Watershed Partnership 

Protects World-Class Trout 

Stream

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. EPA 

delegates the administration of 

the NPDES program to most 

states, and has done so for 

Pennsylvania.

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 fi sh 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 fi ned $35,000 for the violations 

at its sewage treatment plant and the fi ne 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 fl ow 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 eightmile (12.9 km) section where the Slab Cabin Run tributary 

drains into Spring Creek. 

Spring Creek:

• Is located in the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion - The 

ridge slopes are steep, the soils are thin, and they 

are not ideal for either farming or development. The 

valleys are fairly fl at, and the soil is deep and fertile.

• Drains into a tributary of the West Branch of 

the Susquehanna River and ultimately into the 

Chesapeake Bay.

• Is famous for its abundant population of wild brown 

trout and is one of the top trout streams in the state. 

• Has about 1/3 of the land in its watershed 

devoted to dairy and crop farming and a majority 

of the properties along the streams in the watershed 

are privately owned; therefore, the landowners’

participation was voluntary and they have no 

obligation to allow the public access to the streams. 

• Has the Pennsylvania State University within its 

watershed.

The overall goal of this project was to improve 

the brown trout habitat in Spring Creek by reducing 

sediment loads (non-point source) coming from Slab 

Cabin Run and Cedar Run by 50%. To accomplish 

this, landowners needed to be convinced to install 

bank stabilization and fence the riparian areas along 

their streams.
Solution

A partnership was formed among the Centre County 

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 

fi nance 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 fi nes 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 fi ne 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. Longterm 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 fl ow, stream 

temperature, sediment loads, substrate composition, 

benthic-macroinvertebrates, and fi sh − 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 Penn State.

The fi rst 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 fi ve 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.

Figure 1. An unfenced pasture along Slab Cabin Run allowed cattle unlimited 

access to the stream, producing erosion and pollution problems.
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.

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 2. Some landowners put stones that they found 

on their fi elds on sections of the streambanks that were 

becoming eroded. 
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).

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

1991-1992 1994-1995 2001

Median TSS (mg/ L)

Spring Creek

Cedar Run

Monitoring/Results Slab Cabin Run

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) of fence 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) of fence 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) of fence 

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 signifi cant, 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 fi sh 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 signifi cant 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 

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 multifl ora rose, is threatening to tear 

down the fence. 

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 of fence after a storm 

− and control of the weeds. In January 1996, fences on two of the properties were signifi cantly damaged due to serious 

fl ooding. 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. 

Figure 5. Crossings were installed to allow livestock 

limited access to the stream.
Resources

The costs of construction varied 

depending on the extent of rehabilitation 

needed. The main costs include fence 

(about $0.71/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. 

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 and some equipment. 

Figure 7. Cost of rehabilitation by sub watershed and funding sources.

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. 

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.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

TU

Owner

PMP

USFWS

USEPA

319H Grant

PGC

ASCS

Donation

$145,235

$29,895

$71,730

1,673'

Slab Cabin Run

804'

Cedar Run

3,640'

Spring Creek

feet stabilized

Sub Watershed

8,086

6,235

27,251

3,159

42,020

13,316

10,300 (1)

5,744

14,280

1,065

4,940 731

8,879 350

504

(1)

 PSU, $9,400/Centre Oil & Gas, $900 (2)

 One additional property on Thompson Run was stabilized at a cost of $2,230 ($1,000 from 

owner/$1,230 from TU)

Restoration Cost

($1000's)
Printed on chlorine free 100% recycled paper with 

100% post-consumer fi ber using vegetable-based ink.

EPA Region 3

Philadelphia, PA 19103

EPA/903/F-02/007

November 2002

Robert F. Carline, PhD 

f7u@psu.edu

814-865-4511

PA Cooperative Fish and 

Wildlife Research Unit

U.S. Geological Survey/

Biological Resources Division

Penn State University

Merkle Laboratory

University Park, PA 16802-1100

www.psu.edu

Kate Levendosky

kleven1@gl.umbc.edu

415-663-0938

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

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

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:

MAIA Best Management Practices 

Case Studies Course 

Organizations throughout the Mid-Atlantic region have developed 

and implemented unique approaches to respond to environmental 

problems and concerns. The Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment 

(MAIA) has also conducted considerable research in the region, 

much of which has been used by environmental managers to meet 

their responsibilities.

MAIA and UMBC initiated a graduate-level research seminar where 

students document these success stories so that other managers and 

organizations can also use these approaches and research.

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 fl ood repair damage.

Centre County Conservation District: 

Provided local project offi cer for the EPA grant from 

the PA DEP and submitted quarterly reports about the 

project.

USDA, 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.

All photographs were provided courtesy of R. Carline.