Dam removal

tomgamber

tomgamber

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Messages
10,296
Location
Greensburg, PA
Not too familiar with California but it sounds good to me...maybe others could shed some editorial insight?

https://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-deal-revives-plan-largest-213326069.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cDovL20uZmFjZWJvb2suY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJMTpR-8CS-0rPy6GHfE2vApRno3M4B5KOyvbsYq2RV_fmUJhkZHM_pgpQfYiA5J-4WrkUt9Cb9nke7rDasW0_iA7hy1VsneKZPVRX44TZDUZRHyCdfI-rcPbIKE0uEoBjhJtTXNlFgT2fxPqp_6-wHm7f-8PEDT_8T7SaDVmtH7
 
I read that as well. The Native Indians went to New Zealand to make a deal for eggs from the salmon that were originally from that basins stock. The ideas was to remove the dams and restore that strain of salmon to its Home Waters. I hope it happens! GG
 
I have mixed emotions about this. I agree that the little bitty dams on small streams should come out but these larger dams come with a two edged sword. Its a dry state and they don'd seem to have the nerve to tell people to stop settling there. They never seem to have enough water. Then there are the people whom play on those waters. Where will they go? What overly used lake will they transfer their activities to. I see that some of the impetus behind this are self proclaimed environmentalists and Non-prophet groups. Historically these groups refuse to recognize humans as part of nature and most especially as the top predator. I always have a heart struggle with some of the things that many of these high strung groups put forth. While I enjoy some other their ideas I have to keep checking for my wallet and any body parts to make sure nothing walked off.
 
Well frankly "I have mixed emotions about this." My money is taken from me every year without any hope of controlling how it is spent. Now that Our money built this dam, and there is a chance to see that our money is spent correctly with regards to its future, I think that we should tip-toe and review all the options and make sure we don't make things worse for us down the road. I Don't relish 1000's of the type of families that water ski, wake board and drive boats with 250+ hp motors be forced into sharing small streams with us.
Like Bob Hope said to Bing Crosby in Road to Zanzibar, "Baby Steps".
 
Without wishing to be contentious, I'll simply point out that your money is never: "taken from me (you) every year without any hope of controlling how it is spent". Every time you vote or have contact with one of your elected representatives regarding taxation and spending, you are exercising as much control as any of us have over the outcomes of these things.

Were it up to me, there would be probably 75% fewer dams and reservoirs than what we have now. I consider most of them insults to free flowing rivers. But it isn't very often I get my way and that's how it goes. But that doesn't mean I have no input as to how my tax dollars are spent. I have the same amount of say as you or anyone else.

There is a difference between "having control" and whether or not our way of thinking prevails in a given situation, wouldn't you agree?

Just a viewpoint..
 
I guess your analysis is correct. One note though is the the monies and controls so to speak are not political and so are not controlled by whom the folks voted in. The people ultimately in charge of these things are committees and often public employoyees, swampers, good and bad, with a plethora of motives and interests. I think before any action is taken I'd like to see it dragged around a bit. Then there is always the remaining question: Where and how will the folks (vacationers) deprived of this resource re-plant themselves and their interests. They are very different people than you and me.
I remember the horor perpetrated on fellow farmers and neighbors when Lake Nockamixon was built. If it were drained today and the dam removed will the state rebuild all the barns and houses be rebuilt and the farm lands restored to plowable condition and given back to the heirs of these displaced families? Of course not. The state will keep it and make it into parkland and hunting areas.
That type of thing is likely to happen with this big dam. I say slow down and think this it through.
And by the way I'm not against the eventual outcome. I'm merely pointing out that many people are hurt when these things are built and we owe it to them to get the best outcome.
 
A lot of problems with dam removal that often seem overlooked. The release of years of sediment all at once for one. And then we are left with whatever jagged mud shoreline and high bank and how that will react to further erosion. Seems a lot of people like just taking out dams by any means and in my view it is often done improperly. the stream will revert to the original bed but there is more to restoration than that.
 
just another reason to wait it out.
 
As a result of much experience I can confidently say that it pays to be opportunistic when it comes to dam removals. MANY moving parts have to come together successfully in any dam removal project, not the least of which are finances, owner buy-in, grant partnerships, project coordinators, permitting, and historical preservation mitigation to name a few. In an ideal world the available money would include enough for habitat work after the dam has been breached; however, there are sometimes shortfalls in this aspect. Delay often means opportunity lost, perhaps for decades. That’s the reality, so in my view when opportunity knocks it pays to move forward expeditiously.

Furthermore, addressing habitat concerns immediately following a breach can be a waste of time and money. One such project in sE Pa showed that the in-stream habitat work that is premature has little value. After a few months deflectors were extending out of the vertical embankments suspended three feet above the water as the stream continued to cut down into a century of stored sediment. In another SE Pa case the stream continued to move laterally as it formed its permanent channel, pushing completely away from the man created channel and habitat work, which in retrospect, was also premature. Each situation is unique and in some situations immediate in-stream work might be feasible, but in many cases initially letting nature take its course in forming a stream channel and allowing the germination of seeds already in the sediments to stabilize loose soil may be the best place to start.
 
Mike,
That seems to confirm my "let nature take its course" instincts. Save the additional money for riparian conservation. What could seem practical and cheap would be trucking off some of the sediment. Could it be beneficial to agriculture?
 
That’s what I naively thought in my formative years as a biologist. It turned out that there was not much of a market for the sediments from lake beds exposed from dam breaches, let alone low head mill dams on streams. The expense for excavation and trucking was usually prohibitive, although some was moved in two cases of which I am aware...once from a flood plain along a stream (not associated w/ dam removal) and once from a temporarily breached dam (Speedwell Forge Lk), both in Lancaster Co. where perhaps silt was a bigger proportion of the deposited material than in many other locales.

As for the sediments behind low head dams on creeks, they vary in composition, but often may not be very valuable for ag purposes. Usually, in my experience, the sediments are primarily sand and gravel on a percentage basis as opposed to being predominately silt.
 
riverwhy wrote:
What could seem practical and cheap would be trucking off some of the sediment.
Click to expand...

This could possibly be your single biggest project expense if you chose to do this.

I will add, that as someone who has personally witnessed the natural destruction (failure) of a dam on pristine trout water, you do not want an uncontrolled removal.
 
I know of another stream where a dam was removed. For some reason, silt did not stream down the stream in a choking mess.

As one who regularly checks water temps when I fish, I believe that dam removal decreased the average water temperature by only about two degrees -- maybe less. I had figured the dam pool was a heat sump, but that may not have been the case.

I lament the removal of the McCoy Dam on Spring Creek. When I was young, it was a special place, with big trout that ate dry flies and with few guys fishing there. Now, even with "stream improvements," it remains the McCoy Ditch in the minds of those of us who fished there 40 or more years ago. The West Penn Dam at Milesburg was similar, and I admired the "old guys" of that time, like Henry Malone, who could stand on the walkway and place their flies under the bushes on the opposite bank, hook the trout that rose there, and then land them. They were among the fly-fishing heroes of my early days. (Now I'm an old guy.)

However, I admit that the removal of most dams is probably a positive thing.
 
rrt- Be glad you grew up and saw the things you did. The do gooders will soon make everything the same. All those unique situations will be eliminated in order to create generic streams that flow unimpeded to the sea. Yeah in many cases it's a good thing I guess. I'm certainly not sold on a lot of it.
 
rrt- Be glad you grew up and saw the things you did. The do gooders will soon make everything the same. All those unique situations will be eliminated in order to create generic streams that flow unimpeded to the sea. Yeah in many cases it's a good thing I guess. I'm certainly not sold on a lot of it.
 
Lark, you seem to typically comment in favor of wild trout management. Just curious on how you can not be in favor of dam removals and improving aquatic passage when having the ability to move throughout a watershed clearly benefits wild trout populations in the form of providing access to greater ranges of habitat. This may allow for access to optimal spawning habitat, greater forage opportunities and more resilient populations that can repopulate a watershed after floods and/or droughts.
 
Lyco--I will just say without going into detail that there are some unique situations that maybe could be left well enough alone. rrt mentioned one and I know of several. It certainly may be that in the grand scheme dams are a bad thing but there are other cases where it may not make enough of a difference as far as improvement and might actually spoil some interesting seasonal fishing opportunities. On the topic of "improvement" I am a sceptic because MORE OFTEN THAN NOT no follow up studies are done to determine that the so called improvement actually helps the stream overall. True restoration in the natural world is a very complex issue from what I gather when reading the literature.
 
Understood, I will agree that not enough monitoring is completed to fully understand the outcomes of many "restoration" projects. In the case of dam removals however, restoring connectivity can be critical for the survival of many fish and aquatic species. Obviously no two locations are the same.

In regards to stream improvement or "restoration" projects I am a fan of taking a minimalistic approach. I would much rather see obstructions removed, light bank grading and riparian planting than a bunch of rock structures. There are many methodologies and design approaches around the state. Below is a story map that DEP put together on a watershed wide restoration that a number of partners have been working on for almost a decade. There are marked water quality, macroinvertebrate and fish populations improvements noted.

https://www.depgis.state.pa.us/TurtleCreek/index.html
 
Lyco- This looks like the way a project should be done in my view. Comprehensive plan for the streams and watershed from top to bottom and well researched with follow up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top