Improving Wild Trout Angling in PA

[foxtrapper1972]

Mike-No. Not familiar with that creek.

I am very sceptical about many of these improvement projects. In my experience they often do not improve fishing.

I wonder how you people determine that one section of one small wild trout stream should get attention (thousands of dollars worth) while MANY miles of similar streams go untouched. What are your goals in terms of improvement?

And taking in the big picture, what are the resulting improvements that can actually be demonstrated years down the line in terms of more and bigger fish or whatever your goals might be?

Not sure how one can justify spending thousands on a stream that already holds a self sustaining population unless REAL data proves something positive. Also increased angler pressure because of improvements and publicity has some downsides on these smaller streams and how do you factor that in?

 

[Mike]

One could pick any number of streams or stream sections for habitat work, but access for personnel and equipment, landowner permission, relative need in comparison to other waters, funds, and interested local cooperators/participants all play roles in the decisions.

I have primarily looked for stabilized banks, increased shade, SUBSTANTIALLY narrowed channels, as well as more pocket water. I have also strongly advocated for dam removals on a number of waters, particularly those where anadromous or catadromous fish could benefit and where downstream water temps would benefit.

 

[rrt]

Afish is right about unchecked development. In Blair Co., a CAFO hog farm is being established near headwater streams. Its liquid miasma will be spread adjacent to a nice coolwater stream. People tried to fight this, but DEP rubber stamped the hog farm which has the likelihood of being an environmental disaster. The construction has begun. So sad.

 

[dryflyguy]

afishinado wrote:
Interesting.

The motivation or impetus for the McCoy Dam removal is one question to ponder, but that's water over the dam in this case, since it has already been removed.

What interests me more is the results a decade after the removal.

Has the dam removal improved, degraded, or have had no effect on the Spring Creek stream biology and/or trout fishing in the immediate area as well as up and downstream?

Well - the nice pools above both dams created excellent dry fly fishing.
And I spent many nice days there over the years
It's all pocket water now. Certainly not my style, and I rarely fish there anymore.
I've talked with other fisherman who do. And they tell me it still does hold lots of fish. And gets some fair hatches

 

[troutbert]

Mike wrote:
One could pick any number of streams or stream sections for habitat work, but access for personnel and equipment, landowner permission, relative need in comparison to other waters, funds, and interested local cooperators/participants all play roles in the decisions.

I have primarily looked for stabilized banks...

Streams are not naturally stable laterally. It is normal for them to move laterally in their floodplains.

Which means that bank erosion is part of a stream's normal dynamic processes.

Mike, Is this generally known, discussed, and understood by PFBC people, including the habitat people and the biologists?

Knowing that stream's naturally move laterally, isn't a detail. Learning that is a crucial step to understanding the physical & ecological aspects of streams and floodplains. It's "foundational," that is, it's something that you MUST know, because so much else rests on knowing that.

 

[Mike]

These streams generally don't lend themselves to the natural approach. These are most often streams that handle more stormwater on a regular basis than they would have ever naturally carried, other than in an occasional hurricane or other unusual storm event.

Many of the streams in the SE and SC flow through legacy sediments left behind by hundreds of former mill dams. Nothing natural about that. There aren't always the money, upland disposal sites, and space available to grade the banks back into a natural-like flood plain, so you take the most pragmatic approach. Additionally, one would hardly call the amount of erosion that I am talking about "natural" in urban, suburban, and agricultural areas.

I would further add that keeping legacy sediments from eroding from the banks when banks can't be graded back and sediment disposed of above the flood plain keeps a major source of nutrients from reaching our estuaries and bays.

 

[troutbert]

Mike, I know that it is not always possible to allow streams to migrate laterally within their floodplains. There are many places where there is no choice to stabilize a channel laterally.

If the PFBC people know streams naturally move laterally, then they will stabilize banks where necessary, but not at other places.

If people do not know this, they see every eroding cut-bank as a problem that needs to be fixed.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

Mike-
These projects very often are built in a very short stretch of stream. I have wondered if a stream or watershed really benefits from what appears to be a piecemeal approach? I would think that looking at a watershed in a holistic way would reveal where REAL problems exist.

I visited one of your projects at Peters Creek today and noticed the upper end of the stream runs through miles of treeless agriculture areas (major source of sediment/erosion/storm water I would guess) and nothing is currently being done in those areas because of lack of access /cooperation I am guessing. It looks like you have created deep areas in the lower end of stream by narrowing stream. digging out stream bed and increasing flow in a rocky area with easy access for heavy equipment.
Wouldn't it be wiser to address erosion upstream before increasing flow?
I would question whether you are actually helping the river or bay. Aren't you at best flushing out the stream and sending the sediment downstream?

Is the goal of this project to increase water quality or create good fish habitat? How will you know if you are successful in improving the stream?

 

[outsider]

foxtrapper, where is Peters Creek you are referring to?

 

[outsider]

foxtrapper, please list the streams where habitat improvement has been detrimental to the stream.

 

[Chaz]

foxtrapper1972 wrote:
Mike-No. Not familiar with that creek.

I am very sceptical about many of these improvement projects. In my experience they often do not improve fishing.

I wonder how you people determine that one section of one small wild trout stream should get attention (thousands of dollars worth) while MANY miles of similar streams go untouched. What are your goals in terms of improvement?

And taking in the big picture, what are the resulting improvements that can actually be demonstrated years down the line in terms of more and bigger fish or whatever your goals might be?

Not sure how one can justify spending thousands on a stream that already holds a self sustaining population unless REAL data proves something positive. Also increased angler pressure because of improvements and publicity has some downsides on these smaller streams and how do you factor that in?

As a TU Chapter Perkiomen Valley TU has concentrated on sections of the creek and tributaries impacted by agriculture practices, and that landowners allow or request the work. We been very successful with that model. However every watershed and stream section is different and that is taken into account.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

outsider-I am mainly talking about the digging in streambeds and building structures to narrow streams and increase flow. I can't honestly say that any of these projects on streams that I was familar with (before and after) have actually improved the fishing. I cannot speak to water quality.

I have seen sections of Lackawanna River where thousands were spent on so called improvements and in my view some very good habitat was destroyed. Donegal Creek in Lancaster Co. has had a lot of work done over the years and once held a good population of wild trout. The fishing has declined to the point it is now being stocked again. Upper Octoraro Creek was once a very good wild trout stream and large fish were not uncommon. Fish comm. and TU came in and did "improvements". There are still some fish there but they tend to be small and not that abundant. After the improvements several of the landowners began posting because of increased angling pressure. Thousands have been spent on stream improvements on many streams where naturally reproducing trout are present and I have yet to see where the trout population increased or fish were larger after work was done. I am not a scientist just an interested fisherman. I have seen zero science that shows these projects actually help anything long term.

There are some sections of streams that have unique habitat....Maybe slow moving long pools behind dams or deep undercut mud banks. Yet wild fish are found in such places somehow. Do we need to change these places to fit some preconceived idea of how a trout stream should look?

It seems to me that the work at Big Springs has been a success from what I've heard but I was not familiar with that creek before. The work on Kettle Creek in Potter is interesting to me but there are few wild fish in that section and I'm not really sure what the point of that extensive work really is. Same with the work on Quittapahilla near Annville PA.

I would like to hear where these projects can actually be shown to have improved habitat or water quality. Scientific data would be nice.

I am in favor of planting trees and creating buffers and improving wastewater treatment. These will have real lasting effects.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

Good article that raises questions about how stream restorations should be evaluated for effectiveness and other interesting topics.


http://issues.org/22-2/palmer/

 

[outsider]

Foxtrapper wrote:

"I have seen sections of Lackawanna River where thousands were spent on so called improvements and in my view some very good habitat was destroyed."

In your own words: where is the scientific proof to support this.

So this begs the question (although I am not going to comb through the 13 pages of this topic). What have you done to improve habitat in PA waters? Taken a stance, taken time out of you life to (i.e.) help deter AMD in a stream?

 

[SteveG]

afishinado wrote:

Some can't see the stream for the water.

If fishin' good...who cares if it's impaired....leave it alone....it's my secret fishin' hole!.....and deres big ones in there!!! :roll:

Think big picture man!...instead of railing again about TU, nature conservancies, the PFBC and all other groups looking to protect streams as well as fund and work on stream restoration projects...

Why don't you rail against the unchecked development in PA with all the housing developments, strip malls, parking lots and creation impermeable surfaces with unchecked runoff, agricultural run-off, chemical pollution, amd, improper sewage discharge, removal of riparian cover, pollution from industry, and the state or county and/or township supervisors allowing unchecked development to increase the tax base.............I'm getting all worked up just writing this!!!:evil:

Foxtrapper isn't saying "who cares if it's impaired". I believe he's saying that perhaps resources are better targeted at other things, instead of turning everything into a trout golf course with a "perfect" riffle to run ratio.

I'm of the opinion that agricultural practices are currently the biggest threat to a majority of streams in PA, not to mention the once great pheasant population. As far as limestoners, blasting is a surefire way to make them disappear. Trindle Spring, or what's left of it, is a primary example.

I don't think anyone here is putting blame on TU or other groups, as they are definitely helping for the most part. Plus, it's certainly easier to gather resources to do stream work, than fight development and the current factory style agricultural practices.

 

[Mike]

That specific stretch of Peters was enhanced in an effort to improve its capability to support more and larger fish than it has previously. Substrate and holding water was substantially degraded by the scouring effects of stormwater flows and velocities. This was just the first of what we hope will be many projects in the drainage basin, as Peters and its primary trib, Puddle Duck, are on my - now the agency's - high priority "short list" for the funds that must be used on wild trout stream enhancement in Lancaster and York Counties.

 

[troutbert]

SteveG wrote

As far as limestoners, blasting is a surefire way to make them disappear. Trindle Spring, or what's left of it, is a primary example.

What was the blasting done for?

 

[SteveG]

Residential and commercial development. Large sections have disappeared, likely just spilling into the ground, instead of staying in the streambed.

It likely impacted Hogestown Run as well, when it was done where the CarMax and other buildings are now.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

Almost all the streams in my area have been dewatered over the years. Not much left but a trickle in some. Seems the fish comm and gov't agencies would rather run around spending grant money on questionable "improvement" projects than actually addressing REAL issues facing our waterways.

By the way I've heard the project over at Big Springs may not be such a success as I had hoped. Apparently a lot less big fish these days. I know last time I was over there were VERY FEW big fish to be seen in the ditch and a few of the larger ones I saw/spooked down below didn't look all that healthy.

I don't think anyone is really being held accountable for any of these projects. DO THEY REALLY WORK? Results? Studies? Any real evidence?

 

[outsider]

So the fish commission should be held accountable for development and man's destruction of our environment? The only thing we can is TRY to repair. You still did not answer my question regarding your contribution to stream improvement. "crickets chirping".