Breach on Chiques Creek dam

[salmonoid]

Anyone know what the intent of the breach on the Chiques Creek dam, near the mouth is (Heistand Sawmill Dam)? Are they finally removing the dam entirely? I noticed some construction vehicles in the grass area south of the dam last week and on Friday, it was breached in the middle, with some loads of rip rap dumped in the stream.

Money was appropriated for a dam design removal in 2010 or 11.

American Rivers had it slated for removal in August of last year, but the only thing that happened last year was the construction of the bridge for the rail/trail directly below the dam.

Always wondered if that pool created by the dam held large browns - lots of down trees, proximity to the Donegal, etc.

 

[salmonoid]

I stopped by on the way home from work yesterday. The breach was widened and I think I can answer my own question, in that it looks like a permanent removal. The only question remaining is whether it will be a partial or full removal. I guess it depends whether this idea gained any traction.

Breach:





Lots of legacy sediment:



441 bridge:



Looking upstream, Donegal Creek is the stream to the left. Chiques already falling through a gradient. Quite the log jam at the bridge abutment.

 

[icyguides]

I'm really interested to see what changes this brings to the lower chiques and also the donegal but i'm not exactly sure what to expect at this point.

 

[ebroesicke]

As far as I know the DEP requires full removal.

 

[Chaz]

Expect the legacy sediment to move during the next downpour and the stream to start cutting down into the streamed.

 

[barrybarry]

Saw it today on the way to work. I can't wait to stop and walk that area. Love to know all the hidden things under that water.

I'm sure by now a few retiree's have walked the stream and gained a couple hundred pounds of spinners and lures.

That stream area can only improve. Props to money well spent.

 

[Mike]

One thing that will most likely happen will be walleye moving upstream.

 

[wgmiller]

So glad to see this thing being removed (at least most of it). I've never fished this area, but the dam removal certainly will clean things up quite a bit. The amount of trapped water the dam held made a lot of "frog water". It's odd driving home and looking down and seeing rocks where the Donegal/Chiques merge.

It'll definitely open up "runs" for smallies and walleye.

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/landmark-dam-on-chiques-creek-near-marietta-being-torn-down/article_1b2fc4d0-f41d-11e4-be75-8f6580899f95.html?mode=image&photo=8

 

[salmonoid]

It shows just how little water is in Donegal. When it flowed into the frog pond, that masked the base flow. There is a black and white bunny leech in there somewhere I lost a few winters ago. Free for the taking..

 

[wgmiller]

salmonoid wrote:
It shows just how little water is in Donegal. When it flowed into the frog pond, that masked the base flow...

Truth.

 

[geebee]

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/landmark-dam-on-chiques-creek-near-marietta-being-torn-down/article_1b2fc4d0-f41d-11e4-be75-8f6580899f95.html


American Rivers again.

 

[Mike]

Perhaps this will eventually expose some better habitat in the short length of Donegal into which the water from Chiques was backing. Just above the dam pool's influence in Donegal itself there is some gradient (and rubble), so perhaps there is some buried in the sediment between the last Donegal riffle and its mouth as well.

 

[wgmiller]

I know that by judging the USGS gauges and from first-hand accounts the waterways are low(er) right now. For March, the Donegal seems to be very low and I have to wonder if removing the backwater condition helped to create it. I'm not a hydraulic engineer (nor do I play one on TV), but logically I'd have to think that removing the backwater and allowing the Chiques to flow freely did indeed reduce the Donegal's level.

Thoughts?

 

[Mike]

My post #12 above was foretelling. I have checked the formerly inundated habitat on the Donegal. It is fairly good and ready to hold fish. It will be interesting to see if it undergoes further improvement.

 

[salmonoid]

wgmiller wrote:
I know that by judging the USGS gauges and from first-hand accounts the waterways are low(er) right now. For March, the Donegal seems to be very low and I have to wonder if removing the backwater condition helped to create it. I'm not a hydraulic engineer (nor do I play one on TV), but logically I'd have to think that removing the backwater and allowing the Chiques to flow freely did indeed reduce the Donegal's level.

Thoughts?

The removal of the pool did reduce the "level" or visible height of standing water of Donegal at the mouth, because the slackwater it flowed into previously is gone, and now the Donegal is flowing in it's true channel and showing it's flow level. But it had zero effect on the actual flow rate of the stream. The water withdrawals upstream are the biggest impacter of that, but I am not a hydraulic engineer either, nor do I play one on TV, but this is the Interwebz, where everyone is an expert

 

[barrybarry]

There's a small farm dam just north of 23. The lower section of the stream won't change anything above it. Most people fish the sections above the dam.