2007 state dam safety program performance information summary

2007 State Dam Safety Program Performance Information Report

2007 State Dam Safety Program Performance Information Summary Reporting Year: 2006 Prepared for NDSRB & ASDSO August, 2007

2007 State Dam Safety Program Performance Information - Introduction

Preface/Scope The objective of this report is to provide the raw data which was collected from the State Dam Safety Program Performance Information for the 2006 reporting year. This information consists of State responses to the combined annual questions asked by the National Dam Safety Review Board (NDSRB) and the Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) annual survey questions. This report provides background on the data collection effort, shows the States that contributed data and when, and provides the data which was collected in both summary and raw data formats. This report does not attempt to analyze the data or draw conclusions regarding the data or the National Dam Safety Program.


This page intentionally left blank.


Table of Contents

Section Page 1. Introduction 6 1.1 Degree of Implementation of the ASDSO Model State Dam Safety Program 10 1.2 Summary Timelines of State Dam Safety Program Performance Information 12 2. State Dam Safety Program Performance Data for 2005 Reporting Year 18 I. Point of Contact Information 18 II. Legislation and Regulations 28 II. A. Compliance with Basic Criteria found in Public Law 109-460, 28 II. B. Compliance with ASDSO Model State Dam Safety Program, Legislation 33 II. C. Compliance with ASDSO Model State Dam Safety Program, Regulations 41 II. D. Statistics on State Laws and Regulations 48 III. Program Staffing and Budget 56 IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory 92 V. Permitting 126 VI. Dam Inspections 164 VII. Enforcement 186 VIII. Remediation Needs and Accomplishments 190 IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response 196 X. Education and Training 210 XI. Public Relations 216 XII. Miscellaneous 228 XIII. Risk Assessment 256 3. State Program Performance Data Quality Assurance Reports 276


1. Introduction

An ongoing concern among the National oversight organizations, such as the NDSRB and ASDSO, has been how to continue to maintain high levels of State participation in providing requested data in an environment of ever increasing requests for additional data. States have previously been asked for data to support inventory update requests from the NID, State Evaluation Criteria Report data from the NDSRB, annual survey data from the ASDSO, and annual dam safety program information from the Community Rating System (CRS) in support of the National Flood Insurance Program. These requests for data occurred at differing times of the year and varied in terms of their complexity. To ease reporting requirements for the States, capabilities were incorporated into the DSPMT in 2005 to support a combined reporting workflow so that all of the data requests can be satisfied with an annual one-time-only electronic data report. The ASDSO is coordinating this new combined data reporting workflow. In June, 2007, the following announcement was sent to all of the ASDSO State representatives requesting data for the 2006 reporting year.

13 June, 2007

STATE DATA CALL 2007

Attention State Reps:

ASDSO is continuing to act as the portal/liaison for the state data call, which includes data for ASDSO data collection needs, the FEMA state evaluation criteria report related to the State Assistance Grants, and some DHS security needs. We will be there to help you every step of the way.

As we have said, ASDSO, the Corps, DHS and FEMA are making our best effort to create that One-Stop-Shopping concept by having you submit this data one time annually. Based upon your suggestions, the software interfaces have been improved, and a new Data Quality Assurance feature has been added.

It should be very simple to provide data because this year’s report is initialized with the data that you provided last year. All you have to do is review the data and modify/update anything that has changed. As always, thank you for your patience. We may still have a few kinks in the system, but we are trying and the process is improving.

This is what we are asking you to do:

1. Review the attached Powerpoint, which explains the new features of the DSPMT and includes instructions that will help you download and utilize the software that we request you to use to fill out this survey. (You just need the latest version of the Dam Safety Program Management Tools [DSPMT] and then click on "State Program Performance Data".) To make this really easy, please


call Mike Grounds at (256) 771-0014 or Becky Ragon at (703) 428-6820 for help in downloading the software updates without losing any of your current data.

2. Fill out the electronic questionnaire to compile state dam safety program performance information for the 2006 reporting year.

3. Utilize the new Data Quality Assurance feature to check your data before submitting.

REQUESTED DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING DATA: July 13, 2007

Many thanks for your participation!!

Sarah Mayfield Association of State Dam Safety Officials 450 Old Vine Street, Flr. 2 Lexington, KY 40507-1544 Telephone: 859-257-5140 (main), 859-257-2102 (direct) Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.damsafety.org At the end of the original data collection period, the following e-mail was sent by ASDSO to all of the State Representatives extending the period of data collection:

12 July, 2007 Dear State Reps: Tomorrow is the requested deadline for submitting 2006 state program data through the DSPMT. As of this afternoon, 19 states have answered the data call: 1. New Jersey - Received 19 June, 2007 2. Tennessee - Received 19 June, 2007 3. Rhode Island - Received 20 June, 2007 4. Wyoming - Received 20 June, 2007 5. Pennsylvania - Received 22 June, 2007 6. Michigan - Received 3 July, 2007 7. New Mexico - Received 3 July, 2007 8. Vermont - Received 3 July, 2007 9. Maryland - Received 5 July, 2007 10. Indiana - Received 5 July, 2007 11. South Dakota - Received 5 July, 2007 12. Ohio - Received 6 July, 2007 13. Louisiana - Received 9 July, 2007


14. Illinois - Received 10 July, 2007 15. Delaware - Received 11 July, 2007 16. Arkansas - Received 11 July, 2007 17. Minnesota - Received 12 July, 2007 18. Virginia - Received 12 July, 2007 19. Montana - Received 12 July, 2007 To show how much we appreciate your cooperation, we will bring covetable prizes to Austin for all states that submit their program data by tomorrow’s deadline. Becky Ragon says that she does not have Quality Assurance Reports for all the states that have submitted data, and asks all to please send her the QA Word document. We expect several more states will submit data tomorrow. If you cannot meet this deadline, please try to complete your submission by next Friday, July 20. Remember that help is just a phone call away. Contact Mike Grounds (256-771-0014, [email protected]) for assistance with downloading the latest version of the DSPMT software from www.safedams.com. If you have other questions, Mike, Becky (703-428-6820, [email protected]) or I can help. Best regards, Sarah Mayfield Association of State Dam Safety Officials 450 Old Vine Street Lexington, KY 40507-1544 Tel: 859/257-5140; 859/257-2102 (direct) [email protected] www.damsafety.org Electronic NDSRB State Evaluation Criteria reports were received from 48 States and Puerto Rico, as illustrated below.


Green indicates that a State did provide dam safety program performance information for the 2006 Reporting year. The States that did not provide data included the following:

• Maine • Massachusetts

For those States providing reports, the date that these reports were received for each State is summarized below:

1. New Jersey - Received 19 June, 2007

2. Tennessee - Received 19 June, 2007

3. Rhode Island - Received 20 June, 2007

4. Wyoming - Received 20 June, 2007

5. Pennsylvania - Received 22 June, 2007

6. Michigan - Received 3 July, 2007

7. New Mexico - Received 3 July, 2007

8. Vermont - Received 3 July, 2007

9. Maryland - Received 5 July, 2007

10. Indiana - Received 5 July, 2007

11. South Dakota - Received 5 July, 2007

12. Ohio - Received 6 July, 2007

13. Louisiana - Received 9 July, 2007

14. Illinois - Received 10 July, 2007

15. Delaware - Received 11 July, 2007

16. Arkansas - Received 11 July, 2007

17. Minnesota - Received 12 July, 2007

18. Virginia - Received 12 July, 2007

19. Montana - Received 12 July, 2007

20. Colorado - Received 13 July, 2007

21. Mississippi - Received 13 July, 2007

22. New Hampshire - Received 13 July, 2007; Updated 17 July, 2007; Updated 20 July,

2007

23. Oregon - Received 13 July, 2007

24. Missouri - Received 13 July, 2007

25. Kansas - Received 13 July, 2007

26. Utah - Received 13 July, 2007

27. Arizona - Received 13 July, 2007


28. Washington - Received 13 July, 2007

29. Nevada - Received 13 July, 2007

30. Alaska - Received 13 July, 2007

31. North Carolina - Received 13 July, 2007

32. Puerto Rico - Received 13 July, 2007

33. Wisconsin - Received 13 July, 2007

13 July, 2007: The original data collection period ended.

34. North Dakota - Received 17 July, 2007

35. Nebraska - Received 18 July, 2007

36. Alabama - Received 19 July, 2007

37. Iowa - Received 19 July, 2007

38. Connecticut - Received 19 July, 2007

39. Texas - Received 19 July, 2007

40. California - Received 19 July, 2007; Updated 1 August, 2007

41. South Carolina - Received 19 July, 2007

42. New York - Received 20 July, 2007

43. Hawaii - Received 20 July, 2007

20 July, 2007: The end of the extended data collection period. The following additional

reports were received and have been incorporated into this document.

44. Georgia - Received 23 July, 2007

45. West Virginia - Received 27 July, 2007

46. Kentucky - 30 July, 2007

47. Idaho - 1 August, 2007

48. Oklahoma - 3 August, 2007

49. Florida - 8 August, 2007

1.1 Degree of Implementation of the ASDSO Model State Dam Safety Program The Dam Safety Program Management Tools (DSPMT) software was utilized by the States to provide this data in electronic format. This software can also be used at the Executive Review level to examine the data using a number of different report and graphical formats. The ASDSO annual survey data asks numerous questions regarding each State’s degree of implementation of the ASDSO model State dam safety program. This information is summarized below for the 2004, 2005, and 2006 data reporting years.


These summary charts show that the greatest degree of implementation of the ASDSO model State dam safety program to be in the area of enforcement and the least degree of implementation to be in the area of public relations. A comparison of the 2006 reporting year with previous years also shows general improvement in the degree of model program implementation among the States. 1.2 Summary Timelines of State Dam Safety Program Performance Information The NDSRB has been collecting dam safety program performance information from the States since 1998 as responses to the Board’s State Evaluation Criteria report questions. Timelines and data trends can be generated from this information in the following areas:

• Budgetary and Staffing information • Numbers of dams

• Number of Inspections

• Remediation Needs and Accomplishments

• Emergency Action Planning


Number of Full Time Equivalent Staff:

Budgetary Information:

Number of Dams per Technical FTE:


Dollars per State-Regulated Dam:

Number of High Hazard Potential Dams:

Total Number of State Regulated Dams:


Total Number of Inspections of State Regulated Dams:

Percentage of High Hazard Potential Dams Inspected:

Number of State Regulated High Hazard Potential Dams Identified to be in Need of Remediation:


Percentage of State Regulated High Hazard Potential Dams Identified to be in Need of Remediation which were Remediated:

Number of State Regulated High Hazard Potential Dams with an EAP:

EAP Completion Percentage for High Hazard Potential Dams:

2007 State Dam Safety Program Performance Information – Points of Contact

2. National Summary of 2005 State Dam Safety Program Performance Data This section combines the results of all 49 of the State Dam Safety Program performance reports received for the 2005 reporting period. The results are provided both collectively and individually. Dam Safety Program Management Tools (DSPMT) Reporting

State Dam Safety Program Performance Report for the

National Dam Safety Review Board (NDSRB) and the

Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO)

January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information State/Agency Name: Alabama Date of Report Completion: 07/19/2007 Author: Leslie Durham, P.E. Title: Floodplain Manager, ADECA OWR Address: 401 Adams Ave., Montgomery, Al 36103 Phone: (334) 242-5499 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Alaska Date of Report Completion: 07/13/2007 Author: Charles F. Cobb, P.E. Title: State Dam Safety Engineer Address: ADNR- Dam Safety Unit 550 W. 7th Avenue,

Suite 1020 Phone: (907) 269-8636 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Arizona Date of Report Completion: 07/13/2007 Author: Michael Johnson Title: Dam Safety Section Manager Address: ADWR, 3550 North Central Ave, Phoenix,

Arizona, 85012 Phone: (602) 771-8659 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Arkansas Date of Report Completion: 07/10/2007 Author: Alvin Simmons Title: Engineer Supervisor Address: 101 E. Capitol, Suite 350, Little Rock, AR

72201 Phone: 501-682-3981 e-mail: [email protected]


State/Agency Name: California Date of Report Completion: 07/19/2007 Author: Dean Smith Title: Senior Engineer, Water Resources Address: P. O. Box 942836 Phone: Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Colorado Date of Report Completion: 07/10/2007 Author: Jack G. Byers Title: Deputy State Engineer Address: Colorado Division of Water Resources, 1818

Sherman Phone: (303) 866-3581 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Connecticut Date of Report Completion: 07/19/2007 Author: Denise Ruzika; Ann Kuzyk Title: Director, DEP Inland Water Resources Div. Address: 79 Elm Street , Hartford, CT 06106 Phone: 1 860 424 3706 e-mail: [email protected];

[email protected] State/Agency Name: Delaware Date of Report Completion: 07/10/2007 Author: David Twing Title: Division Engineer - Division of Soil & Water

Cons Address: DNREC, 89 Kings Highway, Dover, DE 19901 Phone: 302-739-9155 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Florida Date of Report Completion: 07/31/2007 Author: Fred Noble, P.E. Title: Program Administrator Address: 2051 E. Dirac Drive - MS 715; Tallahassee, FL

32310-3760 Phone: 850-488-8217 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Georgia Date of Report Completion: 07/18/2007 Author: Francis E. Fiegle II, P.E. Title: Program Manager Address: Suite 110; 4244 International Parkway, Atlanta,

Georgia 30354 Phone: (404) 362-2678 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Hawaii Date of Report Completion: 07/13/2007


Author: Denise Manuel Title: Engineer V Address: 1151 Punchbowl Street, Rm 221, Honolulu, HI

96813 Phone: (808) 587-0246 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Idaho Date of Report Completion: 08/08/2007 Author: Sonny Hornbaker Title: Dam Safety Section Manager Address: 322 East Front Street, Boise Idaho 83720-0098 Phone: 208-287-4924 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Illinois Date of Report Completion: 07/10/2007 Author: Paul Mauer Title: Division Manager Address: One Natural Resources Way, Springfield, IL

62702- Phone: 217/782-4427 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Indiana Date of Report Completion: 07/03/2007 Author: George Crosby Title: Manager, Dam and Levee Safety Section Address: 402 West Washington Street, Indianapolis,

Indiana, Phone: 317-233-4576 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Iowa Date of Report Completion: 07/19/2007 Author: Dave Allen Title: Environmental Specialist Address: Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources, Wallace

State Office Building Phone: 515/281-6930 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Kansas Date of Report Completion: 07/13/2007 Author: Kimberly A. Feldkamp, P.E. Title: Dam Safety Team, Water Structures Engineer Address: 109 SW 9th Street, 2nd Floor, Topeka, KS

66612-128 Phone: (785) 296-4625 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Kentucky Date of Report Completion: 08/07/2007 Author: Ron Dutta Title: Dam Safety Supervisor Address: 14 Reilly Rd Frankfort, KY 40601


Phone: 502-564-3410 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Louisiana Date of Report Completion: 06/22/2007 Author: Mr. Elnur Musa, P.E. Title: LADOTD Dam Safety and Water Resources

Engineer Address: PO BOX 94245, Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9245 Phone: 225-274-4321 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Maryland Date of Report Completion: 07/03/2007 Author: M. Q. Cas Taherian Title: Chief, Dam Safety Division Address: MD Dept. of Environment, 1800 Washington

Blvd Suite 440, Baltimore MD 21230 Phone: 410-537-3538 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Michigan Date of Report Completion: 06/29/2007 Author: Paul T. Wessel, P.E. Title: Dam Safety Engineer, Michigan DEQ Address: 525 W. Allegan, PO Box 30458, Lansing MI

48909-7958 Phone: 517 335 6748 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Minnesota Date of Report Completion: 07/09/2007 Author: Jason Boyle Title: State Dam Safety Engineer Address: DNR Waters 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN

55155-4032 Phone: 651-259-5715 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Mississippi Date of Report Completion: 06/29/2007 Author: James MacLellan Title: Dam Safety Engineer Address: 2380 Hwy 80w Jackson, MS 39204 Phone: (601) 961-5061 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Missouri Date of Report Completion: 07/13/2007 Author: James L. Alexander Title: Chief Engineer, Dam Safety Address: 111 Fairgrounds Road, Rolla, Missouri

65401 Phone: 573/368-2177 e-mail: [email protected]


State/Agency Name: Montana Date of Report Completion: 07/11/2007 Author: Michele Lemieux Title: Dam Safety Program Manager Address: P.O. Box 201601 Helena, Montana 59620-

1601 Phone: (406) 444-6613 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Nebraska Date of Report Completion: 07/18/2007 Author: Patrick J. Diederich, P.E. Title: Chief of Dam Safety Address: Dept. of Natural Resources, 301 Centennial

Mall South Phone: (402) 471-1222 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Nevada Date of Report Completion: 07/13/2007 Author: Michael J. Anderson, P.E. Title: Staff Engineer III Address: 901 South Stewart Street, Suite 2002, Carson

City, Nevada 89701 Phone: (775) 684-2843 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: New Hampshire Date of Report Completion: 07/12/2007 Author: Nancy McGrath Title: Outreach Coordinator Address: NH DES, Water Division, PO Box 95, 29 Hazen

Drive, Phone: 603-271-3406 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: New Jersey Date of Report Completion: 06/19/2007 Author: Dewey Lima Title: Principal Engineer Address: P.O. Box 419 Trenton, NJ 08625 Phone: 609-984-0859 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: New Mexico Date of Report Completion: 07/03/2007 Author: Elaine C. Pacheco Title: New Mexico Dam Safety Bureau Chief Address: P.O. Box 25102, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504 Phone: (505) 827-6111 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: New York Date of Report Completion: 07/17/2007 Author: Alon Dominitz


Title: Dam Safety Program Address: 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-3504 Phone: (518) 402-8185 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: North Carolina Date of Report Completion: 07/12/2007 Author: Tami V. Idol Title: Assistant State Dam Safety Engineer Address: Land Quality Section, 1612 Mail Service

Center, Ra Phone: 919-733-4574 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: North Dakota Date of Report Completion: 07/09/2007 Author: Karen Goff Title: Dam Safety Engineer Address: 900 E. Boulevard Ave. Dept. 770, Bismarck ND

58505-0850 Phone: (701) 328-4953 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Ohio Date of Report Completion: 07/05/2007 Author: Mark Ogden Title: Administrator Address: 2045 Morse Road Bldg B Columbus Ohio

43229-6693 Phone: 614/265-6727 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Oklahoma Date of Report Completion: 08/03/2007 Author: Walid T. Maher Title: Dam Safety Program Manager Address: 3800 North Classen Blvd. Phone: (405) 530-8800 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Oregon Date of Report Completion: 07/12/2007 Author: John Falk (7-12-2007) Title: Dam Safety Coordinator Address: 725 Summer Street NE, Salem, OR 97301-

4172 Phone: 503-986-9840 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Pennsylvania Date of Report Completion: 06/19/2007 Author: Dennis R. Dickey, P.E. Title: Chief, Division of Dam Safety Address: P.O. Box 8554, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8554 Phone: 717-772-5951 e-mail: [email protected]


State/Agency Name: Puerto Rico Date of Report Completion: 08/14/2007 Author: Pablo A. Roman García Title: Administrator, Acting, Dams and Reservoirs

Safety Address: po box 364267 san juan, pr 00936-4267 Phone: 787-289-3254 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Rhode Island Date of Report Completion: 06/18/2007 Author: Paul Guglielmino Title: Senior Sanitary Engineer Address: 235 Promenade St., Providence, RI 02908-

5767 Phone: 401 222-1360, x7122 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: South Carolina Date of Report Completion: 07/19/2007 Author: Steven M. Bradley, P.E. Title: Dam Safety Hydrologist Address: 2600 Bull St, BOW, Columbia, SC 29201-1708 Phone: 803-898-4027 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: South Dakota Date of Report Completion: 07/05/2007 Author: Tim Schaal Title: Natural Resources Engineering Specialist Address: SD DENR, Joe Foss Bldg., 523 E. Capitol,

Pierre, SD Phone: (605) 773-3352 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Tennessee Date of Report Completion: 06/18/2007 Author: Lyle Bentley Title: Chief, Tennessee Safe Dams Section Address: 6th Floor, L&C Tower 401 Church

Street Phone: (615) 532-0154 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Texas Date of Report Completion: 07/19/2007 Author: Warren Samuelson Title: State Dam Safety Coordinator Address: P.O. Box 13087, Mail Code 174; Austin, Tx.

78711 Phone: (512) 239-5195 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Utah Date of Report Completion: 07/13/2007


Author: David K. Marble, Title: ASST STATE ENGINEER - DAM SAFETY Address: 1594 W NORTH TEMPLE, Ste 220, SALT

LAKE CITY UT 84116 Phone: 801-538-7376 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Vermont Date of Report Completion: 07/02/2007 Author: Robert B. Finucane, P.E. Title: Chief, Dam Safety & Hydrology Section Address: 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, VT 05671-

0511 Phone: 802.241.3454 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Virginia Date of Report Completion: 07/12/2007 Author: Jim Robinson, PE Title: Dam Safety Program Manager Address: 203 Governor Street, Suite 206, Richmond, VA

23219 Phone: 8047862886 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Washington Date of Report Completion: 07/06/2007 Author: Doug Johnson Title: Dam Safety Supervisor Address: PO Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504 Phone: 360-407-6623 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: West Virginia Date of Report Completion: 07/27/2007 Author: Brian R. Long Title: Program Manager Address: WV Dept of Environmental Protection, EE/Dam

Safety Phone: (304) 926-0499 ext 1005 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Wisconsin Date of Report Completion: 07/15/2007 Author: Meg Galloway Title: Chief of Dams and Floodplain Section Address: 101 S Webster, Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-

7921 Phone: 608-266-7014 e-mail: [email protected] State/Agency Name: Wyoming Date of Report Completion: 06/20/2007 Author: Larry Stockdale Title: Safety of Dams Engineer Address: Herschler Bldg. 4E, Cheyenne, Wyoming


82002 Phone: (307) 777-3500 e-mail: [email protected]

2007 State Dam Safety Program Performance Information – Legislation & Regulations

II. Legislation and Regulations Legislation and Regulation responses are summarized in the following figure. Those States answering yes to all the questions are shown in Green, those answering yes to most questions (>50%)are shown in Blue, those answering yes to some of the questions are shown in Yellow and those that answered no to all the questions are shown in Red. The States that did not respond are shown in White.

II. A. Compliance with Basic Criteria found in Public Law 109- 460 Please indicate whether your State Dam Safety Program meets the following criteria authorized by State legislation: A. The authority to review and approve plans and specifications to construct, enlarge, remove, and abandon Dams. No: 1 Yes: 48 The following States responded No: Alabama B. The authority to perform periodic inspections during Dam construction to ensure compliance with approved plans and specifications.


No: 1 Yes: 48 The following States responded No: Alabama C. A requirement that, on completion of Dam construction, State approval must be given before operation of a Dam. No: 8 Yes: 41 The following States responded No: Alabama Hawaii Indiana Michigan Mississippi North Dakota Rhode Island South Dakota Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Wisconsin: This has proven very hard to track & enforce since we do not have adequate staff to provide routine construction inspection.

D. 1. The authority to require or perform the inspection, at least once every five years, of all Dams and reservoirs that would pose a significant threat to human life and property in case of failure to determine the continued safety of the Dams and reservoirs. No: 2 Yes: 47 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Wisconsin: We have the authority to inspect this frequently though our mandate is only once every 10 years and staffing doe not allow inspection even that frequently.

2. A procedure for more detailed and frequent safety inspections.

No: 6 Yes: 43 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Indiana Minnesota Rhode Island


Vermont E. A requirement that all inspections be performed under the supervision of a State- registered professional engineer with related experience in Dam design and construction. No: 8 Yes: 41 The following States responded No: Alabama Indiana Iowa New Hampshire North Carolina Rhode Island Tennessee West Virginia F. The authority to issue notices, when applicable, to require owners of Dams to perform necessary maintenance or remedial work, revise operating procedures, or take other actions, including breaching Dams when necessary. No: 2 Yes: 47 The following States responded No: Alabama Vermont G. Regulations for carrying out the legislation of the State described in Section 8(e)2A. No: 4 Yes: 45 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Rhode Island Vermont H. Provisions for necessary funding: 1. To ensure timely repairs or other changes to, or removal of, a Dam in order to protect human life and property. No: 9 Yes: 40 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Delaware Indiana Iowa Oregon Rhode Island


South Dakota Washington 2. If the owner of the Dam does not take action described above, to take action as expeditiously as practicable. No: 7 Yes: 42 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Delaware Iowa Oregon South Dakota Tennessee I. A system of emergency procedures to be used if a Dam or the failure of the Dam is imminent. No: 7 Yes: 42 The following States responded No: Alabama Iowa Minnesota Nevada North Dakota Rhode Island Vermont J. An identification of: 1. Each Dam the failure of which could reasonably be expected to endanger human life. No: 3 Yes: 46 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Rhode Island 2. The maximum area that could be flooded if the Dam failed. No: 17 Yes: 32 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Delaware Georgia Indiana


Iowa Kentucky Missouri Nevada New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Vermont Wyoming 3. Necessary public facilities that would be affected by the flooding. No: 19 Yes: 30 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska California Connecticut Delaware Georgia Indiana Iowa Kentucky Missouri Nevada New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina Vermont Wyoming


II. B. Compliance with ASDSO Model State Dam Safety Program, Legislation

Compliance with the ASDSO model State dam safety program legislation responses are

summarized in the following figure. Those States answering yes to all the questions are shown in Green, those answering yes to most questions (>50%)are shown in Blue, those answering yes to some of the questions are shown in Yellow and those that answered no to all the questions are shown in Red. The States that did not respond are shown in White.

Please indicate whether your State Dam Safety Program includes the following items of the ASDSO Model State Dam Safety Program as authorized by State legislation: 1. There is statutory language that establishes the dam safety regulatory program and defines jurisdictional dams. (Partial CRS Prereq. No.1.1) No: 3 Yes: 46 The following States responded No: Alabama New Mexico North Dakota Comments/Clarification on Responses:

New Mexico: Legislation defines a jurisdictional dam but not the dam safety regulatory program. Legislation does not do both.

New York: Laws define dams subject to permitting, regs define dams subject to safety provisions


2. Authority to adopt rules, regulations, and established standards. (CRS Prereq. No. 1.3) No: 1 Yes: 48 The following States responded No: Alabama 3. Authority to require that a professional engineer be in charge of the design of initial construction, reconstruction, enlargement, alteration, repair, operation, abandonment, breach, or removal of dams and supervision of construction. No: 4 Yes: 45 The following States responded No: Alabama Indiana New Mexico Rhode Island Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Iowa: All designs must be completed by a professional engineer or an NRCS employ. Construction inspection is only required for "major" dams.

New Mexico: Legislation defines a jurisdictional dam but not the dam safety regulatory program. Legislation does not do both.

4. Authority to require that a permit for application approval be obtained in writing prior to the start of any activity involving initial construction, reconstruction, enlargement, alteration, modification, operation, abandonment, breach, repair or removal of dams. No: 4 Yes: 45 The following States responded No: Alabama Indiana New Mexico Rhode Island Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Rhode Island: This authority is in place except for operation & abandonment. 5. Authority to approve or deny impoundment of water. No: 4 Yes: 45 The following States responded No: Alabama Connecticut Indiana Rhode Island


6. Authority to inspect dams during construction and periodically during the life of the dam including the authority for agency personnel to enter private lands. (CRS Prereq. No. 2.1 and 2.2) No: 2 Yes: 46 The following States responded No: Alabama Oregon 7. Authority to order repairs of a dam or modifications to a dam's operation to assure the dam's safety. (CRS Prereq. No. 3.1) No: 1 Yes: 48 The following States responded No: Alabama Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Florida: Older dams which may not be in the inventory, are still subject to the general requirement that safe operation is required. Should one of these dams fail or face imminent failure, enforcement action will be executed. One of the consequences would

8. Authority to take such corrective action as required to carry out the purpose of the statute. No: 2 Yes: 47 The following States responded No: Alabama Oregon 9. Authority to take emergency action. (CRS Prereq. No. 3.3) No: 2 Yes: 47 The following States responded No: Alabama Oregon 10. Authority to apply penalties for non-compliance. (CRS Prereq. No. 3.2) No: 3 Yes: 46 The following States responded No: Alabama Oregon Rhode Island Comments/Clarification on Responses:


Nevada: New legislation authorizes the State Engineer to levy fines.

11. Authority to provide a liability disclaimer for State and Agency personnel. No: 9 Yes: 40 The following States responded No: Alabama Michigan Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island Tennessee Vermont Washington West Virginia 12. Authority to implement the statutory authority under one Agency. (CRS Prereq. No. 1.2) No: 3 Yes: 46 The following States responded No: Alabama Rhode Island Vermont Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Rhode Island: 2006 legislative amendment added state Emergency Management Agency authority (for EAPs) in addition to present Department of Environmental Management authority.

13. Authority to require the owner to: a. Fully comply with all State laws and regulations. No: 2 Yes: 45 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska b. Monitor, operate or maintain the dam in a safe condition and make required repairs accordance with the regulations, terms and conditions of permits or approved applications, approved operating plans and orders of the agency pursuant to the statute. (CRS No. 13) No: 3 Yes: 46 The following States responded No:


Alabama New Mexico Rhode Island c. Conduct periodic inspections and analyses as may be reasonably required by the agency and submit certified reports on the condition of the dam to the agency (or equivalent reports prepared by governmental agencies). No: 6 Yes: 43 The following States responded No: Alabama Indiana New Mexico North Dakota Rhode Island Vermont Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Nevada: State Engineer may issue order for action. EAPs required by regulation, not statute. New Mexico: Authority to address items a-c is provided through regulations but is not specifically identified in legislation.

New York: Law provides authority to promulgate these as regulations. Regulations currently in development.

d. Immediately notify the state agencies and responsible authorities in downstream communities of any condition which threatens the safety of the dam and take all necessary actions to protect against loss of human life, economic loss and lifeline disruption including action required under an EAP or agency order issued pursuant to the law. (CRS No. 8) No: 9 Yes: 40 The following States responded No: Alabama Georgia Indiana Iowa New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Rhode Island South Carolina e. Retain records. No: 12 Yes: 35 The following States responded No: Alabama


Indiana Michigan Nevada North Carolina North Dakota Rhode Island South Carolina Vermont West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 14. Authority to establish fee structures for application review and inspection of dams and annual registration fees. No: 26 Yes: 23 The following States responded No: Alabama Florida Georgia Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Mississippi Missouri Nevada New Jersey New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Oregon Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Texas Utah Vermont Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Kansas: Our agency has an established fee structure to review applications and inspection of dams, but we do not have the authority to establish it. Legislation has the authority.

Nevada: Fees are set by statute.

New Mexico: Fees are available for plan review but not inspections.


Tennessee: Tennessee Safe Dams Section does not have authority to charge annual registration fees.

Wisconsin: We can charge for application review but not inspection or annual registration (dams permits have no term and we do not have an annual registration requirement).

15. Authority to require proof of financial responsibility. No: 33 Yes: 16 The following States responded No: Alabama California Colorado Delaware Georgia Idaho Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Mississippi Missouri Montana New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming 16. Responsibility to report dam incidents to the National Performance of Dams Program (NPDP). No: 32 Yes: 15 The following States responded No: Alabama California Colorado


Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Illinois Indiana Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Missouri Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Texas Utah Vermont Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Georgia: There is no legislative mandate to report dam incidents to the NPDP. However, we do submit DIN on any incident. New York: No legislation restriction against reporting, but no legislation to compel reporting.


II. C. Compliance with ASDSO Model State Dam Safety Program, Regulations

Compliance with the ASDSO model State dam safety program Regulation responses are summarized in the following figure. Those States answering yes to all the questions are shown in Green, those answering yes to most questions (>50%)are shown in Blue, those answering yes to some of the questions are shown in Yellow and those that answered no to all the questions are shown in Red. The States that did not respond are shown in White.

Please indicate whether your State Dam Safety Program regulations address the following sections of the ASDSO Model State Dam Safety Program: 1. Reference to statutory authority for adopting regulations. No: 4 Yes: 45 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Rhode Island Vermont 2. Definition of Terms No: 4 Yes: 45 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Rhode Island Vermont


3. Purpose of Regulations. No: 6 Yes: 42 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Mississippi Rhode Island Vermont Wyoming 4. Define scope of jurisdiction; e.g. according to drainage area, height of dam, maximum storage capacity, or hazard potential classification. No: 4 Yes: 44 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Rhode Island Vermont 5. Established classification criteria (by size, hazard potential, purpose). No: 5 Yes: 44 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Florida Rhode Island Vermont 6. Establishes design criteria. No: 13 Yes: 36 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Connecticut Delaware Florida Hawaii Indiana New York North Dakota Oregon Puerto Rico Rhode Island


Vermont Comments/Clarification on Responses:

New York: Design criteria are in Guidelines - regulations give authority to enforce Guidelines.

7. Permit or applications approval requirements for new construction, reconstruction, enlargement, repair, or alteration. No: 5 Yes: 44 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Indiana Rhode Island Vermont 8. Permit or applications approval required for operation and maintenance of existing dams. No: 14 Yes: 35 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Florida Hawaii Indiana Michigan North Carolina North Dakota Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina Utah Vermont Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

North Dakota: Had checked yes previously. This is only a correction; there has been no change in our regulations.

9. Permit or applications approval requirements for breach, removal or abandonment. No: 6 Yes: 43 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Indiana North Dakota


Rhode Island Vermont Comments/Clarification on Responses:

New York: Abandonment not recognized as an option. Law requires safe operation and maintenance at all times, so prohibits abandonment.

10. Construction requirements and procedures including notice of start of work, status report, approval of supervision, construction reports, prior approval of agency on major changes to approved plans, and authorization to impound. No: 8 Yes: 41 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Indiana North Dakota Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina Vermont Comments/Clarification on Responses:

New York: Regulations give authority to impose permit conditions. Permit conditions include construction supervision, etc.

11. Establishes owner’s responsibilities for operation and maintenance. No: 7 Yes: 42 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Indiana Rhode Island South Carolina Vermont Wyoming 12. Requirement for inspection by owners including submittal of periodic inspection reports to the agency, retention of records and acceptance of reports of equivalent inspections conducted by governmental agencies. No: 16 Yes: 33 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Indiana Kentucky


New Hampshire New York North Carolina North Dakota Oregon Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Wyoming 13. Requirement of emergency action procedures by owner for all dams. (CRS No. 8) No: 26 Yes: 23 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas California Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kentucky Michigan Mississippi Montana Nebraska North Carolina North Dakota Oregon Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Arkansas: Arkansas requires all high hazard permitted dam owners to prepare, update, and periodically test an Emergency Action Plan. No such Arkansas requirement exist for significant hazard dams.

Illinois: Required for High and Significant dams.

Michigan: We require EAP updates and encourage testing, but do not require testing.


Montana: MT regulations require EAP's for High Hazard dams. For significant hazard dams EAP's are voluntary, but we are working to get EAP's for all significant hazard dams also. South Dakota: Changed to NO. We only require and EAP on High Hazard dams and do not require updating or testing.

14. Establishes enforcement procedures. No: 7 Yes: 42 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Delaware Indiana North Dakota Rhode Island Vermont 15. Establishes fee structures for applicant/permit review and/or for inspection of dams by state and annual registration fees. No: 24 Yes: 25 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Florida Georgia Illinois Indiana Iowa Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Mississippi Missouri Nevada New Jersey New York North Dakota Oregon Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina Texas Utah Vermont Virginia


Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Montana: Our only fee is for initial hazard evaluation application. No

Nevada: Fees set by statute. Tennessee: Tennessee Safe Dams Section does not have authority to charge annual registration fees.

16. Establish owner financial responsibilities. No: 34 Yes: 15 The following States responded No: Alabama California Connecticut Delaware Georgia Idaho Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Mississippi Missouri Montana Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Nevada: Owners fully financially responsible for dam, regulations defining an owner.


II. D. Statistics on State Laws and Regulations 1. Date of latest change to laws (Year/Month): Alaska: 1987 Arizona: 2000/08 Arkansas: 1987 California: 2003/October Connecticut: Spring 2007 Session Delaware: 2004/08 Florida: 2004 Georgia: 05/July Hawaii: 1987/June Idaho: 2004/March Illinois: 2/7/1996 Indiana: July, 2004 Iowa: 1988/July Kansas: 2002/7 Maryland: 06/1996 Michigan: 2004/October Minnesota: nothing in > 10 year Mississippi: 2001/March Missouri: 1994/June Montana: 1993 Nebraska: 9/4/2005 Nevada: 2005/July New Hampshire: 2006/07 New Jersey: 2005/06 New Mexico: 2004/May New York: 2006


North Carolina: 1995/October North Dakota: June 2003 Ohio: 2007/April Oklahoma: 2004/07 Oregon: 1995 Pennsylvania: 1985/05 Puerto Rico: 2002/08 Rhode Island: 2006 South Carolina: 1994/July South Dakota: July 1990 Tennessee: 2007/07 Texas: 1997/Sept. Vermont: 2004/6 Virginia: 2006/07 Washington: 2005/July West Virginia: 2007/07 Wisconsin: 2001 Budget 2. Citation (Citation Number): Alaska: AS 46.17 Arkansas: Ch. 22 of Title 15 California: CWC Section 6307 Connecticut: Public Act 07-61 Delaware: Title 7, Chapter 42 Florida: FS 373, 403 Georgia: HB 496 Hawaii: HRS 179D (original) Illinois: 615 ILCS 5/29a Indiana: 14-27-7.5-8 &16


Iowa: 455B.275"9" Kansas: K.S.A. 82a-301-305a Maryland: Annotated Code of MD Michigan: PA 325 of 2004 Minnesota: 1036.501 Mississippi: MCA 51-3-39 Montana: 85-15 Nebraska: LB335 Nevada: Nevada Revised Statute New Hampshire: RSA 482 New Jersey: N.J.S.A. 58:4-1 New Mexico: 72-5-32 NMSA New York: ECL 15-0516 North Carolina: G.S. 143-215 North Dakota: CC 61-16.1-38 Ohio: 1521.06 Oklahoma: 21 Ok Reg 2625 Oregon: ORS 537.248 Pennsylvania: 32 P.S. 693.1 - 693. Rhode Island: Chapter 46-19 South Dakota: Chapter 46-7 Tennessee: T. C. A. 69-11 Texas: TWC, 12.052 Vermont: 10 VSA Chapter 43 Virginia: 10.1-613 Washington: RCW 90.03.470 West Virginia: 22-14 Wisconsin: Chapter 31, State St


3. Date of latest change to regulations (Year/Month): Alaska: 2004/10 Arizona: 2000/06 Arkansas: 1993/November California: 2006/July Florida: 4/27/06 Georgia: n/a Hawaii: 1989/March Idaho: 1993/July Illinois: 4/10/1998 Iowa: 2003/July Kansas: 2007/05 Kentucky: 1990/November Maryland: 06/1996 Michigan: none Minnesota: 6/11/2001 Mississippi: 2005/August Missouri: 1994/June Montana: April 2001 Nebraska: 4/20/2006 Nevada: 2003/May New Hampshire: 2005/08 New Jersey: 2005/06 New Mexico: 2005/March North Carolina: 1995/ April North Dakota: June 2003 Ohio: 2006/May Oklahoma: 2004/07


Oregon: ?? Pennsylvania: 1991/10 Puerto Rico: 2005/05 Rhode Island: n/a South Carolina: 1997/July South Dakota: April 1989 Tennessee: 2001/02 Texas: 1986/May Vermont: n/a Virginia: 2002/07 Washington: 2005/August West Virginia: 1995/05 Wisconsin: 8-1-2001 4. Citation (Citation Number): Alaska: 11 AAC 93.151-201 California: CCR Section 315 Florida: 62-672 Georgia: n/a Hawaii: HAR 190 (original) Illinois: 17 Ill Adm. Code Cha Iowa: 567-72.3(5)"b", IAC Kansas: K.A.R. 5-40-1 to 94 Maryland: COMAR 26.17.04.05 Minnesota: 6115.0360 Mississippi: LW-4 Montana: ARM ch 14 Nebraska: Title 457 Nevada: Nevada Administrative


New Hampshire: 8412, Env-Wr 100-700 New Jersey: N.J.A.C. 7:20-1 New Mexico: 19.25.12 NMAC New York: 6NYCRR 673 North Carolina: NCAC Title 15A, Subc North Dakota: AC 89-08-02 Ohio: 1501:21-24 Oklahoma: 21 Ok Reg 2625 Pennsylvania: 25 Pa. Code, Chapter South Dakota: Chapter 74:02:08 Tennessee: Chapter 1200-5-7 Texas: TAC, 299 Vermont: n/a Virginia: 10.1-605 Washington: WAC 173-175-765 West Virginia: 47CSR34 Wisconsin: NR 333, Administrative 5. Is this change an improvement to the dam safety program? No: 7 Yes: 33 The following States responded No: Iowa Maryland Michigan Minnesota Oregon South Carolina Wisconsin 6. Does pending legislation affect dam safety? No: 35 Yes: 6 The following States responded Yes: Alaska


Connecticut Missouri New Hampshire New Jersey New York Comments:

• Alaska: State licensing program for small hydroelectric projects (<5MW) is under development and could add additional existing dams and proposed new dams to current workload.

• Connecticut: DEP submitted proposed legislation which passed as Public Act 07-

61, An Act Concerning Dam Safety. This law implements a number of Dam Safety Regulatory Program enhancements: protects the public by allowing municipal officials to enter private property to inspect dams when they reasonably believe a public safety concern exists and file any such inspection with the DEP for follow-up; requires owners of dams to maintain and repair their dams in a safe condition and gives DEP the authority to order such maintenance or repairs; and requires high and significant hazard dam owners to record the existence of their dams on town land records, including its DEP assigned hazard classification; and

• Georgia: Change to the Act requires we report on annual basis to each county the

name and owner of dams within their county. Not sure of impact at this time.

• Missouri: Pending legislation failed to pass in the 2007 general assembly that would have reduced the height exemption to 25 feet, but would have established a storage exemption of 50 acre feet. Also, low hazard dams would no longer be inspected by state personnel. The change would have approximately doubled the number of dams actually inspected by state personnel. It would have modified the current agricultural exemption so that high hazard agricultural dams would not be exempt. It would change the hazard classification system currently used by Missouri to match the definition used by the National Inventory. Finally, it would have established authority for the state to assess permit fees for dam safety permits. The bill was introduced and approved in the Senate, but failed in the House due to lack of a final vote.

• Nebraska: No pending legislation

• New Hampshire: Pending legislation will increase Annual Dam Registration and

permit fees and provide a funding source for the maintenance of state owned dams.

• New Jersey: An Enforcement Bill Amendment to the Safe Dam Act has been passed which allows the Department to assess administrative penalties.

• New York: New law requires copies of state dam inspection report be sent to the

Municipality where the dam is located, within 30 days. Several bills proposed to compel State disclosure of inspection reports, periodic re-evaluation of dams by owners, require emergency action plans, require property transfer disclosure, raise fines for violations of dam safety laws, etc.

• Oklahoma: Applies to the potential for federal/state cost-share of the PL-566 rehab

projects

• Wisconsin: All changes clarified program elements.


7. Do changes or proposed changes in legislation affect State or dam owner liability? No: 36 Yes: 5 The following States responded Yes: Illinois Indiana New York Rhode Island Virginia Comments:

• Illinois: pending legislation regarding safety aspects for recreational use of waters. Will affect signage and safety appurtenance requirements. Direct impact on dams on public waters, standard of duty impacts on all other dams.

• Indiana: The two most recent legislative changes (notification of dam ownership

transfer & request of downstream property owner for DNR to take jurisdiction of an upstream dam not currently within the state's jurisdiction places more responsibility and possibly more liability on the dam owner.

• Nebraska: No pending legislation

• New York: raise fines for violation of dam safety laws, including for falsification of

submittals to the state.

• Rhode Island: 2 changes: one requires EAPs for high & significant hazard dams; other authorizes State to take action at an unsafe dam if the owner does not.

• Virginia: No liability of Board, Department, employees, or agents. The owner shall

be responsible for liability for damage to the property of others or injury to persons, including, but not limited to, loss of life resulting from the operation or failure of a dam.

• Wisconsin: All changes clarified program elements.

2007 State Dam Safety Program Performance Information – Program Staffing & Budget

III. Program Staffing and Budget A. List the number of FTE's including administrative and clerical/support, and technical such as engineers, geologists, hydrologist, technicians, and inspectors. State Admin./Cleri

cal Technical Others # High Haz.

Pot./FTE # Sig. Haz. Pot./FTE

Alabama 0 0 0 0 0 Alaska 0 1 0 18 31 Arizona 1 6 0.3 16 6 Arkansas 0.4 2.6 0.3 39 35 California 7 51 0 7 14 Colorado 1 13 0 22 23 Connecticut 1 5 0.5 45 92 Delaware 0.25 0.5 0 18 54 Florida 7 70 0 1 4 Georgia 1 10 0 45 0 Hawaii 0.25 1.5 0 51 14 Idaho 0.5 7 0 14 20 Illinois 0 4.8 0 38 62 Indiana 0 4 1 59 62 Iowa 0 1.25 0.5 66 154 Kansas 2.75 7.33 0 26 34 Kentucky 2 12 0 15 18 Louisiana 0 8 0 4 8 Maryland 0.5 5 0.25 13 16 Michigan 0.3 2.8 0 30 49 Minnesota 0.5 2.4 0.5 10 53 Mississippi 0.5 3 0.8 103 27 Missouri 1 4 0 111 33 Montana 0.25 3.75 0.2 27 35 Nebraska 0.3 4.8 0.7 27 44 Nevada 0.25 1.75 0 77 71 New Hampshire

1 7 0 12 27

New Jersey 1 19 0 11 19 New Mexico 1 5 0 33 19 New York 0.5 10.25 0 38 74 North Carolina

1 15 0 69 46

North Dakota 0.5 3.5 0.5 5 25 Ohio 1.5 12 0 34 47 Oklahoma 0.5 1.5 1 125 55 Oregon 0 2.26 0 54 80 Pennsylvania 2.5 21 1 38 13 Puerto Rico 3 3 0 11 0 Rhode Island 0.2 1 0 17 41 South Carolina

0 2.5 0 61 192

South Dakota 0.5 1 0 47 144 Tennessee 2 6 0 24 33 Texas 0 7 0 124 113 Utah 1 5 0 38 40


State Admin./Clerical

Technical Others # High Haz. Pot./FTE

# Sig. Haz. Pot./FTE

Vermont 0.05 2.15 0 26 61 Virginia 2 3 0 48 97 Washington 0.9 6.9 0 21 28 West Virginia 1 4 1 92 25 Total 48.63 380.79 8.8 C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. (If your State does not separate dam safety expenditures from departmental budget, please provide the estimated dam safety costs as part of the comments.) Budget Cycle Beginning and Ending Dates: State Begin Date End Date Alabama Alaska 7/1 6/30 Arizona July 1 June 30 Arkansas 7/1 6/30 California 7/1/2006 6/30/2007 Colorado July 1, 05 June 30, 06 Connecticut 7/1 6/30 Delaware 7/01/2006 6/30/2007 Florida 7/01/06 6/30/07 Georgia July 1, 2006 June 30, 2007 Hawaii 7/1/06 6/30/07 Idaho 07/01/2005 06/30/20056 Illinois July 1st June 30th Indiana July 1 June 30 Iowa July 1 June 30 Kansas 7/1/2006 6/30/2007 Kentucky July 1 June 30 Louisiana 7/01 6/30 Maryland 7/1/2006 7/1/2007 Michigan 01/01/2006 12/31/2006 Minnesota 7/1/2005 6/30/2007 Mississippi July 1 June 30 Missouri 7/1/2005 6/30/2006 Montana 7/1/2006 6/30/2007 Nebraska 07-01-05 06-30-06 Nevada July 1 June 30 New Hampshire 07/01/06 06/31/07 New Jersey July 1 June 30 New Mexico July 2006 June 2007 New York 4/1/05 3/31/06 North Carolina 7/01/06 6/30/07 North Dakota July 1 June 30 Ohio 7/1/2006 6/30/2007 Oklahoma 7/1/2006 6/30/2007 Oregon July 1, 2005 June 30, 2007 Pennsylvania 7/1/2006 6/30/2007 Puerto Rico July 1, 2005 June 30, 2006 Rhode Island 7/1/05 6/30/06


State Begin Date End Date South Carolina 7/01/03 6/30/04 South Dakota July 1 June 30 Tennessee 7/1/2006 6/30/2007 Texas 9/1/2007 8/31/2008 Utah 07/01 06/30 Vermont 7/1/06 6/30/07 Virginia July 1, 2006 June 30, 2007 Washington 7/1/2006 6/30/2007 West Virginia 07/01/2006 06/30/2007 Wyoming July 1 June 30 Funding Comments:

• Alabama: Currently, Alabama does not have a Dam Safety Program.

• Alaska: General fund appropriation is $100,500.

• Arkansas: Total Budget Estimate: $338,700.00, Total Budget minus $56,682 NDSP Grant: $282,018. NDSP Grant is used primarily for equipment, therefore, 56,682 has been subtracted from equipment in the "Breakdown."

• Colorado: The budget is part of a general appropriation, estimates of the

breakdown is provided below. Additional general program support provided by 6 FTE distributed throughout the organization. These cost are not included in the following numbers.

• Connecticut: Last year Connecticut estimated that we spent approximately 490K on

dam safety. (We do not separate out a dam safety budget). Ct does have a cost sharing program for the repair of municipally owned dams, or removal as well. We also have a low interest loan program dating back to mid 1980's which was under utilized since interest rates have fallen well below what was then considered "low".

• Delaware: Part of the $400,000 in consultant services is a carry-over from 2005

work not completed, and all of this money is one-time, project-specific funding, not part of our annual budget.

• Florida: BUDGET LISTED IS EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE REMEDIATION OF THE

PINEY POINT AND MULBERRY FACILITIES, PHOSPHOGYSUM STACK SYSTEMS ABANDONED BY MULBERRY PHOSPHATES, INC.

• Hawaii: No separate budget. Received increase in staff and increase in state

funding.

• Idaho: This figure represents expenditures for dam safety over the States fiscal year period.

• Illinois: A. Engineers- There are 14 people that share some portion of this work

effort.

• Indiana: There is no dam safety program budget. Operation expenses for dam safety are from the Division of Waters Budget. The figure reported in the Miscellaneous category is an annual estimate for the entire dam safety program.


• Iowa: The dam safety budget is integral with our flood plain management program. Therefore, the total budget is estimated.

• Kansas: THE TOTAL BUDGET AND ITS BREAKDOWN ARE ESTIMATES, SINCE

THE KANSAS DAM SAFETY BUDGET ISNT ENTIRELY SEPARATED FROM THE PROGRAM BUDGET. "IT costs" cannot readily be estimated and are not included. "Training and Education" costs are included in "Travel". Legal support for Emergency Actions are not included. Technical Support is included in "Salaries".

• Kentucky: estimated cost $1,550,420

• Louisiana: Louisiana Dam Safety Budget is not a separate budget item.

Inspectors salaries are not part of the Dam Safety Program budget.

• Maryland: This report does not include the FEMA NDSP grants in our budget values. Previously, we had inadvertently included the grants.

• Minnesota: This figure does not include Federal Grants and does not include funds

designated for project work. There is no specific dam safety program budget.

• Mississippi: Budget Cycle FY06 began July 1, 2005 and ended June 30, 2006.

• Montana: Salaries include: 1 dam safety engineer; 1.5 regional engineer; 0.25 WOB Bureau Chief; 1 state dam inspector; 0.25 administrative support, 0.20 GIS staff. Program Operation includes: dam safety program budget, state dam inspector budget; building rent (under general support). Regional office operating budget neglected. Overhead includes department accounting services, legal support and upper management support - estimated to be 20% salaries and operation. Training education is for dam owner awareness. State does not use state funds for out of state training opportunities. 2 staff members paid with FEMA assistance to state funds NOT included on breakdown. Since state budget year is different than calendar year requested for this report, budget estimates are base on fiscal year 7/1/2006 to 6/30/2007 (fiscal year just completed).

• Nebraska: Survey personnel vary from year to year based on workload.

• Nevada: Dam safety costs were extracted from the divisional budget and are

estimated below.

• New Hampshire: Includes only regulatory portion of New Hampshire’s Dam Safety program.

• New Jersey: $1,254,000

• New Mexico: Only partial tracking of Dam Safety Program expenditures for FY07.

Some fixed costs for the Bureau are not included (Fuel, IT expenses, copy machine, phones, etc.).

• New York: Our state does not separate dam safety program expenditures from the

general fund budget - amounts reported here are estimates.

• North Carolina: $893,280 Appropriated, $80,606 dam permit fees, $100,245 NDSP grant. The Dam Safety Program appropriated budget for FY 2006-2007 is approximately 27% of the total Land Quality Section appropriated budget.


• North Dakota: North Dakota does not have a specific dam safety program budget. The staffing and budget reflects the FTEs that work on dam safety requirements, approximately $220,000.

• Ohio: Amounts include the dam safety share of division and department overhead

and administrative support.

• Oregon: a). Pro-rated, based on 2005 biennial (2-year) budget cycle. b). Does not include monies from NDSP grant or other non-legislative sources.

• Pennsylvania: Dam Safety Program does not have separate budget, but is part of

Bureau of Waterways Engineering annual budget.

• South Carolina: The overall budget is estimated to be $200,000. The Dam Safety Program is not carried as a separate line item in the Department budget. The overall budget provides funds for salaries and other expenses of the program. The above figure is an estimate of the funds expended for dam safety.

• South Dakota: Estimate - We do not have a separate dam safety budget. $150,000

. An increase from last years estimate due to inflation and increased travel costs.

• Utah: TEMP TECH ADDED

• Vermont: Three PEs are assigned to the program, however, other duties, e.g., capital construction, dam operation and maintenance, recreation facility management and special projects reduce FTEs actually available for dam safety program functions.

• Washington: Totals are per year of a 2-year budget cycle. Note 1: Training &

Education and Goods & Services are included in Miscellaneous. Note 2: General support for agency is included in Overhead. Note 3: IT costs are for non-capital Equipment.

• West Virginia: excluding FEMA assistance grants

• Wisconsin: We were not fully staffed during the year. We started with 2 vacancies,

lost 2 more staff to promotions, and filled vacancies (2 positions). At least we stayed even. Lost .5 FTE of administrative assistant due to retirement. Budget estimate based on 6.25 FTE @ $83,000 salary/benefits plus $3000 each supplies and services. General support includes supplies, services, travel, training and equipment. This has not changed in the last two years. Staff finally got raises last year after several years staying at the same pay rate. Comment on loan/grant program for dam owners: Yes, however the program has not been refunded since 1999 and all funds are currently committed.

• Wyoming: Two year budget is $320,730.00

Total Budget: State Funding Amount Alabama $0.00 Alaska $100,500.00 Arizona $711,028.00


State Funding Amount Arkansas $282,018.00 California $9,190,000.00 Colorado $1,692,300.00 Connecticut $490,000.00 Delaware $470,000.00 Florida $20,878,995.00 Georgia $727,009.00 Hawaii $246,638.00 Idaho $249,294.00 Illinois $306,000.00 Indiana $425,000.00 Iowa $57,000.00 Kansas $557,104.00 Kentucky $1,550,420.00 Louisiana $480,316.00 Maryland $482,668.00 Michigan $255,400.00 Minnesota $305,000.00 Mississippi $62,079.00 Missouri $261,779.00 Montana $399,937.00 Nebraska $326,145.00 Nevada $197,304.00 New Hampshire $717,282.00 New Jersey $1,254,000.00 New Mexico $484,411.00 New York $1,006,732.00 North Carolina $973,886.00 North Dakota $220,000.00 Ohio $1,483,944.00 Oklahoma $395,336.00 Oregon $212,400.00 Pennsylvania $2,211,046.00 Puerto Rico $440,000.00 Rhode Island $113,976.00 South Carolina $0.00 South Dakota $150,000.00 Tennessee $352,822.00 Texas $350,000.00 Utah $666,200.00 Vermont $300,000.00 Virginia $1,247,124.00 Washington $938,952.00 West Virginia $465,773.00 Wisconsin $537,500.00 Total $55,385,683.00 Breakdown (for all States together): Item Budget $'s Staff Salaries $18,938,384.00 Consultant Services $975,753.00


Item Budget $'s IT Costs $211,983.00 Travel $410,936.00 Equipment $301,204.00 Overhead $2,946,970.00 Training & Education $127,788.00 Emergency Actions $100,200.00 General Support $2,406,226.00 Miscellaneous $28,655,124.00 Breakdown (for individual States): Alabama Staff Salaries: $0.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 Alaska Staff Salaries: $92,000.00 Consultant Costs: $3,000.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $4,000.00 Equipment: $1,500.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 Arizona Staff Salaries: $511,997.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $7,200.00 Travel: $8,400.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $174,591.00 Miscellaneous: $8,840.00 Arkansas Staff Salaries: $172,651.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $25,000.00 Equipment: $3,318.00 Training/Education: $11,000.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $70,049.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 California Staff Salaries: $4,800,000.00 Consultant Costs: $60,000.00 IT Costs: $50,000.00 Travel: $95,000.00 Equipment: $75,000.00 Training/Education: $50,000.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $2,110,000.00 Overhead Costs: $1,900,000.00 Miscellaneous: $50,000.00 Colorado Staff Salaries: $1,550,000.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $12,000.00 Travel: $40,000.00 Equipment: $6,000.00 Training/Education: $3,600.00 Emergency Actions: $50,000.00 General Support: $3,200.00 Overhead Costs: $21,000.00 Miscellaneous: $6,500.00


Connecticut Staff Salaries: $0.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $490,000.00 Delaware Staff Salaries: $70,000.00 Consultant Costs: $400,000.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 Florida Staff Salaries: $0.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $20,878,995.00 Georgia Staff Salaries: $639,916.00 Consultant Costs: $6,000.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $9,148.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $6,785.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $65,160.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 Hawaii Staff Salaries: $194,081.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $50,000.00 Training/Education: $500.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $500.00 Miscellaneous: $1,557.00 Idaho Staff Salaries: $0.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $249,294.00 Illinois Staff Salaries: $208,000.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $5,000.00 Equipment: $1,000.00 Training/Education: $2,000.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $90,000.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 Indiana Staff Salaries: $0.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00


IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $425,000.00 Iowa Staff Salaries: $57,000.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 Kansas Staff Salaries: $473,862.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $22,833.00 Equipment: $12,627.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $47,782.00 Kentucky Staff Salaries: $0.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $1,550,420.00 Louisiana Staff Salaries: $0.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $480,316.00 Maryland Staff Salaries: $422,624.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $60,044.00 Michigan Staff Salaries: $149,500.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $500.00 Travel: $10,000.00 Equipment: $500.00 Training/Education: $4,000.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $90,900.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 Minnesota Staff Salaries: $220,000.00 Consultant Costs: $10,000.00 IT Costs: $5,000.00 Travel: $5,000.00 Equipment: $1,000.00 Training/Education: $5,000.00 Emergency Actions: $10,000.00 General Support: $5,000.00


Overhead Costs: $44,000.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 Mississippi Staff Salaries: $32,866.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $1,442.00 Travel: $445.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $627.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $16,960.00 Overhead Costs: $7,409.00 Miscellaneous: $2,330.00 Missouri Staff Salaries: $229,464.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $13,934.00 Equipment: $1,261.00 Training/Education: $3,341.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $13,779.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 Montana Staff Salaries: $281,431.00 Consultant Costs: $7,500.00 IT Costs: $3,600.00 Travel: $4,500.00 Equipment: $14,000.00 Training/Education: $3,000.00 Emergency Actions: $5,200.00 General Support: $12,550.00 Overhead Costs: $66,656.00 Miscellaneous: $1,500.00 Nebraska Staff Salaries: $253,000.00 Consultant Costs: $45,025.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $4,280.00 Equipment: $14,000.00 Training/Education: $4,100.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $5,740.00 Nevada Staff Salaries: $193,304.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $3,000.00 Equipment: $500.00 Training/Education: $500.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 New Hampshire Staff Salaries: $558,282.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $7,500.00 Travel: $12,000.00 Equipment: $6,000.00 Training/Education: $12,000.00 Emergency Actions: $25,000.00 General Support: $43,000.00 Overhead Costs: $17,500.00 Miscellaneous: $36,000.00 New Jersey Staff Salaries: $1,084,000.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $170,000.00 New Mexico


Staff Salaries: $469,300.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $13,441.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $735.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $935.00 New York Staff Salaries: $980,472.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $26,250.00 Equipment: $10.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 North Carolina Staff Salaries: $0.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $973,886.00 North Dakota Staff Salaries: $180,000.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $15,000.00 Equipment: $5,000.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $20,000.00 Ohio Staff Salaries: $1,100,926.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $41,887.00 Travel: $1,000.00 Equipment: $50,000.00 Training/Education: $1,000.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $38,106.00 Overhead Costs: $251,025.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 Oklahoma Staff Salaries: $159,584.00 Consultant Costs: $150,000.00 IT Costs: $37,814.00 Travel: $13,050.00 Equipment: $27,488.00 Training/Education: $7,400.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 Oregon Staff Salaries: $212,400.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 Pennsylvania Staff Salaries: $0.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00


Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $2,211,046.00 Puerto Rico Staff Salaries: $0.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $440,000.00 Rhode Island Staff Salaries: $110,476.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $3,500.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 South Carolina Staff Salaries: $0.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 South Dakota Staff Salaries: $0.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 Tennessee Staff Salaries: $311,594.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $6,500.00 Travel: $10,200.00 Equipment: $10,000.00 Training/Education: $3,200.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $11,328.00 Texas Staff Salaries: $350,000.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 Utah Staff Salaries: $602,000.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $10,700.00 Travel: $11,800.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $41,700.00


Vermont Staff Salaries: $245,000.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $25,000.00 Equipment: $10,000.00 Training/Education: $9,000.00 Emergency Actions: $10,000.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $1,000.00 Virginia Staff Salaries: $580,950.00 Consultant Costs: $269,228.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $396,946.00 Washington Staff Salaries: $630,988.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $2,340.00 Travel: $29,445.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $250,061.00 Miscellaneous: $26,118.00 West Virginia Staff Salaries: $292,716.00 Consultant Costs: $25,000.00 IT Costs: $25,500.00 Travel: $3,210.00 Equipment: $12,000.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $39,500.00 Miscellaneous: $67,847.00 Wisconsin Staff Salaries: $518,000.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $18,750.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 Wyoming Staff Salaries: $0.00 Consultant Costs: $0.00 IT Costs: $0.00 Travel: $0.00 Equipment: $0.00 Training/Education: $0.00 Emergency Actions: $0.00 General Support: $0.00 Overhead Costs: $0.00 Miscellaneous: $0.00 Alabama Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe:


Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: Alaska Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 100% Please describe:

• General fund appropriation indicated. Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: X ): 19% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 24% Please describe:

• FEMA NDSP Grant (current cumulative balance from federal fiscal year 2003, 2004, and 2005.)

Arizona Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: X ): 96% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 4% Please describe:

• ASDSO Training Grant • National Dam Safety Program

Arkansas Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 62% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 36% Please describe:


• The amount of annual Arkansas dam permit fees is $102156.40.

Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 2% Please describe:

• FEMA/ASDSO Training Grant California Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 99% Please describe:

• FY2006-07: • Annual Fees $ 8,397,008 • Application Fees $ 486,774 • Total 8,883,782 • Unspent funds carry over to next fiscal year.


• FEMA grant: $65,536.00 Colorado Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 100% Please describe: Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe:

• Grant funding received 75000 but budgeted off line Connecticut Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe:


Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: Delaware Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe:

• Dam Safety Engineer (1 FTE) - $70,000 • Contractual Services - $25,000

Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: Florida Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe:

• $54,694 FEMA NDSA Grant. Did not apply for FY05 FEMA grant, still working on money from FY04.

Georgia Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe:


• Annual state appropriations Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe:

• National Dam Safety Program Grant FY05 $131,846 Hawaii Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 100% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 15% Please describe:

• Salaries are state general funded or state special funded, with a portion of salaries paid by federal grants.

Idaho Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: ): 500% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process:

• $34000 Please describe:

• State assistance grant from FEMA Illinois Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 99% Please describe:


Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 2% Please describe: Indiana Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: Iowa Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): $57,000 Please describe: Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: Kansas Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 68% Please describe:

• State General Fund Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 3%


Please describe:

• Pre-Construction Dam Application $200 • Construction in Progress Dam Application $500 • Dam Safety Inspection Fees and unsafe dam inspections based on

Size of Dam: Size 1 = $1,500, Size 2= $1,500, Size 3 = $2,500, Size 4= $4,000. Fees for dam safety inspections will no longer be collected as Legislature funded 3 new positions for inspections.


• FEMA Dam Safety Grant Kentucky Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe:


Louisiana Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: Maryland Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe:


Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe:

• MD has no dam safety fees. Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe:

• FEMA Training grant, approx. $31,000+ Michigan Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 48% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 4% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 48% Please describe:

• Agreement with Michigan Department of Natural Resources for inspection of DNR owned dams

Minnesota Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: X; Other: ): 100% Please describe: Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: X; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: Mississippi Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: X; Other: ): $62,029 Please describe:


• State General Fund Appropriations: • Salaries - 75479.37 • Overhead - 18869.84 • Contractual - 500.00 • Supplies - 500.00 • Total 95349.21

• FEMA Grants; • Salaries - 71089.97 • Overhead - 17772.47 • Travel - 5163.75 • Supplies - 1260.25 • Total - 95286.44

Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe:

• Mississippi has no fee related to dam safety authorization or inspection


• FEMA Grants • Line one is the remainder of year two of the grant which covers

July - Sept. Line two is year three of the grant which covers Oct - June.

• (Year 2) - Salaries $17,772.49, Fringe $4,443.12, Travel

$1,413.75, Supplies $625.00

• (Year 3) - Salaries $53,317.48, Fringe $13,329.37, Travel $3,750.00, Supplies $635.25

Missouri Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 100% Please describe: Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: Montana Percentage of Budget from:


Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 100% Please describe:

• legislature general fund appropriation to operate dam safety program Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: Nebraska Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 100% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe:

• Federal Grant not included in above • approx. 90k

Nevada Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: X; Other: ): $402,340 Please describe:

• Nevada General Fund, $193304. Salary. Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe:

• Fee for approved storage in a reservoir established by Statute to be deposited in the Nevada general fund. Funds not directly utilized for safety of dams program.


• State assistance grant (FEMA), $36000 used for planning purposes.


New Hampshire Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 56% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 44% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: New Jersey Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 100% Please describe: Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: New Mexico Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: X ): 100% Please describe: Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe:

• FEMA Dam Safety Grant is not included in this budget breakdown New York Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0%


Please describe: Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: North Carolina Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: X ): 92% Please describe: Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: X ): 8% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: North Dakota Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: ; Biennial: X; Other: X ): 0% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe:

• I did not include the NDSPA grant funds in this budget. Ohio Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): $970,944 Please describe:

• These appropriations are from the General Revenue Fund of Ohio.



• Fee revenue comes from two sources, Permits for the construction of new dams, and the Annual Dam Safety Fee charged for each dam.

• The Permit amount is budgeted for about $80,000 per year. • The Annual Fee amount if budgeted for about $430,000 per year.

Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: Oklahoma Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 50% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 50% Please describe: Oregon Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): $212,400 Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: Pennsylvania Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 100% Please describe:


Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: Puerto Rico Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe:

• FEMA GRANT - $23,000 • TRAINING GRANT - $3,000

Rhode Island Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 100% Please describe: Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: South Carolina Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe:


Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: South Dakota Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: Tennessee Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 232000% Please describe:

• This money comes from the state general fund and has not increased since 1990.


• This money is raised almost entirely from dam inspection fees with a little coming from plans review fees for new dams.

Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: Texas Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 350000% Please describe:

• $350,000 from State appropriations Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe:


Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: Utah Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 100% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: Vermont Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 100% Please describe: Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe:

• FEMA grant Virginia Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0%


Please describe:

• FEMA Grant Washington Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 100% Please describe: Fees (Annual: ; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe:

• FEMA Dam Safety Assistance Grant West Virginia Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 91% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 3% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: Wisconsin Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: X; Other: ): $537,500 Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe:



Wyoming Percentage of Budget from: Appropriations (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Fees (Annual: X; Biennial: ; Other: ): 0% Please describe: Federal grants or other assistance outside the State budgeting process: 0% Please describe: D. Repair, Abandonment or Removal Funding Programs Does your State have in place a loan/grant program for dam owners? Alabama: No Alaska: No Arizona: Yes Arkansas: No California: No Colorado: Yes Connecticut: No Delaware: No Florida: No Georgia: No Hawaii: No Idaho: No Illinois: No Indiana: No Iowa: No Kansas: Yes


Kentucky: No Louisiana: No Maryland: Yes Michigan: No Minnesota: Yes Mississippi: No Missouri: No Montana: Yes Nebraska: No Nevada: No New Hampshire: No New Jersey: Yes New Mexico: Yes New York: Yes North Carolina: No North Dakota: No Ohio: Yes Oklahoma: No Oregon: No Pennsylvania: Yes Puerto Rico: No Rhode Island: No South Carolina: No South Dakota: No Tennessee: No Texas: No Utah: Yes Vermont: Yes


Virginia: Yes Washington: No West Virginia: Yes Wisconsin: Yes Wyoming: No Please describe, and include any eligibility requirements or program limitations: Arizona:

• Dam Repair Fund consisting of monies appropriated by the legislature and monies collected for application and inspection fees. Owners of Unsafe Dams are eligible for grants or loans.

Kansas:

• New fund in State Conservation Commission to rehabilitate watershed dams. Fund was active after July 1, 2006.

Maryland:

• DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROGRAM-To utilize the total financial resources of the Fund by providing low interest rate financing and other subsidies to eligible drinking water system owners while maintaining a perpetual source of capital funds for future projects. As shown in the graph below, the DWSRF could finance approximately $52 million in additional direct loans (without leveraging or transfers, and 31% allocated towards set asides annually) from capitalization grants, State match, repayments, and investment earnings between FFY 2005 and FFY 2009 IUPs. This is in addition to the $96 million capacity on existing IUPs (1997 – 2004). This analysis takes into account existing and anticipated investment earnings, loan repayments and assumes Maryland’s annual Federal Capitalization Grant of $9.60 million per year (based on the anticipated annual national appropriation of $850 million) for FFY 2004 through FFY 2008. The cumulative loan capacity of the DWSRF is projected to reach $148 million by FFY 2009.

• Water Quality Infrastructure Program, Maryland Linked Deposit Program-The

Linked Deposit Program provides a low-interest source of financing for water quality capital improvements. The Program makes the loan program more accessible to private entities by utilizing the existing commercial lending community. This Linked Deposit Program is targeted to fund: agricultural best management practices to reduce water pollution; community and nonprofit non-community water system capital improvements to meet federal and State requirements; correction of failing septic systems through replacement or connection to public sewer system; repair/enhancements to existing stormwater management facilities to protect water quality; nonstructural shoreline erosion control; structural shoreline erosion control where nonstructural techniques will not provide adequate protection; wetland creation/ enhancement/restoration; stream restoration/stream bank stabilization and Brownfields/Voluntary cleanup activities. Project Selection Criteria: Project eligibility is determined by the local Soil conservation District/Natural Resource Conservation Service Office, local Health Department, or other local or State approving authority, through a project


certification process. Loan application is made directly to a participating lending institution, which will determine the credit worthiness of the applicant and set loan terms and conditions. Upon a determination that the project is eligible and the loan is approved, the lending institution and the Maryland Department of the Environment enter into an investment contract that provides low interest terms to the borrower. Loan repayments are made by the borrower directly back to the lending institution. It is the sole responsibility of the borrower to obtain all necessary federal, State, and local permits for the project.

• MD Department of Natural Resources also has limited funds to assist dam

owners to remove dams which no longer needed or block passage of fish and eels.

Minnesota:

• Publicly owned dams only. Montana:

• Publicly owned dams can receive up to $100,000 grant, and low interest loans

• Grants are competitively awarded for all infrastructure projects (including

wastewater, drinking water etc). New Jersey:

• This is a low interest rate dam rehabilitation loan program. Municipality must co-sign low interest rate loan for private dam owners.

New Mexico:

• Owner must be a political subdivision of the state. Funds are not permanent and each year additional capital improvement funds are requested for dams but not always approved.

New York:

• Competitive reimbursement grant program for municipal dam owners North Dakota:

• We have a cost share program for political subdivisions of the state, not a grant program. The state will contribute a certain % of the repair or rehabilitation cost in cases of dam safety repairs. The cost share % is based on the purpose of the dam, for example a flood control project is eligible for 50% cost share, whereas a recreation project is only eligible for 33.3% cost share. We do not yet have a cost share policy for abandonment or removal, but we are working on it.

Ohio:

• The Ohio Water Development Authority has two low-interest loan programs for the repair or removal of existing dams.

• The Dam Safety Loan Program offers loans to local governments, and the

Dam Safety Linked Deposit Program offers low-interest loans to private dam owners. To be eligible for these programs, the dam owner must have plans for repair or removal of the dam approved by the Division of Water and they must qualify based on their ability to repay the loan. The Linked Deposit Program is offered through private banks.


Pennsylvania:

• The state has a low interest loan program (Pennvest) for publicly owned water supplies, waste water systems and dams. The state also initiated a Growing Greener II program which can be used for dam repair or removal. There are no specific dedicated amounts for dam related work.

Vermont:

• Provides for loans or grants for rehabilitation or removal. Details will be established in regulations, which are yet to be developed.

Virginia:

• Dam Safety and Flood Prevention Protection Assistance Fund The program has not been used; however, procedures will be in place in the fall of 2007 that will allow some high hazard dam owners to obtain small interest loans. At this time, funds are too small to offer to other hazard classification dams.

West Virginia:

• 2007 legislature passed bill to create revolving loan fund for deficient dams. Deficient dam means a noncoal-related dam that exhibits one or more design, maintenance, or operational problems that may adversely affect the performance of the dam over a period of time or during a major storm or other inclement weather that may cause loss of life or property; or a noncoal-related dam that otherwise fails to meet the requirements of this article. Program is not operating yet. No money in the fund to date.

Publicly Owned Dams: Fund Amount: $ 66,000,000 Amount Committed: $ 17,500,000 Privately Owned Dams: Fund Amount: $ 47,500,000 Amount Committed: $ 0 E. How did dam safety staff change in this reporting cycle from last reporting cycle? Alabama: 0 Alaska: 0 Arizona: -1 Arkansas: 0 California: -2 Colorado: 0 Connecticut: +1 Delaware: +.25 Florida: 0 Georgia: +2


Hawaii: +2 Idaho: -1 Illinois: 0 Indiana: 0 Iowa: +.5 Kansas: +3 Kentucky: 0 Louisiana: 0 Maryland: +1 Michigan: 0 Minnesota: 0 Mississippi: 0 Missouri: 0 Montana: 0 Nebraska: 0 Nevada: 0 New Hampshire: 0 New Jersey: 0 New Mexico: 0 New York: +2 North Carolina: 0 North Dakota: 0 Ohio: +1 Oklahoma: -0.3 Oregon: +0.06 Pennsylvania: +0.5 Puerto Rico: 0 Rhode Island: 0


South Carolina: 0 South Dakota: 0 Tennessee: 0 Texas: +1 Utah: 0 Vermont: 0 Virginia: 0 Washington: 0 West Virginia: 0 Wisconsin: 0 Wyoming: 0

2007 State Dam Safety Program Performance Information – Dam Inventory

IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of dams (NID). Note: The definition of a NID-size dam is as follows: (1) all high-hazard potential classification dams; (2) all significant-hazard potential classification dams; and (3) low-hazard potential classification dams or undetermined potential classification dams that equal or exceed 25 feet in height and which exceed 15 acre-feet in storage or dams that equal or exceed 50 acre-feet in storage and exceed 6 feet in height. Please strictly use the following definition of 'State regulated'. State Regulated means dams for which your State is mandated/ authorized to execute one or more of the following general responsibilities: (a) Permitting, (b) Inspection, (c) Enforcement. Combined Summary of All Selected States: Hazard Potential State Regulated NID Dams

from most recently published NID

Total State Regulated Dams

High 9534 9806 Significant 10747 10617 Low 48722 63073 Total 69003 83496 Individual Details for Selected States: State NID

State Reg. High

NID State Reg. Sig

NID State Reg. Low

NID State Reg.

Tot. State Reg. High

Tot. State Reg. Sig

Tot. State Reg. Low

Tot. State Reg.

Alabama 71 112 1166 1349 0 0 0 0 Alaska 18 31 28 77 17 32 32 81 Arizona 93 39 124 256 94 41 116 251 Arkansas 144 206 796 1146 102 92 209 403 California 340 700 215 1255 341 720 212 1273 Colorado 312 330 993 1635 345 332 1251 1928 Connecticut 218 445 39 702 226 462 499 1187 Delaware 9 27 1 37 9 27 1 37 Florida 70 310 410 790 72 321 412 805 Georgia 405 37 4038 4480 450 0 3424 3874 Hawaii 74 21 20 115 95 21 20 136 Idaho 77 132 133 342 107 149 313 569 Illinois 185 291 915 1391 187 299 999 1485 Indiana 254 254 419 927 241 250 502 993 Iowa 78 190 3010 3278 83 193 3049 3325 Kansas 160 206 5307 5673 194 252 5585 6031 Kentucky 252 219 476 947 177 209 674 1060 Louisiana 16 62 452 530 28 69 443 540 Maryland 66 83 163 312 68 87 227 382 Michigan 136 146 552 834 84 138 812 1034 Minnesota 34 130 751 915 23 125 1003 1151


Mississippi 294 82 3035 3411 258 94 3346 3698 Missouri 245 207 214 666 455 132 66 653 Montana 102 130 2375 2607 102 132 2650 2884 Nebraska 116 214 1925 2255 121 210 1957 2288 Nevada 131 106 205 442 157 131 384 672 New Hampshire 75 183 359 617 90 193 557 840 New Jersey 200 373 235 808 213 354 1148 1715 New Mexico 166 97 99 362 177 88 131 396 New York 369 742 795 1906 386 762 3912 5060 North Carolina 999 662 1120 2781 1025 650 2827 4502 North Dakota 19 93 695 807 29 94 1027 1150 Ohio 412 550 555 1517 442 564 692 1698 Oklahoma 166 84 4394 4644 187 82 4191 4460 Oregon 113 175 532 820 122 181 901 1204 Pennsylvania 781 251 327 1359 789 268 2120 3177 Puerto Rico 34 1 327 362 35 0 0 35 Rhode Island 15 38 127 180 17 41 613 671 South Carolina 158 481 1680 2319 153 481 1683 2317 South Dakota 51 144 2156 2351 47 144 2158 2349 Tennessee 149 205 274 628 149 209 298 656 Texas 817 775 5321 6913 837 773 5592 7202 Utah 217 321 246 784 189 200 278 667 Vermont 51 130 162 343 57 137 374 568 Virginia 138 274 981 1393 146 304 1154 1604 Washington 147 197 273 617 145 192 613 950 West Virginia 366 129 29 524 245 78 18 341 Wisconsin 191 132 600 923 211 188 3350 3749 Wyoming 71 112 1166 1349 79 116 1250 1445 Totals 9605 10859 50215 70679 9806 10617 63073 83496 B. If the column totals above are different, please briefly describe why. Alabama: Alabama has not enacted state legislation that would regulate dams. Alaska: Low hazard dams more than 20 ft tall or more than 10 ft tall with 50 acre-ft or

more of storage are regulated by the state of Alaska. One high hazard dam removed in FY2007

Arizona:

• Mine tailing dams • Federal owned dams • Transportation structures • Release contained barriers

Arkansas: The numbers in the first column that add up to 403 are the number of dams in Arkansas that have a dam permit from Arkansas. The number in the second column include those permitted dams plus those additional unpermitted dams that meet the 3 requirements noted under A. above. Colorado: NID numbers include federal dams. The State regulated list is non-federal, but includes Low Hazard and No Public Hazard dams that are smaller than NID criteria.


Connecticut: Connecticut regulates more than the dams in the National Dam Inventory. The number of additional dams regulated is approximately 2300. These are low and moderate hazard structures ( Ct dam safety regulations) Florida: Inventory update is still in progress. Entries in this report regarding numbers of dams or related fields should be regarded as draft only. Georgia: The State definition of a dam was amended in 1984 from 25 feet tall or 50 acre-feet of storage at maximum pool to 25 feet tall or 100 acre-feet of storage at maximum pool. Data has not been updated any significant amount in the past few years. Number of high hazard dams was counted manually. The number was double checked by counting number in last year's submittal (437) plus number of Cat. I dams added (13). Hawaii: There are 20 unclassified dams that have been included in the High Hazard Potential section. The program is currently undertaking reclassifying all identified dams statewide. The project is expected to be completed in SFY08 and the State expects changes to the breakdown. Idaho: The State of Idaho’s inventory criteria includes dams that are smaller than those meeting NID Criteria. Illinois: Illinois also regulates the construction of dams that are smaller than the limits noted in the National Inventory but are constructed within the floodway of jurisdictional waterways of the state. Indiana: The dam safety data is in a shared database with other program databases (i.e. water wells, permits, etc.). These numbers represent current data queried by a staff member not involved with dam safety. Due to the difficulty and complexity of getting data out of the database through custom queries, there may be errors in these figures. The database is updated as staff has time. Information in the database may change from week to week. The low hazard figure for state regulated NID dams is a rough estimate. There are low hazard dams between 20 to 25 feet in height (in Indiana's jurisdiction due to height) that do not have volume determinations. Iowa: Not all state regulated dams are inventory size structures. Federally owned dams are not included in the noted number. Kansas: The NID does not recognize all the state regulated dams unless all the essential information is filled in when submitting the data. Kentucky: They are different because we keep breached and inactive dams on inventory to inspect. Also, NID requirements are different for low hazard dams. DSM owned dams are submitted by them not by DOW dam safety program. Louisiana: Louisiana State Law excluded the Toledo Bend Dam. Maryland: The number of dams regulated in Maryland are greater than the number found on the NID because Maryland regulates some dams that do not meet the size criteria found in the Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002 and the NID. Michigan: There are several dams which are high or significant hazard potential which do not meet our state size requirement (impoundment size less than 5 acres). There are also a large number of dams which we regulate which do not meet NID criteria. (typically lake level control structure less than 6 feet in height)


Minnesota: Minnesota DNR regulates many low hazard dams that are too small to meet NID criteria. Mississippi: Mississippi regulates some dams that do not meet NID inclusion criteria. Missouri: Missouri exempts dams that are less than 35 feet tall and federally owned dams Montana: For low hazard dams, the total state regulated dams exceeds the "state regulated NID dams". This is because Montana regulates dams that are smaller than Corps criteria. Nevada: Dams built and operated by either USDI Bureau of Reclamation of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are exempt from permitting and enforcement. Nevada regulates dams smaller than the NID threshold. Nevada regulates some dams that are "out of service" for compliance with state law with respect to permitting prior to repair. Dams have been added to the NV portion of the NID but have not yet been submitted. These dams will appear in the next call for data. New Hampshire: Our state criteria is more inclusive for low hazard dams, also the hazard classifications of some dams have changed since the last NID submittal. We also maintain records on and regulate 2229 non menace structures. New Jersey: The State regulated number of dams is higher since our definition of a dam is any structure greater than 5 feet. New Mexico: N.M. regulates dams that are greater than 10 feet in height regardless of storage or dams that store more than 10 acre-feet regardless of height. North Carolina: State inventory includes dams >15 ft high and >10 ac-ft Storage impoundment. North Dakota: The state regulates all high and significant hazard dams that store greater than 25 ac-ft at the top of dam (regardless of height), all dams that store greater than 50 ac-ft at the top of dam (regardless of height), and all dams that store greater than 12.5 ac-ft at the principal spillway (water permit requirement). Ohio: The differences in High and Significant and some Low are due to changes in classification due to change in d/s hazard, modification of the dam, etc. Also, Ohio regulates 140 low-hazard potential classification dams that are less than 25 feet in height and less than 50 acre-feet in storage.

Oklahoma: Federal owned and Licensed dams are exempt Oregon:

• a). Oregon Statutes exempt hydraulic structures < 10 feet OR < 9.2 acre-feet from dam safety statutes. This creates an "in-between" situation where some structures meet state size criteria but not that of the NID, and vice-versa.

• b). Oregon Statutes assign dam safety authority for all (other) hydraulic

structures to State Engineer, regardless of ownership.

• c.) Oregon Dam Safety Program works cooperatively with established federal dam safety programs (COE, USBR, FERC) to avoid unnecessary duplication of inspection or other related duties.


Pennsylvania: The difference in the Low Hazard Potential Dams is the number of dams that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in the NID. Rhode Island: The Dam Safety Program has been updating the inventory by adding dams not previously included. The NID has not been updated to include this new information. In addition, the Dam Safety Program regulates all dams, regardless of size. South Dakota: We have 4 breached High Hazard dams listed on the inventory to keep track of them. Total number is different because we have added those dams. Utah: Dams owned by the US Department of Interior/Bureau of Reclamation, Modifications in Hazard Classification since last submittal, Varying criteria between state regulated and NID definitions Vermont: Data quality has improved. In addition, there are many low hazard potential dams that impound at least 500,000 cf (making them subject to state regulation), but do not meet the criteria for inclusion in the NID. Virginia: VA's definition of impounding structure 'regulated size' recently changed to be in line with the NID definition and as a result we tripled the number of regulated structures (from 500 to approximately 1500). Unfortunately, many of the 1000 'new definition' dams have not submitted Emergency Action Plans, Operation and Maintenance Plans, or conducted an engineering inspection. Data is based on March 15, 2007 inventory data. State Regulated NID Dams should be 122, 166, 300, totally 588 Washington: The state of Washington regulates all dams that can store 10 or more acre-feet. There are 343 low hazard dams that meet the state criteria, but not the NID criteria. West Virginia: Note: 18 dams unknown hazard class. Approx. 125 coal dams not included in tally. Total # adjusted to correct for previous incorrect jurisdiction data. Wisconsin: State regulates all structures across waterways that retain or impound water regardless of size. Hazard potential are only estimates for the dams smaller than NID size. We hope to determine if any of the smaller dams with a high or significant hazard estimate should be brought into the NID. Wyoming: No dams are exempt. The difference is due to the difference between NID height criteria (i.e. - 25 feet) and State of Wyoming height criteria (i.e. - 20 feet) for dams to be subject to jurisdiction under State Safety of Dams statutes.

B. If the column totals above are different, please briefly describe why. C. If Federally owned or regulated dams are included in the number of State dams above, provide how many and why they are included (i.e. shared inspection responsibility, co-regulator, etc.). Combined Summary of All Selected States: Hazard Potential # Federally Owned/ Regulated State

Regulated Dams High 270 Significant 119 Low 846 Total 1235


Individual Details for Selected States: State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Low Haz. Pot. Total Alabama 0 0 0 0 Alaska 0 0 0 0 Arizona 0 0 0 0 Arkansas 0 0 0 0 California 0 0 0 0 Colorado 42 13 71 126 Connecticut 0 0 0 0 Delaware 0 0 0 0 Florida 0 0 0 0 Georgia 0 0 0 0 Hawaii 1 0 0 1 Idaho 46 24 33 103 Illinois 10 15 26 51 Indiana 0 2 6 8 Iowa 0 0 7 7 Kansas 0 0 2 2 Kentucky 1 1 9 11 Louisiana 2 10 10 22 Maryland 3 2 19 24 Michigan 0 1 50 51 Minnesota 0 0 0 0 Mississippi 15 0 14 29 Missouri 0 0 0 0 Montana 0 0 0 0 Nebraska 26 2 2 30 Nevada 6 5 42 53 New Hampshire 11 1 9 21 New Jersey 2 9 22 33 New Mexico 0 0 0 0 New York 7 0 30 37 North Carolina 1 0 0 1 North Dakota 10 2 178 190 Ohio 2 1 0 3 Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 Oregon 42 9 107 158 Pennsylvania 0 0 0 0 Puerto Rico 0 0 1 1 Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 South Carolina 0 0 0 0 South Dakota 0 0 0 0 Tennessee 0 0 0 0 Texas 0 0 0 0 Utah 0 0 0 0 Vermont 5 1 7 13 Virginia 0 0 0 0 Washington 1 3 6 10 West Virginia 0 0 0 0 Totals 270 119 846 1235


Why are these dams counted as State regulated dams?

Alaska: Federally owned or operated or FERC regulated dams are specifically exempt from state jurisdiction. Colorado: Colorado does assert that the state has jurisdiction over federal dams for citizen safety if the federal government does not act in a manner to protect the states citizens. Hawaii: Ku Tree Reservoir is on Army Land, however meets state's regulatory criteria and therefore still regulated. Idaho: By state law, the State of Idaho has regulatory jurisdiction over ALL dams in the state, regardless of ownership. Illinois: According to legal counsel, all dams within the State of Illinois must comply with state dam safety requirements. The Illinois dam safety administrative rules provide for authorization of these dams via a certification process if the dams can be shown to meet the Illinois standards without needing to go through the formal permit process.

Indiana: Shared inspection responsibility

Iowa: Construction of these dam was approved by the Iowa DNR, therefore they are regulated by he department.

Kansas: The State of Kansas regulates two dams which are also regulated by FERC. Kentucky: Because they are not inspected by the federal agency.

Louisiana: Louisiana State Law states that all dams in the state are regulated by LADOTD Dam Safety Program. Maryland: The State of Maryland has authority over federal dams and for the two FERC regulated dams we conduct joint inspections and take independent action if necessary.

State ID Dam Name Hazard Classification 69 Jennings Randolph HIGH 70 Lower Lake Royer HIGH 67 Atkisson Dam HIGH 13 Cash Lake Dam SIGNIFICANT 65 Burba Lake SIGNIFICANT 258 Van Biber Dam LOW 246 Fort Meade Water Supply LOW 22 Little Falls Dam - Potomac River LOW 141 Pearce Creek Disposal Area LOW 140 Court House Point Disposal Area LOW 142 Grove Point Disposal Area LOW 143 Disposal Area No 18 LOW 144 Disposal Area No 19 LOW 145 Disposal Area No 21 LOW 78 Potomac River Dam #4 LOW 157 Upper Lake Royer LOW 138 Potomac River Dam #5 LOW 283 Long Hollow Dam LOW


410 Great Falls Tavern, Lock No. 20 LOW 274 Potomac River Dam #6 LOW <breached; should

not have been included 389 Emergency Management Institute LOW 146 Patuxent Naval Air Station, Pond No. 3 LOW 112 Redington Lake LOW 66 Lake Allen Dam LOW 111 Soil Conservation Service Lake LOW 137 Potomac River Dam #3 LOW <breached; should

not have been included Michigan: The federally owned dams are not exempted from our dam safety statute,

and are required to provide inspection reports and obtain permits for construction and repair.

Minnesota: Not applicable.

Mississippi: Mississippi Statute specifically includes Federal agencies as regulated entities under Title 51, which reads as follows:

• Section 51-3-3. The following words and phrases, for the purposes of

this chapter, shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

• "Person" means the state or other agency or institution thereof, any

municipality, political subdivision, public or private corporation, individual, partnership, association or other entity, and includes any officer or governing or managing body of any municipality, political subdivision, public or private corporation or the United States, or any officer or employee thereof.

Montana: No federal dams included Nebraska: Shared inspections. We now have a process to initiate memorandums of

understanding with owners of dams that are under federal regulations.

Nevada: Only USA Corps of Engineers or USDI Bureau of Reclamation dams are exempt from regulation. USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs dams are not exempt but may be subject to sovereignty issues.

New Hampshire: N.H. D.E.S. has the jurisdiction over all the dams in N.H. New Jersey: Co-regulator New York: State law gives authority to regulate all dams for safety. North Carolina: Upchurch Lake Dam, CUMBE-063 NID01202 (FERC's Reaford

Project): NC & FERC are jointly sharing responsibility for inspections and reviewing application for repair of breach section that occurred in May 2003 flood. This is because breach section is outside of FERC's project boundary.

North Dakota: The State's permitting requirements are based on the size of the

structure and the hazard classification. State law does not provide for any exemptions for federally owned or regulated dams.


Ohio: These are hydropower dams and are also regulated by the FERC. Ohio law does not specifically exempt these dams.

Oregon: State Statute makes provision for jurisdictional authority for ANY hydraulic

structure greater than or equal to 9.2 acre-feet storage capacity and 10 feet height, regardless of ownership.

Rhode Island: The Dam Safety Program is not aware of any dams that are Federally owned and does not know which dams are Federally regulated. In any case, the Dam Safety Program has the authority to regulate all dams.

South Dakota: We should not have any Federal dams listed as State Regulated. Vermont: These dams are co-regulated.

Virginia: Many federal dams are listed in the Virginia dam inventory but are not regulated by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Washington: These dams are US Forest Service Owned Dams and we co-regulate

them based on an MOU signed by both agencies

Wisconsin: Dams included are FERC Exempt project, and NRCS, Fish and Wildlife, and Forest Service owned dams that we co-regulate.

Wyoming:

• By State Statute - no dams are exempt from state regulation • Shared inspection responsibility for USBR and FERC dams • State has the responsibility for inspection BLM and USFS dams • Total number only includes federally owned dams and not non-federally

owned dams which are federally regulated (i.e. regulated by FERC or USFS or MSHA)

D. New Dam Construction Accomplishments 1. Number of State regulated new dams (not enlargements) that have had construction permits approved during this reporting period. Combined Summary of All Selected States: Hazard Potential # Permits Approved High 53 Significant 40 Low 418 Total 511 Individual Details for Selected States: State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Low Haz. Pot. Total Alabama 0 0 0 0 Alaska 0 2 0 2 Arizona 0 0 0 0 Arkansas 0 0 0 0 California 0 3 3 6


State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Low Haz. Pot. Total Colorado 1 2 5 8 Connecticut 0 0 3 3 Delaware 0 0 0 0 Florida 0 0 0 0 Georgia 1 0 0 1 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 Idaho 0 1 1 2 Illinois 0 0 0 0 Indiana 1 1 0 2 Iowa 2 7 117 126 Kansas 1 0 12 13 Kentucky 3 1 2 6 Louisiana 0 0 1 1 Maryland 0 0 3 3 Michigan 0 0 3 3 Minnesota 0 1 6 7 Mississippi 2 2 46 50 Missouri 7 0 0 7 Montana 0 0 7 7 Nebraska 5 0 38 43 Nevada 7 0 2 9 New Hampshire 0 1 8 9 New Jersey 0 0 1 1 New Mexico 0 0 2 2 New York 1 0 2 3 North Carolina 8 1 5 14 North Dakota 0 0 4 4 Ohio 3 4 0 7 Oklahoma 0 0 3 3 Oregon 0 0 0 0 Pennsylvania 0 2 1 3 Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 South Carolina 0 0 2 2 South Dakota 0 0 10 10 Tennessee 0 2 0 2 Texas 2 3 1 6 Utah 4 1 2 7 Vermont 0 1 0 1 Virginia 1 2 3 6 Washington 4 1 6 11 West Virginia 0 0 0 0 Wisconsin 0 0 12 12 Wyoming 0 2 107 109 Totals 53 40 418 511 2. Number of State regulated new dams (not enlargements) which have completed construction during this reporting period. Combined Summary of All Selected States:


Hazard Potential # Completed Construction High 45 Significant 23 Low 194 Total 262 Individual Details for Selected States: State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Low Haz. Pot. Total Alabama 0 0 0 0 Alaska 1 0 0 1 Arizona 0 0 0 0 Arkansas 0 0 0 0 California 0 2 2 4 Colorado 3 0 5 8 Connecticut 0 0 0 0 Delaware 0 0 0 0 Florida 0 0 0 0 Georgia 3 0 0 3 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 Idaho 0 1 1 2 Illinois 0 0 0 0 Indiana 1 0 0 1 Iowa 3 1 32 36 Kansas 6 3 13 22 Kentucky 0 1 1 2 Louisiana 0 0 0 0 Maryland 0 1 1 2 Michigan 0 0 0 0 Minnesota 0 2 4 6 Mississippi 4 1 25 30 Missouri 0 0 0 0 Montana 0 0 3 3 Nebraska 2 0 34 36 Nevada 1 0 0 1 New Hampshire 0 0 14 14 New Jersey 0 0 1 1 New Mexico 1 1 1 3 New York 0 0 0 0 North Carolina 3 0 1 4 North Dakota 1 2 7 10 Ohio 1 1 0 2 Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 Oregon 3 1 5 9 Pennsylvania 0 0 0 0 Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 South Carolina 4 3 4 11 South Dakota 0 0 25 25 Tennessee 0 0 0 0 Texas 0 0 1 1 Utah 5 2 2 9


State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Low Haz. Pot. Total Vermont 0 0 0 0 Virginia 0 1 5 6 Washington 3 0 7 10 West Virginia 0 0 0 0 Wisconsin 0 0 0 0 Wyoming 0 0 0 0 Totals 45 23 194 262 E. Number of dam removals of State-regulated dams during this reporting period. Combined Summary of All Selected States: Hazard Potential # Dams Removed High 11 Significant 9 Low 44 Total 64 Individual Details for Selected States: State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Low Haz. Pot. Total Alabama 0 Alaska 2 2 0 4 Arizona 5 5 Arkansas 1 1 California 1 0 0 1 Colorado 0 Connecticut 0 Delaware 0 0 0 0 Florida 0 Georgia 0 unknown unknown 0 Hawaii 0 Idaho 0 0 0 0 Illinois 0 0 0 0 Indiana 0 Iowa 0 Kansas 0 0 0 0 Kentucky 0 0 0 0 Louisiana 0 0 0 0 Maryland 0 2 1 3 Michigan 0 0 2 2 Minnesota 0 0 1 1 Mississippi 0 0 0 0 Missouri 0 0 0 0 Montana 0 0 0 Nebraska 0 0 0 0 Nevada 0 0 4 4 New Hampshire 1 1 New Jersey 0 1 0 1 New Mexico 0 0 0 0 New York 0


State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Low Haz. Pot. Total North Carolina 1 0 1 2 North Dakota 0 0 0 0 Ohio 0 0 1 1 Oklahoma 0 Oregon 0 0 0 0 Pennsylvania 1 1 20 22 Puerto Rico 0 Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 South Carolina 0 0 0 0 South Dakota 0 0 6 6 Tennessee 0 0 0 0 Texas 1 0 0 1 Utah 0 0 0 0 Vermont 0 0 1 1 Virginia 0 2 4 6 Washington 0 0 0 0 West Virginia 0 1 0 1 Wisconsin 0 0 1 1 Wyoming 0 0 0 0 Totals 11 9 44 64 Comments/Clarification on Responses: Alaska: All four dams listed at same reservoir. North Carolina: "Breached Dams" have always been reported here. They are

not actually removed. Will continue to be inspected for re-impoundment. Virginia: No dams were removed by the state. These dams failed as a result of

storm impacts. These dams were either regulated or of size to be regulated prior to failure.

F. Number of State-regulated dams removed during the reporting period for each of the following primary reasons. State Prohibitive

Expense Public Safety

Outlived Purpose

Env. Other Total

Alabama 0 Alaska 4 0 4 Arizona 1 1 Arkansas 1 1 California 1 1 Colorado 0 Connecticut 0 Delaware 0 0 0 0 0 0 Florida 0 Georgia 0 0 Hawaii 0 Idaho 1 1 Illinois 0 Indiana 0 Iowa 0


State Prohibitive Expense

Public Safety

Outlived Purpose

Env. Other Total

Kansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kentucky 0 0 0 0 0 0 Louisiana 0 Maryland 2 1 3 Michigan 2 2 Minnesota 1 1 Mississippi 0 Missouri 0 Montana 0 Nebraska 0 0 Nevada 2 2 4 New Hampshire

1 1 2

New Jersey 1 0 0 0 0 1 New Mexico

0

New York 0 North Carolina

1 1 2

North Dakota

0

Ohio 1 1 Oklahoma 0 Oregon 0 Pennsylvania 2 19 1 22 Puerto Rico 0 Rhode Island

0 0 0 0 0 0

South Carolina

0

South Dakota

0 0 0 0 0 0

Tennessee 0 0 0 0 0 0 Texas 0 1 0 0 0 1 Utah 0 Vermont 1 0 0 0 0 1 Virginia 6 6 Washington 0 0 0 0 West Virginia

1 1

Wisconsin 0 1 0 0 0 1 Wyoming 0 Totals 6 7 30 2 11 56 G. Number of other dam removals in the State (if known): California: 0 Delaware: 0 Georgia: unknown


Kansas: 0 Kentucky: 0 Louisiana: 0 Michigan: 1 Minnesota: 0 Missouri: 0 Nebraska: 0 New Jersey: 0 New Mexico: 0 North Carolina: 0 North Dakota: 0 Oregon: 0 Rhode Island: 0 South Dakota: 0 Tennessee: 0 Texas: 0 Utah: 0 Vermont: 0 Washington: 0 Wisconsin: 5 Comments/Clarification on Responses: South Carolina: NOT KNOWN Virginia: Both dams failed under sunny day conditions. H. What is your State's definition of a jurisdictional dam? Alaska: "Dam" includes an artificial barrier, and its appurtenant works, which may

impound or divert water and which: o has or will have an impounding capacity at maximum water storage

elevation of 50 acre-feet and is at least 10 feet in height measured from the lowest point at either the upstream or downstream toe of the dam to the crest of the dam;


o is at least 20 feet in height measured from the lowest point at either the upstream or downstream toe of the dam to the crest of the dam; or

o poses a threat to lives and property as determined by the department after an inspection;

o Federally owned or operated or FERC regulated dams are specifically exempt from state jurisdiction.

Arizona: A.R.S. 45-1201 "Dam" means any artificial barrier, including appurtenant works for the impounding or diversion of water, twenty-five feet or more in height or the storage capacity of which will be more than fifty acre-feet but does not include:

o (a) any barrier that is or will be less than six feet in height, regardless of storage capacity.

o (b) any barrier that has or will have a storage capacity of fifteen acre-feet or less, regardless of height.

o (c) any barrier for the purpose of controlling liquid-borne material. o (d) any barrier that is a release-contained barrier. o (e) any barrier that is owned, controlled, operated, maintained or

managed by the United States government or its agents or instrumentalities if a safety program that is at least as stringent as the state safety program applies and is enforced against the agent or instrumentality.

Arkansas: All dams within the State of Arkansas, except those owned by the United States Government and those that have a dam height of less than twenty-five feet and those that impound less than 50 acre-feet and dams with the crest elevation below the ordinary high water mark of the stream at that location are required to be permitted and are jurisdictional dams.

California: At least 25 feet high and store more than 15 acre-feet, or over 6 feet high

and store at least 50 acre-feet.

Colorado: Jurisdictional sized dams are defined as over 10-feet in height, or have a reservoir with a storage capacity of greater than 100 acre-feet or a surface area of greater 20 acres

Connecticut: All dams, dikes, reservoirs and other similar structures, with their appurtenances, which, by breaking away or otherwise, might endanger life or property are jurisdictional.

Delaware: Publicly-owned dams meeting the following criteria:

o High or Significant hazard potential o dam height between 6 and 25 feet and storage capacity 50 acre-feet

or greater o dam height greater than 25 feet and storage capacity greater than 15

acre-feet Florida: Any artificial or natural barrier, with appurtenant works, raised to obstruct or

impound, or which does obstruct or impound, any of the surface waters of the state. Georgia: 25 feet or more in height, measured from the low point of the crest to the

natural streambed, or stores at least 100 acre-feet at the top of dam elevation. Dams less than 6 feet tall regardless of storage and with less than 15 acre-feet regardless of height are exempted.


Hawaii: "Dam" means any artificial barrier, including appurtenant works, which impounds or diverts water and which:

o Is twenty-five feet or more in height from the natural bed of the

stream or watercourse measured at the downstream toe of the barrier, or from the lowest elevation of the outside limit of the barrier if it is not across a stream channel or watercourse to a maximum water storage elevation; or

o Has an impounding capacity at maximum water storage elevation of

fifty acre-feet or more. This chapter shall not apply to any artificial barrier that is less than six feet in height regardless of storage capacity or that has a storage capacity at maximum water storage elevation less than fifteen acre-feet regardless of height.

Idaho: "Dam" means any artificial barrier together with appurtenant works, which is or

will be 10 feet or more in height or has or will have an impounding capacity at maximum storage elevation of 50 acre feet or more. Height is defined as the vertical distance from the natural bed of the stream or water course at the downstream toe of the barrier, as determined by the director, or from the lowest elevation of the outside limit of the barrier, if is not across a stream channel or water course, to the maximum water storage elevation.

Illinois: Man-made Structure intended to divert or impound water (storage tanks not

included) and; o Class I (High Hazard) or, o Class II (Significant Hazard) or. o Class III (Low Hazard) if >25 ft in height and >15 ac-ft max storage

or > 6 ft in height and > 50 ac-ft max storage Indiana: If the dam meets any one of the three criteria below, the structure is within

IDNRs jurisdiction.

o The height of the dam, above the natural stream channel, is greater than 20 feet.

o The drainage area above the dam is greater than 1 square mile. o The volume of the water that can be impounded to the top of the

dam is greater than 100 acre-ft.

• A petition from a downstream individual could also place a dam into IDNRs jurisdiction which will require the dam owner to obtain a permit. If someone downstream of the dam petitions IDNR, in writing, to investigate the hazard classification and IDNR finds that a potential failure of the dam may cause loss of life/injury and/or serious damage to a downstream structure (such as a house), then the dam will be considered high hazard and will be under IDNRs jurisdiction (even if it does not meet any of the 3 criteria above).

• The only exemption to the jurisdiction limits given above is a coal mine dam.

A dam regulated under the federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, that will not be retained as a permanent structure after bond release, is exempted from Indiana Code 14-27-7.5 and is not within IDNRs jurisdiction (even if meets any of the 3 criteria above).

Iowa:

• 71.3(1) Rural areas. In rural areas:


o Any dam designed to provide a sum of permanent and temporary storage exceeding 50 acre-feet at the top of dam elevation, or 25 acre-feet if the dam does not have an emergency spillway, and which has a height of 5 feet or more.

o Any dam designed to provide permanent storage in excess of 18 acre-feet and which has a height of 5 feet or more.

o Any dam across a stream draining more than 10 square miles. o Any dam located within 1 mile of an incorporated municipality, if the

dam has a height of 10 feet or more, stores 10 acre-feet or more at the top of dam elevation, and is situated such that the discharge from the dam will flow through the incorporated area.

• 71.3(2) Urban areas. Any dam which exceeds the thresholds in 71.3(1) "a," "b" or "d."

• 71.3(3) Low head dams. Any low head dam on a stream draining 2 or more square miles in an urban area, or 10 or more square miles in a rural area.

• 71.3(4) Modifications to existing dams. Modification or alteration of any dam or appurtenant structure beyond the scope of ordinary maintenance or repair, or any change in operating procedures, if the dimensions or effects of the dam exceed the applicable thresholds in this rule. Changes in the spillway height or dimensions of the dam or spillway are examples of modifications for which approval is required.

• 71.3(5) Mill dams. Rescinded IAB 2/20/91, effective 3/27/91. • 71.3(6) Maintenance of preexisting dams. Approval shall be required to

maintain a preexisting dam as described in 567-Chapter 73 only if the department determines that the dam poses a significant threat to the well-being of the public or environment and should therefore be removed or repaired and safely maintained. Preexisting dams are subject to the water, air and waste management dam safety inspection program as set forth in 567-Chapter 73.

• This rule is intended to implement Iowa Code sections 455B.262, 455B.264, 455B.267, 455B.275 and 455B.277.

Kansas: Dam means any artificial barrier including appurtenant works with the ability to

impound water, waste water or other liquids that has a height of 25 feet or more; or has a height of six feet of greater and also has the capacity to impound 50 or more acre feet.

Kentucky: Any artificial barrier, including appurtenant works, which does or can

impound or divert water, and which either: is or will be 25 feet or more in height from the natural bed of the stream or water course at the downstream toe of the barrier, as determined by the cabinet; or has or will have an impounding capacity at maximum water storage elevation of 50 acre-feet or more.

Louisiana: Twenty-five feet or more in height and have an impounding capacity at

maximum storage greater than fifteen acre-feet, or having an impounding capacity at maximum storage of fifty acre-feet or more and are greater than six feet in height. LA State Law excluded Toledo Bend dam.

Maryland:

• ht >20 feet • drainage area > 1 square mile • >50 ac-ft storage • dam construction within trout watershed • any hazard class (high, significant or low)


Michigan: "Dam" means an artificial barrier, including dikes, embankments, and appurtenant works, that impounds, diverts, or is designed to impound or divert water or a combination of water and any other liquid or material in the water; that is or will be when complete 6 feet or more in height; and that has or will have an impounding capacity at design flood elevation of 5 surface acres or more.

Minnesota: Dam is equal to or more than six feet high and has at least 15 acre-feet of

storage. Mississippi: Mississippi dam safety statute contains exemptions from the requirement to

obtain written authorization before construction as described in Section IV. B.; however the state asserts jurisdiction over all dams, in that the same statute grants the Commission authority to inspect dams, direct maintenance or repair of dams, and direct removal of dams in the interest of public safety, whether or not written authorization was required.

Missouri: Any artificial or man-made barrier which does or may impound water, and

which impoundment has or may have a surface area of fifteen or more acres of water at the water storage elevation or which is thirty-five feet or more in height measured either from the natural bed of the stream or watercourse or lowest point on the toe of the dam (whichever is lower) up to the crest elevation, together with appurtenant works. Sections 236.400 and 236.500 shall not apply to any dam which is not or will not be in excess of thirty-five feet in height or to any dam or reservoir licensed and operated under the Federal Power Act.

Montana: All dams, regardless of size, are under states jurisdiction. Excluded are

federally owned dams, dams under superfund jurisdiction, and dams regulated by federal agencies (located on federal property).

Nebraska: FEMA Model Law definition Nevada: Any embankment that impounds water or other potentially motile fluid. Any

embankment that diverts water from its natural course (other than levees). New Hampshire: Dam as defined by RSA 482:2,II, namely "any artificial barrier,

including appurtenant works, which impounds or diverts water, and which has a height of 4 feet or more, or a storage capacity of 2 acre-feet or more, or is located at the outlet of a great pond. A roadway culvert shall not be considered a dam if its invert is at the natural bed of the water course, it has adequate discharge capacity, and it does not impound water under normal circumstances. Artificial barriers which create surface impoundments for industrial or commercial wastes or municipal sewage, regardless of height or storage capacity, shall be considered dams.

New Jersey: Any dam which raises the waters of a stream five feet or more above its

usual, mean, low water height. New Mexico: A dam that exceeds 10 feet in height regardless of storage or a dam that

stores more than 10 acre-feet regardless of height New York:

• Any dam, if public safety requires and any dam with height greater than 15 feet or impoundment greater than 3 million gallons, except any dam less than 6 feet high or with less than 1 million gallon capacity.

North Carolina: >=15 feet and >=10 acre-feet capacity and all high hazard potential

dams irregardless of height or impoundment capacity.


North Dakota: "Dam" means any artificial barrier or obstruction, including any appurtenant works, across a stream channel, watercourse, or an area that drains naturally or may impound water. The state regulates all high and significant hazard dams greater than 25 ac-ft at the top of dam (regardless of height), all dams that store greater than 50 ac-ft at the top of dam (regardless of height), and all dams that store greater than 12.5 ac-ft at the principal spillway (water permit requirement).

Ohio: Ohio Administrative Code 1501:21-3-01. Dam means any artificial barrier together with any appurtenant works, which either does or may impound water or other liquefied material. Upground reservoirs and lagoons are considered to be dams. A fill or structure intended solely for highway or railroad use that does not permanently impound water or other liquefied material as determined by the chief is not considered a dam.

Oklahoma:

• Between 6 & 25 ft. in height, & over 50 acre-feet capacity. • Over 25 ft. in height, & over 15 acre-feet capacity.

Oregon: BOTH: Greater than or equal to 10 feet height AND greater than or equal to

9.2 acre-feet storage capacity. Pennsylvania: Under the Pennsylvania Dam Safety Act the following dams are

regulated by the state:

(1) All dams on a natural or artificial watercourse, other than those licensed pursuant to the Federal Power Act, where: (i) the contributory drainage area exceeds 100 acres; or (ii) the greatest depth of water at maximum storage elevation exceeds 15 feet; or (iii) the impounding capacity at maximum storage elevation exceeds 50 acre-feet.

(2) All dams used for the storage of water not located on a watercourse and which have no contributory drainage, where the greatest depth of water at maximum storage elevation exceeds 15 feet and the impounding capacity at maximum storage elevation exceeds 50 acre-feet.

(3) All dams used for the storage of fluids or semifluids other than water, the escape of which may result in air, water or land pollution, or may result in danger to persons or property.

Puerto Rico: An artificial barrier that together with its accessory structures, retains,

stores or carries water and exceeds 25 ft and gathers over 50 acre feet. Rhode Island: We do not have a formal definition. South Carolina: A jurisdictional dam is a dam 25 feet in height or with 50 acre feet in

volume, level with the minimum low point in the dam embankment, that is not federally owned. Any dam, regardless of height or volume, which would fail and cause probable loss of life is included unless the dam is federally owned.


South Dakota: 25 feet high or 50 acre-feet maximum capacity, not a dam if height is less than 6 ft or maximum storage is less than 15 ac-ft.

Tennessee: Dam means any artificial barrier, together with appurtenant works, which does or may impound or divert water, and which either (1) is or will be twenty (20) feet or more in height from the natural bed of the stream or watercourse at the downstream toe of the barrier, as determined by the Commissioner, or (2) has or will have an impounding capacity at maximum water storage elevation of thirty (30) acre-feet or more. Provided, however, that any such barrier which is or will be less than six (6) feet in height, regardless of storage capacity, or which has or will have a maximum storage capacity not in excess of fifteen (15) acre-feet, regardless of height, shall not be considered a dam, nor shall any barrier, regardless of size, be considered a dam, if, in the judgment of the Commissioner, such barrier creates an impoundment used only as a farm pond. Diversion weirs, roadbeds, water tanks, and wastewater impoundment barriers as defined in this section are not dams.

Texas: Any barrier, including one for flood detention, designed to impound liquid

volumes and which has a height greater than 6 feet. Utah: All high hazard dams, with moderate and low hazard dams that are greater than

20 acre-feet in capacity. Vermont: Capable of impounding more than 500,000 cubic feet of water or other liquid Virginia: Effective July 1, 2002, the term "impounding structure" means a man-made

device, whether a dam across a watercourse or other structure outside a watercourse, used or to be used to retain or store waters or other materials. The term includes: (i) all dams that are 25 feet or greater in height and that create an impoundment capacity of 15 acre-feet or greater, and (ii) all dams that are six feet or greater in height and that create an impoundment capacity of 50 acre-feet or greater. The term "impounding structure" shall not include: (a) dams licensed by the State Corporation Commission that subject to a safety inspection program; (b) dams owned or licensed by the United States government; (c) dams constructed, maintained or operated primarily for agricultural purposes which are less than 25 feet in height or which create a maximum impoundment capacity smaller than 100 acre-feet; (d) water or silt retaining dams approved pursuant to § 45.1-222 or § 45.1-225.1 of the Code of Virginia; or (e) obstructions in a canal used to raise or lower water.

Washington: Any dam or impounding works that can impound 10 or more acre feet of

water at the dam crest level. West Virginia:

• "Dam" means an artificial barrier or obstruction, including any works appurtenant to it and any reservoir created by it, which is or will be placed, constructed, enlarged, altered or repaired so that it does or will impound or divert water and: (A) Is or will be twenty-five feet or more in height from the natural bed of the stream or watercourse measured at the downstream toe of the barrier and which does or can impound fifteen acre-feet or more of water; or (B) is or will be six feet or more in height from the natural bed of the stream or watercourse measured at the downstream toe of the barrier and which does or can impound fifty acre-feet or more of water.

• "Dam" does not mean:

o Any dam owned by the federal government;


o Any dam for which the operation and maintenance thereof is the responsibility of the federal government;

o Farm ponds constructed and used primarily for agricultural purposes, including, but not limited to, livestock watering, irrigation, retention of animal wastes and fish culture, and that have no potential to cause loss of human life in the event of embankment failure; or

o Roadfill or other transportation structures that do not or will not impound water under normal conditions and that have a designed culvert or similar conveyance or capacity that would be used under a state designed highway at the same location: Provided, That the secretary may apply the provisions of section ten of this article for roadfill or other transportation structures that become a hazard to human life or property through the frequent or continuous impoundment of water.

Wisconsin: Structure and appurtenance works across a watercourse that impounds or diverts water.

Wyoming: "Dam" means any artificial barrier, including appurtenanceworks, used to impound or divert water and which is or will be greater than twenty (20( feet in height or with an impounding capacity of fifty (50) acre-feet or greater. "Dam" does not include artificial barriers including appurtenance works: (A) Six (6) feet in height or less, regardless of storage capacity; or (B) Which impound less than fifteen (15) acre-feet, regardless of height.

I. Are there any structures meeting your definition of a dam in your State that are specifically exempted? By: Age? Alaska: No Arizona: No Arkansas: No California: No Colorado: No Connecticut: No Delaware: No Florida: No Georgia: No Hawaii: No Idaho: No Illinois: No


Indiana: No Iowa: No Kansas: No Kentucky: No Louisiana: No Maryland: No Michigan: No Minnesota: No Mississippi: No Missouri: No Montana: No Nebraska: No Nevada: No New Hampshire: No New Jersey: No New Mexico: No New York: No North Carolina: No North Dakota: No Ohio: No Oregon: No Pennsylvania: No Puerto Rico: No Rhode Island: No South Carolina: No South Dakota: No Tennessee: No Texas: No


Utah: No Vermont: No Virginia: No Washington: No West Virginia: No Wisconsin: No Wyoming: No Use? Alaska: No Arizona: No Arkansas: No California: Yes

If Yes, Specify: off-stream barrier for groundwater recharge, off-stream sewage treatment pond.

Colorado: No Connecticut: No Delaware: No Florida: No Georgia: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Surface mining, hydroelectric Hawaii: No Idaho: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Structures under 20 feet in height designed primarily for retention and treatment of municipal, livestock, or domestic wastes, or sediment and waste from produce washing or food processing plants. Fill or structures designed primarily for highway or

Illinois: No Indiana: No Iowa: No Kansas: No


Kentucky: Yes If Yes, Specify: active coal mining dams Louisiana: No Maryland: No Michigan: Yes If Yes, Specify: FERC licensed Minnesota: No Mississippi: No Missouri: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Agricultural, Hydropower (regulated by FERC)

Montana: No Nebraska: No Nevada: No New Hampshire: No New Jersey: No New Mexico: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Erosion control if storage less than 10 acre-feet and stock dams constructed prior to May 19, 2004 that are less than 10 acre-feet

New York: No North Carolina: No North Dakota: No Ohio: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Dams in active mining areas are exempt by statute and regulated by another entity.

Oregon: No Pennsylvania: No Puerto Rico: No Rhode Island: No South Carolina: No South Dakota: No


Tennessee: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Farm ponds, diversion weirs, roadbeds, water tanks, and wastewater impoundment barriers.

Texas: No Utah: No Vermont: No Virginia: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Primarily Agricultural when Height is <25 ft or Capacity<100 Acre-ft.

Washington: No West Virginia: Yes

If Yes, Specify: farm ponds constructed and used primarily for agricultural purposes, including, but not limited to, livestock watering, irrigation, retention of animal wastes and fish culture, and which have no potential to cause loss of human life

Wisconsin: No Wyoming: No Size/Height? Alaska: No Arizona: Yes

If Yes, Specify: See definition under Section IV.A.

Arkansas: No California: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Less than 6 feet high. Colorado: No Connecticut: No Delaware: No Florida: No Georgia: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Less than 6 feet regardless of storage

Hawaii: No


Idaho: Yes

If Yes, Specify: See Size/Impoundment for definition

Illinois: No Indiana: No Iowa: No Kansas: No Kentucky: No Louisiana: No Maryland: No Michigan: Yes

If Yes, Specify: < 6 ft in height Minnesota: No Mississippi: Yes

If Yes, Specify: peripheral dams less <8 ft in height regardless of storage volume

Missouri: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Dam less than 35 feet in height, regardless of storage volume.

Montana: No Nebraska: No Nevada: No New Hampshire: No New Jersey: No New Mexico: No New York: No North Carolina: No North Dakota: No Ohio: Yes

If Yes, Specify: <6 ft, or <10 ft if also <50 acre-ft Oregon: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Any structure less than 10 feet height


Pennsylvania: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Federally owned and FREC licensed dam are not regulated

Puerto Rico: No Rhode Island: No South Carolina: No South Dakota: No Tennessee: Yes

If Yes, Specify: <6 feet high. Texas: No Utah: No Vermont: No Virginia: No Washington: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Low hazard dams < 6 feet high can be exempted case by case

West Virginia: Yes

If Yes, Specify: less than 6 feet in height Wisconsin: No Wyoming: Yes

If Yes, Specify: See above Size/Impoundment? Alaska: No Arizona: Yes



If Yes, Specify: Less than 15 acre-feet. Colorado: No Connecticut: No Delaware: No Florida: No


Georgia: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Less than 15 acre-feet regardless of height

Hawaii: No Idaho: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Artificial barriers constructed in low risk areas as determined by the director which are 6 feet or less in height regardless of storage capacity, or which impound 10 acre feet of less at maximum water storage elevation, regardless of height.

Illinois: No Indiana: No Iowa: No Kansas: No Kentucky: No Louisiana: No Maryland: No Michigan: Yes

If Yes, Specify: < 5 surface areas of impoundment during design flood

Minnesota: No Mississippi: Yes

If Yes, Specify: <25 acre-ft maximum storage Missouri: No Montana: No Nebraska: No Nevada: No New Hampshire: No New Jersey: No New Mexico: No New York: No North Carolina: No


North Dakota: Yes If Yes, Specify: <12.5 ac-ft of water impounded at principal spillway and <25 ac-ft at top of dam (both must be true)

Ohio: Yes

If Yes, Specify: <15 acre-ft, or <50 acre-ft if also <10 ft high

Oregon: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Any impoundment less than 9.2 acre-feet

Pennsylvania: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Federally owned and FREC licensed dam are not regulated

Puerto Rico: No Rhode Island: No South Carolina: No South Dakota: No Tennessee: Yes

If Yes, Specify: <16 acre feet of total storage. Texas: No Utah: Yes

If Yes, Specify: less than 20 acre-feet and not high hazard

Vermont: No Virginia: No Washington: Yes

If Yes, Specify: dams that impound < 10 Acre-feet

West Virginia: Yes

If Yes, Specify: less than 15 acre-feet Wisconsin: No Wyoming: Yes

If Yes, Specify: See above Impoundment Type? Alaska: No Arizona: Yes




If Yes, Specify: Canal obstruction, railroad fill, highway fill, circular tank, elevated tank, off-stream barrier for groundwater recharge, levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, off-stream sewage treatment pond.

Colorado: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Highway embankments, tailings and mine waste facilities if permitted by other agencies, refuse embankments, siltation structures and structures with the storage below the natural ground surface

Connecticut: No Delaware: No Florida: No Georgia: Yes

If Yes, Specify: dams associated with surface mining are exempted, and federally owned and operated dams

Hawaii: No Idaho: No Illinois: No Indiana: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Coal mine dam regulated by MSHA

Iowa: No Kansas: No Kentucky: No Louisiana: No Maryland: No Michigan: No Minnesota: No Mississippi: Yes


If Yes, Specify: dams that do not impound a watercourse with a continuous flow of water

Missouri: No Montana: No Nebraska: No Nevada: No New Hampshire: No New Jersey: No New Mexico: No New York: Yes

If Yes, Specify: impoundments regulated by wastewater regulations

North Carolina: No North Dakota: No Ohio: No Oregon: No Pennsylvania: No Puerto Rico: No Rhode Island: No South Dakota: No Tennessee: Yes

If Yes, Specify: Local or state government that owns a dam with a road on it but that did not build the dam cannot be held responsible for the dam (T.C.A. 69-11-124).

Texas: No Utah: No Vermont: No Virginia: No Washington: Yes

If Yes, Specify: FERC Regulated Hydropower Dams

West Virginia: No


Wisconsin: Yes

If Yes, Specify: dams associated with cranberry production are exempted from dam/dam safety laws

Wyoming: No J: Does your State dam safety program regulate Tailings or Mine Waste Dams? No: 17 Yes: 32 The following States responded No: Alabama Arizona Colorado Connecticut Delaware Hawaii Indiana Kentucky Louisiana Montana New York North Dakota Ohio Puerto Rico Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin Comments/Clarification on Responses: Connecticut: Connecticut does not have tailings or mine waste dams. Florida: C. 62-672 and 62-673 are specific to the phosphates industries, mining and

chemicals processing. All other industrial processes which produce liquid wastes are regulated via 403, Florida statutes.

Georgia: Tailings Dam are regulated, dams associated with surface mining are exempt. Iowa: To date, we have received no applications for tailings dams.

Montana: we work closely with the MT DEQ on tailings dams, since they lack expertise on dams. We attend inspections, help with EAP's, provide training etc.

Ohio: All dams constructed in active mining areas are exempt from the dam safety

regulations by statute. The statute does not specifically exempt tailings or mine waste dams, except where they are specifically in an active mining area.

Rhode Island: The Dam Safety Program is not aware of any such dams in RI, however,

it has the authority to regulate all dams. Wisconsin: State cannot regulate dams that are not on a watercourse.


K: Does your State dam safety program regulate Hydro Dams? No: 18 Yes: 31 The following States responded No: Alabama Connecticut Delaware Georgia Indiana Louisiana Michigan Missouri Montana North Dakota Oklahoma Pennsylvania Puerto Rico South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Virginia Washington Comments/Clarification on Responses: Alaska: If it meets the state definition of a dam and is not regulated by FERC. Michigan: There are 2 hydro dams that are not FERC licensed that are state regulated

(War Powers Act exemption) (Riley Dam and Berrien Springs) New Mexico: There are currently no hydro dams on any state jurisdictional dams, but if

there were, the State Engineer would regulate them. New York: State does not have authority to issue dam safety permits for FERC licensed

dams. There are hydro dams in the state that are not FERC licensed. North Carolina: Hydro dams operated by a small power producer, as defined by G.S.

62-3 (27a) that is not under the jurisdiction of the North Carolina Utilities Commission. (G.S. 143-215. 25A (a) (4))

Oregon: Oregon statutes extend jurisdictional authority of ALL hydraulic structures to the state's dam safety program. However, Oregon dam safety defers inspection of FERC-licensed hydropower dams to FERC on an individual, project basis.

South Carolina: A few small hydro-power dams are regulated, however, the majority is

regulated by FERC. Wisconsin: State cannot regulate dams that are not on a watercourse.

2007 State Dam Safety Program Performance Information – Permitting

V. Permitting

Permitting responses are summarized in the following figure. Those States answering yes to all the questions are shown in Green, those answering yes to most questions (>50%)are shown in Blue, those answering yes to some of the questions are shown in Yellow and those that answered no to all the questions are shown in Red. The States that did not respond are shown in White.

A. Does your State require a permit for the following items? (yes/no): 1. Construction of a new dam? No: 2 Yes: 47 The following States responded No: Alabama Oregon 2. Reconstruction of an existing dam? No: 2 Yes: 47 The following States responded No: Alabama Oregon

3. Enlargement of an existing dam? No: 2 Yes: 47


The following States responded No: Alabama Oregon 4. Modification or alteration of an existing dam? No: 3 Yes: 46 The following States responded No: Alabama Oregon Texas 5. Repair of an existing dam? No: 10 Yes: 39 The following States responded No: Alabama Florida Illinois Indiana Iowa Nevada New Hampshire Oregon Texas Vermont

Comments/Clarification on Responses: Iowa: Assuming repairs restore the dam to its original or approved condition.

Nevada: Repairs do not structurally alter dam or operational regime. South Dakota: If repair is just considered to be maintenance, then no permits or P&S is required.

6. Removal of an existing dam? No: 5 Yes: 44 The following States responded No: Alabama Indiana North Dakota Oregon Texas 7. Abandonment of an existing dam?


No: 14 Yes: 35 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Hawaii Indiana Kentucky New Hampshire New York North Carolina North Dakota Oregon Rhode Island Texas Vermont Washington 8. Operation and maintenance of an existing dam? No: 29 Yes: 20 The following States responded No: Alabama Colorado Connecticut Florida Hawaii Indiana Kentucky Michigan Mississippi Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina Texas Utah Vermont Washington West Virginia Wyoming



Nevada: O&M not separately permitted.

New Mexico: Regulations require high and significant hazard potential dams to have and Operation and Maintenance Manual. Once existing dams have an approved O&M Manual the owner will receive a license to operate the dam. This is not required for Low Hazard. North Dakota: Had checked yes previously - no change to our program, only a correction.

9. Impoundment of water? No: 10 Yes: 39 The following States responded No: Alabama Connecticut Hawaii Indiana Michigan Missouri Nevada New Jersey Ohio Utah

Comments/Clarification on Responses: Montana: Montana has authority for #s 1 through 9 via dam safety statute and rules. We only require a "dam safety permit" for high hazard dams. A water right permit is required for all reservoirs which dictate safe construction and operation.

Nevada: Impoundment must be authorized but not permit. Water right (permit) process separate program.

Oregon: Oregon statutes require a Reservoir Permit (Water Right) for impoundment of water, and the Reservoir Permit is conditioned to include dam safety design approval prior to construction or modification.

10. Change of Ownership? No: 30 Yes: 19 The following States responded No: Alabama Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Idaho Indiana


Iowa Kansas Kentucky Michigan Mississippi Missouri Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina Texas Utah Vermont Washington


Mississippi: While Mississippi doesn't require a permit for change of ownership, our permit does require that we be notified when there is to be a change in ownership.

Nevada: Change in ownership must be verified but not permit.

Rhode Island: Many of these permit functions are handled by the DEM's Wetlands section, which will coordinate with the Dam Safety Program.

Virginia: Permit or approval. B. Does your State require this information to be included in a Permit application for new construction, reconstruction, or modification? (Yes/No): 1. Construction plans and specifications prepared by an engineer? No: 1 Yes: 48 The following States responded No: Alabama


North Dakota: ND only requires a professional engineer for dams that store more than 50 AF at top of dam (unless they are less than 10 feet high and low hazard), and for high and significant hazard dams that store 25-50 AF at top of dam.


2. Hazard Potential Identification? No: 11 Yes: 38 The following States responded No: Alabama California Georgia Idaho Michigan Nevada North Dakota Oregon Puerto Rico Rhode Island Wyoming

Comments/Clarification on Responses: Nevada: Established by State Engineer.

3. Statement of Ownership? No: 4 Yes: 45 The following States responded No: Alabama Connecticut Puerto Rico Rhode Island 4. Hydrologic and hydraulic design computation? No: 2 Yes: 47 The following States responded No: Alabama Rhode Island 5. Structural design computation? No: 6 Yes: 43 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas Delaware Hawaii Indiana Rhode Island


6. Geotechnical data and design computations? No: 3 Yes: 46 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Rhode Island

Comments/Clarification on Responses: Iowa: For major dams only. North Carolina: Computations only required for items being repaired, or if a deficiency has been noted and upgrades are being required. South Carolina: Geotechnical Calculations are not necessary for dams less than 50 feet in height with back slope and front slope horizontal run summations that are greater or equal to 5 (NRCS "Rule of Thumb") and for those dams not located in a Seismic Zone.

7. Instrumentation plan? No: 18 Yes: 31 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas Delaware Hawaii Illinois Indiana Michigan Missouri Nebraska New Hampshire North Carolina North Dakota Oregon Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Texas Wyoming


New Mexico: Only required for dams classified as high or significant hazard potential.

8. Operation plan during construction and life of structure? No: 16 Yes: 33


The following States responded No: Alabama California Indiana Kansas Kentucky Mississippi Nevada New York North Dakota Oregon Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Wyoming


Nevada: May be required if deemed necessary by State Engineer. New Mexico: Only required for dams classified as high or significant hazard potential.

9. Maintenance plan? No: 18 Yes: 31 The following States responded No: Alabama California Colorado Indiana Kansas Kentucky Mississippi Nevada New York North Dakota Oregon Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Vermont Wyoming


Nevada: May be required if deemed necessary by State Engineer.


New Mexico: Only required for dams classified as high or significant hazard potential.

10. Emergency Action Plan (EAP)? No: 15 Yes: 34 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas California Georgia Indiana Iowa Kentucky Mississippi New York North Dakota Oregon Rhode Island Tennessee Texas Wyoming

Comments/Clarification on Responses: Mississippi: While we don't require an EAP to be submitted in the permit application, an EAP is required for high and significant hazard dams as a condition of their permit. Tennessee: EAP's are required only for high hazard dams.

11. Agreement to submit as-built plans certified by the design engineer? No: 8 Yes: 41 The following States responded No: Alabama Michigan Mississippi New York North Dakota Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Dakota


Iowa: Submittal of as-built plans only required for "major" dams.

Michigan: We require as-built as a permit condition.


Mississippi: As builts certified by design engineer are required to be submitted as par New Mexico: Record drawings must be certified by engineer supervising construction, which may not necessarily be the design engineer.

12. Statement of financial capability/ performance bond? No: 36 Yes: 13 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Idaho Indiana Iowa Kansas Michigan Mississippi Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Oregon Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses: Alaska: Details of application depend on nature of project.

Delaware: We anticipate that most, if not all of these items will be required to be submitted by our regulations, but as of this date the regulations have not yet been adopted.


Michigan: We have the option of requiring bond.

Nevada: May be required if deemed necessary by State Engineer.

C. Does your State require this information to be included in a Permit application for repair of existing dams? (Yes/No): 1. Construction plans and specifications prepared by an engineer? No: 4 Yes: 45 The following States responded No: Alabama Florida Illinois Indiana

2. Hazard Potential Identification? No: 15 Yes: 34 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas California Delaware Florida Idaho Illinois Indiana Michigan Nevada North Dakota Oregon Puerto Rico Rhode Island Wyoming 3. Statement of Ownership? No: 7 Yes: 42 The following States responded No: Alabama Connecticut Delaware Florida Illinois Oregon


Rhode Island 4. Hydrologic and hydraulic design computation? No: 5 Yes: 44 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas Florida Illinois Rhode Island 5. Structural design computation? No: 9 Yes: 40 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas Delaware Florida Hawaii Illinois Indiana Iowa Rhode Island 6. Geotechnical data and design computations? No: 7 Yes: 42 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas Delaware Florida Illinois Rhode Island South Carolina 7. Instrumentation plan? No: 19 Yes: 30 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas Delaware Florida Hawaii Illinois


Indiana Iowa Kentucky Michigan Nebraska New Hampshire North Carolina North Dakota Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Texas Wyoming 8. Operation plan during construction and life of structure? No: 18 Yes: 31 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas California Florida Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Nevada New York North Dakota Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Wyoming 9. Maintenance plan? No: 21 Yes: 28 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Florida Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Michigan


Mississippi Nevada New York North Dakota Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Wyoming 10. Emergency Action Plan (EAP)? No: 16 Yes: 33 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas California Florida Georgia Illinois Indiana Iowa Kentucky Mississippi New York North Dakota Rhode Island Tennessee Texas Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Montana: Emergency action plans recommended on significant hazard dams, not required.

11. Agreement to submit as-built plans certified by the design engineer? No: 9 Yes: 40 The following States responded No: Alabama Florida Illinois Mississippi New York North Dakota Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Dakota 12. Statement of financial capability/ performance bond?


No: 43 Yes: 6 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses: Alaska: Details of application depend on nature of project.


D. Does your State require this information to be included in a Permit application for dam removal or abandonment of existing dams? (Yes/No): 1. Method of dewatering including testing of environmentally sensitive discharges? No: 21 Yes: 27 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Delaware Georgia Hawaii Indiana Louisiana Mississippi New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon South Carolina Washington West Virginia 2. Method of breaching or abandonment? No: 6 Yes: 42 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Louisiana Mississippi North Dakota South Carolina 3. Means of erosion control during and after the breach? No: 8 Yes: 40 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Indiana Louisiana Mississippi North Dakota


South Carolina South Dakota 4. Means of controlling sediment transport including testing and control of environmentally sensitive discharges? No: 18 Yes: 30 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arizona Colorado Delaware Hawaii Indiana Louisiana Mississippi Missouri North Carolina North Dakota Oregon South Carolina South Dakota Washington West Virginia Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

North Carolina: Method of dewatering & means of controlling sediment transport, yet no requirement for testing of environmentally sensitive discharges are required. Although required by other agencies, NC Dam Safety Law does not require remapping of DS flood areas. South Dakota: Dewatering (yes) testing of environmentally sensitive discharges (no).

5. Means to maintain breach area, upstream and downstream channels and reservoir bed after the breach? No: 13 Yes: 35 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas Delaware Hawaii Indiana Louisiana Mississippi North Dakota South Carolina Tennessee


Texas Washington Wyoming 6. Time schedule and sequence of construction? No: 10 Yes: 38 The following States responded No: Alabama California Delaware Indiana Louisiana Mississippi New Mexico North Dakota South Carolina Wyoming 7. Evaluation and remapping of downstream flood areas? No: 35 Yes: 13 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Hawaii Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nevada New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee


Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Rhode Island: A permit for removal would be submitted to DEM's Wetlands section, which will coordinate with the Dam Safety Program. Abandonment is not a permitted activity.

E. Other Permitting Activities. Does your State require the following? (Yes/No): 1. Notification of change of ownership? No: 11 Yes: 38 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Iowa Kansas Michigan New York North Carolina North Dakota Oregon Rhode Island Vermont


Ohio: A change in the statute (Ohio Revised Code 1521.062) in 2007 now requires notification of change of ownership.

2. Day-to-day maintenance; Submittal of maintenance plan, operation plan, EAP, Statement of financial capability? No: 26 Yes: 23 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas California Connecticut Florida Idaho Indiana Iowa Kansas


Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Mexico New York North Carolina Oregon Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Vermont Wyoming


Georgia: Owner is required to do maintenance plan. There is not a requirement for EAP.

Michigan: We do require EAPs for high and significant hazard dams.

Mississippi: We do require submission of EAP within 180 days of completion of dam as well as financial capability proof as part of permit. We don't require submittal of maintenance or operation plan.

Nevada: EAP must be on file for all significant and high hazard dams.

New Mexico: No because statement of financial capability is a no otherwise all other are Yes for high and significant hazard potential dams. North Dakota: An operating plan is required each year for dams that store more than 1,000 AF. The operating plan is supposed to contain reservoir operating procedures, maintenance procedures, and emergency procedures. Virginia: No financial capability required.

3. Requirements for permission to impound; required on file owner's written request for agency construction inspection, owner's engineer's certificate of consistency with approved plans, as-built plans, and filling schedule? No: 12 Yes: 37 The following States responded No: Alabama California Connecticut Hawaii Indiana Kansas Michigan Missouri


North Dakota Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota 4. Procedures for permit application review, requirements for public comment, procedures for denial of permit? No: 15 Yes: 34 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska California Colorado Nevada New Mexico North Carolina Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia Washington Wyoming


Iowa: Public notification is typically not required. Nevada: Permits worked on until able to be approved, public comment only on water right (separate process). New Mexico: Procedures for Permit Application review are in place; however no process for public comment.

5. Procedures for permit revocation? No: 15 Yes: 34 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska California Connecticut Hawaii Indiana Kentucky Louisiana Rhode Island South Carolina Texas Vermont


Virginia Washington Wisconsin Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Connecticut: The Commissioner has the authority to revoke a dam construction permit. CT does not require a permit for the operation of a dam (impoundment of water).

F. Other Questions 1. Total number of permits issued by the Agency since program inception: Alabama: 0 Arkansas: 506 California: 1524 Colorado: 2857 Delaware: 0 Georgia: unknown Hawaii: 23 Iowa: 4220 Kansas: 10251 Kentucky: 689 Maryland: 432 Michigan: 733 Minnesota: 307 Mississippi: 3629 Missouri: 1007 Montana: unknown Nebraska: 2288 Nevada: 572 New Hampshire: 5135 New Jersey: 1259 New Mexico: 415


North Carolina: 1192 North Dakota: 1568 Ohio: 335 Pennsylvania: 1599 Puerto Rico: 3 Rhode Island: unknown South Carolina: 800 South Dakota: N/A Tennessee: 6062 Texas: unknown Vermont: 245 Virginia: 3000+ Washington: 200 West Virginia: 630 Wisconsin: unknown Wyoming: 2910 Total Permits: 54391 2. Total number of permits issued during the reporting year: Alabama: 0 Alaska: 8 Arizona: 8 Arkansas: 1 California: 46 Colorado: 49 Delaware: 0 Georgia: 4 Hawaii: 5 Illinois: 35


Indiana: 5 Iowa: 127 Kansas: 27 Kentucky: 6 Louisiana: 1 Maryland: 32 Michigan: 23 Minnesota: 15 Mississippi: 34 Missouri: 21 Montana: 25 Nebraska: 46 Nevada: 5 New Hampshire: 28 New Jersey: 32 New Mexico: 5 North Carolina: 99 North Dakota: 5 Ohio: 11 Oklahoma: 14 Pennsylvania: 13 Puerto Rico: 1 Rhode Island: 2 South Carolina: 12 South Dakota: 10 Tennessee: 345 Texas: 6 Utah: 14


Vermont: 3 Virginia: 29 Washington: 16 West Virginia: 12 Wisconsin: 81 Wyoming: 26 Total Permits: 1287 Comments/Clarification on Responses: Illinois: Breakdown of permits issued not tracked. Nevada: 70 applications never formally approved but dam exists. 12 pending

(7/13/2007). Breakdown of permits will show 14 whereas 5 are approvals to impound that are not separate permits but "finalization" of existing authorizations.

North Carolina: Records of permits issued before 7/1999 are not available. #2

does not include approved EAPs, Jurisdictional determinations, hazard confirms, prelim reports, NCUC MOA reviews, exemptions or addendums approved since they aren't included on next page.

North Dakota: 1 and 2. These numbers do not include permits for the

impoundment of water. Rhode Island: #408, 320 Tennessee: In the following section, TN only issues four types of permits:

construction, alteration, operation, removal; however, these cover the activities shown as "N/A".

Virginia: Virginia does not keep an up to date tabulation of permits issued. The

number provided is an estimate only. Washington: Permits issued since rune was implemented in 1993 3. Breakdown of total number of permits issued in the reporting period by type of permit: a. Construction of new dam: Alabama: 0 Alaska: 2 Arkansas: 0 California: 9 Colorado: 8


Delaware: 0 Georgia: 1 Hawaii: 0 Idaho: 2 Illinois: 0 Indiana: 2 Iowa: 124 Kansas: 13 Kentucky: 5 Louisiana: 1 Maryland: 4 Michigan: 3 Minnesota: 7 Mississippi: 49 Missouri: 10 Montana: 0 Nebraska: 44 Nevada: 9 New Hampshire: 21 New Jersey: 1 New Mexico: 2 North Carolina: 15 North Dakota: 4 Ohio: 7 Oklahoma: 3 Oregon: 9 Pennsylvania: 3 Puerto Rico: 1


Rhode Island: 0 South Carolina: 8 South Dakota: 6 Tennessee: 2 Texas: 1 Utah: 5 Vermont: 1 Virginia: 5 Washington: 11 West Virginia: 0 Wisconsin: 14 Wyoming: 20 Total Permits: 432 b. Reconstruction of an existing dam: Alabama: 0 Alaska: 1 Arkansas: 0 Colorado: 0 Delaware: 0 Georgia: 3 Hawaii: 1 Illinois: 0 Indiana: 2 Kansas: 0 Louisiana: 0.0 Maryland: 0 Michigan: 1 Montana: 0


Nebraska: 0 Nevada: 0 New Hampshire: 2 New Jersey: 31 North Dakota: 0 Oklahoma: 10 Puerto Rico: 1 Rhode Island: 0 South Carolina: 3 South Dakota: 4 Tennessee: N/A Texas: 0 Vermont: 2 Virginia: 1 Washington: 0 West Virginia: 0 Wisconsin: 13 Wyoming: 0 Total Permits: 75 c. Enlargement of an existing dam: Alabama: 0 Arkansas: 0 Colorado: 0 Delaware: 0 Hawaii: 0 Illinois: 0 Kansas: 0 Louisiana: 0.0


Maryland: 0 Michigan: 0 Minnesota: 1 Montana: 0 Nebraska: 0 Nevada: 0 North Dakota: 0 Oklahoma: 0 Puerto Rico: 1 Rhode Island: 0 South Carolina: 1 South Dakota: N/A Tennessee: N/A Texas: 0 Vermont: 0 Virginia: 0 Washington: 0 West Virginia: 1 Wisconsin: 0 Wyoming: 6 Total Permits: 10 d. Modification or alteration of an existing dam: Alabama: 0 Alaska: 1 Arizona: 3 Arkansas: 1 California: 25 Colorado: 30


Delaware: 0 Hawaii: 0 Illinois: 0 Indiana: 1 Iowa: 3 Kansas: 0 Louisiana: 0.0 Maryland: 6 Michigan: 2 Minnesota: 2 Montana: 0 Nebraska: 0 Nevada: 0 New Mexico: 1 North Carolina: 16 North Dakota: 0 Oklahoma: 0 Pennsylvania: 6 Puerto Rico: 1 Rhode Island: 0 South Dakota: N/A Tennessee: 7 Texas: 5 Vermont: 0 Virginia: 22 Washington: 4 West Virginia: 7 Wisconsin: see


Wyoming: 0 Total Permits: 143 e. Repair of an existing dam: Alabama: 0 Arizona: 2 Arkansas: 1 California: 11 Colorado: 11 Delaware: 0 Hawaii: 2 Illinois: 0 Kansas: 14 Kentucky: 1 Louisiana: 0.0 Maryland: 20 Michigan: 15 Minnesota: 4 Mississippi: 7 Montana: 1 Nebraska: 0 Nevada: 0 New Hampshire: 5 North Carolina: 28 North Dakota: 1 Ohio: 14 Oklahoma: 1 Puerto Rico: 1 Rhode Island: 2


South Dakota: N/A Tennessee: N/A Texas: 0 Utah: 0 Vermont: 0 Virginia: 0 Washington: 1 West Virginia: 1 Wisconsin: see Wyoming: 0 Total Permits: 143 f. Removal of an existing dam: Alabama: 0 Arizona: 3 Arkansas: 1 California: 1 Colorado: 0 Delaware: 0 Georgia: 0 Hawaii: 2 Illinois: 0 Kansas: 0 Louisiana: 0.0 Maryland: 2 Michigan: 2 Minnesota: 1 Montana: 0 Nebraska: 2


Nevada: 0 North Carolina: 4 North Dakota: 0 Ohio: 1 Oklahoma: 0 Pennsylvania: 1 Puerto Rico: 0 Rhode Island: 0 South Dakota: N/A Tennessee: 0 Texas: 0 Utah: 0 Vermont: 0 Virginia: 1 Washington: 0 West Virginia: 0 Wisconsin: 2 Wyoming: 0 Total Permits: 23 g. Abandonment of an existing dam: Alabama: 0 Arkansas: 0 Delaware: 0 Illinois: 0 Kansas: 0 Louisiana: 0.0 Montana: 0 Nebraska: 0


Nevada: 0 North Dakota: 0 Oklahoma: 0 Puerto Rico: 1 Rhode Island: n/a South Dakota: N/A Tennessee: N/A Texas: 0 Utah: 0 Vermont: 0 Virginia: 0 Washington: 0 West Virginia: 1 Wisconsin: incl Wyoming: 0 Total Permits: 2 h. Operation and maintenance of an existing dam: Alabama: 0 Alaska: 3 Arkansas: 0 Delaware: 0 Illinois: 0 Kansas: 0 Louisiana: 0.0 Maryland: 0 Missouri: 6 Montana: 24 Nebraska: 2


Nevada: 0 North Carolina: 3 North Dakota: 0 Oklahoma: 0 Pennsylvania: 1 Puerto Rico: 1 Rhode Island: n/a South Dakota: N/A Tennessee: 336 Texas: 0 Utah: 0 Vermont: 0 Virginia: 56 Washington: 0 West Virginia: 1 Wisconsin: 6 Wyoming: 0 Total Permits: 439 i. Impoundment of water: Alabama: 0 Arkansas: 0 Delaware: 0 Illinois: 0 Iowa: 95 Kansas: 0 Louisiana: 0.0 Maryland: 0 Montana: 0


Nebraska: 44 Nevada: 5 North Carolina: 33 North Dakota: 1 Oklahoma: 0 Puerto Rico: 0 Rhode Island: 0 South Dakota: N/A Tennessee: N/A Texas: 0 Utah: 0 Vermont: 0 Virginia: 0 Washington: 0 West Virginia: 1 Wisconsin: do n Wyoming: 0 Total Permits: 179 j. Change of ownership: Alabama: 0 Arkansas: 1 Delaware: 0 Georgia: 0 Illinois: 0 Kansas: 0 Louisiana: 0.0 Maryland: 0 Montana: 0


Nebraska: 0 Nevada: 0 New Mexico: 2 North Carolina: 0 North Dakota: 0 Oklahoma: 0 Puerto Rico: 0 Rhode Island: n/a South Dakota: N/A Tennessee: N/A Texas: 0 Utah: 0 Vermont: 0 Virginia: 0 Washington: 0 West Virginia: 0 Wisconsin: 6 Wyoming: 0 Total Permits: 9

2007 State Dam Safety Program Performance Information – Dam Safety Inspections

VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Combined Summary of All Selected States: Hazard Potential # Inspections High 6429 Significant 3759 Low 5354 Total 15542 Individual Details for Selected States: State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Low Haz. Pot. Total Alabama 0 0 0 0 Alaska 3 8 3 14 Arizona 63 15 25 103 Arkansas 38 26 25 89 California 570 903 203 1676 Colorado 247 198 172 617 Connecticut 3 15 1 19 Delaware 0 0 0 0 Florida 200 700 200 1100 Georgia 540 0 899 1439 Hawaii 96 22 17 135 Idaho 34 61 76 171 Illinois 77 37 39 153 Indiana 56 67 155 278 Iowa 67 11 5 83 Kansas 66 49 2 117 Kentucky 89 90 99 278 Louisiana 25 48 77 150 Maryland 43 29 49 121 Michigan 33 32 155 220 Minnesota 23 21 10 54 Mississippi 99 3 0 102 Missouri 118 40 19 177 Montana 17 3 5 25 Nebraska 55 92 438 585 Nevada 92 65 100 257 New Hampshire 26 41 84 151 New Jersey 87 50 44 181 New Mexico 120 26 34 180 New York 263 113 49 425 North Carolina 830 211 645 1686 North Dakota 19 62 87 168 Ohio 70 4 2 76 Oklahoma 78 19 515 612 Oregon 33 22 66 121 Pennsylvania 1457 101 247 1805 Puerto Rico 17 0 0 17


State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Low Haz. Pot. Total Rhode Island 3 10 137 150 South Carolina 43 156 0 199 South Dakota 17 7 58 82 Tennessee 148 109 107 364 Texas 136 47 60 243 Utah 161 90 54 305 Vermont 38 48 49 135 Virginia 11 20 26 57 Washington 32 19 5 56 West Virginia 156 48 18 222 Wisconsin 11 7 27 45 Wyoming 19 14 266 299 Totals 6429 3759 5354 15542 B. Provide who is responsible for performing inspection (State personnel, Consultant hired by State, or dam owner [hires own Consultant]) Alaska: Periodic safety inspections are conducted by consultants retained by dam

owner or operator. Reporting period for periodic safety inspections as indicated is state fiscal year 2007, July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007.

Arizona: State Personnel Arkansas: State Personnel and NRCS California: State Personnel. Colorado: Colorado State Engineer, Deputy State Engineer, Dam Safety Personnel

(Professional Engineers). Connecticut: 9 dams inspected by consultants; remainder by State personnel Delaware: Dam owner Florida: STATE PERSONEL AND PRIVATE OWNERS Georgia: State Personnel. Hawaii: State Personnel, US Army Corps, US NRCS Personnel, Consultant hired by

State Idaho: State Personnel Illinois: State Personnel or Dam Owner Indiana: The Indiana Dam Safety Statute changed in 2002. For high hazard regulated

dams, the dam owner's engineer is now required to perform the inspection once every two years. DNR Director required the first private inspection on high hazard dams to be submitted by July 1, 2004. The inspection frequency was also changed by new legislation. Significant hazard dams are now inspected once every 3 years and low hazard once every 5 years. Inspections fees are now required.

Iowa: State Personnel


Kansas: Effective July 1, 2006, the state resumed inspections of high and significant hazard dams. High hazard dams must be inspected once every 3 years and significant hazard dams once every 5 years. The dam safety office is still responsible for low hazard dam inspections as well as random construction inspection and final construction inspection (dam owner is also required to have inspection conducted by a licensed engineer or their representative during construction).

Kentucky: State Personnel Louisiana: State Personnel Maryland: State dam safety engineers. Michigan: State inspects state owned dams. Consulting engineers, hired by owner,

inspect privately owned dams. Municipalities have the option of having state engineers inspect their dams or hiring consulting engineers.

Minnesota: State Personnel. Normally all but 2 or 3 inspections are done by State

personnel.

Mississippi: Dam owner is required to hire consultant to perform inspection using State inspection forms and these forms must be submitted to the State for review and approval. State personnel also visually inspect dams on an emergency basis or to determine if the dam was incorrectly classified for hazard classification.

Missouri: During the calendar year, the staff of the Missouri Dam and Reservoir safety

program performed all permit renewal inspections at no cost to the dam owners. However, budget and staff reductions the second half of the year resulted in requiring the dam owners to hire consultants at their cost to perform the renewal inspections.

Montana: For high hazard non state owned dams, owners consultant engineer performs inspection. On state owned high hazard dams, state employees perform the inspection. On other dams, state personnel perform or order an inspection on a "as needed" basis.

Nebraska: State Personnel Nevada: State Personnel for all dams. Owner is required to perform periodic inspections

but no mechanism for tracking or reporting is currently in place. Consultant hired by state assisted with some low hazard inspections.

New Hampshire: State Personnel New Jersey: The law requires that a professional engineer obtained by the owner

perform the inspection. New Mexico: State personnel New York: Inspections are performed by State personnel. North Carolina: State personnel (Staff of Dam Safety Program) North Dakota: State Personnel - North Dakota State Water Commission Dam Safety

Engineer Ohio: State Personnel


Oklahoma: Registered Professional Engineers are hired by Dam Owners to inspect high and significant hazard potential dams. State personnel perform low hazard verification inspections. PL-566 dams inspections are administered by Oklahoma Conservation Commission.

Oregon:

a). Dam Safety Coordinator, John Falk P.E.

b). Water Resources Department employees (Watermasters) assist with inspections of Significant and Low Hazard dams according to location relative to their respective district, which is defined by river basin(s).

c). Dam safety inspections also are performed by representatives of federal agencies (such as USACE, USBR and FERC) for particular structures they own, operate or regulate.

Pennsylvania: Both State Personnel and Owners Consultants Puerto Rico: State Personnel Rhode Island: State Personnel South Carolina: State Personnel South Dakota: State Personnel--We inspect all High Hazard dams and State-owned

Significant and Low hazard dams once every three years or on a case-by-case basis. We inspected the EAST dams this period. New permitted dams are inspected once for licensing purposes or again on a case-by-case basis.

Tennessee: State personnel. Texas: State personnel are primarily responsible for performing inspections; however,

consultants, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation assist in performing inspections.

Utah: State Personnel, USFS for low hazards in a forest

Vermont: State personnel are responsible for the majority. Others are conducted by consultants hired by the state or the owner. (Numbers reported above are those performed by state personnel.)

Virginia: Engineer hired by dam owner to complete inspections for initial certification and

recertification. Washington: State Personnel West Virginia:

• State = 85 • Consultant = 58 • NRCS = 79

Wisconsin: State personnel are responsible for all of the inspections. On rare

occasions an owner provides a consultants report which is verified by the state dam safety engineer.


Wyoming: State personnel are responsible for and conduct periodic inspections with the exception of Bureau of Reclamation dams. State personnel generally accompany Bureau of Reclamation personnel during inspections of Bureau dams. The State can also retain consultants to do inspections if necessary. Some periodic inspections are also done by NRCS and FERC in conjunction with State personnel.

The degree of implementation of the ASDSO model State dam safety program in the area of dam safety inspections is summarized in the following figure. Those States answering yes to all the questions are shown in Green, those answering yes to most questions (>50%)are shown in Blue, those answering yes to some of the questions are shown in Yellow and those that answered no to all the questions are shown in Red. The States that did not respond are shown in White.

A. Does your State do the following? (yes/no): 1. Identification, classification and evaluation of existing dams? No: 1 Yes: 48 The following States responded No: Alabama Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Delaware: This year we will be updating/verifying the information in our state dam inventory

2. Inspection frequencies established? No: 2 Yes: 47 The following States responded No:


Alabama Rhode Island Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Florida: 62-672 Establishes specific required inspection frequency. All other projects fall under Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP), which requires quarterly inspections.

3. Basic inspection equipment procured? No: 2 Yes: 47 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware 4. Training programs for inspectors established on: a. Legal entry? No: 16 Yes: 33 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Delaware Indiana Iowa Kansas Maryland Minnesota Mississippi North Dakota Oklahoma Utah Vermont Virginia Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Nevada: Inspector training program recently implemented for all staff. Not extended to public as of yet.

b. Records management? No: 15 Yes: 34 The following States responded No: Alabama


Alaska Arkansas Delaware Indiana Iowa Kansas Maryland Mississippi North Dakota Rhode Island Utah Vermont Virginia Wyoming c. Field measurement techniques? No: 10 Yes: 39 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Delaware Iowa Kansas Mississippi North Dakota Rhode Island Vermont Virginia d. Visual inspection techniques? No: 8 Yes: 41 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Delaware Iowa Mississippi Rhode Island Vermont Virginia Comments/Clarification on Responses:

North Dakota: No set training program - training obtained through attendance at seminars provided by other agencies.

e. Emergency inspection techniques? No: 20 Yes: 29


The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Delaware Indiana Iowa Kansas Minnesota Mississippi New Mexico North Carolina Oregon Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Maryland: All personnel in Dam Safety has completed appropriate FEMA NIMS training classes

North Dakota: No set training program - training obtained through attendance at seminars provided by other agencies.

f. Communications skills and public relations? No: 16 Yes: 33 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arizona Delaware Indiana Iowa Kansas Mississippi North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon Rhode Island Utah Vermont Virginia Wyoming 5. Maintains written documentation of all visual inspections?


No: 2 Yes: 47 The following States responded No: Alabama Wyoming 6. Photographs problem areas at the dam? No: 1 Yes: 48 The following States responded No: Alabama 7. Documents all conversations with owner, owner's agent, consulting engineer, attorney or concerned citizens? No: 7 Yes: 42 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Illinois Michigan Nevada North Dakota Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Nevada: Documented conversations not necessarily in dam file. Verbal communication only documented in extreme cases.

8. Legal notices or orders follow all legal requirements? No: 3 Yes: 46 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas Delaware

9. Maintains a computerized inventory of dams? No: 1 Yes: 48 The following States responded No: Alabama 10. Provides for inspection during construction conforming to approved plans?


No: 6 Yes: 43 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Indiana North Dakota South Dakota Wisconsin Comments/Clarification on Responses: Iowa: Construction inspection only required for "major" dams North Carolina: The Law provides for it, but staffing does not. Wisconsin: Not on a regular basis. 11. Maintains EAP for construction activities? No: 32 Yes: 17 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arkansas California Delaware Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nevada New Mexico New York North Dakota Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Washington Wisconsin


Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Nevada: Particularly high hazard potential dams on live streams may require a construction EAP.

North Carolina: EAPs not required by Law, but is a stipulated requirement for a permit.

12. Construction teams received copies of all approved plans and specifications and state permit or application approval for construction? No: 16 Yes: 32 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Illinois Indiana Iowa Kentucky Michigan Missouri North Carolina North Dakota Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Utah Vermont Wisconsin Comments/Clarification on Responses: Rhode Island: Dam owner's responsibility.

Utah: This documentation is provided to the owner and engineer, but not to the contractor

13. Documents construction inspections in photographs and writing? No: 8 Yes: 41 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Indiana Iowa North Carolina North Dakota South Dakota Wisconsin


Comments/Clarification on Responses: Wisconsin: When we are able to inspect. 14. State closely monitors and restricts filling schedule? No: 23 Yes: 26 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arkansas Connecticut Delaware Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Oregon South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Virginia Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Connecticut: The consultant overseeing construction/repair determines the refilling schedule.

Rhode Island: Yes, if the impoundment was lowered because the dam was unsafe.

Wisconsin: Requirements in permit. 15. Reports findings of periodic inspections that clearly identify violations or incidents/failures at the dam to the National Performance of Dams Program? No: 17 Yes: 30 The following States responded No: Alabama California Delaware Florida Indiana


Maryland Missouri New Mexico Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming 16. Upgraded inventorying system including photos, improved locations using global positioning systems or updated data? No: 8 Yes: 41 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas Kansas Mississippi Missouri South Carolina Washington Wisconsin Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Connecticut: CT DEP is currently using DSP grant money to obtain a software application for state owned high and significant hazard dams that will incorporate an updated GIS locations and data. We anticipate future upgrades which will i

Virginia: No photos. Wisconsin: Yes, to some extent and are constantly working to improve. 17. Advanced inspections including outlet works, details on downstream hazard potential, exercise of gates, updated analysis of hydraulic capacity, detailed outflow hydrographs and stability analysis? No: 22 Yes: 27 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas Delaware Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Michigan Minnesota


Missouri New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Vermont Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses: North Dakota: Inspections of outlet works being done, but not the other items.

Tennessee: The owner would be required to have an outside consultant perform the stability analysis.

18. Inspection schedule includes: a. High Hazard Potential Dams: (Every year)? Alabama: No Alaska: 3 Arizona: Yes Arkansas: Yes California: Yes Colorado: Yes Connecticut: 2 Florida: Yes Georgia: Yes Hawaii: Yes Idaho: 2 Illinois: Yes Indiana: 2 Iowa: 2 Kansas: 3 Kentucky: 2


Louisiana: Yes Maryland: Yes Michigan: 3 Minnesota: Yes Mississippi: Yes Missouri: 2 Montana: 4 Nebraska: Yes Nevada: Yes New Hampshire: 2 New Jersey: 2 New Mexico: 1-2 New York: 2 North Carolina: 2 Ohio: 5 Oklahoma: Yes Oregon: Yes Pennsylvania: Yes Puerto Rico: 3 Rhode Island: 3 South Carolina: 2 South Dakota: 3 Tennessee: Yes Texas: 5 Utah: Yes Vermont: Yes Virginia: 2 Washington: 5


West Virginia: 2 Wisconsin: x Wyoming: 5 Comments/Clarification on Responses: Delaware: Inspection frequency is not specified in state law, but is in

pending regulations Montana: State conducts inspection on year 4 of permitting cycle,

private engineer conducts inspection on year 5 New Mexico: Wet dam every year, normally dry flood control dams

every 2 years North Dakota: inspection interval varies Rhode Island: Schedule is informal. South Dakota: We inspect all high hazard dams and all state owned

dams once every three years.

Utah: Flood control dams and small dams (i.e. less than 25 acre-feet and less than 25 feet in height) may be deferred for inspection to every other year.

Wisconsin: State mandate is 10 years, request owner to have PE

inspect every 1-2 years. b. Significant Hazard Potential Dams: (Every 2 years)? Alabama: No Alaska: 3 Arizona: 3 Arkansas: Yes California: Yes Colorado: Yes Connecticut: 5 Florida: Yes Hawaii: Yes Idaho: Yes Illinois: 3


Indiana: 3 Iowa: 5 Kansas: 5 Kentucky: Yes Louisiana: 1 Maryland: 3 Michigan: 4 Minnesota: 4 Mississippi: Yes Missouri: 3 Montana: 5 Nebraska: 3 Nevada: 3 New Hampshire: 4 New Jersey: Yes New Mexico: 2-3 New York: 4 North Carolina: 3 Ohio: 5 Oklahoma: Yes Oregon: 2-3 Pennsylvania: Yes Rhode Island: 5-6 South Carolina: 3 South Dakota: N/A Tennessee: Yes Texas: 5 Utah: Yes


Vermont: 3 Virginia: 3 Washington: 10 West Virginia: 3 Wisconsin: x var Wyoming 5 Comments/Clarification on Responses: Montana: State conducts inspection

New Mexico: Wet dams every 2 years, normally dry flood control dams every 3 years.

North Dakota: inspection interval varies Rhode Island: Schedule is informal.

South Dakota: We inspect all high hazard dams and all state owned dams once every three years

Utah: Flood control dams and small dams may be deferred for inspection to every third year.

Wisconsin: State mandate is 10 years, request owner to have PE inspect every 2-3 years.

c. Low Hazard Potential Dams: (Every 5 years)? Alabama: No Alaska: Yes Arizona: Yes Arkansas: Yes California: Yes Colorado: 6 Connecticut: 7 Florida: Yes Georgia: Yes Hawaii: Yes Idaho: Yes


Illinois: Yes Indiana: Yes Kansas: 0 Kentucky: Yes Louisiana: Yes Maryland: Yes Michigan: Yes Minnesota: 8 Mississippi: none Missouri: Yes Nebraska: Yes Nevada: Yes New Hampshire: 6 New Jersey: 4 New Mexico: Yes North Carolina: Yes Ohio: Yes Oklahoma: Yes Oregon: Yes Pennsylvania: Yes Puerto Rico: 3 Rhode Island: n/a South Carolina: Yes South Dakota: N/A Tennessee: 3 Texas: 10 Utah: Yes Vermont: 5-10


Virginia: 6 Washington: none West Virginia: Yes Wisconsin: x var Wyoming: Yes Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Iowa: Except for targeted inspections for hazard class changes, inspection of low hazard dams are made only as time & staffing allow.

Montana: as needed North Dakota: inspection interval varies

South Dakota: We inspect all high hazard dams and all state owned dams once every three years

Wisconsin: State mandate is 10 years, request owner to have PE inspect every 5 years.

19. Program to encourage dam owners to inspect and have in place trained inspection personnel and a data file, and employ an engineer to inspect the dam in addition to the regular state inspection program? No: 23 Yes: 26 The following States responded No: Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Delaware Georgia Idaho Indiana Iowa Louisiana Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Mexico North Dakota Ohio Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont


Comments/Clarification on Responses: Connecticut: The inspection regulations allow for the dam owner to hire a

private engineer to inspect his dam in lieu of state inspection and submit inspection reports for DEP's review. They also recommend owner inspection in between re

Nevada: Owners are invited to training workshops periodically and are given "spot" training in the field during inspections.

20. Acquired any advanced inspection equipment or techniques such as aerial photography, nuclear compaction gauges, or video inspection of pipes and conduits, etc.? No: 22 Yes: 27 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arizona Connecticut Delaware Illinois Indiana Iowa Louisiana Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri New Mexico North Carolina Rhode Island South Dakota Tennessee Texas Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin Comments/Clarification on Responses: Connecticut: With respect to specialized equipment, CT DEP has used

consultants to undertake advanced inspections of dams. Maryland: Two air meters for confined space inspections. Also purchased

digital cameras and portable/tablet PCs for field inspections. Water level meter for measuring observation wells. HP Scanner for converting paper files to PDFs.

2007 State Dam Safety Program Performance Information – Enforcement

VII. Enforcement The degree of implementation of the ASDSO model State dam safety program in the area of enforcement is summarized in the following figure. Those States answering yes to all the questions are shown in Green, those answering yes to most questions (>50%)are shown in Blue, those answering yes to some of the questions are shown in Yellow and those that answered no to all the questions are shown in Red. The States that did not respond are shown in White.

A. Does your State do the following? (yes/no): 1. Statutes and regulations are clearly written and understandable by personnel? No: 1 Yes: 48 The following States responded No: Alabama 2. The statutes are logically plausible? No: 1 Yes: 48 The following States responded No: Alabama 3. Established penalties for violation? (CRS Prereq. 3.2) No: 4 Yes: 45 The following States responded No:


Alabama Colorado Minnesota Rhode Island 4. Statutes and regulations are constitutionally valid? No: 1 Yes: 48 The following States responded No: Alabama 5. Agency has established procedure for implementing enforcement provisions? No: 6 Yes: 43 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arizona Hawaii Louisiana Minnesota 6. Agency has established procedure for implementing appeals procedures? No: 6 Yes: 43 The following States responded No: Alabama Colorado Hawaii Louisiana Rhode Island Texas 7. Agency has established a set of penalties to deter violation? No: 16 Yes: 33 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arizona Colorado Idaho Illinois Iowa Minnesota Mississippi Nevada


New Mexico North Dakota Oregon Puerto Rico Rhode Island Texas Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Illinois: Statutory fine is 1,000. Not believed to be sufficient to be significant deterrent.

Nevada: New statute authorizes fines. Procedures are being drafted for initial implementation no sooner than 07/2008.

8. Agency has clear authority to take emergency action in life-threatening situations? (CRS Prereq. 3.3) No: 3 Yes: 46 The following States responded No: Alabama Colorado Oregon Comments/Clarification on Responses: Rhode Island: 2006 change in law. 9. Agency has authority to recover costs for emergency actions from owner of dam by legal action? No: 7 Yes: 42 The following States responded No: Alabama Colorado Louisiana New Mexico Oregon Puerto Rico Texas Comments/Clarification on Responses: North Carolina: Ideally yes. Practically, cost are not usually recovered. Rhode Island: 2006 change in law.

2007 State Dam Safety Program Performance Information – Remediation Needs

VIII. Remediation Needs and Accomplishments A. Total number of State regulated dams that have been identified to be in need of remediation because of hydraulic/structural deficiencies (i.e. Total Remediation Backlog). This category includes those dams identified to be in need of remediation and are pending construction (that is construction that has not yet begun). Combined Summary of All Selected States: Hazard Potential # In Need of Remediation High 1308 Significant 921 Low 1120 Total 3349 Individual Details for Selected States: State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Low Haz. Pot. Total Alabama 0 0 0 0 Alaska 5 5 14 24 Arizona 33 7 0 40 Arkansas 19 1 1 21 California 10 18 4 32 Colorado 0 2 4 6 Connecticut 0 6 1 7 Delaware 3 0 1 4 Florida (see note below)

7 28 7 42

Georgia 156 0 0 156 Hawaii 30 7 9 46 Idaho 4 6 3 13 Illinois 0 0 0 0 Indiana 76 154 215 445 Iowa 9 10 7 26 Kansas 11 6 9 26 Kentucky 26 35 19 80 Louisiana 15 6 6 27 Maryland 14 10 8 32 Michigan 5 5 14 24 Minnesota 6 19 52 77 Mississippi 28 0 4 32 Missouri 27 1 0 28 Montana 11 6 6 23 Nebraska 0 0 0 0 Nevada 4 2 20 26 New Hampshire 4 17 28 49 New Jersey 46 116 29 191 New Mexico 70 28 28 126 New York 0 0 0 0 North Carolina 93 28 22 143 North Dakota 4 12 5 21 Ohio 170 285 370 825


State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Low Haz. Pot. Total Oklahoma 4 0 0 4 Oregon 4 1 0 5 Pennsylvania 215 30 124 369 Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 Rhode Island 0 0 1 1 South Carolina 2 1 1 4 South Dakota 11 7 54 72 Tennessee 4 2 2 8 Texas 101 6 2 109 Utah 0 0 0 0 Vermont 1 4 1 6 Virginia 34 34 44 112 Washington 15 13 2 30 West Virginia 30 3 0 33 Wisconsin 1 0 1 2 Totals 1308 921 1120 3349 Florida Note: Phosphate facility impoundments were inadvertently listed herein, and will be removed in the 2007 state report. These state regulated impoundments/dams are subject to state environmental protection regulations governing either closure construction requirements or applicable land reclamation requirements; however, these impoundments should not be included as dams needing remediation because of hydraulic/structural deficiencies. B. Number of State regulated dams that have been remediated (that is construction has been completed) this reporting period because of hydraulic/structural deficiencies. Combined Summary of All Selected States: Hazard Potential # Remediated High 139 Significant 70 Low 86 Total 295 Individual Details for Selected States: State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Low Haz. Pot. Total Alabama 0 0 0 0 Alaska 0 2 0 2 Arizona 2 0 0 2 Arkansas 0 0 0 0 California 19 21 3 43 Colorado 13 6 7 26 Connecticut 5 5 1 11 Delaware 0 0 0 0 Florida (see note below)

1 1 0 2

Georgia 10 0 0 10 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 Idaho 0 0 0 0 Illinois 0 0 0 0 Indiana 0 0 0 0


State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Low Haz. Pot. Total Iowa 0 0 0 0 Kansas 1 3 7 11 Kentucky 0 1 1 2 Louisiana 0 0 0 0 Maryland 3 2 3 8 Michigan 0 1 2 3 Minnesota 0 3 1 4 Mississippi 2 0 3 5 Missouri 12 0 0 12 Montana 2 0 0 2 Nebraska 0 0 0 0 Nevada 0 0 2 2 New Hampshire 0 2 0 2 New Jersey 3 3 5 11 New Mexico 0 0 0 0 New York 0 0 0 0 North Carolina 25 2 4 31 North Dakota 0 0 1 1 Ohio 4 5 6 15 Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 Oregon 1 0 0 1 Pennsylvania 20 5 28 53 Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 Rhode Island 0 1 3 4 South Carolina 1 1 0 2 South Dakota 0 1 0 1 Tennessee 3 1 2 6 Texas 1 0 1 2 Utah 4 0 0 4 Vermont 0 0 0 0 Virginia 0 0 1 1 Washington 5 2 0 7 West Virginia 0 0 0 0 Wisconsin 2 2 5 9 Wyoming 0 0 0 0 Totals 139 70 86 295 Florida Note: Phosphate facility impoundments were inadvertently listed herein, and will be removed in the 2007 state report. These state regulated impoundments/dams are subject to state environmental protection regulations governing either closure construction requirements or applicable land reclamation requirements; however, these impoundments should not be included as dams needing remediation because of hydraulic/structural deficiencies. C. Number of State regulated dams where construction of remediation is ongoing, but not completed at the end of the reporting period. Combined Summary of All Selected States: Hazard Potential # Remediation Ongoing High 265 Significant 119 Low 168


Total 552 Individual Details for Selected States: State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Low Haz. Pot. Total Alabama 0 0 0 0 Alaska 1 0 1 2 Arizona 3 0 0 3 Arkansas 0 0 0 0 California 41 22 9 72 Colorado 2 5 4 11 Connecticut 12 3 2 17 Delaware 0 0 0 0 Florida (see note below)

3 31 2 36

Georgia 8 0 0 8 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 Idaho 0 0 0 0 Illinois 0 0 0 0 Indiana 0 0 0 0 Iowa 0 0 0 0 Kansas 3 3 2 8 Kentucky 0 1 2 3 Louisiana 0 0 1 1 Maryland 5 0 0 5 Michigan 1 0 0 1 Minnesota 0 0 0 0 Mississippi 11 0 11 22 Missouri 2 0 0 2 Montana 1 0 0 1 Nebraska 0 0 0 0 Nevada 1 0 1 2 New Hampshire 2 1 3 6 New Jersey 4 4 2 10 New Mexico 1 0 0 1 New York 0 0 0 0 North Carolina 32 10 10 52 North Dakota 0 0 0 0 Ohio 5 0 4 9 Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 Oregon 0 0 0 0 Pennsylvania 103 15 97 215 Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 Rhode Island 0 0 1 1 South Carolina 0 3 1 4 South Dakota 0 1 0 1 Tennessee 2 0 2 4 Texas 4 3 0 7 Utah 3 1 0 4 Vermont 1 0 0 1 Virginia 10 15 13 38 Washington 1 1 0 2 West Virginia 3 0 0 3


State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Low Haz. Pot. Total Wisconsin 0 0 0 0 Wyoming 0 0 0 0 Totals 265 119 168 552 Florida Note: Phosphate facility impoundments were inadvertently listed herein, and will be removed in the 2007 state report. These state regulated impoundments/dams are subject to state environmental protection regulations governing either closure construction requirements or applicable land reclamation requirements; however, these impoundments should not be included as dams needing remediation because of hydraulic/structural deficiencies.

2007 State Dam Safety Program Performance Information – EAP’s

IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High and Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? Combined Summary of All Selected States: Hazard Potential # of EAP's High 5225 Significant 3601 Total 8826 Individual Details for Selected States: State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Total Alabama 0 0 0 Alaska 9 9 18 Arizona 74 30 104 Arkansas 98 0 98 California 341 720 1061 Colorado 345 332 677 Connecticut 162 125 287 Delaware 7 0 7 Florida 72 321 393 Georgia 14 0 14 Hawaii 64 15 79 Idaho 93 35 128 Illinois 170 125 295 Indiana 6 1 7 Iowa 0 0 0 Kansas 139 14 153 Kentucky 6 0 6 Louisiana 21 4 25 Maryland 58 43 101 Michigan 80 136 216 Minnesota 23 2 25 Mississippi 44 3 47 Missouri 25 15 40 Montana 95 1 96 Nebraska 116 7 123 Nevada 94 25 119 New Hampshire 89 136 225 New Jersey 202 234 436 New Mexico 13 0 13 New York 212 55 267 North Carolina 186 25 211 North Dakota 12 4 16 Ohio 160 118 278 Oklahoma 145 30 175 Oregon 72 15 87 Pennsylvania 704 122 826 Puerto Rico 35 0 35 Rhode Island 2 1 3


State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Total South Carolina 153 481 634 South Dakota 31 6 37 Tennessee 147 6 153 Texas 135 16 151 Utah 187 51 238 Vermont 14 29 43 Virginia 122 166 288 Washington 121 60 181 West Virginia 186 54 240 Wisconsin 104 22 126 Wyoming 37 7 44 Totals 5225 3601 8826 C. What percentage of EAP's submitted meet or exceed the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Emergency Action Planning for Dam Owners (FEMA 64 October 1998, reprinted April 2004), Pages 5-8. Alabama: 0 Alaska: 0 Arizona: 25 Arkansas: 0 California: No Colorado: 0 Connecticut: Yes Delaware: 0 Florida: 2.5 Georgia: 100 Hawaii: 90% Idaho: 100% Illinois: 30 Indiana: No Iowa: Yes Kansas: 50 Kentucky: Yes Louisiana: 100 Maryland: 100 %


Michigan: 0 Minnesota: No Mississippi: 100 Missouri: Unknown Montana: 100 Nebraska: 95 Nevada: 96 New Hampshire: 100 New Jersey: 100 New Mexico: 77 New York: 0 North Carolina: 0 North Dakota: 100 Ohio: 37 Oklahoma: 70 Oregon: 90 Pennsylvania: 45 Puerto Rico: 100 Rhode Island: unknown South Carolina: 0 South Dakota: 0 Tennessee: No Texas: No Utah: 0 Vermont: No Virginia: 0 Washington: 100% West Virginia: 0


Wisconsin: Yes Wyoming: No D. How many EAP's comply (in each hazard potential class): Combined Summary of All Selected States: Hazard Potential # EAP's in Compliance High 1886 Significant 829 Total 2715 Individual Details for Selected States: State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Total Alabama 0 0 0 Alaska 0 0 0 Arizona 0 0 0 Arkansas 0 0 0 California 88 84 172 Colorado 0 0 0 Connecticut 0 0 0 Delaware 0 0 0 Florida 10 0 10 Georgia 14 0 14 Hawaii 44 10 54 Idaho 92 34 126 Illinois 0 0 0 Indiana 0 0 0 Iowa 0 0 0 Kansas 46 7 53 Kentucky 0 0 0 Louisiana 21 4 25 Maryland 58 38 96 Michigan 0 0 0 Minnesota 1 0 1 Mississippi 100 100 200 Missouri 0 0 0 Montana 96 0 96 Nebraska 113 7 120 Nevada 91 2 93 New Hampshire 87 133 220 New Jersey 191 222 413 New Mexico 10 0 10 New York 0 0 0 North Carolina 0 0 0 North Dakota 12 1 13 Ohio 53 42 95 Oklahoma 101 21 122 Oregon 48 12 60 Pennsylvania 326 42 368


State High Haz. Pot. Sig. Haz. Pot. Total Puerto Rico 34 0 34 Rhode Island 0 0 0 South Carolina 18 0 18 South Dakota 30 6 36 Tennessee 50 0 50 Texas 0 0 0 Utah 0 0 0 Vermont 8 4 12 Virginia 0 0 0 Washington 114 59 173 West Virginia 0 0 0 Wisconsin 0 0 0 Wyoming 30 1 31 Totals 1886 829 2715 The degree of implementation of the ASDSO model State dam safety program in the area of Emergency Action Planning is summarized in the following figure. Those States answering yes to all the questions are shown in Green, those answering yes to most questions (>50%)are shown in Blue, those answering yes to some of the questions are shown in Yellow and those that answered no to all the questions are shown in Red. The States that did not respond are shown in White.

E. Does your State do the following? (yes/no): 1. State requires a dam owner of a high or significant hazard potential dam to prepare, update and periodically test an Emergency Action Plan (CRS Credit Point 8)? No: 17 Yes: 32 The following States responded No:


Alabama California Georgia Indiana Iowa Kentucky Missouri North Carolina North Dakota South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses: Delaware: No requirement for periodic testing Montana: Voluntary for significant hazard dams. We are starting program to get

EAP's for all significant hazard dams in place

New York: Although not explicitly required, ECL 15-05-07 provides the ability to require this when necessary.

Rhode Island: New law (for 2006) requires the municipality in which a high or significant hazard dam is located to prepare/update an EAP. State EMA is responsible for compliance.

South Dakota: We only require and EAP on High Hazard dams and do not require updating or testing.

Utah: State requires an EAP for high hazard dams but not for moderate Wisconsin: Wisconsin also requires owners of low hazard NID sized dams to

have a minimal EAP. 72 owners have voluntarily complied with this requirement. 2. State requires that owner immediately notify the state dam safety agency and responsible authorities in the affected downstream areas of any condition which threatens the safety of the dam or downstream areas (CRS Credit Point 8)? No: 12 Yes: 37 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Indiana Iowa Kentucky Missouri North Carolina


North Dakota Rhode Island South Dakota Texas Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Georgia: Owner is required to notify Safe Dams Program once an issue is identified. Law does not require notification downstream


3. State requires an owner to take all necessary actions during an emergency to protect life, health and property? No: 5 Yes: 44 The following States responded No: Delaware Missouri North Dakota Rhode Island South Dakota Comments/Clarification on Responses:


4. State has an internal emergency response procedure, which includes coordination with the state emergency management agency? No: 5 Yes: 44 The following States responded No: Iowa Minnesota Nevada Rhode Island South Carolina Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Nevada: A procedure is being formulated. Currently informal notification (both ways) is implemented.

5. State has a program in place to train dam owners on development of an Emergency Action Plan? No: 27 Yes: 22 The following States responded No:


Alabama California Connecticut Delaware Georgia Idaho Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Minnesota Missouri New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington West Virginia Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Connecticut: CT DEP does not have a "program" in place to train dam owners to prepare EOPs but has published guidelines for preparing EOPs which are then written by consultant engineers.

West Virginia: WV distributes an example EAP to dam owners 6. State has a program to notify owners when it is time to update the plan? No: 24 Yes: 25 The following States responded No: Alabama California Connecticut Delaware Georgia Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Minnesota Missouri New Mexico New York


North Carolina North Dakota Oregon Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Texas Utah Vermont Wisconsin Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Connecticut: CT DEP approved EOPs require the dam owner to update the plan annually.

7. State requires the following basic elements in it's Emergency Action Plans? a. Emergency notification flowchart and information? No: 11 Yes: 35 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Georgia Indiana Iowa Kentucky Missouri Tennessee Texas West Virginia Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Connecticut: Notification procedures may take the form of a flow chart but are not required by CT DEP guidelines.

Illinois: new and revised plans since 1995


Rhode Island: Requirements are being developed by state EMA. West Virginia: WV does not require a flowchart, but does require

evacuation notification information b. Statement of Purpose? No: 13 Yes: 33


The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Georgia Indiana Iowa Kentucky Michigan Missouri Tennessee Texas Vermont Virginia Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Connecticut: This is not required but is almost universally included in the EOP.

Illinois: new and revised plans since 1995 New York: Although not explicitly required, ECL 15-05-07 provides the

ability to require this when necessary. c. Emergency detection, evaluation and action procedures? No: 9 Yes: 37 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Georgia Indiana Iowa Kentucky Missouri Texas Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses: Illinois: new and revised plans since 1995


d. General responsibilities of each party? No: 11 Yes: 35 The following States responded No: Alabama


Delaware Georgia Indiana Iowa Kentucky Missouri North Carolina Tennessee Texas Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses: Illinois: new and revised plans since 1995 New York: Although not explicitly required, ECL 15-05-07 provides the

ability to require this when necessary. e. Preparedness actions? No: 11 Yes: 35 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Georgia Indiana Iowa Kentucky Missouri North Carolina Texas Virginia Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses: Illinois: new and revised plans since 1995 New York: Although not explicitly required, ECL 15-05-07 provides the

ability to require this when necessary. f. Inundation maps? No: 12 Yes: 34 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Georgia Indiana Iowa Kentucky Missouri


North Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses: Illinois: new and revised plans since 1995


g. Appendices of necessary documents? No: 14 Yes: 32 The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Georgia Indiana Iowa Kentucky Michigan Missouri North Carolina Tennessee Texas Vermont Virginia Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses: Illinois: new and revised plans since 1995


8. What is the estimated total population at risk for the State's high hazard potential dams? Range: State Min. Estimation Max. Estimation Alabama Alaska 3000 6000 Arizona 3 30000 Arkansas California Colorado 250000 500000 Connecticut Delaware 4606 unknown


State Min. Estimation Max. Estimation Florida 1000000 3000000 Georgia Hawaii 4 300 Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana 35,000 Maryland 95000 100000 Michigan Minnesota unknown unknown Mississippi 15000 60000 Missouri 5000 20000 Montana 1000 10000 Nebraska 3200 159000 Nevada 10000 400000 New Hampshire 42,353 21,176 New Jersey 250,000 300,000 New Mexico Unknown Unknown New York North Carolina 100'S 1000's North Dakota 10000 100000 Ohio not calculated Oklahoma 10000 15000 Oregon 100,000 500,000 Pennsylvania 916334 1350000 Puerto Rico 15 10000 Rhode Island unknown unknown South Carolina South Dakota N/A N/A Tennessee 2,500 6,000 Texas Utah Vermont 10,500 50,000 Virginia 2000 6000 Washington 100000 200000 West Virginia Wisconsin unknown unknown Wyoming Comments on Minimum Estimate:

Connecticut: CT DEP has not calculated the number of people at risk from the failure of high hazard dams in CT.

Illinois: Not tracked. Required to protect all citizens from high & significant dams. Number at risk has no meaning.

North Carolina: No method to track downstream population.


Oregon: Estimate is based on an estimated population density. South Dakota: Not Available Virginia: Rough estimate Comments on Maximum Estimate: North Carolina: No method to track downstream population. Oregon: Estimate is based on a estimated population density. South Dakota: Not Available Virginia: Rough estimate

2007 State Dam Safety Program Performance Information – Education & Training

X. Education and Training The degree of implementation of the ASDSO model State dam safety program in the area of education and training is summarized in the following figure. Those States answering yes to all the questions are shown in Green, those answering yes to most questions (>50%)are shown in Blue, those answering yes to some of the questions are shown in Yellow and those that answered no to all the questions are shown in Red. The States that did not respond are shown in White.

A. Does your State do the following for State Technical Staff? (yes/no): (CRS Credit Point 10) 1. On-the-job training? No: 1 Yes: 47 The following States responded No: Alabama 2. Formal education of staff (continuing education or graduate level programs at universities)? No: 19 Yes: 29 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Connecticut Delaware Georgia


Idaho Indiana Iowa Kansas Missouri North Carolina North Dakota Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Virginia West Virginia Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Connecticut: CT DEP offers advanced college courses to interested employees but does not mandate additional course work.

Oregon: Not all staff. West Virginia: WVDEP offers an educational reimbursement policy/opportunity 3. Participation in Seminars/Short courses (e.g. ASDSO technical seminars, ASCE training)? No: 2 Yes: 46 The following States responded No: Alabama Rhode Island 4. Federal and State training programs? No: 2 Yes: 46 The following States responded No: Alabama Rhode Island 5. Film and video training programs? No: 8 Yes: 40 The following States responded No: Alabama California Delaware New Mexico North Carolina Oregon Rhode Island


Virginia 6. Provided technical assistance to private sector engineers and emergency management officials? No: 3 Yes: 43 The following States responded No: Alabama Iowa Rhode Island Comments/Clarification on Responses: Oregon: Occasionally, on a as-requested basis only. B. Does your State do the following for Dam Owners? (yes/no): (CRS Credit Point 10) 1. State seminars for dam owners? No: 19 Yes: 29 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arizona Delaware Idaho Indiana Iowa Kentucky Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Carolina North Dakota Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Washington West Virginia Comments/Clarification on Responses: Montana: Annual dam owners workshop North Carolina: None in 2006. Wisconsin: Yes, though not this year. 2. State dam safety materials for owners? No: 7 Yes: 41


The following States responded No: Alabama Delaware Idaho North Dakota Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Iowa: We do provide a maintenance manual to dam owners when a construction permit is issued and when a dam is inspected.

Montana: brochures, EAP training manuals, embankment construction and permitting guides

3. State dam owner awareness programs? No: 23 Yes: 25 The following States responded No: Alabama Arizona California Delaware Florida Idaho Indiana Iowa Kentucky Minnesota Missouri Nebraska New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington West Virginia Comments/Clarification on Responses: Montana: Emergency action plan tests 4. Have you held a dam owner awareness workshop in the last 3 years? No: 24 Yes: 24


The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arizona California Connecticut Delaware Georgia Idaho Iowa Kentucky Louisiana Minnesota Missouri Nebraska Nevada North Carolina North Dakota Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Washington West Virginia Comments/Clarification on Responses: Michigan: EAP Seminar and Operation and Maintenance Seminars for DNR Montana: hold one every year North Carolina: Last one in 2003. Have one scheduled August 9, 2007. Rhode Island: ASDSO Dam Owner Workshop 5. Do you have a schedule for meeting with owners individually aside from inspection time? No: 44 Yes: 4 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois


Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses: Montana: Yes, to discuss emergency action planning and seepage monitoring

2007 State Dam Safety Program Performance Information – Public Relations

XI. Public Relations The degree of implementation of the ASDSO model State dam safety program in the area of public relations is summarized in the following figure. Those States answering yes to all the questions are shown in Green, those answering yes to most questions (>50%)are shown in Blue, those answering yes to some of the questions are shown in Yellow and those that answered no to all the questions are shown in Red. The States that did not respond are shown in White.

A. Does your State do the following? (yes/no): 1. State dam safety agency has a written public relations plan? No: 39 Yes: 9 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas


Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Ohio Oregon Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Montana: Owners outreach program and staff member responsible for implementing

North Carolina: NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources has a

policy that covers Dam Safety. 2. Objectives in the public relations plan include: a. Advertisement of workshops and hearings? No: 32 Yes: 9 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Michigan Minnesota Mississippi


Missouri Nebraska New Hampshire New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Puerto Rico South Carolina South Dakota Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses: Montana: biannual newsletters b. Release of timely information to the media during and after a dam incident? No: 28 Yes: 13 The following States responded No: Alabama Arkansas Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Nebraska New Hampshire New Mexico North Dakota Ohio Oregon Puerto Rico South Dakota Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming


Comments/Clarification on Responses: Montana: we work with department PR person for releases

3. State has strategies in place to meet the objectives of the plan (e.g., publicity campaigns, awards programs, brochures, fact sheets)? No: 33 Yes: 9 The following States responded No: Alabama Arizona Arkansas Colorado Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Puerto Rico South Carolina South Dakota Texas Utah Virginia Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses: Montana: owners workshops, brochures, newsletters 4. A timetable for meeting objectives of the plan is in place? No: 36 Yes: 6 The following States responded No:


Alabama Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico South Carolina South Dakota Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses: Montana: ongoing 5. A budget is earmarked for the plan? No: 38 Yes: 4 The following States responded No: Alabama Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia


Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico South Carolina South Dakota Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses: Montana: FEMA assistance to states funds pay for 2 staff members to do

outreach and EAPs B. Has the state undertaken any of the following types of activities in the past year to educate the public about the need for stronger dam safety programs? 1. Distribution of educational flyers? No: 26 Yes: 21 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Connecticut Delaware Georgia Idaho Illinois Maryland Michigan


Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Utah Virginia Washington Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Iowa: A dam maintenance manuals is sent with all dam permits and provided during dam inspections.

Oklahoma: During this reporting period the OWRB produced brochures for the

general public, dam owners, and engineers engaged in dam inspections. 2. Press releases to local media outlets? No: 26 Yes: 21 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arkansas California Colorado Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Maryland Michigan Minnesota Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Oregon Puerto Rico South Carolina Texas Utah West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming



Oklahoma: During this reporting period the OWRB issued a number of press releases.

South Dakota: Discussed Lake Hanson Dam failure with Mitchell paper

Virginia: Virginia has opened its Regulations and changes may occur over the next 18 months.

3. Displays/booths at State/County fairs or conferences? No: 32 Yes: 15 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Connecticut Delaware Idaho Illinois Iowa Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Nebraska Nevada North Carolina North Dakota Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses: Montana: Governors conference on emergency management

Oklahoma: In the spring of 2006 the OWRB teamed up with the Oklahoma Floodplain Managers Association in holding a technical workshop. The theme of


the workshop was " Diverting Disaster in Oklahoma: Dams, Levees, and Floodwaters.

4. Other (Presentations to interested parties, web pages, etc.)? No: 14 Yes: 33 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Idaho Illinois Iowa Minnesota Nevada Puerto Rico South Carolina Texas Vermont Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses: Montana: county commissioners, other state agencies

North Dakota: Have just started to develop a web page for the state dam safety program.

Oklahoma: The OWRB continues to maintain and update its web site and in particular the web pages related to the Dam Safety Program.

Oregon: Participate in annual "Children's Clean Water Festival" as presenter on dams and dam safety.

5. Please provide descriptions of specific public awareness events:

Connecticut: The CTDEP routinely issues press releases regarding on going dam safety enforcement activities/court decisions. In addition, the department provides specific information to those people affected by the repair/drawdown of state owned dams.

Delaware: We have made presentations to citizen groups, state legislators, etc., to raise awareness of dam safety issues and secure funding for evaluations of state-owned dams. We also have a Dam Safety informational presentation on our Department's web site.

Georgia: Set up booth at Governors All Hazards conference; Semi annual meeting with dam design consultants; Presentation on Dam Safety during National Weather Service Flood Fight courses (2 times).

Kansas: Small Dam Owner Workshop - Inform owners about maintenance and operation issues - March, May, August, November. Technical Workshop for Dam


Safety Inspections - Train engineers to conduct dam safety inspection and to write a report for the inspection – October. Emergency Action Plan (EAP) exercise - Reviewed and critiqued the contents of one dam owner's EAP to determine whether it would be effective – October. Dam Safety Booth- Set up an information booth at various water conferences to inform engineers and dam owners about the regulations and maintenance requirements for dams - January, March, September. Dam Safety Conference - Provided a conference for dam owners and engineers in the State of Kansas that focused on safety, operation and maintenance, and design issues related to dams – February. West Regional Dam Safety Conference - The State of Kansas hosted the ASDSO West Regional Conference in May. The conference provided technical information related to dam safety to engineers. Radio Interview - Interviewed with a farm talk radio show to discuss maintenance of dams, regulations, and any issues that may need addressed with dams. - August, October.

Maryland: Maintenance of web page: http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/Dam_Safety/index.asp

Michigan: Articles in floodplain newsletter, Updates to Web Page Minnesota: none

Mississippi: Presentations to, and training sessions for, state agency personnel responsible O&M of. dams owned by the state. Presentations to local and county planners on the importance of dealing with the long-term ownership and O&M responsibilities for a dam in the development and approval stage of new subdivisions.

Montana: News releases (after earthquake and incidents); biannual newsletters; Electronic newsletters to staff; training - annual engineers workshop; training - annual dam owner workshop; Sponsor dam owner association; EAP table top excursuses.

Nebraska: Presentations to consulting engineers relative to new law. New Hampshire: County Conservation District Pond Workshops; Lake

Association Presentations; Farm & Forest Expo; Newsletters; County Fairs; Water Works Expo

New Mexico: Booth at the State Fair and information on Agency Website

New York: press releases after dam incidents; presentations at association conferences by dam safety staff; web pages, articles written by dam safety staff.

North Carolina: 3 presentations; Education of public, local officials & state officials is a strategic goal in the FEMA 322 plan for NC; The web page has undergone continued changes to make it more friendly to the public.

Oklahoma: Please refer to the comment for section c above.

Oregon: One-day public awareness and Dam Safety workshop held March, 2007.

Pennsylvania: Held seminar on dam safety for local government officials and dam owners in Northeastern Pa.


Rhode Island: ASDSO Dam Owner Workshop and a separate public workshop to discuss draft Dam Safety Regulations.

South Dakota: Discussed Dam Safety activities and EAPs at the Emergency Management Annual Conference

Tennessee: Safe Dams has a web page on the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation's web site.

West Virginia: exhibit at EXPO trade show for contractors, television and newspaper interviews

2007 State Dam Safety Program Performance Information – Miscellaneous

XII. Miscellaneous A. Dam Failures and Incidents: 1. Number of failures during the reporting period (All States): 39 2. Were all of these failures reported to the NPDP? State # Failures Reported to NPDP? Alabama Alaska 0 Arizona 0 Arkansas 0 California 0 Colorado 1 No Connecticut 5 No Delaware 2 No Florida 0 No Georgia 0 Idaho 0 No Illinois 0 Yes Indiana 0 Iowa 3 No Kansas 2 No Kentucky 0 Louisiana 0 Maryland 4 No Michigan 0 Minnesota 0 Mississippi 1 Yes Missouri 0 No Montana 0 Nebraska 0 Yes Nevada 0 New Hampshire 2 No New Jersey 0 New Mexico 0 New York 0 North Carolina 0 North Dakota 0 Yes Ohio 0 Oklahoma 0 Oregon 1 No Pennsylvania 7 No Puerto Rico 0 Rhode Island 1 No South Carolina 1 No South Dakota 1 No Tennessee 0 Texas 0 Utah 0


State # Failures Reported to NPDP? Vermont 1 No Virginia 6+ No Washington 0 West Virginia 0 No Wisconsin 1 No Wyoming 0 Yes Total 39 3. Number of incidents during the reporting period (All States): 84 4. Were all of these incidents reported to the NPDP? State # Incidents Reported to NPDP? Alabama Alaska 1 No Arizona 0 Arkansas 0 California 0 Colorado 5 No Connecticut 5 No Delaware 2 No Florida 0 No Georgia 2 Yes Idaho 0 No Illinois 0 Yes Indiana 2 No Iowa 0 Kansas 0 No Kentucky 0 Louisiana 0 Maryland 4 No Michigan 0 Minnesota 0 Mississippi same Yes Missouri 4 No Montana 1 No Nebraska 0 Yes Nevada 0 New Hampshire 20 No New Jersey 0 New Mexico 0 No New York 9 Yes North Carolina 2 No North Dakota 0 Ohio 5 No Oklahoma 0 Oregon 1 No Pennsylvania 13 No Puerto Rico 0 Rhode Island 0 South Carolina 0 No


State # Incidents Reported to NPDP? South Dakota N/A No Tennessee 0 Texas 0 Utah 0 Vermont 0 Virginia 0 No Washington 2 No West Virginia 1 No Wisconsin 5 No Wyoming No Total 84 5. Total estimated property damage from dam failures/incidents during the reporting period: Alaska: 0 California: 0 Colorado: > $100,000 Delaware: unknown Florida: 0 Georgia: n/a Idaho: 0 Illinois: 0 Indiana: no d/s damage Kansas: 0 Louisiana: 0 Maryland: $0. Minnesota: 0 Missouri: 0 Montana: 0 Nebraska: 0 New Jersey: 0 New Mexico: 0 North Carolina: none North Dakota: 0


Oklahoma: 0 Oregon: $60,000 to $1.5 mill Pennsylvania: Unknown Rhode Island: unknown South Carolina: $100,000 South Dakota: N/A Tennessee: 0 Texas: 0 Utah: 0 Vermont: $100,000 Virginia: 0 Washington: 100000 West Virginia: 0 Wisconsin: unknown Wyoming: 0 Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Connecticut: Other than the dams themselves, CT DEP knows of no other property damages attributed to the failures.

Iowa: All were low hazard dams. Property damage was essentially limited to the

dam itself. No costs are available. Montana: damage to dam only, loss of reservoir

Oregon: $50,000 to 60,000 estimated repair costs to return the breached embankment dam to good condition for continued storage of water. Damages to USACOE facilities could exceed $1.5 million. No reported damages to downstream properties.

South Carolina: Damage was to dam only. Virginia: No dollars values given or assumed. Wisconsin: None known. 6. Approximate number of people evacuated/affected: Arkansas: 0


California: 0 Colorado: 0 Connecticut: 0 Delaware: 100 Florida: 0 Georgia: n/a Idaho: 0 Illinois: 0 Indiana: unknown Iowa: 0 Kansas: 0 Louisiana: 0 Maryland: 2200 Minnesota: 0 Missouri: 0 Montana: 0 Nebraska: 0 New Jersey: 0 New Mexico: 0 New York: 0 North Carolina: none North Dakota: 0 Oklahoma: 0 Oregon: 0 Pennsylvania: Unknown Rhode Island: 0 South Carolina: 0 South Dakota: none


Tennessee: 0 Texas: 0 Utah: 0 Vermont: 0 Virginia: 0 Washington: 30 West Virginia: 0 Wisconsin: unknown Comments/Clarification on Responses: Oregon: I am not privy to emergency actions at US Army Corps project dams.

Wisconsin: In one incident the road over the top of the dam was closed for several days, limiting access of residents to homes on the other side of the dam (they could get walking and limited vehicle access from another direction).

7. Deaths due to dam failure during the reporting period: Alaska: 0 Arkansas: 0 California: 0 Colorado: 0 Connecticut: 0 Delaware: 0 Florida: 0 Georgia: 0 Idaho: 0 Illinois: 0 Indiana: 0 Iowa: 0 Kansas: 0 Kentucky: 0 Louisiana: 0


Maryland: 0 Michigan: 0 Minnesota: 0 Mississippi: 0 Missouri: 0 Montana: 0 Nebraska: 0 Nevada: 0 New Jersey: 0 New Mexico: 0 New York: 0 North Carolina: 0 North Dakota: 0 Ohio: 0 Oklahoma: 0 Oregon: 0 Pennsylvania: 0 Puerto Rico: n/a Rhode Island: 0 South Carolina: 0 South Dakota: none Tennessee: 0 Texas: 0 Utah: 0 Vermont: 0 Virginia: 0 Washington: 0 West Virginia: 0


Wisconsin: 0 Wyoming: 0 8. Please furnish a brief description of each failure occurring over the reporting period:

Colorado: Minor Low Hazard dam failed due to seepage/piping. Only minor damage to downstream property and a highway embankment. No deaths. Failure discovered after all of the flooding was completed.

Connecticut:

• Failures occurred on or about 4/16/07 due to a period of significant rainfall:

• Woodcock Pond dam (CT Dam Inv# 16153 )in Wilton

breached. The breach size was 6 ft wide by 6 ft deep caused by overtopping.

• Rogers Pond dam (CT Dam Inv# 12702) in Sherman

breached. The dam overtopped and a portion of the embankment failed. The breach area was approximately 15 ft deep and 30ft wide.

• Valley Pond dam (Ct Dam Inv#11811) on the Norwalk River

in Ridgefield breached. The breach area was approximately 9 ft high and 30 ft wide.

• Disrow Pond dam (CT Dam Inv#810) in Bethany failed. The

embankment failed near inlet structure. The breach was approximately 12 ft high and 15 ft wide. The dam was designed by NRCS.

• Urban Pond dam (CT Dam Inv#4144) in East Haddam failed.

Spillway badly damaged by erosion and made inoperable. Repairs are underway.

Delaware: A storm on June 25, 2006 caused the failure of Craig’s Mill Pond Dam (low hazard, non-regulated, state-owned), and the partial failure Hearn’s Pond Dam (significant hazard, regulated, state-owned). The same storm overtopped Williams Pond Dam (state-owned, listed on NID as low hazard) causing downstream residents to be evacuated, but the dam did not fail. And it also triggered a seepage incident at Griffiths Pond Dam (state-owned, low hazard, non-regulated), requiring repairs to the spillway.

Idaho: No failures. Iowa: All three dam failed from internal erosion along the spillway conduit. Kansas:

• The failed unpermitted dam located in Republic County was built on a large drainage by the landowner. It has failed one other time, but rebuilt. There was a significant amount of rainfall that fell over the drainage area causing the dam to fail by overtopping.


• The dam that failed in Clark County is unpermitted. A large storm event fell over this drainage causing the water level to rise to the top of dam. The dam failed to streambed at the primary spillway pipe. The condition of the pipe at the time of failure is unknown. A portion of the breach water entered a feedlot lagoon and causes it to overtop by a few inches. No damage report to the lagoon.

Maryland:

• Lake Needwood incident-significant leakage during severe storm in June 2006 resulted in evacuation of 2200 people.

• Galestown Dam/Road failure during June 2006 storm. No

loss of life. • Wrights Mill Dam/Cokesbury Road failure during June 2006

storm. No loss of life. • Cabin Creek Mill Dam failure during June 2006 storm. No

loss of life. • Mill Creek Dam/Palmer Mill Road failures during June 2006

storm. No loss of life. • Brighton Dam incident-owner unable to operate all tainter

gates during flood as lifting chains had been removed for replacement.

• Duckett Dam incident-owner was unable to fully operate

tainter gates, which had never been tested after the bottom portions of the lifting chains were replaced 10 years ago. The new chains and couplings were too large to fit onto hoists.

• Shipleys Choice incident-unexplained seepage on upstream

and downstream slopes March 2006. • Montgomery Auto Park Dam incident-severe leakage at

downstream toe and piping along spillway conduit. • Devils Backbone dam incident-deterioration of masonry

dam. Letter issued to owner to repair or remove April 2006. Mississippi: Bonita Lake #1 - Piping Montana: failure of CMP pipe - loss of reservoir contents New Hampshire:

• Pillsbury Lake dam NH00083, embankment overtopping/failure

• IPC upper dam NH00315, embankment overtopping/failure

Oregon: Turnbull Peak Dam (aka Dowell Reservoir), NID: OR00679, Overtopping failure and subsequent breach initiated by animal burrows in upper


portion(s) of embankment. Structure is low hazard; no damages reported to downstream life or property.

Pennsylvania: All failures occurred from overtopping. Six of these dams were classified as low hazard potential and one was significant. All occurred during the heavy rainfall and flooding event affecting the state during June 2006.

Rhode Island: Improperly repair to earth embankment completed without permit, later failed during heavy rain.

South Dakota: SD00691 Lake Hason Dam failed through 2nd spillway

Vermont: Magic Mountain Snowmaking Pond (State ID 115.05) failed due to piping along outlet conduit.

Virginia: Several regulated and unregulated dams failed during the past year. The total number of failures and extent of damages are not known. Dams that failed were in the range of 10 to 25 feet in height. Some of these dams met the state definition to be regulated; however, with only 3 staff and more than 850 of these dams known to exist we have not been able to complete the inventory update. Our goal is to visit at least 125 of these dams during 2007, at which time any failures will be noted.

Wisconsin: Small wildlife dam failed, breach occurred at rodent burrow, beavers had blocked spillway.

B. Litigation 1. Number of cases initiated against state dam safety personnel during the reporting period: State # Cases Public Safety Property

Damage Wrongful Death

Other

Alabama 0 Alaska 0 Arizona 0 Arkansas 0 California 0 Colorado 0 Connecticut 0 Delaware 0 Florida 0 Georgia 0 Idaho 0 Illinois 0 Indiana 0 Iowa 0 Kansas 0 0 0 0 0 Kentucky 0 Louisiana 0 Maryland 0 Michigan 0 Minnesota none


State # Cases Public Safety Property Damage

Wrongful Death

Other

Mississippi 1 negli Missouri 0 0 0 0 0 Montana 0 Nebraska 0 0 0 0 0 Nevada 0 New Hampshire

0

New Jersey 0 0 0 0 0 New Mexico 0 New York 0 North Carolina

0

North Dakota 0 Ohio 0 Oklahoma 0 Oregon 0 Pennsylvania 1 1 Puerto Rico 0 Rhode Island 0 South Carolina

0

South Dakota None Tennessee 0 Texas 0 Utah 0 0 0 0 0 Vermont 0 Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 Washington 0 West Virginia 0 Wisconsin 0 Wyoming 0 Totals 2 0 1 0 0 Comments/Clarification on Responses:

New Jersey: Ongoing Class action lawsuit in connection with 2004 storm in Burlington County area which caused failure of 18 dams.

Pennsylvania: This question appears to ask if an individual is the named party. This would be zero. However, if the question is asking is intended to mean the State Dam Safety Program as the party then we have one pending case.

2. Lawsuits initiated against dam owners during the reporting period: Reasons: State # Cases Failure to

Comply Public Safety

Property Damage

Wrongful Death

Other

Alabama 0 Alaska 0 Arizona 0 Arkansas 0


State # Cases Failure to Comply

Public Safety

Property Damage

Wrongful Death

Other

California 0 Colorado 0 0 Connecticut

1 yes

Delaware 0 Florida 0 Georgia Idaho 0 Illinois 0 Indiana 0 Iowa 0 Kansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kentucky 0 Louisiana 0 Maryland 0 0 Michigan 1 1 Minnesota none Mississippi 1 yes P&S Missouri 8 8 0 0 0 0 Montana 0 Nebraska 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nevada 1 1 1 New Hampshire

0

New Jersey 10 10 0 0 0 0 New Mexico

Unknown

New York 0 North Carolina

8 8 8 0 0 0

North Dakota

0

Ohio 0 Oklahoma 0 Oregon 0 Pennsylvania

Unknown

Puerto Rico 0 Rhode Island

0

South Carolina

0

South Dakota

None

Tennessee 0 Texas 0 Utah 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vermont 0 Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washingto 0


State # Cases Failure to Comply

Public Safety

Property Damage

Wrongful Death

Other

n West Virginia

0

Wisconsin 0 Wyoming 0 Totals 30 28 8 1 0 0 Comments/Clarification on Responses: Nevada: Sub categories indicate 2 suits. One suit with counterclaim. C. Security 1. Does your State have legal restrictions on posting dam inventory data on the world wide web? Alaska: No Arizona: No Arkansas: No California: No Colorado: No Connecticut: Yes Delaware: No Florida: No Georgia: Yes Idaho: Yes Illinois: No Indiana: No Iowa: No Kansas: No Kentucky: Yes Louisiana: No Maryland: Yes Michigan: Yes Minnesota: Yes


Mississippi: No Missouri: No Montana: No Nebraska: No Nevada: No New Hampshire: No New Jersey: Yes New Mexico: No New York: No North Carolina: No North Dakota: No Ohio: No Oklahoma: No Oregon: No Pennsylvania: No Puerto Rico: No Rhode Island: No South Carolina: No South Dakota: No Tennessee: Yes Texas: Yes Utah: No Vermont: No Virginia: No Washington: No West Virginia: Yes Wisconsin: No Wyoming: Yes



Connecticut: Homeland security restrictions were passed post 9/11, which restrict the release of information on utility dams. The extent of that restriction is still being determined. Georgia: Information on Public drinking water supply systems is exempted from public domain Maryland: In October 2005, the State of MD revised its Public Information Act (PIA) Laws, giving agencies the authority to withhold certain information such as construction drawings, emergency action plans and danger reach maps if such information could jeopardize Minnesota: We have not published inventory data on the world wide web due to security concerns. We steer individuals toward the NID website. Nevada: Dam data voluntarily limited. Individuals may request full data in writing. North Carolina: Although NC Dam Safety Program falls under the Public Records Law, some fields have been removed from the version of the inventory available on the web. Virginia: Virginia does not have it's database on the world wide web. People have to request the data and some data is withheld.

2. How many dams have had vulnerability assessments performed for security? Arizona: 0 Arkansas: 0 California: 205 Colorado: Unknown Delaware: 0 Florida: 200 Georgia: unknown Idaho: 0 Indiana: 0 Kansas: 0 Kentucky: 0 Louisiana: 0 Maryland: 9


Michigan: 0 Minnesota: none Mississippi: 0 Missouri: 0 Montana: 96 Nebraska: 0 Nevada: 0 New Jersey: 21 New Mexico: 0 North Carolina: 0 North Dakota: 0 Ohio: 0 Oklahoma: 0 Oregon: ? Pennsylvania: 0 Rhode Island: unknown South Carolina: 0 South Dakota: None Tennessee: 0 Texas: 34 Utah: 0 Vermont: 0 Virginia: 0 Washington: 2 West Virginia: 1 Wisconsin: 0 Wyoming: 0



California: FERC- regulated dams. Connecticut: We do not know if vulnerability assessments have been performed for dams in CT. (we suspect that some FERC regulated dams and COE dams may have had such assessments prepared). Illinois: All dams had initial screen in 2002. No non-federal dams were considered critical.

Maryland:

• Savage River Dam • Conowingo • Prettyboy • Loch Raven • Liberty • Jennings Randolph • Rocky Gorge • Brighton • Little Seneca • Druid Hill Lake

Oregon: The state dam safety has not performed any vulnerability assessments. I am unaware of whether federal project dams have performed vulnerability assessments. Typically, state dam safety officials are excused from security discussions at FERC inspections Rhode Island: If assessment completed, info has not been submitted to Dam Safety Program.

Washington: • Masonry Dam • Casad Dam

D. Design Criteria 1. Design Storm (i.e., IDF, Design Flood, etc.) D.1.a. High hazard potential:

Alaska: IDF equal to PMF or based on incremental damage assessment Arizona: Varies 0.5 PMF to PMF depending on persons-at-risk downstream

California: Design Flood Colorado: IDF generated by PMP Florida: PMP Georgia: 25, 33, 50, 100 % PMP based on height and storage

Idaho: High Hazard, Small Dam = Q100, Intermediate = 0.5 PMF, Large = PMF


Illinois: S- 0.5 PMF; I - 1.0 PMF; L - 1.0 PMF

Indiana: Spillway system must safely pass the 100% probable maximum precipitation event

Iowa: PMP Kansas: 40% PMP Kentucky: PMP Louisiana: 0 Maryland: 100% PMF

Michigan: 1/2 PMF over 40 ft high 200 yr or flood of record under 40 ft high

Minnesota: PMF

Mississippi: Pass 100 yr storm through PS without activating ES and Pass or store 100% PMF without overtopping dam

Missouri: 75% of PMP Montana: 500 year minimum - depends on loss of life downstream Nebraska: TR60 Nevada: PMF New Hampshire: new dams - PMF, existing dams-100 yr x 2.5 New Jersey: PMF

New Mexico: Flood from PMP event or reduce IDF based on quantitative Incremental Damage Assessment (IDA)

North Carolina: small-1/3 PMP, Medium-1/2 PMP, Large-3/4 PMP,

Extra large-PMP North Dakota: up to the PMP, but depends on height Ohio: 100% PMF Oklahoma: 50-100% PMF 1-3 feet freeboard Oregon: 1/2 PMF - to - full PMF Pennsylvania: Depends on both size and hazard classification (1/2

PMF to PMF) Puerto Rico: PMF Rhode Island: n/a


South Carolina: Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) to 1/2 PMF South Dakota: See Dam Safety Rules Chapter 74:02:08 Tennessee: 1/2 PMP or PMP, depending on size Texas: PMF Utah: IDF Vermont: PMP Virginia: 1/2 PMF to PMF Washington: 3000-year flood to PMF West Virginia: PMP Wisconsin: 1000 year Wyoming: PMF or Paleoflood Data Comments/Clarification on Responses: Connecticut: The one half PMF to the Full PMF are used for the

spillway design flood for high hazard dams. Generally, the ACOE recommended spillway design flood criteria is used to determine a spillway's design storm.

Delaware: Design criteria will be contained in our regulations, which

have not been adopted yet. D.1.b. Significant hazard potential: Alaska: IDF based on incremental damage assessment Arizona: Varies 0.25 PMF to 0.5 PMF depending on size California: Design Flood Colorado: IDF generated by 50% of PMP Florida: 1/2 PMP

Idaho: Significant Hazard, Small Dam = Q100, Intermediate = Q500, Large = 0.5 PMF

Illinois: S - 100 yr; I - 0.5 PMF; L - 1.0 PMF Indiana: Spillway system must safely pass the 50% probable maximum

precipitation event Iowa: 0.5 PMF Kansas: 30% PMP


Kentucky: P100 + 0.4 (PMP - P100) Louisiana: 0 Maryland: 50% PMF Michigan: 200 yr or flood of record Minnesota: minimum 100 year event, maximum PMF

Mississippi: Pass or store minimum of 50% of PMF without overtopping dam

Missouri: 50% of PMP Montana: no standard Nebraska: TR60

Nevada: PMF if "large" or no spillway provided, greater of "500-year" or 1/2PMF otherwise

New Hampshire: new dams - 1/2 PMF, existing dams - 100 yr New Jersey: 1/2 PMF

New Mexico: Flood from 50% of PMP for small and intermediate and 75% of PMP for large dams or reduced IDF based on IDA North Carolina: Small-100YR, Medium-1/3 PMP, Large-1/2 PMP, Extra large-3/4 PMP

North Dakota: up to 0.5 PMP, but depends on height Ohio: 50% PMF Oklahoma: 25-75% PMF 1-3 feet freeboard Oregon: 100 year storm + 2 feet freeboard - to - 1/2 PMF

Pennsylvania: Depends on both size and hazard classification (100 year storm to PMF)

Rhode Island: n/a South Carolina: PMF to 100-yr storm Tennessee: Same Texas: 1/4 PMF to PMF, depending on size Utah: IDF Vermont: PMF fraction


Virginia: 100 Year Storm to PMF Washington: 3000-year flood to PMF West Virginia: 50 percent PMP Wisconsin: 500 year Wyoming: PMF or Paleoflood Data Comments/Clarification on Responses: Connecticut: The 100-year return frequency storm to the one half PMF

are used as the design storm for significant hazard potential dams. Montana: recommend minimum design standard of 500 year storm Tennessee: For new dams. For dams built prior to 2001, the standard

is 1/3 PMP - PMP, depending on dam size. D.1.c. Low hazard potential: Alaska: IDF equal to or greater than 100 year return interval storm

runoff Arizona: 0.25 PMF California: Design Flood Colorado: IDF generated by 100-year Rainstorm Event Florida: 100 yr Georgia: none

Idaho: Low Hazard, Small Dam = Q50, Intermediate = Q100, Large = Q500

Illinois: S - 100 yr; I - 100 yr; L - 0.5 PMF Indiana: Spillway system must safely pass the 50% probable maximum

precipitation event Iowa: 50-yr storm or P100 + 0.12(PMP - P100) Kansas: 100 year Kentucky: P100 + 0.12 (PMP - P100) Louisiana: 0 Maryland: 100 year flood Michigan: 100 yr or flood of record Minnesota: minimum 50 year event, maximum 1/2 PMF


Mississippi: Pass or store minimum of 35% of PMF without overtopping dam

Missouri: 100 year precipitation Montana: no standard Nebraska: TR60 Nevada: PMF if no spillway provided, "100-year" otherwise. New Hampshire: new dams - 100 yr, existing dams - 50 yr New Jersey: 100 Year New Mexico: Flood from 100-year frequency storm event

North Carolina: Small-50 YR, Medium-100YR, Large-1/3 PMP, Extra large-1/2 PMP

North Dakota: up to 0.3 PMP, but depends on height Ohio: 25% PMF Oklahoma: 25-50% PMF 0-1 foot freeboard Oregon: 100 year storm + 2 feet freeboard

Pennsylvania: Depends on both size and hazard classification (50 year storm to PMF)

Rhode Island: n/a South Carolina: PMF to 50-yr storm Tennessee: Same Texas: 1/4 PMF to PMF, depending on size Utah: 100 year Vermont: Q100 Virginia: 50 Year Storm to PMF Washington: 500-year flood West Virginia: 25 percent PMP Wisconsin: 100 year Wyoming: 100 yr. Comments/Clarification on Responses:


Connecticut: The spillway design flood for a low hazard potential dam is the 100-year return frequency storm with one foot of freeboard. Tennessee: For new dams. For dams built prior to 2001, the standard is 100-year rain to 1/2 PMP, depending on dam size.

D.2. Seismic D.2.a High hazard potential:

Alaska: Maximum Design Earthquake is 2500 year return interval up to Maximum Credible Earthquake

Arizona: Maximum credible earthquake California: Design Earthquake Colorado: Earthquake with a minimum of 5000-year return frequency. Florida: n/a Georgia: 2% of 50 year quake Idaho: Pseudo Static Seismic analysis and Liquefaction analysis Illinois: PGA - 2% EX in 50 yr

Indiana: If located in a seismic area, then it is considered in a slope stability evaluation

Iowa: None Kansas: 0 Louisiana: 0 Maryland: Engineer must demonstrate that dam has a factor of Safety

>1.0 under appropriate earthquake loadings Michigan: none Minnesota: No criteria. Mississippi: Left to Design Engineer to determine based on region

Missouri: Stability must consider acceleration of .1 to .23g depending on location

Montana: 2500 year minimum - not formally adopted yet Nebraska: TR60 Nevada: MCE response FOS 1.0 New Jersey: Follow Corps Guidelines


New Mexico: Maximum Credible Earthquake or 5000-year return frequency for water storage dams North Carolina: 0 Ohio: N/A Oregon: Maximum Credible Event (MCE) Pennsylvania: No specific criteria, but must be evaluated Puerto Rico: MCE Rhode Island: n/a Tennessee: .025g to .15g, depending on location Texas: No criteria Utah: MCE Vermont: none Virginia: No set criteria Washington: 2% in 50 years West Virginia: 1.2 Wisconsin: none Wyoming: MCE Comments/Clarification on Responses: South Carolina: Seismic Design Criteria is established based on

current practices and methodologies by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

D.2.b. Significant hazard potential: Alaska: MDE is 1000 to 2500 year return interval Arizona: Maximum credible earthquake California: Design Earthquake Colorado: Earthquake with a minimum of 2500-year return frequency. Idaho: Pseudo Static Seismic analysis and Liquefaction analysis Illinois: PGA - 2% EX in 50 yr

Indiana: If located in a seismic area, then it may be considered in a slope stability evaluation


Iowa: None Kansas: 0 Louisiana: 0

Maryland: Engineer must demonstrate that dam has a factor of Safety >1.0 under appropriate earthquake loadings

Michigan: none Minnesota: No criteria. Mississippi: Left to Design Engineer to determine based on region


Montana: no standard Nebraska: TR60 Nevada: MCE response FOS 1.0 New Jersey: Follow Corps Guidelines

New Mexico: 2% chance of occurrence in 50 years (approximately 2500-year return frequency)

North Carolina: 0 Ohio: N/A Pennsylvania: No specific criteria, but must be evaluated Rhode Island: n/a Tennessee: Same Texas: No criteria Utah: MCE Vermont: none Virginia: No set criteria Washington: 2% in 50 years West Virginia: 1.2 Wisconsin: none Wyoming: MCE D.2.c Low hazard potential:


Alaska: MDE is 500 to 1000 year return interval Arizona: Varies with size, site conditions and location California: Design Earthquake Colorado: No Defined Procedure or Criteria. Georgia: none Idaho: None Illinois: PGA - 2% EX in 50 yr Indiana: Not considered Iowa: None Kansas: 0 Louisiana: 0

Maryland: Engineer must demonstrate that dam has a factor of Safety >1.0 under appropriate earthquake loadings

Michigan: none Minnesota: No criteria. Mississippi: none


Montana: no standard Nebraska: TR60 Nevada: MCE response FOS 1.0 New Jersey: Follow Corps Guidelines New Mexico: None North Carolina: 0 Ohio: N/A Pennsylvania: No specific criteria, but must be evaluated Rhode Island: n/a Tennessee: Same Texas: No criteria


Utah: OBE Vermont: none Virginia: No set criteria Washington: 500-year West Virginia: 1.2 Wisconsin: none Wyoming: None

2007 State Dam Safety Program Performance Information – Risk Assessment

XIII. Risk Assessment A. Does your State dam safety program currently consider a risk based tool in your decision or evaluation process? Risk based tools may include a dam risk profile, risk assessment, risk consequence categorization, failure mode evaluation or other risk methodology. (yes/no) No: 30 Yes: 14 The following States responded No: Alabama Alaska Arkansas Connecticut Florida Georgia Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Mississippi Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New York North Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Vermont Virginia Wyoming The following States responded Yes: Arizona California Colorado Delaware Idaho Illinois Montana Nevada New Mexico Ohio Utah Washington


West Virginia Wisconsin Comments/Clarification on Responses:

Alaska: No formal risk review; indirectly, deficient high hazard potential dams are pursued first. Arizona: Since 2001, the State of Arizona has utilized a numerical ranking system for dams with identified safety deficiencies. A dam's "score" increases based severity of deficiency and downstream population-at-risk. The ranking system is currently applied to dams classified as being in an unsafe, non-emergency condition (about 20 dams in the state) and used to prioritize rehabilitations activities. California: Estimating design inflows, ground motions, failure mode analyses, and downstream hazard assessments are inherently risk-based. We are evaluating various tools to see how a more comprehensive approach will compare to our current decision making. Delaware: We are currently updating our state dam inventory and as part of that process our consultant (URS) is going to perform a risk-based assessment of our regulated dams to help us prioritize remediation needs. URS will be using the new risk-based tool that they are developing for the states under their contract with FEMA. Georgia: If a dam is found to have deficiencies, the owner is notified and told to hire an engineer to address concerns. There is no prioritization based on risk since each and every owner with a deficient dam is told to hire an engineer Illinois: Risk based analysis allowed for remediation/modification of dam constructed prior to dam safety regulations. Minnesota: We informally consider risk. Every two years we develop a priority list of dams to be repaired, reconstructed, or removed. In developing this list, we consider the danger to life, the age of the dam, type of construction, and the consequences of abandonment, removal, or alteration. Montana: we use failure mode evaluations Nevada: Inspection reports are prioritized based on engineering judgment of inspector as to time critical items. New Mexico: New Mexico has attempted to rank our unsafe dams based on potential harm downstream; however, methods used are very qualitative. Information on consequences downstream is not readily available at this time. Ohio: The risk-based tool is used to determine priority of dams for legal enforcement. Oregon: Presently, Oregon dam safety program considers all High Hazard dams an equal threat to downstream life and property. "Risk", by definition, is the Probability of dam failure multiplied by the Threat the dam imposes on downstream residents in the event of its sudden failure. Oregon dam safety does not attempt to establish Risk, because we do not assign probability statistics to existing regulated dams.


South Dakota: We have no formal Risk based tool, but would like to think that we informally evaluate risk every day. Wisconsin: We have no formal tool to consider risk though risk based decisions are made when deciding on whether to issue orders and what repair options can be utilized or which dams will not get inspected because we are not adequately staffed.

B. Is your State interested in the integration of risk based evaluation and decision process into the State's dam safety program? (yes/no) No: 17 Yes: 25 The following States responded No: Arkansas Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Mississippi North Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Virginia Wyoming The following States responded Yes: Alaska Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Maryland Minnesota Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island


South Carolina Texas Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Comments/Clarification on Responses: California: We are exploring various tools and methods. Illinois: No interest beyond current use of risk analysis concepts.

Indiana: significant new financial and additional staffing resources, however, would be required before any risk based evaluation process could begin. Louisiana: LA might be interested if we knew more about it. Mississippi: We don't have the staff, time or resources to take on something like this. This seems to be outside of our scope since as a state regulatory agency it is not our responsibility to determine which order dams should be fixed. We just identify dams that are in need of fixing and order the owner to fix it. Nevada: 1.75 technical FTEs could really use prioritization techniques easy to implement in addition to integrated wet-ware. New Mexico: New Mexico is very interested in using a risk based tool to justify how best to spend limited state funds on publicly owned dams. We need to know what information is needed for the tool and what is the accepted probability of a deterministic event (PMP and MCE)? Oklahoma: Can't answer yes or no at the present time until we are fully aware what does it entail. Oregon: Most likely, with reservation(s). The devil is in the details, obviously. Pennsylvania: We are currently integrating the ASDSO prioritization tool with our inventory and hope to apply it during the 2007 Reporting Period. South Dakota: We have no formal Risk based tool, but would like to think that we informally evaluate risk every day. Virginia: A Technical Advisory Committee has developed proposed new dam safety regulation. During the development risk was discussed but not considered.

Wisconsin: Yes, at some point in the future. C. What are the primary barriers to the integration of risk based evaluation and decision processes into your State dam safety program? Comments/Clarification on Responses:

California: It would be much easier if "acceptable risk" were legally defined, but that may never happen. There seems to be an implicit expectation that all dam failures can be prevented, and therefore should be prevented. Staffing, funding, and training would become an issue if a major change were implemented.


Georgia: The law only requires one loss of life to be high hazard, therefore there is no justification for looking beyond the first hazard. Therefore, it is not justifiable to try and do risk based analysis when it is unknown what the total population at risk would be.

Illinois: There are no specific barriers. We do not see risk based design as in the interest of the citizens of the state for new structures. Michigan: Our current prioritization scheme is satisfactory. Our high and significant hazard potential dams have a compliance rate of greater that 95% with state inspection and EAPs requirements. We also have a good handle on addressing deficiencies with high and significant hazard potential dams. Montana: no barriers New Mexico: Funding is needed to complete EAPs in order to obtain information on downstream consequences of failure. Training staff to use the Risk Based Tool is also needed unless methodology is fairly straight forward. Wisconsin: Staffing: Both to set up the process and time to do analysis. Funding: Would be hard to do without some additional funding. Education/Training: Will be needed if we are having new requirements.

1. State laws, legislation, or regulation? No: 20 Yes: 11 The following States responded No: Arizona California Colorado Delaware Maryland Minnesota Mississippi Montana Nevada New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Pennsylvania South Dakota Vermont Virginia Washington Wisconsin Wyoming The following States responded Yes: Florida Georgia Idaho


Kansas Kentucky Nebraska New Jersey Oregon South Carolina Tennessee Texas 2. Staffing? No: 4 Yes: 32 The following States responded No: Montana New Jersey Vermont Washington The following States responded Yes: Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Minnesota Mississippi Nebraska Nevada New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming


3. Funding?

No: 5 Yes: 31 The following States responded No: Montana New Jersey North Dakota Pennsylvania Washington The following States responded Yes: Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Minnesota Mississippi Nebraska Nevada New Mexico New York Ohio Oregon South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Vermont Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 4. Education/Training? No: 6 Yes: 31 The following States responded No: Colorado Montana Ohio


South Dakota Vermont Washington The following States responded Yes: Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Minnesota Mississippi Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Dakota Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 5. Other, please explain? No: 9 Yes: 9 The following States responded No: Colorado Mississippi Nebraska New Jersey New York North Dakota South Carolina Vermont Washington The following States responded Yes:


California Georgia Kansas Nevada New Mexico Oregon Rhode Island Tennessee Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

California: Explicitly acknowledging any probability of failure, however small, is a large political risk, especially for a regulator. Decision-makers must feel comfortable that "acceptable risk" is consistent with societal expectations, through legal or other means. Georgia: As the regulator, we are not in the mode of making decisions based upon risk. Deficient dams are all required to be upgraded. There is no latitude within our law for variances based upon risk level. Indiana: The awareness and involvement of downstream stakeholders in the process of long term strategic action planning and priority setting will be needed Kansas: Concern as to whether risk-based tools are appropriate to regulate dams. Nevada: Time. Have many wonderful tools but no time to use them. New Mexico: New Mexico has very few EAP completed for high and significant hazard potential dams. Not having the information to complete the risk assessment will l be a barrier. Oregon: Public acceptance and funding. (Coincides with state laws and legislation). Rhode Island: We must first complete update of hazard classifications. Tennessee: It is complicated and unnecessary. TN has no desire to go to such a system, especially since we have essentially all our regulated dams in compliance now with our current standards. Wyoming: Presently not part of this agency's mission

D. What assistance can the NDSRB and/or ASDSO provide to help you integrate a risk based tool into your State's dam safety program? Comments/Clarification on Responses:

California: Training courses based on simple examples using hand calculations with simple probability theory and simple assumptions. This would provide a solid technical foundation for more advanced analyses and lend confidence in the methodology. The integration assessment would provide political acceptability for adopting a risk-based approach. External review of "acceptable risk" and case-by-case determination of "As Low As Reasonably Practical" would be helpful.


Georgia: Risk based assessments are not conducive to state regulatory programs in most cases. Iowa: I haven't studied the risk assessment process enough to know what assistance we would need. Oregon: List of accepted guidelines agreeable to ALL federal agencies. Do you remember how long it took various federal agencies to adopt FEMA Emergency Action Plan guidelines? Washington: We already use risk-based decision making Wisconsin: Technical Assistance: Yes, someone to mentor as we start the process. Custom Training: A training DVD would be helpful. Integration Assessment: This might help to do a group of test dams so we can evaluate results and implementation options.

1. Technical assistance? No: 5 Yes: 26 The following States responded No: North Carolina Pennsylvania Tennessee Washington West Virginia The following States responded Yes: Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Kansas Maryland Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon South Carolina South Dakota Vermont Virginia


Wisconsin Wyoming 2. Custom training on existing tools? No: 7 Yes: 22 The following States responded No: California Colorado Kansas North Carolina Tennessee Vermont Washington The following States responded Yes: Arizona Arkansas Connecticut Delaware Maryland Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 3. An integration assessment similar to the peer review program? No: 8 Yes: 18 The following States responded No: Colorado Kansas New York North Carolina Tennessee Vermont Washington West Virginia


The following States responded Yes: Alaska California Delaware Maryland Minnesota Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon South Carolina South Dakota Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 4. State-to-State workshops? No: 7 Yes: 18 The following States responded No: Colorado Kansas North Carolina Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin The following States responded Yes: Alaska Arkansas California Delaware Maryland Minnesota Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Oregon South Carolina South Dakota Virginia Wyoming


5. Other, please explain? No: 9 Yes: 6 The following States responded No: Kansas Nebraska New York North Carolina North Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin The following States responded Yes: California Colorado Louisiana Maryland Nevada Pennsylvania Comments/Clarification on Responses:

California: Provide a technical "how to" manual that explains the underlying probability theory required for risk analyses. Provide clear examples that can be solved with a hand calculator or spreadsheet.

Colorado: Financial funding with be helpful

Indiana: additional financial and staffing resources to perform this work, and a national mandate to require the use of risk based assessment

Louisiana: Additional information Maryland: funding! Nevada: Summary of available tools with evaluations by current/past users. Pennsylvania: We are unclear about questions 4c and 4d. 6. None? No: 12 Yes: 6 The following States responded No: Colorado Kansas Maryland Nebraska New Mexico


New York North Dakota Oregon Pennsylvania Vermont Washington Wisconsin The following States responded Yes: Georgia Illinois Mississippi North Carolina Tennessee Texas E. Do you have concerns with the integration of risk based tools in your State's dam safety program? No: 8 Yes: 25 The following States responded No: Colorado Delaware Illinois Maryland Montana Ohio Washington West Virginia The following States responded Yes: Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Florida Georgia Louisiana Minnesota Mississippi Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee


Texas Vermont Wisconsin Wyoming Comments/Clarification on Responses:

California: Defining "acceptable" risk criteria and using concepts such as "As Low as Reasonably Practical" are societal judgments that go beyond engineering. Risk analysis gives provides an explicit consideration of the assumptions/judgments and the means for uniformity and consistency with other agencies applying the decision making process. Louisiana: Additional information is needed before we know we have a concern. New Mexico: Many dams owned by political subdivisions of the state are not fixing their dams until the state provides the funds even though the dams are not owned by the state. Whether that brings liability on the state will get defined when a dam fails. In the mean time New Mexico needs a systematic method to prioritize our limited public funds and risk assessment appears to be that tool. North Carolina: It is the perception of the NC Dam Safety Program that "risk based analysis" is not applicable to regulation of dams NOT owned by the regulating entity.

Washington: We have been using risk based decision-making since 1992.

Wisconsin: Funding Issues: Always a concern. Staffing Issues: Always a concern

1. Liability issues? No: 11 Yes: 17 The following States responded No: Arizona Georgia Kansas Maryland Minnesota Nevada South Carolina South Dakota Vermont Washington Wisconsin The following States responded Yes: California Connecticut Florida Mississippi Nebraska New Jersey


New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Virginia Wyoming 2. Funding issues? No: 4 Yes: 26 The following States responded No: New Jersey North Dakota Vermont Washington The following States responded Yes: Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Connecticut Florida Georgia Kansas Maryland Minnesota Mississippi Nebraska Nevada New Mexico New York North Carolina Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 3. Staffing issues? No: 3 Yes: 27


The following States responded No: New Jersey Vermont Washington The following States responded Yes: Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Connecticut Florida Georgia Kansas Maryland Minnesota Mississippi Nebraska Nevada New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 4. Other, please explain? No: 10 Yes: 8 The following States responded No: Maryland Mississippi Nebraska New Mexico New York North Dakota Pennsylvania South Dakota Washington Wisconsin The following States responded Yes: California


Georgia Kansas Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey Tennessee Vermont Comments/Clarification on Responses: California: Incorporation of a risk based policy would require a significant investment in training and new tools. Georgia: No statutory regulation to do risk based assessment. Kansas: Concern as to appropriateness of tools in regulatory environment. Missouri: Conflicts with current state law.

Nevada: Negative trade-off of time invested in analysis versus direct dam safety actions. New Hampshire: Public misinterpretation of data even after lengthy explanations of data use. New Jersey: During past flooding events that resulted in dam failures, the Legislature has made it clear that all dams need to comply with dam safety standards. Implementation of a risk based approach will help prioritize enforcement efforts, but cannot relieve the dam owner of his legal responsibilities. Tennessee: TN does not believe this is the right approach for state regulatory agencies. This is more appropriate for agencies that own dams, such as the Corps or TVA, and have to allocate resources for repair and maintenance. Vermont: The Vermont Dam Safety Program is primarily a construction/reconstruction permit program. Inspections are performed and owners are advised of necessary work, but many dam owners have only one dam and thus risk priority is not an issue.

5. None? No: 12 Yes: 0 The following States responded No: Kansas Maryland Mississippi Nebraska New York North Dakota Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Vermont


Washington Wisconsin

2007 State Dam Safety Program Performance Information – Quality Assurance Rpts.

3. State Program Performance Data Quality Assurance Reports This section contains the State program performance data quality assurance reports. These reports highlight differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year for each State. Differences are highlighted in Red. Additional information and clarifications provided by the State are highlighted in bold Red italic font. Quality assurance reports were provided by the following 29 States:

1. Alaska 2. Arizona 3. California 4. Colorado 5. Delaware 6. Georgia 7. Hawaii 8. Iowa 9. Illinois 10. Louisiana 11. Maryland 12. Michigan 13. Minnesota 14. Mississippi 15. Montana

16. North Carolina 17. Nebraska 18. New Jersey 19. New Mexico 20. Nevada 21. Ohio 22. Oregon 23. Pennsylvania 24. Rhode Island 25. South Dakota 26. Tennessee 27. Utah 28. Vermont 29. Wisconsin

The States providing, and not providing, quality assurance reports are illustrated below. Those States providing a report are shown in Green, those not providing a report are Red, and those which did not provide any State program performance data are shown in White.

The following pages contain each of the individual State Program Performance Data Quality Assurance Reports.


Dam Safety Program Management Tools (DSPMT) Reporting

Data Quality Assurance Report of

State Dam Safety Program Performance Data for the



January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/13/2007 State/Agency Name: Alaska Author: Charles F. Cobb, P.E. Title: State Dam Safety Engineer Address: ADNR- Dam Safety Unit 550 W. 7th Avenue,

Suite 1020 Phone: (907) 269-8636 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams

this Reporting Period Total State Regulated previous Reporting Period

High 17 18 Significant 32 32 Low 32 32 Total 81 82 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? Net balance after dam removals and new construction, permits, etc.


VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting

period # Inspections previous reporting period

High 3 3 Significant 8 3 Low 3 5 Total 14 11 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? Varies every year based on inspection due date and compliance. IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 9. Last year's response was: 7. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? Difference in data review method. B. How may State regulated Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 9. Last year's response was: 15. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? Difference in data review method.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/13/2007 State/Agency Name: Arizona Author: Michael Johnson Title: Dam Safety Section Manager Address: ADWR, 3550 North Central Ave, Phoenix,

Arizona, 85012 Phone: (602) 771-8659 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. III. Program Staffing and Budget A. List the number of FTE's including administrative and clerical/support, and technical such as engineers, geologists, hydrologist, technicians, and inspectors. Category Number of Current FTE's Number of FTE's Last Year Administrative/ Clerical 1 1 Technical 6 1 Others 0.3 1 Total 7.3 9 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of FTE's has changed from last year. Was it due to retirements, new personnel, changes in staff responsibilities, etc.? The number of FTE's has changed due to retirements and changes in staff responsibilities. C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $711,028.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $715,801.00 The budgetary numbers changed very little from last year.


IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams


High 94 93 Significant 41 39 Low 116 120 Total 251 252 The total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year due to dam removals and newly identified dams being added to the inventory. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 63 46 Significant 15 15 Low 25 25 Total 103 86 The number of inspections changed from last year. More inspections were performed due to changes in staff responsibilities. IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 74. Last year's response was: 68. The State of AZ is providing technical assistance to dam owners for development of EAPs. B. How may State regulated Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 30. Last year's response was: 22. The State of AZ is providing technical assistance to dam owners for development of EAPs.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/19/2007 State/Agency Name: California Author: Dean Smith Title: Senior Engineer, Water Resources Address: PO Box 942836, Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 Phone: e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. III. Program Staffing and Budget A. List the number of FTE's including administrative and clerical/support, and technical such as engineers, geologists, hydrologist, technicians, and inspectors. Category Number of Current FTE's Number of FTE's Last Year Administrative/ Clerical 7 7 Technical 51 7 Others 0 7 Total 58 60 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of FTE's has changed from last year. Was it due to retirements, new personnel, changes in staff responsibilities, etc.? Two positions were “loaned” to another division with our department. C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $9,190,000.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $8,145,000.00 Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year.


Our statutes provided for an increase in the annual fee charged for dams, to account for inflation. IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams


High 341 334 Significant 720 708 Low 212 211 Total 1273 1253 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? The changes are due to new construction, dam removals, discovery of illegal dams, and a few reclassifications of hazard potential. VI. Dam Inspections

A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period.

Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 570 484 Significant 903 858 Low 203 237 Total 1676 1579 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? The number of inspections varies each year primarily due to the amount of construction inspections. IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 341. Last year's response was: 334. B. How may State regulated Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 720. Last year's response was: 709. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? For A and B, the changes are due to hazard reclassification and new construction.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/10/2007 State/Agency Name: Colorado Author: Jack G. Byers Title: Deputy State Engineer Address: Colorado Division of Water Resources, 1818

Sherman Phone: (303) 866-3581 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. No differences identified.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/10/2007 State/Agency Name: Delaware Author: David Twing Title: Division Engineer - Division of Soil & Water

Cons Address: DNREC, 89 Kings Highway, Dover, DE 19901 Phone: 302-739-9155 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. II. A. Compliance with Basic Criteria found in Public Law 109-460 Please indicate whether, through its own regulations or through that of another State agency, your State Dam Safety Program meets the following criteria authorized by State legislation: H. Provisions for necessary funding: J. An identification of: 1. Each Dam the failure of which could reasonably be expected to endanger human life. This year's response was: No Last year's was: Yes Please clarify (within this document) why this authority has changed.

We are currently updating our inventory and hazard classifications. 2. The maximum area that could be flooded if the Dam failed. This year's response was: No. Last year's was: Yes. Please clarify (within this document) why this authority has changed.

We do not have current inundation maps for any of our dams.


3. Necessary public facilities that would be affected by the flooding. This year's response was: No. Last year's was: Yes. Please clarify (within this document) why this authority has changed.

We do not have current inundation maps or EAP’s. III. Program Staffing and Budget A. List the number of FTE's including administrative and clerical/support, and technical such as engineers, geologists, hydrologist, technicians, and inspectors. Category Number of Current FTE's Number of FTE's Last Year Administrative/ Clerical 0.25 0 Technical 0.5 0 Others 0 0 Total 0.75 0.5

Please clarify (within this document) why the number of FTE's has changed from last year. Was it due to retirements, new personnel, changes in staff responsibilities, etc.? Our Program Administrator spent more of his time with the Dam Safety Program than he did in 2005. C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $470,000.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $317,230.00 Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year.

We received additional funding for consultant services. IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 7. Last year's response was: 3. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? We discovered that we had copies of additional EAP’s in our files, although they may not be current.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/18/2007 State/Agency Name: Georgia Author: Francis E. Fiegle II, P.E. Title: Program Manager Address: Suite 110; 4244 International Parkway, Atlanta,

Georgia 30354 Phone: (404) 362-2678 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. III. Program Staffing and Budget A. List the number of FTE's including administrative and clerical/support, and technical such as engineers, geologists, hydrologist, technicians, and inspectors. Category Number of Current FTE's Number of FTE's Last Year Administrative/ Clerical 1 1 Technical 10 1 Others 0 1 Total 11 9 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of FTE's has changed from last year. Was it due to retirements, new personnel, changes in staff responsibilities, etc.? We were allowed to fill one engineering position that had been frozen. It was filled in September. For the other position, Vladimir Soto returned in June from an 18 month tour of duty in Iraq. C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $727,009.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $704,013.00


Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year.

Salary increases IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams


High 450 437 Significant 0 0 Low 3424 3424 Total 3874 3861 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? More of a focus was put on addressing the backlog of potential Category I dams, therefore number of low hazard dams does not show as having changed. It is likely this number did increase some; however since minimal data entry has been done in past few years this is not reflected. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 540 437 Significant 0 0 Low 899 879 Total 1439 1316 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? The number of Category I dams increased, therefore we did more inspections.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/13/2007 State/Agency Name: Hawaii Author: Denise Manuel Title: Engineer V Address: 1151 Punchbowl Street, Rm 221, Honolulu, HI

96813 Phone: (808) 587-0246 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. III. Program Staffing and Budget C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $246,638.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $164,000.00 Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year: As a result of the March 2006 Kaloko Dam failure, the 2006 Legislature approved additional positions and funding for the Dam Safety program. The State also provided Emergency Funds to aid with emergency inspections, remediation and for the Dam Safety program to conduct additional work as needed.




High 95 96 Significant 21 22 Low 20 17 Total 136 135 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? One new dam had been added in the 2005 Performance Report (HI141). As a result of the March 2006 flood emergency, emergency inspections were conducted and the inventory database was updated with more current information from the field. Some names and ID#’s were changed and clarified, resulting in this years report. The State is currently conducting an inventory verification project and is in the process of reevaluating the hazard classification for all dams statewide. The State expects both projects to provide the best updated information for the inventory, and as such, expects there to be data changes in the 2007 report. IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 64. Last year's response was: 49. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? The State pushed dam owners to develop and submit Emergency Action Plans. Many owners complied with the best information as they could provide. The plans vary greatly in quality and are still under review for improvements. B. How may State regulated Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 15. Last year's response was: 10. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? The State requested dam owners of all hazard classifications to develop and submit Emergency Action Plans. Many owners complied with the best information as they could provide. The plans vary greatly in quality and are still under review for improvements.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/19/2007 State/Agency Name: Iowa Author: Dave Allen Title: Environmental Specialist Address: Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources, Wallace

State Office Building Phone: 515/281-6930 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. III. Program Staffing and Budget A. List the number of FTE's including administrative and clerical/support, and technical such as engineers, geologists, hydrologist, technicians, and inspectors. Category Number of Current FTE's Number of FTE's Last Year Administrative/ Clerical 0 0 Technical 1.25 0 Others 0.5 0 Total 1.75 1.25 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of FTE's has changed from last year. Was it due to retirements, new personnel, changes in staff responsibilities, etc.? Changes in staff responsibility accounts for most the increase in FTE's. The increase also represents a more detailed account of the supervisor hours sent on dam safety matters. C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $57,000.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $0.00


Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year. This is an estimated budget that reflects the changes in staff responsibility and a better accounting of supervisor time. IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams


High 83 78 Significant 193 191 Low 3049 3200 Total 3325 3469 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? New construction







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/10/2007 State/Agency Name: Illinois Author: Paul Mauer Title: Division Manager Address: One Natural Resources Way, Springfield, IL

62702- Phone: 217/782-4427 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams


High 187 184 Significant 299 297 Low 999 983 Total 1485 1464 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? New dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory




High 77 84 Significant 37 23 Low 39 48 Total 153 155 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? It changes every year. With 3 inspection intervals it is a function of the relative mix and the initial permit date. IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 170. Last year's response was: 165. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? The increase is motivated by us doing our job. B. How may State regulated Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 125. Last year's response was: 117. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? The increase is motivated by us doing our job.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 06/22/2007 State/Agency Name: Louisiana Author: Mr. Elnur Musa, P.E. Title: LADOTD Dam Safety and Water Resources

Engineer Address: PO BOX 94245, Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9245 Phone: 225-274-4321 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams


High 28 29 Significant 69 65 Low 443 440 Total 540 534 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? Newly identified dams being added to the inventory.




High 25 19 Significant 48 50 Low 77 85 Total 150 154 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? Due inspections frequency.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/03/2007 State/Agency Name: Maryland Author: M. Q. Cas Taherian Title: Chief, Dam Safety Division Address: MD Dept. of Environment, 1800 Washington

Blvd Suite 440, Baltimore MD 21230 Phone: 410-537-3538 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. III. Program Staffing and Budget A. List the number of FTE's including administrative and clerical/support, and technical such as engineers, geologists, hydrologist, technicians, and inspectors. Category Number of Current FTE's Number of FTE's Last Year Administrative/ Clerical 0.5 0.5 Technical 5 0.5 Others 0.25 0.5 Total 5.75 4.75 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of FTE's has changed from last year. Was it due to retirements, new personnel, changes in staff responsibilities, etc.? MD staff increased by one when we hired a new engineer in 2006. C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $482,668.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $468,020.00 Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year: Increases in the budget are due to cost of living and the fact that our staff has increased.




High 68 66 Significant 87 80 Low 227 230 Total 382 376 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? The number of high hazard dams increased due to construction, and also from reevaluation of the hazard classification of some existing dams. The number of significant hazard dams increased due to construction. The number of low hazard dams dropped because some dams were removed, and some were reclassified into higher hazard class. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 43 62 Significant 29 47 Low 49 60 Total 121 169 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? The reduction in the reported number of dam inspections is due to a number of dam emergencies this year, such as at Lake Needwood, Little Youghiogheny Watershed Dam Site 1 (Hospital Dam), etc., and several dam failures that occurred after a very large storm in June 2006. These events have required a large portion of our time and resources. IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response B. How may State regulated Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 43. Last year's response was: 38. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? MD Dam Safety has been working with owners of high and significant hazard dams to develop EAP’s. As a result, the number of EAP’s has increased.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 06/29/2007 State/Agency Name: Michigan Author: Paul T. Wessel, P.E. Title: Dam Safety Engineer, Michigan DEQ Address: 525 W. Allegan, PO Box 30458, Lansing MI

48909-7958 Phone: 517 335 6748 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams


High 84 79 Significant 138 133 Low 812 775 Total 1034 987 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? Several newly identified dams, several with surrendered FERC licenses now state regulated and some newly identified dams added to inventory or inventory dated updated to make the dams fall into NID criteria (mostly storage volume).




High 33 12 Significant 32 29 Low 155 98 Total 220 139 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? Inspections are done on a set schedule. While we try to balance schedule, some years have more dams due for inspection. Also, state program was shut down for six months in 2005. IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 80. Last year's response was: 77. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? Continued efforts to work with owners to submit EAPs B. How may State regulated Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 136. Last year's response was: 128. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? Continued efforts to work with owners to submit EAPs







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/09/2007 State/Agency Name: Minnesota Author: Jason Boyle Title: State Dam Safety Engineer Address: DNR Waters 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN

55155-4032 Phone: 651-259-5715 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams


High 23 39 Significant 125 154 Low 1003 1087 Total 1151 1280 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? The previous total in 2005 included over 100 dams either owned or regulated by the FERC, Corps of Engineers, US Forest Service, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. The total in 2006 does not include these dams.




High 23 22 Significant 21 56 Low 10 12 Total 54 90 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? Our mandated inspection schedule of High and Significant hazard dams requires roughly 50 inspections every year, which we met in 2006. 2005 was an exceptional year. IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 23. Last year's response was: 35. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? The previous total in 2005 included dams either owned or regulated by the FERC and the Corps of Engineers. The total in 2006 does not include these dams. B. How may State regulated Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 2. Last year's response was: 0. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? Two high hazard dams with EAPs were downgraded to significant hazard dams.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 06/29/2007 State/Agency Name: Mississippi Author: James MacLellan Title: Dam Safety Engineer Address: 2380 Hwy 80w Jackson, MS 39204 Phone: (601) 961-5061 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. III. Program Staffing and Budget C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $62,079.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $267,767.00 Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year. The current budget numbers shown were for State fiscal year 2006 which ran from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006. The dam safety engineer had resigned prior to July 1, 2005 and all of the inspectors had been let go due to budget constraints. A new engineer wasn’t hired until January 1, 2006. So for half of the fiscal year only 1 person was charging full time to the dam safety program budget and 3 others were charging only a part of their time to the dam safety program budget.




High 258 310 Significant 94 81 Low 3346 3238 Total 3698 3629 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? With the change in our state regulations requiring the dam owner to hire a consultant engineer to perform an inspection, prepare an EAP and do a breach analysis, the accuracy of the hazard classification for all of the high hazard dams was reviewed. Visual inspections and breach analyses revealed that several dams had been incorrectly classified as high hazard and they were downgraded to a lower hazard classification. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 99 76 Significant 3 8 Low 0 21 Total 102 105 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? With the change in state regulations taking effect in 2006 (due to budget cuts and the loss of state inspectors), dam owners of high and significant hazard dams were now required to hire a registered professional engineer to perform a comprehensive inspection using state forms and submit the report to the State. State personnel also performed visual inspections during this time to ensure the hazard classification was correct. The emphasis was put on high hazard dams for this reporting period. Those high hazard dams that were not inspected in 2006 have been put on a schedule to complete their inspections and submit them to the State. Due to the reduction in staff for the State dam safety program, no more resources will be put into inspecting low hazard dams, except on an emergency basis.


IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 44. Last year's response was: 32. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? The change in regulations, which took effect in 2006, now require all high and significant hazard dams to prepare and maintain an EAP. B. How may State regulated Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 3. Last year's response was: 2. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? Again, this increase is due to the change in state regulations which took effect in 2006.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/11/2007 State/Agency Name: Montana Author: Michele Lemieux Title: Dam Safety Program Manager Address: P.O. Box 201601 Helena, Montana 59620-

1601 Phone: (406) 444-6613 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. III. Program Staffing and Budget A. List the number of FTE's including administrative and clerical/support, and technical such as engineers, geologists, hydrologist, technicians, and inspectors. Category Number of Current FTE's Number of FTE's Last Year Administrative/ Clerical 0.25 0.25 Technical 3.75 0.25 Others 0.2 0.25 Total 4.2 5.25 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of FTE's has changed from last year. Was it due to retirements, new personnel, changes in staff responsibilities, etc.? A couple of things wrong here: the FTE’s shown here for last year are not the ones I reported, and don’t sum up to 5.25. That said, there was a problem with last year’s reporting. I included 2 positions that were paid with FEMA funds under “Other”. These 2 positions are no longer included. The 0.2 under “Other” for this year is for our GIS support person. Under technical, we remain the same (3.75) – last year was incorrectly reported as 3.25. Note that the 2 FEMA paid positions were not included in last year’s budget.


C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $399,937.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $366,531.00 Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year: Salary increases, GIS support staff salary, increase in building rent. Overhead estimated as 20% of total expenses, so this also increased. IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams


High 102 102 Significant 132 131 Low 2650 2647 Total 2884 2880 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? Three new low hazard dams were constructed, new dams were added to the inventory as a result of a new inspection program that has been initiated, and one high hazard dam was reclassified as significant, and one low hazard dam was reclassified as high. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 17 42 Significant 3 0 Low 5 0 Total 25 42 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? High hazard dams are inspected on a four to five year cycle and varies from year to year. Additional significant and low hazard dams were inspected as a result of a new inspection program that was initiated in 2006.


IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 95. Last year's response was: 96. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? One high hazard dam was reclassified as significant B. How may State regulated Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 1. Last year's response was: 0. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? One high hazard dam was reclassified as significant







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/12/2007 State/Agency Name: North Carolina Author: Tami V. Idol Title: Assistant State Dam Safety Engineer Address: Land Quality Section, 1612 Mail Service

Center, Ra Phone: 919-733-4574 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected] . III. Program Staffing and Budget C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $973,886.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $1,162,608.00. This included $98,747 FEMA Grant. Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year. State appropriations dropped by $105,581and permitting fees received increased $15,606 making an overall actual drop of $89,975 once the FEMA grant was removed. IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams


High 1025 1006 Significant 650 657 Low 2827 2815 Total 4502 4478


Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? Due to new dams being constructed, newly identified dams being added to inventory and some changing hazard classification. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 830 694 Significant 211 261 Low 645 530 Total 1686 1485 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? The # of inspections will change from year to year because low hazards are only inspected every 5 years, significant hazards every 3 years & high hazard required every 2 years (yet every year is attempted). After running metrics on vacancies of FTEs during the year, it is figured that only 13.8 FTEs actually existed out of the 16 allotted. IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 186. Last year's response was: 195. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? 2005 submittal inadvertently reported EAPs of dams regulated by other agencies (estimated to include 45 High Hazard and 7 Significant Hazard). In actuality the number of state regulated High dams with EAPs has increased by 33 this period and 38 have been updated. Letters have been mailed to owners in 3 counties this past year "requesting" them to submit an EAP. There has been a great response.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 06/13/2007 State/Agency Name: Nebraska Author: Patrick J. Diederich, P.E. Title: Chief of Dam Safety Address: Dept. of Natural Resources, 301 Centennial

Mall South Phone: (402) 471-1222 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected] . III. Program Staffing and Budget A. List the number of FTE's including administrative and clerical/support, and technical such as engineers, geologists, hydrologist, technicians, and inspectors. Category Number of Current FTE's Number of FTE's Last Year Administrative/ Clerical 0.3 0.3 Technical 4.8 0.3 Others 0.7 0.3 Total 5.8 5.7 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of FTE's has changed from last year. Was it due to retirements, new personnel, changes in staff responsibilities, etc.? Survey personnel worked slightly more on DS this year. C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $326,145.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $434,652.00 Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year: Last year’s total included the FEMA grant




High 121 129 Significant 210 212 Low 1957 1886 Total 2288 2227 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? New construction and existing dams brought into the inventory. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 55 62 Significant 92 50 Low 438 244 Total 585 356 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? Scheduling







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 06/19/2007 State/Agency Name: New Jersey Author: Dewey Lima Title: Principal Engineer Address: P.O. Box 419 Trenton, NJ 08625 Phone: 609-984-0859 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams


High 213 202 Significant 354 366 Low 1148 1135 Total 1715 1703 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? We constantly add new dams to our inventory (newly identified dams) as well as some removals. Many dams change in hazard (increase as well as decrease) based on analyses that are performed and justification provided by the owner’s engineer.




High 87 45 Significant 50 35 Low 44 59 Total 181 139 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? Inspections did increase for us this year but inspections are performed by private engineers that must be hired by the owners. We are constantly trying to improve and achieve greater compliance with required inspections. The larger number is just a reflection of better compliance achievement. IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 202. Last year's response was: 191. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? Again, just better compliance achievement as we strive to insure that all high hazard dams owners have a current EAP. B. How may State regulated Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 234. Last year's response was: 222. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? Again, just better compliance achievement as we strive to insure that all high hazard dams owners have a current EAP.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/03/2007 State/Agency Name: New Mexico Author Elaine C. Pacheco Title: New Mexico Dam Safety Bureau Chief Address: P.O. Box 25102, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504 Phone: (505) 827-6111 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected] . II. A. Compliance with Basic Criteria found in Public Law 109-460 Please indicate whether, through its own regulations or through that of another State agency, your State Dam Safety Program meets the following criteria authorized by State legislation: H. Provisions for necessary funding: 1. To ensure timely repairs or other changes to, or removal of, a Dam in order to protect human life and property. This year's response was: Yes. Last year's was: No.

Please clarify (within this document) why this authority has changed.

We have always had the authority to order dams repairs, this year we were given funds to repair some of the dams. III. Program Staffing and Budget C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $484,411.00


Last Year's Total Budget: $484,100.00 Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year:

Salaries have increased from last year. IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams


High 177 170 Significant 88 92 Low 131 131 Total 396 393 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? New construction and newly identified dams that were added to the inventory. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 120 96 Significant 26 41 Low 34 29 Total 180 166 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? More dams were inspected this year because I was fully staff for the entire year.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006

I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/13/2007 State/Agency Name: Nevada Author Michael J. Anderson, P.E. Title: Staff Engineer III Address: 901 South Stewart Street, Suite 2002, Carson

City, Nevada 89701 Phone: (775) 684-2843 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. III. Program Staffing and Budget C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $197,304.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $225,514.00 Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year.

Directed to remove FEMA assistance grant.





Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? Dams added from new construction and identification of undocumented dams in the field. On a related note, there may be as many as 50 more dams in Nevada that are undocumented. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 92 84 Significant 65 19 Low 100 30 Total 257 133 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? Inspections came closer to full compliance with policy due to increased effort. IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 94. Last year's response was: 93. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? One previously non-compliant owner sent in an EAP. B. How may State regulated Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 25. Last year's response was: 4. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? March 31, 2007 was the deadline for submittal of an EAP for existing significant hazard dams. Compliance picked up substantially in 2007.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/05/2007 State/Agency Name: Ohio Author: Mark Ogden Title: Administrator Address: 2045 Morse Road Bldg B Columbus Ohio

43229-6693 Phone: 614/265-6727 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. III. Program Staffing and Budget A. List the number of FTE's including administrative and clerical/support, and technical such as engineers, geologists, hydrologist, technicians, and inspectors. Category Number of Current FTE's Number of FTE's Last Year Administrative/ Clerical 1.5 1.5 Technical 12 1.5 Others 0 1.5 Total 13.5 12.5 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of FTE's has changed from last year. Was it due to retirements, new personnel, changes in staff responsibilities, etc.? In 2006, we were able to fill two new engineer positions and one current engineer left to take another job. C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $1,483,944.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $1,415,024.00


Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year: Dam Safety Annual Fees were increased in 2006 and this provided the funds to hire additional staff. IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams


High 442 411 Significant 564 559 Low 692 702 Total 1698 1672 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? The change in the number of state regulated dams is due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams and changes of classification. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 70 52 Significant 4 2 Low 2 2 Total 76 56 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? The increase in inspections in 2006 was largely due to the hiring of additional staff.


IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 160. Last year's response was: 145. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? The increase came from enforcement efforts to require owners to develop EAP’s. B. How may State regulated Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 118. Last year's response was: 110. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? The increase came from enforcement efforts to require owners to develop EAP’s.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/12/2007 State/Agency Name: Oregon Author: John Falk (7-12-2007) Title: Dam Safety Coordinator Address: 725 Summer Street NE, Salem, OR 97301-

4172 Phone: 503-986-9840 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. III. Program Staffing and Budget A. List the number of FTE's including administrative and clerical/support, and technical such as engineers, geologists, hydrologist, technicians, and inspectors. Category Number of Current FTE's Number of FTE's Last Year Administrative/ Clerical 0 0 Technical 2.26 0 Others 0 0 Total 2.26 2.2 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of FTE's has changed from last year. Was it due to retirements, new personnel, changes in staff responsibilities, etc.? The change to FTE is a result of slightly increased staff responsibilities for inspection of existing dams and reservoirs. C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $212,400.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $0.00


Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year: Previously, there apparently was confusion as to how to report biennial (two-year) budget cycles. The report this year represents the ANNUAL EQUIVALENT. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 33 21 Significant 22 35 Low 66 81 Total 121 137 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? The increase is due to the inclusion of inspections performed by federal agencies, such as USACE, USBR and FERC. Previous reports included those inspections performed by Oregon Dam Safety personnel only. Thus the apparent increase in the number of inspections of High Hazard dams. Unfortunately the state’s inspection complement did, in fact, DECREASE if one considers just the inspections performed by state dam safety personnel.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 06/19/2007 State/Agency Name: Pennsylvania Author: Dennis R. Dickey, P.E. Title: Chief, Division of Dam Safety Address: P.O. Box 8554, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8554 Phone: 717-772-5951 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. III. Program Staffing and Budget A. List the number of FTE's including administrative and clerical/support, and technical such as engineers, geologists, hydrologist, technicians, and inspectors. Category Number of Current FTE's Number of FTE's Last Year Administrative/ Clerical 2.5 2.5 Technical 21 2.5 Others 1 2.5 Total 24.5 24 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of FTE's has changed from last year. Was it due to retirements, new personnel, changes in staff responsibilities, etc.? This was primarily due to a slight change in staff responsibilities. C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $2,211,046.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $2,039,600.00 Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year.


Our budgeted amount increased due to contractual obligation for an across the board pay increase for all state employees covered under our particular union agreement. IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams


High 789 785 Significant 268 257 Low 2120 2097 Total 3177 3139 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? This change is mainly due to newly identified dams being added to our inventory. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 1457 1403 Significant 101 154 Low 247 108 Total 1805 1665 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? The increase in inspections is due to a combination of an increase in inventory and our inspection schedule for low and significant hazard dams. In addition, following the June 2006 flooding event Regional Office staff efforts were increased to investigate and respond to reports of damage and or failures.


IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 704. Last year's response was: 692. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? This increase is a result of our compliance efforts and our Governor’s announcement of his “Dam Safety Initiative” to bring all high hazard dams into compliance with our state regulations. B. How may State regulated Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 122. Last year's response was: 118. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? This increase is a result of our compliance efforts and our Governor’s announcement of his “Dam Safety Initiative” to bring all high hazard dams into compliance with our state regulations.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 06/18/2007 State/Agency Name: Rhode Island Author: Paul Guglielmino Title: Senior Sanitary Engineer Address: 235 Promenade St., Providence, RI 02908-5767 Phone: 401 222-1360, x7122 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. II. A. Compliance with Basic Criteria found in Public Law 109-460 Please indicate whether, through its own regulations or through that of another State agency, your State Dam Safety Program meets the following criteria authorized by State legislation: H. Provisions for necessary funding: 2. If the owner of the Dam does not take action described above, to take action as expeditiously as practicable. This year's response was: Yes. Last year's was: No. Please clarify (within this document) why this authority has changed:

The Dam Safety law was amended in 2006.




High 17 17 Significant 41 41 Low 613 599 Total 671 657 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? Newly identified dams were added to the inventory. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 3 1 Significant 10 1 Low 137 161 Total 150 163 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? The Dam Safety Program does not attempt to perform the same number of inspections each year. During the past few years, the Program has been in the process of inspecting all dams in the state, in order to update the inventory and reassess hazard classifications. This project was completed in 2006 and inspections in 2007 will likely be much lower, as we concentrate on high and significant hazard dams.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/05/2007 State/Agency Name: South Dakota Author: Tim Schaal Title: Natural Resources Engineering Specialist Address: SD DENR, Joe Foss Bldg., 523 E. Capitol,

Pierre, SD Phone: (605) 773-3352 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. III. Program Staffing and Budget C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $150,000.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $0.00 Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year: An increase from last year’s estimate due to inflation and increased travel costs. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting




Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? We inspect all high hazard dams and all State-owned dams once every three years. This period we inspected the East dams which had 82 dams to inspect. IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 31. Last year's response was: 30. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? Added an EAP for a High Hazard Dam







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 06/18/2007 State/Agency Name: Tennessee Author: Lyle Bentley Title: Chief, Tennessee Safe Dams Section Address: 6th Floor, L&C Tower, 401 Church Street Phone: (615) 532-0154 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. II. A. Compliance with Basic Criteria found in Public Law 109-460 Please indicate whether, through its own regulations or through that of another State agency, your State Dam Safety Program meets the following criteria authorized by State legislation:

D. 1. The authority to require or perform the inspection, at least once every five years, of all Dams and reservoirs that would pose a significant threat to human life and property in case of failure to determine the continued safety of the Dams and reservoirs. This year's response was: Yes. Last year's was: No. Please clarify (within this document) why this authority has changed. I have wondered before whether this question meant all dams in a state or all dams that are regulated. I have now interpreted the question to refer to jurisdictional dams, i.e., dams that a given state regulates. This would be consistent with the phrase “meets the following criteria authorized by State legislation” in the directions and with how I answered the other items. Has this question come up before? If so, how was it resolved?


III. Program Staffing and Budget C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $352,822.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $339,278.00 Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year.

Salaries and some costs increased. IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams


High 149 148 Significant 209 205 Low 298 293 Total 656 646 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? A couple of new dams were built, a few previously exempt dams fell under regulation, and other dams were found and added to the inventory. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 148 152 Significant 109 109 Low 107 113 Total 364 374 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? The slight decline in the number of inspections was mainly due to a decrease in the number of re-inspections. Re-inspections occur when a dam is found in violation and then brought into compliance. Most violations are due to dams not being mowed or cleared


properly for the inspection. Our regular inspection program is making people maintain their dams better so that fewer dams are found in violation for not being mowed. This results in fewer violations and fewer corresponding re-inspections. IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 147. Last year's response was: 148. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? We added a high hazard dam to the inventory and the owner submitted an EAP. B. How may State regulated Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 6. Last year's response was: 5. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? A high hazard dam that had submitted an EAP was reclassified to significant hazard.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/13/2007 State/Agency Name: Utah Author: David K. Marble, Title: Asst State Engineer - Dam Safety Address: 1594 W North Temple, Ste 220, Salt Lake City

UT 84116 Phone: 801-538-7376 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. III. Program Staffing and Budget C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $666,200.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $657,900.00 Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year:

Salary Increases. IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams




Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? A Combination of new dam construction, dams upgraded/downgraded to different hazard, and dam removals. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 161 156 Significant 90 90 Low 54 36 Total 305 282 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? Low hazard inspections occur every 5 years and are not evenly distributed for equal inspections every year. Also, inventory is larger. IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 187. Last year's response was: 182.

Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? New dams built and increased compliance from existing dams. B. How may State regulated Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 51. Last year's response was: 50. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? Increased compliance from existing dams. EAP’s are not required for Significant Hazard dams in Utah.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/02/2007 State/Agency Name: Vermont Author: Robert B. Finucane, P.E. Title: Chief, Dam Safety & Hydrology Section Address: 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, VT 05671-0511 Phone: 802.241.3454 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. II. A. Compliance with Basic Criteria found in Public Law 109-460 Please indicate whether, through its own regulations or through that of another State agency, your State Dam Safety Program meets the following criteria authorized by State legislation: H. Provisions for necessary funding: 1. To ensure timely repairs or other changes to, or removal of, a Dam in order to protect human life and property. This year's response was: Yes. Last year's was: No. Please clarify (within this document) why this authority has changed. The Vermont Law was modified to include:

§ 1106. Unsafe dam revolving loan fund

(a) There is hereby established a special fund to be known as the Vermont unsafe dam revolving loan fund which shall be used to provide grants and loans to municipalities, nonprofit entities, and private individuals, pursuant to rules proposed by the agency of natural resources and enacted by the general assembly, for the reconstruction, repair, removal, breaching, draining, or other action necessary to reduce the threat of a dam or portion of a dam determined to be unsafe pursuant to section 1095 of this chapter.


(b) The fund created by this section shall be established and held separate and apart from any other funds or moneys of state and shall be used and administered exclusively for the purposes set forth in this section. The funds shall be invested in the same manner as permitted for investment of funds belonging to the state or held in the treasury. The fund shall consist of the following:

(1) Such sums as may be appropriated or transferred thereto from time to time by the general assembly, the emergency board, or the joint fiscal committee during such times as the general assembly is not in session.

(2) Principal and interest received from the repayment of loans made from the fund.

(3) Capitalization grants and awards made to the state by the United States of America for the purposes for which the fund has been established.

(4) Interest earned from the investment of fund balances.

(5) Private gifts, bequests, and donations made to the state for the purposes for which the fund has been established.

(6) Other funds from any public or private source intended for use for any of the purposes for which the fund has been established.

(c) The secretary may bring an action under this subsection or other available state and federal laws against the owner of the dam to seek reimbursement to the fund for all loans made from the fund pursuant to this section.

2. If the owner of the Dam does not take action described above, to take action as expeditiously as practicable. This year's response was: Yes. Last year's was: No. Please clarify (within this document) why this authority has changed: Same as above. J. An identification of: 2. The maximum area that could be flooded if the Dam failed. This year's response was: No. Last year's was: Yes. Please clarify (within this document) why this authority has changed:

Misinterpreted question. Answer should still be no. 3. Necessary public facilities that would be affected by the flooding. This year's response was: No. Last year's was: Yes. Please clarify (within this document) why this authority has changed:

Misinterpreted question. Answer should still be no.


III. Program Staffing and Budget C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $300,000.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $299,000.00 Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year: Substantially unchanged. Inflation increase partially offset by change in way FTEs are calculated. IV. Number of Dams/Changes in Dam Inventory A. List the number of dams in your State's jurisdiction that are regulated by your State regardless of whether they are included in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Hazard Potential Total State Regulated Dams


High 57 57 Significant 137 133 Low 374 377 Total 568 567 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? Dams constructed. Dams removed. Change in classification due to downstream development. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 38 34 Significant 48 28 Low 49 39 Total 135 101 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? Increased program priority for dam inspections. Improved scheduling system.







January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 I. Point of Contact Information Date of Report Completion: 07/15/2007 State/Agency Name: Wisconsin Author: Meg Galloway Title: Chief of Dams and Floodplain Section Address: 101 S Webster, Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-

7921 Phone: 608-266-7014 e-mail: [email protected] This report highlights differences between the responses provided this year and those which were provided last year. Differences are highlighted in Red. You can provide additional information/ clarification on these differences by typing directly into the Word document and then sending this modified document to [email protected]. III. Program Staffing and Budget C. Indicate below your State's current dam safety program budget for your budget cycle. Do not include National Dam Safety Program (FEMA-administered) grants. Current Total Budget: $537,500.00 Last Year's Total Budget: $518,750.00 Please clarify (within this document) why the budgetary numbers changed from last year: We do not have a separate budget for dam safety so we estimate based on staff salaries and expense lines. Staff had not received raises for several years because of collective bargaining issues. Last year they finally received raises that covered over 3.5 years so the salary line has jumped. The budget increase reflects this.




High 211 214 Significant 188 190 Low 3350 3167 Total 3749 3571 Please clarify (within this document) why the total number of State regulated dams changed from last year to this year. Was it due to new dam construction, dam removals, newly identified dams being added to the inventory, or was it a result of changes in the jurisdictional definition of a dam? Without going through dam by dam it is hard to identify the exact reason for the increase. A small portion is due to new dams most below NID size. Most of the rest is due to improvements in the data going into the database. VI. Dam Inspections A. Provide the number of dam safety inspections of State regulated dams during this reporting period. Hazard Potential # Inspections this reporting


High 11 8 Significant 7 9 Low 27 28 Total 45 45 Please clarify (within this document) why the number of inspections changed from last year. If more inspections were performed, is it because the inventory is getting larger, or was it due to an increase in available resources, etc.? If fewer inspections are being performed, is it because fewer resources are available for inspection, did retirements affect the number of inspections, or was there some event which drained resources available for inspections, etc.? Our inspection numbers vary on an annual basis because inspection staff at responsible for a number of different programs. In this case the total number if inspections stayed the same. IX. Emergency Action Planning and Response A. How many State regulated High Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 104. Last year's response was: 92. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? We were able to get several more dam owners to complete their EAPs and submit them for approval. We will continue to push owners to complete the EAPs.


B. How may State regulated Significant Hazard Potential dams have an existing (not necessarily current) EAP? This year's response was: 22. Last year's response was: 17. Please elaborate (within this document) on why the number of EAP's changed from last year, if it increased, what motivated the increase? If it declined, why the drop? We were able to get several more dam owners to complete their EAPs and submit them for approval. We will continue to push owners to complete the EAPs.