The Fishery of Spring Creek A Watershed Under Siege

By Robert F. Carline Rebecca L. Dunlap Jason E. Detar Bruce A. Hollender Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Technical Report Number 1 photo-PFBC Archives Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission P.O. Box 67000. Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000 www.fishandboat.com

© 2011 Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system without written permission from the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), or its agent, with the exception for inclusion of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly citation.

Printed in the United States of America

Carline, R. F., R. L. Dunlap, J. E. Detar, and B. A. Hollender. 2011. The fishery of Spring Creek – a watershed under siege. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Technical Report Number 1, Harrisburg, PA.

Mailing address for inquiries about this publication: Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Bureau of Policy, Planning and Communications Division of Communications P.O. Box 67000 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000

This publication is available online at www.fishandboat.com The printed version of this publication is provided on recycled paper. The Fishery of Spring Creek A Watershed Under Siege Table of Contents 24 Results • Fisherman’s Paradise 1980-2000 2 Foreword • Main Stem • Density and Biomass 2 About the Authors • Size Structure • Length at Age 3 Abstract • Spatiotemporal Variations in Growth • Reproduction 5 Introduction • Recreational Fishery • Tributaries 7 Study Area • Logan Branch • Gap Run 9 Human Populations Trends • Buffalo Run and Land Use • Slab Cabin Run • Galbraith Gap Run 10 Historical and Contemporary • Upper Spring Creek Water Quality • Cedar Run • Wastewater Treatment Facilities • Water Quality in the first half of the 33 Threats from Invasive Species 20th Century • Water Quality since 1950 35 Response to Landscape Alterations • Kepone and Mirex Contamination • Riparian Restoration • Streamflow and Water Quality Trends • I-99 Construction at the Axemann Gage 37 Using a Biotic Index to 15 Historical Notes on the Trout Fishery Assess Stream Condition

16 Trout Production 39 Threats from Increasing Urbanization • Early Years • Fish Culture Facilities in the Spring Creek 42 Managing Treated Wastewater Watershed and Storm Water • Pleasant Gap State Fish Hatchery • PSU Land Treatment Area • Bellefonte State Fish Hatchery • Beneficial Reuse • Benner Spring State Fish Hatchery • Storm Water Management • Riparian Buffer Restoration 19 Fisherman’s Paradise 43 Summary 20 Fish Community Composition and Biomass 45 Acknowledgements 22 Contemporary Assessment Methods • Population Assessments 45 Literature Cited • Growth • Length at Age 53 Figures • Seasonal Variation • Redd Surveys 70 Tables • Angler Surveys 80 Appendices Foreword A fishery consists of three elements: the animals that are being pursued, the habitat in which the animals live, and the people who are pursuing the animals for either sport or commercial purposes. Hence, in attempting to describe the historical and contemporary fishery of Spring Creek, we put considerable emphasis on habitat features, particularly water quality, while describing the trout populations and the anglers who were and are engaged in this fishery. We have written this bulletin with several audiences in mind: fisheries managers and researchers, regulatory agencies, municipal planners, elected officials, and anglers. We use metric units because much of our data were collected using that system, and it is preferred for scientific publications. We have included equivalent English units after the first use of a metric unit, except for flow, where we always give the English equivalents. The challenge of addressing audiences with such a broad range of interests is finding the right balance between technical detail and ease of comprehension. We leave it to the readers to tell us if we came close to that balance.

About the Authors Dr. Robert Carline devoted Rebecca Dunlap serves as Manager for the northcentral his entire professional career Manager for National Trout region. During his time with the to fisheries research. He began Unlimited’s Eastern Abandoned Commission, Jason has been working with the Wisconsin Mine Program which focuses involved with several fisheries Department of Natural on the conservation, protection, management and habitat Resources in 1967, then took a and restoration of the coldwater enhancement and restoration position with the U.S. Fish and fisheries and watersheds that projects in the Spring Creek Wildlife Service in 1976, and have been impacted by historic watershed. Jason earned a came to Pennsylvania in 1984, coal mining throughout the B.S. degree in Wildlife and where he was Leader of the Appalachian region. Prior to Fisheries Science from PSU Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish joining Trout Unlimited, she and a M.S. degree in Biology and Wildlife Research Unit, served as the Water Resources from Tennessee Technological U.S. Geological Survey, until Coordinator for the ClearWater University. his retirement in April 2007. He Conservancy and managed the Bruce Hollender began as a served as Adjunct Professor of Spring Creek Watershed’s Water biologist with the Pennsylvania Fisheries in the School of Forest Resources Monitoring Program. Fish and Boat Commission in Resources at The Pennsylvania Becky has a B.S. degree 1971 and went on to become State University (PSU), where in Biology from Mansfield the Area Fisheries Manager the Unit is housed. He began University and a M.S. degree in for the northcentral region; his first research project on Biology from the University of he retired in 2007. During Spring Creek in 1985 and has North Texas. his tenure he surveyed and been actively involved in a Jason Detar joined the developed management plans wide variety of projects in the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat for most of the streams, rivers, watershed since then. Commission in 2004 and is and lakes in the region. He currently the Area Fisheries earned B.S. and M.S. degrees in Natural Resources, majoring in Fisheries, from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.

2 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Abstract The Spring Creek watershed the watershed. These springs years, wastewater treatment (378 km2; 146 mi2) has provide adequate year-round plants have been consolidated undergone substantial changes stream flow, and they moderate into two facilities, and treated in land use since settlement water temperatures in summer wastewater from PSU is being in the late 1700s. Even though and winter. spray irrigated onto agricultural urbanization and population and forest lands. It is likely that While these springs have growth are increasing at a rapid water quality in Spring Creek is long benefited water quality, pace, Spring Creek continues better now than it has been raw sewage from population to support wild trout and a since 1900. centers in the early 1900s heavily-used sport fishery. The probably polluted certain stream Deteriorating water quality purpose of this bulletin is to reaches. Between 1913 and and stocking of brown trout in trace the history of the Spring 1968, five wastewater treatment the 1890s probably contributed Creek fishery, attempt to relate plants were constructed in to the decline of native brook changes in the fishery to human the watershed, but discharges trout in the watershed. Some activities, and assess potential from several of these plants wild brook trout persisted in the threats. The persistence of often degraded water quality. main stem of Spring Creek until wild trout in Spring Creek is In addition, Spring Creek was the 1950s, but by then brown linked to the karst geology, subjected to numerous toxic trout had taken over the main which is characterized by many spills, some of which killed stem and much of the tributaries. limestone springs throughout thousands of fish. In recent Contamination of Spring Creek

Spring Creek in the scenic canyon section, upstream of Fisherman’s Paradise.

photo-PFBC Archives

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 3 with kepone and mirex led to the were initially allowed to harvest Conversion of forests and cessation of stocking catchable two trout per day. The reach was agricultural land to urban areas size trout and imposition of no- heavily stocked with large trout, and to transportation networks harvest regulations in 1982 to and fishing pressure was intense represents the biggest threat prevent consumption of tainted over the two-month season. to the watershed and the trout fish. These management changes Angler-use peaked in 1952 with fishery. We monitored two appear to have benefited brown more than 44,000 angler trips. sites on Spring Creek during trout; between 1980 and 1988, Poor water quality and high cost construction of Interstate density of age-1 and older brown of the program led to its closure Highway 99 (I-99) and found trout increased by 180% and in 1961. Thereafter, Fisherman’s that sediment loading to in 1988 density ranged from Paradise was managed as a the stream increased during 678 to 1,327 trout/ha. Density ‘fish-for-fun’ program, tackle construction, but there was no continued to increase until 2000 restrictions remained in place, evidence that trout spawning and declined somewhat in 2006, and stocking of trout was habitat or macroinvertebrate when density ranged from 368 to discontinued after the 1981 communities were affected. 1,563 trout/ha. Growth of brown season. Fishing pressure remains When macroinvertebrate trout was typical of limestone high. From April to June 2006, communities were used to streams statewide; age-4 brown estimated pressure was 5,063 assess stream health, it seemed trout averaged 318 mm (12.5 in) angler-h/km, which was 34 that urbanization in the upper total length. Stream flow and times higher than the estimated one-half of the watershed was temperature, rather than trout average fishing pressure on wild impairing water quality. In other density, seemed to have the most trout streams statewide in 2004. watersheds, impervious surface influence on growth. Above- Most of Spring Creek had been area has been used as a good average temperatures and below- stocked with catchable size trout, surrogate of urban development; average stream flow in summer and liberal harvest regulations when imperviousness reached suppressed growth, while above- were in effect until the 1982 7-11%, trout populations average temperatures and flow fishing season, at which time were lost. The Spring Creek in winter enhanced growth. harvest was prohibited, there watershed had 12% impervious Counts of brown trout redds were no tackle restrictions, and cover in 1995, and in the upper from 1987 to 2005 indicate that the stream was open for fishing one-half of the watershed, spawning effort has increased, year-round. Angler surveys in impervious cover was 19%. We with the most notable increases 1988-1989 revealed high fishing suggest that the reason Spring occurring in the lower and pressure in sections with no Creek is still able to sustain middle reaches of the main stem. tackle restrictions and catch rates wild trout with this degree of By the late 1800s, Spring that exceeded 1.2 trout/h. Fishing urbanization is the relatively Creek had a reputation as an pressure has been increasing large input of groundwater into excellent trout fishery. This in recent years, and in April the stream. Further development reputation was further enhanced to June 2006, we estimated that increases impervious cover, in 1934 with the establishment of 4,344 angler-h/km in a section reduces groundwater recharge, a specially regulated 1.8-km reach with good public access, which or both, will certainly increase that later became known as represents a 400% increase the stress on Spring Creek and Fisherman’s Paradise. Terminal compared to a similar time reduce its ability to support tackle was restricted to flies tied period in 1989. wild trout. on barbless hooks, and anglers

4 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Introduction The trout fishery in Spring Creek, Centre County, Pennsylvania, like many trout fisheries in the New England and mid-Atlantic states, has undergone substantial alterations since the 1800s, owing primarily to changes in the landscape brought about by ever-increasing perturbations from an expanding human population. Unlike many coldwater fisheries close to population centers, the Spring Creek fishery, though altered, has persisted quite well, and remains as one of the best trout fisheries in the Commonwealth.

The trout fishery in Spring Brook Trout Creek owes its prominence to the underlying karst geology of the watershed. The limestone and dolomite bedrock favors rapid infiltration of surface water into the ground, where it replenishes the groundwater reserve. This large groundwater reservoir, in turn, emerges in many large springs that account for about 80% of the stream flow in the main stem of Spring Creek (Giddings 1974). These springs serve to maintain adequate stream The distribution of native brook trout in the Spring Creek watershed flow, even during dry periods, is now confined to a few small tribitaries. and help to maintain moderate photo by B. Hollender water temperatures, because temperature of the springs is In this bulletin, we trace the The former Bush House on about 10oC (50oF) year-round, history of the Spring Creek the banks of Spring Creek in which approximates the mean fishery, attempt to relate Bellefonte provided lodging annual air temperature. Some of changes in the fishery to human for anglers and had a long the precipitation that infiltrates activities, and look ahead to veranda extending over the into the groundwater of the potential threats with the hope stream from which anglers adjacent Spruce Creek watershed that this highly valued resource could catch “speckled beauties.” flows in a northeasterly can be conserved through Local officials undoubtedly direction and contributes to informed decision making by recognized the importance of the aquifer of the Spring Creek local and state agencies. fishing and demonstrated this by watershed. The portion of the Spruce Creek watershed The trout fishery in Spring mounting the outline of a trout that contributes to the Spring Creek has played an important on the weather vane that still Creek aquifer encompasses role in the culture of the sits atop of the Centre County Gatesburg Formation bedrock, watershed community (Figure Courthouse in Bellefonte. which captures a significantly 1, page 53). Bellefonte was a higher percentage of recharge destination for trout anglers than other valley floor bedrock beginning in the late 1800s. settings (Taylor 1997). Thus, a

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 5 geologic anomaly has provided Spring Creek with an ample supply of groundwater that has nurtured an exceptional wild trout population. Originally, native brook trout (see Table 1, page 70, for scientific names) sustained the fishery (Cooper 1983). In the early 1900s, introduced brown trout established a solid foothold in the stream, and, by the late 1950s, they had completely displaced brook trout in the main stem of Spring Creek. Additionally, the increasing human population along with increased pollution in the first Spring Creek flowing through Bellefonte. half of the 20th Century may have contributed to the demise photo by R. Carline of brook trout. Fish kills in the 1950s provided the impetus for a series of studies by Dr. generalizations about the trout area. In the Baltimore region Edwin L. Cooper, Professor fishery and to try to understand of Maryland, Stranko et al. of Ichthyology at PSU, and how the fishery has responded (2008) showed that brook trout state agencies. Cooper and his to natural and human-induced were extirpated from most students produced the first perturbations. streams when impervious comprehensive description of The effects of urbanization surface reached about 7% of the fish community along the on fish communities have the watershed. These types length of Spring Creek, and received considerable attention of studies provide convincing they made the first quantitative recently. For example, Schueler evidence that there is some estimates of density and biomass (1994) reviewed studies dealing upper limit to the amount of trout and other species. with effects of urbanization on of urbanization, particularly Hollender et al. (1981) completed physicochemical and biological imperviousness, above which a comprehensive assessment characteristics of streams coldwater fish communities are of the fish community with and suggested that when a not likely to persist. Part of our emphasis on trout in 1980, and watershed’s area of impervious motivation for this study was to he collaborated with the senior surfaces exceeded 10%, stream assess the status of the Spring author to continue periodic biodiversity declined. Similarly, Creek watershed in relation to assessments until 2006. Here, Wang et al. (2003) found that urbanization and to forecast we rely primarily on these trout were largely eliminated potential changes in the wild assessments to make some when connected imperviousness trout fishery. exceeded 10% of the watershed

6 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Study Area Spring Creek flows 36 km the limestone and dolomite (22 mi) from its source near Spring Creek bedrock, which provide a substantial storage capacity Boalsburg to its confluence with flows 36 km Bald Eagle Creek in Milesburg. for groundwater, and are the It drains a 378-km2 (146 mi2) (22 mi) from source of many large springs. Sinkholes form where the roofs watershed, which is located its source near near the geographic center of of dissolution cavities collapse; the state and is part of the larger Boalsburg to its many of these are found at the West Branch Susquehanna confluence with bases of the ridges. Sinkholes River drainage (Figure 1, often have direct connections to page 53). The watershed lies Bald Eagle Creek caverns and large cracks, which within the Ridge and Valley in Milesburg. It act as conduits for the rapid transmission of groundwater Physiographic Province 2 of the folded Appalachian drains a 378-km (White 1988). There are at least Mountains (Cuff et al. 1989). (146 mi 2) seven springs in the watershed The terrain is characterized with an outflow greater than watershed, 3 by long, high ridges and broad 0.04 m /s (1 mgd), the largest valleys that run in a northeast- which is located of which is Big Spring in southwest direction. The ridges Bellefonte Borough, which near the 3 are comprised primarily of yields about 0.83 m /s (19 mgd; sandstone and some shales, geographic center WRMC 2006). These large springs, together with many while the valleys are underlain of the state and is by calcareous formations that smaller springs and seeps, are 1,800 to 2,400 m (5,900 to part of the larger provide a relatively constant flow of groundwater to Spring 7,874 ft) thick (Giddings 1974). West Branch Soils on the ridges are coarse- Creek and its tributaries. grained and relatively thin. In Susquehanna The average daily flow of Spring the valleys, soils are derived River drainage. Creek at the Milesburg gage is 6.62 from carbonates, are composed m3/s (234 cfs), and the contributing largely of silt and clay, and surface drainage area is 368 vary in thickness from a few surface flow disappears below km2 (USGS 2008a). The gage is centimeters to more than 60 m. the land surface and becomes located about 1 km upstream of The mean annual air part of the groundwater. the mouth of Spring Creek, such o o that the total surface drainage area temperature is 9.7 C (49.5 F) at Fulton et al. (2005) provide of the basin is 378 km2. The water the State College Climatological a concise summary of the yield of Spring Creek is relatively Station, on the PSU campus. geologic and hydrologic setting high, because the groundwater Mean annual precipitation is 97 of the Spring Creek watershed. drainage area is about 17% cm (38 in), and average monthly Prominent features of the karst larger than the surface water precipitation ranges from 6.2 cm geology include sinkholes drainage area (Taylor 1997). in February to 9.8 cm in May. First and dissolution cracks in and second order streams that Of the five major tributaries flow down the steep ridges often to Spring Creek, Logan Branch encounter sinkholes at the base contributes 35% of the total of the slope, and much of the stream flow and the other four

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 7 tributaries together contribute Like water chemistry, 29% (WRMC 1999). The Of the five major stream temperature is strongly Benner Spring and Bellefonte influenced by proximity to large State Fish Hatcheries discharge tributaries to Spring springs, which have an average into the main stem and provide Creek, Logan Branch annual temperature of about 9% of the flow, two wastewater 10o C. Among monitoring treatment plants add 5%, and contributes 35% of stations at the mouths of Big Spring contributes 5% of the the total stream flow tributaries and the main stem, total flow (Figure 1, page 53). and the other four the lowest July temperatures The remaining 17% of the flow (12.6o C) were at the upper comes from unmeasured springs tributaries together Spring Creek site, near the that feed the main stem. contribute 29% . confluence with Cedar Run The chemical make-up The Benner Spring (Figure 2, page 54; WRMC 2003). There is a large spring of surface waters is largely and Bellefonte State dependent on the source immediately upstream of locations in the watershed. First Fish Hatcheries this site. With the exception of Buffalo Run, tributaries order tributaries that originate discharge into the on the sandstone-shale ridges provided water cooler than that are typically low in dissolved main stem and in the main stem. As water materials. For example, provide 9% of the moves down the main stem, it gradually warms. But, as Galbraith Gap Run had these flow, two wastewater characteristics: pH 7.25, total Spring Creek passes through the hardness 16 mg/L as CaCO3, treatment plants add Borough of Bellefonte, Logan nitrate nitrogen 0.34 mg/L, and Branch and Big Spring enter and 5%, and Big Spring temperature in the main stem orthophosphate <0.01 mg/L o (data from December 2007; contributes 5% of declines by about 2 C in July. G. Smith, Water Resources the total flow. During January, large Monitoring Project). In contrast, The remaining 17% springs tend to increase stream first order streams that arise temperature. Water entering from limestone springs in the of the flow comes the main stem from tributaries valley floor have relatively high from unmeasured is slightly warmer than that in concentrations of dissolved springs that feed the the main stem, but, as the water materials. The Axemann Spring, moves down the main stem, which flows into Logan Branch, main stem. it cools during winter. Here had the following average values: again, addition of flow from pH 7.40, total hardness 328 mg/L Logan Branch and Big Spring as CaCO3, nitrate nitrogen 5.8 increase stream temperature Milesburg gage had the following mg/L, and total orthophosphate by about 2o C in January. average values: pH 8.3, total <0.01 mg/L (data from 2005- Owing to the moderating effect hardness 230 mg/L as CaCO3, 2007; G. Smith, Water Resources of groundwater inputs, Spring nitrate nitrogen 3.5 mg/L, and Monitoring Project). Most Creek rarely freezes over total orthophosphate 0.026 mg/L of the stream flow in Spring in winter. (data from 2005-2007; G. Smith, Creek originates from limestone Water Resources Monitoring springs; hence, the main stem has Project). high concentrations of dissolved materials. Spring Creek at the

8 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Human Population Trends and Land Use

Fisherman’s Paradise section of Spring Creek offers the most scenic angling experience.

ClearWater Conservancy photo archives The Spring Creek watershed more than one-half of the The townships of Benner, was first colonized by white population resided in the Spring College, Harris, Patton, settlers around 1770, and Centre Creek watershed. We can only and Spring have all or most County, with a population of approximate the number of (>80%) of their land area in the about 4,000, was established by people residing in the watershed, watershed, and, together with the Commonwealth in 1800. The because boundaries of the three boroughs (excludes Centre population grew steadily until watershed and the municipalities Hall), these municipalities had 1890, a period characterized by do not coincide. Parts or all of a population of 84,013 in 2005. resource extraction industries 10 townships and the boroughs Hence, the population of the (Figure 3, page 55). For the of Bellefonte, Centre Hall, Spring Creek watershed was next 50 years, the population Milesburg, and State College between 80,000 and 110,000 remained stable until the onset of are in the watershed, and in people in 2005. The Centre World War II, which stimulated 2005 the population of these 14 County Planning Office’s the growth of diversified municipalities was 110,290. estimates of land use in 2002 industries and service activities, was 45% forest, 28% agriculture, including the expansion of PSU. 18% developed, and 9% By 2005, the county’s population undeveloped (Figure 2, page 54). had exceeded 140,000, and

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 9 Historical and Contemporary Water Quality The history of water quality in the Spring Creek watershed seems closely linked to chronic discharges of pollutants from point sources, such as wastewater treatment plants and fish hatcheries, and from episodic spills of pollutants that often resulted in fish kills, some of which were rather spectacular. 1976). At that time, phosphates UAJA were used in household detergents, and elevated phosphate concentrations were probably common in most wastewater treatment discharges. Pennsylvania Department of Health files (now located with Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), noted high concentrations of ammonia and a high biological oxygen demand (BOD) in the treatment plant effluent, so that the fish kill was probably not due solely to high respiration rates and subsequent oxygen depletion caused by excessive plant biomass. The The University Area Joint Authority’s (UAJA) wastewater treatment plant plant was upgraded in 1963 and provides service to most residents in the State College area. part of the treated effluent was photo by J. Brown spray irrigated on crops and Wastewater Treatment woodlands in the Toftrees area Facilities about 5 km from the plant. By PSU built the first wastewater and Boat Commission, PFBC, 1983, all treated effluent was treatment plant in the watershed in 1991) Benner Spring State spray irrigated and discharge to in 1913 at its present location Fish Hatchery died, owing to Thompson Run was completely near the intersection of East low levels of dissolved oxygen eliminated. College Avenue and University in Spring Creek, which supplied The 1958 fish kill was notable, Drive. The plant received wastes water to the rearing facilities. because it resulted in a series of from campus and part of the Respiration from a huge biomass investigations by Pennsylvania Borough of State College. The of aquatic plants in Spring Creek Department of Health biologists, plant has undergone several caused dissolved oxygen to fall Pennsylvania Fish Commission renovations and expansions to very low levels at night. The personnel, and faculty and staff since its initial construction. aquatic plants were abundant from PSU. Prior to the 1958 Perhaps the most notable event because of high levels of incident, there was very little in the plant’s history occurred phosphates in the treatment plant information on water quality in in 1958, when 2,000 trout in the discharge (Cooper and Wagner Spring Creek in agency files. Pennsylvania Fish Commission’s The resulting investigations (renamed the Pennsylvania Fish examined water quality, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fishes

10 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege in Spring Creek, which provided Rockview since 1992, and its permit condition that limits the the first quantitative estimates permitted capacity is 0.14 m3/s temperature of treated discharge, of fish populations (Cooper and (3.22 mgd). the Authority implemented a Wagner 1976). The Ferguson Township water reuse project. Some of The State Correctional wastewater treatment plant the plant’s treated wastewater Institution at Rockview (SCI in Pine Grove Mills was first is further purified with new Rockview) opened in 1912, but it permitted in 1966 (Personal technology, such that the was not until about 20 years later communication, Josh Collins, resulting water meets drinking that a wastewater treatment plant Ferguson Township Engineer); water standards. This highly was constructed to accommodate it discharged into Slab Cabin treated water is being piped 900 prisoners. The plant Run. Although there are to a golf course for irrigation, discharged into Spring Creek no records of water quality a laundry service, and a 3.5 km (2.2 mi) upstream of problems downstream from constructed wetland. Fisherman’s Paradise. In 1961, the plant, a series of permit The PFBC operates three fish Fisherman’s Paradise was closed violations during the 1980s and hatcheries in the Spring Creek to angling because of poor water 1990s led to the plant’s closure watershed. The Pleasant Gap quality that was traced back to in 2000. Wastewater that had State Fish Hatchery discharges into the SCI Rockview treatment been treated by this plant was the headwaters of Logan Branch. plant. The plant was upgraded in then rerouted to the University The Benner Spring and Bellefonte 1967, but water quality problems Area Joint Authority (UAJA) Hatcheries discharge directly into persisted. Between 1969 and plant in College Township. In Spring Creek. Collectively, these 1994, the plant was frequently addition, the Hanover Canning three facilities discharge about cited for non-compliance with Co. operated a cannery in Oak 0.81 m3/s (18.4 mgd) of treated its discharge permit. In 1992, all Hall from around 1950 to 1972. wastewater, and the quality of their wastewater from the prison was Overflows from its wastewater discharge is regulated by DEP piped to Bellefonte for treatment holding pond occasionally permits. and the Institution’s discharge affected water quality in In addition to the above- to Spring Creek was eliminated. Spring Creek, but there are no mentioned discharges in the The prison also operated a records of fish kills related to Spring Creek watershed, there cannery; wastewater was spray these spills. are several small permitted irrigated onto adjacent crop The UAJA’s wastewater discharges and perhaps several lands. In 2001, cannery wastes treatment plant went into thousand private, on-lot septic were applied to a man-made operation in 1969. The plant systems that may contribute wetland, and a few years later, discharges into Spring Creek pollutants to surface waters and the cannery was closed. about 2.5 km upstream of the groundwater. Bellefonte constructed its Benner Spring Hatchery. The Water Quality in the First first wastewater treatment plant plant was expanded in 1992, in 1939, and it discharged into and its permitted maximum Half of the 20th Century Spring Creek downstream of discharge was increased from The absence of water quality the borough. A new plant was 0.17 to 0.26 m3/s (3.84 to 6.0 reports until the 1950s forces one constructed in 1971, and it was mgd). In response to a discharge to speculate about the conditions expanded in 1990 when its in Spring Creek in the early capacity was increased from part of the 20th Century. There 0.08 m3/s (1.75 mgd) to 0.11 m3/s were no wastewater treatment (2.4 mgd). The plant has been plants in the watershed until treating wastewater from SCI 1913. Hence, raw sewage was

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 11 flowing into the stream from Research Laboratory on the may have accounted for more Bellefonte Borough and probably PSU campus (Glover 1957). fish killed than any other single from SCI Rockview starting As the cyanide passed through source. But, perhaps the Nease in 1912, and the boroughs of the wastewater treatment plant, Chemical Co.’s most significant State College, Lemont, and it probably killed most of the legacy is the contamination of Boalsburg. Prior to 1913, PSU’s microorganisms in the treatment groundwater with two toxic wastewater was believed to have system and then flowed out into and highly persistent chemicals been discharged into a sink hole Thompson Run, then to Slab – kepone and mirex. In a or cave near College Avenue. Cabin Run, and finally to Spring following section, we address This raw sewage could have Creek. More than 147,000 trout the kepone and mirex pollution rapidly emerged in Thompson were killed in the Benner Spring in greater detail. Spring. Given these multiple and Bellefonte hatcheries, which On the positive side, in 1968, sources of raw sewage, it is indicates that this spill was the UAJA began operation of a likely that Spring Creek from still toxic 16 km downstream new treatment plant that relieved Lemont to Milesburg had poor from the PSU treatment plant. the PSU plant of some sewage water quality compared to An unknown number of fish load and brought service to today’s standards. After PSU (probably > 100,000) in these homes that had been using on- constructed its plant in 1913, two tributaries and Spring Creek lot septic systems. The cannery SCI Rockview followed, and, perished. This spill may have operation in Oak Hall closed finally, Bellefonte Borough also had long-lasting effects on in 1972. The PSU plant ceased constructed its first plant in stream invertebrates. According discharging to Thompson Run 1939. Presumably, water quality to George Harvey, the green and began spray irrigating all was reasonably good through Ephemera drake mayfly ( of its effluent in 1983. SCI the 1940s. guttulata) was never seen after Rockview ceased discharging to the cyanide incident. The deadly Water Quality since 1950 Spring Creek in 1992, and the 1950s ended with the 1958 Ferguson Township treatment Conditions then began to fish kill at the Benner Spring plant closed in 2000. Thus, deteriorate in the early 1950s. Hatchery, which was traced by 2001, the number of major A fish kill below the Bellefonte back to the PSU wastewater domestic wastewater treatment treatment plant was attributed treatment plant. plants discharging in the to low levels of dissolved Toxic spills continued during watershed had been reduced oxygen, possibly due to the plant the 1960s, and several of from five to two plants. The two exceeding its treatment capacity these originated from Nease remaining domestic wastewater (Table 2, page 71). Then, point Chemical Co., which was plants, Bellefonte and the source discharges produced located along State Route 26, UAJA, have been operating in several fish kills. The 1954 spill 1.2 km from Spring Creek compliance with their discharge from the Titan Metal Co. on (Table 2, page 71). The 1965 permits. The three state fish Logan Branch decimated nearly spill caused a complete kill of hatcheries have been or are all aquatic life in Logan Branch fish for 2.4 km downstream being upgraded to improve the and for 2.4 km of Spring Creek of State Route 26. Spills from quality of their discharge. Thus, downstream of the confluence Nease Chemical Co. continued given all of these changes, we with Logan Branch. into the 1970s. The 1971 spill are comfortable in stating that The most famous fish kill resulted in fish mortality for the water quality in Spring occurred in 1956 when sodium 4.0 km. Nease Chemical Co. Creek and its tributaries is better cyanide was poured down a now than it has been since 1900, drain in the Naval Ordinance and perhaps much earlier.

12 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Kepone and Mirex contaminants in brown trout and the site was regulated by the Contamination exceeded the U.S. Food and U.S. EPA as a Superfund Site. Drug Administrations (FDA) Cleanup activities are nearing Mark Hartle, fisheries action levels (mirex, 100 μg/ completion at the plant site, and biologist with the PFBC, kg; kepone, 300 μg/kg). In monitoring of contaminants provided the following synopsis the years leading up to the continues. of the kepone and mirex discovery of kepone and mirex Kepone levels declined rather contamination of Spring Creek. in Spring Creek, the stream quickly through time, but During the late 1950s through was heavily stocked with trout. mirex levels persisted in trout mid-1970s, the Nease Chemical However, in 1977 due to the in excess of U.S. FDA action Plant (now Rütgers Organics discovery of the contaminants, levels until 2001. In 2000, the Corporation) manufactured the Fish Commission reduced PFBC established the Spring specialty chemicals, including the stocking rate of trout Creek Trout Management Area the pesticides kepone downstream from the area regulations on the same 28.5- (chlordecone) and mirex where kepone and mirex km reach of stream designated (dechlorane). Releases of kepone were first identified and then in 1982 as a No-Kill Zone and mirex from handling and discontinued stocking this reach due to the kepone and mirex waste management practices in 1978 to eliminate human contamination, except for the resulted in these contaminants health risk to anglers and others 1.6-km reach of stream known entering soil, groundwater, consuming trout caught in as Fisherman’s Paradise and surface water, and sediment. contaminated areas. In 1982, the the 0.8-km reach known as the Kepone and especially mirex Fish Commission established Exhibition Area in Bellefonte are long-lived compounds that a ‘No-Kill Zone Due to Borough. No-harvest regulations adsorb to soil, are transported Contamination’ that prohibited were already in effect for through the movement of the harvest of all fish in Spring Fisherman’s Paradise, and contaminated soil and sediment, Creek in the 28.5-km reach from angling is prohibited in the and can accumulate in high the SR 3010 bridge in Oak Hall Exhibition Area. In 2001, the concentrations in both stream downstream to the mouth. sediment and biota. The PFBC removed the No-Kill contaminants were transported The Nease Chemical Zone regulations, because mirex from the chemical plant site Plant site was added to the levels in trout fillets had fallen to Spring Creek via a surface National Priorities List of below the U.S. FDA action water drainage ditch and contaminated sites in 1983 level. Spring Creek continues to through Thornton Spring, which by the U.S. Environmental be managed under no-harvest discharges groundwater into Protection Agency (EPA). regulations for trout. Harvest Spring Creek. Remedial activities affecting of other species, such as white the surface water drainage suckers, is permitted under the In 1976, kepone and mirex ditch, soil, and groundwater current regulations, except for were first detected in the flesh of have since proceeded under the Fisherman’s Paradise, where the brown trout from Spring Creek Comprehensive Environmental taking of bait fish is prohibited. collected near Spring Creek Response, Compensation, and Stream Flow and Water Park during investigations by Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, the Pennsylvania Department Quality Trends at the of Environmental Resources Axemann Gage (now the Department of The U.S. Geological Survey Environmental Protection). (USGS) installed the first Subsequent analyses indicated permanent stream gaging station that concentrations of the

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 13 on Spring Creek in 1942, about onset, water was analyzed PSU treatment plant to spray 1.6 km downstream of the for pH, alkalinity, acidity, irrigation in 1983 eliminated Bellefonte State Fish Hatchery. aluminum, iron, and sulfate. a major source of nutrients to This site is 2.6 km west of the Total phosphorus, nitrate, the stream, and, more recently, village Axemann; hence, it was nitrite, ammonia, and several the closure of treatment plants labeled the Axemann gage. other analyses were added in at SCI Rockview and Ferguson Annual mean daily flow has 1972. Stream pH has not varied Township has further reduced ranged from 1.22 m3/s (43 cfs) greatly, and has averaged 7.9 nutrient loading. The major in 1965 to 4.87 m3/s (172 cfs) in (EPA 2007). Interestingly, total wastewater discharger in the 2004, and it has averaged 2.49 alkalinity has increased, on upper Spring Creek basin m3/s (88 cfs) over a 66-year average, from about 160 mg/L as (UAJA) has been using tertiary period (USGS 2008b). Annual CaCO3 in 1950 to 180 mg/L as treatment to remove phosphorus variations in flow were closely CaCO3 in 2004 (Figure 5, page from its discharge since the linked to precipitation (Figure 57). This change in alkalinity plant began operations in 1969. 4, page 56). When we used a may reflect an increase Hence, all of these changes multiple linear regression to in water withdrawal from have contributed to reducing predict annual mean daily flow alkaline wells for household phosphorus loading in using precipitation during the use and subsequent treatment Spring Creek. year of flow measurement and and disposal via wastewater Nitrogen, the other nutrient the previous year, a highly treatment plants to the stream of concern, has also shown a significant relation resulted during the past 50 years. In the decreasing trend over the past (R2 = 0.75, P < 0.001) The first half of the 21st century, 35 years. Since 1972, nitrite has addition of year as an more residents were relying on decreased from about 0.1 mg/L independent variable did not surface water supplies, which as N to less than 0.04 mg/L, improve the relationship, which typically came from soft water which is the minimum detection indicates there have been no sources on the sandstone ridges. level. Similarly, ammonia has long-term changes in annual These small water systems have decreased from about 0.3 mg/L mean daily flow. Similarly, there now been largely replaced by as N to less than 0.02 mg/L. have been no striking changes larger water authorities that rely The reduction in these two in short term low flows. In fact, on wells deep into the limestone nitrogenous compounds the annual 7-day low flows bedrock. probably reflects the removal from 1941 to 2005 show a slight Since 1972 there have been of some wastewater discharges increase, which suggests that substantial changes in stream and improved efficiency in groundwater reserves have been nutrient concentrations. The the remaining wastewater increasing rather than decreasing most notable of these has treatment plants. Nitrate (personal communication, been the reduction in total concentrations have not changed L. Fennessey, PSU). phosphorus, which declined since 1972; concentrations have The Pennsylvania Department from 0.9 mg/L as P in 1972 to averaged about 4.0 mg/L as N. of Health began collecting less than 0.05 mg/L in recent Stormwater runoff from urban water quality data at quarterly years (Figure 6, page 58). and agricultural lands is the intervals at the Axemann gage Several factors have contributed likely source of nitrates. Overall, site in 1950. Sampling frequency to this decline. The diversion data collected at the Axemann increased through time until of treated effluent from the gage suggests that stream 1977, when monthly sampling flow largely reflects annual was initiated. At the program precipitation, and water quality has improved.

14 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Historical Notes on the Trout Fishery

Shields (2003) displaced brook described the trout well up trout fishery of Spring Brown trout became into Cedar Run, Creek and how it has well-established in the early it seems logical to evolved through time. conclude that brown Historically, native 1900s and, by the 1940s, had trout had largely brook trout sustained become the dominant displaced brook trout the fishery, which salmonid in the throughout the main was apparently good stem of Spring Creek. enough to attract watershed. In the late 1950s, the famous angler, E. Cooper failed to Theodore Gordon, collect any wild brook who raved about the recalls catching brook trout near trout in the main stem excellent brook trout fishing Benner Spring from the 1930s of Spring Creek or Cedar Run. near Bellefonte in the early to the early 1950s before the He collected wild brook trout in 1870s (McDonald 1989). In a hatchery was built. He states upper Slab Cabin Run, but none 1915 letter, Gordon writes about that during summer months was found there in 2008. a subsequent fishing trip to brook trout congregated in the On the basis of these Bellefonte and notes that brown cold outflow of the Benner admittedly meager records, we trout had “taken possession” of Spring and in other localized suggest that brown trout became the stream. The Corry State Fish areas influenced by springs. well-established in the early Hatchery shipped six cans of These observations suggest that 1900s and, by the 1940s, had brown trout fry to five railroad there were still reproducing become the dominant salmonid stations in the watershed brook trout in the main stem of in the watershed. Brook trout between 1892 and 1898. Spring Creek during the 1950s. continue to persist in Galbraith Providing that these fish were But, it is likely that brown trout Gap Run; two tributaries to Slab stocked in Spring Creek and it were the dominant salmonid, Cabin Run; an unnamed stream tributaries, these stockings may because in 1948 Donley (1948) flowing through Musser Gap have been responsible for the surveyed Cedar Run upstream and Roaring Run; Gap Run; and initial colonization of the stream of Linden Hall and found no Logan Branch, but clearly, the by brown trout. wild brook trout, but collected native brook trout occupies but It is not clear how quickly brown trout from several age a small proportion of its former brown trout displaced native groups, including young of the range within the watershed. brook trout. Joseph Humphreys year. Given that brown trout had

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 15 Trout Production Early Years In 1873, the State Fish Hatchery in southeastern Hatchery by the Washington Commissioners of Fisheries Erie County. The 1887-1888 Commission. Presumably, the (SCF) brought 35,000 brook Report of the Commissioners latter refers to the U.S. Fish trout eggs to the State Hatching states that 30,000 impregnated Commission. During the period House at Donegal Springs, eggs of the Loch Leven trout, 1889-1891, the Corry State Fish Lancaster County, to be raised originally from Scotland, were Hatchery shipped 66,000 brown for possible stocking. By 1877, sent to the Corry State Fish trout fry and 30,000 ‘Loch the output of brook trout fry Leven’ fry. In 1895, the Corry reached 154,000. In the 1881- State Fish Hatchery reported 1882 report by the SCF, it was “There are still shipping 135,000 European noted that more than 250,000 many trout streams brown trout fry, which suggests brook trout had been stocked in that the German and Scottish most of the central and eastern in Pennsylvania that strains were mixed. Yet, in counties of the Commonwealth. afford full creels to 1905, the Corry State Fish Hatchery reported shipments of Much of the fish stocking was the angler, but with 68,000 Loch Leven fingerlings. done by individuals who sent Thereafter, the distinction an application for fish to the the ever increasing between the two European Commissioner living closest army of fishermen strains was not maintained. to them. Annual or biennial it is absolutely reports of the SCF published The practice of raising and in the late 1800s contained essential that the stocking fish in Pennsylvania long lists of individuals who supply must be kept has a long history, founded received shipments of fry of on the notion that natural various species. Fish were up by restocking reproduction of fishes could not shipped by rail in cans equipped with artificially meet the demands of a harvest- with a plunger to aerate the raised fish, because oriented fishing public. These water. The 1887-1888 report of sentiments were expressed in the the Commissioners included the streams under annual Report of the Department “Directions for Obtaining Fish,” natural propagation of Fisheries published in which provides a stern warning: will not furnish fish 1916: “There are still many “No man shall go to sleep while trout streams in Pennsylvania transporting fish, and leave them equal to the demand, that afford full creels to the alone while in the cans, as it will because natural angler, but with the ever be sure death to them.” increasing army of fishermen propagation in any it is absolutely essential that The first report of brown trout the supply must be kept up by coming to Pennsylvania is noted stream is really but a restocking with artificially in the 1885-1886 Report of the small factor when the raised fish, because the streams SCF. Prof. Spencer F. Baird, U.S. number of fishermen under natural propagation Fish Commissioner, arranged for will not furnish fish equal to the shipment of 10,000 German is considered.” the demand, because natural trout eggs to the Corry State propagation in any stream is

16 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege density of stocked trout. The Pleasant Gap Hatchery (historic) low numbers of wild trout may have been related to poor water quality. Nonetheless, we suggest that the large numbers of stocked trout attracted large numbers of harvest-oriented anglers; hence, wild trout were subjected to high exploitation rates and possibly competition from large-bodied stocked trout. High water events in 1972 from Hurricane Agnes and in 2004 from Hurricane Ivan flooded rearing ponds and raceways in the Benner Spring Hatchery and thousands of trout and other species escaped The Pleasant Gap State Fish Hatchery in the early 1900s. into Spring Creek. In 2004 anglers fished in the vicinity of photo-PFBC archives the hatchery after flood water receded and they experienced really but a small factor when size trout than fingerlings were high catch rates of trout. the number of fishermen is stocked. Sizes of stocked trout Our impression is that this considered.” Apparently, this typically ranged from 152 to exceptional fishery was short- ‘army’ of anglers found Spring 406 mm (6 to 16 in), including a lived and within two years, catch Creek, and fisheries officials small percentage of larger fish. rates returned to normal levels deemed it necessary to stock the Hatchery-reared trout as large as for this reach of stream. stream. 762 mm (30 in) were stocked in Detailed records of trout Fisherman’s Paradise. Fish Culture Facilities stocked in Spring Creek were We suspect that in those in the Spring Creek available starting in 1931 (Table heavily stocked sections of Watershed 3, page 72), when trout were Spring Creek, hatchery-reared Pleasant Gap State Fish stocked annually, until 1981, trout sustained the fishery, and Hatchery when stocking ceased. The wild trout were an unimportant Spring Creek Project, now part of the catch. The only The initial land purchase known as Fisherman’s Paradise, available fishery data outside for the Pleasant Gap facility was started in 1934, and of the specially regulated was made in 1903. The stocking there continued until Fisherman’s Paradise is from the site was chosen because of 1981. More than 1.6 million trout Hartzler (1977) study, which was large springs that reportedly were stocked and a vast majority conducted immediately upstream produced 0.63 m3/s (10,000 of these fish were of catchable of Fisherman’s Paradise. On the gpm), and it was near the size. Fingerling trout were basis of electrofishing surveys, Pleasant Gap railway station, stocked on a few occasions, and he estimated that wild trout which was important for even then, many more catchable equaled less than 5% of the distribution of fish. The first

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 17 trout were produced in 1904. In the early years, the hatchery Benner Spring Hatchery (modern) raised mostly brook trout and rainbow trout, which were then called California trout. In 1908, the facility received five cans of fingerling brown trout from the Corry State Fish Hatchery. By 1909, it was believed that this facility was the largest trout hatchery in the U.S.; in that year, it produced 3.5 million brook trout and 42,000 rainbow trout. In the 1910 report, there is no mention of brown trout stocked The Benner Spring State Fish Hatchery in 2009. from the hatchery. In 1912, 1,500 brown trout were stocked, photo by B. Niewinski but none in Centre County. By 1914, the hatchery produced 1.3 Benner Spring State Fish million trout, which included Hatchery 216,000 brown trout. Between 1915 and 1932, brown trout known as Fisherman’s Paradise. A 5.3 ha property along Spring produced at the Pleasant Gap The hatchery consisted of two Creek was acquired by the Fish State Fish Hatchery were units. The Upper Spring Creek Commission in 1951 and was stocked in Centre County, but facility was about 0.8 km developed into a production individual streams were not upstream of the present facility. facility. The tract included the named in Commissioners’ Initially, both units consisted Benner Spring, which had an reports. Today, this facility of rearing ponds and hatching output of 0.44 m3/s (7,000 gpm). covers 15 ha (37 acres), uses houses. The upper unit now This facility now rears several about 0.20 m3/s (3,100 gpm) of has four extensive fish culture coolwater species and trout. water, and in 2007, produced ponds that are used to rear In 2006-2007, this hatchery 215,000 fingerlings and about several coolwater species. The produced 320,000 fingerlings 439,000 one-year and older trout lower unit has 79 raceways. In and about 572,000 age-1 and that weighed about 115,700 kg the 2006-2007 production cycle, older trout that weighed about (255,000 lb). this facility produced 10,000 156,000 kg; average discharge fingerlings and 574,000 age-1 from the facility was 0.35 m3/s and older trout that weighed (5,500 gpm). Bellefonte State Fish Hatchery 163,000 kg, and its average 3 In 1933, the Fish Commission discharge was 0.26 m /s purchased 37 ha of land, which (4,175 gpm). was developed into a production facility. The property included a large spring and 1.8 km of Spring Creek, which is now

18 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Fisherman’s Paradise flies with barbless hooks were permitted; use of weights was not permitted, although in later years this restriction was changed to allow a maximum weight equivalent to two BB size shot. The minimum length limit was 254 mm on the main stem and 178 mm on the ladies’ section. Anglers could catch 10 trout, but only two could be harvested (later reduced to one/day). Anglers were limited to five visits per year. To assist anglers, the Commission employed an instructor in casting and fly tying. The Fisherman’s Paradise section of Spring Creek was famous for its large This innovative program proved trout and heavy fishing pressure. to be rather successful judging photo-PFBC archives from the number of anglers who fished there. The number of In 1933, the Fish Commission Commission installed 46 anglers increased from nearly purchased 37 ha of land along structures that included dams, 3,000 in 1934 to more than Spring Creek about 4.0 km north deflectors, and log covers. To 20,000 in 1941 (Table 4, page of Bellefonte. The tract, which induce visitation to the project, a 74). The sharp decline in anglers included 1.8 km of Spring Creek controlled fishing program was in 1943 was attributed to World and a large spring, was labeled developed, and a 275-m long War II, but by 1946, visitation the Spring Creek Project with channel with habitat structures increased to nearly 22,000 and the dual purpose of fish cultural was constructed parallel to doubled to 44,000 by 1952. By activities and demonstration the main channel and was today’s standards, this angler of techniques to improve fish restricted to female anglers. use represents an enormous level habitat. Owing to the exceptional The stream was heavily stocked of fishing pressure, as we will fishing, the project later with large trout, and anglers discuss in a subsequent section. became known as Fisherman’s were subjected to a novel set Interestingly, catches were not Paradise. C. A. French, of regulations. Anglers were high; they ranged from 0.8 Commissioner of Fisheries, required to register at a check- to 2.6 trout/angler trip and noted that “During 1932 and in station and were given an averaged 1.4 trout/trip. If trip 1933, a wave of enthusiasm for identification button. At the end lengths averaged three hours, stream restoration work swept of the day, anglers checked out catch rates were less than 0.5 through the Commonwealth of and reported their catch. The trout/h, a modest catch rate for Pennsylvania” and sportsmen 1938 season ran from May 10 a specially regulated fishery. “were clamoring for advice to July 9; fishing was permitted Perhaps the size of the trout on methods of construction” daily from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM, fueled angler interest. Mean (French 1938). In 1934, the except on Sunday. Only artificial weight of harvested trout

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 19 increased over the period of record and reached a Fish Community Composition substantial size of 0.91 kg in and Biomass 1952. To sustain a high trout density, project managers were Slimy Sculpin feeding the fish, which would have helped to maintain weight of stocked fish and possibly bolstered their growth. During the 1961 fishing season, Fisherman’s Paradise was closed to angling because of poor water quality, presumably owing to inadequately treated wastewater from SCI Rockview’s wastewater treatment plant. Poor water quality and the high cost of operating the project were The slimy sculpin is probably the most abundant fish species in Spring Creek, yet it is the least noticed. cited as reasons for changing management of this historic photo by R. Criswell reach of stream (Trembley 1963). In April 1962, the Extensive surveys of the muskellunge, central stoneroller, project was converted to a Spring Creek main stem by goldfish, rosyface shiner, brown ‘fish-for-fun’ section, which E. L. Cooper in 1958-1959 bullhead, redbreast sunfish, entailed fly fishing only with (Appendix 1, page 81) and 1966 pumpkinseed, smallmouth barbless hooks, no harvest, (Appendix 2, page 82), and bass, black crappie, and yellow and year-round angling. These surveys by the authors in 2000 perch. The American eel, regulations remain in effect (Appendix 3, page 83) provide central stoneroller, smallmouth today, and the fishery is a good overview of the fish bass, black crappie, and yellow sustained entirely by natural species composition. During perch probably moved into reproduction. these surveys, 32 species and Spring Creek from Bald Eagle one hybrid were collected, Creek, while the other species but most of these species have were introduced or escaped not sustained reproducing from culture facilities. Cooper populations (Table 1, page 70). collected several species only in Eleven species and one hybrid 1966, but from several locations: were collected only on one golden shiner, spottail shiner, or two occasions: American bluntnose minnow, northern hog eel, northern pike, hybrid sucker, and largemouth bass. The widespread distribution of some of these species suggests that they may have been reproducing, but perhaps for only a few years.

20 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Among the 14 species we Neidigh’s meadow, which is now found in the clean reach, and collected in 2000, nine species owned by Hanson Aggregates, white suckers dominated the are believed to continue the limestone quarry between community biomass. More maintaining reproducing Lemont and Oak Hall; (2) species were found in the populations in the watershed. Section 9, the polluted reach, polluted reach relative to the During surveys on Slab Cabin was sampled upstream of the clean reach, but brown trout and Run in 2005 and 2007, we Benner Spring Hatchery at the slimy sculpins were represented collected four additional species site known as the “Rock”; and by only a handful of specimens. that seem to be reproducing: (3) Section 13, the recovery Wohnsiedler (1969) documented fathead minnows, creek chubs, reach, which is immediately less than 2% survival of brown pearl dace, and banded killifish. upstream of State Route 550 near trout eggs that were held in Brown trout have been collected the old Roopsburg Mill. hatching boxes in the polluted throughout the watershed and reach. are clearly the most abundant The recovery reach seems salmonid. Reproducing brook The only estimates of to have lived up to its name. It trout populations persist biomass and density supported the highest number in Galbraith Gap Run, two of fish species and a relatively tributaries to Slab Cabin Run, of the entire fish high fish biomass, 995 kg/ha. Gap Run, and Logan Branch. community in Spring White suckers dominated the Six species are common Creek were done by community biomass, accounting throughout the main stem of for 86% of the total, while Spring Creek: cutlips minnow, E. L. Cooper and his brown trout biomass (74 kg/ha) blacknose dace, longnose students in 1966/67. comprised 7.5% of the total. dace, white sucker, tessellated (Table 5, page 75) Slimy sculpins darter, and slimy sculpin. The showed an improvement over common carp was first collected Total fish biomass in the clean the polluted section, but still at two stations in 1966 and at reach was an astounding 1,252 represented only about 10% of four stations in 2000. Though kg/ha (1,115 lb/ac; Table 5, page those estimated in the numbers of common carp 75). Biomass of brown trout clean reach. have been rather small, their was relatively high (113 kg/ha) persistence and distribution We found only a few other compared to today’s standards suggests at least limited estimates of fish biomass that for wild trout streams, yet brown reproduction. were not restricted to salmonids. trout comprised only 9.1% of McFadden (1961) estimated The only estimates of biomass the total fish biomass. White the biomass of brown trout and density of the entire fish suckers accounted for 60.5% and several other species in community in Spring Creek of the total biomass, and slimy Neidigh’s meadow (Section were done by E. L. Cooper and sculpins ranked second at 23.3% 4) in 1958. White suckers his students. They sampled the of the total. Numerically, slimy (306 kg/ha) accounted for fish communities in a clean, sculpins at >85,000/ha accounted the largest portion of the total a polluted, and a recovering for 63% of all fishes. biomass and brown trout (65 kg/ reach of Spring Creek in 1966 The polluted reach supported ha) ranked second. He did not and 1967. The pollution was about one-third of the biomass attempt to estimate density or caused by the PSU wastewater biomass of slimy sculpins, so treatment plant. The three that his total biomass estimate reaches were (1) Section 4, the (396 kg/ha) is well below that of clean reach, then known as Cooper’s estimate in 1966.

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 21 Scherer (1965) compared growth and fecundity of white Contemporary Assessment suckers in Cedar Run and in Methods a reach of Spring Creek near Benner Spring. He estimated Most of the population 95% confidence intervals biomass of white suckers assessments that are (Ricker 1975). We computed >75 mm long in Cedar Run, summarized in this bulletin separate estimates for age-0 (< where estimates ranged from were conducted by personnel 125 mm) and for age-1 and older 151 to 265 kg/ha. He noted from the Pennsylvania Fish and trout, because of differences that abundance of white Boat Commission (PFBC) or suckers was related to the the Pennsylvania Cooperative number of pools in a reach. Fish and Wildlife Research Trout populations Given that Cedar Run is Unit (Unit). Methods employed were usually sampled by both groups were similar. about one-half the size of in July and August, Spring Creek in Section 4, Trout populations were usually we would expect more and sampled in July or August, and sample reaches larger pools in Spring Creek and sample reaches ranged ranged from about from about 300 to 500 m long. than in Cedar Run, hence, 300 to 500 m long. a higher biomass of white Survey crews used 220-V, DC suckers. Biomass of white electrofishing gear mounted suckers were also estimated by in a small boat that was towed Mercando (1971) and Williams upstream. Mark-recapture in capture efficiencies. The (1981), but either the sample methods were usually employed estimated number of trout was sites were not clearly identified to estimate trout numbers. Trout then apportioned among 10- or or the year of sampling was collected during the initial 25-mm length intervals on the not specified. electrofishing run were given a basis of the relative number of temporary finclip and measured captured fish in each length The above-cited studies to total length or enumerated interval. Mean weights of trout provide convincing evidence by 25-mm length groups. A in each length interval were that brown trout, though subsample was weighed, and multiplied by the estimated they are usually the focus frequently scales were scraped number of fish per interval to of fisheries studies, do not from an area between the lateral compute biomass. represent the largest portion of line and dorsal fin. Scales Growth the fish community biomass. were subsequently mounted on In unpolluted reaches, it is microscope slides and examined Length at Age likely that white suckers will at 85-100x magnification to We collected scales from about comprise the largest portion estimate age. 15 fish per 25-mm interval of the fish biomass, and slimy in 1988 to estimate growth in sculpins will be the most We used the Chapman length. We had difficulty using numerous species. modification of the Petersen formula to compute estimated scales to determine age of brown numbers and assumed a Poisson trout that were four years or distribution when computing older; hence, we tried collecting fin rays in hopes of obtaining more accurate estimates of age. We collected a 10-mm section from the base of the pectoral fin ray; most of these samples

22 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege were taken from fish >250 mm. permanent distinct finclip to While monitoring selected Details for processing scales and identify their year class when stream reaches for spawning fin rays are provided in Carline captured in future sampling. activity, we noticed that et al. (1991). Population density and biomass certain locations were used Seasonal Variation were estimated in July and for spawning year after year. August 1990 and in September These observations prompted A study was initiated in 1991 and 1992. To compare us to determine the frequency 1992 to investigate the potential growth among sections and that a given spawning site was effects of stream temperature seasons, we computed daily used in consecutive years. In on seasonal growth of brown instantaneous growth rate (G) as November 1988 we randomly trout. Fish sampling sites G = (Loge(W1) - Loge(Wo))/t chose 50 redds in Sections 7, were established in stream Where, W1 is the final mean 8, 9, and 13. At each redd, we Sections 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 15 weight of a cohort, Wo is the drove numbered metal pins into (Figure 1, page 53) with the initial mean weight, and t is the both stream banks on a line intent of having stream sites number of days in the interval. that intersected the redd and that represented the range of measured the distance from thermal regimens throughout Redd Surveys one of the pins to middle of the Spring Creek. The site sampled We conducted redd counts redd. The following November in Section 8 was immediately in Sections 1 to 16 on nine we returned to each set of pins upstream of the outfall from occasions between 1987 and and determined the location of the UAJA wastewater treatment 2005 to obtain an index of the previous year’s redd. If a plant, and site 9 was 800 to spawning effort. Redd surveys new redd was within 1 m of the 1,400 m downstream of the were usually conducted from previous one, we considered this outfall. The treatment plant was November 20 to 30. A pair of a reuse of the site. of particular interest because surveyors walked the entire of anticipated increases in the Angler Surveys length of a section and counted volume of treated wastewater Three angler surveys have all redds. In addition to Unit and its potential effect on stream been conducted in the middle and PFBC personnel, volunteers temperature. Submersible reaches of Spring Creek. occasionally assisted in making recording thermometers (Ryan In general, survey methods counts. Volunteers were given Tempmentor) were installed were similar. Instantaneous an orientation to help them at each fish sampling site, and angler counts were used to distinguish between exploratory temperature was recorded estimate fishing pressure, and, digging by female trout and hourly. in two surveys, anglers were areas where eggs were likely interviewed to estimate catch Fish sampling sites ranged to have been deposited. When rates. Hartzler (1977) conducted from 200 to 300 m in length. surveyors encountered large an angler survey from April Brown trout were collected in areas where several females 17 to June 20, 1976, on a 4.8- March, June, September, and had probably spawned, they km reach from the Benner December from September 1990 estimated the total number of Spring Hatchery downstream to March 1993. All trout were redds by assuming that each to Fisherman’s Paradise, which measured, and a subsample was redd covered a surface area of corresponds to the downstream weighed. Scales were collected 0.33 m2. from a subsample of trout up reach of Section 9 through to 350 mm long. Age-0 trout Section 11. The study section that were captured in June had been stocked with 6,268 and September were given a age-1 and age-2 hatchery-reared

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 23 trout, and the bulk of the legal harvest was hatchery trout. Results Unit personnel conducted an Fisherman’s Paradise angler survey from June 1 to 1980-2000 November 30, 1988, and from March 15 to May 31, 1989 The density and biomass highest catches of age-0 fish (Carline et al. 1991). Survey of wild brown trout in the were made in Sections 2 and 4. sections included a 1.3-km Fisherman’s Paradise section Temporal variations in catches reach adjacent to the Benner has varied widely over a 21-year of age-0 fish exceeded spatial Spring Hatchery in Section period, despite maintenance of variations. At Sections 4 and 16, 9, the entire 1.8-km reach the same no-harvest regulation there were more than 20-fold of Section 12 (Fisherman’s and no stocking. Reproductive variations among years. Median Paradise), and a 4.0-km success, which had been catches among all stations reach in Section 13. Like rather erratic in this section, ranged from 51 in 2006 to 332 in the Hartzler (1977) survey, undoubtedly contributed to 2000. some of the population variation. this survey included angler Spatial and temporal Numbers of age-0 brown trout interviews, but no-harvest fluctuations in reproductive that were collected ranged from regulations were in effect for success are probably linked one to 423/ha (Table 6, page the entire stream. to numbers of mature females 76). Estimated numbers of age- The most recent angler and environmental conditions 1 and older brown trout varied survey was conducted from from time of spawning until by nearly 7-fold, and estimated opening day of trout season the fishes’ first summer of biomass ranged from 80 to (April 15) to June 30, 2006. life. Beard and Carline (1991) 425 kg/ha. The magnitude of Angler counts were made by found positive relations between these population variations was Unit personnel and volunteer numbers of mature females and similar to that of other stream survey clerks on Sections numbers of redds, and between sections, where the brown trout 12 and 13. Anglers were not numbers of redds and density of population also peaked in 2000. interviewed; the primary age-0 fish. Because we do not purpose of this survey was to Main Stem have estimates of the number of document possible changes mature females that produced Density and Biomass in fishing pressure since the the year classes in question, we 1988-1989 survey. Reproductive success of brown cannot specifically address this trout throughout Spring Creek question. In a subsequent section varied greatly among sections we examine trends in numbers and years on the basis of of redds and brown trout density. numbers of age-0 fish captured Spatial and temporal variations during their first summer (Table in density of age-1 and older 7, page 77). Spatial variation brown trout were similar to within year was greatest in those for age-0 fish. Spatial 1980, owing to high density in variation was greatest in 1980 Section 2 and a year class failure owing to low adult densities in Sections 15 and 16, which in Sections 15 and 16 (Table 7, supported few adult brown page 77). Temporal variations trout. In three of four years, the were also highest in these two sections. Across sections,

24 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege median density ranged from 301 We examined seasonal and rains from Hurricane Ivan. This to 1,172/ha; four of five sections annual stream flow to determine was the second highest flow reached their highest density if the decline in trout abundance on record (since 1972) for this in 2000. Within and among from 2000 to 2006 might be site. Conceivably, the peak year variations in density were flow-related. Annual mean daily flow on September 18, and a highly correlated (r2 = 0.85) flows for 3-year and 6-year flow of 48.1 m3/s (1,700 cfs) with biomass of age-1 and older periods prior to the 2000 and the following day resulted brown trout. 2006 estimates did not suggest in mortality or emigration of brown trout. More extensive Changes in biomass of age-1 any large departures from the and older brown trout among average. We also examined investigations are needed to stations were rather consistent flows during the March to reveal possible cause-and-effect from 1980 to 2006 (Figure 7, June period for up to four years relationships between extreme page 59). Biomass increased prior to the two estimates. flows and trout mortality. from 1980 to 1988, and rather This period was of particular Size Structure markedly in some sections. interest, because Carline (2006) showed that high flows during Data for age-1 and older Biomass continued to increase in brown trout from Sections 4, 2000 and then declined by 2006. this period were related to high mortality of adult brown trout 13, and 15 illustrate typical Carline et al. (1991) concluded size structures in the upper, that the increase in brown trout in neighboring Spruce Creek. Nonetheless, average daily flows middle, and lower reaches of from 1980 to 1988 was related to Spring Creek from Oak Hall to the combined effects of cessation during March to June for up to four years prior to estimates Milesburg. Since 1982, these of stocking and the imposition of sections have had the same no- no-harvest regulations in 1982. were not related to population changes. harvest and no-lure restriction It is conceivable that cessation regulation. Unlike brown trout of stocking or elimination We then examined high flow density, size structure at these of harvest alone could have events, because Carline (1994) three sections did not vary contributed to the resurgence found high mortality of stocked greatly among years (Figure 8, of wild brown trout. Several rainbow trout and wild brown page 60). In Section 4 (mean studies (e.g., Bachman 1984; trout in Section 9 following width = 10.6 m; 0.7 m3/s (25 cfs)), Vincent 1987) have shown that two large storms in April the largest proportion of fish stocking catchable-size trout 1993, when flows at Milesburg was usually in the 200 to 250 3/s (1,540 can negatively influence wild peaked at 43.6 m mm length interval. In Section cfs) and 45.3 m3/s (1,600 cfs). resident trout. And, high fishing 13 (mean width = 19.5 m; 1.7 The number of days in which pressure together with harvest- m3/s (60 cfs)) and in Section 15 oriented angling and liberal stream flow exceeded 42.5 3 3 (mean width = 14.5 m; 4.3 m /s harvest regulations in Spring m /s (1,500 cfs) the year of and (152 cfs)), the largest proportion Creek could have contributed three years prior to population of fish was in the 250 to 299 to depressed numbers of wild estimates were two days in mm length interval. Typically, trout. It is uncertain if these 1977-1980, none in 1985-1988, numbers of brown trout >350 management changes were one in 1997-2000, and two in mm long were relatively small. related to the continued increase 2003-2006. Among all of these In Sections 4 and 13, fish in biomass of wild brown trout peaks, the highest was 125 >350 mm long accounted for 3/s (4,420 cfs) on September from 1988 to 2000. Thereafter, m 2.4% of all age-1 and older trout, 18, 2004, the result of heavy biomass decreased in all six and in Section 15 they accounted sections for which we have for 4.4% across all four census comparable data. years.

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 25 Brown trout that are >457 and density or biomass (Carline We used simple regression mm (18 in) and >508 mm et al. 1991). analyses to determine if trout (20 in) long seem to be the Mean length at age for density or water temperature most prized sizes for anglers. In brown trout among all stations might explain differences in 2000, we sampled 12 sections in Spring Creek in 1980 and growth among sites. Mean of Spring Creek between Oak 1988 was rather similar to the weights of age-0 brown trout in Hall and Milesburg, including statewide average for brown September ranged from about 9 Fisherman’s Paradise, and trout collected in limestone to 20 g among sites from 1990 measured 5,903 age-1 and older streams (Figure 10, page 62). to 1992 and were inversely (>150 mm; 6 in) brown trout. The only deviation from this related to the catch rate of age- Among these fish, eight were trend was for age-2 fish from in 0 at each site (Figure 13, page >457 mm long and only one was Spring Creek in 1980; they were 65). Mean weights were not >508 mm long. Although Spring 15% shorter than the statewide related to density or biomass Creek supports large numbers of average. For brown trout of all of age-1 and older trout nor brown trout, the highly prized other ages, mean lengths of were they related to mean water large fish are relatively scarce. those in Spring Creek were + 5% temperature during the summer Length at Age of the statewide average. months. We then correlated instantaneous growth rates of We selected data from 1988 Spatiotemporal Variations age-0 and age-1 brown trout to illustrate variations in length in Growth during the fall, winter, spring, of age-0 to age-4 brown trout Among the six sites that were and summer periods to trout among sections. Length of age- sampled quarterly in 1990-1992, density and stream temperature. 0 fish varied among sections, brown trout tended to grow None of the correlations were but did not change consistently fastest in Section 11 (Figure 11, significant (P > 0.05). Therefore, from upstream to downstream page 63), which is located near among sites, variations in growth sections (Figure 9, page 61). the middle of the entire study of age-0 trout during their first Mean lengths of age-1 to age- reach, and they tended to grow summer of life could be partly 4 fish tended to increase in slowest in Section 4, which explained by density of age-0 the downstream direction, but is near the upper end of the trout, but thereafter, neither trout differences in length were not study reach. Growth of brown density nor stream temperature large. The maximum difference trout did not vary consistently accounted for differences in in length among sections for among the other four sampling growth among sites. age-2 fish was 11.2%, and it sites. Seasonal variations in We computed median was only 5.5% for age-4 fish. growth were similar among Differences in mean length instantaneous growth rate sites. Instantaneous growth among sites for each cohort and among sections were not related was highest during the spring to differences in brown trout compared these values to stream months (March-April), and of temperature and discharge to density. Among 11 sections the total annual instantaneous sampled in 1988, density of determine if these variables growth, about one-half occurred might explain differences age-1 and older brown trout during this period (Figure 12, ranged from 310 to 1,304/ha in growth rate among years. page 64). Brown trout grew at Differences in growth rates and biomass ranged from 104 approximately the same rate to 245 kg/ha. Despite these of age-1 and age-2 brown during the other three sampling trout during spring 1991 and large variations in density and periods. biomass, we found no significant 1992 were not consistent, and relationships between growth differences were not large, i.e., <20% (Figure 12, page 64).

26 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Brown Trout

The brown trout was introduced to the watershed in the late 1800s and now occupies the entire main stem and much of the tributaries of Spring Creek.

photo by J. Detar

Mean daily discharges (6.7 and daily discharges during the two where growth was highest, o 8.3 m3/s; 237 and 293 cfs) and summers were nearly equal (4.2 was >20 C on 67 days from mean stream temperatures (10.7 and 4.3 m3/s; 147 vs. 153 cfs), but June through August, while and 13.9oC) were similar during mean daily stream temperatures this temperature was exceeded spring 1991 and 1992; hence, it were warmer in 1991 than in on 34 days in 1992. Thus, both is not surprising that there were 1992 (18.2 vs. 17.2oC). If food mean daily and maximum daily no substantial differences in supplies were similar, one would temperatures suggest that the growth rates between years. expect slower growth in 1991 thermal conditions for growth Because growth of brown trout than in 1992 on the basis of were less favorable in 1991 than is highest between 10 and 15oC energy budgets developed by in 1992. (Elliott 1994), one would expect Elliott (1994). Maximum daily It is possible that lower growth growth to be highest during stream temperatures may also be rate during summer 1991 relative the spring, provided that food important. Elliott (1994) defined to summer 1992 was related to supplies were adequate. the upper critical range of brown differences in trout biomass. oC. When Growth rate of age-1 trout trout as 19 to 30 In 1991, mean trout biomass temperatures exceed 19oC, during summer 1991 was about was about 17% higher (163 brown trout cease feeding 50% slower than in 1992, and vs. 136 kg/ha) than in 1992. If In 1991, daily maximum growth rate of age-2 trout in these differences in biomass temperature in Section 11, summer 1991 was less than influenced growth, one might one-half of that in 1992. Mean expect growth differences during

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 27 the spring period, yet growth when temperatures were most Total redd counts ranged from during spring 1991 and spring favorable. Warm summer 764 to 2,077 and averaged 1,392 1992 was similar. Thus, it does temperatures seemed to retard from 1987 to 2005 (Appendix not seem likely that differences growth, while above-average 4, page 84). In the upper stream in biomass in 1991 and 1992 temperatures during winter reach, annual redd counts tended accounted for differences in enhanced growth. to be rather variable, and there summer growth. Reproduction was no long-term trend; the Growth rates of age-0 and age- annual average count was 33 In 1987 and 1988, Beard redds/km (Figure 14, page 66). 1 trout in fall 1990 and fall 1991 and Carline (1991) conducted were similar (<10% difference), Redd counts in the middle reach the first comprehensive redd while age-2 trout had a small increased markedly. In 1987 and surveys on Spring Creek, from negative growth rate in 1991 1988, we counted an average Milesburg to Boalsburg, a and a small positive growth rate of 8 redds/km. From 1997 to distance of 32 km. They found in 1992 (Figure 12, page 64). 2005, redd counts ranged from relatively high numbers of redds Growth rates during the ensuing 31 to 60/km and averaged 45 in the upper (Sections 1-6) and winter periods suggested some redds/km. Redd counts in the lower (Sections 12-16) reaches between-year differences. lower reach of Spring Creek of the stream and low numbers Instantaneous growth rates of showed a steady increase from in the middle reach. Embryo age-0 trout in winter 1990 were 1987 to 2005, and the overall survival was also lowest in the twice that in 1991. Growth average was 54/km. These data middle reach. We resumed redd rates of age-1 (+14%) and age-2 suggest that spawning effort surveys in 1997 and continued (+23%) trout were also faster in has increased in Spring Creek, them until 2005, though high, winter 1991 compared to 1992. with the most notable increases turbid water conditions forced The winter of 1990 was warmer occurring in the middle reach. cancellation of surveys in 2001 and wetter than in 1991. Mean and 2003. Our motivation for Female brown trout daily stream temperature in monitoring redd distributions constructed redds in locations Section 11 was 6.3oC in 1990 was to determine if riparian where mean velocity was about compared to 5.0oC in 1991, and restoration projects in the Slab 35 cm/s (1.1 ft/s), depth was mean daily discharge was 9.5 Cabin and Cedar Run sub- about 28 cm, and substrate size m3/s (335 cfs) in winter 1990 basins might have contributed ranged from coarse sand to compared to 4.2 m3/s (148 cfs) to reduced sediment loading and gravel (4 to 64 mm in diameter; in 1991. Increased stream flow improved spawning conditions Beard and Carline 1991). should increase available habitat for brown trout. In addition, we Certain locations seemed to be for trout and possibly enhance wanted to continue monitoring particularly attractive, because invertebrate drift, while warmer redd numbers, because Beard different females were observed temperatures would favor and Carline (1991) showed that spawning at the same location increased growth. brown trout density among over a period of several weeks. Overall, trout density did not sections was positively related When we randomly selected seem to influence growth, except to redd numbers; hence, 50 redds, marked them, and for age-0 trout during their redd counts should serve as returned the following year, first spring and summer of life; a surrogate for population newly constructed redds were thereafter, water temperature estimates. found at 52% of the marked best accounted for among-season sites. This high rate of site reuse, and between-year differences. suggests that habitat features Much of the annual growth of these sites are not changing occurred during spring months greatly from year-to-year,

28 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege which is consistent with our Hatchery. Fishing pressure from than twice as high as the highest observations that locations of April to June during the 1988- daily catch rate (ca. 0.52) in riffles, runs, and pools change 1989 survey in Section 9 was 1976. Hartzler (1977) estimated very little, even after major substantially less than in 1976 that 77% of the stocked trout storm events. (500 vs. 1,295 angler-h/ha/30 d). were harvested in 1976; hence, Recreational Fishery Fishing pressure from July to continual removals of trout November 1988 was moderately would have operated to lower The suspension of stocking high, ranging from 122 to 641 trout density and, presumably, and harvest after the discovery angler-h/ha. Thus, when trout reduce catch rates. The no- of kepone and mirex in fish were stocked and harvest was harvest regulation in 1988-1989 had profound effects on the legal in 1976, fishing pressure would have helped to preserve recreational fishery in Spring was intense over a short the high density of trout and Creek. Much of Spring Creek period of time, while in 1988- allow sustained high catch rates had been heavily stocked with 1989, when catch-and-release throughout the fishing season. hatchery-reared trout throughout regulations were in effect, The excellent fishery in the 1960s and until 1977, when fishing pressure was much lower Section 9 in 1988-1989 was 21,650 were stocked. Numbers than in 1976, but it was sustained mirrored farther downstream. of trout stocked were reduced throughout the 8.5-month survey Fishing pressure at Fisherman’s to about one-third in 1978, and period. the stream was last stocked with Paradise (Section 12) was 4,900 trout in 1981. Hartzler’s The other major differences comparable to that in Section (1977) study in 1976 presumably between results from these two 9, but catch rates were lower reflected the nature of this surveys were the catch rate and in Section 12 than in Section fishery when the stream was total catch of trout (Hartzler 9. Both sections are entirely on heavily stocked (Table 8, page 1977). Despite high stocking public land and access is good; 78). In the reach from Benner rates in 1976, catch rates of trout hence, similar fishing pressure Spring to Fisherman’s Paradise, were rather low (0.22/h; Table at both sections is not surprising. he documented heavy angling 8, page 78), while catch rates in Differences in catch rates may be pressure in April (1,551 h/ha), 1988-1989 were quite high (1.25/ related to differing regulations. declining rapidly in June (354 h). Differences in catch rates In Section 9, there were no h/ha). Catch rates declined from do not seem directly related to restrictions on terminal tackle, 0.25 to 0.14 trout/h, and harvest differences in trout density. On and bait anglers accounted for declined from 129 trout/ha in opening day of the trout season 52% of the total fishing pressure. April to 12/ha in June, with in 1976, stocked trout and wild Bait anglers had catch rates of hatchery trout comprising nearly trout (6% of the total) amounted 1.34 trout/h, compared to 1.17 the entire harvest. to 915/km and four in-season trout/h for anglers using artificial stockings added 445 trout/km. flies or lures. Only artificial By 1988, seven years after During this period, daily catch flies with barbless hooks stocking in this reach had been rates never exceeded 0.55 trout/ were permitted at Fisherman’s suspended and no-harvest h. In contrast, trout density in Paradise, where catch rates regulations had been in effect Section 9 was 1,022/km in July averaged 0.77 trout/h. Trout for six years, numbers of wild 1988, and catch rate for the density may have also influenced brown trout had increased, entire census period was more catch rates in Sections 9 and although 40% of the trout in this 12. Density of age-1 and older reach appeared to be hatchery- trout in Section 9 was 24% reared; presumably, they were higher than in Section 12 (664 escapees from the Benner Spring vs. 504/ha). While both angling

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 29 method and trout density may owing to a closed bridge. Despite Tributaries have influenced catch rate, given the poor access, based on our Logan Branch the available data, we cannot observations, fishing pressure separate the relative importance seemed to be consistently high Logan Branch is the largest of these two variables. in Section 9, in the vicinity of tributary to Spring Creek, accounting for about one-third Fishing pressure on Section the Benner Spring State Fish of the total flow. It originates 13 was substantially lower in Hatchery. on Nittany Mountain, flows 1988-1989 than in the upstream To put the fishing pressure on for about 1 km, and then sections, probably because Spring Creek into perspective, enters a small impoundment of access. All riparian land we can compare it to other on SCI Rockview property. along Section 13 was in private wild trout streams in the state. Logan Branch then flows ownership; most of the stream The PFBC surveyed anglers through McBride Gap and, was open to angling, but there on wild trout streams in 2004 upon reaching the valley floor, were few parking areas. We from opening day (April 17) much of the flow percolates suspect that this lack of access until September 3. Streams were through the stream substratum. was the primary reason for the divided into two size categories: Flow increases substantially relatively low fishing pressure. those less than 6 m wide and as the stream passes alongside This section supported a high those wider than 6 m, which the Pleasant Gap Hatchery, density of wild brown trout included Spring Creek. The where springs and discharge (1,076/ha), and catch rates were estimated fishing pressure for from the hatchery enter. As the correspondingly high – streams in the >6 m width class stream flows northwest towards 1.29 trout/h. was 148 angler-hr/km (Greene Bellefonte, several springs et al. 2006). Angling effort on The role of access in affecting augment flow, particularly the Sections 12 and 13 of Spring fishing pressure was apparent Axemann Spring, which is used Creek in 2006 ranged from from results of the 2006 angler as a domestic water supply and 4,344 to 5,063 angler-hr/km. survey. In 2001, the PFBC discharges about 0.13 m3/s Hence, the surveyed reaches purchased 47 ha of land along (4.52 cfs; Fulton et al. 2005). in Spring Creek had 29 to 34 Spring Creek that included 3.7 times more fishing pressure than Water quality in Logan Branch km of stream frontage. PFBC large streams statewide, even has been problematic for many personnel constructed four though the Spring Creek census years. Iron forges and other parking areas along Section did not include data from July industries polluted it in the 13 and one along Section 12. and August. This extremely 1800s. A number of fish kills During the April-June periods, high fishing pressure can be and contaminated fish have fishing pressure in 2006 was attributed to Spring Creek’s been attributed to former metal 159% higher than in 1988-1989. long-recognized reputation as processing plants: Titan Metal Part of this increase in fishing an excellent fishery, special Manufacturing Co., then Cerro pressure may have also resulted regulations that tend to raise Metal Products, and, more from increased notoriety of the angler expectations, and recently, Bolton Metal Products, Spring Creek fishery. For these relatively good public access. which closed in 2008. The same periods, fishing pressure at upper reach of Logan Branch Fisherman’s Paradise increased had elevated levels of lead that by 87%. We did not survey originated from the Corning- Section 9 in 2006, because the Asahi plant in Pleasant Gap. The parking availability at the Shiloh plant closed in 2003. Discharge Road access was much reduced from the Pleasant Gap Hatchery

30 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege has occasionally not met its population in this stream was No brook trout have been permitted discharge limits. A somewhat surprising, given the found in the Buffalo Run partial recirculation system that high levels of disturbance that watershed in recent years, uses microscreen disk filters occurred during the widening and brown trout are common. was installed in 2007, and this of State Route 144 during the During the most recent survey system has reduced suspended 1980s and its close proximity to by PFBC personnel conducted in solids in the hatchery discharge much of the stream. Nonetheless, 2002, brown trout biomass was by more than 50%. With recent the presence of an excellent 78 kg/ha at RK 6.0. industry closures and improved brook trout population indicates Slab Cabin Run treatment of hatchery discharges, sustained good water quality we anticipate that water quality and may provide some insight Slab Cabin Run originates throughout Logan Branch will as to the caliber of brook trout on Tussey Mountain, a short be substantially better than it has populations that Spring Creek distance from Pine Grove Mills, been in many years. and its hard-water tributaries where it reaches the valley floor. Like Buffalo Run, Slab Cabin Wild brook trout are common may have historically supported. Run is “perched,” that is, the in upper Logan Branch above Buffalo Run bottom of the stream channel the reservoir on the SCI Buffalo Run originates on Bald is above the groundwater Rockview property. Once the Eagle Mountain. Construction table. This condition results stream reaches the valley floor, of Interstate Highway 99 has in movement of water through brook trout disappear, and lead to pollution of the upper the stream substrate into the wild brown trout are abundant. reach of Buffalo Run and is groundwater. During wet Logan Branch was stocked discussed in more detail in a periods, this loss of water is not with trout until 1997 and has following section. The stream evident, but during dry periods, been managed for wild trout as flows about 1.8 km from the long reaches of Slab Cabin Run a Class A stream since 1998. ridge to the valley floor, where a are dry. The entire lower one- During a 2000 survey, PFBC large part of the flow percolates half of the stream is subject to personnel estimated there was into the groundwater. The dewatering until Thompson 237 kg/ha of brown trout at RK stream regains some flow about Run enters just before Slab 4.3 and 201 kg/ha at the same 2 km downstream near Waddle. Cabin Run joins Spring Creek. site in 1998. The stream is open Farther downstream, it again Water quality in Slab Cabin to public fishing along much loses flow near Fillmore, and Run has improved since riparian of its banks, and it is managed regains flow as it approaches restoration projects were under general statewide trout Bellefonte. Water quality has completed in the 1990s (Carline angling regulations. been monitored regularly since and Walsh 2007). In 2006, total Gap Run 1999 at RK 1.1 and RK 12.8 suspended solids and nutrients Gap Run, a tributary to Logan (WRMC 2006). At these two were similar to most other Branch, originates on Nittany sites, nitrates have been less surface waters in the watershed Mountain a short distance from than 2.0 mg/L, orthophosphate (WRMC 2006). has been below detection limits, Pleasant Gap, where it reaches No brook trout were collected and total suspended solids have the valley floor and enters in the extreme upper reaches ranged from 7 to 14 mg/L, which a sinkhole. PFBC personnel of Slab Cabin Run in 2008. We is near the average for all sites in sampled Gap Run during 2008 collected brook trout in two the watershed. and documented a robust brook tributaries to Slab Cabin Run trout population at RK 0.43. The in 2008: Roaring Run and an presence of a dense brook trout unnamed tributary that flows

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 31 photo- An adult Spring Creek brown trout. PFBC Archives through Musser Gap. Brown and nutrients are well below Boalsburg may be completely trout were found near the Route the average for the watershed dewatered. When Spring Creek 26 bridge, and they occur from (Godwin 2006; WRMC 2006). is about 500 m from its junction that point downstream to Spring Juvenile and adult brook with Cedar Run, several large Creek. The senior author has trout range from common springs enter and year-round flow been monitoring fish populations to abundant in the forested is restored. This large input of at four sites since 1991. Numbers section of the stream. During groundwater helps to maintain of brown trout in May ranged the most recent survey by good water quality and moderate from 0 to 35/100 m and averaged PFBC personnel conducted in stream temperatures (WRMC 7.8/100 m. Sampling stations 1999, brook trout biomass was 2006). This lower 500 m of Spring with few or no trout were those 46 kg/ha at RK 2.8. Among Creek supports a dense population subjected to dewatering during the five headwater streams of wild brown trout; in November summer. Among all stations, that still support brook trout, 2006, biomass was 181 kg/ha and densities were highest after Galbraith Gap Run is the only density was 76 trout/100 m. several consecutive wet years. one that does not disappear Cedar Run Clearly, the low trout density in into the stream channel or a Slab Cabin Run is attributable to sinkhole. Even though there Cedar Run arises in the valley inadequate year-round are no barriers to brown trout floor from limestone springs, stream flow. movement into Galbraith Gap, as does its major tributary, Mackey Run. Unlike most other Galbraith Gap Run brown trout have not displaced brook trout. first and second order streams Galbraith Gap Run arises in the watershed, Cedar Run Upper Spring Creek on Tussey Mountain in the does not seem to lose water. Rothrock State Forest, and upon Upper Spring Creek arises in Riparian restoration projects in leaving the forest, flows a short the valley floor from a few small the watershed were effective distance through suburban springs and flows about 6 km in reducing sediment loading, development and into Spring until it is joined by Galbraith but nitrate concentrations have Creek. The stream maintains a Gap Run. This upper reach been consistently higher than at strong year-round flow, which resembles an ephemeral stream monitoring stations at all other usually exceeds the flow of in dry years. After Galbraith tributaries and the main stem of Spring Creek at its confluence. Gap Run enters, Spring Creek Spring Creek. Since 1992, mean Water quality of the stream flows about 1 km and then density of age-1 and older brown as it leaves the forest is quite begins to lose water. During dry trout at four sampling sites has good; total suspended solids summers, the channel through been 38/100 m.

32 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Threats from Invasive Species

Spring Creek, like many streams latitudes. In recent years it has in the eastern USA, is vulnerable expanded its range into the to colonization by nonnative western states and is moving invasive species. The former eastward. In New York, its McCoy-Linn dam between presence has been documented Didymosphenia geminata, Milesburg and Bellefonte, and in the Batten Kill near the a single-celled alga. the dam at Talleyrand Park Vermont border and in the East photo by Toby Talbot/AP in Bellefonte have served as Branch and West Branch of the upstream barriers to fishes, Delaware River and in the main been spreading east (Benson yet intentional or unintentional stem between New York and and Kipp 2009). This small introductions of nonnative Pennsylvania (NYDEC 2009). (usually 4-6 mm) snail has fishes remains a serious threat. To the south, Didymosphenia been found in the Great Lakes, In addition, Spring Creek has been found in the including eastern Lake Erie is vulnerable to invasion by Gunpowder River in Maryland and Lake Ontario in New York. potentially harmful plants and (MDDNR 2009). It has been It has been found in rivers invertebrates. Here, we focus found in high nutrient waters and lakes with a wide range on two potential invaders, at or above a pH of 7, and high of environmental conditions, the diatom Didymosphenia density blooms frequently occur and it can attain densities of geminata, a single-celled alga, in cold tailwaters below dams several thousand per square the New Zealand mud snail (Spaulding and Elwell 2007). meter. At high densities, it can Potamopyrgus antipodarum, When Didymosphenia dominate macroinvertebrate and on a recent invader, the develops large blooms and production (Kerans et al. 2005; Orconectes rusty crayfish produces thick mats, it can Hall 2006). In the Green River, rusticus. There are other greatly alter the benthic Utah, brown trout and rainbow potential invaders, but these will macroinvertebrate community. trout with mud snails in their serve to illustrate the possibly Larson and Carreiro (2007) guts had lower condition factors devastating effects of invasive found a reduction in density than those trout without mud species on the current fish and and diversity of mayflies, snails in their guts (Vinson and invertebrate communities in caddisflies, and stoneflies in Baker 2008). These authors also Spring Creek. Rapid Creek, South Dakota, showed that when rainbow trout The single-celled diatom, when Didymosphenia developed were fed exclusively mud snails Didymosphenia geminata, large blooms. They also noted they lost weight and more than is microscopic in size, yet it reductions in brown trout 50% of the snails passed through produces long, branched stalks numbers, though this could have the trout alive. that can form mats as thick as been related to reduced stream We believe that both 20 cm (Spaulding and Elwell flows. These nuisance blooms Didymosphenia and New 2007). This diatom is native to can also negatively affect anglers Zealand mud snails can live in North America, Europe, and and other recreationists. Spring Creek and potentially Asia, and has recently been The New Zealand mud increase to nuisance levels. introduced in New Zealand. snail was introduced in the Both of these organisms Historically, it had been found in western USA in 1987 and has can negatively affect the low-nutrient waters in northerly macroinvertebrate communities

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 33 that largely support the wild immediately upstream and brown trout in the main stem and downstream, but the remainder brook trout in some headwater of the watershed is vulnerable to tributaries. Gates et al. (2007) further expansion of this species. found that a substantial amount The establishment of rusty of sediment was attached to crayfish will certainly have anglers’ waders and felt-sole direct effects on native crayfish boots and could be readily by displacing them and may transported among watersheds. Rusty crayfish have direct and indirect effects These observations suggest that Orconectes rusticus on brown trout. While x-raying both Didymosphenia and mud photo by Jeff Gunderson, MN Sea Grant brown trout to assess spinal snails can be spread by anglers. deformities (Weber and Carline Because of the widespread 2000), we frequently observed distribution of these organisms, 2 in excess of 200/m (Roth crayfish in their stomachs, anglers need to disinfect their and Kitchell 2005), it usually particularly for brown trout wading gear after fishing in displaces native species (Lodge longer than 275 mm. Based other watersheds both in state et al. 2000), and can suppress on studies with a variety of and out of state. benthic macroinvertebrate fish species, we would expect The rusty crayfish is native to communities through its that rusty crayfish will be less the upper Midwest and was first foraging activities (Nyström vulnerable to predation by trout discovered in Pennsylvania in 2002; McCarthy et al. 2006). than native crayfish, because the mid-1970s (Bouchard et al. Rusty crayfish were first rusty crayfish quickly grow 2007). Since then it has spread collected from Spring Creek in to a size that reduces their May 2007 by Geoffrey Smith susceptibility to predation, of the ClearWater Conservancy. they possess relatively large To determine their distribution chelae, and they are aggressive within the basin, David Lieb, (Didonato and Lodge 1993; a Ph.D. candidate at PSU, Mather and Stein 1993; Garvey surveyed 22 sites on Spring et al. 1994; Roth and Kitchell Creek, two on Slab Cabin Run, 2005). If rusty crayfish one on Cedar Run, and one on attain densities as high as that Bald Eagle Creek for crayfish. found in other Pennsylvania New Zealand mud snail He found large numbers of rusty streams, reductions in benthic Potamopyrgus antipodarum crayfish along a 6-km section macroinvertebrates are likely, photo by R. Draheim of Spring Creek upstream and this could readily translate of Bellefonte. Within this into reduced growth of trout. throughout the southeastern reach, Cambarus bartonii and Because of these threats to trout, part of the Commonwealth Orconectes obscurus, which we think that direct management and is firmly established in are native to Pennsylvania, intervention to eliminate rusty the Delaware, Potomac, and were present but rare. Rusty crayfish or at least control its Susquehanna river basins, crayfish seem largely confined expansion should be considered where it is often very abundant to the reach, because only a by the PFBC and its partners. (Bouchard et al. 2007; Lieb et few specimens were collected al. 2007). This large, aggressive species can attain densities

34 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Responses to Landscape Alterations

A coalition of private and construction activities related to stream responses to riparian public entities initiated a riparian exposure of pyrite rocks at the restoration; the upper Spring restoration project in the Spring headwaters of Buffalo Run. Creek watershed served as a Creek watershed in 1990 with reference (Carline et al. 2004; Riparian Restoration the goal of reducing sediment Carline and Walsh 2007). loading from eroding stream From 1990 to 1998, 25 riparian Within three to five years banks. Many of the project sites restoration projects were after construction of riparian were associated with agricultural completed on Spring Creek and buffers, stream bank vegetation lands. The motivation for tributaries (Figure 15, page 67). increased markedly and the this project was stimulated All of the 17 project sites on Slab proportion of fine sediments by findings from Beard and Cabin Run and Cedar Run were in stream substrates decreased Carline (1991), who showed that on riparian pastures, whereas at significantly in Cedar Run, but poor reproductive success of most of the downstream sites, not in Slab Cabin Run. The most brown trout downstream of the stream bank erosion was linked notable response to riparian confluence of Slab Cabin Run to storm water runoff or other restoration was in suspended with Spring Creek was linked high flow events. Treatments sediments in base flow and to high concentrations of fine to reduce erosion included (1) storm flow, which decreased sediments in spawning habitat. installation of rock-lined ramps by 47% to 87% after riparian Riparian restoration projects on to allow livestock to access the treatments. Macroinvertebrate tributaries and the main stem of stream for water or to cross the diversity did not change, but Spring Creek were completed stream, (2) stream bank fencing macroinvertebrate density by 1998, and post-treatment to exclude livestock from the increased significantly. Density assessments were just getting riparian zone, and (3) placement of age-1 and older brown trout underway when construction of rock along steep banks. The more than doubled in Cedar of I-99 began in 1999. Two size of the projects varied from Run. While density of brown construction sites were adjacent installation of a single rock-lined trout also increased in Slab to Spring Creek and potentially access to construction of several Cabin Run, the population threatened water quality. One crossings, thousands of meters remained small, owing primarily site was a large interchange near of fence, and extensive bank to rather low stream flows, the junction of Spring Creek and stabilization. Typically, riparian particularly during summer, in Slab Cabin Run, and the second buffers were 3 to 4 m wide. In this sub-watershed. Overall, this site was a bridge crossing about total, 56 accesses and crossings study showed that even narrow 4 km downstream (Figure 15, and 11,500 m of fence were grass buffers can significantly page 67). Funds provided by installed; more than 1,800 m of reduce sediment loading from the Pennsylvania Department stream bank were stabilized with riparian pastures and that of Transportation allowed rock. macroinvertebrates and trout Unit personnel to assess the Unit personnel conducted will respond positively. effects of construction activities a series of pre- and post- I-99 Construction at these two sites on Spring treatment studies on Slab Cabin Unit personnel conducted a Creek. In this section, we Run and Cedar Run to assess briefly summarize the results 4-year study at the Park Avenue of these two studies, and we interchange adjacent to Spring also describe effects of I-99 Creek and at the Rock Road

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 35 bridge crossing (Figure 15, composition of substrate groundwater and some flowed page 67). Stream sampling collected from brown trout directly into the headwaters stations were established redds did not vary with stream of Buffalo Run, which travels upstream and downstream of location, and numbers and about 1.8 km through the each construction site, and water distribution of trout redds were valley floor and then largely was collected at hourly intervals not influenced by construction. infiltrates through the channel during storm flow (Carline et al. By the end of the study, bottom into the groundwater. 2003). About 100 storm events construction was completed Presumably, after mixing with were successfully sampled at and all previously disturbed alkaline groundwater, the each site. In addition, stream earth was seeded and stabilized. stream re-emerges near the substrate composition, numbers Therefore, we concluded that village of Waddle about 2 km of brown trout spawning sites, construction was responsible for farther downstream. At this and benthic macroinvertebrate a significant, though short-term, point, stream water chemistry communities were monitored increase in suspended sediment and benthic macroinvertebrate upstream and downstream of that did not affect benthic sampling suggest little or no each site. invertebrates nor trout spawning effect of the acidic drainage that Construction activities resulted activity. originated from the Skytop area in an approximately 14% Another phase of the I-99 (personal communication; D. increase in sediment loading to Transportation Project, which Spotts, PFBC). In August 2007, the stream at each site. Though began in 2003, entailed cutting a remediation plan was put into the percentage increase was through a rock formation atop operation. It involved moving 3 (800,000 modest, the absolute mass of of the Bald Eagle ridge at an more than 600,000 m yd3) of material heavily laden sediment was substantial – about area locally known as Skytop with pryrite from the Skytop 180 metric tons per year at the (Figure 15, page 67). This rock area, covering exposed pyrite Rock Road site. This increase in formation was rich in iron pyrite. formations, and treating acidic sediment loading did not seem Excavated material was moved drainages. The net effect of these to influence other measures to several disposal sites on the measures remains to be seen, but of stream health. We found no ridge, and as water saturated as of August 2007, it does not difference in diversity or density these disposal piles, iron-laden, seem that acidic drainage from of benthic macroinvertebrates acidic water began seeping the construction site has had a upstream and downstream of from the disposal piles. Some measurable effect on the fishery the construction sites. Similarly, acidic water infiltrated into the resources in Buffalo Run.

36 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Using a Biotic Index to Assess Stream Condition

Pennsylvania DEP biologists and a PSU student sampled Green Drake macroinvertebrate communities at the same 14 sites on the main stem of Spring Creek four times during the period 2001 to 2006. They used the same sampling methods (PADEP 2006), and an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) score was computed following Botts’ (2006) protocol for limestone streams. The index is based on six criteria: total number of invertebrate taxa, total number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) taxa, the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, percentage of intolerant The green drake mayfly, a casualty of the 1956 cyanide spill, has not been taxa, percentage of tolerant able to recolonize Spring Creek. taxa, and the Shannon Diversity photo by G. Hoover index. A site with an IBI score of 55 or less is considered impaired lowest IBI scores were recorded water quality records from the (Botts 2006). Sites with scores in 2001, when the mean score Water Resources Monitoring of 100 are similar to references was 48.0, and nine of 14 sites Project network and DEP data sites in streams with minimal were ranked as impaired (Table for the Axemann Water Quality human disturbance. Here we 9, page 79). Three years later the Network site did not indicate any examine these macroinvertebrate mean IBI score had increased trends consistent with those for data in an attempt to describe to 68.6, the highest of the four IBI scores. Rather, it is likely year-to-year variability, site-to- years, and only two sites were that annual variations in stream site variability, and to look for impaired. The IBI scores in flow had a significant effect on trends that might suggest causes 2005 and 2006 were relatively macroinvertebrate communities. for changes in stream condition. high, with four and seven sites, We used stream discharge Among years and sites, IBI respectively, ranked as impaired. data from the USGS Axemann scores ranged widely, from 15 While it is possible that gaging station, computed at RK 16.6 below the Benner year-to-year changes in water the mean monthly flow for a Spring Hatchery to 99 at RK quality could result in changes 12-month period prior to each 27.7, which is upstream from in the macroinvertebrate macroinvertebrate collection, Lemont (Figure 16, page 68). In community, examination of and compared those flows to general, site-to-site variation in the long-term average for this IBI scores was consistent among gaging station. These data years, although overall variation indicate that the 2001 collection, among years was large. The which had the lowest IBI score, was preceded by the lowest

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 37 stream flow among years (Table three of four years, the IBI score hatchery effluents that promote 9, page 71). The IBI scores for declined from the site upstream growth of microorganisms. 2004 to 2006 were all relatively of Lemont (RK 27.7) to Spring PFBC biologists also sampled high, and preceding flows were Creek Park (RK 24.6; Appendix macroinvertebrates upstream near or well above normal. Figure 1, page 81). A substantial and downstream of the Benner There are at least two reasons amount of urban runoff from Spring and Bellefonte Hatcheries why benthic macroinvertebrate Lemont and the State Route 26 in spring 2001, 2005, and 2006 communities would be positively (East College Avenue) corridor (Kepler 2006) using the same affected by above-average enters the stream between these protocols as DEP. Trends in flows. When stream flow is two sites. Then, Slab Cabin IBI scores derived by the two above average, pollutants from Run joins Spring Creek at about agencies were similar in 2001 point source and non-point RK 24, and the IBI score at and 2006, but not in 2005. sources would be more diluted RK 23.7 was consistently lower The scores derived by DEP in than at below normal flows; than at the site upstream of 2005 showed little change from hence, toxic effects of pollutants Slab Cabin Run, which carries upstream to downstream of the would be reduced. The second large amounts of urban runoff Benner Spring Hatchery (55 to reason is that at above-normal from State College and the 53) and a substantial reduction stream flows, there is less PSU campus, plus runoff from from upstream to downstream accrual of fine sediments in the agricultural lands upstream of of the Bellefonte Hatchery (86 riffles and runs, where benthic South Atherton Street. to 66). In contrast, PFBC data macroinvertebrate communities Discharge from the UAJA showed increases in scores are sampled. The adverse treatment plant had no apparent from upstream to downstream effects of fine sediments on effect on the already low IBI of the Benner Spring Hatchery macroinvertebrates have been scores upstream of the plant. (36 to 51) and at the Bellefonte well-documented. For example, During the period 2001 to 2006, Hatchery (64 to 68). Reasons Kaller and Hartman (2004) the UAJA plant discharged an for these discrepancies are not showed that in West Virginia average of 0.21 m3/s (4.9 mgd; evident. personal communication, J. trout streams, numbers of Downstream of Bellefonte, Brown, UAJA). In contrast, IBI mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly IBI scores increased by an scores declined in all four years taxa were consistently negatively average of 50% in all four after discharges from the Benner related to the amount of fine years. It is likely that the large Spring and Bellefonte Hatcheries sediment in substrates. And, increase in stream flow, owing entered Spring Creek (Figure in drought years, the amount to Logan Branch, Big Spring, 16). These declines in IBI scores of fine sediment in riffles and and Buffalo Run, benefited the were due, in part, to reductions runs would probably increase, macroinvertebrate community in the number of EPT taxa and and diversity of these sensitive downstream of Bellefonte at increases in the sowbug Lirceus, insect groups would be further RK 2.9. In three of four years which is highly tolerant of reduced. IBI scores declined downstream pollution (Lenat 1993; Maxted et There were several notable of RK 2.9. The Bellefonte al. 2000). We presume that high changes in IBI scores when wastewater treatment plant densities of Lirceus are linked moving from the upstream-most discharges into Spring Creek to organic enrichment from site toward the stream mouth at a short distance downstream Milesburg (Figure 16, page 68). In of RK 2.9, and the stream had been impounded by McCoy-

38 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Linn Dam. It is conceivable that the impoundment had Threats from Increasing some effect on downstream macroinvertebrate Urbanization communities, and if so, it The macroinvertebrate base flow, which is particularly is not possible to separate assessments by DEP suggest that important to the maintenance of out possible effects of the urban influences in the upper coldwater stream communities. Bellefonte treatment plant and part of the watershed are having As imperviousness increases, of the impoundment. McCoy- negative effects on stream the frequency and magnitude Linn Dam was subsequently health. Given the extensive of storm flow events increase, removed during fall 2007, development in and around the and the physical components and Spring Creek is now free- Borough of State College and the of the receiving streams are flowing from Talleyrand Park PSU campus, impacts on Spring altered. Higher stream flows in Bellefonte to the mouth. Creek are not surprising. The require a large stream channel If indeed IBI scores are effects of urbanization on stream to transport water; hence, good measures of benthic ecosystems have been well- the response is erosion of macroinvertebrate community documented in the literature, and stream banks (widening) and health, we can make several most of these impacts are readily downcutting of the stream generalizations from these apparent in nearly all reaches of bottom (deepening). These types data. Year-to-year variations Spring Creek. of alterations degrade habitat in IBI scores were large and for invertebrates and fishes. Schueler (1994) and Brown seemed related to stream Surface runoff from impervious et al. (2005) provide concise flow. Site-to-site variations surfaces during summer months overviews of how urbanization in IBI scores were large, but can deliver warm water to the affects streams, and here, reasonably consistent among stream and cause elevated stream we briefly summarize their years. Benthic communities temperatures, which can lead work. Urbanization reflects responded negatively to inputs to a shift from coldwater to the conversion of forest and of urban runoff and discharges warmwater fish communities agricultural land to impervious from hatcheries. The length of (Steffy and Kilham 2006). surfaces that can be categorized stream classified as impaired Storm water runoff affects water as buildings (rooftops) and ranged from 5.9 km (21.2% of quality by increasing sediment transportation systems. An the total) to 18.5 km (66.9%). load, reflected in turbidity, and increase in impervious surface by increasing the amount of coverage has profound effects on nutrients and pollutants in the the hydrologic cycle, because the stream. The cumulative effects of amount of rainfall that infiltrates physical, thermal, and chemical into the groundwater is much alterations linked to storm water reduced, and surface runoff, runoff lead to degradation of often referred to as storm flow, biological communities. is greatly increased. Reduced recharge of groundwater Schueler (1994) proposed that translates to reduced stream imperviousness, expressed as surface area in a watershed, could serve as a unifying theme to quantify the degree of urbanization. Arnold and Gibbons (1996) have supported

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 39 the notion that imperviousness Wisconsin and southeast cold water to the stream and is a key environmental indicator. Minnesota streams, Wang et al. serve to moderate high summer Although others (e.g., Short et al. (2003) found significant declines temperatures. During their 2005) have developed an index in trout populations when examination of Maryland of urbanization that incorporates imperviousness was 6 to 11% streams, Stranko et al. (2008) a large number of physical and no trout when it exceeded found brook trout in a watershed variables, Schueler’s (1994) 11%. We have depicted these with 42% impervious land cover single variable index seems to be upper limits for salmonids in compared to the 6.6% threshold a useful predictor for coldwater the middle of Schueler’s (1994) for other watersheds. Summer communities. He suggested that “degraded” category, though water temperatures in this highly urban streams could be classified one might argue that these developed watershed were on the basis of percentage of values belong in the “impacted” similar to sparsely developed impervious surface area in the category (Figure 17, page 69). watersheds. watershed, and Arnold and Spring Creek seems to Valley Creek, in southeastern Gibbons (1996) slightly modified be an anomaly compared Pennsylvania, is another stream Schueler’s (1994) categories, to previously cited studies, that still supports wild brown which we have depicted in because imperviousness is well trout, but had 17% impervious Figure 17, page 69. beyond the range where trout surface. Steffy et al. (2004) Schueler (1994) suggested, on populations persist. In 1995, attributed the persistence of the basis of available literature, it was estimated that 12% of brown trout in this urbanized that if an urban watershed was the Spring Creek watershed watershed to the large number less than 10% impervious, was impervious (CCPO 1996), of springs, but, more recently, stream channels would be stable and, given that the population brown trout populations have and the diversity of biological has been growing steadily, shown evidence of decline communities would be protected. imperviousness must be greater (Steffy and Kilham 2006). Like Results from several recent than 12% in 2010. The Centre Spring Creek, Valley Creek is studies on trout streams seem Region encompasses about the characterized by karst geology, to indicate coldwater fish upper one-half of the watershed, and most of the development communities are not likely to and in 2002, imperviousness was is in the upper part of the be protected when watersheds 19.3% (CCPO 2003). Clearly, watershed. reach 10% imperviousness. if Spring Creek followed the Among the watershed studies Stranko et al. (2008) examined pattern of other watersheds, that we have reviewed, the two over 100 sites in Maryland we would not expect wild trout most frequently cited factors that supported brook trout or populations to survive in this critical to maintenance of did not support brook trout environment (Figure 17, coldwater fish communities were but had their preferred habitat; page 69). stream base flow and summer they concluded that brook trout We suggest that the persistence water temperatures (Zorn et al. were lost when imperviousness of wild trout in the Spring Creek 2002; Wang et al. 2003; Stanfield reached 6.6%. Stanfield et al. watershed is attributable to the et al. 2006; Steffy and Kilham (2006) studied more than 400 large number of springs that 2006; Wehrly et al. 2006; streams in southern Ontario contribute well-oxygenated Stranko et al. 2008). Stream and found that salmonid base flow reflects the amount of populations were eliminated groundwater entering the stream, when imperviousness ranged which directly influences stream from 6.6 to 9%. In 39 southwest temperature; hence, streams with

40 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Spring Creek at Fisherman’s Paradise. A log framed stone deflector in the background helps to improve bank stability and fish habitat. photo by J. Detar large groundwater inputs have mgd in 2002; Fulton et al. 2005), were installed in Thompson cooler summer temperatures but much of this water is treated Run about 0.7 km downstream and warmer winter temperatures and returned to the stream. of the site monitored by Lieb relative to streams with minimal The difference between the and Carline (2000). During groundwater inputs. From these amount pumped and the amount the months of June through observations, we infer that the returned to the stream is that September 1999 to 2007, an future of wild trout populations lost to evapotranspiration, where average of 22 storms per year in the Spring Creek watershed homeowners and businesses produced hourly increases of is dependent upon maintenance irrigate lawns and gardens. >2oC, and the mean increase for of adequate groundwater inputs Evapotranspiration undoubtedly these storms was 3.7oC and summer water temperatures accounts for a large proportion (personal communication, suitable for trout. of PSU’s treated wastewater G. Smith, ClearWater that is spray irrigated during We are not aware of any Conservancy). The highest the growing season. As the o long-term records of water hourly increase was 9.6 C. population continues to increase, temperature for Spring Creek; Despite these temperature we can expect more losses to hence, we cannot make any increases, wild brown trout evapotranspiration with potential generalizations about long-term continue to persist in Thompson consequences to the groundwater trends. Our analysis of stream Run. It is likely that as reserves. flow at the Axemann gage imperviousness increases, we suggests that mean annual flow Lieb and Carline (2000) can expect more inflows of has not changed, nor have annual monitored the temperature of heated storm water runoff, but 7-day low flows. Whether Thompson Run just downstream in the absence of good empirical stream flow will remain of a small impoundment that information, we cannot predict reasonably stable in the face of receives storm water runoff from the degree of imperviousness a growing population remains the Borough of State College that may eventually lead to uncertain. Clearly, the amount and part of the PSU campus. In summer temperatures that are of groundwater pumped from June 1995, they recorded hourly unsuitable for trout populations. the aquifer has increased with temperature increases of up to Careful management of land and water resources can forestall the growing population in the 6.6oC following thunderstorms. likely outcomes of urbanization, watershed (3.1 mgd in 1980 to 9.1 In 1999, temperature monitors and some such management practices are already in place or planned.

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 41 Managing Treated Wastewater and Storm Water

has shown signs of impairment Stormwater owing to storm water runoff in recent years, and it is likely that this impairment would have been even greater if PSU’s treated wastewater was being discharged into Thompson Run. Beneficial Reuse Another project with potentially significant effects on water resources in the Spring Creek watershed was recently implemented by the UAJA, which treats wastewater from the State College area in the upper part of the watershed and discharges into Spring Creek about 2.5 km upstream Silt-laden stormwater runoff flows into Spring Creek at the of the Benner Spring State Fish State Route 26 Bridge. Hatchery (Figure 1, page 53). photo by K. Ombalski The treatment plant is permitted 3 PSU Land Treatment to discharge up to 0.26 m /s treat up to 0.18 m3/s (4 mgd) (6 mgd), and it is anticipated Area of wastewater; in 2006, the that the volume of incoming Perhaps the most significant average daily discharge was wastewater will exceed this water resource project in the 0.10 m3/s (2.2 mgd; personal limit by the year 2016 (personal watershed was completed communication, J. Gaudlip, communication, D. Smith, in 1983 when PSU’s entire PSU). This treated effluent was UAJA). To handle the increased volume of treated wastewater sprayed onto 210 ha. This system volume of wastewater, the UAJA was no longer discharged into has benefited Thompson Run, constructed a system that takes Thompson Run. Instead, treated the lower reach of Slab Cabin treated wastewater as it leaves wastewater was spray irrigated Run, and Spring Creek, because the clarifiers and subjects it to onto forest and agricultural land potential toxic and thermal microfiltration, reverse osmosis, about 5 km from campus. This effects of treated wastewater and advanced disinfection project is now labeled as the were eliminated and much of to produce water that meets Land Treatment Area, because the treated wastewater, which drinking water standards (UAJA the water is further treated originated from groundwater, 2008). This water will then through nutrient uptake by is being returned to the be pumped back up into the microorganisms as it percolates groundwater. Spring Creek, watershed from where it came, through the soil. The PSU immediately downstream of its and is available for a variety treatment plant is permitted to confluence with Slab Cabin Run, of beneficial uses, hence, the project name – Beneficial Reuse.

42 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege In 2008, this treated water The foundation of the ordinance for the establishment was piped to a golf course for storm water management and protection of stream buffer irrigation and to a commercial plan is a set of performance zones (CRPA 2008). Local laundry facility, and 106 l/min criteria to control runoff from municipalities will have to (28 gal/min) was discharged new development, maintain adopt the ordinance before it into a constructed wetland, groundwater recharge, reduce can be put into practice. These where one might expect some channel erosion, minimize non-regulatory and regulatory groundwater recharge to occur. non-point source pollution, and measures to enhance riparian Because the treated water meets others, which, in total, will help zones offer a way in which drinking water standards, it to greatly reduce future impacts harmful effects of storm water could be re-injected into the from storm water runoff. There can be diminished. But, the groundwater, where it could are no provisions in the plan to amount of riparian restoration be recycled through domestic deal with runoff from existing necessary to reverse stream water supply systems. The development; hence, reaches of degradation is unknown, and it uses and fates of this treated Spring Creek that are showing could be huge. water are currently under study, signs of degradation will not but the project will benefit improve as a result of the plan. Spring Creek, because it will Riparian Buffer Summary prevent further increases in treated effluent to the stream, Restoration The sport fishery in Spring it may reduce the amount of Over the past 20 years, a Creek has evolved from one groundwater that is pumped for large number of studies have dominated by brook trout in the industrial uses and irrigation, demonstrated the value of intact late 1800s to one dominated by and it may recharge the riparian buffer zones to the brown trout by the mid 1900s. groundwater. health of streams (Lowrance Stocking of brown trout in the 1890s and later stocking of Storm Water et al. 1984; Sovell et al. 2000). Public and private conservation catchable size trout, poor water Management groups in the Spring Creek quality, and possibly heavy In the face of increasing watershed initiated a riparian exploitation contributed to the urbanization and associated restoration project in 1990, decline of brook trout. Today threats to water quality, the and these efforts continue brook trout persist in just a few municipalities in the Spring today. Agricultural lands were headwater refugia. Creek watershed took an targeted in the early stages of In the early 1900s, several important step to reduce the project, but, in more recent reaches of Spring Creek were impacts of development when years, landowners outside of probably severely polluted, they crafted a storm water the agricultural community because there were no management plan for the are being engaged in riparian wastewater treatment plants in Spring Creek watershed in 2001 restoration efforts (personal the watershed. As treatment (Sweetland 2001). After approval communication, K. Ombalski, plants were built between 1913 of the plan by the County Clearwater Conservancy). and 1968, some pollution was Commissioners and DEP, model Stream habitat enhancement abated, though toxic spills ordinances were adopted by projects are underway on several from industrial sources were participating municipalities. reaches of publicly owned land. common. By 2001, the number The Centre Region Planning of wastewater treatment plants Agency has drafted a model had declined from five to two, and no reaches of stream were

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 43 badly polluted. Storm water Since 1934, when the Spring Didymosphenia geminata runoff has now become the Creek Project at Fisherman’s and the New Zealand mud major threat to water quality. Paradise was initiated, there snail pose a significant threat Since 1980, when the first have been two distinct sport to macroinvertebrate and comprehensive survey of fisheries on Spring Creek. fish communities in Spring trout populations was made, Special regulations on the 1.8- Creek. Development in the densities of wild brown trout km reach known as Fisherman’s watershed, stimulated in part have increased substantially. Paradise initially allowed a by major projects such as the In addition to improved harvest of two trout per day, and construction of I-99 poses water quality, the elimination terminal tackle was restricted an additional threat. When of stocking trout and the to flies tied on barbless hooks. macroinvertebrates were used implementation of no-harvest The reach was heavily stocked to assess stream health, there regulations were largely with large trout. The project was convincing evidence that responsible for the increase became enormously successful urban runoff in the upper part in wild brown trout. Growth after a few years, and in 1952, of the watershed was degrading in length of brown trout was more than 44,000 anglers fished water quality. The amount of similar to the statewide average there. Poor water quality led to a impervious surface area in the for brown trout in limestone change in management in 1962, watershed exceeds 12%, which streams. Growth was not when harvest was discontinued, is higher than threshold values density dependent except for but tackle restrictions remained. for other watersheds that have age-0 trout during their first The rest of the main stem of lost coldwater fish communities. spring and summer. About Spring Creek had no tackle Increasing urbanization one-half of the annual growth restrictions and statewide represents a serious threat to the occurred between mid March harvest regulations were in trout fishery of Spring Creek. and mid June. Stream flow and effect until 1982 when harvest Protection of groundwater water temperatures influenced of all fish was prohibited, owing recharge areas is vital to growth. During summer, low to chemical contamination. ensuring that spring inflows to flow and warm temperatures Fishing pressure on Fisherman’s Spring Creek are maintained. reduced growth. Growth during Paradise and the rest of the main Strict controls on storm water winter was best when flows stem has been quite high, and runoff and innovative ways to and water temperature were in 2006, it was about 30 times treat and dispose of domestic above normal. The number of higher than the average for other wastewater will help to reduce trout redds counted in Spring similar size wild trout streams in future urbanization impacts, Creek between Milesburg and the state. but the watershed is clearly under stress. Boalsburg more than doubled A recent invasion by rusty from 1988 to 2005. The largest crayfish and the potential increase occurred in the middle of invasion from the diatom reach between Slab Cabin Run and Fisherman’s Paradise.

44 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Acknowledgements

We sincerely appreciate the data, assistance, and manuscript reviews provided by PFBC biologists: John Arway, Tom Cochran, Russell Greene, Mark Hartle, Dave Miko, Dave Spotts, Bob Wilberding, and Leroy Young. Pennsylvania DEP biologists John Ryder and John Sengle provided assistance with IBI calculations and manuscript reviews. Dave Smith and Jason Brown, UAJA, kindly provided data and helpful reviews of the manuscript. Robert Jacobs and Beth Rider, Centre County Planning Office, provided data on population trends and land use. Larry Fennessey and John Gaudlip, PSU, offered data and insightful reviews. Mark Ralston, Converse Consultants, reviewed the manuscript and suggested valuable references. Geoff Smith, ClearWater Conservancy, cheerfully provided data and review of the manuscript. We thank Dan Shields for loan of reference materials. Dave Lieb, PSU, drafted most of the crayfish section. We are indebted to all of these people for their generous help.

Literature Cited Arnold, C. L., Jr., and C. J. Gibbons. 1996. Impervious surface coverage - the emergence of a key environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association 62:243-258. Bachman, R. A. 1984. Foraging behavior of free-ranging wild and hatchery brown trout in a stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:1-32. Beard, T. D., Jr., and R. F. Carline. 1991. Influence of spawning and other stream habitat features on spatial variability of wild brown trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:711-722. Benson, A. J., and R. M. Kipp. 2009. Potamopyrgus antipodarum. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL. Available: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=1008. (January 2011) Botts, W. F. 2006. An index of biological integrity for “True” limestone streams. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection memorandum March 2006. Harrisburg. Bouchard, R. W., and coauthors. 2007. 101 years of change (1906 to 2007): the distribution of the crayfishes of Pennsylvania: Part I: Eastern Pennsylvania. Final Report for State Wildlife Grant Number PFBC050305.01. Submitted to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Bellefonte. Brown, L. R., H. R. Gray, R. M. Hughes, and M. R. Meador. 2005. Introduction to effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems. Pages 1-8 in L. R. Brown, H. R. Gray, R. M. Hughes, and M. R. Meador, editors, Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 47. Bethesda, Maryland.

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 45 Carline, R. F. 1994. Growth and survival of three strains of rainbow trout in Spring Creek. Final project report submitted to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Bellefonte. Carline, R. F. 2006. Regulation of an unexploited brown trout population in Spruce Creek, Pennsylvania. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:943-954. Carline, R. F., A. Smith, C. Gill, and K. Patten. 2003. Effects of bridge and road construction on Spring Creek: Route 26 Transportation Improvements Project. Final Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Bellefonte. Carline, R. F., and M. C. Walsh. 2007. Responses to riparian restoration in the Spring Creek watershed, central Pennsylvania. Restoration Ecology 15:731-742. Carline, R. F., M. C. Walsh, and A. M. Smith. 2004. Responses of streams to restoration of intensively grazed riparian areas: Spring Creek, West Branch Susquehanna River watershed. Final Report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, Maryland. Carline, R. F., T. D. Beard, Jr., and B. A. Hollender. 1991. Response of wild brown trout to elimination of stocking and to no-harvest regulations. North American Journal Fisheries Management 11:253-266. CCPO. 1996. (Centre County Planning Office) Centre County existing land use, 1995, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. CCPO. 2003. (Centre County Planning Office) Centre County existing land use, 2002, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. Cooper, E. L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania and the Northeastern United States. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA. Cooper, E. L., and C. C. Wagner. 1976. Changes in benthos and fishes of a stream accompanying a substantial reduction in plant nutrients. Research Project Technical Completion Report, Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park. CRPA. 2008. (Centre Region Planning Agency) Executive summary, riparian zone ordinance and white paper. Available: http://cog.centreconnect.org/crpa-mpo/Riparian/Final%20Riparian%20 Buffer%20Exec%20Summary%201.pdf. (January 2011) Cuff, D. J., W. J. Young, E. K. Muller, W. Zelinsky, and R. F. Abler, editors. 1989. The atlas of Pennsylvania. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Didonato, G. T., and D. M. Lodge. 1993. Species replacements among Orconectes crayfishes in Wisconsin lakes - the role of predation by fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:1484-1488.

46 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Donley, B. F. 1948. A study of survival and growth of fingerling eastern brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis fontinalis (Mitchell) in two central Pennsylvania streams. Master of Science thesis. The Pennsylvania State College, University Park. Elliott, J. M. 1994. Quantitative ecology and the brown trout. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K. EPA. 2007. (Environmental Protection Agency) Storet and Water Quality Exchange. Available: http:/epa.gov/storet/dbtop.html. (January 2011) French, C. A. 1938. Pennsylvania’s Spring Creek project. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 68:359-363. Fulton, J. W., E. H. Koerkle, S. S. McAuley, S. A. Hoffman, and L. F. Zarr. 2005. Hydrogeologic setting and conceptual hydrologic model of the Spring Creek basin, Centre County, Pennsylvania, June 2005. U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5091, Reston, Virginia. Gates, K. K., C. S. Guy, A. V. Zale, A. V., and T. B. Horton. 2007. Movement of sediment by anglers and implications for transporting aquatic nuisance species. Pages 275-277. In R. F. Carline and C. LoSapio, editors. Sustaining wild trout in a changing world; proceedings of Wild Trout IX symposium; 2007 October 9-12; West Yellowstone, Montana. 308 pages. Available: http://www.wildtroutsymposium.com. Garvey, J. E., R. A. Stein, and H. M. Thomas. 1994. Assessing how fish predation and interspecific prey competition influence a crayfish assemblage. Ecology 75:532-547. Giddings, M. T., Jr. 1974. Hydrologic budget of Spring Creek drainage basin, Doctoral Dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Glover, C. R. 1957. The big fish kill. Pennsylvania Angler 26(1): 7,17. Godwin, C. M. 2006. Periphyton biomass and nutrient status in a temperate spring-fed stream. Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in Ecology. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Greene, R., and coauthors. 2006. Angler use, harvest and economic assessment on wild trout streams in Pennsylvania. Fisheries Management Division, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. Hall, R. O., Jr., M. F. Dybdahl, and M. C. VanderLoop. 2006. Extremely high secondary production of introduced snails in rivers. Ecological Applications 16:1121-1131.

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 47 Hartzler, J. R. 1977. An analysis of angler effort and the catch of one- and two-year-old hatchery trout on Spring Creek (Centre County), Pennsylvania. Master of Science Thesis. Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Hollender, B. A., R. Wilberding, Mayers, and D. Spotts. 1981. Spring Creek (309C) management report. Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Bellefonte. Hughey, R. E. 2002. Aquatic biological investigation, Spring Creek in Centre Co. PA, DEP File #22966. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection memorandum, February 5, 2002. Williamsport. Hughey, R. E. 2006. Aquatic biological investigation, Spring Creek in Centre County, PA, April 26-May 26, 2005, DEP File #22966. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection memorandum, April 6, 2006. Williamsport. Kaller, M. D., and K. J. Hartman. 2004. Evidence of a threshold level of fine sediment accumulation for altering benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Hydrobiologia 518:95-104. Kepler, S. 2006. Benthic macroinvertebrate biomonitoring on Spring Creek in the vicinity of Benner Spring and Bellefonte State Fish Hatcheries: 2001, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Environmental Services Division, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Bellefonte. Kerans, B. L., M. F. Dybdahl, M. M. Gangloff, and J. E. Jannot. 2005. Potamopyrgus antipodarum: distribution, density, and effects on native macroinvertebrate assemblages. Journal of North American Benthological Society 24:123-138. Larson, A. M., and J. Carreiro. 2008. Relationship between nuisance blooms of Didymosphenia geminata and measures of aquatic community composition in Rapid Creek, South Dakota. Pages 45-49 in M. L. Bothwell and S. A. Spaulding, editors. Proceedings of the 2007 International workshop on Didymosphenia geminata. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2795. Lenat, D. R. 1993. A biotic index for the southeastern United States: derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water-quality ratings. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12:279-290. Lieb, D. A., and R. F. Carline. 2000. Effects of urban runoff from a detention pond on water quality, temperature and caged Gammarus minus (Say) (Amphipoda) in a headwater stream. Hydrobiologia 441:107-116.

48 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Lieb, D. A., R. F. Carline, and H. M. Ingram. 2007. Status of native and invasive crayfish in ten National Park Service properties in Pennsylvania. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR-2007/085. National Park Service. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lodge, D. M., C. A. Taylor, D. M. Holdich, and J. Skurdal. 2000. Nonindigenous crayfish threaten North American freshwater biodiversity: lessons from Europe. Fisheries 25(8):7-20. Lowrance, R., and coauthors. 1984. Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. BioScience 34(6):374-377. Mather, M. E., and R. A. Stein. 1993. Direct and indirect effects of fish predation on the replacement of a native crayfish by an invading congener. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:1279-1288. Maxted, J. R., and coauthors. 2000. Assessment framework for mid-Atlantic coastal plain streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:128-144. McCarthy, J. M., C. L. Hein, and J. D. Olden. 2006. Coupling long-term studies with meta-analysis to investigate impacts of non-native crayfish on zoobenthic communities. Freshwater Biology 51:224-235. McDonald, J. E. 1989. The complete fly fisherman. The notes and letters of Theodore Gordon, Lyons and Burford, Publishers, New York, New York. McFadden, J. T. 1961. An ecological comparison of six brown trout (Salmo trutta) populations. Doctoral dissertation. Pennsylvania State University, University Park. MDDNR. 2009. (Maryland Department of Natural Resources) Maryland invasive species; Maps: Didymo locations and survey sites. Available: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/invasives/didymo_maps.asp. (January 2011) Meck, E. D. 2004. An evaluation of benthic macroinvertebrate populations in the Spring Creek watershed. Final Report submitted to the Spring Creek Chapter of Trout Unlimited, State College, Pennsylvania. Mercando, N. A. 1971. Population dynamics of brown trout and white suckers from a hard-water and a soft-water stream. Master of Science Thesis. Pennsylvania State University, University Park. NYDEC. 2009. (New York Department of Environmental Conservation) Nuisance and invasive species, Didymo Alert. Available: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/54244.html. (January 2011)

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 49 Nyström, P. 2002. Ecology, pp. 192-235. In, D.M. Holdich, editor. Biology of freshwater crayfish. Blackwell Science Publishing, Oxford, UK. PADEP. 2006. (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection) Limestone stream surveys. Document Number 391-3200-025. Harrisburg. Ricker, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bulletin 191, Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Roth, B. M., and J. F. Kitchell. 2005. The role of size-selective predation in the displacement of Orconectes crayfishes following rusty crayfish invasion. Crustaceana 78:297-310. Ryder, J. W. 2007. Aquatic biological investigation, Spring Creek in Centre Co. PA, DEP File #22966. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection memorandum February 9, 2007. Williamsport. Scherer, R. C. 1965. Dynamics of stream populations of the white sucker, Catostomus commersoni Lacepede. Doctoral dissertation. Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Schueler, T. R. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques 1(3):100-111. Shields, D. L. 2003. Fly fishing Pennsylvania’s Spring Creek. DLS Enterprises, Lemont, Pennsylvania. Short, T. M., M. P. Giddings, H. Zappia, and J. F. Coles. 2005. Urbanization effects on stream habitat characteristics in Boston, Massachusetts; Birmingham, Alabama; and Salt Lake City, Utah. Pages 317-322 in L. R. Brown, H. R. Gray, R. M. Hughes, and M. R. Meador, editors, Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 47, Bethesda, Maryland. Sovell, L. A., B. Vondracek, J. A. Frost, and K. G. Mumford. 2000. Impacts of rotational grazing and riparian buffers on physiochemical and biological characteristics of southeastern Minnesota streams. Environmental Management 26(6):629-641. Spaulding, S. A., and L. Elwell. 2007. Increase in nuisance blooms and geographic expansion of the freshwater diatom Didymosphenia geminata. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1425, 38 p. Reston, Virginia. Stanfield, L. W., S. F. Gibson, and J. A. Borwick. 2006. Using a landscape approach to identify the distribution and density patterns of salmonids in Lake Ontario tributaries. Pages 601-621 in R. M. Hughes, L. Wang, and P. W. Seelbach, editors. Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 48, Bethesda, Maryland.

50 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Steffy, L. Y., S. L. McGinty, C. Welty, and S. S. Kilham. 2004. Connecting ground water influxes with fish species diversity in an urbanized watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40(5):1269-1275. Steffy, L. Y., and S. S. Kilham. 2006. Effects of urbanization and land use on fish communities in Valley Creek watershed, Chester County, Pennsylvania. Urban Ecosystems 9:119-133. Stranko, S. A., and coauthors. 2008. Brook trout declines with land cover and temperature changes in Maryland. North American Journal Fisheries Management 28:1223-1232. Sweetland. 2001. Stormwater management plan for the Spring Creek watershed, Centre County, Pennsylvania. Prepared in cooperation with the Centre County Planning Office. Submitted to the Centre County Commission by Sweetland Engineering & Associates, Inc. State College, Pennsylvania. Taylor, L. E. 1997. Water budget for the Spring Creek basin. Publication No. 184, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Trembley, G. L. 1963. Paradise --- lost or regained? Pennsylvania Angler 32(4):6-8. UAJA. 2008. (University Area Joint Authority) Beneficial re-use of treated wastewater. Available: www.uaja.com/planning/plan.htm. (January 2011) USGS. 2008a. (U.S. Geological Survey) Real time data, USGS 01547100 Spring Creek at Milesburg, PA. Available: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?01547100. (January 2011) USGS. 2008b. (U.S. Geological Survey) Real time data, USGS 01546500 Spring Creek at Axemann, PA. Available: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/pa/nwis/uv?01546500. (January 2011) Vincent, E. R. 1987. Effects of stocking catchable-size hatchery rainbow trout on two wild trout species in the Madison River and O’Dell Creek, Montana. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:91-105. Vinson, M. R., and M. A. Baker. 2008. Poor growth of rainbow trout fed New Zealand mud snails Potamopyrgus antipodarum. North American Journal Fisheries Management 28:701-709 Wang, L., J. Lyons, and P. Kanehl. 2003. Impacts of urban land cover on trout streams in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:825-839.

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 51 Weber, R. J., and R. Carline. 2000. Effects of electrofishing on survival and growth of wild brown trout (Salmo trutta) from central Pennsylvania streams. pages 215-223, in D. Schill, S. Moore, P. Byroth, and B. Hamre, editors, Wild Trout VII Management in the new millenium: are we ready? Wild Trout Symposium, Bozeman, Montana. Available: http://www. wildtroutsymposium.com. (January 2011) Wehrly, K. E., M. J. Wiley, and P. W. Seelbach. 2006. Influence of landscape features on summer water temperatures in lower Michigan streams. Pages 113-127 in R. M. Hughes, L. Wang, and P. W. Seelbach, editors. Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 48, Bethesda, Maryland. White, W. B. 1988. Geomorphology and hydrology of karst terrains. Oxford University Press. Williams, R. S. 1981. The effects of eutrophication on the white sucker (Catostomus commersoni Lacepede) in Spring Creek. Master of Science thesis. Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Wohnsiedler, T. H. 1969. Effects of sewage effluent on various stages of the life history of the brown trout, Salmo trutta. Doctoral dissertation. Pennsylvania State University, University Park. WRMC. 1999. (Water Resources Monitoring Committee) Annual report of the Water Resources Monitoring Committee. Spring Creek Watershed Community, ClearWater Conservancy, State College, Pennsylvania. WRMC. 2003. (Water Resources Monitoring Committee) Annual report of the Water Resources Monitoring Committee. Spring Creek Watershed Community. ClearWater Conservancy, State College, Pennsylvania. WRMC. 2006. (Water Resources Monitoring Committee) Springs - lifeblood of the community. Annual Report for 2006.Spring Creek Watershed Community, ClearWater Conservancy, State College, Pennsylvania. Zorn, T. G., P. W. Seelbach, and M. J. Wiley. 2002 Distributions of stream fishes and their relationship to stream size and hydrology in Michigan’s lower peninsula. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:70-85.

52 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Figure 1 Map of the Spring Creek watershed, Centre County, Pennsylvania. Sample sections numbered 1 to 16.

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 53 Figure 2 Land use in the Spring Creek watershed (CCPO 1996) and mean daily stream temperatures for July and January (in parenthesis) for the period July 1999 to July 2003 (WRMC 2003).

54 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Figure 3 Human population of Centre County, 1800 - 2005. All municipalities include the boroughs of Bellefonte, Centre Hall, Milesburg, and State College and the 10 townships with some land in the Spring Creek watershed. The major municipalities include three boroughs (excludes Centre Hall) and Benner, College, Harris, Patton, and Spring townships, which have most of their land in the watershed.

POPULATION 160,000

120,000

80,000

40,000

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 182 184 186 188 190 192 194 196 198 200

Centre County Major municipalities All municipalities

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 55 Figure 4 Average annual flow in Spring Creek near Axemann (USGS 2008b) and average annual precipitation measured at the Pennsylvania State University weather station.

PRECIPITATION - cm 160 6 140 5 120 /s

4 3 100 80 3 - m ow

60 Fl 2 40 1 20 Precipitation Flow 0 0 02 97 42 92 47 62 57 52 72 77 19 19 19 1982 1987 19 19 1967 19 20 19 19 19

56 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Figure 5 Average annual alkalinity of Spring Creek near Axemann (EPA 2007).

ALKALINITY mg/L as CaCO3 220

200

180

160

140

120

100 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 57 Figure 6 Concentrations of total phosphorus in Spring Creek near Axemann (EPA 2007).

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS mg/L - P 10.00

1.00

0.10

0.01 1971 19761982 1987 1993 1998 2004

58 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Figure 7 Estimated biomass of age - 1 and older brown trout in eight sections of Spring Creek, 1980 - 2006.

AGE - 1+ kg/ha 300

250

200

150

100

50

0

24679131516

Section 1980 1988 2000 2006

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 59 Figure 8 Size structure of brown trout >150 mm total length in three sections of Spring Creek. Values for length intervals represent the upper limit of each interval.

NUMBER/ha Section 4 400 300 200 1980 100 0 1988 199 249 299 349 >350 Length Interval - mm 2000 NUMBER/ha Section 13 800 600 2006 400 200 0 199 249 299 349 >350 Length Interval - mm

NUMBER/ha Section 15 800 600 400 200 0 199 249 299349 >350 Length Interval - mm

60 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Figure 9 Mean length at capture of brown trout ages 0 to 4 in four sections of Spring Creek, August, 1998.

MEAN LENGTH - mm 350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

01234

Age

Sec. 4 Sec. 6 Sec. 8 Sec. 13

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 61 Figure 10 Mean length at capture of brown trout ages 0 to 6 in Spring Creek in 1980 and 1988 and for brown trout collected from limestone streams statewide, 1976 - 2006.

MEAN LENGTH AT CAPTURE - mm 500

400

300

200

100

0 01 23456

Age

1980 1988 Statewide

62 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Figure 11 Mean weights of brown trout ages 0 to 3 in six sections of Spring Creek. Collections were made at quarterly intervals, April 1990 - April 1992.

MEAN WEIGHT - g 500

400

300

200

100

0 01234

Age

4 8 9 11 14 15

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 63 Figure 12 Median instantaneous growth (G) per 100 days of ages 0 to 2 brown trout collected in fall (Fa), winter (Wi), spring (Sp), and summer (Su), 1990 - 1992. Values are means from six stream sections.

MEDIAN G/100 days 1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00 Fa90 Wi90 Sp91 Su91 Fa91 Wi91 Sp92 Su92 -0.20

Age 0 Age 1 Age 2

64 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Figure 13 Mean weight of age - 0 brown trout in August in relation to the number of age - 0 brown trout captured. Each point represents the mean weight and catch rate for a section. Data were derived from two sections in 1990, 6 sections in 1991, and 5 sections in 1992.

MEAN WEIGHT - g 25

20

15

10 y = -0.0108x + 16.348 5 R 2 = 0.42 0 0 100 200 300400 500600

Age-0 catch/ha

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 65 Figure 14 Number of redds counted in Spring Creek, 1987 - 2005. The upper reach includes sections 1 to 6, the middle includes sections 7 to 11, and the lower reach includes sections 12 to 16.

REDDS/km 120

100

80

60

40

20

0

87 88 97 98 99 00 02 04 05 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20

Upper Middle Lower

66 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Figure 15 Map of the Spring Creek watershed showing sample section numbers, riparian restoration sites, and construction sites associated with Interstate Highway 99.

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 67 Figure 16 Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores computed from benthic macroinvertebrate data collected from 14 sites on Spring Creek, 2001 - 2006. Date from Hughey (2002; 2006), Meck (2004) and Ryder (2007). Entry points of Slab Cabin Run, University Area Joint Authority (UAJA) wastewater treatment plant, Benner Spring and Bellefonte State Fish Hatcheries (SFH), Logan Branch, and the Bellefonte wastewater treatment (WWT) plant are denoted by single arrows.

IBI SCORE 100 Logan Br. Bellefonte Slab Cabin Run 90 Bellefonte SFH WWT 80 Benner Sp. SFH 70 UAJA 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 .7 .6 .5 .4 5 5 4 9 3 27 24 23.7 20.4 20.0 17 16.6 15 10.6 9. 8. 6. 2. 0.

River Kilometers

2001 2004 2005 2006

68 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Figure 17 Percentage of impervious land cover in a watershed and categorization of watershed condition following ranges recommended by Schueler (1994) and Arnold and Gibbons (1996). The symbol for Spring Creek represents the entire watershed and that for Centre region represents the upper part of the watershed. Values for other studies are the threshhold limits beyond which salmonids were no longer found: A - Stanfield et al. (2006), B - Wang et al. (2003), and C - Stranko et al. (2008).

IMPERVIOUSNESS - %

50

40

30 Centre Region 20 Spring Cr. B 10 A C

0 Protected Impacted Degraded

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 69 Table 1 List of common and scientific names of fishes captured in the Spring Creek watershed, 1958-2008. Collections were made by R. F. Carline, E. L. Cooper, J. E. Detar, and B. A. Hollender.

Common Name Scientific Name American eel Anguilla rostrata Rainbow troutac Oncorhynchus mykiss Brown troutbc Salmo trutta Brook troutc Salvelinus fontinalis Northern pikea Esox lucius Hybrid muskellungea Esox lucius x E. masquinongy Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Goldfishb Carassius auratus Common carpbc Cyprinus carpio Cutlips minnowc Exoglossum maxillingua Common shiner Luxilus cornutus Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius Rosyface shiner Notropis rubellus Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus Fathead minnowc Pimephales promelas Blacknose dacec Rhinichthys atratulus Longnose dacec Rhinichthys cataractae Creek chubc Semotilus atromaculatus Pearl dacec Margariscus margarita White suckerc Catostomus commersonii Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Banded killifishc Fundulus diaphanus Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Smallmouth bassa Micropterus dolomieu Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Tessellated darterc Etheostoma olmstedi Yellow perch Perca flavescens Slimy sculpinc Cottus cognatus a Introduced from elsewhere in North America. b Introduced from outside of North America. c Currently maintains reproducing population in the watershed.

70 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Table 2 Fish kills in Spring Creek and tributaries in which more than 100 fish were reported or suspected killed. Information obtained from the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission files.

Year Pollutant and source Number and type of fish Location in Spring Creek or tributary Low dissolved oxygen in discharge from Hundreds of white Spring Creek downstream of 1952 Bellefonte treatment plant suckers treatment plant Warmwater effluent from West Penn 1954 ~100 Spring Creek, Milesburg Power Plant Unknown number Logan Branch and 2.4 km of 1954 Waste discharge from Titan Metal Co. of several species Spring Creek 147,072 hatchery Benner Spring and Upper Spring Sodium cyanide from Penn State trout and an 1956 Creek hatcheries; Thompson Run, University unknown number of Slab Cabin Run, Spring Creek wild fishes Low dissolved oxygen linked to organic loading from Penn State University 1958 ~2,000 trout Benner Spring hatchery treatment plant and abundant plant growth Butyl alcohol discharge (~100 gal) from 1,500 trout, Downstream of Highway 26 1963 Nease Chemical Co. minnows, suckers bridge Butyl alcohol discharge (~175 gal) from 1,600 of several Downstream of Highway 26 1963 Nease Chemical Co. species bridge Complete kill of all fish for 2.4 Large discharge of toluene from Unknown number 1965 km downstream of Highway 26 explosion and fire at Nease Chemical Co. of several species bridge Sewage discharge (130,000 gal) from Spring Creek downstream of 1970 1,100 trout UAJA treatment plant Downstream of Highway 26 1971 Spill from Nease Chemical Co. 6,000 trout bridge Thousands of Spring Creek downsteam of 1971 Toxic discharge from Nease Chemical Co. several species Highway 26 bridge for 4.0 km Fuel oil spill (2,700 gal) from Skat service >25,000 wild and Downstream of Highway 26 1972 station hatchery trout bridge >400 of several Thompson Run and Slab Cabin 1972 Unknown species Run to Spring Creek >1,000 of several 1988 Chlorine discharge from UAJA Downstream of UAJA outfall species Thompson Run and Slab Cabin Chlorinated pool water from PSU 1990 Unknown Run to Spring Creek discharged into Thompson Run

Low flow conditions and high 2005 > 250 trout Slab Cabin Run temperatures

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 71 Table 3 Numbers of hatchery-reared trout that were stocked in Spring Creek in sections where statewide regulations were in effect and in Fisherman’s Paradise.

Spring Creek (except for Fisherman’s Paradise) Fisherman’s Paradise

Trout SpeciesTrout Species Stream Brook Brown RainbowSubtotal Brook Brown RainbowSubtotal Total 1931 400 400400 1932 2,5602,560 2,560 1933 960 6,8807,840 7,840 1934 13,520 13,5202,122 4,4402,125 8,687 22,207 1935 800 6,7204,620 12,1401,200 7,261244 8,705 20,845 1936 4,0003,440 7,4403,320 8054,125 11,565 1937 2,280 6,0406,040 14,360473 3,1762,039 5,688 20,048 1938 3,280 8,725 13,590 25,595 421 1,4224,879 6,722 32,317 1939 2,000 10,8007,700 20,5002,250 2,2014,451 24,951 1940 3,500 5,6008,900 18,000 603 11,5432,772 14,918 32,918 1941 5,625 8,800 11,500 25,925 550 6,1705,338 12,05837,983 1942 10,1009,000 7,200 26,300 611 7,1496,578 14,338 40,638 1943 7,790 3,7501,760 13,300 333 2,158535 3,02616,326 1944 9,000 12,0502,350 23,4001,057 6,911137 8,105 31,505 1945 6,224 7,8453,800 17,8696,376 7,7732,988 17,137 35,006 1946 11,750 13,2538,138 33,141 175 4,9905,660 10,825 43,966 1947 16,050 10,5507,000 33,600 485 7,8816,715 15,081 48,681 1948 2,800 24,6805,500 32,9802,485 5,1655,135 12,785 45,765 1949 11,185 13,460 14,798 39,443758,590 3,800 12,465 51,908 1950 2,800 23,785 14,665 41,250756,065 11,685 17,825 59,075 1951 400 21,750 16,100 38,250 405 6,4855,570 12,460 50,710 1952 6,275 18,190 21,245 45,710 130 8,5353,870 12,535 58,245 1953 1,803 17,240 22,257 41,300 225 8,8055,370 14,400 55,700 1954 10,782 15,967 17,906 44,655 200 7,1706,610 13,980 58,635 1955 7,450 15,480 19,231 42,161 795 5,9057,365 14,065 56,226 1956 19,406 17,213 18,724 55,3431,050 6,2508,610 15,910 71,253 1957 17,3939,160 18,301 44,854450 7,2258,695 16,370 61,224 1958 1,352 18,030 10,539 29,9211,320 8,2605,135 14,715 44,636 1959 500 13,545 13,645 27,690 400 7,6455,235 13,280 40,970 1960 9,030 7,4505,850 22,330 365 5,5355,905 11,805 34,135 1961 18,6158,355 2,280 29,250 960 6,2255,165 12,350 41,600 1962 6,650 24,8803,945 35,475375 825100 1,300 36,775 1963 0 23,6302,680 26,31036400 464 900 27,210 1964 2,508 19,3055 21,818825 75 900 22,718 1965 6,117 6,804 1,039 13,9601,275 375 1,650 15,610 1966 3,999 14,609 528 19,136 125 1,490751,690 20,826

72 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Table 3 (continued)

Spring Creek (except for Fisherman’s Paradise) Fisherman’s Paradise Trout SpeciesTrout Species Stream Brook Brown RainbowSubtotal Brook Brown RainbowSubtotal Total 1967 4,541 12,961 2,074 19,576 95 1,295 310 1,700 21,276 1968 2,515 21,283 902 24,700351,550 150 1,735 26,435 1969 2,470 24,730 1,079 28,2791,300 1,300 29,579 1970 500 15,745 13,620 29,865 1,700a 31,565 1971 4,241 31,203 11,231 46,6751,700a 48,375 1972 4,430 15,165 12,530 32,1251,700a 33,825 1973 2,420 25,700 5,230 33,3501,700a 35,050 1974 2,76017,1709,320 29,2501,700a 30,950 1975 1,440 10,068 14,542 26,0501,700a 27,750 1976 3,100 11,650 11,300 26,0501,700a 27,750 1977 2,060 11,800 7,790 21,650 1,700a 23,350 1978 2,500 3,7152,485 8,700 715 1,0551,770 10,470 1979 20 4,095 4,1858,300 20 585 795 1,400 9,700 1980 540 2,315 2,8455,700 40 815 845 1,7007,400 1981 100 2,300 2,5004,900 450 450 900 5,800

Totals 1,292,896 1,652,252 a Number of trout requested to be stocked; actual number stocked is not available; species not distinguished.

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 73 Table 4 Fishery statistics for the specially regulated Fisherman’s Paradise, 1934 - 1952.

Trout Harvested Year Number Number of of anglerstrout caught Number Mean weight (kg)

1934 2,9524,729 2,4720.25 1935 3,2658,457 3,2470.39 1936 6,5138,467 2,6630.43 1937 9,1237,028 4,1010.37 1938 12,93213,6624,796 0.46 1939 14,75514,5565,950 0.49 1940 16,89118,7508,149 0.47 1941 20,41218,5667,680 0.62 1942 16,62920,1336,448 0.54 1943 2,7645,314 1,8050.56 1944 12,30012,4715,895 0.49 1945 13,50521,2586,676 0.48 1946 21,88229,9069,469 0.60 1947 26,99430,236 10,7990.65 1948 28,56650,6836,670 0.76 1949 34,32358,1216,127 0.79 1950 34,796 76,1978,057 1952 44,0348,999 0.91

Vintage photograph of anglers registering at Fisherman’s Paradise.

photo-PFBC Archives

74 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Table 5 Density and biomass of age-0 and older fishes in Section 4 (RKa28.0), the clean reach, Section 9 (RK 18.4), the polluted reach, and Section 13 (RK 6.4), the recovery reach in 1966. Brown trout include only wild specimens (Wohnsiedler 1969). Estimates of all other species were obtained from E. L. Cooper’s files.

Section 4 Section 9Section 13

Species Number/ha kg/ha Number/ha kg/haNumber/ha kg/ha

Brown trout 910113.415 0.47 379 74.28 a Common carp 1 Cutlips minnow 25 0.56 596 4.04 Common shiner 72 0.56 798 15.13 b Golden shiner 262 1.57 1 Spottail shiner 400 4.04 Bluntnose minnow 259 0.34 Fathead minnow 198 0.56 20 0.11 Blacknose dace 29,650 31.83 3,623 16.03 1,3104.15 Longnose dace 13,531 57.72 4,154 11.10 3,03714.57 Creek chub 1,596 58.85 647 13.11 White sucker 6,501 757.70 1,707 294.79 5,960851.85 Northern hogsucker 47 7.51 Brown bullhead 27 0.11 Pumpkinseed 57 0.04 Slimy sculpin85,473291.0910 0.01 845 5.72

Totals 136,065 1,25211,708385 14,327 995 a River kilometers from mouth of Spring Creek. b Only one specimen was collected.

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 75 Table 6 Density (number/ha) and biomass (kg/ha) of wild brown trout in Fisherman’s Paradise, 1980 - 2000. Values for age-0 brown trout represent the total number of captured during two electrofishing passes. Values for age-1 and older brown trout are based on population estimates.

Year Age-0 Age-1 and older

Number/h a Number/h a kg/ha

1980 19 612 252

1981 1 386 150

1982 12 278 106

1983 101 396 80

1989 90 424 138

2000 423 1,889 425

Median 55 410 144

76 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Table 7 Density (number/ha) of wild brown trout in six sections of Spring Creek, 1980 - 2006. Values for age-0 brown trout represent the total number captured during two electrofishing passes. Values for age-1 and older fish are based on population estimates.

1980 1988 2000 2006 Age 1 Age 1 Age 1 Age 1 Section Age 0 and older Age 0 Age 0 and older and older Age 0 and older

2 1,399 291 348861 2331,144 1141,034

4 358 310416 9271,278 255 61 368

6 78 453 173678 20 527

13 378 609 2411,327 4561,302 2131,563

15 20 56 180827 3321,172 40 798

16 9 6 230 728 1111,418 22 1,131

Median 218 301 236844 3321,172 51 916

A Spring Creek wild brown trout.

photo-PFBC Archives

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 77 Table 8 Fishery statistics for three sections of Spring Creek. The 1976 survey extended from April 17 to June 20, and harvest was legal (Hartzler 1977). The 1988 - 1989 survey extended from June 1 to November 30, 1988 and from March 15 to May 31, 1989 (Carline et al. 1991). The 2006 survey extended from April 15 to June 30. Trout/hour and catch/ha represent numbers harvested in 1976 and numbers caught and released in 1988 - 1989.

Angler -hour/ha Year Section Trout/hour Catch/ha Apr-Jun Remaining months All months

19769 2,7630.22 207

1988-1989 91,517 1,8573,374 1.25 4,249

12 1,7141,666 3,3800.772,765 13 526 440 966 1.29 1,374

2006123,209

13 1,363

78 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Table 9 Summary of Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores for 14 sites on Spring Creek. Impaired sites had an IBI score of <55. Length of impaired stream was computed from the midpoint between sites when IBI scores changed from unimpaired to impaired or vice versa. The percentage of impaired stream length was based on a total length of 27.7 km. The percentage deviation of stream discharge was computed by using discharge data from the Axemann gage site on Spring Creek. IBI scores were taken from or computed from data in Hughey (2002, 2006), Meck (2004), and Ryder (2007).

Percent deviation of stream discharge Length of stream impaired Year Mean IBI Number of from long term average during score impaired sites (km) (%) 12 months prior to sample collection

2001 46.41018.5 66.9 -26.3

2004 70.125.921.264.2

2005 66.347.225.984.9

2006 64.3712.2 43.9 -3.1

Spring Creek, upsteam of Fisherman’s Paradise.

photo by J. Detar

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 79 Appendix Figure 1 Locations of fish sampling sites (denoted as river kilometers, RK, upstream from the stream mouth) on Spring Creek and tributaries.

80 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Appendix 1 Fishes captured with electrofishing gear in Spring Creek and tributaries by E. L. Cooper in 1958 and 1959. Numbers of fishes in Section 4 are population estimates based on mark-recapture techniques. Abundant = A, Common = C.

Spring Creek Slab Cabin Thompson Run Run Section 46789910 11 11 12 13

River kilometer 27.95 24.20 22.46 21.14 18.28 17.1116.28 15.60 11.61 9.90 6.32 0.02 1.75 0.42

American eel 2a >3b >7 C

Rainbow trout 1

Brown trout 404 A C4428>3b >35C 15 10 2

Brook trout 218a >10b >16b C3

Northern pike Central stoneroller Goldfish Common carp Cutlips minnow 1742130121436 Common shiner111 744616 8 Golden shiner Spottail shiner Rosyface shiner Bluntnose minnow Fathead minnow 1 Blacknose dace 1,970 57 40 26 24 93 13 170 43 32 68 68 55 1 Longnose dace 200 11 512818 22 12 520524 25

Creek chub 2 2 18 13 11 513 43 23 1 Pearl dace 199 11 White sucker 1,577 15 155510 17 AA166 26 63 Northern hog sucker Rock bass Redbreast sunfish Largemouth bass Tessellated darter 3 12 213

Slimy sculpin A27 4516 53 631 a Hatchery-reared b Several with adipose clips indicating hatchery origin

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 81 Appendix 2 Fishes captured with electrofishing gear in Spring Creek and Thompson Run by E. L. Cooper in 1966. Abundant = A

Thompson Spring Creek Run

Section566 7 889912 13 13 13 13 14 14 16 16

River kilometer 25.53 23.96 23.86 22.46 21.14 19.91 18.28 16.77 8.91 8.24 7.25 6.45 6.42 5.86 4.46 1.37 0.00 0.39

American eel 2 Rainbow trout 6b 1 1 ca. ca. a Brown trout 11 20 a b b A 25a 158a a Fe w 50a 15a 24 4 94 83a A A 1a

Brook trout 17a 4b 1 1 Northern pike 1 Central stoneroller 2

Goldfish 1

Common carp 1 3 Cutlips minnow 2 9 8 3 9 8976 4 Common shiner 198 6 13 12 3 5810 12 12 Golden shiner 1 1 4 1 4 2 4 2 1 Spottail shiner 2 2 1 5 4 Rosyface shiner 10 Bluntnose minnow 3 11 1 12 17 16 1

Fathead minnow 13 11 11 3 2 1

Blacknose dace 18 19 6 532 24 7 12 22 16 915 6 1 2 1 7 Longnose dace 8 21 10 16 4 315 5 4 11 18 2 9 6 9 16

Creek chub 4 9 6 8 2 13 15 7 7 3 30 4 18 4 1 9 1 Pearl dace 2 White sucker 7 149 3 9 14 7 26 9 27 2 13 5 10 5 6 5 Northern hogsucker 1 2 1 Rock bass 1 Redbreast sunfish 1 Largemouth bass 1 2 Tessellated darter 3 Slimy sculpin 26 2 517 1 28 a Includes age-0 fish b Hatchery reared

82 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Appendix 3 Fishes captured with electrofishing gear in Spring Creek by Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit personnel in 2000. X=present

Spring Creek

Section 1 2 4 7 8 9 11 11 12 12 13 15 16

River kilometer 32.09 29.95 27.37 23.50 21.69 18.41 13.23 12.18 10.53 8.67 6.42 2.61 0.60 American eel

Rainbow trout 4b 6b 2bx13b 2b a Brown trout 272a, 2b 134a 378a 141a 91 201a 360a 649a 710a 538a 496a 554a 459a, 3b Brook trout Northern pike Central stoneroller Goldfish Common carp x x x x Cutlips minnow xxxxxx x x xx Common shiner Golden shiner Spottail shiner Rosyface shiner Bluntnose minnow

Fathead minnow Blacknose dace x xxxx Longnose dace xxxx xxxxx Creek chub Pearl dace White sucker x x x x xx xx xx xxx Northern hogsucker Rock bass Redbreast sunfish Largemouth bass Tessellated darter x Slimy sculpin xxxx xxxx Pumpkinseed xx xx xx x Black crappie x Smallmouth bass x Yellow perch x a Includes age-0 fish b Hatchery reared

The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege 83 Appendix 4 Numbers of trout redds counted in Spring Creek during the last two weeks of November.

Spring Creek

Section Year

1987 19881997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2004 2005

1 23 30 28 8 2231 37 2

292 114 43 17 24 31 171 79 3

3355015291918375614

471103 57 10935139 71 14273

55673538 239342660

642381714303646123 88

723947 32 36 38 75 52 109

8201419351542116 24836

91639128 156143 193259 234143

10 26 38 83 48 98 157162 79 44

11 12 7123 190199 33780152 110

a 12 19 135158 195143 243150 196443

13 165157 142161 127135 260264 251

14 77 61 13790134 89 176 97 267

15 37 51 49 35 49 107162 194142

16 50 15 33 22 45 44 85 98 57

Totals 745 9341,084 1,1791,101 1,6501,915 2,077 1,823 a Surveyed before peak spawning

84 The Fishery of Spring Creek: A Watershed Under Siege Vintage photographs of Fisherman’s Paradise.

photos-PFBC Archives photo-PFBC Archives

The mission of the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission is to protect, conserve and enhance the Commonwealth’s aquatic resources and provide fishing and boating opportunities.