Clarks Creek - A disaster in the making

[ColdBore]

krayfish2 wrote:

...but.... I'm short of a pulling horse team ...

When the Shenango River Watchers went in about ten years ago for a major clearing, they took local Amish and their horses with them. The SRW guys would chainsaw, the Amish would hook up and drag. A week later, other than tree trunks pulled into the woods, you'd never know they were there. The horses did virtually no damage and left very little trace of being there.

They made about 20 miles of river navigable and safe(-ish anyway) again for canoers and kayakers.

www.shenangoriverwatchers.org (I think).

It might be worth a call to ask them for a little guidance on how and where to begin.

 

[ColdBore]

http://shenangoriverwatchers.org/accomplishments/projects/

"Effects of Large Woody Debris Removal on The Shenango River, Pennsylvania.– WPI, Mark Russell and Brandi Baros, (Shenango River Watchers, Water Testing and Research) Ongoing. 2011. Funded by Shenango River Watchers"

 

[Oregon_OwlII]

Here in Oregon they want large woody debris in streams. Supposed to increase salmon nursery water and create better spawning habitat. They actually use helicopters to drop large trees in streams as part of the restoration plan.

Haven't been to Clark's in at least 10 years, maybe more. Do they still stock the DHALO portion with all the access issues described above? Is lack of angler participation make the stream ineligible for stocking in the future? When I was there the tree canopy was pretty good. Have a hard time believing that the logjams are causing a significant rise in stream temperature.

 

[krayfish2]

Ok, maybe one day this weekend, I'll run up...take video and pics. Post to YouTube and attach link. It's gone way beyond anything good. You'll see

 

[STONEMAN]

A rebuild of the spillway is in the works. https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/11/major-spillway-expansion-planned-at-dehart-dam.html

Won’t help the downed tree problem but certainly will affect the creek during and after the rebuild.

 

[Mike]

Didn’t this stream always have a lot of “dead water” ( low velocity) anyway? That was my impression when I surveyed the fly stretch years ago (around 1977), although I think that was in the summer. Some stocked trout were still present, but my impression was that the stream’s habitat (lots of sluggish pools) would have made a better ALO fishery than fly fishery. In fact, I remember saying to myself, why is this a fly fishery? The surroundings were attractive, however, and when I saw the stream in late winter near the Appalachian Trail years ago (around 1983) flows were pretty good at that location. I take it that the downed trees have made the stream even more sluggish.

 

[troutbert]

Mike wrote:
Didn’t this stream always have a lot of “dead water” ( low velocity) anyway? That was my impression when I surveyed the fly stretch years ago (around 1977), although I think that was in the summer. Some stocked trout were still present, but my impression was that the stream’s habitat (lots of sluggish pools) would have made a better ALO fishery than fly fishery. In fact, I remember saying to myself, why is this a fly fishery? The surroundings were attractive, however, and when I saw the stream in late winter near the Appalachian Trail years ago (around 1983) flows were pretty good at that location. I take it that the downed trees have made the stream even more sluggish.

I also thought the habitat was not very good back in the day, in the lower part of the special regs area. The stream was very wide, sand-bottomed, shallow, lacking in cover.

The stream further up, near the Appalachian trail access, looked much better, i.e the channel was narrower, the stream had some bends, a riffle-pool structure, and positive influences from the riparian vegetation. There was less sand on the bottom, and more gravel and cobble.

Up there it looked closer to "normal" to me. Where the lower part looked "impacted" by some past disturbance. It's the same stream, but the two areas looked very different. Do any of you regulars have any insight into this?

I noticed that in the lower part, the water pipeline was closely paralleling the stream. It may be that the stream channel was straightened and simplified at the time the water pipeline was installed, to prevent the stream from interfering with the pipeline. Is the water pipeline still used?

Also, in the lower part of this stretch, there is a road crossing the floodplain and a bridge over the creek. It appears that the stream was straightened and simplified to run through that bridge, as is typically the case.

Also, the title says "disaster in the making", but doesn't go into detail. What type of disaster are you thinking about?

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Troutbert,

When we have another significant flood there are a lot of trees that will release and there are many choke points where if they stack up downstream have the potential to destroy homes and bridges.

In the last flood something like that happened, and a person was killed by a flash flood when their car was swept off the road. That may have just been an unfortunate accident but if you have seen the results of flash floods you can see where all the downed trees on Clark's have the opportunity to worsen the flooding.

You also asked about the area around the Appalachian Trail crossing. Upstream from the crossing not much has changed but you only have to walk about 50 yards below the parking area to see that a lot has changed going downstream. Before Floyd and Ivan it was a slow sandy silty stretch but the water flowed relatively freely. I went about 200 yards into the woods and there is literally a large log jam spanning the full creek every 25 to 50 yards. These are large trees intertwined across the full width of the stream with 20 to 30 feet of trunk or tree top still hung up on the banks. The trees span the full creek and have begun filling up on the upstream side with smaller trees and debris effectively creating dams.

Every time the water rises enough to release even one or two of these jams there are numerous damaged trees that fall in increasing the jams. Debris falling relatively parallel to the stream flow often improves habitat by scouring the diverted water and creating runs. Full scale log jams just create silty sluggish pools that fill with sand and leaf detritus, neither of which are very helpful.

You need to see it to fully understand, but I'll probably never bother returning to document it. Clark's was a nice creek close to home, now it's just sluggish ditch water.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[JeffP]

Ironic but Lancaster just posted an article identifying Dehart Dam as a high risk dam.

 

[salvelinus]

Years ago the FFO area was below rt. 225. I don't remember when it was moved to the SGL. Anybody?

 

[Tups]

Not personally familiar with Clark's but from the descriptions it sounds a lot like many other PA streams responding to two centuries of manipulation and modification. So I would caution the restorer to Google "channel evolution model"and learn as much about the topic as possible prior to developing a cure for the patient.

 

[Bamboozle]

afishinado wrote:

My understanding is many of the trees were damaged by the wooly adelgid, an invasive insect from Japan...

I remember all too well watching as the hemlocks started slowly dying along Clark's to the point of where it is today.

The Hemlock die-off IS the problem. I could cry when I look at stretches I used to spend hours fishing and catching both huge stockers & wild browns. I haven't gone back in a few years as it really isn't worth it any more. You fish a few yards and have to get out to walk 50 yards past a huge log jam which used be be a great stretch...

I did call the Fish Commission many moons ago about getting some of the trees out the stream and was told the Game Commission is who I should call.

I called the Game Commission and got the impression they were not necessarily interested in the fishing situation.

I don't know if it will ever get close to what it once was but to be honest, it is a waste to keep stocking it and managing it as FFO as you can barely make a backcast in 3/4 of the FFO water.

I also know that getting the trees out would be a huge undertaking and beyond the scope of most volunteer groups.

It's a sad situation for a creek that was once one of my favorite places to spend a day fishing...

 

[TimMurphy]

Bamboozle wrote:

afishinado wrote:

My understanding is many of the trees were damaged by the wooly adelgid, an invasive insect from Japan...

I remember all too well watching as the hemlocks started slowly dying along Clark's to the point of where it is today.

The Hemlock die-off IS the problem. I could cry when I look at stretches I used to spend hours fishing and catching both huge stockers & wild browns. I haven't gone back in a few years as it really isn't worth it any more. You fish a few yards and have to get out to walk 50 yards past a huge log jam which used be be a great stretch...

I did call the Fish Commission many moons ago about getting some of the trees out the stream and was told the Game Commission is who I should call.

I called the Game Commission and got the impression they were not necessarily interested in the fishing situation.

I don't know if it will ever get close to what it once was but to be honest, it is a waste to keep stocking it and managing it as FFO as you can barely make a backcast in 3/4 of the FFO water.

I also know that getting the trees out would be a huge undertaking and beyond the scope of most volunteer groups.

It's a sad situation for a creek that was once one of my favorite places to spend a day fishing...

Dear Bamboozle,

You described the Clark's I used to know, and currently know, to a "T".

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[Mike]

The current Clarks as described above would probably be best fished by bait anglers and placing the present C&R FFO section in the regular stocked trout program would seem most pragmatic. What value is there to keeping the stream in the FFO program when it seems that tree removal would be a long shot at best?

 

[Bamboozle]

Mike wrote:
The current Clarks as described above would probably be best fished by bait anglers and placing the present C&R FFO section in the regular stocked trout program would seem most pragmatic. What value is there to keeping the stream in the FFO program when it seems that tree removal would be a long shot at best?

At the risk of being chased down the street with pitchforks & torches like Dr. Frankenstein, I hearty concur!!

There are more than a few creeks I've fished that really need to be just Stocked Trout Waters because in addition to being about impossible to fly fish, even throwing a spinner is almost hopeless. The Catch & Release Artificials Only section of the West Branch Wallenpaupack Creek comes to mind.

At least if places like that & the Clark's FFO were Stocked Trout Waters, a guy in a lawn chair could enjoy himself and utilize the resource.

And heck if it pisses off a few fly fishermen in the process, all the better. ;-)

 

[afishinado]

Bamboozle wrote:

Mike wrote:
The current Clarks as described above would probably be best fished by bait anglers and placing the present C&R FFO section in the regular stocked trout program would seem most pragmatic. What value is there to keeping the stream in the FFO program when it seems that tree removal would be a long shot at best?

At the risk of being chased down the street with pitchforks & torches like Dr. Frankenstein, I hearty concur!!

There are more than a few creeks I've fished that really need to be just Stocked Trout Waters because in addition to being about impossible to fly fish, even throwing a spinner is almost hopeless. The Catch & Release Artificials Only section of the West Branch Wallenpaupack Creek comes to mind.

At least if places like that & the Clark's FFO were Stocked Trout Waters, a guy in a lawn chair could enjoy himself and utilize the resource.

And heck if it pisses off a few fly fishermen in the process, all the better. ;-)

I agree. I believe the stretch is no longer suitable for a FFO area. If it is not going to remediated because of tree damage from an invasive species, then change it to open regs for more anglers to utilize, and move on.

 

[TimMurphy]

afishinado wrote:

Bamboozle wrote:

Mike wrote:
The current Clarks as described above would probably be best fished by bait anglers and placing the present C&R FFO section in the regular stocked trout program would seem most pragmatic. What value is there to keeping the stream in the FFO program when it seems that tree removal would be a long shot at best?

At the risk of being chased down the street with pitchforks & torches like Dr. Frankenstein, I hearty concur!!

There are more than a few creeks I've fished that really need to be just Stocked Trout Waters because in addition to being about impossible to fly fish, even throwing a spinner is almost hopeless. The Catch & Release Artificials Only section of the West Branch Wallenpaupack Creek comes to mind.

At least if places like that & the Clark's FFO were Stocked Trout Waters, a guy in a lawn chair could enjoy himself and utilize the resource.

And heck if it pisses off a few fly fishermen in the process, all the better. ;-)

I agree. I believe the stretch is no longer suitable for a FFO area. If it is not going to remediated because of tree damage from an invasive species, then change it to open regs for more anglers to utilize, and move on.

Dear afish,

I have no problem with making it open water either. I just don't want to see it get hogged up, as it flows through a relatively attractive area. When it flowed freely it was a pretty stream, and I appreciated having an option so close to Harrisburg that seemed while fishing to be much further away. It was a rare trip that I took where I didn't see deer and mink and the occasional bear along the creek.

Just keep it clean! The critters in Clark's Valley deserve that much.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[afishinado]

TimMurphy wrote:

afishinado wrote:

Bamboozle wrote:

Mike wrote:
The current Clarks as described above would probably be best fished by bait anglers and placing the present C&R FFO section in the regular stocked trout program would seem most pragmatic. What value is there to keeping the stream in the FFO program when it seems that tree removal would be a long shot at best?

At the risk of being chased down the street with pitchforks & torches like Dr. Frankenstein, I hearty concur!!

There are more than a few creeks I've fished that really need to be just Stocked Trout Waters because in addition to being about impossible to fly fish, even throwing a spinner is almost hopeless. The Catch & Release Artificials Only section of the West Branch Wallenpaupack Creek comes to mind.

At least if places like that & the Clark's FFO were Stocked Trout Waters, a guy in a lawn chair could enjoy himself and utilize the resource.

And heck if it pisses off a few fly fishermen in the process, all the better. ;-)

I agree. I believe the stretch is no longer suitable for a FFO area. If it is not going to remediated because of tree damage from an invasive species, then change it to open regs for more anglers to utilize, and move on.

Dear afish,

I have no problem with making it open water either. I just don't want to see it get hogged up, as it flows through a relatively attractive area. When it flowed freely it was a pretty stream, and I appreciated having an option so close to Harrisburg that seemed while fishing to be much further away. It was a rare trip that I took where I didn't see deer and mink and the occasional bear along the creek.

Just keep it clean! The critters in Clark's Valley deserve that much.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

It was nice, Tim. Both the feeling of fishing "in the woods" as well as the character of stream itself. I believe the condition of the stream should be remediated since an invasive species of insect caused so many trees to fall around and into the stream, essentially damming up the flow and causing sedimentation as well as rerouting the stream channel.

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Afishinado,

I also think the stream should be cleaned of the downed and dead trees. I know all too well why the trees died as I live about 4 miles as the crow flies from Clark's valley. I lost most of the hemlocks and white pines in my yard in the early 2000's.

It's unfortunate, but you can't get blood from a stone and the project would cost a considerable amount of money. I don't see where the money would come from?

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[JackM]

"I also know that getting the trees out would be a huge undertaking and beyond the scope of most volunteer groups."

I have an idea (hear me out):

When state prisoners go to SCI Camp Hill for classification, the tamest among them should be given an option to join a work crew that is tasked to carry out needed conservation/restoration projects across the state. In exchange, they would be awarded "good time" credit against their sentence.

But, now that we have the personnel, to what work shall we put them? An educated stream engineer could determine how and in what manner to ameliorate this downed-tree problem.

I could imagine a crew with chainsaws, axes and manual saws could chop away at these log jams and haul out, or allow to be hauled out, free for the taking, the woody debris deemed to be excessive.

CONSERVATION BOOT CAMP