Hydropower Reform Coalition - dam removal

Demolish It and They Will Come: Estimating the Economic Impacts of Restoring A Recreational Fishery

Rupak Thapaliya — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:57:31 -0600

Source: Journal of the American Water Resources Association

Volume: 44 (6)

Year: 2008

Abstract

This paper presents the results of an ex post survey of recreational anglers for the lower Kennebec River, post-Edwards Dam removal. To the best of our knowledge, this study represents one of the first ex post analyses of fisheries restoration from dam removal. We find significant benefits have accrued to anglers using the restored fishery. Specifically, anglers are spending more to visit the fishery, a direct indication of the increased value anglers place on the improved fishery. Anglers are also willing to pay for increased angling opportunities on the river. These findings have policy implications for other privately owned dams that are currently undergoing relicensing and ⁄ or dam removal considerations. Our findings may also hold implications for fisheries that have deteriorated due to historic dam construction.

Author(s)

Robbins, Jesse Lance and Lynne Y. Lewis

Contact

Notes

Attachment	Size
demolish it and they will come.pdf	566.16 KB

Public Input Sought in Removal of Hydroelectric Dams

Rupak Thapaliya — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:56:41 -0500

Project: Brown Bridge : P-2978

Six years ago, Traverse City Light and Power, the owner of the hydroelectric projects on the Boardman River decided that the economic and environmental benefits to be gained by discontinuing to operate the projects would be greater than the benefits provided by power generation.

Now, they are trying to decide whether the four dam should be removed. Of the four dams, Union Street does not have any hydroelectric project.

The settlement agreement signed in 2002 and the license surrender approved in 2005 opened doors for potential of dam removal on Boardman river, a state designated "Natural River."

The Boardman Rivers Dam Committee, formed as a result of the settlement agreement, now meets regularly to discuss dam removal. The development of engineering and feasibility study has already begun.

Now the committee is seeking public input on the fate of dams. Besides removal of dams other possible alternatives are repair and retention, modification, or removal of one or more dams.

To help make an informed decision the committee has made available online reports that explore various possibilities. The public can send in their inputs by filling out an online form or by participating in meetings.

The Michigan Hydro Licensing Coalition, a member of Hydropower Reform Coalition, has been actively participating in this process.

American Rivers Accepting River Restoration Proposals

Rupak Thapaliya — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:11:37 -0500

American Rivers recently announced the opening of the American Rivers-NOAA grant for 2009 for river restoration projects. According to American Rivers, since 2001, this partnership has provided technical and financial assistance to community based projects that aim to restore fish species by removal of stream barriers such as dams.

Grant proposals will be accepted for projects in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Northwest and California only.

The deadline for submitting applications is December 3, 2008.

According to American Rivers, during the first seven years of the partnership, the program has provided more than $2 million to support 100 community-driven river restoration projects that have benefited diadromous fish populations and habitats throughout the country.

For more information on the grants and application process, visit American Rivers' NOAA Grants page.

Read more about NOAA's Community-based Restoration Program here.

Dam Removal and Historic Preservation: Reconciling Dual Objectives

Rupak Thapaliya — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:40:15 -0500

Source: AR

Volume:

Year: 2008

Abstract

Too often advocates for river restoration through dam removal find themselves in the middle of a project and at odds with potential partners over matters of historic preservation. The goal of Dam Removal and Historic Preservation: Reconciling Dual Objectives is to help dam removal proponents and advocates for historic preservation work together more effectively to achieve their mutual goals, while building constructive relationships and successfully reconciling potentially competing objectives. This report combines a primer on Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act with methods for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating the adverse effects of a dam removal project and concludes with real life case studies.

Available online at http://www.americanrivers.org/site/DocServer/Dam_Removal_and_Historic_Preservation.pdf?docID=8161

Author(s)

Serena McClain, Stephanie Lindloff and Katherine Baer

Contact

Notes

Fort Halifax dam comes down, Sebasticook revives

Rupak Thapaliya — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:44:27 -0500

Earlier this week, the end of Fort Halifax dam in Maine marked the beginning of a free flowing Sebasticook river. Huge excavators started tearing down the 29 ft-high dam, that had been there for a century, paving way for habitat for several mussel and fish species.

Supported by federal agencies and HRC members, FPL Energy had recently requested FERC for a permission for a full removal, which FERC granted in a letter issued on July 1, 2008. The original FERC approval, in January 2004, had only allowed for partial removal. However, since total removal was going to allow for better fish passage and FPL Energy preferred to perform a total removal, FERC granted the permission. According to FERC, total removal is also consistent with the prior agreement reached amongst FPL Energy, state and federal agencies, and several NGOs.

Opponents of dam removal including Save our Sebasticook had tried to stop dam removal. Meanwhile, another power company, Essex Hydro Associates, in the 11th hour, had requested to halt dam removal and to take over the project via license transfer. FERC denied both the requests stating that not only had the request come in several years after the decision was made but also that Essex had failed to establish any standing to request for a halt in dam removal.

Read this related article on the Kennebec Journal and this blog to see pictures of dam removal.

Dams, Dam Removal, and River Restoration: A Hedonic Property Value Analysis

Rupak Thapaliya — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:37:21 -0500

Source: Contemporary Economic Policy

Volume: 26 No. 2

Year: 2008

Abstract

This article presents the results of a hedonic property value analysis for multiple hydropower sites along the Kennebec River in Maine, including the former site of the Edwards Dam in Augusta, Maine. The effect of the removal of the Edwards Dam on the Kennebec River in Maine is examined through consumer's marginal willingness to pay to be close to or distant from the dam site. Data from both before and after the dam was removed are used to estimate changes in marginal prices. A similar data set is also used to look at the effects of the remaining upstream dams on property values.
This article presents one of the first (to our knowledge) ex post analyses on the economic impact of dam removal on property values. As more privately owned dams in the United States come up for relicensing, evaluating the impacts with and without the dam will become increasingly important. This work can help inform those analyses.

Author(s)

Lynne Y. Lewis, Curtis Bohlen and Sarah Wilson

Contact

Notes

Attachment	Size
Lewis et al dam removal property values.pdf	4.24 MB

Does Small Dam Removal Effect Local Propoerty Values? An Emperical Analysis

Rupak Thapaliya — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:58:02 -0500

Source: Contemporary Economic Policy

Volume: Vol 26 No. 2

Year: 2008

Abstract

This paper uses hedonic analysis to examine the impact of small dam removal on property values in south-central Wisconsin. Data on residential property sales wereobtained for three categories of sites: those where a small dam remains intact, thosewhere a small dam was removed, and those where a river or stream has been free flowing for at least 20 yr. The primary conclusions that emerge from the data arethat shoreline frontage along small impoundments confers no increase in residentialproperty value compared to frontage along free-flowing streams and that nonfrontage residential property located in the vicinity of a free-flowing stream is more valuablethan similar nonfrontage property in the vicinity of a small impoundment.

Author(s)

Porvencher, Bill; Helen Sarakinos, Tanya Meyer

Contact

Notes

Attachment	Size
Provencher et al dam removal property values.pdf	350.16 KB

Information portal on Elwha Watershed and Dam Removal

Rupak Thapaliya — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:26:11 -0500

As preparations are being made to dismantle the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams on the Elwha River in 2009, the University of Idaho has developed a web portal with information on dam removal and watershed restoration. According to the website, the Elwha Watershed Information Resource, "...will integrate ecological and socioeconomic information that describes the physical environment, biological and human communities, and management issues in the Elwha watershed."

The website aims to facilitate information sharing to prepare and facilitate sound restoration of Elwha River after removal of the two dams that have been blocking salmons runs for almost a century. The website explains the impacts the dams have had on the watershed and the people. It contains scientific data and maps relating to management issues such as forestry, habitat, and land use.

HRC member and chair American Rivers was a partner in developing this web portal and has long been involved in the Elwha project.

Benefit Dinner to Un-dam Klamath

Rupak Thapaliya — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:08:31 -0600

Project: Klamath : P-2082

A benefit dinner is being organized to remove dams from the Klamath River that have been disturbing the habitat for salmon, trout and other species for a long time. The Klamath hydroproject owned by Pacificorp includes four dams that are not only disturbing fish migration and spawning but also polluting the river with toxic algae.

Local fishermen, tribes and environmental groups have long opposed the dams. Even the California Energy Commission calls it the "most environmentally damaging energy project in CA." A recent analysis by FERC concluded that dam removal would be cheaper by $7 million a year, thus saving money for the owner, state and tax payers.

A short video developed by American Rivers, with funding from Hydropower Reform Coalition, explains the need to remove the dams for restoration of Klamath River.

The $5-$15 dinner will include live music, a multimedia presentation, and silent auction. See the Klamath Riverkeeper's event page for more details on the event.

American Rivers & NOAA now accepting proposals for river restoration grants

John Seebach — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:48:12 -0500

American Rivers seeks proposals for river restoration project grants as part of its partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Community-based Restoration Program. Program funding is provided through NOAA’s Open Rivers Initiative, which seeks to enable environmental and economic renewal in local communities through the removal of stream barriers.

This Partnership funds stream barrier removal projects that help restore riverine ecosystems, enhance public safety and community resilience, and have clear and identifiable benefits to diadromous fish populations. Diadromous fish migrate between freshwater and saltwater during their life cycle. Examples include alewife, American eel, American shad, blueback herring, salmon, steelhead, shortnose sturgeon and striped bass. Projects in the Northeast (ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI), Mid-Atlantic (NY, NJ, PA, DE, VA, MD, DC), Northwest (WA, OR, ID), and California are eligible to apply. Projects located within the St. Lawrence/Great Lakes Basin are not eligible for funding in the December 2007 grant round.

Eligible applications will be evaluated based upon four priority criteria:

Ecological merits of the project,
Technical feasibility of the project,
Benefits provided to the local community, and
Financial clarity and strength of the application.

Grants are provided for three distinct project phases: Feasibility Analysis, Engineering Design and Construction. Average grants are $25,000 - $50,000. Successful applicants for one project phase will not be eligible to receive additional funding for that same project phase in future grant rounds. See the Funding Guidelines for additional details.

Applications are currently being accepted for the first cycle of fiscal year 2008 with a deadline of December 3, 2007. Applications for projects must be postmarked by the deadline for consideration in this funding cycle. Potential applicants should contact American Rivers to discuss potential projects prior to submitting an application. Applicants can expect notification about funding decisions in early March 2008.

Obtain the Application for Financial Assistance and Funding Guidelines on the American Rivers web site.

Marmot Dam becomes the largest dam removed in Oregon

Rebecca Sherman — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:51:52 -0500

Project: Bull Run : P-477

On July 24, 2007, the CEO of Portland General Electric Peggy Fowler depressed the handle of an old-fashioned TNT box at the same time that a construction crew detonated explosives within Marmot Dam. The blast weakened the dam so that the crew could continue its demolition.

You can see photos of the Marmot Dam removal here.

On hand to celebrate was a crowd of officials, dam removal settlement signatories, and Sandy River aficionados. PGE agreed to remove Marmot Dam and another dam on the Little Sandy River, grant 1500 acres of watershed lands to a lands conservancy, and donate its water rights instream. As a result, salmon and steelhead will have unimpeded access to 95 miles of upstream Sandy River habitat.

The settlement agreement was the outgrowth of a license renewal for PGE's Bull Run project. The company determined that the cost of continued operation under a modern permit (its existing license was decades old) would make the project uneconomic to run.

PGE has set up a website with the history of the dam's life and plans for removal.

The Sunday after the removal, the Oregonian published the following statement in its July 29th editorial:

Over the history of the Northwest, rivers tamed by dams have been like zoo animals. It's been hard to imagine them ever running wild again.

That's why the blast Tuesday that marked the start of the removal of Marmot Dam on the Sandy River sent shock waves all across the region. After a century of being held back, a Northwest river is about to runfree again.

The Oregonian made the point that dams aren't "going to start falling like dominoes," but that dam removals in the region are an important lesson in balancing resources and power production, and a brave step worth repeating. Great job, Oregonian.

The cost of removing dams on Michigan's Muskegon Au Sable and Manistee rivers

Rebecca Sherman — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:24:59 -0500

Project: Croton : P-2468 | Hardy : P-2452 | Rogers : P-2451

Thanks to a 1992 settlement, Consumers Power earned new licenses for eleven hydroelectric dams on the Muskegon, Manistee, and Au Sable rivers. As a condition of the new licenses, several dams were reoperated to release natural flows and Consumers funded extensive fish mitigation measures. Fish passage was to be constructed at all projects, and Stronach Dam was removed.

Another condition of the settlement required Consumers to study retirement of all of its dams, including reviewing what steps were necessary, what options for retirement exist for each facility, the likelihood of early retirement, and costs associated with retiring the entire project.

Consumers Energy recently published its report, saying that the cost of removal would be $99 million. They have no plans to retire any of the dams before the licenses expire in 2034.

As the Muskegon Chronicle reported on June 6, Coalition steering committee member Michigan Hydro Relicensing Coalition felt that the study was important:

Jim Schramm, the attorney for the Michigan Hydro Relicensing Coalition, said the Consumers dams do more harm than good.

"These dams are not producing green power," Schramm said. "The adverse impacts these dams have on rivers and fisheries far outweigh any positive impact from the electricity they generate."

Schramm said some of Consumers' dams that violate state water quality standards, including Croton and Hardy, may have to be removed in 2034 if the utility cannot figure out ways to lower water temperatures and increase oxygen concentrations downstream of the structures.

Gary Noble, executive director of the Muskegon River Watershed Assembly, said it is too early to say that the Croton, Hardy and Rogers dams should remain in place beyond the year 2034.

"We're not going to sit by and let Consumers say 'let's keep the dams forever,' " Noble said.

"If society determines the dams are still of value and the benefits outweigh the negatives, then maybe the dams should remain in place," Noble said. "But to indicate now that the dams are not going to come out 27 years from now is premature."

Wall Street Journal: Dam the Salmon

Rebecca Sherman — Thu, 31 May 2007 12:38:17 -0500

The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com) published an opinion-editorial called "Dam the Salmon" from a Reason.com analyst. The analyst, describing conservationists as "greens," begins:

If their opposition to the Klamath hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest is any indication, the greens, it appears, are just as unwilling to sacrifice their pet causes as a Texas rancher is to sacrifice his pickup truck. If anything, the radicalization of the environmental movement is the bigger obstacle to addressing global warming than the allegedly gluttonous American way of life.

The American way of life is allegedly excessive? Conservation is the problem behind global warming? Fascinating. The reply from American Rivers, available on their blog, and published by the WSJ reads:

Are the readers of the Wall Street Journal supposed to be horrified when an outmoded 100 year-old factory closes its doors? Of course not.

But that’s exactly the sort of irrational economic logic Ms. Dalmia proposes should protect all hydro dams into the infinite future.

Another letter from Friends of the River, also published, says:

[S]he neglects to mention at any point that a staggering 95% of the Klamath's native salmon population has been destroyed. Stepping in to protect the remaining 5% of a critical species is hardly a "radical" environmental position.

[She also] alleges that environmentalists have "rejected all attempts by PacifiCorp... to take mitigation steps... to create a salmon pathway." This is not true. PacifiCorp only considered mitigation because it was required to and its only genuine proposal was to catch migrating salmon, load them into trucks and drive them upstream -- a plan best characterized as absurd.

The WSJ published a third letter to the editor from a California resident, Scott Christensen, who points out that "there is nothing "cheap and renewable" about energy production that results in the destruction of wild salmon and steelhead runs and the jobs that depend on them."

SF Chronicle: Take Down the Klamath Dams

Keith Nakatani — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:27:47 -0600

Project: Klamath : P-2082

The San Francisco Chronicle weighed in with an editorial stating the removal of the four Klamath dams is close. The editorial highlights the current situation--feds want prohibitively expensive fish ladders, which may lead to dam removal--which keeps the pressure on PacifiCorp and government officials.

The editorial is below:

Take down the dams

Tuesday, February 6, 2007

FOR YEARS, Indian tribes, conservationists and fishing groups have argued that removing four power dams blocking the headwaters of the Klamath River would reverse the losses of once-plentiful salmon.

Free flows of cold water are what the fish need, and the fearsome foursome of dams near the Oregon border were major impediments.

Now the federal bureaucracy has joined the chorus in a roundabout way. As a result, taking down the barriers has never been closer.

Because the dams need new licenses to operate, federal agencies have taken a long look. The results aren't pretty for the dam operator, PacificCorp, owned by billionaire philanthropist Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Corp.

To keep the dams humming, Commerce and Interior agencies now want $300 million in fish ladders and screens. This price tag may be too high for PacificCorp, which cranks out only enough power to light 70,000 homes.

A miracle lies within reach. One of the country's biggest dam removal projects could begin, affording a chance at returning surging waters not seen for almost a century. Easing this change is the fact that Washington controls most of the land along the river course, and no major city lies downstream. Taking out other dams on big rivers won't be this easy.

Much remains to complete the dam demolition dream. Sediment behind the dam walls must be considered. Other tolls on the Klamath's health such as timber cuts, farm diversions and human building should be weighed.

But an amazing change is suddenly attainable. The dams that have plagued a once-mighty salmon river may come down. A river's past could be restored.