JakesLeakyWaders
Active member
Thanks, looks good.
Big Spring Habitat Work
- Thread starter troutbert
- Start date
JakesLeakyWaders
Active member
That's where I was thinking, I can see the ditch on the far left. I would assume that is exactly where it is.
jdaddy
Active member
Wonder why they did not take that island out?
I wondered that too....not only is it not taken out but it has toe protection meaning it is intentionally there.
My guess is it is a shallower braid to the channel to promote brook trout spawning. If they put grade control structures in that does not leave much habitat for brook trout to spawn. The whole thing looks like rainbow spawning water to me. But I would have to see it up close.
My guess is it is a shallower braid to the channel to promote brook trout spawning. If they put grade control structures in that does not leave much habitat for brook trout to spawn. The whole thing looks like rainbow spawning water to me. But I would have to see it up close.
Yes (a bit to the right of your arrow).
Maurice,
You're correct, the island is man made and didn't exist before. It currently exists in what would have been the center of the channel before the stream was narrowed. I too assumed it was some form of spawning braid, although I've never seen anything quite like this built anywhere else. The side braid is only about 2' wide and very shallow. There are some folks who have long felt that the historic success of brookie spawning in BS is due to the shallow nature of the stream combined with fine gravel and current upwellings thru that gravel. I don't know what affect, if any, these changes will have on spawning and the brookie vs rainbow issue. I do feel that these changes will greatly improve the area with regards to holding water and trout survivability.
Thanks for posting the photos.
The project will probably increase the trout population. But I doubt that the project will shift the population in favor of brook trout. If they want that they would have to put in a barrier and periodically remove other trout.
The project will probably increase the trout population. But I doubt that the project will shift the population in favor of brook trout. If they want that they would have to put in a barrier and periodically remove other trout.
skeeter
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 227
Thanks for the photos Fishidiot! I too am not a professional but I am young and passionate about stream restoration and I have had my part in the design of three restorations in VA and WV. The philosophy for stream restoration I use is Rosgen's Natural Channel Design, which in laymen's terms mimics stable (reference) channels. No one ever becomes a pro at stream restoration, you just learn from your mistakes and you don't do them again (that seems so easy to say but each stream is unique). Overall I think the stream width is an improvement but from the photos I do not like the riprap toe treatment, the island, and the log wing deflector. First let me say the pattern and profile of spring creeks are nothing like that of freestoners. I know from experience and research that the natural pattern and profile of spring creeks (or chalk streams) are supposed to be wide and have braided, non conforming channels with slow and deep moving pools with lots of VEG. Of course this isn't optimal habitat for trout but it is habitat for their food - macrophytes. The design IMO has conflicts with the rip rap toe treatments, I prefer bioengineering techniques like coir logs, willow mats, sunken trees, anything but rock unless its already in the system. It’s a spring creek, riprap toe treatments are for dynamic streams (i.e. freestoners) where there are bankfull events and there is a potential for bank erosion. Next, the island, that "oxbow" channel attempt will just be silted in and will become choked with cress. No flow or low flow = vegetation on spring creeks. Creation of braided channels is a hit or miss design attempt, but it seems to be forced here. The deflectors are not sloping towards the center of the channel, instead they are flat across the flow and it spreads the current across the channel into the bank. Not that this should be the case for a spring creek but this would have created increased velocities that would have developed a short traveled thalwag to promote feeding lanes. Also the logs are perfectly manicured. they should sunken some root wad trees with limbs and stuck them in there to provide cover. I think spring creek restoration is one of the more interesting models for stream restoration. I applaud the work because any work is good work and that section needed it. I hope I am not throwing anyone under the bus but you do get criticized in this field due to the enormity of stream restoration and it makes for improvement when developing a new model for success. Truth be told Big Spring is a gem; I think it will all work out since streams behave how they want to-I just hope it is the answer for the trout.
Chaz
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 8,469
Again the issue is not of flows, as some suggest, it is an issue of wide channel and lack of cover.
brookies psawn mostly in the ditch. The dam at the end of the ditch inhibits movement of trout to the ditch and should have been removed before they made improvements in the ditch.
The balance of the populations has tipped in favor of rainbows, in a coulpe of years there will be no brookies.
brookies psawn mostly in the ditch. The dam at the end of the ditch inhibits movement of trout to the ditch and should have been removed before they made improvements in the ditch.
The balance of the populations has tipped in favor of rainbows, in a coulpe of years there will be no brookies.
JakesLeakyWaders
Active member
I don't believe they should remove the dam altogether, but perhaps a fish ladder would be a possible solution. It would be nice to leave the ditch alone and still allow passage of the dam which is what, 5 feet high.
Does anyone have picture of the dam? I can't visualize every detail of it.
Does anyone have picture of the dam? I can't visualize every detail of it.
cmkrachen
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 394
They should call it what it is. An amazing wild rainbow fishery and leave it at that...Theyre are plenty of limestone streams they can dump money into and try and fix that dont have well established trout populations, these would be good for putting brookies in.
I think Chaz's pont was that this was the perfect opportunity to do just that.....but they didn't. They would have had to remove allthe resident rainbows and browns after they shut down the hatchery.
one = most????
well that should help the brook trout pops....
cmkrachen
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 394
you would think, but the majority of the bows arent "big fish" taking a quick look at the survey, which i am sure you have, tells part of the tale, but they dont survey the stretch with the most bows, so it is actually worse, or better depending on which fish you want to see in there
JakesLeakyWaders
Active member
You are a buzzkill.
