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 303 742 868 1,090 1,060 (809 mi) (1,762 mi) (2,057 mi) (2,424 mi) (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

13 streams 15 streams n = 43 streams 30% 35%

15 streams 35%

Brook Trout No trout Dry Results Loyalsock Creek watershed

10 streams 8%

n = 126 streams

53 streams 60 streams 42% 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 Soil features Land use Disturbance • Elevation • Carbonate • Forested • Mining • Watershed size derived • Aquatic • Roadways • Stream channel • Sandstone • Wetlands • Gas drilling slope derived • Developed • Channel length • Boulders/gravel / alluvium 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 White Deer Hole Creek • Primarily Lycoming and Union Counties, White Deer Creek Pennsylvania • Primarily forested watersheds in PA DCNR Bald Eagle Forest – High quality habitats Watershed Data

• Sample location (GPS coordinates) used to identify tributary • 30 Un-named tributaries • Contributing area calculated from sampled in WDC location and Digital Elevation Model • 19 held brook trout (hydrologic modeling) • • 4 dry runs 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) • % Area with carbonate bedrock • Stream Slope (m/km) • % 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: Funding + support provided by: RK Mellon Foundation • John Panas • Sam Silknetter PA Fish and Boat Commission • Dan Isenberg National Fish and Wildlife Foundation • Andrew Anthony Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds • Desmond Edwards • Steve Szoke Degenstein Foundation

Loyalsock Creek Watershed Association

Dwight Lewis Lumber Company

Landowners Questions