Soapstone Watershed Quarry Gladwyne

WATERSHED ASSESSMENT FOR
SOAPSTONE WATERSHED
Gladwyne
Lower Merion Township
Montgomery County, PA
Prepared For:
75 East Lancaster Avenue

Ardmore, PA 19003-2323
Prepared By:
Office of the Township Engineer

Pennoni Associates Inc.
One Drexel Plaza
3001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
(215) 222 3000
September 28, 2012
Scott A. Brown, PE
LOWM093814
PENNSYLVANIA PE 042215R
Table of Contents
SECTION
PAGE
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1
2.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 2

2.1. WATERSHED DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 3
2.2. HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE WATERSHED ............................................................... 3
2.3. SOILS .................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.4. GEOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 4
3.
FACTORS INFLUENCING ACCELLERATED CHANNEL EROSION ....................... 4

3.1. RAINFALL ......................................................................................................................................... 4
3.2. WATERSHED PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................... 5
3.3. SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO FACTORS INFLUENCING EROSION ................ 7
4.
FIELD ASSESMENT AND STRATEGIES FOR EROSION MITIGATION ................. 7

4.1. PIPED SECTION SCHUYLKILL EXPRESSWAY TO 200 RIVER ROAD ................................. 8
4.1.1. EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................8
4.1.2. SUGGESTED MITIGATION ACTIONS ....................................................................................9
4.2. 1600 MONK ROAD AND 1619, 1621, AND 1624 WINSTON ROAD ............................................. 11
4.2.1. EXISTING CONDITIONS ..........................................................................................................11
4.2.2. EROSION MITIGATION APPROACH ....................................................................................11
4.2.3. ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST FOR EROSION MITIGATION ..................................12
4.3. 1600 SOAPSTONE ROAD ................................................................................................................ 12
4.4. 1450 SOAPSTONE ROAD ................................................................................................................ 13
4.5. 1434 SOAPSTONE ROAD ................................................................................................................ 15

4.6. 1435 ABBEY LANE .......................................................................................................................... 16
4.7. 1418 MONK ROAD .......................................................................................................................... 17
4.8. 1410 AND 1400 MONK ROAD ......................................................................................................... 17
4.9. DRAINAGE AT THE INTERSECTION OF MONK ROAD AND ABBEY LANE ....................... 18
5.
COST SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 18
6.
GRANT AND OTHER FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES ...................................................... 19
7.
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 20
8.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS ................................................................. 21
ii
Figures
FIGURE 1 Location Map
FIGURE 2 Soapstone Watershed Aerial with Contours
FIGURE 3 Historic Aerial Photographs of the Soapstone Watershed
FIGURE 4 Soil Survey of the Soapstone Watershed
FIGURE 5 Daily Rainfall in Philadelphia 1948 through January 2012
Appendices
APPENDIX A KEY MAP AND PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX B EXHIBITS ILLUSTRATING RESTORATION APPROACHES
iii
Lower Merion Township, PA
Soapstone Watershed Assessment
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study is to identify the probable cause of observed accelerated erosion within the
watershed, and to develop mitigation strategies or approaches to control erosion and the resulting
deposition of sediment and debris. Order of magnitude cost estimates for the proposed erosion mitigation
strategies and potential funding sources (Grant programs, etc.) for projects of this nature are identified.
Factors influencing accelerated erosion within the watershed are the erodible nature of local soils, the
increase in frequency and magnitude or rainfall and runoff over the past 13 years, and development
activities within the watershed prior to the enactment of stormwater ordinances. The dominant factor is
the significant increase in rainfall frequency and magnitude over the past 13 years.
This assessment has identified stream restoration strategies that can be applied within the watershed. In
the eastern or lower portions of the watershed, strategies included the use of a sediment/debris basin near
the Schuylkill Expressway, toe stabilization using local materials, bank grading, and construction of
floodplain benches. In the upper or western portions of the watershed, the dominant strategy is to use
bank grading and the creation of vegetated floodplain benches to stabilize the channel. Bank armoring at
a bend, installation of cross vane drop structures, and other energy dissipation strategies are also used to
address localized problem areas.
Conceptual design level order of magnitude estimates of probable cost for mitigation measures have been
developed and are summarized as follows:
Upper Watershed
$ 350,000
Lower Watershed
Alternative 1a - Erosion Mitigation
Alternative 1b - Sediment/Debris Trap Alternative
i. Access from Schuylkill Expressway
ii. Access from Soapstone Road
Alternative 2 Conveyance Improvements
Schuylkill Expressway to River
$ 415,000
$ 370,000
$ 460,000
$ 455,000
Grant and other funding opportunities applicable to the watershed restoration and erosion mitigation
identified include:
Schuylkill River Restoration Fund

Emergency Watershed Protection Assistance Program
Growing Greener Program
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundations Five Star Restoration Program
William Penn Foundation
PennVEST
Urban Waters Small Grants Program
US Army Corps of Engineers Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control Program
In addition, key stakeholders including PennDOT, Norfolk Southern Corporation, and the Township will
need to play a role in project funding. Affected property owners will also need to participate.
1
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The purpose of this investigation was to identify the cause or causes of the stream instability and erosion
occurring along the Soapstone Watershed stream valley and to develop schematic design options to
restore the stream valley to a more stable condition. In addition, order of magnitude cost estimates have
been developed for the recommended stream stabilization measures along with potential sources of
funding.
The Soapstone watershed is located in the north eastern portion of Lower Merion Township as illustrated
in Figure 1. The watershed is generally bounded by the Schuylkill River to the east, Monk Road to the
south, Youngsford Road to the west, and Waverly Road to the north. The watershed gets its name from a
historic soapstone quarry, the remnants of which are located near the middle of the watershed. The
stream within this watershed is an unnamed tributary to the Schuylkill River. Photographs taken
throughout the stream valley are provided in Appendix A.
On August 1, 2004 a localized high intensity, short duration storm caused flooding and severe erosion
along the stream corridor, above the Schuylkill Expressway. With erodible soils and steep slopes, a large
volume of stony sediment and debris was washed downstream, partially clogging the Schuylkill
Expressway culvert and clogging the culverts under the Norfolk Southern railroad and River Road. As a
result of the culvert clogging stormwater overflowed the railroad, eroding its embankment and cascading
onto River Road. Along with the embankment debris, sediment and debris were forced through the
Expressway and railroad culverts and onto River Road creating a five foot tall debris pile (see Photograph
1 in Appendix A). In addition to this initial event, similar events occurred in April 2005 and August 2009,
and on a number of other occasions.
In addition, it has been reported that erosion and sedimentation in the upper watershed has resulted in
significant sediment deposition in the pond located at 1450 Soapstone Road. If this pond were to be
completely filled or damaged, sediment from upstream would be transported to downstream waterway
segments and ultimately to River Road aggravating the situation there.
The erosion and sedimentation problems in the watershed have resulted in significant costs to the
Township and its residents. It is reported that river road clean-up after these events costs the township
approximately $4,000 per event. The cost in flood damage repair to residents along river road and
throughout the watershed is estimated to be significantly greater. In addition these events pose a
significant threat to public safety, rail and vehicular traffic, and emergency vehicle access in the vicinity
of River Road. Erosion of this railroad bed could result in a derailment on this active freight line not
only causing damage to the railroad and River Road but to residents and the environment. The Schuylkill
River is a source of drinking water for the City of Philadelphia, which could be contaminated in a spillage
from derailed freight car.
The objective of this watershed assessment is to identify mitigative actions that will reduce the erosion
and resulting sediment and debris transport within the watershed, to reduce the resulting public safety risk
and financial impacts to the property owners, PennDOT, Norfolk Southern Corporation, and the
Township.
The approach to this study involved extensive field observations, assessments, and review of historic data
and events. Field investigations were used to evaluate site-specific erosion issues along the stream
2
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
corridor. These issues are keyed to the eight (8) individual properties which the stream traverses. The
outcome of this study is a set of recommendations to mitigate the observed erosion and debris transport in
the watershed.
2.1. WATERSHED DESCRIPTION
The Soapstone Watershed encompasses 176-acres in the north eastern portion of Lower Merion
Township (See Figure 1). As illustrated in Figure 2, the current land use within the watershed is
mostly large lot (2 acres or greater) suburban residential. The stream draining the watershed begins as
an ephemeral (intermittent) channel at a storm sewer pipe discharge at Abbey Lane. This discharge
pipe collects runoff from watershed areas upstream of Abbey lane and from a portion of Monk Road.
From the stormwater outlet the channel flows through residential yards. The stream gains perennial
flow from a spring located on or near 1438 and 1439 Abby Lane. The perennial flow continues into a
pond located on the property at 1450 Soapstone Road. From the pond outfall the stream continues
across 1600 Soapstone Road and then through a steep undeveloped ravine on 1600 Monk Road.
Flow within the stream remains perennial and gains water from two additional springs along its lower
reach. Just upstream of the Schuylkill Expressway, the stream enters a 6 foot by 4 foot concrete
culvert which conveys the discharge under the Expressway. Just downstream of the Expressway the
discharge enters a 36 inch diameter culvert under the Norfolk Southern Corporations Harrisburg
Line, and then under River Road and across 200 River Road in a second 36 diameter culvert after
which discharges into the Schuylkill River.
2.2. HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE WATERSHED
Historic aerial photographs from 1942, 1958, 1971, and 2010, and information from the Lower
Merion Historical Society was evaluated to determine the development sequence within the
Soapstone watershed. The aerial photographs reviewed are illustrated in Figure 3.
In the early 20th Century the majority of the watershed was occupied by the Soapstone Farm, Waverly
Farm, and the Shipley School Farm. In 1948 there were approximately 10 homes in the watershed
(see Figure 3). By 1958, one and two acre lots had been subdivided along the edges of the farmland
and the number of residences had increased to approximately 38. By 1971 the total number of homes
in the watershed had increased to approximately 60. Today, there are approximately 62 residences in
the watershed. In addition, since 1971 a number of homes in the watershed have been replaced or
enlarged, and surface amenities have been added (pools, tennis courts, enlarged driveways, etc.).
2.3. SOILS
The majority of the watershed is covered by the Glenville and Manor soil series (Figure 4). The
Glenville silt loam series is located in the central portion of the watershed in the stream valley.
These soils are common in drainage ways. The soils have a moderate saturated hydraulic
conductivity and are typically well drained. The upper 3 feet of a typical soil profile has a silt loam
texture. Below 3 feet the soil is a massive channery loam. Mottles are common at 1 foot depth,
suggesting some seasonal saturation. This soil series can have a fragipan at 15 to 30 inches. The
importance of fragipans is that they restrict the vertical movement of water migrating through the soil.
The depth to bedrock in Glenville soils is generally 5 feet or greater.
3
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
The soils in the stream valley below the pond are in the Manor very stony silt loam. This soil is deep
and highly erodible. A typical Manor soil profile has a sandy loam texture that extends through an A
and Bw horizon to a depth of approximately 2 feet. Below the Bw horizon are a series of C horizons
with increasing sand content. Depth to bedrock in the Manor series is typically at 6 feet or greater
and channery rock fragments are commonly 20 to 50% of the soil profile. These soils do not
typically have a seasonal high water table as they drain rapidly.
Closer to the Schuylkill River, soils within the stream corridor are classified as Stony Land. The
Montgomery County Soil Survey (1967) classifies the Stony Land soils in association with other
series, in the case of this location, with Manor soils. The distinction between the stony land
association and Manor soils is that the soils are generally shallower. The surface runoff and internal
drainage of Stony Land is rapid. These soils are not suitable for development or agriculture. The Soil
Survey recommends that these soils be used for watershed protection or recreational purposes.
Keeping these soils planted with trees and shrubs will minimize erosion.
The soils in the upper parts of the watershed are in the also mapped as being in the Manor soil series.
Compared to the Manor soils mapped in the stream corridor, the Manor soils in the upper parts of the
watershed are less stony.
2.4. GEOLOGY
The digital geology map of Pennsylvania produced by the Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources maps two geological formations within the Soapstone watershed. The central portion of
the watershed, corresponding to the stream corridor is mapped as being ultramafic (dark igneous
rock). The upper portions of the watershed are mapped as being in the Wissahickon Formation which
consists primarily of schist, gneiss and quartzite.
3. FACTORS INFLUENCING ACCELLERATED CHANNEL EROSION
Erosion within a watershed is dependent upon rainfall amounts and physical characteristics such as soils,
geology, land slope, and land cover conditions (surface characteristics). Physical characteristics within
the watershed are important because they define how much storm runoff is generated by a particular
amount or rainfall.
3.1. RAINFALL
Regional rainfall data was evaluated for trends that might be influencing observed erosion within the
watershed. Daily data for a 64 year period was available from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration for a station at the Philadelphia Airport. This data is plotted in Figure 5. It is noted
that the time scale in Figure 5 coupled with the line width representing individual rain events
obscures days with no rain. However this plotting technique permits clearer representation of the less
frequent, larger rain events.
A significant visual observation from Figure 4 is the large number of daily rain events greater than 2
inches that occurred during the period from 1999 through 2011. The following comparisons and
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
observations are made from the data for this period as they relate to the entire data set from 1948
through 2011:
Of the 32 daily rainfall events greater than 3 inches, 13 occurred during the last 13 years;
Of the 12 daily rainfall events greater than 4 inches , 7 occurred during the last 13 years;
Of the 5 daily rainfall events greater than 5 inches, 3 occurred during the last 13 years;
The single largest daily rainfall event, 6.6 inches, occurred in September of 1999.
While the data from the rainfall reporting station at the Philadelphia Airport provides good daily and
annual trend analysis, localized high intensity storms of short duration occurring in suburban areas
like Lower Merion Township may not be reflected in the data. For example, On August 1, 2004 a
high intensity storm dropping over 6 inches of rain in 90 minutes occurred locally causing heavy
flooding and damage in the Township. This localized storm was not reflected in the data recorded by
the Airport rain gage which reported 1.7 inches for that date. It is noted that some researchers believe
that the heat island affect in the vicinity of large cities influences local weather patterns by deflecting
higher intensity storms to the surrounding suburbs. Therefore, during wet years, Lower Merion
Township may receive more frequent higher intensity rain events than are recorded at the airport.
Erosion is a natural process in all watersheds. It is also known that natural erosional processes
accelerate or increase during flow events equal to or greater than about the 1-year frequency runoff
event. The PennDOT Drainage Manual reports that the 1-year frequency 24-hour rain event for the
area is about 2.6 inches. As illustrated in Figure 5, the rainfall data for the region document that there
has been a larger than normal number of rainfall events equal to or greater than 2.6 inches per day
during the period from 1999 through 2011. It would be expected that this recent significant increase
in the frequency of large rainfall events would produce an equally significant increase in erosion
within the watershed.
3.2. WATERSHED PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Watershed physical characteristics include soils, geology, land slope, and cover condition. Cover
condition characterizes the land surface as it relates to runoff generation. Typical classifications
include imperious areas (building roofs, pavement and other hardscape that typically sheds most
runoff), lawn, meadow, forest, etc. These later classifications represent different pervious surface
conditions. Land slope is important because water will run off of steeper slopes faster than it runs off
mild slopes. It is also noted that changes to any of the items described above will result in a change
in the rainfall-runoff relationship within the watershed.
The permeability of the soil and underlying geology also influence runoff generation. As described
above, soils within the watershed are well drained and are made up of silts, sands, and stony/rocky
material. Once exposed, these materials are highly erodible. Therefore, runoff events that might only
cause minor erosion in soils with higher clay content can cause significantly more erosion here.
As described previously and illustrated in Figure 2, prior to 1942 there was very little development
within the watershed and the cover conditions were primarily meadow and forest lands with some
agricultural development in the western portions of the watershed. Under these conditions, most of
5
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
the annual rainfall in upper portions of the watershed would have infiltrated into surface soils. This is
why there is no evidence of a surface channel in the upper and middle watershed in the 1942
photograph in Figure 2.
It is noted that even in the watersheds relatively undeveloped condition in 1942, there would have
been erosion occurring in the watershed during larger rainfall events. This is particularly true in the
lower portions of the watershed due to the steepness of the valley slope and the susceptibility of the
local soils to erosion. The existence of the valley itself is the strongest evidence of past erosion.
As the watershed developed through the 1950s and 1960s, additional impervious area was added to
the watershed as a result of road improvements and the development of residential properties (roofs,
driveways, etc.). It is estimated that the impervious area in the watershed increased, from less than 1
percent pre-1942 to approximately 10% in 1971.
In addition to the increase in impervious area, some drainage patterns in the watershed were altered as
a result of the development of roads and driveways. For example road construction and
improvements during this period along Abby Lane and Monk Road resulted in interception and
concentration of runoff from upslope areas that previously discharged in a dispersed fashion. This
concentrated runoff is discharged through the culvert under Abbey Lane. The development of
roadside ditches along Soapstone Road has also contributed to the concentration of runoff tributary to
the stream channel.
The impact of the development activities in the 1950s and 1960s was to increase the frequency and
magnitude of runoff reaching the stream corridor. The natural response to this increase in runoff
would be an acceleration of naturally occurring erosion within the watershed.
As indicated previously, from the early 1970s to today there has been some additional development
within the watershed. A few new homes have been built, and a number of homes have been replaced
or enlarged, and amenities such as tennis courts and pools have been added. This additional
development is estimated to have created less than 3 percent additional impervious area within the
watershed.
Stormwater and erosion controls were implemented through new Township Ordinances and codes
regulating development of the land beginning in the mid 1970s. Therefore, runoff from development
activities since the mid 1970s has been controlled through the installation of seepage beds or other
on-lot stormwater controls.
A field review of the on-lot stormwater controls constructed after implementation of Township
stormwater regulations was conducted to determine if they were constructed in conformance with the
approved design. Although most were found to be in conformance, several were in need of
maintenance. The township is in the process of notifying affected property owners regarding the
necessary maintenance items. In addition, one property was found to be out of compliance with
township regulations. This property owner has been contacted about correcting this situation. It has
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
been determined that none of the maintenance or compliance issues identified have had measurable
impact on erosion or storm runoff in the watershed.
In the discussion above, impervious area is used as the measure of development impacting the
quantity of runoff. It is noted that site grading and other construction activities which compact
natural soils also have an impact on runoff rates and volumes. However, the re-establishment of
vegetation on these surfaces causes the resultant increase in runoff to be much less significant than
the impact from impervious surfaces.
3.3. SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO FACTORS INFLUENCING EROSION
As mentioned previously, erosion is a natural process in all watersheds and these natural erosional
processes accelerate or increase during flow events equal to or greater than about the 1-year
frequency runoff event. The 1-year runoff event corresponds with a 24 hour rain event of a little
more than 2 inches. As discussed above, the rainfall data for the region demonstrates that there has
been a significant increase in rainfall events over about 2 inches per day during the period from 1999
through 2011.
As discussed above, development in the watershed before implementation of stormwater controls
resulted in an estimated 10% increase of impervious surface area in the watershed. However, runoff
from most of this impervious area is tributary to pervious landscape (lawns and other open space)
where some of the runoff can be absorbed. Therefore the increase in runoff is less pronounced than in
cases where the runoff from impervious surfaces is piped directly to watercourses. It is
acknowledged that the runoff from a small portion of Monk Road and Abby Lane is directly
connected to the waterway by storm drains and roadside drainage swales.
While development activities in the watershed may have resulted in a minor increase in runoff, no
evidence was uncovered during this study that would suggest that the imperviousness associated with
development in the watershed caused erosion comparable to what has been evidenced in recent years.
It is concluded then, that the increased frequency of large rainfall events and associated runoff during
the past 13 years, has been the primary contributor to the acceleration of natural erosion observed in
the watershed.
4. FIELD ASSESMENT AND STRATEGIES FOR EROSION MITIGATION
As discussed above, the stream channel through the watershed begins as an ephemeral channel, just
downstream of a storm sewer pipe discharge east of Abbey Lane. From this point, the channel crosses 10
properties before reaching the culverts under the Schuylkill Expressway, Norfolk Southern Railroad lines,
River Road, and the Lot at 200 River Road. The stream channel conveyance culverts were field viewed
and evaluated to assess site-specific capacity and channel erosion characteristics, and to identify
recommended restoration techniques to mitigate the observed erosion, flooding, and debris deposition
issues. In the following sections, the evaluation and recommendations are keyed to eight (8) individual
properties and the piped section from the expressway to the Schuylkill River. The analysis is presented
beginning with the piped section continuing upstream through each referenced property to Abby Lane.
For property locations in relation to the stream channel, refer to Figure 1. For each stream reach,
7
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
conveyance and erosion characteristics are presented followed by a description of the recommended
mitigation measures. Conceptual design level order of magnitude estimates of probable cost are also
presented.
4.1. PIPED SECTION SCHUYLKILL EXPRESSWAY TO 200 RIVER ROAD
The piped section represents the downstream limit of the study reach and includes the piped
conveyance systems under the Schuylkill Expressway, Norfolk Southern Corporation railroad rightof-way, River Road, and the side yard of 200 River Road.
4.1.1. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing condition for this reach is illustrated in Exhibit 12 (Appendix B) and consists of a 4
foot by 6 foot box culvert under the Schuylkill Expressway, a 48 inch circular reinforced concrete
pipe (RCP) under the Norfolk Southern Corporation railroad, and a 36 inch oval pipe under River
Road and through the property at 200 River Road. Photo a on Exhibit 12 illustrates the Township
Junction Box along the west side of River Road. Photo b and c illustrate the junction
configuration between the PennDOT culvert under the Schuylkill Expressway and the inlet to the
culvert under the Norfolk Southern Corporation railroad.
Discharges from the culvert under the Schuylkill Expressway are controlled by a 9 by 20 low
flow opening at the bottom of the box, and a grate covering its top. The inlet end of the 48 inch
RCP under the railroad right-of-way is screened with a vertical mesh screen and a horizontal
steel grate (See Photo c on Exhibit 12.). It is noted that the mesh or wire screen was installed to
replace a vertical steel screen (similar to the top grate) sometime after November 2011 after the
Township requested that the steel screen be removed. This request was in response to
information received from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection that flow
and debris restrictions such as this were a violation of State Code.
The discharge end of the culvert under the railroad connects to the culvert under River Road via a
Township installed junction box. When this junction box was initially constructed, a vertical
steel grate was installed at its outlet side to trap debris and facilitate maintenance of the pipe
under river road. This grate was removed in November of 2011 when the Township became
aware that the obstruction caused by the grate was a violation of State Code.
Both the discharge configuration of the PennDOT culvert and the inflow configuration of the
railroad culvert, as well as the grate in the junction box along River Road restricted flow and
debris movement through the system. In addition, the fact that the culvert under the railroad is
smaller than the box culvert under the Expressway causes an additional restriction of flow at this
junction. The restriction of flow and debris movement caused by the described conveyance
elements has contributed to past flooding and erosion/debris deposition on and along River Road.
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
4.1.2. SUGGESTED MITIGATION ACTIONS

Mitigation actions to reduce the risk of flooding, erosion, and debris deposition in the vicinity of
River Road would involve trapping or otherwise removing the sediment and debris load
(Alternative 1) and/or improving the conveyance capacity of the piped discharge system
(Alternative 2). Alternatives for removing or reducing the transported sediment and debris load
include stabilizing the upstream stream reach (Alternative 1a) or constructing a sediment/debris
trap just upstream of the Expressway (Alternative 1b). Alternative 1a, stabilizing the upstream
channel is considered in Section 4.2 below.
4.1.2.1.
ALTERNATIVE 1B - SEDIMENT/DEBRIS TRAP
This alternative involves the construction of a debris trap upstream of the Schuylkill
Expressway. During large storm events eroded material from the watershed is transported
into and through the culvert system as described previously. Some of this material is
deposited in the various pipe segments and at the junction of the pipe segments partially or
fully blocking the portions of the pipes causing flood waters and debris to flow out the top of
the discharge box at the downstream end of the expressway culvert and the junction box at
River Road, and flood across the railroad tracks causing flooding, erosion, and significant
debris deposition. The result has been property damage and economic loss, as well as a
significant safety hazards for rail traffic.
One alternative to reduce or eliminate clogging of these culverts would be to construct a
sediment and debris trap just upstream of the Expressway to capture transported sediment and
debris before it enters the system. This alternative, investigated by the Township in
2010/2011, involves construction of a riser pipe on the upstream end of the PennDOT culvert
under the Expressway and excavation of debris basin immediately upstream (See Exhibit 11
in Appendix B). In addition, an access road and staging area for maintenance of the debris
basin would need to be constructed.
Construction of the access road will be the most significant challenge for this alternative.
There are two options for providing access to the area adjacent to the Expressway
embankment. The first is to construct the access road from the Expressway (with locked and
controlled access). The second would be to construct the access from Soapstone Road. Both
options pose challenges but warrant further investigation.
A concept level order of magnitude estimate of probable cost for both access alternatives are
provided below. It is noted that these costs reflect initial construction and do not include cost
associated with maintenance and operation.
Access from Schuylkill Expressway
Access from Soapstone Road
$ 370,000
$ 460,000
LOWM093814
4.1.2.2.
September 28, 2012
ALTERNATIVE 2 - CONVEYANCE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Actions that would improve flow and sediment/debris movement through the culvert system
include:
a. Construction of a more efficient transition between the PennDOT culvert and the
culvert under the Norfolk Southern railroad. This would involve some or all of the
following items:
Completely remove the wire screen and grate at the upstream end of the 48
inch culvert under the railroad right-of way and replace it with a structural
headwall with wingwalls;
enlarging the opening in the side of the PennDOT culvert outlet box; or
improving the flow transition between the PennDOT box culvert and the
Norfolk Southern culvert through installation of a junction box joining these
culverts.
b. Installation of a larger pipe under the Norfolk Southern railroad.
c. Installation of a larger pipe under River Road and across the property at 200 River
Road.
d. Removing the pipe under the property at 200 River Road and replacing it with an
open drainage channel.
As indicated above, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has indicated
that any screen or conveyance element which might hinder free flow of water and transported
sediment and debris through the piped conveyance system is a violation of State Code.
Therefore, the wire screen at the upstream end of the culvert under the railroad grade should
be removed immediately by Norfolk Southern Corporation. In addition, State Code also
requires that clear conveyance be maintained through closed conveyance systems constructed
to carry waters of the Commonwealth. Therefore, PennDOT, Norfolk Southern, and the
Township have an obligation to inspect and if necessary clean any debris deposited in the
subject culverts following all significant flow events.
An order of magnitude estimate of probable cost for the construction of the conveyance
elements identified above is as follows:
Improved transition structure PennDOT
to Norfolk Southern Corporation culverts
Install larger pipe under Norfolk Southern
Corporation railroad
Install larger pipe/drain under River Road and
replace pipe across 200 River Road with
an open channel
Total
85,000
$ 250,000
$ 120,000 *
$ 455,000
* Previously designed, permitted and bid by Township. Fee is average bid amount 15%
inspection/oversight + plus 10% contingency
10
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
4.2. 1600 MONK ROAD AND 1619, 1621, AND 1624 WINSTON ROAD
These properties are located just upstream of the Schuylkill Expressway and just downstream of 1600
Soapstone Road. It includes the portion of the channel which flows through 1600 Monk Road and
also a small section of channel that flows through 1621 and 1619 Winston Road. The lot at 1624
Winston Road is included as its southern property line is immediately adjacent to the stream channel.
This section of the stream valley is steep and the channel is deeply incised. As indicated in
Photographs 4 and 5, the stream banks are steep cut, near vertical and incised 8 to 15 feet. In
many locations the stream banks, composed of erodible soils and stony material, are exposed and
susceptible to erosion as a result of past erosion. A significant number of large trees have been
undermined by the erosion and many have fallen across the stream channel. The valley sides are
steep with 25% to 50% slopes. Though the stream flow is tranquil on sunny days, the erosive and
forceful nature of rainy day flows are evidenced by the loose boulders, rocks, and debris along the
channel length (Photograph 5). In many locations the stream has eroded to the underlying platy
bedrock (Photograph 6). The stream reach through 1600 Monk Road discharges to the culvert
under the Schuylkill Expressway. As shown in Photograph 3, the channel area just upstream of
the Expressway functions as a sediment and debris trap. A significant volume of sediment,
stones, large rocks, downed trees and branches, and other debris have accumulated in this area.
4.2.2. EROSION MITIGATION APPROACH
The inaccessibility of this reach, coupled with the deeply incised nature of the channel are
significant challenges to stabilizing this reach. Access can be achieved via Soapstone Road, or
from the Schuylkill Expressway. It is acknowledged that gaining the permissions necessary to
access this reach via the Expressway will be challenging since it is a Federally regulated limited
access highway. Therefore, access from Soapstone Road has been assumed.
The recommended mitigation approach for stabilizing actively eroding portions of this reach is
illustrated in Appendix B, Exhibits 1 and 2. The approach involves stabilizing the toe (bottom) of
the stream bank, and, where possible, grading the bank to create a small floodplain bench
immediately adjacent to the channel. When used, the floodplain bench would be created on one
side or both sides of the channel depending on site specific field conditions. Where conditions
would permit, the floodplain bench would be vegetated with woody or brushy vegetation to help
reduce the velocity of flood flows and overall erosion potential.
To the extent possible, toe armoring would be accomplished by repurposing existing site
materials. In areas where trees have toppled over, it is proposed that the upper trunks and/or root
wads be used to armor the toe and lower portions of eroding banks as scour protection. In other
locations, large rocks could be harvested and used for armoring. Stream restoration techniques
will not be applied along the entire length of this reach, but rather they will be applied only in
areas exhibiting active erosion or other areas deemed to be vulnerable to lateral erosion.
11
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
The steepness of the watershed and erosive power of flood flows coupled with the highly erodible
nature of the soils in this reach imposes a degree of uncertainty relative to the success of any
erosion mitigation strategy. In addition, the erosion mitigation approach suggested will in and of
itself result in short term disturbance which could result in an increased susceptibility to erosion.
Access for equipment will require grading activities and removal of trees and other existing
vegetation, and vegetation planted as part of the erosion mitigation strategy, will require time to
become established. Also, there are no homes or other infrastructure that would be threatened by
erosion in this reach. For these reasons, consideration of an alternative approach is warranted.
Normally the construction of a sediment/debris basin is just upstream of the Expressway. This
alternative is presented in Section 4.1.4 below.
4.2.3. ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST FOR EROSION MITIGATION
The cost of implementing the erosion mitigation approach suggested in the previous section is
influenced by the limited site access for equipment and ruggedness of the terrain. The order of
magnitude estimate of probable cost to implement the described erosion mitigation measures
described is $270,000. This estimated cost is based on the following assumptions:
Stabilization of approximately 700 LF of stream using the restoration methods described;

Access is via Soapstone Road;
Soapstone Road will require significant restoration as a result of damage from
construction traffic.
4.3. 1600 SOAPSTONE ROAD

This property is located just upstream of 1600 Monk Road at the end of Soapstone Road.
4.3.1.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Approximately two-thirds of the stream reach through this property is deeply incised similar to
the conditions described for the upper portions of the stream reach through 1600 Monk Road.
However, as the stream flows through the home site near the center of the property, the stream
banks fall away as though they may have been cut to provide a more suitable building site.
Photographs 7 through 11 illustrate the stream condition in the vicinity of the home site.
Although steeply cut, the stream banks here are relatively shallow (0.5 to 3 feet). A portion of the
home spans the stream (Photograph 7), and the yard area upstream of the addition has been
terraced forming a stepped floodplain area (Photograph 8). The stream banks are steep cut,
evidencing past erosion. An erosion control blanket installed to stabilize the stream banks and
adjacent lawn area is exposed at the cut banks where it has been undermined. The channel
consists of stony material and rocks.
Downstream of the turfgrass area, the stream enters the deep forested valley and is geometrically
similar to that described above for the property at 1600 Monk Road. In this section, the cut
stream banks are steep cut with bank heights up to about 5 feet. Within this lower portion of 1600
Soapstone Road, some channel segments appear stable and some are heavily eroded.
12
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
Upstream of the home site, the stream banks are continuously exposed, evidencing past erosion
activity (Photograph 10). Cut banks in this area range from about 5 feet, to more than 10 feet in
height, west of the barn. The channel becomes very deeply incised at the western edge or the
property.
In the forested sections of the stream reach upstream and downstream of the house site,
restoration techniques similar to those described for 1600 Monk road would be appropriate. The
approach is illustrated in Exhibit 4, in Appendix B. To mitigate the erosion within the stream
segment crossing the home site, armoring the stream banks with riprap or some other material is
the suggested restoration technique. This technique is illustrated in Exhibit 3. Due to the
proximity of the house, any installed bank armor will require inspection following each storm and
prompt maintenance, as needed, between storms. The Township was recently notified that the
damages on this property are eligible and have been selected for funding through the US
Department of Agricultures (USDA) emergency watershed protection program (see Section 6 for
a description of this program). Mitigation measures have been designed by PA DEP for USDA.
The Township is assisting as the sponsor and contracting agency will full reimbursement of the
construction costs.
The order of magnitude estimate of probable cost to implement the described erosion mitigation
measures in the upstream and downstream incised channel areas on this property is $ 68,000. The
riprap bank protection proposed for the center portion of the property is being funded through a
USDA grant and, therefore is not included. The estimated cost is based on the following
assumptions:
Stabilization of approximately 100 LF of the stream valley downstream of the house site
using techniques as described for the stream segment through 1600 Monk Road.
Stabilization of approximately 200 LF of stream valley upstream of the house site using
techniques described above.

This property sits at the transition from the steeply sloped stream channel in the lower portion of the
watershed and the more mildly sloping upper channel reaches. Remnants of the former soapstone
quarry are visible near the center of the property and the quarry pond occupies a large portion of the
site (Photograph 13).
The stream on this property consists of a previously stabilized steeply sloped pond outlet channel
(See photograph on Exhibit 5, Appendix B), a mildly sloping pond inflow channel, and the in-line
pond in the middle. There is also a short section of steeply incised channel just downstream of
13
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
the pond outlet channel (refer to the photograph on Exhibit 4 in Appendix B) extending into the
property at 1600 Soapstone Road.
The steeply sloped pond outlet channel was previously stabilized by the property owner and a
gabion basket retaining wall topped with a segmented block retaining wall, was also installed
along the north side of the channel (Photograph 12 and Exhibit 5 in Appendix B). As illustrated
in Exhibit 5, there is active erosion at the downstream end of the stabilized outlet channel. This
erosion is a result of the abrupt flow transition between the outfall channel and the natural stream
channel below.
The pond on this property is in-line with the stream. Therefore, any sediment transported from
upstream areas as a result of natural or accelerated erosion is captured in the pond. There is
evidence of deposited sediment at the point where the upstream channel enters the pond (See
Photo 14). The pond serves as a sediment trap for all material eroded and transported from the
upstream stream segments. It this pond were to fill it would no longer prevent the movement of
this material to downstream reaches and ultimately to River Road.
The short stream segment on the property just upstream of the pond has steep cut 3 to 4 foot near
vertical channel bank slopes as illustrated in Figure 14 and the top left photo in Exhibit 6. Small
stony alluvial deposits along this reach provide evidence of sediment transport through the reach.
Photograph 14 illustrates an exposed pipe located in this section of the stream which indicates
that there has been historic erosion within the reach that resulted in a general lowering of the
channel bed.
As indicted above, the property owner has already made a substantial investment in stabilizing
the pond outlet channel. However, where the stabilized channel and adjacent gabion retaining
wall end, there is an area of significant scour. A photograph documenting the scour in this area
and a cross section documenting the mitigation approach are illustrated in Appendix B Exhibit 5.
The mitigation approach involves the construction of a large rock energy dissipater apron
extending for an appropriate length into the milder downstream channel.
The cut stream banks in the segment of channel upstream of the pond should be stabilized the
bank toe and installation of an adjacent floodplain bench as illustrated in Exhibit 6 for the
downstream channel segment on 1434 Soapstone Road.
measures described is $77,000. This estimated cost is based on the following assumptions:
Installation of an energy dissipation apron downstream of the stabilized pond outlet

channel;
Stabilization of approximately 100 LF of stream channel upstream of the pond using
techniques as illustrated in Appendix B, Exhibit 6.
14
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012

The property at 1434 Soapstone is the geometric center of the watershed. Perennial stream flow
begins here as a result of spring flows from 1449 and 1439 Abby Lane. Upstream of this property the
streamflow is ephemeral/ intermittent.
There are three distinctly unique stream segments on this property. The downstream segment
flows parallel to the properties driveway in a linear fashion and then curves sharply to the north,
near the north eastern corner of the house. Photographs 15 through 21 illustrate channel
conditions in this reach. The channel is moderately to deeply incised in this reach with cut banks
ranging from 3 to 6 feet high. The deepest channel cut is near the sharp bend just mentioned.
The linear stream channel in the lower portion of this reach is located approximately 5 to 12 feet
from the driveway. The pipe illustrated in Photograph 15 is approximately 1.5 feet above the
bottom of the stream channel. This provides evidence that the stream has eroded vertically over
time.
The center channel section, which flows mostly along the northern property line, appears stable as
illustrated in Photographs 22 and 23. Along this portion of the channel the property owner
graded the streambanks to create a gentle connection with the floodplain in a fashion similar to
the mitigation measures illustrated in Appendix B Exhibit 6.
Upstream of the stable channel reach (near the darn and property boundary with 1435 Abbey
Lane) there is an area that exhibits significant erosion at and just downstream of an 8 foot vertical
headcut (sudden drop in stream elevation). This headcut section is currently being stabilized by
the roots of large trees that extend across the channel from both sides. Immediately downstream
of the headcut the channel is approximately 10 feet deep (Photograph 27). Just upstream of the
headcut the channel depth is less than 2 feet deep with gently sloping stable banks as illustrated in
Photograph 29.
Restoration options are presented for the downstream channel reach and headcut area.
The restoration option for the downstream channel reach is illustrated in Appendix B Exhibit 6.
The solution consists of grading the bank to a more stable angle and constructing a vegetated
floodplain bench on one or both sides of the channel depending on specific site conditions. In
areas where there isnt adequate room to lay the bank back to a stable slope, the toe of the slope
should be armored using stone/riprap or other means such as logs or root wads.
Additional stabilization will be required at the sharp bend, near the north east corner of the house.
At this location, an earth retention system or similar technique should be used to stabilize the
outside of the bend. A vegetated floodplain bench on the north and east of the channel should also
be extended through this bend. This mitigation approach is illustrated in Appendix B Exhibit 7.
15
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
The recommended solution for mitigation of erosion at that headcut is illustrated in Appendix B
Exhibit 8. The solution includes installation of eight cross vane drop structures spaces 15 feet
apart. In addition, the channel banks should be laid back and stabilized with grass or other
vegetation.
measures is $122,000. This estimated cost is based on the following assumptions:
Installation of 375 LF of stream restoration using techniques in Appendix B Exhibit 6.

Installation of rock filled gabion bank protection as illustrated in Appendix B Exhibit 7.
Construction of 8 cross vane stabilization structures illustrated in Appendix B Exhibit 8.
4.6. 1435 ABBEY LANE

Photographs 30 through 32 illustrate channel characteristics on the property at 1435 Abbey Road.
Natural erosion on this property has created an eroded stream channel with an average width of
about 2.5 feet and an average depth of about 2 feet. This channel appears to be generally stable
although some erosion probably does occur during high flows.
A sizable scour hole exists just downstream of the upstream property line (Photograph 32). This
scour hole has been formed in response to energy dissipation as flow transitions from the rock
lined channel on the upstream property to the natural condition on this property.
Improving the channels erosion resistance would involve minor grading along the existing
channel to improve floodplain connectivity and create a broader distribution of flow across the
property during high flows. Exhibit 9 in Appendix B illustrates this concept.
In addition, some form of energy dissipation should be implemented at the upstream property line
to eliminate the accelerated erosion at that location. This could be accommodated on this
property or on 1418 Monk Road.
measures described is $108,000. This estimated cost is based on the following assumptions:
Stream restoration for 400 LF using techniques in Appendix B Exhibit 9.

Installation of a rock apron/energy dissipater at the upstream property line.
16
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
4.7. 1418 MONK ROAD

As shown in Photograph 33, the stream corridor at 1418 Monk Road is entirely lined with rock. At
this time, no restoration is proposed at this location.
However as discussed previously, a scour hole has formed at the point where the stream discharges
from the 1418 Monk Road property to the property at 1435 Abbey Road. The alternative to installing
an energy dissipation apron at 1435 Abbey Road would be to install a stilling basin or other form of
energy dissipation on this property.
4.8. 1410 AND 1400 MONK ROAD
Since the channel section and observed erosion are similar on the properties at both 1410 and
1400 Monk Road, these properties will be considered together.
Existing channel conditions on these properties are illustrated in Photographs 34, 35, and 37. The
channel through both of these properties is cut through very erodible soils. Stream banks are near
vertical with an average height of approximately four feet. The top of bank width within this
reach varies from about 5 feet to 15 feet. Large section of undermined turfgrass can be observed
on these properties (Photograph 34). Photograph 37 illustrates the beginnings of the defined
stream channel just downstream of the culvert under Abbey Lane. As time progresses, this
headcut will continue to advance until it reaches the culvert outfall. Photograph 38 illustrates
flow entering the culvert on the upstream side of Abbey Lane. This culvert also carries flows
from the inlets on Monk Road at its intersection with Abbey Lane (photographs 39 and 40).
The preferred mitigation approach across these properties would be to grade the streambank to a
more appropriate slope and create vegetated floodplain benches where possible and appropriate.
It is acknowledged that the large trees along the stream will make creation of a continuous
floodplain bench difficult. Bank Toe armor should also be installed in locations were active bank
undermining is occurring. These mitigation techniques are illustrated in Appendix B Exhibit 10.
measures described is $120,000. This cost is about evenly split between the two properties. This
estimated cost is based on the following assumptions:
Stream restoration for 600 LF using techniques in Appendix B, Exhibit 10.
17
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
4.9. DRAINAGE AT THE INTERSECTION OF MONK ROAD AND ABBEY LANE

Drainage conditions at the intersection of Monk Rod and Abbey Lane are illustrated in Photographs
39 and 40. The water illustrated in the photographs is runoff from a curbed portion of Monk Road
extending both east and west of Abbey Lane. As illustrated in Photograph 39, some of the runoff
tributary to this location runs down the west side of Abbey Lane (see also Photograph 38)
contributing to erosion adjacent to this private driveway. This condition could be mitigated by
modifying the driveway apron/roadway transition to create a positive flow line to the inlet. It is
suggested that the Township Public Works Department work with the land owner to facilitate this
modification.
5. COST SUMMARY
Costs associated with mitigation strategies were presented in the last section for each property the stream
channel traverses across. Costs are summarized below as they relate to erosion and depositional
processes in the upper and lower watershed. The upper watershed includes all properties upstream of the
pond at 1450 Soapstone Road, and the lower watershed is everything to the east of the pond. The pond
traps all sediment generated from the upper watershed. The lower watershed is the source of the sediment
and debris that gets transported to the culverts under the Schuylkill Expressway, Norfolk Southern
Railroad, and River Road.
Upper Watershed
$ 350,000
Lower Watershed
Alternative 1a - Erosion Mitigation
Alternative 1b - Sediment/Debris Trap Alternative
i. Access from Schuylkill Expressway
ii. Access from Soapstone Road
Alternative 2 Conveyance Improvements
Schuylkill Expressway to River
$ 415,000
$ 370,000
$ 460,000
$ 455,000
It is noted that the lower watershed alternatives are intended as either/or alternatives. Also, alternative 1a
represents an estimate of the cost to stabilize the channel in the lower watershed and includes costs
presented for mitigation of erosion from 1600 Soapstone Road to the Expressway. There are also
additional costs associated with operation and maintenance of the sediment/debris trap that were not
considered here.
As identified in Section 4.2.2, the steepness of the watershed and erosive power of flood flows coupled
with the highly erodible nature of the soils in the lower reach imposes a degree of uncertainty relative to
the success of any erosion mitigation strategy. In addition, the need to cut access roads and disturb
additional land within this highly erodible portion of the watershed makes this an undesirable alternative.
For these reasons, Alternative 1a is considered the least preferred alternative for mitigation of sediment
and debris transport from this portion of the watershed.
It is further noted that in addition to construction costs, all cost estimates presented in this report include
an estimate of permitting and engineering fees.
18
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
6. GRANT AND OTHER FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

Grant and other funding opportunities applicable to watershed restoration and erosion mitigation within
the Soapstone Watershed are described below:
Schuylkill River Restoration Fund: The Schuylkill River National and State Heritage Area was
designated by the United States Congress as an area where historic and recreational resources come
together to define a distinctive landscape. The Heritage Area is managed by the Schuylkill River
Greenway Association. In cooperation with Exelon Nuclear and the Philadelphia Water Department, the
Heritage Area administers the Schuylkill River Restoration Fund. Available to non-profit organizations
and municipal governments, the grant finances projects that mitigate water quality problems resulting
from acid mine drainage, agricultural runoff, and stormwater issues. Grant applications are by invitation
after a Letter of Interest is submitted and reviewed. A letter of interest was submitted for this watershed
but an invitation has not been extended at the time of this writing. Grant allocations range from $25,000
and $100,000 and a 25% match is required.
Emergency Watershed Protection Assistance Program: The United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program in cooperation with Pennsylvania Emergency
Management Association is currently offering technical and financial assistance to stabilize streams that
became damaged following the hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. To qualify for this funding the
unstable stream reach must be within 50 feet of improved property. The program stabilizes streams by
armoring the stream with rock. One property owner in the Soapstone Watershed has qualified for
funding under this program.
Growing Greener Program: The Growing Greener Program began in 1999. One of the programs
missions is to restore and protect Pennsylvanias rivers and streams. To fulfill this mission, Growing
Green offers Watershed Protection Grants. Projects that improve waters quality of impaired watersheds
polluted by urban runoff qualify for funding under this program. At this time, Growing Greener is not
accepting applications. In 2011 the program accepted applications in August. The next round of
applications for Growing Greener Funding is expected after the 2012-2013 budget is approved.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundations Five Star Restoration Program: This program provides
competitive funding for community-based restoration project. The program is focused on both restoration
and community partnerships. The average grant award is $25,000. A one-to-one in-kind match of goods
and services is required to qualify for this program. Grant applicants must address how their project
achieves on-the-ground restoration, environmental education, and measurable results. The applicant
must also demonstrate that the project will engage multiple partners within a community. The program is
not accepting applications at this time, but is expected to reopen in 2012.
William Penn Foundation: The William fund Foundation funds programs that protect, conserve and
restore water resources in the Philadelphia region. The Foundation prioritizes funding to projects that
promote policies and practices that facilitate green infrastructure approaches to stormwater management.
The first step in applying for a grant from the Foundation is to submit a letter of inquiry to the
Foundation. The letter should address how the project meets the objective of the Foundation. If the
Foundation considers the letter of inquiry favorably, the applicant will be invited to submit a full
application.
19
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
PennVEST: The Pennsylvania Infrastructure and Investment Authority (PennVEST) provides low
interest loans to finance design, engineering, and construction for municipal stormwater projects through
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The interest rates range from 1 to 4%. Examples of stormwater
projects that PennVest has financed in the past include infiltration system, swales, and tree plantings.
Penn Vest Board meetings are currently scheduled for May 16, 2012 and August 22, 2012.
Urban Waters Small Grants Program: The Urban Waters Small Grants Program is administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency. It finances projects that contribute to improved water quality and
community revitalization. Funded projects must demonstrate community-led efforts that promote
economic, environmental, and social benefits. Local watershed planning, water quality monitoring, and
public education are examples of projects funded in the past. The 2012 application deadline was January
23, 2012. It is expected that applications for 2013 will also be accepted in January.
US Army Corps of Engineers Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control Program: The Snagging and
Clearing for Flood Control program is administered by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Through
this program the ACOE designs and constructs projects that provide flood control. Removal of snags and
debris in a waterway in the interest of flood control is the focus of this program. The maximum funding
amount is $500,000. The project sponsor is required to contribute a minimum of 5% of the project cost
in cash. Obtaining this funding requires the applicant to request the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct
a planning and design analysis (PDA) study. If the study concludes that the project is acceptable from an
engineering feasibility, environmental acceptability, or economic basis, it will be funded.
Other Sources of Funding: Key project stakeholders will also need to play a role in project funding.
This includes PennDOT, Norfolk Southern Corporation, the Township, and affected property owners.
Both PennDOT and Norfolk Southern Corporation have operations, maintenance, and safety
responsibilities related to the erosion and sediment/debris transport issues in the eastern end of the
watershed. Therefore, they should participate as responsible partners in helping to fund erosion
mitigation projects in the eastern end of the watershed.
7. SUMMARY
This watershed assessment has identified the probable causes of observed accelerated erosion within the
watershed, and has advanced mitigation strategies, or approaches to control the erosion, or manage
erosion and the resulting deposition of sediment and debris. Preliminary order of magnitude cost
estimates for the proposed erosion mitigation strategies were also developed. In addition, research was
conducted to identify grant and other funding sources available for projects of this nature.
The two factors influencing accelerated erosion within the watershed are the increase in frequency and
magnitude or rainfall and runoff over the past 13 years, and development activities within the watershed
prior to the enactment of stormwater ordinances. The dominant factor responsible for the recently
observed accelerated erosion is the significant increase in rainfall frequency and magnitude over the past
13 years.
Identified stream restoration strategies were also identified. In the eastern or lower portions of the
watershed strategies included use of a sediment/debris basin near the Schuylkill Expressway, toe
stabilization using local materials, bank grading, and construction of floodplain benches. In the upper or
western portions of the watershed the dominant strategy is to use bank grading and the creation of
20
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
vegetated floodplain benches to stabilize the channel. Bank armoring at a bend, installation of cross vane
drop structures, and other energy dissipation strategies are also used to address localized problem areas.
Conceptual design level estimates of probable cost for implementation of the erosion mitigation strategies
were also developed and were summarized above.
8. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
In conclusion, this study has identified erosion and sedimentation/debris mitigation strategies that can be
applied within the watershed to mitigate the physical, financial, and safety impacts caused by accelerated
erosion within the watershed. This study serves as a foundation for implementation of these mitigation
strategies. Future efforts should include involving the property owners and key stakeholders (PennDOT
and Norfolk Southern Corporation) in a dialogue related to advancing this project. Key discussion items
should include project prioritization and phasing, and funding. It is critical that PennDOT and Norfolk
Southern Railroad be brought into these discussions at the earliest possible opportunity to assist in
advancing solutions particularly in the western watershed areas.
21
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
APPENDIX A
KEY MAP AND PHOTOGRAPHS
A-1
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
APPENDIX B
EXHIBITS ILLUSTRATING RESTORATION APPROACHES
B-1
1 inch = 2,000 feet

Soapstone Watershed Study
Figure 1
Location of the Soapstone Watershed
23540
2 5
24
245
0
24
32
0
275 290
25 250
5
275
280
285
290
5
29
150
202 RIVER RD
300
200 RIVER RD
198 RIVER RD
1552 BRIAR HILL RD
1601 WINSTON RD
0
13
0
24
1600 MONK RD
0
21
350
1455 ABBEY LN
1450 SOAPSTONE RD
1400 WAVERLY RD
265
280
255
1447 WAVERLY RD
1441 WAVERLY RD
1550 MONK RD
1449 ABBEY LN
225
355
5
29
1530 MONK RD
1415 WAVERLY RD
315
0
29
1347 WAVERLY RD
1543 MONK RD
1510 MONK RD
1500 MONK RD
5
29
31
30 0
5
1401 WAVERLY RD
5
32
1435 ABBEY LN
33335
32 0
0
35
0
1411 WAVERLY RD
0
30
1432 MONK RD
35
0
1421 WAVERLY RD
5
34
5
13
320
1434 SOAPSTONE RD
1520 MONK RD
0
12
5
12 55
1
5
28
1433 WAVERLY RD
235
1439 ABBEY LN
1407 WAVERLY RD

140
1525 BRIAR HILL RD
1356 MONK RD
5
35 360
MONK RD
1509 MONK RD
1501 MONK RD
1345 WAVERLY RD
1426 MONK RD
1499 MONK RD
Figure 2
Watershed Overview and Topography
5
11
1600 SOAPSTONE RD
1533 BRIAR HILL RD
255
85
1539 BRIAR HILL RD
1501 WAVERLY RD
1520 BRIAR HILL RD
280
90
1621 WINSTON RD
0
11
260 2 24 240
60 5
270
265
28
5
30
0
1619 WINSTON RD
1545 BRIAR HILL RD
5
10
1530 BRIAR HILL RD
345
345
1624 WINSTON RD
1615 WINSTON RD
1551 BRIAR HILL RD
194 RIVER RD
75 95
65
1611 WINSTON RD
1607 WINSTON RD
80
1540 BRIAR HILL RD

1534 BRIAR HILL RD
34
0
14
5
1557 BRIAR HILL RD
0
10
1548 BRIAR HILL RD
1622 WINSTON RD
1418 MONK RD
1435 MONK RD
1325 WAVERLY RD
27
5
1423 MONK RD
1225 YOUNGS FORD RD
1335 WAVERLY RD
1415 MONK RD
0
35
1350 MONK RD
1326 MONK RD
0
25
0
26
1407 MONK RD
215
1342 MONK RD
1401 MONK RD
1348 BEAUMONT DR
0
19
1341 MONK RD
245
105 100
80
95
65
17
5
22
0
365
155
125
95
90 105
11
0 10
85
0
75 80
85
18
5
60
195
210
220
230
65
34
5
140
50 0
7
75
1321 BEAUMONT DR
170
190
20
2155
22
5
23
5
0
24
90
355
5
37
60
1328 BEAUMONT DR
1320 BEAUMONT DR
145
0
15
0
35
360
23
0
0
20
345
1317 MONK RD
1311 MONK RD
0
37
1310 MONK RD
1334 BEAUMONT DR
270
1331 MONK RD
1211 YOUNGS FORD RD
200
1344 BEAUMONT DR
MONK RD
70
55
1316 MONK RD
5
19 80
1
45
38
0
1351 MONK RD
1332 MONK RD
5
18
1336 MONK RD
0
16
205
5
16 30 120
1
95
0
5
0
7
1
90
1400 MONK RD
55
60
10
0
105
0
36
5
36
7
3 0
375
13
5
1343 WAVERLY RD
85
1429 MONK RD
5
35
115
1410 MONK RD
Date:
Created By:
Checked By:
Project Number:
1958
1971
2010
Figure 3
Historic Aerials of the Watershed

1942
04/09/2012
Date:
Created By: TJO
Checked By: SAB
Project Number: 090442
Bo
MhE2
MhE2
Mb
StE
MhE2
Soil Type
Stony Land
MhC2
Manor
Ch channery silt loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, moderately erode
Manor very stony silt loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes
MdB
Manor
StEchannery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded
Made land, schist and gneiss materials, strongly sloping
Glenville silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded
Glenelg silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded
Symbol
StE
MhE2
MnD
MnD
MhC2
MdD
GsB2
GnB2
MdD
MdB
MnD
Ru
CeB
MaC
MaD
MhE2
StE
MdB
MdB
MhC2
MnD
Ae
McE
MhC2
MdD
Ha
Ub
GnC2
MhE2
CgB2
MnD
MhE2
MhE2
MhE2
GnB2
GsB2
GnC2
GsB2
MhC2
MhC2
MdD
GnB2
MhB2
GsB2
GsB2
MhE2
MdB
MdB
GnC2
MdD
StE
StE
Ha
MnD
StE
GnD2
MhB2
MhC2
Ch
MdD
MhE2
MdB GsB2
MhC2
GnC2
StE
MhE2
MhE2
MhB2
MdB
Ch
MhC2
MhE2
MhE2
GnD2
GnB2
1 inch = 750
StEfeet
MhE2

Figure 4
Soils of the Soapstone Watershed
Figure 5. Daily Rainfall in Philadelphia 1948 through January 2012

2/1/2012
2/1/2010
2/1/2008
2/1/2006
2/1/2004
2/1/2002
2/1/2000
2/1/1998
2/1/1996
2/1/1994
2/1/1992
2/1/1990
2/1/1988
2/1/1986
2/1/1984
2/1/1982
2/1/1980
2/1/1978
2/1/1976
2/1/1974
2/1/1972
2/1/1970
2/1/1968
2/1/1966
2/1/1964
2/1/1962
2/1/1960
2/1/1958
2/1/1956
2/1/1954
2/1/1952
2/1/1950
2/1/1948
Philadelphia, PA
Daily Precipitation Data
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
APPENDIX A
KEY MAP AND PHOTOGRAPHS
A-1
A-2
Photograph 1. Rocks, debris

and sediment deposited on
River Road following a storm
event in 2004.
Photograph 2. Same location on

River Road as Photo 1. Center
foreground is the junction box
connecting the 48 RCP culvert
under the Norfolk Southern
Railroad to the Townships 36
oval culvert under River Road.
(11/03/2011)

PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC.
One Drexel Plaza, 3001 Market Street
Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
As indicated
Lower Merion Township, Montgomery County, PA
A-3
Photograph 3. Deposition of
debris upstream of the 6 wide
and 4 high culvert under the
Schuylkill Expressway.
Photograph 4 . Stream bank just upstream of

the Schuylkill Expressway. Note the deeply
incised banks and large boulders on adjacent,
steep slopes.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
8/31/2009
A-4
Photograph 5. Representative channel section at

1600 Monk Road. Vertical banks and the collapse
of trees is noted. Rock similar to that deposited
on the roadway in Photograph 1, is being actively
transported down the stream channel.
Photographs 6 . There are

several locations within 1600
Monk Road where the stream
has incised to bedrock.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
8/31/2009
A-5
Photograph 7. Channel looking

upstream to the location of
where the stream is routed
under the home.
Photographs 8. Channel looking upstream

of where the stream is routed under the
home. Side-slopes are terraced downward
at approximately 1:1, using landscape rock.
Erosion evident along stream banks.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
2/22/2012
A-6
Photograph 9. Sediment
deposition where stream goes
under home.
Photographs 10. Bank

sloughing evident as fine
sediment in the channel.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
2/22/2012
A-7
Photograph 11. Attempts to stabilize banks with

landscaping material. Photograph take n
upstream of Photograph 10.
Photographs 12. Gabion basket

installed to stabilize stream bank
downstream of the pond.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
2/22/2012
A-8
Photograph 13. Pond that

remains from former quarry
operation. The pond is inline with the stream.
Photograph 14. Stream inflow channel to pond on 1450 Soapstone. Sediment deposition
evident in pond in vicinity of stream inflow.
Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
2/22/2012
A-9
Photographs 15. The streambed

parallel to the driveway at 434
Soapstone Road has incised to
1.5 feet below an existing water
pipe.
Photograph 16. View of stream where it parallels the

1434 Soapstone Road driveway, looking upstream.
The channel is approximately 3.5 feet deep on one
side and 7.5 feet deep on the other.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
2/22/2012
A-10
Photographs 17. Stream

where it makes a sharp turn to
the north at 1434 Soapstone
Road.
Photograph 18. View from

within the channel, looking
downstream. Road is located
at the right edge of the
photograph.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
2/22/2012
A-11
Photographs 19. View from

within the channel looking
upstream where the stream
curves to the north.
Photograph 20. Looking

upstream of stream bend.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
2/22/2012
A-12
Photographs 21. Looking

downstream of stream bend
banks show evidence of recent
sloughing.
Photograph 22. Stream just

downstream of where it
gains perennial flow from a
spring.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
2/22/2012
A-13
Photographs 23. Location where

homeowner graded the channel to
connect it to the floodplain. This
photograph was taken just
upstream of where the channel
gains perennial flow from the
spring.
Photograph 24. Upstream of

restored channel section is an area
of extreme erosion and headcutting.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
2/22/2012
A-14
Photographs 25. Evidence of

former attempts to armor
the streambank.

downstream across the property
at 1434 Soapstone Road.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
2/22/2012
A-15
Photographs 27. Channel incised

8 feet, photograph taken
immediately upstream of
Photograph 26.
Photograph 28. Photograph

taken just upstream of
Photograph 27 looking down
into gully.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
2/22/2012
A-16
Photographs 29. Channel as it

approaches gully, here it is
shallow with moderately sloped
banks.

downstream, channel as it exists
in the western section of 1434
Abbey Lane.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
2/22/2012
A-17

downstream, channel as it exists
in the eastern section of 1434
Abbey Lane.

upstream at the property line
between 1435 Abbey Lane and
1418 Monk Road.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
2/22/2012
A-18
Photographs 33. Stream looking upstream

as it exists at 1418 Monk Road.
Photograph 34. Sloughed banks at 1410

Monk Road.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
2/22/2012
A-19
Photographs 35. Stream approximately at

1400 Monk Road looking downstream
towards 1410 Monk Road.
Photograph 36. Storm water

outfall at the stream headwaters
on Abbey Road.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
2/22/2012
A-20
Photographs 37. Looking downstream

across 1400 Monk Road at the
stormwater discharge point.
Photograph 38. Stormwater

runoff at 1350 Monk Road.
Upstream of the Abbey Road
outfall.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
Unknown
A-21

inlet at the intersection of
Monk and Abbey Roads.

along Monk Road.

Job No.
LOWM093814
Date Taken:
Unknown
A-22
LOWM093814
September 28, 2012
APPENDIX B
EXHIBITS ILLUSTRATING RESTORATION APPROACHES
B-1
EXI
STI
NG
I
NSTALLLOG,ROOT
WADORROCKTOE
ARMOR(
TYPI
CAL
BOTHSI
DES)
PROPOSED
EXHI
BI
T1-1600MONKROAD,AND1619,1621&1624
WI
NSTONROADRESTORATI
ONNO BENCHI
NG
B-2
EXI
STI
NG
I
NSTALLFLOODPLAI
N
BENCHI
NG WI
THROCK
ORLOG TOEARMOR
I
NSTALLROOTWAD,
LOG ORROCKARMOR
PROPOSED
EXHI
BI
T2-1600MONKROAD,AND1619,1621&1624
WI
NSTONROADRESTORATI
ONWI
THBENCHI
NG USE
B-3
EXI
STI
NG
I
NSTALLRI
PRAPTOE
ANDBANKPROTECTI
ON
PROPOSED
EXHI
BI
T3-1600SOAPSTONEROAD
RESTORATI
ONCENTERREACH
B-4
EXI
STI
NG
I
NSTALLROCK,ROOTWAD
ORLOG TOEPROTECTI
ON
(
TYPI
CALBOTHSI
DES)
PROPOSED
EXHI
BI
UPSTREAM REACH
B-5
EXI
STI
NG
NOTE:GABI
ONWALLI
SJUSTUPSTREAM
OFAREAUNDERMI
NEDBYSTREAM
EXI
STI
NG GABI
ONWALL
I
NSTALLROCKLI
NERPREFORMEDSCOURHOLE
PROPOSED
EXHI
BI
ROCKENERGYDI
SSI
PATER
B-6
EXI
STI
NG
I
NSTALLVEGETATEDFLOODPLAI
NBENCH(
ONEORBOTH
SI
DESASAPPROPRI
ATE)
I
NSTALLSTONE,LOG OR
ROOTWADTOEPROTECTI
ON
PROPOSED
EXHI
BI
DOWNSTREAM REACHRESTORATI
ON
B-7
EXI
STI
NG
I
NSTALLEARTH
RETENTI
ONSYSTEM
OROTHERSTRUCTURAL
STABI
LI
ZATI
ONAT
OUTSI
DEOFBEND
I
NSTALLVEGETATED
FLOODPLAI
NBENCH,TYP.
PROPOSED
EXHI
BI
DOWNSTREAM BENDRESTORATI
ON
B-8
B-9
PROPOSED
pr
of
i
l
e
LEVEL
I
NSTALL8CROSSVANES@ 80
TOTAL
sect
i
on
EXHI
BI
UPSTREAM REACHRESTORATI
ON
EXI
STI
NG CHANNEL
BOTTOM
EXI
STI
NG
EXI
STI
NG
I
N
BENCH(
TYPI
CALBOTHSI
DES)
PROPOSED
EXHI
BI
T9-1435ABBEYROAD
RESTORATI
ONAPPROACH
B-10
EXI
STI
NG
I
N
BENCH(
ONEORBOTHSI
DES)
I
NSTALLTOEARMOR
WHENNEEDED
PROPOSED
EXHI
BI
T10-1410&1400MONKROAD
RESTORATI
ONAPPROACH
B-11
B-12
18
PROPOSED SEDI
MENT /
DEBRI
S TRAP BOTTOM
EXI
STI
NG
PROPOSED
CONCRETE RI
SER
EXI
STI
NG NORFOLK
SOUTHERN48RCPCULVERT
b.Vi
ewf
r
om channelel
evat
i
ont
owar
dscul
ver
tEnt
r
ance. c.Vi
ewf
r
om cul
ver
ti
nver
tel
evat
i
onl
ooki
ngUpst
r
eam.
EXHI
BI
T11-SEDI
MENT/DEBRI
STRAPAT
EXPRESSWAYCULVERT(
NOTTO SCALE)
PROPOSED
MATERI
ALTO
BE EXCAVATED
a.Looki
ngDownst
r
eam atExpr
esswayEmbankment
.
EXI
STI
NG
NORFOLKSOUTHERN
RAI
LROAD
B-13
REPLACE CULVERT WI
TH
OPEN CHANNEL
c.Ent
r
ancet
ocul
ver
tunderr
ai
l
r
oadr
i
ght
of
way
.
EXHI
BI
T12-CULVERTCROSSSECTI
ON
SCHUYLKI
LLEXPRESSWAYTO RI
VER
REPLACE CULVERT
WI
TH GRATED FLUME
b.PennDOTcul
ver
tdi
schar
gebox.
I
NSTALLTRANSI
TI
ON STRUCTURE
EXI
STI
NG 48RCPCULVERT;
I
NSTALLLARGER CULVERT
PROPOSED
EXI
STI
NG
a.Junct
i
onboxatRi
verRoad.
EXI
STI
NG

Soapstone Watershed Quarry Gladwyne

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Soapstone Watershed Quarry Gladwyne

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

WATERSHED ASSESSMENT FOR

Lower Merion Township

75 East Lancaster Avenue

Office of the Township Engineer

September 28, 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 2

FACTORS INFLUENCING ACCELLERATED CHANNEL EROSION ....................... 4

FIELD ASSESMENT AND STRATEGIES FOR EROSION MITIGATION ................. 7

4.5.3. ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST FOR EROSION MITIGATION ..................................16

COST SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 18

GRANT AND OTHER FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES ...................................................... 19

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS ................................................................. 21

Lower Merion Township, PA

Soapstone Watershed Assessment

September 28, 2012

Schuylkill River Restoration Fund

Lower Merion Township, PA

Soapstone Watershed Assessment

September 28, 2012

2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Lower Merion Township, PA

Soapstone Watershed Assessment

September 28, 2012

Lower Merion Township, PA

Soapstone Watershed Assessment

September 28, 2012

Lower Merion Township, PA

Soapstone Watershed Assessment

September 28, 2012

Lower Merion Township, PA

Soapstone Watershed Assessment

September 28, 2012

Lower Merion Township, PA

Soapstone Watershed Assessment

September 28, 2012

Lower Merion Township, PA

Soapstone Watershed Assessment

September 28, 2012

Lower Merion Township, PA

Soapstone Watershed Assessment

September 28, 2012

4.1.2. SUGGESTED MITIGATION ACTIONS

ALTERNATIVE 1B - SEDIMENT/DEBRIS TRAP

Lower Merion Township, PA

Soapstone Watershed Assessment

September 28, 2012

ALTERNATIVE 2 - CONVEYANCE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

Lower Merion Township, PA

Soapstone Watershed Assessment

September 28, 2012

Lower Merion Township, PA

Soapstone Watershed Assessment

September 28, 2012

Stabilization of approximately 700 LF of stream using the restoration methods described;

4.3. 1600 SOAPSTONE ROAD

Lower Merion Township, PA

Soapstone Watershed Assessment

September 28, 2012

4.4. 1450 SOAPSTONE ROAD

Lower Merion Township, PA

Soapstone Watershed Assessment

September 28, 2012

Installation of an energy dissipation apron downstream of the stabilized pond outlet