Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 (2)


Re: Problems on the Bushkill

Joined:
2007/6/19 21:49
From Lancaster County
Posts: 852
Offline
Quote:

JackM wrote:
And so we will allow deep digging in these areas? If we know they exist, why not stop digging?


Because we want to use the limestone that is in the ground? Maybe we need a crushed stone ban? If there was no demand for limestone, there would be no limestone quarries. For the most part, I tend to like driving on paved roads, instead of mud roads.

Resized Image


For every resource that we want to use or extract, there is a consequence for the use or extraction thereof.

Posted on: 12/13 22:42


Re: Problems on the Bushkill

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 1652
Offline
Quote:

Zak wrote:

I personally think that stretch of stream I hopeless. You just can't fight sink holes when there are that many that wanna form. The stream wants to go underground in that area and there isn't a darn thing we're gonna be able to do about it.


When you pump the groundwater way down it makes streams "want" to go underground.

When you stop pumping and the groundwater goes back up to its normal level, it changes the mood of the streams.

Posted on: 12/14 6:30


Re: Problems on the Bushkill

Joined:
2015/6/27 21:05
From SEPA
Posts: 420
Offline
Thanks for the info Midge and salmonoid. It gives a balanced perspective. It's interesting that geologists and hydrologists know not to build there, but they still build there, however... Parc built 398 residential units in seven buildings on an old quarry site in Plymouth Meeting next to 476, and not 6 months later, a road sunk into the ground. Highway is selling off all its old quarry sites, so the building continues.

Plymouth Creek had sinkholes, and press release talks about the remedy and does not mention the recent development that likely sparked it:

http://www.pahouse.com/Bradford/News/?id=66109

Posted on: 12/14 8:50
_________________
sickdaysfishing.blogspot.com


Re: Problems on the Bushkill

Joined:
2016/2/26 9:10
Posts: 834
Offline
Quote:

salmonoid wrote:
Quote:

JackM wrote:
And so we will allow deep digging in these areas? If we know they exist, why not stop digging?


Because we want to use the limestone that is in the ground? Maybe we need a crushed stone ban? If there was no demand for limestone, there would be no limestone quarries. For the most part, I tend to like driving on paved roads, instead of mud roads.

Resized Image


For every resource that we want to use or extract, there is a consequence for the use or extraction thereof.


Bingo...some people think mines and quarries can just cease to exist, like we don't need them anymore. Yeah..right. They have to exist somewhere if society wishes to continue as it is. Best thing to do is use best management practices and good sound reclamation plans

Posted on: 12/14 10:28


Re: Problems on the Bushkill

Joined:
2006/9/11 11:30
Posts: 195
Offline
Even drinking water withdrawals lower the water table. I am familiar with the Buried Valley Aquifer which occupies a former glacial lake bed in Morris Co. NJ. The town of Morristown, NJ had an early well based public water system which started in the 1880's. Part of management of a well field from the very beginning is regular measurements of water table depth. Therefore, there are good records for about 130 years. Over that time the water table has lowered a little more than 100 ft. This has had enormous (negative) consequences for a number of small tributaries, and the brook trout they contained. In addition, the underground flow of water has been completely altered changing the potential sources of pollution for the well fields. Different recharge areas are in play over the last 100 years.

Even if the cement quarries fill up, demands on water supply can bring about long term lowering of the water table, causing all sortsof hydrological consequences..

Posted on: 12/14 12:35



« 1 (2)



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Sponsors
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

USGS Water Levels
The New Keystone Fly Fishing Book
Polls
Where do you most want to fly fish outside the region?
Western US 39% (31)
Alaska 10% (8)
New Zealand 32% (26)
Florida Keys 3% (3)
South America 6% (5)
Elsewhere 7% (6)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2018/3/17 12:44
6 Comments





Copyright 2018 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com