Trout of Luck,

An investigation of current stocking regimes, legacies of historical land degredation in the Adirondacks and solutions for the revival of native Brook trout populations.

Thomas Duggan and Levi Keszey

Executive Abstract:

In this case study we sought to investigate whether Adirondack river trout populations were being sustainably managed in light of historical habitat degradation and future climate change projections. We also found the abundance of non-native trout species to be an issue from a purely ecological standpoint. Brook trout, Salvelinus fontnalis is the only native trout species, though possibly outnumbered in the rivers, and totally outnumbered in stocking statistics by brown trout, Salmo trutta, and rainbow trout, Onocorhynchus mykiss. These species demonstrate characteristics of invasive species, but also represent a significant draw to recreational fishers.            We used the St. Regis and the Ausable rivers in Franklin and Essex Counties, respectively, as study sites to evaluate the impacts of habitat degradation and contrived species abundance on the native trout. We found that historical habitat alteration from agriculture; mining, logging and overfishing have had significant impacts on the brook trout populations of the Adirondacks as well as the health of the river ecology. Sedimentation, river widening and barriers such as dams and culverts have created harsh conditions for brook trout, before the introduction of the non-native trout species in the late 19th century, such that the current state of the two rivers does not support as many trout as they did in the past.            With this current condition understood we investigated the implications of climate change and historical degradation on these waterways. By speaking with anglers, and non-profit conservation groups we began to understand the current state of rivers as very much improvable. The priority problems discovered were sedimentation and barriers to hydrologic and biotic flow, including the movement of trout. Further investigation suggests that by solving these two issues the health of the two rivers can be improved and benefit the communities both ecologically and economically, through increases in biodiversity of trophic levels below trout and of those species who consume trouts.

We have proposed a multifactorial solution to remove barriers and restore banks as well as riparian zones to mitigate sedimentation, erosion and stabilize the river system to best deal with future climate changes by returning river connectivity. Such solutions require collaboration and cooperation with many stakeholders as well as large amounts of funding. In order to facilitate the progress of solution implementation we look to start with education to improve public perception and inform the public of the necessity to begin such restoration projects.

-2-

ISSUE DEFINITION:

Background Information:

The Adirondack river systems that support the current trout fishery formed over the last 10,000 years as glaciers eroded down the 3 million year old high peaks to leave behind mostly northerly draining valleys, which are now the headwaters for Adirondack rivers. In the past 10,000 years rivers have been the dominating land shaping force, until the influence of agriculture and forestry of the early 19th century (Treadwell 2012). Currently the Ausable River watershed is composed of approximately 90% forest and 8% Agriculture or Urban. Traditionally the boreal climate of the Adirondacks has brought mean annual temperatures of 40 degrees with winter temperatures of 16 degrees and an average snowfall of 90inches. Such climate facilitates a mean water temperature of 52.7 degrees Fahrenheit. Native Brook Trout Salvelinus fontnalis dwell in colder waters where maximum temperatures reach 57-60 degrees Fahrenheit (Treadwell 2012). Towns along some of these rivers, especially the Ausable River have become hubs of outdoor activities, such as skiing, hiking and fishing. Tourism for these activities has replaced all other industries in the Adirondacks (Landen 1991)

Due to the multifaceted nature of the Adirondack trout fishery and related economies we will be addressing the sustainability of the trout fishery using the popular Ausable and St. Regis Rivers as study sites. However, it is not just an assessment of the current perceptions of anglers, ecological and economic conditions, but also a holistic assessment of the historical legacy of land use in the Adirondacks on the coldwater river systems. Native Brook Trout have been competing with brown trout and rainbow trout since their introduction in the late 19th century, as well as coping with the intense angling pressures of growing tourism-based economy of the Adirondacks. Since the 19th century, there have been substantial climatic changes as well as increased habitat alterations and degradation from the direct human impacts of agriculture, mining, forestry and recreation, as well as the accumulative impacts of population growth in the Adirondack region. To better understand trends leading to the current situation of the Adirondack Trout fisheries and determine the most ecologically and economically sustainable management solutions we will address both the ecological and economic concerns many have in relation to the fishery (Landen 1991).

Ecological History:

Brook and lake trout are the only native trout species to the Adirondack region. The presence of rainbow and brown trout in the region is due solely to their introduction by anglers for sport. Brook trout migrated to the Adirondacks following the last glacial recession approximately 10,000 years ago and, until recently, have been dominating the coldwater river and lake systems created from high-elevation snowmelt. The most notable and well known to anglers and tourists, of these the river systems are those flowing from the High-Peaks region, and until the 19th century these populations were very healthy (Landen 1991). During the

-3-

19th century an increase in industry and wealth on the east coast brought many people to the Adirondack region for tourism, and for the potential wealth of natural resources, namely timber, found in the Adirondack region. Land degradation from logging and farming lead to increased sedimentation in high-peak rivers.

Sedimentation reduces abundance of gravel spawning grounds and plugs spring upwelling that thermo-regulate Rivers during peak summer temperatures (Landen 1991). Beyond local waterway-health impacts, the industrial revolution of similar timing began the increases in CO2 emissions leading to current warming trends. Local pressures from influx of industry to the Adirondacks as well as larger scale changes in atmospheric composition begin in the 19th century and are very much a part of the current issues related to native brook trout health.

Global climate warming trends effect large scale systems, but have also been found to impact the local Adirondack Trout populations. Regional climate models predict increases in air temperature across northern temperate regions such as the Adirondacks during the next century (Bell 2004). Increases in air temperature will also lead to associated increases in stream and lake water temperatures (Magnuson 1994) Local implications for thermally sensitive species such as salmonids are yet to be fully understood, but can cause timing issues during reproductive periods. Without thermal refuge, elevated summer temperatures and associated increases in water temperature are positively correlated with decrease in red constructions and or delays in construction (Warren et al. 2012). Such reproductive issues related to regional warming trends suggest that an upper thermal threshold of reproduction for brook trout maybe reached within the next century. There could also be a number of cascading affects within the aquatic community from delayed spawning making brook trout more vulnerable to predation in early stages of growth. Warming trends will lead to earlier food availability and later spawning; such asynchronicity could be low fry survivorship and a decrease in subsequent populations (Warren et al. 2012) and may also cause nutrient loading or unbalanced community structure.

Local human habitat alterations from the logging and agriculture industries increased sedimentation in Adirondack Rivers now recognized as a major source of sediment pollution (Treadwell 2008). Eggs are held in the openings between cobbles and gravel amongst stream substrate (Treadwell 2008). Sedimentation of trout streams is a problem for more than one reason. Finer sands and silt from eroded riverbanks and run off can cover gravel substrate that serves as premium spawning ground for trout. Reducing the space in the substrate through the filling in with sand and silt reduces the availability of egg sites and thus negatively impacts survivorship as well as reducing habitat for macro-invertebrates. Sediment also has the ability to plug and/or reduce the flow from springs in streams (Landen 1991). Spring upwellings provide areas of thermal refuge during peak summer temperatures allowing trout to avoid areas of lethal maximum temperature. These areas are essentially the safety zones to which the trout flock in the summer, if they can reach them. In this way sedimentation of trout streams inhibits spawning success and reduces survivorship during periods of peak water temperature.

-4-

Sedimentation is a problem independent of interspecific species competition amongst trout, and is a process in need of attention by conservation groups as sedimentation reduces macro invertebrate habitat and leads to processes that degrade riparian biodiversity.

-5-

The Trout:

Brook trout are one of the native salmonid species to the Northeastern United States and have been of interest as a food source and game fish of anglers for centuries. There are a number of brook trout strains endemic to the Adirondacks only eight of which remain today (Landen 1991). There may be a number of factors for such disappearances, but it is in light of such concerns regarding the brook trout that we hope our investigations will reveal clues and cues for future management actions.

Brook trout are found in creeks, rivers, lakes and streams requiring cool calm spring fed pools (Brook Trout, 2012). Brook trout also prefer temperatures ranges with upper limits falling between 57-60 degrees F. Optimum growth occurs between the temperatures 55 degrees Fahrenheit and 65 degrees Fahrenheit, where exposures to 75 degree water maybe lethal within a few hours (Flick 1991). Such specific temperature regimes make Brook Trout susceptible to trends of increasing air temperature. It has already been found that elevated summer temperatures are negatively correlated with Brook Trout density (Hinz 1997). Aside from the environmental constraints of Brook Trout, populations in the Adirondacks have been interacting with the introduced Rainbow and Brown Trout since the late 1800’s (Introduced Species Project, 2012).

Brown trout are an introduced species to the Northeastern United States from Eastern Europe with earliest known dates of introduction for New York State dating back to 1883 (Introduced Species Project, 2012). The species was originally introduced through privately owned fish hatcheries with goals of supporting recreational fishing. However, Brown Trout have a different life history than brook trout. Their optimum temperature regime is from 56 degrees Fahrenheit to 66 degrees Fahrenheit allowing them to survive water temperatures that are too warm for native brook trout. The brown trout are known to grow faster overall and to larger sizes than native brook trout. This allows brown trout to bully or outcompete the smaller brook trout for food resources as well as survive lethal temperatures that inhibit the health of Brook Trout. By simply observing current warming trends in regional temperatures it seems as if in some time Brown Trout will become more fit to inhabit Adirondack waters.

Rainbow trout, similar to Brown Trout were introduced to the Northeastern United States beginning in the late 1800’s to support recreational fisheries. Native to the Northwestern United States Rainbow Trout are tolerant to a wide temperature regime with optimum temperatures falling between 55-60 degrees Fahrenheit, but can survive water temperatures over 70 degrees Fahrenheit (Missouri DEC Field Guide, 2012). Rainbow Trout are also generalists feeding on a variety of aquatic and terrestrial food as well as using a variety of habitats at some point of their life cycle. Like Brown Trout, Rainbow trout have been found to have grown larger and faster than Brook Trout even as part of a stocking regime in a marginal trout river (Baird et al. 2006).

-6-

Interspecific competition amongst these three trout species has been occurring since the introduction of non-native sport fish in the late 1800’s, however angling pressure and the importance of economies related to the fisheries New York State has continued to stocking these non-native species on a more centralized and industrial scale. By exploring current regional climate data, biotic preferences and certain life history traits of the three trout species of concern we can construct a picture of the current situation in our study sites. Current conditions and trends in regional climate aligned with temperature preferences of the three trout species suggest that Brook Trout may find it harder to survive warming waters when coping with interspecific competition of Brown and Rainbow trout who are tolerant of warmer temperatures. Similarly the effects of increased water temperature on spawning and growth of fledging brook trout make them more disadvantaged than the two trout species tolerant and less affected by warmer temperatures.

Introduced Brown Trout have replaced native Brook Trout in middle and lower reaches of many North American streams. Replacement has been described and correlated with fitness related to optimum temperature regimes, but not all mechanisms are fully understood (Fausch and White 1981). Some suggest predation by brown trout (Johnson, 1981) and others, differences in susceptibility to angling (Marshall and MacCrimmon 1970) In any case the implications for Adirondack trout waters suggest a problems of degraded aquatic systems and perhaps reason for current stocking regimes in order to support an economically successful fishery. However, we question the ecological sustainability of current practices as it disguises the health of aquatic communities and riparian zones as well as the outlook for which species will be most fit for Adirondack waters in the future and what can be done to help sustain native Brook Trout populations.

History of Habitat Degradation on Adirondack Rivers:

Agriculture:

The first settlers to the Adirondack region were farmers, who, due to the short growing season of the area, opted to focus on livestock rather than vegetables. Livestock freely grazed in the water sources, perhaps the first pollution to our case study rivers. This settlement was in the early 1800’s and demanded intense clearing of the ancient forest (Terrie 1997). Farmers often used slash and burn techniques to expedite the clearing process, a means that is both highly effective and highly damaging to the stability of the soil. The only trees that farmers left were sugar maples in order to produce syrup for market sale, but the fires required for boiling burned many more trees than were left standing (Hyde 1974).

Agriculture was popular in the region among immigrants, namely the Irish and Dutch, who flocked to the opportunity for cheap land even if in a seriously harsh climate. The 1850 census showed over 500 families listing agriculture as their main occupation in Hamilton County (Terrie 1997). The impact of agriculture on the Adirondack landscape should not be overlooked, even if the expanse of it has

-7-

dwindled in the modern era. Agricultural settlement of the Adirondacks was the first wave of soil destabilization and pollution of the region’s rivers. It was also brought the first cases of damming for use in gristmills, a feature around which most communities were based. Agriculture especially boomed in the pre-Civil War era in order to feed the communities associated with the iron industry (Terrie 1997).

Mining:

As early as 1801, iron smelting began in the Champlain Valley foothills of the Adirondacks (Terrie 1997). The region is immensely wealthy in iron ore, and the supplies to manufacture the metal. The lumber supply for the production of charcoal for smelting and the supply of immigrant laborers made the Adirondacks extremely productive. The McIntyre mine brought enough workers for two villages in 1850 (Terrie 1997). Iron mining was initially subterranean, but as technology progresses, open pit mines became more common. Throughout the 1880’s the Adirondacks were producing one quarter of the nation’s iron ore (Hyde 1974). In the 1950’s Benson mine in Star Lake was the largest open pit iron mine in the world (ADK Museum 2012). Mining at this scale had intense impressions on Adirondack rivers.

Besides the obvious landscape destruction and associated biodiversity loss of open pit mines, pollution from the smelting process ran directly into the rivers. Tailing ponds held the “slag” and other heavy metal byproducts of the industry that indisputably poured into the nearby rivers and polluted the entire downstream sections to Lake Champlain and the St. Lawrence River. Massive open pit mining of limestone was also necessary for use as “flux” to remove the impurities during the mining process. The waste products from the flux inevitably poured into the rivers adding sandy non-ferrous mineral extracts and lowering the pH of the water.

Smelting processes brought some of the first dams to the region as well. Hydropower was used to power fans that superheated the charcoal for the smelting process as well as for cooling during casting. The Ausable and St. Regis rivers were both dammed for use by the Iron industry during this mining boom period, and like many dams in the region, they were not intentionally removed, but rather left to slowly deteriorate and continuously impede fish movement and slow and heat the river waters (Terrie 1997).

The industry used huge amounts of charcoal to power the smelting process. From 1850 to 1880 along, forges and furnaces used seven million bushels of charcoal a year (Terrie 1997). The charcoal was produced in the Adirondacks from clear-cut wood of all ages and species. The nature of the charcoal making process is such that there was no selection in timber harvest and so clear cutting was extremely economical.

Colliers needed 160,000 cords of wood to make the seven million bushels, so up to 7,000 acres of forests were cut each year to feed the iron industry (ADK Museum 2012). The clear cutting by the mining industry would have created immense sedimentation pressures on the river ecosystems, and probably created

-8-

the conditions for bank erosion we are still seeing today. Logging, however, was the true poison process to the region’s rivers.

Logging:

The impact of logging in the Adirondacks is probably one of the most serious considerations in our study. In regards to the waterways, Logging has some intrinsically harmful characteristics especially when considering the methods employed in the Adirondacks prior to World War II. By 1841, fifty-four lumber trading yards were in operation in the Adirondacks (Hyde 1974). Timber harvest was focused only on the best wood of the tree, leaving massive amounts of brush that in 1903, 1908 and 1913 set massive areas ablaze (Welsh 1995). Fires such as this burn the stumps and roots of the trees that would have aided in soil retention, causing immense erosion, sedimentation and ensuing losses of biota. Logging also requires skidways, roads and railroad lines, which, from the beginning were built with no regard to fish movement in the waterways. Logging occurred for many purposes, all of which had their own impact on the rivers of the area.

While the cutting of trees for homesteading purposes of heating, cooking and pasture-creation began upon European settlement; true commercial logging was established for the leather tanning industry. As early as 1831, large-scale tanneries began using hemlock bark for the production of tannic acid (Terrie 1997). In Warren County alone, six tanneries used more than fifteen thousand cords of hemlock annually in 1885 (Welsh 1995). Besides the clearing of forests, tanneries dumped their highly acidic wastewater directly into the river creating downstream dead zones.

Pulpwood began being used for paper production immediately after the Civil War, an unfortunately coinciding period with the boom of logging in the Adirondacks (Terrie 1997). In 1899, the harvest of spruce alone from the Adirondacks for pulpwood was over 230 million board feet. More recently, the number of commercial pulp mills in the Adirondacks in 1956 was twenty-seven (Hyde 1974). Paper companies were also responsible for dead zones in the river from chemical point pollution (Welsh 1995).

Log driving, or floating cut logs down rivers, was the common means of lumber transportation until, and even after, the arrival of railroads in the Adirondacks. In the middle of the 19th century, the state passes legislation to aid in the timber industry by providing funding for damming and streambed modification of many brooks to facilitate the flow of logs to major rivers (Hyde 1974). Sometimes dynamite was even used to clear waterways for ease of log transportation (Terrie 1997). Loggers preferred wide, slower moving rivers, which was fortunate for them because erosion due to their logging practices was creating just this. Furthermore, the volume of logs sent down the rivers created huge “log-jams” which essentially scoured the rivers of the periphyton and invertebrates that make up the base of biotic food chain (Terrie 1997). Even though some trout could have survived the logjams, most likely their food source loss became a limiting resource.

-9-

With the arrival of mechanized, gasoline-driven cutting and transporting in the logging industry, a second wave of cutting hit the Adirondacks. The use of tractors and trucks effectively ended the need for river drives, but also allowed for easier transportation of hardwoods, which had been overlooked to some extent, as they do not float well. The use of trucks did require the addition of more roads and bridges, which create erosion and can halt fish migration upstream and down.

Recreation and Tourism

Humans have had a historically significant direct effect on trout populations via overfishing. The diary of Henry Conklin, a mid-19th century settler, sheds light on the once fruitful trout fishery.

“That summer we had plenty of trout. The boys used to go fishing after supper and would sometimes get enough for three meals a plenty to last all the next day. Sometimes they would catch a big pan full in an hour or two, and such nice great beauties” (Terrie 1974).

Some would dismiss such accounts as unreliable, and typical fishermen’s’ tales, but period photographs depict abundance and health of brook trout in the region, and an insignificant presence of other trout species, if any presence at all. The introduction of brown and rainbow trout at the end of the 19th century is as clear of a case of invasive species as any.

According to Adirondack historian Philip Terrie, an American travel craze between the installation of the Eerie Canal in 1825 and the onset of the Civil War, brought a rush of tourists to the Adirondacks for the first time. Wealthy Americans were coming almost exclusively to hunt and fish. Fly Fishing was coming into fashion among affluent Americans at just the time that they were discovering the Adirondacks. Charles Hallock, a well known field sports writer of the day published his book The Fishing Tourist: Angler’s Guide and Reference Book in 1873, in which the chapter on the Adirondacks is longer than any in America (Terrie 1997). The modern era of tourism in the Adirondacks has been quite different from the 19th century, and indisputably more damaging to the trout fisheries.

The advent of the family car after World War I brought a new and much larger wave to the Adirondacks than the trains or carriages ever could have. Car tourism created a further need for roads and along with them bridges and culverts, which as mentioned before can impede the motion of trout as effectively as dams. With more people came an increased fishing pressure, which combined with habitat degradation and invasive trout species aforementioned lead to the drastic damage of native trout populations (Engels 1978). Brook trout are less abundant and smaller in size due to overfishing and size-selecting fishing throughout the 19th and twentieth century.

Protecting the Watersheds of the Adirondack Park

On May 20, 1892 the Adirondack Park was signed into legislation. One of the major driving forces behind this establishment was to “protect navigable waterways” (Terrie 1997). This push mostly came from developed areas

-10-

surrounding the Hudson River who noticed a decline in the quantity and quality of their water source. Their interest in the rivers was also economic as rivers were still a major source of transportation of goods. The push also came from sportsmen and the popular sports magazines of out-of-state tourists. In essence the Adirondack Park was established to protect the New York City watershed and tourist destinations for expanding urban communities outside of the Blue Line.

In the history of the Adirondack Park, we see some common trends in the impacts of human activity on the rivers. First, for the majority of human time in the region, the Adirondacks have been treated as a resource well. The view of the region has long been through the utilitarian lens for its abundance of iron ore, timber, pulpwood and arable land. Recreation too, is a utility derived from the area with intense impacts on the resilience of the river ecosystems. Our relatively recent view of the region as an area of aesthetic value has not induced sufficient devotion to restorative conservation practices.

Restorative conservation practices attempt to reverse the damages outlined above and in current times. We distinguish restoration from conservation, which attempts to protect the natural resources we have currently from future depletion. The historical legacies of mining, logging, agriculture and recreation include sedimentation, river widening, a long-depleted native wild fish stock and the establishment of many barriers to fish migration. In order to address these issues, we must employ restoration and conservation tools, not just one or the other. While, we are focusing on trout, trout serve as an indicator of total river health and associated biodiversity.

Current habitat conditions of the ADK Fisheries

Due to the historical legacy of land-use in the Adirondack watershed and more specifically land-use adjacent to, and in the rivers, the riverine habitats are becoming less suitable to harbor a trout population. More specifically native brook trout are found in very few places and all trout species, introduced or native, find it hard to winter in the rivers. The stocking regimes to combat this pressure and recreational fishing pressure will be discussed separately, while it is an identified issue it is not the primary issue we have identified. The primary issue we have identified is habitat alterations due to adjacent land use and the installation of dams and culverts that primarily prevent fish movement in the water way, but also have cascading effects on the channel size, substrate composition, water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels and the rivers ability to cope with flooding events.

As we have stated the primary issue that Adirondack trout face is one of changing habitat conditions and intense weather events associated with climate change. While there is a long history of riparian zone alteration directly associated with logging and agriculture practices there have been more secondary effects of adjunct land use such as local development of structures and roads. It is this pressure of development that has led to the construction and installation of dams

-11-

for power and reservoirs as well as the installation of culverts during road construction. Such adjacent and perpendicular alteration to habitat greatly effects sedimentation and channel construction. Cascading affects on habitat only worsen as channel alteration increases and we experience more intense weather events. These channel affects also decrease the holdover potential of these waterways.

Barriers

Corrie Miller, the Ausable River Steward Project Manager, and Tim Damon ex-member of the St. Lawrence County Board of Fisheries identified dams and culverts as primary concerns in regards to the trout populations of the St. Regis and Ausable Rivers. Dams prevent the flow of water down stream holding water upstream of the dam creating a reservoir. This stagnation of water causes a build up of silt above the dam, and warms water above and below the dam. The slowing of the water also drastically decreases the dissolved oxygen content of the water, an essential requirement for brook trout survival. Down river from the dam river volume is reduced changing channel patterns and stream and riparian community structure. The dam also prevents the movement of fish populations on the waterway, which may be necessary to reach thermal refuges, winter habitats and spawning grounds.

Similarly culverts can be constrictions in the channel and reduce continuous flow during flooding events if they are not the appropriate size. In an assessment of culverts along the Ausable and its tributaries by the Ausable River Association it was found that culverts, if not installed correctly, can prevent up river travel of fishes meaning that they do not have the ability to reach thermal refuges during peak summer temperatures, reach spawning grounds or find suitable wintering habitats.

Aside from inhibiting the movement of fish up and down streams these barriers also prevent the ability of the channel to deal with flooding events and seasonal flow changes. This reduction of water movement can also lead to the warming of water because of decreased volume and slower flow, which also facilitates sediment fallout adding to sedimentation issues associated with runoff. Structural changes of the channel from such barriers can be connected with the alteration of riparian zones as well.

Riparian Zone Alteration and Sedimentation

On top of the historical legacy of riparian zone degradation contemporary events of extreme weather have heavily altered riparian zones during flooding events as seen with the recent weather events of hurricanes Irene and Sandy. Remediation after such storm events has been primarily focused on opening up roads and the safety of citizens. The town crews essentially created a uniform trough in the river disregarding trout’s need for a pool-step habitat. Within this focus there is a misunderstanding amongst local and regional agencies on how to

-12-

deal with rivers and riparian zones after such flood events so as to not harm rivers and riparian zones. This issue is partially caused by the landscape’s decreased ability for runoff retention, due to the historical legacy of logging.

Sedimentation from adjacent land use has created channel widening. As sediment falls out of the water column due to slow water velocity, it causes channel widening, undercutting banks and leading to increased sedimentation from the collapse events. It is on top of this state that riparian zone alteration leads to increased runoff and the above described sedimentation widening negative feedback loop. All of this together facilitates channel conditions that slow water, making wider, more shallow channels where water warms faster and reduces substrate heterogeneity; in sum, worsening habitat for trout. Much of the rivers ability to deal with flood events depends on channel design and riparian zones that function as buffer zone during such extreme events.

Adirondack Park Agency regulations on Wild and Scenic Rivers (such as the St. Regis and Ausable) restrict new riparian zone alteration. The issue with these regulations is that they apply to new developments, and do not attempt to remediate damage done prior to the APA’a formation in 1971. Furthermore, certain exemptions to these regulations apply to villages. From these exceptions we see much of the riparian zone alterations and degradations that further add to the declining river health. Through riparian zone remediation efforts much of the problems associated with past degradation due to land use choices can be solved in a way similar to the River Meade Farm Project, which will be discussed later in the solutions section.

Riparian zone alterations that lead to sedimentation, channel widening and slowing water contribute significantly to changing channel structure and substrate composition. In some areas this causes extensive anchor ice that reduce winter mobility and survivorship of trout. Additionally simplified channels do not provide the step-pool, and riffle-flat channel patterns that provide prime trout habitat. Fewer pools for hold over and riffles for feeding also reduce survivorship through the winter. Thus, while the “hold over” issue is secondary, it is a result of changing channels from the above issues of sedimentation and erosion.

Contrived Species Composition and Abundance

From our interviews with local guides, fly shop owners, conservation groups and the Department of Environmental Conservation we have found that there is a contrived species composition and lack of knowledge regarding the abundance of the respective trout species. The stocking of non-native trout species began in the late 1800’s for recreation and has continued to the current date. Stocking in the rivers is done primarily by the DEC, followed by the counties and private stakeholders such as clubs and businesses. The stocking regimes overwhelmingly focus on brown and rainbow trout. From a biodiversity standpoint, this is an issue because it is an organized replacement of the native species by an introduced species.

-13-

The volume of stocked trout increases yearly and in 2012, 23,485 trout were stocked in the Ausable and 13,430 in the St. Regis Rivers from the DEC alone. Of these sums only 1,310 were brook trout and that was solely on the Ausable, the St. Regis did not receive any brook trout. These numbers suggest that little more than 4% of all trout stocked are native trout species (DEC 2012 Stocking Figures 2012). Appendix 1 shows the figures from the Department of Environmental Conservation’s website.

We have also found that there is a general misunderstanding or knowledge gap as to what species are stocked and what species are native to Adirondack waters. We may be wrong to say that it is a contrived species composition, but for a river that is supposed to be Wild and Scenic why would non-native trout species be continuously stocked in such disproportionate numbers? While all trout species are disadvantaged by current river conditions, native trout are especially disadvantaged due to interspecific competition, and habitat degradation as discussed earlier. Along with such contrived species abundances in the stocking regime, the stocking practices can also be questioned.

Issues with Installation of Hatchery Fish into the Rivers

According to Tim Damon, of the St. Lawrence County Fisheries Advisory Board it is evident that part of the issue surrounding the Adirondack Trout and the fishery is the manner by which the trout are stocked (Damon 2010). The way in which trout are stocked is a product of miscommunications, lack of knowledge and lack of funding to ensure optimum stocking practices. The solution to stocking practices is complex as well as there are many involved parties, the truck drivers, hired stockers, volunteered stockers and fishermen awaiting the stocking. However, with more funding and increased education about optimum stocking practices, fish can be released in more optimum habitat for longer survivorship.

As it stands now the stocking regime of the St. Regis River is “put and take.” The DEC does not expect trout holdover and expects people to catch almost all of the fish that go into the river. This problem begins perhaps with miscommunications between the drivers of stocking trucks and DEC officials in charge of stocking. Damon suggests that truck drivers feel hurried or are in a hurry so they stock where it is easiest to get the truck close to the river and place the fish in the river as fast as possible. This often means at bridge holes right below the bridge. Perhaps there is a lack of knowledge about the importance of spreading out stocked fish as to not crowd them and create a scenario where one could “shoot” fish in a barrel or there is a lack of funding to ensure that truck drivers can take their time and allow stockers to carry fish by bucket up stream and down stream from the access point.

Stockers have their own personal interests and may stock as to easily facilitate their own catching of fish. Certain interest groups like hunting and fishing clubs have been known to show up for stocking and immediately after stocking catch the fish just stocked (Damon 2010). Such stocking practices do not facilitate

-14-

survivorship of fish beyond the few weeks after stocking as they do not get spread out from a variety of drop zones, but rather are concentrated. This crowding is especially of concern with considering the barriers constrictions that dams and culverts exhibit. Damon (2010) cites a lack of funding and a serving of personal interests as issues in the installation of hatchery fish into the rivers.

Socio Economic Conditions

The socio economic conditions of the two rivers being discussed are complex, are visible on many levels and also differ between the different rivers. There are common themes on the regional agency level regarding revenue from licenses and shortage of funding on the state level for the Department of Environmental Conservation. The economic conditions differ between the Ausable and St. Regis rivers as well, contributing to some problems surrounding rehabilitation efforts.

Local economies of the Ausable are very dependent upon the fly fishing season as there is great influx of revenues for Fly Shops, Restaurants and Amenities. Above this functional level of economy there are also greater agencies including the Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Government, State and Local Transportation Departments, Federal Emergency Management Agencies, local communities and conservation groups which can be summarized as a lack of communication regarding the issue of river conservation and care.

Beginning on the smallest level of local economies it is known that the Ausable River is a destination for recreational fishermen and has been since the times following the Civil War. That historical legacy has greatly contributed the development of local economies connected to fisherman. In speaking with fly shop owners there seems to be little influx of money spending visitors to the area in the early summer months beyond that influx of fly fishermen. With local economies highly dependent upon the revenues related to fly fishing it is important to consider the wants of this industry when considering possible solutions to improve river health. The St. Regis River and connected communities are less dependent upon fly fishermen, but is also much smaller than that of High Peaks Region in which the Ausable is located.

The “put and take” model of stocking very much ensures that visiting fly fishermen catch trout after stocking during peak fishing season, but can do little to ensure fish catch early season after winter and late into the fall. This issue of short fish catch season can be addressed to provide longer more sustained influx of fly fishing revenues if visitors can expect and increased livelihood of catching fish.

All fishermen are required to purchase a license. However, the revenue from the license sales appears to not meet the needs of the DEC, as numerous times there has been mention of lack of funding for the hatcheries, stocking efforts and staff to monitor and do remediation projects on the rivers. Here the lack of funding as a fee to fish connects to the lack of funding for the DEC at the state level, which could be

-15-

used to address issues related to stocking and river conservation. In the case of extreme weather events, it seems as though the DEC is also short on staff to address issues related to flooding and channel reconstruction efforts as a negative feed back loop as identified during the event of Irene (Miller 2013).

When compared to other states with famous trout water such as Wyoming annual license fees are lower in New York State. There is a five-dollar conservation stamp you can purchase as an option (DEC License Information 2013), but Wyoming requires the purchase of conservation stamps for $12.50 a year (Wyoming State Gov. 2013). Funding from licenses sales becomes a willingness to pay question that we are not quite ready to address with confidence because of lack of surveying in the matter.

When initiating this research, we had planned on conducting an on site survey of recreational fishers on the study rivers. Our main question queries were: How much do anglers know about the degraded state of the river and the DEC’s stocking practices? And, how much would anglers be willing to pay to address these degradation issues? Due to reasons outlined in Appendix 2, we were not able to conduct this survey. We do however assert that a survey to answer these questions is essential in addressing this issue. Our survey is contained in appendix 2 and could be used as a model by the DEC, the APA or AsRA to gather information of angler’s willingness to pay for habitat restoration.

On a much larger level of connection to conservation strategy there is a lack of communication among agencies regarding conservation and river remediation strategies. This became evident following the flooding events of Irene in Keene and Keene Valley when Adirondack Park Agency lifted regulations regarding channel entering and reconstruction (Miller 2013). After speaking with a representative from the Ausable River Association it seems clear that the major issue regarding remediation and conservation projects is a lack of communication. This lack of communication has been addressed with the development of the role of the AsRA, which can function as a mediator between agencies, towns groups, citizens and other conservation groups that can provide funding to projects such as the Nature Conservancy. For the purpose of efficiency when attempting remediation and restoration projects, ease of communication has been identified as a major problem.

In sum, the lack of communication is the biggest problem that penetrates into the lower issues of socio-economic concern such as the importance of the fly fishery for local economies. The concern regarding license fees and conservation fees could be mitigated if there was more communication amongst agencies. These are just two examples of problems stemming from lack of communication and how it impacts the local economics and education in conjunction with the importance of healthy rivers.

STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION

-16-

Recreational Fishers

In the 2007 Department of Environmental Conservation Statewide Angler Survey, the department was able to get a grasp on the expectations and preferences of approximately 20,000 anglers. Understanding these preferences is important in our project, as they are the major demographic we need to satisfy. Of those surveyed, 38.9% fish for new experiences, regardless of scenery or fish species caught, 20.1% fish for wild, non-stocked fish, 20.2% hope to fish close to home in non-polluted and healthy rivers, 12.2% want to fish catch and release to maintain the fish populations and 8.6% fish to catch as many large fish as they can regardless of species (DEC Angler Survey 2007). This outlines many agendas including that the majority recreational fishers are more concerned with where they fish than the species of fish they catch. The 20.1% that hope to catch only non-stocked fish may be more receptive to changes in the trout stocking makeup. This “angler type” was most common in inland trout streams (DEC Angler Survey 2007). This finding suggests that there is a disconnect between these fisher’s preferences for non-stocked fish and their knowledge of what fish, and how many are stocked. We had hoped to survey this variable, but were unable to for reasons outlined in Appendix 3.

This DEC survey also gives information regarding fishers’ opinions about the fish they did catch. Of those who caught fish on the day surveyed, 49% were satisfied with the number they caught, and 26% were not. Similarly, 48% were satisfied with the size of fish they caught and 23% were not (DEC Angler Survery Part 2 2007).

# Caught Size Caught0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

SatisfiedNot Satisfied

Figure 1. Percent satisfaction of anglers surveyed by the DEC in 2007 with number of fish caught and size of fish caught.

-17-

These statistics outline the general discussion around recreational fishing that people expect to catch many large fish. It is unclear what leads to these expectations besides marketing by the tourism industry, and the general discourse surrounding the goals of fishing in NY.

Another interesting trend that comes to surface in this survey is the difference between in-state and out-of-state fishers’ preferences for fish type. In the survey region that includes the Ausable and St. Regis Rivers, local residents preferred to fish for warmwater gamefish while out-of-state fishers’ came for the coldwater gamefish (ie. trout, and other salmonids). This suggests a disproportional out-of-state investment and interest in the trout populations of these rivers.

In this survey the DEC did not differentiate among river-dwelling trout species. The “trout” category gained a consistent second place in the question regarding what fish species people prefer to fish for1. We can infer a lack of separation between native and non-native in the DEC’s public survey agenda, and possibly also a lack of distinction in the public knowledge. We had hoped to quantify this knowledge base with our survey (Appendix 2). This is partially addressed in the public response to the DEC’s efforts to restore fish populations and protect aquatic habitats. Among this surveyed, 21% were very satisfied, 27% were moderately satisfied, 26% were neutral and 16% were dissatisfied (DEC Angler Survey Part 2 2007). The main critique of the DEC was a lack of publishing of the stocking practices, an issue that has been remedied by posting the statistics online, where we accessed them for our study. A follow-up survey is needed to assess whether this information was appropriately disseminated, or whether fishers are still unaware of the extent of stocking the species makeup of the stocking regime. Taking the expectation and current knowledge of recreational fishers into account is paramount in addressing the issue of unsustainable fisheries.

GUIDES AND GEAR SUPPLIERS

Flyshop and guide headquarters, such as the Hungry Trout2 in Wilmington, NY, independent fishing guides, and the other gear suppliers are entirely dependent upon a fishery that will continue to sustain fish and draw tourists to the area. There are three other fly shops in the Ausable and St. Regis regions, along with many

1

2 Much of our guidance in this project came from Evan Botcher, owner of the Hungry Trout. His family’s flyshop hosts the annual two-fly competition, where over eighty fishers compete to catch the most trout feet in one day on only two flies. The competition is usually held immediately following the DEC’s spring stocking, a timing that creates hype surrounding the river for the entire season. Evan expressed interest in holding the event prior to the river stocking, in order to see how many trout were able to survive the winter. He said that he met this idea with resistance from the stocking agencies, and that a poor yield at the two fly competition would harm the reputation of the river.

-18-

shops that sell tackle, either as primary inventory or as a supplement to their other products, such as gas stations and convenience stores. Due to the fact that fishing guides will work on a large variety of rivers, it is extremely hard to estimate the number of guides active on these rivers. We can assume, due to the fame of the Ausable, that any guide based in the Adirondack Park guides on the this river a number that is at least twenty. With the addition of a conservative estimate of ten guides that lead trips on the St. Regis River (Tim Damon, personal interaction), we can see the magnitude of citizens’ reliance on these fisheries.

Amenities and Hospitality Providers

The aforementioned income generated by the fishing industry, especially from out-of state tourists, is the income of many besides guides and gear retailers. While it is difficult to gauge the business brought to amenity and hospitality providers, we argue that the fishing tourism industry brings customers when other outdoor activities are in their off-season. May and June see a massive influx of recreational fishers and their families. Those who do not fish visit Lake Placid, Saranac Lake or other locations to participate in other non-fishing tourism such as canoeing, shopping and dining.

The Department of Environmental Conservation

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation works to protect its claim of “some of the finest fishing in the country…world class fishing for a wide variety of coldwater, warm water and saltwater fish species”(DEC 2013). The DEC’s main concern is to balance the economic needs of New York citizens while “conserving, improving and protecting New York’s natural resources”(DEC 2013).

Town Governments and Transportation Authorities

In the case of culverts, bridges, dams and some stream bank rehabilitation projects, we need the involvement of local and regional transportation and land authorities. As Corrie Miller, Director of AsRA, mentioned, the town’s primary goal in remediation after Hurricane Irene is create navigable and safe roads. The NY Department of Transportation has a similar agenda and maintains most of the bridges that cross these rivers, excluding hamlets and villages. We need to work on establishing better communication pathways to establish ecological input into bridge, road and culvert construction. These authorities are secondarily concerned with the aesthetic character of their villages. We would need to make sure that new remediation projects would fit with village master plans and zoning regulations in place by town governments.

Non-profit Environmental Groups

-19-

The most obvious private conservation group involved in this project is the Ausable River Association where many of our resources came from. AsRA’s spearheaded some major rehabilitation projects in 2012. They restored and stabilized 2,800 feet of eroding stream bank with natural materials, planted 1,600 trees with the help of 30 volunteers, created 5 wader wash stations to address invasive species spread, and organized multiple community cleanups and river appreciation and fundraising events. In addition, AsRA identified and prioritized culverts in the Ausable River Basin that are barriers to fish (AsRA 2010). This last project was in conjunction with the Nature Conservancy, who is granted money to the project. Large non-profits like TNC are a useful tool in securing funds for restoration projects, and AsRA hopes to employ them further in the future. Private donors also support AsRA’s efforts, many of which were the businesses that rely on the river.

Diffuse Local Stewards

The Ausable and St. Regis Rivers run through numerous towns on their way to Lake Champlain and the St. Lawrence Rivers, respectively. These villages have stewardship investments in the rivers, for the health of their local ecosystems and the cleanliness of the water in the rivers. The 20.1% of anglers in the DEC 2007 survey that desire to fish non-polluted, healthy rivers embody these diffuse stakeholders. These citizens may also consider the river ecosystems themselves stakeholders, as the authors of this paper.

GOVERNMENTAL ISSUES:

The DEC and the State Government Interactions

When anglers purchase fishing licenses, the money follows a diluted path that leads it to state-held accounts. The New York State government uses the proceeds from permits to offset their debt (Miller 2013). While the DEC is funded by the state, the money raised from fishing in New York is far greater than the budget returned to the DEC. The DEC budget has been cut consistently the past six years to lead to a 23% reduction in employee number. The budget cut from 2012 to 2013 amounted to $53 million (Richmond 2013). With such a funding system, the time pressures DEC truck drivers are subjected to, and which subject the fish to unnecessary pressures, are clarified. A restructuring of this system would benefit the DEC and river health, but reaches into the state government and is unfeasible in the short-term.

Within the Department of Environmental Conservation

Purchase of the optional $5 habitat and access stamp contributes to the DEC Conservation Fund Habitat Account, the funds of which are “used for ongoing and upcoming projects aimed towards conserving habitat and increasing fish and

-20-

wildlife recreational access” (DEC “access stamp” 2013). Conservation organizations or towns and counties who wish to improve the health of their fisheries, or improve access to fishing opportunities, apply a proposal for a grant of this money. In the history of this program since its signing into legislation in 2002, the only project in DEC’s Zone 5 (the zone including our study rivers), was to create a new parking area along the Salmon River, and to cut Japanese knotweed to facilitate easier access. Many of the other districts have received true conservation funds, but close to half of the total funds raised have gone to the access goal of the fund (DEC Approved Projects List 2013). It seems contradictory to have the same funds contribute to new parking areas as restoration projects. A greater separation is needed in this system between true conservation projects and development of new access points.

The Federal Government

As mentioned before, after Hurricane Irene, many culverts in District 5 had to be replaced after wash-out. The damage due to culvert failure to the towns of Jay and Keene alone was $1.4 million (AsRA 2013). The federal funds from FEMA will allow an increase of only one size when replacing culverts after such an event. This increase is both insufficient to allow trout mobility, and lacks foresight to predicted climatic changes (Miller 2013). With additional funding, these culverts could have been replaced in order to facilitate trout movement to refuges during the heat of summer, and increased trout survival.

Town and County Departments

The town and county highway crews are primarily concerned with ease and safety of civic transportation. There is both a lack of knowledge and consideration regarding trout populations on the part of these departments. County and town workers frequently disturb rivers by dredging gravel to create low-slope banks. They do this in an attempt to help river flow, but in fact are contributing to the issue by shallowing, widening and slowing the water (AsRA, 2013). AsRA is working to bring greater consciousness and understanding to transportation authorities.

The Adirondack Park Agency

The APA’s goal in river ecosystem management is to “provide protection to water quality and aesthetics of Adirondack shorelines”(DEC 2013). Both the St. Regis and the Ausable are considered Wild and Scenic River, which have especially strict regulations, but can be lifted in certain cases, such as occurred after Irene. The transportation departments were able to conduct such excavation projects because the APA temporarily lifted restrictions on bank alteration. The APA is principally concerned with private land-use proposals that may impact the integrity of the park’s natural resources to sustain themselves, and meet the needs

-21-

of citizens and visitors. Any large-scale rehabilitation projects would surely need the approval of the APA.

Overall Trends in Governing

An obvious trend in government issues is a general lack of funding for restoration projects. This lack of funding is due to the greater structure of DEC funding as well as inefficient use of conservation money within the DEC. We will reconsider the funding issue in composing solutions to this issue. Another lesson evident in the governing of these regions is a lack of communication. For example in the case of post-Irene reconstruction, the APA, the DEC and AsRA could have coordinated fish-friendly culvert construction. Conservation outcomes are most durable when all stakeholders communicate and merge their goals (Redpath et. Al 2013).

Development of Solutions

A successful solution that improves river health has to: 1) make fishermen happy 2) sustain or create jobs for local economies and 3) restore natural habitat. There is more than one solution to improve river health, but few that address protecting adequate and appropriate space, reducing nonclimate stresses, applying adaptive management to implement and test adaptation strategies immediately, and reduce the rate and extent of climate change to reduce overall risk to the conservation unit of concern (Hansen et Al 2010). With these considerations it will be important protect and restore adequate river habitat to support trout populations, reduce non-climate stresses of invasive species and interspecific competitions. Furthermore, the solution should begin implementation as soon as possible and be designed to accommodate trends of extreme weather and warming water trends, thus shifting ranges for different trout species and a higher demand for the mobility of fish.

On the socio-economic side of solutions, a successful one needs to meet the needs of the community facilitating a sustained flow of revenues for the local economies. To do so the solution would need to also meet angler preferences and be able to do so in the long term taking into account changes in the ecosystem due to climate change. Angler preference is generally understood through surveys. Local economies depend on fishermen coming to the river as they spend money at fly shops, gear shops, restaurants and hotels. However, employees of the DEC should also be considered as part of the local economies and solutions should not cost them their jobs. Habitat restoration, the primary goal of proposed solutions will include the first two goals of a successful solution, as the issue is both of ecologic and economic concern. DEC employees should very much be a part of the design, reconstruction and monitoring the sites after remediation.

Natural habitat restoration, therefore brings more fishermen, more revenue for local economies, revenues to be directed to the DEC, provides jobs for DEC as

-22-

they become involved in restoration projects, increases the abundance of fish through the seasons, and creates natural aesthetic landscapes pleasing to both fisher and non-fisher visitors. While river restoration can be achieved by many means, successful solutions will meet the requirements of the four tenants of climate smart conservation (Hansen et Al 2010), and the criteria we have outlined for a sustainable trout fishery.

Potential Solutions

With these objectives in mind we have outlined a number of potential solutions to increase the river health. Some more realistic than others, but many solutions of different types should be explored to create a strong synthetic solution working to achieve ecologic and economic goals.

We begin with the idea of stocking only native trout species in the river. This option would satisfy purist fishers, who only want native species in the rivers and it would also begin to naturalize the river, returning it to its Wild and Scenic condition as eventually non-native trout would drastically decrease in number and be replaced by Brook Trout. However, during this transition there would probably be decreased productivity in the fisheries as there is a suspicion that over winter hold over is low (Tim Damon personal interaction, Corrie Miller personal interaction). Such drastic change in the stocking regime risks upsetting anglers and cascading through the local economies. Invasive biology points out that not all non-native species are ecologically harmful and that some have economic value that override their impact (Simberloff et Al 2013) Furthermore, in an ecological sense we do not know if brook trout could survive on the rivers to support the demands of the recreational fisheries and deal with climatic trends of warming. The known costs of this solution do not seem to outweigh the benefits and is not a viable solution ecologically or economically.

On the other side of the issue we could devote all stocking and hatchery money to river restoration projects. Benefits from such revenue flow would allow river restoration to begin, bring jobs to people restoring the river and concentrate money and energy around a long term goal of complete river restoration. In the meantime switching the path of revenue flow would take away jobs from those at the hatcheries and those involved in fish stocking practices, ultimately reducing the short-term productivity of the river. We do not know that survivorship is significant enough to support recreation demands in the absence of stocking. With this solution the forecast looks grim again with the costs of ending stocking greater than those benefits of purely restoring habitat. Alone, river restoration projects would not function economically or ecologically in the short term.

Another possible legislation-focused strategy that would possibly increase survivorship of stocked fishes could be to establish and enforce more no kill zones on Adirondack rivers in hopes that more fish would survive the season increasing the probability of hold over to the next year and extend the fishing season. An extension in the fishing season may be able to bring more revenue to the local

-23-

economies and the state through license fees, which could then be used for restoration projects. More likely however, it would upset anglers in certain regions who want to take some fish. The holdover success of fish is also greatly unknown and risking upset fishermen places a big risk on losing happy fishermen and hurting connected economies and discouraging future visitors.

An alternative management strategy identified by investigating other states license prices and licensing categories was differentiating fishing licenses specifically for cold-water species in rivers and lakes. This could potentially create revenue for restoration and remediation projects, but at the same time deter anglers from participating in legal angling practices or deter anglers from coming to the Adirondack region. This is also a relatively radical suggestion that would require a reworking of the entire licensing system in the state budget. In this case the raised license price may only offset the loss of revenue and may not actually generate revenue for river restoration projects.

Feasible Solutions

River restoration to a sufficient level to support larger brook trout populations is a feasible solution. This restoration would include large-scale bank reinforcement and streambed rehabilitation. These efforts would be costly and short-sited if lacking consideration of climate change trends of extreme weather events and warmer weather. Both of these considerations can be at least partially addressed by culvert replacement. Larger culverts will reduce erosion in weather events and allow brook trout to migrate easier to thermal refuges at higher altitudes. Public support and government would be necessary to implement these changes.

A change in the stocking regime is only feasible if environmental conditions could be improved to support a higher proportion of brook trout in the rivers. This change would also require public and angler support, as well as the support of those reliant on the fishery for a livelihood. This outlines the interdependence of the aspects of the creation of a sustainable trout fishery in the St. Regis and Ausable rivers. These necessary and connected factors include environmental, socioeconomic and political support. To leave out any of these aspects would create an incomplete and naive solution.

Our Proposed Best Solution

Although our identified single focus solutions had more costs than benefits, a careful analysis of the proposed solutions has facilitated a synthetic solution that takes parts or whole ideas from the proposed solutions and facilitates a multitude of ecologic and economic benefits. Our proposed solution is a multiple step process of total river health restoration. It begins with education, community engagement and research to prioritize project areas, moving then towards smaller restoration

-24-

projects and eventually restoring connectivity of each respective watershed. In creating a solution we have tried to address the ecological and economic needs of stakeholders as well as granting biotic right to all trout species now present in the river. The goal of our multifactorial solution is to restore the river and adjacent riparian habitats so that they support trout populations and are able to cope with more frequent extreme climate events. With that in mind the solution also aims to continue to support local economies, function as educational opportunities that can be integrated into local school curriculums and provide sites of local connection to the rivers through their participation in restoration efforts and engagement with visitors to the river as stewards of their natural resource.

In conversation with members of the DEC and conservation groups, major problems that have been identified are dam and barriers such as culverts, lack of good trout habitat because of sedimentation, and a lack of education for both local and regional entities involved with the river and human structures. Many of the dams on the St. Regis especially are defunct and do not serve a purpose in the modern day. Those that are still functional need to be updated to facilitate fish motion up river. The placement of dams and barriers may be a product of this lack of knowledge in the past, but now must be removed, or updated, to regulate water temperature, flow of water and allow the movement of fish through the watershed.

To address sedimentation we must identify sources of sedimentation and in this investigation it has been found that runoff is a primary source. The mitigation of runoff can be facilitated through efforts that also solve issues of channel widening, which cascades to a multitude of fish habitat issues such as water temperature and channel composition. By making banks the focus of restoration we can mitigate runoff, narrow channels to natural width, prevent erosion during flooding events and create riparian habitat. With barrier removal and bank restoration as the focuses of remediation efforts we can continue to bring anglers to the river while making the habitat better suited to support fish and deal with climate change.

River restoration projects such as the Rivermeade Farm channel and bank restoration project are an example of current projects that restore natural channel dimensions, reduce runoff through rebuilding riparian zone habitat, increase trout habitat, decrease sedimentation and prevent against future erosion events associated with climate change. Beyond providing jobs and work for stakeholders’, sites such as Rivermeade become educational sites for schools and local people becoming nuclei of ecological literacy if public engagement can be integrated to the restoration project. By engaging the public in the whole process beginning with reasons for restoration and continuing through the reconstruction of banks and final monitoring of the site, each restoration project serves the ecology and public in short term and long term ways. Thus project sites become productive in their own ways independent of human inputs.

In the case of Rivermeade Farm 2,800 feet of riverbank was restored through rebuilding and stabilization of banks. There was also channel work done at the same time to install riffles and return the channel dimensions to the correct

-25-

dimensions. The rebuilding of banks using a layered technique known as Rootwads that restore bank stability (EPA 2010), provide habitat for trout and other invertebrate species. The restored bank also becomes new space for rebuilding riparian zones by placing live native willow branches into the Rootwad structure. The live branches will then grow into riparian species further protecting the river from sediment and stabilizing the bank against erosion of future flood events. The bank of root balls also becomes excellent trout habitat. Just one day after installation trout were seen hiding amongst the newly installed riverbank (Miller 2013).

By returning the river to its proper bank-full dimensions we can protect against erosion and sedimentation that degrades trout habitat and increases the likelihood of erosion as a result channel widening. In conjunction with bank rebuilding, the channel substrate can be sculpted to facilitate proper flow regimes and sculpted to include riffles and pools that are prime feeding areas for trout.

The Rivermeade Farm project (finished in the summer of 2012) has been successful in stopping the erosion and soil loss associated with the widening and sedimentation that was occurring as a result of nearby land use issues. Beyond the ecological benefits it has become a space for workshops to teach about issues of erosion and flooding associated with extreme weather events as well as serve as grounds for ecological education about trout, freshwater invertebrates, river ecology and riparian zones. We like very much like the Rivermead Project as a model for future restoration projects for the way that it was able to accomplish a number of goals through a relatively inexpensive project. The current goals of reduced sedimentation, creation of trout habitat and creation of riparian zone serve instant benefit, but also lead to increases biodiversity and ecological health. This area will be more resilient to erosion, sedimentation and is an educational opportunity through its growth and evolution as a restoration site. Beyond the educational opportunities it can also serve as a long-term study site for those interested the success of bank reconstruction projects.

The Ausable River Association in conjunction with the Nature Conservancy and SUNY Plattsburg have begun identifying and accessing barriers that impede fish movement necessary to reach thermal refuges and prime habitat areas. It is suggested that there are a variety of conditions found at different sites, but there are indeed a large number of culverts that inhibit connectivity of habitat (AsRA 2013). These culverts of concern are also important because they alter the natural hydrology and in cases of extreme weather events, dangerously prevent flow of water and can take out roads when overloaded. Thus, the replacement of the priority culverts outlined by AsRA could increase fish connectivity and decrease the likelihood of damaged roadways benefiting local taxpayers ecologically and economically when extreme weather does occur.

On average one mile of connectivity would be gained per culvert replaced (AsRA 2013). Many hundreds miles of connectivity could be gained if all culverts are replaced with fish-friendly ones. The implications of such connectivity are of great depth, but would primarily allow trout species to reach thermal refuges in

-26-

cool head waters (AsRA 2013) during warm summer months and potential reach sites facilitating greater survivorship in summer and through winter months. This is especially key in protecting brook trout populations, as the high-elevation, cold temperature brooks that are cut off by culverts could provide “sanctuaries”, where other trout species do not venture.

The economic benefits from culvert replacement are also numerous: reduced long term cost with the expected increase in extreme weather events, work for road crews, contractors, the DEC and conservation groups as they work on remediation projects, and possibly an extended fishing season bringing more revenue to local economies. Additionally barrier removal raises ecologic, economic and climate awareness facilitating future projects to function as a “nuclei” that could engage local people with intimate changes they may experience associated with climate change and extreme weather events. The localized effects magnified by the focus on culverts could facilitate many educational opportunities related to fish ecology, river ecology, the connection between local economies and river. These projects could also begin dialogue regarding the durability of local economies as climate changes and how we can assist in ecological remediation that better facilitates ecological adaptations to climate trends.

Dams are much larger barriers that are more difficult to remove as many landowners down stream are affected, however they are biological barriers as well as hydrologic barriers that inhibit the ability of waterways to process flooding and sedimentation events. Dams also slow water above and below the dam reducing flow volume, warming the water and decreasing dissolved oxygen (Damon 2013) Because of the large number of people affected down stream of dams and the costs of dismantling it is not a current priority, but the ecologic benefits of connectivity and water regulation with their removal could also provide many benefits to people and the trout of concern.

While dam removal results in the same or increased benefits as culvert replacement dam removal is much more expensive and may only be feasible in the long run. However, if a few key dams are identified in the connectivity report

their removal or retrofitting with fish ladders should be implemented as soon as adjacent culverts are installed.

Ease of Implementation

  The ease of transforming this proposed solution into a number of different projects is variable depending on the project. Because bank restoration projects occur on private land and or public land it is up to the landowners to agree with the project and then up to the stakeholders to collaborate and come up with funds for the project. While the Rivermeade project took over a decade to be finished after its inception, the main stall was a lack of funding. That said, funding would most likely be the main factor preventing projects from being started. Funding permeates the solution beyond paying contractors and scientists to design site-specific solutions, but includes funding that facilitates the education of stakeholders on the

-27-

importance of the multifactorial solution we are proposing.

            Funding aside the major thorn for the multifactorial solution is dealing with public property, which requires the agreement of many more people than a single private landowner. Culverts are part of road systems and require agreements from transportation authorities and the willingness of the public to deal with road construction while culverts are installed. Additionally culvert replacement is much more expensive than project such as Rivermeade, but may prove equally productive as bank reconstruction sites.

            However, education about the importance of our proposed solution is the cheapest and easiest portion of the solution to implement as long as there are stakeholders willing to volunteer their time towards the effort. Thus, the ease of implementation of other portions of the proposal rides on the success of education and outreach efforts that build support, collaboration and funding for stakeholders and the proposed projects. Efforts working to gain support through education are held back by time and money. The Ausable River Association was the main facilitator of dialogue amongst stakeholders and worked to secure funding as well. AsRA suggested that making such projects happen comes down to funding, which can mean applying for grants and or securing philanthropic donations. Perhaps in times of economic recession, uncertainty or stagnation the accessibility of funding may be decreased.

            Although we have identified the ease of implementation as variable with bank and channel restoration easier than culvert replacement because of funding primarily and stakeholder acceptance implementation of the educational aspect of the solution will commence first. In this way more people are informed and possibly supporting projects making it easier to gain support and funding for projects. Securing grant money will depend on the efforts of grant writers from non-profits such as AsRA, which is also short on personnel. We suggest that the ease of implementation is relatively easy on the Ausable because of groups such as AsRA, where the St. Regis lack supporting non-profit groups to get projects going. Because a lack of supporting non-profit groups it seems as through implementation of solutions on the St. Regis will be more difficult and slower to progress, as fundraising will depend on local communities and unless they are informed of the importance of the proposed projects we feel little progress will be made. While, the nature of each river is very different the importance of their health for local communities ecologically and economically should be seen as a priority direction to send funding. Still the implementation comes down to funding, which we cannot confidently say is easy or hard, but dependent upon the interest and effort of all stakeholders.

Step-by-Step Implementation Plan

The first step to any aspect of our proposed solution is education of the public in order to raise public support. Redpath et. Al. (2013), argue that in order for conservation efforts to succeed, all parties must “recognize problems as shared

-28-

ones, and engage with, a transparent evidence base and clear goals.” In order for these criteria to be met, public education must bridge the gap between science and society to create an understanding that the trout fisheries of these rivers are unstable. Given the socioeconomic impact, and even the pleasure in recreational fishing, this instability is a common issue. The clear goals we have outlined in our solutions development would be a starting platform to explain to the public, with the overall goal of restoring native brook trout habitat.

Public support is vital in this project because the DEC, APA, town and transportation authorities are both part of, and influenced by the public. AsRA is very invested in gaining public support through such programs as the 37 mile “ride for the River” to “raise awareness about [the Ausable’s] stewardship needs”(Miller 2013). We plan on employing the public as a source of bottom-up or “grassroots” inertia that will show the higher authorities that citizens are invested in the health of their river. Corrie Miller, of AsRA, suggested workshops with the surrounding public schools either for education or actual project implementation. Nationwide holidays like Earth Day are excellent venues through which to raise support. We discussed town events like the music festival “Rock For the River” held just north on the St. Lawrence River for restoration funds.

The second step in the project is landowner support. We would hope that landowners in areas that are subject to bank-collapse would be receptive to projects such as the one at Rivermeade Farm as these projects decrease the likelihood of property damage. However, much of the land bordering the rivers in the Adirondacks is owned by the state of New York under the jurisdiction of the APA. Thus, gaining support in river rehabilitation projects from these authorities should be easy as they are a major stakeholder of conservation; possibly allowing one of the Habitat/Access Fund Grants to direct some money toward these important trout rivers. We would choose to initiate bank-rehabilitation projects first over culvert, dam or stocking changes, because they are the least intrusive to private landowners, most conducive to public volunteers and extremely important in creating a habitat for native trout. However, to initiate any aspect of the solution funding and community support are necessary for stakeholders to make such conservation efforts priority.

Funding and volunteer support would be the next crucial step for movement forward with our solution. Volunteer involvement would increase support and awareness for the project, and we are confident that fishing-based businesses would support these projects with money and volunteer coordination. The next step, however, would be a large one requiring much public support and transparency: the installation of suitable culverts as identified by AsRA for the Ausable, and ensuing research on the St. Regis by the Nature Conservancy and SUNY Potsdam, or other institutions.

The installation of culverts would require the alliance of town and county road crews, which, though not separate from the public we would hope to reach out to, but may require separate discussions. AsRA lead informational sessions regarding streambed ecology for 80 town transportation workers in 2012(AsRA

-29-

2012). Once the intra watershed mobility routes are open for brook trout, we would begin the regulation of catch-and-release zones in the cold-water tributaries known to hold brook trout. These zones would be the sanctuaries or reserves that could be source populations for the rest of the watersheds, as in the style of marine reserves.

The next step would be to change stocking practices to put more brook trout in the river, and at appropriate locations. These locations would be close to rehabilitated banks, open to migration to sanctuaries and overall good, restored habitat for the species. We would not suggest a drastic change in stocking, perhaps only as high as ten percent brook trout initially, but increasing as habitats recover, using adaptive management for climate change as outlined by Hansen et. Al (2010) and the habitat changes in the rivers.

Our last focus would be to remove unused dams and create modes of easier trout movement for those dams still in place. The methods outlined by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board could provide excellent guidance in implementation. Funding would be a major sticking point here, but with enough support of all parties outlined, we could raise money to do a pilot project on a small, easy to remove dam. Everett Smith, owner of the only working hydroelectric dam on the St. Regis (in downtown St. Regis Falls) is eager to participate in studies involving the impact of his dam on the fish species.

Solutions Assessment

We would first assess the success of this conservation project through ecological indicators. This would include all measures of water quality in various areas of both rivers, from above and below dams, upstream and downstream of bank projects and above and below any culvert changes. We would also need to monitor new erosion of banks and continuously respond to these areas. We would use abiotic elements of the river environment as signals of restoration success, but most importantly we would investigate the success trout populations using trout survivorship as an indicator of over all watershed health.

An informative test of trout holdover would be to hold the two-fly competition prior to DEC stocking in the spring. We would also employ surveys to gather information about the abundance of each trout species caught by fishers through angler survey stations in designated river access parking locations. An increase in the abundance of brook trout, an increased holdover rate through the winter and the hottest months of summer would be an indicator of successful remediation projects. These would indicate improved river conditions and access to thermal refuges, exemplifying the success of culvert changes. We would also hope to find more brook trout in our catch-and-release sanctuary streams. Thus at any point of the solution businesses and fishers should continue to experience constant or increasing benefits of conservation restoration projects.

            To assess the success of the proposed solutions in the economic realm we

-30-

look to survey the stakeholders investigating increases in revenue and or business activity. In order to reach the variety of stakeholders involved we will need to use more than path of investigation. For the evaluation of the local economic impacts of projects we can monitor visitor trends, and their annual spending trends associated with the fishery. Similarly continued surveying of anglers to understand interests and satisfaction should continue in order to see if there is correlation between successful ecologic remediation and angler satisfaction. Surveys given out to river visitors assessing awareness, knowledge of restoration projects and goals can measure increased public awareness of projects and the importance of waterway health.             Through pure observation of communities near projects we will be able to monitor the levels of community investment and pushes for more restoration or conservation projects. Watching revenues associated with conservation fees will measure if there has been any change in willingness to pay for conservation and or association of river restoration and business revenue. Many of these observations and surveys will be five year or more assessment projects and will take time to analyze and produce results from. In order to stay up to date in the short term we suggest grassroots assessment and investigation of economic revenues annually by speaking with communities and members of the local economy through way of public discussions. In these meetings productive dialogue and more frequent updates on outcomes either successful or unsuccessful can be discussed and more rapidly dealt with. For conservation projects adaptability is key in both the ecologic and economic realm. Thus a combination of short term monitoring to provide adaptability for future projects and long term assessment that can confidently describe the strengths and weaknesses of this solution will provide the most inclusive assessment.

Conclusions

The focus of the project is to restore habitat of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems understanding that increased river and riparian health will proliferate to adjacent habitats and thus benefit biodiversity throughout the watershed. In order to promote and enact the proposed solution we found it imperative to understand the economic costs and benefits of such remediation activity, finding that remediation projects occur only after substantial capital has accumulated. Thus, in order to be successful conservationist and facilitate the implementation of the proposed projects we must provide connection the success of trout and the trout fishery to biodiversity. Using trout as a nucleus for conservation connects all interests of stakeholders around a regional icon of both ecology and economics. Rainbow trout and Brown trout can be found on almost any continent, however Brook trout was a regional icon now sidelined, but could once again become the regional icon of economic and ecological wellbeing.

-31-

Appendices

Appendix 1: DEC Stocking Statistics available from website

The Ausable River

-32-

SpeciesNumber stocked Length (inches)

Brown 15240 8.5

Brown 1300 14

Rainbow 3000 8

Rainbow 2300 14

Rainbow 335 19

Brook 1310 8

Table 1. 2012 DEC Stocking regime for All Ausable River branches.

SpeciesNumber Stocked

Length (inches)

Brown 13090 8 to 9

Rainbow 3000 8 to 9

Brook 1400 8 to 9

Table 2. Anticipated Spring 2013 DEC stocking regime for Ausable River Branches.

The St. Regis River

SpeciesNumber Stocked Length (inches)

Brown 4080 8

Rainbow 6200 8.5

Brown 1420 9

Brown 1730 13

Brook 0

Table 3. 2012 Stocking regime for all St. Regis River Branches

SpeciesNumber Stocked

Length (inches)

Brown 7780 8 to 9

-33-

Rainbow 6200 8 to 9

Brown 1730 12 to 15

Table 4. Anticipated 2013 DEC stocking regime for St. Regis River branches.

Appendix 2: Attempted Recreational Fisher Survey

When we began this project, we anticipated an emphasis on the stocking practices of the DEC, especially regarding the skew in stocking regimes toward non-native trout species. We constructed the following survey in order to gauge recreational fishers’ level of knowledge in this topic. On April 6th, April 12th and April 13th 2013, we went to hand out these surveys in person at the most trafficked parts of the St. Regis and Ausable Rivers. Each of these days was extremely cold, even with snow on April 12th. Due to these conditions, the early anglers we expected to survey were not present, and thus we only were able to secure three surveys. This number is insufficient to give us any information regarding fishers’ knowledge of the DEC’s stocking practices.

The 2007 survey mentioned previously covered some of the information we hoped to gather, but missed a few points we found important. First, the DEC survey did not differentiate among native and non-native river trout. We want to know about fishers’ preferences for species of trout. We suggest this amendment to future DEC surveys. We also wanted to know the common level of knowledge fishers have of the magnitude of fish stocking that occurs in these rivers. DEC results suggest that this knowledge is lacking, but do not explicitly say so. We also would like to investigate the willingness to pay on the part of the license-purchaser for conservation efforts. The DEC surveys covered our interest in the economic effort of economic fishers, but needs an update since 2007.

Our survey follows, perhaps as a model for future investigation during peak fishing season, which were unable to attend due to time constraints.

Ausable River Recreational Fisher SurveyFor St. Lawrence University Conservation Biology Department

Biology 440A

-34-

Advisor: Dawn Kaufman, EM: dkaufman@stlawu.edu, Phone: 315-229-5198

Purpose and description of this study:

This survey is a component of the senior year research of Levi Keszey and

Thomas Duggan, Conservation Biology majors at St. Lawrence University. The

purpose of the study is to gain an understanding of the expectations recreational

fishers of the Ausable and St. Regis rivers have when fishing, and their level of

understanding of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s

current fish stocking practices. This data will be used in a student research paper on

the sustainability of Adirondack trout fisheries, and a presentation of findings in late

April 2013. The survey should take less than ten minutes to complete and is mostly

short-answer and multiple choice. There is no risk in taking this survey, as we will

not collect any personal information. Thomas and Levi will be the only persons to

see this survey, and your name will remain confidential. Feel free to ask us any

questions regarding this survey at any time. Participation in this survey is

completely optional and if you wish to withdraw your answers from the survey at

anytime without prejudice, contact us at ljkesz09@stlawu.edu or

tpdug09@stlawu.edu. You are also welcome to a copy of this consent form. If you

wish to receive a summary of the results after the completion of this project on April

28th, feel free to contact us as well. You must be 18 years of age to participate in this

study.

If you have read through the proceeding information and consent to contribute to

this study please sign below.

Signature______________________________________________________ Date ________________________Adirondack Fisheries Recreational Fisher Survey: Ausable River

St. Lawrence UniversityConservation Biology Department

-35-

1) What species of trout do you hope to catch today?

2) Why do you like catching this species?

3) How many fish would you estimate were stocked in this river last spring (2012)?

Less than 1000 1,000-5,000 5,000-15,000 More than 15,000

4) Do you believe stocking is (check one below) in maintaining trout populations for fishing?

very significant significant somewhat significant not significant

5) Please mark which of the following trout species are native to New York rivers Brown Trout Brook Trout Rainbow Trout

6) How would you feel about the disappearance of one or more of the above trout species?

Indifferent Some concern Concern Upset

7) How much would you be willing to pay for your fishing license if a portion was going to facilitate a more self-sustaining fishery?

-36-

8) Would you still come fishing if there were a decreased likelihood of catching fish? Yes No

9) Are you participating or have you participated in a guided trip on this river? Yes No

10) Have you or will you purchase fishing related products while you are here? Yes No

11) Have you or will you dine or lodge in the area this trip or on future trips?

Yes No

Thank you for completing the survey.

WORKS CITED:

Adirondack History Museum. 2000. Adirondack History Network. ADK Museum. Blue Mountain Lake, NY. Available from:

-37-

http://www.adirondackhistory.org/index.html

Baird, O. E., C. C. Krueger, and D. C. Josephson. 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):180-189.

Bartlett, R. A. 1984. Rolling rivers :an encyclopedia of America's rivers. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Damon, T. April 2nd, 2013. Personal interview regarding St. Regis and Ausable Rivers.

Engels, V. 1978. Adirondack fishing in the 1930s : a lost paradise. 1st edition. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, N.Y.

EPA.GOV. 2010. River Bank Stabilization Technique, Remedial Alternatives. Fausch, K. D., and R. J. White. 1981. Competition between brook trout (Salvelinus

fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) for positions in a Michigan stream. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38:1220-1227.

 Flick, W. A. 1991. Brook trout. Pages 196-207 in J. Stohlz and J. Schnell, editors. The

wildlife series: Trout. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Mann, Brian. Adirondack stream produces NY's biggest trout « The In Box . Available

from http://blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org/inbox/2012/06/18/adirondack-stream-produces-nys-biggest-trout/ (accessed 2/1/2013 2013).

Mann, Brian. 2011. Loggers accused of damaging Adirondack trout stream | NCPR News . Available from http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/17348/20110322/nature-conservancy-loggers-accused-of-damaging-adirondack-trout-stream (accessed 2/1/2013 2013).

 Miller, C. April 12th, 2013. Personal interview regarding the Ausable River

Associations restoration projects.

Hansen, L.J. and J.R. Hoffman. 2010. Climate Savvy: Adapting Conservation and Resource Management to a Changing World. Island Press, Washington DC.

Hinz, L. C., Jr., and M. J. Wiley. 1997. Growth and production of juvenile trout in Michigan streams: influence of temperature. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries research Report No. 2041.

 

-38-

Invasive Species Project 2013 Available at: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/danoffburg/invasion_bio/inv_spp_summ/S lmo_trutta.htm

  Brook Trout. 2012. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364_18958-

96400--,00.html Jackson, S. T. 1992. Climate Change in the Adirondacks. Natural History 101(5):61-

61.

Landan, D., J. Braico, and J. Spissinger. 1991. New York's Adirondack Heritage Strain Brook Trout. Conservationist 45(5):32.

LUHTA, P., A. HUUSKO, and P. LOUHI. 2012. Re-building brown trout populations in dredged boreal forest streams: in-stream restoration combined with stocking of young trout. Freshwater Biology 57(9):1966-1977.

McCullough, R., and E. Stegemann. 1991. The Trout of New York. Conservationist 45(5):24.

Miller, C. 2013. Annual Appeal 2012. Ausable River Association. Wilmington, NY.

Missouri DEC Field Guide 2012. Availible from: http://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/field-guide/rainbow-trout

 New York State Adirondack Park Agency. 2002. Citizen’s guide to Adirondack park

agency land use regulations. APA. Ray Brook, NY

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.  About DEC: DEC’s mission. 2013. DEC. Albany, NY. Available

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Fishing. 2013. DEC. Albany, NY. Available from: http://www.dec.ny.gov/24.html

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. DEC region 5 fish hatcheries. DEC. Albany, NY. Available from: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/21664.html

 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2012 fish stocking list

by county. DEC. Albany, NY. DEC. Available from: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/30467.html

 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Spring trout stockings

2013. DEC. Albany, NY. Available from: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/30465.html

-39-

Öhlund, G., F. Nordwall, E. Degerman, and T. Eriksson. 2008. Life history and large-scale habitat use of brown trout (Salmotrutta) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) — implications for species replacement patterns. Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 65(4):633-644.

Paterson, R. A., C. R. Townsend, R. Poulin, and D. M. Tompkins. 2011. Introduced brown trout alter native acanthocephalan infections in native fish. Journal of Animal Ecology 80(5):990-998.

Redpath, SM, J Young, A Evely, WM Adams, WJ Sutherland, A Whitehouse, A Amar, RA Lambert, JDC Linnell, A Watt, and RJ Gutierrez.  2013.  Understanding and managing conservation conflicts.  Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28:100-109.

Simberloff, D, J-L Martin, P Genovesi, V Maris, DA Wardle, J Aronson, F Courchamp, B Galil, E Garcıa-Berthou, M Pascal, P Pysek, R Sousa, E Tabacchi & M Vila.  2013.  Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward.  Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28:58-66.

Terrie, P. G. 1997. Contested terrain :a new history of nature and people in the Adirondacks. 1st edition. Adirondack Museum, Blue Mountain Lake, N.Y.

 Treadwell, C.  2012. Ausable River Watershed Management Strategy, Essex and

Clinton Counties, New York. Ausable River Association Turek, J., P. Horký, J. Velíšek, O. Slavík, R. Hanák, and T. Randák. 2010. Recapture

rate and growth of hatchery-reared brown trout ( Salmo trutta v. fario, L.) in Blanice River and the effect of stocking on wild brown trout and grayling ( Thymallus thymallus, L.)

Turek et al. Recapture rate and growth of hatchery-reared.. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 26(6):881-885.

Warren, D. R., J. M. Robinson, D. C. Josephson, D. R. Sheldon, and C. E. Kraft. 2012. Elevated summer temperatures delay spawning and reduce redd construction for resident brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis). Global Change Biology 18(6):1804-1811.

 Welsh, P. C. 1995. Jacks, jobbers, and kings :logging the Adirondacks, 1850 -1950. North Country Books, Utica, NY.

Woodman, T. 2012. Park perspectives: culverts as a common cause. Adirondack Explorer. Available from: http://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/2012/12/21/park-perspectives-culverts-as-a-common-cause/

-40-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

We’d like to thank Dawn Kaufman, our advisor for this project; Tim Damon for a great interview and heaps of information; Corrie Miller for her contribution to our project and the conservation of the Ausable; Evan Botcher for his input and the streamers and nymphs; Brad Baldwin for his guidance; AsRA for the differences they have made; those who filled out our survey.

-41-