CLEAR

clear@lists.cheatlakeclear.org

661 discussions

Hydro Project in Upper Cheat Watershed has been rejected by US Forest Service
by Duane Nichols via CLEAR 14 Mar '19

14 Mar '19

US Forest Service shuts down proposed Tucker County hydro project | Breaking News https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/us-forest-service-shuts-down-proposed-tu…

1 0

Are Buffer Zones Needed Around Locks and Dams Due to Horizontal Drilling & Fracking?
by Duane Nichols via CLEAR 05 Mar '19

05 Mar '19

http://www.frackcheckwv.net/2019/03/05/are-buffer-zones-needed-at-locks-dam… Are Buffer Zones Needed at Locks & Dams Due to Horizontal Drilling & Fracking? Cross Creek Reservoir in Washington County, PA Buffer zones debated for drilling near PA state’s dams Edited from an Article by Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, March 2, 2019 Hundreds of shale gas wells are crowding close to and sometimes snaking under Pennsylvania’s many dams. That’s because there’s no risk-based setback requirements for shale gas development around dams in Pennsylvania, now the nation’s second biggest natural gas producing state, with more than 11,500 Marcellus and Utica shale gas wells drilled and fracked, another 10,000 permitted, and the potential for tens of thousands more in the future. That’s in contrast to buffer zones of 3,000 to 4,000 feet around scores of dams in other shale gas drilling states. Examples of shale gas wells near dams in southwest Pennsylvania are easy to find. CNX has drilled and fracked 17 Marcellus Shale gas wells within 2,100 feet of the Beaver Run Dam in Westmoreland County, where a few thousand feet farther from the dam, the company lost control of a Utica Shale well last month, causing pressure spikes and gas flaring at nine nearby shallow wells near the reservoir. In light of studies and analyses that suggest gas drilling could cause surface subsidence, some say that kind of encroachment is cause for concern or at least for a focused risk study to assess what could happen to dams when drilling and fracking occurs nearby. Anthony Ingraffea, a civil and environmental engineering professor emeritus at Cornell University in New York, said such studies should be done to ensure public safety, especially around bigger dams where a breach or failure could cause loss of life or economic ruin. “Yes, shale gas extraction will cause subsidence, and yes, dams will subside. But the question is how much, and then how much damage will that cause?” Mr. Ingraffea said. “Is subsidence the biggest issue raised by shale gas development? Probably not in Pennsylvania right now. But if a dam fails, then it will be a big ‘Ooops.’ I think it would be better to be safe than sorry.” That was the approach by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Southwest Division which since 2011 has prohibited shale gas well drilling and fracking, horizontal laterals and pipeline routes within 3,000 feet of 90 of its dams in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas and Missouri to protect them from structural damage and reduce the risk of catastrophic collapse. And three years ago, the Fort Worth District in that same corps division conducted an engineering study that resulted in widening the 3,000 foot buffer zone to 4,000 feet around the massive Joe Pool Dam west of Dallas. The corps was concerned that continued and close drilling and fracking near the dam would put it in jeopardy. If Pennsylvania had a 4,000 foot buffer around its dams, 303 shale gas wells would be within that exclusionary zone, according to mapping done for the Post-Gazette by Fractracker Alliance, an environmental nonprofit with mapping and data collection expertise. And 167 of those are drilled and fracked wells within 3,000 feet of 27 dams in 10 counties, including wells close to 19 dams in seven southwestern Pennsylvania counties — Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, Greene, Fayette, Washington and Westmoreland. The corps’ Joe Pool Dam study also recommended that deep wastewater injection wells — the kind that activated deep bedrock faults and caused 77 deep but minor earthquakes around Youngstown, Ohio, in 2011 — be kept five miles away from the dam. Seven of the dozen deep injection wells in Pennsylvania are closer to dams than that, according to Fractracker mapping. Matt Kelso, Fractracker’s manager of data and technology, called on the corps in Pittsburgh to take a more proactive role in assessing the risk to dams. “The Army Corps of Engineers has identified this particular risk with oil and gas wells and especially brine disposal wells in close proximity to dams in one part of the country, and yet the same practice is essentially unregulated in other locations,” Mr. Kelso said. “We encourage USACE to enact these common-sense preventative measures nationwide to protect this critical infrastructure.” Drilling sideways or deep “horizontal drilling” Modern shale gas wells don’t just go straight down. Some laterals can extend horizontally through the shale for more than three miles. So directional drilling from well pads located more than 4,000 feet from dams can also allow well laterals to burrow closer to, or even under, dams. One such operation is Range Resources Appalachia LLC’s Avella Land Ventures well pad about a mile away from the Washington County-owned Cross Creek Park Dam. Three well laterals end approximately 400, 600 and 1,000 feet from the breastworks, and one 6,600 foot lateral stretches under the dam. Washington County’s original 2003 lease for gas drilling under the 2,400 acre park prohibited drilling within 3,000 feet of the dam, but that was changed to accommodate newer directional drilling technology, said Lisa Cessna, executive director of the Washington County Planning Commission now and in 2012 when the commission approved the change. Ms. Cessna said the change was made after the county consulted with engineers, but Bob Donnan, a local anti-drilling activist, said the higher revenue the county received also came at a higher risk. “One has to wonder what sort of risk that added to a potential failure of the earthen breastworks of the dam ,” he said. “The resulting flooding would severely affect the small town of Avella.” State Rep. Rob Matzie, D-Beaver, introduced legislation two years ago that would have established a 4,000 foot setback from dams for wells and pipelines, but the bill didn’t get out of committee. He plans to reintroduce it this spring. “The number of wells within 4,000 feet of our dams speaks to the need to get some regulation in place,” said Mr. Matzie, whose interest in the issue was prompted by plans to route the Shell Falcon ethane pipeline close to the Ambridge Reservoir. “I’m a big supporter of the natural gas industry, but I want to be cautious about our water supplies,” he said. “The industry should be cautious too if it wants to be a good neighbor. If setbacks are good enough for Texas they should be good for Pennsylvania too.” Buffer zone debate being exposed The corps’ Pittsburgh District has not established exclusionary safety zones between shale gas operations and any of its 13 flood control dams or 17 river navigation locks and dams in Western Pennsylvania. And although all of the corps’ dams and locks in the state were built years before the first shale gas well was drilled, the local corps district hasn’t conducted specific engineering studies to assess impacts and risks from present and future shale gas development. Officials in the corps’ Pittsburgh district office and its headquarters in Washington, D.C., say they have no plans to do new engineering assessments, but both have talked about doing so. “We pulled a team together to see if we needed a specific process. We found that there was an ‘area of concern’ in the Southwest, but in Pennsylvania we did not identify a high level of concern for our projects,” said Tammy Conforti, a civil engineer and acting dam and levee safety officer in the corps’ D.C. office. “We concluded it was not an issue for a national policy, and (shale gas development) posed a threat similar to other industries. “At this point we don’t feel a need to drill down and develop a specific approach for fracking, although there might be concerns on specific sites.” So far in Pennsylvania, only two corps’ projects — Lock and Dam No. 8 on the Allegheny River near Kittanning in Armstrong County, and Lock and Dam No. 2 on the Monongahela River in North Braddock, Allegheny County — have shale gas wells within 4,000 feet, and the Pittsburgh corps office said it has no issues with those. But the Pittsburgh corps did have some concern a decade ago when shale gas development was just getting started in the state, said Werner Loehlein, the corps’ water management chief in Pittsburgh until his retirement two years ago and now a senior lecturer in the civil and environmental engineering program at the University of Pittsburgh. “One of the concerns we had then was what could happen when horizontal well laterals go under our dams,” Mr. Loehlein said. There were also internal concerns about the cumulative impacts on corps dams of hundreds or thousands of shale gas wells. “There were meetings about those concerns and we talked about a 3,000 foot buffer,” Mr. Loehlein said. “And I do remember there was talk about doing a research study. There was interest in doing it, but it just didn’t happen.” Jeffrey Hawk, a Pittsburgh District corps spokesman, said the corps reviews shale gas well locations near its dams during “periodic assessments,” and evaluates the risk they pose. Although drillers and pipeline companies are not required to notify the corps about shale gas development operations on private land near dams, Mr. Hawk emphasized that the Pittsburgh corps has a “rigorous” dam safety inspection program that includes the use of inclinometers to determine if its dams are sinking, and includes regular inspections for cracks and leaks. “To date,” he said, “the Pittsburgh District’s assessments have not determined any significant risks to district dams and no damage has occurred.” Much is unknown about fracking impacts There’s been no damage in Texas either, but the corps’ Fort Worth District, in coordination with the Southwestern Division has gone the extra 3,000 or 4,000 feet in ensuring dam safety. That approach was embodied in an April 2011 letter to the mayor of Grand Prairie, where the Joe Pool Dam is located, from Col. Richard Muraski Jr., then commander of the Fort Worth District. Mr. Muraski wrote that the corps was adopting the buffer zone because it had “significant dam safety concerns” about the impact of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on its dams. “Much is unknown about the impact of hydraulic fracturing and removal of oil and natural gas from formations in close proximity to USACE dams and other key structures,’ Mr. Muraski said in the letter. “Although hydrofracturing generally occurs in formations that are found more than a mile below the ground surface, there is concern that the disruption to the geologic structure of natural gas shale formations could result in subsidence of the underground structures supporting dams, resulting in damage to the dams and associated structures.” The Joe Pool study of February 2015, done for the corps by DLZ National Inc., an engineering consulting firm from Columbus, Ohio, found that the area’s closely spaced wells could cause dam subsidence of from 2 inches to 21 inches. “There were a lot of wells already around the dam and we were concerned that any type of subsidence from fracking or faults could produce (slumps) or displacement at the dam,” Mr. Muraski, now retired from the Army, said in a phone interview last month. Loree Baldi, chief of the Dam and Levee Safety Section and the geotechnical branch in the corps’ Fort Worth District, said corps concerns were heightened by memories of the Baldwin Hills Dam failure near Los Angeles in 1963, which killed five people and has been blamed on significant subsidence activated by oilfield extraction and deep injection well activity along a fault line. Ms. Baldi said the corps undertook the Joe Pool engineering study to determine if it could rule out negative impacts to its dam projects from drilling in the 8,600 foot deep Barnett Shale. By comparison, the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania lies between 5,000 and 9,000 feet underground. “But the information developed could not rule that out,” Ms. Baldi said. “The risk posed by shale gas wells near Joe Pool Dam was not acceptable to allow drilling to go forward. Other, outside experts reviewed our study and concluded the same thing.” Pennsylvania Under Consideration Pennsylvania agencies — the Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Game Commission, Fish and Boat Commission — own more than 250 dams. None of those agencies reported damage to their dams from shale gas operations, but none have conducted engineering studies to assess risks from existing and future gas development. The PA-DEP, which owns 10 small dams, and regulates the shale gas industry through permitting and enforcement, issued a statement saying it does not track distance between its dams and gas wells and does not consider seismic activity from fracking a risk to surface structures like dams. The PA-DEP, in the aftermath of one “induced seismic event,” causing several “low magnitude earthquakes apparently associated with hydraulic fracturing” in Lawrence County, does require seismic monitoring at shale gas wells in the northwestern part of the state and at underground injection wells for wastewater disposal. The state Dam Safety Program, part of the Department of Environmental Protection, oversees regulation of approximately 3,400 dams, including 747 classified as “high hazard” dams, meaning their failure or collapse would likely cause loss of human life. Roger Adams, director of PA-DEP’s Waterways Engineering and Wetlands Bureau, which contains the state Dam Safety Program, said many of the state’s dams, especially the high hazard dams, are designed to withstand a seismic event, like an earthquake. But subsidence is another matter, one that warrants watching, he said, noting that the concrete Duke Lake Dam in Ryerson Station State Park in Greene County cracked due to mining subsidence in 2005, causing the state to draw down the water in the popular recreational lake, which remains drained. “Subsidence raises different concerns because dams are not designed for subsidence,” said Mr. Adams, who is also president of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. “Subsidence is not something we’ve heard much about, but something we need to look into.” Sent from my iPhone

1 0

Jones–Imboden Raid during the Civil War — Wikipedia
by Duane Nichols via CLEAR 24 Feb '19

24 Feb '19

Here we have a very well written account of our region just before WV statehood in 1863. Jones–Imboden Raid - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones–Imboden_Raid

1 0

Is proposed Tucker plant a health hazard? | The ELKINS Intermountain
by Duane Nichols via CLEAR 17 Feb '19

17 Feb '19

http://www.theintermountain.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/2019/02/is-pr… Is proposed Tucker County hydro-plant a health hazard? By Joseph W. Dumire, Elkins Inter-Mountain, February 16, 2019 I am responding to the editorial in The Inter Mountain regarding the proposed Big Run hydroelectric plant in Tucker County. The following comments represent my personal thoughts and not those of any other person or group. Construction of the proposed hydroelectric project would require the creation of a 1,200-acre upper reservoir. This upper reservoir would contain approximately 36 billion gallons of water that would set directly on top of old abandoned coal mine tunnels as well as land that has previously been strip mined. Maps currently indicate that the upper reservoir would set on approximately half of the mined land. This would undoubtedly unleash an irreversible Pandora’s box by disturbing acid mine waste from both the old deep mines and the strip-mined area. The weight of billions of gallons of water on top of the deep mines could cause the tunnels to collapse. Once the acid mine waste in the subject area is released it would negatively impact Tub Run, the North Fork, Slip Hill Mill Run, Finley Run and Big Run, which would eventually enter the Blackwater and Cheat Rivers, thus killing these rivers and streams with acid mine waste. Additionally, as the upper reservoir is saturated with acid mine waste, the water in the lower reservoir would become polluted as the water from the upper reservoir is released into the lower reservoir, thus killing an entire watershed. It is a losing situation. Besides killing streams and rivers with acid mine waste, the hydro electric project would destroy much of Tub Run and Mill Run. Mill Run is a Tier 3 stream. “Tier 3 is the classification for waters designated as an outstanding national resource. Sediment transfer, temperature variability, species richness, and overall habitat functionality are some of the effects dams have on river systems.” Once the surrounding watershed is killed from the release of acid mine waste, the watershed will no longer support fish and other wild life and will no longer be usable for drinking purposes. The upper reservoir would be created by a circular mound of compacted soil being as much as 100 feet deep. No mention has been made of what safety factors would be in place to prevent this reservoir from compromise/failure in the event of heavy rain and flooding such as what took place during the flood of 1985. Should either or both reservoirs fail, the populations at the lower end of the county would be at severe and life-threatening risk. During the time that water is exchanged between the upper and lower reservoirs one of the reservoirs will become an unsightly mud flat that could possibly attract disease, carrying mosquitos that would affect the health and safety of local populations. The job creation of the hydroelectric project has been touted for the number of high-paying jobs that will be created. The fact is, there would only be a small number of high-paying jobs at the project site itself. The remainder jobs would be in the form of lower end ancillary jobs not directly connected to the hydroelectric project itself. I look to our leaders to aggressively seek out industries and businesses that will bring good-paying jobs that are not a negative impact on the county and its citizens. Joseph W. Dumire, Thomas, Tucker County, WV

1 0

WQS Senate Letter 2.5.19.pdf
by Duane Nichols via CLEAR 04 Feb '19

04 Feb '19

CLEAR intends to endorse this letter and support the good efforts of the WV Rivers Coalition. Please send me any comments or send them directly to Autumn Crowe at acrowe(a)wvrivers.org Duane Nichols, duane330(a)aol.com

1 0

PUBLIC MEETING: Parsons (Tucker Co.) Regarding Big Run Hydro-Pumped Storage Project
by Duane Nichols via CLEAR 04 Jan '19

04 Jan '19

PUBLIC MEETING: Parsons (Tucker Co.) Regarding Big Run Hydro-Pumped Storage Project Raw feed water comes from the Cheat River & overflow goes to the Cheat River Big Run Pump Storage Hydro Project Public Meeting From Autumn Crowe, WV Rivers Coalition, January 4, 2019 The Big Run Pump Storage Hydro Project is a proposed hydroelectric storage facility in Tucker County. As proposed, the facility would impact the Big Run Bog National Natural Landmark; Mill Run, a high quality, naturally reproducing brook trout stream; and Tub Run, an impaired stream that has a $4-million-dollar reclamation investment. A lot of unanswered questions remain on long term water quality impacts. The parent company, Freedom Works, will be holding a public meeting on the proposed Big Run Pump Storage Hydro Project on Wednesday, January 9 at 6 PM at the Tucker County Courthouse in Parsons. Learn more. View our fact sheet on the project for suggested questions to ask during the meeting. There is also another meeting related to this project of the Tucker County Development Authority on January 9 at 1 PM in the same location. The Development Authority meeting is open to the public, but time for public comment and questions may be limited. Questions? Email WV Rivers’ staff scientist, Autumn Crowe: acrowe(a)wvrivers.org West Virginia Rivers Coalition, 3501 MacCorkle Ave SE #129, Charleston, WV 25304 #################### FRIENDS OF BLACKWATER, TUCKER COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA Urgent Notice of January 9th Public Meetings on Pumped Storage Project From the Friends of Blackwater, Tucker County, January 4, 2019 >>> A massive industrial complex in Blackwater Canyon? No Way! >>> Wiping out a native trout stream on the MON National Forest? Bad idea! There will be two public meetings on Wednesday, January 9, at the old Tucker County Courthouse in Parsons, (second floor) focused on the recent proposal for a massive “Big Run Pumped Storage Project” on the rim of the world-famous Blackwater Canyon. There will be a meeting of the Tucker County Commission and Development Authority at 1 p.m. The time allotted for public comment in that meeting may be limited. The evening meeting will take place from 6 to 8 p.m. The proposal developer will make a presentation, and there should be time for the public to comment and ask questions. All of the agencies who have looked at this project are saying it has serious flaws. Now it’s your turn — please come to one or both meetings, and make your voice heard! We know that the notice is short, but this is important – to protect our beautiful Highlands, please try to come if you can! Call us at 304-345-7663 if you need more details. Reply-To: info(a)saveblackwater.org

1 0

Pumped storage hydro project eyed for Tucker County | News | wvgazettemail.com
by Duane Nichols via CLEAR 17 Dec '18

17 Dec '18

https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/pumped-storage-hydro-project-eyed-for-tu… PREVIOUS Online smear campaign against Parkland students PolitiFact’s… In the days after 17 people were viciously gunned down at a … NEXT UP Capitol Club: Still time to schedule workplace donation camp… Happy Holidays to all! Pumped storage hydro project eyed for Tucker County By Rick Steelhammer, Charleston Gazette, December 16, 2018 Facebook Twitter SMS A plan to study the feasibility of building a $1.2 billion pumped storage hydroelectric plant capable of generating a constant flow of 500 megawatts of power, using wind power to operate its pumps, has been presented to the Tucker County Commission. The proposed Big Run Pump Storage Hydro Project would be located on land owned by Western Pocahontas Properties and the Monongahela National Forest, to the south of Tucker County High School, straddling U.S. 219. Under current plans, “we will have an upper reservoir on Backbone Mountain on Western Pocahontas property, adjacent to Forest Service land,” said Tim Williamson, CEO of FreedomWorks LLC, of Harpers Ferry, the company planning the project. A cylinder-shaped earth and rock-fill dike would contain the upper reservoir, connected by 12-foot diameter, 7,000-foot-long penstock pipes to a second reservoir to be built near the Cheat River in the vicinity of St. George. Water falling through nearly 1,000 feet of vertical drop in the penstocks would power electricity-generating turbines. Each reservoir would hold about 3.75 billion gallons of water and cover about 1,200 surface acres. The pipes would follow the general path of Mill Run from the upper lake, at an elevation of about 3,250 feet, to the lower lake at 2,250 feet. After pumping an initial charge of water from the Cheat River into the lower reservoir, the project would operate as a closed-loop system, using power bought from nearby wind farms to pump water back to the upper lake after passing downward through the project’s penstocks, according to Williamson. “We will be contracting with wind and possibly solar power producers for long-term power agreements to get their off-take and turn it into 100 percent renewable energy,” Williamson said. “There’s a lot of demand for that.” Power produced by the plant would be carried by a 7-mile connector line to tie into an existing 500-Kilovolt transmission line near Fairfax Stone State Park. The Big Run Pump Storage Hydro Project “has a double configuration design that allows us to operate in pumping and generation modes simultaneously,” Williamson said. While older pumped storage plants were designed to generate power for only about 10 hours daily during peak-use hours, the Big Run project is “capable of generating 500 megawatts of power at all times,” Williamson said. Two closed-loop pumped storage plants built with similar designs are operating in India and Switzerland, with a second Swiss plant nearing completion, according to Williamson. “This would be the first of its kind to be built in North America,” he said. Although most of the 24 pumped storage facilities now operating under licenses issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission were built more than 30 years ago, there has been renewed interest in building them in recent years. FERC has licensed three pumped storage projects since 2014, and more than 20 applications for preliminary permits have been filed during the past two years, including one from Big Run. A pumped storage project was licensed in the late 1970s, but never built, on the Blackwater River in Tucker County’s Canaan Valley. Construction of that project would have flooded much of Canaan Valley’s 8,000-acre wetland complex. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers denied the project’s backers a permit to place fill in the wetlands for a dam, and after years of legal wrangling that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the permit was withdrawn in 1988. Williamson said his company has been involved in $3 billion worth of construction activity since he joined it after retiring from the U.S. Department of State, where he served as deputy director for renewable energy from 2012 to 2017, and as manager of the agency’s Washington, D.C., area construction program from 1990 to 2012. For the project to move forward, a series of regulatory hurdles must be cleared, including receiving permits from FERC, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and more than a dozen other state and federal entities. Williamson said the project would produce numerous construction jobs and would employ nearly 50 people once complete. Work on the project would not affect the Blackwater River or Blackwater Canyon, he said, while it would prevent some leaching from old strip mines from entering the watershed. “There will be less mineral runoff, which will improve water quality,” he said. “A big pump storage project has been rejected here once before, but I think there may be more acceptance for one now,” Williamson said. “The key to this project succeeding is not engineering or science or even money. Local support is the key. With the will of the people, it will happen. Without it, it won’t.”

1 0

How limestone sand is breathing life into WV's acid-damaged streams | Hunting & Fishing | wvgazettemail.com
by Duane Nichols via CLEAR 09 Dec '18

09 Dec '18

How limestone sand is breathing life into WV's acid-damaged streams | Hunting & Fishing | wvgazettemail.com From an Article by John McCoy, Outdoor Pursuits, Charleston Gazette, December 8, 2018 https://www.wvgazettemail.com/outdoors/hunting_and_fishing/how-limestone-sa… Two decades ago in West Virginia, hundreds of miles of streams ran barren, devoid of insects or fish. Today many of those streams have been brought back to life, resurrected by humble gray piles of limestone sand dumped strategically along their banks. It sounds like magic, but really it’s just chemistry. The sand in those piles happens to be limestone, and the water in the streams happens to be acidic. When acid water touches limestone, a chemical reaction occurs. The limestone dissolves, and as it dissolves it neutralizes the acid. So far, yearly treatments with limestone sand have turned more than 300 lifeless miles of water into productive miles of water that support insects, crustaceans and fish. “And those are just the miles of water we directly treat with the limestone sand,” said John Rebinski, an environmental resource specialist with the state Division of Natural Resources. “Most of the streams we treat are headwater streams. The benefits of the liming can continue far downstream into much larger waters.” Perhaps the most profound change has taken place in the Cheat River system, where treatments have taken place since the late 1990s. DNR biologist Pete Zurbuch experimented with limestone-sand treatments on the upper tributaries of Randolph County’s Shavers Fork, a stream that couldn’t support trout year-round because of acid snowmelt. The treatments not only re-established trout fisheries on the tributaries, they restored year-round fishing to the main stem of Shavers Fork, as well. Subsequent treatments on other Shavers Fork tributaries re-established year-round trout fishing along the river’s entire 89-mile length. Over time, the effects extended even farther downstream into the Cheat River, helping to create a vibrant smallmouth-bass fishery in the river and in Cheat Lake. “The long-distance effects have been amazing,” Rebinski said. “We’re seeing them in the Gauley River now, thanks to treatments on tributaries of the Gauley and its tributaries, the Cranberry and Williams rivers.” How it got started DNR officials had known since 1964 that the addition of limestone to acid-tainted waters could restore damaged fisheries. The early efforts centered on waterwheels loaded with limestone rocks. As the streams’ currents turned the waterwheels, the rocks tumbling inside the wheels ground each other down, releasing tiny grains of limestone into the water. The technique restored a brook-trout population to Randolph County’s Otter Creek in 1964, and that success resulted in the construction of similar stations on Dogway Fork of the Cranberry in 1989, on the North Fork of the Cranberry in 1994, and on Beaver Creek of the Blackwater River in 1985. The stations, while effective, proved costly to install, operate and maintain. In the search for less expensive alternatives, Zurbuch and his fellow DNR officials hit upon the limestone-sand method. How it works Limestone-sand treatments require only two things: a dump truck filled with the sand, and a place to dump the stuff. Sometimes it gets dumped directly into the stream. More often, it gets dumped at the edge of the stream and onto one of its banks. The sand that falls into the water immediately gets swept up by the current, triggering the chemical reaction and immediately buffering the acid. What isn’t dissolved falls to the bottom in a grayish-white deposit. When the water rises, more of the pile gets swept into the stream and some of the sand deposited on the bottom gets kicked back up into the current. Gradually, the sand — and its acid-buffering effects — get transferred farther and farther downstream. Rebinski has discovered that the sand doesn’t even have to be dumped directly into the stream itself. On the Middle Fork of the Williams River, the stream’s location within the Cranberry Wilderness prevented access by any sort of motorized vehicle. Rebinski traced one tiny tributary of the Middle Fork to a ditch at the side of the nearby Highland Scenic Highway, just outside the wilderness boundary, and had a truckload of limestone sand dumped into the ditch. The experiment worked; the Middle Fork’s water chemistry improved, and the stream’s native brook-trout population returned. Rebinski has since employed the technique to restore other remote streams that lack direct road access. “As long as the limestone is in the watershed, the nutrients will eventually reach the stream,” he said. “It’s a slower approach, but it works.” Why it works Most people think that limestone treatment restores streams to productivity because it neutralizes acid. Water is considered acidic when its pH is below 7.0, and alkaline when it is above 7.0. Each whole number in the pH scale represents a tenfold increase in acidity or alkalinity. For example, a stream with a pH of 5.0 is 10 times more acidic than a stream with a pH of 6.0. When limestone treatment lifts a stream’s pH from 4.5 to 6.5, it reduces the acidity a hundredfold, which greatly reduces stress on aquatic organisms. Reducing acidity is only part of the picture, though. “The main effect of the limestone is that it gets rid of toxic metals in the water,” Rebinski explained. “When acid rain falls on the ground, it leaches traces of aluminum, iron and copper out of the geology. Those metals get washed into streams and put into solution. Over time, they accumulate in the systems of insects and fish. The buildup becomes fatally toxic, and the animal dies.” Limestone treatments eliminate metals by taking them out of suspension. “When the pH of the stream rises to 6.0 or above, metals precipitate out of solution and fall to the stream bottom, where they’re no longer in contact with the gills of fish and aquatic insects,” Rebinski said. The calcium released from the limestone also acts as a nutrient that boosts the production of phytoplankton and zooplankton, tiny organisms that form the base of a stream’s food chain. “On an acid-damaged stream, there’s not much plankton for insects and newly hatched fish to live on,” Rebinski said. “Liming starts the food chain from the bottom up. Once the plankton are restored, insects and minnows have enough to eat. Once those populations are restored, larger fish have enough to eat.” Liming also increases some species’ ability to reproduce. “For example, for brook-trout reproduction, pH is very important,” Rebinski said. “If the pH falls down around 5, reproduction becomes impossible because the eggs can’t survive and the fry don’t have enough to eat. When the pH rises into the upper 5s, you start to get successful reproduction. Once it reaches 6 or above, you get good reproductive success.” On West Virginia’s limestone-treated streams, the pH seldom drops below 6.0, Rebinski said. “And when it does, it’s usually when the water is rising fast from rainfall or snowmelt,” he added. “The pH might drop to 5.9, but that only lasts until the water starts to drop.” Showcase streams The DNR will begin showcasing its success stories in 2019, when catch-and-release regulations for brook trout will be placed on four limestone-restored streams and their tributaries: Middle Fork of the Williams in Pocahontas and Webster counties; Tea Creek in Pocahontas County; Otter Creek in Randolph and Tucker counties; and Red Creek in Tucker County. The regulations will encompass roughly 130 miles of brook-trout water. Rebinski said the object of the regulations is simple: “We’re trying to protect the resource. There were no fisheries there before [limestone treatments], and now that we have fisheries there, we want to try to protect them.”

1 0

Cheat Canyon Brewing plans to open in Cuyahoga Falls in Ohio
by Duane Nichols via CLEAR 09 Nov '18

09 Nov '18

https://www.ohio.com/news/20181108/cheat-canyon-brewing-plans-to-open-in-cu… Cheat Canyon Brewing plans to open in Cuyahoga Falls Rick Armon Most Popular Our Picks The former Bootlegger liquor store at 461 Graham Road in Cuyahoga Falls has been selected as the future site of the Cheat Canyon Brewing Co. It will feature a 15-barrel production brewery, tasting room and a 100-seat full-service restaurant. [Karen Schiely/Beacon Journal/Ohio.com] By Beacon Journal/Ohio.com Posted Nov 8, 2018 at 8:52 AM Updated Nov 8, 2018 at 6:12 PM Cuyahoga Falls may have to change its name to Brewery Falls. Another craft brewery has announced plans to open in the Akron suburb, meaning the community will be home to at least five breweries next year. The latest is Cheat Canyon Brewing Co., which is investing about $1.5 million in its project and hopes to open in the summer of 2019. Cheat Canyon will feature a 15-barrel production brewery, tasting room and 100-seat full-service restaurant inside the former Bootlegger liquor store at 461 Graham Road. Tom Nichelson, 44, one of the three founders and a Cuyahoga Falls resident, said he’s excited to join the local craft brewery scene. The city already is home to HiHO, McArthur’s and Missing Mountain, and Ohio Brewing has announced plans to open a brewpub on Front Street. “As long as we’re all producing good beer, it could make us a destination hub,” he said. “Come down and do the Cuyahoga Falls crawl, so to say. I like the idea that they are popping up more and more.” The other founders are Craig Koberlein, 40, of Tallmadge, who’s also an engineer, and Bob Milvet, 44, of Morgantown, W.Va., who’s an executive in the health care industry. “We are passionate about quality beer,” Nichelson said. They originally planned to open Cheat Canyon in Morgantown, but the deal fell through and the project moved to Cuyahoga Falls. Cheat Canyon is a reference to a whitewater portion of the Cheat River in West Virginia and the founders wanted their brewery to carry an outdoors theme. Despite the brewery project relocating to Ohio, the name will remain. Nichelson, Koberlein and Milvet feel the outdoors theme and name still work with the Cuyahoga Valley National Park and Cuyahoga River nearby. Nichelson, an engineer by trade, is a longtime homebrewer who got turned on to craft beer after his first sip of Bell’s Two Hearted Ale. He’s partial to pale ales and IPAs, while his partners more enjoy porters, stouts, Belgians and goses. That makes for a well-rounded beer menu. They plan to offer six to eight Cheat Canyon beers at first — “Everything from 10 percent imperial stouts to 4 percent session IPAs and everything in between,” Nichelson said. Cheat Canyon will have 24 taps, meaning there will be many guest beers at first as the brewery ramps up its own offerings. The goal is eventually to buy a canning line and package its beers — both 12-ounce and 16-ounce cans, depending on the style — but that won’t happen right away. The building is more than 14,600 square feet, providing plenty of room for expansion and space to offer live music. Cheat Canyon also will include many televisions, making it a great place to watch sports, Nichelson said. The chef-driven food menu will be appetizer heavy and “gourmet comfort food,” Nichelson said. He said the menu would fit well with the television show “Diners, Drive-ins and Dives” on the Food Network. The plan now calls for Cheat Canyon to be open Wednesday through Sunday and to serve only dinner initially. Cheat Canyon is part of a wave of craft breweries opening locally and across the country. The Brewers Association, a Boulder, Colo.-based trade group, has estimated that there are more than 6,600 breweries operating in the United States.

1 0

River Alert Information Network (RAIN)
by Duane Nichols via CLEAR 28 Oct '18

28 Oct '18

River Alert Information Network (RAIN). https://rainmatters.org/ What We Do RAIN's objective is to aid in the protection of our rivers and improve public health by making source water the top priority. With our Early Warning Spill Detection System we aim to alert water treatment facilities about contamination before it can spread downstream. We hope to educate the public on source water and help everyone understand how important water is to our health and in our every day lives. Goals: SAFEGUARD DRINKING WATER RAIN's Early Warning Spill Detection System alerts water treatment facilities when the monitoring equipment notices an irregular parameter reading. This gives them time to take preventative measures. PROMOTE ENVIRONMENTAL COLLABORATION Our member network of over 50 and our many partnerships allow for collaboration on projects and ideas working towards protecting our rivers and our public health. LEVERAGE TECHNOLOGY TO SOLVE PROBLEMS We have 23 monitoring sites that utilize modern technology to gauge the quality of the water, based on a number of different parameters throughout the Ohio River Basin. https://rainmatters.org/

1 0

← Newer
1
...
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
...
67
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

CLEAR