Lehigh River and the PFBC's take on wild trout.

Mike & Afish -

Ask and you shall receive. The PFBC commissioners are trying to pull together an economic study for the river and what can be generated with a 30 mile long tailwater/coldwater fishery. I recall reading that TU estimates that tailwater trout fisheries generate an estimated $1 mil per mile to the local economy. Not sure if that is conservative or not, but by doing the math makes for some big numbers. I have seen the numbers for the White River in Arkansas and the dollars are staggering, but that might be the extreme.

Beast - the Corps is finalizing the "Recreational (Coldwater) Study" that was funded by the DCNR/PFBC. This should be out fairly soon, hopefully before the end of the year. That reminds me, I need to bug some people about that.

We have a ways to go before we get caught up in talking dollars and cents and costs for modifications.
However, without spilling the beans, the results are pretty impressive. Modifications to FEW can and will produce a lengthy coldwater fishery all summer long. I think someone would be hard pressed to find an angler that would be disappointed with that.
 
Dean, I'm in! (as I have always been).

I look forward to seeing the facts and figures. Good stuff!

I'm ready to start tying some flies.

 
Dear Board,

Aside from the question of cost vs. the potential economic beneifits the bigger question that no one ever seems to address in this discussion is as follows.

Does the reservoir have the storage capability to hold back sufficent water to provide adequate coldwater releases while it continues to serve it's primary function, and that is as a flood control dam?

We seem to be getting many more localized rain events that bring large volumes of water into the reservoir in short periods of time. If the pool is consistently maintained at a higher level will the reservoir still have the ability for emergency storage, or will we face the prospect of the stored cold water being dumped in advance of forecast heavy precipitation?

Personally I don't think the storage capability of FEW dam is great enough to maintain an adequate supply of cold water AND the ability to withhold flood water.

There really isn't anything that would be damaged by high water from FEW to Jim Thorpe but I doubt downstream areas like ABE want to be concerned with greater flooding potential?

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)
 
Well, it looks like it's time for me to eat some crow here. I guess I should have checked the PFBC site before assuming it still wasn't listed. I just searched it and in fact, that section of Martins Creek does appear to now be officially listed by the PFBC as a Class A wild trout stream. I sincerely apologize to Mike for my late-night rant about it last night. Thank you to the PFBC for finally coming thru and getting it officially listed, the numerous surveys strongly proved it was far deserving of it.
 
TimMurphy

That is what the Coldwater Study will show and demonstrate. The Study has looked at 6 different scenarios with varying pool elevations and tower modifications. Then a model was run to determine how long the coldwater would last. Some scenarios the model showed the coldwater running out. Others, it showed the coldwater lasting all summer long.

The Study looked at different pool elevations - 1370 & 1392 were the most used and the lake was set at these pool levels in the past without jeopardizing flood control.

Then there was the PIE IN THE SKY scenario....but you will have to read about that one. HA!!!!

FYI - FEW has very little affect on flood control down in the ABE area. Too far away. Kind of like the Upper D reservoirs stopping floods from occurring in New Hope.
 
Several posts here bring up the economic impact of the upper Delaware tailwater in discussing the potential economic impact of a Lehigh tailwater. But from a federal funding point of view, this might not really be a "having the upper Delaware cake and eating the Lehigh tail water too" situation. A popular Lehigh tail water would probably reduce the bizness on the upper Delaware - look at a highway map of ud & lehigh incl NYC & Philly.
A realistic federal or state budget forecast will bring up this issue and not model Lehigh with no impact on UD....

on the plus side youd have the tailwater fishin closer to population centers. ... still its dynamic one thing affects the other... just sayin
 
TimMurphy wrote:
Dear Board,

Aside from the question of cost vs. the potential economic beneifits the bigger question that no one ever seems to address in this discussion is as follows.

Does the reservoir have the storage capability to hold back sufficent water to provide adequate coldwater releases while it continues to serve it's primary function, and that is as a flood control dam?

We seem to be getting many more localized rain events that bring large volumes of water into the reservoir in short periods of time. If the pool is consistently maintained at a higher level will the reservoir still have the ability for emergency storage, or will we face the prospect of the stored cold water being dumped in advance of forecast heavy precipitation?

Personally I don't think the storage capability of FEW dam is great enough to maintain an adequate supply of cold water AND the ability to withhold flood water.

There really isn't anything that would be damaged by high water from FEW to Jim Thorpe but I doubt downstream areas like ABE want to be concerned with greater flooding potential?

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)
Click to expand...

WHY don't you believe it has the storage cabability? The primary purpose of the dam is flood control and that will always be. All Recreation functions are always secondary to that primary purpose (recreation is an official secondary purpose of the dam too btw.) Believe me, everyone involved in this issue fully understands and accepts that. It basically has that ability now for enough storage for flood control and coldwater supply. The real fly in the ointment now is the limited release options of the current tower. It only releases from the very bottom or bypass gates 45' off the bottom and this exhausts the coldwater pool usually by sometime in July (and keep in mind that's with ongoing flood control operations.) Without any abilty to "skim" water from the top or elevations higher than 45' that coldwater is being used in the spring when it is not really needed and the Whitewater Releases can really put a dent in that coldwater pool because of that limited selctabilty for relase elevation.If the tower had more elevation options you cvould really preserve that coldwater pool while still satsifying the whitewater and fishery releases early in the season and have that coldwater then availble for the summer when you want to release off the bottom and bypass gates.
 
I can't understand why it would cost $48 million just to create the ability to release water off the top.

You could hire a plumber and his helper and they could stop by Home Depot and pick up some big diameter PVC pipe and figure something out. :-o

 
k-bob wrote:
Several posts here bring up the economic impact of the upper Delaware tailwater in discussing the potential economic impact of a Lehigh tailwater. But from a federal funding point of view, this might not really be a "having the upper Delaware cake and eating the Lehigh tail water too" situation. A popular Lehigh tail water would probably reduce the bizness on the upper Delaware - look at a highway map of ud & lehigh incl NYC & Philly.
A realistic federal or state budget forecast will bring up this issue and not model Lehigh with no impact on UD....just sayin
Click to expand...

I think people are really misunderstanding why the Upper Delaware economics were brought up. It was only to show the type of economic impact a premier tailwater trout fishery can have on a region. It wasn't to show look at the dollars we can take from the Upper Delaware or to say the Lehigh tailwater would be exactly like the Upper D. Two vastly different river characteristics in my opinion. The Lehigh offers a rugged 25 or so mile Gorge with limited vehicle access (as well as the more accessible trout fishery from Jim Thorpe to Cementon.) I know lots of anglers that prefer the long placid pools of the Upper D to the big pocket water a stream like the Lehigh offers in abundance. I'm one that prefers the pocket water rivers to the long pools of the Upper D (don't get me wrong I still like the Upper D) but the sight of miles of pocket water and pools really gets me excited to fish, especially if there is limited road access. It's one of the reasons why I and many, many others will travel up to the very top of New Hampshire to fish Upper Connecticut River trout and LL salmon paradise!

I don't see the Lehigh robbing the Upper D, both could still be strong economic impactors for their communities. The people that go to the Upper D will still go in droves, and some of them will also come to the Lehigh but the Upper D will still be a premier destination for anglers. If anything, I think the Lehigh could draw anglers from areas of PA, etc. that aren't already going to the Upper D. Another thing is that when one river is blown out or whatever, anglers would have the option of going to the other premier tailwater. And you know what? Competition is also a good thing and the people that will benefit are us anglers.
 
troutbert wrote:
I can't understand why it would cost $48 million just to create the ability to release water off the top.

You could hire a plumber and his helper and they could stop by Home Depot and pick up some big diameter PVC pipe and figure something out. :-o
Click to expand...

That's because the cost is not to just be able to release water off the top but rather from several elevations throughout the reservoirs water column. It requires a new tower or a total renovation the existing one. Your plumber isn't going to be able to help.

As for the $$ figure I'd like Dean to confirm that estimate before I take it as gospel here and I think that estimate is the high range. Even if it is accurate, if the figure of $1million of economic boost per mile of tailwater trout fishery is also accurate and you create a 30 mile trout fishery, even with interest the project basically pays for itself in about 2 years.

The Lehigh Gorge area is a growing recreational tourist destination and adding a premier tailwater trout fishery to the already excellent biking, hiking, and rafting opportunities will put it over the top as a premier recreation destination wholly within Pennsylvania!

The Connecticut Lakes region (headwaters of the Connecticut River) is a premier year-round recreation destination because it offers a vast network of snowmobiling trails for winter recreation as well as an outstanding tailwater fishery from spring thru fall. Add in the lake fishing & boating, leaf-peeping and the abundant public hunting opportunities and you can see why this very remote region of New England thrives year-round instead of a boom and bust cycle like a seasonal destination faces (ie. summer beach towns.)
 
Ryan

I wouldn't take the $48-50 million dollar figure as gospel. That was just a ballpark number thrown around at a meeting with the Corps a few years ago. And it really depends on the design of the tower, final pool elevation and if any other considerations need to be accounted for.

Wait until you see the "PIE IN THE SKY" dollar figure....

Through this whole process, I've had the same concerns about money as the rest of you. However, the Corps has said not to get hung up on it. Some of the PFBC commissioners said, "we can get the money".

Look at how much money the Corps is dumping on the NJ beaches. The work at FEW would be a drop in the bucket.

The Corps wants to do this project and typically if the science is behind it, they can get the funding. The PFBC needs to keep pushing their tailwater initiative. Anglers need to keep being supportive and telling the PFBC what they want with the Lehigh's trout fishery. Without the anglers, local organizations and TU being supportive, this project would die.
 
Bob,

I agree with Ryan that the D and Lehigh are very, very different types of rivers. I'll find one of my pics floating through the gamelands on the WB....50 guys jammed into the pool like it was the SR at the peak of mud shark time. IMO, the D could use a little break from the pressure.

I'm by no means a dry fly purist but would prefer the easier to navigate D, the sick hatches and rising fish. I will however make several trips to the Lehigh if they get things ironed out with the releases. Nice change of scenery, more fast water and a bit more remote in a sense.
 
Dear Board,

OK so I read through the 145 page report on the COE site for FE Walters Dam that described the 6 possible release scenarios considered in 2009.

Unless I am reading incorrectly the bottom line is as follows. In a dry year with the existing system the effect of water releases from the dam ends at Hayes Creek.

At Hayes Creek through all monitoring points down river the tributaries take on the role of regulating the water temperature. FE Walters Dam to Hayes Creek is at best 10 miles and no where near the 20 or 30 miles that some people have been mentioning.

To me that is an indication that the reservoir does not have the ability to maintain an adequate pool of cold water during the times when it will be needed the most.

Will the addition of a modified tower that allows for more mixing solve this problem? That's something for the engineers to decide but consider this, at 1390' elevation FE Walters is only capable of flooding a little over 800 acres. Beltsville at normal pool floods almost 1000. Most notable tailwater fisheries are outflows from dams at least 5, and in many cases 25 or more, times larger than either of these two PA puddles.

Is improving the viability of trout in the Lehigh a goal worth pursuing? I'd say yes it is, but will the gains in trout fishing offset the expense? That I don't know but I do sort of doubt it.

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)

 
Tim, I don't think you are fully understanding the puzzle. Hopefully Dean (Lehigh Regular) will add the ncessary explanation that you're missing. The 6 scenarios have been run and although all the results have not been formalized for public consumption the study did in fact show it is very, very doable. If it weren't you wouldn't have Commissioner Bachmann (a tailwater trout authority) and now Commissioner Gavlick, along with other PFBC leadership and the ACOE itself rather enthusiastically on board. Bringing Beltzville into the mix really helps increase the cababilities in the downstream miles. And yes, the scenarios run with a multiple elevation release tower show it's very possible. As I said not currently having that capabilty IS the fly in the ointment right now.

Just look at what is already capable now with the limits of the current tower. Trout are surviving year round and reproducing and in most years we can fish for trout thru June and several summers in the last decade we've safely fished for trout thru July.
 
Dear Ryan,

I read the report on the COE site for the dam that was done in 2009, http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/docs/Civil/Walter/Final_Lehigh_River_and_Reservoir_System_Report_Final_01-26-1.pdf.

Is there a new one?

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)
 
Yes, in an earlier reply to you Dean referred to the Coldwater Study that has not been completely finalized for public consumption. This is Phase II and I think it should be out soon, like before the end of the year. Don't get hung up on Phase I, it doesn't show the full capabilities and potential.

If I remember correctly at a meeting within the last year Commissioner Bachmann pushed for a scenario to be run that was fisheries only but included selective withdrawal cababilities and both a water surface elevation of 1370' and then at 1392'. He was pretty adamant about it since the PFBC was funding part of the study and explained that you needed that to provide a baseline for ultimate capability regarding a trout fishery. I think the "pie in the sky" scenario Dean refers to is fisheries only with selective withdrawal capabilities and a 1392' elevation.
 
TimMurphy

Ryan is correct. The study you read is Phase I. Phase II will be out "soon".

Phase I basically set up the model for Phase II. The results for Phase I were largely unfavorable, but "we" kinda knew that going into it. For Phase II, then the scenarios and tower design was tweeked and the model was run again on the "new" scenarios.

I hope you have the time to read Phase II when it comes out. I would be interested in your thoughts and position after reading it.

I will say, the PFBC biologists put a lot of time and effort into this report to make sure things were not over looked.
 
Hey, Raystown definitely holds enough cold water. Anyone care to email the PFBC every month like I do?
 
Kray - Im right there with you. We've discussed this with Arway. Shoot me a note, I'd be happy to join any forces you have going and/or combine efforts. IMO, this is a much more realistic battle, though I appreciate the potential of the Lehigh as well. Raystown is alright retrofitted - just need to take care of the politics...

TB
 
Dear Lehigh,

Like I said I'd like to see the fishery enhanced. I was under the impression that the report I was reading was the one that you refered to with the 6 scenarios? You could have saved me a lot of reading and a lot of boring charts and graphs if you told me ahead of time it wasn't.

If I ran the show I'd go all in at 1392' elevation and screw the rafters. They buy ice for their coolers and maybe a hotdog at Orloski's and are in and out of town in a day.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your position I don't run the show so I'll defer to those who are in charge and hope that they can find an economically feasible plan that at least 51% of the public can agree on.

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)
 
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