Vernon County officials outline multiyear plan to decommission aging watershed dams

County staff on the Vernon County Land and Water Conservation Committee provided a detailed update on plans to decommission multiple aging conservation dams after a watershed study showed many structures have passed their design life and federal repair support will be limited.

The presentation, led by Mark (staff presenter) and summarized by committee member Cassie, said the county will pursue site-specific decommissioning designs where federal funding is available and that several dams will likely be removed rather than repaired. “There won’t be any federal support moving forward for dam repair, dam maintenance,” Mark said during the presentation.

Why it matters: the county manages dozens of small watershed dams built with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) technical support and local sponsorship under 50-year operation/maintenance plans. Many of those agreements and the structures’ expected service lives have expired; the county is under Department of Natural Resources (DNR) orders to repair or remove at least some dams and faces constrained funding and a long timetable.

Most immediate takeaways - West Fork and the unnamed “**** Creek” subwatershed: staff recommended decommissioning for the majority of those dams. The West Fork has nine dams; staff said seven of those are candidates for decommissioning. Boom Creek’s five dams were also recommended for removal. - Jersey Valley: staff described a long repair history and said Jersey Valley is an exception — it may be eligible for a federal-supported rebuild. County staff noted a prior multi‑row grout curtain and approximately $4,000,000 in subsurface grouting performed to stabilize that dam after a 2005 fish kill and seepage problems. - Recent and past work: the county used Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) disaster dollars to repair five dams (Jersey Valley, Hidden Valley, Seas Branch, Yitchi Primmer, and Rung Hollow) and reported roughly $14,000,000 spent on those repairs. County presenters also showed progress photos and construction details for Mills (Milsina) where breach repair and staged removal work is underway.

Technical and design details - Decommissioning vs. removal: staff clarified the difference: removal can mean hauling out concrete and pipe, while federal decommissioning options sometimes propose leaving or burying conduits on-site or grouting them shut. Mark explained, “A dam decommissioning is the federal government’s proposing to bury the pipe on-site, in some cases, or remove it, or grout it shut.” - Site methods described: at Mills staff documented construction of bypass channels, rock checks, bank regrading and compaction of clay from the dam into new valley contours, staged sediment management and temporary stilling basins to maintain downstream water clarity during work. - Change orders and costs: staff reported an engineering/design change order of approximately $61,008.72 for additional construction oversight and velocity‑reduction design work at one project; another site (Hawk Island) had change orders of about $22,500 for extending a lobe and adding a rock check. For Mills, one low design quote referenced in the presentation was $38,771 and a construction bid of about $365,000 was named for that contract.

Anticipated funding needs and schedule - Staff said current design funding is on hold for some federal programs and that they are awaiting allocation from NRCS or other federal sources. The presentation captured preliminary design funding estimates provided by staff contact Steve Becker: roughly $1,800,000 for West Fork designs, $1,500,000 for the **** Creek designs, and $2,200,000 for Jersey Valley design work. Presenters emphasized these were estimates and subject to federal allocation. - Timeline: staff estimated non‑Jersey design packages could require roughly 18 months to complete once funding arrives; Jersey Valley designs were estimated at about 24 months because of complexity and anticipated public engagement. One speaker said construction removals might begin in the 2027–2028 timeframe, depending on funding and final designs.

Community considerations and next steps - The presentation stressed the long timeframe and need for public engagement. Committee members and attendees raised concerns about heritage and local recreation; one attendee suggested preserving historic dam elements and erecting interpretive signage. Mark said federal partners often document the sites and that wayside/historic markers are a likely component of larger projects. - Staff repeatedly noted uncertainty tied to a change in federal administration and pauses in some grant or program disbursements; that uncertainty has delayed design funding in the near term.

What the committee directed or decided - No formal vote or land-use decision was taken at this meeting. Staff concluded by asking the committee to share the watershed presentation materials with local stakeholders and continue to pursue grant and design funding. Staff will return with updates about design funding allocations, site-specific designs and any DNR‑required timelines.

Ending: County staff emphasized that decommissioning is a multiyear, site‑by‑site process and that the work is intended to reduce long‑term public safety risk from failing dams while balancing ecological and community impacts.