vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Watershed Partnership
Protects World-Class Trout
Stream
Background
The brown trout population in Spring Creek was stressed
because water quality was being degraded by both point and
non-point sources of pollution.
Point Sources: Three municipal wastewater treatment
plants and two fish hatcheries within the watershed were in
violation of their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits. Only one case was actually
litigated: a municipality was fined $35,000 for the violations
at its sewage treatment plant and the fine was placed
in escrow to be used by the Spring Creek Chapter of
Trout Unlimited for water quality improvements within the
watershed.
Non-point Sources: A 1991 study by the Pennsylvania
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit showed that
sediment from agricultural drainage basins was reducing
the reproductive ability of brown trout in Spring Creek.
Agricultural areas in the watershed were surveyed and it
was determined that 4.1 miles (6.6 km) of streambanks
were eroding, mainly due to unfenced pasture allowing cattle
unlimited access to the streams (Figure 1). Sediment from
this erosion was covering the trout's eggs and restricting
the flow of water over the eggs. The lack of water bringing
oxygen to and removing wastes from the eggs resulted in
a decline in trout populations. Worst affected was an eight-
mile (12.9 km) section where the Slab Cabin Run tributary
drains into Spring Creek.
As authorized by the Clean
Water Act, the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program
controls water pollution by
regulating point sources that
discharge pollutants into waters
of the United States. FPA
EPA/903/F-02/007
Spring Creek;
•&$*"
• Is located in the Ridge and Valley B
-------
Figure 1. An unfenced pasture along Slab Cabin Run allowed cattle unlimited
access to the stream, producing erosion and pollution problems.
Solution
A partnership was formed among the Centre Comity
Conservation District, the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Research Unit, and the Spring Creek
Chapter of Trout Unlimited (TU) to reduce sediment
loads in Spring Creek and document improvements in
water quality.
In 1991, the only funding available to help landowners
flawee streambank fencing required them to pay at least
25% of the costs. Dr. Robert Carline, who headed the
1991 study for the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Unit, proposed that Trout Unlimited
use the escrowed fines to fund the landowners' portion of
the cost of stream fencing. It was hoped that landowners
would allow fencing to be installed if there was no initial
cost to them. Dr. Carline's proposal for use of the
escrowed fine was approved based on expected
improvements to conditions downstream from the
reduction of sediment loads upstream.
The partnership was awarded a grant from the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) for planning and pretreatment assessment. Long-
term monitoring stations were set up in the three basins
(Spring Creek, with no riparian pastures; and Slab
Cabin Run and Cedar Run, two basins adjacent to
Spring Creek, each having long stretches of unfenced
pasture). A variety of parameters - stream flow, stream
temperature, sediment loads, substrate composition,
benthic-macroinvertebrates, and fish - were investigated.
Considerably more sediment was found in Cedar Run
and Slab Cabin Run than in Spring Creek. The low
sediment load in Spring Creek contributed to successful
reproduction of brown trout, which had densities 5 to 23
times higher than its two tributaries.
All of the landowners along Slab Cabin Run, the
tributary with the most miles of unfenced pastures
and the highest levels of sediment, were contacted
beginning in the spring of 1992. Landowners were given
some basic information and encouraged to visit the
demonstration project at Perm State.
The first landowner to participate, Mr. J. Meyer, was
pivotal in getting other landowners involved. Slab Cabin
Run bisects the Meyer pasture, which is located at
the downstream boundary of the project. Much of
the streambank in this pasture lacked vegetation and
portions were subject to erosion. The Meyer farm is
visible from the road, allowing other landowners to
clearly see the improvements as they were being made
and turning it into the real demonstration project. This
helped encourage other landowners to participate.
A different tactic was used to get landowners in
the Cedar Run basin (Cedar Run and Mackey Run)
involved. They were invited to a public meeting so that
the objectives of the project could be explained to all of
them at once. Unfortunately, turnout was relatively low
due to a snowstorm. The five landowners who attended,
agreed to participate in the project. The landowners
who did not attend were contacted by telephone, with
follow-up visits to those who appeared interested.
During the visits, they were provided with a description
of the project, a copy of the agreement for participating
landowners, a copy of the Penn State Extension Bulletin
on Streambank Fencing, and information about how
restricting stream access could reduce the risk of their
livestock's infection from water-borne diseases.
-------
The majority of the landowners felt that something upstream
was responsible for the sediment. The few landowners who
did recognize that their cattle contributed to the problem of
eroding streambanks placed rocks along the banks (Figure 2).
The newly added rock reduced erosion where it was placed,
but caused livestock to enter the stream in adjacent areas and
the new access points began to erode.
Landowners not initially interested had common concerns
such as:
• Unwanted woody vegetation would grow between
the fence and the stream;
• Weeds would grow up behind the fence and
colonize the pasture;
• Riparian buffers would reduce their amount of
pasture;
• Maintenance would increase due to the new fence.
Figure 2. Some landowners put stones that they found
on their fields on sections of the streambanks that were
becoming eroded.
Reluctant landowners were repeatedly visited by Dr. Carline or other project personnel and taken to visit the
demonstration project. They became more likely to participate once Dr. Carline developed a relationship with them
and convinced them he was serious about helping them, as well as the environment, and they saw the results on a
participating property.
Rehabilitation decisions were negotiated between the landowner and the coalition. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) provided technical assistance along Slab Cabin Run by designing repairs for severely eroded areas and
assisted landowners with obtaining funding from the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (now the Farm
Service Agency), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Suggestions were made to the landowners about what should
be done and they provided input as to what they needed - animal crossings, access, etc. High tensile wire fencing was
used on most of the properties (Figure 3). On properties with horses, wood fencing was used (Figure 4) because horses
can injure themselves on wire fencing. Only a small amount of streambank needed to be fenced on horse farms, so the
higher cost did not greatly increase the overall cost
of the project.
Once landowners decided to participate in the
program, they were required to sign an agreement
stating that they agreed to the construction plan;
would allow access to the property for construction,
routine inspection and data collection; and would
maintain the improvements for 10 years.
Figure 3. High tensile fencing was installed 3 m on
either side of the stream to prevent livestock from
trampling down the stream banks and to allow for
natural revegetation along the stream.
Figure 4. Different fencing was used on horse farms, because
horses can injure themselves on wire fencing.
-------
Figure 5. Crossings were installed to allow livestock
limited access to the stream.
Construction of streamside fences, installation of rock-lined
animal crossings (Figure 5), and stabilization of banks were
largely done by private contractors. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) installed fencing and stream-access on two
projects. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and Penn
State University also provided heavy equipment for several
projects.
In addition to restoration of Slab Cabin Run and Cedar Run,
eroding^streambanks at other properties in the watershed were
also stabilized. Most were on state owned properties along Spring
Creek, downstream of where Slab Cabin Run and Cedar Run
enter it. One of the largest of these projects was on a cattle and
sheep farm.
Maintenance of the improvements became the responsibility of
the landowners and includes routine maintenance of the fence -
replacement of posts, repair of wire, removal of trash and debris, or even replacement of sections offence after a storm
- and control of the weeds. In January 1996, fences on two of the properties were significantly damaged due to serious
flooding. The landowners were contacted to see if they needed help repairing their fencing. One of the landowners said that
he would repair it himself, but the other landowner accepted the offer of help. About 30 volunteers from TU and USFWS
spent a Saturday morning repairing the fence and clearing the debris.
Monitoring/Results
More than 90% of the riparian pastures in the Slab Cabin
Run and Cedar Run basins were treated by 1998. On Slab
Cabin Run, 18,045 ft (5,500 m) offence were erected,
more than 1,673 ft (510 m) of banks were stabilized and
24 accesses and crossings were installed. On Cedar Run,
13,190 ft (4,020 m) offence were constructed, 804 ft (245
m) of bank were stabilized and 14 accesses and crossings
were installed. On Spring Creek, 6,375 ft (1,943 m) offence
were put up, 3640 ft (1,110 m) of banks were stabilized and
16 crossings and accesses were installed.
Preliminary results of streambank restorations were
published in 1998. It was found that between 1991 and
1998 sediment in Slab Cabin Run decreased by 56.5% and
sediment in Cedar Run decreased by 49.6%. Fine substrates
were also found to have declined between 1992 and 1997.
These preliminary results also suggest that there has been
a slight, but statistically significant, decrease in the nitrate
concentration in Cedar Run.
Post-treatment monitoring began in 2001, more than two
years after all of the construction was completed, and will
continue into 2003. An assessment of the changes in the
sediment load, substrate composition, channel morphology,
nutrient load, and macroinvertebrate and fish communities
since pre-treatment is currently being conducted by a Penn
State graduate student. Though the results have not been
published, the data from Spring Creek and Cedar Run
show that there has been a significant decrease in the
amount of sediment between 1992 and 2001 (Figure 6).
Additionally, on a 7.9-mile (12.72 km) section of Spring
Creek downstream from Slab Cabin and Cedar Runs, the
average number of trout redds (nests) rose from 102
Figure 6. Median range of Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) data from 1991-92 (pre-fencing), 1994-95
(partially fenced on Cedar Run; fenced on Slab Cabin
Run) and 2001 (post-fencing).
in 1987-88 to 562 in 1997-2000 and 2002. Besides
a reduction in sediment load from the improved
sub-basins, it is possible that there were concurrent
reductions in non-point source pollution from urbanized
areas; hence these improvements in trout redds cannot
be attributed solely to riparian restoration.
This project was clearly successful, as it met its goal
of reducing sediment loads from Slab Cabin Run
and Cedar Run by 50%. However, the future of the
improvements may be in jeopardy, as the 10-year
maintenance agreements for many of the properties are
about to expire. Many landowners are happy with the
program and will probably continue to maintain the
fencing, but some are less enthusiastic and have already
stopped maintaining their fences. One landowner, who
has problems with multiflora rose, is threatening to tear
down the fence.
-------
Resources
The costs of construction varied
depending on the extent of rehabilitation
needed. The main costs include fence
(about $0.7I/ft), and crossings
($500/crossing). The cost of stabilizing
banks with rip-rap depended on the source
of the rock. Some of the stone for the bank
stabilizations came from landowners' rock
piles. The Bellefonte Lime Company
donated more than 1,700 tons of limestone
and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission (PFBC) donated trucking,
loaders, and supplies. The total cost of
construction was $149,090. Initial funding
from the Pollution Mitigation Program
(PMP) was used for construction along
Slab Cabin Run, with additional funding
for Slab Cabin Run coming from the
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS), the
Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC),
and TU.
|TU
| Owner
| PMP
| USFWS
IUSEPA
319HGrant
I PGC
| ASCS
[_] Donation
feet stabilized
Sub Watershed
" PSU, $9,400/Centre Oil & Gas, $900
' One additional property on Thompson Run was stabilized at a cost of $2,230 ($1,000 from
owner/$l,230 from TU)
Figure 7. Cost of rehabilitation by sub watershed and funding sources.
A grant for $56,300 from the Pennsylvania DEP (EPA resources given to the states for non-point source management under
Section 319H of the Clean Water Act) was used to continue construction.
The budget for post-treatment monitoring is $60,000/yr for three years, which is being funded by a grant from the EPA,
through the Chesapeake Bay Program, and includes personnel, analysis andfeome equipment.
The partnership formed between
the organizations within the
watershed was instrumental in
securing the necessary funding and
expertise to carry out this project.
Dr. Robert Carline played a key role
in pulling all of the organizations
together and getting landowners to
agree to participate in the program.
The desires of the landowners
were taken into consideration in
order to make their participation as
agreeable as possible
Landowners were not required to
pay for any of the construction on
their properties.
fV.
1 UK
Landowner satisfaction was
ensured by including them in the
planning process and accommodating
their needs, e.g., location of crossings
and accesses, type of fencing used,
etc.
By making the riparian areas narrow
(only 10 ft (3 m) on either side of the
stream), farmers were required to
give up very little pasture.
By not requiring planting along the
stream, the cost of maintenance to
the fence.(due to branches falling on
it, etc.) was reduced.
-------
I
55
Q
e
ui
CD
EPA Region 3
Philadelphia, PA 19103
EPA/903/F-02/007
November 2002
Patricia Bradley
bradley.patricia@epa.gov
410-305-2744
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency -
Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment
Environmental Science Center
701 Mapes Road
Ft Meade, MD 20755-5350
www.epa.gov/maia
Robert F. Carline, PhD
f7u@psu.edu
814-865-4511
PA Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Unit
U.S. Geological Survey/
Biological Resources Division
Perm State University
Merkle Laboratory
University Park, PA 16802-1100
www.psu.edu
Kate Levendosky
kleven 1 @gl.umbc .edu
415-663-0938
uses
tcieace for a changing wortd
PENNSTATE
UMBC
University of Maryland,
Baltimore County
Center for Urban Environmental
Research and Education
Research Seminar on Best Practices
in Environmental Management
1000 Hilltop Circle - TRC 102
Baltimore, MD 21250
www.umbc.edu/cuere
CUERE
Partnerships and Coordination
This project is an excellent example of how one person can
make a difference. Dr. Robert F. Carline coordinated this
effort and brought several organizations together to solve a
problem. The following organizations worked together and
contributed the resources listed:
USGS Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit:
Dr. Robert Carline got landowners to participate in
the program; wrote grants; and performed monitoring
with the help of PSU graduate students.
Trout Unlimited, Spring Creek Chapter:
Provided $41,298 from the Pollution Mitigation
Program and $19,012 from national and chapter funds
and volunteers to help with construction and survey
work of flood repair damage.
Centre County Conservation District:
Provided local project officer for the EPA grant from
the PA DEP and submitted quarterly reports about the
project.
USD A, Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Helped landowners obtain funding from USDA;
provided technical assistance; assisted with
landowner relationships; and obtained general permits
for animal crossings and ramps.
Pennsylvania Game Commission:
Provided fencing through a Chesapeake Bay Program
grant.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Installed fencing through their Partners in Wildlife
Program.
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission:
Provided personnel or equipment for projects on state
property.
U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program:
Provided $60,000/year for three years of monitoring.
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
CONSERVATION
DISTRICT
TROUT
UNLIMITED
Printed on chlorine free 100% recycled paper with
100% post-consumer fiber using vegetable-based ink.
All photographs were provided courtesy of R. Carline.
------- |