Tag: Sugar Creek Crossing

I am going to detail a hike I took in January of 2010 to the Sugar Creek Crossing below Dover. I believe this is sort of timely. Members of the Canal Society of Ohio (CSO) and Stark Parks are sitting down to discuss the identity, location and status of the canal artifacts in Stark County that need to be preserved, restored or signed.

One artifact that I believe needs to be preserved (before it falls down) is the Big Sluice to the north of the Stark Parks Craig-Pittman Trailhead just south of Navarre. There are only three of those big sluices that I am aware of on the northern division of the Ohio Canal. Today’s column mentions the second one and it’s fate. I’d like to see something done with the one in Navarre to see that it doesn’t suffer the same.

THE SUGAR CREEK CROSSING (in 2010)ⁱ

The Ohio and Erie Canal crossed Sugar Creek in slack-water above a dam just south of (now) Dover Ohio. It was a fascinating place and sported a long wooden crib dam, stone dam abutments and a large basin. A guard lock was constructed about a half mile below the crossing and a short sidecut, outlet lock and a refurbished mill dam allowed boats to exit the Ohio Canal, cross the Tuscarawas River and enter the New Philadelphia Lateral Canal through a guard lock.

I was shown all this in the early 1970s by my long-time class mate and canal buddy, Richard Williams. He is the same fellow who took me canal hunting in his Piper Apache in the early ‘70s.

The early 1900s attempted rebuild of this division of the Ohio Canal, reduced the size of the basin a bit, replaced the upper stone dam abutment with a concrete big sluice, removed the guard lock, and rebuilt the dam.

And by the time I first saw this area, the dam was gone, but any number of very interesting artifacts remained. I went into this area many times and the CSO toured the area in the mid-’80s. Then, the plastics company that owned the area sold to a larger concern and access to this fascinating area was denied.

I had sent a letter to Arizona Chemical in mid December of 2009 asking for permission to get onto their water treatment facility property and check out the remains of the crossing. I received a phone call from a Paul XXXXXXX, the head of Human Resources, and he had me get in contact with a Randy XXXXXXX, who would escort me around the property. I called Randy after the holidays and we agreed to wait until there was a lull in the snowfall. I called him back on January 20th. We set an appointment up for the next day, the 21st. for 10:00am.

I got to the water treatment plant off of State Route 39 about 9:30 and Randy rolled up in his truck about 10:10. He invited me into the truck, so I got my 35mm camera and two throw-away cameras and got in. We drove down an old roadway that was in the canal bed. After about 250 yards, the “roadway” stopped and we got out to continue on foot. There was no longer a real trail, but I knew the artifacts were on the track of a power line so we kept going in a general direction toward Sugar Creek. Finally, after turning to my right a bit, I walked across a slight ridge of maybe 10” to 12” with small stone strewn along it and knew that we had crossed the line of the dam. Old photos of the dam show it to have been some 4 to 5 feet high, stepped, and maybe 200 yards long. ⁱⁱ It had evidently been a wooden crib dam. The wood had apparently long ago rotted away and most of the stone in the cribbing had been washed away. Now there is only this slight ridge going in sort of a straight line.

I figured we had passed the lower dam abutment, so turned to my right and soon came upon it. From this side it is a rather unimpressive stone structure. It is only a dam abutment, however, so doesn’t have a great deal of substance. I was much more impressed with stumbling across it back in the ‘70s from the other direction. I took a couple of photos and slides then we turned to go in the other direction for a look at the other abutment.

I saw sort of a shallow channel with some stone lining along each edge, not too wide, maybe six feet, that may have been the main run-off channel over the dam. Randy spied the other abutment. This abutment was a large concrete sluice that had been part of the early 1900s rebuild. When I was last in here in the early to mid-’80s I had noticed that one corner of this sluice was in a flood channel that had exposed maybe 18” of the wooden pilings. I thought then that this entire structure was in danger of falling over. One section has. It has fallen in toward the main structure. The rest of the rather nice large sluice is still intact, however. The flood channel was running deep and swift making it impossible to get onto the towpath or examine the canal at the creek’s edge. There were the remains of an old wasteway teetering on the edge of the creek when I was last in here and some sort of concrete-filled pipe sticking out of the creek bed. We couldn’t get into that area this trip to check it out.

I took a number of photos and slides from various angles then turned and took a couple of the dam ridge with the stone structure in the background. There had been a culvert on either side of the slack-water basin to carry runoff back to the river. I looked around a bit for the one on the lower side of the basin, but couldn’t find anything. Back in the ‘80s it was crushed in with the hulk of a 55 Plymouth on top. I didn’t see any Plymouth this time.

We walked a bit toward the river and returned to the truck along a waste-treatment line that had been cleared. It made the trip back to the truck fairly easy. I asked Randy if we could get permission to bring 20 to 25 people in on the April 26 hike. I thought it might make a fun outing for serious folk, but probably isn’t enough to see for the current crowd of CSO tour people. Randy said he would check, but he didn’t sound that confident.ⁱⁱⁱ

I thanked Randy and gave him a signed copy of my latest book. He had been very friendly and cooperative and asked many intelligent questions about the operation of the artifacts here at the crossing.

I got back in the car and continued on route 39 until it crossed the river, then turned into the old Delphia Motor Inn/Days Inn/Hartford Inn. I drove to its rear and parked along the fence-lined river. The fence began just a short distance to my left so I went around it and walked up along the left bank of the river. I had one throwaway camera and the 35mm camera. I spied the old dam abutment on the right bank of the river about 50 to 75 yards above where the fence started. The abutment was originally to the Baker’s Mill and later for the New Philadelphia Lateral Canal. The dam abutment is easy to see as it is just at the point where the river has broken into the Route 77 “borrow pits”. This would be an easy walk some evening of the tour to let people see an artifact that is readily visible, but one not many people know about. I took a couple of photos and slides, then got back into the car. When I was last in here (1997) there was some stonework also on the left bank. I didn’t scramble down to the river to look (getting way too old for that) and the river was so high, that much of it was probably under water. What was visible on the right bank was a right angle stone support to the old dam.

I then headed for home. I got off at the Strasburg exit and stopped at the Magic Hobby Shop, but didn’t see anything I wanted. I then turned right on 212 and stopped at the Stark Parks Trail Head. Their mailings state they are working on the trail near here. There is a quantity of gravel and fines at the trail head and a parked Green-Frog Dump Truck, but I didn’t see any evidence of a new trail branching off from this trail head.^iv

I got back home shortly before Noon. A pretty worthwhile hike from a personal standpoint, but no public access was obtained. I hope we can do something in the future to make sure that the fate of the Big Sluice below Navarre does not follow that of the one down below Dover.

i From notes made of a hike taken on January 21, 2010.

ii That’s what my notes say, but I think it was closer to 75 or 100 yards long.

iii We didn’t receive permission.

iv The new trail branches off some distance to the north and follows the berm bank of the canal to the

aqueduct site.

Terry begins with;

Hi Guys:

One of the perks of wring this column, with no editors and no publishers, is that I get to write what I want the way I want it. That is also one of the downsides. I have no one to make sure I write a good one.

This column was supposed to be a straight historical description of the Sugar Creek Crossing just below Canal Dover. Instead, it reads more like, “How a spent several summer vacations”. Anyway, here it is. Hope you like it.

THE SUGAR CREEK CROSSING

In the 306+ miles of canal between Lake Erie to the Ohio River, the Ohio Canal crossed over various streams fourteen times using an aqueduct, and eight times in a slack-water pool built up behind a damⁱ. While an aqueduct is an imposing structure and slack-water pools are probably not considered such, the slack-water crossing of Sugar Creek below Canal Dover on the Ohio Canal has always held a particular fascination for many an avid canal buff.

The dam, itself, is described rather tersely in the Canal Commissioner’s Report for the year 1832.

“Ninety-Three miles south of Cleveland the Ohio Canal crosses Sugar Creek, a major tributary of the Tuscarawas River in the pool of a dam, this dam is constructed of a double row of closely spaced pilings, filled between the rows with stone, and brush, and gravel, and covered with plank, laid upon plates resting upon and secured to the heads of each row of piles with an extensive apron of hewn timber and abutments of cut stone founded upon bearing piles, the waters of the stream may consequently be commanded for the use of the canal, but the supply of water furnished by the feeder at Zoar is so abundant that it has been found unnecessary to appropriate any part of them to the purpose of navigation.”

I was first shown the remains of the Sugar Creek Crossing in 1967 by an avid canal buff named Richard Williams. Richard had a plane and several times we went “canal looking” from the air. I’ve had at least one column on these trips. This time though, we scrambled through barriers of high, thick brush to find the actual site. I was into that site several times again during the 1980s and ‘70s.

The crossing had been updated during the 1908-09 rebuild and the northern stone dam abutment replaced with a large concrete sluice (similar to the one in the canal towpath in the Craig-Pittman Trailhead just south of Navarre). In its most recent iteration, the dam was paced off to be some 50 to 60 yards long. That new Sugar Creek Dam and Sluice was constructed in 1909 (contract let on Oct 13, 1908) by Clark and Meldy for $5,761.71.

Apparently, the dam remained as a ‘refurbished’ wood-crib structure as little more than a raised line of fine stone marked it’s former location when I searched for it. The first time I was in that area alone and rediscovered the one remaining stone dam abutment, I approached it from the creek side and was quite impressed with the find.

A guard lock was located some 2,300 feet below the dam. It raised northbound boats to the momentary level of the slack-water crossing and protected the lower canal from high water, but it was, apparently, removed during the 1900s rebuild of the dam and crossing.

It took me quite a while to determine why the guard lock was so far below the slack-water crossing. Then, while perusing some Board of Public Works Reports, I ran across an item mentioning the need to repair the outlet lock for the New Philadelphia Lateral Canal. That sidecut exited the Ohio Canal just above the guard lock above a rebuild of the old Baker Mill Dam. The guard lock was required to be so far away from the crossing so that the Lateral could exit the main canal in the Sugar Creek slack-water level

In 1976, Don Baker, a reporter from the New Philadelphia Times-Reporter asked me to guide him to each of the remaining canal structures in Tuscarawas County for a Sunday Supplement segment he was preparing. We did this run in the month of July, and foliage was very high, almost too high, to get into the sites, let alone take coherent color photos, but the resulting Sunday piece was a good one.

The Sugar Creek Crossing was one of those sites. The Union Camp Chemical Company was then occupying the entire area containing the crossing artifacts and had constructed some sort of processing plant and a cooling-water pond near the southern property line. The plant was vacant except for one security personnel the hot Sunday afternoon we made our journey and he was more than happy to relieve the tedium by showing us around. I gained a ‘perk’ by picking his brain concerning the New Philadelphia Lateral Canal which this security guard had swam in during his boyhood.

In 1982, Ted Kasper and I led a Canal Society of Ohio tour of Tuscarawas County. Ted gained the friendship of a gentleman from New Philadelphia whose name I no longer remember, but happened to be the Public Relations Director for the Union Camp Chemical Company. This man gave us complete freedom to visit the canal artifacts adjacent to the chemical company. Naturally, it was a high point of the tour.

I spent a great deal of time scouring that area in preparation for the tour. I came in through the chemical plant access road many times and once I even came in along the railroad tracks from the north, but couldn’t get onto the actual dam site from that direction as Sugar Creek was flowing strong and wide across my path. After the 1913 flood had destroyed the dam, the creek cut a new channel just to the north of the “new” concrete sluice.

During those last few visits onto the site I discovered that, during flood times, the creek was undercutting one wall of the sluice. At least 18” of the supporting wooden pilings were exposed. I was fearful that half of that concrete structure might soon collapse.

The rebuild had included concrete waste-ways about 30 yards before and after the dam, plus culverts to carry any surplus rain water away from the structure into the near-by Tuscarawas River. During one of my trips there in the ‘80s I discovered a wrecked 1955 Plymouth lying in the south culvert access ditch.

That whole area has been closed to the general public since the late ‘80s. Unfortunately, I may have been the cause of that censure. Shortly after the tour, I wrote to the head of the chemical plant suggesting that the company and the Canal Society of Ohio work together to get that area north of their plant declared a National Historic Landmark. Apparently, the company officials felt any such designation might jeopardize their work area and the Sugar Creek Slack-water Crossing was closed off. For that I am truly sorry.

I did get into that area one more time. In December of 2009 I wrote to the chemical company asking for permission to explore the area. The CSO was again planning a tour of Tuscarawas County and I wanted to include that area. On January 10, 2010, I was escorted around the area by a company official. He was quite gracious and let me see whatever I wanted to see, but access for the tour was denied. I took notes of that last excursion and may use it as a column in the near future.

i A GLOSSARY OF TERMS of the Ohio & Erie Canal, Terry K. Woods, KENT STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2008.