Dam on Pine Creek?

[tomgamber]

franklin wrote:
We have shown the math to calculate water withdrawal impacts in previous threads. In summary about 995 million gallons flowed by the Waterville gauge in the last 24 hours. If a driller withdrew 6 million gallons today for well fracking less than 0.7% of the water would have been removed.

We who?

And you are assuming one well. We have already established there will be multiple wells at 6million gallons per. 995 million, if that is accurate, in early may during a very wet spring will be much different when the stream is running at less than half of that or 1/10th of that.

 

[franklin]

tomgamber wrote:

franklin wrote:
We have shown the math to calculate water withdrawal impacts in previous threads. In summary about 995 million gallons flowed by the Waterville gauge in the last 24 hours. If a driller withdrew 6 million gallons today for well fracking less than 0.7% of the water would have been removed.

We who?

And you are assuming one well. We have already established there will be multiple wells at 6million gallons per. 995 million, if that is accurate, in early may during a very wet spring will be much different when the stream is running at less than half of that or 1/10th of that.

Myself, gone4day, I believe pcray was involved in related threads, and some others. Somewhere in the archives there is at least one thread that shows the math involved.

As I indicated above it's the cumulative effect that needs to be managed. And yes, when flows drop to summertime levels the total withdraw should be further limited. There should be a minimum level at which point all withdraws would stop until flows increase. There are a number of ways formulas to determine acceptable withdraw rates could be managed. I believe there were some suggestions in previous threads on the topic.

 

[tomgamber]

franklin wrote:

[/quote]

Myself, gone4day, I believe pcray was involved in related threads, and some others. Somewhere in the archives there is at least one thread that shows the math involved.

As I indicated above it's the cumulative effect that needs to be managed. And yes, when flows drop to summertime levels the total withdraw should be further limited. There should be a minimum level at which point all withdraws would stop until flows increase. There are a number of ways formulas to determine acceptable withdraw rates could be managed. I believe there were some suggestions in previous threads on the topic. [/quote]

See, at least you use the word "should". I wonder if the drilling companies will.

 

[TYoung]

I don't think that taking the number of wells being drilled at one time and multiplying it by the amount of water needed per well is an accurate way of determining the possible inpact on the water level of the given stream or river. You have to understand that each well site in the Pine Creek Valley is at a different stage of the drilling process. That means that all of the well sites will not be fracking at the same time. Some might frack this summer at different times. But, some might not frack until this fall or winter. Also, since Pine Creek is mostly a stocked stream for over 2/3rds of its length, the effects of any fish kill would only last until they stocked more trout the next year. Pine Creek most years gets too warm for trout by the time the water gets low enough for any problems to accure.

 

[tomgamber]

TYoung wrote:
the effects of any fish kill would only last until they stocked more trout the next year. Pine Creek most years gets too warm for trout by the time the water gets low enough for any problems to accure.

unless of course you were a fly or spin fisherman and bugs and other food sources for fish are worth keeping. :roll:

 

[bikerfish]

the effects of any fish kill would only last until they stocked more trout the next year. Pine Creek most years gets too warm for trout by the time the water gets low enough for any problems to accure.

so the hell with the rest of the life that the creek supports? honestly?? this may be the most short-sighted thing I've ever read here.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Wild Trout use Pine Creek in the fall, winter and spring. They will make their way up the tribs in the summer to take refuge.

What if the water is to low for them to make the journey?

 

[pennsangler]

The conditions of any water withdrawal permit limit the total maximum that can be withdrawn per day and has nothing to do with the total number of wells the site serves.

Every permit has a minimum stream flow number assigned to it based on total flow to a particular withdrawal location. Once the stream falls to this level, all water withdrawals need to stop. Not "should" stop, must stop.

The SRBC monitors the stream withdrawals and take into account the total withdrawal amount for a particular watershed.

 

[franklin]

pennsangler wrote:
The conditions of any water withdrawal permit limit the total maximum that can be withdrawn per day and has nothing to do with the total number of wells the site serves.

Every permit has a minimum stream flow number assigned to it based on total flow to a particular withdrawal location. Once the stream falls to this level, all water withdrawals need to stop. Not "should" stop, must stop.

The SRBC monitors the stream withdrawals and take into account the total withdrawal amount for a particular watershed.

I used the term should because I don't know the specifics of the permitting process and wasn't sure if they had a minimum flow at which they stopped withdraws. It sounds as if the SRBC is managing the water withdraws properly.

Your response reminded me of an earlier thread http://www.paflyfish.com/forums/Open-Forums/Paflyfish-General-Forum/A-Clearfield-Co--wild-trout-stream--in-trouble----/2,17440,flat.html

Note Andrew Dehoff's comment in post #21.

 

[resica]

Apparently that coffer dam washed away a few days back.

 

[pennsangler]

DEP actually fined them for it. They said the design called for a sandbag dam not stone.

So if what they put in was wrong, why did DEP wait until it washed out until they issued a fine?

 

[franklin]

pennsangler wrote:
DEP actually fined them for it. They said the design called for a sandbag dam not stone.

So if what they put in was wrong, why did DEP wait until it washed out until they issued a fine?

Are they required to get a permit for the coffer dam?

 

[jayL]

TYoung,

I gotta say, I am pretty shocked to see you claiming that the trout are all that matter on two separate occasions in this thread. Get real man! The stocked trout aren't a concern to me at all, but there are plenty of fish, animals, birds, insects, etc that use the hell out of pine creek from headwaters to mouth. Please consider more than just your fishing when evaluating environmental impact.

 

[RyanR]

pennsangler wrote:
DEP actually fined them for it. They said the design called for a sandbag dam not stone.

So if what they put in was wrong, why did DEP wait until it washed out until they issued a fine?

Oversight by DEP personnel is so sparse and in some cases downright lackadaisical, chances are DEP was unaware that the dam was not built according to specs until they were alerted to the washout. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to learn the oversight amounted to DEP approving a plan but no field inpsection ever taking place either during constuction or post construction.

 

[reds]

RyanR,
Do you have any proof to the DEP work being either lackadasical or sparse? Or is this simply your opinion? Since you do not even live in the Marcellus drilling region how often do you visit these sites to see DEP inspections?

 

[RyanR]

reds wrote:
RyanR,
Do you have any proof to the DEP work being either lackadasical or sparse? Or is this simply your opinion? Since you do not even live in the Marcellus drilling region how often do you visit these sites to see DEP inspections?

Absolutely that is my opinion since I wrote it. It's based on personal experience with the very same division that oversees Marcellus drilling activity. I have been in numerous meetings with them and a quarry over some serious dewatering issues on a wild trout stream. That's one instance where I've witnessed the extent of their oversight, or lack thereof. It was an eye opener for not only me but several PATU and chapter officers. In many cases a Friday afternoon after hours phone message from one of these operations to the DEP official is just fine with them. The creek runs dry for 10-20 hours on a weekend from their action and Joe DEP gets word of it when he gets back in on Monday and hears the message. This jerk actually said to us "They called though so its fine, and hey they restored flow by the next morning so I don't see a big problem." Even the PFBC knows DEP can't handle it which is why they are training there people now. If DEP accepts a voice mail as sufficient for an operation that results in several miles of creek running bone dry, I don't think its much of a stretch to think that perhaps they didn't actually see a small coffer dam as built. I didn't assert that's what happened, only that I wouldn't be surprised to hear it did.

I believe the Lehigh watershed has proposed drilling sites. Guess what, I live there. So does the Delaware, yup live in that watershed too.

 

[tomgamber]

Were you expecting DEP to babysit them 24/7? First I don;t think they have the resources to put an "agent" (for lack of a better term) on every well or dam site from start to finish. second, for those who claim to be against big government...it kind of hypocritical to expect anything more than permit or design approval and an occasional inspection at best. Personally I don't think it ever should have been approved. Perhaps those who constantly defend these water thieves and polluters would like to answer the previously posted questions.

 

[RyanR]

tomgamber wrote:
Were you expecting DEP to babysit them 24/7? First I don;t think they have the resources to put an "agent" (for lack of a better term) on every well or dam site from start to finish. second, for those who claim to be against big government...it kind of hypocritical to expect anything more than permit or design approval and an occasional inspection at best. Personally I don't think it ever should have been approved. Perhaps those who constantly defend these water thieves and polluters would like to answer the previously posted questions.

I'm not sure but is that addressed to me?

Absolutely not, I would never expect 24/7 babysitting and I never intimated anything as stupid as that either. Of course they don't have an agent for every dam or well site, that was my point. I don't think it's out of line though to expect periodic visits, at least an initial inspection of new well or in this case the coffer dam after it was built. I don't think the phone call or voice mail system of oversight is cutting it. For sure they are understaffed but even so they can still do better in certain areas.

 

[tomgamber]

No, it wasn't but feel free to take it any way you want in the interest of discussion.

 

[jeff]

pennsangler wrote:
The conditions of any water withdrawal permit limit the total maximum that can be withdrawn per day and has nothing to do with the total number of wells the site serves.

Every permit has a minimum stream flow number assigned to it based on total flow to a particular withdrawal location. Once the stream falls to this level, all water withdrawals need to stop. Not "should" stop, must stop.

The SRBC monitors the stream withdrawals and take into account the total withdrawal amount for a particular watershed.

I for one have a hard time trusting any governing agency when it comes to gas drilling or anything related to it. The politics in it is very deep rooted and the money and favors trading hands would blow us all away I am sure! Not to mention many of these agency's are to short staffed to monitor what is really going on. Are we really going to trust the gas drillers to stop taking water from depleted watersheds if one of their wells is in the middle of being fracked? I would think the companies would rather pay a small fine (if they were even caught) then stop an operation that would cost them millions of dollars. I don't live up there but I think I have as much right as anyone in the state to voice my opinion on this matter. That water or lack there of, or the crap that's in it, effects us guys down here believe it or not.