Improving Wild Trout Angling in PA

More "bad" news :roll:

There’s just no stopping the Spring Creek Chapter of Trout Unlimited and its mission to protect the water residents of State College and surrounding area enjoy.

Since 2012, the group has completed, or is currently in the process of completing, 11 habitat restoration projects throughout Centre County. These projects were funded by a $69,800 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant, along with $165,000 in local matching money. They include riparian buffer planting at Milesburg, McCoy Dam, Deer Creek Lane and Fisherman’s Paradise, and bank stabilization projects at Oak Hall and near The Distillery.
As these projects wrap up, TU already is planning its next step in continuing to keep the Spring Creek Watershed pristine. And, once again, the National Fish and Wildlife Federation has stepped up to help.

According to SCCTU president Robert K. Vierck, NFWF has awarded the chapter another grant, this time in the amount of $160,700 for more habitat improvement projects. Coupled with $100,640 in contributions from partner agencies such as the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Centre County Conservation District, ClearWater Conservancy, Chesapeake Bay Conservancy, the University Area Joint Authority and Centre Region Parks and Recreation, it looks as though TU volunteers will be busy for a few more years to come.

“We need to keep the momentum going,” Vierck told Centre County Gazette. “This chapter has done a lot for the local watershed and has worked hard to keep the headwaters of Spring Creek clean. We’re going to keep doing that, and grants like this sure help out. We’re very fortunate to get it.”

The money will be distributed for projects at three sites.
Reducing sedimentation and erosion entering Spring Creek at Rock Road is the first project Vierck noted. He said this project is on state Fish and Boat Commission land and employees of that organization will conduct most of the work at the site. He said in addition to reducing sedimentation and erosion, the project will also provide enhanced habitat for trout and associated species.

“This section is lacking diverse cover and substrate within the stream is embedded with silt from the eroding stream banks, preventing the stream from reaching its full potential,” said Vierck.
He said this part of the project will begin this spring and includes installing stream structures such as log and stone deflectors and random boulder clusters and riparian planting of native trees and shrubs along 315 feet of stream.

Vierck said this work would be completed by the end of the 2018.
The second project, located between Houserville Road and Trout Road, also has high erosion and sedimentation and lacks a riparian buffer
“High levels of erosion and sedimentation have led to embedded stream gravel and the lack of overhead fish cover prevents trout from using the area as a spawning habitat,” Vierck said.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife representative and volunteers from several organizations plan to install structures such as mudsills, toe logs, rock cross vanes and random boulder clusters and riparian buffer restoration.

Vierck said this project would begin in late 2018 and most likely run into 2019.

The final project is on Slab Cabin Run, a main tributary to Spring Creek that supplies a majority of the drinking water to the State College Region. Vierck said prevention of further erosion, sedimentation and nutrient pollution is vital at this site. He said the scope of this project includes installing a riparian buffer along the length of the stream owned by College Township.

“The purpose of these restoration projects is to improve water quality by reducing erosion, sedimentation and nutrient inputs while creating habitat for a self-sustaining trout population,” said Vierck. “We are deeply appreciative of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant which will be a continuation of 15 highly successful stream restoration projects implemented in the Spring Creek watershed since 1990.”

Although the projects will wrap up in 2019, Vierck said TU continues to be busy identifying other areas of problems within the Spring Creek Watershed and other local water systems.
“We’re already looking at an area on Bald Eagle Creek above Port Matilda that needs work,” said Vierck. “There’s also several areas of Spring Creek that need repaired. We’ve done a lot, but there’s still lots to do.”

As part of the planning and evaluation of this project, SCCTU and its partners incorporated the FieldDocs model to evaluate 15 separate projects including 26 site practices completed on Spring Creek since 1990. The results have produced reduced nutrient inputs by 9,725 pounds of nitrogen, 2,641 pounds of phosphorous and 459 tons of sediment per year. The projects include riparian buffer plantings of more than 6,000 native shrubs and trees covering more than 17 acres, over half a mile of fencing and .16 miles of stream restored along Spring Creek.

The announcement of the grant comes on the heels of another watershed announcement. ClearWater Conservancy reached its $2.75 million fundraising goal to help protect waters in Slab Cabin Run.





There are people out there doing something to finally try remediate all the abuse many of our streams have endured for the last century, or two.

It's beyond me how anyone would have any reason criticize such an effort. Yes, some projects may fall short or miss the mark, but again, the vast majority of projects do a lot of good for the stream, the fish, and yes the angler in the long run.

Thanks to all involved in this effort.
 
troutbert wrote:
troutbert wrote:

After McCoy Dam was removed, several cross-vanes were built. What would yinz have done instead of that?
Click to expand...

Anyone? Several people have posted negatively about habitat structures. So, what would you have done in a case like this?

This is not a unique case. I'm just choosing it as an example because it's a place that many people on here are familiar with.

Probably other people can think of other examples. Some others that come to mind are:

Spring Creek in Fishermans Paradise.

Spring Creek in the "Trench" below the park in Bellefonte. From the High Street bridge down to the next bridge.

Kettle Creek in Ole Bull State Park.

The Little Lehigh in the Parkway.

Or Valley Creek in that section upstream from Rt. 23 where the banks are very steep on both sides and the habitat is very poor.

Fishing Creek where it flows through Mill Hall.

What would you do in these places?
Click to expand...

As much as I fish Fishing Creek I do not fish it where they put those wood stream diverters down below the Ax Factory. I think it takes away from the natural stream and quite honestly didn't add much to it. I think the same when I see Spring around Bellefonte. A bridge pier is more appealing to me then these diversions. I don't know what else can be done but I would rather see just a tree fallen in the water. I know what people are trying to do though with placing those logs and stones. It's ok but not how I want things.

Anyone see that they cut down ALL the trees along Fishing Creek where you turn to go up through Mill Hall on 64? This is terrible for the stream especially the lower end. Also the new property owner up above the stocked section below Cedae Hill bridge is talking about clearing more of his property. There needs to be more regulations for people who have stream side property.
 
As previously mentioned, often times it's not just about improving the fishing. The projects that I work on our spearheaded by a watershed group, with the hope that the fishing will also improve. The project just completed this week probably won't do a whole lot to improve the angling, but greatly improves the health of the watershed.

A mud sill completed to stabilize a slide on a railroad grade. Not a lot of immediate increase in fish habitat, but decreasing erosion and keeping trains on their tracks are pretty important to our streams.

In regards to cross vanes, they are one of the most useful devices even though they may not be the most visually pleasing. They provide overhead cover due to increased water depth and increased dissolved oxygen, especially in sections of streams that are overly wide and shallow.
 
Planting the floodplain and moving buildings, water lines, sewer lines, power lines, roads, and railroads away from the banks of streams is what you have to do in some cases. Improving culverts and bridges so that they don't impact fish movement or negatively impact the reach of stream they are in are big deals.
 
People really have no clue. a lot of this improvement garbage is all about money changing hands. All i can tell you is that some really sweet places that had some very nice fish have been destroyed by "well meaning" people. Very sad. The status quo ideas about wild trout don't always apply when talking about many of these special places.

Do ggoders gotta keep on doing!Well enjoy! You can all feel good about yourselves. Pat eachothers backs as you march hand in hand with your corporate sponsors and the PAFBC. Enjoy the tiny amount of habitat and the dinky trout your efforts will produce. And BLOW that money! Really sickening to those of us who value these unique though "imperfect" places that held nice trout for those willing to do a bit of hiking and homework.
 
Fox, your comment about the trees parallels what's going on at my mom and dad's. They live on the lower end of the yellow breeches just up from the Mechanicsburg Water Works. My mother harped on me years ago to go in during low water, and cut up some of the fallen trees and remnants from a previous flood. At the time, it was pretty slow and silty and never held wild fish (stockers would pile up in one hole right against their bank, but that's it).

I refused to remove the "debris" in hopes that it help channel the stream and remove some of the silt. Sure enough, the one area now has a gravel bottom with some larger rocks, and wild fish have moved in. Every evening they rise to midges on this slick. The largest I've caught in that stretch so far was 15", which is decent for yellow breeches brown, given the slaughter that water undergoes. Two fallen trees transformed what was once sub-par water, into a section that holds wild fish most of the year, within the span of a couple years.

If the two dams downstream of them ever got removed, my 34y/o self would try to move into their basement haha
 
Yep. Good stuff SteveG. Good old Mother Nature.

I was especially annoyed just yesterday to see a backhoe literally digging up the stream bed on the very stream I had recently admired. I'm sure my tax dollars are being used in this project. This is a rocky streambed (little silt). The "improvements" are completely unnecessary. Waste of time and money and of course will be publicized (the agencies involved all need the feather in cap) leading to increased fishing and degradation of the place. These groups get $-grants etc. so of course they gotta use it. Very destructive. Stream recently is "discovered" and classified by PAFBC.....RARELY was fished. Now here come the bulldozers!!!

Are there worthwhile projects? Sure. BUT certainly not all.

The whole promoting of wild trout by PAFBC that has recently happened is a perfect example of taking credit for something they really did not have a big role in. Reality is they stocked some trout and the trout found suitable habitat and thrived. NOW they come along and try to take take credit and "sell" the resource. (Hey our $$$$ is drying up and we need to promote something....) (Look at all the great opportunities for angling that WE provide).

I'm not into bashing the PAFBC but this is an example of marketing vs REAL management and responsible stewardship. Very tricky.
 
foxtrapper1972 wrote:

I was especially annoyed just yesterday to see a backhoe literally digging up the stream bed on the very stream I had recently admired. I'm sure my tax dollars are being used in this project. This is a rocky streambed (little silt). The "improvements" are completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Where is this? Stream and location?

You have been making the claim that habitat projects are degrading existing good habitat stretches of stream.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. But to support your claim, you have to provide examples.

I've seen a great many stream habitat projects. I've seen many that did not work at all, or worked very minimally.

But these projects were not done in stream stretches with good existing habitat. They were done in stretches that had poor habitat, because of past man-made disturbances.

These projects didn't work, but they did not make things worse. The habitat was poor before, and remained poor.

About the only habitat projects I've seen that were clearly harmful, were channel blocks in a stream running through a forested floodplain without any floodplain developments.

So the channel blocks were not done to protect floodplain property. They were done because the people thought that streams are "supposed" to remain in a single channel, rather than splitting.

That assumption is totally wrong. It is widely known now that it is normal for streams to split and re-join, and have multiple channels, but hasn't always been well known.

These channel blocks were an old project. I saw them in the late 1980s, and from their appearance, they had been built long before that.

I hope most groups know better than to do that these days. The PFBC habitat people surely know.

Your posts try to create the impression that there is widespread activity that harms existing good habitat stretches. I haven't seen that.

So, show us. Try to make the case. Simply ASSERTING something is just the first part. The second part is to SUPPORT the assertion.




 
I had a friend whose townhouse complex was torched by an arsonist. When I talked to him, he said his house was saved from fire. All he could yell about was how the firefighters and messed up his house with water and broke the window saving his home. No railing or rage about the arsonist, though :roll:
 
Well, I am one who thinks much stream work can be helpful and have worked on a number of projects. But, I can give an egregious example of where stream tinkering was harmful.

The removal of the McCoy Dam (and the West Penn Dam) were both harmful. The water behind each, esp the McCoy Dam, had filled in and had created good trout habitat and did not appreciably raise the water temperature of Spring Creek. Fishing at both places was special when I was a young fly-fisherman, and I admired the casting of Henry Malone of Milesburg and others who cast from the walkway at West Penn to the rising trout across the pool and made it look effortless. The size of the trout in the pool behind the McCoy Dam was pretty incredible. Even a young and dumb flyfisher like me could latch onto hefty trout and sometimes land one or two. However, the powers that be decided that the dams had to go.

Now, the McCoy ditch exists. The habitat "improvements" after the dam's removal probably made the workers feel good and probably helped improve the habitat of the ditch. But, if the McCoy Dam had been left alone, it would have continued to support healthy trout in a healthy environment.

It was really sad to see both dams go, and I can no longer even force myself to fish there.
 
The real impetus for the removal of McCoy Dam was safety, from what I've heard.

In fact, I heard that safety (preventing drownings) was the driver behind the whole PA dam removal push.

As I heard it, the state legislature was upset, and was hearing from constituents, about numerous drownings that were occurring below low head dams, and decided that we need to take them down, and they tasked the PFBC with the job.

I don't know that this is true, but I think it probably is.
 
troutbert wrote:
The real impetus for the removal of McCoy Dam was safety, from what I've heard.

In fact, I heard that safety (preventing drownings) was the driver behind the whole PA dam removal push.

As I heard it, the state legislature was upset, and was hearing from constituents, about numerous drownings that were occurring below low head dams, and decided that we need to take them down, and they tasked the PFBC with the job.

I don't know that this is true, but I think it probably is.
Click to expand...

So, what about the dam in Bellefonte?
The two a short ways downstream were a hazard. But it isn't?
 
Interesting.

The motivation or impetus for the McCoy Dam removal is one question to ponder, but that's water over the dam in this case, since it has already been removed.

What interests me more is the results a decade after the removal.

Has the dam removal improved, degraded, or have had no effect on the Spring Creek stream biology and/or trout fishing in the immediate area as well as up and downstream?
 
rrt- Like I said some of these projects are okay but certainly not all or even most in my view.

The unique situation you mention is the exact sort of thing that often gets trampled over in the rush to use available grants etc.

The streams I am most concerned about are ones that contain wild fish and perhaps don't have classic structure or typical trout stream habitat BUT the fish are there and are often unmolested and sometimes quite large. There may be a stream that has quite a bit of flat shallow water or undercut mud banks etc. At some point some (probably well intentioned) individual brings said stream to attention of PAFBC or TU amnd off they go.....TU and others see this as an "opportunity".
Quite often the REAL problems of agricultural run off or wastewater being improperly processed are ignoered while sveral 100 yds of devices ("improvements") are made. Of course with the attention online and at the site increased angling happens and the big fish suddenly are gone.
 
afishinado- EXCEPT there was no fire and the fire company rushes in and pours water all over the persons belongings and destroys their property for absolutely no good reason.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.
 
Turning a perfectly nice trout stream in PA into a trout golf course....groomed and built to someones exact specifications and vision is really an ugly way to view nature and the diversity of ways trout can propogate and live without active interference by those seeking attention and $.
 
troutbert- I will send you info. No need to publicize here.
 
dryflyguy wrote:
troutbert wrote:
The real impetus for the removal of McCoy Dam was safety, from what I've heard.

In fact, I heard that safety (preventing drownings) was the driver behind the whole PA dam removal push.

As I heard it, the state legislature was upset, and was hearing from constituents, about numerous drownings that were occurring below low head dams, and decided that we need to take them down, and they tasked the PFBC with the job.

I don't know that this is true, but I think it probably is.
Click to expand...

So, what about the dam in Bellefonte?
The two a short ways downstream were a hazard. But it isn't?
Click to expand...

Agreed. And the PFBC itself has 2 dams on Spring Creek. All 3 of these could be dangerous to kayakers.

So I think they targeted low head dams no longer used for anything. (State wide, not just Spring Creek.)
 
foxtrapper1972 wrote:
rrt- Like I said some of these projects are okay but certainly not all or even most in my view.

The unique situation you mention is the exact sort of thing that often gets trampled over in the rush to use available grants etc.

The streams I am most concerned about are ones that contain wild fish and perhaps don't have classic structure or typical trout stream habitat BUT the fish are there and are often unmolested and sometimes quite large. There may be a stream that has quite a bit of flat shallow water or undercut mud banks etc. At some point some (probably well intentioned) individual brings said stream to attention of PAFBC or TU amnd off they go.....TU and others see this as an "opportunity".
Quite often the REAL problems of agricultural run off or wastewater being improperly processed are ignoered while sveral 100 yds of devices ("improvements") are made. Of course with the attention online and at the site increased angling happens and the big fish suddenly are gone.
Click to expand...

Some can't see the stream for the water.

If fishin' good...who cares if it's impaired....leave it alone....it's my secret fishin' hole!.....and deres big ones in there!!! :roll:

Think big picture man!...instead of railing again about TU, nature conservancies, the PFBC and all other groups looking to protect streams as well as fund and work on stream restoration projects...

Why don't you rail against the unchecked development in PA with all the housing developments, strip malls, parking lots and creation impermeable surfaces with unchecked runoff, agricultural run-off, chemical pollution, amd, improper sewage discharge, removal of riparian cover, pollution from industry, and the state or county and/or township supervisors allowing unchecked development to increase the tax base.............I'm getting all worked up just writing this!!!:evil:

:lol:....but I have no anger towards TU, the nature and land conservancies, PFBC and all the other organizations trying to protect and make our streams better. We need folks that care and are willing to work to make PA a better place.

Join us, Fox...

DRK

Spring Creek TU

Perkiomen TU

Thanks to all that give their time and money to make a difference...
 
Foxtrapper, is the recent habitat work that you mention that which was done on Peters Ck, Lanc Co? If so, it needed it in that particular stretch due to the extensive impacts from storm water runoff. I put that stream and it’s drainage basin on a high priority list for habitat work, which in my mind includes agricultural best management practices at times as well as instream work and riparian plantings. The recent work there was instream and stream bank stabilization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top