anf brookies

[pcray1231]

I can help a lot, especially the Tionesta valley if you are going to be in that area. Feel free to PM.

Most of these are 90-99% brookies. But I have caught occasional browns in pretty much all of them.

 

[Mike]

Just a comment from experience regarding ST, total alkalinity as a measure of fertility, and total alkalinity as an expression of buffering capacity. I don’t think buffering is the total answer in the ANF. Why? Because there is low buffering capacity (total alkalinities of 3,2,1, and less than 1) occur in the Blue Mtn streams separating Berks from Schuylkill Co and in Schuylkill Co in the Schuykill drainage basin, yet there are Class A ST populations and ones where the abundances of legal and 9 “ ST are high. To further clarify, all but one are streams that one can’t straddle. Some were once stocked, so they were wide enough to qualify for state stocking. As far as legal fish abundance is concerned, pay attention to the width to depth ratio. On small to moderate size streams, the lower the better for larger trout in Pa. That also pertains to stretches of any given stream that one decides to fish because we all know that such ratios can vary longitudinally.

 

[silverfox]

...But don't expect a whole lot of Class A streams as a result. As I have said until I became blue in the hair face, those streams cannot handle the same biomass as the ones in Central PA. But they can still provide excellent fishing experience.

IMO People rely too heavily on class rating to determine best fishing experience. Or maybe I am just low class. ;-)

Hit the nail squarely on the head here. I think the pursuit of higher biomass leads to all kinds of issues. It's why we've stocked historically fishless streams out west with rainbows that ended up hybridizing with cutthroat, almost to the point of losing the cutthroat completely, and now we're using piscicides on those same streams to get rid of the rainbows (Buffalo Creek in MT) we put there to create a temporary fishery. Draw any parallels here you like.

We just can't seem to fathom a troutless stream, even if it's for a few months of the year.

 

[FarmerDave]

Hi Dave.. As one crusty old pfart to another, I hope all is well w/you.... I agree with much of what you say here, but would note that evidently in keeping with PFBC's current direction on reducing the stocking of catchable ST, more BT and RT are being stocked in waters that previously received only ST. Among these are Blue Jay, Queen, The Branch and a portion of Salmon Creek. They are still though, stocking a significant number of ST in comparison with other regions of the state, a situation I am sure is related to low baseline Ph's as you suggest.


I also agree, as you suggest, that left alone, many of the currently stocked ANF stream sections, particularly in Forest and Elk Counties would be dominated by wild ST. The thing though, as I see it, is that in a lot of these cases, the result would not be a wild ST fishery that has improved much if at all from where it was when the stream was stocked. I knows this runs counter to the current orthodoxy here about the primary nature of the suppressive effects of stocking on wild ST pops. My belief though is that, due to geology and the resulting fertility issues as well as disturbance from extration activities, etc., a significant number of the wild ST pops in currently stocked ANF stream sections are more incidental than viable and would be unlikely to improve enough to notice in the event stocking were curtailed.

I'm fine and get along now as well as I did 20 years ago. Aches and pains, but I've always had that and learned to live with it.

As far as the rest of what you wrote, I'm sure you realize I can't argue with most of it. But what exactly is viable? Class A? Class B. What?

Years ago... I think it was late 70s, I used to fish Tom's run in Cook Forest. I've told this story before, but I'll tell it again. Forgive me. By the late 70s, It had improved from years of abuse, and some natural issues to the point that it held brook trout again without the help of stocking. I even participated in some stream improvement in the lower parts in 76. Most people didn't know this at the time that brook trout had returned. I work for the park in 78 (summer job) and would hit Toms after work, and sometimes even during my lunch break. Oh sure, people knew that it held minnows, but that's about it. People would stop and ask what I was fishing for. Stock answer is just killing time.

On one of those days, I hit a small section of Tom's run near one of the pavilions during my lunch break. Caught a handful of natives, and even caught one that was at least 10 inches, just above the bridge on the road to Vowinkle. Was my biggest to date. I decided I would hit the same stretch again after work. When I did, all I caught were stocked brook trout. What the... The next day I asked around and found out that the PFBC secretly stocked 50 brook trout in that section to see how they would do. The following years, they started stocking the hell out of it from Brown Run to the river. I still fished it for the next few years, but the wild trout became few and far between. Lots of stocked trout, but I caught very few natives unless I walked to the confluence of Brown Run. Above that, Tom's run was still considerably impaired, but Brown run diluted it enough that trout had returned to Toms from the Brown Run and other tribs where they were all along.

Nobody can convince me that if they stopped stocking Tom's run that it wouldn't be a viable brook trout fishery. It wouldn't be a Class A. More than likely a class C. Back in the late 70s, it was probably a class D. Viable is in the eye of the beholder. For a person who only knows to use PFBC published lists, it would not be viable nor would many of the streams in the ANF. To those of us who don't rely on lists...

Disclaimer: Although we likely never met, I have known you through this site for many years. I respect you, and know that you are an avid fisherman who doesn't need lists. Most of what I said above is not directed at you. Your post simply inspired it.

Class A means very little in that area. The streams simply can't handle that much biomass all year long.

 

[FarmerDave]

Just a comment from experience regarding ST, total alkalinity as a measure of fertility, and total alkalinity as an expression of buffering capacity. I don’t think buffering is the total answer in the ANF. Why? Because there is low buffering capacity (total alkalinities of 3,2,1, and less than 1) occur in the Blue Mtn streams separating Berks from Schuylkill Co and in Schuylkill Co in the Schuykill drainage basin, yet there are Class A ST populations and ones where the abundances of legal and 9 “ ST are high. To further clarify, all but one are streams that one can’t straddle. Some were once stocked, so they were wide enough to qualify for state stocking. As far as legal fish abundance is concerned, pay attention to the width to depth ratio. On small to moderate size streams, the lower the better for larger trout in Pa. That also pertains to stretches of any given stream that one decides to fish because we all know that such ratios can vary longitudinally.

I can't argue that, but I do have a long stride.

 

[troutbert]

Which seems to kick stocking management, or management of stocked streams back to the state.

Exactly. I think the fisheries management decisions, such as whether or not to stock wild trout waters, are being made by the PFBC, not the Allegheny National Forest.

But is the ANF CHOOSING to let the PFBC run things?

Or do they have no choice in the matter because of some legal document?

 

[pcray1231]

The ANF streams by and large are lower gradient. The habitat doesn't support class A, its not so much acid or sediment I don't believe, it's that the surface area is rather large and the holding water rather small.

That said, class C's and D's provide very good fishing. Many of them I expect at least 10 in a day, and 30 isn't out of the question, with some more sizable fish mixed in. You cover more water to get them than you would in central or eastern PA, it's 50 or 100 yards between good spots, more walking, less fishing, so you don't have the 50+ days you have out here. But you still move a fish just about everywhere you expect to move a fish, you know? The class system is lacking, it is based on biomass per surface area. But it ignores the fact that fisherman are pretty adept at fishing only the surface area that looks good and walking by the rest. If you see a good spot and think "there should be a fish there", you cast, and there's a fish there, then we view it as a quality stream. A lot of those are class C and D!!!!

1 point about ANF streams regarding stocking. There's a whole lot of small ones that are stocked, but only in like the 1 or 2 spots where a road crosses. The wild trout fishing is noticably far worse near those stocking points...

 

[silverfox]

Exactly. I think the fisheries management decisions, such as whether or not to stock wild trout waters, are being made by the PFBC, not the Allegheny National Forest.

But is the ANF CHOOSING to let the PFBC run things?

Or do they have no choice in the matter because of some legal document?

It is fish and boat. I confirmed that much. Now whether USDA has a say in that I don't know, but I'll find out for sure.

 

[silverfox]

The ANF streams by and large are lower gradient. The habitat doesn't support class A, its not so much acid or sediment I don't believe, it's that the surface area is rather large and the holding water rather small.

That said, class C's and D's provide very good fishing. Many of them I expect at least 10 in a day, and 30 isn't out of the question, with some more sizable fish mixed in. You cover more water to get them than you would in central or eastern PA, it's 50 or 100 yards between good spots, more walking, less fishing, so you don't have the 50+ days you have out here. But you still move a fish just about everywhere you expect to move a fish, you know? The class system is lacking, it is based on biomass per surface area. But it ignores the fact that fisherman are pretty adept at fishing only the surface area that looks good and walking by the rest. If you see a good spot and think "there should be a fish there", you cast, and there's a fish there, then we view it as a quality stream. A lot of those are class C and D!!!!

1 point about ANF streams regarding stocking. There's a whole lot of small ones that are stocked, but only in like the 1 or 2 spots where a road crosses. The wild trout fishing is noticably far worse near those stocking points...

Great points. I think the comments about sampling areas vs angler hiking/fishing distance is exactly why I've noticed a big disparity between biomass classification and actual fishing results. My average brook trout fishing outing is 3-6 miles of fishing. Sometimes I'll hike a mile through suboptimal habitat and arrive at brook trout nirvana. I know they look at habitat when deciding sample reaches and try to find good representative habitat, but I've seen enough streams that have very little of that within a typical reach length.

The other thing is seasonal variation in population as I've mentioned multiple times before. It could be Class A in one area in January and drop to Class D in July. That has nothing to do with the stream and its biomass, and everything to do with how mobile the population is.

On access points and fishing, I've read in a few places about access points and fishing. Maryland has some data on that in the USR, but I've read it elsewhere (don't recall where right now) that suggested fish get tired of being harassed and move out of easy access areas that see high angler use. It's not the presumed higher harvest rate, it's that the fish just don't like staying around constant disturbances.

 

[RLeep2]

It is fish and boat. I confirmed that much. Now whether USDA has a say in that I don't know, but I'll find out for sure.

I know that back in the 90's when I was administrating a couple of EPA grants in the ANF, USFS had a resident fisheries biologist who worked out of HQ in Warren. I interacted with him a number of times. His name was Brent, umm, Brent something or other. Last name escapes me.

I would imagine the same position still exists, particularly given the intensity of mixed extractive commerce in the Forest.

 

[k-bob]

Mike re post 42. Can download article shown in image from researchgate... sounds like the pottsville bedrock underlying parts of the anf may drop trout populations by a greater amount than the bedrock's low buffering alone would suggest.

 

[k-bob]

Pat thanks for offer and info!

 

[Tups]

I should clarify my earlier comments, which were for information purposes only. Some were wondering which agency has responsibility for managing the ANF fisheries. Clearly, the US Forest Service has that responsibility. But in what manner they manage those resources is explained and justified in their Land and Resource Management Plan. If the debate over managing for native or non-native species, or both is not explicitly discussed in their Plan, then that is likely because during the Plan review process in 2007, the issue never explicitly arose. That may be different in future plan development processes and I suspect it will be.

I think it is safe to say that during the 2007 review process, the PAFBC reviewed and responded to the Draft Plan, making recommendations and providing their justification and argument for managing the fisheries according to their (PAFBC) preferred strategy. The EBTJV is welcome to do the same in future, and I’m sure they will. This doesn’t mean that PAFBC has direct control over fisheries management in the ANF, but it does suggest that they are considered stakeholders in the process and are recognized by the USFS as experts in their field. Their recommendations have weight. In future, the EBTJV may also be recognized by The Forest Service as fisheries experts. Time will tell. However they will not be recognized unless they enter the process as stakeholders.

Government agencies respond to advocacy pressure, and to the extent that the laws and regulations which guide their actions grant them authority to address certain issues, they are bound to respond and justify why they did or did not accept an organization’s recommendations, including those of the EBTJV.

The Management Plan is tethered to the ANF’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document. The NEPA document is where you will find the USFS’ justification for choosing the least environmentally damaging alternative for managing the forest. If this all sounds very bureaucratic, it’s because it is and is intended to be so. This is how government agencies operate, not because they enjoy it, but because this is the process which Congress has created and mandated by law.

The PAFBC is mandated by State law to provide recreational fisheries. To that end, they have a stocking program and will stock anyone’s waters provided those waters meet their (PAFBC) criteria. No doubt ANF and the PAFBC have a Memorandum of Understanding or even a Memorandum of Agreement outlining the management of the fisheries in ANF waters. Such and MOU or MOA would also be a publicly available document, meaning either agency will provide it upon request.

I have no personal opinion one way or the other as to whether or not the USFS should manage for natives only, or continue in the current fashion. I spent a lot of time in the past fishing those streams and enjoyed every minute of it, but haven’t been up there in 10 years. I prefer wild trout, regardless of species.

 

[silverfox]

I should clarify my earlier comments, which were for information purposes only. Some were wondering which agency has responsibility for managing the ANF fisheries. Clearly, the US Forest Service has that responsibility. But in what manner they manage those resources is explained and justified in their Land and Resource Management Plan. If the debate over managing for native or non-native species, or both is not explicitly discussed in their Plan, then that is likely because during the Plan review process in 2007, the issue never explicitly arose. That may be different in future plan development processes and I suspect it will be.

I think it is safe to say that during the 2007 review process, the PAFBC reviewed and responded to the Draft Plan, making recommendations and providing their justification and argument for managing the fisheries according to their (PAFBC) preferred strategy. The EBTJV is welcome to do the same in future, and I’m sure they will. This doesn’t mean that PAFBC has direct control over fisheries management in the ANF, but it does suggest that they are considered stakeholders in the process and are recognized by the USFS as experts in their field. Their recommendations have weight. In future, the EBTJV may also be recognized by The Forest Service as fisheries experts. Time will tell. However they will not be recognized unless they enter the process as stakeholders.

Government agencies respond to advocacy pressure, and to the extent that the laws and regulations which guide their actions grant them authority to address certain issues, they are bound to respond and justify why they did or did not accept an organization’s recommendations, including those of the EBTJV.

The Management Plan is tethered to the ANF’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document. The NEPA document is where you will find the USFS’ justification for choosing the least environmentally damaging alternative for managing the forest. If this all sounds very bureaucratic, it’s because it is and is intended to be so. This is how government agencies operate, not because they enjoy it, but because this is the process which Congress has created and mandated by law.

The PAFBC is mandated by State law to provide recreational fisheries. To that end, they have a stocking program and will stock anyone’s waters provided those waters meet their (PAFBC) criteria. No doubt ANF and the PAFBC have a Memorandum of Understanding or even a Memorandum of Agreement outlining the management of the fisheries in ANF waters. Such and MOU or MOA would also be a publicly available document, meaning either agency will provide it upon request.

I have no personal opinion one way or the other as to whether or not the USFS should manage for natives only, or continue in the current fashion. I spent a lot of time in the past fishing those streams and enjoyed every minute of it, but haven’t been up there in 10 years. I prefer wild trout, regardless of species.

Just pointing out that EBTJV is really a coalition of state and federal fisheries managers. It's not really an independent agency. PA has representation on EBTJV (Jason Detar). So I'd assume whatever EBTJV would recommend or get involved with here would rely on Jason's (PFBC's) recommendation.

 

[troutbert]

It is fish and boat. I confirmed that much. Now whether USDA has a say in that I don't know, but I'll find out for sure.

Good stuff.

What is the brookie management situation in other National Forests in the east? In the Monongahela NF for example?

 

[silverfox]

Good stuff.

What is the brookie management situation in other National Forests in the east? In the Monongahela NF for example?

It's essentially the same. I know White Mountain National Forest is similar to ANF in that there's stocking of nonnative species and no regulations for brook trout specifically. Monongahela is similar too. Fishing regulations are based on state angling regulations. So ANF isn't managed any differently than other national forests.

I think where you see the most effort for brook trout specifically is in national parks. NPS seems to be very progressive on native species management. NPS for example conducted 18 removal/reintroduction projects in GSMNP and 8 in Shenandoah. It's worth mentioning the Forest Service did do some reintroductions in South Carolina with SCDNR. So there is some precedence there in state/federal agencies partnering specifically for brook trout conservation as it relates to native/nonnative species. I'm not suggesting removal (if it's even necessary or warranted) in ANF, I'm simply pointing out that NPS and other state/federal agencies on federal lands have gone as far as removal/reintroduction, which is favoring brook trout in my opinion. I think that also assumes that they certainly stopped stocking (if it ever occurred) in the reclamation areas.

 

[Mike]

Mike re post 42. Can download article shown in image from researchgate... sounds like the pottsville bedrock underlying parts of the anf may drop trout populations by a greater amount than the bedrock's low buffering alone would suggest.

K-bob,
Thanks for the paragraph from the paper. I recall see the title years ago, but can’t recall if I read anything but the abstract. At any rate, the part that you copied provided a good filler for the gap in my analysis in post 42…
Pottsville Formation and possibly its Al.

 

[k-bob]

thanks mike, also below fits w rleep comments on south area a n f (w/much pottsville bedrock):

The Missing Fish of Raven Run: Gluppity-Glup or Smogulous Smoke?

In my work assessing water quality and fish communities in headwater streams in support of Pennsylvania’s Unassessed Streams Initiative (described here and here) I often encounter streams tha…

turnerfamilyexpedition12.wordpress.com

"Acidic headwater streams are all too common. The southeast portion of the Allegheny National Forest is especially hard-hit. Our recent sampling shows that about 20% of the headwater streams within the watersheds of Millstone Creek, Spring Creek, and Bear Creek have a pH < 5.0 and have no fish at all. An equal number have a baseflow pH > 5.0 but < 5.8 and have some fish but are significantly impaired. In other words, about half the small streams in this forested landscape suffer to some degree from acid deposition."

 

[FarmerDave]

thanks mike, also below fits w rleep comments on south area a n f (w/much pottsville bedrock):

The Missing Fish of Raven Run: Gluppity-Glup or Smogulous Smoke?

In my work assessing water quality and fish communities in headwater streams in support of Pennsylvania’s Unassessed Streams Initiative (described here and here) I often encounter streams tha…

turnerfamilyexpedition12.wordpress.com

"Acidic headwater streams are all too common. The southeast portion of the Allegheny National Forest is especially hard-hit. Our recent sampling shows that about 20% of the headwater streams within the watersheds of Millstone Creek, Spring Creek, and Bear Creek have a pH < 5.0 and have no fish at all. An equal number have a baseflow pH > 5.0 but < 5.8 and have some fish but are significantly impaired. In other words, about half the small streams in this forested landscape suffer to some degree from acid deposition."

I think I read that before. It's a good read and thanks for posting it.

 

[troutbert]

Regarding infertile, acidic, poorly buffered streams in the ANF and elsewhere.

I've fished many infertile streams in NCPA. In these areas, typically the far headwaters in high elevation areas have no fish of any kind. Further downstream you reach a point where brook trout appear, and typically there are only brook trout for many miles downstream.

Even where these streams support brook trout, they are very infertile. There are some aquatic insects, but not very many. The brookies apparently eat a lot of terrestrial insects.

Despite the harsh conditions, the brookie fishing on these streams can be very enjoyable, including "larger individuals." On the UNSTOCKED streams of course.

There are two different streams of this type that I fished for some years when they were unstocked streams. Then liming was done, followed by stocking. And the brookie population was DEVASTATED in both places.

The brook trout populations in the very infertile streams seem to be more vulnerable to the negative effects of stocking than streams that have at least moderate fertility. Just what the causes of this are, I don't know.

But if an infertile stream with brookies is being stocked, you won't know the potential population of that stream until stocking is ended and some years have passed.