PFBC Old Website Data and Information

[CRB]

I liked reading the old Angler magazines from the 40's-early70's.

 

[Mike]

We are not asking for prepared essays and fancy, eye, catching web pages. Just data. Other states have no trouble posting raw data and leaving the reader to make of it what they will.

This is not an IT, problem. it's a policy problem IMO.

When it comes to raw trout stream data specifically, I would not want that based on time consuming bad experiences unless the angler had accompanied the crew on the survey or had done so in the past so that the data had a better chance of being interpreted correctly by the angler based on an understanding of the survey procedures. Interpretation was/is one of the advantages of the Biologist Reports

 

[PennKev]

Interpretation was/is one of the advantages of the Biologist Reports

Well we hardly ever get a new BR, let alone a wild trout related report. So, what's the advantage of hiding virtually all of the data collected?

Sorry Mike, while I completely understand the dangers of an uneducated public misinterpreting data, the NEAR TOTAL lack of recent biologists reports is not a good look for the PAFBC. We often hear about how many miles of trout streams we have in this state and every year more streams are added to the wild trout list or even Class A. Yet all we've had for years are the same few stale biologists reports for a handful of "big name" streams. Given the choice between the opening day hilljacks misunderstanding the data and not having the data easily available, I'd take my chances with the former.

And no, I shouldn't have to call a guy and wait for them to get back to me or some other nonsense for every bit of info I'm curious about. This is not 1890. I've spent enough time "waiting to hear back" to know how that would go anyway.

 

[Mike]

Well we hardly ever get a new BR

We do in certain regions, as revealed by a quick scan and tally of each region’s biologist report output in 2023 and 2024. I would note that there was never a requirement that the reports be limited to or include any particular resource type. Perhaps you are not seeing reports written that pertain to your region(s) of primary interest, but my regions of interest as an angler are well-covered.

As for the wild trout stream data from streams being added to the wild trout streams list, I don’t know if this still occurs since I have not checked for a few years, but my recollection (correct me if I’m wrong) is that when Commission meetings occurred and the list of candidate streams for new wild trout stream designations appeared in the agenda, each was accompanied by a map. Embedded within the map was a length/frequency distribution of trout collected during the qualifying survey.

 

[Jessed]

There would be nothing wrong with posting stream data from class A/ natural reproduction streams. The state should be happy about people interested in data they pay for. I always would wonder about natural reproduction streams that would have 2 miles listed, completely stop and then a mile or two downstream resume the natural reproduction listing. It would be cool to see data on why that section was different from the rest or if it just wasn’t sampled at all.

 

[PennKev]

We do in certain regions, as revealed by a quick scan and tally of each region’s biologist report output in 2023 and 2024. I would note that there was never a requirement that the reports be limited to or include any particular resource type. Perhaps you are not seeing reports written that pertain to your region(s) of primary interest, but my regions of interest as an angler are well-covered.

What percentage of field work do you think results in a biologists report?

 

[Mike]

Couldn’t say. Depends on how much fieldwork is done by each AFM region, what resources are sampled (individual lakes and rivers take more time than individual streams in most cases), how many special projects each region does, such as the Area 6 striped bass spawning stock survey, and which efforts find their way to the specially designed Biologist Reports on the web that are written for general public consumption with greater explanation, pictures, etc included that would not be found within a standard fisheries management report.

 

[k-bob]

no fish reports, but pH, alkalinity, etc., info on some streams from link below. multiple reports under ... <dir> ... links:

https://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Drinking%20Water%20and%20Facility%20Regulation/WaterQualityPortalFiles/Stream_Packages/

 

[Mike]

no fish reports, but pH, alkalinity, etc., info on some streams from link below. multiple reports under ... <dir> ... links:

https://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Drinking%20Water%20and%20Facility%20Regulation/WaterQualityPortalFiles/Stream_Packages/

Within the list provided, the lines between Class A2 to Class A4, inclusive, will open up to lists of streams showing biomass and other info. Clicking on one of these lines opens up a series of stream maps. In other cases, when one clicks a line one finds linked individual stream names. Clicking on those will result in the reader being able to see a PFBC stream report or a PaDEP stream report.

Attention troutbert…you’ll like this:
The first PFBC stream survey report that I opened within line Class A4 was Bear Ck, Sections 01 and 02, because Bear was in Area 6 and I wanted to refresh my memory on a few details re Sections 01 and 02 wild trout. A stocked stretch within a portion of Section 01 was removed from the stocking program after a 1977 survey. The ST population apparently responded quite favorably by the time of the next survey in 1994, becoming Class A, Furthermore, the wild BT population biomass declined somewhat. The combined ST and BT biomass went from Class B to Class A and dominance shifted from BT to ST. Biomass of ST alone was enough to be Class A. It would be interesting to see whether the ST/BT ratios (abundance, biomass) have changed significantly since then, especially since the the wild BT population has apparently improved since then in Section 03, the DH Area.

 

[troutbert]

Within the list provided, the lines between Class A2 to Class A4, inclusive, will open up to lists of streams showing biomass and other info. Clicking on one of these lines opens up a series of stream maps. In other cases, when one clicks a line one finds linked individual stream names. Clicking on those will result in the reader being able to see a PFBC stream report or a PaDEP stream report.

Attention troutbert…you’ll like this:
The first PFBC stream survey report that I opened within line Class A4 was Bear Ck, Sections 01 and 02, because Bear was in Area 6 and I wanted to refresh my memory on a few details re Sections 01 and 02 wild trout. A stocked stretch within a portion of Section 01 was removed from the stocking program after a 1977 survey. The ST population apparently responded quite favorably by the time of the next survey in 1994, becoming Class A, Furthermore, the wild BT population biomass declined somewhat. The combined ST and BT biomass went from Class B to Class A and dominance shifted from BT to ST. Biomass of ST alone was enough to be Class A. It would be interesting to see whether the ST/BT ratios (abundance, biomass) have changed significantly since then, especially since the the wild BT population has apparently improved since then in Section 03, the DH Area.

Good stuff. It would be great if someone could evaluate all the cases where stocking over brook trout was ended, to see how the brook trout populations responded.

I don't think the response on Bear Creek was surprising. It's what common sense would predict. And I think I've seen similar responses where stocking over brook trout has ended on some other streams, such as upper Kettle Cr, Germania Branch, and Hammersley Fork. But that's just based on my observations. It SEEMS like the brook trout populations have improved in response to ending stocking. But I don't know how to find all the survey data for those streams to see if the numbers support that.

Collecting data is good. It allows the next steps, which should be evaluating that data, writing good summaries of what it means, then changing management accordingly.

 

[k-bob]

Mike. Thanks for pointing out the bio-report info available by clicking some links...

"In other cases, when one clicks a line one finds linked individual stream names. Clicking on those will result in the reader being able to see a PFBC stream report or a PaDEP stream report."

I had not caught all available linked bio reports. Thanks again!

btw, links don't seem to work on report viewed from the following line:

"11/9/2018 10:46 AM 168035 Class_A_Streams_Report.pdf"

but the links are are active on the class "A3" & "A4" reports 2 & 3 lines later....

 

[Mike]

K-bob, Thanks for checking some of the other links and pointing out the line where things aren’t quite working correctly.

Troutbert,
The apparently positive response by the ST population had probability on its side based on past review of PFBC data for the Trout Summit, but going to Class A for the ST from a low Class D had much, much lower probability. As you may recall, most ST population biomasses responded well to stocking cessation, but some stayed the same and others declined.

Beyond the ST response, the surprise for some here might have been the positive response of ST in Bear Ck in the presence of a wild BT population plus the downward shift in the BT population. Stopping stocking over wild BT would have caused many here, I suspect, to think that the BT would have responded favorably as well, forgetting or not knowing, however, that the history of BT population responses in Pa to stocking cessation has been a “crap shoot.” Some have gone up; some have stayed the same; and some have declined.

 

[The Rodfather]

K-bob, Thanks for checking some of the other links and pointing out the line where things aren’t quite working correctly.

Troutbert,
The apparently positive response by the ST population had probability on its side based on past review of PFBC data for the Trout Summit, but going to Class A for the ST from a low Class D had much, much lower probability. As you may recall, most ST population biomasses responded well to stocking cessation, but some stayed the same and others declined.

Beyond the ST response, the surprise for some here might have been the positive response of ST in Bear Ck in the presence of a wild BT population plus the downward shift in the BT population. Stopping stocking over wild BT would have caused many here, I suspect, to think that the BT would have responded favorably as well, forgetting or not knowing, however, that the history of BT population responses in Pa to stocking cessation has been a “crap shoot.” Some have gone up; some have stayed the same; and some have declined.

I know I am new to PA, and this report is a bit dated, but I see on the class A stream report that Letort is classified for brookies?

I have yet to see a brookie in the letort. Am I missing something here? Did they used to flourish there?

 

[hemlock]

Beyond the ST response, the surprise for some here might have been the positive response of ST in Bear Ck in the presence of a wild BT population plus the downward shift in the BT population. Stopping stocking over wild BT would have caused many here, I suspect, to think that the BT would have responded favorably as well, forgetting or not knowing, however, that the history of BT population responses in Pa to stocking cessation has been a “crap shoot.” Some have gone up; some have stayed the same; and some have declined.

I'm curious if the PFBC also took into account environmental factors, land use changes, etc. when measuring population changes post cessation of stocking. Would be interesting to know the full picture. Would also be nice to know the frequency on which the populations were measure post stocking. 1 year after? 5 years after? once a year for five years? etc.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Brook trout in the letort below post road?
Neat!

 

[Bamboozle]

I know I am new to PA, and this report is a bit dated, but I see on the class A stream report that Letort is classified for brookies?

I have yet to see a brookie in the letort. Am I missing something here? Did they used to flourish there?

The section mentioned in that report is Section 05, the lower Letort from the Post Road Bridge to the mouth.

FWIW - In 2015 the section limits were revised, Sections 03 & 04 were combined into Section 03 and Section 05 became today's Section 04.

Regardless of its number, that section and about half of the adjacent Section 03 (formally Section 04) were pretty much an open sewer as far back as the 1790's. There was also the Carlisle sewage treatment plant that didn't close until 1982 and no mention of brook trout other than stockers in Sections 01 & 02 in any writings by guys like Fox, Marinaro, Koch, Shenk, et al.

I can't recall exactly when the lower sections of the Letort were added to the Class A list, but even as far back as 2011 and through 2024, there is no mention of brook trout on any Class A List for any section of the Letort.

While not a scientific analysis, I have fished Section 04 (or 05) more than a few times and never caught a brook trout, although I did catch a brook trout I am positive came from the trout rodeo in Section 03 about 15 or so years ago. I'm positive it was a stocker because I also caught a rainbow from the same hole on the same day and a dink wild brown for a half-a$$ed Letort grand slam. 😉

Bottom line, I have to believe the word BROOK in that report was a typo...

 

[Mike]

I'm curious if the PFBC also took into account environmental factors, land use changes, etc. when measuring population changes post cessation of stocking. Would be interesting to know the full picture. Would also be nice to know the frequency on which the populations were measure post stocking. 1 year after? 5 years after? once a year for five years? etc.

Suggest you check the report. Also, in this thread you’ll note my use of the word “apparently”. The report goes into a little more detail concerning the BT.

As I have said before on many occasions when populations of BT greatly improve or else expand longitudinally in SE Pa streams, it’s almost always because of cooler water temps due to riparian vegetation being allowed to grow and/or become more dense. That could have been a factor in Bear Ck, Section 01, but getting cooler in this case where BT had been well-established would have tended to eliminate the BT from an already mixed species population, and perhaps that’s what was happening. If you’ve ever been to that drainage basin, however, it seems pretty stagnant with respect to land use. There are fields mixed with mature forest and rural residences. If it did get cooler and if that favored the ST, that’s a positive. Regardless, at this point the questions would be: Did the population shift last or have BT 1) rebounded and 2) now taken over, or 3) established an apparent naturally fluctuating balance with ST, or 4) disappeared.

As for the response of the ST being due to stocking termination, at that time period cropping off of nearly all legal size wild ST in wild ST streams that were stocked and subject to the attendant high fishing and harvest pressure was common. There was also a 6 inch length limit at play. Terminating stocking certainly didn’t hurt the ST population or its later expansion.