Big Spring Habitat & Management Meeting, Oct. 30

[GreenWeenie]

Tomi…..WHOA you got me!!! I can’t believe it!!!!!

Not.

Immediately you try and assume that, “with the help of substantial habitat restoration” means ripping the stream apart. How about we take a closer look at exactly what this means.

“Substantial” means ‘a considerable amount.’

“Habitat” means, ‘the area or environment where an organism or ecological community normally lives or occurs.’

“Restoration” means, ‘the act or restoring or the condition of being restored as a bringing back to a former position or condition.

So when you quote “with the help of substantial habitat restoration,” and attempt to suggest that it means rip the place apart so you are right and I am wrong, that’s not what it says. What is says is that the environment sucks and in order for the fish and insects to return to their former glory, the environment where they live needs to substantially improve and return to the former state when they thrived, which at a minimum means NO HATCHERY POLLUTION. I don’t see any mention of the installation of wing walls, plunge pools, V deflectors, narrowing of the channel, etc., and in fact the PADEP letter of 2000 cautions against the installation of more tradition habitat structures, which are plunge pools, V deflectors, wing walls, etc. Below is that link.

PADEP 2000 Letter To PFBC

I highly suggest you read it and notice as the PADEP biologist completely rips apart the study, data and restoration plan that the PFBC and others initially proposed, which was since jammed through 9 years later. There are outright lies in that report - lies that are contradicted by the PFBC’s own data (read the part about trout mass densities – complete lies). My first question to you and others (that nobody will answer) is you don’t see anything wrong with the entity that is supposed to protect the streams that you fish to be (1) incompetent and (2) lying to cover up their own incompetence? This isn’t my view, this is what your beloved PFBC did and then attempted to cover-up. It’s their own data, their own reports, and the PADEP calling them out – not GW calling them out.

I apologize in advance if this is too complicated for you to understand and not what you wanted to hear. Just resort to you usual GW is right and the entire world is wrong reply and this is all about my fishing experience being ruined. Continue to add no substance, use quotes out of context, keep your head in the silt.

Second question that you won’t answer, I would assume that you would be all in favor of performing these same improvements to the Letort? I hope you are because according to the PADEP letter, the Letort and Big Spring have very similar habitat and since you believe the restoration work substantially improved Big Spring’s habitat and made it a better fishery, I would expect that you and others who support the restoration work would be fully supportive of the same design being installed at the Letort because imagine how great that stream would then become. Seriously, I look forward to you answer on this question. I guarantee you won’t answer it because you don’t want these improvement on the Letort or your reply will be some sort of childish answer that says nothing other than I am the expert so I should know.

How about when the fish kill occurred on the Letort way back when and the PFBC immediately wanted to replenish the stream with stocked fish yet those two bozos Fox and Marinaro (not scientists so they obviously couldn’t be experts like the PFBC) said ‘No, the trout will return leave it be,” and what happened, the trout returned. Took time but they return by how – leaving the stream alone to recover on its own.

 

[tomitrout]

GW, my bottom line on Big Spring:

It's an amazing stream that has long been abused by man. Whether it was the artificial brookie mill ponds back in the day that built it's reputation, the private hatcheries, the antique stone wing walls or the PFBC hatchery that all but killed it, she's been thru a lot. The most recent hatchery got shut down which then resulted in a lot of back n forth and CYA politicing wrt 'what do we do next?' Lots of intelligent folks with varying opinions and differing amounts of pull were involved in the decision making. Some were listened to more than others and a path forward was agreed to. What's done is done.

You claim that this most recent path has ruined the stream, I don't share your view. The water is still just as clean and cool, the bugs are just as happy and the population of trouts continues to rebound to this day. I'm sorry that others didn't share your vision for the stream you fell in love with, that your side 'lost' or whatever. But the fishing there is still fantastic and by all measures other than your personal preference, your fishing anecdotes and your survey cover up conspiracies, the stream is nowhere near 'ruined.' You can continue to spout your bitterness and provide documentation for your reasoning, but bottom line, it's still a fantastic fishery that continues to heal and will continue to heal.


Now regarding the Letort. Would I be upset if the same thing that's been done to BigSpring happened on the Letort? Although they are similar in certain stretches, these two streams are different animals, as I'm sure you're aware. Nowhere that I'm familiar with on the Letort shares similar characteristics to the stretch of Big Spring that's been altered. Nowhere is it a structureless, ankle deep expanse of gravel bottomed stream. So, yes, it would bother me to see those same tactics employed to 'improve' the stream, they're just not applicable due to their differences. I love the Letort, it's my home water and I learn something everytime I'm out there. If there were a project in the works though, you can bet that I'd get involved, listen to all sides, add my voice to the conversation for what it's worth and then see where the cards lay. If the fishes & bugs were still happy afterwards, if the water quality remained intact and the bottom line was that the fishing experience had changed, then I'm pretty sure I'd accept the changes and still fish it. And I'm also pretty sure that I wouldn't climb up onto a soapbox and rant my displeasure at seemingly every opportunity.

 

[Foxgap239]

Tomi, well said.

GW, my advice to you would be to think about how your message is perceived. I think you are intelligent and think things through very well. You are a facts and figures guy (much like myself) but your message often gets lost in your vitriol. You sent me a PM a few months back about color which was as helpful as any PM I've ever received. You obviously know your stuff and while I certainly have no right to tell you how to post, I think your message would be much better received if you used the same informative style you used in your PM to me. I personally enjoy your message but hate to have to wade through the crap you sometimes type to translate it. Your passion for Big Spring is commendable and maybe your knowledge would be better served to get involved with the upcoming project (I won't make the mistake of saying "improvement") than to doubt it's value before any plans are ever even finalized.

My two cents, which leaves me now quite short. :roll:

 

[Squaretail]

Thats a great message to this particular poster who I happen to agree with on this upcoming project. If they make the whole stream accessible to absolutely everyone with ease, the quality will certainly fall. I believe they are now over-promoting the stream and I can think of a crapload of other streams that could use the money more.
The fish are doing great.
To me, this isnt a habitat improvement project, this is an angling improvement project with aim at licenses and not the trout at all.

 

[JackM]

I think the "leave the stream alone" argument has general applicability in many cases where man intervenes to "improve" the water. If you look at the universe of volunteers and naysayers, you will find an inordinate amount of anglers involved. So certainly the motivation is the fishing and recreational appeal of the stream. Even those that prefer things Au Naturel are pursuing things to suit their prefered angling experience.

Just like Young Woman's Creek, there are losers and winners and those in the minority ought to seek small victories, rather than just demonizing, and thus alienating, their opposition.

 

[Squaretail]

True enough. I enjoy fishing the project water they did far more than the other areas. They're a true pain to fish and wade.
However, I am glad they have a place or two to get away from me.

 

[GreenWeenie]

Thank you Squaretail.

I do not have issue helping streams that need help but this was by far and away THE BEST wild trout stream in PA (and quite possibly in the top 10 anywhere in the U.S.) as of August 2010 – by far the best in PA. Could it have used some help in certain areas of the upper section of the fly zone – yes, a little help maybe tightening up a few things up here and there - but I, and many others, fail to find the logic of completely ripping it apart.

Why would you rip up natural weed beds that are 3-4 feet deep and hold pods of 50+ bows with 5-7 in the 20”+ range and replace the natural weed beds with wooden boxes anchored into the stream bottom that are filled with new weeds to create “lunker structure?”

Why would you fill in undercut banks where many of the big ones held and then build wooden platforms over the stream for cover?

I also fail to see the logic of let’s improve the brook trout habitat and then the design backfills the very habitat that was used very successfully by the brook trout for cover and spawning and tries to artificially recreate it elsewhere?

That is what I fail to see. Fine, take the existing natural habitat and give it a tweak to improve it but to rip up the natural habitat and try to artificially rebuild it elsewhere - that’s where I am lost? You’re not improving the habitat you’re only relocating it and I’m sorry, I can’t see how artificial habitat will be better than the natural habitat that clearly demonstrated that it was working.

The thing about this board and many of the posters is everyone wants to help streams and everyone seems to love when someone is going to do something to a stream. The thought seems to be every stream can benefit from doing something to it and doing something is clearly better than doing nothing and this is a perfect case where that is not true. It was by far the best trout stream in PA, maybe even in the U.S., and I’m sorry most of you didn’t know that or never fished it. Why do you think I was driving 168 miles one way to fish it 60-70 times a year, year round, getting up a 3am to be on the water by sunrise and leaving well after dark? Because it was phenomenal that’s why and that is the tough part, nobody out there can really fully appreciate and understand how incredibly phenomenal it was.

 

[GreenWeenie]

Tomi, as for the Letort, I agree with you 100% and you provided the answer I was hoping for. I agree the streams’ characteristics are totally different - except for the number of fish. (I haven’t fished the Letort as extensively as you but based on my experience I would feel comfortable saying that Big Spring, pre August 2010, held far more trout and substantially more big ones than the Letort but I could be wrong, that’s just based on what I saw, but I do believe the hatches on the Letort are probably better than Big Spring).

The major difference, however, was Big Spring didn’t look like what a spring creek was supposed to look like. The Letort and Falling Spring look like spring creeks but not Big Spring, Big Spring was “shallow and coverless” in the upper reaches and didn’t look like it should or could even hold trout but nonetheless it managed to hold massive quantities of trout and massive quantities of bugs and baitfish. That is maybe the difference between both sides on this argument.

My view, and others, is if the stream looks like a complete cesspool but has massive trout populations ranging from YOY to incredibly huge, while the stream may look ugly, the proof is in the pudding and that ugly habitat is obviously very suitable to support a healthy population of fish so leave it alone and focus restoration efforts on streams that are not performing up to potential. I just don’t feel like every stream is supposed to be made to look like the perfect model trout stream. If the stream holds massive numbers of fish of all sizes, that’s all that matters to me and obviously the habitat ‘as is’ is pretty damn good.

On the other side, some seem to feel that every stream needs to look like the prototypical model trout stream in order to be good and seem to believe that while the cesspool stream may fish great, imagine how incredibly great it will become when it gets redesigned into the picture perfect model trout stream – it will have perfect habitat. And that was one of the first things that everyone said about Big Spring – WOW IT LOOKS GREAT!! Looks don’t make a trout stream great so I’m sorry, I don’t agree with that view (not saying it’s your) and I don’t feel a stream needs to look good or be perfect to be great. If you look at the stream design implemented on Big Spring it’s not some unique design specifically prepared for Big Spring – it’s the same freaking design that the consultant has utilized on many streams all over the place irrespective of the natural condition or requirements of the stream. It’s a canned ‘one design fits all’ approach to stream management and that doesn’t work everywhere. What is basically does is homogenizes streams and while it may improve some streams, it certainly will adversely affect some streams.

As for changes in fishing experience, while maybe you would except a different fishing experience if the quality of fishing didn’t change (i.e., still the same numbers of fish, still the same insect population, etc.) but what changed was the stream’s design, I don’t think you would accept it if the quality of fishing declined because of the work. Honestly, based on the condition of the Letort right now, there is absolutely no reason to do anything to it – it’s an awesome stream as is - and if someone was proposing to do wholesale redesigns, I would be calling them idiots too. My issue is if a typical trout stream in PA has 10 trout per 100 feet, the Letort has 100, and then the Letort was redesigned in the name of improvement and the result was now 70, sure it’s still 7 times better than the average PA stream but its 30% worst than it was and I’m sure you would be upset if people who never fished the stream were now running around telling everyone how great IT LOOKS and how great it fishes compared to PA average stream and telling you that you’re nuts because you are saying it’s not as good as it was. If that happened, I would certainly hope that you wouldn’t be quiet and accepting of what was done but would be up on a soapbox telling everyone what happened so others might be more skeptical about improvement projects proposed by the experts on other streams.

You’ve got a lot of experience on the Letort and probably know it better than most. While we obviously have had a lot of strong disagreements, I would seriously respect your opinion on any work that was done on the Letort and I would hope that you wouldn’t be a corporate TU guy and tell the world the work was great, the stream was great, when deep down you know it’s not what it used to be like.

 

[krayfish]

GW, thumbs up on your passion for BS. I may not fully agree with the presentation but you are trying to raise awareness and issues with the stream and that's more than most would do. I fished it 4-5 days a week from the mid 80's until after the hatchery closed. Way down the fishing might have been decent but I quit going because things had gotten so bad in the upper section. Then...all the hype with the redo of the stream. Haven't been back in years. Was in the area one day and saw the cluster-F of anglers and kept driving. I wish I could have fished it back in the 50's when it had really good hatches. Mother Nature has a way of repairing things. Look at how the Letort recovered and the way Spring has taken a beating but keeps coming back. With that said, I do agree that there wasn't a bunch of holding water in the upper 1.5 - 2 mi. Not saying that fish weren't there but it could have been much more. I'll have to actually get over there some time soon and really look around. Work will almost guarantee I won't be at the BS meeting. Please post a summary of what was discussed. Keep the passion, present your data but easing up on your approach a whisker may get more on your side to help fight for the stream. Just my 2 cents.:..... and now I have no sense.

 

[DaveKile]

Just in from the PFBC!

NOTE - This meeting has been cancelled because of the storm. It will be rescheduled at a later date.

 

[Fishidiot]

The new date for this meeting will be Monday the 5th. Note that the location has changed to the Big Spring Events and Activities Center; 7-9pm

More Info

 

[fadeaway263]

GreenWeenie wrote:
Actually Jack, there are quite a few people who support the same views I support, I just happen to be the most vocal. If you did a little research on the subject and maybe got involved you would realize that it was a group of concerned citizens who didn't buy the PFBC's BS (not the biologists, the administration, the ones who set policy and make decisions, generally not based on scientific knowledge but rather politics - Mike knows exactly what I am talking about but has to plead the 5th and I fully understand) and managed to get the hatchery shutdown and essentially made the PFBC look like incompetent lying buffoons. Why? Well the PFBC's public position was these people were wrong about the hatchery being the cause of the problem but guess what happened Mr. Ill-Informed, exactly what these un-experts said would happen DID happen, much to the dismay of the real "experts" when the hatchery was shutdown (you do know the hatchery discharged unpermitted poisons (diquat and formaldehyde) into the stream yet the PFBC denied it yet internal emails between the PFBC and the PADEP admitted such - I'm sure you are fully aware of that). The stream did exactly as those so called rabble rousers said would happen and it started recovering on its own and turned into the greatest little secret anywhere. I laugh when you and others who never fished the place try and discredit me because it was a fantastic stream - a phenominal stream - you people have no idea exactly how great it was because you never fished it. And the fact that it turned into a world class fishery simply pisses off the experts. This isn't about outting my private little stream it's about f'in up a trout stream that probably had more 20+ inch bows per 100 feet than any trout stream in the world including the D and brookies up to 4lbs. Seriously, you have no idea what was really there and as I said, the stream is still a 9/10 but ir used to be a 20/10.

So how do I know, well these so called experts said the stream held no fish yet for some unexplained reason, I was consistently catching upwards of 50+ trout everytime I fished the stream with probably 7-10 in the 20"+ range. (PREEMPTIVE STRIKE - don't bother saying you're the greatest or whatever trying to use your only defense, which is to discredit me), that's not the point, the point is the experts were saing the stream held no fish yet I was seeing something completely so I guess I am insane and crazy because the experts said nothing was there so what an ******* I am for catching all these fish that they say aren't there. And the reason I may be the only one saying that is simply because I was the only one fishing the place and it is sickening that any so called stream restoration expert would fail to see what was there. I'm not an "expert" yet I found what was there apparantly found what no one else could.

I appologize for being the *******.

TLDR

 

[JackM]

I don't know why you felt the need to do that, fade, but we have moved on from that, I thought. Here is the helpful post that should appear at the top or bottom, depending on your settings:

The new date for this meeting will be Monday the 5th. Note that the location has changed to the Big Spring Events and Activities Center; 7-9pm

More Info

 

[Chaz]

So, is anyone going to this meeting from the Allentown Area?

 

[Tiltaxp]

GreenWeenie wrote:
Big Spring wasn’t another brookie trickle. It was a world class stream that supported a very healthy population of large brook and bows that didn’t need anything done to it to help it. Too bad most people didn’t know that.

As for the next phase, go for it and complete the transformation into a fishing park. Make sure the design includes lots of plunge pools because you know, limestone spring creeks aren’t supposed to be slow, meandering bodies of water they are supposed to look like fast moving, rolling tumbling mountain freestones. Also, make sure the design includes elevated observation towers to make it easy for people to spot the trout (I suggest shocking the stream and then spray painting the trout blaze orange so they will clearly be visible from the towers). And casting platforms that extend over the stream, include those so people don’t even need to wear waders.

And lastly, make sure there are neon signs with arrows specifically pointing to the lunker structures or other holding areas that may hold large trout.

Glad I fished it extensively when it was a world class natural stream. What a POS it has turned into.

why go through all that? I'll just go pin it... lol

 

[Fishidiot]

The meeting was well attended and the attendees included John Arway and many of the PFBC staff including the Area Fisheries Managers involved with this project. Also present were many prominent names in the Pennsylvania Fly Fishing Community who you would recognize as well as local folks and some Big Spring old timers. The meeting presented the plan for a new restoration section in 2013 and proposed some changes for the future. Among the audience, the main source of disagreement, not surprisingly, dealt with the issue of what (if anything) should be done about the rainbows. Here's the short version of the meeting:


-PFBC biologists presented a ppt show describing the flow, cover, and depth changes in the section restored in 2010. The stream is now narrower, deeper, and slower, and has more non-vegetation cover and thus more "optimal" habitat for both brook and rainbow trout. The gravel used to block in the logs in this section is being used by rainbows for spawning and, in the future, smaller gravel should be used as this might reduce rainbow spawning success. Also, dissolved oxygen levels at the lower end of the FFO section and downstream into the ATW section are lower than optimal for wild trout.

-PFBC ppt show describing the electrofishing results of the section that was restored in 2010 and the sections used as control. After the 2010 restoration, brook trout numbers increased (roughly doubled) and rainbow numbers increased in the restored section by a greater margin (roughly four fold). These were the results revealed in the 2011 fish survey. The recent 2012 survey of these same sections revealed that rainbows, although still more numerous in the restored section, had declined a bit in 2011-2012. Brook trout numbers continued to rise in this section and in the upstream control section from 2011 to 2012.

-Over the entire course of the FFO section of Big Spring, as of autumn 2012, the trout population looks roughly like this: In the upper reaches - essentially the ditch down into the upper part of the restored section - now is about 60% brook trout. From the lower section of the restored area down to the bottom at Nealy Rd, rainbows are about 94% of the population.

-For the future, the PFBC management goal with respect to trout population.....is to get to a ratio of 70% brook/30% rainbow in the entire FFO section within five years (I believe this is numbers, not biomass). There are currently no plans to build a barrier and remove rainbows by electrofishing (these will be reconsidered in five years if necessary). To reduce rainbows in the next few years, it has been proposed to allow harvest in the FFO section. I wish to emphasize that this is a proposal still subject to approval by the commissioners. There is currently no change in the fishing regulations on BS. However, in the future, the FFO section may allow the harvest of several rainbows over 7 inches. This section will continue to be managed as FFO without bait or spin fishing.
This was the basic content and thrust of the meeting.

After the PFBC presentation there was considerable discussion and disagreement among the audience, mostly regarding the 'bows vs. brookies debate. I'd guess that the comments were about evenly divided between those wanting to leave the rainbows alone and those who feel they're a threat to brookies and should be removed or reduced. The meeting concluded with Arway's comments thanking the attendees and reminding us that the PFBC is still receiving comments and eager to hear your opinion on Big Spring.

 

[DaveKile]

David,

Thank you for the report!

 

[troutbert]

Thanks for the report. I'm curious why the oxygen levels are low. Did they have any more details about that?

Were they talking about oxygen levels in the substrate, which has been a topic of study in the past? Or oxygen right in the regular stream flow?

And what is the cause of the low oxygen levels?

 

[Fishidiot]

troutbert wrote:
Thanks for the report. I'm curious why the oxygen levels are low. Did they have any more details about that?

Were they talking about oxygen levels in the substrate, which has been a topic of study in the past? Or oxygen right in the regular stream flow?

And what is the cause of the low oxygen levels?

This is dissolved oxygen in the water flow. During the mornings, they are lower (I don't recall the actual levels) than what is optimal for trout (not below what trout can survive). The biologists did not suggest a reason for this. They did indicate that the planned restoration concept for 2013 may include more wing walls etc at the downstream point to "churn" (my words) the water up a bit and hopefully improve the DO numbers at the bottom of the FFO area.

 

[tomitrout]

Hey Dave, unfortunately couldn't swing the Monday make-up date, so missed the meeting. Curious if they laid out how far downstream they plan to take the work project? The whole way to Nealy Rd? to that last parking lot? just to the big island? Did they get into much detail about that?

tnx.