Central PA Troubles Tully was 65 degrees at 3pm

[Mike]

Personally, I would be all for Zero Stocking of the river and just allow the wild fish to do what they can. Get the bottom gate working and the temps lowered. All catch and release, period.

If that were the case, and by extrapolating from the electrofishing sampling sites
run many times over the years, anglers would be fishing for the approximately 15-30 wild brown trout that exist in the 4 mile DH Area at any one time. It is likely, however, that as the wild brown trout population expands a bit in the lower Cacoosing, a few more wild trout will be seasonally present in the approximately 750 yd Rt 222 to Cacoosing stretch. With or without the bottom discharge from Blue Marsh Rs, it’s abundantly clear that the Tully downstream from the reservoir is never going to be a targeted wild trout fishery.

 

[Nocktavius]

If that were the case, and by extrapolating from the electrofishing sampling sites
run many times over the years, anglers would be fishing for the approximately 15-30 wild brown trout that exist in the 4 mile DH Area at any one time. It is likely, however, that as the wild brown trout population expands a bit in the lower Cacoosing, a few more wild trout will be seasonally present in the approximately 750 yd Rt 222 to Cacoosing stretch. With or without the bottom discharge from Blue Marsh Rs, it’s abundantly clear that the Tully downstream from the reservoir is never going to be a targeted wild trout fishery.

I’d be fine with that because they’d probably get pretty big.

 

[HopBack]

So you are mostly against the Tully and don't care about the water? Personally, I would be all for Zero Stocking of the river and just allow the wild fish to do what they can. Get the bottom gate working and the temps lowered. All catch and release, period.

With the attitude of pilling on all these streams as garbage will:

1) No one fighting to improve the river and the fish
2) Push people to already pressured wild fish streams
3) Comes across as snobs. Let people enjoy their fishing even if you are not into it.

There is nothing wrong with the bottom gate. The ACE manages the lake for flood control but that is not the real problem. As already stated there is not enough depth to the lake to provide cold water through the summer months. The lake will be fully turned over by July and there is nothing to be done about that besides digging a deeper lake pool.

 

[JeffP]

So we have established for a fact that there has been no bottom release for a number of years? That's a warm water stream then. How would any trout survive even June unless huddled on the Cacoosing?

 

[Mike]

I’d be fine with that because they’d probably get pretty big.

Highly unlikely. Large trout are more sensitive to warm water temps than smaller trout and even with the entry of colder water from the Cacoosing, the cooling effect is not across the full width of the Tully channel and is lost by the time it reaches the Rt 222 bridge area about 750 yds downstream. Furthermore, the cooling effect is largely on the wrong side, the shallower side, of the stream and with the exception of a very short stretch at the confluence of Cacoosing and Tully there is no cold, big fish physical habitat in that 750 yd stretch.

 

[HopBack]

So we have established for a fact that there has been no bottom release for a number of years? That's a warm water stream then. How would any trout survive even June unless huddled on the Cacoosing?

When did we establish that?

 

[Mike]

When did we establish that?

From the other recent Tully thread…..
Yesterday at 6:34 PM

What I did not realize is that within the past several years, the bottom discharge of the Blue Marsh is not working

Last July I was watching the daily stream temps at the gauge downstream from the dam. Temps did not suggest that there was a problem with the bottom discharge. They looked pretty typical. I suspect that the present AFM will be checking into this

 

[rustbeltwilds]

Highly unlikely. Large trout are more sensitive to warm water temps than smaller trout and even with the entry of colder water from the Cacoosing, the cooling effect is not across the full width of the Tully channel and is lost by the time it reaches the Rt 222 bridge area about 750 yds downstream. Furthermore, the cooling effect is largely on the wrong side, the shallower side, of the stream and with the exception of a very short stretch at the confluence of Cacoosing and Tully there is no cold, big fish physical habitat in that 750 yd stretch.

From the other recent Tully thread…..
Yesterday at 6:34 PM

Last July I was watching the daily stream temps at the gauge downstream from the dam. Temps did not suggest that there was a problem with the bottom discharge. They looked pretty typical. I suspect that the present AFM will be checking into this

Talk talk talk

 

[HopBack]

That didn’t come directly from the horses mouth but rather a guide. It’s impossible that the stream is getting 65 degree water temps in July without a bottom release working. The surface water in July is boiling at that point. The army core is right to manage for flood control as that is the sole purpose for the dam, not recreation or to create an artificial trout fishery. That being said, they have worked with AFMs to ensure bottom releases in in July to help prop up the fishery but the cold water doesn’t last into August when it is desperately needed.

 

[salvelinus]

In concert with other COE dams, Blue Marsh is also used to keep the salt line in the Delaware in check.

 

[Swattie87]

In concert with other COE dams, Blue Marsh is also used to keep the salt line in the Delaware in check.

Drop in a 5 gallon bucket you’d think.

 

[JG63]

Yep. The Letort isn’t what it once was, and pretending otherwise doesn’t help anyone. I tried raising the concerns on here 10+ years ago.

As they say, it’s more of a “pilgrimage” stream than a functional fishery. You go to see it, to remember what it represented, and to hope the wild population somehow rebuilds itself. But hope isn’t management.

What’s missing is real intentional effort.

There’s no meaningful discussion around supplemental fingerling stocking to stabilize numbers. No serious consideration of transferring wild fish from nearby systems (let’s say, lower BS) . And more importantly, very little emphasis on habitat work, sediment removal, flow restoration, and active stewardship, the same kind of practices that have sustained spring creeks in places like the Midwest and England for decades.

Instead, the Letort is often treated as something to preserve in its current state, rather than something to restore.

The biggest problem it that there’s not enough water in the creek - Ed Shenk explained this to me 20 some years ago - nobody believed it then - and nobody talks about it now (except for a few of my posts here…) the water surface is close to the same level in the slower sections but the silt displaces probably 2 feet of what was once was water volume - the stretch above the Bonnybrook bridge is puddles, wet rocks and grass patches compared to just 30 years ago - the biggest problem is the valley has become a housing project with innumerable new wells poking holes in the aquifer - Letort, Big Spring, Hogestown, Cedar Run, Armstrong, Green, and Trindle don’t have enough flow to even flush themselves out - a few pockets of resident wild Browns and a smattering of migratory Browns remain but i have little hope of recovery and no hope for improvement

 

[Mike]

From the other recent Tully thread…..
Yesterday at 6:34 PM

Last July I was watching the daily stream temps at the gauge downstream from the dam. Temps did not suggest that there was a problem with the bottom discharge. They looked pretty typical. I suspect that the present AFM will be checking into this

The present AFM checked w/ the ACOE…no problem w/ “bottom”/ lower gates.

 

[HopBack]

The present AFM checked w/ the ACOE…no problem w/ “bottom”/ lower gates.

Thanks for the follow up Mike!

 

[LetortAngler]

Transplanting brown trout into the Letort is not going to help the Letort. There are brown trout in the system, and if it had the capacity, habitat, and requirements to host more fish, then they'd already be there.

I don't know the Letort, and I've never fished it, but the above is true for any stream. If the numbers of fish aren't there, it's for a reason, and bringing more fish in won't fix it

Transplanting brown trout into the Letort is not going to help the Letort. There are brown trout in the system, and if it had the capacity, habitat, and requirements to host more fish, then they'd already be there.

I don't know the Letort, and I've never fished it, but the above is true for any stream. If the numbers of fish aren't there, it's for a reason, and bringing more fish in won't fix it.

You’re applying a very generic stream principle to a very non-generic system. That principle is generally true, but it’s also overly simplified, especially for a system like the Letort.

You’re absolutely right that habitat and carrying capacity ultimately control fish numbers. But the assumption that “if the fish aren’t there, they shouldn’t be” doesn’t really hold up on a historically altered spring creek.

The Letort isn’t a natural, untouched system anymore. It’s been impacted by decades of sedimentation, reduced flows, groundwater pressure loss, and land-use changes. In systems like that, populations don’t always reflect true biological potential—they reflect degraded conditions. That’s where management comes in.

Stocking or transferring fish alone doesn’t fix the problem - I agree with you there. But as part of a broader effort (habitat restoration, sediment removal, flow improvement), it can absolutely help re-establish density and rebuild a fishery that no longer has the natural recruitment it once did.

Also worth noting that similar approaches have been used successfully in other spring creek systems, especially where habitat was restored first and populations needed a push to recover.

 

[jifigz]

You’re applying a very generic stream principle to a very non-generic system. That principle is generally true, but it’s also overly simplified, especially for a system like the Letort.

You’re absolutely right that habitat and carrying capacity ultimately control fish numbers. But the assumption that “if the fish aren’t there, they shouldn’t be” doesn’t really hold up on a historically altered spring creek.

The Letort isn’t a natural, untouched system anymore. It’s been impacted by decades of sedimentation, reduced flows, groundwater pressure loss, and land-use changes. In systems like that, populations don’t always reflect true biological potential—they reflect degraded conditions. That’s where management comes in.

Stocking or transferring fish alone doesn’t fix the problem - I agree with you there. But as part of a broader effort (habitat restoration, sediment removal, flow improvement), it can absolutely help re-establish density and rebuild a fishery that no longer has the natural recruitment it once did.

Also worth noting that similar approaches have been used successfully in other spring creek systems, especially where habitat was restored first and populations needed a push to recover.

So are you implying you'd have to continually transplant/stock new fish? I would assume that correcting habitat issues would allow the browns in the system to recruit more fish through spawning, which would ultimately allow the stream to carry more adult BT.

I don't know, but the continued development in the Cumberland Valley doesn't bode well for those spring creeks.

 

[Nocktavius]

Guys, there are other levers to pull aside from dumping mushmouths into the river. Leave the G.D. Letort alone.

 

[jifigz]

Guys, there are other levers to pull aside from dumping mushmouths into the river. Leave the G.D. Letort alone.

Well, he was talking about transplanting wild browns from another creek, not dumping stockies in.

 

[TimMurphy]

Well, he was talking about transplanting wild browns from another creek, not dumping stockies in.

Dear jifigz,

He was also talking about habitat improvements/modifications as well. What I got from that was the possibility that with better habitat stream borne fish would return to the improved area over time on their own.

I didn't see it so much as adding fish to the stream, but rather making the effort to restore the stream to it's previous state circa Marinaro and Fox vintage. That's a daunting task, but with public and private collaboration anything is possible.

Regards,

Tim Murphy 🙂

 

[Swattie87]

IF, the stream is capable of holding more fish via restoration/habitat improvement (I don’t know the answer to that), you don’t want to introduce new genetics to it. You want the surviving fish (the best of the best) in the system to spread their genetics as they repopulate. Those fish are best adapted to the system and that’s the genetics you want repopulating it.

Not trying to imply that anyone else was suggesting stocking, but just trying to say it’s not a good idea. If the conditions are suitable, the fish will figure it out on their own, far better than us trying to manipulate the population via stocking. Look at all the AMD reclamation areas. The surviving fish, (Brookies usually, but this applies similarly to Browns) often in other areas of the watershed, figure it out.