Liking those limestoner comebacks - they can happen

[Mike]

A two mile stretch of Spring Ck, Berks Co had a smattering of wild ST and BT close to its upper end in the 1980's. Most of the stretch below had few or no wild trout and carp seemed to dominate. In 2016 the stream revealed a Class A equivalent BT population and an avg biomass in the 70 kg/ha range and the carp were gone. This stream was so degraded with sedimentation in the 1980's and thereafter that this particular comeback was completely unexpected. Fingerling stockings didn't work either. Substantive substrate problems still exist, but to a lesser extent. One thing the stream had going for it along with the other limestoners in the region that have made substantive comebacks was a bit of gradient.

It to some extent reminded me of Valley Creek, Chester/Montgomery Co. in the early 1980's when it first went to Class A or close thereto depending upon the location. The problem had been the same...substantial sedimentation. There were not wild BT in about 1977. When the stream started to recover from the sedimentation, the BT made a rapid comeback, either from stocked BT reproduction or from populations in its tribs.

 

[troutbert]

What caused the sedimentation?

And what caused a reduction in sedimentation?

 

[greenghost]

Mike, I'm not sure what you are suggesting as the cause for the comeback. Did the stream's gradient somehow change? Or was the sedimentation caused by poor agricultural practices and those improve?

 

[testynesty]

Dams?

 

[Dave_W]

I think sometimes the reason(s) these streams see improved populations is very hard to discern and may involve very subtle changes that are hard to identify or quantify. Moreover when surveying streams on the small side, it might just be random luck that the survey occurred during a year when the population had a high cycle.

Nevertheless, there does seem to be a pattern of increased wild trout in many small streams across central and SEPA. We hear about and lament the streams that are having problems or getting clobbered but, at the same time, it seems like wild trout are increasing (generally) across this area as well as showing up in places where they didn't exist before (or we just didn't know they were there).

Beats me how to explain this phenomenon, both in the broad sense, and in the case of specific streams. We've pondered possible answers in many threads. It's a good discussion.

 

[JeffP]

We used to catch a lot of natives there. There was limited access but I remember being shocked at the size and beauty of the brookies below the pond. Now that was in early days. With all the talk of wild or stocked, I have to wonder whether they were. Never did well further downstream.

 

[pcray1231]

Did the stream's gradient somehow change? Or was the sedimentation caused by poor agricultural practices and those improve?

I think he's suggesting the problem was sedimentation (though, he didn't give reason for sedimentation, so it may not be agricultural). The gradient always existed, but with the gradient, once the sediment source is diminished the flow flushes it out, allowing it to recover more quickly than a stream with lesser gradient.

I don't know if the area in question is below or above the confluence with Furnace Creek. Given that he said a 2 mile stretch I have to think at least a portion is below. I'd point out that a fairly major dam was removed on Furnace Creek at some point in the mid 2000's. There were always brookies above that dam on Furnace, but not so much below.

 

[outsider]

Spring Creek was one of my favorite local streams decades ago, haven't fished it since then. Ironically, my wife and I went there earlier this year to revisit it, but I didn't fish it this year. Mike, pm sent.

 

[Mike]

Unfortunately, the entire stream has a long history of access problems, including posting and parking in both the wild trout section and the stocked section. Much of posting has resulted from poor angler behavior. The stretch that now supports a good population of wild trout was being stocked in the 1970's and possibly prior to that. Landowners, however, often have long memories. Even within the downstream stocked section less than stellar angler behavior by a few has continued despite past access losses to posting to the extent that posting increased again and a substantial reduction in the stocking rate was necessitated this past season. I would not be surprised if some landowners in the wild trout stretch of this short valley are aware of some continuing problems downstream.

As for the stream's recovery mentioned above, pcray has correctly interpreted the gist of my comments. With reduced sediment input and a somewhat steeper gradient than the typical meadow limestoner there appears to have been an improvement in stream bottom substrate composition through a net loss of fines and exposure of some much cleaner substrate in perhaps 40% of the stream channel. This has almost certainly been at least in part the result of improved agricultural practices. While this list is not exhaustive, a very noteworthy change from historical practices was noted at one location and at another location a lowland portion of the farm along Spring Ck and a small trib had been placed in the Conservation Reserve Program (part of the fed. Farm Bill, I believe) about fifteen years ago and about 300 trees had been planted, creating perhaps a 50 ft buffer zone along both.

It remains unclear to what extent, if any, the dam draining (mostly drained, but not removed) on Furnace Creek had on water temps as far downstream as Spring Ck. Even the impact in the immediate half mile below the dam remains to be investigated, ie whether the wild brook trout population expanded and improved downstream from the dam. Sedimentation above the impounded area caused a substantial reduction in the brook trout population prior to the reduction in the impoundment's size.

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/

 

[Chaz]

What's happened with the brook trout population in the Spring Creek sections? I don't view it as a positive if the brook trout are gone.

 

[Mike]

ST were very geographically limited in their distribution in Spring Ck and they still maintain that distribution, which is within about a half mile of the spring. There were no apparent gains or losses in the stream length that ST populate. Wild Browns were also present in the system and they took advantage of the improved conditions. They are generally less "demanding" than ST with respect to substrate and temperature; therefore, if water temps are suitable for BT and ST, but substrate is better for BT, I would expect BT to have the advantage regardless of their other natural abilities to compete with ST.

 

[afishinado]

Mike,

Excellent info as well as good news about the expansion of wild trout.

Thank you for sharing.

 

[Berks]

Interesting information.

Looking at aerials of the confluence of Spring Ck and Furnace Ck. At that point, Spring looks like a trickle with terrible habitat above. Odd the name Spring Ck was carried downstream as Furnace looks to be the larger of the two.

 

[troutbert]

Good info, Mike.

Riparian vegetation rules!!

There are so many "opportunities for improvement" in that regard out on the PA landscape.

 

[Chaz]

Berks wrote:
Interesting information.

Looking at aerials of the confluence of Spring Ck and Furnace Ck. At that point, Spring looks like a trickle with terrible habitat above. Odd the name Spring Ck was carried downstream as Furnace looks to be the larger of the two.

You apparently didn't the huge Spring that give Spring Creek it's name. But imediately above that spring the habitat is lousy.

 

[Chaz]

troutbert wrote:
Good info, Mike.

Riparian vegetation rules!!

There are so many "opportunities for improvement" in that regard out on the PA landscape.

Amen!!!
And not coincidently there is recovering riparian habitat below the confluence and the REALLY BIG SPRING.

 

[Berks]

Chaz wrote:

Berks wrote:
Interesting information.

Looking at aerials of the confluence of Spring Ck and Furnace Ck. At that point, Spring looks like a trickle with terrible habitat above. Odd the name Spring Ck was carried downstream as Furnace looks to be the larger of the two.

You apparently didn't the huge Spring that give Spring Creek it's name. But imediately above that spring the habitat is lousy.

I see the big spring where it feeds into Furnace Ck above the confluence with Spring Ck. Interesting area.

 

[Mike]

The wild Brown population had the classic size distribution for a Pa Brown Trout stream segment that is about 15-25 ft wide and covers a distance of 300-600 yards...numerous fish up to 10 inches, a few 11 and 12 inchers, and a jump to a single fish at 15 inches.

 

[Chaz]

All good information, the wild browns do extend down to Blue Marsh Creek. There is some good sized water down there.

 

[Berks]

I fished the lower section this morning and managed one 6” wild brown. The stream was low and clear but there’s some deeper holes. Spooked some fish, possible fallfish. No other fisherman seen but did have 6 people on horseback cross the stream just down from me. “Hey, we’ll scare the fish up to you…” was the comment. It was actually pretty cool to watch them cross.

Easy parking/access in this downstream section. Plan to investigate further upstream where it doesn’t look so easy.