Class A listings, DEP drags feet

[lycoflyfisher]

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.

Class A biomass is not a qualifier for EV, it is one of the criteria for HQ.

I think what has been found several DEP stream investigations is that there are streams where a Class A brown trout population has been recently identified, but other chemical parameters and macroinvertebrate indices do not meet the thresholds for HQ. Think ag valley streams with lots of sedimentation, high nutrient levels and suppressed macro life.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

For those interested here is the section of CHP93 where the qualifications for HQ or EV designation is discussed. The exact topic we are all discussing has been ongoing with varying intensity of debate for a decade or more. Read the regs below and the rest of Chp 93 if you are interested and form your own opinions.

"out the Pennsylvania Code

Title 25 Chapter 93 25 Pa. Code § 93.4b. Qualifying as High Quality or Exceptional Value Waters.
§ 93.4b. Qualifying as High Quality or Exceptional Value Waters.
(a) Qualifying as a High Quality Water. A surface water that meets one or more of the following conditions is a High Quality Water.

(1) Chemistry.

(i) The water has long-term water quality, based on at least 1 year of data which exceeds levels necessary to support the propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and recreation in and on the water by being better than the water quality criteria in § 93.7, Table 3 (relating to specific water quality criteria) or otherwise authorized by § 93.8a(b) (relating to toxic substances), at least 99% of the time for the following parameters:


dissolved oxygen aluminum
iron dissolved nickel
dissolved copper dissolved cadmium
temperature pH
dissolved arsenic ammonia nitrogen
dissolved lead dissolved zinc
(ii) The Department may consider additional chemical and toxicity information, which characterizes or indicates the quality of a water, in making its determination.

(2) Biology. One or more of the following shall exist:

(i) Biological assessment qualifier.

(A) The surface water supports a high quality aquatic community based upon information gathered using peer-reviewed biological assessment procedures that consider physical habitat, benthic macroinvertebrates or fishes based on Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Plafkin, et al., (EPA/444/4-89-001), as updated and amended. The surface water is compared to a reference stream or watershed, and an integrated benthic macroinvertebrate score of at least 83% shall be attained by the referenced stream or watershed.

(B) The surface water supports a high quality aquatic community based upon information gathered using other widely accepted and published peer-reviewed biological assessment procedures that the Department may approve to determine the condition of the aquatic community of a surface water.

(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.

(b) Qualifying as an Exceptional Value Water. A surface water that meets one or more of the following conditions is an Exceptional Value Water:

(1) The water meets the requirements of subsection (a) and one or more of the following:

(i) The water is located in a National wildlife refuge or a State game propagation and protection area.

(ii) The water is located in a designated State park natural area or State forest natural area, National natural landmark, Federal or State wild river, Federal wilderness area or National recreational area.

(iii) The water is an outstanding National, State, regional or local resource water.

(iv) The water is a surface water of exceptional recreational significance.

(v) The water achieves a score of at least 92% (or its equivalent) using the methods and procedures described in subsection (a)(2)(i)(A) or (B).

(vi) The water is designated as a ‘‘wilderness trout stream’’ by the Fish and Boat Commission following public notice and comment.

(2) The water is a surface water of exceptional ecological significance.
Authority
The provisions of this § 93.4b issued under sections 5(b)(1) and 402 of The Clean Streams Law (35 P. S. § § 691.5(b)(1) and 691.402); and section 1920-A of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P. S. § 510-20).
Source
The provisions of this § 93.4b adopted July 16, 1999, effective July 17, 1999, 29 Pa.B. 3720.
Notes of Decisions
Designation; Protection

Waterways which have been designated as ‘‘High Quality, Cold Water Fishery, Migratory Fishery Waters’’ are entitled to special protection. Leeward Construction Co. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 821 A.2d 145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)."

 

[silverfox]

Class A biomass is not a qualifier for EV, it is one of the criteria for HQ.

I think what has been found several DEP stream investigations is that there are streams where a Class A brown trout population has been recently identified, but other chemical parameters and macroinvertebrate indices do not meet the thresholds for HQ. Think ag valley streams with lots of sedimentation, high nutrient levels and suppressed macro life.

Ah. Right. HQ, not EV.

 

[Fish Sticks]

(B) The surface water supports a high quality aquatic community based upon information gathered using other widely accepted and published peer-reviewed biological assessment procedures that the Department may approve to determine the condition of the aquatic community of a surface water.


(2) The water is a surface water of exceptional ecological significance.
Authority

Its seems like if Johns claims are correct one at DEP could use this language not based on trout species but on native vs. invasive. Interesting.

 

[jifigz]

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.

The Little J was stocked until just recently in Blair County, right? When did that change? I just had to check the stocking list to see that it wasn't stocked. I was confused about your "stocking protections" because I was like, "wait, I swear the Little J gets stocked in places."

 

[Fish Sticks]

The Little J was stocked until just recently in Blair County, right? When did that change? I just had to check the stocking list to see that it wasn't stocked. I was confused about your "stocking protections" because I was like, "wait, I swear the Little J gets stocked in places."

Even the savage river gets 500 rainbows like twice a year in too. My point is these watersheds are largely protected from stockings with few exceptions. Even in spring creek you can find exceptions tco stocks a a pellet pet stretch behind shop or bear there maybe i have heard. But they are not getting 60k like kettle and there is effectively species specific protections. This is what other states do for brook trout.

 

[jifigz]

Even the savage river gets 500 rainbows like twice a year in too. My point is these watersheds are largely protected from stockings with few exceptions. Even in spring creek you can find exceptions tco stocks a a pellet pet stretch behind shop or bear there maybe i have heard. But they are not getting 60k like kettle and there is effectively species specific protections. This is what other states do for brook trout.

I know your point. I understood your point. I asked when the Little J stopped being stocked. This had to have been a recent change, is it not?

I think Kettle and tribs would be an excellent place to start an extensive brook trout experiment.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I know your point. I understood your point. I asked when the Little J stopped being stocked. This had to have been a recent change, is it not?

I am not sure, there is actually still some current coop stocking in class A water I came across pouring through the stocking receipts that not too many people prob know about.

 

[Fish Sticks]

For those interested here is the section of CHP93 where the qualifications for HQ or EV designation is discussed. The exact topic we are all discussing has been ongoing with varying intensity of debate for a decade or more. Read the regs below and the rest of Chp 93 if you are interested and form your own opinions.

"out the Pennsylvania Code

Title 25 Chapter 93 25 Pa. Code § 93.4b. Qualifying as High Quality or Exceptional Value Waters.
§ 93.4b. Qualifying as High Quality or Exceptional Value Waters.
(a) Qualifying as a High Quality Water. A surface water that meets one or more of the following conditions is a High Quality Water.

(1) Chemistry.

(i) The water has long-term water quality, based on at least 1 year of data which exceeds levels necessary to support the propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and recreation in and on the water by being better than the water quality criteria in § 93.7, Table 3 (relating to specific water quality criteria) or otherwise authorized by § 93.8a(b) (relating to toxic substances), at least 99% of the time for the following parameters:


dissolved oxygen aluminum
iron dissolved nickel
dissolved copper dissolved cadmium
temperature pH
dissolved arsenic ammonia nitrogen
dissolved lead dissolved zinc
(ii) The Department may consider additional chemical and toxicity information, which characterizes or indicates the quality of a water, in making its determination.

(2) Biology. One or more of the following shall exist:

(i) Biological assessment qualifier.

(A) The surface water supports a high quality aquatic community based upon information gathered using peer-reviewed biological assessment procedures that consider physical habitat, benthic macroinvertebrates or fishes based on Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Plafkin, et al., (EPA/444/4-89-001), as updated and amended. The surface water is compared to a reference stream or watershed, and an integrated benthic macroinvertebrate score of at least 83% shall be attained by the referenced stream or watershed.

(B) The surface water supports a high quality aquatic community based upon information gathered using other widely accepted and published peer-reviewed biological assessment procedures that the Department may approve to determine the condition of the aquatic community of a surface water.

(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.

(b) Qualifying as an Exceptional Value Water. A surface water that meets one or more of the following conditions is an Exceptional Value Water:

(1) The water meets the requirements of subsection (a) and one or more of the following:

(i) The water is located in a National wildlife refuge or a State game propagation and protection area.

(ii) The water is located in a designated State park natural area or State forest natural area, National natural landmark, Federal or State wild river, Federal wilderness area or National recreational area.

(iii) The water is an outstanding National, State, regional or local resource water.

(iv) The water is a surface water of exceptional recreational significance.

(v) The water achieves a score of at least 92% (or its equivalent) using the methods and procedures described in subsection (a)(2)(i)(A) or (B).

(vi) The water is designated as a ‘‘wilderness trout stream’’ by the Fish and Boat Commission following public notice and comment.

(2) The water is a surface water of exceptional ecological significance.
Authority
The provisions of this § 93.4b issued under sections 5(b)(1) and 402 of The Clean Streams Law (35 P. S. § § 691.5(b)(1) and 691.402); and section 1920-A of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P. S. § 510-20).
Source
The provisions of this § 93.4b adopted July 16, 1999, effective July 17, 1999, 29 Pa.B. 3720.
Notes of Decisions
Designation; Protection

Waterways which have been designated as ‘‘High Quality, Cold Water Fishery, Migratory Fishery Waters’’ are entitled to special protection. Leeward Construction Co. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 821 A.2d 145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)."

Whats your take lyco do you see anything in here that would allow for something like John is allegeding?

 

[lycoflyfisher]

I will withhold my personal opinion on the matter, but I hope the information I shared helped shed light on how PFBC Class A designations interact with Chp 93 designations along with some nuances of the situation.

 

[troutbert]

Even in spring creek you can find exceptions tco stocks a a pellet pet stretch behind shop or bear there maybe i have heard. But they are not getting 60k like kettle and there is effectively species specific protections. This is what other states do for brook trout.

Regarding "behind their shop."

TCO's shop does not border Spring Creek.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Are you talking about the Spring Creek in Centre County? And you're saying TCO stocks it? And what is meant by "behind shop or bear there?"

yea I heard there is a private section that is stocked by TCO where clients go there.

 

[jifigz]

Are you talking about the Spring Creek in Centre County? And you're saying TCO stocks it? And what is meant by "behind shop or bear there?"

I think "bear" is meant to be "near"

I have no idea if this is true and I have never heard about it. I rarely shop at TCO, I rarely fish Spring Creek, but I do enjoy fishing upper Spring sometimes. It has been years, however. Spring Creek isn't much of a draw to me but if I am in the area I will wet a line every now and then there.

 

[Bamboozle]

I think Kettle and tribs would be an excellent place to start an extensive brook trout experiment.

The Upper Kettle Creek Basin was in the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement program which ended in 2015 because it didn't achieve the desired results which was an increase of adult (>4 inches) or legal size (>7 inches) wild brook trout.

However according to the minutes from the 117th Meeting of the PFBC held in 2016:

During the review of the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Program, staff noted that the​

upper Kettle Creek basin streams seemed to respond differently than the other streams
included in the study. Staff worked with the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit to analyze the data on an individual stream basis to determine if this was
the case. Results indicated that five of the seven sample sites located on upper Kettle
Creek and four of its tributaries had a significant increase in the number of legal-size
Brook Trout. These were the only streams managed under the wild Brook Trout
enhancement regulations that showed a significant increase. The upper Kettle Creek
watershed is the largest stronghold for Brook Trout in Pennsylvania, is a destination
fishery for anglers, and was the largest system included in the study. These factors may
help to explain why this system responded differently than the other waters in the
program.​

Based on the final data review and the ecological importance of the upper Kettle Creek
watershed, staff recommend that the upper Kettle Creek basin from the headwaters of
Kettle Creek downstream to the confluence with Long Run, including Long Run and all
tributaries upstream to the headwaters, be designated as catch and release all-tackle under
58 Pa. Code § 65.15​

​

Currently the Upper Kettle Creek Basin is under the Catch & Release All Tackle designation which only differs from the former Wild Brook Trout Enhancement program in offering the ability to harvest five NON-wild brook trout per day.

I have no facts on the matter but I doubt there was ever significant brown numbers or a significant harvest of legal sized brown trout there to have effected the different results achieved at Kettle during the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement program.

A comparison to the 2016 results would be a good first step...

 

[silverfox]

The Upper Kettle Creek Basin was in the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement program which ended in 2015 because it didn't achieve the desired results which was an increase of adult (>4 inches) or legal size (>7 inches) wild brook trout.

However according to the minutes from the 117th Meeting of the PFBC held in 2016:

During the review of the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Program, staff noted that the​

upper Kettle Creek basin streams seemed to respond differently than the other streams​

included in the study. Staff worked with the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife​

Research Unit to analyze the data on an individual stream basis to determine if this was​

the case. Results indicated that five of the seven sample sites located on upper Kettle​

Creek and four of its tributaries had a significant increase in the number of legal-size​

Brook Trout. These were the only streams managed under the wild Brook Trout​

enhancement regulations that showed a significant increase. The upper Kettle Creek​

watershed is the largest stronghold for Brook Trout in Pennsylvania, is a destination​

fishery for anglers, and was the largest system included in the study. These factors may​

help to explain why this system responded differently than the other waters in the​

program.​

​

Based on the final data review and the ecological importance of the upper Kettle Creek​

watershed, staff recommend that the upper Kettle Creek basin from the headwaters of​

Kettle Creek downstream to the confluence with Long Run, including Long Run and all​

tributaries upstream to the headwaters, be designated as catch and release all-tackle under​

58 Pa. Code § 65.15​

​

Currently the Upper Kettle Creek Basin is under the Catch & Release All Tackle designation which only differs from the former Wild Brook Trout Enhancement program in offering the ability to harvest five NON-wild brook trout per day.

I have no facts on the matter but I doubt there was ever significant brown numbers or a significant harvest of legal sized brown trout there to have effected the different results achieved at Kettle during the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement program.

A comparison to the 2016 results would be a good first step...

It worked in upper kettle for the same reason it worked in the upper savage. It's a well-fished watershed, not a mile and a half of a 3-foot wide stream. My issue with upper kettle is allowing the harvest of nonnative trout within the current C&R section would have no downside.

My biggest issue with the "failed" WBTEP was the stated objective was to increase the number of larger fish. That has nothing to do with population health and is a fishing metric, not a conservation or biological health metric.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Thanks for posting that. I have never seen Pa fish and boat ever make a species specific protection only wild trout. Where did you see the allowed 5 non brook trout only harvest lim it language?

The study you reference I am very familiar with. The average sample length was incredibly small which really hurt the reliability of its interpretation. Despite this kettle showed the benefit type mentioned. But few things that come to mind with that study is.

1. Its only looking at demographic data physical measurable( no conservation genetics impacts of the management action were assessed)

2. Its fishing related metrics (size). We still don’t have data that shows that size helps native brook trout persist, only that in healthy connected systems brook trout grow larger. Many have suspicions about sizes effect in competition but we have no data to stand in there for now and snall size may be an beneficial adaptation in some cases , we din’t know for now. All means is they were studying fishing goals not conservation ones.


However, upper kettle has many wild browns unfortunately. My catch ratio had been about 3-1 to 4-1 brook to small-medium multi year class wild appearing browns in that section.

If they are allowing harvest of browns only in that section I approve of that except for the limit. It would be a win for conservation and fishing as no one goes to germania to hunt brown trout specifically. Cross fork and hammersly have wild browns as well, hammersly more so than cross fork in my experience. I think kettle would be a place where angler harvest of invasive could help out and no group really takes a big hit except people who are socially conditioned to stockers.

 

[silverfox]

Thanks for posting that. I have never seen Pa fish and boat ever make a species specific protection only wild trout. Where did you see the allowed 5 non brook trout only harvest lim it language?

The study you reference I am very familiar with. The average sample length was incredibly small which really hurt the reliability of its interpretation. Despite this kettle showed the benefit type mentioned. But few things that come to mind with that study is.

1. Its only looking at demographic data physical measurables

2. Its fishing related metrics (size). We still don’t have data that shows that size helps native brook trout persist, only that in healthy connected systems brook trout grow larger. Many have suspicions about sizes effect in competition but we have no data to stand in there for now and snall size may be an beneficial adaptation in some cases , we din’t know for now. All means is they were studying fishing goals not conservation ones.


However, upper kettle has many wild browns unfortunately. My catch ratio had been about 3-1 to 4-1 brook to small-medium multi year class wild appearing browns in that section.

If they are allowing harvest of browns only in that section I approve of that except for the limit. It would be a win for conservation and fishing as no one goes to germania to hunt brown trout specifically. Cross fork and hammersly have wild browns as well, hammersly more so than cross fork in my experience. I think kettle would be a place where angler harvest of invasive could help out and no group really takes a big hit except people who are socially conditioned to stockers.

The harvest of nonnative fish was part of the WBTEP. It was basically C&R for brook trout and allowed (limited) harvest of nonnative fish. I don't believe the harvest of nonnative trout portion of the program was properly evaluated, or applied to waters where that approach would be appropriate. It may have played a role in Kettle creek, but was stripped from the final regulations applied to that area.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The harvest of nonnative fish was part of the WBTEP. It was basically C&R for brook trout and allowed (limited) harvest of nonnative fish. I don't believe the harvest of nonnative trout portion of the program was properly evaluated, or applied to waters where that approach would be appropriate. It may have played a role in Kettle creek, but was stripped from the final regulations applied to that area.

ahh ok, I was about to say last time i checked it was blanket catch and release. Yes there was certainly great opportunity to harvest legal sized browns in that area in the past two years had it been legal.

Like you said not applied correctly, I think watershed wide no limits harvest invasive trout would be the easiest way to potentially help those fish, study impact/yeild, and offer something up to the stocked trout crowd if stocking was stopped.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

This thread seems pretty disingenuous. Don't get me wrong the PFBC and DEP could be blasted on many fronts but I think it would be proper to do it in truth rather than emotions.

The original post being referenced is in regards to Slab Cabin Run which was listed as impaired in 2001, didn't get class A status until 2013 and is now being considered for EV status.

My logical guess is not because of back log or wanting to not protect brown trout, but because it didn't reach the required water quality standard until now or proper protocols.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php/?story_fbid=pfbid024qMNvAFan4L4czApWZey1xqLmaEtSGU1CRj6WYdmt6aihLYj1LuYubF3XbdFFqCGl&id=100064558219377

What is so hard about sharing that link?

 

[sixfootfenwick]

And there it is....right on page six.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Drinking%2520Water%2520and%2520Facility%2520Regulation/WaterQualityPortalFiles/Stream_Packages/2023_Slab_Cabin_Run_Draft_Report.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjOiPSf0MD9AhV9D1kFHWTABKIQFnoECBQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2-3vx3Md2jaSh-Gz87ihEw

It took me 5 minutes to find the thread on Facebook and 5 minutes to get the answer.