It is no secret that I am not a big fan of this project so take what you will from my posts. Questions answered, Yes and no. They have lowered the dam to help with the restoration but will replace it but not at the same height it is now. Supposedly it will only be "a couple inches lower". They are removing "evasive and native plants ( privets and honeysuckle) and replacing them with dogwoods and viburnums. That should make for a nice garden setting!!!!!
Yellow Breeches section closed for stream work
- Thread starter afishinado
- Start date
lycoflyfisher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,427
So your latest complaint is that they are removing invasive species like privet and honeysuckle and replacing them with native woody shrubs? Some research has indicated that invasive plant communities particularly in riparian habitats are linked to decreases in macroinvertebrate diversity.
Are you aware of any study that indicated that these plants have had a detrimental effect on the macroinvertebrates in the Breeches? Don't you think that would be an important issue in determining the need for such drastic changes to the stream and the insect life? Besides, that issue was never addressed. The main concern for this project is to "redirect the flow to the center thus providing "pools" for trout. Fishing that section on a regular basis, I have always been able to locate fish. Can't say that I catch that many. They seem to do quite well as it is. Again, I use The Run as a prime example of how "stream improvements" can have a detrimental effect on trout habitat.
It sounds to me like they are really on the right track. Removing invasive shrubs and replacing them with native shrubs is a good thing. And riparian shrubs and trees grow rapidly.
And keeping the dam but lowering the elevation a bit is exactly the right solution, IMHO. I can't think of a short or easy way to explain why, but here goes:
The Yellow Breeches, like most streams in PA, is a highly altered stream. It's nothing like it would have been in 1600. It's simplified, straightened, disconnected from its floodplain, there's development in the floodplain.
And this is why the Breeches, like many of our streams, is lacking in good pools and cover. Pools often form at meander bends. When streams are straightened, they lose meander bends pools. Streams also have much less large woody debris than in the past and LWD is also a big cause of pool and cover formation in streams. And streams originally had channels that split, then rejoined, and confluence pools were created at the re-joinings.
The simplification (channelization) of streams greatly reduces the processes that form pools and cover. The result is a lot of flat shallow featureless water.
In simplified streams, often much of the pool habitat that does exist is created by artificial structures such as dams and bridge abutments and rip-rap and even sewer line crossings.
It's artificial structure, but it's structure, and that beats no structure.
That dam creates a pool above the dam, and nice runs below the dam.
The height of the dam, though, is higher than optimal. It backs the water too far upstream, i.e. the pool is too long. This causes the water to slow too much in the pool, and for large amounts of sediment to drop out, making most of the pool shallow.
Many people think that a pool behind a dam inevitably will fill in with sediment. But that is not true. It does that if the pool is backed up too far, so that the water slows too much.
If the pool backed up behind a dam is the optimal size, high velocity flows coming into the pool from above during high water events will keep the sediment flushed out and the pool will remain deep. I've seen this many places.
So, if they lower the elevation of the dam a bit, it will reduce the surface area of the pool. It won't extend as far upstream or be as wide as before. But it should result in a deeper pool, with better current flow into the head of it, so result in a higher quality pool that will support more trout.
Last edited:
JimKennedy
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2016
- Messages
- 311
Couple of questions, if anyone knows:
Is any of this being done in coordination with the dam replacement project up on Children's Lake?
What's up with the old Yellow Breeches dam below the steel bridge upstream from Boiling Springs? When that blew out, it changed the dynamic of Children's Lake, the raceway connecting the Breeches to the Lake and the weird little all-rapids creek that relieved pressure on Children's Lake and The Run.
Plus, there was a plan to turn that area up where the dam near the iron bridge was into a kids only section, presumably to replace that kids only section that used to be behind the swimming pool. Any word on that?
Any enlightenment would be much appreciated.
Is any of this being done in coordination with the dam replacement project up on Children's Lake?
What's up with the old Yellow Breeches dam below the steel bridge upstream from Boiling Springs? When that blew out, it changed the dynamic of Children's Lake, the raceway connecting the Breeches to the Lake and the weird little all-rapids creek that relieved pressure on Children's Lake and The Run.
Plus, there was a plan to turn that area up where the dam near the iron bridge was into a kids only section, presumably to replace that kids only section that used to be behind the swimming pool. Any word on that?
Any enlightenment would be much appreciated.
Biggie
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2006
- Messages
- 899
One thing that they are working on, is getting the cold water from the run away from the shallow bank and direct it towards the deeper middle. The birds will have a much harder time in the summer picking off the trout if this works. Any regulars know that from mid July on the fish are within 10 feet of the bank on the cold water side. I hope this works. I am only referring to the top section where the work is currently being done. Also the very large boulders being added will create some much need structure . Also there are some nice undercut areas where the fish can be up to 2' under a log along the bank. Again good safety spots from the herrons.
How can fishing for stocked, hand fed, hatchery trout ever be discussed as an "intimate" experience?
wgmiller
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,993
It all depends on your viewing lens. I’d be willing to bet that someone who lives in a larger city and rarely gets out may view it as such. To you and me, certainly not.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
It ain't my thing either, but the fact that such places exist is proof of their value to folks with limited time or limited mobility, disposable cash and a desire to catch lots of fish fish without getting frustrated.
It's been going on for centuries...
It's been going on for centuries...
redietz
Well-known member
Not my cuppa, but "intimate" implies that you're not sharing it with a bunch of other people -- certainly not the case as it's been since I've been fishing there for the last forty years. It really has nothing to do with the quality of the experience.
I should of thought about my comment more before posting it. Surely when time and family obligations are pressing one for time to get out for a few hours to fish a hatchery stocked stream can still give one plenty of pleasure. I've been Blessed with the opportunities to fish over wild trout for over fifty years. Occasionally though when the waters are high or dirty where I prefer to fish I will likely be found on the Tully.
wgmiller
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,993
I think most of us understand the origins of your comment, as we share similar attitudes to some extent. It can be easy to look down on "how" others pursue their quarry and in what setting. I'm guilty of that from time-to-time as well. Obviously none of us mean anything by it, but it certainly can come across that way. At the end of the day we're all just passionate about protecting the resources and ensuring access to fishable water. The intentions are pure.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
My former dentist, also an angler who is now retired put it into perspective for me one day while I was sitting in his chair when he explained why he was a member at a fancy fishing club in the Poconos...
Doc, (paraphrasing): “I don’t have a lot of time because of the career path I chose and when I have time off, I don’t want to waste a lot of time trying to find fish to catch…plus, I can afford it.”
Doc, (paraphrasing): “I don’t have a lot of time because of the career path I chose and when I have time off, I don’t want to waste a lot of time trying to find fish to catch…plus, I can afford it.”
Mea culpa
CLSports
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,161
Someone please tell me where rock vanes or any of those other in-stream structures have improved trout habitat. I would love to know an example in PA. Every one I know of has not improved anything at all. They are an eyesore and very unnatural obstructions.
mikeg126
Member
Hi guys, my first post (I must have met the qualifications to join the forum! Thanks for letting me in.). YB is my go to stream and when I saw the initial clearing and heard about the "improvements" my heart sank. Sometimes these so called improvements actually make things worse if not executed properly. Judging from the photos it seems that they took a more conservative approach. I hope that they do put some fill dirt and plantings on the rock walls to help promote cover and insect habitat. I am glad to see that they are moving some of the invasive brush and replacing it with indigenous plants. I guess time will tell if this helps or hurts this section of the stream.
Judging from the improvements made to Big Spring maybe there is hope....
Does anyone know if March 1 is still on track for completion.
Judging from the improvements made to Big Spring maybe there is hope....
Does anyone know if March 1 is still on track for completion.
wgmiller
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,993
A lot of times the rock structures (if unrestrained by wire caging, etc.) just fall victim to high water events anyway. There's a few of them on the Donegal in such condition.
Conversely, as far as in-stream structures that have improved habitat, one place I can think of is Big Spring Creek in Cumberland County. As many know, this is a classic spring creek with little natural holding structure other than weed beds and undercuts. The vane deflectors that were installed have created some habit where none previously existed.
Here's an interesting document on stream habitat improvements from the PFBC: https://www.fishandboat.com/Resource/Documents/habitat_improve_trout.pdf
Bamboozle
Well-known member
I was involved with a stream improvement project back in the 1980's on Martin's Creek in Northampton County with the Brodhead Chapter of TU under the guidance of Don Baylor who I respect greatly.
We installed deflectors and created a small falls using old telephone poles and other stuff with me doing most of the bull work at the time. 😉
I finally got around to fishing it almost 30 years later and the stuff we put in was still in place and the plunge pool we created was loaded with wild browns. Don & Brodhead TU had similar success stories on the Brodhead.
I also feel the gabion defectors installed on the Little Lehigh former Heritage Stretch improved & stabilized things a lot as did some of the more recent work on Run where there was a lot of bank erosion years ago opposite the "wall."
Did the fishing get better at all of these places after the "improvements?"
I can't speak to Martin's Creek because I never fished it BEFORE the work we did, but I know the Brodhead was a channelized mess through the 'Burgs" before the work Don & Brodhead TU did in the 1980's. It's still channelized, but it fishes a 1000 times better than the trough it was before that.
As far as the Run goes, that place is a farce anyway but what good is it if one whole area can't be fished because the bank is gone? Would it be an improvement if it was left to its own and there were 15 doofuses wading in the middle of it because the banks were gone??
Every situation is different, but I prefer to wait and see what transpires at the Breeches before I'm willing to lump it in with all of the supposed failed stream improvement projects.
I don't mind being wrong, but at this point, nobody knows for sure and there are much brighter folks than me involved in the project.
We installed deflectors and created a small falls using old telephone poles and other stuff with me doing most of the bull work at the time. 😉
I finally got around to fishing it almost 30 years later and the stuff we put in was still in place and the plunge pool we created was loaded with wild browns. Don & Brodhead TU had similar success stories on the Brodhead.
I also feel the gabion defectors installed on the Little Lehigh former Heritage Stretch improved & stabilized things a lot as did some of the more recent work on Run where there was a lot of bank erosion years ago opposite the "wall."
Did the fishing get better at all of these places after the "improvements?"
I can't speak to Martin's Creek because I never fished it BEFORE the work we did, but I know the Brodhead was a channelized mess through the 'Burgs" before the work Don & Brodhead TU did in the 1980's. It's still channelized, but it fishes a 1000 times better than the trough it was before that.
As far as the Run goes, that place is a farce anyway but what good is it if one whole area can't be fished because the bank is gone? Would it be an improvement if it was left to its own and there were 15 doofuses wading in the middle of it because the banks were gone??
Every situation is different, but I prefer to wait and see what transpires at the Breeches before I'm willing to lump it in with all of the supposed failed stream improvement projects.
I don't mind being wrong, but at this point, nobody knows for sure and there are much brighter folks than me involved in the project.
