# Fish Ladder - Yates



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Well, I just got off the phone with an MDNRE official and they DO NOT consider the Clinton a "put and take". This is mainly because they stock sub-legal fish into the system. If the Clinton is considered a "put and take" then all of the stocking programs in the state that dump in sub-legal fish would be classified as the same thing. And we know this is not true.

A "put and take" is the planting of legal fish with the intent of immediate harvest, according to the gentleman I just spoke with. Examples of this would obviously be Proud Lake or the fishing derby in Auburn Hills every year. These fish are planted with the soul intent of harvest not any form of reproduction.


----------



## Maverick1 (Jan 28, 2009)

The Clinton River's stocking program is not put and take, Proud Lake or "stockerfest" is put and take. The big difference is that the fish planted need to make it out of the river, live in the lake until returning to spawn in the Clinton. They live a full life and can be harvested at any point, st. claire...erie....or the clinton if they return. Saying that the Clinton is "Put and Take" is like saying that any stocked fish in the state is for put and take purposes. 

Just Saying


----------



## tsr770 (Mar 3, 2010)

If there was to be a ladder put in, something other than the stainless steel box that is way more attractive is what is in the works for the Raisin in Monroe. They are in the design process of creating concrete/rock ramps over the low head dams on the lower river. Being that many of the dams are visible from downtown they have to have something that is pleasing to the eye and these fit the bill. More or less turn the dam into a 60-90 foot section of rapids. 

Take a look at the the "Big News for the Raisin today" thread


----------



## bborow2501 (Nov 12, 2007)

good idea, turning the dam into rapids, the kayakers would be all for this
and the city would be all for this if it could be another draw to the city

still against the dam though to keep numbers of those fish down in the creek and blocking invasives

lampreys would be a very bad thing for the paint creek


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Okay, then this is a matter of semantics. Steelhead are anadromous fish, and it was my understanding that planting fish which will migrate back into rivers to spawn, and provide a river sport fishery, is put-and-take fishing. If they don't put the fish in, you won't be able to take them out. Seems like a simple concept. The Clinton isn't going to be a self-sustaining fishery at any point, for Steelhead at least. 

As for the water flows, you can only release as much water as is coming down the river. If there is a reservoir, then I suppose you could dump it, and cause an artificially higher flow for a short period of time, but then you would be left with the natural flow of the river, which is very low in summer. I suppose if everyone flushed at the same time.........:evilsmile
Bottom line is that the Clinton simply is not conducive to supporting large population of Trout, Salmon, or Steelhead. Since the system has been planted for many years, if it would support a large population, it would already have it. The fact that it doesn't speaks volumes. I liken this to the DNR planting Kings in lake Huron tribs for the last few years. Very few return. It just took awhile for the DNR biologists to resign themselves to the fact that the fish are starving in the lake, and decide to end the plantings. They made that decision this year.


----------



## Toga (Nov 11, 2009)

Fishndude said:


> Okay, then this is a matter of semantics. Steelhead are anadromous fish, and it was my understanding that planting fish which will migrate back into rivers to spawn, and provide a river sport fishery, is put-and-take fishing. If they don't put the fish in, you won't be able to take them out. Seems like a simple concept. The Clinton isn't going to be a self-sustaining fishery at any point, for Steelhead at least.
> 
> As for the water flows, you can only release as much water as is coming down the river. If there is a reservoir, then I suppose you could dump it, and cause an artificially higher flow for a short period of time, but then you would be left with the natural flow of the river, which is very low in summer. I suppose if everyone flushed at the same time.........:evilsmile
> Bottom line is that the Clinton simply is not conducive to supporting large population of Trout, Salmon, or Steelhead. Since the system has been planted for many years, if it would support a large population, it would already have it. The fact that it doesn't speaks volumes. I liken this to the DNR planting Kings in lake Huron tribs for the last few years. Very few return. It just took awhile for the DNR biologists to resign themselves to the fact that the fish are starving in the lake, and decide to end the plantings. They made that decision this year.



Ding Ding Ding we have a winner!!

lets face it the Clinton is Very much a put and take fishery. The water temps do not stay low enough anywhere in the chain other than paint creek for steelhead smolt to make it a full year before heading out to the lake. Even with a fish ladder in place paint creek alone would not be able to sustain a self supporting steelhead fishery on the Clinton. If stocking stopped today, within 4 years steelhead fishery on the Clinton would all but disappear. Therefore it is basically a put and take fishery. Sure they are not putting in adult fish like they do on the Huron for stocker fest but without the plants we have no fishery. It does not take a genius to figure out this equation. No planted steelhead on the Clinton + little to no natural reproduction from the existing planted population = no steelhead to take out. This = a put and take fishery. 

A fish ladder would only open up the upper stretches to invasive species and allow for a minimal boost to limited amount of natural reproduction we currently see from the few steelhead that do return from the plants. Thus it would be a complete waste of money. Spend the money to improve the current water conditions.


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Sorry guys but its not worth the arguement. I believe our fisheries biologists. They do a great job managing our fisheries and they know way more about this than any one of us. This is why I am in constant contact with them when I have questions. I stand by my posts until the fisheries biologists tell me different. 

I find it kind of interesting though that so many conclusions can be made without the insight of talking to the people that manage our fisheries for a living.


----------



## psycodad (Jul 17, 2004)

It's symantics but the Clinton is really a planted fishery. Yes, they are putting in FF occasionally and some come back but not in huge numbers. BTW back in the day the dnr put rotone(?) in the Rogue (it kills everything) then put in the FF and they had a huge return.


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Fishndude said:


> As for the water flows, you can only release as much water as is coming down the river. If there is a reservoir, then I suppose you could dump it, and cause an artificially higher flow for a short period of time, but then you would be left with the natural flow of the river, which is very low in summer. I suppose if everyone flushed at the same time.........:evilsmile


Sorry dude but this type of thinking is getting us nowhere. There is science, current science to disprove this. Keeping the thinking this way does nothing more than keep all of the water for the lake associations in the upper section of the river. It is the low summer months that they hold back water. 21 impoundments holding back water with no concern of the flow of the river below them. While this may not be the only reason we struggle with a consistant flow, it is a big part of it.

Guys, this alone is the reason why we need to have those of us that use the river from Auburn Hills down at the Flow Regime meetings. The lake associations need to know that they are not the only groups that have the rights to the water. Changing the court order from the sixties is going to be a difficult task but with the flow regime study taking place and the voices of the resource users in our area of the river being heard we stand a much better chance.

See the Flow Regime Meeting thread for the dates and times of these meetings. We all should make the attempt to be there. We just might learn something about the river system while we are pushing to protect the section we use the most.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

So, what is the average flow of the Clinton above the highest impoundment, in summer - say, from June 15 - August 31? Support your position with scientific facts. I can certainly believe that the impoundments hold back water, and they surely increase the temp of the surface water that is released below the lowest impoundment. But they also provide lakefront living for many hundreds of households, and recreation for those homeowners. Is it really worth spending the time, *money*, and trouble trying to fight that lobbying group? I'm just sayin..... All the work DNR personnel do to study this costs money that could be spent on something else. If this kind of study is just a wild goose chase, what is the point?

If you can show me that the Clinton flows are more than 250 CFS on average, above the impoundments, through the summer, I might buy into your idea. Both the PM and Little Man flow at or above that rate, and both support excellent natural reproduction. Both have good carrying capacities, and naturally produced Steelhead can survive for over a year in them, until they are large enough to smolt to the lakes, where they grow to adults, and return to spawn. If the Clinton can't support that, then it is an artificial fishery, and is almost completely dependent on stocking for returns. What do the facts show?


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

First, I have to say that this is an independant study being done by Lawrence Tech and ECT (Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc). This is not being funded by MDNRE but they do have a common interest in the study.

This study is currently in process. Therefore I do not have the answers to the questions that you ask. I am not one of the investigators on this project therefore I refer to their findings for information. As of right now I do not have those answers. This is why I am going to be attending the public meetings.  I want to know what is going on.

Here is a quote from the project...

" The overall goal of this Interated Assessment is to develop a more comprehensive, holistic approach to water level management. The project will develop tools and metrics that can be used by policy makers to identify, evaluate, and build consensus for revised flow management policies. A more natural flow regime has the potential to create long-term benefits such as improved water quality and environmental health, increased recreational opportunities, reduced user conflicts, improved regional economic viability, and lower operational costs associated with lake level controls.

The projecty team will gather input from all concernec stakeholders including landowners, lake-owner and riparian owner associations, municipal governments, county agencies, watershed managers, permit agencies, businesses and recreational users. For more information about the project and upcoming public meetings, visit the website, www.ltu.edu/IAclintonriverwatershed."

IMO, as a recreational user and someone that has a vested interest in the Clinton River it is important for my voice to be heard. Many municipalities are fighting to get a more natural flow restored to the river system. They need to hear the voices of the recreational users of the river. Sitting back and throwing our hands in the air will do nothing. 

The lake levels put into effect in the sixities need to be challenged with this study. The efforts of this study will challenge this. No one has ever said that getting these types of things changed is easy. But doing nothing will not help to fix the issue either.

I would really like to see alot of us that use the river to show up at these meetings. We can show the lake associations that there is strong support for an improvement in the controlled flow of the river by the people who fish the river. Right now it is simply the municipalities that are stand up for this. Shouldn't we show our support and back riparian cities like Auburn Hills, Rochester, and Sterling Heights?


----------



## Maverick1 (Jan 28, 2009)

I use to work on many of these lakes at a Marina and know first hand that if the lake associations began filling in Late March when the big rains came, there would be little problem with maintaining levels in April, May and June assuming normal rain rates.


----------



## Toga (Nov 11, 2009)

If simply changing the flow will keep the temps within range of the brown trout and steelhead to support enough natural reproduction to make a self sustained fishery I am all for it. If there is real scientific evidence to support this I will be more than happy to lend my voice. Until there I have to look at the fishery and enjoy it for what it currently is. Please continue to keep the info coming downstream.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

I agree. If changing the way the lake levels are handled will vastly improve the river for supporting wildlife and fish downstream, that is a great thing. The phrase I see that the entire philosophy behind the study hinges on is this - "has the potential." I am going to go out on a limb, and simplify things, again. The river can only really flow at the rate it flows above the highest impoundment, for any lengthy of time. Impoundments trap water, and warm it much more than an uninterrupted river or stream. I am willing to bet that the temps below the lowest impoundment will ruin the river for supporting naturally reproduced Steelhead and Trout to any great degree. You can it, because that is how it is, right now. Adding bottom-draw machinery or bubblers above every dam, to try to cool the surface water flowing over is silly on the scale that would be required, and with the results they might yield. You could just plant fish that will migrate out and return several years later for lower cost. That is why it is done that way. 

I realize that the impoundments are not natural, but at this point, you cannot simly remove all the dams, and ruin the lakefront properties. It is the nature of mankind that we reproduce and are increasing in numbers. We change nature to suit our wants and needs, and usually not for the better. But that is what happens. We call it progress. Deer call it being overrun. Fish call it "can't breathe." 
I think time would be better spent ensuring that sewage isn't allowed into the system the way it still is. But that is my opinion.


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

I'll keep you guys updated with as much info as I can. I really wish that I could get a group of you to attend these public meetings with me. This is kind of like the public meetings for the trout regs. No one hears your voice unless you stand up and let it be heard. There are several members on this forum that have banded together and done a very good job at this. Showing that the guys that use the river downstream (us) care about how the flow is altered upstream is a great thing. Plus it gets us all on the same page with a common goal in mind, improving the water quality of OUR river and the environment within it.


----------



## MstrAngle (Feb 28, 2010)

my comment was meant as a joke


----------



## MstrAngle (Feb 28, 2010)

lol the upper clinton and paint are full of invasives.


----------



## MstrAngle (Feb 28, 2010)

i say go smallmouth bass, and make it no kill like the huron ")


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

I question our biologist with the smallmouth bass issue as well. He directed me towards the last version of the Clinton River Assessment. MDNRE mentioned this topic in there and (don't quote me) I believe they stated that it was a habitat issue that they didn't stock them. Something about the make-up of the substrate above Yates. I'll look at it again and get back with you.

MDNRE (and myself) both acknowledge that there are some invasives in the Paint. Zebra mussels are the biggest one. (we can thank the boaters in the lake for that one) There has been no mention of lampreys or gobi's though. And these are the ones that could make it through if the dam was removed. Lampreys can also get through a fish ladder if the steps in the ladder are less than 18 inches in height. (information from a co-worker who used to do lamprey studies for USFWS) During all of the time I have spent monitoring the creek and electro-shocking it with the MDNRE we have not found either of these species. This is a very good thing.

BTW, don't confuse the invasive sea lampreys with our native brook lamprey. The Paint does have a spawning population of this species. They are very small (up to 7 inches) and make for a great pattern to toss at the large browns in the creek.


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Fishndude...

Here is some text from the Clinton River Assessment on your last comment...

"
The Clinton River continues to receive both Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO) and Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO). CSOs and most SSO events are associated with wet weather conditions when the capacity of the sewers is exceeded and domestic sanitary sewage and industrial wastewater is released
without treatment. These releases may constitute serious environmental and human health threats.

There is one CSO facility in the watershed, Twelve Towns Drain. The facility discharges to Red Run Drain, a tributary to the Lower Segment of the Clinton River. In 2001, there were 10 events that resulted in the discharge of 949 million gallon of partially treated sewage (MDEQ 2002a). This drain has been renamed the George W. Kuhn Drain and completion of construction of an expanded CSO retention treatment facility is anticipated by the end of 2005. The expanded facility will not totally eliminate CSO discharges, but the expanded storage capacity will achieve adequate treatment as defined by MDEQ.

There were three SSO events on the North Branch Clinton River in 2001 that resulted in the discharge of an unspecified volume of diluted sewage. Bear Creek had seven events in 2001, resulting in the release of 1.6 million gallons of raw or diluted sewage in 2001. The Clinton River at Pontiac had six
discharges of 19.5 million gallons of raw or diluted sewage and the lower Clinton River had 19 discharges totaling 2 million gallons of raw or diluted sewage (MDEQ 2002a). Plans are being developed to address chronic SSO facilities to eliminate these discharges."

You are right. This is a major issue in water quality. There have been major efforts since this assessment was written to improve upon this. Remember, this assessment is 9 years old and the information is a history of conditions not what is current.​


----------

