QUICK FACTS. Stream Miles: Impaired Stream Miles: 0. DEP Listed Impairments: None. Watershed Municipalities:

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "QUICK FACTS. Stream Miles: Impaired Stream Miles: 0. DEP Listed Impairments: None. Watershed Municipalities:"

Logan Atkinson
6 years ago
Views:

1 7.7 FISHING CREEK Description Fishing Creek originates in northern West Hanover Township and flows west between Blue and Second Mountains in a narrow valley. Numerous small tributaries enter the stream from the mountains. It eventually flows into the Susquehanna River at Fort Hunter. The watershed is about 9.25 miles long and 2 miles wide and covers an area of 18.5 square miles. The entire watershed lies within Dauphin County. Much of the watershed is forested with a low population density and a small amount of agriculture. Most of the development in the watershed is composed of residential road frontage at the west end of the watershed. Fishing Creek before entering the Susquehanna River. Topography is typical of the Ridge and Valley physiographic province in Pennsylvania with the stream located in a narrow, steep sided valley with flat to gentle slopes dominating the narrow valley floor. The mountain ridges of the watershed are composed of red and gray sandstone and conglomerate with shale being the dominate formation in the valley. DEP Classification Fishing Creek is listed as a Warm Water Fishery (WWF). Site Locations Each of the three sample sites within Fishing Creek watershed was located on the main stem of the waterway. For a description of each location, refer to Figure 7.7 below. Study Results QUICK FACTS Watershed Size: 18.5 mi 2 in Dauphin County Stream Miles: 27.4 Impaired Stream Miles: Land Uses: Predominantly forest, Some residential and Minimal agriculture DEP Stream Classification: WWF DEP Listed Impairments: The furthest upstream, site 1 was located at Watershed Municipalities: Hickory Hollow Road. Straw Hollow Road. Site 2 was located at Site 3, the furthest Lower Paxton Twp, Middle Paxton Twp, Susquehanna Twp, West Hanover Twp downstream was located at Fort Hunter Park. Sites 1 and 3 were rated as fair, exhibiting a low number of sensitive species. Site 2 was rated as good. This site also had a low number of sensitive species but those that were found in the sample were abundant. A complete table of metrics calculations for Fishing Creek can be found in Appendix VI. None Fishing Creek watershed

2 Figure 7.7

3 Stream Health: Good Fair Poor Figure 7.7a Fishing Creek Macroinvertebrates 25 Types per Sample Types of Macroinvertebrates Pollution Sensitive Types Figure 7.7b Fishing Creek Health Score IBI (%)

7.8 PAXTON CREEK Description The 27 square mile Paxton Creek watershed is located in the southwestern section of Dauphin County with headwaters on the southern slope of Blue Mountain in Susquehanna

4 7.8 PAXTON CREEK Description The 27 square mile Paxton Creek watershed is located in the southwestern section of Dauphin County with headwaters on the southern slope of Blue Mountain in Susquehanna and Lower Paxton Townships. About 18 square miles of the stream, located in these townships, drains to Wildwood Lake. Upstream of the lake the watershed can be characterized as extensively developed suburban land dominated by low to medium density residential development. A small amount of the land area is in farmland with forestland confined to the slope of the Blue Mountain. Downstream of Wildwood Lake the stream flows south entering the heavily urbanized Harrisburg City. The stream channel throughout the City is confined to a concrete channel constructed to mitigate flooding. The creek joins the Susquehanna at the southern end of the city. Topography in the majority of the watershed is generally flat to gently sloping. The geology of the watershed is mostly shale, silt and sandstone. Paxton Creek before entering the Susquehanna River. QUICK FACTS DEP Classification Paxton Creek is classified as a Warm Water Fishery (WWF). A substantial section of Paxton Creek and two tributaries are listed as impaired by siltation and nutrients. The source of the impairments is identified as from urban runoff and storm sewers. Site Locations Watershed Size: 27 mi 2 in Dauphin County Land Uses: Primarily Urban/Suburban, Residential Stream Miles: 5.4 Impaired Stream Miles: 19.3 DEP Stream Classification: Paxton Creek watershed Seven sites were located in the Paxton Creek watershed. Four sites were located on the main stem; site 2 upstream at Goose Valley Road, site 3 at Interstate Drive and site, site 6 at Reilly Street and site 7 downstream at the Harrisburg Green Belt. One site, site 1, was located on an unnamed tributary at Goose Valley Road. One site, site 4, was located on an unnamed tributary at Shutt Mill Road and one site, site 5, was located on Asylum Run at Arsenel Road.Figure 7.8 describes the locations of each of the Paxton Creek watershed sample sites, shown below. WWF DEP Listed Impairments: Sedimentation from Urban runoff, agriculture, and storm sewers Watershed Municipalities: Lower Paxton Twp, Middle Paxton Twp, Harrisburg City, Penbrook Borough, Susquehanna Twp Study Results All sites rated as poor. All sites had few sensitive species and samples were dominated by pollution tolerant midges and aquatic worms. Poor aquatic habitat was noted through out the watershed. Sediment from eroded banks is prevalent. Below Wildwood Lake, the stream is channelized and restricted to a concrete channel for much of this length. A table of metrics calculations for Paxton Creek can be found in Appendix VI.

5 Figure 7.8

6 Stream Health: Good Fair Poor Figure 7.8a Paxton Creek Macroinvertebrates 25 Types per Sample Types of Macroinvertebrates Pollution Sensitive Types Figure 7.8b Paxton Creek Health Score IBI (%)

7 7.9 SPRING CREEK WEST Description The Spring Creek (West) watershed located in southwest Dauphin County, drains an area of about 11.6 square miles. The entire watershed lies in Dauphin County. The headwaters are located in Lower Paxton Township and, to a lesser extent, in Susquehanna and Swatara Townships. The stream flows in a westerly direction eventually joining the Susquehanna River in southern Harrisburg City. The watershed has a widely varied mix of urban and suburban land uses and is highly urbanized as it nears its confluence with the Susquehanna River. Population centers include Harrisburg City, Paxtang Borough and Penbrook Borough. Topography in the majority of the watershed is generally flat to gently sloping. The geology of the watershed is composed of shale, limestone, and sandstone. Spring Creek West before entering the Susquehanna River. QUICK FACTS DEP Classification Spring Creek (West) is classified as a Cold Water Fishery (CWF). A substantial section of the Creek is listed as impaired by siltation. The source of this impairment is identified as originating from urban runoff and storm sewers. Watershed Size: 11.6 mi 2 in Dauphin County Land Uses: Primarily Urban/Suburban, Residential Stream Miles: 17.4 Impaired Stream Miles: 11.3 Spring Creek West Watershed Site Locations Four sites were located in this watershed; three on the main stem. From upstream to downstream these are site 1 at Gadden Parkway, site 3 at the Five Senses Garden and site 4 at Cameron street. One site, site 2, site was located on an unnamed tributary at Gadden Parkway. Locations for each site are described in Figure 7.9, found below. Study Results DEP Stream Classification: Coldwater Fishery DEP Listed Impairments: Sedimentation from urban runoff and storm sewers Watershed Municipalities: Harrisburg City, Lower Paxton Twp, Paxtang Borough, Penbrook Borough, Susquehanna Twp, Swatara Twp All sites rated as poor. Very low numbers of sensitive macroinvertebrates were found in all samples; sites 3 and 4 had no sensitive types. Pollution tolerant macroinvertebrates such as midges and aquatic worms dominated the samples. A complete set of metrics calculations for Spring Creek West can be found in Appendix VI.

8 Figure 7.9

9 Stream Health: Good Fair Poor Figure 7.9a Spring Creek West Macroinvertebrates 25 Types per Sample Types of Macroinvertebrates Pollution Sensitive Types Figure 7.9b Spring Creek West Health Scores IBI (%)

7.1 SWATARA CREEK Description Swatara Creek is a large watershed covering, 571 mi 2, 127.3 mi 2 of which are in Dauphin County.

10 7.1 SWATARA CREEK Description Swatara Creek is a large watershed covering, 571 mi 2, mi 2 of which are in Dauphin County. The stream originates in Berks and Schuykill Counties, generally moving southwest through Lebanon and Dauphin Counties where it meets the Susquehanna River at Middletown Borough. Major tributaries in Dauphin County include Beaver Creek, Kellock Run, Manada Creek, and Bow Creek entering Swatara Creek from the north and Spring Creek East entering from the south. The watershed in Dauphin County is characterized by extensive suburban development with some areas of farmland and forestland. Population centers in the watershed include Hershey and surrounding area, Hummelstown Borough, and Middletown Borough. Topography in the watershed is characterized by relatively low, rolling hills. The geology of the watershed is composed of two geologic formations. The formation in the northern and eastern portion of the watershed contains shale, limestone, dolomite, and sandstone. Geology in the southwestern portion is characterized by red sandstone, shale and conglomerate intruded by diabase. In areas of the watershed underlain by limestone, Karst topography dominates with many areas prone to sinkhole formation. Swatara Creek before entering the Susquehanna River. QUICK FACTS Watershed Size: 571 mi 2, 127 mi 2 in Dauphin County Land Uses: Wide variety Stream Miles: DEP Classification Swatara Creek and most of its major tributaries are classified as a Warm Water Fishery (WWF). Most of its major tributaries are also classified as WWF. However, Manada Creek from its source to Interstate- 81 is listed as a Cold Water Fishery (CWF). The remaining streams are listed as a WWF. Sections of the Swatara Creek are listed as impaired by siltation from agricultural sources. Relatively small sections of Beaver Creek are impaired by siltation from urban/suburban and agriculture sources. A small section of Manada Creek is listed as impaired by pathogens and nutrients from a municipal point source and siltation from road runoff. Two small sections of Bow Creek are identified as impaired by priority organics and siltation from road runoff and agriculture. Extensive areas of Spring Creek East are listed as impaired by siltation, organic enrichment and low dissolved oxygen from agricultural activities, urban runoff and storm sewers. Impaired Stream Miles: 58.1 DEP Stream Classification: Section of Manada Creek from source to I-81 CWF Swatara Creek and all other tributaries WWF DEP Listed Impairments: Sections of Swatara Creek siltation from agriculture Section of Beaver Creek Siltation from urban/suburban runoff and agriculture Section of Manada Creek Pathogens and nutrients from a municipal point source, siltation from road runoff Sections of Bow Creek Priority organics and siltation from road runoff and agriculture Sections of Spring Creek East Siltation, organic enrichment, and low dissolved oxygen from agriculture, urban runoff, and storm sewers Watershed Municipalities: Swatara Creek watershed Conewago Twp, Derry Twp, East/West/South Hanover Twps, Hummelstown Borough, Londonderry Twp, Lower Paxton Twp, Middletown Borough, Lower Swatara Twp, Swatara Twp

11 Site Locations Three Sites were located on the main stem of Swatara Creek, while 26 locations were sampled in its sub-watersheds. Manada Creek had six sample sites, four sites were located on Beaver Creek, two on Nyes Run, one on Kellock Run, one on Bow Creek, eight on Spring Creek East, two on unnamed tributaries to Swatara Creek, and two on Iron Run. The locations of these sites are described in Table 7.1 below. Study Results Bow Creek One site, site 14, was located on Bow Creek at Shady Lane. This site rated as poor. Three pollution tolerant species dominated this sample. Manada Creek Manada Creek had five sites. Sites 8 and 9, at Mclean road and Furnace Road respectively, rated as good with balanced macroinvertebrate communities. These sites are both located in or near the headwaters of the watershed. Sites 1, 11 and 12 at Kiwanis Road, Harper Road and Crooked Hill Road respectively, all rated as fair with higher numbers of pollution tolerant types and less diverse aquatic communities. Site 13 at Devonshire Road ranked as poor. Spring Creek East This tributary had 8 sites, 16 through 23. All sites ranked as poor with all samples being dominated by pollution tolerant species and exhibiting little diversity. Unnamed Tributary This site, 24, at Walton avenue, rated as poor with few sensitive species found in the sample. Kellock Run The one site on Kellock Run, site 7 at Stonemill Road had a diverse aquatic community and rated as good. Beaver Creek All sites, sites 1 through 6, in the Beaver Creek watershed rated as poor. Two of the sites, sites 1 and 2 at Nyes Road and Willoughby Road respectively, located on Nyes Run, had low numbers of sensitive species. Site 5 was located on an unnamed tributary at Knight Road and was dominated by pollution tolerant species. Sites 3, 4 and 6 were located on the main stem at Jonestown Road, Knight Road and Pine Hill Road respectively. These sites were also dominated by pollution tolerant species. Unnamed Tributary Site 26 was located on an unnamed tributary at Union Street. This site ranked as poor with no sensitive species found in the sample. Iron Run Two sites, 27 at Roundtop Road and 28 at Lauffer Road, were located on Iron Run. Site 27 ranked as good while site 28 ranked as fair. Both sites had a high number of total species but a low percentage of sensitive species. Site 27 rated good due to the very high number of total species. Swatara Creek Main Stem Three sites were located on the main stem of Swatara Creek. Upstream to downstream, sites 15, 25 and 29 were located at Bindnagle Road, Bridge Road and Iron Mine Road respectively.all sites rated as poor with low numbers of sensitive species.

13 Table 7.1 Sample Site Location Health Notes 1 Nyes Run along Nyes Rd Poor Sensitive percentage low 2 Nyes near Willoughby Rd Poor Diverse community 3 Beaver Creek near Piketown Rd Poor Tolerant types dominant 4 Beaver Creek near Jonestown Rd Poor Sensitive total low 5 Unnamed tributary to Beaver near Knight Dr Poor HBI indicates fair pollution likely 6 Beaver Creek near Pine Hill Rd Poor Little diversity 7 Kellock Run near Stonemill Rd Good Diverse community 8 Manada Creek near Mclean Rd Good Diverse community 9 Manada Creek near Furnace Rd Good Diverse community 1 Walnut Run near Kiwanis Rd Fair Sensitive percentage low 11 Manada Creek near Jonestown/Harper Rd Fair Total macroinvertebrates low 12 Manada Creek near Crooked Hill Rd Fair Little diversity 13 Manada Creek near Devonshire Heights Rd Poor HBI indicates fair pollution likely 14 Bow Creek near Shady Ln Poor Sample dominated by 3 tolerant types 15 Swatara Creek near Bindnagle Rd Poor Low sensitive percentage 16 UNT to Spring Creek East near Eby Rd Poor Little diversity 17 UNT to Spring East near Bachmanville Rd Poor Tolerant types dominant 18 UNT to Spring East near Fishburn Rd Poor Little diversity 19 UNT to Spring East near Spartan Ln Poor Sensitive total low UNT to Spring E near Meadow-Crest Poor HBI indicates organic pollution likely 21 Spring Creek East near 39 Poor Sensitive total low 22 Spring Creek East near Hockersville Rd Poor Sensitive total low 23 Spring Creek East near Hanover St Poor HBI indicates organic pollution likely 24 UNT to Swatara near Walton Ave Poor Few sensitive types 25 Swatara Creek near Bridge Rd Poor Few sensitive types 26 UNT to Swatara near N Union St Poor No sensitive types 27 Iron Roundtop Road Good Many types of macroinvertebrates 28 Iron Run near Lauffer Rd and 283 Fair Low percentage of sensitive 29 Swatara Creek near Iron Mine Rd Poor Little diversity

14 3 Figure 7.1a Swatara Creek Macroinvertebrates Stream Health: Good Fair Poor Types per Sample Types of Macroinvertebrates Pollution Sensitive Types Types per S am ple Figure 7.1b Swatara Creek Macroinvertebrates Stream Health: Good Fair Poor Types of Macroinvertebrates Pollution Sensitive Types IBI (%) Figure 7.1c Swatara Creek Health Score Stream Health: Good Fair Poor

7.11 CONEWAGO CREEK Description Conewago Creek is the southernmost watershed in Dauphin County. It forms the boundary between Dauphin and Lancaster Counties. The watershed drains an area of 52.

Rural in character, the majority of land use is low density residential development and agriculture. Topography in the watershed is generally flat to gently sloping.

15 7.11 CONEWAGO CREEK Description Conewago Creek is the southernmost watershed in Dauphin County. It forms the boundary between Dauphin and Lancaster Counties. The watershed drains an area of 52.2 mi 2, with 23.2 mi 2 in Dauphin County. The headwaters are located in Lebanon County where it flows in a westerly direction eventually joining the Susquehanna River in Londonderry Township. Rural in character, the majority of land use is low density residential development and agriculture. Topography in the watershed is generally flat to gently sloping. The geology of the watershed is composed of red sandstone, shale, and conglomerate, intruded by diabase. DEP Classification Conewago Creek is classified as a Warm Water Fishery (WWF). The Creek and most of its major tributaries in Dauphin County are listed as impaired by nutrients and siltation. The source of these impairments is identified as originating from agriculture. Site Locations Nine sites were located in the Conewago Creek watershed. Four of these sites, sites 1, 4, 7 and 9, upstream to downstream, were located on the main stem. These were located at Prospect Road, Aberdeen Mills, Deodate Road and Covered Bridge Road respectively. Five sites were located on tributaries; site 2 on Hoffer creek at Hershey Road, site 3 on Gallagher Run at Valley Road, site 5 on Brills Run at Hoffer Road, site 6 on Lynch Run at Hertzler Road and site 8 on an unnamed tributary at Zion Road. For a description of the general location of each sample site, refer to Table 7.11 below. Study Results Conewago Creek before entering the Susquehanna River. QUICK FACTS Watershed Size: 52.2 mi 2, 23.2 mi 2 in Dauphin County Land Uses: Primarily Agriculture and Residential Stream Miles: 59. Impaired Stream Miles: 4.9 DEP Stream Classification: Warm Water Fishery DEP Listed Impairments: Sedimentation from agriculture activities Watershed Municipalities: Conewago Twp and Londonderry Twp Conewago Creek watershed All sites, with the exception of sites 1 and 9, rated as poor due to low diversity and few sensitive macroinvertebrates. Sites 1 and 9 both rated as fair, exhibiting more diversity but low percentages of sensitive macroinvertebrates. A complete set of metrics calculations for Conewago Creek can be found in Appendix VI. 15

16 Figure

17 Stream Health: Good Fair Poor Figure 7.11a Conewago Creek Macroinvertebrates 25 Types per Sample Types of Macroinvertebrates Pollution Sensitive Types Figure 7.11b Conewago Health Scores 1 8 IBI (%)

Paxton Creek Watershed TMDL Strategy

Paxton Creek Watershed TMDL Strategy Public Review Meetings: November 17, 2015 November 18, 2015 December 10, 2015 Paxton Creek Watershed Cooperative Progressive approach to achieving water quality improvements.