Waters with the Biggest Potential

[lycoflyfisher]

Chop and Drop or large wood addition projects may be the best tool to enhance and improve habitat for brook trout on a landscape scale in brook trout strongholds (NCPA). There is a lot of research from Vermont talking about the benefits of this work and there are some groups working on extensive monitoring on a project in the ANF.

There are limitations to this work when roads, bridges and other infrastructure are in close proximity to the stream.

 

[silverfox]

Chop and Drop or large wood addition projects may be the best tool to enhance and improve habitat for brook trout on a landscape scale in brook trout strongholds (NCPA). There is a lot of research from Vermont talking about the benefits of this work and there are some groups working on extensive monitoring on a project in the ANF.

There are limitations to this work when roads, bridges and other infrastructure are in close proximity to the stream.

Great video about this:

 

[pcray1231]

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 never been a huge fan of fallen trees. Chop and drop. Sure, it may create some temporary habitat. But for me standing, large, mature trees seem to be the key, especially for brook trout. I cringe when a large tree is dropped in the floodplain. It may be beneficial short term by creating some debris, but you just lost a beneficial structure maker that you can't get back for 100 years.

Aside from shade, a large mature tree is like pounding a stake in the ground. The stream has to build it's channel around them and their very large root systems, which are as extensive as the trees canopy. Those roots penetrate the ground all over, and water seeps along them, and adds groundwater interaction as well. The ground itself is like a dam, filled with reinforcing roots, and the stream has to make it's way through that.

IMO, rock structure, wetlands and all are great. But in my experience, TREES are important for habitat. Standing ones. I can't tell you how many times I've fished brookie streams that are pretty poor in large stretches. Straight chutes, through open land, meadows, or even less mature hardwood forests. And then you come on, say, a mature hemlock stretch. And the entire stream just changes it's character completely. The moment you enter it's like the twilight zone, even the sound changes. Its overall slower, meanders more into S bends trying to find it's way through the wall of roots. There's more pronounced pools and riffles. There's ledges and deep pockets next to riffles. The ground is soft and spongy and holds water, even in drought periods the little spring seeps stay wet. There's no muddy areas, just sponge. Undercut banks and rootwads, but the banks aren't falling in because they are held in place by those roots. The water even seems clearer, I assume more groundwater filtering, and more stable banks, and the slow spots allow sediment to fall out. Everything feels cooler, and if you carry a thermometer, the water is truly a degree or three cooler than it was just upstream.

And the fish are there in numbers.

 

[silverfox]

I've never been a huge fan of fallen trees. Chop and drop. Sure, it may create some temporary habitat. But for me standing, large, mature trees seem to be the key, especially for brook trout. I cringe when a large tree is dropped in the floodplain. It may be beneficial short term by creating some debris, but you just lost a beneficial structure maker that you can't get back for 100 years.

Aside from shade, a large mature tree is like pounding a stake in the ground. The stream has to build it's channel around them and their very large root systems, which are as extensive as the trees canopy. Those roots penetrate the ground all over, and water seeps along them, and adds groundwater interaction as well. The ground itself is like a dam, filled with reinforcing roots, and the stream has to make it's way through that.

IMO, rock structure, wetlands and all are great. But in my experience, TREES are important for habitat. Standing ones. I can't tell you how many times I've fished brookie streams that are pretty poor in large stretches. Straight chutes, through open land, meadows, or even less mature hardwood forests. And then you come on, say, a mature hemlock stretch. And the entire stream just changes it's character completely. The moment you enter it's like the twilight zone, even the sound changes. Its overall slower, meanders more into S bends trying to find it's way through the wall of roots. There's more pronounced pools and riffles. There's ledges and deep pockets next to riffles. The ground is soft and spongy and holds water, even in drought periods the little spring seeps stay wet. There's no muddy areas, just sponge. Undercut banks and rootwads, but the banks aren't falling in because they are held in place by those roots. The water even seems clearer, I assume more groundwater filtering, and more stable banks, and the slow spots allow sediment to fall out. Everything feels cooler, and if you carry a thermometer, the water is truly a degree or three cooler than it was just upstream.

And the fish are there in numbers.

As a counterpoint to this, one of the most impressive brook trout populations I know of runs through mostly daylit meadows that are the result of decades of heavy beaver activity. Most of the trees in the riparian zone are dead and most have fallen in the stream due to them being flooded by the beaver ponds that have been gone for some time. All that stands now are some small bushes, young trees, and dead trees waiting to fall, and there's very little shade on the stream. It's high elevation though, so the temperature is good despite the daylighting. The meadow is absolutely full of logjams and the channel has scoured and spread out throughout the old beaver ponds cutting channels through the sediment left behind. It's a diverse habitat with a lot of undercuts, shallow riffles, and pools filled with wood to the point you can't really fish them. It's an allopatric class A brook trout stream high in the mountains.

I get what you're saying, but daylighting is only part of the equation.

 

[afishinado]

Getting back to Clarks and the large amount of woody debris left from the dead hemlocks. The stream is dam controlled which doesn't allow for natural flooding to occur, at least very often. Also it is low gradient, at least the FF section, adding to the ponding found in the stream. It sort of reminds me of a stream with many beaver dams holding and diverting the flow into ponds and allowing sediment to form. No doubt in many years the stream will evolve, but in it's current state, with the dam, low gradient and obstructed flow from the unnatural amount of woody debris, it's not a very good place to fly-fish right now.

 

[Mike]

……….“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.”

That’s an admirable goal and worthwhile keeping in mind during habitat project conception. In many cases, however, it’s not practical because it is difficult enough just to find a suitable project site given the other variables that affect the successful conception and completion of such projects. Examples, though not meant to be an exhaustive list, include landowner cooperation, physical accessibility of the site to heavy equipment and follow-up maintenance, volunteer groups interested in the specific water body or specific site, conflicts with utility pipelines, historical or archaeological road-blocks, adjacent landowners concerned that their view of the water body involved will be blocked by trees, local municipality and permitted discharger concerns (yes, that’s happened) as in ….if the stream improves is the government going to come to us with additional, more stringent regulations regarding our operations or our discharge permit?

Additionally, dam removal projects in particular require an opportunistic approach so delaying one project in favor of another, more preferable one that might occur is generally not a great approach. If delayed, such delays often result in opportunity lost because so many stars have to perfectly align to even begin such projects.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Getting back to Clarks and the large amount of woody debris left from the dead hemlocks. The stream is dam controlled which doesn't allow for natural flooding to occur, at least very often. Also it is low gradient, at least the FF section, adding to the ponding found in the stream. It sort of reminds me of a stream with many beaver dams holding and diverting the flow into ponds and allowing sediment to form. No doubt in many years the stream will evolve, but in it's current state, with the dam, low gradient and obstructed flow from the unnatural amount of woody debris, it's not a very good place to fly-fish right now.

Your absolutely right that clarks sucks butt for fly fishing right now id echo that. Its going to take alot of time to forgive past sins on the landscape. But ripping those trees resets the clock to zero and just leaves wide agradiated pools full of silt. Those trees increase ground water recharge and have positive thermal benefit. This is a clarks log jam and I see vegetation and some cress like plants on the back side with very clean gravel.

The stream may take 500 years to recover from logging and other stressors. There were alot of folks who wanted to go in there with chain saws but daniel rae pau extension and tyler neimond PFBC said that would be a terrible idea. Why waste a century of recovery and reset the clock to fly fish. But i agree it sucks now. We maxe our bed when we changed the majority of the land scape in this state and now there are alot of places we have to lay in it for the long haul.

 

[silverfox]

……….“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.”

That’s an admirable goal and worthwhile keeping in mind during habitat project conception. In many cases, however, it’s not practical because it is difficult enough just to find a suitable project site given the other variables that affect the successful conception and completion of such projects. Examples, though not meant to be an exhaustive list, include landowner cooperation, physical accessibility of the site to heavy equipment and follow-up maintenance, volunteer groups interested in the specific water body or specific site, conflicts with utility pipelines, historical or archaeological road-blocks, adjacent landowners concerned that their view of the water body involved will be blocked by trees, local municipality and permitted discharger concerns (yes, that’s happened) as in ….if the stream improves is the government going to come to us with additional, more stringent regulations regarding our operations or our discharge permit?

Additionally, dam removal projects in particular require an opportunistic approach so delaying one project in favor of another, more preferable one that might occur is generally not a great approach. If delayed, such delays often result in opportunity lost because so many stars have to perfectly align to even begin such projects.

I see this a lot. In fact, I'd like to know what percentage of projects are initiated solely because there's the critical mass to do it, rather than because it's the right place to do it or because it has the most need for the work. That's kind of getting at my point. I think there's a tendency in some cases to avoid the difficult projects that are probably more "deserving" of the effort in order to pursue low-hanging fruit that is much easier to accomplish but may not have as great an ecological impact. Moshannon Creek is a good example of this prior to MCWA picking up the torch.

 

[Fish Sticks]

……….“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.”

That’s an admirable goal and worthwhile keeping in mind during habitat project conception. In many cases, however, it’s not applicable because it is difficult enough just to find a suitable project site given the other variables that affect the successful conception and completion of such projects. Examples, though not meant to be an exhaustive list, include landowner cooperation, physical accessibility of the site to heavy equipment and follow-up maintenance, volunteer groups interested in the specific water body or specific site, conflicts with utility pipelines, historical or archaeological road-blocks, adjacent landowners concerned that their view of the water body involved will be blocked by trees, local municipality and permitted discharger concerns (yes, that’s happened) as in ….if the stream improves is the government going to come to us with additional, more stringent regulations regarding our operations or our discharge permit?

Additionally, dam removal projects in particular require an opportunistic approach so delaying one project in favor of another, more preferable one that might occur is generally not a great approach. If delayed, such delays often result in opportunity lost because so many stars have to perfectly align to even begin such projects.

Mike i e been volunteering in stream restoration for 10 years hit everyone of those hurdles(even archeological dig at historic schaefferstown) and pa fish and boats lack of public education on the value of native species and industrial revolution era invasive fish/native fish management policies are still by far and away my biggest hurdle as someone spearheading a watershed effort with native target species as my primary objective.

Honestly everything else is a pain in the you know what but it’s doable. You eventually problem solve adjust. I have had 5 consultants meet with one of our biggest projects and 5 revisions of plans and after 3 years we got design and permitting submitted with a collaboration between landowners who originally had HUGE CONCERNS, point source issues, state infrastructure abutting, and we are handling it.

What am i supposed to when the people beating their chests as conservationists in the fly fishing community stand in the way of conservation if its not good for fishing?
How do i fix that one when the messaging from pa fish and boat is fishing above all else?which consultant state agency or land owner mediation is going to fix the fact that we have been socially conditioned watching stocking trucks fire up the fish cannons shooting out some of the worst knvasive fish species on the planet next to the dont transport zebra mussel signs. How does that hippacritical culture and entitlement the comission has passed on to anglers get un road blocked?

What can I do as a conservationist with someone who calls
efforts directed by solid fisheries science and national agencies “native purist”. What the heck do With that???? Its kinds of anti conservation extremes are mostly only in PA things and i wonder over and over how did we get here. Case and point we are the last state in the northeast with nonprivate stocking auth.

 

[Fish Sticks]

……….“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.”

That’s an admirable goal and worthwhile keeping in mind during habitat project conception. In many cases, however, it’s not practical because it is difficult enough just to find a suitable project site given the other variables that affect the successful conception and completion of such projects. Examples, though not meant to be an exhaustive list, include landowner cooperation, physical accessibility of the site to heavy equipment and follow-up maintenance, volunteer groups interested in the specific water body or specific site, conflicts with utility pipelines, historical or archaeological road-blocks, adjacent landowners concerned that their view of the water body involved will be blocked by trees, local municipality and permitted discharger concerns (yes, that’s happened) as in ….if the stream improves is the government going to come to us with additional, more stringent regulations regarding our operations or our discharge permit?

Additionally, dam removal projects in particular require an opportunistic approach so delaying one project in favor of another, more preferable one that might occur is generally not a great approach. If delayed, such delays often result in opportunity lost because so many stars have to perfectly align to even begin such projects.

I think you absolutely right about these challenges mike. I’ve faced many personally in my volunteer efforts. But those land owners, townships, and even some huge state agencies besides PFBC that are just concerned with using the words “wild trout fishery” to get people to sign up for projects, embody that cultural barrier of not seeing the nuts and bolts ecological mechanistic value of native species and biodiversity. Then like silver fox said your made out to be a “native purist” or zealot.

 

[silverfox]

I've never been a huge fan of fallen trees. Chop and drop. Sure, it may create some temporary habitat. But for me standing, large, mature trees seem to be the key, especially for brook trout. I cringe when a large tree is dropped in the floodplain. It may be beneficial short term by creating some debris, but you just lost a beneficial structure maker that you can't get back for 100 years.

Aside from shade, a large mature tree is like pounding a stake in the ground. The stream has to build it's channel around them and their very large root systems, which are as extensive as the trees canopy. Those roots penetrate the ground all over, and water seeps along them, and adds groundwater interaction as well. The ground itself is like a dam, filled with reinforcing roots, and the stream has to make it's way through that.

IMO, rock structure, wetlands and all are great. But in my experience, TREES are important for habitat. Standing ones. I can't tell you how many times I've fished brookie streams that are pretty poor in large stretches. Straight chutes, through open land, meadows, or even less mature hardwood forests. And then you come on, say, a mature hemlock stretch. And the entire stream just changes it's character completely. The moment you enter it's like the twilight zone, even the sound changes. Its overall slower, meanders more into S bends trying to find it's way through the wall of roots. There's more pronounced pools and riffles. There's ledges and deep pockets next to riffles. The ground is soft and spongy and holds water, even in drought periods the little spring seeps stay wet. There's no muddy areas, just sponge. Undercut banks and rootwads, but the banks aren't falling in because they are held in place by those roots. The water even seems clearer, I assume more groundwater filtering, and more stable banks, and the slow spots allow sediment to fall out. Everything feels cooler, and if you carry a thermometer, the water is truly a degree or three cooler than it was just upstream.

And the fish are there in numbers.

On a lighter note, here's the stream I mentioned. If anyone knows where this is, please don't mention it. You really have to be there to see what I mentioned in my post. All those barrens are like walking on a giant sponge. There's probably more water under you than in the stream. These photos are just a tiny glimpse. It's absolutely loaded with brook trout. There was never any human activity up there. At least not any organized resource extraction beyond logging 100 years or so ago. No mining. No roads. It's a few mile hike in from any direction. I don't think it needs anything other than left alone despite the water being open to the blazing sun and probably not your textbook stream.

There are about a dozen of these springs down along the stream.

 

[Mike]

But even this stream has apparent plastic bottle litter near the lower right hand corner of the last pic.

 

[jifigz]

But even this stream has apparent plastic bottle litter near the lower right hand corner of the last pic.

You can never get too far from humans and their presence while in PA, as you know. I can't say for certain I know exactly which stream this is, but it really reminds me of a stream I encountered on a backpacking trip years ago. The entire time I was hiking through and around the area I was imagining the fantastic brookie fishing the stream would one day afford me. I love exploration of small streams not seen by many anglers' boots.

 

[wildtrout2]

I love exploration of small streams not seen by many anglers' boots.

There are a couple real small UNTs to the Lehigh that meet this description.

One stream I fish fairly often has two very small tribs that I've always told myself I'm going to explore. They both go up the steep mountainside through really thick rhodo though. I have this childlike vision in my head, that I'm going to fight my way through the jungle of rhodo for a ways, then come to a section that opens up a bit.
It's in this area, where I find a good size plunge pool that has a couple very nice natives in it. The rest just needs to be played out.

 

[jifigz]

There are a couple real small UNTs to the Lehigh that meet this description.

One stream I fish fairly often has two very small tribs that I've always told myself I'm going to explore. They both go up the steep mountainside through really thick rhodo though. I have this childlike vision in my head, that I'm going to fight my way through the jungle of rhodo for a ways, then come to a section that opens up a bit.
It's in this area, where I find a good size plunge pool that has a couple very nice natives in it. The rest just needs to be played out.

The backpacking trip I was referring to wasn't far from that region......

 

[silverfox]

But even this stream has apparent plastic bottle litter near the lower right hand corner of the last pic.

Lot of folks hunt up there.

 

[rustbeltwilds]

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.

wood is good

 

[Swattie87]

Being in a basin completely above 2400 feet does wonders for stream temps, even if exposed to the sun.

I think the water being held underground by the bogs and emerging as those springs helps too.

 

[silverfox]

Being in a basin completely above 2400 feet does wonders for stream temps, even if exposed to the sun.

I think the water being held underground by the bogs and emerging as those springs helps too.

Absolutely. Which is more or less my point. Situations vary. Same with beaver impact. In a low elevation valley, the thermal impact from beaver ponds may be undesirable. In a high elevation setting (or latitudes much further north than PA), the habitat created by the ponds may be better than if it was a single channel.

 

[troutbert]

On some small streams I've seen in NCPA, the population of brook trout in just one beaver pond probably exceeds that of the entire rest of the stream.

On one of these small streams, the beaver pond extended the whole way across the valley floor, was about 3 acres in size, and was loaded with brook trout, including some big ones. The stream itself was small, and mostly shallow.

I went back a few years later and the beaver pond was entirely gone.