Rtom45
Novice Angler
- Total Posts : 67
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2000/06/23 12:56:35
- Location: Erie
- Status: offline
Project waters, net gain or loss?
So there are now 2 log dams on Lower Walnut, and fish hold in both of those pools in good numbers. But the stop sign hole, and the hole above the 2nd log dam, have for the most part disappeared. Stop sign hole used to be at least twice the size of the lower log dam, and the other hole used to be at least twice the size of the upper log dam. I believe the next project for the fish commission is to restore those 2 locations to their former condition. Any other thoughts on this?
|
egg sac
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 517
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2000/10/02 22:33:36
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/10 09:18:19
(permalink)
When the projects were first made thier was five nice holes total now thier are two decent holes the log ones. Personaly I feel they should make two more of them log holes one to fix the hole just below the bridge other to fix the stop sign hole. It was not the new log holes that messed up the other two holes it was more like the shale breaking away and widing the chutes were the water flow came into each hole. This allowed the two holes to fill in over time. From what I have herd is they lost the permits to dig in the stream. All the two holes in question need is one good digout and the log diverters and they should stay deep and clean for many years to come.
SO MANY FISH SO LITTLE TIME. WHY ARE ALL THE PLACES I HAVE YET 2 FISH SO FAR AWAY?
|
FlashDance
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 968
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/01/06 10:17:01
- Location: Dravosburg
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/10 09:19:28
(permalink)
Net loss. Mother Nature wins.
If you create artificial holes on stream with as much erosion as Walnut, your going to have
to continually dig them out.
|
kingnuke32
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1863
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2001/05/21 01:41:34
- Location: Greensburg
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/10 10:00:54
(permalink)
They dredge the channel each year sometimes twice. Why wouldnt that permit work for digging out the holes? Just curious but it sounds kinda FISHY to me 
|
griffon
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1104
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/10 10:25:14
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: FlashDance
Net loss. Mother Nature wins.
If you create artificial holes on stream with as much erosion as Walnut, your going to have
to continually dig them out.
Actually, Reversed log dams with a stream digger centered and below eliminates the need to continually dig pools. Kettle Creek is a perfect example of the pools that can be formed and selfsustained.
|
KJH807
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4863
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2006/11/26 19:16:17
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/10 10:25:24
(permalink)
what's kinda "fishy" to me is why i can't see a larger image of kingnuke's avatard....
just sayin
|
kingnuke32
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1863
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2001/05/21 01:41:34
- Location: Greensburg
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/10 11:26:28
(permalink)
|
JEB
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2248
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2001/10/27 01:06:36
- Location: Western, Pa
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/10 11:28:34
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: KJH807
what's kinda "fishy" to me is why i can't see a larger image of kingnuke's avatard....
just sayin
Kingnuke told me they were his fishing buddies. With buddies like that you'd always come home smelling like fish.Those girls are hot, break out the dollar bills..................
post edited by JEB - 2008/10/10 11:29:01
|
JEB
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2248
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2001/10/27 01:06:36
- Location: Western, Pa
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/10 11:31:08
(permalink)
|
JEB
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2248
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2001/10/27 01:06:36
- Location: Western, Pa
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/10 11:32:24
(permalink)
I've seen log dams work well on other streams and they seem to be doing ok on the nut, maybe they should put more in. I'm sure they can get another permit, its the government after all.......
|
moooooo4me
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 339
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/09/12 00:23:04
- Location: New Castle
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/10 14:48:50
(permalink)
personally i think the old holes were better there was more room and if u ask me there was more fish. i was there monday and its amazing how much things change in a year ...also the big hole below the bridge ..hundreds of fish could be seen in that hole this time of year unfortunately i didnt see any
|
krafish
New Angler
- Total Posts : 27
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2007/04/24 21:49:11
- Location: Erie, Pa
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/10 16:20:06
(permalink)
What's wrong with stream improvement? The fish commission is purchasing access rights to as much land as possible. If the area is all but unfishable, could the money be better spent improving stream bed holes in areas where we have access? I would love to see holes cut in several locations. It would scatter the fish and some of the crowds.
|
pin_drifter
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 253
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/06/23 22:52:07
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/10 16:52:43
(permalink)
The stop sign hole awe the days their. It was awesome fishing till someone high up thought of this great idea lets face the shale on the stop sign hole when we clean it out this has been several years ago maybe 3 4 not sure but when i seen that i knew it was a matter of time thoses days where long gone. And for the log holes they really suck. Some ideas are better left undone. Just my two cents. I remember on day in the stop sign hole EGG sac was showing me how well the sacs milked and we stood side by side and hammered fish. Rem the good old days Tom they are done.
post edited by pin_drifter - 2008/10/10 16:54:26
Quit ****ing and take a kid fishing !!
|
MuskyMastr
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3032
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/06/30 17:39:29
- Location: Valley of the Crazy Woman
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/10 18:05:58
(permalink)
The problem is that in stream permits are required to change bed and bank charactaristics, they knew when they did the project originally that it would not work long term and that they would not get the permit to fix it easily. The whole project waters thing was a joke instituted by an executive director with that as his pet project. NO ONE else in pa could get that type of permit, EVER, no matter how much good they were attempting to do, joke plain and simple.
Better too far back, than too far forward.
|
krott243
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 954
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/10/07 09:02:16
- Location: Fairview, PA
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/10 20:25:13
(permalink)
I think the two log holes screwed everything up down there. I wish they never put them in and kept the creek the way it was.
The Lord has blessed us all today... It's just that he has been particularly good to me.
|
FlashDance
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 968
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/01/06 10:17:01
- Location: Dravosburg
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/10 20:34:19
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: griffon
Actually, Reversed log dams with a stream digger centered and below eliminates the need to continually dig pools. Kettle Creek is a perfect example of the pools that can be formed and selfsustained.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is nearly as much erosion on Kettle Creek as there is on the 'nut or any of the Erie tribs for that matter. Look at Elk. When Ivan came through, the hole below the Conrail tubes got blown out. It was so deep you couldn't see the bottom. Go there now, and where you previously couldn't see bottom is dry land. The problem is erosion. Whether it's manmade or hurricane made, the tribs will change year in and year out because of it.
|
beerman
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1314
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/01/14 22:13:47
- Location: Margaritaville
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/10 20:44:04
(permalink)
Most of the problems on Walnut should be erased once we receive some rain!
changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes....nothing remains quite the same The Beerman ~ Greg
|
mxdad66
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 751
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2006/10/04 21:52:04
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/10 21:58:58
(permalink)
Take the logs out and let the fish go up stream,ever stand there and watch,not what i consider fishing.
|
pin_drifter
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 253
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/06/23 22:52:07
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/11 03:22:00
(permalink)
Problem is people that think they have the answer to everything how to improve the streams. Should leave well enough alone i haven't seen them basically do one dam thing right yet all they do is make more mistakes and take away what used to be a great fishing hole. And make us fisherman say what the PUkk And the logs they put in that is 100 % a freaking joke..... and these people went to college and got a freaking degree.... I think some of us that haven't went to college should be the ones making the decisions least it be done right, and not half ****ed.......
Quit ****ing and take a kid fishing !!
|
Stillhead
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1887
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2003/12/19 23:03:01
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/12 20:35:21
(permalink)
The idea behind the logs was to create holding water that would self clean and not fill in after each rain. They are doing exactly that. The "project holes" prior to these logs needed to be dugout every year and usually 3 of the 5 would fill in with just a half inch of rainfall. When the water was flowing decent for a couple days there were fish holding the entire length from the bridge to the lake. Seems to me like those logs are working, as they haven't needed to dig in the stream since they've been placed in there. The logs/waterfall themselves do very little to slow the fishes upstream movement because they stay plenty deep enough below them so it's an easy hop for fish that want to move upstream, so impeding upstream movement is not an issue either. I don't see what the issue is, this was a much better alternative to digging ditches every year. It's not the fish commissions fault that the guys that fish there do what they do, or that when there are already 6 guys fishing there elbow to elbow, 10 more seem to think it's a good idea squeeze in with them.
post edited by Stillhead - 2008/10/12 20:36:26
|
indsguiz
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 6351
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/03/24 01:59:54
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/13 13:04:05
(permalink)
Gentlemen,
Any time you impede the flow of water with an object, it will fill in above the break or below the break (sometimes both). In the case of Walnut the hole above the logs filled in as did the hole on the sides below. What would improve the current holes would be to cut some 12"x12" holes in the lower logs in about three locations left, right, middle. this would increase the flow thru the dams and have the effect of allowing the fine silt material and shale to pass thru at bed level and use the shale as a scouring material for the area below.
An additional benefit to this type of arrangement would be to produce a passage for the fish to use so they wouldn't become bunched in the holes below the dams. It's all basic hydrodynamics; Use the flow of the water to self scour the area. And use the force of the water to clean out the areas impacted by the high pressure flow.
The idea wouldn't work though because at least one idiot would get his foot sucked through the opening and want to sue the state for their own stupidity. Even if you put up a sign that said "No fishing within 5 feet upstream of the dam" Some idiot would think they were special and ignore the signs.
Illegitimis Non carborundum
|
fishmonger
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 435
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/10/10 01:23:50
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/13 17:24:14
(permalink)
The fish will jump the log dams like they aren't even their after we get some rain and the tribs attain a nice level. I think that 2 or 3 more log structures would be OK on Walnut below the bridge. They would not have to be "Vees". Just some barriers to direct the flow through the clogged channels might work. Water can be very powerful, and over time, with some heavy flows, the debris would most likely wash away.
|
Rtom45
Novice Angler
- Total Posts : 67
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2000/06/23 12:56:35
- Location: Erie
- Status: offline
RE: Project waters, net gain or loss?
2008/10/20 11:30:49
(permalink)
It seems to me, we could get the stop sign hole back without too much trouble:
- Cut a notch in the center of the log dam below it
- Replace or rebuild the large 4x4x4 boulders that were at the top of the hole on the far side (since the storm that took out the tubes on Elk at route 5, those 4x4x4s are buried under the gravel at the stop sign hole)
- reinforce the far bank which is being washed out, causing the hole to widen and become more shallow
|