This report presents the results of an economic study of the Clyde River performed by the University of Vermont (UVM) and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF). The purpose of this study was to determine the economic value that households across Vermont attribute to removal of the Newport No. 11 Diversion Dam an its generator and restoration of landlocked Atlantic salmon and other fish to the Clyde River. A first study, published on May 17, 1996, looked at the economic value of removal for households in Orleans County only. The Orleans County report was released before the completion of this statewide report in order to provide the Vermont natural Resource Council (VNRC) some analysis on the value of removing the Newport No. 11 Diversion Dam and the powerstation as soon as the information became available. This is the final and complete report containing both the Orleans County and statewide analyses.
This report presents nearly 500 water value estimates for four withdrawal uses (domestic, irrigation, industrial processing, and thermoelectric power generation) and four instream uses (hydropower, recreation/fish and wildlife habitat, navigation, and waste disposal). The first section discusses important caveats for interpreting the data and the relevance of water values for achieving efficient use of the resource. Tables and graphs are used to summarize and help interpret the water-value data that have been converted to constant 1994 dollars. Section 3 presents the data by geographic region to illustrate how the values within a region vary among uses. Section 4 presents the data for individual water uses to illustrate how the values for specific uses vary within each of the 18water resources regions that comprise the conterminous United States. Information such as the location, year, and methodology used to derive each of the values are presented in the appendices along with each of the water value estimates. The data are organized by water resources region in Appendix B and by type of use in Appendix C.
Resources for the Future, 1616 P street, NW,, Washington, DC
The United States Department of Energy's Hydropower Program has recently completed a study of fish passage and protection mitigation practices at conventional hydroelectric projects. The study used 16 projects as case studies to provide detailed illustrations of mitigation practices, allowing a better understanding of the resource and economic requirements, and the ramifications of mitigation choices. The study also surveyed fish passage and protection mitigation practices at 1,825 hydroelectric plants regulated by FERC to determine the frequencies of occurrence, temporal trends and regional practices based on FERC regions. Facilities with upstream mitigation employed fish ladders (62% of facilities), trapping and hauling (11%), fish lifts (5%), and other methods (35%). Some facilities used multiple forms of mitigation, this accounts for the percentage total greater than 100%. Downstream mitigation is used in some form at 13% of the 1,825 sites studied. Mitigation costs varied greatly, depending on the size of the facility and extent of mitigation. Fish ladder capital costs rang from $1000- $34.6million with an average cost of $7.4million per fish ladder. The costs of fish passage and protection measures can have significant effects on the economics of a project. However, forecasting the need for fish passage mitigation is complicated due to many site-specific concerns. Specific mitigation needs are often met with specific technologies including fish lifts, trapping and hauling systems, or fish ladders. In any case, mitigation determinations should be made with an eye toward biological needs as well as economic feasibility.
American Rivers produced abstract
The two methods [FERC] now uses to evaluate the economic value of power from hydro projects have evolved through the years and generally conform to techniques set forth in the Principles and Standards, which the Water resources Council published as final rules in September 1980. Both methods attempt to quantify how an electric power system's future costs would differ with and without a proposed or existing hydro project. The two methods: 1. Simulated market price (often called marginal price, avoided cost, or incremental cost in the electric utility industry) 2. Cost of the most likely thermal alternative