Bushkill dams

[Mike]

The incentive for owners to agree to or desire dam removals in Pa is often eliminating liability. As a result, when given the opportunity, the dam owners realize that they are well-served by full removal. That’s what they want.

 

[FarmerDave]

troutbert wrote:
The best option would probably be partially breaching the dams, rather than total removal.

You could remove a slot in the middle, and leaving the sides in place. And in the slot, leave part of the base. Enough to create a drop. The drop plus the velocity from the water running through the slot would create a pool below the structure. And you could take the slot down far enough that fish could easily move up over it.

And leaving the stub of the dam would also maintain a pool above the structure. You'd get riffle-pool sequences.

I've seen old broken down dams that created this type of habitat.

On highly developed streams (ditches really) often most of the habitat is from man-made structures such as dams, bridge abutments, rip-rap, etc.

I've even seen some nice pools created by sewer lines crossing streams. You can see this at The Trench on Spring Creek, downstream from the park in Bellefonte.

Although I can't argue with that, I think you are not considering a few other things. My first though as liability issues but Mike beat me to it. Dwight, what you are proposing would in essence create a low head dam which are significant drowning hazards. It also creates a significant eyesore by leaving most of the dam. So with all things considered, my opinion is that the best option is complete removal. Second best would be leave it along.

Disclaimer: I am not at all familiar with these specific dams. I was speaking in general, and these dams must be addressed individually. In other words, I could be wrong. But siding with a biologist familiar with the locations reduces that risk.;-)

 

[Sylvaneous]

troutpera wrote:
This is about the Bushkill Creek in Easton. Noticed the dam in front of the old Binney and Smith factory (start of the CR section) has been gone for about a month. Assume this is a good thing. Are there any immediate plans to remove other dams on the Bushkill?

Wow, that's great!. I remember 25 years ago exploring the lower parts of the Easton Bushkill and seeing that it was just dam after dam. It basically isolated and strangled the trout population. Removing the dam in the middle of the C&R would reveal several hundred meters of excellent habitat.

Syl

 

[Sylvaneous]

Mike wrote:
If that long pool remains, and it looks like it will from the video, there’s not much you can do with that from a habitat perspective. If the boulders you mentioned are what are referred to as randomly placed boulders, they are pretty poor habitat unless grouped rather than randomly placed. Few fish utilize the individual boulders around which I have electrofished….Tully DH, Fishing Ck @ Mill Hall, Wyomissing Ck. It’s a lot of expense for relatively little return.

That's what I've seen, too. And the positive effect on the fluvial geomorphology is minimal and oftentimes, diliterious.
What is needed is PILES of rock about 1 ft across and bigger, across the bottom and along the sides, a whole structure of what I'll call a rock garden. One big rock amongst gravel and small rock will have too severe eddy currents to allow a trout to rest and shelter.

Sure, a structure here or there to fix a specific problem is OK, but again, can wash out or create other problems or just put the problem a few feet downstream. TTo make a real difference in trout populations, the structure needs to begin to emulate the habitat of the great trout streams. Look at what was done on Spring behind the old McCoy Dam. And then, it's not super great. It could use more rockpiles along the bottom. If you want rabbits, you need a briar patch, not a few blackberry canes in an open field.

Syl

 

[dryflyguy]

troutbert wrote:
The best option would probably be partially breaching the dams, rather than total removal.

You could remove a slot in the middle, and leaving the sides in place. And in the slot, leave part of the base. Enough to create a drop. The drop plus the velocity from the water running through the slot would create a pool below the structure. And you could take the slot down far enough that fish could easily move up over it.

And leaving the stub of the dam would also maintain a pool above the structure. You'd get riffle-pool sequences.

I've seen old broken down dams that created this type of habitat.

On highly developed streams (ditches really) often most of the habitat is from man-made structures such as dams, bridge abutments, rip-rap, etc.

I've even seen some nice pools created by sewer lines crossing streams. You can see this at The Trench on Spring Creek, downstream from the park in Bellefonte.

This was basically the situation that existed on Dunbar Creek.

There were 4 small dams - no higher than about 6 feet - that were completely breached. With most of the dam structures left in place

This was done long ago. Sometime before I started fishing there - over 30 years now.
This left some nice deep pools and structure just above and below each dam, that always held lots of fish - some of them quite large.

Then several years ago, they removed the dams completely.
And what was left of the nice pools and structure, has slowly filled in the last few years.
And the fishing is nothing like it used to be.

 

[troutbert]

dryflyguy wrote:

troutbert wrote:
The best option would probably be partially breaching the dams, rather than total removal.

You could remove a slot in the middle, and leaving the sides in place. And in the slot, leave part of the base. Enough to create a drop. The drop plus the velocity from the water running through the slot would create a pool below the structure. And you could take the slot down far enough that fish could easily move up over it.

And leaving the stub of the dam would also maintain a pool above the structure. You'd get riffle-pool sequences.

I've seen old broken down dams that created this type of habitat.

On highly developed streams (ditches really) often most of the habitat is from man-made structures such as dams, bridge abutments, rip-rap, etc.

I've even seen some nice pools created by sewer lines crossing streams. You can see this at The Trench on Spring Creek, downstream from the park in Bellefonte.

This was basically the situation that existed on Dunbar Creek.

There were 4 small dams - no higher than about 6 feet - that were completely breached. With most of the dam structures left in place

This was done long ago. Sometime before I started fishing there - over 30 years now.
This left some nice deep pools and structure just above and below each dam, that always held lots of fish - some of them quite large.

Then several years ago, they removed the dams completely.
And what was left of the nice pools and structure, has slowly filled in the last few years.
And the fishing is nothing like it used to be.

Thanks for the info. Do you know why they removed the breached dams, when they were creating good habitat?

Since they were breached, they would not have been preventing fish passage. What was the goal?

Has any work been done since then to improve the habitat?

 

[dryflyguy]

Troutbert:

From talking to a few locals there, the dam removal had little to do with trout habitat - even though it is a FFO special reg area.

Apparently - during heavy rains, water was still pooling up behind the dams, and causing problems.
So funding was secured for their removal.
But that's hearsay.

I don't remember seeing any stream improvement afterwards.

One of the upper dams, which was breached on one side only originally, resulted in the stream flowing down along the front of the structure.
This created one of the best dry fly pools in the whole creek - and I caught many fish there.
And after it went through the breached area, left another really deep pool below that was full of good structure, and held many fish also.

Since they removed this dam, the creek has split in two there,
leaving those beautiful holes I just mentioned, practically dead water now.
And I haven't caught - or even seen - a fish there since