JeffP
Well-known member
Troutbert, where was this legacy sediment work done on Lititz Run? The Banta farm?
Lancaster County stream improvements
- Thread starter wgmiller
- Start date
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.
JeffP
Well-known member
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.
lycoflyfisher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,468
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.
Susquehanna
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
- Messages
- 248
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.
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.
lycoflyfisher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,468
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.
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.
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.
lycoflyfisher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,468
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.
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,468
Always down to fish, drink a beer and bs.
larkmark
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2019
- Messages
- 876
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.
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.
lycoflyfisher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,468
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.
JeffP
Well-known member
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.
JeffP
Well-known member
Sorry Lycoflyfisher, I missed your post!
JeffP
Well-known member
Here is the Landstudies link to the Banta Property.
https://landstudies.com/banta-property-floodplain-restoration/
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.
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.
larkmark
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2019
- Messages
- 876
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.
