Dam removal

[ecoangler]

Whats this I'm hearing about the possibility of the removal of the King Ave. dam on the Olentangy near Batelle. I haven't gotten many details other than its become an item of discussion.

Anyone have something to add??

[Eugene]

Are you thinking of the 5th Ave. dam?

[ecoangler]

maybe it is the Fifth St. I recall something about that one too.
It would be interesting to see what that area would look like.

[richcogen]

My organization, Ohio River Foundation, is pushing efforts to remove lowhead dams in Ohio. Does TOSA have a position on removal of lowhead dams?

[Kyle Kochheiser]

Rich, I wouldn't say that as an organization we have an "official" stance on the topic. However, in our conversations most of the members of the group would prefer that they be removed and natural stream bed configurations be restored. This by and large does a great deal to improve fish habitat, both for smallmouth bass and other species as well.

[Eugene]

I also hold positions with the Ohio Chapter of the American Fisheries Society (OCAFS). My Stewardship Committee assembled a resolution in support of the removal of the 5th Ave. Dam, a draft of which can be seen at the OCAFS site:
www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~ocafs/

A clause on hazards to paddlecraft navigation has been added since that draft was posted.

[Eugene]

PS: I should add that the OCAFS parent society, the American Fisheries Society (AFS: i.e., the professional organization for fisheries biologists in North America) does have an official position on dam removal. Always pragmatic, the essence of the AFS position is if a dam is evaluated and the potential benefits of removal are likely to outweigh the benefits of any services the dam provides, the dam should go. You can find both summary and detail statements from the AFS under no. 32 on this page:
www.fisheries.org/afs/policy_statements.html

[smead]

Well, the issue has hit the paper...seems like the large obstacle is the sewage piping now contained in the dams...an estimated cost of 60 million to remove them and replace with pumping stations was mentioned.

www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/04/17/cost-fuels-skepticism-about-dam-removal.html

[Eugene]

That article seems centered on Greenlawn. The 5th Ave. dam is one that doesn't contain "plumbing."

One reason I really like the American Fisheries Society policy statement on dam removal is that it considers the functions served by dams rather than simply calling for their universal removal. That is, dam removal is not considered a viable solution unless "the benefits of dam removal outweigh the costs associated with societal, cultural, environmental, economic, engineering, and technical issues."

[smead]

Well, there's 7 dams total, they state only 5 would be removed(); Greenlawn definately has piping requiring extra expense.

They do make it sould like each carry piping...slanting perhaps? seems like the easiest procedure would be to start with those containing no plumbing. Which do have sewage lines and which don't?

Here they all are:

[Eugene]

Frankly, other than Greenlawn, I don't know which are equipped with sewage or electrical lines etc. or exactly what additional infrastructure each carries. Somebody within the Friends of the Lower Olentangy Watershed (FLOW) could probably offer detail.

The last page of the chapter "Human Impacts on the Lower Olentangy River Watershed" from the The Lower Olentangy Watershed Inventory has a table cataloguing the Olentangy's lowhead dams (they list 12) and the purpose of their construction. Six lowheads are owned by the city of Columbus and two by the city of Delaware. I find it unlikely that any not owned by a municipality would carry any extra municipal plumbing. Unfortunately, any additional infrastructure carried by each dam is not detailed other than in one case (Dodridge) where "Sanitary Sewer Crossing" is specified. It could be taken to imply that most of the dams on the Olentangy itself (especially those built for "beautification") don't carry additional infrastructure. Obviously, Greenlawn is not catalogued by the Olentangy inventory because it is downstream of the Olentangy itself.

[Eugene]

Considering a little more carefully, it looks like the newspaper article is only addressing the lowhead dams owned by the City of Columbus: six on the Olentangy plus Greenlawn on the Scioto for seven total.

[ecoangler]

If I recall a couple of they are little more than broken stone like the one at the Cols. park between Bethel and 161.

[Eugene]

Absolutely. The purpose/height of the US 23 dam, e.g., is described as "eroding away" in the watershed inventory.