Apologies on the legibility of these images. I'm still trying to figure out the magic combination of settings to get legible images at a larger size embedded in the posts.
Here’s a very specific example of where I think PFBC needs to do better. According to the latest Strategic Plan for Management of Trout Fisheries in Pennsylvania (TMP) Issue 10 Strategy 1
((Emphasis mine)): “Between 2020 and 2024, the PFBC will work with partners including Trout Unlimited (TU), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Forest Service, and other partners in the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture, to identify areas where wild trout are most likely to persist over time (areas of increased resiliency) so that future conservation efforts and habitat enhancement projects can be focused in these areas. Special emphasis will be placed on identifying areas of increased Brook Trout resiliency.
Additionally, the PFBC will work to determine which management actions may be most beneficial to wild trout populations, especially Brook Trout, so that programs, projects, and techniques can be tailored to maximize persistence and resiliency.“
The map image below is Clearfield County near Philipsburg and focuses on 3 streams; Tommitt Run, Black Bear Run and Sixmile Run. The colors under the stream layer are from the EBTJV “Priority Scores for Project Selection” where Red (bottom right) represent low priority, Orange (most areas) represent slightly higher priority, Tan (upper right) represents slightly higher yet and green (focus area) represents the highest priority for protection and focus for population enhancement.
Thankfully, due to SRBC and MCWA’s work in this area, there is a lot of data available on these streams. Sixmile run is the focus here because it’s Class A south of Rt 504 (Black Moshannon Road), stocked north of 504 and very similar to Black Bear and Tommitt on several levels. Sixmile’s Class A population is mixed Brook/Brown. Tommitt Run’s Class A population is Mixed Brook/Brown and Black Bear Run’s population is Class A Brook Trout. So what caused the populations in Sixmile and Tommitt to be mixed while Black Bear is brook trout only?
Sixmile and Blackbear both empty into Moshannon Creek within a few hundred yards of each other. If the wild brown trout population is the result of migration from the West Branch or Moshannon itself, why did the brown trout enter Sixmile and not Black Bear?
Water quality and temperature data for Sixmile indicate that Sixmile typically has a pH of between 5.9 and 8 (Lab verified results) and a temperature of between 19.5C (67.1F) and 3.2C (37.76) at the mouth (lowest point on the stream). Blackbear Run’s pH ranges from 5.9 to 7.68 and the temperature ranges from 18.4C (65.12F) and 2.10C (35.79F). Tommitt Run’s pH ranges from 6.2 to 6.35 and the temperature ranges from 9C (48.2F) to 19C (66.2).
So all three streams are very similar in terms of chemistry and temperature. All three streams are mostly shaded and lie almost entirely within either Moshannon State Forest or SGL 033 (public lands). Again, what caused Tommitt and Sixmile to have naturally reproducing populations of Brown trout while Black Bear Run only has brook trout?
Sixmile run is stocked from Rt. 504 to it’s mouth (or within that range) and Tommitt Run feeds into Cold Stream. Cold stream is stocked above the impoundment in Philipsburg even though the PFBC map doesn’t show that section being stocked. The reason there are brown trout in both Tommitt and Sixmile is simple. PFBC put them there. Those fish aren’t the result of migration from the 1900’s and they’re not straight out of the Black Forest in Germany. They’re the result of recent continuous stocking. Granted, the most recent stocking data indicates that the state is only stocking rainbow trout in either Cold Stream or Six Mile, but at some point fairly recently, someone was putting brown trout in both streams.
The map below is the statewide priority score color band map for Pennsylvania. As you can see, we have very little green to work with. Below about the midpoint of the state, there is very little green at all. There are two small patches in Centre Co., two small patches in Huntingdon Co (that are stocked and contain no Class A brook trout streams) and one small patch in Dauphin Co (that is stocked and contains no Class A brook trout). According to PFBC’s TMP, they are supposed to be favoring brook trout in the highest priority subwatersheds.
From a broader standpoint, the only “bright green/highest priority” subwatersheds in the state according to the EBTJV are around the confluence of Potter, Clinton, Lycoming, and Tioga Co’s. The major watersheds are Young Woman’s Creek, Kettle Creek (Cross Fork), and Pine Creek (Slate Run? Club stocking on SF lands?). Throughout that highest priority patch, there is stocking, wild brown trout, and very little Class A brook trout. That bright green patch is supposed to be a focus for brook trout conservation, habitat enhancement, and management that favors brook trout. I fail to see how stocking over (or allowing others to) wild native brook trout with nonnative fish in that area satisfies the current TMP goals. Especially the stocking that touts how wild the stocked fish are and how close to their German ancestry they are.
The map below shows the stream composition within the highest priority patch. Red is Class A brook trout, Green is Class A mixed, yellow is brown trout Class A, pink is natural reproduction and light blue is every piece of flowing water (NHD Flowline). I know habitat is an important focus for brook trout conservation, and I’m not arguing that it isn't. However, I think we need to be really careful that we’re not improving water quality and habitat for the wrong species. Dropping trees and creating pool habitat does nothing for brook trout if they’re already extirpated from the watershed. At some point, we have to swallow this pill of interspecies relationships and the ecology of this mess and call a spade a spade.
I think we need to face the reality that not all “wild trout” are created equal. If we lump all naturally reproducing salmonids into one bag and try to manage the state with more flowing water than any other state in the contiguous United States from a “wild trout” perspective, brook trout will eventually be extirpated from the state. It’s a simple scientific fact that one species is deleterious to the other. Feelings and popularity among anglers are irrelevant. The common line that I read and hear all the time is that brown trout are more tolerant of suboptimal thermal conditions and they push brook trout further and further up into watersheds. If warming trends continue, the brook trout will eventually run out of real estate. One often omitted fact when talking about thermal issues is that half the year is moot from a thermal standpoint. The downstream portions of watersheds will be critical for the survival of brook trout. What inhabits those waters are just as important as the amount of hemlock (or other vegetation) cover higher up in the watershed. Planting trees or dropping trees isn’t going to change the predation or competition dynamics that happen in the water.
PFBC needs to manage by species and they need to either abandon or modify the current stream section management model. Sections ignore seasonal variation of population size due to thermal refuge, spawning, angling pressure, or any other variable. As the EBTJV map illustrates, PA is a very diverse state when it comes to brook trout habitat. I think we need to separate management by region and focus on brook trout where they’re most likely to have a chance in the future. That’s going to mean that some species may need to be sacrificed in certain regions. In the Southeast, Southcentral, Southwest and most of the central part of the state it likely means that brook trout are essentially abandoned and brown trout will rule the land forever. There needs to be an acceptance that the opposite is needed in the Northcentral part of the state. The vast majority of PA will be brown trout water for eternity, so I’m not sure I would understand anyone’s reluctance to sacrifice a small region of the state for brook trout.
Dave Nihart provided feedback on the petition for an Outdoor News article. In his response he stated: “Only about 20% of the stream sections stocked by the commission contain wild brook trout, and none of those sections contain moderate or high- density populations.” 20% of stream sections is a lot of wild native brook trout water. That only accounts for sections and doesn’t account for any other stockings by private individuals or others. What that doesn’t include is that the agency continues to stock in some of the most valuable regions for brook trout in the state. The green patches I mentioned in this post. When does this TMP and the promise to manage for brook trout start to take shape?
I know this is all well beyond the scope and subject of the petition, but it’s all related, and the point is really about the lack of focus on brook trout specifically. Again, this petition was started because I’ve seen a lot of comments here and elsewhere on social media about ending stocking over wild native brook trout as well as general statements about the lack of organization around advocating for brook trout. Stocking is only one factor, but it’s a factor that the commission has immediate control over at little to no financial cost to the agency or anyone else. Unlike the funding, planning, permitting, and manpower needed to carry out habitat work, regulation changes only require some people to stand up for what is ecologically sound and make a change in management policy. If it’s done correctly, you could even garner the support of stocked trout anglers by allocating those stocked trout to another nearby stream where the ecological impacts aren’t as great.
