By Ellen Strauss
Hold on a second, let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water!
Contrary to popular belief, the VT Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) has not denied nor acted upon the stream alteration application to rehab the Warren timber crib dam. The ANR wants more studies, more information and has not been encouraging nor willing to look for any solution other than removal, but they have not denied the project to repair the dam. The original permit application was submitted in 2009, with additional information submitted per ANR request in 2012, and again in 2015 by engineers at Kingsbury Companies. Our crib dam is on the National Register of Historic Places with the covered bridge, the mill pond and the rest of the Warren Village Historic District.
Whether the dam is rehabbed and stays or the dam is removed, the ANR must, by state statute, apply the same criteria to either undertaking.
The ANR must find that any project requiring a stream alteration permit:
1. Will not adversely affect public safety by increasing flood or fluvial erosion hazards.
2. Will not significantly damage fish life or wildlife.
3. Will not significantly damage the rights of riparian owners.
So let’s look at the criteria:
1. Safety:
Many of the village houses, roads and structures exist in or next to the flood plain. We know what the river does with the dam in place. The constriction from the abutments of the covered bridge is considered more of a hazard to property owners than the dam. Without the dam, the velocity of the river and erosion and scour will increase. The 2013 Dubois and King (D & K) study to repair one abutment of the covered bridge states that removing the dam would increase the velocity of the river by 25 percent, putting structures including the covered bridge, mill pond, retaining wall, town roads and houses upstream at unknown risk to increased erosion and scour. The repair of one abutment of the covered bridge increased in estimated budget from $350,000 to $800,000. Some of this increase is due to designing for the greater river velocity without the dam. The dam might very well offer some protection. D & K also researched the river for the dam removal in 2002/2003 and at that time scour and velocity were not studied. The science is not clear.
2. Fish:
Above the dam are native brook trout; below the dam are stocked hatchery rainbow trout not native to Vermont. If we really considered fish and habitat, we would think about catch and release and “no live bait” above the dam to protect the brook trout and we would keep the two populations separate as they have been for 150 years. If the fishing used to be good above the dam, we should look for other causes for degraded habitat as the dam has been there in good and bad fishing years. The culvert above the dam from the old gravel bed east of Main Street might be a good place to look for a source of silt, gravel and salt.
3. Rights of property owners along the river:
Which is more damaging to property along the river? Reducing the flood level in the highest water events or putting homeowners and roads at risk with constant erosion and scouring? The covered bridge repair project for one abutment increased in cost when D & K looked at the effects of having NO dam. What about the other abutment or the rest of the village?
Some history:
In 2003, the ANR, the Army Corps of Engineers and Warren developed an Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project to remove the dam. The dam at this time was owned by the Floyds. The cost of the project was estimated at $484,000 with an upper limit of $5 million. The town was responsible for 35 percent of the costs with grants making up the balance. The project contract made no reference to reducing flood hazards or fluvial erosion. The May 2004 study to evaluate the historical and cultural effects of the dam removal, Section 106, by Hartgen Associates as part of this project, states that “the (dam removal) project will have an adverse effect on the Historic District.”
The dam was last repaired in 1978 by the town in order to return the mill pond to its original state so it could provide water and a (still-existing) firefighting hydrant in the village. After that repair, a hydroelectric plant was built by Mac Rood’s Warren Hydro Company. The site produced hydroelectricity into the 1990s.
In 2004, when the Kirchens purchased the site from the Floyds, they refused to take on the dam. Mac Rood took over the dam and easements and in October 2004 transferred ownership to the Warren Village Dam Preservation Trust.
The Warren Village Dam Trust is a nonprofit 501c3. Its registered mission is: "to restore the historic timber crib dam located on the Mad River in Warren Village, Vermont, in a manner that meets the following criteria:
Preserve this historically important site.
Preserve the recreational and scenic value of the mill pond.
Maintain the potential for a hydroelectric facility to provide electrical power to the town of Warren."
The Dam Trust cannot support removing the dam.
The dam is not damaged beyond repair. In 1978, it was in worse shape than it is now. It was successfully repaired in like kind with local materials and local help.
Our beloved river goes through three villages and is affected by bridges, road runoff, culverts and more. It will be no closer to its original natural state with the dam gone than with the dam repaired and once again contributing to its community.
We know what the river does now. We are just beginning to understand, per D & K’s 2013 work, how important the dam really is. This is a complicated situation. Emotion and nostalgia do not affect the river – unintended consequences will. Let’s make sense of the whole. Keep the village and the dam.
Strauss lives in Warren and is a member of the Warren Village Dam Preservation Trust.
