Annual Brook Trout Restoration and Monitoring Results
For the Upper Tellico River Tributaries, August 26, 2006
Jim Herrig
Fisheries Biologist Cherokee National Forest
The Cherokee National Forest in cooperation with Trout Unlimited and the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) have implemented a systematic approach for the brook trout restoration and monitoring in the Tellico River watershed. Since the early 1980’s these partners have recognized the need to protect the brook trout populations in the Tellico area from competing, non-native trout species. Annual electrofishing has been effective in isolating the brook trout from their competitors and in documenting the success of the program. Each year agency biologists and volunteers convene at the Tellico Ranger District where they organize into teams for electrofishing a portion of these streams.
This year 33 volunteers assisted the Forest Service Fisheries Biologist and two Wildlife/Fisheries Technicians in surveying Big Cove Branch, Sugar Cove Branch and McNabb Creek (two surveys). Surveys were conducted using electrofishing gear with one person carrying the backpack shocker and two or more people netting fish. Each survey covered about 1 mile of stream for a total of 4 miles of surveyed streams. The volunteers donated about 297 hours of labor that is valued at over $3500 (what it would have cost the government to do the same work). The results of the surveys are encouraging and enable the biologists to make management recommendations for maintaining and improving these fisheries.
Survey Results Big Cove Branch was electrofished above the waterfalls to the upper road crossing. The site produced 26 brookies and no rainbow trout. All three age classes were present and were dominated by young of the year (16 <4”; 6 4” to 8”; and 4 >8”). This stream was recently renovated. Rhododendron was trimmed back to improve stream flow, pool quality, and fishability. Because of the low flow conditions, the recent improvements have not had a chance to become fully occupied. I expect the population to expand upward when normal flows return and spawning occurs.
Sugar Cove Branch Sugar Cove Branch was electrofished above the waterfall barriers along the hiking trail. This site produced 35 brook trout and no rainbow trout. All three age classes were present and were dominated by Y-O-Y (22 <4”; 10 4” to 8”; and 3 >8”). These numbers are consistent with previous surveys and the absence of rainbow trout is encouraging.
McNabb Creek McNabb Creek was electrofished from the first trail crossing up to about the third trail crossing (approximately 2 miles) with two crews. The sites produced 5 brook trout, 29 rainbow trout, 1 brown trout and about 30 creek chubs. The rainbow trout and creek chubs were relocated below a barrier in North River. Only 1 and 2 year old brook trout were observed (2 4” to 8”; and 3 >8”). The absence of young of the year brook trout is not a major concern. They were previously documented in the stream and are probably still present. Rainbow trout demonstrated a similar distribution of age classes (5 <4”; 23 4” to 8”; and 1 >8. The lone brown trout was in the 4” to 8” age class; it was returned to McNabb Creek.
Some difficulty occurred with the electrofishing units in this stream. Both the gasoline and battery powered units failed (appeared to short out) about 1.5 miles above the first stream crossing. The conductivity of the stream may be variable at this point and the units are not able to compensate for the sudden changes.
I wish to thank all of the volunteers who participated in the 2006 Tellico brook trout survey. Your assistance has provided us with important information that will enable the Forest Service and Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency to better manage the brook trout on the Tellico Ranger District. I hope to see you again next year.
PERCENTAGE OF BROOK TROUT IN TELLICO AREA STREAMS BY YEAR
YEAR | BIG COVE |
MEADOW | ROUGH RIDGE | SUGAR COVE |
SYCAMORE |
ROARING | BALD RIVER | BROOK- SHIRE |
HENDERSON |
FALLS | N. FK. CITICO | | 1958 | | 4%* | | ~10% | | | 100% | | | | | | 1969 | | | | | | | | | **** | | | | 1978 | | 9% | 60% | | 70% | 65% | | 0% | 80% | 70% | | | 1982 | 100% | | | | | | | 0% | | | | | 1983 | | | **** | | | | | * | | | | | 1984 | | | | ~10% | | | | | | ***** | ***** | | 1986 | | 25% | 50% | 30% | | | | 60% | | | | | 1987 | | 5% | 100% | | | | | | | | | | 1988 | | | 40% | 0% | | | | 60% | | | | | 1989 | | | 70% | 20% | | 100% | | 45%** | | | | | 1990 | | 65% | 60% | 30%** | 75% | 100% | 100% | 65%** | 95% | | | | 1991 | | ** | 90%** | 100% | | | | | | | | | 1992 | | *** | | | | | | 100% | | | | | 1993 | | | | | *** | | | | | 50% | | | 1994 | | 100% | | 100% | 100% | | | | | | | | 1995 | | 95% | | | 100% | | | | | | | | 1996 | 100% | 100% | 95% | 100% | | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | | 50% | | 1997 | | | 75% | | 100%**** | | | | 85% | | | | 1998 | | | 80% | 100% | | | 100% | 100% | 80% | | 50% | | 1999 | 100% | 100% | | | | *** | | | | | | | 2000 | | | | | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | | | | 2001 | 100% | 100% | 60% | 100% | | | | | | | | | 2002 | | | | | X | X | 100% | 100% | 100% | | | | 2003 | #0% | 100% | 16% | 100% | | | | | | | | | 2004 | 100% | | 20% | | #38% | X | 100% | 100% | 100% | | | | 2005 | X | X | X | X | | | | | | | | | 2006 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | | | The latest percentage in each stream column (shown in bold) is presumed to be the current percentage of brook trout present. * Cresol treatment ** Rotenone treatment *** Brook trout stocked **** Barrier built or improved *****Wilderness streams # Not sampled above the barrier X Next scheduled monitoring |
Conservation