Stream Bank Stabilization in the Spring Creek Watershed, 1989-1998
Author: Dr. Bob Carline
Spring Creek, like many other trout
streams in Pennsylvania, has a considerable number of farms along
its banks and those of its tributaries. Pastures for dairy
cows, beef cattle, sheep, and horses are typically found along the
stream. Intensive grazing for many years had led to the near
complete elimination of streamside vegetation, loss of bank cover
for trout, and badly eroding stream banks that contributed large
quantities of sediment.
Studies by the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
Unit (U.S. Geological Survey) showed that in the middle portion of
Spring Creek, a stretch of about 5 miles, natural reproduction by
wild brown trout was substantially reduced by siltation of spawning
sites. These results prompted the Spring Creek Chapter to
undertake a major effort to reduce siltation in the watershed.
The project was initiated in 1989, and was completed in 1998.
The Chapter first funded a study to assess stream bank conditions in
the main stem and tributaries. The study showed that there
were two farms on the main stem and about 12 on the tributaries that
had severely eroded stream banks due to intensive livestock use.
One of the problem farms, locally known as the sheep farm, on the
main stem was operated by the Pennsylvania State University.
In response to urging by the Chapter, Penn State agreed to install
fences to prevent livestock from trampling on unstable banks.
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission personnel, through the
Adopt-a-Stream Program, designed bank stabilization structures and
rock access ramps that allowed livestock to reach the stream edge
for water. The Commission and Penn State provided heavy
equipment, and Chapter members arranged for rock to be donated by a
local quarry. Though negotiations and planning required more
than a year, actual construction was completed in less than two
weeks. Chapter members helped install rock deflectors, built
stiles for angler access, and planted shrubs and trees.
PSU Sheep Farm 1988 Planting trees and shrubs Project Complete - 1992
The project was a huge success because of the
cooperative efforts of several organizations and private interests.
The site is now used for field tours to demonstrate how fencing and bank
stabilization can effectively reduce sedimentation. In July 1992,
about two years after project completion, densities of wild brown trout in
this reach had increased by about 60%.
In spring 1992 Coop Unit personnel began to contact landowners and urged them to enroll in
this voluntary project. The major selling point was that fencing and bank
stabilization could be done without any cost to the landowner. Another
benefit of keeping farm animals out of the stream is reduction in incidence
of waterborne diseases. These diseases include mastitis, salmonella,
giardia, leptospirosis, clostridium, and various hoof ailments. By
keeping animals out of streams and perennially wet areas, farmers can reduce
the incidence of these diseases.
Landowners were asked to apply for cost-sharing from the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), U.S. Department of
Agriculture. The ASCS provided up to 75% of the costs for fence construction
and bank stabilization with a maximum of $3,500 per farm per year. The
Spring Creek Chapter pledged to provide the difference between total project
costs and ASCS's contribution.
Chapter funds came from a litigation settlement ($35,000), which was awarded
when the Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation (PEDF) brought suit
against a local municipality for failure to meet water quality criteria in
its discharge permit.
A provision of the Federal Clean Water Act allows individuals or
organizations to sue an entity that has failed to meet the criteria in their
National Discharge Permit and has not been penalized by the appropriate
state regulatory agency. The PEDF brought suit against the
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) for fish hatchery discharges,
the University Area Joint Authority (UAJA), the Rockview Correctional
Institution, and the Borough of Bellefonte. Eventually suits against
PFBC and UAJA were dropped, because a settlement was reached out of court –
essentially they agreed to clean up their effluent. The suit against
Rockview was dismissed because of a technicality. The suit against
Bellefonte went to court, and PDEF won its case. Bellefonte paid PDEF
legal costs and was ordered to place in escrow $35,000 that was to be used
for improvement of water quality in Spring Creek. The Spring Creek
Chapter was designated as the organization to use the settlement funds.
The Chapter submitted a proposal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
to use the fine money. We proposed to pay for stream bank fencing and
stabilization work – this was the 25% that would have been the landowner
portion for the cost-sharing requirements through the ASCS grant program.
The EPA rejected our proposal because the work was to be done upstream of
Bellefonte; they wanted us to make improvements downstream of Bellefonte.
We then contacted our U.S. Congressional Representative, who convinced EPA
that our proposal had merit.
Slab
Cabin Run Sub-basin
After completion of the sheep farm project, efforts were directed at farms
along Slab Cabin Run upstream of the South Atherton Street bridge. There
were 2.55 miles of unfenced pasture along Slab Cabin Run between South
Atherton Street and Pine Grove Mills. The amount and severity of
eroding banks varied considerably among pastures, due in part to differences
in animal density.
Unit personnel were able to secure agreements with ten landowners in the Slab Cabin Run
sub-basin from 1992 to 1998. The extent of stream bank fencing and
stabilization varied greatly among properties, depending upon the
landowner’s wishes and needs. At one end of the spectrum, contractors installed
a rock-lined crossing and stabilized a short length of stream bank with
rock. On three properties, landowners would not agree to fencing, but
allowed us to make some improvements. At the other end of the spectrum,
contractors
installed more than 6,000 feet of fencing, built several crossings, and
stabilized a substantial length of bank (see
Table 1 for summary).
In 2007, I revisited all of the project sites to assess how well
improvements were holding up. In most instances fences, accesses, and
bank repair were still intact. In one instance, the property changed
ownership and the new owner had not kept up with fence maintenance. At
another property, floods had damaged fencing that had not been repaired.
On the basis of this survey, I estimated that 61% of previously unfenced
pastures had been improved and erosion control measures were intact.
Since then, the ClearWater Conservancy and the Centre County Conservation
District have been working with landowners to improve riparian conditions.
Cedar
Run Sub-basin
In 1993 Unit personnel initiated the stream bank stabilization program in the Cedar Run
sub-basin with a public informational meeting. All landowners in the
sub-basin were sent a letter explaining the program and requesting them to
attend the meeting. About 10 landowners attended the meeting, and they
either owned no animals or just a few head of horses or cattle. The
landowners who owned the largest parcels and had the most animals were not
in attendance. Personal visits were required to engage these
landowners.
We secured agreements with eight landowners and completed improvements from
1993 to 1998. On several projects we collaborated with outside
organizations: a group of high school students from State College, the
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. As in the Slab Cabin Run projects, one improvement consisted
of a single animal access, while the largest project entailed more than
5,000 feet of fence and three rock-lined crossings. We were able to treat
more than 90% of the unfenced pastures, and in 2007, all projects continued
to be well maintained.
Cedar Run - pre-construction Cedar Run - rock-lined crossing
Spring
Creek
Bank stabilization projects on six properties
were completed along the main
stem of Spring Creek and one along Thompson Run. We worked on two
farms (PSU sheep farm and a privately owned operation), two commercial
properties, one residential property, a reach in Talley Rand Park, and a
section of Fisherman’s Paradise. Costs for the commercial properties
were shared between the owners and Chapter funds.
Spr
Funding
Sources and Cooperating Agencies
The Spring Creek Chapter dedicated all of the litigation settlement funds to
this project in addition to some chapter funds (approximately $45,000 in
total). An Embrace-a-Stream grant was secured from National TU for
$4,600. The USDA’s Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
contributed about $14,000. The Pennsylvania Game Commission paid for
fencing on three properties using grant money from the Chesapeake Bay
Program (about $11,500). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provided a
grant for $52,800. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission provided
a substantial amount of contributed time and heavy equipment. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service provided manpower and materials for several
projects. The Pennsylvania State University paid for fence
construction and provided heavy equipment. Quarries in Lemont and Pleasant
Gap contributed thousands of tons of limestone.
Assessing Effects of Stream Bank Stabilization
In 1990, the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
received a grant from the Centre County Conservation District to initiate a
study to document the effects of stream bank stabilization on physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of Slab Cabin Run and Cedar Run.
The upper Spring Creek sub-basin (downstream boundary at Oak Hall) was used
as a reference, in part, because there were no riparian pastures along the
perennial stream reaches.
Stream gauging equipment was installed at the downstream boundaries of each
sub-basin. Stream flow data and water temperature were monitored
continuously at these sites, and water quality samples were collected at
regular intervals. Representative reaches of stream in each sub-basin were
selected for regular monitoring of stream bank erosion, substrate
composition, macroinvertebrate communities, and fish populations.
Pretreatment data were collected in 1991-1992 from all sites.
Post-treatment data were collected in 2001-2002 and again 2007-2008.
Stream bank condition. Stream reaches subjected to
grazing along Slab Run were 100% un-vegetated prior to bank stabilization.
When these reaches were resurveyed in 2001, the amount of un-vegetated
stream ranged from 0 to 28% and averaged 10%. In Cedar Run the length
of un-vegetated stream bank ranged from 48% to 59% prior to fencing, and by
2001 only 1% to 3% of those stream banks were un-vegetated. All
re-vegetation of stream banks occurred naturally; no efforts, other than
fencing, were made to reduce eroding stream banks.
Substrate composition. Stream substrates were
sampled, dried, and sieved to determine the composition by size classes.
These types of data reflect the sediment loading in the stream.
Samples were collected in areas where brown trout might spawn. The
percent of fine sediment in Spring Creek did not change substantially during
the study period (Table
2). In Slab Cabin Run and Cedar Run the change in fine sediments
from 1992 to 2007 was similar; it declined from about 26% to 13%, which
suggests that sediment loads in both streams were reduced significantly
after treatment.
Water quality. The most significant change in water
quality was the reduction in sediment load, which was measured as total
suspended solids (TSS in mg/L). During the course of the study,
TSS in Spring Creek remained relatively stable during base flow conditions,
but in both treatment streams TSS declined by more than 90% (Table
3). During periods of storm flow, TSS increased in Spring Creek,
but declined by 86% in Slab Cabin Run and by 67% in Cedar Run. These
data are consistent with the reductions in fine sediment in spawning
substrates.
Throughout the study period, there were no appreciable changes in
concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in any stream. This result
was not surprising, because to reduce nutrient loading, wide buffer strips
(35-75 feet) are recommended; our buffer strips were always less than 20
feet.
Macroinvertebrates.
Prior to restoration
efforts, macroinvertebrate densities in Spring Creek were 300% to 400%
greater than in Cedar Run and Slab Cabin Run. By 2007, densities in
both treatment streams had increased significantly. Densities in Cedar
Run were similar to those in Spring Creek, and in Slab Cabin Run, densities
had improved but were still 50% to 100% less than in Spring Creek.
Another measure of macroinvertebrate community health is number of different
kinds of organisms and the number of mayflies and caddisflies. An
improvement in macroinvertebrate diversity was apparent in downstream-most
sample sites in both treatment streams, but it was not always evident
farther upstream.
Trout populations.
Densities of wild brown trout increased in both treatment streams, but the
improvement in Slab Cabin Run was rather modest. In 1992 prior to bank
stabilization, Slab Cabin Run supported a sparse population of brown trout –
about 2 age-1 and older fish per 100 m. Hardly a fishable population.
In 2007 Unit personnel found 9/100 m in May and 4/100 m in August. It is likely
that low summer flows in Slab Cabin Run have more influence on trout numbers
than the quality of the habitat.
In Cedar Run, densities of age-1 and older trout increased from about 20/100
m to about 40/100 m. Unlike Slab Cabin Run, summer flows in Cedar Run
are quite good. These improvements in trout density in Cedar Run seem
directly related to improvements in stream habitat.
Improvements in Redd Counts
The primary motivation for initiation of the
stream bank stabilization project was the poor reproduction of brown trout
in the middle section of Spring Creek. Spring Creek was divided
into
three sections: (1) the upper section extended from the Highway 45 bridge in
Boalsburg to the Highway 26 (College Ave.) bridge in College Township; (2)
the middle section extended from Highway 26 to the bridge on Rockview
property just upstream of the outfall from their wastewater treatment plant;
(3) the lower section extended from Rockview to Milesburg.
Since Unit personnel first began redd counts in 1976, the total number has ranged from
about 800 to almost 2,100. Counts have varied among years and among
sections. In 1987 and 1988, we counted about 8 redds/km in the middle
section. In the upper and lower sections, we found 37 to 38 redds/km
(Figure
1). Not only were there fewer redds in the middle section,
survival of trout embryos was about one-half that of embryos in the upper
and lower sections.
Redd counts were resumed in 1997, when most of
the stream bank restoration work had been completed in the Cedar Run and
Slab Cabin Run sub-basins. In 1997 redd numbers in the middle section
increased to 31/km, nearly a fourfold increase over the counts in 1987-1988.
Redd counts increased over the next three years and then fluctuated about
the long-term mean of 46 redds/km, nearly six times higher than in
1987-1988.
While we would like to credit this substantial increase in trout redds to
our stream bank stabilization work, we need to be cautious about assigning
cause and effect. It is possible that there were decreases in sediment
contributions from Slab Cabin Run downstream of our project boundary or from
the borough of State College, where storm water drains into Thompson Run and
then into Slab Cabin Run. We do not know of any apparent reductions in
sediment delivery to streams, but it may have occurred. But clearly,
the reduction in total suspended solids that was documented in Cedar Run and
Slab Cabin Run translates to a reduction in sediment load of hundreds of
tons.
Bob Carline
Chair, Stream Improvement Committee
