Valley Creek Dam Partially Collapsed

[rrt]

1. Even if trout move up as they did 25 years ago, let the dam remain to prevent fish other than trout from establishing themselves and possibly spoiling what you have there.

2. Dave -- Nice painting. I wish I did, but I have absolutely no talent in that direction. Be thankful for your talent, and use it as often as you can.

3. Disclaimer: I have never fished VC, so my thoughts may not be as relevant as those of guys who do fish there.

 

[Nymph-wristed]

mcarney99 wrote:
I think the dam should stay for two reasons: keep ww fish from swimming upstream and munching on BT eggs in the fall. And that “frog water” section above the dam isn’t desirable to flyfish due to the fact the banks are steep straight down into slow deep water with mud bottom. The thing is this section is a refuge for larger fish on VC. There isn’t enough habitat on the creek above for a lot of bigger fish. Every time a log jam forms or some sort of other cover it blows out in a storm eventually and gets filled in with silt or gravel. This section is permanent refuge for big trout with multiple springs adding cool water. Also gives the fish a break from constant pressure because of how difficult it can be to present a fly in this section. A LOT of valley numbers are due to larger fish hiding in the shadows of this section and swiming upstream in the fall to spawn. If you remove the dam and subsequently this section will shallow out and give these fish less habitat. Valley number will suffer in the long run I’m almost sure. I have seen fish in the upper section move down into this section once they’ve hit a certain size and have had enough flies bounced off their heads. It’s valley creeks retirement community for some of the bigger wiser fish. The fish we need breeding in valley not turning into musky food in the river or having to move upstream and being caught 4 times a month because the water is too shallow in that section.

\

That is a very interesting theory, for sure. I just wonder if there is any proof beyond anecdotal (ie I see big fish there all the time) because I have caught fish as large as 19 inches in good, big fish water like undercuts, log jams, etc a long way from that long slow pool. Has that stretch been electroshocked, for example? If your theory were true, wouldn't the justification you shared be an argument for not taking down most dams on small creeks? Or is this about proximity to the dirty Skuke... The big fish seem to find a way, I think, and Valley fish in general are nothing if not resilient based on their tattered past...

Beautiful painting too, Dave!

 

[troutbert]

If the dam is removed, what do you think the stream structure and trout habitat would be like in that stretch?

 

[jifigz]

I am not familiar with Valley Creek but I will make an assessment based on other streams I am familiar with. I fish plenty of high quality trout streams that are not impeded by a dam and are open to WW systems with catfish, carp, smallies etc and these streams do not get "invaded" by these WW species. Occasionally some smallmouths or a walleye may show up but it is rare and trout still rule these types of waters. If Valley is a high quality cold water stream that people say it is then when without the dam I don't think those Skuke fish would move up in there and displace and compete with trout.

Mcarney99: how do you witness fish moving from upstream haunts to this lower pool formed by the dam? Spot patterns of fish or do you tag them and do studies? I'm just not sure how anyone can say with certainty that this fish used to be the fish 2 miles upstream in a riffle when it was a little guy but now that it grew that it most definitely migrated to that dam pool. Once again I have no dog in this fight as I don't fish Valley and I may never fish Valley, but if the dam isn't causing problems then leave it and don't spend the money that the government probably doesn't have to remove it.

 

[JasonC]

I think without the dam, there will be little to no change in the stream and the trout population in regards to "invasive" warm water species. Now I don't know if the dam creates some type of buffer in regards to water chemistry that would change the alkalinity of the stream and thereby affect the fish. If I had a vote, I would restore the facade that fell simply due to the historical value.

 

[shadspoon]

I'm not going to get into the discussion because it is the Parks decision in the end. I will share a post card from the 50's I believe. A lot has changed! Note the large control lever is still there. And if there are any trout below the dam, trust me they can make it over the dam. Not the 18+" fish but the 14-15" fish always made it, eventually. I was very lucky to be able to see that in the 90's. Pete

 

[shakey]

Personally,I don’t think it matters much.
You could drop a bomb on valley ,and those sneaky trout would find a way.

 

[mcarney99]

Nymph-wristed wrote:

mcarney99 wrote:
I think the dam should stay for two reasons: keep ww fish from swimming upstream and munching on BT eggs in the fall. And that “frog water” section above the dam isn’t desirable to flyfish due to the fact the banks are steep straight down into slow deep water with mud bottom. The thing is this section is a refuge for larger fish on VC. There isn’t enough habitat on the creek above for a lot of bigger fish. Every time a log jam forms or some sort of other cover it blows out in a storm eventually and gets filled in with silt or gravel. This section is permanent refuge for big trout with multiple springs adding cool water. Also gives the fish a break from constant pressure because of how difficult it can be to present a fly in this section. A LOT of valley numbers are due to larger fish hiding in the shadows of this section and swiming upstream in the fall to spawn. If you remove the dam and subsequently this section will shallow out and give these fish less habitat. Valley number will suffer in the long run I’m almost sure. I have seen fish in the upper section move down into this section once they’ve hit a certain size and have had enough flies bounced off their heads. It’s valley creeks retirement community for some of the bigger wiser fish. The fish we need breeding in valley not turning into musky food in the river or having to move upstream and being caught 4 times a month because the water is too shallow in that section.

\

That is a very interesting theory, for sure. I just wonder if there is any proof beyond anecdotal (ie I see big fish there all the time) because I have caught fish as large as 19 inches in good, big fish water like undercuts, log jams, etc a long way from that long slow pool. Has that stretch been electroshocked, for example? If your theory were true, wouldn't the justification you shared be an argument for not taking down most dams on small creeks? Or is this about proximity to the dirty Skuke... The big fish seem to find a way, I think, and Valley fish in general are nothing if not resilient based on their tattered past...

Beautiful painting too, Dave!

I’m not sure if it’s been electro shocked but really there would be no way to electro shock that stretch thoroughly the fish would easily see then coming in that stretch and swim away. And there are larger trout throughout valley but there just isn’t enough habitat for many large trout so each good pool that could support a large trout probably average of 20-30 yards apart sometime do and sometimes don’t have a larger resident fish in them. But I’ve fished valley multiple times a week after work throughout the years and I’ve fished every single inch of that creek and one thing is certain is that there probably more 18”+ fish hiding in the stretch above the dam then the whole rest of valley combined. And jeopardizing the habitat that not only supports those fish but makes it harder for anglers to target them in perhabs the most pressured water in the state in my opinion would have devastating affects on the rest of the creek. Those big fish don’t spawn in that section they swim upstream and help populate the creek.

 

[JasonC]

With the amount of water that is on private land and not accessible to fishermen, I'm certain there is a very good number of larger trout. Larger means older means smarter, they just figured out where the best habitat is

 

[sarce]

mcarney makes a lot of good points that I hadn't considered before. I tend to agree. Other parts of Valley still have *some* big fish lies but not as many as in the past because of the stormwater problems. That trend will continue. And the private sections are not that long. Might as well keep the one big fish refuge that will not get rearranged by floods every few years.

If anyone wants to see what happens when brown trout streams lose big fish habitat, fish central/northern MD...the streams are very "flashy" and streams with browns over 12" are relatively hard to come by.

 

[Swattie87]

The removal of a similar, but smaller, dam on a small CV limestoner I believe contributed to its decline. It's also in an area of significant commercial and residential development similar to Valley. The dam provided the best, and really only physical big fish habitat on the stream. I don't think there's been an influx of WW species from the receiving stream into it since the dam removal, but there's definitely less Trout.

Each situation is different. Valley clearly produces a good head of fish with the dam in place. It if failed on its own, I wouldn't necessarily suggest rebuilding it, but I don't see any big reason to expend the resources to tear it down either.

 

[Nymph-wristed]

sarce wrote:
mcarney makes a lot of good points that I hadn't considered before. I tend to agree. Other parts of Valley still have *some* big fish lies but not as many as in the past because of the stormwater problems. That trend will continue. And the private sections are not that long. Might as well keep the one big fish refuge that will not get rearranged by floods every few years.

If anyone wants to see what happens when brown trout streams lose big fish habitat, fish central/northern MD...the streams are very "flashy" and streams with browns over 12" are relatively hard to come by.

I was being serious when I said that mccarney had a good theory there that I would like to see proven because that anecdotal evidence won't stop the park from pulling it down some day. I also think that this theory may only be true for a very short section in the park, while there is plenty of holding water throughout the watershed.

The original objections before he weighed in had to do with the dangers of opening the creek to the river, which I don't think are warranted. mccarney's point also has implications for the desire to pull down dams all over the state, which continues....

 

[CLSports]

Please let me know when it fully collapses. The water behind that dam is a silty mess. It is not refuge for any larger fish. There is zero habitat in the several hundred yards above the dam. I realize it is historic and will probably never be removed until mother nature finally has its way and washes that obstruction into the Skuke!

 

[salmo]

Take down the dam and you will probably have some pretty big muskies dining on brown trout. Please check this out:

http://www.wfmz.com/news/southeastern-pa/man-catches-45-inch-musky-in-schuylkill-river/778117397

 

[CLSports]

Perfect!

 

[Dave_W]

salmo wrote:
Take down the dam and you will probably have some pretty big muskies dining on brown trout. Please check this out:

The notion of muskies moving up into VC and eating the trout is highly unlikely and would rank at or near the very bottom of any bad side effects of a dam breach.

 

[salmo]

Why? Is it because the stream is too shallow?

 

[sarce]

Too shallow, and muskies usually eat suckers.

 

[Dave_W]

salmo wrote:
Why? Is it because the stream is too shallow?

Pretty much. I've never heard of anyone routinely catching muskies below the dam in VC.

It's not impossible that a muskie, especially a smaller one, might swim up VC and eat a trout or two, I just think the likelyhood is very remote. Muskies like creek mouths and will swim up small tribs, but they rarely move up fast water in a shallow trout stream the size of VC.

 

[geebee]

muskies may not move up, but stocked rainbows may do - anyone here fished Mossy Creek in VA ?

there the population of wild browns is seasonally added to by rainbows stocked way upstream in the North River that migrate each summer into Mossy's cool spring fed stream.

some of these fish are 4-6-lbs and on the special regs section run by TU the minimum size of take is 22" seriously.

it might be wise when assessing the impact of a free flowing Valley Creek to talk to the TU folks down there for their thoughts - anecdotally i see no shortage of small to 10" browns but i've only been visiting it for four years or so.