Dam removal could improve environment, recreation and storm protection

By ELINOR EPPERSON
Capital News Service 

YPSILANTI – The most exciting part about removing a dam in a small city isn’t the demolition, but what comes after.

The Huron River Watershed Council recently estimated a 148-year-old dam in Ypsilanti could come down in 2025 or 2026. The plan includes investing $10 million to revitalize a nearby public park that will grow as the river narrows.

Peninsular Dam was first tapped for removal almost 30 years ago. 

It’s normal for removal projects to span several decades, said Dan Brown, a planner with the council. Despite efforts to engage with local residents about the project, misconceptions among some of them persist.

“People think we’re going to dynamite the dam and then there’s going to be this wall of water that goes down (the river,)” Brown said. “It is painstakingly boring.”

The council is a coalition of nonprofit organizations and governments that act as stewards to the river and has advised Ypsilanti on the dam’s removal for more than 10 years.

Brown and other officials cite improved river health and safety and the opportunity to revitalize the adjacent park as reasons for the project.

“This is a once-in-a-generation climate resilience project,” Brown said.

Ypsilanti sits along the Huron River, an important source of recreation in Washtenaw County.

Peninsular Dam, called Pen Dam by local residents, is one of more than 90 dams along the river. It was built in 1867 to power the adjacent Peninsular Paper Co. mill. 

The plant closed in the 1970s. All that remains are the dam, the concrete shell of the powerhouse and a red sign bearing the company’s name.

Ypsilanti acquired the dam in 1986 with plans to use it for hydropower generation. Local lore claims it was so worthless that it sold for $1.

Most land along the impoundment is privately owned. Brown said the only public access point on that section of the river is Peninsular Park.

“It’s a minimalist park,” said Steve Wilcoxen, who represents Ypsilanti’s Third Ward that includes the dam and upstream impoundment where slowed water forms a pond.

Removing the dam will drain the impoundment and narrow the river. 

That means both the public park and private properties will gain land that is now submerged. Restoring the impoundment could include adding handicapper-accessible boardwalks, better fishing platforms and ]a canoe livery.

But some residents are still critical of the project.

Misinformation about the dam usually starts as reasonable, legitimate concerns, Brown said. Residents worry about sediment toxicity, property taxes, how the faster river will affect recreation and cost.

In 2021, the city held town hall sessions and surveyed residents for feedback.

Survey results captured some concerns about the project. Some residents were excited about the prospect while others worried it would degrade the park.

Most people – and several feasibility studies – support removing the dam, Wilcoxen said.

Friends of Peninsular Park, which opposes removal, says repairing it is better environmentally and cheaper.

The group claims the city’s plans haven’t been vetted and that the dam can be restored more cheaply. 

The Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy advocates dam removal to improve river health. 

Dams impede fish movement, and warm water in the impoundments they create can be uninhabitable for coldwater fish.

Removing Peninsular Dam is on the priority list of the Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division.

But Brown said that when removed, dams leave nutrient-rich soil in the impoundment that is an excellent home for vegetation, native or not. Removing the dam provides an opportunity to address invasive species in the park and surrounding area.

“You want to put that ecosystem in the best position possible to thrive after the removal,” he said. Brown authored a restoration plan that outlines how to replace invasive plants with native ones. It would take years to implement.

“Invasive species are an ongoing slog,” Brown said. “The invasive species pressures are still going to be there, just like on all the other stretches of river.”

Residents opposed to removal also express concern about the release of toxic sediment from the paper mill’s operations. There are a couple spots in the river with contamination above state regulations, according to recent studies.

That sediment would be moved as part of the dam removal.

 Brown estimates it would cost $3.7 million to remove the dam and $10 million to restore the impoundment.

The city has earmarked $500,000 to support the project. That amount won’t increase, so Ypsilanti would need to raise the rest from state and federal agencies, Wilcoxen said.

The 2021 federal infrastructure bill includes millions of dollars for dam safety and removal. In 2023, the state awarded $3.78 million from its own funds to the city for the removal – the largest single award of the $15 million given to 16 dam projects across Michigan.

With other grants, the city has amassed approximately $5 million so far. The latest estimate noted $16.8 million in other grants for which the project is eligible.

Opponents of removal have suggested restoring its hydroelectric capabilities instead. 

That’s not feasible, said Thomas Horak, a dam safety engineer with the state.

“It would take a lot to bring [the dam] into satisfactory condition,” he said.

Repairing the dam would cost $659,000, according to a 2018 report commissioned by the watershed council. That’s about $864,000 now, adjusted for inflation. 

That doesn’t include the hardware needed to generate hydropower. And a study found that the dam is unlikely to produce enough power to cover operating costs.

Wilcoxen said removal of the dam and restoration of the river are better long-term investments.

“We’d be kicking the can down the road,” he said.

Brown, Wilcoxen and Horak said safety is the biggest reason to remove the dam.

“The safest dam is the dam that’s not there,” Horak said. The state classifies it as high hazard on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers scale based on damage it could inflict if it fails.

Inspections every three years and dating to 2001 detail Pen Dam’s deteriorating abutment walls and structural threats to the earthen embankments.

The latest inspection in 2022 downgraded it o poor condition. While not in imminent danger of failing, climate change is creating stronger storms that it may be unable to handle, Brown said..

“Every time we get one of those door-busting storms, I always worry at night, ‘are the dams going to be okay?’”

Some dams can minimize flooding, but Pen Dam isn’t one of them, Horak said.

Horak said affection for and attachment to a dam can make it more difficult to remove, and some residents may feel it’s like removing the city’s heritage.

Wilcoxen said it’s more complicated, however.

“There are multiple heritages for this city,” he said. “There’s heritage that predates the dam. That heritage has been obliterated by the Pen.”

Revitalizing Peninsular Park could transform it into another community center, Wilcoxen said. The powerhouse could become a community meeting place or a canoe livery.

Residents of nearby low-income housing set to open this fall would gain green space for recreation.

The city plans more public meetings. “We want creative visions for what [residents] want to see in this park,” Wilcoxen said.

Elinor Epperson writes for Great Lakes Echo

The post Dam removal could improve environment, recreation and storm protection appeared first on Spartan Newsroom.