musky dam removal

[porterskill]

how has trout and insect population been affected by the removal of the dam on the musky in hackettstown?has the trout habitat improved much?

 

[Bobby_Wilds]

interesting questions. i think it has been two years now since the removal. i wonder what changes have taken place?

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Unfortunately, nobody had done "before" studies of the macro invertebrates around the two dams prior to their removal as we are doing now on the other dams downstream. The area of the Seber Grove and Gruendyke Mill dams is considered Trout Maintenance waters and are seasonal trout water in some years, last year being an obvious exception, so we don't look too closely at fish populations because it is in the mostly stocked section.

That said, we learned a lot from these two removals which are greatly shaping decision making on the new dams we are working to remove at Finesville, Hughesville and Warren Glen. Sediment control on the lower dams will be critical while it was relatively unimportant (or was treated that way) for the upper two dams that were removed. Much sediment washed down from upstream, mostly sand that was upstream of Gruendyke after dam removal. In retrospect, we should have done more to remove that as we took down the dam. The good news is that all of it is now trapped behind the Newburgh Road dam and we can address it once we get to this other dam one day.

I could write on this topic for hours, so please let me know what specifics you may be interested in. As far as the lower dams we are now focused on, we are taking good water temperature readings, water quality testing including the insects present and quantified, river channel changes starting with the "before" and monitoring for several years "after" as the dams come down all in an effort to better understand the positive effects of removal and to track successes in this area. We also benefit by being able to copy what works and change what needs changing. The local watershed group that oversaw the first 2 removals and with whom we work closely is definitely the "little engine that could" type of organization, but they lacked at first the capacity and expertise to perform the study work, and TU and many others are now working in this area within the Musky watershed. We've formed a formidable team to remove dams and to restore the river channels affected by dams and other past, poor land use practices including river straightening, sediment filling, removal of riparian buffers, and several other man-made negative impacts.

 

[MACFLY]

Unfortunately, nobody had done "before" studies of the macro invertebrates around the two dams prior to their removal as we are doing now on the other dams downstream. The area of the Seber Grove and Gruendyke Mill dams is considered Trout Maintenance waters and are seasonal trout water in some years, last year being an obvious exception, so we don't look too closely at fish populations because it is in the mostly stocked section.

That said, we learned a lot from these two removals which are greatly shaping decision making on the new dams we are working to remove at Finesville, Hughesville and Warren Glen. Sediment control on the lower dams will be critical while it was relatively unimportant (or was treated that way) for the upper two dams that were removed. Much sediment washed down from upstream, mostly sand that was upstream of Gruendyke after dam removal. In retrospect, we should have done more to remove that as we took down the dam. The good news is that all of it is now trapped behind the Newburgh Road dam and we can address it once we get to this other dam one day.

I could write on this topic for hours, so please let me know what specifics you may be interested in. As far as the lower dams we are now focused on, we are taking good water temperature readings, water quality testing including the insects present and quantified, river channel changes starting with the "before" and monitoring for several years "after" as the dams come down all in an effort to better understand the positive effects of removal and to track successes in this area. We also benefit by being able to copy what works and change what needs changing. The local watershed group that oversaw the first 2 removals and with whom we work closely is definitely the "little engine that could" type of organization, but they lacked at first the capacity and expertise to perform the study work, and TU and many others are now working in this area within the Musky watershed. We've formed a formidable team to remove dams and to restore the river channels affected by dams and other past, poor land use practices including river straightening, sediment filling, removal of riparian buffers, and several other man-made negative impacts.

Any recent pictures of the area since the dam removals. Also per the previous question, any indication of greater trout populations in the area. understood it was not considered prime trout water before but wondering if anything has changed. Was any electroshocking done before removal? Was any done recently?

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Any recent pictures of the area since the dam removals. Also per the previous question, any indication of greater trout populations in the area. understood it was not considered prime trout water before but wondering if anything has changed. Was any electroshocking done before removal? Was any done recently?

I can post some pictures, but don't really have anything more recent than last summer. I'll take some pix this week and post them up. As for electro fishing, no, the division does not electro fish this area, typically they only electro fish the tribs as it is more difficult to effectively electro fish the larger river. Again, we wouldn't expect a significant increase due to their mostly being stocked fish in this stretch. There are wild fish entering from local tribs, but these tribs and the main river were not electro fished recently except for sections of Mine Brook.

Removal of the lower dams will open up passage for all sorts of fish from the Delaware including trout, shad, river herring (possibly), eels and maybe even some striped bass in the lower reaches following forage fish upstream. The removals will also reconnect fragmented populations of wild brookies and browns that are in tribs between the 4 lower dams. I'm pushing the division for additional electro fishing of the lower main river this coming summer to set some base lines before the Finesville dam is removed which we hope to have accomplished this year sometime.

Typically to measure dam removal success on rivers like the Musky which have healthy populations of both stocked and wild fish, we look at cooler water temps and an increase in macroinvertebrates over the # of trout in a given reach of river. We know if we increase the insects and cool the water, trout numbers will increase proportionately.

Dam removals always have a 1 to 2 year period of significant change to the affected areas that were impounded by the dam and the river below it that was likely starved of sediments. After 1 or 2 years, the river is typically stabilized and hatches are what you would expect them to be after some upstream sediment has flushed through the system. The amount of sediment allowed to transport downstream effects the types of insect you'll see for the first year or two. More sediment = more burrowers and less sediment = more clingers, etc.

At my insistence, we will also be performing significant habitat improvements following our dam removals, something we did little of with the first two removals. Habitat is essential when you remove a dam and past practices before TU got involved had only focused on barrier removal without strong habitat focus. When Finesville is removed you'll see large woody debris and numerous boulder clusters added in the pond area as we manipulate the river channel to add meanders, stabilize the vertical banks, build riffles, runs and pools using boulders as needed to stabilize the channel and replant the banks with a proper riparian buffer. Right now the roughly 1/2 mile stretch of river above the Finesville dam is one big, slow moving pool with little habitat. When we are done there will be 3 riffles, 5 pools and plenty of habitat in that stretch and the state Green Acres program will then purchase it and open it to the public. The land preservation piece is another aspect that TU brought to this removal project.

 

[rckrego]

Brian-

Just a thought, but maybe you could take pictures of aquatic plant growth as well to see if that improves. IT'd be nice to see the cress beds that gave us the Musky Shrimp back again like we hear about in the legends of yore.

RCK

 

[The Royal Coachman]

That said, we learned a lot from these two removals which are greatly shaping decision making on the new dams we are working to remove at Finesville, Hughesville and Warren Glen. Sediment control on the lower dams will be critical while it was relatively unimportant (or was treated that way) for the upper two dams that were removed. Much sediment washed down from upstream, mostly sand that was upstream of Gruendyke after dam removal. In retrospect, we should have done more to remove that as we took down the dam. The good news is that all of it is now trapped behind the Newburgh Road dam and we can address it once we get to this other dam one day.

That is the one negative thing I noticed. I haven't checked lately but there was a TON of sand moving down the river. It probably put a hurting on the macroinvertebrate population for a year or so. Hopefully only temporary.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

That is the one negative thing I noticed. I haven't checked lately but there was a TON of sand moving down the river. It probably put a hurting on the macroinvertebrate population for a year or so. Hopefully only temporary.

Correct, but it is mostly through the East Ave. remnant dam and is getting trapped behind the Newburg Road dam where we can deal with it one day when we get that junk heap of a dam out.

 

[Bobby_Wilds]

Just a question, but how has the dam removal effected the area near route 80 and saxton falls. i know there was some major changes south of route 80 since i was a kid. i believe it was a sand mine that between there that really seemed to destroy part of the river. anyone have any info on that.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Just a question, but how has the dam removal effected the area near route 80 and saxton falls. i know there was some major changes south of route 80 since i was a kid. i believe it was a sand mine that between there that really seemed to destroy part of the river. anyone have any info on that.

The dams that have been removed are both below (downstream) of the rt. 80 and Saxton Falls area so there has been no effects from them up there. There were two sand and gravel operations working along the river, both in Mount Olive Twp. One, the former Tilcon Quarry, is now a part of the State Park system after having the quarry walls fail and the river tearing into the old quarry. This remains a problem because the quarry is now a series of warmwater lakes that send warm water into the upper river during summer months and there is no easy fix. The lower quarry is still in operation and the river is a mess in that general area. In fact, we have a riparian buffer planting project slated for this old Tilcon Quarry this coming spring to help shade the river and shore up the failing stream banks.

The upper Musky suffers from lots of dams, river channelization for the former Morris Canal and a severe lack of a riparian buffer along much of the "lake section". We are limited in our ability to bring big restoration projects including dam removals in this area due to lake communities not wanting their dams out, state parks that were created to promote the old Morris Canal even though the canal did huge damage to the upper river which continues to this day, and the fact that this is marginal trout habitat even if we could address all the other items just listed.

We focus on the lower dams right now for many reasons. Their removal will allow for anadromous fish passage and greatly cool down the river in the limestone influenced stretches of the lower half of the river, demonstrate the effectiveness of obsolete dam removals throughout the watershed, and the land preservation deals we are working on with each project will allow for greatly increased angling and public access to some great areas of the river, including one day the Musky Gorge. Add to that the funding aspect as it is easier on a river with anadromous fish to obtain funding for fish passage and habitat working from the Delaware upstream to remove barriers and improve spawning and juvenile habitat.

Over time, TU chapters, the local watershed association, the 28 municipalities in this watershed, and many other interested individuals and organizations will continue to focus on restoration and protection efforts throughout the watershed. Our Home Rivers Initiative can only scratch the surface of what needs to be done, so I focus our efforts on pilot projects and assessments which prioritize future restoration and protection needs. The idea when we wrap up this project in several more years is that pretty much everything that needs to get done in this watershed has been done somewhere in the watershed at least one time to provide a road map to future successful projects. Even all of the riparian buffer projects have different goals for the most part although this is the one area (dam removals being the other) where we will duplicate our efforts over time.