SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL APPENDIX 4: TROUT MANAGEMENT PLAN 2022-2031 1
__________________________
SUpplementary Material Appendix 4
Final Federal Aid Report for trout stream classification system
(1975-1980).
FINAL REPORT
State: West Virginia Project Number: F-10-R-22
Project Type: Survey
Project Title: Stream and Lake Surveys
Period Covered: July 1, 1979 to June 30, 1980
Job Number and Title: Job I-8, Trout Stream Classification
Job Objective: To rate West Virginia’s trout streams in a trout stream classication system and to use these classications for evaluating
present and developing future trout management programs and policies.
(a). Activity: In this segment, as in preceding segments, major activities have involved the collection of eld data necessary to classify
streams. Data needed to complete most stream classications were maximum summer temperatures. Obtaining these maximums
required the placement and retrieval of maximum-minimum thermometers during late summer months. It is important that
maximum readings be reliable, as they are weighted three times as much as other parameters in this classication system. Accurate
standing crop data were also necessary for many stream classifications.
(b) Target date for achievement: June 30, 1980
(c) Status of progress: On schedule
(d) Signicant deviations: None
(e) Recommendations: It is recommended that the project be continued in order to classify all of West Virginia trout streams.
(f) Cost: Total - $25,000 State - $8,750 Federal - $16,250
(g) Remarks: e eight parameters used for classication of West Virginia’s trout streams and the numerical rating given to each
parameter are presented in Table 1.
(h) Finding and Conclusions: is is a nal report for the rst ve year phase of this project. e objective was to classify streams
stocked with catchable trout, and to use these classications to evaluate programs and policies. Classifying all potential
West Virginia trout streams will remain the objective in the recommended continued phase of West Virginia’s Trout Stream
Classication project.
2 WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
SUpplementary Material Appendix 4
_________________________
When the job of classifying West Virginia’s trout streams was undertaken, the classication of stocked streams was decided on as a
beginning point. e number of streams stocked at that time was 154. Since the project was initiated, circumstances that varied the number
of streams to be classied are as follows:
1. Additions and/or deletions to the stocked stream list.
2. Necessity of rating native and/or wild trout streams as a means of protection against mining, dredging or proposed
road construction.
3. Several sections in particular streams had to be classied independent of one another. Stream ratings oen varied from one section
to another due to eects from local springs, tributaries or specic pollution discharges.
4. Tailwaters have been deleted from the classication list. In a tailwater regime, temperature and water quality are articial and their
classication would not place them in a management class that would reect actual trout potential.
e classication system has provided a means for evaluating West Virginia’s trout stocking policy. e recent removal of ve small streams
from the stocking list, that were determined to have a shable wild or native population, is an example of how this system is being utilized.
ree streams, being repeatedly dredged within the stocked sections, have been removed from the stocking list based on the quality of
habitat. ree streams have been added to the stocking list which were classied as management class three. Also, several streams were
found to be better suited for trout than previously expected, changing the stocking status from a warmwater stream to a Coldwater stream.
More trout were stocked and shermen were allowed to creel six trout instead of four.
Table 1. Parameters used in classication of West Virginia’s trout streams.
Numerical Ratings
Parameter 3 2 1 0
Pollution None Light Moderate Severe
Fish Species Present 3 or less 4-8 9-12 12+
Standing Crop (lbs./acre) +100 50-100 25-50 <25
Temperature (X) °F <70 71-75 76-80 80+
pH +7. 5 7.0 -7. 5 6.0-6.9 <6.0
Esthetics Excellent Good Fair Poor
Bottom Composition Excellent Good Fair Poor
Stream Cover Excellent Good Fair Poor
e numerical rating of eight parameters for each stream are totaled and the stream is classied as one of the four following
management classes.
Class 1. Rating of 22-30 A stream which would be expected to have a native or wild trout population. No trout stockings
should be made in these streams. If trout are not present, consideration will be given to establishing
them by stream reclamation and ngerling stockings.
Class 2. Rating of 16-21 A stream which should have trout carryover and may have some successful trout spawning. Such
streams should receive ngerling stockings and/or “put-and-take” stockings.
Class 3. Rating of 7-15 A stream capable of supporting trout through the spring and early summer. “Put-and-take” trout
stockings are necessary to provide a trout fishery.
Class 4. Rating of 6 or less A stream which will not support trout throughout much of the year. Such streams should either not
be stocked or be stocked as a warmwater stream. Streams in this category should be reviewed closely
before trout are stocked
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL APPENDIX 4: TROUT MANAGEMENT PLAN 2022-2031 3
__________________________
SUpplementary Material Appendix 4
A completed West Virginia trout stream classication form for North River, Hardy County, is presented in Table 2.
All streams classied during the past ve years of the project along with their rating and classication are presented in Table 3. e 53 trout
streams classied in this segment are indicated by an asterisk. Individual classication forms for each trout stream are on file.
Table 2.
WEST VIRGINIA TROUT STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORM
STREAM: North River TRIBUTARY OF: Cacapon River
CODE: PC-7 COUNTY: HARDY DISTRICT: II
RATED BY: GERALD LEWIS DATE: 2/13/79
PARAMETER RATING DESCRIBE &/OR DATA
1. POLLUTION 3 Field Observations
2. NUMBER SPECIES 0 Stream Survey 10/78-14 species
3. STANDING CROP 1 Stream Survey 10/78 42 lbs./acre
4. TEMPERATURE (3X) 0 Maximum 92° recorded on 8/31/77 with
max-min thermometer
5. PH 2 Fish distribution reports 7.5
6. ESTHETICS 2 Field Observations
7. BOTTOM COMPOSITION 2 Field Observations
8. STREAM COVER 2
TOTAL 12
MANAGEMENT CLASS — III
PRESENT MANAGEMENT — Stocked Monthly
4 WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
SUpplementary Material Appendix 4
_________________________
SCALE
3 2 1 0
1. Pollution None Light Moderate Severe
2. Number Species Present 3 or less 4.8 9-12 12+
3. Standing Crop +100 50-100 25-50 -25
4. Temperature (3X) -70 71-75 76-80 80+
5. pH +7. 5 7.0 -7. 5 6.0-6.9 -6.0
6. Esthetics Excellent Good Fair Poor
7. Bottom Composition Excellent Good Fair Poor
8. Stream Cover Excellent Good Fair Poor
Parameter Description
1. Pollution – is parameter rates the amount of pollution present in a stream. Both industrial and domestic sources are considered
under this heading. Heavy siltation from man-caused activities will also be considered pollution.
A rating of severe for pollution will cause a stream to be dropped from consideration. A stream rated as moderately polluted should be
investigated closely before considering it for trout stocking.
2. Number Species Present – is rates a stream on the number of sh species present. e coldest streams in the state generally contain
only 2-3 species. e number of species tend to increase as water temperature increases.
3. Standing Crop – is parameter tends to measure the general productivity of a stream. e scale is based on a pounds per acre figure.
4. Temperature – is parameter rates a stream on the normal high temperatures that can be expected in that stream each year. e
stream is not rated for the highest temperature ever noted in that stream.
A multiplier of three (3) is used on this parameter since temperature is the single most important factor in determining if a stream has
trout potential.
5. pH – is parameter rates the general chemical condition as reected by the alkalinity and acid components. Few Good Trout
populations exist in the state at pH of less than 5.5. Population levels tend to increase as the pH increases. Streams are not considered
for trout stocking if the pH is less than 6.0.
6. Esthetics – is parameter rates the natural beauty of a stream. Esthetics seems top inuence many shermen when selecting a stream
to sh. Esthetics has no bearing or inuence on the capacity of a stream to support trout and is admittedly of judgmental nature. More
than one individual will rate streams that may be in question.
7. Bottom Composition – is parameter rates a stream of bottom composition as it relates to aquatic insect production. Some
consideration should also be given to amount of spawning area available to trout.
8. Stream Cover – is parameter rates a stream on the amount of escape and hiding cover present in a stream. No consideration is given
to streamside shade.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL APPENDIX 4: TROUT MANAGEMENT PLAN 2022-2031 5
__________________________
SUpplementary Material Appendix 4
Table 3. West Virginia trout streams classied during Project F-10-R-(18-22)
Stream County Numerical Rating Management Class
District I
Big Sandy Creek (lower) Preston 15 III
Big Sandy Creek (upper) Preston 11 III
Blackwater River Tucker 14 III
*Blaney Hollow Monongalia 14 III
*Brushy Fork Barbour 19 II
*Buffalo Creek Preston 15 III
*Clover Run Tucker 11 III
Dry Fork (below Rt. 33) Tucker 17 II
Elklick Run Tucker 26 I
*Elsey Run Preston 24 I
*Horseshoe Run Tucker 18 II
Kings Creek Hancock 11 III
*Laurel Run Preston 20 II
*Mill Run Barbour 22 I
*Morgan Run Monongalia 19 II
*North Fork Fishing Creek Wetzel 5 IV
Paw Paw Creek Marion 5 IV
Red Creek Tucker 20 II
*Rhine Creek Preston 16 II
*Roaring Creek Preston 23 I
*Saltlick Creek Preston 13 III
*South Fork Fishing Creek Wetzel 5 IV
Tomlinson Run Hancock 13 III
Wheeling Creek Marshall & Ohio 10 III
Whiteday Creek Marion & Monongalia 17 II
*Wickwire Creek Taylor 10 III
Wolfe Creek Preston 20 II
District II
Big Bullskin Run Jeerson 23 I
Big Run Pendleton 26 I
Camp Branch Hardy 20 II
Cattail Run Jeerson 23 I
Difficult Creek Grant 22 I
Dillons Run Hampshire 14 III
Dumpling Run Hardy 28 I
Edwards Run Hampshire 28 I
Evitts Run Jeerson 174 II
*Flowing Spring Run Jeerson 20 II
*Signies streams classied during F-10-R-22
6 WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
SUpplementary Material Appendix 4
_________________________
Stream County Numerical Rating Management Class
Harland Run Berkeley 21 II
Hawk Run Hampshire 25 I
Horsecamp Run Pendleton 23 I
*Laurel Fork Pendleton 24 I
*Long Marsh Run Jeerson 20 II
Lost River Hardy 13 III
Lower Cove Run Hardy 24 I
Meadow Branch Morgan 17 II
Middle Creek Berkeley 13 III
Mill Creek Mineral 12 II
Mill Creek Berkeley 13 III
Mill Creek Hampshire 8 III
Mill Run Berkeley 13 III
Mill Run Hampshire 23 I
Moores Run Hardy 19 II
New Creek Mineral 19 II
North Fork South Branch Pendleton & Grant 17 II
North Fork Lunice Creek Grant 13 III
North Fork Patterson Creek Grant 22 I
North River Hardy 12 III
*Opequon Creek Berkeley 16 II
Rocky Marsh Run Jeerson & Berkeley 21 II
Seneca Creek Mineral 23 I
*South Branch (Franklin) Pendleton 174 II
*South Branch (Smoke Hole) Pendleton 17 II
South Mill Creek Grant 15 III
Spring Run Grant 27 I
orne Creek Pendleton 25 I
Tilhance Creek Berkeley 20 II
Trout Run Hardy 23 I
Tuscarora Creek Berkeley 19 II
Waites Run Hardy 19 II
*Whites Run Pendleton 26 I
District III
Anglins Creek Nicholas 18 II
Back Fork of Elk River Webster 15 III
Back Fork of Elk (fish for fun) Webster 16 II
Big Run Randolph 20 II
Buckhannon River Upshur 17 II
*Signies streams classied during F-10-R-22
Table 3 continued.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL APPENDIX 4: TROUT MANAGEMENT PLAN 2022-2031 7
__________________________
SUpplementary Material Appendix 4
Stream County Numerical Rating Management Class
*Cherry River Nicholas 9 III
Cranberry River Webster, Nicholas & Pocahontas 19 II
*Deer Creek Nicholas 18 II
Deer Creek Pocahontas 12 III
Desert Fork Webster 19 II
Dry Fork (above Rt. 33 bridge) Randolph 20 II
East Fork Glady Randolph 16 II
East Fork Greenbrier Pocahontas 20 II
Elkwater Fork Randolph 15 III
Fall Run Webster 23 I
Five Mile Run Pocahontas 22 I
Gandy Creek Randolph 14 III
Gauley River (Headwaters) Webster & Randolph 20 II
Glady Fork Randolph 10 III
Hills Creek Pocahontas 18 II
Hominy Creek Nicholas 15 III
Knapps Creek Pocahontas 18 II
Laurel Creek Nicholas & Greenbrier 20 II
*Laurel Fork Randolph 196 II
*Laurel Fork Webster 17 II
*Laurel Run Pocahontas 18 II
*Laurel Run Barbour & Randolph 21 II
*Le Fork of Buckhannon Upshur 22 I
*Le Fork of Holly Webster 14 III
Le Fork of Right Fork Buckhannon Randolph & Upshur 15 III
*Le Fork of Right Fork of Little Kanawha Lewis & Upshur 19 II
*Lilly Fork Clay & Nicholas 12 III
Little Kanawha (Headwaters) Lewis & Upshur 18 II
*Little Laurel Nicholas 21 II
Little River East Fork Pocahontas 22 I
Little River West Fork Pocahontas 17 II
Mill Creek Randolph 21 II
North Fork Deer Creek Pocahontas 26 I
Right Fork Buckhannon Upshur & Buckhannon 21 II
Right Fork Little Kanawha Upshur, Lewis & Webster 15 III
*Right Fork Middle Fork Upshur 19 II
Shavers Fork (lower) Randolph 14 III
Shavers Fork (fish for fun) Randolph 14 III
Shavers Fork (upper) Randolph 14 III
Sitlington Creek Pocahontas 16 II
*Signies streams classied during F-10-R-22
Table 3 continued.
8 WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
SUpplementary Material Appendix 4
_________________________
Stream County Numerical Rating Management Class
Slaty Fork Section of Elk River Randolph 24 I
*Stoney Creek Pocahontas 21 II
*Signies streams classied during F-10-R-22
Sugar Creek Webster 17 II
Swago Creek Pocahontas 16 II
Tea Creek Pocahontas 20 II
Tygart River Headwaters Randolph 17 II
West Fork Greenbrier Pocahontas 12 III
Williams River Webster & Pocahontas 18 II
District IV
*Anthony Creek Greenbrier 13 III
Big Clear Creek Greenbrier 12 III
*Camp Creek Mercer 21 II
Clear Fork McDowell 17 II
Culverton Creek Greenbrier 23 I
Dry Fork (upper) McDowell 20 II
East River Mercer 16 II
*Glade Creek of Mann Fayette 18 II
*Glade Creek of New Raleigh 19 II
Howards Creek Greenbrier 11 III
Laurel Creek Fayette 15 III
*Laurel Creek Monroe 15 III
*Laurel Run Greenbrier 18 II
LIttle Clear Creek Greenbrier 10 III
Marsh Fork Raleigh 11 III
*Mash Fork Mercer 17 II
*Meadow Creek Greenbrier 14 III
Meadow Creek Summers 17 II
*Mill Creek Fayette 18 II
Milligan Creek Greenbrier 26 I
*Mountain Creek Mercer 18 II
North Fork Anthony Creek Greenbrier 20 II
North Fork Cherry River Nicholas & Greenbrier 20 II
Paint Creek Fayette 13 III
*Panther Creek McDowell 13 III
*Pigeon Creek Mercer 22 I
*Pinch Creek Raleigh 22 I
*Pinnacle Creek Wyoming 13 I
*Rich Creek (y shing only section) Monroe 23 I
*Signies streams classied during F-10-R-22
Table 3 continued.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL APPENDIX 4: TROUT MANAGEMENT PLAN 2022-2031 9
__________________________
SUpplementary Material Appendix 4
Stream County Numerical Rating Management Class
Second Creek Monroe & Greenbrier 196 II
Second Creek (y shing only section) Monroe & Greenbrier 25 I
*South Fork Cherry Nicholas & Greenbrier 18 II
*Spring Creek Greenbrier 16 II
Turkey Creek Monroe 26 I
*Wolfe Creek Fayette 23 I
Wolfpen Creek Fayette & Greenbrier 11 III
District V
Big Huff Creek Wyoming & Logan 6 IV
East Fork Twelvepole Wayne 10 III
Spruce Laurel Fork Boone 8 III
West Fork Twelvepole Wayne 9 III
*Signies streams classied during F-10-R-22
Table 3 continued.
