Wasted or Useless (mostly) Stream Projects

[Sylvaneous]

Over time, I have see stream habitat projects that have just gone awry. I'm near Little Sandy, and there have been many projects that have 1) done nothing at all substantial and/or 2) however good they may have been, have washed-out or washed-in after maybe 5 years or so. I can only believe that these projects followed improvement designs by engineers/ecologists and had 'studies' of one kind or another done. However, over time, they have failed, really catastrophically. The work done to secure or build the structures has washed out. The bank-based structure is now in out in the creek, surrounded by whatever sediment with the stream eroding the bank behind the structure. It's like there is no thought to how the structures will age over a decade. We can't do stream work (I'd call it improvement some times) when it backfires. I see large collapsed structures like old bridge abutments or piers or whatever and big stone work that falls into a stream and erodes out some of the better holding cover in the stream.
I propose that we go big or not at all. People who do stream work have to consider wash-out. They need to consider what happens to the pieces of the structure when they disperse. The bank needs to be overly-secured with some big rock. Don't just dig-in a log or gabion and plant a river birch. The weakness is at the seams. Like waders, the seams need to be double-lapped. Soil or gravel cannot secure the junction. It must be large chunk rock and a pile of it so it cuts the current and can settle into washed-out bank soils.
THe other thing is this: USE BIG ROCK. Big rock will function as fish habitat if/when the initial structure fails. Even in valley creeks, yes, they will erode down, but then will be cemented into place and be structure forever. When the caging and containment of the deflector and gabion breaks, fails or washes out, it won't be fist sized rock that litters the bottom, but a 1-foot-plus diameter rock that can hold a trout.
Whatever gets done, there must be some of this idea present: if you smear all the materials freely all over the stream bed, which they WILL be (erosion doesn't stop), will those pieces, (logs, rocks, tires, car frames) act as fish habitat? I see way too many projects that now are washed-out banks and washed-in basins.

 

[Dave_W]

As I've stated many times, I'm a fan of stream habitat improvement projects and have been involved in the construction of many of them over the last thirty years. However, there are indeed some cautionlary tales out there. Some of the CV streams still have structures built by the WPA using downstream angled rock walls. In many areas, such as Fisherman's Paradise, these were removed decades ago. Habitat structures built of wood have a limited lifespan and many of those I helped build in the 80s/90s have crumbled or been blown away by floods. Quite a few however, are still functional.

Best practices change too. Back in the 1950s-1970s "jack dams" were a hot item and I regarded them highly when I was a young angler. They seemed to work well. There was one of these at Fisherman's Paradise just above the lower bridge that was still intact until perhaps 20 years ago. Virtually all the jack dams on streams I fish are long gone now. I don't think anyone builds them anymore, and probably for good reasons.

I agree that heavy stones/boulders are key. Many embankments that had large limestone shot rock embedded into them decades ago have held up well. I have participated in the placement of quite a few large boulders - think 24" or greater shot rock - in stream channels that are prone to flooding and the big ones have stayed put producing resilient habitat.

 

[Fish Sticks]

As someone who is trying to figure this out right now and has spent countless days talking to/walking streams with the 6 different stream restoration specialists I have worked with, opinions will vary greatly. There are conceptual differences/schools of thought. I have spoken with three different PhD’s in Fluvial Geomorphology one being Dorothy Merritts who basically invented legacy sediment removal techniques for wetland restoration.

It’s a lot more complicated than how big the materials are trust me. After all this time all I know is I’ve fallen off mount stupid on the Dunning Kruger curve and I’m down in the valley and will never have a good understanding of this without a degree.

Applied Fluvial geomorphology could be one of the most daunting disciplines I’ve ever encountered (not saying I know anything about just talking about looking outside in). it’s not one I can even pretend to know a little bit about despite years talking with these people.

The only thing I can tell you is that there are three schools of thinking in PA.

1. “Put them there rocks and wood over there in that stream”- school of thought number one is in fact absence of thought. Surprisingly common historically in Pa. It’s essentially putting lunker bunkers, j hooks, deflectors in without thinking about how dynamic the stream is(streams move ESP With high sediment and storm water) or what load of sediment and storm water it will encounter.

Most of the larger serious projects getting serious grant funding these days that I have seen are either …

2. Natural channel design: uses rosgren classifications to group streams A through like F I think (it’s a lot more complicated than that) and then uses natural channel design principles to focus on channel design to “help the stream do what it’s trying to do” from a channel perspective. A lot of structures can sometimes often be used with this method too like lunker bunkers, deflectors and j hooks, much like in school (or absence of) thought one. However proponents of this technique will tell you they are “setting the stream channel in a reference condition that is where it wants to be and is appropriate for the sediment and storm water input, this will not move that much”. And it is expected that tree roots will take over as habitat and YOY shelter as wooden structures rot out.

3. Flood plain creation/ legacy sediment removal: this strategy digs a trench and finds where historical gravel basal layer is and then looks at historical maps to see if mill dams existed and if sediment is legacy sediment or not. Then the technique focuses on excavating down to coluvium or alluvium depending on valley and how much thermal expansion cracking happens on rock formations at top of valley. (Dorothy has mentioned to me alot of valleys in PA have coluvium in the stream bottom from this thermal expansion cracking process that happens 13000 years ago). This creates a flood plain instead of focusing on channel and says “ok who cares “ channel will carve itself and switch back and move all over the flood plain. The idea is ground water recharge is greatly increased and groundwater remains in gravel basal layer instead of upwelling when it hits legacy sediment. And when it floods the stream can access the flood plain and sediment can settle out of solution like a colloid suspension outside the channel so it’s not trapped in the stream bed in theory.

Natural channel design/rosgren method folks tend to think there are methodological flaws in legacy sediment removal and vise versa. I have heard NCD more suited to our west and Legacy sediment removal IN CERTAIN PLACES in pa is more suited. This is all just what I have hear I am qualified to say NOTHING interms of evaluating these statements and as a volunteer restoring a beautiful spring creek with brook trout it gives me chest pains.

It seems you can do both as well though. Focus on doing legacy sediment removal and creating wetlands/flood plain then try to build a channel in the middle of that according to some of the folks I am working with now. This is so broad strokes and conceptual and each property / stream you will have a plan going in and then get punched in the mouth so to speak when forced to work around land use/social/infastructural issues.

As far as the projects that “work” meaning don’t erode/get filled in with sediment, what they actually do for the intended target species in the case of native brook trout is of concern these days as many in the scientific community are saying if you restore habitat but leave invasive trout in, the habitats could help the invasive trout displace the brookies. More research on this topic to come soon that could potentially be the equivalent of a bomb shell in the restoration community.

 

[Fish Sticks]

As someone who is trying to figure this out right now and has spent countless days talking to/walking streams with the 6 different stream restoration specialists I have worked with, opinions will vary greatly. There are conceptual differences/schools of thought. I have spoken with three different PhD’s in Fluvial Geomorphology one being Dorothy Merritts who basically invented legacy sediment removal techniques for wetland restoration.

It’s a lot more complicated than how big the materials are trust me. After all this time all I know is I’ve fallen off mount stupid on the Dunning Kruger curve and I’m down in the valley and will never have a good understanding of this without a degree.
View attachment 1641224894
Applied Fluvial geomorphology could be one of the most daunting disciplines I’ve ever encountered (not saying I know anything about just talking about looking outside in). it’s not one I can even pretend to know a little bit about despite years talking with these people.

The only thing I can tell you is that there are three schools of thinking in PA.

1. “Put them there rocks and wood over there in that stream”- school of thought number one is in fact absence of thought. Surprisingly common historically in Pa. It’s essentially putting lunker bunkers, j hooks, deflectors in without thinking about how dynamic the stream is(streams move ESP With high sediment and storm water) or what load of sediment and storm water it will encounter.

Most of the larger serious projects getting serious grant funding these days that I have seen are either …

2. Natural channel design: uses rosgren classifications to group streams A through like F I think (it’s a lot more complicated than that) and then uses natural channel design principles to focus on channel design to “help the stream do what it’s trying to do” from a channel perspective. A lot of structures can sometimes often be used with this method too like lunker bunkers, deflectors and j hooks, much like in school (or absence of) thought one. However proponents of this technique will tell you they are “setting the stream channel in a reference condition that is where it wants to be and is appropriate for the sediment and storm water input, this will not move that much”. And it is expected that tree roots will take over as habitat and YOY shelter as wooden structures rot out.

3. Flood plain creation/ legacy sediment removal: this strategy digs a trench and finds where historical gravel basal layer is and then looks at historical maps to see if mill dams existed and if sediment is legacy sediment or not. Then the technique focuses on excavating down to coluvium or alluvium depending on valley and how much thermal expansion cracking happens on rock formations at top of valley. (Dorothy has mentioned to me alot of valleys in PA have coluvium in the stream bottom from this thermal expansion cracking process that happens 13000 years ago). This creates a flood plain instead of focusing on channel and says “ok who cares “ channel will carve itself and switch back and move all over the flood plain. The idea is ground water recharge is greatly increased and groundwater remains in gravel basal layer instead of upwelling when it hits legacy sediment. And when it floods the stream can access the flood plain and sediment can settle out of solution like a colloid suspension outside the channel so it’s not trapped in the stream bed in theory.

Natural channel design/rosgren method folks tend to think there are methodological flaws in legacy sediment removal and vise versa. I have heard NCD more suited to our west and Legacy sediment removal IN CERTAIN PLACES in pa is more suited. This is all just what I have hear I am qualified to say NOTHING interms of evaluating these statements and as a volunteer restoring a beautiful spring creek with brook trout it gives me chest pains.

It seems you can do both as well though. Focus on doing legacy sediment removal and creating wetlands/flood plain then try to build a channel in the middle of that according to some of the folks I am working with now. This is so broad strokes and conceptual and each property / stream you will have a plan going in and then get punched in the mouth so to speak when forced to work around land use/social/infastructural issues.

As far as the projects that “work” meaning don’t erode/get filled in with sediment, what they actually do for the intended target species in the case of native brook trout is of concern these days as many in the scientific community are saying if you restore habitat but leave invasive trout in, the habitats could help the invasive trout displace the brookies. More research on this topic to come soon that could potentially be the equivalent of a bomb shell in the restoration community.

Lastly if I seem pessimistic I hope I don’t come off that way because these people(not me, everyone from the Fluvial geomorphologist, to restoration practitioners who design the stream projects to the ecologists who evaluate the ecological results) are advancing the field and it’s like this with all disciplines, it’s a painful growing process.I have faith these people will refine it and advance it if we can make pre/post implementation studies more commonplace.

 

[GeneBeam]

I’ve fallen off mount stupid

No you haven't, the proof is you keep commenting on you own comments.

 

[silverfox]

I think about 2 years ago I walked a pretty long section of a stream near me that seems to be a backhoe playground for some reason and photographed all of these monuments. There's everything from very old jack dams to modern deflectors and everything in between. Unfortunately, I lost those photos, but I've been thinking about going back and documenting it again.

Some of these projects are nothing more than a rusty piece of rebar sticking out of the bank at this point. There's little to no sign of anything that was there. Some of the older jack dams are still in place and have created huge holes (completely unnatural in this stream environment), but the lumber used to build them has to be reaching the end of its service life.

Most recently, a section about 150 yards long was completely reworked. There was a huge log jam there that formed naturally from flooding. A branch of the stream found its way into that big log jam and scoured out the old stream bed under the logs. For a few years, I used to jig sculpin streamers under the logs and pulled out some of the biggest brown trout I've caught in that stream there. Apparently, that log jam wasn't acceptable because someone went to great lengths to redirect the stream away from the logs.

There was also a large tree that had fallen across the stream just below that log jam and created an interesting hole. I pulled a nice 10 inch brook trout out from under its root ball somewhat recently. The stream then shot down a fairly unremarkable stretch of cobble unimpeded before hitting a large deadfall that created one hell of a hole and 90 degree bend in the river. I also pulled a few really nice brook trout out from that bend pool recently.

Now there are a series of bank armoring contraptions anchored into the stream up above where the logjam was. They reworked a very old jack dam that was completely submerged in a pool that formed on its own above the jack dam. They chainsawed that big tree at the base of the log jam and left its root ball in place, but the stream moved away from the rootball so its basically just sitting in some gravel now. I think they might have deepened that long chute before the 90 degree bend and armored the bank along that stretch.

The last time I fished there after all this most recent work was done, I didn't catch anything in the now very modified pools where I used to consistently find fish. The logjam is disconnected from the water now so there's no deep cover pool to jig streamers in. I suppose for stocked fish, it's probably great for anglers because there's not really anywhere for fish to hide now. Probably makes them much easier to see and catch. All the good wild trout habitat is "ruined" now though.

That used to be one of my "go-to" spots to fish in that area. Now I don't even bother.

I get the projects people are doing in the valleys with legacy sediment. Those streams are quite altered from their natural state. What I don't get is these freestoners up here in the highlands that, aside from logging 100 years ago, really haven't been modified too much from natural.

Now, of course, in some cases, the stream will naturally end up in a channel layout that isn't conducive to fishing or fish, but do we have to meddle with it? That log jam would be "impossible" to fish for most people. Does that mean it's worthless for the stream? The stream had been trying to reroute itself down through that logjam. You can see that at one time, the main channel was over on that side. If it was able to have continued marching that way, it would've broken out into the forest. It may have ended up in several smaller braids. I thought that's what we would want? I know nothing about stream "improvement" though, so maybe letting it flood out into the forest isn't best?

Anyway, I don't know if its the ease of access, that it's state forest property, that the local clubs all get their jollies from dragging lumber through the water, or what has caused this to become a modification mecca, but it has the highest density of manmade stream features of any place I've ever been. I guess on the bright side, if people ever lose interest in bolting logs to the banks there, eventually, it will all be gone.

I don't know about the rocks. On another stream here, there was extensive rockwork done some time ago. It was very creatively placed to prevent the water from moving the rocks around. Its interesting watching the logs give up, but the rocks continue to force the water to the center. It's always a little jarring coming across a rock formation like this.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I think about 2 years ago I walked a pretty long section of a stream near me that seems to be a backhoe playground for some reason and photographed all of these monuments. There's everything from very old jack dams to modern deflectors and everything in between. Unfortunately, I lost those photos, but I've been thinking about going back and documenting it again.

Some of these projects are nothing more than a rusty piece of rebar sticking out of the bank at this point. There's little to no sign of anything that was there. Some of the older jack dams are still in place and have created huge holes (completely unnatural in this stream environment), but the lumber used to build them has to be reaching the end of its service life.

Most recently, a section about 150 yards long was completely reworked. There was a huge log jam there that formed naturally from flooding. A branch of the stream found its way into that big log jam and scoured out the old stream bed under the logs. For a few years, I used to jig sculpin streamers under the logs and pulled out some of the biggest brown trout I've caught in that stream there. Apparently, that log jam wasn't acceptable because someone went to great lengths to redirect the stream away from the logs.

There was also a large tree that had fallen across the stream just below that log jam and created an interesting hole. I pulled a nice 10 inch brook trout out from under its root ball somewhat recently. The stream then shot down a fairly unremarkable stretch of cobble unimpeded before hitting a large deadfall that created one hell of a hole and 90 degree bend in the river. I also pulled a few really nice brook trout out from that bend pool recently.

Now there are a series of bank armoring contraptions anchored into the stream up above where the logjam was. They reworked a very old jack dam that was completely submerged in a pool that formed on its own above the jack dam. They chainsawed that big tree at the base of the log jam and left its root ball in place, but the stream moved away from the rootball so its basically just sitting in some gravel now. I think they might have deepened that long chute before the 90 degree bend and armored the bank along that stretch.

The last time I fished there after all this most recent work was done, I didn't catch anything in the now very modified pools where I used to consistently find fish. The logjam is disconnected from the water now so there's no deep cover pool to jig streamers in. I suppose for stocked fish, it's probably great for anglers because there's not really anywhere for fish to hide now. Probably makes them much easier to see and catch. All the good wild trout habitat is "ruined" now though.

That used to be one of my "go-to" spots to fish in that area. Now I don't even bother.

I get the projects people are doing in the valleys with legacy sediment. Those streams are quite altered from their natural state. What I don't get is these freestoners up here in the highlands that, aside from logging 100 years ago, really haven't been modified too much from natural.

Now, of course, in some cases, the stream will naturally end up in a channel layout that isn't conducive to fishing or fish, but do we have to meddle with it? That log jam would be "impossible" to fish for most people. Does that mean it's worthless for the stream? The stream had been trying to reroute itself down through that logjam. You can see that at one time, the main channel was over on that side. If it was able to have continued marching that way, it would've broken out into the forest. It may have ended up in several smaller braids. I thought that's what we would want? I know nothing about stream "improvement" though, so maybe letting it flood out into the forest isn't best?

Anyway, I don't know if its the ease of access, that it's state forest property, that the local clubs all get their jollies from dragging lumber through the water, or what has caused this to become a modification mecca, but it has the highest density of manmade stream features of any place I've ever been. I guess on the bright side, if people ever lose interest in bolting logs to the banks there, eventually, it will all be gone.

I don't know about the rocks. On another stream here, there was extensive rockwork done some time ago. It was very creatively placed to prevent the water from moving the rocks around. Its interesting watching the logs give up, but the rocks continue to force the water to the center. It's always a little jarring coming across a rock formation like this.

View attachment 1641224898

yea this same “we know better mentality” on high Mountain streams is playing out on Clark’s creek in dauphin county right now. The hemlocks there are dropping left and right(wooly Adelgid related? I don’t know). Anyway it’s add huge amounts of large woody debris to the stream. There is a mob with torches and pitch forks demanding all this large woody debris be removed or altered because it’s covering up their favorite featureless pools /favorite stocked trout dry fly stretches. They have invented all kinds of theories about how the large wood falling into the stream is bad for it. Stating it’s going to create a lake and all these other unlikely scenarios. We talked to 2 different large woody debris experts. Tyler neimond a gal from Pennstate extension who’s name escapes me, and the verdict was as far as benefits for trout you can’t have “too much large woody debris”. A lot of people forget after being logged and widened it can take hundreds of years for a stream to restablisb some of its healthy ecological and sediment transport functions. So not liking how it looks two days after the tree goes down in the water and pulling it out is essentially just resetting the clock on that stream get back to a better place, pretty short sighted.

 

[troutbert]

I think about 2 years ago I walked a pretty long section of a stream near me that seems to be a backhoe playground for some reason and photographed all of these monuments. There's everything from very old jack dams to modern deflectors and everything in between. Unfortunately, I lost those photos, but I've been thinking about going back and documenting it again.

Some of these projects are nothing more than a rusty piece of rebar sticking out of the bank at this point. There's little to no sign of anything that was there. Some of the older jack dams are still in place and have created huge holes (completely unnatural in this stream environment), but the lumber used to build them has to be reaching the end of its service life.

Most recently, a section about 150 yards long was completely reworked. There was a huge log jam there that formed naturally from flooding. A branch of the stream found its way into that big log jam and scoured out the old stream bed under the logs. For a few years, I used to jig sculpin streamers under the logs and pulled out some of the biggest brown trout I've caught in that stream there. Apparently, that log jam wasn't acceptable because someone went to great lengths to redirect the stream away from the logs.

There was also a large tree that had fallen across the stream just below that log jam and created an interesting hole. I pulled a nice 10 inch brook trout out from under its root ball somewhat recently. The stream then shot down a fairly unremarkable stretch of cobble unimpeded before hitting a large deadfall that created one hell of a hole and 90 degree bend in the river. I also pulled a few really nice brook trout out from that bend pool recently.

Now there are a series of bank armoring contraptions anchored into the stream up above where the logjam was. They reworked a very old jack dam that was completely submerged in a pool that formed on its own above the jack dam. They chainsawed that big tree at the base of the log jam and left its root ball in place, but the stream moved away from the rootball so its basically just sitting in some gravel now. I think they might have deepened that long chute before the 90 degree bend and armored the bank along that stretch.

The last time I fished there after all this most recent work was done, I didn't catch anything in the now very modified pools where I used to consistently find fish. The logjam is disconnected from the water now so there's no deep cover pool to jig streamers in. I suppose for stocked fish, it's probably great for anglers because there's not really anywhere for fish to hide now. Probably makes them much easier to see and catch. All the good wild trout habitat is "ruined" now though.

That used to be one of my "go-to" spots to fish in that area. Now I don't even bother.

I get the projects people are doing in the valleys with legacy sediment. Those streams are quite altered from their natural state. What I don't get is these freestoners up here in the highlands that, aside from logging 100 years ago, really haven't been modified too much from natural.

Now, of course, in some cases, the stream will naturally end up in a channel layout that isn't conducive to fishing or fish, but do we have to meddle with it? That log jam would be "impossible" to fish for most people. Does that mean it's worthless for the stream? The stream had been trying to reroute itself down through that logjam. You can see that at one time, the main channel was over on that side. If it was able to have continued marching that way, it would've broken out into the forest. It may have ended up in several smaller braids. I thought that's what we would want? I know nothing about stream "improvement" though, so maybe letting it flood out into the forest isn't best?

Anyway, I don't know if its the ease of access, that it's state forest property, that the local clubs all get their jollies from dragging lumber through the water, or what has caused this to become a modification mecca, but it has the highest density of manmade stream features of any place I've ever been. I guess on the bright side, if people ever lose interest in bolting logs to the banks there, eventually, it will all be gone.

I don't know about the rocks. On another stream here, there was extensive rockwork done some time ago. It was very creatively placed to prevent the water from moving the rocks around. Its interesting watching the logs give up, but the rocks continue to force the water to the center. It's always a little jarring coming across a rock formation like this.

View attachment 1641224898

What stream is this?

 

[silverfox]

What stream is this?

Bob. Edit>photo is wallack

 

[sarce]

Anyone know of any NCD projects that have been in place for 10+ years? They are being constructed left and right in my area and are sold as a long term solution (people get very upset about the short term tree clearing), so I'm curious if there are examples of these projects that have been in place long enough to see the "long term" result.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Anyone know of any NCD projects that have been in place for 10+ years? They are being constructed left and right in my area and are sold as a long term solution (people get very upset about the short term tree clearing), so I'm curious if there are examples of these projects that have been in place long enough to see the "long term" result.

I do not, I have talked to many people but only worked in one watershed and when I see projects in another watershed you cannot tell if it’s NCD if you don’t know where the channel was before and if it was moved or altered. I think it would be a tremendous resource for DEP/PAFB to put together a portfolio with grades/any pre/post data of relatively recent projects and post construction analysis not only for restoration professionals to learn from but for the tax payers to see how the money spent us fared. This is likely not feasible from DEP point right now as I think legislature has kinda waged war on them reducing staff and capacity. Permits are backed up and taking forever I feel bad for those guys.

 

[troutbert]

Anyone know of any NCD projects that have been in place for 10+ years? They are being constructed left and right in my area and are sold as a long term solution (people get very upset about the short term tree clearing), so I'm curious if there are examples of these projects that have been in place long enough to see the "long term" result.

On Spring Creek, McCoy Dam was removed in 2007, and habitat work was done in 2009 according to an internet search. It was done over a couple of years, though, so it might take some digging to get the exact dates. The 2 cross vanes near the parking area were done first. The cross vanes further up were done a little later, maybe 2 years later.

I live very close to the McCoy site and have observed it from the dam removal up to the present. If you want to take a tour, just let me know.

The cross vane project on Big Bear Creek in Lycoming County was done earlier than that. It was one of the earliest in PA, but I don't know the date. It is on private hunting club land but if you are involved in this stuff, they may give you a tour. I went there on a tour about NCD when it was about half completed. In the massive floods in fall 2011 (largest flood ever recorded in Loyalsock drainage), the stream jumped over into the forest road. The road is at a lower elevation than the stream channel. Never a good thing! There are videos on YouTube of the stream roaring down the road grade. I haven't seen how they patched that up.

 

[Fish Sticks]

On Spring Creek, McCoy Dam was removed in 2007, and habitat work was done in 2009 according to an internet search. It was done over a couple of years, though, so it might take some digging to get the exact dates. The 2 cross vanes near the parking area were done first. The cross vanes further up were done a little later, maybe 2 years later.

The cross vane project on Big Bear Creek in Lycoming County was done earlier than that. It was one of the earliest in PA, but I don't know the date. It is on private hunting club land but if you are involved in this stuff, they may give you a tour. I went there on a tour about NCD when it was about half completed. In the massive floods in fall 2011 (largest flood ever recorded in Loyalsock drainage), the stream jumped over into the forest road. The road is at a lower elevation than the stream channel. Never a good thing! There are videos on YouTube of the stream roaring down the road grade. I haven't seen how they patched that up.

I will say too that when seeing restoration practitioners that subscribe to differing schools of thought on restoration argue in person or over zoom, both will point out that failing projects using one technique or another are likely the result of poor execution of said technique in at least some of the cases. It’s nearly impossible for people like us to tell that though because this stuff is so over our heads.

 

[troutbert]

Anyone know of any NCD projects that have been in place for 10+ years? They are being constructed left and right in my area and are sold as a long term solution (people get very upset about the short term tree clearing), so I'm curious if there are examples of these projects that have been in place long enough to see the "long term" result.

Most of the "Natural Channel Design" (cross vane) projects on Kettle Creek were built more than 10 years ago. I don't know the exact dates, but I recall that planning began around 1999, and I think most were built in the next few following years.

The structures at the very upper end of the special regulations area were built soon after 1999, but I heard that some rebuilding was done later on.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Most of the "Natural Channel Design" (cross vane) projects on Kettle Creek were built more than 10 years ago. I don't know the exact dates, but I recall that planning began around 1999, and I think most were built in the next few following years.

The structures at the very upper end of the special regulations area were built soon after 1999, but I heard that some rebuilding was done later on.

I have always wondered if up above cross fork there where those Boulder j hooks and cross veins were put in if the designers were limited by how close to the stream the road comes. Would be interesting to know because a lot of times in the projects I’ve been involved in we have had to some up with the best possible channel in light of limitations like land uses, public infrastructure(bridges, pipelines, ect), or roads. You wonder if they we’re not pinned so close to a road would they have taken a different approach.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

On Spring Creek, McCoy Dam was removed in 2007, and habitat work was done in 2009 according to an internet search. It was done over a couple of years, though, so it might take some digging to get the exact dates. The 2 cross vanes near the parking area were done first. The cross vanes further up were done a little later, maybe 2 years later.

I live very close to the McCoy site and have observed it from the dam removal up to the present. If you want to take a tour, just let me know.

The cross vane project on Big Bear Creek in Lycoming County was done earlier than that. It was one of the earliest in PA, but I don't know the date. It is on private hunting club land but if you are involved in this stuff, they may give you a tour. I went there on a tour about NCD when it was about half completed. In the massive floods in fall 2011 (largest flood ever recorded in Loyalsock drainage), the stream jumped over into the forest road. The road is at a lower elevation than the stream channel. Never a good thing! There are videos on YouTube of the stream roaring down the road grade. I haven't seen how they patched that up.

All of those structures on Big bear creek are gone or buried. Natural channel design has its place, but the biggest improvement regardless of restoration approach is to increase access and functionality of a flood plain. I could show you lots of USFWS rock structures that were placed in incised stream channels that have been blown out and repaired and blown out again. I could show you other rock and log structures that have some floodplain connectivity that have been functioning for well over a decade.

Geology plays a huge roll, the unstable glacial till in Bradford Co for example is virtually impossible to work in with NCD.

 

[troutbert]

I have always wondered if up above cross fork there where those Boulder j hooks and cross veins were put in if the designers were limited by how close to the stream the road comes. Would be interesting to know because a lot of times in the projects I’ve been involved in we have had to some up with the best possible channel in light of limitations like land uses, public infrastructure(bridges, pipelines, ect), or roads. You wonder if they we’re not pinned so close to a road would they have taken a different approach.

On Kettle Creek up above the village of Cross Fork a ways there is a place where the stream meanders out near Rt. 144 and you see structures around that bend. This may be the same place you're talking about.

One of the main reasons for doing the project was to protect Route 144. The stream was moving laterally towards Route 144, threatening the road grade.

The work was intended to prevent further lateral cutting towards Route 144. And also to provide some fish habitat.

IMHO since protecting Rt. 144 was the main goal that PennDot should pay for it.

Elsewhere along that stretch you'll see other cross vane structures. As you say, they did the best considering the infrastructure in the floodplain (Rt. 144, cabins, houses, driveways, utility lines etc.)

Where there are floodplain developments, you are basically forced to stabilize the stream to protect them.

Where the floodplains are forested and without developments though, as in some sections of public forest lands, the streams should NOT be "locked in." Bank stabilization should not be done in these places. The streams should be allowed to change position. That is the normal dynamics of streams and it has importance consequences for habitat creation, for fish but also many other animals, and plants.

Many people involved in this type of work understand that streams naturally move, and the ecological importance of those dynamics, but some do not realize it.

 

[troutbert]

All of those structures on Big bear creek are gone or buried. Natural channel design has its place, but the biggest improvement regardless of restoration approach is to increase access and functionality of a flood plain. I could show you lots of USFWS rock structures that were placed in incised stream channels that have been blown out and repaired and blown out again. I could show you other rock and log structures that have some floodplain connectivity that have been functioning for well over a decade.

Geology plays a huge roll, the unstable glacial till in Bradford Co for example is virtually impossible to work in with NCD.

It would be interesting to see how things have changed at Big Bear Creek. If you know anyone who would let us walk through there, please contact me.

Regarding Bradford County, are you referring to Bentley Creek? I'm pretty sure that was the first natural channel design project in PA. As you said, the unstable glacial till there makes it an impossible situation.

 

[Fish Sticks]

All of those structures on Big bear creek are gone or buried. Natural channel design has its place, but the biggest improvement regardless of restoration approach is to increase access and functionality of a flood plain. I could show you lots of USFWS rock structures that were placed in incised stream channels that have been blown out and repaired and blown out again. I could show you other rock and log structures that have some floodplain connectivity that have been functioning for well over a decade.

Geology plays a huge roll, the unstable glacial till in Bradford Co for example is virtually impossible to work in with NCD.

What Lyco says is in line from what I have heard from all restoration professionals that you must allow easy access to flood plain. It shouldn’t have to be a 1 year rain event to access it. That’s also where your really big time TMDL reductions for the bay. There is a hot debate right now about if you do flood plain creation by removing legacy sediment if you should or shouldn’t put structures in the channel in the flood plain or if you should just let this channel do what ever it wants.

I don’t know enough about this but considering we all know streams move, to a lay person like me, it would seem that trying to establish forested wetlands in these project areas and letting large woods debris naturally build the habitat and channel would be cheaper and make more sense. But I’m a lay person so could be really big time holes in that line of thinking. It seems like despite not having mature habitat right there it would be established in the long term by the trees.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

It would be interesting to see how things have changed at Big Bear Creek. If you know anyone who would let us walk through there, please contact me.

Regarding Bradford County, are you referring to Bentley Creek? I'm pretty sure that was the first natural channel design project in PA. As you said, the unstable glacial till there makes it an impossible situation.

Dunwoody Rd parallels Big Bear Creek, you can pretty much see the creek everywhere from the road. The 2016 flood basically completely filled the brodge near the mouth with a gravel/ cobble deposit.

Bradford county streams such as bently and others like Towanda, Sugar, wysox and over into wyoming and Susquehanna co as well as west into Northern Tioga all have the same geology. All those watersheds are incredibly dynamic and need to be allowed to move laterally. Problem is that we have infrastructure such as roads, farms and house so people try to fight and keep the creeks in a straight line. Hint humans lose everytime... without ample flood plain access NCD work in that region is almost pointless. The traditional log and rock structudes do not have a high probability of success in that region due to incredibly high bed load movement and lateral mobility.