Little lehigh help.

the riparian grow zone has only been there two years AFAIK. i think you have to give it a bit longer than that.

i agree about the dewatering and effects of tarmac upstream though - always an issue for any creek.
 
Lawn chemicals can decimate a stream very quickly, the rate at which the LL deteriorated would suggest that is the culprit. Of course the riparian zone will help to filter the lawn chemicals, but it has to be wider than it is.
Storm water run-off has also had it's impact, and this can be mitigated by the riparian buffer also if it's allowed to do what a riparian buffer is meant to do, which is provide large woody debris to fall in as well as the other stated reason to have a riparian buffer.
It's very unfortunate that several sections of the LL were straightened years ago where it approaches bridges and dams. Returning it to a more natural channel would make a huge difference.
 
fwiw, I am seeing fewer wild browns in the LL this year. not scientific... caught a few little ones this past weekend, but not what I had gotten to expect from a few years ago. Hope that is just my small sample size and not a persistent trend.

 
I have noticed fewer fish as well in the past 2-3 years. The herons aren't helping either. I walked well below the 78 bridge this past weekend and didn't see/spook any fish. There is a lot of nice water below the covered bridge as well but unfortunately no fish were found...
 
Floods are killing this stream. More silt in the stream then I've ever seen. Silt is being washed into the stream because of floods, many section of the stream are straightened, the stream suffers the effects of alteration and development. A riparian buffer helps to mitigate the effects.
 
If the riparion buffer helps then why is n't it helping?How does 7 ft tall obnoxious weeds keep silt out when the silt enters the stream miles above the parkway.Those weeds only make it difficult to walk along the stream and enjoy it.They don't need to be 7 ft high to help,2 ft would be just as good.
 
troutwilleatflies wrote:
If the riparion buffer helps then why is n't it helping?How does 7 ft tall obnoxious weeds keep silt out when the silt enters the stream miles above the parkway.Those weeds only make it difficult to walk along the stream and enjoy it.They don't need to be 7 ft high to help,2 ft would be just as good.
Click to expand...

Because it provides more shade and cover.
 
Those weeds provide very little shade and the cover they provide is for in sects,ticks, not fish.
 
troutwilleatflies wrote:
Those weeds provide very little shade and the cover they provide is for in sects,ticks, not fish.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should take your observations to a higher level, like the PA Fish and Boat Commission. That may promote a study of your personal needs/wants/desires and the relationship of "in sect" and tick populations streamside vs. the possibility that it may improve fish habitat.

And what type of "in sects" are you talking about? Terrestrials, that may provide food for trout or other aquatic species? Please elaborate.
 
fishing pressure will also move fish to other locations, have a friend in Allentown that has been showing pics of really nice browns from the LLH but not from the special reg area.
 
Take a walk along the LL in the warmer growing season and enter those weeds and you will get an idea of the insects that are there,make sure you look for the ticks as they can make you very sick.
The fish commission has nothing to do with the situation,it's the city that calls the shots there.
 
When was the last time the PFBC did a fish survey on the FFO section? Although imperfect, such surveys are the best way to get comparative data on fish populations. Does anyone have any up to date info on such surveys?

Generally speaking, here in the CV, many of the streams have seen dramatic increases in wild trout but it has come at the same time as there have been increases in vegetation both aquatic and riparian and this makes it harder for anglers to see and catch fish (IMO). Sometimes there are more trout than meet the eye, or hit our flies.

Would some in-stream habitat improvements be useful for this section?
 
I fish a lot in state forests and gamelands. Those streams also have a lot of pesky of riparian vegetation. Something must be done!






 
troutbert wrote:
I fish a lot in state forests and gamelands. Those streams also have a lot of pesky of riparian vegetation. Something must be done!
Click to expand...

Blasted, or blessed Rhodo and Mountain Laurel! Depending on how you look at it. Multiflora Rose just plain stinks. But there are some pretty good Trout streams it protects in the SE part of the state.
 
A survey was done in the Heritage section with-in the last two years,I just happened to be there when they did it but not sure when that was.
The LL would benefit from in-stream habitat improvement but allowing tall obnoxious weeds to line the banks does very little to improve the fish habitat.It does make it very difficult to walk and fish the stream without wading.
 
I have an idea:

We can suggest another stamp to the Fish Commission. A trimmed trout stream stamp. They can eradicate all the riparian vegetation along x number of streams, and you would have to buy a stamp to fish those streams.
 
No-More-Weed.jpg
Oh wait, wrong kind of weed...
 
Funny, salvelinus.

On a more serious note, ticks are most everywhere. Up until this past year, I lived in a home in the burbs with a small wood lot behind it. And it was loaded with ticks. And most of the ticks I found on me throughout my life came from low vegetation. Ticks have short, spikey hairs on their legs. This is how they attach so easily, like hitchhikers. If ticks are a concern, wear light colored clothing so you can detect them easier (deer ticks are the size of a pin head), and use a good repellant like permathrin (sp).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top