Please reach out to us if you cannot find an answer to your question.
There are many reasons to SAVE OUR DAM. First, the millpond above the dam is an ecological treasure, beautiful to the eye and home to abundant wildlife. The millpond provides extensive recreational opportunities, including swimming, paddling and fishing on a 24x7 basis. The dam is also a strong memorial and tie to Ipswich's significant industrial history and reminder to many long term residents of happy family times in the past. The supposed benefits of dam removal are either uncertain or exaggerated -- in some cases significantly.
Throughout this website are pictures that speak for themselves. The Dam Removal Proponents’ Feasibility Study (March 2019) points out the abundant, existing wildlife in the Mill Pond (upstream impoundment from the dam to the Railroad Bridge), which includes mammals (e.g. beaver, muskrat, river otter), birds (e.g. blue heron, wood duck, mallard duck, kingfisher, Canada goose, bald eagles), and reptiles (e.g. painted turtle, musk turtle, snapping turtle). Additionally, there are rare animal species in the Mill Pond such as the bridle shiner, piping plover, least tern, least bittern, golden-winged warbler, pied-billed grebe, Cooper’s hawk, northern harrier, salamanders (spotted, blue-spotted, marbled and four-toed), eastern pond mussel, box turtles (spotted, Blanding and eastern), and a number of invertebrates.
Do we really want to risk the survival of these thriving species by removing the dam and lowering the water levels in the river? Nothing is as inspiring as watching a pair of river otters frolicking and fishing in the Mill Pond. Nothing!
Without the dam, the millpond disappears and so does the present ecosystem, which is a safe sanctuary for wildlife in the all too common times of heat and drought.
Wetlands will be Destroyed
Hundreds of acres of wetlands have been created during the almost 400-year period of the dam’s existence. EPA states that “more wetlands mean less flooding.” (EPA843-F-06-001, May 2006). The Proponents believe that if the dam is removed, the banks of the river will create new wetlands but they fail to acknowledge that the lowered water levels will also dry out the adjacent acres of existing wetlands and this will open up opportunities for developers pursue building on these new-found uplands.
Yes, This website shows a picture of a resident holding a Northern Red Bellied Cooter turtle, which is listed by the state as endangered. The millpond is the preferred habitat for this rare creature. That abutters found this endangered animal on their property, when highly paid removal consultants failed to demonstrates a problem with the process to date.
Dam removal significantly reduces recreational opportunities. The prime time for swimming and paddling is the same time that the river is at its lowest -- the hot dry months of July, August and September. Many pictures on this website show the excellent swimming and paddling then. Without the dam, in such hot dry times, there is little water coming from upstream (check out some of the enclosed pictures). Thus, the width and depth of the millpond will be hugely reduced, in some cases to an extent that folks could swim or paddle in anything approaching the current conditions only during high tide. So instead of 24x7 paddling and swimming, kids of all ages would be limited to a couple hours a day, perhaps not when it's hottest or best to swim or paddle. The cross country skiing, skating and hiking on the frozen river that has been a great and unique opportunity in winter would be 100% eliminated. The asserted ability to paddle from above the dam to the ocean is possible now, just with a little portage. The low water difficulties including carrying boats across the rocks below the dam and need for considerable paddling expertise (or increase public safety rescues) for the County Road boulders and rapids significantly reduces the availability and practicality of point to point paddling.
People now fish above the dam. The ONLY real and material benefit of dam removal is the possible return of migratory fish. It is important to note that Ipswich's situation differs from others where dam removals have led to such renewed fish runs. Most important, is that in many of those cases, it was the dam that stopped the migration and there were thousands of fish waiting and wanting to go upstream. Here, it was the destruction of the fish's breeding grounds for nearby town's water supply that ended the runs. Thus, it is most uncertain that the fish would return here. Until recently even the removal advocates at several public hearings in Ipswich admitted that such return could not be guaranteed and was dependent on the development of new upstream breeding grounds that such fish would be imprinted to return to. Removal advocates admitted that this would take a considerable stocking effort over a period of years. We ask -- WHO WILL PAY FOR THAT STOCKING?? And how will the fish get past the other obstacles? Foote's dam is privately owned by folks that are against dam removal. The removal advocates also correctly note the barrier under the commuter rail bridge at low water -- that barrier is not even being talked about...because the removal advocates have no solution .
Yes. Nature like fishways have been installed in a number of places have been funded by the government or non-profits. We understand that one potential compromise solution at the Foote dam is a natural fishway. Such compromise solutions to try to assist fish and to save dams where that is desired have recently been successfully implemented (e.g. China, Maine) with funding from NOAA. Howlett Brook Dam also has a new natural fishway. Removal advocates have asserted that there is no federal funding for fishways. At the same time, they tout federal grants for a fishway at Footes Dam. That is just one more example of removal advocates not being straight in their media campaign.
As with so many things, if there is a will there is a way. Dam retention advocates recently asked that question in a public forum. As we understand it, the removal advocates' position is that alternatives were considered at the outset of dam removal exploration and were rejected then. Unfortunately, that answer does not address whether it might be best for the Town to consider a natural fishway at the current time. Save Our Dam has a plan prepared by a professional showing the feasibility. After due inquiry, we are not aware of any evidence of a reasonable, inclusive or thoughtful consideration of any alternative to dam removal at any time previously. Removal advocates cite a 2013 study that allegedly discusses alternatives at length. NOT TRUE. A few scant sentences and NO DOCUMENTATION. We agree that it is too bad such consideration didn't happen earlier, but better to do so not than to never do so and live with a radical change that may not have been necessary.
Actually, the fact is that for probably at least 8 of the 10+ years the crux of the consideration of dam removal was whether it would imperil the buildings housing the Town's most significant employer. As to how long is long enough to consider dam removal depends on the extent to which ALL views have been considered. For at least two years, citizens concerned that dam removal review was incomplete and one-sided have asked for the opportunity to be heard and to have input on this issue. Such citizens publicly pointed to the example of Exeter, New Hampshire where there was a true public process with committees of removal advocates and opponents exploring the benefits, detriments and alternatives. Despite such a nearby example, the process here continued to be conducted ONLY by the removal advocates.
Other benefits are either greatly exaggerated or at least not material. As to the asserted benefit of flood control, even removal advocates agree that there is no downstream flood control benefit of dam removal. As to upstream, the only benefit is that land formerly under the millpond will absorb the first bit of any flood waters. But it makes no difference, because everything upstream of the dam was built after dam, so those buildings are out of any flood plain. Stated simply, there is no upstream flood control benefit. As to Town liability, removal advocates assert a repair cost and annual costs. We questioned relevant Town officials about such cost estimates and got a response to the effect that they had no idea where those numbers came from. The minor identified dam deficiencies are so immaterial that the Town has not bothered addressing them for years and even if addresed now would be almost nothing in a Town budget. The annual costs are really just the allocation of time of a town employee with many other responsibilities and after dam removal, that employee would be paid no less, so another benefit is smoke and mirrors. As to the possibility of being sued for injuries by someone irresponsibly playing around the dam, that is so remote to be neglible. In fact, the public service costs of rescuing novice paddlers from the County road rapids is much more likely.
Interestingly, the website put up by removal advocates had this Q&A and provided the answer that in some locations, dam removal increased property values. That of course makes sense for properties subject to flooding caused or excacerbated by a dam, but that is not our situation. In fact, several of the studies reference in that Q&A before it was removed after comment by SAVE OUR DAM people, showed property value declines where abutters' shoreline was moved away as a result of dam removal. In this case, should the dam be removed, abutters feel that their properties will be less valuable. There is no reason to expect that potential buyers would have the same reaction. Therefore, tax valuations would be reduced (voluntarily by the Town or by judicial process).
SAVE OUR DAM folks see the environmental damages described above. At the same time we acknowledge that dam removals can have some benefits in other places -- just NOT HERE NOT NOW. When pressed, dam removal advocates and scientists have admitted that there is no benefit to the Great Bay or the marshes from dam removal. There is certainly no benefit to stemming the tide of global warming. As to resilience in case of drought, we maintain that keeping the millpond is exactly the sort of resiliency action that will be necessary to maintain extensive wildlife in the area. As to the health of the river, again, the pictures show a very healthy river and associated ecosystems. There could be some mitigation of dissolved oxygen and reduction in millpond water temperature during two months of the year, but that is not significant given the miles of shallow riverbed tides would cross before reaching the millpond for a short time each day. Notably dissolved oxygen and temperature levels are consistent below, above and at the dam for 10 months a year -- not quite the benefits asserted by removal advocates.
SAVE OUR DAM members spend hours daily on and next to the river around the dam. While SAVE OUR DAM members have no way to assess whether the dam kills mosquitos, greenheads or the like, they can certainly attest that they have never seen any dead fish or animal in the area.
SAVE OUR DAM members have limited resources so their research has been necessarily limited. Nonetheless, we refer the reader to the recorded Nightside with Dan Rea on WBZ for May 8, where a caller from Exeter New Hampshire described that dam removal as ruining a beautiful portion of the river, beneficial for neighboring businesses and recreation and appreciation of nature, turning the area into a barren smelly mess.
Absolutely not! First, as discussed above the river is very healthy now by any number of measures. Public statements to the contrary are either statements about dam removal generally which benefits are not really applicable here or are scare tactics to influence public opinion. As to the return of the migratory fish, even the removal advocates in their earlier, more measured statements, admitted that migratory fish return was not guaranteed. Only when Save Our Dam began pointing out the lack of certainty of fish return, did their assertions change. But the main point is that a NO vote may force the removal advocates to actually explore how to implement a Nature Like Fishway.
Once the opposition to dam removal was able to get some opportunity to be heard and the removal advocates' media campaign expanded, it became clear that many assertions in that campaign were misleading, or worse. Specifically:WHAT OVERSTATEMENTS*?
1. “ No harm to clam flats” MISLEADING: even if sampling plan is sufficient, which it isn’t, it is impossible to know for sure that all harmful pollutants deposited above the dam for 100+ years will not make it down a “free-flowing” river to the winter clam flats. Dam removals have resulted in massive fishkills in certain cases.
2. “Fish will return” MISLEADING: Upstream water withdrawals and several fish run barriers must be eliminated and new breeding grounds established first and experts have publicly stated several times return is NOT CERTAIN. Further, there is no reason not to seek a workable NLF at the dam and request funding for that, as is being done elsewhere.
3. “Save Taxpayer Money/$30,000 per year” FALSE. Town reports to Save Our Dam, the incremental cost of the dam is less than $3000 annually. The Finance Committee rejected IRWA cost and liability assertions.
4. “Reduce Flood Risk” FALSE. Removal filings with state show that no benefits downstream result and no buildings upstream can be flooded because they were built outside of the floodplain. State chided removal advocates for falsely characterizing dam as high risk.
5. “Water Quality above dam is poor/dam removal will improve it” FALSE. Removal advocates’ state filings stated that water quality might not improve with removal. Studies show dissolved oxygen and temperature numbers in THIS RIVER are consistent in millpond, downstream and upstream for migration periods. For a short period millpond levels are only slightly worse.
6. “Millpond is not a nice place for wildlife/dam kills thousands of creatures daily from insects all the way up the food chain” FALSE: Save the Dam members who observe the millpond for several hours daily all year round have never found any dead creatures (though there may be some dead insects somewhere).
7. “No one in 4000 cases of dam removals across the country has regretted a dam removal”. FALSE: Just last week on WBZ a caller from Exeter NH described at length how that dam removal ruined the upstream area for paddling and passive enjoyment of nature.
8. “No harm to property values” FALSE: IRWA previously referenced on www.ipswichmillsdam.com dozens of studies on dam removal impacts on property values. Only one study (where properties’ flooding potential was reduced) showed a benefit; several studies showed property value reductions
9. “No endangered species found” FALSE: a northern red-bellied cooter turtle was found by Save Our Dam living in the weeds by the canoe landing. NOAA said it could find another home for the turtle.
10. “Improved recreation/ uninterrupted passage to ocean for paddlers” FALSE: Rocks below dam will remain and require paddlers to walk or carry their vessel at virtually all tides; lower falls are dangerous for all but expert paddlers; upstream paddling and swimming opportunities will be reduced from the full river 24x7 year round to some fraction of the current width and in prime paddling and swimming times of year will be reduced to a couple hours daily.
IRWA claims that there will be no impact on the clam flats. To that we quote Bertrand Russell: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Consultants have proposed a sampling plan to determine whether anything harmful to the clamflats is present above the dam. As shown in the comments of Steve Calder (former EPA lawyer and scientists) to MEPA, linked in the documents section of this website, that sampling plan is incomplete. Indeed, SAVE OUR DAM has found new outfall pipes from the current industrial area across the railroad tracks in the river, which location is not being sampled. And what is to say that sampling the water below the old dump between 2d and 4th streets will not come up clean today and old toxins wash out after the dam is removed. Why take the chance?
Copyright © 2024 Save Ipswich Mills Dam - All Rights Reserved.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.