Friday, October 10, 2014

Wehr Dam Controversy Continues

October 10, 2014: "... an environmental scientist with KCI who is serving as the project manager, said the study will consist of six steps — data collection and review, field survey and base mapping, geomorphic assessment, sediment analysis, hydrology and hydraulics and dam evaluation — culminating in a plan for the dam's removal.

... the study will require consulting with Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Fish and Boat Commission and Historical Museum Commission officials, in addition to reviewing those agencies' records on Wehr Dam and Jordan Creek."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It could be said...
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
~ W.C. Fields ~


  1. Steve Mongrel 11:47am: I have not approved your comment because it does not comply with my commenting policy. See #3

    However I will be a sport and post it in part-- "I for one will be at the demolition of Wehrs dam with all my friends at the Wildlife Conservatory, it is a detriment to the aquatic life and the overall integrity of our watershed... ever understand Captain Spock's Vulcan credo of "the benefit of the many outweigh the needs of a few"?

    I'm not sure about the many over the few since it never was put to a public a vote.

    The part about "aquatic" life.. you mean the health and happiness of little fishies? If there is this so-called concern about them why is no one complaining when people hook them, slit their heads off, gut them while their still alive so they can eat them?

    As far as the "integrity of our watershed" if you mean riparian buffer and no mow zones, I have questions in allowing invasive species (insects and plants alike) to propagate when left unattended to due cost restrains. This is occurring currently in areas where this was already done.

    I personally feel parks are meant for people. Otherwise why even have them. Why not just bulldoze them and save the money and hassle. Let the ground hogs, snakes, insects, weeds and all the au naturel erosion occur as it would in nature untouched. Is that what you really want?

    When a homeowner allows weeds, tall grass and other stuff on their property that attracts rodents they are fined by the very city who's doing this on theirs. How is one considered proper and the other not? You do realize parks have neighbors too who live alongside them?

    Now if you want to respond that's fine, but review my comment policies first. I will not re-post your response a 2nd time in failing to follow them.

  2. The planet is warming, mowing and weed whacking to satisfy those who seek a manicured version of nature is disgusting. Furthermore there is a massive budgetary shortfall that is made worse by employing city workers to sculpt the banks in the manner you suggest.

    A few trails spread out that leading to the banks is fine, perhaps they could even be maintained by volunteers. As for the dam it should and will go, people like to hang on to something quaint and historic but man others appreciate the beauty of the creek in a more natural form, you and MM are on the wrong side of history and accusing wild lands of being grant seekers is a red herring, the park is a great place but change is not always bad man should limit his impact on the environment in a big way, the buffers capture more carbon and prevent erosion and flooding both good things.

    Tall grass and weeds on ones
    Lawn should be a choice, not everyone wants to waste fuel and time mowing a lawn just for show, rodents are a normal thing and can't live off weeds alone.

    1. Steve Mongrel Saturday, October 11, 2014 at 2:31:00 PM EDT said,
      "The planet is warming, mowing and weed whacking to satisfy those who seek a manicured version of nature is disgusting."

      The 'Covered Bridge Park' consists of only 1.3 miles along the 34.1 mile Jordan Creek. Maintaining the park the way it now would not be catastrophic since it only represents 3.8% of the entire length of the creek.

      The other part of the master plan suggests creating a 53.3 mile trail along the creek to the Blue Mountain's Appalachian Trail. Imagine all the trees, weeds and bushes that would be removed. Thus not only nullifying any carbon removal advantage to the 1.3 miles of suggested buffers, but removing hundreds of acres (53.3 miles x 5') worth of vegetation already there.

      Roughly from what I can tell almost 85%-90% of the entire creek's embankments have not been tinkered with. After the creek leaves South Whitehall other then Whitehall's small clearing along Mickley Road by Helfrichs Spring and Allentown's Jordan Park it's pretty much the same story.

      Neither do I think planting just 1.3 miles of buffers will contribute even a ting fraction towards the alleviation of global warming.

  3. steve mongrel is a sock puppet of the blog mentor. if i was for the dam's demolition, he would be against it.

    1. I'm aware, but thought I'd play him as it gave me an opportunity to address these items that I felt would be too long for the post and bore people.

      Also more people seem to click on these post when they see someone commented. If the guy wants to keep reading, commenting and it brings in more readers.. Thanks... it works for me :-)


COMMENT POLICY: I request they meet the following guidelines. (1) Remain on topic. (2) Be informative (3) Disputing any of the facts or opinions expressed either by myself or another be done in a respectful manner. Personal attacks will not be accepted for publication.