Does the Little Lehigh have any wild browns left?

[6xAdams(Jones)]

So do you think there is no future for solar. Are you involved in the field somehow?

There is a future for solar. Although the present and immediate future "success" is only possible through government subsidies. Long term... who knows? I expect to be walking on streets of gold by then... For now, I'm getting tired of seeing my taxes pay for the ill-advised attempts with this and other green tech - that seem to have an equivalent or worse environmental impact than the issues they are trying to correct.
I've been involved in the nuclear generation field, since I trained for it on a navy submarine almost 40 years ago. So... I'm not involved in the field of solar - even though the company I work for provides energy from diverse sources.

 

[6xAdams(Jones)]

And why is a huge area like this needed?

Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant’s Footprint

Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility, a Nuclear Energy Institute analysis has found.

www.nei.org

Summarized...

• A 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility needs just over one square mile
• Intermittent wind and solar need much more area to generate the same power
• No U.S. wind or solar facility generates as much as the average nuclear plant

Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility, a Nuclear Energy Institute analysis has found. Solar photovoltaic (PV) facilities require up to 75 times the land area.

 

[jgish92]

Dear Board,

The larger issue in my opinion isn't solar power itself. The real issue as I see it is our undying refusal to re-use most formerly developed land. Someone posted above that solar farms could probably be built on existing developed land like an old, shuttered mall. That makes sense to me, but instead we ruin good land in 100-acre chunks like the supply of land is unlimited.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Take a drive through North Philly and look at all the "developed" land that sits vacant. Ask yourself if you would want to own it or invest in it. Developed land in desirable areas does not sit vacant for too long. I work in a industry that demolishes old malls, box stores, etc. It might seem like they sit empty for a while, but when the economy is moving, they turn over. The delay in the process is usually related to financing, permits, zoning, etc.
Unfortunately, it is often much cheaper to build on virgin land then to demolish and rebuild.

 

[JeffP]

Take a drive through North Philly and look at all the "developed" land that sits vacant. Ask yourself if you would want to own it or invest in it. Developed land in desirable areas does not sit vacant for too long. I work in a industry that demolishes old malls, box stores, etc. It might seem like they sit empty for a while, but when the economy is moving, they turn over. The delay in the process is usually related to financing, permits, zoning, etc.
Unfortunately, it is often much cheaper to build on virgin land then to demolish and rebuild.

Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant’s Footprint

Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility, a Nuclear Energy Institute analysis has found.

www.nei.org

Summarized...

• A 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility needs just over one square mile
• Intermittent wind and solar need much more area to generate the same power
• No U.S. wind or solar facility generates as much as the average nuclear plant

Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility, a Nuclear Energy Institute analysis has found. Solar photovoltaic (PV) facilities require up to 75 times the land ar

Take a drive through North Philly and look at all the "developed" land that sits vacant. Ask yourself if you would want to own it or invest in it. Developed land in desirable areas does not sit vacant for too long. I work in a industry that demolishes old malls, box stores, etc. It might seem like they sit empty for a while, but when the economy is moving, they turn over. The delay in the process is usually related to financing, permits, zoning, etc.
Unfortunately, it is often much cheaper to build on virgin land then to demolish and rebuild.

Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant’s Footprint

Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility, a Nuclear Energy Institute analysis has found.

www.nei.org

Summarized...

• A 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility needs just over one square mile
• Intermittent wind and solar need much more area to generate the same power
• No U.S. wind or solar facility generates as much as the average nuclear plant

Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility, a Nuclear Energy Institute analysis has found. Solar photovoltaic (PV) facilities require up to 75 times the land area.

Well this is all from the Nuclear Power industry, but I'm willing to read.

 

[DomR]

Dear Board,

The larger issue in my opinion isn't solar power itself. The real issue as I see it is our undying refusal to re-use most formerly developed land. Someone posted above that solar farms could probably be built on existing developed land like an old, shuttered mall. That makes sense to me, but instead we ruin good land in 100-acre chunks like the supply of land is unlimited.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

It all comes down to costs. Solar is a low margin operation so you need as little sunk costs as possible to get healthy enough ROI. Even shuttered males will cost more that clearing rural forested land.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I'll say it again, maybe it is time that the LL becomes a stocked fishery. Maybe a DH regulation, the rainbows seem to holdover but if the wild browns are dying, and per Mikes post with no end in sight, perhaps it's time to remove C&R regs and open it up to an approved trout water and DH section.

 

[Bamboozle]

I remember how long it took the PFBC to finally put Section 8 (former Heritage) on the Class A list even though it was touted as such for years and not stocked before it finally showed up on the list.

I will add that this addition was LONG after folks started complaining of a degraded fishery which I attributed to lower catch rates overall because of less hatchery escapees versus less wild fish.

As a point of reference, in many, many years of fishing the Little Lehigh going back to the 1980's I caught 100 to 1 stocked fish versus wild except when fishing Sections 1, 3 & 4.

Maybe it is time for another survey before folks jump to conclusions.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I remember how long it took the PFBC to finally put Section 8 (former Heritage) on the Class A list even though it was touted as such for years and not stocked before it finally showed up on the list.

I will add that this addition was LONG after folks started complaining of a degraded fishery which I attributed to lower catch rates overall because of less hatchery escapees versus less wild fish.

As a point of reference, in many, many years of fishing the Little Lehigh going back to the 1980's I caught 100 to 1 stocked fish versus wild except when fishing Sections 1, 3 & 4.

Maybe it is time for another survey before folks jump to conclusions.

This is a good idea.
I would be curious to see the results.

 

[bringthepain]

So do you think there is no future for solar. Are you involved in the field somehow?

Theres no future for solar

 

[Mike]

I remember how long it took the PFBC to finally put Section 8 (former Heritage) on the Class A list even though it was touted as such for years and not stocked before it finally showed up on the list.

I will add that this addition was LONG after folks started complaining of a degraded fishery which I attributed to lower catch rates overall because of less hatchery escapees versus less wild fish.

As a point of reference, in many, many years of fishing the Little Lehigh going back to the 1980's I caught 100 to 1 stocked fish versus wild except when fishing Sections 1, 3 & 4.

Maybe it is time for another survey before folks jump to conclusions.

There was a recent survey of the stocked Class A sections (13 I believe) around the state.

 

[Mike]

I remember how long it took the PFBC to finally put Section 8 (former Heritage) on the Class A list even though it was touted as such for years and not stocked before it finally showed up on the list.

I will add that this addition was LONG after folks started complaining of a degraded fishery which I attributed to lower catch rates overall because of less hatchery escapees versus less wild fish.

As a point of reference, in many, many years of fishing the Little Lehigh going back to the 1980's I caught 100 to 1 stocked fish versus wild except when fishing Sections 1, 3 & 4.

Maybe it is time for another survey before folks jump to conclusions.

One of those sections had an overwhelming number of wild trout in one sampling site toward the upper end of the section because of a big year class one or two yrs earlier, but much lower numbers in the other sampling site farther down. That better site also produced the what I think were a couple of the biggest BT that ever saw in Ltl Lehigh surveys. I was also impressed with the numbers of wild trout toward the upper end of another of those sections. All of these were also stocked sections. Those surveys were probably 15-17 yrs ago.

I agree with your comment about the grumbling by a good number of fly anglers once hatchery escapement into the former Heritage Area was brought under a reasonable level of control. The evidence suggested that “stocked” Class A’s were favored by a good number of individuals over unstocked Class A’s even within the fly fishing community.

 

[troutbert]

Mowing right to the streambanks is very bad. It results in poor physical habitat.

How have the dam removals worked out? Is the fish habitat (pools and cover) better or worse? Have they done habitat work after the dams were removed? Does anyone have before and after photos of the dam removal sites? Does anyone have photos of the riparian lawns in the Parkway being discussed?

 

[Bamboozle]

I haven't fished there in a couple of years but are they still maintaining the riparian buffers in Cedar Creek Parkway and if so, why not in the Lehigh Parkway along the Little Lehigh Creek...

It's the same parks department...

 

[Fly5]

I only know this secondhand by a poster here years ago, but they said it was to appease the wealthy local residents so they could see the stream and not all of those ugly weeds! They are the taxpayers and local politicians, so their say has more weight. This is a heavily used park by joggers, walkers, bikers, etc.

I recall several years ago there was an effort to restore the riparian buffer in the park and they did stop mowing close to the stream and allowed the "weeds" to grow up on the banks. They planted small trees too. This lasted a while and seemingly abruptly stopped. I did talk to a woman there once who was observing the growth progress of the trees and "weeds" and I told her it was great work. I have no idea who that woman was, but I wish I could talk to her now.

I have only been Fly Fishing for about six years. Actually, I learned fly tying a few years before that at LL Bean at the Promenade Shops , from George Maciag.
So, obviously I missed the best fishing the Little Lehigh provided years ago!

On one of my days fishing there, near the Iron bridge at the policeman’s home.
There were city employees cutting the banks at the stream and large grass areas.
I asked an employee, who was taking a break, why they were cutting the important vegetation along the stream.
His reply was , like previously mentioned, the walkers and other visitors complained to city officials that they wanted a better view of the water.
This guy was a fisherman and said he totally disagreed but, was doing what he was told.

I have lived in the Lehigh Valley for all of my 68 years. The development is totally out of control. I agree, Lower and Upper Macungie townships are the biggest problems. Some of the projects they approved, had negative approval beforehand from the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission.
But, they approved them anyway. The Jaindl family, they own/ owned huge amounts of property in the Lehigh Valley, is hellbent on developing every square inch of property they own. They will fight the townships in court if it comes to that and have previously.

Finally, I have always been puzzled, what these townships do with the NEW revenue, once that fifty acre field is now fifty homes or a few warehouses.
Think about it, you had one person paying property taxes on that field, now you have fifty. This is a hypothetical example of course. Actually, it isn’t!!

PS. They call this progress….

 

[troutbert]

I don't live in the area and haven't been there for some years. But it seems like the Parkway people are going back and forth on how to manage the riparian areas. I remember back in the day when there was a lot of lawn mowed to the streambank.

Then there was a period when it seemed like they were trying to manage for more vigorous vegetation along the stream.

And now they are reversing course, and going back to "riparian lawns?" The public can influence how riparian areas are managed.

The development that has occurred with not be reversed. A housing development or warehouse will not be converted back to grass fields or woods or farmland.

But, how riparian vegetation is managed in the park systems is something that will be decided as time goes along, and the public can influence that.

 

[falcon]

Is the Jaindl family in the business of raising turkeys? I see Jaindl turkeys in markets.

 

[Jay_H]

Yes they own a turkey farm and used to own most of the Lehigh Valley.

 

[CLSports]

Is anyone familiar with the project area on the upper LL near Ancient Oaks where the trees were planted and new PFBC signage went up a few years ago about Class A managed area? Might have been a TU project? I have many questions about that area too.

 

[CodorusTUTom]

I grew up just outside the Parkway and spent countless hours back in the 70's and 80's fishing the creek between the hatchery and 15th street. Back then they mowed right up to the waters edge and everything was fine - the lawns are pretty flat and there was never a ton of damaging runoff from them. Back then, the Macungie area was still mostly farmland so even normal thunderstorms could muddy the entire creek for a few days - that was the real runoff problem. To make matters worse, the sewer system was prone to failure as well, with manhole covers popping in the Parkway and spilling gray, untreated sewage straight into the creek. And even with all that it was far, far better than it is today. There were extensive weed beds, plenty of holdover trout, a fishable sulphur and daily blizzards of tricos from July into early fall.

I believe that the development, especially in the upper watershed, has taken an irreversible toll on that creek. And I think it's because the acres and acres of roof and paved surfaces have bypassed and disrupted the system of natural aquifers and eliminated the filtration that happens when water soaks into the ground. Over time, I believe the declining water quality has chipped away at the the food chain from the bottom up and without that, how can we expect streambred trout to flourish there?

Hearing about how bad things are now really saddens me - that creek was my classroom and I made a lot of fond memories there.

 

[JeffK]

Back when I was a kid in 60's and 70's the Lehigh Valley limestoners (Bushkill, Monocacy, LL, - Saucon was still a polluted mess) has extensive weedbeds. Made it tough to nymph many places, but dry fly fishing was awesome. Excess sediment and shifting streambed ended all that. Weeds were just full of scuds and cressbugs.

Been to the LL three times this summer. Plenty of fish, but wild browns scarce and haven't seen a trico spinner fall that brought fish up.