Author: hrabak.11

Over recent years, brook trout, a species thought to have disappeared from Ohio, has been making a return due to reintroduction and ecosystem restoration efforts. 10,000 years ago brook trout colonized Ohio’s Lake Erie tributary streams. This genetically distinct population of fish is the only trout native to the inland waters of Ohio. However, by the 19th century, only two stream systems were suitable habitat and contained thriving trout populations.
Brook trout only survive in cold and clean water. They have a very low tolerance to pollutants and human disturbance. During the early 1990s, the Chagrin River, Grand River, and Rocky River watersheds were severely impacted by deforestation, agriculture, and residential development resulting in the loss of their pristine habitat and remaining brook trout populations.
As a result, Ohio Division of Natural Resources developed plans to address the rehabilitation and restoration of Ohio brook trout with local park systems, trout clubs, educators, and state and local agencies. The main objectives were to identify and protect native brook trout habitat, take an inventory of potential brook trout habitat, and implement reintroduction in suitable sites.
Stream Surveys:
Streams in the Lake Erie watershed were first surveyed for existing trout populations and evaluated for potential habitat for brook trout. This was done by collecting the temperature of the stream during mid-summer. If the water was less than 20 degrees Celsius, then the stream habitat and fish populations were evaluated. This was often done with the use of seines; however, they also utilized a backpack electrofishers on some occasions. The streams with cold water, good habitat, and presence of other fish species were considered possible sites for brook trout reintroduction.

Propagation:
The streams meeting these standards were then stocked with enough brook trout to develop a self-sustaining population. Brook Trout reach sexual maturity at age three, therefore, this would need to be done for about four years in order for the populations to be successful.
In order to preserve the genetic distinction of native Ohio brook trout, gametes from fish captured in the stream were taken back to hatcheries and raised until they were of approximately 40 mm. The releases often occurred at the beginning of April in the shallow water riffle and run habitat throughout the streams to avoid predation and allow for the best chance of survival of the population.
Population Monitoring:
In order to evaluate the successes and failures of this reintroduction, population monitoring surveys were completed in the years following the releases. This was done once the populations demonstrated evidence of natural reproduction. Similar to the stream surveys seines and electrofishers were used. If the seining survey captured less than five total brook trout an electrofisher was used to verify the population size.
Protection:
Like stated above, the brook trout is a very sensitive species and therefore are under constant threat for extirpation. In order to prevent this, habitat restoration, education of sportsmen and residents, and conservation agreements were implemented. However, ODNR could not accomplish this without the help from other organizations and the public. To facilitate these processes and communication, the Brook Trout Advisory Committee was developed. This committee was comprised of stakeholders in the protection of brook trout.

The site evaluations, hatchery propagation, and stream surveys were successful in the reintroduction of brook trout in 10 Northeast Ohio streams. However, the species is still considered threatened and conservation efforts have continued to be implemented.

References:

Burt, A. (2007, July 01). Brook Trout Reintroduction: Lake Erie Drainage, NE Ohio. Retrieved from http://www.tumadmen.org/assets/documents/ODNR%20Brook%20Trout%20Final%20 Report.pdf

Images:

https://www.geaugaparkdistrict.org/nrm/brooktrout.shtml

http://www.fondriest.com/news/ohio-brook-trout-sulphur-springs.ht

Over recent decades, the adverse effects of dams have given rise to an interest in dam alternatives and removal in the management and conservation community (Hart, 2002). Barriers such as dams may impede and delay organism migration, fragment habitats, alter the natural cycle of flow, and shift species diversity and composition (Hart, 2002). Hydroelectric dams, in particular, have damaged the ecological integrity and have decimated runs of migratory fish in many of the rivers in the Eastern United States (Waldman, 2016).

The Gorge Metro Park Dam was originally constructed in 1913 for hydroelectric power on the Cuyahoga River (“Ohio EPA”, 2015). It served this purpose until 1958 and was then used until 1992 as a source of cooling water for a coal-fired power plant (“Ohio EPA”, 2015). In the 2000s the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency declared this 57-foot-high and 440-foot-wide dam an impairment to aquatic life along the middle and lower segments of the Cuyahoga River both of which have been designated areas of concern by the International Joint Commission (Conn, 2017). The dam has segmented the Cuyahoga River altering its flow and chemistry by essentially creating a nearly 1.5-mile-long “lake” (Conn, 2017). This allows for an unhealthy accumulation of algae which reduces oxygen levels and has the potential to kill fish (Conn, 2017). The dam also acts as a barrier to a variety of migratory fish such as suckers and noninvasive native lampreys (Conn, 2017).

Recent studies have raised concerns over the impacts of obstructions of the demography of many lamprey species (Nunn et al., 2017). Lampreys tend to face a variety of threats throughout their life cycles such as pollution, habitat degradation, predation, and barriers to migration (Nunn et al., 2017). Obstructions such as dams prevent lampreys from reaching spawning grounds and often result in delayed spawning or reduced spawning success due to a large amount of energy expended to overcome the obstacles (Nunn et al., 2017). This could possibly result in low densities and missing age classes in suitable habitat (Nunn et al., 2017).

There is also a common misconception that suckers are tolerant to degraded conditions (Cooke et al., 2005). However, recent studies say otherwise. The decline in some species is a result of lack of conservation, loss of habitat, and competition. In addition, stream alteration due to dams and blockage of migration routes are key factors (Cooke et al., 2005). Catostomid offspring develop upstream and may not be able to reach far enough downstream where suitable habitat and food is available (Cooke et al., 2005). In addition, many sucker species are sensitive to river discharge and water velocity which may be irregular due to the presence of dams (Cooke et al., 2005).

As a result, to these concerns, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Cuyahoga Falls Mayor Don Walters are working with local, state, and federal agencies to facilitate a plan for the removal of the Gorge Metro Park Dam in 2019 (McGraw, 2017). This will ironically coincide with the 50^th Anniversary of the 1969 fire (McGraw, 2017). It is estimated to cost about $70 million dollars for removal and cleanup; most of which will be put towards sediment removal (McGraw, 2017). This is a key component as approximately 832,000 cubic yards of sediment lies under the dam containing arsenic, mercury, and other harmful hydrocarbons that must be safely removed in order to prevent further harm (Downing, 2015). If the current plans are feasible, not only will the removal of the dam yield a better environment for fish and healthier water by allowing the river to resume its natural filtering process and flow; but it will also create a safer and healthier community for eco-tourism and environmental education (Conn, 2017).

 

Sources:

Conn, J. (2017, April 19). Gorge Dam removal pushing ahead, despite threats to Great Lakes Restoration funds. Retrieved September 27, 2017, fromhttp://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2017/03/officials_still_looking_to_tak.html

Cooke, S. J., Bunt, C. M., Hamilton, S. J., Jennings, C. A., Pearson, M. P., Cooperman, M. S., & Markle, D. F. (2005). Threats, conservation strategies, and prognosis for suckers (Catostomidae) in North America: insights from regional case studies of a diverse family of non-game fishes. Biological Conservation,121(3), 317-331. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.05.015

Downing, B. (2015, September 24). Removing Gorge Dam on Cuyahoga River between Akron and Cuyahoga Falls could cost about $70 million. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from https://www.ohio.com/akron/news/removing-gorge-dam-on-cuyahoga-river-between-akron-and-cuyahoga-falls-could-cost-about-70-million

Hart, D. D., Johnson, T. E., Bushaw-Newton, K. L., Horowitz, R. J., Bednarek, A. T., Charles, D. F., Velinsky, D. J. (2002). The Challenges of Dam Removal and River Restoration. Bioscience,52 (8), 669-681. doi:10.1130/9780813741215

McGraw, D. J. (2017, March 27). America’s Great Dam Teardown Means Cleaner Water, More Parkland. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from https://nextcity.org/features/view/dam-removal-cuyahoga-ohio-epa-funding-restore-watersheds

Nunn, A. D., Taylor, R. J., Cowx, I. G., Noble, R. A., Bolland, J. D., & Harvey, J. P. (2017). Demography of sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) ammocoete populations in relation to potential spawning-migration obstructions. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,27(4), 764-772. doi:10.1002/aqc.2748

Ohio EPA. (2015, September 21). Feasibility Study for the Removal of the Gorge Dam.

Waldman, J. (2016, August 6). Undamming Rivers: A Chance For New Clean Energy Source. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from http://e360.yale.edu/features/undamming_rivers_a_chance_for_new_clean_energy_source

Image was taken by: Taylor Hrabak