Regional Dams Services Assessment Final Report
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
REGIONAL DAMS SERVICES ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT Massachusetts District Local Technical Assistance Fund December 2009 Developed by Pioneer Valley Planning Commission 60 Congress Street Springfield, MA 01004 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION SECTION 2: NEEDS ASSESSMENT The Dams Data Base Survey Services Needed by Municipalities Inspections Title Research Exploring Options for the Future Retrofitting dams for hydropower Dam removal and other options to be explored Public Outreach and Communication Other Services SECTION 3: DAMS OF HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR ATTENTION SECTION 4: CONCLUSIONS Help with Capital Costs The Need for Information SECTION 5: RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION 6: TABLES SECTION 7: APPENDIXES Appendix A: Survey cover letter and form Appendix B: Data base of Dams in the Pioneer Valley Region Appendix C: Maps of Dam Locations in the Pioneer Valley Region Appendix D: Concerns Registered and Services Requested by Municipalities Appendix E: Regional Services Invitation for Bids for Title Research SECTION 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Revisions to state dam safety regulations (302CMR 10.00‐10.16) currently being enforced by the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Office of Dam Safety significantly change the responsibilities of dam owners to register, inspect, and maintain dams in good operating condition. These requirements have brought with them increased financial burdens that are especially difficult where dams no longer provide a useful function, such as water supply or power generation. In addition, communities can face more significant costs if a dam should fail partially or catastrophically from neglect, including emergency evacuations and liability for loss of life and property. To address the costs associated with dams, the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) has been working with funding from the state legislature’s District Local Technical Assistance Fund, under a contract from the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, to assess the needs for services and to define a program for dams that will offer specific services to municipalities and where possible to private dam owners. Assessing needs and defining the program has entailed a survey of the region’s 43 communities and a prioritization of dams and services based on needs for services and hazard index ratings, which reflect potential level of threat to public safety. SECTION 2: NEEDS ASSESSMENT The Dams Data Base To begin this project, PVPC worked with a data base of information on dams provided by the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Office of Dam Safety in 2006.* The data base includes the following information: town where dam is located, identification code, dam name, hazard index rating, river system on which dam is located, owner of dam, dam length, dam height, last inspection, condition, and purpose of dam. PVPC updated this data base using information obtained on dams in the region during a predisaster mitigation planning process undertaken with many of the region’s communities. Updated information included dam name, hazard index rating, owner of dam, last inspection, and condition. PVPC also requested from the Office of Dam Safety a list of all dams for which a letter of non‐compliance had been sent. The Office of Dam Safety sends these letters to dam owners when they determine that there is a violation of dam safety regulations. This information was integrated into the data base as well. Using this updated information PVPC generated colored 11x17‐inch maps of dam locations for each municipality. The improved data base information and maps were included in the surveys sent to the region’s 43 communities for verification and further improvement. * On PVPC’s 5-18-09 request for more recent data on dams, DCR’s Office of Dam Safety indicated that this would require manual searches through the files and take several weeks and cost $1,700. Because PVPC had already updated some of the information through pre disaster mitigation planning with some communities, PVPC did not go through with the request to DCR. Dams Services Assessment Page 3 Survey PVPC’s survey of the region’s 43 municipalities included a request for verification of information on the dams data base, including dam location, name, hazard ranking, inspection status, and last reported condition. The survey also included a map of dam locations and an application to be submitted by communities indicating their concerns and need for services. Please see Appendix A for cover letter and application form for services that was sent to communities. In some cases management of municipal dams falls to one individual within the community. In other cases, particularly where dams provide water supply functions, responsibility for dams falls to two different individuals. For example, in Springfield, which has some 23 dams in its portfolio, responsibility falls to two different departments. The Springfield Water and Sewer Commission oversees water supply dams, and the Department of Parks, Buildings and Recreation Management oversees all other dams. So in several of the larger communities, PVPC worked to make contact with more than one individual. PVPC received written survey responses from 20 communities and followed up with these and 15 other communities through phone interviews. These 35 communities are as follows: Agawam Ludlow Belchertown Middlefield Blandford Montgomery Chester Northampton Chesterfield Palmer Chicopee Pelham East Longmeadow Plainfield Goshen Russell Granby South Hadley Granville Southampton Hadley Southwick Hampden Springfield Hatfield Ware Holland Westfield Holyoke Westhampton Huntington Wilbraham Longmeadow Williamsburg Worthington Eight communities did not respond despite several follow up phone calls. In one of these communities, Monson, officials indicated that the responsibility of dams falls to the office of the building inspector who is also the flood control administrator. The position is currently vacant so there was no one available to provide information. Based on the responses received from 35 communities, PVPC made many corrections to the dams data base and to the maps showing dam locations. The updated data base for Pioneer Valley dams and the maps are included as Appendix B and C respectively. Dams Services Assessment Page 4 Services Needed by Municipalities Through the survey application, municipalities registered concerns on 62 dams in the region and indicated a need for services on 57 of these dams, 35 of which are publicly owned. Of these 62 dams, 15 have hazard index ratings of high, 17 are significant, and 15 are low.1 The remaining dams are identified by the Office of Dam Safety as unknown hazard index or non jurisdictional due to size (these are dams not in excess of 6 feet in height regardless of storage capacity, and not in excess of 15 acre feet of storage capacity regardless of height). Please see Appendix D for spreadsheet of concerns registered and services requested. The need for services varies from community to community, from dam inspections to help with managing beaver activity in and around dams. Requested services are described in more detail below. Inspections Many municipalities seem to have adjusted well to the revised Office of Dam Safety state inspection requirements instituted in 2005 and are budgeting accordingly in order to meet the inspection schedules for the dams in their portfolios. Water supply dams maintained by water departments seem to receive particularly good attention with regard to inspections and maintenance. Nevertheless, municipalities indicated the need for Phase 1 inspection services on 18 dams, 10 of which are publicly owned. See Table 1 in Section 6 of this report for list of these inspection needs. Some of these dams have regularly scheduled Phase 1 inspections coming due and municipalities are looking for ways to cut costs on these. Phase 1 inspections are visual inspections to determine whether or not a dam is meeting dam safety standards. The Office of Dam Safety has a template and checklist for reporting on these types of inspections. Municipalities also indicated a need for funding for Phase 2 inspection services on five dams, three of which are publicly owned. See Table 2 in Section 6 of this report. Phase 2 inspections are much more involved engineering inspections than Phase 1 inspections and can cost upwards of $50,000. Because of the detailed site specific engineering work required on such projects, economies of scale are not likely to be achieved by regionalizing services on these inspections. 1 Hazard index ratings for Massachusetts are defined as follows: High Hazard Potential dam refers to dams located where failure will likely cause loss of life and serious damage to home(s), industrial or commercial facilities, important public utilities, main highway(s) or railroad(s). Significant Hazard Potential dam refers to dams located where failure may cause loss of life and damage home(s), industrial or commercial facilities, secondary highway(s) or railroad(s) or cause interruption of use or service of relatively important facilities. Low Hazard Potential dam refers to dams located where failure may cause minimal property damage to others. Loss of life is not expected. Dams Services Assessment Page 5 Title Research There are at least four dams in the region for which the Department of Conservation and Recreation has identified owners who dispute their ownership of the dam. Three of these ownership disputes involve municipalities. See Table 3 on Title Research