How many hatcheries in PA

[sarce]

I'm having a hard time finding it at the moment, but there's an interactive map that shows the loss of brook trout in the Catoctin range as temperatures increase. It didn't take a huge increase in average temps to wipe out that population.

Relevant: https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-...ctive-effects-climate-change-invasive-species

Big Hunting Creek is the stream in MD that they're manually eradicating BT on. I wish we could normalize this kind of discussion without people assuming you want to dump the green juice in every BT stream in the state. "Reclamation" is a 4 letter word around these parts.

Obviously, there is a whole host of other issues like impervious surfaces due to urban expansion. I don't think any of them are very controversial (habitat, pollution, connectivity, etc.), and I'm sure would easily garner overwhelming support from anglers, environmentalists, and everyone in between. The biotic issue is the one that concerns me the most though because if we don't address it, we're just making really good nonnative fish habitat. The biotic problem is one that anglers don't like to hear about, and I think is probably the most challenging to address. Everything else can be fixed (sort of) with enough money and labor.

It's a little harder to fix psychology. Especially once it's drifted too far off course.

I think I have seen that interactive tool. It was only based on upper BHC and the headwaters of one other stream IIRC. Our work was on other streams in that area and was intended to be complimentary to that study, though less detailed. We looked at water temp only. The other one had brook trout sampling, air temp comparisons to ID strongest groundwater inputs, and a whole host of other details that our TU chapter doesn't have the scientific chops to tackle - but the locations involved weren't the coldest streams in the region. We are hoping to post our analysis online within the next few weeks. Without some of the rigorous scientific methods of a true study it may have limited utility but it was still an extremely eye-opening exercise. It's biggest significance is showing how TU chapters can mobilize to help fill in the data gaps that can (in theory) help fisheries be better managed.

 

[silverfox]

I think with hatcheries (or decorative ponds etc.) on spring sources it's not only about temperatures. The pollution on BS probably contributed more to declines in ST than any temperature issues. There's also the barrier of the ponds themselves that prevent fish from accessing the spring source on decorative ponds.

I agree with Gene Merci and others that the remaining ST population in BS probably has very little, if any, genetic material from the "heritage strain" that occupied the stream before the mill ponds and other atrocities were implemented. If you ever visited the "ditch" back when the hatchery was pumping you'd know that stretch was so full of hatchery escapees and pellet-dependent multi-species pets that there's no way many if any, original brook trout survived.

BS is still stocked with ST and it will be interesting to see what happens when that practice ends. Will the agency simply stop stocking it? Or will they transition to stocking rainbows? The hatchery brook trout there are present all the way up to the ditch gates. So much for introgression. Though, I don't think it counts if it's fresh hatchery fish breeding with the wild progeny of hatchery fish.

 

[silverfox]

I think I have seen that interactive tool. It was only based on upper BHC and the headwaters of one other stream IIRC. Our work was on other streams in that area and was intended to be complimentary to that study, though less detailed. We looked at water temp only. The other one had brook trout sampling, air temp comparisons to ID strongest groundwater inputs, and a whole host of other details that our TU chapter doesn't have the scientific chops to tackle - but the locations involved weren't the coldest streams in the region. We are hoping to post our analysis online within the next few weeks. Without some of the rigorous scientific methods of a true study it may have limited utility but it was still an extremely eye-opening exercise. It's biggest significance is showing how TU chapters can mobilize to help fill in the data gaps that can (in theory) help fisheries be better managed.

Yep. That's the one. I don't recall how I got that map tool but I think it was in an email/not really public. That research sounds interesting! Looking forward to seeing it.

 

[Mike]

I realize that the downstream thermal profile was not greatly altered but what I’m saying was that place had tons of hatchery escapees and raising a more aggressive invasive species where brook trout could be living actually is in fact a loss of habitat. And with the brown trout you mentioned, they didn’t swim there from loch Leven in Scotland Mike, still a result of state sponsored or amateur bucket biology. Stocking ontop of those wild browns is just even more to the detriment of those brook trout and they move I’ve caught em in other creeks in the

In thought the comment about Slate Run specifically had to do with fecundity of large, stocked browns.

 

[Peyton]

I will have to fish it with tiny dry flies, that is what the darters typically take. It is a fellow fly fisher who stocks it, he only puts the big trout he catches there.

 

[Fish Sticks]

In thought the comment about Slate Run specifically had to do with fecundity of large, stocked browns.

It did

Propagule pressure - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[silverfox]

As for Slate Run there has been a very substantial wild brown trout population in the lower regions of the stream since at least the mid-1970’s.

In addition to the wild population, it's also heavily stocked with private fish which are likely far more fit than the current generation PFBC hatchery strain. Again, addition rather than the prescribed subtraction. That was the point about SR.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I will have to fish it with tiny dry flies, that is what the darters typically take. It is a fellow fly fisher who stocks it, he only puts the big trout he catches there.

You could briefly put fish in a photarium and e-mail Doug for an ID probably if you get something really not obvious.

 

[Mike]

Sarce,
The only existing way to get better protection from development impacts of which I am aware without changes in legislation are through the intertwinement the two classification systems in Pa, DEP’s Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards and the PFBC Biomass classification system. Add to that the designation of streams that support reproduction of wild trout and the surrounding wetlands become EV. If nothing else, those streams “eventually” become CWF at a minimum. Within DEP’s Chapter 93 system dealing with point source discharge permitting, EV is best, but it is not based on wild trout, and HQ is the highest a stream classification can go based on wild trout. Class A biomass sections or possibly the entire streams eventually become HQ CWF. As for legislative action, my understanding over the years was that development follows the state’s Municipalities Planning Code.

Regarding SE Pa wild trout streams protection, first they had to be identified in order to affirm the existing classification which could have been assigned without data or get an upgrade in Chapter 93 (again, related to point source discharges) and Area 6 struck out to do that starting in 1980 whenever time was available to do a few optional surveys and get the report writing done. The Unassessed Wild Trout Waters program came along in about 2008, 2009, or so, long after A6 had its own “program” going. That made it a lot easier though in three ways: 1. because it eventually involved a much reduced report narrative writing system, 2. because staff could now justify sampling the very small wild trout streams that were unlikely to support very attractive fisheries, and 3. because sampling in any given stream was reduced unless a potential Class A/B population was found. With shorter reports, more streams could be examined in a field season and the field season could be extended very late into the fall and early winter. In many cases, we already knew where those sampled wild trout streams were; we never had time to document them though. And many others were simply confirmations of where we suspected they existed based on topo map reviews. Exceptions, as you know, were primarily some in the Brandywine drainage.

 

[Fish Sticks]

In thought the comment about Slate Run specifically had to do with fecundity of large, stocked browns.

It’s not just the first release event and it’s over is my point. Subsequent release events can prop up a population. Often we forget that brown trout have no locoregional genetic adaptation and we assume that just because they can survive a few degrees warmer that all their other survival tools are better which is not the case because they did not evolve here. I don’t think people really know to what extent we are proposing them up with stocking. Since there is no locoregional adaptation that’s significant in a lot of these pops I don’t think outbreeding depression is likely a concern in these fish so additional stockings with more fecund fish probably just serves to prevent inbreeding depression from a limited source stock. No one knows the answer to this for sure that I know of as far as in invasive brown trout in Pa but more fecund fish means more offspring. No one’s really talking about how brown trout are declining in Montana since 2000’s, we think they are just here to stay no matter what and forget that they displace and extirpate native species but don’t have all the tools to survive here that native trout do and that a couple centuries is a short period of time with how long these things play out and the trophic cascades they start may ultimately prove to be their own undoing with a destabilized food web. Aka WE DONT KNOW WT* WE DOING lol

 

[silverfox]

It’s not just the first release event and it’s over is my point. Subsequent release events can prop up a population. Often we forget that brown trout have no locoregional genetic adaptation and we assume that just because they can survive a few degrees warmer that all their other survival tools are better which is not the case because they did not evolve here. I don’t think people really know to what extent we are proposing them up with stocking. Since there is no locoregional adaptation that’s significant in a lot of these pops I don’t think outbreeding depression is likely a concern in these fish so additional stockings with more fecund fish probably just serves to prevent inbreeding depression from a limited source stock. No one knows the answer to this for sure that I know of as far as in invasive brown trout in Pa but more fecund fish means more offspring. No one’s really talking about how brown trout are declining in Montana since 2000’s, we think they are just here to stay no matter what and forget that they displace and extirpate native species but don’t have all the tools to survive here that native trout do and that a couple centuries is a short period of time with how long these things play out and the trophic cascades they start may ultimately prove to be their own undoing with a destabilized food web. Aka WE DONT KNOW WT* WE DOING lol

Careful, I suggested on here a few years ago that stocking was actually propping up the wild BT populations and it really triggered some folks.

 

[sarce]

Sarce,
The only existing way to get better protection from development impacts of which I am aware without changes in legislation are through the intertwinement the two classification systems in Pa, DEP’s Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards and the PFBC Biomass classification system. Add to that the designation of streams that support reproduction of wild trout and the surrounding wetlands become EV. If nothing else, those streams “eventually” become CWF at a minimum. Within DEP’s system dealing with point source discharge permitting, EV is best, but it is not based on wild trout, and HQ is the highest a stream classification can go based on wild trout. Class A biomass sections or possibly the entire streams eventually become HQ CWF. As for legislative action, my understanding over the years was that development requirements come from the state’s Municipalities Planning Code.

Regarding SE Pa wild trout streams protection, first they had to be identified in order to get an upgrade in Chapter 93 and Area 6 struck out to do that starting in 1980 whenever time was available to do a few optional surveys and get the report writing done. The Unassessed Wild Trout Waters program came along in about 2008, 2009, or so, long after A6 had its own “program” going. That made it a lot easier though in three ways: 1. because it eventually involved a much reduced report narrative writing system, 2. because staff could now justify sampling the very small wild trout streams that were unlikely to support very attractive fisheries, and 3. because sampling in any given stream was reduced unless a potential Class A/B population was found. With shorter reports, more streams could be examined in a field season and the field season could be extended very late into the fall and early winter. In many cases, we already knew where those sampled wild trout streams were; we never had time to document them though. And many others were simply confirmations of where we suspected they existed based on topo map reviews. Exceptions, as you know, were primarily some in the Brandywine drainage.

Hey Mike, appreciate the additional history and info. The listing/sampling of the streams is a start, and getting those Ch 93 protections following the listing is great. I think another step is missing though, and it may not be one that is feasible with FBC current resources and manpower. There needs to be a plan for regular follow-up surveys to monitor whether those chapter 93 regs are protective enough that brook trout continue existing in those streams. I think such an effort would find populations greatly diminish or become extirpated within 5-10 years of new subdivisions being constructed in the watershed. More than half of the allopatric streams in the Brandywine basin have suffered this fate and one more shifted from brook to brown (after development destabilized the upper reaches of the stream). To me this means the municipal code isn't protective enough.

Editing to add that one problem these streams face is they are mostly on private property. Out of sight, out of mind...

 

[Fish Sticks]

Careful, I suggested on here a few years ago that stocking was actually propping up the wild BT populations and it really triggered some folks.

Haha yea I can see that. I am not arguing one way or another I think the angling community just assumes wild brown trout from similar source stock originally stocked getting no help from stockings at this point. I think the answer is we don’t know at this point and stocking is never good for wild native populations but the difference between genetic rescue and out breeding depression in brook trout seems like a fine line with two opposite outcomes so one would wonder based on what your starting with and what your adding in if two different outcomes are possible for brown trout ( and less likely outbreeding depression because there is no generic adaptation I would think that’s significant) but not saying anything with certainty it’s a question for David Kayzak not fish sticks.

 

[silverfox]

Haha yea I can see that. I am not arguing one way or another I think the angling community just assumes wild brown trout from similar source stock originally stocked getting no help from stockings at this point. I think the answer is we don’t know at this point and stocking is never good for wild native populations but the difference between genetic rescue and out breeding depression in brook trout seems like a fine line with two opposite outcomes so one would wonder based on what your starting with and what your adding in if two different outcomes are possible for brown trout ( and less likely outbreeding depression because there is no generic adaptation I would think that’s significant) but not saying anything with certainty it’s a question for David Kayzak not fish sticks.

Right. There's a big difference between taking a handful of brook trout that were "recently" isolated from a nearby population vs some F12 Scottish fish mixing w/ a population of browns from Germany that were inbred to begin with and isolated on another continent for 139 years.

 

[moon1284]

So who is smarter, fish sticks or silverfox?

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Hey Mike, appreciate the additional history and info. The listing/sampling of the streams is a start, and getting those Ch 93 protections following the listing is great. I think another step is missing though, and it may not be one that is feasible with FBC current resources and manpower. There needs to be a plan for regular follow-up surveys to monitor whether those chapter 93 regs are protective enough that brook trout continue existing in those streams. I think such an effort would find populations greatly diminish or become extirpated within 5-10 years of new subdivisions being constructed in the watershed. More than half of the allopatric streams in the Brandywine basin have suffered this fate and one more shifted from brook to brown (after development destabilized the upper reaches of the stream). To me this means the municipal code isn't protective enough.

Editing to add that one problem these streams face is they are mostly on private property. Out of sight, out of mind...

The best protection would come from restrictive land develop regs and zoning restrictions at the local level.

There is certainly value to the HQ and EV chp 93 designations and they do provide additional water quality protections and beefed up stormwater management for developments, one of the biggest benefits of those chp 93 designations comes when industrial discharge permits are in play.

The impact of impervious surfaces on our limestone influenced streams is not well understood and there without a doubt is a tipping point.

 

[Fish Sticks]

So who is smarter, fish sticks or silverfox?

Moons back!

 

[silverfox]

The impact of impervious surfaces on our limestone influenced streams is not well understood and there without a doubt is a tipping point.

Not to mention that with karst geology in that area the impervious surface (or other anthropogenic impacts) may be miles away from the stream being impacted.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The best protection would come from restrictive land develop regs and zoning restrictions at the local level.

There is certainly value to the HQ and EV chp 93 designations and they do provide additional water quality protections and beefed up stormwater management for developments, one of the biggest benefits of those chp 93 designations comes when industrial discharge permits are in play.

The impact of impervious surfaces on our limestone influenced streams is not well understood and there without a doubt is a tipping point.

All those new huge distribution centers in Cumberland county off 81 really concern me. There is so many and each one is like a couple football fields of roof and concrete.

 

[silverfox]

I have an answer to the original question (sort of). One note is that for the private hatcheries, this is based on the licensee, not actual total private hatcheries.

i.e., Laurel Hill Trout Farm is registered as their business address in Rockwood, but they have 5 hatchery locations. I don't know how many of these private hatcheries are like that, but it likely means the total number of those hatcheries is higher than the map/count shows.

Edit> A few more caveats; This doesn't include places that stock private ponds and charge for fishing (pay lakes) where the proprietor isn't a propagator. Some of the private entities may be raising baitfish, warm water species, food fish indoors, or research facilities.