Article about the Lehigh's troubles.

Thanks for posting this article. We are very concerned about this on the Tobyhanna Creek, which is above the Francis E Walter Dam on the Lehigh River .
 
Storm Water, though a problem for all waterways, is probably the least concern for the lehigh. AMD, thermal issues, regulation of saltwater intrusion in Phila, are bigger concerns and more impactful in my opinion.

Development on the River above JT is low to moderate. SW impacts are most likely due to secondary contaminaton via tribs ie Toby, little Toby, Hayes, and lesser creeks in the Poconos. Pocono development hit it peak 25-30 years ago.
 
regulation of saltwater intrusion in Phila will only help the trout fishery.
 
The saltwater is not the issue. Its the use of water from FEW to provide flow to Delaware R via the Lehigh to achieve that end.
 
Tigereye said:
Storm Water, though a problem for all waterways, is probably the least concern for the lehigh. AMD, thermal issues, regulation of saltwater intrusion in Phila, are bigger concerns and more impactful in my opinion.

Development on the River above JT is low to moderate. SW impacts are most likely due to secondary contaminaton via tribs ie Toby, little Toby, Hayes, and lesser creeks in the Poconos. Pocono development hit it peak 25-30 years ago.
Click to expand...
The development I saw when I was last there two years ago was warehouse building (trucking terminals), huge ones with large swaths of trees taken out, exposing the watershed to sedimentation. This was around the area of White Haven.
 
Yes that is right across from evening hatch. There are a few areas above that toward blakeslee where the woods have been cleared and for sale signs posted.
 
I wonder why the same people in the Fishing Creek water withdrawal thread, that said things like "we all eat meat", aren't hear saying "we all order things online". 🤷
 
If my memory serves me correctly ( a big if), didn't NJ, under McGreevey implement ground water recharge regulations and riparian buffers for new development? How's that working? Are we doing anything like that here?
 
What exactly would ground water recharge regulations entail?
 
Not quite sure of NJ regs, but EPA and PaDEP SWBMP's (stormwater best management practices) include among other things: use of pervious and semi pervious materials which allow for water to perculate back into ground vs cement and asphalt, infiltration basins which do essentially the same thing, land contouring that creates sheet flow vs channelized flow which gives discharge more time and area to allow infiltration back into ground. There are others that address specific issues ie contaminants and temp, but as far as discharge volume these probably have greatest impact. Each site is unique and regs allow owners to customize BMP along with specific BMP itemized in the individual permit based on the industry.
 
sixfootfenwick said:
I wonder why the same people in the Fishing Creek water withdrawal thread, that said things like "we all eat meat", aren't hear saying "we all order things online". 🤷
Click to expand...
A direct dagger, eh? Sure, I'll say it.

How about this.... You can't be a human in modern society without totally ruining mother earth and nature. It's either in your backyard or someone else's. 🤷🏾‍♂️
 
Tigereye said:
Not quite sure of NJ regs, but EPA and PaDEP SWBMP's (stormwater best management practices) include among other things: use of pervious and semi pervious materials which allow for water to perculate back into ground vs cement and asphalt, infiltration basins which do essentially the same thing, land contouring that creates sheet flow vs channelized flow which gives discharge more time and area to allow infiltration back into ground. There are others that address specific issues ie contaminants and temp, but as far as discharge volume these probably have greatest impact. Each site is unique and regs allow owners to customize BMP along with specific BMP itemized in the individual permit based on the industry.
Click to expand...


Anybody testing infiltration basins post construction to see if they are actually achieving the consultant's report in permit applications? My guess is the vast majority of infiltration basins aren't constructed properly nor do they infiltrate or "recharge" groundwater as well as what they are proposed to do.
 
I disagree on infiltration basins not recharging GW. Most are designed so that water is retained until pond water elevation reaches top of a discharge tower. ( I believe that is 25 year event, maybe wrong, its been awhile). A secondary discharge is over the bank, designed at an elevation so as not to overwhelm the tower ( 50 year event???) and as a safety precaution.

So, disregarding the 25 and 50 year events, if not discharging via tower or overflow, the only other vectors for water are infiltation, evaporation, or use.

They are not designed to "treat" contaminants. Just attenuate flow.
 
Chp 102 regs state the project must meet requirements in an approved Act 167 plan or manage net change in volume and water quality for the 2yr/24hr storm when comparing pre/post construction conditions.

Chp 102 later states the project must manage the net change in peak rate for the 2, 10, 50 and 100yr/24hr storm events.

Managing the peak rates does not equal infiltration and recharging of groundwater.

With very little post construction monitoring of infiltration I doubt few if any projects infiltration bmps actually infiltrate at the rates in which they were designed and stated by consults to. Just my opinion.
 
This kind of stuff is what is slowly, steadily happening to Spring Creek in Centre County
 
I was at the Evening Hatch fly shop this afternoon and asked the woman working there what is going to become of that huge building across the road. She said she didn't know and that it was built to spec.

It looks like it might be over a million square feet to my amateur eyes. I think that is the size of the old Catepillar building off of Rte. 30 in York

I think that this woman is smart and would know about that building right across from the fly shop.

I have also been told that the property on the left driving towards Blakeslee was clear cut without the proper permit and is now for sale. I also noticed other "For Sale" signs approaching Blakeslee.

I am concerned about what the further development will be affecting the Lehigh watershed.
 
Canoetripper said:
I am concerned about what the further development will be affecting the Lehigh watershed.
Click to expand...
^ Agree!

My township (Tunkhannock) sees the tax $ from huge warehouses but they don't see the negative impact on the beauty of the Poconos. Learn from others mistakes WRT warehouses. It's not worth it.
 
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