PFBC survey data and application of findings

[salmonoid]

My grandparents had a cabin near there and my first native brookie probably came from a small headwater stream that had one of it's origins in a spring that my uncle dips his drinking and wash water from today. You could fish this small stream down to the SF boundary, but we were always warned to not venture onto the other side, as it was claimed to be private club water and.patrolled. I never ventured across the line and don't know if that was true or not but club water that maybe gets stocked and serves as a thermal refuge seems like a plausible explanation to me.

 

[Mike]

Now that I have seen the Brown Trout data in a pm from Sixfoot (thank you) for the stream’s two sampling sites, I suspect substrate or other physical habitat quality being different at the upstream site in comparison to the downstream site resulting in lower ST density upstream. I would wonder about possible beaver dams or other low gradient features that could create habitat for larger ST but degrade substrate for reproductive purposes. Or perhaps the substrate is naturally sandy in association with local geology/soils. Tough to tell what’s going on in this stream’s case without some description of physical habitat, including substrate composition, and perhaps chemistry. This would all be available on what is often a check box section on sampling station data sheets for physical habitat and on data entry sections for water chems. Additionally, there is usually a comment section for each site on good field data sheets in which more descriptive info about the site, drainage basin, etc would be included.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Now that I have seen the Brown Trout data in a pm from Sixfoot (thank you) for the stream’s two sampling sites, I suspect substrate or other physical habitat quality being different at the upstream site in comparison to the downstream site resulting in lower ST density upstream. I would wonder about possible beaver dams or other low gradient features that could create habitat for larger ST but degrade substrate for reproductive purposes. Or perhaps the substrate is naturally sandy in association with local geology/soils. Tough to tell what’s going on in this stream’s case without some description of physical habitat, including substrate composition, and perhaps chemistry. This would all be available on what is often a check box section on sampling station data sheets for physical habitat and on data entry sections for water chems. Additionally, there is usually a comment section for each site on good field data sheets in which more descriptive info about the site, drainage basin, etc would be included.

I appreciate your response. Thank you

 

[JG63]

I don't know, I know nothing about the creek X other than what I'm seeing on the data.
It was last surveyed on August 22'

At that time it had 3 -10" , 2- 11", 2 -12" , and 1 -13" brookies in that stream at least in 800 meters.

That seems unusual, but I would expect the PFBC biologist to be able to tell stocked fish from wild fish for the most part. So if they don't count that as data, then it seems like this stream gets a decent influx of larger wild brook trout in the summer, possibly from downstream larger watershed sources, it is also fairly long, has little brown trout influence in it, has excellent physical habitat or private land with little pressure. It would be nice to know why.

You may have answered your own question - given the good habitat, and especially the “little pressure” part - nothing promotes healthy ecosystems better than leaving them alone - unless a Costco is being built over the aquifer … I’m not sure that some stockers aren’t included in the PAFBC data though - I’d like to think that our State fish still has a fighting chance in some of our modern watersheds

 

[Tabasco-Joe]

As a general question, I'm interested in doing some research on streams in Area 3, the state web site lists no biologist reports or surveys on streams in the area that I can find. Just lakes and the Susquehanna River. There is a note that additional reports are available upon request. Is there another listing on the PFBC site? Or does one need to request it?

 

[Mike]

Is there another listing on the PFBC site? Or does one need to request it

The archives of Biologist Reports were largely ditched from the web site unfortunately. You’ll need to make a request through the Area 3 AFM. The best and most practical route is to just make the request by phone or email. If a report exists in electronic form, it can most likely be emailed to you. Don’t expect a quick response now, however. AFM’s are now in the extended height of the field season and limited desk time is devoted to mandatory, in-house administrative items. It would have been better to make such as request prior to the spring/early summer portion of the field season.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

You may have answered your own question - given the good habitat, and especially the “little pressure” part - nothing promotes healthy ecosystems better than leaving them alone - unless a Costco is being built over the aquifer … I’m not sure that some stockers aren’t included in the PAFBC data though - I’d like to think that our State fish still has a fighting chance in some of our modern watersheds

I'm sorry, I don't know that either of them exist.

I was giving a fairly good list of conditions needed to produce such fish.
I don't know if any of them are true or if all of them are.

 

[Tabasco-Joe]

The archives of Biologist Reports were largely ditched from the web site unfortunately. You’ll need to make a request through the Area 3 AFM. The best and most practical route is to just make the request by phone or email. If a report exists in electronic form, it can most likely be emailed to you. Don’t expect a quick response now, however. AFM’s are now in the extended height of the field season and limited desk time is devoted to mandatory, in-house administrative items. It would have been better to make such as request prior to the spring/early summer portion of the field season.

Thanks Mike.