Lowering of Brainerd Lake

[David Cook]

Fellow Residents of Cranbury
Late last week, it was noted that the water level of Brainerd Lake was dropping due to a reason other than opening the flood gate on the Brainerd Lake Dam. After an investigation by Township staff to determine the reason for the drop in water level, it was discovered that water was passing around the dam spill way and leaking through the foundation to the west side of the bridge.
On Wednesday, a meeting was held at the Brainerd Lake dam with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Dam Safety Department, the County Engineering Department, the County Engineering consultants contracted for the repair of the Dam and Cranbury Township Staff including myself. It was determined upon inspection that water leakage under the dam had reached a level where action needed to be taken. The lake needed to be lowered. If the lake level was not lowered the result would be significant damage to the bridge substructure under the road bed. It was recommended by the NJDEP that the lake be drained and left in that condition until repairs can be made to ensure the safety of the dam.
As you may already be aware, the Township and the County have entered into an agreement to jointly share in the cost of repairing the existing dam as required by the NJDEP. Those plans have been submitted and the Township and County are currently in the process of obtaining the necessary permits from the State to begin construction. Construction is expected to begin later this year.
Unfortunately in order to prevent further damage to the dam and the bridge, the water level of the lake will need to be kept at a low level until construction has remedied the problem. I realize that this is not an opportune time to lower the level of the lake. All of us treasure the lake for what it means to Cranbury and its beautiful vista. But the safety of Cranbury residents and those who cross the bridge would be greatly jeopardized if we were to allow the erosion of the bridge to continue at the rate it was before the lakes lowering.
Thank you for your understanding and I apologize for any inconvenience,
Mayor David Cook

[anon-rq33]

Dave, In another post above here (Letter concerning Brainard..), TC member, Susan explains that this seepage was ongoing. Now, I am not trying to split verbal hairs here, but if this is the case, why did we spend $10k for a few short weeks (before it all grew back) of less vegitation when inevitable draining would have killed it anyway? I value the treasure of the lake as much as anyone, which is why when I hear justification for this expenditure which eludes to long term solutions such as dredging, but which doesn't spell out a comprehensive plan that includes both this long term need and short term solutions and how they are related in a larger plan, I am concerned about potential short term fiscal waste with a looming long- term expense (10k per 2 weeks will quickly add up to the 2m+ needed for the once per forty year dredging). Is there a more comprehensive plan for the lake in its totality that accounts for all of these factors? Thanks

[David Cook]

Anon,
The bridge seepage and the lake vegetation are not part of the same issue. They are two separate issues.
The vegetation project was initiated in the first quarter of this year. This was before we had the unexpected drop in the lake level which occurred two weeks ago due to the bridge seepage increasing.
The lake vegetation project is a two tier project beginning with the physical removal of as much of the lake debris as possible which you saw earlier this summer. This had to be done first. The second tier is the ongoing annual lake water treatment to stop the seasonal growth from starting. The water treatment can onIy be done in the spring due to environmental concerns. I can only imagine what the lake would look like now if we had not taken the first step which was to physically remove as much vegetation as possible.
What changed was that the lake level dropped so precipitously about two weeks ago. We had to drop the level further as directed by the NJDEP to inspect the bridge. This was unexpected. We have since addressed the short term bridge issue which forced Cranbury to change its lake maintenance plan. There was no short term fiscal waste. Draining the lake does not kill seasonal growth that occurs in the lake. We are not spending 10K per two weeks.
But in order to address the current vegetation issue we needed to start with physical removal and follow up with lake treatment in 2013. The Township is aware that physical removal and water treatment is not a permanent fix and that dredging has to be considered. We are in the preliminary stages of looking at the permitting, disposal and cost issues that comprise the dredging decision.
I strongly encourage that you come down to the township Committee meetings with concerns like the Lake maintenance program. I can only cover so much in this forum which leaves the facts somewhat open to distortion or to be taken out of context. I encourage your participation in the future health of Brainerd Lake.
Thank You
Dave Cook

[Thank you-8p94]

[publius-27p1]

Can the dam be repaired without tearing up Main St.?

[anon-0o99]

The bird watching has been great though....

[Guest]

[anon-sp0n]

^^^

It would be easier to read if you used grammar and sentences instead of stream of conscience. And what does any of what you wrote have to do with what you were replying to about whether to repair the dam without impacted Main Street?