Class A listings, DEP drags feet

[Stenonema]

"Senior DEP staffer shortstopping these upgrades because he regards brown trout as a non-native species and not worthy of protection."

If you feel differently you can open and sign.
clear-backlog-conserve-pas-best-waters

 

[Fish Sticks]

I didn’t see anything about brown trout in the link, i might have missed it. Is that written somewhere in there?

 

[phiendWMD]

I've been considering legally harvesting wild browns from my local brookie creek.
If the creek in the OP is class A, list it as class A. No need to protect browns in PA until brookies are fully protected first IMO.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I've been considering legally harvesting wild browns from my local brookie creek.
If the creek in the OP is class A, list it as class A. No need to protect browns in PA until brookies are fully protected first IMO.

Yea if there are brook trout there and its legal i tend to take same approach because releasing a brown in that situation is kinda like effectively “ taking” brookies, its just the fish your releasing is gonna do it not you.

Those are usually not quality fisheries for brown trout where they compete anyway, they average almost same size there. Its not like your going into a high social value fishery like bald eagle, little J, ect and harvesting trophy fish ya know.

Brown trout are the most protected game fish statewide I believe. They may be the most protected fish in all of Pennsylvania except for some threatened endangered species?

The easternbrook trout joint venture is recommending watershed level management with stocking protections and c and r and we only do that in little J and spring creek for invasive browns.

I feel like we have protected so many while native brook trout get nothing why would DEP/PAFB stop for that reason now?

 

[phiendWMD]

@Fish Sticks I don't want to veer too far from the OP, but there are definitely browns up to 16" or so in the creek I referred to. I wouldn't be shocked to find larger ones. Sadly, the wild browns probably don't harm the natives anymore than the buckets of browns and rainbows they dump in a few times a year on top of the wild browns and brookies.
This all happens in a tributary to a river that is also stocked on top of wild fish. I disagree with the way it's managed.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

The original post is about water quality standards and protection. Chp 93 has a hierarchy of WQ designations Exceptional Value, High quality, coldwater fishes, trout stocked fishes and warm water fishes. EV and HQ streams are considered special protection and there can be coldwater and warm water streams that are added to the special protections list and as a result receive higher water quality protections.

There are a few biological criteria that can be met in order for a stream to qualify as HQ, one of which is a class A population of wild trout considering wild trout are supposed to be indicative of good water quality. The process in which class A wild trout populations are indicative of good water quality and whether or not DEP takes action on that biological indicator is the issue at hand.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The original post is about water quality standards and protection. Chp 93 has a hierarchy of WQ designations Exceptional Value, High quality, coldwater fishes, trout stocked fishes and warm water fishes. EV and HQ streams are considered special protection and there can be coldwater and warm water streams that are added to the special protections list and as a result receive higher water quality protections.

There are a few biological criteria that can be met in order for a stream to qualify as HQ, one of which is a class A population of wild trout considering wild trout are supposed to be indicative of good water quality. The process in which class A wild trout populations are indicative of good water quality and whether or not DEP takes action on that biological indicator is the issue at hand.

Yea thats what i was getting at, its “wild trout” thats why I did not understand where the brown trout part was coming from.

 

[troutbert]

"Senior DEP staffer shortstopping these upgrades because he regards brown trout as a non-native species and not worthy of protection."

Where did that statement come from?

 

[Fish Sticks]

I did not think DEP designating as class A/EVwould automatically give any harvest protections or do any management for species composition. I thought it just stopped a sheetz or condos from pouring a concrete pad within so far of the stream?

 

[CRB]

Where did that statement come from?

I looked through the link and never saw the quote.

 

[Fish Sticks]

So if PFBC submits and DEP verifies themselves i think by studying macros, assessing fish populations ect. then could this just be that they are prioritizing streams with wild native brook trout for listing first and its not that they won’t eventually other ones later?

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Fish sticks, DEP does not designate streams as wild trout or Class A, PFBC does according to Fish and Boat Code.

An excerpt from Chp93 on HQ streams is below.

§ 93.4b. Qualifying as High Quality or Exceptional Value Waters.
(C) The Department may consider additional biological information which characterizes or indicates the quality of a water in making its determination.

(ii) Class A wild trout stream qualifier. The surface water has been designated a Class A wild trout stream by the Fish and Boat Commission following public notice and comment.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Fish sticks, DEP does not designate streams as wild trout or Class A, PFBC does according to Fish and Boat Code.

An excerpt from Chp93 on HQ streams is below.

§ 93.4b. Qualifying as High Quality or Exceptional Value Waters.
(C) The Department may consider additional biological information which characterizes or indicates the quality of a water in making its determination.

(ii) Class A wild trout stream qualifier. The surface water has been designated a Class A wild trout stream by the Fish and Boat Commission following public notice and comment.

Yea sorry i meant PA fish and boat submits class A to them.

(C) might be what the OP is referring too if they have knowledge of prioritization by conservation status of species? If additional biological information besides just kg/hectare of “wild trout” can change prioritization?

 

[Stenonema]

Where did that statement come from?

This is the actual quote by John Arway from a Facebook post. I can’t share or copy the link to the specific post that had his comment.
“Inside baseball. Senior DEP staffer shortstopping these upgrades because he regards brown trout as a non-native species and not worthy of protection. Shameful that the PFBC is not taking the DEP to task since not listing these streams is causing them not to receive deserved protection as provided by 25 PA Code Chapter 93.”

 

[Fish Sticks]

This is the actual quote by John Arway from a Facebook post. I can’t share or copy the link to the specific post that had his comment.
“Inside baseball. Senior DEP staffer shortstopping these upgrades because he regards brown trout as a non-native species and not worthy of protection. Shameful that the PFBC is not taking the DEP to task since not listing these streams is causing them not to receive deserved protection as provided by 25 PA Code Chapter 93.”

Its an interesting choice of words used by john, “he regards”.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I would think this means no less overall streams being approved for protections but instead a simple shift in priorities towards listing native brook trout?

I think there is only so many EV /HQ designations they can propose at a time.

Can anyone confirm?

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Chp 93 isn't necessarily about protecting wild trout whether native brook trout or wild Brown trout. It is about protecting water quality that supports a host of biological uses (including fish), human uses etc.

The sticking point is that wild trout are being used as a biological indicator without differentiation of species. When looking at macroinvertebrates there are established peer reviewed pollution tolerances for each species or genus. We can all agree bt and st have some differences in pollution tolerance, think about upper thermal limits, sedimentation and nutrient pollution.

It's a relatively complex topic, although the regs that were written decades ago make no differentiation of trout species.

 

[silverfox]

Makes sense to me. Class A BT biomass alone may not qualify a stream for EV if other DEP criteria for listing aren't met. It's not about one species versus another or species preference or disdain for non-native trout. ST requiring better water conditions likely means that if they're present, all other metrics are likely present for listing as EV as well. BT might be Class A biomass, but other metrics don't meet the requirement, so there's a question about whether Class A BT streams should be listed as EV.

 

[Schaefer406]

I would think this means no less overall streams being approved for protections but instead a simple shift in priorities towards listing native brook trout?

I think there is only so many EV /HQ designations they can propose at a time.

Can anyone confirm?

I am pretty sure that proposed EV/HQ streams have to be supported by data for the stream and macro life, and then they approve them as a group based on the data. Lycoflyfisher would be a good one to add to this. But he is correct, Chpt 93 is about water quality rather than protecting trout, but PAFBC designations kind of go hand-in-hand with it since trout are an indicator species for good water quality and macroinvertebrate life.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Chp 93 isn't necessarily about protecting wild trout whether native brook trout or wild Brown trout. It is about protecting water quality that supports a host of biological uses (including fish), human uses etc.

The sticking point is that wild trout are being used as a biological indicator without differentiation of species. When looking at macroinvertebrates there are established peer reviewed pollution tolerances for each species or genus. We can all agree bt and st have some differences in pollution tolerance, think about upper thermal limits, sedimentation and nutrient pollution.

It's a relatively complex topic, although the regs that were written decades ago make no differentiation of trout species.

My understanding was DEP was trout species neutral and more focused on water quality macros ect. as well, as you mentioned.

However, the only reason I asked about native brook trout is I am trying to figure out Johns Comment, he seems to thinks he has some sort of insider information. His comments seem to suggest DEP may be factoring in, not trout species per se, but more native organism vs. invasive organism.


If he is alleging they are simply prioritizing EV/HQ listings that meet all of DEP’s internal criteria you mentioned PLUS that also have a class A density of native trout species as part if PFBC submission to DEP, I don’t know why anyone would be mad about that if the overall number of streams being evaluated and given protections is not changing. If that makes any sense?