Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 (2) 3 »


Re: Dam removal.

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6088
Online
Quote:

RyanR wrote:

Whether it's riffles or pools, who cares? I've never heard that a riffle isn't good habitat, especially for the all important macros.



Pool habitat isn't important?

Posted on: 2013/10/1 22:23


Re: Dam removal.

Joined:
2007/3/29 7:56
From Bethlehem, PA
Posts: 290
Offline
^it is, and there are pools upstream and downstream from this. We are talking about 10-20 yards between pools, not a 1/2 mile of riffles. The area under the bridge in the first picture is about 5+ ft deep, and the engineer who was onsite supervising the whole project left part of the pool below the dam intact. It was to deep for a guy in chest waders. I am glad this project is getting so much attention, it is a big improvement over what it was, and it was done correctly.


Posted on: 2013/10/2 8:22
_________________
www.monocacytu.org


Re: Dam removal.

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6088
Online
Quote:

ebroesicke wrote:
^it is, and there are pools upstream and downstream from this. We are talking about 10-20 yards between pools, not a 1/2 mile of riffles. The area under the bridge in the first picture is about 5+ ft deep, and the engineer who was onsite supervising the whole project left part of the pool below the dam intact. It was to deep for a guy in chest waders. I am glad this project is getting so much attention, it is a big improvement over what it was, and it was done correctly.



What did they do to ensure that the pool below the dam will remain? Did they leave a "stub" of the dam in place so that there is still a bit of a drop there, to maintain the plunge pool below the dam?

I proposed doing that on a dam removal and was told that DEP would not allow it, that to get a permit to remove a dam, you had to FULLY remove it. You could not leave a low "stub" portion of the dam for habitat diversity, including pool habitat.

But you could come back in later and create rock cross vanes to create pools and other habitat diversity. Which seems kind of contradictory.

Posted on: 2013/10/2 8:53


Re: Dam removal.

Joined:
2007/3/29 7:56
From Bethlehem, PA
Posts: 290
Offline
No portion of the dam was left in- stream. There is currently nothing in-place to "guarantee" the pool will remain. I didn't mean to imply that the whole pool was intact, just that there is still a portion of deep water that was intentionally undisturbed. Only time will tell if it remains deep, but for now it is there.

Posted on: 2013/10/2 9:35
_________________
www.monocacytu.org


Re: Dam removal.

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6088
Online
Where a plunge pool was formed below a dam, and you remove that dam, the plunge pool will disappear.

Unless there is something else going on there to create and maintain the pool, for example if the bridge abutments are influencing the flow in a way to maintain a pool there.

But generally speaking when you remove a dam, the plunge pool will disappear. That's predictable. The mechanics of it are very straightforward.

Posted on: 2013/10/2 10:05

Edited by troutbert on 2013/10/2 10:21:46


Re: Dam removal.

Joined:
2012/10/24 19:22
From Da 'Berg, PA
Posts: 1438
Offline
it's nearly always good news when dams on the lower parts of tribs come out. not only will cooler water result downstream of the former dam, but the Lehigh will also receive a shot of cold water it didn't receive before...

plus the adronomous species get better access which puts more natural nutrients in the stream upstream.

good news.

Posted on: 2013/10/2 19:19
_________________
nowhere is so sweet, as the bosom of the vale where the bright waters meet.


Re: Dam removal.

Joined:
2010/6/30 14:13
From Lehighton, PA
Posts: 1373
Offline
Quote:

troutbert wrote:
Quote:

RyanR wrote:

Whether it's riffles or pools, who cares? I've never heard that a riffle isn't good habitat, especially for the all important macros.



Pool habitat isn't important?


Really Troutbert? Like that's at all what I was implying.

Posted on: 2013/10/3 13:48
_________________
"Right turn, Clyde."


Re: Dam removal.

Joined:
2010/6/30 14:13
From Lehighton, PA
Posts: 1373
Offline
Quote:

troutbert wrote:
Where a plunge pool was formed below a dam, and you remove that dam, the plunge pool will disappear.

Unless there is something else going on there to create and maintain the pool, for example if the bridge abutments are influencing the flow in a way to maintain a pool there.

But generally speaking when you remove a dam, the plunge pool will disappear. That's predictable. The mechanics of it are very straightforward.


Okay, so an artificial plunge pool is removed. I understand your explanation but I don't see your point other than implying that removing the dam and all the well-known problems that causes is less preferable to keeping the dam in place in order to preserve the small, artificially created habitat of the plunge pool? Taking into consideration the overall health of the stream leaving the dam to only serve to preserve a small plunge pool seems entirely short-sighted. Coming in after the dam-removal and using rock cross vanes to create/maintain a pool does not seem contradictory to me at all. Rather, I think it is much more preferable for maintaining a pool while still allowing for the all too important function of moving sediment downstream and out of the system. Straightfoward indeed.

Posted on: 2013/10/3 14:00
_________________
"Right turn, Clyde."


Re: Dam removal.

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6088
Online
Quote:

RyanR wrote:
Quote:

troutbert wrote:
Where a plunge pool was formed below a dam, and you remove that dam, the plunge pool will disappear.

Unless there is something else going on there to create and maintain the pool, for example if the bridge abutments are influencing the flow in a way to maintain a pool there.

But generally speaking when you remove a dam, the plunge pool will disappear. That's predictable. The mechanics of it are very straightforward.


Okay, so an artificial plunge pool is removed. I understand your explanation but I don't see your point other than implying that removing the dam and all the well-known problems that causes is less preferable to keeping the dam in place in order to preserve the small, artificially created habitat of the plunge pool?


I didn't say, or imply, that removing the dam was a bad thing.

The point is that pool habitat should be considered an integral part of the whole process.

That should be evaluated in advance, and designed for, and funded, as part of the project.

Otherwise, either the work doesn't get done at all and the result is a long stretch of permanently poor habitat.

Or people are left trying to scramble around to get grants once again. And maybe the grants come through or maybe not.

It would be better to incorporate the planning, designing and funding for the resulting habitat into the whole job. In many cases this is has not been done. But could be done in the future.

This info may be helpful for someone planning a future dam removal.

For example, I read that many dams will be taken down on Bushkill Creek. Will these projects be simply dam removals? Or will they be designed (and funded) to ensure then when the project is done that there will be good habitat for trout?




Posted on: 2013/10/3 18:12


Re: Dam removal.

Joined:
2010/6/30 14:13
From Lehighton, PA
Posts: 1373
Offline
I agree that pool habitat is important but so is riffle habitat and to decry a dam removal project for the sake of one plunge pool is near-sighted in my opinion. Playing armchair quarterback on a project and stream based on a few snapshots is not fair to the project or the people that put in the many years, yes YEARS, of effort and time required just to get to the the actual physical removal portion of the project. Removal is normally only one part of these projects which for several reasons typically have to be done in stages. Agree with it or not but it's often just not feasible to do all the work of an entire project at one time. I know for a fact that with some of these projects, it is often decided the best practice is to give the stream a chance to sort of figure its own path out before installing habitat and stabilization devices.

Another aspect I think some might overlook is the relevance of owner liability in these removals. Maintaining a dam is an enormous financial and potential legal burden. That is a big impetus in removing the actual dam and doing so takes precedent over maintaining a simple plunge pool that never would have been there in the first place without the dam. I think just removing a sediment trap does more for improving stream health & habitat than a single plunge pool provides.

Posted on: 2013/10/3 21:38

Edited by RyanR on 2013/10/3 22:06:53
_________________
"Right turn, Clyde."


Re: Dam removal.

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6088
Online
No one said, or implied, that the dam should not have been removed. We are unanimous that removing the dam was a good idea.

Everyone wants good trout populations. The observations, ideas, suggestions about pool habitat might be interesting and useful to some people. At this stream site and/or others. The Conservation forum is a good place to discuss fluvial geomorphology stuff.

Posted on: 2013/10/3 22:51

Edited by troutbert on 2013/10/3 23:16:54


Re: Dam removal.

Joined:
2010/6/30 14:13
From Lehighton, PA
Posts: 1373
Offline
Oh my mistake, not a lick of armchair quarterbacking on the project. Suggestions and discussion are one thing and indeed very useful but there was at least one statement that intended or not implied the project, which I don't think is completed, was somehow done poorly or not designed well. I didn't think that was fair to the project or those that put their efforts into it, that's all.

Posted on: 2013/10/4 1:02

Edited by RyanR on 2013/10/4 1:22:36
_________________
"Right turn, Clyde."


Re: Dam removal.

Joined:
2009/5/29 16:32
From Nicholson PA
Posts: 236
Offline
Old mother nature will decide what the final happenings there will be just like it should be. GO MOM! Just get out of her way.

Posted on: 2013/10/4 15:17


Re: Dam removal.

Joined:
2006/11/10 8:32
Posts: 1705
Offline
It is not realistic to think that there will always be funding to do habitat enhancement following dam removal. While that is preferable, more times than not it does not happen or it happens to a lesser extent than would be ideal. One must be opportunistic when it comes to dam removal; one can't wait around for all of the money, manpower, and materials to appear that would allow for habitat improvement beyond the removal of the dam and some shoreline stabilization. While the waiting occurs, the permits expire, the dam owner gets cold feet, the grant for dam removal dries up, etc, etc. Furthermore, dams on wild trout streams are not removed just for the purpose of improving trout habitat or trout populations. In this case, whether it is trout fingerlings or adults, trout will most likely benefit at the very least in the area that was once buried sediment. Additionally, there will be ecological benefits, as there is a substantial migration of white suckers, sea lampreys, and American eels that was probably being held up and/or blocked by this dam. Consider this dam removal to be restoring some ecosystem functionality, even if it only helps until the fish reach the next dam upstream. Who knows, the eels may even bring native mussels (natural pollution filters) along for the ride. PS Lampreys are part of the natural ecosystem in the Delaware Basin, adding to ecological diversity and stability. They are welcome.

Posted on: 2013/10/4 21:21


Re: Dam removal.
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22213
Offline
Dam!

Posted on: 2013/10/6 10:26
_________________
I don't like scrambled eggs, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked them, I'd eat them, and I just hate them. --Hank



« 1 (2) 3 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Do you keep a fishing journal?
Yes
No
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll will close at 2014/8/22 12:38
1 Comment





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com