Harriman sate park

[Catskill Mountain Man]

Where would trout conservation and stream restoration even begin, you know?

All of the major watersheds that would benefit us (stony, popolopen, queensboro, silvermine..etc) all have MAJOR lakes at the head waters with spill over dams. Not only that but these lakes are the bees knees with visitors.. People sail, swim, and enjoy these lakes in droves in the summer.

I'm not a civil engineer but I'm fairly certain that the lakes are mostly too shallow to put in bottom releases. Removing the major dams are most likely out of the question; although smaller dams being removed might be feasible.

Not only that but I remember an AWFUL drought maybe 15 years ago and NYC was on it's last legs for water. They had the massive rubber hoses ready to go to tap into HSP's lakes for emergency water. Really an engineering feat if they had to do it. If I remember correctly it was aborted at the last minuet because the drought broke. I also remember the mountains where I live all on fire. You could see patches of fire every night on the tops of the mountains. Very surreal.

Anyway back to HSP. In my adventures I noticed lots of braiding in the smaller streams so that's a start. Hiker made impoundments aren't too difficult to find and there are a few smaller dams that could possibly be argued about being too dangerous and expensive to maintain or rebuild. I know the area has a good amount of cold water sources and trout restoration can be done but the most major issue are those freaking giant lakes that everyone loves.

I believe that those major dams CAN be torn down but the reason needs to be brought to public attention. It's better for the rivers and fish and fishermen obviously; BUT ALSO who doesn't like to swim in a nice swimming hole on a creek? I'm sure some nice and long forgotten swimming holes will be exposed by the falling lake/s. Advertise that it's a positive change and put some nice picnic benches and trails where the stream will flow and I believe people could possibly take to the idea and even embrace it.

I personally rather swim in a stream than a lake

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Dam removals almost only ever happen when the dam's liabilities exceed its benefits. There are a variety of ways that can come to pass, but typically in State Parks, dams are maintained forever. That said, while dam removals are still in their infancy, they are growing rapidly in momentum. Funding is the major limiting factor in removing dams that are often well over 100 years old and blocking fish passage. As more and more obsolete dams are removed, the public is slowly becoming aware of the benefits to the environment and often to their own drinking water supplies.

 

[Catskill Mountain Man]

benefits to the environment and often to their own drinking water supplies.

Well now you've peaked my attention. Really? Drinking water supplies? I would think a dam would keep the ground water of the surrounding area more stable then say....down stream.... ahhhhh is that where the drinking water benefit comes into play? Or is the main problem that the lake dirties the water? Or both

Have you seen the positive affects of tearing down a dam and drinking water quantity or quality increase? I'd like to hear a story about it if you have time..

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Well now you've peaked my attention. Really? Drinking water supplies? I would think a dam would keep the ground water of the surrounding area more stable then say....down stream.... ahhhhh is that where the drinking water benefit comes into play?

Have you need the positive affects of tearing down a dam and drinking water quantity or quality increase? I'd like to hear a story about it if you have time..

I wrote a paper on just this topic. See some of that content below that I took from a letter to a major funder about the benefits of dam removals to drinking water:

As discussed, TU is currently engaged in these activities, along with our many partners, and the removal of obsolete dams is one focus of our restoration work. Removing these obsolete dams greatly improves both fish passage and fish habitat, which in turn, can greatly improve drinking water quality. A primary reason our dam removal work resonates so clearly with our many funders is that healthy coldwater fish habitat―for species such as trout, river herring, American shad, among others―and healthy drinking water requirements are closely tied.

The negative effects from the thousands of dams that remain throughout our region are many―even though they have long since outlived their intended purposes.. Dams create thermal pollution by impounding water upstream, which slows the river’s flows, increases the deposition of fine sediments, and widens the river’s natural channel, thus allowing sunlight to warm the dark sediment in the widened and shallow water. Nutrients such as nitrates and phosphorous accumulate in the upstream impoundments above the dams. These nutrients, along with sun-warmed water, fuel algal blooms that can decrease dissolved oxygen levels down to zero, especially in late summer months. These dam impoundments become a breeding ground for fecal coliform. The coliform bacteria found in our streams comes from hundreds of sources, as the bacterium exists in warm blooded animals and finds numerous pathways into our water supplies. Once in the river, coliform needs a warm, wet environment to survive, and the impoundments above dams provide the perfect breeding ground for them to flourish. Removing these nutrients and fecal coliform from our rivers greatly improves our water quality and can help to reduce costs by decreasing the cleansing and filtration processes required in drinking water treatment plants prior to human consumption.


The low dissolved oxygen levels caused by dams also decrease macro invertebrate numbers, which fuel the food chain in any river ecosystem. This reduces fish populations. The thermal pollution created by dams stresses native fish species, including the Eastern brook trout, the region’s only native salmonid. Brook trout are key indicator species of clean, cold water. Dams also can prevent fish passage, and we have seen a crash in key migratory forage species such as river herring and American shad because of their inability to migrate upstream to spawn. By removing these obsolete dams, we can simultaneously improve our water quality; restore fish habitat; increase the biodiversity within our rivers; increase passive recreation by anglers pursuing trout, shad, striped bass and other riverine species; and can help to lower the costs associated with drinking water by improving the source water entering our treatment plants.


Thank you again for your time. If you have any additional questions about the linkage between dam removals and drinking water quality, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

[Catskill Mountain Man]

Wow. Beautiful. Great job, shit.. that obviously helped to change some minds.

Fecal coliform constantly comes up when talking about water quality.

Give me the 100% reason why. Is it farms, wild animals, and people?
Or are people such a large % of that problem that we are the cause? < most obvious but sad answer


Why does that happen in this day and age? You would think sewage today would be treated. I know people outside of villages have septic tanks but are they that inadequate that it's that big of a problem?

Does coliform directly affect fish populations? If so how? They contract e.coli just like you and me?


Sorry it's a lot of questions but it's good to put out there for the masses

 

[Catskill Mountain Man]

Also the amount of problems with the water; I (as a lay man) would assume a certain amount of chlorine (or whatever) we use now a days would cure the water no matter the issue. That brings up another question; the more issues with a water source the more types of chemicals are used?

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I actually found an old decision from a NYS court relating to a fight over drinking water in Tiorati Brook. I have no idea if the stream still provides drinking water but one of the solutions discussed was putting siphons over the dam so that water was still flowing over the dams even when the water levels in the lakes were too low for spillage. Placing the intake for the siphons in the deeper parts of the lakes might help with downstream water temps too.

 

[golden beetle]

What I am noticing is that when a technical discussion of water quality comes up, CMM, Rusty Spinner, Dr. GONZO and Golden Beetle can all engage the complex issues.

Has anyone ever thought of installing Brita filters into the dams of the Harriman park?

That would solve both the drinking water issue, and restore trout habitat.

 

[Catskill Mountain Man]

What I am noticing is that when a technical discussion of water quality comes up, CMM, Rusty Spinner, Dr. GONZO and Golden Beetle can all engage the complex issues.

Has anyone ever thought of installing Brita filters into the dams of the Harriman park?

That would solve both the drinking water issue, and restore trout habitat.

Yeah that was discussed but, Brita's quote was too high.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Fecal coliform constantly comes up when talking about water quality.

Give me the 100% reason why. Is it farms, wild animals, and people?
Or are people such a large % of that problem that we are the cause? < most obvious but sad answer


Why does that happen in this day and age? You would think sewage today would be treated. I know people outside of villages have septic tanks but are they that inadequate that it's that big of a problem?

Does coliform directly affect fish populations? If so how? They contract e.coli just like you and me?

Fecal coliform is carried in the intestines of all warm blooded animals, so the sources can vary from humans which is no good to birds such as geese, ducks, herons, etc. to cows standing in a tributary stream. The acceptable allowed levels of human fecal coliform in drinking water is zero parts per million, so we can't have that in our system. Modern sewer treatment facilities should always provide zero fecal coliform at discharge, but during floods, some systems are overrun and some enters the water supply at those times. Leaking septic systems are a larger issue, especially in limestone karst regions like the lower Musky, Pequest and others. Once coliform bacteria enters the karst, it can wind up in the river. We have at least 2 known human fecal coliform hot spots on the Musky we are currently working to track down that flash in high water events.

Cows in streams are easy, you just fence them out. Spreading of chicken manure as fertilizer over farm fields is more problematic and we work with farmers to buffer any streams against getting the chicken $h*t from entering small tribs which lead to larger streams and rivers. Geese, deer, raccoons, etc. provide a bigger challenge of course and often nothing can be done (nor does it need to) in trying to reduce overall fecal coliform counts in a given water body.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Also the amount of problems with the water; I (as a lay man) would assume a certain amount of chlorine (or whatever) we use now a days would cure the water no matter the issue. That brings up another question; the more issues with a water source the more types of chemicals are used?

Correct. The question is, how much chemicals are safe for humans to ingest over time and at what cost? Example: NYC spends 80% of its water supply funding on transportation of that water to its end users. Well downstream on the same river system (Delaware River), the city of Philadelphia spends 80% of its water supply funding on treatment of that same water because of all the pollutants that enter the Delaware downstream of the Cannonsville and Pepacton and other dams from NY, PA and NJ. That says a lot about the need for chemicals and additional filtering the further downstream you draw water from for human consumption.

 

[lightenup]

Spreading of chicken manure as fertilizer over farm fields is more problematic and we work with farmers to buffer any streams against getting the chicken $h*t from entering small tribs which lead to larger streams and rivers. Geese, deer, raccoons, etc. provide a bigger challenge of course and often nothing can be done (nor does it need to) in trying to reduce overall fecal coliform counts in a given water body.

Rusty..one of NJ's best wild trout streams resides in an area where, every winter farmers spread chicken shit on their fields...I can smell it from miles away (chicken shit smells, well,....like shit)..If it is cured properly, does it still contain the evil bacterias? I ask, because I am sure the run-off reaches the stream in question, and the trout are thriving....

 

[Catskill Mountain Man]

Correct. The question is, how much chemicals are safe for humans to ingest over time and at what cost? Example: NYC spends 80% of its water supply funding on transportation of that water to its end users. Well downstream on the same river system (Delaware River), the city of Philadelphia spends 80% of its water supply funding on treatment of that same water because of all the pollutants that enter the Delaware downstream of the Cannonsville and Pepacton and other dams from NY, PA and NJ. That says a lot about the need for chemicals and additional filtering the further downstream you draw water from for human consumption.

You're a wealth of information

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Rusty..one of NJ's best wild trout streams resides in an area where, every winter farmers spread chicken shit on their fields...I can smell it from miles away (chicken shit smells, well,....like shit)..If it is cured properly, does it still contain the evil bacterias? I ask, because I am sure the run-off reaches the stream in question, and the trout are thriving....

The danger is to those of us that drink that water, not the fish in the stream. As for how long fecal coliform can exist outside of the host animal or in a warm stream I don't know. My guess is that once chicken stuff is dried thoroughly, the bacteria dies. What I do know is that it thrives in warm, wet environments and dam impoundments on streams and rivers can exacerbate that problem during summer months.

 

[Future Fanatic]

If it is cured properly, does it still contain the evil bacterias?

If it is composted properly (I believe they have a standard amount of times the pile must be turned/mixed and a temperature it must maintain) (In fact, I think it is something like 5 turnings and 130 degrees for 5 days) the amount of bacteria can be REDUCED to a "safe" minimum amount.

If the chicken manure smells like you describe, I doubt its been composted or composted well.