Edited by Jerome V. De Graff and James E. Evans

Reviews in Engineering Geology Volume XXI

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/chapter-pdf/3743363/9780813758213_frontmatter.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 The Challenges of Dam Removal and River Restoration

edited by

Jerome V. De Graff U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Clovis, California 93611 USA

James E. Evans Department of Geology 190 Overman Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 USA

Reviews in Engineering Geology XXI 3300 Penrose Place, P.O. Box 9140 Boulder, Colorado 80301-9140, USA 2013

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/chapter-pdf/3743363/9780813758213_frontmatter.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 Copyright © 2013, The Geological Society of America (GSA), Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright is not claimed on content prepared wholly by U.S. government employees within the scope of their employment. Individual scientists are hereby granted permission, without fees or further requests to GSA, to use a single figure, a single table, and/or a brief paragraph of text in other subsequent works and to make unlimited photocopies of items in this volume for noncommercial use in classrooms to further education and science. Permission is also granted to authors to post the abstracts only of their articles on their own or their organization’s Web site providing the posting cites the GSA publication in which the material appears and the citation includes the address line: “Geological Society of America, P.O. Box 9140, Boulder, CO 80301-9140, USA (http://www.geosociety.org),” and also providing the abstract as posted is identical to that which appears in the GSA publication. In addition, an author has the right to use his or her article or a portion of the article in a thesis or dissertation without requesting permission from GSA, provided the bibliographic citation and the GSA copyright credit line are given on the appropriate pages. For any other form of capture, reproduction, and/or distribution of any item in this volume by any means, contact Permissions, GSA, 3300 Penrose Place, P.O. Box 9140, Boulder, Colorado 80301-9140, USA; fax +1-303-357-1073; [email protected]. GSA provides this and other forums for the presentation of diverse opinions and positions by scientists worldwide, regardless of their race, citizenship, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or political viewpoint. Opinions presented in this publication do not reflect official positions of the Society.

Published by The Geological Society of America, Inc. 3300 Penrose Place, P.O. Box 9140, Boulder, Colorado 80301-9140, USA www.geosociety.org

Printed in U.S.A.

GSA Reviews in Engineering Geology Series Editor: Syed E. Hasan

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The challenges of dam removal and river restoration / edited by Jerome V. De Graff, James E. Evans. p. cm. — (Reviews in engineering geology ; 21) Includes bibliographical references. Summary: “River restoration is a societal goal in the United States. This collection of research articles focuses on our current understanding of the impacts of removing dams and the role of dam removal in the larger context of river restoration. The papers are grouped by topic: (1) assessment of existing dams, strategies to determine impounded legacy sediments, and evaluating whether or not to remove the dam; (2) case studies of the hydrologic, sediment, and ecosystem impacts of recent dam removals; (3) assessment of river restoration by modifying flows or removing dams; and (4) the concept of river restoration in the context of historical changes in river systems”—Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-0-8137-4121-5 (pbk.) 1. Stream restoration—United States. 2. Dam retirement—United States. I. De Graff, Jerome V. II. Evans, James E. (James Erwin), 1954– III. Series: Reviews in engineering geology ; v. 21. TA705.C45 2013 627′.12—dc23 2012038995

Cover: Looking upstream through the breach of the IVEX dam (Chagrin River, Ohio), which failed in 1994 because of seepage piping failure. In the background is the reservoir fill that accumulated between 1842 and 1994. The breach was at the contact of the earthen dam (to the right) and the masonry spillway, still standing to the left. An earlier seepage piping failure repair can be observed on the left. The dam failure was a combination of 86% loss of storage capacity due to sedimentation, lack of a hydraulically designed spillway, lack of an emergency spillway, and poor maintenance (trees were allowed to grow on the dam itself). This is a common scenario for thousands of older dams in the United States. Photograph from 15 August 1994 appears courtesy of James E. Evans.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/chapter-pdf/3743363/9780813758213_frontmatter.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 Contents

Foreword ...... v

Preface ...... vii

1. Dam removal: A history of decision points ...... 1 Laura Wildman

2. Engineering considerations for large dam removals ...... 11 Thomas E. Hepler

3. Assessing sedimentation issues within aging flood-control reservoirs ...... 25 Sean J. Bennett, John A. Dunbar, Fred E. Rhoton, Peter M. Allen, Jerry M. Bigham, Gregg R. Davidson, and Daniel G. Wren

4. Using ground-penetrating radar to determine the quantity of sediment stored behind the Merrimack Village Dam, Souhegan River, New Hampshire...... 45 David J. Santaniello, Noah P. Snyder, and Allen M. Gontz

5. Prediction of sediment erosion after dam removal using a one-dimensional model ...... 59 Blair Greimann

6. Sediment management at small dam removal sites ...... 67 James G. MacBroom and Roy Schiff

7. Multiyear assessment of the sedimentological impacts of the removal of the Munroe Falls Dam on the middle Cuyahoga River, Ohio ...... 81 John A. Peck and Nicholas R. Kasper

8. Sediment impacts from the Savage Rapids Dam removal, Rogue River, Oregon ...... 93 Jennifer A. Bountry, Yong G. Lai, and Timothy J. Randle

9. Changes in biotic and habitat indices in response to dam removals in Ohio ...... 105 Kenneth A. Krieger and Bill Zawiski

10. Using airborne remote-sensing imagery to assess flow releases from a dam in order to maximize renaturalization of a regulated gravel-bed river ...... 117 M.S. Lorang, F.R. Hauer, D.C. Whited, and P.L. Matson

11. Assessing stream restoration potential of recreational enhancements on an urban stream, Springfield, Ohio ...... 133 John Ritter, Kelly Shaw, Aaron Evelsizor, Katherine Minter, Chad Rigsby, and Kristen Shearer

iii

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/chapter-pdf/3743363/9780813758213_frontmatter.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 iv Contents

12. Effects of multiple small stock-pond dams in a coastal watershed in central California: Implications for removing small dams for restoration ...... 149 J.L. Florsheim, A. Chin, and A. Nichols

13. The shortcomings of “passive” urban river restoration after low-head dam removal, Ottawa River (northwestern Ohio, USA): What the sedimentary record can teach us ...... 161 J.E. Evans, N. Harris, and L.D. Webb

14. The rise and fall of Mid-Atlantic streams: Millpond sedimentation, milldam breaching, channel incision, and stream bank erosion ...... 183 Dorothy Merritts, Robert Walter, Michael Rahnis, Scott Cox, Jeffrey Hartranft, Chris Scheid, Noel Potter, Matthew Jenschke, Austin Reed, Derek Matuszewski, Laura Kratz, Lauren Manion, Andrea Shilling, and Katherine Datin

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/chapter-pdf/3743363/9780813758213_frontmatter.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 Foreword

This is the fi rst volume in the Reviews in Engineering Geology series that has been prepared under the aegis of the Environmental and Engineering Geology Division, which in 2011, updated its 64-year-old name—the Engineering Geology Division—to better refl ect the profession’s growing involvement in protec- tion and preservation of the Earth’s environment. While engineering geologists have been providing indispensable contributions to site selection, design, construction, and maintenance of civil engineering structures for more than a century, the ever-increasing engagement of engineering geologists in environmental projects for the past several decades led to the addition of the word “environmental” to the division’s name. It is quite a coincidence that this Reviews in Engineering Geology volume titled The Challenges of Dam Removal and River Restoration highlights the expanded scope of our profession in the evolving fi eld of dam removal for ecological restoration. Several contributions in this volume are state-of-the-art papers that out- line the key geologic and hydrologic considerations that should form the basis for site investigations; they set the standard of operation for projects related to dam removal and river restoration. The system approach to the study of Earth emphasizes the role of the biosphere in maintenance of environmental quality. This volume can also be considered “a fi rst” in the sense that it marks the close collabora- tion of geologists with biologists in determining the most suitable method of dam removal aimed at optimal restoration of the fl uvial ecosystem. Papers by Krieger and Zawiski (Chapter 9) and Florsheim et al. (Chapter 12) highlight the collective input of earth and life science professionals in arriving at workable solutions to the complex issue of restoration of the fl uvial ecosystem. These papers underscore the fact that the “living component” of the environment is a major factor in successful dam removal and restoration efforts. I would like to take this opportunity to extend our appreciation to my predecessor, Dr. Charles W. Welby, who served as the Division’s Publication Committee chair for many years and was responsible for prepara- tion of several volumes in the Reviews in Engineering Geology series.

Syed E. Hasan Chair, Publications Committee Environmental and Engineering Geology Division Department of Geosciences, University of Missouri–Kansas City Kansas City, Missouri 64110-2499, USA

June 2012

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/chapter-pdf/3743363/9780813758213_frontmatter.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 Preface

As the manuscripts for this volume were about to be submitted for publication, U.S. Bureau of Recla- mation workers turned off the generators at the Elwha Dam in Washington State. This is the fi rst concrete step in removing both the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams and beginning restoration of the Elwha River on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula (http://www.nps.gov/olym/naturescience/elwha-ecosystem-restoration .htm, accessed 10 December 2012). It seems fi tting that publication of this volume and the actual start of restoration on the Elwha River should coincide. The idea for this volume was sparked by a session at the 2005 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting in which several papers pertaining to dam removal and restoration of the Elwha River were prominently featured. As a Geological Society of America publication series sponsored by the Engineering Geology Division, Reviews in Engineering Geology might seem an unlikely venue for a collection of papers on dam removal and river restoration. This perception has more to do with the past association of engineering geology with dam building and other civil engineering efforts. In recent decades, engineering geology practice is increas- ingly involved with a broad range of applied geology topics. The Engineering Geology Division (EGD) of the Geological Society of America, the oldest Division in the Society, changed its name in 2011 to the Environmental and Engineering Geology Division. This is to better refl ect the state of current practice in our fi eld. This volume displays some of the diversity within engineering geology practice as well as interaction with other geologic specialties that share a common interest in the fl uvial environment. It would be easy for people who are only familiar with dam removal and river restoration from the popu- lar media perspective to see these issues as a new controversy arising from environmental concerns. The fi rst paper in the volume, “Dam removal: A history of decision points” by Laura Wildman, convincingly dem- onstrates that controversy over dam removal and construction has a very long history in the United States. While contemporary dam removal controversies tend to involve large dams, many of the arguments for and against dam removal were part of the early controversies involving small dams. “Engineering considerations for large dam removals” by Thomas Hepler explores the unique aspects of removing large dams. Having broadly set the scene for dam removal and related fl uvial issues, four papers examine various aspects of dealing with a primary issue, sedimentation. “Assessing sedimentation issues within aging fl ood- control reservoirs” by Sean Bennett and others speaks to a primary concern in the decision to remove a dam. The amount of sediment available in the reservoir and its ultimate fate within the downstream environment once released is both a complex and important consideration. Determining the quantity of sediment present is essential to predicting sediment impacts. “Using ground-penetrating radar to determine the quantity of sediment stored behind the Merrimack Village Dam, Souhegan River, New Hampshire” by David Santaniello and others illustrates how a fairly new geophysical technique can be employed to improve estimates of available sediment. Blair Greimann in his paper, “Predictions of sediment erosion after dam removal using a one- dimensional model,” describes how modeling can yield insights into expected sediment movement. Such analytical forecasting of post-removal sediment transport enables better identifi cation of where monitoring and mitigation measures should be placed well before the actual dam removal. While Greimann’s paper offers insights for large dam removals contemplated in the future, James MacBroom and Roy Schiff’s paper “Sediment management at small dam removal sites” uses the experience gained from removal of many small dams to suggest a procedure to evaluate and select sediment management strategies. It describes a practical approach to this key design issue. Four case studies from Ohio, Oregon, and Idaho explore actual dam removals and document the sedimentological impacts associated with them. Sediment impacts are at the heart of John Peck and Nicholas Kasper’s paper, “Multiyear assessment of the sedimentological impacts of the removal of the Munroe Falls Dam on the Middle Cuyahoga River, Ohio” and Jennifer Bountry and others’ paper, “Sediment impacts from

vii

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/chapter-pdf/3743363/9780813758213_frontmatter.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 viii Preface

the Savage Rapids Dam removal, Rogue River, Oregon.” Both papers offer unique perspectives given dif- ferences in geographic locations, dam size, and number of years of observation. Kenneth Krieger and Bill Zawiski examine indirect measures suitable for determining the biological consequences of sediment after dam removal in their paper entitled “Changes in biotic and habitat indices in response to dam removals in Ohio.” Their study links the physical transport of sediment following dam removal to its impact on aquatic species. M.S. Lorang and others examine the broad physical changes in channels using remote sensing and geographical information systems data in their paper to assess fl ow releases from a dam in order to maximize renaturalization of a regulated gravel-bed river. Their insights into fl ows and natural channel conditions are benefi cial to successful dam removal and general river restoration. The last four papers in this volume take a broader view of both dam removal and river restoration. John Ritter and others in their paper entitled “Assessing stream restoration potential of recreational enhancements on an urban stream, Springfi eld, Ohio” take a look at how river restoration can improve or degrade post-removal recreational uses. They highlight the importance of stream grade in the design of instream recreational features. “Effects of multiple small stock-pond dams in a coastal watershed in central Califor- nia: Implications for removing small dams for restoration” by J.L. Florsheim and others emphasizes the importance of basin-scale management approaches in watersheds with a high density of small dams. They highlight the importance of re-establishing connectivity within the watershed under any restoration strategy being considered. J.E. Evans and others in their paper, “The shortcomings of ‘passive’ urban river restoration after low-head dam removal, Ottawa River (northwestern Ohio, U.S.A.): What the sedimentary record can teach us,” demonstrate that the truism, “let nature takes its course” is not a good guide for river restoration in an urban river setting. Understanding the river’s fl ow regime prior to alteration as well as current conditions allows a more desirable restoration outcome that requires some level of “active” restoration for a river within an urban setting. The last contribution returns the volume to where it started on the eastern seaboard of the United States with its long history of small dams. Dorothy Merritts and others examine the erosion in streams resulting from breached millpond dams in their paper entitled “The rise and fall of Mid-Atlantic streams: Millpond sedimentation, milldam breaching, channel incision, and stream bank erosion.” While the study looks specifi cally at incision of streams and resulting sedimentation in southeastern Pennsylvania impacting Chesapeake Bay, the study results have relevance to watersheds in New York, Maryland, and Virginia. For engineering geologists, this volume explores aspects of traditional practices related to dam construction, geophysical exploration methods, and modeling as well as current practices focused on sediment management, “passive” versus “active” restoration measures, and regulation by fl ow releases. There should also be a signifi cant amount of material of equal interest to fl uvial geomorphologists and other geologic practitioners. Finally, these papers collectively illustrate that construction, modifi cation, and removal of dams represent a continuum of overlapping human interactions with the environment. The longevity of most dams, and the magnitude of the hydrological and sedimentological response to these human interactions with the environment, make these case studies outstanding examples of the concept of humans as geological agents.

Jerome V. De Graff James E. Evans

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/chapter-pdf/3743363/9780813758213_frontmatter.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021