Northern Lancaster County Groundwater Study: A Resource Evaluation of the Manheim-Lititz and Ephrata Area Groundwater Basins Executive Summary September 2005

Achieving a balance among

environmental, human, and J. Howe economic needs in the management of the basin’s This executive summary and the water resources is a critical full report (SRBC Publication #235) mission of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission are available on the web site at (Commission), as described www.srbc.net/waterbudgetstudy.htm in the 1971 Susquehanna and by CD-Rom. For copies of the River Basin Compact. The Commission carries out its CD-Rom: e-mail at [email protected] water resource management or call (717) 238-0423, ext. 302. responsibilities in a number John Hauenstein, SRBC Engineering Technician, of ways through its regulatory checking the well at a farmhouse in Elizabeth Township. Report Authors program, public education Robert E. Edwards, P.G. and information, and resource evaluation. The Commission, in partnership Special Projects Manager In areas of intense water resource with the Lancaster County utilization, the Commission may Conservation District, performed a Robert D. Pody, P.G. conduct special studies, water budget groundwater resources evaluation Hydrologist analyses, and identify critical aquifer of a carbonate valley located in recharge areas (CARAs). northern Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. The project was funded by the Historic changes in land use have What is groundwater? Pennsylvania Department of Environmental led to increased impervious areas, increased Groundwater is any water beneath the Protection (PADEP) through its Growing stormwater runoff, and reduced earth’s surface that supplies wells and Greener Grant Program. The study area infiltration. Impervious cover was 9 percent springs, and replenishes streamflow. For includes an isolated carbonate aquifer of of the 70-square-mile study area. This the purposes of this study, groundwater is 50 square miles and a surrounding siliciclastic potentially reduces average annual the water that has reached the water contributing area of 20 square miles. Parts recharge by 1,575 million gallons in the table and the saturated zone, where all of 13 municipalities, including the Boroughs study area. When one considers the of Manheim, Lititz, Akron, Ephrata, and carbonate areas of the Manheim-Lititz interconnected voids in unconsolidated Denver, are located in the study area. and Ephrata area groundwater basins, (loose) sediments, and fractures and Groundwater is the primary source of 12.6 percent and 8 percent of these openings between layers in consolidated water for municipal, domestic, industrial, areas are impervious, respectively. (hard) rock are filled. and agricultural uses. As groundwater The focus of the study is a valley withdrawals increase to meet growing approximately 50 square miles in area, Where does the water demands, stakeholders need information underlain by a highly productive found in aquifers come from? on the location and quantity of water carbonate aquifer, and herein informally Water in aquifers primarily comes resources available, and how to best termed the “carbonate valley.” The from precipitation — mostly rain. develop, conserve, and protect them. carbonate valley is surrounded almost Replenishment or “recharge” occurs on entirely by hills underlain by aquifers

most of the land surface, wherever water J. Howe of much lower permeability. The can soak into the ground. Exceptions carbonate valley includes parts of include areas covered by impermeable the Chiques Creek, Cocalico Creek, materials like rooftops and paved areas, and Lititz Run watersheds. Streams and areas where groundwater is upwelling, generally flow from north to south across such as most perennial stream valleys. the study area, with the exception of Precipitation landing on the ground the largest stream, Cocalico Creek, surface must be absorbed by the soil in which flows from northeast to southwest. Hammer Creek The study area includes parts of order to become recharge. If the soil is Removal of groundwater resources 8 townships and 5 boroughs, and had a frozen or precipitation is delivered at a faster than the sustainable rate could lead population of approximately 61,000 in rate that exceeds the ability of the soil to to a growing water deficit, the gradual the year 2000. Water supply needs are absorb it, then some of the precipitation is failure of water supplies, diminishing met almost entirely by groundwater. “rejected” and becomes surface runoff to stream and spring flows, and degraded The valley was once largely agricultural, streams and wetlands. Surface runoff moves aquatic and riparian habitat. but is rapidly changing to a mosaic of downslope and becomes channelized flow. Project participants involved the urban, suburban, and agricultural areas. Some of the precipitation absorbed by local public during the course of the The population in the carbonate valley the ground is taken up by plant roots and study through a Water Budget Advisory is rapidly growing, as is the need for transpired; the remaining water filters Committee (WBAC) and educational water. However, the amount of water downward through the pores and fractures in workshops. Important resource areas are available is limited. Most of the ground- the soil in the unsaturated zone. Eventually, identified, and management recommen- water is derived from the carbonate this water reaches the water table, the dations for these areas are provided in this aquifer that underlies the valley. boundary below which all of the spaces Executive Summary and the full report. The presence of sinkholes, abundant and cracks in the soil or rock are filled with The study area has experienced closed depressions, large springs, and water. Water that filters through the ground rapid growth. From 1990 to 2000, lack of streams in many areas suggests several municipalities in the study area that dissolution of the carbonate to the water table recharges the aquifer. exceeded Lancaster County’s growth rate bedrock, a condition known as karst, Some water becomes “stranded” in of 11.3 percent. Warwick Township, has substantially enhanced the ability depressions or as drops on leaf (and other) located in the Manheim-Lititz groundwater of the aquifer to store and transmit surfaces. Most of this water evaporates and basin, experienced the highest growth rate water. Karst aquifers are known for is returned to the atmosphere. The water of 33.2 percent. Anticipated growth and their abundant water resources and returned to the atmosphere by plants development in the study area are expected extremely high well yields, as well as (transpiration) or by evaporation is grouped to result in increased water demand. their hard water, enigmatic flow patterns, under the single term evapotranspiration. Population projections from 2000 through sinkholes, and high susceptibility 2025 represent a 26 percent increase. to contamination.

2 FINDINGS

From June 2003 to June 2005, the Annual Recharge in Million Gallons for the Study Area and Groundwater Basins Commission evaluated the groundwater 1-in-2 1-in-10 1-in-25 Area (sqmi) resources to address water quantity issues in a 70-square-mile area underlying Manheim-Lititz 5,822 3,531 2,449 21.8 parts of Chiques Creek, Cocalico Ephrata Area 11,676 7,077 4,917 48.4 Creek, and Lititz Run watersheds. Study Area 17,498 10,608 7,366 70.2 Normal annual precipitation was 43.5 inches, of which 14.4 inches was 25-year recurrence intervals, was based wastewater immediately upgradient or estimated to be groundwater recharge. on previous regional studies that employed adjacent to the impacted stream reach Two groundwater basins were extensive base flow separations, water table would largely mitigate this impact. delineated based on water table mapping, mapping, and groundwater modeling. Groundwater withdrawals in the and two sets of water level measurements The annual recharge of the Manheim- Ephrata area groundwater basin have were made during this study. Lititz groundwater basin, for the 2-, 10-, not exceeded 10 percent of the lowest The Manheim-Lititz groundwater and 25-year recurrence intervals, was flow for 7 consecutive days in 10 years basin is 21.8 square miles and contains estimated to be 5,822 million gallons, (Q7-10) for Cocalico Creek as it leaves the upper Lititz Run watershed and 3,531 million gallons, and 2,449 million the carbonate valley. However, most of part of Chiques Creek watershed. The gallons, respectively. The annual recharge the existing groundwater withdrawals groundwater basin is in the area of the Ephrata area groundwater are located in the southern half of the westward from Manheim to within a basin, for the 2-, 10-, and 25-year basin, and are compensated for by few thousand feet of the Cocalico Creek recurrence intervals, was estimated to be the discharge from the Ephrata area water gap, and includes parts of 11,676 million gallons, 7,077 million gallons, wastewater treatment plant. However, Rapho, Penn, Warwick, and Elizabeth and 4,917 million gallons, respectively. future withdrawals could trigger the Townships, and the Boroughs of The Commission uses the 1-in-10- passby requirement in one of the Manheim and Lititz. Groundwater year recharge as the sustainable limit subbasins. This can be avoided by level measurements taken during the of groundwater development. This limit locating wells in downstream areas study indicate a water table that gradually attempts to balance the amount of where the Q7-10 flow is higher. declines from 400 to 340 feet in elevation. groundwater available for development, Streamflows in the study area will be below 20 percent of their average “The Commission uses the 1-in-10-year daily flow approximately 30 days per year. Groundwater withdrawals in recharge as the sustainable limit of the Manheim-Lititz groundwater basin have exceeded the Q7-10 for the surface groundwater development.” water flow (combined flow from Chiques Creek and Lititz Run) as it East of the Manheim-Lititz ground- instream flow needs, and required leaves the carbonate valley. However, water basin, the water table rapidly falls reservoir or tank storage capacity. This most of the existing groundwater 40 to 60 feet. This area is called the would suggest a maximum sustainable withdrawals are located in the southern Ephrata area groundwater basin, and limit for groundwater withdrawals of half of the basin, and are compensated has a water table graded to the lower 3,531 million gallons per year (mgy) for for by the discharge from the Manheim reaches of Cocalico Creek, where it the Manheim-Lititz basin and 7,077 mgy and Lititz wastewater treatment plants. crosses the Cocalico Formation through for the Ephrata area basin. However, Future withdrawals located in the the Cocalico Creek water gap at an passby flows can place further restrictions northern half of the basin could trigger elevation of approximately 300 feet. on availability. the passby requirement. The passby The 48.4-square-mile Ephrata area The Commission, in coordination requirement can be avoided by locating groundwater basin contains parts of with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, wells in downstream areas where the Elizabeth, Warwick, Clay, Ephrata, requires that regulated withdrawals Q7-10 flow is higher. West Cocalico, and East Cocalico negatively impacting streamflows must Townships, and parts of Akron, cease or streamflows be augmented Existing Conditions Ephrata, and Denver Boroughs within when the flow in a stream classified the Cocalico Creek drainage area. as a warm water fishery falls below Groundwater withdrawals were The annual recharge for each 20 percent of the average daily flow. evaluated to determine the total groundwater basin, for the 2-, 10-, and Discharge of an equal amount of amount of water currently approved for continued on page 7 3 See descriptions of four critical aquifer recharge areas on page 6 critical aquifer recharge See descriptions of four Plate 1

4 5 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (see Plate 1 on pages 4 & 5) Recharge occurs wherever the land favorable to recharge, and the surface runoff Siliciclastic to Carbonate Stream Crossings surface is pervious and the water table is covers a large surface of absorption while Stream water draining siliciclastic terrains below the surface. However, some areas are pooled water is present. Although the rate is generally acidic due to the lack to soluble characterized by features or attributes that of percolation for these soils is not buffering compounds in the rock. When streams provide an exceptional amount of replenishment exceptionally high (i.e., the soils are not well with acidic water emerge onto a carbonate (recharge) to the aquifer per unit area, and drained), percolation occurs over an terrain that is underdrained, the acidic water are herein termed critical aquifer recharge extended period of time and over a large may percolate through the streambed and areas (CARAs). Four CARAs were identified surface area due to the pooling of surface valley floor alluvium, past the root zone and in the course of this study. water. The pooling allows some of the into the underlying carbonate bedrock aquifer. rejected recharge (i.e., surface runoff) from The seasonal to continuous supply of acidic Dry Valleys surrounding uplands to percolate to the water produces enhanced karst permeability Dry valleys occur throughout the carbonate water table. beneath the percolation area, which may valley. They consist of an integrated network The larger dry valleys have been identified extend for some distance downgradient (drainage net) of broad valleys that lack (Plate 1) and three major dry valley systems from the siliciclastic to carbonate crossing. streamflow or even discrete stream channels, have been informally named: the Limerock This represents an increase in the amount and resemble a surface drainage net. Dry Valley System is located between of water in the carbonate basin above These valleys were abandoned (perennial Manheim and Lititz and has a surface water that derived from the recharge of local streamflow ceased) when karst permeability collection area of more than 3 square miles; precipitation. This same process occurs to in the underlying carbonate bedrock under- the Weidmanville Dry Valley System is some degree all along the non-carbonate- drained the valley, lowering the water table to located northwest of Ephrata and has a carbonate contact, where local groundwater the level of the solutional openings and leaving surface water collection area of more flow from the higher, non-carbonate terrain the surface streams deprived of base flow. than 2.5 square miles; and the Stevens flows into the carbonate valley. However, it The valleys have been further modified by Dry Valley System has a surface water is more important at perennial stream differential solution of the underlying carbonate collection area of more than 2 square miles. crossings where recharging streamflow bedrock, resulting in wider, subtly depressed substantially augments the local groundwater areas over more soluble bedrock formations. Losing Stream Reaches flow from the non-carbonates. During major precipitation and meltwater Streams flowing over an underdrained events, water floods the broad valley floor carbonate terrain are typically perched Karst Modified Uplands depressions and spills from pool to pool. As on low permeability carbonate residuum The broad uplands between the major the amount of water delivered to the valley (orange-brown silty clay) over much of their stream valleys (see Plate 1) are inferred to declines, continuous surface water flow length and have minimal flow loss to the have solution-enhanced permeability based breaks up into a series of shallow pools. aquifer. However, where the channel crosses on the occurrence of numerous small, The pooled water may be present for a a stratigraphic horizon with well-developed shallow depressions. These depressions period of days to weeks. The pools gradually karst conduits and a hydraulically efficient have dimensions similar to active sinkholes diminish in area as the water evaporates connection between the stream and the in the study area and have been and percolates to the water table. Use by aquifer is present, streamflow is lost to the interpreted as dormant sinkholes. While plants (evapotranspiration) may be significant aquifer. A number of losing stream reaches some of these may be of non-karst origin if the pooling occurs during the growing were bracketed by the streamflow (i.e., pseudo-karst), the abundant carbonate season, and the existing plants are adapted measurement stations. The actual losses bedrock pinnacles in these areas strongly to saturated soil conditions. were only a small fraction of the total suggest the presence of solution-enhanced The dry valleys are thought to contribute streamflow for larger streams, but were a permeability. The upland setting provides an exceptional amount of recharge substantial fraction of the total flow for aquifer porosity for the storage of because the underlying bedrock has smaller streams. Losses ranged from a few recharging water that is higher in greater karst permeability (more voids and tenths of a cubic foot per second for small elevation than local groundwater discharge conduits), the water table is below the streams to several cubic feet per second for areas, an essential characteristic for a land surface so that head conditions are the larger streams. recharge area.

6 Existing Conditions continued from page 3 (21.8 square miles) is less than half the Allocated and Existing (Current Year 2000) area of the Ephrata area groundwater Groundwater Withdrawals and Comparison to the 1-in-10-Year Recharge basin (48.4 square miles) that results in Allocated Existing Percent Allocated a groundwater yield of approximately Withdrawal Withdrawal Allocated Existing 188,000 gallons per day (gpd) per (mgy) (mgy) to the 1-in-10 to the 1-in-10 square mile versus 85,000 gpd per Manheim-Lititz 2,478 1,493 70 42 square mile, respectively. The size of a Ephrata Area 2,418 1,497 34 21 groundwater basin (recharge catchment Study Area 4,896 2,990 46 28 area) relative to the volume of total withdrawals is an important consideration withdrawal (i.e., allocated withdrawals) and withdrawals in potentially stressed in determining groundwater sustainability the portion of such allocations currently areas (PSAs), which is 50 percent of the in a given area. being withdrawn to meet present 1-in-10-year recharge. For the entire study area, allocated demands (i.e., existing withdrawals). Actual, current (year 2000) withdrawals groundwater withdrawals were The total allocated groundwater for the Manheim-Lititz groundwater 46 percent of the 1-in-10-year recharge. withdrawals in each basin includes both basin, the Ephrata area groundwater basin, For the Manheim-Lititz groundwater existing withdrawal amounts plus and the entire study area do not exceed basin, allocated groundwater approved but unused amounts. Existing 50 percent of the 1-in-10-year recharge. withdrawals were 70 percent of the (actual, current) water withdrawals, plus The total groundwater withdrawal 1-in-10-year recharge, which exceeds currently allocated but unused quantities, in the Ephrata area groundwater basin the Commission’s PSA standard. were identified and totaled for each of 1,497 mgy is approximately equal to Allocated groundwater withdrawals groundwater basin. These total allocated that of the Manheim-Lititz groundwater from the Ephrata area groundwater groundwater withdrawals were compared basin (1,493 mgy). However, the area of basin are 34 percent of the 1-in-10- to the Commission’s criterion for allocated the Manheim-Lititz groundwater basin year recharge.

Projected Conditions Study Area 2000 2010 2025 Existing and Projected Total Use and Percent Total Population 61,085 67,400 76,905 Groundwater withdrawal for the Utilization of 1-in-10 Total Use mgy* 3,382* 3,753 4,337 and 1-in-25-Year Recharge study area has been projected for 2010 Percent Utilization of 1-in-10 28 35 41 for the Study Area and 2025. The water demand projection Percent Utilization of 1-in-25 41 51 59 is based on census data showing a *Includes surface withdrawals at Ephrata and Denver. population of 61,085 in 2000 and a per-capita water use of 116 gpd. Using data Ephrata Area 2000 2010 2025 Existing and Projected provided by Lancaster County Planning Total Use and Percent Total Population 37,449 41,329 47,174 Utilization of 1-in-10 Commission, the projected population Total Use mgy* 1,889 2,070 2,357 and 1-in-25-Year Recharge in 2010 and 2025 will be 67,400 and Percent Utilization of 1-in-10 27 29 33 for the Ephrata Area 76,905, respectively. Utilization in 2010 Groundwater Basin Percent Utilization of 1-in-25 38 42 48 (3,753 mgy) is estimated to be 35 percent of *Includes surface withdrawals at Ephrata and Denver. the 1-in-10-year recharge and 51 percent of the 1-in-25-year recharge. Utilization Manheim-Lititz Area 2000 2010 2025 Existing and Projected in 2025 (4,337 mgy) is estimated to be Total Use and Percent Total Population 23,636 26,071 29,732 Utilization of 1-in-10 41 percent of the 1-in-10-year recharge and Total Use mgy 1,493 1,677 2,007 and 1-in-25-Year Recharge 59 percent of the 1-in-25-year recharge. Percent Utilization of 1-in-10 42 47 57 for the Manheim-Lititz Groundwater Basin For the Ephrata area groundwater Percent Utilization of 1-in-25 61 68 82 basin, water use in 2010 (2,070 mgy) is estimated to be 29 percent of the The projected population in the recharge and 82 percent of the 1-in-25- 1-in-10-year recharge and 42 percent Manheim-Lititz groundwater basin in year recharge. of the 1-in-25-year recharge. Water use 2010 and 2025 will be 26,071 and The existing allocations for ground- in 2025 (2,357 mgy) is estimated to be 29,732, respectively. Water use in 2010 water withdrawal are sufficient to meet 33 percent of the 1-in-10-year recharge (1,677 mgy) is estimated to be 47 percent these projected demands, assuming and 48 percent of the 1-in-25-year of the 1-in-10-year recharge and 68 percent that the new demand is located on the recharge. The projected population in of the 1-in-25-year recharge. Water systems with existing excess capacity or can 2010 and 2025 will be 41,329 and use in 2025 (2,007 mgy) is estimated be served through interconnections with 47,174, respectively. to be 57 percent of the 1-in-10-year water systems that have excess capacity.

7 RECOMMENDATIONS The Commission developed a series Recommendation: Municipalities should consider Water resource management agencies should of recommendations to address water floodplain restoration in a limited number of areas that continue to conduct basinwide or regional workshops resource problems in the study area, historically contained meandering stream channels, to acquaint citizens with water management issues, after consideration of the following: thereby improving groundwater recharge along problems, and solutions. The Commission should those reaches. present the findings and recommendations of this (1) a review of existing ordinances and 4. Problem: Lack of stormwater plans in the study study to watershed groups, civic organizations, regulations that impact water resources; areas misses opportunities to address infiltration and and legislative leaders. (2) a review of related plans and water recharge of stormwater runoff. 9. Problem: Insufficient or incomplete beneficial reuse resource initiatives; (3) community Recommendation: County and local governments of process water or wastewater results in increased input on issues and concerns through should complete Act 167 stormwater management water demand. the WBAC and at a June 2004, plans for the remaining areas. They also should Recommendation: Industrial and commercial users workshop; and (4) the findings of this implement the PADEP’s new comprehensive should identify opportunities to reclaim water from one study. The Water Resource Management stormwater policy, which promotes the use of application for use in another application. Within the distributed infiltration best management practices to context of appropriate water quality limitations, agricultural Recommendations section in the full report increase groundwater recharge. sites near urban areas may provide opportunities to provides a detailed explanation of the 5. Problem: Certain carbonate areas, such as those identified recycle industrial and commercial water for irrigation. issues, problems, and recommendations as karst modified uplands, may not be suitable for on-site Reuse water is a sustainable water supply. and description of the existing stormwater management best management practices. Municipalities should be evaluating ways to take management tools available to the Recommendation: County and local governments advantage of their wastewater plant effluent for reuse, Commission, PADEP, and municipalities. should consider distribution of stormwater runoff to thus lessening the demand on their potable water The recommendations address regional stormwater management facilities in restored supplies. Municipalities can perform “Reuse Master four major issues. Recommendations floodplains and CARAs. They also should explore transfer Plans” that focus on reuse opportunities as a water of stormwater requirements to receiving areas (i.e., CARAs resource for their community and surrounding area. 1 through 5 address overall reduction or stormwater management facilities) for the 10. Problem: Inefficient water use or lack of of infiltration and groundwater recharge. expansion of development rights in sending areas conservation measures wastes water. Recommendations 6 and 7 address (i.e., areas in a development that would normally be Recommendation: Water authorities and purveyors, in excess withdrawal of groundwater in set aside for stormwater best management practices). partnership with municipalities, should offer residential PSAs. Recommendations 8 through 11 6. Problem: Water use in the Manheim-Lititz and water surveys. Water surveyors check for leaking address overall increase in water use, and Ephrata area groundwater basins is 70 percent and plumbing, provide water conservation tips, offer recommendation 12 addresses consistency 34 percent, respectively, of the sustainable limit. advice on retrofitting with water-efficient fixtures, and among municipal ordinances. Recommendation: The Commission should continue may distribute water-efficiency kits (containing, for to require groundwater availability analyses for new water example, faucet aerators and low flow showerheads). 1. Problem: Loss of critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) withdrawal projects and detailed water budgets in PSAs. When businesses apply for new or increased from future growth and development is a concern. Regional and local planning agencies should withdrawals in PSAs, water resource management Recommendation: Municipalities should maintain or evaluate the impacts of different post build-out sce- agencies should encourage them to consult with enhance the unique hydraulic characteristics of narios on recharge and water demand. qualified engineering firms that specialize in on-site CARAs to maximize the amount of groundwater 7. Problem: Intensive groundwater withdrawals in water use evaluations and assist in replacement of available for utilization within a groundwater basin. localized areas will diminish groundwater yields, water-inefficient equipment. Mapping of these important water resource areas base flows, and perennial streamflow. Watershed organizations should organize and provides information that municipal governments can Recommendation: Project sponsors applying for new conduct public information programs consisting of use to make informed decisions on planning for or increased withdrawals should utilize groundwater conservation brochures, displays, and classes future growth (Plate 1). models in localized areas to evaluate the withdrawal dealing with outdoor use practices, such as 2. Problem: Increased areas of impervious cover will impact and address sustainability. For localized areas landscaping alternatives and changing wasteful reduce the potential for recharge. where the sustainable yields have been exceeded, practices, to conserve water. Recommendation: Municipalities should encourage new wells should not be installed and additional 11. Problem: Water discharged from mining operations developers to reduce the effect of impervious cover by withdrawals should be discouraged. is underutilized as a resource. implementing technologies that increase the infiltration Since existing allocations for groundwater withdrawal Recommendation: The Commission should encourage capability of that cover. Developers should consider are sufficient to meet projected demands, the Commission cooperative efforts to promote alternative water supplies using designs such as porous pavement in areas should encourage municipalities and water authorities to such as mining operations for public drinking water, where natural recharge rates are higher than other consider addressing new demand with systems that have commercial operations, and industrial supplies. land areas. Where the infiltration capability of the existing excess capacity or through interconnections 12. Problem: Municipal ordinances that influence land cover cannot be increased, such as rooftops, the with water systems that have excess capacity. water supply availability are inconsistent across stormwater runoff can be directed to other areas and 8. Problem: The public is not well educated about the municipal boundaries. enhance groundwater recharge through distributed limits of groundwater resources. Recommendation: Local governments should continue to infiltration best management practices. Recommendation: Water resource management utilize the opportunities presented in the Pennsylvania 3. Problem: Floodplain systems that were once areas agencies should partner with schools to introduce Municipalities Planning Code to develop comprehensive of natural recharge are now filled with fine sediment material on water and the environment into the land management ordinances that address and less permeable, thereby reducing recharge. curricula for grades K through 12. groundwater resource protection and enhancement.

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION 1721 North Front Street • Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391 • 717.238.0423 • 717.238.2436 fax • www.srbc.net