Valley Creek Restoration

[Fredrick]

Oh by the way I will be going to the tying night tomorrow . I will thank them for all thier hard work for you Jay 😛

 

[jayL]

LOL

 

[crs5942]

I think that the next decade will bring to light the true intentions of TU chapters in SE Pa. The big player is going to be what what chapters do with the results of the "Legacy Sediment" research that has been done and the research that is still ongoing. Being personally involved with the research for several years, I had the opportunity to present to Donegal TU. I made it clear that restoring native floodplains is more expensive than current "restoration" protocol and such restoration may result in a wetland system that would be too wet to fish during certain times of the year. I think that this reality caused some hesitation amongst the DTU members that attended my presentation. IMO, TU will always put fishing before restoration. This is partly because the current designation of "restoration" in SE PA is merely stream improvement and not restoration at all. I think that due to the higher costs of restoration and the result of a wetland that may not be fishable during wet seasons, SE TU chapters will continue to choose stream improvements over native wetland restoration. Ideally, there needs to be a mixture of stream improvements and native wetland restoration on the trout streams of SE PA. I am hopeful that TU will take this duel approach, but thus far the response to "Legacy Sediment" removal has been minimal. I sure hope things change.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I think it will over time crs. Your right in saying that restoring the native flood plain is true restoration and not just for the fish. Wetlands create habitat for all kinds of other animals. I also agree we need a mixture of stream enhancement and flood plain restoration.

We are lucky to have Lititz Run here in Lancaster. Im curious crs....what are your thoughts to what that stream will be like in the next decade. Do you think the wild rainbows that are popping up here and there will begin to expand in population? Do you think the browns will ever reproduce? Also do you think the Banta property, that the flood plain restoration took place, will ever be open to fishing? That section really looks nice off of the road. Im also curious to how the brown trout fingerlings they planted in that section are doing.

 

[franklin]

crs5942 wrote:
I think that the next decade will bring to light the true intentions of TU chapters in SE Pa. The big player is going to be what what chapters do with the results of the "Legacy Sediment" research that has been done and the research that is still ongoing. Being personally involved with the research for several years, I had the opportunity to present to Donegal TU. I made it clear that restoring native floodplains is more expensive than current "restoration" protocol and such restoration may result in a wetland system that would be too wet to fish during certain times of the year. I think that this reality caused some hesitation amongst the DTU members that attended my presentation. IMO, TU will always put fishing before restoration. This is partly because the current designation of "restoration" in SE PA is merely stream improvement and not restoration at all. I think that due to the higher costs of restoration and the result of a wetland that may not be fishable during wet seasons, SE TU chapters will continue to choose stream improvements over native wetland restoration. Ideally, there needs to be a mixture of stream improvements and native wetland restoration on the trout streams of SE PA. I am hopeful that TU will take this duel approach, but thus far the response to "Legacy Sediment" removal has been minimal. I sure hope things change.

I don't think it's the "intention" of the TU chapters that is the issue. It takes much more work over a longer period of time to affect the watershed from the floodplain perspective than to do some stream improvements. Only a subset of the TU membership has the interest, time, or stick to it ness that is needed for changes on a broader scale. A stream improvement project is easier to get done in a year or two, get landowners buying, and get funding. Wetlands restoration is likely to require multiple private landowners to buy into the benefits. They can easily agree to some erosion reduction improvements. Many will view wetlands as a mosquito breeding ground.

 

[crs5942]

Sal,

I can remember catching several of the released brown trout in Lititz Run about six months after DTU released them at Banta. I haven't really noticed any over the past year or so but I also have not paid much attention to the adipose fins. I have personally caught the majority of wild rainbows near the water treatment plant and due to put and take fishing regulations they don't stay around for long. My prediction is that there will be one or more LandStudies type restorations done along the stream within the next decade. I suspect that the Millport Conservancy property may be a candidate for such a restoration; however, this is merely a prediction. I am doubtful that the stream will ever reach the status of a sustainable wild fishery. The Conservancy stretch has potential but is still highly impaired. The C & R section is severely perched and being close to the mouth also has temperature issues most years. IMO, the best place to establish a wild trout fishery on Lititz Run would be the short stretch between Lititz Run Road and Clay Road. It is unlikely place, but I think that the discharge from the water treatment plant actually facilitates the rainbow reproduction. It is certainly ironic that I have caught more wild trout in that stretch than the rest of the stream, given the the highly impaired nature of the stream above Riparian Park. I am very fortunate to have grown up fishing Lititz Run and to have been involved with several aspects of floodplain improvement and restoration along its course. Now that I've moved to Philadelphia, I've heard others talk about DTU and the work done on Lititz Run. The stream itself is beginning to have quite a reputation. I think that Lititz Run will be viewed as a model watershed 30 years from now.

 

[troutbert]

CRS,

Can you provide any estimates of cost for the type of full floodplain restoration you are talking about? Even a ballpark figure for cost per mile for a modest sized stream like Lititz Spring Run.

The McCoy Dam removal site on lower Spring Creek might have been a good site for such a project. From what I've heard it was considered. People from F&M and Bucknell checked out the site. But I heard that idea was rejected because of cost.

And at this site, and probably many others, it was not TU who called the shots. In this case the decisions were made by the PFBC.
And they aren't over-flowing with extra cash.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

link

The technique is viewed by many as an effective means to deal with stream valleys laden with sediment that has accumulated for centuries. But the project outside his office cost $120,000 to restore 900 feet of stream and a portion of its flood plain. Other projects have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to restore streams and their adjoining flood plains.

$120,000 dollars for 900 feet of lititz run.

 

[crs5942]

The cost of moving the sediment to another location is the big money factor. If someone needs top soil by the thousands of tons and is willing to truck it away voluntarily then the cost is pretty much equal; however, when the sediment transportation has to be factored into the cost then the project becomes significantly more expensive then conventional protocol. I don't know what it would cost per linear foot because the sediment was dumped on the top of the ridge at the Banta farm and grasses were planted to prevent upland erosion.

 

[tomgamber]

That's just the physical part of moving the dirt. There is expense in testing that sediment before moving it. You can't just take sediment and put it wherever you want. Especially from where you are talking about. DEP frowns on that greatly and it also keeps my wife employed.