7.7 FISHING CREEK

Description

Fishing Creek originates in northern West Hanover Township and flows west between Blue and Second Mountains in a narrow valley. Numerous small tributaries enter the stream from the mountains. It eventually flows into the Susquehanna River at Fort Hunter. The watershed is about 9.25 miles long and 2 miles wide and covers an area of 18.5 square miles. The entire watershed lies within Dauphin County.

Much of the watershed is forested with a low population density and a small amount of agriculture. Most of the development in the watershed is composed of residential road frontage at the west end of the watershed. Fishing Creek before entering the Susquehanna River.

Topography is typical of the Ridge and Valley physiographic province in Pennsylvania with the stream located in a narrow, steep sided valley QUICK FACTS with flat to gentle slopes dominating the narrow valley floor. The mountain ridges of the watershed are composed of red and gray 2 sandstone and conglomerate with shale being the Watershed Size: 18.5 mi in dominate formation in the valley. Dauphin County

Stream Miles: 27.4 DEP Classification Impaired Stream Miles: 0 Fishing Creek is listed as a Warm Water Fishery Fishing Creek watershed (WWF). Land Uses: Predominantly forest, Some residential and Site Locations Minimal agriculture

DEP Stream Classification: Each of the three sample sites within Fishing Creek watershed was located on the main stem of
WWF the waterway. For a description of each location, refer to Figure 7.7 below. DEP Listed Impairments:

None Study Results Watershed Municipalities: The furthest upstream, site 1 was located at Hickory Hollow Road. Site 2 was located at Lower Paxton Twp, Middle Paxton Twp, Straw Hollow Road. Site 3, the furthest Susquehanna Twp, West Hanover Twp downstream was located at Fort Hunter Park. Sites 1 and 3 were rated as fair, exhibiting a low number of sensitive species. Site 2 was rated as good. This site also had a low number of sensitive species but those that were found in the sample were abundant. A complete table of metrics calculations for Fishing Creek can be found in Appendix VI.

Figure 7.7

Stream Health: Good Fair Poor

Figure 7.7a Fishing Creek Macroinvertebrates

25

20

15

10

TypesperSample 5

0

1 2 3 Sample Site

Types of Macroinvertebrates Pollution Sensitive Types

Figure 7.7b Fishing Creek Health Score

100 90 80

70 60 50

(%) IBI 40

30

20 10 0 1 2 3

Sample Site

7.8 PAXTON CREEK

Description

The 27 square mile Paxton Creek watershed is located in the southwestern section of Dauphin County with headwaters on the southern slope of Blue Mountain in Susquehanna and Lower Paxton Townships. About 18 square miles of the stream, located in these townships, drains to Wildwood Lake. Upstream of the lake the watershed can be characterized as extensively developed suburban land dominated by low to medium density residential development. A small amount of the land area is in farmland with forestland confined to the slope of the Blue Mountain. Downstream of Wildwood Lake the stream flows south entering the heavily urbanized Harrisburg City. The stream channel Paxton Creek before entering the Susquehanna River. throughout the City is confined to a concrete channel constructed to mitigate flooding. The creek joins the Susquehanna at the southern end of the city. Topography in the majority of the watershed is generally flat to gently sloping. The geology of the QUICK FACTS watershed is mostly shale, silt and sandstone.

DEP Classification Watershed Size: 27 mi 2 in Dauphin County Paxton Creek is classified as a Warm Water Fishery (WWF). A substantial section of Paxton Creek and Land Uses: Primarily Urban/Suburban, two tributaries are listed as impaired by siltation and Residential Stream Miles: 50.4 nutrients. The source of the impairments is identified Paxton Creek watershed as from urban runoff and storm sewers. Impaired Stream Miles: 19.3

Site Locations DEP Stream Classification:

Seven sites were located in the Paxton Creek
WWF watershed. Four sites were located on the main stem; DEP Listed Impairments: site 2 upstream at Goose Valley Road, site 3 at Interstate Drive and site, site 6 at Reilly Street and
Sedimentation from Urban runoff, agriculture, and site 7 downstream at the Harrisburg Green Belt. One storm sewers site, site 1, was located on an unnamed tributary at Goose Valley Road. One site, site 4, was located on Watershed Municipalities: an unnamed tributary at Shutt Mill Road and one site, Lower Paxton Twp, Middle Paxton Twp, site 5, was located on Asylum Run at Arsenel Harrisburg City, Penbrook Borough, Road.Figure 7.8 describes the locations of each of the Susquehanna Twp Paxton Creek watershed sample sites, shown below.

Study Results

All sites rated as poor. All sites had few sensitive species and samples were dominated by pollution tolerant midges and aquatic worms.

Poor aquatic habitat was noted through out the watershed. Sediment from eroded banks is prevalent. Below Wildwood Lake, the stream is channelized and restricted to a concrete channel for much of this length. A table of metrics calculations for Paxton Creek can be found in Appendix VI.

Figure 7.8

Stream Health: Good Fair Poor

Figure 7.8a Paxton Creek Macroinvertebrates

25

20

15

10

TypesperSample 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sample Site

Types of Macroinvertebrates Pollution Sensitive Types

Figure 7.8b Paxton Creek Health Score

100 90 80 70 60 50

(%) IBI 40

30

20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sample Site

7.9 SPRING CREEK WEST

Description

The Spring Creek (West) watershed located in southwest Dauphin County, drains an area of about 11.6 square miles. The entire watershed lies in Dauphin County. The headwaters are located in Lower Paxton Township and, to a lesser extent, in Susquehanna and Swatara Townships. The stream flows in a westerly direction eventually joining the Susquehanna River in southern Harrisburg City. The watershed has a widely varied mix of urban and suburban land uses and is highly urbanized as it nears its confluence with the Susquehanna River. Population centers include Harrisburg City, Paxtang Borough and Penbrook Borough. Spring Creek West before entering the Susquehanna River.

Topography in the majority of the watershed is generally flat to gently sloping. The geology of the watershed is composed of shale, limestone, QUICK FACTS and sandstone.

DEP Classification Watershed Size: 11.6 mi 2 in Dauphin County Spring Creek (West) is classified as a Cold Water Fishery (CWF). A substantial section of the Land Uses: Primarily Urban/Suburban, Residential Creek is listed as impaired by siltation. The Stream Miles: 17.4 source of this impairment is identified as originating from urban runoff and storm sewers. Impaired Stream Miles: 11.3 Spring Creek West Watershed

Site Locations DEP Stream Classification:

Coldwater Fishery Four sites were located in this watershed; three on the main stem. From upstream to downstream DEP Listed Impairments: these are site 1 at Gadden Parkway, site 3 at the Five Senses Garden and site 4 at Cameron street.
Sedimentation from urban runoff and storm sewers

One site, site 2, site was located on an unnamed Watershed Municipalities: tributary at Gadden Parkway. Locations for each site are described in Figure 7.9, found below. Harrisburg City, Lower Paxton Twp, Paxtang Borough, Penbrook Borough, Susquehanna Twp, Swatara Twp Study Results

All sites rated as poor. Very low numbers of sensitive macroinvertebrates were found in all samples; sites 3 and 4 had no sensitive types. Pollution tolerant macroinvertebrates such as midges and aquatic worms dominated the samples. A complete set of metrics calculations for Spring Creek West can be found in Appendix VI.

Figure 7.9

Stream Health: Good Fair Poor

Figure 7.9a Spring Creek West Macroinvertebrates

25

20

15

10

Types Sample per 5

0

1 2 3 4

Sample Site

Types of Macroinvertebrates Pollution Sensitive Types

Figure 7.9b Spring Creek West Health Scores

100

90 80

70 60 50

(%) IBI 40

30 20

10

0 1 2 3 4

Sample Site

7.10 SWATARA CREEK

Description

Swatara Creek is a large watershed covering, 571 mi2, 127.3 mi 2 of which are in Dauphin County. The stream originates in Berks and Schuykill Counties, generally moving southwest through Lebanon and Dauphin Counties where it meets the Susquehanna River at Middletown Borough. Major tributaries in Dauphin County include Beaver Creek, Kellock Run, Manada Creek, and Bow Creek entering Swatara Creek from the north and Spring Creek East entering from the south. The watershed in Dauphin County is characterized by extensive suburban development with some areas of farmland and forestland. Population centers in the watershed include Hershey and surrounding area, Hummelstown Borough, and Middletown Borough. Swatara Creek before entering the Susquehanna River. Topography in the watershed is characterized by relatively low, rolling hills. The geology of the watershed is composed of two geologic formations. QUICK FACTS The formation in the northern and eastern portion of the watershed contains shale, limestone, dolomite, and sandstone. Geology in the southwestern portion Watershed Size: 571 mi 2, is characterized by red sandstone, shale and 127 mi 2 in conglomerate intruded by diabase. In areas of the Dauphin County watershed underlain by limestone, Karst topography dominates with many areas prone to sinkhole Land Uses: Wide variety formation. Stream Miles: 253.3

DEP Classification Impaired Stream Miles: 58.1

Swatara Creek watershed Swatara Creek and most of its major tributaries are DEP Stream Classification: classified as a Warm Water Fishery (WWF). Most of
Section of Manada Creek from source to I-81 – CWF its major tributaries are also classified as WWF.
Swatara Creek and all other tributaries – WWF However, Manada Creek from its source to Interstate- 81 is listed as a Cold Water Fishery (CWF). The DEP Listed Impairments: remaining streams are listed as a WWF. Sections of the Swatara Creek are listed as impaired by siltation
Sections of Swatara Creek – siltation from agriculture from agricultural sources. Relatively small sections of
Section of Beaver Creek – Siltation from Beaver Creek are impaired by siltation from urban/suburban runoff and agriculture
Section of Manada Creek – Pathogens and nutrients urban/suburban and agriculture sources. A small from a municipal point source, siltation from road section of Manada Creek is listed as impaired by runoff pathogens and nutrients from a municipal point
Sections of Bow Creek – Priority organics and siltation source and siltation from road runoff. Two small from road runoff and agriculture sections of Bow Creek are identified as impaired by
Sections of Spring Creek East – Siltation, organic priority organics and siltation from road runoff and enrichment, and low dissolved oxygen from agriculture. Extensive areas of Spring Creek East are agriculture, urban runoff, and storm sewers listed as impaired by siltation, organic enrichment Watershed Municipalities: and low dissolved oxygen from agricultural activities, urban runoff and storm sewers. Conewago Twp, Derry Twp, East/West/South Hanover Twps, Hummelstown Borough, Londonderry Twp, Lower Paxton Twp, Middletown Borough, Lower Swatara Twp, Swatara Twp

Site Locations

Three Sites were located on the main stem of Swatara Creek, while 26 locations were sampled in its sub-watersheds. Manada Creek had six sample sites, four sites were located on Beaver Creek, two on Nyes Run, one on Kellock Run, one on Bow Creek, eight on Spring Creek East, two on unnamed tributaries to Swatara Creek, and two on Iron Run. The locations of these sites are described in Table 7.10 below.

Study Results

Bow Creek One site, site 14, was located on Bow Creek at Shady Lane. This site rated as poor. Three pollution tolerant species dominated this sample.

Manada Creek Manada Creek had five sites. Sites 8 and 9, at Mclean road and Furnace Road respectively, rated as good with balanced macroinvertebrate communities. These sites are both located in or near the headwaters of the watershed. Sites 10, 11 and 12 at Kiwanis Road, Harper Road and Crooked Hill Road respectively, all rated as fair with higher numbers of pollution tolerant types and less diverse aquatic communities. Site 13 at Devonshire Road ranked as poor.

Spring Creek East This tributary had 8 sites, 16 through 23. All sites ranked as poor with all samples being dominated by pollution tolerant species and exhibiting little diversity.

Unnamed Tributary This site, 24, at Walton avenue, rated as poor with few sensitive species found in the sample.

Kellock Run The one site on Kellock Run, site 7 at Stonemill Road had a diverse aquatic community and rated as good.

Beaver Creek All sites, sites 1 through 6, in the Beaver Creek watershed rated as poor. Two of the sites, sites 1 and 2 at Nyes Road and Willoughby Road respectively, located on Nyes Run, had low numbers of sensitive species. Site 5 was located on an unnamed tributary at Knight Road and was dominated by pollution tolerant species. Sites 3, 4 and 6 were located on the main stem at Jonestown Road, Knight Road and Pine Hill Road respectively. These sites were also dominated by pollution tolerant species.

Unnamed Tributary Site 26 was located on an unnamed tributary at Union Street. This site ranked as poor with no sensitive species found in the sample.

Iron Run Two sites, 27 at Roundtop Road and 28 at Lauffer Road, were located on Iron Run. Site 27 ranked as good while site 28 ranked as fair. Both sites had a high number of total species but a low percentage of sensitive species. Site 27 rated good due to the very high number of total species.

Swatara Creek Main Stem Three sites were located on the main stem of Swatara Creek. Upstream to downstream, sites 15, 25 and 29 were located at Bindnagle Road, Bridge Road and Iron Mine Road respectively.All sites rated as poor with low numbers of sensitive species.

Table 7.10

Sample Site Location Health Notes 1 Nyes Run along Nyes Rd Poor Sensitive percentage low 2 Nyes near Willoughby Rd Poor Diverse community 3 Beaver Creek near Piketown Rd Poor Tolerant types dominant 4 Beaver Creek near Jonestown Rd Poor Sensitive total low 5 Unnamed tributary to Beaver near Knight Dr Poor HBI indicates fair pollution likely 6 Beaver Creek near Pine Hill Rd Poor Little diversity 7 Kellock Run near Stonemill Rd Good Diverse community 8 Manada Creek near Mclean Rd Good Diverse community 9 Manada Creek near Furnace Rd Good Diverse community 10 Walnut Run near Kiwanis Rd Fair Sensitive percentage low 11 Manada Creek near Jonestown/Harper Rd Fair Total macroinvertebrates low 12 Manada Creek near Crooked Hill Rd Fair Little diversity 13 Manada Creek near Devonshire Heights Rd Poor HBI indicates fair pollution likely 14 Bow Creek near Shady Ln Poor Sample dominated by 3 tolerant types 15 Swatara Creek near Bindnagle Rd Poor Low sensitive percentage

16 UNT to Spring Creek East near Eby Rd Poor Little diversity

17 UNT to Spring East near Bachmanville Rd Poor Tolerant types dominant 18 UNT to Spring East near Fishburn Rd Poor Little diversity 19 UNT to Spring East near Spartan Ln Poor Sensitive total low 20 UNT to Spring E near Meadow-Crest Poor HBI indicates organic pollution likely 21 Spring Creek East near 39 Poor Sensitive total low 22 Spring Creek East near Hockersville Rd Poor Sensitive total low 23 Spring Creek East near Hanover St Poor HBI indicates organic pollution likely 24 UNT to Swatara near Walton Ave Poor Few sensitive types 25 Swatara Creek near Bridge Rd Poor Few sensitive types 26 UNT to Swatara near N Union St Poor No sensitive types 27 Iron Run @ Roundtop Road Good Many types of macroinvertebrates 28 Iron Run near Lauffer Rd and 283 Fair Low percentage of sensitive 29 Swatara Creek near Iron Mine Rd Poor Little diversity

Figure 7.10a Swatara Creek Macroinvertebrates Stream Health: Good Fair Poor 30 25

20

15

10

Types perTypesSample 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Sample Site

Types of Macroinvertebrates Pollution Sensitive Types

Figure 7.10b Swatara Creek Macroinvertebrates Stream Health: Good Fair Poor 30

25

20

15

10 Types per Sample 5

0 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Sample Site

Types of Macroinvertebrates Pollution Sensitive Types

Figure 7.10c Swatara Creek Health Score Stream Health: Good Fair Poor 100 90 80 70 60 50

IBI (%) 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Sample Site 7.11 CONEWAGO CREEK

Description

Conewago Creek is the southernmost watershed in Dauphin County. It forms the boundary between Dauphin and Lancaster Counties. The watershed drains an area of 52.2 mi 2, with 23.2 mi 2 in Dauphin County. The headwaters are located in Lebanon County where it flows in a westerly direction eventually joining the Susquehanna River in Londonderry Township. Rural in character, the majority of land use is low density residential development and agriculture.

Topography in the watershed is generally flat to gently sloping. The geology of the watershed is composed of red sandstone, shale, and conglomerate, intruded by Conewago Creek before entering the Susquehanna River. diabase.

DEP Classification QUICK FACTS Conewago Creek is classified as a Warm Water Fishery (WWF). The Creek and most of its major tributaries in

Dauphin County are listed as impaired by nutrients and Watershed Size: 52.2 mi 2, siltation. The source of these impairments is identified 23.2 mi 2 in as originating from agriculture. Dauphin County

Site Locations Land Uses: Primarily Agriculture and Residential Nine sites were located in the Conewago Creek Stream Miles: 59.0 Conewago Creek watershed watershed. Four of these sites, sites 1, 4, 7 and 9, upstream to downstream, were located on the main Impaired Stream Miles: 40.9 stem. These were located at Prospect Road, Aberdeen Mills, Deodate Road and Covered Bridge Road DEP Stream Classification: respectively. Five sites were located on tributaries; site 2 on Hoffer creek at Hershey Road, site 3 on Gallagher
Warm Water Fishery Run at Valley Road, site 5 on Brills Run at Hoffer DEP Listed Impairments: Road, site 6 on Lynch Run at Hertzler Road and site 8 on an unnamed tributary at Zion Road. For a
Sedimentation from agriculture activities description of the general location of each sample site, refer to Table 7.11 below. Watershed Municipalities:

Study Results Conewago Twp and Londonderry Twp

All sites, with the exception of sites 1 and 9, rated as poor due to low diversity and few sensitive macroinvertebrates. Sites 1 and 9 both rated as fair, exhibiting more diversity but low percentages of sensitive macroinvertebrates. A complete set of metrics calculations for Conewago Creek can be found in Appendix VI.

15 Figure 7.11

16

Stream Health: Good Fair Poor

Figure 7.11a Conewago Creek Macroinvertebrates

25

20

15

10

TypesperSample 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Sample Site

Types of Macroinvertebrates Pollution Sensitive Types

Figure 7.11b Conewago Health Scores

100

80

60

(%) IBI 40

20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Sample Site

17