Dam Removal. An Effective River Restoration Tool in Wisconsin, U.S.A.
Helen Sarakinos
Dams Program Manager
River Alliance of Wisconsin
River Alliance of Wisconsin was founded in 1993 as an organization to give a voice to the rivers of Wisconsin.
It is a non-profit, non-political group of citizens, organizations and businesses advocating for river protection and restoration.
For 10 years, River Alliance of Wisconsin has consulted on over 30 dams, has played active role in relicencing hydro dams, influencing public policy and state rule-making regarding dams and fish passage.
We are known across nation for our work with educating public on dam removal.
Goals of the River Alliance of Wisconsin dams program:
Clear up basic misconceptions about dams, rivers and dam removal.
Encourage well-informed citizen involvement in local dam decisions.
Generate educational resources about dam removal.
Here is a map of where we are located in the U.S.A. Wisconsin lies near the Great Lakes of Michigan and Superior. Our state has over 15,000 lakes and over 40,000 miles (approximately 63,000 km) of rivers.
Why is Wisconsin an interesting state for dams?
Wisconsin has removed over 120 dams in the past 60 years (50 of them have been removed since 1990).
Many removals have been partnerships with owner, state resource agency and NGO river groups
We have many river restoration success stories and many examples where river restoration through dam removal has led to economic development of the community along the river
The photo in this slide shows the new canoe rental store that opened on the Baraboo River when the four dams were removed.
Some facts about Wisconsin Dams
3,800 licensed dams in Wisconsin
(There are many more illegal dams in the state as well)
Less than 200 generate hydropower
Less than 200 provide flood control
50% privately owned
25% owned by local governments (cities, villages or counties)
Only a minority of dams are owned by corporations in Wisconsin.
We have many dams in Wisconsin, almost as many as there are in all of Japan.
3800 dams of varying sizes on rivers and streams throughout the state.
Of the 3800, 1200 are large dams (35% of the inventory)
In Wisconsin, a large dam is greater than 6 e (1.8 m) high and holding more than 50 ac-ft (6 ha) of water or greater than 25 e(7.6 m) and holding more than 15 ac-ft (1.9 ha) of water.
Unlike Japan, most of our dams are between 5 and 15 feet (less than 5 m), although we do have many dams that are higher than 40 feet (12 m) and some of these have been removed.
Why is dam removal controversial?
Dams can have many benefits:
Dams have harnessed power of water for hydroelectric power generation (10% total E use in US)
Made transport of materials into the interior of the continent more efficient
Exposed fertile alluvial soils in floodplains for agriculture
Created reservoirs that store water for periods when usually scarce
BUT
Dams impair rivers both structurally and functionally.
They alter flows of water and sediment, disrupting natural flow regimes and sediment transport and altering habitat
They increase or alter temperature of the water which impacts bioenergetics of resident organisms
Block movement of biota in the system, both isolating populations and preventing species from access to all vital habitats
In Wisconsin, some of our dams are regulated by the federal government (the dams that produce hydroelectricity). But this represents a small fraction of the total dams. The others are regulated by the state government.
Under Wisconsin laws, Dams are regulated for protection of life, health and property and also for protection of public rights in navigable waters.
The waters of Wisconsin belong to the people of Wisconsin both present generations and future generations for them to enjoy, swim in and fish in. The state must ensure that our waters will remain healthy and will benefit all citizens, not just some citizens.
The photo on the left reads: gDANGER. Dam may fail at anytimeh. This was put up near a dam where people fished and children played. This kind of risk is unacceptable to society.
 |
| Franklin Dam, Wisconsin, USA |
Whether dealing with a smaller dam removal or a larger dam removal, the decision-making process of whether to remove or repair a dam is a complex with many issues to consider
The decision to remove a dam does not just depend on whether the dam is old and falling apart. There are many decision criteria that must be considered including environmental, economic, engineering and social ones. We will look at each of these in turn from the perspective of how they influenced decisions in Wisconsin.
Environmental issues to consider include both how species and habitats will be changed or improved by removal and how the removal will affect instream habitats and species (through sedimentation, loss of wetlands, release of contaminants in the soil)
Species of concern can include threatened or endangered species, economically valuable fisheries, native species
How much sediment is built up? Is it toxic?
An important consideration is whether dam removal might promote the movement of undesirable species in the river. For example, there is a predatory fish from the Great Lakes that preys upon valuable trout species in rivers and whenever a dam at the mouth of rivers into Lake Superior or Michigan is being considered for removal, we must evaluate whether that will make upstream fish species vulnerable to this predatory fish. In one removal case, the dam was taken out, but a small fish barrier was installed to prevent upstream movement of the predatory fish.
There are various state and federal laws that exist to protect animals and plants from human harm and which help protect aquatic species from the impacts of dams. These include:
Regulations promoting fish passage and migration
Federal and State Endangered Species Acts
Clean Water Act which prevents the deterioration of water quality in our rivers through human activity and dams can cause thermal and other kinds of pollution.
Economic cost-benefit would include consideration of the economic importance of the dam and the impoundment vs a restored river and associated reclaimed land.
How a removal will affect private property values is one of the uncertainties faced with during removals. We deal with this on a case by case basis. It is an area that needs research and interpretation of land contracts.
An important question in the cost benefit analysis that is currently not looked at: who pays the costs of repairing or removing the dam? And who benefits? In the 1990s, the state of Wisconsin gave over 22 million dollars to municipalities in dam repair grants. Approximately 80 communities received this funding. Critics of dam repair argue that that money was appropriated by congress and comes from taxpayers. Thus dams benefiting a few are paid for by the statefs taxpayers as a whole. Conversely removal benefits the public and is still paid for by public. As a river advocate, the River Alliance believes that the user should pay ? if you benefit from harnessing the water and impairing the river, you should pay for its removal.
One of the trends we have seen in Wisconsin is that dam repair costs are frequently underestimated.
Little Falls Dam (St. Croix County) ? estimated repair cost: $197 000, actual repair cost: $778 000;
Lake Arrowhead Dam (Adams County) ? estimated repair cost: $200 000, actual repair cost : $350 000.
As I mentioned earlier, in the 1990fs: 83 communities in Wisconsin spent $22.4M on dam repair (with financial assistance from the government). Many more communities also undertook repairs without government assistance. Some projects cost over $1M.
About 10% of WI dams are owned by municipalities
Operation and Maintenance Costs include:
Structural costs
Routine dredging costs
Liability (Insurance) Costs
Many insurance companies require large deductibles on dam insurance policies (often $1 million or more)
The price of insurance is directly related to damfs hazard ranking (high hazard dams can cost more than $15 000 per year to insure)
| Dam repair vs. removal costs | |||
| Dam | River | Estimated repair cost | Actual removal cost |
| Woolen Mills Dam | Milwaukee River | $3.3 M | $86 000 |
| Chair Factory Dam | Milwaukee River | $1 M | $175 000 |
| Waubeka Dam | Milwaukee River | $420-$480 000 | $100 000 |
| Waterworks Dam | Baraboo River | $660 000 | $213 000 |
| Oak Street Dam | Baraboo River | $300 000 | $30 000 |
| Linen Mill Dam (10-01) | Baraboo River | $100 ? $150 000 | $58 000 |
| Schweitzer Dam | Cedar Creek | Not in need of repair | $90 - 100 000 |
| Afton Dam | Bass Creek | $200 000 | $30 000 |
| Colfax Dam | Eighteen-Mile Creek | $1 M | $241 000 |
| Ward Paper Mill Dam | Prairie River | $1.3 M | $125 000 |
| Prairie Dells Dam | Prairie River | $1 M | $200 000 |
| Mounds Dam | Willow River | $1.5 - $3.5 M | $170 000 |
| Shopiere Dam | Turtle Creek | $251 000 | $84 339 |
| Franklin Dam | Sheboygan River | $350 000 | $190 000 |
The engineering issues are usually the most straightforward issues for dam removal in Wisconsin, so I will not spend much time discussing them. The major issues include:
What is the damfs physical condition?
What is the size, type, age of dam?
How much sediment is present?
How accessible is the dam?
Can the damfs function be maintained through other alternatives that are less damaging to natural resources?
Another important aspect of how the community and residents will respond to dam removal depends on how much development is around the impoundment:
How many homes or businesses are on the impoundment and how might their properties change and the value of their properties change?
Who will own the exposed lands beneath the former impoundment?
Perhaps the greatest concern of local people is aesthetic. They are worried that removing the dam will drain the pond and leave them with a permanent mudflat that smells bad (see photo on the right) or that the river will cut through the sediments and leave high unstable banks that will make the river inhospitable (see photo on left).
These photos represent what many opponents see when they think about dam removal.
 |
 |
 |
On the other hand, this is what supporters see when they think about dam removal. They see the removal of an ugly damaging piece of concrete to restore a beautiful healthy river.
It is very important to understand the perspective of others in order to respectfully address their concerns. This is, I believe, one of the most difficult issues around dam removal and I have spoken at many dam removal meetings and seen how communication and mutual respect is critical to arriving at a decision that everyone can live with.
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
I am going to show you three sites in Wisconsin where dam removal has resulted in great benefits to both the river and its species and to humans as well. These case studies are just a few of the many examples of why dam removal is called a river success story.
In the late 1800s, 3 dams in 2.5 miles (4 km) were built within the City of Baraboo to generate mechanical power. Historically, this stretch of river was called the gBaraboo Rapidsh becasuse there is a 50-foot elevation change through the city, which is a big elevation change for a flat state like Wisconsin. Between 1997 and 2001, these three dams, and a fourth dam upstream, were all removed. The entire river, all 115 miles (185 km) were restored to free-flowing conditions for the first time in over one hundred years.
This is a photo of the first dam, Waterworks Dam, before and after removal in 1997.
| This is a photo of the second dam, Oak Street Dam, before and after removal in 1999. |
 |
| This was the third and last dam to be removed, Linen Mill Dam. The photo shows the river before and after removal. This dam was removed in 2001. |
 |
This site has been carefully studied by university scientists and state biologists and we are beginnign to see some amazing improvements in the river 2 and a half years after removal.
Some of the improvements have been:
Restoration of 115 miles of free-flowing river including the rare Baraboo Rapids, which have returned to a hard-bottom substrate again;
In the former impounded areas, species richness of fish increased by an average of eight species following dam removal;
There was a change in species assemblage from carp and bullhead, which are associated with stagnant, muddy waters to bass and warmwater species that require clean and fast-flowing rivers.
There was an increase in smallmouth bass abundance (catch per unit effort: 8 to 47) which is promising since smallmouth bass are not tolerant of polluted waters.
Lake sturgeon, which was once very abundant in this river, was seen in the Baraboo Rapids and 50 miles (80 km) upstream!
Here is an image to demonstrate how the site changed within 2 and a half
years following dam removal. This is Waterworks Dam.
| Waterworks Dam removal, Winter 1997-98 | |
 |
 |
| 2.5 years after | |
 |
 |
This photo shows some dignitaries in canoes paddling down the formerly
blocked Baraboo River. In October, 2001, the City of Baraboo and its many
partners came together to celebrate achievement from what began as a great
sense of loss. The City of Baraboo was very attached to its dams, there
was great historical significance attached to these dams and the residents
were not happy to see them go. But the residents decided to use this opportunity
to make positive changes and create a new history for the City, one where
the City celebrates its river. So on this beautiful autumn day, citizens
gathered to pay respect to the history not only of the people but also
of the river and to celebrate a brighter future for both the City, with
the economic redevelopment of its waterfront, and the river, full of returning
life.
Today, there are new stores, restaurants and businesses beginning to open up along the river, people are coming to fish and canoe the river and the City of Baraboo considers its river a great asset.
This is the former Woolen Mills dam, on the Milwaukee River, one of our more urban rivers in the state. The dam, approximately 20 feet (6m) was built in 1870, and produced hydroelectricity. A dam inspection in 1988 revealed that the dam needed repairs estimated to cost $3 million (or $400 000 to remove). The City of West Bend decided to remove the dam and restore the former impounded area into a 62 acre (27 ha) park.
Dam removal has restored a hard-bottom river and has become a very high-quality fishery for smallmouth bass and channel catfish
The park has become a big economic asset for the community
This is what the area looks like today, 12 years later. Dam removal has restored a hard-bottom river and has become a very high-quality fishery for smallmouth bass and channel catfish. The park has become a big economic asset for the community. There is even a big state Jazz Festival in the park each summer that draws over 100 000 people a year.
On the Milwaukee River alone, there have been six dams removed in six years and there are some wonderful economic revitalization projects happening because of the restored river.
Another very good example is the Willow River where two large dams were removed in 1992 and in 1998. This is the first of the two dams to be removed, the Willow Falls Dam. At 55 feet (17 m) high, it was one of the biggest dams removed in the state. This river is a very spectacular river. As you can see, the photo on the left shows what the river and natural waterfall looked like before the dam was built in 1914 and the photo on the right shows the dam that used to be there. Even though the dam was used to produce hydropower, it had gotten old and required expensive repairs. The municipality decided it would not pay for those repairs (estimated to cost $5 million) and instead would remove the dam.
Here is the site today, once again flowing free without the dam. The trout population below the waterfall is once again healthy because they are receiving cold, clean water from upstream and the beautiful waterfalls in this part of the river make this a very popular tourist destination in the state, bringing more tourist dollars to Wisconsin, since most of the tourists come from the state of Minnesota which is very close by.
In conclusion, I would like to repeat the main benefits we have seen in Wisconsin with dam removal. These benefits include:
Fisheries & River Ecosystem Restoration
Improved Water Quality
Removal of Public Safety Hazards
Substantial Financial Savings
Community Revitalization Opportunities
gLet us remember that dams are not monuments, they are tools & instruments
that serve the needs of the people who oversee them. Those needs changeh
- Bruce Babbit, former U.S. Secretary of the Interior 1998
Thank you for the honour of presenting today and may our rivers continue to flow freely.