Otter Creek Stream Restoration?

[geebee]

guys, maybe we are just seeing different things - when i click on and blow those pics up on the 1st page from hopback, to me that upper dam looks the same height as the picnic table or higher, given the change in perspective as the table is closer to the camera but still lower than teh top of the dam.

unless thats the worlds smallest picnic table, many of the rocks behind it are 1/2 1/3 the size of that table and quite large.

and i don't see any moving water below the upper dam or at the deflector.

after heavy rain that upper dam imho could hold quite the volume of water - back to the bend - which i estimated at about 300ft.

 

[HopBack]

Okay, so I took a look back through this thread and the topic has certainly garnered lots of interest and great input. I wanted to do a review of the facts, identifiy the problem or impact, and offer up some solutions based upon the findings. I will omit all other streams and similar situations brought up in the thread because they have their own set of problems and should be delt with seperately.


Facts:

2 rock dams, a rock deflector, and a picnic table were found on a stream section on Otter Creek on Gum Tree Rd in York County.

Dams are aproximately 3'Hx3'Wx30'L.
Picnic table is small and about 3'Hx5'Wx5'L
Deflector may be 3' tall as well
Water levels and flow are very low and would normally be higher then the dam levels in the spring.


Stream section is located on private property and posted.
The posted signs are directy above ATW signs. (confusing I know)

Wild brown trout are present but the stream is currently marginal.
The stream is used by both fishermen and landowners or others for swimming and camping.

Origin of construction unknown


Possible effects of the dams:

Barrier to natural trout reproduction
Scoured stream base leads to silting and bank errosion.

Lower flow leads to warming water in the localized area.
Possible flooding


Possibe reasons for dam construction:

Stream improvement and habitat for trout.
Corral stocked trout and prevent them from moving downstream.
Recreational swimming and lounging area.
DAM HIPPIES!


Solutions:

1. Have a reliable source such as trout unlimted contact the landowner and ask if they are aware of the activities on there property and proceed accordingly


2. Completey or partially remove the dams and picnic table.

3. Education through bulletin boards like TU has done on various local stream projects.

4. Do nothing and let nautre take it's course.



I have really changed my opinion about this problem based off of Maurices comments. We tend to only think about things like this because of how it benefits us as Fishermen. The creators of these dams obviously put a lot of effort into what they did and would probably not like to see it destroyed. If this was the work of the landowner and it gets removed, he/she may just decide to close the property off totally which would be to the benefit of no one. That should be considered before any decisions are to be made. Hope that clears up any confusion.

 

[JackM]

As has been noted, one good push from Spring rains (or sooner) and the habitat may look totally different and better than before the dam👎ing.

 

[Chaz]

Alnitak wrote:
To change the topic away from who is doing it, I'd like to comment on the presence of the dams in Trout Run in particular.

The native brook trout found in Trout Run do not need any "help" from man creating dams or other structures. That stream has luckily avoided manmade degradation that would require any such restoration work. Indeed, the large pools of still water created by the dams and the the barren stream bottoms devoid of the cover created by large rocks are both problematic for these native trout. The dams that I have seen there in the later part of the summer are not the smaller simpler ones someone mentioned seeing there earlier in the year. These are large structures and they just appeared in the latter part of July. The same with the stacked rock shrines.

The biggest dam stood about two feet high and utilized very large rocks stacked very well, with large flat rocks forming a vertical wall on the upstream side. One of them was at a large pool that already is mostly bedrock and thus has little cover for the brook trout. Since the dam was constructed, I have not seen any brook trout in that pool, whereas in the past it typically held at least several. All of the best hiding habitat has been removed for use in the dam and the water is now a dead still pool rather than a slow but steady flow. If you know brook trout, you know that this is not a good thing.

Yes, its likely a large storm event would flush these out. However, in the meantime the pools are filling with sediment and good habitat is being destroyed. The natural beauty is being destroyed as well.

Some of the "shrines" made on the stream are quite substantial as well. Roughly three weeks ago when I was last there, I found half a dozen of them in the lower stretch. Several were made with large flat rocks as long as 3 feet precariously stacked on end, with several additional rocks balanced on top. While these would likely topple in the first good winter/spring storm, they are an eyesore and they remove good stream habitat while doing nothing to "help" the stream in any way.

In Fishing Creek in southern Lancaster there aren't any native trout, but it is the home of a state threatened species of fish, one only found in a few streams in PA and MD, and one likely to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. The damming is not conducive to this species, nor is it of any use to the wild or stocked trout in that area.

If anyone else fishes at Trout Run or Fishing Creek and would like to help me tear these down, please let me know. I'm in contact with the Conservancy and will hopefully organize a day or two to clean them up.

It is likely that trout run is named as such because the folks that settled there found trout in the creek, so there is no reason to not restore trout to the creek, eliminate large predators and any ecosystem suffers.
As for what someone else mentioned, since when is it bad for a stream to have natural channel splits?

 

[Alnitak]

Chaz wrote:

Alnitak wrote:

A bunch of stuff about Trout Run, etc.

It is likely that trout run is named as such because the folks that settled there found trout in the creek, so there is no reason to not restore trout to the creek, eliminate large predators and any ecosystem suffers.
As for what someone else mentioned, since when is it bad for a stream to have natural channel splits?

Yes, I'm sure that's the source of the name. However, I think you might misunderstand what I was trying to convey about that particular stream. Trout Run still has plenty of native trout and is almost untouched/uneffected by human influence. It doesn't need any help or restoration. It certainly doesn't need recreational dams built on it.

However, out of respect to Hopback since this is his thread, I'll leave it there. When I hear back from the Conservancy about the situation I'll start a new thread.

Jeff

 

[FarmerDave]

geebee wrote:
guys, maybe we are just seeing different things - when i click on and blow those pics up on the 1st page from hopback, to me that upper dam looks the same height as the picnic table or higher, given the change in perspective as the table is closer to the camera but still lower than teh top of the dam.

unless thats the worlds smallest picnic table, many of the rocks behind it are 1/2 1/3 the size of that table and quite large.

and i don't see any moving water below the upper dam or at the deflector.

after heavy rain that upper dam imho could hold quite the volume of water - back to the bend - which i estimated at about 300ft.

GB, The top of the table is damn near lower than the bottom of the dam from that camera angle too. Besides, how tall do you think the average picnic table is? I'll tell you, it is about 30 inches. That's 2 1/2 feet. That rock that is 1/3 the height (more like less than a quarter) of the table is also over 1/3 the height of the dam.

My guess is that the dam is no more than 3 feet tall, but even if higher than that, it clearly is NOT holding back much water.

If it stays there, it likely will eventually hold back much more water due to the gaps being filled in with leaves, debris and dirt at witch the pool will fill in with silt.

Even then, it wouldn't be a major flood concern due to it's "construction." Flooding from a busted beaver dam would be way more noticeable.

A rain storm capable of taking out such a dam would have to raise the level of the creek to considerably over the top of that dam whether the dam was there or not. If the dam lets go, it would not create some devastating wall of water.

Whats' way more likely is that the water will find a weak spot and erode it away either bypassing it by eroding the bank, prby dismantling the dam in the middle. Way better if in the middle. Remove a few rocks next time you are there. You wouldn't need to take it down to the old creek bed. Just create a lower spot in the dam and this winter or next Spring, mother nature will do the rest.

It may be ugly, but it is not a serious flood concern IMO. Living on a flood plane in the first place is way more of a concern.

You had some good ideas in other threads. You and I were both thinking it was original a couple of deflectors. Maybe the landowner didn't build the whole thing.

It wouldn't hurt to ask, but be careful how you ask. Maybe have the PFBC or TU do the asking. I don't know. I'm just throwing out suggestions. Me personally? I'd leave it alone of on private property. Mother nature will fix it. Or maybe I would give mother nature an assist by removing a few stones int he middle. Just a little off the top though. No need to draw attention to it when mother nature will do the rest.

But trying to create a feud between landowners based on false fear is not the way to go.

 

[geebee]

FarmerDave wrote:
You had some good ideas in other threads. You and I were both thinking it was original a couple of deflectors. Maybe the landowner didn't build the whole thing.

It wouldn't hurt to ask, but be careful how you ask. Maybe have the PFBC or TU do the asking. I don't know. I'm just throwing out suggestions. Me personally? I'd leave it alone of on private property. Mother nature will fix it. Or maybe I would give mother nature an assist by removing a few stones int he middle. Just a little off the top though. No need to draw attention to it when mother nature will do the rest.

But trying to create a feud between landowners based on false fear is not the way to go.

i wasn't intending to do that, i'd just be pissed if my yard flooded due to someone building a dam upstream.

i think Hopback posted that he's contacting TU....

i would do the same - v notch it a little to 'help' nature on its way.

but it depends on how violently that creek floods, if theres some sub divisions upstream those rocks could be carried off downstream to do damage - the little creek by my house is 3-4" deep and about 4ft wide, but after a big storm it rises to 3-4 FEET and has carried rocks weighing about 40lbs downstream to deeper pools.

cheers

 

[FarmerDave]

That wouldn't stop me from notching it if that is what I decided to do.

Even on that little stream you are talking about, of all those boulders stones washed down stream, how many actually leave the creek channel? They are going to move eventually.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

On a lee/Ivan like event, probably all of them.
Anything else, probably none.

 

[geebee]

FarmerDave wrote:
That wouldn't stop me from notching it if that is what I decided to do.

notching it would prevent that. its not the size or depth of the dam, its the build up of pressure.

if you notch it, it will crumble at the notch in an orderly fashion, rather than hold and then burst causing a flash flood.

 

[FarmerDave]

Of course it would. That was my point awhile back.

I apologize if I misunderstood your last. By starting the last paragraph with "But" I looked at it as contrary to your previous paragraph in the same message when apparently it was only meant as contrary to what I had said in my previous message.

 

[geebee]

yeah sorry, my bad grammer...

 

[foxtrapper1972]

A busybody, do-gooder, meddler or marplot is someone who meddles in the affairs of others.

An early study of the type was made by the ancient Greek philosopher Theophrastus in his typology, Characters, "In the proffered services of the busybody there is much of the affectation of kind-heartedness, and little efficient aid

 

[flyflicker]

Bringing this thread back because I found this property for sale...

https://www.landsofamerica.com/property/10936-GUM-TREE-ROAD-Brogue-Pennsylvania-17309/8105837/

Is this where the offending picnic table was found? 🙂

Seems like a decent price for 8 acres.

 

[Swattie87]

That property is upstream of where I recall the picnic table to be.

That being said, the recent floods of that stream from very localized thunderstorms have put far more significant "debris" into the stream. Last time I was there the tally included a boat, a full size pickup, and at least 3 or 4 trailers. There was a cleanup to get the smaller stuff out, but I have no clue how/if there was any plan to the bigger things out. It's probably been a year or more since I've been there though.

Crazy how localized these events can be. Otter's neighbors appeared to be fine when I fished them after, but Otter was ravaged.

 

[flyflicker]

Thanks Swattie. I was intrigued by price ($45k) and had to research Otter Creek. Lo and behold the ole PAFF came to the rescue.

It would be neat if either the local municipality or county could buy and make into a public park. (Of course, currently funds are limited)

 

[larkmark]

People have a lot of time on their hands. While I don't make a fuss if some kids pile some rocks up and make a little dam this goes well beyond that. Is it a positive or negative for trout? Who knows really. I like to sit in a yard chair in a cold creek sometimes.

 

[barrybarry]

Really had a good laugh about this line from the listing.
Easy Commute To Harrisburg, York, Lancaster, Or Maryland.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I wouldnt touch that with a 10ft pole.

 

[tomgamber]

anybody got a match?