Funds trickle for unassessed streams

[Acristickid]

Unassessed streams

 

[Chaz]

They are asking for angler input to help advance the program, it's extremely important work to get streams on the wild trout streams list. Anglers that don't think they need to get information to PFBC about where trout are, are giving up on streams that need protection.
There are 86,000 miles of streams in PA and the numbers mean less than 50% have ever been surveyed.

 

[Mike]

The title of this thread is a bit misleading. I could see how one might assume that funds are limiting the pace, but that is not the situation that I think is described in the article. Funds are never mentioned. The "trickling" being described appears to me to be the pace at which the streams are being surveyed. I am not saying that I agree with that characterization, but I think that is what is being said.

Additionally, biologists need not survey every little trib in order to get those tribs protected as wild trout streams. All tribs to a designated wild trout stream are also protected as wild trout streams as long as those tribs flow into the wild trout stream ( call it "stream A" )within or upstream of the specific stretch of stream A that was surveyed and identified as supporting a wild trout population. As a result, just surveying the receiving streams in the first round of surveys speeds up the pace considerably.

That methodology does not solve the problem of wild trout streams that flow directly into warmwater streams or rivers. Each one of these needs to be methodically identified and surveyed.

 

[troutbert]

In these surveys of unassessed streams, do they follow the same procedures as typical PFBC surveys?

That is, using two passes of electrofishing? Then using a calculation to estimate numbers & biomass estimates?

If the goal of surveying unassessed streams is mainly to find whether or not the streams support wild trout, a single pass would tell you what you need to know.

And you could still do a calculated estimate of numbers and biomass from that one pass. It might be somewhat less accurate than an estimate based on two passes, but might not be very far off.

And doing one pass surveys would allow for many more streams to be assessed.

 

[Mike]

You are correct in your conclusion, but not regarding the standard procedure being a 2-pass survey. The standard is a single pass unless enough trout are collected to suggest that the stream may be a viable Class A candidate. If so, then multiple passes are done and the survey may need to be expanded to multiple sites in order to meet certain standards for Class A streams, such as at least 10% of the Class A section having been sampled. On such occasions, we in the SE do a three pass survey or a 2 pass Petersen. The Petersen requires a return trip, but that is ok if there are multiple sites being sampled.

Forgot to answer your original question: yes, the universities, etc are supposed to follow standard PFBC procedures with respect to single pass surveys. Some add additional work to that because of their own interest. My understanding is that these contractors do not have to do population estimates, but are to let PFBC biologists know when a potential class A population has been found. Then PFBC biologists do the "Class A survey," which involves a different protocol and more intense sampling.

 

[troutbert]

Good stuff, Mike. Thanks for the info.

 

[Chaz]

Get the info to the PFBC or to the State TU Council and the streams will be surveyed.