The Potential of the Lehigh River

[Smike]

Here is some useful links on the lower dams:

https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/easton/2012/08/easton_dams_could_be_removed.html

https://www.mcall.com/news/mc-xpm-1999-08-10-3264427-story.html


https://pfbc.pa.gov/images/reports/2010bio/lehigh_shad2010spawn.htm

 

[Swattie87]

Smike wrote:
There are only two tribs left in the gorge proper with Brook Trout. Both on the west side and each with a very high gradient and man made spill overs of 10' at the base. These would and should stay as Brook trout fisheries. The other 2 main tribs on the East side contain Brown trout for at least the first 4-5 miles already, despite the natural barriers (one is a 15' waterfall)

The other just outside of the gorge is Jeans Run a designated Brook Trout enhancement stream which feeds a brown trout filled trib about 1 mile from the mouth of the Lehigh. Natural barriers exist and seem to be working quite well.

There's Brookies to some degree in all of the Gorge tribs (that aren't too AMD affected to harbor Trout). I've fished and caught Brookies in all of them, but most (other than the two small west sides ones you mentioned - same ones I was thinking of) are predominantly Brown Trout streams. Some, especially the larger ones, are nearly all Browns.

FWIW - There's Browns in Jeans. Maybe not above the first big falls up from its mouth, but there's definitely Browns up to there. (That might have been what you meant - My apologies for the unneeded clarification if so.)

 

[NickR]

^^^^
Thanks for the clarification...nature acts as the best hatchery for the big river. The number of wild streams here is impressive regardless of species.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

I always wondered what the purpose of that silt catcher on the Po in Palmerton was. There is a similar bad dam on upper Pine at Galeton ("Galeton lake"). It's a shallow, silt-filled pond that warms water and blocks fish migration. Mindless.

 

[sarce]

Thanks for the additional info guys. Sounds like brook trout protection would basically be a non-factor then, which only makes opening up tributaries more appealing.

 

[Smike]

Mike wrote:
I failed to mention two things above: 1) I agree that a feasibility study would be educational and 2) if someone can tell me that there is very high usage of the Lehigh Gorge fishery by cycling anglers, I would be glad to learn of it, because I only occasionally see a cycling angler elsewhere along the Lehigh or other waters.

Lastly, I wonder if Troutbert knows if there was an economic study associated with the angler usage study on Spring Ck and what the economic output per mile might have been?

I re-read this and the theme I get (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the agency is looking not just at raw fish numbers via studies, but 'existing' angler use on whether to invest to improve. Kind of a catch 22. To take the line of thought that streams with already existing high angler use need the priority over rivers with lower use (but proven potential) means policy decisions may just be stacked to discriminate rivers such as the Lehigh. That's just an observation based on more than a few comments linking the lack of angler as a negative to improving the river. (resource first?)

As for proximity of anglers to river, that becomes far more important for the put and take managed waters to see high use. How many anglers will drive 4 hours to a stocked fishery with no wild trout vs how many people drive hours to Penns and West Branch? These are trends that have been in the making for years.

 

[afishinado]

What a great thread full of info about the Lehigh. A lot of FFers on here really know a lot about the Lehigh River and more importantly really care about the Lehigh River. Thanks for sharing; I've learned a lot.

To summarize what I have read, it appears most are in favor of funding a feasibility study for making the FEW a multi-level release dam. The project must be found feasible and the funding must made available for this to happen on Federal level since the FEW is a federally built and controlled by the ACOE (Army Corps of Engineers). If all the aforementioned happened, this is definitely a long-term goal that would be implemented many years in the future.

What I'm hearing is there are many other things that can be done to further enhance the River. AMD mitigation and as well as industrial waste clean-up, proper sewage treatment for the tribs and controlling runoff. Another important project is removing barriers to fish movement to allow wild trout to spawn. Besides becoming nursery waters, the tribs, when opened up will also serve the important function of becoming area of refuge for the trout to avoid higher summer temperatures in the main river.

As far as conserving brook trout streams, the best course of action I can think of is to survey and study each trib to determine if opening it up to the main river is or is not the best course of action to protect brook trout. As other have written, the vast majority of tribs now have populations of wild brown trout.

A lot of good things can be done to help the Lehigh become a first class wild trout stream with first class wild mountainous scenery with tons of public access.....I'm in!!

 

[LehighRegular]

Afish,

Good summary. The only thing I will add would be that thermal refuges will not be needed if coldwater releases could be maintained all summer long.

 

[Tigereye]

which would protect the brookie streams

 

[Smike]

Tigereye wrote:
which would protect the brookie streams

Since there is a lot of comments/questions on protection of brook trout, let me add some detail.
Most of the tributaries to the Lehigh below FEW to Jim Thorpe are high gradient and have natural features blocking any movement. There would be no reason to change any of that.
Streams which come to the top of the list of candidates which have manmade barriers:

Hickory Run – Class A with existing wild brown population from the park office to the river. Only the issues at the mouth would be targeted. Browns already have been found to move up in and spawn from the river. (Above the park office, 2 dams prevent fish movement and its brook trout water above. That would stay as is)

Stony creek – Class A with existing brown trout to about 4 miles from the mouth, then a transition to brook trout to headwaters. There is a natural 15’ waterfall about 400’ yards from the mouth with the Lehigh so opening up the mouth of the trib would only provide a small distance, but vital to thermal refugee and spawning habitat.

Black creek (the one on the west side from the town of Weatherly) AMD mitigation project in place, currently no issues with fish movement into the creek from the river.

Pohopcoo Creek. – Tailwater about 6 miles long from the dam to the Lehigh. Heavily stocked by the state with Browns, Brooks, and Bows. The dam at the mouth restricts trout from the river to seek thermal refuge (the PO being a true tailwater is a significant cold water source) and spawning ground. Saw Creek a trib to the po, Class A – mostly browns with some brook trout. Dam about 1 mile upstream from the mouth of the PO currently restricts further movement, however browns are found throughout above.

So overall no issues with introducing brown trout into streams and altering a balance with brook trout population, but opening these would go quite a ways to supporting wild trout which spend a majority of the time in the river proper.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

There are significant brook trout populations in the headwaters and tribs to Black Creek above the tunnel discharge that is to be mitigated. if water quality improves on Black Creek, that system should provide ample coldwater refuge and spawning habitat.

 

[Swattie87]

Since we're naming them, I'll add a few more. Between this and Smike's list this essentially covers all the major tribs from FEW to Jim Thorpe:

Black (Hayes) Creek - East side, the other Black Creek. Class A Browns, token population of Brookies. Mouth is open. A couple bridge culverts on the lower end that could use some work but are probably passable as is in decent flows. The lowest half or 3/4 mile or so is probably doable for fish passage, then there are some moderate sized falls that are likely impassable. Browns already present above those falls.

Mud Run - STW, has a mix of wild Browns and Brooks. Mouth is open. There is a small dam on the Graystones property that would be a possible barrier to migration. The lowest couple of miles would be open to fish passage in theory...I've never fished down there as its privately owned, so I'm not sure if there's impassable natural barriers. There's definitely some further upstream in the state park water, but there's already wild Browns above that anyway.

Drakes Creek - STW, has a mix of wild Browns and Brooks. Mouth is open. Rafting companies use Drakes' mouth as the put in for their lower gorge WW trips. High gradient, but no major impassable falls that I remember.

Bear Creek - Nat Repro, mix of Browns and Brooks. Mouth is open. Only fished it once as it requires quite the excursion to even get on legally. There's some impassable falls, but I can't place them specifically from my recollection of that lone trip. There's Browns already above them in any case.

Sandy Run - Dead with AMD. No Trout. Mouth is open, but would need successful AMD remediation.

Leslie Run - Nat Repro, mix of Browns and Brooks. Not 100% sure if the mouth is open or if there's a big drop below the culvert to the river, never really looked below the rail trail there. There's a large impassable falls about 1/4 mile up from the mouth. Browns present above the falls.

Buck Mountain Creek - Dead with AMD. Needs successful remediation.

The two small, west side UNT's, between Black Creek and Glen Onoko - Class A Brookies. No known Brown Trout in these. Impassable culverts at their mouths. These would need continued protection and the culverts left in place to avoid Browns migrating into them.

Nesquehoning Creek - STW, recovering AMD stream. Has wild Brooks and Browns. Its mouth is open. Its Class A Brookie trib, Jeans Run, has a token population of Browns up to its first impassable falls. No Browns above that.

As can be seen...Most of these streams already have Browns in them, so letting Browns swim up into them shouldn't be an issue, and should be encouraged. (Aside from the two west side UNT's, Hickory above its dams, and Jeans above the lowest falls.)

 

[afishinado]

Swattie87 wrote:
Since we're naming them, I'll add a few more. Between this and Smike's list this essentially covers all the major tribs from FEW to Jim Thorpe:

Black (Hayes) Creek - East side, the other Black Creek. Class A Browns, token population of Brookies. Mouth is open. A couple bridge culverts on the lower end that could use some work but are probably passable as is in decent flows. The lowest half or 3/4 mile or so is probably doable for fish passage, then there are some moderate sized falls that are likely impassable. Browns already present above those falls.

Mud Run - STW, has a mix of wild Browns and Brooks. Mouth is open. There is a small dam on the Graystones property that would be a possible barrier to migration. The lowest couple of miles would be open to fish passage in theory...I've never fished down there as its privately owned, so I'm not sure if there's impassable natural barriers. There's definitely some further upstream in the state park water, but there's already wild Browns above that anyway.

Drakes Creek - STW, has a mix of wild Browns and Brooks. Mouth is open. Rafting companies use Drakes' mouth as the put in for their lower gorge WW trips. High gradient, but no major impassable falls that I remember.

Bear Creek - Nat Repro, mix of Browns and Brooks. Mouth is open. Only fished it once as it requires quite the excursion to even get on legally. There's some impassable falls, but I can't place them specifically from my recollection of that lone trip. There's Browns already above them in any case.

Sandy Run - Dead with AMD. No Trout. Mouth is open, but would need successful AMD remediation.

Leslie Run - Nat Repro, mix of Browns and Brooks. Not 100% sure if the mouth is open or if there's a big drop below the culvert to the river, never really looked below the rail trail there. There's a large impassable falls about 1/4 mile up from the mouth. Browns present above the falls.

Buck Mountain Creek - Dead with AMD. Needs successful remediation.

The two small, west side UNT's, between Black Creek and Glen Onoko - Class A Brookies. No known Brown Trout in these. Impassable culverts at their mouths. These would need continued protection and the culverts left in place to avoid Browns migrating into them.

Nesquehoning Creek - STW, recovering AMD stream. Has wild Brooks and Browns. Its mouth is open. Its Class A Brookie trib, Jeans Run, has a token population of Browns up to its first impassable falls. No Browns above that.

As can be seen...Most of these streams already have Browns in them, so letting Browns swim up into them shouldn't be an issue, and should be encouraged. (Aside from the two west side UNT's, Hickory above its dams, and Jeans above the lowest falls.)

^ Good list. To add some info >

Black (Hayes) Creek is definitely an established brown trout fishery and passage from the River would be questionable. Improvements along the RR bridge and bridge at Rt 534 could be looked at but not an easy place for fish passage.

Mud Run is blocked with a substantial dam a little more than a mile upstream at the Greystone property. The dam is private and on private property. The mile up to the dam is good nursery and refuge water and the water quality of Mud Run is really good. There are brookies in the stream above the dam but mixed with wild brown and stocked fish at Greystone and in some sections further up in HRSP.

Drakes is really high gradient and "bony" in the summer. Once you get past the WW launching ramps right at the river there's not much flow. I'm not sure if it represents any respite for trout in the summer or would be a viable spawning area in the fall since both seasons normally carry the lowest flow of the year.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

Excellent info on the tribs....thanks!

It seems to me the most impactful actions above Lehighton would be to remediate those 2 AMD impaired creeks. Depending on volume of flow into the Lehigh, they could quickly (within a few years) give a nice bump to the water quality of the river and afford thermal refuge/spawning habitat.

Below Lehighton, get rid of the dam on the Po at Parryville. That would improve fish passage and slightly lower the water temps flowing into the river.

I would pursue these 2 things before even paying for the FEW dam reconstruction feasibility study. It would be $$ better spent, IMO.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

Does anyone know the recreational value of the dam at Parryville? I don't mean the original intent, but the current value. My guess is it's nearly zero.

 

[Swattie87]

Good additions afish.

Edit to my prior post, since I can't edit that one now...

Nesquehoning's trib Jeans Run, is Nat Repro, not Class A. I mislabeled that earlier.

 

[Swattie87]

Fly-Swatter wrote:

It seems to me the most impactful actions above Lehighton would be to remediate those 2 AMD impaired creeks. Depending on volume of flow into the Lehigh, they could quickly (within a few years) give a nice bump to the water quality of the river and afford thermal refuge/spawning habitat.

Those two (Sandy and Buck Mountain), along with Black Creek (Weatherly - west side one) are among the bigger tribs in that section in terms of the volume of water they add. Remediating them to the point that they could support wild Trout migration from the Lehigh would be a big win.

It sounds like Black already can further up, but the lowest section near the mouth (that the Lehigh fish would have to traverse) is where the problems are.

 

[Smike]

Nesquehoning, Mud Run, Bear, Hayes/Black have no fish passage issues for enough of there initial length, and no AMD issues at this time. Not targeted for any action.

Nesquehoning is only AMD impaired on the left side for 30 yards from mouth. Not enough to shut it down.

Leslie run is a tough one, small flow, short distance of water before it hits a 40' waterfall and at the very edge where it dumps into the Lehigh is a significant structural issue.

I agree on Drakes, too little flow, too high of a gradient.

 

[bradtheflyfisherman]

Black (Hayes) Creek is definitely an established brown trout fishery and passage from the River would be questionable. Improvements along the RR bridge and bridge at Rt 534 could be looked at but not an easy place for fish passage.

From what I remember having walked from the parking area down to the mouth is that there really weren't any major obstructions (that I noticed at least) - besides some trees that had fallen in the water closer to the mouth that would have blocked any trout from getting upstream - but I imagine they have been washed away by now. I bet there can be improvements made though.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

If I remember correctly it is about 5 miles from Weatherly down to the Lehigh. The creek is beautiful and has great instream habitat. I believe the Amd input enters shortly upstream. If pH gets bumped enough it immediately will be an additional clean, Coldwater source. With some macros above the impacted reach and the established populations in the Lehigh I would guess that within 3-4 years you will have an established year round wild trout population.