Higher Order Thinking Skills: Dam Removal Activity
Questions: / 3 – Advanced(at least 3 or 4) / 3 – Advanced
(at least 3 or 4) / 2 – Proficient / 1 – Partially Proficient / 0 – Not Yet Proficient
- A clear recommendation is made (1 ),
- supported with ample evidence (3).
(Standard 3. Synthesize information,
Standard 4. Take a well-reasoned
position …) / A clear recommendation is made.
e.g. Recommendation:
Removal
- Repair costs are likely greater than projected 30 year revenue (doc B).
- Improved trout fishery (doc A), which is the major type of fishing (doc C)
- Reduced sedimentation (doc A)
- Current recreational use seems to be greatest between the dams (doc C)
- These previous 3 are in keeping with the Watershed Council’s stated mission of “enhancing and improving environmental quality…”
e.g. Recommendation:
Retention/Repair
- Although temporary, there will probably be a drop in real estate values (doc C).
- All (4) of the posted opinions from citizens were opposed to dam removal (doc E).
- Retaining the dams and restricting fish passage would reduce costs and prevent invasive species (e.g. sea lamprey) from migrating upstream (doc B).
- Hiking, biking and wildlife viewing uses are medium/high at Jackson and Bridge St. dams (doc C).
- Camping use is high at Pine Valley dam (doc C).
- Retaining the dams will help Michigan meet its 10% renewable energy goal (doc D).
- This, along with retaining more recreational resource use near the dams, is in keeping with the Watershed Council’s stated mission of “enhancing and improving environmental quality…”
OR
A clear recommendation is made that involves a combination of removing some dams, while retaining/repairing other dams. Supported by 1-2 pieces of (cited) evidence on each side. / A clear recommendation is made, but is only supported by a single piece of fairly clearly-stated evidence from a single (cited) source.
OR
The recommendation is unclear or ambiguous, and may be supported by 2-3 pieces of conflicting, un-cited or misinterpreted evidence. / A reasonably clear recommendation is made, but is not supported by any clearly-stated evidence;
OR
The recommendation is unclear, supporting evidence is minimal (e.g. a single statement from a single source).
Question / 3 – Advanced
(at least 2 or 3) / 3 – Advanced
(at least 2 or 3) / 2 – Proficient / 1 – Partially Proficient / 0 – Not Yet Proficient
- Weaknesses of opposing arguments are rationally explained, especially in light of the council’s mission – environmental quality (3).
(Standard 2. check the validity of
their sources…) / Opposing Arguments are thoroughly and rationally refuted.
e.g. Opposing Arguments for Retaining and/or Repairing the dams.
- Projected reduction in property values (doc A) is likely to recover (doc C)
- These dams contribute a negligible amount (0.034 MW)(doc C) toward Michigan’s total supply (30,000 MW)(doc D)
- While wetlands along the dam ponds may dry, wetland vegetation will re-establish along the river channel (doc C)
- People’s initial negative opinions may change as they see the river channel recover
e.g. Opposing Arguments for Removing the Dams.
- While repair costs initially seem higher than revenue, revenue estimates for hydroelectric power production are only projected for 30 years, but presumably they had been producing electricity for most of their 80-year lifespan (doc B).
- Michigan currently generates only 4% of its electricity through renewable sources, with the goal of reaching 10% by 2015 (doc D). Removing the dams decreases an established supply of renewable energy.
- While beneficial to trout anglers, removing the dams will decrease the variety of recreational opportunities to the public (e.g. warmer-water fishing; “lakeside” camping, slower-water canoeing/kayaking, etc.)(doc C)
- Removing the dams and their ponds will reduce the length of shoreline, emergent and submerged vegetation, thereby reducing the amount of wildlife habitat, e.g. ducks and other waterfowl.
- These previous 3 are in keeping with the Watershed Council’s stated mission of “enhancing and improving environmental quality…”
Question / 3 – Advanced
(at least 3 or 4) / 3 – Advanced
(at least 3 or 4) / 2 – Proficient / 1 – Partially Proficient / 0 – Not Yet Proficient
- Unanswered questions are adequately identified (3).
TOTAL: 10 points / Unanswered Questions are Adequately Identified:
- How many local TU members are there, and what segment of the population do they represent?
- What alternative ways does Michigan have to meet its 10% Renewable Energy Standard (other hydro dams, wind turbines, etc.)
- There is much uncertainty in the cost estimates to refurbish the dams (fish passage, flood control, etc.)
- What are the cost estimates to dismantle the dams?
- If the dams were removed, how would existing recreational patterns change?
- What will the effects of dam removal be on ALL the wildlife in the Boardman River corridor (not just the trout)?
- If the dams are removed, what other sources of electricity will need to be developed to meet our needs, and meet the 10% renewable requirement of PA 295?
- If the dams are removed, how many additional dollars will need to be spent to prevent the movement of sea lampreys into the upper river?
- Has dam removal been attempted on any other rivers? What has been the result?
- Are recreational use patterns along the river and ponds likely to change, e.g. as the economy remains depressed, will camping vacations become more popular?
- Will repair and continued maintenance of the dams create local jobs?