Terrible Company

[Mudwall Gatewood 3.0]

There are culvert concerns other than the game fishes.  Other indigenous fishes move about.  Then there are the benthic critters.  I do know you never select a site below a culvert to do benthic macroinvertebrate work.

I've always felt if a road is little traveled, a ford in a small stream is better than a damned culvert. 

[sanjuanwormhatch]

I very seriously doubt any of the projects are "one-sized".  I'm sure Orvis is sensitive to invasive species.  In fact this was the first thing that came up with when googling "Orvis invasive species":  http://www.orvis.com/invasivespecies

Of course the fact that a rainbow trout is an invasive species is a much more sensitive topic then say, zebra mussels but, again, I'm sure Orvis is aware. 

[OldDominionAngler]

I very seriously doubt any of the projects are "one-sized". 

Yeah, I would say that was your assumption Dylar.  Keep in mind that each project is vetted and overseen by local project managers...who work for an organization that bends over backwards to protect natives. 

[The Dude]

I have done absolutely no official research on the effects that these so-called "blocked culverts" have on a trout's ability to move up or downstream, and I certainly would assume that TU has spent the money on the research supporting it, but my experiences make me wonder how much culverts are halting fish migration.  I understand that some culverts may have a slight drop to them (the amount of drop that could occur across the width of a road on a steeply sloped hill) and that they can also get clogged with debris........but at some point Q_IN = Q_OUT.  Perhaps during storm events blocked culverts could back up and release the flow slowly over time, but where that is an issue it either overtops the road or saturates and eventually destroys the subgrade of the road and can lead to washout.  In either case, the owner of the road (DOT, FS, etc) is responsible for fixing the problem or they will lose their road.  In most cases, the culvert blockage is washed away, and the stream resumes flowing freely.  The same thing occurs naturally in streams all of the time when trees fall across the creek.  In fact, woody debris in creeks is considered a key element to productive headwaters streams.  By the same token, I have fished up some gnarly gorges and caught browns who have trekked up NUMEROUS slides, waterfalls, plunge pools, etc.  The little plunge from most culverts seems like child's play comparatively.

Would making a giant culvert that is buried halfway below grade and filling it full of small rocks make it easy for fish to swim up?  Yes.  Completely necessary?  I'd say no.  Will the installation of these giant culverts have some temporary negative effects downstream in the form of turbidity, possible oil fuel leaks entering the water, etc?  Yes.  Even though the construction issues are only temporary, is it worth it if the culverts are not 100% needed?  That is worth debating, IMO.

I wonder if the culvert idea is just because it is easily implemented and shows concrete "progress" to the donors, but with little, if any, measurable improvements to fish populations over time?

[Big J]

I understand what your saying Dude.  But I have one stream that I know is hurting from a log jam that I fished with Petey a few years ago.  This stream is a feeder stream that Petey use to catch a lot of bigger brookies from.  He hiked off the main river and into the feeder at the midway point.  We weren't catching squat.  We hiked down and there was a massive log jam that was a couple feet high going all the way across the stream.  We think that may of been the culprit.  During the summer the feeder gets low and the brookies jumped to the pool below to get to the main river.  In the fall though they could not get back up into the feeder.  I'm sure this happens with the culverts too on some streams.

[benben reincarnated]

I wonder if the culvert idea is just because it is easily implemented and shows concrete "progress" to the donors, but with little, if any, measurable improvements to fish populations over time?

Ding, ding, ding.



I tend to question the "barriers" that the state, or feds in the case of the Smokies, puts on streams prior to brook trout restoration and also what they id as a natural barrier during surveying.  I think the state's official natural barrier criteria is 3 feet, that is a fucking joke.  They seriously should visit streams they've restored in 10 years from now and see if only SSBT are present. 

[The Dude]

I feel what you are saying BigJ.  Although, your experience shows that these blockages happen in nature, too.  Of course, culverts are put in place by man, so I can see the debate where one could say that even though blockages happen in nature, it doesn't mean blocked culverts are natural, thus we should work to remove them wherever possible.  However, as an environmental engineer who has created a great many SWPPPs, PAPs, NPDES permits, etc, AND who has worked some in grading/construction, I know all too well what water can do over time.  You can't fight water and win.  All you can do is manage it.  Thanks to gravity and fluid mechanics, water will ALWAYS win.  The fact is, those blocked culverts (like most any stream blockage), are correctable over time.  In the case of culverts, I'd say the time to correction is probably not very long, depending on your viewpoint (I'd swag 5 to 10 yr storm events would correct 99% of them).
I don't give to TU, so I don't have a dog in this fight, really, but I just thought I'd put it out there as food for thought.  I also probably have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about what happens to non-profit agencies/charities once they start getting to a certain size.  I think they start out as purely idealistic ventures, but at some point, they become businesses and then it gets hard to stick with the original mission.  Ben, I know you have some insight on some of the Appalachian land conservancies,I'd love to hear your viewpoint on them..............

Oh, btw, I do support what Orvis does for conservation.  This has been another classic BRFFF thread derailment.

[Big J]

Dude, there isn't a single thing you said that I disagree with.  Floods will clear out most of the blockages and have seen it happen.  I also do not support TU as I can't stand them as an organization as a whole.  They do some things I applaud and other things I am baffled with, especially all their dealings with private land owners and private waters.  Which reminds me I need to scrape that TU sticker off my Jeep.

Who said they are removing barriers that block browns and bows from brook trout?  Proof please?

Prove that they aren't.

It's this kind of thinking and arguing that I do not understand.

[Big J]

It's this kind of thinking and arguing that I do not understand.

Then why did you fall back on that line of argument in the first place?  You can't demand proof from others if you won't provide it yourself.

Because you were the one to make the statement about them helping invasive species.  To make sure you didn't pulled that fact out of your butt, I wanted you to state where you got your information.  I'm not the one making statements that they break barriers and connect browns and bows to wild brookie waters. It's like something a little kid would do, you can't come up with information to your "facts" so you say "prove they aren't true". 

I can't believe I get wrapped up in such stupid stuff.  This is going to be my last post addressing Dylar's facts and debating tactics. 

[sanjuanwormhatch]

This is pretty off the original topic but since I have the 10 commandments of logic taped to my desk (thanks Dude), I feel the need to come to Big J's back.  Dylar, in your original post you are at the very least assuming that they help invasive species ("Removing or modifying culverts to help invasive species spawn might be great for trout fishing...").  BigJ says, basically, prove that they are modifying culverts to help invasive species.  You say prove that I'm wrong.  Violation of commandment 8.  Go sit in the corner for 10 posts.

[Big J]

Because you were the one to make the statement about them helping invasive species.

Rainbow and brown trout are invasive species; unless they're only doing these projects in drainages that don't have breeding populations of rainbow and brown trout in them, they will, by default, aid invasive as well as native species.  That's true whether the drainages support brook trout or not.  Even in streams where the only wild salmonids are browns or rainbows, these fish are still non-native invasive species.  To my way of thinking, the burden of proof is incumbent on those who support these kinds of projects to prove that these projects won't have negative unintended consequences, rather than on those who question their efficacy to prove that they will

I'm not the one making statements that they break barriers and connect browns and bows to wild brookie waters.

I made no such claim, either.  Go back and read what I actually wrote.  All I actually said was that "fractured habitats" aren't necessarily a bad thing, if invasive species are part of the problem.  If you can't see how that differs from the words you've thoughtfully put in my mouth, then I really can't help you.

Removing or modifying culverts to help invasive species spawn might be great for trout fishing; whether it is good for the environment is open to debate...

I can't believe I get wrapped up in such stupid stuff.  This is going to be my last post addressing Dylar's facts and debating tactics. 

[sanjuanwormhatch]

1.  You still haven't shown that these projects even affect rainbows and browns.  I'm assuming it probably wouldn't be hard to do so but since we're down to semantics...

2.  You're argument is really just the native vs. non-native species.  Land management versus wilderness, etc..  What is "native" and what is not?  What is the most desired state of our land - as it was 100 years ago?  As it was when Adam ate the apple?  Don't answer those questions.  At some point you have to say, our stance is this and we feel that it is beneficial to the environment/stream/conservation of a resource/whatever that we are going to support x project because it is in line with our principles.  You obviously disagree with where Orvis drew that line.  Orvis also has given millions of dollars to a principle they feel is worthwhile.  At the very least you have to respect that.  What have you done to achieve your conservation "goals"? Have you placed land that you owned into a conservation easement?  Lobbied the federal government for wilderness status (because it sounds like you think that's the only worthwhile way to "conserve")?  Hell, given money to an organization that does?

[The Dude]

It was briefly touched on earlier, but to me, the elephant in the room regarding culverts is that the single biggest detriment to streams with a reproducing population (wild) today is runoff from roads.  I can understand the argument that the roads that are in place may be justified by need, but the fact remains that the effect of upgrading culverts to improve habitat is an irrelevant data point when compared to the effect the roads themselves have on the streams.  However, I can also see that reality forces our hand to try to focus on what is attainable (fixing culverts) versus removing roads.  We, as a society, are too dependent on vehicular travel.  As someone who formerly worked/studied in the transportation/shipping/logistics field, I also am a huge proponent of the fact than increased infrastructure results in increased quality of life, so it is a tough spot for me.  Btw, I never realized how many different career-paths I've had until this thread.

[sanjuanwormhatch]

This is pretty off the original topic but since I have the 10 commandments of logic taped to my desk (thanks Dude), I feel the need to come to Big J's back.  Dylar, in your original post you are at the very least assuming that they help invasive species ("Removing or modifying culverts to help invasive species spawn might be great for trout fishing...").  BigJ says, basically, prove that they are modifying culverts to help invasive species.  You say prove that I'm wrong.  Violation of commandment 8.  Go sit in the corner for 10 posts.

All I'm saying is that, absent detailed knowledge of specific projects, there's no way we can determine whether this is an unalloyed positive or not.  I never once said that the TU project would be used to help non-natives, just that there are ways in which such projects could turn out badly.  J demanded that I "prove" that things will turn out badly (when I never once said that they would), then got offended when I asked him to prove that they wouldn't.

Go to the link posted on Orvis website about the program.  On the bottom right is a link for each project completed.  Click them.  If you don't find the details you seek, I'm sure there is some local news coverage.  These aren't booming metropolises. 

[sanjuanwormhatch]

And you still haven't shown that they won't.  Absent a detailed listing of the projects to be funded (not available through the linked article), there's no way for us to know what the possible repercussions are.

My god.  Do you not realize this is your crusade that you started?  Why should I prove your point?