# Rt 82 dam going down.



## creekcrawler (Oct 5, 2004)

This fall! 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/03/brecksville_dam_demolition_pro_1.html


----------



## MikeC (Jun 26, 2005)

Sounds like very good news for the upper Cuyahoga. thanks for posting.


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

I am very sad about that particular dam removal but excited at the same time.

I don't think it will bring in species such as sturgeon and walleye from the lake with the dead zone from the lakefront to the steel mill. But who knows???
I would think the Maumee and Black Rivers would have the same issue with the mouth of the rivers being dredged...


----------



## creekcrawler (Oct 5, 2004)

They'll make it. I've caught walleye below the 82 dam in the past.
A monster sturgeon was caught in Valley View years back.
Not to mention a few (hehe) steelhead make the trek too.
I've fished below that dam since before the National Park.
I will miss it and the good fun had there, but it will be a great thing
(except the steelies will have a ton more river to spread out in).


----------



## creekcrawler (Oct 5, 2004)

I just wanna be there when the dam goes, there could be _treasure_ upstream!
Probably not though, lol.


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

Lewzer said:


> I am very sad about that particular dam removal but excited at the same time.
> 
> I don't think it will bring in species such as sturgeon and walleye from the lake with the dead zone from the lakefront to the steel mill. But who knows???
> I would think the Maumee and Black Rivers would have the same issue with the mouth of the rivers being dredged...


No shortage of any species of fish near the Cuyahoga river, last i saw the dead zone is out over deeper water in the central basin of the lake way offshore.


----------



## creekcrawler (Oct 5, 2004)

The dead zone Lewzer is referring to is the lower shipping channel in the flats.
I remember reading somewhere that it takes @ 10 hours for water in Akron to reach the 
lower shipping channel. It takes 10 days to go through the last miles where the river is dredged and channeled.


----------



## 21938 (Feb 17, 2010)

Glad this is happening. It'll be nice to see what the river will look like from Vaughn Rd. to 82 after some time has passed. No more 1/4 mile portage either, yea!


----------



## MikeC (Jun 26, 2005)

I have seen walleye taken at that dam. Also a great, great smallmouth area and giant carp, my favorite place to get big suckers also, caught a huge shad there.


----------



## wolfenstein (Jan 6, 2014)

The gorge dam will be only thing left blocking the river all the way to geauga county? What about dam at lake rockwell?


----------



## Overwatchmike (Mar 16, 2013)

Rockwell dam will never be removed as this is for city of Akrons water supply. There was an article a few years back about an electric shock boat below the 82 dam... Surgeon, walleye, steelhead, and steelhead were all found along with a bunch of other fish.


----------



## wolfenstein (Jan 6, 2014)

I heard Akron gets their water from Erie now and doesn't need ladude, Rockwell or mogadore anymore. Guy who lives close to ladue said they'e looking at selling off the land. Hope it's not true, at least turn it into State parks.


----------



## creekcrawler (Oct 5, 2004)

I do remember hearing that with Crackron's population decreasing, they really no longer need East Branch or Ladue for water supply anymore.


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

> I heard Akron gets their water from Erie now and doesn't need ladude, Rockwell or mogadore anymore.


Not true. They get their water from the Lake Erie watershed at Rockwell which the Cuyahoga River is part of. They don't need Moggy anymore as they were for the Akron rubber factories which are forever gone. Akron does divert some water from the Erie watershed to the Ohio River watershed but compensates by diverting water from Portage Lakes to the canal and back to the Erie watershed.
The issue with Akron is part of the city is in the Erie watershed and part is in the Ohio River watershed and one is not allowed to divert Great Lakes water outside the watershed without approval of the governors of states adjoining all the lakes and Ontario.


----------



## creekcrawler (Oct 5, 2004)

Lewzer said:


> The issue with Akron is part of the city is in the Erie watershed and part is in the Ohio River watershed


Good point, I never realized of that.


----------



## creekcrawler (Oct 5, 2004)

When they do pull the 82 dam, I'm curious as to how they're going to get water into the canal.
I know that was a problem they were having when planning this.
The dam was built to back up water to feed the canal way back in de day.


----------



## bdawg (Apr 14, 2009)

Akron was diverting water from the Lake Erie watershed long before the Great Lakes pact was signed. Those areas are grandfathered in. Akron doesn't have nearly the industry or population that it used to have, but eventually, they will need all the reservoirs again. The population is growing again.


----------



## bdawg (Apr 14, 2009)

I've only fished by the SR 82 spillway a couple of times. I will be very interested to see what new fish species come up to Akron next year. I've fished the Cascade Valley/Gorge area for 20 years. Only species I haven't caught there were channel cats, walleye, and white bass. I suspect that sheephead will make the journey upstream as well. The surprising species that I have caught there were bowfin and steelhead. I have caught a channel cat in the lake above the Gorge dam, but none below. The last 5 years, I've caught way too many little white perch. Can't drift a crawler or minnow for smallmouth because of all the white perch. I would be awesome if the Lake Erie walleye would run all the way up to Akron!

I'd love to hook into a sturgeon in the Hoga one of these days! If you want some excitement, look up Sight Fishing for Sturgeon on Youtube. The guy was catching them in a small stream. The fish were as long as his kayak!


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

When they do pull the 82 dam, I'm curious as to how they're going to get water into the canal.

Your article link states they are going to be pumping it into the canal.




> The Brecksville Dam project will include the installation of a pump that will divert as much as 13 million gallons of river water per day to the adjacent Ohio & Erie Canal, thus preserving the cultural and historic significance of the canal as a part of Cleveland's Industrial Valley. The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District will operate the system


----------



## I_Shock_Em (Jul 20, 2008)

Lewzer said:


> I am very sad about that particular dam removal but excited at the same time.
> 
> I don't think it will bring in species such as sturgeon and walleye from the lake with the dead zone from the lakefront to the steel mill. But who knows???
> I would think the Maumee and Black Rivers would have the same issue with the mouth of the rivers being dredged...


I've been conducting electrofishing surveys on the Cuyahoga for numerous years. We have been collecting walleye on the river for several years in a row now. Last year, at least one walleye was collected at all of our sites between river mile 7.0 (just upstream of ship channel) and RM 16.20 (<4miles downstream of 82 dam). I expect to see even more this year!!!

I would not expect to collect a sturgeon, but the possibility is there

The ship channel is not a dead zone, it is just not an ideal place for fish to live. This is due to a number of reasons. Physical parameters, i.e. temperature (generally higher water temps in the ship channel), turbidity (generally high due to the ship traffic in the river), chemical parameters, i.e. low dissolved oxygen primarily, and a general overall lack of habitat. The ship channel section of the river is lined with sheet metal, dredged from the river edge down to 20+ feet deep, and any trees or other woody debris that would provide habitat are removed from the river on a regular basis. Fish do travel through the ship channel (I collect steelhead every fall, upstream of the ship channel) but do not reside in it on a regular basis. For what it's worth, one of our historical sites is about 2.5 miles upstream from the mouth. A habitat restoration was done here a few years ago. The restored area has had an abundant amount of fish in it each time I have sampled (largemouth, smallmouth, channel catfish, yellow bullheads, white perch, white bass), which proves that lack of habitat is a primary reason why there are not large numbers/variety of fish within the ship channel


----------



## creekcrawler (Oct 5, 2004)

When I_Shock_Em talks Cuyahoga River, I listen.
Been thinking of fishing that "habitat restoration". Looked pretty good every time
I've been past it.
We did run into a school of big channel cats passing through the shipping channel last year.
Got a bunch of 5-10# right in front of Coastal Taco! 
Also heard rumors of some real big flatheads being caught in the west branch at night last year.
The fact that some people dump their fish guts at our marina when filleting might have helped bring them in.


----------



## bdawg (Apr 14, 2009)

I_Shock_Em said:


> I've been conducting electrofishing surveys on the Cuyahoga for numerous years. We have been collecting walleye on the river for several years in a row now. Last year, at least one walleye was collected at all of our sites between river mile 7.0 (just upstream of ship channel) and RM 16.20 (<4miles downstream of 82 dam). I expect to see even more this year!!!
> 
> I would not expect to collect a sturgeon, but the possibility is there
> 
> The ship channel is not a dead zone, it is just not an ideal place for fish to live. This is due to a number of reasons. Physical parameters, i.e. temperature (generally higher water temps in the ship channel), turbidity (generally high due to the ship traffic in the river), chemical parameters, i.e. low dissolved oxygen primarily, and a general overall lack of habitat. The ship channel section of the river is lined with sheet metal, dredged from the river edge down to 20+ feet deep, and any trees or other woody debris that would provide habitat are removed from the river on a regular basis. Fish do travel through the ship channel (I collect steelhead every fall, upstream of the ship channel) but do not reside in it on a regular basis. For what it's worth, one of our historical sites is about 2.5 miles upstream from the mouth. A habitat restoration was done here a few years ago. The restored area has had an abundant amount of fish in it each time I have sampled (largemouth, smallmouth, channel catfish, yellow bullheads, white perch, white bass), which proves that lack of habitat is a primary reason why there are not large numbers/variety of fish within the ship channel


Do you think there will ever be a walleye run in the Hoga similar to Maumee? Does it have a big enough flow for a walleye run? Is there any upstream spawning habitat?


----------



## crestliner TS (Jun 8, 2012)

bdawg said:


> Do you think there will ever be a walleye run in the Hoga similar to Maumee? Does it have a big enough flow for a walleye run? Is there any upstream spawning habitat?


Doubt it very much. Most of the walleye spawn in the western basin and the Maumee is a very rocky/gravely river which provides proper spawning habitat while the Cuyahoga is mud bottom.


----------



## creekcrawler (Oct 5, 2004)

Actually, most rivers that flow into Lake Erie had a walleye run in the way-back-when.
Most of those populations are long gone, but walleye bones have been found in archaeological digs along the Cuyahoga. There is still a small run in the Grand also. The Cuyahoga has plenty of gravel - that's where you find the smallies.


----------



## I_Shock_Em (Jul 20, 2008)

bdawg said:


> Do you think there will ever be a walleye run in the Hoga similar to Maumee? Does it have a big enough flow for a walleye run? Is there any upstream spawning habitat?


I am sure that some walleye spawning takes place on the Cuyahoga, but not a lot. I highly doubt that there will ever be a walleye run that is similar to the Maumee. While Cuyahoga does have plenty of rock/gravel habitat, heavy silt is pretty common throughout the lower 20 miles of river. Silt + eggs don't mix. This is just one of a number of factors working against having a good "run" in the Cuyahoga. I do expect to see more walleye in our surveys this summer though, especially with the great hatches in recent years.

I also attended a meeting today where CVNP confirmed the article that the dam removal process is scheduled to begin late summer/early fall.


----------



## crestliner TS (Jun 8, 2012)

The grand has plenty of rock/gravel botton and that is why it gets a decent run of walleye even though it is east. However the cuyahoga rock/gravel bottom is extremely limited and mostly mud just to clarify my above post.


----------



## bdawg (Apr 14, 2009)

I_Shock_Em said:


> I am sure that some walleye spawning takes place on the Cuyahoga, but not a lot. I highly doubt that there will ever be a walleye run that is similar to the Maumee. While Cuyahoga does have plenty of rock/gravel habitat, heavy silt is pretty common throughout the lower 20 miles of river. Silt + eggs don't mix. This is just one of a number of factors working against having a good "run" in the Cuyahoga. I do expect to see more walleye in our surveys this summer though, especially with the great hatches in recent years.
> 
> I also attended a meeting today where CVNP confirmed the article that the dam removal process is scheduled to begin late summer/early fall.


Doesn't the Maumee River also has a lot of silt because of all the farm land runoff upstream? 

Would it work to stock walleye fingerlings in the Hoga and Grand to get them to come back to the same river? Has ODNR tried it in the past? Once the dam is removed, there will be many more miles they could run up to find good spawning habitat. Plus, the Hoga is 100 times cleaner than 30 years ago.


----------



## GULPisgreat (Mar 17, 2009)

I never been to this dam but I might have to check out the area. Maybe hit the river bed with my metal detector once it drops.


----------



## I_Shock_Em (Jul 20, 2008)

Maumee has its fair share of silt as well. I was just bringing up one of may factors that reduce the chances of a big run in the Cuyahoga. Water quality, habitat, the fact that a good majority of the walleye population is in the western basin during the spawn, the list goes on.

Would it work to stock? Can't say for sure. I'm not sure if walleye "imprint" on a stream like various trout/salmon species do. No idea if DNR has tried it before. Once the 82 dam is gone, the river will be free flowing from the Gorge Dam in Cuyahoga Falls/Akron area all the way to the mouth. Although the removal of the dam is a good thing, water quality issues upstream of the dam will still need addressed. 

And yes, the Hoga is much cleaner than 30 years ago, hell even 10 years ago. In the 80's, our surveys were showing low numbers, low diversity (3-5 species per site). Now, depending on site location, it is not uncommon for us to collect 25+ species of fish during a survey on the river. Some species collected are even considered "pollution intolerant" meaning that if the river was too "dirty", they would not be there. Proof that the river is getting cleaner


----------



## crestliner TS (Jun 8, 2012)

bdawg said:


> Doesn't the Maumee River also has a lot of silt because of all the farm land runoff upstream?
> 
> Would it work to stock walleye fingerlings in the Hoga and Grand to get them to come back to the same river? Has ODNR tried it in the past? Once the dam is removed, there will be many more miles they could run up to find good spawning habitat. Plus, the Hoga is 100 times cleaner than 30 years ago.


The Maumee is mostly rock close to the lake. I can't speak for upriver though.


----------



## bdawg (Apr 14, 2009)

I can say for sure, it's getting better in water quality the last 10 years. I've fished the river in the Akron area for 20 years. Akron has built a lot of concrete storage basins in the last 10 years to keep polluted runoff from getting into the river. Once they finish building that huge tunnel under downtown Akron, the water quality will jump up again. They are definitely putting my increased water bill money to use!

Can't wait for the day when I can walk down the trail to the river from Babb Run Park in Cuyahoga Falls and NOT see toilet paper sticking to the outside of the manhole next to the trail!

I am excited to see what comes upriver to my fishing hole once the SR 82 dam is taken down this year! It will be like opening Christmas presents, but with a fish hook!


----------

