation of Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for fish communities at each station.

12

5. Water Quality Assessment

a. Historic Water Quality Conditions The data compiled from water quality monitoring conducted by various state agencies (e.g. PADEP, PADER, etc.) from the mid-1960s through the late 1980s were reviewed and evaluated. Data compiled from other investigations were also evaluated. For example, a study conducted by Bethlehem Steel Corporation between 1975 and 1978 was part of the NPDES monitoring program at their Lebanon Plant. More recently, the Biology Department of Lebanon Valley College has been conducting water quality monitoring under baseflow conditions at a number of locations along Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries since 1999. Their data was compiled, reviewed and evaluated. The available data was utilized, to the extent practical, to evaluate historic conditions and determine trends for the water quality along Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries.

b. Water Quality Monitoring The Biology Department of Lebanon Valley College (LVC) has been conducting water quality monitoring under baseflow conditions at a number of locations along Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries. The Biology Department’s water quality monitoring was conducted in 1999, 2000, and 2001 at one site on Snitz Creek (Dairy Road); four sites on Beck Creek (Bricker Lane, Royal Road, Reist Road, and Oak Street); five sites on Bachman (two sites along Rte. 241 near the headwaters, Fontana Road, Bucher Lane, and Reigerts Lane), and one site on the Quittapahilla Creek (Glen Road). The parameters monitored included temperature, pH, turbidity, nitrate-nitrogen, orthophosphate, and alkalinity. During the summer, fall and early winter, 2003 the consulting Team conducted water quality monitoring of storm flow events at ten sites along Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries. The consultant’s monitoring effort included installation of staff gauges at each site, installation of continuous-reading digital thermographs at each site; flow measurements and rating curve development for each site; sample collection and analysis for five storm events at each site. The storm water samples were analyzed for: temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, total acidity, total alkalinity, biochemical oxygen demand, nitrate, orthophosphate phosphorus, total phosphorus, total dissolved solids, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total nitrogen, total suspended solids, turbidity, hardness, copper, lead, zinc, and fecal coliform. The additional monitoring effort allowed a baseline to be established for water quality conditions, comparison of baseflow and storm flow conditions, computation of pollutant loadings of key parameters, calibration of the water quality model to actual water quality conditions in the watershed, and establishment of a long-term monitoring program for tracking improvements in water quality as restoration and management measures are implemented.

c. Evaluation of Sediment Discharge The comprehensive watershed assessment provided much of the information needed to develop a rational, science-based plan for improving the Quittapahilla Creek. However, the initial work effort did not include a sediment-evaluation program. This gap in the assessment was considered significant because the TMDL report for Quittapahilla Creek points to sediment

13

as a major cause of impairment. In 2003 the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, through their Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program, provided funding to study the sediment yield characteristics of the watershed. During the period of fall 2003 to spring 2005 bedload and suspended sediment load samples were collected at one station on the lower main stem Quittapahilla Creek and two tributary stations. The data was collected across a range of stream flow conditions and was used to develop a sediment rating curve for determining sediment transport and sediment yield characteristics for the system. The detailed results of the sediment discharge evaluation are presented in a separate report (Skelly & Loy, Inc. and Clear Creeks Consulting, 2005) and summarized in this document. Because this sediment monitoring effort was a component of an overall watershed assessment, it provided information that was utilized in conjunction with the baseflow and storm flow water quality monitoring, biological survey data, and geomorphic assessment data to identify and prioritize problem areas along the mainstem of Quittapahilla Creek and its major tributaries. It established a baseline for water quality conditions, allowed computations of actual sediment loadings, provided a comparison of baseflow and storm flow conditions, evaluated the effects of land use on sediment loadings, allowed calibration of the water quality model to actual water quality conditions in the watershed, and established a long-term monitoring program for tracking improvements in water quality as restoration and management measures are implemented.

d. Water Quality Modeling and Analysis Two key issues in selecting a water quality model concern the model data requirements and the availability of these data across the watershed. The Generalized Watershed Loading Function (GWLF) model is especially suitable, both in terms of data requirements and accuracy of output. Loading functions provide a useful means for estimating nutrient and sediment loads when chemical simulation models are impractical due to funding limitations or data availability. Much of the data for the GWLF model are available through databases maintained by local, state and federal agencies. Other key input parameters can be estimated based on literature research. Recently, Pennsylvania State University has been assisting DEP in the development and implementation of the GWLF model with a GIS software (ArcView) interface (AVGWLF). AVGWLF was selected by DEP to help support its ongoing TMDL projects within Pennsylvania. With respect to the Quittapahilla Watershed, AVGWLF was selected to analyze water quality due to its ability to simulate nutrient and sediment loads within the impaired watershed, compare simulated loads within the impaired watershed against loads simulated for a nearby unimpaired "reference" watershed, and identify and evaluate pollution mitigation strategies (Best Management Practices – BMPs) that could be applied in the impaired watershed to achieve pollutant loads similar to those calculated for the reference watershed. The analysis focused on identifying general areas where pollutant loadings indicate that best management practices should be implemented. In addition, the analysis evaluated the effect of implementing best management practices has on reducing pollutant loadings in the subwatersheds.

e. Point Source Discharges Information on major point source pollution discharges in the Quittapahilla Creek watershed was obtained from the PADEP’s e F.A.C.T.S. Web Site. The Permit Engineer with PADEP, Water Management Program, South Central Office responsible for reviewing and monitoring NPDES

14

permits in the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed verified the information obtained from the Web site (T. Carpenter, personal communication). The majority of the discharge outfall locations were identified and mapped during the field reconnaissance. B. Watershed Assessment Findings

1. Watershed Characterization

a. Physiography The Quittapahilla Creek Watershed is situated in the Ridge and Valley and Triassic Lowland physiographic regions in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. Quittapahilla Creek is a tributary to Swatara Creek and is part of the Susquehanna River Basin. Its headwaters begin just south of Lebanon, Pennsylvania and it enters the Swatara Creek near North Annville, Pennsylvania. The landforms of the Ridge and Valley region are dramatic for their regularity if not for their topographic relief (Miller, 1995). Northeast-southwest trending mountains and valleys characterize the Ridge and Valley region. Folding and differential erosion of sedimentary rocks created the landforms of this region. The region was deformed and pushed westward by the Appalachian Orogeny of the Late Paleozoic Period. The less resistant rocks, such as dolomite and limestone, brought to the surface by this geologic process eroded rapidly and became lowland valleys, while the more resistant rock, such as shale and sandstone, formed the ridges and high valleys. The Quittapahilla Creek watershed is situated almost entirely in the Great Valley, one of several subregions of the Ridge and Valley characterized by broad limestone valleys. In the Lebanon County area elevations range from over 1600 feet on Second Mountain to 400 feet in the Lebanon Valley. Typically streams in the region have a well-developed dendritic drainage network, with major streams occupying broad valleys trending northeast-southwest and minor streams flowing off the ridges and intersecting the major streams. The headwaters of the southern tributaries drain a ridgeline along the southern boundary of Lebanon County that is situated in the northern portion of the Triassic Lowlands. The Triassic Lowlands are an irregularly shaped belt that parallels the Piedmont physiographic region to its northwest. They are composed of relatively young and weak sedimentary rocks into which volcanic rock have intruded themselves. The weak sedimentary rocks of this region have developed into fertile lowlands, while the volcanic ridges resemble the more rugged landscape of the Piedmont Uplands (Miller, 1995).

b. Climate Lebanon County lies too far inland for the climate to be strongly affected by the Atlantic Ocean, and therefore, it has a humid continental climate. Most weather systems that affect the County develop in the Central United States and are modified considerably before reaching the area. The average annual precipitation of 42.3 inches is distributed throughout the year, most of which is in the form of rainfall. May – August are the periods of highest precipitation, which usually occurs as afternoon or evening showers or thunderstorms. There are about 37 thunderstorms each year, and most occur during this period. January – February are the periods of lowest precipitation. Average annual snowfall is 27 inches. The first significant snowfall is usually in December and the last snowfall normally occurs in March. Winters are cold, but cloudiness is not persistent because of the moisture lost in the more western counties as the air masses approach. Mean daily temperatures range from 27.3 – 32.2ºF in winter. In summer, 60 percent of possible sunshine is received. Mean daily

15

temperatures range from 67.8 – 72.2ºF in summer. Extended periods of hot humid weather occur with temperatures hotter than 90º F. Spring and fall are transition periods. High temperatures in April and October are in the 60’s. Table 1 presents the monthly ranges and averages of temperature and precipitation in Lebanon from available records covering the last 50 years.

Parameter Monthly Average and Range Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Temperature (F°)

27.3 (18-37)

29.9 (19-43)

39 (24-55)

49.2 (34-66)

59.0 (43-75)

67.8 (53-82)

72.2 (60-84)

70.0 (57-83)

62.6 (46-77)

51.4 (35-68.0)

41.3 (28-57)

32.2 (21-45)

Precipitation (Inches)

3.19 (1.3-6.3)

2.56 (0.9-6.7)

3.31 (0.81-8.2)

3.72 (1.4-7.8)

4.61 (1.45-8.0)

4.04 (0.7-9.0)

4.57 (0.9-10.3)

3.48 (1.2-11.1)

4.08 (0.4-8.2)

3.32 (0.6-8.5)

3.62 (0.9-5.9)

3.19 (1.3-7.4)

Table 1 – Monthly ranges and averages of temperature and precipitation in Lebanon, PA

c. Basin Morphometry The Quittapahilla Creek watershed area is 77.3 square miles (49,472 acres). It is an oblong basin, about 14.8 miles long by 8.3 miles wide at its widest point. The subwatershed areas of its eight largest tributaries, Killinger Creek, Snitz Creek, Unnamed Tributary South, Beck Creek, Bachman Run, Gingrich Run, Brandywine Creek and Buckholder Run are 14.28, 11.25, 9.45, 8.17, 8.16, 4.99, 3.25, and 0.9 square miles, respectively. Plate 2 shows the major subwatersheds. From its headwaters south of the City of Lebanon (elevation 500 feet) Quittapahilla Creek flows approximately 22 stream miles to its confluence with Swatara Creek in the North Annville Township (elevation 350 feet). The average slope of the mainstem is 0.13%. The high point of the watershed is situated at Furnace Hills in Cornwall Township (elevation 1120 feet), giving the basin an average longitudinal gradient of 1.0%. The southern boundary of the watershed divide includes numerous ridges and knobs with elevations ranging from 700 to 960 feet. The steeper headwater areas of the tributaries draining these southern ridges range in slope from 2 to 4%. After flowing off the ridges these tributaries meander for several miles across the valley floor before reaching the mainstem. As a consequence, the gradients of their lower reaches are much flatter, with average slopes ranging 0.1 to 0.5%. Most ridges and knobs along the northern boundary of the watershed are less than 600 feet in elevation. With the exception of Brandywine Creek, these northern tributaries flow off the ridges directly into the mainstem. The average slopes of these tributaries range from 1.0 to 2.0%.

d. Geology and Soils As mentioned previously, the headwaters of the southern tributaries drain a ridgeline along the southern boundary of Lebanon County that is situated in the northern portion of the Triassic Lowlands. This area is underlain by Triassic sandstone, conglomerate, and diabase. The Triassic diabase intrusion has been mined for iron ore. The Cornwall mines, the oldest continuously operated mines in the Western Hemisphere, were important producers of high-grade ore from 1742 until 1972.

16

The majority of the land area in the watershed is situated in the Great Valley section of the Ridge and Valley region. This area is underlain by bedrock of Lower Paleozoic shale, limestone, and dolomite formations. The upper and middle reaches of the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek as well as the middle and lower reaches of the major tributaries flow across the carbonate rocks of the valley. Sinkholes and solution cavities are common in these carbonate rocks. Quarries in the carbonate rock are mined for concrete aggregate, cement, flux stone, and paint filler. The lower reaches of the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek, as well as the headwaters of the northern tributaries, are underlain by interbedded sedimentary rock and shale. The dominant soils in the headwaters of the tributaries that drain the southern ridges include those in the Ungers-Neshaminy-Watchung map unit. These soils formed in residuum or colluvium from conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, diabase, and other dark basic rock. Unger and Neshaminy soils are deep, well drained fine loamy soils along ridges and convex slopes. They have slow to moderate runoff potential and low to moderate erosion hazard. Watchung soils are deep, poorly drained fine soils in depressions, on flats and foot slopes in uplands. They have moderate to rapid runoff potential and high to severe erosion hazard. The dominant soils along the middle and upper reaches of Quittapahilla Creek as well as the middle and lower reaches of the southern tributaries include those in the Hagerstown-Duffield-Clarksburg map unit. They are deep, well drained to moderately well drained silt loam soils in limestone valleys. They formed in residuum and colluvium from limestone with some sandstone and shale. These soils have moderate to rapid runoff potential and moderate to high erosion hazard. The dominant soils along the lower reaches of Quittapahilla Creek as well as the northern tributaries include those in the Berks-Weikert-Beddington map unit. They are shallow to deep, well drained loamy skeletal and fine loamy soils in uplands. They formed in residuum from acid shale, sandstone, and siltstone. Berks and Weikert soils have moderate to rapid runoff potential and low to moderate erosion hazard. Beddington soils have slow to moderate runoff potential and moderate erosion hazard. The dominant soils in the Brandywine subwatershed include those in the Beddington-Berks-Holly map unit. These are deep and moderately deep, well drained and very poorly drained to poorly drained fine loamy soils on uplands and floodplains. They formed in residuum from acid shale and sandstone and in alluvium. Berks soils have moderate to rapid runoff potential and low to moderate erosion hazard. Beddington soils have slow to moderate runoff potential and moderate erosion hazard. Holly soils have rapid runoff potential and low to moderate erosion hazard.

e. Land Use and Land Cover Plate 2 and Table 2 show the land use and land cover in the Quittapahilla Creek watershed. Upper Mainstem and Northeastern Subwatersheds Quittapahilla Creek starts as a small spring on a dairy farm in the South Lebanon Township. The surrounding land that drains the headwaters to the south and east is still fairly rural and includes large farms with cropland and pasture. However, as the Quittapahilla flows north toward the City of Lebanon farmland quickly gives way to residential subdivisions, shopping centers, fast food restaurants, schools, hospitals, and the Lebanon County Prison. Flowing

17

beneath Route 422 the creek turns west and flows through the center of the City. Storm drains carry runoff from densely developed neighborhoods to the north and south into a highly altered channel that was first modified in the 18th century. Although the Bethlehem Steel Plant and related industries that occupied much of the land along the creek shut down years ago, redevelopment has brought new industries. As a result of the flood mitigation projects that the City initiated in the late 1970’s Quittapahilla Creek is conveyed in a concrete flume from 3rd Street to 19th Street. The land on either side of the channel includes typical urban uses (e.g., offices, banks, small businesses, car dealerships, gas stations, libraries, neighborhoods of row homes, small parks, etc.) characterized by high percent impervious surfaces all routed via storm drains to the creek. In the northern part of the Quittapahilla Creek watershed, Brandywine Creek is a densely developed subwatershed. Upstream of Stovers Dam, many of the large farms present during the original watershed assessment have been replaced by small – medium size lot, residential subdivisions. Development in this part of the watershed also includes institutional and recreational properties, as well as the Stovers Dam Recreation Area. Downstream of Stovers Lake, the Brandywine Creek flows through the Mt. Lebanon Cemetery before joining an unnamed tributary that drains the Reinoehlsville and Sunset communities. The Reinoehlsville and Sunset communities are densely developed with a mix of old and new small – medium size lot, residential subdivisions, institutional and commercial properties. A second unnamed tributary drains the densely developed Sand Hill community, which includes old and new small – medium lot-size residential properties. This unnamed tributary enters a pipe under a Municipal stockpile and waste area just west of 8th Street and joins with the Brandywine. From 12th Street to its confluence with the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek, the Brandywine flows through a series of flumes (grass-, gabion-, and concrete-lined) and culvert pipes. In this part of the subwatershed the Brandywine drains areas that include the Tailings Pond north of Maple Street, Coleman Memorial Park Cemetery, and a densely developed area of residential, commercial, and industrial properties, as well as Penn DOT’s District 8-8 Maintenance Facility. Lower Mainstem and Northwestern Subwatersheds A small unnamed tributary joins the main stem Quittapahilla Creek from the north in Annville near Weaver Street. For most of its length this drainage-way is piped. The area that it drains includes large farms with pasture and row crops, large lot-size residential areas, Grandview Memorial Park and Fairland Cemetery, as well as commercial and industrial properties near and along Route 422. The remaining unnamed tributaries that join the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek from the north drain subwatersheds in the North Annville Township, where large farms with pasture, row crops, orchards, and deciduous forests are the predominant land uses. Downstream of its confluence with Killinger Creek the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek is joined by several small, unnamed tributaries that drain land from the south in the North Londonderry Township. Land use in these subwatersheds is an equal mix of large farms with pasture and row crops, large lot-size residential communities, and forest. Southern Headwaters The dominant land use along the southern ridges of the watershed is forest. State Game Lands, administered by the Pennsylvania Game Commission, account for the largest areas with additional forest in private ownership. The majority of the forests are deciduous. However, some coniferous and mixed species areas are scattered throughout the subwatersheds.

18

Deciduous tree types include northern red oaks, black oak, pin oak, yellow poplar, white ash, sugar maple, and red maple. Virginia pine, white pine and shortleaf pine are the dominant conifers. Although land use in the southern subwatersheds generally changes to pasture and cropland on the slopes and along the valleys between the forested ridges and Route 322 and Route 419, each area has a relatively unique mix of land uses. Traveling from east to west, land use along the upper Unnamed Tributary draining South Lebanon includes the community of Rexmont. Land use in this sub-basin includes large farms, and small-medium size lot residential subdivisions. Further west, the upper Snitz Creek subwatershed is a mix of new and old small lot-size residential subdivision communities with supporting public facilities (e.g., fire, school, and athletic fields) and small commercial establishments. These communities include Quentin, Cornwall Center, Burd Coleman Village, Anthracite, and Miners Village. Cornwall Manor Retirement Community encompasses an extensive area between Cornwall Center and Anthracite. The area between Burd Coleman Village and Cornwall Furnace includes abandoned iron ore mining quarries, haul roads, and mine waste piles. Land use in the upper Beck Creek subwatershed includes the Gretna Glen Camp with its small lake, large farms with pasture and row crops. Upper Bachman Run includes large lot-size residential subdivisions; Pennsy Supply’s old Fontana Quarry, Philhaven Hospital, and large farms with pasture and row crops. The upper Killinger Creek subwatershed is a mix of small – medium lot-size residential subdivisions and large farms with pasture and row crops. Large farms with pasture and row crops and scattered large lot homesteads are typical of the land use along Buckholder Run. Upper Gingrich Run includes the Thousands Trails Campground with its small lake, the lumber mill owned and operated by Walter H. Weaber & Sons, Inc., and large farms with pasture and row crops. Southern Middle Reaches This area of the Unnamed Tributary draining South Lebanon is the most densely developed in the subwatershed. However, along most of its length it is in culvert pipe or concrete flume. In this part of the subwatershed, land use along the Unnamed Tributary includes the Lebanon Valley Business Park, Veteran’s Administration Medical Center, V.A. South Hills Golf Course, several public schools, numerous old and new small lot-size residential neighborhoods, and densely developed residential/commercial properties and public facilities in the City of Lebanon. The Snitz Creek subwatershed is the most developed of the free flowing southern tributaries. It drains land that includes numerous small – medium lot-size residential subdivisions in the Cornwall, West Cornwall, and North Cornwall Townships. It also drains the Fairview and North Cornwall Golf Courses, as well as the densely developed commercial properties along Route 72. With the exception of the Royal Oaks Golf Course, Lebanon Valley Country Club, a small – medium lot-size residential subdivision, and scattered residences, land use in this part of the Beck Creek subwatershed is large farms with pasture and row crops. Although Bachman Run is bordered predominately by large farms with pasture and row crops, several medium – large lot-size residential communities in South Annville Township drain to the creek. The middle and lower reaches of each subwatershed are equally unique in their land use characteristics. In this part of the watershed Killinger Creek is predominately large farms with pasture and row crops. However, medium - large lot-size residential subdivisions in South and

19

North Londonderry Townships, as well as small lot-size residential subdivisions and commercial properties in Palmyra drain to the creek. Before entering the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek, Killinger Creek passes beneath Route 422 and flows through the Pennsy Supply’s Millard Quarry.

20

21

Land Use Land Cover

Land Use and Land Cover in Major Subwatersheds

(Acres)

Entire

Watershed Killinger Buckholder Gingrich Bachman Beck Snitz Brandywine Mainstem

Open Water

54.0279

0.2224

5.7823

12.4542

8.8959

94.0728

83.3980

80.1870

339.0405

Low Density Residential

274.0736

N/A

9.3405

21.0555

63.5833

377.5061

467.1953

2237.5283

3450.2826

High Density Residential

34.0271

N/A

N/A

0.3561

1.0738

83.6446

91.6223

1003.2637

1213.9876

Commercial Industrial

Transportation

34.0271

N/A

N/A

19.1053

20.1975

61.2464

119.3740

1172.1642

1625.1694

Quarries

307.0510

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

196.6985

49.3716

113.7637

666.8848

Transitional

N/A

N/A

N/A

7.5015

1.1718

0.2224

N/A

N/A

8.8957

Deciduous Forest

416.7282

187.8776

757.2894

822.7896

741.2200

2237.3786

421.4519

1857.3545

7442.0898

Coniferous Forest

47.1262

4.1177

17.8630

40.6462

36.9465

150.2546

28.2711

232.4163

557.6416

Mixed Forest

44.2962

6.2887

32.9507

44.2304

43.9131

178.2018

45.8464

294.6508

690.3781

Pasture/Hay

2063.4568

192.2233

1302.4714

2752.6193

2697.0384

3032.7736

766.3171

8433.3407

21,240.2406

Row Crops

1846.4607

190.0605

1013.9287

1210.6059

1448.2217

1457.4171

109.9296

4028.3424

11,304.9666

Urban/Recreational Grasses

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

128.0990

N/A

N/A

N/A

128.0990

Forest/Scrub-Shrub Wetlands

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0.2224

5.3375

N/A

50.9285

56.4884

Emergent Wetlands

1.5568

0.2224

0.2224

1.5568

3.5584

17.3471

15.7902

51.8182

92.0723

Total

5268.2894

581.0126

3193.4455

4932.9208

5194.1418

7892.1011

2198.5675

19,555.7583

48,816.2370

Table 2 General Land Use and Land Cover Characteristics of the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed (2003)

22

f. Hydrology

1) U.S. Geological Survey Stream Gage Record Analysis U.S. Geological Survey records indicate that the mean annual stream flow measured at the USGS stream gaging station on Quittapahilla Creek near Bellegrove is 106 cfs. Mean monthly streamflow is highest from March - April, ranging 146 – 150 cfs. Mean monthly streamflow is lowest from August - November, ranging 75.9 – 84.7 cfs. Annual peak discharges for the period 1975 - 1994 ranged 404 cfs – 4800 cfs. A flood frequency analysis of the maximum annual peaks at the Bellegrove gage site indicates that peak discharges are 586 cfs, 725 cfs, 908 cfs, 2204 cfs, 3275 cfs, 4321 cfs, and 5626 cfs, for the 1.25-yr, 1.5-yr, 2-yr, 10-yr, 50-yr, and 100-yr recurrence interval (RI) flows, respectively. The USGS also collected stream flow data on Beck Creek near Cleona from 1963 to 1981. However, there is some concern regarding the reliability of estimates for the less frequent, higher volume storms for this gage site.

2) Field Calibration of Bankfull Discharge As part of this study field calibration surveys were conducted at five USGS gaging stations in the Ridge and Valley region of Pennsylvania and Maryland including Beck Creek, Quittapahilla Creek, Swatara Creek, Monocacy Creek, and Marsh Run. The watersheds draining this gages range in size from 7.87 to 116 square miles. In preparation for the field assessment effort the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) conducted an in-office review/evaluation of nine USGS gage stations. The following gage sites met the criteria for possible inclusion in the study and were evaluated in the field:

Swatara Creek near Pine Grove, PA - 01572025 (Active) Quittapahilla Creek near Bellegrove, PA - 01573160 (Discontinued) Beck Creek near Cleona, PA - 01573086 (Discontinued) Letort Spring Run near Carlisle, PA – 01569800 (Active) Bixler Run near Loysville, PA – 01567500 (Active) Monocacy Creek at Bethlehem, PA – 01452500 (Active) Newburg Run at Newburg, PA- (Discontinued) Clark Creek near Carsonville, PA (Active) Marsh Run at Grimes, MD - 01617800 (Active)

Based on the field evaluations, four gages were found to be acceptable for the gage calibration work – Beck Creek, Quittapahilla Creek, Swatara Creek and Monocacy Creek. In order to provide additional data for developing the curve, USFWS included the Marsh Run gage site, which they had already surveyed. Since Beck Creek and Quittapahilla Creek are both inactive gage sites, their historic rating tables had to be validated/updated. The Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Association entered into a cooperative agreement with the USGS field office in New Cumberland, PA to validate and update the rating tables. The necessary field measurements and analytical work was completed and the rating tables updated. Utilizing the new rating tables, the USFWS conducted the gage calibration surveys at the four selected USGS gaging stations and developed the regional regressions for use in estimating bankfull discharge and verifying bankfull indicators during the morphologic stream

23

assessment. Upon further consideration it was determined that the geology underlying the Swatara Creek watershed was sufficiently different from the other sites that the data from this gage was not included in the final development of the regressions. Because the limited number of gage sites surveyed significantly affected the reliability of these regional regressions it was determined that they should not be used to develop bankfull discharge estimates.

3) U. S. Geological Survey Regional Regressions The U.S. Geological Survey published regional regressions that were developed utilizing data from 66 gage sites in Pennsylvania and Maryland (J. Chaplin, 2005). The large data set provided curves with very reliable predictive capability. More importantly USGS also developed regressions specific to carbonate watersheds making them both reliable and directly applicable to Quittapahilla Creek. These regressions were used as part of this study to calibrate the HEC-HMS hydrologic model and estimate bankfull discharge. The regional curve and regression equation relating drainage area to bankfull discharge is included in the Appendix to the original report.

4) 100 Year Floodplain Plate 3 presents a map showing the 100-year floodplain along Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries. As shown on the floodplain map, the 100-year flood inundates significant areas of the Quittapahilla Creek and tributary valleys. In some segments of the Quittapahilla Creek watershed the floodplain does not extend very far beyond the channel and its adjacent floodway. In other segments the floodplain covers significant areas of the valleys. The floodplain reaches its greatest extent in the middle and lower segments of the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek, as well as middle and lower Snitz Creek and the Unnamed Tributary that drains South Lebanon. In these areas it nearly covers the entire valley floor. Much of the floodplain area shown was inundated to depths of several feet during Hurricane Agnes in 1972. As a result, the City of Lebanon initiated flood mitigation projects along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek and Unnamed Tributary that drains South Lebanon.

5) Hydrologic Modeling and Analysis The Quittapahilla watershed was modeled using the HEC-HMS computer program. Digital Elevation Models (DEM) for the USGS quadrangles of Lebanon and Palmyra, Pennsylvania were first imported into Arc-View, a computer model, which works with GIS databases. Also, a county-wide digitized stream coverage was imported into the model to compare with the flow paths determined by Geo-HMS, a sub-routine of Arc-View, which determines flow directions and paths. Comparison with the countywide stream coverage aided in locating the proper modeling points. With this information the project area was determined along with the pertinent sub-watersheds. After the data were prepared, it was then imported into the HEC-HMS program. The Geo-HMS sub-routine creates the basin model to be used in HEC-HMS. This supplies the areas of the sub-watersheds and a schematic of the watershed showing subwatersheds, routing reaches, and junctions as shown in Figure 1. Parameters other than subwatershed areas, such as reach lengths, must be entered into the model manually.

24

25

a) Modeling Points All points of interest are designated as subwatersheds outlets so that a flow could be determined. The model is comprised of 22 subwatersheds. Three USGS gaging stations are located within the Quittapahilla watershed. They are located at the outlets of Bachman Run, Beck Creek and on the Quittapahilla Creek near North Annville. The information pertaining to the gages are summarized in Table 3.

Figure 1 Modeling Schematic of the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed

Due to the limited number of years of record and the age of the data, the information from the gages was not used to calibrate the model. This watershed undergoes a fair amount of land use change every year. Therefore calibrating the model with this out-dated gage information would result in model parameters which do not represent current conditions. However, they are listed for a possible later need.

26

USGS Stream Flow Data

Number Name Area (sq.mi.) Latitude Longitud

e Location Start End Data

01573086 Beck Creek 7.87 40°19'24" 76°29'00" near Cleona, Pa 8/1/63 3/31/81

peak discharge,

water quality

01573095 Bachman Run 7.30 40°18'58" 76°30'58" Annville, Pa 4/1/93 9/30/95

peak discharge,

water quality

01573160 Quittapahilla Creek 74.20 40°20'34" 76°33'46"

near Bellegrove,

Pa 9/26/75 4/11/93 peak

discharge

Table 3 Stream Gage Information

b) Precipitation Inputs Several meteorological models were developed within the HEC-HMS model. An SCS Type II distribution was used to develop the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year events. The corresponding 24-hour rainfall depths for these events were determined from the Penn-DOT IDF curves. Also, several precipitation gages were located in or around the Quittapahilla watershed. The gages are shown in Table 4. Like the stream flow data, the precipitation gage information was not used in the calibration due to the fact that the stream gage information was not used.

NWS\NOAA Precipitation Data

Number Name Latitude Longitude County Start End Data

364778 Landisville 2NW 40°07' 76°26' Lebanon 5/1/52 Present Hourly

364896 Lebanon 2W 40°20' 76°28' Lebanon 5/1/48 Present Hourly

365703 Harrisburg Intl. Airport 40°12' 76°46' Dauphin 10/1/91 Present Hourly

Table 4 Precipitation Gage Information

c. Procedures and Parameters

There were several hydrologic procedures used to represent the watershed. The SCS curve number (CN) method was used to determine rainfall excesses after a storm event. The SCS unit hydrograph method was then used to predict the runoff response to these rainfall excesses. Finally, the Muskingum routing method was used to route a storm hydrograph from one point of interest to another through a river reach. All of these methods are performed in the HEC-HMS computer program. A large number of watershed parameters were obtained. They included watershed areas, flow lengths, land uses, and soils information. SCS curve numbers (CN) were used to quantify land use and soil information. Flow lengths, slopes, and land uses were used to determine the time of concentration for each of the sub-watersheds. This time of concentration was then converted to a lag time due to the fact that the lag time is the parameter

27

required by the HEC-HMS program. Finally, reach lengths and travel time estimates were determined for the Muskingum routing method. Table 5 summarizes the sub-watershed areas, land uses, and curve numbers used in the HEC-HMS basin model.

Subwatersheds Area %Forest %Urban CN Brandywine 3.25 5 20 81 HW-QuittyN1(upper) 1.63 3 5 77 HW-QuittyN2(lower) 3.15 3 3 74 Lebanon 1.91 0 85 88 HW Quitty-S 9.45 8 10 71 N Cornwall-S 2.55 30 5 70 N Cornwall-N 1.81 30 5 70 Snitz 6.89 5 3 71 Upper Beck 1.44 50 0 68 Lower Beck 6.73 3 5 71 Upper Bachman 4.12 25 3 71 Lower Bachman 4.04 3 5 71 Mid-Quitty 12.81 5 20 71 Lower-Quitty 3.87 15 5 69 U Gingrich-E 0.75 90 0 67 U Gingrich-W 0.49 90 0 67 Mid-Gingrich 2.84 5 3 70 Lower Gingrich 0.49 3 3 70 Buckholder 0.85 15 3 70 Upper Killinger 1.47 30 3 72 Mid-Killinger 5.25 3 10 71 Lower-Killinger 2.14 15 5 75 Table 5 Subwatershed Data

d. Model Results

The HEC-HMS model was first run using the initial estimates of watershed parameters. These peak flows are summarized for the entire watershed and several of the sub-watersheds in Table 6. Next the estimates of peak flows for varying return periods were determined using the USGS regression equations for Pennsylvania and also are summarized in Table 6. These are then compared to the estimates obtained from the HEC-HMS model. The comparison of flows provides a means of determining if the estimates from the HEC-HMS model are reasonable. The estimates from the model should be approximately close to those obtained from the USGS regression equations.

28

Table 6 – Peak Flow Summary Table

e. Comparison of Peak Flow Estimates The peak flow estimates from the USGS regression equations and HEC-HMS model were compared for the return periods of 10 and 100 years. This was done to determine the differences for large and small flood events. The comparison revealed for the smaller 22 subwatersheds that the USGS estimates were higher for the 100-year return period. This was expected because many of the subwatershed areas were less or near the lower limit of watershed area (0.93 mi2) for use of the equations. However when comparing the larger subwatersheds the differences between the USGS equations and HEC-HMS model estimates were much less. Percent differences between the estimates ranged from 1 to 13 percent. Therefore considering the limitations of the USGS equations for smaller watersheds, more significance was placed on comparing flows for the larger sub-watersheds. This implies that the HEC-HMS model is sufficient for predicting the flow for a 100-year event.

10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year 10-year 100-yearBrandywine 960 1380 1764 2223 1143 1846HW-QuittyN1(upper) 499 755 1000 1303 504 872HW-QuittyN2(lower) 817 1224 1611 2088 756 1339Lebanon 1037 1350 1611 1901 1029 1562HWQuitty-S 1959 2811 3590 4521 1886 3498NCornwall-S 564 832 1083 1386 1026 1880NCornwall-N 432 642 840 1080 529 983Snitz 1473 2168 2819 3612 1729 3247UpperBeck 299 449 590 762 451 905LowerBeck 1503 2205 2860 3657 1660 3121UpperBachman 834 1228 1594 2038 1257 2309LowerBachman 1011 1499 1959 2523 1026 1926Mid-Quitty 2787 3892 4877 6033 2288 4183Lower-Quitty 878 1295 1684 2158 988 1896UGingrich-E 143 215 282 363 238 488UGingrich-W 103 156 205 266 159 488Mid-Gingrich 740 1109 1461 1895 651 1225LowerGingrich 192 300 405 539 143 279Buckholder 265 406 541 710 246 451UpperKillinger 360 541 712 921 469 839Mid-Killinger 1299 1893 2444 3110 1253 2271Lower-Killinger 554 827 1086 1402 609 1083

UpperQuitty 3714 5172 6468 7988 4903 8450Snitz 1993 2880 3695 4673 2790 5147BeckCreek 1595 2324 2999 3815 1958 3574Bachman 1553 2260 2912 3699 1931 3525Gingrich 998 1463 1893 2413 1263 2401Killinger 2425 3469 4417 5547 2986 5427Lebanon-Outlet 3746 5206 6500 8016 4903 8450QuittyGage 9528 13082 16195 19814 10682 19009Entire WS 9826 13469 16654 20352 10003 17788

USGS Predictions HEC-HMS Predictions

Combinations of Smaller Watersheds

Watershed

29

When comparing the estimates for the 10-year return period, larger variations were observed. Typically the HEC-HMS model predicted higher flows than the USGS equations. Ignoring the estimates for the 22 smaller subwatersheds and considering only the larger subwatersheds revealed percent difference in peak flow estimates ranging from 2 to 40%. These differences are considerably higher than were observed for the 100-year estimates indicating that the HEC-HMS model will likely overestimate the peak flow for the 10-year event.

2. Morphologic Stream Assessment

a. Introduction This section summarizes the results of the morphologic stream assessment conducted along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek. The geomorphic features of Quittapahilla Creek were mapped, the current conditions photographically documented, and the overall stability assessed along the mainstem from Lebanon to Swatara Creek. To facilitate the data collection effort and subsequent data analysis, the mainstem was divided into six segments. In most cases, the segment limits corresponded to natural features (e.g., confluences with major tributaries) or manmade features (e.g., upstream and downstream ends of concrete flumes). Mainstem segments have been divided into reaches on the basis of convenient lengths of channel to assess. Segments and reaches are numbered in a consecutive downstream order. Figures 4 – 10 present maps of the Quittapahilla Creek mainstem segments and reaches. Following the assessment procedures of Rosgen (1996) the Team mapped current geomorphic features, assessed current channel condition; identified factors influencing channel condition; identified the location and nature of channel stability problems; evaluated the direction, rate and nature of historic channel adjustments; evaluated the degree to which the existing channel conditions differ from an accepted range of morphological values for stable streams; and determined the sensitivity of the stream reaches assessed to alterations in hydrologic or sediment regime and/or direct disturbances. The supporting documentation for the morphologic stream assessment is presented in the photographs and summary tables included in this section. Field data sheets and plots of profiles, cross-sections, pebble counts, and sediment samples are included in the Appendix to the report.

b. Field Calibration to Verify Bankfull Channel Field Indicators Field calibration surveys were conducted at four USGS gage stations in the Quittapahilla Creek watershed, immediately adjacent watersheds and similar watersheds in the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Region of Pennsylvania and Maryland. This information was utilized to develop project specific regional curves relating drainage area to bankfull channel dimensions for use in the morphologic stream assessment. However, because the limited number of gage sites surveyed significantly affected the reliability of these regional regressions it was determined that they should not be used for this study.

c. U. S. Geological Survey Regional Regressions The U.S. Geological Survey recently published regional regressions that were developed utilizing data from 66 gage sites in Pennsylvania and Maryland (J. Chaplin, 2005). The large data set provided curves with very reliable predictive capability. More importantly USGS also developed regressions specific to carbonate watersheds making them both reliable and directly applicable to Quittapahilla Creek. These regressions were used as part of this study to calibrate the HEC-HMS hydrologic model, estimate bankfull discharge, and verify the data collected

30

during the morphologic stream assessment. The regional curve and regression equations relating drainage area to bankfull channel dimensions are included in the Appendix of this report. Table 7 compares values for bankfull cross-sectional areas and bankfull discharge predicted with the USGS regional regressions by versus measured field data.

Reach Drainage

Area (Sq Mi)

Predicted from USGS Regional

Regressions

Measured Field Data

Discharge (cfs)

XS Area (ft2)

Rif -1 XS

Area (ft2)

Rif-2 XS

Area (ft2)

Pool 1 XS

Area (ft2)

Pool 2 XS

Area (ft2)

Discharge (cfs)

2 19.4 290.2 76.0 76.7 74.1 73.2 90.2 285 3 19.4 290.2 76.0 96.2 83.3 80.7 85.6 280 7 32.3 401.0 110.0 104.6 98.6 117.1 115.9 403 11 32.3 401.0 110.0 119.1 96.6 129.1 110.8 411.8 14 32.7 404.0 111.5 107.8 113.6 134.2 112.6 369.2 18 42.1 474.4 134.2 102.7 102.0 137 136.5 359 20 43.3 482.9 137.0 103.2 110.1 134.3 127.1 484.4 29 55.36 564.3 164 203.6 191.1 158.4 175.8 519 34 56.92 574.3 167.4 155.5 182.3 225.4 231.8 548 35 72.28 668.2 199.5 147.9 150.5 235.6 157.1 332 36 73.35 674.5 201.7 147.8 200.8 194.4 187.5 675.6 41 75.61 687.6 206.2 170.9 209.2 232.8 242.1 559.3

Table 7 – Comparison of Predicted Bankfull Cross-Sectional Areas and Bankfull Discharge versus Measured Field Data

d. Geomorphic Mapping of Quittapahilla Creek The geomorphic features of Quittapahilla Creek were mapped from the headwaters south of the City of Lebanon to the confluence with Swatara Creek. The 1994 Quarter Quad aerial photographs were utilized for the geomorphic mapping in the field. The aerial photographs were developed at a scale of 1 inch = 100 feet and overlaid with Mylar sheets onto which the left and right stream banks of Quittapahilla Creek had been digitized. Stream channel and adjacent floodplain features were then hand drawn on these Mylar base maps. Landscape features shown on the aerial photographs could be seen through the Mylar sheets, thereby providing points of reference for orientation in the field. The geomorphic mapping effort focused on verifying existing land use activities and land cover including type and condition, identifying and documenting unstable conditions in upland and riparian areas, characterizing stream channel morphology and condition, and identifying point and non-point sources of pollution. Observations on riparian and stream bank vegetation, meander pattern, depositional features, debris and channel blockages, vertical stability, streambed materials, streambed features (e.g., riffles, pools, runs and glides), bank height, stream bank erosion were mapped and recorded. The location of significant points in the field (e.g., storm drain outfalls, wastewater discharge outfalls, and springs) were noted on the maps and recorded to facilitate relocation with a Garmin Hand-Held GPS Unit.

31

The Geomorphic and Habitat Maps submitted previously document the findings of the effort. Utilizing the information developed from the fieldwork, Stream Reach Data Sheets were completed to facilitate data entry for each of the reaches into the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed database. This information was utilized to focus where the detailed morphologic stream assessment was conducted along Quittapahilla Creek. In addition, this information, in conjunction with other information (i.e., geomorphic, hydrologic, water quality, biological, etc.), provided a basis for identifying and prioritizing problem areas along Quittapahilla Creek. The Geomorphic and Habitat Maps provide supporting documentation for the Findings Report. They were also utilized for identifying the location of recommended best management practices and restoration projects along Quittapahilla Creek.

e. Morphological Description and Assessment of Stream Condition This work included the detailed levels of geomorphic assessment and is critical to evaluating the overall condition and stability of Quittapahilla Creek and completion of the geomorphic component of the watershed assessment. Representative reaches along Quittapahilla Creek were classified into specific categories of stream types (i.e., B4, C4, E4, etc.) utilizing the standard field procedures recommended by Rosgen (1996). The information developed from the representative reaches was then used to categorize the remaining reaches using the extrapolation field procedures recommended by Rosgen (1996). The profile, cross-section, pebble count, and sediment sample field data is included in the Appendix of this report. The Level II morphological data from the representative reaches is summarized in Table 8 below. Reaches along Quittapahilla Creek were selected for assessment of stream channel condition and influencing factors including riparian vegetation, meander pattern, depositional pattern, debris and channel blockages, sediment supply, vertical stability, streambank erosion potential, and near bank stress. Level III Characterization of Stream Condition Forms were completed for each reach evaluated. This data is summarized in the Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Reach Stability Ranking tables included in the Appendix of the original report.

32

Reach Drainage Area (mi2)

Bed Feature

Bankfull Width

(ft.)

Bankfull Mean Depth

(ft.)

Bankfull Cross-

sectional Area (ft2)

Width/Depth Ratio

Entrenchment. Ratio

Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)

Reach/Riffle Average

Bed Material

D50 (mm)

Manning’s Estimated Bankfull

Discharge (cfs)

Stream Type

2 19.4 Pool 27.9 2.6 73.2 NA NA 0.0021 9.6/17.3 2 Pool 31.2 2.9 90.7 NA NA 2 Riffle 32.1 2.4 76.7 13.4 10.0 286.0 C4 2 Riffle 31.6 2.3 74.1 13.5 10.0 284.3 3 19.4 Riffle 39.3 2.4 96.2 16.0 7.4 0.001 2.7/9.0 279.6 C4 3 Pool 28.8 2.8 80.7 NA NA 3 Riffle 30.0 2.8 83.3 10.8 9.7 E4 3 Pool 27.5 3.1 85.6 NA NA 7 32.3 Riffle 33.4 3.1 104.6 10.7 0.0016 7.1/11.0 403.2 E4 7 Riffle 37.8 2.6 98.6 14.5 9.6 373.4 7 Pool 36.1 3.2 117.1 NA NA 7 Pool 35.9 3.2 115.9 NA NA 11 32.3 Riffle 33.6 2.9 96.6 10.4 4.1 0.0012 6.1/11.0 336.0 E4 11 Pool 40.6 3.2 129.1 NA NA 11 Riffle 43.7 2.7 119.1 16.0 4.2 411.8 C4 11 Pool 35.3 3.1 110.8 NA NA 14 32.7 Pool 32.7 4.1 134.2 NA NA 0.0087 9.4/40.2 14 Riffle 37.2 2.9 107.8 12.8 8.6 329.2 C4 14 Pool 31.4 3.6 112.6 NA NA 14 Riffle 35.7 3.2 113.6 11.2 8.3 369.2 C4 18 42.1 Pool 46.0 3.0 137.0 NA NA 0.0012 4.0/6.0 18 Riffle 37.1 2.8 102.7 13.4 4.65 359.0 C4 Table 8 – Quittapahilla Creek Representative Reaches - Level II Survey Data Summary

33

Reach Drainage Area (mi2)

Bed Feature

Bankfull Width

(ft.)

Bankfull Mean Depth

(ft.)

Bankfull Cross-

sectional Area (ft2)

Width/Depth Ratio

Entrenchment Ratio

Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)

Reach/Riffle Average

Bed Material D50

(mm)

Manning’s Estimated Bankfull

Discharge (cfs)

Stream Type

18 42.1 Riffle 42.5 2.4 102.0 17.7 4.65 0.0012 4.0/6.0 325.0 C4 18 Pool 40.3 3.4 136.5 NA NA 20 43.3 Riffle 40.6 2.7 110.1 15.0 6.2 0.009 14.0/19.8 520.5 C4 20 Pool 39.8 3.4 134.3 NA NA 20 Riffle 38.7 2.7 103.2 14.5 6.2 484.4 C4 20 Pool 40.3 3.2 127.1 NA NA 29 55.36 Riffle 63.8 3.2 203.6 20.0 2.6 0.0007 4.3/18.8 519.1 C4 29 Pool 103.4 1.5 158.4 NA NA 29 Riffle 54.2 3.5 191.1 15.4 2.6 512.7 C4 29 Pool 57.1 3.1 175.8 NA NA 34 56.92 Riffle 68.5 2.7 182.3 25.8 2.44 0.0012 10.3/22.6 548.0 C4 34 Riffle 55.0 2.8 155.5 19.5 2.67 522.2 C4 34 Pool 51.7 4.4 225.4 NA NA 34 Pool 49.7 4.7 231.8 NA NA 35 72.28 Riffle 63.9 3.4 215.5 18.9 4.6 0.0005 8.9/14.1 501.7 C4 35 Riffle 100.7 1.8 185.3 54.7 3.4 362.6 C4 35 Pool 51.9 4.5 235.6 NA NA 35 Pool 47.4 3.9 187.1 NA NA 36 73.35 Pool 45.4 4.3 194.4 NA NA 0.0011 16.0/34.5 36 Riffle 63.9 2.3 207.2 27.6 1.54 675.6 B4c 36 Riffle 63.5 3.2 200.8 20.1 1.54 686.5 B4c 36 Pool 53.6 3.5 187.5 NA NA Table 8 – Quittapahilla Creek Representative Reaches - Level II Survey Data Summary (Cont’d)

34

Reach Drainage Area (mi2)

Bed Feature

Bankfull Width

(ft.)

Bankfull Mean Depth

(ft.)

Bankfull Cross-

sectional Area (ft2)

Width/Depth Ratio

Entrenchment. Ratio

Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)

Reach/Riffle Average

Bed Material D50

(mm)

Manning’s Estimated Bankfull

Discharge (cfs)

Stream Type

41 75.61 Riffle 61.7 3.5 213.1 17.9 2.35 0.0005 24.4/20.6 559.3 C4

Pool 56.4 4.1 232.8 NA NA Riffle 62.4 3.4 209.2 18.6 2.16 532.6 B4c Pool 54.1 4.5 242.1 NA NA

44 75.61 Riffle 77.6 3.0 232.4 25.9 1.71 0.0019 10.7/34.0 719.5 B4c Pool 57.0 4.4 251.4 NA NA Pool 74.3 3.3 247.7 NA NA Riffle 51.3 3.7 190.7 13.8 2.79 714.2 C4

Table 8 – Quittapahilla Creek Representative Reaches - Level II Survey Data Summary (Cont’d)

35

f. Stream Stability Validation Monitoring Verification of the assessment data through monitoring was considered an important component of the overall effort. In order to document channel erosion rates, twenty-five cross-sections along Quittapahilla Creek were monitored for channel stability over a period of twelve months. This involved the installation of permanent cross sections, surveying the cross sections, and resurveying the cross sections at the end of twelve months. The permanent cross sections were installed and surveyed in August 2001. Funding was not available to complete the assessment work until 2003. As a result the resurvey of the permanent cross-sections did not take place until 20 months after installation. The results of the survey are presented in Table 9 below. X-Section Width

(ft) Depth

(ft) XS Area

(ft2) 2001 2003 Diff 2001 2003 Diff 2001 2003 Diff

1 40.5 42.4 +1.9 1.42 2.59 +1.2 57.65 109.83 +52.2 2 51.6 52.7 +1.1 2.09 1.89 -0.2 107.91 99.6 -8.3 3 29.9 29.2 -0.7 3.15 2.64 -0.5 94.22 76.99 -17.2 4 34.2 35.0 +0.8 2.71 2.43 -0.3 92.59 85.03 -7.6 5 35.7 36.4 +0.7 3.24 3.09 -0.2 115.7 112.3 -3.4 6 39.0 39.2 +0.2 2.60 2.56 -0.1 101.2 100.53 -0.7 7 31.5 32.2 +0.7 2.97 3.37 -0.4 93.54 108.66 +15.1 8 38.6 38.6 0.0 3.5 3.37 -0.1 135.27 129.98 -5.3 9 57.1 54.5 -2.6 3.35 3.04 -0.3 191.12 165.58 -25.5 10 43.1 43.4 +0.3 4.56 4.44 -0.1 196.36 192.84 -3.5 11 56.0 55.8 -0.2 2.87 2.85 0.0 160.64 158.86 -1.8 12 52.1 53.2 +1.1 3.15 2.87 -0.3 164.09 152.6 -11.5 13 47.1 48.6 +1.5 3.4 3.38 0.0 160.3 164.1 +3.8 14 51.0 52.5 +1.5 3.1 3.25 +0.2 158.0 170.73 +12.7 18 55.7 57.0 +1.3 2.83 3.05 +0.2 157.53 173.61 +16.1 19 62.7 63.5 +0.8 3.4 3.58 -0.2 212.99 227.44 +14.5 20 83.0 83.5 +0.5 3.06 2.77 -0.3 254.16 231.7 -22.5 21 75.0 71.3 -3.7 3.42 3.45 0.0 256.63 245.97 -10.7 22 70.1 76.0 +4.9 2.91 3.99 +1.1 204.17 303.56 +99.4 23 64.7 67.4 +2.7 2.69 2.87 +0.2 174.35 193.55 +19.2 24 80.84 81.65 +0.8 2.93 3.08 +0.2 236.77 251.89 +15.1 25 51.4 54.9 +3.5 3.02 3.13 +0.1 155.1 171.63 +16.5 Table 9 – Survey Results for Permanent Cross-Sections The data shows a general trend of increasing channel width and decreasing depth consistent with the observed problems of lateral erosion and bed aggradation. The notable exceptions are Cross-sections 1 and 22 where overall channel size increased significantly due to lateral erosion and bed degradation. These changes are consistent with field observations.

36

g. Summary of Findings of Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment

1) General Overview of Stream Conditions Relatively unaltered natural channel reaches do not exist along the mainstem until the creek flows out of the concrete flume near 19th Street in Lebanon. The conditions along the natural channel reaches of the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek from this point to the confluence with the Swatara Creek are generally characterized by lateral erosion, high sediment supply, and vertical instability (i.e., aggradation) with lateral and mid-channel bars, riffles embedded with fine sediments, and large debris jams along many reaches. Notwithstanding the significant amount of impervious area in its headwaters and the pipes and concrete flumes rapidly conveying storm flows to the natural channel reaches, the creek is holding its own. Several factors have contributed to the Quittapahilla Creek’s overall ability to withstand such significant land use and channel alterations. The cohesive nature of the silt clay banks along most reaches of the creek provides resistance to the erosive forces of storm flows. As a consequence, annual erosion rates along most of the creek are measured in tenths of feet per year as opposed to streams with banks composed of sands and gravels where erosion rates are often measured in feet per storm event. The nature of the creek bed has prevented it from incising as many creeks do in response to a changing hydrologic regime associated with urbanization. Although not always evident, the creek bed along much of its length rests on bedrock. Along many reaches a layer of gravel, sand and silt covers the bedrock. Where these finer materials have been removed by storm flows the bedrock is exposed as ledges, drops and chutes. A number of the upper reaches have sections of composed of boulder and cobble riffles. Bank heights are limited by the depth the stream can down cut before encountering bedrock or some other grade control mechanism. Although the silt, sand and gravel layer is thickest in the downstream reaches, the relatively shallow depth to bedrock over much of the upper creek and along key sections throughout has kept bank heights relatively low compared to other streams subjected to significant urban runoff. However, in spite of the lower bank heights, lateral bank erosion is occurring throughout. This has resulted in high width to depth ratios along many mainstem reaches. This creates overwide channel conditions reducing sediment transport capacity and causing significant sediment deposition that result in the formation of lateral and mid-channel bars, and the embeddedness of otherwise coarse riffles with fine sediments. Although riparian buffers are lacking along many reaches, the significant length of the mainstem that has a woody riparian buffer is remarkable for a creek with the type of land use activities present along the Quittapahilla Creek corridor. The presence of mature trees and shrubs along significant lengths of the creek also contributes to lower bank erosion rates than might be expected.

2) Detailed Descriptions of Main Stem Segments The following sections provide detailed descriptions of the geomorphic conditions along each segment of the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek.

37

Segment 1 Segment 1 is 6,315 linear feet in length and includes Reaches 1 – 6. The upstream limit is the downstream end of the concrete flume near 19th Street in Lebanon and downstream limit is the confluence with Snitz Creek (Figure 2). With the exception of Reaches 4 and 5, and the downstream end of Reach 3 the segment is a laterally and vertically unstable C4 stream type. Reach 4 is an F4 stream type and Reach 5 is a B4/B1 stream type. The overall channel plan form of the segment is characterized by relatively low sinuosity indicative of historic channel straightening. Results of the stability assessment show bank height to bankfull ratios along most of the reach range from 1.0 – 2.0. The higher banks are susceptible to erosion and gravitational failure. In spite of increased flow depths and velocities associated with channel incision and increased runoff the reach is overwhelmed by the sediment load from upstream sources. Bed aggradation is a problem throughout as evidenced by development of mid-channel, lateral and point bars along much of the segment. There are significant constrictions at the 22nd Street and Chestnut Street bridges at the downstream end of Reach 1 and 2 respectively that creates backwater under bankfull and higher flows. The condition of Reach 1 is characterized by lateral erosion, high sediment supply, and vertical instability (i.e., aggradation) with lateral and mid-channel bars and debris jams. Lateral erosion has damaged the end wall of a storm drain outfall exposing the pipe and causing the end wall to jut into the channel. Due to its location immediately downstream of the concrete channel this reach has the highest percentage of unstable banks. Approximately 46% of the banks have high to very high bank erosion potential. Grade control is provided by the armored riffle at the downstream end of the reach. This reach had a Reach Stability Ranking of 18.7, which means that compared to all of the other reaches along Quittapahilla Creek it is extremely unstable. The upper and middle sections of Reach 2 are relatively stable. However, the lower section is characterized by lateral erosion, high sediment supply, and vertical instability (i.e., aggradation) with lateral and mid-channel bars and debris jams. The constriction at the Chestnut Street Bridge creates a significant backwater under bankfull and higher flows that appears to affecting sediment transport through this section of the reach. This reach had a Reach Stability Ranking of 2.8, which means that compared to all of the other reaches along Quittapahilla Creek it is relatively stable. Reach 3 is characterized by lateral erosion, high sediment supply, and vertical instability (i.e., aggradation) with lateral, mid-channel, and transverse bars. Although the bank and riparian vegetation along this reach includes some mature trees and shrubs, there is a general lack of lateral control to prevent continued bank erosion and channel migration. The potential for continued bank erosion, loss of trees and channel migration is high. Results of the stability assessment confirm that approximately 35% of banks along this reach have high bank erosion potential. This reach had a Reach Stability Ranking of 12.7, which means that compared to all of the other reaches along Quittapahilla Creek it is very unstable. Although Reach 4 is deeply entrenched boulders and bedrock outcrops along the toe and lower slopes of the banks as well as heavy vegetation along the left terrace and concrete walls at the rear of the commercial properties fronting on Rte. 422 provide considerable

38

lateral control. Grade control is provided by the boulder riffle at the downstream end of the reach. Reach 5 is a relatively stable B4/B1 channel with boulder riffles and bedrock step pools and chutes. Lateral control is provided by boulders and bedrock outcrops along the toe and lower slopes of the banks as well as heavy vegetation along the left and right terraces. This reaches had a Reach Stability Ranking of 5.6. Reach 6 is also stable although water quality has been impacted by wastewater discharges from the Lebanon Wastewater Treatment Plant. During the field assessment it was observed that the stream water along the outfall was warmer than the section immediately upstream. In addition, an abundance of fish in the pool at the outfall suggests nutrient enrichment associated with the discharge. This reach had a Reach Stability Ranking of 8.6, which means that compared to all of the other reaches along Quittapahilla Creek it is unstable. Segment 2 Segment 2 is 10,985 linear feet in length and includes Reaches 7 – 15. The upstream limit is the confluence with Snitz Creek and downstream limit is the confluence with Beck Creek (Figures 2 and 3). Reaches 7, 9, 11, and 14 are C4 stream type channels that are laterally unstable throughout. Reaches 8, 10, 12, 13, and 15 are relatively stable C4 stream type channels with localized bank erosion. The overall channel plan form of the segment is characterized by moderate to low sinuosity indicative of historic channel straightening. Results of the stability assessment show bank height to bankfull ratios along the reaches range from 1.05 – 4.0. The higher banks are susceptible to erosion and gravitational failure. Bed aggradation is a problem throughout Reaches 9, 11, 13, 14, and 15 as evidenced by development of mid-channel and lateral bars along significant portions of these reaches. Although debris jams were infrequent a significant blockage was observed along the lower section of Reach 7. Channel constrictions have been created by the bridges at Elizabeth Street, Garfield Street, and Mill Street at the downstream end of Reaches 8, 10, and 12 respectively, causing backwater conditions under bankfull and higher flows. The overall conditions of Reaches 7, 9, 11, 13 B and 14 are characterized by lateral erosion, high sediment supply, and vertical instability (i.e., aggradation) with lateral and mid-channel bars. Although the bank and riparian vegetation along these reaches includes mature trees and shrubs, there is a general lack of lateral control to prevent continued bank erosion and channel migration. Reaches 7, 9, 11, and 14 had the highest percentage of unstable banks with 46%, 30%, 21%, and 42% of the banks exhibiting high bank erosion potential. Reaches 7, 9, 11, 13B and 14 were the most unstable reaches in this segment with Reach Stability Rankings of 13.7, 11.0, 11.7, 13.1, and 11.7, respectively.

39

Figure 2 – Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem Segment 1 and Upper Segment 2

40

Reaches 8 and 12 were unstable with Reach Stability Rankings of 6.1 and 10.17, respectively. Reaches 10 and 15 were relatively stable with Reach Stability Rankings of 3.8 and 5.1, respectively. Although grade control is provided by the armored riffles and bedrock steps along many of the reaches, Reaches 7, 8, and 9 have long sections with clay beds that are overlain with a cobble, gravel and sand. Long, deep pools have developed where the coarser layer has been washed away and the clay scoured. It was evident that some of these scour areas are actively eroding and migrating in an upstream direction. Although sedimentation was observed throughout the segment, there is a definite trending toward finer materials in a downstream direction. A significant portion of the streambed material along the lower section of Reach 15 was silt, sand and detritus. Channel alterations along this segment include rip-rap armoring, wooden retaining walls, stone walls, and old mill races. Reaches 9, 13, and 15 are the most significantly altered reaches. A significant length of the left bank along upper Reach 9 has stone walls. A timber retaining wall has been installed along the right bank in the lower section of the reach. The historic mill at Mill Street diverted Reach 13 through two channels at the old mill site. A significant length of the right bank along lower Reach 15 has been armored with rip-rap. The lack of a riparian buffer is a common problem throughout much of the segment. In residential neighborhoods along the right floodplain mowed lawns with scattered trees are the typical vegetation. On agricultural land along the left floodplain row crops with scattered trees are the typical vegetation. Segment 3 Segment 3 is 14,885 linear feet in length and includes Reaches 16 – 25. The upstream limit is the confluence with Beck Creek and downstream limit is the confluence with Bachman Run (Figures 3 and 4). With the exception of Reach 17 and the downstream end of Reach 20 the reaches along this segment are C4 stream types. Reach 17 is currently functioning as a C5 stream type with a bed composed predominantly of sand, silt and organic muck. The lower section of Reach 20 is a C2/C1 stream type. Short sections of Reaches 18, 19, 20, and 21 have characteristics more typical of B2c/B1c stream types. However, due to their short length these sections were not broken out as separate reaches. Although there are several broad sweeping meanders in Reaches 17, 23 and 25, the overall channel plan form of the segment is characterized by relatively low sinuosity indicative of historic channel straightening. Channel constrictions have been created by the bridges at Spruce Street and Oak Street (Route 934) at the downstream end of Reaches 19 and 23 respectively, causing backwater conditions under bankfull and higher flows. The overall conditions of Reaches 16, 17, 21, 23, and 25 are characterized by lateral erosion, high sediment supply, and vertical instability (i.e., aggradation) with lateral and mid-channel bars. Results of the stability assessment show bank height to bankfull ratios along the reaches range from 1.0 – 2.4. The higher banks are susceptible to erosion and gravitational failure. Reaches 16, 17, 21, 23, and 25 have highest percentage of unstable banks with 29%, 30%, 30%, 23%, and 77% of the banks exhibiting high bank erosion potential. Reaches 18, 22 and 24 were considered relatively stable with Reach Stability Rankings of 1.3, 4.0, and 5.0, respectively. Reaches 16 and 23 were considered unstable with Reach Stability Rankings of 9.0 and 8.3, respectively. Reaches 17 and 21 were considered very unstable with Reach Stability Rankings of 11.3 and 14.5, respectively. Reach 25 is the most unstable reach along the entire main stem with a Reach Stability Ranking 28.5.

41

Figure 3 – Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem Lower Segment 2 and Upper Segment 3

42

Bed aggradation is a problem throughout Reaches 17, upper 18, 22, 24, and upper 25 as evidenced by a high percent embeddedness of riffles and the development of mid-channel and lateral bars along significant portions of some of these reaches. Although debris jams were generally infrequent to moderately frequent partial blockages were observed along Reaches 16, 18, 22, and 24. Reach 17 had an unusually large number of debris jams and lateral bars throughout. With the exceptions of Reaches 16, lower 21, and 25, which have incising sections, grade control is provided throughout this segment by the boulder riffles and bedrock steps along many of the reaches. A number of reaches have long sections with bedrock overlain with cobble, gravel and sand. Channel alterations along this segment include rip-rap armoring, concrete walls, in-stream habitat structures, and old mill dams. A significant length of the left bank along upper Reach 19 has a concrete wall and rip-rap armoring. Other alterations include the remains of an old mill on Reach 19 upstream of Spruce Street and numerous in-stream habitat structures along Reach 20 downstream of Spruce Street. The design and placement of these habitat structures makes them of questionable value. In fact they may actually result in unintended negative consequences as they alter channel hydraulics and sediment transport processes in this reach. Numerous in-stream habitat structures were installed along Reach 21 in Quittie Creek Nature Park. Although most of the structures appeared to be functioning as intended, a steep, constructed riffle near the middle of the reach was directing flow into the adjacent right bank causing considerable erosion. This section of stream was repaired. However, field observations indicate this spot may continue to be a problem. The old mill dam on Reach 21 in Quittie Creek Nature Park may function as a barrier to fish migration under extreme low flow conditions as occurred in 2001. Much of this segment has considerable riparian buffer composed of mature woods. However, the lack of a riparian buffer is a common problem on the commercial properties along the right floodplain of Reach 18 where parking lots and scattered trees are the typical condition. In the residential neighborhoods along the right floodplain of Reaches 23, 24, and 25 mowed lawns with scattered trees are the typical condition. Segment 4 Segment 4 is 11,375 linear feet in length and includes Reaches 26 – 33. The upstream limit is the confluence with Bachman Run and downstream limit is the confluence with Killinger Creek (Figures 4 and 5). Although reconnoitered and photographically documented, the 2550 linear feet of concrete flume that conveys the flow of Quittapahilla Creek between Reaches 28 and 29 was not included in the detailed evaluation of the main stem. A brief description of its condition is presented below. With the exception of Reach 27, the reaches in this segment are laterally and vertically unstable C4 stream types. Although there are several broad sweeping meanders in Reaches 26 and 29, the overall channel plan form of the segment is characterized by relatively low sinuosity indicative of historic channel straightening. Channel constrictions have been created by the bridges at Route 422, Clear Springs Road and Syner Road at the downstream end of Reaches 27, 29, and 31 respectively, causing backwater conditions under bankfull and higher flows. The most significant backwater condition is created at the downstream end of Reach 28 where the creek enters the concrete flume.

43

Figure 4 – Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem Lower Segment 3 and Upper Segment 4

44

With the exception of Reach 27, the overall conditions of the segment are characterized by moderate degree of lateral erosion, high sediment supply, and vertical instability (i.e., aggradation) with lateral and mid-channel bars throughout. Results of the stability assessment show bank height to bankfull ratios along the reaches range from 1.0 – 1.43. The notable exception was a 75 foot length of bank in Reach 29 that had a bank height to bankfull ratio of 2.0. Reach 26 had the highest percentage of unstable banks with 70%, of the banks exhibiting high bank erosion potential. The other reaches ranged from 0% to 18.5%. Aggradation is a problem throughout all reaches in the segment as evidenced by a high percent embeddedness of riffles and the development of mid-channel, lateral, and point bars along most of the reaches. Debris jams were frequent along Reaches 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Reach 31 had an unusually large number of debris jams and lateral and mid-channel bars throughout. One debris jam completely blocked the channel and caused significant aggradation with localized scour pools where flow dropped over the obstruction. With the exceptions of Reaches 26, 28 and 32, which have an old mill dam, concrete flume, and bedrock at the downstream end of each reach respectively, the segment lacks grade control. Reaches 30 and 33 were considered relatively stable with Reach Stability Rankings of 1.0 and 5.5, respectively. Reaches 29, 31, and 32 were considered unstable with Reach Stability Rankings of 7.0, 6.0, and 9.1, respectively. Reach 16 was the most unstable reach in this segment and the second most unstable along the entire mainstem with a Reach Stability Ranking of 25.0. Channel alterations along this segment include rip-rap armoring, an old mill dam, and a significant length of concrete flume. A significant length of the left bank along Reach 26 has rip-rap armoring. Other alterations include the remains of an old mill dam at the downstream end of Reach 26 upstream of Route 422. Given that much of the original dam structure had been removed it did not appear that the old dam would function as a barrier to fish migration even under extreme low flow conditions as occurred in 2001. With the exception of the Hazel Dike in the City of Lebanon, the concrete flume that conveys the flow of Quittapahilla Creek between Reaches 28 and 29 is the most dramatic channel alteration along the mainstem. There are actually two flumes. The main flume, which is approximately 2,550 in length, conveys 100% of the baseflow. However, storm flows are split between this main flume and a secondary flume (approximately 3,275 feet in length) that runs parallel to it. The main flume appeared to be in relatively good condition. However, the condition of the secondary flume is deteriorated with broken sections of concrete and gaps that allow storm flow to run beneath the flume eroding the supporting soil base and causing further collapse and damage. Moreover the flow running beneath the flume is also eroding the earthen berm that separates the two flumes. A section of berm along the middle portion of the flumes appeared to have been breached allowing flows from the secondary flume to drop into the main flume. Over time this condition will worsen and cause both flumes to fail. This situation needs immediate attention. Much of this segment has considerable riparian buffer composed of mature woods. However, the lack of a wooded riparian buffer is a common problem on the agricultural properties along the right floodplain of Reaches 31, 32, and upper 33 where mowed lawns or old fields with scattered trees are the typical condition.

45

Figure 5 – Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem Segment 4

46

Segment 5 Segment 5 is 11,760 linear feet in length and includes Reaches 34 – 40. The upstream limit is the confluence with Killinger Creek and downstream limit is the confluence with the Unnamed Tributary that drains the Steelstown area of North Annville (Figure 6). With the exception of Reach 36, the reaches in this segment are laterally and vertically unstable C4 stream types. Reach 36 is an unstable B4c stream type. The overall channel plan form of the segment is characterized by relatively low sinuosity indicative of historic channel straightening. Although the Palmyra-Bellegrove Bridge crosses the mainstem between Reaches 35 and 36 there are no significant man-made channel constrictions to create backwater conditions along this segment. With the exception of Reach 35, the overall conditions of the segment are characterized by a moderate degree of lateral erosion, high sediment supply, and vertical instability (i.e., aggradation) with lateral and mid-channel bars throughout. Results of the stability assessment show bank height to bankfull ratios along the reaches range from 1.0 – 1.39. Reaches 35 and 38 had the highest percentage of unstable banks with 30% and 24.5% respectively, of the banks exhibiting high bank erosion potential. The other reaches ranged from 2.7% to 18.2%. Aggradation is a problem throughout all reaches in the segment as evidenced by a high percent embeddedness of riffles and the development of mid-channel and lateral bars along most of the reaches. Numerous mid-channel bars and islands have developed along the upper section of Reach 36 immediately downstream of the Palmyra-Bellegrove Bridge. Debris jams were frequent along Reaches 34, 35, 39, and 40. Reaches 34 and 40 had an unusually large number of debris jams and lateral and mid-channel bars throughout. One debris jam in Reach 34 blocked a significant portion of the channel cross-section and caused significant aggradation with localized scour pools where flow dropped over the obstruction. The segment lacks grade control throughout. Reaches 37, 39 and 40 were considered relatively stable with Reach Stability Rankings of 3.2, 4.2 and 1, respectively. Reaches 36 was considered unstable with a Reach Stability Ranking of 8.1. Reaches 34, 35, and 38 were considered very unstable with Reach Stability Rankings of 12.3, 10.9, and 10.3, respectively. Channel alterations along this segment include in-stream habitat structures and an old mill race. In-stream habitat structures were installed along the upper section of Reach 34 at some time in the past. Remnants of the structures suggest that the design and placement of these habitat structures made them of questionable value. In fact, they appear to have altered the local channel hydraulics and sediment transport processes causing unstable conditions to develop. Other alterations include the remains of an old mill race at the upstream end of Reach 39. Its location at the upstream end of a meander bend and the fact that storm flows are diverted away from the main channel into the mill race appears to have contributed to sediment transport problems and localized aggradation and scour. Much of this segment has considerable riparian buffer composed of mature woods. However, the lack of a wooded riparian buffer is a common problem on the agricultural properties along the right floodplain of Reaches 34, 35, 37, and 39 and the left floodplain of Reaches 36 and 38 where mowed lawns or old fields with scattered trees are the typical condition.

47

Figure 6 – Middle Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem Segment 5

48

Segment 6 Segment 6 is 14,400 linear feet in length and includes Reaches 41 – 52. The upstream limit is the confluence with the Unnamed Tributary that drains the Steelstown area of North Annville and downstream limit is the confluence with Swatara Creek (Figures 7 and 8).. With the exception of Reaches 41 and 44, the reaches in this segment are laterally and vertically unstable C4 stream types. The lower section of Reach 41 and the upper section of Reach 44 are unstable B4c stream types. The overall channel plan form of the segment is characterized by relatively low sinuosity indicative of historic channel straightening. Channel constrictions have been created by the bridges at Syner Road, Valley Glen Road, and Gravel Hill Road at the downstream end of Reaches 42, 50, and 51 respectively, causing backwater conditions under bankfull and higher flows. The overall conditions of the segment are characterized by a moderate degree of lateral erosion, high sediment supply, and vertical instability (i.e., aggradation) with lateral and mid-channel bars throughout. Results of the stability assessment show bank height to bankfull ratios along the reaches range from 1.0 – 2.92. Reaches 41 had the highest percentage of unstable banks with 39.8% of the banks exhibiting high bank erosion potential. The other reaches ranged from 0% to 16.3%. Aggradation is a problem throughout all reaches in the segment as evidenced by a high percent embeddedness of riffles and the development of mid-channel and lateral bars along most of the reaches. Reaches 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, and 49 had numerous large debris jams. Reaches 48 and 49 had an unusually large debris jams and lateral and mid-channel bars throughout. Several debris jams blocked a significant portion of the channel cross-section and caused significant aggradation with localized scour pools where flow dropped over the obstruction. The segment lacks grade control throughout. Other than the historic channel straightening there was no evidence of channel alterations along this segment. Reaches 42, 43, 45, 47, and 50 were considered relatively stable with Reach Stability Rankings of 4.1, 1.7, 2.5, 4.2 and 1.3, respectively. Reaches 44, 46, 48, 49, and 51 were considered unstable with Reach Stability Rankings of 5.7, 5.1, 5.1, 7.6, and 8.3, respectively. Reach 41 was considered very unstable with a Reach Stability Ranking of 13.5. Much of this segment has considerable riparian buffer composed of mature woods. However, the lack of a wooded riparian buffer is a common problem on the agricultural properties along the right floodplain of Reaches 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49, and 50 and the left floodplain of Reaches 43 and 51 where mowed lawns or old fields with scattered trees are the typical condition.

49

Figure 7 – Lower Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem Segment 6

50

Figure 8 – Lower Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem Segment 6 (Cont’d)

51

3. Subwatershed Analyses

a. Introduction Included in this section is a detailed analysis of each of the major subwatersheds in the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed (Plate 4). The information utilized in that analysis was gathered from existing GIS databases, topographic maps, soil surveys and maps, geologic maps and reports, land use and land cover maps, as well as historic and recent aerial photography. Information gathered from a Level I - Geomorphic Characterization, and the field reconnaissance and photographic documentation of the subwatersheds conducted in Summer 2001 provided additional information. The geomorphic characterization focused on classifying stream reaches in these subwatersheds into the generalized stream types (i.e., A, B, C, D, etc.) described in A Classification of Natural Rivers (Rosgen, 1994). The stream reaches were classified based on information gathered from USGS quadrangle maps, aerial photography, and field reconnaissance. This task provided information that was useful in focusing the field reconnaissance effort. Conversely the field reconnaissance provided verification of the initial reach classification. The field reconnaissance and photographic documentation was conducted to assess and document existing conditions in the major subwatersheds. It focused on verifying existing land use activities and land cover including type and condition, identifying and documenting unstable conditions in upland and riparian areas, and characterizing stream channel morphology and condition. The findings presented below are based on information developed during the field reconnaissance and photographic documentation of the subwatersheds conducted in 2001 and updated to reflect changes in land use that have occurred in the intervening years.

b. Field Reconnaissance Findings

1) General Comments Although conditions vary among the subwatersheds, the effects of land use activities on channel stability, water quality and habitat are evident in all of the subwatersheds. Field observations indicate that major impacts to overall channel stability, water quality and in-stream habitat are primarily related to agricultural activities and urban development. Channel alterations, quarry operations, timber harvesting, water diversions and wastewater discharges have also contributed to the current problems. While impacts from these activities were anticipated, it appears that some of the well-intentioned habitat improvement projects completed in the past also have contributed to channel instability and poor habitat.

2) Channel Stability Unstable channel conditions along the tributaries can be characterized by moderate to severe streambank erosion, aggradation, undercut and falling trees, debris jams and other channel blockages. Sediments contributed by bank erosion have degraded water quality and in-stream habitat. Heavy sedimentation has resulted in shallow pools and riffles embedded with fine sediments along most stream reaches.

52

Watershed Total Stream Length

(LF)

Unstable Stream Length

(LF)

Percent of Total

Bachman Run 33,792 17,490 51.8

Beck Creek 35,904 23,680 65.9

Brandywine Creek 27,984 8,395 30.0

Buckholder Creek 10,560 1,650 15.6

Gingrich Run 20,064 8,505 42.4

Killinger Creek 35,904 9,240 25.7

Snitz Creek 43,982 34,370 78.1

Unnamed Tributary - North Annville

22,598 9,315 41.2

Table 10 – Length and percentage of unstable channel by subwatershed As shown in Table 10, Snitz Creek has the highest percentage of unstable channel length, followed by Beck Creek, Bachman Run, Gingrich Run, and the Unnamed Tributary – North Annville.

3) Agricultural Activities Some of the most significant impacts in the subwatersheds are associated with agricultural practices. In particular, unrestricted livestock grazing along the tributaries has directly impacted channel morphology by trampling of the banks, widening of the channel, and increasing sedimentation. Historic vegetation control practices such as spraying and mechanical removal of undesirable vegetation probably contributed to the loss of much of the woody vegetation from the banks and riparian zone along creeks. However, the current lack of woody vegetation and the subsequent loss of channel stability is a direct result of the unrestricted grazing activities. As shown in Table 11, Beck Creek has the highest percentage of impacted channel length, followed by Killinger Creek, the Unnamed Tributary – North Annville, Gingrich Run and Bachman Run.

4) Stream Bank Fencing Program The efforts of the Watershed Association were evident. Reaches along the tributaries where landowners have agreed to fence their sections of the creeks show definite signs of recovery. As of November 2005, the stream bank fencing program included 18 farms with a total of 35,566 feet (6.7 miles) of the main stem Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries fenced. Beck Creek has been the biggest beneficiary of this program with 11,491 feet of stream fenced, followed by Bachman Run, Main Stem Quittapahilla Creek, Snitz Creek, and Gingrich Run with

53

7,716 feet, 6,350 feet, 5,639 feet and 4,390 feet, respectively. Livestock crossings are often installed as part of the fencing program. Thus far, 21 crossings have been installed. The success of these fencing projects is strongly influenced by the landowner’s level of commitment to maintain their project over the long-term. During the field reconnaissance it was observed that a number of the farms were not maintaining their stream bank fencing. Some fences were in poor condition or completely down. It was obvious that livestock still had relatively easy access to the stream on these properties. The type of fence also appears to influence the success of the project.

Watershed Total Stream Length

(LF)

Impacted Stream Length

(LF)

Percent of Total

Bachman Run 33,792 7,392 21.0

Beck Creek 35,904 10,032 28.0

Brandywine Creek 27,984 0.0 0.0

Buckholder Creek 10,560 0.0 0.0

Gingrich Run 20,064 4,752 23.5

Killinger Creek 35,904 9,768 27.0

Snitz Creek 43,982 4,224 9.0

Unnamed Tributary - North Annville

22,598 5,438 24.0

Table 11 – Summary of the effects of livestock grazing based on length of stream impacted.

5) Other Streamside Agricultural Best Management Practices A number of farms were observed to be utilizing some of the currently accepted best management practices for cultivated areas (e.g., grass filter strips, grass waterways, no till cultivation, cover crops, etc.). Where these measures have not been incorporated impacts associated with agricultural runoff were evident.

54

Plate 4 – Quittapahilla Creek Subwatersheds

55

6) Logging and Lumber Mills Logging operations in riparian areas has impacted the headwaters of Killinger Creek and Buckholder Run. The failure to utilize any type of best management practices has contributed to especially unstable conditions in the logged areas of upper Buckholder Run. In 1996 the headwaters of Gingrich Run were severely impacted by storm water runoff from the Walter H. Weaber & Sons, Inc lumber mill site, which carried wood fibers, saw dust, mulch, and leachate from wood by-products. Under a PADEP Consent Order issued in 1997, corrective actions were taken. A 2018 review of Google Earth Aerial Image indicates streams in area of operations are currently impacted by stormwater runoff, poor house-keeping and sedimentation. A field visit will be scheduled to evaluate conditions.

7) Quarries Based on observations made during a 2003 tour it was apparent that the mining operations at the Pennsy Supply facility are contributing to increased turbidity and sedimentation along lower Killinger Creek and Quittapahilla Creek downstream of the confluence. Much of the very fine material that makes its way to the creek is a by-product of the operation and would probably be very difficult to completely eliminate from the wastewater stream discharging from the sedimentation ponds. However, runoff from the material processing areas and conveyors appears to be a contributing source as well. During the geomorphic mapping of the main stem Quittapahilla Creek in 2003 it was observed that the discoloration and increased turbidity caused by the quarry was still evident as far as the Blauch Farm, which is approximately 3.5 miles downstream of the discharge point. Based on observations made during a site visit to the Pennsy Supply facility in 2015 it was evident that significant progress had been made in reducing the sediment load reaching Killinger Creek. House-keeping practices were much improved and installation of multiple sedimentation basins was trapping much of the sediment washing from the production areas. The wastewater discharging from this pretreatment area was fairly clear.

8) Development The land along the Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries has been rapidly developing over the last fifteen years. Many areas that were farms during the original watershed assessment are now residential subdivisions. Intense development in Cornwall and North Cornwall has significantly impacted the headwaters and lower reaches along Snitz Creek. Development in North Cornwall and South Annville has impacted the lower reaches of Beck Creek and Bachman Run. The middle reaches of Killinger Creek have been impacted by development in South Annville and South Londonderry. The most intensely developed subwatersheds include the Unnamed Tributary draining South Lebanon, and Brandywine Creek.

9) Channel Alterations In addition to the previously noted Upper Quittapahilla Creek, the Unnamed Tributary draining South Lebanon, and Brandywine Creek have been most severely affected by channel alterations.

56

Almost the entire length of the Unnamed Tributary draining South Lebanon is concrete flume or culvert pipes. In fact, one of the few remaining open channel sections in its headwaters was being piped when the 2002 field reconnaissance was conducted. Significant portions of lower Brandywine Creek are concrete flume or culvert pipes, as well. Although not as dramatic, varying degrees of channel alterations have occurred along all of the major tributaries in the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed. Removal of stream bank vegetation, stabilization with riprap, and ditching are the most common alterations in the rural areas of the watershed.

Watershed

Total Stream Length

(LF)

Impacted Stream Length

(LF)

Percent of Total

Bachman Run 33,792 10,560 31.0

Beck Creek 35,904 6,864 19.0

Brandywine Creek 27,984 18,480 66.0

Buckholder Creek 10,560 2,270 21.0

Gingrich Run 20,064 4,963 25.0

Killinger Creek 35,904 6,336 17.5

Snitz Creek 43,982 8,976 20.0

Unnamed Tributary – South Lebanon

8,923 8,923 100.0

Table 12 – Summary of the effects of channel alterations based on length of stream channel altered.

10) Flow Diversions A number of flow diverting structures were observed along the major tributaries. Generally these diversions were designed to maintain water levels in private ponds in the adjacent floodplain. While most were for irrigation water for nurseries or livestock watering, some were purely for aesthetics. The majority of the diversion structures observed appeared to be designed to limit the volume of baseflow diverted to a small percentage of the total. However, a number of the diversions observed included channel manipulation that was diverting a considerable proportion of the baseflow out of the channel and into ponds. Given that summer 2001 was a drought period, these baseflow diversions significantly impacted the reaches along the ponds. In addition, ponds can significantly raise the temperature of the diverted flow before it is returned to the stream, thereby affecting reaches downstream of the pond as well.

57

11) Fish Barriers Utilization of the various habitats within a stream varies diurnally and seasonally by species and life stage, and depends on the particular activity in which an organism is engaged. Many species of fish, such as Brown Trout, move from one part of a stream reach to another on a daily basis depending on whether they are feeding, resting, avoiding predation, or unfavorable water quality conditions. During spawning season these same fish may move a considerable distance to reproduce. These movements are critical to the survival of the individual fish as well as the population of fish within a given stream system. Water depth and channel obstructions can limit upstream and downstream movement and access to important areas, such as spawning grounds. Low baseflow conditions and bedrock ledges are natural features that create impassible barriers to upstream movement of fish. Shallow flow through or significant drops at the downstream end of road culverts and channel obstructions, such as small dams or on-line ponds, can create impassible barriers to fish movement as well. Although major channel obstructions were few, several small dams and on-line ponds are creating significant barriers to fish migration along the major tributaries.

12) Fish Habitat Structures Impacts from the various land use activities and channel alterations were anticipated. However, it appears that some of the well-intentioned habitat improvement projects completed in the past also have contributed to channel instability and poor habitat along some tributaries. Inappropriate selection and placement of habitat structures can lead to channel instability and failure of the structures. Typical channel instability caused by improperly selected/placed habitat structures include: 1) flattening of local channel slope, loss of sediment transport capacity, channel aggradation, lateral adjustments and channel widening; and 2) steeping of local channel slope, increased bed and bank scour, lateral adjustments and channel widening. The effect of these structures depends on channel morphology (i.e., width/depth ratio, slope, bed material, entrenchment), where the structure is placed relative to its location in the channel plan form and profile, existing channel conditions, sediment supply, and the type of habitat structure. Most standard fish habitat structures were designed to enhance habitat conditions in stable streams. They were not intended to be channel-stabilizing structures. Their successful application requires a thorough understanding of stream dynamics, as well as fish and fish habitat.

4. Ecological Assessment

a. Introduction Evaluating information and data from historic biological surveys can provide an understanding of how biological communities have changed with land use activities in a watershed. The available biological data was utilized to evaluate historic conditions and determine trends for the biological communities along Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries. As part of the current study, surveys were conducted to evaluate the existing habitat conditions and the biological communities in the Quittapahilla Creek watershed. Ten stations were

58

identified along the Quittapahilla Creek and its major tributaries for macroinvertebrate and fish surveys. This component of the study provided information on existing conditions that was utilized in conjunction with water quality monitoring and geomorphic assessment data to identify and prioritize problems along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek and its major tributaries. The biological surveys also established baseline conditions prior to the implementation of any restoration or management measures.

b. Historical Biological Communities The data compiled from biological surveys (macroinvertebrate and fish) conducted by various state agencies (e.g. PA Fish Commission, PA DER, etc.) from the mid-1960’s through the late 1980’s indicates that the historic biological surveys have been relatively limited in scope and often part of specific pollution investigations. For example, earlier benthic macroinvertebrates studies conducted at sampling sites along the mainstem were qualitative in nature. Samples were collected with a hand screen and by examining individual rocks. Although the state periodically conducted fish surveys, they were generally limited to site-specific pollution investigations at a few sites scattered throughout the watershed. Data compiled from other investigations are equally limited in scope. For example, a study conducted by Bethlehem Steel Corporation between 1975 and 1978 was part of the NPDES monitoring program at their Lebanon Plant. The early studies paint a very bleak picture of Quittapahilla Creek, with high levels of contaminants and limited biological communities dominated by pollution tolerant organisms. A DER report from 1972 states “At no point sampled was found what could be described as a healthy aquatic community” (PA DER, 1972). A Fish Commission report from the same year (PA FC, 1972) states that the origin of the Quittapahilla is at a good quality spring but that “the stream’s quality quickly deteriorates under the influence of numerous waste water inputs”. This same report also states that “Under present conditions, the stream is little more than an open sewer”. More recent benthic macroinvertebrates studies have been quantitative. However, they have been limited to a few site-specific studies. For example, studies conducted by staff of the U. S. Department of Agriculture included macroinvertebrate sampling to evaluate the effects of the Watershed Association’s stream bank fencing projects. As part of this effort Beck Creek, Bachman Run, Snitz Creek and locations along Quittapahilla Creek were sampled in 1999 and 2000. The most recent data available includes the results of macroinvertebrate sampling and habitat assessments conducted in Spring 2001 by Pennsylvania DEP. These later studies show improving conditions along the mainstem Quittapahilla and in its tributaries. Benthic macroinvertebrate densities and diversity increase, with pollution intolerant taxa appearing. Limited available fish data show a similar trend. The several more intensive investigations along the main stem show similar trends of improving conditions and biological communities in a downstream direction. Exceptions are obvious downstream of the sewage treatment plants.

c. Trout Stocking in the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed The Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission administers a very active trout-stocking program throughout the state. Although Bachman Run and Snitz Creek have been stocked since the early 1960’s, earlier trout stocking along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek conducted by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission was halted in 1967 due to high pollution levels. Recognition of

59

improving conditions led the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission to begin stocking trout along the lower sections of Quittapahilla Creek (Swatara Creek – Clear Springs Road) in 1985. The Commission began stocking along Section 3 (Snitz Creek – Spruce Street) and Section 4 (Spruce Street – Quittie Park) in 1990 and 1992, respectively. In 2002 the PADEP restricted the number of trout the Commission can produce in its hatcheries under its water quality authority. In spite of these restrictions the program still released as many as 4 million fish in 2003 (M. Schneck, 2003). The Quittapahilla Creek watershed annually receives its share of the stocked trout. The preseason stocking list breakdown for 2003 was: Bachman Run 390 brook, 390 brown and 520 rainbow; Snitz Creek 640 brook, 480 brown and 480 rainbow; Mainstem Quittapahilla Creek 3,200 brown and 3000 rainbow; and Stovers Dam 3,100 rainbow trout. Preseason stocking occurs in March each year. During the geomorphic and habitat mapping conducted in August 2001, two adult brown trout (approx 15 - 18 inches) were observed resting in a spring channel just off the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek in the vicinity of 22nd Street. Adult brown trout were observed at several other points along the mainstem.

d. Evaluation of Existing In-Stream Habitat

1) Rationale As pointed out previously, one objective of this project is establishing a naturally reproducing trout population through channel restoration and habitat enhancement. In conducting habitat evaluations, it is critical to determine the quality of the existing habitat and the need for improvements relative to a target species. In the eastern United States, trout stocking efforts usually include Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri), and/or Brown Trout (Salmo trutta). Although Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) are native to the eastern United States, they are extremely sensitive to water quality conditions, particularly temperature. Therefore, they are not a good candidate for stocking in the Quittapahilla Creek watershed. Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri) are native to the drainages of the western United States. Although they have been transplanted to many streams in the east, optimum habitat is characterized by cold, clear, rocky streams with slow, deep water, stable stream flow and temperature regimes. Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) are native to Europe but have been introduced in the eastern United States where self-sustaining populations have developed. As noted, Quittapahilla Creek is stocked annually with brown and rainbow trout. Depending on the degree to which stream conditions improve in the watershed either species may develop reproducing populations. However, given that brown trout are the hardiest of the three trout species (i.e., more tolerant of less than optimum conditions) and that the success of the restoration effort is influenced by factors beyond the control of the Watershed Association it was assumed that brown trout are the species most likely to develop reproducing populations. Existing in-stream habitat along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek was mapped and evaluated. Habitat value was determined utilizing a list of parameters developed from the Habitat Suitability Index Models and In-stream Suitability Curves: Brown Trout (USFWS, 1986) and the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Rivers and Streams (USEPA, 1989). Because this part of the assessment focused on habitat criteria for a naturally reproducing trout population, habitat parameters relevant to spawning and sustaining embryos, fry, juvenile and

60

adult fish were emphasized in the evaluation process. The habitat parameters included: temperature; dissolved oxygen concentrations; pH; nitrate-nitrogen concentrations; depth of pools and riffles/runs; percent of the total stream area that provides adequate cover for adult trout during the low flow period; an evaluation of channel substrate relative to potential spawning areas, fry and juvenile escape cover and resting areas, macroinvertebrate habitat in riffles/runs, and the % fine sediment (embeddedness) in riffles/runs; percent of stream length that is pools; a rating of the quality (i.e., size, depth, structure) of the pools; dominant stream bank vegetation; percent of the stream bank covered by vegetation; and the percent of the stream area shaded. Because the habitat evaluation was conducted in Summer 2001, which was a drought year, Quittapahilla Creek was experiencing extreme low flow conditions. As a consequence, the results of the evaluation presented in this report should be considered representative of worst case conditions. The habitat evaluation is documented in the Geomorphic and Habitat Maps and the Field Reconnaissance Maps and in the figures and tables accompanying the detailed descriptions of the habitat conditions along each segment of the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek.

2) Detailed Descriptions of Mainstem Segments Segment 1 Segment 1 is 6,315 linear feet in length and includes Reaches 1 – 6. The upstream limit is the downstream end of the concrete flume near 19th Street in Lebanon and downstream limit is the confluence with Snitz Creek. The summer water temperatures measured in this segment during the 2003 water quality monitoring period ranged from 51.4 to 74.5º F. The daily maximum temperatures routinely exceeded the optimum for adult and juvenile Brown Trout. In fact, the maximum temperatures recorded during the period were only slightly lower than the upper tolerance limit (i.e., 80.6º F) for this species. These high temperatures are likely a result of the location of the segment immediately downstream of the concrete flume that conveys Quittapahilla Creek through the City of Lebanon. In fact, it is surprising that the maximum temperatures weren’t higher given the percentage of impervious surfaces and extensive storm drainage system in the City. The data shows that by early November, the time during which brown trout would normally begin spawning, water temperatures had fallen into the range at which spawning could occur. In mid-November a maximum daily water temperature peak was recorded that exceeded the upper tolerance limit for brown trout embryos. However, by late November and early December the maximum temperatures had dropped into the optimum range for embryo development. Because the temperature monitoring did not include the spring months there is no data to evaluate the effects temperature might have on fry that would normally be emerging in March. The recorded data suggest that overall the water temperature conditions along this segment would provide a stressful environment for all life stages of trout. Interestingly, the measured dissolved oxygen and pH levels were consistently within the optimum range. However, measured nitrate-nitrogen levels were well above the optimum. Other water quality parameters of concern include: conductivity, suspended and dissolved solids, turbidity, total nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, ortho-phosphate, alkalinity, hardness, copper, and lead. The extremely high levels of these constituents are indicative of pollution caused by urban runoff from the City of Lebanon.

61

Along most reaches in this segment the range and average depths of pools and riffles are optimum. However, pools make up only 18 – 48% of the total bed features. Most of the pools that do exist are small with limited or no structure. With the exception of Reaches 2 and 3, there is a fair amount of in-stream cover (e.g., debris, logs, and boulders) for adult trout under low flow conditions. Although spawning habitat was limited, potential spawning substrate does exist and there is a minimal amount of substrate of adequate size to provide escape or resting cover for fry or juveniles. The riffles and runs included enough coarse substrate material along most reaches to support an abundant macroinvertebrate community. The dominant bed material in riffles and runs is medium gravel and the degree of embeddedness is less than 25% over most reaches. With the exception of Reach 3, the dominant bank vegetation is mature trees and shrubs. The percentage of the banks covered with vegetation is relatively high (>80%). The segment is heavily shaded (i.e., 50 -75%) along most reaches. Along Reach 3 the dominant bank vegetation is mowed grass with a few scattered trees. The percentage of the banks covered with vegetation is relatively low (i.e., 25-49%) and the reach is not well shaded. Segment 2 Segment 2 is 10,985 linear feet in length and includes Reaches 7 – 15. The upstream limit is the confluence with Snitz Creek and downstream limit is the confluence with Beck Creek. The summer water temperatures measured in this segment during the 2003 water quality monitoring period ranged from 51.4 to 74.5º F in the upper reaches and 52.3 to 72.5º F in the lower reaches. The data show that the range of daily temperature fluctuations is decreasing in a downstream direction. The daily maximum temperatures recorded in both the upper and lower reaches routinely exceeded the optimum for adult and juvenile Brown Trout. However, temperatures appeared to moderate by August along the lower reaches. These high temperatures are likely a result of several factors including stormwater runoff from the City of Lebanon and Town of Cleona, discharges from the Lebanon WTTP at the downstream end of Segment 1, and the low percentage of shading along most of the reaches in this segment. The data show that by early November water temperatures had fallen into the range at which spawning could occur. Although lower in temperature, the mid-November water temperature peak observed in Segment 1 was observed in this segment as well. The maximum temperature exceeded the optimum for brown trout embryos, but not the upper tolerance limit as in Segment 1. By late November and early December the maximum temperatures were consistently in the optimum range for embryo development. Because the temperature monitoring did not include the spring months there is no data to evaluate the effects temperature might have on emerging fry. Water temperature conditions have improved along this segment. However, they still have the potential to provide a stressful environment for all life stages of trout. The measured dissolved oxygen and pH levels were consistently within the optimum range. Measured nitrate-nitrogen levels were still well above the optimum. Other water quality parameters of concern include: conductivity, suspended and dissolved solids, turbidity, total nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, ortho-phosphate, alkalinity, hardness, copper, and lead. The extremely high levels of these constituents are indicative of pollution caused by urban runoff from the City of Lebanon and Town of Cleona, discharges from the Lebanon WTTP, as well as agricultural runoff contributed by Snitz Creek.

62

Along most reaches in this segment the range and average depths of pools and riffles are optimum. With the exception of Reach 7, pools make up only 7 – 40% of the total bed features along this segment. Most of the pools that do exist are small with limited or no structure. With the exception of Reaches 7 and 11, there is a minimal amount of in-stream cover (e.g., logs, boulders and overhanging vegetation) for adult trout under low flow conditions. Spawning habitat was limited and potential spawning substrate does not exist. With the exception of Reach 14, there is a minimal amount of substrate of adequate size to provide escape or resting cover for fry or juveniles. The riffles and runs did not include sufficient coarse substrate material along most reaches to support an abundant macroinvertebrate community. The dominant bed material in riffles and runs is small gravel and the degree of embeddedness is 30 – 50% over most reaches. With the exception of Reaches 7 and 8, the lack of a riparian buffer is a common problem throughout much of the segment. In residential neighborhoods along the right floodplain mowed lawns with scattered trees are the typical vegetation. On agricultural land along the left floodplain row crops with scattered trees are the typical vegetation. The percentage of the banks covered with vegetation is relatively low and these reaches are not well shaded. Segment 3 Segment 3 is 14,885 linear feet in length and includes Reaches 16 – 25. The upstream limit is the confluence with Beck Creek and downstream limit is the confluence with Bachman Run. The summer water temperatures measured in this segment during the 2003 water quality monitoring period ranged from 52.3 to 72.5º F in the upper reaches and 51.8 to 72.2º F in the lower reaches. Although lower than the maximum temperatures measured in Segments 1 and 2, the maximum temperatures in both the upper and lower reaches still exceed the optimum for adult and juvenile Brown Trout. Temperatures along both the upper and lower reaches appeared to moderate by August. The high temperatures along this segment are likely a result of stormwater runoff from the Towns of Cleona and Annville. By early November water temperatures had fallen into the range at which spawning could occur. The mid-November maximum water temperature peak observed in Segments 1 and 2 was observed in this segment as well. However, the peak was lower, exceeding the optimum for brown trout embryos, but not the upper tolerance limit as in Segment 1. By late November and early December the maximum temperatures were consistently in the optimum range for embryo development. Because the temperature monitoring did not include the spring months there is no data to evaluate the effects temperature might have on emerging fry. Although, water temperature conditions are continuing to improve along this segment, they still have the potential to provide a stressful environment for all life stages of trout. The measured dissolved oxygen and pH levels were consistently within the optimum range. Measured nitrate-nitrogen levels were still well above the optimum. Other water quality parameters of concern include: conductivity, suspended and dissolved solids, turbidity, total nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, ortho-phosphate, alkalinity, hardness, copper, and lead. The extremely high levels of these constituents are indicative of pollution caused by urban runoff from the City of Lebanon, the Towns of Cleona and Annville, discharges from the Lebanon WTTP, as well as agricultural runoff contributed by Snitz and Beck Creeks. Along most reaches in this segment the range and average depths of pools and riffles are optimum. Reaches 17 and 21 have ideal pool/riffle ratios. Pools make up 69% and 63% of

63

each reach, respectively. Unfortunately, pools make up only 18 – 30% of the total bed features along the remainder of the segment. The majority of pools are large and deep with good structure. With the exception of Reaches 24 and 25, there is a fair amount of in-stream cover (e.g., logs, boulders, undercut trees, and overhanging vegetation) for adult trout under low flow conditions. Potential spawning sites exist along Reaches 19 - 23. However, the other reaches are by a high percentage of fine sediments. Reaches 18 – 23 have a high percentage of substrate of adequate size to provide escape or resting cover for fry or juveniles. Reaches 17, 24 and 25 lacked suitable fry/juvenile size material. Only the riffles and runs along Reaches 18 – 23 included enough coarse substrate material along most reaches to support an abundant macroinvertebrate community. Numerous in-stream habitat structures along were installed along Reach 20 at some time in the past. The design and placement of these habitat structures makes them of questionable value. In 2000 in-stream habitat structures were installed along Reach 21 in Quittie Creek Nature Park. At the time of the original assessment, most of the structures appeared to be functioning as intended. However, a steep, constructed riffle near the middle of the reach was directing flow into the adjacent right bank causing considerable erosion. Follow-up evaluations in 2010 and 2016 showed that the structures were no longer functioning and bank erosion along the reach had increased significantly. With the exception of Reaches 18, 24 and 25, the dominant bank vegetation is mature trees and shrubs. The percentage of the banks covered with vegetation is relatively high (50-80%). The segment is heavily shaded (i.e., 50 -75%) along most reaches. Along Reaches 18, 24 and 25 the dominant bank vegetation is mowed grass with a few scattered trees. The percentage of the banks covered with vegetation is relatively low (i.e., 25-49%) and the reach is not well shaded. Segment 4 Segment 4 is 11,375 linear feet in length and includes Reaches 26 – 33. The upstream limit is the confluence with Bachman Run and downstream limit is the confluence with Killinger Creek. The summer water temperatures measured in this segment during the 2003 water quality monitoring period ranged from 51.8 to 72.2º F in the upper reaches and 51.5 to 71.2º F in the lower reaches. Although the maximum daily temperatures measured along the main stem have been decreasing in a downstream direction, the maximum temperatures along all reaches still exceed the optimum for adult and juvenile Brown Trout. Temperatures along both the segment appeared to moderate by August. The high temperatures along this segment are likely a result of stormwater runoff from the Towns of Cleona and Annville and the low percentage of shading along many of the reaches in this segment. By early November water temperatures had fallen into the range at which spawning could occur. The mid-November maximum water temperature peak observed in Segments 1, 2 and 3 was observed in this segment as well. The peak exceeded the optimum for brown trout embryos. By late November and early December the maximum temperatures were consistently in the optimum range for embryo development. Because the temperature monitoring did not include the spring months there is no data to evaluate the effects temperature might have on emerging fry. Water temperature conditions continue to improve in a downstream direction. However, water temperature along this segment still has the potential to provide a stressful environment for all life stages of trout.

64

Although the measured dissolved oxygen was consistently within the optimum range, the maximum and minimum concentrations were lower than measured along Segments 1 – 3. The measured pH level was consistently within the optimum range. Measured nitrate-nitrogen levels were still well above the optimum. Other water quality parameters of concern include: conductivity, suspended and dissolved solids, turbidity, total nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, ortho-phosphate, alkalinity, hardness, copper, and lead. The extremely high levels of these constituents are indicative of pollution caused by urban runoff from the City of Lebanon, the Towns of Cleona and Annville, discharges from the Lebanon and Annville Wastewater Treatment Plants, as well as agricultural runoff contributed by Snitz Creek, Beck Creek, and Bachman Run. Along most reaches in this segment the range and average depths of pools and riffles are optimum. Reaches 26, 28, and 33 have ideal pool/riffle ratios. Pools make up 79%, 67% and 73% of each reach, respectively. Pools make up only 35 – 45% of the total bed features along the remainder of the segment. Unfortunately, the majority of pools are moderate size and with minimal structure. With the exception of Reaches 26, 28, and 29 there is a minimal amount of in-stream cover (e.g., logs, undercut trees, and overhanging vegetation) for adult trout under low flow conditions. Potential spawning sites were very limited due to a high percentage of fine sediments along all reaches except Reach 27 and 28. Most reaches lacked substrate of adequate size to provide escape or resting cover for fry or juveniles. Only the riffles and runs along Reach 28 included enough coarse substrate material along most reaches to support an abundant macroinvertebrate community. Along most reaches macroinvertebrates would be limited to colonizing woody debris or submerged aquatic vegetation. With the exception of Reaches 26, 29 and 30, the lack of a riparian buffer is a common problem throughout much of the segment. On agricultural land along the floodplain pasture or old field with scattered trees is the typical vegetation. The percentage of the banks covered with vegetation is relatively low and these reaches are not well shaded. Segment 5 Segment 5 is 11,760 linear feet in length and includes Reaches 34 – 40. The upstream limit is the confluence with Killinger Creek and downstream limit is the confluence with the Unnamed Tributary that drains the Steelstown area of North Annville. The summer water temperatures measured in this segment during the 2003 water quality monitoring period ranged from 51.5 to 71.2º F in the upper reaches and 51.4 to 69.0º F in the middle and lower reaches. Although the daily maximum temperatures have dropped more than 5.5º F from Segment 1 to lower Segment 5, the maximum temperatures still exceed the optimum for adult and juvenile Brown Trout. These high temperatures are likely a result of the low percentage of shading along many of the reaches in this segment. By early November water temperatures had fallen into the range at which spawning could occur. The mid-November maximum water temperature peaks observed in the other segments appears to have all but dissipated by the time it reached the lower reaches of this segment. The daily maximum peak recorded in the upper reaches exceeded the optimum for brown trout embryos, while the peak recorded in the lower reaches was at the upper limit of the optimum. Late November and early December the maximum temperatures were consistently in the optimum range for embryo development. Because the temperature monitoring did not include the spring months there is no data to evaluate the effects temperature might have on emerging fry. Water temperature conditions have improved along the lower reaches of this segment to

65

the point that stressful conditions would generally be associated with temporary fluctuations that all life stages of trout could weather. The measured dissolved oxygen and pH levels were consistently within the optimum range. Measured nitrate-nitrogen levels were still well above the optimum. Other water quality parameters of concern include: conductivity, suspended and dissolved solids, turbidity, total nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, ortho-phosphate, alkalinity, hardness, copper, and lead. The extremely high levels of these constituents are indicative of pollution caused by urban runoff from the City of Lebanon, the Towns of Cleona and Annville, discharges from the various wastewater treatment plants along the main stem and tributaries, agricultural runoff contributed by the tributaries, as well as discharges from the Millard Quarry on Killinger Creek. Along most reaches in this segment the range and average depths of pools and riffles are optimum. Reach 35 has almost all pools. However, pools make up only 18 – 45% of the total bed features along the remainder of the segment. The majority of pools are moderate size and with minimal structure. With the exception of Reach 35, there is a minimal amount of in-stream cover (e.g., logs, undercut trees, and overhanging vegetation) for adult trout under low flow conditions. Potential spawning sites were very limited due to a high percentage of fine sediments along all reaches except Reach 38. Most reaches lacked substrate of adequate size to provide escape or resting cover for fry or juveniles. Only the riffles and runs along Reaches 38 included enough coarse substrate material along most reaches to support an abundant macroinvertebrate community. Along most reaches macroinvertebrates would be limited to colonizing woody debris or submerged aquatic vegetation. In-stream habitat structures were installed along the upper section of Reach 34 at some time in the past. Remnants of the structures suggest that the design and placement of these habitat structures made them of questionable value. In fact, they appear have altered the local channel hydraulics and sediment transport processes causing unstable conditions to develop. With the exception of Reach 35, the lack of a riparian buffer is a common problem throughout much of the segment. On agricultural land along the floodplain pasture or old field with scattered trees is the typical vegetation. The percentage of the banks covered with vegetation is relatively low and these reaches are not well shaded. Segment 6 Segment 6 is 14,400 linear feet in length and includes Reaches 41 – 52. The upstream limit is the confluence with the Unnamed Tributary that drains the Steelstown area of North Annville and downstream limit is the confluence with Swatara Creek. The most downstream station at which water quality monitoring was conducted was Station Q6 at the Palmyra-Bellegrove Bridge along Reach 36, which falls in the middle of Segment 5. As a consequence, there is no data available to evaluate temperature conditions along Segment 6. The temperature data could have been extended downstream along this segment. An argument could be made that contributions of cool water from springs and shaded tributaries may mitigate the increases in temperature associated with a general lack of shade along most of the reaches downstream of Station Q6. However, it was determined that this would not be an appropriate use of the temperature data. It was determined that extending the other water quality data beyond Segment 5 was inappropriate as well. Therefore, the habitat evaluation of Segment 6 was limited to the physical habitat parameters actually measured in the field.

66

Along most reaches in this segment the range and average depths of pools and riffles are optimum. Reaches 41, 43, and 48 have ideal pool/riffle ratios. Pools make up 52%, 53% and 60% of each reach, respectively. Pools make up only 0 – 42% of the total bed features along the remainder of the segment. The majority of pools along the upper reaches are large and deep with good structure. Most of the pools along the middle and lower reaches are small with minimal structure. The upper reaches have a fair amount of in-stream cover (e.g., logs, undercut trees, and overhanging vegetation) for adult trout under low flow conditions. With the exception of Reach 48, the middle and lower reaches have very little in-stream cover for adult trout under low flow conditions. Although some potential spawning sites were observed, in general they are limited due to a high percentage of fine sediments along most reaches. Most reaches lacked substrate of adequate size to provide escape or resting cover for fry or juveniles. Only the riffles and runs along Reaches 41, 44, and 45 included enough coarse substrate material along most reaches to support an abundant macroinvertebrate community. Along most reaches macroinvertebrates would be limited to colonizing woody debris or submerged aquatic vegetation. Reaches 45, 46, and 47 had a high percentage of bank cover (>80%) composed of mature trees and shrubs and were well shaded. However, the lack of a riparian buffer is a common problem throughout much of the segment. On agricultural land along the floodplain row crops with scattered trees are the typical vegetation. The percentage of the banks covered with vegetation is relatively low and these reaches are not well shaded.

e. Existing Biological Communities An assessment of the existing biological communities was devised as an integral component of the current study. This assessment was designed to provide insights into in-stream conditions at representative locations throughout the Quittapahilla watershed. Initially envisioned as a network of 20 sampling stations throughout the watershed, budgetary limitations pared this desired level of coverage down to 10 stations. Although reduced in number, the selected sampling stations provided for the assessment of biological stream communities throughout the watershed. Six stations are located on the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek. These stations are labeled from Q1 to Q6 in a downstream direction. The four largest tributaries in the watershed were also sampled near their confluence with the Quittapahilla. These tributaries are Snitz Creek, Beck Creek, Bachman Run, and Killinger Creek, which are listed in order of their confluence with the Quittapahilla, from upstream to downstream. The locations and relationships of the biological assessment sampling stations are shown on Plate 11. Each sampling station consisted of a 300-foot representative reach at each location. The selected biological communities for assessment were benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. These are the most commonly utilized indicators of in-stream conditions since they are readily sampled and have a wealth of taxonomic and ecological information available. Standardized methods based on the EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Wadeable Streams and Rivers (Barbour, et al., 1999) were utilized, and are described in each section below. Results for each station are discussed separately and combine macroinvertebrate and fish information to provide a comprehensive view of ecological conditions. The summary section discusses these findings in the context of the watershed as a whole.

67

The biological surveys were delayed due to the abnormally wet weather of 2003, a record year of precipitation in the region. Stream flows were much higher than anticipated, especially in the lower Quittapahilla Creek stations. These conditions are in stark contrast to the conditions of 2001 and 2002 when record drought conditions resulted in much reduced stream flows, with surface flow eliminated in several tributaries. Sampling was delayed as long as possible within the mandated schedule to allow for as much recovery and return to normalcy as possible. Further implications will be discussed under each section below, and in the summary.

1) Benthic Macroinvertebrates Communities Benthic macroinvertebrates are most commonly used to assess stream ecological conditions due to their relative immobility and habitat selection. These organisms are generally collected from the substrate or submerged vegetation or debris, are visible to the naked eye, and include immature stages of insects with terrestrial adults and some adult insects; or worms, molluscs, or crustaceans that are fully aquatic. Their long aquatic life cycles provide long-term indicators of in-stream conditions, and their benthic habitat is subjected to sediment deposition, which often includes attached pollutants. Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected at each of the ten sampling stations on December 9, 2003. This is a fall collection and may differ from data collected in spring collections due to life cycle stages of various organisms. Although stream flows were higher than normal for fall, it was anticipated that spring samples would be more difficult to obtain. Spring samples are often preferred when one seasonal sample is collected since many immature aquatic insects are most developed prior to spring emergence. However, fall samples do provide an opportunity to collect fall-emerging aquatic insects that are often not collected in spring samples. Samples were collected using the 20-jab method. A standard D-frame aquatic net was used to collect 20 separate samples from approximately one square foot of habitat throughout the sampling reach. These samples were divided proportionally among the various habitats present within the sampling reach. Riffle samples were collected with the aid of running water as with a kick seine, while pool and vegetation samples were taken with a sweeping or jabbing motion. All 20 samples were combined into one composite sample for each sampling station. Due to the unpredictable weather patterns of 2003 and a preference for live sorting of macroinvertebrates from entrained debris, samples were deposited live into separate five-gallon buckets for each station. Fine mesh screening was secured over each bucket mouth with duct tape to retain organisms. Low but non-freezing temperatures and entrained submerged aquatic vegetation kept oxygen levels sufficient for organism survival. Samples were fully picked of visible macroinvertebrates over the next several days. Sub-sampling is often employed in benthic macroinvertebrate studies, but full inventories of in-stream fauna were desired for this assessment. Many samples were extremely heavy with SAV and other debris, which was fully inspected before discarding. Obviously terrestrial organisms were also discarded.

68

Plate 5 – Biological Survey Stations

69

Picked macroinvertebrates were placed into labeled Nalgene jars with 70% ethyl alcohol (ETOH) for preservation. Alcohol preservative was decanted and replaced with fresh ETOH after 24 hours to limit inadequate preservation due to introduced water and internal organism fluids. Macroinvertebrates were sorted and identified using a Bausch & Lomb zoom stereoscopic microscope and fiber-optic lighting. Final sorting of debris was also accomplished and all organisms returned to fresh ETOH in labeled Nalgene jars for long-term storage and retention. Taxonomic determinations were made to the lowest practical taxonomic level, which for the purposes of this assessment are class for worms, family for molluscs, and genus for insects, excluding Diptera, which were generally identified to family level. While lower taxonomic determinations may provide additional ecological information, greater precision generally requires relatively mature organisms and more intensive specimen preparation and examination. The chosen level of detail provides for sufficient information while remaining within budgetary constraints. A variety of taxonomic references were utilized in making identifications, with Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of the Northeastern United States (Peckarsky, et al. 1990) the primary reference. Additional references utilized include Thorp and Covich (1991), Merritt and Cummins (1996), Wiggins (1990), and Stewart and Stark (1993). The general results of the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling are provided in Table 13. This is a concise single-page table showing general results at higher taxonomic levels of family and above. An expanded summary table is provided as Table 14, which shows greater taxonomic detail, where applicable. Generic breakdowns of family level numbers are provided for most insect and crustacean families, as well as breakdowns between larvae and adults of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera). As explained above, further taxonomic detail was not practical. An ecological information table is also provided for the benthic macroinvertebrate taxa collected. Table 15 provides information on the tolerance value and functional feeding groups of each taxon, with relevant notes. Tolerance value pertains to the tolerance of a particular taxon to pollution, with higher numbers signifying greater tolerance on a scale of 1-10. Functional feeding groups refer to the method of obtaining food. This information was derived from the RBP Manual tables using the nearest geographic region. Additional information was derived from Merritt and Cummins (1996). As noted in the note section of this table, many of the higher taxonomic groups have a wide variety of tolerance values and functional feeding groups associated with included taxa. This is especially true of the Chironomidae (midges) which are largely moderately tolerant and feed as gathering collectors, but include genera and species that exhibit a very broad range of characteristics. A series of metrics were calculated for each sampling station using the benthic macroinvertebrate community data, and are presented in Table 16. These metrics are simple measures that can allow for comparison between sites and provide insight into community structure. EPT measures refer to members of the insect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera, which are generally intolerant of pollution and indicative of good habitat and water quality. The biotic index is a weighted average of tolerance values for each station, corresponding to the range of tolerance values (0-10).

70

The tolerance value is a measure of the tolerance of each taxon to pollution with higher values signifying a greater tolerance to pollution. Therefore, a lower biotic index is indicative of a higher quality macroinvertebrate community comprised of a higher proportion of pollution intolerant organisms. More detailed statistical analyses are possible using this data, but generally require much more rigorous sampling and taxonomic scrutiny for such approaches to be reliable. Care must also be utilized when interpreting data due to the limited taxonomic detail of many groups with great diversity (i.e. midges). All metrics presented in Table 5.10 are based on family level and higher taxonomic classifications to maintain consistency. Another cautionary note pertains to the limestone creek nature of the Quittapahilla Creek watershed. Most of the standard measures and ranges for stream assessments are based on typical freestone streams, and natural systems that differ significantly (i.e. limestone creeks, coastal plain streams) may appear to be marginal when in fact they are functioning near their natural potential. A literature and internet search did not find any suitable indexes for analyzing limestone creek data. Establishment of a regional reference for limestone creeks would be necessary to further define the conditions of the Quittapahilla and its tributaries.

71

Scientific Name Common Name Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Snitz Beck Bach Kill Turbellaria Flatworms 48

Nematoda Roundworms 5 1 1 1 Oligochaeta Segmented Worms 5 1 2 7 6 14 4 20 18 2 Hirudinia Leeches 3 1 4 Corbiculidae Asiatic Clams 1 12 6 6 13 43 Physidae Physid Snails 1 2 6 Hydrocarina Water Mites 15 19 Ostracoda Seed Shrimps 72 4 Amphipoda Scuds 23 12 120 467 128 211 13 75 129 64 Isopoda Sowbugs 23 3 3 7 5 5 9 274 53 1 Decapoda Crayfish 1 2 1 5 4 2 2 4 2 1 Dytiscidae Diving Beetles 1 Elmidae Riffle Beetles 5 2 22 3 17 4 10 13 4 Chironomidae Midges 40 9 13 37 29 51 30 57 78 12 Empididae Dance Flies 1 1 1 Simuliidae Black Flies 14 28 6 134 28 25 38 32 1 Tabanidae Biting Flies 1 1 1 Tipulidae Crane Flies 1 4 4 14 4 1 1 6 Baetidae Minnow Mayflies 2 Ephemerellidae Spiny Mayflies 2 1 3 Heptageniidae Flatheaded Mayflies 1 Tricorythidae Trico Mayflies 1 3 2 Glossosomatidae Saddlecase Caddisflies 1 9 2 Hydropsychidae Netspinning Caddisflies 8 8 1 116 2 29 4 5 2 1 Limnephelidae Casemaking Caddisflies 1 Leptoceridae Longhorned Caddisflies 3 1 Psychomiidae Nettube Caddisflies 1 Capniidae Winter Stoneflies 1 3 Taeniopterygidae Broadback Stoneflies 3 1 1 1

Total Taxa 11 9 10 10 15 16 16 21 15 12 Total Organisms 126 66 163 805 219 386 128 672 332 99 Table 13– Fall 2003 Macroinvertebrate Survey Results Summary

72

Scientific Name Common Name Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Snitz Beck Bach Kill Turbellaria Flatworms 48

Nematoda Roundworms 5 1 1 1 Oligochaeta Segmented Worms 5 1 2 7 6 14 4 20 18 2 Hirudinia Leeches 3 1 4 Corbiculidae Asiatic Clams 1 12 6 6 13 43 Corbicula fluminea 1 12 6 6 13 43 Physidae Physid Snails 1 2 6 Hydrocarina Water Mites 15 19 Ostracoda Seed Shrimps 72 4 Amphipoda Scuds 23 12 120 467 128 211 13 75 129 64 Gammarus sp. 23 12 120 467 128 211 13 75 129 64 Isopoda Sowbugs 23 3 3 7 5 5 9 274 53 1 Caecidotea sp. 23 3 3 7 5 5 9 274 53 1 Decapoda Crayfish 1 2 1 5 4 2 2 4 2 1 Dytiscidae Diving Beetles 1 Agabus sp. 1 Elmidae Riffle Beetles 5 2 22 3 17 4 10 13 4 Dubiraphia sp. (A/L) 1/0 Optioservus sp. (A/L) 0/1 0/3 1/9 2/6 3/10 0/4 Stenelmis sp. (A/L) 4/0 1/1 21/1 7/0 2/1 1/1 Chironomidae Midges 40 9 13 37 29 51 30 57 78 12 Empididae Dance Flies 1 1 1 Simuliidae Black Flies 14 28 6 134 28 25 38 32 1 Tabanidae Biting Flies 1 1 1 Tipulidae Crane Flies 1 4 4 14 4 1 1 6 Antocha sp. 4 4 13 4 1 3 Tipula sp. 1 1 1 3 Baetidae Minnow Mayflies 2

Acerpenna sp. 2 Ephemerellidae Spiny Mayflies 2 1 3

Ephemerella sp. 2 1 3 Heptageniidae Flatheaded Mayflies 1 Stenonema sp. 1 Table 14 – Fall 2003 Macroinvertebrate Survey Results Expanded Summary

73

Scientific Name Common Name Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Snitz Beck Bach Kill Tricorythidae Trico Mayflies 1 3 2 Tricorythodes sp. 1 3 2 Glossosomatidae Saddlecase Caddisflies 1 9 2 Glossosoma sp. 1 9 2

Hydropsychidae Netspinning Caddisflies 8 8 1 116 2 29 4 5 2 1

Cheumatopsyche sp. 6 8 1 18 7 1 4 1 1 Hydropsyche sp. 2 98 2 22 3 1 1 Limnephelidae Casemaker Caddisflies 1 Hydatophylax sp. 1

Leptoceridae Longhorn Caddisflies 3 1

Triaenodes sp. 3 1 Psychomiidae Nettube Caddisflies 1 Lype sp. 1 Capniidae Winter Stoneflies 1 3 Allocapnia sp. 1 3 Taeniopterygidae Broadback Stoneflies 3 1 1 1 Taeniopteryx sp. 3 1 1 1

Total Taxa 13 9 10 11 15 18 18 23 16 12 Total Organisms 126 66 163 805 219 386 128 672 332 99 Table 14 – Fall 2003 Macroinvertebrate Survey Results Expanded Summary (Cont’d)

74

Scientific Name Common Name Tolerance Value Functional Feeding Group Notes

Turbellaria Flatworms 4 Predator Diverse FFGs Nematoda Roundworms 5 Parasite Oligochaeta Segmented Worms 10 Gathering Collector Hirudinia Leeches 6 Predator Corbiculidae Asiatic Clams 8 Filtering Collector Exotic Physidae Physid Snails 8 Scraper Hydrocarina Water Mites 8 Predator Parasitic as larvae Ostracoda Seed Shrimps 6 Gathering Collector Large macro type (>2mm) Amphipoda Scuds 8 Shredders Isopoda Sowbugs 6 Gathering Collectors Decapoda Crayfish 5 Shredders Diverse FFGs Dytiscidae Diving Beetles 6 Predators Elmidae Riffle Beetles 6 Scrapers Chironomidae Midges 6 Gathering Collectors Diverse FFGs and TVs Empididae Dance Flies 6 Predators Simuliidae Black Flies 7 Filtering Collectors Tabanidae Biting Flies 8 Predators Tipulidae Crane Flies 4 Gathering Collectors Diverse FFGs Baetidae Minnow Mayflies 4 Gathering Collectors Ephemerellidae Spiny Mayflies 2 Gathering Collectors Heptageniidae Flatheaded Mayflies 4 Scrapers Tricorythidae Trico Mayflies 4 Gathering Collectors Glossosomatidae Saddlecase Caddisflies 0 Scrapers Hydropsychidae Netspinning Caddisflies 6 Filtering Collectors Limnephelidae Casemaking Caddisflies 2 Shredders Leptoceridae Longhorned Caddisflies 6 Shredders Psychomiidae Nettube Caddisflies 2 Scrapers Capniidae Winter Stoneflies 3 Shredders Taeniopterygidae Broadback Stoneflies 2 Shredders Table 15 – Macroinvertebrate Ecological Information

75

Analytical Metric Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Snitz Beck Bach Kill Total Organisms 126 66 163 805 219 386 128 672 332 99

Total Taxa 11 9 10 10 15 16 16 21 15 12 Percent Dominant Taxon 31.7 42.4 73.6 58.0 58.4 54.7 29.7 40.8 38.9 64.6 EPT Taxa 1 1 2 1 3 5 5 5 4 4 Percent EPT Individuals 6.3 12.1 1.2 14.4 1.8 11.4 7.0 1.9 2.4 7.1 Percent Collectors 90.5 93.9 98.8 96.6 93.2 90.9 92.2 86.8 87.7 87.8 Percent Shredders 0.8 3.0 0.6 0.6 2.3 1.6 2.3 1.2 0.9 5.1 Percent Scrapers 4.0 3.0 0.6 2.7 2.3 6.7 3.9 1.8 5.7 6.1 Percent Predators 4.8 0 0 0 2.3 0.8 1.6 10.3 5.7 1.0 Biotic Index 6.59 6.57 6.04 6.21 6.32 5.98 6.40 7.11 6.66 5.67 Table 16 – Fall 2003 Macroinvertebrate Survey Analyses

76

2) Fish Communities Fish are also commonly utilized for assessing the condition of stream ecosystems. Much information is available on the ecology, life histories, and physiology of most eastern fishes. General information is also available on the pollution tolerances of various fishes. Fish are often considered to be less reliable indicators of in-stream conditions since they are capable of rapid movement into and out of disturbed habitats. However, certain benthic fishes may be relatively less mobile than other fishes, and may be indicative of long-term benthic conditions. Fish were collected in the summer of 2004 during two single day collecting trips and a two-day overnight collecting trip scheduled around weather. Snitz Creek and Beck Creek sampling was conducted on July 6, and Bachman Run and Quittapahilla Creek Station Q1 sampling was conducted on July 14. The remaining stations were sampled on longer consecutive field days, with Quittapahilla Creek Stations Q2, Q3, and Q4 sampled on July 29, and Quittapahilla Creek stations Q5, Q6, and Killinger Creek sampled on July 30. Two significant rainstorms occurred between the between the single-day and two-day sampling events. Fish are generally not as seasonal in presence and distribution as benthic macroinvertebrates, although spring and fall spawning migrations do occur in certain species, and distributions may be affected by high or low stream flows. Sampling was initially scheduled for 2003, but was postponed due to continuing frequent rainfall and high stream flows. Sampling was conducted using a Smith-Root Model VII backpack electrofisher and a three-man crew consisting of the senior electrofisher operator and two netters. The electrofisher also participated in netting with a small handnet. Electrofishing proceeded in an upstream direction from the lower end of the sampling reach, with stunned fish netted and placed into buckets. Fish were periodically transferred to larger holding tanks on shore. All fish were collected when possible, although there were occasional escapes. Block nets were not used at any station since they were entirely impractical to employ at the larger mainstem stations due to heavy flows. Although multiple passes can improve thoroughness, single passes were conducted at each station to remain within budgetary constraints, and generally produced a wide range of fishes. All fish were identified, tallied, and released alive into the sampled reach. Observable mortality was extremely minimal and was limited to several minnows. Voucher specimens were not retained. Fish were identified by observable characteristics, with utilization of Fishes of Pennsylvania (Cooper, 1980) and other guides when necessary. Other identification references consulted include Rhode, et al. (1990), Jenkins and Burkhead (2000), and Page and Burr (1991). Most fish species collected were familiar regional species, and no abnormal colors and/or forms were encountered that would make identification problematic. The most significant taxonomic issue relates to sculpins (family Cottidae). The genus Cottus is the source of much past taxonomic confusion and current uncertainties (well explained in Jenkins and Burkhead, 1999).

77

Field examination of large numbers of sculpins in the Quittapahilla watershed compared most favorably with characters for the slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) although not all sculpins were examined in great detail in the field or microscopically. Further intensive study could reveal additional species, although the Slimy Sculpin is generally found alone (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1999). An earlier report noted the mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi) as present in Quittapahilla Creek, but this may be due to earlier confusion over the status of various Cottus species. Sampling was delayed as much as possible in 2004 to allow for flow recession to make sampling easier, safer, and more thorough. However, continued steady rains kept stream flows higher than normal. Tributaries were sampled with relatively no problems, but the middle (Q3, Q4) and especially lower (Q5, Q6) mainstem sampling stations were limited by high flows and discolored water. These lower stations are near the limit for effective backpack electrofishing even during low flow conditions, which did not materialize in 2003 or 2004. Many of these reaches exhibit steep banks with deep pool and run type habitats. Electrofishing in these stations was largely confined to very limited shallower riffle areas and along streambanks. Therefore, data collected from these stations must be considered to be incomplete, but still provides useful data. Tributary data and data from the upper Quittapahilla Creek stations (Q1, Q2) should be considered fully valid. Fish data from the sampling events are presented in Table 17 with tallies provided for species and total fish collected at each station. Table 18 presents general ecological information for each species collected, with tolerance value and trophic level information presented from two sources. The RBP Manual (Barbour, et al., 1999) data is from the fish information tables, with the nearest geographical area information provided. Also listed are the data from An Index of Biological Integrity for Northern Mid-Atlantic Slope Drainages (Daniels, et al. 2002), formulated for the larger watershed containing Quittapahilla Creek. Other relevant notes are also provided in Table 18. Fish species stocked by the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission are identified, as well as exotic and naturalized species. Most of the sunfishes (family Centrarchidae) found in eastern Pennsylvania are native west of the Appalachian Mountains and have either expanded their range via natural dispersal aided by anthropogenic activities, or were intentionally stocked and became established as naturally maintained populations. Benthic species are also noted since they share general habitat and sediment and contaminant exposure factors with benthic macroinvertebrates. The aforementioned IBI (Index of Biological Integrity) for Northern Mid-Atlantic Slope Drainages (Daniels, et al. 2002) was developed for a relatively large area including the Susquehanna watershed, which includes Quittapahilla Creek. Application of the IBI requires the calculation of various metrics and determination of ranks, with a final IBI score resulting. Higher IBI scores reflect higher biological integrity, which is a manifestation of habitat and water quality (Karr, et al. 1986). Table 19 presents the results of the IBI analysis of the fish data collected during this assessment. These results will be discussed in greater detail for each station and in the summary, but care must be utilized in comparing results due to the sampling difficulties discussed above.

78

3) Station by Station Summary of Existing Biological Communities Station Q1 Station Q1 is located downstream of the concrete flume section of Quittapahilla Creek immediately upstream from 22nd Street. The lower section of this reach where the samples were collected is relatively stable but receives a proportionally higher level of impervious surface runoff than the other main stem stations. The middle and upper sections of this reach, closer to the flume outfall, are very unstable. The adjacent stream banks and floodplain are forested. The benthic macroinvertebrate community is not very diverse and is populated with generally pollution tolerant organisms. A total of 126 organisms from at least 11 taxa were collected. Generally pollution tolerant midge larvae (Chironomidae) were the dominant organism, comprising nearly 32 % of the sample, followed by two types of moderately sized crustaceans, scuds (Amphipoda, genus Gammarus) and sowbugs (Isopoda, genus Caecidotea). EPT taxa were limited to relatively small numbers of moderately tolerant Hydropsychidae caddisflies. Collectors, both filtering and gathering, are by far the dominant functional feeding group at 90.5 % of the sampled organisms, suggesting high levels of fine particulate organic matter (FPOM). This may be due to increased levels of primary production, suggesting nutrient enrichment. Other functional feeding groups are minimally present. The biotic index is moderately high at 6.59, suggesting fair water quality conditions. The dominance of the relatively pollution tolerant midges, scuds, and sowbugs contribute to this high score. The fish community surprisingly produced the highest number of species of all Quittapahilla Creek stations. Ten species were collected, distributed among 157 total fish. The pollution tolerant blacknose dace (Rhincthys atratulus) was the most numerous fish with 44 individuals, with a nearly equal number (37) of small green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) also collected. Sunfish were the dominant group at this location, with 12 small bluegills (Lepomis macrochirus) and 4 small and moderate-sized pumpkinseeds (Lepomis gibbosus) also collected. One stocked rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) was collected at this station. This station exhibited the greatest evenness among species for all stations, with the dominant species accounting for 28 % of the total number of fish. The wide variety of fish species in terms of habitat, trophic level, and tolerance values suggests a balanced community, and the presence of multiple age classes suggests varied habitat conditions and relatively constant flows. This station produced an IBI score of 31. With extremely limited habitat available upstream due to the concrete flume, this area may function as a congregational area for fish attempting to migrate upstream. There may also be relatively high numbers of prey organisms available as export from the concrete channel.

79

Scientific Name Common Name Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Snitz Beck Bach Kill Onchorhynchus mykiss Rainbow Trout 1 1 Salmo trutta Brown Trout 1 1 3 4 1 Cyprinus carpio Carp 1 Notropis hudsonius Spottail Shiner 2 Margariscus margarita Pearl Dace 2 6 3 1 3 Rhinichthys atratulus Blacknose Dace 44 6 29 2 12 75 49 116 5 Rhinicthys cataractae Longnose Dace 1 3 2 Semotilus atromaculatus Creek Chub 9 1 2 1 25 3 1 Catostomus commersoni White Sucker 23 10 1 18 14 11 14 22 6 4 Noturus insignis Margined Madtom 2 Fundulus diaphanus Banded Killifish 1 5 Ambloplites rupestris Rock Bass 1 Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish 39 2 1 8 Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed 4 2 1 1 Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 12 2 5 Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth Bass 1 Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass 1 2 1 Etheostoma olmstedi Tessellated Darter 1 1 5 13 1 2 4 Cottus cognatus Slimy Sculpin 22 24 213 462 10 124 3 207 55 32

Total Species 10 9 5 8 6 8 12 7 7 7 Total Fish 157 53 219 516 34 191 106 295 189 49 Table 17 – 2004 Fish Survey Results Summary

80

Scientific Name Common Name Tolerance Value (1)

Tolerance Value (2)

Trophic Level (1)

Trophic Level (2) General Notes

Onchorhynchus mykiss Rainbow Trout Moderate Intolerant Piscivore Piscivore Stocked Salmo trutta Brown Trout Moderate Intolerant Piscivore Piscivore Stocked Cyprinus carpio Carp Tolerant Tolerant Omnivore Generalist Exotic Notropis hudsonius Spottail Shiner Moderate Moderate Insectivore Insectivore Margariscus margarita Pearl Dace Moderate Moderate Insectivore Insectivore Rhinichthys atratulus Blacknose Dace Tolerant Tolerant Generalist Generalist Rhinicthys cataractae Longnose Dace Intolerant Moderate Insectivore Insectivore Benthic Semotilus atromaculatus Creek Chub Tolerant Tolerant Generalist Generalist Catostomus commersoni White Sucker Tolerant Tolerant Omnivore Generalist Benthic Noturus insignis Margined Madtom Moderate Moderate Insectivore Insectivore Benthic Fundulus diaphanus Banded Killifish Tolerant Tolerant Insectivore Insectivore Ambloplites rupestris Rock Bass Moderate Moderate Piscivore Piscivore Naturalized Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Tolerant Tolerant Insectivore Generalist Naturalized Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed Moderate Moderate Insectivore Generalist Naturalized Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Moderate Tolerant Insectivore Generalist Naturalized Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth Bass Moderate Moderate Piscivore Piscivore Naturalized Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Moderate Moderate Piscivore Piscivore Naturalized Etheostoma olmstedi Tessellated Darter Moderate Moderate Insectivore Insectivore Benthic Cottus cognatus Slimy Sculpin Moderate Intolerant Insectivore Insectivore Benthic Table 18 – Fish Ecological Information Reference 1 EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Barbour, et al., 1999) Reference 2 An Index of Biological Integrity for Northern Mid-Atlantic Slope Drainages (Daniels, et al., 2002)

81

Metric Metric Description Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Snitz Beck Bach Kill

1* Total number of fish species**

9 (5)

8 (3)

4 (3)

7 (3)

6 (3)

8 (3)

10 (5)

7 (5)

5 (3)

6 (3)

2* Number of benthic-insectivorous species

2 (3)

2 (3)

1 (1)

2 (3)

2 (3)

3 (5)

3 (5)

3 (5)

2 (3)

1 (1)

3* Number of water column species

3 (3)

1 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)

0 (1)

2 (3)

2 (3)

0 (1)

1 (1)

4* Number of terete minnow species

2 (3)

3 (3)

1 (1)

2 (3)

0 (1)

1 (1)

2 (3)

0 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)

5 Percentage of dominant species

28 (5)

45.2 (3)

97.2 (1)

89.5 (1)

41.1 (3)

64.9 (1)

70.7 (1)

70.1 (1)

61.3 (1)

65.3 (1)

6 Percentage of individuals that are white suckers

14.6 (3)

18.8 (1)

0.4 (5)

3.4 (3)

41.1 (1)

0.05 (5)

13.2 (3)

7.4 (3)

3.1 (3)

8.1 (3)

7 Percentage of individuals that are generalists

84.7 (1)

47.1 (1)

2.2 (5)

10.0 (5)

55.8 (1)

25.1 (3)

89.6 (1)

26.7 (3)

66.1 (1)

30.6 (3)

8 Percentage of individuals that are insectivores

14.6 (1)

50.9 (5)

97.2 (5)

89.7 (5)

44.1 (3)

73.2 (5)

6.6 (1)

73.2 (5)

31.2 (3)

65.3 (5)

9 Percentage of individuals that are top carnivores

0.6 (1)

1.8 (3)

0.4 (1)

0 (1)

0 (1)

0 (1)

3.7 (3)

0 (1)

2.6 (3)

2.0 (3)

10* Fish per sample (fish/100 sq. meters)

18.7 (3)

6.3 (3)

19.6 (3)

46.3 (3)

2.4 (1)

13.7 (3)

31.0 (3)

88.0 (3)

56.0 (3)

14.6 (3)

11 Percentage of species with two age classes

20.0 (3)

22.2 (3)

20.0 (3)

37.5 (3)

16.6 (3)

50.0 (5)

25.0 (3)

42.8 (5)

42.8 (5)

28.5 (3)

12 Percentage of individuals with disease or anomalies

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

IBI Score 37 32 34 37 27 38 36 40 32 32 Table 19 – 2004 Fish Survey Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) * Values are based on maximum species richness line (MSRL) and maximum density line (MDL) graphs in Daniels, et al., 2002. ** Stocked species (trout) and species present only as young of year are not included.

82

Station Q2 Station Q2 is located on Quittapahilla Creek near Cleona Park, downstream of the confluence of Snitz Creek. The sampling reach is located immediately downstream of the Garfield Street bridge. Strong sewage-type odors were noticeable during both sampling events, possibly related to sewer line leakage or the discharge from the Lebanon Wastewater Treatment Plant which is located 0.75 miles upstream of the sampling site. However, trout were observed rising to surface prey in the pool upstream of the bridge and a fisherman conveyed his success in this reach. The benthic macroinvertebrate community appeared to be depressed, with the lowest number of organisms of any station, at 66 organisms in at least 9 taxa. Pollution tolerant blackfly (Simuliidae) larvae were the dominant taxon at 42.4%, followed by the relatively tolerant scuds and midge larvae. EPT taxa were limited to the moderately tolerant hydropsychid caddisfly Cheumatopsyche. Collectors are by far the dominant functional feeding group at 93.9 % of the sampled organisms, suggesting high levels of FPOM. This may be due to increased levels of primary production, suggesting nutrient enrichment. Other functional feeding groups are minimally present, and no predators were collected. The biotic index is moderately high at 6.57, suggesting fair water quality conditions. The dominance of the relatively pollution tolerant blackflies, scuds, and midges contribute to this high score. The fish community also appears to be depressed at this location, with only 53 fish of nine species collected. Slimy sculpins were the most dominant species at 45.2 % of all fish. White suckers (Catostomus commersoni) were the next most common species collected, with 10 fish of varying size classes. In addition to trout observed outside of the sampling reach, one stocked brown trout (Salmo trutta) was collected in this reach. This station produced the only spottail shiners (Notropis hudsonius) collected during this assessment, although this water column schooling species likely exists in the lower mainstem stations but were not collected due to water depth and clarity limitations. One longnose dace (Rhinicthys catarctae) was also collected, which is generally considered to be intolerant of pollution and limited to low temperature streams. This station produced an IBI score of 29. Station Q3 Station Q3 is located on Quittapahilla Creek in Quittie Creek Nature Park below the confluence of Beck Creek. The sampling reach is located immediately downstream of the old dam spillway. Septic odors were present during the fish sampling similar in intensity to station Q2, but were not noted during the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling. The old concrete dam spillway appears to be an impassable fish blockage during most flow conditions. This station produced 163 benthic macroinvertebrates from at least 10 taxa. As is found in all middle and lower mainstem stations, the dominant taxon by far is the scud Gammarus, which accounts for 73.6% of all organisms collected. Scuds are typically dominant in most limestone creeks in the region. The next most numerous organisms were midge larvae and the exotic invasive Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea). This

83

invasive hard-shell clam is often deleterious to native bivalve molluscs, none of which were found at any sampling location, and is very tolerant of most types of pollution. Collectors are the strongly dominant functional feeding group at 98.8 % of the sampled organisms, suggesting high levels of FPOM. This may be due to increased levels of primary production, suggesting nutrient enrichment. Other functional feeding groups are minimally present, and no predators were collected. The biotic index is moderately high at 6.04, suggesting fair water quality conditions. The dominance of the relatively pollution tolerant scuds, midges, and Asiatic clams contribute to the high score. The fish community was less dense and diverse than expected, with the fewest species produced of any station at five. Although 219 fish were collected, 213 of these (97.2 %) were the dominant slimy sculpin. Only one or two individuals of the other species present were collected, with one stocked brown trout. More trout would be expected in this reach due to stocking patterns and excellent pool habitat. However, angling pressure is likely high in this public park reach, and high turbid flows with excellent root and debris cover certainly impeded collection efficiency. This station produced an IBI score of 29. Station Q4 Station Q4 is located on Quittapahilla Creek below the confluence of Bachman Run and just below Brandt’s Mill and immediately upstream of the Route 422 Bridge. This sampling reach was generally more shallow than station Q3, with less available cover for large game fish. A side small side channel associated with the mill was included in this survey. Extensive beds of SAV exist throughout the lower part of this reach, comprised primarily of elodea (Elodea sp.). This station produced very dense numbers of benthic macroinvertebrates, with 805 organisms of at least 10 taxa. Scuds accounted for over half of the collected organisms, producing 58% of the total. The dense SAV beds provide ideal habitat for scuds, and also for sowbugs, which were surprisingly scarce (7 individuals). Other dominant taxa were blackflies (134 individuals) and hydropsychid caddisflies (116 individuals). Collectors are the strongly dominant functional feeding group at 96.6 % of the sampled organisms, suggesting high levels of FPOM. This may be due to increased levels of primary production, suggesting nutrient enrichment. Other functional feeding groups are minimally present, and no predators were collected. The biotic index is moderately high at 6.21, suggesting fair water quality conditions. The dominance of the relatively pollution tolerant scuds, blackflies, and hydropsychid caddisflies contribute to the high score. The fish community collected at this station is also very dense and heavily dominated by one species. 516 total fish were collected of 8 species, but 462 of these (89.5%) were slimy sculpins. The next most numerous species were blacknose dace (29 individuals) and white suckers (18 individuals). No trout were collected at this location. A single immature largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) was collected from the SAV beds. This station produced an IBI score of 31.

84

Station Q5 Station Q5 is located on Quittapahilla Creek immediately downstream from the Syner Road Bridge, but above the confluence of Killinger Creek and the primary discharge from the Millard Quarry operation. This station is located 1.5 miles downstream of the Annville Wastewater Treatment Plant, and sewage odors were again noticeable. Channel gradient is much less than upstream mainstem stations. In addition to sampling constraints due to water depth and turbidity, sampling was affected by deep unconsolidated soft sediments throughout much of the reach. The benthic macroinvertebrate community was comparatively diverse with several intolerant organisms present in small numbers. 219 organisms of 15 taxa were collected. Scuds were again dominant, accounting for 58.4 % of the organisms collected. Relatively tolerant fly larvae were then next most dominant taxa with similar numbers of midges (29) and blackflies (28). Interesting intolerant taxa present in low numbers include the mayfly Tricorythodes (Tricorythidae), and the caddisflies Glossosoma (Glossosomatidae) and Hydatophylax (Limnephellidae). Tricorythid mayflies are usually the most common limestone creek mayfly with a moderate tolerance value of 4, while the listed caddisflies have tolerance values of 0 and 2, respectively. Collectors are the strongly dominant functional feeding group at 93.2 % of the sampled organisms, suggesting high levels of FPOM. This may be due to increased levels of primary production, suggesting nutrient enrichment. Other functional feeding groups are minimally present. The biotic index is moderately high at 6.32, suggesting fair water quality conditions. The dominance of the relatively pollution tolerant scuds, midges, and blackflies contribute to the high score. The fish community was relatively depressed, with the lowest number of collected fish of any station. Only 34 fish of 6 species were collected in this reach. Very deep pools with significant woody debris combined with the high and turbid stream flows to certainly have a negative effect on collection efficiency. White suckers were the dominant species collected, with 14 individuals of varying sizes. One large white sucker (16”-18”) escaped after leaping between netters and disappearing into dense woody cover. Slimy sculpins were the next most numerous fish, with 10 individuals collected, but this is much lower than adjacent stations. The apparent scarcity of fish did not appear to be entirely related to collecting constraints. Relatively easy to sample vegetated flats upstream of the Syner Road bridge were spot sampled after completion of the survey with relatively few sculpins and limited other species found. This station produced the lowest IBI score of all stations at 21, partially due to the low fish density. Station Q6 Station Q6 is located on Quittapahilla Creek below the confluence of Killinger Creek. The sampling reach was initially located immediately upstream of the Palmyra-Bellegrove Road Bridge for the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling. At the time of the fish sampling, however, nearly all of this reach was unwadeable due to high flows, limited visibility, and steep banks with immediate drop-offs. Upon discovering these conditions the sampling reach was split with limited riffle and streambank sampling

85

through the original reach, and more intensive collection in a shallower side channel and vegetated streamside areas immediately below the bridge. The benthic macroinvertebrate community was relatively dense and diverse, with 386 organisms collected of at least 18 taxa. Scuds are again the dominant taxon, comprising 54.7 % of the sample, followed by midge larvae (51 individuals). The next most numerous organisms are hydropsychid caddisflies (29) and blackflies (25). Surprising low numbers of intolerant organisms continue a trend first seen at the upstream station Q5. This station produced the highest number of EPT taxa (5 families, 6 genera) along with Snitz Creek. Tricorythid mayflies are again present, along with greater numbers of the very intolerant caddisfly Glossosoma. Perhaps most significantly, the only mainstem collections of the generally intolerant stoneflies were made at this station, albeit in very small numbers. One small recently molted Allocapnia (Capniidae) was collected along with three Taeniopteryx (Taeniopterygidae) stonefly nymphs. Collectors are the strongly dominant functional feeding group at 90.9 % of the sampled organisms, suggesting high levels of FPOM. This may be due to increased levels of primary production, suggesting nutrient enrichment. Other functional feeding groups are minimally present. The biotic index is moderately high at 5.98, suggesting fair water quality conditions, but this is the second lowest biotic index score for all stations. The fish community was relatively diverse and dense, although sampling was significantly limited by high and turbid stream flows. The sampling reach was split between the selected sampling reach and a more accessible downstream reach as explained earlier. A total of 191 fish were collected from 8 species present. Slimy sculpins were the dominant species collected, comprising 64.9 % of the sample. Creek chubs (Semotilus atromaculatus) were the next most numerous species collected. Notable species included longnose dace, three of which were collected from the upper riffle in the sampling reach. Two juvenile Largemouth Bass and a juvenile smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) were collected among vegetation below the bridge. Larger predatory and other fishes are certainly present throughout this reach but were not able to be sampled. This station produced an IBI score of 33. Snitz Creek The Snitz Creek sampling station is located on the lower reach of the stream prior to its confluence with Quittapahilla Creek. This sampling location is located next to the Lebanon Wastewater Treatment Plant, but does not receive effluent. The sampling reach was located immediately below the Dairy Road box culvert. The benthic macroinvertebrate community was moderately dense and comparatively diverse. A total of 128 organisms of at least 18 taxa were collected. The dominant taxa were blackflies, which exhibited the lowest relative taxon dominance of all stations at 29.7 %. Midge larvae were also relatively dominant (30 individuals), with the next most numerous taxa scuds and Asiatic clams (13 individuals each). Although EPT taxa were limited in numbers, a wide variety was present. EPT taxa include the mayfly genera Acerpenna (Baetidae), Stenonema (Heptageniidae), and

86

Tricorythodes, the stonefly Taeniopteryx, and the hydropsychid caddisflies Cheumatopsyche and Hydropsyche. This station produced the highest number of EPT taxa (5 families, 6 genera), along with Quittapahilla Creek station Q6. Collectors are the strongly dominant functional feeding group at 92.2 % of the sampled organisms, suggesting high levels of FPOM. This may be due to increased levels of primary production, suggesting nutrient enrichment. Other functional feeding groups are minimally present, and no predators were collected. The biotic index is moderately high at 6.40, suggesting fair water quality conditions. The dominance of the relatively pollution tolerant scuds and midges contribute to the high score. The fish community of Snitz Creek produced the widest variety of fishes of any sampling station. A total of 106 fish of 12 species were collected in this reach. Blacknose dace were the dominant species collected, comprising 70.7 % of the sample. White suckers were then next most numerous species, with 14 suckers of varying age classes collected. Three stocked brown trout were collected, with at least one escape. One small carp (Cyprinus carpio) was also collected, with an immature largemouth bass, suggesting migration into Snitz Creek from mainstem fishes. The banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanus) was also collected at this station, and was only collected again during this study in the adjacent Beck Creek. This species is usually found throughout Coastal Plain low-gradient streams and bays, but is also found in disjunct populations in spring creeks. The high dissolved mineral content of limestone creeks may provide a physiological benefit similar to low salinity coastal waters (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1999). The wide variety of taxa and ecological preferences suggest a well-balanced fish community. This station produced an IBI score of 31. Beck Creek The Beck Creek sampling station is located near the lower reaches of Beck Creek prior to its confluence with Quittapahilla Creek. The sampling reach is located immediately downstream of the Bricker Lane culvert. The sampling reach flows through an open meadow with little woody plant growth. Stream edges appear to be recovering from past livestock abuse, and are stabilizing with dense reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and entrapped sediments. SAV is also prevalent throughout the channel and is primarily comprised of thick beds of elodea (Elodea sp.). The benthic macroinvertebrate community is very dense and is the most diverse among all stations. A total of 672 organisms from at least 21 taxa were collected. In contrast with all other stations, the dominant taxon is the aquatic sowbug Caecidotea, which comprised 40.8 % of the sample. Scuds were a distant second in numbers, with 75 scuds compared to 274 sowbugs. An unusually large ostracod (order Ostracoda) was collected in large numbers in this reach. These are micro-crustaceans known as seed shrimp that are normally not visible to the naked eye; however, these were 2-3 mm in length and are a mottled greenish-blue in color. This organism was only found elsewhere in the watershed in limited numbers (4 individuals) in the adjacent Bachman Run. Midge larvae, flatworms (Turbellaria), and Asiatic clams were the next most numerous taxa, with 57, 48 and 43 individuals, respectively. It should be noted that flatworms were not collected at any other station.

87

Although not numerous, a variety of EPT taxa were collected. The mayflies Ephemerella and Tricorythodes were collected along with the stonefly Taeniopteryx. The two common hydropsychid caddisfly genera were collected along with Triaenodes (Leptoceridae), which was additionally collected only in the adjacent Bachman Run. Collectors are the dominant functional feeding group at 86.8 % of the sampled organisms, suggesting high levels of FPOM. This may be due to increased levels of primary production, suggesting nutrient enrichment. Other functional feeding groups are minimally present, but a comparatively high proportion of predators (10.3 %) can be attributed to the classification of flatworms as predators. The collected flatworms may or may not be predaceous, and predatory forms are often scavengers. The biotic index is the highest of all stations at 7.11, suggesting fair water quality conditions. The dominance of the relatively pollution tolerant sowbugs and other taxa contribute to the high score. The fish community was very dense for such a small stream, but was not very diverse. A total of 295 fish of seven species were collected. The fish community was strongly dominated by slimy sculpins, which comprised 70.1 % of the sample. Blacknose dace were the next most numerous species, followed by white suckers, with 49 and 22 individuals, respectively. Species of interest include the banded killifish discussed in the previous station description, and the only watershed collection of the margined madtom (Noturus insignis). Madtoms are small catfish that function as benthic insectivores, a role similar to the dominant sculpins, which may limit madtom distribution in the watershed. The narrowing of the channel due to vegetative growth has also exposed rock substrate in the center of the channel, providing ideal madtom habitat (also known as “stonecats”). Although not collected during the survey, a carp of approximately 14 inches was observed being caught by a young angler below the Bricker Lane culvert. This station produced the highest IBI score of all stations at 35. Bachman Run The Bachman Run sampling station is located on the lower reaches of Bachman Run. The sampling reach is located immediately upstream of the Reigerts Lane culvert. The stream in this reach is intermittently shaded with scattered trees, but is generally open. A secondary culvert exists approximately 150 feet upstream of the main roadway culvert that supports only a footpath. SAV is common, primarily Elodea, and areas of flooded reed canary grass are present along the stream edges. The benthic macroinvertebrate community is dense and relatively diverse. A total of 332 organisms of at least 15 taxa were collected at this station. Scuds are again the dominant taxon, comprising 38.9 % of the sample, which is less skewed than many other samples. Midges are the next most numerous taxon, with 78 individuals, followed by sowbugs with 53 individuals. Although present throughout the watershed, sowbugs are most numerous in Bachman Run and the adjacent Beck Creek. The EPT taxa are also nearly identical between these two streams, with only the stonefly Taeniopteryx missing from Bachman Run (only one found in Beck Creek). Bachman Run and Beck Creek are the only stations to

88

produce the leptocerid caddisfly Triaenodes and the large ostracod discussed above. Water mites (Hydrocarina) were also collected only in Bachman Run and Beck Creek. Collectors are the dominant functional feeding group at 87.7 % of the sampled organisms, suggesting high levels of FPOM. This may be due to increased levels of primary production, suggesting nutrient enrichment. Other functional feeding groups are minimally present. The biotic index is moderately high at 6.66, suggesting fair water quality conditions. The dominance of the relatively pollution tolerant scuds, midges, and sowbugs contribute to the high score. The fish community is moderately dense with moderate diversity, with a total of 189 fish collected of seven species. Blacknose dace were the dominant fish species, comprising 61.3 % of the sample. Slimy sculpins were the next most numerous species, with 55 individuals collected. This station produced the most trout of all stations, with four brown trout and one rainbow trout collected, all apparently stocked fish. Several other trout escaped near the upper end of the sampling reach. Three trout were collected in a short run upstream of the secondary bridge among heavy streamside reed canary grass growth. This station produced an IBI score of 27, partially due to low numbers of water column and terete minnow species (only one of each). However, the high numbers of trout (all in excellent condition) may contribute to the lower numbers of small fishes. Killinger Creek The Killinger Creek sampling station is located on Killinger Creek just upstream from its confluence with Quittapahilla Creek. The sampling reach is heavily wooded, and in-stream vegetation is non-existent. This station is located below the Millard Quarry and accepts large quantities of sediment-laden wash effluent. Turbidity was very high during sampling events, and the substrate is noticeably covered with bluish-gray fine sediment. The benthic macroinvertebrate community is relatively depressed, but is surprisingly diverse with intolerant organisms present. A total of 99 organisms of at least 12 taxa were collected. Scuds are the dominant taxon, comprising 64.6 % of the sample. Midge larvae are the next most numerous taxon, with 12 individuals collected, and all other taxa were present in single digits. EPT taxa are low in numbers, but are moderately diverse. No mayflies were collected, but both Allocapnia and Taeniopteryx stoneflies were collected in low numbers. Two caddisfly taxa were collected, with the intolerant Glossosoma present with the moderately tolerant Cheumatopsyche. Collectors are the dominant functional feeding group at 87.8 % of the sampled organisms, suggesting high levels of FPOM. This may be due to increased levels of primary production, suggesting nutrient enrichment, which may be entrained with sediment particles. Other functional feeding groups are minimally present. The biotic index is the lowest of all stations at 5.67. The fish community is moderately diverse but appears to be depressed in density. A total of 49 fish were collected from 7 species present. The dominant fish is the slimy

89

sculpin, comprising 65.3 % of the sample. Other fishes were collected in single digits. A single stocked brown trout was collected from a small pool in this reach. A moderately sized rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris) was collected from the deepest pool in the sampling reach. This pool was framed by large boulders and possessed a coarse substrate, providing the ideal habitat for this species. Such habitat is limited throughout the watershed, but it is likely that scattered clusters of rock bass occur in similar habitats in the mainstem or in other tributaries. The ability of the sculpins to dominate in this high sediment load stream is impressive, especially given their benthic nature. This station produced an IBI score of 27. The presence of the rock bass and stocked trout may also have a negative effect on small fish numbers as with Bachman Run. Anecdotal evidence from local fishermen suggests relatively high numbers of larger fish are found in Killinger Creek compared to other Quittapahilla tributaries.

4) Ecological Assessment Summary The benthic macroinvertebrate and fish sampling programs were designed to provide general “snapshots” of biological conditions at representative locations throughout the Quittapahilla Creek watershed. Budgetary restraints limited the desired 20 stations to 10 stations and also limited the level of sampling intensity at each station and the level of detail possible in the lab. Limited available past studies were not standardized and differ in scope and location. Therefore, declarative statements and rigorous statistical analyses in regard to temporal and geographic trends cannot be made. However, the information collected does provide insights into current conditions throughout the watershed and may provide a baseline for future studies. Quittapahilla Creek appears to be in relatively good condition biologically given its past history and heavily impacted watershed. Past studies that have been reviewed depict severely impacted conditions throughout much of the main stem and in several tributaries. As previously noted, Bachman Run and Snitz Creek have been stocked since the early 1960’s. However, earlier trout stocking along the main stem Quittapahilla Creek conducted by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission was halted in 1967 due to high pollution levels. Recognition of improving conditions led the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission to begin stocking trout along the lower sections of Quittapahilla Creek (Swatara Creek – Clear Springs Road) in 1985. The Commission began stocking along Section 3 (Snitz Creek – Spruce Street) and Section 4 (Spruce Street – Quittie Park) in 1990 and 1992, respectively. Most of the previous studies reviewed for the Quittapahilla watershed were conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. These reports range from 1972 to 1987. More recent reports may exist but were not reviewed. Other reports reviewed were authored by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission or private consultants for industries, primarily for the former Bethlehem Steel plant in Lebanon. The early studies paint a very bleak picture of Quittapahilla Creek, with high levels of contaminants and limited biological communities dominated by pollution tolerant organisms. These early investigations were conducted prior to the enactment and enforcement of the Clean Water Act and subsequent regulations. Later studies show

90

improving conditions along the main stem Quittapahilla and in its tributaries. Benthic macroinvertebrate densities and diversity increase, with pollution intolerant taxa appearing. Limited available fish data show a similar trend. The several more intensive investigations along the main stem show similar trends of improving conditions and biological communities in a downstream direction. Exceptions are obvious downstream of the sewage treatment plants. A DER report from 1978 (DER, 1978) states “Downstream from the Lebanon sewage treatment plant the Quittapahilla follows a definite trend of decreasing organic impact.” This report also states that “The entire stream could be characterized a recovery zone.” This trend is supported by DER data reviewed for their water quality monitoring network station WQN-238. This station was located upstream of the confluence with Swatara Creek. Data for this station from 1972 to 1987 has been reviewed. In addition to all of the macroinvertebrate taxa found at upstream sampling locations, a number of generally intolerant taxa have been collected at station WQN-238. These additional taxa include snails (Lymnaeidae), true flies (Stratiomyidae and Rhagionidae), aquatic beetles (Psephenidae), fishflies and alderflies (Megaloptera, families Corydalidae and Sialidae), caddisflies (Hydroptilidae), mayflies (Heptageniidae and Oligoneuriidae), and stoneflies (Perlidae and Perlodidae). The DER 1972 also included fish data for the main stem Quittapahilla, which were less diverse at similarly situated stations than those collected for this assessment. Species collected in 1972 were all tolerant fishes that were also collected in 2004, in varying assemblages. The only additional species collected in the vicinity of a current sampling station, was the cutlips minnow (Exoglossum maxilingua), which was collected near station Q6. A sampling site near the current station Q2 (just below the Lebanon WWTP) yielded no fish. Common shiner (Luxilus cornutus) was reported collected at a sampling site upstream from the current station Q1, but was not collected at lower stations in 1972, nor at any station in 2004. A 1972 fish sampling station was located near the confluence of Quittapahilla Creek and Swatara Creek, well below current station Q6. Beyond the more common Quittapahilla Creek fishes and those additional species discussed above, five additional species were recorded. These fishes are the fallfish (Semotilus corporalis), bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), swallowtail shiner (Notropis procne), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), and johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum). The johnny darter record most likely refers to the tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) found throughout the watershed. The johnny darter is restricted to the western portion of Pennsylvania and the two species are very similar and were until recently synonomized (Cooper, 1980). The current general downstream trend in Quittapahilla Creek appears to be one of recovery from urban impacts. These impacts include the general urban impacts of imperviousness and stream channel manipulation in addition to documented and undocumented point discharges. Notable exceptions to the general trends are stations Q2 and Q5, which are the first stations downstream from municipal sewage treatment plants, and have generally lower numbers and taxa. Numbers of benthic macroinvertebrates and taxa generally increase in a downstream direction, with more sensitive taxa appearing only in the lowest reaches. Fish data does

91

not show a readily discernable trend, but this is somewhat attributable to sampling limitation in the lower mainstem reaches. The tributaries all appear to be in better overall condition than the receiving Quittapahilla Creek. Urban impacts and point discharges are much reduced in the tributary watersheds, but agricultural impacts increase. Notable exceptions include the several industrial plants on Snitz Creek and the quarry on lower Killinger Creek. Snitz Creek stands out for producing the highest diversity of fishes of any site, along with the highest diversity of mayfly taxa. Beck Creek and Bachman Run are very similar in biological community structure. Similarities include large numbers of sowbugs and nearly identical EPT taxa, and these are the only stations to produce large ostracods, water mites, and the leptocerid caddisfly Triaenodes. They do possess distinctions, however, with the sowbugs and copepods much more numerous in Beck Creek versus Bachman Run, and an apparently warmer water fish fauna in Beck Creek. Killinger Creek stands out as the most inhospitable on first glance with the heavy sediment load and deposition, but actually exhibits the lowest biotic index score and produced a wide variety of intolerant organisms.

5. Water Quality Assessment

a. Introduction Evaluating information and data from historic water quality monitoring can provide an understanding of how water quality conditions have changed with land use activities in a watershed. The available water quality data was utilized to evaluate historic conditions and determine trends along Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries. The current study included water quality monitoring of storm flow events at ten sites along Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries. The monitoring conducted by the consulting Team included installation of staff gauges at each site, installation of continuous-reading digital thermographs at each site; flow measurements and rating curve development for each site; sample collection and analysis for five storm events at each site. The storm water samples were analyzed for: temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, total acidity, total alkalinity, biochemical oxygen demand, nitrate, orthophosphate phosphorus, total phosphorus, total dissolved solids, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total nitrogen, total suspended solids, turbidity, hardness, copper, lead, zinc, and fecal coliform. Funded under a separate grant, bedload and suspended sediment load samples were collected at one station on the lower main stem Quittapahilla Creek and two tributary stations. The data was collected across a range of stream flow conditions and was used to develop a sediment rating curve for determining sediment transport and sediment yield characteristics for the system. The detailed results of the sediment discharge evaluation are presented in a separate report (Skelly & Loy, Inc. and Clear Creeks Consulting, 2005) and summarized in this section of the report. The additional monitoring effort allowed a baseline to be established for water quality conditions, comparison of baseflow and storm flow conditions, computation of pollutant loadings of key parameters, calibration of the water quality model to actual water quality conditions in the watershed, and establishment of a long-term monitoring program for

92

tracking improvements in water quality as restoration and management measures are implemented.

b. Historic Water Quality Conditions The water quality data compiled and reviewed indicates that the historic water quality monitoring has been relatively limited in scope and often part of specific pollution investigations. The available data was utilized, to the extent practical, to evaluate historic conditions and determine trends for the water quality along Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries. However, it appears that the information is either too dated and/or limited in scope to provide the characterization of existing conditions needed for this current assessment. These early investigations were conducted prior to the enactment and enforcement of the Clean Water Act and subsequent regulations. In addition to typical urban area inputs, industrial point discharges were certainly at peak levels. Later reports focus more on the Bethlehem Steel plant and discharges from the Lebanon and Annville sewage treatment plants. An industrial plant site in North Cornwall on upper Snitz Creek also has been investigated for detrimental discharges. Later studies show improving conditions along the mainstem Quittapahilla and in its tributaries. Benthic macroinvertebrate densities and diversity increase, with pollution intolerant taxa appearing. Limited available fish data show a similar trend. The several more intensive investigations along the mainstem show similar trends of improving conditions and biological communities in a downstream direction. Exceptions are obvious downstream of the sewage treatment plants. A DER report from 1978 (DER, 1978) states “Downstream from the Lebanon sewage treatment plant the Quittapahilla follows a definite trend of decreasing organic impact.” This report also states that “The entire stream could be characterized a recovery zone.” This trend is supported by DER data reviewed for their water quality monitoring network station WQN-238. This station was located upstream of the confluence with Swatara Creek. Data for this station from 1972 to 1987 has been reviewed. More recently, the Biology Department of Lebanon Valley College has been conducting water quality monitoring under baseflow conditions at a number of locations along Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries. The Biology Department’s water quality monitoring was conducted in 1999, 2000, and 2001 at one site on Snitz Creek (Dairy Road); four sites on Beck Creek (Bricker Lane, Royal Road, Reist Road, and Oak St); five sites on Bachman (two sites along Rte. 241 near headwaters, Fontana Rd., Bucher Lane, and Reigerts Lane), and one site on the Quittapahilla Creek (Glen Road). The parameters monitored included temperature, pH, turbidity, nitrate-nitrogen, orthophosphate, and alkalinity. This water quality data has been compiled for review and evaluation

c. Existing Water Quality Conditions Which aquatic organisms will inhabit a particular reach of stream is influenced by water quality conditions. Temperature, pH and the concentrations of dissolved gases and solids affect an individual organism’s, as well as a population’s survival, growth rate,

93

spawning success, embryonic development, susceptibility to parasites and disease, ability to compete for resources and to avoid predation, and spatial distribution. Some species, such as Brown Trout, are particularly sensitive to poor water quality conditions. Evaluating existing water quality was an objective of the current study.

1) Baseflow Water Quality Monitoring As noted the Biology Department of Lebanon Valley College has been conducting water quality monitoring under baseflow conditions at a number of locations along Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries since 1999. The water quality monitoring was conducted at one site on Snitz Creek (Dairy Road); four sites on Beck Creek (Bricker Lane, Royal Road, Reist Road, and Oak St); five sites on Bachman (two sites along Rte. 241 near headwaters, Fontana Rd., Bucher Lane, and Reigerts Lane), and two sites on Quittapahilla Creek (Palmyra-Bellegrove Road and Glen Road). The parameters monitored included temperature, pH, turbidity, nitrate-nitrogen, orthophosphate, and alkalinity. This water quality data was reviewed and evaluated.

2) Storm Flow Water Quality Monitoring The current study included water quality monitoring of storm flow events conducted by the consulting team at ten monitoring stations throughout the watershed (Plate 6). The storm flow water quality data in conjunction with the baseflow water quality data established a baseline for water quality conditions. It also allowed calibration of the water quality model to actual water quality conditions in the watershed and established a long-term monitoring program for tracking improvements in water quality as restoration and management measures are implemented. The information was utilized in conjunction with biological survey data and geomorphic assessment data to identify and prioritize problems along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek and its major tributaries. The monitoring effort included installation of staff gages at ten monitoring stations, installation of continuous reading temperature loggers at each site; flow measurements and rating curve development for each site; sample collection and analysis for five storm events at each site. Staff gages were installed at the ten monitoring sites. Discharge was measured each time water samples were collected. Discharge was determined by the velocity-area method by: dividing the wetted channel cross-section at the site into intervals; measuring mean velocity, depth, and width for each interval; determining interval discharges; and summing the interval discharges to determine total discharge. A Marsh-McBirney electromagnetic current meter was used to measure velocity. Gage height was determined from the staff gauge and recorded along with velocity, depth, width, and discharge measurements. In June 2003 continuous reading temperature data loggers were installed at the ten stations. StowAway® TidbitTM Weatherproof and Waterproof Temperature Loggers were used to measure and record water temperature. Sampling was conducted under storm flow conditions for five storm events per site at the ten monitoring stations from June through December 2003. During each sampling period, discharge was measured, field measurements were taken and grab samples collected, preserved and transported to the lab for analyses. Water samples were collected, handled, preserved, and analyzed utilizing standard procedures consistent

94

with USEPA protocol. Measurements taken in the field included; temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductance. Laboratory analyses of the grab samples included; total acidity, total alkalinity, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate nitrogen, total phosphorus, orthophosphate phosphorus, dissolved solids, total suspended solids, turbitiy, hardness, copper, lead, zinc, and fecal coliform.

3) Findings of the Water Quality Monitoring Program Table 20 shows that along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek the levels of nearly all parameters measured fall into the range of concentrations considered problematic for limestone streams. The most important parameters are discussed in this section. Total acidity expresses the total quantity of various acids present in a stream. Acids may derive from natural sources such as the decay of plant material and groundwater flowing in contact with certain rock formations. Human sources include acid rain, coal mine drainage, industrial discharges, and the decomposition of organic wastes. Increasing acidity can mobilize toxic metals making them more readily available for uptake by aquatic organisms. The normal range for limestone streams is 0 – 2.6 mg/l. Although results were not consistent, during some storms the concentrations of total acidity along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries ranged from 6 – 10 mg/l, falling well above the 3.4 mg/l value considered problematic for limestone streams. Total alkalinity, the opposite of acidity, is an expression of a stream’s buffering capacity or ability to minimize shifts in pH caused by the introduction of acids from natural or human sources. As such, it also controls the availability of toxic metals. The normal value for limestone streams is greater than 20.0 mg/l. The USEPA recommends that alkalinity not be reduced more than 25%. The concentrations of total alkalinity along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries ranged from 71 – 196 mg/l. The maximum levels were consistent for all the mainstem and tributary stations. The lowest minimum values were measured at the upper mainstem stations with concentrations increasing in a downstream direction. Organic wastes, such as sewage, manure, food processing wastes, entering streams are decomposed by bacteria. In the process, the bacteria use oxygen in the water to oxidize the wastes. The decomposition of large amounts of organic wastes can cause and oxygen deficits, significantly reducing the amount of oxygen available to fish and macroinvertebrates. Biochemical oxygen demand or BOD is a measure of the amount of oxygen consuming organic material. Normal concentrations for unpolluted streams range from 1 – 3 mg/l. Concentrations greater than 5.0 mg/l indicate a potential waste problem. The BOD concentrations along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries ranged from 2.2 – 7.9 mg/l. The highest values measured along the mainstem were at Stations Q2 (immediately downstream of the Lebanon WWTP) and Q3. The tributaries all showed elevated levels with the highest concentrations measured at the Bachman Run and Killinger Creek stations. Bachman Run consistently exceeded the BOD levels for unpolluted streams.

95

Plate 6 – Water Quality Monitoring Stations

96

Two gases (molecular nitrogen and nitrous oxide) and five forms of non-gaseous, combined nitrogen (amino and amide groups, ammonium, nitrate, and nitrite) are important in the nitrogen cycle. The amino and amide groups are found in soil organic matter and as constituent of plant and animal protein. The ammonium ion is released from the decomposition of proteinaceous organic matter and urea. It is also synthesized in industrial processes involving atmospheric nitrogen fixation. The nitrate ion is formed by the complete oxidation of ammonium ions by microorganisms in soil or water. Growing plants assimilate nitrate and ammonium and convert them to protein. Nitrate is the most readily available form of nitrogen for plant growth. Ammonium also serves as a nutrient for plant growth. However, it can be toxic to aquatic life, particularly in its un-ionized form as ammonia. The nitrite ion is formed from nitrate or the ammonium ion by certain microorganisms found in soil, water, sewage and the digestive tract. Nitrite can also be toxic to aquatic life. In oxygenated natural water systems nitrite is rapidly oxidized to nitrate. The major sources of nitrogen to streams are municipal and industrial wastewater; septic systems; run-off from fertilized farm fields, lawns, and golf courses, livestock wastes; leachate from solid waste disposal in dumps or landfills; atmospheric deposition; automobile exhausts and other combustion processes; and losses from natural sources such as mineralization of soil organic matter. Because these nutrients can have such a significant impact on aquatic systems it was important to measure the levels of key nitrogen forms as part of the monitoring program. Natural concentrations of total nitrogen range from 0 – 0.011 mg/l. Nitrate levels in unpolluted streams range from 0 – 2.35 mg/l. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen or organic nitrogen which is measure of complex organics from sewage, livestock waste, etc was included. Normal levels of these organic nitrogen range from 0 – 0.05 mg/l. Concentrations of the nitrogen compounds measured under storm flow conditions along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries consistently exceeded the values considered problematic for limestone streams. Concentrations of total nitrogen measured along the mainstem ranged from 2.66 – 6.94 mg/l and were consistently high at all stations. With the exception of Snitz Creek, maximum concentrations of total nitrogen were consistently higher along the tributaries than along the mainstem. Along the mainstem TKN concentrations ranged from 1.0 – 5.3 mg/l with the highest levels measured at Station Q1. TKN concentrations were elevated along the tributaries, with highest concentrations measured along Beck Creek and Bachman Run. Nitrate concentrations along the mainstem ranged from 0.96 – 6.03 mg/l with a general trend of decreasing minimum and maximum concentrations in a downstream direction. Phosphorus enters streams from natural sources, such as the decomposition of plant and animal matter and the dissolution of rock formations by groundwater, as well as human sources, such as wastewater discharges, run-off from fertilized farm fields, lawns and golf courses, as well as atmospheric deposition. Phosphorus is a nutrient for plant growth. Excessive levels can cause eutrophication and stimulate massive blooms of algae and submerged rooted weeds. As the plants die off, oxygen is used in the decomposition process causing oxygen deficits that can impact fish and macroinvertebrates. This is of particular concern for lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries such as the Chesapeake Bay. Normal concentrations of phosphorus for limestone streams range from 0 – 0.07 mg/l. Concentrations of total phosphorus and orthophosphate measured under storm flow conditions along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries consistently exceeded the values considered problematic for limestone streams. Concentrations of

97

total phosphorus measured along the main stem ranged from 0.11 – 0.52 mg/l and were consistently high at all stations. With the exception of Snitz Creek, maximum concentrations of total phosphorus were consistently higher along the tributaries than along the mainstem. Bachman Run had the highest measured concentration (0.62 mg/l). Concentrations of orthophosphate measured along the mainstem ranged from 0.03 – 0.18 mg/l and were consistently high at all stations. The maximum concentrations of total phosphorus ranged from 0.08 – 0.44 mg/l and 0.04 – 0.22 mg/l for Bachman Run and Killinger Creek, respectively and were consistently higher than along the mainstem. Suspended sediment is that portion of a stream’s sediment load that is fine enough to be carried in suspension in the water column. This includes all particles in water which will not pass through a filter of 0.45 microns (0.000018 inches). Particles that are smaller are considered part of the dissolved fraction of sediments. Suspended sediment enters waterways from a wide variety of natural sources including weathering of soils and bedrock, landslides and volcanic activity, and stream bank erosion. Human sources include run-off from cultivated land, livestock grazing in streams and riparian areas, urban land development and runoff from urban areas, mining, timber harvesting, and the accelerated stream channel erosion and sedimentation resulting from these land use activities. Suspended sediment in runoff from cropland and construction sites, and eroded from banks damaged by livestock grazing and urban runoff deposits on the streambed, smothering bottom dwelling insects and fish eggs buried in the gravel substrate. Sediments carried in suspension can irritate or clog the gills of adult fish. Sediment can have an effect on the physical habitat by causing streambed and bank erosion and sedimentation that alter channel characteristics (e.g., dimension, pattern, slope) and microhabitat features (e.g., depth, substrate, cover, and pool/riffle ratios). The USEPA recommends that suspended sediments not exceed 25 mg/l. The concentrations of suspended sediment in stable Piedmont and Ridge and Valley limestone streams range from 0 – 10 mg/l. Concentrations of suspended sediments measured under storm flow conditions along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries consistently exceeded the values considered problematic for limestone streams. Concentrations of suspended sediment measured along the mainstem ranged from 9.0 – 873 mg/l and were consistently high at all stations. Mainstem Station Q1 had the highest maximum concentration of suspended sediment for all stations. Concentrations of suspended sediment measured along the tributaries ranged from 7.0 – 820 mg/l and were consistently high at all stations. Killinger Creek had the highest maximum concentration of suspended sediment for all tributary stations. Dissolved oxygen and pH are critical water quality parameters relative to maintaining viable populations of fish and macroinvertebrates. All aquatic organisms have an optimum range in which they function best. Outside this optimum range the organisms are stressed and their behavior and ability to function is impaired. They also have tolerance limits beyond which survival is unlikely. Normal dissolved oxygen concentrations for limestone streams range from 9.0 – 12.0 mg/l. Normal pH ranges from 6.8 – 8.1. Dissolved oxygen concentrations measured along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek ranged from 5.3 – 10.9 mg/l. The minimum concentrations fell in the range of values

98

considered problematic for limestone streams. Q1, Q4, Q5, and Q6 had the lowest minimum concentrations. With the exception of Bachman Run all of the tributaries fell within the normal range of values for limestone streams. With the exception of Station Q6, the pH values measured along the mainstem fell within the normal range of values for this parameter. The pH values measured along Beck Creek and Bachman Run fell within the normal range. The pH values measured along Snitz Creek and Killinger Creek fell within the suspect range for limestone streams. The water quality data confirm that Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries have been impacted by nutrient and organic enrichment as well as sedimentation associated with urban runoff, mining, and agricultural operations including cultivation for crops and livestock grazing.

4) Evaluation of Sediment Discharge As noted, the 2000 TMDL report for Quittapahilla Creek points to sediment as a major cause of impairment. In 2003 funding was obtained from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, through their Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program to evaluate the sediment yield characteristics of the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed, During the period of fall 2003 to spring 2005 bedload and suspended sediment load samples were collected at one station on the lower main stem Quittapahilla Creek (Palmyra-Bellegrove Bridge), one station on the upper main stem (22nd Street Bridge) and one tributary stations on Beck Creek (Bricker Road Bridge). The data was collected across a range of stream flow conditions and was used to develop a sediment rating curve for determining sediment transport and sediment yield characteristics for the system. The detailed results of the sediment discharge evaluation are presented in a separate report (Skelly & Loy, Inc. and Clear Creeks Consulting, 2005) and summarized below. In comparing suspended sediment to bedload transport modes, at all discharge levels, the daily tonnage of sediment yield transported in the suspended mode is well in excess of the daily tonnage transported by bedload. On an annualized basis, the suspended sediment transport mode accounts for more than 90% of the total sediment yield from the Quittapahilla Creek watershed. Based on the mean daily discharge values used in this study, the overall annualized sediment yield for the Quittapahilla Creek at the Palmyra Bellegrove Road gage site is 11,650 tons/year (23,300,000 lbs./yr.). Based on a drainage area of 74.2 square miles for the gage location, this calculates to approximately 157 tons/square mile each year. At bankfull flow conditions, 20% of the total sediment yield estimated for the Palmyra Bellegrove site is contributed from the Upper Main Stem Quittapahilla Creek portion of the watershed. Less than 1% of the total sediment yield is contributed from Beck Creek.

99

100

101

5) Water Quality Modeling and Analysis

a) General Overview Rationale and Methodology An assessment of various pollutant loads generated within sub-areas of the Quittapahilla Creek watershed was completed using a GIS-based watershed modeling tool developed by Evans et al. (2006) at Penn State’s Environmental Resources Research Institute. This tool (called AVGWLF) facilitates the use of the GWLF watershed model via a GIS software (ArcView) interface, and is currently being used by the Pennsylvania DEP to help support its ongoing TMDL projects within Pennsylvania. As explained later, this modeling application was further refined for use in this particular project. The core watershed simulation model for this application is the GWLF (Generalized Watershed Loading Function) model developed by Haith and Shoemaker (1987). The GWLF model provides the ability to simulate runoff, sediment, and nutrient (N and P) loadings from a watershed given variable-size source areas (e.g., agricultural, forested, and developed land). It also has algorithms for calculating septic system loads, and allows for the inclusion of point source discharge data. It is a continuous simulation model that uses daily time steps for weather data and water balance calculations. Monthly calculations are made for sediment and nutrient loads, based on the daily water balance accumulated to monthly values. GWLF is considered to be a combined distributed/lumped parameter watershed model. For surface loading, it is distributed in the sense that it allows multiple land use/cover scenarios, but each area is assumed to be homogenous in regard to various attributes considered by the model. Additionally, the model does not spatially distribute the source areas, but simply aggregates the loads from each area into a watershed total; in other words there is no spatial routing. For sub-surface loading, the model acts as a lumped parameter model using a water balance approach. No distinctly separate areas are considered for sub-surface flow contributions. Daily water balances are computed for an unsaturated zone as well as a saturated sub-surface zone, where infiltration is simply computed as the difference between precipitation and snowmelt minus surface runoff plus evapotranspiration. With respect to the major processes simulated, GWLF models surface runoff using the SCS-CN approach with daily weather (temperature and precipitation) inputs. Erosion and sediment yield are estimated using monthly erosion calculations based on the USLE algorithm (with monthly rainfall-runoff coefficients) and a monthly composite of KLSCP values for each source area (e.g., land cover/soil type combination). A sediment delivery ratio based on watershed size and a transport capacity based on average daily runoff is then applied to the calculated erosion to determine sediment yield for each source area. Within AVGWLF, streambank erosion is calculated using a “stream power” approach similar to that described by Dietrich et al. (1999) and Prosser et al. (2001). Surface nutrient losses are determined by applying dissolved N and P coefficients to surface runoff and a sediment coefficient to the yield portion for each agricultural source area. Point source discharges can also contribute to dissolved losses and are specified in terms of kilograms per month. Manured areas, as well as septic systems, can also be considered. Urban nutrient inputs are all assumed to be solid-phase, and the model uses an exponential accumulation and washoff function for these loadings. Sub-surface losses are calculated using dissolved N and P coefficients for shallow groundwater contributions to stream nutrient loads, and the sub-surface sub-model only considers a single, lumped-

102

parameter contributing area. Evapotranspiration is determined using daily weather data and a cover factor dependent upon land use/cover type. Finally, a water balance is performed daily using supplied or computed precipitation, snowmelt, initial unsaturated zone storage, maximum available zone storage, and evapotranspiration values. For execution, the model requires three separate input files containing transport-, nutrient-, and weather-related data. The transport (TRANSPRT.DAT) file defines the necessary parameters for each source area to be considered (e.g., area size, curve number, etc.) as well as global parameters (e.g., initial storage, sediment delivery ratio, etc.) that apply to all source areas. The nutrient (NUTRIENT.DAT) file specifies the various loading parameters for the different source areas identified (e.g., number of septic systems, urban source area accumulation rates, manure concentrations, etc.). The weather (WEATHER.DAT) file contains daily average temperature and total precipitation values for each year simulated. In utilizing the AVGWLF interface, the user is prompted to identify required GIS files and to provide other information related to “non-spatial” model parameters (e.g., beginning and end of the growing season; and the months during which manure is spread on agricultural land). This information is subsequently used to automatically derive values for required model input parameters which are then written to the TRANSPORT.DAT and NUTRIENT.DAT input files needed to execute the GWLF model. Also accessed through the interface is a statewide weather database that contains twenty-five years of temperature and precipitation data for seventy-eight weather stations around Pennsylvania. This database is used to create the necessary WEATHER.DAT input file for a given watershed simulation.

b) Refinements to Modeling Approach As stated above, AVGWLF is currently being used by DEP to support its TMDL assessments as mandated by the USEPA. This approach was refined, however, to allow for more detailed analysis of pollutant loads in the Quittapahilla Creek watershed. Specifically, more detailed data sets were used and a limited amount of calibration work was undertaken to more accurately reflect local landscape conditions. Additionally, information on the presence of existing agricultural best management practices (BMPs) and stream protection activities were accounted for in estimating loads in each sub-area.

c) Substitution of More Detailed Data With respect to enhanced GIS data sets, more detailed GIS data layers for soils, land use/cover, and topography were used for this project than are typically used with AVGWLF for statewide TMDL assessments. For example, Figure 9 shows the more detailed “SURGO” soils data set used in the Quittapahilla Creek watershed in comparison to the more generalized “STATSGO” soils data typically used with AVGWLF.

103

Figure 9 – Comparison of generalized STATSGO (upper) versus detailed SURGO (lower) soils data. Similarly, digital elevation data with a spatial resolution of 30 meters was used instead of the 100-meter data normally used. Finally, the digital land use/cover data set normally used was updated utilizing recently available digital ortho-photos to better represent current land use/cover conditions in the area (Figure 10).

104

Figure 10 – Comparison of old (upper) and updated (lower) land use/cover data.

105

Additionally, instead of using information on farm animal density compiled at the zip code boundary level as typically used in AVGWLF when run for most other statewide applications, estimates of animal density in this case were actually based on more local information. Specifically, available digital ortho-photos for the area were used to identify the locations of dairy farms in each sub-watershed and to estimate typical herd sizes (Figure 11).

Figure 11 – Digital ortho-photos with dairy farms (in white) superimposed on them.

d) Model Calibration Over the last half-dozen years, a very limited number of stream samples have been collected by various project participants on nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment concentrations at or near the mouth of the Quittapahilla Creek watershed. Flow data were also available for a gaging station maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey near the mouth of the watershed up until September of 1994. For the purposes of this study, this information was used to derive nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for the watershed during the period 3/90 to 9/94. The AVGWLF model was run to generate simulated loads for the same time period and adjustments were iteratively made to various model parameters until a reasonably good fit was obtained between observed and simulated loads. Plots of the load comparisons are shown in Figures 12 through 14. The results obtained, though less than perfect, were believed to be fairly good given the relatively sparse data used to generate the “observed” load estimates. In particular, it is felt that the simulated loading rates for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment do, in fact, represent local loading rates fairly well.

106

Figure 12 – Comparison of observed vs. simulated nitrogen loads.

Figure 13 – Comparison of observed vs. simulated phosphorus loads.

107

Figure 14 – Comparison of observed vs. simulated sediment loads.

e) Model Application and Results

For this particular study, the AVGWLF modeling tool was run for each of twenty-one sub-basin comprising the larger Quittapahilla Creek watershed (see Figure 15 and Table 20). In each case, weather data for a period of ten years (1988-1998) was used to calculate mean annual sediment, total nitrogen and total phosphorus loads. To properly account for the effect of existing agricultural BMPs and stream protection activities, information on the type and extent of these activities was compiled by the local watershed group and subsequently used within AVGWLF via the “scenario editor” function. The extent of such activities is summarized by sub-watershed in Figure 16. The calculated mean annual loads for each sub-basin (in both total and per unit area loads) are shown in Table 21. The stream names associated with each of the numbered sub-watershed are given in Table 22. For the entire Quittapahilla, the mean annual total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and sediment loads were approximately 1,201,051 lb/yr., 31,451 lb/yr., and 20,130,651 lb/yr., respectively. The corresponding mean annual loading rates for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment are approximately 24.4 lb/ac, 0.64 lb/ac, and 423.8 lb/ac, respectively.

108

Figure 15 – Location of modeling sub-basins.

109

Basin Number

Name Based on Principal Stream

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Mouth of Quittapahilla Creek

Lower Quittapahilla Creek

Confluence of Killinger and Quittapahilla Creeks

Middle Killinger Creek

Upper Killinger Creek – Gingrich Run

Upper Killinger Creek

Buckholder Run

Middle Gingrich Run

Tributary to Gingrich Run

Upper Gingrich Run

Lower Bachman Run

Quittapahilla near confluence of Beck and Snitz Creeks

Lower Beck Creek

Lower Snitz Creek

Brandywine Creek

Middle Quittapahilla Creek

Upper Quittapahilla Creek

Upper Bachman Run

Upper Beck Creek

Upper Snitz Creek

Tributary to Snitz Creek

Table 21 – Modeling Sub-Basin Numbers and Names

110

Figure 16 – Summary of existing BMP usage within the watershed.

111

Basin Size (acres)

N-Total (lbs.)

N-Rate (lbs./acre)

P-Total (lbs.)

P-Rate (lbs./acre)

S-Total (lbs.)

S-Rate (lbs./acre)

1 2495 23,333.31 9.35 899.64 0.36 843,412.5 338.1

2 857 12,458.25 14.54 445.41 0.53 465,255 542.8

3 4419 235,776.2 53.36 6,786.99 1.54 3,143,889 711.5

4 2628 49,233.24 18.73 1,292.13 0.49 1,274,490 485.0

5 1635 39,065.99 23.89 1,100.3 0.67 1,187,613 726.3

6 968 41,063.72 42.41 480.7 0.50 332,734.5 343.6

7 529 5,746.23 10.87 222.71 0.42 211,680 400.5

8 1109 20,166.93 18.18 555.66 0.50 629,086.5 567.2

9 299 820.26 2.74 61.74 0.21 85,995 287.7

10 598 4,105.71 6.87 143.33 0.24 187,866 314.3

11 2285 45,994.1 20.13 981.23 0.43 744,187.5 325.7

12 3767 57,204.32 15.19 1,761.8 0.47 1,844,482.5 489.7

13 4298 102,514.9 23.85 1,960.25 0.46 1,122,786 261.2

14 4080 275,733.1 67.57 6,681.15 1.64 1,613,839.5 395.5

15 2213 40,430.88 18.27 749.7 0.34 592,263 267.6

16 7291 120,659.8 16.55 3,924.9 0.54 3,293,829 451.7

17 2225 33,381.5 15.00 877.59 0.39 714,640.5 321.1

18 2650 42,243.39 15.94 1,067.22 0.40 1,113,084 420.0

19 906 4,284.32 4.73 145.53 0.16 91,287 100.7

20 2302 9,704.21 4.22 476.28 0.21 466,357.5 202.6

21 1526 37,143.23 24.33 829.08 0.54 841,869 551.5

Total 49,101 1,201,064 24.47 31,443.34 0.64 20,800,647 423.81

Table 22 – Load Results for Quittapahilla Creek Watershed by Sub-Basin

112

The values cited above indicate relatively high loading rates in comparison with other watersheds in Pennsylvania. This is not surprising given that the Quittapahilla Creek watershed is dominated by urban development and agricultural activities. Disturbed areas (i.e., mines and quarries) also appear to contribute substantial loads, particularly with respect to sediment. For comparison purposes, data compiled previously by Evans, et al. (2002 and 2003) on the characteristics and pollutant loads for watersheds throughout Pennsylvania are shown in Tables 23 and 24. As can be seen from Table 24, the estimated nutrient and sediment loads for the Quittapahilla are similar to those calculated for watersheds such as the Codorus, Conestoga, Conewago, Neshaminy and Swatara which are somewhat similar in composition with respect to developed areas, agricultural activities, and point source pollution discharges. Within the Quittapahilla Creek watershed as a whole, the predominant sources of nitrogen include agricultural activities (including livestock operations such as dairy farms), disturbed areas (e.g., mines and quarries), point source discharges, and septic systems. The principal sources of phosphorus include agricultural activities, disturbed areas, and point source discharges. The primary sources of sediment appear to be agricultural activities, disturbed areas, and streambank erosion.

113

Watershed

Name

Size

(acres)

Percent

Developed

Percent Wooded

Percent Water

Percent

Disturbed

Percent

Agriculture

Beech Creek

Blacklick Creek

Brodhead Creek

Casselman Creek

Chartiers Creek

Clarion River

Clearfield Creek

Codorus Creek

Conestoga Creek

Conewago Creek

Conodoguinet Creek

Driftwood Branch

Fishing Creek

Juniata R./Raystown Br.

Kettle Creek

Loyalsock Creek

Lycoming Creek

Neshaminy Creek

Oil Creek

Penns Creek

Pine Creek

Redbank Creek

Schuylkill River

Sherman Creek

Slippery Rock Creek

Spring Creek

Swatara Creek

Tioga Creek

Towanda Creek

Tunkhannock Creek

Yellow Breeches Creek

Young Woman Creek

109,181

246,963

183,553

204,804

175,405

527,497

241,353

174,273

303,744

326,715

324,367

190,104

231,548

460,165

157,297

278,480

137,300

131,792

208,888

198,556

630,630

340,213

224,279

154,269

260,127

54,935

365,545

282,692

176,328

264,777

137,490

29,549

0.6

2.5

4.4

1.6

17.5

1.1

1.0

9.0

9.7

2.7

5.0

0.4

0.6

1.2

0.0

0.2

0.5

20.2

1.0

0.3

0.2

2.2

3.8

0.2

1.5

6.1

5.7

0.4

0.3

1.5

6.1

0.0

90.4

73.9

87.3

61.2

48.9

91.8

80.6

27.2

25.0

32.4

32.8

96.5

68.8

64.6

95.9

88.6

85.6

37.6

76.9

70.3

88.5

70.9

74.8

69.2

57.2

44.0

43.8

64.2

68.6

68.0

56.2

99.7

0.1

0.6

0.1

0.2

0.0

0.4

0.6

0.1

0.1

1.0

0.8

0.1

0.1

0.4

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.5

0.3

0.2

1.8

0.1

1.1

0.3

0.9

0.1

0.1

1.9

0.1

0.1

5.0

2.3

0.0

2.2

1.0

1.1

3.9

0.5

0.9

0.2

0.1

0.4

0.3

0.5

0.7

1.0

0.4

1.1

0.3

0.2

0.5

1.8

5.0

0.2

1.4

0.1

0.8

1.2

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.0

3.9

20.7

8.2

34.8

32.6

5.7

13.9

63.2

64.3

63.8

61.3

2.6

30.2

33.4

3.2

10.1

13.4

41.1

21.8

28.7

10.5

24.9

14.6

30.3

38.7

50.0

48.8

34.1

31.0

28.6

37.2

0.2

Table 23 – Land use/cover characteristics of selected Pennsylvania watersheds

114

Watershed

Name

Total

Nitrogen

Total

Phosphorus

Sediment

Beech Creek

Blacklick Creek

Brodhead Creek

Casselman Creek

Chartiers Creek

Clarion River

Clearfield Creek

Codorus Creek

Conestoga Creek

Conewago Creek

Conodoguinet Creek

Driftwood Branch

Fishing Creek

Juniata R./Raystown Br.

Kettle Creek

Loyalsock Creek

Lycoming Creek

Neshaminy Creek

Oil Creek

Penns Creek

Pine Creek

Redbank Creek

Schuylkill River

Sherman Creek

Slippery Rock Creek

Spring Creek

Swatara Creek

Tioga Creek

Towanda Creek

Tunkhannock Creek

Yellow Breeches Creek

Young Woman Creek

1.41

3.02

2.89

8.92

5.49

2.44

3.86

14.07

30.69

16.71

13.95

2.61

5.49

7.72

2.89

3.35

2.90

11.33

2.92

8.08

2.83

3.57

8.62

5.10

4.32

14.87

14.80

3.73

2.67

3.89

9.74

2.72

0.11

0.12

0.42

0.41

0.52

0.17

0.20

0.49

1.01

0.38

0.46

0.13

0.19

0.30

0.12

0.14

0.12

0.84

0.20

0.28

0.17

0.20

0.28

0.18

0.20

0.68

0.48

0.19

0.15

0.22

0.36

0.09

27.0

-

-

-

-

-

116.4

446.8

854.4

416.1

252.9

63.5

31.2

230.5

24.7

29.3

22.5

808.0

-

89.6

25.3

-

-

35.1

-

63.8

772.5

106.4

19.0

66.3

49.7

-

Table 24 – Nutrient and sediment loading rates of selected Pennsylvania watersheds in (lb/ac)

115

d. Point Source Discharges There are ten wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) located in the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed. Four are municipal facilities serving townships and boroughs, and six are package plants that serve an individual residence, hospital, quarry, campgrounds and a small mobile home community. There are several other point source discharges in the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed. They include treatment of contaminated groundwater, non-contact cooling water, tank pressure testing water and quarry process wash water. Plate 7 and Table 25 show point source discharges in the Quittapahilla Creek watershed. Pennsylvania Permit #

Primary Facility Type Discharge Type Treatment Receiving Stream

PA0027316 City of Lebanon Municipal Wastewater

Activated sludge Quittapahilla Creek

PA0083267 and PA0087394

Butler Manufacturing

Ground water Cleanup & Cooling Water

Air Stripper & None

Quittapahilla Creek

PA0084867 Sun Oil Quentin Ground water Cleanup

Air Stripper Beck Creek

PA0081752 Philhaven Hospital Domestic Wastewater

Extended Aeration and Filtration

Bachman Run

Mining Industrial Minerals Reg. Program

Pennsy Supply Fontana Quarry

Groundwater and Wash Water

Sedimentation Basin

Bachman Run

PA0021806 Township of Annville

Municipal Wastewater

Two Stage Activated Sludge

Quittapahilla Creek

PA0083747 Walter H. Weaber & Sons

Domestic Wastewater

Extended Aeration Gingrich Run

PA0081841 Thousand Trails Campground (Hershey)

Domestic Wastewater

Extended Aeration Gingrich Run

PA0087700 South Londonderry Campbell East

Municipal Wastewater

Extended Aeration, Chlorination/ Dechlorination

Killinger Creek

PA0033065 Palm City Domestic Wastewater

Extended Aeration Sand Filter

Killinger Creek

PA0024287 Borough of Palmyra

Municipal Wastewater

Trickling Filter, Activated Sludge, Phosphorus. Removal

Killinger Creek

PA0081655 Philadelphia Mixers

Industrial Tank Testing water & Cooling Water

None Killinger Creek

PA0080713 Pennsy Supply Millard Quarry

Domestic Wastewater

Extended Aeration Killinger Creek

Mining Industrial Minerals Reg. Program

Pennsy Supply Millard Quarry

Groundwater and Wash Water

Sedimentation Basin

Killinger Creek

PAG0043594 Dale Huffman Domestic Wastewater

Single Family Residence STP

Unnamed Tributary

Table 25 – Point source discharges in the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed

116

Plate 7 – Point Source Discharges

117

III. Expected Load Reductions

A. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) In 2000 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection developed Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed to address impairments noted in Pennsylvania’s 1996 and 1998 303(d) lists and the 2000 305(b) report. The impairments were documented during chemical sampling and biological surveys of the aquatic life present in the watershed. Excessive sediment and nutrient loads resulting from agricultural activities have been identified as one of the primary causes of impairments in the watershed. The TMDL developed for sediment applies to the entire Quittapahilla Creek watershed. Individual total phosphorus TMDLs were developed for the Bachman Run, Beck Creek, Killinger Creek, and Snitz Creek subwatersheds. The TMDLs developed for nutrient impairments focus on the control of total phosphorus, since it is the limiting nutrient. Impairments in the Gingrich Run basin due to suspended solids were addressed through a combination of the sediment TMDL developed for the Quittapahilla Creek watershed and the total phosphorus TMDL developed for the Killinger Creek subwatershed. Pennsylvania does not currently have water quality criteria for sediment and nutrients. TMDL endpoints for sediment and nutrients were identified using a reference watershed approach. The reference watershed approach is used to estimate the appropriate reduction of sediment and phosphorus loading necessary to restore healthy aquatic communities to a given watershed. This approach is based on selecting a non-impaired watershed (“reference”) and determining its current loading rates for the pollutants of interest. The objective of the process is to reduce loading rates of those pollutants identified as causing impairment to a level equivalent to the loading rates in the reference watershed. Achieving the appropriate load reductions should allow the return of a healthy biological community to affected stream segments. The watersheds used as references for the Quittapahilla Creek sediment TMDL were obtained by screen- digitizing a sub-basin of the Conococheague Creek watershed. A comparison of the Quittapahilla Creek and Conococheague Creek watersheds shows they are very similar in terms of their size, location, and other physical characteristics. Most of Conococheague stream segments have been assessed and were found to be unimpaired. The Falling Branch watershed was used as a reference for the Bachman Run, Beck Creek, Killinger Creek, and Snitz Creek phosphorus TMDLs. Falling Branch is a tributary to Conococheague Creek, located in the portion of the basin used as a reference for the Quittapahilla Creek sediment TMDL. The TMDLs were developed using the Generalized Watershed Loading Function or GWLF model. A targeted TMDL value for sediment in the Quittapahilla Creek basin was determined by multiplying the unit area loading rate of the reference watershed (Conococheague Creek) by the total area of the Quittapahilla Creek watershed. The unit area loading rate for sediment in the Conococheague Creek reference watershed was estimated to be 200.98 lbs./acre/yr. The targeted TMDL value for sediment in the Quittapahilla Creek watershed was determined by multiplying the unit area loading rate of the reference watershed by the total area in the Quittapahilla Creek watershed. The targeted sediment TMDL for the entire Quittapahilla Creek watershed is 9,833,734 lbs./yr. The unit area loading rate for total phosphorus in the Falling Branch reference watershed was estimated to be 0.59 lbs./acre/yr. Targeted TMDL values for total phosphorus in the Bachman Run, Beck Creek, Killinger Creek, and Snitz Creek basins were determined by multiplying the

118

unit area loading rate of the reference watershed (Falling Branch) by the total area in each of the four subwatersheds. Falling Branch is currently designated as a High Quality Cold Water Fishery (HQ-CWF) and recent biological assessments have determined that the portion of the basin used as a reference is attaining its designated uses. Reducing the loading rates of total phosphorus in the Bachman Run, Beck Creek, Killinger Creek, and Snitz Creek subwatersheds to levels equal to, or less than, the reference watershed will allow for the reversal of current use impairments. The total Targeted phosphorus TMDLs for Bachman Run, Beck Creek, Killinger Creek, and Snitz Creek are 2,912 lbs./yr., 3,067 lbs./yr., 5,055 lbs./yr. and 4,608 lbs./yr., respectively

B. Modeling Pollutant Loadings in Quittapahilla Creek Watershed As described in the Water Quality Modeling Section of this document, the Generalized Watershed Loading Function or GWLF model used during the Quittapahilla Watershed Assessment was an updated and more refined version of the same WQ model used by PADEP to develop the TMDL for Quittapahilla Creek watershed. The newer version was specifically developed for use in the Quittapahilla Watershed Assessment. The pollutant loading results from the updated WQ model were used in preparing this WIP document. To facilitate a better understanding of pollutant loadings by subwatershed, the WQ modeling data presented by sub-basin in Table 22 and Figure 15 of the Water Quality Modeling Section have been reconfigured. As shown in Table 26 and Figure 17, the WQ modeling sub-basins were consolidated into their respective subwatersheds. Sub-basins 11 and 18 were grouped as the Bachman Run subwatershed, sub-basins 13 and 19 as the Beck Creek subwatershed, sub-basins 4 – 10 were grouped as Killinger Creek subwatershed, sub-basins 14, 20 and 21 were grouped as Snitz Creek subwatershed and sub-basins 1 and 2, 3 and 12, were grouped as the Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem subwatershed. Sub-basins 15 (Brandywine Creek), 16 and 17 (Upper Quittapahilla Creek) include the City of Lebanon, South Lebanon and North Lebanon drainage basins. They were grouped as Upper Quittapahilla Creek subwatershed. This consolidation allowed pollutant loadings to be evaluated on a subwatershed basis. What the subwatershed evaluation clearly shows is that the Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem Subwatershed ranks first in terms of its loadings of nutrients and sediment to the overall watershed with 328,771 pounds of nitrogen, 9,893.6 pounds of phosphorus and 6,297,040 pounds of sediment on annual basis. Upper Quittapahilla Creek Subwatershed ranks second with 194,473 pounds of nitrogen, 5,552 pounds of phosphorus and 4,600,733 pounds of sediment. Snitz Creek ranks third with 322,580 pounds of nitrogen, 7,986 pounds of phosphorus and 2,922,067 pounds of sediment on annual basis. Killinger Creek ranks fourth with 160,202 pounds of nitrogen, 3,857 pounds of phosphorus and 3,909,466 pounds of sediment on annual basis. As a side note, this sediment loading value should be considered an outlier given that the Water Quality Model included the significant point source contributions from the Pennsy Supply’s Millard Quarry at the downstream end of the watershed. Beck Creek ranks fifth with 106,799 pounds of nitrogen, 2,106 pounds of phosphorus and 1,214,073 pounds of sediment on annual basis and Bachman Run ranks sixth with 88,237 pounds of nitrogen, 2,048 pounds of phosphorus and 1,187,272 pounds of sediment on annual basis. Interestingly, the results of the WQ modeling indicate that existing phosphorus loadings in the Bachman Run, Beck Creek and Killinger Creek subwatersheds already meet their targeted phosphorus TMDL goals. Snitz Creek subwatershed does not meet its targeted phosphorus

119

TMDL goal. The overall Quittapahilla Creek watershed does not meet its targeted TMDL goal for sediment. These results should not be taken to mean that Bachman Run, Beck Creek and Killinger Creek subwatersheds do not require implementation of restoration and management measures. The fact that these subwatersheds combined account for more than 30% of the total sediment contributed to the overall Quittapahilla Creek watershed shows that the effort is warranted.

Table 26 – Pollutant Loading Results for Quittapahilla Creek Watershed by Subwatershed

Basin Size (acres)

N-Total (lbs.)

N-Rate (lbs./acre)

P-Total (lbs.)

P-Rate (lbs./acre)

S-Total (lbs.)

S-Rate (lbs./acre)

Bachman Run 11 2,285 45,994 20.13 981 0.43 74,188 325.7 18 2,650 42,243 15.94 1,067 0.40 1,113,084 420.0

Total 4,935 88,237 17.87 2,048 0.41 1,187,272 240.58 Beck Creek

13 4,298 102,515 23.85 1,960 0.46 1,122,786 261.2 19 906 4,284 4.73 146 0.16 91,287 100.7

Total 5,204 106,799 20.52 2,106 0.40 1,214,073 233.30 Killinger Creek

4 2,628 49,233 18.73 1,292 0.49 1,274,490 485.0 5 1,635 39,066 23.89 1,100 0.67 1,187,613 726.3 6 968 41,064 42.41 481 0.50 332,735 343.6 7 529 5,746 10.87 223 0.42 211,680 400.5 8 1,109 20,167 18.18 556 0.50 629,087 567.2 9 299 820 2.74 62 0.21 85,995 287.7 10 598 4,106 6.87 143 0.24 187,866 314.3

Total 7,766 160,202 20.63 3,857 0.497 3,909,466 503.41 Snitz Creek

14 4,080 275,733 67.57 6,681 1.64 1,613,840 395.5 20 2,302 9,704 4.22 476 0.21 466,358 202.6 21 1,526 37,143 24.33 829 0.54 841,869 551.5

Total 7,908 322,580 40.79 7,986 1.01 2,922,067 369.5 Mainstem Quittapahilla Creek

1 2,495 23,333 9.35 899.6 0.36 843,413 338.1 2 857 12,458 14.54 445 0.53 465,255 542.8 3 4,419 235,776 53.36 6,787 1.54 3,143,889 711.5 12 3,767 57,204 15.19 1,762 0.47 1,844,483 489.7

Total 11,538 328,772 28.49 9,894 0.86 6,297,039 545.77 Upper Quittapahilla Creek

15 2,213 40,431 18.27 749.7 0.34 592,263 267.6 16 7,291 120,660 16.55 3,925 0.54 3,293,829 451.7 17 2,225 33,382 15.00 877.6 0.39 714,641 321.1

Total 11,729 194,473 16.58 5,552.3 0.47 4,600,733 392.3 Overall Quittapahilla Creek Watershed

Total 49,101 1,201,064 24.47 31,443.34 0.64 20,800,647 423.81

120

Figure 17 – Location of modeling sub-basins and subwatersheds

121

C. Pollutant Loading Reductions Meeting Total Targeted TMDL goals will be accomplished by implementing restoration and management measures focused on controlling urban and agricultural runoff, as well as stream channel and floodplain restoration. The restoration and management measures utilized will fall into four categories; 1) TMDL Stream Restoration; 2) MS4 Stream Restoration; 3) MS4 Urban BMPs and 4) Agricultural BMPs. Pollutant loading reductions for MS4 Stream Restoration and MS4 Urban BMPs were obtained from the Joint Pollution Reduction Plan for the Lebanon County Stormwater Consortium (Steckbeck Engineering, 2017). Pollutant loading reductions for Agricultural BMPs were obtained from the results of the Water Quality Model prepared as a component of the original watershed assessment (Evans, 2006). Pollutant loading reductions for TMDL Stream Restoration were developed utilizing the revised default removal rates per linear foot of restoration of 0.075 lbs. /yr. TN, 0.068 lbs. /yr. TP, and 44.88 lbs. /yr. TSS (Schueler, T. and B. Stack. 2014). Table 27 shows the pollutant loading reductions anticipated when all of the restoration and management measures are implemented. Bachman Run subwatershed will reduce sediment loadings to the overall Quittapahilla Creek watershed by 1,909,194 lbs./yr. through the implementation of a mix of TMDL Restoration, MS4 Restoration and Ag BMPs. Beck Creek and Killinger Creek subwatersheds will reduce sediment loadings to the overall Quittapahilla Creek watershed by 1,645,189 lbs./yr. and 3,829,278 lbs./yr., respectively by implementing TMDL Restoration and Ag BMPs. Snitz Creek subwatershed will be able to exceed its phosphorus reduction goal and reduce sediment loadings to the overall Quittapahilla Creek watershed by 3,355,310 lbs./yr. through the implementation of TMDL Restoration and Ag BMPs. Implementing the TMDL Restoration projects, MS4 Restoration projects and MS4 BMPs along the Mainstem Quittapahilla Creek will reduce sediment loadings by 3,230,910 lbs./yr. Sediment loadings can be reduced an additional 477,826 lbs./yr. by implementing the MS4 Restoration and MS4 BMPs in the Upper Quittapahilla Creek subwatershed. These sediment loading reductions along with the sediment loading reductions achieved in the four major subwatersheds will allow the overall Quittapahilla Creek watershed to exceed its targeted TMDL sediment goal. MS4 Restoration and MS4 BMPs will be implemented by the Lebanon County Stormwater Consortium and Non-Participating Townships. Agricultural BMPs will be implemented by NRCS and the Lebanon County Conservation District. The Quittapahilla Watershed Association, Doc Fritchey Chapter Trout Unlimited and Lebanon Valley Conservancy will team on implementing TMDL Restoration projects. Table 28 shows the pollutant loading reductions that are anticipated when all of the TMDL Restoration measures are implemented. Expected load reductions were also estimated for each restoration and management measure identified in Section IV of this document. The Project ID, location, Project Type and Loading Reductions are presented in Tables 29 – 35.

122

Table 27 – Pollutant Loading Reduction Resulting from Implementation of All Categories of Measures

Category of Measures

Current N-Total (lbs.)

N-Reduction

(lbs.)

% N Reduction

Current P-Total (lbs.)

P-Reduction

(lbs.)

% P Reduction

Current S-Total (lbs.)

S-Reduction

(lbs.)

% S Reduction

Bachman Run

TMDL Restoration

88,237 1,266 1.4 2,048 1,148 56.5 1,187,272 757,574 63.8

MS4 Restoration 150 136 6.6 89,760 BMP 10,467 983 47.9 1,061,860

TMDL/MS4/BMP Total

11,883 13.5 2,267 111 1,909,194 161

Beck Creek

TMDL Restoration

106,799 1,959 1.83 2,106 1,776 84.3 1,214,073 1,172,355 96.5

MS4 BMP 15,779 12.9 BMP 9,309 8.7 800 37.9 457,055 37.6

Restoration/BMP Total

11,217 10.5 2,530 120 1,645,189 135.5

Killinger Creek

TMDL Restoration

160,202 1,774 1.1 3,857 1,608 41.7 3,909,466 1,061,412 27.1

BMP 55,967 34.9 2,339 60.6 2,767,866 70.8 Restoration/BMP

Total 57,741 36.0 3,947 102 3,829,278 97.9

Snitz Creek

TMDL Restoration

322,580 2,473 0.77 7,986 2,242 28.1 2,922,067 1,479,694 50.6

MS4 Restoration 141,737 4.8 MS4 BMP 85,919 2.9

BMP 230,687 71.5 6,461 80.9 1,647,960 56.4 TMDL/MS4/BMP

Total

233,160 72.3 8,703 109 3,355,310 115

123

Category of Measures

Current N-Total (lbs.)

N-Reduction

(lbs.)

% N Reduction

Current P-Total (lbs.)

P-Reduction

(lbs.)

% P Reduction

Current S-Total (lbs.)

S-Reduction

(lbs.)

% S Reduction

Quittapahilla Creek TMDL

Restoration 328,771 4,456 1.4 9,894 4,026 40.7 6,297,040 2,657,712 42.2

MS4 Restoration 486,153 7.7 MS4 BMP 87,045 13.8

TMDL/MS4 Total 4,456 1.4 4,026 40.7 3,230,910 51.3

Upper Quittapahilla Creek MS4 Restoration 194,472 5,552 4,600,732 273,999 5.9

MS4 BMP 173,827 3.8 MS4 Total 447,826 9.7

124

Table 28 – Pollutant Loading Reductions Resulting from TMDL Restoration Projects by Subwatershed

Subwatershed Current N-Total (lbs.)

N-Reduction

(lbs.)

% N Reduction

Current P-Total (lbs.)

P-Reduction

(lbs.)

% P Reduction

Current S-Total (lbs.)

S-Reduction

(lbs.)

% S Reduction

Bachman Run 88,237 1,266 1.4 2,048 1,148 56.5 1,187,272 757,574 63.8

Beck Creek 106,799 1,959 1.8 2,106 1,776 84.3 1,214,073 1,172,355 96.5

Killinger Creek 160,202 1,774 1.1 3,857 1,608 41.7 3,909,466 1,061,412 27.1

Snitz Creek 322,580 2,473 0.77 7,986 2,242 28.1 2,922,067 1,479,694 50.6

Quittapahilla Creek 328,771 4,456 1.4 9,894 4,026 40.7 6,297,040 2,657,712 42.2

125

Table 29 - Bachman Run - Pollutant Loading Reductions by Project

Project ID#

Location Project Type Length (feet)

Nitrogen Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Phosphorus Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Sediment Reduction

(lbs/yr) 1 Farm adjacent to Philhaven

Hospital DS of Butler Rd

Streambank Fencing 1,320 99.0 89.8 59,241.6

4 McCurdy Property UPS of Mt. Wilson Rd.

Stream Restoration

500 37.5 34.0 22,440.0

5 Sattazahn and Katzman Properties Mt. Wilson Rd to Mt. Wilson Rd

Stream Restoration

1,810 135.8 123.1 81,232.8

7 Hoover, White and Risser Properties

Off Mt. Wilson Rd

Stream Restoration and Wetland Creation

1,650 123.8 112.2 74,052.0

8 Risser Farm Stream Restoration

1,320 99.0 89.8 59,241.6

9 Usner and Inman Properties UPS of Rte 322

Dam Removal Stream Restoration

1,650 123.8 112.2 74,052.0

10 Bachman Property DS of Rte 322

Grade and Stabilize Banks

Streambank Fencing

800 60.0 54.4 35,904

11 Horst and Horning Farms UPS of Fontana Rd

Grade and Stabilize Banks

Streambank Fencing

2,260 169.5 153.7 101,428.8

12 Gary Horst Farm DS of Fontana Rd

Stream Restoration Streambank Fencing

960 72.0 65.3 43,084.8

13 Dinulos Property

Stream Restoration 1,650 123.8 112.2 74,052

14 Royal Road Properties LLC Hower Property

Stream Restoration 1,590 119.3 108.1 71,359.2

15 Ronald Copenhaver Farm Stream Restoration 1,370

102.8 93.2 61,485.6

Total 1,266.3 1,148.0 757,574.0

126

Table 30 – Beck Creek - Pollutant Loading Reductions by Project

Project ID#

Location Project Type Length (feet)

Nitrogen Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Phosphorus Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Sediment Reduction

(lbs/yr) 1 Todd Property

UPS of Old Mine Rd Dam Removal

Stream Restoration 330 24.8 22.4 14,810.4

2 Gretna Glen Camp UPS of Lake

Stream Restoration

5,000 375.0 340.0 224,400.0

3 Gretna Glen Camp DS of Lake

Stream Restoration

1,980 148.5 134.6 88,862.4

4 Henry Farm DS of Camp

Streambank Fencing 850 63.8 57.8 38,148

5 Good Farm and Weaver Farm DS Starner Rd & Ups of Rte 322

Grade and Stabilize Banks

Streambank Fencing

2,452 183.9 166.7 110,045.8

6 Weaver Farm DS of Rte 322

Stream Restoration and Wetland Creation

2,000 150 136 89,760

8 Wenger Property and Dorsch Property

Stream Restoration and Wetland Creation

1,860 139.5 126.5 83,476.8

9 Boyd Property UPS of Colebrook Rd

Stream Restoration

1,300 97.5 88.4 58,344.0

10 Ridinger and Eckenrode Property UPS of Colebrook Rd

Stream Restoration

700 52.5 47.6 31,416.0

11 Bomberger Property Meadow Wood Farms DS of

Colebrook Rd

Stream Restoration Streambank Fencing

1,980 148.5 134.6 88,862.4

12 Forney Property east of Forney Rd

Streambank Fencing 500 37.5 34.0 22,440.0

13 Royal Road Properties Formerly Nolt Farm UPS of Royal Rd

Filter Strip and Riparian Buffer Planting

600 45.0 40.8 26,928.0

14 Royal Road Properties Formerly Nolt Farm UPS of Royal Rd

Stream Restoration Streambank Fencing

1,650 123.8 112.2 74,052.0

16A Robert Copenhaver Property UPS of Reist Rd.

Stream Restoration and Wetland Creation

810 60.8 55.1 36,352.8

127

Project ID#

Location Project Type Length (feet)

Nitrogen Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Phosphorus Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Sediment Reduction

(lbs/yr) 17 Robert Copenhaver Farm

DS of Reist Rd Stream Restoration

Streambank Fencing

1,320 99.0 89.8 59,241.6

18 Edwin Copenhaver Farm UPS of Bricker Rd

Streambank Fencing 990 74.3 67.3 44,431.2

19 Ron Copenhaver Farm DS of Bricker Rd

Stream Restoration

1,800 135.0 122.4 80,784.0

Total 1,959.4 1,776.2 1,172,355.4

128

Table 31 - Buckholder Run and Gingrich Run - Pollutant Loading Reductions by Project

Project ID#

Location Project Type Length (feet)

Nitrogen Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Phosphorus Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Sediment Reduction

(lbs/yr) 1 Buckholder Run

Struphar Farm DS of Rte 322

Stream Restoration

1,650 123.8 112.2 74,052.0

1 Upper Gingrich Run Grumbine and Zimmerman Farms

Off S. Mount Pleasant Rd.

Grade and Stabilize Banks

Streambank Fencing

2,065 154.9 140.4 92,677.2

2 Gingrich Run UPS and DS of Rte 322 and UPS

of Meadow Lane

Stream Restoration

1,485 111.4 101.0 66,646.8

3 Gingrich Run Smith Property

DS of Meadow Lane

Stream Restoration

2,310 173.3 157.1 103,672.8

4 Gingrich Run Oberholtzer Farm

Grade and Stabilize Banks

Streambank Fencing

1,650 123.8 112.2 74,052.0

5 Gingrich Run MacDonald Farm DS of Long

Meadow Rd and UPS of Killinger Creek

Grade and Stabilize Banks

Streambank Fencing

2,400 180.0 163.2 107,712.0

Total 867.2 786.1 518,812.8

129

Table 32 – Killinger Creek - Pollutant Loading Reductions by Project

Project ID#

Location Project Type Length (feet)

Nitrogen Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Phosphorus Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Sediment Reduction

(lbs/yr) 1 A. P. Bucks & Sons, Inc

UPS of Rte 322 and Rte 117 Grade and Stabilize

Banks Streambank Fencing

700 52.5 47.6 31,416.0

2 A. P. Bucks & Sons, Inc UPS of Rte 322 and DS of Rte 117

Grade and Stabilize Banks

Streambank Fencing

620 46.5 42.2 27,825.6

W-1 South Londonderry Township Property

UPS of Brandt Road

Wetland Creation 1,200 90.0 81.6 53,856.0

3 MacDonald Farm Grade and Stabilize Banks

Streambank Fencing

2,640 198.0 179.5 118,483.2

4 Buck Farm Grade and Stabilize Banks

Streambank Fencing

2,310 173.3 157.1 103,672.8

5 Musser Farm Grade and Stabilize Banks

Streambank Fencing

990 74.3 67.3 44,431.2

6 Burkholder and Kreider Farms

UPS of Killinger Rd.

Grade and Stabilize Banks

Streambank Fencing

1,650 123.8 112.2 74,052.0

7 MFS, Inc. DS of Killinger Rd.

Streambank Fencing 1,980 148.5 134.6 88,862.4

Total 906.9 822.1 542,599.2

130

Table 33 – Snitz Creek - Pollutant Loading Reductions by Project

Project ID#

Location Project Type Length (feet)

Nitrogen Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Phosphorus Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Sediment Reduction

(lbs/yr) 16 Main Stem Snitz

DS of Rte 72 Stream Restoration

1,320 99.0 89.8 59,241.6

2 East Fork Cul-de-sac end of Cedar St to

Culvert St.

Stream Restoration Floodplain Restoration

2,310 173.3 157.1 103,672.8

3 East Fork Culvert St to Cornwall Rd

Stream Restoration Wetland Creation

1,290 96.8 87.7 57,895.2

4 East Fork Cornwall Rd to confluence with

main stem Snitz

Stream Restoration 2,970 222.8 201.9 133,293.6

6 Middle Fork Borough of Cornwall Park South Side Freeman Drive

Stream Restoration 400 30.0 27.2 17,952.0

7 Middle Fork Cornwall Ctr south side of

Burd Coleman Rd.near Old School

Stream Restoration 1,650 123.8 112.2 74,052.0

8 Middle Fork Farm adjacent to North Cornwall

Rd

Dam Removal Stream Restoration

2,930 219.8 199.2 131,498.4

9 Middle Fork DS of North Cornwall Rd

Stream Restoration 1,350 101.3 91.8 60,588

10 Middle Fork and main stem Snitz confluence

UPS of Rte 72

Stream Restoration 400 30.0 27.2 17,952.0

11 West Fork Alden Place at Cornwall

Dam Removal Stream Restoration

3,960 297.0 269.3 177,724.8

12 West Fork Alden Place at Cornwall UPS of

Alden Lane

Stream Restoration 1,980 148.5 134.6 88,862.4

131

Project ID#

Location Project Type Length (feet)

Nitrogen Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Phosphorus Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Sediment Reduction

(lbs/yr) 14 West Fork

Adjacent to Fairview Estates

Stream Restoration 850 63.8 57.8 38,148.0

15 West Fork Auman Farm along Rte 72

Streambank and Riparian Buffer Planting

1,980 148.5 134.6 88,862.4

18 Main Stem Snitz Stefanides Property UPS of Quentin Rd.

at rear of Quentin Circle Shopping Center

Dam Removal Stream Restoration

1,320 99.0 89.8 59,241.6

19 Main Stem Snitz UPS of Colebrook Rd

Ehrgood Property Schulte Property

Showalter Property ABE Associates Zook Property North Cornwall

Zimmerman Property

Stream Restoration 2,900 217.5 197.2 130,152.0

20 Main Stem Snitz Zimmerman Property DS of Colebrook Rd

Stream Restoration 980 73.5 66.6 43,982.4

22 Main Stem Snitz Miller Farm

DS of Creekside

Stream Restoration 1,100 82.5 74.8 49,368.0

23 Main Stem Snitz Properties

DS of Oak St and UPS of Walden Road

Stream Restoration 1,980 148.5 134.6 88,862.4

24 Main Stem Snitz Hershey Farm

UPS of Dairy Rd

Stream Restoration Streambank Fencing

1,300 97.5 88.4 58,344.0

Total 2,473.1 2,241.8 1,479,693.6

132

Table 34 – Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem - Pollutant Loading Reductions by Project

Project ID#

Location Project Type Length (feet)

Nitrogen Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Phosphorus Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Sediment Reduction

(lbs/yr) 8 413 Millbridge Drive –

111 Ann Lane

Stream Restoration 1,500 112.5 102.0 67,320.0

9 111 Ann Lane – Beck Creek

Stream Restoration 2,150 161.3 146.2 96,492.0

10 Beck Creek – Annville Township Line

Stream Restoration 1,200 90.0 81.6 53,856.0

11 Spruce St – UPS End of Quittie Park Project

Stream Restoration 2,550 191.3 173.4 114,444.0

14 Rte 934 – Myer St

Stream Restoration 1,900 142.5 129.2 85,272.0

15 Myer St – UPS of Old Mill Dam

Stream Restoration 3,275 245.6 222.7 146,982.0

16 Rte 422 – Concrete Flume

DS of WWTP

Stream Restoration 2,150 161.3 146.2 96,492.0

18 End of Concrete Flume – Clear Spring Rd

Stream Restoration 2,000 150.0 136.0 89,760.0

19 Clear Spring Rd – Syner Road

Stream Restoration 2,700 202.5 183.6 121,176.0

20 Syner Rd – Killinger Creek

Stream Restoration 2,200 165.0 136.0 89,760.0

21 Killinger Creek – School Creek

Stream Restoration 3,250 243.8 221.0 145,860.0

22 School Creek – Old Mill Race at Forge Farm

Stream Restoration 5,300 397.5 360.4 237,864.0

23 Old Mill Race at Forge Farm – Unnamed Tributary

Stream Restoration 3,210 240.8 218.3 144,064.8

133

Project ID#

Location Project Type Length (feet)

Nitrogen Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Phosphorus Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Sediment Reduction

(lbs/yr) 24 Unnamed Tributary – Syner Rd

Stream Restoration 2,425 181.9 164.9 108,834.0

25 Syner Rd – Bedrock Section DS of Powerlines on Blauch Farm

(Reaches 43 and 44)

Stream Restoration 2,450 183.8 166.6 109,956.0

26 Bedrock Section DS of Powerlines on Blauch Farm – UPS of wetland

swale that drains pond (Reaches 45 and 46)

Stream Restoration 2,625 196.9 178.5 117,810.0

27 UPS of wetland swale that drains pond – Riffle at Beach Area

(Reaches 47 and 48)

Stream Restoration 3,150 236.3 214.2 141,372.0

28 Riffle at Beach Area – Valley Glen Rd

(Reaches 49 and 50)

Stream Restoration 1,800 135.0 122.4 80,784.0

29 Valley Glen Rd – Swatara Creek (Reaches 51 and 52)

Stream Restoration 1,950 146.3 132.6 87,516.0

Total 3,584.3 3,235.8 2,135,614.8

134

Table 35 – Unnamed Tributary in North Annville - Pollutant Loading Reductions by Project

Project ID#

Location Project Type Length (feet)

Nitrogen Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Phosphorus Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Sediment Reduction

(lbs/yr) 1 Struphar Farm

DS of Rte 934 Stream Restoration

Streambank Fencing 600 45.0 40.8 26,928.0

2 Bomgardner Farm DS of Rte 934

Stream Restoration 2,970 222.8 201.9 133,293.6

4 Gingrich Orchard UPS of Palmyra Bellegrove Rd

Stream Restoration 1,155 86.6 78.5 51,836.4

5A Summers Farm DS of Palmyra Bellegrove Rd

Stream Restoration Streambank Fencing

3,925 294.4 266.9 176,154.0

5B Summers Farm DS of Palmyra Bellegrove Rd

Stream Restoration Streambank Fencing

2,970 222.8 201.9 133,293.6

Total 871.6 790.0 521,505.6

135

IV. Proposed Management Measures

A. Introduction The Quittapahilla Watershed Restoration and Management Plan (2006) included BMPs identified for controlling runoff from urban land and agricultural land, as well as projects focused on streambank stabilization, channel restoration wetland creation, and riparian buffer plantings along unstable stream reaches of the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek and its major tributaries. From the outset, the QWA was working under the assumption that they would spearhead the stream/riparian restoration efforts while the City of Lebanon and the other Townships in the watershed would move forward with implementation of the urban BMPs. They also assumed that USDA-NRCS and the Lebanon County Conservation District would take the lead on implementing agricultural BMPs. At the time the Plan was prepared, deadlines for meeting MS4 requirements were still years away for the City of Lebanon and the other Townships in the watershed. While working on early drafts of the WIP, the QWA met with USEPA and PADEP in December 2014 to discuss the urban BMPs they had included in their WIP document. During the meeting staff of both agencies pointed out that the City and Townships would soon be required to meet MS4 requirements and would have to address the urban runoff issues. They strongly suggested that the QWA not get involved with urban BMPs leaving that to the municipalities, instead continuing to focus their efforts on stream restoration with a particular emphasis on the subwatersheds. Within the last two years the City and Townships started to move on the MS4 requirements. The Lebanon County Stormwater Consortium was formed by the City of Lebanon, Annville Township, Cleona Borough Authority, North Cornwall Township, North Lebanon Township and South Lebanon Township. In August 2017 they completed the draft of their Joint Pollutant Reduction Plan. Their Plan includes proposed retrofits to existing urban BMPS, proposed new urban BMPs, as well as fourteen stream restoration projects along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek. Although the proposed urban BMPs do not include those identified in the Quittapahilla Watershed Restoration and Management Plan, all fourteen of the stream restoration projects were identified in that document. The Consortium will be moving forward with its own project schedules and funding sources. To avoid duplication of effort, the QWA informed the Consortium that they will remove the restoration projects identified in the Joint Pollutant Reduction Plan from their list of prioritized projects in the final WIP. Recently, some of the other Townships in the watershed, not participating with the Consortium, have begun targeting stream restoration projects identified in the Quittapahilla Watershed Restoration and Management Plan to meet their MS4 requirements. These projects have also been removed from QWA’s list of prioritized projects. Finally, in a meeting with USDA-NRCS and the Lebanon County Conservation District, both agencies committed to working with the QWA to implement stream restoration projects that were identified on farms in the Quittapahilla Watershed Restoration and Management Plan. They propose to utilize EQUIP funds supplemented by matching funds from other sources to design, permit and implement thirty two restoration projects over the next 5 – 10 years.

136

Accordingly, the QWA proposes to limit this WIP to those areas and projects over which they have some degree of control, either through agreements with landowners or cooperative agreements with agencies that have agreements with landowners.

B. Restoration Approach

1. Traditional Approaches The traditional restoration effort is project-oriented rather than system- or process-oriented. The project-oriented approach focuses on the obvious eroding stream banks or aggrading streambeds, and flood waters overtopping stream banks. It often fails to recognize the natural processes that shape and maintain stream channels, the interactions between the channel and adjacent riparian areas, and how these processes and interactions are affected by channel and floodplain maintenance practices and land use in the watershed. The traditional approach is commonly associated with engineered channels, that is, a relatively straight, wide, trapezoidal channel, with a uniform profile designed to convey all flows (baseflow, bankfull flow, and flood flow). The channel banks are often armored with rip-rap or gabions (concrete revetment in more urbanized areas) in an effort to maintain this engineered form, and grade control structures may be installed to maintain bed stability. This engineered approach invites long-term problems due to the negative feedback mechanisms inherent in all stream systems. These channels are generally devoid of habitat.

Photo 1 – Unnamed Tributary draining South Lebanon

137

Photo 2 – Mainstem Quittapahilla Creek in the City of Lebanon

2. Fluvial Geomorphologic (FGM) Approach

A fluvial geomorphologic approach utilizing natural stability concepts is recommended for the restoration of unstable reaches along Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries. This approach is system-oriented and works with, rather than against, the natural processes that shape and maintain stream channels. Restoration efforts are focused on: restoring a stable, self-maintaining channel form; reestablishing the critical interactions between the stream and adjacent riparian areas; restoring the natural functions of floodplains; modifying channel and floodplain maintenance practices that are inconsistent with these objectives; and minimizing the effects of land use by relocating structures from high hazard areas, and adopting land use controls throughout the watershed that are based on landscape capabilities. This approach recognizes that natural streams are composed of three distinct channels: a thalweg or low flow channel; a bankfull channel; and a floodplain, which conveys flows greater than bankfull. Finally, this approach emphasizes bio-engineered stream bank stabilization techniques that utilize natural materials (e.g., rootwads, toe wood, logs, boulders, etc.) and live plantings. Unlike more traditional approaches, utilizing the FGM approach will allow the QWA to meet all of their water quality, channel stabilization and in-stream habitat restoration objectives.

138

3. Level of Intervention When implementing channel restoration or stabilization measures the level of intervention required is dictated by the severity of the problem. At the lowest level of intervention, restoration may involve simply eliminating the impacting activity and allowing natural recovery to proceed. For example, streams impacted by livestock grazing will often recover naturally after grazing has been eliminated by installation of streambank fencing and livestock crossings.

Photos 3 and 4 – Stream in agricultural watershed impacted by livestock grazing. Same stream after fencing installed to limit livestock access.

139

At the opposite end of the intervention scale, extremely unstable conditions with a poor potential for natural recovery may require complete reconstruction of the stream channel to provide a stable channel pattern, profile, and cross-section and the utilization of bank stabilization techniques, and installation of flow diverting and grade control structures.

Photo 5 – This braided channel has poor natural recovery potential and requires complete restoration and changes in riparian land use practices.

Photo 6 – This deeply incised channel has poor natural recovery potential and requires complete restoration and stormwater retrofitting to stabilize hydrologic regime.

140

Streams that are generally stable, but experiencing localized bank erosion may benefit from streambank grading and stabilization, as well as the installation of structures designed to protect the newly reconstructed streambanks.

Photos 7 and 8 – Steam bank erosion and same streambank after installation of a toe bench and construction of new bank stream-ward of existing bank

141

4. Designing the Stable Channel Form

a. Empirical Relationships Early studies in fluvial geomorphology established that relationships exist between various stream characteristics (i.e., channel width and meander geometry, meander geometry and longitudinal profile) and that streams respond in a predictable manner to changes in one or more of these characteristics.

b. Reference Reach Concept In theory a stream that has adjusted its channel geometry to accommodate the range of flows and sediment load delivered to it by its watershed and has remained stable over time provides an excellent model for how we want our project reach to look and function. Because these characteristics can be measured in the field, the goal of the fluvial geomorphologic approach is to approximate a range of appropriate stream channel features, utilizing data gathered from stable reference streams in similar geomorphologic and hydrologic settings.

c. Design Objectives Create:

1) a channel that has a baseflow flow channel that maximizes in-stream habitat; 2) a bankfull channel that maintains sediment transport competency and capacity; 3) a floodplain or floodprone area that conveys flows greater than bankfull in a non-erosive

manner;

5. Channel Stabilization Techniques After the stable planform, profile and channel cross-section is developed stream bank and streambed stabilization techniques are selected that complement the restored stable channel form and emphasize stability, habitat and aesthetics.

a. Stream Bank Stabilization Techniques that utilize toe wood and large boulders to create rock outcrops look natural, are especially effective at providing structural stability and create excellent in-stream habitat. These techniques are supplemented by a variety of other innovative approaches such as soil fabric lifts; toe benches; sod or willow mats, fascines, brush mattresses. Using native plant materials appropriate for the soil and hydrologic conditions and adapted to the regional weather extremes is key to providing long-term stabilization.

142

Photos 9 and 10 - Toe Wood

143

Photos 11 and 12 – Rock Outcrops

144

b. Streambed Stabilization Grade control is provided by the construction of cross vanes, boulder drop structures, constructed riffles and boulder cascades, or log-boulder steps at appropriate locations along the restored reaches. The features have very specific design criteria including site location, plan form, cross-section and profile. Construction of these features is in no way similar to weirs or check dams utilized in a standard engineered channel.

Photos 13 and 14 – Cross Vanes

145

Photos 15 and 16 – Constructed Riffles

146

Photos 17 and 18 – Constructed Riffles

147

Photos 19 and 20 – Log/Boulder Step-Pools

148

Photos 21 and 22 – Log/Boulder Step-Pools

149

c. Flow Diverting Techniques The objective of installing flow diverting structures is to reduce the shear stress on the stream banks by slowing and diverting the flow away from the banks and into deep water on bends or the center of the channel in crossover reaches. Techniques that utilize rock vanes, boulder and log-boulder J-Hooks look natural and are especially effective at providing structural stability.

Photos 23 and 24 – Log/Boulder J-Hooks

150

Photos 25 and 26 – Boulder J-Hooks

151

6. Floodplain and Wetland Restoration The restoration objectives for Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries include floodplain and wetland restoration and creation where practical. To increase flood storage, provide water quality treatment of urban and agricultural runoff, and create wildlife habitat some floodplain areas would be excavated and/or expanded depending on landowner acceptance. Approaches could involve: 1) expansion and enhancement of wetlands in natural drainage ways in the floodplain where relic channels already support wetland conditions; 2) excavation of floodplain areas adjacent to restored stream reaches; 3) excavation of floodplain areas in conjunction with modifications to the upstream side of culverts to create shallow impoundments; 4) construction of berms perpendicular to and across the floodplain to create shallow impoundments; 5) lowering of floodplain elevations to encourage more frequent flooding of adjacent riparian areas.

Photo 27 – Constructed wetland area

152

Photos 28 and 29 – Constructed wetland areas

153

Photos 30 and 31 – Constructed wetland area in winter and summer

154

C. The Restoration and Management Plan The Planning Phase of the Quittapahilla Watershed Assessment and Restoration Project involved developing a restoration and management plan. This focused on identifying and prioritizing restoration and management measures to address the problems identified during the watershed assessment. This involved the following three stage process:

1. Identification of Potential Restoration and Management Measures. Potential restoration and management measures were identified to address the problem areas identified along the main stem Quittapahilla Creek and major tributaries during the Assessment Phase. These measures were selected for their potential for correcting, reducing and/or preventing the water quality, in-stream habitat, channel stability problems in the Quittapahilla Creek watershed. The potential restoration/management measures included: structural source-based measures that are focused on upland and/or floodplain problem areas (e.g., constructed wetlands, stormwater management facilities for quantity and quality control, agricultural best management practices, etc.); stream-based structural measures that are focused on stream channel problem areas (e.g., stream bank fencing, planting of riparian buffers, restoration of stable channel form, and stream bank stabilization), and nonstructural watershed-based measures (e.g., land use planning, site design performance criteria, ordinances focused on protection of sensitive areas, conservation easements, and public education programs).

2. Evaluation of the Feasibility of Site-Specific Measures The feasibility of implementing site-specific structural source-based and stream-based restoration and management measures was evaluated. This included a planning level, qualitative analysis used to screen the measures for ease of implementation (constraints, constructibility, access, etc.), capital cost, long-term maintenance, landowner acceptance, and risk and uncertainty.

3. Prioritization of Site-Specific Measures Based on the results of the feasibility analysis site-specific structural source-based and stream-based restoration and management measures were prioritized. The results of this planning process are presented in detail in Quittapahilla Watershed Restoration and Management Plan (2006). What this planning document shows is that ten (10) regional stormwater wetland BMPs were identified for controlling urban stormwater runoff from the City of Lebanon and South Lebanon and North Lebanon Townships. As shown in Table 36, ninety nine (99) stream restoration, bank stabilization, dam removal, wetland creation, and streambank fencing projects with a total length of 150,155 linear feet were identified in the nine subwatersheds and an additional twenty nine (29) stream restoration and bank stabilization projects for a total length of 61,760 linear feet were identified along the Quittapahilla Creek mainstem.

155

Table 36 - Restoration Measures identified in the

Quittapahilla Watershed Restoration and Management Plan (2006)

Subwatershed #Projects Length (LF)

Bachman Run 16 23,206 Beck Creek 19 30,550 Brandywine Creek 8 9,945 Buckholder Run 1 1,650 Gingrich Run 5 8,505 Killinger Creek 11 16,710 Snitz Creek 24 37,670 Upper Quittapahilla Creek 10 13,000 Unnamed Tributary 5 9,315 Subtotal 99 150,155 Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem 29 61,760 Total 128 211,915

D. Restoration and Management Measures Proposed for the WIP

1. The Current WIP Planning Process

Funded by a 2016 Growing Grant, the first steps in developing the PADEP and USEPA Approved WIP were initiated in March 2017 and involved bringing the QWA members and representatives of local municipalities up to speed on what was involved in the original Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Assessment, what has been accomplished since the completion of Quittapahilla Watershed Restoration and Management Plan and what remained to be done to prepare a Watershed Implementation Plan.. In addition, the QWA formed working committees for each WIP task:

a. Project Identification and Prioritization b. Municipality Coordination c. Landowner Participation d. Public Education, Participation and Outreach Strategy e. Project Tracking and Documentation

Utilizing the original list of restoration projects from the Restoration and Management Plan, a preliminary projects list was prepared for the Project Identification and Prioritization Committee to review. Each project reach within the four major tributary subwatersheds was evaluated relative to its contribution to pollutant loadings based on the results of the original Water Quality Modeling. In addition, consideration was given to the length of channel and percentage of total channel exhibiting streambank erosion during the original Field Reconnaissance Survey. Projects that fell outside of the QWA’s ability to control the outcome, such as those involving removal of concrete flumes, bank stabilization in quarries and on golf courses were dropped from the list. The four tributary subwatersheds were prioritized in descending order, Snitz Creek, Killinger Creek, Beck Creek and Bachman Run. It was agreed that projects would be completed by

156

priority subwatershed starting at the top of the watershed and working in a downstream direction. Projects representing severe conditions and contributing high sediment loadings would warrant moving out of order. For example Snitz Creek, Project 16 is characterized by significant entrenchment, high, vertical streambanks and significant lateral erosion that threatens homes, fences and out-buildings situated near the top of the unstable streambanks. Because of these conditions Project 16 was moved to the top of the project list for the Snitz Creek subwatershed. Given the unstable channel conditions along all mainstem Quittapahilla Creek reaches and high pollutant loadings of the mainstem sub-basins it was agreed that all of the projects along the mainstem should be implemented. It was also agreed that all projects along the mainstem would be prioritized in the same upstream to downstream manner. The committee also discussed funding for these projects. It was agreed that Growing Greener funding would continue to be the primary source of funding for mainstem projects, while 319, EQUIP, PA Fish & Boat Commission and other funding sources would be utilized to fund projects in the subwatersheds.

2. Prioritized Projects In an effort to provide information relevant to long range planning, cost estimates for design, permitting and construction were developed for each prioritized project. Cost for design and permitting was based on an assumed level of effort associated with complexity of project, length of project and type of permits required. Construction cost was based length of project and complexity of project. Current typical per linear foot costs were utilized and included: mobilization; installation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures; installation and maintenance of pumped diversions; channel excavation and grading; installation of in-stream structures; planting trees and shrubs; and acres seeded. For agricultural related projects the cost of installation of fencing, crossings and ancillary equipment was included. The cost estimates did not include land acquisition. It should be noted that the costs are based on typical 2018 costs. Actual cost will vary due to inflation over the twenty year life of this restoration program. The list of projects prioritized by subwatershed is shown in Tables 37 to 43 and Restoration Plates 2 to 10. The information in the tables includes: Subwatershed, Project ID#, Project Location, Project Length, Existing Problems Summary, Proposed Solutions Summary, Permitting Scope Details, Cost Estimates for Design and Permitting, Construction Scope Details, Cost Estimates for Construction, and Total Project Cost.

157

Table 37 – Bachman Run Prioritized Projects

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

1 East Fork Farm adjacent to

Philhaven Hospital DS of Butler Rd

1,320 Livestock grazing impacts; lack of buffer; unstable E4 channel with low eroding banks

Install fencing a minimum of 15 feet to either side of stream and install two (2) livestock crossings.

GIS Topo Plan Prep Permitting for Standard livestock crossing GP-6

$10,500 Cost of 1,320 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 1 livestock crossing

$4,950 $600 $400 $350 $150

$9,000 $15,450

$25,950

4 West Fork McCurdy Property UPS of Mt. Wilson

Rd. (Rte 241)

500 Incised G4 channel with high eroding banks

Restore G4 reach as stable B4 stream.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$79,400 Restoration as stable B4 stream channel with boulder outcrops and boulder cobble riffles. Streambank seeding 0.35 acres and 75 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$125,000 $1,225 $2,250

$128,475

$207,875

5 West Fork Sattazahn Property and Katzmann Farm Mt Wilson Rd to Mt

Wilson Rd

1,810 Unstable B4 and C4 channels with high to moderately high eroding banks, aggraded sections with chute cutoff channels

Restore as stable B4 and C4 streams.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$165,500 Restoration as stable B4 and C4 stream channel with toe wood and/or boulder outcrops and boulder cobble riffles. Streambank seeding 1.24 acres and 186 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$452,500 $4,340 $5,580

$462,420

$627,920

7 West Fork Hoover Property,

White Property and Risser Farm

Off Mt Wilson Rd and Diamond Dr

1,650 Unstable B4 and C4 channels with high to moderately high eroding banks, aggraded sections

Restore as stable B4 and C4 streams. Construct a wetland along this reach to treat agricultural runoff.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$160,000 Restoration as stable B4 and C4 stream channel with toe wood and/or boulder outcrops and boulder cobble riffles. Streambank seeding 1.14 acres and 170 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$412,500 $3,990 $5,100

$421,590

$581,590

8 Main Stem Risser Farm

1,320 Unstable B4/G4 channels with high to moderately high eroding banks, lacking buffer Directly impacted by installation of Sunoco Mariner East 2 Oil Pipeline

Restore G4 reach as stable B4 stream. Plant a minimum 35 riparian buffer. Evaluate impacts of pipeline, develop solution to eliminate impacts, and incorporate into design.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$118,000 Restoration as stable B4 stream channel with toe wood and or boulder outcrops and boulder cobble riffles. Streambank seeding 0.9 acres and 135 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$330,000 $3,150 $4,050

$337,200

$455,200

158

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

9 Usner-Inman Properties

UPS of Rte 322

1650 Concrete walls and dam; unstable F4/C4 channels with high to mod-high eroding banks, aggraded, lateral and mid-channel bars in lower section.

Remove dam and walls; restore as a stable B4c stream.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$160,000 Restoration as stable B4c stream channel with toe wood and/or boulder outcrops and boulder cobble riffles. Streambank seeding 1.14 acres and 170 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$412,500 $3,990 $5,100

$421,590

$581,590

10 Main Stem Bachman Property

DS of Rte 322

800 Livestock grazing impacts; lack of buffer; unstable C4 channel with moderately high eroding banks.

Grade and stabilize banks. Install fencing a minimum of 15 feet to either side of stream and install a livestock crossing.

GIS Topo Grading Plan, Prep Permitting, Standard livestock crossing G-3, GP-6

$15,000 Bank grading and stabilization 1173 yd3

Cost of 1320 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire, wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 1 livestock crossing Seeding 0.9 acres and planting 135 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$7,038 $4,950 $600 $400 $350 $150

$4,500 $3,150 $4,050

$25,188

$40,188

11 Main Stem Gerald Horst Farm

210 ft. UPS and 760 ft. Ds of Bender Lane

and Horning Farm

1,290 ft. UPS of Fontana Rd

2,260 Livestock grazing impacts; lack of buffer; unstable, over-wide C4 channel with moderately high eroding banks.

Grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel with toe benches Install fencing a minimum of 15 feet to either side of stream and install a livestock crossing.

GIS Topo Grading Plan, Prep Permitting, Standard livestock crossing G-3, GP-6

$30,500 Bank grading and stabilization 2347yd3

Install 1,888 LF of toe benches along right and/or left edge of channel. Cost of 4,520 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire, wooden posts, 8 corners, 4 gates, 2 solar panel and accessories; plus 2 livestock crossing. Streambank seeding 1.55 acres and 233 shrubs along streambanks

$108,082 $16,950 $1,200 $800 $700 $300

$9,000 $5,425 $6,990

$149,447

$179,947

12 Main Stem Gary Horst Farm

DS of Fontana Rd

960 Livestock grazing impacts; concrete walls along one section; unstable C4 channel with moderately high eroding banks.

Remove concrete wall and Grade and stabilize banks, Install fencing a minimum of 15 feet to either side of stream and install a livestock crossing.

GIS Topo Grading Plan, Prep Permitting, Standard livestock crossing G-3, GP-6

$25,000 Remove concrete wall, install imbricated rock wall. Grade and stabilize banks 960 yd3

Cost of 1,920 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire, wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 2 livestock crossing. Streambank seeding 0.66 acres and plant 100 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$75,000 $7,200 $600 $400 $350 $150

$9,000 $2,310 $3,000

$98,010

$123,010

159

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

13 Dinulos Property

1,650 Unstable C4 with bank erosion, over-wide channel, heavy sedimentation and thick mats of algal growth.

Restoration as stable C4 stream channel with toe benches to narrow over-wide sections, rock outcrops and toe wood and soil lifts along outside of meander bends.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$135,800 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures. Seeding 1.14 acres and planting 171 trees and shrubs.

$371,250 $61,875 $3,990 $5,130

$442,245

$578,045

14 Royal Road Properties LLC Hower Property

1,590 Unstable C4 with bank erosion, over-wide channel, mid-channel bars and islands, heavy sedimentation.

Restoration as stable C4 stream channel with toe benches to narrow over-wide sections, rock outcrops and toe wood and soil lifts along outside of meander bends.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$132,800 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures. Seeding 1.1 acres and planting 165 trees and shrubs.

$357,750 $59,625 $3,850 $4,950

$426,175

$558,975

15 Ronald Copenhaver Farm

1,370

Unstable C4 with bank erosion, over-wide channel, heavy sedimentation.

Restoration as stable C4 stream channel with toe benches to narrow over-wide sections, rock outcrops and toe wood and soil lifts along outside of meander bends.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$128,800 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures. Seeding 0.94 acres and planting 141 trees and shrubs.

$308,250 $51,375 $3,290 $4,230

$367,145

$495,945

160

161

Table 38 – Beck Creek Prioritized Projects

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

1 Todd Property UPS of Old Mine Rd

330 Incised G4 channel with high eroding banks migrating upstream through old breached dam

Remove dam Restore G4 reach as stable B2 stream channel.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$75,400 Remove dam and construct stable floodplain/terraces Restoration as stable B2 step-pool channel with boulder outcrops and log-boulder steps and boulder/cobble pools. Streambank seeding 0.23 acres and 35 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$122,500 $805

$1,050 $124,355

$199,755

2 Gretna Glen Camp DS of Old Mine Rd

UPS of Lake West Cornwall

5,000 Unstable B4, C4, F4, G4, F4 and C4 channel sections with high eroding banks along upper and middle sections, aggradation and bank erosion along lower section

Restore as stable B4 and C4 streams.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$247,800 Restoration as stable B4 and C4 stream channel with toe wood and or boulder outcrops and boulder cobble riffles. Streambank seeding 3.44 acres and 517 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$1,250,000 $12,040 $15,510

$1,277,550

$1,525,350

3 Gretna Glen Camp DS of Lake

West Cornwall

1,980 Unstable G1 and C4 channel sections with very high eroding banks along upper section, aggradation, avulsions, and cut-off channels along middle and lower sections

Restore as stable B1/B2 and C4 streams.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$168,731 Remove old dam and construct stable floodplain/terraces Restoration as stable B1/B2 step-pool channel with boulder outcrops and log-boulder steps and boulder/cobble pools along G reaches. Restoration as stable C4 stream channel with toe wood and or boulder outcrops and boulder cobble riffles along C reaches. Streambank seeding 1.36 acres and 205 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$495,000 $4,760 $6,150

$505,910

$674,641

4 Henry Farm DS of Camp

850 Livestock grazing impacts; lack of buffer; unstable E4 channel with low eroding banks.

Install fencing a minimum of 15 feet to either side of stream and install a livestock crossing.

GIS Topo Plan Prep Permitting for Standard livestock crossing GP-6

$10,500 Cost of 1,700 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 1 livestock crossing

$6,375 $600 $400 $350 $150

$4,500 $12,375

$22,875

162

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

5 Good Farm (1,890 LF)

and Weaver Farm

(562 LF) DS of Starner Rd and

Ups of Rte 322

2,452 Livestock grazing impacts; lack of buffer; unstable C4 channel with moderately high eroding banks.

Restoration as stable C4 stream channel. Install fencing a minimum of 15 feet to either side of stream and install two (2) livestock crossings.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$175,000 Restoration as stable C4 stream channel with toe wood and soil lifts or boulder outcrops and soil lifts; and boulder cobble riffles. Cost of 4,620 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire, wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 1 livestock crossing Streambank seeding 1.7 acres and 255 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$490,400 $17,325

$600 $400 $350 $150

$9,000 $5,950 $7,650

$531,825

$706,825

6 Weaver Farm DS of Rte 322

2,000 Unstable C4 channel with eroding banks and heavy sedimentation throughout. Channel still exhibits impacts from historic straightening and livestock grazing; adjacent floodplain and riparian area currently mowed for hay; lack of buffer. Directly impacted by installation of Sunoco Mariner East 2 Oil Pipeline

Restore as a stable C4/E4 channel. Establish wetlands along floodplain to provide 1) water quality treatment of runoff from adjacent cultivated fields and 2) wildlife habitat. Evaluate impacts of pipeline, develop solution to eliminate impacts, and incorporate into design.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$150,800 Restoration as stable C4 stream channel with toe wood and soil lifts or boulder outcrops and soil lifts; and boulder cobble riffles. Excavation and grading of wetland system Wetland A – 6,200 ft2 ; 1,024.8 yd3 Wetland B – 31,900 ft2; 5,273 yd3 Wetland C – 39,900 ft2; 6,595 yd3 Wetland seeding 1.8 acres and 270 trees

$422,404 $75,000 $4,821 $6,300

$508,525

$8,198 $42,182 $52,760 $6,300 $8,100

$117,540

$508,525

$117,540 $626,065

8 Wenger Property Dorsch Property

1,860 Unstable C4 channel sections with moderately high eroding banks, lacking buffer in lawn area.

Restore as stable C4 stream. 35 foot riparian buffer along upper section. Create wetland system in old field area.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$125,800 Stream

$25,000 Wetland

Restoration as stable B4c stream channel with boulder outcrops; and boulder cobble riffles. Seeding 2.99 acres and planting 448 trees and shrubs along streambanks and riparian buffer. Excavation and grading of wetland system 7,200 yd3

Wetland seeding 1.0 acres and 150 Trees and shrubs for wetland.

$322,500 $10,465 $13,440

$346,405

$57,600 $3,500 $4,500 $65,600

$472,205

$90,600

163

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

9 Boyd Property UPS of Colebrook Rd

1,300 Unstable E4 channel with moderate to moderately high eroding banks, lacking a buffer.

Restore as stable E4 stream. Plant a minimum 35 foot riparian buffer.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$118,800 Restoration as stable E4 stream channel with toe wood. Seeding 2.08 acres and planting 313 trees and shrubs along streambanks and riparian buffer.

$325,000 $7,280 $9,390

$341,670

$460,470

10 Ridinger and Eckenrode Property

UPS of Colebrook Rd

700 Channelized, unstable C4 channel with moderate eroding banks, lacking a buffer, poorly constructed pond diversion.

Restore as stable C4 stream; plant a minimum 35 foot riparian buffer; modify pond diversion.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$100,800

Restoration as stable C4 stream channel with toe wood. Seeding 1.12 acres and planting 169 trees and shrubs along streambanks and riparian buffer.

$175,000 $3,920 $5,070

$183,990

$284,790

11 Bomberger Property Meadow Wood Farms DS of Colebrook Rd

1,980 Livestock grazing impacts; unstable C4 channel with moderately high eroding banks; heavy sedimentation and aggradation; poorly constructed pond diversion

Restore as stable C4 stream; Install fencing a minimum of 15 feet to either side of stream; install a livestock crossing; modify pond diversion.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$125,800 Restoration as stable C4 stream channel with toe wood and soil lifts; Cost of 3,960 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 1 livestock crossing. Seeding 1.36 acres and planting 204 trees and shrubs along streambanks.

$495,000 $74,250 $14,850

$600 $400 $350 $150

$4,500 $4,760 $6,120

$600,980

$726,780

12 Forney Property east of Forney Rd

500 Stream fenced but livestock watering access and crossing causing erosion and sedimentation problems.

Install new fencing and livestock crossing.

GIS Topo Plan Prep Permitting for Standard livestock crossing GP-6

$8,500 Cost of 1,000 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 1 livestock crossing

$3,750 $600 $400 $350 $150

$4,500 $9,750

$18,250

13 Royal Road Properties

Formerly Nolt Farm UPS of Royal Rd

600 Row crops planted to stream edge, no buffer.

Plant a minimum 35 foot riparian buffer

NA $0 Seeding 1.9 acres and planting 285 trees and shrubs along streambanks and riparian buffer.

$6,650 $8,550 $15,200

$15,200

164

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

14 Royal Road Properties

Formerly Nolt Farm UPS of Royal Rd

1,650 Livestock grazing impacts; unstable C4 channel with moderate eroding banks and heavy sedimentation; bank revetment composed of concrete, cinder blocks and asphalt.

Remove concrete, cinder blocks and asphalt revetment; restore as stable C4 stream; install fencing a minimum of 15 feet to either side of stream; install a livestock crossing;

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$120,500 Removal and disposal of concrete, cinder blocks and asphalt revetment; restoration as a stable C4 channel; Install 3,300 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 1 livestock crossing; Seeding 1.14 acres and planting 171 trees and shrubs along streambanks.

$412,500 $12,375

$600 $400 $350 $150

$4,500 $3,990 $5,130

$439,995

$560,495

16A

Robert Copenhaver Property

UPS of Reist Rd.

810 Stream reach stable, but impacted by runoff from golf course. Existing 1.3 acre (58,000 ft2,) oxbow wetland impacted by agricultural operations

Acquire easement. Expand existing floodplain wetland system to treat golf course runoff.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$112,800 Create 4.3 acre (188,000 ft2) floodplain wetland by removing legacy sediments. Excavation of 30,960 yd3 of sediment. Seeding 4.3 acres and planting 645 trees and shrubs throughout wetland.

$247,680 $15,050 $19,350

$282,080

Plus easement acquisition

$394,880

17 Robert Copenhaver Farm

DS of Reist Rd

1,320 Livestock grazing impacts; unstable C4 channel – banks completely trampled; heavy sedimentation and aggradation.

Restore as stable C4 channel; install fencing a minimum of 15 feet to either side of stream; install 2 livestock crossings;

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$112,800 Restoration as a stable C4 channel; Seeding of streambanks and riparian buffer. Cost of 2,640 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 2 livestock crossings.

$330,000 $9,900 $600 $400 $350 $150

$9,000 $350,400

$463,200

18 Edwin Copenhaver Farm

UPS of Bricker Rd

990 Livestock grazing impacts; unstable C4 channel – banks completely trampled; heavy sedimentation and aggradation.

Restore as stable C4 channel; install fencing a minimum of 15 feet to either side of stream; install 2 livestock crossings;

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$100,500 Restoration as a stable C4 channel; Seeding of streambanks and riparian buffer. Cost of 1,980 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 2 livestock crossings.

$247,500 $7,425 $600 $400 $350 $150

$9,000 $265,425

$365,925

165

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

19 Ron Copenhaver Farm

and Nancy Todd Property

DS of Bricker Rd

1,800 Livestock grazing impacts; unstable C4 channel – banks trampled along upper section; heavy sedimentation and aggradation throughout.

Restore as stable C4 channel; install fencing a minimum of 15 feet to either side of stream; install 2 livestock crossings;

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$125,800 Restoration as a stable C4 channel; Seeding of streambanks and riparian buffer. Cost of 4,000 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 2 livestock crossings.

$450,000 $15,000

$600 $400 $350 $150

$9,000 $475,500

$601,300

166

167

Table 39 – Buckholder Run and Gingrich Run Prioritized Projects

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

1 Buckholder Run Struphar Farm DS of Rte 322

1,650 Channel ditched; incised with high eroding banks, unstable G4; no buffer

Restore channel as a stable E4 stream with minimum 15 foot riparian buffer and/or floodplain wetlands.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$125,800 Stream

$25,000 Wetland

Restoration as stable E4 stream channel. Seeding 1.14 acres and planting 171 trees and shrubs along streambanks and riparian buffer. Excavation and grading of wetland system 7,200 yd3

Wetland seeding 1.0 acres and 150 Trees and shrubs for wetland.

$412,500 $3,990 $5,130

$421,620

$57,600 $3,500 $4,500 $65,600

$547,420

$90,600

A

Upper Gingrich Run Walter H. Weaber &

Sons, Inc Lumber Mill Site

Review of Google Earth Aerial Image indicates streams in area of operations impacted by stormwater runoff, poor house-keeping and sedimentation.

Conduct a field evaluation to verify channel conditions and determine extent of remediation required.

TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

1 Upper Gingrich Run Grumbine and

Zimmerman Farms Off S. Mount Pleasant

Rd.

2,065 Unstable G4 upper section, incised with high eroding; unstable C4 channel middle and lower sections over-wide with eroding banks; no buffer throughout. Directly impacted by installation of Sunoco Mariner East 2 Oil Pipeline

Restore channel as a stable B4 and C4 channels; establish minimum 15 riparian buffer. Evaluate impacts of pipeline, develop solution to eliminate impacts, and incorporate into design.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$145,350 Restoration as stable B4c stream channel with boulder/cobble grade control riffles and boulder outcrops. Restoration as stable C4 stream channel with toe wood and soil lifts or boulder outcrops. Seeding 1.42 acres and planting 213 trees and shrubs along streambanks.

$516,250 $4,970 $6,390

$527,610

$672,960

B Upper Gingrich Run Schaffer Farm 372 S. Mount Pleasant Rd.

1,240 Mature riparian stream buffer cleared and earthen/ rubble berms constructed along both streambanks.

Conduct a field evaluation to verify channel conditions and determine extent of remediation required.

TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

2 Gingrich Run UPS and DS of Rte

322 and UPS of Meadow Lane

1,485 Unstable C4 channel with high eroding banks, debris jams, mid channel bars

Restore as a stable C4 stream channel

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$138,750 Restoration as stable C4 stream channel with toe wood and/or imbricated rock walls, log-boulder j-hooks. Streambank seeding 0.5 acres and 100 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$371,250 $1,750 $3,000

$376,000

$514,750

168

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

3 Gingrich Run Smith Property

DS of Meadow Lane

2,310 Unstable C6 channel with moderately high eroding banks, debris jams, lateral and mid channel bars, heavy sedimentation

Restore as stable C6 stream; Create 2.75 acre wetland in adjacent floodplain.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$145,350 Restoration as stable C4 stream channel with toe wood and soil lifts. Streambank seeding 0.8 acres and 150 trees and shrubs along streambanks.

$577,500 $86,625 $2,800 $4,500

$671,425

$816,775

4 Gingrich Run Oberholtzer Farm

1,650 Livestock grazing impacts; lack of buffer; unstable E6 and E4 channels with moderately high eroding banks

Grade and stabilize banks; Install fencing a minimum of 15 feet either side of stream and install two (2) livestock crossing

GIS Topo Grading Plan, Prep Permitting, Standard livestock crossing G-3, GP-6

$10,000 Bank grading and stabilization 2,202 yd3

Cost of 3300 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire, wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 2 livestock crossing

$17,616 $12,375

$600 $400 $350 $150

$9,000 $40,491

$50,491

5 Gingrich Run MacDonald Farm DS of Long Meadow Rd and UPS of Killinger

Creek

2,400 Stream fenced but fencing ineffective; livestock grazing impacts; lack of buffer; unstable B4/B4c channels with moderately high eroding banks

Grade and stabilize banks; remove existing fencing and install higher quality fencing same location as old fencing and install two (2) livestock crossings

GIS Topo Grading Plan, Prep Permitting, Standard livestock crossing G-3, GP-6

$10,000 Bank grading and stabilization 3,198 yd3

Cost of 4800 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire, wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 2 livestock crossing

$25,584 $18,000

$600 $400 $350 $150

$9,000 $54,084

$64,084

169

Table 40 – Killinger Creek Prioritized Projects

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

1 A. P. Bucks & Sons, Inc

UPS of Rte 322 and Rte 117

700 Livestock grazing impacts; lack of buffer; unstable E4 channel with low eroding banks

Grade and stabilize banks; install fencing a minimum of 15 feet to either side of stream and install livestock crossing.

GIS Topo Grading Plan Prep, Permitting, Standard livestock crossing G-3, GP-6

$10,000 Bank grading and stabilization 700 yd3

Cost of 1240 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire, wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 1 livestock crossing

$4,200 $5,250 $600 $400 $350 $150

$4,500 $15,450

$25,450

2 A. P. Bucks & Sons, Inc

UPS of Rte 322 and DS of Rte 117

620 Livestock grazing impacts; lack of buffer; unstable C4 channel with high eroding banks

Grade and stabilize banks; Install fencing a minimum of 15 feet either side of stream and install 1 livestock crossing

GIS Topo Grading Plan Prep, Permitting, Standard livestock crossing G-3, GP-6

$10,000 Bank grading and stabilization 827 yd3

Cost of 1240 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire, wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 1 livestock crossing

$6,616 $4,650 $600 $400 $350 $150

$4,500 $17,266

$27,266

W-1 South Londonderry Township Property

UPS of Brandt Road

1,200 Agricultural Runoff, wastewater discharge, low baseflow

Acquire property or easement Create 2.75 acre wetland to treat agricultural runoff and wastewater discharges from S. Londonderry WWTP and augment baseflow to Killinger

GIS Topo Design Plans Prep for Wetland Permitting NW-27

$25,000 Excavation and grading of wetland system19,835 yd3

Wetland seeding 2.75 acres and 412 Trees and shrubs for wetland

$158,680 $9,625

$12,360 $180,665

$205,665 plus land

acquisition

3 McDonald Farm 2,640 Livestock grazing impacts; lack of buffer; unstable C4 channel with moderately high eroding banks

Grade and stabilize banks; Install fencing a minimum of 15 feet and install two (2) livestock crossings. Create 2.75 acre wetland to treat agricultural runoff and wastewater discharges from Palm City WWTP

GIS Topo Grading Plan, Prep Permitting, Standard livestock crossing G-3, GP-6 Design Plans Prep for wetland Permitting NW-27

$10,000

$28,000

Bank grading and stabilization 3,522 yd3

Cost of 5280 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 2 livestock crossing Excavation and grading of wetland system19,835 yd3

Wetland seeding 2.75 acres and 412 Trees and shrubs for wetland

$28,176 $19,800

$600 $400 $350 $150

$9,000 $58,476

$158,680 $9,625

$12,360 $180,665

$68,476

$208,665 plus land

acquisition

170

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

4 Buck Farm 2,310 Livestock grazing impacts; lack of buffer; unstable C4 channel with moderately high eroding banks

Grade and stabilize banks; Install fencing a minimum of 15 feet either side of stream and install two (2) livestock crossings

GIS Topo Grading Plan, Prep Permitting, Standard livestock crossing G-3, GP-6

$10,000 Bank grading and stabilization 3,078 yd3

Cost of 4,620 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 2 livestock crossing

$24,624 $17,325

$600 $400 $350 $150

$9,000 $52,449

$62,449

5 Musser Farm 990 Livestock grazing impacts; lack of buffer; unstable C4 channel with moderately high eroding banks

Grade and stabilize banks; Install fencing a minimum of 15 feet either side of stream and install 1 livestock crossing

GIS Topo Grading Plan, Prep Permitting, Standard livestock crossing G-3, GP-6

$8,500 Bank grading and stabilization 1,320 yd3

Cost of 1,980 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 1 livestock crossing

$10,560 $7,425 $600 $400 $350 $150

$4,500 $23,985

$32,485

6 Burkholder and Kreider Farms

UPS of Killinger Rd.

1,650 Livestock grazing impacts; lack of buffer; unstable C4 channel with moderately high eroding banks

Grade and stabilize banks; Install fencing a minimum of 15 feet either side of stream and install two (2) livestock crossings

GIS Topo Grading Plan, Prep Permitting, Standard livestock crossing G-3, GP-6

$10,000 Bank grading and stabilization 2,202 yd3

Cost of 3300 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire, wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 2 livestock crossing

$17,616 $12,375

$600 $400 $350 $150

$9,000 $40,491

$50,491

7 MFS, Inc. DS of Killinger Rd.

1,988 Livestock grazing impacts; lack of buffer; unstable E4 channel with low eroding banks

Install fencing a minimum of 15 feet to either side of stream and install livestock crossing.

GIS Topo Plan Prep Permitting for Standard livestock crossing GP-6

$6,000 Cost of 660 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 1 livestock crossing

$2,475 $600 $400 $350 $150

$4,500 $8,475

$14,475

171

172

Table 41 – Snitz Creek Prioritized Projects

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

16 Main Stem Snitz DS of Rte 72

Daniel Morrisey

Stuart Perlmutter Stuart Juppenlatz Clarence Collins

1,320 Unstable F4 channel with high to very high eroding banks and heavy sedimentation.

Restore as stable B4c stream.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$118,800 Restoration as stable B4c stream channel with toe wood and soil lifts or boulder outcrops and soil lifts; and boulder cobble riffles. Streambank seeding 0.9 acres and 136 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$330,000 $49,500 $3,150 $4,080

$386,730

$504,730

2 East Fork Cul-de-sac end of

Cedar St to Culvert St.

Glenn Krall

Suzanne Dauberman Robert Dowd Daniel Stoner

Diane Krissinger

2,310 Unstable B4, F4, C4, F4, and B4 channels with high eroding banks along upper section, aggradation and bank erosion along middle and lower sections.

Restore as stable B4c and C4 streams. Modify right bank upstream of old roadbed in middle of project area to divert storm flows into adjacent floodplain; Excavate adjacent floodplain upstream of old roadbed to create 2.0 acre intermittently flooded wetland

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$150,800

Restoration as stable C4/B4c stream channel with toe wood and soil lifts and boulder outcrops; and boulder cobble riffles. Streambank seeding 0.8 acres and 120 trees and shrubs along streambanks Excavation and grading of wetland system 14,400 yd3

Wetland seeding 2.0 acres and 300 trees and shrubs for wetland

$462,000 $43,125 $2,800 $3,600

$511,525

$86,400 $7,000 $9,000

$102,400

$764,725

3 East Fork Culvert St to Cornwall Rd

Donald Stoner

1,290 Unstable C4 and F4 channel sections with active head-cuts and high eroding banks throughout and aggradation along lower section

Restore as stable C4 and B4c streams. Create wetlands in adjacent floodplain.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$105,800 Stream

$25,000 Wetland

Restoration as stable B4c stream channel with boulder outcrops; and boulder cobble riffles. Streambank seeding 0.9 acres and 135 trees and shrubs along streambanks Excavation and grading of wetland system 7,200 yd3

Wetland seeding 1.0 acres and 150 Trees and shrubs for wetland

$322,500 $2,835 $4,050

$329,385

$57,600 $3,500 $4,500 $65,600

$435,185

$90,600

173

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

4 East Fork Cornwall Rd to confluence with main stem Snitz

John Ovates, Andrew Arnold Cory Horst, Eugene Wise Richard Jeffries, Gregory Seidel, Giuseppe Luca Richard Emler, Karl Karinch, Glen Krall,

2,970 Stone walls along both banks upper section; Unstable F4 channel in upper and middle sections with high eroding banks throughout; channelized B4/G4 in lower section

Remove stone walls and restore as stable B4c stream throughout.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$168,800 Restoration as stable B4c stream channel with boulder outcrops; and boulder cobble riffles. Streambank seeding 2.05 acres and plant 308 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$742,500 $7,175 $9,240

$758,915

$927,715

6 Middle Fork Borough of Cornwall

Park South Side Freeman

Drive

400 Unstable C4 channel sections with low to moderately high eroding banks, lacking buffer in park area.

Grade and stabilize streambanks with imbricated rock wall along right bank and coir matting and plants along left bank. Plant a minimum 15 foot riparian buffer.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$65,400 Grade streambanks; install imbricated rock wall along right bank and coir matting and plants along left bank. Seeding 0.28 acres of streambank and plant 42 trees and shrubs

$100,000 $980

$1,260 $102,240

$167,640

7 Middle Fork Cornwall Ctr south side of

Burd Coleman Rd. near Old School

1,650 Unstable C4 channel with debris jams, aggradation, and high eroding banks throughout.

Restore as stable C4 stream.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$112,800 Remove debris jams. Grade streambanks; install imbricated rock walls along outside of meanders adjacent to ball field and toe wood and soil lifts along left meander bends. Seeding 1.14 acres of streambank and planting 171 trees and shrubs

$412,500 $61,875 $3,990 $5,130

$483,495

$167,640

8 Middle Fork Farm adjacent to

North Cornwall Rd

2,930 Livestock grazing impacts; unstable C4/F4 channel with moderately high to high eroding banks; heavy sedimentation and aggradation; dam in lower section

Remove dam; restore as stable C4 and B2 streams; install fencing a minimum of 15 feet to either side of stream; install two (2) livestock crossings

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$168,800 Remove dam; restoration as stable C4 channel along approximately 2,700 LF and B2 timber-boulder step-pool channel in 230 LF section ups and ds of dam location; Install fencing a minimum of 15 feet to either side of stream along upper 2400 LF; install two (2) livestock crossings Seeding 1.8 acres and planting 270 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$732,500 $6,300 $8,100 $600 $400 $350 $150

$9,000 $757,400

$926,200

174

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

9 Middle Fork DS of North Cornwall

Rd

UPS 900 DS 450 1,350

Unstable G4 channel with moderately high to high eroding banks, bank revetment composed of cinder blocks and rip-rap; lacking a buffer in lawn areas.

Remove cinder blocks and rip-rap revetment; restore as stable B4c stream. Plant a minimum 15 foot riparian buffer along yards.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$118,800 Restoration as stable B4c stream channel with boulder outcrops and imbricated rock walls. Streambank seeding 0.93 acres and 140 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$337,500 $3,255 $4,200

$344,955

$462,955

10 Middle Fork and Main stem Snitz

confluence UPS of Rte 72

400 Unstable G4 channel with moderately high eroding banks, bank revetment composed of rip-rap; lacking a buffer in lawn area.

Grade and stabilize streambanks with imbricated rock wall along left bank and coir matting and plants along right bank. Plant a minimum 15 foot riparian buffer.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$65,400 Grade streambanks; install imbricated rock wall along right bank and coir matting and plants along left bank. Seeding 0.28 acres of streambank and plant 42 trees and shrubs

$100,000 $980

$1,260 $102,240

$167,640

11 West Fork Alden Place at

Cornwall

3,960 Unstable B4, C4, and G4 channels with active head-cuts, high eroding banks, heavy sedimentation and aggradation throughout; breached dam in upper section

Remove breached dam; restore as stable B4 and C4 streams.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$203,080 Remove dam; restoration as stable B4 and C4 channels; Seeding 2.7 acres and planting 405 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$990,000 $9,450 $12,150

$1,011,600

$1,214,680

12 West Fork Alden Place at

Cornwall UPS of Alden Lane

1,980 Unstable C4 channel with moderate to moderately high eroding banks and heavy sedimentation throughout; gully erosion in adjacent fields; pond diversion.

Restore as stable C4 stream; repair gullies; evaluate impact of pond diversion.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$125,800 Restoration as stable C4 stream channel with toe wood and soil lifts; install fencing; install a livestock crossing; modify pond diversion. Seeding 1.36 acres and planting 204 trees and shrubs along streambanks.

$495,000 $74,250 $4,760 $6,120

$580,130

$705,930

14 West Fork Adjacent to Fairview

Estates

850 Unstable F4 and B4 channels in lower section with high eroding banks and heavy sedimentation.

Restore as stable B4c and B4 stream.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$75,800 Restoration as stable B4c stream channel with boulder outcrops and boulder cobble riffles. Streambank seeding 0.6 acres and 90 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$212,500 $2,100 $2,700

$217,300

$293,100

175

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

15 West Fork Auman Farm along Rte 72

1,980 Stream ditched and lacking a buffer

Plant a minimum 35 foot riparian buffer along fields.

NA $0 Streambank planting 480 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$14,400 $14,400

18 Main Stem Snitz Stefanides Property UPS of Quentin Rd. at rear of Quentin Circle Shopping

Center

1,320 At the time of the reconnaissance survey (2001), this reach was an unstable C4 channel with debris jams, moderate eroding banks, and heavy sedimentation;. A small dam on-stream diverts baseflow to off-line ponds. Currently (2018), backwater from dam has created a 21 acre floodplain wetland. However, channel is still exhibits heavy sedimentation and dam functions a significant barrier to fish migration.

Evaluate alternatives including: Complete removal of the dam with restoration of channel as a stable C4 with a B2 timber/boulder step-pool section to transition from ups to ds of dam area. Partial removal or notching of dam to improve sediment transport while maintaining the wetland, installation of B2 timber/boulder step-pool section to transition through dam area; modify pond diversion.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$125,800 Complete removal of the dam with restoration of channel as a stable C4 with a B2 timber/boulder step-pool section to transition from ups to ds of dam area. Partial removal or notching of dam to improve sediment transport while maintaining the wetland; installation of B2 timber/boulder step-pool section to transition through dam area; modification of the pond diversion.

$375,000 $500,800

19 Main Stem Snitz UPS of Colebrook Rd

Ehrgood Property Schulte Property

Showalter Property ABE Associates Zook Property North Cornwall

Zimmerman Property

2,900 Unstable C4 channel with debris jams, moderate eroding banks, and heavy sedimentation;

Restore as stable C4 stream

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$168,800 Restoration as stable C4 stream channel with toe benches to narrow over-wide sections, rock outcrops and toe wood and soil lifts along outside of meander bends. Seeding 2.0 acres and planting 300 trees and shrubs along streambanks.

$725,000 $7,000 $9,000

$741,000

$909,800

20 Main Stem Snitz Zimmerman Property DS of Colebrook Rd

980 Unstable C4 channels with debris jams, moderate to moderately high eroding banks, and heavy sedimentation

Restore as stable C4 streams.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$108,800 Restoration as stable C4 stream channel with rock outcrops and soil lifts and boulder cobble riffles. Seeding 0.67 acres and planting 101 trees and shrubs along streambanks

$245,000 $2,345 $3,030

$250,375

$359,175

176

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

22 Main Stem Snitz Miller Farm

DS of Creekside

1,100 Livestock grazing impacts; unstable C4 channels with high W/D ratio, moderate to moderately high eroding banks, and heavy sedimentation

Grade and stabilize banks and narrow channel by installing toe benches along stream edge.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$75,000 Restoration as stable C4 stream channel with toe benches to narrow over-wide sections and toe wood with soil lifts along outside of meander bends. Seeding 0.75 acres and planting 113 trees and shrubs along streambanks.

$137,500 $2,625 $3,390

$143,515

$218,515

23 Main Stem Snitz Properties

DS of Oak St and UPS of Walden Road

1,980 Unstable C4 channels with moderate to moderately high eroding banks, and heavy sedimentation; poorly constructed pond diversions.

Restore as stable C4 stream; modify pond diversions.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$125,800 Restoration as stable C4 stream channel with toe benches to narrow over-wide sections, install rock outcrops and toe wood with soil lifts along outside of new meander bends; modify pond diversions. Seeding 1.36 acres and planting 204 trees and shrubs along streambanks.

$495,000 $4,760 $6,120

$505,880

$631,680

24 Main Stem Snitz Hershey Farm

UPS of Dairy Rd

1,300 Livestock grazing impacts; unstable C4 channels with high W/D ratio, moderate to moderately high eroding banks, and heavy sedimentation

Restore as stable C4 stream; install fencing a minimum of 35 feet to either side of stream and install a livestock crossing.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$75,800 Restoration as stable C4 stream channel with toe benches to narrow over-wide sections and toe wood and soil lifts along outside of new meander bends. Cost of 600 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 1 livestock crossing Seeding 2.1 acres and planting 315 trees and shrubs along streambanks.

$162,500 $7,350 $9,450 $2,250 $600 $400 $350 $150

$4,500 $187,550

$263,350

177

178

179

Table 42 – Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem Prioritized Projects

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

8 UPS Property Limit of Kennedy Property at 413 Millbridge Drive. – DS Property Limit

of Copenhaver Property

at 111 Ann Lane

1,500 Unstable C4 with high bank erosion throughout; heavy sedimentation, aggradation; and minimal to no buffer along both banks

Stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, and install structures (e.g., log vanes, rock vanes, or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat. Plant a minimum 20 foot buffer along the right bank and 35 feet along the left bank.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$125,800 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 1.03 acres and planting 155 trees and shrubs.

$375,000 $41,250 $3,605 $4,650

$424,505

$550,305

9 DS Property Limit of Copenhaver Property at 111 Ann Lane –

Beck Creek

2,150 Unstable C4 with moderate bank erosion upper and lower sections, debris jams, heavy sedimentation, aggradation; and minimal to no buffer along the right bank in the upper section both banks in the lower section.

Remove debris jams; stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, and install structures (e.g., log vanes, rock vanes, or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat. Plant a minimum 35 buffer along both banks.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$168,500 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 1.0 acres and planting 150 trees and shrubs.

$537,500 $90,375 $3,500 $4,500

$635,875

$804,375

10 Beck Creek – Annville Township

Line

1,200 Unstable C4 with moderate to moderately high bank erosion; debris jams, heavy sedimentation, aggradation (lateral bars) throughout.

Remove debris jams; stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, and install structures (e.g., log vanes, rock vanes, or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$125,800 Remove debris jams; grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 0.82 acres and planting 123 trees and shrubs.

$300,000 $45,000 $2,870 $3,690

$351,560

$477,360

180

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

11 Spruce St – UPS End of Quittie Park

Project

2,550 Bank erosion throughout. Failing habitat structures.

Remove failing habitat structures, stabilize banks and install new structures (e.g., toe benches, boulder rock outcrops, or boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$168,800 Remove failing habitat structures, grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 1.75 acres and planting 263 trees and shrubs.

$637,500 $95,625 $6,125 $7,890

$747,140

$915,940

14 Rte 934 – Myer St 1,900 Unstable C4 moderately high to high bank erosion, heavy sedimentation, aggradation (lateral and mid-channel bars) throughout; minimal to no buffer along right bank.

Stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, and install structures (e.g., log vanes, rock vanes, or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat; plant minimum 20 foot buffer along right bank.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$157,800 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 1.75 acres and planting 263 trees and shrubs.

$475,000 $71,250 $6,125 $7,890

$560,265

$718,065

15 Myer St – UPS of Old Mill Dam

3,275 Unstable C4/F4 with high to very high bank erosion, heavy sedimentation, aggradation (lateral and mid-channel bars) throughout; minimal to no buffer along right bank in upper section.

Stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, and install structures (e.g., log vanes, rock vanes, or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$225,500 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 2.4 acres and planting 360 trees and shrubs.

$818,750 $122,813 $8,400 $10,800

$960,763

$1,186,263

16 Rte 422 – Concrete Flume DS of WWTP

2,150 Unstable C4 with low to moderate bank erosion, heavy sedimentation, aggradation (lateral and mid-channel bars) throughout.

Narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins; install structures (e.g., log vanes, rock vanes, or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$168,500 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 1.48 acres and planting 222 trees and shrubs.

$537,500 $80,625 $5,180 $6,660

$629,965

$798,465

181

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

18 End of Concrete Flume – Clear Spring

Rd

2,000 Unstable C4 with moderately high to high bank erosion, debris jams, heavy sedimentation, aggradation (lateral and mid-channel bars) throughout.

Remove debris jams; stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, and install structures (e.g., log vanes, rock vanes, or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$162,500 Remove debris jams; grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 1.38 acres and planting 207 trees and shrubs.

$500,000 $75,000 $4,830 $6,210

$586,040

$748,540

19 Clear Spring Rd – Syner Road

2,700 Unstable C4 with moderate to moderately high bank erosion, numerous large debris jams, heavy sedimentation, aggradation (lateral and mid-channel bars) throughout.

Remove debris jams; stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, and install structures (e.g., log vanes, rock vanes, or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks. .

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$183,700 Remove debris jams; grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 1.86 acres and planting 279 trees and shrubs.

$675,000 $101,250 $6,510 $8,370

$791,130

$974,830

20 Syner Rd – Killinger Creek

2,200 Unstable C4 with moderately high to high bank erosion, debris jams, heavy sedimentation, aggradation (lateral and mid-channel bars) throughout.

Remove debris jams; stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, and install structures (e.g., log vanes, rock vanes, or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$169,300 Remove debris jams; grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 1.5 acres and planting 225 trees and shrubs.

$550,000 $82,500 $5,250 $6,750

$644,500

$813,800

21 Killinger Creek – School Creek

3,250 Unstable C4 with high to very high bank erosion, debris jams, heavy sedimentation, aggradation (lateral and mid-channel bars) throughout.

Remove debris jams; stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, remove rip-rap in fishing club section and install structures (e.g., log vanes or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$224,800 Remove debris jams; grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 2.24 acres and planting 336 trees and shrubs.

$812,500 $121,875 $7,840 $10,080

$952,295

$1,177,095

182

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

22 School Creek – Old Mill Race at Forge

Farm

5,300 Unstable B4c/C4 with high to very high bank erosion, heavy sedimentation, aggradation (lateral and mid-channel bars) throughout; islands immediately DS of Palmyra-Bellegrove Bridge.

Remove islands DS of Palmyra-Bellegrove Bridge; stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install structures (e.g., log vanes or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$255,900 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 3.65 acres and planting 548 trees and shrubs.

$1,325,000 $198,750 $12,775 $16,440

$1,552,965

$1,808,865

23 Old Mill Race at Forge Farm –

Unnamed Tributary

3,210 Unstable C4 with moderate to moderately high bank erosion in upper section, heavy sedimentation, aggradation (lateral and mid-channel bars) throughout.

Stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, and install structures (e.g., log vanes, rock vanes, or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$224,800 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 2.2 acres and planting 330 trees and shrubs.

$802,500 $120,375 $7,700 $9,900

$940,475

$1,165,275

24 Unnamed Tributary – Syner Rd

2,425 Unstable C4/B4c with high to very high bank erosion in upper section, heavy sedimentation, aggradation (lateral and mid-channel bars) throughout.

Stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, and install structures (e.g., log vanes, rock vanes, or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat; plant trees along right floodplain.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$179,200 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 1.67 acres and planting 251 trees and shrubs.

$606,250 $90,937 $5,845 $7,530

$710,562

$889,762

25 Syner Rd – Bedrock Section DS of

Powerlines on Blauch Farm

2,450 Unstable B4c/C4 with moderate to moderately high bank erosion in the lower section, debris jams, heavy sedimentation, aggradation (lateral and mid-channel bars) throughout; minimal to no buffer along right bank in middle and lower sections.

Remove debris jams; stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install structures (e.g., log vanes or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat; relocate fence a minimum of 25 feet from top of bank and plant buffer with trees and shrubs.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$179,900 Remove debris jams; grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 2.0 acres and planting 300 trees and shrubs.

$612,500 $91,875 $7,000 $9,000

$720,375

$900,275

183

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

26 Bedrock Section DS of Powerlines on

Blauch Farm – UPS of wetland swale that

drains pond

2,625 Unstable C4 with moderate to moderately high bank erosion, debris jams, heavy sedimentation, aggradation (lateral and mid-channel bars) throughout

Remove debris jams; stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install structures (e.g., log vanes or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$187,600 Remove debris jams; grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 1.8 acres and planting 270 trees and shrubs.

$656,250 $196,875 $6,300 $8,100

$867,525

$1,055,125

27 UPS of wetland swale that drains pond – Riffle at

Beach Area

3,150 Unstable C4 with moderate to moderately high bank erosion, numerous debris jams, heavy sedimentation, aggradation (lateral and mid-channel bars) throughout

Remove debris jams; stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install structures (e.g., log vanes or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$218,700 Remove debris jams; grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 2.17 acres and planting 326 trees and shrubs.

$787,500 $118,125 $7,595 $9,780

$923,000

$1,141,700

28 Riffle at Beach Area – Valley Glen Rd

1,800 Unstable C4 with moderate bank erosion, numerous debris jams, heavy sedimentation, aggradation (lateral and mid-channel bars) throughout

Remove debris jams; stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches, install structures (e.g., log vanes or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$158,400 Remove debris jams; grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 1.24 acres and planting 186 trees and shrubs.

$450,000 $67,500 $4,340 $5,580

$527,420

$685,820

29 Valley Glen Rd – Swatara Creek

1,950 Unstable C4/F4 with moderate to high bank erosion, numerous debris jams, heavy sedimentation, aggradation (lateral and mid-channel bars) throughout

Remove debris jams; stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install structures (e.g., log vanes or log-boulder J-Hooks) to divert flow away from banks and create habitat.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$162,600 Remove debris jams; grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install toe wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops along meander bend; and install in-stream structures Seeding 1.34acres and planting 201 trees and shrubs.

$487,500 $73,125 $4,690 $6,030

$571,345

$733,945

184

Table 43 – Unnamed Tributary in North Annville Prioritized Projects Project ID Location Length

(feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

1 Struphar Farm DS of Rte 934

600 Livestock grazing impacts; lack of buffer; unstable F4 channel with moderately high to high eroding banks

Restore as stable B4c stream; install fencing a minimum of 15 feet to either side of stream and install a livestock crossing.

GIS Topo Grading Plan, Prep Permitting, Standard livestock crossing G-3, GP-6

$10,000 Bank grading and stabilization 1,067 yd3

Cost of 1200 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire, wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 1 livestock crossing Streambank seeding 0.4 acres and 60 shrubs along streambanks

$6,402 $4,500 $600 $400 $350

$4,500 $1,400 $1,800 $15,602

$25,602

2 Bomgardner Farm DS of Rte 934

2,970 Unstable C4 channel with debris jams, high eroding banks, aggradation and gully erosion in headwaters.

Restore as stable C4 stream; repair headwater gullies.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$172,100 Remove debris jams; grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install rock outcrops along meander bends; Repair gullies with boulder grade control and bank grading. Seeding 2.0acres and planting 300 trees and shrubs.

$594,000 $7,000 $9,000

$610,000

$782,000

4 Gingrich Orchard UPS of Palmyra Bellegrove Rd

1,155 Unstable F4, G4 and B4 channel sections with high eroding banks throughout and aggradation in lower section; junk scattered along upper section below pond; no buffer in upper section

Remove junk from upper section; restore as stable B4c and B4 streams; plant a minimum 15 foot riparian buffer along both sides of stream across yard below pond.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$108,000 Remove junk from upper section; Grade and stabilize banks; install rock outcrops along meander bends, install boulder/cobble riffle grade control Seeding 0.89acres and planting 134 trees and shrubs.

$231,000 $3,115 $4,020

$238,135

$346,135

5A Summers Farm DS of Palmyra Bellegrove Rd

MS 3,925 Livestock grazing impacts throughout. Main channel - unstable C4 channels with debris jams, low to moderately high eroding banks throughout, aggradation and bank erosion along middle and lower sections.

Restore MS as stable E4 and C4 streams. Install new fencing and crossings to limit livestock access to stream

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$245,000 Remove debris jams; grade and stabilize banks, narrow channel by constructing toe benches along channel margins, install rock outcrops along meander bend; and install boulder/cobble riffle grade control. Cost of 4,200 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire, wooden posts, 10 corners, 4 gates, 2 solar panel and accessories; plus 2 livestock crossings. Seeding 2.7acres and planting 405 trees and shrubs.

$785,000 $15,750 $1,500 $800 $700 $300

$9,000 $9,450 $12,150

$834,650

$1,079,650

185

Project ID Location Length (feet)

Existing Problems Proposed Solution

Design & Permitting

Design & Permitting

Cost

Construction Construction Cost

Total Cost

5B Summers Farm DS of Palmyra Bellegrove Rd

2,970 Gully is an unstable G4 channel caused by erosion in upper fields, adjacent to and downstream of pond. Erosion is related to stormwater runoff and livestock grazing impacts throughout.

Restore MS as stable E4 and C4 streams. Repair gullies. Install new fencing and crossings to limit livestock access to stream and drainage way in upper fields. Evaluate the installation of a 2.5 acre pond at head of drainage way to control runoff.

Field Run Topo Survey and Base Maps, H&H, Concept and Final Design Plans Prep, Permitting NW-27

$172,000 Repair main gully by grading and stabilizing banks and installing boulder grade control structures. Cost of 5,000 LF of 3 strand, high tensile wire, wooden posts, 11 corners, 6 gates, 2 solar panel and accessories; plus 1 livestock crossing Seeding 2.0acres and planting 300 trees and shrubs.

$445,500 $18,750 $1,650 $1,200 $700 $300

$4,500 $7,000 $9,000

$488,600

$660,600

186

187

188

V. Schedule and Milestones

A. General

As previously noted, meeting Total Targeted TMDL goals will be accomplished by implementing restoration and management measures focused on controlling urban and agricultural runoff, as well as stream channel and floodplain restoration. The restoration and management measures utilized fall into four categories; 1) TMDL Stream Restoration; 2) MS4 Stream Restoration; 3) MS4 Urban BMPs and 4) Agricultural BMPs. MS4 Restoration and MS4 BMPs will be implemented by the Lebanon County Stormwater Consortium and Non-Participating Townships. Agricultural BMPs will be implemented by NRCS and the Lebanon County Conservation District. The Quittapahilla Watershed Association, Doc Fritchey Chapter Trout Unlimited and Lebanon Valley Conservancy will partner on implementing TMDL Restoration projects. Tables 44 to 47 show the implementation schedules for sixty one TMDL restoration projects proposed for the major subwatersheds. The tables include the Project Phases; Project ID#; Length of Project; Type of Project; Start and End Dates for Project Implementation; Funding Required for Design, Permitting and Construction; and Primary Funding Source. Figures 18 – 21 show the implementation timelines for the same projects. As shown the implementation schedules will follow the prioritization ranking of subwatersheds as well as projects within subwatersheds. However, differences in funding sources and overall project cost will allow some types of projects to move forward on a faster track than others. For example, projects addressing livestock grazing impacts will likely be funded by EQUIP funds secured through USDA-NRCS. The majority of these type projects involve bank grading, installation of fencing and livestock crossings, and riparian buffer plantings. Design is less complex and permitting is more straight forward. Construction is also fairly straightforward. They cost less to implement than complete restoration projects. In addition, landowners can apply for funding for the entire project, including design, permitting and construction with one application. These factors allow more projects to be implemented in a shorter timeframe. On the other hand, complete restoration projects involve more complex design, longer time periods for permit review and construction. These type projects will be funded by 319 grants. Because they cost more to implement funding may be phased with design and permitting covered by one grant cycle and construction by a second. Tables 48 to 50 show the implementation schedule for twenty four TMDL restoration projects proposed for the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek and the Unnamed Tributary draining directly to the lower mainstem in the North Annville Township. The tables include the Project Phases; Project ID#; Length of Project; Type of Project; Start and End Dates for Project Implementation; Funding Required for Design, Permitting and Construction; and Primary Funding Source. As shown, all but one of these projects involves complete restoration. These type projects will be funded by 319 and Growing Greener grants. Figures 22 – 24 show the implementation timelines for the same projects. Each implementation phase will be tracked and documented with annual reports that include an evaluation of the restoration program’s progress in terms of number of projects completed and length of channel restored; discussion of issues encountered since the previous evaluation period and how those issues were addressed. This structuring allows for on-going analysis to

189

allow the program to be adapted to address issues and changing conditions and to focus resources. The schedule includes milestones to highlight funding needs prior to implementation. Meeting implementation schedules is predicated on factors over which QWA, DFTU and LVC have little control. First and foremost is the willingness of landowners to participate in the restoration effort. Some projects involve a single landowner, while others require the participation of multiple landowners in order for the project to move forward. Another major factor is the availability of funding. Assuming funding is available and can be readily secured, the goal is to initiate three EQUIP funded projects, two 319 funded projects, and one Growing Greener funded project per grant cycle. Utilizing this approach, it is anticipated that the implementation of the sixty one subwatershed projects will take twenty years to complete and the nineteen mainstem projects will take twenty years to complete. If a landowner chooses not to participate or funding is not available during any given grant cycle, the project list and implementation schedule will be adjusted accordingly.

190

B. Subwatershed Restoration Projects Table 44 - Quittapahilla Subwatershed Restoration Projects Schedule - Phase 1 Project ID Length

(LF) Type Grant

Application Funding Required

Design & Permitting

Grant Application

Funding Required

Construction Primary Funding Source

Snitz Creek 2 2310 R/W Spring 2019 $150,800 Fall 2019 Spring 2020 $613,925 Fall 2020 319 Snitz Creek 3 1290 R/W Spring 2019 $130,800 Fall 2019 Spring 2020 $394,985 Fall 2020 319 Snitz Creek 4 2970 R Spring 2020 $168,800 Fall 2020 Spring 2021 $758,915 Fall 2021 319 Snitz Creek 6 400 R Spring 2020 $65,400 Fall 2020 Spring 2021 $102,240 Fall 2021 319 Snitz Creek 7 1650 R Spring 2021 $112,800 Fall 2021 Spring 2022 $483,495 Fall 2022 319 Snitz Creek 8 2930 DR/R/F/C Spring 2021 $168,800 Fall 2021 Spring 2022 $757,400 Fall 2022 319 Snitz Creek 9 1350 R Spring 2022 $118,800 Fall 2022 Spring 2023 $344,955 Fall 2023 319 Snitz Creek 10 400 R Spring 2022 $65,400 Fall 2022 Spring 2023 $102,240 Fall 2023 319 Snitz Creek 11 3960 DR/R Spring 2023 $203,080 Fall 2023 Spring 2024 $1,011,600 Fall 2024 319 Snitz Creek 12 1980 R Spring 2023 $125,800 Fall 2023 Spring 2024 $580,130 Fall 2024 319 Snitz Creek 14 850 R Spring 2024 $75,800 Fall 2024 Spring 2025 $217,300 Fall 2025 319 Snitz Creek 15 1980 BP Spring 2024 NA Fall 2024 Spring 2025 $14,400 Fall 2025 319 Snitz Creek 16 1320 R Spring 2019 $118,800 Fall 2019 Spring 2020 $386,730 Fall 2020 319 Snitz Creek 18 1320 DR/R Spring 2025 $125,800 Fall 2025 Spring 2026 $375,000 Fall 2026 319 Snitz Creek 19 2900 R Spring 2025 $168,800 Fall 2025 Spring 2026 $741,000 Fall 2026 319 Snitz Creek 20 980 R Spring 2026 $108,800 Fall 2026 Spring 2027 $250,375 Fall 2027 319 Snitz Creek 22 1100 R Spring 2026 $75,000 Fall 2026 Spring 2027 $143,515 Fall 2027 319 Snitz Creek 23 1980 R Spring 2027 $125,800 Fall 2027 Spring 2028 $505,880 Fall 2028 319 Snitz Creek 24 1300 R/F/C Fall 2016 $75,800 Fall 2017 $187,550 Summer 2018 F&BC Total 32,970 $2,185,080 $7,971,635 Phase 1 Milestone Goal 1. Complete 19 Snitz Creek Subwatershed Projects 2. Complete 32,970 LF of Restoration 3. Time Period - Spring 2019 to Fall 2028 (9 years) 4. Funding Required - $10,156,715

191

192

Table 45 - Quittapahilla Subwatershed Restoration Projects Schedule - Phase 2 Project ID Length

(LF) Type Grant

Application Funding Required

Design & Permitting

Grant Application

Funding Required

Construction Primary Funding Source

Buckholder Creek 1 1650 R/W Spring 2027 $150,800 Fall 2027 Spring 2028 $487,220 Fall 2028 319 Gingrich Run 1 2065 R Spring 2028 $145,350 Fall 2028 Spring 2029 $527,610 Fall 2029 319 Gingrich Run 2 1485 R Spring 2028 $138,750 Fall 2028 Spring 2029 $376,000 Fall 2029 319 Gingrich Run 3 2310 R Spring 2029 $145,350 Fall 2029 Spring 2030 $671,425 Fall 2030 319 Gingrich Run 4 1650 G/F/C Fall 2019 $50,491 Spring 2020 NA Included Fall 2020 EQUIP Gingrich Run 5 2400 G/F/C Fall 2019 $64,084 Spring 2020 NA Included Fall 2020 EQUIP Killinger Creek 1 700 G/F/C Fall 2019 $25,450 Spring 2020 NA Included Fall 2020 EQUIP Killinger Creek 2 620 G/F/C Fall 2019 $27,266 Spring 2020 NA Included Fall 2020 EQUIP Killinger Creek W-1 1200 R/W Fall 2020 $205,665 Spring 2021 NA Included Fall 2021 EQUIP Killinger Creek 3 2640 G/F/C/W Fall 2020 $277,141 Spring 2021 NA Included Fall 2021 EQUIP Killinger Creek 4 2310 G/F/C Fall 2020 $62,449 Spring 2021 NA Included Fall 2021 EQUIP Killinger Creek 5 990 G/F/C Fall 2021 $32,485 Spring 2022 NA Included Fall 2022 EQUIP Killinger Creek 6 1650 G/F/C Fall 2021 $50,491 Spring 2022 NA Included Fall 2022 EQUIP Killinger Creek 7 1980 F/C Fall 2021 $14,475 Spring 2022 NA Included Fall 2022 EQUIP Total 23,650 $1,390,247 $2,062,255 Phase 2 Milestone Goal 1. Complete 14 Buckholder Creek, Gingrich Run and Killinger Creek Subwatershed Projects 2. Complete 23,650 LF of Restoration 3. Time Period – Fall 2019 to Fall 2030 (11 years) 4. Funding Required - $3,452,502

193

194

Table 46 - Quittapahilla Subwatershed Restoration Projects Schedule - Phase 3 Project ID Length

(LF) Type Grant

Application Funding Required

Design & Permitting

Grant Application

Funding Required

Construction Primary Funding Source

Beck Creek 1 330 DR/R Spring 2029 $75,400 Fall 2029 Spring 2030 $124,355 Fall 2030 319 Beck Creek 2 5000 R Spring 2030 $247,800 Fall 2030 Spring 2031 $1,277,550 Fall 2031 319 Beck Creek 3 1980 DR/R Spring 2030 $168,731 Fall 2030 Spring 2031 $505,910 Fall 2031 319 Beck Creek 4 850 F/C Fall 2023 $22,875 Spring 2024 NA Included Fall 2024 EQUIP Beck Creek 5 2452 R/F/C Spring 2031 $175,000 Fall 2031 Spring 2032 $531,825 Fall 2032 319 Beck Creek 6 2000 R/W Spring 2031 $150,800 Fall 2031 Spring 2032 $626,065 Fall 2032 319 Beck Creek 8 1860 R/W Spring 2032 $150,800 Fall 2032 Spring 2033 $412,005 Fall 2033 319 Beck Creek 9 1300 R Spring 2032 $118,800 Fall 2032 Spring 2033 $341,670 Fall 2033 319 Beck Creek 10 700 R Spring 2033 $100,800 Fall 2033 Spring 2034 $183,990 Fall 2034 319 Beck Creek 11 1980 R/F/C Spring 2033 $125,800 Fall 2033 Spring 2034` $600,980 Fall 2034 319 Beck Creek 12 500 F/C Fall 2023 $18,250 Spring 2024 NA Included Fall 2024 EQUIP Beck Creek 13 600 BP Fall 2023 $15,200 Spring 2024 NA Included Fall 2024 EQUIP Beck Creek 14 1650 R/F/C Spring 2034 $120,500 Fall 2034 Spring 2035 $439,995 Fall 2035 319 Beck Creek 16A 810 R/W Spring 2034 $112,800 Fall 2034 Spring 2035 $282,080 Fall 2035 319 Beck Creek 17 1320 R/F/C Fall 2025 $112,800 Spring 2026 NA $350,400 Fall 2026 EQUIP Beck Creek 18 990 R/F/C Fall 2025 $100,500 Spring 2026 NA $265,425 Fall 2026 EQUIP Beck Creek 19 1800 R/F/C Spring 2035 $125,800 Fall 2035 Spring 2036 $475,500 Fall 2036 319 Total 26,122 $1,942,656 $6,417,750 Phase 3 Milestone Goal 1. Complete 17 Beck Creek Subwatershed Projects 2. Complete 26,122 LF of Restoration 3. Time Period – Fall 2023 to Fall 2036 (13 years) 4. Funding Required - $8,360,406

195

196

Table 47 - Quittapahilla Subwatershed Restoration Projects Schedule - Phase 4 Project ID Length

(LF) Type Grant

Application Funding Required

Design & Permitting

Grant Application

Funding Required

Construction Primary Funding Source

Bachman Run 1 1320 G/F/C Fall 2025 $10,500 Spring 2026 NA $15,450 Fall 2026 EQUIP Bachman Run 4 500 R Spring 2035 $79,400 Fall 2035 Spring 2036 $128,475 Fall 2036 319 Bachman Run 5 1810 R Spring 2036 $165,500 Fall 2036 Spring 2037 $462,420 Fall 2037 319 Bachman Run 7 1650 R Spring 2036 $160,000 Fall 2036 Spring 2037 $421,590 Fall 2037 319 Bachman Run 8 1320 R Spring 2037 $118,000 Fall 2037 Spring 2038 $337,200 Fall 2038 319 Bachman Run 9 1650 DR/R Spring 2037 $160,000 Fall 2037 Spring 2038 $421,590 Fall 2038 319 Bachman Run 10 800 G/F/C Fall 2027 $40,188 Spring 2028 NA Included Fall 2028 EQUIP Bachman Run 11 2260 R/F/C Fall 2027 $179,947 Spring 2028 NA Included Fall 2028 EQUIP Bachman Run 12 960 G/F/C Fall 2027 $123,010 Spring 2028 NA Included Fall 2028 EQUIP Bachman Run 13 1650 R/F/C Spring 2038 $135,800 Fall 2038 Spring 2039 $442,245 Fall 2039 319 Bachman Run 14 1590 R Spring 2038 $132,800 Fall 2038 Spring 2039 $426,175 Fall 2039 319 Bachman Run 15 1370 R Spring 2038 $128,800 Fall 2038 Spring 2039 $367,145 Fall 2039 319 Total 16,880 $1,433,945 $3,022,290 Phase 4 Milestone Goal 1. Complete 12 Bachman Run Subwatershed Projects 2. Complete 16,880 LF of Restoration 3. Time Period – Fall 2025 to Fall 2039 (14 years) 4. Funding Required - $4,456,235

197

198

C. Mainstem Restoration Projects Table 48 - Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem Restoration Projects Schedule - Phase 1 – Upper Mainstem Project ID Length

(LF) Type Grant

Application Funding Required

Design & Permitting

Grant Application

Funding Required

Construction Primary Funding Source

8 1500 R Spring 2019 $125,800 Fall 2019 Spring 2020 $424,505 Fall 2020 GG 9 2150 R Spring 2020 $168,500 Fall 2020 Spring 2021 $635,875 Fall 2021 GG 10 1950 R Spring 2021 $125,800 Fall 2021 Spring 2022 $351,560 Fall 2022 GG 11 1200 R Spring 2022 $168,800 Fall 2022 Spring 2023 $747,140 Fall 2023 GG 14 2100 R Spring 2023 $157,800 Fall 2023 Spring 2024 $560,265 Fall 2024 GG 15 3675 R Spring 2024 $225,500 Fall 2024 Spring 2025 $960,763 Fall 2025 GG Total 12,575 $972,200 $3,680,108 Phase 1 Milestone Goal 1. Complete 6 Quittapahilla Creek, Upper Mainstem Projects 2. Complete 12,575 LF of Restoration 3. Time Period – Spring 2019 to Fall 2025 (6 years) 4. Funding Required - $4,652,308

199

200

Table 49 - Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem Restoration Projects Schedule - Phase 2 – Lower Mainstem Project ID Length Type Grant

Application Funding Required

Design & Permitting

Grant Application

Funding Required

Construction Primary Funding Source

16 2150 R Spring 2025 $168,500 Fall 2025 Spring 2026 $629,965 Fall 2026 GG 18 2000 R Spring 2026 $162,500 Fall 2026 Spring 2027 $586,040 Fall 2027 GG 19 2700 R Spring 2027 $183,700 Fall 2027 Spring 2028 $791,130 Fall 2028 GG 20 2200 R Spring 2028 $169,300 Fall 2028 Spring 2029 $644,500 Fall 2029 GG 21 3250 R Spring 2029 $224,800 Fall 2029 Spring 2030 $952,295 Fall 2030 GG 22 5300 R Spring 2030 $255,900 Fall 2030 Spring 2031 $1,552,965 Fall 2031 GG 23 3210 R Spring 2031 $224,800 Fall 2031 Spring 2032 $940,475 Fall 2032 GG 24 2425 R Spring 2032 $179,200 Fall 2032 Spring 2033 $710,562 Fall 2033 GG 25 2450 R Spring 2033 $179,900 Fall 2033 Spring 2034 $720,375 Fall 2034 GG 26 2625 R Spring 2034 $187,600 Fall 2034 Spring 2035 $867,525 Fall 2035 GG 27 3150 R Spring 2035 $218,700 Fall 2035 Spring 2036 $923,000 Fall 2036 GG 28 1800 R Spring 2036 $158,400 Fall 2036 Spring 2037 $527,420 Fall 2037 GG 29 1950 R Spring 2037 $162,600 Fall 2037 Spring 2038 $571,345 Fall 2038 GG Total 35,210 $2,475,900 $10,417,597 Phase 2 Milestone Goal 1. Complete 13 Quittapahilla Creek, Lower Mainstem Projects 2. Complete 35,210 LF of Restoration 3. Time Period – Spring 2025 to Fall 2038 (13 years) 4. Funding Required - $12,893,497

201

202

Table 50 – Unnamed Tributary in North Annville Mainstem Restoration Projects Schedule - Phase 3 – Lower Mainstem Project ID Length Type Grant

Application Funding Required

Design & Permitting

Grant Application

Funding Required

Construction Primary Funding Source

1 600 G/F/C Fall 2019 $25,602 Spring 2020 NA Included Fall 2020 EQUIP 2 2970 R Spring 2022 $172,100 Fall 2022 Spring 2023 $610,000 Fall 2023 319 4 1155 R Spring 2024 $108,000 Fall 2024 Spring 2025 $238,135 Fall 2025 319 5A 3925 R Spring 2026 $245,000 Fall 2026 Spring 2027 $834,650 Fall 2027 319 5B 2970 R Spring 2028 $172,000 Fall 2028 Spring 2029 $488,600 Fall 2029 319 Total 11,620 $722,702 $2,171,385 Phase 3 Milestone Goal 1. Complete 5 Unnamed Tributary in North Annville Projects 2. Complete 11,620 LF of Restoration 3. Time Period – Fall 2019 to Fall 2029 (10 years) 4. Funding Required - $2,894,087

203

204

VI. Load Reduction Evaluation Criteria

A. Quantitative Measures of Implementation Progress and Pollution Reduction As noted previously, one of the committees formed by QWA was the Project Tracking and Documentation Committee. This group will be responsible for managing the data relevant for evaluating and documenting project implementation and progress toward meeting pollution reduction goals. Table 51 shows one method anticipated for tracking this progress. The table and summary present an example of the documentation and accounting that will occur for a completed project phase. Table 51 - Phase 1 TMDL Restoration Tracking

Milestone Project ID Length Completion Date N Reduction

(ibs/yr

P Reduction

(lbs/yr

S Reduction

(lbs/yr

Snitz 24 1,300 Fall 2018 97.5 88.4 58,344.0 Snitz 16 1,320 Fall 2020 99.0 89.8 59,241.6 Snitz 2 2,310 Fall 2020 173.3 157.1 103,672.8 Snitz 3 1,290 Fall 2020 96.8 87.7 57,895.2 1 - Subtotal 4 Projects 6,220 12/31/20 466.6 423.0 279,153.6 Snitz 4 2,970 Fall 2021 222.8 201.9 133,293.6 Snitz 6 400 Fall 2021 30.0 27.2 17,952.0 2 - Subtotal 6 Projects 9,590 12/31/21 719.4 652.1 430,399.2 Snitz 7 1,650 Fall 2022 123.8 112.2 74,052.0 Snitz 8 2,930 Fall 2022 219.8 199.2 131,498.4 3 - Subtotal 8 Projects 14,170 12/31/22 1,063.0 963.5 635,949.6 Snitz 9 1,350 Fall 2023 101.3 91.8 60,588.0 Snitz 10 400 Fall 2023 30.0 27.2 17,952.0 4 - Subtotal 10 Projects 15,920 12/31/23 1,194.3 1,082.5 714,489.6 Snitz 11 3,960 Fall 2024 297.0 269.3 177,724.8 Snitz 12 1,980 Fall 2024 148.5 134.6 88,862.4 5 - Subtotal 12 Projects 21,860 12/31/24 1,639.8 1,486.4 981,076.8 Snitz 14 850 Fall 2025 63.8 57.8 38,148.0 Snitz 15 1980 Fall 2025 148.5 134.6 88,862.4 6 - Subtotal 14 Projects 24,690 12/31/25 1,852.1 1,678.8 1,108,087.2 Snitz 18 1,320 Fall 2026 99.0 89.8 59,241.6 Snitz 19 2,900 Fall 2026 217.5 197.2 130,152.0 7 - Subtotal 16 Projects 28,910 12/31/26 2,168.6 1,965.8 1,297,480.8 Snitz 20 980 Fall 2027 73.5 66.6 43,982.4 Snitz 22 1,100 Fall 2027 82.5 74.8 49,368.0 8 - Subtotal 18 Projects 30,990 12/31/27 2,324.6 2,107.2 1,390,831.2 Snitz 23 1,980 Fall 2028 148.5 134.6 88,862.4 Total 19 Projects 32,970 12/31/28 2,473.1 2,241.8 1,479,693.6

Phase 1 Final Summary 1. Time Period - Spring 2019 to Fall 2028 (9 years) 2. Completed 19 Snitz Creek Subwatershed Projects 3. Completed 32,970 LF of Restoration

205

4. Nitrogen Reduction – 2,473.1 lbs./yr. (0.77% reduction in current loadings) 5. Phosphorus Reduction – 2,241.8 lbs./yr. (28.1% reduction in current loadings) 6. Sediment Reduction – 1,479,693.6 lbs./yr. (50.6% reduction in current loadings) Implementation of these TMDL Restoration projects, combined with the Ag BMPs coordinated through the Lebanon Conservation District and NRCS, the Snitz Creek subwatershed will be able to exceed its phosphorus and sediment reduction goals. It will also reduce sediment loadings to the overall Quittapahilla Creek watershed by 3,355,310 lbs. /yr. The Project Tracking and Documentation Committee will evaluate and document the program’s progress for all subwatershed and mainstem projects on an annual basis. A report will be prepared and presented at an annual meeting of the QWA membership and placed on their website. In addition, the report will be submitted to Watershed Support Section, Office of Water Resources Planning, PA Department of Environmental Protection; Office of State and Watershed Partnerships, Water Protection Division (3WP10), USEPA Region 3, and Office of State and Watershed Programs, USEPA Region 3.

B. Qualitative Measures of Overall Program Success Another method for measuring program success will include an evaluation of public involvement and buy-in. Over the years, the QWA has formed a close working relationship with the Lebanon Valley Conservancy, and Doc Fritchey Chapter of Trout Unlimited (DFTU). In addition, they have worked closely with the Lebanon Conservation District and NRCS to implement projects on farms in the rural part of watershed. These partnerships will be critical to implementing the WIP projects. Snitz Creek Project #2 is presented as a specific recent example of the success QWA has had in forming partnerships and working with landowners. In 2018, QWA applied for a grant through PADEP’s Water Quality Improvement Projects along the Sunoco Mariner East 2 Pipeline Corridor Grant Program to fund the Snitz Creek Project #2. This project proposes to restore 2,310 linear feet of Snitz Creek in the Borough of Cornwall. The restoration design objectives involve creating a stable, meandering stream channel and restoring the adjacent floodplain by creating a 2.5 acre emergent and scrub-shrub wetland that will capture and provide water quality treatment for direct runoff from cultivated agricultural fields along the right floodplain and urban runoff from residential neighborhoods along the left floodplain. There are nine landowners along this project area. All have agreed to participate in the project. In fact, the Krall Family agreed to allow 2 acres of their cultivated field along the right floodplain to be converted into wetlands to support the project. Representatives of QWA and their partner Doc Fritchey Chapter of Trout Unlimited visited each landowner securing the required Letters of Commitment. If grant funding is awarded, QWA and DFTU will secure the Letters of Agreement. They will also install plant materials during construction, and provide monitoring and maintenance of the completed project. QWA coordinated with the Cornwall Borough Council securing a commitment for $25,000 in matching funds. Each project identified in this WIP provides a new opportunity for the QWA to continue to demonstrate their ability to secure public involvement and buy-in for their overall watershed restoration efforts. The Project Tracking and Documentation Committee will evaluate and document the program’s success in this area as well.

206

C. Water Quality Indicator Milestones

1. Baseline Conditions Water quality sampling will be included in the long-term monitoring plan and is described in detail in the Monitoring Section of this document. However, the most cost effective methods for measuring success will include evaluations of 1) macroinvertebrate communities, 2) degree of riffle embeddedness with fine sediments, and 3) summer water temperature fluctuations and changes in dissolved oxygen levels. The results of biological surveys conducted as part of the original watershed assessment showed that the macroinvertebrate communities along the four major tributaries were dominated by pollution tolerant species such as scuds, midges and sowbugs, with EPT taxa in limited numbers. Collectors were the dominant functional feeding group, suggesting high levels of fine organic particulate matter (FPOM). This was thought to be due to increased levels of primary production, suggesting nutrient enrichment, which may be entrained with sediment particles. In addition to the biological surveys, the field reconnaissance along the tributaries documented that riffle habitat was heavily embedded with fine sediments along significant reaches of all tributaries. Along Beck Creek, Killinger Creek and Bachman Run, unrestricted livestock grazing was a major cause of these conditions. However, a high degree of embeddedness was observed even along reaches where grazing was not occurring. Here the major cause was likely sediment contributed from widespread bank erosion. This was the case for all four tributaries. The water quality monitoring conducted as part of the original watershed assessment showed that summer water temperatures along the four major tributaries often exceeded the upper limit of optimal water temperature for adult brown trout. Water temperatures along Snitz Creek routinely exceeded the upper limit. Dissolved oxygen concentrations measured along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek ranged from 5.3 – 10.9 mg/l. The minimum concentrations fell in the range of values considered problematic for limestone streams. Q1, Q4, Q5, and Q6 had the lowest minimum concentrations. With the exception of Bachman Run all of the tributaries fell within the normal range of values for limestone streams. Three years of pre-implementation monitoring will provide new baseline conditions for comparison at each monitoring station.

2. Incremental Improvements

a. General

As stream banks are stabilized and livestock access is limited by fencing, sediment from both sources should be reduced enough to allow a general coarsening of riffle substrates. Narrowing of overwide reaches will improve sediment transport further coarsening the substrate. Establishing riparian buffers will provide a source of allochthonous material. As riffle substrates become coarser and the food base shifts from fine organic material to coarse organic material, there should be an overall shift toward scraper and shredder functional food groups. As the riparian buffers start to mature shading will mitigate the thermal impacts exhibited when the

207

channels were wide, shallow and exposed to direct sunlight. Continued improvement in conditions should show further shifts where scrapers, shredders and predators increase in numbers and less tolerate species begin to increase if not dominate.

b. Biological

Annual surveys of macroinvertebrate communities at specific monitoring sites along the tributaries will allow an evaluation of changes that should occur as overall water quality and instream habitat improve. If the biological survey protocol described in Pennsylvania Senior Environment Corps Water Quality Field Manual (2013) is used, a score based on a scale of zero to 40+ that increases by 6 or more from a previous sampling at the same time of year will indicate incremental improvement. If the a more rigorous methodology is used, an Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) score, which is based on a scale of 0 to 100, can be used to document incremental improvement when there is an increase of 15 over the historical data collected at the same time of year.

c. Physical In-Stream Habitat

Annual pebble counts along riffles at these same monitoring sites will allow an evaluation of the particle size distribution of the bed material. Pebble count histograms can show improvements in dominant particle size and decreasing embeddedness. A shift in the histogram to larger streambed particles will be related to stream habitat improvement with a comparison of means/minimums and more sizes.

d. Temperature Installing Hobo® Tidbit v2 Water Temperature Data Loggers to record continuous temperature readings will allow an evaluation as thermal impacts are lessened with the restoration effort. Decreasing water temperatures, that is lower average high temperature in summer months as compared to historical records will be used in combination with increasing dissolved oxygen to identify incremental improvement at the monitoring Stations. This can be demonstrated with records over a period of years; riparian buffers mature. Before and after graphs of data and data averages should show incremental improvements.

e. Dissolved Oxygen

Annual sampling will include field measurements of dissolve oxygen at all monitoring stations. Increasing dissolved oxygen of > 2mg/L will be used in combination with decreasing water temperature to identify incremental improvement in streams - specifically those with buffer BMPs installed.

D. Adaptive Management Approach It is assumed that the implementation of the restoration projects will lead to improvements in water quality, in-stream habitat and biological communities along the tributaries and mainstem. It is also assumed that these improvements will occur gradually overtime. The results of post-implementation geomorphic assessments will provide the first indicators of improved conditions. These changes will be observable along completed project reaches shortly after implementation. Stable stream banks, narrower widths, deeper pools and coarsening substrate

208

along riffle sections. The five year monitoring period required as a condition of the state and federal permits necessary to implement these projects will clearly demonstrate these improvements. However, observing improvements in geomorphic characteristics and biological communities at fixed stations downstream of the project areas will depend on the length of unstable channel remaining between completed projects and the monitoring station. Therefore, it may take years to see actual improvements at the fixed stations. Once all projects upstream of a fixed station have been completed measureable improvements in geomorphic characteristics and biological communities should appear with two to three years. If the geomorphic and biological monitoring does not reflect improving conditions within this specified time period, it may be necessary to conduct field reconnaissance surveys to determine whether other factors are impacting the monitoring results. These factors may include sediments entering the restored stream corridor from cultivated land, timber harvesting operations, or new development parcels lacking best management practices or changes in land management practices along previously stable stream reaches. Addressing these factors in rural areas may be a matter of QWA coordinating with the District and NRCS to encourage the landowner to implement the upland agricultural BMPs necessary to correct the problem. However, some issues may require enforcement actions by The District’s Erosion and Sediment Control Inspectors, PADEP or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. For example, a 2018 review of Google Earth Aerial Image indicates two problem areas along Upper Gingrich Run. The first is the Walter H. Weaber & Sons, Inc Lumber Mill Site. Streams in the area of operations appear to have been impacted by stormwater runoff, poor house-keeping and sedimentation. This was an issue that had been corrected in 1997 after previous enforcement actions. The second problem area is the Schaffer Farm at 372 S. Mount Pleasant Rd. The mature riparian stream buffer that existed along this reach of stream at the time of the original field reconnaissance has been cleared and earthen/rubble berms have been constructed along both streambanks. Both of these sites will require follow-up evaluations to determine appropriate actions. Identifying and correcting these types of activities will be critical to ensuring that the funding and resources expended to restore the watershed are not short-circuited.

209

VII. Monitoring Program

A. General

Monitoring will involve four separate programs. The first program will involve an evaluation of all subwatershed and mainstem restoration project reaches identified in the WIP. The second will involve an evaluation of all subwatershed restoration project reaches identified in the WIP. The third will focus on fixed points in the subwatersheds designated as representative of conditions over a broader subwatershed area. Because the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek includes a significant length of stream channel and watershed drainage area over which the QWA has no control, monitoring of the mainstem will not be included in Programs 2 and 3 outlined below. A fourth program will focus on evaluating progress along the mainstem.

B. Pre-Implementation and Post-Implementation Monitoring

1. Program 1 – Regulatory Monitoring Restoration projects subject to federal permits are required to conduct a pre-implementation evaluation of the project stream reaches and post-construction monitoring for a five-year period of the restored reaches. T he monitoring objectives include an evaluation of changes in channel cross-section; stream profile; channel stability; structural stability and condition; vegetation viability; and in-stream habitat. The required monitoring typically includes topographic surveys of monumented cross-sections within the project area, visual field observations, photographic documentation, vegetation viability measurements, and identifies any necessary corrective measures. Additional information which demonstrates project success is included in annual monitoring reports. Typical monitoring components and frequency are described below and shown in Table 52. The monitoring includes: 1. Evaluations of structural stability documenting changes in valley-wide cross sections

across two structures in the re-located sections of stream channels. The representative cross-sections are monumented and shown in a graphical display which overlays previous cross-sections in annual reports.

2. Evaluations of structural stability by performing longitudinal profile surveys to document thalweg and water surfaces elevations. Longitudinal profiles are shown in a graphical display which overlays previous profiles in annual reports.

3. Evaluations of vegetation species richness and planted vegetation viability. 4. Evaluations of in-stream habitat quality using an assessment method such as EPA's

Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) high gradient stream habitat form. Results of the stream habitat assessment are shown for all monitoring years assessed, including preconstruction.

5. Photographic documentation of site conditions annually along the entire stream restoration project area. Photos of each top of riffle and constructed wetlands are required.

210

6. Identification of any necessary corrective measures. Table 52 – 404 Permit Monitoring Program Monitoring Components Pre- Construction Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Geomorphic Assessment X X X Channel Cross-Sections Design As-Built X X Longitudinal Profile Design As-Built X X Vegetation Survey X X X Stream Habitat Assessment X X X Photo Documentation X X X X Corrective Measures X X This regulatory monitoring will be required of all projects in the subwatersheds and along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek. The pre-implementation monitoring will be conducted by the QWA’s consultant during the design and permitting phase of each project. The cost of that effort has been incorporated into the design and permitting budget for all of subwatershed and mainstem restoration project reaches identified in the WIP. With the exception of Year 1, post-implementation monitoring will be conducted by QWA and Doc Fritchey Chapter of Trout Unlimited volunteers and/or college interns funded by QWA and Doc Fritchey Chapter of Trout Unlimited and trained by Clear Creeks Consulting. Year 1 documentation is provided by QWA’s consultant and contractor. Protocols for the assessments were developed to provide information that can be utilized to evaluate overall channel stability and in-stream habitat. The assessments included riffle pebble counts to assess riffle embeddedness; BANCS evaluations of eroding streambanks to estimate bank erosion rates and calculate sediment loadings; field measurements of representative riffle and pool baseflow and bankfull dimensions; and photo-documentation of existing conditions along the proposed project reaches.

2. Program 2 – WIP Subwatershed Project Reach Evaluations The original field reconnaissance data utilized to identify problem areas and potential restoration projects in the subwatersheds is now fifteen years old. To document stream reach conditions and determine the continued need for restoration/stabilization along the subwatershed project reaches, QWA began conducting pre-implementation geomorphic assessments in 2017. These assessments were conducted by summer college interns funded by QWA and Doc Fritchey Chapter of Trout Unlimited and trained by Clear Creeks Consulting. The focus of the 2017 assessments was the restoration project reaches identified in the Snitz Creek subwatershed. Similar assessments were conducted during summer 2018 along Beck Creek subwatershed. Protocols for the assessments were developed to provide information that can be utilized to evaluate overall channel stability and in-stream habitat. The assessments included riffle pebble counts to assess riffle embeddedness; BANCS evaluations of eroding streambanks to estimate bank erosion rates and calculate sediment loadings; field measurements of representative riffle and pool baseflow and bankfull dimensions; and photo-documentation of existing conditions along the proposed project reaches.

211

QWA intends to continue these pre-implementation geomorphic assessments along Bachman Run, Gingrich Run and Killinger Creek over the next few summers.

3. Program 3 – Subwatershed TMDL Monitoring Stations Eight (8) long-term monitoring sites have been selected throughout the four major subwatersheds (Figure 25 and Table 53). The monitoring objectives include documenting baseline conditions, and determining and documenting progress towards meeting water quality and habitat improvement goals. This effort is not intended to replace the detailed monitoring and documentation conducted by PADEP. It will provide data that may indicate conditions have sufficiently improved to warrant PADEP’s involvement with follow-up monitoring. Pre-Implementation and Post-Implementation Monitoring will follow the Pennsylvania Improving Waters Program Guidelines (PADEP, 2016). The monitoring will utilize the field protocols outlined in the Water Quality Monitoring Field Manual for the Pennsylvania Senior Environment Corps (Nature Abounds and PADEP, 2013) or more rigorous methodologies where expertise is available. The monitoring will include geomorphic and in-stream habitat assessments, macroinvertebrate sampling and water quality sampling. The pre-implementation geomorphic and in-stream habitat assessments will document stream reach conditions. They will include riffle pebble counts to evaluate riffle embeddedness, field measurements of representative riffle and pool baseflow and bankfull dimensions, evaluations of in-stream cover for fish, streambank condition, evaluation of streambank and riparian vegetation and photo-documentation of existing conditions. The pre-implementation geomorphic and in-stream habitat assessments will be conducted at each of the tributary monitoring stations. The assessments will be conducted annually for a minimum of three years prior to implementation and every two years post-implementation (Table 54). Once implementation of restoration projects begins in a given watershed, the annual monitoring will have entered the Post-Implementation phase for that subwatershed. These assessments will be conducted annually by college interns funded by QWA and Doc Fritchey Chapter of Trout Unlimited and trained by Clear Creeks Consulting. Data management for both phases will involve data analysis by Clear Creeks and data storage by QWA. Pre-implementation biological surveys will provide baseline data characterizing the macroinvertebrate communities at the tributary monitoring stations. The macroinvertebrate surveys will be conducted annually for two to three years prior to implementation and every two years post-implementation (Table 54). Benthic macroinvertebrates will be collected at each of the eight sampling stations between October 1st and May 1st at the same time each year. Spring samples are preferred when one seasonal sample is collected since many immature aquatic insects are most developed prior to spring emergence. However, fall samples can provide an opportunity to collect fall-emerging aquatic insects that are often not collected in spring samples. Samples will be collected using the 20-jab method. A standard D-frame aquatic net will be used to collect 20 separate samples from approximately one square foot of habitat throughout the sampling reach. These samples will be divided proportionally among the various habitats present within the sampling reach. Riffle samples will be collected with the aid of running water as with a kick seine, while pool and vegetation samples will be taken with a sweeping or jabbing

212

motion. All 20 samples will be combined into one composite sample for each sampling station. Sub-sampling is often employed in benthic macroinvertebrate studies, but full inventories of in-stream fauna are desired for this assessment. Samples with SAV and other debris will be fully inspected before discarding. Picked macroinvertebrates will be placed into labeled Nalgene jars with 70% ethyl alcohol (ETOH) for preservation. Alcohol preservative will be decanted and replaced with fresh ETOH after 24 hours to limit inadequate preservation due to introduced water and internal organism fluids. Macroinvertebrates will be sorted and identified using a zoom stereoscopic microscope and fiber-optic lighting. Final sorting of debris will also be accomplished and all organisms returned to fresh ETOH in labeled Nalgene jars for long-term storage and retention. Taxonomic determinations will be made to the lowest practical taxonomic level, which for the purposes of this assessment are class for worms and family for molluscs and insects. While lower taxonomic determinations may provide additional ecological information, greater precision generally requires more intensive specimen preparation and examination. The macroinvertebrate sampling will be conducted by Lebanon Valley College, Biology Department, with support from QWA and Doc Fritchey Chapter of Trout Unlimited volunteers trained by PADEP, Division of Water Quality. The taxonomic identification will be conducted by Lebanon Valley College, Biology Department. Data management will involve data analysis by Dr. Becky Urban, Lebanon Valley College and Clear Creeks Consulting and data storage by QWA. Biometrics will be developed to provide a water quality rating score for each station. Pre-implementation water quality monitoring will provide baseline data characterizing the water quality along the tributary project stream reaches. Sample analysis will include pH, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, total alkalinity, orthophosphate phosphorus, total phosphorus, nitrate, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total nitrogen, sulfate, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, turbidity, and fecal coliform. The water quality samples will be collected under storm flow conditions a minimum of six storms per year for a minimum of two years prior to implementation and every three years post-implementation (Table 54). Sample collection will be conducted by QWA and Doc Fritchey Chapter of Trout Unlimited volunteers at the tributary monitoring stations. Samples will be preserved and transported to PADEP, Division of Water Quality for analysis. Hobo® Tidbit v2 Water Temperature Data Loggers will be installed at each of the tributary stations by Clear Creeks Consulting to record continuous temperature readings. The temperature data loggers will be maintained for a minimum of three years pre-implementation and minimum of ten years post-implementation. Data management will involve data downloading and analysis by Clear Creeks and data storage by QWA.

4. Program 4 – Mainstem WIP Monitoring Stations Four (4) long-term monitoring sites have been selected along the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek (Figure 25 and Table 53). The monitoring objectives include documenting baseline conditions, and determining and documenting progress towards meeting water quality and habitat improvement goals. This effort is not intended to replace the detailed monitoring and documentation conducted by PADEP. It will provide data that may indicate conditions have sufficiently improved to warrant PADEP’s involvement with follow-up monitoring.

213

Pre-implementation monitoring will be conducted annually for two to three years. The Post-Implementation phase for the mainstem monitoring stations will begin three years after implementation begins on the MS4 projects upstream of the Q1 Station (downstream of Mill Street). Pre-Implementation and Post-Implementation Monitoring will follow the Pennsylvania Improving Waters Program Guidelines (PADEP, 2016). The monitoring will utilize the field protocols outlined in the Water Quality Monitoring Field Manual for the Pennsylvania Senior Environment Corps (Nature Abounds and PADEP, 2013) or more rigorous methodologies where expertise is available. The monitoring will include geomorphic and in-stream habitat assessments, macroinvertebrate sampling and water quality sampling. The pre-implementation geomorphic and in-stream habitat assessments will document stream reach conditions. They will include riffle pebble counts to evaluate riffle embeddedness, field measurements of representative riffle and pool baseflow and bankfull dimensions, evaluations of in-stream cover for fish, streambank condition, evaluation of streambank and riparian vegetation and photo-documentation of existing conditions. The pre-implementation geomorphic and in-stream habitat assessments will be conducted at each of the tributary monitoring stations. The assessments will be conducted annually for a minimum of three years prior to implementation and every two years post-implementation (Table 54). Once implementation of restoration projects begins in a given watershed, the annual monitoring will have entered the Post-Implementation phase for that subwatershed. These assessments will be conducted annually by college interns funded by QWA and Doc Fritchey Chapter of Trout Unlimited and trained by Clear Creeks Consulting. Data management for both phases will involve data analysis by Clear Creeks and data storage by QWA. Pre-implementation biological surveys will provide baseline data characterizing the macroinvertebrate communities at the tributary monitoring stations. The macroinvertebrate surveys will be conducted annually for two to three years prior to implementation and every two years post-implementation (Table 54). Benthic macroinvertebrates will be collected at each of the eight sampling stations between October 1st and May 1st at the same time each year. Spring samples are preferred when one seasonal sample is collected since many immature aquatic insects are most developed prior to spring emergence. However, fall samples can provide an opportunity to collect fall-emerging aquatic insects that are often not collected in spring samples. Samples will be collected using the 20-jab method. A standard D-frame aquatic net will be used to collect 20 separate samples from approximately one square foot of habitat throughout the sampling reach. These samples will be divided proportionally among the various habitats present within the sampling reach. Riffle samples will be collected with the aid of running water as with a kick seine, while pool and vegetation samples will be taken with a sweeping or jabbing motion. All 20 samples will be combined into one composite sample for each sampling station. Sub-sampling is often employed in benthic macroinvertebrate studies, but full inventories of in-stream fauna are desired for this assessment. Samples with SAV and other debris will be fully inspected before discarding. Picked macroinvertebrates will be placed into labeled Nalgene jars with 70% ethyl alcohol (ETOH) for preservation. Alcohol preservative will be decanted and replaced with fresh ETOH after 24 hours to limit inadequate preservation due to introduced water and internal organism fluids. Macroinvertebrates will be sorted and identified using a

214

zoom stereoscopic microscope and fiber-optic lighting. Final sorting of debris will also be accomplished and all organisms returned to fresh ETOH in labeled Nalgene jars for long-term storage and retention. Taxonomic determinations will be made to the lowest practical taxonomic level, which for the purposes of this assessment are class for worms and family for molluscs and insects. While lower taxonomic determinations may provide additional ecological information, greater precision generally requires relatively mature organisms and more intensive specimen preparation and examination. The macroinvertebrate sampling will be conducted by Lebanon Valley College, Biology Department, with support from QWA and Doc Fritchey Chapter of Trout Unlimited volunteers trained by PADEP, Division of Water Quality. The taxonomic identification will be conducted by Lebanon Valley College, Biology Department. Data management will involve data analysis by Dr. Becky Urban, Lebanon Valley College and Clear Creeks Consulting and data storage by QWA. Biometrics will be developed to provide a water quality rating score for each station. Pre-implementation water quality monitoring will provide baseline data characterizing the water quality along the tributary project stream reaches. Sample analysis will include pH, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, total alkalinity, orthophosphate phosphorus, total phosphorus, nitrate, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total nitrogen, sulfate, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, turbidity, and fecal coliform. The water quality samples will be collected under storm flow conditions a minimum of six storms per year for a minimum of two years prior to implementation and every three years post-implementation (Table 54). Sample collection will be conducted by QWA and Doc Fritchey Chapter of Trout Unlimited volunteers at the tributary monitoring stations. Samples will be preserved and transported to PADEP, Division of Water Quality for analysis. Data management will involve data analysis by Clear Creeks and data storage by QWA.

215

Figure 25 – TMDL Monitoring Station Locations

216

Table 53 – TMDL Monitoring Station Locations Subwatershed

Station ID Location Sampling Type

Bachman Run BM1 UPS of Route 322 Geomorphic/In-Stream Habitat

Biological Water Quality

BM2 UPS of Copenhaver Lane Geomorphic/In-Stream Habitat

Biological Water Quality

Beck Creek BK1 DS of Colebrook Road Geomorphic/In-Stream Habitat

Biological Water Quality

BK2 UPS of Bricker Lane Geomorphic/In-Stream Habitat

Biological Water Quality

Gingrich Run G1 UPS of Louser Road Geomorphic/In-Stream Habitat

Biological Water Quality

Killinger Creek K1 UPS of Killinger Road Geomorphic/In-Stream Habitat

Biological Water Quality

Snitz Creek S1 DS of Zinns Mill Road Geomorphic/In-Stream Habitat

Biological Water Quality

S2 UPS of Walden Street Geomorphic/In-Stream Habitat

Biological Water Quality

Upper Mainstem Q1 DS of Mill Street Geomorphic/In-Stream Habitat

Biological Water Quality

Q2 UPS of Route 422 Geomorphic/In-Stream Habitat

Biological Water Quality

Lower Mainstem Q3 Palmyra-Bellegrove Bridge Geomorphic/In-Stream Habitat

Biological Water Quality

Q4 Gravel Hill Road Geomorphic/In-Stream Habitat

Biological Water Quality

217

Table 54 – TMDL Monitoring Schedule Subwatershed

Station ID

Projects Implementation Period

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044

Snitz Creek S1 1-16 2019-2025 X X X X X X X S2 18-23 2025-2028 X X X X X X X Gingrich Run G1 1-5 2019-2030 X X X X X X X X X X Killinger Creek K1 1-6 2019-2022 X X X X X X X X X X Beck Creek BK1 1-10 2023-2034 X X X X X X X X X BK2 11-18 2023-2036 X X X X X X X X Bachman Run BM1 1-9 2025-2038 X X X X X X X X X X BM2 10-15 2027-2039 X X X X X X X X X X Upper Mainstem Q1 SQ2-6 TBD X X X X X X X Q2 8-15 2019-2025 X X X X X X X X Lower Mainstem Q3 16-21 2025-2030 X X X X X X X X Q4 22-28 2030-2038 X X X X X X X X Total 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 1

218

C. Funding Sources Funding of summer interns will be provided by QWA, DFTU and private grants. QWA and DFTU will apply a for one time grant funding to acquire the field equipment needed to conduct the geomorphic assessments. This includes: one 100 foot measuring tape, one 25 foot survey rod, one clinometer, and one centimeter ruler. They will also seek funding to cover the cost of the eight Hobo® Tidbit v2 Water Temperature Data Loggers and ancillary equipment and software. Finally, if funding is available QWA and DFTU will purchase one YSI 556 Multi-Probe Meter that will allow the volunteers conducting the water quality sampling to take field measurements of temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity and oxidation reduction potential. Table 55 shows the cost of the monitoring equipment needed. Table 55 – Monitoring Equipment Needed Geomorphic Assessment Equipment Number Unit Cost Total Keson 100 ft. Measuring Tape 1 $21.95 $21.95 Sokkia 25 ft. Level Rod/ ft./10ths / 100ths 1 $149.25 $149.25 Suunto PM5/360PC Clinometer 1 $145.25 $145.25 Centimeter Ruler 1 $8.00 $8.00

Total (excluding taxes and shipping) $324.45 Water Quality Testing Equipment HOBO Tidbit v2 Water Temperature Data Logger 8 $133.00 $1,064.00 HOBOware Pro Mac/Win Software 1 $99.00 $99.00 YSI Multi-Probe Meter, Temp, DO, pH, Conductivity, ORP 1 $3,097 $3,097 pH Sensors 1 $166.25 $166.25 DO Sensors 1 $175.75 $175.75 ORP Sensors 1 $194.75 $194.75

Total (excluding taxes and shipping) $5,121.20

219

VIII. Information, Education, and Public Participation Since its founding in 1997, the Quittapahilla Watershed Association has developed a viable and effective set of strategies to cultivate positive and fruitful relationships with all relevant stakeholders in the effort to achieve our larger goal of improving the water quality in the watershed. We divide these stakeholders into four broad categories: (1) government and public officials; (2) affected property owners; (3) allied non-profit organizations; and (4) the general public. The first category, government and public officials, includes local municipalities (boroughs, townships, and the county); multi-municipality local entities (Lebanon Co. Clean Water Alliance, Lebanon Co. Stormwater Consortium, Lebanon County Conservation District); and state and federal officials and agencies (PA-DEP, PA senators & representatives, EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, Dept. of Agriculture). Our relationships with local public entities and officials are the most robustly developed. We have developed strong and positive relationships with individual municipal managers and administrators; with officials serving in multi-municipality entities; and with the Lebanon County commissioners and the agencies under their jurisdiction. Our outreach strategy in this sphere consists of several overlapping activities – most prominently attending their public meetings to voice our concerns and keep them apprised of our work; engaging in email and telephone conversations; and providing an easily accessible storehouse of relevant documentation on our website. The second category, affected property owners, ranges from proprietors of large agricultural enterprises to individual residential homeowners, and in some cases also includes municipalities (when municipal properties are targeted for work). As a general rule, we do not initiate contact with property owners until specific projects are identified and we have a solid sense of our anticipated workplan. Once we do identify specific projects and can describe in some detail what they will entail, we reach out to property owners in two main ways: by visiting them on their properties (with follow-ups via telephone, email, and post), and by holding public meetings to present our proposed project and address any questions or concerns that might be raised. We also provide our website address and encourage property owners to review the relevant materials housed therein. The third category, allied non-profit organizations, consists of a range of entities, most prominently the local chapter of Trout Unlimited (Doc Fritchey Trout Unlimited, or DFTU); The Lebanon Valley Conservancy (TLVC); the Quittie Creek Nature Park Committee of the Friends of Old Annville (QCNPC); the Quittapahilla Creek Garbage Museum in Annville (winner of the 2017 Governor’s Award for Environmental Excellence); Lebanon Valley College (LVC); the Swatara Creek Watershed Association; the Palmyra Sportsmen Association; the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Several officers and members of DFTU serve on the QWA Board (Russ Collins, Stephan Vegoe, J. Kent Crawford). The QWA’s relationships with these organizations have developed organically over the years, thanks to our shared interests and concerns with respect to improving the water quality in the watershed. Especially important to the QWA’s work is our relationship with TLVC, which as a 501(c)(3) serves as our sponsoring organization

220

by administering the grants we receive. Also vital is our relationship with Lebanon Valley College. LVC hosts our website, while several full-time professors serve on the QWA Board of Directors (including Associate Professor of History and QWA President Michael Schroeder; Associate Professor of Biology Becky Urban; and Associate Professor of Mathematical Sciences Sean Droms). This relationship dates to the QWA’s founding by longtime QWA President and Professor of Psychology David Lasky (now Professor Emeritus). Prof. Becky Urban has supervised student-led stream assessments before and after our projects; helped us to advertise our Summer Internship Program, launched in 2017; and provided valuable counsel. With these allied organizations and the individuals who serve them, we routinely share information and ideas via telephone and email, in informal one-on-one meetings, and in group meetings. We also regularly share resources, including providing volunteer labor on each other’s projects. The fourth category, the general public, is often the most challenging to engage in the larger effort to improve the water quality in the watershed. Our outreach strategy in this sphere consists of multiple and overlapping efforts that include: • The QWA Website (www.QuittapahillaWatershedAssociation.org) provides an easily accessible introduction to the watershed, its many impairments, and our past and ongoing efforts to mitigate those impairments. A short introductory video on the homepage provides a captivating view of the watershed. Key webpages include Creek Protection; Meetings & Minutes; Projects & Grants; and Studies & Documents. The latter page in particular offers a digital file cabinet brimming with detailed information on the many impairments of the watershed and on the QWA's past successes and ongoing work. Also notable is the Archives webpage. • The QWA Facebook Page (https://www.facebook.com/quittapahilla) provides updates and information on upcoming meetings, relevant scientific studies, and related materials. • Outreach Tables at Local Events. Every year the QWA staffs an outreach table at Historic Old Annville Day (second Saturday in June). Other local events for which we routinely staff an outreach table include the Spring Program of The Lebanon Valley Conservancy at Middle Creek Wildlife Refuge; and the Creekside Festival in the Creekside neighborhood of Lebanon next to Snitz Creek. We are always looking for new venues to engage in public outreach of this kind. • Press Releases. We have established a positive relationship with the local newspaper (the Lebanon Daily News) and routinely issue press releases on notable developments and upcoming events. Most recently, for example, was the June 30, 2018 front page story titled “Watershed Groups Seek $2.9 Million in Pipeline Penalty Grants,” based entirely on our press release. Past press releases published in the News have focused on announcements of grants received; ribbon-cutting ceremonies marking the launching or completion of specific projects; and similar events.

221

• Special Public Meetings. In addition to our regular monthly meetings in the Annville Town Hall, to which we cordially invite the general public via Facebook and our website, we also organize and host special public meetings to engage the general public and disseminate information about ongoing and future projects. Coming up on 26 September 2018, for instance, is a public meeting in the Annville Town Hall to present our Watershed Implementation Plan and address any questions or concerns that might be raised by property owners or interested citizens. • Co-Sponsoring Special Events and Cleanups. The QWA regularly co-sponsors special events and cleanups, including the annual Lebanon County United Way Day of Caring in Quittie Creek Nature Park (usually the third Saturday in April); the annual International Coastal Cleanup Day in the streets of Lebanon, PA, organized by the Quittapahilla Creek Garbage Museum (mid-September); the annual Fall Semester Orientation Volunteer Day at Lebanon Valley College (late August); and other cleanups and special events organized by the Garbage Museum and other organizations. These events are used to disseminate information about the watershed and our work, and to encourage members of the general public to become involved. The foregoing sketches the broad outlines of the principal stakeholders involved and our tactics and strategies for educating and engaging the public about the Quittapahilla watershed’s many impairments and our past and ongoing work. What bears special emphasis are the many mutually reinforcing synergies that characterize these efforts, with significant spillover and overlap among and between various allied organizations and individuals working toward similar ends. It is our goal to continue to build, expand, and deepen these relationships and our public education, participation, and outreach efforts in the months and years ahead – especially now that MS4 stormwater management fees and projects have become increasingly prominent in the public mind. In sum, in the realm of public education and participation, we are proud of our accomplishments to date, and mindful that much work and many challenges remain.

References

1. Anacostia Restoration Team, 1992. Watershed Restoration Sourcebook. 2. Bain, M. B. and N. J. Stevenson, 1999. Aquatic Habitat Assessment. Amercian

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Borawa, J. C. 1988. Brown Trout Workshop: Biology and Management. Trout

Committee, Southern Division, American Fisheries Society. 4. Center for Watershed Protection, 2000. Urban Stream Restoration Practices: An

Initial Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.

5. Chaplin, J. J., 2005. Development of Regional Curves Relating Bankfull-Channel

Geometry and Discharge to Drainage Area for Streams in Pennsylvania and Selected Areas of Maryland. U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5147.

6. Clear Creeks Consulting and Skelly & Loy, Inc., 2006. Quittapahilla Creek

Watershed Assessment, Volume 1 – Findings Report.

7. Clear Creeks Consulting and Skelly & Loy, Inc., 2006. Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Assessment, Volume 2 – Restoration and Management Plan.

8. Clear Creeks Consulting and Skelly & Loy, Inc., 2006. Quittapahilla Creek

Watershed Assessment, Volume 3 – Geomorphic and Habitat Maps.

9. Clear Creeks Consulting and Skelly & Loy, Inc., 2006. Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Assessment, Volume 4 – Field Reconnaissance Maps.

10. Cummins, K.W., 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems. Bioscience

24(11): 631 – 641. 11. Dissmeyer, G.E., 1994. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Forestry Best Management

Practices in Meeting Water Quality Goals and Standards. U. S. Forest Service, Misc Publication 1520.

12. Dunne, T. and L. Leopold, 1978. Water in Environmental Planning, W.H. Freeman,

San Francisco, CA 13. Evans, B.M., D.W. Lehning, K.J. Corradini, G.W. Petersen, E. Nizeyimana, J.M.

Hamlett, P.D. Robillard, and R.L. Day, 2002. A Comprehensive GIS-Based Modeling Approach for Predicting Nutrient Loads in Watersheds. J. Spatial Hydrology, Vol. 2, No. 2.

14. Evans, B.M., S.A. Sheeder, and D.W. Lehning, 2003. A Spatial Technique for

Estimating Streambank Erosion Based on Watershed Characteristics. J. Spatial of Hydrology, Vol. 3, No. 2.

15. Evans, B.M., 2005. Water Quality Model for Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Assessment.

16. Evans, B.M., S.A. Sheeder, and K.J. Corradini, 2006. AVGWLF Version 6.1 Users

Guide. Penn State Institutes of the Environment, Penn State University, 77 pp. 17. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Work Group, 1998. Stream Corridor

Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. PB98-502487. 18. Fuiman, L. A., 1993. Water Quality and the Early Life Stages of Fishes. American

Fisheries Society, Symposium 14. 19. Google Earth Pro. Gordon, N.D., McMahon, T.A., and B.L. Finlayson, 1992. Stream

Hydrology: An Introduction for Ecologists. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 20. Hammer, D. A. 1992. Creating Freshwater Wetlands. Lewis Publishers, Boca

Raton. 21. Klein, R.D., 1985. Effects of Urbanization on Aquatic Resources. Tidewater

Administration, Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 22. Knighton, D., 1984. Fluvial Forms and Processes. Edward Arnold Publishers,

London. 23. Lebanon County Assessment Office, Website, 2018. Lebanon County Property

Viewer.

24. Lebanon County Conservation District, 2001. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Database.

25. Leopold, L. B., G. M. Wolman, and J. P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in

Geomorphology. Freeman, San Francisco. 26. Leopold, L.B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,

MA. 27. Mackin Engineering, 2000. Swatara Creek Watershed Conservation Plan. 28. Malanson, G.P. 1993. Riparian Landscapes. Cambridge University Press. 29. Marsh, W. M. 1983. Landscape Planning: Environmental Applications. Wiley and

Sons, New York. 30. McDonnell, J. J., J. B. Stribling, L. R. Nevilee, and D. J. Leopold, 1996. Watershed

Restoration Management: Physical, Chemical and Biological Considerations. Proceedings Annual Symposium, American Water Resources Association, Syracuse, New York.

31. Morisawa, M., 1968. Streams: Their Dynamics and Morphology. McGraw-Hill Book

Co., New York.

32. Nature Abounds, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 319 Non-Point Source Program, 2013. Water Quality Monitoring Field Manual For the Pennsylvania Senior Environment Corps.

33. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2000. Total Maximum Daily

Loads (TMDL) Quittapahilla Creek Watershed, Lebanon County. Southcentral Regional Office, Water Management Program.

34. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2002. Final 2002 Section

303(d) Report: List of Impaired Waterbodies. 35. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Clean Water,

2016. Pennsylvania Improving Waters Program Guidelines: Documenting and Reporting Measureable, Incremental Improvements in Water Quality of Streams, Rivers and Lakes.

36. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, 2003. Fisheries Management Data for

Quittapahilla Creek Watershed. 37. Petts, G.E. and I. Foster. 1985. Rivers and Landscapes. Edward Arnold

Publishers, London. 38. Prosser, I., P. Rustomji, B. Young, C.Moran, and A. Hughes, 2001. Constructing River

Basin Sediment Budgets for the National Land and Water resources Audit. CSIRO Technical Report No. 15, 34 pp.

39. Riley, A. L., 1998. Restoring Streams in Cities: A Guide for Planners, Policymakers,

and Citizens. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 40. Rosgen, D.L., 1993. River Restoration Utilizing Natural Stability Concepts.

Watershed 93 Symposium, 783 – 790. 41. Rosgen, D.L., 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22: 169-199. 42. Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa

Springs, Colorado. 43. Schlosser, I.J., 1991. Stream Ecology: A Landscape Perspective, Bioscience

41(10): 704 – 710. 44. Schueler, T.R., 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and

Designing Urban BMPs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 45. Schueler, T.R., 1992. Design of Stormwater Wetland Systems: Guidelines for

Creating Diverse and Effective Stormwater Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Region. 46. Schueler, T.R., P.A., Kumble, and M.A. Heraty, 1992. A Current Assessment of

Urban Best Management Practices: Techniques for Reducing Non-point Source Pollution in the Coastal Zone, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.

47. Schueler, T.R., 1994. Stream Protection Approach: Guidance for Developing Effective Local Non-point Source Control Programs in the Great Lakes Region. Terrene Institute, Washington, D.C.

48. Schueler, T.R., and B. Stack. 2014. Final Report: Recommendations of the Expert

Panel to Define Removal Rates for Individual Stream Restoration Projects. Prepared for the Chesapeake Bay Program.

49. Skelly and Loy, Inc. and Clear Creeks Consulting, 2005. An Evaluation of Sediment

Discharge in the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 50. Steckbeck Engineering & Surveying, Inc., 2017. Draft Joint Pollution Reduction Plan

for the Lebanon County Stormwater Consortium.

51. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1977. Field Examination Report: Quittapahilla Creek Watershed, Lebanon County, PA.

52. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1978. Quittapahilla

Creek Watershed Final Report. 53. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1981. Soil Survey of

Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. 54. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1991. Riparian Forest Buffers:

Function and Design for Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources. 55. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1992.

Engineering Field Handbook, Chapter 13, Wetland Restoration, Enhancement or Creation.

56. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1996.

Engineering Field Handbook, Chapter 16, Streambank and Shoreline Protection. 57. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for

Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/440/4-89/001.

58. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook,

2nd Edition. 59. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook,

Appendixes, 2nd Edition. 60. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nutrient Subcommittee of the Chesapeake

Bay Program, 1995. Water Quality Functions of Riparian Forest Buffer Systems in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. EPA 903-R-95-004, CBP/TRS 134/95.

61. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 2000. Storm Water Phase II

Final Rule: An Overview, EPA 833-F-00-001.

62. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Overview of Current Total Maximum Daily Loads – TMDL – Program and Regulations.

63. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1986. Habitat Suitability Index Models and Instream

Flow Suitability Curves: Brown Trout. Biological Report 82(10.124). 64. Waters, T. F., 1995. Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects, and Control.

65. Williams, J. E., C. A. Wood, and M. P. Dombeck, 1997. Watershed Restoration:

Principles and Practices. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.