The Green River Dams: strategies for protecting a watershed
Table of Contents
I.
Abstract
2.
II.
Introduction
3.
III.
Methods
5.
IV.
Discussion
6.
V.
Conclusions
10.
VI.
Acknowledgements
11.
VII. References
12.
1
Abstract
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed alterations to or removal of four dams on
the lower reaches of the Green River in Greenfield, Massachusetts, just above its confluence with the
Deerfield River and not far from the point where the Deerfield River flows into the Connecticut. The
two oldest dams, located in the most urban part of Greenfield, would be removed altogether. The two
other dams, a little further upriver, would have fish ladders installed, so as to open the river further to
spawning anadromous fish species. The fact that these proposals came from the Army Corps of
Engineers sparked both interest and optimism, since the Corps had for many years possessed a wellearned reputation for building dams with little or no attention paid to environmental consequences. In
this instance, by contrast, the major focus of the proposed project was environmental; for the dam
alterations/removals would protect and enhance the Green River sub-watershed and the Deerfield
River watershed and, by extrapolation, the much larger, regional watershed belonging to the great
Connecticut River, as it flows through five New England states to Long Island Sound.
The formal proposal in February, 2007 was followed by a series of steps initiated to elicit
public response to and support for the project. This was necessary in 2007, because an economic
downturn, major hurricane devastation, and huge government wartime outlays severely reduced federal
funds available for environmental projects. Local and State government might need to supply
substantial funding in this case, perhaps above the expected 35%, for the $2million dam removals and
alterations. Whether or not the projects would reach completion was therefore seen to be contingent
upon building extensive, broad-based public support. Environmental activists in Greenfield were
excited about watershed improvements expected to result from the proposed projects. Historic
preservationists, however, warned that one of the dams slated for removal might have historic value to
the community. Also, many citizens did not want local funds expended for the project under any
circumstances. Further study of project costs and funding sources was needed, as well as continued
careful analysis of the many overlapping issues already under consideration in this case.
2
Introduction
Human alterations to New England rivers and lakes have proceeded for as long
as humans have inhabited the meadows and forests of this temperate climatic zone. Even the Indian
tribes, who saw no Europeans until at least 1500, dammed streams and threw their refuse into ponds.
The European impact, though, when it came, was vastly more powerful than any activities of the
Algonquins, Pequots, or Abanakis. The European concept of land ownership mandated that each
farmer could install a water-powered mill for his grain or a sawmill for his timber, on a stream that ran
through his acreage. He was not concerned with the impeded flow upstream or the polluting sediment
that ran downstream. As a result, most of the river systems in New England, including the Connecticut
and its tributaries, are heavily impacted by dozens of dams, small and large, old and new. One assessment counts a total of 2,722 dams in the watershed. [Lutz, K. presentation. 2007] Some of these use
the power of moving water to generate electricity for communities. Some have been erected specifically for flood control. Many were built in a bygone era to run sawmills or grain mills. Every dam, no
matter how small, interrupts the free flow of a river and the important natural forces that the river
imposes on the land and on fish, mammal, and invertebrate species that live in it or near it. Today,
organizations like The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, and the Massachusetts Audubon Society
are working in New England to clean the water carried in the region’s rivers and to persuade citizens of
the importance of unimpeded flow in rivers and streams and of unfragmented habitat for the species
that live in the rivers. Even the early farmers and landowners were happy consumers of the wealth of
anadromous fish that inhabited these waters three centuries ago. The many dams mean that most
tributaries and major river systems in the northeast no longer host these species, the major two being
the American shad Alosa sapidissima and the Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. Although small populations can be established by stocking, there are few locations where the shad or salmon can live as they
did earlier; spawning in fresh water, maturing, swimming to the sea to mature further, then returning to
their rivers of origin, swimming upstream to spawn again. The U.S. Army Corps has joined the ranks
3
of organizations now working to return river courses to this time-honored function; that is, hosting the
life cycles of important fish species.
The best strategy for repairing a damaged river habitat is to completely remove dams or
obstructions of any type. [Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. 2007] An alternative, if
a dam is needed for power generation or flood control, is to install a fish ladder or fish lift, so that
migrating species can still travel upstream. Some species adapt to these structures better than others,
but installing a fish ladder is certainly better than doing nothing, if a dam cannot be removed. [Barry, T.
and B. Kynard. 1986] The mechanism works as returning fish gather at the base of the dam, then enter
the chambers of the ladder or lift and are carried to the top, where they are released into the river to
continue their journey upstream. The reverse direction is not a problem, as migrating fish are adept at
leaping into plunging waterfalls, if necessary, so as to make their way downstream. Man-made or
naturally constructed, the obstruction does not present a problem on the “outbound” trip.
Fig. 1 schematic rendering of a fish lift
http://www.shwpc.com/fishlifts.html
4
Not only do healthy populations of migrating fish species make rivers more enjoyable for sport fishing,
but they function as keystone species in the river ecosystems. That is, as they become established, they
perform top-down overhauls of a river habitat, making it healthier for many other species at lower
trophic levels. Thus, the Army Corps of Engineers and many other organizations assess the general
ecological health of a river in the northeast by the presence or absence of anadromous fish populations.
Methods
This study of the Green River grew out of an attempt to focus on one small component
of the larger Connecticut River watershed. Since the river itself is small – only about 30 river miles
from its source area in south central Vermont to its confluence with the Deerfield River – and is also
relatively clean, an isolated study could be made of its response to proposed efforts to reduce the
impact of dams along its course. There would be no preliminary, massive cleanup needed, no requirement to bring the river to some minimal standard of ecological health, before attempting to reestablish
its former free flowing ways. Indeed, for a group such as the Army Corps of Engineers, seeking a river
in the Connecticut watershed in which to propose dam removal and alteration, the Green River provides a classic example of “low-hanging fruit”. It is a site where good results of such a strategy could
be expected, without the need to first perform large-scale improvements to the river’s water quality.
I examined the background study made by the Army Corps, prior to issuing its proposal, and
the proposal itself. I spoke with two individuals in the New England Regional Office of the Corps,
located in Concord, Massachusetts. In the local area, I spoke with 3 activists, the mayor of Greenfield,
and a state water quality specialist. When I learned of an effort being jointly undertaken by the state
and the town of Greenfield to make the Green River a more visible presence in town life, I attended a
charrette – a prolonged discussion session, held over a two-day period, and attended by about 50 interested people, including several with whom I had already spoken. This “brainstorming” process,
facilitated by a small team imported from the Boston area, was intended to produce some concrete
5
proposals for river uses within the town boundaries, that would be both feasible and, it was hoped,
widely popular with citizens. I found it fascinating that these two processes, consideration of the dam
proposals and future-planning for the river, were running concurrently in Greenfield. The fact that
these separate efforts are proceeding apace may bode well for the ultimate success of both endeavors.
I hoped to answer the question: once the need for environmental re-engineering or restoring of
a watershed component such as the Green River is established, to what extent is cost a predictor or a
determinant of whether or not the project proceeds? The Army Corps included relative costing out of
alternatives in their background study, but they used the method to select what they considered to be
the most cost-effective combination of projects to propose. They did not use economic analysis to
predict whether or not the project they ultimately proposed could be undertaken and completed.
Discussion The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers did extensive research on the Deerfield River
watershed and the Green River sub-watershed, before selecting four dams for removal/alteration.
Their proposal [see appendix] meticulously spelled out their conclusions. Starting at the farthest
down-river point, the old Wiley & Russell, or G T D Dam was in poor condition and was not currently
in use. It was a logical candidate for removal. The Mill Street Dam, a short distance further upstream,
was in better condition, but was also not being used. It, too, should be removed. The so-called
“Swimming Pool” Dam was used extensively by local people for recreational purposes in summer. It
seemed a good location for installation of a fish ladder. This was also the case for the Pumping Station
Dam, located upriver, about 9 miles north of the Wiley & Russell Dam. The Army Corps proposal
made a good environmental case for these actions, noting that once the work was completed, the river
would accommodate fish migration along its full length. Carrie Banks, a water specialist, who works
for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and also, in an advisory capacity, for several local conservation organizations, noted that she considered the provisions included in the proposal as BMP – best
6
[environmental] management practices – for the watershed as a whole. She was guardedly optimistic
as to whether the projects would be completed very soon, however, with cost a major obstacle.
Fig. 2 The Wiley & Russell Dam (sometimes called the G T D Dam)
7
M. Wadleigh 2007
The two-day charrette was held in the cafeteria of Greenfield Middle School. The turnout of about 50
must have been heartening to those who were eager to rehabilitate the Green River that flowed right
through town, but was more or less neglected by its citizens. More than one attendee commented that
for years, citizens literally “turned their backs” to the river. Buildings faced away from it and storm
water ran over parking lots and spilled into it, with little or no provision of permeable surfaces that
would allow the water to at least be partially filtered by soil, before washing oil and other pollutants
into the flow. Even though the water in the town stretch of the Green River was not severely polluted,
changes were needed, everyone agreed.
Teams were drawn up by the charrette facilitators and participants brainstormed for an hour,
coming up with projects that would involve in-town residents more with the river. Proposals included
restaurants, with outdoor dining areas looking over the river, kayak and canoe launching and take-out
points, improved signage along the banks that would, in effect, mark a walking trail, alerting hikers to
the variety of wildlife seen regularly along the route of the walk. Perhaps the most creative proposal
was for a small whitewater park – the creation of artificial rapids at the sites where the dam removal
was slated to occur. Reference was made to reports that creation of such parks in the West was
thought to assist in the creation of pools and aeration, both of which created improved fish habitat.
[McGrath, C. 2003] At the end of the 2nd day, a huge plan drawing of the river’s course was decorated
with sketches of the activities proposed for various sites along its banks. Participants were cautioned
to treat the proposed dam removals and alterations as just that – proposals – and to think of projects
that could be launched, whether or not the dams were still in place. Most participants, though,
admitted that they saw the likelihood of positive change in the river resulting from removal of the two
in-town dams. Results of the charrette were scheduled to be published on the facilitators’ website in
June. It was expected that the recommendations included therein would be publicized in local media
and be discussed by various citizen organizations, before hoped-for proposals to bring them into being.
8
I found it difficult to locate peer-reviewed, scholarly literature linking standard economic
analytical methods to the sort of environmental projects outlined in the proposals made for the Green
River dams. References to agricultural projects, however, some with what would be considered an
environmental or resource conservation focus, were plentiful, especially in the Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation. One such article noted the importance of integrating environmental and economic data in assessing the long term value of conservation projects. [Lambert, et al. 2007] The databases discussed in this article were specifically aimed at agriculture. It might be possible, however, to
adapt them to river restoration.
I found the arguments of Thomas Prugh and co-authors more comprehensive in their approach
to this subject matter. [Prugh, T. et al. 1995] In their book, Natural Capital and Human Economic
Survival, they explain their unique valuation system for conservation of natural resources and other
environmentally advantageous practices in terms to be compared to traditional techniques of economic
analysis for policy initiatives, such as cost-benefit analysis. They propose that government at local,
state and federal levels apply “green labeling” to projects like the dam removals and alterations on the
Green River, in order to qualify for quicker or more comprehensive funding – or both. The authors
suggest many more intriguing ideas along this line, and most environmentally-concerned readers
would agree with many of their proposals, hoping that these would eventually come to be embodied in
national legislative initiatives.
The case of the proposals regarding the dams and concurrent river enhancement projects in
Greenfield involves a mostly local focus, however. It may not be necessary to wait for more
enlightened perspectives to be adopted in Washington or even in Boston, in order to see funding
solutions emerge. The key element is the response of the local people themselves. If enough of the
local citizens can be persuaded that the outcomes of the two projects will confer important advantages
to them as members of the community most affected by these outcomes, then they will wish to seek
9
out a combination of funding sources, such as those discussed in the American Rivers compendium of
information. [Paying for Dam Removal. 2000. American Rivers] Of course, there will be an important contribution to be made from local [City of Greenfield] funds. With dedicated research and creative initiative, though, adequate sources of funding may be found in a combination of other places,
such that Greenfield’s contribution won’t “break the budget” of this very small city, (pop. 18,000). In
other words, if the concepts introduced by Thomas Prugh and others, regarding the valuation of natural
capital/environmental value contained in a project or projects can be communicated to citizens in a
locality, these same citizens, newly determined, can make the projects come to fruition, by finding the
funds to pay for them.
Conclusions
I hope to see citizen agreement with the proposals formulated by the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, regarding the Green River in Massachusetts. Similarly, I hope that federal funds
can be secured to meet the expected 65% of costs of the project and that local or private funds will be
successfully voted, or obtained by other means, to meet the project’s costs. I think that these steps will
be taken, by an informed and enthused citizenry, motivated by the potential benefits of a more freelyflowing river in their midst, a river whose benefits have become more tangible to a wider audience,
due to enhancement projects planned in and near the town. I think that the dam removal/alteration projects may well begin within one year and be completed within two years of their initiation. The riverfront enhancement may take more time, but I would expect to see it taking shape within 5 years.
10
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my appreciation for contributions of information given to me by:
Carrie Banks of Mass Riverways
Kim Lutz of The Nature Conservancy’s Connecticut River Office
11
References
1.
American Rivers’ Paying for Dam Removal. 2000.
http://www.americanrivers.org/site/DocServer/PayingforDamRemoval.pdf?docID=223
2.
Barry, T. & B. Kynard. 1986. The attraction of American shad to fish lifts at the Holyoke Dam.
Journal of American Fisheries Management. Vol. 6, Number 2. [April, 1986] pp. 233-241
3.
Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment.
http://restoration.gulfofmaine.org/projectplanning/anadromousfishhabitat.php
4.
Lambert, D., G.D. Schaible, R. Johansson and U. Vasavada. 2007. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation. Volume 62. Number 1. p. 10
5.
Lutz, K. 2007. The Nature Conservancy Connecticut River Office. presentation-Smith College
6.
McGrath, C. 2003. Report for Recreational Engineering and Planning, Inc. Boulder, CO.
http://www.wwparks.com/web%20fish%20report.pdf
7.
Prugh, T., R. Costanza, J.H.Cumberland, H. Daly, R. Goodland, and R.B. Norgaard. 1995.
Natural Capitol and Human Economic Survival. International Society for Ecological Economics. Solomons, MD. pages 109-126
8.
Interviews with Dave Larsen and Larry Oliver
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District Office, Concord, Massachusetts
9.
Interviews with Carrie Banks, Mass Riverways
10.
Interview with Mayor Christine Forgey, Greenfield, Massachusetts
11.
Interview with David Boles, Friends of the Deerfield River
12