A few months ago, I watched the documentary DamNation, about dam removal. This film focused mainly on Salmon; a species who are endangered largely due to dams preventing them from getting to their spawn points. The movie was very well done and I have always considered myself an outdoorsman and somewhat of an environmentalist. I am a geology major; and I am well versed in a lot of environmental issues, but I had no clue that dams caused any environmental problems at all. This particular issue hit at heart because I have been fly fishing for trout and salmon since I was a young boy. Fly fishing and other outdoor activities are some of the main reasons I chose a major regarding the environment. Being a Geology major I understand ecosystems and how they might be altered by human actions. I also understand how organisms are related by the food web and how usually, when considering an endangered species; It is not the only one suffering.  It is important to know the risks associated with dam removal, even though they are directly harming salmon populations. There needs to be a systematic approach so damage is not worsened.

In the article "The Undamming of America," Lieb goes into detail describing the history of dams in America and why they have become so important. She then talks about why now people are deciding to destroy dams: cost and environmental impact. She then cites some dam removals that have been beneficial and others that have been harmful. She ends stating that many dams will remain but "time and economics will sweep more dams away (Lieb)."

The different values presented are environmental and fiscal. Lieb brings both into her argument here. The stakeholders depend on which dam removal she is referring to but similar to the values, they are generally environmental and economic. Leib is a PhD candidate in applied math, which is why statistics are a big part of her article. she was also published by PBS which is a well known and credible source. 

Mapes and Profita describes a very recent decision by the state governments of California and Oregon to remove the four dams on the  Klamath river. This would be the largest dam removal project ever and could cost as much as 200 million dollars. The major values and interests at stake in this decision are the fish who stand to be helped by the removal of the dams, the locals working on the dams in the Klamath, and the state governments of California and Oregon as well as PacifiCorp.  I think the authors Mapes and Profita are very credible in this setting. It is a local state government story and this is a local state newspaper. They both certainly had first hand accounts with government officials quoted in their story.

The article by Kanehl and Lyons is based off of an environmental study done in 1988 on the removal of the Woolen Mills dam on the Milwaukee River. In their study they found that habitat quality had increased, as well as smallmouth bass, and biomass. Upstream this effect was immediate but downstream they did see a decrease in habitat quality. However, 3 years later the habitat quality at the downstream station was on par with the upstream station. So it was concluded that removal of the dam benefitted habitat. The only major values or interests at stake here were that of the local habitats. This was a scientific experiment regarding this specific dam removal.  Kanehl and Lyons are credible in this article. They used the scientific method and got fairly consistent results. Their conclusion taken from their data is clear

My research question is not very arguable. I am hoping to use evidence to prove what major factors and outcomes are associated with dam removal based on historical evidence from previous dam removal projects. Most every source I have studied has been in favor of dam removal in some fashion. However, many argue that these projects should be done over time and studied to make sure there are no other potential fallouts. I tend to agree more with the slower process, I do not think there is any need to rush a process with potential problems. most of these dams have been in place for over 50 years. some as old as 100, it makes sense to double check before we double our losses. My question is a little broad, there are so many potential factors at play in dam removal. There is little long term data on the subject as well,  this is why I chose an article from 1988 by Kanehl and Lyons as part of my evidence. Most of the information I have found has been supporting the removal because it is such a hot topic right now. Credibility is going to play a huge part in constructing my argument. I have to find a way to collaborate my sources without sounding bias, because most of them are in support of dam removal.

