• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Final Form
 

Final Form

on

  • 1,301 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,301
Views on SlideShare
1,300
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
152
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Final Form Final Form Presentation Transcript

  • By Lauren Seiler, Sarah Gustafson, Allison Senycz, and Ryan Nelson
    • Why do we have dams?
    • Why contemplate removing dams?
    • Costs and benefits of dam removal
      • Social
      • Ecological
      • Economical
    • Criteria for dam removal
    • Generate hydroelectric power
    • Flood control
    • Water storage
    • Recreation
    • Wildlife habitat
    • River navigation
    • 19% of the world’s electricity (REN21, 2006)
    • 103,800 megawatts per year in US (REN21, 2006)
    • Renewable source of energy
    • Produces no waste
    • Plants last a long time
    • Low operating costs
    • Controls the amount of flow in waterways, especially after rain or melt events
    • Protects downstream communities and farms
    • Dams create reservoirs, can store annual runoff for use during the year
    • Water used for agriculture, industrial, and municipal purposes
    • Creates areas for
      • Swimming
      • Fishing
      • Boating
      • Waterskiing
    • Many dam areas have become state parks
      • may include opportunities to hike, bicycle, camp, picnic, and bird watch.
    • Creates wetlands
    • Creates non-riverine
    • habitats
      • Animals
      • Insects
    • Can create a warm water
    • environment downstream
    • Dams can provide rail or road crossing
    • Stable system of inland river transportation
      • Example: logging, ferry, lock & dam
    • Dams degrade over time and can become dangerous
    • Block movement of fish and other aquatic species
    • Natural river flow is altered
    • Reservoirs inundate wildlife habitat
    • Nutrients settle in the reservoir, cannot reach downstream
    • Alter the characteristics of the community surrounding the dam
    • Eliminate or alter any services given by the dam
    • Community Costs
    • Case Study: Oak Street Dam in Baraboo, Wisconsin
      • Lost hydroelectric power generated by dam (Wisconsin DNR, 2006)
    • Alter the characteristics of the community surrounding the dam
    • Eliminate dam safety concerns
    • Improve river aesthetics and/or recreation
    • Community saves money on taxes/costs
    • Case Study: Conestoga River in SE Pennsylvania
      • Improvement of river recreation & community revenue (American Rivers, 2007)
    • Removing a dam can be beneficial for river restoration by returning pre-impoundment ecological functions and critical habitat to the river.
    • Dam removal may not always be necessary to accomplish these ecological improvement goals.
    • In some situations dam removal may set river restoration back, causing more harm than good.
    • Therefore it is important to weigh the ecological costs and benefits of dam removal.
    Image source: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/images/NH%20Henniker%20dam%20removal.jpg
    • Removal of a dam will change or impact:
      • Water flow
      • Fish and wildlife abundance
      • Passage of migratory fish
      • Sediment Movement
      • Water Quality
    Image: Removing the Smelt Hill dam on the Presumpscot River in Maine, opened five miles of river and restored habitat for many economically important fish species. Image Source: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/projects_programs/crp/partners_funding/backgroundondamremoval.htm
    • Removing a dam will restore the natural flow of the stream or river.
    • Benefits:
        • Improved fish habitats
        • Improved riparian zones
          • Natural flooding
        • Drained reservoir will
        • produce new riparian and
        • terrestrial habitat
    • Case Study
      • 13 Dam removal sites in Wisconsin
        • Rapid revegetation demonstrates the potential of these sites for riparian restoration.
        • Temporal vegetation dynamics following dam removal were site-specific (Orr et al , 2006).
    • Costs:
      • Removing a dam will impact reservoir habitat and wetland habitat.
        • Possible net loss of wetland habitat
        • Loss of reservoir fish habitat
    • It may be possible to “create” natural flow
      • Glen Canyon Dam
        • In 1996 a large flood was released
        • Studies following the release indicate that some restoration of beaches and riverine habitat occurred (Collier et al , 1996).
    Image Source: http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/sites/glencany/glencany.html
    • Removal of dam will impact fish in wildlife diversity and abundance.
    • Benefits
        • Increase in riverine and riparian species diversity and abundance
    • Case Studies
      • Florida’s Dead Lake Dam removal
        • After the removal of the dam, aquatic species diversity nearly doubled from 34 to 61 (Hill et al , 1993).
    Image source: http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/03/22_olsond_dams/
    • Costs:
      • Loss of reservoir species
      • Temporarily disrupt species sensitive to changes in water quality and water level
      • Spread of undesirable non-native species or parasites that could reach vulnerable native species and their habitats.
    • Costs on fish and wildlife rely, for the most part, on what species are considered relatively “important” in that area.
    • Brownlee Reservoir is among the most heavily fished waters in Idaho. Healthy populations of warm water fish such as smallmouth bass, catfish and crappie are especially popular.
    • Removal of dam will restore natural flow and allow for passage of migratory fish.
    • Benefits
      • Allows migratory fish to swim upstream to reach native spawning grounds.
      • Improves downstream passage for juvenile fish.
      • Migrating fish also play an important role in nutrient management of rivers
    • Case Studies (American Rivers, 2007)
      • Neuse River, Quaker Neck Dam in North Carolina
        • Removal permanently restored 1000 miles of fish spawning habitat.
        • The dam removal benefits eight species of migratory fish, including striped bass, American shad, hickory shad, shortnose sturgeon, and American eel.
    American shad ( Alosa sapidissirna ) Images Source: http://www.nativefish.org/articles/Migratory_Fish_Restoration.php
    • Case Studies Cont’d
      • Conestoga River Dams (Lancaster County)
        • Seven obsolete run-of-river dams were removed
        • The dams blocked American shad
        • The removal of three of the seven dams on the Conestoga River opened over 25 miles for migratory fish.
      • Juniata River
        • Will also open up 20 miles of spawning ground for migratory fish
        • Contingent upon installation of downstream fish passages.
    Rock Hill Dam before removal Rock Hill Dam after removal Images Source: http://www.nativefish.org/articles/Migratory_Fish_Restoration.php
    • Passage of migratory fish can be accomplished by installing fish passage devices.
      • Fish ladders
      • By-pass pipelines
      • Fish elevators
      • Capturing of juvenile fish and transported via barges or trucks.
    Image Sources: http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/2003/2003-20/hydro.htm http://www.lakeoroville.water.ca.gov/about/stats/hatchery.cfm
    • Sediment accumulates in reservoirs and removing the dam will release these sediments downstream.
    • Benefits
      • Restore natural sediment balance
      • Redistributes essential nutrients
      • Re-exposing gravel and cobble upstream
      • Restores sediment to coastal beaches
      • Sediment left behind will produce new riparian zones.
    Image Source: www.ies.wisc.edu/research/wrm00/educmorph.htm Vegetation begins to grow in the sediments left behind after removal of the Rockdale Dam in Wisconsin.
    • Costs
      • Release toxins that have accumulated behind the dam.
      • Short term damage to spawning grounds, water quality, habitat and food quality.
      • May take a long time to flush all the stored sediments downstream
    • Case Study (American Rivers, 2006)
      • Hudson River, Fort Edward Dam in New York
        • PCB contaminants were found in the river sediments.
        • The removal re-released these contaminated sediments and dispersed them downstream at an unsafe level, requiring extensive cleanup efforts.
    • Dam removal can change many aspects of water quality including temperature, nutrient transport, oxygen content, and turbidity.
    • Benefits
      • restore natural water temperatures
      • Enhance nutrient transport
      • Increase the river’s oxygen content (through restoration of riffle habitat)
      • Reduce turbidity
    Rock Hill Dam before removal Rock Hill Dam after removal Images Source: http://www.nativefish.org/articles/Migratory_Fish_Restoration.php
    • Costs
      • Short term increase in turbidity
      • If released too fast, water can become supersaturated with gas and can cause gas bubble disease in fish downstream
    • Case Studies
    • Snake River, Little Goose Dam in Washington
      • Supersaturation of dissolved gas occurred in the water, turbidity levels increased, and many reservoir fish and insects perished.
    Image Sources: http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/lsr/reports/save_salmon/salmontoc.htm http://zebrafish.org/zirc/health/diseaseManual.php
    • Cost-benefit Analysis of Dam Failure, Dam Repair, and Dam Removal
    • Dam Failure
      • Caused by “Do Nothing Approach”
      • Liability issues
    • Repair the dam
      • Can be costly
      • Still have benefits of the dam
    • Remove the dam
      • Loss of economic benefits of the dam
      • No more yearly repair costs
    • Reasons for a dam failure
      • Overtopping
      • Foundation defects
      • Internal erosion caused by seepage 
      • Structural failure of the materials used in dam construction and inadequate maintenance (“Do Nothing” approach)                                                                              
    Overtopping of a dam, causing dam failure
    • Economical Implications of a failing dam
      • Loss of property
      • Environmental damage
      • Habitat restoration costs
    • More than 400 dams failed in the U.S. between 1985 and 1994 (Stanley et al., 2003)
    Damage caused by Cannon Creek Dam failure in B.C., May 1995
    • Survey of 10,000 flood control dams in U.S.
      • Over 2,200 needed maintenance
      • Estimated cost: $543 million (Stanley et al, 2003).
    • Costs
      • Engineering contractors
      • Engineering consultants
      • Permits
      • Construction company and materials for repair
      • Fish passage structures
        • $200,000-$400,000 depending on type and size
        • (Dam Repair or Removal: a Decision-Making Process, 2000)
    Former Rockdale dam in Wisconsin with cracks in concrete wing walls and erosion of spillway Salmon swimming up fish ladder in Oroville Dam, CA (Google Video, 2007)
    • Lake Perez Dam
      • Built in 1960 in Stone Valley Recreational Area
      • Lake drawdown in 2002 for dam rehabilitation
        • $2.8 million project
        • (Stone Valley, 2002)
      • Drained again in 2008 for dam maintenance
        • No stocking, fishing, boating, etc.
        • Loss of summer recreational revenue
    • Three Repair Scenarios
      • $1,091,500
        • Rehabilitating most structures, abandoning the turbine raceway
      • $871,000
        • Rehabilitating some structures, abandoning the turbine raceway and the headrace structure
      • $694,600
        • Rehabilitating the principal spillway, abandoning the headrace structure, and constructing new raceway overflow spillways and fish-passage structure
    • Costs
      • Engineering contractors
      • Construction company for demolition
      • Sediment traps
        • Possibility of toxic sediments
      • Restoration of newly exposed area
        • Stream bank restoration
        • River restoration
    Lowell Dam removal on Little River, North Carolina (Google Video, Restoration Systems, 2005) Time-lapse removal of Marmot Dam, Sandy River, Oregon (Google Video, USGS, 2007)
    • Estimated removal cost: $216,000
    • Actual final cost: $238,769 ($200,000 paid by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources grant)
    • Costs of removal compared to repair
    Dam Removal Case Study: Waterworks Dam, Baraboo River, Wisconsin (Dam Repair or Removal: a Decision-Making Process, 2000) Waterworks Dam on Baraboo River, WI (1996) Former impoundment of Waterworks Dam (2000)
    • Background
      • Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, Ice Harbor dams on Lower Snake River in Washington state
      • Built by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers between 1961 and 1975
      • Facilitate barge travel and generate a small portion of Northwest’s electricity
    Lower Granite Dam on Lower Snake River, Washington http://www.bluefish.org/fourdams.htm
    • Costs of keeping the dams includes:
      • 2004 Federal Columbia Snake River Salmon Plan, salmon recovery costs, dam operation and maintenance, sediment control, major dam repairs
    • Costs of removing the dams includes:
      • New Federal Columbia Snake River Salmon Plan, additional salmon recovery costs, dam removal and river restoration, power replacement, converting barge to rail transportation, increased shipping rates, irrigation investments, private well modifications, municipal and industrial water use modifications
    • Graphically represents costs associated with removing the dams
    • Results shown over 10-year and 20-year totals
    • Costs of keeping the four dams
      • $7.8 to $9.1 billion over a 10-year period
      • $15.7 to $18.2 billion over a 20-year period
    • Costs of removing the four dams and replacing the current dam benefits
      • $6.2 to $9.1 billion over a 10-year period
      • $11.1 to $16.6 billion over a 20-year period
    • Savings with dam removal
      • $12 million to $2 billion over 10 years, and $2 billion to $5 billion over 20 years
  •  
    • Dam removal will produce five-fold increase in new revenue
      • Tourism
      • Recovered fish runs
      • Outdoor recreation
    • Does the watershed have a management plan that needs criteria met?
    • Goals must be established with the dam removal in order to best manage the issue
      • Removal for Safety?
      • Removal for Costs of Maintenance?
      • Removal for migratory fish?
      • Removal for recreation?
    • Not all dams meet criteria for removal
    • Dams usefulness may out way environmental issues
      • Power Production vs. Migratory Fish, etc.
    • Community Views and their goals and objectives
    • Stake Holders
      • Local Residents/Business’s
      • Watershed Groups
      • Recreational River Users
      • Government (DNR, FBC, …)
    • Land Use Post-Dam Removal
      • Park Land
      • Development
      • Forest
      • Unclaimed ownership
    • Dam Density/ Connectivity
    • Fish Habitat/Wetlands
    • Special Concern Species
    • Water Quality Effects
    • Safety, Maintenance &Costs
    • Sediments
    Drawdown Removal Lower Snake River *Rank these by importance
    • Determine the number of dams on the stream.
    • Sets priority to streams based on how many dams would have to be removed in order to accomplish goal of removal.
    • How many miles of stream are opened after removal?
    • Can be 1 mile of main stem, but many miles of tributaries.
    • Fish that must pass through 5 dams with a 90% success rate will result in a 41% smaller population than initially (Gregory et.al. 2002)
    • (Gregory et.al. 2002))
    • Assessment of the habitat
    • Does the habitat mimic the natural setting?
    • Native fish species exist both above and below dam?
    • Is a CWF changed to a WWF due to the dam?
    • Wetlands
    • Removal will cause for wetland loss.
    • Was the dam established before or after the Clean Water Act?
      • CWA would claim these areas as wetlands if dam was constructed before CWA
      • Mitigation would be required if wetlands are lost
    • Endangered/Threatened Species
      • Salmon
      • Mussels
      • Shad
    • # of End. Species to benefit from removal
    Klamath River, Oregon Salmon Kill caused by the inability to run upstream
    • Are there differences between upstream and downstream habitat?
      • New communities present between these hydrologically connected areas?
    • Will local/watershed water problems be alleviated by the removal of the dam?
      • More cold water downstream or less summer stress to fish.
    • Is it a HQ/EV CWF?
      • Due to their productivity, is the dam worth disturbing this quality fishery
    • Is it impacting a headwater stream?
    • Physical/Chemical Features
      • D.O. Levels
      • Temp.
      • Nutrients
      • DOC/DIC
    • Is the dam malfunctioning?
    • Is there a high risk of failure?
    • Who will be affected in the event of a failure?
    • Does the cost of maintenance exceed revenue generated?
    • Does the dam still serve its intended purpose?
    • Not your typical “dam”
    • Grassflat Run, Pennsylvania
    • Yet another issue with Abandoned Mines in Pennsylvania
    • RR Bridge left unmaintained clogged, creating a dam and blew out.
    • Is there a benefits for a sediment flush?
      • Coastal, Bar formation, bed load
    • Is it undesirable to flush the sediments?
      • Macroinvertebrates, Fish eggs, Downstream Aesthetics
    • Analysis conducted to see if the sediments are contaminated?
      • Lead, PCB, etc…
    • Can you sell the sediments?
      • Cobble, sediment, river rock have been sold for landscaping and other purposes
    • River Form
      • Pool/Riffle Development takes several years, depending on the # of discharges that can move sediment (Pizzuto, 2002)
      • Account for this in planning
    Savage Rapids Dam, Rogue River Oregon Appx.200,000 yds^3 of sediment stored Flushing Chosen
    • An alternatives analysis was conducted in order to determine the most effective way to manage the dam, accounting for the social, ecological and economical benefits and costs.
    Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives (WDNR) Table 2. Comparison of Environmental Consequences of the alternatives. (WDNR)
    • Classified a State Natural River Zone
    • Priority Removal by the Mich. DNR
      • Re-established the “rare, high-gradient reaches” in the Huron Watershed
    • Dam Construction
      • Henry Ford made it for Electricity, but abandoned it after all the required land wasn’t obtained. Bridge is still used today.
      • No Longer serves its intended purpose
    • Decision Making
      • Alternatives analysis conducted to see benefits vs. cost
      • 18 months of research conducted during analysis
      • Residents were asked to input in there ideas for the future of the dam
    • - Above is a photo looking upstream at the dam
    • Top-right shows the deteriorating dam and bridge
    • Right - Accumulated sediments with Purple Loosestrife
    • Dam removal is a viable option not only for ecological functions but also for social and economical reasons as well.
    • Beneficial results are site specific and may be able to be accomplished using other techniques.
      • Fish ladders
      • Managed floods
    • Sites that are being considered for dam removal should conduct in depth research beforehand to see if it meets the criteria for a beneficial removal.
    • American Rivers, &quot;Success Stories Report.&quot; American Rivers . 2007. 20 Apr 2008 <http://www.americanrivers.org/site/DocServer/SuccessStoriesReport.pdf?docID=221>. “
    • Collier, M.P., R.H. Webb, and E.D. Andrews. 1997. Experimental Flooding in the Grand Canyon. Scientific American 276:82-89.
    • Dam Repair or Removal: a Decision-Making Guide.&quot; WRM 2000 Decision-Making Process . 2000. University of Wisconsin. 12 Apr. 2008 <http://www.ies.wisc.edu/research/wrm00/econintro.htm>.
    • &quot;Dam Failures and Incidents.&quot; Association of State Dam Safety Officials . 2008. Association of State Dam Safety Officials. 14 Apr. 2008 <http://www.damsafety.org/news/?p=412f29c8-3fd8-4529-b5c9-8d47364c1f3e>.
    • &quot;Dam Safety in British Columbia - Who is Responsible?&quot; Ministry of the Environment: Water Stewardship Division . 1995. Province of British Columbia. 14 Apr. 2008 <http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/public_safety/dam_safety/responsible.html>.
    • &quot;Dams: Do Costs Exceed Benefits?&quot; 2007. Property and Environment Research Center. 15 Apr. 2008 <http://www.perc.org/perc.php?id=1021>.
    • Department of the Interior. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration, Olympic National Park, Washington, 674pp.
    • Gregory, Stan, Hiram Li, and Judy Li. &quot;The Conceptual Basis for Ecological Responses to Dam Removal.&quot; Bioscience 52 (2002): 713-721. Proquest . Penn State Paterno Library, University Park, PA. 20 Apr. 2008.
    • Hill, M.J., E.A. Long and S. Hardin. 1993. Effects of Dam Removal on Dead Lake, Chipola River, Florida. Apalachicola River Watershed Investigations, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. A Wallop-Breaux Project F-39-R. 12 pp.
    • Michigan Department Of Natural Resources, and Michigan Department Of Environmental Quality (MDNR and MDEQ) . &quot;Dam Removal Guidelines for Owners.&quot; (April 2004). 20 Apr. 2008 <http://www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATIONS/PDFS/fishing/dams/DamRemovalGuidelinesForOwners.pdf>.
    • Orr, C.H., E.H. Stanley. 2006. Vegetation development and restoration potential of drained reservoirs following dam removal in Wisconsin. River Res. Appl. 22(3): 281-295.
    • Pizzuto, Jim. &quot;Effects of Dam Removal on River Form and Process.&quot; Bioscience 52 (2002): 683-692. Proquest . Penn State Paterno Library, University Park, PA. 20 Apr. 2008.
    • Revenue Stream: An Economic Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of Removing the Four Dams on the Lower Snake River , Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition, 2005.
    • REN21. 2006. “Renewables Global Status Report 2006 Update” (Paris: REN21 Secretariat and Washington, DC:Worldwatch Institute).
    • Riggs, Elizabeth H.W. &quot;Case Studies in River Restoration Through Dam Removal - Argo Dam and Mill Pond Dam, Huron River Watershed, Michigan.&quot; The Huron River Watershed Council (June 2003). 20 Apr. 2008 <http://www.hrwc.org/pdf/dexterdam.pdf>.
    • &quot;Spring Trout Stocking Cancelled At Lake Perez.&quot; PFBC 2008 Press Release . 25 Mar. 2008. Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission. 14 Apr. 2008 <http://www.fish.state.pa.us/newsreleases/2008/perez_cancel.htm>.
    • Stanley, Emily H., and Martin W. Doyle. &quot;Trading Off: the Ecological Effects of Dam Removal.&quot; Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1 (2003): 15-22.
    • Stone Valley's Lake Perez.&quot; Stone Valley . 7 Feb. 2002. The Pennsylvania State University. 14 Apr. 2008 <http://www.psu.edu/ur/archives/intercom_2002/Feb7/stonevalley.html>.
    • Warrick, Jonathon. &quot;Dam Removal on the Elwha River in Washington—Nearshore Impacts of Released Sediment.&quot; Sound Waves - USGS Coastal Science Newsletter . Feb. 2005. United States Geological Survey. 20 Apr. 2008 <http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2005/02/research.html>.
    • Wisconsin Department Of Natural Resources (WDNR). &quot;Environmental Assessment of the Glenville (Linen Mill) Removal.&quot; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Aid, Region 3 (September,2001). 20 Apr. 2008 <http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/nepa/GlenvilleDamNEPA/documents/Final928.PDF>.
    • Wisconsin DNR, &quot;Dam Abandonment - Oak Street Dam, Baraboo, WI.&quot; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources . 15 Aug 2006. 20 Apr 2008 <http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/gmu/lowerwis/oakstreet.htm>.