|
Post by NickConwall on Feb 12, 2013 18:27:47 GMT -5
" blast/demolition of the entire dam leaving the large debris to act as a natural fish ladder" Nope - still need an eel proof ascent and way to weed out any other undesirables - what I had envisioned is leaving the lower section of the dam, ( *see below photo), the breakwater portion, intact and then leveling the upper portion into boulder & riprap size chunks creating a section of rapids above & behind the lower section. The lower segment would act as a vertical barrier to the eels and other non-native species and the above newly created "rock rapids" would also aid in this purpose. In addition to this I am sure any measure would include the use of lampricide in the lower sections to help rid the system of them at least to a point where fish mortality is not significant. Competition for food by natural yoy little guys vs. lake fish little guys would be my only concern.- as to this point I think this is where my aforementioned "wish list" study would come into play. I do think that over time Mother Nature would provide a sort of equilibrium to the system. I am not suggesting their wouldn't be completion amongst them but I do think that the far upper reaches of the Catt. system and her various tribs would be relatively safe from over population & competition due to factors such as their distance, and lower, warmer water temps. found in these tribs. I of course may be totally wrong on that point but I feel pretty confident that nature would balance herself out and over time we could have a fantastic fishery...... now all we have to do is address all of the other issues that hinder the system, ie: riparian degradation, bank erosion coupled with stream widening which increase water temp's, etc. etc. * image showing idea for using lower portion as vertical barrier -Scoby Hill dam as is...
|
|
|
Post by michaelrowland on Feb 12, 2013 20:54:16 GMT -5
Growing up in Michigan and seeing this type of project done, I can assure you that there are a multitude of fantastic trout fisheries where migratory fish coexist with resident trout magnificently. One only needs to look at the Pere Marquette in MI to see that a great steelhead river can coexist with a great trout fishery. The PM is one of the best trout fisheries in the state of MI, if not the entire country. The PM was never dammed, but rivers like the Boardman have seen benefits without damage to natural trout stocks. In fact, I urge any of you to find a river that has had a dam removed in the Great Lakes were the new steelhead/salmon out competed and damaged the native trout numbers. I am unaware of any, and there has been a great deal of water opened to migratory fish through dam removal over the last decade.
This is a debate that has been addressed in neighboring Great Lakes states ad nasuam, and I can assure you that there is a great deal of scientific studies that show the benefits dam removal provides is much greater than any of the downsides (usually short term). Furthermore, migratory fish offer an amazing amount of benefits to trout through increased food sources of eggs (can't tell you how many trophy MI browns I have caught puking up salmon eggs) and decaying fish matter. When I'm not on my phone, I'll provide some of this data for everyone.
That being said, my concern would be opening up additional sections of river to increased traffic during spawning seasons. If there is not closed seasons during the spawning runs, we will undoubtably see more foot traffic in sections of river (and small spawning Tribs) that normally saw none. This is what would be damaging to wild trout, not the inclusion of migratory fish themselves. I think removing the dam would need to be paired with new regulations for the upper spawning waters. Without them, I believe that it would be a net negative for the ecosystem.
I haven't lived here long, so my input may be out of line. If so, my apologies, but this is home for me now too. So I hope my thoughts are appreciated if not at least merited.
|
|
|
Post by MartyRomeo on Feb 12, 2013 22:28:12 GMT -5
Screw 'em all. Restore the native char or bust.
|
|
|
Post by bobtulowiecki on Feb 13, 2013 6:56:15 GMT -5
As far as competition for food between your inland trout and the lake run, wouldn't the presence of eggs from the spawning fish add a food source for the inland trout?
I am more worried about the silt (and the chemicals in it) that has been packed into the dam for so many years and what will happen when it is released
|
|
|
Post by Nick Pionessa on Feb 13, 2013 7:05:11 GMT -5
i hope you guys are also planning on sending your opinions on to the ACE, that's the important part.
MR i totally agree with your post and your thought are very welcome especially since you do not have the emotional connection to this fishery. to me the big condition is weather they put real regs upstream. given the way the DEC sees fisheries ($$$$$) i wouldn't count on it.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Welch on Feb 13, 2013 7:49:15 GMT -5
given the way the DEC sees fisheries ($$$$$) i wouldn't count on it. Bingo.
|
|
|
Post by joemecca on Feb 13, 2013 9:22:03 GMT -5
I expected more from Mr Welch. I think everyone is overlooking the most important piece of information buried in the tables at the end: the freshwater drum is listed as an imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act.
|
|
|
Post by MartyRomeo on Feb 13, 2013 10:10:49 GMT -5
Nick,
It WAS tongue-in-cheek after all...but I'm by no means an idealist when it comes to the Catt drainage and fontinalis. Though I'm not a frequent fisher of the Catt (lower or upper), I think the biggest "barrier" will come in the form of regulatory wants and realities. More regs = more enforecement = more $$$. Ultimately it depends on how those $$$ are extracted (licenses, taxes, fees, etc.).
Because this is already a highly artificial circumstance, I see no reason why opening up the upper drainage would be detrimental. LOTS more biomass in the upper drainage (aside from eggs and decaying flesh consumed BY fish) would be excellent for BUGS, which means better for FISH. How regs, enforcement and payment for said enforcement shakes out, I bet that will be the greatest determinant of this proposal going anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Andy Dietrich on Feb 13, 2013 10:56:43 GMT -5
Love to see these talks going on. Up where I am we have been having this discussion for years on a popular tributary. Some groups don't want migratory fish in the headwaters and some do. The information I’ve read most and agree with is that it is of benefit to allow the migratory fish up. The increase in spawning, adults dying and the present of juvenile fish enhance the upper portions by providing a great food sources and nutrients to the native inland fish in the headwaters great water quality flows down throughout the watershed. No matter what happens the bottom line is that any river remediation or enhancement work done to watersheds work wonders. This particular river I fish is seeing a massive wild run now where historically the big runs were from high stocking. Sadly it is a lot of extra work maintaining barriers as we have to transfer wild fish from the fish ladder to their spawning tributaries. It’s a lot of work by only a few volunteers but it has made the watershed healthier and more fun to fish. Strict fishing regulation is key however to avoid raping the redds.
|
|
|
Post by byronfishpaw on Feb 13, 2013 12:42:52 GMT -5
I can assure you that there is a great deal of scientific studies that show the benefits dam removal provides is much greater than any of the downsides (usually short term). Please don't take this the wrong way - I'm not challenging you to "prove it" Mike, but I'd really appreciate anything you have on the subject. Like I said, I've seen it reported both ways. I haven't lived here long, so my input may be out of line. If so, my apologies, but this is home for me now too. So I hope my thoughts are appreciated if not at least merited. The views of "outsiders", or new sets of eyes, are often times more valuable than those who see something every day. So if we disagree it's based on an issue and not due to a previous address. I think this report addresses primarily the mechanics of dam removal and barriers. It does not appear to really focus on the issue of fish sanctuaries, stream closures, protecting spawning, etc. So while I'd obviously encourage everyone to comment on that in this report response (if they agree) I also think those who are like minded need to start informing the DEC of their concerns. And not only for this creek.
|
|