Did you ever have a favorite place growing up that now, every time you drive by, it reminds you of your childhood? Whether it is a bridge, farm, a dam, or some other memorable landmark, there are historic structures and places across the country that have special significance to their communities.
Historic preservation laws were devised to protect cultural, archaeological, and architectural sites, structures, and landscapes that are significant to our heritage. While one generally envisions houses, cemeteries, and battlefields as having historic significance, other structures such as dams and bridges can be historically significant and may receive protection if their engineering is unique and/or they served an important role in local, state, or national history. Historic preservation and conservation organizations often partner on issues such as urban sprawl and smart growth, finding ways to simultaneously preserve our nation’s heritage and natural environment. As our nation’s infrastructure continues to age and we come to recognize its impact on the environment, river restoration projects can create opportunities for historic preservation and environmental restoration interests to work together.
In some cases, efforts to restore rivers involve proposals for removal of dams. A majority of dams were constructed prior to passage of both the National Historic Preservation Act (1966) and the National Environmental Policy Act (1969) and thus were built without the procedural safeguards now mandated by those statutes. Some of the dams that were once integral to our nation’s growth—providing power for grist mills and industrial cities, municipal drinking water, and electricity —no longer serve their intended purpose; costly repair may be needed to prevent their failure and ensure safety as these structures age. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, one-quarter of the nation’s dams are older than 50 years; that number will increase to 85 percent by the year 2020. Because of their deterioration and additional documentation on the detrimental effects dams have on river ecosystems, dam removal has become an increasingly pragmatic method for restoring natural river functions and eliminating unsafe infrastructure. Removing a dam can provide many benefits, such as allowing migratory fish species access to historic spawning grounds, improving water quality and the natural movement of sediment and other nutrients, and reestablishing the natural flow regime . However, restoring environmental balance to our nation’s rivers may affect historic structures and archaeological sites, triggering state and federal historic preservation laws, and interest in preserving a piece of local history, as well as providing an opportunity for historic discovery .
Dam Removal and Historic Preservation: Reconciling Dual Objectives was written because too often advocates for river restoration through dam removal find themselves in the middle of a project and at odds with potential partners over matters of historic preservation. Dam removal proponents need to better understand the processes established to protect historic values so they can work more effectively in partnership with historic preservation interests to establish and achieve mutual goals. While the historic fisheries that helped build this nation, from providing sustenance to Washington’s troops during the American Revolution to their role as a sacred species to many tribes, deserve recognition, it is also important to respect the role of the dam, and in some cases the impoundment, in building local communities and sometimes as the social center for a town. The primary audiences for this report are dam removal project managers such as state agencies, community leaders, watershed groups, consultants. It is also our hope that local historic preservation societies and associations will also find it useful. Furthermore, we hope that this document will help parties involved in such endeavors to build constructive relationships and successfully reconcile potentially competing objectives.
This report begins with a primer on Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the federal law that applies to many proposed dam removal projects. State and local historic preservation laws may also pertain to proposed dam removal projects. In most cases, state and local historic preservation laws parallel the federal law, and compliance with all levels of jurisdiction can be achieved in a single process.
The report also examines opportunities for historic preservation and environmental interests to participate in productive discussions about whether a proposed dam removal could adversely affect historic resources and, if so, work together to identify methods for avoiding, minimizing or mitigating the adverse effects of the dam removal project.
Finally, this report provides case studies of actual dam removal projects that have addressed historic issues (see Appendix A), and an overview of federal, state, and tribal historic preservation laws (see Appendix B). Whether you are a dam owner, community member, state or federal agency, historical society, an advocate for river restoration and/or historic preservation, this report provides you with important information about reconciling the dual objectives of dam removal and historic preservation and making the often difficult choices between compelling cases to restore rivers or retain historic value.
Our nation’s network of rivers, lakes, and streams originates from a myriad of small streams and wetlands, many so small they do not appear on any map. Yet these headwater streams and wetlands exert critical influences on the character and quality of downstream waters. The natural processes that occur in such headwater systems benefit humans by mitigating flooding, maintaining water quality and quantity, recycling nutrients, and providing habitat for plants and animals. This paper summarizes the scientific basis for understanding that the health and productivity of rivers and lakes depends upon intact small streams and wetlands. Since the initial publication of this document in 2003, scientific support for the importance of small streams and wetlands has only increased.
Both new research findings and special issues of peer reviewed scientific journals have further established the connections between headwater streams and wetlands and downstream ecosystems. Selected references are provided at the end of the document.
Historically, federal agencies, in their regulations, have interpreted the protections of the Clean Water Act to broadly cover waters of the United States, including many small streams and wetlands. Despite this, many of these ecosystems have been destroyed by agriculture, mining, development, and other human activities. Since 2001, court rulings and administrative actions have called into question the extent to which small streams and wetlands remain under the protection of the Clean Water Act. Federal agencies, Congress, and the Supreme Court have all weighed in on this issue. Most recently, the Supreme Court issued a confusing and fractured opinion that leaves small streams and wetlands vulnerable to pollution and destruction.
We know from local/regional studies that small, or headwater, streams make up at least 80 percent of the nation’s stream network. However, scientists’ abilities to extend these local and regional studies to provide a national perspective are hindered by the absence of a comprehensive database that catalogs the full extent of streams in the United States. The topographic maps most commonly used to trace stream networks do not show most of the nation’s headwater streams and wetlands. Thus, such maps do not provide detailed enough information to serve as a basis for stream protection and management.
Scientists often refer to the benefits humans receive from the natural functioning of ecosystems as ecosystem services. The special physical and biological characteristics of intact small streams and wetlands provide natural flood control, recharge groundwater, trap sediments and pollution from fertilizers, recycle nutrients, create and maintain biological diversity, and sustain the biological productivity of downstream rivers, lakes, and estuaries. These ecosystem services are provided by seasonal as well as perennial streams and wetlands. Even when such systems have no visible overland connections to the stream network, small streams and wetlands are usually linked to the larger network through groundwater.
Small streams and wetlands offer an enormous array of habitats for plant, animal, and microbial life. Such small freshwater systems provide shelter, food, protection from predators, spawning sites and nursery areas, and travel corridors through the landscape. Many species depend on small streams and wetlands at some point in their life history. A recent literature review documents the significant contribution of headwater streams to biodiversity of entire river networks, showing that small headwater streams that do not appear on most maps support over 290 taxa, some of which are unique to headwaters. As an example, headwater streams are vital for maintaining many of America’s fish species, including trout and salmon. Both perennial and seasonal streams and wetlands provide valuable habitat. Headwater streams and wetlands also provide a rich resource base that contributes to the productivity of both local food webs and those farther downstream. However, the unique and diverse biota of headwater systems is increasingly imperiled. Human-induced changes to such waters, including filling streams and wetlands, water pollution, and the introduction of exotic species can diminish the biological diversity of such small freshwater systems, thereby also affecting downstream rivers and streams.
Because small streams and wetlands are the source of the nation’s fresh waters, changes that degrade these headwater systems affect streams, lakes, and rivers downstream. Land-use changes in the vicinity of small streams and wetlands can impair the natural functions of such headwater systems. Changes in surrounding vegetation, development that paves and hardens soil surfaces, and the total elimination of some small streams reduces the amount of rainwater, runoff, and snowmelt the stream network can absorb before flooding.
The increased volume of water in small streams scours stream channels, changing them in a way that promotes further flooding. Such altered channels have bigger and more frequent floods. The altered channels are also less effective at recharging groundwater, trapping sediment, and recycling nutrients. As a result, downstream lakes and rivers have poorer water quality, less reliable water flows, and less diverse aquatic life. Algal blooms and fish kills can become more common, causing problems for commercial and sport fisheries. Recreational uses may be compromised. In addition, the excess sediment can be costly, requiring additional dredging to clear navigational channels and harbors and increasing water filtration costs for municipalities and industry.
The natural processes that occur in small streams and wetlands provide Americans with a host of benefits, including flood control, adequate high quality water, and habitat for a variety of plants and animals.
Dam owners and communities are increasingly considering the option of removing dams that are unsafe, obsolete or simply causing more harm than good. But as more dam removal projects are proposed, many states are finding that the application of existing permitting processes can be unreasonably complicated, time consuming, and expensive for both the applicant and regulatory authorities. Indeed, dam failures have occurred during the prolonged process of permitting their controlled removal.
Despite the removal of at least 200 dams in the past six years, many states consider dam removal to be a new concept. And, due to its multidisciplinary nature, permitting decisions often fall under the jurisdiction of several entities. This can result in a number of factors that further complicate the permitting process: how to address conflicting goals, procedures and requirements among relevant authorities; the application of technical or regulatory standards that may be inappropriate for dam removal and associated restoration activities; and, the perennial challenge of effective inter- and intra-agency coordination.
Several states are now seeking advice from counterparts that have proactively addressed the regulatory challenges associated with dam removal projects. Many such challenges and recommendations were acknowledged in “Dam Removal: A New Option for a New Century.” This report was collaboratively developed by twenty-six experts from across the nation who participated in a two-year long dialogue on dam removal that was convened by The Aspen Institute.
Communities across the country are struggling to deal with the rising costs of controlling stormwater runoff and sewer overflows. Crumbling infrastructure and the expansion of hard surfaces such as pavement and roofs are sending polluted stormwater and sewage into surrounding waterways with increasing frequency. A changing climate defined by more severe storms will only increase this burden.
In the face of these challenges, many communities are embracing a new approach to managing runoff that focuses on capturing rainfall and preventing it from polluting surrounding waterways. By using green infrastructure techniques such as green roofs, rain gardens, tree planting, and permeable pavement, they are managing stormwater problems at a lower cost and realizing a wide range of other benefits from reduced air pollution, energy use, and urban heat island effect to improved wildlife habitat and aesthetics. These techniques also provide defenses against more frequent and severe heat waves, droughts, and flooding that a changing climate is bringing to many urban areas. Green infrastructure is a powerful tool for managing existing problems and preparing for the future.
A Challenge To Green Infrastructure Implementation
The Value of Green Infrastructure helps municipalities overcome a key barrier to more widespread adoption of green infrastructure. Our failure to value the full range of benefits from green infrastructure and the difficult challenge to translate these benefits into dollar figures so they can be compared to alternatives is restricting comprehensive integration of green infrastructure into local water management. And, determining the value of green infrastructure benefits for a locality has required studies beyond the resource capacity of most localities.
Evaluating The Benefits Of Green Infrastructure In Your Community
The guide produced by the Center for Neighborhood Technology and American Rivers, provides a framework that allows local communities to assess the local benefits of green infrastructure. The guidebook outlines a methodology for measuring and valuing the improvements in air quality, energy savings, carbon sequestration, and other areas. These benefits are above and beyond the stormwater control benefits, which are assumed to be equal to a similar investment in gray infrastructure. This guide allows communities to make more educated investments in infrastructure by helping them evaluate the full range of benefits from sustainable approaches to water management and realize green infrastructure’s potential to make communities more livable and less vulnerable to climate change.
The Southeast United States faces unprecedented challenges to its water supply. Growing populations and the impacts of climate change are putting new strains on communities and their rivers. Our local leaders are facing the pressing question of how to ensure a clean, reliable water supply for current and future generations.
Traditionally, building more dams and reservoirs was the first and only answer to water supply problems. But these 19th century approaches should not be the primary solutions for our new 21st century challenges. They don’t address the root problem — water is finite and we are not using the water we do have wisely. Relying solely on building large new dams is not costeffective and it won’t solve today’s water needs. Per gallon, dams cost up to 8500 times more than water efficiency investments. Dams are fixed in one place and hold a limited amount of water. Even when we do get sufficient rains to fill reservoirs, these giant pools can lose tremendous amounts of water through evaporation.
For these reasons, building new dams should be the absolute last alternative for solving our water supply needs. Hidden Reservoir makes the case that water efficiency is our best source of affordable water and must be the backbone of water supply planning. By implementing the nine water efficiency policies outlined in this report, communities across the Southeast can secure cost-effective and timely water supply.
Securing reliable supplies of clean water for today and the future is a critical concern for communities across the country, and particularly in the Southeast, where communities are grappling with water scarcity issues more than ever before.
This report documents the financial risks and water resource risks tied to the development of new water supply reservoirs in the Southeast. It comes as many local governments throughout Georgia, the Carolinas and neighboring states are considering significant spending of public taxpayer and ratepayer dollars to build new water supply reservoirs.
Georgia reservoir proposals on the drawing board, for example, could total $10 billion in taxpayer and ratepayer dollars. The report also shines a light on recent water supply reservoir projects that provide cautionary tales of communities burdened by expense and debt.
The report outlines the following financial and resource risks inherent in the pursuit of new water supply from reservoirs:
- Reservoirs are highly expensive, racking up debt for ratepayers and taxpayers.
- A reservoir’s price tag is typically a moving target.
- Reservoir financing plans often rely on inflated population growth projections, ultimately leaving existing residents holding the bag.
- In order to remain full, a reservoir depends on increasingly uncertain rainfall. And, a reservoir loses water when high temperatures cause evaporation.
- Reservoir water is a contested resource subject to competing demands in the river system.
The report also offers five key recommendations for local leaders who seek to reduce their communities’ risks—both financial risks and closely linked water resource risks—in planning for enough clean water for the future:
- Optimize existing water infrastructure first.
- Plan for water use to decrease as a community grows.
- Pursue flexible water supply solutions, like efficiency measures.
- Demand accurate assessments of costs.
- Examine water availability to minimize resource risks.
As communities endeavor to find ways to secure water supplies, it is critical that decision-making add to a community’s flexibility and resilience. The high-price, high-risk water supply reservoir strategy can leave a community financially vulnerable, tying up assets and leaving taxpayers and ratepayers on the hook without a guarantee that the water will be there when they need it.
There is a more prudent and proven path to providing water supply and ensuring flexibility for the future, one rooted in stewardship of public dollars and natural resources both. As Southeastern communities move forward to develop strategies to meet tomorrow’s needs, the communities that choose a prudent path will be better positioned—from both a financial and water resource perspective—to address the needs of today and the future.
Storm events are increasing in frequency and severity throughout the Great Lakes basin, and the increase in rainfall is overwhelming our infrastructure. When rain falls in open, undeveloped areas not occupied by buildings or pavement, the water is absorbed into the ground and filtered by soil and plants. But, when water falls on roofs, streets, and parking lots, the water cannot soak into the ground. Instead, it enters the sewer system and it then has to be managed by municipalities and counties. STORMWATER goes from being the property-owner’s problem to the community’s problem really fast. And once it is the community’s problem, government agencies need to solve it.
Whether they go gray or green, for many communities, stormwater infrastructure repairs are no longer a luxury; they are a necessity to reduce chronic flooding and improve impaired rivers and streams. Communities need to repair old systems and build new, modern systems that embrace technological advances from the last 100 years. But, communities also need money to do it. A stormwater utility is an equitable way for communities to raise some of the money they need to fix the most immediate stormwater problems.
This Stormwater Utility Toolkit contains materials to ensure local leaders, city and county staff, and partners have the tools necessary to create a stormwater utility that is supported by the entire community. These tools are designed to give you the language and structure needed for jumpstarting a public engagement process. These tools are designed to be edited and personalized to fit your own community’s policies, values and personalities.
This toolkit contains:
- A stormwater utility overview and technical resources
- A strategy for building public support for a stormwater utility
- Sample outreach materials
- Draft press release
- Social media posts
- Website language
- Tips for running successful public meetings
- Sample stormwater utility ordinance language
You can also download:
- Stormwater Utility Kit factsheet
- Stormwater Utility Toolkit factsheet (en Español)
- Doorhanger
- Doorhanger (en Español)
- Microsoft Word document of templates (draft press release, social media posts, ordinance language, etc.)
American Rivers’ 2014 Upper Flint River Resiliency Action Plan aims to guide work by a variety of stakeholders to restore drought resilience to the upper Flint River system of west-central Georgia. It follows on discussions and efforts of the Upper Flint River Working Group and on the RUNNING DRY report which we published with Flint Riverkeeper in 2013. Designed to be a “living document,” the Action Plan charts a plan of work that will be updated and expanded in future years as collaborative efforts in the river basin progress.
This action plan seeks to outline specific strategies to restore resilience to some of the most stressed portions of the river basin, along with highlighting key needs in the areas of policy, research and information. It includes a focus on preserving existing natural resources of value in the basin. This plan charts collaborative, transparent and practical efforts by the full range of individuals, communities, businesses, organizations and public entities that have a stake in the long-term health of the upper Flint River. In this spirit, this resiliency action plan serves as a starting point for collaborative work toward an integrated, basin-scale, science-based and practical approach to restoration throughout the upper Flint River basin.
Clean water and healthy communities go hand in hand. Urban areas are increasingly using green infrastructure to create multiple benefits for their communities. However, there have been questions whether strong stormwater standards could unintentionally deter urban redevelopment and shift development to environmentally damaging sprawl. Working with Smart Growth America, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, River Network and NRDC, we commissioned a report by ECONorthwest titled ”Managing Stormwater in Redevelopment and Greenfield Development Projects Using Green Infrastructure.” Highlighting several communities that are protecting clean water and fostering redevelopment, the findings show that clean water and urban redevelopment are compatible.
Across the country, communities are struggling with how to fix and replace failing and outdated infrastructure and meet new demand to manage stormwater and protect clean water. American Rivers worked with the American Society of Landscape Architects, ECONorthwest, and the Water Environment Federation to release the “BANKING ON GREEN” report to build on the current understanding of the cost-effectiveness of green infrastructure and examine how these practices can increase energy efficiency and reduce energy costs, reduce localized flooding, and protect public health.
When rainwater hits hard surfaces like roads and parking lots, it can’t soak into the ground and instead runs along the surface until it flows into a storm drain or into a local river or stream. Known as stormwater runoff, this water can pick up pollutants such as heavy metals, brake linings, and deicing salts which contaminate local waters. Additionally, high volumes of stormwater can exacerbate localized flooding posing a threat to public health and safety. In older urban areas with combined sewer systems, high volumes of stormwater runoff can overwhelm the capacity of the system and result in combined sewer overflows (CSOs) which send untreated sewage and stormwater into rivers and streams.
This report evaluates opportunities to better integrate green infrastructure for postconstruction stormwater management into transportation projects, focusing specifically on roads and highways. The report summarizes transportation planning and structure, capital improvement planning, and the role of stormwater management in these processes. It examines the role of the Clean Water Act and other regulatory drivers for stormwater management on roads and highways and highlights case studies from across the country to identify best practices in integrating green infrastructure at the transportation planning and project development stages. The report also provides recommendations to fund green infrastructure on roads and highways. Although the overall focus is primarily on the federal context, the report provides two case studies in Toledo, Ohio and Atlanta, Georgia and develops specific recommendations for both the state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and the cities themselves to better integrate green infrastructure into transportation projects. Both cities are moving forward with green infrastructure planning and these recommendations can provide additional resources as they address specific opportunities and challenges related to transportation.
Stormwater runoff is a major problem for watersheds across the country, particularly the Chesapeake Bay. Green infrastructure is being used as a tool to mitigate stormwater runoff by restoring natural ground cover which allows precipitation to infiltrate into the soil. Urban agriculture is an innovative green infrastructure practice because it provides many benefits to the community as well as to watersheds. Urban farms mitigate stormwater runoff, increase the nutritional health of communities, improve the local economy, and provide residents with greenspace.
Cities across the country, especially in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, should integrate urban agriculture into their planning materials and zoning codes in order to promote this all around beneficial green infrastructure tool. Our report discusses the importance of urban agriculture to cities and their watersheds as well as gives recommendations to city officials on how to promote the use of urban agriculture in their community.