PA Tail Waters

[TheBluegillMaster]

If a tailwater were to be created, I’d urge for tributary streams that contain wild trout to have some sort of barrier to keep the tailwater fish out. I’m just a kid, and I don’t know how the gunpowder was “back in the day”, but I read in many places that there used to be brookies in a bunch of tributaries, and the creation of the tailwater lead to many brown trout moving up the tributaries, displacing the brook trout. The situation is even worse for the brookies there because it’s a somewhat urban area too. Just some thoughts. Also, how deep would a dam have to be in order to have cold enough trout temperatures?

 

[LehighRegular]

The depth of a reservoir for a tailwater would depend on a large variety of variables. At a minimum the reservoir would need to be deep enough to produce a thermocline in the lake. The volume of water below the thermocline would need to be able to sustain a release of cold/cool water for a period of time (usually the summer months).

 

[silverfox]

Disclaimer: I'm not sure about all this, but...

I heard or read Army Corps Dams built after a certain date are managed with run of the river temps, per policy. Run of the river temps means same temps going out of the dam as in the river above the reservoir. The goal is not have the dam and reservoir impact the water temperatures.

Some dams that were cold tailwaters before this date were "grandfathered in" and continue to manage for coldwater fisheries.

I called the Corps regarding Kinzua Dam and Sayers Dam (Bald Eagle Creek) and both said they manage for run-of-the-river temps. I either read or heard that Raystown Dam also manages for run-of-the-river temps.

I either heard or read that the dam on the Youghiogheny does not have the gear to finesse their flows. So they run very cold water until they run out, then you get warm water flowing in late summer and early fall. I once took a temperature of 80F at Ohiopyle.

Exactly, and this ties into the other comments about ACOE's budget. I turned down a job with ACOE last year (in Portland, OR) and, through the interview process, learned that most of their budget (over $2B if I recall correctly) is to reconfigure projects to allow for fish passage. Their priorities are to reduce the impact of the projects on natural river systems, not further alter the systems to provide unnatural conditions.

It's interesting seeing the mindset of anglers regarding impoundments. Out west, the goal is to remove dams (or modify them for passage) to benefit native anadromous salmonids. Here we have people who would probably support daming up more rivers if it meant creating more artificial fisheries. To hell with eels, shad, stripers, or anything else that lacks dark spots I guess.

 

[Mike]

Exactly, and this ties into the other comments about ACOE's budget. I turned down a job with ACOE last year (in Portland, OR) and, through the interview process, learned that most of their budget (over $2B if I recall correctly) is to reconfigure projects to allow for fish passage. Their priorities are to reduce the impact of the projects on natural river systems, not further alter the systems to provide unnatural conditions.

It's interesting seeing the mindset of anglers regarding impoundments. Out west, the goal is to remove dams (or modify them for passage) to benefit native anadromous salmonids. Here we have people who would probably support daming up more rivers if it meant creating more artificial fisheries. To hell with eels, shad, stripers, or anything else that lacks dark spots I guess.

Regarding your second paragraph, last two sentences, I think the mentality upon which you are speculating, probably with good reason, would be different if the species in the east were salmon instead. I have spent multiple times in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, British Columbia, and Alberta on personal trips and have visited some of the dams and their fish passage facilities/hatcheries. As a result I have done a fair amount of reading in the scientific lit associated with salmon issues and the Columbia R drainage and on occasion have spoken to the locals and made professionally tuned observations regarding the topic from the mouth to the headwaters. I even got chewed out on a mountain top hike by a salmon loving angler because I was a fisheries biologist despite the fact that I worked in the east! All I said was that I was a fisheries biologist. They take their salmon seriously!

The general public from a very young age in the east is exposed to fish migration via videos, tv programs, elementary ed, and ads showing pics or clips of salmon runs, but there is little direct or indirect education about our own runs. After all, our migrants don’t leap into falls or get snatched in mid-air by bears. Most except for some ethnic groups couldn’t care less about eels and furthermore, unlike in Europe where smoked eels are commonly sold in open air markets, they’re seldom seen in the U.S. except in major city fish markets. As for shad, most have probably never heard of them and of those who have, 99% have probably heard that they are no good to eat (a falsehood in my view because those who say that have probably never had shad cakes made like crab cakes). As for striped bass, few individuals have any idea that they are blocked by dams. The general public, if even aware of them, sees them as an ocean species and doesn’t know that they spawn in fresh water. Even less individuals know that they use rivers above the spawning grounds for considerable distances (at least 100 mi) as nursery waters for up to three years, migrating back and forth each year. My speculation on this is in part based on a long career working with these three species and speaking with the public and anglers about them. I have a great professional and personal fondness for all three.

 

[dryflyguy]

Exactly, and this ties into the other comments about ACOE's budget. I turned down a job with ACOE last year (in Portland, OR) and, through the interview process, learned that most of their budget (over $2B if I recall correctly) is to reconfigure projects to allow for fish passage. Their priorities are to reduce the impact of the projects on natural river systems, not further alter the systems to provide unnatural conditions.

It's interesting seeing the mindset of anglers regarding impoundments. Out west, the goal is to remove dams (or modify them for passage) to benefit native anadromous salmonids. Here we have people who would probably support daming up more rivers if it meant creating more artificial fisheries. To hell with eels, shad, stripers, or anything else that lacks dark spots I guess.

I assume you've never fished the upper Delaware system.
People are still fishing for eels, stripers, and shad all the way up to, and around Hancock.
So I don't think that fishery has gone to "hell"

As for dams:

The tailwaters I fish were constructed for some pretty good reasons.
Drinking water and flood control. With one - Kinzua - providing hydro power too

Maybe you don't think these to be worthwhile reasons.
However, these dams are already there. I really doubt they're gonna go anywhere now.
Fish passage modifications would be great to see, though.

The Delaware, Allegheny, Clarion, and Youghiogheny rivers still seem to be fine WW fisheries over the vast majority of their lengths

And no, I wouldn't be for building any new dams just to have another tailwater

 

[silverfox]

Regarding your second paragraph, last two sentences, I think the mentality upon which you are speculating, probably with good reason, would be different if the species in the east were salmon instead. I have spent multiple times in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, British Columbia, and Alberta on personal trips and have visited some of the dams and their fish passage facilities/hatcheries. As a result I have done a fair amount of reading in the scientific lit associated with salmon issues and the Columbia R drainage and on occasion have spoken to the locals and made professionally tuned observations regarding the topic from the mouth to the headwaters. I even got chewed out on a mountain top hike by a salmon loving angler because I was a fisheries biologist despite the fact that I worked in the east! All I said was that I was a fisheries biologist. They take their salmon seriously!

I agree. Even out west, where the dams might impede native nongame fish but create trout fisheries (Hebgen?), people would prefer the trout fishery over maintaining temp/flows/passage for nongame fish, even when those nongame fish (Humpback chub) are endangered (or threatened). To the point where I bet a lot of the same people calling for the removal of the Snake dams are all for making sure Hebgen doesn't break again. It's all about the trout.

The general public from a very young age in the east is exposed to fish migration via videos, tv programs, elementary ed, and ads showing pics or clips of salmon runs, but there is little direct or indirect education about our own runs. After all, our migrants don’t leap into falls or get snatched in mid-air by bears. Most except for some ethnic groups couldn’t care less about eels and furthermore, unlike in Europe where smoked eels are commonly sold in open air markets, they’re seldom seen in the U.S. except in major city fish markets. As for shad, most have probably never heard of them and of those who have, 99% have probably heard that they are no good to eat (a falsehood in my view because those who say that have probably never had shad cakes made like crab cakes). As for striped bass, few individuals have any idea that they are blocked by dams. The general public, if even aware of them, sees them as an ocean species and doesn’t know that they spawn in fresh water. Even less individuals know that they use rivers above the spawning grounds for considerable distances (at least 100 mi) as nursery waters for up to three years, migrating back and forth each year. My speculation on this is in part based on a long career working with these three species and speaking with the public and anglers about them. I have a great professional and personal fondness for all three.

Agreed again. Lack of education. It's ironic with the shad since that's one of the reasons the PFBC was created in the first place. It would be great to see more education about the benefits of native species assemblages. i.e. the benefit of elvers as a food source, adults for freshwater mussels, and the benefits to the ecosystems as a whole.

 

[Roofin' Trouter]

Are there any natural lakes in PA?

 

[silverfox]

I assume you've never fished the upper Delaware system.
People are still fishing for eels, stripers, and shad all the way up to, and around Hancock.
So I don't think that fishery has gone to "hell"

As for dams:

The tailwaters I fish were constructed for some pretty good reasons.
Drinking water and flood control. With one - Kinzua - providing hydro power too

Maybe you don't think these to be worthwhile reasons.
However, these dams are already there. I really doubt they're gonna go anywhere now.
Fish passage modifications would be great to see, though.

The Delaware, Allegheny, Clarion, and Youghiogheny rivers still seem to be fine WW fisheries over the vast majority of their lengths

And no, I wouldn't be for building any new dams just to have another tailwater

I've caught shad (while trout fishing) in the upper D myself and targeted shad down in Philipsburg NJ. The trout are the focus for "most" anglers on the Delaware though. I'll admit I'm speculating here, but from the shad guide's thoughts on the support for shad today (declined from 10 years ago) I suspect I'm correct. Sure those species can get up to the dams today, but they would go beyond the dams if they weren't there. So it's not like they've had no impact either.

I'm not suggesting these projects don't have value. The point is that ACOE, and the money, is about mitigating the impacts of their existence as opposed to spending that money on modifying the projects to further manipulate the downstream environments. It's why Raystown will never be a coldwater fishery regardless of whether people convince Tim Schaeffer to advocate for it or not.

 

[dryflyguy]

Are there any natural lakes in PA?

Conneaut for one- which is also the largest in the state I believe

 

[Mike]

Conneaut for one- which is also the largest in the state I believe

Other select NW and extreme NE Pa lakes due to glaciation.

 

[dryflyguy]

On eating shad:
Before Mike's post, I've never heard anyone else say that they can be good to eat.

And have heard the old joke about them many times:
"The best way to eat shad, is to cook it on a plank. When done, throw the shad away, and eat the plank"

 

[CRB]

Are there any natural lakes in PA?

Lake Erie

 

[brookieteeth]

On eating shad:
Before Mike's post, I've never heard anyone else say that they can be good to eat.

And have heard the old joke about them many times:
"The best way to eat shad, is to cook it on a plank. When done, throw the shad away, and eat the plank"

shad are tasty, but very, very bony, which accounts for their bad rep. The key is to bake them- the bones are soft, and they dissolve.

Filleting shad is a specialized skill. In Maryland fish markets, boned shad costs about ten times the price of unboned shad.

Same with pickerel- the key is to skin them, and then cut the meat off the bones in strips. Pickerel are good tasting, if they're from clean water and they're skinned.

 

[jayxman]

The bass population supposedly crashed.

I think the bass fishing is amazing here. That would be something to see if before it crashed.

 

[jayxman]

Are there any natural lakes in PA?

Conneaut Lake

 

[bringthepain]

On eating shad:
Before Mike's post, I've never heard anyone else say that they can be good to eat.

And have heard the old joke about them many times:
"The best way to eat shad, is to cook it on a plank. When done, throw the shad away, and eat the plank"

I caught some around Narrowsburg 10 years ago in august. cooked em over a fire in some foil with lemon and butter and just kind of carefully slid the meat off the bones with a fork, it was really good

 

[sixfootfenwick]

If a tailwater were to be created, I’d urge for tributary streams that contain wild trout to have some sort of barrier to keep the tailwater fish out. I’m just a kid, and I don’t know how the gunpowder was “back in the day”, but I read in many places that there used to be brookies in a bunch of tributaries, and the creation of the tailwater lead to many brown trout moving up the tributaries, displacing the brook trout. The situation is even worse for the brookies there because it’s a somewhat urban area too. Just some thoughts. Also, how deep would a dam have to be in order to have cold enough trout temperatures?

👏

 

[krayfish2]

It’s not an excuse; it’s logical. These lake fisheries are quite valuable too. When I was a PFBC AFM I never heard that “excuse” mentioned once, but I would also add that there are safety considerations and facility design limitations for boaters and skiers to consider if a discharge regimen lowers lake surface levels.

I had two tail-race coldwater fisheries and no potential others. I had no concerns about depletion of cold water at that time in Lake Marburg/Codorus Ck and I clearly had that problem to deal with at Blue Marsh/Tulpehocken Ck when we (ACOE and me) tried different discharge regimens over a few years that would produce the best longer term temps that we could get.

I'll use Cannonsville on the upper D as an example.....
The lake has quality perch, panfish, bass and trout fisheries. The lake is also filled with alewives. By fall, this lake is routinely run down to <50%. Just a few years ago, it was closing in on 20% capacity by October 1. In spite of the regular lake dewaterings, you can catch smallmouth averaging 3+ pounds, brown trout 2-10 pounds and fill 5 gallon buckets with perch.

You give the reasoning for lakes not bottom releasing is due to the value of the lake fishery and not wanting to wreck the lake fishery.

How are they able to run that reservoir dam near dry and still have a extremely high quality fishery in the lake? Doesn't that go against what you've claimed?

 

[LehighRegular]

I'll use Cannonsville on the upper D as an example.....
The lake has quality perch, panfish, bass and trout fisheries. The lake is also filled with alewives. By fall, this lake is routinely run down to <50%. Just a few years ago, it was closing in on 20% capacity by October 1. In spite of the regular lake dewaterings, you can catch smallmouth averaging 3+ pounds, brown trout 2-10 pounds and fill 5 gallon buckets with perch.

You give the reasoning for lakes not bottom releasing is due to the value of the lake fishery and not wanting to wreck the lake fishery.

How are they able to run that reservoir dam near dry and still have a extremely high quality fishery in the lake? Doesn't that go against what you've claimed?

Kray.... Cannonsville is huge. Even at 50% there is still a significant amount of coldwater and two tier fishery. I'd say, some lakes you can do that, some you can't. Really comes down to amount of storage available to the fishery(s).

 

[Oregon_OwlII]

On eating shad:
Before Mike's post, I've never heard anyone else say that they can be good to eat.

And have heard the old joke about them many times:
"The best way to eat shad, is to cook it on a plank. When done, throw the shad away, and eat the plank"

Shad are delicious in my book. You used to be able to buy fillets and roe in super markets, but that was more than 30 years ago. Fileting a shad is an art. The bone structure is very weird, but it can be done. The best fish mongers I came across worked at the Reading Terminal Market. I doubt any of those fish stands are still there.