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
Partners
86
437
606
766
724
PFBC Staff
217
305
262
324
336
303
(809 mi)
Total
% Wild Trout
54%
2014
742
868
1,090
1,060
(1,762 mi) (2,057 mi) (2,424 mi) (1,959 mi)
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%
6 streams
26%
n = 23 streams
15 streams
65%
Brook Trout
No trout
Dry
Results
White Deer Creek watershed
4 streams
13%
n = 30 streams
7 streams
23%
Brook Trout
19 streams
64%
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
Soil features
Land use
Disturbance
• Elevation
• Watershed size
• Stream channel
slope
• Channel length
• Carbonate
derived
• Sandstone
derived
• Boulders/gravel
/ alluvium
• Forested
• Aquatic
• Wetlands
• Developed
• 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
Presence/Absence
• Linear regression of parameters • ANOVA comparison of
and population size
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
Measured Fish
Measured No Fish
Predicted Fish
Predicted No Fish
7 tributaries
1 tributary
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
Funding + support provided by:
RK Mellon Foundation
PA Fish and Boat Commission
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
• Andrew Anthony
• Desmond Edwards
• Steve Szoke
Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds
Degenstein Foundation
Loyalsock Creek Watershed Association
Dwight Lewis Lumber Company
Landowners
Questions