Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
▪
Cranbury School
▪
Cranbury Township
▪
Cranbury Library
▪
Cranbury.org
▪
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="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[/quote]
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
Author
Message
anon-sp0n
Posted: Wed, Feb 4 2015, 10:26 am EST
Post subject: Re: Lowering of Brainerd Lake
^^^
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?
Guest
Posted: Tue, Feb 3 2015, 10:05 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Lowering of Brainerd Lake
publius-27p1 wrote:
Can the dam be repaired without tearing up Main S?
Where is the proof that Cranbury Lake is 400 years old , bridge was not built until 1887, or something like that , Gristmill was built in 1736 by James(Or John?)Rochead , not by Thomas Grubbs, Rochead sold it to Grubbs in 1739 , why has it been named after Brainerd since he had nothing to do with Lake, Cemetery , and or Bridge , inter alia? By doing these things , you folks report incorrect history? What was depth of Cranbury Brook when it was in its natural state before 1736 , when many years before , likely at least 1886 , Stagecoaches ran over that 13 gallons per minute flow ? It could have been not , maybe , more than an inch or two? It would have been more appropriate to have named it afer Rochead , although there was nothing wrong with Cranbury ? Do you have any info, whatsoever , about gristmill details , such as milling stone details, size of water wheel , etc. , because visitors , like me. would like to know those things ? From my rough calculations by extrapolation I have height of bridge as about 22.64 inches , but I could be wrong ? Recently when I was at Delaware Water Gap, the bus driver failed to tell us of and old probably Unami gravestone ?
anon-0o99
Posted: Tue, Sep 4 2012, 7:22 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Lowering of Brainerd Lake
The bird watching has been great though....
publius-27p1
Posted: Sat, Sep 1 2012, 12:29 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Lowering of Brainerd Lake
Can the dam be repaired without tearing up Main St.?
Thank you-8p94
Posted: Thu, Aug 30 2012, 12:15 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Lowering of Brainerd Lake
David Cook wrote:
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
Thanks Dave for such a well crafted response. I would like to emphasize you final paragraph. "I can only cover so much in this forum which leaves the facts somewhat open to distortion or taken out of context." Moreover, it is impossible to differentiate between honest misunderstandings and deliberate trolls. I apologize if I labeled someone as a troll who had an honest misunderstanding, but the point that needs to be taken away is "...strongly encourage that you come down to the township Committee meetings with concerns like the lake maintenance program." That is the only way to ask legitimate follow up questions and understand the scope and nature of the problem.
I think a forum such as this is valuable to alert people to a problem i.e. the dam is leaking. But it is woefully inadequate to fully flesh out the issue and timeline. That needs to be done in a face to face open forum (a TC meeting).
David Cook
Posted: Thu, Aug 30 2012, 11:05 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Lowering of Brainerd Lake
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
anon-rq33
Posted: Sat, Aug 25 2012, 12:32 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Lowering of Brainerd Lake
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
Posted: Thu, Aug 23 2012, 12:48 pm EDT
Post subject: Lowering of Brainerd Lake
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