Big Spring Habitat & Management Meeting, Oct. 30

T

troutbert

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
10,626
I saw this on another website. Maybe some of you SC PA folks will be interested in attending.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

PFBC to Host Informational Meeting on Big Spring Creek Habitat Project

BY PA FISH & BOAT COMMISSION IN HUNTING AND FISHING
OCTOBER 18, 2012


The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) is inviting anglers and the general public to an informational meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 30, at Big Spring High School in Cumberland County to learn more about the agency’s habitat and fisheries management plan for Big Spring Creek.

The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. and end at 7:30 p.m. The meeting is free and plenty of parking is available at the school, located at 45 Mount Rock Road, Newville, PA 17241.

“The purpose of the meeting is to present the agency’s habitat management plan for Big Spring Creek using funds provided by the PA Turnpike Commission as mitigation for environmental impacts associated with one of their planned construction projects in Cumberland County,” said Charlie McGarrell, the PFBC biologist leading the project. “We will describe the overall habitat project and will discuss how it will improve the overall fishery of the creek. After the presentation, the public will have the opportunity to ask questions.”

The Turnpike Commission has provided $586,000 for the habitat project, which will be located downstream of a large habitat project completed in 2010 on the creek. The project is currently in the design phase. Construction of the project is expected to begin by next summer and be completed by fall 2013.
------------------------------------------
 
I heard about this a while ago, but it wasn't finalized. I guess I'd feel it was a great thing if they removed the rainbows from the stream, but I don't think that is an option. PFBC blew it when they had the chance to start from scratch and do it when the hatchery closed. I still don't see how they've restored it to the condition it was before the hatchery was built.
 
I'm planning on being there.
 
Clearly, you can't please everyone.
 
Mike wrote:
Clearly, you can't please everyone.

I think a great job was done there and I for one appreciate the habitat that favors rainbows. Big Spring is a unique fishery and not yet another brookie trickle. Nice job!
 
I will out of town that week but would love it if someone would post a brief summary of what was discussed after the meeting. Big Spring is a creek I want to fish more even if it is about a 3 hour drive for me.
 
Big Spring wasn’t another brookie trickle. It was a world class stream that supported a very healthy population of large brook and bows that didn’t need anything done to it to help it. Too bad most people didn’t know that.

As for the next phase, go for it and complete the transformation into a fishing park. Make sure the design includes lots of plunge pools because you know, limestone spring creeks aren’t supposed to be slow, meandering bodies of water they are supposed to look like fast moving, rolling tumbling mountain freestones. Also, make sure the design includes elevated observation towers to make it easy for people to spot the trout (I suggest shocking the stream and then spray painting the trout blaze orange so they will clearly be visible from the towers). And casting platforms that extend over the stream, include those so people don’t even need to wear waders.

And lastly, make sure there are neon signs with arrows specifically pointing to the lunker structures or other holding areas that may hold large trout.

Glad I fished it extensively when it was a world class natural stream. What a POS it has turned into.


 
Since you aren't interested in it anymore, why so interested in getting your views prominently featured anytime it gets mention on here?
 
These are not my views on what should be done but rather my suggestions on how to make it more easily fishable, which seems to be the intent of the work.

 
I got the sarcasm. But rather than present your views, you basically always simply poo-poo the work that is getting done lamenting the destruction of BS as we know it. And, it seems despite the myriad of knowledgable people working on the stream, only GreenWeenie knows what is best for it. It's tiresome. Anyone interested can go the meetings and express their concerns politely, let us hope. Who knows, they may even learn a thing or two if it is at all possible.
 
Jack, why don't you take some time to learn about trout streams instead of just ridiculing me.
 
I am only ridiculing you for your behavior whenever these BS threads appear. You seem like a lone voice crying out in the wilderness. Is everyone who is working on the restoration/improvements misguided? Why does any objective reader get the idea that you think you, and you alone, know what is best for this waterway?
 
Actually Jack, there are quite a few people who support the same views I support, I just happen to be the most vocal. If you did a little research on the subject and maybe got involved you would realize that it was a group of concerned citizens who didn't buy the PFBC's BS (not the biologists, the administration, the ones who set policy and make decisions, generally not based on scientific knowledge but rather politics - Mike knows exactly what I am talking about but has to plead the 5th and I fully understand) and managed to get the hatchery shutdown and essentially made the PFBC look like incompetent lying buffoons. Why? Well the PFBC's public position was these people were wrong about the hatchery being the cause of the problem but guess what happened Mr. Ill-Informed, exactly what these un-experts said would happen DID happen, much to the dismay of the real "experts" when the hatchery was shutdown (you do know the hatchery discharged unpermitted poisons (diquat and formaldehyde) into the stream yet the PFBC denied it yet internal emails between the PFBC and the PADEP admitted such - I'm sure you are fully aware of that). The stream did exactly as those so called rabble rousers said would happen and it started recovering on its own and turned into the greatest little secret anywhere. I laugh when you and others who never fished the place try and discredit me because it was a fantastic stream - a phenominal stream - you people have no idea exactly how great it was because you never fished it. And the fact that it turned into a world class fishery simply pisses off the experts. This isn't about outting my private little stream it's about f'in up a trout stream that probably had more 20+ inch bows per 100 feet than any trout stream in the world including the D and brookies up to 4lbs. Seriously, you have no idea what was really there and as I said, the stream is still a 9/10 but ir used to be a 20/10.

So how do I know, well these so called experts said the stream held no fish yet for some unexplained reason, I was consistently catching upwards of 50+ trout everytime I fished the stream with probably 7-10 in the 20"+ range. (PREEMPTIVE STRIKE - don't bother saying you're the greatest or whatever trying to use your only defense, which is to discredit me), that's not the point, the point is the experts were saing the stream held no fish yet I was seeing something completely so I guess I am insane and crazy because the experts said nothing was there so what an ******* I am for catching all these fish that they say aren't there. And the reason I may be the only one saying that is simply because I was the only one fishing the place and it is sickening that any so called stream restoration expert would fail to see what was there. I'm not an "expert" yet I found what was there apparantly found what no one else could.

I appologize for being the *******.
 
^^^
This post has more problems than Saddam Hussein... I am not touching it with a ten foot fly rod...lol.

Greenweenie,

What are the oxygen levels like in Big Spring, especially as you move further downstream? Wouldn't creating plunge pools help to oxygenate the water a bit for the trout? I am of the opinion that work needs to be done on Big Spring and then maybe perhaps some regulations can be extended downstream to help protect the fish.
 
Well you must be using a 10'6" pole, because you just touched it.
 
The water quality coming from the spring source is very well oxygenated. In fact, during the hatchery days the headwaters (ditch) was classified as exceptional value cold water (maybe not the exact name, but it had the highest cold water quality designation that can be given to a stream in PA), yet the water just below the ditch outlet was classified as significantly impaired water so simultaneously the stream was on the PADEP list of EV water and significantly impaired water. And the reason for the lack of oxygen below the ditch was solely due to the heavy oxygen demanding nutrient load that was being discharged from the hatchery not the absence of plunge pools or other artificial oxygenators. Essentially this nutrient load stripped the water of all its dissolved oxygen by the time it discharged from the ditch and that was one of the contributing factors as to why the stream was biologically dead below the ditch (along with the discharge of diquat and formaldehyde).

Once the nutrient load was removed (i.e., the hatchery shut down), you still had the EV highly oxygenated water coming from the spring source and this water flowed the length of the stream and over time, the stream cleansed itself and rebounded back stronger than anyone could have imagined – much to the dismay of the PFBC administrators and CVTU who wanted to turn it into a stocked fishing park when the hatchery was shut down. And those same people also said the brooks would not come back as the citizens predicted but guess what, they did.

So the reality is a group of concerned citizens and scientists proved the “experts” wrong by demonstrating that the hatchery was the cause of the problem (not habitat problems as promoted by the PFBC administrators) and after the hatchery was shutdown, the stream came back just as they predicted it would if left on its own. In fact it recovered better than ever expected and now the same people who (1) screwed it up in the first place, (2) lied about it and covered it up, (3) operated a hatchery that was illegally discharging poisons and herbicides into the stream, (4) denied the hatchery was the cause of the problem and stated the cause was loss of habitat for unknown reasons, (5) claimed if the hatchery was shut down the stream wouldn’t recover and (5) wished to turn it into a stocked fishing park because it wouldn’t recover if left on its own, are now the ones in charge of restoring the stream after the model of “leave it alone” worked so well for 9 years? The PFBC own electroshocking data from 2001 – 2007 clearly demonstrates the trout were coming back in strong numbers throughout the FFO section and you know what, they never even surveyed the better sections of the stream.

Come on, doesn’t anyone see a problem with that. Kind of like letting the fox guard the hen house.

And people keep saying only GreenWeenie knows what’s best and you know what, I know what the citizens and scientists said was best for the stream (leave it alone) and guess what, they were 100% right because I watched the stream recover in real time from 2006 through August 2010 going from a marginal stream in 2006 to a world class brook and bow factory by August 2010 so yes, I believe these non-experts more than the idiot experts now in charge of this stream who screwed it up in the first place and whose predictions and theories were proved wrong time and time again. And yes, they are idiots. The proof is in the pudding and it isn’t what I think is best, the stream followed a model that the so called experts said wouldn’t work and it did so what the so called experts have done is fooled everyone into believing that the stream had problems, never recovered, and they are now going to save it. And people now go there and see large amounts of fish and believe it is because of the restoration efforts – IT’S NOT – what is there now has nothing to do with the restoration work it was there before the work and in fact, it was substantially better before the work was done.

I wish you and others could have seen what was there post restoration.

As for oxygen levels way down in the stream, well, by August 2010 there were massive numbers of pollution intolerant and oxygen demanding insects including stoneflies and sulfurs because I saw them, I fished these hatches. And they weren’t limited to the upper reaches, as some of the heaviest hatches occurred well below the 1.1 mile FFO section, which is the first 1.1 miles of the stream. In addition the stream also had extremely good populations of olives, caddis, tricos (in isolated areas), and more midges than you can imagine – again, I fished them, I saw them. So given the fact that the stream held lots of pollution intolerant and oxygen demanding insects from the headwaters down to probably 3.5 miles below, call me stupid but it certainly appears to me that oxygen levels weren’t a problem in the lower sections. And there were also healthy populations of wild bows and brooks well below the cement arch bridge, which is probably 3.5 miles below the spring source and 2.5 miles into the ATW section. In fact, in many places within the ATW section there were sections that held healthy pods of wild bows and even wild brooks – mostly bows but there were wild brooks as well. Sounds to me the stream was in pretty excellent shape throughout. So as for creating plunge pools to increase oxygen levels, there was no need because the water coming from the spring source is exceptional value highly oxygenated water, the source of the oxygen demanding nutrient load that caused the problem is no longer there, and the stream had healthy populations of pollution intolerant and oxygen demanding insects and also healthy populations of wild trout over 3.5 miles below the headwaters. Doesn’t sound to me like the stream had problems. The only problems it had was it didn’t “look nice,” and the trout weren’t easy to catch. And limestone spring creeks are not freestone streams, they are low gradient, slow moving bodies of water and that’s what makes a spring creek a spring creek and a freestone stream a freestone stream.

As for the FFO zone, the place was loaded with fish – there were thousands of them all over – and big ones too. Seriously, the bows in the stream were bigger and more abundant than the mighty Delaware bows, but nobody knew that and those who did hid the data because that wasn’t supposed to happen. There was no reason to do what they did to the upper half in the fall 2010 and that’s not just me saying it, that’s the PFBC own biologists, folks from the US Wish and Wildlife Department, other independent scientists but CVTU goes out and hires their own consultant (the expert) and this company comes to the conclusion work needs to be done (that they get PAID TO DO) so they are now the undisputed expert and everyone else who disagrees with what they say should be done is wrong.

 
^^^^^^ so to paraphrase....

There are still lots of fish in the stream, still lots of BIG fish in the stream. The water quality is just as good as ever and the populations of both brookies and bows continues to expand.

But, GW doesn't like the fact that the fishing experience he grew to love has changed because other folks had a different vision than his, and they are all, apparently, IDIOTS!!, grrrrr. Oh, and there's also money involved and a cover up going on, or something.
 
Tomi,

Once again, missed the point. Read it and digest it instead of just assuming it's all a rant and all my point of view.

Did you happen to read when I said my view isn't my view - I happen to agree with many people in the scientific community who have strongly different opinions of what the stream should be like compared to those who have somehow managed to get control of this stream over the last 2 years and who were the ones responsbile for screwing it up in the first place. If you happened to be involved in the watershed group, got to know the scientists involved, and actually watched the stream recover you would know.

Why don't you link here and read. Certainly seems like the PADEP wasn't on board with the initial plan in 2000, which is essentially the same plan that got railroaded through in 2010.

NJDEP Letter to PFBC 2000

Or how about this one where the PADEP discusses the non-permitted and toxic levels of formaldehyde discharge

Formaldehyde

Lastly, how about this one, especially pages 11 and 12.

Environmental Group Letter

As stated, I know the history, know what was proposed, know what worked and the sad part which you won't admit is yes, the stream is still very good, but it was unbelievable in August 2010.

How would you feel if the Letort was ripped up and the result was it became half as good as it once was and people who never fished it are saying it's great? It has nothing to do with ruining my stream it has to do with ruining a natural resource. If they did it once they will do it again elsewhere.

 
So, your view isn't your view, but is the view of others and you happen to agree with that view, but somehow it isn't your view??? That's logical.


The EGL you link is a great history lesson, I especially find this passage from Page 12 interesting, considering the many various signatories to that letter (emphasis added):

We would like to see nature, with the help of substantial habitat restoration, get another chance.


 
Back
Top