By Ad Crable, Save The Bay Magazine, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Cool, clear, and inviting, Hammer Creek is the longest and most-stocked trout stream in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Anglers occasionally catch wild brown and brook trout, too, which move into the stream from several pristine tributaries.

From its headwaters of limestone springs in Lebanon County, the Hammer flows for much of its journey over a sandy bottom and through forests.

Named after the giant forge hammers once powered by water wheels along its banks, the stream winds through a wildlife sanctuary, state game lands, a county park, and even a wolfsanctuary before crossing into Lancaster County and reaching Speedwell ForgeLake. Part of the route cuts through small and large farming operations common toPennsylvania Dutch country.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has designated five miles of the creek, from the headwaters to the lake, as a “high-quality,” “cold-water fishes” waterway. With such a rating, Hammer Creek is recognized as a near-pristine stream and awarded special protections under state law.

As a fly fisher hooked into a small trout on the stream one summer afternoon, CBFPennsylvania staff scientist Harry Campbell hoisted rounded rocks from thestream bed to reveal caddisflies, stoneflies, and other aquatic insects, known to biologists as macroinvertebrates. “They matter,” said Campbell, “because they signify the health of the water.”

And the health of the stream is a point of contention in the state’s struggle to cleanup Bay tributaries. In 2007, the state Department of Environmental Protection(DEP) staff recommended the upper Hammer be downgraded from a “high quality”stream to a “cold-water fishery”— a loss of its special protection status. Thereclassification was spurred by a Lebanon County township that has been under pressure to correct leaking septic fields in four small hamlets.

The Fight Over Hammer In a series of events starting in 1975, Heidelberg Township first tried to fix its septic problem by proposing to build a sewage treatment plant. The township sought to discharge wastewater from that plant into the stream. But with Hammer Creek’s special protections, DEP refused.

Then, Heidelberg supervisors and their consultants planned to pipe the plant’s wastewater over a mountain into a nearby stream, Furnace Run, in a neighboringwatershed. Officials far downstream, from Lancaster City’s mayor to Lancaster County Commissioners, protested.

In 2002 a local watershed group began working with the adjoining townships, a private attorney, and technical consultants to refute the wastewater treatment discharge plan.

A group of ambitious high school students also documented the presence of pollutant-intolerant bugs found only in extremely clean streams, leading to DEP designation of Furnace Run as high quality. That classification eliminated the possibility of Furnace Run receiving the discharge.

Blocked again, Heidelberg officials shifted their plans back to Hammer Creek and in 2003 proposed a regional sewage treatment plant that would be built on preserved farmland along a small tributary of the upper Hammer. (Many of those fighting the project would prefer to see public sewers brought in from nearby Lebanon City’s sewage plant.)

The township continues to argue that the upper Hammer’s earlier “high-quality” designation was erroneous and that it should be allowed to build a sewage treatment plant on its banks and to discharge into the water.

In June 2007, after a review of stream history that relied heavily on farm-pollution incidents in the 1960s and 1970s and stream samples from 2003-04, DEP issued its judgment.

In an alarming and precedential decision, it concluded the stream does not—andprobably never did—qualify for its “high quality” designation, and proposed to downgrade its status.

CBF, rejecting DEP’s assertion that farm-related ills had irreversibly spoiled the stream, opposed the proposal. “We’re not taking a stand on what is best for Heidelberg Township’s sewage problem,” said Campbell.

“But we do believe the proposal calls into doubt DEP’s commitment to meeting thefederal Clean Water Act’s and the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law’s sharedpriority goal of restoring Pennsylvania’s polluted streams.”

Deciding to challenge the DEP downgrading proposal, CBF hired EcoAnalysts, a respected national biological consulting firm, to analyze the creek. EcoAnalysts collected data at 11 sites for water chemistry, macroinvertebrates, and habitat. Its study presented a startlingly different picture.

Most water-quality scores indicated a very healthy stream. In fact, at one spot in the heart of the proposed downgrade section, macroinvertebrate populations indicated stream quality exceedingDEP’s criteria for “exceptional-value” streams, placing it among the most pristine creeks in the entire Commonwealth.

What could account for the difference between the EcoAnalysts results and theDEP conclusion? One possible reason is that better agricultural practices on some farms along the creek—such as building fences to keep cattle out of the water and replanting trees along the streambanks—have mitigated past pollution.

CBF members Tisha and Steve Walmer have demonstrated a great commitmentto these kinds of practices. Back in 1995, the couple bought a farm on a tributaryto the upper Hammer. To help improve water quality, they took a strip of sevenacres bordering the stream out of production and planted 2,400 trees on the riparian buffer.

The EcoAnalysts data showed that their efforts had likely made aremarkable improvement: Between 2004 and 2007, the number and type ofmacroinvertebrates had more than doubled at the site.

Tisha Walmer is dismayed at DEP’s proposal to give up on the Hammer. “It’s discouraging,” she said, “but we’re still holding out hope.”

Heidelberg Township officials say they continue to study all alternatives to solve their sewage problems, as required by the DEP, but reiterate that costs would likely determine which option is eventually selected.

Pennsylvania’s General Assembly recently passed legislation that provides new funding for sewage treatment plants across the state, which could be available to the township.

Unless DEP drops its pursuit to downgrade the stream, CBF will challenge the decision before Pennsylvania’s Environmental Quality Board. Campbell hopes the latest scientific evidence will convince DEP to drop its effort to pursue the stream’s downgrading or persuade the Environmental Quality Board that DEP’s proposal is “technically and legally incorrect,” he said.

“The results of our study show Hammer Creek is high quality, even exceptionalvalue,” said Campbell. “Replicating the fine work of people like the Walmers could result in Hammer Creek being recognized as one of the premier streams in Pennsylvania.”

Ad Crable reports on the environment from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He is outdoors editor for the Lancaster New Era. Ad provided both the story and photos for this article. Reprinted from the Fall 2008 issue of Save The Bay Magazine published by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

10/24/2008