Opinions on restricted areas below dams

[salmonoid]

redietz wrote:

tomgamber wrote:
I would imagine just about any federal dam that is connected to a power grid. Just a thought...

Or has the potential for killing a lot of people if blown.

How does closing down fisherpeople access to a catwalk prevent someone intent on damaging a dam from damaging it? I'm not arguing that the power companies (and their lawyers) don't have the power to close access to reduce company liability (of some form or another - prevent slip and fall on a banana peel, maybe?), but doing so under the guise of preventing terrorism is nothing more than security theater. It doesn't significantly reduce the real threat to a dam, only the perceived threat held by a gullible public.

 

[Acristickid]

You can fish below Cannonsburg lake dam , the dam at the Savage and the dam on the North Branch of the Potomac.

You cannot fish below the South Holston.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

There is a nice stream in schyulkill county below a water supply dam.
A very long portion of the downstream water is closed to fishing claiming it is a water supply, above the dam is a very long portion of another creek that feeds the lake and is open to fishing.

Make sense?
If it does to you I would like to understand it too

 

[Camp]

I think the help posted the wrong end of the dam. Nothing else makes much sense.

 

[dryflyguy]

Ive fished below three army corp reservoirs in northwest pa.
Two of them - shenango and east branch clarion - you can wade up and fish right at the outflow.
Kinzua - as mentioned before - no.
Now, kinzua does have hydro electric. Maybe that's the difference?

 

[tomitrout]

How does closing down fisherpeople access to a catwalk prevent someone intent on damaging a dam from damaging it? I'm not arguing that the power companies (and their lawyers) don't have the power to close access to reduce company liability (of some form or another - prevent slip and fall on a banana peel, maybe?), but doing so under the guise of preventing terrorism is nothing more than security theater. It doesn't significantly reduce the real threat to a dam, only the perceived threat held by a gullible public.

I agree, if somebody wants to do harm, they'll find a way. But shutting down access across the board does significantly reduce the costs and logistics involved with 'securing' the site. When you shut off access it's a lot easier to pick out the 'bad hombres' while sitting in the guard shack watching the camera feeds...

 

[Broodstock]

The yough you can fish close to the outflow.

The place that I would like to fish is below the dam at the Quemahoning Reservoir. It seems to me it's almost unfishable where you are allowed to fish at the flows I've seen the couple times I was there. It's 3-5 deep with a bath tub like bed. Need a craft and that only looks like you could get in at the bridge about a half mile below the dam. It's a short stretch from there to where it dumps into Stoneycreek

You can fish the outflow at the Loyalhanna dam

Below the Que, earlier this summer I walked all the way up to where the pipe spits out, on the bank between the bottom release and the spillway. It was very low, but that trough looked super fishy. I nymphed and threw streamers and didnt hook anything. I didn’t see any signs except warning about potential water rises in the spillway side. I fished the whole stream all the way down to the first bridge. Caught a few stocked browns and bows in the channel flow improvements. Not many fish in there from what I saw. Has a lot of potential and great access with mowed paths.

 

[vern]

Below the Que, earlier this summer I walked all the way up to where the pipe spits out, on the bank between the bottom release and the spillway. It was very low, but that trough looked super fishy. I nymphed and threw streamers and didnt hook anything. I didn’t see any signs except warning about potential water rises in the spillway side. I fished the whole stream all the way down to the first bridge. Caught a few stocked browns and bows in the channel flow improvements. Not many fish in there from what I saw. Has a lot of potential and great access with mowed paths.

Read through posting.
My experience is that water authorities try to eliminate public access to sections of a reservoir, especially outflow areas. These are areas where pumps are located for the water authorities.
In just checking the management of the Que, it is a two-county public water authority. The Cambria- Somerset Authority.
(https://www.cambriasomersetwater.com/about-us)

The DeHart and other public water reservoirs have been switched over to American Water Co. for management.

Some of the outflows that had provided wild trout populations and/or stocking have been eliminated as trout water by the Fish Commission, and thus, the American Water Co. does not have to maintain a sufficient release flow to maintain the aquatic life in the outflow.

The American Water Co. is a national company. (https://www.amwater.com)

The Army Corps of Engineers and other entities that manage dams that permit access to outflow seem to be those dams that were approved federally, post 1936 flood.
In Berks County, the Blue Marsh dam was authorized for flood protection, then added on public recreational uses as a merit for construction.


The dams were built to prevent flooding of businesses and populations downstream, not for water sourcing.

Being followed by government agents/employees while fishing the upper Clarks Creek just above the dam definitely seemed out of order, because that water did get some pretty big breeder trout for spawning.

However, I suspect that protecting the water supply for the state capital is sufficient excuse for having government employees acting as guards.

 

[AndyP]

There's a fishing platform beneath the largest hydro plant in the northeast (2500+ megawats). I was skipping school salmon fishing on 9/11 (it was a Friday and I was a sr in high school), guys in suits came on the pier that morning and kicked everyone out and told them to turn on the radio or TV to see what was going on.

Pretty crazy day. The pier has been opened ever since, sometimes it closes for maintenance. As far as power plants, this one provides power to NYC so it has to be on the top of the list as a potential target. There is a pretty rough crowd on the pier, but its amazing what gets caught there regularly. SMB, Yellow Pike, Muskie, Northern Pike, Lake Trout, Brown Trout, Kings, Cohos, Steelhead, Atlantics, Sturgeon. Plus huge trash fish like carp, suckers, and sheepshead. Pretty much anything that swims in Lake Ontario can be caught at that pier throughout the year. Unfortunately, fly fishing really isn't an option there.

Hate to be that guy...but 9/11/2001 was a Tuesday.....

 

[vern]

FYI: American Water Co. OWNS these water supplies.

The reasoning for transferring ownership from public to private can be considered to have several highlighted areas.
Eliminating local taxes that support local ownership and management of water supply; having investors install updated equipment without using documented tax use.

HOWEVER ... the price of water in your water bill will continue to increase!

Let's see. Water customers share taxes to manage water supply; or water customers have to deal with a non-governmental company that is not as restricted as government, and then let everyone in the community buy their own water ... if they can.

(Decisions made to sell off a community's water supply require a great benefit to a few, and the support and ignorance of the general public. Much as everything else political.)

The maintenance and consideration of any ecological protection - other than reducing water cleansing needs - is non-existent in reality, even if government does regulate.

I would never consider that American Water Co. would ever put protecting a sustainable wild trout population before profit.

So, I would also suspect, as I have witnessed with a specific American Water Co. now-owned water source that the Fish Commission has eliminated for protection.

I always did have fun catching the native brookies below an area water source dam. They still exist in much less population, but the extremity of release flows has pretty much devastated the stream for a diverse and sustainable population of aquatic life. (Mosquitoes enjoy it more and more.)

That's my take.

 

[Silent Ocelot]

I wholeheartedly believe that all water should be restricted to all fishermen with me being the only exception.

 

[troutbert]

Some of the outflows that had provided wild trout populations and/or stocking have been eliminated as trout water by the Fish Commission, and thus, the American Water Co. does not have to maintain a sufficient release flow to maintain the aquatic life in the outflow.

Where has this occurred? And what is mean by "eliminated as trout water by the Fish Commision?"

And is it really true that "the American Water Co. does not have to maintain a sufficient release flow to maintain the aquatic life in the outflow?"

Don't they have a legal obligation to maintain a sufficient release flow to maintain aquatic life regardless of whether it's a trout stream or warmwater stream?

 

[Swattie87]

I wholeheartedly believe that all water should be restricted to all fishermen with me being the only exception.

Sounds like you have a honey hole somewhere.

 

[vern]

Where has this occurred? And what is mean by "eliminated as trout water by the Fish Commision?"

And is it really true that "the American Water Co. does not have to maintain a sufficient release flow to maintain the aquatic life in the outflow?"

Don't they have a legal obligation to maintain a sufficient release flow to maintain aquatic life regardless of whether it's a trout stream or warmwater stream?

There is a minimum release flow requirement.

It's been observed and told to me that the released flow at this particular water reservoir at times doesn't become surface water.

In other words, when there's drought, the released water is cut back to as little as required by the government.
As close as possible to the least amount of water released.

And there may be an occasional violation.

In the past such information was available to the public on state agency websites.
Don't expect to get too much information about the water companies. Not at what's available easily. Unless it's changed - and it very well may have - there is/was an information request process that needs to be followed to gain access to additional information.

As far as a legal obligation to maintain aquatic habitat in the released flow, don't know exactly enough to state such as 100 percent.
However, consider that, in this case, a legal obligation is the approval process via certifications and approved programs and operating limits as created by government agencies, as prescribed by the legislature.

What I saw on the state websites surmised the water company's operation and its concerns.
Fulfilling the needs of the customer base is seemingly first and foremost the concern.
There's also that cost of cleaning up the water enough to get it accepted as drinking water.

The cleaner the water is in the first place, the less money needed for filtering.

For the American Water Co., it has changed from the municipality's system.

The municipality sourced most of its public water supply from a large stream.
It used its reservoir as backup. The reservoir water source has native brook trout and pickerel.

However, American Water Co. explained on the state documents, in summary, that the reservoir water posed less of a risk of toxins than the large stream water.
True.

However, the reservoir isn't really large enough to supply all the existing customers, nor the growing demand created by "developments".

Water that's already pretty clean is the money maker.

Nothing's coming out of there during dry times than must come out.

Sorry. Gone on too long with this.
But check it out.
I need to double check if it was the biologists with the Fish and Boat Commission or another agency that deemed the stream is determined to be essentially incapable of supporting trout. It may be more expansive than that.
A project for another day.
But one I will pursue.

 

[JeffP]

FYI: American Water Co. OWNS these water supplies.

The reasoning for transferring ownership from public to private can be considered to have several highlighted areas.
Eliminating local taxes that support local ownership and management of water supply; having investors install updated equipment without using documented tax use.

HOWEVER ... the price of water in your water bill will continue to increase!

Let's see. Water customers share taxes to manage water supply; or water customers have to deal with a non-governmental company that is not as restricted as government, and then let everyone in the community buy their own water ... if they can.

(Decisions made to sell off a community's water supply require a great benefit to a few, and the support and ignorance of the general public. Much as everything else political.)

The maintenance and consideration of any ecological protection - other than reducing water cleansing needs - is non-existent in reality, even if government does regulate.

I would never consider that American Water Co. would ever put protecting a sustainable wild trout population before profit.

So, I would also suspect, as I have witnessed with a specific American Water Co. now-owned water source that the Fish Commission has eliminated for protection.

I always did have fun catching the native brookies below an area water source dam. They still exist in much less population, but the extremity of release flows has pretty much devastated the stream for a diverse and sustainable population of aquatic life. (Mosquitoes enjoy it more and more.)

That's my take.

My wife's sister and her husband both work for American Water. What a horrible company! I could tell stories. A perfect example of why we need unions. They just sit there and take it. And hate unions.

 

[vern]

Still haven't concentrated on pursuing the accuracy of the locals' claim that the Fish Commission declared the dam's release stream too uninhabitable for concern.

I asked a source of the local information to repeat his statement and to provide more detail.

He now states that the declaration of the dam's release flow as unsuitable for trout was made by the Fish Commission many years ago, when the Commission was undergoing an inventory, as it were, of streams suitable for stocking trout.

The existence of the relatively healthy native brook trout population in the outlet stream apparently didn't negate other factors calling for the removal of the stream for stocking by the Fish Commission.

From my own experience, at the time, a number of small streams, many with native and wild trout populations, were removed from the stocking water list.

Some because they weren't actually suitable for stocking for public use, due to a very small flow.
Some for other, seemingly very reasonable purposes.

The promoted and seemingly logical reasoning for doing so at that time was to protect the wild and native populations.

(The cynical take is that the Fish Commission was losing money because fewer people were buying licenses, landowners were closing off public access, and the cost of raising and hauling was getting more
expensive. Eliminating mileage of stocking and man-hours would seemingly reduce operational costs for the Commission. As well as closing hatcheries. Also, the Fish Commission was being changed into the Fish and Boat Commission, due to the advent of DUI and the Commission's acceptance of law enforcement responsibility for policing and enforcing under the influence boating on public waters.)

Back to the 1990s and the elimination of stocking certain waters with hatchery fish.

Under consideration at that time was the risk of introducing disease, lack of flow suitable for general public recreation, and severe behavioral stress on the wild fish.

Trout bred and selected specifically for production in raceway facilities do not have the behavioral characteristics necessary to survive in a natural state.

Introduced into a wild trout "stream", the presence of stocked trout can cause severe negative affects on the wild fish.

What they do affect is:
- the long-term survival of the wild fish in the natural stream in which the food is limited and of which the wild trout population is reflected;
- the potential introduction of diseases for which the stocked trout strains are resistant;
- the immediate survival of wild fish because of the extreme amount of energy used to interact with the stocked fish (it's a territorial and population ranking thing wild trout use, but stocked trout are completely oblivious);
- the health and condition of the immediate stream bank/flood plain condition - plants, paths and trash.

Much of this was conducted during the 1990s.

E.g., Segloch Creek, which emanates from the state game lands surrounding Middlecreek Wildlife Refuge and flows south.

As many know, it holds a wild brown trout population and brookies.

A coworker of mine who owned a cabin property on the stream complained to me about the Fish Commission ceasing to stock the stream.

I explained the protections and support for sustainability it would provide for the wild sustainable trout population.
I also explained that the stream banks would regrow with natural vegetation and appear more pleasant year-round with elimination of the April opening day-to-Mother's Day onslaught damage caused by the masses.
I also surmised that it was likely that some native bird and animal populations may retake or otherwise repopulate.

It did significantly decrease public fishing and stream bank damage.

When it was annually stocked, during the 1970s and 1980s, it was sometimes very difficult to find parking or access to any of the limited pools of water deep enough to hold the pods of larger stocked trout.
That was usually for two- to four weeks of opening season.

I used to flyfish it all summer and fall and had the stream to myself.

Although I haven't fished it for some time, I can pass on that within several years of cessation of stocking trout, the wild browns were larger and more numerous.

Nice looking wild browns.

So.
American Water doesn't have to release anything but the very, very, very minimum. And I would not expect it nor any other similar commercial company to ever do so.
Seemingly reasonably, American Water should be expected to function as a completely capitalistic, profit-only entity selling potable water back to the general public. Period.

FYI. I do like fishing outlets! Never know what is going to show up!

 

[caddisflyer]

I used to do a lot of fishing near Safe Harbor Dam in Lancaster County. Growing up we could fish everything there. Now much of the area near the dam is fenced off and posted. A new company took over and has posted a lot of the land all around there. The Railroad has posted a bunch also. Besides them taking away access they have also run the outflow like never before. They will release or hold back water in ways that make the Conestoga River (which enters the Susquehanna just downstream from dam) run backwards for several miles. This has definitely messed up the fishing in that whole area. Experiencing this one place since the early 1970s on I find it all to be sad and tragic. The night fishing at the mouth of Conestoga there was a very unique experience in days gone by. Of course it is all closed down now.

 

[salmo]

Hopefully not too far off topic, but fewer dams less restrictions on access.