Yellow Breeches section closed for stream work

[afishinado]

FYI, YBAC stocks approx. 37,000 trout throughout the Yellow Breeches each year. We are required by Fish and Boat to put in a certain percentage to each section we stock. We float stock all sections and put in much more than "several buckets" to each.

The new stream improvement to the C&R section is now completely covered in gray silt. Don't expect any white fly or hex hatched for a few years.

This prediction is based on what? Both the White Fly and Hex live and thrive in mucky and silty bottoms of mud and clay.

https://wiflyfisher.com/ephoron-leukon-mayfly-hatch.asp

https://hawkinsoutfitters.com/hexagenia-limbata/

The very fact that they hatch prolifically in this YB section is testament that the stream is silted up. No doubt all the muck has not been cleaned up near the dam, so don't worry. Those hatches should be there this year, maybe the numbers will be down but the upper part of the section should now have more open rock and gravel bottom where most other aquatic insects to thrive making the hatches more diverse. As well. more and better places for wild fish to make their redds and spawn have been created because of the stream work. The future will be bright for this part of the YB for both the bugs and the fish.

 

[joebamboo]

This prediction is based on what? Both the White Fly and Hex live and thrive in mucky and silty bottoms of mud and clay.

https://wiflyfisher.com/ephoron-leukon-mayfly-hatch.asp

https://hawkinsoutfitters.com/hexagenia-limbata/

The very fact that they hatch prolifically in this YB section is testament that the stream is silted up. No doubt all the muck has not been cleaned up near the dam, so don't worry. Those hatches should be there this year, maybe the numbers will be down but the upper part of the section should now have more open rock and gravel bottom where most other aquatic insects to thrive making the hatches more diverse. As well. more and better places for wild fish to make their redds and spawn have been created because of the stream work. The future will be bright for this part of the YB for both the bugs and the fish.

I think you are looking through rose colored glasses my friend. The white fly hatch is nowhere near what it was and the absence of any aquatic vegetation is a pretty good indication of a negative effect on aquatic insects.

 

[afishinado]

I think you are looking through rose colored glasses my friend. The white fly hatch is nowhere near what it was and the absence of any aquatic vegetation is a pretty good indication of a negative effect on aquatic insects.

It appears the YB stream rehab at Allenberry is a bad thing in your opinion no matter what anyone says. To each his own. I will say in many sections of the YB wild trout are thriving. The Allenberry section has the some of poorest habitat on the YB, until now, maybe. I've read and heard from knowledgeable people that the stream restoration effort has been done well. Just give it a chance.

 

[troutbert]

The new stream improvement to the C&R section is now completely covered in gray silt. Don't expect any white fly or hex hatched for a few years.

The silt will be temporary. High flow events will flush it out. This is what I've seen in other similar projects.

The outcome will be a streambed with less silt and more cobble and gravel.

The dam artificially slowed the water, causing a lot of silt to deposit on the streambed. Now it will be flushed out

 

[Fish Sticks]

The silt will be temporary. High flow events will flush it out. This is what I've seen in other similar projects.

The outcome will be a streambed with less silt and more cobble and gravel.

The dam artificially slowed the water, causing a lot of silt to deposit on the streambed. Now it will be flushed out

In terms of white flies mentioned above and sculpins, crayfish, and other macroinverts the above mention 37,000 stocked trout a year is probably a factor. There is research that shows invasive brown trout reduce macro invertebrates to such an extent that algae growth increases as part of a trophic cascade that stops at god knows where.

Invasion biology and ecological impacts of brown trout Salmo trutta in New Zealand

Brown trout Salmo trutta were introduced to New Zealand in 1867. Successful establishment was broadly predictable in terms both of the characteristics…

www.sciencedirect.com

There are multiple studies showing native mayfly populations suffering from invasive browns. No doubt human activity in watershed largest factor but exceeding a streams carrying capacity habitually with stocked fish has very real destabilizing consequences for the food web. Currently WVU has stopped stocking invasive browns due to negative effects on native endangered candy darters and guyadotte crayfish. There is research showing native sculpins harmed by invasive salmonids. Research shows native larval hellbenders can’t defend them selves as effectively against invasive brown and rainbow trout Vs. Native fish they evolved with.

(PDF) Innate Predator Recognition and the Problem of Introduced Trout

PDF | Innate predator recognition typically only occurs when there is an evolutionary history between predator and prey. Predator introductions thus can... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

I talked to a well respected herpetologist who said we’d still have native hellbenders in upper kettle if it wasn’t stocked into oblivion.

Point and case: we think of impairments as in the stream(water quality, habitat, temperature) but, although these are super important, so are the critters swimming around in there that are impairments themselves. Scientific community calls these invasive species “Biotic

 

[Fish Sticks]

In terms of white flies mentioned above and sculpins, crayfish, and other macroinverts the above mention 37,000 stocked trout a year is probably a factor. There is research that shows invasive brown trout reduce macro invertebrates to such an extent that algae growth increases as part of a trophic cascade that stops at god knows where.

Invasion biology and ecological impacts of brown trout Salmo trutta in New Zealand

Brown trout Salmo trutta were introduced to New Zealand in 1867. Successful establishment was broadly predictable in terms both of the characteristics…

www.sciencedirect.com

There are multiple studies showing native mayfly populations suffering from invasive browns. No doubt human activity in watershed largest factor but exceeding a streams carrying capacity habitually with stocked fish has very real destabilizing consequences for the food web. Currently WVU has stopped stocking invasive browns due to negative effects on native endangered candy darters and guyadotte crayfish. There is research showing native sculpins harmed by invasive salmonids. Research shows native larval hellbenders can’t defend them selves as effectively against invasive brown and rainbow trout Vs. Native fish they evolved with.

(PDF) Innate Predator Recognition and the Problem of Introduced Trout

PDF | Innate predator recognition typically only occurs when there is an evolutionary history between predator and prey. Predator introductions thus can... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

I talked to a well respected herpetologist who said we’d still have native hellbenders in upper kettle if it wasn’t stocked into oblivion.

Point and case: we think of impairments as in the stream(water quality, habitat, temperature) but, although these are super important, so are the critters swimming around in there that are impairments themselves. Scientific community calls these invasive species “Biotic

“biotic factors”*

 

[Biggie]

I fished the upper Allenberry today. These pics are what Joe is talking about. This is the slow water, you will recognize the tree over the water. It looks messed up to me. However I like what was done above this section. Although the fishing was not good, there is a lot of new riffles/current from the big boulders placed in the water. I am interested to see what the fish do this summer when the water gets warm, except along the far bank. Hopefully the cold water will be directed towards the middle of the stream. We shall see.

 

[albud1962]

I think what is really lacking in a lot of these projects is a pre-construction survey of bentho and fish populations followed with a post construction survey. I believe this was done at Big Spring but I don’t know of many others.That would probably end much of the debate on these improvement projects. We just assume that the new structures will be a benefit. I don’t know what it would take but I would assume a survey could be completed under $15,000 or a total of $30,000 for both. To me this would provide useful data and feedback if these large scale projects are yielding dividends. Does anyone have an idea of how much was spent on this project? I assume it was at least $120,000.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I think what is really lacking in a lot of these projects is a pre-construction survey of bentho and fish populations followed with a post construction survey. I believe this was done at Big Spring but I don’t know of many others.That would probably end much of the debate on these improvement projects. We just assume that the new structures will be a benefit. I don’t know what it would take but I would assume a survey could be completed under $15,000 or a total of $30,000 for both. To me this would provide useful data and feedback if these large scale projects are yielding dividends. Does anyone have an idea of how much was spent on this project? I assume it was at least $120,000.

TESTIFY - your absolutely right. Pre and post construction monitoring is lacking in alot of projects especially for native species like macros, sculpins, crayfish, darters ect.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I think what is really lacking in a lot of these projects is a pre-construction survey of bentho and fish populations followed with a post construction survey. I believe this was done at Big Spring but I don’t know of many others.That would probably end much of the debate on these improvement projects. We just assume that the new structures will be a benefit. I don’t know what it would take but I would assume a survey could be completed under $15,000 or a total of $30,000 for both. To me this would provide useful data and feedback if these large scale projects are yielding dividends. Does anyone have an idea of how much was spent on this project? I assume it was at least $120,000.

I am helping with a native species restoration on a local spring creek and I have collaborated with a state university program for block netting and triple pass electro surveying to be done this summer pre construction. Problem is alot of these surveys use catch per unit effort which can have a lot of error associated with it is what I am told by fisheries scientists.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

An example of project implementation and monitoring.

https://gis.dep.pa.gov/TurtleCreek/index.html

Biological monitoring of each and every habitat improvement, bank stabilization or restoration project is rather unrealistic and would be cost prohibitive. Most large scale restoration projects do incorporate monitoring plans to assess sediment reduction, physical instream habitat, water quality, biotic indices, planting survival etc

 

[Fish Sticks]

An example of project implementation and monitoring.

https://gis.dep.pa.gov/TurtleCreek/index.html

Biological monitoring of each and every habitat improvement, bank stabilization or restoration project is rather unrealistic and would be cost prohibitive. Most large scale restoration projects do incorporate monitoring plans to assess sediment reduction, physical instream habitat, water quality, biotic indices, planting survival etc

Your absolutely right that it’s not feasible to do pre and post construction sampling for every project. It’s a tough situation though because sometimes there is a benefit to sampling earlier on in a watershed restoration effort to make sure the project styles your using are not resulting in an undesired outcome that might make you change your restoration technique like on this case study. Without this knowledge you might have funded an entire watersheds worth of projects only to find out at the end. No simple answers here it’s a tough situation


(You need only read the one paragraph abstract)

https://www.kiaptuwish.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Pine-Creek-Case-Study_Final-Presentation-Manuscript_Wild-Trout-Symposium_0917.pdf

 

[joebamboo]

I think what is really lacking in a lot of these projects is a pre-construction survey of bentho and fish populations followed with a post construction survey. I believe this was done at Big Spring but I don’t know of many others.That would probably end much of the debate on these improvement projects. We just assume that the new structures will be a benefit. I don’t know what it would take but I would assume a survey could be completed under $15,000 or a total of $30,000 for both. To me this would provide useful data and feedback if these large scale projects are yielding dividends. Does anyone have an idea of how much was spent on this project? I assume it was at least $120,000.

The cost of the completed project is $324,000.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

One point of consideration with that wisconsin paper is that it makes no tangible recommendations for structures or a restoration approach that would be more favorable for brook trout.

 

[Fish Sticks]

One point of consideration with that wisconsin paper is that it makes no tangible recommendations for structures or a restoration approach that would be more favorable for brook trout.

Your right, I encountered this problem on my own restoration after reading this case study and contacted some PhD’s and NGO’s Made up of people in fisheries science and there is a paucity of recommendations on this for now but it’s an active area of research. But what I have been told by brook trout researchers is that alot of these projects would benefit brook but with brown trout present it can allow them to take over further and can actually be detrimental to brook trout in the stream and often shift the balance more toward browns. So In essence we could be restoring brook trout out of house and home that are in sympatry with brown trout. However l, again these projects benefit native brook trout when brown trout are not present so removal has been recommended to me by the two PhDs I work with because there is a down stream barrier that’s impassible. It’s an uphill battle in Pa I will tell you that much. Pa fish and boat isn’t as forward thinking as Maryland DNR.


The data to support t
All this comes from Faust and whites famous observations in 1981

Canadian Science Publishing

Also from John hoxmier and Dr. Doug deitermans observations on presence in this article support this. ( section in habitat characteristics of larger brown trout)

https://www.tu.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/TroutHabitat_Dieterman_Mitro_DASymp_Final.pdf

In short right now from available data it seems like only option is remove browns or don’t upgrade the habitat if your goal is restoring for native brook trout.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Not sure on any of the details surrounding your project. Assuming it is in PA have you ever tried to collaborate with the appropriate AFM or PFBC habitat folks?

 

[Fish Sticks]

Not sure on any of the details surrounding your project. Assuming it is in PA have you ever tried to collaborate with the appropriate AFM or PFBC habitat folks?

This project in central Pa unique because not only have we lost habitat but there are biblical sediment and bedload transport issues that cause the system to have to accommodate like a 10,000% increase in flows during storms(not a real number but just picture a much much higher flow in CFS). So this is a real pickle to solve because these extreme flows threaten the stability of what ever you put in the ground to a much higher extent than usual.

What I have found is stream restoration practitioners who are experts in Fluvial geomorphology don’t have much cross communication with Brook trout PhD’s who have expertise in habitat requirements and interactions with invasive trout. I have helped create an informal multidisciplinary team of brook trout PhD’s and stream restoration specialists who have added a ton of value to our effort. I have consulted with PhD’s in Fluvial geomorphology across the east as well on the project from the stability/sediment transport standpoint. It has been a steep learning curve for me. I think overall stream restoration efforts would be greatly improved if these multidisciplinary teams could be the standard. Only problem is funding on the brook trout PhD side, the restoration practitioners are getting paid to help with these designs and implementation.

PAFB has some very bright friendly dedicated people in house despite the agencies overall failure to manage native brook trout secondary to ignoring important mainstream fisheries science principles. They just don’t have the technical capacity in house that I have seemingly fell into accidentally but quite fortunately . I wish more people had access to these kinds of groups, it’s had such a positive effect on our efforts.

 

[silverfox]

Not sure on any of the details surrounding your project. Assuming it is in PA have you ever tried to collaborate with the appropriate AFM or PFBC habitat folks?

I can say on a different project in a different part of the state where a series of in-stream projects were implemented between 2004-2017 I anecdotally noticed changes in species composition post-treatment. There were several surveys conducted over 3 stations with species composition well documented. These treatments were pretty typical structures based on current PFBC BMP's and created a fair bit of pool habitat and cover (log vane deflectors, jack dams, and mudsills). That habitat type is somewhat out of place on this particular stream. I think jack dams have been discouraged lately, but the design of this project probably predated that change in approach.

For the past 3 years I've tried to get someone (including reaching out to the AFM, others at PFBC, and the original funding/principal NGO) to do a post-treatment survey to compare against the prior surveys to no avail. Ironically, I sent another request about this last week!

What's really bizarre, and I'm not being conspiratorial here, is that after I started asking questions about the impact to the stream's species composition post-treatment, all the original documents with survey information (including water chemistry, macroinvertebrate community, and fish) were removed from the principal's website.

I've thought about doing an electrofishing survey in the prior survey reaches using the same methods used in the original surveys, but I have concerns about our findings being discredited for bias or because we didn't conduct the original surveys somehow our work would be considered skewed. In leu of actual surveys, I'm actually planning on sinking cameras in the stream this year to see if I can even capture an image of a brook trout in the stream.

I understand the issue here. It's entirely possible that surveys might demonstrate that significant money was spent that ended up having the exact opposite desired outcome (loss of brook trout rather than the stated goal of improving brook trout habitat). So of course there's going to be strong reluctance to survey it again. It's a shame. If we're doing something wrong, you'd think there would be some interest in fixing it moving forward.

 

[lestrout]

Yo silv - if you are wanting to determine the presence of brookies in that section, testing for their DNA in a stream sample could get it done.

 

[silverfox]

Yo silv - if you are wanting to determine the presence of brookies in that section, testing for their DNA in a stream sample could get it done.

That's a real possibility. In fact, IF, we can pull that off more broadly I hoped to use it on that stream. Right now the hurdle with eDNA is we need a min of 50 sample locations and I frankly don't have enough locations to fill an order of 50. I have some, but nowhere near 50.