Access to Steelhead under review- removing barriers

[Acristickid]

From Pittsburgh Tribune Review




Herb Heneman with a steelhead that fought long and hard, going into his backing twice.
Herb Heneman with a steelhead that fought long and hard, going into his backing twice.
SUBMITTED
The investment is huge.

Pennsylvania stocks about 60 percent of all the steelhead in Lake Erie. Ohio is the next-biggest producer, responsible for roughly 24 of the fishery. New York chips in 9 percent, Michigan and Ontario about 4 percent each.

It makes sense then that the Fish and Boat Commission is keenly interested in seeing as many of those fish as possible caught by anglers.

How to make that happen?

That has been a question on the minds of many for a while. Last year, the notion of finding ways to get fish and fishermen in the same places first was brokered.

“We want to get more steelhead to where anglers have access,” said Tim Wilson, a biologist in its Linesville office.

This year, some groundwork was laid.

Commission staff walked 51.9 miles of Erie tributary streams looking for in-stream barriers that keep fish leaving Lake Erie from continuing as far upstream as they might otherwise. If those were removed, the thinking goes, and fish-holding habitat were built in their place, more fish could spread out further, easing crowding on the streams and providing a better experience for everyone.

There are issues, though.

For starters, the commission has to decide what an “obstruction” really is.

“Everything is flow dependent,” Wilson said.

Meaning, something that is a barrier when the creek is low is not necessarily one when water levels are up, he said. The commission will have to decide what it might cost to remove such a barrier and if it is worth spending that money when a little rain might solve the problem.

That is especially critical because the obstructions in Erie's tributary streams are many and varied.

Biologists inspected Raccoon, Walnut, Fourmile, Sixmile, Sevenmile, Eightmile, Twelvemile, Sixteenmile and Twentymile creeks. They found a collective 66 barriers smaller than 3 feet tall and 159 taller than 3 feet.

The first eight miles of Sixteenmile Creek upstream from the mouth alone, for example, hold 19 of the shorter barriers, 48 of the taller ones. Sevenmile Creek has 10 of the smaller ones, 25 of the bigger ones in 4.7 miles of water. They literally are one right after another.

“Mitigating one doesn't open up a whole lot of stream,” Wilson said.

The commission has identified four other priority areas it might try to tackle first: two on Walnut Creek, one on Sixteenmile and another on Twentymile. The projects would open up 8, 3 and 2 miles on those streams, respectively.

They won't happen, though, unless the commission can address another issue.

The commission can't do any in-stream work without getting state and federal permits. They will be granted, executive director John Arway said, only if the commission can show its passages will allow fish to move upstream while keeping sea lampreys from doing the same.

That could be problematic, Wilson said, but no one is giving up. The goal next year is to examine 39 miles on Crooked and Elk creeks, Trout Run and Cascade Creek and West Branch to seek answers.

Bob Frye is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at bfrye@tribweb.com or via Twitter @bobfryeoutdoors.

 

[RLeep2]

There must be something I'm missing here if this idea is actually being considered by Commission staff and even Mr. Arway..

The Pennsylvania Lake Erie watershed is probably the most flashy and spate prone of any major drainage basin in the state. Additionally, as it is mostly comprised of shale and siltstone, virtually everything in the flood plain is prone to being moved in significant high flow events. Trees, banks, the substrate itself. Moderate gradient Pennsylvania freestones have a habit of going where they want with little regard for our habitat tinkerings. I would think that this would apply even more to the Lake Erie tribs.

Even if removing so-called "obstructions" could be agreed to be a worthwhile idea with some chance to produce durable positive effects for the fishery (a dubious notion at best, IMO..), it isn't like the streams are going to stop depositing trees in the flow or stop cutting new channels with new obstructions because we are in there tinkering. I don't see how they could get more than say 25% of this sort of effort done before there would be that many more new "obstructions" and it would be about the same as starting all over again. It would never end.

Like I say, I must be missing something. Or maybe this is the pet idea of one of the Commissioners and so, we have to go through the motions until it is demonstrated to be untenable.

I'll be curious to see...

 

[salmonoid]

Hey, if they're creating a contrived fishery, they might as well go all in and make up a stream too. I wonder how many people realize that the bulk of the water from the mouth to the Manchester Hole on Walnut are "project" waters (i.e. man-made)? Sometimes, its ok just to let ecosystems alone and let them be "underutilized"...

 

[troutbert]

What kind of barriers are they referring to?

 

[Dave_W]

troutbert wrote:
What kind of barriers are they referring to?

I'm guessing natural obstructions such as the waterfalls on Sixteen Mile Cr or the chutes on Walnut, this sort of thing.

During low enough water levels, some ledge rock or maybe even road culverts could block movement too.

 

[RLeep2]

>>Sometimes, its ok just to let ecosystems alone and let them be "underutilized"...>>

What concerns me is that this entire situation, between the clamoring for additional easements and this new potential crusade to "clear obstructions" may eventually develop into a major sinkhole for angler $'s at a time when the Commission is already running close to E on operating revenues. They (and we through the Lake Erie Stamp) have poured a pile of $ into the tribs over the past 30 years or so. And there is no place in Pennsylvania where there is a less certain ROI than this fishery. The Lake is big and does not always respond as expected to conventional fisheries enhancement efforts. Regardless of how many fish they raise and stock, the thing could tank or turn into a shadow of its former self and just stay that way yea verily even unto eternity. That's just how the Lake can be. Its a gamble, IMO and perhaps not one worth making.

At the same time, commerce in the area is counting on the visiting angler revenues and isn't interested in hearing any cautionary, go-slow stuff. So, there is no doubt a lot of pressure coming from that direction.

It may work out fine or it may all devolve into an enormous train wreck and a very expensive one at that...

As an afterthought, if they want to do something that will benefit both access to the fish/fishery and all the local commerce that depends upon it, the place to start is to legally challenge the right of private fishing arrangements profiting from publically raised fish moving through the tribs. No heavy equipment or dynamite would be req'd to remove this "obstruction".

 

[FarmerDave]

Dave_W wrote:

troutbert wrote:
What kind of barriers are they referring to?

I'm guessing natural obstructions such as the waterfalls on Sixteen Mile Cr or the chutes on Walnut, this sort of thing.

During low enough water levels, some ledge rock or maybe even road culverts could block movement too.

I agree.

In fact, I was talking to a fish commission employee a couple weeks ago up in Erie when the first pushes of fish were coming in.

He brought up Walnut creek. Then he said, not many make it past the chutes. I wanted to argue with that, but decided not to.

Are they obsessed with the chutes? I haven't been to the chutes in over 15 years, but unless they changed significantly, there are more fish getting over it than most realize.

Reading between the lines, I honestly think they want to gouge out the chutes and are just looking for reasons to do so.

There are other natural obstacles as well as culverts on other streams, but 2 to 1 the first one they go after will be the chutes. In their vision, the projects are a big success evidenced by the crowds. Why not extend the "projects?"

 

[CRB]

When these obstructions are removed the velocity of the waters will increase down stream. these obstructions do slow/divert high velocity waters back into the stream bed rather than causing more erosion making the stream bed wider and shallower.
The chutes on walnut are perhaps the results of past milling operations 100 years ago. I've personally seen the destruction of stream bank erosion on upper Elk due to stream side vegetation being removed. I've even seen the effects of changing/moving of a rock in the channel will due. Water is an energy that I do not think people understand.
These issues need to be studied correctly before removals are decided upon.