<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.hydroreform.org">
<channel>
 <title>Hydropower Reform Coalition - Putting water, wildlife and people back in rivers </title>
 <link>http://www.hydroreform.org</link>
 <description>Hydropower, a 19th century technology, has been run for generations without modern environmental protections. The impact has been devastating. The good news is that we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity on many rivers to change that legacy for the better by changing the way dams operate.

Healthy rivers are economic assets for neighboring communities and they are part of the natural resource legacy we hand to our children. We can have a strong economy, a reliable energy supply, and healthy, restored rivers, but we have to insist that power companies do their share.</description>
 <language>en-Custom</language>
<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/hydroreform" /><feedburner:info uri="hydroreform" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><item>
 <title>2012 Most Endangered Rivers Report Released</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/sFv6egtRiIE/2012-most-endangered-rivers-report-released</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;On May 15, 2012 American Rivers released its 27th annual &lt;a href="http://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/protecting-rivers/endangered-rivers/"&gt;Most Endangered Rivers Report&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of the 10 rivers listed, three are under threat from new dams proposed by utilities, water districts and federal water managers.  These include the Crystal in Colorado, the Chattahoochee flowing through Alabama, Georgia and Florida, and the South Fork Skykomish in Washington State. While HRC members are involved in all three, Pacific Northwest members have gathered together environmental and recreational stakeholders, as well as local landowners to fight the Sunset Falls project on the Skykomish River.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Sky River is a state scenic waterway, a Northwest Power and Conservation Council &amp;quot;protected area&amp;quot; and has been found eligible for Federal Wild &amp;amp; Scenic protection.  All three designations discourage or place the river off limits to hydro development.  The Sunset Falls project is just one of 10 new dam permits in the North Cascades. To learn more and take action go to &lt;a href="http://www.savetheskyriver.org" target="_blank"&gt;www.savetheskyriver.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;View the Save the Sky River video &lt;a href="http://youtu.be/n0Hp25mj_W0" target="_blank"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table id="attachments"&gt;
 &lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Attachment&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Size&lt;/th&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-unknown odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/skykomish-press-release.pdf"&gt;skykomish-press-release.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;200.9 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-unknown even"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/SFSkykomish_factsheet.pdf"&gt;SFSkykomish_factsheet.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;605.38 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/05/16/2012-most-endangered-rivers-report-released#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/national">National</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/american-rivers">American Rivers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1035">hydropower dams</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1005">water quality</category>
 <enclosure url="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/skykomish-press-release.pdf" length="205724" type="application/unknown" />
 <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 14:11:32 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rich Bowers</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6257 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/05/16/2012-most-endangered-rivers-report-released</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>FERC Issues Preliminary Permit For a New Dam</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/1zBe0ojm2u4/ferc-issues-preliminary-permit-for-a-new-dam</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Despite strong opposition from stakeholders, including HRC members, FERC has issued a preliminary permit to Boundary Creek Hydro, a subsidiary of Symbiotics seeking to develop hydropower on the Boundary Creek near Bonners, Idaho.  The proposal includes building a diversion dam and a 6.4 mile long diversion pipe to be partially buried under a reconstructed road.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Department of Interior has expressed concern that the project, if built, could cause adverse effect to fish, vegetation, and wildlife resources, as well as some federally threatened and endangered species. A previous preliminary permit at this same site was cancelled due to potential developmental issues in October 2001. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The project would also fall under a Protected Area as designated by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council and would thus be protected from new hydropower development&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While it is clear that the project cannot be legally built, FERC has still issued a preliminary permit. This will only ensure that valuable time and resources of FERC and agency staff, and other stakeholders will be wasted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Access the preliminary permit &lt;a href="http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=12979232"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/05/11/ferc-issues-preliminary-permit-for-a-new-dam#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1644">boundary creek</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/idaho">Idaho</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1301">new dams</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/northwest">Northwest</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/preliminary-permit">preliminary permit</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 13:02:09 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6256 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/05/11/ferc-issues-preliminary-permit-for-a-new-dam</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>March 2012</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/Gfemmtshbeo/6255</link>
 <description>&lt;div align="center"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;FERC AND HYDROPOWER&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1.    Coalition Groups Comment on DRAFT 401 Water Quality Certificate for Enloe Dam&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On March 19, 2012 Coalition Groups submitted comments on Washington Dept. of Ecology&amp;#39;s DRAFT 401 Water Quality Certificate for the proposed Enloe Project.&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/03/29/coalition-groups-comments-on-draft-401-water-quality-certificate-for-enloe-dam" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Read more&lt;/a&gt;… &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2.    House Passes Bill Waiving Environmental Review for Conduit Projects&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On March 7, the House passed a bill by Representative Tipton Scott (R-CO) that would waive environmental review requirements for conduit hydropower projects on facilities owned by Bureau of Reclamation.&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/03/23/house-passes-bill-waiving-environmental-review-for-conduit-projects" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Read more&lt;/a&gt;… &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3.    Federal Biologists Determine that Corps Dams Are Harming Yuba River Fisheries&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A Biological Opinion (BiOp) recently produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has determined that continued operation of Englebright dam and Daguerre Point dams on the lower Yuba River in California will jeopardize endangered fish species on the Yuba River.&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/03/05/federal-biologists-determine-that-corps-dams-are-harming-yuba-river-fisheries" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Read more&lt;/a&gt;… &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align="center"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;OTHERS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1.    American Whitewater Releases Recreational Guide For Stream Modification Projects&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In March, Coalition member American Whitewater released a Recreational Guide that aims to offer stream modification practitioners simple advice on how to create projects that meet their primary objectives while ensuring the projects are relatively low-risk and enjoyable for people descending the stream in canoes, kayaks, and rafts.&lt;br /&gt;To learn more about the guide and to download a copy, &lt;a href="http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Article/view/articleid/31325/" target="_blank"&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2.    EPA Unveils New &amp;quot;Clean Water Act at 40&amp;quot; Website&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;To mark the 40th anniversary of the federal Clean Water Act, EPA has unveiled a new “Water is Worth It” website. The website contains a lot of useful information, including case studies, milestones and more.&lt;br /&gt;Check out the website &lt;a href="http://water.epa.gov/action/cleanwater40c/" target="_blank"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align="center"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EVENTS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;1.    National Hydropower Association Annual Conference&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Date: April 16-18, 2012&lt;br /&gt;Venue: Capital Hilton, Washington, DC&lt;br /&gt;More Information is available &lt;a href="http://www.nationalhydroconference.com/index.html" target="_blank"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align="center"&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;em&gt;You received this email because you subscribed to the newsletter from Hydropower Reform Coalition. To contact Hydropower Reform Coalition, email us at info at hydroreform dot org&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/node/6255#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/region/hrc-newsletter">Running Rivers Newsletter</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:29:29 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6255 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/node/6255</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Coalition Groups Comment on DRAFT 401 Water Quality Certificate for Enloe Dam</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/Tk0TwmRLN8E/coalition-groups-comment-on-draft-401-water-quality-certificate-for-enloe-dam</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;On March 19, 2012 Coalition Groups submitted comments on Washington Dept. of Ecology&amp;#39;s DRAFT 401 Water Quality Certificate for the proposed Enloe Project (FERC No. 12569).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their comments, Coalition members hold that Ecology has not adequately exercised its authority to protect the water quality standards in the Similkameen River, including standards for aquatic life, aesthetics, and minimum flows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For example, Ecology has proposed a minimum flow over Similkameen Falls of just 30 cfs from mid-June until mid-September and 10 cfs the rest of the year.  Natural flows over the falls would be in excess of 500 cfs year round, and WAC 173-549-020 sets a range from a low of 400 cfs to a high of 3400 cfs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table id="attachments"&gt;
 &lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Attachment&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Size&lt;/th&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Columbia River Bioregional Education  Project 401 Comments_0.pdf"&gt;Columbia River Bioregional Education  Project 401 Comments.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;761.66 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf even"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Final_Comments_Enloe 401.pdf"&gt;Final_Comments_Enloe 401.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;784.29 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/03/29/coalition-groups-comment-on-draft-401-water-quality-certificate-for-enloe-dam#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/401">401</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/clean-water-act">Clean Water Act</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1643">new dam</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/northwest">Northwest</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/washington">Washington</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1005">water quality</category>
 <enclosure url="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Columbia River Bioregional Education  Project 401 Comments_0.pdf" length="779941" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:21:28 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rich Bowers</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6254 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/03/29/coalition-groups-comment-on-draft-401-water-quality-certificate-for-enloe-dam</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>House Passes Bill Waiving Environmental Review for Conduit Projects</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/P6xsTDKl9uY/house-passes-bill-waiving-environmental-review-for-conduit-projects</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;On March 7, the House passed a bill by Representative Tipton Scott (R-CO) that would waive environmental review requirements for conduit hydropower projects on facilities owned by Bureau of Reclamation. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The bill now moves to the Senate where it is expected to face opposition.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Bureau of Reclamation opposed the provision that would allow for exemption from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/03/23/house-passes-bill-waiving-environmental-review-for-conduit-projects#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/national">National</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/bor">BOR</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1622">conduit</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/nepa">NEPA</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1547">new hydro</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 09:50:28 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6251 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/03/23/house-passes-bill-waiving-environmental-review-for-conduit-projects</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Federal Biologists Determine that Corps Dams Are Harming Yuba River Fisheries</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/35nkG22_nbY/federal-biologists-determine-that-corps-dams-are-harming-yuba-river-fisheries</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A Biological Opinion (BiOp) recently produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has determined that continued operation of Englebright dam and Daguerre Point dams on the lower Yuba River in California will jeopardize endangered fish species on the Yuba River.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead and the Southern distinct population segment of North American green sturgeon have all be affected by the dams. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In its BiOp, NOAA&amp;#39;s National Marine and Fisheries Service (NMFS) also stated that it considers the Yuba River Development Project, Yuba-Bear Project, and the Drum Spaulding Project to be interrelated and interdependent with operation and maintenance of Englebright and Daguerre Point dams. These projects are respectively owned by Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA), Pacific Gas &amp;amp; Electric (PG&amp;amp;E), and Nevada Irrigation District (NID) and are undergoing FERC relicensing. The NMFS has recommended that the Corps, which operates the two dams, coordinate closely with FERC and the above mentioned entities to carry out consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) during FERC relicensing. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The new BiOp was produced as a result of an order from a U.S. District Court in California in December of last year. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Coalition members engaged in the relicensing process have long maintained that the Englebright dam has been a major hurdle to fish migration. The Coalition has been advocating for fish passage at the Englebright dam to allow for passage of Chinook salmon and Steelhead. This BiOp could be a significant step toward restoring the fisheries on the Yuba watershed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a &lt;a href="http://yubariver.org/2012/03/u-s-army-corps-ordered-to-get-salmon-past-yuba-river-dams/" target="_blank"&gt;press release&lt;/a&gt;, Executive Director of South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL), a member of the Coalition, Caleb Dardick said, “The new biological opinion is an important first step towards preventing the extinction of Yuba River salmon, steelhead and sturgeon. These threatened fish need to be able to move freely upstream of Daguerre Point and Englebright dams to the upper Yuba River watershed.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the BiOp itself will not save the Yuba River fish, Caleb pointed out that it is now necessary for the agencies with responsibility over these dams to show leadership by fully implementing the actions outlined in the BiOp without delay.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Read the BiOp &lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Englebright%20BiOp%202_29_2012.pdf"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table id="attachments"&gt;
 &lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Attachment&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Size&lt;/th&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Englebright BiOp 2_29_2012.pdf"&gt;Englebright BiOp 2_29_2012.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.02 MB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/03/05/federal-biologists-determine-that-corps-dams-are-harming-yuba-river-fisheries#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/california">California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/california">California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1248">corps of engineers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/critical-habitat">critical habitat</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1211">ecosystem restoration</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/fisheries">fisheries</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/salmon">Salmon</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/steelhead">Steelhead</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1466">Yuba</category>
 <enclosure url="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Englebright BiOp 2_29_2012.pdf" length="3171779" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:13:24 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6250 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/03/05/federal-biologists-determine-that-corps-dams-are-harming-yuba-river-fisheries</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>February 2012</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/YD_3tPkOJRg/6246</link>
 <description>&lt;div align="center"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;HYDROPOWER&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1.    FERC Denies Permit for Water Supply and Hydropower Proposal&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has denied a proposal by a developer to build seven hydropower projects along a proposed 501 mile long pipeline to carry water from south Wyoming to Pueblo, Colorado.&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/02/23/ferc-denies-permit-for-water-supply-and-hydropower-proposal" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Read more&lt;/a&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2.    Proposed Enloe Dam an Economic Loss&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;An analysis prepared by Rocky Mountain Econometrics(RME) of Boise, Idaho, has concluded that it is not possible for the Okanogan Public Utility District (PUD) to sell power from the proposed Enloe Dam at or above the cost of producing it, and that the PUD will lose $26 for every megawatt hour produced at the dam.&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/01/24/proposed-enloe-dam-an-economic-loss" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Read more&lt;/a&gt;…&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3.    South Carolina City Surrenders Hydropower Project&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In an order issued on December 22, 2011, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has approved the license surrender requested by City of Spartanburg, SC for its Clifton Mills No. 1 Hydroelectric Project located on the Pacolet River in Spartanburg County.&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/12/27/south-carolina-city-surrenders-hydropower-project" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Read more&lt;/a&gt;…&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4.    Coalition Members Successfully Defend the Mokelumne River&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Coalition members Foothill Conservancy, Friends of the River and California Sportfishing Alliance were successful in keeping sections of the Mokelumne River free flowing after a California utility dropped its plan to raise a dam on the river.&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/12/12/coalition-members-successfully-defend-the-mokelumne-river" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Read more&lt;/a&gt;…&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5.    Independent Analysis Shows Proposed Susitna Project Not Worth It&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;An independent analysis of the merits of the proposed $4.5 billion hydropower project on the Susitna River in Alaska suggests  the project is not an effective solution to Alaska’s impending energy problem.&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/03/10/independent-analysis-shows-proposed-susitna-project-not-worth-it" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Read more&lt;/a&gt;…&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="center"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;OTHERS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1.    Year of the River (2011) Videos &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hydropower Reform Coalition member American Rivers declared 2011 &amp;quot;The Year of the River&amp;quot; owing to some historic river restoration efforts happening around the country. With support from the Coalition, American Rivers and American Whitewater produced a series of videos.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Watch the Videos: &lt;br /&gt;Year of the River: &lt;a href="http://vimeo.com/28522390" target="_blank"&gt;Episode 1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Year of the River: &lt;a href="http://vimeo.com/29983985" target="_blank"&gt;Episode 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Year of the River: &lt;a href="http://vimeo.com/33510305" target="_blank"&gt;Episode 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2.    Google Earth Shows How Dams Could Worsen Climate Change&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A new interactive Google Earth video, produced by International Rivers and Friends of the Earth International, aims to show how damming rivers around the world can exacerbate climate change. The approximately 12-minute video uses computer animation to simulate the potential climate hazards associated with building dams in Africa, the Himalayas, and the Amazon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Watch the &lt;a href="http://youtu.be/A8JtoednlbY" target="_blank"&gt;Youtube Video&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3.    Renewable Energy for America&lt;/strong&gt; (Map by NRDC)&lt;br /&gt;The Natural Resources Defense Council’s new &lt;a href="http://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables/energymap.asp" target="_blank"&gt;Renewable Energy for America&lt;/a&gt; includes an interactive map of the U.S. that shows where current renewable projects are located as well as where untapped renewable resources are that can and should be explored. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The interactive &lt;a href="http://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables/energymap.asp" target="_blank"&gt;Energy Map&lt;/a&gt; shows county-specific detailed information on existing and planned wind, solar, biofuels, bio-digesters, and geothermal energy facilities. It also reveals the energy potential for specific energy sources across the U.S.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;                                                                         EVENTS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1.    National Hydropower Association Annual Conference&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Date: April 16-18, 2012&lt;br /&gt;Venue: Capital Hilton, Washington, DC&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;More Information is available &lt;a href="http://www.nationalhydroconference.com/index.html" target="_blank"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;strong&gt;2.    Scoping Meetings&lt;/strong&gt; (Bryant Mountain Pumped Storage)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span&gt;Daytime Scoping Meeting&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2012&lt;br /&gt;Time: 9:00 A.M. – 12:00 P.M.&lt;br /&gt;Venue: Shilo Inn Suites Hotel, 2500 Almond St., Klamath Falls, OR 97601&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;Evening Scoping Meeting&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2012&lt;br /&gt;Time: 6:00 P.M. – 9:00 P.M.&lt;br /&gt;Venue: Malin City Park Hall, 2307 Third Street, Malin, OR 97632&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Click &lt;a href="http://ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventDetails.aspx?ID=6217&amp;amp;CalType=%20&amp;amp;CalendarID=119&amp;amp;Date=03/14/2012&amp;amp;View=Listview" target="_blank"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; for more information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3.    Telephone Conference&lt;/strong&gt; (To Discuss Amendment Applications and fish passage facilities)&lt;br /&gt;Date: March 13, 2012&lt;br /&gt;Time: 1:30 – 3:30 pm&lt;br /&gt;Venue: Teleconference &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;FERC is holding a telephone conference to discuss Amendment Applications and fish passage facilities at the Orono, Stillwater, and Milford Projects on the Penobscot River in Maine. For more information contact &lt;a href="mailto:rachel.price@ferc.gov"&gt;rachel.price@ferc.gov&lt;/a&gt; or click &lt;a href="http://ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventDetails.aspx?ID=6221&amp;amp;CalType=%20&amp;amp;CalendarID=116&amp;amp;Date=03/13/2012&amp;amp;View=Listview"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;You received this email because you subscribed to the newsletter from Hydropower Reform Coalition. To contact Hydropower Reform Coalition, email us at info(at)hydroreform(dot)org&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/node/6246#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/region/hrc-newsletter">Running Rivers Newsletter</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:04:13 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6246 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/node/6246</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>FERC Denies Permit for Water Supply and Hydropower Proposal</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/8hMd1t6pymU/ferc-denies-permit-for-water-supply-and-hydropower-proposal</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today denied a proposal by a developer to build seven hydropower projects along a proposed 501 mile long pipeline to carry water from south Wyoming to Pueblo, Colorado. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Last year in September, a Fort Collins businessman Aaron Million had applied for a preliminary permit before FERC to study the feasibility of the water supply pipeline. The project would include two water withdrawal facilities, approximately nine natural-gas-powered pump stations, two pumped storage and five conventional hydropower developments, seven new reservoirs, and seven transmission lines.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an &lt;a href="http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=12900122"&gt;order &lt;/a&gt;issued today, FERC determined that the pipeline, which is not in FERC’s jurisdiction, is uncertain and that issuing permit for the hydropower projects would be premature.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Coalition members American Rivers, American Whitewater, and Trout Unlimited had opposed the proposal because of its potential to impact Green River and Flaming Gorge Reservoir and had encouraged FERC to deny the permit. Earlier ACE had terminated an EIS process to review a similar proposal by the same applicant on grounds of uncertainty.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/02/23/ferc-denies-permit-for-water-supply-and-hydropower-proposal#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/colorado">Colorado</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1641">diversion</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1547">new hydro</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1399">water supply</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/west">West</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/wyoming">Wyoming</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:37:40 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6245 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/02/23/ferc-denies-permit-for-water-supply-and-hydropower-proposal</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Oregon Hydropower Development Assistance Program.</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/LYmiEJhZ9Jc/oregon-hydropower-development-assistance-program</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Comments of Hydropower Reform Coalition Members American Rivers, American Whitewater, Cascade Wild, Gifford Pinchot Task Force, and Trout Unlimited on Opportunity Considerations for an Oregon Hydropower Development Assistance Program.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 23, 2011, the Oregon Department of Energy issued a Comment Opportunity:  Considerations for an Oregon &lt;br /&gt;Hydropower Development Assistance Program, requesting comments on whether the assistance provided to hydropower &lt;br /&gt;developers through a Colorado state program (“Colorado pilot”) would work well for Oregon’s stakeholders, governments, &lt;br /&gt;and resources. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; The 2010 program developed in Colorado was designed to “identify and test opportunities to simplify and streamline procedures and regulations for authorizing small scale hydropower projects in an environmentally responsible manner.”&lt;br /&gt;The MOU was specifically targeted at streamlining the pre-consultation process for eligible “in-conduit” or “under 5MW” exempt projects.  HRC comments below.  All comments can be found &lt;a href="http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Hydro/Hydro_index.shtml"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  Colorado/FERC MOU can be found &lt;a href="http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/mou/mou-co.pdf"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table id="attachments"&gt;
 &lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Attachment&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Size&lt;/th&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-unknown odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/HRC Ltr  to ODOE on Hydropower Assistance Program 2 3 12.pdf"&gt;HRC Ltr  to ODOE on Hydropower Assistance Program 2 3 12.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;336.26 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/02/12/oregon-hydropower-development-assistance-program#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/northwest">Northwest</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/oregon">Oregon</category>
 <enclosure url="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/HRC Ltr  to ODOE on Hydropower Assistance Program 2 3 12.pdf" length="344328" type="application/unknown" />
 <pubDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:54:31 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rich Bowers</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6244 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/02/12/oregon-hydropower-development-assistance-program</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>History of Enloe Dam and HRC Economics Study</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/OS2egxasJeE/hiistory-of-enloe-dam-and-hrc-economics-study</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;a rel="lightbox" href="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/1034_590999664_2dd3362020.jpg"&gt;&lt;a rel="lightbox" href="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/1034_590999664_2dd3362020.jpg"&gt;&lt;img width="200" class="flickrstickr_image" align="left" src="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/1034_590999664_2dd3362020.jpg" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Except for Enloe dam, the Similkameen is a 122 mile free-flowing river with its headwaters on the east flank of British Columbia’s Manning Provincial Park. The Similkameen flows into the Okanogan River which joins the Columbia.  Most of the 3,600 square mile Similkameen watershed (79%) is in BC, and the river is fed by three main tributaries, which include the Pasayten River near Manning Park, BC (most of which is in northern Washington), the Tulameen River at Princeton, BC and the Ashnola River near Keremos, BC.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Originally built in the early 1900’s, the 54 foot tall Enloe Dam has been controversial for both environmental and economic reasons for more than 90 years.  Enloe has not generated hydropower since 1958 when it was decommissioned because lower cost energy was available from other sources.  The current license application [Project No. 12569], pending with FERC since 2008, is the PUD’s fourth attempt since the mid-1980’s to add power generation to the dam.  Previous licensing efforts failed due to poor economics and fish passage issues.  The current proposal would also bypass virtually all of the river flow, de-watering Similkameen Falls for most of the year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;a. 1974 (FERC finally terminates 1956 license, decommissioning order in 1958)&lt;br /&gt;b. 1983 FERC issues Enloe license; &lt;br /&gt;c. 1986 rescinded by FERC&lt;br /&gt;d. 1991 FERC issues EA for new license. &lt;br /&gt;e. 1993 FERC denies new license.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Economics has been a critical issue in each of the previous attempts to renew generation at Enloe, and Coalition members have, since 2008, consistently asked the PUD to provide transparent economic numbers and forecasts.  The PUD has repeatedly ignored this request, and so several Coalition members determined to conduct their own review before the PUD sinks ratepayer money into construction that can never be recovered.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Coalition members American Rivers, American Whitewater, Columbia Bioregional Education Project, Center for Environmental Law &amp;amp; Policy, North Cascades Conservation Council, and the Washington State Chapter of the Sierra Club [links] have been involved since 2008 when they filed joint comments on the projects Draft License Application (DEA).  Several organizations have been involved with earlier licensing attempts at Enloe, and all are now pushing to have this un-wise investment dropped.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Coalition has a long-standing public policy that supports generation at existing projects and increasing efficiency at existing dams.  The Coalition has spent the past two decades working with dam owners to improve the environmental performance of working dams, and, over this time, supported more than 16,000 megawatts of hydropower at dams where owners have modernized their operations to benefit fisheries, watershed lands, water quality and recreation.    &lt;strong&gt;Enloe would fall under this policy IF it made economic sense, did not cause environmental harm to the Similkameen, or if the PUD had the resources to adequately offset the impacts it will cause.&lt;/strong&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dewatering Similkameen Falls for most of the year to generate just +5 megawatts of average annual generation (9MW of nameplate capacity) is too high a price to pay, especially when each megawatt will cost more to produce than it is worth.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aesthetic and Tourism Values&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On January 9, 2012, Okanogan County Commissioners wrote to FERC in reply to an earlier letter from Jon Knechtel of the Pacific Northwest Trails Association regarding the aesthetic and tourism value of the Similkameen River Trail and its impacts from the Enloe Dam project (both letters attached below). Their letter offered Commissioners support of the project. In their letter, the Commissioners stated that they are “aware that the PUD plans to provide flows over the falls. This has been published in the FERC EA and assertions to the contrary are disingenuous.” Also, “…the Enloe Dam project will contribute green power to the energy grid and expand the economic base of Okanogan County in a manner that causes few if any adverse impacts. The preliminary figures would indicate power sales of approximately $3,000,000 annually. The economic activity generated provides additional revenue to local businesses and in turn local government which supports critical public services.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The just released RME Economics study provides facts and data that demonstrates that the project will not generate anywhere near this level of power sales, and that the expected revenue to local businesses will not develop, but that the project will actually detract from funding available for needed public services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Flows over Similkameen Falls&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Washington Administrative Code establishes minimum stream flows for the Similkameen River; minimum instream flows range from a low of 400 cubic feet per second (cfs) in January and February to highs of 3,400 cfs in late May and June. The PUD’s proposal of 30 cubic feet per second (cfs) minimum flows from mid-July to mid-September, and 10 cfs the rest of the year would reduce flows over the fall to little more than a trickle of its natural flow for eight months of each year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;FERC’s DEA (page 35) states that the minimum recorded flow on the Similkameen was on Jan. 3, 1974 at 65cfs (attributed to ice effects).  And the lowest minimum monthly average flow of 191 cfs occurred on September 2003. And while FERC recognized that “The large majority of the wetted area in the 370-foot reach would be dewatered and the majority of aquatic habitat in this reach would be lost.”, and “While this reduction of flow in the bypassed reach may seem extreme…” (DEA, page 90], FERC’s staff Assessment approved the PUD proposal for instream flows. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Certainly, reducing flows over Similkameen Falls to less than 1/6th of the lowest ever recorded flow on the river, for eight months each year as the staff alternative proposes will have a significant impact on environmental quality, and Coalition members continue to oppose these inadequate flows.  The proposed minimum flow of 10 cfs is only 5 percent of the 79 year record of flows on the Similkameen.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The RME Report may also be found at the following sites:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Project/view/id/similkameen/"&gt;American Whitewater Similkameen River website &lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.columbia-institute.org/enloe/dam.html"&gt;Center for Environmental Law &amp;amp; Policy Enloe Dam website&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.columbiana.org/pages/enloe_dam.html"&gt;Columbia River Bioregional Education Project website&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; For more information, contact Rich Bowers, Pacific Northwest Coordinator for the HRC. &lt;a href="mailto:Rich@hydroreform.org"&gt;Rich@hydroreform.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table id="attachments"&gt;
 &lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Attachment&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Size&lt;/th&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Commissioner Support to FERC on Enloe 1 9 12.pdf"&gt;Commissioner Support to FERC on Enloe 1 9 12.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.39 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf even"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Pacific NW Trails Ltr. to FERC on Enloe Dam.pdf"&gt;Pacific NW Trails Ltr. to FERC on Enloe Dam.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;316.38 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/01/24/hiistory-of-enloe-dam-and-hrc-economics-study#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1640">economics analysis</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/new-license">new license</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/northwest">Northwest</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/washington">Washington</category>
 <enclosure url="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Commissioner Support to FERC on Enloe 1 9 12.pdf" length="10638" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:34:53 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rich Bowers</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6236 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/01/24/hiistory-of-enloe-dam-and-hrc-economics-study</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Proposed Enloe Dam an Economic Loss.  </title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/WGQF9NJMsUg/proposed-enloe-dam-an-economic-loss</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Today, the Columbia Bioregional Education Project (CBEP), joined by several conservation groups including American Rivers, American Whitewater, Center for Environmental Law and Policy, North Cascades Conservation Council, and Washington Chapter of the Sierra Club, all members of the Hydropower Reform Coalition, issued a new economic analysis of Okanogan Public Utility District’s (PUD) proposal to re-start hydropower generation at Enloe Dam on the Similkameen River. The analysis, prepared by &lt;a href="http://www.rmecon.com/"&gt;Rocky Mountain Econometrics&lt;/a&gt; (RME) of Boise, Idaho, concludes that it is not possible for the PUD to sell power from Enloe Dam at or above the cost of producing it, and that the PUD will lose $26 for every megawatt hour produced at the dam. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; Links to both the press release and economic analysis is below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; “Okanogan PUD ratepayers are going to take a big hit for this expensive and unprofitable project,” said Jere Gillespie of CBEP. “We are calling on the Okanogan PUD to replace its out-of-date 2008 analysis and provide ratepayers with a realistic evaluation of Enloe Dam economics. We think such an update will show that the dam project is not a wise investment for ratepayers and should be dropped.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Okanogan PUD has asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to issue a license to install turbines at the existing Enloe Dam, which blocks the Similkameen River about four miles west of Oroville, Washington. Originally built in the early 1900’s, Enloe Dam has not generated hydropower since 1958. The current license application, pending with FERC since 2008, is the PUD’s fourth attempt since the mid-1980’s to add power generation to the dam. Previous licensing efforts failed due to poor economics and fish passage issues. The Rocky Mountain Econometrics report reviewed the economic data provided by Okanogan PUD as part of its August 2008 FERC license application. The RME economic analysis concludes that: •    Market conditions for power have changed dramatically since 2008. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;•    Construction costs for projects similar to Enloe have increased by 30% since 2008 &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;•    Open market prices for electricity, which will dictate what the PUD can sell Enloe power for, have decreased by 50%&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; •    The long-term price for Enloe power is more likely to be $43/megawatt hour (MWh) than the $66/MWh predicted by Okanogan PUD in 2008 &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;•    Okanogan PUD’s 2008 analysis did not consider lost revenues due to tourism generated by Similkameen Falls. This report shows that, over the life of the license term, tourism losses for the Okanogan region could approach $20 million, two-thirds of the original 2008 estimate to build this uneconomic dam.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; “The negative economics and significant impacts to local tourism make Enloe a poor plan for the utility and for Okanogan ratepayers,” said Rich Bowers, regional coordinator for the Hydropower Reform Coalition. “While forecasts continually change, there is a great difference between today’s economic forecast than in 2008 when the original economic analysis was prepared.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Okanogan PUD expenditures have been a continuing drain for its ratepayers. On December 2, 2011 the PUD raised retail power rates in order to meet increasing operational expenses. In addition, on December 20, the PUD adopted a budget for 2012 that reveals a five-fold increase in capital expenditures since 2007 (from $5.7 million to $24.5 million), and more than two-fold increase in debt principal and interest for the same period (from $1.6 million to $3.5 million).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; “Enloe Dam has not operated for 50 years,” said Rachael Paschal Osborn, with the Center for Environmental Law &amp;amp; Policy. “In the context of its current budget, Okanogan PUD simply cannot afford to sink additional money into a project which will greatly increase rates for Okanogan ratepayers.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Enloe Dam project has been controversial for both environmental and economic reasons. Of particular concern is the current proposal to bypass virtually all of the river flow into the new turbines, de-watering Similkameen Falls for most of the year. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Falls represent an important cultural/historical resource for Native American Tribes and First Nations in the area. The Falls also represent a viewpoint/terminus for the newly developed Similkameen River Trail, which occupies the abandoned Great Northern Railway rail bed and is to be designated as a segment of the 1,200-mile Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail, which runs from the continental divide in Montana to Olympic National Park. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The tourist draw of the Similkameen River Trail is expected to bring significant revenue to the Oroville area. “The Similkameen River and its waterfalls have recreational values that will enhance the tourism economy of the Okanogan-Similkameen Valleys. This report shows that de-watering the falls by the dam could cost $516,000 per year in lost tourism value,” said Thomas O’Keefe, Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director for American Whitewater. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Rocky Mountain Econometrics produced the Enloe report on behalf of Hydropower Reform Coalition members Columbia Bioregional Education Project, American Rivers, American Whitewater, Center for Environmental Law &amp;amp; Policy, North Cascades Conservation Council, and the Washington State Chapter of Sierra Club. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table id="attachments"&gt;
 &lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Attachment&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Size&lt;/th&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/HRC Comments on Ready for Environmental Analysis 3 1 10.pdf"&gt;HRC Comments on Ready for Environmental Analysis 3 1 10.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;117.66 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf even"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/FINAL DEA Conservation Comments.pdf"&gt;FINAL DEA Conservation Comments.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;447.83 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Enloe Draft Environmental Assessment 5 9 11.pdf"&gt;Enloe Draft Environmental Assessment 5 9 11.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.43 MB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf even"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/HRC Enloe Economics Study 1 24 12.pdf"&gt;HRC Enloe Economics Study 1 24 12.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.29 MB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/HRC Enloe News Release 1 24 12.pdf"&gt;HRC Enloe News Release 1 24 12.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;211.63 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/01/24/proposed-enloe-dam-an-economic-loss#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1020">economic analysis</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1074">hydropower licensing</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1301">new dams</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/new-license">new license</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/northwest">Northwest</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1201">relicensing process</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/washington">Washington</category>
 <enclosure url="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/HRC Comments on Ready for Environmental Analysis 3 1 10.pdf" length="120479" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:13:45 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rich Bowers</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6235 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2012/01/24/proposed-enloe-dam-an-economic-loss</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>South Carolina City Surrenders Hydropower Project</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/OZMab2bqgoQ/south-carolina-city-surrenders-hydropower-project</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

  &lt;span class="field-label"&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-items"&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-item"&gt;&lt;a href="/projects/clifton-mills-no-1-p-4632"&gt;Clifton Mills No 1 : P-4632&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;In an order issued on December 22, 2011, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has approved the license surrender requested by City of Spartanburg, SC for its Clifton Mills No. 1 Hydroelectric Project located on the Pacolet River in Spartanburg County. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City acquired the project from Clifton Power Corporation in 2010 with the intention of reviving the 800kW project. However, an assessment by the City revealed that the project would cost in excess of $8 million.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Coalition member American River had requested the City to consider total dam removal in order to increase flows in the river and gain ecological benefits. However, FERC staff, in their environmental analysis, recommended that desired enhancement of environmental conditions in the project area would be achieved under the City’s proposal to decommission the project. The City proposes to &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;install fences around the powerhouse to prevent entry, &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;remove the three Tainter gates, and&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;plug the penstocks with cement at the intake and forebay and abandon in place. &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City estimates that these measures would cost about $105,000 and one year to implement.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/12/27/south-carolina-city-surrenders-hydropower-project#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1211">ecosystem restoration</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/license-surrender">license surrender</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1637">Pacolet River</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/southeast">South</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/south-carolina">South Carolina</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1638">Spartanburg</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:11:50 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6225 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/12/27/south-carolina-city-surrenders-hydropower-project</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Coalition Members Successfully Defend the Mokelumne River</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/GDTcki3kvxI/coalition-members-successfully-defend-the-mokelumne-river</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Coalition members Foothill Conservancy, Friends of the River and California Sportfishing Alliance were successful in keeping sections of the Mokelumne River free flowing after a California utility dropped its plan to raise a dam on the river.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) had been considering raising the Pardee dam as part of its Water Supply Management Program for 2040. The expansion would have flooded a free-flowing section of the Mokelumne River near Jackson and drowned the Middle Bar Reach and part of the Electra Run. These river reaches are highly valued for their recreational, historic, and cultural significance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The conservation groups had taken the EBMUD to court for violating the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Sacramento Superior Court sided with the conservation groups and asked EMBUD to analyze other reasonable alternatives to the dam expansion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a statement released last week, EBMUD informed that it no longer include Pardee dam expansion in its plan.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Read the press releases by &lt;a href="http://www.foothillconservancy.org/dl.cgi/1323126151_32086.f_news_pdf.pdf/EBMUDnr12511.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;Foothill Conservancy&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href="http://www.ebmud.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/Press%20Release%20EBMUD%20WSMP%20PEIR%20Revised.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;EBMUD&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/12/12/coalition-members-successfully-defend-the-mokelumne-river#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/california">California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/california">California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1120">dams</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1636">Mokelumne River</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1399">water supply</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:37:43 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6224 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/12/12/coalition-members-successfully-defend-the-mokelumne-river</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Google Earth Shows How Dams Could Worsen Climate Change</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/yGEe61yqRiQ/google-earth-shows-how-dams-could-worsen-climate-change</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A new interactive Google Earth video, produced by International Rivers  and Friends of the Earth International, aims to show how damming rivers  around the world can exacerbate climate change.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The approximately 12-minute video uses computer animation to simulate the potential climate hazards associated with building dams in Africa, the Himalayas, and the Amazon.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Watch the Youtube Video &lt;a href="http://youtu.be/A8JtoednlbY"&gt;here.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/11/30/google-earth-shows-how-dams-could-worsen-climate-change#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/national">National</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/climate-change">climate change</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1120">dams</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/flows">flows</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1635">rivers</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:46:42 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6222 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/11/30/google-earth-shows-how-dams-could-worsen-climate-change</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Independent Analysis Shows Proposed Susitna Project Not Worth It</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/zR2TuREg1co/independent-analysis-shows-proposed-susitna-project-not-worth-it</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;An independent analysis of the merits of the proposed $4.5 billion hydropower project on the Susitna River in Alaska suggests  the project is not an effective solution to Alaska’s impending energy problem.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The report prepared by Jan Konigsberg of the Natural Heritage Institute, also associated with the Hydropower Reform Coalition, suggests that Cook Inlet Basin gas resource is a far better alternative than the Susitna River project that  would require construction of a 700-foot high Watana dam.  The report states “ …[a] better alternative to providing long-term, affordable, stably priced energy is for the state to finance, explore and produce the Cook Inlet Basin gas resource it already owns. For considerably less investment than Susitna, the state can meet the current Railbelt demand for electric power and space heating for the next 100 years with stable prices- one-third the price of a Susitna kilowatt hour in fact- and with less environmental impact than a Susitna power dam.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some of the key points made in the report are:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;There is greater certainty of energy supply from the proposed Watana hydropower dam project than from the other options&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The proposed Watana hydropower dam project will take considerably longer to license and permit than other options.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Local environmental impacts from LNG will be minimal; impacts from developing new Cook Inlet gas fields will range from minimal to moderate; impacts from the proposed Watana hydropower project will be significant&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Capital investment to accommodate LNG imports to Cook Inlet is an order of magnitude less than that of the Watana hydropower dam. Investment in LNG facilities could be privately financed. State of Alaska financing to find and develop its Cook Inlet gas resource could be at little as 25% of the required investment in Watana&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;State financing, production, and ownership of Cook Inlet gas fields congruent with state financing, construction, and ownership of Watana hydropower facility, will provide energy at the busbar at one third the price/kwh from the hydropower project.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The economic-impact of Watana hydropower dam, while providing 2,600 gigawatt hours annually at a stable price, declines as demand for energy in the Railbelt increases during the 50- to 100- year time frame.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The controversial project would have significant environmental impacts on the river and the watershed.  The project would impair 184 miles of river flow from the dam site to Cook Inlet and cause significant harm to the fish and wildlife in and around the river.  The reservoir resulting from the dam would flood 20,000 acres of land and 39 miles of the Susitna River channel. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The report concludes “ In general, of all the renewable-electric, power-supply systems, hydropower has the largest the environmental footprint not only spatially, but also ecologically because aquatic ecosystems are the areas of greatest biodiversity and productivity in most terrestrial regions.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Read the report &lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Choosing Susitna NHI JK March REV.2 2012.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Alaska House Energy Committee recently passed HB 103, a bill that authorizes the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to move forward with the Susitna River dam. Governor Sean Parnell is  a strong supporter of the project.  The The Alaska Conservation Alliance, which represents many of Alaska’s environmental organizations, is considering the project and is so far not opposed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table id="attachments"&gt;
 &lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Attachment&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Size&lt;/th&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Choosing Susitna NHI JK March REV.2 2012.pdf"&gt;Choosing Susitna NHI JK March REV.2 2012.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;159.19 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/03/10/independent-analysis-shows-proposed-susitna-project-not-worth-it#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/alaska">Alaska</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/alaska">Alaska</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1301">new dams</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1547">new hydro</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1620">Susitna</category>
 <enclosure url="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Choosing Susitna NHI JK March REV.2 2012.pdf" length="163010" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:13:55 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">5967 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/03/10/independent-analysis-shows-proposed-susitna-project-not-worth-it</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title> U.S. Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) Renewable Energy Technology Roadmap Announced</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/z-gLLRnH5uo/u-s-marine-and-hydrokinetic-mhk-renewable-energy-technology-roadmap-announced</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;div&gt;
&lt;p align="center"&gt;Source: &lt;a href="http://www.oceanrenewable.com" title="www.oceanrenewable.com"&gt;www.oceanrenewable.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;November 1, 2011 &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;NEWS RELEASE &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CONTACT:   Sean O&amp;#39;Neill        (301) 325-5099&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;                  Carolyn Elefant    (202) 297-6100&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;                  Chris Campbell   (250) 616-3780&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="center"&gt;&lt;strong&gt; U.S. Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) Renewable Energy Technology Roadmap Announced&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="center"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Canada Releases MHK Roadmap on Same Day&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="center"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Five MHK Roadmaps Emerge Globally in October 2011&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="center"&gt;&lt;em&gt;All-Europe, Canada, U.S., and International join Scotland and Ireland in Mapping MHK Progress&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Today, the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition (OREC) unveiled the first U.S. Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) Technology Roadmap. The roadmap describes the issues, challenges and opportunities facing the MHK industry and outlines a clear and logical path to its commercialization. Technologies that capture energy from free-flowing waves, tides and currents represent the potential to provide up to ten percent of U.S. electricity consumption and continue to make advances and gain popularity in coastal communities around the world.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; Canada&amp;#39;s Ocean Renewable Energy Group (OREG), the Canadian MHK trade group, announced the release of&lt;a href="http://creativerge.net/mailinglist/lt.php?c=985&amp;amp;m=1407&amp;amp;nl=26&amp;amp;s=037aa4977d39a65125672976b96bf743&amp;amp;lid=2822&amp;amp;l=-http--www.OREG.ca"&gt; its own industry roadmap&lt;/a&gt; today at the OREG annual conference in Montreal, where the Honorable Joe Oliver, Canada&amp;#39;s Minister of Natural Resources, was on hand to receive the first printed copy. Also announcing similar initiatives this Fall include:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;a href="http://creativerge.net/mailinglist/lt.php?c=985&amp;amp;m=1407&amp;amp;nl=26&amp;amp;s=037aa4977d39a65125672976b96bf743&amp;amp;lid=2805&amp;amp;l=-http--orecca.eu/c/document_library/get_file--Q-uuid--E-0ad7e296-4f5c-443f-8ba7-490a7344d2da--A-groupId--E-10129"&gt;The ORECCA Offshore Renewable Energy Roadmap&lt;/a&gt; (European Union);&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;a href="http://creativerge.net/mailinglist/lt.php?c=985&amp;amp;m=1407&amp;amp;nl=26&amp;amp;s=037aa4977d39a65125672976b96bf743&amp;amp;lid=2806&amp;amp;l=-http--www.iea-oceans.org/news.asp--Q-id--E-20"&gt;The International Energy Agency&amp;#39;s Ocean Energy Systems International Vision for Ocean Energy&lt;/a&gt;;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;a href="http://creativerge.net/mailinglist/lt.php?c=985&amp;amp;m=1407&amp;amp;nl=26&amp;amp;s=037aa4977d39a65125672976b96bf743&amp;amp;lid=2807&amp;amp;l=-http--www.supergen-marine.org.uk/drupal/"&gt;3rd phase SuperGen Marine Energy Research Consortium&lt;/a&gt; (United Kingdom); and,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; The Chilean Energy Ministry and the British Embassy in Chile recently commissioned a marine energy strategy for Chile.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The fact that Canada and the U.S. announced MHK roadmaps on the same date, along with the announcements of additional regional and international MHK roadmaps, underscores the competition and cooperation we&amp;#39;re experiencing in this fast growing industry.&amp;quot; said Sean O&amp;#39;Neill, OREC&amp;#39;s President.  &amp;quot;A clean energy future is in everyone&amp;#39;s best interest. As North America enters the global competition, we are joining an international race based on common interests in energy security, job growth and economic development, environmental improvements and the reality of finite fossil fuel resources.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chris Campbell, OREG&amp;#39;s Executive Director, commented, &amp;quot;Canada&amp;#39;s strategy is based on existing sales of river current generators, wave and current monitoring equipment worldwide, Alstom&amp;#39;s development of a Canadian tidal technology to be the world&amp;#39;s first 2 Megawatt system and the strategy we are seeing emerge around tidal opportunities in Nova Scotia.&amp;quot; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Bob Thresher of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory facilitated the development of the U.S. Roadmap. &amp;quot;Countries in Europe produced similar roadmaps as long as ten years ago,&amp;quot; he said. &amp;quot;The U.S. Roadmap is a critical step forward in the domestic commercialization of these technologies.  Support from the U.S. Department of Energy and colleagues from overseas, including Henry Jeffrey of the University of Edinburgh who has had his hand in just about every Roadmap, worldwide, helped move this along.&amp;quot; he added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I am delighted to have been involved in so many of these efforts,&amp;quot; added University of Edinburgh&amp;#39;s Dr. Henry Jeffrey. &amp;quot;International interest in coherent strategic planning shows how serious these efforts are. There is significant global recognition of the economic and environmental benefits this sector can deliver and the increased system reliability supported by a diverse supply portfolio.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;John Huckerby, Chairman of Ocean Energy Systems, the international intergovernmental consortium welcomed the number of national and regional initiatives that complement the international vision just released by OES. &amp;quot;These initiatives highlight the growing recognition of this industry and its potential contributions to energy security, our environment, and our economies.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Since 2008, the U.S. Government has invested more than $50 million in the MHK sector. This roadmap and continued federal support will help protect these investments and lead to energy independence, a cleaner environment and the potential to export clean energy technology and capture a piece of this global market estimated at over $600 billion (U.S.),&amp;quot; said O&amp;#39;Neill.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The U.S. MHK Roadmap spells out the steps necessary to achieve at least 15 Gigawatts of grid-connected MHK power by 2030 and create up to 36,000 jobs in the process. The Roadmap emphasizes the need for coordinated efforts, continued funding for research, development and deployment activities and support for an environmental study program that would help place vital data into the public domain.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The U.S. Roadmap and Executive Summary are available online:   &lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/lt.php?c=985&amp;amp;m=1407&amp;amp;nl=26&amp;amp;s=ea3ef5835811501ad5b43c0d85dacaa8&amp;amp;lid=2817&amp;amp;l=-http--www.oceanrenewable.com/roadmap"&gt;http://www.oceanrenewable.com/roadmap&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/11/03/u-s-marine-and-hydrokinetic-mhk-renewable-energy-technology-roadmap-announced#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/national">National</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1417">Hydrokinetics; in-river hydrokinetics; new technology</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1515">MHK</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:03:17 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6210 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/11/03/u-s-marine-and-hydrokinetic-mhk-renewable-energy-technology-roadmap-announced</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Washington's White Salmon River Runs Free Again!</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/WigG0VaNvxs/washingtons-white-salmon-river-runs-free-again</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

  &lt;span class="field-label"&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-items"&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-item"&gt;&lt;a href="/projects/condit-p-2342"&gt;Condit : P-2342&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Source: American Whitewater)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;posted October 26, 2011 by Megan Hooker&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;After nearly a century, Washington&amp;#39;s White Salmon River in south central Washington is flowing freely again! Earlier today, a hole was blasted in the base of Condit Dam, and its reservoir - Northwestern Lake - began to pour through it. The reservoir drained in about an hour.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#39;s always exciting to see a river come back to life, and with over 40,000 river runners each year, the White Salmon is already one of the most popular whitewater runs in the Pacific Northwest. &amp;quot;New and improved recreational opportunities have emerged on other rivers that have been restored through dam removal,&amp;quot; says American Whitewater&amp;#39;s Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director, Thomas O&amp;#39;Keefe. &amp;quot;The removal of Condit, however, is the first major removal on a river as popular as the White Salmon, and we&amp;#39;re excited to see how the river&amp;#39;s ecosystem will respond and recreation opportunities will expand.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;While we&amp;#39;re all excited that the deconstruction process has begun and are anxious to see the revived river, we&amp;#39;ll all have to wait just a bit longer. PacifiCorp will continue removal activities through August 2012. The area around Condit is an active (de)construction site and will remain closed to the public until it is safe. American Whitewater encourages everyone to respect the closures and stay out of the area until the official opening of the river.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
&lt;div style="text-align: left;"&gt;&lt;a rel="lightbox" href="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/6225_6326009555_6d231e7c4d.jpg"&gt;&lt;a rel="lightbox" href="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/6225_6326009555_6d231e7c4d.jpg"&gt;&lt;img width=100 class="flickrstickr_image" align="left" src="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/6225_6326009555_6d231e7c4d.jpg" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Click on the image to see the steelhead and salmon habitat restored by removal of Condit dam)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Click &lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Condit%20Habitat.kmz"&gt;here &lt;/a&gt;to download a Google Earth file showing habitat improvements in White Salmon river and its tributaries after removal of Condit dam.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: Google Earth needed to open file. Free version of the software can be downloaded at &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.google.com/earth/index.html"&gt;http://www.google.com/earth/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;At 125 feet high and 471 feet long, Condit is the 2nd tallest dam to be removed in the country. Crews began drilling a tunnel at the 90 foot base of the dam in August and blasted through the remaining tunnel today. While almost 1,000 dams have come down throughout the U.S., this is the first removal of this kind, and will expand our knowledge of dam removal and river restoration. Dismantling the rest of the dam will begin next spring, and is expected to be complete by the end of August 2012.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Condit was built without fish ladders in 1913, and updating the dam to today&amp;#39;s environmental standards would have been much costlier than removal. Today&amp;#39;s blast opened up 33 miles of critical coldwater habitat for steelhead and 15 miles of habitat for salmon. Earlier this fall, fish biologists moved more than 500 salmon above the dam to allow them to spawn in new habitat. The juveniles from these eggs will descend the White Salmon unimpeded by the dam. Eventually, 5 miles of new recreational opportunities will also emerge. Whitewater enthusiasts are excited to see the river that&amp;#39;s been under the reservoir, and experience the White Salmon Narrows, which has been dewatered downstream of the dam. Come August 2012, we&amp;#39;ll have our chance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As a party to the 1999 settlement agreement for removal, American Whitewater has played a leadership role in representing the interests of the whitewater recreation community in the effort to remove Condit Dam. Many AW staff and supporters are there today, and we join you in celebrating freeing another river! &lt;/p&gt;    &lt;br class="clear" /&gt;



&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table id="attachments"&gt;
 &lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Attachment&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Size&lt;/th&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-vnd.google-earth.kmz odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Condit Habitat.kmz"&gt;Condit Habitat.kmz&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;48.05 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/11/08/washingtons-white-salmon-river-runs-free-again#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/843">dam removal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/northwest">Northwest</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/pacificorp">PacifiCorp</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1361">river restoration</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/washington">Washington</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1633">White Salmon</category>
 <enclosure url="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Condit Habitat.kmz" length="49208" type="application/vnd.google-earth.kmz" />
 <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:21:05 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6218 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/11/08/washingtons-white-salmon-river-runs-free-again</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Environmental Plan Earns Sultan River Dam a New 45-year License</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/yzMsg1GCJa8/environmental-plan-earns-sultan-river-dam-a-new-45-year-license</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

  &lt;span class="field-label"&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-items"&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-item"&gt;&lt;a href="/projects/henry-m-jackson-sultan-p-2157"&gt;Henry M Jackson (Sultan) : P-2157&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Source: HeraldNet, Oct 13, 2011&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(&lt;a href="http://heraldnet.com/article/20111013/NEWS01/710139924" title="http://heraldnet.com/article/20111013/NEWS01/710139924"&gt;http://heraldnet.com/article/20111013/NEWS01/710139924&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The plan by the county utility district and other groups restores fish habitat and recreation areas on the Sultan River. By Bill Sheets, Herald Writer&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;a rel="lightbox" href="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/64_228851360_72b753cc4f.jpg"&gt;&lt;a rel="lightbox" href="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/64_228851360_72b753cc4f.jpg"&gt;&lt;img width="240" class="flickrstickr_image" align="left" src="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/64_228851360_72b753cc4f.jpg" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;SULTAN -- For the next 45 years, Snohomish County&amp;#39;s largest dam is expected to be easier on the environment than it&amp;#39;s been for the past 45.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Snohomish County Public Utility District&amp;#39;s power-generating system in the Sultan River basin was recently granted a new 45-year license, good until 2056, from the federal government.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The license renewal for Culmback Dam and the Henry M. Jackson Hydroelectric Project was based largely on a plan to make the Sultan River downstream from the dam more friendly for fish and recreation, PUD officials said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The PUD worked on the plan for five years with government agencies, the Tulalip Tribes and environmental and recreation groups.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;It&amp;#39;s been pretty phenomenal, actually,&amp;quot; said Rich Bowers, Northwest coordinator for the Hydropower Reform Coalition, a national environmental group with an office in Bellingham.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;They completely opened that process up to public and agency participation,&amp;quot; Bowers said of the PUD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The result is a plan to spend $21.4 million on projects to restore fish habitat and whitewater riding opportunities to the Sultan River, and more in upkeep over 45 years for a total of $69.5 million. The cost will be financed with bonds backed by power bills paid for by PUD customers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Environmental groups, as well as the tribes, have signed off on the plan.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#39;s an example of how hydropower can be environmentally friendly, said Bowers, who added that his group is not opposed to all hydropower projects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Most larger dams were built between 30 and 100 years ago, with no environmental regulations or licensing requirements, Bower said. These include the Elwha dams on the Olympic Peninsula, finished in 1914 and currently being dismantled.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;We didn&amp;#39;t know what kind of impact dams would have on rivers back then,&amp;quot; Bowers said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The new license for Culmback Dam and the Jackson hydro project became official at the end of September, PUD spokesman Neil Neroutsos said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The previous license, issued in 1961, was for Culmback Dam at Spada Lake alone. The Henry M. Jackson Hydroelectric Project, added in 1984, is made up of several parts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The dam was built in 1965 to expand Spada Lake and increase the county drinking water supply. About 80 percent of the drinking water for Snohomish County comes from Spada Lake, via Lake Chaplain, to the city of Everett.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 1984, the dam was raised, quadrupling the size of the lake, according to the PUD. That same year, a 4-mile tunnel, 10 to 14 feet in diameter, was bored through Blue Mountain and a smaller, 4-mile pipeline was added to divert water from the lake to a new pumphouse downstream on the Sultan River.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There, four turbines generate about 5 percent of the PUD&amp;#39;s power, enough for about 35,800 homes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The low water flow caused by the dam and the pipeline made life tough for fish and took away what once was a prime whitewater rafting spot.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Side channels to the river, where fingerling salmon often stopped to eat, dried up. Debris that formerly was washed out has accumulated instead. When a big flow comes, it&amp;#39;s often a torrent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One project involves adding more dead trees and wood to the river to add more variety to flow conditions, creating pools where fish can rest.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another involves reopening many of the former side channels, either by digging or by placing deadwood where the water will naturally divert into the former streambeds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Work on both of these projects probably will be done in the fall of 2012 or the spring of 2013, Neroutsos said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The water temperature in the river will be raised slightly by releasing water from closer to the surface of Spada Lake through the dam, likely in 2012, he said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For whitewater rafters, an access trail will be built and, starting in about 2013, more water will be released from the dam on several occasions per year to mimic natural high flows, Neroutsos said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The top of Culmback Dam will be opened to hikers, possibly by next spring. Improvements to boat launches in Spada Lake also are planned.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Next week, the PUD is planning opening ceremonies for its Youngs Creek Dam, a &amp;quot;microhydro&amp;quot; project on a creek south of Sultan. The $29 million dam, 12 feet tall and 65 feet across, is the first new dam built in the state in more than 25 years, PUD officials say. It&amp;#39;s expected to generate enough power, on average, for 2,000 homes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The PUD also operates an even smaller dam at Woods Hole near Monroe.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Bill Sheets: 425-339-3439; &lt;a href="mailto:sheets@heraldnet.com"&gt;sheets@heraldnet.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/10/14/environmental-plan-earns-sultan-river-dam-a-new-45-year-license#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1264">collaboration</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/northwest">Northwest</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1631">Sultan River</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/washington">Washington</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:56:36 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6190 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/10/14/environmental-plan-earns-sultan-river-dam-a-new-45-year-license</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Interior Report Confirms Klamath Dam Removal Can Benefit People and Ecosystem</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/oTXzobzy97o/interior-report-confirms-klamath-dam-removal-can-benefit-people-and-ecosystem</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

  &lt;span class="field-label"&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-items"&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-item"&gt;&lt;a href="/projects/klamath-p-2082"&gt;Klamath : P-2082&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A report released by the Department of Interior this week confirms that the benefits of removal of four Klamath River dams far outweigh the costs. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href="http://klamathrestoration.gov/sites/klamathrestoration.gov/files/Final.Summary.Sept.21.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;summary&lt;/a&gt; of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) states that  the removal will increase production of Chinook salmon by 81% and open 420 miles of habitat for Steelhead and 68 miles for Coho salmon. The report also found that dam removal would cost $291 million (in 2020 dollars) as opposed to the previous estimates of $450 million.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the report, dam removal is expected to create 1,400 jobs during the year of removal and another 4600 over the next 15 years during the implementation of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), one of the two agreements that also paved way for the study. The removal is expected to cause a loss of 67 jobs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the dams were removed, water quality could be hugely improved by eliminating the reservoir’s toxic algal bloom and by restoring more natural river flows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The dams currently generate enough electricity to power roughly 70,000 homes, although if the dams are retained, the additional costs from construction of required fish passage facilities, which could be substantial, will likely be passed on to ratepayers. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Secretary will make a final decision on the fate of the dams in March 2012. Even if the dams were to be removed, actual removal will not happen until 2020.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Several members of the conservation community, including members of the Coalition have been advocating removal of the dams to restore the Klamath River basin. This report is an affirmation of the science-backed position Coalition members have taken for a long time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Read Department of Interior’s &lt;a href="http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Salazar-Announces-Release-of-Klamath-Dam-Removal-Studies.cfm" target="_blank"&gt;press release&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href="http://klamathrestoration.gov/Draft-EIS-EIR/download-draft-eis-eir" target="_blank"&gt;full report&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/09/22/interior-report-confirms-klamath-dam-removal-can-benefit-people-and-ecosystem#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/california">California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/california">California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/843">dam removal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/842">Klamath</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/oregon">Oregon</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1361">river restoration</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:43:02 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6173 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/09/22/interior-report-confirms-klamath-dam-removal-can-benefit-people-and-ecosystem</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Elwha &amp; Glines Canyon Dam Removal</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/qlaEK4UyqAE/elwha-glines-canyon-dam-removal</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;a rel="lightbox" href="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/1146_1472820590_26f81586b3.jpg"&gt;&lt;a rel="lightbox" href="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/1146_1472820590_26f81586b3.jpg"&gt;&lt;img width="75" class="flickrstickr_image" align="left" src="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/1146_1472820590_26f81586b3.jpg" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;  This weekend heralds the beginning of a three-year process to remove the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams on Washington&amp;#39;s Olympic Peninsula.  The Elwha River flows through the heart of Olympic National Park, and restoration will restore over 70 miles of salmon and steelhead habitat.  Glines Canyon Dam (210 feet tall) will be the largest dam removal ever removed. Elwha Dam was built in 1913, and Glines Canyon in 1927, so removal will allow the river to run free for the first time in nearly 100 years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; As reported in the Coalitions &amp;quot;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/RESTORE-for-web.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;Restore &lt;/a&gt;-- Responsibly Reviving America&amp;#39;s Rivers,&amp;quot; dam removal in the Northwest has restored hundreds of miles of river and provided more fish, wildlife, recreation, improved public safety, flood protection, and better water quality.  Dam removal has been studied or successfully undertaken on more than 80 rivers in Alaska, Montana, Oregon and Washington.  This includes dam removals on Oregon&amp;#39;s Rogue, Hood and Sandy Rivers, Idaho&amp;#39;s Bear, Washington&amp;#39;s Trout Creek, and Montana&amp;#39;s Clark Fork.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 26th, the 125 foot tall Condit Dam on Washington&amp;#39;s White Salmon River, built in 1911, is scheduled to be breached which will connect the lower 3.3 miles of river with the upper 29 Wild and Scenic River miles.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Coalition members have been deeply involved with each of these removal and restoration projects. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/09/13/elwha-glines-canyon-dam-removal#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/843">dam removal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/northwest">Northwest</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1361">river restoration</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/washington">Washington</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:22:50 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rich Bowers</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6162 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/09/13/elwha-glines-canyon-dam-removal</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Coalition to Host a Hydrokinetics &amp; Recreation Workshop</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/Zc902QlJwjE/coalition-to-host-a-hydrokinetics-recreation-workshop</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Hydropower Reform Coalition is partnering with the National Park Service  to organize a “Hydrokinetics and Recreation Workshop” in Memphis, Tennessee on October 18 and a boating trip on the Mississippi River on Oct 19.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The workshop will be used to discuss recreational issues surrounding new hydrokinetic technologies like the ones being proposed on the Mississippi River. The workshop is targeted for regulators, developers, and stakeholders, including recreation&lt;br /&gt;users along the Mississippi River and will review major recreation effects as well as options to study those effects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no fee to participate in the workshop but registration is required. However, a small fee will be assessed to participate in the field trip.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;More information is available &lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Memphis%20HK%20Recreation%20Workshop%20Information.pdf"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. Registration form is available &lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Memphis%20HK%20Recreation%20Workshop%20Registration%20Form.pdf"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table id="attachments"&gt;
 &lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Attachment&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Size&lt;/th&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Memphis HK Recreation Workshop Registration Form.pdf"&gt;Memphis HK Recreation Workshop Registration Form.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;65.64 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf even"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Memphis HK Recreation Workshop Information.pdf"&gt;Memphis HK Recreation Workshop Information.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;323.41 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/08/26/coalition-to-host-a-hydrokinetics-recreation-workshop#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/national">National</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1417">Hydrokinetics; in-river hydrokinetics; new technology</category>
 <enclosure url="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Memphis HK Recreation Workshop Registration Form.pdf" length="67218" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:09:45 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6140 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/08/26/coalition-to-host-a-hydrokinetics-recreation-workshop</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Time Lapse Website for Removal of Condit Dam</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/4aLoDEEftWg/time-lapse-website-for-removal-of-condit-dam</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

  &lt;span class="field-label"&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-items"&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-item"&gt;&lt;a href="/projects/condit-p-2342"&gt;Condit : P-2342&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A new &lt;a href="http://whitesalmontimelapse.wordpress.com/" target="_blank"&gt;website &lt;/a&gt;(&lt;a href="http://whitesalmontimelapse.wordpress.com/" title="http://whitesalmontimelapse.wordpress.com/"&gt;http://whitesalmontimelapse.wordpress.com/&lt;/a&gt;) will maintain a timelapse of the events unfolding during the removal of the Condit dam.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Condit Dam on the White Salmon River in Washington will be breached on October 26, 2011. The dam has been in place since 1913 and has been a major barrier that has devastated the White Salmon River&amp;#39;s salmon and steelhead runs by reducing their habitat to only three miles. Removal of the dam will open 33 miles of habitat for steelhead and 14 miles of habitat for chinook, chum and coho salmon as well as five miles of recreational boating runs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;PacifiCorps decided in 1999 that removing the dam would be more cost effective than building a fish passage system to keep the hydropower project running. More information on the project is available at &lt;a href="http://whitesalmonriver.org" target="_blank"&gt;http://whitesalmonriver.org/&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/08/25/time-lapse-website-for-removal-of-condit-dam#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1630">Condit</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/843">dam removal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/decommissioning">decommissioning</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/northwest">Northwest</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1361">river restoration</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/washington">Washington</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:22:11 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6139 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/08/25/time-lapse-website-for-removal-of-condit-dam</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Kilarc-Cow Project Recommended for Decommissioning</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/ecED38tYwkE/kilarc-cow-project-recommended-for-decommissioning</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

  &lt;span class="field-label"&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-items"&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-item"&gt;&lt;a href="/projects/kilarc-cow-creek-p-606"&gt;Kilarc - Cow Creek : P-606&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;In a final environmental Impact statement (FEIS) released on August 16, staff at Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have supported PG&amp;amp;E’s proposal to decommission the &lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/projects/kilarc-cow-creek-p-606" target="_blank"&gt;Kilarc-Cow project&lt;/a&gt; in Shasta County, California.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href="http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=12734329"&gt;FEIS&lt;/a&gt; concludes that the removal of the Kilarc and Cow projects can improve aquatic and fisheries habitat in bypassed reach for anadromous and resident species and that in general, “fisheries and aquatic resources would significantly benefit over the long-term, when compared to the existing conditions.” It also predicts that there will be an increase in average monthly flows in the reaches of Old Cow and South Cow Creeks that are currently bypassed for hydropower operations. The report acknowledges that during removal, there will be temporary effects to wildlife due to noise, lighting, and human activity and that upland, riparian, and wetland vegetation will be temporarily disturbed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The California Energy Commission had concurred with Cal Fish and Game, and other state and federal resource and water quality agencies’ view that PG&amp;amp;E&amp;#39;s decommissioning proposal is an important restoration opportunity for salmonid habitat in the Cow Creek watershed and northern Sacramento River valley. FERC states that “With expected additions of generation in the region, this loss of generation would have a negligible overall effect on the region.” The project has a total installed capacity of 4.67 MW and generates an average of about 31,100 megawatt hours annually.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After beginning the licensing process in 2002, PG&amp;amp;E concluded in 2004 that the cost of providing the protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&amp;amp;E) measures for the resources affected by the project would outweigh the economic benefit of generation at the project over the life of a new license. The company filed an application to surrender its license in March 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/08/17/kilarc-cow-project-recommended-for-decommissioning#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/california">California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/california">California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/decommissioning">decommissioning</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1462">FEIS</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/license-surrender">license surrender</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/pg-e">PG&amp;E</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:42:35 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6130 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/08/17/kilarc-cow-project-recommended-for-decommissioning</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Broadening the Hydro Base in Washington State</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/AL5aR6o60Lw/broadening-the-hydro-base-in-washington-state</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;a rel="lightbox" href="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/6130_5954522661_4099830445.jpg"&gt;&lt;a rel="lightbox" href="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/6130_5954522661_4099830445.jpg"&gt;&lt;img height="200" class="flickrstickr_image" align="left" src="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/6130_5954522661_4099830445.jpg" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Over the past several months, Coalition members have worked to broaden the energy generation base in Washington State by promoting efficiency upgrades at existing dams, focusing on new renewable energy technologies, and opposing new dam construction where this would lead to marginal additional energy and high environmental impacts. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Washington&amp;#39;s energy system is unlike any other state in the country, with more than 66% of its energy coming from hydropower.  In 2007, the Energy Information Administration ranked Washington State as #1 of the hydropower producing states, generating over 27% of the total US hydropower capacity for electric generation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 15th, the Coalition submitted comments to the Washington Utility and Transportation Commission which is planning to study the potential for distributed energy within the state.  Comments addressed the comparison of micro-hydro projects with other renewable technologies as well as comparing micro-hydro to utility-scale hydropower generation. See below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Coalition members have also intervened in nine permit applications or licenses for new small-hydro projects in the North Cascades, including a new proposal for the North Fork Snoqualmie, a river section found to be eligible for Wild and Scenic designation, and currently listed as a Northwest Power and Conservation Council protected area.  Copies of Coalition interventions can be found below. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table id="attachments"&gt;
 &lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Attachment&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Size&lt;/th&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Final Barclay Creek Intervention 12 16 10_0.pdf"&gt;Final Barclay Creek Intervention 12 16 10.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;42.45 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf even"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Final Calligan Creek Intervention 3 11 11.pdf"&gt;Final Calligan Creek Intervention 3 11 11.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;37.85 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Final Martin Creek Intervention 12 16 10_0.pdf"&gt;Final Martin Creek Intervention 12 16 10.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;48.93 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf even"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Final Hancock Creek Intervention 4 13 11.pdf"&gt;Final Hancock Creek Intervention 4 13 11.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;43.12 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Final Ruth Swamp Creek Intervention 12 16 10_0.pdf"&gt;Final Ruth Swamp Creek Intervention 12 16 10.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;50.48 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf even"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Final Bear Creek Intervention 4 13 11.pdf"&gt;Final Bear Creek Intervention 4 13 11.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;34.6 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Final Comment NGO Ltr. 7 8 11.pdf"&gt;Final Comment NGO Ltr. 7 8 11.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;40.22 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf even"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Final AW Intervention 7 8 11.pdf"&gt;Final AW Intervention 7 8 11.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.45 MB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-pdf odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Comments to WUTC on micro-hydro FINAL 7 15 11.pdf"&gt;Comments to WUTC on micro-hydro FINAL 7 15 11.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;98.49 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/07/21/broadening-the-hydro-base-in-washington-state#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1147">FERC relicensing</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1528">micro hydro</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/northwest">Northwest</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1287">renewable energy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1596">small hydro</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/washington">Washington</category>
 <enclosure url="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Final Barclay Creek Intervention 12 16 10_0.pdf" length="43473" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:27:25 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rich Bowers</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6108 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/07/21/broadening-the-hydro-base-in-washington-state</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Proposed Pumped Storage Project Axed by FERC</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/HFq0cw-JJC4/proposed-pumped-storage-project-axed-by-ferc</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Citing differences between the co-applicants of the Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage (LEAPS) Project, which would be located on Lake Elsinore and San Juan Creek in Riverside County, CA, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has dismissed the application for the project submitted in 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District wants to build the pumped storage project whereas Nevada Hydro Company, the co-applicant wants to build the transmission line prior to the project. They have also been at odds regarding the water quality certification required from the State of California. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In its &lt;a href="http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=12705363" target="_blank"&gt;dismissal order&lt;/a&gt;, FERC stated, “…it is clear that Elsinore Valley’s goal is to develop the hydroelectric project and improve the water quality of Lake Elsinore through the operation of that project.  On the other hand, Nevada Hydro’s primary interest is in the TE/VS transmission line.” FERC also stated that given the differences in goals of the co-applicants, “…it would be unreasonable to expend further public resources on this matter.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the order gives the applicants or other interested parties 30 days to protest the decision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/07/14/proposed-pumped-storage-project-axed-by-ferc#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/california">California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/california">California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/874">California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/new-license">new license</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1555">pumped storage</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:05:13 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6107 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/07/14/proposed-pumped-storage-project-axed-by-ferc</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>A Maryland city to build low-head hydro using its raw water line</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/V1Z-XhNy-F0/a-maryland-city-to-build-low-head-hydro-using-its-raw-water-line</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

  &lt;span class="field-label"&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-items"&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-item"&gt;&lt;a href="/projects/atlanta-power-station-p-11541"&gt;Atlanta Power Station : P-11541&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The City of Frostburg in northwestern Maryland, has obtained an exemption from license to develop hydropower at the city’s municipal raw water line, discharging water from the hydro plant to the raw water reservoir. The City can now start constructing the 75 kilowatt project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City’s &lt;a href="http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=12535601" target="_blank"&gt;application&lt;/a&gt; to FERC states that the plant will operate automatically only when water is being pumped from the Piney Run Dam and/or Savage Mountain supply wells to the raw water supply reservoir.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City estimates the project will have an average annual generation of 240 megawatt-hours. The City will use a 75 kilowatt Pelton turbine to be housed in a powerhouse. The City has two years to start constructing the powerhouse.The City anticipates minimal environmental impacts from the construction and continued operation of the facility. Any impacts will be during construction of the powerhouse for which the City proposes to install erosion and sediment control measures prior to construction to minimize any impacts to the wetland. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;he FERC exemption order can be found &lt;a href="http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=12690082" target="_blank"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/06/30/a-maryland-city-to-build-low-head-hydro-using-its-raw-water-line#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1601">conduit exemption</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/east">East</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1629">low head hydro</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/maryland">Maryland</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1596">small hydro</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1399">water supply</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:16:21 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6106 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/06/30/a-maryland-city-to-build-low-head-hydro-using-its-raw-water-line</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>FERC opens pathway to 2011 removal of Condit Dam</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/r8j50DAmltw/ferc-opens-pathway-to-2011-removal-of-condit-dam</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

  &lt;span class="field-label"&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-items"&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-item"&gt;&lt;a href="/projects/condit-p-2342"&gt;Condit : P-2342&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;a rel="lightbox" href="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/1412_1433681949_b7d9054608.jpg"&gt;&lt;a rel="lightbox" href="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/1412_1433681949_b7d9054608.jpg"&gt;&lt;img width="200" class="flickrstickr_image" align="left" src="/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/1412_1433681949_b7d9054608.jpg" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 21, 2011, FERC issued its order on rehearing, denying stay, and dismissing the extension of time request by PacifiCorp on Project No. 2342-021, Condit Dam on Washington&amp;#39;s White Salmon River. This order re-opens the path for removing the dam this October, 2011. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With a limited dam removal window, and pending FERC&amp;#39;s response to the utilities request for clarification and rehearing on FERC&amp;#39;s surrender order (WA Dept of Ecology and American Rivers, American Whitewater and Trout Unlimited also requested rehearing), PacifiCorp had asked for an extension to push removal back to 2012.  In this order, FERC addresses those areas were clarification was needed, especially its earlier decision that the state had waived its 401 water quality certification, and denies their request for an extension. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The order &amp;quot;concludes that 401 certification was not in fact waived and incorporates the certification conditions as conditions of the surrender order.&amp;quot;  Further, FERC orders &amp;quot;The licensee shall commence breaching Condit Dam and draining Northwestern Lake in October 2011 and may continue project operations until breaching the dam.&amp;quot; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The order does provide the licensee with an out, saying that &amp;quot;If PacifiCorp determines that it would not be able to begin project removal activities in 2011, it can then file a new motion for an extension of time ...&amp;quot;  But this is acceptable and places the onus of timely removal back on PacifiCorp. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We applaud FERC for this timely order, which looks at the big picture benefits of dam removal.  We look forward to working with PacifiCorp and other signatories to the October 1999 settlement agreement and to removing the dam this October. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table id="attachments"&gt;
 &lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Attachment&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Size&lt;/th&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-msword odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Order dismissing extenstion of time request 4 21 11.doc"&gt;Order dismissing extenstion of time request 4 21 11.doc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;332 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/04/21/ferc-opens-pathway-to-2011-removal-of-condit-dam#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/national">National</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1145">collaborative settlement</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1630">Condit</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/843">dam removal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1147">FERC relicensing</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/washington">Washington</category>
 <enclosure url="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Order dismissing extenstion of time request 4 21 11.doc" length="339968" type="application/msword" />
 <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:44:03 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rich Bowers</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6040 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/04/21/ferc-opens-pathway-to-2011-removal-of-condit-dam</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Pacific Northwest Outreach Material</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/LALER4Db74s/pacific-northwest-outreach-material</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;HRC Pacific Northwest introduces on-line outreach material on the Coalition, on low-power hydro project impacts, and on dam removal and Northwest (Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington State) success stories.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table id="attachments"&gt;
 &lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Attachment&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Size&lt;/th&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-unknown odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/HRC Final Brochure 3 04 2011.pdf"&gt;HRC Final Brochure 3 04 2011.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;193.66 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-unknown even"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Skagit_FINAL.pdf"&gt;Skagit_FINAL.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;444.42 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-unknown odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/Chelan_FINAL.pdf"&gt;Chelan_FINAL.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;640.44 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-unknown even"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/BearRiver_FINAL.pdf"&gt;BearRiver_FINAL.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;554.57 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-unknown odd"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/smallhydro_web_2.pdf"&gt;smallhydro_web.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;375.62 KB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
 &lt;tr class="application-unknown even"&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/RESTORE-low-res.pdf"&gt;RESTORE-low-res.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.93 MB&lt;/td&gt; &lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/04/18/pacific-northwest-outreach-material#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/northwest">Northwest</category>
 <enclosure url="http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/HRC Final Brochure 3 04 2011.pdf" length="198303" type="application/unknown" />
 <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:17:08 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rich Bowers</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6032 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/04/18/pacific-northwest-outreach-material</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Final EA Released: FERC Staff Do Not Adopt State's Recommended Flows</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/IBDucGgeJEY/final-ea-released-ferc-staff-do-not-adopt-states-recommended-flows</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

  &lt;span class="field-label"&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-items"&gt;
  &lt;span class="field-item"&gt;&lt;a href="/projects/claytor-p-739"&gt;Claytor : P-739&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;On April 8, 2011 FERC Staff issued a &lt;a href="http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=12614209"&gt;Final Environmental Assessment&lt;/a&gt; (FEA) for the Claytor Hydroelectric Project (&lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/projects/claytor-p-739"&gt;P-769&lt;/a&gt;) on the New River in Pulaski county, Virginia. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the FEA, the FERC staff have not adopted the recommendations on flows made by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) to protect the aquatic habitat downstream from the Claytor dam. The FEA, like the draft EA, states that there is ...&amp;quot;no basis to expect that a more natural flow regime or one that would narrow the gap between the base flow and the generation flow would enhance the fish community of the New River downstream from Claytor dam.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;FERC determined that the additional cost of lost generation does not outweigh the benefits of the higher flow releases. The annual cost of increased minimum flows were calculated to be $28,290.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The project now goes to the Commissioners for final order before the current license expires on June 30, 2011.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/04/08/final-ea-released-ferc-staff-do-not-adopt-states-recommended-flows#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/east">East</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/environmental-assessment">Environmental Assessment</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/nepa">NEPA</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1610">New River</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1628">recommendations</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/virginia">Virginia</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:12:32 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6019 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/04/08/final-ea-released-ferc-staff-do-not-adopt-states-recommended-flows</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Assessment Shows Additional 225 MW Potential at Bureau Sites</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hydroreform/~3/-fISASLG-XY/assessment-shows-additional-225-mw-potential-at-bureau-sites</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-project"&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
          &lt;div class="field-item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href="http://www.usbr.gov/power/AssessmentReport/USBRHydroAssessmentFinalReportMarch2011.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;Hydropower Resource Assessment&lt;/a&gt; performed by the Bureau of Reclamation for its existing sites, including dams, diversions, canals, and tunnels, estimates that there is potential to add 225MW of capacity at the Bureau’s sites.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The analysis looked at 530 existing sites, of which, 191 sites were determined to have some level of hydropower potential. Only 70 of those sites, with a total generation capacity of 225 MW, show some economic potential for development. Utah and Colorado have the highest potential installed capacity at 53 MW and 46 MW respectively.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The resource assessment is a result of a March 2010 &lt;a href="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2010/03/25/doi-doe-and-army-corps-sign-a-mou" target="_blank"&gt;MOU&lt;/a&gt; () between the Departments of Interior, Army, and Energy, under which the agencies agreed to evaluate hydropower potential at federal facilities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 70 sites identified have a benefit cost ratio of greater than 0.7, making them more lucrative to development. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class="clear" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/04/06/assessment-shows-additional-225-mw-potential-at-bureau-sites#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/national">National</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1624">Bureau of Reclamation</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1625">existing dams</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1547">new hydro</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1626">retrofits</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:22:22 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6012 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2011/04/06/assessment-shows-additional-225-mw-potential-at-bureau-sites</feedburner:origLink></item>
</channel>
</rss>

