Saucon Creek dam removal

[chuckytown]

Dam removal successes stories:

http://www.tu.org/conservation/watershed-restoration-home-rivers-initiative/small-dams/dam-removal-success-stories

And dam removal analysis:

http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/sediment/projects/hemlock/index.html

The reference section in the second link provides some useful information. Fascinating study - I'd vote for option C.

 

[tomgamber]

There was never a dam built to better a piece of water. Dams are built only to serve people. Never underestimate the power of water. If a dam is removed, eventually (and I am not qualified to determine how long eventually means) the stream/river whatever will recreate its channel and become wild again. Whether it affected fish populations is not a result of the dam being removed but was affected when the dam was built in the first place.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

There was never a dam built to better a piece of water.

Except of those built by local sportmans clubs or uneducated "stream restorations". Those people think because they created 5 inches more depth to favorite holes they have improved the stream.

Hay Creek comes to mind

You right though tom, i cant think of a real dam that was built to better the ecosystem of a stream.

 

[DGC]

Of which see:

http://pennsylvaniaflyfishing.blogspot.com/2009/10/saucon-creek-dam-removal.html

Site also happens to be one of the better reads on the web. Don't know him personally.

 

[AlwaysWading]

I've been there since the dam removal and it's hard to say there is a difference in fish numbers. It will take a number of months or years for the actual results to show up, since the stream itself needs that time to adjust to the change.

The removal should be a positive thing but only time will tell.

What would make an immediate positive impact is for the current restricted stretch to be changed over to fly fishing only C&R. Too many breeders are being removed, let mother nature handle everything, let fly fisher-persons enjoy our time on the stream, and put fish back for the next person to enjoy.

 

[JeffS]

AlwaysWading - Have you visited Saucon Creek within the past week?

If you haven’t, you missed some great visuals. Fly fishermen were fishing from the elevated walls along the stream. They were hooking fish, hoisting hooked fish up over the walls, unhooking the fish, and then dropping (releasing) the fish 6 feet down only to have them splash into 3” of water. The C&R flyfishing only crowd down there is having an "immediate and positive impact" on the stream, but I'm not sure it is in the manner you suggest.

As for the three year old breeders in Saucon Creek...they are thriving. If flyfishermen stop targeting spawning fish, if they stop stomping through their spawning redds during the winter and early spring, there would be even more fish to be had, but fly fishermen on Saucon Creek seem to miss this point.

There is no need to make this stream C&R FFO. It is thriving despite the poor actions of the hoards of flyfishermen that currently fish it.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

browns breed in the winter and spring?

They Breed in the fall.

I have no doubt your accounts JeffS. But this is the 100th time ive seen you make remarks about Fly fisherman like you hate them. Whats up man? Cant we get a little love?

 

[JeffS]

I didn't say browns breed in the winter and spring. I said flyfishermen should stop stomping through their spawning areas in the winter and early spring.

Sal -
You asked where I was coming from on another thread that dealt with polls. You are asking me again where I am coming from in this thread.

I do not hate fly fishermen by any means. I am a fly fisherman myself and I get out about 100 times a year.

Posts on this board are predictable and ridiculously one sided - I simply offer another opinion. Just because someone is a fly fisherman it doesn't mean they are God's gift to conservation and that they have good stream manners.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I agree Jeff. But try to remember this is a FFO forum. OF course the posts are going to be one-sided. If you gather a group of like minded people, you can predict how most the group thinks.

Im glad you cleared that up, i was beginning to think you hated FFer's. No worries man, and yes i agree with your last statement.

Tight lines!

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

There is no need to make this stream C&R FFO. It is thriving despite the poor actions of the hoards of flyfishermen that currently fish it.

I will add that your original post is just as judgemental as we are. ;-)

Its not flyfisherman in general, its maybe the flyfisherman you saw that day. ;-) Thats just like saying bait anglers are ruining our streams

 

[troutbert]

AlwaysWading wrote:
I've been there since the dam removal and it's hard to say there is a difference in fish numbers. It will take a number of months or years for the actual results to show up, since the stream itself needs that time to adjust to the change.

Does the habitat look better or worse or about the same? Experienced fishermen know what good habitat and poor habitat looks like.

If you were familiar with what it looked like before, and you've looked at it recently, you should be able to make a pretty fair judgement about whether the habitat is better than before, worse, or about the same.

Does anyone have before and after photos?

 

[billw]

habitat should be greatly improved, lots of wood and overhangs added on upper end of park.

 

[Sylvaneous]

Syl

troutbert wrote:

JeffS wrote:
Anyone fish this stretch since the dam has been removed? Have fish been holding there?

I'm not familiar with this particular dam, so I can't say whether its removal will be beneficial for trout or not.

But there is a very common assumption that ALL dam removals will benefit trout populations. That assumption is definitely wrong. Each dam is different. .

This section is quite gravelly and the water above it, being impounded, is deep and silty. Unfortunate, because the gradient increases right around here after being pretty flat for a long ways. There is a sharp bend impounded by the low dam that now can develop as fish structure. Also, the flow, or I'll call it 'wash' from the side channel made by the dam caused a LOT of erosion and just pushed around sand and gravel.

Yes, Saucon could be a match with some of the best. From mis-use and abuse to neglect, it lacks good fish holding cover throughout. It was the origin of my term "flat riffles": fast water lacking good edges or any rock bigger than the gravel in your driveway. Simple but strategic dumping of basket sized rock along banks and in these riffles would do a world of good. That's what I wanted to get done when Chris and I started the Saucon chapter of TU. But when I moved away, the direction and fire was lost, and the creek did not get better.

 

[Sylvaneous]

billw wrote:
habitat should be greatly improved, lots of wood and overhangs added on upper end of park.

Well, that's not where the dam was. That's upstream from the removed dam. That's nice to see, though. When I was living in Bethlehem, the parks had just stopped mowing along the creek below there along the creek in a wet section of grass.

A GREAT place for stream work would be below the swinging bridge. It's eroded horribly with little fish habitat and a place where the ducks and geese congregate. You could do worse than to use bushell-sized rock to move the creek in about 5 feet from each bank. A few hundred tons just dumped right in then wrenched into place. A man-made, controlled rock slide.