by Wendall Waters | September 15, 2022 | Wicked Local

Dams can create beautiful waterfalls and lovely ponds. Some generate hydropower. On the other hand, in Massachusetts dams are infrastructure that has to be inspected and maintained. And dams prevent fish getting upstream to spawn, so once-thriving herring fisheries have dried up.

Now, there is a movement in Massachusetts, and across the country, to remove dams and restore river ecology. It’s a movement that has attracted supporters and opponents. 

Take, for example, the proposal to remove the Talbot Mills Dam on the Concord River in Billerica.

During a June 29 public meeting, people expressed a number of concerns, including:

• Will there be negative effects on the town water supply?
• What happens to wildlife that make use of the “ponding” of the river behind the dam?
• What happens to investments people and organizations have made along the banks where the water backs up behind the dam?
• Will lower water in the Concord River affect upstream tributaries?

Watch:Talbot Mills Dam Removal Presentation and Q&A

Lance Kelly, whose home is in Billerica next to the Concord River, offered a different perspective during the Q&A. He said that when he first heard the dam might be removed, his heart sank, but, after researching the issue, he realized removing the dam would improve the river’s health.

“You can’t have a healthy Billerica, a vibrant Billerica, if you don’t have a healthy, vibrant Concord River,” Kelly said.

Milford, New Hampshire, resident John Nevin stepped to the mic to talk about how removal of a dam near his home on the Souhegan River brought that river back to life. He said he’s been swimming in the river for years and did not see many fish until the dam was removed. Now the river teems with fish, he said, and bald eagles and osprey have returned.

Where have all the fish gone?

There used to be a thriving herring fishery along the Ipswich River, but the Ipswich Mills Dam, which was built in the early 19th century, made it nearly impossible for the migratory fish to get from their ocean home to fresh water to spawn. Even with a fish ladder, the herring have yet to return in significant numbers.

A first-hand account at historicipswich.org provides a look at how important the fishery was. William Barton in 1972 wrote, “When Herring were Caught by Torchlight,” in which he describes how everyone along the river knew how to catch herring.

The herring were a source of food and income for residents. Then, farmers began using fish as a fertilizer. Eventually, the herring fishery became important for the entire area.

“In later years,” Barton wrote, “large trucks came from Boston and were backed onto the wharf and a large hose was run out. This hose was 10 or 12 inches in diameter, and like a vacuum cleaner would suck the fish from the boat into the truck. These fish were taken to Boston where the oil was extracted and the remains of the fish were ground into meal.”

According to the Ipswich River Watershed Association (IRWA), in addition to the loss of fisheries, other negative effects of dams include:

• The loss of freshwater animals being killed when they go over the dam. 
• Water is warmer and less oxygenated where it ponds behind the dam.
• Liability for owners of dams.

More:Drought’s far-reaching effects on wildlife: Turtles stranded in fish ladder

The road to dam removal

Massachusetts has made dam removal a priority, and the Division of Ecological Restoration (DER) has helped with the removal of more than 40 of the state’s estimated 3,000 dams since 2005. In addition to funding, DER helps with project management and provides technical assistance. 

When Gov. Charlie Baker announced in 2021 the awarding of $17.3 million in grants “to address failing dams, coastal infrastructure, and levees across the commonwealth,” Ipswich received a $75,000 grant for removal pre-permitting, assessment and design.

Dam removal projects in Acton, Dudley, and Northborough also received state funds, but a number of the grants went for dam rehab, including projects in Saugus, Gloucester and Peabody.

While the state regulates dams and assists with removal, local organizations step up to handle the bulk of the work.

IRWA is handling the removal of the South Middleton Dam, owned by adhesives manufacturer Bostik, and the Ipswich Mills Dam, owned by the town of Ipswich.  

These are two of three dams on the Ipswich River, the third being the Willowdale Mills Dam, owned by the Foote family. The family operates Foote Brothers Canoe & Kayak Rental right at the dam, which is integral to their business. 

“We would love to see them all come down because they’re so damaging,” said IRWA Executive Director Wayne Castonguay.

But right now, the organization is focusing on just the two. In the future, Castonguay said, IRWA will look at the possibility of removing dams on a few tributaries.

River vs. pond

Addressing the many issues people tend to raise about dam removal, Castonguay said, “All of those issues have been studied over the last 10 years and examined in depth, and there are no technical issues on either dam. So, the decision really comes down to cultural issues and how people feel about changing what is now a pond to a river.”

What about effects on wildlife that take advantage of the ponding above dams? Wildlife that live in ponds can also live in the river, he said.

“All of the river species that are actually much more endangered than pond species, and in trouble in the Ipswich, would benefit greatly, so it’s really no contest,” Castonguay said.”The Canada goose that might have to nest somewhere else, that impact is way outweighed by all of the endangered species that require a free-flowing river.”

Studies take more time than removing dams

The bulk of the work of removing a dam, he said, happens during the feasibility and environmental studies and in the design. 

For the Ipswich Mills Dam, for example, the then-Board of Selectmen voted in 2010 to start studying possible removal. The feasibility study was completed in 2019 and the board, which is now the Select Board, is still examining the ramifications of removal.

“The actual removal process itself is remarkably fast,” Castonguay said. “Both of our dams could be done in about a week.”

Castonguay said his experience has been that even people who oppose dam removal come around to believing it’s a good thing once the project is completed.

“Change is hard,” Castonguay said, “but once it happens, people say, ‘Oh, it wasn’t so bad.’”

Published in

Wicked Local: Link to published story