Weed Killer Affects Lake Musconetcong & River...

[Bruce Edward Litton]

https://www.google.com/#q=lake+musconetcong+suffers+weed+killer Agree with me or not, I'm convinced the weed killer in Lake Musconetcong destroys the lake and makes the situation worse for the Musconetcong River below. Read the article I posted the link to. The water is ugly. Surely it's warmer, since the muddiness (used to be very clear with weeds filtering it) absorbs heat, and that flows over the dam and becomes the river, turbidity and all. I rowed the lake in 2009. I know how quickly the water chestnuts choked it. I guess it would have worsened. But the water would have remained clear. I'm sure fish populations would have remained strong. It would have been hard to fish, but so what? What do you think? Read the short article first. I may seem really naïve, considering the formidable problem the chestnuts are. But I know what the lake is now, and the river at least immediately below...

 

[Rusty Spinner]

I couldn't disagree with you more. The water chestnuts would have eventually fully covered that artificial lake, killing off 100% (not some number less) of the fish living in that lake today. That is a fact. Come to Flanders and check out the PAL fishing pond in my community to see the negative impacts of a fully engulfed pond with water chestnuts. All the fish are now gone and the local PD holds their kids fishing derby in Budd Lake as a result. I have many other examples, but that one is a couple hundred yards away and I warned the town to no avail.

In time, we will have eradicated the water chestnuts in Lake Musconetcong. Clarity will return over time and over short time. But that lake is dying and water chestnuts are only one part of the equation. It is eutrophying and quickly. The muck on the bottom is like quicksand, making it perfect habitat for highly invasive Eurasian millfoil and water chestnut, both of which are problematic in that lake. As for water quality in the Musky, we are not seeing negative impacts to date from the treatment of water chestnuts. If we were, and the local watershed association tests quarterly including just below the lake, we would yell and scream bloody murder. We need to continue an aggressive stance until we gain full control over the water chestnuts and then remain vigilant because they will continue to remain as a major threat forever more. That is a reality, I'm afraid.

In the meantime, the best way to address the health of the Wild & Scenic Musconetcong River is to remove the state's dam and let the river flow free. We have plenty of artificial lakes in the area that fish much better than this one!

 

[Bruce Edward Litton]

That was the sneaking suspicion that crept up on me after I posted the blog article. I had no examples of other ponds or lakes affected by the chestnuts. All I knew is that in 2009, Lake Musconetcong had a red carpet of them all the way across. The word was that it was unfishable, yet my son and I still managed to rent the rowboats at Bait & Boat, and with considerable effort, get out and row. We caught lots of pickerel and bass, too. The lake was thriving with gamefish under the weeds. Gone at least for now. The lake fished very, very well in 2009. I got to thinking a recent night out walking the dog that maybe the people who say the chestnuts actually choke out a lake's gamefish are right, although I thought previously it couldn't be much worse than it had been in 2009, not on any real evidence, just suspicion that people were over-reacting. I thought, against my earlier feelings, "What if they let the lake come back (weeds have to grow to filter the water's turbidity and prevent those cormorants from eating every juvenile bass), and if the chestnuts get awful again, kill them off & repeat the process..." as crazy as this artificial management would be, maybe it's about all that can be done. That is, if the chestnuts would really kill all the fish in that big lake, which frankly I still doubt...I would really want to see that happen first, THEN, kill the chestnuts... why not? The fish would come back if water clarity would really return, as you say...which I just don't see happening without weeds returning. Weeds filter water and allow its clarity. It's been turbid since 2010.


At least the river below isn't affected. All I know is that turbid, warm water flowing over the dam doesn't help anything, although it makes sense that by the time it reaches below Waterloo, it doesn't matter.


You can see I really care about Lake Musconetcong and posted an emotional piece in my blog. My son and I had some of the best times of our lives catching lots of big pickerel and bass on the lake through 2009. And it wasn't just the fishing. The rowing, the water, the wonder of the weed jungle, the whole environment and the conversations along with it between the two of us have made me very protective. I really would rather see the water chestnuts kill the lake--if they really would--than us kill it. But I am well aware this is only my opinion.


As for eutrophic demise--of course. All eutrophic lakes become swamps, eventually.

 

[Bruce Edward Litton]

I moderated the blog post somewhat. May work on it more later, not in any time frame to do more tonight. Sometimes emotion gets the better of me & at least not too many have read it yet. But I really think it would have been better just to let the chestnuts do whatever they would have done, because that lake's in ruins anyway, besides the channel catfishing, which isn't particularly great anyhow. Chestnuts have killed all the fish in certain ponds and lakes, I take your word for it--would they have in LM? We have evidence they would have. We don't really know. If they actually killed all the fish, then at that time, why not kill the chestnuts? Fish come back if the habitat does. But until then, I would not get involved, myself.


Wish I hadn't been so stupid in the post about trout fishing possibly being affected below, but the edge of my restraint broke a bit.

 

[Bruce Edward Litton]

I couldn't disagree with you more. The water chestnuts would have eventually fully covered that artificial lake, killing off 100% (not some number less) of the fish living in that lake today. That is a fact. Come to Flanders and check out the PAL fishing pond in my community to see the negative impacts of a fully engulfed pond with water chestnuts. All the fish are now gone and the local PD holds their kids fishing derby in Budd Lake as a result. I have many other examples, but that one is a couple hundred yards away and I warned the town to no avail.

In time, we will have eradicated the water chestnuts in Lake Musconetcong. Clarity will return over time and over short time. But that lake is dying and water chestnuts are only one part of the equation. It is eutrophying and quickly. The muck on the bottom is like quicksand, making it perfect habitat for highly invasive Eurasian millfoil and water chestnut, both of which are problematic in that lake. As for water quality in the Musky, we are not seeing negative impacts to date from the treatment of water chestnuts. If we were, and the local watershed association tests quarterly including just below the lake, we would yell and scream bloody murder. We need to continue an aggressive stance until we gain full control over the water chestnuts and then remain vigilant because they will continue to remain as a major threat forever more. That is a reality, I'm afraid.

In the meantime, the best way to address the health of the Wild & Scenic Musconetcong River is to remove the state's dam and let the river flow free. We have plenty of artificial lakes in the area that fish much better than this one!

"In time we will have eradicated all the water chestnuts..." If this comes true, then it does make sense to then let the lake be and allow non-invasive plant life to return, along with water clarity, quality, and fish life. I will have to do a lot of research and then draw more informed judgments. I just hope enough information is accessible. I could be dead wrong or in my crazy, nature loving way quite right at this point for all I know as yet. At least everyone knows a blog is just one man's ravings. It's not a newspaper piece and I wouldn't dare unless I was better informed. For "ravings" I think my LM pieces are OK and may be edited yet. I will be looking for how we can ascertain that water chestnuts will be eradicated and how long this may take.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Bruce, if left unchecked in such a shallow lake as Musconetcong, the water chestnuts would have covered 100% of that lake in just two more years was the prediction. They reached over 30% coverage in a couple of short years. They kill not only the lake's fish, but dragonfly larva and everything else that requires dissolved oxygen to survive. In other words, they are capable of completely crashing aquatic ecosystems like shallow lakes and ponds. We're finding and removing this week from Lake Hopatcong, but in that lake, their spread would only be in portions of the lake due to depth and increased boat traffic. Had they gone unaddressed and covered the lake entirely, it would cost lots more to eradicate them. Also, your lake has two state endangered plants in it that they were concerned with although I can't recall the common names of them. I'm sure the Princeton Hydro report is available through the lake commission where the info could be found there.

 

[Oliver10]

Weed killer for lakes has to be bad. I highly doubt the weed killer only targets the water chestnut. After the weed killer flows over the dam how far down river does it continue to kill aquatic vegetation?

Other states have masses of volunteers in boats hand pull the water chestnuts to keep them in check. I would rather pay a couple of dollars more on my fishing license to support a program that organized volunteers to tackle invasive plants than to poison headwater lakes.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Weed killer for lakes has to be bad. I highly doubt the weed killer only targets the water chestnut. After the weed killer flows over the dam how far down river does it continue to kill aquatic vegetation?

Other states have masses of volunteers in boats hand pull the water chestnuts to keep them in check. I would rather pay a couple of dollars more on my fishing license to support a program that organized volunteers to tackle invasive plants than to poison headwater lakes.

After a 2 year study, it was determined by all stakeholders that a combination of herbicides, machine harvesting and hand pulling the water chestnuts was the best course of action for this lake. Fortunately for the upper Musky, that area is not trout water. By the time the treated water reaches the better trout water below Hackettstown, it has not been a problem than any organization or agency has seen. BTW, NJ has literally hundreds of lake associations which spray weed killers annually to improve swimming and boating and/or to kill off invasive weeds. And many of these lakes are on headwater streams to our favorite trout streams. I grew up on one such lake myself that flows into the Pequannock River, one of our best wild brown trout streams.

 

[Oliver10]

After a 2 year study, it was determined by all stakeholders that a combination of herbicides, machine harvesting and hand pulling the water chestnuts was the best course of action for this lake. Fortunately for the upper Musky, that area is not trout water. By the time the treated water reaches the better trout water below Hackettstown, it has not been a problem than any organization or agency has seen. BTW, NJ has literally hundreds of lake associations which spray weed killers annually to improve swimming and boating and/or to kill off invasive weeds. And many of these lakes are on headwater streams to our favorite trout streams. I grew up on one such lake myself that flows into the Pequannock River, one of our best wild brown trout streams.

Spot burner!

I just think we as a society are over reliant on chemicals. I read that one of the main problems about growing tomatoes in Florida is a nematode worm that grows in the soil and eats the roots. Massive amount of pesticide is sprayed on the soil to kill these worms. Some (I think college student) showed that if you cover the fallow soil with black plastic and let the Florida sun bake down for a while it heats the soil enough to kill all the nematodes without using chemicals. The plastic is reusable and cause no unintended harm. Well they still use the pesticides for two reasons. Laying the plastic and taking it up is too labor intensive and they cant afford to let the field lie fallow baking in the sun for the required time.

 

[Bruce Edward Litton]

I was dead wrong on this one. Invasion Biology Introduced Species Summary Project - Columbia University is the first site I visited, points out the obvious about the chestnuts blocking sunlight, creating anoxic conditions, killing native vegetation, making it impossible for fish to breathe. I saw, beginning in 2005, the machine out there cutting out the chestnuts, although I didn't know about water chestnuts until little over a year ago. There was no way physical removal could keep up. I should have seen the obvious: that property values might have been affected, and if so, people surely would have anticipated turbid water conditions after administering weed killer, which wouldn't help property values either. Therefore, maybe the threat was more than heavy, but harmless vegetation, as I believed.

The situation at Lake Musconetcong impresses me as analogous to a psychotic mind--also a problem of nature--for which the only hope is to bomb it with drugs. Such minds, some, do in fact return to normal. Is there any such hope for Lake Musconetcong? Perhaps only as in a state of remission. The Columbia U. site I reference claims the chestnut pods are potent for reproduction for up to 12 years. I have held several of these pods in my hand, so I can see this claim seems valid. (I visited the P.A.L. Pond that Rusty Spinner suggested.) I will continue to research the issue and look for any hope of total eradication.

I will have to go into edit function and correct my blog posts on the lake's situation. Better to be wrong than to venture no opinion at all.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

The situation at Lake Musconetcong impresses me as analogous to a psychotic mind--also a problem of nature--for which the only hope is to bomb it with drugs. Such minds, some, do in fact return to normal. Is there any such hope for Lake Musconetcong? Perhaps only as in a state of remission.

Remember that "normal" for this lake is a continuation of eutrophication which means more and more threats from non-native plants while the bottom continues to fill and the lake to become ever more shallow in time. In less than 50 years, the lake you so love will be a shallow swamp. The only way to thwart that is to have the public pay to dredge it since it is a publically owned lake (NJ Parks and Forestry). At that time, instead of spending tens of millions of dollars to dredge it (so it can then start the same cycle again), it would be far, far cheaper to remove the dam and restore a free flowing river. Problem solved. The homes around the swamp would then have a beautiful river flowing by, the floodplain would be restored, and they wouldn't have the issues with mosquitos and the like that would be awful as that lake continues the eutrophication process. Plus they'd gain hundreds of acres of surrounding park lands.

 

[Pete]

I was dead wrong on this one. .......

That's the first time I've seen words like that, in a debate on an internet forum.

 

[Bruce Edward Litton]

Remember that "normal" for this lake is a continuation of eutrophication which means more and more threats from non-native plants while the bottom continues to fill and the lake to become ever more shallow in time. In less than 50 years, the lake you so love will be a shallow swamp. The only way to thwart that is to have the public pay to dredge it since it is a publically owned lake (NJ Parks and Forestry). At that time, instead of spending tens of millions of dollars to dredge it (so it can then start the same cycle again), it would be far, far cheaper to remove the dam and restore a free flowing river. Problem solved. The homes around the swamp would then have a beautiful river flowing by, the floodplain would be restored, and they wouldn't have the issues with mosquitos and the like that would be awful as that lake continues the eutrophication process. Plus they'd gain hundreds of acres of surrounding park lands.

It would be interesting to see how we decide this in the future. For the time being, I suppose anyone with lakefront property would prefer the lake to be in good, clear water shape. I read another site, which says it takes 10 years to totally eradicate chestnuts. It referenced how long the seed pods last (the Columbia site claims they last 12 years). We've been chemically treating the lake for four years now. I imagine the fish and the clear water won't be forgotten. I won't forget them & will be there to remind anyone who will listen, but I also know it's likely I'm not the only one, and the intentions of at least some of those doing the treatment are genuinely concerned to see this action through. I need to read further yet. It's not clear to me yet how likely it is that chestnuts can be permanently eradicated, and therefore the lake return to clarity & repopulated fish once it is determined, as best as such a determination can be made, that they are gone.

I'm somewhat taken by your notion of a free flowing river. But on the other hand, I don't really think dams in all cases are a bad thing. Perhaps we all select and choose our personal preferences. Not that there's no room for conversation, debate, and conversions. I would love to see all the dams on the Paulinskill River removed, including the two big ones. I'm sure some would not like to see Paulinskill Lake go. A favorite book on fishing, A Fishing Life is Hard Work, epitomizes this lake. In the foreseeable future, I would like to see Musconetcong come back as if nothing happened. What's really important about it is not what it suffers now, but the fine quality of the water and fishery it should exhibit.

 

[Pete]

...... I suppose anyone with lakefront property would prefer the lake to be in good, clear water shape. .....

IMHO:
If lakeside homeowners, want a lake, they shouldn't expect people who'd rather have a stream to pay for it.

Maintaining an artificial pond is an ongoing cost that can last forever.
Stream remediation, only needs to be paid for once.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

I would love to see all the dams on the Paulinskill River removed, including the two big ones. I'm sure some would not like to see Paulinskill Lake go.

That is in the works currently, Bruce. That river has 3 dams. Starting at the bottom working upstream it's Columbia Lake dam, then Lake Paulina dam and then the Lake Paulins Kill dam. The lower two have ongoing efforts for removal. The upper one is owned by a lake association and will likely never be removed nor is anyone actively pushing for that. But the lower two are publicly owned. I was to be in charge of removing the Lake Paulina dam had we successfully obtained a large grant using Sandy funding, but that did not come to fruition. So now we are pursuing other mitigation funding which looks good so far. The big dam just upstream of the Delaware has a FERC license and is a hydro electric power producer. Even though it is state owned, there is a lease on it that expires in 2030.

I think well within my lifetime, the state of NJ will realize that it is in the best interests of its citizens to remove the Lake Musconetcong dam. But we'll never ever see the Lake Hopatcong dam removed even though it is also state owned. They are two very different situations.

 

[Bruce Edward Litton]

IMHO:
If lakeside homeowners, want a lake, they shouldn't expect people who'd rather have a stream to pay for it.

Maintaining an artificial pond is an ongoing cost that can last forever.
Stream remediation, only needs to be paid for once.

Should really come to a public referendum. At a lot of people besides homeowners want that lake. It would be costly to fill in the "quicksand" of Lake Musconetcong's revealed ass to make it parkland, I suppose.

Good news to my ears about the Paulinskill dams. 2030 is around the corner, solar power is suddenly surging, and by then the hydro source may be obsolete for all I know.

Lake Hopatcong dam only raises level six feet or so anyway, essentially a natural lake.

 

[Bruce Edward Litton]

Besides, if LM returns to its former glory, it will be a great bass bugging fly rod lake, not to mention the pickerel also, a fish I've always admired & plenty others do regardless of the marketing prejudice in favor of bass. Pickerel are slimy in the hand, and you can't lip hold them as you can bass. But they are a flip surface fishing. I was hoping to fly rod the lake this year, since May 2013, when I was last on the lake before May this year, the water quality had actually improved and I thought perhaps the weed killing was done.

 

[Pete]

Should really come to a public referendum. At a lot of people besides homeowners want that lake.

If it came to a state-wide referendum, you might be surprised.
Different players, but there's a lake association here in Oakland, that is trying to assess it's neighbors for damn maintenance & etc.
Less than 25% are paying their "invoices". If all the 1700 families involved had been allowed to vote, the lake would now be a brook.... and we're all within a couple of miles of the pond. Most NJ taxpayers are no where near LM, some have never heard of it.

It would be costly to fill in the "quicksand" of Lake Musconetcong's revealed ass to make it parkland, I suppose.

I can't speak to LM's situation, but normally, if you take away the water, quicksand stops being "quick".

Good news to my ears about the Paulinskill dams. 2030 is around the corner, solar power is suddenly surging, and by then the hydro source may be obsolete for all I know.

Lake Hopatcong dam only raises level six feet or so anyway, essentially a natural lake.

If we had only the natural lakes on the tribs... The Ramapo would still be (at least) TM water. Unfortunately, developers in the 1040s & 50s felt that "Lakeside Homes" would be easier to sell, at an inflated price.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

It would be costly to fill in the "quicksand" of Lake Musconetcong's revealed ass to make it parkland, I suppose.

Remove the dam and the "quicksand" dries up in days. Then you move the sediment from the old channel, plant that rich sediment, and it will grown like no other soil you've seen within literally days. First with a native ground cover and then with native trees and shrubs. No need to haul it off site. I put that entire job at maybe $2 million, tops to remove the dam. Dredge the lake one time and you're looking at at least 10X that number and it will need to be done again in 100 years or less. Also, water quality will improve vastly and the Musky is a large tributary to the Delaware which provides drinking water downstream to the cities of Philly, Trenton and Camden to name a few. Which approach is better for the taxpayer?

 

[Bruce Edward Litton]

No, I really wouldn't be surprised if a referendum fell in favor of removing the dam. And I was saying as much in short order that I really don't think things should just be "decided" for the public, as if "better interests" might instead be pulled off by fiat. Spending a lot of money every hundred years probably isn't worthwhile. It was a manmade project to begin with. So it was doomed from the start. But why hurry it? Let's see the lake last another 50 years or so. I want to know interests are there who care about the lake. That we're not just bombing it to death. I can still flourish, so let it live out it's life, like a human being would want to, really, to draw on my earlier analogy. Never said I believe the lake would win in the end.

But I do feel there's a lot of passion on the stream side of the issue. For one thing, how is the quality of the water suddenly an issue now? We just made it clear that the really bad condition it's in now isn't affecting the trout fishing at all, didn't we? Back in the earlier posts in this thread. Where does the Musky trout water begin? Not until below Waterloo, am I correct? Would this actually change without the LM dam? And if it would, what does that say about water quality in the river at present? And there's no doubt, before the weed killer changed everything, that water was of very high quality in the lake, even with the 30 % coverage of chestnuts, as is reported, in 2009 or 2010.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

But I do feel there's a lot of passion on the stream side of the issue. For one thing, how is the quality of the water suddenly an issue now? We just made it clear that the really bad condition it's in now isn't affecting the trout fishing at all, didn't we? Back in the earlier posts in this thread. Where does the Musky trout water begin? Not until below Waterloo, am I correct? Would this actually change without the LM dam? And if it would, what does that say about water quality in the river at present? And there's no doubt, before the weed killer changed everything, that water was of very high quality in the lake, even with the 30 % coverage of chestnuts, as is reported, in 2009 or 2010.

That lake deeply affects trout fishing as do the dams downstream all the way to Saxton Falls, all of which were built to flood the long defunct Morris Canal. Removing any and/or all of them will greatly improve coldwater habitat which is what the Musconetcong River was before man built dams along its entire length, many of which either later failed or have been removed more recently. As for the water quality being "very high" in Lake Musconetcong, it is 303 (d) listed by the EPA as impaired for pH and temperatures.

 

[Bruce Edward Litton]

That lake deeply affects trout fishing as do the dams downstream all the way to Saxton Falls, all of which were built to flood the long defunct Morris Canal. Removing any and/or all of them will greatly improve coldwater habitat which is what the Musconetcong River was before man built dams along its entire length, many of which either later failed or have been removed more recently. As for the water quality being "very high" in Lake Musconetcong, it is 303 (d) listed by the EPA as impaired for pH and temperatures.

Well, Rusty, you certainly stack up the amount of research I should do. How removing the Lake Musconetcong dam will greatly improve coldwater habitat, and yet the present rise in water temperature due to turbidity, instead of much better water quality with the vegetation state in 2009--I'm not saying chestnuts wouldn't have worsened it now--how the presenet mess does not affect trout fishing, I just have no evidence about. Only assertions one way and then the other. But I'll do some reading. I guess a lot of reading, which I dread at present, given time limitations. Is the water 303 d listed--whatever that means--now or before the chemicals? Because bottom was clearly visible 5 feet down. That's all I meant by very high quality. Of course the water got warm. But not as warm as it must in its muddy condition now. If no one cares about the lake, why not have just destroyed it in 2010, instead of putting it through all this, money to do this treatment, too? Well, there just isn't the 2 million or whatever at present to break the dam. ...I don't know. My hunch is that the dam isn't going to be removed any time soon. Not for 30 years or so, my guess. So I hope these chestnuts are eradicated and the lake comes back.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

The state owns lots and lots of dams and, until recently, they would spend millions each year around the state of our taxpayer dollars to rehabilitate those dams. Now suddenly there is a movement in Trenton on certain dams to look toward removal instead of rehabilitation. I'm not saying that this dam is in anyone's sights because as far as I know it is not. But we've become enlightened as to the many negative impacts certain dams have on both drinking water supplies and aquatic habitat.

 

[Bruce Edward Litton]

The state owns lots and lots of dams and, until recently, they would spend millions each year around the state of our taxpayer dollars to rehabilitate those dams. Now suddenly there is a movement in Trenton on certain dams to look toward removal instead of rehabilitation. I'm not saying that this dam is in anyone's sights because as far as I know it is not. But we've become enlightened as to the many negative impacts certain dams have on both drinking water supplies and aquatic habitat.

I would just have to enlighten myself on the issues. I can't promise I can make the time. It does make sense to me that removing the LM dam would slightly improve river habitat below; it also makes sense that the current bad condition of the water slightly affects the river well below.

 

[Pete]

I believe we've got you thinking, but like you, a lot of people still consider these lakes a "good thing".... even some county and state park officials.

On another forum, someone arguing in favor of the "lake people" was a bit surprised when I gave him an EPA link showing what his kids had been swimming in Waterbody Quality Assessment Report | WATERS | US EPA

Aside from delivering hot water to the river, it serves as a breeding ground for pathogens.
The chemical/biological processes are not entirely unlike a cesspool.
They actually chlorinate a 26 acre pond, just so they can swim in it....

Off topic:
Why this topic pushed my buttons....
1,700 Oakland homeowners to be assessed for lakes' maintenance - News - NorthJersey.com
A New Town in Town | The Oakland Journal
Before they tried to pick my pocket, I was content to disapprove (more or less) silently.

 

[Bruce Edward Litton]

I keep pointing out the Lake Musconetcong water quality is now a lot worse, not that it doesn't need to be for a while. Nevertheless, I raised an issue in my blog post that I begin to think was more of a good one, given all these assertions about hot, poor water from the lake and the like affecting the river below, which was what I suggested in my post in the first place, only to have Rusty disagree as if this doesn't affect the trout water at all.

And maybe it doesn't. To the best of my knowledge, the trout water begins just below Waterloo Village. Now take Budd Lake--its water never is as good as LM was, to the best of my knowledge, not as clear--and SB for comparison. I read somewhere else that native brookies are present a quarter mile below Budd Lake. So, of course, a lot of springs are feeding the river here. Nevertheless, this still amazed me and does because the quality of Budd Lake water is certainly not fit for native trout. And yet, if a quarter mile, even if say two miles, the water is completely rinsed out and pure enough for native trout.

I only mean to provide a suggestive comparison. I don't know all the facts. But if the SB becomes trout water that fast, what difference the LM dam to trout water beginning below Waterloo about two miles down from LM? They are two different cases, I would agree, but if it's really a quarter mile and you have native trout, this is food for thought. Not that I'm going to convince fly fishermen who just don't like lakes. Not that some fly fishermen don't fly fish lakes, however. Or tidal flats, surf, etc. etc. I happen to like lakes and nothing will change this. I also love rivers. And my fishing began on streams. But this doesn't mean my conversion experience will shift to trout and streams only, as if there's nothing more to life.

 

[Bruce Edward Litton]

I believe we've got you thinking, but like you, a lot of people still consider these lakes a "good thing".... even some county and state park officials.


Thanks for the links. I copied and pasted them into a file for more in-depth reading later.

Yes, you certainly got me thinking about all this. If it weren't for my addressing the forum on this issue, I would still be as ignorant as I was when I posted my opinion on my blog. No doubt at all, that post reveals a deep and passionate care about a certain lake, and for personal reasons, of course. I just hadn't learned yet that something that drastic was needed to be done. Imagine the state paying for minimum wage workers in hundreds of flat boats out on those 376 acres every day all summer long pulling weeds. That would probably work; it would certainly create jobs, but what would the expense be? I'm not all that great at guessing such amounts, but I guess it wasn't done for reasons of cost, not demographics.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

I keep pointing out the Lake Musconetcong water quality is now a lot worse, not that it doesn't need to be for a while. Nevertheless, I raised an issue in my blog post that I begin to think was more of a good one, given all these assertions about hot, poor water from the lake and the like affecting the river below, which was what I suggested in my post in the first place, only to have Rusty disagree as if this doesn't affect the trout water at all.

And maybe it doesn't. To the best of my knowledge, the trout water begins just below Waterloo Village. Now take Budd Lake--its water never is as good as LM was, to the best of my knowledge, not as clear--and SB for comparison. I read somewhere else that native brookies are present a quarter mile below Budd Lake. So, of course, a lot of springs are feeding the river here. Nevertheless, this still amazed me and does because the quality of Budd Lake water is certainly not fit for native trout. And yet, if a quarter mile, even if say two miles, the water is completely rinsed out and pure enough for native trout.

I only mean to provide a suggestive comparison. I don't know all the facts. But if the SB becomes trout water that fast, what difference the LM dam to trout water beginning below Waterloo about two miles down from LM? They are two different cases, I would agree, but if it's really a quarter mile and you have native trout, this is food for thought. Not that I'm going to convince fly fishermen who just don't like lakes. Not that some fly fishermen don't fly fish lakes, however. Or tidal flats, surf, etc. etc. I happen to like lakes and nothing will change this. I also love rivers. And my fishing began on streams. But this doesn't mean my conversion experience will shift to trout and streams only, as if there's nothing more to life.

Just to clear some things up. The treatment of the weeds in the lake does not seem to be affecting the trout waters downstream which is true, but we are talking about many, many miles downstream. Waterloo is not the beginning of trout water, trout water begins down near the Penwell dam just above the Point Mountain TCA and that is due to at least 2 significant coldwater tribs entering the river there. The reason we don't have year round trout water upstream of that area is the dams at Lake H, Lake M, the 2 in State Parks in Waterloo, and Saxton Falls. That we call the "lake section" and it is impaired for trout due mainly to temperatures. There are several tributaries in that stretch that hold native brook trout, but those trout are in their tribs year round or certainly during summer months.

As for the SBR, the very first tributary that enters that river is less than 1/4 mile below the outflow of Budd Lake and it does, in fact, have native brookies. It is not a "spring" but rather an S-1 (first order) tributary. Headwaters stream as many would call it. All of the next 5 tribs entering the SBR after than save for one (impaired by a farm dam) have native brook trout in them. During electrofishing sampling for a doctoral thesis in the upper SBR and these 6 tribs, brook trout have been found in the mainstem, but not during summer months up close to Budd Lake. The trout are moving between tribs in colder water times, not during the summer months. Budd Lake is a natural lake, the largest one in NJ and was left behind by the Wisconsin Glacier. Nobody would argue to remove a natural lake, but a dammed lake with a fairly large river flowing into it and out of it will quickly fill in with sediment which is exactly what we are seeing with Lake M. Budd Lake doesn't have that same inflow. Hence it eutrophies much more slowly. As in thousands of years and not around 100 years.

 

[Oliver10]

As for the SBR, the very first tributary that enters that river is less than 1/4 mile below the outflow of Budd Lake and it does, in fact, have native brookies. It is not a "spring" but rather an S-1 (first order) tributary. Headwaters stream as many would call it. All of the next 5 tribs entering the SBR after than save for one (impaired by a farm dam) have native brook trout in them. During electrofishing sampling for a doctoral thesis in the upper SBR and these 6 tribs, brook trout have been found in the mainstem, but not during summer months up close to Budd Lake. The trout are moving between tribs in colder water times, not during the summer months. Budd Lake is a natural lake, the largest one in NJ and was left behind by the Wisconsin Glacier. Nobody would argue to remove a natural lake, but a dammed lake with a fairly large river flowing into it and out of it will quickly fill in with sediment which is exactly what we are seeing with Lake M. Budd Lake doesn't have that same inflow. Hence it eutrophies much more slowly. As in thousands of years and not around 100 years.

Can I have GPS coordinates for those tribs please?


I have enjoyed reading the debate and some of my opinions have been changed, some have not. Bottom line is an debate about conservation and the appreciation of natural resources is in the long run a good thing.

Could a man-made lake made by damming a sediment rich river be designed to minimize sedimentation? Small dam first that slows the speed of the water, sediment falls out then water continues to the large main lake. The small sediment catching pre-lake is dredged or pumped out frequently to keep the build up down.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Can I have GPS coordinates for those tribs please?


I have enjoyed reading the debate and some of my opinions have been changed, some have not. Bottom line is an debate about conservation and the appreciation of natural resources is in the long run a good thing.

Could a man-made lake made by damming a sediment rich river be designed to minimize sedimentation? Small dam first that slows the speed of the water, sediment falls out then water continues to the large main lake. The small sediment catching pre-lake is dredged or pumped out frequently to keep the build up down.

Those tribs are in private hands and posted as well as patrolled. The brookies are likely 100% heritage fish, but a massive one is less than 10" for the most part.

As for minimizing sediment into a river, that is a bad thing assuming we are talking about normal amounts of sediment. Healthy rivers need sediment to survive and thrive, they just don't need excessive amounts. Dams actually starve the rivers below them of enough sediment while accumulating too much in their impoundments. The sediment behind the dams chokes out aquatic life which is bad for trout while warming up the river which again is bad for trout. If you have lots of fine sediments in the impoundment as is the case with Lake Musconetcong, the lake becomes more shallow over time and the sediment being dark in color becomes a heat sink, making things worse over time.

Unless we're talking about tailwaters, dams are always bad for trout. About the only exception I can think of is small dams designed and built just to keep non-native trout from out-competing with native species upstream of them like we have seen in the West on certain streams. But those are last resort situations. And tailwaters have their own issues over time because their reservoirs eventually fill with sediment and choke out the depth needed to store the coldwater releases.

Tear 'em out and let our rivers flow free!