Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Implementation Plan

Home , Clearfield Creek, Elodea, Quittapahilla Creek, Swatara Creek

August 2018 Updated January 27, 2021

Prepared for Quittapahilla Watershed Association

Prepared by Clear Creeks Consulting

Funded by Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Growing Greener Grant

Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Implementation Plan

Prepared for Quittapahilla Watershed Association

Prepared by Clear Creeks Consulting

Funded by Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Growing Greener Grant

August 2018 Updated January 27, 2021

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, QWA • Russell Collins, President, Doc Fritchey Chapter Trout Unlimited • Kelly Cottingham, Public Education, Participation & Outreach Committee, QWA • Kent Crawford, Quittapahilla Watershed Association • Sean Droms, PhD., Mathematics Professor, Lebanon Valley College, Board of Directors, QWA • Karen Feather, Public Education, Participation & Outreach Committee, QWA • Edward Gibble, Lebanon Valley Conservancy • Lynette Gelsinger, 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, Founder and Former President, Quittapahilla Watershed Association • Anne Lasky, Quittapahilla Watershed Association • Rocky O. Powell, Clear Creeks Consulting • Michael Schroeder, PhD., History Professor, Lebanon Valley College, President and 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 PhD., 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, QWA

Quittapahilla Watershed Association and Restoration Partners: • Aquatic Resource Restoration Company • Clear Creeks Consulting • Cornwall Borough • Doc Fritchey Chapter Trout Unlimited • Lebanon County Clean Water Alliance • Lebanon County Conservation District • Lebanon County Planning Commission • Lebanon Valley Conservancy • Natural Resource Conservation Service - USDA • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

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 210

A. Monitoring of Restoration Projects 210

B. Monitoring within Subwatersheds (Tributaries) 212

C. Monitoring at Fixed Stations 212 1. Geomorphic and In-Stream Habitat Assessment 214 2. Biological Monitoring 214 3. Water Quality Monitoring 215 a. Water Quality Monitoring Objectives 215 b. Water Quality Monitoring Plan 216 c. Water Quality Monitoring Schedule 216

VIII. Information, Education, and Public Participation 219

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

1 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 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.

4 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.

5 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.

6 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

7 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.

8 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.

9 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)

10 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.

11 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

12 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

13 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

14 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 27.3 29.9 39 49.2 59.0 67.8 72.2 70.0 62.6 51.4 41.3 32.2 (F°) (18-37) (19-43) (24-55) (34-66) (43-75) (53-82) (60-84) (57-83) (46-77) (35-68.0) (28-57) (21-45) Precipitation 3.19 2.56 3.31 3.72 4.61 4.04 4.57 3.48 4.08 3.32 3.62 3.19 (Inches) (1.3-6.3) (0.9-6.7) (0.81- (1.4-7.8) (1.45- (0.7-9.0) (0.9-10.3) (1.2-11.1) (0.4-8.2) (0.6-8.5) (0.9-5.9) (1.3-7.4) 8.2) 8.0)

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.

15 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

16 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.

17 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

18 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.

19 20 Land Use Land Cover Land Use and Land Cover in Major Subwatersheds Entire (Acres) 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 34.0271 N/A N/A 19.1053 20.1975 61.2464 119.3740 1172.1642 1625.1694 Transportation

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)

21 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

22 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 subwatersheds. 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.

23 24 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.

25 USGS Stream Flow Data Area Longitud Number Name Latitude Location Start End Data (sq.mi.) e peak near Cleona, 01573086 Beck Creek 7.87 40°19'24" 76°29'00" 8/1/63 3/31/81 discharge, Pa water quality peak Bachman 01573095 7.30 40°18'58" 76°30'58" Annville, Pa 4/1/93 9/30/95 discharge, Run water quality near Quittapahilla peak 01573160 74.20 40°20'34" 76°33'46" Bellegrove, 9/26/75 4/11/93 Creek discharge Pa

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

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

26 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.

USGS Predictions HEC-HMS Predictions Watershed 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year 10-year 100-year Brandywine 960 1380 1764 2223 1143 1846 HW-QuittyN1(upper) 499 755 1000 1303 504 872 HW-QuittyN2(lower) 817 1224 1611 2088 756 1339 Lebanon 1037 1350 1611 1901 1029 1562 HWQuitty-S 1959 2811 3590 4521 1886 3498 NCornwall-S 564 832 1083 1386 1026 1880 NCornwall-N 432 642 840 1080 529 983 Snitz 1473 2168 2819 3612 1729 3247 UpperBeck 299 449 590 762 451 905 LowerBeck 1503 2205 2860 3657 1660 3121 UpperBachman 834 1228 1594 2038 1257 2309 LowerBachman 1011 1499 1959 2523 1026 1926 Mid-Quitty 2787 3892 4877 6033 2288 4183 Lower-Quitty 878 1295 1684 2158 988 1896 UGingrich-E 143 215 282 363 238 488 UGingrich-W 103 156 205 266 159 488 Mid-Gingrich 740 1109 1461 1895 651 1225 LowerGingrich 192 300 405 539 143 279 Buckholder 265 406 541 710 246 451 UpperKillinger 360 541 712 921 469 839 Mid-Killinger 1299 1893 2444 3110 1253 2271 Lower-Killinger 554 827 1086 1402 609 1083 Combinations of Smaller Watersheds UpperQuitty 3714 5172 6468 7988 4903 8450 Snitz 1993 2880 3695 4673 2790 5147 BeckCreek 1595 2324 2999 3815 1958 3574 Bachman 1553 2260 2912 3699 1931 3525 Gingrich 998 1463 1893 2413 1263 2401 Killinger 2425 3469 4417 5547 2986 5427 Lebanon-Outlet 3746 5206 6500 8016 4903 8450 QuittyGage 9528 13082 16195 19814 10682 19009 Entire WS 9826 13469 16654 20352 10003 17788

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.

28 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

29 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.

Predicted from Measured Field Data USGS Regional Regressions Drainage

Reach Area XS Rif -1 Rif-2 Pool 1 Pool 2 Discharge (Sq Mi) Discharge Area XS XS XS XS (cfs) (cfs) (ft2) Area Area Area Area (ft2) (ft2) (ft2) (ft2) 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.

30 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.

31 Reach Drainage Bed Bankfull Bankfull Bankfull Width/Depth Entrenchment. Water Reach/Riffle Manning’s Stream Area Feature Width Mean Cross- Ratio Ratio Surface Average Estimated Type (mi2) (ft.) Depth sectional Slope Bed Bankfull (ft.) Area (ft/ft) Material Discharge (ft2) D50 (cfs) (mm)

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

32 Reach Drainage Bed Bankfull Bankfull Bankfull Width/Depth Entrenchment Water Reach/Riffle Manning’s Stream Area Feature Width Mean Cross- Ratio Ratio Surface Average Estimated Type (mi2) (ft.) Depth sectional Slope Bed Material Bankfull (ft.) Area (ft/ft) D50 Discharge (ft2) (mm) (cfs)

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)

33 Reach Drainage Bed Bankfull Bankfull Bankfull Width/Depth Entrenchment. Water Reach/Riffle Manning’s Stream Area Feature Width Mean Cross- Ratio Ratio Surface Average Estimated Type (mi2) (ft.) Depth sectional Slope Bed Material Bankfull (ft.) Area (ft/ft) D50 Discharge (ft2) (mm) (cfs)

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)

34 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 Depth XS Area (ft) (ft) (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.

35 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.

36 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

37 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.

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

39 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.

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

41 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.

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

43 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.

Figure 5 – Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem Segment 4

45 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.

Figure 6 – Middle Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem Segment 5

47 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.

Figure 7 – Lower Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem Segment 6

Figure 8 – Lower Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem Segment 6 (Cont’d) 50

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.

Watershed Total Unstable Percent Stream Length Stream Length of Total (LF) (LF) 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 22,598 9,315 41.2 Annville

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

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 Impacted Percent Stream Length Stream Length of Total (LF) (LF) 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 22,598 5,438 24.0 Annville

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.

Plate 4 – Quittapahilla Creek Subwatersheds

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.

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 Impacted Percent Stream Length Stream Length of Total (LF) (LF) 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 8,923 8,923 100.0 Lebanon

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Plate 5 – Biological Survey Stations

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).

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.

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

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

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 Netspinning Hydropsychidae 8 8 1 116 2 29 4 5 2 1 Caddisflies 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 Longhorn Leptoceridae 3 1 Caddisflies 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)

Functional Scientific Name Common Name Tolerance Value Notes Feeding Group 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

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

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).

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.

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.

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

Tolerance Tolerance Trophic Trophic Scientific Name Common Name General Notes Value (1) Value (2) Level (1) Level (2) 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)

Metric Metric Description Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Snitz Beck Bach Kill Total number of fish 9 8 4 7 6 8 10 7 5 6 1* species** (5) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (5) (5) (3) (3) Number of benthic- 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 2* insectivorous species (3) (3) (1) (3) (3) (5) (5) (5) (3) (1) Number of water column 3 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 0 1 3* species (3) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (3) (3) (1) (1) Number of terete minnow 2 3 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 4* species (3) (3) (1) (3) (1) (1) (3) (1) (1) (1) Percentage of dominant 28 45.2 97.2 89.5 41.1 64.9 70.7 70.1 61.3 65.3 5 species (5) (3) (1) (1) (3) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Percentage of individuals 14.6 18.8 0.4 3.4 41.1 0.05 13.2 7.4 3.1 8.1 6 that are white suckers (3) (1) (5) (3) (1) (5) (3) (3) (3) (3) Percentage of individuals 84.7 47.1 2.2 10.0 55.8 25.1 89.6 26.7 66.1 30.6 7 that are generalists (1) (1) (5) (5) (1) (3) (1) (3) (1) (3) Percentage of individuals 14.6 50.9 97.2 89.7 44.1 73.2 6.6 73.2 31.2 65.3 8 that are insectivores (1) (5) (5) (5) (3) (5) (1) (5) (3) (5) Percentage of individuals 0.6 1.8 0.4 0 0 0 3.7 0 2.6 2.0 9 that are top carnivores (1) (3) (1) (1) (1) (1) (3) (1) (3) (3) Fish per sample 18.7 6.3 19.6 46.3 2.4 13.7 31.0 88.0 56.0 14.6 10* (fish/100 sq. meters) (3) (3) (3) (3) (1) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) Percentage of species 20.0 22.2 20.0 37.5 16.6 50.0 25.0 42.8 42.8 28.5 11 with two age classes (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (5) (3) (5) (5) (3) Percentage of individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 with disease or anomalies (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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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,

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

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.

Plate 6 – Water Quality Monitoring Stations

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 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 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.

100

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-

101

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.

102

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).

103

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

104

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.

105

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

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

106

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 subwatershed 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.

107

Figure 15 – Location of modeling sub-basins.

108

Basin Number Name Based on Principal Stream

1 Mouth of Quittapahilla Creek 2 Lower Quittapahilla Creek 3 Confluence of Killinger and Quittapahilla Creeks 4 Middle Killinger Creek 5 Upper Killinger Creek – Gingrich Run 6 Upper Killinger Creek 7 Buckholder Run 8 Middle Gingrich Run 9 Tributary to Gingrich Run 10 Upper Gingrich Run 11 Lower Bachman Run 12 Quittapahilla near confluence of Beck and Snitz Creeks 13 Lower Beck Creek 14 Lower Snitz Creek 15 Brandywine Creek 16 Middle Quittapahilla Creek 17 Upper Quittapahilla Creek 18 Upper Bachman Run 19 Upper Beck Creek 20 Upper Snitz Creek 21 Tributary to Snitz Creek

Table 21 – Modeling Sub-Basin Numbers and Names

109

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

110

Basin Size N-Total N-Rate P-Total P-Rate S-Total S-Rate (acres) (lbs.) (lbs./acre) (lbs.) (lbs./acre) (lbs.) (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

111

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.

112

Watershed Size Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Name (acres) Developed Wooded Water Disturbed Agriculture

Beech Creek 109,181 0.6 90.4 0.1 5.0 3.9 Blacklick Creek 246,963 2.5 73.9 0.6 2.3 20.7 Brodhead Creek 183,553 4.4 87.3 0.1 0.0 8.2 Casselman Creek 204,804 1.6 61.2 0.2 2.2 34.8 Chartiers Creek 175,405 17.5 48.9 0.0 1.0 32.6 Clarion River 527,497 1.1 91.8 0.4 1.1 5.7 Clearfield Creek 241,353 1.0 80.6 0.6 3.9 13.9 Codorus Creek 174,273 9.0 27.2 0.1 0.5 63.2 Conestoga Creek 303,744 9.7 25.0 0.1 0.9 64.3 Conewago Creek 326,715 2.7 32.4 1.0 0.2 63.8 Conodoguinet Creek 324,367 5.0 32.8 0.8 0.1 61.3 Driftwood Branch 190,104 0.4 96.5 0.1 0.4 2.6 Fishing Creek 231,548 0.6 68.8 0.1 0.3 30.2 Juniata R./Raystown Br. 460,165 1.2 64.6 0.4 0.5 33.4 Kettle Creek 157,297 0.0 95.9 0.2 0.7 3.2 Loyalsock Creek 278,480 0.2 88.6 0.1 1.0 10.1 Lycoming Creek 137,300 0.5 85.6 0.1 0.4 13.4 Neshaminy Creek 131,792 20.2 37.6 0.0 1.1 41.1 Oil Creek 208,888 1.0 76.9 0.1 0.3 21.8 Penns Creek 198,556 0.3 70.3 0.5 0.2 28.7 Pine Creek 630,630 0.2 88.5 0.3 0.5 10.5 Redbank Creek 340,213 2.2 70.9 0.2 1.8 24.9 Schuylkill River 224,279 3.8 74.8 1.8 5.0 14.6 Sherman Creek 154,269 0.2 69.2 0.1 0.2 30.3 Slippery Rock Creek 260,127 1.5 57.2 1.1 1.4 38.7 Spring Creek 54,935 6.1 44.0 0.3 0.1 50.0 Swatara Creek 365,545 5.7 43.8 0.9 0.8 48.8 Tioga Creek 282,692 0.4 64.2 0.1 1.2 34.1 Towanda Creek 176,328 0.3 68.6 0.1 0.0 31.0 Tunkhannock Creek 264,777 1.5 68.0 1.9 0.0 28.6 Yellow Breeches Creek 137,490 6.1 56.2 0.1 0.4 37.2 Young Woman Creek 29,549 0.0 99.7 0.1 0.0 0.2

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

113

Watershed Total Total Name Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment

Beech Creek 1.41 0.11 27.0 Blacklick Creek 3.02 0.12 - Brodhead Creek 2.89 0.42 - Casselman Creek 8.92 0.41 - Chartiers Creek 5.49 0.52 - Clarion River 2.44 0.17 - Clearfield Creek 3.86 0.20 116.4 Codorus Creek 14.07 0.49 446.8 Conestoga Creek 30.69 1.01 854.4 Conewago Creek 16.71 0.38 416.1 Conodoguinet Creek 13.95 0.46 252.9 Driftwood Branch 2.61 0.13 63.5 Fishing Creek 5.49 0.19 31.2 Juniata R./Raystown Br. 7.72 0.30 230.5 Kettle Creek 2.89 0.12 24.7 Loyalsock Creek 3.35 0.14 29.3 Lycoming Creek 2.90 0.12 22.5 Neshaminy Creek 11.33 0.84 808.0 Oil Creek 2.92 0.20 - Penns Creek 8.08 0.28 89.6 Pine Creek 2.83 0.17 25.3 Redbank Creek 3.57 0.20 - Schuylkill River 8.62 0.28 - Sherman Creek 5.10 0.18 35.1 Slippery Rock Creek 4.32 0.20 - Spring Creek 14.87 0.68 63.8 Swatara Creek 14.80 0.48 772.5 Tioga Creek 3.73 0.19 106.4 Towanda Creek 2.67 0.15 19.0 Tunkhannock Creek 3.89 0.22 66.3 Yellow Breeches Creek 9.74 0.36 49.7 Young Woman Creek 2.72 0.09 -

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

114

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 Primary Facility Type Discharge Type Treatment Receiving Stream Permit # PA0027316 City of Lebanon Municipal Activated sludge Quittapahilla Creek Wastewater PA0083267 and Butler Ground water Air Stripper Quittapahilla Creek PA0087394 Manufacturing Cleanup & Cooling & None Water PA0084867 Sun Oil Quentin Ground water Air Stripper Beck Creek Cleanup PA0081752 Philhaven Hospital Domestic Extended Aeration Bachman Run Wastewater and Filtration Mining Industrial Pennsy Supply Groundwater and Sedimentation Bachman Run Minerals Reg. Fontana Quarry Wash Water Basin Program PA0021806 Township of Municipal Two Stage Quittapahilla Creek Annville Wastewater Activated Sludge PA0083747 Walter H. Weaber Domestic Extended Aeration Gingrich Run & Sons Wastewater PA0081841 Thousand Trails Domestic Extended Aeration Gingrich Run Campground Wastewater (Hershey) PA0087700 South Londonderry Municipal Extended Aeration, Killinger Creek Campbell East Wastewater Chlorination/ Dechlorination PA0033065 Palm City Domestic Extended Aeration Killinger Creek Wastewater Sand Filter PA0024287 Borough of Municipal Trickling Filter, Killinger Creek Palmyra Wastewater Activated Sludge, Phosphorus. Removal PA0081655 Philadelphia Industrial Tank None Killinger Creek Mixers Testing water & Cooling Water PA0080713 Pennsy Supply Domestic Extended Aeration Killinger Creek Millard Quarry Wastewater Mining Industrial Pennsy Supply Groundwater and Sedimentation Killinger Creek Minerals Reg. Millard Quarry Wash Water Basin Program PAG0043594 Dale Huffman Domestic Single Family Unnamed Tributary Wastewater Residence STP

Table 25 – Point source discharges in the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed

115

Plate 7 – Point Source Discharges

116

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

117

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 currently meet its targeted

118

phosphorus 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.

119

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

Basin Size Existing Existing Existing Target Existing Target Existing Target Existing Target (acres) N-Total N-Rate P-Total P-Total P-Rate P-Rate S-Total S-Total S-Rate S-Rate (lbs.) (lbs./acre) (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs./acre) (lbs./acre) (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs./acre) (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 2,918 0.41 0.5913 1,187,272 NA 240.58 NA 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 3,077 0.40 0.5913 1,214,073 NA 233.30 NA 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 4,592 0.497 0.5913 3,909,466 NA 503.41 NA 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 4,676 1.01 0.5913 2,922,067 NA 369.5 NA 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 NA 0.86 NA 6,297,039 NA 545.77 NA 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 NA 0.47 NA 4,600,733 NA 392.3 NA Overall Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Total 49,101 1,201,064 24.46 31,443.34 NA 0.64 NA 20,800,647 9,868,319 423.63 200.98

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. Although, the TMDL Restoration measures alone do not meet the Target Sediment TMDL, they provide a significant contribution to the effort and combined with the MS4 and Agricultural BMPs the Target Sediment TMDL will be met.

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 Current N- % N Current Target P- % P Achieved Current S- Target % S Achieved Measures N-Total Reduction Reduction P-Total TMDL Reduction Reduction P-Total S-Total Reduction TMDL Reduction S-Total (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) P-Total (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) S-Total (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) Bachman Run (Subsheds 11 and 18)

TMDL 88,237 1,266 1.4 2,048 2,918 1,148 56.5 900 1,187,272 757,574 63.8 Restoration MS4 Restoration 150 136 6.6 89,760 BMP 10,467 983 47.9 1,061,860 TMDL/MS4/BMP 11,883 13.5 2,267 111 1,909,194 161 Total Beck Creek (Subsheds 13 and 19)

TMDL 106,799 1,959 1.83 2,106 3,077 1,776 84.3 1,214,073 1,172,355 96.5 Restoration MS4 BMP 15,779 12.9 BMP 9,309 8.7 800 37.9 457,055 37.6 Restoration/BMP 11,217 10.5 2,530 120 1,645,189 135.5 Total Killinger Creek (Subsheds 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10)

TMDL 160,202 1,774 1.1 3,857 4,592 1,608 41.7 3,909,466 1,061,412 27.1 Restoration BMP 55,967 34.9 2,339 60.6 2,767,866 70.8 Restoration/BMP 57,741 36.0 3,947 102 3,829,278 97.9 Total Snitz Creek (Subsheds 14, 20 and 21)

TMDL 322,580 2,473 0.77 7,986 4,676 2,242 28.1 2,922,067 1,479,694 50.6 Restoration 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 233,160 72.3 8,703 109 3,355,310 115 Total

123

TMDL 328,771 4,456 1.4 9,894 4,026 40.7 6,297,040 2,657,712 42.2 Restoration 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 (Subsheds 15, 16, and 17)

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 Quittapahilla Creek (Subsheds 1, 2, 3, 12, 15, 16, and 17)

10,897,772 3,678,736 9,868,319 61.0 7,219,036

124

Table 28 – Pollutant Loading Reductions Resulting from TMDL Restoration Projects by Subwatershed Subwatershed Current N- % N Current Target P- % P Achieved Current Target S- % S Achieved N-Total Reduction Reduction P-Total TMDL Reduction Reduction P-Total S-Total TMDL Reduction Reduction S-Total (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) P-Total (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) S-Total (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) Bachman Run 88,237 1,266 1.4 2,048 2,918 1,148 56.5 900 1,187,272 NA 757,574 63.8 NA

Beck Creek 106,799 1,959 1.8 2,106 3,077 1,776 84.3 330 1,214,073 NA 1,172,355 96.5 NA

Killinger Creek 160,202 1,774 1.1 3,857 4,595 1,608 41.7 2,249 3,909,466 NA 1,061,412 27.1 NA

Snitz Creek 322,580 2,473 0.77 7,986 4,676 2,242 28.1 5,744 2,922,067 NA 1,479,694 50.6 NA

Quittapahilla 328,771 4,456 1.4 9,894 NA 4,026 40.7 NA 10,897,772 9,868,319 2,657,712 42.2 8,240,060 Creek

125

Table 29 - Bachman Run - Pollutant Loading Reductions by Project

Project Location Project Type Length Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment ID# (feet) Reduction Reduction Reduction (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) 1 Farm adjacent to Philhaven Streambank Fencing 1,320 99.0 89.8 59,241.6 Hospital DS of Butler Rd 4 McCurdy Property Stream Restoration 500 37.5 34.0 22,440.0 UPS of Mt. Wilson Rd. 5 Sattazahn and Katzman Properties Stream Restoration 1,810 135.8 123.1 81,232.8 Mt. Wilson Rd to Mt. Wilson Rd 7 Hoover, White and Risser Stream Restoration 1,650 123.8 112.2 74,052.0 Properties and Wetland Creation Off Mt. Wilson Rd 8 Risser Farm Stream Restoration 1,320 99.0 89.8 59,241.6

9 Usner and Inman Properties Dam Removal 1,650 123.8 112.2 74,052.0 UPS of Rte 322 Stream Restoration 10 Bachman Property Grade and Stabilize 800 60.0 54.4 35,904 DS of Rte 322 Banks Streambank Fencing 11 Horst and Horning Farms Grade and Stabilize 2,260 169.5 153.7 101,428.8 UPS of Fontana Rd Banks Streambank Fencing 12 Gary Horst Farm Stream Restoration 960 72.0 65.3 43,084.8 DS of Fontana Rd Streambank Fencing 13 Dinulos Property Stream Restoration 1,650 123.8 112.2 74,052

14 Royal Road Properties LLC Stream Restoration 1,590 119.3 108.1 71,359.2 Hower Property 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 Location Project Type Length Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment ID# (feet) Reduction Reduction Reduction (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) 1 Todd Property Dam Removal 330 24.8 22.4 14,810.4 UPS of Old Mine Rd Stream Restoration 2 Gretna Glen Camp Stream Restoration 5,000 375.0 340.0 224,400.0 UPS of Lake 3 Gretna Glen Camp Stream Restoration 1,980 148.5 134.6 88,862.4 DS of Lake 4 Henry Farm Streambank Fencing 850 63.8 57.8 38,148 DS of Camp 5 Good Farm and Weaver Farm Grade and Stabilize 2,452 183.9 166.7 110,045.8 DS Starner Rd & Ups of Rte 322 Banks Streambank Fencing 6 Weaver Farm Stream Restoration 2,000 150 136 89,760 DS of Rte 322 and Wetland Creation 8 Wenger Property and Stream Restoration 1,860 139.5 126.5 83,476.8 Dorsch Property and Wetland Creation

9 Boyd Property Stream Restoration 1,300 97.5 88.4 58,344.0 UPS of Colebrook Rd 10 Ridinger and Eckenrode Property Stream Restoration 700 52.5 47.6 31,416.0 UPS of Colebrook Rd 11 Bomberger Property Stream Restoration 1,980 148.5 134.6 88,862.4 Meadow Wood Farms DS of Streambank Fencing Colebrook Rd 12 Forney Property Streambank Fencing 500 37.5 34.0 22,440.0 east of Forney Rd 13 Royal Road Properties Filter Strip and Riparian 600 45.0 40.8 26,928.0 Formerly Nolt Farm Buffer Planting UPS of Royal Rd 14 Royal Road Properties Stream Restoration 1,650 123.8 112.2 74,052.0 Formerly Nolt Farm Streambank Fencing UPS of Royal Rd 16A Robert Copenhaver Property Stream Restoration 810 60.8 55.1 36,352.8 UPS of Reist Rd. and Wetland Creation

127

Project Location Project Type Length Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment ID# (feet) Reduction Reduction Reduction (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) 17 Robert Copenhaver Farm Stream Restoration 1,320 99.0 89.8 59,241.6 DS of Reist Rd Streambank Fencing

18 Edwin Copenhaver Farm Streambank Fencing 990 74.3 67.3 44,431.2 UPS of Bricker Rd 19 Ron Copenhaver Farm Stream Restoration 1,800 135.0 122.4 80,784.0 DS of Bricker Rd 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 Location Project Type Length Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment ID# (feet) Reduction Reduction Reduction (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) 1 Buckholder Run Stream Restoration 1,650 123.8 112.2 74,052.0 Struphar Farm DS of Rte 322 1 Upper Gingrich Run Grade and Stabilize 2,065 154.9 140.4 92,677.2 Grumbine and Zimmerman Farms Banks Off S. Mount Pleasant Rd. Streambank Fencing 2 Gingrich Run Stream Restoration 1,485 111.4 101.0 66,646.8 UPS and DS of Rte 322 and UPS of Meadow Lane 3 Gingrich Run Stream Restoration 2,310 173.3 157.1 103,672.8 Smith Property DS of Meadow Lane 4 Gingrich Run Grade and Stabilize 1,650 123.8 112.2 74,052.0 Oberholtzer Farm Banks Streambank Fencing 5 Gingrich Run Grade and Stabilize 2,400 180.0 163.2 107,712.0 MacDonald Farm DS of Long Banks Meadow Rd and UPS of Killinger Streambank Fencing Creek Total 867.2 786.1 518,812.8

129

Table 32 – Killinger Creek - Pollutant Loading Reductions by Project

Project Location Project Type Length Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment ID# (feet) Reduction Reduction Reduction (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) 1 A. P. Bucks & Sons, Inc Grade and Stabilize 700 52.5 47.6 31,416.0 UPS of Rte 322 and Rte 117 Banks Streambank Fencing 2 A. P. Bucks & Sons, Inc Grade and Stabilize 620 46.5 42.2 27,825.6 UPS of Rte 322 and DS of Rte 117 Banks Streambank Fencing W-1 South Londonderry Township Wetland Creation 1,200 90.0 81.6 53,856.0 Property UPS of Brandt Road 3 MacDonald Farm Grade and Stabilize 2,640 198.0 179.5 118,483.2 Banks Streambank Fencing 4 Buck Farm Grade and Stabilize 2,310 173.3 157.1 103,672.8 Banks Streambank Fencing 5 Musser Farm Grade and Stabilize 990 74.3 67.3 44,431.2 Banks Streambank Fencing 6 Burkholder and Grade and Stabilize 1,650 123.8 112.2 74,052.0 Kreider Farms Banks UPS of Killinger Rd. Streambank Fencing 7 MFS, Inc. Streambank Fencing 1,980 148.5 134.6 88,862.4 DS of Killinger Rd. Total 906.9 822.1 542,599.2

130

Table 33 – Snitz Creek - Pollutant Loading Reductions by Project

Project Location Project Type Length Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment ID# (feet) Reduction Reduction Reduction (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) 16 Main Stem Snitz Stream Restoration 1,320 99.0 89.8 59,241.6 DS of Rte 72 2 East Fork Stream Restoration 2,310 173.3 157.1 103,672.8 Cul-de-sac end of Cedar St to Floodplain Restoration Culvert St. 3 East Fork Stream Restoration 1,290 96.8 87.7 57,895.2 Culvert St to Cornwall Rd Wetland Creation 4 East Fork Stream Restoration 2,970 222.8 201.9 133,293.6 Cornwall Rd to confluence with main stem Snitz 6 Middle Fork Stream Restoration 400 30.0 27.2 17,952.0 Borough of Cornwall Park South Side Freeman Drive

7 Middle Fork Stream Restoration 1,650 123.8 112.2 74,052.0 Cornwall Ctr south side of Burd Coleman Rd.near Old School 8 Middle Fork Dam Removal 2,930 219.8 199.2 131,498.4 Farm adjacent to North Cornwall Stream Restoration Rd

9 Middle Fork Stream Restoration 1,350 101.3 91.8 60,588 DS of North Cornwall Rd

10 Middle Fork and main stem Snitz Stream Restoration 400 30.0 27.2 17,952.0 confluence UPS of Rte 72

11 West Fork Dam Removal 3,960 297.0 269.3 177,724.8 Alden Place at Cornwall Stream Restoration

12 West Fork Stream Restoration 1,980 148.5 134.6 88,862.4 Alden Place at Cornwall UPS of Alden Lane

131

Project Location Project Type Length Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment ID# (feet) Reduction Reduction Reduction (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) 14 West Fork Stream Restoration 850 63.8 57.8 38,148.0 Adjacent to Fairview Estates

15 West Fork Streambank and 1,980 148.5 134.6 88,862.4 Auman Farm Riparian Buffer Planting along Rte 72 18 Main Stem Snitz Dam Removal 1,320 99.0 89.8 59,241.6 Stefanides Property Stream Restoration UPS of Quentin Rd. at rear of Quentin Circle Shopping Center 19 Main Stem Snitz Stream Restoration 2,900 217.5 197.2 130,152.0 UPS of Colebrook Rd Ehrgood Property Schulte Property Showalter Property ABE Associates Zook Property North Cornwall Zimmerman Property 20 Main Stem Snitz Stream Restoration 980 73.5 66.6 43,982.4 Zimmerman Property DS of Colebrook Rd 22 Main Stem Snitz Stream Restoration 1,100 82.5 74.8 49,368.0 Miller Farm DS of Creekside 23 Main Stem Snitz Stream Restoration 1,980 148.5 134.6 88,862.4 Properties DS of Oak St and UPS of Walden Road 24 Main Stem Snitz Stream Restoration 1,300 97.5 88.4 58,344.0 Hershey Farm Streambank Fencing UPS of Dairy Rd Total 2,473.1 2,241.8 1,479,693.6

132

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

Project Location Project Type Length Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment ID# (feet) Reduction Reduction Reduction (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) 8 413 Millbridge Drive – Stream Restoration 1,500 112.5 102.0 67,320.0 111 Ann Lane

9 111 Ann Lane – Stream Restoration 2,150 161.3 146.2 96,492.0 Beck Creek

10 Beck Creek – Stream Restoration 1,200 90.0 81.6 53,856.0 Annville Township Line

11 Spruce St – Stream Restoration 2,550 191.3 173.4 114,444.0 UPS End of Quittie Park Project

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 – Stream Restoration 2,150 161.3 146.2 96,492.0 Concrete Flume DS of WWTP

18 End of Concrete Flume – Stream Restoration 2,000 150.0 136.0 89,760.0 Clear Spring Rd

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 – Stream Restoration 5,300 397.5 360.4 237,864.0 Old Mill Race at Forge Farm

23 Old Mill Race at Forge Farm – Stream Restoration 3,210 240.8 218.3 144,064.8 Unnamed Tributary

133

Project Location Project Type Length Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment ID# (feet) Reduction Reduction Reduction (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (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 Stream Restoration 2,450 183.8 166.6 109,956.0 Powerlines on Blauch Farm (Reaches 43 and 44)

26 Bedrock Section DS of Powerlines Stream Restoration 2,625 196.9 178.5 117,810.0 on Blauch Farm – UPS of wetland swale that drains pond (Reaches 45 and 46)

27 UPS of wetland swale that drains Stream Restoration 3,150 236.3 214.2 141,372.0 pond – Riffle at Beach Area (Reaches 47 and 48)

28 Riffle at Beach Area – Valley Glen Stream Restoration 1,800 135.0 122.4 80,784.0 Rd (Reaches 49 and 50)

29 Valley Glen Rd – Swatara Creek Stream Restoration 1,950 146.3 132.6 87,516.0 (Reaches 51 and 52)

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 Location Project Type Length Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment ID# (feet) Reduction Reduction Reduction (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) 1 Struphar Farm Stream Restoration 600 45.0 40.8 26,928.0 DS of Rte 934 Streambank Fencing 2 Bomgardner Farm Stream Restoration 2,970 222.8 201.9 133,293.6 DS of Rte 934 4 Gingrich Orchard Stream Restoration 1,155 86.6 78.5 51,836.4 UPS of Palmyra Bellegrove Rd 5A Summers Farm Stream Restoration 3,925 294.4 266.9 176,154.0 DS of Palmyra Bellegrove Rd Streambank Fencing 5B Summers Farm Stream Restoration 2,970 222.8 201.9 133,293.6 DS of Palmyra Bellegrove Rd Streambank Fencing 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 Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 1 East Fork 1,320 Livestock grazing Install fencing a minimum GIS Topo $10,500 Cost of 1,320 LF of 3 strand, high $4,950 $25,950 Farm adjacent to impacts; lack of buffer; of 15 feet to either side of Plan Prep tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 $600 Philhaven Hospital unstable E4 channel with stream and install two (2) Permitting for corners, 2 gates, solar panel and $400 DS of Butler Rd low eroding banks livestock crossings. Standard accessories; plus 1 livestock $350 livestock crossing crossing $150 GP-6 $9,000 $15,450 4 West Fork 500 Incised G4 channel with Restore G4 reach as Field Run Topo $79,400 Restoration as stable B4 stream $125,000 $207,875 McCurdy Property high eroding banks stable B4 stream. Survey and Base channel with boulder outcrops and $1,225 UPS of Mt. Wilson Maps, H&H, boulder cobble riffles. $2,250 Rd. (Rte 241) Concept and $128,475 Final Design Streambank seeding 0.35 acres and Plans Prep, 75 trees and shrubs along Permitting streambanks NW-27

5 West Fork 1,810 Unstable B4 and C4 Restore as stable B4 and Field Run Topo $165,500 Restoration as stable B4 and C4 $452,500 $627,920 Sattazahn Property channels with high to C4 streams. Survey and Base stream channel with toe wood and/or $4,340 and Katzmann Farm moderately high eroding Maps, H&H, boulder outcrops and boulder cobble $5,580 Mt Wilson Rd to Mt banks, aggraded Concept and riffles. $462,420 Wilson Rd sections with chute cutoff Final Design channels Plans Prep, Streambank seeding 1.24 acres and Permitting 186 trees and shrubs along NW-27 streambanks

7 West Fork 1,650 Unstable B4 and C4 Restore as stable B4 and Field Run Topo $160,000 Restoration as stable B4 and C4 $412,500 $581,590 Hoover Property, channels with high to C4 streams. Construct a Survey and Base stream channel with toe wood and/or $3,990 White Property and moderately high eroding wetland along this reach Maps, H&H, boulder outcrops and boulder cobble $5,100 Risser Farm banks, aggraded to treat agricultural runoff. Concept and riffles. $421,590 Off Mt Wilson Rd and sections Final Design Diamond Dr Plans Prep, Streambank seeding 1.14 acres and Permitting 170 trees and shrubs along NW-27 streambanks

8 Main Stem 1,320 Unstable B4/G4 Restore G4 reach as Field Run Topo $118,000 Restoration as stable B4 stream $330,000 $455,200 Risser Farm channels with high to stable B4 stream. Plant a Survey and Base channel with toe wood and or $3,150 moderately high eroding minimum 35 riparian Maps, H&H, boulder outcrops and boulder cobble $4,050 banks, lacking buffer buffer. Concept and riffles. $337,200 Final Design Directly impacted by Evaluate impacts of Plans Prep, Streambank seeding 0.9 acres and installation of Sunoco pipeline, develop solution Permitting 135 trees and shrubs along Mariner East 2 Oil to eliminate impacts, and NW-27 streambanks Pipeline incorporate into design.

158

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 9 Usner-Inman 1650 Concrete walls and dam; Remove dam and walls; Field Run Topo $160,000 Restoration as stable B4c stream $412,500 $581,590 Properties unstable F4/C4 channels restore as a stable B4c Survey and Base channel with toe wood and/or $3,990 UPS of Rte 322 with high to mod-high stream. Maps, H&H, boulder outcrops and boulder cobble $5,100 eroding banks, Concept and riffles. $421,590 aggraded, lateral and Final Design mid-channel bars in Plans Prep, Streambank seeding 1.14 acres and lower section. Permitting 170 trees and shrubs along NW-27 streambanks

10 Main Stem 800 Livestock grazing Grade and stabilize GIS Topo $15,000 Bank grading and stabilization 1173 $7,038 $40,188 Bachman Property impacts; lack of buffer; banks. Install fencing a Grading Plan, yd3 $4,950 DS of Rte 322 unstable C4 channel with minimum of 15 feet to Prep Cost of 1320 LF of 3 strand, high $600 moderately high eroding either side of stream and Permitting, tensile wire, wooden posts, 4 $400 banks. install a livestock Standard corners, 2 gates, solar panel and $350 crossing. livestock crossing accessories; plus 1 livestock $150 G-3, GP-6 crossing $4,500 $3,150 Seeding 0.9 acres and planting 135 $4,050 trees and shrubs along streambanks $25,188

11 Main Stem 2,260 Livestock grazing Grade and stabilize GIS Topo $30,500 Bank grading and stabilization $108,082 $179,947 Gerald Horst Farm impacts; lack of buffer; banks, narrow channel Grading Plan, 2347yd3 $16,950 210 ft. UPS and unstable, over-wide C4 with toe benches Prep $1,200 760 ft. Ds of channel with moderately Permitting, Install 1,888 LF of toe benches along $800 Bender Lane high eroding banks. Install fencing a minimum Standard right and/or left edge of channel. $700 and of 15 feet to either side of livestock crossing Cost of 4,520 LF of 3 strand, high $300 Horning Farm stream and install a G-3, GP-6 tensile wire, wooden posts, 8 $9,000 1,290 ft. UPS of livestock crossing. corners, 4 gates, 2 solar panel and $5,425 Fontana Rd accessories; plus 2 livestock $6,990 crossing. $149,447

Streambank seeding 1.55 acres and 233 shrubs along streambanks

12 Main Stem 960 Livestock grazing Remove concrete wall GIS Topo $25,000 Remove concrete wall, install $75,000 $123,010 Gary Horst Farm impacts; concrete walls and Grade and stabilize Grading Plan, imbricated rock wall. Grade and $7,200 DS of Fontana Rd along one section; banks, Prep stabilize banks 960 yd3 $600 unstable C4 channel with Permitting, $400 moderately high eroding Install fencing a minimum Standard Cost of 1,920 LF of 3 strand, high $350 banks. of 15 feet to either side of livestock crossing tensile wire, wooden posts, 4 $150 stream and install a G-3, GP-6 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and $9,000 livestock crossing. accessories; plus 2 livestock $2,310 crossing. $3,000 $98,010 Streambank seeding 0.66 acres and plant 100 trees and shrubs along streambanks

159

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 13 Dinulos Property 1,650 Unstable C4 with bank Restoration as stable C4 Field Run Topo $135,800 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow $371,250 $578,045 erosion, over-wide stream channel with toe Survey and Base channel by constructing toe benches $61,875 channel, heavy benches to narrow over- Maps, H&H, along channel margins, install toe $3,990 sedimentation and thick wide sections, rock Concept and wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops $5,130 mats of algal growth. outcrops and toe wood Final Design along meander bend; and install in- $442,245 and soil lifts along outside Plans Prep, stream structures. of meander bends. Permitting NW-27 Seeding 1.14 acres and planting 171 trees and shrubs. 14 Royal Road 1,590 Unstable C4 with bank Restoration as stable C4 Field Run Topo $132,800 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow $357,750 $558,975 Properties LLC erosion, over-wide stream channel with toe Survey and Base channel by constructing toe benches $59,625 Hower Property channel, mid-channel benches to narrow over- Maps, H&H, along channel margins, install toe $3,850 bars and islands, heavy wide sections, rock Concept and wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops $4,950 sedimentation. outcrops and toe wood Final Design along meander bend; and install in- $426,175 and soil lifts along outside Plans Prep, stream structures. of meander bends. Permitting NW-27 Seeding 1.1 acres and planting 165 trees and shrubs. 15 Ronald Copenhaver 1,370 Unstable C4 with bank Restoration as stable C4 Field Run Topo $128,800 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow $308,250 $495,945 Farm erosion, over-wide stream channel with toe Survey and Base channel by constructing toe benches $51,375 channel, heavy benches to narrow over- Maps, H&H, along channel margins, install toe $3,290 sedimentation. wide sections, rock Concept and wood with soil lifts or rock outcrops $4,230 outcrops and toe wood Final Design along meander bend; and install in- $367,145 and soil lifts along outside Plans Prep, stream structures. of meander bends. Permitting NW-27 Seeding 0.94 acres and planting 141 trees and shrubs.

160

161

Table 38 – Beck Creek Prioritized Projects

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 1 Todd Property 330 Incised G4 channel with Remove dam Field Run Topo $75,400 Remove dam and construct stable $122,500 $199,755 UPS of Old Mine Rd high eroding banks Restore G4 reach as Survey and Base floodplain/terraces $805 migrating upstream stable B2 stream channel. Maps, H&H, Restoration as stable B2 step-pool $1,050 through old breached Concept and channel with boulder outcrops and $124,355 dam Final Design log-boulder steps and Plans Prep, boulder/cobble pools. Permitting NW-27 Streambank seeding 0.23 acres and 35 trees and shrubs along streambanks

2 Gretna Glen Camp 5,000 Unstable B4, C4, F4, G4, Restore as stable B4 and Field Run Topo $247,800 Restoration as stable B4 and C4 $1,250,000 $1,525,350 DS of Old Mine Rd F4 and C4 channel C4 streams. Survey and Base stream channel with toe wood and $12,040 UPS of Lake sections with high Maps, H&H, or boulder outcrops and boulder $15,510 West Cornwall eroding banks along Concept and cobble riffles. $1,277,550 upper and middle Final Design sections, aggradation Plans Prep, Streambank seeding 3.44 acres and bank erosion along Permitting and 517 trees and shrubs along lower section NW-27 streambanks

3 Gretna Glen Camp 1,980 Unstable G1 and C4 Restore as stable B1/B2 Field Run Topo $168,731 Remove old dam and construct $495,000 $674,641 DS of Lake channel sections with and C4 streams. Survey and Base stable floodplain/terraces $4,760 West Cornwall very high eroding banks Maps, H&H, Restoration as stable B1/B2 step- $6,150 along upper section, Concept and pool channel with boulder $505,910 aggradation, avulsions, Final Design outcrops and log-boulder steps and cut-off channels Plans Prep, and boulder/cobble pools along G along middle and lower Permitting reaches. sections NW-27 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

4 Henry Farm 850 Livestock grazing Install fencing a minimum GIS Topo $10,500 Cost of 1,700 LF of 3 strand, high $6,375 $22,875 DS of Camp impacts; lack of buffer; of 15 feet to either side of Plan Prep tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 $600 unstable E4 channel with stream and install a Permitting for corners, 2 gates, solar panel and $400 low eroding banks. livestock crossing. Standard accessories; plus 1 livestock $350 livestock crossing crossing $150 GP-6 $4,500 $12,375

162

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 5 Good Farm 2,452 Livestock grazing Restoration as stable C4 Field Run Topo $175,000 Restoration as stable C4 stream $490,400 $706,825 (1,890 LF) impacts; lack of buffer; stream channel. Survey and Base channel with toe wood and soil $17,325 and unstable C4 channel with Maps, H&H, lifts or boulder outcrops and soil $600 Weaver Farm moderately high eroding Install fencing a minimum Concept and lifts; and boulder cobble riffles. $400 (562 LF) banks. of 15 feet to either side of Final Design $350 DS of Starner Rd and stream and install two (2) Plans Prep, Cost of 4,620 LF of $150 Ups of Rte 322 livestock crossings. Permitting 3 strand, high tensile wire, $9,000 NW-27 wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, $5,950 solar panel and accessories; plus $7,650 1 livestock crossing $531,825

Streambank seeding 1.7 acres and 255 trees and shrubs along streambanks

6 Weaver Farm 2,000 Unstable C4 channel Restore as a stable C4/E4 Field Run Topo $150,800 Restoration as stable C4 stream $422,404 $508,525 DS of Rte 322 with eroding banks and channel. Establish Survey and Base channel with toe wood and soil $75,000 heavy sedimentation wetlands along floodplain Maps, H&H, lifts or boulder outcrops and soil $4,821 throughout. to provide 1) water quality Concept and lifts; and boulder cobble riffles. $6,300 treatment of runoff from Final Design $508,525 Channel still exhibits adjacent cultivated fields Plans Prep, impacts from historic and 2) wildlife habitat. Permitting Excavation and grading of wetland $8,198 $117,540 straightening and NW-27 system $42,182 $626,065 livestock grazing; Evaluate impacts of Wetland A – 6,200 ft2 ; 1,024.8 yd3 $52,760 adjacent floodplain and pipeline, develop solution Wetland B – 31,900 ft2; 5,273 yd3 $6,300 riparian area currently to eliminate impacts, and Wetland C – 39,900 ft2; 6,595 yd3 $8,100 mowed for hay; lack of incorporate into design. Wetland seeding 1.8 acres and $117,540 buffer. 270 trees

Directly impacted by installation of Sunoco Mariner East 2 Oil Pipeline

8 Wenger Property 1,860 Unstable C4 channel Restore as stable C4 Field Run Topo $125,800 Restoration as stable B4c stream $322,500 $472,205 Dorsch Property sections with moderately stream. 35 foot riparian Survey and Base Stream channel with boulder outcrops; $10,465 high eroding banks, buffer along upper Maps, H&H, and boulder cobble riffles. $13,440 lacking buffer in lawn section. Concept and $346,405 area. Final Design Seeding 2.99 acres and planting Create wetland system in Plans Prep, 448 trees and shrubs along old field area. Permitting streambanks and riparian buffer. NW-27 $25,000 $57,600 $90,600 Wetland Excavation and grading of wetland $3,500 system 7,200 yd3 $4,500 Wetland seeding 1.0 acres $65,600 and 150 Trees and shrubs for wetland.

163

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 9 Boyd Property 1,300 Unstable E4 channel with Restore as stable E4 Field Run Topo $118,800 Restoration as stable E4 stream $325,000 $460,470 UPS of Colebrook Rd moderate to moderately stream. Plant a minimum Survey and Base channel with toe wood. $7,280 high eroding banks, 35 foot riparian buffer. Maps, H&H, $9,390 lacking a buffer. Concept and Seeding 2.08 acres and planting $341,670 Final Design 313 trees and shrubs along Plans Prep, streambanks and riparian buffer. Permitting NW-27

10 Ridinger and 700 Channelized, unstable Restore as stable C4 Field Run Topo $100,800 Restoration as stable C4 stream $175,000 $284,790 Eckenrode Property C4 channel with stream; plant a minimum Survey and Base channel with toe wood. $3,920 UPS of Colebrook Rd moderate eroding banks, 35 foot riparian buffer; Maps, H&H, $5,070 lacking a buffer, poorly modify pond diversion. Concept and Seeding 1.12 acres and planting $183,990 constructed pond Final Design 169 trees and shrubs along diversion. Plans Prep, streambanks and riparian buffer. Permitting NW-27

11 Bomberger Property 1,980 Livestock grazing Restore as stable C4 Field Run Topo $125,800 Restoration as stable C4 stream $495,000 $726,780 Meadow Wood impacts; unstable C4 stream; Install fencing a Survey and Base channel with toe wood and soil $74,250 Farms DS of channel with moderately minimum of 15 feet to Maps, H&H, lifts; $14,850 Colebrook Rd high eroding banks; either side of stream; Concept and $600 heavy sedimentation and install a livestock Final Design Cost of 3,960 LF of 3 strand, high $400 aggradation; poorly crossing; modify pond Plans Prep, tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 $350 constructed pond diversion. Permitting corners, 2 gates, solar panel and $150 diversion NW-27 accessories; plus 1 livestock $4,500 crossing. $4,760 $6,120 Seeding 1.36 acres and planting $600,980 204 trees and shrubs along streambanks.

12 Forney Property 500 Stream fenced but Install new fencing and GIS Topo $8,500 Cost of 1,000 LF of 3 strand, high $3,750 $18,250 east of Forney Rd livestock watering access livestock crossing. Plan Prep tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 $600 and crossing causing Permitting for corners, 2 gates, solar panel and $400 erosion and Standard accessories; plus 1 livestock $350 sedimentation problems. livestock crossing crossing $150 GP-6 $4,500 $9,750

13 Royal Road 600 Row crops planted to Plant a minimum 35 foot NA $0 Seeding 1.9 acres and planting $6,650 $15,200 Properties stream edge, no buffer. riparian buffer 285 trees and shrubs along $8,550 Formerly Nolt Farm streambanks and riparian buffer. $15,200 UPS of Royal Rd

164

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 14 Royal Road 1,650 Livestock grazing Remove concrete, cinder Field Run Topo $120,500 Removal and disposal of concrete, $412,500 $560,495 Properties impacts; unstable C4 blocks and asphalt Survey and Base cinder blocks and asphalt $12,375 Formerly Nolt Farm channel with moderate revetment; restore as Maps, H&H, revetment; restoration as a stable $600 UPS of Royal Rd eroding banks and heavy stable C4 stream; install Concept and C4 channel; $400 sedimentation; bank fencing a minimum of 15 Final Design $350 revetment composed of feet to either side of Plans Prep, Install 3,300 LF of 3 strand, high $150 concrete, cinder blocks stream; install a livestock Permitting tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 $4,500 and asphalt. crossing; NW-27 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and $3,990 accessories; plus 1 livestock $5,130 crossing; $439,995

Seeding 1.14 acres and planting 171 trees and shrubs along streambanks.

16A Robert Copenhaver 810 Stream reach stable, but Acquire easement. Field Run Topo $112,800 Create 4.3 acre (188,000 ft2) $247,680 $394,880 Property impacted by runoff from Expand existing floodplain Survey and Base floodplain wetland by removing $15,050 UPS of Reist Rd. golf course. Existing 1.3 wetland system to treat Maps, H&H, legacy sediments. $19,350 acre (58,000 ft2,) oxbow golf course runoff. Concept and $282,080 wetland impacted by Final Design Excavation of 30,960 yd3 of agricultural operations Plans Prep, sediment. Plus Permitting easement NW-27 Seeding 4.3 acres and planting acquisition 645 trees and shrubs throughout wetland. 17 Robert Copenhaver 1,320 Livestock grazing Restore as stable C4 Field Run Topo $112,800 Restoration as a stable C4 $330,000 $463,200 Farm impacts; unstable C4 channel; install fencing a Survey and Base channel; $9,900 DS of Reist Rd channel – banks minimum of 15 feet to Maps, H&H, $600 completely trampled; either side of stream; Concept and Seeding of streambanks and $400 heavy sedimentation and install 2 livestock Final Design riparian buffer. $350 aggradation. crossings; Plans Prep, $150 Permitting Cost of 2,640 LF of 3 strand, high $9,000 NW-27 tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 $350,400 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 2 livestock crossings.

18 Edwin Copenhaver 990 Livestock grazing Restore as stable C4 Field Run Topo $100,500 Restoration as a stable C4 $247,500 $365,925 Farm impacts; unstable C4 channel; install fencing a Survey and Base channel; $7,425 UPS of Bricker Rd channel – banks minimum of 15 feet to Maps, H&H, $600 completely trampled; either side of stream; Concept and Seeding of streambanks and $400 heavy sedimentation and install 2 livestock Final Design riparian buffer. $350 aggradation. crossings; Plans Prep, $150 Permitting Cost of 1,980 LF of 3 strand, high $9,000 NW-27 tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 $265,425 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 2 livestock crossings.

165

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 19 Ron Copenhaver 1,800 Livestock grazing Restore as stable C4 Field Run Topo $125,800 Restoration as a stable C4 $450,000 $601,300 Farm impacts; unstable C4 channel; install fencing a Survey and Base channel; $15,000 and Nancy Todd channel – banks minimum of 15 feet to Maps, H&H, $600 Property trampled along upper either side of stream; Concept and Seeding of streambanks and $400 DS of Bricker Rd section; heavy install 2 livestock Final Design riparian buffer. $350 sedimentation and crossings; Plans Prep, $150 aggradation throughout. Permitting Cost of 4,000 LF of 3 strand, high $9,000 NW-27 tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 $475,500 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and accessories; plus 2 livestock crossings.

166

167

Table 39 – Buckholder Run and Gingrich Run Prioritized Projects

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 1 Buckholder Run 1,650 Channel ditched; incised Restore channel as a Field Run Topo $125,800 Restoration as stable E4 stream $412,500 $547,420 Struphar Farm with high eroding banks, stable E4 stream with Survey and Base Stream channel. $3,990 DS of Rte 322 unstable G4; no buffer minimum 15 foot riparian Maps, H&H, Seeding 1.14 acres and planting $5,130 buffer and/or Concept and 171 trees and shrubs along $421,620 floodplain wetlands. Final Design streambanks and riparian buffer. Plans Prep, Permitting $25,000 Excavation and grading of wetland $57,600 $90,600 NW-27 Wetland system 7,200 yd3 $3,500 $4,500 Wetland seeding 1.0 acres $65,600 and 150 Trees and shrubs for wetland.

A Upper Gingrich Run Review of Google Earth Conduct a field evaluation TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Walter H. Weaber & Aerial Image indicates to verify channel Sons, Inc streams in area of conditions and determine Lumber Mill Site operations impacted by extent of remediation stormwater runoff, poor required. house-keeping and sedimentation. 1 Upper Gingrich Run 2,065 Unstable G4 upper Restore channel as a Field Run Topo $145,350 Restoration as stable B4c stream $516,250 $672,960 Grumbine and section, incised with high stable B4 and C4 Survey and Base channel with boulder/cobble grade $4,970 Zimmerman Farms eroding; unstable C4 channels; establish Maps, H&H, control riffles and boulder $6,390 Off S. Mount Pleasant channel middle and minimum 15 riparian Concept and outcrops. $527,610 Rd. lower sections over-wide buffer. Final Design with eroding banks; no Plans Prep, Restoration as stable C4 stream buffer throughout. Evaluate impacts of Permitting channel with toe wood and soil pipeline, develop solution NW-27 lifts or boulder outcrops. Directly impacted by to eliminate impacts, and installation of Sunoco incorporate into design. Seeding 1.42 acres and planting Mariner East 2 Oil 213 trees and shrubs along Pipeline streambanks. B Upper Gingrich Run 1,240 Mature riparian stream Conduct a field evaluation TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Schaffer Farm buffer cleared and to verify channel 372 S. Mount earthen/ rubble berms conditions and determine Pleasant Rd. constructed along both extent of remediation streambanks. required. 2 Gingrich Run 1,485 Unstable C4 channel Restore as a stable C4 Field Run Topo $138,750 Restoration as stable C4 stream $371,250 $514,750 UPS and DS of Rte with high eroding banks, stream channel Survey and Base channel with toe wood and/or $1,750 322 and UPS of debris jams, mid channel Maps, H&H, imbricated rock walls, log-boulder $3,000 Meadow Lane bars Concept and j-hooks. $376,000 Final Design Plans Prep, Streambank seeding 0.5 acres Permitting and 100 trees and shrubs along NW-27 streambanks

168

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 3 Gingrich Run 2,310 Unstable C6 channel Restore as stable C6 Field Run Topo $145,350 Restoration as stable C4 stream $577,500 $816,775 Smith Property with moderately high stream; Create 2.75 acre Survey and Base channel with toe wood and soil $86,625 DS of Meadow Lane eroding banks, debris wetland in adjacent Maps, H&H, lifts. $2,800 jams, lateral and mid floodplain. Concept and Streambank seeding 0.8 acres $4,500 channel bars, heavy Final Design and 150 trees and shrubs along $671,425 sedimentation Plans Prep, streambanks. Permitting NW-27

4 Gingrich Run 1,650 Livestock grazing Grade and stabilize GIS Topo $10,000 Bank grading and stabilization $17,616 $50,491 Oberholtzer Farm impacts; lack of buffer; banks; Install fencing a Grading Plan, 2,202 yd3 $12,375 unstable E6 and E4 minimum of 15 feet either Prep Cost of 3300 LF of 3 strand, high $600 channels with moderately side of stream and install Permitting, tensile wire, wooden posts, 4 $400 high eroding banks two (2) livestock crossing Standard corners, 2 gates, solar panel and $350 livestock crossing accessories; plus 2 livestock $150 G-3, GP-6 crossing $9,000 $40,491

5 Gingrich Run 2,400 Stream fenced but Grade and stabilize GIS Topo $10,000 Bank grading and stabilization $25,584 $64,084 MacDonald Farm DS fencing ineffective; banks; remove existing Grading Plan, 3,198 yd3 $18,000 of Long Meadow Rd livestock grazing fencing and install higher Prep Cost of 4800 LF of 3 strand, high $600 and UPS of Killinger impacts; lack of buffer; quality fencing same Permitting, tensile wire, wooden posts, 4 $400 Creek unstable B4/B4c location as old fencing Standard corners, 2 gates, solar panel and $350 channels with moderately and install two (2) livestock crossing accessories; plus 2 livestock $150 high eroding banks livestock crossings G-3, GP-6 crossing $9,000 $54,084

169

Table 40 – Killinger Creek Prioritized Projects

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 1 A. P. Bucks & Sons, 700 Livestock grazing Grade and stabilize GIS Topo $10,000 Bank grading and stabilization 700 $4,200 $25,450 Inc impacts; lack of buffer; banks; install fencing a Grading Plan yd3 $5,250 UPS of Rte 322 and unstable E4 channel with minimum of 15 feet to Prep, Permitting, $600 Rte 117 low eroding banks either side of stream and Standard Cost of 1240 LF of $400 install livestock crossing. livestock crossing 3 strand, high tensile wire, $350 G-3, GP-6 wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, $150 solar panel and accessories; plus $4,500 1 livestock crossing $15,450 2 A. P. Bucks & Sons, 620 Livestock grazing Grade and stabilize GIS Topo $10,000 Bank grading and stabilization 827 $6,616 $27,266 Inc impacts; lack of buffer; banks; Install fencing a Grading Plan yd3 $4,650 UPS of Rte 322 and unstable C4 channel with minimum of 15 feet either Prep, Permitting, $600 DS of Rte 117 high eroding banks side of stream and install Standard Cost of 1240 LF of $400 1 livestock crossing livestock crossing 3 strand, high tensile wire, $350 G-3, GP-6 wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, $150 solar panel and accessories; plus $4,500 1 livestock crossing $17,266

W-1 South Londonderry 1,200 Agricultural Runoff, Acquire property or GIS Topo $25,000 Excavation and grading of wetland $158,680 $205,665 Township Property wastewater discharge, easement Create 2.75 Design Plans system19,835 yd3 $9,625 plus land UPS of Brandt Road low baseflow acre wetland to treat Prep for Wetland $12,360 acquisition agricultural runoff and Permitting Wetland seeding 2.75 acres $180,665 wastewater discharges NW-27 and 412 Trees and shrubs for from wetland S. Londonderry WWTP and augment baseflow to Killinger

3 McDonald Farm 2,640 Livestock grazing Grade and stabilize GIS Topo $10,000 Bank grading and stabilization $28,176 $68,476 impacts; lack of buffer; banks; Install fencing a Grading Plan, 3,522 yd3 $19,800 unstable C4 channel with minimum of 15 feet and Prep $600 moderately high eroding install two (2) livestock Permitting, Cost of 5280 LF of $400 banks crossings. Standard 3 strand, high tensile wire with $350 livestock crossing wooden posts, 4 corners, 2 gates, $150 G-3, GP-6 solar panel and accessories; plus $9,000 2 livestock crossing $58,476

Create 2.75 acre wetland Design Plans $28,000 Excavation and grading of wetland $158,680 $208,665 to treat agricultural runoff Prep for wetland system19,835 yd3 $9,625 plus land and wastewater Permitting $12,360 acquisition discharges from Palm City NW-27 Wetland seeding 2.75 acres $180,665 WWTP and 412 Trees and shrubs for wetland

170

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 4 Buck Farm 2,310 Livestock grazing Grade and stabilize GIS Topo $10,000 Bank grading and stabilization $24,624 $62,449 impacts; lack of buffer; banks; Install fencing a Grading Plan, 3,078 yd3 $17,325 unstable C4 channel with minimum of 15 feet either Prep $600 moderately high eroding side of stream and install Permitting, Cost of 4,620 LF of 3 strand, high $400 banks two (2) livestock crossings Standard tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 $350 livestock crossing corners, 2 gates, solar panel and $150 G-3, GP-6 accessories; plus 2 livestock $9,000 crossing $52,449

5 Musser Farm 990 Livestock grazing Grade and stabilize GIS Topo $8,500 Bank grading and stabilization $10,560 $32,485 impacts; lack of buffer; banks; Install fencing a Grading Plan, 1,320 yd3 $7,425 unstable C4 channel with minimum of 15 feet either Prep $600 moderately high eroding side of stream and install Permitting, Cost of 1,980 LF of 3 strand, high $400 banks 1 livestock crossing Standard tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 $350 livestock crossing corners, 2 gates, solar panel and $150 G-3, GP-6 accessories; plus 1 livestock $4,500 crossing $23,985

6 Burkholder and 1,650 Livestock grazing Grade and stabilize GIS Topo $10,000 Bank grading and stabilization $17,616 $50,491 Kreider Farms impacts; lack of buffer; banks; Install fencing a Grading Plan, 2,202 yd3 $12,375 UPS of Killinger Rd. unstable C4 channel with minimum of 15 feet either Prep $600 moderately high eroding side of stream and install Permitting, Cost of 3300 LF of 3 strand, high $400 banks two (2) livestock crossings Standard tensile wire, wooden posts, 4 $350 livestock crossing corners, 2 gates, solar panel and $150 G-3, GP-6 accessories; plus 2 livestock $9,000 crossing $40,491

7 MFS, Inc. 1,988 Livestock grazing Install fencing a minimum GIS Topo $6,000 Cost of 660 LF of 3 strand, high $2,475 $14,475 DS of Killinger Rd. impacts; lack of buffer; of 15 feet to either side of Plan Prep tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 $600 unstable E4 channel with stream and install Permitting for corners, 2 gates, solar panel and $400 low eroding banks livestock crossing. Standard accessories; plus 1 livestock $350 livestock crossing crossing $150 GP-6 $4,500 $8,475

171

172

Table 41 – Snitz Creek Prioritized Projects

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 16 Main Stem Snitz 1,320 Unstable F4 channel with Restore as stable B4c Field Run Topo $118,800 Restoration as stable B4c stream $330,000 $504,730 DS of Rte 72 high to very high eroding stream. Survey and Base channel with toe wood and soil $49,500 banks and heavy Maps, H&H, lifts or boulder outcrops and soil $3,150 Daniel Morrisey sedimentation. Concept and lifts; and boulder cobble riffles. $4,080 Stuart Perlmutter Stuart Juppenlatz Final Design $386,730 Clarence Collins Plans Prep, Streambank seeding 0.9 acres Permitting and 136 trees and shrubs along NW-27 streambanks

2 East Fork 2,310 Unstable B4, F4, C4, F4, Restore as stable B4c Field Run Topo $150,800 Restoration as stable C4/B4c $462,000 $764,725 Cul-de-sac end of and B4 channels with and C4 streams. Survey and Base stream channel with toe wood and $43,125 Cedar St to Culvert high eroding banks along Modify right bank Maps, H&H, soil lifts and boulder outcrops; and $2,800 St. upper section, upstream of old roadbed Concept and boulder cobble riffles. $3,600 aggradation and bank in middle of project area Final Design $511,525 Glenn Krall erosion along middle and to divert storm flows into Plans Prep, Streambank seeding 0.8 acres Suzanne Dauberman Robert Dowd lower sections. adjacent floodplain; Permitting and 120 trees and shrubs along Daniel Stoner NW-27 streambanks Diane Krissinger Excavate adjacent $86,400 floodplain upstream of old Excavation and grading of wetland $7,000 roadbed to create 2.0 system 14,400 yd3 $9,000 acre intermittently flooded Wetland seeding 2.0 acres $102,400 wetland and 300 trees and shrubs for wetland

3 East Fork 1,290 Unstable C4 and F4 Restore as stable C4 and Field Run Topo $105,800 Restoration as stable B4c stream $322,500 $435,185 Culvert St to channel sections with B4c streams. Create Survey and Base Stream channel with boulder outcrops; $2,835 Cornwall Rd active head-cuts and wetlands in adjacent Maps, H&H, and boulder cobble riffles. $4,050 high eroding banks floodplain. Concept and $329,385 Donald Stoner throughout and Final Design Streambank seeding 0.9 acres aggradation along lower Plans Prep, and 135 trees and shrubs along section Permitting streambanks NW-27 $25,000 $57,600 $90,600 Wetland Excavation and grading of wetland $3,500 system 7,200 yd3 $4,500 $65,600 Wetland seeding 1.0 acres and 150 Trees and shrubs for wetland

173

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 4 East Fork 2,970 Stone walls along both Remove stone walls and Field Run Topo $168,800 Restoration as stable B4c stream $742,500 $927,715 Cornwall Rd to banks upper section; restore as stable B4c Survey and Base channel with boulder outcrops; $7,175 confluence with Unstable F4 channel in stream throughout. Maps, H&H, and boulder cobble riffles. $9,240 main stem Snitz upper and middle Concept and $758,915 John Ovates, Andrew Arnold sections with high Final Design Streambank seeding 2.05 acres Cory Horst, Eugene Wise Richard Jeffries, Gregory eroding banks Plans Prep, and plant 308 trees and shrubs Seidel, Giuseppe Luca throughout; channelized Permitting along streambanks Richard Emler, Karl Karinch, B4/G4 in lower section NW-27 Glen Krall,

6 Middle Fork 400 Unstable C4 channel Grade and stabilize Field Run Topo $65,400 Grade streambanks; install $100,000 $167,640 Borough of Cornwall sections with low to streambanks with Survey and Base imbricated rock wall along right $980 Park moderately high eroding imbricated rock wall along Maps, H&H, bank and coir matting and plants $1,260 South Side Freeman banks, lacking buffer in right bank and coir Concept and along left bank. $102,240 Drive park area. matting and plants along Final Design left bank. Plant a Plans Prep, Seeding 0.28 acres of minimum 15 foot riparian Permitting streambank and plant 42 trees buffer. NW-27 and shrubs

7 Middle Fork 1,650 Unstable C4 channel Restore as stable C4 Field Run Topo $112,800 Remove debris jams. Grade $412,500 $167,640 Cornwall Ctr with debris jams, stream. Survey and Base streambanks; install imbricated $61,875 south side of aggradation, and high Maps, H&H, rock walls along outside of $3,990 Burd Coleman Rd. eroding banks Concept and meanders adjacent to ball field $5,130 near Old School throughout. Final Design and toe wood and soil lifts along $483,495 Plans Prep, left meander bends. Permitting NW-27 Seeding 1.14 acres of streambank and planting 171 trees and shrubs

8 Middle Fork 2,930 Livestock grazing Remove dam; restore as Field Run Topo $168,800 Remove dam; restoration as $732,500 $926,200 Farm adjacent to impacts; unstable C4/F4 stable C4 and B2 Survey and Base stable C4 channel along $6,300 North Cornwall Rd channel with moderately streams; install fencing a Maps, H&H, approximately 2,700 LF and B2 $8,100 high to high eroding minimum of 15 feet to Concept and timber-boulder step-pool channel $600 banks; heavy either side of stream; Final Design in 230 LF section ups and ds of $400 sedimentation and install two (2) livestock Plans Prep, dam location; $350 aggradation; dam in crossings Permitting $150 lower section NW-27 Install fencing a minimum of 15 $9,000 feet to either side of stream along $757,400 upper 2400 LF; install two (2) livestock crossings

Seeding 1.8 acres and planting 270 trees and shrubs along streambanks

174

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 9 Middle Fork UPS 900 Unstable G4 channel Remove cinder blocks Field Run Topo $118,800 Restoration as stable B4c stream $337,500 $462,955 DS of North Cornwall DS 450 with moderately high to and rip-rap revetment; Survey and Base channel with boulder outcrops and $3,255 Rd 1,350 high eroding banks, bank restore as stable B4c Maps, H&H, imbricated rock walls. $4,200 revetment composed of stream. Plant a minimum Concept and $344,955 cinder blocks and rip-rap; 15 foot riparian buffer Final Design Streambank seeding 0.93 acres lacking a buffer in lawn along yards. Plans Prep, and 140 trees and shrubs along areas. Permitting streambanks NW-27

10 Middle Fork and 400 Unstable G4 channel Grade and stabilize Field Run Topo $65,400 Grade streambanks; install $100,000 $167,640 Main stem Snitz with moderately high streambanks with Survey and Base imbricated rock wall along right $980 confluence eroding banks, bank imbricated rock wall along Maps, H&H, bank and coir matting and plants $1,260 UPS of Rte 72 revetment composed of left bank and coir matting Concept and along left bank. $102,240 rip-rap; lacking a buffer in and plants along right Final Design lawn area. bank. Plant a minimum Plans Prep, Seeding 0.28 acres of 15 foot riparian buffer. Permitting streambank and plant 42 trees NW-27 and shrubs

11 West Fork 3,960 Unstable B4, C4, and G4 Remove breached dam; Field Run Topo $203,080 Remove dam; restoration as $990,000 $1,214,680 Alden Place at channels with active restore as stable B4 and Survey and Base stable B4 and C4 channels; $9,450 Cornwall head-cuts, high eroding C4 streams. Maps, H&H, $12,150 banks, heavy Concept and Seeding 2.7 acres and planting $1,011,600 sedimentation and Final Design 405 trees and shrubs along aggradation throughout; Plans Prep, streambanks breached dam in upper Permitting section NW-27

12 West Fork 1,980 Unstable C4 channel Restore as stable C4 Field Run Topo $125,800 Restoration as stable C4 stream $495,000 $705,930 Alden Place at with moderate to stream; repair gullies; Survey and Base channel with toe wood and soil $74,250 Cornwall UPS of moderately high eroding evaluate impact of pond Maps, H&H, lifts; install fencing; install a $4,760 Alden Lane banks and heavy diversion. Concept and livestock crossing; modify pond $6,120 sedimentation Final Design diversion. $580,130 throughout; gully erosion Plans Prep, in adjacent fields; pond Permitting Seeding 1.36 acres and planting diversion. NW-27 204 trees and shrubs along streambanks.

14 West Fork 850 Unstable F4 and B4 Restore as stable B4c Field Run Topo $75,800 Restoration as stable B4c stream $212,500 $293,100 Adjacent to Fairview channels in lower section and B4 stream. Survey and Base channel with boulder outcrops and $2,100 Estates with high eroding banks Maps, H&H, boulder cobble riffles. $2,700 and heavy Concept and $217,300 sedimentation. Final Design Streambank seeding 0.6 acres Plans Prep, and 90 trees and shrubs along Permitting streambanks NW-27

175

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 15 West Fork 1,980 Stream ditched and Plant a minimum 35 foot NA $0 Streambank planting 480 trees $14,400 $14,400 Auman Farm lacking a buffer riparian buffer along and shrubs along streambanks along Rte 72 fields.

18 Main Stem Snitz 1,320 At the time of the Evaluate alternatives Field Run Topo $125,800 Complete removal of the dam with $375,000 $500,800 Stefanides Property reconnaissance survey including: Survey and Base restoration of channel as a stable UPS of Quentin Rd. (2001), this reach was an Maps, H&H, C4 with a B2 timber/boulder step- at rear of Quentin unstable C4 channel with Complete removal of the Concept and pool section to transition from ups Circle Shopping debris jams, moderate dam with restoration of Final Design to ds of dam area. Center eroding banks, and channel as a stable C4 Plans Prep, heavy sedimentation;. A with a B2 timber/boulder Permitting Partial removal or notching of dam small dam on-stream step-pool section to NW-27 to improve sediment transport diverts baseflow to off- transition from ups to ds while maintaining the wetland; line ponds. of dam area. installation of B2 timber/boulder step-pool section to transition Currently (2018), Partial removal or through dam area; modification of backwater from dam has notching of dam to the pond diversion. created a 21 acre improve sediment floodplain wetland. transport while However, channel is still maintaining the wetland, exhibits heavy installation of B2 sedimentation and dam timber/boulder step-pool functions a significant section to transition barrier to fish migration. through dam area; modify pond diversion.

19 Main Stem Snitz 2,900 Unstable C4 channel Restore as stable C4 Field Run Topo $168,800 Restoration as stable C4 stream $725,000 $909,800 UPS of Colebrook Rd with debris jams, stream Survey and Base channel with toe benches to $7,000 Ehrgood Property moderate eroding banks, Maps, H&H, narrow over-wide sections, rock $9,000 Schulte Property and heavy Concept and outcrops and toe wood and soil $741,000 Showalter Property sedimentation; Final Design lifts along outside of meander ABE Associates Plans Prep, bends. Zook Property Permitting North Cornwall NW-27 Seeding 2.0 acres and planting Zimmerman Property 300 trees and shrubs along streambanks.

20 Main Stem Snitz 980 Unstable C4 channels Restore as stable C4 Field Run Topo $108,800 Restoration as stable C4 stream $245,000 $359,175 Zimmerman Property with debris jams, streams. Survey and Base channel with rock outcrops and $2,345 DS of Colebrook Rd moderate to moderately Maps, H&H, soil lifts and boulder cobble riffles. $3,030 high eroding banks, and Concept and $250,375 heavy sedimentation Final Design Seeding 0.67 acres and planting Plans Prep, 101 trees and shrubs along Permitting streambanks NW-27

176

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 22 Main Stem Snitz 1,100 Livestock grazing Grade and stabilize banks Field Run Topo $75,000 Restoration as stable C4 stream $137,500 $218,515 Miller Farm impacts; unstable C4 and narrow channel by Survey and Base channel with toe benches to $2,625 DS of Creekside channels with high W/D installing toe benches Maps, H&H, narrow over-wide sections and toe $3,390 ratio, moderate to along stream edge. Concept and wood with soil lifts along outside of $143,515 moderately high eroding Final Design meander bends. banks, and heavy Plans Prep, sedimentation Permitting Seeding 0.75 acres and planting NW-27 113 trees and shrubs along streambanks. 23 Main Stem Snitz 1,980 Unstable C4 channels Restore as stable C4 Field Run Topo $125,800 Restoration as stable C4 stream $495,000 $631,680 Properties with moderate to stream; modify pond Survey and Base channel with toe benches to $4,760 DS of Oak St and moderately high eroding diversions. Maps, H&H, narrow over-wide sections, install $6,120 UPS of Walden Road banks, and heavy Concept and rock outcrops and toe wood with $505,880 sedimentation; poorly Final Design soil lifts along outside of new constructed pond Plans Prep, meander bends; modify pond diversions. Permitting diversions. NW-27 Seeding 1.36 acres and planting 204 trees and shrubs along streambanks. 24 Main Stem Snitz 1,300 Livestock grazing Restore as stable C4 Field Run Topo $75,800 Restoration as stable C4 stream $162,500 $263,350 Hershey Farm impacts; unstable C4 stream; install fencing a Survey and Base channel with toe benches to $7,350 UPS of Dairy Rd channels with high W/D minimum of 35 feet to Maps, H&H, narrow over-wide sections and toe $9,450 ratio, moderate to either side of stream and Concept and wood and soil lifts along outside of $2,250 moderately high eroding install a livestock Final Design new meander bends. $600 banks, and heavy crossing. Plans Prep, $400 sedimentation Permitting Cost of 600 LF of 3 strand, high $350 NW-27 tensile wire with wooden posts, 4 $150 corners, 2 gates, solar panel and $4,500 accessories; plus 1 livestock $187,550 crossing

Seeding 2.1 acres and planting 315 trees and shrubs along streambanks.

177

178

179

Table 42 – Quittapahilla Creek Mainstem Prioritized Projects

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 8 UPS Property Limit of 1,500 Unstable C4 with high Stabilize banks, narrow Field Run Topo $125,800 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow $375,000 $550,305 Kennedy Property at bank erosion throughout; channel by constructing Survey and Base channel by constructing toe $41,250 413 Millbridge Drive. heavy sedimentation, toe benches along Maps, H&H, benches along channel margins, $3,605 – DS Property Limit aggradation; and minimal channel margins, and Concept and install toe wood with soil lifts or $4,650 of Copenhaver to no buffer along both install structures (e.g., log Final Design rock outcrops along meander $424,505 Property banks vanes, rock vanes, or log- Plans Prep, bend; and install in-stream at 111 Ann Lane boulder J-Hooks) to divert Permitting structures flow away from banks and NW-27 create habitat. Plant a Seeding 1.03 acres and planting minimum 20 foot buffer 155 trees and shrubs. along the right bank and 35 feet along the left bank.

9 DS Property Limit of 2,150 Unstable C4 with Remove debris jams; Field Run Topo $168,500 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow $537,500 $804,375 Copenhaver Property moderate bank erosion stabilize banks, narrow Survey and Base channel by constructing toe $90,375 at 111 Ann Lane – upper and lower channel by constructing Maps, H&H, benches along channel margins, $3,500 Beck Creek sections, debris jams, toe benches along Concept and install toe wood with soil lifts or $4,500 heavy sedimentation, channel margins, and Final Design rock outcrops along meander $635,875 aggradation; and minimal install structures (e.g., log Plans Prep, bend; and install in-stream to no buffer along the vanes, rock vanes, or log- Permitting structures right bank in the upper boulder J-Hooks) to divert NW-27 section both banks in the flow away from banks and Seeding 1.0 acres and planting lower section. create habitat. Plant a 150 trees and shrubs. minimum 35 buffer along both banks.

10 Beck Creek – 1,200 Unstable C4 with Remove debris jams; Field Run Topo $125,800 Remove debris jams; grade and $300,000 $477,360 Annville Township moderate to moderately stabilize banks, narrow Survey and Base stabilize banks, narrow channel by $45,000 Line high bank erosion; debris channel by constructing Maps, H&H, constructing toe benches along $2,870 jams, heavy toe benches along Concept and channel margins, install toe wood $3,690 sedimentation, channel margins, and Final Design with soil lifts or rock outcrops $351,560 aggradation (lateral bars) install structures (e.g., log Plans Prep, along meander bend; and install throughout. vanes, rock vanes, or log- Permitting in-stream structures boulder J-Hooks) to divert NW-27 flow away from banks and Seeding 0.82 acres and planting create habitat. 123 trees and shrubs.

180

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 11 Spruce St – UPS End 2,550 Bank erosion throughout. Remove failing habitat Field Run Topo $168,800 Remove failing habitat structures, $637,500 $915,940 of Quittie Park Failing habitat structures. structures, stabilize banks Survey and Base grade and stabilize banks, narrow $95,625 Project and install new structures Maps, H&H, channel by constructing toe $6,125 (e.g., toe benches, Concept and benches along channel margins, $7,890 boulder rock outcrops, or Final Design install toe wood with soil lifts or $747,140 boulder J-Hooks) to divert Plans Prep, rock outcrops along meander flow away from banks and Permitting bend; and install in-stream create habitat. NW-27 structures

Seeding 1.75 acres and planting 263 trees and shrubs.

14 Rte 934 – Myer St 1,900 Unstable C4 moderately Stabilize banks, narrow Field Run Topo $157,800 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow $475,000 $718,065 high to high bank channel by constructing Survey and Base channel by constructing toe $71,250 erosion, heavy toe benches along Maps, H&H, benches along channel margins, $6,125 sedimentation, channel margins, and Concept and install toe wood with soil lifts or $7,890 aggradation (lateral and install structures (e.g., log Final Design rock outcrops along meander $560,265 mid-channel bars) vanes, rock vanes, or log- Plans Prep, bend; and install in-stream throughout; minimal to no boulder J-Hooks) to divert Permitting structures buffer along right bank. flow away from banks and NW-27 create habitat; plant Seeding 1.75 acres and planting minimum 20 foot buffer 263 trees and shrubs. along right bank.

15 Myer St – UPS of Old 3,275 Unstable C4/F4 with high Stabilize banks, narrow Field Run Topo $225,500 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow $818,750 $1,186,263 Mill Dam to very high bank channel by constructing Survey and Base channel by constructing toe $122,813 erosion, heavy toe benches along Maps, H&H, benches along channel margins, $8,400 sedimentation, channel margins, and Concept and install toe wood with soil lifts or $10,800 aggradation (lateral and install structures (e.g., log Final Design rock outcrops along meander $960,763 mid-channel bars) vanes, rock vanes, or log- Plans Prep, bend; and install in-stream throughout; minimal to no boulder J-Hooks) to divert Permitting structures buffer along right bank in flow away from banks and NW-27 upper section. create habitat Seeding 2.4 acres and planting 360 trees and shrubs. 16 Rte 422 – Concrete 2,150 Unstable C4 with low to Narrow channel by Field Run Topo $168,500 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow $537,500 $798,465 Flume DS of WWTP moderate bank erosion, constructing toe benches Survey and Base channel by constructing toe $80,625 heavy sedimentation, along channel margins; Maps, H&H, benches along channel margins, $5,180 aggradation (lateral and install structures (e.g., log Concept and install toe wood with soil lifts or $6,660 mid-channel bars) vanes, rock vanes, or log- Final Design rock outcrops along meander $629,965 throughout. boulder J-Hooks) to divert Plans Prep, bend; and install in-stream flow away from banks and Permitting structures create habitat. NW-27 Seeding 1.48 acres and planting 222 trees and shrubs.

181

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 18 End of Concrete 2,000 Unstable C4 with Remove debris jams; Field Run Topo $162,500 Remove debris jams; grade and $500,000 $748,540 Flume – Clear Spring moderately high to high stabilize banks, narrow Survey and Base stabilize banks, narrow channel by $75,000 Rd bank erosion, debris channel by constructing Maps, H&H, constructing toe benches along $4,830 jams, heavy toe benches along Concept and channel margins, install toe wood $6,210 sedimentation, channel margins, and Final Design with soil lifts or rock outcrops $586,040 aggradation (lateral and install structures (e.g., log Plans Prep, along meander bend; and install mid-channel bars) vanes, rock vanes, or log- Permitting in-stream structures throughout. boulder J-Hooks) to divert NW-27 flow away from banks and Seeding 1.38 acres and planting create habitat. 207 trees and shrubs.

19 Clear Spring Rd – 2,700 Unstable C4 with Remove debris jams; Field Run Topo $183,700 Remove debris jams; grade and $675,000 $974,830 Syner Road moderate to moderately stabilize banks, narrow Survey and Base stabilize banks, narrow channel by $101,250 high bank erosion, channel by constructing Maps, H&H, constructing toe benches along $6,510 numerous large debris toe benches along Concept and channel margins, install toe wood $8,370 jams, heavy channel margins, and Final Design with soil lifts or rock outcrops $791,130 sedimentation, install structures (e.g., log Plans Prep, along meander bend; and install aggradation (lateral and vanes, rock vanes, or log- Permitting in-stream structures mid-channel bars) boulder J-Hooks) to divert NW-27 throughout. flow away from banks. Seeding 1.86 acres and planting . 279 trees and shrubs.

20 Syner Rd – Killinger 2,200 Unstable C4 with Remove debris jams; Field Run Topo $169,300 Remove debris jams; grade and $550,000 $813,800 Creek moderately high to high stabilize banks, narrow Survey and Base stabilize banks, narrow channel by $82,500 bank erosion, debris channel by constructing Maps, H&H, constructing toe benches along $5,250 jams, heavy toe benches along Concept and channel margins, install toe wood $6,750 sedimentation, channel margins, and Final Design with soil lifts or rock outcrops $644,500 aggradation (lateral and install structures (e.g., log Plans Prep, along meander bend; and install mid-channel bars) vanes, rock vanes, or log- Permitting in-stream structures throughout. boulder J-Hooks) to divert NW-27 flow away from banks and Seeding 1.5 acres and planting create habitat. 225 trees and shrubs.

21 Killinger Creek – 3,250 Unstable C4 with high to Remove debris jams; Field Run Topo $224,800 Remove debris jams; grade and $812,500 $1,177,095 School Creek very high bank erosion, stabilize banks, narrow Survey and Base stabilize banks, narrow channel by $121,875 debris jams, heavy channel by constructing Maps, H&H, constructing toe benches along $7,840 sedimentation, toe benches along Concept and channel margins, install toe wood $10,080 aggradation (lateral and channel margins, remove Final Design with soil lifts or rock outcrops $952,295 mid-channel bars) rip-rap in fishing club Plans Prep, along meander bend; and install throughout. section and install Permitting in-stream structures structures (e.g., log vanes NW-27 or log-boulder J-Hooks) to Seeding 2.24 acres and planting divert flow away from 336 trees and shrubs. banks and create habitat.

182

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 22 School Creek – Old 5,300 Unstable B4c/C4 with Remove islands DS of Field Run Topo $255,900 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow $1,325,000 $1,808,865 Mill Race at Forge high to very high bank Palmyra-Bellegrove Survey and Base channel by constructing toe $198,750 Farm erosion, heavy Bridge; stabilize banks, Maps, H&H, benches along channel margins, $12,775 sedimentation, narrow channel by Concept and install toe wood with soil lifts or $16,440 aggradation (lateral and constructing toe benches Final Design rock outcrops along meander $1,552,965 mid-channel bars) along channel margins, Plans Prep, bend; and install in-stream throughout; islands install structures (e.g., log Permitting structures immediately DS of vanes or log-boulder J- NW-27 Palmyra-Bellegrove Hooks) to divert flow away Seeding 3.65 acres and planting Bridge. from banks and create 548 trees and shrubs. habitat.

23 Old Mill Race at 3,210 Unstable C4 with Stabilize banks, narrow Field Run Topo $224,800 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow $802,500 $1,165,275 Forge Farm – moderate to moderately channel by constructing Survey and Base channel by constructing toe $120,375 Unnamed Tributary high bank erosion in toe benches along Maps, H&H, benches along channel margins, $7,700 upper section, heavy channel margins, and Concept and install toe wood with soil lifts or $9,900 sedimentation, install structures (e.g., log Final Design rock outcrops along meander $940,475 aggradation (lateral and vanes, rock vanes, or log- Plans Prep, bend; and install in-stream mid-channel bars) boulder J-Hooks) to divert Permitting structures throughout. flow away from banks and NW-27 create habitat. Seeding 2.2 acres and planting 330 trees and shrubs.

24 Unnamed Tributary – 2,425 Unstable C4/B4c with Stabilize banks, narrow Field Run Topo $179,200 Grade and stabilize banks, narrow $606,250 $889,762 Syner Rd high to very high bank channel by constructing Survey and Base channel by constructing toe $90,937 erosion in upper section, toe benches along Maps, H&H, benches along channel margins, $5,845 heavy sedimentation, channel margins, and Concept and install toe wood with soil lifts or $7,530 aggradation (lateral and install structures (e.g., log Final Design rock outcrops along meander $710,562 mid-channel bars) vanes, rock vanes, or log- Plans Prep, bend; and install in-stream throughout. boulder J-Hooks) to divert Permitting structures flow away from banks and NW-27 create habitat; plant trees Seeding 1.67 acres and planting along right floodplain. 251 trees and shrubs.

25 Syner Rd – Bedrock 2,450 Unstable B4c/C4 with Remove debris jams; Field Run Topo $179,900 Remove debris jams; grade and $612,500 $900,275 Section DS of moderate to moderately stabilize banks, narrow Survey and Base stabilize banks, narrow channel by $91,875 Powerlines on Blauch high bank erosion in the channel by constructing Maps, H&H, constructing toe benches along $7,000 Farm lower section, debris toe benches along Concept and channel margins, install toe wood $9,000 jams, heavy channel margins, install Final Design with soil lifts or rock outcrops $720,375 sedimentation, structures (e.g., log vanes Plans Prep, along meander bend; and install aggradation (lateral and or log-boulder J-Hooks) to Permitting in-stream structures mid-channel bars) divert flow away from NW-27 throughout; minimal to no banks and create habitat; Seeding 2.0 acres and planting buffer along right bank in relocate fence a minimum 300 trees and shrubs. middle and lower of 25 feet from top of bank sections. and plant buffer with trees and shrubs.

183

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 26 Bedrock Section DS 2,625 Unstable C4 with Remove debris jams; Field Run Topo $187,600 Remove debris jams; grade and $656,250 $1,055,125 of Powerlines on moderate to moderately stabilize banks, narrow Survey and Base stabilize banks, narrow channel by $196,875 Blauch Farm – UPS high bank erosion, debris channel by constructing Maps, H&H, constructing toe benches along $6,300 of wetland swale that jams, heavy toe benches along Concept and channel margins, install toe wood $8,100 drains pond sedimentation, channel margins, install Final Design with soil lifts or rock outcrops $867,525 aggradation (lateral and structures (e.g., log vanes Plans Prep, along meander bend; and install mid-channel bars) or log-boulder J-Hooks) to Permitting in-stream structures throughout divert flow away from NW-27 banks and create habitat. Seeding 1.8 acres and planting 270 trees and shrubs. 27 UPS of wetland 3,150 Unstable C4 with Remove debris jams; Field Run Topo $218,700 Remove debris jams; grade and $787,500 $1,141,700 swale that drains moderate to moderately stabilize banks, narrow Survey and Base stabilize banks, narrow channel by $118,125 pond – Riffle at high bank erosion, channel by constructing Maps, H&H, constructing toe benches along $7,595 Beach Area numerous debris jams, toe benches along Concept and channel margins, install toe wood $9,780 heavy sedimentation, channel margins, install Final Design with soil lifts or rock outcrops $923,000 aggradation (lateral and structures (e.g., log vanes Plans Prep, along meander bend; and install mid-channel bars) or log-boulder J-Hooks) to Permitting in-stream structures throughout divert flow away from NW-27 banks and create habitat. Seeding 2.17 acres and planting 326 trees and shrubs. 28 Riffle at Beach Area 1,800 Unstable C4 with Remove debris jams; Field Run Topo $158,400 Remove debris jams; grade and $450,000 $685,820 – Valley Glen Rd moderate bank erosion, stabilize banks, narrow Survey and Base stabilize banks, narrow channel by $67,500 numerous debris jams, channel by constructing Maps, H&H, constructing toe benches along $4,340 heavy sedimentation, toe benches, install Concept and channel margins, install toe wood $5,580 aggradation (lateral and structures (e.g., log vanes Final Design with soil lifts or rock outcrops $527,420 mid-channel bars) or log-boulder J-Hooks) to Plans Prep, along meander bend; and install throughout divert flow away from Permitting in-stream structures banks and create habitat. NW-27 Seeding 1.24 acres and planting 186 trees and shrubs. 29 Valley Glen Rd – 1,950 Unstable C4/F4 with Remove debris jams; Field Run Topo $162,600 Remove debris jams; grade and $487,500 $733,945 Swatara Creek moderate to high bank stabilize banks, narrow Survey and Base stabilize banks, narrow channel by $73,125 erosion, numerous debris channel by constructing Maps, H&H, constructing toe benches along $4,690 jams, heavy toe benches along Concept and channel margins, install toe wood $6,030 sedimentation, channel margins, install Final Design with soil lifts or rock outcrops $571,345 aggradation (lateral and structures (e.g., log vanes Plans Prep, along meander bend; and install mid-channel bars) or log-boulder J-Hooks) to Permitting in-stream structures throughout divert flow away from NW-27 banks and create habitat. Seeding 1.34acres and planting 201 trees and shrubs.

184

Table 43 – Unnamed Tributary in North Annville Prioritized Projects

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 1 Struphar Farm 600 Livestock grazing Restore as stable B4c GIS Topo $10,000 Bank grading and stabilization $6,402 $25,602 DS of Rte 934 impacts; lack of buffer; stream; install fencing a Grading Plan, 1,067 yd3 $4,500 unstable F4 channel with minimum of 15 feet to Prep $600 moderately high to high either side of stream and Permitting, Cost of 1200 LF of 3 strand, high $400 eroding banks install a livestock Standard tensile wire, wooden posts, 4 $350 crossing. livestock crossing corners, 2 gates, solar panel and $4,500 G-3, GP-6 accessories; plus 1 livestock $1,400 crossing $1,800 $15,602 Streambank seeding 0.4 acres and 60 shrubs along streambanks 2 Bomgardner Farm 2,970 Unstable C4 channel Restore as stable C4 Field Run Topo $172,100 Remove debris jams; grade and $594,000 $782,000 DS of Rte 934 with debris jams, high stream; repair headwater Survey and Base stabilize banks, narrow channel by $7,000 eroding banks, gullies. Maps, H&H, constructing toe benches along $9,000 aggradation and gully Concept and channel margins, install rock $610,000 erosion in headwaters. Final Design outcrops along meander bends; Plans Prep, Repair gullies with boulder grade Permitting control and bank grading. NW-27 Seeding 2.0acres and planting 300 trees and shrubs. 4 Gingrich Orchard 1,155 Unstable F4, G4 and B4 Remove junk from upper Field Run Topo $108,000 Remove junk from upper section; $231,000 $346,135 UPS of Palmyra channel sections with section; restore as stable Survey and Base Grade and stabilize banks; install $3,115 Bellegrove Rd high eroding banks B4c and B4 streams; Maps, H&H, rock outcrops along meander $4,020 throughout and plant a minimum 15 foot Concept and bends, install boulder/cobble riffle $238,135 aggradation in lower riparian buffer along both Final Design grade control section; junk scattered sides of stream across Plans Prep, along upper section yard below pond. Permitting Seeding 0.89acres and planting below pond; no buffer in NW-27 134 trees and shrubs. upper section 5A Summers Farm MS 3,925 Livestock grazing Restore MS as stable E4 Field Run Topo $245,000 Remove debris jams; grade and $785,000 $1,079,650 DS of Palmyra impacts throughout. and C4 streams. Survey and Base stabilize banks, narrow channel by $15,750 Bellegrove Rd Maps, H&H, constructing toe benches along $1,500 Main channel - unstable Install new fencing and Concept and channel margins, install rock $800 C4 channels with debris crossings to limit livestock Final Design outcrops along meander bend; $700 jams, low to moderately access to stream Plans Prep, and install boulder/cobble riffle $300 high eroding banks Permitting grade control. $9,000 throughout, aggradation NW-27 $9,450 and bank erosion along Cost of 4,200 LF of 3 strand, high $12,150 middle and lower tensile wire, wooden posts, 10 $834,650 sections. corners, 4 gates, 2 solar panel and accessories; plus 2 livestock crossings. Seeding 2.7acres and planting 405 trees and shrubs.

185

Project ID Location Length Existing Problems Proposed Design & Design & Construction Construction Total (feet) Solution Permitting Permitting Cost Cost Cost 5B Summers Farm 2,970 Gully is an unstable G4 Restore MS as stable E4 Field Run Topo $172,000 Repair main gully by grading and $445,500 $660,600 DS of Palmyra channel caused by and C4 streams. Repair Survey and Base stabilizing banks and installing $18,750 Bellegrove Rd erosion in upper fields, gullies. Maps, H&H, boulder grade control structures. $1,650 adjacent to and Concept and $1,200 downstream of pond. Install new fencing and Final Design Cost of 5,000 LF of 3 strand, high $700 Erosion is related to crossings to limit livestock Plans Prep, tensile wire, wooden posts, 11 $300 stormwater runoff and access to stream and Permitting corners, 6 gates, 2 solar panel $4,500 livestock grazing impacts drainage way in upper NW-27 and accessories; plus 1 livestock $7,000 throughout. fields. crossing $9,000 $488,600 Evaluate the installation of Seeding 2.0acres and planting a 2.5 acre pond at head of 300 trees and shrubs. drainage way to control runoff.

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.

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 Type Grant Funding Design & Grant Funding Construction Primary (LF) Application Required Permitting Application Required 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 Type Grant Funding Design & Grant Funding Construction Primary (LF) Application Required Permitting Application Required 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 Type Grant Funding Design & Grant Funding Construction Primary (LF) Application Required Permitting Application Required 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 Type Grant Funding Design & Grant Funding Construction Primary (LF) Application Required Permitting Application Required 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 Type Grant Funding Design & Grant Funding Construction Primary (LF) Application Required Permitting Application Required 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 Funding Design & Grant Funding Construction Primary Application Required Permitting Application Required 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 Funding Design & Grant Funding Construction Primary Application Required Permitting Application Required 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 P S Reduction Reduction Reduction (ibs/yr (lbs/yr (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.

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 channels were wide, shallow and exposed to direct sunlight. Continued improvement in

207

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 along riffle sections. The five year monitoring period required as a condition of the state and

208

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

Monitoring is a key in determining where stream restoration projects are needed and where they can be installed with the best chance for success. Monitoring is also critical in evaluating whether a stream improvement project has achieved its restoration objective(s). Restoration monitoring will also provide data to improve restoration designs and increase the success of restoration projects.

Components of the Monitoring Program

The Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Monitoring Program will include three separate components: 1. Monitoring of restoration projects 2. Monitoring within subwatersheds (tributaries) 3. Monitoring at fixed stations Each component is described in this document with indications of who will be responsible for carrying out the monitoring tasks. Monitoring frequency and timelines are presented as well. The Monitoring Program will be conducted primarily by volunteers, with support from Clear Creeks Consulting. Three organizations, the Quittapahilla Watershed Association, the Doc Fritchey Chapter of Trout Unlimited, and Lebanon Valley College have teamed up to make the volunteer monitoring program a reality. Each of these organizations brings unique skills to the program and each of these organizations is committed to the overall goal.

Because the Monitoring Program will depend on the efforts of volunteers, it is important to establish protocols to be used in the monitoring, to institute abundant quality-assurance measures, and to collect ample quality-control data. We anticipate that the monitoring will continue for many years and that the individuals involved will change over time. Therefore, the web pages for the Quittapahilla Watershed Association will serve as the repository for our protocols and data and will be a resource for future monitoring participants:

http://www.quittiecreek.org/monitoring.html

A. Monitoring of Restoration Projects Restoration projects which require federal permits are required to conduct a pre-implementation evaluation of the project stream reaches and post-construction monitoring for a five-year period. This monitoring is governed under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and includes both geomorphic and habitat evaluations. It is important to note that this monitoring requirement applies only to locations where stream restoration projects are planned or have been implemented.

The 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 an identification of 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.

210

The monitoring of restoration projects 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-surface 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. 6. Identification of any necessary corrective measures.

Table 52 – Monitoring at Restoration Projects as Required by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monitoring Components Pre- Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Construction 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 restoration 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 will be 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 student interns funded by QWA and Doc Fritchey Chapter of Trout Unlimited and trained by Clear Creeks Consulting. Year 1 documentation will be 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 include: • 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 base flow and bankfull dimensions; and

211

• Photo-documentation of existing conditions along the proposed project reaches.

B. Monitoring Within Subwatersheds (Tributaries)

The original field reconnaissance data utilized to identify problem areas and potential restoration projects in the subwatersheds is now more than fifteen years old. To document stream reach conditions and determine the continued need for restoration/stabilization along the four major tributaries to the Quittapahilla Creek, QWA began conducting pre-implementation geomorphic assessments in 2017. These assessments were conducted by summer college student interns funded by QWA and Doc Fritchey Chapter of Trout Unlimited and other partners. The focus of the 2017 assessments was the Snitz Creek subwatershed. Similar assessments were conducted during summer 2018 along the Beck Creek subwatershed and in 2019 in the Bachman Run subwatershed. QWA and DFTU intended to continue these pre-implementation assessments along Gingrich Run and Killinger Creek over the next summer.

The interns were trained by Clear Creeks Consulting. Clear Creeks Consulting developed protocols for the assessments to provide information that can be utilized to evaluate overall channel stability and in-stream habitat. The assessments provide the same measurements as in the monitoring of restoration projects (see table 52), but cover the entire length of the tributaries and will be conducted on a four year rotation cycle. These assessments will be used to define stream reaches where stream improvement projects are needed and where they will provide the biggest impact.

C. Monitoring at Fixed Stations Monitoring at fixed stations will include: 1. Geomorphic and In-Stream Habitat Assessments 2. Biological Monitoring 3. Water-Quality Monitoring The geomorphic and in-stream habitat assessments will be conducted by QWA, DFTU, and their student interns. The biological monitoring will be conducted by Dr. Rebecca Urban and her students at Lebanon Valley College. The water-quality monitoring will be conducted by volunteers from QWA and DFTU. 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. We have established six fixed stations where the monitoring will be conducted (Figure 25 and Table 53). There is one fixed station on each of the four major tributaries to the Quittapahilla Creek and two fixed stations on the mainstem of the Quittapahilla Creek.

212

Figure 25 – Map of the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed showing locations of fixed-station monitoring (from Clear Creeks Consulting).

213

Table 53 -- Fixed Stations for Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Monitoring

Station Name Station Drainage Number Area (mi2) Mainstem Stations Quittapahilla Creek at Garfield Street Q1 32.7 Quittapahilla Creek at Palmyra-Bellegrove Q2 73.4 Road Tributary Stations Snitz Creek at Dairy Road S1 12.4 Beck Creek at Bricker Lane BK1 7.9 Bachman Run at Louser Road BM1 7.3 Killinger Creek at Killinger Road K1 10.8

1. Geomorphic and In-Stream Habitat Assessments The 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. Geomorphic and in-stream habitat assessments will be conducted at each of the four tributary monitoring stations and at the two mainstem stations. These assessments will be conducted annually by college student interns funded by QWA and Doc Fritchey Chapter of Trout Unlimited and their partners. The interns will be trained by Clear Creeks Consulting. Data management for both phases will involve data analysis by Clear Creeks Consulting and data storage by QWA.

2. Biological Monitoring

Multiple protocols for collecting benthic macroinvertebrate samples have been proposed and are used today. The most commonly used protocols are variations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers” (Barbour et al., 1999). Indeed, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection uses a modified form of the USEPA bioassessment protocol for their standard collection methodology (Chalfant and Shull, 2017). The DEP methodology is the template for the methodology adapted to the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed.

For macroinvertebrate sampling, a reach of stream is identified where the collection will be made. This stream reach should be near a water-quality monitoring station, with no intervening tributaries or other inputs between the sampling reach and the water-quality monitoring station. Each sampling reach should be approximately 100 meters long and should include a representative variety of riffle-run habitats.

Within the sampling reach, six locations are selected to collect sub-samples. These locations should include a mix of microhabitats present including slow-flowing shallow riffles and fast- flowing deeper riffles. At each of the six sub-sampling locations, a D-frame net having a mesh size of 500 microns is used to collect a kick sample of the benthic–dwelling organisms. The net is placed on the bottom of the stream and the bottom of the stream immediately upstream from the net is disturbed by shuffling, kicking, or scraping the bottom. The bottom disturbance should cover an area of approximately 1 m2 to a depth of 10 cm as the substrate allows. The disturbance should continue for 60 seconds. As the stream bottom is disturbed, the bottom

214

debris and the bottom-dwelling organisms are swept into the net by the flow of the water. The first sub-sample should be collected from the downstream-most location, working upstream so as to avoid disturbance of the sub-sampling locations.

Following each sub-sample collection, the net is examined and all visible macroinvertebrates are picked from the net and placed into a jar containning70% ethanol. Woody debris and aquatic plants that wash into the net are also checked for macroinvertebrates and those organisms are collected as well. Organisms from all six sub-samples are composited into one jar of ethanol. Additional jars may be used if needed to contain the sample. Each jar is labeled with collection date, time, sampling-site number and the names of the people in the collecting party. The jar with the preserved organisms is then sent to the laboratory for organism identifications.

Replicate samples are suggested for 10 percent of the sampling effort. Identification of the macroinvertebrates will be done in the laboratory, under a dissecting microscope. The macroinvertebrate key, Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America (Peckarsky et al., 1990), will be used for the identifications. Taxonomic determinations will be made to the lowest practical taxonomic level, which for the purposes of this assessment will be 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 annually in the late fall (October-November). Spring samples are preferred when one annual sample is collected because 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.

The macroinvertebrate sampling, taxonomic identification and analyses will be conducted by Lebanon Valley College, Biology Department under the guidance of Dr. Rebecca Urban. Data analyses will include a calculation and evaluation of several biological metrics to evaluate the health of the streams.

3. Water-Quality Monitoring

Water Quality Monitoring Objectives

The overall objective for the water-quality monitoring is to characterize the nutrient and sediment status of the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed. Within that broad objective, we hope to: 1. Determine nutrient and sediment concentrations, loads, and yields for the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek and for each of its four major tributaries. 2. Determine if summertime temperatures exceed the tolerance limit for trout, and if so, where. 3. Pinpoint locations of cold-water inputs to the Quittapahilla Creek. 4. Determine whether runoff from summer storms results in temperature spikes in the Quittapahilla Creek that are lethal to trout. 5. Determine the levels of summertime dissolved-oxygen minima and compare them to conditions suitable for trout survival. 6. Evaluate the effects of stream-improvement projects on the water quality of Quittapahilla Creek.

215

These are ambitious objectives for a volunteer effort. It is especially difficult to collect enough information to satisfy objective 6, determining the effects of stream improvement projects. This is so difficult because a single improvement project, or even a few improvement projects within a watershed, will undoubtedly make a difference. That is, streambank fencing or bank stabilization will certainly reduce the amount of sediment and nutrients in a stream. But water quality is very variable and is influenced greatly by precipitation. High flow periods carry additional nutrients and sediment. So, the variability of rainfall may completely overshadow the gains resulting from stream-improvement projects. For this reason, we are collecting streamflow data at each of our monitoring stations. Our data analyses will take into account the influence of streamflow.

Water Quality Monitoring Plan

The Water-Quality Monitoring Program is focused on assessing nutrients and sediment in the streams of the Watershed. We anticipate establishing six monitoring sites in the Watershed, two on the mainstem Quittapahilla Creek and one on each of the four major tributary streams (Figure 25 and Table 53). Each of the tributary monitoring stations is near the mouth of the tributary. These stations are located so that they capture water downstream from our planned stream-improvement projects.

Our sampling will target nutrients and sediment. These are the primary water-quality issues for the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed and are the reason for the “impaired” designation from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. A wide range of nutrient fractions will be analyzed, including both dissolved and suspended forms. We will measure total suspended solids which provides an approximate substitution for suspended sediment. In addition, we will measure major ions, and a limited suite of metals.

The chemical analyses for our samples will be performed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection laboratory. Extensive quality-assurance and quality-control measures will be employed.

Importantly, we will install continuous-recording stream gauges at each monitoring station. These installations will have a pressure transducer to measure the depth of water and a data logger to record these pressures. Also, there will be a staff plate at each monitoring station to measure depth of the water. The staff plate readings will be correlated to the pressure readings from the data loggers. We will take several manual streamflow measurements at each monitoring station and relate those measurements to the gage height of the staff plate by way of a rating curve (Figure 2). A rating curve establishes a relation between water level or stage (usually expressed as feet) and volume of water or discharge (usually expressed as cubic feet per second). This stage-discharge relation is called a rating curve. It is developed by making frequent direct discharge measurements at a stream gauge. By using the rating curve, the record from the pressure transducers can be translated to continuous stream discharge.

Water Quality Monitoring Schedule

There are three components of our Water-Quality Monitoring Program: • Bi-Monthly Sampling • Storm Sampling • Special Studies

216

Our goal for the bi-monthly sampling is to collect a water-quality sample six times per year at each monitoring station. Volunteers from DFTU and QWA will collect these samples. These samples need to be spaced out so that each season is covered. As such, there will be no set schedule, but samples need to be collected approximately once every two months. Our volunteers will collect these samples on a flexible schedule that fits within their other activities. There will be no requirement for a sample on the first of the month or similar constraint.

However, we will emphasize the need to have samples representing all seasons of the year. We know that most sediment and nutrients attached to sediment move during periods of high discharge or storm flow. So, we will make a concerted effort to collect samples during high-flow events. But, these hydrologic conditions are fleeting, especially in streams with small drainage areas like our four tributary streams. Therefore, it will be a challenge to collect these storm-flow samples. We will need to keep an eye on the weather forecast and be prepared whenever a storm is approaching. So, there will be no set schedule for the storm sampling, but we will collect our storm samples as the opportunities arise. Our goal is to collect six storm flow samples from each of two monitoring stations per year. This means that all six monitoring stations would be covered during a three-year period.

We have identified four research studies to be carried out in the heat of the summer when stream temperatures are highest and nighttime dissolved-oxygen concentrations in the stream are lowest. These studies will be carried out by summer intern students.

First, each of our pressure transducers will have a built-in temperature recorder that will provide a continuous record of stream temperature at five of the six monitoring stations. The sixth station (Quittapahilla Creek at Palmyra-Bellegrove Road) is a USGS streamflow station so we will not have our instrumentation installed there. The record of continuous temperature can be compared with temperature tolerance temperatures for trout to determine whether the Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries can support trout in the hot summer weather.

Second, we envision a study of stream temperatures along the entire length of the Quittapahilla Creek mainstem. This longitudinal profile of stream temperatures will allow us to identify cold- water inputs such as springs or tributaries contributing cold water. From this work, we hope to protect cold-water inputs and remediate warm-water inputs.

A third study will examine temperatures in summertime runoff from impervious surfaces such as parking lots or urban areas. Summer storms may be providing hot-water inputs that result in stream temperature spikes too high for trout survival.

Fourth, we want to examine nighttime dissolved-oxygen concentrations in the Quittapahilla Creek and its tributaries. Warm stream water in the summertime holds less dissolved oxygen than cold water. In addition, at night, photosynthesis shuts down but respiration continues. These in-stream processes contribute to reduced oxygen levels. We will deploy continuous- recording water-quality instruments (water-quality sondes) to track these conditions. If low dissolved-oxygen concentrations are found, we may be able to devise programs to remediate the problem.

217

Our overall generalized project schedule is depicted in Table 54

Table 54. – Generalized schedule for monitoring activities in the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed. Monitoring Activity Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Bi-monthly X X X X X X sampling Storm sampling X X Special studies X X

218

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 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

219

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.

• 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.

220

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.

221

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. Barbour, Michael, Jereon Gerritsen, Blane Snyder, and James B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99- 002. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water. Washington, D.C.

4. Borawa, J. C. 1988. Brown Trout Workshop: Biology and Management. Trout Committee, Southern Division, American Fisheries Society.

5. Center for Watershed Protection, 2000. Urban Stream Restoration Practices: An Initial Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.

6. Chalfant, Brian, and Shull, Dustin. 2017. Wadeable Riffle-Run Stream Macroinvertebrate Data Collection Protocol: pp. 3-1 – 3-7. In: Shull, Dustin, and Lookenbill, Josh. 2018. Water Quality Monitoring Protocols for Streams and Rivers: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Clean Water, variously paged.

7. 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.

8. Clear Creeks Consulting and Skelly & Loy, Inc., 2006. Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Assessment, Volume 1 – Findings Report.

9. Clear Creeks Consulting and Skelly & Loy, Inc., 2006. Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Assessment, Volume 2 – Restoration and Management Plan.

10. Clear Creeks Consulting and Skelly & Loy, Inc., 2006. Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Assessment, Volume 3 – Geomorphic and Habitat Maps.

11. Clear Creeks Consulting and Skelly & Loy, Inc., 2006. Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Assessment, Volume 4 – Field Reconnaissance Maps.

12. Cummins, K.W., 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems. Bioscience 24(11): 631 – 641.

13. Davis, S.L., R.R. Starr, and C.K. Eng. 2014. Rapid Stream Restoration Protocol. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office: CBFO-S14-01, 24 pages + Appendix. 14. 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.

15. Dunne, T. and L. Leopold, 1978. Water in Environmental Planning, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. Evans, B.M., 2005. Water Quality Model for Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Assessment.

19. 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.

20. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Work Group, 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. PB98-502487.

21. Fuiman, L. A., 1993. Water Quality and the Early Life Stages of Fishes. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 14.

22. 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.

23. Hammer, D. A. 1992. Creating Freshwater Wetlands. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.

24. Klein, R.D., 1985. Effects of Urbanization on Aquatic Resources. Tidewater Administration, Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

25. Knighton, D., 1984. Fluvial Forms and Processes. Edward Arnold Publishers, London.

26. Lebanon County Assessment Office, Website, 2018. Lebanon County Property Viewer.

27. Lebanon County Conservation District, 2001. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Database.

28. Leopold, L. B., G. M. Wolman, and J. P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. Freeman, San Francisco.

29. Leopold, L.B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

30. Mackin Engineering, 2000. Swatara Creek Watershed Conservation Plan.

31. Malanson, G.P. 1993. Riparian Landscapes. Cambridge University Press.

32. Marsh, W. M. 1983. Landscape Planning: Environmental Applications. Wiley and Sons, New York.

33. 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.

34. Morisawa, M., 1968. Streams: Their Dynamics and Morphology. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.

35. 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.

36. Peckarsky, B.L., P.R. Fraissinet, M.A. Penton, D.J. Conklin, Jr. Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America. 1990. Ithaca: Comstock Publishing Associates, 456 p.

37. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2000. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) Quittapahilla Creek Watershed, Lebanon County. Southcentral Regional Office, Water Management Program.

38. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2002. Final 2002 Section 303(d) Report: List of Impaired Waterbodies.

39. 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.

40. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, 2003. Fisheries Management Data for Quittapahilla Creek Watershed.

41. Petts, G.E. and I. Foster. 1985. Rivers and Landscapes. Edward Arnold Publishers, London.

42. 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.

43. Riley, A. L., 1998. Restoring Streams in Cities: A Guide for Planners, Policymakers, and Citizens. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

44. Rosgen, D.L., 1993. River Restoration Utilizing Natural Stability Concepts. Watershed 93 Symposium, 783 – 790.

45. Rosgen, D.L., 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22: 169-199.

46. Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.

47. Schlosser, I.J., 1991. Stream Ecology: A Landscape Perspective, Bioscience 41(10): 704 – 710.

48. Schueler, T.R., 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

49. Schueler, T.R., 1992. Design of Stormwater Wetland Systems: Guidelines for Creating Diverse and Effective Stormwater Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Region.

50. 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.

51. 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.

52. 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.

53. Skelly and Loy, Inc. and Clear Creeks Consulting, 2005. An Evaluation of Sediment Discharge in the Quittapahilla Creek Watershed. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

54. Steckbeck Engineering & Surveying, Inc., 2017. Draft Joint Pollution Reduction Plan for the Lebanon County Stormwater Consortium.

55. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1977. Field Examination Report: Quittapahilla Creek Watershed, Lebanon County, PA.

56. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1978. Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Final Report.

57. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1981. Soil Survey of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania.

58. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1991. Riparian Forest Buffers: Function and Design for Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources.

59. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1992. Engineering Field Handbook, Chapter 13, Wetland Restoration, Enhancement or Creation.

60. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1996. Engineering Field Handbook, Chapter 16, Streambank and Shoreline Protection.

61. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/440/4- 89/001.

62. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook, 2nd Edition.

63. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook, Appendixes, 2nd Edition.

64. 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.

65. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 2000. Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview, EPA 833-F-00-001.

66. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Overview of Current Total Maximum Daily Loads – TMDL – Program and Regulations.

67. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1986. Habitat Suitability Index Models and Instream Flow Suitability Curves: Brown Trout. Biological Report 82(10.124).

68. Waters, T. F., 1995. Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects, and Control.

69. Williams, J. E., C. A. Wood, and M. P. Dombeck, 1997. Watershed Restoration: Principles and Practices. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.