Yellow Breeches section closed for stream work

[Fish Sticks]

Not sure on any of the details surrounding your project. Assuming it is in PA have you ever tried to collaborate with the appropriate AFM or PFBC habitat folks?

A concerning issue I had to address with my project is it’s a sympatric population of brown and brook trout. Based on Dr. Kurt Faust’s findings of brown trout displacing brook trout from primary habitat and Dr. Doug Dieterman’s observation on brown trout presence based on habitat features their are real concerns about stream projects where both species exist enhancing brown trout’s ability to take over streams where brook trout previously were present as well. This case study on pine creek in Wisconsin is deeply disturbing.

https://www.kiaptuwish.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Pine-Creek-Restoration-Benefits_Wild-Trout-Symposium_0917.pdf

There is a concern that we may be restoring brook trout out of house and home where browns exist so to speak. Your stream may of had something similar Happen unfortunately silver fox. You really worry about big wooden lunker structures on lower crossfork or some of those deep Boulder pools on kettle. These are supposed to be brook trout strong holds but since browns are present you worry about if they have negatively effected brook trout. I have been told by multiple brook trout PhD’s in the past that these types of projects would benefit brook trout if the brown trout were not present, but with brown trout present can be a detriment. This is an area of research interest and soon there may be new data that is more concrete than the above case study on this topic in the future, I will post to the site to share if any new publications become available in the near future or I find any more old ones.

Theses projects are attempting to create habitat that studies have shown meets suitability indexes for brook trout in many cases based on the habitats evaluation program but ….again, with brown trout in the mix it’s a different result. This seems very understudied to date and will be interesting to see if PAFB’s habitat work in brook trout streams takes this into consideration to starts to do more rigorous evaluation of the impacts of their stream work as silver fox suggested.

 

[troutbert]

A concerning issue I had to address with my project is it’s a sympatric population of brown and brook trout. Based on Dr. Kurt Faust’s findings of brown trout displacing brook trout from primary habitat and Dr. Doug Dieterman’s observation on brown trout presence based on habitat features their are real concerns about stream projects where both species exist enhancing brown trout’s ability to take over streams where brook trout previously were present as well. This case study on pine creek in Wisconsin is deeply disturbing.

https://www.kiaptuwish.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Pine-Creek-Restoration-Benefits_Wild-Trout-Symposium_0917.pdf

There is a concern that we may be restoring brook trout out of house and home where browns exist so to speak. Your stream may of had something similar Happen unfortunately silver fox. You really worry about big wooden lunker structures on lower crossfork or some of those deep Boulder pools on kettle. These are supposed to be brook trout strong holds but since browns are present you worry about if they have negatively effected brook trout. I have been told by multiple brook trout PhD’s in the past that these types of projects would benefit brook trout if the brown trout were not present, but with brown trout present can be a detriment. This is an area of research interest and soon there may be new data that is more concrete than the above case study on this topic in the future, I will post to the site to share if any new publications become available in the near future or I find any more old ones.

Theses projects are attempting to create habitat that studies have shown meets suitability indexes for brook trout in many cases based on the habitats evaluation program but ….again, with brown trout in the mix it’s a different result. This seems very understudied to date and will be interesting to see if PAFB’s habitat work in brook trout streams takes this into consideration to starts to do more rigorous evaluation of the impacts of their stream work as silver fox suggested.

I've fished these types of streams a lot for many decades, and what I've seen on the streams corresponds to what these studies show.

Prime habitat (deep pools with overhead cover) are very beneficial to brook trout where they are the only trout in the stream. These places hold the largest brook trout.

But where there are mixed populations, those prime spots are dominated by brown trout.

I'm not the only person who has noticed this. I've talked to many small stream regulars who have seen the same thing. It's very obvious.

Here are some observations on what is good for brook trout in mixed population streams:

Channel splits. These are natural features on streams, but are less common now because historically streams were altered to block off secondary channels, consolidating streams into single channels for running logs, to simplify farming, for road building, for building homes and cabins, etc. As you fish along these streams you will notice that the channel split sections have a higher ratio of brook/brown trout than the single thread sections.

Beaver dams. For some reason they hold far more brook trout than browns, even on mixed population streams. Only once in my life have I ever caught brown trout in a beaver pond. And there the beaver pond was partially breached, so it wasn't quite a pond anymore, i.e. the current was flowing through. I don't know why beaver ponds favor brookies. It may have to with the fine substrate in beaver ponds and at the inflows, which I think is where most of the spawning takes place. The fine substrate may favor the brookies over the browns for spawning.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I breezed through an article on how brook trout can use finer substrate than other trout and as a result you see more pond spawners. Will try to actually read through and post on here if pertains to this discussion. Got it from gentlemen who helped with the big spring restoration.

It’s ashame that brook trout are written into these grants as beneficiaries but without completing the restoration(removal) it seems it can often be detrimental, even in the coldest of streams. John hoxmier and Doug dieterman from Minnesota DNR have a publication about how brook trout were introduced into a stream with wild brown trout and pushed them out the point of extirpation. Seems the temperature was decreasing while ground water input was increasing creating favorable thermal regime.

(PDF) Natural replacement of invasive brown trout by brook charr in an upper Midwestern United States stream

PDF | Competition with invasive species and a warming climate have threatened brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis) populations throughout their native... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

If you talk to PA fish and boats person in charge of brook trout they just mention that where the water is cold enough brook trout don’t have an issue. That obviously does not hold true in the pine creek case study posted a few posts back. I think we are getting away from this “clean cold water” as a panacea for brook trout. It’s certainly an extremely critical factor but the more and more research that comes out on the matter it shows that invasive species is in the top3 (as per some EBTJV materials) and one that we are responsible for and could improve to a large extent with a lot of our irresponsible stocking practices. Nathaniel hit has actually shown brook trout can use thermal refuge better and survive warmer temps when brown trout not present so even the temperature issue is related to invasive trout.

USGS Study Reveals Interactive Effects of Climate Change, Invasive Species on Native Fish | U.S. Geological Survey

A new USGS study shows non-native Brown Trout can place a burden on native Brook Trout under the increased water temperatures climate change can cause.

www.usgs.gov

It really just makes you wonder why PA fish and boat is using such a scientifically indefensible management strategy. It’s like Opposite Day every day when it comes to fisheries science recommendations for brook trout and what PAFB actually doing.

1. Manage for watersheds not tiny stream sections due to life histories, improved foraging habitat and conservation genetics. NOPE

2. Prevent Interaction of stocked fish with native brook. NOPE they draw an arbitrary line and stock right up to it in class A and right over wild reproduction streams with native brookies that are not class A.

3. Removal as a restoration strategy in limited areas where it makes sense(not the whole state which is impossible). NOPE. We now have XYY supermales and manual removal combined on the horizon and Pa fish and boat has no plans for capacity or capacity for even just manual removal at this point based on conversations with the agency.

4. Prioritize connectivity. EHHH not really, PAFB is encouraging of culvert removal but a lot of people forget wild invasive or stocked Invasive trout are barriers to gene flow much like a culvert. So if you pay the money to fix a culvert like for example gravel lick run, but then still allow stocking in cross fork creek your sabotaging your own culvert project with stocked fish.
Notice invasive species listed right until culverts in attached photo and pictures of wild brown and stocked rainbows next to culvert photo. Browns and rainbows block life histories and bidirectional gene flow but agency continues to stock in larger water ways class A streams dump into.

5. Now we have habitat work in places where browns and brook trout both exist in completion to worry about because of incomplete restorations without removal. Upper kettle is above a barrier why pursue manual removal and XYY supermales this article models depending on the fitness of the supermales you could have complete eradication in 2-4 years. No one is making supermale brown and rainbow trout or my knowledge yet but I don’t even think PAFB looking into it based on recent discussions with them.

USGS Publications Warehouse

Eradication of nonnative Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis populations is difficult to achieve with standard techniques, such as electrofishing removal or piscicides; new approaches are needed. A novel concept is to stock “supermale” hatchery fish with wild conspecifics. Supermales (MYY) have...

pubs.er.usgs.gov

It just seems like PA fish and Boat likes small stunted, inbred/infertile, non genetically diverse and less adaptable native brook trout cut off from their larger meta populations because they couldn’t be doing a better job of managing against these fish. It’s to the point where if you took habitat loss/ water quality(with how much both of these have recovers in many places) vs. PAFB and their invasive species they stock and manage for, I honestly don’t know who is a bigger danger to brook now? Pine and kettle im going to go with the latter at this point for my guess because they couldn’t me managing much worse. That’s why I admire this species because they refuse to die despite every attempt to destroy them and no attempt to manage for them.

 

[silverfox]

I've fished these types of streams a lot for many decades, and what I've seen on the streams corresponds to what these studies show.

Prime habitat (deep pools with overhead cover) are very beneficial to brook trout where they are the only trout in the stream. These places hold the largest brook trout.

But where there are mixed populations, those prime spots are dominated by brown trout.

I'm not the only person who has noticed this. I've talked to many small stream regulars who have seen the same thing. It's very obvious.

Here are some observations on what is good for brook trout in mixed population streams:

Channel splits. These are natural features on streams, but are less common now because historically streams were altered to block off secondary channels, consolidating streams into single channels for running logs, to simplify farming, for road building, for building homes and cabins, etc. As you fish along these streams you will notice that the channel split sections have a higher ratio of brook/brown trout than the single thread sections.

Beaver dams. For some reason they hold far more brook trout than browns, even on mixed population streams. Only once in my life have I ever caught brown trout in a beaver pond. And there the beaver pond was partially breached, so it wasn't quite a pond anymore, i.e. the current was flowing through. I don't know why beaver ponds favor brookies. It may have to with the fine substrate in beaver ponds and at the inflows, which I think is where most of the spawning takes place. The fine substrate may favor the brookies over the browns for spawning.

I think this issue includes RT too. I rarely pull brook trout from the lunker bunkers on Big Spring. It's usually a big rainbow under those logs. That's prime habitat that seems to mostly be occupied by RT.

I have some issues w/ the habitat work on BS in general. From what I've witnessed, the spawning substrate is being used by both species at near the same time (yes, the RT are fall/winter spawners there). The RT seem to move in after the brook trout are done, which means the RT could be excavating ST redds after they've successfully spawned.

Not in all cases, but that might play a role in why the 2 species seem to be locked neck n neck in population density despite the latest phase work being done to favor ST. BS would be a good case study in the impacts of RT removal on the ST population if anglers could get on the same page.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I think this issue includes RT too. I rarely pull brook trout from the lunker bunkers on Big Spring. It's usually a big rainbow under those logs. That's prime habitat that seems to mostly be occupied by RT.

I have some issues w/ the habitat work on BS in general. From what I've witnessed, the spawning substrate is being used by both species at near the same time (yes, the RT are fall/winter spawners there). The RT seem to move in after the brook trout are done, which means the RT could be excavating ST redds after they've successfully spawned.

Not in all cases, but that might play a role in why the 2 species seem to be locked neck n neck in population density despite the latest phase work being done to favor ST. BS would be a good case study in the impacts of RT removal on the ST population if anglers could get on the same page.

Oh yea no idea why removal of rainbows and cessation of stocking isn’t occurring on Big spring. That’s probably top 3 most visible management failures for brook trout. You have a population of some of the largest brook trout in the state above a Barrier that are buffered against climate change by big spring and they still stock it and manage for invasive salmonid Disney land up there. The invasive rainbow trout are even protected!! PAFB is a social program and no more of a true conservation watchdog/manager than the programs people get government cheese through.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Lets pump the brakes on wide scale use of xyy supermales until we have real results to analyze. The study you keep posting using words novel and lists hypothetical results. These introductions are not without risk.

 

[joebamboo]

These posts have drifted from the heading of this forum thread and have nothing to do with the Yellow Breeches "Improvement". Perhaps you gentleman can start another topic related to your particular interest in saving brook trout streams.

 

[Fish Sticks]

These posts have drifted from the heading of this forum thread and have nothing to do with the Yellow Breeches "Improvement". Perhaps you gentleman can start another topic related to your particular interest in saving brook trout streams.

My apologies! two posts ago I was talking about stream improvement projects much like the one on the breeches but then drifted off topic.

 

[Fish Sticks]

My apologies! two posts ago I was talking about stream improvement projects much like the one on the breeches but then drifted off topic.

Wonder if there were any biological metrics being measured pre construction on the yellow breeches project that were within the goa of the project besides the usual sediment and nutrient reductions? Anyone know if species besides brown and stocked trout were in project goals like sculpin, macros, or endangered eastern mud salamanders that call the breeches home? Someone had the price tag in the 300 thousands posted above so I wasn’t sure if they knew more about the project beyond its fishing goals?

 

[Fish Sticks]

Lets pump the brakes on wide scale use of xyy supermales until we have real results to analyze. The study you keep posting using words novel and lists hypothetical results. These introductions are not without risk.

Just to clarify I said “on the horizon” and even mentioned no brown and rainbows created yet just brookies. I was simply pointing out the recommendations of removal of invasive trout by fisheries science experts and complete lack of plan by agency in terms of planning/ currently available manual removal. Sorry back to yellow breeches I promise

 

[joebamboo]

I am not aware of any biological study conducted prior to the improvement project and I am willing to bet there was none. The project was supposedly initiated by Cumberland County Conservation. Highly unlikely they were concerned with any effect it would have on aquatic life.

 

[silverfox]

I am not aware of any biological study conducted prior to the improvement project and I am willing to bet there was none. The project was supposedly initiated by Cumberland County Conservation. Highly unlikely they were concerned with any effect it would have on aquatic life.

I don't know, because I'm not familiar with this particular project outside of this thread, but I wonder if this is driven more by something like TMDL goals for the bay than for some biological purpose? Of course, if it's fish habitat type structures (which the documentation seems to suggest) that seems to imply otherwise.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I am not aware of any biological study conducted prior to the improvement project and I am willing to bet there was none. The project was supposedly initiated by Cumberland County Conservation. Highly unlikely they were concerned with any effect it would have on aquatic life.

Yea I was speculating that as well. Would have been nice if when they did these things if there could be a collaboration or comment period with herpetologists, astracologists, native non game fish ecologists ect. especially for such a huge cash outlay. But hopefully it does benefit those creatures I hope. One of the biggest things that stood out to me construction Va post construction is in the backside of those stone deflectors there are now slack water flats that were not previously present next to those riffles and they seem to collect small woody debris to an extent. Before it seemed there was not as much of this kind of habitat with the exception of behind some large woody debris but I could be wrong. Will have to fish it!

 

[silverfox]

These posts have drifted from the heading of this forum thread and have nothing to do with the Yellow Breeches "Improvement". Perhaps you gentleman can start another topic related to your particular interest in saving brook trout streams.

I think discussing the merits of in-stream habitat improvement projects in broad terms in a thread about a habitat improvement project is probably more on-topic than the page and a half discussion about angler access rights and trespassing which didn't seem to prompt a suggestion for a new separate thread.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I've fished these types of streams a lot for many decades, and what I've seen on the streams corresponds to what these studies show.

Prime habitat (deep pools with overhead cover) are very beneficial to brook trout where they are the only trout in the stream. These places hold the largest brook trout.

But where there are mixed populations, those prime spots are dominated by brown trout.

I'm not the only person who has noticed this. I've talked to many small stream regulars who have seen the same thing. It's very obvious.

Here are some observations on what is good for brook trout in mixed population streams:

Channel splits. These are natural features on streams, but are less common now because historically streams were altered to block off secondary channels, consolidating streams into single channels for running logs, to simplify farming, for road building, for building homes and cabins, etc. As you fish along these streams you will notice that the channel split sections have a higher ratio of brook/brown trout than the single thread sections.

Beaver dams. For some reason they hold far more brook trout than browns, even on mixed population streams. Only once in my life have I ever caught brown trout in a beaver pond. And there the beaver pond was partially breached, so it wasn't quite a pond anymore, i.e. the current was flowing through. I don't know why beaver ponds favor brookies. It may have to with the fine substrate in beaver ponds and at the inflows, which I think is where most of the spawning takes place. The fine substrate may favor the brookies over the browns for spawning.

So I believe that the fish and wild life folks who did that stream project wanted to leave some more fine substrate based for brook trout based on this paper. For some reason commission wanted something different for some reason I’m not familiar with that stream project besides the brief conversation I had where this article was shared with me.

Features of Successful Spawning Site Development for Brook Trout in Wisconsin Ponds

Lack of spawning areas limits standing crops of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in many small, spring-fed ponds in northern Wisconsin. A new method for developing spawning areas includes measu...

www.tandfonline.com

I have not read the entire article, yet it’s on my list. But I do not know if you are doing a stream project if gravel size as small as the 2mm making up 45% in this paper would work in all cases or not though without the amount of groundwater upwelling that was present? Would be interesting to know for certain as more of these stream projects go in.

 

[Fish Sticks]

So I believe that the fish and wild life folks who did that stream project wanted to leave some more fine substrate based for brook trout based on this paper. For some reason commission wanted something different for some reason I’m not familiar with that stream project besides the brief conversation I had where this article was shared with me.

Features of Successful Spawning Site Development for Brook Trout in Wisconsin Ponds

Lack of spawning areas limits standing crops of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in many small, spring-fed ponds in northern Wisconsin. A new method for developing spawning areas includes measu...

www.tandfonline.com

I have not read the entire article, yet it’s on my list. But I do not know if you are doing a stream project if gravel size as small as the 2mm making up 45% in this paper would work in all cases or not though without the amount of groundwater upwelling that was present? Would be interesting to know for certain as more of these stream projects go in.

Above in reference to Big Spring sorry forgot to mention

 

[albud1962]

I can say on a different project in a different part of the state where a series of in-stream projects were implemented between 2004-2017 I anecdotally noticed changes in species composition post-treatment. There were several surveys conducted over 3 stations with species composition well documented. These treatments were pretty typical structures based on current PFBC BMP's and created a fair bit of pool habitat and cover (log vane deflectors, jack dams, and mudsills). That habitat type is somewhat out of place on this particular stream. I think jack dams have been discouraged lately, but the design of this project probably predated that change in approach.

For the past 3 years I've tried to get someone (including reaching out to the AFM, others at PFBC, and the original funding/principal NGO) to do a post-treatment survey to compare against the prior surveys to no avail. Ironically, I sent another request about this last week!

What's really bizarre, and I'm not being conspiratorial here, is that after I started asking questions about the impact to the stream's species composition post-treatment, all the original documents with survey information (including water chemistry, macroinvertebrate community, and fish) were removed from the principal's website.

I've thought about doing an electrofishing survey in the prior survey reaches using the same methods used in the original surveys, but I have concerns about our findings being discredited for bias or because we didn't conduct the original surveys somehow our work would be considered skewed. In leu of actual surveys, I'm actually planning on sinking cameras in the stream this year to see if I can even capture an image of a brook trout in the stream.

I understand the issue here. It's entirely possible that surveys might demonstrate that significant money was spent that ended up having the exact opposite desired outcome (loss of brook trout rather than the stated goal of improving brook trout habitat). So of course there's going to be strong reluctance to survey it again. It's a shame. If we're doing something wrong, you'd think there would be some interest in fixing it moving forward.

This is getting at what I mentioned early. I really think a project should have a pre and post survey conducted and included as part of the original grant application. I can see if a project fails to meet certain metrics it might be considered to be a failure, but having this data can give a better idea which designs are working in a broad sense. I am not aware if this being routinely being done. It's disappointing that people are taking down data because they fear scrutiny. Open source information is how science progresses and evolves.

 

[Dave_W]

I took another look at this project (I didn't walk the entire length like last time) on Saturday: significant progress has been completed, and I estimated that the work is mostly done, at least at the upper section.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, I am impressed with the quality of the work on this project. Like many of you, I've fished this area a long time and I think it looks better now than ever.