11/15/2013

i

Dams:

(A plea for dam removal. I’m not convinced because the salmon are land-locked! If the dam is unsafe, that’s another issue.)Dam-Locked Salmondenpubs.com, 11/1/13

To the Editor:The Boquet River, NY should be an epic fishery and an emblem of nature’s resilience. Instead, it is stuck within a series of management decisions that are misinformed, inefficient and entrenched. I grew up dreaming that I was one of the pioneering explorers in this region, either Hudson or Champlain, arriving at the mouth of a tributary and seeing large trout and salmon. Historical records paint a picture of salmon providing balance to entire ecosystems, including the humans who relied on their meat for sustenance. That dream has an unprecedented opportunity to be real again in the Boquet watershed, and surprisingly little stands in the way of the ancestral migration of these great fish. The Department of Environmental Conservation has already done a great deal to eliminate the primary threats to landlocked salmon in Lake Champlain. By pursuing modest harvest regulations and striving to reduce the impact of lamprey, DEC has already reversed a great deal of damaging historical patterns. Conservation organizations like BRASS are also playing a large part in restoring habitat. And while pollution is still a major threat, industrial uses of

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu

Some Dam – Hydro News TM

And Other Stuff

1

Quote of Note: “Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel.” - John Quinton

Some Dam - Hydro News Newsletter Archive for Back Issues and Search http://npdp.stanford.edu/Click on Link (Some Dam - Hydro News) Bottom Right - Under Perspectives

“Good wine is a necessity of life.” - -Thomas JeffersonRon’s wine pick of the week: San Lorenzo Montelpulciano D’Bruzzo Italy 2009“ No nation was ever drunk when wine was cheap. ” - - Thomas Jefferson

the river have been all but halted. The salmons’ main threat today, as it was at the turn of the century, is manmade. The dam at Willsboro creates a serious barrier to salmon, both physically and existentially. The Willsboro Dam presents several problems for Champlain salmon.

First, and most obviously, the fish ladder designed to accommodate spawning fish is unnatural for salmon and leaves many in the pools below—all dressed up and nowhere to spawn. It’s a great idea in theory, less so in practice. This year, the water is particularly low so the fish ladder isn’t even holding enough water for fish to use it. Second, the dam creates about ¼ mile of dead water above the dam which is neither cold nor oxygenated. Salmon need both of these conditions to prevent fatigue in their early stages of migration. Finally, the dam is a liability for downstream users because of its age and construction. If the dam blows, it will probably take someone with it. Ultimately the dam creates a situation where very few, if any, salmon are able to travel upstream and spawn naturally. As a result, the state continually stocks the fishery to maintain the illusion that the river is healthy and can support recreational fishing. Last year alone, the State released 168,117 landlocked salmon into Lake Champlain and its tributaries. The same pattern of stocking has been occurring semi-regularly since 1975. I realize that the removal of the Willsboro dam is not a cheap proposition; however the continual stocking of salmon without any natural reproduction puts a serious burden on taxpayers just the same. Removing the dam would allow the Boquet River to incubate salmon instead of the State contracting that same service out to fish hatcheries. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Boquet River “management” is that it convinces sportsman like me that the fishery is healthy. We can go fishing and (if very lucky) catch a salmon. Catching salmon gives us the false perception that all is well and we needn’t enter the conservation fight. This is a missed opportunity for fisherman who would otherwise become champions for the dam-removal cause. I hope that the dam in Willsboro, however scenic, will soon become a relic of the past. I also hope that truly wild salmon will once again inhabit the Boquet, and perhaps my children will fish here one day and experience a taste of what Sameul de Champlain saw upon arriving in present-day Essex County.Dillon Klepetar

(More on the leaking 100 year-old dam)Inspectors test Newport DamBy Scott Hammers / The Bulletin, November 01. 2013, bendbulletin.com

Engineers from PacifiCorp and the Oregon Water Resources Department began their inspection of the Newport Avenue Dam early Thursday, crawling along the face of the more than 100-year-old dam to search for signs of structural weakness. The inspection comes nearly a month after the discovery of a leak in the dam that quickly dropped water level to about two feet below normal. Dam owner PacifiCorp scheduled the inspection to search for the source of the leak and to determine if other parts of the dam could be on the brink of failure. The OWRD, which regulates dam safety and oversees the distribution of irrigation water in Oregon, elected to conduct its own inspection outside of its normal inspection schedule due to the unique low water levels. Inspectors spent most of the day Thursday on the downstream side of the dam, wading in the water and using ladders to closely examine the structure. Bob Gravely, spokesman for PacifiCorp, said inspectors were using hammers and drills to look for rot and assess the strength of the wooden “cribs" that hold tons of rock and rubble in place. In anticipation of the inspection, PacifiCorp opened the sluice gates on the dam Monday to lower water levels even further. Gravely said Thursday that the water had come down approximately 7 feet from its normal elevation at the face of the dam. The combination of the leak and reduced river flows brought about by the end of irrigation season has lowered water levels to a lesser degree farther upstream, creating exposed mudflats throughout Drake Park and above the Galveston Avenue Bridge.

Water levels should begin returning to about two feet below normal beginning today. Before closing the gates to refill the pond, PacifiCorp will be installing surveying equipment that will use lasers to determine if the dam shifts when water begins accumulating on the upstream side, Gravely said. “Any sign of instability would be picked up by these, something you couldn't see with the naked eye," he said. PacifiCorp will not be revealing its findings from Thursday's

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu2

inspection immediately, however. Gravely said the latest leak is only a small part of the equation. While the leak appears fixable, it's the condition of the rest of the dam that will determine whether repairs are worthwhile, Gravely said. The dam's hydro generators create only enough power for 200 to 300 households, and a long list of repairs could render it unprofitable.“It's not fixing the leak that's the big decision; it's the bigger question," he said. “We want to have a better sense of the bigger question before we know what we're going to do."Gravely said he'd mistakenly given the impression that past repairs to leaks in the dam were simpler than was actually the case. In 2008 and 2009, PacifiCorp repaired three damaged sections of the dam using the heavy corrugated metal seen on the upstream side. Gravely said before he'd believed the metal panels were simply bolted to the face of the dam. In fact, the repairs used 40- to 50-foot-long sections of metal that were driven into the ground so that only 15 to 20 feet remained above the bottom of the pond. Gravely said he was not at liberty to disclose estimates of the cost of repairing all or part of the dam. PacifiCorp officials will be weighing those costs against the dam's power generation capacity, the expense of removing the dam, and the price the dam could draw if it was sold. “I think this inspection will probably tell us what we need to know," he said.

(Travel guide)Morrow Point Dam worth a detourchieftain.com, November 3, 2013

Cimarron, NM — My husband Steve and I have a plan: Check out the historic railroad exhibit at the town site of Cimarron 20 miles east of Montrose. But at the exhibit entrance, we spot a winding road leading into rugged, secluded Cimarron Canyon, and decide that a detour is in order. Our first stop is a truss bridge built by the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad, which chugged into Montrose in 1882. This bridge section represents the last remaining railroad trestle on a route that once passed through the upper Black Canyon into Cimarron. At a nearby overlook, we trace the confluence of the Cimarron and Gunnison rivers, watch people trout-fishing and get our first glimpse of an enormous concrete wall that forms the Morrow Point Dam. Completed in 1968 as part of the Aspinall Unit, a water-storage unit of the Colorado River Storage Project, Morrow Point Dam stands 468 feet high and is composed of 365,180 cubic yards of concrete. That’s what it takes to contain Morrow Point Reservoir at its full capacity of 117,190 acre-feet of water. A path nearly level with the dam’s base provides a scenic, self-guided walking tour of the project, which includes four 350-foot-high spillways that I’m glad aren’t in use during our visit. Gazing up, I can’t help thinking about what would happen if this concrete began to crumble. And it’s hardly comforting when Steve confesses to having the same thought. But we keep walking for a better look at several large metal tubes protruding from both sides of the canyon. These are theodolites, instruments that measure the horizontal and vertical angles of fixed reference points on the dam and in the canyon to detect the dam’s most minute stresses and movements. That’s a relief. — Lynda La Rocca

(Here’s an idea out of the past – public power!)Energy: Government could buy dams

The Missoulian editorial board is solidly behind NorthWestern Energy’s decision to buy 11 hydroelectric dams in Montana from PPL (“NorthWestern’s plans to buy dams just makes sense,” Missoulian, Oct. 27). Isn’t one monopoly just replacing another? NorthWestern already owns transmission lines, so when it owns the dams as well, where’s the incentive to really look out for the consumer? Private monopolies are for-profit, for shareholders.

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu3

If it ever comes up again, how about the state take a page from Mayor John Engen’s playbook, and bid on the dams? There goes the profit motive. The state could provide cheap power for Montana citizens, and sell the surplus on the open market, then watch the cash flow into government coffers. There would be upkeep, yes, but without paying out profits we could repair roads and bridges, fix buildings, provide for schools, and all without raising taxes. A government monopoly, yes. But before all you paranoid right-wingers jump down my throat for wanting the government involved, may I remind you that we are the government, you and me. Let’s own our power for us, how about.

And, no, my rose-colored glasses are off. The city of Redding, Calif., has owned its municipal water supply for years, and every time there are brown-outs down south, operators crank up the extra generators and watch all that money go into the city’s bank account (www.reddingutilities.com). And by the way, what about Kerr Dam? Isn’t it supposed to be turned over to the tribes one of these days soon? It seems like that complicates things.Mariss McTucker, Dixon

New TID Dam Safety Effort Off to Good Start urlockcitynews.com, 02 November 2013 22:44, Written by Alex Cantatore

The Turlock Irrigation District is running one dam safe operation, thanks to new Chief Dam Safety Engineer Peggy Harding. Harding's hiring has its roots in a May 3, 2012 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decision which required dam owners to develop a safety program. The lack of such a program had contributed to some incidents in the past, FERC said. TID filed a safety plan for Don Pedro Dam with FERC on Nov. 1, 2012. And on March 19, the district signed a resolution reaffirming its commitment to safety – and hired Harding, who has 30 years of experience in dam safety. Harding started with TID in June, and led FERC officials on an inspection of Don Pedro Dam on the very same day. “My job is to consolidate all dam and dam-related functions under one position,” explained Harding.

(Since when do facts matter when it’s dam removal?)Consider facts before removing Mirror Pond damBy Allan Bruckner, November 03. 2013, bendbulletin.com

As our community faces the decision on what to do regarding Mirror Pond, there appears to be many misconceptions, and deceptive statements, regarding removing Pacific Power’s dam at Newport Avenue. Most serve to minimize the impact of the dam’s removal and ignore many likely negative consequences. Consider:

1. Removing the dam will not return the Deschutes River to a wild natural river as promoted. There is a dam just above it at Colorado Avenue. There is also a dam just a few hundred feet downstream and another at the north end of Division Street which forms another large pond. With these three dams, (plus Wickiup and Crane Prairie several miles upstream) the Deschutes will never be a free flowing river in Bend.

2. The Colorado Street dam also impounds water, but rather than encouraging its removal, the Bend Park & Recreation District is remodeling it to provide more recreation opportunities appropriate for the urban setting. Both dams create major recreation areas for citizens.

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu4

3. The aerial views of the four alternatives presented by the consultant remain nearly constant. Critics contend this is creative conjecture and reflects the prejudice of the consultant for removal of the dam. A river with cattails and native vegetation would be vastly different than the existing or a dredged Mirror Pond. The recent lowering of the river provided a vastly different view from the consultant’s conjecture.

4. Converting the existing pond into a wetland would attract mosquitoes, and other unwelcome varmints, as portions of the river upstream do.

5. Topographic maps reveal that removal of the dam would likely result in lowering the river 12-15 feet. (The consultant says it would lower the river 5-8 feet). This would make the river essentially invisible to everybody at ground level, like the Farewell Bend Park upstream. People would be denied the vastly popular water interaction available today. We would just have another non-water park.

6. The obvious downstream impacts of dam removal have not been addressed, such as what happens to all the silt and disturbed land. This could be immediately devastating to the dam that diverts water for irrigation companies. Long term, silt could devastate their operation. The consultant’s cost estimates fail to include either the dam removal or downstream impacts.

7. If the dam were to be removed now, all the expenses of removal and mitigation would fall on taxpayers. If eventually Pacific Power decided to remove the dam, they would have to pay. If the dam were removed now, Pacific Power might also insist upon the public paying for moving the adjoining substation.

8. It has been hinted that due to age the dam should be removed. It has not been subjected to unstable acts, i.e., major sudden floods, nor is it in an unstable landslide area or earthquake zone. Much larger dams in Europe are still functioning after 1,000 years.

9. At the time of the 1984 dredging, the project engineer predicted that dredging would be needed in 20 years. It has been 30. Improvements in upstream management such as eliminating most power boats, building controls along the stream and eliminating logs in the river likely contributed to these gains. Continued improvements in water management might further increase the time span.

10. The questionnaire and various statements imply that water quality is an issue because of the dam and pond. But sampling of water upstream, and at Mirror Pond, yielded data that rates excellent in the Oregon Water Quality index. Clearly all the impacts and costs of removing the dam have not been reasonably assessed. Obviously dredging the existing pond would be far cheaper, as well as retaining the greatest icon of Bend. — Allan Bruckner lives in Bend, OR.

(What can you say about Fort Peck that hasn’t been written many times already!)Fort Peck Dam damage from 2011 being repairedNovember 04, 2013 6:00 am • Brett French | Lee News Service, bismarcktribune.com

More than two years after high water strained the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dam system along the Missouri River, work continues to make repairs to the structures.This year, repairs are being made on Fort Peck Dam’s gates, the spillway slab, plunge pool, recreation area roads and drains, the spillway access road and drains and rehabilitation of eight emergency gate controls. The four projects cost about $43.5 million. That’s only a fraction of the $234 million the corps is spending on more than 100 repair projects along the Missouri River from Fort

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu5

View looking downstream of coffer dam built to allow dewatering of plunge pool below the spillway for dewatering and repairs.

Peck downstream. The $43.5 million also is substantially less than the $225 million that was originally requested for repairs to Fort Peck Dam, which would have included strengthening the spillway to handle flows up to 265,000 cubic feet per second. During the 2011 high water event, the dam’s peak outflow through the spillway was 66,000 cfs. Instead, the corps hired ASI Constructors Inc. of West Pueblo, Colo., to repair the plunge pool at the base of the spillway at a cost of $34.4 million. That project is not expected to be completed until 2015. The next most expensive repair is the $6.6 million being spent on the spillway gates. That work is expected to be finished next year. The contract was awarded to J.F. Brennan Co. Inc., a marine construction company from La Crosse, Wis.

“There will still be a lot of work going on with those two jobs,” said John Daggett, Fort Peck project manager. The two easiest and least-expensive projects at Fort Peck were completed last year. They included a contract to install 17 relief well outfall pipes that alleviate pressure on the downstream toe of the dam, which was awarded to Prudent Technologies Inc. for $122,748; under-seepage control was a $6,900 project completed by Lakeside Excavation.Fort Peck Dam was completed in 1940 after seven years of construction. It is the largest hydraulically filled dam in the United States. The structure received its most intensive test on June 15, 2011, when the reservoir reached a record elevation of 2,252.3 feet above sea level.Flooding during the unusually wet spring of 2011 caused more than $2 billion in damage and five fatalities along the Missouri River and prompted the Federal Emergency Management Administration to issue disaster declarations in each Missouri River state.

(More Missouri River dam repairs.)Garrison Dam getting repairsMore than two years after the floods of 2011, repairs are continuing up and down the Missouri River on dams, bank stabilization projects and infrastructure. By: Brian Gerhring, Bismarck Tribune / MCT, 11/6/13, grandforksherald.com

More than two years after the floods of 2011, repairs are continuing up and down the Missouri River on dams, bank stabilization projects and infrastructure. All told, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has estimated that repair costs to more than 100 projects will be $234 million.According to the corps, eight contracts were awarded last year to repair damage at the Garrison Dam project. The Pipestem Dam and reservoir near Jamestown are a part of the Garrison project and the responsibility of Todd Lindquist, Garrison project lead. Work at the Pipestem Dam -- at $610,033, the least expensive project on the list -- has been completed. When the Garrison project work is finished early in 2016, the total cost will run more than $53 million. Lindquist said on the upper end of the project at Williston, work on nine miles of levee that protect the city has been completed, but repairs to 150 relief wells beneath the levee are continuing. Lindquist said the relief wells take pressure off the levee when water levels rise, and the work on the levee itself was to repair erosion. That part of the project is scheduled for completion in March at a cost of about $20.7 million.

On the Garrison Dam, Lindquist said, projects include repairs of 28 gates on the spillway and three flood tunnels, or regulating gates. The three flood tunnels release water through the wing walls at the powerhouse on the downstream side of the dam. Those repairs are expected to be completed in August at a cost of $1.64 million. Repairing the 28 gates on the spillway, which were opened for the first time during the floods of 2011, is the most costly project on the list at an estimated $18.2 million. Lindquist said the needed repairs to the spillway gates, which measure 40 feet by 25 feet, were a result of record releases that peaked at 150,600 cubic feet per second in mid-June 2011 and problems identified during post-flood inspections. "It was a combination of

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu6

having to use them during the flood and finding other issues afterwards," Lindquist said. Repairs to the spillway gates are expected to continue until March 2016. Similarly, Lindquist said, problems were discovered on the spillway slab below the gates during inspections. He said a contractor is on site making needed repairs. Some areas of the concrete are being replaced. The estimated cost for repairs to the spillway is slightly more than $6 million and is expected to finish this year. The west Tailrace road, a popular area for anglers and birders to get down to the water, has been closed since spring. Heavy truck traffic, while other repairs were being done, pounded the road. "We'd planned to have that work done this fall, so we could open the area and provide access to the wing walls through the winter," Lindquist said. Weather delays are going to prevent completion of the project this year, he said. "We are not going to be able to open the area as planned ... it would not be safe for the recreating public," Lindquist said. The road work is expected to cost about $2.2 million. Other work is being done on the slopes above the west Tailrace road and between the powerhouse and the dam. The slopes contain drains that help take the pressure off the slopes during high pool periods. Work being done at the substation just to the east of the Tailrace is not related to the flooding. Lindquist said it is part of a planned upgrade that started 10 years ago when the turbines in the powerhouse were targeted for replacement.

(Another dam removal saga! This came about after a tragic incident. Apparently, no one tried to fix the hydraulic jump. You can’t do it with just rock and is a fish more important than a human life?)Safety trumps scenic view regarding the Pigg River dam thefranklinnewspost.com, November 6, 2013

It's been years on the making, but the destruction of the low-head dam on the Pigg River, NC at the Franklin County Veterans' Memorial Park will begin soon. Not everyone agrees with the action, but the primary reason is safety and, according to state and federal officials, removal is the only viable option. After Veterans' Day, work will begin to remove the dam, which was once used as part of Rocky Mount's water plant, and the project will be financed mostly by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The town started using the low-head dam on the Blackwater River in 1981 and the Pigg River dam was left intact. For many years, of course, not much was said about the dam, as visitors to the memorial park often stood above the steep slope to enjoy the view. Fishermen can often be seen around and on the dam. But the tranquility changed drastically in 2009 when two local residents drowned in the hydraulic created by the Blackwater River low-head dam. Those deaths occurred within about six weeks of each other as canoeists went over the dam, fell from their boat and perished.

A hydraulic is created at these types of dams when, over time, the force of the water creates a "hole" and the water churns in the hole, with the potential of trapping anyone who may fall in. Life jackets are basically ineffective because of the power of the churning water. After those deaths, the town and county filled in the holes in front of the Blackwater River dam, installed warning signs and safety equipment, and put in take-out and entry points. Attention was then focused on the Pigg River dam, which also has a hydraulic that is potentially dangerous. That danger is exacerbated by the steep hill leading up to the memorial park, as well as a concrete platform on the dam used by many as a place to stand and fish. The large hydraulic is directly below that platform. Some wanted similar safety measures that were installed at the Blackwater River dam, leaving the Pigg River dam intact primarily because of its scenic beauty. But the famous, or infamous, Roanoke logperch fish, which are on the endangered species list, snagged those plans.

The problem, according to town officials, is that rocks cannot be stacked in front of the dam to neutralize the hydraulic because it could have a detrimental effect on the fish. The only permissible option left was the removal of the dam. Of course, any project that involves altering in any way the flow of a river must go through a myriad of permitting processes. With all of those permits now in place, work can proceed. Fortunately, all parties involved agreed to wait until after this year's Veterans' Day program at the memorial park to start the project. Work should be finished before Christmas. We understand the reluctance by many to support the project. They wanted to save the dam, which does provide a special view as well as a piece of history.

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu7

However, the danger was not going to go away, and no one wants to endanger a life, especially youngsters, who can be seen playing or fishing around the dam. We urge everyone to visit the area before Veterans' Day, enjoying the last opportunity to view the dam. Also keep in mind the silver linings -- the river will still be beautiful and be more conducive to recreational use, such as boating.

(To fix or not to fix - that is the question!)Ballville Dam's future still uncertainU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study taking longer than expected, mayor saysthenews-messenger.com, Nov. 7, 2013, Written by Daniel Carson Staff writer

Fremont, Ohio — The Ballville Dam’s final Environmental Impact Statement will not be done until at least April or May, Mayor Jim Ellis said Tuesday, with a decision by Fremont City Council on the dam’s future coming after that record of decision is released. Ellis said it was taking longer than anticipated to get the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service EIS completed, although the mayor didn’t know what specifically had delayed the process. If the EIS is released in the spring, it could be mid-June or later before city council members make a decision on the dam’s future, Ellis said.Ellis planned to discuss the EIS delay with city council members at tonight’s meeting.Fremont City Council President Jim Weaver said he had not heard about the delay until Wednesday. He said he would assume that once the final EIS is released, there will be additional public meetings and hearings with council before members decide on whether to remove or replace the dam. “So that’s going to push it back a couple of months,” Weaver said.Ellis also said engineering firm Mannik and Smith should have its report on the estimated cost and extent of dam repairs needed by Nov. 22. “From what I understand, the repairs are going to be different than what Arcadis had in their reports,” Ellis said.

Arcadis issued an investigation report in 2005 in response to a 2003 inspection of the dam by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ Dam Safety Engineering Program. That ODNR report listed the agency’s primary dam concerns as its ability to withstand a design flood and deterioration of its concrete structures. In its 2005 report, Arcadis estimated it would cost between $1.8 and $2.8 million to stabilize the dam’s seawall. Ellis said the city council may ultimately have three different options to choose from in regards to the dam: remove the structure, keep and repair it based on the 2005 Arcadis report or make more extensive, long-term repairs to the dam.The mayor noted the dam became a major issue in most of the contested city council races decided Tuesday. He said he was keeping an open mind on what should be done with the 100-year-old structure. “It’s just too early to tell what the best way to go is,” Ellis said.

(Wow, a dam advocate!)Editorial: Tulsa still needs dams in the Arkansas River Dams still needed in the rivertulsaworld.com, November 8, 2013

Editorial: Tulsa still needs dams in the Arkansas River By World's Editorials WritersCharles Hardt served the city of Tulsa for 21 years as public works director. He knows what makes this city run as well as anyone. However, his comments about holding water in the Arkansas River are puzzling. Hardt said he fears that further development along and in the river could aggravate flooding in the area in the event of a major storm upstream. He says it is not a

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu8

question of if but when the river will flood again. Hardt believes that further development could act as a "plug" that would impede water from performing its natural function of moving downstream.That, in fact, has been a concern since the first low-water dam was built near 31st Street and Riverside Drive. If possible flooding were a danger, the Corps of Engineers, which controls the dam at Keystone Lake, would have stopped construction of the low-water dam. Furthermore, the city's policy on dam construction and development states clearly that any structure along the river cannot increase runoff onto its property.

Hardt supports A Gathering Place, which will transform the area into a huge new park. In fact, he says it will not impede the flow of water. So we are a little confused about just what sort of development he is addressing. It is highly unlikely that commercial businesses would be allowed to dot the riverbanks. If he is referring to the planned expansion of the River Creek Casino at 81st Street and Riverside, that is an issue of sovereign Indian land, over which the city would have little, if any, control. Many experts believe that well-planned and environmentally safe development can take place along the river without endangering citizens and businesses in the area. Putting water in the river is an important part of Tulsa's future. We respect Hardt's opinions in this matter but disagree. Tulsa needs to move forward with its plans for the river, and we trust that environmental and safety concerns will be addressed.

(Guess 13 years is enough!)Clock is ticking on Great Dam decisionBy Jeff McMenemy, seacoastonline.com, November 08, 2013

Exeter, NH — Thirteen years after the town received a letter of deficiency from the state about Great Dam, a committee charged with looking at options about how to deal with the situation presented its final report to selectmen this week. Jim Weber, a representative of the state Department of Environmental Services' Dam Bureau, told selectmen the time is nearing for town officials and residents to make a decision about how to address the dam's failure to be able to handle the water flow from a 50-year storm event. "This process started 13 years ago with the letter of deficiency," Weber told selectmen during their meeting Monday night in Town Offices, while noting he understands the town has other projects to deal with, including its new wastewater treatment plant. "But this has been 13 years... once a decision is made this problem still has multiple years (before it's complete)."

Great Dam is located on the Exeter River in the heart of the town's historic downtown.He said the "safety aspects," caused by the dam's inability to deal with a 50-year flood are still out there. "We've had to sandbag several times in the past 10 years ... this is a real issue, It's an issue that's been experienced," Weber said. "At some point, sandbagging may not be enough, we don't know, so I think there is some urgency here." Lionel Ingram, chairman of the town's River Study Committee — which presented its report to selectmen — said they too believe it's time to act. "The committee feels just like the other folks here, this thing has to be done fairly quickly, March 2015, from our perspective is the outer limits for some kind of action," he said.But Selectmen Chairman Don Clement stressed several times he thought town officials should continue the deliberate pace of its studies because of the importance of the decisions residents ultimately make. Clement said he believed it was "too early" to put any dam-related articles on the March 2014 town warrant. "This is a major life-changing decision," Clement said. When another resident suggested town officials have enough information to recommend putting something on the 2014 town warrant, Clement disagreed. "We get one shot at this and it's an important decision for the town of Exeter," Clement said. Selectman Frank Ferraro suggested there might be consequences from the state if town officials wait another year before making a decision. "We don't want to incur the wrath of DES," Ferraro said.

But Clement pointed the finger back at DES, saying a former employee suggested town officials look at the possibility of totally removing the dam, which they hadn't been considering before. "It was DES itself that slowed down this entire process," Clement said. Mimi Larsen Becker, an Exeter resident, University of New Hampshire professor and co-chair of the committee's working

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu9

group, outlined the options for dealing with the dam Monday night. Larsen Becker reminded the selectmen that the committee was asked to evaluate and address the safety issues concerning the dam, and not to recommend one alternative over the other. Totally removing the dam would cost $1.2 million, according to Larsen Becker and the committee's final report, but it would address flooding problems, water quality issues and restore the river as much as possible to its original state. She said the estimate does not include what it would cost to retrofit intake valves for the Exeter Mills. Town Manager Russ Dean said Monday the town has been negotiating with lawyers for the mills, but they have not yet reached an agreement or decision and the town's attorney has not issued an opinion on whether the town is responsible for the work. Removing the dam would also mean "a lot less water downstream," in the river and at certain times of the year, that would mean some limits on certain types of recreational usage of the river. But most of the money available for grants to help the town pay for the work are for total removal of the dam, she said. Eric Hutchins, a representative of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, whose agency has paid for a great deal of the studies done on the dam, said a new grant program was announced last week related to dam removal that could pay as much as 75 percent of the cost of the project. "That's about as good as it gets," Hutchins said Monday. Stabilizing the dam in place by inserting "bundles of steel cables," into the dam would cost $1.16 million, but it would not address flooding or water quality issues, Larsen Becker said. Modifying the dam through the use of a flashboard system would address flooding concerns, but not water quality issues. Larsen Becker said the proposed system is "not very pretty," to look at and would cost $2.4 million. Selectman Dan Chartrand, as he did during an earlier presentation of the committee's report, expressed concerns about the economic impact of removing the dam, because it is such an important part of the historic downtown. "I don't think we've really wrestled with that," Chartrand said. Resident Brian Griset agreed with other people who spoke in the packed meeting room that it's time to act on the report. Griset, who supports removing the dam, said town officials and others have been referring to that option inaccurately. "The term is dam removal, but it really should be river restoration," Griset said. He also noted that while the studies have been going on "hundreds of properties have been flooded over the years," waiting for town officials to act. If the town misses its chance to apply for the new grant funding, paying for another option would likely mean paying "full cost with no outside sources" of money to help pay for the project, he said.

Hydro: (Bet they won’t miss the next date!)Maine legislators try to end missed dam deadlinesOctober 31, 2013, By Colin Woodard, Staff Writer, pressherald.comA bill would tighten oversight of the DEP when it comes to dam relicensing to keep the state from losing its say on water levels.

Augusta, Maine — Lawmakers want to impose firmer oversight of the Department of Environmental Protection’s handling of dam relicensing after the state missed deadlines for three projects. DEP dam relicensing effort in disarray, records show House Democrats are advancing a bill that “would require DEP to have a plan to address dam relicensing deadlines and share it with legislative committees of jurisdiction,” said a statement they released Thursday. The measure was unanimously endorsed by the Legislative Council, so it can be introduced in the legislative session that starts in January. Under Commissioner Patricia Aho, the DEP has missed deadlines for three dam projects, irrevocably waiving the state’s authority to set terms for water levels in reservoirs and rivers that affect waterfront property owners, fish spawning and passage, and recreation for a generation. The department came within

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu10

hours of missing a fourth deadline this year. Maine had never before missed one of the critical “water certification” deadlines, on which hinge the state’s powers to dictate terms in what is otherwise a federal relicensing process. “Maine has missed too many critical deadlines,” the bill’s sponsor, Assistant House Majority Leader Jeff McCabe, said in a written statement. “These are serious mistakes that forfeited Maine’s authority to set water levels that impact fish, boating and more.” In an interview, McCabe said the bill would require the DEP to report to the Legislature as dam deadlines approach and also would tighten requirements for public input. He said he will seek out Sen. Tom Saviello of Wilton, the ranking Republican on the committee that has oversight for dams, as a possible co-sponsor. Saviello proposed similar legislation to the Legislative Council. He could not be reached for comment Thursday.

The DEP missed deadlines in November 2011 for the dam at Flagstaff Lake in western Maine, and last March for the Forest City and West Branch Project dams on the St. Croix River in eastern Maine. Public records revealed that in February the department also came within hours of missing the deadline for the Brassua Dam, near Moosehead Lake. The missed deadline at Flagstaff was particularly contentious. It effectively squashed a nearly decade-long effort by residents of the lakeside town of Eustis to stop the dam’s owner, Florida Power & Light, from lowering lake levels to the point where boating, swimming and other recreation became impossible, sometimes replaced by late-summer dust storms. (The Flagstaff and Brassua dams have since been sold to Canada-based Brookfield Power.) At the time, a DEP spokeswoman claimed that the missed deadline was an accident, “something that was lost sight of during the transition of leadership” in the department. But internal documents and the recollections of key staffers subsequently revealed that Commissioner Aho and other key officials had been fully and repeatedly informed about the dam and its deadlines, had met with the dam owner’s attorney, and had even received a last-minute warning of the pending deadline from an assistant attorney general.

Aho’s former colleagues at Pierce Atwood – the Portland law firm where she was a lobbyist until she joined the DEP in 2011 – represented Florida Power & Light in the relicensing process, as well as the owner of the two St. Croix dams, Woodland Pulp LLC. A more recent public records request by the Press Herald, for dam relicensing documents and correspondence over the past year, revealed a department in disarray, with the hydropower coordinator unfamiliar with the deadlines and dams, and often not in possession of the proper files. In a recent interview with the Press Herald, five key DEP managers and staffers who have been involved with the dam relicensing effort ascribed the failures to work overload, staff reductions, inexperience and miscommunication among officials. After the retirement of longtime hydropower coordinator Dana Murch in the summer of 2011, dam relicensing was initially decentralized, with various dams turned over to officials in DEP regional offices and to others staying at headquarters. Mark Bergeron, the DEP’s land resource division director, said that was done because of a reduction in land division permit applications and the associated fees, which helped pay for the support staff.Jim Beyer, who oversaw the St. Croix dams until early January 2012, said workloads in the regional offices became problematic. “I had three wind projects pending,” he said. At headquarters, the land and water bureau also fell behind. Michael Mullen, the bureau’s director at the time, said they found themselves “up against a deadline” for the Flagstaff Dam in November 2011. He said the department made a “last minute” request of Florida Power & Light to take what is usually a routine action to reset the deadline by a year, and that, to the department’s surprise, the company refused. “I have not been aware of anyone refusing to withdraw and refile when asked to,” Mullen said. That’s because the alternative for dam owners is to have their entire application denied. But in this case, the DEP did nothing because, according to Mullen, “we would have had to write a denial order and we weren’t prepared to do that.” “Out of the Flagstaff case we learned that we can’t wait until the hour of the (deadline) unless we have the denial order ready to go,” Bergeron said. Still, department documents show that staff members in the various DEP offices subsequently remained on top of the annual deadlines for the other dams. That is, until late 2012, when the department reversed itself, hired a new hydropower coordinator, Kathy Howatt, and started recentralizing licensing oversight in Augusta. The Brassua dam deadline was nearly missed in February, apparently because of confusion over what the deadline was. On March 20, the department missed the deadlines for both St. Croix-area dams, with officials

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu11

unaware of their mistake for weeks. “We did miss those St. Croix deadlines, and that was just a communications breakdown between Kathy, myself and Jim Beyer, who had been managing them before” from the regional office in Bangor, Bergeron said. “We’ve implemented some internal processes already for the upcoming projects so that we know exactly when they are and other folks are notified, even if the hydropower coordinator is sick or away. We’re on top of it as we speak.” According to DEP records, the next water certification deadline is Feb. 13, for the Brassua dam.

Press release (Excerpts)Nov. 1, 2013, marketwatch.comBrookfield Renewable Acquires 85 MW of Hydroelectric Assets in New England and California

Hamilton, Bermuda, Nov 01, 2013 (Marketwired via COMTEX) -- Brookfield Renewable today announced that it has agreed, in two separate unrelated transactions, to acquire a 70 MW hydroelectric portfolio in Maine, and the remaining 50% interest in its 30 MW Malacha Hydro facility in California. Both transactions will be pursued with Brookfield Renewable's institutional partners. The Maine portfolio being acquired from affiliates of ArcLight Capital Partners, LLC, consists of nine hydroelectric facilities on the Penobscot, Androscoggin and Union rivers, and provides Brookfield Renewable with a strong fit with its existing 270 MW of operating capacity on the same river systems. The facilities have average expected generation of approximately 375,000 megawatt hours annually and approximately 60% of the portfolio's output is currently sold into the New England wholesale power market, with the remainder sold under long-term contract to local utilities until 2024 and 2028. The portfolio benefits from long-term FERC licenses, in most cases expiring after 2029.

Brookfield Renewable and its partners have also agreed to acquire the remaining 50% interest in the 30 MW Malacha Hydro peaking facility on the Pit River in Lassen County, California. Brookfield Renewable acquired its initial operating interest in December 2010. All of Malacha Hydro's output is sold under a fixed-price contract to Pacific Gas and Electric Company until 2028 with a natural gas indexed energy price component starting in 2017. "These hydroelectric facilities are highly complementary to our existing portfolio in North America," said Richard Legault, President and CEO of Brookfield Renewable. "We continue to add high quality assets in this low-price environment, which provide an attractive combination of stable, contracted revenues and strong prospects for long-term cash flow growth. Moreover, we are pleased to continue to invest in Maine and California, both important markets for us. Our knowledge of hydro and our operating expertise in these markets give us confidence in the long-term value creation

potential of this portfolio." ---------.

(Hydro for sale everywhere. Selling amortized hydro projects for market prices means big profits and higher consumer rates! Wow, some of these projects date back to over 180 years.)FirstEnergy hydroelectric stations soldNovember 2, 2013, By John McVey, journal-news.net

Martinsburg, West VA - Subsidiaries of FirstEnergy have applied to sell 11 hydroelectric power plants located in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Virginia, including the Potomac Edison plants at Dam No. 4 and Dam No. 5 on the Potomac River and at Millville on the Shenandoah River."It was purely a business decision - it's just that simple," Stephanie Walton, a spokeswoman for FirstEnergy, said in a recent telephone interview. "The plants amount to only 3 percent of our output." The amount of electricity generated by the 11 plants totals 527 megawatts, according to information provided by FirstEnergy.

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu12

Allegheny Energy's Dam No. 4 on the Potomac River near Scrabble is the last commercial power plant in the nation that uses antiquated rope — driven turbines. The sale price is not available to the public, Walton said. The application to sell the plants was filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Sept. 4, according to a FirstEnergy news release. The sale also must be approved by state utility regulators. FirstEnergy reached a sale agreement Aug. 23 with Harbor Hydro Holdings LLC, which is a

subsidiary of LS Power Equity Partner II LP of New York, N.Y. LS Power did not respond to an inquiry about the sale. LS Power is an employee-owned, independent power company that develops, owns, operates and invests in power generation and electric transmission infrastructure throughout the United States, according to the FirstEnergy news release. "The 35 current employees at these power stations are expected to be retained by the new owner," according to the news release. Dams 5 and 4 were originally built in the 1830s to retain water for the C&O Canal. Hydroelectric power plants were added later to take advantage of the impounded water to run turbines to generate electricity. Dam No. 5, upstream from Williamsport, Md., in Berkeley County, was known as Honeywood Dam, because it was built in 1919 for the Honeywood Paper Mill. The power plant is a two-story brick building. Its capacity is 1.2 megawatts. Dam No. 4 is downstream from Williamsport in Jefferson County. The two-story limestone power plant was built in 1909 by the Martinsburg Power Co. Its capacity is two megawatts. The Dam No. 4 power plant is the last commercial plant to use rope-driven turbines.The Millville Hydro Station has been in operation since 1939. Its capacity is three megawatts.In addition to the three local plants, FirstEnergy is selling three hydroelectric stations on the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania; one on the Cheat River in West Virginia; and four in Virginia on the Shenandoah River. FirstEnergy merged with Allegheny Power, the parent company of Potomac Edison, in 2011. The application to sell the plants still is under review by FERC.

(It’s about there’s a story about building one!)Crow tribe moving ahead with hydroelectric projectThe Associated Press, miamiherald.com, 11.01.13

Billings, Mont. -- Leaders of the Crow Indian Tribe say they are moving forward with a 9-megawatt hydroelectric project on their southeastern Montana reservation. Tribal officials said Friday that construction on the Yellowtail Afterbay Hydroelectric Project could begin in the next year or two. It's expected to be operational by 2017. Electricity will be generated by turbines driven by water passing through a pool beneath the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Yellowtail Dam. Crow Chairman Darrin Old Coyote says the energy project will be the first that is fully developed and owned by the tribe. He says it will provide a steady source of revenue and ensure a long-term electricity supply for tribal members. The Crow Legislature approved funding for the project earlier this week.

(This article title should get the dumbest question first place award! It’s like asking if “Up” is “Down”. The auricle pleads for common sense! Is there any?)Should hydropower be considered renewable? by In the news, November 2. 2013, by Shawn Lindsay, oregoncatalyst.com

Do you think hydropower is a renewable energy source? Are you amazed that Oregon legislators decided in 2007 that hydro was not a qualified renewable energy source under Oregon’s renewable portfolio standards, which force our state’s utilities to meet 25 percent of their demand

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu13

with renewables by 2025? Are you tired of paying higher and higher electric rates to pay for a policy that defies common sense? If so, please go to www.hydropetition.com to download and sign an initiative petition that will change this nonsense policy. Initiative Petition 3, the “Hydro as Renewable Energy” Act is an initiative that would recognize all hydro-electric power as a renewable energy source. Signatures are now being gathered to put this initiative on the November 2014 ballot. Please, make yours one of them. It’s important to do all we can to keep Oregon’s power rates low and to promote sustainable, renewable energy sources. Initiative Petition 3 does this without resorting to public subsidies and tax giveaways. Go to www.hydropetition.com today and sign the petition to put this common sense initiative on the November 2014 ballot.

(The commenter’s assessment- “promising but expensive.” It’s interesting that Portland is putting the units in a pipe that gets its water from a reservoir formed by, what else, a dam! Why does the video keep showing dams and hydroplants?)Hydroelectric Power That Won't Hurt the Environment (click on link below for video)http://www.bloomberg.com/video/hydroelectric-power-that-won-t-hurt-the-environment-h2dkuBJzRn2N2JfuavBixA.html

(Anybody want to give them a helping hand?)Canton Energy Committee Looks At Hydropower Projectcourant.com —Ken Byron 11/4/`3

Canton, Ohio — The town's energy committee meets on Tuesday night and will review the draft of a request for private companies to get involved in a hydropower project using two dams on the Farmington River. The town has been working on the project since 2009 but so far has made little progress. Local officials are looking to get private companies involved in the hope that moves things along. In October, the energy committee met with representatives of Enduring Hydro, a firm that has been involved in hydroelectric projects elsewhere. Tonight's meeting is at 7 p.m. in the community center at 40 Dyer Ave. According to minutes of the energy committee's meeting on Oct. 8, Enduring Hydro representatives gave an overview of what the firm does and also discussed some of the challenges in getting the two dams used for hydropower. Those include the structural integrity of the original powerhouses along with the equipment in them and environmental issues. The intent is to use the dam in Collinsville to generate hydroelectric power and another one downstream in Avon and Burlington may also be part of the project. Both once provided electricity to the former Collins Company's factory in Collinsville.

(Nothing like hydro income to pay the bills, provided the rates are high enough!)Granite Falls awards hydroelectric financingwctrib.com, By Tom Cherveny, 11/7/13

Granite Falls, Minn. — City Council members in Granite Falls awarded $1,890,000 in financing for projects to replace two hydroelectric turbines in the city’s dam and install a new control system. Northland Securities Inc. offered the awarded financing package. The 15-year issue offers a true interest rate of 3.5357 percent, according to City Manager Bill Lavin. The city had previously awarded a $1.3 million bid to Robert L. Carr Company, of Marshall, to install two 250-kilowatt capacity turbines. They will replace two 1930s-vintage turbines and work alongside an existing

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu14

750-kilowatt turbine. The city also recently awarded a $140,519 bid to CG Automation of Springfield, N.J., for a SCADA, or supervisory control and data acquisition system for the municipal utilities system. The city will be able to undertake the hydroelectric project without increasing electric rates, according to Lavin. The city transferred $200,000 in municipal reserve funds to reduce its financing needs for the project. It is also able to commit $67,000 in light fund revenues each year to the debt requirements that in recent years had been earmarked for flood, severance fund, and airport construction funds. In other business, council members approved action that will allow the Granite Falls Hospital and Nursing Home to annex property recently purchased for a new nursing home. The action would annex the Voss property to the Granite Ridge Place property on the city’s east side.

Water: (Not bad considering the magnitude of the storms.)September storms caused $5.4 million in damage to Colorado damsBy David Olinger, The Denver Post, 11/07/2013, denverpost.com

The September floods damaged 27 Colorado dams, causing an estimated $5.4 million in damages. That estimate was derived from an emergency statewide inspection of 207 dams swollen or breached by a week of record-setting rainstorms. In general, Colorado dams survived the storms in much better shape than Colorado highways. Some that need repairs will be required to lower their water levels until the work is completed. "We felt pretty lucky, for sure," said Bill McCormick, the state's chief dam safety engineer. "Most of it is relatively minor. It was a lot of erosion and sinkhole development." State dam engineers had a lot of help on the emergency inspection project. Altogether, 113 engineers took part, including inspectors from four federal agencies and 27 engineering firms. At the height of the storms, The Denver Post reported that flooding blew out at least six dams in a day. In the aftermath, the state Division of Water Resources reported that nine dams had been breached from Larimer County to El Paso County.But all of the state's high-hazard dams, which would likely cause fatal flooding if they failed, withstood the storms. McCormick said most of the dams needing repairs are owned by public entities that can qualify for assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Other Stuff: (If this doesn’t convince you it’s junk energy, then nothing will! The question should have been – should this thing have been built in the first place? We won’t be around in 400 years and neither will this wind turbine! Imagine, this thing only generates $8 of electricity per month!)Was wind turbine put in wrong place?By Claire Carter, 07 Nov 2013, telegraph.co.uk

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu15

A £48, ooo ($77,200) wind turbine has been generating around £5 ($8.00) of electricity every month because it is thought to have been put in the wrong place. A wind turbine in Wales is generating such little electricity it could take more than 400 years to repay its value. A wind turbine that cost £48,000 could take 452 years to repay its value after it was revealed to generate just £5 worth of electricity a month. The Welsh government has been criticised for putting the turbine, which sits in a valley two miles from the sea, in the wrong place.

According to records collected from January 2012 it generates around £5.28 ($8.50) of energy per month, but the government say it had only been working at 26 per cent of capacity until earlythis year. However, even when it is operating at 68 per cent and generating around £8 worth of energy monthly, this would take more than 400 years to pay for itself, a Freedom of Information request by the BBC revealed. Quiet Revolution, which made the turbine, claims it had advised the government that it didn't believe the location of it at the government's office in Aberystwyth would expose it to enough wind. Paul Burrell works at Anemos, a company that installs small and medium sized wind turbines, and said the location of the turbine - in a valley and next to tall buildings - means it won't spin properly. He said they should be put in the most exposed location possible to generate maximum electricity, with most repaying their value within eight years.He said: "I think the problem is quite simple - it's been put in the wrong place." Neither the Welsh government or Mitie, which acted as the contractor on the project, confirmed if advice from Quiet Revolution was taken into account when the turbine was installed. http://www.telegraph.eo.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10431944/Was-wind-turbine-put-in-... 11/7/2013 Was wind turbine put in wrong place. A spokesman for the Welsh government said they were on track to meet the target of reducing carbon emissions, and had already achieved a 17 per cent reduction.

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu16

iThis compilation of articles and other information is provided at no cost for those interested in hydropower, dams, and water resources issues and development, and should not be used for any commercial or other purpose. Any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment from those who have an interest in receiving this information for non-profit and educational purposes only.