Ryan Miamis
Intro to GIS - Final Paper
7 May 2013
Potential Mini-Hydroelectric Development
At Existing Dams in Massachusetts
Introduction
Massachusetts recently passed legislation to fund the decommissioning of dams which
no longer serve their original purpose. The Massachusetts Division on Ecological Restoration
(DER) is currently developing a GIS-based analytical framework to prioritize dam removal based
on environmental degradation. Whereas DER is interested in finding out which dams should be
removed, I am interesting in looking at which dams should be preserved for their hydroelectric
potential. My project will use GIS to explore the potential for hydroelectric development in
existing dam facilities in Massachusetts. What makes a dam suitable to hydroelectric
retrofitting? I will be using a specific set of criteria to rank dams in terms up suitability for
power development. I have incorporated energy potential, environmental factors, cultural
resources, and potential regulatory barriers into my analysis.
Data
Date Set Name
Dams
Source
MassGIS
URL
Transmission Lines
MassGIS
vector
Anadromous Fish
MassGIS
http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-andsupport/application-serv/office-of-geographicinformation-massgis/datalayers/layerlist.html
http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-andsupport/application-serv/office-of-geographicinformation-massgis/datalayers/layerlist.html
Open Space
MassGIS
vector
MHC Historic
Inventory
MassGIS
http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-andsupport/application-serv/office-of-geographicinformation-massgis/datalayers/osp.html
http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-andsupport/application-serv/office-of-geographicinformation-massgis/datalayers/layerlist.html
Census 2010 Roads
MassGIS
vector
Hydrology
MassGIS
http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-andsupport/application-serv/office-of-geographicinformation-massgis/datalayers/census2010.html
http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-andsupport/application-serv/office-of-geographicinformation-massgis/datalayers/layerlist.html
Ocean Mask
MassGIS
http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-andsupport/application-serv/office-of-geographicinformation-massgis/datalayers/ocean.html
vector
Digital Elevation
Model
MassGIS
Retrieved from S drive
http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-andsupport/application-serv/office-of-geographic-
raster
http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-andsupport/application-serv/office-of-geographicinformation-massgis/datalayers/layerlist.html
Format
vector
vector
vector
vector
Year
Last
updated:
2012
2007
Last
Updated:
2010
2013
Last
Updated:
2012
2010
Last
Updated:
2013
Last
Updated:
2008
Last
updated:
information-massgis/datalayers/imgelev5k.html
2005
*Most of the datalayers are relatively static by nature so the “year in which the data
represents” is not applicable.
Data Preparation and Analysis
All of my data is from the MassGIS datalayers source and is already clipped to Massachusetts
and projected onto AD_1983_StatePlane_Massachusetts_Mainland_FIPS_2001.
To determine if a dam’s potential for hydroelectric retrofitting, I developed two screenings,
elimination and ranking phases, for dam assessment. In the first screening, dams were
eliminated from my analysis based on multiple criteria. Dams under Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) were removed because they are already producing hydroelectric power.
Additionally, dams with no jurisdiction were removed as these structures are typically less than
6 feet in height and have poor potential for power development. Next, I eliminated dams that
were in areas with strict development regulations. Any dam in protected open space and
preservation land was removed. Using cultural resource data from the Massachusetts Historical
Commission, I eliminated historical dams and dams in historical districts. The last elimination
criterion is tidal dams and dams in coastal regions. There were two reasons for this: (1) tidal
power development should be evaluated separately form mini-hydroelectric power and (2) the
Massachusetts coastal region is a significant cultural and environmental area where resources
such as river spawning fish habitats are targeted for restoration. This process eliminated twothirds of Massachusetts’s 3000 dams.
With about 900 dams remaining in my analysis, I developed a second screening. This stage
ranked each dam’s suitability for mini-hydroelectric power development based on distances to
transmission lines and access roads and also slopes of the land at the dam site. A short distance
to transmission lines is important for getting electric power to the grid. A short distance to
roads is important for access to the dam for construction vehicles to construct the retrofit. A
higher slope does not necessarily equate to higher energy potential, however due to
insufficient data on dam size and potential capacity; slope was selected as the best available
criteria to judge energy potential. Attributes were ranked on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being most
suitable for development. Dams with the highest scores on each of the criteria will be
prioritized for mini-hydroelectric power development.
Key Steps


Dams - select out by attribute when regulatory authority = “FERC Jurisdiction” or “Nonjurisdictional/other”
Transmission Lines
o Select by attribute when code = “transmission lines” or “substation”







o Near tool – find distance of dams from transmission lines
 Rank distance: 100= greater than 8000m, 200=1000-8000m, 300= 2501000m, 400=less than 250m
Anadromous Fish
o Buffer tool- create 2km buffer
o Select out by location, dams in this buffer zone
Ocean Mask
o Buffer tool – create 10km buffer zone
o Select out by location, dams in this buffer zone
MHC Historic Inventory
o Find and Replace Tool – keyword search for “dam” and document
 Buffer tool – create 10m buffer around each historical“dam” point to
account for misplacement of dam layer and MHC layer
 Select out by location, dams that are located in the buffer zone
Open Space – select out by location, dams in these areas
Digital Elevation Model
o Slope Tool – create slope from elevation layer
o Extract Values to Points tool- snap slope values to dam points
o Rank slope: 1= less than 5 degrees, 2=5-15 degrees, 3=15-25 degrees, 4= greater
than 25 degrees
Census 2010 Roads
o Near tool – find distance of dams to nearest road
 Rank distance: 10= greater than 200m, 20=50-200m , 30=10-50m , 40=
less than 10m
Final Steps:
o Summed up slope, transmission lines distance, and road distance ranks
o No perfect scores
o Best scores were chosen arbitrarily to be 442 & 344 (3 dams total)
Results
The analysis concludes with the top prioritization of eight dams in the state. Furthermore, I
have identified thirty-three additional dam targets for mini-hydroelectric power retrofitting.
These dams are located out of strict regulatory and environmental sensitive areas. Dams and
their removal have become controversial. This analysis is intended to avoid the common
conflict points. Next steps for this analysis will be to conduct site visits to these dams to access
their condition and potential capacity. This will begin the process to determine the economic
feasibility of mini-hydro. The true potential of mini-hydro in Massachusetts will be evident
when combined with this additional data.
Relevant Literature

Hoenke, Kathleen (2012). A GIS Tool Prioritizing Dams for Removal within the State of
North Carolina. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from:
http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/5337/Hoenke%
20K %20MP%202012.pdf?sequence=1
This has been an extremely useful resource as I develop my project ideas and plan. I am
more or less following the same steps in this thesis to conduct my analysis. As the title suggests,
this thesis examines dam removal prioritization in North Carolina by using GIS. The author
basically developed a toolkit that I am following. She examines environmental and social
implications of dam removal which I have chosen to adapt along with energy considerations.
She suggests different strategies to weight the different criterion but I will choose my own. This
thesis has also help guide me to different resources and reassured me about some of the data
layers that I was already considering.

Meyer, Tanya, Provencher, Bill, and Sarakinos, Helen (2008). Does Small Dam Removal
Effect Affect Local Property Values? An Empirical Analysis. Contemporary
Economic Policy 26(2): 187-197.
I’m noticing that Helen Sarakinos is some sort of dam removal expert in the Mid-West as
she is involved in a few of the literature that I have come across. This study looked at
property values over time at three different areas: (1) where a dam was removed, (2) where
a dam remains intact, and (3) where a river has been flowing unimpeded for 20 years. The
study concludes that property values of waterfront plots do not increase as a result of dam
removal although non-waterfront properties near free-flowing waters show an increase in
value. This study has steered me away from adding land value and income demographics to
my analysis as originally considered in Assignment 1. My thinking was that dams in lowincome areas and areas in need of investment (i.e. abandoned/vacant plots, contaminated
parcels, etc.) should be considered a higher priority. This study has led me away from that
part of the analysis.

Wegener, Mark and Sarakinos, Helen (2005). Improving Selective Dam Removal in
Wisconsin. Retrieved from:
http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc05/papers/pap1550.pdf
Traditionally, dam removal was based on the ability to restore river ecosystems,
improve fish and wildlife populations, and increase recreational opportunities. This paper
examines how GIS can improve selectivity based on predicted ecological benefits of dam
removal. The authors provided spatial questions to consider and also some attributes to think
of. The questions are: Which rives have highest and lowest density of dams? Which dams affect
fisheries habitat? Which dams impact the habitat of species of concern? How much
connectivity restored with a given removal? Which removals will impact headwater areas?
Which removal will mitigate water quality problems? Which removals are on specially
designated rivers? The authors show how to consider these questions and which data layers to
use. The other attributes to consider include: ownership status, impoundment size, structure
size, purpose of dam, population around impoundment, and last inspection date. I intend on
using most of the recommendations in my analysis.

Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (2007). Dam Removal in
Massachusetts: A Basic Guide for Project Proponents. Retrieved from:
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/water/damremoval-guidance.pdf
This is a guide for dam removal in Massachusetts, from identifying potential dams to
community engagement and funding sources. This document is specific to Massachusetts so
it was particularly useful in thinking about the current situation in the state. Most of the
attributes that the guide proposes I had already thought of but there were a few that I
didn’t. For instance, I never considered dams to be used for road, rail, or other utility
crossings. This would ultimately eliminate or significantly decrease their priority for removal.
This guide offers a good overview of the initial reconnaissance but does not give specific GIS
instructions. However, I still consider it useful.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of the Army, and U.S. Department of
Energy (2007). Potential Hydroelectric Development at Existing Federal
Facilities. Retreved from:
http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/1834/Sec1834_EPA.pdf
This study was conducted in collaboration with three government agencies. The project
examined potential electric conversion at Federal dam facilities across the country. The study
was most useful in thinking about what criteria and data I might use to consider dams for
electric retrofitting. Among these metrics are stream flow, hydraulic head, and capacity as a
result of these attributes. The document also provided a list of screening attributes that would
eliminate possible sites for retrofit. These include: National Rivers, National Historic Areas, Wild
and Scenic Rivers, National Monuments, and Critical Habitat. This also gave me ideas about
where to search for more data.
Difficulties Encountered & Conclusion
I did not run into too many problems during my project, although I think that might be due to
the fact that I had reasonable expectations and tried to keep things simple. I found the online
resources, specifically the ArcGIS resources, to be almost completely useless. In order to be
able to find the right information you needed to know the tool you wanted to use. I wasn’t sure
which ones I needed so searching aimlessly using different keyword failed miserably.
Also, the lack of data was clearly an issue. I’m not very confident with my analysis of dam
retrofits. I needed to know the size of the dams and the water around it to understand the true
hydropower potential.
On a side note, the Switch Selection button/option was extremely helpful for me.