Even in stocked water it is often the habitat and not the regs

[Mike]

As part of a statewide fish population inventory of fifth order warmwater streams (fairly wide) the Tulpehocken was sampled yesterday via electrofishing at two locations that were representative of the stream's habitat. First was a 300m. long good habitat stretch located in the all tackle (aka bait) area of the stream a few hundred meters below the covered bridge. The second site was a 300 m. poor habitat stretch located 360 meters downstream from Reber's bridge in the DH Area. The target fish were warmwater species (smallmouth, rock bass, sunfish, minnows, darters and the like, meaning that we spent much time along the shoreline cover and thus unavoidably allowed some fish to run past us in the middle. We did, however electrofish the middle as well. Warmwater species and trout were more plentiful in the "bait" segment and the trout were in much better condition (plump, not thin). This was not due to a pausity of forage fish either stretch, as they were abundant in both, and particularly abundant in the DH Area. Fifteen rainbows were captured in the bait section plus one wild brown. Four rainbows were captured in the DH Area. Those RT's in the DH area were moderately thin to thin and three of the four had signs of encounters with herons. Only one fish in the bait area was thin and another had similar heron damage. The slight damage from herons was not related to the poor condition of the fish. The damage amounted to skin scratches.

Why the poor condition in the DH area stretch? Most likely the lack of current breaks and mid-stream cover causes the trout to expend too much energy at that location. (Plus the shallow, cover free water exposes the fish to intensive bird predation). This energy expenditure use probably exacerbated by the warm stream temperatures (higher fish metabolism). While temps are the same or usually warmer in the bait area each day, the energy expenditure in the good habitat is likely lower.

As for relative fish abundance, whether it is warmwater fish or trout in this comparison, it was the habitat, not the regulations (or the amount of harvest) that produced this result.

Tully anglers read on....
Food for thought: As for trout, much of the DH area has poor, cover free habitat that is shallow to fairly shallow, making both adult stocked fish and stocked fingerlings exceptionally vulnerable to predation. (Other parts of the DH area have good habitat and probably held good numbers of trout yesterday). Which size fish do you think would have the better chance of escaping with just scratches? Do you think that the reported (anecdotal from some anglers and the park manager) increase in herons along this stream over the past 27 years, including the development of a local heron rookery during that period had anything to do with the increasingly poor survival of fingerling stockings? Is it possible that some areas have gotten wider and shallower over a 27 year period? Give it some thought and discuss it among yourselves.

 

[LehighRegular]

agree with all of the above.

Now the question is, what can or should be done about it to ensure better trout survival??

Then actually doing it. Its great knowing the problems, but when nothing is done to fix the problems, what good is gathering the information?

It seems like a fairly simple fix to me.

 

[Fishidiot]

Some stream improvement work and man-made cover seems the obvious next step.

If all else fails, we can always call out Frederick to deal with the herons. :-x

 

[JustFish]

Good info Mike!

LehighRegular wrote:
agree with all of the above.

Now the question is, what can or should be done about it to ensure better trout survival??

Then actually doing it. Its great knowing the problems, but when nothing is done to fix the problems, what good is gathering the information?

It seems like a fairly simple fix to me.

Mike what can be done specifically??

 

[Mike]

LR: Reminder: the stream survey was done as part of a statewide program to document warmwater stream fish populations with eventual movement toward management and promotion of the better ones. The agency realizes that it really had very little knowledge of these stream resources. (and from my perspective, based upon my observations in the field, they probably receive more angler usage in the summer than wild trout streams, about which we have a great deal of knowledge as a group). As for the ancillary trout info that was collected in the Tully survey, if nothing else, it is eductional for many anglers and can potentially be used in support of trout management activities on the Tully and elsewhere.

As for what specifically can be done, habitat improvement in the shallow areas would probably be beneficial if it helped push more water to the center of the channel (as in j-hooks and rock veins), creating more depth, but not much more overhead cover. These structures are very expensive on large streams and require the use of heavy equipment. In the Tully's case, to get to many of the shallow areas would require access road construction as well (more $).

The PFBC and a power company, through mutual agreement, have made grant money available for habitat work and other projects in the Quitty and Tully drainages, and that account receives an additional $23,000 or more each year. The PFBC also provides engineering design in many cases. The shame is that more groups don't step forward to take advantage of the grant funds. Tulpehocken TU can't be expected by other anglers to do it all!

Note: Berks Co Parks Dept has stepped forward to take advantage of these funds and the result was the bank stabilization, the j-hooks, rock veins, and tree/shrub plantings on the bend below the covered bridge. Check it out sometime and compare the habitat and overhead cover along the shorelines in the two areas described above.. These funds may also be used for habitat work in the former dam pool area once the dam at the mouth of the Tully is removed.

 

[Fredrick]

Mike what kind of warmwater species did pull out of the tullly and how big were they ? I always thought that the best habitat on the tully was below paper mill road. From the dam down the creek bottom reminds me of a flood wash ditch in the desert .

 

[Mike]

Fred,
We captured rock bass up to 8 or 9 inches long, redbreast sunfish up to 8 inches long, and smallmouth bass up to 14 inches long, as well as some very large (5-8 lb) adult American eels. The rock bass were fairly plentiful, but not the redbreasts or bass. No species were caught that could be attributed to the reservoir....they tend to stay in the tailrace or move directly downstream to the Schuylkill. The eels were the largest we have seen in major rivers or any size stream in quite some time. One of the last times I saw one that large was in Juniata Co's East Licking Creek.

Ah, finally....you seem to be one of the few who does not see the Tully through rose colored glasses.

 

[TimMurphy]

Mike wrote:
Fred,

Ah, finally....you seem to be one of the few who does not see the Tully through rose colored glasses.

Dear Mike,

C'mon man everybody knows that the only reason the Tully isn't the equivalent of the Green River is Utah is because of the mis-guided policies of the Fish Commssion!

When are you guys going to get it! :-D

Regards,
Tim Murphy

 

[afishinado]

Lol….Paradise Valley it ain’t. Of the 3.8 miles in the SR stretch, .8 miles have decent habitat, IMO. The rest I would rate as poor to fair. Setting aside the water quality / water temperature issues, improving the habitat may be something that can be accomplished without a major overhaul of the lake / dam.

I tried pulling up the website of the Tulpehocken TU site and it appears incomplete. There are blank ad spaces throughout the site, with only one sponsor buying ad space – Sky Blue Outfitters. There is a link to Tulpehocken Creek Outfitter, but no TCO ad or sponsorship?!? What gives Tony? This is your home stream! I’m sure that The Tulpehocken TU does good work, but I appears that they may need more help.

http://www.tullytu.org/TUtullyGram.html


Mike,

Tell me you didn’t capture any crappie? I’ve caught many crappie on the Tully, and some bigger ones too. I have never seen eels there, interesting. When the water begins to warm in the spring, at times, I’ve caught 5, 6, or more species of fish there in a single outing, most of them warmwater fish. When that begins to happen, I know it’s time to give the stream a rest and gear up for smallmouths.

 

[Padraic]

I don't know much about the Tully. I only fished it once. But it's it more true to say it ALWAYS habitat? Good regs can help, but Heritage Regs on a drainage ditch isn't going to make the stream the Letort. That's why I got involved with TU. Working with the staff at FBC, local watershed groups and some good consultants, DFTU has done a number of habitat improvements on local streams. People who want to learn what to do to improve habitat and how, should consider getting involved in some of these projects.

 

[troutbert]

It's habitat AND fisheries management. There isn't any reason to frame the discussion as one VERSUS the other.

 

[pcray1231]

My comments mirror afishanado.

Overall, the Tully has poor habitat, and its best habitat areas are not "good", they are simply better than the rest. Wide, shallow, and slow overall. Obviously it will never be spectacular habitat, because you can't do anything about the low gradient. Bank stabilization only keeps the status quo and prevents it from getting worse. Wing dams and such can actually proactively narrow the channel. Yes, I liked the fingerlings, I would strongly suspect fingerling stocked fish to have low "early" survival, but once they become acclimated to the stream they act more "wild", and would be vastly less prone to predation, especially from overhead.

Also, I too have caught numerous crappy in the Tully, I'm very surprised none showed up. I rarely catch smallmouths of any size, though I frequently catch 6-8" smallmouths. The rock bass actually are bigger. I catch a LOT of bluegill. The eels are very interesting.

One question, I know the lower dam is to be taken out, and thats a good thing. However, I wonder what effect it will have on other species? Are there any other species that you think will take residence in the Tully once a path to the Schulykill is opened up? Do you think its more likely some species already in the Tully will leave?

 

[JustFish]

For those of you who aren't happy with the fingerling program being haulted by the PFBC, know that TCO and TCTU are carrying on the program with their own funds. They will be having fundraisers to accomplish this.

On the stream conditions page at the bottom gives you a link to email them if your interested in donating or becoming involved if you feel so strongly about the fingerling program.

http://www.tcoflyfishing.com/1sc_tullyconditions.cfm

 

[afishinado]

I hesitate to question any one doing something that they think is helping a stream, but raising money to stock more fish in a stream with marginal habitat, water quality and temperature issues, fingerlings or not, may be the proverbial “putting lipstick on a pig.” Would it not be wiser to spend more time and effort on improving the stream, rather than stocking it with more fish? The corollary to what Pad said about Heritage regulations do not make a drainage ditch the Letort, is that stocking fingerlings in the Tully does not make it the rival the Big Horn or San Juan River tailwaters, or even the Little J or the Yough for that matter.

If the stream can be improved, as Mike believes it can, why not support that effort and spend money on something that would make it more suitable for fingerling planting. Plus it appears that funds are available to help accomplish this. I'm not casting stones....just saying.

 

[JustFish]

I agree afishinado,

I just posted that b/c I saw a lot of controversy over the fingerling program being terminated. So I thought if some feel so strong about it there it is.

 

[JackM]

Sometimes you have to throw in a string of pearls and some fashionable shades as well:

 

[Mike]

When the dam is removed there aren't many species that will move up the Tully that aren't already moving down from Blue Marsh or that aren't stream residents already. However, depending upon season and stream flows (high flows, even storm related, may attract fish in spring and summer), the numbers of individual fish moving into the Tully could be substantial. I would expect a migration of white suckers, carp, possibly channel cats at times, redbreast sunfish, smallmouth bass, bullheads, possibly quillback carpsuckers, possibly fallfish, and more eels. There could even be a seasonal movement of a few walleye and muskies into the Tully, as well as some movement of trout into the Tully from the Schuylkill as the river warms each year, but again, a lot depends upon flow and habitat, with channel configuration below and above the removed dam being important, particularly under normal to low flows. A few American shad in the future? Let's wait and see about that. Even if they are in the river adult shad won't enter the vast majority of the tribs.

 

[troutbert]

A few American shad in the future? Let's wait and see about that. Even if they are in the river adult shad won't enter the vast majority of the tribs.

Mike, that's an interesting point about shad moving up tribs. Do you have a sense for what size tribs shad will move up into? Or what the factors are that determine where they run up and spawn in and where they don't?

Don't shad spawn right in the main Delaware? Do they go up tribs like Brodhead Creek, Lackawaxen and smaller tribs to spawn or are they river spawners?

 

[flyfishermanj]

Mike,

Thanks for the good post and info!!

JH

 

[Fredrick]

Mike what about the Flat heads ? I think that they are making a bit of an impact on the Schuylkill, do you think that this will affect the Tully also ?