Geology topics

Desiree D. Tullos

Publications and source records attributed to Desiree D. Tullos.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

Dam removal cost databases and drivers

The United States (U.S.) has over 90,000 dams listed in the National Inventory of Dams that provide vital infrastructure to support water management for municipal and industrial uses including irrigation, hydropower, flood control, navigation, recreation, and habitat, among other uses (NID 2023). The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operate and maintain approximately 489 and 740 dams, respectively, as well as associated structures which provide flood risk management, navigation, water supply, hydropower, environmental stewardship, fish and wildlife conservation, and recreation benefits. As dams age, structural and operational maintenance investments increase until a time when decisions on whether to rehabilitate, replace, or decommission the dam need to be made. While most dams continue to provide important value even with maintenance requirements, at least 2,000 dams have been removed in the U.S. during the past 110 years, with an upward trend in the last few decades (American Rivers 2023). Decommissioning a dam may be considered when the purpose of the dam is no longer needed or other factors such as dam safety, fish passage, recreation safety, or river restoration goals take higher priority and are more economically feasible for the dam owner long-term. Dam safety programs, river restoration programs, and asset class management programs need cost estimating methods to consider dam decommissioning when appropriate. Traditional cost estimating approaches in planning stages focus mainly on dam removal construction and may leave out or have uncertainty on important complexities that can have substantial effects on total costs and be critical for project success. As the numbers of dam removal case studies increase, a growing set of cost data has become available (Duda et al. 2023a; Tullos and Bountry 2023; American Rivers 2022). However, total costs vary over five orders of magnitude for similar size dams, and it was unclear why. We evaluated three sets of cost data that had varying level of details regarding elements contributing to dam removal costs reported by project managers working on the dam removal studies and construction means and methods. We created planning-level cost estimating tools to assist with projects needing to consider the dam removal alternative: (1) new databases of case studies (Duda et al. 2023a; Tullos and Bountry 2023); (2) scoping questions to help determine if complexity cost drivers will be present; (3) machine learning based regression trees to estimate a potential cost range; and (4) a Computation Guide for Cost Estimating that can be used to inform discussions on potential dam removal cost items, quantities, and unit costs (appendix A). The collected data showed that dam height is important but is not a reliable predictor of the removal cost without considering other elements. However, knowing some basic characteristics about the average annual flow and geographic location of the dam site, in addition to dam size, can improve the ability to use past case studies for planning-level cost estimating. By additionally incorporating scoping questions related to sediment removal, mitigation, or other infrastructure, the likelihood of complexity cost drivers and the initial uncertainty of a cost estimate can be further reduced especially for small dams. Applying the Computation Guide for Cost Estimating requires more robust information but helps users reduce cost uncertainty. This step further refines the dam removal objective, removal approach (partial or full; phased or instantaneous), engineering design, construction means and methods, quantities, and unit costs, and results in a quantitative cost estimate.

Final Report↗

USGS2023

Patterns, drivers, and a predictive model of dam removal cost in the United States

Given the burgeoning dam removal movement and the large number of dams approaching obsolescence in the United States, cost estimating data and tools are needed for dam removal prioritization, planning, and execution. We used the list of removed dams compiled by American Rivers to search for publicly available reported costs for dam removal projects. Total cost information could include component costs related to project planning, dam deconstruction, monitoring, and several categories of mitigation activities. We compiled reported costs from 455 unique sources for 668 dams removed in the United States from 1965 to 2020. The dam removals occurred within 571 unique projects involving 1–18 dams. When adjusted for inflation into 2020 USD, cost of these projects totaled \$1.522 billion, with per-dam costs ranging from $1 thousand (k) to \$268.8 million (M). The median cost for dam removals was \$157k, \$823k, and \$6.2M for dams that were< 5 m, between 5–10 m, and > 10 m in height, respectively. Geographic differences in total costs showed that northern states in general, and the Pacific Northwest in particular, spent the most on dam removal. The Midwest and the Northeast spent proportionally more on removal of dams less than 5 m in height, whereas the Northwest and Southwest spent the most on larger dam removals > 10 m tall. We used stochastic gradient boosting with quantile regression to model dam removal cost against potential predictor variables including dam characteristics (dam height and material), hydrography (average annual discharge and drainage area), project complexity (inferred from construction and sediment management, mitigation, and post-removal cost drivers), and geographic region. Dam height, annual average discharge at the dam site, and project complexity were the predominant drivers of removal cost. The final model had an R 2 of 57% and when applied to a test dataset model predictions had a root mean squared error of $5.09M and a mean absolute error of \$1.45M, indicating its potential utility to predict estimated costs of dam removal. We developed a R shiny application for estimating dam removal costs using customized model inputs for exploratory analyses and potential dam removal planning.

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution↗

USGS2017

Dam removal: Listening in

Dam removal is widely used as an approach for river restoration in the United States. The increase in dam removals—particularly large dams—and associated dam-removal studies over the last few decades motivated a working group at the USGS John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis to review and synthesize available studies of dam removals and their findings. Based on dam removals thus far, some general conclusions have emerged: (1) physical responses are typically fast, with the rate of sediment erosion largely dependent on sediment characteristics and dam-removal strategy; (2) ecological responses to dam removal differ among the affected upstream, downstream, and reservoir reaches; (3) dam removal tends to quickly reestablish connectivity, restoring the movement of material and organisms between upstream and downstream river reaches; (4) geographic context, river history, and land use significantly influence river restoration trajectories and recovery potential because they control broader physical and ecological processes and conditions; and (5) quantitative modeling capability is improving, particularly for physical and broad-scale ecological effects, and gives managers information needed to understand and predict long-term effects of dam removal on riverine ecosystems. Although these studies collectively enhance our understanding of how riverine ecosystems respond to dam removal, knowledge gaps remain because most studies have been short (< 5 years) and do not adequately represent the diversity of dam types, watershed conditions, and dam-removal methods in the U.S.

Water Resources Research↗

USGS2017

Geomorphic responses to dam removal in the United States – a two-decade perspective

Recent decades have seen a marked increase in the number of dams removed in the United States. Investigations following a number of removals are beginning to inform how, and how fast, rivers and their ecosystems respond to released sediment. Though only a few tens of studies detail physical responses to removals, common findings have begun to emerge. They include: (1) Rivers are resilient and respond quickly to dam removals, especially when removals are sudden rather than prolonged. Rivers can swiftly evacuate large fractions of reservoir sediment (≥50% within one year), especially when sediment is coarse grained (sand and gravel). The channel downstream typically takes months to years—not decades—to achieve a degree of stability within its range of natural variability. (2) Modest streamflows (<2-year return interval flows) can erode and transport large amounts of reservoir sediment. Greater streamflows commonly are needed to access remnant reservoir sediment and transport it downstream. (3) Dam height, sediment volume, and sediment caliber strongly influence downstream response to dam removal. Removals of large dams (≥10 m tall) have had longer-lasting and more widespread downstream effects than more common removals of small dams. (4) Downstream valley morphology and position of a dam within a watershed influence the distribution of released sediment. Valley confinement, downstream channel gradient, locations and depths of channel pools, locations and geometries of extant channel bars, and locations of other reservoirs all influence the downstream fate of released sediment.

Book chapter↗

USGS2016

Does resolution of flow field observation influence apparent habitat use and energy expenditure in juvenile coho salmon?

This study investigated how the resolution of observation influences interpretation of how fish, juvenile Coho Salmon ( Oncorhynchus kisutch ), exploit the hydraulic environment in streams. Our objectives were to evaluate how spatial resolution of the flow field observation influenced: (1) the velocities considered to be representative of habitat units; (2) patterns of use of the hydraulic environment by fish; and (3) estimates of energy expenditure. We addressed these objectives using observations within a 1:1 scale physical model of a full-channel log jam in an outdoor experimental stream. Velocities were measured with Acoustic Doppler Velocimetry at a 10 cm grid spacing, whereas fish locations and tailbeat frequencies were documented over time using underwater videogrammetry. Results highlighted that resolution of observation did impact perceived habitat use and energy expenditure, as did the location of measurement within habitat units and the use of averaging to summarize velocities within a habitat unit. In this experiment, the range of velocities and energy expenditure estimates increased with coarsening resolution (grid spacing from 10 to 100 cm), reducing the likelihood of measuring the velocities locally experienced by fish. In addition, the coarser resolutions contributed to fish appearing to select velocities that were higher than what was measured at finer resolutions. These findings indicate the need for careful attention to and communication of resolution of observation in investigating the hydraulic environment and in determining the habitat needs and bioenergetics of aquatic biota.

Water Resources Research↗

USGS2016

Synthesis of common management concerns associated with dam removal

Managers make decisions regarding if and how to remove dams in spite of uncertainty surrounding physical and ecological responses, and stakeholders often raise concerns about certain negative effects, regardless of whether or not these concerns are warranted at a particular site. We used a dam-removal science database supplemented with other information sources to explore seven frequently-raised concerns, herein Common Management Concerns (CMCs). We investigate the occurrence of these concerns and the contributing biophysical controls. The CMCs addressed are: degree and rate of reservoir sediment erosion, excessive channel incision upstream of reservoirs, downstream sediment aggradation, elevated downstream turbidity, drawdown impacts on local water infrastructure, colonization of reservoir sediments by non-native plants, and expansion of invasive fish. Biophysical controls emerged for some of the concerns, providing managers with information to assess whether a given concern is likely to occur at a site. To fully assess CMC risk, managers should concurrently evaluate site conditions and identify the ecosystem or human uses that will be negatively affected if the biophysical phenomenon producing the CMC occurs. We show how many CMCs have one or more controls in common, facilitating the identification of multiple risks at a site, and demonstrate why CMC risks should be considered in the context of other factors like natural watershed variability and disturbance history.

Journal of the American Water Resources Associatio↗