# Clear Creek Watershed Thoughts (Hocking/Fairfield)



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Hi all,

I'm no fly angler, but hope to be someday. I still enjoy going after Ohio trout when I get the chance to. One day I'll become a fly enthusiast and quit cheating

Anyways, I have been having a reoccurring though about Clear Creek in Hocking/Fairfield County. Many of you probably know it as one of three non lake erie watershed trout streams. Although it may not be a natural trout stream, it shares many characteristics and boy is it beautiful throughout Clear Creek Metro Park.

From what I gather, it is considered the 3rd 'best' when compared to Mad River and Clear Fork. Either the numbers are too low, the fish are too small, and holdover during the summer isn't occurring. I have been told there are a few reasons for this. Please correct me if you believe they are off base:

The stream becomes too warm during the summer.
There is not enough cover for the trout, and the habbitat suffers in some stretches.
The turbidity increases too much during flood events.
An abundance of natural 'trout food' isn't there.

Those all seem like logical reasons to me. My parents own property near the stream, and I frequently see it during the times I am down there. I have also been able to catch a FEW trout during the winter and spring, none very large. I have seen it low and crystal clear, and I have seen it swollen and somewhat off color.

From a Geographical standpoint, the main stem of the stream (and the watershed for that matter) is divided. The lower reaches flow through an unglaciated and highly forested region of the Hocking Hills. The upper reaches and tributaries flow through a very flat, glaciated, and highly agricultural region. A quick glance of the watercourse from an aerial photograph of the area will reveal this.

You guys seem to know trout. From what I have gathered, they need cool water, they need a good food base, and they need habitat. I think it is probably safe to assume that part of the cause of Clear Creek being less than desirable for trout is due to the fact that much of the upper watershed runs through these farm lands. Here is why I think that. Again, feel free to chime in with thoughts:

The main stem and tributaries receive direct runoff from these Ag. fields as opposed to falling or filtering through a forested area.
Many sections of the main stem and tribs. receive direct sunlight during the days of summer due to the lack of riparian corridors along the stream and tribs.
The main stem and tribs are highly channelized which reduces the amount of trout habitat and increases the likelihood of downstream flooding.
The trout food base is negatively effected by fertilizer/pesticide runoff from farms in the watershed (riparian corridors would alleviate this somewhat).

My question after all of this rambling is: Would Clear Creek be a better or great (Ohio Standards) trout stream if action were taken in the upper watershed? Conservation Easements, CRP Lands, Riparian Corridors, Erosion Reduction are all the ingredients in order to make this happen. All of these ingredients are also beneficial to farmers with properties in which the streams of the watershed flow though.

Finally: Do you think inquiring about this would be worth it?...or is Clear Creek not meant to be a holdover trout fishery?

Here is a map of where the watershed "changes". Follow the stream Upstream by following it left.
[ame="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=39.594652,-82.6315&num=1&t=h&sll=39.59701,-82.545993&sspn=0.017197,0.032015&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=39.594751,-82.632895&spn=0.004092,0.009624&z=17"]39.594652,-82.6315 - Google Maps[/ame]


----------



## Flyfish Dog (Nov 6, 2007)

It is also mis-managed or lack of any in my opinion. To many meathunters in the beginwith that doesnt give the stream a chance. Your qoutes about the stream problems is dead on though. It sure was to warm in the last July along with low water conditions. I also noticed a crap load of bait containers and garbage from the ignorant ones that have home property near the creek.


----------



## TheCream (Mar 19, 2009)

Even with improved habitat, I would still be skeptical that the water temperatures during summer would allow for many holdover fish to survive. 

I have only fished Clear Creek a few times, I caught fish but usually big shiners, only one small trout. Like I tell some other people, Ohio trout fishing is the reason why I go to WV for trout fishing. To get to a decent stream in Ohio like the Mad, I would have to drive a few hours from Athens to reach it. Considering I can travel only slightly farther into WV to get to excellent trout fishing, it makes the decision on where to go an easy one to make.


----------



## Flyfish Dog (Nov 6, 2007)

TheCream said:


> Even with improved habitat, I would still be skeptical that the water temperatures during summer would allow for many holdover fish to survive.
> 
> I have only fished Clear Creek a few times, I caught fish but usually big shiners, only one small trout. Like I tell some other people, Ohio trout fishing is the reason why I go to WV for trout fishing. To get to a decent stream in Ohio like the Mad, I would have to drive a few hours from Athens to reach it. Considering I can travel only slightly farther into WV to get to excellent trout fishing, it makes the decision on where to go an easy one to make.


There's no big trouts in WV!!  May be the reason to be back down for good.


----------



## Andrew S. (May 22, 2010)

My own personal opinion (and it's just that) is that we should always try to keep streams healthy, so issues about runoff, etc. are certainly important.


But...and here comes the personal part:

I think warm water ought to be treated as such, meaning maintain the diversity of interesting, and fishing-worthy warm water species and don't mess with stocking non-native, "artificial" hatchery trout. 

A healthy warmwater stream in the midwest will have a variety of interesting fish, that vary in their habits, their appearance, their size, and their edibility. I'd just as soon keep it that way. Stocked trout are best suited to styrofoam and shrinkwrap and the supermarket seafood section.


----------



## RonT (May 4, 2008)

Booooo! But, you have a point. I do drive to Michigan, and Pennsylvania to fish for native trout, but also enjoy the Brown Trout fishery in each state. Imports.
How about Hybrid Bass? Certainly not native. 
Now about Smallmouth (never liked the term "Smallie"...) Black Bass. Certainly native to Ohio, and a great sport fishery that many Ohia flyfishers cut their teeth on. In my case, crick wadin' with a first generation Mitchell 300, Garcia Conolon (real) fiberglass rod, and Mepps, C.P Swings, and a local lure (made in Lexington, Ohia, in the mid 50's,IIRC) called a Rocket. 
Ohio doesn't have a restocking program for SMBB to my knowledge, wish they did.
And then Steelhead...(first it was Coho)...would trade em' all for Hybrids...which would run the North Coast tribs like Steelhead, but without the short season and less desireable conditions.
I'll settle for the Brown Trout (occasional Rainbow) that I can fish for within a few minutes drive.
R


----------



## Andrew S. (May 22, 2010)

Yes, I realize my opinion is not the majority one. Many of my friends and I choose to respectfully disagree on this one! (By which I mean we call each other all kinds of names when discussing this, but since we're always drunk when we do this, it's OK. That's what I mean by "respectfully")


----------



## TheCream (Mar 19, 2009)

Andrew Stoehr said:


> Yes, I realize my opinion is not the majority one. Many of my friends and I choose to respectfully disagree on this one! (By which I mean we call each other all kinds of names when discussing this, but since we're always drunk when we do this, it's OK. That's what I mean by "respectfully")


I would agree with you, Andrew. It makes more sense to me to stock species that have a better survival rate and/or have the potential to reproduce (less important to me than survival rate). I really don't take big issue with the species that are being stocked that *do* survive. A local lake near me has been stocked with saugeye, I caught a toad of a specimen last spring on the fly and a buddy of mine caught one even bigger the year before while we were crappie fishing. Do saugeye, hybrid stripers, or steelhead reproduce...essentially the answer is no because the steelhead reproduction rate is very low and obviously the hybrids do not reproduce. What I personally do not like is stocking a warmwater stream with a coldwater species, like Clear Creek, which seems to be a program well-intended but doomed to fail. Even worse, in my humble opinion, is stocking a warmwater lake with trout. It seems like a lot of money that goes into hatching and raising these fish, only to throw them in Dow Lake where they have very little chance to survive. Yes, it is a "put and take" fishery and the vast majority of the trout caught will be kept and eaten, but I'd still rather see a species stocked that has a shot to live. A native species would be even better, but any fish that would survive year-round if released would seem like a more logical option to me.


----------



## Andrew S. (May 22, 2010)

I've always liked to think that the "perfect" fish, to me, is one that has the following attributes, in no particular order:

Fights well.
Reaches a reasonable size
Is nice to look at
Is wild (by which I mean - was not hatched in a hatchery)
Is native (by which I mean - is historically native to the region, not introduced)

Some fish, say a smallmouth bass, scores a perfect 5. A white bass would as well. A muskie, in some Ohio watersheds, would get an even "more perfect" 5 because it has all those attributes but also gets bigger.

But of course there are fish that I like, such as carp, that don't. Carp certainly aren't native, but at least you can be certain that any carp you catch around here is wild. Whether they're purty is debatable!

A fish that was hatched in a hatchery, but has "paid its dues" by surviving long enough in the wild to have gone rogue, so to speak, gains some significant points - such as steelhead in the Great Lakes.

The problem that I have with stocked trout, particularly rainbows in so many places, is that the fish you catch are very often days, or even just hours, out of the hatchery. And they're non-native.

No thanks. Just doesn't appeal to me. One of the things that I personally like about fishing is that it somehow connects me to some wildness out there, and I simply don't feel that way about a fish that is looking around the stream it's in, and say "Where the hell am I ???"

Now, this is all separate from another set of issues, which has to do with the economics of hatchery production, put-and-take, etc. and what managing watersheds for introduced species does.

A really entertaining and educational account of how this all pertains to trout, rainbows in particular, is in Anders Halversson's book, "An Entirely Synthetic Fish". Highly recommended.

Sorry to have hijacked the thread.


----------



## EOC (Feb 21, 2006)

Hi! Relatively new guy here with an opinion (I know right?)..

The one thing I always find funny about this state is that a good portion of our anglers all want to dump trout in as many places as they can. The problem is it just really isn't viable, or technically healthy for our fisheries.
Sure you could improve many streams in Ohio and improve the numbers of trout surviving, but it will always be put and take (Especially with the harvest regs we have).

The problem with Ohio and its management plan, is it is a very money dependent put and take model. Money is spent for license dollars to fund hatcheries. There is little (if any?) habitat work done by the state which would most likely be more profitable in the long run. Places like Montana have it right, work with what you have and protect it the best you can with good science and good policy.

Now I enjoy steelhead, and of course browns, but if I could trade all of those for more rivers with healthy smallmouth and musky numbers I would do it in a heart beat. For me, having grown up in this glorious part of the rust belt, no two other species are more emblematic of our state. Also, this is where they naturally occur so any efforts to help them along is going to be a lot easier than trying to keep oxygen deprived trout alive in a warm water mid western stream.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Good thoughts guys. I guess what I am trying to consider is how to bolster DNRs efforts in Clear Creek. It is evident that they are attempting to establish a trifecta of trout streams outside of the Lake Erie Watershed. They seem to be trying to appease to many local anglers along with those more advanced anglers who are willing to drive a bit to get in on some fly action.

Regarding the thought that Clear Creek is subject to "meat hunters". It is clearly posted that trout are to be over 12" to be kept. In reality...how many of these trout are actually _surviving_ to the 12" stage of their lives in Clear Creek? It seems to me that many die off before they can reach that class. 

My next question is: Does anyone know how warm Clear Creek gets throughout the lower stretches during the summer? If it reaches temperatures close to 80 F, it is safe to say that this is a lost cause. If it merely reaches mid 70 F mark during certain times, I believe that could be managed. With stream cover increased in the upper watershed, the water receives less direct sunlight and thus less temperature increase. Stream Cover comes with buffer strips AKA riparian buffers. These need enough time to "grow up" along the stream, and provide ample sunlight protection. These strips also help slow and filter runoff water from surrounding Agricultural Fields that tend to become relatively hot during the summer. You can imagine the runoff from an intense summer storm would retain a lot of this heat and increase the stress on the trout very quickly.

I'm not insinuating that Clear Creek is not a WWH Stream (Warm Water Habitat)...Clear Fork technically falls into this category too along with Mohican. I just think that with certain measures, a holdover rate of trout may increase to a point where more trout could survive through consecutive summers...eventually leading to a decent trout fishery for those unwilling to drive to Mad or Mohican/Clear Fork streams.

Does anyone have access to data describing Clear Creek's temperatures during the summer months?


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

EOC said:


> Hi! Relatively new guy here with an opinion (I know right?)..
> 
> The one thing I always find funny about this state is that a good portion of our anglers all want to dump trout in as many places as they can. The problem is it just really isn't viable, or technically healthy for our fisheries.
> Sure you could improve many streams in Ohio and improve the numbers of trout surviving, but it will always be put and take (Especially with the harvest regs we have).
> ...


Very true. State Fishery funding is very limited, and definitely does not touch on habitat improvements as much as it could. What Im sort of poking at here is a local or regional effort to improve an existing trout stocked stream to the point where they could holdover during hot months. When looking at headwater streams and upper sections of Clear Creek.it is Clear (no pun) that little to no effort has been exerted in keeping the stream cool enough to support holdover trout. Most of the farm fields in the Amanda area run directly up to the creek with 0 cover from sunlight and 0 riparian buffer for bio-retention and runoff protection and erosion mitigation.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

To anyone who is interested: TMDL Study by Ohio EPA of the Hocking River Basin. To search how Clear Creek faired, enter it into the search box at the top of the PDF.

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/portals/35/tmdl/HockingRiverTMDL_final_aug09_wo_app.pdf

It is in full attainment of WWH standards (a rarity for Ohio Streams of similar size). It even has two CWH (Cold Water Habbitat) tributaries in the lower reaches. This is a rarity in Southern Ohio. Lots of OTHER interesting and sensitive species such as the least brook lamprey and brindled madtom call the watershed home. They would most certainly benefit from upper watershed conservation efforts.

Another thing: I have noticed a pretty poor population of Smallies (or Small Mouth Black Bass  ) in the stream while fishing it. Habitat is great. BUT...when I fish the section below the small dam at the abandoned gas station @ Rt. 33....I have caught literally hundreds congregated below the dam. I have also caught a good amount of trout here in the spring. Could the removal of this dam be beneficial to other species seeking asylum or spawning grounds from the Dirty (it's all relative ) Hocking?


----------



## EOC (Feb 21, 2006)

Conservation easements wouldn't really help improve the habitat per say as you are just basically removing the development rights.

CRP could help with siltation in gravel areas of the creek. Removing the dam would allow access for some fish to spawning areas that they normally wouldn't have as well as improving oxygen levels.

As for riparian buffers... How effective they are is entirely determined by how cold the water is when it leaves the ground in the form of springs, how many springs there are, and how much of the water temperature is effected by run off.

I think the main point is that if you enjoy the water and want to give back its worth it. It may not achieve the results you want (More trout?) but it will do some good.


----------



## striperrams (Aug 26, 2010)

Well, It's interesting to see your opinions on the "stocked" vs. "indigenous" fish. If a watershed has good habitat, and indigenous fish, it does not need to be stocked at all. Take for example Lake Erie. For as long as I can remember, people have wanted it stocked with walleye, y. perch and sauger to supplement existing stocks. This is nonsense as it is self sustaining and probably the best walleye fishery anywhere. To stock it would mean tainting the genetics of the wild stock already established, not to mention cost a fortune. The state does stock the Mad, Clearfork Creek and Clear creek with browns as a put, grow and take fishery. I suppose you could argue that none of the three of these streams is "optimal" for trout but they are marginal and could support the fishery. One of the main reasons Clearcreek does receive trout is that it has a good portion of the stream that is open to the public(metropark lands). If summers aren't brutal, it could have some holdovers as well. The DOW is doing a study now to see if this put, grow and take is the best strategy or not. Should be interesting to see the results.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

striperrams said:


> Well, It's interesting to see your opinions on the "stocked" vs. "indigenous" fish. If a watershed has good habitat, and indigenous fish, it does not need to be stocked at all. Take for example Lake Erie. For as long as I can remember, people have wanted it stocked with walleye, y. perch and sauger to supplement existing stocks. This is nonsense as it is self sustaining and probably the best walleye fishery anywhere. To stock it would mean tainting the genetics of the wild stock already established, not to mention cost a fortune. The state does stock the Mad, Clearfork Creek and Clear creek with browns as a put, grow and take fishery. I suppose you could argue that none of the three of these streams is "optimal" for trout but they are marginal and could support the fishery. One of the main reasons Clearcreek does receive trout is that it has a good portion of the stream that is open to the public(metropark lands). If summers aren't brutal, it could have some holdovers as well. The DOW is doing a study now to see if this put, grow and take is the best strategy or not. Should be interesting to see the results.



I don't think stocking of native fish for put and take purposes is the best idea either. I believe this only occurs when a species is in parel such as Walleye in the Ohio River, Blue Cats, Paddlefish, Shovelnose Stur. etc. It's an expensive operation especially when ensuring you are propogating the correct strain of each fish. Supplemental smallmouth is not needed. A dam removal would replenish the stream with smallies since it seems that low numbers currently call it home.

Trout in Ohio are different though. Around here, they aren't seen as invasive by any means and don't risk polluting the genetics of native strains which don't exist. They seem to share a niche that overlaps between a redhorse, carp, rock bass, and perhaps smallmouth bass. The risk of overpopulation just isn't there though due to the lack of truely succesful breeding. They seem to merely live out their lives until death without effecting many species at all.

Anyways, do you know who specifically at the ODNR is conducting this study? I would like to contact him/her and learn more.


----------



## troutdude (Jul 28, 2008)

I recently moved to the Clear Creek area and managed to fish it once, for a few hours in late January. About 15 trout were brought to hand and I missed many more. It was a great experience for quantity but not much in the way of quality. Nothing over 10 inches. I fished it when it was flowing at around 40 CFS and some of those holes were still REALLY deep. It seems a shame that there are no lunker browns hiding in their depths. 

I'm too new to the stream to figure out what the problems are. At first glance without wetting a line, it's picture perfect. But in watching the gauge over the last month, I've noticed that the stream spikes up very high (up to 1000 typically) and back down, every day for 4 or 5 days in row during the recent melt. Right now, it's running at almost 3000 CFS. That can't be good for trout trying to hold their ground. You'll never see the Mad do that. Up and down in a day, over and over. That & the heat certainly plays a part, though I would think with it behind a shady stream, that would help keep it cooled off but apparently it's not enough.

As far as meat hunters, unless they are keeping 7 inch trout, I doubt very many 12+ are taken out of there.


----------



## troutdude (Jul 28, 2008)

Mushijobah said:


> Another thing: I have noticed a pretty poor population of Smallies (or Small Mouth Black Bass  ) in the stream while fishing it. Habitat is great. BUT...when I fish the section below the small dam at the abandoned gas station @ Rt. 33....I have caught literally hundreds congregated below the dam. I have also caught a good amount of trout here in the spring. Could the removal of this dam be beneficial to other species seeking asylum or spawning grounds from the Dirty (it's all relative ) Hocking?


In my mind, this is good. If the smallies had free range, not sure there would be any trout to catch. On this board, someone (might have been Salmonid) mentioned this is already a problem there.


----------



## striperrams (Aug 26, 2010)

His name is Joe Conroy working out the inland fisheries research unit in Hebron. Hope this helps.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Thanks again for the info everyone. I'll post any interesting info I find.


----------



## Flyfish Dog (Nov 6, 2007)

Common sense is about doing away with put and take regulations and make these streams and including Apple Creek C&R only! To have a viable stream reproduction and yearly stream rebuilding habitat without TU involvement is to get some real coordination from State fisherey biologists that have tghe understand of trout habitat. There is plenty of local people to get together and make things better like we do down in WV.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

That is sort of what I was getting at Flyfish. First thing I am interested in establishing is an array of temperature samples throughout the summer to determine if there is 'hope' for CC. If it is close, it might be worth concentrating on the upper watershed. It is definately worth looking into anyways, but when the possibility of holdover trout are in the picture, many more people become interested.


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

Mushijobah said:


> I'm no fly angler, but hope to be someday.



Don't even get started. The first time you cast a dry fly onto the surface & have a fish come up and smash it as it drifts through the current, you're hooked.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

fallen513 said:


> Don't even get started. The first time you cast a dry fly onto the surface & have a fish come up and smash it as it drifts through the current, you're hooked.


Sounds like it may be meant to be!

I got some good info on Clear Creek. I will provide summary when I get a few spare minutes.


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

Just keep it to yourself Mushi... I'm sure many will appreciate it.  


Concerning fly fishing... I've fished my entire life, fairly heavily, always spinning tackle. I've probably only used the spinning tackle twice in the last 200 hours on the water. It really feels like a completely different sport.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Mushijobah said:


> Sounds like it may be meant to be!
> 
> I got some good info on Clear Creek. I will provide summary when I get a few spare minutes.


I should add..the info is not good news. It is in depth, and therefore...good. Not good for trout from what it seems!


----------



## gadabout (Jun 24, 2008)

Mushijobah said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I'm no fly angler, but hope to be someday. I still enjoy going after Ohio trout when I get the chance to. One day I'll become a fly enthusiast and quit cheating
> 
> ...


mushijobah

first off I have never fished clear creek. meaning I know very little about it. I live close to the mad river and have fished it for forty years. I don't consider myself an expert on this subject but if you have time to what I have to say it may or may not be of some help.

first from what I understand clear creek is a put and take fishery like the mad. is there underground springs to benefit the stocked trout? there may be some habitat there but is it enough to exceed the carrying capacity that the stream could have? is there erosion from farmers fields? how many farmers use no-till to prevent erosion? I think you know where I'm going here and I agree with you about all you have mentioned. You ask if inquiring about this would be worth it? yes it would but like the mad it would always be a holdover fishery due to the conditions through the year. if there are decent tributaries for natural reproduction to take place it would help some but would never replace stocking. 

yes clear creek could be a great trout stream and already is from what the state has already done but it takes money and it takes years to have what the mad has turned into but still could be better. I have come to the conclusion to be happy with what trout fisheries we have knowing that they will never be like other out of state rivers cause Ohio is not a trout fishing state.

maybe a local club would help the community be better educated in helping understand how to respect the stream and work with the land owners by having stream clean up days. a tu chapter could help land owners with log jams and other concerns to gain fishing rights on there property. 

gadabout


----------

