kettle creek · 2019-11-14 · 12 kettle creek watershed assessment the history of the kettle creek...

The Cultural Landscape 11

KETTLE CREEK

The rural and historically significant landscape defines the

character and identity of Kettle Creek. The cultural history

of the watershed portrays the evolution of the landscape

and its resources. Social analysis, through demographics,

economics and a discussion of the watershed association,

illustrates specific trends in the population through time.

The recreational and scenic value of the watershed

landscape demonstrates contemporary values for natural

resources and the overall environment, as defined by local

residents and visitors alike.

12 Kettle Creek Watershed Assessment

The history of the Kettle Creek watershed is notunfamiliar. It incorporates the histories ofClinton, Potter and Tioga counties into a storyabout the people that have shared this land-scape across time and relates local events, cir-cumstances and conditions more directly to thelandscape rather than editing it along sociallyconstructed boundaries. It demonstrates theflexibility and resilience of the forest under hu-man management, the distinct patterns of landsettlement and speculation, and the shift fromforest consumption to conservation that haveoccurred across the region and state. However,this history also includes visions of sustainableimmigrant communities, natural gas extractionand storage, and the flooding of a small townthat distinguish it from its surroundings. Whilelife along Kettle Creek has seemed to pass with-out great change, the decisions made by resi-dents and landowners have indeed transformedthe landscape over time.

Kettle Creek as Influencedby Native AmericansThe watershed prior to human habitation was amature, forested landscape of hemlock, pine,and oak. Hemlocks grew 100 to 150 feet (30 to45 m) tall, the lower 40 to 50 feet (12 to 15 m)bare of branches from lack of sunlight (Beebe1934). European explorers would later name theregion “the Black Forest” of Pennsylvania, asthe midday sun barely reached the forest floor.The pine and oak were tall, thick and straight.

Wildlife was also abundant from the air to thewater. Passenger pigeons traveled the skywaysand fed on native nuts. Elk roamed the Appala-chian Plateau browsing the tender, woody veg-etation. Wolves wandered the ridges in searchof native deer, singing their wild melodies atnightfall. Beaver managed the waterways,building small dams throughout the headwa-ters. This landscape developed, and continuesto develop, changing subtly each year, eachseason, each day.

Native Americans were the first known humaninhabitants of the watershed. They lived ashunters, gatherers, farmers and fishermen inthe then densely forested landscape. They in-habited large areas and moved seasonallythroughout the landscape, actively managingnatural resources of vegetation and wildlife fortheir sustenance. They burned forest patchesto flush wildlife, to rejuvenate the native veg-etation, and to cultivate orchards, cornfieldsand gardens. From the hides of animals, theytanned leather and from timber scraps, theysculpted woodcarvings. Their use and man-agement of natural resources was efficient,productive, and sustainable1.

As they moved through the landscape of theNorthern Tier on their seasonal journey, theyestablished regular routes of travel. The KettleCreek Path connected the Cowanesque Riverto the West Branch of the Susquehanna byway of Kettle Creek. Native Americans may

LANDSCAPEHISTORICAL

The evergreen plantations we see today

resemble what the “Black Forest” of

Pennsylvania once looked like.


have camped along the creek while hunting andfishing in the region. Some believe that KettleCreek was named for kettle cooking that oc-curred on a large boulder in the West Branch.Their theory describes how Native Americanswould pour water into the depressions on theboulder’s surface and then toss heated stonesinto the water to heat their kettles.

Several Native American tribes made theirhomes in the Mid-Atlantic region. Each tribeclaimed large areas, though individual landownership was unknown. The Iroquois and theDelaware tribes both claimed lands in what wenow call Pennsylvania. The Iroquois lands werelocated in the north and west; the Delawarelands were in the south and east. The Iroquoiswere a community composed of several smallertribes who claimed lands throughout present-day Pennsylvania and New York. Collectively,they were known as the Six Nations. The Sen-eca tribe used the region of the Northern Tieras hunting grounds for its people. The Dela-ware were also a composite community, includ-ing the Monsi (Munsi, Munsee, or Minisinks;meaning wolf) tribe and were incorporated withthe Delaware Indians, and later with the Sen-ecas, as their numbers declined.

EuropeanExploration, Purchase, andColonization of North AmericaMuch of what is known about the early NorthAmerican landscape and the people who livedhere was first described in the travel diaries ofEuropean missionaries. David Zeisberger was aMoravian who traveled throughout the Mid-Atlantic region (Beebe 1934). Though hischarge was to preach and baptize in the Chris-tian doctrine, he spent much of his time learn-ing Native American languages and culture. Hewrote rich descriptions of Indian physique,folklore, and ways of life. He recorded their sto-ries of creation and beliefs about the movementof the earth, sun, moon and stars. He described

sacred rituals and beliefs in witchcraft and evilspirits. Insightfully, he noted that the Indian atpeace was never in a hurry, “for they are every-where at home, and whithersoever they wanderthey find the sustenance of the forest” (Wallace1981).

Other European explorers traveled the continentfor its forest resources and traded Europeangoods for Native American game. They recog-nized that the Native Americans were far betterhunters of the native species and that theywere eager to barter for tools and trinkets, suchas brass kettles for which the creek may alsohave been named.

Interactions between Native Americans and Eu-ropeans were not always peaceful. As the Euro-peans attempted to colonize the region, the Na-tive Americans attacked the new settlements.Though the Indians did not own the land in theway that Europeans defined ownership, theymaintained their claims to inhabit it2. Colonistsresponded with devastating attacks on Indiansettlements, such as the one led by CaptainsPatterson, Crawford, Sharp, and Laughlin in1763 that destroyed a camp at the mouth ofKettle Creek (Linn 1883).

European persistence eventually led to treatieswith the Six Nations that purchased the land for

The American continent seemed to

offer limitless resources to those who

were only familiar with the cultivated

European landscape. The sheer

expanse and richness of the American

frontier generated new commodities

and professions for early Americans.


colonists. The boundaries of the agreementswere generally natural features, such as streamsand mountains. However, which stream the au-thors of the treaty meant was frequently unclearas Native American stream names were difficultfor the European negotiators to understand.This led to frequent disputes over the land inquestion as both Native Americans and Europe-ans defended their claims. The Treaty of 1754,which opened a large part of western and north-western Pennsylvania to settlement, was onewhose agreed boundaries were adjusted afterseveral years of ongoing disputes. An addi-tional agreement in 1768 expanded the settle-ment area to include the previously disputedareas.

The 1784 Treaty at Fort Stanwick, in present-day New York, purchased much ofPennsylvania’s Northern Tier, including theKettle Creek watershed, from the Iroquois for$5,000 (Welfling 1949). Since Delaware andWyandott Indians also claimed these lands, asecond treaty and payment of $2000 was made.The following year, the Commonwealth openedthe region to settlement, though Native Ameri-cans retained hunting rights for the next twentyyears. For this reason, local governments in theNorthern Tier were not organized until 1804.

The Division ofLand for Private SaleAs a colony, Pennsylvania had been able to sellland without involvement from England. WilliamPenn established the Pennsylvania Land Officeto conduct initial land transactions. Once thecolonies declared their independence, the LandOffice was incorporated into the state govern-ment. To facilitate the division of land into par-cels, and since surveying was highly inaccu-rate, the state adopted the use of rectilineartracts to prevent boundary disputes.

The purchase of original land titles involved a5-step process (Munger 1991). First, prospec-tive landowners would file an application at the

Pennsylvania Land Office, requesting a parcelof a specified size and location. The Land Of-fice would then warrant the parcel, meaning itwould order a survey to verify the boundariesand assess the resources within. Next, the sur-vey was completed on the site and a diagram ofthe tract was made. A return of survey wasthen issued by the office, documenting that thesurvey process and monetary transactionswere complete. Finally, a patent was issued,“passing ownership of the particular tract ofland to its initial purchaser.”

After the Revolutionary War, the new stategovernment owed payments to military officersand to foreign investors, who had supportedthe colonies in their fight for independence.The Commonwealth offered land in lieu of cashpayments to its military servicemen. Foreigninvestors were paid from revenue generated byland sales and resultant property taxes. WilliamBingham, a privateer from the West Indies, re-ceived large tracts of land throughout northernPennsylvania and New York, for which he cre-ated the Bingham Land Company to parcel,survey, and sell (Currin 2001).

In order to generate revenue quickly and to es-tablish American presence in the eyes of Na-tive Americans, the remaining lands north andwest of the Susquehanna River were parceledinto lots as large as 1000 acres and offered forsale3. When high prices-$80.00 per 100 acres-failed to motivate buyers, the state reduced theprice in 1788 (Beebe 1934) and again in 1792 to$13.33 per 100 acres (Welfling 1949). While thismay seem inexpensive, few early Americanshad the financial resources to purchase landand establish new homes on the frontier wherethe Commonwealth offered little service, sup-port, or protection to rural residents. As pricesfell, land was quickly bought up by specula-tors, most of whom were prominent business-men in eastern cities. By 1817, most of thestate’s land, including the Kettle Creek water-shed, had been sold but not occupied.


To further advertise the frontier land sales, sur-veyors and land companies were hired to ex-plore the new region, to characterize the re-sources available and identify the best areas forfarming and timber production, and to layoutland tracts for purchase. As surveyors estab-lished tract boundaries, they divided much ofthe Northern Tier into a grid of 990 acre and1100 acre tracts, making land purchases effi-cient. They witnessed these boundaries (orcarved their initials) on trees, posts and stumps,including the American chestnut that wasfound throughout the forest during this time.Early surveyors included Henry Drinker for theGerman Land Company around 1792, WilhemWillinck and the team of Nivklin and Griffith in1805, whose names all appear on the originalland warrant maps for Abbot and StewardsonTownships.

Ownership implied a responsibility to settle andimprove the land, meaning clearing timber,planting crops and building a permanent home4.Speculators were able to avoid this requirementby way of a policy loophole. The preventionclause allowed owners to waive settlement re-sponsibilities when relations with Native Ameri-can proved threatening. When corporate own-ers wanted to avoid improvement costs, they

reported grantees (real and fictitious individu-als) that engaged the prevention clause andpresented notarized certificates as proof of dan-gerous relations.

Land Speculation of ForestValues in Kettle Creek -Landowners by PurchaseDuring the 1790s as the land prices fell, severalwealthy, urban businessmen bought multipletracts in speculation of their resource value.Among them was Thomas Stewardson of Phila-delphia, who purchased tracts throughoutpresent-day southeastern Potter County andfor whom Stewardson Township is named

Figure 2.1 -

Following the

model of the

Northwest

Ordinance of

1787, much of

the Northern

Tier was divided

and surveyed in

a grid of

rectangular,

thousand acre

tracts.

Land speculation was popular, particularly

with those in eastern business communities.

As the Commonwealth reduced the price of

land on the frontier in an effort to “civilize”

the wilderness, these buyers purchased

increasingly larger tracts of land.


(Heimel 1992). He probably intended to harvestthe maturing white pine, commonly used forship masts, and market it on the eastern sea-board or in Europe5. In 1851, GeorgeStewardson and William Vaux sold portions ofthe property, to John F. Cowan, a Williamsportbusinessman (Heimel 1992). Within these tractsthe Stewardson family reserved several parcelsalong the stream for their own use and develop-ment6. These reservations later became signifi-cant as Cowan sold the tracts to another, stipu-lating but not explaining the reservation heldwithin its boundaries.

Other early speculators included surveyorsfrom the land companies who bought up themost valuable tracts of land for themselves, asthey knew firsthand of the resources found inthe region. Wilhem Willinck, chief agent for theHolland Land Company, “bought over 1100warrants in his own name and later purchasedalmost as many from other speculators”(Munger 1991).

Early American Settlers -Landowners by ClaimRichard Gilmore was the first European to stakea claim on the banks of Kettle Creek7. Thoughthe territory was only opened for settlement sixmonths after the Treaty of Fort Stanwix wassigned, Gilmore had already chosen a site nearthe mouth of the creek on its northern bank(Linn 1883). A warrant dates his claim to July21, 1794. But Gilmore must have abandoned hisclaim, since James Caldwell claimed the samesite in 1807.

Simeon Pfoutz was the third European land-owner in the watershed but the first known todevelop his property, establishing his farm in1813 (Lock Haven Express 1951). From PerryCounty, he traveled up the West Branch of theSusquehanna River and turned north intoKettle Creek. Finding a wide expanse of rich, al-luvial soils at a bend in the stream, he clearedthe land and built a log farmhouse. That same

year, he returned home to prepare his wife, hisdaughter, and their possessions for the movenorth. The following year, together with a mannamed Paul Shade, the Pfoutz family traveled toKettle Creek. Here, he and his wife, Susannah,raised nine children and built the first sawmillon Kettle Creek to process the timber on hisfarm. Pfoutz was a Pennsylvania Dutchmanfrom Perry County and brought with him thePennsylvania Dutch language and culture. Hisdaughter, Martha, was the first-born and thefirst bride in the watershed. She married IsaacSummerson. Pfoutz died in 1856 and was buriedin a small family cemetery located upstreamfrom the Pfoutz home on north shore of KettleCreek.

When Pfoutz and other early settlers first cameto the region, there were no roads. They simplyfollowed Indian paths and made narrow clear-ings where routes of travel were needed. Oneroute that had already been established wasBoone Road, used by Commodore OliverHazzard Perry and his fleet.

Roads that were first cleared for packhorsetransport were later widened or “improved” forwagons. The Jersey Shore Road was one ex-ample. It opened in 1807, accommodating tradeand early government travel from Jersey Shore

Those who moved into the

watershed brought with them their

native landuage and social

customs. The watershed’s first

family, the Pfoutz’s, spoke

Pennsylvania Dutch, but they were

soon joined by English and Irish

folk who spoke something close to

our modern American English.


to Coudersport. The route was funded by landspeculators such as John Keating, ThomasStewardson, and George Vaux (Beebe 1934).Work began in 1811 to widen the road andmake it passable by wagon (Welfling 1949).John Cartee was one of the contractors hired tobuild a five-mile section of the road (Heimel1992). He established a camp for his construc-tion crew along Little Kettle Creek (now errone-ously called Carter Camp). Other contractorsincluded Ezra Hitchcock, Jonathon Edgecomband Alvin Renells (Beebe 1934). Though fewmaterials were needed, road improvements werenonetheless expensive. Upon completion of theroute, a toll was implemented to generate rev-enue for loan repayment and the road wasnamed the Coudersport and Jersey Shore Turn-pike. The 12-cent toll, charged for each five-milesection traveled by a team and its wagon, con-tinued until 1860 (Beebe 1934).

Even with improved transportation routes,population increased slowly in the NorthernTier and it was 1814 before the state govern-ment established county commissioners jointlyfor Potter and Tioga Counties (Welfling 1949).Over the next two decades, Potter Countywould gradually become independent of adja-cent county politics.

Road improvements included not only clearingof the forest but also bridge construction wheretravelers frequently forded the streams. In 1815,a petition was submitted to build a bridge atLittle Kettle Creek for the Coudersport and Jer-sey Shore Turnpike (Beebe 1934). The petitionwas approved and in 1816 the bridge was com-pleted as part of the artificial road constructionof the turnpike, also known as the Lycomingand Potter County Turnpike.

Improved roads were few and far between,crossing the watershed only in the northern re-gions. The common routes of early settlersalong the lower part of the main stem directedcontinued development from the south. In 1822,

John Calhoun purchased land further upstreamand built himself a home. He and his wife, PollyDaugherty, raised five sons and two daughters,several of whom settled close to home, begin-ning a long-standing Calhoun presence in thelower watershed. The Calhoun cemetery alongKettle Creek just north of Spicewood Run de-notes a strong family presence in the KettleCreek watershed.

In 1823, David Summerson moved from Renovoto the banks of Kettle Creek in present-dayLeidy Township (Lock Haven Express: KettleCreek). This Englishman built a home on thenortheastern side of Beaver Dam Run in an areanow known as Big Bottom, where the lowercampground of Kettle Creek is found8. Al-though he and his wife had ten children, onlytwo survived into adolescence. Summerson’spresence in the watershed influenced the locallanguage, changing the predominant languagefrom Pfoutz’s Pennsylvania Dutch to modernAmerican English.

Early American settlers were necessarily inde-pendent and interdependent. They sustainedthemselves by clearing forest and cultivatingthe fertile soils. Initially, they grew Indian cornand buckwheat for themselves and their live-

A monument for Simeon Pfoutz and his wife Susannah, the first

permanent settlers on Kettle Creek, is located at the reservoir.


&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

Germania

Oleona

Abbot

Carter Camp

Hammersley Fork

Cross Fork

Tamarack

Westport

Leidy

1811 - 1812: Carter Camp, a temporary village

for contractors and laborers constructing the

Coudersport Jersey Shore Turnpike

1813: First permanent

resident, Simeon Pfoutz

erected a sawmill and a

grist mill

1763: Indian Settle-

ment at the mouth of

Kettle Creek destroyed

by the army

1826: Samuel Kelly, one of Kelly brothers to

settle on the ridge between the West Branch of

Susquehanna and Kettle Creek, farmed on the

western side of the swamp

1827: Settlements of Jacob

Hammersley and Archie Stewart

1779: Boone Road cleared to

wage war on the Six Nations

STEWARDSON

ABBOTT

WHARTON

EASTFORK

ELK

LEIDY

EASTKEATING

NOYES

WEST BRANCH

Roads Constructed by1833

Watershed Boundary

Present Stream Network(2001)

Towns&\

1807: Jersey Shore Road opened for

pack horse transport, later improved

and renamed Coudersport Jersey

Shore Turnpike

1822: John Calhoun

farmsted

1823: Daniel

Summerson

farmsted

1794: Richard Gilmore

stakes first Pennsylva-

nia claim in the

watershed

Figure 2.2 - Kettle Creek: From European exploration to 1833

Kettle CreekFrom European Exploration to 1833


stock. Few had any cash and instead tradedtheir surplus of rye, corn and potato whiskey,venison, and maple syrup with others on thefrontier. Since doctors were few and far be-tween, whiskey was used as a medicinal treat-ment for many ailments. Cash was availablefrom the state government for efforts to helptame the wilderness of the frontier. Bountieswere offered for panthers and wolves and pro-vided cash for purchasing household and agri-cultural equipment.

Through their desire to own personal propertyand to make the land properly productive,Pfoutz, Summerson, and other early settlers,such as John Moore, Thomas Brooks, SamuelKepler, David McCoy, and Joseph andMarmaduke Summerson established agricultureas the predominant livelihood of the water-shed8. Beginning with farming in the lower re-gion, agriculture slowly moved north, followingthe creek and its fertile floodplain soils.

Due to the dense forest, settlers first had to felland clear trees before they could begin con-structing a home or plowing a field. Without ahome to clean or children to tend, women con-tributed in this effort to help establish the fam-ily homestead as quickly as possible.

A few years later in 1827, Jacob Hammersleyand Archie Stewart pushed the frontier up-stream (Lock Haven Express 1947a). They se-lected the stream we now know as HammersleyFork as the site of their homes-Hammersley onthe eastern bank and Stewart on the west9. Forseveral years, they carried sacks of flour fromthe river to their homes, traveling the OldBoone Road sixteen miles over the mountains.Tiring of this long journey, the two men built agristmill on the western bank of the stream.“Old Jake” Hammersley and his wife, JanePaine, “Granny Hammersley,” raised a family ofnine. The oldest son, Jacob P. Hammersley, wasknown for his skillful hunting even as a youngboy.

Around the same time, the Kelly brothers,Alexander, Montgomery, George and Samuel,moved into the watershed from Ireland (LockHaven Express: Kettle Creek). Samuel was themost widely known for his leadership in theMethodist Church that was established in 1831.The Kelly brothers settled on the western sideof Tamarack Swamp, the first to establish ahome on the uplands of the watershed, specifi-cally between the West Branch and KettleCreek.

Agriculture and timber harvest went hand in hand as early settlers

developed the frontier. While forestry is now practiced on public

lands, agriculture continues as a private enterprise.

As residents harvested the

dense forest, clearing the land

for fields, they began to

change the ecology of the

watershed in subtle ways.

This only foreshadowed the

more dramatic change that

would come with the onset of

the lumber industry.


With several families living, farming and millingalong the main stem, a formal road was builtaround Oxbow Bend in 1834. Once completed,this route crossed the stream twenty-one times.A few years later, a road was completed fromthe West Branch to Cross Fork, then only asmall, family settlement, via Paddy’s Run andStewart Hill. State Road, as it came be known,was the primary route for residents to reachsouthern commercial centers at Renovo andLock Haven. (Mountain top routes on the west-ern side of the watershed developed more thana decade later. In 1850, Butler Road was con-structed along the ridge of the western water-shed boundary from Westport to the headwa-ters of Sugar Camp Run and downstream toKettle Creek (Lock Haven Express 1947i).

Miles Thompson moved into the watershedsometime after 1827 as well. He was namedsheriff of Potter County-only the second tohold this position and the first to carry out apublic hanging in the county in 1839 (Beebe1932, Heimel 1992). He established the firstknown sawmill in the midsection of the water-shed at Cross Fork in 1845 (Leeson 1890).

Frances French pressed the frontier of Ameri-can settlement even further upstream when hesettled at the confluence of Kettle and LittleKettle Creeks, what we know now as Oleona, in1843 (Beebe 1932). Henry Andresen laterbought his property in the mid 1850s, includingthe first hotel opened in the watershed. Thebuilding was merely a log house and was lo-cated in present day Oleona (Welfling 1952).Travelers were primarily mail carriers who deliv-ered to rural post offices on a weekly basis.

Early MillsEarly farmers constructed sawmills to processthe wood cleared for agricultural fields10. Latermills were built as commercial operations, firstowned by individuals and later owned by largecorporations. The white pine was harvested

first, from the time of European exploration tothe mid-1880s, and used for ship spars andlarge construction beams. Pitch and shortleafpine were also common. The hemlock was re-moved around the same time and at first cutonly for its bark, whose tannins were used inleather curing. Later, the hemlock was valuedfor its inner wood as well and used for woodennails.

Miles Thompson’s mill was the first of manyconstructed in the 1840s (Lock Haven Express1947a). Three years earlier, in 1842, James Brookowned a small sawmill a short distance belowBearfield Run. Jacob Baugham and John L.Proctor also operated a sawmill, starting in 1848or 1849. Their mill was profitable and after sev-eral years, they sold it along with several tractsof valuable timberland to Munson, Corbet &Company with some financial support from aman named Rumsey. This company built an-

Lumber mills, like this one, reconstructed at

the Pennsylvania Lumber Museum, were built

and operated across the watershed from the

1840s to the 1910s.


other sawmill about one mile below the PotterCounty line, which was later enlarged and con-verted into a gang mill. It was highly productivefor a number of years, but eventually burneddown. Edgar Munson was later known forclearing rocks from the stream to improve lografting on the stream (Lock Haven Express).Sometime between 1840 and 1850, MichaelStout, his son, Franklin Stout, and FranklinSummerson purchased several tracts of timberon Hevner’s Run and built a log gristmill and asawmill about 825 feet (251 m) above the mouthof the stream.

Through the efforts of residents, the lumber in-dustry continued to gain steady ground duringthe 1850s. By 1852, several small sawmills wererun by Kettle Creek’s waterpower. HiramMeriman operated a water mill at Cross Fork.English gate mills were introduced and used avertical sawing motion to cut 1000 board feet oflumber each day, a significant improvementover earlier methods. One of the first of thesetypes was located at the mouth of BearfieldRun. Gang mills were also popular; NathanTuttle operated one on Hammersley Fork andthe Goodman’s owned another at Elm Camp.

But residents were not the only ones at workpursuing the local timber. Land speculatorscashed in as lumber companies bought up largeforested tracts, passing land ownership fromone non-resident to another. As company hold-ings throughout the East were cleared, theGoodyear, Lackawanna, and Emporium Lumbercompanies moved into the region.

PoliticalOrganization for Populationand Tax AssessmentsDescriptions of the landscape during the 1840scan be found in documents related to the politi-cal formation of townships during this time. Thelower portion of the watershed was describedas having a very uneven surface, streamsbranching east and west, with deep hollows

and narrow ridges, and few tracts suitable forfarming. Stewardson Township was the firstmunicipality to be established in 1844. LeidyTownship was organized in 1847 (Linn 1883),Abbot Township in 1851 (Leeson 1890). Town-ship lines were drawn and redrawn as newmunicipalties were organized.

As the region was further organized intocounty and township governments, assess-ments and surveys were made to describe thevalue and patterns of settlement in each munici-pality. These descriptions were early forms ofcensus and recorded family names and prop-erty. The Stewardson Township Assessment of1845, prepared by John Wolfe, listed the namesEnglish, Hall, Hazen, Herrod, Jekins, Pfoutz,Roundville, Stewardson, Thomas and Yoh in itsrecord.

Just a few years later, tax records forStewardson Township in 1849 indicate signifi-cant property improvement by several landown-ers (Heimel 1992). Two lumber mills were in op-eration - one owned and operated by Miles Th-ompson in Cross Fork and one by William Vauxand George Stewardson located in the upperparts of Kettle Creek near the home of FrancesFrench. The Dodge brothers who operated afarm owned 14 oxen. And Ezra Pritchard, who

While the lower portion of the watershed was generally

unsuitable for farming, the upper portion was developed for its

gentle slopes and fertile soils.


In 1852, the first bridge to span Kettle Creekwas built at Westport. This bridge and otherroad improvements were integrated with thestate’s plan for expanding mail service. Postaldelivery in rural Pennsylvania was quite limitedup until this time. Mail pieces were held at theclosest post office (still many miles away) forresidents to pick-up while in town. Post officesand delivery schedules were established by thestate based on the population of private resi-dents and businesses. It was, in fact, an act ofthe Pennsylvania legislature in 1852 that en-abled a future mail route from Westport toCross Fork, since several road improvementsand bridges were needed for the new route.The improved road was named Charter Roadand opened later that year.

Other roads were cleared or constructed by pri-vate landowners. In 1856 Truman Goodmancleared a passage through Road Hollow onwhich he hauled logs to his sawmill. (In 1925,the road and its extension to the Potter Countyline became property of the state and were relo-cated to Five-mile camp, eliminating two par-ticularly sharp turns. In 1936 after the March18th flood (the largest on record), the road wasagain relocated, this time above the new highwater mark of the stream.) The first railroadbridge to span the stream at Westport was builtin 1859 just a few yards from the roadwaycrossing. Both bridges were swept away by theSt. Patrick’s Day flood of 1865.

Road, rail, and postal improvements during the1850s were completed to support the rapidlyexpanding rural population. The mountains ofcentral Pennsylvania attracted new residentsfor several reasons. The rural landscape pro-vided an alternative to an ever more regimentedsociety. It offered land ownership and indepen-dence to those who found it difficult to pur-chase property in the cities. The mountainscompelled a sense of adventure in survivingand taming the wilderness. Others felt it pro-vided a means to live peaceably with nature.

lived near the mouth of Long Run, owned apatent leverwatch.

The first surveys of Abbot Township, not yetofficially established, indicate that several fami-lies had settled in the northern region of thewatershed. Thomas Abbot, Daniel Conway,George Wran, Peter Yochum, and Adam Yohhad all claimed or purchased land and builtsmall homes. Official assessments of AbbotTownship were completed in 1852, one year af-ter its organization, and listed many more resi-dents, including many Norwegian colonists.

Expansion ofInfrastructure and PublicService for Rural CommunitiesPost offices were, and still are, few and far be-tween. The first post office in the watershedwas established at Westport in 1847. A. O.Caldwell was appointed postmaster and the of-fice was named Kettle Creek. Residents fromthe mouth of Kettle Creek to at least the countyline received mail at this office until anotherwas instituted in Carter Camp in 1851 (Welfling1952). Hubbard Starkweather served as post-master here until the office closed in 1859. Atsome point, the Kettle Creek post office closedbut a second was opened, again in Westport, in1856. At that time, Sol Smith delivered mailtwice a week from Lock Haven. As commercialcenters developed at Cross Fork, HammersleyVillage, and Bitumen, these towns also receivedregular mail delivery.

Settlements along the streams required

connections with centers of commerce at

Coudersport and Renovo. Through the

development of roads, the headwaters of

Kettle Creek were made more accessible

to residents and regional travelers.


The Kettle Creek LandscapeOffers Freedom and Resourcesfor Immigrant CommunitiesThe 1850s was a period planned for growth inthe watershed - first by Norwegians and laterby Germans. They envisioned the land as aplace of freedom and opportunity, their visionenhanced by rich descriptions of the landscapeand resources awaiting discovery. Ole Bull, aNorwegian musician envisioned an opportunityfor his countrymen to escape the cultural op-pression of Swedish rule; William Radde, an as-piring German developer, sought to create a cul-tural center, where German immigrants could beproud of their agricultural productivity ratherthan ashamed of their urban unemployment.

The Norwegian ColonyOle Bull, a world-renown Norwegian violinist,traveled throughout the United States, playingin major cities and touring the American land-scape. In the late 1840s and early 1850s, hetraveled through Pennsylvania and was im-pressed by the upper reaches of theSusquehanna River Basin, as they remindedhim of his homeland. Well aware of the politicalscene in Scandinavia, where Danish oppressionhad been defeated, only to be replaced bySwedish domination, Bull hoped to liberate hiscountrymen in the freedom offered by theUnited States. His interest in the upper reachesof the Susquehanna led him to John F. Cowan,a prominent businessman and social figure ofWilliamsport (McKnight 1905). A land transac-tion was arranged and Bull began to make plansto establish his new community. He purchased11 warrants owned by Cowan for the price of$10,388.00 for the development of a Norwegiancolony along Kettle Creek. The warrants lay intwo blocks-the northern block along LittleKettle Creek and the southern block along themain stem (Welfling 1952). Within that pur-chase were three parcels, totaling 658 of themost tillable acres, reserved by the Stewardson

family adjacent to the stream and a small por-tion of the Coudersport and Jersey Shore Turn-pike, the only improved road in the upper water-shed (Myers 1983).

From descriptions of the landscape (Bull maynot have seen the sites he would purchase),Bull envisioned an agricultural colony with vil-lage centers surrounded by fields and pastures.He planned four small villages: New Bergen,

Oleana

New Bergen

New Norway

Walhalla

Named for “Ole”and his mother,“Ana”

Apparent similarities between Kettle

Creek’s headwaters and the Norwegian

landscape led Ole Bull to imagine that

his fellow countrymen could find a

prosperous life in Pennsylvania.

Figure 2.3 - Ole Bull planned four villages within the eleven war-

rants that he purchased in Abbot and Stewardson townships.


;

;

;;

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

Kettle Creek 1834 - 1853Early Political Organization

;

&\ Town

Present stream network(2001)

Watershed boundary

Mills existing in1852(Owner operator)Roads used between1834-1850

Ole Bull Purchase 1852and sale in 1853

1853:John Gartsee established a

village at the confluence of Trout Run

and Kettle Creek.

1844: Stewardson Township

established

1851: Abbot Township

established

1850: Butler Road built

from Westport over Savage

Mountain and down Sugar

Camp Run

1834: The

watershed got its

third Road around

the Oxbow Bend.1847: First Post

Office

1852: First bridge

spanned the creek

at Westport

1852: Lumber men from Maine and

Canada introduced splash dams,

log slides and swivel gates to

increase logging efficiency

1852: Ole Bull deed

purchase

1847: Leidy Township

established

1842: Road built up Paddy's Run,

down Stewart Hill to Cross Fork

STEWARDSON

ABBOTT

WHARTON

EASTFORK

ELK

LEIDY

EASTKEATING

NOYES

WEST BRANCHGermania

Oleona

Abbot

Carter Camp

Hammersley Fork

Cross Fork

Tamarack

Westport

Leidy

Figure 2.4 - Kettle Creek 1834 - 1853, Early Political Organization


Oleana, named for himself and his mother (andlater known as Oleona), New Norway, andWalhalla (or Valhalla). With plans in mind, Bullpurchased the properties and set about the pro-motion of his philanthropic venture.

In September of 1852, Bull traveled to the portsof New York City to gather a small group of mento begin construction of the new colony. Hepersuaded approximately 30 Norsemen, many ofwhom were skilled craftsmen, not to head forthe Midwest but to help settle a new commu-nity in Pennsylvania (Heimel 1992). Bull paid fortheir travel, first by train to Wellsville, then bystage to Coudersport-the first of many subsi-dies for the colony’s development. Their arrivalin Coudersport drew the attention of localnewspapers and was widely reported. Most ofthose who had already settled here did so qui-etly and individually. No one had taken such acorporate or development interest in the North-ern region, so this was news.

From Coudersport, the group traveled on footinto the upper heart of watershed. They imme-diately began building homes for the futurecolonists and a school for the children. Merely10 days later, Bull returned to New York to greetthe first of those who had been lured across theocean by stories of gold and mineral wealth,rich agricultural productivity, bountiful springs,and cheap, abundant land. Sailing upon the In-cognito, over one hundred men, women, andchildren had dreamed of endless fields of oats,hay and corn, pastures of sheep and cattle, andprofits to be made from sales in the big easternmarkets (Heimel 1992).

Those first settlers were likely amazed by theirfirst sights of the landscape. Their expectationsof a farmable landscape with simply a few treesto clear were quickly replaced by the reality ofsteep, forested hillsides among narrow ridgesand valleys. But their loyalty to Bull and his en-thusiasm (and financial support) for newfoundopportunities in America were not to be shaken

and they set out to establish a new home. Bullpaid the settlers for their labor ($.50 per day) toclear the land and provided food and shelteruntil they were self-sufficient (Heimel 1992).Colonists ate a simple diet of cow cabbage,nettles, leeks, fish and game and made clothesby hand when materials were available. Bull wasnot an on-site community developer, rather heappointed a staff of managers to oversee thedevelopment of the colony while he traveledthe States, giving concerts whose proceedsbenefited the colonists in wages and supplies.

Over the next several months, the colony grewat a modest pace. Colonists worked to clear theland of the dense forest by “grubbing,” diggingout the trees and roots by hand. Progress wasslow but thorough - on the dense hillsides, twomen could clear an acre per year. By January of1853, construction of a sawmill, two watermills,a schoolhouse and several roads had com-menced (Heimel 1992). As long as Bull contin-ued to pay their wages, colonists were willingto work, though efforts dwindled as time woreon. Morale was also challenged by the winter of1852 to 1853, when long periods of below zerotemperatures discouraged work outdoors(Heimel 1992). But spring did come to the regionand morale improved as the colony continuedto grow and attention was directed toward In-dependence Day celebration.

Reports of the grand celebration planned at theNorwegian colony made newspaper headlinesin New York City. They claimed that huge or-ders for lamps and wine kegs had been placedand that President Franklin Pierce and his Cabi-net had been invited. Interestingly, there werefew records of the actual celebration in compari-son to those of its planning. One account sug-gests that more than 800 were in attendance,while another claims less than 300 participated.To date, there is no confirmation of PresidentPierce’s attendance or that of Cassius Clay, asouthern slave reformer who was also invited tothe event (Welfling 1952).


Among other buildings constructed for thecolony, Bull planned to build a home for himselfat Walhalla, the “Royal Hall” or mythical restingplace of slain heroes’ souls. The building wasportrayed as a castle in reports traveling backto Norway, since it was sited atop a steep cliffoverlooking Kettle Creek. Bull reinforced thisnotion with the construction of a stonewall justbelow the house, giving it a regal appearance.The building itself, at least in as far as it wascompleted, was modest: a two story frame cot-tage 20' x 36', with hardwood floors, andporches skirting the sides. The interior, accord-ing to eyewitnesses, was much more lavish,decorated with imported fabrics and nativehardwood panels.

Although the deed transaction had listed threereservations, Bull had never paid attention totheir location until he read the deed in full. OnMay 25, 1853, he wrote to Cowan from Philadel-phia, asking for an explanation of these hold-ings (Welfling 1952). Cowan replied that theseparcels were indeed not part of the transactionand were, in fact, still owned by the Stewardsonfamily.

Disappointed that all of his efforts and those ofhis colonists had been in error, Bull deededback the properties to Cowan in mid Septemberof 1853 (Welfling 1952). The settlers soonlearned that Bull had never owned the landthey had worked so hard to make their newhome and that the true owners had little inter-est in supporting the colony (Heimel 1992).Colonists were offered the option of purchas-ing their plots, but few had the money to do so.Instead, most packed their belongings and re-turned to Wellsville to follow routes west toIowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin oreast to the port that would return them to Nor-way11. Bull continued to tour the concert hallsof the East, sending profits when he could, butultimately returned to Norway in 1860.

Henry Andresen was one of the few who wereable to purchase land from Cowan. As Bull’spersonal secretary, he was well paid and able toafford the opportunity. He bought much ofpresent-day Oleona and became a central fig-ure-hotel proprietor, lumberman, merchant, gristmiller, and postmaster-in the upper watershed(Heimel 1992).

Dr. Edward Joerg was another who purchasedland from Cowan. Joerg, a physician, had been

Norwegian settlers worked

diligently to construct their new

villages. But their timing and

methods proved inadequate to

establish a sustainable

community before the

challenges of topography and a

particularly harsh winter took

their toll on morale.

Ole Bull’s American home was to overlook the valley from this

mountain top. All that remains of Ole Bull’s “castle” today is its

foundation and a collapsing stone wall on the mountain face.


lured from Missouri to the region by Bull as aphysician to oversee the management of a sani-tarium (Welfling 1952). Bull’s description ledhim to believe that the sanitarium was ready foroperations and merely needed professionalstaffing. What he found upon arrival was asmall log house with the barest of supplies. Af-ter the colony disbanded, Joerg purchased the990-acre warrant, containing New Norway andWalhalla, and constructed a two story stonehouse from the remains of Bull’s castle.

The Olson family also stayed in Kettle Creekafter the break up of the colony. Martin Olsonoperated a blacksmith shop in 1853. His sons,Bert and Henry, operated a whetstone factoryat Indian Run off Little Kettle. The whetstonesthey produced were twelve inches long andwell known in the region. The sons eventuallysold the operation to a man named Jordan andmoved to New Zealand.

By 1882, thirty years after Ole Bull’s purchase,several of the original buildings were still partof the community. A few homes, a hotel and astore still comprised Oleona and the post officeat Carter Camp had become a multipurposecommunity hall. Dr. Joerg’s home was still in-tact, as was the foundation of Bull’s home. TheOleona cemetery had been established andwould come to include many of the remainingNorwegian settlers.

GermaniaThe dust had barely settled on the upper water-shed when two Germans began planning for an-other European community. Dr. Charles Meineand William Radde sought to establish not justa village but a full-fledged city for German immi-grants under the freedom of the American flag.

Radde worked in New York as a publisher(Heimel 1992). News of the failed Norwegiancolony passed through the city as colonists re-turned to Norway and Radde took advantage ofthe opportunity to acquire large tracts of landinexpensively. He bought out 15 of the remain-ing colonists to acquire east of the Norwegiancolony and established the town of Germania.As part of the Pennsylvania Farm and Land As-sociation, he planned to develop the town intoa small urban center of factories, fountains,parks, and theatres, surrounded by agriculture.He envisioned each landowner having a down-town lot on which to build a home and a farm-land plot for agriculture. He had a similar visionfor a new city of Cross Fork, to be located atOleona, though this plan never developed12.

Radde sought industrious workers to help makehis vision a reality. He sent descriptions of thenew community home to Germany and to Ger-man neighborhoods of eastern American cities.

Several of the Norwegians who remained in

the watershed after the colony disbanded are

buried in the Oleona cemetery.

The original plans for Germania were

modern for their time, including parks

and fountains, industrial centers, and

cultural amenities in the initial

development proposal. However, they

failed to consider how the ideas

expressed on a sheet of paper would be

constructed on the mountainous terrain.


&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

Town

Area of developmentbetween 1849-1853

Mail Route 1867

Present streamnetwork (2001)

Watershedboundary

STEWARDSON

ABBOTT

WHARTON

EASTFORK

ELK

LEIDY

EASTKEATING

NOYES

WEST BRANCH1858: First schoolhouse at

Yochum Hill

1870-1880:Census at EastKeating shows adecline from 439to 245.

1867: Charter Road built toaccomodate new mail routeto Cross Fork

1870: Kettle Creek Coal Company wasestablished and centered companyoperations at Bitumen.

1875: Noyes Township formed.

Population in 1880: 596.

1859: First railroad bridge built

over Kettle Creek at Westport.

1860-1880: Leidy Township growth

in population from 406 to 583

1859: Christian Miller’s grist

mill known for buckwheat

pancake mix

1869: East Fork

District formed

1884: Little Kettle Creek Improvement

Company working above Oleona.

1850s: William Radde and Charles Maine led

Germania’s rapid development from the mid-

1850s to the 1870s.

1865: Abbot Township

population increasing in

Germania and across the

headwaters uplands

Kettle Creek 1854-1885Rural Community Development

Germania

Oleona

Abbot

Carter Camp

Hammersley Fork

Cross Fork

Tamarack

Westport

Leidy

&\

Figure 2.5 - Kettle Creek 1854-1885 Rural Community Development


He claimed that it was better to be a poor, ruralfarmer than to be an unemployed urban worker.

In October 1855, Dr. Charles Meine moved toGermania. He represented the PennsylvaniaFarm and land Association and oversaw the de-velopment of Germania for the state (Leeson1890). He quickly built a log home in which tospend the winter and the next spring set aboutclearing land and building a sawmill, store, andseveral dwellings for future residents.

When the German settlers arrived, they weredisappointed to find that the vivid descriptionsof thriving agriculture that brought them toGermania were exaggerations. The plans forGermania had been beautiful on paper, howeverthey were impossible to carry out on the steeptopography of the Kettle Creek uplands. Theplans were therefore scaled back to the bare ne-cessities of a few streets and stores andadapted to the site.

The first stores opened as soon as buildingswere constructed and stock was available. FredT. Sahr and Christian Peterson opened the firststore in Germania in the mid 1850s (Leeson1890). The German community of course desireda steady supply of beer so JosephSchwarzenbach opened a small brewery in 1858(Leeson 1890). His business grew steadily overmore than forty years and at the turn of the cen-tury, and he left Germania for Galeton where therailway could help distribute his product.

In 1859, Christian Miller opened a waterwheel-operated gristmill nearby to process grain forlocal farmers. Germania Roller Mills, owned byFrank Cizek and located between Germania andCarter Camp, was regionally renown for its pan-cake mix. The gristmill business was so profit-able that when Cizek’s mill was destroyed byfire, he replaced it with a larger mill in Germaniato meet the local demand. Flour manufacturecontinued under Frank Cizek, Jr. until the begin-ning of the WWII when the Swiss silk used in

the sifting process was unavailableand deer populations were severelydamaging buckwheat crops. The millcontinued to operate as a feed milland farm supply store until 1976.

As wild fires were problematic in theregion, Radde purchased a waterpumper to protect his colony andresidents. The thick forest yieldedplenty of flammable, organic materialthat ignited easily when lightningtouched the ground. Fires spreadquickly through the forest and fieldsand often consumed entire villagesas the wooden structures passedflames to adjacent buildings.Germania was the first community inPotter County to have fire protection.

The German settlers brought their Lutheranheritage with them. In 1859, as part of the July4th celebration, the community placed the cor-ner stone in the recently completed foundationof their new church.

By 1860, most of the households (51 of 75) inAbbot Township were German. Others re-mained from the Norwegian colony or hadmoved from other parts of the country. Only afew were native born Pennsylvanians. Manylived in and around Germania, but there wereother settlements at Carter Camp and YochumHill as well as scattered homes along the head-waters streams. Most were farmers, raisingcattle and buckwheat to sustain their existence,though the merchant market was steadily grow-ing. By 1868, Germania was home to five lo-cally-ownedbusinesses.

Children of the frontier were usually educatedat home between chores on the family farm. In1858 the first school was organized at YochumHill and met at the home of the teacher, DanielConway. By 1863, there were enough studentsto support a two-room schoolhouse in

Dr. Charles Meine

oversaw the development

of Germania beginning

in 1855

Phot

o C

ourt

esy

of t

he P

otte

r C

ount

y H

isto

rica

l So

ciet

y


Germania. Over the course of time, the schoolbecame widely known for its excellent liberalcurriculum. By 1880, there were five schools inAbbot Township educating 160 students at acost of 90 cents per month per student. (At thepeak of the lumbering industry, Abbot wouldhost seven schools and as many teachers.)

For these families new to the frontier, socialgatherings were particularly important part ofcommunity life. Around 1870, a social hall wasadded to the Sandbach Hotel and named theSchwarzenbach Hall. Local residents wouldgather here to dance and to take in the showsof traveling performers. As the community grew,additional facilities were needed and within afew years, Schwab Hall was constructed. By1876, the local economy was comprised of twohotels, five retail stores, two meat markets, twoshoe shops, a barber, a harness shop, twobreweries and two blacksmiths.

While the Germans were a predominantly Prot-estant community, lumbering introduced otherreligions to the region. By the early 1870s, therewere several Catholic families living in the wa-tershed, mostly around Germania. At first, resi-dents shared church facilities with other de-nominations and hosted ministers who traveledthroughout the region. But in the early 1870s, a

Several structures in

Germania have historic

significance. The

Germania Hotel hosted

P. T. Barnum and Ole Bull

and the Germania Store

across the street has been

in business since the early

1900s.

A FEW CRAFTSMEN OF GERMANIA

Jacob von Allmen - harness and horse supplies

Joseph Breunig - blacksmith

Mr. Hensel - tinsmith

John H Hug - undertaker and funeral director

C.F. Martin - crafter of musical instruments

Lauir F Meissner - merchant general and

agricultural tools

Frank Milde - merchant of general supplies

and furniture

Paul Milde - cabinetmaker and spinning wheel

crafter

Casper Neubauer and later John Bodler - shoe

salesmen

William Schaar and George Shoemaker -

blacksmith, wagonmaker


site was selected and construction began on aCatholic church (Lloyd 1921).

A third brewer moved to Germania in 1886. JohnSchmid found a welcome audience for his lagerin this hardworking German settlement (Leeson1890). When the county government proposeda prohibition amendment in 1889, Abbot Town-ship overwhelmingly rejected the notion. Prohi-bition did limit the sale of alcohol in the upperwatershed, but the Germans continued to enjoytheir beer. Regulation prohibited the sale of beerin larger than gallon quantities but allowed beerservice at restaurants, bars, and social clubs.

In addition to agriculture, many small busi-nesses employed local residents and produceditems for local and distant markets. As a centerof agricultural commerce, several “smiths” and“makers” were located at Germania. Clothing,cabinets, food and farm supplies could all befound within a short walk downtown.

Businesses were also located in the more ruralparts of the watershed. Hubbard Starkweather,postmaster as Carter Camp, found a sandstoneridge between Carter Camp and Kettle Creekthat he thought would supply good material forwhetstones. After purchasing the land, clearinga plot and building a house, he cutting and re-fining whetstones. In an effort to spark his newbusiness, Starkweather produced severalsamples and distributed them to local residents.But the sandstones proved to be too soft forthe metal implements the farmers needed tosharpen and Starkweather abandoned his op-eration. The clearing once provided a greatcampsite, as noted in several hiking guides.

In 1894, Dr. Meine helped organize theSchuetzen Verien, a fraternal club.Unsurprisingly, membership rose from 4 to 125in its first four years. The organization con-structed a clubhouse including a bowling alley,a shooting range, a ballroom, and a dining roomand hosted regular local entertainment.

Germania grew steadily as a result of high grainand dairy production in the headwaters. In 1889,the Germania Land Company constructed agristmill just east of town, possibly the largestgristmill in the watershed. Dairy farming was soproductive that farmers found it increasinglydifficult to sell their milk and sought ways toprofit from the surplus. Around the turn of thecentury, two cheese factories were opened, oneby Christian Schumaker in Germania, and theother, the Carter Camp Cheese Company, lo-cated near the Carter Camp Grange. The cheesebusiness proved profitable, particularly duringthe lumbering era. But by 1916, most of the lum-berjacks and their families had left the regionand the factories were forced to close.

Just after the turn of the 20th century, JohnCizek opened a heading factory in Germania. Herealized that the abundant hardwoods that oth-ers were cutting for lumber could also be madeinto barrels heads. His factory employed 20 to30 men involved in the cutting of timber for con-struction of his mill, the cutting and hauling ofmaple and beech logs, and the manufacturingvarious-sized barrel heads. His brother, Frank,operated a steam-powered traction engine toload logs onto the railroad cars. Once loaded,they were hauled to Germania where they weretransferred to boxcars for shipment to easternmanufacturers.

As automobiles and gas-powered machinerybecame common throughout the Northern Tier,the town of Germania became a small hub of dis-tribution, particularly for local farmers. Duringthe 1920s and 1930s, there were as many as fivepumps in town: David Gutgsell’s woodworkingshop, Herman Braun’s store, the Germania Ho-tel, the Germania store, and Harold Beacker’sgarage.


CommunityGrowth in the Lower ValleyWhile growth in the agricultural headwaters re-volved around Germania, social and commerciallife in the lower portion of the watershed cen-tered on the town of Leidy. Theodore Leonardopened the first store in Leidy Township in1856. After conducting the store for two years,he discontinued the business and left the re-gion. Around 1860 Hamilton Fish engaged in amercantile business. In 1862 Edgar Munsonand Truxon Goodman became proprietors of thestore, from which they managed a profit foreight or nine years.

The first schoolhouse erected in Leidy Town-ship was built on the eastern bank of the creek.A man named Grimes was the first teacher em-ployed. The next school was located on thewestern bank opposite where Boone roadreached the stream.

The first mills were located along the main stem,where farms were located, but within a fewyears, mills were also constructed along thetributaries. By 1856, five saw mills were operat-ing at Tamarack. Four other mills were also op-erating in the lower portion of the watershed.The mill at Bearfield Run was still runningstrong. A gang mill had been built below TroutRun. And two sawmills, one approximately 5miles up Trout Run and another near OxbowBend, had been constructed. Meanwhile up-stream, Thomas Bailey had constructed a saw-mill near the mouth of Short Run, beginning its30-year operation.

Agriculture made significant advances after theCivil War. Farmers of the lower watershedbought the first machines to improve the cropproduction. Hamilton Fish bought a reaper anda corn planter, and Dan Calhoun and DavidSummerson purchased threshing machines(Lock Haven Express 1947c). Productivity in-creased and easily supplied local residents andlumber camps with fresh crops. Apple harvests

produced great surpluses that were shipped toNew York markets. Apple season kept childrenbusy peeling and drying the fruits for storageand sale. Livestock was a significant part of his-toric agriculture as well. During the 1860s 1400cattle and 3500 sheep were pastured on the bot-tomlands and lower hillsides of the valley.

Railroads were slow to reach the watershed.There were few people to reach, few who couldafford the fare, and the topography made rail-road construction expensive. Only the profit tobe made by getting lumber and hemlock bark toregional cities would truly make railroads worththe investment. In 1859, a railroad bridge wasbuilt across Kettle Creek at Westport. The rail-road now continued along the northern bank ofthe West Branch toward lines delivering lumberfrom the mill at Austin.

Another village community was growing inTrout Run during the 1870s and 1880s. Achurch and cemetery had been established by1876. Elizabeth Fish, wife of Hamilton, was thefirst buried here (Lock Haven Express: KettleCreek). In 1883, John Gartsee established a ho-tel and a post office at the mouth of Trout Run(Lock Haven Express: Kettle Creek). Other resi-dents saw opportunities to profit from thelumber companies working throughout thewestern reaches of the watershed and openedtwo general stores here as well, including oneowned and operated by Clement Mills andCompany. One mile above Trout Run, on theeastern side of the creek was a sawmill with itsgangs of saw blades. Over the next forty years,the village at Trout Run would grow to includea general store, a wagon and blacksmith shop, achurch, a shoe shop and a number of privatedwellings.


;

#³

&\

;

;

#³#³#³

#³

#³#³

#³

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

Kettle Creek 1885 -1915Commercial Logging Era

Germania

Abbot

Oleona

CrossFork

HammersleyFork

Leidy

Westport

ABBOT

STEWARDSON

ABBOT

WHARTON

EAST FORK

LEIDY

1891: Road built fromTamarack to Cross Fork

EASTKEATING

1900: The Goodyear Lumber Company had acquired

almost all the uncut hemlock in Potter County.

1893: Daily maildelivery from Westportto Cross Fork

1902: Hammersley village,initiated by John Gartsee,was a supply hub fordispersed logging camps.

1907: Two gas wells drilled 10 miles from Hammersley

Fork Creek. The gas was used for light, heat and fuel

1908-1915: Sam Heiseyshipped bark and lumber

from Westport.

1886: A third brewer openedin Germania.1894: The Schuetzen Verienwas organized.

1902-1910: Goodyears lumberedthrough all but one tract of theHammersley region. Their denserailroad network connected the Belland Nelson Branches withHammersley Fork and Kettle Creek.

1893-1911: Business and social life boomedin Cross Fork as a result of the LackawannaLumber Company. Raillines delivered freshlycut timber by day and hemlock bark by night.

Hammersley Fork Timber cut

Present Stream Network ( 2001)

Railroad

Saw mills

Gas Producing Wells

Area of development

Mail Route

Road

Watershed boundary

Tioga State Forest

Sproul State Forest

Town

1902: Excess milk supplydrove cheese factories inCarter Camp andGermania until lumberingleft the region.

Figure 2.6 - Kettle Creek 1885 -1915, Commercial Logging Era

CarterCamp

NOYES


Charley Klukey managed to harvest deer nearhis property. With the help of his daughter tocarry his rifle to his post, his wife to release thedog, and the dog to herd the deer within range,the family was able to have fresh meat through-out the summer.

One final story stars the deer that stole EzraPritchard’s prize Winchester. Pritchard wasquite proud of his rifle, taking great pains toclean and polish its parts. While hunting oneday, Pritchard shot and the deer fell. But asPritchard approached the body, the deer got up,snagging the rifle in its antler. Pritchard chasedthe deer for several yards before it fell to theground again. He ran past the deer to retrievehis gun, as it rolled free from the antlers withonly a minor scratch.

Lumbering Gains MomentumAcross the WatershedAs lumber companies established thriving op-erations in Kettle Creek and surrounding water-sheds, population records began to reflect theinflux of lumbermen. Records for Leidy Town-ship in 1860 show a ratio of almost 3 men to 2women, indicating that lumbermen, mostlysingle or married but traveling alone, were mov-ing to the area to take advantage of logging op-portunities (Linn 1883). Those who precededthe logging operations were surveyors wholooked for the best routes among the dense for-est and rugged terrain. Those who traveled withthe companies were the harvesters and haulersof the cut timber.

Because cutting sites moved so frequently,many lumbermen sought temporary housing inthe watershed. Some rented rooms at hotels andboarding houses in the rural villages, while oth-ers built primitive shelters, designed to last foronly a few months, for themselves and theirfamilies near their work sites. These homes werebuilt of rough-hewn logs, chinked or sealedwith mud and moss. Windows were covered

Tales andLegends in Kettle CreekWhile agriculture and lumbering along KettleCreek met most of life’s necessities, peoplesupplemented their diet and income with prod-ucts from the natural environment (Lock HavenExpress 1947c). The wildlife populations wereabundant as a result of forest management bythe Native Americans. The hooves of slaugh-tered animals were sold to glue factories. Wildpigeons were shot, barreled and shipped toeastern markets. Wild ginseng was gatheredfrom the mountains and sold in local stores for25 cents per pound.

Though hunting was a serious activity, tales of“the one that got away” or “the accidental tro-phy” were often shared in a lighter tone13. Onesuch story is that of Ole Snyder, the firstbornchild of the Ole Bull colony. While hunting withfriends, Snyder strayed away from the group topursue his own prize. Stumbling into anotherhunter’s territory, he accidentally shot a stoolpigeon. After a long apology, Snyder paid theowner for the damages and bought a few pi-geons, for a generous payment, to imply hisgood aim. Before returning to his huntingtroupe, he shot a few bullets into the birds tomake his catch convincing.

Another story relates the density of deer in thelate 1800s. At that time, deer seemed particularlyabundant, because logging operations createdforest openings where they could feed gener-ously on tender new growth. Other areas, suchas Impson Hollow, were known as deer run-ways, since they led to fresh water supplies.The story tells of Martin Joerg, who took aim ata deer, fired, and was disappointed to see it runfrom view. He was happily surprised, however,to see another deer a bit farther in the distancecollapse from his shot. It seems hunting wasquite easy in those days.

Another tale is that of the Klukey Family DeerHunt. Confined to crutches by a broken leg,


with oiled paper and roofs were made of logscovered with moss-covered shingles. Homesonly needed the most basic eating and sleep-ing facilities, since the workday of a logger wasfrom dawn to dusk. A typical home had twobedrooms, a pantry, and a storeroom. Womenspent their time cooking in the pantry or wash-ing clothes in the creek. Furnishings weresparse, as well, since families moved frequentlywith the lumber camp to new timber tract loca-tions.

Cutting camps were generally constructed atthe center of the timber tract near a spring orstream, which provided fresh running water tothe men and the teams. The tract was firstcleared in the center to create openings forhomes and camps buildings. Loggers contin-ued to clear the trees toward the boundary un-til walking distance to the work site used pre-cious company time, usually 2-3 miles, and thecamp was moved.

The process of logging a timber tract involvedseveral steps. First the trees were felled andsawed into manageable lengths. Next the barkwas peeled from the logs in 3' sections and thelogs were skidded, or pulled by a team, to astockpile at the crest of a slope. Logs weremoved down the steep hillsides in slides orchutes and piled along the streambank. In the

This log hut was located close to south of

Hammersley Village and had many wooden

bunks and a wood stove.

For loggers and their families,

life in the lumber camp was

almost nomadic, moving every

few months to cut a new tract.

A saw miller’s life was far more

stationary, as his mill required

the steady flows of the stream

to drive his operation.

Phot

o C

ourt

esy

of t

he R

ailr

oad

Mus

eum

of

Penn

sylv

ania

, Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia H

isto

rica

l an

d M

u-se

um C

omm

issi

on

Single lumbermen lived in the Hammersley

Boarding House and ate in this dining room.

Phot

o C

ourt

esy

of t

he R

ailr

oad

Mus

eum

of

Penn

sylv

ania

, Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia H

isto

rica

l an

d M

u-se

um C

omm

issi

on


Other companies employed Mother Nature todrive the logs downstream. Amos Roberts, alumberjack from Maine, built the first splashdam on Trout Run to float the logs downstreamonce spring rains had accumulated behind thedam. The dams were designed to hold back thelogs until the dam was released, driving thelogs to downstream mills. (Roberts also builtthe first log slide with a swivel gate to helpmove logs during the winter.) The splash damquickly gained popularity, the second appear-ing on Nelson Fork in 1853. Since all of the cuttimber floated downstream at once, each com-pany or logger developed a mark or stamp thatwould identify the logs at the mill.

When spring rains were erratic, water levelscould fall during a raft trip or log float. Withoutrailroads or wagon trails to continue the jour-ney, raft crews had to abandon their load andreturn to the camp. A later flood or high flowwould carry the logs downstream, but theselogs were at least temporarily lost profits forthe lumber company.

Up until the 1870s, commercial mills were all lo-cated downstream. With the opening of a largecommercial sawmill on the Woefel farm alongGermania Branch, a transition to local lumberprocessing was begun. This mill processedsome of the finest black cherry in the region.With lumber cut and dried, it could not berafted or floated in the waterways, rather itneeded to remain dry and stacked en route toeastern cities. The Goodyears were the first toinvest in rail lines to connect their mills with ex-isting rail networks to the north of the water-shed.

At least one company continued to use thestreams of Kettle Creek. During the 1880s, theLittle Kettle Creek Improvement Company peti-tioned the state legislature to clear, widen,straighten and deepen Little Kettle Creek fromits source to its mouth (Leeson 1890).

winter, ice and packed snow made the slidesmore slick and logs flew down the hills at greatspeeds. From the banks, logs were either rafteddownstream or left waiting for spring flows tofill the splash dam reservoirs and carry them tothe Susquehanna.

Early pine loggers were known for rafting theirlogs downstream-some as far as the Chesa-peake Bay. They constructed small rafts fromseveral logs and linked them together. On oneof the rafts they would construct a shelter inwhich the crew would sleep on the journey. Ittook two or three days to reach Lock Haven,four or five to reach Williamsport, and severalmore to reach the Bay. Along the way, therafters would stop for supplies, tying the raft tothe riverbank and walking ashore to a local tav-ern. Whiskey was the popular drink, thought tocure any rafter’s ailments. When the raftreached its destination, the crew disassembledthe raft, piled the loose logs at the mill, and be-gan the return trip to the camp on foot.

Rafters wore spiked boots and carried canhooks to maneuver themselves and the logs onthe busy river highways. Streams and rivers of-ten became so dense with “log traffic” that thewaterways became jammed and impassable. Inorder to restore the flow of valuable goodsdownstream, one of the rafters would walkacross the tangled pile and attempt to loosenthe clog. It was a very dangerous job for assoon as the clog was removed, the backupwould come rushing forth. Many lives were lostas rafters were swept away in the current andcrushed beneath the logs.

One after another, densely forested

tracts of land were harvested for the

valuable pine, hemlock, and

hardwood species, leaving bare soils

and empty habitats in their place.


New and improved transportation routes werespreading across the watershed during the1890s in order for farmers to reach each otherand their local markets. In 1890 John Daughertyconstructed a road from Indian Camp toDaugherty Run (Lock Haven Express 1947i).This was the first road in the watershed thatdid not ford a stream between the West Branchand the headwaters in Potter County. In 1891, aroad was cleared from Tamarack to Cross Fork(Lock Haven Express 1947i).

Commercial interests in the lumber industrycontinued to develop throughout the 19th cen-tury. In 1890, several Williamsport businessmenjoined together to profit from improved trans-portation of cut timber to downstream mills andmarkets (Linn 1883). They formed the KettleCreek Railroad and began to develop a railroadnetwork connecting lumbering activities on theWest Branch with sawmills in Lock Haven andWilliamsport. Lumber companies were also be-ginning to clear and maintain roads. In 1894,Frank H. Goodyear cleared a road from Galetonto Cross Fork in preparation for the Goodyear’slumbering activities in the watershed (Welfling1949). Lumber companies made strategic pur-chases and developments over several years inorder to access and transport their timber.

Kettle Creek Flourishes withResource Extraction andManufacturing Towns When early prospectors realized the value oftimber resources on their lands, they sold tractafter tract to lumber companies workingthroughout the Northeast. One companywould often buy numerous tracts in a region toconsolidate harvest, milling, and transportationcosts. Early companies were only interested inthe pine that they knew how to work and theyselectively cut it from the other species.

In 1893, the forests surrounding Cross Forkwere thick with hemlock and hardwoods, rich

habitat for wildlife. The pine had already beenremoved but the hemlock included some of thefinest in the state. The area was home to justfive or six families living in the valley, includingthe Thompsons, the Pollards, and theKnickerbockers. Their connection to the trans-portation and postal networks was limited. Thebooming lumber industry would soon demandimproved mail delivery. As rail lines were in-stalled, mail service was increased to threetimes per week. By 1893, mail delivery was up-graded to daily service to and from Westport.

The rich forest drew the interest not only oflumber companies but also of early developers.Emil Peltz purchased several acres north of theCross Fork confluence in anticipation of lum-bering activities and built a series of houses,calling his settlement Peltzonia (Currin 2001).By 1894, several buildings were complete onlyto be wiped out by a devastating flood. Peltzwas undeterred, however, and he rebuilt withconfidence.

It was during 1893 that the Lackawanna LumberCompany began logging at the confluence ofCross Fork and Kettle Creek. With hundreds ofacres under Lackawanna ownership, the com-pany decided to invest in local milling opera-tions, rather than floating logs downstream tooperations in Williamsport. During that sameyear, the Lackawanna Lumber Company con-structed its first sawmill in Cross Fork, one ofthe largest and most modern mills of the time,

Technological innovations allowed for

larger mills that produced greater

quantities of timber in ever-faster time.

Companion industries took advantage of

scrap lumber and fed shipping companies

with barrels and barrelheads.


cutting as much as 75,000,000 board feet annu-ally (Welfling 1949). The lumber supply seemedendless and soon several mills were open, mak-ing a variety of wood products. Since bulk ma-terials, such as nails and bolts were shipped inwooden barrels, much of the smaller timber wasused construct barrel parts. The PennsylvaniaStave Company, owned by Brooklyn Cooper-age Company, operated a stave mill on thesouth side of the city, cutting the narrow stripsthat form the body of the barrel. Heading com-panies, those that made the disc-shaped barrelends, also built two factories among the risingdevelopment at Cross Fork. In order to ship theprocessed lumber to markets throughout theEast, Lackawanna purchased Buffalo &Susquehanna Railroad lines laid by theGoodyear Lumber Company that branchedsouthward into the watershed from an east-west main near Cherry Springs. The inter-change was known as Cross Fork Junction14.

In 1895, the Lackawanna Lumber Company pur-chased the Joerg property along Kettle Creekfor $28,000 (Heimel 1992). Over the course ofthe next fifteen years, Lackawanna would com-plete a small network of railroads to access itstimber along Trout Run, Hevner’s Run, andTurtle Point Run.

The Goodyear Lumber Company was primarilyinterested in hemlock and by 1902 it acquiredalmost all of the uncut hemlock in PotterCounty, including nearly all of the HammersleyRegion (Taber 1971). The company chose asite at the mouth of Bell Branch alongHammersley Fork for Hammersley Village. Thevillage was short-lived by present standardsbut did have a post office for several years,overseen by Mr. Hi Cranmer. The village wasthe terminus for the dense railroad network thatwas constructed alongside the stream networkthroughout the Hammersley Region and thatjoined the Buffalo and Susquehanna Line justsouth of Logue. This junction at the end of the

Photo Courtesy of the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Historical andMuseum Commission

RIGHT: Mileage

cards were issued

to travellers

instead of tickets.

RIGHT-BELOW:

1901 Official

Guide Timetable

BELOW: The

Goodyear

Lumber

Company had a

large network of

railroads that

connected Kettle

Creek to its mill

in Austin.


line was known as Hammersley Station and wasthe scene of a whiskey robbery.

The Goodyears were the last of the lumber com-panies to set up true villages while they tim-bered the landscape. Their villages consisted of75 to 200 men who stayed for several yearswhile logging throughout the region. Latercompanies would set up temporary camps fortheir men and which moved frequently to avoidlong distances between home and the worksite.

The Goodyears continued lumbering into theearly months of 1910, essentially clearing thelandscape of mature hemlock. However, onestand, located along a Goodyear-Lackawannaborder, was left untouched, as poor surveytechnology could not accurately determine itsownership. Neither company was willing to paythe penalty for cutting another’s tract–threetimes the value of the timber. Rather than risk-ing a dispute, both companies left the tract un-disturbed. Today the tract is known as the For-est H. Dutlinger Natural Area.

Hemlock bark was peeled during spring andearly summer when the ready flow of sap madepeeling easier. The bark was hauled from thelumber camp by rail after dark to a central loca-tion in Cross Fork. From here, it was shippednorth to tanneries in Galeton, Elkland, and be-yond. The return trip was used to deliver foodand supplies to Hammersley Village and to thelumber camps.

Once the hemlock was removed, the Goodyearsheaded west. The Emporium Lumber Companypurchased the land and the railroad networkand began to harvest the remaining hardwoods.The company expanded the network to reach B& S lines to the west that would deliver the rawtimber to Austin and to markets along the Al-legheny. The route through Long Hollow wassteep, especially for an engine pulling fullyloaded railcars. A small freight yard calledMurdocks was constructed at the mouth of

Road Hollow so that the load could be deliv-ered in two runs.

Emporium operated several engines in this re-gion and each had its own speed for ascendingthe mountain. Due to these variable speeds andwithout phone lines, the train schedule wascommunicated through smoke signals.

In 1896, the Lackawanna sawmill burned, butthere was so much timber available that thecompany quickly decided to rebuild. Its second

Hammersley Fork: Steam engines pulled railroad carts

of cut timber from the Hammersley Region. Small

railway stations were located along the way to load logs

and unload supplies.Ph

oto

Cou

rtes

y of

the

Rai

lroa

d M

useu

m o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia,

Penn

sylv

ania

His

tori

cal

and

Mu-

seum

Com

mis

sion


mill, completed in 1897, was significantly largerand therefore could process more lumber in asingle day. Shortly thereafter, several compan-ion industries opened shop in Cross Fork: astave mill, a kindling mill, a shingle mill, a hub-factory, and a few machine shops to repairequipment. Things went smoothly for the nextsix years, until another fire in 1903 burned themill again. Still, there was timber to be cut onLackawanna lands, so a third mill was built thatsame year.

Lackawanna achieved its peak cut in January1906. Stave and heading mills also reachedpeak production at this time. With hundred ofthousands of board feet running through themill, Lackawanna also supported a planing milland a lath mill.

While Lackawanna was the prime operator inthe Cross Fork region, other companies werehad smaller holdings throughout the region.Without the financial resources to purchase raillines, these companies had to float their logsdownstream. In total, the lumber industry in thenorthcentral Pennsylvania region supportedapproximately 5000 lumberjacks annually.

Cross Fork - A Lumbering HubIn the midst of a booming economy, Cross Forkbecame the commercial and social center forlumberjacks in the watershed. The LackawannaStore was listed as the greatest trader in PotterCounty during the town’s heyday, but not tothe exclusion of other businesses. The denserural population also supported five groceries,a farmer’s market, a dry-goods shop, a millineryshop, two clothiers, a shoemaker, two medicineshops, a hardware store, a sporting goodsstore, and a few other retailers (Dana 1917). TheCross Fork post office even sold internationalmoney orders. Seven hotels were needed notonly for business travelers, but also for menworking in town, who opted to rent a roomrather than buy or rent a house. In fact, manyPhoto Courtesy of the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum

Commission

Photo Courtesy of the Potter County Historical SocietyCross Fork in 1904

Cross Fork lumber mill in 1908

The town of Cross Fork boomed under

the leadership of the Lackawanna

Lumber Company. Lumber, stave and

heading operations brought rail and

telephone service, more frequent and

direct postal service, and electric

lights to the interior of the watershed.

Unfortunately, it relied so heavily on

these industries that their absence

brought rapid demise that was felt

even in the headwaters.


who came to Cross Fork for the abundant workopportunities left for lack of housing. In addi-tion to the bars located in each hotel, residentsand travelers could choose from three restau-rants in town. Three doctors and a dentist pro-vided medical services, while two undertakersoffered burial services.

By the sheer presence of the lumber industry,residents received public services far in ad-vance of neighboring areas. Two electric lightsystems, two water systems, and a seweragesystem were all put into place by the lumbercompany and benefited local residents.

The resident population supported fourchurches, a chapter of the Women’s ChristianTemperance Union, a YMCA, lodges of Ma-sons, Macabees and Odd-Fellows, a literary so-ciety, numerous card clubs, and an opera house.Other social organizations included the townband and baseball team, the Cross Fork Tigers,whose team members included professionals ofthe Lackawanna Lumber Company.

With many families living in and around CrossFork, there were 250 children in need of formaleducation. A combined primary-secondaryschool with state-of-the-art laboratory equip-ment was built and staffed for this purpose.

Apparently the threat of fire was far worse thanthat of crime as Cross Fork’s Hose Companywas established during this time, but no policewere employed.

For more than eight years, the town’s ownnewspaper, The Cross Fork News, pursued itsmission “to cheerfully report town happeningsand to improve social and political conditions inthe town and county”(Dana 1917). Among thearticles published on March 30, 1906 was a re-port that a neighboring town was facing set-backs and would be closing its operations.Many read the article but no one thought thesame might happen here.

By 1907, all of the timber in present-day LeidyTownship had been cut with the exception ofBeaver Dam Run (Lock Haven Express 1947b).(Here, Sam Heisey operated a small, portablemill, cutting and peeling hemlock and trans-porting it through Trout Run and downstreamto Westport. His mill also processed lumberfrom a number of lumbering camps throughoutthe watershed until 1915.) But the end of thetimber supply in this township failed to capturethe attention of lumbermen and their families.

However, in April 1909, Lackawanna shut downits sawmill at Cross Fork. The company’s landshad all been cut and what little remained wasscrap wood by comparison. The logging indus-try had grown to a watershed scale by 1910.Nearly all of the virgin timber had been cut andexported. A network of railroads connected tim-ber tracts to the mainline along Kettle Creekand to major routes to the north and south. Butthe logging industry as it was practiced in thelate 19th century was not sustainable and tim-ber was growing scarce. Companies beganclosing their operations along Kettle Creek andmoving to western regions. Lackawannamoved its operations to West Virginia andparts of New Mexico, leaving the town devas-tated in its absence.

Fires took several buildings that summer, in-cluding two hotels. Remaining residents weremore concerned with collecting valuables thanin protecting vacant buildings. By fall, the rail-road station had burned down and the “exodus(was) in full swing.” The following year, fire de-stroyed an entire block. While fires were verycommon at the time, arson is suspected to havebeen the cause in an attempt to collect from theinsurance companies.

Businesses and services closed without theunderlying support from the lumber company.By 1913, the population of Cross Fork haddropped to less than 200 (Welfling 1949). With


declining timber traffic and passenger travel,the railroad was forced to close.

The population in 1914 was recorded as 61 andby 1923, only 40 people would call Cross Forkhome (Zorichak 1923). Real estate values haddropped from $896.862 in 1904 to $18.815 in1914 and tax rates to 2 1/2 cents per acre. Awareof the devastation that these people were fac-ing, the state offered financial assistance toprevent bankruptcy.

In 1917, all that remained was one hotel, threestores, and a high school. The school, in fact,was for sale with all of its equipment includingtwo organs.

As Lackawanna finished cutting operations onits individual tracts, it had sold these to thestate as early as 1909 (Heimel 1992). The landswere then allocated to management under theDepartment of Forest and Waters15. Once mill-ing operations were closed at Cross Fork, thecompany sold all lands back to the state, at arate of $3 to $4 dollars per acre. Public landownership was at first not welcomed by the fewremaining residents, but efforts to reclaim thelandscape and support this rural community,and the employment these activities offered,were appreciated. The Department worked torestore the landscape by tearing down remain-ing vacant buildings, filling in excavation, anddraining the millponds, often employing remain-ing residents. In addition, the state also pro-vided water system repairs and maintenance forthe hose company.

When the lumber industry moved into the wa-tershed with full force, many farmers attemptedto earn a living in both forest and field. As a re-sult, many farms were neglected. Buildings andfences were not maintained and livestock wereleft to roam and graze the landscape. When thelumber companies moved west, these men re-turned to their properties to face the expense ofrepair but with little money to do so. Farmershad never truly left their land but had beenovershadowed and distracted by the scale andimpact of the logging industry. The land hadalways been fertile along the main stem withplentiful wildlife to supplement crop and live-stock production (Zorichak 1923). Some spe-cies were, in fact, so numerous that they wereproblematic for farmers. News articles from theLock Haven Express suggest that farming cer-tain crops was difficult due to the high deerpopulations in the local forests.

Since the 1920s, Cross Fork has remained asmall rural town. Many returned to agricultureas a way of life after Lackawanna’s departure.Recreational interest throughout the watershed

Today, the schoolhouse remains as a reminder of the booming

lumbering hub at Cross Fork.

The end of the lumbering industry

came suddenly and surprisingly to

rural communities that had come to

rely on the seemingly endless

abundance of a single resource.


grew as a result of abundant fish and wildlifepopulations and the leasing of state forest landsfor private cabins. As automobile ownership in-creased, fishermen traveled to Kettle Creek forthe chance of a good catch. By 1963, the combi-nation of small stores, local motels, and rentalcabins showed that residents supported recre-ational tourism in their economy.

Today, few families live in the town of CrossFork, but many rural landowners claim it as theirhome. Hotels and restaurants cater to a widerange of visitors–hikers, hunters, fishermen, andsnowmobilers–who pass through town. CrossFork has also become the home of an annualSnake Hunt, drawing people from across thestate and the nation to this rural community.

CoalMiningAs coal began to compete with timber in fuelmarkets, investors and speculators hired pros-pectors to explore the Northern Tier, in search ofcoal seams known to underlay the region.Joseph Russell and David Bly were mineralprospectors who discovered coal resourcesatop the mountains aside Kettle Creek (Parucha1986). By the mid 1870s, coal mining was under-way in the watershed.

Without machines to remove the surface layers,miners dug vertical shafts to access the coal de-posits. Underground tunnels left the surface es-sentially undisturbed. Miners used pick axes tochip pieces of the coal from the tunnel walls andloaded them into carts that were trucked back tothe mineshaft. A total of 16 mines were operatedthroughout the lower watershed, extracting bitu-minous or soft coal from the Lower Kittanningcoal seam (Klimkos 2000). The Kettle Creek CoalMining Company operated 6 of those mines be-tween the years of 1874 and 1929 and supportedthe village community of Bitumen (Klimkos2000).

The Kettle Creek Coal Mining Company wasformed by a group of investors but managedby civil engineer, George Miller. Miller was thesuperintendent, hiring mine employees, open-ing mines, building new houses and founding acompany store that included US postal service(Parucha 1986). He would also serve as mayorand judge of the Bitumen community.Eisenhower, Miller’s strong-armed constable,fiercely protected the interests of the companyby keeping close track of those entering orleaving Bitumen.

Wages prior to unionization were paid by theton, for which a miner received thirty cents perton for mining and loading (Parucha 1986).Many discrepancies arose from the weightmeasured and paid by the weighmaster andthat determined by the miner. Each miner had tofurnish his own tools, powder and dynamite, aswell as oil for lantern and carbide for the lampon his cap. A monthly fee was deducted fromeach worker’s earning for the sharpening of histools by the company blacksmith. Coal forcooking and heat was free, but workers had tomine and load on their on time and werecharged one dollar for their hauling labor.

As the market boomed and mines producedmass quantities, coal was taken off the moun-tain by cable cars. The cars were guided alonga track on an incline plane to a tipple at CooksRun, where the coal was weighed and loadedinto Pennsylvania Railroad Cars for shipmentto Williamsport and Eastern markets.

Mining was no less dangerous than logging. Amine explosion killed eighteen miners and in-jured several more in the fall of 1888. The fol-lowing year, flooding washed out the tipple atCooks Run and several company houses.Those who survived the tragedies were quickto leave, abandoning their jobs and homes forsafer vocations. Despite setbacks in the laborforce, mining resumed in full force when Slo-vaks were hired in 1890 (Parucha, 1986).


r#³

&\r

#³#³&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

&\

Germania

CarterCamp

Oleona

CrossFork

HammersleyFork

Leidy

Westport

ABBOT

STEWARDSON

ELK

WHARTON

EAST FORK

LEIDY

NOYES

EASTKEATING

Tamarack

1920: Ole Bull State Parkestablished

1933: CCC camp located atOle Bull State Park

1915-1940: Establishmentand increase in popularity of

Susquehanna State Forest

1923: Population of

Cross Fork-40

1926: First community picnic held at

Leidy Township

1928: Deer make farming in Leidy

Township almost impossible

1930-1938: Hard surfacingof roads from Westport to

the Potter County Line

1933: Establishment ofCherry Springs CCC Camp,one of the ten camps in theSusquehannock StateForest.

1935: First AnnualSummerson reunionheld at Kettle Creek State

Park.

Town

Gas Wells

Ole Bull State Park

Susquehennock State Forest

Kettle Creek State Park

Hard Surfaced Road

Alvin Bush Dam

Watershed Boundary

Present StreamNetwork (2001)Figure 2.7 - Kettle Creek 1915 to present

Conservation, Recreation, and Rural Living

Kettle Creek: 1915 to presentConservation, Recreation, and Rural Living


Bitumen - A Mining TownWhile Germania was a hub of agricultural activ-ity and Cross Fork was the locus of the lumber-ing community, Bitumen was the center of coalmining in the Kettle Creek watershed. As a self-contained, company-supported community, ithad an influential impact on the industrial andcultural heritage of north central Pennsylvania.The Kettle Creek Coal Company offered bothemployment and public services to its employ-ees, thriving as a predominantly immigrant com-munity between 1890 and 1930. Initially, themine workers were American, but soon thesemen sought safer, higher-paying jobs in otherparts of the region. Though the work was dan-gerous and hard, the jobs were abundant andsteady for willing workers.

In need of a hard working labor force, the mineoperators turned to the industrial cities of theeast where they found several stout Slovaksand offered them company housing and medicalcare in exchange for their labor. The men andtheir families wrote of their newfound prosper-ity in Bitumen to friends and family in EasternEurope, inviting them to immigrate and take ad-vantage of American opportunities. From the1890s to the early 1920s, Czechs, Poles, Rus-sians, Ukraines, and Yugoslavs immigrated toAmerica, willing to work for the offered wagesin exchange for a new life of opportunities.Along with their work ethic, the Slovaksbrought with them their social culture. Theybrought their Catholic and Greek Orthodox reli-gions, their ethnic foods, their thirst for whis-key and wine, their festive dances and songs.

Residents lived in company owned houses andshopped in the company store. Miners’ houseswere plain, two-story, four room plank struc-tures. Since there was no indoor plumbing, wa-ter was piped from a mountain reservoir to tapsalong the streets from which residents filledtheir buckets and carried them home. Coal forcooking and heating was free, but the miners

had to mine it themselves on their own timeand load it on the wagon themselves.

While the company store met all the basicneeds of the residents, the arrangement alsokept miners in debt. The company prohibitedpurchases from other towns and catalogs, sofamilies were forced to pay the prices set bythe store operator.

The company also provided medical servicesto miners and their families. The doctor was asalaried employee of Kettle Creek Coal Com-pany, but he accepted and perhaps even en-couraged additional payments of produce, live-stock, and poultry.

Since working conditions were difficult, minerswere quite interested in union organizers whopassed through the region. The company, ofcourse, discouraged, even prohibited, meetingswith union representatives on company prop-erty, but miners skirted this issue by meetingelsewhere. Despite further company obstacles,the miners were able to organize to influencewages and safety through the union.

In 1897 the first Catholic Slovak Union(Jednota), Immaculate Conception Slovak Ro-man Church, was built to serve the immigrant’sspiritual needs. Religion ran deep in the Slovakcommunity, as even the baseball team con-sulted the priest before games. The Church

During the era of deep coal mines,

Bitumen’s economy and social culture

thrived, independent of its neighboring

communities. The Kettle Creek Coal

Mining Company met the miner’s every

need from home to health.


was moved several times due to the constantexpansion of the Kettle Creek Coal Company towhere it finally stands today. The Church alsostarted a school for its children. Studies in gram-mar, mathematics and history were combinedwith religious instructions. Slovak language wasalso taught to the children, as it was one of themain languages spoken here. Subsequently alocal school was added and this was beneficialto the residents who could not afford the smalltuition charged for the Catholic School.

As was customary in Slovak communities, holydays were reserved for spending time with fam-ily and friends. A marching band accompaniedparades in the street. Dancing was an importantsocial function and the town eventually con-structed two dance halls to host special events.Baseball games were popular, as were picnicsand long walks after the Sunday meal. Recre-ation in Bitumen was fun and free.

Over time, the Church would become a commu-nity landmark, a special place in the memories ofpast and present residents. By 1969 members ofthe Church and new residents of Bitumen hadorganized to preserve the church, as a historicalpart of Bitumen. Thus the Bitumen Shrine Cor-poration was founded to protect and maintainthe church and its cemetery. Through dona-tions, the church was renovated. Today thechurch is totally dependent upon continued fi-nancial support from external sources for its up-keep and maintenance. An annual reunion, heldduring the 4th of July weekend, reaffirms thecommitment to and relationships surroundingthe Immaculate Conception Shrine at Bitumen.

The children of Bitumen enjoyed the outdoors.After completing schoolwork and householdchores, the young boys would leave theirhomes for games of baseball, rounder (and itsmany variations), and sling shot. They learnedto whittle. In the summer months, they visitedthe swimming hole at the shoots in Cooks Run,skinny dipping in the cool waters and fishing

along the banks. When they wanted to catchlarger fish, they walked to Kettle Creek.

The girls’ lives were more focused on house-hold responsibility. They too had chores andspent time learning reading, writing and mathskills. When these tasks were complete, theywere allowed to skip rope, play hopscotch andjacks, and sing with their neighbors andfriends. Occasionally a few would follow theboys to the swimming hole to catch a glimpseof bare skin.

Technological innovations changed miningprocedures. By 1909, the mines were electrified,providing power and eliminating the need formules to pull carts through the mine tunnels.But such improvements were not able to re-move the risks of mine operations. On Decem-ber 16, 1910, the brake shoe on a cable shat-tered, releasing the cart down the incline plane.Two miners were killed and two others were in-jured in this unfortunate accident.

The population of Bitumen peaked at 1200 thatyear. Over five hundred male residents wereemployed in the mines and the balance repre-sented their families. The total number ofpeople supported by mining activity was actu-ally much higher, since some workers lived out-side of Bitumen.

The town continued to expand during WorldWar I. As demand for coal fell after the war, thecompany began to cut workers’ wages. Unionmembers went on strike to protest the decreaseand in 1929, as contracts expired, mines acrossthe state were closed. Workers who lived incompany housing were given 30 days to va-cate their homes or face eviction. Many minersenlisted in military service to provide a smallbut steady income for their families. Servicealso offered the immigrants access to Americancitizenship. Others decided to leave Bitumenfor Trenton, New Jersey, where the abundanceof goods and textile companies promised immi-


grants many benefits over the economic mo-nopoly in Bitumen. The remaining miners re-fused to accept the wage rate offered by thecoal companies, despite union efforts to reachan agreement. It was two years before an agree-ment was finally reached in 1921 and mines re-opened but on a much smaller scale.

By 1929, nearly all of the deep mines had beenabandoned. With each passing month more andmore families left Bitumen. Company housesstood empty for several years though somewere torn down by 1930. Mining companiesclosed their operations and left their lands tothe Commonwealth by defaulting on propertytaxes. The Commonwealth then allocated theproperties to the Department of Forests andWaters who became responsible for reclamationefforts. The Work Projects Administration, oneof the programs of Roosevelt’s New Deal, pro-vided funds to seal many of the deep mineopenings in an attempt to protect streams fromsulphuric acid16.

While underground mining resulted in minimalsurface disturbance, it did cause other environ-mental hazards. Mine shafts allowed air and wa-ter to interact, physically and chemically, withdeep geologic layers. This interaction resultedin the release of toxic gases into the air andchemical pollutants into the water that eventu-ally discharged at the surface. Gases were animmediate work hazard at the time of mining ac-

tivity, but water pollution developed over manyyears and was exacerbated by the surface min-ing that followed. Liming machines were em-ployed along Whiskey Springs to mediate theacidic drainage from mining sites.

During the 1960s, the Commonwealth leasedlands in Sproul State Forest to D.G Wertz CoalCompany and the Kettle Creek Corporation forsurface mining, or strip-mining, of the Lowerand Middle Kittanning seams. (Surface miningremoves large areas of the vegetation, soil andbedrock layers above the coal seam to accessthe coal from above, rather than from within17.This technique ravaged large areas in the lowerportion of the watershed that caused increasedamounts of sediment pollution in Cooks Runand Kettle Creek.) In addition to surface access,mining required a site permit issued by the De-partment of Mine and Mine Inspection, the firstof which was issued in 1960. Permits authorizedthe mining activities according to state regula-tions. Records from DEP, the follow-up agencyto DM&MI, indicate that a total of 10 permitswere issued between 1960 and 1969. D.G Wertzoperated 4 sites in the early 1960s: theWestport mine (under 3 separate permits), theCrowley mine, the Wertz mine and theCattaragus Road East mine. The Kettle CreekCorporation operated its 4 mines in the later1960s, one each at Short Bend Run, CrowleyRun, Bitumen, and Batschelett.

The mines closed as demand for bituminouscoal fell or the coal was completely extracted.Most mines were abandoned, leaving the pitand the spoil to nature (or the state) for restora-tion. In 1977, the Surface Mining Control andReclamation Act required mining companies torestore or reclaim their sites to a more naturalcondition. The Kettle Creek Corporation fol-lowed through and reclaimed some of theirmines before closing their lease.

In contrast to the logging era

that lasted as long as the

timber supply, coal mining

ended when local companies

were unable to compete in

the national economy.

Natural GasNatural gas was first discovered while drillingwater wells at Indian Camp in 1902 (Zorichak1923). The gas was considered a nuisance be-cause it hampered drilling with frequent, lastingfires, since it ignited easily and burned slowly. Itwas only five years before its physical andchemical properties were well understood, andat that point, energy suppliers would begin totake an interest in the region for the clean, inex-pensive energy that the gas could provide. In1907, two gas wells were drilled ten miles fromHammersley Fork (Zorichak 1923), providinglight, heat, and fuel for local residents.

Though its properties were understood, its lo-cation in the bedrock was not. Around 1920,two more wells were drilled south of Cross Fork.One was 3500 feet (1067 m) deep, the other justover 2500 feet (762 m) deep, and both were dry.But within three years, a number of successfulwells were installed and the Kettle Creek gasfield was established. The wells were concen-trated in the north-central part of Leidy Town-ship but extended three quarters of a mile northof the mouth of Hammersley Fork. The ClintonNatural Gas Company, headquartered inWilliamsport, extracted the gas and distributed itas far east as Philadelphia and New York.

The area was heavily drilled from 1954 to 1958,a period locally known as the Gas Bowl. Thedemand for gas was high due to rapidly ex-panding suburban development and its relativelow cost. By 1958, many of the gas wells wereempty and those who had come to rely on theKettle Creek supply were forced to buy gasfrom other regions or find alternative fuels.Daily supply exceeded daily demand in south-ern drilling regions and companies soon lookedfor storage facilities. Empty wells in KettleCreek offered inexpensive storage and in 1960,the wells were refilled.

Natural gas offered inexpensive energy forlight and heat but came with environmentalcosts. More than once local residents had toevacuate their homes because gas pressure instorage wells threatened to blow out gas linesleading into the building. In 1966, a sludgepond above Bunnel Bridge broke under thepressure of stormwater, spilling tailings fromthe drilling operation and industrial and mainte-nance wastes into the main stem of KettleCreek. The spill contaminated the stream withminerals and soils extracted by the rig duringthe drilling operation, diesel fuel, garbage, oil,grease, and caustic soda and aqua gel from thedrill bit, killing most of the aquatic species formore than a mile. Yearly hatching cycles ofaquatic insects, which were rather predictablebefore the spill, are just now returning to form.The natural gas pipelines impact both the environmental

integrity and the scenic quality of the watershedby

cutting through the forested hillsides.


While natural gas was

extracted faster than timber or

coal, its subsurface voids have

been effieciently reused as

natural storage facilities for

these same regional markets.

Environmental ImpactsInspire State Efforts TowardConservation: Forests, Parks,and Flood ControlThe environmental impacts of logging acrossnorthern Pennsylvania were expressed from thesmall streams to the Susquehanna River. In-creased flows and flood damage, sediment-laden waters and eroded streambank property,increased water temperatures, and nutrientloading angered property owners and forcedthe state to engage in forest and water resourceconservation to protect the health and well-be-ing of it citizens.

Under the leadership of conservationists suchas James Trimble Rothrock, Mira Dock andGifford Pinchot, the Commonwealth purchaseddenuded properties for $3 to $4 dollars per acreand established a Division of Forestry to man-age them for conservation and recreation. Thefact that lumber companies bought forestedland in large tracts enabled the agency to ex-pand the state forest in sizeable and often con-tiguous parcels.

By 1909, Lackawanna had cut all of the timberfrom the Joerg property. The Commonwealthpurchased the tract and managed it as part ofthe Cross Fork State Forest Reserve within theState Forest system. The Joerg house, con-structed in the 1850s, was retained and becameas the residence of the forest ranger under theState system.

Representing the Department of Forests andWaters (and the first woman appointed to astate commission), Mira Dock visited the water-shed in October 1911. Accompanied by DistrictForester Walter Mumma, Forester Emerick, andRanger Bennett, she toured Trout Run and theHammersley Region en route to Germania,Galeton and Coudersport, assessing the valueof lands available for state purchase. WhileDock’s surveying was usually done on horse-back, Mumma had a car arranged for this tripfrom Renovo to Coudersport and Galeton18.

In addition to conservation and recreation, theState Forest also provided a means of employ-ment for residents during the early 20th century.A district forester and ranger were generallyhired from a forestry school, but they in turnhired men to make road repairs, construct newroads, and plant seedlings of Norway spruce,white pine and Carolina poplar. They foughtfires on both state and private lands. Theirwages were far short of regional pay, and thedistrict forester made multiple requests to raisetheir pay.

Fires threatened not only local residences butalso the regeneration of a diverse, native forest.Several fires were particularly devastating: inthe Hammersley Region in 1907, from Tamarackto Spicewood in 1909, and in the western por-tion of the Hammersley Region in 1913. Someareas were particularly fire-prone, such asTurtle Point, where thickets of huckleberryseemed to ignite with the suggestion of a spark.An extensive network of fire trails and accessroads was developed and maintained to protectthe State Forest (Zorichak 1923).

The district forester was in a sense a surveyorfor the state system. With thoughts of potential


Though pipeline management requires open corridors, these

areas hold great habitat potential.


timber harvest in the recovering forest, Mummareported that lack of transportation made theresource commercially unavailable.

In 1912, the State Forest sold seven miles ofpipeline right-of-way to the Clinton Natural GasCompany. initially, foresters did not require re-storation of pipeline corridors, but insteadcalled for revegetation that would enhancehabitat for wildlife.

Conserving theWilderness for RecreationRecreation on public lands was growing morepopular every year with increased ownershipof automobiles and social movement to escapethe polluted, industrial city. As a result, theCommonwealth established a state park systemat the turn of the 20th century. Two parks werelater created along the Kettle Creek. KettleCreek State Park was located at the mouth ofSummerson Run and Ole Bull State Park wassited just below Oleona in 1920. The parks wereopen to the public for picnicking, camping,fishing, and hiking. Increased recreational fa-cilities may have been one factor in the anec-dotal references to the early 1900s as thecreek’s prime fishing era.

Through the Pennsylvania Administrative Codeof 1929, state forests were permitted to leasesmall parcels, generally 1/4 acre lots, to Penn-sylvania citizens for healthful outdoor recre-ational use. In addition to promoting recreation,leases generated revenue for the state forest.The lessee agreed to pay for any improvements,e.g. buildings, built these to meet state forestregulations. Leases were renewed every 10years, at which point new regulations were en-forced. Leases could be sold, transferred, orassigned if the lessee no longer wanted tomaintain the site. (The state forest now desiresto reacquire these parcels.) In 1970, the stateforest stopped issuing new leases. The KettleCreek watershed hosts approximately 100

camps in each of the Sproul andSusquehannock state forests.

Road construction throughout the watershedcontinued as the public demanded greater ac-cess to the State Forest lands and as forestfires persisted in the North Central Region.With little money to make road improvementsfor increased volume and new modes of trans-portation, i.e. the automobile, townships askedthe Commonwealth for financial aid. From 1925to 1938, the Commonwealth helped fund sev-eral road projects, including road surfacing ofRoute 144 along Drury’s Run to Tamarack(Lock Haven Express). Other projects improveddrainage of road surfaces and replaced smallbridges that were insufficient for modern trans-portation. Charter Road from Westport to thePotter County line received its first hard sur-face in the 1930s. The Forestry Department

Anglers from across the state visit Kettle

Creek and its tributaries for their exceptional

angling opportunities.


also continued to develop new access routesfrom Trout Run to Wharton and along SugarCamp Run.

In 1951, it was discovered that William Pennstill owned approximately 73 acres of landamong the gas fields of Kettle Creek (Lock Ha-ven Express 1951). The land had never beenwarranted and therefore still belonged to theoriginal proprietor, William Penn. Nearly sur-rounded by state lands, the Commonwealth as-sumed ownership and placed the tract undermanagement of the state forest.

Civilian Conservation CorpsCamps along Kettle CreekWhile the Great Depression of the 1930s signifi-cantly impaired economic investments, it had apositive effect on recreational development andlandscape conservation across the nation. Theneed for job training for abundant male youthpopulation, reforestation of harvested lands,and improved recreational facilities for an in-creasingly mobile society led Franklin D.Roosevelt to establish the Civilian Conserva-tion Corps in 1933. Young men, particularly

from urban areas, were employed by the gov-ernment to build state park facilities, clear stateforest roads, and plant tree seedlings. In addi-tion to their work, the men took academic andvocational courses. Each young man was paid aweekly wage, a small portion of which wasgiven directly to him while the rest was deliv-ered to his home address. The small amount re-ceived was used to maintain a clean uniformand to pay for snacks and weekend ventures.Meals and lodging were provided at each camp.

There were four CCC camps located in theKettle Creek watershed during the 1930s andearly 1940s, one each at Hammersley Fork, OleBull, Windfall Run, and Two Mile Run. (Campswere also located at the Dyer Farm, CherrySprings, and Lyman Run and may have com-pleted projects within the watershed.) TheCamp at Hammersley Fork, S-133, opened in1933 and was closed by 1938. Captain G.Millholland commanded and Loring H. Grant ofGaleton was Camp Superintendent (PCCCC1983). Camp S-87 at Ole Bull operated from 1933to 1941. The Ole Bull Camp was established un-der the leadership of Captain C.C. Griffin,

The lower

campground of

Kettle Creek

State Park offers

a shady site for

summer

campers.


Captain Gomer L. Coble, and Lieutenant R. Ware(PCCCC 1983). Captain Joseph S. Hoffman andLieutenant Herman W. Schweizer arrived in thefall of 1933 to lead the camp for the followingseveral years (PCHS 2000). Camp S-137 at Wind-fall Run operated from 1933 to early 1936 underthe leadership of Captain C.M. Lyons and JamesD. Glover (PCCCC 1983). The camp at WindfallRun reportedly reopened to assist in recoveryand rebuilding in the Renovo community afterthe late spring flood of 1936.

The first tour of men to serve at Camp S-87 atOle Bull had intended to go to Windfall Run butinclement weather hindered their travel they re-quested to stop at Ole Bull State Park. Amiddownpours and puddles, they immediatelyerected tents for temp lodging. Within the firstdays, they built officers quarters at the foot ofthe eastern mountain and by fall had con-structed permanent barracks below. A kitchen,mess hall, and recreation room were constructedin a U-shape to create a small courtyard or drillfield for quasi-military exercises The buildingswere heated by wood stove and lit by oil lamps.

Over the eight years that Camp S-87 was open,the servicemen built a dam to form a swimmingarea for the park, planted evergreens in the val-ley, and blazed and maintained fire trailsthroughout the recovering forest. In additionto conservations projects, they also helped lo-cal residents. After severe rain or snowstorms,the CCC men would clear the roads so thatdoctors and farmers could reach their destina-tions. In their spare time, servicemen tendedthe camp gardens, played games in the recre-ation hall, watched movies in the recreationroom, and spent weekends in Coudersport orGaleton, maybe Renovo. Through weekend en-counters (mostly positive), several men cameto know the local residents, including theyoung women, and chose to marry and settlewhere they had invested their time and efforts.

Tamingthe WatersIn 1936, spring rains caused particularly heavyflows in Kettle Creek and throughout the head-waters of the Susquehanna. As waters fromKettle Creek and adjacent watersheds con-verged in the West Branch, flood volumes andresulting damage dramatically increased. Newsof the damage in Renovo was reportedthroughout the region. Many residents fromKettle Creek were involved in recovery efforts,including servicemen from several CCC camps.

Concern for the safety of residents and prop-erty generated widespread interest in develop-ing flood control mechanisms. The State re-sponded with a plan to construct four dams tocontrol floodwaters of the West Branch. Somesuspected the government had ulterior mo-tives, such as water purification, in mind for thedam operation. In 1957, the Army Corps of En-gineers constructed the Alvin R Bush Dam todetain the floodwaters of Kettle Creek. This165-foot earthen dam would create a pool 1300feet (390 km) long, 4.5 miles (7.2 km) of shore-

Camp Ole Bull was one of four Civilian Conservation Corps

camps located in the Kettle Creek watershed in the 1930s. Its

servicemen constructed picnic shelters, dammed the creek for

swimming, and assisted local foresters in fire control and

reforestation of state lands.


line, providing extensive recreational opportu-nities in addition to flood control.

The construction of the dam and reservoir per-manently flooded the town of Leidy. Residentswere forced to relocate, and due to family his-tory in the valley, many chose to remain in thelocal area. Kettle Creek Valley Road that passedthrough the center of town was relocated alongthe western hill slope of the valley.

While flooding was controlled in downstreamcommunities by the Bush Dam, it continued toimpact the main stem of Kettle Creek. Theheavy flows caused by Hurricane Agnes in1972 and storms in 1975 caused significantchanges in the shape of the channel. Sandysoils were easily eroded, destabilizing the bankvegetation, widening the channel, and decreas-ing average channel depth once flows subsided.Shallow channels resulted in warmer waters andchanges in fish habitat and population. In PotterCounty, many camps were flooded out andHammersley Fork was heavily impacted.

Recent Watershed HistoryWhile Victor Beebe, Michael Leeson, WilliamMcKnight and John Linn have gathered andanalyzed historical data available at the turn ofthe 20th century, recent historical events andpersonalities have not been assessed in anycomprehensive manner. News articles have re-ported local events as they happened, but nosummary or analysis of these happenings hasoccurred to date. Points of interest for futureanalysis include: the development of state for-ests and parks, CCC activities throughout thewatershed, the flooding of Leidy, seasonalcamps at Ole Bull State Park, such as summerprograms by Keystone Boys Club and musicfestivals organized by Inez Bull, the Cross ForkSnake Hunt, the fall Leek Festival held inGermania, and the reintroduction of elk in theregion. Local personalities include HarryKinney, the “Mountain Boy,” and Preston

“Slim” Croyle, who was known for calling deerfrom the mountains by name to hand-feedthem. In addition, the birth and achievementsof the Kettle Creek Watershed Association de-serve documentation.

The logging industry of north-central Pennsyl-vania has not been forgotten. TheWoodsmen’s Show was organized in 1952 atCherry Springs State Park to celebrate the his-tory and culture of Pennsylvania’s lumbermen.In 1975, the first Bark Peeler’s Convention tookplace to revive the annual meeting of“woodhicks and bark peelers” each 4th of Julyweekend. The event was held at the Pennsyl-vania Lumber Museum, where a sawmill, logholding pond, and village smith shops pro-vided the background for contests, such as logrolling and tobacco-spitting. While these an-nual events commemorate the regional logginghistory, they do not express the unique contri-butions of the local landscape.

In addition to cultural developments, the land-scape had continued to change since the early1900s. Local residents tell of swimming holesfilling in with sediment, inhibited trout migra-tion, warmer waters that are changing fish

The Alvin R. Bush Dam was designed to control floodwaters in the

West Branch and created this reservoir in Kettle Creek State Park.


vested, the land was sold or defaulted to an-other non-resident land manager, the state, whonow attempts to conserve the land and waterresources at the same scale as its degradation.

The abundant natural resources and the small-scale development define the Kettle Creek wa-tershed as a frontier landscape. As with manyrural watersheds, natural resources such as amaturing forest, tillable soils, and coal and gasdeposits have been the engine of localeconomy. During their individual heydays, thelumber and coal mining industries fueledgrowth and sustained communities of up to2000, many of whom were immigrants followingthe prosperity of company investors. But asresources were extracted faster than they were

naturally replenished, these industries facedlocal decline, and those who relied on themwere forced to leave or find other vocations tosupport themselves and their families.

With the passing of land ownership from lum-ber companies to the state, a shift from forestconsumption to forest conservation occurred.Like the lumber companies, the state profitsfrom its land management but not in privateways. Rather, the benefits are found in the in-

populations, stocked fish out-competing theyoung wild ones, and the extinction of nativespecies and introduction of non-natives.Streams getting wider and shallower andchanges in species composition from pine andhemlock to oak dominated forests are indeedenvironmental changes, resulting from short-term and long-term impacts of land manage-ment across the entire watershed.

ConclusionsOver the course of history, residents and visi-tors have come to the watershed, particularlyits valley and uplands for the productive soilsthat it offers for crop and dairy, and forest pro-duction. They have come for the immediate ac-cess to a high quality, natural and recreationalenvironment. (President U.S. Grant was per-haps the most notable political figure to visitthe watershed, as a guest of Colonel A.C.Noyes of Westport.) They have also come forthe freedom and privacy that rural living offersand the self-reliance that it demands. Whetherfor short-term visits or long-term residency,people expect to find low-density developmentand high-density “nature.”

Euro-American settlement and speculation ledto two distinct forms of land ownership in theKettle Creek watershed. Frontier settlers se-lected their sites based on stream and landformpatterns that would support agriculture formany years and therefore explored the land-scape to find suitable sites. Speculators chosetheir tracts geometrically, according to land sur-veys, and based on the mature condition of thetimber that would turn a quick profit as soon asharvesting began.

Since the introduction of European-style landownership, a large percentage of the watershedhas always been managed by nonresidents.Speculators purchased large areas and wouldhave proportionally large impacts on the envi-ronmental quality of the watershed. Once har-

As a result of natural and

human factors, Kettle Creek

has provided abundant fish

and game for sustenance and

sport for hundreds of years.

The opportunities it holds

engage residents and visitors

alike in an intimate experience

with nature and its waters.


creased health and well-being of all Pennsylva-nia citizens.

The Kettle Creek watershed shares in the re-gional lumbering history of the northcentralPennsylvania region, but it also has a distincthistory that separates it from the surroundingregion. The Ole Bull colony, the planned com-munity of Germania, and the combination oftimber, coal, and gas resources all contribute tothis distinction and the unique identity of thewatershed.

In addition to the story of the Kettle Creekwatershed, there are a number of historic sitesand structures that can be seen throughout thelandscape. As a result of settlement patterns,many of these are located in the valley alongthe main stem of the creek. These landmarks inthe community could be used to share the his-tory with watershed visitors.

Changes in the landscape and the water weremost noticeable during and after the loggingand mining eras, but change also occurred aseach farmer cleared the forest for field and pas-ture, as roads were cleared, constructed, andimproved, and as plantations were establishedthroughout the valley. With each personal, cor-porate, and government decision about the useand management of land, both land and waterresources were impacted.

GOAL: HISTORY

WI 1.2 Goal: Explore and celebrate the rich

cultural history of the watershed as a

community and for visitors.


Notes1. Although we commonly think of the American

frontier as a pristine landscape, Native Americanshad actively, sensitively, and sustainably managedits resources for centuries.

2. Native Americans and immigrant Europeans hadvery different ideas about land ownership. Livingin tribal societies, Native Americans treated theland and its resources as community property.Immigrants, on the other hand, were rebellingagainst European authorities and social systemsand sought personal property as an expression oftheir independence.

3. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 used this sameprocess of divide, survey, and sell to organize andestablish ownership of United States territoriesacross the country.

4. Settling on the land implied converting the acres offorest into fields of cultivated crops, makingnature more “productive,” yet unaware of theimpacts such conversion would have on theenvironment.

5. Timber values changed over time. Pine wasfamiliar and easy to work-”the Lord’s wood.”Hemlock, in comparison, was “full of hell, fire,and knots,” but over time, its strengths wereunderstood. After the evergreens were gone andprimary needs of shelter were met, Americansfound the hardwoods to be valuable for interiorsand furniture.

6. Within the right to own land, Americans assumedthe right to profit from it. As land was bought andsold, the most valuable tracts were often reservedor exempted from the transaction, leaving thespoils in the hands of the original landowner.

7. Since streams provided fresh water for people andlivestock, early farms were located along thebanks.

8. The Summerson family, descendants of David,Joseph, and Marmaduke, maintained a closeconnection with the watershed landscape and in1935 held the First Annual Summerson Reunionat Kettle Creek State Park (Lock Haven Express:Kettle Creek). Their connection ran so deep, infact, that they petitioned the Department ofForests and Waters to change the name of thepark to Summerson Run Park.

9. Streams, and the hollows from which they came,were commonly named for the family living at ornear the mouth.

10. Mill owners also took advantage of these sites,finding inexpensive transportation for lumber andshingles during much of the year.

11. Discouraged by the slow development of theirsettlement, its accidental location on another’sproperty, and the steep topography, manyNorwegians faced the choice of pursuing freedomin the Midwest or returning to their native land.Since Bull personally funded the colony from itsinfancy with profits from his concert tours, onlya few were able to afford the cost of purchasingthe land they had cultivated from theStewardsons. But those who did becamesignificant members of the Kettle Creekcommunity.

12. Once it became clear that the elaborate plans forGerman settlements were not appropriate for thesteep terrain, plans for a new city of Cross Forkwere abandoned and development effortsfocused on a revised site design for Germania.The German population grew steadily support-ing a wide variety of businesses and severalsocial organizations.

13. These tales were documented by W. W.Thompson in Historical Sketches of PotterCounty: Hunting and Fishing Stories, Legends.

14. The lumber industry influenced rural life inseveral positive ways-it brought more frequentand more direct postal service, introducedtelephone and passenger rail service, andproduced electricity for rural towns.

15. Out of concern for flooding and water quality atturn of the 20th century, the Department ofForests and Waters began replanting the lowerhillsides with evergreen species. The trees werenot meant to replace the native forest but it wasthought that they would prevent erosion anddownstream sedimentation.

16. Deep mining has had lasting impacts on thewatershed. While many mines were sealedthrough reclamation efforts of the late 1930s andearly 1940s, seepage through fractures stillimpairs water quality in lower reaches and themain stem.

17. Surface mines not only disturbed the vegetationand surface soils that buffer the impacts of rainevents, but they also exacerbated acid minedrainage from deep mine seeps by exposing morefractures at the surface.

18. Automobiles first became a regular site in thewatershed as the United States Postal Serviceexpanded and improved delivery to rural areas.By 1921, automobiles were in use to deliver mailfrom Renovo. A decade later, mail service wasstill based in Renovo but traveled first toWestport, north to Cross Fork and returned viaTamarack.


IntroductionDemographic trends - or changes in popula-tion characteristics over time - provide valu-able insight into the social character of a com-munity. Demography analyzes the experiencesof people such as birth, marriage, death, em-ployment and aging and can be used to pin-point the causes and consequences of popula-tion changes over time. Demography can re-veal trends in social change and the impact ofthis change on the natural environment. Whilebiological analysis - for instance water qualityanalysis - provides insight into the health andstate of natural resources, demographic analy-sis reveals information about the people whouse and enjoy these natural resources.

The overlap between natural watershedboundaries and political municipal boundariesresults in multiple municipal districts that liewithin and overlap multiple watersheds. Thispresents a challenge for demographic analysisin watershed planning as data collected gener-ally follows municipal township, county andstate rather than watershed boundaries.

Gathering information for Kettle Creek water-shed was no exception to this challenge. De-mographic data were collected for the water-shed at the county and township level as it al-lowed for the greatest historical depth of in-quiry while still maintaining boundaries closeto those of the watershed. The degree of rela-tive homogeneity in the Kettle Creek land-scape - a largely rural forested landscape - rela-tive to its context within Clinton, Potter,Cameron and Tioga Counties led to some as-sumptions in the gathering of data; it was as-sumed that data collected at the township levelwould represent trends and patterns in thecommunity both within and across the water-shed boundary. Because the vast majority ofland - specifically populated land - lies withinClinton and Potter County, data were collectedfor these counties. The numbers discussed be-

TRENDSDEMOGRAPHIC

Tioga CountyPotter County

Clinton County

Cameron CountyLeidy

Abbott Elk

StrewardsonEast Fork District

Noyes

Wharton

West Branch

N

Watershed BoundaryCounty LinesMCD lines

20000 0 20000 40000 Meters

low reflect an accumulation of townships inClinton and Potter County that overlap intothe watershed.

PoliticalBoundaries In the WatershedThe political boundaries within Kettle Creekinclude portions of 7 census blocks, 10 town-ships and 4 counties (See Figure 2.8: countyand municipal divisions in Kettle Creek). Popu-lation trends within these municipalities reveala potential for development of private lands inthe watershed due to a rising population andincreasing market value of private lands.

Figure 2.8 - Watershed boundaries often overlap into multiple

municipalities. As shown above, 4 counties and 10 townships fall

within the boundaries of Kettle Creek.


HistoricalPopulation TrendsThroughout the past two centuries, the popu-lation trends in Kettle Creek have experienceddramatic transformations due to a shift in theeconomy from industrial resource extractionto service based industry. From the organiza-tion of the earliest townships in the early 19thcentury, the watershed population experi-enced slow, steady growth. In Potter county,the first commercial pine timber industryopened in 1837; during this time, timber wassent downstream to be cut, processed, mar-keted and sold and did not provide direct sig-nificant economic benefit to the localeconomy. By the 1880's the Goodyear LumberCompany had begun the first local cuttingmills stimulating the local Kettle Creekeconomy and encouraging an influx of resi-dents in search of employment to the water-shed (Clinton County Data Book 1990). Therapid growth of steam power further intensi-fied the efficiency of both timber productionand in turn timber consumption further stimu-lating the local economy; a sharp increase inpopulation occurred as a result of this.

The boom in the logging industry paralleledthat of the population. Populations in KettleCreek watershed increased exponentially dur-ing the period of 1890- 1910; however thisboom was short-lived. The timber industryhad effectively cleared the once rich, forestedlandscape. As the last hemlocks and hard-woods were cut, and as the mechanization ofagricultural production resulted in fewer avail-

Population by MCD1850 - 2000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1996

2000

Year

Po

pu

lati

on

Elk

Abbot

West Branch

Wharton

Stewardson

East Fork (Eulalia)

Noyes

East Keating

Leidy

Population Trends by County1810 - 2000

050000

100000150000

1810

1860

1910

1960

1977

1982

1987

1992

1997

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f P

eop

le

Clinton Potter Tioga

Figure 2.9 - Population values skyrocketed between 1880 and

1920 due to a peak in timber and other extractive industry; this

trend was typical across much of the state. Following this period

of population increase, distinct population fluctuations followed

changes in the economy as people moved to and from the city, in

search of jobs (Miller et al 1995).

Figure 2.10 - Population trends as seen at the township level can

also be seen at the county level. This is due to the relatively

homogenous -- rural, low density development -- landscape of

Kettle Creek.


Projected Population Trends 1999 - 2020

05000

1000015000200002500030000350004000045000

1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

year

po

pu

lati

on

Clinton County

Potter County

during the post-war baby boom (Miller 1995).(figures 2.9 & 2.10).

While a trend towards population decline con-tinued up through 1996, the 2000 census datarevealed a population increase by as much as38% in Kettle Creek townships (See Figure 2.12- percent population change). In light of thecensus population project numbers that pro-jected Potter County to decline in populationthrough the year 2020, this increase is quite asurprise. (See Figure 2.11 & 2.12: 1990 countyprojection data & percent change in popula-tion 1990 - 2000). (Bureau of Census 1990).

able jobs, unemployed settlers were forced tofollow lumber operations westward or moveback to the cities. Between 1900 and 1930 theKettle Creek population declined rapidly at thetownship and county level leaving behind abarren and economically stagnant landscape.Many settlers flocked to the cities where therewas a strong wartime demand for factory pro-duction (Miller 1995). Others followed lumberoperations westward and south.

Limited available jobs during the depression inthe late 1920's and through the early 1930's re-versed this migration pattern outside of the ru-ral areas. During this time, a small increase inpopulation can be seen in Kettle Creek. Whilethe overall population trends decline, anotherminor population peaks occurred circa 1960

% change 1980 -

% change 1990 -

Clinton Leidy -18.63% 7.01%East Keating -33.33% 9.09%Noyes -26.62% -9.50%

Potter East Fork -97.74% -6.67%Stewardson -45.45% 12.12%Wharton -32.69% 30.00%West Branch -23.73% 37.06%Abbot -27.92% 30.64%

Tioga Elk -8.70% 21.43%

Percent Change in

Population: 1980 - 2000 1990 2000

LEFT Figures 2.11 &

2.12 - 2000 census data

revealed a dramatic

increase in population

within and accross the

boundaries of the

watershed despite 1990

census projection

numbers that suggested

a general decline in

population (see figure

below).

LEFT Figure 2.12 -

1990 Census projection

data suggested a

general decline in

population in Potter

County and a subtle

increase in population

in Clinton County.

Projected Population Trends by County 1990 - 2020


Populationand age trendsFollowing trends across the state of Pennsyl-vania, the watershed population is aging. Themajority of residents in the watershed are be-tween the ages of 30 and 40. From 1980 - 1990the average township population age in-creased from 29 to 33 years old. Similarly,county and township populations within thewatershed have experienced declines in theyounger generation ages 18 and under (SeeFigure: 2.13) in conjunction with an increase inpeople over the age of 65 (See Figure: 2.14 -change in population by age, 1990; See Figure2.13 - distribution of population by age 1990).These trends are common across the state aspeople today simply live longer today (Miller1992). However this trend is occurring for a dif-ferent reason in Potter and Clinton County.Positive birth to death rations in these coun-ties suggest that the birth rate exceeds thedeath rate. Housing occupancy numbers that

Under 18 65 & Older

Clinton County -16.60% 25.90%

Potter County -17.30% 19.70%

show two-person households as an averagefor the watershed further supports this. Thus,the decline in population can be largely attrib-uted to younger generations leaving the water-shed in search of more diverse employmentopportunities (Clinton County ComprehensivePlan, 1992). (Figure 2.14)

Population by Age

0

50

100

150

200

250

AGE 1-2 6 12-13 16 19 22-24 35-39 50-54 62-64 75-59

Age (Years)

Nu

mb

er o

f Peo

ple

Totals East Keating Township Leidy Township

Noyes Township Abbott Township East Fork District

Stewardson Township West Branch Twp Wharton Township

Figure 2.14 - While the younger population

is declining in the watershed, the older

population is increasing. This can be

attributed, in part, to a decline in available

local jobs.

Figure 2.13 - Following 1990 census data, the majority age group was between 30 and 40.

This age distribution can be attributed to the post-WWII 'baby boom' and associated period

of American affluence.

Change in Population by Age Group

1980 - 1990


Land-ownershipand Housing Occupancy

Land OwnershipLess than 18% of all landowners in KettleCreek are permanent, year-round residents.Based upon the mailing addresses of the 2,063landowners in Kettle Creek watershed, nearly82% can be considered seasonal residents astheir permanent mailing is listed outside of thewatershed (See Figure 2.15 - residency andland ownership). While the majority of sea-sonal residents reside in the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania, some come from as far as Min-nesota and California. Within the state, astrong majority reside in the southeastern andsouth central areas of Lancaster and Philadel-phia. (See Figure 2.16: Place of residence bystate).

HousingOccupancyMuch of the housing that stands in the water-shed today was constructed prior to 1939. Thefact that a majority of housing today is sea-sonally used, suggests that much of this earlyhousing has been since transformed into sea-sonal housing or service industry establish-ments such as hotels and stores. Further re-search and inventory of the existing housingin the watershed could serve to clarify this.

From 1940 to 1980 seasonal housing doubled(and in some instances tripled) in number (SeeFigure 2.18: percent increase in seasonal hous-ing over time). This increase can be accountedfor, in part, by New Deal programs that soughtto revitalize the country's economy and re-sulted in a post-war surge in recreational useof the landscape (Miller 1995: See page 71 for adiscussion of recreation today).

Pennsylvania Zip Codes

zip codes by landowner1 - 34 - 910 - 2526 - 7677 - 121

county boundary

Total landowners who live outside of the watershed

0 10 20 30 40 50

AK

AZ

DC

OR

MN

AP

GA

IL

MA

MI

SC

WV

IN

CT

WA

VA

DE

CA

TX

NC

Fl

OH

MD

NY

NJ

stat

e o

f res

iden

ce

number of people

Figure 2.15 - This map illustrates where watershed landowners

permanently reside. Recreational opportunities attract seasonal

residents to the watershed from all over the state .

Figure 2.16 - Many of the

landowners within the

watershed come from

outside of the state of

Pennsylvania. These data

are based upon

permanent addresses of

landowners in the

watershed.


Housing Occupancy by MCD1990

0500

1000150020002500

Occupied Vacant

Occupancy Status

Nu

mb

er o

f Ho

usi

ng

Uni

ts

East Keating Tow nship Leidy Tow nship Noyes Tow nship

Abbott Tow nship East Fork District Stew ardson Tow nship

West Branch Tw p Wharton Tow nship

Year Housing BuiltPre 1939 - 1990

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1939 orearlier

1940 to1949

1950 to1959

1960 to1969

1970 to1979

1980 to1984

1985 to1988

1989 toMarch 1990

Year Built

Nu

mb

er o

f H

ou

sin

g U

nit

s

Wharton Township

West Branch Twp

Stewardson Township

East Fork District

Abbott Township

Noyes Township

Leidy Township

East Keating Township

Housing Occupancy by County: 1990

0

2000400060008000

1000012000

140001600018000

Clinton County Potter County

County

To

tal

Nu

mb

er

of

Un

its

Total Units

Total Vacant Units

Seasonally Vacant

Figure 2.18 - The preponderance of seasonal residents accounts for the high housing vacancy

rates wtithin the watershed.Compared to the housing occupancy by MCD, county trends

reveal similar trends in high seasonal vacancy rates.

Figure 2.17 - Housing in the watershed according to the year it was built. A large portion of

the housing in the watershed was constructured during early twentieth century logging boom.


ANALYSISECONOMIC

IntroductionHistorically, logging, mining, agriculture andnatural gas have supported the economy ofKettle Creek. The early twentieth centurymarked the end of the logging boom. Whilegas, agriculture and manufacturing have sincedeclined in importance to the watershed, thetimber industry still thrives within the state for-ests. The decline in manufacturing has alsobrought about a seasonally based economythat is driven by the heavy recreational use ofthe watershed.

IndustryTrends TodayFollowing the early twentieth century loggingboom, the watershed economy becamestrongly seasonal following hunting, fishingand recreational uses. Jobs available to thecommunity and dollars spent within the com-munity became limited to these high use sea-sons and thus unstable. During the nationwiderecession of the 1980's, several key manufac-turing industries left the local area resulting inan economic low point for the watershed in1983. During this time, Clinton and PotterCounties documented unprecedented unem-ployment rates -- as high as 18%. Economic in-stability left the watershed ten years behindthe rest of the country in recouping from thisrecession (Clinton County ComprehensivePlan, 1992). Recently, the International PaperCompany, located outside of the watershedand one of the largest job providers in ClintonCounty left. As the job base continues to de-cline, the younger generation will continue toleave the watershed.

Today, the economy in the Kettle Creek water-shed is supported predominantly by recre-ation. Seasonally-based establishments thataccommodate the needs of recreational water-shed user, such as food services and lodgingbusinesses dominate the economy. This sea-sonal economy yields instability in that avail-

able jobs are limited to particular times of theyear. (Clinton County Comprehensive Plan1992). While manufacturing has provided astrong economic base to the watershedthroughout the mid twentieth century, (Seepages 27 & 37 for further information on theeconomy in Germania and Crossfork), the wa-tershed has experienced a shift towards a ser-vice-based economy in the past two decades.During the 1980’s, a sharp decline in the manu-facturing industry occurred; as large manufac-turing industries left, hotels, and other serviceindustries increased by as much as 43%. Thistrend continues even today.

Employmentand UnemploymentEmployment rates in the watershed are just be-ginning to align with those of the state follow-ing the 1980 recession. As long as employmentopportunities continue to decline, the declinein working class resident population will con-tinue. In light of this township and countycondition, state and county programs havebeen developed to attempt to rejuvenate thedeclining economies.


Percent Change in Employment: 1980 - 1990

Managerial

Sales/Supporty

Service FarmingCrafts and

Repair

Labor

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Industry

% c

han

ge

in e

mp

loye

men

t b

y in

du

stry

Clinton % change Potter % change

Percent population employed by industry

3%12%

14%

27% 19%

25% Sales/Support22%

Service14%

Farming7%

Crafts andRepair13%

Managerial18%

Labor26%

Figure 2.19 - Today, available jobs in sales, managerial and other service based industries

greatly outnumber those in the labor (manufacturing industry). Above: the dark green repre-

sents Potter County while the light green represents Clinton County.

Figure 2.20 - Employment trends reveal a shift towards the service based industries such as

hotels and restaurants. This is a direct result of major manufacturing companies leaving the

area in the past few decades. Seasonality has yielded instability in the economy.


place of work by county / MCD). This ismainly due to large, industrial employers in thewatershed who have left taking with them apotentially strong job base. The loss of the In-ternational Paper Company in Clinton County,left the Woolrich Company as one of the onlyremaining large manufacturing companies sup-porting the watershed. Lack of economic de-velopment in the watershed can account, inpart, for the continued decline in population.Specifically, Leidy, Noyes and East Keatingtownships, (all of which rest within the bound-ary of Kettle Creek watershed), have some ofthe lowest development rates in Clintoncounty.

Employment inand Around the WatershedThe major employers that support residentswithin the watershed include large manufactur-ing companies and state, county and localgovernments. Because few of these industriesare located specifically within the watershed,residents, particularly young people, areforced to seek employment elsewhere, com-muting long distances or relocating. (See Fig-ure 2.21: commuting time to work). Few KettleCreek residents work within the boundaries ofthe watershed. Most commute 10-25 minutesto work on average. While 83% of residentswork within the county in which they reside,96% of working residents do not work withintheir township of residence. (See Figure 2.21 -

Driving Time to Work

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

< 5 m

inutes

5 to

9 minu

tes

10 t

o 14

15 t

o 19

20 t

o 24

25 t

o 29

30 t

o 34

35 t

o 39

40 t

o 44

45 t

o 59

60 t

o 89

90+

worked

at ho

me

total driving time

nu

mb

er o

f p

eop

le

Wharton Township

West Branch Twp

Stewardson Township

East Fork District

Abbott Township

Noyes Township

Leidy Township

East Keating Township

Totals

Place of Work - County Level

Worked outsidecounty of residence but within Pennsylvania16%

Worked outsideof Pennsylvania1%

Worked incounty of residence83%

Place of Work by Minor Civil Division (MCD)

Worked in the minor civil division of residence4%

Worked outside minor civil division of residence96%

Figure 2.21 - The majority of residents within the

watershed do not work within their home

municipality. As the last major manufacturing

establishments have left the watershed, residents

have been forced to either leave the watershed or

seek employment in other areas.


TimberResources and the EconomyForestry is a large part of the natural and eco-nomic heritage of Pennsylvania and likewise inKettle Creek. While over 92% of the watershedis state forest land, a significant portion of thisis commercially viable timber stands. Thesestands are abundant with valuable hardwoodssuch as black cherry and red oak and couldprovide extra revenue to the townships to sup-port conservation efforts such as easement ac-quisition within sensitive headwaters areas inthe watershed.

Timber in the state forests is managed by theDCNR Bureau of Forestry and all cutting prac-tices must be environmentally certified. Tenpercent of the revenue earned from timber har-vesting is designated to a statewide forest re-generation fund to be redistributed to stateforest districts. This money provides re-sources for forest regeneration such as sap-lings, tree shelters and deer exclosures. Theremaining 90% of this income is distributedthrough the main office in Harrisburg, througha timber augmentation fund, to support Bureaudistrict operations. DCNR also pays in lieu oftaxes split three ways between the county,township and school districts at a rate of 1.20$per acre. Noyes Township, located in the wa-tershed, received the highest in lieu of pay-ments in the state of Pennsylvania last year.

Among other changes to the 1996-2000 DCNRState Forest Management Plan, the 2001-2005State Forest Management plan recommended ahigher allocation of funds from Timber Har-vesting to the local municipalities. Thischange, if made, could provide municipalitieswith fiscal resources to implement landuseconservation measures.

CCC timber plantations in Potter County.

Susquehannock State Forest..


Agricultureand the EconomyAgriculture is an important source of incomeand jobs to the economy of north centralPennsylvania. Historically, in Kettle Creek, theagricultural landscape was a strong compo-nent of the economy and social system. Yet inrecent years, the number of farms and totalacreage of farmland has declined throughoutthe region and the state. Specifically, totalfarmland declined by over 12% in both Clintonand Potter County between 1987 and 1997(Agricultural Census) (See Figure: 2.22 - Totalacres in farmland and increase in market valueof farmland over time). This loss of farmlandcan be attributed to large-scale agricultural in-dustries that out compete smaller farmers - atrend that is occuring across the state and thenation. In turn, agricultural lands are generallyclear and flat making them prime property fordevelopment. Thus, as agricultural productioncontinues to decline, the market value of farm-land is increasing by as much 57% (See Figure2.22). This increase in turn encourages small-scale farmers who are losing profit on theirland to sell their valuable property for commer-cial and residential development. (For more in-formation on agriculture in Kettle Creek, seelanduse, page 109).

Unit Market Value of Farmland per acre

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1987 1992 1997

year

unit m

arke

t val

ue

Potter County

Clinton County

Total Acres of Land in Farms (acres)

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

1987 1992 1997

date

acre

s Clinton County

Potter County

Across the state, a decrease in the total

number of farms relative to the farmland

acreage suggests a transition towards larger

scale agricultural production in the past 15

years. (Agricultural Census of the United

States 1997). As these large-scale

agricultural establishments out compete

smaller family operations, farmers are forced

to sell off valuable lands - often to

developers.

Figure 2.22 - While smaller-scale farmland production might not be as profitable as it once

was, the market value of these lands is quickly rising. Declining farmland acreage accross the

watershed, county and state is often a result of this land being purchased by development

groups.

Agriculture in Potter County.


The Powerof Community ParticipationAt the heart of a cohesive, effective commu-nity watershed association are those peoplewho live in the watershed - those people thatperhaps value the landscape most - residentstakeholders. Included in this group are notonly resident landowners, but also local town-ship, county and state officials who are mostfamiliar with the needs and desires of the com-munity. The collaboration between and amongthese stakeholders not only ensures that deci-

sions made regardinglanduse in their water-shed reflect their resi-dent values, but alsoempowers a watershedassociation and in many

cases, betters the long-term success of thegroup. Yet collaboration among stakeholders isbut one piece of the puzzle.

While the efforts of the watershed associationhave successfully lead to numerous projectscompleted, further funding has its limits. Fur-thermore, increased local participation mightassist the watershed association in its effortsto conserve the valuable lands of Kettle Creek.Key characteristics that could facilitate thelong-term success of the association include:strong resident support of the association;resident and stakeholder participation in the

association and its activities and efforts; uni-form resident knowledge of problems and is-sues in the watershed; and finally partnershipsdeveloped with other local organizations,groups, businesses and municipal officials.

Association MembershipStrong Resident SupportIn the year 2000, Kettle Creek Watershed As-sociation was supported by a healthy member-ship of 131 people. Considering the relativeyouth of the watershed association, this de-gree of membership is not only commendable,but also illustrates a broad interest in thehealth of the watershed and its association.However, only a small minority of residentlandowners in the watershed are actively par-ticipating in the watershed association. Of thetotal membership from the year 2000, 3% werelocal watershed residents ( a total of 4 people).Outreach, particularly to local residents of thewatershed, might help the association targetits efforts towards the desires of the local com-munity. Local participation could potentiallystrengthen the long-term sustainability of theassociation.

Knowledge ofIssues & ProblemsA survey conducted in the Spring of 2000 bythe Conservation Districts in association withthe Kettle Creek Watershed Association re-ceived broad response from seasonal residentswho owned camps or businesses in the water-shed. Further survey of residents to identifytrends in opinions about issues in the water-shed might assist the association in its educa-tion and outreach strategies.

How Landowners Use the Watershed

5%4%25%

58%

19%

52%

90%

Fis

hing

Sw

imm

ing

Tub

ing

Hun

ting

Boa

ting/

Can

oei

ng

Tra

ppin

g

Ice

Ska

ting

watershed recreational use

DEMOGRAPHICSKCWA

Figure 2.23 -

‘How landown-

ers use the wa-

tershed’, results

of the 2000 sur-

vey conducted

by the Clinton

and Potter

County Conser-

vation Districts.


A strong baseline understanding of watershedissues and the clear dissemination of informa-tion by the watershed association are identi-fied strategies for an effective watershed asso-ciation . Following the Clinton and PotterCounty Conservation District survey, thequestion regarding the overall watershed'health' suggested that landowners in the wa-tershed are not uniformly aware of basic water-shed issues. While 13% thought it had im-proved, the rest were unsure or suggested ithad declined (See Figure 2.24). While it mightnot be a realistic goal to seek community con-sensus on this question, response rates sug-gest that educational programs that emphasizethe basic 'state of the watershed' informationcould be beneficial to the efforts of the asso-ciation. For example: are Kettle Creek and itstributaries ‘healthy’? What are the greatest is-sues or challenges that face the watershed andits residents concerning natural resources?What can be done about these issues indi-vidually? As a group? In addition to informingstakeholders about issues in the watershed(both positive and negative) this could alsofoster the establishment of a clear watershed

based association mission which communitymembers can understand and support.

PartnershipsPartnerships with other watershed and conser-vation organizations, municipalities and gov-ernment officials and representative residentstakeholder groups could further strengthenthe efforts of the watershed association. Simi-lar collaborative efforts have begun in otherareas and have achieved great success inother states (Michaels 1999). Not only would itprovide additional financial, technical and hu-man resources to the association but also itcould foster the development of a cohesivewatershed community. Municipal partnershipscould facilitate landuse conservation strate-gies at a scale that bridges conventional mu-nicipal boundaries. Partnerships with state for-ests and parks could serve to promote and re-vive the economy via recreational and interpre-tation opportunities. (See Community CapacityRecommendations, page 225).

Landowner Description of current water quality

10%5%

27%

39%

15%

Excellent V.Good Good Fair Poor

Assessment of Health of the Watershed

Per

cen

t o

f th

e L

and

ow

ner

s w

ho

Res

pond

ed

Figure 2.24 - Landowner assessment of water quality in the watershed was highly varied. This

suggests a need for information regarding water quality in the watershed. Further survey of

the community could serve to identify education and outreach strategies that could be used to

spread valuable information about the ‘state of the watershed’. (Graph Data: Clinton &

Potter County Conservation District 2000)


Conclusions: What doesthis mean for Kettle Creek?Trends in development today suggest an over-all decline in population in larger cities in addi-tion to a redistribution of population towardsrecreational and amenity areas such as thePoconos (Miller 1992). Following the increas-ing market value of land, the heavy recre-ational use of the watershed and the recent in-crease in watershed resident population, theprivate lands in Kettle Creek could becomevulnerable to development that does not main-tain the rural character that makes Kettle Creeksuch a unique place (see page 106 for more in-formation about private lands and develop-ment in Kettle Creek). The continued monitor-ing of new development within private lands inthe area could bring light to future develop-ment pressures before they occur. A compre-hensive building inventory that identifies his-toric and current structures throughout thewatershed could facilitate this monitoring. Fi-nally, the implementation of future develop-ment guidelines could encourage developmentthat maintains the current, low density devel-opment character of the watershed.

Collaboration between the county plannersand Township Supervisors could facilitate themonitoring of overall development trendswithin the watershed. This would further assistin the alignment of township municipal codewith county comprehensive plans. Carefulguidance of the future development of KettleCreek in addition to the conservation of the ru-ral agricultural and industrial character of thewatershed.

GOALS: SOCIAL

LU 2.1 Monitor growth and

development in the

watershed

CC 2.2 Increase the dialogue

with people and other

community organizations

in the watershed, counties,

and region.


IntroductionRecreational opportunities within the KettleCreek watershed are well established, well con-nected, and well documented. The abundanceof publicly owned land, estimated at 92% (in-cluding 82% of streamside land), establisheseasy access to forest- and water-based recre-ation for watershed residents and visitorsalike. Numerous trail connections allow peopleto move throughout the watershed's recre-ational areas and the larger region with ease.Both public land managers and private interestgroups have made recreational location, use,and regulation information available throughbrochures, guidebooks, and on-line resources.In addition to the destinations and activitiesfound here, the watershed community furthersupports recreation with food, lodging, andsupply services from its small business sector.

This recreational analysis will identify the rolerecreation and leisure activities play within theKettle Creek watershed. It begins with a briefdiscussion of the role of recreation in our per-sonal and community lives. This is followed bya summary of the types of recreation and lei-sure opportunities available in the watershed,and the analysis concludes with a discussionof possible, future opportunities and/or rolesfor recreation and leisure in the Kettle Creekwatershed both as a means of enjoyment andas an industry.

The Role of Recreation andLeisure in American SocietyAccording to Dr. Robert W. Douglass (1999) ofthe Ohio State University, "There has been anincreasing trend in outdoor recreation and na-ture-based tourism participation from the timethat record keeping began." He adds that,throughout the history of the United States inparticular, "good and bad economic times seemto have direct changes in [recreational] style,but increases in involvement in outdoor recre-ation have accompanied both of them." Statis-

tics generated by numerous agencies monitor-ing recreational activity seem to support suchassertions. For example, a recent study by theNational Survey on Recreation and the Envi-ronment found that, in 1995, approximately95% of Americans (age 16 and older) partici-pated in outdoorrecreation andthat the popular-ity of recreationand the activityin recreation re-lated industries were growing faster than thegeneral population (Driver 1999; Douglass1999). In other words, our society has repeat-edly demonstrated a preference for outdoorrecreation regardless of broader economic con-ditions (growth or recession) and social con-texts (depression, war), and the continued ac-celeration of this "recreation" trend has be-come more noticeable over time.

Many would argue that this growing demandfor recreational amenities is related to the in-creasing urbanization of our society. While theurban environment supports industrial effi-ciency and socio-cultural diversity, in mostcases it fails to connect us with the natural en-vironment that has traditionally and still,strongly, influences our national identity. Es-tablished as a nation on the frontier of civiliza-tion, we have become "an urban society that

IN THE WATERSHEDRECREATION

These hikers are

preparing for a

day’s walk from

Cross Fork.


still clings to the conceptsof the great outdoors andself reliance" (Douglass,1999). Thus, as Americanscontinue to migrate towardurban areas, they will alsodemand continued publicaccess to the undevelopedregions in order to pre-serve a part of their heri-tage. Recreation also pro-vides many modern Ameri-can citizens with their mostintimate contact with ournation's natural resourcesand, for this reason, it canplay both direct and indi-rect roles in the evolving

concept of how America's lands should becared for, used, and valued (Douglass 1999).

Subsequently, shifting social and communitypriorities of the last decade have seen changesin outdoor recreation and its management.Many community stakeholders are continuallydemanding increased involvement in environ-mental decision-making processes that directlyaffect the biophysical qualities of (and recre-ation on) both public and private lands (Driver1999). This can be attributed to the recognitionthat informed, local changes in environmentaland recreation policy can have noticeable,positive impacts on one's own recreation expe-rience as well as a community's economic, so-cial, and environmental well-being. Conse-quently, many American communities and localgovernments (chambers of commerce, regionalplanning offices) have taken a more criticallook of the quality of life they offer. Theiranalyses have led to the allocation of addi-tional resources for improving or enhancingtheir quality of life including the provision andproper management of open space and recre-ation resources.

Given this increased focus on recreation as avehicle for improving quality of life, research-ers and professionals tasked with document-ing the growing importance of recreation andleisure in the U.S. have brought a number ofother interesting recreation-related issues tolight. These include the identification of ben-efits to individual and community health asso-ciated with recreation and leisure activities anda more specific analysis of the economic op-portunities presented by the recreation and lei-sure industry.

While most of us accept recreation as "goodfor us," we rarely consider the range of ben-efits that recreation provides. According toBarry L. Driver, USDA Forest Service, (1999)the benefits of recreation and outdoor leisureactivities for individuals and communities"pervade practically all aspects of [human] be-havior and performance: mental and physicalhealth, family and community relations, self-concept, personal value clarification, perceivedpersonal freedom, sense of fitting in, pride inone's community and nation, performance inschool and at work, ethnic identity, formationof social networks and systems of social sup-port, spiritual renewal, involvement in commu-nity affairs, environmental stewardship, andeconomic growth, development, and stability."Driver's comments reflect the fact that recre-ation is not strictly a physical activity but a so-cial and psychological one as well. Regardlessof the type of activity-bicycling, bird watching,fishing, or sports-recreation can offer the par-ticipants or groups of participants fulfillment ina variety of ways. His statement also impliesthat recreational participation often incorpo-rates travel costs and/or equipment invest-ments that both directly and indirectly benefitlocal economies.

Recreation and leisure related industries haverepeatedly been identified as one of the topfive industries in the U.S. and often rank in the

As many

residents of

(and visitors to)

the watershed

know, Kettle

Creek is a

renowned trout

fishing

destination.

Recently the

Creek was

featured on

Trout

Unlimited’s

National TV

Program -

TUTV


top three economic sectors as revenue genera-tors for most states (Driver 1999). A watershedwith many recreation opportunities, like KettleCreek watershed, is a prime example of theways in which economic activity can be gener-ated by the recreation industry. Land values innorthern Potter County have been risingsteadily as more and more people throughoutthe state of Pennsylvania relocate their homesor build second homes closer to the tranquilsetting and recreation opportunities foundwithin northern and central Pennsylvania. Sev-eral small businesses have been establishedfor some time to meet the needs ofrecreationists in the watershed and, as recentlyas 1990, the services industry in and aroundthe Kettle Creek watershed accounted for 26%of watershed resident employment (Look tothe Demographics and Economics Sections ofthis document for more related information).Service establishments like tackle shops, snackshops, motels, and rental cabins all supportand depend upon the recreational quality ofthe local environment.

In conclusion, recreation and leisure opportu-nities are vital to a healthy community or re-gion like the Kettle Creek watershed. In addi-tion, and because of continued acceleratingnation-wide growth trends in the recreation in-dustry, Kettle Creek stands to offer many op-portunities for health, well-being, and resourceappreciation to future generations of Pennsyl-vanians. It is very important to recognize thecentral role of recreation and recreation plan-ning in maintaining the quality of life, its role inbringing people to Kettle Creek, and it role infostering resource stewardship in the water-shed. With a proper perspective, the future of(and for) recreation in the Kettle Creek water-shed could be quite positive.

RecreationalOpportunities WithinKettle Creek WatershedRecreational and leisure activities supportedand/or provided within the Kettle Creek water-shed include boating, camping, fishing, horse-back riding, hunting, hiking, biking (trail androadway riding), swimming, picnicking,ATVing, environmental education and interpre-tation, sledding, tobogganing, ice fishing, iceskating, snowmobiling, skiing, scenic driving,and several others. In some instances, theseactivities can be pursued on privately ownedlandholdings, but the majority of these activi-ties are supported on the 92% of watershedland under public and institutional manage-ment.

As stated above, the watershed's public landsare very well connected. A vast network oftrails (e.g. hiking, snowmobiling) and roadswithin each of the parks and forests allows ac-cess to many remote parts of the watershed.Two, larger regional trail systems (The DonutHole and Susquehannock Trail Systems) con-nect recreational destinations within the water-shed with many more recreational sites beyondthe watershed boundary for most of the year.For example, Cherry Springs State Park,

The tackle shop,

pictured above,

is just one

example of a

local business

supported by

the recreation

industry.


$

$

$

rrrr

rr

r

r

r

rr

rr

r

r

r

Major Trail Systems Passing throughthe Kettle Creek Watershed

Susquehanna River

State ForestsElk State ForestInholdingSproul State ForestSusquehannock State ForestTioga State Forest

Minor Civil DivisionsSusquehannock Trail System

State ParksKettle Creek State ParkOle Bull State Park

Donut Hole Trail SystemWatershed Stream Network

$ Fire TowersWatershed Roadways

r VistasWatershed Boundary

Westport

Germania

Oleona

Hammersley Fork

Cross Fork

Figure 2.25 - Major Trail Systems Passing Through the Kettle Creek Watershed


Denton Hill Ski Area, and Lyman Run StatePark can be reached via the SusquehannockTrail System. Other destinations, like BucktailState Park and Natural Area, Elk State Forestand State Park, Hyner Run State Park, JohnsonRun Natural Area, and Sinnemahoning StatePark can be reached via the Donut Hole Trail.(See Figure 2.25 - Trail Systems). In the wintermonths, alternative travel routes and destina-tions become available as many townshiproads and trails open for snowmobile use (SeeFigure 2.26 - Snowmobile Trails).

The following paragraphs provide a brief sum-mary of the Kettle Creek watershed's publiclands (parks and forests) and the services pro-vided by their managing agencies.

State ParksIn the years following the establishment of Val-ley Forge State Park in 1893, Pennsylvania hasdeveloped one of the nation's largest parkssystems with over 116 outdoor recreational ar-eas. The PA Bureau of State Parks was formedin 1929 "to provide outdoor recreation facilitiesin a natural setting, to preserve park areas andto provide environmental education opportuni-ties" (PADCNR 2001). Since that time the stateparks system has grown consistently, with thelargest growth occurring under former Depart-ment of Environmental Resources SecretaryMaurice K. Goddard (1955-1970).

During his administration, Goddard strove toestablish a state park within roughly 25 miles(40.2km) of every Pennsylvanian, to insure thatall citizens would have ample access to out-door recreation opportunities. Goddard wouldmost likely be pleased with the state parks sys-tem of today (now managed by the PA Depart-ment of Conservation and Natural Resources),which offers recreational, educational, and lei-sure opportunities to everyone with relativelyshort travel times. The system includes twostate parks, Kettle Creek State Park and Ole

Bull State Park, within Kettle Creek watershed.Elk State Park lies outside the watershedboundary on the western side of Elk Countybut is linked to the state parks within the wa-tershed through regional trail systems.

Kettle Creek State Park: Kettle Creek StatePark encompasses 1793 acres (725.6 ha) alongthe main stem of Kettle Creek in westernClinton County. The focus of the park is the1300 foot (396m) long reservoir and the result-ant 4.5 miles (7.2km) of shoreline. The reser-voir, created by the Alvin R. Bush Dam in 1962,arose from a joint flood control project with theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the formerPennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalResources (DER).

The reservoir offers warm water fishing andseasonal swimming, non-powered and electricboating, ice fishing and ice skating. Land-based activities within the park include camp-ing (tent or trailer), picnicking, environmentaleducation and interpretation, horseback riding,hiking, mountain biking, and winter sports(sledding, tobogganing, snowmobiling, andcross country skiing).

More information about Kettle Creek StatePark can be obtained on-line at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/parks/kettle.htm or by contacting the park office.

The reservoir

created by the

Alvin Bush Dam

supports boat-

ing and a warm

water fishery in

the summer

months. In the

winter, it is an

excellent ice

fishing destina-

tion.


Snowmobile Trail Systems Passingthrough the Kettle Creek Watershed

Susquehanna River

State ForestsElk State ForestInholdingSproul State ForestSusquehannock State ForestTioga State Forest

Watershed RoadwaysMinor Civil Divisions

State ParksKettle Creek State ParkOle Bull State Park

Watershed Stream NetworkWatershed Boundary

Snowmobile TrailsJoint UseSnowmobile Only

Westport

Germania

Oleona

Cross Fork

Hammersley Fork

Figure 2.26 - Snowmobile Trail Systems Passing Through the

Kettle Creek Watershed


Ole Bull State Park: Located in southern Pot-ter County, Ole Bull State Park is named for OleBornemann Bull-a famous Norwegian violinistwho attempted to settle a Norwegian colony inthe area in 1852. The land that now comprisesthe park was purchased from timber companiesbetween 1909 and 1925. Civilian ConservationCorps (CCC) Camp S-87, which was locatedwithin the park, built most of the current parkfacilities in the 1930's.

Recreational opportunities at Ole Bull StatePark include camping in both fields and forestareas, vacationing in the Ole Bull Cabin, envi-ronmental education and interpretationthrough provided programs and the self-guided Beaver Dam Nature Trail, swimming,fishing in both standard stocking and specialregulation areas, picnicking, hunting, hiking,and winter sports (cross country skiing,snowshoeing, and snowmobiling).

More information about Ole Bull State Park canbe obtained on-line at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/parks/ole.htmor by contacting the park office.

StateForestsFollowing the industrial boom of the late 19thcentury, Pennsylvania, or "Penn's Woods,"was virtually devoid of forest cover. Many ofthe trees were taken for lumber and woodproducts or to fuel the furnaces of the state'searly iron and steel industries. However, it wasunder the guidance of Dr. Joseph TrimballRothrock (a Civil War veteran, a professor ofbotany, human anatomy, and physiology, thefirst President of the Pennsylvania ForestryAssociation, and the first commissioner ofPA's Division of Forestry in the Department ofAgriculture, which would later become the Bu-reau of Forestry) that the state began to pur-chase abandoned timberland in 1895. The pur-chases were made with the intent of reclaiming

The beach at Ole Bull State Park

A portion of the Ole Bull Castle’s foundation in Ole Bull State

Park.


Kettle Creek watershed. Recreational opportu-nities in the Susquehannock State Forest in-clude sight-seeing from trails and roadside vis-tas, hiking (89 trail miles, or 142 km, are activelymaintained with signs), hunting, fishing,ATVing and snowmobiling (in designated ar-eas), and cross country skiing.

The Hammersley Wild Area can also be foundwithin the Susquehannock State Forest alongthe Hammersley Fork tributary of Kettle Creek.The Bureau of Forestry manages this tract ofland as a wild area, though private mineral andgas rights in a portion of the area prevent itsfull designation. The Hammersley Wild Area isofficially closed to motorized vehicles and pos-sesses the last of the "old growth" hemlocktrees in the watershed in the Forest H.Duttlinger Natural Area. The significance ofthe Duttlinger Natural area is recognizedthroughout the state of Pennsylvania.

More information about Susquehannock StateForest can be obtained on-line at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/forests/susuq.htm or by contacting the districtforester's office at Coudersport, PA.

Sproul State Forest: At 290,000 acres (117359ha), Sproul State Forest is the largest state for-est in Pennsylvania. Roughly 31,470 of thoseacres (13000 ha) are in the Kettle Creek water-shed. Because of its size, the Sproul State For-est offers a variety of both forest and stream-side settings and opportunities for recreation.Possible activities include hunting, fishing on400 miles of freestone and cold water streamswith 12 reaches designated as WildernessTrout Streams (two of which are located in theKettle Creek watershed-John Summerson Runand the upper portion of Hammersley Fork),hiking with connections to both the ChuckKeiper and Donut Hole Trails, horsebackriding, canoeing, bicycling, scenic driving,ATVing and snowmobiling in designated ar-eas, and cross country skiing.

the woodland for forest and water conserva-tion. Consequently, Pennsylvania has seenmany of its once vast forests rejuvenated. To-day, there are roughly 4.3 million acres (1.7 mil-lion ha) of publicly owned forests and approxi-mately 17 million acres (6.9 million ha) of for-ested land (both publicly and privately owned)within the state today.

Of these 4.3 million acres (1.7 million ha) underpublic management, 2.1 million acres (849,843ha) are under the stewardship of 20 separatestate forest districts. Pennsylvania's state for-ests are managed to provide some of theworld's most valuable timber, clean water forthe state's streams, and recreation opportuni-ties for all Pennsylvanians. Three ofPennsylvania's state forests have significantholdings on the Kettle Creek watershed:Susquehannock, Sproul, and Tioga State For-ests. A fourth, Elk State Forest, covers only asmall portion of the western part of the water-shed and is not discussed here in detail.

Susquehannock State Forest: TheSusquehannock State Forest derives its namefrom the Native American tribe that once in-habited much of northern and central Pennsyl-vania. It encompasses 262,000 acres (105,000ha) in Clinton, McKean, and Potter Counties,82,645 acres (33,445 ha) of which lie in the

Snowmobiling

is both a

popular

recreation

activity and a

mode of

transportation

in the winter..


More information on Sproul State Forest canbe found on-line at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/forests/sproul.htm or by contacting the districtforester's office in Renovo, PA.

Tioga State Forest: Tioga State Forest derivesits name from the Native American word"tyoga," meaning "two rivers," in recognitionof the Seneca tribe who once owned much ofthe land that is today's state forest. TiogaState Forest encompasses 160,000 acres(64,750 ha) in Tioga and Bradford Counties, in-cluding less than/roughly 7357 acres (2977 ha)in the Kettle Creek watershed. Much of theland in the Tioga State Forest was former prop-erty of timber and land holding companies and,thus, the landscape within the forest is reflec-tive of past resource extraction through thecomposition of existing timber stands. Muchof the parks forest's present infrastructure wasdeveloped and built by the Civilian Conserva-tion Corps when the land became property ofthe state of Pennsylvania.

More information on Tioga State Forest can beobtained on-line at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/forests/tioga.htm or by contacting the districtforester's office in Wellsboro, PA.

Recreationand Cultural historyThe contemporary Kettle Creek landscape,which supports such a diverse recreational en-vironment, is the result of many historical ac-tions taken by the landowners and residents ofthe watershed. Previous attitudes toward com-mercial resource extraction, land management,and the importance of providing outdoor recre-ation opportunities are apparent in the mosaicof existing forest communities, patterns of cur-rent land development, and the location of ex-isting recreation facilities. Consequently, manysites of culturally and/or historic significance

lay within (or adjacent to) public park and for-est holdings. In addition, Kettle Creek's parksand forests contain artifacts (structures, struc-tural foundations, bridge abutments, rail beds)that reveal the watershed's unique history.

While the most actively supported recreationand leisure activities in the watershed arephysically challenging, forest- and water-based activities, historic interpretation andheritage tourism offer yet other possible av-enues for public and private land management.The Pennsylvania Heritage Tourism Study,completed in 1999, reported that heritage tour-ism represented 12% of the tourist populationand 25% of the state’s tourism revenue in 1997(Shifflet 1999), generating jobs, income, and taxrevenue for local economies. With the poten-tial for increased local revenue, heritage tour-ism has been used as both the lead and sup-porting components of economic revitalizationprojects in other Pennsylvania counties (forexample, Bucks County) and has been sup-ported by a wide range of community interestgroups.

At its core, heritage tourism serves two pur-poses: commemoration and education. It haseconomic and recreational factors as well, butfundamentally it is about honoring historicpeople, places and events by sharing their sig-nificance with current generations. In the caseof Kettle Creek, the interpretation of historicalsites that overlap the existing recreational net-work could compliment a strong recreation in-dustry. Historic interpretation and recreationdestinations have already been intertwoven inthe form of the sign at the castle vista at OleBull State Park-allowing for an initial under-standing of the colony. This state park wasalso logged by the Lackawanna Lumber Com-pany, leaving a changed forest and a narrowrailroad grade that rides the lower slope of themountain. The park later benefited from thework of the Civilian Conservation Corps, Camp


S-87, from 1933 to 1941 in the planting of treesacross the degraded logging lands, construc-tion of picnic and swimming facilities, andtrailblazing for recreation and fire control.These historical occurrences are also evidentin the landscape in many ways and presenttheir own interpretation opportunities.

Ole Bull State Park is one of many sites in theKettle Creek watershed that subtly express therepeated use of the landscape by variouspeople and could enhance the recreational net-work with additional interpretation. Sites rel-evant to resource extraction are foundthroughout the state forests, since loggingand mining occurred on such a large scale. Stillothers are located along the main stem corri-dor, where the stream network provided fertilesoils for early Kettle Creek farms and mills.(See Scenic and Visual Analysis for more de-tails on history along the main stem.) Thesesites offer opportunities to share, celebrate,and promote rich cultural and environmentalhistory of Kettle Creek through the recre-ational network.

Recreationand Cultural EventsRecreation in the Kettle Creek watershed alsoincludes several cultural events hosted withinthe watershed boundary and regional andevents for which Kettle Creek businesses andinstitutions offer lodging and food services. Ofcourse, Kettle Creek is always a popular desti-nation for the first days of trout season, butmany other events offer enjoyable opportuni-ties to the both watershed residents and visi-tors alike. Ole Bull State Park has hosted anearly summer music festival in recent years,and the Cross Fork Snake Hunt bring visitorsfrom across the country to Kettle Creek eachJune. The Barkpeeler's Convention and theWoodsman Show are also held each summer atthe Pennsylvania Lumber Museum and nearbyCherry Springs State Park, respectively. Lateautumn draws seasonal residents and visitorsto public and private camps for the first daysof buck and bear season.

These events represent the culture of KettleCreek and its surrounding region. They pro-vide opportunities for learning about the con-dition and use of the environment and aboutothers in the watershed community. They alsocontribute to the identity of the watershed as ahigh quality natural environment that bothpast and present generations value.

Future RecreationPossibilities for theKettle Creek WatershedRecreation indeed plays a significant role inthe lives of watershed residents and othermembers of the watershed community. Thereare abundant and diverse activities enjoyedthroughout the watershed and the year, andthe popularity of these activities supportscamps, stores, and restaurants owned and op-erated by watershed residents. But it is still im-portant to note that at the core of recreation isthe quality of Kettle Creek's natural resources,

A snow covered

foundation of a

cabin built by

the Civilian

Conservation

Corps Camp S-

87 in Ole Bull

State Park.


for it is the natural environment that pro-vides the quality of life that residents desireand that visitors enjoy.

Consequently, maintaining a high quality oflife will require the conservation of naturalresources and recreational opportunities inthe Kettle Creek watershed. With such ahigh percentage of public land, an activeand open dialogue with state park and stateforest management is vital to the future ofrecreation in this watershed. Private land-owners can also contribute and expand thecollective knowledge of watershed historyand culture by through their voluntary par-ticipation in interpretive and conservationprojects-thus improving the quality of theresources under their ownership as well. Fi-nally, visitors and non-residents interestedin the quality of natural resources may sup-ply conservation projects with knowledge,funding, and manpower. Together, the col-lective management and support of bothnatural and cultural resources and programscan maintain and enhance both recreationalopportunities and the existing character ofthe watershed.

It is important to note that there are programsand land management initiatives available tocollaborative resource managers, communities,and other stakeholders that are intended torecognize, promote, and protect outstandingregional natural resources, recreational oppor-tunities, or culturally significant open spacenetworks. Greenways are one of the morepopular types of these initiatives (others in-clude conservation easements and transfers ofdevelopment rights). A greenway, by defini-tion, is a linear overland corridor establishedalong a natural feature or transportation corri-dor which may be established to meet a varietyof needs. To learn more about greenways as apossible alternative for preserving and en-

hancing many of the positive aspects that sup-port recreation and a high quality of life, seethe greenways appendix on page 267.

GOALS: RECREATION

LU3.2 Designate and protect high value areas.

Encourage the protection of these areas through

buffers and the promotion of natural areas or

recreational open spaces.

• Greenways

WI1.4 Recognize tand protect the unique natural

features of the watershed that have influenced

resident life and visitor attendance.

WI1.2 Explore and celebrate the rich cultural

history of the watershed as acommunity and for

visitors.

• Continue to integrate local history with

recreational opportunities.


ASSESSMENTV I S U A L Introduction

There are several reasons forundertaking a visual assess-ment within the Kettle Creek

watershed. They include the need to recognizethe existing scenic quality within the water-shed, to qualitatively characterize that scenicquality so that it can be more accurately pro-moted and conserved, and to establish abaseline to evaluate future change in the wa-tershed landscape.

This visual assessment is composed of threeparts. The first part is a broad categorization ofthe scenic qualities of the watershed. KettleCreek is truly beautiful for a number of quitespecific reasons. This section will characterizethe current state of the landscape in bothwords and images in the hopes that these

qualities may be preserved for future referenceand analysis in the face of landscape change.

The second part of this visual study identifiesthe unique character, nature, and importance ofthe central travel corridor through the water-shed, namely the roadway along the main stemof Kettle Creek (from Westport to Oleona) andRt. 144N along Little Kettle Creek to Germania.This "roadway study" is intended to recognize1) the visual character, spatial character, andvalue of the several Kettle Creek watershedroadways as "scenic driving routes," 2) thevisible historical significance of some parts oftheir alignments and adjacent historical sites,3) the visual significance of Kettle Creek, itself,from the roadway, and 4) the ability of theseroads to speak of the character of the water-shed to motorists "through the windshield."

The third, and final, part of this particularstudy is dedicated to Kettle Creek's potentialfor inclusion in Pennsylvania's Scenic RiversSystem, a product of the Pennsylvania ScenicRivers Act. The PA Scenic Rivers Act was en-acted to recognize the outstanding recre-ational and aesthetic values of many of thestate's waterways and adjacent land areas.This chapter will include a brief summary ofthe Scenic Rivers Program, more informationabout the Scenic Rivers program as it may, po-tentially, apply to Kettle Creek can be found inthe appendices at the end of this report.

Visual Condition ofKettle Creek watershedAs many residents of Kettle Creek have stated,the watershed landscape is beautiful. The truthof this statement is rooted in our uniqueAmerican values for the qualities of rural land-scapes: their wildness juxtaposed by their vis-ible pastoral and agricultural heritage, theirfield, woodland, and wildlife productivity, andtheir similar appearance to the landscapes onwhich our founding fathers lived-composed of

These photographs illustrate the pastoral

character of the northern watershed

landscape.


lush forests, rich fields, flowing streams, idyllicfarms, and small, personable villages.

In each of these rural qualities, we find amyriad of colors, textures, forms, and spacesappearing across the landscape that draw ouradmiration again and again, throughout sea-sonal changes. The watershed's many acres ofhardwood forest display lush green foliage inlate spring and crisp colors in autumn. Itsfields and meadows roll across the gentleslopes of the valley floor and the headwatersuplands. Its riffling waters mask distant soundand still pools mirror the changes in the veg-etation as well as the ever-changing skyabove. Residences are also scattered through-out the landscape. Some are clustered in smallvillages, while others are situated among thefields, woodlands, and springs. Many, how-ever, are constructed from local materials andstyles and appear as if they, too, were grownfrom this very landscape.

Together, they comprise our view of the water-shed from the road, from the ridge, and fromthe stream. The roads allow glimpses of thestream through the streamside vegetation anddraw attention to the mountainous terrainthrough their course. From the ridges we cansee into the valleys, patterned with forest,plantation, and clearing, and across the rollinguplands of a cultivated landscape. From thestream, the views are cast through the streamcorridor itself and contained within the adja-cent streamside forests.

In addition to patterns we see in the naturalenvironment, there are patterns or trends in thedesign and placement of structures that we seetoday. Residences are typically two-storybuildings, while camps are generally only one-story. Many residences were likely built before1900, while camps have flourished since the1920s. In the valley, structures are built at thefoot of the mountain, nestled into a hollow, orsited on a knoll. Along the ridges, buildings

are typically sited for views across the land-scape, rather than within it. Buildings in thevillages closely line the road, while others areset back several yards, at least. In addition,there may also be patterns in the placement ofporches or windows. These characteristicsgive a sense of coherence and a consistentcharacter to the Kettle Creek watershed.

One of the best ways to understand and pre-serve the appearance of the watershed isthrough photography. Current digital imagingapplications allow us to create realistic imagesof land use applications, proposed develop-

Undisturbed

woodland and

stream

environments

exhibit the

intrinsic beauty

of north central

Pennsylvania.


ment, or forestry practices in order to evaluatethe visible landscape change. These compos-ite images are often more easily understood bya general audience, who can then discuss andvote for or against the proposal with a morecomprehensive understanding of the impact ofdevelopment.

In short, it is necessary to recognize the out-standing visual quality of the Kettle Creek wa-tershed and to identify the significant visualcomponents (for example, open fields, forestedhillsides, or works of architecture) of that qual-ity in order to conserve the watershed charac-ter that so many enjoy. These components,when identified and analyzed, can then beused to guide development that contributesto, rather than significantly alters or degrades,the watershed character.

The Kettle CreekCorridor Roadway StudyWhen was the last time you drove a trulybeautiful route? What made it beautiful? Wasit the focal points or objects in view? Was it adramatic background? Was it the constantlychanging composition that you saw throughthe windshield? Or was it the sense or rhythmof motion imparted by the turns in the road?Each of these factors can contribute to a posi-tive travel experience, and many of them canbe found along major routes through theKettle Creek watershed.

In The View from the Road, Donald Appleyard(1964) writes, "Those who are alarmed by theugliness of our roadways emphasize the re-pression of vice rather than the encourage-ment of virtue." He believes that it is possibleto emphasize the potential beauty of roadwaysrather than to accept them as "one more priceof civilization." In truth, we Americans spendan overwhelming amount of time in our cars asa captive audience-our eyes fixed on the sceneframed by windshield during our daily com-mutes and many of our other travels. Travelers

These images

(taken from

Sinking Valley in

central PA)

demonstrate the

capabilities of

digital photo

editing for

evaluating

landscape change.

(Photos by R.

Binkowski, A.

Feldman, and M.

Little; PSU Dept.

of LArch)

ABOUT VISUAL ASSESSMENTS

This study is filled with images of the watershed

in its current condition; both residents and

visitors can contribute to this collection with

relative ease. These watershed images can serve

as both a baseline indicator for the current

quality of the watershed landscape and as a tool

to evaluate future change.

This evaluation process can also be done by

hand cutting and pasting several photographs (of

the same size and scale) together. One image

(the base image) is typically a photograph of the

landscape in question. The other images (from

which objects are cut) are of typical development

(homes, offices, and so on). These objects are

then pasted onto the landscape (base) image to

better visualize what the landscape could look

like if it is developed.


in the Kettle Creek watershed (both residentsand visitors) are no exception.

Throughout our daily, weekly, and monthlytravels we observe far too many "ugly" road-ways and too few visually engaging routes.This roadway study contends that the road-way corridor from Westport to Oleona andalong Little Kettle Creek to Germania is not anugly roadway. Rather, it is a rare, attractiveroadway that engages the viewer with botheye-catching sites and a unique sense of mo-tion. Therefore, it deserves to be recognizedfor many of the positive qualities that it pos-sesses.

The overall goal of this roadway study is toraise awareness for the driving experience inthe Kettle Creek watershed. As Appleyard pro-poses, "road watching could be a delight ... adramatic display of space and motion, or lightand texture, all on a new scale" (1964). Travelalong the corridor from Westport to Oleona tothe headwaters of Little Kettle Creek could beboth a kinesthetic and rich visual experience in

which motorists knowingly feel the turns andthe rise and fall of the road across the landformand anticipate the views found around eachbend.

In addition to the moving and visual experi-ence, roadside historical and natural sites inthe Kettle Creek watershed can also be in-cluded as educational and enlightening side-lights because of their significance and theirproximity to the roadway. The drive fromWestport to Germania along the main-stem andLittle Kettle Creek could in fact tell the culturalhistory of the watershed through a series ofinterpreted locations, including the settlementat Westport, the three Civilian ConservationCorps camp sites and their plantations, theSummerson farm (the lower campground of theKettle Creek State Park), the local gas supplyfor light and heat, the village of Cross Fork,once a booming lumbering town, the (rebuilt)home of Dr. Edward Joerg and the HenryAndresen farm (both of the Norwegiancolony), Carter Camp (and its role in road con-struction, the Norwegian colony and cheese

These views

from the

roadway

corridor

between

Westport and

Germania

illustrate the

dramatic scenic

quality of the

landscape: a

sinuous valley;

forested

hillsides of pine,

hemlock, and

hardwoods;

pastoral

headwaters;

and a stream

that seems to

braid with the

road and

riparian

vegetation.


production), farms of distinctly historic char-acter, and their historic business and socialcenter, Germania.

There are yet other benefits to completing ascenic roadway study. The first of which is a"snapshot" in time which documents the cur-rent qualities that make an attractive roadwaycorridor and identifies areas for possible futureenhancement. A second benefit is that a com-pleted roadway analysis may help examine al-ternatives for improving existing roadwaysthat are short of constructing or reconstruct-ing them-saving both time and money. For ex-ample, a confusing or dangerous stretch ofroadway or intersection could be improved byremoving excess vegetation to improve visibil-ity and through the provision of additionalsignage in places that the driver's eye is mostlikely be drawn. A third and final benefit is theidentification of areas, frequently seen by trav-elers in the watershed, that posses valuable orunique characteristics (i.e. exceptional vistas)that may face significant pressures (i.e. devel-opment or infrastructure and utility installa-tion) and should therefore be identified as pos-sible preservation efforts to preserve the vi-sual quality and the popular identity of the wa-tershed.

Before discussing the scenic roadway studygraphic(s) (on pages 281 and 283) included inthe appendix, it is important to note severalfactors associated with automobile travel.Appleyard argues that the modern car inter-poses a "filter" between the driver and theworld he or she is experiencing and that oursenses of sound, smell, and touch are all sub-ordinated to our sight, which is, in turn, framedby the windshield due to our relative inactivity.Thus, this study focuses mostly on the visualaspect of driving.

It is also important to note that two peoplerarely have the exact same experience whiledriving and that they rarely travel the very

same route from start to finish at any giventime. The highway experience is both "revers-ible" (we can travel in the opposite directionon the same segment of road and sometimessee things in an entirely different manner), and"interruptible" (drivers frequently start andstop at different points) (Appleyard 1964). Forthe purposes of this study, however, it wasnecessary to establish a single study route.

The corridor beginning in Westport, travelingthrough Oleona, and traveling portions of Rt.144N to the northern border of the watershed,was selected for its consistent use by resi-dents and watershed visitors. It encompassesnot only the most heavily traveled road seg-ments in the watershed (according to thePennsylvania Department of Transportation),but also the particular routes used by manyPennsylvanians (arriving from PA Routes. 80,220, 144, 120) to access recreational sites atboth Kettle Creek and Ole Bull State Parks. Theroadway along Little Kettle Creek, whichpasses through Germania, was also selectedbecause of its serpentine nature, the fact that itpasses through a beautiful part of the pastoralnorthern reaches of the watershed, and be-cause it serves as a link to destinations northof the watershed like those on PA Route 6 inPotter County.

The following paragraphs are also intended toaid in interpreting the diagrams in the appendi-ces, on pages 281 and 283. A GIS generatedmap has also been provided as a reference forlocating areas of interest on the diagrams. Thecomposition of the visual roadway analysisdiagrams, is as follows: Photographs taken atone mile intervals along the study route are lo-cated in the column at the far left to provideorientation on the sheet. Profiles of the road-way which indicate the relative position of theroadway, the stream and the ridgelines are lo-cated in the next column (a fine line has been


##

#

#

#

#

##

##

##

##

#

#

#

##

#

1

35

7

9

11

1315

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

3537

39

Germania

Reference Mapfor the Scenic Roadway Study

Westport

Oleona

Hammersley Fork

Cross Fork

Figure 2.27 - Reference map for the scenic roadway study


included on these sections to indicate the rela-tive position of the roadway centerline).

The third column contains an interpretive dia-gram which relates both the spatial character(the degree of enclosure) and the sense of di-rectional change one experiences when travel-ing the route. The notation used in these dia-grams is relatively simple. The relative width ofthe blocks located along the (dashed) roadwaycenterline indicates the relative enclosure ofthe roadway (in the valley and, in cases, withinvegetation which enhances the sense of enclo-sure). The relative curvature of those sameblocks is intended to portray the degree whichthe roadway curves as one travels along it. Inlocations where there is a break betweenblocks, this indicates a change in the characterof the roadway. For example, such a break islocated at mile marker six, where the narrow,densely vegetated experience of the roadwayfrom Westport gives way to the open expansesnear Alvin Bush Dam.

The diagrams, themselves, are intended toshow how the relationship between the road,the landscape, and the stream changes con-stantly along the route from Westport toGermania and to identify important sites alongthat same route (i.e. sites of historical signifi-

cance, desirable views). At times viewers aremore aware of their proximity to the streamthan to the ridges that define the valley, or viceversa. As the road climbs and descends themountain slopes, travelers sense changes intheir vertical distance from the streambed. Asthe stream meanders back and forth along thevalley floor, travelers may sense their horizon-tal separation from the water, always knowingapproximately where the stream lies, but notexactly as camps, meadows, and forest ob-struct their view. At particular times, viewersmay have a strong sense of feeling enclosed inthe landscape or riding gently on the land-scape. They can take notice of spatial enclo-sure provided by the mountains-how it helpsanticipate the direction the roads will take anddirects views to mountainside fall color dis-plays. The roadside vegetation also providesenclosure, opening and closing views to thestream. Depending on the direction of travel,these views may be cast upstream, down-stream, or across the stream. The evergreenvegetation creates dark tunnels within thelightly filtered hardwood forest. Where roadspass along or through pine and spruce planta-tions, viewers may notice the highly orderedplanting in contrast with the organically or-dered forests.

Kettle Creek andthe PennsylvaniaScenic Rivers SystemAs was indicated in earlier parts of this docu-ment, the pressures of increasing land valuesand development both in and around theKettle Creek watershed (see Land Use, Eco-nomics, Demographics, and Recreation)present almost definite future changes andpossible negative visual impacts within thewatershed landscape. The PA Scenic Riversdesignation is yet another tool available forthe preservation of land and water resources inthe face of development in the Kettle Creek


watershed where no other measures exist (forexample, public land ownership, zoning regula-tions that regulate development, conservationeasements, or transferred development rights).

In certain locations, a Scenic Rivers designa-tion may also reinforce already existing protec-tions. Therefore, this introduction to the PAScenic Rivers Program has been includedto familiarize watershed stakeholders withthe opportunities, benefits, and process ofthe Scenic Rivers Program.

The Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers Act(#283) was passed in order to preserve theoutstanding aesthetic and recreationalvalue of many of the state's rivers and ad-jacent land areas for the potential benefitof Pennsylvania citizens. The Scenic Riv-ers system is comprised of free-flowingrivers, streams, or tributaries thereof, thatare recognized in five categories (wild, scenic,

pastoral, recreational, or modified rivers) bythe Department of Conservation of Natural Re-sources and are authorized for inclusion bylaw. Today, there are approximately 500 miles ofPennsylvania's streams and rivers included inthis program.

Kettle Creek,

near the

confluence with

Hammersley

Fork.

While many river corridors are often referred

to as "blueways," many terrestrial corridors

are referred to as "greenways". To learn more

about blueways and greenways, refer to the

previous discussion of recreation and the

greenway appendix (page 267).


There are many benefits associated with riverconservation and protection as provided bythe PA Scenic Rivers Act. Healthy, free-flowingrivers are increasingly seen as assets tohealthy communities. Throughout history, riv-ers have been the threads of the landscapeconnecting our communities and providingwater, transportation, and recreation opportu-nities. In addition to these social benefits,these rivers are also ecological corridors (oftenreferred to as "blueways") that link many frag-

mented terrestrial habitats and are vital to thefunction of many of our ecosystems within thestate of Pennsylvania.

In many cases, Scenic Rivers designationswork to preserve the existing, outstandingqualities of Pennsylvania's rivers and otherwaterways (as well as adjacent lands) by rec-ognizing their present outstanding qualitiesand their exceptional natural and cultural heri-tage. Scenic rivers designation is intended togenerate greater public recognition of a water-way and, in some cases, to benefit the social,cultural, economic, and environmental condi-tions surrounding it (17 PA § Code 41.2). AScenic Rivers designation can also help to pre-vent further degradation of the waterwaythrough the inhibition of dredging and miningoperations and through the preservation ofcritical habitats, e.g. wetlands (25 PA § Code11.5, 25 PA Code § 86.102, and 25 PA Code §105.17). Under Pennsylvania Scenic Riversdesignations, any such activities that maypresent potential negative impacts for a scenicriver must first be evaluated and obtain properpermitting (Allegheny Watershed Network1999). It is important to note that a Scenic Riv-ers designation and subsequent policies/re-quirements are not intended to override localor municipal land use ordinances where theyexist. Instead, Scenic Rivers protection ismeant to function as a supplement to localland preservation strategies and/or a measureof protection where no other means (i.e. de-sired ownership, zoning, conservation ease-ments, or transferred development rights) arecurrently established. In either case, commu-nity participation in the application process isentirely voluntary.

Please refer to the recommendations section(page 255) of this document for a more com-plete explanation of the Pennsylvania ScenicRivers System process and a sample eligibilitystudy applied to the main stem of Kettle Creek.

GOALS: SCENIC

LU 3.2 Designate and protect high values

areas. Encourage the protection of these

areas through large buffer and the

promotion of natural areas or recreational

open spaces.

• Scenic by-ways or corridors

WI 1.2 Explore and celebrate the rich

cultural history of the watershed as a

community and for visitors.

WI 1.3 Recognize that the current visual

quality of the watershed is characterized by

forested slopes and ridges.

WI 1.4 Recognize and protect the unique

natural features of the watershed that have

influenced resident life and visitor

attendance.


References: HistoryBeebe, V. L. 1934. The History of Potter

County. Potter County Historical Society,Coudersport, PA, 344 pp.

Beebe, V. L. [1962]. History of Potter County,Pennsylvania: [with supplements], PotterCounty Historical Society, Coudersport, PA,344 pp.

Cranmer, H. N. 1947a. Kettle Creek ProgressHelped by Lumbering. Leidy Township’sHistory, fourth article (August 9). The LockHaven Express, Lock Haven, PA.

-. 1947b. Hemlock Logging Once Big BusinessIn Area. Leidy Township’s History, fiftharticle (August 11). The Lock HavenExpress, Lock Haven, PA.

-. 1947c. Farming Develops As LumberingWanes. Leidy Township’s History, sixtharticle (August 12). The Lock HavenExpress, Lock Haven, PA.

-. 1947i. West Port Post Office Opened KettleCreek Area. The Lock Haven Express, LockHaven, PA.

Currin, R. 2001. Personal discussion withRobert Currin of the Potter County Histori-cal Society. January 14, 2001.

Dana, S. T. 1917. A Forest Tragedy: The Riseand Fall of a Lumber Town. Munsey’sMagazine. April 1917: 353-363.

Heimel, P. W. 1992. Shattered Dreams: The OleBull Colony in Pennsylvania. LeaderPublishing: Coudersport, PA 175 pp.

Klimkos, M. 2000. presentation for the AMDmitigation of Two Mile Run.

Leeson, M. A. 1890. History of the counties ofMcKean, Elk, Cameron and Potter, Pennsyl-vania: with biographical selections;including their early settlement anddevelopment; a description of the historicand interesting localities; sketches of theircities, towns and villages; portraits ofprominent men; biographies of representa-tive citizens; outline history of Pennsylva-nia; statistics. Chicago, IL 1261 pp.

Linn, J. B. 1883. History of Centre and ClintonCounties, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA,672 pp.

Lloyd, T. W. 1921. Ole Bull in Pennsylvania /by Thomas W. Lloyd. The pilgrimage to theOle Bull castle, Potter county, Pennsylva-nia, July 29 1920 / by Charles T. Logue(David of Happy Valley) ; with preface byHenry W. Shoemaker. Altoona, PA, 46 pp.

Lock Haven Express (1951). 73 Acres of Landin Leidy Township Never Patented to aPrivate Owner. (Feb 3) Lock Haven, PA.

McKnight, W. J. 1905. A pioneer outlinehistory of Northwestern Pennsylvania :embracing the counties of Tioga, Potter,McKean, Warren, Crawford, Venango,Forest, Clarion, Elk, Jefferson, Cameron,Butler, Lawrence, and Mercer, also a pioneersketch of the cities of Allegheny, Beaver,DuBois, and Towanda. Philadelphia, PA,748 pp.

Munger, D. 1991. Pennsylvania Land Records:A History and Guide for Research. Schol-arly Resources, Inc: Wilmington, DE.

Myers, H. L. (ed.). 1988. Ole Bull’s NewNorway. Informational pamphlet No. 14.Pennsylvania Historic and MuseumCommission. 4 pp.

Parucha, L. 1986. Bitumen: All Gone With TheWind. Pennsylvania Heritage.

Potter County Civilian Conservation Corps(PCCCC). 1983. 50th Anniversary Celebra-tion Brochure.

Taber, T. T. 1971. The Goodyears: An Empire inthe Hemlocks. No. 5 in Logging Railroad Eraof Lumbering in Pennsylvania. Muncy, PA,79 pp.

Wallace, P. A. W. 1981. Indians in Pennsylva-nia. No. 5 in the Anthropological Series bythe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and thePennsylvania Historical and MuseumCommission. Harrisburg, PA 185 pp.

Welfling, M. E. 1952. The Ole Bull Colony inPotter County 1852 one hundredth anniver-sary observed July 31-August 1 1952.Potter County Historical Society,Coudersport, PA, pp.

Welfling, M. E. 1949. Historical notes in thedevelopment of Potter County.Coudersport, PA 23 pp.


Zorichak, J. J. 1923. The Kettle Creek gas field.Bachelor’s Thesis at the Pennsylvania StateUniversity.

Additional Source MaterialCole, S. M. Leidy Township Named In Honor

Of Salona Judge. The Lock Haven Express,Lock Haven, PA.

Cranmer, H. N. 1947d. Church Support was NotAlways Great In Leidy. Leidy Township’sHistory, eighth article (August 14). TheLock Haven Express, Lock Haven, PA.

-. 1947e. First Road Constructed To War On SixNations. Leidy Township’s History, nintharticle (August 15). The Lock HavenExpress, Lock Haven, PA.

-. 1947f. Reports On Last Animals Of SpeciesOn Kettle Creek. Leidy Township’s History,eleventh article (August 18). The LockHaven Express, Lock Haven, PA.

-. 1947g. Many Stores And Hotels OperatedSince 1800’s. Leidy Township’s History,twelfth article (August 19). The Lock HavenExpress, Lock Haven, PA.

Davey, R. Personal interview. November 2,2000.

Heaps, J. C. 1970. Headwaters Country: TheStory of Tioga County. State College, PA117 pp.

Kinney, H. L.. 1965. The Story of A GhostTown: A Short History of its Rise and Fall,Part II. Cross Fork ,PA 17 pp.

Lock Haven Express (1957). Earth Fill Dam WillControl 226 - Square mile watershed.(Monday, Aug 26) Lock Haven, PA.

Lock Haven Express. Kettle Creek - LeidySection Settled By Pioneers In 1813. LockHaven, PA.

Parucha, L. 1994. Retire-miniscing: tales of theWest Branch : Bitumen, Renovo, NorthBend, Youngwomanstown, Shinglebranch,and Lock Haven. Leonard Parucha, LockHaven, PA, 92 pp.

Pennsylvania. Bureau of Forestry. TheSusquehannock State Forest public usemap.Harrisburg, PA.

Pennsylvania Bureau of Land Records. 1923.[Original land grants of] Abbot andStewardson Townships. Harrisburg, PA.

Pennyslvania Lumber Museum. Exhibits anddisplays. November 2, 2000.

Potter County Historical Society (PCHS). 2000.Quarterly Bulletin, No. 136. PCHS,Coudersport, PA.

-. 2000. Quarterly Bulletin, No. 135. PCHS,Coudersport, PA.











-. 1949. Early History of Coudersport Pioneerfamilies of Coudersport. PCHS,Coudersport, PA.

Sanja, M. 1988. PA Trout and Salmon FishingGuide. Frank Amato Publications, Portland,OR.

Thwaites, T. 1995, 50 hikes in Central Pennsyl-vania: Day Hikes and Backpacking Trips.Backcountry Publications, Woodstock, VT.100 pp.

Thompson, W. W. Historical Sketches ofPotter County: Hunting and Fishing Stories,Legends.


References:DemographicsClinton County. Website: http://

www.clintoncountypa.com

County Profile Data: Website: http://www.teampa.com/new/

McGinnis, Michael Vincent. (1999) Making thewatershed connection. Policy StudiesJournal. 27 (3): 497-501.

McGinnis, Michael Vincent et al.1999Bioregional conflict resolution: rebuildingcommunity in watershed planning &organizing. Environmental Management.24 (1): 1-12.

Michaels, Sarah.1999. Configuring Who DoesWhat in Watershed Management: TheMassachusetts Watershed Initiative. PolicyStudies Journal. Vol 27 (3): 565-577.

Miller, E. Willard ed. (1995). A geography ofPennsylvania. The Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press. University Park, PA.

Population Studies Center. 2001. Website:http://www.pop.upenn.edu.

Potter County. Website: http://www.pottercountypa.org.

The Pennsylvania State Data Center. 1998.Clinton County Data Book. Harrisburg, PA.

The Pennsylvania State Data Center. 1998.Potter County Data Book. Harrisburg, PA.

The Pennsylvania State Data Center. 2001.Harrisburg, PA. website: http://Pasdc.hbg.psu.edu

U.S. Agricultural Census.1990. Website: http://www.census.gov. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1990, 2000).Census data. website: http://www.census.gov. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Pennsylvania StateCensus Data 1800-1980. Washington, D.C.

US Demography. Website: http://www.ceisin.org/datasets/us-demog/us-demog-home.html.

References:RecreationDouglass, Robert W. 1999. "History of

Outdoor Recreation and Nature-BasedTourism in the United States." Pages 15-24in Outdoor Recreation in American Life: ANational Assessment of Demand andSupply Trends. Sagamore Publishing,Champaign.

Driver, B. L. 1999. Management of Public Outdoor Recreation and Related AmenityResources for the Benefits They Provide.Pages 2-15 in Outdoor Recreation inAmerican Life: A National Assessment ofDemand and Supply Trends. SagamorePublishing, Champaign.

PADCNR web site. 2001. <http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us>.

Shifflet, D.K. and Associates, Ltd. 1999.Pennsylvania Heritage Tourism Study.McLean, Virginia.

References:Visual AssessmentAppleyard, Donald. 1964. The View from the

Road. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, 64 pp.

Allegheny Watershed Network. 1999. ScenicRiver Designations, It's Official: It's Scenic.Pages 86-89 in A Watershed Primer forPennsylvania: A Collection of Essays onWatershed Issues. Eds. Janette M. Novakand William H. Woodwell, Jr. PADEP,Harrisburg.

Battaglia, M. and Jones, D. 2001. PennsylvaniaScenic Rivers Program: Eligibility Processand Criteria (DRAFT). PADCNR, Harris-burg, 27 pp.

kettle creek · 2019-11-14 · 12 kettle creek watershed assessment the history of the kettle creek...

Documents