DOCSLIB.ORG

The Fishery of Spring Creek a Watershed Under Siege

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Fishery of Spring Creek a Watershed Under Siege 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy
    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds Within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
    Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Appendix Table I. Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay watershed that have a priority score ≥ 0.79. HUC 12 Priority HUC 12 Code HUC 12 Name Score Classification 020501060202 Millstone Creek-Schrader Creek 0.86 Intact 020501061302 Upper Bowman Creek 0.87 Intact 020501070401 Little Nescopeck Creek-Nescopeck Creek 0.83 Intact 020501070501 Headwaters Huntington Creek 0.97 Intact 020501070502 Kitchen Creek 0.92 Intact 020501070701 East Branch Fishing Creek 0.86 Intact 020501070702 West Branch Fishing Creek 0.98 Intact 020502010504 Cold Stream 0.89 Intact 020502010505 Sixmile Run 0.94 Reduced 020502010602 Gifford Run-Mosquito Creek 0.88 Reduced 020502010702 Trout Run 0.88 Intact 020502010704 Deer Creek 0.87 Reduced 020502010710 Sterling Run 0.91 Reduced 020502010711 Birch Island Run 1.24 Intact 020502010712 Lower Three Runs-West Branch Susquehanna River 0.99 Intact 020502020102 Sinnemahoning Portage Creek-Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.03 Intact 020502020203 North Creek 1.06 Reduced 020502020204 West Creek 1.19 Intact 020502020205 Hunts Run 0.99 Intact 020502020206 Sterling Run 1.15 Reduced 020502020301 Upper Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.07 Intact 020502020302 Kersey Run 0.84 Intact 020502020303 Laurel Run 0.93 Reduced 020502020306 Spring Run 1.13 Intact 020502020310 Hicks Run 0.94 Reduced 020502020311 Mix Run 1.19 Intact 020502020312 Lower Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.13 Intact 020502020403 Upper First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek 0.96
    [Show full text]
  • The Age, Function, and Distribution of Keyhole Structures in the Upper Susquehanna River Valley
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Anthropology Faculty Publications Anthropology 2008 The Age, Function, and Distribution of Keyhole Structures in the Upper Susquehanna River Valley Douglas H. Macdonald University of Montana - Missoula, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/anthro_pubs Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Macdonald, Douglas H., "The Age, Function, and Distribution of Keyhole Structures in the Upper Susquehanna River Valley" (2008). Anthropology Faculty Publications. 8. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/anthro_pubs/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE AGE, FUNCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION OF KEYHOLE STRUCTURES IN THE UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER VALLEY DOUGLAS H. MACDONALD DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA ABSTRACT This paper provides a summary of current data regarding the age, geographical distribution, and function of keyhole structures in the upper Susquehanna River Valley of north-central Pennsylvania and south-central New York. Keyhole structures have been identified at 11 sites in the West and North Branches of the Susquehanna River Valley. The feature type likely originated in the West Branch Valley from which it spread to the north, south, and east. Their main period of use was during the latter portion of the Late Woodland period, between approximately 1230 and 1670 A.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeologic Setting and Conceptual Hydrologic Model of the Spring Creek Basin, Centre County, Pennsylvania, June 2005
    Hydrogeologic Setting and Conceptual Hydrologic Model of the Spring Creek Basin, Centre County, Pennsylvania, June 2005 By John W. Fulton, Edward H. Koerkle, Steven D. McAuley, Scott A. Hoffman, and Linda F. Zarr In cooperation with the ClearWater Conservancy Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5091 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to repro- duce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Fulton, J.W., Koerkle, E.H., McAuley, S.D., Hoffman, S.A., and Zarr, L.F., 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, 83 p. iii Contents Abstract. 1 Introduction . 1 Purpose and Scope . 1 Description of Study Area . 1 Physical Characteristics of Spring Creek Basin . 3 Climate . 7 Precipitation. 7 Air Temperature . 12 Humidity. 12 Solar Radiation . 12 Evaporation . 12 Physiography . 13 Topography . 13 Land Use. 15 Hydrogeologic Setting of Spring Creek Basin .
    [Show full text]
  • Instream Flow Studies Pennsylvania and Maryland
    INSTREAM FLOW STUDIES PENNSYLVANIA AND MARYLAND Publication 191 May 1998 Thomas L. Denslinger Donald R. Jackson Civil Engineer Manager–Hydraulic Staff Hydrologist Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection Susquehanna River Basin Commission William A. Gast George J. Lazorchick Chief, Div. Of Water Planning and Allocation Hydraulic Engineer Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection Susquehanna River Basin Commission John J. Hauenstein John E. McSparran Engineering Technician Chief, Water Management Susquehanna River Basin Commission Susquehanna River Basin Commission David W. Heicher Travis W. Stoe Chief, Water Quality & Monitoring Program Biologist Susquehanna River Basin Commission Susquehanna River Basin Commission Jim Henriksen Leroy M. Young Ecologist, Biological Resources Division Fisheries Biologist U.S. Geological Survey Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Prepared in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection under Contract ME94002. SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Paul O. Swartz, Executive Director John Hicks, N.Y. Commissioner Scott Foti, N.Y. Alternate James M. Seif, Pa. Commissioner Dr. Hugh V. Archer, Pa. Alternate Jane Nishida, Md. Commissioner J.L. Hearn, Md. Alternate Vacant, U.S. Commissioner Vacant, U.S. Alternate The Susquehanna River Basin Commission was created as an independent agency by a federal-interstate compact* among the states of Maryland, New York, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the federal government. In creating the Commission, the Congress and state legislatures formally recognized the water resources of the Susquehanna River Basin as a regional asset vested with local, state, and national interests for which all the parties share responsibility. As the single federal-interstate water resources agency with basinwide authority, the Commission's goal is to effect coordinated planning, conservation, management, utilization, development and control of basin water resources among the government and private sectors.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 93: Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards Effective March 19, 2021 The following provisions are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes with the exception of these three provisions that EPA disapproved: The addition of the human health criterion for chlorophenoxy herbicide (2,4‐D) to Table 5 The revision to the designated use for Chester Creek (Basin), (locally known as Goose Creek basin, Source to East Branch Chester Creek) from Trout Stocking, Migratory Fish (TSF,MF) to Warm Water Fishes, MF (WWF, MF) The revision to the designated use for Reynold’s Run (Basin) from High Quality Waters, Cold Water Fishes (HQ‐CWF, MF) to High Quality Waters, Trout Stocking (HQ‐TSF, MF) Ch. 93 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 25 CHAPTER 93. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 93.1. Definitions. 93.2. Scope. 93.3. Protected water uses. 93.4. Statewide water uses. ANTIDEGRADATION REQUIREMENTS 93.4a. Antidegradation. 93.4b. Qualifying as High Quality or Exceptional Value Waters. 93.4c. Implementation of antidegradation requirements. 93.4d. Processing of petitions, evaluations and assessments to change a designated use. 93.5. [Reserved]. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA 93.6. General water quality criteria. 93.7. Specific water quality criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Instream Flow Studies Pennsylvania and Maryland
    INSTREAM FLOW STUDIES PENNSYLVANIA AND MARYLAND Publication 191 May 1998 Thomas L. Denslinger Donald R. Jackson Civil Engineer Manager–Hydraulic Staff Hydrologist Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Susquehanna River Basin Commission Protection George J. Lazorchick William A. Gast Hydraulic Engineer Chief, Div. Of Water Planning and Allocation Susquehanna River Basin Commission Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection John E. McSparran Chief, Water Management John J. Hauenstein Susquehanna River Basin Commission Engineering Technician Susquehanna River Basin Commission Travis W. Stoe Biologist David W. Heicher Susquehanna River Basin Commission Chief, Water Quality & Monitoring Program [ Susquehanna River Basin Commission Leroy M. Young Fisheries Biologist Jim Henriksen Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Ecologist, Biological Resources Division U.S. Geological Survey Prepared in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection under Contract ME94002. SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Paul O. Swartz, Executive Director John Hicks, N.Y. Commissioner Scott Foti, N.Y. Alternate James M. Seif, Pa. Commissioner Dr. Hugh V. Archer, Pa. Alternate Jane Nishida, Md. Commissioner J.L. Hearn, Md. Alternate Vacant, U.S. Commissioner Vacant, U.S. Alternate The Susquehanna River Basin Commission was created as an independent agency by a federal-interstate compact* among the states of Maryland, New York, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the federal government. In creating the Commission, the Congress and state legislatures formally recognized the water resources of the Susquehanna River Basin as a regional asset vested with local, state, and national interests for which all the parties share responsibility. As the single federal-interstate water resources agency with basinwide authority, the Commission's goal is to effect coordinated planning, conservation, management, utilization, development and control of basin water resources among the government and private sectors.
    [Show full text]
  • Agency Number
    INDEPENDENTREGULA TORY REViEW COMMISSION -‘ (1) Agency Environmental Protection -- (2) Agency Number: IRRC Number: Identification Number: 9 — 9 -‘ I — (3) PA Code Cite: 25 Pa Code, Chapter 93 I,T-) (4) Short Title: Water Quality Standards — Class A Stream Redesignations (5) Agency Contacts (List Telephone Number and Email Address): Primary Contact: Laura Edinger; 717.783.8727, ledinger(pa.gov Secondary Contact: Patrick McDonnell; 717.783.8727, [email protected] (6) Type of Rulemaking (check applicable box): X Proposed Regulation LI Emergency Certification Regulation [1 Final Regulation LI Certification by the Governor LI Final Omitted Regulation [I Certification by the Attorney General (7) Briefly explain the regulation in clear and nontechnical language. (100 words or less) Section 303 (c)( 1) of The Clean Water Act requires that states periodically, but at least once every 3 years, review and revise as necessary, their water quality standards. Further, states are required to protect existing uses of their waters. This regulation is undertaken as part of the Department’s ongoing review of Pennsylvania’s water quality standards. The proposed regulation will update and revise water quality standards that are designated uses for surface waters of the Commonwealth. This proposal modifies Chapter 93 to reflect the recommended redesignation of streams shown on the attached list. The proposed regulation will update and revise stream use designations in § 93.9a, 93.9c - 93.9f, 93.9h, 93.9i, 93.9k, 93.91, 93.9n - 93.9q, and 93.9t. These changes may, upon implementation, result in more stringent treatment requirements for new and/or expanded wastewater discharges to the streams in order to protect the existing and designated water uses.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Ferguson Township Current Services
    TOWNSHIP OF FERGUSON Stormwater User Fee Feasibilty Project Stormwater Advisory Committee Background – Current Program and Investments in Stormwater Management Background Throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed, communities are facing new mandates to address stormwater. These mandates include the National Pollutant and Discharge Elimination System - Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (NPDES MS4) Permits, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocations, and Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) as part of the Chesapeake Bay Pollutant Reduction Plan (CBPRP). Compliance with these mandates suggests that current financial policies be examined and additional financial sources and/or other resources be allocated to stormwater. Runoff controls for quantity management including drainage system maintenance is an additional responsibility of the Township and are part of the analysis in this Study. Compliance with the aforementioned mandates requires financial and other resources that may not currently be available at the levels needed to sustain necessary program elements, especially for smaller communities. The scope of these mandates may require smaller communities to expand their operations whereas a large city may already have a staff to manage permits and reporting requirements. Addressing overall system maintenance for both quantity and quality controls place increased demand on the resources of public works operations across the Commonwealth. Most communities, including Ferguson Township (the Township), currently rely on general funds for stormwater management activities. However, this option forces stormwater management to compete for funding with other community priorities, such as police services, planning and zoning, parks, and other public works activities. Using the general fund, without increasing taxes, to attempt to meet new regulatory requirements along with capital project funding and system maintenance will almost certainly require cutting funding to established Township programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Pollutant Aggregation Suggestions for MS4 Requirements Table (Municipal)
    Pollutant Aggregation Suggestions for MS4 Requirements Table (Municipal) Anticipated Obligations for Subsequent NPDES Permit Term MS4 Name Permit HUC 12 Name Impaired Downstream Waters or Applicable TMDL Requirement(s) Number Name Adams County ABBOTTSTOWN BORO Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Appendix E-Siltation Beaver Creek, Davidsburg Run-Conewago Creek Beaver Creek, Chesapeake Bay Nutrients\Sediment Appendix D-Siltation/Nutrients, Appendix E-Siltation Boro of East Berlin-Conewago Creek Chesapeake Bay Nutrients\Sediment Appendix D-Siltation/Nutrients BERWICK TWP Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Appendix E-Siltation Boro of East Berlin-Conewago Creek Chesapeake Bay Nutrients\Sediment Appendix D-Siltation/Nutrients Beaver Creek, Davidsburg Run-Conewago Creek Beaver Creek, Chesapeake Bay Nutrients\Sediment Appendix D-Siltation/Nutrients, Appendix E-Siltation BUTLER TWP Lower Marsh Creek Chesapeake Bay Nutrients\Sediment Appendix D-Siltation/Nutrients CONEWAGO TWP Boro of East Berlin-Conewago Creek Chesapeake Bay Nutrients\Sediment Appendix D-Siltation/Nutrients Headwaters South Branch Conewago Creek, Plum Creek-South Branch Chesapeake Bay Nutrients\Sediment, Plum Creek, South Branch Conewago Appendix D-Siltation/Nutrients, Appendix E-Siltation Conewago Creek Creek CUMBERLAND TWP Lower Marsh Creek Chesapeake Bay Nutrients\Sediment, Willoughby Run Appendix D-Siltation/Nutrients, Appendix E-Nutrients, Organic Enrichment/Low D.O., Siltation Lower Rock Creek, Upper Rock Creek Chesapeake Bay Nutrients\Sediment, Rock Creek, Unnamed Tributaries to Appendix
    [Show full text]
  • Spring Creek Watershed Profile
    Spring Creek Watershed Profile Location • Central Pennsylvania • Centre County • Municipalities: Bellefonte Borough, Benner Township, Centre Hall Borough, College Township, Ferguson Township, Halfmoon Township, Harris Township, Milesburg Borough, Patton Township, Potter Township, Spring Township, State College Borough, Walker Township • Tributary to Bald Eagle Creek, which drains into the West Branch Susquehanna River Size • Total: 146 mi2 (93,440 acres, 378 km2) • Population 140,000 Tributaries Big Hollow Buffalo Run Slab Cabin Run Cedar Run Logan Branch Physiographic Region Ridge and Valley Province, Appalachian Mountain Section Soils Hagerstown-Opequon-Hublerburg (deep and shallow well drained soils with underlying limestone) and Hazleton-Laidig-Andover (gently sloping to very steep, deep, well drained and poorly drained soils with underlying acid sandstone). Shale and sandstone in ridges, Big Hollow; karst geology in valley. Land Use 28% Agriculture 27% Urban 45% Forested Spring Creek Watershed Land Use Forest 45% Agriculture 28% Urban 27% Unique Environmental and Community Features High quality wild brown trout fishery year round; home to Penn State University; innovative wastewater treatment (land application through Living Filter; UAJA high quality treatment and beneficial reuse program) Designated Uses • Aquatic Life: High Quality Cold Water Fishery (HQ-CWF) • Main stem Spring Creek is designated HQ-CWF, as are the following tributaries: upper Buffalo Run; upper Slab Cabin Run; Thompson Run; Galbraith Gap Run; McBride Gap Run;
    [Show full text]