Landstudies Inc.
315 North Street
Lititz, PA 17543
(717) 627-4440

mark@landstudies.com

Legacy Sediments

A Brief History

Most people blame current agricultural practices, sewerage treatment facilities, and development – strip malls, residential subdivisions, and paved roads and parking lots – for polluted waterways and unstable streams, but a greater portion of the problem, especially in the Chesapeake Bay region, goes back to the agricultural period of the 19th and early 20th centuries, when large-scale forest clearing and poor farming practices dumped millions of tons of soil into our local streams, valleys, and floodplains. Hundreds of mills and dams along Pennsylvania waterways caused water to slow down behind them and deposit additional tons of sediments. These sediments, deposited throughout our stream and river valleys within the past two centuries, are what we call “Legacy Sediments.”

Legacy sediments alter the geomorphology and hydrology of the valley bottom, producing an array of problems for the streams themselves and the communities through which they flow. Such problems include increased sediment yields, high nutrient contents, bank erosion, debris jams, habitat instability, and flash floods, all of which are common in the small streams of watersheds such as the Susquehanna, Schuylkill, and Delaware Basins. Many of these problems surfaced after the onset of urbanization.

By the mid 20th century, conservation farming practices slowed or stopped sedimentation in many streams in these watersheds. Urbanization in places like Lancaster County, where our Conestoga Watershed studies are being conducted, began in the 1950s, reaching a peak in the 1970s and 1980s, prior to the implementation of stormwater management policies. Stormwater runoff increased dramatically with urbanization according to models developed by Lancaster County Office of Engineering. Stream channels that had been aggrading (building up) for centuries began degrading (cutting down) – commensurate with increased runoff and removal of low-head, early American mill dams – and rapidly incising through thick stacks of legacy sediments, exposing peats, sands, and gravels of the submerged pre-settlement valley floors.

Once this pre-settlement floor is reached, the gravels erode easily and begin undercutting the banks of the slightly more cohesive, finer grained legacy sediments. Bank collapse and erosion now occur along at least 80 percent of the 1036 km of stream channels in the Conestoga watershed. We estimate that 10 percent of the sediment stored along valley floors since 1710 has been removed by channel incision and widening that closely resembles arroyo-cutting in the arid southwest (lateral bank erosion rates of >0.5 m/yr measured at multiple sites). The large volume of sediment trapped in the valley bottoms for several centuries has become a major source of suspended sediment load in local streams and in their downstream receiving water bodies during the past 35 years, and will remain so unless substantial remediation efforts are made. This same phenomenon of channel incision, channel bank erosion, and bank collapse is occurring throughout the Piedmont region of Pennsylvania and Maryland.

The deleterious impacts of legacy sediments on stream systems and their receiving waters are numerous and seriously affect groundwater recharge, flooding, water quality, aquatic environments, and native vegetation. Pre-historic floodplain areas that are naturally intended to store water are now filled with legacy sediments. Streambeds that are perched above their historical gravel levels interrupt the natural interplay between stream flow and groundwater recharge. Clays and sediments built up between the gravels and current, historically formed bank tops (often misnamed “floodplains”) prevent flows in the channel or on the surfaces of the legacy sediments from entering into the aquifer. Flow is directed, instead, into the channel and its downstream receiving waters.

The sediments now filling former groundwater recharge areas contribute to many of our current flooding problems. Individuals and entire communities grapple with frequent nuisance flooding, and often worse, because 1) less water is able to enter the aquifer as groundwater recharge, and instead is added to stream flow, and 2) legacy sediments have now filled the former floodplains, which used to serve as a storage area for water. As a result, many millions of acre-feet of storage space for groundwater have been filled and lost in watersheds.

Gravels that once served as channel beds still convey groundwater. Because modern streams are perched above the gravels upon which they once flowed, the streams no longer receive the flow of cold groundwater they once did, but rely mostly on warm runoff. The groundwater still flows along the gravels below the existing streambed. A stream that is detached from its historic gravels and base flow has impaired aquatic resources.

Old floodplains hold pre-settlement, 17th century seed-beds, which can re-germinate under the proper conditions. Today’s stream and floodplain degradation and erosion remove the historical seedbed and replace suitable, usually native, floodplain and riparian buffer vegetation with opportunistic, often invasive and unwanted species. This same erosive process removes or destroys historical and archeological evidence that also resides in the historic floodplain.

Floodplains and stream banks that typically should be 15 to 24 inches (0.3 to 0.6 m) high are, because of legacy sediments, three to 20 feet (1 to 6 m) higher than the historical floodplain. The result is bank erosion during all storm events and long-term effects on fish and other aquatic life due to increased turbidity that persists from beginning to end of precipitation events.

The legacy sediments stored along streams and the abnormally high stream banks contain massive amounts of phosphorus, which is released during channel erosion. Additionally, artificially high banks separate plant root zones from the nitrogen in groundwater. Thus, instead of nitrogen being taken up by plants, groundwater flowing through the sediments transports the nitrates, along with phosphates, into streams.

The Realities of Stream Restoration

Many stream “restoration” efforts in the Piedmont region show limited success because the effects of legacy sediments are not considered. In order to restore a stream, we must first understand what the stream looked like before settlement and land-clearing. Most streams will never be restored to their pre-settlement state, but we argue that any remediation effort must “connect” a stream to it’s pre-settlement valley floor, otherwise the stream will remain out of equilibrium, and will continue to incise downward and erode laterally. In essence, the banks of most streams in the Piedmont are determined not by what is required to carry prevailing loads of water and sediment, but rather by the heights of hundreds of centuries-old mill dams that were built to utilize water power throughout the region. In other words, the current channel geometries (bank height and channel width) are merely historical artifacts, and are of little value in estimates of true channel size.

Post-settlement, historic land-use impacts on watersheds must be taken into account in any stream restoration effort. In the Pennsylvania Piedmont, most streams are perched above their historic bed elevations, and restoration of various reaches of the watershed must be completed in a specific order if the restoration is to be effective. For example, if a downstream reach is perched above the historic bed elevation, the reach immediately upstream should not be restored until the downstream reach is corrected to its historic base elevation. It is fundamentally necessary, then, to identify which reaches have streambeds that are too high and which are at the historic bed elevation. Other typical problems include existing dams or culverts/utility crossings that prevent the streams from reaching the historic bed elevations. Stream restoration is very difficult to complete with long-term stability if the stream is perched above the historic elevation, regardless of efforts to stabilize stream banks. Another important factor in doing long-term restoration is to restore stream systems that are producing and transporting large bed material that should not be transported. The restored reaches are only going to be able to transport the natural bed load and not the large material carried under degraded conditions.

The Potential Outcomes

Through our research and implementation, we hope to demonstrate the multiple benefits and applications of stream restoration both locally and regionally in an urbanizing environment. The restoration techniques that will be employed are being considered as a Stormwater BMP in the proposed DEP Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. Our restoration projects will demonstrate the effectiveness of floodplain restoration at the sub-watershed scale and, through evaluation and quantification of sediment and nutrient reductions and inputs at the sub-watershed scale, provide empirical data to compare with existing Chesapeake Bay models for sediment sources from upstream corridors.

Quantification of the interface of ground and surface waters on restored floodplains can be evaluated for its potential use as a BMP related to NPDES II permitting, which could provide a no-cost implementation to meet Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy goals. At the county level, an elucidation of water quality benefits and groundwater recharge function can serve as an ACT 167 BMPs pilot project.

Our belief is that flooding and bank erosion will not be exacerbated because of urbanization or development along streams restored in this manner, because we predict that floodplains that have been reconnected to their historic levels will be capable of handling increased flows. Water quality and pollutant loads may require stormwater management prior to entering the stream system.

Given the range of benefits and potential applications throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed on both a local and regional basis, the opportunity looms strong for township engineers and developers to approve this approach in the land development process to fulfill, at least in part, BMP requirements for stormwater management and NPDES II regulatory requirements. This, in turn, would allow a larger, more consistent stream of funding from the private sector to contribute to the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay and all its contributing waters.

Finally, the outcomes of this project hold the potential to contribute to Pennsylvania’s recently implemented nutrient pollution trading program, furthering the goals for regional, market-based trading.

Our Goal

Our goal is to develop effective restoration protocols to restore floodplain and stream systems impacted by legacy sediments throughout Piedmont watersheds in the Susquehanna, Delaware, and Schuylkill River systems. This restoration will include (1) understanding the characteristics of the floodplain and channel prior to settlement, (2) assessing impacts on the landscape during the agricultural period and current land-use conditions, (3) incorporating all functions and values to the restored system similar to the historical functions and then (4) monitoring stream channel qualities after the restoration to see what impacts any changes in land use in the watershed will have on the restored channel. The restoration sites will be available to restoration researchers and practitioners as a demonstration project that illustrates a variety of benefits to reconnecting a stream to its original pre-settlement channel and floodplain.