Voice your support to add streams to Class A designation

[afishinado]

tomitrout wrote:
I'd say your license money does more than you think for the type of fishing you do...

Agree ^

(PFBC) Strategic Plan for Management of Trout Fisheries in Pennsylvania
2016 – 2017


MANAGEMENT OF WILD TROUT WATERS
Strategies:
The following strategies address the highest priority issues related to threats and opportunities that face
the Commonwealth’s wild trout resources. The strategies identified for each of the priority issues are designed
to protect, conserve and enhance our wild trout resources while providing enhanced fishing opportunities for the
anglers of the Commonwealth. Addressing these issues will be the primary focus of the PFBC’s wild trout
management program through 2017.
Issue 1: The PFBC has not assessed all of the streams throughout the Commonwealth. As a result, the
total number of streams that support wild trout populations in Pennsylvania is unknown, which leads to
inadequate protection of these streams. The PFBC does not currently have the ability to assess these
most at-risk streams at a rate that outpaces the rate of degradation.
Strategies:
? Between 2015 and 2017, develop and annually update prioritized lists of unassessed streams
that are likely to support wild trout and potential Class A streams that are the most at risk from
the effects of human activities.
? Through 2017, PFBC staff will continue to work with Unassessed Waters Program partners to
sample at least 1,500 priority unassessed waters and Class A re-inventories.
Issue 2: Maintaining free public access to Pennsylvania’s wild trout fisheries is important to provide
trout angling opportunities.
Strategies:
? Improve public access to at least eight wild trout streams between 2015 and 2017. Access
improvements may include, but are not limited to improved parking areas, long-term access
easements, and purchase of riparian lands. Highest priority will be placed on streams with
high quality fisheries that can support the potential increased use resulting from improved
access.
? Through 2017, work to develop a dedicated source of funding to be used to improve public
access on waters throughout the Commonwealth.
Issue 3: The PFBC currently does not have a monitoring program to annually track the status and trends
of wild trout populations across Pennsylvania. As a result, the rate of population loss or improvement,
overall condition of populations, and status of wild trout resources as a whole is unknown.
Strategy:
? By 2017, work with the PA Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit to develop an
appropriate monitoring design to assess status and trends of wild trout populations across
Pennsylvania. The study design and sample site selection will include a review of long-term
datasets collected by PFBC, PA DEP, and other agencies as well as those agencies’ sampling
designs and sampling schedules to allow interagency coordination, if feasible.
Issue 4: The expansion of wild trout populations is impeded in streams where habitat is the primary
limiting factor. Furthermore, better knowledge of the effects of habitat manipulations on wild trout
populations is needed.
4
Strategies
? Conduct at least 25 instream and/or riparian habitat enhancement projects on wild trout
streams between 2015 and 2017.
? Continue to work with project partners to seek additional grant funding for habitat work on
wild trout streams (e.g., Western PA Conservancy, Northcentral PA Conservancy, County
Conservation Districts and other federal, state and local agencies and non-profit groups).
? By 2016, implement a grant program using Peach Bottom Settlement funds to improve wild
trout habitat in York and Lancaster Counties.
? Implement recommendations of the Habitat Improvement Prioritization Workgroup and
utilize findings to provide technical assistance to project partners in identifying and
prioritizing projects that most effectively assist the PFBC in enhancing and restoring habitat
in wild trout streams. Adaptively manage and update recommendations of the Habitat
Improvement Prioritization Workgroup as needed.
? Through 2017, continue to monitor the response of wild trout populations and physical
habitat conditions to various habitat treatments at select projects on wild trout streams.
Issue 5: Through their ability to impede fish movement and alter physical, chemical and biological
processes in streams, manmade barriers remain a deterrent to fully functional wild trout streams.
Strategy:
? When deemed biologically appropriate, remove barriers and/or improve fish passage on five
wild trout streams between 2015 and 2017.
Issue 6: Impairment of the natural flow regime through water withdrawals and reservoir operations
threatens the quality of wild trout waters.
Strategies:
? Through 2017, assist the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and other
governmental agencies with the development of policies and reservoir operation procedures
that limit the alteration of natural flow regimes to levels that maintain critical species,
habitats and ecological conditions.
? Continue to work closely with the New York Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYDEC) and the Parties to the 1954 U. S Supreme Court Decree to achieve greatly
improved operating rules to protect and improve the upper Delaware River trout fishery.
Develop reservoir release recommendations in coordination with NYDEC Fisheries staff
using an adaptive management approach to encompass the breadth of New York City
reservoir storage levels and diversion rates by March 2017.
? Work closely with the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,
DEP, utilities, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other reservoir owners to maintain
and improve tailwater fisheries through flow and temperature management, and stocking
strategies.
5
Issue 7: Criteria for inclusion of waters into special regulation programs for wild and stocked trout
fisheries are lacking. The degree to which special regulation programs are meeting management
objectives needs to be fully evaluated.
Strategies
? By 2016, develop specific criteria that trout waters must meet in order to be included in a
special regulation program. At a minimum these objectives should include or consider the
following:
? Whether special regulations are necessary and supported biologically (e.g., to
substantially improve the quality of the fishery or to protect recovering fish
populations).
? Whether harvest or tackle types are primary limiting factors to the quality of the
fishery.
? An evaluation of the potential impact on angler participation if angling regulation
changes are implemented.
? Whether there is social support by the primary users and major riparian
landowners of the fishery for establishing or changing special regulations.

Link to source: http://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Fisheries/TroutPlan/Documents/troutplan2016.pdf

 

[wildtrout2]

tomitrout wrote:

Quote:

tomitrout wrote:

Quote:
Yea bigjohn, I fish nothing but Class A streams, and in over 30 years I have NEVER even seen a WCO. My fishing license money certainly does nothing for the type of fishing I do. My hunting license does more for my fishing, as the money helps purchase and maintain the SGLs that I fish on.

So, the Fisheries biologist that went out there with his survey crew and equipment, did the surveys, compiled the data, did the analysis and submitted these streams for Class A/Wild Trout designation...they're all volunteers using their own equipment?

What's that happen, about every 20 years? It's a one shot deal for many Class A streams. Other than that they get zero attention/expense.

And yet somehow there're another 146 streams up for classification as either Class A or Wild Trout. I'd say your license money does more than you think for the type of fishing you do...

The point I'm making is most Class A streams (once designated) are maintenance free, requiring no attention at all, and no expense. Lots of them haven't been checked in many years.

 

[bigjohn58]

wildtrout2 wrote:

The point I'm making is most Class A streams (once designated) are maintenance free, requiring no attention at all, and no expense. Lots of them haven't been checked in many years.

This is exactly how I view the program as well! It is the easy way out of having to do anything to do with the fishery. Just let it be and forget about it because it can survive on its own. It's less the PAFBC has to do.

 

[tomitrout]

Spring, Penns, Big Spring, Letort, Trindle Spring, Middle Spring etc, etc, etc....certainly not streams that are maintenance free and that are definitely susceptible to development. Not all Class A's are hidden gemmie trickles in secluded hollows. And even those benefit from the classification when the extraction industry sets their sights on that part of the map, whether it's fracking impacts thru drawing out water for use elsewhere, or direct impact in the immediate watershed or even logging operations on State Forest land, there's really no downside to identifying & classifying these waters. Money well spent as far as I'm concerned...spend a little bit now or be stuck cleaning up an even worse mess in the future. AMD ring any bells?

 

[bigjohn58]

There is/was fracking around a ton of the class A streams in Lycoming County. They might not build a pad right by one but that doesn't mean they aren't drilling and sucking the ground right under them. Frackers kinda do what they want until something goes wrong.

Also since class A streams are supposed to get all this protection attention is this kind of saying it's ok to destroy lesser quality streams? The large class A streams that were jus mentioned (Penns, Spring, etc) aren't at a great risk of anything in my opinion. Those streams draw in income and have protection from people outside the PAFBC. Although I do know Spring Creeks flow is not what it used to be. Still the area knows its economic value hence protecting the stream.

Also IF Class A streams are so special why don't they have different harvesting regulations then say the stocked streams? Why not protect the fish that are currently in these streams? I don't agree they should all be catch and release but being able to keep the same amount of fish as a stocked stream just makes zero sense to me. This is my biggest gripe I think about the Class A classification.

 

[salmonoid]

bigjohn58 wrote:
There is/was fracking around a ton of the class A streams in Lycoming County. They might not build a pad right by one but that doesn't mean they aren't drilling and sucking the ground right under them. Frackers kinda do what they want until something goes wrong.

Also since class A streams are supposed to get all this protection attention is this kind of saying it's ok to destroy lesser quality streams? The large class A streams that were jus mentioned (Penns, Spring, etc) aren't at a great risk of anything in my opinion. Those streams draw in income and have protection from people outside the PAFBC. Although I do know Spring Creeks flow is not what it used to be. Still the area knows its economic value hence protecting the stream.

Also IF Class A streams are so special why don't they have different harvesting regulations then say the stocked streams? Why not protect the fish that are currently in these streams? I don't agree they should all be catch and release but being able to keep the same amount of fish as a stocked stream just makes zero sense to me. This is my biggest gripe I think about the Class A classification.

No, it is not saying that it is ok to destroy lesser quality streams. The bar should be high for all streams and is higher still for Class A streams.

I'm not sure how you can say a stream like Spring Creek is not at risk. Cyanide in the 1950s was certainly a little bit of a risk. The amount of impervious cover on the Penn State campus alone is a bit of a risk. The sprawl of development around State College is a bit of a risk. The University Area Joint Authority is a bit of a risk. Withdrawal of groundwater is a bit of a risk. Concerned citizens or groups or those that are aware of the economic impact of Spring Creek cannot completely offset the risks posed.

Regarding harvest, conceptually, reducing harvest probably makes sense if complete conservation of the existing biomass is the goal. But the purpose of Class A designation is to preserve the quality, environmentally and physically, of a stream. If that succeeds, the stream will likely by its very classification produce a harvestable population of fish. For those that are concerned, maybe we should make the leap to not fishing Class A streams at all?

 

[bigjohn58]

salmonoid wrote:

For those that are concerned, maybe we should make the leap to not fishing Class A streams at all?

I already see that day coming! Wild brookie populations are dropping like crazy. There is a chance somewhere down the road they become protected.

 

[troutbert]

bigjohn58 wrote:

Wild brookie populations are dropping like crazy.

What have you seen that indicates that brookie populations are dropping a lot?

And on the streams where you've seen big decreases, what do you think caused it?

I'm not sure I'm seeing a definite pattern regarding brook trout populations from say the late 1980s through the present. It's hard to tell.

Some streams seem to have gotten better. And some worse.

And of course the populations bounce around a great deal as the result of severe floods and droughts knocking populations down, and the populations getting much better during good water periods.

 

[bigjohn58]

troutbert wrote:

bigjohn58 wrote:

Wild brookie populations are dropping like crazy.

What have you seen that indicates that brookie populations are dropping a lot?

And on the streams where you've seen big decreases, what do you think caused it?

I'm not sure I'm seeing a definite pattern regarding brook trout populations from say the late 1980s through the present. It's hard to tell.

Some streams seem to have gotten better. And some worse.

And of course the populations bounce around a great deal as the result of severe floods and droughts knocking populations down, and the populations getting much better during good water periods.

There are articles all over stating about how the brook trout populations are in danger. Everything from acid rain to hemlock trees that protect many of the streams getting a disease.