Voluntary Fishing Permits

[salvelinusfontinalis]

That said. No, i think that culvert could be passed by brook trout. However the statement said they removed 3 but only took a picture of the one.
I have never fished there but you have. Were there other 2 culverts bigger and impassable?

 

[troutbert]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
That said. No, i think that culvert could be passed by brook trout. However the statement said they removed 3 but only took a picture of the one.
I have never fished there but you have. Were there other 2 culverts bigger and impassable?

I don't remember whether the other culverts were impassable or not.

My comment was about the culvert in the photo.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Right.
I just trying to point out that before we call out deception it would be nice to know.

 

[troutbert]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
Dwight im confused by your statement.
As an example, there are brook trout in each of the three sections on Glen Okono. Brook trout sure cant pass those 3 waterfalls.


Do you not think this project made brook trout migration easier for the fish?

Here is what I wrote:

---------------------------------

"Removing these barriers opened up 4.3 miles of brook trout habitat."

I fished this stream before the project. There were brook trout way upstream above the culverts.

They should strive for accuracy when describing these projects.

--------------------------------

How do you think most readers would interpret their description?:

"Removing these barriers opened up 4.3 miles of brook trout habitat."

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I have no idea.
There are people who think birds arent real. I cannot fathom how most readers would interpret it.

I can only speak for myself. Knowing you can have impassable barriers and brook trout isolated on one side of it, i took it as they are now connected.
Im going to assume the best out of the group rather than the worst.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I asked them point blank. We will see the response.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

If you look at the first picture you can see water flowing over top if the pre existing culvert/ cartway. This is a pretty telling point that the inlet of the structure is blocked with debris. Why be so skeptical? You you consistently promote removing old infrastructure such as trails and logging roads from the floodway. This project improved fish passage and natural stream channel functions by removing 3 failed crossings that were not needed. I would say thats a win for the trout.

 

[tomgamber]

Prospector wrote:
Tom, My apologies to your son. I guess that old adage about assuming came back to bite me.

I told him about your response and he laughed. He tells the story about the locals in Carlisle that would drive by in a "diesel for no reason" and whistle and cat call him until he'd turn around they'd just roll up the window.

Prospector wrote:
Is he interested in going the actuarial route? I was a math minor in college and the math majors all seemed to go that route. The insurance companies are pretty easy to identify but I have a few more ideas depending on the answer. You can just PM me if needed.

I'll PM you at some point, thanks

TB and Sal, thanks for explaining that better. sorry for the sidebar.

 

[Swattie87]

I think the culvert in the picture was likely passable in the flows in the picture. But that's just a snapshot in time in terms of the flow. I wonder about right now...Streams that size in NC PA under these conditions are a dribble, at most. Fish will survive in the pools, but it may be hard to discern any surface flow.

It's very possible to read the comment as it was written at face value IMO...

"Removing these barriers opened up 4.3 miles of brook trout habitat."

It could reasonably be read to mean that removing the culverts allowed continuous passage to fish over that 4.3 miles. Not necessarily implying that there weren't fish above the culvert before. I don't have any problem with how that was written...Having never fished there, but knowing the area well, I likely would have assumed there were fish above and below the culvert beforehand, but removing it would likely ease fish passage between sections of the stream.

Potentially at a cost of physical habitat in the pool removal that the culvert formed however. It's a balance between the two. Fish need to be able to migrate, but small stream Trout also need deep pools that hold sufficient water in times like now. Culvert pools are often good for that, and many (like the one pictured here) are likely passable in higher or moderate flows, but may not be in the low flows of late Summer.

 

[coyoterahn]

Swattie87 wrote:


Potentially at a cost of physical habitat in the pool removal that the culvert formed however. It's a balance between the two. Fish need to be able to migrate, but small stream Trout also need deep pools that hold sufficient water in times like now. Culvert pools are often good for that, and many (like the one pictured here) are likely passable in higher or moderate flows, but may not be in the low flows of late Summer.

Swattie,
I ran into a situation at my camp early this summer. Camp is on State Forest land. The DCNR contracted a bunch of road repairs on the various dirt roads throughout the state forest land. One of the repairs was fixing a washed portion of the road at an existing culvert. The very small stream at this culvert holds a nice population of native bookies both above and below the culvert. On the downstream side of the culvert the water flows out of the pipe straight down about 10-12 feet and forms a very nice deep pool. When they repaired the road, they COMPLETELY filled the pool with crushed rock completely eliminating this nice pool. It really was a dumb decision on someone’s part to do this at the cost of the trout that holed up there especially during low flows exactly like we have now.

 

[troutbert]

coyoterahn wrote:

Swattie87 wrote:


Potentially at a cost of physical habitat in the pool removal that the culvert formed however. It's a balance between the two. Fish need to be able to migrate, but small stream Trout also need deep pools that hold sufficient water in times like now. Culvert pools are often good for that, and many (like the one pictured here) are likely passable in higher or moderate flows, but may not be in the low flows of late Summer.

Swattie,
I ran into a situation at my camp early this summer. Camp is on State Forest land. The DCNR contracted a bunch of road repairs on the various dirt roads throughout the state forest land. One of the repairs was fixing a washed portion of the road at an existing culvert. The very small stream at this culvert holds a nice population of native bookies both above and below the culvert. On the downstream side of the culvert the water flows out of the pipe straight down about 10-12 feet and forms a very nice deep pool. When they repaired the road, they COMPLETELY filled the pool with crushed rock completely eliminating this nice pool. It really was a dumb decision on someone’s part to do this at the cost of the trout that holed up there especially during low flows exactly like we have now.

I saw the same thing done near where I live, on a small stream that flows under a highway. The water flows over a concrete sill, and carved out a large pool. It was completely filled in with rocks.

The reason they do that is surely to prevent damage from the water undercutting the support of the structure.

But maybe there is a better way. Ideally we could have: 1) stable structures 2) fish passage 3) pool habitat 4) grade control.

That's not too much to ask, is it? Are there any engineers in the house?

 

[maxima12]

Support Fish Commission and see the Great Achievements! It is time!

What you waiting for, Tomorrow! "I hope i see it". Another great day in Pa.! Love it!, How bout you Slim!

Maxima12