Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!
Register

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

Random Rusty Dam question

Oliver10

Oliver10

Profishional Cupcake
Rusty,
I know a lot of small dams can’t come down because they create lakes and ponds that have fancy houses around them and the political clout is insurmountable. What if there was a way to send the river or stream under the dam and allow for unimpeded flow. There could be valves in the pipe underground that could be constricted to let water back fill the lake or pond when needed. Obviously flood and overflow issues would need to be thought out too. Please excuse my kindergarten drawing below.
dam.jpg
 
The dams all pass water over them once the impoundment is full, so that is not the issue. The issue is the temperature of that water and only the deepest of lakes would benefit by installing a bottom release. In NJ, that is far less than 1% of all dammed lakes.

BTW, loved the drawing :)
 
What I got from his sketch was a little different.
I saw it as passing the stream under the pond in "pipes". The water in the pipe remains cool.
The pipes get throttled occasionally, by a valve, to divert water to fill the pond.
Didn't one of the recent EJTU projects, involve eliminating a swimming pool that was doing this on a much smaller scale?

IMHO:
1. Too expensive. You'd need pipes sufficient to handle the entire flow of the river, and as long as the pond.
2. Pipes/culverts don't allow the free passage of fish like a natural stream does.

EDIT:
Creskill Brook http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBullet...-plight-cresskill-brook-trout.html#post233162
 
Last edited:
Pete said:
What I got from his sketch was a little different.
I saw it as passing the stream under the pond in "pipes". The water in the pipe remains cool.
The pipes get throttled occasionally, by a valve, to divert water to fill the pond.
Didn't one of the recent EJTU projects, involve eliminating a swimming pool that was doing this on a much smaller scale?

IMHO:
1. Too expensive. You'd need pipes sufficient to handle the entire flow of the river, and as long as the pond.
2. Pipes/culverts don't allow the free passage of fish like a natural stream does.
Click to expand...


You are correct. I did not mean a bottom release. I mean giant pipe that flowed under the full lake with the ability to deliver some water to refill the lake. This would slow down the sedimentation of the lake because filling events could be managed to low sediment days etc.

What if the pipes were large enough to have air above the water (at normal flows) and structure in them?
 
Even more expensive, but might allow fish migration.

Another problem.
Without a constant flow through the pond, the pond could get even more "rank" than these ponds do normally.
They'd have to treat and/or filter the pond water to eliminate the stench.
 
lightenup said:
Ollie....you think too much........
Click to expand...


Sure. Or not enough?....

Think about Lake Solitude? It is not that long or that deep. If you could have a passage through the lake at the natural gradient for the SBR to flow through we could pretend the lake above is not even there. A tiny fraction of the flow could be diverted to keep the lake full and nobody's lake view would be lost and the lake would not silt up. The length of pipe needed is not too much or above our building capabilities.



Everything is above my MS Paint drawing skills
 
Oliver10 said:
Sure. Or not enough?....

Think about Lake Solitude? It is not that long or that deep. If you could have a passage through the lake at the natural gradient for the SBR to flow through we could pretend the lake above is not even there. A tiny fraction of the flow could be diverted to keep the lake full and nobody's lake view would be lost and the lake would not silt up. The length of pipe needed is not too much or above our building capabilities.






Everything is above my MS Paint drawing skills
Click to expand...

Just knock the damn dam down......I think what you are proposing, as others have said is just impractical. .........High Bridge just has the wrong people living in the wrong place..that damn is useless......
 
Can you guys please settle this? Once completed I want to move to Ollie's Random Rusty Trombone question.
 
In principle, somehow diverting water around the lake (either with pipes or cutting some smaller streams around), is a good idea. In practice, there will be a battle during times of low water between keeping the lake full and keeping downstream cool. Best solution is to convince the home owners that river-front property is as desriable as lake front and bust the dam down.
 
Could have been resolved when they reconstructed the dam a couple yrs ago....
Dredge the lake and add a bottome release .....Of course i'm NO dam dam builder
so maybe that was not as easy as it sounds...
 
browntrout27 said:
Can you guys please settle this? Once completed I want to move to Ollie's Random Rusty Trombone question.
Click to expand...

First of all, there's nothing rusty with my trombone.:)

As others said, this would be completely impractical. The cost for even a small pond would likely be in the millions and for what? Trout don't like to swim in pipes, even large pipes as would be needed on many of these rivers and streams. Lake communities don't want to be assessed hundreds of thousands of $$ for a project that might cost them more than they paid for their house to help a stream they likely care little about and one that has no state or federal authority tied to it currently (in other words, they are allowed to own their current dams provided they maintain them).

Best bet is to not build new dams and to remove any and all obsolete dams like our Partnership is doing on the lower Musky. On that front, we're making amazing progress which I hope to share more about soon. Make sure you work on your pocket water, high-stick nymphing is all I have to say for now:victory:
 
Rusty Spinner said:
First of all, there's nothing rusty with my trombone.:)

As others said, this would be completely impractical. The cost for even a small pond would likely be in the millions and for what? Trout don't like to swim in pipes, even large pipes as would be needed on many of these rivers and streams. Lake communities don't want to be assessed hundreds of thousands of $$ for a project that might cost them more than they paid for their house to help a stream they likely care little about and one that has no state or federal authority tied to it currently (in other words, they are allowed to own their current dams provided they maintain them).

Best bet is to not build new dams and to remove any and all obsolete dams like our Partnership is doing on the lower Musky. On that front, we're making amazing progress which I hope to share more about soon. Make sure you work on your pocket water, high-stick nymphing is all I have to say for now:victory:
Click to expand...

The gorge!
 
Bigfishy said:
Could have been resolved when they reconstructed the dam a couple yrs ago....
Dredge the lake and add a bottome release .....Of course i'm NO dam dam builder
so maybe that was not as easy as it sounds...
Click to expand...

Just knock it down would have been the best solution........of course with the proper removal of the sediment.....
 
Remember that the town of High Bridge used as one of its excuses not to remove the dam but to rehabilitate it that it has toxic sediment in it that would have made removal too expensive. Now that they have rehabbed the dam, the former mayor is convincing many in town to dredge the lake as it is full of sediment and no longer a lake. Duh. Let's make sure we fight that boondoggle if it comes up at any public meeting.
 
Rusty Spinner said:
Remember that the town of High Bridge used as one of its excuses not to remove the dam but to rehabilitate it that it has toxic sediment in it that would have made removal too expensive. Now that they have rehabbed the dam, the former mayor is convincing many in town to dredge the lake as it is full of sediment and no longer a lake. Duh. Let's make sure we fight that boondoggle if it comes up at any public meeting.
Click to expand...

Brian this where the DEP needs to step in. If it is as toxic as the say it is. It could contaminate the lower Raritan and the drinking water supply
 
tomfly said:
Brian this where the DEP needs to step in. If it is as toxic as the say it is. It could contaminate the lower Raritan and the drinking water supply
Click to expand...

Yup, correct. But we're not there yet. Just talks in smoky back rooms so far. Eight years or so ago when High Bridge was talking about the Solitude dam, I and the others fighting for removal of Solitude were lowly TU volunteers, we had helped removed exactly one small dam on the Lopat, and everyone in High Bridge wrote us off.

Today, TU has led or helped remove 7 more dams here in NJ, won a Presidential Coastal America Award award with our partners for that work, and is sought after as the dam removal experts in NJ. We'll be sure to make sure that any dredging operations are done to the fullest extent of the Clean Water Act and to NJ DEP laws and I'm planning to bring friends. There will be no help from an outgoing state senator looking to run for a US Congressional seat and promising the world to both sides. There will just be the $ millions in dredging fees and hauling costs to bring the toxic materials to a safe, out of state site so that the lake can fill again in 20 or so years so that the taxpayers of High Bridge can do it all again. And again. And again. All while maintaining a dam they don't need, holding that liability, and dredging, dredging and more dredging so that 2 homeowners can have a small swimming hole.
 
The other issue is now the "lake" would be a dead leg in the system. Lake inversions poor(er) oxygen levels and all that crap.

We need people to associate "river" front as nicely as "lake" front.

They've done some really neat dam removal out west where they blew the dam and let the sediment go. Everyone was surprised at how fast the river recovered.

If the sediment behind lake solitude wasn't bad I'd love see that experiment.
 
BrownChickenBrownTrout said:
If the sediment behind lake solitude wasn't bad I'd love see that experiment.
Click to expand...

NJ DEP wouldn't permit it. We had that discussion with a Musky dam with them just Wednesday. Also, we do know that the sediment above the Solitude dam is toxic. I just can't remember what the issue(s) are with what chemical(s).
 
Rusty Spinner said:
NJ DEP wouldn't permit it. We had that discussion with a Musky dam with them just Wednesday. Also, we do know that the sediment above the Solitude dam is toxic. I just can't remember what the issue(s) are with what chemical(s).
Click to expand...

Just curious, is it "not invented here" or lack of familiarity?

We've had how many 500 year floods in the past 10 years. One Irene or Floyd and that sediment load would be half way philly.
 
BrownChickenBrownTrout said:
Just curious, is it "not invented here" or lack of familiarity?

We've had how many 500 year floods in the past 10 years. One Irene or Floyd and that sediment load would be half way philly.
Click to expand...

Their concern is a choking off of benthic macro invertebrate life downstream. NJ isn't very progressive when it comes to river restoration, but then again, many states don't yet allow bed manipulation techniques which we are doing here. We're trying to get some PA folks here next week to see our channel restoration work so they can permit this in their state.
 
BrownChickenBrownTrout said:
How prominent are the results of places like the Marmot dam removal in what's cutting edge? That was done in 2007, there should be some great data on that.
Click to expand...

Huge differences in flows, gradient and downstream development between dams like that and dams here in the northeast. It's apples and oranges stuff. But we can remove dams very effectively here in the East and we are. I can't always discuss the momentum behind some of the projects, but NJ remains in the forefront of dam removals and we're just scratching the surface right now. Stay tuned for some exciting news over the next 6 to 12 months and not just on the Musky. Regarding the Musky, it will be a very different river in maybe 5 years with the lower river being destination water for anglers and paddlers. And the Ken Lockwood Gorge will have far less pressure when that happens which is another bonus.
 
Just for some more info, back in the day most of NJ's reservoirs had bypasses to minimize sedimentation, but this also kept water cooler in the downstream reaches. (see old Chester Res on Tiger Brook, Washington Res on Roaring Rock Brook, Belvidere Res on Buckhorn Ck etc, etc). A canal was built along the side of the reservoir with a gate structure at the top of the pond to assure that the reservoir was kept full while passing most of the flow around the pond.

Now most drinking water in NJ is provided by well systems because there is much more ground water than surface water and that ground water is filtered by the soils and is cleaner. As a result, most of the old reservoirs are obsolete.
 
Oliver10 said:
Rusty,
I know a lot of small dams can’t come down because they create lakes and ponds that have fancy houses around them and the political clout is insurmountable. What if there was a way to send the river or stream under the dam and allow for unimpeded flow. There could be valves in the pipe underground that could be constricted to let water back fill the lake or pond when needed. Obviously flood and overflow issues would need to be thought out too. Please excuse my kindergarten drawing below.
View attachment 10797[/

If water is coming out under the dam its essentially a bottom release you boob
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top