# Rabbit River Dam may be removed



## Spanky

Mitch said:


> Hey Spanky, wondering if you could clear this up for me... If we don't have the money, because of this economic pinch, to repair the dam, where is the money coming from to remove it? According to the article it appears that it would be considerably cheaper to repair than remove.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it gone. As would all the land owners that have to deal with that fiasco every fall. The only thing I would miss is the duck hunting above.
> 
> Mitch


Best I can find so far other than those links is that the fed/state will help with funding for removal, but to rebuild would be up to the township/county to come up with the funds.

I may attend the meeting on the 26th depending on my schedule and the weather.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

The dam was built eons ago to power a saw mill and to grind flour. Based on that, it's not getting repaired.

Options are leave as is and wait for it to grenade, or pull it.


----------



## no lead

what if a private contractor were to bid on the removal. i would believe a couple of local companies could pull that dam for 100k all day long. put the contract up for bid and see what falls out. some outfits would jump at $$$ nowadays.


----------



## Spanky

They would have to fit the criteria. They don't let just any company start yanking these things out. There is a list on the DNR web page if you search through a few links in the forest/waterways part about who is able to bid these projects and manage stuff like that.

The money is there to take it out through government grants, but to repair it and re-build the fish ladder will cost close to a half mil. That would have to come from the township, which means higher taxes.

THey will explain all that at the meeting, and have time for public input also.


----------



## Fishbone

Scout 2 said:


> The river above the dam will be so shallow and narrow I cannot not see where it will improve the fishery.


Exactly. 



Spanky said:


> The silt behind the dam could go to farms and make good fertilizer, the waters directly above are nothing but1-2 ft of muck with *1 ft of water over it on a good day.* It will take a few years after its removed but the areas about will still support wildlife and fishing would improve with better and cooler water flow.


If there is only 1ft of water coming over the dam on a good day... Where is the additional cool water flowing from if the dam is detached? (In all essence, there is an insufficient amount of tributary water above to cool it down.)


Let's pretend the dam is removed and now coupled with exceedingly low water levels, how is actually going to improve or support this artificial fishery and the surrounding habitat? Is it actually worth the cost? 




Fishbone said:


> Spanky said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will take a few years after its removed but the areas about will still support wildlife and fishing would improve with better and cooler water flow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishbone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cooler water flow for Michigan Steelhead & Salmon natural reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spanky said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't remember saying anything about any salmonid reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Does it or does it not... Michigan Salmon & Steelhead require certain water qualities in order to naturally reproduce? Other than that, what other needs for cooler water flow?


----------



## Spanky

Fishbone said:


> Exactly.
> 
> 
> 
> If there is only 1ft of water coming over the dam on a good day... Where is the additional cool water flowing from if the dam is detached? (In all essence, there is an insufficient amount of tributary water above to cool it down.)
> 
> 
> Let's pretend the dam is removed and now coupled with exceedingly low water levels, how is actually going to improve or support this artificial fishery and the surrounding habitat? Is it actually worth the cost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it or does it not... Michigan Salmon & Steelhead require certain water qualities in order to naturally reproduce? Other than that, what other needs for cooler water flow?



Have you ever been to this river or park?
I didn't say there was a foot of water comming over the dam, I said there was a foot of water over 2 foot of silt and muck. add some sun, very little movement, you get high water temps from the dark bottom.There will still be the same amount of water flowing through the stretch of river. Once the gradient catches up with its impounded water, the flow will remain the same, the speed may increas some as there will be a larger gradient of fall in the upsteam areas.
Cooler water in the summer holds salmonids longer and keeps them healthier. The Klamazoo river water temps often reach upper 70's to close to 80 degrees in the dog days of summer.

Its cheaper for the community to take it out than to repair it. If that dam blows out, the damage downstream to the M-40 bridge could cost millions and halt a major road.All the sediment would be realesed at once and it would cause alot of downstream damage too.The shore angling experience would change some, but I would think that the cooler water would draw more fish into the rabbit during warmer months(summer run steelhead, and early salmon runs), there fore the "legal fishing" opportunities would be greater IMO.

I am just interjecting opinion and some data.I have spent some time at this park and stretch of river, not as much to fish, but more for riverwatch /poaching patrols, or stopping in to have lunch and observe.I always stop in when I am in the area.I would rather fish the rabbit in my boat where it dumps into the Kalamazoo.


----------



## wintrrun

It comes down to the pro's and con's i think when it comes to removing this dam.
Pros:
The water temps will be cooler than what they previously were below the old dam site.
Fish will have unhindered access to the upper mainstream and tribs.
You will probably see an increase in natural reproduction which means wild fish. More wild fish means less stocking and that saves $$$ that the DNR can misplace.
Less worm containers, pop bottles, sandwich wrappers, trash in general, etc.... that will flow downriver to the K-Zoo.

Cons:
Majority of people will have to work for there fish.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......... I don't know .......... it's a tough decision.


----------



## skamaniac97

i thought this river was on the list of unmentionables


----------



## quest32a

skamaniac97 said:


> i thought this river was on the list of unmentionables


It is for fishing reports, but for things like this we always allow it. It is an important subject.


----------



## RAD FISH

Spanky said:


> I don't remember saying anything about any salmonid reproduction.


 

:: No you didn't but you should have because there is well up stream from the dam and in the tribs where the water is much cooler. The removal would only help this to continue to happen and possible in greater numbers.


----------



## Fishbone

wintrrun said:


> It comes down to the pro's and con's i think when it comes to removing this dam.
> Pros:
> The water temps will be cooler than what they previously were below the old dam site.
> Fish will have unhindered access to the upper mainstream and tribs.
> You will probably see an increase in natural reproduction which means wild fish. More wild fish means less stocking and that saves $$$ that the DNR can misplace.
> Less worm containers, pop bottles, sandwich wrappers, trash in general, etc.... that will flow downriver to the K-Zoo.
> 
> Cons:
> Majority of people will have to work for there fish.
> 
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......... I don't know .......... it's a tough decision.


_*Pros:*_
Cost effectiveness.... Let mother nature slowly disenegrate the dam.

*
Cons:*
The boat is full of water. Pull the drain plug. Over a period of time, all the water drains out. Waterfoul hunting & other non related artificial fishery outdoor activities become non-existent. 

SW Michigan tributaries generally cannot support proper water conditions for cool water fish species to create proper reproduction rates. 

This is Michigan, not Alaska.


----------



## RAD FISH

Fishbone said:


> :: Salmon I'm not positive of but steelhead I am 100% positive of. I have watched steelhead spawning in a small creek near where I grew up and live now since I was 8 and now 37 every year and none of them have ever had a fin clip. They spawn in several areas of this trib. I've also witnessed this in the very upper reaches of the Rabbit itself.


----------



## wintrrun

Fishbone said:


> _*Pros:*_
> Cost effectiveness.... Let mother nature slowly disenegrate the dam.
> 
> 
> _*Cons:*_
> The boat is full of water. Pull the drain plug. Over a period of time, all the water drains out. Waterfoul hunting & other non related artificial fishery outdoor activities become non-existent.
> 
> SW Michigan tributaries generally cannot support proper water conditions for cool water fish species to create proper reproduction rates.
> 
> This is Michigan, not Alaska.


Pros?
The DNR took that approach with the Thompsonville Dam back in the 80's.
Spring of 1989 comes and there she goes. They saved money but at the expense of the fishery. Going to be 20 years since the dam blew and that river is still just a mere shadow of it's former self.

We are not talking about blowing the Grand-Coulee here.
The river, the creeks and the majority of the swamps were here long b4 that dam was and will be here long after it's gone.


----------



## Spanky

wintrrun said:


> Pros?
> The DNR took that approach with the Thompsonville Dam back in the 80's.
> Spring of 1989 comes and there she goes. They saved money but at the expense of the fishery. Going to be 20 years since the dam blew and that river is still just a mere shadow of it's former self.
> 
> We are not talking about blowing the Grand-Coulee here.
> The river, the creeks and the majority of the swamps were here long b4 that dam was and will be here long after it's gone.


I agree with that statement. Some swamps may suffer, Its too bad somethings will have to change.

Fishbone, I ask you again, have you been to this dam or seen it?It doesn't change the validity of your replies, but to understand the issue, A person would have to see the area and park to understand.
I don't agree with the "mother nature" idea. The dam is a liability, and mother nature isn't gonna foot the bill if personal property,DOT property or people get hurt if it gets breached at the wrong time.

It's good to see so much interest and disscussion, I would hope that the town meeting will be as involved.


----------



## Spanky

a little more info.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/02/rabbit_river_story.html


----------



## Spanky

some info about whether this is good areas for trout or salmon reproduction.

http://www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATIONS/PDFS/ifr/ifrlibra/Status/waterbody/96-4.htm


----------



## Scout 2

Like I said before I have fished that river since I was 9 or 10 years old and I will be 61 this year. I still fail to see how removal of this dam will improve anything. I think they would be better off by removing the remaining cement walls and create a long slope with fast water running over it, that way it would not lower the water level as much upstream. I know the steelhead spawn all the way to Wayland and there are several small creek that they go up and spawn as of now. Some of these are 3 to 5 foot wide and if the dam goes out they will become maybe a foot wide. Some of you are all worried about the snaging at the dam. I say to hell with the snagging and start worring about all the spawning ground up stream that will be lost. If you don't think they spawn take a dip net after june and dip 1 scoop and tell me what kind of minnows you have in it. I would almost dare to say that most that are in favor of removing the dam has never fished upstream for steelhead or smallmouth bass and I am not talking about just above the dam I mean 8 to 10 miles upstream. Everything up that way is private and that helps protect the spawning beds from being overfished. As far as the water cooling down I don't buy that either because you are lowering the water in the river so it is going to be shallower and run slower so it will be warm water by the time it gets to Hamiliton


----------



## Spanky

The major gamefish in the Rabbit River are pike, smallmouth bass and rock bass. Also,
the annual spring run of white suckers is heavily fished. In addition to these resident fish,
the Rabbit River has been stocked with steelhead and domestic rainbow trout since 1972.
These fish have provided a very good winter and spring fishery, particularly at the
Hamilton Dam. Also, there have been significant stray runs of salmon in the streams
during the fall in recent years. Some of the anadromous fish ascending the Rabbit River
have passed over the Hamilton Dam, since steelhead and salmon have been observed in
the Diamond Springs to Hopkins area.

upstream portions of the Rabbit River, primarily in Wayland Township, are managed
for brown trout. A chemical treatment project was conducted on this segment of the
stream in 1971. Brown trout survival and growth was excellent after the project and a
good trout fishery has developed.
Below 109th Avenue, Swan Creek is designated a second quality cold water stream.
Brown trout have been stocked in Swan Creek since at least the early 1930&#8217;s. Rainbow
trout were also stocked until the mid 1960&#8217;s. The stream has a history of providing a
good brown trout fishery throughout the years. Since the stream&#8217;s bottom is comprised
almost entirely of sand, natural reproduction of trout is minimal. During the early
1970&#8217;s, an extensive habitat development program was completed on the portions of the
stream in state ownership. Two hundred and sixteen log fish cover structures were
installed in the stream. Also, gravel and stone spawning areas were installed in eight
locations.


----------



## Scout 2

The fish kill in 1971 got away from them and to much poision was put in and it poisioned everything in the river from wayland to Hiliards, But that report doesn't tell that. I took almost 10 years for the smallmouth bass fishing to start to come back.


----------



## Scout 2

I know people who were catching salmon upstream since they started fishing them at the dam. I use to fish them way upstream from the dam. They were trying to spawn at that time but I don't know if any hatched ot not. I have seen many areas where the bottom were black with salmon and this was back in the early 70's.


----------



## Spanky

Scout 2 said:


> Like I said before I have fished that river since I was 9 or 10 years old and I will be 61 this year. I still fail to see how removal of this dam will improve anything. I think they would be better off by removing the remaining cement walls and create a long slope with fast water running over it, that way it would not lower the water level as much upstream. I know the steelhead spawn all the way to Wayland and there are several small creek that they go up and spawn as of now. Some of these are 3 to 5 foot wide and if the dam goes out they will become maybe a foot wide. Some of you are all worried about the snaging at the dam. I say to hell with the snagging and start worring about all the spawning ground up stream that will be lost. If you don't think they spawn take a dip net after june and dip 1 scoop and tell me what kind of minnows you have in it. I would almost dare to say that most that are in favor of removing the dam has never fished upstream for steelhead or smallmouth bass and I am not talking about just above the dam I mean 8 to 10 miles upstream. Everything up that way is private and that helps protect the spawning beds from being overfished. As far as the water cooling down I don't buy that either because you are lowering the water in the river so it is going to be shallower and run slower so it will be warm water by the time it gets to Hamiliton


I doubt you'll notice a change in water levels 8 miles upstream, you may notice it will be a little faster, not slower
The water warms by meandering around the heavily silted areas above the dam, and the marshes.Lower and faster moving water stays cooler, not warmer.

I believe the plan does call for the installation of tiles(piles of rocks and stone) to the area of the dam to create a rapids. I believe it stated that in one of the links I posted.I don't base my decision or thoughts on the snaggers,but I base it on making more fishing areas available to all anglers, legal anglers of all ages and abilities. I know the city of Hamilton wants to keep their dam, I don't blame them, but they are going to have to fix it or lose it. I see people walking out onto it all the time, with kids!:yikes:
if you fall over on the top side, no big deal, your gonna get muddy and maybe be stuck inthe muck, but if you take a tumble over the low side(downstream) you are gonna be hurt badly or killed.There are no handrails or safety barriers, its just a flat top concrete dam about 2-3 ft wide. big chunk missing out of the middle, and the far side(snaggers ladder).


----------



## wintrrun

The only change your going to see is that the landscape where the hamilton dam was has changed. I doubt you'll see the upper river shallowing up and spawning grounds going to heck. The water temps will drop alot more than you think.
The only 2 things that is going to effect the river is supply and demand.
You worry when theres not enuff ground water and precipitation to feed them and also what they feed.
The rest is all worked out by the river itself.


----------



## jimbo

yank it. there's also a bunch on the kazoo they could yank (imo) there must be at least 3 from allegan to comstock.
i don't think the river above the back water would change & the water below should be cooler since it wouldn't run thru a warm mud hole.
i stopped there once on my why home from up north to see what it was like. kind of a nesty hole i thought


----------



## Moss_835

But I am sure as others here know and may have forgotten...this river is part of the Bear Swamp project that should be going ahead sometime this year....I can not help but think the removal of the dam may in some way but attached to draining this swamp...:evil: :rant::rant:

Moss...


----------



## Spanky

First I have heard of it, do tell.

Any info?


----------



## Butch

I agree with everything Spanky has said on this thread. But I sympathize with the duck hunters.

Butch


----------



## Fishbone

wintrrun said:


> The river, the creeks and the majority of the swamps were here long b4 that dam was and will be here long after it's gone.


True. There is one particular potential problem though....

Aquatic invasive species were not a imminent threat back in the days before the dam, like they are today. 



Spanky said:


> Fishbone, I ask you again, have you been to this dam or seen it?It doesn't change the validity of your replies, but to understand the issue, A person would have to see the area and park to understand.
> I don't agree with the "mother nature" idea. The dam is a liability, and mother nature isn't gonna foot the bill if personal property,DOT property or people get hurt if it gets breached at the wrong time.


Spanky,

I am aware the conditions of the dam. Despite liability issues, we are also faced with many ecological factors that feed into the mix in regard to dam removals. 

*Few examples:*

Sea Lamprey migration.
Believe it or not.. Gobie Migration. (I have trapped & killed many Gobies while trapping minnows in tributaries of well known river systems throughout the state.)
Highly potential Zebra Mussel infestation.
Waterfoul, Amphibian habitat depletion.


By reading certain sections of this article, I can plainly see how Mr. McKenny is worried more about how people fish.



Crowhunter said:


> By JIM HAYDEN
> *The Holland Sentinel*
> Posted Feb 17, 2009 @ 10:51 PM
> Heath Township, MI 
> The face of Hamilton  and its fishing  might be changing.
> 
> *FISHING*
> 
> Improving the Rabbit River fishery is another reason to remove the structure, officials said. The dam is the only structural impediment to trout and steelhead swimming farther upstream from Lake Michigan to spawn. Another 46 miles of habitat could open up to more fish if the dam was removed, McKenney said.
> 
> The Rabbit River headwaters are near Wayland. The river flows through countryside, not industrial areas, so there is no contamination from PCBs or other chemicals linked to heavy industry. The river then joins the Kalamazoo River before reaching Lake Michigan.
> 
> Dam removal would change how people fish along the river, said Jack Payne of Zeeland Township.
> 
> Payne, who writes a weekly outdoors column for The Sentinel, said he knows people who take time off from work to fish below the dam.
> 
> Without the dam, fishing opportunities will change, he said.
> 
> Now fish that cannot jump over the dam to get upstream congregate just below it, and thats where anglers have the best luck.
> 
> As the fish swim upstream, fishing from shore will be more difficult, he said.
> 
> No one puts boat in the Rabbit River. They fish from shore, he said.
> 
> Without the dam, the water temperature of the river will drop, McKenney said. The dam pools water upstream in an impoundment area. That water doesnt move so it absorbs heat and raises the river temperature.
> 
> After the dam is removed, that pond area will subside and the water temperature will lower, which is good for the fish.
> 
> Staff writer Gary Brower contributed to this report.


What Mr. McKenny & some others fail to realize is, every time that door is opened, there is potential risk towards ecological endangerment. Sure... certain dam removals can be more cost effective, but.. in the end, is the true cost of potential ecological endangerment worth a few planted migratory fish?

_*FYI Spanky,

I am not against you or the fish protection agencies/organizations you represent. Additionally, I am fairly sure you are aware these types of issues can raise for some tough decisions.*_


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

Lots of gobies below the dam. Somedays you can't get to the suckers due to the little buggers grabbing anything you throw out there.


----------



## eggfly

I am just wondering how many of you have spent any real time fishing at the dam? Are there some snaggers, yes!! But there are also snaggers on the PM, White, and all other rivers in the state. I have met a lot of great people at the dam in the last 9 years. I have also called the DNR on snaggers myself. Many of us that fish there with any regularity act when we do see snagging. 

Why is it when a topic like this comes up many members of this wonderful site automatically assume that *all* people who fish at dams snag?

I have a great idea! Lets all vote for Al Gore and make fishing 
illegal, problem solved!


----------



## Fishbone

Far Beyond Driven said:


> Lots of gobies below the dam. Somedays you can't get to the suckers due to the little buggers grabbing anything you throw out there.


Indeed... Not only will dam removal progress Goby migration, fish disease & other aquatic nuisance species, it will broaden the very same spectrum in many upstream tributaries. I am sure those lil' buggers will not have a problem multiplying in mass quantity, while indulging all those extra Steelhead & resident Brown trout eggs.


----------



## Spanky

any invasive that can go upstream has already done so. The plan for removal is not a complete removal of the dam, It will be a high rapids, not a flow through"zero obstruction" type of removal. 

Eggfly welcome to the site finally.
I myself never said all who fish there are snaggers, maybe you are refering to someone else. I would say that the majority of folks who fish there are legally fishing.Yes there is alot of "force feeding" going on at dams all around the state.
I would advise you folks who are passionate about the dam or the removal to go to the meeting and voice your opinion, or gain more info about the issue. I may try to attend, although it is about a 70 minute drive each way.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

I live 3.2 miles due north. I've spent "some" time there. Mostly when no one else is there.

Something about putting two flat fish behind yellowbirds right on the current seam and then waiting for a steelie to rip the rod holder out of the ground when he hits.....


----------



## Scout 2

Best time to fish there is in Nov and Dec. and then again in Feb if there is ice. When the ice moves away from the dam probably best fishing of the year.


----------



## Fishbone

Spanky said:


> The plan for removal is not a complete removal of the dam, It will be a high rapids, not a flow through"zero obstruction" type of removal.




Strange... Talking about 'swamping out' one man made impediment for another. If this is the case, does this mean the cooler water draw theory would basically void itself out?


----------



## wintrrun

Fishbone said:


> Strange... Talking about 'swamping out' one man made impediment for another. If this is the case, does this mean the cooler water draw theory would basically void itself out?


You can pretty much bet on the water being cooler regardless. My guess is it will be within a degree or two of what flows into the millpond.


----------



## Flyfisher

Fishbone said:


> Strange... Talking about 'swamping out' one man made impediment for another. If this is the case, does this mean the cooler water draw theory would basically void itself out?


its a "spillover" type dam that serves no practical purpose, other causing thermal pollution and halting migration of gamefish. Yes, fish can pass it but only after negotiating piles of rocks and "sportman's" hooks.


----------



## Fishbone

Flyfisher said:


> thermal pollution


Good point.

The current dam holds back an X amount of water. This creates a Millpond. After the spring floods, the Millpond water depths recede to their normal 1ft of water, over 2ft of muck on a good day. Now, we tear out the dam & replace it with a smaller, yet still restricting water man made rock pile obstruction. Like a boat plug, the newly created water impediment draws the excess X amount of water from above & drains downstream at a faster rate. Summertime arrives, along with it, extremely low water levels. Depending on previous water discharge, the Millpond water levels have now been manipulated to additional lowered water depths. The water depth of the Millpond now has a average of 2" to 6" inches of standing water, over 2ft of muck on a good day. The rest is up to the sun. 


I agree. Creating additional thermal pollution is not a good thing.


----------



## Flyfisher

Fishbone said:


> The current dam holds back an X amount of water. This creates a Millpond. After the spring floods, the Millpond water depths recede to their normal 1ft of water, over 2ft of muck on a good day. Now, we tear out the dam & replace it with a smaller, yet still restricting water man made rock pile obstruction. Like a boat plug, the newly created water impediment draws the excess X amount of water from above & drains downstream at a faster rate. Summertime arrives, along with it, extremely low water levels. Depending on previous water discharge, the Millpond water levels have now been manipulated to additional lowered water depths. The water depth of the Millpond now has a average of 2" to 6" inches of standing water, over 2ft of muck on a good day. The rest is up to the sun.


Without viewing the plan itself it would be difficult for me to make the statement that you just made You must be very familar with the river flows of the Rabbit and it upstream tributaries? Perhaps you have a degree in hydrology? Please elaborate on how you came to the above conclusion?

You obviously have not seen what a dam removal project looks like...google "Goldsborough Creek Dam Removal" and you can read all about it.

To prevent erosion and to help with the gradient change, rocks, coffers, and rootwads are often brought in. Instead of your "replace one dam with another" dreamed up scenario, it generally looks like this...









Or we can just wait until it fails, creating a mess like this...


----------



## Fishbone

Flyfisher said:


> Perhaps you have a degree in hydrology? Please elaborate on how you came to the above conclusion?


Take 3/4 quarters of the height away from the rock pile coffer at Tippy Dam. If it does not affect the water depths above the coffer dam, it will be amazing to say the least. :chillin:



Flyfisher said:


> Instead of your "replace one dam with another" dreamed up scenario,





Spanky said:


> The plan for removal is not a complete removal of the dam, It will be a high rapids, not a flow through"zero obstruction" type of removal.


Nope. Not my dreamed up scenario....


----------



## bombcast

I'm all for it. Slam dunk. Take out all non-hydro dams. Hopefully Rockford and Hesperia are in the not-too-distant future as well. 

It would be nice to see the area immediately below the Hamilton dam "reclaimed" a little bit. Pluck out the lumber, reinforce the banks and fill a bit with riprap, or chunks of the dam stone. 

Add a footbridge and a nice pavilion. Why the hell wouldn't Hamilton want that?


----------



## Spanky

bombcast said:


> I'm all for it. Slam dunk. Take out all non-hydro dams. Hopefully Rockford and Hesperia are in the not-too-distant future as well.
> 
> It would be nice to see the area immediately below the Hamilton dam "reclaimed" a little bit. Pluck out the lumber, reinforce the banks and fill a bit with riprap, or chunks of the dam stone.
> 
> Add a footbridge and a nice pavilion. Why the hell wouldn't Hamilton want that?


They very well may be in favor of such a plan. The above posts are speculative at best. Guys, just go to the meeting, get some info, or do some research.Every dam removal has to be submitted with a plan and, alot of red tape.This very constructive discussion has taken a down turn in reality. Lets not start the usual "sky is falling" retoric. I talked with the guy in charge of the region in his lansing office yesterday. As of right now there has not been a plan submitted for removal or repair. He promised me some notification when either had been submitted. I will do my best to keep us all informed on any new news or issues.I am gonna let my input on this issue rest until any new information is released, which will not be before the public meeting on the 26th. I would expect some news around the first or second week of March.

Thanks again for the input and discussion.


----------



## wally-eye

bombcast said:


> I'm all for it. Slam dunk. Take out all non-hydro dams. Hopefully Rockford and Hesperia are in the not-too-distant future as well.
> 
> It would be nice to see the area immediately below the Hamilton dam "reclaimed" a little bit. Pluck out the lumber, reinforce the banks and fill a bit with riprap, or chunks of the dam stone.
> 
> Add a footbridge and a nice pavilion. Why the hell wouldn't Hamilton want that?



Can't speak about Rockford but it'll never happen in Hesperia, too many unintended consequences.

I live on the river 6 miles above the dam in Hesperia and I'd hate to see those nasty wooly headed salmon tearing up this stretch of the river........along with every Tom, Dick and Harry tresspassing on private property........both would be a disgrace..


----------



## bombcast

but taking out the Hesperia or Rockford dams dam doesn't necessarily mean they have to pass salmon and steelhead to the upper portions of those rivers. 

The water quality (temperature regime) of the White is abysmal compared to what it should be. Given its gradient and sources that thing should run 10% colder in the summer and 10% warmer in the river. And that Hesperia backwater (and the one in WC) are the issue. 

I'd rather live on a free-flowing, high quality trout stream than some lily-pad infested frogwater. I can't believe more people don't rally around this concept. I mean, what is the value, real or aesthetic, of the Hesperia pond? I've yet to find one.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

That's a nice picture.

However:

The Rabbit drains a very wide, clay based flood plain. One good rain on top of a pile of snow pack and every one of the those root balls would be half way to Saugatuck.

I trap some ag drains that feed the Rabbit. I've seen them go up 6' in one hour.


----------



## bombcast

Correct you are FBD. Sorry for the confusion, I'm all for the dam removal on the Rabbit, but realize it's not, nor ever will be a trout stream in its mainstream.

If I were Hamilton, though, I'd still be all for the dam removal. Call it Hamilton Rapids, leave an insurmountable fish barrier, secure funding for an upgrade to the park, work closely with the DNR to enhance the fishability of the river (channelize to increase flow, do a couple hellacious gravel dumps), lobby like hell for increased plantings of steelhead. Put some serious lipstick on that pig. 

God Knows there isn't anything else in Hamilton worth visiting.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

"God Knows there isn't anything else in Hamilton worth visiting."

Hey now, wait a minute. 

Oh, you're right.

They did get a decent party store though, but it's not as close to the river as the old one......


----------



## Spanky

Their high school is huge, so if you do go to the meeting, don't get lost in it!


----------



## Flyfisher

Far Beyond Driven said:


> That's a nice picture.
> 
> However:
> 
> The Rabbit drains a very wide, clay based flood plain. One good rain on top of a pile of snow pack and every one of the those root balls would be half way to Saugatuck.
> 
> I trap some ag drains that feed the Rabbit. I've seen them go up 6' in one hour.


The rootwads are anchored down...that pic is from a restored river in Washington state....they have been known to get heavy rains, snowmelt, and flooding out there.:evil:


----------



## Caddisfly

The latest (1993) MDEQ Hamilton Dam Inspection report is aviavlable at the Allegan Conservation District site at: Allegan Conservation District webpage under the Rabbit River Project download area at the bottom.


----------



## Caddisfly

Google: Rabbit River Michigan Department of Natural Resources and you can view the 1993 Fishery report for the Rabbit River. There are excellant spwaning grounds in the upper watershed.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

The 40' long 4' diameter cement culvert on my in-law's road is anchored down as well - it's on a trib to the Rabbit. It's broken once before and last year and up and just moved, caving in the road above it. 

I give them one season in the spill way tops.


----------



## Sparky23

Well I very rarely fish hamilton during the main runs, normally winter, or way upstream. There is alot of snagging going on there, just like every dam in the state but there are also lots of legit fisherman. I know alot of guys that float bobbers and they and myself have done very good. The one thing that will come to an end however is access to actualy fish the river as most of it is private, and very very tuff to attain permision, without a barrier then it will be near imposable to fish as unless i am mistaken it is not a navagable peice of water. It will indeed lower water temps and improve natural reproduction that is imo some of, if not the best south of MO. Just my 2cents or whatever.


----------



## bobd47fish

*Environmental Impacts of Dams* 
[SIZE=-1]Protection and restoration of river environments is essential for sustainable, diverse, and productive stream fisheries. Over the last two decades, fisheries managers and ecologists have explored the changes dams cause in the ecological processes of river environments. Rivers emerging downstream of a dam may be substantially altered from the character of the river entering an impoundment above a dam. Aquatic community health is closely linked to water temperature tolerances and impounded waters may discharge at significantly higher or lower temperatures than normally encountered in the stream. Flow patterns reflecting normal high and low water conditions over time may also be fundamentally altered, affecting stream channel configuration, fisheries habitat, and many other physical and biological processes. Water quality may decline in impounded streams if excessive nutrients, sediments, and aquatic plants accumulate in the impoundment. Stream changes induced by dams and other watershed conditions are often reflected in the fish community. Native and desirable stream species are almost always displaced in river segments affected by dams. Dams also limit the normal movement of fish, other aquatic organisms, and system organic material.
The 103 hydroelectric facilities in Michigan impact 49 river systems, including almost every major river system in the state. These facilities, at a minimum, prevent anadromous fish movement into 2,063 mainstem river miles, dewater 57 river miles, directly impound 623 river miles, and impact 733 river miles through their operation. The total reservoir area impacted by these facilities is approximately 123,000 acres. These facilities produce, in net, only 1.5% of the electricity in the State of Michigan (Patric and Kakela 1983).
Patric, W. C., and P. J. Kakela. 1983. Small scale hydroelectric power in Michigan: A resource assessment. Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report No. 442. 15pp.
[/SIZE]


----------

