Colangelo cited three examples of
new initiatives the Commission is
exploring.  The agency is close to
signing an agreement with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to raise
100,000 brook trout at a federal
hatchery at the Kinzua Reservoir.  
While the terms of the agreement
are not yet final, the partnership will
involve the PFBC providing fish food
and funding.  In return, the
USFWS-raised brook trout will be
stocked in the Allegheny National
Forest area.

The Commission is working on a draft
for a request for proposals for a pilot
program where private commercial
hatcheries would produce and stock
approximately 100,000 adult trout
into waters designated by the PFBC.

The Commission also recently
entered into a cooperative
agreement with the Toby Creek
Watershed Association to begin
design work on an innovative
hatchery concept in the Blue Valley
(Brandy Camp Creek) in Elk County.  
This demonstration project would
involve treating discharge from an
abandoned mine and using that
water in a trout hatchery.  When fully
operational after a  suitable pilot
period, the hatchery could produce
200,000
adult trout for the PFBC (with the
potential to eventually produce trout
on two cycles (400,000 trout). The
proposed hatchery is of particular
interest because the water being
discharged from the facility would
actually be of higher quality than that
flowing into it. Senate Bill 1213,
currently pending before the General
Assembly, authorizes the Fish and
Boat Commission to make a capital
investment of $1.6 million in this
demonstration project.  Coupled with
funds from the Department of
Environmental Protection, the Office
of Surface Mining, and other
conservation agency and groups,
the pilot project is an example of
partnerships in action to help keep
Pennsylvania fishing and improve
water quality.

The Trout Summit also featured the
award of the Ralph W. Abele
Conservation Heritage Award to Dr.
Ed Bellis.




The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission is seeking public
comment on concepts for habitat
improvement and substrate
restoration projects on a one-half
mile section of Big Spring Creek,
Cumberland County.  The section is
on Commonwealth property under
the authority of the Fish and Boat
Commission.  It stretches from the
lower end of the "Ditch" downstream
to the site of the old fish barrier.

Big Spring Creek is a 5.1-mile-long
limestone stream with a drainage
area of 12.9 square miles.  The
stream has been characterized as a
fertile limestone stream.  A small
section near the headwaters is
classified as an Exceptional Value
(EV) water by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Protection; the remainder of the
stream is a coldwater fishery.

continued

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
under the jurisdiction of the Fish and
Boat Commission owns more than
one mile of the stream.  The upper
1.1 miles of the stream is managed
under the Commission?s Heritage
Trout Angling special regulation
program.  The Big Spring Fish
Culture Station, located just above
the headwaters of the stream,
operated from 1973 until 2001.

On December 12, 2002, the Fish and
Boat Commission hosted a briefing
for interested anglers and members
of the public regarding concepts for
habitat improvement plans for Big
Spring Creek.  The meeting
summarized information the
Commission had collected either
directly with staff or indirectly through
consultant services about the
physical, chemical and biological
conditions of Big Spring Creek since
the Commission-operated fish culture
station ceased operations.

Comments and suggestions should
be submitted in writing to:  
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission, Environmental Services
Division, Big Spring Habitat Study,
450 Robinson Lane, Bellefonte, PA
16823-9620, or by electronic mail to:
jarway@state.pa.us. All comments
should be submitted by no later than
January 31, 2003.











                              Photo  Barry Beck
Big Spring Creek Habitat
Restoration Options
December 12, 2002
Allenberry Resort

Summary of Presentation
by
Robert F. Carline, Unit Leader
U.S.G.S. Biological Resources
Division  Penn. Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Research Unit
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA  16802

The following comments are based
on two assumptions.  The first is that
the majority of stakeholders
concerned about the management of
Big Spring Creek are in favor of
managing this fishery for wild trout.  
Therefore, I confined these
comments to that management
option, recognizing that managing the
fishery with hatchery trout or with a
combination of wild and hatchery
trout is a viable option.  The second
assumption is that the reach known
as the ?ditch? (first 150 yards
downstream of Big Spring) is a
unique and heavily fished area.
Physically altering this reach is not
likely to be supported by anglers and
perhaps other groups.  Therefore,
these comments are directed toward
that section of Big Spring Creek from
the lower end of the ditch (former
McCracken dam) downstream to
Newville.

1.  Do nothing; no physical or
biological intervention.

Anticipated outcome: A mixed
population of naturally produced
brown trout, rainbow trout, and brook
trout will continue to persist.  Brook
trout presently constitute less than
5% of the total trout biomass.  Most
trout will be found in the upper mile
of the stream.  Density will decline
rapidly downstream.  The density
and biomass of trout will be
substantially less than the stream
could potentially support.  It is highly
unlikely that wild brook trout will ever
approach their abundance in the
early 1960s.  There are no examples
in Pennsylvania or elsewhere in the
eastern United States in which brook
trout have displaced brown trout or
rainbow trout.  Rather, where species
changes have occurred, either brown
trout or rainbow trout have displaced
brook trout.

2.  Enhance the physical habitat.

Present conditions:  The quality of
trout habitat varies greatly and
generally reflects past human
activities and management practices.
 Habitat quality from the ditch down to
the old barrier is fair (about 900
yards); some instream structures
have been installed, though most of
this reach has not been enhanced.  
Most of the stream?s suitable
spawning habitat is found in this
section.  From the barrier to Nealy
Road habitat quality is poor; deep
pools are lacking and the channel
morphology is largely dictated by the
growth of water cress.  Water cress
abundance varies seasonally and
annually; hence, habitat quality
fluctuates considerably.  From Nealy
Road downstream to Newville, the
number of deeper pools increases,
though habitat quality is still tied to
water cress growth.  The absence of
spawning gravels ensures that this
reach will continue to support few wild
trout.
Anticipated outcome: Well-designed
habitat enhancement activities will
increase the amount of suitable
spawning habitat, which will lead to
increased trout density, and will
increase the amount of holding water
for adult trout.  In general, trout
population gains will be proportional
to the extent of habitat enhancement.

3.  Intervene to promote development
of a self-sustaining brook trout
population.

Present conditions: Brook trout
comprise a minor part of the total wild
trout population.  To create an
environment that will favor expansion
of the brook trout population, rainbow
trout and brown trout should be
completely removed.  Periodic
surveys (perhaps biannually) may be
necessary to remove re-introduced
or escaped rainbow trout and brown
trout.

Anticipated outcomes: There at least
two options for promoting the
development of a self-sustaining
brook trout population.  These
options vary with respect to the
source of brook trout.