17
The Significance of Dam Removal in the United States and the Recovery of Anadromous Species Harrison Corbett Fall 2015 ENSC 450 ProSeminar For Dr. Terrianne Lavin Abstract: With the recent removal of multiple large-scale dams, it is clear that the breaching of barriers and reopening of riverways will help recolonize anadromous and catadromous fish populations. Dam removals in both the Pacific northwest and Atlantic northeast have set a precedent for the future of dams in the US.

The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

The Significance of Dam Removal in the United States and the Recovery of

Anadromous Species

Harrison Corbett

Fall 2015

ENSC 450 ProSeminar

For Dr. Terrianne Lavin

Abstract:

With the recent removal of multiple large-scale dams, it is clear that the breaching of barriers and

reopening of riverways will help recolonize anadromous and catadromous fish populations. Dam

removals in both the Pacific northwest and Atlantic northeast have set a precedent for the future

of dams in the US.

Page 2: The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

1

Introduction:

There are approximately 75,000 dams in the United States, and of these dams

approximately 66,000 are located on rivers (American Rivers 2012). “Think about that number.

That means we have been building, on average, one large dam a day, every single day, since the

Declaration of Independence” (Babbitt 1998, n.p.). A study conducted by the US Energy

Information Administration in 2006 showed that hydroelectric power only accounted for 7.1% of

total energy used (USGS Water Science School 2015). In the early 20th

century, the construction

of dams became a way for America to boost its economy. The construction of dams was not

strictly for the production of hydropower, but for flood control, irrigation, and recreation as well.

In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt created the Inland Waterways Commission in order to

further analyze the industrious use of river systems in the US. In the Commission’s initial report

to congress, Roosevelt stated,

It is poor business to develop a river for navigation in such a way as to prevent

its use for power, when by a little foresight it could be made to serve both

purposes. We cannot afford needlessly to sacrifice power to irrigation, or

irrigation to domestic water supply, when by taking thought we may have all

three. Every stream should be used to the utmost (Roosevelt 1908, 7).

While it may be true that the construction of dams was an asset to the US’s economy in

the early 1900s and contributed to the country’s manifest destiny mindset, currently, dams serve

little to no purpose and are far more harmful than they are beneficial.

The current existence of dams in the US is a controversial topic as many environmental

groups push for dam removal and the re-opening of riverways for anadromous and catadromous

species. Dams have become increasingly contentious recently due to the massive push for

alternative renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power. It is difficult to view dams

and hydroelectricity as renewable forms of energy, as hydroelectric dams harm local species with

Page 3: The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

2

unintentional consequences. Barriers can be detrimental to fish populations, as they alter the flow

of nutrients and sediments downstream, as well as cause increased water temperatures, all of

which are not suitable for many species of anadromous and catadromous fish.

Anadromous species are species that are born in fresh water, live in salt water, and return

to fresh water to spawn. Conversely, catadromous species are born in salt water, live in fresh

water, and return to salt water to spawn. Having barriers, such as dams in riverways, prevents

fish from efficiently navigating the river and spawning, which ultimately leads to a declination in

species population. Many methods have been invented over the past few decades to assist fish in

passage through these barriers, however none have proven useful. With the removal of barriers in

the US river systems, anadromous and catadromous species will see a massive increase in

population.

History:

The process of building a dam starts with finding the right location. A river system must

be found that is not too close, but not too far, from civilization or developing areas. Over the past

century, many of the US’s greatest treasures have met these criteria and, therefore, have been

subject to flooding. Hetch Hetchy Valley was flooded in 1923 with the completion of the

O’Shaughnessy Dam to provide San Francisco with drinking water. John Muir, founder of the

Sierra Club, stated in opposition, “Dam Hetch Hetchy! As well dam for water-tanks the people's

cathedrals and churches, for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man”

(Muir 1912, Chapter 16, n.p.). Muir’s views on dam construction were not unwarranted, with

eight (8) dam failures between 1874 and 1916 accounting for approximately 2,500 fatalities,

along with creating immeasurable, longstanding ecological problems. In 1928, the St. Francis

Dam, located approximately 40 miles northwest of Los Angeles in the San Francisquito Canyon,

Page 4: The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

3

failed resulting in 600 fatalities (Stansell 2012). William Mulholland, chief architect of the St.

Francis Dam, was quoted saying “Fasten it on me. If there was any error of judgment, human

judgment, I was the human” (Los Angeles Times 1928). Damming river systems in the US has

always been debated, but as we look toward a greener future, the construction of new barriers is

not appealing.

Dams work by being built on a river that has a large change in elevation. This allows the

water in the reservoir to increase its potential energy. Controlled passage of the water allows for

turbines to spin and generate power which can be stored and sold. However, just the presence of

a barrier, such as a dam, will alter the riverine habitat and greatly affect the populations of

species that navigate the river systems. The species that are most affected by the presence of

dams in the United States are Pacific salmon, most notably Chinook salmon in the northwest,

and Atlantic salmon in the northeast. Some known salmon species listed under the Federal

Endangered Species Act include bull trout, Chinook, chum, coho, sockeye, steelhead, and

Atlantic salmon (Washington State 2009).

A wide variety of devices have been invented in attempt to increase fish navigability

through barriers. The two most used devices are fish ladders, which allow the fish to travel past

the dam on their own by way of a pathway past the dam for the fish to navigate through (fig. 1

and 2), and fish elevators, which allow the fish to travel via a lock system (fig. 3). There are

multiple types of fish ladders. The two most common are the vertical-slot fishway and the Denil

fishway. The Biology Department at Concordia University conducted a study to quantify fish

passage in various US river systems; it showed the mean upstream passage efficiency of

anadromous species was only 41.7% (Noonan 2012).The project concluded that the vertical-slot

fishway, as seen in figure 1, is the most successful with fish passage, while the lock system and

Page 5: The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

4

Denil fishways are less efficient. This indicated that downstream efficiency was slightly higher at

68.5%, but that fishways were not successful in facilitating fish through dam systems. The

results also suggested that certain fishways were more successful for salmonids as opposed to

non-salmonids. Another study conducted by the University Of Maine; Department Of Wildlife

Ecology, United States Geological Survey (USGS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), focused on the Mill Dam on the Sedgeunkedunk Stream located in

mid-coast Maine. This indicated “the presence of a dam disrupted the natural longitudinal

gradients in fish density, biomass, diversity and richness such that these metrics were maximized

in the reach downstream of the dam [and] minimized in the reach upstream of the dam…”

(Gardner et al. 2012). These two studies showed that dam removal is a better choice over fish

ladders when it comes to navigation of riverine habitats by anadromous and catadromous

species.

Figure 1. A vertical slot fishway is the most used fish pathway in the US. Fish enter the ladder and are forced

forward as there is a barrier behind them (Department of Primary Industry, NSW 2015).

Page 6: The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

5

Figure 2. A Denil fishway which is not widely used in the US. Fish enter and swim forward as it seems the walls

close in behind them (Department of Primary Industry, NSW 2015).

Figure 3. A fish elevator, which is not as preferred as the fish ladder approaches. Fish enter the elevator and travel

upward via a series of locks (Department of Primary Industry, NSW 2015).

Page 7: The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

6

Dam Removal:

The American Rivers Organization named 2011the Year of the River as multiple dam

removal projects began that year. There have been 1257 dams removed since 1912, with 971 of

them occurring in the past 2 decades (American Rivers 2014). Prior to the 1990s, the idea of dam

removal was seen as radical. Bruce Babbitt served as Secretary of the Interior under President

Bill Clinton. While in office, Babbitt started to introduce dam removal projects in the northwest.

His plans were met with lots of opposition and the public consensus was, “It won’t work. The

salmon have been gone for a hundred years. What makes you think they’ll return?” (Babbitt

2012, n.p.). Babbitt went on to prove the public opinion wrong when he pushed for the removal

of the Quaker Neck Dam on the Neuse River in North Carolina. It was a small dam removal

project that succeeded in restoring the local populations and riverine habitats. The Quaker Neck

Dam removal helped to show the public how the benefits of dam removal are far greater than the

benefits of dam construction. Babbitt went on to say,

In the space of two decades, dam removal has evolved from a novelty to an

accepted means of river restoration. Most importantly, the concept has taken

root in hundreds of local communities as residents rediscover their rivers, their

history, and the potential not only to restore natural systems, but, in the process,

to renew their communities as well (Babbitt 2012, n.p.).

Many studies and projects have been conducted by various governmental and private

agencies assessing the different ways dams and other barriers affect riverine ecosystems.

Ultimately, it can be concluded that the best way to increase anadromous and catadromous fish

species in dammed river systems is through complete barrier removal.

The Columbia River system in the northwest Pacific was once one of the most abundant

salmon runs in the world. This watershed includes many rivers in Washington that have been

Page 8: The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

7

home to a plethora of anadromous and catadromous species; the most notable rivers being the

Snake, Elwha, White Salmon, and Columbia. All of these rivers have dams that created a

detrimental effect on the populations of fish in the northwest Pacific, particularly the Chinook

salmon, the sockeye salmon, and the steelhead trout salmon. All of these fish have been listed as

endangered by Washington State’s Department of Recreation and Conservation (Washington

State 2009). As with most other rivers in the US, fish passage techniques have been used and

proved a failure for fish traveling to spawn. In the Pacific northwest, people are coming together

to give aid to these fish species. They are voicing their opposition to the operations of

hydroelectric dams in the area and are doing everything possible to remove dams from their once

diverse rivers in hope of recolonization by Pacific salmonids.

The Elwha River has been the center of controversy over the past decade as protestors

from all over the country voiced their discontentment with the two large, hydroelectric dams

(Glines Canyon Dam and Elwha Dam) that caused the endangerment of local fish species

populations. “The dams were built to supply hydropower to a timber and paper mill operation;

neither reservoir provided significant flood control or water supply benefits” (East et al. 2014).

The Glines Canyon Dam, which had a height of 32 meters, and the Elwha Dam, which had a

height of 64 meters (Brenkman et al. 2012) were responsible for the rapid decline of Chinook

and other local species by not only preventing passage upstream and downstream, but also by

completely changing the chemistry of the water and the sediment and nutrient movement

downstream. George Pess, a specialist in fish ecology and restoration at NOAA, stated that,

“Populations of all Pacific salmon species and steelhead in the Elwha became critically low,

habitat complexity decreased below the dams, and downstream coastal habitats became sediment

Page 9: The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

8

starved” (Pess 2015).These two dams, in Olympic National Park, were doing far more

destruction than they were production.

Simultaneous removal of both the Glines Canyon and Elwha Dams on the Elwha River

began in September 2011.The dams were officially labeled breached as of September 2014 and

are officially the largest dam removal projects to date (Pess 2015).Many factors must be

considered when deciding to breach a dam. First, there is an immediate, massive release of stored

sediment downstream along with an immense amount of debris that is carried and eventually

deposited in an estuary, leading out into the ocean. Initially, this sharp increase in sediment has

the ability to kill or harm many species in the riverway, but a study conducted by Quinones et al.

(2014) on salmonid conservation in California indicated, “In exchange for the short-term

negative impacts of sediment flushing, there could be long-term benefits to both endangered

southern steelhead and to local beach-based economies.” Grant and Lewis (2015) stated,

“Estimated amounts of reservoir sediment stored behind recently removed dams range from

1000m3 to over 21,000,000 m

3.” Once the barrier is removed, the river will find the path of least

resistance and through the continual process of downcutting, create a new river bed and estuary

habitat, as shown in (fig. 4). It is also shown that, due to the influx of sediment downstream,

there becomes an influx of sediment-derived nutrients. Jim O’Connor, a USGS Geologist

specified that, “Rivers quickly erode sediment accumulated in former reservoirs and redistribute

it downstream, commonly returning the river to conditions similar to those prior to

impoundment” (Duda 2015).The increase of sedimentary nutrients to river systems directly leads

to an increase in native populations. Tonra et al. (2015) stated, “Marine-derived nutrients have

already made their return to the Elwha River as demonstrated by spawning salmon stable isotope

ratios, which were greater than in other consumers measured.”Their study focused on the

Page 10: The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

9

percentages of dissolved N15

and C13

in Chinook, coho, and pink salmon that come from certain

microalgae ingesting the marine derived nutrients. Microalgae consume the readily-available

nutrients and are then eaten by fish. The marine nutrients necessary for sustainable riverine life,

which are consumed by the microalgae, accumulate in the muscle tissues of fish, making it easy

to observe nutrient increase in fish, over time, for documentation. With an abundance of

nutrients, and a sufficient water depth and gradient, anadromous and catadromous species have

the ability to rapidly recolonize post-dam removal as long as the species are not too far away to

be able to reach their target habitat and spawn within their lifetime (Tonra et al. 2015).

Figure 4. Photos showing the evolution of the Elwha River mouth and estuary complex during dam removal. (A)

19 March 2012 (tide height 1.5 m; river discharge 1930 ft 3/ s) (dam removal had started but Elwha Dam was not yet

completely removed); (B) 08 November 2012 (tide height 1.3 m; river discharge 1260 ft3/s); (C) 26 August 2013

(tide height 1.6 m; river discharge 431 ft3/s); (D) 15 January 2014 (tide height 1.4 m; river discharge 1360 ft

3/s); (E)

14 May 2014 (tide height 1.3 m; river discharge 2420 ft3/s); (F) 12 August 2014 (tide height 1.5 m; river discharge

569 ft 3/s) (Foley et al. 2015).

Page 11: The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

10

A study on age structure and hatchery fraction of Elwha River Chinook salmon in 2014

completed by Weinheimer et al. (2015) indicated, “The fall of 2014 was the third spawning

season since 1913 that Chinook salmon were able to access the watershed between Glines Dam

and the former Elwha Dam (21.7 km to mouth).” With the full removal of barriers on the Elwha,

it is clear that the salmon will run again. Their study concluded, “It appears smaller Chinook

were able to negotiate the former Elwha Dam site and access the upper watershed during the

2014 season [which they previously had not been able to do]” (Weinheimer et al. 2015).The

removal of the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams on the Elwha River showed that a project of this

size is possible, and the outcomes are immediate and beneficial.

In 2011, the Condit Dam was removed from the White Salmon River in southeastern

Washington. The dam was breached and, as expected, decade’s worth of sediment were released

downstream. An effort by the US Fish & Wildlife service to translocate Chinook salmon was

initiated in order to save the species from the influx of sediment that would make the

downstream habitat inhabitable. The project sampled approximately 500 female fall Chinook

salmon and translocated them upstream above the dam breaching site. Engle et al. claimed, “The

distribution of spawning fall Chinook salmon adults in 2012 suggests a suitable lower White

Salmon River for spawning in addition to a new, useable area of spawning habitat in the exposed

river section of the former Northwestern Reservoir” (Engle 2013, n.p.). The study showed that

the beneficial effects of dam removal are observable within a year of breaching. The removal of

the Condit Dam is another example of how barrier removal in the US will benefit riverine

systems.

The idea of barrier removal in US river systems is no longer seen as revolutionary. The

Edwards Dam, which was removed from Maine’s Kennebec River in 1999, was the first major

Page 12: The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

11

hydropower dam removal project in the US. A study conducted by Brown et al. on failed fishery

policies along the Atlantic coast stated,

A multi-partner trust was established to purchase three dams, remove the two

lower-most dams, construct a fish bypass around the third dam, and give the dam

owner the opportunity to increase generation at six existing sites. Theresult is

maintenance of more than 90% of current energy generation while allowing

unobstructed access to 100% of historical downriver habitat for sturgeon and

striped bass and greatly improved access to nearly 1,600 km of upriver habitat for

Atlantic salmon and alosines (Brown et al. 2015, n.p.).

The removal of the Edwards Dam on the Kennebec in 1999 proved beneficial for many

anadromous and catadromous species, as well as for the local economy. It also helped establish

the Penobscot River Restoration Trust, a non-profit with the purpose of freeing thousands of

miles of river in the Penobscot Watershed. The Edwards Dam set a precedent and, between 2012

and 2013, the Great Works Dam and the Veazie Dam were both removed from the Kennebec,

freeing nearly 1000 miles of riverine habitat for threatened shad and salmonid species

(Penobscot 2015). “The removal led to rapid recovery of anadromous fish populations in the

Kennebec and increased the value of recreational fisheries” (Robbins and Lewis, 2008). Trinko

Lake et al. conducted a study where 11 local fish species were monitored and observed closely in

the Penobscot Watershed. The study predicted a massive increase in accessibility of freed rivers

to these 11 species in the watershed following the Penobscot River Restoration Project. Their

results showed that the American shad has the ability to recover 522 km of river habitat (Trinko

Lake et al. 2012) (Table 1). Maine’s Penobscot River Restoration Trust is setting an example for

the rest of the country managing inadequate dams.

Page 13: The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

12

Table 1.Historical, current, and predicted accessible river kilometers for 11 species of catadromous fish

following the Penobscot River Restoration Project (PRRP). Asterisks denote alewife habitat (ha) from

lakes >4ha (Trinko Lake et al. 2012).

*Atlantic salmon were not included in the habitat gain calculations due to stocking throughout the

watershed. American eel and sea lamprey were also omitted because of current passage at existing project

dams and current distribution throughout the watershed.

Conclusion:

Removing dams in river systems across the US will free thousands of miles of river for

anadromous and catadromous species to spawn. Breaching a dam appears to be the only sensible

option for a threatened species that depends on riverine habitat to survive. Fish ladders and

elevators, as well as translocation efforts, have proven inefficient over time. The destruction of

riverine habitats, and ultimately the destruction of species that depend on these habitats, cannot

be justified by only 7.1% of the US’s energy consumption (USGS Water Science School 2015).

Removal of dams in the US will not only benefit the riverine species that depend on the

habitat, it will benefit humans as well. Gordon Grant, a US Forest Service hydrologist, was

quoted, “As existing dams age and outlive usefulness, dam removal is becoming more common,

particularly where it can benefit riverine ecosystems” (Duda 2015). By removing a dam or a

Page 14: The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

13

series of dams in a river system, rivers become multifaceted. They supply recreation and

navigation and save the taxpayer money. “Removal eliminates the expenses associated with

maintenance and safety repairs, as well as direct and indirect expenses associated with fish and

wildlife protection…” (American Rivers 2012). The breaching of dams in the US also has the

ability to seriously minimize the issue of food security in the US. Anadromous species come

back to spawn in freshwater and ultimately die. Their survival tactic is to sacrifice half of the

population in order to give life to the new population. Atlantic and Pacific salmon populations

could potentially be one type of solution to feeding those with food insecurity. As the US looks

toward the future of dam removal projects, it is clear they are the best option to restore riverine

habitats. Jim O’Connor, with USGS, stated, “The apparent success of dam removal as a means of

river restoration is reflected in the increasing number of dams coming down, more than 1,000 in

the last 40 years” (Duda 2015). Countless studies in the US indicate barrier removal as the key to

large increases of anadromous and catadromous species, as well as increased ecological

restoration in US river systems.

Page 15: The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

14

References:

American Rivers. 2012. “FAQs on Dams and Dam Removal.” Last modified

2014.http://www.americanrivers.org/initiatives/dams/faqs/

American Rivers. 2014. “Dam Projects: Year of the River.” Issues Affecting our Rivers: Dams

and Hydropower. http://www.americanrivers.org/initiative/dams/projects/year-of-the-river/

Babbitt, Bruce. "Dams are not Forever." Speech, Ecological Society of America: Annual

Meeting, Baltimore, MD, August 4,

1998.http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/DamsAreNotForever.html

Babbitt, Bruce. "The Dawn of Dam Removal." Interview by Ben Knight. Damnation. Directed

by Ben Knight. Patagonia, 2014. http://www.patagonia.com/us/patagonia.go?assetid=75082

Brenkman, S.J., J.J. Duda, C.E. Torgersen, E. Welty, G.R. Pess, R. Peters, and M.L. McHenry.

2012. “A Riverscape Perspective of Pacific Salmonids and Aquatic Habitats prior to Large-

scale Dam Removal in the Elwha River, Washington, USA.” Fisheries Management and

Ecology 19 (1): 36-53.

Brown, J. J., K. E. Limburg, J.R. Waldman, K. Stephenson, E.P. Glenn, F. Juanes, and A.

Jordaan. 2013. “Fish and hydropower on the US Atlantic coast: failed fisheries policies from

half-way technologies.” Conservation Letters (6): 280–286.

Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales. 2015. “Habitat Management: Fishways.”

Fishing and Aquaculture. Last modified March

9.http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/habitat/rehabilitating/fishways

Duda, Jeff, Gordon Grant, and Ryan McClymont. "Dam Removal Study Reveals River

Resiliency." USGS: News release. May 1, 2015.

East, A.E., G.R. Pess, J.A. Bounty, C.S. Magirl, A.C. Ritchie, J.B. Logan, T.J. Randle, M.C.

Mastin, J.T. Minear, J.J. Duda, M.C. Liermann, M.L. McHenry, T.J. Beechie, and P.B.

Shafroth. 2014. “Large-Scale Dam Removal on the Elwha River, Washington, USA: River

Channel and Floodplain Geomorphic Change” Geomorphology (228): 765-786.

Engle, R., J. Skalicky and J. Poirier. 2013. “Translocation of Lower Columbia River Fall

Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) In the Year of Condit Dam Removal and Year

One Post-Removal Assessments. 2011 and 2012 Report.” US Fish and Wildlife Service,

Columbia River Fisheries Program.

Foley, M.M., J.J. Duda, M.M. Beirne, R. Paradis, A. Ritchie, and J.A. Warrick. 2015. “Rapid

water quality change in the Elwha River estuary complex during dam removal.” Limnology

and Oceanography 60 (5): 1719-1732.

Page 16: The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

15

Gardner, C., S.M. Coghlan Jr., J. Zydlewski, and R. Saunders. 2011. “Distribution and

Abundance of Stream Fishes in Relation to Barriers: Implications for Monitoring Stream

Recovery after Barrier Removal.” River Research and Applications 29 (1): 65-78.

Grant, G. E., and S. L. Lewis. 2015. “The remains of the dam: What have we learned from 15

years of US dam removals?” Engineering Geology for Society and Territory. Springer: 31-

36.

Muir, John. 1912. The Yosemite. The Century Co.New York.

Los Angeles Times:"Mulholland Unflinching" March 28, 1928

Noonan, M.J., J.W.A. Grant, and C.D. Jackson. 2012. “A Quantitative Assessment of Fish

Passage Efficiency.” Fish and Fisheries 13 (4): 450-464.

Penobscot River Restoration Trust. "Restoring Access to Critical Habitat for the Sea-run

Fisheries of Maine's Largest Watershed." Penobscot River. Last modified

2015.http://www.penobscotriver.org/

Pess, George. "Ecosystem Response during the Removal of the Elwha River Dams." Paper

presented at American Fisheries Society: 145th Annual Meeting, Portland, OR, August 19,

2015.

Quinones, R.M., T.E. Grantham, B.N. Harvey, J.D. Kiernan, M. Klasson, A.P. Wintzer, and P.B.

Moyle. 2014. “Dam Removal and Anadromous Salmonid (Oncorhynchus spp.) Conservation

in California” Fish and Fisheries (25): 195-215.

Robbins, J.L. and L.Y. Lewis. 2008. “Demolish it and they will come: Estimating the Economic

Impacts of Restoring a Recreational Fishery” Journal of the American Water Resources

Association. 44: 6.

Roosevelt, T. 1908. “Preliminary Report of the Inland Waterways Commision.” (7) Committee

on Commerce. Washington, D.C.

Stansell, A. 2012. “Roster of St. Francis Dam Victims.” Santa Clarita Valley Historical

Society.http://www.scvhistory.com/pico/annstansell_damvictims022214.htm

Tonra, C.M., K. Sager-Fradkin, S.A. Morely, J.J. Duda, and P.P. Marra. 2015. “The rapid return

of marine-derived nutrients to a freshwater food web following dam removal.” Biological

Conservation. 192: 130-134.

Trinko Lake, T, K.R. Ravana, R. Saunders. 2012. “Evaluating Changes in Catadromous Species

Distributions and Habitat Accessibility following the Penobscot River Restoration Project.”

Marine and Coastal Fisheries (4):1, 284-293.

United States Geological Survey Water Science School. 2015. “Hydroelectric Power Water

Use.” Information about Hydroelectricity: USGS. http://water.usgs.gov/edu/wuhy.html

Page 17: The Significance of Dam Removal in the US

16

Washington State, Recreation and Conservation Office. 2009. “Salmon Species Listed Under the

Federal Endangered Species Act.” Last modified July

1.http://www.rco.wa.gov/salmon_recovery/listed_species.shtml

Weinheimer, J., J. Anderson, R. Cooper, S. Williams, M. McHenry, P. Crain, S. Brenkman, and

H. Hugunin. 2015. “Age structure and hatchery fraction of Elwha River Chinook Salmon:

2014 Carcass Survey Report.” Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Fish Program.

Fish Science Division.