Streams 8 mos. after Irene

[iceyguides]

It's been about 8 months since hurricane Irene blew through Pennsylvania. I was interested in hearing some opinions of how the storm has affected the streams/rivers you fish? better? worse? in between?
From my experience it improved some streams, scouring holes, creating large gravel areas, and washing out litter. while it has practically ruined other streams with siltation and litter.

 

[McSneek]

The only stream in my area that I've fished with any regularity this year has been the FFO stretch of Muddy Creek in York County. I don't know to what extent it was impacted by Irene but it is basically unchanged from last season.

I've been to the Quitty twice since Irene. Still debris in the stream and on the banks including a small boat. Some downed trees are gone, others have replaced them. Some spots were improved by this, others aren't as good as they used to be.

I started a thread about the massive log jam on Clarks Creek in the FFO stretch that was left behind. I was "lectured" by a few posters about the importance of woody debris to stream habitat, etc. If humans had dammed the creek up in that fashion people would have been screaming about it though. So, in my opinion, the flooding ruined a pretty decent stretch of the Clarks FFO project.

Other streams I've fished this season were no in Irene's path.

 

[Swattie87]

Yeah I'd agree with the above...some better, some worse, some the same.

I'd say the vast majority fall into either the "same" or "better" categories though. Can only think of one offhand that I'd call "worse."

 

[trout624]

I'd agree with Clarks. Although it previously had a decent log jam in the FFO stretch you're talking about, there are at least 3 very large trees and that have totally blocked all fishing for a good 50 yardsish. Crazy to see the sheer size of the uprooted stumps. Nature's beauty though.

 

[pennsadventures]

the log jams in clarks creek are huge and its a bunch of them....but in the same breath i did see alot of trout holding to them since the water is so crystal clear

 

[troutbert]

For those who think downed trees should be removed from streams, what are your reasons?

Are these habitat reasons?

Several times people have used the word "hazard." What is the actual hazard?

Do you think downed trees should be removed in all cases? Or just in some cases? If so, how do you distinguish between the two?

Do you think downed trees should be removed in wilderness areas?

In state forest or state gameland lands with no roads or dwellings or other developments in the floodplain?

In the middle of the Bob Marshall wilderness, 15 miles from the nearest road?

How about forested backcountry 7 miles from the road? 2 miles? 1mile?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Swattie,

I think I know which one you think got worse and I would agree. However, my last trip there showed plenty of brookies still left and active. I think that one will heal fine.

The rest I think got better honestly.

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear troutbert,

We aren't talking about a tree falling in the forest when no one was around and wondering if it made a sound?

There are definitely places where a log jam like that could be left alone and we'd all probably be none the worse for wear but not in the Clark Valley.

The stream itself has virtually no gradient for it's entire length below the dam. What it does have is a tightly walled valley recently subject to an increasing number of flash floods.

Speaking only for Clarks Creek, a stream that claimed a life during Irene, the log jam poses a major hazard to homes, structures, and bridges downstream.

A log jam of that size that completely spans the stream has a tremendous potential to grow in size until it gives way and lodges against a bridge, or causes water to be diverted into homes that have not previously flooded.

Except for a couple of yards worth of deepened water behind the jam it does nothing to improve the stream. Since the flood the stream has become even more shallow and featureless. I can't honestly remember seeing a trout stream with less quality trout habitat than Clarks? There are literally miles of that stream that are of uniform depth and flow rate. That Clarks has a thriving wild trout population is more a testament to the water quality than the habitat.

However, if a dozen trees had fallen from alternate sides of the bank at angles they would have created deepened channels. All this mess has done is made a deeper flat pool, as if Clarks lacks that habitat feature?

Bottom line, the logjam is nothing but a dam. We are, perhaps were now that Corbett is in charge, spending millions of dollars annually removing old 2 or 3 foot high concrete dams from streams. All in an effort to restore natural flows to streams.

What advantage is served by allowing a naturally created dam to exist, especially when considered against the potential for damage by the next flood?

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[Swattie87]

Sal - Yep, same one...we've talked about it. I agree...I was there a couple weeks ago and saw plenty of fish, caught a few. They're still there but harder to catch since a lot of the holes with broken water before seem more flat now.

 

[McSneek]

TimMurphy wrote:
Dear troutbert,

We aren't talking about a tree falling in the forest when no one was around and wondering if it made a sound?

There are definitely places where a log jam like that could be left alone and we'd all probably be none the worse for wear but not in the Clark Valley.

The stream itself has virtually no gradient for it's entire length below the dam. What it does have is a tightly walled valley recently subject to an increasing number of flash floods.

Speaking only for Clarks Creek, a stream that claimed a life during Irene, the log jam poses a major hazard to homes, structures, and bridges downstream.

A log jam of that size that completely spans the stream has a tremendous potential to grow in size until it gives way and lodges against a bridge, or causes water to be diverted into homes that have not previously flooded.

Except for a couple of yards worth of deepened water behind the jam it does nothing to improve the stream. Since the flood the stream has become even more shallow and featureless. I can't honestly remember seeing a trout stream with less quality trout habitat than Clarks? There are literally miles of that stream that are of uniform depth and flow rate. That Clarks has a thriving wild trout population is more a testament to the water quality than the habitat.

However, if a dozen trees had fallen from alternate sides of the bank at angles they would have created deepened channels. All this mess has done is made a deeper flat pool, as if Clarks lacks that habitat feature?

Bottom line, the logjam is nothing but a dam. We are, perhaps were now that Corbett is in charge, spending millions of dollars annually removing old 2 or 3 foot high concrete dams from streams. All in an effort to restore natural flows to streams.

What advantage is served by allowing a naturally created dam to exist, especially when considered against the potential for damage by the next flood?

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Excellent post Tim. I think you've done a much better job of describing the situation on Clark's Creek than I have been able to do. As I've said before, if someone dammed the creek up intentionally like this people would be up in arms over that act.

 

[TimMurphy]

McSneek wrote:

TimMurphy wrote:
Dear troutbert,

We aren't talking about a tree falling in the forest when no one was around and wondering if it made a sound?

There are definitely places where a log jam like that could be left alone and we'd all probably be none the worse for wear but not in the Clark Valley.

The stream itself has virtually no gradient for it's entire length below the dam. What it does have is a tightly walled valley recently subject to an increasing number of flash floods.

Speaking only for Clarks Creek, a stream that claimed a life during Irene, the log jam poses a major hazard to homes, structures, and bridges downstream.

A log jam of that size that completely spans the stream has a tremendous potential to grow in size until it gives way and lodges against a bridge, or causes water to be diverted into homes that have not previously flooded.

Except for a couple of yards worth of deepened water behind the jam it does nothing to improve the stream. Since the flood the stream has become even more shallow and featureless. I can't honestly remember seeing a trout stream with less quality trout habitat than Clarks? There are literally miles of that stream that are of uniform depth and flow rate. That Clarks has a thriving wild trout population is more a testament to the water quality than the habitat.

However, if a dozen trees had fallen from alternate sides of the bank at angles they would have created deepened channels. All this mess has done is made a deeper flat pool, as if Clarks lacks that habitat feature?

Bottom line, the logjam is nothing but a dam. We are, perhaps were now that Corbett is in charge, spending millions of dollars annually removing old 2 or 3 foot high concrete dams from streams. All in an effort to restore natural flows to streams.

What advantage is served by allowing a naturally created dam to exist, especially when considered against the potential for damage by the next flood?

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Excellent post Tim. I think you've done a much better job of describing the situation on Clark's Creek than I have been able to do. As I've said before, if someone dammed the creek up intentionally like this people would be up in arms over that act.

Dear McSneek,

Thank you

I tried to clearly and plainly state my opinion of things in regards to Clarks Creek.

I thought about what I had written and as I thought more I just thought it rather ironic that some people think that a stream that owes a great deal of it's trout to the fact that it's dam controlled could somehow be better off and more natural with a "natural" dam lodged firmly in the middle of it?

Regards,

Tim Murphy