1 Heritage Strain Brook Trout: Remnants of

Transcription

Heritage Strain Brook Trout: Remnants of Adirondack History
Jeffrey T. Mogavero
Justin R. Dalaba
Biology Department
St. Lawrence University
23 Romoda Drive
Canton, NY 13617
1
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES............................................................................................ 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 7 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 9 METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 11 INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 11 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS MODELING ............................................................................................................ 11 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................. 12 PROBLEM DEFINITION ......................................................................................................... 12 BROOK TROUT NATURAL HISTORY ...................................................................................................................................... 13 HISTORICAL ADIRONDACK PARK CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................... 13 UNDERSTANDING HERITAGE STRAIN BROOK TROUT ....................................................................................................... 16 GENETIC DIVERSITY ............................................................................................................................................................... 20 ACIDIFIED WATERS ................................................................................................................................................................. 23 WARMING WATERS ................................................................................................................................................................ 25 NON-‐NATIVE COMPETITORS ................................................................................................................................................. 27 FISHING PRESSURE ................................................................................................................................................................. 30 MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Stocking .................................................................................................................................................................................. 31 Liming ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Pond reclamation ............................................................................................................................................................... 35 Non-‐native species ............................................................................................................................................................. 37 IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS............................................................................ 38 NATIVE BROOK TROUT AND THEIR HABITATS ................................................................................................................... 38 iii
NON-‐PROFIT GROUPS ............................................................................................................................................................. 38 GOVERNMENT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 39 FISHING GUIDES, SHOPS, AND LODGES ................................................................................................................................ 39 RECREATIONALISTS AND VISITORS ...................................................................................................................................... 40 RESEARCHERS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 41 GOVERNMENTAL ISSUES..................................................................................................... 42 DEVELOPMENT OF SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM ................................................... 44 PARAMETERIZING SOLUTIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 44 IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS .................................................................................... 45 Comprehensively update the current brook trout management plan ........................................................ 46 Remove all non-‐native fish species from the Adirondacks ............................................................................... 46 Eliminate global warming .............................................................................................................................................. 47 Stop toxic emissions ........................................................................................................................................................... 48 Survey lotic waterways for heritage brook trout strains ................................................................................. 48 Reclaim lotic waterways ................................................................................................................................................. 49 Increase youth participation and education .......................................................................................................... 50 IDENTIFICATION OF FEASIBLE SOLUTIONS ......................................................................................................................... 51 IDENTIFICATION OF BEST SOLUTIONS ................................................................................................................................. 52 EASE OF IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................. 53 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .................................................................................................... 55 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 57 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 59 LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................. 61 TABLE AND FIGURE CITATIONS ....................................................................................... 64 iv
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 65 APPENDIX A. INTERVIEW MATERIALS ................................................................................................................................ 65 Interview questions asked of stakeholders during interviews ........................................................................ 65 List of subjects interviewed for this study ................................................................................................................ 67 Other subjects contacted for interview ..................................................................................................................... 67 v
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1. Status of brook trout in the Northeast (EBTJV 2006). .................................................. 15 Figure 2. Nine heritage waters in the Adirondacks as defined by Keller (1979).......................... 18
Figure 3. Two heritage strain brook trout. Photos courtesy of David Crowne. ............................ 19 Figure 4. DEC map of brook trout decline from Saranac Lakes Wild Forest .............................. 30 Figure 5. DEC catch limit sign for Black Pond. Photo courtey of Justin Dalaba ......................... 32 Figure 6. Graph depicting the number of reclaimed ponds by year. Data courtesy of DEC. ....... 36 Figure 7. DEC fish barrier dam at Long Pond. Photo courtesy of Justin Dalaba. ........................ 37 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The eastern brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis, is a cold water fish native to the eastern
United States that survives best in high-quality lakes, ponds and streams. Widely regarded as a
symbol of clean freshwater, the drastic decline of original brook trout population levels in
regions such as the Adirondacks has made the survival of the brook trout an important
conservation biology issue. Within the Adirondack Park, a number of heritage strain of brook
trout exist, which represent a large portion of the genetic diversity among brook trout in the
eastern United States. These strains are native, wild, naturally reproducing fish that have not
been influenced by domestic strain stocked brook trout of unknown origin. The major threats to
the survival of heritage brook trout populations include, but are not limited to, competition for
resources with non-native or introduced species, lake acidification, increasing water temperatures,
poor land management and insufficient enforcement of fishing regulations. The biodiversity of
brook trout is of particular concern due to tremendous loss of heritage populations due to the
introduction of stocked domestic strain brook trout. Heritage strain brook trout have evolved in
isolation and adapted to the environmental conditions unique to their habitats, therefore the
addition of outside genes may reduce the fitness of heritage strain brook trout.
Along with genetic diversity, the beauty and varying coloration of brook trout makes this
species highly attractive as a sport fish to recreationists who have ventured to the Adirondacks
since the early 1800s in pursuit of these fish. The importance of brook trout as a sport fish in the
Adirondacks has both positives and negatives for the health and abundance of brook trout within
the Park. Human pressure has contributed to eastern brook trout decline through overharvest and
harmful fishing practices, but at the same time the accompanied increase in involvement and
awareness about the issue has led to successful conservation programs. Brook trout occupy the
7
same waters as two non-native trout, including brown and rainbow trout, which have been
introduced through stocking as another important sport fish. Due to their different life histories
and brook trout’s poor competitiveness with other species, brook trout populations are
dramatically reduced when in the same water as introduced non-native fish.
Management efforts have seemed to shift their focus toward favoring the reestablishment
of brook trout, however this comes with trade-offs for the wild native brook trout. Better
understanding of the issues Adirondack heritage brook trout face can help bring awareness about
how to best manage the remaining populations of these ice-age descendants. In order to ensure
the continued success of Adirondack heritage strain brook trout, we suggest comprehensively
updating the current management plan, continuing to support legislation to reduce air pollution
and global warming, and increasing youth participation and education. Sufficient funding for
research and management is crucial to ensure the preservation of remaining heritage brook trout
genetic diversity.
8
INTRODUCTION
This comprehensive case study involves two stories. The first story, about the decline of
eastern brook trout in general, sets the stage for the second story about heritage strain brook trout,
which are biological remnants of Adirondack history. In order to understand the problems that
heritage strain brook trout face, it is important to first understand the larger context of the brook
trout decline that has occurred throughout this trout species’ native range in the eastern United
States. To begin with, we will first provide a brief natural history of eastern brook trout,
including how the trout came about colonizing the northeast and how their extent has changed
significantly. While exploring the natural history of eastern brook trout, we will also address
what a heritage strain brook trout is and why these unique strains are important to biodiversity.
After setting the stage to understand eastern brook trout natural history and the role it
plays in the decline of heritage strain brook trout, we will then delve into the threats of
environmental stress and the human impacts on the persistence of heritage strain brook trout.
Environmental threats include acid rain deposition from the burning of fossil fuels and rising
water temperature as a result of global climate change, while human impacts include the
introduction of non-native competitors and overfishing pressure. Each of these threats will be
discussed in their own section of the Problem Definition, concluding with an examination of why
heritage strain brook trout conservation is a biodiversity issue. The relation of each threat to the
management and solutions for restoring brook trout populations will be explored later in this case
study. Also incorporated into the Problem Definition are the stories of success and failure for
heritage strain brook trout to recover from decline.
Next, the past and current management practices for brook trout in general will be
examined, as well as those that exist for heritage strain brook trout in the Adirondacks. The
9
current New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) management plan
for wild and hybrid brook trout was established in 1979 as a 15-year plan, and it is still used and
referenced today (Fieroh, personal communication1; Keller 1979). Within the management
section of this case study, we will discuss DEC efforts to reduce lake acidification through the
use of liming projects, the reclamation of lakes and ponds to reestablish these waterbodies with
heritage brook trout, and baitfish restrictions. In addition to protecting the diminished number
heritage strain brook trout waters, the goal of DEC management efforts is to restore heritage
strain brook trout populations so that the trout will continue to breed naturally in wild
populations, providing rich angling experiences to fishermen.
After management efforts are presented, we will transition to the stakeholders involved in
the issue of brook trout decline and the role that these stakeholders play in the future of heritage
brook trout in the Adirondacks. For the purpose of this case study we identify a stakeholder as
any individual, organization of individuals, or animal that has a direct or indirect interest or
reliance upon heritage strain brook trout populations throughout the Adirondacks and the
northeast. The stakeholders may range from the ecosystems supporting brook trout to those who
study and appreciate the existence of heritage strain brook trout or those making legislation to
reduce fossil fuel emissions and contribute to the recovery of acidified waters.
Finally, this case study will identify the potential solutions, feasible solutions and best
solutions for restoring heritage strain brook trout in the Adirondacks. Along with parameterizing
and identifying satisfactory solutions, we suggest how to best implement these solutions. In order
to ensure ease of implementation for our proposed solutions, we lay out a step-by-step
implementation plan. This plan takes into consideration the importance of improving heritage
1
Phone Interview 16 March 2016
10
strain brook trout populations as well as the value in maintaining healthy ecosystems and
fisheries within the Adirondacks. The conservation of heritage brook trout, the last remnants of
once prolific brook trout populations, should be a priority to conservation biologists because
without better management and restoration efforts, an important genetic resource will be on the
brink of being lost forever.
METHODS
In order to complete this comprehensive case study, we utilized several research methods
in order to better understand and critically analyze the conservation issues surrounding heritage
brook trout.
Interviews
We reached out to a number of stakeholders to conduct phone interviews, including flyfishing shops, DEC personnel, university researchers, and fly-fishermen. The purpose of these
interviews was to understand the multitude of stakeholders and the perspectives of those who are
deeply engaged in the management and use of heritage brook trout. Interviews were conducted
via phone after initial email contact. When necessary, we followed up with the stakeholders we
interviewed by email for additional questions and resources. A list of questions asked during
each phone interview can be found in Appendix A.
Geographic information systems modeling
Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis was conducted using ESRI’s ArcGIS
version 10.3.1 software. All data was provided by courtesy of the St. Lawrence University GIS
Program, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and the Eastern Brook Trout
Joint Venture (EBTJV).
11
Literature review
We conducted a comprehensive literature review utilizing sources from online databases,
DEC publications and web pages, newspaper articles, North Country Public Radio (NCPR)
reports, magazine articles, fishing forum posts, and non-profit organization publications. Peerreviewed scientific literature was obtained using Web of Science, JSTOR, and Google Scholar.
DEC publications and web pages were retrieved from either the DEC website or from personal
communication with Jon Fieroh, the DEC Region 5 Aquatic Biologist. Newspaper articles were
retrieved through the St. Lawrence University web search platforms and general web searches.
NCPR reports were found by searching the NCPR website. Magazine articles were located via
Google searches. Publications from non-profit organizations, including reports, presentations and
conservation action plans were obtained from Trout Unlimited and the EBTJV.
PROBLEM DEFINITION
The pertinent threats to New York brook trout that the EBTJV identifies, in descending
order, include high water temperature, the spread of one or more non-native fish, brown trout,
poor land management, beavers, and riparian habitat impairment and destruction (EBTJV 2006).
The two major threats to Adirondack brook trout in particular, which the DEC manages, include
the effects of acid deposition and the introduction of non-native competitors. In order to
understand all of the potential environmental stressors and problems facing heritage strain brook
trout, one must first have a sense of how the eastern brook trout colonized the Adirondack region
and the species’ importance to the history of the Park. Exactly what a heritage strain brook trout
is, and their unique genetic diversity, will also be explored. Brook trout natural history and the
importance of heritage strain brook trout contextualize the vulnerability of these fish to
12
environmental stress and human pressure. Finally, we will present information to understand the
management efforts that are necessary to conserve this biodiverse species.
Brook trout natural history
The ancient order of fish that eastern brook trout belong to had its beginnings more than
100 million years ago in the Oligocene Epoch. Today, the Salmonidae include the salmons,
trouts, chars, whitefishes, and ciscos, all varying in outward appearance (Karas 1997). On one
side of the Salmonidae family tree are the two genera Salmo and Oncorhynchus, which include
brown and rainbow trout, what many consider to be the only “true trouts.” On the other side of
the family tree is the genus Salvelinus, which includes the S. alpinus species (Arctic char), S.
fontinalis species (brook trout) and the S. namaycush species (lake trout). Lake trout prefer deep
landlocked waters and dwell in the depths of Adirondack lakes, where cold, dark, and highly
oxygenated water is found. Brook trout also require highly oxygenated water, but can be found
in both lentic (stillwater) and lotic (moving water) systems including stillwater lakes and flowing
streams or rivers, respectively (Earl 2010). Two other trout species are found in the Adirondacks:
brown trout (Salmo trutta), which is a European trout, and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
from the western United States, both introduced for sport fishing purposes (McCullough and
Stegemann 1991). Although rainbow trout, brown trout and brook trout all belong to the
Salmonidae family, they each belong to a different genus and species. In summary, brook trout
are not truly a trout but are close relatives of the Arctic char, which influences their life history
and the types of cold water habitats they prefer to live in (Foley 2015).
Historical Adirondack Park context
Eastern brook trout populations once spanned from Georgia to the Hudson Bay, however
their range has been significantly diminished from their previous extent (EBTJV 2006).
13
Unfortunately, their original extent in the northeast has been reduced to very few intact regions,
with the Adirondacks holding important remnant populations (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Map from the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture showing the current range of brook
trout in the Northeastern United States as of 2006. Green regions represent where original brook
trout populations remain intact, red regions represent where there has been a significant
reduction in population levels and grey regions show where eastern brook trout no longer exist.
14
Given the prevalence of original populations of brook trout in the Adirondacks, few
places remain as synonymous with brook trout fishing as the Adirondacks of New York State. To
fully understand the role that brook trout have played throughout the history of the Adirondack
Park, it is imperative to first understand how brook trout came to be in the lakes, ponds, and
streams of the Adirondacks.
Spotted with glacial scars and mountainous peaks, the Adirondacks are home to many
unique waters where brook trout have come to be considered different strains due to their
isolation within specific waterways and watersheds. The last glacier to have covered the
Adirondack region, which began about 55,000 years ago, has shaped the current distribution of
brook trout (Karas 1997). The retreat of the last glacier to cover the Adirondacks was uneven,
causing repeated scouring of that land that created the many ponds and lakes that the
Adirondacks now contain. After a long period of melting and re-entering valleys, then melting
again through climatic shifts, this glacier made a new range of habitats available for brook trout
as it moved northward, resulting in the opportunity for brook trout to inhabit the northeastern
United States (Karas 1997). Such geologic activity dictated what water bodies would exist,
therefore predetermining the distribution of brook trout populations still prevalent today.
Brook trout were assigned as the official New York state fish in 1975 and have come to
symbolize cold, clean waters throughout Appalachia and north into Canada, including the remote
Adirondack wilderness (Hackett 2013). Not all aquatic ecosystems have remained pristine in the
Adirondack State Park due to acid deposition and habitat destruction. Such negative habitat
impacts have led to efforts by the DEC to stock brook trout in water bodies that have
experienced population decline, which will be explained more in the coming sections.
Unfortunately for brook trout present today, the glacier-scarred terrain of the Adirondacks has a
15
geology prone to acidification and waters with sparse aquatic insect life, two components that
reduce the chances of waters producing large brook trout (Karas 1997).
In addition to the natural history, it is important to understand the history of human
activity within the Adirondack region. The opportunity for land development among the dense
forests and mountains brought people to the region and resulted in the economic exploitation of
minerals, timber, water, hydroelectric and tourism resources. The Adirondack Park and Preserve,
which encompasses over six million acres, has largely been stripped of the original forest and
many of its rivers have been harnessed for electricity (Karas 1997). The money from early
development and exploitation had both opened the door to brook trout fishing and eventually
destroyed the fishery. Logging and wood harvesting have been identified as major threats to
brook trout in the past due to the resulting habitat disturbance and siltation, contributing to the
reduced populations at present in comparison to historic levels (NYS DEC 2015). Some studies
have pointed to fragmentation of habitats by dams and roads as having a local or regional effect
on brook trout decline (Hudy et al. 2008), however this fragmentation does not appear to be a
major threat to Adirondack brook trout at present. The natural and developmental history of the
Adirondacks provides the basis for understanding how brook trout have become tremendously
depleted from their historical levels and why there is such a large need for management of their
population levels today.
Understanding heritage strain brook trout
In 1979, DEC Associate Aquatic Biologist Walt Keller published the brook trout
management plan that defined 11 unique heritage brook trout strains in New York State. Of these
11 strains, nine strains were native to Adirondack waters, whereas the other two strains could be
found in the Catskill Mountains. When establishing the 11 heritage strains in the state, Keller
16
defined a strain as “a genetically distinct group of individuals of common origin and identified
by the water(s) of origin of the parent stock(s)” (Keller 1979). Similarly, the Cornell Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) defines heritage brook trout populations as “wild strains of brook
trout that maintain the original genetic characteristics of a specific lake population” (Honnedaga
Lake…2016). Each of these heritage strains contain phenotypic differences, and genetic studies
of brook trout populations confirmed that the 11 heritage strains are genetically unique (Perkins
et al. 1993). The eleven New York strains were named according to the lake that they were found
in, including Balsam Lake, Dix Pond, Honnedaga Lake, Horn Lake, Little Tupper Lake, Nate
Pond, Stink Lake, Tamarack Pond, Tunis Lake, and two Windfall Ponds (Keller 1979). All but
Balsam Lake and Tunis Lake exist within the Adirondacks (Fig. 2).
17
Figure 2. Source ponds for the original nine strains of Adirondack heritage brook trout as defined
by Keller (1979). Map created in ArcMap GIS software.
Since the original distinction of the nine Adirondack heritage strains, the Tamarack Pond strain
has been lost and one Windfall Pond strain and the Nate Pond strain are endangered or close to
extinction (Earl 2010).
Heritage brook trout from these source ponds are known to vary in their outward
characteristics, or phenotype, based off of strain (Fig. 3).
18
Figure 3. Adirondack heritage strain brook trout from two different water bodies. On the left is a
Windfall heritage strain and on the right is a Little Tupper heritage strain. Note phenotypic
differences in coloration between the two different strains. Photos courtesy of David Crowne.
Fishermen claim that heritage brook trout coloration varies noticeably depending upon the
environment or body of water they live in, even within the Adirondacks, which is one reason that
the trout are so attractive as a sport fish (Natural Selections 2006). It is important to note that all
of the heritage brook trout strains in the Adirondacks are from ponded waters. Keller (1979) did
not address potential heritage strains in flowing waters. However, it suspected that there very
well may be heritage strains of brook trout in a number of remote Adirondack streams and rivers,
such as the Cold River (Braico, personal communication2). A lack of funding, lack of adequate
personnel, and large geographic area required for a complete study are reasons why the DEC has
not conducted stream and river surveys of potential new heritage strains (Braico, personal
communication3).
As far as heritage brook trout are concerned, small ponded waters act as a last refuge
because the brook trout that once inhabited the large bodies of water in the Adirondacks have
2
3
Email 10 March 2016
Email 10 March 2016
19
been lost forever and are now stocked (Radovich, personal communication4). The eastern United
States has a long history of trout stocking programs, which have led to a dramatic decrease in the
number of original (pre-stocking) brook trout populations. While stocking programs will be
covered more in-depth when reviewing management practices, it is important to understand the
role that past stocking practices have played in diminishing brook trout genetic diversity.
The effects of stocking practices have made it necessary to define specific strains as “heritage.”
Domesticated brook trout were first stocked by the DEC in New York State in 1879-1880. These
domesticated brook trout were selected for stocking programs based not off of their ability to
survive in the wild, but their ability to thrive in the hatchery system (Fieroh, personal
communication5). The introduction of domesticated brook trout led to intraspecific breeding
between wild strain brook trout and domestic strain brook trout, harming the fitness of wild
strain brook trout. After well over a century of stocking domestic strain brook trout, wild strain
brook trout are so unique as to require a separate definition as a “heritage” strain brook trout.
Such heritage strain brook trout have no known stocking history. Throughout the entire native
range of brook trout in the eastern U.S., heritage strains exist only in a limited number of places
including Maine, northern New Hampshire and Vermont, and the Adirondacks (TU
Conservation Success Index...2007).
Genetic diversity
In the interest of conservation biology, the preservation of the unique resource of heritage
strain brook trout biodiversity is of primary importance. As previously alluded to, intraspecific
breeding that results from the introduction of domesticated brook trout is a threat to the overall
4
5
Phone Interview 8 April 2016
20
genetic diversity among heritage strain brook trout as well as the fitness of these unique
individuals. When a population of fish has been isolated for many years and has adapted to the
specific conditions of their local environment, the introduction of outside genes can result in
reduction of fitness, which means populations are not able to maintain or increase their numbers
in succeeding generations.
It has been suggested that individual heritage populations should be the primary
ecological units on which management strategies are based due to the unique genetic differences
that have been confirmed among most of the heritage waters outlined by Walt Keller in 1979
(Perkins et al. 1993). While brook trout are not the only trout species present in Adirondack
waters, the differing life histories between brook trout, rainbow trout and brown trout prevent
interspecific breeding to form hybrid trout, except for in rare unusual cases that do not occur
often in the wild. These three trout species may spawn in the some of the same waters, however
their physical characteristics and variances in spawning times and location of nests, create a
barrier for hybridization among species (Phares 2005).
Genetic variation is what allows part of a population to survive, should environmental
conditions change in a way that favors one genetic composition over another based on greater
individual fitness (Frankham 2005). Low-diversity populations are more likely to suffer from
loss of adaptive genetic diversity as a result of inevitable inbreeding for small, closed,
reproducing populations (Frankham et al. 2014). Furthermore, there is compelling evidence to
support the hypothesis that inbreeding depression, loss of adaptive genetic diversity, and the
accumulation of deleterious alleles in wild species can increase extinction risk (Frankham 2005).
In the context of heritage brook trout populations that have been isolated for many generations,
inbreeding depression and loss of allelic richness from mutation accumulation could be
21
indicative of suppressed ability to adapt and respond to environmental stress. However, lack of
funding for scientific research in this area has resulted in a lack of complete understanding for
Adirondack brook trout genetic diversity. Some researchers have not been able to distinguish
between different life history strategies or examine possible genetic differences among eastern
brook trout populations because the data were unavailable for 80 percent of sub watersheds,
suggesting a significant lack of knowledge around genetic variation (Hudy et al. 2008).
When heritage strain brook trout that exist in isolation are managed through stocking of
additional brook trout, they could perhaps become more vulnerable to environmental stress due
to a reduced pool of adaptive genes. For these reasons, the conservation of biodiversity among
heritage strain brook trout that have long evolved to survive in their unique habitats should be a
priority. Early studies examined overall longevity of wild, domestic and hybrid (intraspecific)
strains of brook trout in the Adirondacks and found wild and hybrid strains to consistently
exhibit greater longevity to domestically-produced fish in the absence of fishing pressure (Flick
and Webster 1976). The gross production and lifespan per unit of wild and hybrid groups was 50
percent greater than domestic strains per unit of fish stocked. This preliminary research may
demonstrate greater ability of hybrids to survive in the wild, however their resilience is not
reflected in their ability to reproduce successfully (Flick and Webster1976).
There is some confidence to be gained in understanding the effectiveness of management
at supporting longer-lived, more environmentally tolerant individuals, yet hybridization also
comes at a cost of losing the original genetics of a population. More importantly, the threat to
biodiversity of Adirondack brook trout due to their long-term isolation in some waters will likely
have implications for brook trout’s ability to respond to environmental change. There appears to
be an existing gap in the scientific knowledge due to lack of funding for specialized biologists to
22
study these special fish (Crowne, personal communication6). Overall, it is important to
understand the amount of genetic diversity of brook trout in the Adirondacks that may have been
lost for various reasons, which will be explored further in the next sections.
Acidified waters
The environment brook trout originally colonized became more acidic as brook trout
range expanded northward following melting continental ice sheets, increasing brook trout range
to include waterways surrounded by coniferous forests and leading to the development of the
ability to cope with waters high in tannic acid leaching into the surrounding water. Eastern brook
trout can generally survive a fairly wide pH range, depending on their environment, but their
ability to function and reproduce becomes greatly suppressed when pH falls below five (Warren
et al. 2005). From 1984 to 1987, research showed that nearly twenty five percent of waters in the
Adirondacks had pH values of five or less, representing critically hazardous conditions for the
survival of brook trout (Roy et al. 2012). Acid rain deposition in the Adirondacks has historically
led to pH levels that push the lower limit of brook trout survival in the already acidic, coniferousleachate filled waters with low buffering capacity.
The watersheds within the Adirondacks, composed largely of crystalline bedrock, are
much more susceptible to acidification. Adirondack highland waters that are located above
granite or other igneous bedrock have relatively low capacity to buffer acidity in comparison to
lowland regions with higher buffering capacity due to limestone or marble bedrock composition
(Chiarenzelli et al. 2012). Additionally, the elevated terrain, impermeable bedrock and relatively
high amounts of rain make this region one of the most sensitive to acidification in North America
6
23
(Roy et al. 2012). Fossil fuel emissions are a major source of acid and mercury deposition in
Adirondack waters due to the release of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide from industrial activity
in the Midwest travelling downwind to the Adirondacks (Roy et al. 2012). High mercury
concentrations and their sub-lethal effects on food chains are also identified as a potential
problem facing heritage strain brook trout from fossil fuel emissions (Josephson, personal
communication7). All of this has contributed to greater acidification of the unique heritage brook
trout habitats over the past century.
There are success stories, however, as some Adirondack waters have made a significant
recovery from acidification. As an example, the natural recovery of Honnedaga Lake stands as
an homage to the resiliency of both Adirondack waters and brook trout. Keller (1979) identified
the Honnedaga heritage strain of brook trout to be in grave danger of being lost due to
acidification of Honnedaga Lake. When Keller (1979) assessed heritage strains, the Honnedaga
strain was predicted to go extinct. For several decades, there was no sign of the trout, and the
brook trout were thought to be lost from this habitat (Fieroh, personal communication8). The lake
never received pH-raising lime treatments, yet managed to naturally recover from acidification
over time. After little attention during the late 1980s and early 1990s, the native strain brook
trout were again observed in the lake (Honnedaga Lake...2016). The Honnedaga strain brook
trout likely sought refuge in feeder streams to the lake, where waters contained more tolerable
pH levels. Once the lake naturally recovered from acidification, the trout began returning to
repopulate its waters.
7
8
Phone Interview – 31 March 2016
24
Other acidified waters have improved through DEC management efforts, which will be
explored later in the management section. There is sufficient evidence that there has been an
overall improvement in acidified brook trout waters, however data reflect a tendency for greater
acidification of the westernmost Adirondacks, where acid rain had a larger impact in the past
(Fieroh, personal communication9; Chiarenzelli et al. 2012). The general understanding by the
scientists and conservationists who were interviewed for this case study seems to be that
Adirondack waters have not all been impacted equally, but there still has been a great overall
decline in heritage brook trout populations of the Adirondacks.
Warming waters
Climate change is an environmental issue that is global in scope, but one that affects local
habitats and ecosystems in many different ways. In the Adirondacks, one of the biggest effects
that climate change has on brook trout is the elevation of maximum daily summertime water
temperatures. Increasing summer temperatures from climate change is a danger to the persistence
of the cold water brook trout (Josephson, personal communication10).
Studies have been able to suggest that stocked brook trout tend to be more sensitive to
warmer water temperatures and acidification than brown and rainbow trout, which are the two
other commonly stocked species. Interestingly, one study recovered samples of brook trout after
stocking and found that high water temperatures above 68 degrees Fahrenheit did not seem to
affect angler catch rates and made stocked brook trout especially vulnerable to angling pressure
as they concentrated in cold water refuges (Baird et al. 2006). Brook trout generally have an
ideal temperature range between 35 to 55 degrees Fahrenheit, which is why they concentrated to
9
10
25
seek the most tolerable water conditions (Robinson et al. 2010). By pooling in cool water,
however, brook trout thus become more vulnerable to angling pressure. Additionally, warmer
water temperatures are shown to impact brook trout spawning activity, as brook trout usually
select sites to construct redds (nests) based on the presence of constant-temperature discharging
water. One study showed elevated summer temperatures of maximum daily increase by one
degree Celsius delayed spawning by approximately one week and resulted in a significant
decrease in the number of redds constructed in a given year (Warren et al. 2012).
It is important to note that anthropogenic impacts on water temperature in aquatic
ecosystems may occur at small levels from land management practices, or at large spatial extents,
such as climate change impacts on stratification. In the case of stratified (layered) lakes, the
Adirondack Chapter of the Nature Conservancy outlines several concerns associated with
warming water that could be applied to brook trout, including oxygen depletion from prolonged
stratification, smaller cold water habitats, increased predation from introduced warm-tolerant fish,
and possible increase in metabolism resulting in higher food demands and smaller, less-vigorous
fish (Thill 2014). One 8-year study on a stratified lake used number of degree days exceeding
stress level as an index of cumulative annual thermal stress and provided empirical evidence that
summer temperatures strongly influence brook trout consumption, reproduction and mortality
(Robinson et al. 2010). This study also observed that warmer summer water temperatures
negatively impacted larger, older age-classes of brook trout more than younger age classes,
which supports prior literature that the greater metabolic demands of larger fish make larger fish
more vulnerable to warmer water temperatures (Robinson et al. 2010). As most fishermen will
tell you, it is the larger brook trout that are more desirable to catch and there is some concern
26
with a lack of older age-classes of these fish in some isolated waters (Crowne, personal
communication11).
Non-native competitors
The introduction of non-native fish species to the Adirondacks has been extremely
detrimental to native brook trout. The EBTJV has identified the introduction of one or more nonnative fish species as one of the top five threats facing the eastern brook trout (EBTJV 2006).
With the introduction of non-native trout species (such as brown trout and rainbow trout) as well
as other non-native warmer water fish (largemouth and smallmouth bass, yellow perch, northern
pike, golden shiners, rock bass, black crappie, and others), brook trout suddenly must face drastic
increased competition for resources (Protecting Adirondack…2016). Such non-native warmer
water species are often referred to as “rough fish.” When brook trout share waters and compete
with rough fish, brook trout are known to become infertile and show greatly reduced
reproduction (Flick and Webster 1992). In regards to non-native trout species, brown and
rainbow trout have a higher tolerance for varying water conditions, which allows these trout
species to establish themselves in the same locales as brook trout and prove to be highly
successful competitors to native brook trout (McCullough and Stegemann 1991). The devastating
impacts of introduced non-native species are exemplified in an ongoing heritage brook trout
crisis in Little Tupper Lake.
Little Tupper Lake is a 2,300 acre water body in the William C. Whitney Wilderness and
Round Lake Wilderness that is home to the Little Tupper Lake strain of brook trout (William C.
Whitney...2016). Little Tupper Lake escaped the introduction of non-native species for decades,
11
27
as it was once private property owned by the Whitney family (Stager 2016). When the lake was
acquired by New York State, the DEC put in regulations that mandated a catch limit and bait fish
restrictions (Stager 2016). The DEC received warnings from a disgruntled local that if the
regulations were not changed, he/she would release smallmouth bass into the lake (Crowne,
personal communication12). The DEC upheld their regulations, as they were considered the best
practices available for that body of water. Soon thereafter, smallmouth bass appeared in the lake
(Stager 2008; Fieroh, personal communication13; Stephenson, personal communication14;
Crowne, personal communication15). Debate over the smallmouth bass introduction continues
today, with members of the public claiming that they know what local released the bass, and also
claiming that the DEC is aware of what local committed the crime (Crowne, personal
communication16).
In 1979, the Little Tupper Lake strain was identified as being in no apparent danger of
loss (Keller 1979). However, as one fisherman said, if you put bass in a pond like Little Tupper,
“in 15 minutes, you lose 15,000 years,” as brook trout are displaced by the non-native species
(Crowne, personal communication17). The outlook is not good for Little Tupper Lake, and the
brook trout fishing is said to be nothing like what it used to be (Fieroh, personal
communication18). Little Tupper Lake is a perfect example of what can happen when non-native
species are introduced into a brook trout monoculture and of how delicate brook trout
ecosystems are. The change reduction of brook trout populations in Little Tupper Lake is not an
12
14
15
16
17
18
13
28
isolated occurrence, as Weidel et al. (2007) found from in-situ experiments that smallmouth bass
have significant negative impacts on brook trout populations.
As a another dramatic example of brook trout decline, the brook trout populations within
the Saranac Lakes Wild Forest are reduced to roughly three percent, compared to 94 percent, of
historical acreage of the waters in that area (Fig.4).
Figure 4. Map depicting the historic and current range of native brook trout populations within
the Saranac Lakes Wild Forest (Protecting Adirondack… 2016).
The loss of brook trout waters is primarily a result of non-native fish introduction (Protecting
Adirondack…2016). Brook trout generally “don’t play well with others” and tend to do best
29
where they exist as a monoculture (Fieroh, personal communication19). We see one of the
greatest concerns to heritage brook trout’s continued success as the prevention of non-native fish
species introductions. Non-native fish species and their capabilities to out-compete brook trout
make the prevention of establishment and removal of such non-native species vital to the
continuation of heritage brook trout in Adirondack waterways.
Fishing pressure
Heritage strain brook trout are a special concord of colors, which helps to make them
very appealing to fishermen. The brook trout’s blood-orange coloration is amplified during the
spawning season, resulting in an even more eye-catching fish for the lucky fisherman. For
anglers of the mid-1850s, who vacationed from Long Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and
southern New England, the once-horde of Adirondack brook trout was likely seen as a
fishermen’s paradise (Karas 1997). At the time, fishing pressure was unregulated and likely took
a toll on some numbers of fish. Today, there is still fishing pressure, but better regulations are in
place to limit the impact of recreational fishing on heritage brook trout populations. There is,
however, a potential issue of enforcement for the take limit and fishing practices. Active
fishermen have noted that their fishing licenses have rarely been checked, likely a result of the
DEC lacking personnel to do so (Crowne, personal communication20; Radovich, personal
communication21). A lack of DEC presence at Adirondack waters could mean that some
fishermen may be taking more than the recommended limit. In addition, many fishermen utilize
potentially harmful fishing practices, such as the Lake Clear Wobbler and worm. Harmful
19
21
20
30
fishing practices, such as the use of treble hooks, reduce the survival of released trout. At some
ponds, such as Black Pond in the Visitor’s Interpretive Center at Paul Smith’s College, voluntary
catch limits have been put in place by the DEC to reduce brook trout population decreases (Fig.
5).
Figure 5. A sign calling for the voluntary reduction of catch limits posted by the DEC at Black
Pond in the Visitor’s Interpretive Center at Paul Smith’s College. The DEC found that between
2010 and 2012, the overall brook trout population had seemed reduced by two thirds, which
prompted the DEC to recommend a voluntary catch limit of two or three fish. Photo courtesy of
Justin Dalaba.
Management
Stocking
The DEC first outlined their management practices for heritage strain brook trout in the
Adirondacks in the comprehensive report Management of Wild and Hybrid Brook Trout in New
31
York Lakes, Ponds, and Coastal Streams. The management plan was crafted by Walt Keller,
former DEC Associate Aquatic Biologist, in October, 1979. The document presents a 15-year
management plan to guide DEC policies and conservation efforts pertaining to wild and heritage
strain brook trout (Keller 1979). This management plan is still in use today to guide and inform
DEC policy, though it is currently under consideration for updates to include current
recommendations for heritage brook trout management (NYS DEC 2015; Fieroh, personal
communication22). As previously mentioned, Keller identified 11 strains of New York heritage
brook trout, nine of which could be found in waters currently within the boundaries of the
Adirondack State Park. Key management practices of the plan include stocking policies, acid
waters management, and pond reclamation (Keller 1979).
Early efforts of trout stocking by the DEC began around 1879-80, with trout selected for
breeding that grew fast, had strong disease resistance, grew well in the hatchery system, and
matured quickly (Fieroh, personal communication23). The stocking program policies put in place
by Keller after 1979 are largely still utilized at present. The DEC currently operates a number of
brook trout stocking programs, including the stocking of hybrid brook trout (a domestic strain
crossed with a Temiscamie strain and a domestic strain crossed with a Windfall strain),
domestic-strain brook, rainbow, and brown trout, and heritage strain brook trout (Lynch 2015).
Early hatchery-raised brook trout produced fish that did not live as long as native
Adirondack brook trout when released into the wild. In the 1950s, Dr. Dwight Webster, of
Cornell University, retrieved a Canadian strain of brook trout from northern Quebec, the
Temiscamie strain, and introduced it first to Cornell hatchery systems and later DEC hatchery
22
23
32
systems. Temiscamie strain brook trout were unlike former hatchery-raised fish in their ability to
live long and get large once released into the wild. Temiscamie hybrids are stocked as fingerlings
at four inches in lakes which generally have non-native species and would be unable to support
heritage brook trout populations. The stocked trout are not expected to reproduce, but instead
only to provide recreational fishing opportunities. In addition, Temiscamie hybrids are known to
be easy to catch and survive very well in the wild, making them an ideal sport fish (Fieroh,
personal communication24).
Domestic-strain brook trout, which are hatchery-bred trout of unknown origin, are
stocked in rivers and streams, in addition to lakes and ponds. There is debate over current DEC
stocking practices pertaining to waters that may have potential for natural brook trout
reproduction. However, a DEC spokesperson in 2015 reported that the New York State DEC
does not stock any species of trout when there is a population of wild brook trout that represent
75 percent or more the water’s carrying capacity (Lynch 2015).
The DEC Region 5 is presently stocking 67,000 heritage brook trout annually, of the
Horn Lake strain, one Windfall strain, and Little Tupper Lake strain in lakes and ponds deemed
suitable for natural reproduction. Heritage brook trout are maintained as a “wild strain,” with the
DEC catching spawning trout and retaining the eggs and milt to spawn, raise to fingerling size in
hatcheries, and then release into heritage waters (Demong 2001). Some trout are raised to be
yearlings prior to release. Heritage strain brook trout are stocked in ponds which have been
determined to be capable of supporting natural reproduction and with the hopes of creating selfsustaining populations (Keller 1979). Keller (1979) identified hybrid and wild strain trout as
24
33
offering the best future for sustaining New York’s brook trout fisheries due to the fish’s
“superior survival, yield, longevity, in-pond growth, size and natural reproduction.”
Liming
The DEC has been liming lakes since the 1960s as another large form of management in
order to addresses the acidification of Adirondack lakes. However, due to reductions in the
amount of airborne nitrates, formerly acidified Adirondack lakes have been recovering from
acidification far quicker than previously thought possible (Fieroh, personal communication25;
Crowne, personal communication26). The success of natural recovery is often attributed to the
implementation of the Clean Air Act in 1955 as well as the continued enforcement of cleaner air
policy, which will be reviewed in the Government section (Fieroh, personal communication27;
Josephson, personal communication28; Crowne, personal communication29). The natural
recovery from acidification in some Adirondack ponds has been successful enough that the
Cornell Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has stopped liming many of their historicallylimed lakes over the past three years. There are examples of at least 17 lakes through the
Adirondacks that have exhibited natural recovery without the use of liming techniques
(Josephson, personal communication30). The DEC continues to lime lakes via boat and helicopter,
optimistic of continued success with the program (The Associated Press 2015).
25
27
28
29
30
26
34
Pond reclamation
In lakes and ponds which have been infiltrated by invasive species, native brook trout
fare very poorly. When feasible, the DEC reclaims such ponds through the use of the piscicide
rotenone. The DEC has reclaimed trout ponds since 1951, currently reclaiming on average one
body of water per year, though restorations were once more frequent (Fig. 6) (Fieroh, personal
communication31; Reclaimed Trout Ponds...2010). Rotenone kills fish by disrupting respiratory
processes when the chemical is absorbed through the gills (Ott 2015). The half-life of rotenone in
both soil and water is very short, only about one to three days (Pesticide...1993). By killing all
piscine species in an impoundment, the DEC is able to stock heritage strain trout (Horn, Windfall,
or Little Tupper strains) with the hopes of reestablishing a naturally reproducing brook trout
population. However, the use of rotenone is controversial and has been seen as a violation of
Wilderness Area policy and a disregard for native, non-trout species (Verhovek 1990).
31
35
Figure 6. Number of reclaimed trout ponds in the Eastern Adirondacks. Number of reclaimed
waters per year were highest in the mid-1950s, late 1960s and mid-1990s. Data courtesy of the
DEC (Reclaimed Trout Ponds...2010).
In order for a lake to be suitable for reclamation, the lake must contain a downstream barrier to
keep non-trout species from re-entering the water body. When a natural downstream barrier is
not present, a fish barrier dam can be constructed (Fig. 7).
Figure 7. A fish barrier dam constructed by the DEC at Long Pond at the Visitor Interpretive
Center at Paul Smith’s College. The sign reads “Fisher Barrier Dam. This dam has been
constructed to prevent upstream migration of undesirable fish in the interest of better fishing.
Keep off - please do not molest. N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation.” Photo courtesy
of Justin Dalaba.
36
If a lake or pond has the presence of wetlands and a significant tributary system, those lakes or
ponds are no longer considered for reclamation due to the challenge of preventing unwanted fish
species from colonizing the lake (Fieroh, personal communication32; Demong 2001).
Non-native species
In addition to reclamation, regulations are in place to prevent the colonization of brook
trout ponds with non-native baitfish, such as golden shiners. The DEC currently maintains three
recommendations that seek to limit the spread of baitfish. First, it is illegal to transport fish
between water bodies. Second, it is prohibited to use bait fish on specific Adirondack waters.
Finally, when the use of bait fish is permitted, releasing unused baitfish is not allowed
(Protecting Adirondack…2016). It is clear from a review of current management practices that
active management efforts must be undertaken to ensure continued existence of Adirondack
heritage strain brook trout. The DEC's restoration program integrates a number of management
activities to protect and restore Adirondack ecosystems and their native fisheries.
32
37
IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS
Native brook trout and their habitats
Brook trout have inhabited Adirondack lakes, ponds, and streams as some of the first
colonizers after the last glaciation period ended. The habitats that brook trout occupy; kettle
ponds, headwater streams, lakes of all sizes, and rivers, are all unique habitats situated within the
largest area of protected land in the contiguous 48 states. Original, wild, naturally reproducing
populations of eastern brook trout exist in very few places within their native range in the United
States (EBTJV 2006). Such populations of wild, naturally reproducing brook trout have
remained free from the introduction of genetic material from domestic strain brook trout.
Heritage brook trout are genetic heirlooms that demand to be preserved for their own sake. Due
to their largely isolated population within the ponds, lakes, and watersheds, Adirondack heritage
strain brook trout are an imperiled group of brook trout that have a stake in their survival and
perseverance into the future.
Non-profit groups
The non-profit groups with the mission to encourage recreation in the outdoors, conserve
species and their respective habitats, as well as to improve trout fishing are stakeholders in
heritage brook trout recovery. In the Adirondacks, Trout Unlimited has been active in engaging
the local population to take part in trout fishing and has contributed to or completed a number of
conservation projects. The Wild Center, located in Tupper Lake, is a non-profit organization that
seeks to bridge the gap between people and the natural world. The Wild Center uses a large
heritage brook trout aquarium display to help people engage with local environmental issues. In
the case of heritage brook trout, the Wild Center exhibit demonstrates an example of when
conservation measures can lead to conservation success. The Eastern Brook Joint Venture
38
(EBTJV) is a consortium of 17 state agencies, six federal agencies, and numerous conservation
organizations working to assess and ensure the success of brook trout into the future (EBTJV
2006). Through research and collaboration, the EBTJV identifies the current environmental
stressors on eastern brook trout as a whole, as well as New York State brook trout in specific,
and develops conservation strategies for their recovery.
Government
The New York State Legislature has a direct interest in the Adirondack Park, as the Park
is a conglomeration of state-owned and public land trusted to the State to protect for future
generations. Included in the mandate for protection is the protection of the species within the
Park’s borders. Heritage brook trout, already declared a symbol of New York State and
enshrined as the New York State fish, are an important part of both the history of the
Adirondacks in specific and New York State in general. Just as heritage brook trout are part of
brook trout’s heritage, they are also a part of New York State’s heritage. The role that
government plays in brook trout conservation will be reviewed in the Governmental Issues
section.
Fishing guides, shops, and lodges
There are numerous fly fishing shops, tackle shops, fishing lodges, and fishing guide
services within the Adirondack Park. All of these vendors rely on the quality of trout fisheries of
the Adirondacks to continue to encourage residents and visitors to fish the lakes and streams in
the search of brook trout and other sport fishes. Fishing stores employ Adirondack Park residents
and encourage environmental tourism thanks to the quality of fishing within the Park. The guides,
shops, and lodges of the Adirondacks have a vested economic interest in the quality and type of
39
fishing available. Given that economic interest, the desire for clients to pursue wild, heritage
strain brook trout is of importance to these fishing outfitters.
Recreationalists and visitors
The Adirondack Park has been a vacation destination since the early 1800s, and quickly
became famous among fly fishers for its outstanding brook trout fishing (Wilcox 2011). At
present, fly fishermen enjoy visiting the Park to try their hand at the varied fisheries of the
Adirondacks, including catching heritage brook trout from backcountry ponds. In addition, many
others ply the waters with spin fishing equipment using a classic technique, the Lake Clear
Wobbler and worm. Fishing for heritage brook trout requires dedication and perseverance on
behalf of the fisherman. A number of methods are used to catch brook trout, but most methods
involve fishing beneath the surface of a pond (unless fish are rising to hatching insects) utilizing
fly or spin fishing gear. Due to the dense woods surrounding some ponds and the necessity for
mobility in order to fish different parts of the water body, some sort of boat is generally required
for successful outings. Canoes, kayaks, personal pontoons, and float-tubes are all common
methods of fishing transportation (Crowne, personal communication33). Many recreational
anglers also fish for the joy of consuming nutritious and tasty brook trout. Recreationalists and
visitors to the Park passionately pursue heritage brook trout for a number of reasons, and the
interest of these anglers makes them stakeholders in the preservation of heritage brook trout and
their respective habitats.
33
40
Researchers
There are a number of institutions currently conducting research on heritage brook trout
and their habitats in the Adirondack Park. Currently, Cornell University, Paul Smith’s College,
and Syracuse University all conduct research that yields results which help to inform DEC policy.
Researchers are stakeholders of heritage brook trout, as they have scientific and likely personal
interest on the matter and contribute to the knowledge base surrounding heritage brook trout. In
addition to generating knowledge about brook trout and the problems threatening brook trout
survival, the work of researchers often provides insight about what can be done to further help
heritage brook trout populations and advise new conservation efforts.
41
GOVERNMENTAL ISSUES
In order to understand the governmental issues surrounding heritage brook trout
management, it is first important to understand the structure of governmental bodies that
influence the management of the fish. There are multiple levels of governmental oversight that
influence policy within the Adirondack Park and policy concerning heritage brook trout. The
broadest is the United States Congress, which has the ability to pass nation-wide legislation that
has effects on the environment in New York State, such as the Clean Air Act. At the state level,
the Adirondack Park was established in 1892 by the New York State Legislature, and in 1894 the
protection of the Forest Preserve was written into the new State constitution (History of the
Adirondack Park 2016). In 1971, the New York State Legislature established the Adirondack
Park Agency (APA) to oversee land use plans within and ensure the protection of the
Adirondack Park (About the New York State Adirondack Park Agency 2016). The DEC operates
alongside the APA, with similar missions to preserve the resources of the Park in an
environmentally and fiscally responsible manner. However, both of these agencies are
notoriously underfunded.
A press release from the New York State Comptroller in 2014 reported that since 2003,
the DEC has experienced constrained funding and staff cuts coupled with an increase in
responsibilities. As the State Comptroller noted, “DEC’s staff has declined while funding has
barely kept pace with inflation and now is projected to decline” (DiNapoli Releases
Report...2014). Without proper funding, the DEC will be unable to continue its conservation
efforts or expand its efforts to new areas as need arises. As one fisherman that we spoke with
pointed out, the benefits to heritage brook trout that the state now sees are a results of work done
42
when funding for such projects was higher decades ago (Radovich, personal communication34).
In addition, reduced funding and personnel can also equate to less enforcement of existing DEC
regulations that are meant conserve brook trout populations. While funding is vital at the state
level, many of the issues that the DEC needs to address are linked to legislation at the national
level.
The U.S. Congress has enacted many laws that mandate the types of pollutants and
quantity of such pollutants that can be emitted into the atmosphere. In 1955, the U.S. Congress
signed into law the Clean Air Act, which became the first sweeping pollution control policy. The
Clean Air Act restricted the amount of pollutants that could be emitted from power plants. The
result of implementing the Clean Air Act and its many amendments since the act's initial
inception has been a significant downward trend in the amount of acid deposition that falls on the
Adirondacks, correlated with increases in acid-neutralizing capacity (Baldigo et al. 2007).
Continued enforcement of regulations, and the addition of new regulations and legislation from
the U.S. Congress will result in a decrease in the responsibilities of the DEC. With less acid
deposition caused from power plant emissions, there will be fewer lakes and ponds to continually
lime and monitor. In addition, the U.S. Congress stands at an important point in history, where
this governing body has the opportunity to address global climate change. If laws are signed into
action to reduce the effects of global climate change, the DEC will not need to focus on
addressing the increasingly present threat of warming summer water temperatures.
34
43
DEVELOPMENT OF SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM
Parameterizing solutions
An acceptable solution to heritage brook trout management would be comprehensive,
multifaceted, and look to the future. Such a solution would first work to put in place methods to
maintain current heritage brook trout populations, continue reclamation work, expand studies to
include moving bodies of water and the reestablishment of heritage populations there, and lay
groundwork for conservation management far into the future. However, solutions must also take
into account the value of non-brook trout native species that compete with brook trout. Heritage
brook trout management is overseen by the DEC, which must have a sufficient funding and
research base to guide proper decision making and implement conservation plans and
management efforts.
Heritage brook trout currently face threats from multiple fronts, as identified in our
Problem Definition. Loss of genetic diversity, environmental and human impacts all threaten the
success of heritage brook trout’s continued survival into the future. In addressing these threats,
best solutions must be comprehensive, address all of threats to heritage brook trout, and ensure
preservation into the future. Oftentimes, hasty conservation efforts lack the foresight to address
the conservation issues that will arise many generations into the future. Research must be done to
assure the continued success of implemented solutions for years to come. However, a large factor
in the success of any solution is adequate and predictable funding.
Much of the research that guides the DEC’s heritage brook trout management efforts was
completed decades ago when state funding was far more abundant than it is today, as evidenced
by a lack of an update to Keller’s 1979 management plan. DEC budgets and staff in Region 5
have decreased since the 1950s when there were numerous aquatic biologists and more time
44
could be spent ensuring the protection of resources into the future. Currently, the state budget
does not allocate adequate funds to the DEC to invest in heritage brook trout research and
monitoring that will allow for forward-thinking and long-term management plans (DiNapoli
Releases Report... 2014). Solutions that aim to ensure abundant heritage brook trout populations
must be able to function on a low budget. However, such solutions must also produce results that
will show state legislators that an investment in heritage brook trout is a valuable one.
Heritage brook trout are incredibly vulnerable on a number of fronts. Without wellinformed management and proper protection, these unique strains could very well soon be lost.
Regardless of the solution(s) chosen, an increased amount of research must be done in order to
revise and update management practices. Without the capability to review the success of heritage
brook trout programs, it will be impossible to address new issues that arise. Short term solutions
will help prevent immediate collapse of heritage brook trout populations within the Adirondacks,
but will fail to ensure their continuation as policies, public interests, and government interests all
change. With proper management and solutions, the preservation of heritage brook trout will
help to guarantee that these fish will occupy the waters of the Adirondacks for generations to
come.
Identification and evaluation of potential solutions
Here we explore potential solutions to maintaining and increasing heritage brook trout
populations. A myriad of solutions exist, however all have varying degrees of feasibility based
on personnel, monetary, time, and practicality restrictions. We list all solutions, regardless of
feasibility, in order to understand all potential manners to address the issue and ensure a proper
evaluation of each solution. We then evaluate the best, most feasible solutions, assess the ease of
implementation, and construct a step-by-step plan.
45
Comprehensively update the current brook trout management plan
Walt Keller’s 1979 report, Management of Wild and Hybrid Brook Trout in New York
Lakes, Ponds and Coastal Streams, set the stage for the management of heritage brook trout. The
DEC still uses this report as its guide for brook trout management within the Adirondack Park
(Fieroh, personal communication35). As stated in the section on Management, this plan calls for
the liming of acidified lakes, reclaiming ponds through the use of rotenone when possible,
stocking hybrid brook trout in lakes which will not support natural reproduction, and stocking
heritage brook trout in lakes which will likely support natural trout reproduction. The 1979
report is now out-dated by 22 years, yet the DEC continues with the management plan,
incorporating new scientific findings as they become available (Fieroh, personal
communication36; Josephson, personal communication37). While the current management plan is
still able to protect and enhance many heritage brook trout waters, new comprehensive studies
and long-term goals are necessary in order to ensure heritage brook trout protection far into the
future. In order to make these sweeping changes to the current management plan possible, the
DEC must receive significantly more funding and resources to field a larger aquatic biologist
staff and conduct groundbreaking studies on brook trout habitat and genetics.
Remove all non-native fish species from the Adirondacks
As identified in our Problem Definition, non-native fish species in Adirondack waterways
result in significant negative impacts on heritage brook trout populations and will continue to do
35
37
36
46
so into the future. In order to restore brook trout throughout their entire native range, the removal
of non-native warm water species such as large- and smallmouth bass, as well as cold water
species such as brown and rainbow trout, is necessary. The removal of these fishes could occur
through immense amounts of gill-netting, liberal use of rotenone, and unlimited catch limits on
such species. Even with the most aggressive policies, however, full reclamation of Adirondack
waterways would be extremely unlikely, if at all possible. The DEC does not have enough staff,
time, or monetary resources to invest in extensive non-native removal efforts. In addition, nonnative species have colonized Adirondack waterways to the extent that the removal of these
species could cause widespread ecosystem collapse. Finally, a significant portion of the fishing
done in the Adirondacks is in pursuit of non-native species such as large- and smallmouth bass
and rainbow and brown trout. Local residents as well as vacation-goers could find many of their
normal fishing outings fundamentally changed. In lakes that may remain too warm for brook
trout during high summer temperatures, they would be void of brook trout and any non-native
species that may be able to survive there. The loss of fishing opportunities could have the
potential to have damage the economy of the region.
Eliminate global warming
Global warming poses a serious threat to heritage brook trout. As mentioned in the
Problem Definition, higher summer temperatures in Adirondack waterways will begin to exceed
the threshold tolerated by brook trout. Eliminating global warming would ensure that maximum
summer water temperatures do not exceed those tolerated by brook trout. Tolerable temperatures
would ensure the possibility of high reproductive success and result in less angler-caused and
stress-caused mortality during the warmer summer months. Eliminating global warming and
climate change would require national and international agreements to drastically cut greenhouse
47
gas emissions and transition from a fossil-fuel based economy to a world entirely powered by
highly efficient, renewable resources.
Stop toxic emissions
The passage of the Clean Air Act in 1955 was the first national legislation that sought
sweeping changes to levels of airborne pollutants. To completely stop the emissions of
compounds that cause acid deposition and mercury pollution, even more significant legislation
would be required. It has been documented that biota can recover in acidified lakes when
emission are reduced, especially after 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act (Sutherland et al.
2015). Comprehensive and sweeping amendments to the Clean Air Act and the introduction of
new legislation is required to make the emission of any and all toxins into the atmosphere illegal.
Josephson and Fieroh have given a positive outlook on the reduced threat of acid deposition,
stating that acid rain has been reduced by about 80 percent from previous levels of deposition in
1980, and that there generally appears to be a more stable water chemistry in Adirondack lakes
in the past few years (Fieroh, personal communication38; Josephson, personal communication39).
Survey lotic waterways for heritage brook trout strains
When the DEC’s guiding management plan was created, it did not establish any heritage
brook trout strains in lotic, or flowing, waterways. However, there is good reason to believe that
many headwater streams and remote sub watersheds many indeed harbor their own genetically
unique strain of heritage brook trout (Crowne, personal communication40). Fishermen note that
there are likely unique and new heritage strains in a number of headwater river systems. The
38
40
39
48
Cold River watershed is one such area, where fishermen have contacted the DEC and found no
record of the area ever being stocked, yet brook trout are present (Crown, personal
communication41; Radovich, personal communication42). Surveying the flowing waters within
the Park is a vital step toward better understanding heritage brook trout populations and their
breadth of genetic diversity.
Reclaim lotic waterways
In addition to lack of assessment of lotic waterways for heritage brook trout, there are
currently no active stocking and reclamation protocols in place to reestablish heritage strain
brook trout in streams and rivers that may be able to support naturally reproducing populations.
There are examples of moving waters, such as the Ausable River, that may be able to support
heritage brook trout reproduction, but due to existing non-native trout populations, reclamation
has not occurred (Lynch 2015). In other regions of the eastern U.S., such as the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park, populations of rainbow and brown trout have been reduced in favor of
brook trout (Karas 1997). While pursuing the solution of reclaiming lotic waterways, sufficient
thought must be given to addressing the potential lack of downstream barriers and the migration
of unwanted fishes from downstream back into the reclaimed section of river. This solution
would involve identifying all lotic waterways that have the potential for heritage brook trout
reproduction, regardless of non-native fish and trout populations, and assessing the waterways’
heritage strain potential and proceed with reclamation accordingly.
41
42
49
Increase youth participation and education
If there is no interest in the resource, there is no incentive to protect the resource. Fishing
license numbers have been declining nationwide for years (Decline in hunting, fishing...2008). In
addition, DEC Region 5 is faced with fewer and fewer resources and personnel (DiNapoli
Releases Report...2014). By investing in the youth of the Adirondacks, a new generation of
people with connections to nature can lead the charge to protect natural resources. Currently,
Trout Unlimited has been a leader nationwide in introducing students to trout and cold water fish
conservation through their Trout in the Classroom program and various camps and programs.
Trout in the Classroom is a Trout Unlimited-sponsored program that allies with schools and
teachers to raise trout in the classroom and then release the trout into a local water body. The
Trout in the Classroom website states that “this act of raising, monitoring, and caring for young
trout fosters a conservation ethic within participating students and promotes an understanding of
their shared water resources” (Trout in the Classroom...2016). We encourage Adirondack-based
chapters of Trout Unlimited to proactively seek and encourage schools to implement Trout in the
Classroom programs.
In addition to Trout in the Classroom, many Trout Unlimited chapters sponsor youth
camps and programs. One camp, the Rivers Conservation and Fly Fishing Youth Camp in
Pennsylvania, engages high school students in both conservation projects and fly fishing
instruction, contributing to practical conservation skills and an invested interest in the success of
cold water fishes (Pennsylvania Rivers Conservation...2015). We encourage Adirondack-based
chapters of Trout Unlimited to establish youth conservation and fly fishing camps that encourage
youth to learn about and come to love the fabled waters of the Adirondack Park. In addition,
50
these camps should be made open to low-income and non-Park residents in order to generate
interest from a diverse group of future stakeholders.
Identification of feasible solutions
Many of the solutions offered above would be successful if implemented in an ideal
world. However, heritage brook trout conservation is limited by time, funding, interest, and
feasibility of carrying out a solution. Of the solutions offered, we feel that the most feasible
include comprehensively updating the current brook trout management plan, supporting
legislation to reduce global warming and toxic emissions, surveying lotic waterways, reclaiming
lotic waterways, and increasing youth participation and education. Comprehensively updating
the current brook trout management plan would involve significantly boosting current funding
for the DEC and launching many new research projects. Supporting legislation to reduce global
warming and toxic emissions would require environmental groups, government agencies, and
other stakeholders to continue pressuring their government representatives to update and make
more stringent air pollution legislation. This would also involve the support of efforts to
introduce more air pollution legislation. Surveying lotic waterways is an addition to the current
management plan, but one that requires utilizing other DEC resources. Similarly, reclaiming lotic
waterways involves a practical application of pond reclamation techniques in conjunction with
stream and river conservation protocol. Increasing youth participation and education is highly
feasible and would involve collaboration between nonprofit groups (such as Trout Unlimited and
other river conservation groups), the DEC, and local schools with little overall cost. While all of
these solutions are feasible, several are best solutions that will provide a clear way forward to
ensuring heritage brook trout preservation.
51
Identification of best solutions
The best solutions outlined above to ensure the preservation of heritage brook trout
include comprehensively updating the current management plan, continuing to support
legislation to reduce air pollution and global warming, and increasing youth participation and
education. While the current wild brook trout management plan has conserved many populations
of heritage brook trout, the DEC has produced very little new research and does not have a longrange view that will address issues to come in the future. We recommend that the DEC use Walt
Keller’s approach by suggesting a path forward for a specific amount of time. The DEC must
review brook trout management and establish historically relevant baselines to craft a new and
updated management plan. The updated management plan would address issues such as current
fishing pressure, mercury pollution, reduction in the number of acidified lakes, warming summer
water temperatures, and the lack of comprehensive genetic studies. The updated management
plan would likely recognize how important nationwide legislation has been in reducing air
pollution and its effects on acid deposition. The continued support for air pollution legislation is
crucial in order to maintain water conditions that heritage brook trout thrive in, rather than
struggle to survive in. Finally, educating the youth of the Adirondacks and across New York
State will secure interest and individual investment in preserving brook trout populations into the
future. Creating a connection between youth and the environment will create the next generation
of conservationists and responsible citizens.
52
EASE OF IMPLEMENTATION
Heritage brook trout conservation involves the cooperation of government agencies, nonprofit groups, universities, fishermen, and the general public. Because the DEC is largely
responsible for the management of heritage brook trout, the DEC will be one of the most
important stakeholders in implementing solutions. The DEC, especially in Region 5, lacks an
abundance of resources to put into heritage trout conservation and management. Lack of funding
could prove to be a large challenge to the implementation of comprehensive updates to the
current management plan. If adequate funding is acquired, updating the current plan might
require several years-worth of research and experimental management procedures before the
construction of an updated management plan could be completed. Supporting air pollution
legislation is relatively easy, but will require continued education of the general public and all
stakeholders in order to boost effectiveness and acceptance of any new legislation.
Communication about the importance of clean air and its effects on aquatic ecosystems is vital to
promoting a better understanding of the issue. There are currently programs and curricula
available to facilitate educating youth on the importance of trout conservation and showing them
the joy of fishing. By utilizing Trout in the Classroom protocol, the DEC will be able to partner
with Trout Unlimited and local schools in a mutually beneficial coalition that supports the
interests of each group involved. While funding will be an issue, non-state funding would be
made available by utilizing the resources of Trout Unlimited and other river conservation groups.
53
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The first step toward implementing this plan is to succeed in acquiring more funding for
the DEC to use on heritage brook trout management. Funding is a perennial issue for government
agencies. In order for the DEC to successfully manage heritage brook trout into the future, the
State Legislature will need to approve a larger budget for the DEC, with specific funds allocated
to the heritage brook trout management plan for Region 5. Once proper funding is acquired, the
DEC will be able to increase personnel and spend several years expanding the current research
base, assessing more waters, and creating plans to guide management for decades into the future.
Non-governmental research, such as that done by Cornell’s DNR and Paul Smith’s College, will
also help to better inform the DEC’s updated plan. A part of securing the funding for the DEC
involves ensuring continued interest in heritage brook trout conservation. Educating youth on
brook trout through Trout Unlimited’s Trout in the Classroom program and establishing
conservation and fishing camps will help to ensure that future generations will support heritage
brook trout conservation. In addition, little funding for these programs will come from the state,
but instead will be supplied by the anglers and conservationist stakeholders via non-profit groups
that hold wild trout populations dear. Ample communication between the DEC and Trout
Unlimited will need to take place in order for these programs to work to their full potential.
Finally, all stakeholders will be able to join behind the push for stricter legislation limiting air
pollutant emissions. With proper management into the future, along with engaged and supportive
future generations, we feel that heritage brook trout populations will be maintained and increased
in the coming years.
55
CONCLUSIONS
Adirondack heritage strain brook trout are unique populations of the original strains of
the brook trout that once dominated the eastern seaboard. Since the last glaciation period ended,
the range of eastern brook trout has decreased precipitously, to only a fraction of historic
populations. The Adirondack Park harbors lakes and streams within its boundaries that contain
some of the few genetically pure strains of brook trout that remain in the lower 48 states. In the
past century alone, the heritage brook trout of the Adirondacks have faced pressures from the
acidification of lakes, overfishing, competition from non-native trout and non-trout species,
warmer summer water temperatures from global warming, and massive declines in genetic
diversity. Efforts from the DEC in the last 50 years have saved heritage brook trout populations,
but funding has stagnated, leaving new research and updated management plans slim to
nonexistent. Reinvesting in heritage brook trout is necessary in order to ensure their presence in
Adirondack lakes and streams into the coming centuries.
We outline a number of possible solution to maintaining heritage brook trout biodiversity.
As the best solutions, we encourage comprehensively updating the current management plan,
continuing to support legislation to reduce air pollution and global warming, and increasing
youth participation and education. The implementation of these solutions will allow heritage
brook trout to continue to maintain and increase their populations in the Adirondacks for years to
come. Heritage strain brook trout are the last remnants of once prolific populations of brook trout
in the eastern United States. The preservation of heritage brook trout is not only preserving an
Adirondack and New York State icon, but a genetic resource that is greatly threatened.
57
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was funded and supported by the St. Lawrence University Biology
Department. We would like to thank Erika Barthelmess, our advisor, for her support and
guidance throughout our research. This research was also made possible by the stakeholders who
provided useful information and insight throughout the process. We give many thanks to those
who were willing to interview and contribute to this case study.
59
LITERATURE CITED
About the New York State Adirondack Park Agency [Internet]: New York State [cited 2016
March 25]. Available from: http://apa.ny.gov/About_Agency/index.html.
Baird OE, Krueger CC, Josephson DC. 2006. Growth, movement, and catch of brook, rainbow,
and brown trout after stocking into a large, marginally suitable Adirondack river. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 26(1):180-9.
Baldigo BP, Lawrence G., Simonin H. 2007. Persistent mortality of brook trout in episodically
acidified streams of the southwestern Adirondack Mountains, New York. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 136(1):121-134.
Chiarenzelli J, Lock R, Cady C, Bregani A, Whitney B. 2012. Variation in river multi-element
chemistry related to bedrock buffering: an example from the Adirondack region of
Northern New York, USA. Environmental Earth Sciences 67(1):189-204.
Decline in hunting, fishing hurts state coffers [Internet]: NBC News; c2008 [cited 2016 March
29]. Available from: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23860020/ns/us_news-life/t/decline-hu
nting-fishing-hurts-state-coffers/#.Vw24ZPkrKUk .
Demong, L. 2001. The use of rotenone to restore native brook trout in the mountains of New
York - an overview. American Fisheries Society.
DiNapoli Releases Report on Environmental Funding in New York State [Internet]: Office of the
New York State Comptroller; c2014 [cited 2016 April 30]. Available from:
https://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/dec14/121014b.htm.
Earl, G. 2010. Tragedy of the trout. Adirondack Explorer. Available from
http://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/tragedy-of-the-trout
EBTJV (Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture). 2006. Eastern brook trout: status and threats
[Internet]. Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture; [cited 2016 Feb 24]. Available from
http://www.easternbrooktrout.org
Flick, WA, Webster DA. 1992. Standing crops of brook trout in Adirondack waters before and
after removal of non-trout species. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:
783-796.
Flick WA, Webster DA. 1976. Production of wild, domestic and interstrain hybrids of brook
trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in natural ponds. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada. 33(7): 1525-1539.
Foley, M. 2015. Native Adirondack trout? No such animal, technically. North Country Public
Radio; Sect Regional News.
61
Frankham, R. 2005. Genetics and extinction. Biological Conservation. 126: 131-140.
Frankham R, Bradshaw CJA, Brook BW. 2014. Genetics in conservation management: revised
recommendations for the 50/500 rules, Red List criteria and population viability
analyses. Biological Conservation. 170: 56-63.
Hackett, J. 2013. The basics of backcountry brook trout. Adirondack Outdoors Magazine.
History of the Adirondack Park [Internet]: New York State [cited 2016 April 1]. Available
from: http://apa.ny.gov/about_park/history.htm.
Honnedaga Lake and "Heritage" Strain Brook Trout [Internet]: Cornell Department of Natural
Resources [cited 2016 April 1]. Available from:
http://fish.dnr.cornell.edu/trout/honnedaga.htm.
Hudy M, Thieling TM, Gillespie N, Smith EP. 2008. Distribution, status, and land use
characteristics of sub watersheds within the native range of brook trout in the eastern
united states. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28(4):1069-1085.
Karas, N. Brook trout. 1997. The Lyons Press.
Keller, WT. 1979. Management of wild and hybrid brook trout in New York lakes, ponds and
coastal streams. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Lynch, M. 2015. Lure of the Wild Trout [Internet]: Adirondack Explorer [cited 2016 March 20].
Available from: http://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/wild-trout-stock
McCullough, R and Stegemann, EC. 1991. The trout of New York. The Conservationist:
March/April.
Natural Selections. 2006. Trout variations. North Country Public Radio; Sect Natural Selections.
NYS DEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2015. New york state
wildlife action plan. NYS DEC.
Ott, KC. 2015. Rotenone: a brief review of its chemistry, environmental fate, and the toxicity of
rotenone formulations. New Mexico Trout Unlimited.
Pennsylvania Rivers Conservation and Fly Fishing Camp [Internet]: Rivers Conservation and
Fly Fishing Youth Camp; c2015 [cited 2016 April 1]. Available from:
http://www.riverscamp.com/index.html.
Perkins DL, Krueger CC, May B. 1993. Heritage brook trout in northeastern USA: Genetic
62
variability within and among populations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.
122(4):512-232.
Pesticide information profile: rotenone [Internet]: Extension Toxicology Network; c1993
[cited 2016 May 8]. Available from:
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/pyrethrins-ziram/rotenone-ext.html.
Phares, D. 2005. Brookies, browns, why don’t they interbreed. West Virginia Wildlife.
Magazine.
Protecting Adirondack fish [Internet]: New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation; c2016 [cited 2016 Feb 8]. Available from:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/31920.html.
Reclaimed Trout Ponds in the Eastern Adirondacks [Internet]: NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation; c2010 [cited 2016 April 1]. Available from:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/64503.html.
Robinson JM, Josephson DC, Weidel BC, Kraft CE. 2010. Influence of variable interannual
summer water temperatures on brook trout growth, consumption, reproduction, and
mortality in an unstratified Adirondack lake. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 139(3):685 - 699.
Roy K, Dukett J, Houck N, Lawrence GB. 2012. A long-term monitoring program for evaluating
changes in water quality in selected Adirondack waters. Adirondack Lakes Survey
Corporation. p. 1-43.
Stager, JC. In search of Adirondack "heritage lakes” [Internet]: EPA Archive Document Cite:
c2008 [cited 2016 April 12]. Available from:
https://archive.epa.gov/region1/neaeb2008/web/pdf/17_heritage2008.pdf
Sutherland, JW, Acker FW, Bloomfield, JA, Boylen, CW, Charles, DF, Daniels, RA, Eichler,
LW, Farrell, JL, Feranec, RS, Hare, MP, et al. 2015. Brooktrout Lake case study: biotic
recovery from acid deposition 20 years after the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.
Environmental Science Technology 49(5):2665 - 2674.
The Associated Press. 2015. NY helicopters dump lime on Adirondack pond to help trout. North
Country Public Radio; Sect Regional News.
Thill, M. 2014. Lake trout and climate change in the Adirondacks: status and long-term viability.
The Nature Conservancy.
Trout in the Classroom: Overview [Internet]: Trout Unlimited; c2016 [cited 2016 April 1].
Available from: http://www.troutintheclassroom.org/about/overview.
TU Conservation Success Index: Brook Trout [Internet]: Trout Unlimited; c2007 [cited 2016
May 9]. Available from: http://tucsi.tu.org/BrookTrout_General.aspx?SpKey=2.
63
Verhovek, SH. Adirondacks to help trout by poisoning rivals. The New York Times. July 16,
1990. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/16/nyregion/adirondacks-to-help-trout-by-poiso
ning-rivals.html.
Warren DR, Sebestyen SD, Josephson DC, Lepak JM, Kraft CE. 2005. Acidic groundwater
discharge and in situ egg survival in redds of lake-spawning brook trout. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 134: 1193–1201. DOI: 10.1577/T04-180.1
Warren, DR, Robinson, JM, Josephson, DC, Sheldon, DR, Kraft CE. 2012. Elevated summer
temperatures delay spawning and reduce redd construction for resident brook trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis). Global Change Biology 18(6):1804 - 1811.
Weidel BC, Josephson DC, Kraft CE. 2007. Littoral fish community response to smallmouth
bass removal from an Adirondack lake. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.
136: 778–789. DOI: 10.1577/T06-091.1
Wilcox, V. 2011. Destinations: Adirondack Park. Fly Fisherman Magazine.
William C. Whitney Wilderness & Round Lake Wilderness [Internet]: Department of
Environmental Conservation [cited 2016 April 1]. Available from:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/9165.html .
TABLE AND FIGURE CITATIONS
Figure 1. Map from the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (2006).
Figure 2. Source ponds defined by Keller (1979).
Figure 3. Photos courtesy of David Crowne.
Figure 4. DEC map from (Protecting Adirondack…2016).
Figure 5. Photo courtesy of Justin Dalaba.
Figure 6. Graph created in excel using data courtesy of the DEC (Reclaimed Trout Ponds...2010).
Figure 7. Photo courtesy of Justin Dalaba.
64
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Interview Materials
Interview questions asked of stakeholders during interviews
Questions for Jon Fieroh and Daniel Josephson
General profile questions:
1. What is your first and last name and what is your work title?
2. Where are you from originally and where do you live now?
3. How long have you been working with the DEC?
Brook trout questions:
1. During your time working in the Adirondacks, have you seen a change in brook trout
levels?
2. Do you think there are many heritage strain brook trout remaining in the Adirondacks? If
so, how many strains do you think there are and what type of habitat do they generally
live in?
3. Do you think many people know what a heritage strain of brook trout is? Has anyone
ever asked you about heritage strain brook trout?
4. How many trout are typically stocked in the Adirondacks each year and what type of
trout are they?
5. In what ways might stocking trout be harmful and in what ways might it be beneficial?
More specific questions:
1. What sorts of environmental stressors are you concerned with that be impacting trout
populations and what does the DEC do to manage these concerns?
65
How have these management efforts been effective or ineffective?
2. Where do you see brook trout populations headed in the future?
3. If brook trout populations were restored to historical levels, how do you think this might
impact fishing in the area?
4. How are brook trout regulations perceived by the public?
5. Is there anyone else you know that we might be able to contact about this issue?
Questions for David Crowne and Glen Radovich
General profile questions:
1. Where are you from and what is your current employment?
2. Where are you from originally?
3. How did you end up fishing in the Adirondacks?
4. How long have you been fishing in the Adirondacks?
5. When you fish for trout do you typically catch-and-release?
6. What is your favorite heritage strain to fish for?
7. Could you share with us your favorite experience or story of fishing in the Adirondacks?
Brook trout questions:
1. Do you think there has been a change in brook trout, or trout fishing in general, during
your time in the Adirondacks?
2. What would you say is the most popular gamefish in the Adirondacks to catch? What is
the most common fish that you catch on a typical fishing trip?
3. Do you think many non-fishermen know what a heritage strain of brook trout is?
More specific questions:
1. Where do you see trout fishing headed in the future?
66
2. What are your opinions on DEC management efforts? In your opinion, do you think their
management efforts are effective? (i.e. - Lime application to reduce acidification,
stocking brookies...)
3. How many heritage strain brook trout are you currently aware of, and do you think there
are more out there?
4. Are there heritage strains in rivers and streams?
5. In general, do you think that many fishermen care whether trout have been stocked or not?
6. If brook trout populations were restored to historical levels, how do you think this might
impact fishing in the area?
7. Is there anyone else you know that we might be able to contact about this issue?
List of subjects interviewed for this study
Daniel Josephson – Research Associate at Cornell University DNR
David Crowne – Avid Adirondack fly fisherman
Glen Radovich – Avid Adirondack fly fisherman
Jon Fieroh – DEC Region 5 Aquatic Biologist
Other subjects contacted for interview
AuSable River Two-Fly Shop
•
No response received
Dr. Brad Baldwin – St. Lawrence University
•
Response received
Dr. Clifford Kraft – Cornell University
•
67
Dr. Craig Milewski – Paul Smith’s College
•
Hungry Trout Fly Shop
•
Joe Hackett – Tahawus Limited Guides
•
John Braico – NYS Trout Unlimited Resource Management VP
•
Response received
WILD Center
•
Response received
Wiley’s Fly Shop
•
Response received
68

1 Heritage Strain Brook Trout: Remnants of

Transcription

Similar documents

HIGH MAGNETIC FIELD MEASUREMENTS ON SINTERED SmCo5

Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia

Lake Shenandoah County Park and Sports Field Complex

Poster example – Oxgang Primary School

September 2012 - Long Island TU

- Candlewood Valley Chapter