Native fish restoration- Westslopes and Grayling

Kratzer and trib:
My bet is that with more Pa streams involved (higher diversity of stream characteristics), varying discharge types, colder temps and often higher H2O volumes associated with deep mine discharges (was Kratzer associated with a strip mine?), lower pH’s in the final product, higher iron concentrations (may limit BT reproductive success as there is a sensitivity), and varying treatment systems, results will vary as well. It happens that Kratzer’s pH was favorable for BT and I suspect the temp was too. That may not be the case in all mine reclamation/discharge treatment projects. Too many potential variables to hang one’s hat on one or even a few streams.
 
Fish Sticks said:
Thats been tried and it failed multiple times. The problem is once you do that with no plan to stop stocking in the watershed brown trout just displace brook trout as soon as the PH raises high enough for them to tolerate it. If your going to do AmD work you need to at least consider limited or full removal and trade offs of a conservation barrier. The proof that this idea of AmD restoration being a great thing for native brook trout if nothing is done about stocked or wild invasive trout was debunked by tom clark on his kratzer run study detailed in this video.
Click to expand...
Some AMD streams have pHs so low that no fish can live there. If the pH is raised to a level that brook trout can tolerate, but brown trout cannot, the result can be good brook trout populations, including large brook trout. But if the pH is raised to the point that brown trout can live there, then brown trout will out-compete the brook trout. Whether the stream is stocked or not, wild brown trout will show up there, because they are all through our watersheds, and will either swim there, or be transported there by "bucket biologists."

So, the answer may be for AMD remediation to make a goal of reaching the "sweet spot" where brook trout can survive, but brown trout cannot. Rather than a goal of taking the pH up to or near pH 7.

I made up a slogan: "Titration for remediation."
 
Twice ya say? Thats one less time than you replied to it. It was just an observation. not sure why you took that personally. ;)

I only really noticed because of the AI discussion.
 
troutbert said:
Some AMD streams have pHs so low that no fish can live there. If the pH is raised to a level that brook trout can tolerate, but brown trout cannot, the result can be good brook trout populations, including large brook trout. But if the pH is raised to the point that brown trout can live there, then brown trout will out-compete the brook trout. Whether the stream is stocked or not, wild brown trout will show up there, because they are all through our watersheds, and will either swim there, or be transported there by "bucket biologists."

So, the answer may be for AMD remediation to make a goal of reaching the "sweet spot" where brook trout can survive, but brown trout cannot. Rather than a goal of taking the pH up to or near pH 7.

I made up a slogan: "Titration for remediation."
Click to expand...
Yea agreed, i think this is something completely unexplored. Another thing I will add to that is you see a lot of liming in streams that never had Amd but have brook trout where ph is just from soil or tree composition. It always makes me cringe when these get limed because its probably a reference condition unless acid rain had caused it. But either way it holds our state fish and may deter browns and bows like you mentioned
 
tomgamber said:
Twice ya say? Thats one less time than you replied to it. It was just an observation. not sure why you took that personally. ;)

I only really noticed because of the AI discussion.
Click to expand...
I take the accuracy of what I share seriously and want everyone to know that this is what the subject matter expert said so by c and ping it there is less chance of changing their findings and shows i am simply passing along what they have written and am not claiming to be a subject matter expert or someone who is conducting research themselves. Science communication is basically sharing what these people know so unless the concept is nebulous or esoteric and must be reworded I try not to.
 
Mike said:
Kratzer and trib:
My bet is that with more Pa streams involved (higher diversity of stream characteristics), varying discharge types, colder temps and often higher H2O volumes associated with deep mine discharges (was Kratzer associated with a strip mine?), lower pH’s in the final product, higher iron concentrations (may limit BT reproductive success as there is a sensitivity), and varying treatment systems, results will vary as well. It happens that Kratzer’s pH was favorable for BT and I suspect the temp was too. That may not be the case in all mine reclamation/discharge treatment projects. Too many potential variables to hang one’s hat on one or even a few streams.
Click to expand...
Each AMD situation is definitely different for many reasons. I have seen many examples where temperature has not been a panacea for invasion. The one that really keyed me into that was the pine creek wisconsin Kiap-wish TU chapters restoration where you had an 11degree Celsius spring creek that was stupid cold and “restoration” with structures changed it from 94% brook and 6% brown to eventual projected complete loss of the brook trout population and 3150% increase in brown trout and 70%decrease in brook trout. Their probably gone their now and that stream was icy and supporting an excellent brook trout habitat prior to those structures. We have seen other very cold streams not be protective to invasion in PA as well. These may not be AMD restorations but i am sure you know of lots of couple hundred yard ice cold clean gravel containing spring creeks not far from freestone brook trout streams that are just full of browns. It’s actually some of the dirtier warmer AMD streams we see that still have only brookies. In schuyllkill county we have tragically seen what AMD and stocking have done synergistically and swatty and patrick can confirm shifts there as well as can many other people anecdotally because of course its not well documented. Ultimately AMD remediation is a good thing but stocking in the watershed cannot be taking place if we seriously expect it to protect brook trout and regulations allow harvest of all other trout would help for reasons silver fox mentioned
 
This is that case study I had mentioned. Between this and the proof of concept work published by Dr. Corey Trego and Brock Huntsman in WV i have seen a surprising lack of integration or pilots in stream restoration based on this. I am currently doing a pilot on hammer creek in lebanon based on this research with the help of two fisheries science PhDs attempting to do a restoration that does not favor displacement. We will see if it is successful or not but I think my watershed stakeholder group is the only one I have heard of acting on this information. The first two projects done in the watershed effort were unfortunately those structures but on a very small scale so I am hoping we help find a better way to approach restoration in these situations where you have a sympatric pooulation

 
troutbert said:
Some AMD streams have pHs so low that no fish can live there. If the pH is raised to a level that brook trout can tolerate, but brown trout cannot, the result can be good brook trout populations, including large brook trout. But if the pH is raised to the point that brown trout can live there, then brown trout will out-compete the brook trout. Whether the stream is stocked or not, wild brown trout will show up there, because they are all through our watersheds, and will either swim there, or be transported there by "bucket biologists."

So, the answer may be for AMD remediation to make a goal of reaching the "sweet spot" where brook trout can survive, but brown trout cannot. Rather than a goal of taking the pH up to or near pH 7.

I made up a slogan: "Titration for remediation."
Click to expand...
I've been advocating for this exact scenario. I'd like to see the target pH somewhere around 5.8/6 rather than 7 or any higher.

There are some issues with this, though. Depending on the system, you might get a big variation between outflow and a 1/2 mile downstream. Some materials require a high pH treatment to drop out of solution. i.e. Aluminum and especially manganese. So you may be stuck with a pH of 8 at the discharge regardless of any other goals. Then factor in pH (and other compound concentration) based on rainfall vs baseflow, and hitting a sweet spot ain't really as easy as it sounds.
 
tomgamber said:
Interesti g perspective.

missoulacurrent.com

Groups sue over lethal plans to swap trout in Montana waters

Environmentalists are challenging the U.S. Forest Service’s plans to poison Montana waterways for up to five years to irradicate rainbow trout and replace them with another native fish species.
missoulacurrent.com missoulacurrent.com
Click to expand...
Thats from wilderness watch they are all about extinctions. Its not surprising they challenge any effort to remediate the damage we have caused as a society in regards to biodiversity. Their name is ironic. If you want to learn how garbage of an organization they are just read this.

www.hatchmag.com

Chemophobia in America: Part I — Rotenone

The most important tool—in most cases the only tool—for saving native fish from being eaten, outcompeted or hybridized into extirpation or extinction by alien fish is the organic poison rotenone. It's derived from roots of such plants as cubé, barbasco and tuba. But before fisheries managers...
www.hatchmag.com

www.hatchmag.com

Chemophobia in America: Part II — Brodifacoum

Few pesticides are more dangerous than brodifacoum, an anticoagulant used on rodents. And few pesticides have been more grossly abused by homeowners and farmers. Because brodifacoum accumulates in the liver it can kill any bird or mammal that eats the dead or dying rodents. When applied...
www.hatchmag.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top