Streams being considered for wild trout (and/or Class A)designation

[pcray1231]

Interested in this answer myself.

My take is both. Mike's post #14 names a few that have been on the PFBC's radar, and apparently have gotten better over time (over what length of time, I dunno, but better than the last survey). Generally these will be the ones that were already on the natural repro list but are being proposed for class A.

Of course, you could ask whether just as many got worse, but we're not seeing those, based on the target of the push to add, not subtract streams. It's probable that some are, but my overall impression is that more are improving than vice versa, and that's been my impression for a number of years based on both sources I've read as well as personal observation.

Many on the list, though, are very small. There's a high # of unnamed tribs there. I am assuming many of those were surveyed for the first time. Probably not paid attention to because they weren't seen as "of interest" to the everyday angler. But getting on the list results in increased legal water quality protections. In a day of gas booms and other threats, increased protections are good and benefit the entire watershed, not just that little stream. So the purpose of the list is morphing from merely telling anglers where the trout are, to gaining water quality protections for watersheds.

 

[Stenonema]

Pcray quote:

But getting on the list results in increased legal water quality protections. In a day of gas booms and other threats, increased protections are good and benefit the entire watershed, not just that little stream. So the purpose of the list is morphing from merely telling anglers where the trout are, to gaining water quality protections for watersheds.


Good reason to give up your secrets. There is urgency to punch through as many as possible now. Do you remember the proposed house bill for the appointed council to oversee such classification?
If there is one you care about that isn't on the list, I would suggest you call your local biologist and make a request. I did and I am proud to say that it easily qualified as Class A.
There is an importance that I believe is overlooked in a classification. Recognized as a quality water requires more work for surveyors and anyone who wishes to disturb ground, or build within the watershed there are more hurdles and they can be costly. I live in a township that does not have ' Zoning '. Having classifications on water changes the interest and goes beyond the township level.

 

[k-bob]

nice that these two schrader tribs in bradford are on the list... early 90s reports show their pH as 4.9 and 5.0, probably no trout then. they may have been treated, tricky area w/ both amd and acid rain impacts.

"Cabin Run Schrader Creek 6/21/2014"
"Carbon Run Schrader Creek 7/10/2014"

 

[steveo27]

pcray1231 wrote:

Surprised to see a lot in the western counties that are newly listed.

Noticed that too. I think it's more to do with timing. It seemed like when the PFBC made this push, all that were coming up were eastern streams. Now there's lots of western ones joining. Perhaps the western PA surveyors were just a little slower on the draw....

Im sure Marcellus Shale has something to do with it as well. I see more and more well pads are spring up all over this side of the state every day.

 

[Maurice]

And yet the Washington and Green Counties STILL don't have wild trout. Can't kill what is already dead. Drill baby drill.

 

[Mike]

The vast majority of streams that have been surveyed over the past few years statewide as part of the "unassessed" wild trout waters program have been, as the name suggests, streams that have never been surveyed before. The extent to which there is focus on resurveys of streams sampled years ago to determine whether wild trout are now present or to determine whether the historical populations have expanded their ranges is unknown to me.

In the SE we seek both at the same time, but our SE Pa efforts are primarily aimed at streams that have not been previously surveyed. The streams that we revisit in the SE are ones that I suspect have strong potential to show population expansion longitudinally, population growth to Class A equivalency, population restoration (ST)or population colonization(BT). It is generally more difficult to find improved waters than it is to find most "new" wild trout waters and we are only looking for the former in SE Pa when we have good background info or experience to suggest that we are likely to be successful.

The reasons for restoration, colonization, or longitudinal extensions of wild trout populations are quite varied statewide and within SE Pa. Some streams are getting cooler, some are receiving less stormwater damage, some are receiving less sedimentation, and some are receiving less organic and inorganic pollutants than in the past.

 

[k-bob]

thanks Mike!

 

[afishinado]

Mike wrote:
The vast majority of streams that have been surveyed over the past few years statewide as part of the "unassessed" wild trout waters program have been, as the name suggests, streams that have never been surveyed before. The extent to which there is focus on resurveys of streams sampled years ago to determine whether wild trout are now present or to determine whether the historical populations have expanded their ranges is unknown to me.

In the SE we seek both at the same time, but our SE Pa efforts are primarily aimed at streams that have not been previously surveyed. The streams that we revisit in the SE are ones that I suspect have strong potential to show population expansion longitudinally, population growth to Class A equivalency, population restoration (ST)or population colonization(BT). It is generally more difficult to find improved waters than it is to find most "new" wild trout waters and we are only looking for the former in SE Pa when we have good background info or experience to suggest that we are likely to be successful.

The reasons for restoration, colonization, or longitudinal extensions of wild trout populations are quite varied statewide and within SE Pa. Some streams are getting cooler, some are receiving less stormwater damage, some are receiving less sedimentation, and some are receiving less organic and inorganic pollutants than in the past.

Thanks Mike. And if the pollies don't block the Class A designation, elevating the A's to EV will offer more protection for these streams.

 

[Maurice]

The Pollies can't block the Class A designation. Thats a biological designation based on data. It only has to be presented and approved internally by the F&BC. The EV designation or elevated water quality designations furthered by the EQB (Environmental Quality Board of the DEP) are what stand to be challenged by the public and industry. These designations are typically recommended by the F&BC through the recognition of new or upgrade in the presence of trout biomass but also for other rare plant and animal presence from non-profits, local gov't or state agencies.

Both are put up for review and offered into public comment periods.

So what becomes important once these back slaps over class A and Nat Repro are over is to pay attention and give input to the public comment period of the water quality designation upgrades.

It ain't over this is only the first step.

What the pollies CAN do is craft legislation to minimize or usurp the clean water act, and or other regulation policies and laws designed to protect the environment.

So there is that to look out for and respond to calls for action when these pushes occur. Otherwise nothing comes from these surveys and our license dollars are being wasted.

 

[afishinado]

Edit: And if the pollies don't [d]block[/d] delay the Class A designation, elevating the A's to EV will offer more protection for these streams.