Section

ID

Bridge

Count

Confluence

Count

Culvert

Count

Dam

Count

Manhole

Count

Outfall

Count

PipeSewer

Count

Channel

Count

Other

Count

Total

Infra

Point

Count

Combined

Outfall

Area (ft2)

PPSR01 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 5 177

PPSR02 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

PPSR03a 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 13

PPSR03b 1 0 0 0 1 8 1 1 0 12 154

PPSR04 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 5 0

TOTAL 2 2 0 1 3 12 3 2 1 26 343

SANDYFORD RUN INFRASTRUCTURE SUMMARY

Infrastructure ID: PPout01 Outfall Infrastructure ID: Upstream Channel Channel

Condition Material Flow Flow appearance Dimension LocationGood Concrete Steady Gray 12 ft MID

Infrastructure ID: Ppbri09 Bridge Infrastructure ID: PPdam22 Dam

Condition Material Height Location Length Width Condition Material Bank Location Diameter LengthGood Stone 20 ft Ryan Avenue Bridge spans stream 15 ft Fair Concrete MID US of PP confluence 60 in 30 ft

Pennypack Creek Stream Assessment Study: Sandyford Run Subwatershed Christina E. Catanese, Masters of Science in Applied Geosciences, May 2010

Primary Reader: Rick Howley, Philadelphia Water Department, Office of Watersheds

Secondary Reader: Sally Willig, Department of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania

References: 1) Kitchell, Anne and Schueler, Tom. 2005. Unified Stream Assessment: A User’s Manual. Urban Subwatershed Manual No. 10, Version 2.0. Center for Watershed Protection. 2) Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado. 3) Wolman, M.G., 1954, A method of sampling coarse river-bed material: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (EOS), v. 35.

Sandyford Run’s drainage area includes some of the most densely populated and developed areas of the entire Pennypack Creek watershed. This has predictably resulted in severe modification of the stream’s hydrologic regime that is typical of many urban watersheds. Stormwater systems efficiently route runoff from impervious surfaces into storm sewers which eventually discharge into urban streams. The flows in Sandyford Run and many other urban streams are therefore extremely flashy, with very little flow in dry weather and extremely high flows in wet weather when the storm sewers are filled. Pollution is also a concern since the sanitary and storm water systems are combined in older cities like Philadelphia. No water quality tests were conducted in this survey, but debris (ranging in size from toilet paper to shopping carts) and algae were observed throughout the stream. The impacts of these discharges was observed in every aspect of this study. As predicted, the stream is very overwidened and shows severe erosion. Natural riffle-pool sequences and stable habitat were virtually absent. Much of the infrastructure exacerbates these impacts, with many outfalls that contribute flow and deep scour pools due to high velocity flows through channelized portions. Sandyford Run would be an excellent candidate for stream restoration that includes stormwater mitigation strategies to detain and infiltrate the large volumes of flow.

Urban streams are uniquely vulnerable to a variety of stressors on their physical, chemical, and biological attributes. Despite the severity of these impairments, many watersheds lack comprehensive background data on the physical conditions in the stream corridor and surrounding terrestrial areas. The Pennypack Creek Watershed Assessment Report projects of the Philadelphia Water Department seek to rectify this knowledge gap with an analysis and summary of the physical conditions of subwatersheds in the Pennypack watershed that runs through Montgomery, Bucks, and Philadelphia Counties. Strategic planning and coordination throughout the watershed is made more possible through the evaluation of individual reaches in smaller subwatersheds, with the ultimate goal of improving water quality, enhancing aquatic and terrestrial habitat, managing riparian zones, and stabilizing stream banks in targeted reaches as well as across the watershed. This MSAG project design focused on Sandyford Run, a tributary of the Pennypack Creek. The fluvial geomorphology of the stream was comprehensively evaluated, with a survey of stream cross sections (evaluating channel habitat, morphology, and disturbance), calculation of the bankfull elevation and discharge, pebble count, bank profiling, and a trackdown of the infrastructure located in and around the stream channel.

FLUVIAL GEOMORPHOLOGY ASSESSMENT

•5 representative cross-sections were surveyed (PPSR01, 02, 03a, 03b, and 04). PPSR02 and 04 were last surveyed in 2005, and 3 new cross sections were established for this study.

•A total station was used to record readings from the downstream left bank across the channel to the downstream right bank in each cross section.

•A longitudinal profile survey was also conducted to determine the slope along the entire stream.

•Readings were taken at all significant channel features, such as thalweg, edge of water, top of bank, bankfull indicators, and floodplain.

•Wolman pebble counts were also performed. •Hydraulic calculations were made for each cross

section using this data (see PPSR01 at right). •Reaches were classified using the Rosgen

method. 3 reaches were F4, one E3 and one B4.

•The infrastructure trackdown was conducted by walking the entire length of the stream and taking note of the infrastructure encountered, hydraulic impacts, and condition. Photos were also taken of each point.

•Data was collected on outfalls, bridges, manholes, culverts, pipes, dams, and channels.

•An abundance of infrastructure was found (see map). •There is a 12 foot stormwater outfall and a channelized

portion in the beginning of the stream. Eleven smaller outfalls were also found along with a dam and 3 pipes.

•Ryan Avenue Bridge also crosses the stream.

•The USAM is a technique that is used to rapidly characterize the physical conditions of an urban stream channel, identify problem areas, and pinpoint opportunities for restoration.

•Parameters include habitat quality, riparian condition, floodplain function, and the potential for anthropogenic factors to impact conditions.

•Each cross-section was evaluated with the Overall Stream Conditions form.

•The mean overall USAM score was 83/160, a score at the low end of the suboptimal range.

•On average, buffer and floodplain conditions (due to a wide riparian buffer) were suboptimal while stream channels (subject to erosion and poor instream habitat) were marginal.

TYSON

ALG

ON

RHAWN

COTTMAN

OX

FO

RD

LOR

ETTO

BU

ST

LE

TO

N

CAS

TO

R

LEVICK

KNORR

PENNYPAC

K

RYA

N

MAGEE

VER

REE

NAPFLE

UNRUH

SOLLY

PIN

E

FR

ON

TEN

AC

FRANKFORD

LONEY

LONGSHORE

WH

ITAK

ER

DEVEREAUX

CRISPIN

SAINT VINCENT

TABO

R

KERPER

ROWLAND

SU

MM

ER

DA

LE

LEON

SA

CK

ETT

COTTAGE

FAUNCE

WELS

H

WALKER

HAW

TH

OR

NE

DU

NG

AN

ERDRICK

PRINCETON

PE

NN

WAY

KIN

DR

ED

MO

NTO

UR

ROBBINS

HO

RR

OC

KS

BLEIGH

HA

RB

ISO

N

STANWOOD

HELLERMAN

LYN

FO

RD

GLENDALE

GRIFFITH

RO

CK

WE

LL

HOFFNAGLE

RIPLEY

RU

TLA

ND

BR

OU

S

HOLME

DISSTON

FE

RN

DALE

DITM

ANGILLESPIE

LE

XIN

GTO

N

SO

UD

ER

RAWLE

LEO

NAR

D

KR

EW

STO

WN

BIN

GH

AM

BRIDGE

SHELMIRE

REV

ER

E

GUILFORD

BENNER

JACKSON

LIS

TE

R

CLA

RID

GE

HA

SB

RO

OK

GLENLOCH

RO

OSEVELT

BENSON

LAW

ND

ALE

STRAHLE

EV

ER

ET

T

BERGEN

MARSDEN

PE

NN

AFTON

JEAN

ES

VAN KIRK

BE

YE

R

SANGER

COMLY

VANDIKE

OAKLE

Y

WIN

CH

ES

TE

R

BORBECK

PRATT

EASY

ALGARD

HALE

DO

RC

AS

BATTER

SB

Y

BRIGHTON

RYER

S

CHELTENHAM

GREEBY

MC KINLEY

CHARLES

TU

DO

R

CALVERT

FOX CHASE

PENNY

TORRESDALE

HALS

TE

AD

ALD

INE

FRIENDSHIP

HARTEL

CEN

TR

AL

EMERSON

ELG

IN

LOR

ING

ENGLEWOOD

WELLINGTON

GRANT

NESPER

ELB

ER

ON

BE

NT

ON

MONTAGUE

OLD

BU

STLE

TO

N

BE

LDE

N

FAIR

FIE

LD

WA

TS

ON

AK

RO

N

AN

ITA

SH

ISLE

R

MIR

IAM

TULIPHEGERMAN

EDMUND

JAM

ISO

N

STEVENS

OA

KM

ON

T

BU

RH

OLM

E

BA

RN

ES

DALE

PALM

ETTO

OAKLA

ND

NE

ST

ER

BROCKLEHURST

ARNOLD

TREMO

NT

AG

USTA

MOWER

SANDYFORD

CARVER

BICKLEY

ELBRIDGE

GLENVIEW

ALT

ON

WINDISH

LA

RG

E

ALI

CIA

CH

IPP

EN

DA

LE

ALM

A

VISTA

BR

IER

ERNEST

CHANDLER

SH

EFFIE

LD

NEIL

BAN

ES

KENDRICK

BRILL

SAU

L

TO

LB

UT

ROSALIE

HOWER

WELLS

FULLER

LOR

NA

RIS

ING

SU

N

GO

OD

NA

W

PLACID

DANFORTH

MATH

ER

RU

PER

T

HO

FF

EVARTS

EASTW

OO

D

MEGARGEE

GILHAM

SH

ELB

OR

NE

LAN

GD

ON

STO

NEY

RIC

HAR

D

BR

AD

FO

RD

RID

GEW

AY

GRANITE

HA

RG

RAV

E

LANSING

ARTHUR

LARDNER

FOX RUN

HAN

FO

RD

RO

SE P

ETA

L

ALCOTT

EN

OL

A

STIRLING

BA

RN

AR

D

TU

STIN

GREGG

CRESTON

HEN

NIG

SYLV

IA

HOWELL

PASSMORE

ANCHOR

FANSHAWE

BR

IDLE

TEESDALE

DALTON

TR

OTTE

RC

ON

AR

D

CARWITHAN

ELM

HU

RS

T

COLIMA

SY

LVES

TE

R

TACKAWANNA

LIN

DA

BENSON

SOLLY

HA

RT

EL

HARTEL

DISSTON

RIS

ING

SU

N

MC KINLEY

BATTER

SB

Y

TEESD

ALE

BIN

GH

AM

REVER

E

BENSON

GLENVIEW

STANWOOD

SHELMIRE

ERDRICK

SA

UL

SOLLY

ALGARD

JEAN

ES

VAN KIRK

ARTHUR

FANSHAWE

LARDNER

CHARLES

BR

OU

S

AK

RO

N

ELBRIDGE

SHELMIRE

FANSHAWE

BORBECK

HELLERMAN

MAGEE

BR

AD

FO

RD

VISTA

CALV

ERT

VISTA

RY

ER

S

DO

RC

AS

WALKER

BLEIGH

RE

VE

RE

ALDINE

FRIENDSHIP

HOLME

TABO

R

CALV

ER

T

LEO

NAR

D

BIN

GH

AM

AFTON

LONEY

DISSTON

OAKMONT

CA

LV

ER

T

HARTEL

GRIFFITH

FANSHAWE

ALM

A

FR

ON

TEN

AC

BENNER

BE

LDE

N

AK

RO

N

SHELMIRE

BU

RH

OLM

E

FER

ND

ALE

BLE

IGH

BR

OU

S

JACKSON

RIPLEY

STANWOOD

PLACID

EA

STW

OO

D

DO

RC

AS

HO

RR

OC

KS

BRIGHTON

RIS

ING

SU

N

BR

IDLE

REV

ER

E

BR

AD

FO

RD

KN

OR

R

AFTONVISTA

ENGLEWOOD

ROBBINS

SAINT VINCENT

BR

OU

S

BRIGHTON

ALD

INE

TUDOR

CHANDLER

EMERSON

REVER

E

LAN

GD

ON

REVER

E

MONTAGUE

HOWELL

CRESTON

HALE

UNRUH

FRIENDSHIP

REV

ER

E

TOLBUT

LONEY

OA

KLA

ND

CAS

TO

R

SY

LVES

TE

R

SH

ISLE

R

TU

DO

R

RID

GEW

AY

FULLER

GLENVIEW

STANWOOD

TABO

R

GILHAM

HARTEL

FAIR

FIE

LD

STRAHLE

ALM

A

BENNER

GLENVIEW

TREMONT

BE

NTO

N

BORBECK

BRIGHTON

LAN

GD

ON

TUSTIN

FRIENDSHIP

BLEIGH

ARTHUR WIN

CH

ES

TE

R

SU

MM

ER

DA

LE

CALV

ER

T

PRINCETON

ARNOLD

GRIFFITH

HALSTEAD

LEO

NAR

D

HOFFNAGLE

LANSING

RU

TLA

ND

PRINCETON

ALI

CIA

LIS

TE

R

LONGSHORE

FAUNCE

DISSTON

LIS

TE

R

ROSALIE

EMERSON

ALGARD

LAR

GE

MO

NTO

UR

ALCOTT

0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000750Feet

.

Legend

Sandyford Run Land Use

Agriculture

Cemetary *

Commercial/Services

Community Service

Manufacturing

Military

Multi-Family Residential

Recreation

Single-Family Residential (detached)

Transportation

Utility

Water

Wooded

INFRASTRUCTURE TRACKDOWN

Results for Sandyford Run USAM Components

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PPSR01 PPSR02 PPSR03a PPSR03b PPSR04

Site

US

AM

Sc

ore

Stream Total Buffer/FP Total

Optimal

Sub-Optimal

Marginal

Poor

METHODS AND RESULTS INTRODUCTION

CONCLUSIONS

KEY out of 20 out of 10

Optimal 16-20 9-10

Suboptimal 11-15 6-8

Marginal 6-10 3-5

Poor 0-5 0-2

Reach IDIn-Stream

Habitat

Floodplain

Connection

Floodplain

Vegetation

Floodplain

Habitat

Floodplain

Encroachment

Stream

Total

Buffer/FP

Total

Overall

Total

(0-20) Left Right Left Right (0-20) Left Right (0-20) (0-20) (0-20) (0-80) (0-80) (0-160)

PPSR01 11 7 4 6 5 1 9 9 14 6 5 34 43 77

PPSR02 15 9 9 7 7 2 10 9 14 10 15 49 58 107

PPSR03a 10 9 6 8 4 20 10 1 11 5 8 57 35 92

PPSR03b 6 4 6 2 4 8 10 10 13 7 8 30 48 78

PPSR04 5 3 3 1 1 1 10 10 13 7 7 14 47 61

mean 9.4 6.4 5.6 4.8 4.2 6.4 9.8 7.8 13 7 8.6 36.8 46.2 83

OVERALL STREAM CONDITION OVERALL BUFFER AND FLOODPLAIN CONDITION

Vegetative

Protection

Bank

Erosion

Vegatated

Buffer Width

UNIFIED STREAM ASSESSMENT METHOD (USAM)

Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type

D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock

17.326 35.85 50.9 122 180 0% 6% 57% 36% 1% 0%

2.44 Drainage Area (mi2) 0.043 Manning's n

F4 Stream Type 0.608 Slope (%)

Fair Bankfull Indicator Quality 3.5 Velocity (ft/sec)

232.7 Discharge rate, Q (cfs)

0.56 Shear Stress (lbs/ft sq)

0.54 Shear velocity (ft/sec)

66.48 Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 1.50 Dmean (ft) 1.999 Unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)

44.18 Width (ft) 44.65 Wetted perimeter (ft) 0.3 Froude number

1.90 Dmax (ft) 1.49 R (ft) 6.5 Friction factor u/u*

3.79 Bank Height (ft) 29.36 Width/Depth ratio 35.1 Threshold grain size (mm)

50.40 Width of flood prone area (ft) 1.14 Entrenchment Ratio

HydraulicsCharacterization

Dimension

PPSR01

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650

Width from River Left to Right (ft)

Ele

va

tion

(ft)

^^

^

^

^^

^

^

^

^^̂

^

^

^^

^

!C!O!D!O

!O

!O!C

!O!O

!O

!O !O

!M

!M

!M

!P

!B

!O !P

!O

!B

!P

!O

!O

PPSR01PPSR02

PPSR04

PPSR03a

PPSR03b

RY

AN

LEXINGTON

BROUS

LISTER

SANDYFORD

BROCKLEHURST

CA

RN

WA

TH

REVER

E

RO

OS

EV

EL

T

PE

NN

YP

AC

K

BATTERSBY

FA

IRF

IEL

D

VIS

TA

NESPER

GU

ILFO

RD

BROUS

REVERE

.

Sandyford Infrastructure

!B Bridge

!C Confluence

!© Culvert

!D Dam

!M Manhole

!O Other

!O Outfall

!P PipeSewer

^ Cross Sections

Sandyford Hydrology

Channelized

Not Channelized

Sandyford Run Subwatershed0 260 520 780 1,040130

Feet