Prioritizing Dams at the State Level for Fish Passage Projects to Benefit Anadromous Fish

1. Prioritizing Dams at the State Level for Fish Passage Projects to Benefit Anadromous Fish Stephen Gephard1 Sally Harold2 1CTDEEP/Inland Fisheries Division, Old Lyme, CT 2TNC/Connecticut Chapter, New Haven, CT

2. While we’d like to do it all, we have to prioritize– limited resources and funders want to spend their money on the projects with the most bang for the buck.

3. Worked with representatives from 13 northeastern states (agency and NGO, and academic) • worked with existing dam databases • converted all data into one compatible GIS database. • analyzed 16 parameters to reflect value to anadromous fish Number of downstream barriers upstream dam density Upstream functional network size IS% in watershed Number of upstream size classes Number of road crossing status of anadromous fish habitat Number of hydro dams • analysis provided a score • Rather than ranking 1 – 13,000, dams were placed in 5% bins of priority Gephard & Harold. Prioritizing Dams. Salmon & Ecosystem Forum 2014

4. FINAL PRODUCT- RANKING OF 13,000+ DAMS IN 13 NORTHEASTERN STATES Gephard & Harold. Prioritizing Dams. Salmon & Ecosystem Forum 2014

5. FINAL PRODUCT- RANKING OF 13,000 DAMS IN 13 NORTHEASTERN STATES COLUMNS EXTEND OFF THE SCREEN TO THE RIGHT Gephard & Harold. Prioritizing Dams. Salmon & Ecosystem Forum 2014

6. But most work is done on a state-level… How are we going to use this tool to help us in OUR state? We developed an approach to customize/focus these data for CT dams. Steps: • Sort for just CT • Add dams we know about but were not in database • Go through new CT list and assign dams to 1 of 6 categories • 4. Site visits for more info– adjust assignment as needed • Score priority dams on additional criteria • Develop refined priority lists • Known priority for fish passage (dam removal or fishway) • More info needed • Does not exist • Has a fishway (may not preclude future removal) • Industrial (FERC hydro, Flood Control, Water Supply, etc.) • If none of the above- “low priority” Gephard & Harold. Prioritizing Dams. Salmon & Ecosystem Forum 2014

7. Step 1- sort NCAT list by State and delete all states but CT (in all subsequent slides, we have hidden most of the columns to improve readability) Gephard & Harold. Prioritizing Dams. Salmon & Ecosystem Forum 2014

8. Narrowing the Focus From 13,000+ dams in 13 states To 1,709 dams in 1 state Gephard & Harold. Prioritizing Dams. Salmon & Ecosystem Forum 2014

9. Step 2- Assign each dam to category. Color coded each, then sorted by color to create separate lists. • Priority for fish passage (dam removal or fishway) • More info needed • Does not exist • Has a fishway • Industrial (FERC hydro, Flood Control, Water Supply, etc.) Gephard & Harold. Prioritizing Dams. Salmon & Ecosystem Forum 2014

10. Step 3- Split out each category to a separate list. On this slide, Green= “DOES NOT EXIST”, Orange= “INDUSTRIAL”

11. Step 4- Refine individual lists. We focused on two of the lists: PRIORITY DAMS (N= 69)

12. And “MORE INFORMATION NEEDED”. N= 68 TASKS: • clear up confusion of dam name or location • determine if there are downstream barriers • inspect the dam to confirm it is a barrier • visit the stream to confirm there is significant valuable habitat Gephard & Harold. Prioritizing Dams. Salmon & Ecosystem Forum 2014

13. Step 5- Ground-truthing. Inspect dams (esp. “More Info Needed”) to be able to score dam. There is a need for standardized reporting form so different parties collect the same necessary information. We developed a field form to guide this. Page 1 of 2

14. Page 2 of 2 Gephard & Harold. Prioritizing Dams. Salmon & Ecosystem Forum 2014

15. Some dam visits can be easy… Gephard & Harold. Prioritizing Dams. Salmon & Ecosystem Forum 2014

16. …and some of them are not so easy to find or get to. Gephard & Harold. Prioritizing Dams. Salmon & Ecosystem Forum 2014

17. Sometimes you find that there is no dam where you thought there was… …and other times you find a dam where you didn’t think there was one. Or you find a natural falls that was marked as a dam. Gephard & Harold. Prioritizing Dams. Salmon & Ecosystem Forum 2014

18. Sometimes your high priority dam ends up having a previously unrecorded natural barrier (waterfall) below it. And therefore gets demoted to a low priority dam. Gephard & Harold. Prioritizing Dams. Salmon & Ecosystem Forum 2014

19. Step 6- Once all information is available, score the dams (esp. “High Priority”). Our work in CT focuses on benefit to anadromous fish and we wanted extra scoring criteria *strong, existing partnership, funding, interest above is moderate or limited discussions have begun, good potential, no contacts, discussions Gephard & Harold. Prioritizing Dams. Salmon & Ecosystem Forum 2014

20. Gephard & Harold. Prioritizing Dams. Salmon & Ecosystem Forum 2014

21. Gephard & Harold. Prioritizing Dams. Salmon & Ecosystem Forum 2014

22. Narrowing the Focus Again… from 1,709 dams to 69 dams, with an additional 68 (more info needed). Gephard & Harold. Prioritizing Dams. Salmon & Ecosystem Forum 2014

23. SUMMARY • Prioritized lists of targeted dams have limitations, but are increasingly requested. • Some standardization is desirable although each program may have its own approach. • Easier for small geographic areas than larger ones. • For CT, this exercise reduced a list of 13,000 dams to 1,709 dams to 69 dams. • Forces agencies and organizations to confront the status of their knowledge (or lack thereof). • Can help to generate action plans – ‘to do’ lists. Especially the “More Information Needed”. • Provides opportunities to engage other groups to help conduct initial dam assessments. • Can help direct attention and resources of agencies and their partners. • Can help secure funds by demonstrating the high value and thorough assessment of targeted dams.