Wilderness Stream Designation

[lycoflyfisher]

I'm pretty sure almost all of it is on Lewis property, which isn't surprising.

OnX isn't just for hunting.

Some if not a lot of Lewis property is leased and posted

 

[wildtrout2]

I think there are mixed population stream sections where the ratio of brook/trout is changing in favor of the brookies, after stocking ended.

The first survey on Hammersley Fork said the population was dominated by brown trout. I doubt that it is true now.

My roughly 14 years of fishing the Hammersley has shown me that brookies definitely dominate that stream. No doubt in my mind.

 

[Swattie87]

Some if not a lot of Lewis property is leased and posted

What is “Lewis” property? Sorry, not local, and haven’t heard of that landowner before.

Feel free to PM, if more appropriate.

 

[Swattie87]

My roughly 14 years of fishing the Hammersley has shown me that brookies definitely dominate that stream. No doubt in my mind.

Agree, though in the right conditions, you’d think the opposite.

While camping, both lower in the watershed, and further up, a nighttime high powered flashlight on the water does confirm that the population is mostly Brookies though, by numbers anyway. By biomass I bet it’s closer to 50/50 still, as the Browns run bigger.

(I think this is common on a lot of small freestones with mixed populations in PA. There’s more Brookies there than you think, even when you’re catching mostly Browns. The larger Browns dominate the primo lies that anglers are attracted to fish. Brookies in the mediocre water get overlooked and not fished over as much, but they’re there.)

Survey data on another favorite of mine is like 90/10 Browns by biomass. By numbers though, it was almost exactly 50/50, because the average sized Brown was like 8 inches, whereas the average sized Brookie was like 5 inches. (My catch rate is like 90/10 Browns on that stream, despite it having equal numbers of each species. The Browns are just bigger on average and in the better holding water that as an angler I’m more likely to fish.)

Short version, when measuring by biomass you can paint a gloomy picture for Brookies, when in many cases, there actually are MORE Brookies than Browns on these small forested freestones with mixed populations. Biomass does not equal numbers.

 

[silverfox]

I think there are mixed population stream sections where the ratio of brook/trout is changing in favor of the brookies, after stocking ended.

Quite a few years ago I asked a PFBC biologist about this and he thought that might be happening in the Kettle Creek watershed. Which was also the most prominent example I was thinking of. He mentioned the Kettle watershed independently without me suggesting it.

I think the brookie/brown ratio has shifted in favor of brookies in: upper Kettle, Germania Branch, Hammersley Fork, Cross Fork, and some of the smaller streams in the watershed.

The first survey on Hammersley Fork said the population was dominated by brown trout. I doubt that it is true now.

I also think the shift towards more brookies has happened in the upper half of Slate Run, and its headwater tributaries Francis Branch and Cushman Branch.

There should be a lot of survey data for these streams, that someone could analyze. A good graduate student project?

I’d think Hammersley is at least 50/50. I know the website uses the ambiguous “wild trout” language, but the PA code says “native” specifically. I believe that was the point of the WTS designation. At least originally.

 

[troutbert]

What is “Lewis” property? Sorry, not local, and haven’t heard of that landowner before.

Feel free to PM, if more appropriate.

Lewis Lumber Company https://www.lewislp.com/

In the book Vanishing Trout, which was published around 1931, it mentions the Lewis sawmill. They're still there.

 

[silverfox]

Agree, though in the right conditions, you’d think the opposite.

While camping, both lower in the watershed, and further up, a nighttime high powered flashlight on the water does confirm that the population is mostly Brookies though, by numbers anyway. By biomass I bet it’s closer to 50/50 still, as the Browns run bigger.

(I think this is common on a lot of small freestones with mixed populations in PA. There’s more Brookies there than you think, even when you’re catching mostly Browns. The larger Browns dominate the primo lies that anglers are attracted to fish. Brookies in the mediocre water get overlooked and not fished over as much, but they’re there.)

Survey data on another favorite of mine is like 90/10 Browns by biomass. By numbers though, it was almost exactly 50/50, because the average sized Brown was like 8 inches, whereas the average sized Brookie was like 5 inches. (My catch rate is like 90/10 Browns on that stream, despite it having equal numbers of each species. The Browns are just bigger on average and in the better holding water that as an angler I’m more likely to fish.)

Short version, when measuring by biomass you can paint a gloomy picture for Brookies, when in many cases, there actually are MORE Brookies than Browns on these small forested freestones with mixed populations. Biomass does not equal numbers.

In all those cases, though, the ratio represents that brook trout have been displaced. If it's 50/50, 50% of the brook trout have been displaced. It's not like a stream can carry 150% biomass by adding a new species to the mix. It's also a good reminder that if brook trout are present today, it's not environmental; it's biotic.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Troutbert and silverfox both mentioned density of in invasive trout, silver-fox directly troutbert by mentioning ending stocking.

I would assume both of you suspicion’s have some validity based on Dr. Phaedra Budy’s work demonstrating native trout density determined invasion success of brown trout in a UTAH stream. Then in another article called the native non native paradox her and other authors suggest elimination may not be required but rather, in some cases, tipping the balance may allow native trout to stay in place via density dependent biotic resistance.

I bring this up because we have seen examples where stocking stops and brookies bounce back. Henry Ramsey wrote a whole article about this happening on a perry county stream in eastern fly fishing.

 

[Swattie87]

Lewis Lumber Company https://www.lewislp.com/

In the book Vanishing Trout, which was published around 1931, it mentions the Lewis sawmill. They're still there.

Thanks Dwight. Will look into whether access can be secured.

From my research from various hiking blogs (that confirm the land is private and seemingly posted), it may require permission from more than one landowner, beyond just the lumber company.

 

[troutbert]

Thanks Dwight. Will look into whether access can be secured.

From my research from various hiking blogs (that confirm the land is private and seemingly posted), it may require permission from more than one landowner, beyond just the lumber company.

Sounds good!

 

[Swattie87]

Sounds good!

Called this morning, spoke to two very polite and knowledgeable folks who indicated the property along the stream corridor from just above Sonestown up to Rt. 42 in Eagles Mere is owned by them and leased to a club. They called it a “Recreational Club”, and I asked if hunting or fishing were their primary pursuits, and they indicated probably hunting, but they have the lease and control access. I asked for their contact information, and was politely told they can’t give out the contact info of their lessee, for obvious reasons. For the time being, and unfortunately as suspected, it appears this one is off limits. Not sure there a stream anywhere in PA that I haven’t fished to date that whets my appetite as much as this one. Shoot.

Case in point. Just because it’s on the Wilderness List, does not necessarily mean there is public access. Do your homework and map research.

 

[Acristickid]

I’m curious to hear sam’s feedback on his post with 70 replies.

 

[Mike]

In all those cases, though, the ratio represents that brook trout have been displaced. If it's 50/50, 50% of the brook trout have been displaced. It's not like a stream can carry 150% biomass by adding a new species to the mix. It's also a good reminder that if brook trout are present today, it's not environmental; it's biotic.

Regarding the last sentence…not necessarily. BT have better thermal tolerance than ST and within select mean daily temperature ranges for example, ST population densities will be limited by temperature. Additionally, it is clear that BT have more generalized requirements for spawning substrate than ST; therefore, in streams with ST reproduction limiting amounts of fines within the gravel interstices ST reproductive success may remain within the range of historical natural variability regardless of BT presence.

 

[silverfox]

Regarding the last sentence…not necessarily. BT have better thermal tolerance than ST and within select mean daily temperature ranges for example, ST population densities will be limited by temperature. Additionally, it is clear that BT have more generalized requirements for spawning substrate than ST; therefore, in streams with ST reproduction limiting amounts of fines within the gravel interstices ST reproductive success may remain within the range of historical natural variability regardless of BT presence.

I'm sure there is a wide range of variables and possible outcomes. I'm generally speaking about the notion that mixed pops = benign, or that there is no downside to mixed populations as long as both are present to some extent. i.e. that they simply "coexist."

So the environmental factors only affect 50% of the ST population and BT are just filling a void? C'mon now.

 

[Fish Sticks]

/Regarding the last sentence…not necessarily. BT have better thermal tolerance than ST and within select mean daily temperature ranges for example, ST population densities will be limited by temperature. Additionally, it is clear that BT have more generalized requirements for spawning substrate than ST; therefore, in streams with ST reproduction limiting amounts of fines within the gravel interstices ST reproductive success may remain within the range of historical natural variability regardless of BT presence.

I think its common knowledge at this time that the thermal differences between brown and brook trout have been overblown as far as specifically ascribing species presence to them.

Heres the big bad bad difference in thermal tolerance in a study of the two species in a michigan stream. Upper incipient lethal temp difference is less than a single degree centigrade.

More so how do you differentiate where that tiny difference in thermal tolerance is the limiting factor for the brook trout vs. the now well known issue of brook trout being kicked out of thermal refuge by invasive brown trout?

As for the sediment and the fines I have posted Bob Carlines research in the past that shows fines are not necessarily a deal breaker for brook trout. In fact they seem to have more success as pond spawners in the northeast in very silty environments. What publication are you getting the information from that would show brown trout can spawn in siltier substrates as a rule?

 

[jifigz]

I think its common knowledge at this time that the thermal differences between brown and brook trout have been overblown as far as specifically ascribing species presence to them.

Heres the big bad bad difference in thermal tolerance in a study of the two species in a michigan stream. Upper incipient lethal temp difference is less than a single degree centigrade.
View attachment 1641229334

More so how do you differentiate where that tiny difference in thermal tolerance is the limiting factor for the brook trout vs. the now well known issue of brook trout being kicked out of thermal refuge by invasive brown trout?

As for the sediment and the fines I have posted Bob Carlines research in the past that shows fines are not necessarily a deal breaker for brook trout. In fact they seem to have more success as pond spawners in the northeast in very silty environments. What publication are you getting the information from that would show brown trout can spawn in siltier substrates as a rule?

Nevermind. I think I translated the wrong number on the first post.

 

[Swattie87]

I'm sure there is a wide range of variables and possible outcomes. I'm generally speaking about the notion that mixed pops = benign, or that there is no downside to mixed populations as long as both are present to some extent. i.e. that they simply "coexist."

So the environmental factors only affect 50% of the ST population and BT are just filling a void? C'mon now.

I’m really trying to avoid the temptation to play into the ongoing derailment of threads seeking other discussions, but just to clarify, my post above wasn’t suggesting that ST haven’t been displaced in these mixed pops streams. Clearly, and obviously, they have. If for sake of discussion the carrying capacity of a stream is 100. Before Brown Trout,
that was 100 Brook Trout. If it’s now 50/50, I agree 50% of the Brook Trout have been displaced. It’s a simplified example, and easy math, but I agree.

My point was that when measuring by biomass, which is the preferred measuring tool because it takes into account both numbers AND size when determining how viable a stream is as a wild Trout fishery, you’re likely underestimating the number of Brookies still present. A 90/10 BT/ST stream by biomass is likely 50/50ish by numbers. A 50/50 biomass stream is likely far more ST by numbers. A 10/90 (BT/ST) stream by biomass probably has very few Browns all together. To the point that you could regularly fish it, and think it’s all Brookies. Two separate concepts.

As far as this thread, I’m enjoying the Wilderness Trout Streams that are on private land discussion, and attempting to get access to them much better. Anyone have any more?

 

[silverfox]

I’m really trying to avoid the temptation to play into the ongoing derailment of threads seeking other discussions, but just to clarify, my post above wasn’t suggesting that ST haven’t been displaced in these mixed pops streams. Clearly, and obviously, they have. If for sake of discussion the carrying capacity of a stream is 100. Before Brown Trout,
that was 100 Brook Trout. If it’s now 50/50, I agree 50% of the Brook Trout have been displaced. It’s a simplified example, and easy math, but I agree.

My point was that when measuring by biomass, which is the preferred measuring tool because it takes into account both numbers AND size when determining how viable a stream is as a wild Trout fishery, you’re likely underestimating the number of Brookies still present. A 90/10 BT/ST stream by biomass is likely 50/50ish by numbers. A 50/50 biomass stream is likely far more ST by numbers. A 10/90 (BT/ST) stream by biomass probably has very few Browns all together. To the point that you could regularly fish it, and think it’s all Brookies. Two separate concepts.

As far as this thread, I’m enjoying the Wilderness Trout Streams that are on private land discussion, and attempting to get access to them much better. Anyone have any more?

To me, all of this is relevant to the WTS discussion. My example was intentionally basic. The OP asked about biomass and WTS designations. The simple answer is they're unrelated. There's far more to discuss about the WTS designation, though. Like that they're supposed to promote native brook trout angling but have no regulations in place that support that (all general regs apply). Or that they may not all be predominantly native brook trout streams anymore. Or that biomass isn't a component of listing. Or that they're fragmented small sections of watersheds rather than watersheds. It's an interesting program but I question the value beyond the DEP protections.

I don't understand why they would use that designation on any water not open to the public unless its used to prevent development or other land use prohibited by the DEP classification. Biomass classifications, I understand. A stream [section] meets a biomass class regardless of whether it's private or not. WTS is to "protect and promote native trout fisheries and maintain and enhance wilderness aesthetics and ecological requirements necessary for the natural reproduction of trout." That implies the idea is to encourage native trout angling. By the way, I'm sticking with the actual PA Code Ch. 93 definition, not what PFBC has on their website.

So why promote a native brook trout stream on private property? Especially one tied up in a lease with absolutely no public access?

 

[Swattie87]

I agree. And don’t know the answer. I’m guessing here, but maybe when that stream was added to the list the ownership/leasing situation was different and you could access and fish it. (I don’t know if that’s true, just a possible thought.)

There’s a lot of history back there…remnants of a narrow gauge railroad that connected the turn of the century wealthy from Philadephia via Williamsport and a short line station at Sonestown up to the resort at Eagles Mere. Kind of neat to think about. 1900, leave Philly in the morning, and have your dinner at Eagles Mere in the evening. There’s photos of the rail grade traveling right next to a series of waterfalls in there. Again, I’d love to be given the chance to fish/explore in there, even just for a day.

I think it was Mike that mentioned the Wilderness List and Designation is relatively ancient by PFBC terms. None of the surveys on there are recent (The Outlet’s is from 1986!), and I can’t recall any changes, additions, or removals from it since I first found it while planning my explorations. Newest surveys on there are circa 2004. A lot can change since then, both fish population wise, and access wise, if not on public land.

 

[silverfox]

I agree. And don’t know the answer. I’m guessing here, but maybe when that stream was added to the list the ownership/leasing situation was different and you could access and fish it. (I don’t know if that’s true, just a possible thought.)

There’s a lot of history back there…remnants of a narrow gauge railroad that connected the turn of the century wealthy from Philadephia via Williamsport and a short line station at Sonestown up to the resort at Eagles Mere. Kind of neat to think about. 1900, leave Philly in the morning, and have your dinner at Eagles Mere in the evening. There’s photos of the rail grade traveling right next to a series of waterfalls in there. Again, I’d love to be given the chance to fish/explore in there, even just for a day.

I think it was Mike that mentioned the Wilderness List and Designation is relatively ancient by PFBC terms. None of the surveys on there are recent (The Outlet’s is from 1986!), and I can’t recall any changes, additions, or removals from it since I first found it while planning my explorations. Newest surveys on there are circa 2004. A lot can change since then, both fish population wise, and access wise, if not on public land.

Probably correct about the land ownership changes on that particular stream. That does sound cool! I've always been fascinated with narrow gauge railroads.

They added 19 WTS sections last year. https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pabull?file=/secure/pabulletin/data/vol52/52-24/873.html No idea when, or if any of them were surveyed prior to listing.