Importance of un-named tributary streams to Brook Trout populations. Dr. Jonathan M. Niles Dr. Dan Ressler

Importance of un-named tributary streams to Brook Trout populations. Dr. Jonathan M. Niles Dr. Dan Ressler

Pennsylvania Streams All streams of PA have a designated use - Huge resource - 8,011 named tributaries: 37,386 total miles - 54,714 un-named tributaries: 45,900 total miles Total: 62,725 streams, 83,286 miles Use determined by DEP - Wild trout waters receive greater protection under PA Code Coldwater Fishes (CWF) 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93. - Wetlands located in or along floodplain of wild trout streams protected as Exceptional Value Wetlands.

Pennsylvania Streams Lack of assessment of tributary streams - 52% of named, 2% of un-named tributaries sampled Inadequate water quality protection - Unassessed waters likely contain trout Potential for expansion of wild trout waters

PFBC Unassessed Waters Initiative

Extent of Unassessed Waters beginning of 2009-3,850 named tributaries - 54,714 un-named tributaries From: R. Weber, PFBC Surveyed Sections Unassessed Sections

Unassessed Waters Initiative Number of Tributaries Sampled 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Partners 86 437 606 766 724 PFBC Staff 217 305 262 324 336 Total 303 742 (809 mi) (1,762 mi) 868 (2,057 mi) 1,090 (2,424 mi) 1,060 (1,959 mi) % Wild Trout 54% 55% 52% 38% 48% 5 Year Total 4,063 tributaries Sampled (2,793 Named: 1,270 Un-named) 9,011 Miles of Streams Since 2010, 469 new tributaries added to the wild trout list (1,231 miles) From: R. Weber, PFBC

Extent of Unassessed Waters beginning of 2015-1,057 named tributaries - 53,444 un-named tributaries From: R. Weber, PFBC Surveyed Sections Unassessed Sections

Un-named tributaries What is an Un-named Tributary - Geographic Names Information System - USGS - Related to National Hydrology Data Set - Pennsylvania slightly modifies this - Goal to include geographic features and submit new stream names

Un-named tributaries Un-named tributaries Named by PFBC using Geographic Features

Goals For 2013-2014 Unassessed Waters Initiative Susquehanna University focused on Un-named tributaries

Goals Determine across a regional geographic area of likely brook trout habitat what percentage of Un-named tributaries would have brook trout (Adult and YOY) What populations might exist in these streams? What factors might influence/predict finding brook trout?

Methods - Summer 2013 (June 10 to August 1) - Summer 2014 (June 2 to August 8) - Sampled 312 Un-Named tributaries according to NHD listing - 100m sample reach - 11 of these 312 tributaries had a geological feature like gap or hollow which PFBC will now consider a named tributary - Data presented will consider all 312 Un-named tributaries according to USGS guidelines.

Study watersheds Insert Dan s map

Results All streams 66 streams 21.2% n = 312 total streams sampled 132 streams 42.3% 108 streams 34.5% 6 streams 2.0% Brook Trout Brown Trout, no Brook Trout No trout Dry

Results Schrader Creek watershed n = 43 streams 13 streams 30% 15 streams 35% 15 streams 35% Brook Trout No trout Dry

Results Loyalsock Creek watershed 10 streams 8% n = 126 streams 53 streams 42% 60 streams 48% 3 streams 2% Brook Trout Brown Trout, no Brook Trout No trout Dry

Results Lycoming Creek watershed 2 streams 9% n = 23 streams 6 streams 26% 15 streams 65% Brook Trout No trout Dry

Results White Deer Creek watershed 4 streams 13% n = 30 streams 7 streams 23% 19 streams 64% Brook Trout No trout Dry

Modeling/ Tool for prediction of brook trout in Un-named tributaries Is there a way to predict probability of occurrence of brook trout in the 50,000+ Un-named tributaries left? Combine sampling data plus other aspects using GIS - Geology - Forest Cover - Slope - Aspect - Watershed Size - Length of Un-named tributaries

Conceptual model of finding suitable brook trout habitat Terrain features Elevation Watershed size Stream channel slope Channel length Soil features Carbonate derived Sandstone derived Boulders/gravel / alluvium Land use Forested Aquatic Wetlands Developed Disturbance Mining Roadways Gas drilling

Datasets GIS Analysis Terrain data from USGS Digital Elevation Models (10-m resolution) Stream path from USGS National Hydrography Dataset Soils data from USDA SSURGO Land-use data from USGS-LCI (2011) Disturbance data from PA DOT PA-DEP Via PASDA.PSU.EDU Air Temperature data from NOAA-NCDC All data is publically available and requires no field visits

Datasets- Biological Sampling Unassessed Waters Initiative data from field visits Site specific fish species info. (+ length and weight) Water chemistry information GPS location Site features

Study Area Subset of the 313 streams White Deer Creek Watershed White Deer Hole Creek Watershed Primarily Lycoming and Union Counties, Pennsylvania Primarily forested watersheds in PA DCNR Bald Eagle Forest High quality habitats White Deer Hole Creek White Deer Creek

Watershed Data 30 Un-named tributaries sampled in WDC 19 held brook trout 4 dry runs Sample location (GPS coordinates) used to identify tributary Contributing area calculated from location and Digital Elevation Model (hydrologic modeling) Contributing area used to derive Terrain/Soil/Land-use parameters

Statistical Approach Population Size Linear regression of parameters and population size Presence/Absence ANOVA comparison of properties from streams with fish and those without t value Pr(> t ) 0.00143

Estimating brook trout presence Initial step Five individual regression models of brook trout population/ abundance developed with over 60 different factors Final step Each model then used these factors (determined by multivariate regression) Watershed Area (km) Stream Slope (m/km) % Area with carbonate bedrock % Area developed land use For White Deer Creek, only statistically significant individual regression for brook trout population was watershed area (P r>f = 0.0473)

Tributary characteristics and fish populations were measured in 9 un-named, first order tributaries in White Deer Hole Creek Watershed (adjacent not used in regression equations) Prediction equations used on White Deer Hole Creek tributary characteristics Results simplified to Presence/Absence for comparison Predicted Fish Predicted No Fish Measured Fish 7 tributaries 1 tributary Measured No Fish No tributaries 1 tributary

Method also applied to a more distance watershed (Schrader Creek) with a broader range of land use and human impacts. 43 un-named tributaries 15 with brook trout populations For watersheds predicted to hold trout, 50% did not

Next steps Rebuild test regressions with more streams including those with greater diversity of land use types and human impacts Mining data Gas well drill sites Roads near tributary mouth Factor in a climate term to estimate location and elevation effects on water temperature

Acknowledgments Field Help: John Panas Sam Silknetter Dan Isenberg Andrew Anthony Desmond Edwards Steve Szoke Funding + support provided by: RK Mellon Foundation PA Fish and Boat Commission National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds Degenstein Foundation Loyalsock Creek Watershed Association Dwight Lewis Lumber Company Landowners

Questions