Mo money mo problems

[sixfootfenwick]

👆what that guy said

It's plain to see brook trout responded to the hatchery closure alone.

The 2015 survey their population exploded even more after the project. it begs to question, has it been survey since 2015? I mean it is 2023. If so, where are the results

Amazing actually.
What can happen after a Hatchery that destroyed habitat is shutdown and the habitat restored.
I have no doubt if that hatchery was still running the brook trout would have been eventually wiped out. Likewise, had it been shutdown and the stream not restored, given 100's of years, it would have repaired itself. The restoration just sped up that process .

But where is the 2020 data????

 

[Mike]

The hatchery closure had an immediate impact on the brook trout population, long before the large habitat project.
It is also worth noting, habitat was degraded due to the hatchery, so there is that too.

That still doesn’t necessarily mean that water quality was the limiting factor. Check the first screen shot….biomass time series in the ditch. Abundance of BT and RT declined and at the same time ST started to increase. That’s not a pollution problem response; that’s more likely a competition/predation response.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

That still doesn’t mean that water quality was the limiting factor. Check the first screen shot. Abundance of BT and RT declined and at the same time ST started to increase. That’s not a pollution problem response; that’s a competition/predation response.

Come on Mike .
So the DEP was wrong along with the other scientists?
No. They had no skin in the game, you did and still do to a degree.

The hatchery ruined that stream, own it

 

[sixfootfenwick]

BT and Rainbow trout declined because there weren't anymore hatchery escapes.🧐 Not everyone is so young to not remember.

So the hatchery:

ruined water quality, made siltation which hurt spawning habitat, degraded over all habitat, degraded the vegetation, made fish that were apex predators, over loaded the stream with invasive species....

I even remember reading it had a massive amount of ammonia discharging.

Nah it's all cool! No harm at all 🤣

Closing the hatchery on Big Spring was a huge benefit to the brook trout no matter how you slice it.

Say it with me.

IT. WAS. A. GOOD. THING. THEY. CLOSED. THE. HATCHERY. ON. BIG. SPRING.

 

[Mike]

BT and Rainbow trout declined because there weren't anymore hatchery escapes.🧐 Not everyone is so young to not remember.

That’s what I think.

In response to some of your related comments concerning historical conditions in Big Spring Ck……

Big Spring Ck had a siltation/sedimentation problem that went well beyond any contributions from the hatchery. Probably still does. The spring would even become turbid at times, suggesting possible surface water infiltration/inflow in the drainage basin during major storm events.

As for aquatic plants, there was no shortage of water cress that I ever saw in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. Plus there was Elodea. Cress would occasionally and temporarily disappear from the stream due to high water events rolling the cress up onto the shore like masses of rolled up carpet as a torrent of muddy water would flow down past the hatchery from farther up in the drainage basin.

Where there was no deep silt problem, and there was plenty of that, most other areas had exceedingly firm substrate, a mix of sand, gravel, and silt (possibly organic matter too). That substrate was so firm that I wondered whether trout could prepare redds. This was long before the controversy. I don’t recall noticing whether the narrowing of the channel during the phase 1 and 2 habitat projects supplied sufficient water velocities at times to scour the substrate, possibly making it more hospitable for redd construction.

Note that I did not say anything about water quality one way or the other. I only said that there was more than one variable involved. I should have added that once the habitat work was completed it was a third variable.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

That’s what I would say too…so there’s less competition and predation for and on ST.

Big Spring had a siltation/sedimentation problem that went well beyond any contributions from the hatchery. Probably still does. The spring would even become turbid at times.

As for aquatic plants, there was no shortage of water cress when the hatchery was in operation. Cress would occasionally and temporarily disappear from the stream due to high water events rolling the cress up onto the shore like masses of rolled up carpet.

So the DEP and other scientists were wrong IYO.

🤣

The PFBC was violating their wastewater permit🤷 that's the facts.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Competion

That’s what I would say too…so there’s less competition and predation for and on ST.

Big Spring had a siltation/sedimentation problem that went well beyond any contributions from the hatchery. Probably still does. The spring would even become turbid at times.

As for aquatic plants, there was no shortage of water cress that I ever saw in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. Cress would occasionally and temporarily disappear from the stream due to high water events rolling the cress up onto the shore like masses of rolled up carpet.

conpetition, water quality all of it as a result of the hatchery before any habitat work

“
When the hatchery came in, we lost the brook trout,” he said. “They crashed because of the high levels of phosphorus” discharged into the stream from the hatchery and the accompanying loss of oxygen from the water in the stream.



After years of often bitter debate and increasingly tougher discharge restrictions issued by the heavily pressured state Department of Environmental Protection, the commission closed the hatchery in 2001.



The stream quickly began to heal itself and by 2008 the headwaters section again had a brook trout population of more than 350 pounds per acre of water, which rates it as one of the most productive brook trout stream in the country.”

Big Spring Creek in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, gets a makeover for wild brook trout fishery

Cooperative effort aims to restore the historically famous wild brook trout fishery in the stream near Newville.

www.pennlive.com

 

[Fish Sticks]

PFBC essentially killed the original population off and shutting down the hatchery caused them to come back and is beating their chest about some habitat done there after. Lol they even listed BS as a “reintroduction” using inbred non conservation hatchery fish and they stock it till this day. They need to STOP stocking brookies and let the wild native brook trout in there purge maladaptive genes(takes LONG TIME) and start letting us harvest our all the ridiculous invasive rainbows in there

 

[sixfootfenwick]

1970: Fish Commission announces that the Big Spring Fish Culture Station, which is under construction, “will be one of the most modern facilities of its king in the world and it will be one of the few specifically designed to give adequate treatment to waste water emerging from its outflow.” The Commission does not incorporate the pollution prevention technology of water re-circulation into the hatchery’s design, however.

1971: A biological survey of Big Spring Creek finds that, prior to completion of the hatchery, “each sampling station contains pollution sensitive, facilitate and tolerant invertebrates indicating a healthy stream environment.” At this time, the upper half-mile of Big Spring contains a prolific population of wild brook trout.

1972: A Fish Commission official writes that “adequate protection has been and will be provided for the brook trout population” of Big Spring Creek. Operations begin at the Big Spring hatchery. The wastewater treatment system never functions as designed but remains in operation.

Mid to Late 1970’s: By 1974, DER biologists report that the hatchery has caused mild impairment of the upper 1.4 miles of the creek. The wild brook trout population declines rapidly.

1989: The Fish Commission reports that fishing is virtually nonexistent over 95 percent of the upper 1.5 miles of the creek. At PFBC’s request, DEP relaxes several limitations in the discharge permit. PFBC had been threatened with a lawsuit for violating the permit limits.

1992: The first 230 yards of Big Spring Creek is reclassified as “Exceptional Value Waters,” the state’s highest water quality category. “No adverse measurable change” in water quality may occur in this segment.

1993-97: The mass of phosphorus discharged by the hatchery increases 95.8 percent; the mass of suspended sdischarged increases 56 percent.

1997-2000: Biological studies by DEP and others conclude that the hatchery has severely impaired the water quality and aquatic life of Big Spring Creek, which is added to the state’s official list of impaired waters in 1998.

2000: Detection of toxic PCBs in fish tissue samples causes PFBC to issue a warning against eating more than one meal per week of fish caught in waters stocked with Big Spring hatchery trout. The hatchery is the suspected source of PCBs detected “at levels of ecological concern” in the sediment, insects, and fish in Big Spring Creek below the hatchery discharge.

2001: No wild brook trout remain in Big Spring Creek, which has the embarrassing distinction of being simultaneously on the lists of “Exceptional Value” and “impaired” waters. The hatchery closes in November. CVTU receives a Growing Greener grant for the initial assessment phase of the restoration of Big Spring.


You can say it.
It's good they closed the hatchery.

 

[Mike]

So the DEP and other scientists were wrong IYO.

🤣

The PFBC was violating their wastewater permit🤷 that's the facts.

Never said that in the first line above. I have the advantage of the ditch fish population data that I referenced in #102, which was provided in #100, and DEP would not have had unless they had a functional crystal ball. Why would I ignore such a steep decline in BT and RT in the ditch following hatchery shut-down and a corresponding but more muted increase in ST at the same time? To my knowledge, it’s the first time that I ever saw those data. I think it’s good info that sheds additional light on the subject. However, it is chemical/physical data that are usually compared to permit requirements and I am not questioning the second line above, but permit violations and limiting factors at fish population levels are not always the same thing.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Never said that in the first line above. I have the advantage of the ditch fish population data that I referenced in #102, which was provided in #100, and DEP would not have had unless they had a functional crystal ball. Why would I ignore such a steep decline in BT and RT in the ditch following hatchery shut-down and a corresponding but more muted increase in ST at the same time? To my knowledge, it’s the first time that I ever saw those data. I think it’s good info that sheds additional light on the subject. However, it is chemical/physical data that are usually compared to permit requirements and I am not questioning the second line above, but permit violations and limiting factors at fish population levels are not always the same thing.

But they were in this case.

The pollution from the effluent caused low dissolved oxygen levels at the gravel bottom and spawning areas making them insufficient for successful brook trout reproduction.

It also annihilated the pollution intolerant macro life on the stream leaving only the pollution tolerant species.

It changed the entire make up of the stream.

And yes, the competition hurt their population too.
It was multifaceted.

It was good they closed the hatchery.
Am I right?
I mean, thank God they closed that hatchery.

 

[Mike]

The pollution from the effluent caused low dissolved oxygen levels at the gravel bottom and spawning areas making them insufficient for successful brook trout reproduction.

Did DEP biologists or some other investigator actually show this through a study of egg survival? Alternatively, was it a conclusion based on measured chemistry within the spawning substrate in Big Spring Ck or based on discharge and/or water column chemistry?

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Did DEP biologists or some other investigator actually show this through a study of egg survival? Alternatively, was it a conclusion based on measured chemistry within the spawning substrate in Big Spring Ck or based on discharge and/or water column chemistry?

You could always ask them if you are generally inquisitive.
It's been over 20 years now.

But that was the finding based off a study, and the DEP agreed with the study. I'm sure with your connections, you could get the answer.

A better question is :

1970: Fish Commission announces that the Big Spring Fish Culture Station, which is under construction, “will be one of the most modern facilities of its king in the world and it will be one of the few specifically designed to give adequate treatment to waste water emerging from its outflow.” The Commission does not incorporate the pollution prevention technology of water re-circulation into the hatchery’s design, however.

1971: A biological survey of Big Spring Creek finds that, prior to completion of the hatchery, “each sampling station contains pollution sensitive, facilitate and tolerant invertebrates indicating a healthy stream environment.” At this time, the upper half-mile of Big Spring contains a prolific population of wild brook trout.

1972: A Fish Commission official writes that “adequate protection has been and will be provided for the brook trout population” of Big Spring Creek. Operations begin at the Big Spring hatchery. The wastewater treatment system never functions as designed but remains in operation

What happened? Why didn't they incorporate what they were supposed to into the facility? Why did they continue to operate it when it didn't function properly? What measure, that ultimately failed, was put into place to protect the brook trout population?

 

[Fish Sticks]

You could always ask them if you are generally inquisitive.
It's been over 20 years now.

But that was the finding based off a study, and the DEP agreed with the study. I'm sure with your connections, you could get the answer.

A better question is :

1970: Fish Commission announces that the Big Spring Fish Culture Station, which is under construction, “will be one of the most modern facilities of its king in the world and it will be one of the few specifically designed to give adequate treatment to waste water emerging from its outflow.” The Commission does not incorporate the pollution prevention technology of water re-circulation into the hatchery’s design, however.

1971: A biological survey of Big Spring Creek finds that, prior to completion of the hatchery, “each sampling station contains pollution sensitive, facilitate and tolerant invertebrates indicating a healthy stream environment.” At this time, the upper half-mile of Big Spring contains a prolific population of wild brook trout.

1972: A Fish Commission official writes that “adequate protection has been and will be provided for the brook trout population” of Big Spring Creek. Operations begin at the Big Spring hatchery. The wastewater treatment system never functions as designed but remains in operation

What happened? Why didn't they incorporate what they were supposed to into the facility? Why did they continue to operate it when it didn't function properly? What measure, that ultimately failed, was put into place to protect the brook trout population?

I love it burden of proof is on general public or someone else to prove PFBC *ucked it all up despite direct temporal relationship but no burden of responsibility to protect it or mitigate from PFBC existed and it took DEP and lawsuits. Seems very similar to…………everything else PFBC does. Example current stocking program, their habitat work ect.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I love it burden of proof PFBC *ucked it up despite direct temporal relationship but bo burden of responsibility to protect it or investigate on PFBC’s end at the time enough to determine the consequences

Well, according to testimony with the House of Representatives, the DEP testified the the report by Black/Maruci was high quality and done by biological experts. Upon receiving it, they did their own study( the DEP) and determined the report findings were accurate.

Low DO at substrate/ spawning areas, nutrient loading, and siltation which had an adverse effect on the macro life and fish populations.

During the testimony, the PFBC, acknowledged receiving the study, talked to the biologist that did the report. At no time, did they dispute the report findings or the DEP findings.


Burden of proof is over, proof was provided, the reaction and acknowledgement was lacking and still is to this day.


One thing said during that testimony I loved, was it was acknowledged that the biggest polluter of Big Spring is the state, that wild brook trout were there in prolific numbers and now they are not.


To which all the PFBC could say is something to the tune of, well if you look at state wide averages they are still there in great numbers, albeit reduced 🤣

Reduced to 10 percent historic averages? Yeah, great comeback to that .


Bottom line is the hatchery really did a number on the stream. No way around it.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Did DEP biologists or some other investigator actually show this through a study of egg survival? Alternatively, was it a conclusion based on measured chemistry within the spawning substrate in Big Spring Ck or based on discharge and/or water column chemistry?

Thank God they closed it!
Can I get an Amen!

 

[Fish Sticks]

Thank God they closed it!
Can I get an Amen!

TESTIFY!!!!

 

[Fish Sticks]

Thank God they closed it!
Can I get an Amen!

PRAISE GAWD!!!

 

[Fish Sticks]

Thank God they closed it!
Can I get an Amen!

Drop the crutches and walk big spring!!!!!

 

[Fish Sticks]

Well, according to testimony with the House of Representatives, the DEP testified the the report by Black/Maruci was high quality and done by biological experts. Upon receiving it, they did their own study( the DEP) and determined the report findings were accurate.

Low DO at substrate/ spawning areas, nutrient loading, and siltation which had an adverse effect on the macro life and fish populations.

During the testimony, the PFBC, acknowledged receiving the study, talked to the biologist that did the report. At no time, did they dispute the report findings or the DEP findings.


Burden of proof is over, proof was provided, the reaction and acknowledgement was lacking and still is to this day.


One thing said during that testimony I loved, was it was acknowledged that the biggest polluter of Big Spring is the state, that wild brook trout were there in prolific numbers and now they are not.


To which all the PFBC could say is something to the tune of, well if you look at state wide averages they are still there in great numbers, albeit reduced 🤣

Reduced to 10 percent historic averages? Yeah, great comeback to that .


Bottom line is the hatchery really did a number on the stream. No way around it.

But great habitat project PFBC, and good job driving outbreeding depression, introgression and basically just putting hatchery strain brook trout in it to this day, taking credit for a “reintroduction” when submitting your brokk trout conservation activity to EBTJV and thanks for protecting invasive raimbows likely limiting the demographics,size, and resiliency of the population!!!!!!

THANK YOU PFBC