Proposed approval wild trout streams & Class A's

[salvelinusfontinalis]

A side note:

One winter while ago while fishing the Breeches way up where it is smaller, i caught 3 or 4 pickerel 15-18". Ive done the same thing in lower Big Spring. I bet these fish were having an all winter trout smorgasbord.

 

[Mike]

SteveG,
A RTK request would be overkill. Just call the area fisheries manager at Huntsdale and ask about the biomass classification of each stocked section.

 

[rrt]

HopBack,

Young Woman's Creek fluctuated between Class A and high Class B. When it was hcB, "limited" stocking was resumed, mainly due to pressure from a sportsmen's group (Western Clinton Sportsmen). It still is stocked, though it biologically should probably not be. It had been managed as a Class A wild trout stream with special regs for a while. Though this is not an exact situation as you ask for in post 16, it is as close as I can remember.

 

[Mike]

Jifigz,
Any Section that is already classified by PaDep as HQ CWF will not gain any water quality protection benefits by also being classified Class A by the PFBC.

 

[jifigz]

Mike wrote:
Jifigz,
Any Section that is already classified by PaDep as HQ CWF will not gain any water quality protection benefits by also being classified Class A by the PFBC.

Thank you Mike. I was unaware of that and I thought that being Class A afforded it more water protection. being designated as a high quality cold water fishery is what gives it the assured protection then?

Okay, so all of Kishacoquillas Creek is designated as HQ CWF but not all is Class A. Got ya. Thanks Mike.

 

[Mike]

Yes, now you have it. In fact, when I was an AFM and was preparing a field schedule, all other things being equal I was more likely to give priority to surveying a stream or stream section that was not HQCWF or EVCWF in order to determine if it was Class A over one that was already HQCWF or EVCWF.

 

[Maurice]

Mike wrote:
Jifigz,
Any Section that is already classified by PaDep as HQ CWF will not gain any water quality protection benefits by also being classified Class A by the PFBC.

Well unless it was already HQ CWF before around 2015 when the addition of wetland protection of Exceptional Value was added upon the wild trout designation. This may be a more significant a step than Class A. But I dont believe it grandfathered old water quality designations. Or did it?

 

[Mike]

Maurice,
You may have a point there. My original logic was that any stream that is HQCWF or EVCWF would already be recognized as having a wild trout population. By virtue of having a wild trout population, the riparian wetlands would be protected. There must some cases of which I am unaware or have forgotten, however, in which the above classifications had been bestowed upon streams or stream sections that did not support wild trout. Their classifications were instead based solely on their temps and macroinvertebrate populations. Good catch, Maurice.

 

[Mike]

Maurice,
Found this in DEP Chapter 105 regarding EV wetlands. If a stream is EV whether it supports wild trout or not, its wetlands are EV. See below...the word “or” is key.

i) Wetlands that are located in or along the floodplain of the reach of a wild trout stream or waters listed as exceptional value under Chapter 93 (relating to water quality standards) and the floodplain of streams tributary thereto, or wetlands within the corridor of a watercourse or body of water that has been designated as a National wild or scenic river in accordance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C.A. $8 127l-l 287) or designated as wild or scenic under the Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers Act (32 P. S. $8 820.21-820.29

 

[Hook_Jaw]

Not surprised to see cherry run on the list for class a over in the narrows Is a very good stream to fish.