Dam removal.

[geebee]

it's nearly always good news when dams on the lower parts of tribs come out. not only will cooler water result downstream of the former dam, but the Lehigh will also receive a shot of cold water it didn't receive before...

plus the adronomous species get better access which puts more natural nutrients in the stream upstream.

good news.

 

[RyanR]

troutbert wrote:

RyanR wrote:

Whether it's riffles or pools, who cares? I've never heard that a riffle isn't good habitat, especially for the all important macros.

Pool habitat isn't important?

Really Troutbert? Like that's at all what I was implying.

 

[RyanR]

troutbert wrote:
Where a plunge pool was formed below a dam, and you remove that dam, the plunge pool will disappear.

Unless there is something else going on there to create and maintain the pool, for example if the bridge abutments are influencing the flow in a way to maintain a pool there.

But generally speaking when you remove a dam, the plunge pool will disappear. That's predictable. The mechanics of it are very straightforward.

Okay, so an artificial plunge pool is removed. I understand your explanation but I don't see your point other than implying that removing the dam and all the well-known problems that causes is less preferable to keeping the dam in place in order to preserve the small, artificially created habitat of the plunge pool? Taking into consideration the overall health of the stream leaving the dam to only serve to preserve a small plunge pool seems entirely short-sighted. Coming in after the dam-removal and using rock cross vanes to create/maintain a pool does not seem contradictory to me at all. Rather, I think it is much more preferable for maintaining a pool while still allowing for the all too important function of moving sediment downstream and out of the system. Straightfoward indeed. ;-)

 

[troutbert]

RyanR wrote:

troutbert wrote:
Where a plunge pool was formed below a dam, and you remove that dam, the plunge pool will disappear.

Unless there is something else going on there to create and maintain the pool, for example if the bridge abutments are influencing the flow in a way to maintain a pool there.

But generally speaking when you remove a dam, the plunge pool will disappear. That's predictable. The mechanics of it are very straightforward.

Okay, so an artificial plunge pool is removed. I understand your explanation but I don't see your point other than implying that removing the dam and all the well-known problems that causes is less preferable to keeping the dam in place in order to preserve the small, artificially created habitat of the plunge pool?

I didn't say, or imply, that removing the dam was a bad thing.

The point is that pool habitat should be considered an integral part of the whole process.

That should be evaluated in advance, and designed for, and funded, as part of the project.

Otherwise, either the work doesn't get done at all and the result is a long stretch of permanently poor habitat.

Or people are left trying to scramble around to get grants once again. And maybe the grants come through or maybe not.

It would be better to incorporate the planning, designing and funding for the resulting habitat into the whole job. In many cases this is has not been done. But could be done in the future.

This info may be helpful for someone planning a future dam removal.

For example, I read that many dams will be taken down on Bushkill Creek. Will these projects be simply dam removals? Or will they be designed (and funded) to ensure then when the project is done that there will be good habitat for trout?

 

[RyanR]

I agree that pool habitat is important but so is riffle habitat and to decry a dam removal project for the sake of one plunge pool is near-sighted in my opinion. Playing armchair quarterback on a project and stream based on a few snapshots is not fair to the project or the people that put in the many years, yes YEARS, of effort and time required just to get to the the actual physical removal portion of the project. Removal is normally only one part of these projects which for several reasons typically have to be done in stages. Agree with it or not but it's often just not feasible to do all the work of an entire project at one time. I know for a fact that with some of these projects, it is often decided the best practice is to give the stream a chance to sort of figure its own path out before installing habitat and stabilization devices.

Another aspect I think some might overlook is the relevance of owner liability in these removals. Maintaining a dam is an enormous financial and potential legal burden. That is a big impetus in removing the actual dam and doing so takes precedent over maintaining a simple plunge pool that never would have been there in the first place without the dam. I think just removing a sediment trap does more for improving stream health & habitat than a single plunge pool provides.

 

[troutbert]

No one said, or implied, that the dam should not have been removed. We are unanimous that removing the dam was a good idea.

Everyone wants good trout populations. The observations, ideas, suggestions about pool habitat might be interesting and useful to some people. At this stream site and/or others. The Conservation forum is a good place to discuss fluvial geomorphology stuff.

 

[RyanR]

Oh my mistake, not a lick of armchair quarterbacking on the project. Suggestions and discussion are one thing and indeed very useful but there was at least one statement that intended or not implied the project, which I don't think is completed, was somehow done poorly or not designed well. I didn't think that was fair to the project or those that put their efforts into it, that's all.

 

[melvinp]

Old mother nature will decide what the final happenings there will be just like it should be. GO MOM! Just get out of her way.

 

[Mike]

It is not realistic to think that there will always be funding to do habitat enhancement following dam removal. While that is preferable, more times than not it does not happen or it happens to a lesser extent than would be ideal. One must be opportunistic when it comes to dam removal; one can't wait around for all of the money, manpower, and materials to appear that would allow for habitat improvement beyond the removal of the dam and some shoreline stabilization. While the waiting occurs, the permits expire, the dam owner gets cold feet, the grant for dam removal dries up, etc, etc. Furthermore, dams on wild trout streams are not removed just for the purpose of improving trout habitat or trout populations. In this case, whether it is trout fingerlings or adults, trout will most likely benefit at the very least in the area that was once buried sediment. Additionally, there will be ecological benefits, as there is a substantial migration of white suckers, sea lampreys, and American eels that was probably being held up and/or blocked by this dam. Consider this dam removal to be restoring some ecosystem functionality, even if it only helps until the fish reach the next dam upstream. Who knows, the eels may even bring native mussels (natural pollution filters) along for the ride. PS Lampreys are part of the natural ecosystem in the Delaware Basin, adding to ecological diversity and stability. They are welcome.

 

[JackM]

Dam!

 

[CLSports]

Does anyone know how this project was funded and who got the ball rolling on the removal? It is a TU project? Was the state or city of Bethlehem involved, DEP, PF&BC?

I just ask because this is a common concern in PA with all of these low level dams that serve very little purpose anymore and should be removed. I can think of a few on the Bushkill I would like to see be removed. The problem I see is the funding for these projects. They are not high priority as far as a public health or safety issue, they are more of an environmental concern that could involve DEP or PF&BC funding.

Just curious on the background of this project if anyone is in the know.

 

[ebroesicke]

This project was pretty much done exclusively by the City of Bethlehem. All funding was done through grants, which the City applied for. I forget exactly which grants they ended up getting. The Monocacy Chapter of TU was involved in getting the ball rolling so to speak, and offered support through out the process, but the City did all of the work. The dam was located on City property. The Forks of the Delaware Chapter is involved in many projects on the Bushkill (easton).

 

[Asbury]

Reviving this old topic. Was up in Bethlehem a few weeks ago and was talking to another fisherman who was telling me that along with the dams there is an effort to eliminate stocking on the monacacy and let it go natural. Any truth to this?

 

[afishinado]

There is a proposal by the FBC to limit stocking to preseason only on streams found to be Class A. Monacacy is one of them.

Here is a past thread discussing the proposal.

 

[Chaz]

ebroesicke wrote:
This project was pretty much done exclusively by the City of Bethlehem. All funding was done through grants, which the City applied for. I forget exactly which grants they ended up getting. The Monocacy Chapter of TU was involved in getting the ball rolling so to speak, and offered support through out the process, but the City did all of the work. The dam was located on City property. The Forks of the Delaware Chapter is involved in many projects on the Bushkill (easton).

I don't know if the let it go wild plan is gaining steam, but I for one would welcome the ending of stocking on the Monocacy as well as the other limestone streams in the LV.
BTW the dam at Illicks Mill is supposed to be removed this summer, if it hasn't already been removed.

 

[studiomule]

Chaz,
Are you sure you mean the Illicks Mill dam? I haven't heard any chance of that one being removed. The one in the colonial area came down last fall.

 

[franklin]

The one at Illck's Mill would likely take a lot of work as that is built into the stonework at the park. Would be good to see it get removed. Probably need some work with the silt behind the dam.

As a side note I see there is a debate going on about the Robin Hood dam on the LL. Seems like there is one guy raising a ruckus about removing it.

 

[ebroesicke]

I can tell you with 100% certainty that the dam at Illick's Mill is not coming down this summer, and there have been no plans in the works to do so. There is a plan to update the park and do some stream work. The dam is not part of that plan.

Stocking will probably never be ended on the lower section of the Monocacy due to high angler use and easy access, The plan has only ever been to end in-season stocking. Due to the fact that the creek has a high population of wild fish that qualify as Class A, this seems to make sense.


Re: Robin Hood bridge yes, there is 1 guy who for some reason really loves that dam, and is letting everyone know about it.

 

[SBecker]

Link to Robin hood dam dude.

 

[Mike]

CLsports: One thing that it seems that anglers don't think about with respect to wanting a low-head dam removed from a creek is that the project first requires a willing dam owner.