henrydavid
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 627
Accessible via Rail Trail, YES, getting down the bank to the water is another story (White Haven to Gorge area)
M
Mike
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,550
"And you still don't believe there's wild fish in the river because a biologist shocked a 30' section of the river once and didn't find a fish, hence the states position that it's a walleye river."
REALLY?
Am I am being confused with someone else? I have caught occasional wild fish near Northampton and below both via angling and electrofishing (when searching for American Shad years ago). There are plenty of wild trout tribs throughout much of the river's length, so of course wild trout are present on a seasonal basis in the river and I doubt that I would have naively said otherwise, and I certainly would not say that today. Whether there is successful reproduction in the river itself below FE Walter, that's a question that I have never heard has been positively answered. Additionally, I had nothing to do with any past attempts to manage the river for Walleye as the river is not in Area 6.
As for the bicycle trail providing great access, that is debatable with respect to the kind of exceptional access needed to generate good shore angler usage, the kind of usage that could help justify the estimated cost of dam modifications. That might require higher capacity parking lots on weekends. As an avid cyclist and angler, I see it as a shame that so few anglers in general use that mode of transport to gain angling access, but I can't will people to do so.
Parking availability, access within 500 m of public roads, and human population density in surrounding communities still drive angler usage on Pa trout streams. The kind of usage that I am talking about that would be needed to economically (positive economic impact) justify dam modification costs I suspect is probably not the amount that some anglers would desire (see paragraph below). But, if no expensive physical dam modifications were needed and only operational changes were needed, that's quite different.
As for the thought that the tail-race could potentially generate $1 million per mile of economic activity from fishing, I wonder about that figure as it would pertain to Pennsylvania when one considers other comparable economic activity that has already been quantified through on-the-ground studies in Pa. Wild trout streams generate $7.6 million of economic output per season; the Lake Erie steelhead fishery generates $10.68 million per season; and the first two months of the statewide stocked trout program generate $65.7 million ($13,855 per mile). Within the last figure is opening day economic output of $5200 per mile, based on the 4742 stocked miles during the year of the study. If one added the economic output from wild trout waters and Lake Erie steelhead to that of the stocked trout program, it would still be "only" $17,617 per mile, a far cry from $1 million per mile. One could and should jump the above Pa figures up by about 2% per year for inflation for about a 15 year period, but there still would be a very, very long way to go to hit $1 million per mile.
REALLY?
Am I am being confused with someone else? I have caught occasional wild fish near Northampton and below both via angling and electrofishing (when searching for American Shad years ago). There are plenty of wild trout tribs throughout much of the river's length, so of course wild trout are present on a seasonal basis in the river and I doubt that I would have naively said otherwise, and I certainly would not say that today. Whether there is successful reproduction in the river itself below FE Walter, that's a question that I have never heard has been positively answered. Additionally, I had nothing to do with any past attempts to manage the river for Walleye as the river is not in Area 6.
As for the bicycle trail providing great access, that is debatable with respect to the kind of exceptional access needed to generate good shore angler usage, the kind of usage that could help justify the estimated cost of dam modifications. That might require higher capacity parking lots on weekends. As an avid cyclist and angler, I see it as a shame that so few anglers in general use that mode of transport to gain angling access, but I can't will people to do so.
Parking availability, access within 500 m of public roads, and human population density in surrounding communities still drive angler usage on Pa trout streams. The kind of usage that I am talking about that would be needed to economically (positive economic impact) justify dam modification costs I suspect is probably not the amount that some anglers would desire (see paragraph below). But, if no expensive physical dam modifications were needed and only operational changes were needed, that's quite different.
As for the thought that the tail-race could potentially generate $1 million per mile of economic activity from fishing, I wonder about that figure as it would pertain to Pennsylvania when one considers other comparable economic activity that has already been quantified through on-the-ground studies in Pa. Wild trout streams generate $7.6 million of economic output per season; the Lake Erie steelhead fishery generates $10.68 million per season; and the first two months of the statewide stocked trout program generate $65.7 million ($13,855 per mile). Within the last figure is opening day economic output of $5200 per mile, based on the 4742 stocked miles during the year of the study. If one added the economic output from wild trout waters and Lake Erie steelhead to that of the stocked trout program, it would still be "only" $17,617 per mile, a far cry from $1 million per mile. One could and should jump the above Pa figures up by about 2% per year for inflation for about a 15 year period, but there still would be a very, very long way to go to hit $1 million per mile.
M
Mike
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,550
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?
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?
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
Mike,
There are 20+/- miles continuous miles of bike trail open along the Lehigh River form White Haven down to Jim Thorpe. It is well used by both bikers and anglers.
The video below shows a map as well as shots of the river and scenery. The Lehigh offers spectacular recreation opportuniteies close to a large population center.
To comment on the Lehigh River proposal. I am in favor of the economic impact and feasibility study being done to put a price tag on the project.
I will say, if the cost is a large fraction of a billion (with a "b") dollars, than I would not be in favor of the project. But until the study is done, it is premature render an opinion. My 2, anyway.
Fly-Swatter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,238
Nice video (kinda wish it was in HD). I guess I will have to go there in person for that HD experience. 
blueheron
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Messages
- 936
The potential of the Lehigh is better now than perhaps it has ever been. Sadly, the gorge section still has compromised water flowing into it from the active mining. Until the water conditions there are fully addressed there really can’t be any comparison to the Upper D. After a decade of wade fishing where I could ,I started floating in various forms and have finally seen 95% of the water from the dam to Treichlers and have seen few areas that don’t have fish. They don’t hold everywhere, it’s a river, they move around chasing food which is not a given due to environmental factors. As far as the fish density, once again you can’t compare to the Upper D, the food biomass doesn’t allow for that. The river is potentially the cleanest it has ever been and hopefully will keep on that path , the bright light of public opinion can only help so much. They are unlikely to put in a mixing tower at the dam due to the cost to benefit ratio, a feasibility study is a little like your dad saying we’ll see when asked to part with some money he doesn’t want to part with. Everybody knows that we’ll see means no. So I’ll soldier on and fish where I’ve found them to be for that flow and time of year and be happy to release them to fight another day.
L
LehighRegular
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 749
Mike,
I don't think you can use numbers from fisheries in PA. I think you have to look else where that have established year round wild trout tailwater fisheries that are comparable in size and make up. Why, because PA doesn't have anything like this type of fishery, not even close. Maybe the Yough in character, but that has its own issues as well.
You might be able to look at the Upper D for a somewhat close comparison for economic potential, but the character of the two rivers are greatly different. You may have to look out west for fisheries that may be more comparable.
So taking economic information from PA fisheries is very conservative. FYI - The 1M / mile information came from Trout Unlimited.
Access is very good for this fishery in comparison to what I have experienced, and I have fished some of the best fisheries in the West, tailwaters in the South and Northeast streams/rivers. Could parking areas be improved, sure, but right now there is sufficient access to the river for anglers.
Got to think big picture!
I don't think you can use numbers from fisheries in PA. I think you have to look else where that have established year round wild trout tailwater fisheries that are comparable in size and make up. Why, because PA doesn't have anything like this type of fishery, not even close. Maybe the Yough in character, but that has its own issues as well.
You might be able to look at the Upper D for a somewhat close comparison for economic potential, but the character of the two rivers are greatly different. You may have to look out west for fisheries that may be more comparable.
So taking economic information from PA fisheries is very conservative. FYI - The 1M / mile information came from Trout Unlimited.
Access is very good for this fishery in comparison to what I have experienced, and I have fished some of the best fisheries in the West, tailwaters in the South and Northeast streams/rivers. Could parking areas be improved, sure, but right now there is sufficient access to the river for anglers.
Got to think big picture!
M
Mike
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,550
What you are suggesting is that one fishery would generate more economic activity than all of the natural and man-made coldwater fisheries in Pa combined (minus the upper Delaware and Yough, since we don't yet have measured values for those, and minus Pa's inland lakes, but including Erie). And with that context, you believe that?
wildtrout2
Well-known member
Very true! Getting down to the river from the trail in many areas is downright dangerous. This will limit how many actually fish it.
L
LehighRegular
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 749
Mike,
YES. I DO!!! If managed properly.
What does the Upper D/West Branch alone generate? Do you know? PFBC should have that information.
This type of fishery would be unique to PA. There would be nothing like it. How many tailwater trout fisheries does PA have that don't have some type of flow or thermal problems. ZERO.
This fishery has the habitat, bugs, aquatic life/minnows, tons of feeder streams for spawning habitat (not sure about in river spawning), the only missing piece is coldwater from mid-June through mid-Sept.
Maybe look to Maryland where their tailwaters are managed a bit differently than here in PA. I think they are quite popular down there. North Branch Potomac might be a close comparison.
Don't get stuck comparing PA's fisheries to the Lehigh. Lehigh would be unique compared to what trout fishing opportunities we have in PA.
YES. I DO!!! If managed properly.
What does the Upper D/West Branch alone generate? Do you know? PFBC should have that information.
This type of fishery would be unique to PA. There would be nothing like it. How many tailwater trout fisheries does PA have that don't have some type of flow or thermal problems. ZERO.
This fishery has the habitat, bugs, aquatic life/minnows, tons of feeder streams for spawning habitat (not sure about in river spawning), the only missing piece is coldwater from mid-June through mid-Sept.
Maybe look to Maryland where their tailwaters are managed a bit differently than here in PA. I think they are quite popular down there. North Branch Potomac might be a close comparison.
Don't get stuck comparing PA's fisheries to the Lehigh. Lehigh would be unique compared to what trout fishing opportunities we have in PA.
L
LehighRegular
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 749
This would be a great TU improvement project.
ryansheehan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2015
- Messages
- 2,515
The MD tailwaters have their own set of issues as well. The NB has poop water pumped into it, the water turns from clean to brown, it's just nasty. I'm telling you that wouldn't fly in most states. Let's face it, not a single tailwater has a fishing first set of regulations. If the economic reward were higher there might be a chance, but it's not. Just saying the grass isn't always greener. Never been to the Lehigh and dont know anything about it, you don't want it managed like the branch.
mt_flyfisher
Well-known member
Not many guys on this forum know me. One reason for that is that, although I’m a long time PA resident, I’ve spent much of my fishing time in Montana for the past 18 years. However, due to an unforeseen event, I’m planning to spend much more time fishing in PA this year than I have in the recent past.
I have never fished the Lehigh before, but based on what I’ve heard elsewhere and read here on this forum, I plan on spending at least some of that time fishing there this year and beyond.
And, for Mike’s info., I bought a nice new bicycle this past fall to replace my 35 year old Cannondale to take with me when I go to the Lehigh this year. I also plan to use my bike when I fish Penns and Pine Creek this year as well, and maybe the Tully, as I’ve done in years’ past. (I used to use my bike to shuttle on the upper Delaware when there were far fewer fishermen as I understand there are there now.)
I don’t know anything about the economic or financial studies that have been quoted here, or how those costs or benefits were determined, or whether the Lehigh could possibly generate an economic benefit of $1 million a mile or $17,000 per mile, but I do know a bit about finance, and something (more or less) about trout fishing.
Personally, I spend upwards of $20,000 per year directly or indirectly related to trout fishing, and have for many years. I suspect a number of other members on this forum spend a similar amount. It’s not just money spent on fly rods, reels, fly tying materials, etc, but it’s money spent on boats, trucks, RV’s, gasoline, camping, hotels, food, etc. - things I would not not be buying (like driving my truck to go to Montana), or depreciating things as rapidly (like driving an extra 15,000 miles per year) if I were not going trout fishing. When you take the velocity of money into account, my annual spending alone probably generates upwards of $50,000 of economic benefit per year - a benefit that goes to someone, someplace. To keep it in round numbers, if I were trout fishing 100 days a year, I’d be generating an economic benefit of $1,000 per day as a direct result of my trout fishing. (Based on Mike’s figures, I could easily buy a mile per year of the Lehigh for my personal use!)
I’m just kidding about that, naturally, but I suspect the correct number for the Lehigh could easily be much closer to the $1 million per mile, than $17,000 per mile - which is of course an average per mile cost, and not representative of the use that many considerably larger than average rivers get, tailwater or not. And if I were to fish the Lehigh just 10 incremental days per year, which I would probably do if I found the fishing were that good, that would amount to an average annual incremental economic benefit, that one might attribute to the Lehigh, of $10,000. (If you added 100 guys like me fishing there per mile per year you’d have your $1 million dollar per mile impact.)
Hope to meet more of you guys on PA streams this year.
John
P.S. I wonder what the economic benefits would be if that $5.00 that I spent annually for my PA fishing license in the 1960’s would have just kept up with inflation!
I have never fished the Lehigh before, but based on what I’ve heard elsewhere and read here on this forum, I plan on spending at least some of that time fishing there this year and beyond.
And, for Mike’s info., I bought a nice new bicycle this past fall to replace my 35 year old Cannondale to take with me when I go to the Lehigh this year. I also plan to use my bike when I fish Penns and Pine Creek this year as well, and maybe the Tully, as I’ve done in years’ past. (I used to use my bike to shuttle on the upper Delaware when there were far fewer fishermen as I understand there are there now.)
I don’t know anything about the economic or financial studies that have been quoted here, or how those costs or benefits were determined, or whether the Lehigh could possibly generate an economic benefit of $1 million a mile or $17,000 per mile, but I do know a bit about finance, and something (more or less) about trout fishing.
Personally, I spend upwards of $20,000 per year directly or indirectly related to trout fishing, and have for many years. I suspect a number of other members on this forum spend a similar amount. It’s not just money spent on fly rods, reels, fly tying materials, etc, but it’s money spent on boats, trucks, RV’s, gasoline, camping, hotels, food, etc. - things I would not not be buying (like driving my truck to go to Montana), or depreciating things as rapidly (like driving an extra 15,000 miles per year) if I were not going trout fishing. When you take the velocity of money into account, my annual spending alone probably generates upwards of $50,000 of economic benefit per year - a benefit that goes to someone, someplace. To keep it in round numbers, if I were trout fishing 100 days a year, I’d be generating an economic benefit of $1,000 per day as a direct result of my trout fishing. (Based on Mike’s figures, I could easily buy a mile per year of the Lehigh for my personal use!)
I’m just kidding about that, naturally, but I suspect the correct number for the Lehigh could easily be much closer to the $1 million per mile, than $17,000 per mile - which is of course an average per mile cost, and not representative of the use that many considerably larger than average rivers get, tailwater or not. And if I were to fish the Lehigh just 10 incremental days per year, which I would probably do if I found the fishing were that good, that would amount to an average annual incremental economic benefit, that one might attribute to the Lehigh, of $10,000. (If you added 100 guys like me fishing there per mile per year you’d have your $1 million dollar per mile impact.)
Hope to meet more of you guys on PA streams this year.
John
P.S. I wonder what the economic benefits would be if that $5.00 that I spent annually for my PA fishing license in the 1960’s would have just kept up with inflation!
wildtrout2
Well-known member
S
Smike
Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2011
- Messages
- 233
Hey all, just saw this tread and I have much to add. Most people have not spent the time on all sections of the river in all seasons to fully know the current situation and potential. (That is in no way a dig on anyone, its just hard to cover it all there is so dam much) LehighRegular is a very knowledge source.
Couple of quick thoughts
1. There are wild fish from FEW all the way to the Delaware. (40+ Miles with public access near 95% of that length) If anyone wants to disagree, I will roll my eyes like I have for years.
2. Water temps from the dam are certainly an impairment, but that impairment is muted as one moves farther away from the dam.
3. Fish move in this river.
4. The PFBC has been active on this river for years, but after many engagements and conversations, I still feel there is a gap with agreement on the current state of the fishery (and that is in no way a knock on anyone in the agency, just a potential area of knowledge improvement and it presents a large opportunity for more and better studies. (the Lehigh would love to just have a tenth of the focus that the upper D gets in terms of research)
5. AMD has been substantially mitigated, in fact the PA DEP removed the section from FEW to Jim Thorpe from impaired status, (that was back in 2009) - More current projects are ongoing now.
6. Hatches are very good (not Penns creek level but then again what rivers are outside of the upper D?) But Stone flies are found in prolific numbers (I’ve never seen so many in my life on any river anywhere) some sections have ton’s of shrimp (not something you see on other waters around here)
7. Remove the dam on the PO.
This river is such a conservation target Rich environment its not even funny.
Couple of quick thoughts
1. There are wild fish from FEW all the way to the Delaware. (40+ Miles with public access near 95% of that length) If anyone wants to disagree, I will roll my eyes like I have for years.
2. Water temps from the dam are certainly an impairment, but that impairment is muted as one moves farther away from the dam.
3. Fish move in this river.
4. The PFBC has been active on this river for years, but after many engagements and conversations, I still feel there is a gap with agreement on the current state of the fishery (and that is in no way a knock on anyone in the agency, just a potential area of knowledge improvement and it presents a large opportunity for more and better studies. (the Lehigh would love to just have a tenth of the focus that the upper D gets in terms of research)
5. AMD has been substantially mitigated, in fact the PA DEP removed the section from FEW to Jim Thorpe from impaired status, (that was back in 2009) - More current projects are ongoing now.
6. Hatches are very good (not Penns creek level but then again what rivers are outside of the upper D?) But Stone flies are found in prolific numbers (I’ve never seen so many in my life on any river anywhere) some sections have ton’s of shrimp (not something you see on other waters around here)
7. Remove the dam on the PO.
This river is such a conservation target Rich environment its not even funny.
krayfish2
Well-known member
Mike K,
I read the Upper Delaware study a while back and I believe that the fishery brought around $32,000,000 a year to the area....food, lodging, meals, etc, etc. If changes to FEW improved the fishery and increased angler spending / brought $12,000,000 into the economy up there, I'm sure it would be appreciated by the community. It's a pretty beat up and depressed area IMHO.
While we're talking, what's up with the "tailwater initiative" that was going to be huge? LoL. Sure, use Quemahonig as an option while overlooking much better options. You run a tailwater on a featureless mud ditch and say "you're welcome". Why bother? Raystown, Raystown, freaking Raystown. Cold water releases would cool it well past the junction with the J. Insects, structure, access to larger water where the fish can roam from September through June. Is the excuse still the striper fishery? Well, we can use the cool water to make a fabricated fishery because it might impact our other fabricated fisheries in the lake. The fishery below the dam could easily be self sufficient if PFBC can avoid the truck chaser pressure to dump 5000 mush bellies into it. Listen, I wouldn't even buy a license for this state if I didn't need one to guide.
I read the Upper Delaware study a while back and I believe that the fishery brought around $32,000,000 a year to the area....food, lodging, meals, etc, etc. If changes to FEW improved the fishery and increased angler spending / brought $12,000,000 into the economy up there, I'm sure it would be appreciated by the community. It's a pretty beat up and depressed area IMHO.
While we're talking, what's up with the "tailwater initiative" that was going to be huge? LoL. Sure, use Quemahonig as an option while overlooking much better options. You run a tailwater on a featureless mud ditch and say "you're welcome". Why bother? Raystown, Raystown, freaking Raystown. Cold water releases would cool it well past the junction with the J. Insects, structure, access to larger water where the fish can roam from September through June. Is the excuse still the striper fishery? Well, we can use the cool water to make a fabricated fishery because it might impact our other fabricated fisheries in the lake. The fishery below the dam could easily be self sufficient if PFBC can avoid the truck chaser pressure to dump 5000 mush bellies into it. Listen, I wouldn't even buy a license for this state if I didn't need one to guide.
T
timmyt
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 724
Wildtrout2,
Do you ride the bike down the bank with the little kayak in tow?
Smike, check your PMs please
Do you ride the bike down the bank with the little kayak in tow?
Smike, check your PMs please
S
Smike
Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2011
- Messages
- 233
Operators are standing by. No PM yet.
T
timmyt
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 724
PM sent Smike
S
Smike
Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2011
- Messages
- 233
Hey Mike, I think there is a bit of confusion and some of it just internet bantering from what I read. I know the agency has put in the time, and resources to an extent on this river. I think some are frustrated a bit by the lack of enthusiasm and low results in past studies. It doesn’t seem to line up with angler experiences. The WB gets quite the attention for the number of miles of trout water boarding PA, and it’s a well establish fishery already. On the other side Penns Creek which warms to near the same temps as the Lehigh in summer, gets its high rank (and obviously deserves it) but that is decent example of one where fish move or seemingly survive warmer months. (very typical of the Lehigh) The one area (which is not directed at you) is its seems the need to document spawning in the river to be able to move forward with more support. If fish spend 75% of their time in the river and spawn elsewhere, then I feel it deserves the same support and protection as a stream where fish spawn and live in it alone.
As for the access, you are correct, it’s easy to be within 20’ of the river just about its entire length, but another to get on the river on most spots. Also once on the river, no one will disagree its hard wading. But honestly that is the appeal, and what makes this river system unique and completely stand with some of the great western rivers. The current and next generation of anglers are looking for more wild and remote fishing experiences, and this is one of the best in that regard, and it just happens to be near 90 million people.
The LCFA has done some great work, and stay tuned for some big stuff coming in 2019. If anyone hasn’t seen it, here is an overview.
https://vimeo.com/257828572
The Lehigh Coldwater Fishery Alliance from Mike Stanislaw on Vimeo.
