Wisconsin remains a leader in removing old dams…

  • cherilovell
    Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin
    Posts: 1495
    #1247450

    Wisconsin remains a leader in removing old, obsolete dams in 2005
    Release Date: 9/8/2005
    ###

    MADISON – Wisconsin continues to be a national leader in removing old, obsolete dams and restoring rivers to a free flowing condition that can benefit water quality, fisheries and habitat. A 2005 nationwide survey released late last month reveals that 56 dams were removed, or are slated to be removed in 2005, with 11 of those dam removals planned in Wisconsin.

    The survey was conducted by American Rivers, a national river conservation organization. By the organization’s count, 185 dams have been removed nationwide since 1995, and Wisconsin has accounted for roughly one-fifth of the total.

    Todd Ambs, who leads Department of Natural Resources water programs, said that removing obsolete, uneconomical dams is one of the best river restoration tools available. “We’re proud of our continued work in this area and look forward to more success stories in years to come.”

    Helen Sarakinos, who manages the River Alliance of Wisconsin dams program, says that Wisconsin “remains an inspiration to the nation” with its commitment to restore healthy rivers through selective dam removal. “In small ways, the dam owners and communities making the decisions to remove dams are leaving their world a little better than they found it and it’s a legacy that will be appreciated for generations to come,” she says.

    River Alliance of Wisconsin helps promote dam removal as a river restoration tool through a variety of ways, including assisting private dam owners and local communities with outreach, education, fundraising and other assistance.

    Wisconsin has 1,200 so-called large dams which are at least 6 feet high and store at least 50-acre feet of water and another 2,500 smaller dams regulated by the state. About half of the dams are privately owned, says Meg Galloway, DNR dam safety chief.

    More than 100 dams have been removed since 1967 in Wisconsin, she says. Most are older dams that no longer serve the purpose for which they were built and have fallen into disrepair. “Once dams get to that condition, the cost of bringing them back to compliance is usually significantly more than removing them,” Galloway says.

    According to the American Rivers’ survey and press release information, dams removed or slated for removal in Wisconsin in 2005 include the following:

    Country Dam, Apple River, Polk Country. The 18-foot earthen dam is slated for removal in 2005, followed by streambank restoration and aquatic habitat improvements. The dam partially failed during flooding in April 2001 and has been drawndown since. Removal and restoration costs are estimated at $120,000, and $50,000 will come from a DNR small and abandoned dam grant, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Polk County. Benefits include eliminating a safety hazard, improving warm water fish habitat and allowing passage for canoeists. Contact: Meg Galloway (608) 266-7014.
    Big Spring Dam, Big Spring Creek, Adams County. This dam is slated for removal in fall 2005, and is located on a section of Class I brook trout stream. The 18-foot gravity and earthen dam was in poor condition, and was drained in 1998 for safety reasons. Estimated costs for repair exceeded $1 million, compared to removal and restoration costs estimated at $120,000. Restoration of the stream will happen in phases involving partners including the landowner, the River Alliance of Wisconsin, Inter-Fluve, Adams County, DNR, Town of New Haven, and Mason Lake District. Benefits of dam removal include improving water quality and the native brook and brown trout fisheries. Contact: Helen Sarakinos, River Alliance of Wisconsin (608) 257-2424 ex. 112.
    Genesee Roller Mill Dam and Unnamed Dam, Genesee Creek, Waukesha County. These two dams, a 15-foot wide concrete dam and a 480-foot earthen embankment, were removed in early 2005. Because of dam failure and safety precautions, DNR performed drawdowns in 2002 and 2003 and bought the dams. In addition to dam removal, restoration work took place to promote in-stream habitat for naturally reproducing brook and brown trout, and to restore native wetland and riverside habitat. Carroll College, Trout Unlimited, and the Wisconsin Wetlands Association worked with DNR to remove the dam and to raise the estimated $75,000 removal and restoration costs. Contact: Jim D’Antuono, DNR, (262) 574-2122
    Manchester Dam, Grand River, Green Lake County. This 16-foot earthen and concrete dam is slated for removal in early winter 2005. The dam is currently a safety liability and has been under orders for repair since the early 1980s. Dam removal has been funded by DNR’s Abandoned Dams Program, and the USDA Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. In addition to eliminating safety concerns, dam removal will open up 12 miles of habitat and fish passage to warm water fish species. Contact: Derek Kavanaugh, Green Lake County Land Conservation Department, (920) 394-4051.
    Grenlie Dam, Grenlie Lake Outlet, Waupaca County. This six-foot earthen dam is located in a natural area and is slated for removal in fall 2005. Removal will also include some stream bank stabilization. The dam removal will re-establish the connection between Grenlie Lake and Sannes Creek, and there’s expected to be an increase in shoreland wetland vegetation, and amphibian diversity. Sannes Creek is a trout water, and so fish migration is also expected to benefit as a result of the dam removal. Contact: Scott Koehnke, DNR, (715) 526-4232.
    Spitzer Dams, Milhome Creek, Manitowoc County. DNR, River Alliance of Wisconsin, Sheboygan County Parks Department, and Trout Unlimited are working together to remove remnants of four concrete dams and a concrete hatchery raceway and to restore habitat. Project costs are covered by a Wisconsin Coastal Management Grant, DNR, and the sale of Inland Trout Stamps to anglers. These removals will restore in-stream habitat of the headwaters and spring pond of the Class I brook trout stream, and open up habitat for fish for as far as 27 stream miles. Contact: Helen Sarakinos, River Alliance of Wisconsin (608) 257-2424 ext. 112.
    Meyer Dam, Mullet River, Sheboygan County. In early 2005, DNR removed the Meyer Dam and 80 feet of embankment and then stabilized banks and restored disturbed areas. The city of Plymouth initially looked at site because of sedimentation problems and repeated neighborhood basement flooding. At the outset, the city applied for a permanent drawdown with the intention of creating a walking trail through a riverine habitat. However, heavy rains in 2004 destroyed much of their work, and the city applied for abandonment. Dam removal funds came from Environmental Damage Compensation Fund. The removal may affect populations of smallmouth bass in the river. Contact: Brent Binder, DNR (920) 892-8756 ext. 3032.
    Millpond Dam, Osceola Creek, Polk County. This five-foot rock dam was removed in summer 2005, and was first uncovered when a flood in September 2002 broke through a dam further downstream and drained the impoundment. DNR intends to rebuild the stream banks and provide better habitat for trout, hoping to allow the restoration of a self-sustaining trout fishery. Final removal costs are being covered through revenues from the sale of Inland Trout Stamps. Contact: Heath Benike, DNR, (715) 637-6864
    Skunk Lake Dam, Skunk Lake Outlet, Waupaca County. This perched culvert is scheduled for removal in fall 2005 and the creek restored to its original bed. The dam removal, on a state natural area, will support trout migration to Sannes Creek. Contact: Scott Koehnke, DNR (715) 526-4232
    Planing Mill Dam, Waupaca River, Waupaca County. The city of Waupaca and DNR removed the concrete dam in summer 2005 to eliminate a public safety hazard, to improve aquatic habitat, and to enhance canoeing opportunities. The project also included seeding and stabilizing the banks, and is expected to benefit fish species such as brown trout, greater redhorse, smallmouth bass and state-threatened western sand darter that were blocked by the structures. The city of Waupaca and a DNR grant funded the removal. Contact: John Edlebeck, City of Waupaca (715) 258-4420.
    Token Creek Dam, Token Creek, Dane County. Token Creek is a tributary to the Yahara River upstream of Lake Mendota where the Token Creek Dam once impounded about 55 acres of the creek. At the upstream end of the old reservoir, six dams once impounded the significant springs at Culver Springs ponds. The Token Creek Coalition, including DNR, Dane County, the Dane County Natural Heritage Foundation, the Token Creek Association, Trout Unlimited, the River Alliance of Wisconsin and the Town of Windsor worked to raise money to buy the dams, remove them, restore the springs, re-meander the old Token Creek channel and restore habitat. In 1999, the gates of the old Token Creek dam were removed to lower the impoundment level. In 2004, berms impounding the Culver Springs were breached, and this summer, partners finished restoring Culver Springs to a more natural setting and finished removing the remaining portions of the Token Creek Dam. Future work calls for continuing to restore the original Token Creek channel and improve habitat along the creek and its tributaries. The project is expected to restore 5 to 7 miles of stream capable of supporting brook trout, and will also benefit water quality in the Yahara River lake chain. Contact: Ken Johnson, DNR (608) 275-3243
    FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Ambs (608) 264-6278; Meg Galloway (608) 266-7014; Helen Sarakinos, River Alliance of Wisconsin (608) 257-2424

    ###

    Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

    jiggin
    Posts: 54
    #383272

    catfishgirl; That article sounds good when you read it, but have you ever experienced it? I live in a small city north of Milwaukee,Wi. When I was growing up we had some pretty good fishing in the Milwaukee river, which flows through this town. Though most of these fish were carp and bullhead, you could still find bass and some big northerns without a lot of trouble. When the biggest dam at the end of town was removed, fishing stunk. Well then there was some restored habitat to help put the river back to its natural? state. Thats too involved to be anything but a joke in my mind. The fishing started to perk up again, mostly for game fish. The smallmouth were becoming dominant,and getting big as well. Northern and largemouth were coming back, even some walleye. Then out came the beautification committees. And canoe clubs. (Nothing against canoes, don’t get me wrong) They had to clean up the river! Sounded good. Than I saw what they were doing and had a confrontation with them. They cut down trees that hung over the river, pulled everything out of there that was in their way of navigating the now very shallow river. Somethings were good to remove, but not the trees that provide shade or shelter for the fish! To make a long story short, we now have a shallow river which doesn’t support much for big fish. The youth of this town lost a gem, but the town only seems to want these kids playing league baseball or going to the ymca or to stay at home. Too bad for the kids who don’t make it or can’t afford club memberships. Sometimes these things don’t work like they should. I realize economics sometimes make it impossible to do anything but remove some dams, but not all of them. These damed up waters can provide some good recreation for people too. I think if they can save them they should, and worry more about busting those who pollute them and why they do it. How many people alive have seen these rivers in their natural state? They may like them better the way they are. Funny how they can remove a dam to put the river back to it’s natural state but they don’t take out the filled in areas that have houses and such. One last comment. The Mississippi was once damless. I hope they never decide to remove the dams off of it.

    cherilovell
    Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin
    Posts: 1495
    #383273

    I posted this cause I thought people would like to read it, Not to start a issue. I am very sorry to hear of what they did to this river you know of.

    DISCLAIMER: ANY NEWS ITEMS I POST ON IDA DOESN’T REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE POSTER!

    2Fishy4U
    Posts: 973
    #383364

    Cooker, good points.

    I live on the Milwaukee River between the Grafton and Thiensville Dams. Fishing isn’t too bad, mostly for Catfish, Northern And Small Mouth. There is also a lot of boat traffic, because it is the only section of the river that is deep enough to accomodate motor boats. The Thiensville Dam holds back sufficient amounts of water to allow for these recreational uses. The bottom line is removing that dam would literally close the river to the above-mentioned uses for the forseeable future.

    Removal of the dam has been discussed, because some of the DNR folks would like to see the river in a more natural state. Recreational boating would end, and I doubt removal would do much to help the fish populations. However,taking a contrary opinion, removal would also allow the Salmon from Lake Michigan to move further upstream to spawn, and last year the DNR planted thousands of Sturgeon below the Grafton Dam hoping they would eventually find there way to Lake Michigan and use the river for spawning.

    On balance, I think removal would prove to be a disaster, and regardless of the outcome, would seriously harm the property values of homes along this stretch of the river.

    Catfishgirl and Cooker; thanks for your posts. Appreciate the information and opinions.

    P.S. Cooker, which Dam are you referring to that was removed. I am thinking the one at Grafton or the one in West Bend.

    heitda
    Eau Claire, WI
    Posts: 272
    #383416

    It is truely a sad day when “beautification” committees are able to remove fish habitat from our rivers and streams.

    jiggin
    Posts: 54
    #383573

    catfishgirl: Please except my apology. I in no way wanted to attack you, sorry if I came off that way. Just wanted to express my opinion on this subject because I feel this is too often overlooked. Again, I’m sorry. But thanks for giving me a chance to state my veiw to more than a few people who turned their heads and actted like I was crazy. Your not at fault for posting this, and I do enjoy reading your post when I have time. By the way I think it is a great thing your doing for those kids, taking them out fishing and all. Even if they don’t limit out, they are learning and having fun! Keep up the good work if you can.

    jiggin
    Posts: 54
    #383576

    2fish: The dam was in West Bend. I realize a good part of the reason was the cost of repairs, but what of the end result? This city taxed ma &pa bussinesses that had been here so long they were the only thing these people knew, so they could stick a ton of money into a downtown thats a d.o.a. They waste very large sums of money on sculptures that are about as good as the big blue shirt Milwaukee almost got stuck with. I do think my tax dollars would have beem better spent to keep the dam. Not for me, but for all who live in the area. Sorry to rant.

    cherilovell
    Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin
    Posts: 1495
    #383585

    Quote:


    catfishgirl: Please except my apology. I in no way wanted to attack you, sorry if I came off that way. Just wanted to express my opinion on this subject because I feel this is too often overlooked. Again, I’m sorry. But thanks for giving me a chance to state my veiw to more than a few people who turned their heads and actted like I was crazy. Your not at fault for posting this, and I do enjoy reading your post when I have time. By the way I think it is a great thing your doing for those kids, taking them out fishing and all. Even if they don’t limit out, they are learning and having fun! Keep up the good work if you can.


    It’s all good.

    eyejacker
    Hudson, Wisconsin
    Posts: 1890
    #383603

    It troubles my deeply enough to see the old dams removed but what really concerns me is when they may decide to remove the old sires !

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #383621

    Hmmmm….interesting points of view!

    I wonder what was said when the dams were put in? Not by the government agencies that approved them…but by folks like you and me (now there’s another post…government should be made up of people like you and I!)

    I can’t speak of the Milwaukee River, but I can talk about the North Fork of the Crow River in Hutchinson, MN. (80 miles west of Mpls)

    Fishing below it’s two dams in town, one a flood control dam and the other a low head dam, I can say carp, bullheads, dogfish and crappied were abundant. A few northerns were mixed in too.

    The City/DNR removed the low head dam and replaced it with boulders and rock…which is a common replacement now a day. Although I haven’t fished this river since I was a kid, walleye, northern and channel cats (planted by the dnr) have taken off. Because of the removal of the low head dam? Don’t know…All I know for sure is the kids today are catching better (game) fish than I was in the late ’60 early ’70’s.

    I better toss this out too. It was normal back then to see discharges coming out of “sewers”. I won’t go into details…but it wasn’t pretty. This was on a river that already had a REAL bad siltation problem (still does), alge bloom and farm run off.

    One of your points made me think of the river down stream of the old low head dam area. This was a residental area that was bought up by the city and made into a park because of flooding. It’s a grass park, barren of trees along the river bank. I’m going to have to look closer at this area next time I’m out there.

    Remove the dams on the sippi? Now there would be a life style change for many of us! Winni and Mille Lacs Lake would become the “small ponds”…the St Croix River would become a National Senic Marshland, just to mention a few changes…

    Thanks for posting a responding with views that I’ve never thought of!

    emover
    Malcom, IA
    Posts: 1939
    #383785

    EJ,
    that’s wrong on some level I’m sure
    but FUNNY

    dave

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.