Lancaster County stream improvements

Troutbert, where was this legacy sediment work done on Lititz Run? The Banta farm?
 
JeffP wrote:
Troutbert, where was this legacy sediment work done on Lititz Run? The Banta farm?
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe that's the name.

I was curious about it, so drove by and took a look. I didn't want to walk on private property, so didn't get a close look at the project.

If anyone knows more about this project, or has pictures, please let us know.

 
I could not find any mention of a legacy sediment project on their list of accomplishments. It is huge! They did mention floodplain restoration in Santo Domingo Creek which is the headwaters area not fed by Lititz Springs.
 
troutbert wrote:


What projects of this type have been done?

The only ones I know of are: Lititz Run, above the conservancy property.

A small stream near Willow Street, Lancaster County.

I have heard and read that the reason more of these types of projects have not been done is that it's very expensive.

There was some discussion of legacy sediment removal as part of the McCoy Dam removal project on Spring Creek, but people said it's too expensive. Though no cost figure was given, or cost comparison with the project as they did it.

The legacy sediment just upstream from the site of the former dam is roughly 9 feet high.
Click to expand...

It is expensive for sure, but it appears to be a wholistic restoration approach that to date has required very little maintenance if any of significance. I'll rattle off a few that I am familar with:

Big Spring Run
Brubaker Run
UNTs in Codorus Creek watershed near Loganville
Robinson Fork
UNTs in the headwaters of Ontelaunee Creek watershed

RES and Land Studies are 2 of the prominent consultants involved in this work.
 
Jeff,

Because the porous krast conduits are holding it.

I just got done with an excellent afternoon of fishing. Sometime when I get back I'll look for the info and pics I have of the Banta property troutbert.
 
Some information on the Banta Property https://www.warwicktownship.org/lititz-run-watershed-alliance/pages/project-descriptions

Land studies used natural stream channel design techniques on this site, I do not believe they are working with that design approach much, if at all anymore.

Swarr Run was another stream in that area that a floodplain restoration project recently ocurred.
 
lycoflyfisher wrote:
Some information on the Banta Property https://www.warwicktownship.org/lititz-run-watershed-alliance/pages/project-descriptions

Land studies used natural stream channel design techniques on this site, I do not believe they are working with that design approach much, if at all anymore.
Click to expand...

The description says: The stream was relocated using Natural Channel Design Techniques and 7000 cubic yards of floodplain were excavated. 3,000 linear feet of the stream were stabilized using approximately twenty-six in-instream devices, including cross vanes, rock vanes, root wats, and j-hook vanes.

So it looks like they took out 7000 cubic yards of legacy sediment.

When they say these legacy sediment projects are expensive, I wonder how much of the cost is for legacy sediment removal, and how much for cross vanes, rock vanes, root wads, and j-hooks.

Is any of that stuff even necessary? Natural streams don't have any of that. Natural streams have: water, substrate, and vegetation. That is all.

And natural streams are not laterally stable. They move laterally across the floodplain. So why spend so much money on stabilization?

We should all get together and drink some beer and rant about this stuff. That would be fun.


 
I believe that site was constructed in 2005. Most of the legacy sediment removal and floodplain restoration projects no longer incorporate natural stream channel design such as rock vanes into their projects.

This design approach is a stage 0 reset in most cases. The natural water table elevation is identified, the stream channel is raised to that elevation, valley wide grade control devices are installed that are subsurface below the thawed, the floodplain is lowered to the desired elevation and the channel is allowed to meander all the way across the valley. Sheer stress modeling is what drives the design.

The expensive part is due to the large earth moving effort involved. The farther you have to move it, the more expensive it is. Most of the projects I mentioned were able to waste the legacy sediments on-site in upland areas. Over the road trucking would be cost prohibitive.
 
lycoflyfisher wrote:
I believe that site was constructed in 2005. Most of the legacy sediment removal and floodplain restoration projects no longer incorporate natural stream channel design such as rock vanes into their projects.

This design approach is a stage 0 reset in most cases. The natural water table elevation is identified, the stream channel is raised to that elevation, valley wide grade control devices are installed that are subsurface below the thawed, the floodplain is lowered to the desired elevation and the channel is allowed to meander all the way across the valley. Sheer stress modeling is what drives the design.

The expensive part is due to the large earth moving effort involved. The farther you have to move it, the more expensive it is. Most of the projects I mentioned were able to waste the legacy sediments on-site in upland areas. Over the road trucking would be cost prohibitive.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see how that would work at the McCoy site on Spring Creek.

They could load the legacy sediment onto railcars, and take it to mine restoration sites in Clearfield County.
 
troutbert wrote:


We should all get together and drink some beer and rant about this stuff. That would be fun.
Click to expand...

Always down to fish, drink a beer and bs.
 
Brubaker Run had a section of this type of stream improvement done when the built a large shopping center almost right up to its banks. Swarr Run had a short section done when they built a huge hospital complex on adjacent property. Both of these projects were probably some sort of requirement due to the amount of damage the development would cause. Also these are very short sections of creek and although it probably has some benefit it seems more like a feel good project than anything that will have real impact. Both these streams are a shadow of what they were 50 years ago. By the way, both are limestone creeks.
I recall the development of the entire watershed of Brubaker Run over last half century. I spent much of my boyhood around there. Marshes and swamps were all along its banks. It was a beautiful little meadow stream. They drained the swamps and somehow built over all the wetlands. It is now solidly residential development and business parks etc. right up to its banks for its entire length from headwaters to mouth. It has probably a quarter of the water it did back then. I felt a bit offended when the developers put up a sign along Rohrerstown Rd tooting their horn about how they were restoring it. What a joke.
The "improvement" has a very contrived feel to it. I think many of the plantings are non native grasses etc. There is nothing of what the creek was really like They broke the entire system and then made a half assed attempt to "fix" it. troutbert is correct about much of this work going against the way natural streams work.
 
Larkmark, I am curious to hear what you would consider to have a real beneficial impact on a stream? I don't recall you speaking positively on any aspect of stream improvement even simplistic riparian planting projects.
 
lyco- I have said many times on this forum that planting trees is the number one thing we can do to help streams.
 
Larkmark, were there trout in Brubaker Run? Is that the one that ends up near Mountville near where my wife grew up? I found some pictures from the Banta Farm on Lititz Run. It does appear that they deal with legacy sediment issues in this project. I remember thinking what a mess it was when it was completed. It's private property so I never got to walk it of fish it.
 
jeff p- No trout in Brubaker Run. An occasional stocked trout might find its way into lower end in summer seeking cooler water. Yes- headwaters near Centerville Rd.
 
Here is the Landstudies link to the Banta Property.

https://landstudies.com/banta-property-floodplain-restoration/
 
This video about legacy sediment shows a "before" condition on a trib to Chickies Creek, then shows the Banta site after legacy sediment was removed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN33r5-QVJg

An interesting thing is where he is pointing out where the original floodplain elevation was, below the clay layer that is also part of the legacy sediment, deposited behind the dam.

At the former McCoy Dam site on Spring Creek, there was also a clay layer like he described here. If you look at the cut banks, you can see that clay layer. At the McCoy site, the legacy sediment is still there.
 
This is interesting as an explanation and also showing examples of what can be done. I salute their efforts. This seems more realistic than the projects I have been involved with in past. I can't imagine funding could be found to address this in a way that would have real impact. When he starts saying hundreds of mill dams and billions of tons of silt it gives you an idea of immensity of issue. I guess every little bit helps.
 
Lowes is selling "garden soil" for $7.98 for a bag with 1.5 cubic feet of dirt.

People with tons of legacy sediment are sitting on a gold mine.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top