Waters with the Biggest Potential

[lycoflyfisher]

We can do stream projects to control erosion and nutrients without putting in habitat structures. Thats what alot of the legacy sediment removal projects are and it winds up being better for the stream anyway because there is habitat there its just habitat for smaller trout/ juveniles/YOY. We are guilty of over installing habitat structures and leaving no riffles and complex shalow habitat for young of the year macros and other small fish/crayfish. The lunker bunkers and rock veins/j-hooks do less for the bay than a nice wide flood plain. They just give brown trout the ability to displace brook trout.

This is a very oversimplified view on the topic of stream restoration. Legacy sediment removal is extremely expensive and may never be practical on a landscape scale due to financial reasons alone. Legacy sediment removal may also not be appropriate in many regions in Pennsylvania. Improving floodplain connectivity is incredibly important and is considered in most projects, however there are often site constraints that prohibit grading down entire floodplains. Not to mention a lack of funding to do so.

Stream restoration in practice used to consist primarily of state and federal agency staff or under close direction of their staff. With the influence of Chesapeake Bay TMDL and MS4 related nutrient and sediment reductions there is a plethora of consultant's working for hire for local government and municipal authorities. Some truly look to select sites based upon degradation and uplift potential, others are looking to do the bare minimum to address regulatory requirements for the lowest cost.

 

[Mike]

To only slightly elaborate on one aspect of what Lyco said, finding upland disposal for removed legacy sediment is not easy and if the sites are not adjacent to the project site transport is even more expensive. It’s hard enough to find an upland disposal site in farm country when seemingly suitable properties are adjacent to project sites, but just imagine how costly and hard it is to find such sites where suburban developments have now occupied most of the former fields.

 

[troutbert]

This is a category of streams, not a particular stream.

I think forested freestone streams have a very high potential for improving wild trout populations.

On these streams, when you fish good habitat sections, they are often loaded with trout, including some good sized ones. But there are long sections where the physical habitat is very poor and therefore the trout population is very poor.

I heard a flyfisher call these flat, shallow sections "walk past water" which is a good name. I've seen sections a mile or more long without a single decent pool. This is not their natural condition, it's because of various disturbances and alterations.

A fisheries biologist at a university described electrofishing different sections of the same stream. Some had 65 kg/ha, some had 10 kg/ha. The variation is enormous. Even though it's the same stream, same water quality etc. And as he said, the difference was caused by habitat differences.

There are ways to restore more natural stream habitat. So, the potential is very high for these types of streams.

 

[Mike]

This is a category of streams, not a particular stream.

I think forested freestone streams have a very high potential for improving wild trout populations.

On these streams, when you fish good habitat sections, they are often loaded with trout, including some good sized ones. But there are long sections where the physical habitat is very poor and therefore the trout population is very poor.

I heard a flyfisher call these flat, shallow sections "walk past water" which is a good name. I've seen sections a mile or more long without a single decent pool. This is not their natural condition, it's because of various disturbances and alterations.

A fisheries biologist at a university described electrofishing different sections of the same stream. Some had 65 kg/ha, some had 10 kg/ha. The variation is enormous. Even though it's the same stream, same water quality etc. And as he said, the difference was caused by habitat differences.

There are ways to restore more natural stream habitat. So, the potential is very high for these types of streams.

I rarely saw that on SE Pa wild trout streams; I can think of one, Sacony Ck below Kutztown. It was much more common in parts of northcentral Pa. I don’t recall that being common in parts of NW Pa where I worked. I saw it in western and NW parts of NE Pa, but it was on stocked streams. Did not see it in southcentral Pa.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Troutbert, those scenarios are where chop and drop type projects can be of great benefit. In many forested streams it can be very challenging to get equipment near the stream to do traditional fish habitat work. Due to historical clearcutting many streams are lacking wood that would have naturally fell due to old age. We are seeing this occur in some watersheds due to emerald ash borer and wooly Adelgid.

 

[troutbert]

Troutbert, those scenarios are where chop and drop type projects can be of great benefit. In many forested streams it can be very challenging to get equipment near the stream to do traditional fish habitat work. Due to historical clearcutting many streams are lacking wood that would have naturally fell due to old age. We are seeing this occur in some watersheds due to emerald ash borer and wooly Adelgid.

On a small brookie stream here in Centre County, the wooly adelgids killed lots of hemlocks, and some big ones fell into the stream.

The fallen trees created some pools that are 3 feet deep, and the deepest is about 4 feet deep. There is great cover under the fallen trees. In some cases one fallen tree creates 2 high quality pools. One is a plunge pool below the tree trunk, the other is a "dammed" pool above the tree trunk.

These pools are loaded with brook trout. Before, this section had some pockets and modest pools, but nothing like this. This is one bright spot about the hemlocks getting hit. The woody debris addition is going to get a big boost in many places. Now we just have to keep people from cutting them up and removing them.

Along many forested freestone streams, there is a mix of hemlocks, white pines and a variety of hardwood trees. But some of the largest trees are hemlocks. When they fall in, they can transform the habitat of the streams. And they have their root wads attached, which makes them much more likely to stay put during high flows than if the root wads are cut off.

Regarding the loss of shade from hemlocks, other trees will grow up to replace them. It will be interesting to see what species. It will probably vary from place to place. But in the areas I'm most familiar with, probably black birch, yellow birch, maybe some beech, red oak, white pine?

These trees may not create the same kind of "Black Forest" shade as hemlocks, but they do produce shade. In some hardwood forests it's pretty well canopied.

 

[dano]

... Mostly though, I like the river the way it is ...

I moved from Erie to near Warren 30+ years ago. I fish the river quite a bit from whenever they decide to lower the outflow < 2000cfs until September when they start to drain the pool.
The SMB and carp fishing around Warren is underrated which btw doesn't bother me one bit. Not as good as Tidioute-Tionestsa but not too shabby if you know where to look.
As for trout, Maybe a 68F temp limit compromise Like Syl suggested would keep the trout fishing going through July and Aug from the dam to Glade.
I would hate to see a managed cold water bottom release for mostly selfish reasons. That is, I would not like to see many people wanting to fish the same places I like to fish.

 

[JeffP]

On a small brookie stream here in Centre County, the wooly adelgids killed lots of hemlocks, and some big ones fell into the stream.

The fallen trees created some pools that are 3 feet deep, and the deepest is about 4 feet deep. There is great cover under the fallen trees. In some cases one fallen tree creates 2 high quality pools. One is a plunge pool below the tree trunk, the other is a "dammed" pool above the tree trunk.

These pools are loaded with brook trout. Before, this section had some pockets and modest pools, but nothing like this. This is one bright spot about the hemlocks getting hit. The woody debris addition is going to get a big boost in many places. Now we just have to keep people from cutting them up and removing them.

Along many forested freestone streams, there is a mix of hemlocks, white pines and a variety of hardwood trees. But some of the largest trees are hemlocks. When they fall in, they can transform the habitat of the streams. And they have their root wads attached, which makes them much more likely to stay put during high flows than if the root wads are cut off.

Regarding the loss of shade from hemlocks, other trees will grow up to replace them. It will be interesting to see what species. It will probably vary from place to place. But in the areas I'm most familiar with, probably black birch, yellow birch, maybe some beech, red oak, white pine?

These trees may not create the same kind of "Black Forest" shade as hemlocks, but they do produce shade. In some hardwood forests it's pretty well canopied.

I think your right about this yet it doesn't really jive with what people say about Clark's. Then again, every stream is different.

 

[Fish Sticks]

This is a very oversimplified view on the topic of stream restoration. Legacy sediment removal is extremely expensive and may never be practical on a landscape scale due to financial reasons alone. Legacy sediment removal may also not be appropriate in many regions in Pennsylvania. Improving floodplain connectivity is incredibly important and is considered in most projects, however there are often site constraints that prohibit grading down entire floodplains. Not to mention a lack of funding to do so.

Stream restoration in practice used to consist primarily of state and federal agency staff or under close direction of their staff. With the influence of Chesapeake Bay TMDL and MS4 related nutrient and sediment reductions there is a plethora of consultant's working for hire for local government and municipal authorities. Some truly look to select sites based upon degradation and uplift potential, others are looking to do the bare minimum to address regulatory requirements for the lowest cost.

I forgot to mention I was talking about hammer creek specifically since many of the people are familiar and there was another recent thread yesterday on it. Yea your correct for legacy sediment removal there has to have been either a historic mill dam or i’ve heard the term “wetland restoration” where there was no dam but loss of trees in a steep a steep valley or heavy ag has still burried the stream. Your right disposal can be hard but thank goodness most of these farmers main complaint is they want more pasture so the sediment is easily apllied upland on site to create pasture because you need thebfarmer to donate some serious spqce for legacy sediment removal and alot of times their trying to use wetlabd for pasture and its not working out.

I totally understand the concern about certain consultants showing up with a tool belt with only one tool(legacy sediment) even when its not indicated just because they can make alot of money off of it. If your familiar with hammer creek I think youd agree its very feasible there because you can see perched speings allnover the place.

I am aware of points of constraint like bridges infrastructure that prevents you from excavating sown to gravel basal layer because they wont permit you to mess with anperfectly good state road/culvert and if you removed all the legacy sediment it would serve as a dam and make a lake.

I was trying to actually over simplify for the other forum members but just forgot to mention I had a stream/ fee sites in mind.

I wiuld argue though that we over use structures on free stone streams as well. I would be curious what you think about the BM Huntsman paper Inlinked above that is backed up by corey tregos paper in additin ti the Kiap TU pine creek case study. Alot of these free stoners definitely not amendable to legacy sediment likely still had historic island formation, multi braded channels, driven primarily by larage wood recruitment into the channel. Channelizing these free stoners and installing jack dams and super deep plunge pools allnover is still likley shiftint the balance towards invasive brown trout based on hoxmeir and deiterman’s observations on presence and the other above above works I’ve cited. Wallacks branch off bobs creek prime example from photos ive seen. I get there are constraints with any approach like you did mention and sometimes you have to armor to save a county road from collapsing ect. But alot of these super deep lunker bunker style large wood placements/rootwads like on lower hammersly are good for brook trout when allopatric but back to BM huntsman et al 2022 and corey trego et al 2019, if we don’t plan to manage invasive brown trout on kettle or stop stocking why are we gonna make deep holes with overhead cover on lower hammersly if we know from the literature it will be used to push out native brook trout? I am guessing native brook trout was a listed beneficiary on that grant or funding app ironically.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I think your right about this yet it doesn't really jive with what people say about Clark's. Then again, every stream is different.

I just walked clarks recently. The fallen hemlocks seem to be doing really good work there because its over widened. Since velocity of current is inversely proportional to width, illustrated via a simple rearangment of pousillies equation, wide = slow current = suspended colloids like silt/sediment precipitate out of solution and settle causing agradiation of the channel into a featureless sediment flat. The large hemlocks trap sediment where they are flush with the bottom and accelerate flow to scour clean gravel where the channel is deepest below them which is better macro habitat. The hemlocks will also increase fall leaf pack which helps your macros big time, deeper pools = thernal refuge, and they also increase flood plain connection because only ao much can go under them and water slows down when it hits them, this further helps with the sediment.

 

[Sylvaneous]

Regarding the Allegheny below Kinzua:

Kinda surprised to see that a few guys would be against making it a better tailwater fishery.

You have a river that is over 300 miles long - with plenty of good WW fishing on the vast majority of it.
And be opposed to seeing about a 10 - to maybe 20 - mile section, become great CW?

You will ALWAYS find people who oppose things, things that even benefit them. There's even a tad of this when encountering native purists, who are afraid of cleaning up streams because it might let brown trout in.

 

[Fish Sticks]

You will ALWAYS find people who oppose things, things that even benefit them. There's even a tad of this when encountering native purists, who are afraid of cleaning up streams because it might let brown trout in.

“Native purist” makes it sound like anyone who wants protect native species listed as species of greatest conservation need, threatened, or endangered is akin to something snobby, superfluous and preference based such as only drinking Johnny walker blue label.

Trying to protect native species and limit the spread/impact of invasive species is about as Elite and snobby as washing your hands after taking a crap. Only in Pennsylvania do such a large cohort of people think the environment is their own personal play place and listed threatened, endangered or species of greatest conservation need are appropriate sacrificial lambs for better fishing opportunities.

fisheries scientists, national parks services, fish and wild life are all “native purists” as you say.

How does it “benefit me” as you say if we chose invasive brown trout over native smallmouth? Smallmouth evolved there brown trout didn’t does the whole rest of the aquatic ecosystem deserve a manupulation of the stream to further proliferate an invasive species. Bo thinks about darters, sculpins, and other native fish when they call for more invasive species.

This is an example of the disconnect between fishing and conservation. Fly fishermen beat their chest as best stewards of the resource, well lets see it instead of standing in the way of taking responsibility for the damage our sport’s sefish love affair with non natives has caused from a pandering to us in terms of management perspective. I used to say out west people get it, they roteneon a stream and save apache or golden trout from leaving the face of the earth. Lees ferry their mandating removal of brown trout and paying a bounty because of threatened native humpback chubs. Now I have to say PA is the only state that doesn’t get it because NY, WV,VA,TN,NC,MD,NJ, OH are kicking our you know whats when it comes to making amazing progress in managing for native species.

Has managing for stability in the ecosystem and not aiding some of the worlds most destructive invasive species really become labeled as snobby behavior in PA?

 

[Fish Sticks]

You will ALWAYS find people who oppose things, things that even benefit them. There's even a tad of this when encountering native purists, who are afraid of cleaning up streams because it might let brown trout in.

And no one advocating for native fish has said we shouldn’t be cleaning up trout streams. Thats a mis representation of what I have said and brown trout are already there in most cases unless we are talking some AMD projects. It is just about not doing something you know will cause anninvasive species to displace a native species, you know you don’t have to build deep lunker bunkers and brown trout hotels to clean up a stream for the bay. These things often wash out in 5-10 years anyway and are a waste of money in many cases.

I have repeatedly stated I want to see these water quality projects proceed with invasive species mitigation where possible if there are high conservation priority species present.

 

[Mike]

I just walked clarks recently. The fallen hemlocks seem to be doing really good work there because its over widened. Since velocity of current is inversely proportional to width, illustrated via a simple rearangment of pousillies equation, wide = slow current = suspended colloids like silt/sediment precipitate out of solution and settle causing agradiation of the channel into a featureless sediment flat. The large hemlocks trap sediment where they are flush with the bottom and accelerate flow to scour clean gravel where the channel is deepest below them which is better macro habitat. The hemlocks will also increase fall leaf pack which helps your macros big time, deeper pools = thernal refuge, and they also increase flood plain connection because only ao much can go under them and water slows down when it hits them, this further helps with the sediment.

Before generally touting pools as thermal refugia, it would be educational for individuals to do their own experiments on a number of streams away from the influences of cooler tribs, hillside hollows, and springs. Take some surface to bottom water temps to see how common thermal stratification really is in streams under a variety of summer flow conditions.

 

[jifigz]

Before generally touting pools as thermal refugia, it would be educational for individuals to do their own experiments on a number of streams away from the influences of cooler tribs, hillside hollows, and springs. Take some surface to bottom water temps to see how common thermal stratification really is in streams under a variety of summer flow conditions.

I would think that there would be virtually no temperature variations in a "deep pool" of a typical PA trout stream in the summer when comparing it to other depth levels within the same stream. When reflecting on my local favorite freestone brookie streams (and most all PA trout waters surrounding me) the waters and currents move so much and with so much turbulence that the water has to be, more or less, well mixed and stream temperatures more or less the same throughout. Just my initial thoughts on the situation and I could certainly be wrong.

 

[afishinado]

I would think that there would be virtually no temperature variations in a "deep pool" of a typical PA trout stream in the summer when comparing it to other depth levels within the same stream. When reflecting on my local favorite freestone brookie streams (and most all PA trout waters surrounding me) the waters and currents move so much and with so much turbulence that the water has to be, more or less, well mixed and stream temperatures more or less the same throughout. Just my initial thoughts on the situation and I could certainly be wrong.

Mike suggested one should check it out and find out for themselves if there is any thermal stratification in flowing water. He didn't suggest there is stratification.........since he knows there is not from his own experience. So you are correct in your assumption, Josh.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Before generally touting pools as thermal refugia, it would be educational for individuals to do their own experiments on a number of streams away from the influences of cooler tribs, hillside hollows, and springs. Take some surface to bottom water temps to see how common thermal stratification really is in streams under a variety of summer flow conditions.

Your right mike thanks for catching that. Its the distribution of the flood waters in to the flood plain that helps ground water/forested wetland recharge and has the temperature benefit not simply the deeper pools.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I would think that there would be virtually no temperature variations in a "deep pool" of a typical PA trout stream in the summer when comparing it to other depth levels within the same stream. When reflecting on my local favorite freestone brookie streams (and most all PA trout waters surrounding me) the waters and currents move so much and with so much turbulence that the water has to be, more or less, well mixed and stream temperatures more or less the same throughout. Just my initial thoughts on the situation and I could certainly be wrong.

The large woody debris causing more water to go into flood plain would provide thermal benefits not the deep pools my mistake.

 

[silverfox]

You will ALWAYS find people who oppose things, things that even benefit them. There's even a tad of this when encountering native purists, who are afraid of cleaning up streams because it might let brown trout in.

"Native Purists"

1) Purist implies zealotry or absolutism. Neither of which is true in the case of native fish advocacy that I've seen. For some reason, some people like to assume that native fish advocacy means zealotry and automatically assume that anyone who speaks up on behalf of native fish is opposed to any level of nonnative fish. Again, neither is true. I have yet to meet a single person who wants to see all nonnative species removed from the continent, state, or even certain waters. It simply means that a person has decided to personally focus solely on native fish, not that they want to see all nonnative fish eradicated.

2) Again, see post #48 in this thread. Nobody, myself included, is suggesting that we don't pursue "cleaning up streams" because it may benefit nonnative fish or allow the ingress of nonnative fish. It's something I think everyone should be aware of, and if possible, mitigate for, but it's not something that should prevent the pursuance of water quality improvements, habitat enhancements, sediment removal/transport, or any other environmental initiative.

I think we need to examine what approach is best for certain species. That's defendable in that it's documented in some state, federal, and NGO operational procedures. At a minimum, we need to be aware that the work may have an adverse effect on species documented to be in need of conservation, and adjust the approach to ensure we're doing everything we can for the species that need it most. That doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue environmental clean-ups, it means we should be finding ways to make sure the work benefits the correct species where possible.

I personally think we need to prioritize environmental conservation efforts and focus on projects that benefit species of greatest conservation need first. It seems odd to me that anyone would even need to say that.

 

[troutbert]

In some cases large woody debris jams increase exchange of stream water with floodplain groundwater. I've read literature about this and have also seen it out on the streams.

The LWD jams raise the water level upstream of the jam. This creates pressure that sends the water from the stream into the shallow floodplain groundwater. Below the LWD jam you can see the groundwater flowing from the banks back into the stream.

I've seen this at numerous places. I have not checked the water temperatures of the water flowing back out, but it makes sense that this would cool it.