TO DAM OR NOT TO DAM

[troutbert]

Flyfishing42 wrote:
Theres a dam I fished as a child this empties into a salt water river in NE. It would be perfect place foe Atlantic salmon. They are supposed to dredge the pond and then destroy the dam. Also remove the silt first to protect the eel grass. So called evironmentalists said it will bring back all of the fish populations. One has to wonder it it will all work out.

What is the name of the stream, dam, and nearest village or town?

 

[FarmerDave]

jifigz wrote:

gulfgreyhound wrote:
When was the Kinzua Dam built? GG

It opened in 1965 I believe.

Didn't know the year, but I do remember visiting there with my dad when I was a kid.

Changed the river completely, some say for the better, some say for the worse. But I don't know anyone who fished it before and after.

As far as the OP question, my answer would be same as Salmonoid only add sometimes generate electricity to the first paragraph.

 

[FarmerDave]

Chaz wrote:
Very bad, and I don't care if it is a cold water release. Lakes and ponds change many of the characteristics of the streams they block from ph to temperature.
Oh and there isn't an Atlantic Salmon River in New England that has recovered from a dam removal sufficiently to make the fisheries for salmon sustainable again. Nearly all the Salmon Rivers of NE were destroyed by dams. There are still thousands of the dams in NE that should be removed.

As a general rule, I agree, but IMO it is not an all inclusive.

In rare occasions and under the right situation, a dam can improve the env for trout. Sometimes at the expense of other creatures, sometimes not.

Small wetlands (dams) are a viable treatment for AMD and some other pollutants. Of course with AMD it may require more than just the dam (limestone).

Dead stream now supporting fish? Any fish?

PH risen enough in a small acidic tributary to improve PH of main stream?

IMO, bot are inner winner chicken dinners.

Large bottom release dam on an otherwise WW stream can create a pretty decent artificial trout fishery. But it changes everything above and below the dam for other fish which obviously needs to be considered.

 

[tomgamber]

Out west some of the dams are necessary. Older power dams are starting to come down on the bigger rivers but when you depend on 99% snow pack for all your water, you better have a place to keep it. The south fork of the Boise river in Idaho is an amazing fishery. Its probably in my top 3 favorites anywhere. Nothing but wild fish, incredible insect life, small amount of power generation and a large reservoir that provides irrigation and public water to an area that sees less than 12 inches of rainfall a year.

 

[pete41]

Some mighty awesome fishing in the west above the lakes in the fall.Chance to catch 3-4-5 or more fish in the 5 pound and up range...but something to be said for the yellowstone.

 

[troutbert]

On a PA stream a landowner had an old milldam that created a small shallow muddy pond on a trout stream.

Rather than take the dam down, which would have been expensive, he gradually lowered the water level. This dam had a slot in the stone dam with boards that allowed controlling the water level.

He just removed boards just low enough that the pond was drained, with just a normal sized stream channel flowing through the mud flat. The vegetation colonized the mudflat very soon and grew rapidly.

So the dam is still there, and there is a deep plunge pool where the water falls over the dam. But there is no longer a pond behind the dam. There is a stream channel flowing there with good vegetation on both sides.

His cost for doing this was zero. He just pulled some boards out of the dam. But the results were good.

Where a dam does not have a slot with boards that controls flow like that, it might be possible to drain the pond and in a similar way by creating a notch in the top of the dam with a jackhammer or other tools, depending on the structure of the dam.

 

[bigslackwater]

my local stream has a dam that stands about 6' high. It's starting to deteriorate. The water is starting to flow more on the weaker side. Every year the slack water behind the dam grows smaller. The level behind the dam gets a little lower. I drive by and cheer for it to be a stream again! I cringe at the thought of people some day wanting to restore it, because I know the day is coming. If the issue is brought up, most will be in favor of restoration.

 

[ebroesicke]

troutbert wrote:
On a PA stream a landowner had an old milldam that created a small shallow muddy pond on a trout stream.

Rather than take the dam down, which would have been expensive, he gradually lowered the water level. This dam had a slot in the stone dam with boards that allowed controlling the water level.

He just removed boards just low enough that the pond was drained, with just a normal sized stream channel flowing through the mud flat. The vegetation colonized the mudflat very soon and grew rapidly.

So the dam is still there, and there is a deep plunge pool where the water falls over the dam. But there is no longer a pond behind the dam. There is a stream channel flowing there with good vegetation on both sides.

His cost for doing this was zero. He just pulled some boards out of the dam. But the results were good.

Where a dam does not have a slot with boards that controls flow like that, it might be possible to drain the pond and in a similar way by creating a notch in the top of the dam with a jackhammer or other tools, depending on the structure of the dam.

I think DEP requires total dam removal...no?

 

[troutbert]

ebroesicke wrote:

troutbert wrote:
On a PA stream a landowner had an old milldam that created a small shallow muddy pond on a trout stream.

Rather than take the dam down, which would have been expensive, he gradually lowered the water level. This dam had a slot in the stone dam with boards that allowed controlling the water level.

He just removed boards just low enough that the pond was drained, with just a normal sized stream channel flowing through the mud flat. The vegetation colonized the mudflat very soon and grew rapidly.

So the dam is still there, and there is a deep plunge pool where the water falls over the dam. But there is no longer a pond behind the dam. There is a stream channel flowing there with good vegetation on both sides.

His cost for doing this was zero. He just pulled some boards out of the dam. But the results were good.

Where a dam does not have a slot with boards that controls flow like that, it might be possible to drain the pond and in a similar way by creating a notch in the top of the dam with a jackhammer or other tools, depending on the structure of the dam.

I think DEP requires total dam removal...no?

That's right. The first case I described was legal, because he didn't do even a partial removal of the dam. He left the dam structure in place, and simply lowered the water level by removing a few boards from their slots, which is part of the dam's original water level adjusting mechanism. Dam owners have the right to do this, and without getting a permit, I think.

But if a dam does not have such a water level adjusting mechanism, then I think it would be practical to notch the dam to accomplish essentially the same thing described above.

But you are right, that would require getting DEP to change their rules. Currently their regs do not allow a partial deconstruction.

What happens often now is total dam removal. Then followed by construction of rock cross vanes (structures with many similarities to old broken down dams) to provide grade control and pool habitat.

And in many cases that may be the best approach. But that is expensive. You have two big projects. Dam removal, then building new structures. Creating a notch in an existing structure should be far less expensive.

Not all dams would be suitable. And it would have to be done right. You wouldn't rebar sticking out there impaling kayakers.

 

[Hook_Jaw]

Always pro's and con's to dams I was always for not putting them in but leaving them there if they are in place.

 

[Hook_Jaw]

Always pro's and con's to dams I was always for not putting them in but leaving them there if they are in place unless there's a big structural situation.

 

[salmonoid]

bigslackwater wrote:
my local stream has a dam that stands about 6' high. It's starting to deteriorate. The water is starting to flow more on the weaker side. Every year the slack water behind the dam grows smaller. The level behind the dam gets a little lower. I drive by and cheer for it to be a stream again! I cringe at the thought of people some day wanting to restore it, because I know the day is coming. If the issue is brought up, most will be in favor of restoration.

I encountered a scenario this past fall that pretty much matches your description. Except the dam in question was built by beavers

Locally, Speedwell Forge Dam underwent a somewhat similar transition (albeit much more as a result of a step function, than gradually, as the result of a hurricane). Dam concrete was actually displaced, so the impoundment was drawn down as a safety precaution. No money was initially available but eventually, dam interests lobbied and money was shaken lose and the dam was repaired. I'd have been happy to let the stream revert to brookie habitat over the next 20-30 years.

 

[troutbert]

bigslackwater wrote:
my local stream has a dam that stands about 6' high. It's starting to deteriorate. The water is starting to flow more on the weaker side. Every year the slack water behind the dam grows smaller. The level behind the dam gets a little lower. I drive by and cheer for it to be a stream again! I cringe at the thought of people some day wanting to restore it, because I know the day is coming. If the issue is brought up, most will be in favor of restoration.

Which dam and stream is this, if you don't mind saying? Just curious.

 

[bigslackwater]

Troutbert. E. Branch Antietam, beside country club road near the golf course.

 

[troutbert]

bigslackwater wrote:
Troutbert. E. Branch Antietam, beside country club road near the golf course.

Thanks