This report and finding there in was conducted for
the Choconut Creek Watershed Association free of charge by the Susquehanna
County Conservation District Watershed Specialist to aid in the guidance and
further progress of the watershed association. The results and information
provided within the final report are directed towards the layperson, and the
overall knowledge level of the watershed members. This report was intended to
gear the focus of the watershed association towards implementing a watershed restoration
plan, while making them aware of the current status of their watershed, as well
as highlighting initial points of interest to focus on in their restoration
initiative. A professional assessment is intended for this watershed in the
fall and spring of 2001-2002.
FINAL REPORT
CHOCONTU CREEK WATERSHED
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
AND STREAM RESTOATION SITE SELECTION
 |
Prepared for:
Choconut Creek Watershed Association
RR # 1 Box 1462
Friendsville, PA 18818-9608
Prepared by:
Susquehanna County Conservation District
C/o Travis J. Long, Watershed Specialist
County Office Building
31 Public Ave
Montrose, PA 18801
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Introduction
III. Water Quality
1. Table I Water Quality Analysis
2. Table II Biota
IV. Problem Areas
V. Strategy to reduce non-point source pollution
VI. Implementation Plan
VII. Suggested Procedures For Watershed Planning and Implementation
VIII. Process For Watershed Based Zoning
IX. Completed BMP’s and Funding Acquisition since June 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report was to identify non-point source pollution problems of the Susquehanna County portion of the Choconut Creek Watershed, which covers approximately 19 mi2 of Susquehanna County and 17 mi2 of Broom County New York. The Susquehanna County Conservation District Watershed Specialist conducted the field surveys. Methods used, included but were not limited to, windshield survey of entire watershed from all state and township owned roads, a physical and biological survey of the seven (7) miles of main stream and five (5) of the major tributaries, and a chemical and limnologic assessment of Stanley Lake.
The first step of this project was to evaluate the study area based upon information accumulated by investigating available sources of data. These sources included: topographic maps, aerial photographs (dating back in the early 1950’s to present), FSA (Farm Service Agency) files, USDA-NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service) records, information provided by ERRI (Environmental Resources Research Institute), Esri ArcView 3.2 GIS data, and in-house knowledge of the watershed. From this step of the project in field surveys and analysis was performed. Based on the findings of the study recommendations for BMP (Best Management Practices) will be provided, followed by implementation based on available program funding.
By prioritizing the potential problems in the watershed, general locations where BMP cost-share dollars should best be spent will be determined. In short, allocation of these dollars will hinder additional non-point source issues, and assist the Chesapeake Bay in nutrient reduction.
INTRODUCTION
It has been established that in Pennsylvania the main culprit contributing to pollution of the Chesapeake Bay is the Susquehanna River; the primary non-point source problem being nutrient run-off from farms. Approximately forty-seven percent of the nitrogen and sixty-one percent of the phosphorus entering the river from non-point sources has come from croplands and barnyards.
In 1984, a cooperative program was developed between the Environmental Protection Agency and the states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia to educate the farm community as to the effects of the their farming methods on the water quality of the Bay. In Pennsylvania, the first step was to appoint an advisory committee to the State Conservation Commission made up of representatives from the government and the farm community. Their first task has been to identify program requirements and delivery methods.
By early 1985, the State Conservation Commission had adopted the Chesapeake Bay Non-point Source Pollution Abatement Program. This program has been administered at the local level by conservation districts who set priorities for conservation work and coordinate resources for the federal, state, and local levels. These priorities include implementation of: soil and water conservation, best management practices, and improved nutrient management techniques.
The purpose of this report has been to identify non-point pollution problems of the Susquehanna County portion of the Choconut Creek Watershed. (1) Ascertaining the location of problem areas, (2) determining the types and quantities of BMP’s needed to reduce these issues to acceptable levels, and (3) develop an effective implementation plan to address the expenditure of costsharing funds in the watershed.
WATER QUALITY
The waterways of the Choconut Creek Watershed serve a variety of needs. These, various needs include fishing, irrigation and livestock use, and residential needs. All of these elements affect a waterway’s condition. In turn, it is these conditions which require improvements and protection.
Special Protection Waters:
Recreational activities such as fishing, swimming, and stream walking are commonplace in the Choconut Creek Watershed. Public accesses for boats and other aquatic vessels is not feasible on this unnavigable water, however occasional kayaks can be seen on the stream during bankfull events. While the stream its self is classified a WWF (Warm Water Fisheries) native populations of Brook and Brown trout can be seen in the Choconut Creek and many of its tributaries. There are no CWF (Cold Water Fisheries), HQ (High Quality) or EV (Exceptional Value) streams designated in this watershed. According to the Bureau of Water Quality Management, there are no reaches of stream in the watershed that have been categorized as degraded.
Table I Water Quality Analysis
__________________________________
Site 1. Confluence of Kellum Creek and Choconut Creek (July, 2001)
Dissolved Oxygen (Do) 7.20 mg/l
Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N) 0.02 mg/l
Nitrate Nitrogen (NO3-N) 0.22 mg/l
pH 8.2
Temperature 58 degrees F
Phosphorus Present (equipment is not accurate for
precise measurement)
Site 2. Stanely Lake Creek, behind elementary school (July, 2001)
Dissolved Oxygen (Do) 9.20 mg/l
Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N) 0.01 mg/l
Nitrate Nitrogen (NO3-N) 0.08 mg/l
pH 7.2
Temperature 54 degrees F
Phosphorus Present (equipment is not accurate for
precise measurement)
Site 3. Choconut Creek, behind township building (July, 2001)
Dissolved Oxygen (Do) 6.65 mg/l
Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N) 0.01 mg/l
Nitrate Nitrogen (NO3-N) 0.04 mg/l
pH 7.9
Temperature 64 degrees F
Phosphorus Present (equipment is not accurate for
precise measurement)
Table II. Biota (D-net sampling)
_______________________________________
Site 1. Choconut Creek, behind township building
|
Class: Order |
Family |
Tolerance level |
Quantity |
|
Insecta: Coleoptera |
Elmidae |
5 |
2 |
|
|
Psephenidae |
4 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diptera |
Tipulidae |
3 |
4 |
|
|
Chironomidae |
7 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ephemeroptera |
Baetidae |
5 |
20 |
|
|
Ephemerellidae |
2 |
16 |
|
|
Ephemeridae |
2 |
5 |
|
|
Heptageniidae |
3 |
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plecoptera |
Perlidae |
1 |
9 |
|
|
Perlodidae |
2 |
1 |
|
|
Nemouridae |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trichoptera |
Hydropsychidae |
4 |
2 |
|
|
Philopotamidae |
2 |
7 |
|
|
Limnephilidae |
3 |
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crustacea:Decapoda |
Crayfish |
6 |
36 |
|
Hirdinea |
leeches |
7 |
1 |
Site 2. Stanely Lake Tributary
|
Class: Order |
Family |
Tolerance level |
Quantity |
|
Insecta: Coleoptera |
Elmidae |
5 |
1 |
|
|
Psephenidae |
4 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diptera |
Tipulidae |
3 |
2 |
|
|
Chironomidae |
7 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ephemeroptera |
Baetidae |
5 |
12 |
|
|
Ephemerellidae |
2 |
6 |
|
|
Ephemeridae |
2 |
3 |
|
|
Heptageniidae |
3 |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plecoptera |
Perlidae |
1 |
4 |
|
|
Perlodidae |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Nemouridae |
2 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trichoptera |
Hydropsychidae |
4 |
2 |
|
|
Philopotamidae |
2 |
4 |
|
|
Limnephilidae |
3 |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crustacea:Decapoda |
Crayfish |
6 |
8 |
|
Hirdinea |
Leeches |
7 |
0 |
Metrics used to analyze macroinvertebrate data in the Choconut Creek Watershed
Taxonomic Richness – The total number of taxa in the sample.
EPT Index – Mayflies (Ephemeroptera), Stoneflies (Plecoptera), and caddisflies (Tricoptera) are collectively referred to as EPT. These aquatic insects are very sensitive to water pollution and are often used as indicators of good water quality. Thus, the EPT index indicates that the stream supports a healthy biological community due to a good water quality.
Sampling was performed using a 1-meter-square kick screen with size No.30 mesh. The kick screen was stretched across the current to collect organisms dislodged from riffle/run areas by physical agitation of the substrate. Two kick screen samples were collected from a representative riffle/run at each station. The samples were analyzed in the field using hand lenses.
It can be determined from the EPT Index that the overall condition of water quality in the Choconut Creek appears to be in good condition. Ten (10) EPT taxa were found, suggesting that these intolerant species are surviving and competing in this watershed.
PROBLEM AREAS
Soils:
Unlike previous watershed assessments, individual soil loss estimates were not conducted during the survey. Since the majority of the watershed soils are classified HEL (Highly Erodible Lands) it would wise to conduct future studies to determine actual tons of soil per acres lost or for educational purpose number of truckloads lost. Also, average nutrient levels should be tested and compared to PennState Agronomy Guide levels of optimum standards.
Livestock Management
Aside from daily spreading on already manure-laden fields, pasture management also appears to be a problem. In four cases, livestock have unlimited access to streams, where the direct discharge from animals and streambank erosion contribute to non-point pollution problems. In addition to livestock in the stream, pastures are oftentimes condensed, heavily downtrodden, manure-laden, and average 0 feet from the stream. These areas are contributing to non-point solution problems.
Roads and Culverts
During the field survey nearly all culverts along the state owned roads were causing significant bank erosion and channel formation, allowing for direct discharge into the streams. Others showed signs of significant sediment transport, which was captured by a functioning vegetated buffer. Improper ditch maintenance and construction showed evidence of excessive transport of water from one culvert or turn-off to the next, accompanied by road entrenchment.
Urban Sources of Pollution
The area under study is predominantly rural. The small communities, in many cases, have on-site septic systems; however, Lake Timberline has a sewage system for its camping residents. There have been no historical problems, documented in the watershed however proper maintenance practices should be followed.
Streambank Corridor
The lack of a fully functional three zone riparian buffer system along the Choconut Creek is clearly an issue for remediation. Agricultural practices have allowed animals to overgraze and trample the buffer zones, and human impacts on the residential areas have clearly degraded the vegetation potential. The lack of stream Corridor management education accompanied by mowing to the streams edge, placement of unstable materials on streambank, and past remediation efforts have left a significant scar throughout the watershed.
Streambank Erosion
Along the seven (7) miles of Choconut Creek numerous erosion sites, and gravel bar formation were documented. It is recommended that a prioritization of each site is conducted using any desired method, dependent on the goals of the proposed watershed plan, such as Rapid Bio Assessment Protocol, BEHI Indexing, etc.
As per Choconut Creek Watershed Association Request a site was selected for a Demonstration project. This site falls in the upper reach of the Choconut Creek approximately 3 miles from its source. The site is a 3000 feet reach 0.1 of a mile down stream from the Choconut Elementary School and bridge of Stanley Lake Road. This is initially classified as a C 3 stream using the Rosgen Classification. This site has gone through several evolutionary phases, predominantly human induced. This site will serve as a highly visible area, easily accessed for educational purposes. The site also serves as one of the major contributors to sediment pollution along the stream, and is causing significant flooding impacts. The habitat, both flora and fauna are severely impacted in this reach. Sedimentation, embeddedness, lack of riparian corridor, and overall stream condition has identified this site as severely impacted. By implementing various best management practices and performing a natural stream restoration on this reach of stream, it is believed that the remediation will significantly reduce the impacts downstream, reducing the overall shear stress of the Choconut Creek, while providing for an excellent educational tool. This site will benefit several stakeholders in the watershed, further identifying this site as a prime area for restoration. Future restoration work will stem off of this site allowing for the best watershed restoration approach.
STRATEGY TO REDUCE NON-POINT POLLUTION
A strategy to reduce non-point pollution in this watershed shall concentrate on soil conservation practices and prevention of excess runoff, while combining stream management restoration techniques. These practices will be coordinated in the form of Best Management Practices (BMP’s). Items such as streambank fencing, diversions, sensitive dirt and gravel roads maintenance, buffer enhancement, and natural stream restoration techniques shall be used to limit the excessive nutrients entering the waterway.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Education
In addition to public meetings, newspaper and television coverage, the Choconut Creek Watershed Association and the Susquehanna County Conservation District promotes and educated various conservation programs in the following ways:
Mailings: The District will periodically send mailings relative to various programs to its cooperators, especially targeting landowners in the designated watersheds. The mailings will be used to announce the sign-up periods and explain the purpose and benefits of the program. The District will also use its newsletter to provide information.
Meetings: The Choconut Creek Watershed Association in conjunction with the District Watershed Specialist will schedule public meetings, as it deems necessary to inform the general public. Both organizations will provide field days, tours and workshops. These workshops, in addition to mailing and meetings, will promote the various programs and encourage others to participate.
Person-to-Person Contact: At this time landowners with obvious problems have been contacted and encourage to sign-up for cost-sharing assistance. Furthermore, the District and the Watershed Association will make every effort to talk one-on-one with the watershed residents, listen to their concerns, help in the education process and get wider watershed involvement.
Technical Assistance
At this time various District staff, as well as state and federal agency personnel are available to help guide landowners in proper BMP implementation, and provide design services. Funding will be applied for through the Growing Greener program to perform a restoration demonstration project, as well as a complete watershed assessment.
SUGGESSTED PROCEDURES FOR WATERSHED
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Eight Rapid Steps for Local Watershed Planning
1: Establish a watershed baseline = clearly define you watershed area
2: Set up a watershed management structure
Ø Create watershed management institution
Ø Conduct at the subwatershed scale
Ø Commit to a continuous watershed management cycle
Ø Accurately measure and forecast land use
Ø Shit the location and density of future development
Ø Produce integrated resource map for subwatershed
Ø Devise specific criteria to guide subwatershed development
Ø Emphasize strategic resource-based monitoring
Ø Audit effectiveness of local watershed protection programs
Ø Incorporate of local watershed protection programs
Ø Actively engage stakeholders and include public early and often
Ø Promote intra- and inter-agency coordination, on a multiple watershed level
3: Determine budgetary resources available for watershed planning and implementation
4: Project future and land use changes in the watershed and each subwatershed
5: Determine goals for the watershed and its subwatersheds
6: Develop the watershed and subwatershed plans
7: Adopt and implement the watershed and subwatershed plans
8: Revisit and update the watershed and subwatershed plans
PROCESS FOR WATERSHED BASED ZONING
1: Comprehensive stream inventory
2: Verify impervious cover/stream quality relationships
3: Measure current levels of impervious cover
4: Project future levels of impervious cover
5: Designate subwatersheds, based on stream quality categories
6: Modify master plan/zoning to meet subwatershed impervious cover targets
7: Incorporate management priorities from larger watersheds/basins
8: Adopt specific stream protection strategies for each subwatershed
9: Long-term monitoring cycle to assess stream status
Remember to use the eight (8) tools of watershed protection in developing the Choconut Creek Watershed plan:
1: Land Use Planning
2: Land Conservation
3: Aquatic Buffers management
4: Bette site design and education
5: Practice better Erosion and Sedimentation Controls
6: Practice better stormwater treatment practices
7: Address non-stormwater discharges
8: Implement and apply the Watershed Stewardship programs
COMPLETED BMP’S AND FUNDING ACQUISITION SINCE JUNE 2001
1: 3000 feet of streambank fencing on D.W. Hayes property
2: 1200 feet of streambank fencing on Roger Doolittle property
3: Sign-up for streambank fencing on George Rolstin property
4: Dirt and Gravel project completed on Keeney Road
5: Growing Greener Grant totaling $217,000 for complete watershed assessment, and natural stream restoration of 3000 feet of Choconut Creek
6: Formation of a Northern Tier Coalition aimed at developing a comprehensive land use plan
7: Networking between several associated watershed associations.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND SUGGESTED REMEDIATION