I know that spot well, the parking lot up the trail is where I would do the breakfast & lunch thing.Photos of photos from Clark’s Creek in 2003. My long gone good boy Jake was with me that day and my wife must have tagged along. This is the hole and stretch you would come to if you parked in the middle lot of the FFO and walked straight down the path to the stream. Great spot. Think there were some sporadic March Browns that day.
I hit a nice Hendrickson hatch there one afternoon after I waited out a brief thunderstorm in my car. The riffle and stretch below it where those bugs were coming off was filled in with silt after all the trees fell in.
I used to fish the upper section below Tower City a lot when I lived near Pottsville. You could see the brown trout in the really clear water on a sandy bottom. I could sometimes even see my dark nymph drifting, and the white of the trout's open mouth if he took the fly. There were a lot of pickerel and some smallmouth bass there also. This was during the 1970's.I used to catch them there all the time.
That’s the spot. Little riffle right of the midstream rock in the distance always had some rising fish back then. Faster water upstream from there often held some wild fish.
Would it really be necessary to remove the entire tree? What about just cutting a section from the middle (or one side) of each tree? That would allow water to flow more freely and anglers to pass. Plus, it would leave most of the LWD in the water, which is a benefit to the fish.Another issue and reason the PFBC isn't interested would be the potential damage caused to the stream and surrounding area because for sure, heavy equipment as in bulldozers & backhoes would be needed to drag the huge trees from the stream bed and OUT of the woods to be disposed of. In other words, do the benefits outweigh the risks?
1.56 kg/ha is extremely low.I just got off the phone with the Area 7 Fisheries Biologist in regards to the wild trout population in Section 4, AKA the FFO stretch. While it was sampled recently, they only sampled 10% of the stream section.
Keeping in mind the entire stream is on the Natural Reproduction List, they found both wild brook trout & wild brown trout at the two sample sites located more or less at opposite ends of the stretch. However the numbers surveyed are well below the minimums required for a Class A biomass at 1 kg/ha for BT and .56 kg/ha for ST.
That is sort of in line with my catch rates of a few wild fish per outing.
Agreed. Habitat on streams is highly variable. They may try to pick "representative" stretches, but that is easier said than done.I'm far from a biologist, but keep in mind they only surveyed 10% of the entire section.
We should all be aware, that small of a sampling may not be indicative of the overall picture.