Many dam decisions in New England have become contentious, with community opposition often stalling or delaying projects, especially when local values and attachments to the landscape are overlooked by outside agencies. Traditional public engagement methods, like town hall meetings, can be dominated by a few strong voices and may not foster genuine dialogue or include the full range of community perspectives. While decision support tools exist, they often focus on scientific or technical priorities and fail to capture the social and cultural values that matter to residents, such as history, sense of place, and aesthetics.

To address these challenges, the Dam Atlas approach blends structured decision-making with design charrettes, creating a process that respects local values, uses neutral facilitators, and encourages participants to move beyond fixed positions to underlying interests. By exploring a range of creative alternatives—not just “keep or remove”—and making information accessible and visual, the process helps communities understand trade-offs and make transparent, informed choices. This method aims to foster learning, build trust, and ensure that both scientific and social objectives are openly discussed and weighed in dam decisions.

The recommended process is as follows:

1. Problem Framing

This first step defines the context and scope of the dam decision. It involves clarifying what decision needs to be made, who will be involved, and what the timeline and boundaries are. The goal is to ensure everyone understands the challenge and what’s at stake before moving forward.

2. Determining Objectives
Here, the group identifies what matters most—ecological health, public safety, recreation, cultural heritage, or other priorities. These objectives guide the evaluation of different options and help make sure the process reflects the values and interests of the community.

3. Identifying Alternatives
The team brainstorms and researches a range of possible actions, from removing the dam to repairing it, or implementing creative solutions like fishways or bypass channels. This step encourages thinking beyond a simple “keep or remove” binary, opening up space for innovative ideas.

4. Estimating Consequences
Each alternative is analyzed for its likely impacts—ecological, social, economic, and safety-related. This might involve technical studies, visualizations, or expert input to help everyone understand the trade-offs and potential outcomes of each scenario.

5. Evaluating Trade-Offs
The group compares the alternatives using a decision matrix or similar tool, weighing how well each option meets the objectives. This step makes the pros and cons visible, supporting transparent, informed discussion and helping the group see where compromises might be possible.

6. Deciding and Taking Action
Finally, the group selects a preferred path forward and plans for implementation. This includes documenting the process, securing permits, and setting up long-term stewardship to ensure the river and community continue to benefit from the decision.
Here, the group identifies what matters most—ecological health, public safety, recreation, cultural heritage, or other priorities. These objectives guide the evaluation of different options and help make sure the process reflects the values and interests of the community.

One of the first steps in any decision making process is to determine how to frame or structure the problem, the decision context, and the scope of the work. This initial stage will likely take place with the project team and the steering committee during one of the initial project meetings.

Below are some questions that may be helpful to clarify early on:

• What is the decision to be made?
• Does it make sense to look at a single dam, a segment of the river, or a whole river approach?
• What is the potential relationship of this decision to other decisions?
• Who will make the final decision? Is it a single individual or a group?
• When and how will the decision makers be engaged in the process?
• How will public input be factored into the final decision?
• What is the timeline within which the decision needs to be made
• What deliverable will be needed from the decision process?

The PDF below includes 4 activities that help guide the Problem Framing process.