New development / good news for the Lehigh River

[tomgamber]

moon1284 wrote:
You are correct about the generation at the pepacton portal.

I live within .5 miles of the largest hydroelectric plant in the east and they dont provide my power so dont automatically think that living near hydroelectric power automatically means cheap electricity. That plant does provide power to NYC which is 400 miles away.

Hydroelectric power at cannonsville is a joke it wouldnt exist without massive subsidies, just like windmills wouldnt exist without subsidies, just like solar roofs wouldnt exists without subsidies, just like tesla wouldnt exist without subsidies (even with the massive advantage of non union labor). I could keep going but I wont.

But we give 20 BILLION in subsidies to the oil companies in the US with no complaints? BTW that figure, worldwide, is half a TRILLION! But that's ok, right? Wonder how they'd do without that money?

 

[krayfish2]

LR,
If that's how things will actually go, that would be fantastic. A win for each fishery. I'm still waiting for the new aqueduct system to go online which would save millions of gallons per month. With any luck, the study will result in repairs to the FE Walter tower. I'm guessing that there will be a little learning curve to manage flow and temps. Looking forward to seeing how this goes.

 

[krayfish2]

Tomgambler wrote:

But we give 20 BILLION in subsidies to
the oil companies

And according to a Bloomberg report, renewal energy received subsidies of 7 BILLION. I'd ask what your point is but it's irrelevant to this thread.

Do you have ANY contribution that actually pertains to the DRBC managing FE Walter topic?

Geez

 

[moon1284]

timmyt2 wrote:
Where is the biggest hydroelectric plant in the east US? Niagra river?

Correct Niagara River

 

[LehighRegular]

Kray,

Right. Devil is in the details.

 

[vcregular]

Even with no modifications a re-authorization of FEW to be able to allow storage to 1392' above sea level would be a win. Currently in drought storage at 1392' is an allowable encroachment into flood storage. That would be positive. That extra 30' would do wonders to the downstream fishery. Who knows how it would impact the inlake though.

 

[krayfish2]

You know how firm the ACOE was on keeping targeted lake height and matching release to inflows. With someone else calling the shots, it's a who new ball game. Interested to see how this goes.

 

[LehighRegular]

Kray,

Re-Authorization would change that issue with ACOE maintaining a targeted lake elevation.

 

[JeffK]

Kray, I'm interested to see how it goes as well. As an old fart I remember how strongly the 1955 Hurricane Dianne affected so many projects, like FEW and channelizaton of the Brodhead. When I was a kid many buildings affected had a brass plaque with the 1955 water line on it - don't know if I could find one now. Just to put things in perspective, I seem to remember 400 casualties from Hurricane Dianne with roughly 80 in the Stroudsburg area. That carnage was a strong motivator for flood control, even though much of it was a knee jerk reaction that was ineffective over time.

NYC is expected to increase population as well as other areas getting water from the Delaware drainage. Fixing leaks, water conservation etc help, but growth in population has to increase water demand. Used to work with a conservation organization of mostly town engineers and they have to be 100% sure of drinking water supply. They are in deep trouble if peoples' taps run dry. Therefore, they are super conservative when dealing with drinking water and grudgingly give up any existing storage and gladly accept new storage.

As memories of 1955 have faded who knows how the balance between drinking water and flood protection will play out. These days that scale of loss of life, which really raises the emotional stakes, is unlikely. A drought that threatens water supplies or a flood that creates havoc can change the balance Or maybe both can happen with the crazy weather we have.

 

[Smike]

Hi All,
Just saw this thread and I can add a bit more color to the story. We had a meeting with the ACOE and various stakeholders (WW rafters, LCFA, DEC (representing the DRBC) NYC was a no show.

Scope of the feasibility study still be ironed out. (Target is Jan) It’s a 3 year study and the results could directly drive any spending authorization to improve FEW Dam. (whether that is to just raise the pool level, or also build a new multiple level release tower)

Its unknown exactly what DRBC’s interest is, but they do currently own 70% of Beltsville lake and use that for flushing the salt line in Trenton. So we think they want to add the water from FEW to give them a greater available water storage to do the same. With Climate change and sea level rise, addressing the salt line issues in Trenton on the Delaware will become more difficult in time. So it would make sense to increase total water storage.

However for the Upper D, the DRBC still needs to meet the Montague flow targets and FEW can not be used to offset meeting that minimum. In fact if they use more water from the Lehigh for the salt line, that would in theory allow them to have a more even (Less Yo yo) flows in the Upper D system.

As mentioned in a post above, giving that the DRBC stands to call the shots in terms of flows on FEW (even with some minimums in place) it can present challenges to the fishery if they only raise the pool level, but do not build the ability to do a selective withdrawal. (Like running out of cold water very early in the season) So there is a risk to all of this.

As for flood control, that will always be priority #1 with FEW, but they will study the last 60 years to see how they can raise the pool and not endanger flood control. Right now at 1370' max pool level allowed, that is using only about 14% of storage capacity.

Thanks for everyone interest and help!

Keep up to date on the LCFA Facebook page or website.

https://www.facebook.com/LehighColdwaterFisheryAlliance/

https://www.thelehighriver.org/

 

[Smike]

vcregular wrote:
Even with no modifications a re-authorization of FEW to be able to allow storage to 1392' above sea level would be a win. Currently in drought storage at 1392' is an allowable encroachment into flood storage. That would be positive. That extra 30' would do wonders to the downstream fishery. Who knows how it would impact the inlake though.

Keep in mind with only a bottom release the coldest water is used in the outflow. So even with a higher level its would be quite easy to run out of cold water if they need to flush some of that storage to keep the salt line down. They did this with Beltsville back in 2016 and ran 600-700 CFS on and off for 3 months then went to 18cfs for 3 months to build back the storage. They ran out of cold water in the first 4 weeks and that was with that dam having a selective level release. Thank goodness that all happened over the fall/winter.

 

[Mike]

Very true Smike. I was waiting for someone to say what you did about discharges to control the upstream progression of the salt line. Forgetting sea level rise for a moment, droughts and the resulting upstream movement of the salt line would not always coincide with ideal timing for coldwater releases into the Lehigh. We have seen low flows at various times of the year over the past decades, even in winter and spring, but they seem to most often occur in mid-summer or late summer through fall. They can also occur for extended periods with no crystal ball for when the end will occur, so I don’t see release of extra water, if it gets that far, designated for salt line control being frittered away for trout management. I would only expect release of such waters (those for salt line control) to be coincidental to trout management, perhaps beneficial at times, but at others not so much.

 

[vcregular]

Mike- Not saying you wont run out of cold water but if the colder water can make it into August that is a win. 1,392 = approx 40% of flood storage. Or approx 14 BG. More than double the 1,365-1,370' volume. Retention time would increase. Not the silver bullet certainly. Again never said the lake would ever run out of cold water.

Regardless where this goes - - the potential for more water during the most critical time of year is a positive.

 

[Smike]

vcregular wrote:
Mike- Not saying you wont run out of cold water but if the colder water can make it into August that is a win. 1,392 = approx 40% of flood storage. Or approx 14 BG. More than double the 1,365-1,370' volume. Retention time would increase. Not the silver bullet certainly. Again never said the lake would ever run out of cold water.

Understood, remember FEW reservoir size is small compared to average river flows, and its somewhere around 6 days to turn the entire lake over at 1000 cfs when the level is 1700

 

[Smike]

Mike wrote:
Very true Smike. I was waiting for someone to say what you did about discharges to control the upstream progression of the salt line. Forgetting sea level rise for a moment, droughts and the resulting upstream movement of the salt line would not always coincide with ideal timing for coldwater releases into the Lehigh. We have seen low flows at various times of the year over the past decades, even in winter and spring, but they seem to most often occur in mid-summer or late summer through fall. They can also occur for extended periods with no crystal ball for when the end will occur, so I don’t see release of extra water, if it gets that far, designated for salt line control being frittered away for trout management. I would only expect release of such waters (those for salt line control) to be coincidental to trout management, perhaps beneficial at times, but at others not so much.

Absolutely, flow control for salt line issues can at times be diametrically opposed to supporting wild trout. This is why incorporating studying the benefits of building a new selective level release tower is so important. If we can’t be assured of flow levels, at the very least we can be assured it can be cold when used. The where they pull water from (level wise from the lake) will have zero impact on ability to when and how much they need downstream. So it would be an improvement that would not impact water use for the DRBC.

For the study we are working on trying to figure out how we can better survey the wild trout fishery in existence now. Whether that is working with PFAB or getting partnership help from the groups like TU or others. At times there are certain locations on the river which could very well achieve the threshold for Class A, or B biomass. It’s hard to survey given the size, and the fact that brown trout move a lot in and out of the river. Bottom line is having solid data showing this would be huge asset to pushing for flow plans that would help to protect the fishery.

 

[afishinado]

In the case of the Lehigh and FEW, the whitewater releases at their high levels does more to deplete the reservoir than the lower fishing releases.

And as stated above, low cfs releases of cold water will keep the river cool enough for trout. But reality is, there will be floods and there will be droughts even on rivers without dams controlling them. Drinking water and flood control should have priority, but the fish and fishing can be great most years if the dam is controlled properly.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Smike wrote:

Mike wrote:
Very true Smike. I was waiting for someone to say what you did about discharges to control the upstream progression of the salt line. Forgetting sea level rise for a moment, droughts and the resulting upstream movement of the salt line would not always coincide with ideal timing for coldwater releases into the Lehigh. We have seen low flows at various times of the year over the past decades, even in winter and spring, but they seem to most often occur in mid-summer or late summer through fall. They can also occur for extended periods with no crystal ball for when the end will occur, so I don’t see release of extra water, if it gets that far, designated for salt line control being frittered away for trout management. I would only expect release of such waters (those for salt line control) to be coincidental to trout management, perhaps beneficial at times, but at others not so much.

Absolutely, flow control for salt line issues can at times be diametrically opposed to supporting wild trout. This is why incorporating studying the benefits of building a new selective level release tower is so important. If we can’t be assured of flow levels, at the very least we can be assured it can be cold when used. The where they pull water from (level wise from the lake) will have zero impact on ability to when and how much they need downstream. So it would be an improvement that would not impact water use for the DRBC.

For the study we are working on trying to figure out how we can better survey the wild trout fishery in existence now. Whether that is working with PFAB or getting partnership help from the groups like TU or others. At times there are certain locations on the river which could very well achieve the threshold for Class A, or B biomass. It’s hard to survey given the size, and the fact that brown trout move a lot in and out of the river. Bottom line is having solid data showing this would be huge asset to pushing for flow plans that would help to protect the fishery.

My personal opinion would be that to better understand the wild trout population within the Lehigh River system a telemetry study may provide the most useful information. Based upon the telemetry data additional survey efforts whether by electrofishing or traditional angling methods could be targeted at specific locations. The Lehigh itself is not very conducive to electrofishing given its size, flow regime and instream habitat IE large boulders.

 

[timmyt2]

It seems to me that the "white water industry" folks being present on the river really isnt good for anybody but the people making money off of it. Its a waste of water, creates yo yo flows, wastes cold water at the wrong time of year, etc. Why are they given a seat at the table and not just told to take a hike? Is it just a good old boys deal where the company owners are well connected? Theres only a couple companies, i think its a stretch even calling it an industry to be honest...

I'm just learning the river but i feel like i am missing something in terms of how this all fits into the puzzle

 

[StreamBottom]

timmyt2 wrote:
It seems to me that the "white water industry" folks being present on the river really isnt good for anybody but the people making money off of it. Its a waste of water, creates yo yo flows, wastes cold water at the wrong time of year, etc. Why are they given a seat at the table and not just told to take a hike? Is it just a good old boys deal where the company owners are well connected? Theres only a couple companies, i think its a stretch even calling it an industry to be honest...

I'm just learning the river but i feel like i am missing something in terms of how this all fits into the puzzle

I would imagine they have a seat at the table because of the whitewater tourist revenue it brings to the area and the jobs that it creates.

from a quick google,
an article from 2013

article


Whether WW releases are good or bad for the river environment can be debated both ways, but IMO, at least the WW industry is connecting a lot of people to the river environment and hopefully these same people will want to help protect it.

my 2 cents
full disclosure - I enjoy both, fly fishing and whitewater boating

 

[lestrout]

Yo timmyt2 - I attended several Army Corps meetings about managing the Pohopoco dam in order to support what the Lehigh River conservation groups have been working hard on. Curiously, even though the rafting white water groups are maybe the biggest single 'industry' in the economically depressed White Haven area, we fly guys actually outnumbered the couple of dozen rafting folks.

I was impressed, not only at how articulate the folks from what I consider to be a low tech industry were, but also how open and willing they were to accommodate the somewhat conflicting desires of us trout fanciers.