11/02/2012

Some Dam – Hydro News TM

And Other Stuff i

Quote of Note: “Life is half spent before we know what it is.” - George Herbert “Good wine is a necessity of life.” - -Thomas Jefferson Ron’s wine pick of the week: 2009 Waterstone, Napa Valley, Cabernet Sauvignon “No nation was ever drunk when wine was cheap.” - - Thomas Jefferson

Dams: (This dam removal battle rages on and now it’s getting very political!) Vann hits feds on removing Yuba River dams October 19, 2012 , By Ben van der Meer, appeal-democrat.com

The fate of Englebright and Daguerre Point dams is entering the 3rd Congressional District race as an issue, after Republican challenger Kim Vann joined criticism of a federal study suggesting they be removed. Vann, a Colusa County supervisor who is trying to unseat US Rep. John Garamendi, said the opinion by the National Marine Fisheries Service doesn't look at the whole picture. "The agencies are not working together, and they're not communicating with each other," said Vann. Englebright and Daguerre Point, in the early stages of relicensing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, are operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers. But the Fisheries Service biological opinion, released in February as part of the relicensing process, suggested the dams be removed to aid recovery for three endangered fish species native to the Yuba. Environmental groups, such as the South Yuba River Citizens' League, have concurred in those opinions, saying the dams' initial purpose for flood and debris control no longer applies because of improvements elsewhere. "It is well known that the upper Yuba River is one of the best places to restore these threatened species, which is why the Biological Opinion calls for fish passage above the Army Corps' dams," said the Citizen League's executive director, Caleb Dardick, in an email.

Vann said such opinions fly in the face of reality, with mercury, a holdover from the river's mining days, likely to cause widespread harm if the dams are removed. "When you add in the other environmental concerns, it shows you need to look at the issue in total," she said. Garamendi, D- Walnut Grove, was unavailable for comment Friday. Earlier this month, a scheduling conflict 1

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

prevented Vann from touring the dam with US Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. But Vann said she still believes she can push the issue if elected. Her concern follows that of retiring US Rep. Wally Herger, who sent acting US Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank a letter last month requesting intervention in the issue. The Fisheries Services is part of the Department of Commerce. "I also noted in my letter that the opinion is rife with factual errors and unsupported conclusions; calls upon the Corps to take actions that are not technically feasible; requires them to meet a schedule that is clearly not achievable; and calls for numerous actions that are neither legally authorized nor funded," Herger, R-Chico, wrote in the Sept. 5 letter. Vann said the issue also needs to be explored more because of not only increased flood danger if the dams are removed, but the loss of recreation. "If we take the hard-line approaches, rather than an overall focus, we're really doing ourselves a disservice," she said.

(Excerpts) $10.3 Million W.Va Dam Rehabilitation Project Passes Halfway Mark By: Brenda Ruggiero - CEG Correspondent | Published On: 10/24/2012

A $10.3 million dam rehabilitation project in Grant County, W.Va., is well past the halfway point. The project involves New Creek Site 14. Notice to proceed was issued in January 2011, and the contract completion date is currently set for March 2013. The original contract amount was reportedly $9.6 million, but with contract modifications and variations in estimated quantities, the final contract amount is estimated to be approximately $10.3 million. The funding for the project is 65 percent federal and 35 percent local, with local sponsors being Potomac Valley Conservation District; the city of Keyser, W.Va.; and the West Virginia State Conservation Committee. The prime contractor is Heeter Construction Inc. of Spencer, W.Va., where Dave Heter serves as president. The most significant subcontractor is ASI Constructors Inc. from Pueblo West, Colo., the company responsible for Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) and reinforced concrete placement.

“The rehabilitation project includes many of the elements involved in the rehabilitation of an existing embankment structure,” said Carol Lagodich, public affairs specialist of the West Virginia State Office of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). “USDA-NRCS has assisted with the design and construction of 170 dams in W.Va. However, this project is the first rehabilitation of a dam by NRCS in West Virginia.” The contract calls for the rehabilitation of the flood control and water supply dam, which includes flattening both the upstream and downstream slopes to improve stability of the embankment, installation of an internal filter and drainage system in the downstream slope of the embankment, replacement of the upstream riser intake structure, and construction of an (RCC) stepped-chute auxiliary spillway. “The construction challenges included working upstream of a flood control dam and construction of the RCC auxiliary spillway with limited construction area and access,” ------.

Hydro: (More hydro is always better!) 2

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

NPPD to fund water study By Tyler Ellyson , columbustelegram.com

Columbus, Nebr.— Nebraska Public Power District will fund a study to determine whether it can affordably generate more hydroelectricity. The utility is paying Colorado-based Applegate Group $150,274 to evaluate the potential for more hydropower in Nebraska, both in existing plants and at new sites. McMillen Engineering and Telluride Energy also are assisting on the study, which is expected to be finalized by April 2013. Brian Barels, NPPD’s water resources manager, said it’s the right time for a feasibility study on hydroelectricity because federal licensing requirements on the renewable energy are being eased and recent research has focused on new ways to generate power using water sources. “There’s a number of existing facilities around the state that might have potential with these new technologies,” Barels said.

Currently, NPPD owns hydropower plants near Spencer, North Platte and Kearney and purchases electricity generated by two plants on the Loup Public Power District canal and from Kingsley Hydro on Lake McConaughy and two plants owned by Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District positioned on canals downstream from Johnson Lake. Those plants will be evaluated to determine whether upgrades can be made to improve efficiency or increase production. Other existing infrastructure, such as the Sutherland Reservoir near Gerald Gentleman Station and Loup’s power canal, will be looked at as potential sites for new projects. Barels said advanced equipment that doesn’t require a large reservoir of water opens the door for more hydroelectric opportunities. For instance, Barels pointed to a new wastewater treatment plant planned in South Sioux City as a site where hydrokinetic technology could be used to generate electricity using water from the discharge pipe. “There’s different ways that you can use hydro now,” he said. According to Barels, Nebraska’s newest hydroelectric plant was added to the Kingsley Dam in the mid-1980s. But the resource hasn’t been forgotten. Applegate Group will call on previous state and private studies to identify locations suitable for hydroelectricity. Barels said there are sites where people would like a reservoir for recreation or flood control that could also produce power and several existing dams, particularly on the Republican River, can be retrofitted to do so. “There’s a lot of information out there that we can take and apply,” he said.

Hydroelectricity presently comprises about 8.6 percent of the total electricity generated and purchased by NPPD. Wind, by comparison, makes up slightly less than 4 percent, but is expected to reach 5.2 percent by year’s end after wind farms near Broken Bow and Crofton go online. NPPD has a goal of receiving 10 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020. Barels, who called the cost of hydropower “very competitive” with other sources, said adding more water- generated electricity makes sense as the district moves to strengthen its renewable portfolio. And unlike wind, water can be stored for use during high-demand times. Hydroelectricity, Barels said, is also more flexible than coal-fired plants, which are slow to increase output when extra power is needed. “It offers some of those capabilities in our energy mix that aren’t necessarily there,” Barels said of hydroelectricity. However, there are downsides such as the current drought that has limited water supplies across the state and 2011 flooding that had many hydro plants producing at full-tilt for an extended period. “There’s positives and negatives to all the different energy resources,” Barels said. “We try to find that mix that works best to have what we need when we need it for our customers.”

(Hydro history and a sad ending!) Coon Rapids Hydroelectric Dam Creator: Philip Cooper, October 18, 2012, mnopedia.org

By the early 20th century, the goals for the Mississippi Headwaters dam building had expanded beyond flood prevention and navigation. Electric power production was central to the new goals. This led to the construction of several hydroelectric dams throughout Minnesota. These dams were intended to encourage 3 Coon Rapids Dam in 1920

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

population growth and industry. Among these was the Coon Rapids Dam. Between 1914 and 1966 this dam offered an important source of energy for communities north of the Twin Cities. Both practical and political motivations drove the hydroelectric movement. The introduction of electric power in the late 19th century prompted the construction of hydroelectric dams in Minnesota’s urban areas. In 1882 the Minnesota Brush Electrical Company opened an early dam at St. Anthony Falls. It provided power to a limited number of local clients. In time, political forces such as the progressive movement demanded the expansion of power to rural sections of the state. Business leaders were also interested in population growth and modernization and supported dams north of St Anthony Falls.

Coon Rapids in Anoka County was one such site. In Construction of the power plant at the August 1898, private businesses began to develop north end of the Coon Rapids Dam initial plans for a dam near this town, twelve miles north of Minneapolis. Eventually, the project became a joint effort between business and the government. In 1911 Congress approved federal funding for a dam at the site. Over the next two years the government worked with the Northern Mississippi Power Company to realize this goal. Construction began in 1913. It took 42,000 cubic yards of concrete and the work of one thousand men, but by 1914 the dam and outbuildings were complete. The dam was now ready to bring power to the region. The construction of the Coon Rapids Dam had a great impact on Anoka County. At the outset of the project Coon Rapids was a small rural town. The arrival of the dam workers bolstered the local economy. This led to new schools, stores, and other development. Although the end of construction caused a small slump, the county rebounded. Between 1920 and 1960 its population steadily increased from 15,626 to 85,196. This growth was due in part to the availability of electricity. Local businesses such as merchants and flour millers also benefited from this power source and contributed to local expansion. Interior view showing machine number one ready for operation at the Coon Rapids Dam power plant By 1966 the Coon Rapids Dam was no longer cost effective. This was largely due to rising maintenance costs and the advantages of energy sources such as coal. Northern States Power Company shut down the facility and donated it to the Hennepin County Park Reserve in 1969. The dam ceased to function as a power source and the structure and surrounding area were turned into a public park in 1978. This transition proved to be detrimental. By 1995 the dam had fallen into severe disrepair. In 1997, the upper portion of the structure had to be completely replaced. Repairs continued to be made through the early 2000s. After years of disuse, the Coon Rapids Dam became involved in Minnesota’s river policy again in 2010. Asian carp, an invasive fish species, had been moving up the Mississippi for several years. The carp were threatening to disrupt the headwaters’ ecosystems. In 2010 the legislature moved to address this issue. They appointed the Coon Rapids Dam Commission to study it. By the next year the Commission recommended that the Coon Rapids Dam be modified to serve as a barrier to the carp. In 2012 improvements to the dam began under the direction of Stanley Consultants. This project includes upgrades to the structure’s gates, hydraulic mechanism, and spillways. It is slated for completion by 2014.

(We don’t need more museums, we need more hydro! Preserving another piece of hydro history that sadly is now a museum instead of a working powerhouse - see photos at this site: http://enr.construction.com/infrastructure/power_industrial/2012/extras/1025/slideshow.asp?slide =1 ) 4

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

Portland's Historic Bull Run Powerhouse Saved From Demolition 10/25/2012, By Jeff Gunderson, enr.construction.com

When the Bull Run Hydroelectric project was built in the early 1900s, it was considered a feat of engineering and skilled construction. Sited in what was then a remote wilderness about 35 miles east of Portland, Ore., the project comprised an integrated network of construction and engineering : dams on the Sandy and Little Sandy Rivers, more than three miles of canals and tunnels, a wooden box flume to transport water nearly three miles to the man-made Roslyn Lake reservoir and a Photo courtesy of PdxHistory.com. Bull Run Powerhouse powerhouse on the banks of the Bull Run under construction, circa 1909. River. Following design by Mount Hood Railway and Power Co., its subsidiary Mount Hood Construction Co. began construction in 1909. The job was completed in 1912 by Portland Railway Light & Power, a predecessor to Portland General Electric (PGE). The power station would serve Portland’s growing population for decades, but in 1999, after nearly 94 years of operation, PGE determined that the environmental costs associated with relicensing were too high to justify continued operation. In 2007, PGE began decommissioning. Restoring the Sandy and Little Sandy Rivers to their original flows was a key component. The Bull Run powerhouse, a symbolic relic of the region’s early 20th century urbanization, was decommissioned in 2008 with the dams removed to improve the rivers for fish migration. The remaining facilities would have been demolished if not for the efforts of Portland-based Powerhouse Re Gen, a small partnership who bought the property from PGE to preserve the historical powerhouse.

“The site has an incredible story to tell,” said Re Gen partner Jeff Joslin, a planning and architectural consultant and former land use supervisor for the City of Portland. (In October, Joslin took a job in San Francisco as the director of current planning for the city planning department.) For Bull Run, he said, “our intent is for the powerhouse to play an interpretive role, telling of the early development of Portland, the industrialization of these rivers, and the importance of hydroelectric power in the region.” Another partner, George Kramer, who PGE hired to prepare Bull Run’s determination of eligibility application for the National Park Service’s National Register of Historic Places, said the project was initially driven by the need to supply electric power for Portland’s developing trolley system. “Because of the magnitude of river systems in the Pacific Northwest, hydroelectricity represented the easiest and most cost-effective source of power available,” Kramer said. “Even today, the majority of electricity in the Pacific Northwest is hydropower.” During the era leading up to construction of the project, the environment was “superheated in terms of the competition to bring hydroelectric power online,” and “financing these types of ventures was considered extremely risky,” according to Joslin. But perhaps the greatest challenge facing those building the powerhouse more than a century ago was the project site’s remoteness. “In order to overcome the shear inaccessibility of the location, a railroad was constructed directly to the site,” Joslin said. “The powerhouse facility was designed so that trains coming from Portland could literally pass right through the transformer building and offload heavy equipment. The train stayed operational and was used to service the powerhouse over time.”

Re Gen is still unsure of the best use for the powerhouse site and its associated facilities. The deal included the original machine shop, 100 acres of surrounding land, recreational structures, and a former historic elementary school. The partners are continuing to explore a number of possibilities. “The facility and structures are incredibly intact and could be used to support a number of adaptive reuses,” Joslin said. “Propositions thus far have included an outdoor school, a 5

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

blacksmith shop, and even a brewery. The building’s aesthetic qualities have also attracted interest for prospective music video, photo, and movie shoots. In fact, the NBC series Grimm filmed last season’s final show at the site’s transformer building.” In late September, Powerhouse Re Gen held an open house celebrating the powerhouse’s 100-year anniversary.

(Not much information on this technology so we’ll keep looking!) Roos updates supervisors on Amjet hydroturbine dailygate.com, Wed Oct 24, 2012, By Joe Benedict, MVM News Network

Montrose, Iowa – A lot of the economic development discussions recently have centered around the Iowa Fertilizer Company getting ready to build and Siemens planning layoffs, but Paul Roos came to the Lee County Board of Supervisors Tuesday to give an update on Amjet Turbine Systems. Roos, Amjet’s technical director, said the company is moving toward building a full- scale model of its hydroelectric turbine. To do so, however, the company is going to need help from investors. He said originally investors said they would like to see a scale model, so the company acquired funding through grants and loans, like the $150,000 loan given by the board of supervisors, and, with the help of the University of Iowa, created the scale model. Roos said the goal post was moved to the investors wanting to see a full-scale model. So the company began gathering funds and has $1 million in federal grant funds to start the work on the full-size model, but Roos said the tooling on the composite materials is going to be about $2.7 million. He is hoping investors will see the government having faith in the system and will start to invest in the project.

He said the Amjet turbines will cost about $2 million per megawatt whereas traditional turbines are costing $4 million or more per megawatt. He said the technology can produce electricity for about one cent per kilowatt hour and foresees a $95 billion market for the product. About 90 percent of the dams in the US don’t have any hydroelectric setup and Roos said these turbines will make it easy to convert almost any dam to one that can produce electricity. Supervisor Ernie Schiller asked how many people were working on the project. Roos said three at the moment. That could grow to eight when the full size turbine construction begins. If everything goes well, Roos said he thinks in a few years, the workforce could grow to 350 or 400 people as manufacturing gets underway. Roos had praise for Lee County Economic Development Corporation Director Steve Bisenius saying the project wouldn’t be where it is today without his help. There also was a suggestion by Roos that this technology could be an answer to the cooling of wind energy blade production at Siemens. He said the company announced it would sell its solar industry and concentrate on wind and hydroelectric energy. He said he was excited to hear hydro being part of that company’s plans. Schiller asked Roos what kind of timeline Amjet was looking at. Roos said the company would like to have a unit assembled and installed on the dam at University of Iowa by the end of 2013.

(Proof that fish and hydro can get along together!) Generate Power And Protect Fish Written by C.G. KMAS News Radio Friday, 26 October 2012, masoncountydailynews.com

An update on the new Hydroelectric Project at Cushman Dam No. 2. On October 17, Jeff Slakey and I, Carol Gardner from KMAS were fortunate enough to take advantage of one of the last nice days of weather and toured the Cushman Powerhouse No. 2 at Hood Canal and also see the Cushman Dam No. 2 on Lake Kokanee. We were able to check the progress of the new Powerhouse and Fish Passage 6

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

System, which are being built on the Dam. We met Randy Stearnes, Community Relations Officer of Tacoma Power at Salt Water Park, (across the street from Powerhouse No. 2). Lodged in the gravel is an old 6 ! ton Francis turbine from the Cushman Power House No. 2, complete with pockmarks or small holes. Stearnes explained that these are evidence of how much force the water had on the turbine - how much pressure it takes to move these and the force of collapsing water bubbles acting like bullets, creating the small holes. These holes, could affect efficiency, so in an active turbine, the holes are repaired. The turbines are used to turn the generators which produce electricity using magnetic fields. Stearnes said that in order for the generators to produce the right frequency of electricity, the turbines need to turn at 300 revolutions per minute, which is a little less than 900 cubic feet per second. Tacoma Power owns and operates seven dams. Two in Mason County: Cushman No. 1(1925) on Lake Cushman and Cushman No. 2 (1930) on Lake Kokanee. Two on the Cowlitz River: Mayfield (1963) and Mossyrock (1968). Two on the Nisqually river: Alder Dam (1945) and LaGrande, original dam and powerhouse (1912) and dam and powerhouse addition (1945). They also own and operate one small flood control dam built in on the Wynoochee River (1973) and a Powerhouse (1993).

Across the street was the next stop of the tour - Cushman Powerhouse No. 2, the old concrete building with green trim and tall windows on Hwy 101, near Potlatch. Inside there was one of two new generators being built for the new Powerhouse, under construction at Cushman Dam No. 2, at the southwestern end of Lake Kokanee. Inside are the three working, original generators of the Powerhouse; the “Governor” – the old manual machine that was used to regulate the water flow. In the basement, Stearnes said most of the stuff is the same as it has been since the 1930’s. Upstairs has more modern touches with a new super computer that can be used to regulate water flow, taking the place of the “Governors” manual knobs and buttons. Though water flow can be regulated at each individual Dam, Tacoma Power usually regulates all their seven Dams from a central location in Tacoma. Leaving Powerhouse No. 2, Stearnes hands out hard hats and said safety vests will be available up at the Dam. At the Dam, we met up with Steve Fischer, one of the Assistant Generation Managers and Assistant Project Resident Engineer, Matt Wilson. Fischer moves us onto the crest of the dam and brings along pictures of an artist’s rendition to show us what the new “Fish Passage System” is going to look like and explains to us how it will work. The juvenile fish will be caught in Lake Cushman with a ‘collector’ – a large floating fish collection facility. The caught fish will be shipped by truck to the top of Cushman No. 2 Dam and put in a transport hopper. This hopper moves on a tram which transports the fish down to the bottom of the dam, about 200 feet. The fish are then released into the North Fork of the Skokomish River to find their way to the Pacific Ocean. The adult fish swimming up river will approach the fish pool at the same area the juveniles are released. The water will flow out and down, attracting the fish to swim up through the gates. The gates will close once a day and the fish will be crowded across the pool into the hopper. The hopper then transports the adults via the tram to the top of the dam to a fish handling facility, where the fish will be separated, counted, and marked if necessary to track them. They will then be transported past the upper Lake Cushman Dam to reach their final destination for spawning. When the Coho return, the hopper could make up to18 runs a day on the tram.

The whole Dam Project cost is 27 and half million dollars with $18.8 million the cost of the Powerhouse and the rest for the Fish Passage System and other environmental costs. According to Fischer, those numbers were the original breakdown of the estimate and they are within $200,000 of closing on that original budget. Tacoma Power received a $4.7 million grant from Department of Energy when they applied for an energy related Grant that also focused on how a company would be doing ‘good’ for the environment. After Tacoma Power described their Fish Passage System project and other environmental projects around the dam, they were able to receive the grant. The other projects include two fish hatcheries, one on Lake Kokanee which will have Coho, spring Chinook and steelhead; these will be raised to smolts and then will go directly into the North Fork of the Skokomish River. The other hatchery will be across from Powerhouse No. 2 on the Hood Canal and will raise sockeye. These will be released into Lake Cushman after 7

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

a certain age, reared for a year, collected and released into the River, eventually to return as adults making their way back to the base of Cushman Dam No. 2. The two hatcheries are projected to cost about $10 million and will be designed by Tacoma Power, along with the Skokomish Tribe and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fischer said most of his work lately involves fish, but of course, Tacoma Power is in the power business and the new generators are scheduled to be dropped into place on Nov. 13. The contractor has guaranteed the units will be ready for startup by January 1st followed by a full month of startup testing. If all goes well, the dam will be in commercial operation by early 2013. Last November, Dale Hubbard visited Cushman No. 2 and reported on the beginnings of the project. We hope to continue the story on the whole Dam Project once the Fish Passage System is up and running and into the future with the two hatcheries.

(It’s amazing! The battle to call something what it is – hydro is a renewable. All this happened so more expensive, unreliable wind power would get built and raise the cost of power.) Proposal For 2014 Would Change Oregon's Energy Standards By Virginia Alvino, October 26, 2012, nwpr.org

Even as voters decide this year’s ballot measures, initiative activists are already preparing for 2014. One new measure filed in Oregon would allow more power from hydroelectric dams to be part of the state’s renewable energy requirements. The state of Oregon requires that a certain amount of energy come from renewable sources. Hydroelectric power accounts for almost half the energy in the Northwest, and is considered a renewable source. But older hydro facilities don’t count towards meeting renewable energy requirements. The aim is to spur production of newer technologies like solar and wind. Utility companies want to change that. They say the policy is too expensive. Chief initiative petitioner Paul Cosgrove hopes the ballot measure will spur state lawmakers to act. “We’re hopeful for a resolution that makes sense, that recognizes that all forms of renewable power should be treated as such and given credit as such,” he says. But environmental groups oppose Cosgrove’s initiative. The state director for Environment Oregon says that the current standard has been a critical driver for the state’s large investment in better renewables. Washington’s standards similarly exclude older hydro dams, and several attempts to change that have failed.

Water: (Why emergency action plans are important. They can do more than just react to an emergency with a dam. They can serve as an important warning system for flood events that do not endanger the dam.) Company That Owns Stevenson Dam Taking Precautions The owners of the dam tell us they are lowering Lake Lillinonah to "create space" for the rain to gather and temporarily hold off flows downstream. oxford-ct.patch.com, October 28, 2012

Charles B. Burnham, a spokesman for FirstLight Power Resource, the company that owns the Stevenson Dam, submitted the following information to local news outlets Saturday afternoon: 8

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

We will lower Lake Lillinonah to its lowest allowable operating level beginning tonight and concluding Sunday evening. This is the most significant action we can take to create “space” so to speak, for the rain to gather and temporarily hold off flows downstream. "This is the most significant action we can take to create 'space' so to speak, for the rain to gather and temporarily hold off flows downstream," he told the Valley Independent Sentinel. We had already pulled Lake Zoar down to 98 feet to allow residents to do maintenance on their docks, as we do annually. Once Lillinonah begins draining, that water will re-fill Zoar. Zoar is so small compared to Lillinonah that its level is relatively insignificant in terms of water flow. (think of Lillinonah as a bathtub and Zoar as a shot glass). Again, it is important to remember that the Shepaug and Stevenson dams are not flood control structures. Our staff is prepared to execute the FERC Lower Housatonic Flood Plan notification system once the rain begins. We will make calls to notify local elected officials and emergency operations personnel as water levels rise. It is up to the local municipalities to determine what recommendations to make to their residents in terms of evacuations.

Environment: (It’s not the dam’s fault. The conditions in the ocean seem to be the biggest problem since the decline is happening everywhere.) Federal, State Effort To Restore Salmon To Connecticut River Essentially Ends By Steve Grant, Special to The Courant, The Hartford Courant, courant.com, October 22, 2012

A costly 45-year effort to restore Atlantic salmon to the Connecticut River has essentially come to an end, without success. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which coordinated the restoration effort, decided during the summer to end its participation, citing poor progress. In recent days, the states of Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut also decided to end their complementary restoration efforts. A salmon stocking program will continue in some Connecticut River tributaries with especially good habitat, including the Farmington and Salmon rivers in Connecticut, as a way to preserve a strain of salmon adapted to the Connecticut, but the number of fish stocked will be drastically reduced. Barring evidence in the future that Atlantic salmon stocks elsewhere in North America are rebounding strongly, the goal of restoring a run of thousands of salmon to the Connecticut each year has been abandoned. "We have had great success in restoring wildlife populations to Connecticut and the Northeast — look at wild turkey, the rebound of deer populations, look at osprey and eagle populations," said William Hyatt, chief of the bureau of natural resources at the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. "Given our success with other species, the point we have arrived at with Atlantic salmon is a disappointment." Biologists began the program in 1967 knowing that it would not be easy to restore salmon to the Connecticut. Historic runs of salmon were wiped out in the Connecticut River two centuries ago when dams were constructed on the river and its tributaries, denying adult salmon access to the streams where they spawned each year. Atlantic salmon, a highly valuable food fish and a legendary game fish, are born in fresh water streams and typically migrate to sea at about age 2, traveling to feeding areas in the North Atlantic. Each fish that survives at sea returns at age 4 or 5 to the same stream in which it was born.

Because the unique strain of salmon that returned to the Connecticut each year was destroyed two centuries ago, biologists began the restoration effort using juvenile fish from the Penobscot River in Maine. Those fish were raised in the Connecticut in hopes that they would regard the Connecticut as their home river and return to its waters as adults. The restoration effort had some success. In 1981, some 531 adult salmon returned to the Connecticut from the sea, touching off widespread optimism that the numbers would soon increase into the thousands, allowing for 9

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

recreational fishing for the species. Each year, biologists trapped returning adult fish at fish passage facilities on the Connecticut or tributaries, stripping eggs and milt from females and males to produce a new generation of infant salmon called fry, which were then stocked in Connecticut River tributaries. But the numbers of returning salmon trailed off after 1981, apparently mostly because of conditions at sea. Salmon returns in Europe, Maine and Canada also tumbled at the same time, suggesting that conditions in the Connecticut River itself might not be the major problem. Only 58 adult salmon returned to the Connecticut this year, a hugely disappointing number. Steve Gephard, supervising fisheries biologist with the DEEP and for years Connecticut's chief restoration official, said that changing water temperatures in the Davis Straits between Labrador and Newfoundland are thought to be a factor in the decline in the number of salmon returning to streams in North America. With increasing Arctic melting from climate change, water temperatures in the straits dropped and, one theory holds, food fish moved elsewhere, making survival more difficult for the salmon. But the Connecticut is not the river it was 300 years ago, either. New fish species, including carp, have been introduced, and other predator species such as striped bass have become abundant, perhaps devouring young salmon on their way to sea. Much of the river is impounded behind dams, although the dams in the lower river now have fish passage facilities to allow salmon to migrate upriver. At times the river was severely polluted. Moreover, salmon are a cold-water species, and the Connecticut is at the southern, warmer end of the Atlantic salmon range. The restoration effort has had its critics for many years, some arguing that the evidence of major salmon runs in the Connecticut centuries ago was anecdotal and not persuasive. If there were salmon migrating up the Connecticut each year, maybe the numbers were marginal to begin with, they argued.

The Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission, which includes members from the federal and state governments and the private sector, decided early this month, after the federal agency already had decided to withdraw support, to drastically scale back the program at the state level. The goal now is to maintain a small "legacy" population of salmon in selected streams with the best salmon habitat, including the Salmon and Farmington rivers in Connecticut. The idea is to preserve the newly created strain of salmon adapted to conditions in the Connecticut River. "It is a strain that has taken us 40-plus years to develop," Hyatt said. "The thought is, you don't want to discard it prematurely." Should salmon populations elsewhere in North America rebound, that legacy population could be used to restart a restoration effort, however unlikely that prospect appears at the moment. Gephard said that the state will continue to rear salmon at a DEEP hatchery in Berlin, stocking fry in rivers like the Farmington and Salmon. The hatchery also will rear and stock adult fish in the Naugatuck and Shetucket Rivers, as it has done for many years. That program, not actually part of the restoration effort, is popular with anglers who have an opportunity to catch fish that can weigh more than 5 pounds. The overall cost of the restoration effort is not easily calculated, but it certainly exceeded $100 million in federal, state and utility costs. Utilities built fish passages at dams on the Connecticut and tributaries to help salmon and other migratory species reach spawning waters. In a peak year, the fish and wildlife service alone spent about $2.5 million raising and distributing infant salmon to be stocked in streams throughout the valley. Bill Archambault, deputy assistant regional director of fisheries at the federal agency's office in Hadley, Mass., said that salmon restoration work had other benefits. Shad, herring and lamprey, for example, also benefited from the fish ladders, as they are sometimes called, he said. And the salmon program helped focus attention on cleaning up the Connecticut River. "All the migratory fish benefited on the backs of Atlantic salmon," he said. Dave Egan of Guilford, a member of the board of directors of the private Connecticut River Salmon Association, which has worked for four decades to help advance the restoration, said that he was disappointed, but that given the persisting poor results, "I can't say this is a bad decision." The salmon association for years has sponsored a highly popular program in as many as 70 schools in Connecticut and Massachusetts in which students raised salmon from eggs in classroom labs and then stocked them in nearby streams. That program is expected to continue, Egan said. Meanwhile, he said, there is always the chance that salmon will rebound. Should salmon come back in big numbers to the Penobscot River in Maine, for example, "It may be time to look again at the Connecticut River program," he said.

10

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

(Typical misinformation – the dams didn’t cause the toxic pollution. They may have trapped it, but someone else created it! I guess they included the photo of the historic Hagley Mill Race because it was built by DuPont! How can you look at that scene and think toxic chemicals?) Old Dams Hold a Toxic Legacy Analysis by Tim Wall, Oct 19, 2012, news.discovery.com

Tens of thousands of old dams in the eastern U.S. no longer power machinery, but they still hold the toxic legacy of the agricultural and industrial expansion of non-indigenous settlers. A team of Earth scientists has found that, as the decrepit dams are removed, they release stores of lead, phosphorus, copper and other chemicals into the Chesapeake Bay and other waterways. Even small streams could be turned into a source of water power for grist, flour, saw, and other types of mills. Sediment samples from mill ponds behind dams in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, showed the march of development across the area. During the 18th century, iron ore mining and paper mills began to deforest the region. The runoff left sand deposits in the ponds with traces of iron slag and charcoal. The scientists noted that the contribution of toxins from mill pond sediments hadn't been measured before, and may be a significant source of pollutants in the area's watersheds. They suggested dredging out the trapped sediments when dams were removed to prevent the pollutants from escaping once again. The results of the sediment sampling were published this week in the journal Geology. IMAGE: The Hagley Mill Race, used to generate power for the original DuPont powder mills on the Brandywine River in Delaware, is located on over 230 acres preserved at the Hagley Museum and Library. (Hagley Museum and Library)

(Now, here’s the latest and craziest idea. Empty Lake Powel and store the water in Lake Mead! Does anyone know if that could even be done? What about all the power production lost??? One tries to have an open mind, but if this is what we teach college students, no wonder we’re in trouble. How about helping people?) Students learn about dam, ‘Fill Mead First’ movement BY: Lawrence Baker, Oct 25th, 2012, lakepowellchronicle.com

College students from Colorado visited the Glen Canyon Dam Oct. 17 and attended a presentation on water conservation that included a call to drain water from Lake Powell in order to fill Lake Mead in Nevada. The students were with EcoFlight, an environmental non-profit based in Aspen, Colo., which was sponsoring its 10th annual Flight Across America Student Program. “The program is designed to involve and inform college age students about current conservation issues from a broad range of perspectives, and show them through flight how such issues personally impact their lives and the world around them,” said Jane Pargiter, program director for EcoFlight. The focus of this year’s program is water in the Upper Basin of the Colorado River. Seven students from Colorado Mountain College, Colorado Mesa University and University of Colorado Boulder, who are studying the topic in depth, took a tour and participated in flyovers of the dam prior to the presentation.

Representatives from the Glen Canyon Institute, Canyonlands Watershed Council and the National Park Service were on hand to provide different perspectives and suggested solutions for conservation issues. Joan Mayer, of the NPS, started off the presentation by sharing her personal experience and outlook on the Lake Powell area. “It’s not easy to work at a place where people hate you, the dam and the park. We know this dam caused trouble downstream. We know it flooded rich archeological and paleontological sites. Knowing that there is treasure buried under the water means something to me.” The presentation quickly switched from informative and educational to furthering an agenda as Eric Balken, of The Glen Canyon Institute, outlined a proposition called “Fill Mead First,” which would result in most if not all the water in Lake Powell 11

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

being released and allowed to gather at the base of the Hoover Dam in Lake Mead. “We’re not advocating taking the dam out, it should be here as a backup. Depending on who you ask, no one really uses this water except for Page and the power plant,” said Balken. “It would save a huge amount of water by storing it in Lake Mead. So much is lost to evaporation and ground seepage, and if we fill Mead first, we would get Glen Canyon back and it will eventually come back to life.” Balken added. Laurel Hagen, of the Canyonlands Watershed Council, provided some context for the proposal, explain that factors such as agriculture, climate change and urban growth are the big concerns when it comes to water conservation. “The question is not, ‘Where will we get more water?’ as much as, ‘Will we learn to live within our means?’ I don’t think we will do it until we have to, and we will probably take down much of the biosphere with us,” Hagen said. In closing, Bruce Gordon, founder of EcoFlight, told the students, “I encourage you to learn the facts, because there are such things as facts.” “It is not enough to care and be well informed, you have to do something,” added Hagen.

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

12

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

11/09/2012

Some Dam – Hydro News TM

And Other Stuff i

Quote of Note: “Frankly, I don't mind not being President. I just mind that someone else is. - Edward Kennedy “Good wine is a necessity of life.” - -Thomas Jefferson Ron’s wine pick of the week: 2009 Columbia Crest US Red Blend "H3 Les Chevaux" “No nation was ever drunk when wine was cheap.” - - Thomas Jefferson

Other Stuff: Americans use more efficient and renewable energy technologies environmentalresearchweb.org, Oct 30, 2012

Americans used less energy in 2011 than in the previous year due mainly to a shift to higher- efficiency energy technologies in the transportation and residential sectors. Meanwhile, less coal was used but more natural gas was consumed according to the most recent energy flow charts released by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Wind power saw the biggest jump from .92 quadrillion BTU, or quads, in 2010 up to 1.17 quads in 2011. (BTU or British Thermal Unit is a unit of measurement for energy and is equivalent to about 1.055 kilojoules). "Wind energy jumped significantly because, as in previous years, many new wind farms came online," said A.J. Simon, an LLNL energy systems analyst who develops the flow charts using data provided by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration. "This is the result of sustained investment in wind power."

Hydroelectricity also saw an increase going from 2.51 quads in 2010 up to 3.17 quads in 2011. Hydroelectricity jumped significantly in 2011 because 2011 saw large amounts of precipitation in the Western U.S. Hydroelectric dams were able to produce at their maximum levels while keeping reservoirs full. Similar levels of hydroelectric production were seen in 1997, 1998 and 1999 due to wet years. Overall, U.S. energy use in 2011 equaled 97.3 quads compared to the 98 quads used in 2010. Most of the energy was tied to coal, natural gas and petroleum. From 2010 to 2011, use of coal fell dramatically, use of oil (petroleum) fell slightly and use of natural gas increased slightly from 24.65 quads in 2010 to 24.9 quads in 2011. "Sustained low natural gas prices have prompted a shift from coal to gas in the electricity generating sector," Simon said. "Sustained high oil prices have likely driven the decline in oil use over the past 5 years as people choose to drive less and purchase automobiles that get more miles per gallon." The majority of energy use in 2011 was used for electricity generation (39.2 quads), followed by transportation, industrial, commercial and residential consumption. However, energy use in the residential, commercial and 1

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

transportation sectors decreased while industrial energy use increased if only slightly. "With the advent of shale gas, it appears that natural gas prices in the United States may remain lower than their historical averages for many years into the future," Simon said. "This has prompted many gas users in the industrial and electricity generating sector to switch from coal or oil to natural gas when it is technically possible, but might not have been economical at higher gas prices."

Dams: (See follow-up artile below to bring this story up-to-date. Replacing a 4-mile long dam looks to be a challenge.) New structure planned to replace decaying Buckeye Lake dam Written by, L.B. Whyde, Advocate Reporter, Sep 14, 2012, newarkadvocate.com

Buckeye Lake, Ohio -- The Buckeye Lake dam running under about 400 homes along the north shore is in need of repairs. While no timetable has been announced, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources intends to build a new dam in front of the current one, possibly about 20 feet out into the lake. The area in between would then be filled in and added to the state park system, ODNR officials told about 30 leaders from Licking and Fairfield counties during a Leaders on the Lake tour Thursday. While taking a boat ride around the lake, the leaders, many elected officials, heard updates on the latest developments coming to the area, including the South Fork/Licking River Expansion at Seller's Point Spillway and a new dam project. Testing will begin in October on a new technology for the project. If any of the large trees rooted into the earth and rock of the existing dam fall, it could cause catastrophic damage, resulting in loss of structures and possibly lives, officials learned.

A new dam for Buckeye Lake has been discussed since 1985, said Ron Craig, president of the Buckeye Lake Civic Association. The dam runs from Liebs Island in Millersport to the North Shore Boat Ramp in Buckeye Lake. The dam on the north shore was built of earth and stone in the 1830s. "People think it's never going to happen, but it is moving along," Craig said. "It will be disruptive, no way around that." For safety reasons, the new dam project is coming closer to happening. Bob Cumbow, deputy chief of operations for Ohio State Parks, said that if new technology to be tested in October -- which uses a hydraulic press instead of a hydraulic hammer -- is able to be used, it could cut the cost of the $50 million project. "This (current) dam is well past its life expectancy," Cumbow said. "It is also not tall enough to hold off much more water." The new dam would be a wall constructed from concrete, four feet wide. Where it will be placed remains up in the air, depending partly on findings from the tests. The plan calls for the wall to be set 20 feet into the lake. That 20-foot area later would be drained and back-filled and would become state land. The 400 homeowners on the four mile, earthen dam still would be able to have a dock on the lake, but at their own expense. "The project would be done in phases and will

2

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

begin at Liebs Island," Cumbow said. "We will have public meetings before each phase." The Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, James Zehringer, confirmed the project will go forward, primarily for safety reasons. "This is a tier-one project and a priority for this governor," Zehringer said. "I would like to see the whole project done start to finish, if we can find the money." One possibility for funding could be revenue from future oil fracking projects. The South Fork/Licking River Expansion is another project that has been talked about for many years: Bids went out in August and the construction will begin in November. That project involves widening the river from the Seller's Point Spillway, up three miles, to about where Ohio 79 crosses Interstate 70. The channel will be widened, logjams removed and an elevated roadway added for more accessibility, said Dave Moore, chief engineer for ODNR. The project will cost $4.7 million and is being financed by ODNR. Members of Buckeye Lake For Tomorrow and the Greater Buckeye Lake Historical Society also discussed the importance of preserving the lake's water quality and saving Cranberry.

(How does a dam run under 400 homes? Does that mean the dams are actually on the dam? Well, that’s exactly what you have!) Buckeye Lake dam might use new device Testing under way at Buckeye Lake newarkadvocate.com, Oct 30, 2012 | Written by L.B. Whyde, Advocate Reporter

Buckeye Lake, Ohio — Testing has begun in the Liebs Island area of Buckeye Lake regarding the possible use of a new device to help in construction of a proposed dam. If tests prove successful, the new method will allow the new dam to be placed closer to the existing dam, eliminating the 20-foot setback needed using hydraulic hammer equipment. The testing equipment was transported from Florida; it uses a hydraulic press instead of a hydraulic hammer, so it is much quieter and the resulting vibrations are minimal, said Matt Eiselstein, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. “Due to reduced vibrations, it can get closer to structures,” Eiselstein said. “You don’t want to get too close to structures with the hydraulic hammer so they are not in danger of becoming damaged.”

The dam on the north shore of the lake was built of earth and stone in the 1830s and it runs 4.1 miles under 400 homes from Liebs Island in Millersport to the North Shore Boat Ramp in Buckeye Lake. The need for a new dam has been discussed since 1985 owing to safety concerns. “If this process does prove viable, we would create plans to incorporate it,” Eiselstein said. “It could reduce the footprint and bring the new dam closer to the old dam. We don’t know if the geology will permit us to do that here.” The hydraulic press equipment has been used successfully in Portage Lakes. The testing will take place during nine days at three different locations in Buckeye Lake. Eiselstein emphasizes work still is in the preliminary planning stages. “At this point, we are still looking at 2014 for any type of dam construction,” he added. “There is still an 18-24 months timeline. If the process is viable, we would have to recreate the plan.”

Simplot sues to drop Magic’s water level Hydraulic leak in dam could cost $32,500 per day By Tony Evans, Express Staff Writer, mtexpress.com, November 2, 2012

Hydraulic leaks discovered in October 2011 in underwater pipes in the Magic Reservoir dam (Idaho) led to threats from the Environmental Protection Agency, and now a lawsuit filed by Magic Reservoir Hydroelectric against the Big Wood Canal Co. Magic Reservoir Hydroelectric, a wholly-owned subsidiary of J.R. Simplot Co., filed suit against the Big Wood Canal Co. on Oct. 23 in 5th District Court in Hailey to force the canal company to release enough water in the reservoir to complete “dry 3

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

repairs” of the leaks. The hydroelectric company operates an electrical-generation facility at the dam at Magic Reservoir—in southern Blaine County— but the canal company controls the rate of water flows over the dam. According to court records, the hydroelectric company has disbursed money since 1986 to the Big Wood Canal Co. from proceeds gained from power generation at the dam. Reports indicate that the reservoir would be dropped by one-third of its volume, beginning October 29, with “a much larger release” of water beginning on Thursday, Nov. 1. The water would flow for 10 days down the Big Wood River channel north of Shoshone. The complaint states that the first hydraulic leak was discovered underwater at the dam on Oct. 11, 2011, and that scuba divers were unsuccessful at repairing it.

When an apparent second leak was discovered, the EPA put the hydroelectric company on notice that fines of up to $32,500 per day could accrue until the leaks are fixed, or up to three times the costs incurred with cleaning the hydraulic oil from the water. The leaks are in the interior tunnel control gate on the dam. J.R. Simplot Energy Purchasing Director Don Sturtevant signed a court affidavit stating that there are “significant concerns” regarding the potential damage to the structural integrity of the dam if scuba divers continue attempts to engage in “blind excavations” in the wall of the dam in an attempt to locate the leak. The complaint filed by Magic Reservoir Hydroelectric states that Big Wood Canal Co. is in violation of an agreement to begin spilling water over the dam on Oct. 15 at the “fastest amount safely possible” to a level below the location of the leak to repair the leaks. Attorneys for the Big Wood Canal Co. did not return calls by press time Thursday.

(If it wasn’t for the danger involved, this would have been a funny story with pigs swimming etc. I wonder who these experts are that inspect beaver dams. This shows, however, the importance of making sure man-made dams are safe even if they are considered low hazard dams.) Homes near Carnation flooded after beaver dam breaks by KING 5 News, KING5.com, November 5, 2012

A beaver dam gave way Monday, sending water flowing into homes and onto roads north of Carnation, said a King County Emergency Management spokesperson. Water and mud surrounded several buildings and filled up fields in the area of State Route 203 and NE 124th Street. No one was hurt. King County was quick to point out that what happened is a natural occurrence. But late Monday afternoon, the county said the dam had been modified after a rush of water came down earlier this year. The dam was holding back a pond. King County's Department of Natural Resources says the pond was 28 acres. Residents say it was almost double that.

Bob Siko’s home was hit by a four-foot wall of water. “Things could've been worse. There's enough water here it could've knocked my house off the foundation,” he said. Siko was at work and his four kids were at school when the dam broke. For that he is thankful. “With something like this, there's no way of knowing when the water's gonna come down. It could happen on a day like today. The kids could've been in the back yard,” he said. Just across the street is the Pickering family barn. Inside, were four little pigs huffing and puffing to keep their snouts above water. Some strangers saw the pigs swimming and helped family friend Jessie Strandlund move 4

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

them to higher ground: “That's the biggest thing, that no one was here and we got the pigs safe, got the people safe,” she said. Overall, the damage is relatively minor. The river of water created log jams that actually protected the properties, and silt acted as natural sandbags around the doors, keeping all but an inch or two of water outside the house. And in this community that's seen more than its share of wind and water damage over the years, neighbors from all over are coming together like family. “They're from the valley out here, and so is my family, so we'll do whatever we can to help,” said neighbor Ian Forgy. While the county says the dam was inspected by their experts, there doesn't appear there were any recommendations made. Usually the county is only involved if public property is threatened, and in this case it was because several roads were involved. There is a device called a beaver deceiver, a big pvc pipe that can be put through a beaver dam to allow more water through, but there's no evidence that was involved here.

Hydro: (This will be a very small hydro project if the photo is telling us what it is! The City Commission asks dumb questions. The study is free. If it’s feasible, the City makes a profit. Is there something wrong with that?) Should Birmingham Get in the Green Energy Business? Monday, the Birmingham City Commission (Michigan) gave HydroPower Capital the green light to study the feasibility of producing hydroelectric power at the Quarton Lake dam. ByLaura Houser, birmingham.patch.com, 10/30/12

HydroPower Capital LLC will study the feasibility of constructing a hydroelectric dam at Quarton Lake. Could producing and selling hydroelectric power be in Birmingham's future? On Monday night, the Birmingham City Commission gave HydroPower Capital LLC, a Phoenix, AZ-based hydropower firm, the exclusive rights to study the feasibility of hydroelectric projects along the Rouge River in Birmingham.

Specifically, HydroPower is looking at harnessing the potential energy-production capabilities at the Quarton Lake dam. Should the project prove feasible and the city move forward, HydroPower could potentially operate a hydroelectric dam at Quarton Lake, then sell the energy as Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) to interested buyers in Michigan and across the country. According to Steve Hohulin, director of engineering at HydroPower Capital, part of the proceeds from the sale of those PPAs would then go directly back to Birmingham. "Birmingham is kind of a green community. If everything you say comes true in the study, then I think that's something we might want to consider," said City Commissioner Gordon Rinschler. According to Hohulin, should Birmingham decide to move forward with the plans, HydroPower would: x Assess the proposed site, specifically the area surrounding the Quarton Lake dam. x Take care of all necessary permits locally and statewide, including annual permits. x Faciliate all Power Purchase Agreements with interested buyers. x Design, construct, operate and maintain all hydroelectric facilities. x Insure all facilities and assume all operating risks.

All this work, Hohulin said, would be at no cost to the city. Decisions whether to build and monetize the hydroelectric dam, meanwhile, are still to come. On Monday, city commissioners

5

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

merely gave HydroPower the green light to study the project. "During the initial 'due diligence' phase, HydroPower Capital will not only analyze the potential of the city's hydropower resources, but if the resources appear to be viable, will also report back to the city with the type and nature of any proposed development ... so that the city of Birmingham can make an informed decision as to whether to proceed," a letter from HydroPower president Joseph Bond reads.

'Do we want to be in the business of selling electricity?' According to Hohulin, there are several advantages to hydroelectric power, particularly over wind or solar power. Hohulin said hydroelectric power is: x More efficient. x Can be considered a baseload energy, meaning it always generates power regardless of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. x Beneficial to the environment since the equipment lasts longer. x Can be used for longer-term PPAs. Those advantages aside, Hohulin admitted hydroelectric power requires steep capital costs upfront, as well as specialized technical expertise — reasons why a company like HydroPower Capital is useful should Birmingham want to enter the green energy game. Still, City Commissioner Rackeline Hoff asked: "Do we want to be in the business of selling electricity? I'm not sure that's what the city wants to do." Commissioner Scott Moore said city commissioners didn't have to make that decision Monday, though he cautioned Hohulin that Quarton Lake is a city park and should be preserved as such. A memo from the city's Engineering Department also reflected that concern. "We have cautioned the company representative that the Quarton dam is a sensitive, historic area, and the city will not entertain any proposal that in any way diminishes the beauty or character of the immediate area," the memo reads. After passing by an unanimous vote, HydroPower Capital will begin assessing conditions at Quarton dam, looking at flow rates and the existing structure. There will be no construction during the study phase.

(An interesting letter from a frustrated hydro supporter that makes some good points. The writer should get kudos! You could say that Ruthie is not happy! Looked at American Rivers financial statement and couldn’t find any evidence that they separate out federal money from donation money, so it’s possible Ruthie is right!) They fight hydro with our money aspentimes.com, October 31, 2012

Dear Editor: The chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Doc Hastings, of Washington state, will hold a hearing to look into questions of why federal funds are going to nationwide advocacy groups that routinely oppose hydroelectric development and licensing. The suggestion is that federal funding is being utilized to frustrate required federal licensing on projects throughout the country, contrary to the intent of the recent bipartisan action enacting legislation titled the “Saving Our Dams and New Hydropower Development and Jobs Act.” This act created an expedited process for federal review of license applications under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and was intended to eliminate the “chilling effect” reducing the number of applicants for federal hydro permits because of the process's complexity, expense, time delays and uncertainty. The subject of the Natural Resources Committee hearing includes a proposed bill that would eliminate federal-grant funding to a list of hydroelectric opponents including American Rivers, the same national group that has come to the Roaring Fork Valley only recently and has received over $1 million in federal grants. Backyard Energy, a local group of proponents for reconstruction of the Castle Creek hydroelectric project, has similar questions on the appropriateness of federal funding for such groups and how such funding affects creation of a level playing field for FERC action.

Why does Backyard Energy suspect foul play with federal money? First, American Rivers was one of two opposition groups that answered questions from the Aspen Chamber Resort Association regarding disclosure of the identity and source of their funding and participated in the recent community forum (this forum is being rebroadcast on Grassroots TV up until the time of 6

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

the election). Yet American Rivers did not disclose the federal funds or how they ensure that none of the federal money is going towards their opposition efforts. Also, American Rivers testified on streamlining the federal licensing of hydro plants in June, and during that testimony made statements (regarding the Castle Creek project) that were not supported by evidence, continuing to rely on generalized data from streams in other areas of the world (specifically Michigan, Florida and the U.K., none of which come anywhere close to resembling stream characteristics of high mountain streams in the Central Rockies). While making these allegations, they again failed to adequately justify the basis of their conclusions or to consult with the applicant to find out if there was more site-specific information on the streams in question. Basically, American Rivers used their opinion and stated it as fact on the Congressional record with no recourse to Aspen to correct the disinformation. Next, looking into the details of how the new FERC licensing legislation operates, one finds an obvious loophole available to opponent groups to slant the playing field in their favor, particularly considering their use of federal funds. The new legislation provides that any project less than 10 megawatts is eligible for an expedited review, except when it is “controversial.” FERC considers opposition from organized hydro opponents such as American Rivers without requiring any evidence or supporting information regarding why the project would have adverse impacts. Thus, while receiving federal grants, a group such as American Rivers only has to state the project will have negative impacts or request additional studies, without adequately defending their position and describing how it is supported by facts or studies relevant to a particular case.

Hydro projects can be delayed by up to three years by the mere presence of opposition by American Rivers and similar organizations, all while they receive federal money. The delay, along with the increased the cost of studies and permitting (and resulting cloud over the outcome of the permit process), results in fewer applications. This runs counter to the intent of the recently passed legislation and explains why Congress has elected to question funding for these organizations. The resultant delay, and added permitting and studies costs, is a major part of why the Castle Creek Energy Center project has increased beyond the original budget amount. How this played out locally is with an advisory referendum before the city of Aspen's electorate, who already approved the project by a landslide. I believe voters should be guided by Auden Schendler's response to American Rivers' assertions: Why in the world would it make sense to manage our rivers and streams using generalized studies when we have sound scientific evidence conducted by the preeminent scientists in the state? It boils down to this: Until American Rivers can prove otherwise, the opposition is using your federal tax dollars to stall — and thus make more expensive — a project funded with your local tax dollars. Is that productive? Please support local hydro by voting “yes” on 2C.

Ruthie Brown, Aspen

(This is the case everywhere except in the U.S. where we give wind and solar excessive subsidies so we end up withphony energy choices.) Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project cheaper than wind power: study The Canadian Press, Oct. 31, atlantic.ctvnews.ca

St. John's, N.L. -- An arm's length study says that using large-scale wind power for Newfoundland and Labrador's future energy needs would cost much more than Muskrat Falls. The study by Manitoba Hydro International says wind and thermal energy generation would cost about $3.5 billion more over 50 years than the proposed Labrador hydroelectric development. The Progressive Conservative government has repeatedly said the project is the best option for the province. The government is to decide in coming weeks whether to sanction Muskrat Falls at an estimated capital cost of $7.4 billion. Critics say Muskrat 7

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

Falls is too prone to cost overruns and that the province should consider incremental developments for its power needs. Predicted capital costs have gone up by $1.2 billion since Muskrat Falls was first proposed in 2010 at an estimated cost of $6.2 billion. The government says the price tag has risen in part due to advanced engineering and design improvements. Muskrat Falls supporters say alternatives have been studied but they are too expensive.

(Watch the video. It’s interesting when you compare hydro to anything fired by fossil fuel.) Honda uses hydro power because "Every Drop Counts" By Danny King, Oct 31st 2012, green.autoblog.com

A little water power can pull about seven gas- powered cars off the road. That's the gist of an effort by Honda to cut emissions by equipping a plant with a little hydro-electric power plant. The Japanese automaker outlined its recent efforts in a two-minute video with the tagline "every drop counts." In the video, Honda engineers talk about how capturing falling waste water using a turbine-type device can produce electricity for the vehicle factory. Honda says this particular example will cut electricity use by 50,000 kilowatt hours a year, ultimately reducing CO2 emissions by about 70,000 pounds annually. That's about equal to the average emissions put out by seven cars in the US. Check out the Honda video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DiMJ4JEC2iA.

(The plant can generate enough electricity to power about 5,400 homes. What does that mean? Sure wish they would tell us how many kW is installed.) Hydroelectric power plant ready to go online saljournal.com, November 01, 2012, The Associated Press

Lawrence, Kans. - The new $25 million Bowersock hydroelectric power plant near Lawrence is expected to start producing electricity this week, although low water levels on the Kansas River will prevent it from operating at full capacity, officials with the plant said. Bowersock Mills & Power Co.’s plant is slated to begin operating on Friday. Company officials said the project was completed about a month ahead of time, in part because this summer’s drought allowed construction to continue without disruption. But now plant officials are hoping for substantial moisture this winter, said Sarah Hill-Nelson, an owner and operator of the Bowersock company. "I felt bad when I was the only one in the state this summer cheering on a drought," Hill-Nelson said. "We got lucky that it was dry when we needed it to be dry. But now we’re cheering for rain, and we’ll really see how lucky we are." Construction crews on Wednesday began removing a temporary dam that was protecting the plant from the river. That will allow the plant’s four turbines to be inundated with water. The plant will sell its electricity to the Kansas City, Kan., Board of Public Utilities.

(Lost count on how many developers have gone down this road except that they have been looking at these dams since the 1970’s. Good luck! And, if the tax credit isn’t renewed, which is a real possibility, development at iffy sites will go away. Of course, so will wind and solar.) Boston company considers hydropower for Pittsburgh area dams By Rick Wills, Staff Reporter, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, November 3, 2012, triblive.com

A Boston energy company has applied to federal regulators to install hydropower on four dams in the Pittsburgh area. Prompted by tax incentives for renewable energy, Free Flow Power is one of several companies interested in installing power on the dams. The company is proposing to install hydropower at the Allegheny River Lock and Dam #2 in Harmarville, the Emsworth Locks & Dam, The Emsworth Back Channel Dam and the Montgomery Locks & Dam in Aliquippa. “If a dam is already there, installing hydropower means making the most of a resource,” said Alan Topalian, Free Flow’s regulatory lawyer. In August, the company filed a pre-application document with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which licenses hydropower companies. On 8

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

Nov. 15, Free Flow will hold a public hearing at the Holiday Inn Express on Campbells Run Road, Moon. “This is very early in the process. We have submitted preliminary engineering designs. There are hundreds of variables to consider and still a lot of unknowns,” Topalian said.

The proposed projects would generate about 100 megawatts of power, he said. Two years ago, Brookfield Renewable Power Inc. of Marlborough, Mass., scrapped plans for 14 hydropower projects in this region. The company said its plans were not financially feasible. There are now eight hydropower projects among the 23 locks and dams and 16 reservoirs,which are operated by the Pittsburgh District of the Army Corps of Engineers. Locks 5, 6, 8 and 9 along the Allegheny River — all between Freeport and East Brady — have privately operated hydropower capacity. Installation of hydropower on some dams could be problematic, said Jeff Hawk, a spokesman for the corps. “We look at whether hydropower will compromise a structure, compromise our mission or harm the environment,” he said. The Montgomery dam, for example, is in poor shape. “Of the 10 gates there, only two are reliable,” Hawk said. Many dams in Pittsburgh were built during the 1930s, like the Montgomery dam, which opened in 1936. The Elizabeth Locks & Dam opened in 1907. Interest in hydropower has grown partly as a result of the federal Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit. It is a per-kilowatt-hour credit for electricity generated by qualified energy resources, such as wind and hydropower, said Matthew Nocella, a spokesman for the National Hydropower Association in Washington. “We think hydropower is an underused and clean way of generating energy,” Nocella said. Only 3 percent of 80,000 dams in the United States have hydropower capacity, according to the association.

(Excerpts - The need to secure a water supply could save a hydro project. That’s an interesting twist!) Danville offers to buy Schoolfield Dam By: Denice Thibodeau | GoDanRiver, November 04, 2012, www2.godanriver.com

Danville City Council will discuss a plan for purchasing the Schoolfield Dam at its meeting Thursday night. The dam, including the 4.5-megawatt federally licensed hydroelectric facility, was owned by Dan River Inc. until bankruptcy was filed in 2008. Since then, it has been under the control of a bankruptcy trustee as part of Dan River’s bankruptcy estate. City Attorney Clarke Whitfield Jr. said in the summary of the proposal that the dam is important to the city because it creates the reservoir of water used to supply city water. “It is absolutely essential that the city control the dam to maintain the city’s reservoir,” Whitfield stated. The city has offered the bankruptcy trustee $150,000 for the dam, and is working out an agreement with the company that has leased the hydroelectric facility for many years, STS Hydropower LTD. In the agreement, STS will rent the facility from the city for $1,747.17 per year through 2062, as well as pay the city a transmission fee for any power that is sent to the power grid. The city will also need to become a Federal Energy Regulator Commission co-licensee with STS — a designation that allows the city double the amount of water it is allowed to take from the Dan River, from 20 millions gallons a day to 40 million gallons day. “By approving this transaction City Council will secure Danville’s water supply needs for decades to come,” Whitfield said.

Water: (The Hetch Hetchy sanity test. Hey, it’s San Francisco so anything could happen! I use a rain barrel and a lot of other water saving methods. Trust me, they aren’t worth much when you have a drought! Do these people know how little water is in a rain barrel??? Even if you leave out landscaping, a home with 4 people uses about 75,000 gallons per year. That’s around 1250 times what my rain barrel holds! Or, you would have to fill that rain barrel 3 ! times every day, not mentioning that it’s not fit to drink.) 9

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

Hetch Hetchy measure questions SF’s water system by Heather Mack on November 01, 2012, baynature.org

On the eve of the 100-year anniversary, the decision to drain Hetch Hetchy Valley to build a reservoir for San Francisco is still actively debated, even as the city’s dependence on the Sierra water has deepened. San Francisco voters are headed to the polls on Tuesday to decide whether to launch a study into essentially reversing the 1913 federal government decision to build Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite National Park. Proposition F would require the city to fork over $8 million to look into dismantling the O’Shaughnessy Dam and finding new ways to replace the reservoir’s storage capacity and hydroelectric power. It would also come up with a plan for bettering San Francisco’s water recycling efforts. “It’s just a plan, an incremental first step,” said Mike Marshall, executive director of Restore Hetch Hetchy, a group that drove the measure. “And it’s an important conversation for a city like San Francisco that stands on its environmental values, yet we have a water system that’s last in the state in so many ways.” Opponents counter that the city can make its water system greener without risking its water rights. “I do believe we should have more recycling and conservation, but that’s not what this proposal is about,” said Susan Leal, the former general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the city agency that runs its water supply. “It’s more than a study. It sets up a bureaucracy. It starts to erode San Francisco’s control over its water.” The complex and staggeringly costly proposal was the debate topic at a recent Commonwealth Club forum in San Francisco, where Restore Hetch Hetchy advocates squared off against the San Francisco PUC’s Susan Leal along with pro-business advocate Jim Wunderman, CEO of the Bay Area Council.

Nature vs. thirst The ballot campaign is tense, and fraught with concerns over placing the importance of nature over the Bay Area’s growing thirst for water. So difficult is the question that no major environmental group, including the Sierra Club, is supporting the initiative, and virtually every member of local and state government is against it. Still, the effort to restore Hetch Hetchy Valley has its die-hard supporters, mainly from a coalition of smaller environmental groups in the Bay Area and from the area around the reservoir. Proponents argue that restoring Hetch Hetchy Valley would not only renew a long-gone mountain ecosystem and bring life back to the Tuolumne River, it would also make San Francisco more accountable for its water use. Rain barrels would help Hetch Hetchy’s water comes from pristine Sierra snowmelt, but is reduce San Francisco’s consumed for all manner of uses, including watering plants, flushing reliance on Hetch Hetchy. Photo by Roger Mommaerts. toilets, and cleaning the streets. San Francisco needs a bigger plan to recycle water and collect rainwater, proponents say. “Ninety-nine years ago, San Francisco was given a special right: to store part of our water in a national park,” said Marshall. “No other city in the country has that right, and no other city has that adverse impact that our city has on Yosemite National Park, the Stanislaus National Forest and … the wild and scenic Tuolumne River. We have a responsibility to revisit that decision and see if we can’t do better.” But opponents argue that the loss of the city’s reservoir far outweighs the benefits of restoring a picturesque valley. “Water security, reliability, pristine quality – these are things that make a region whole,” said Jim Wunderman of the pro-business think tank, the Bay Area Council. “We have all kinds of public problems today, why create another one?”

Delivering water

10

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

The Hetch Hetchy water system, constructed and owned by the city of San Francisco, delivers approximately 260 million gallons of water per day to San Francisco, Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. While the Hetch Hetchy reservoir is just one of the nine reservoirs that makes up the 160-mile long regional water system, it holds 85 percent of the available water. Not only does the Hetch Hetchy system provide San Francisco with clean water, it produces 40 percent of San Francisco’s power, which serves more than 400,000 homes and large users such as SF General Hospital, the San Francisco Airport and Muni. “We created the system a The Hetch Hetchy aqueduct spans 167 mi of dams, reservoirs, hundred years ago, and we stipulate that we tunnels and pipelines to convey water to the Bay Area. Photo probably wouldn’t do this today,” said by MrPlow5/Flickr. Wunderman. “We’d lose a large portion of our power if we were to give up that system and we would be like the rest of California looking for alternate places to store our water.” But Marshall and other supporters of Prop. F believe that San Francisco can still get its water and generate its power from the Tuolumne River while storing its water elsewhere. Proponents say if the city has to, water storage could be consolidated into eight reservoirs, with Don Pedro Reservoir, downhill from Hetch Hetchy, as a main catch basin. Such a feat would require a major system overhaul, and could lead to more reliance on water from the already fragile Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta. Moreover, Don Pedro is owned by the Modesto Irrigation District, which recently denied San Francisco’s request to purchase water. But there are other options, Marshall said. “We need to look beyond reservoirs, which, in times of climate change, are big evaporation ponds,” said Marshall. “We need to look at underground aquifers and underground storage in the Central Valley. Prop. F requires us to put all of these options on the table.”

Can we afford it? A project of this scale would also cost in the tens of billions of dollars. Demolition of the dam alone could set the city back as much as $10 billion, according to the SFPUC (although supporters say the cost estimates are inflated). “Do we really want to invest billions of dollars in this?” said Wunderman. “It’s a wonderful intent, but it’s not something rational given this environment.” If San Francisco voters approve the measure on Tuesday, it becomes just the first step. To complete the plan, a separate ballot measure in 2016 would have to pass to authorize demolition of the dam.

(Wow, there is some sanity in San Francisco! But, they’re not giving up.) San Francisco vote to study draining Hetch Hetchy Reservoir is defeated By Paul Rogers, mercurynews.com, 11/06/2012 mercurynews.com

A San Francisco measure that called for a study on whether to drain the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir was soundly defeated on Tuesday. Seventy-seven percent of San Francisco voters were against Proposition F, with 23 percent in favor. The measure would have required the city to study draining Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park, was being closely watched across California and the nation. "This is the beginning, not the end," said Mike Marshall, executive director of Restore Hetch Hetchy, the group that sponsored the measure. "We went into this wanting to educate folks about the water system and how it impacts Yosemite. We lost (Tuesday night), but our movement is going forward."

Proposition F would have required the city to conduct an $8 million study of draining the famous reservoir and restoring Hetch Hetchy Valley -- described by some environmentalists and 11

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

biologists as a "second Yosemite Valley." If approved, a vote by San Francisco residents to actually put the plan in place could come as soon as 2016. The original battle over creating Hetch Hetchy ended in 1913, when Congress allowed San Francisco to build a reservoir on the site, over the objections of John Muir and other Sierra Club leaders of the time. Today, the Hetch Hetchy water system provides drinking water to 2.5 million people in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda counties. It also provides hydroelectric power. Supporters, led by environmental groups such as Restore Hetch Hetchy and the California League of Conservation Voters, along with three former Yosemite park superintendents, said the measure was an opportunity to undo one of the great environmental wrongs of the 20th century. Draining the reservoir would not significantly harm the Bay Area's water supply, they argued, because its 360,000 acre feet of storage could be replaced through more water conservation, water recycling and by storing water in other reservoirs that are between Yosemite and the Bay Area, such as Lake Don Pedro. Independent scientists who have studied the reservoir also said that it could be restored to its former glory -- with pine forests, a winding river and wildlife -- within 50 to 100 years. But the measure was staunchly opposed by nearly every one of the Bay Area's political leaders. Critics, such as U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, who called the idea "insane," said water is a precious commodity in California and that no city should take the risk of giving up a reliable water supply. Silicon Valley business leaders also said that because two-thirds of Hetch Hetchy water customers live outside San Francisco, in places like Palo Alto and North San Jose, they should get to vote, too. The No on F campaign was funded and organized by the Bay Area Council, a business group. A 2006 study by the state Department of Water Resources estimated that restoring Hetch Hetchy would cost $3 billion to $10 billion, although some environmentalists say it could be done for as little as $1 billion.

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

12

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

11/16/2012

Some Dam – Hydro News TM

And Other Stuff i

Quote of Note: "One of the penalties of not participating in politics is that you will be governed by your inferiors." - Plato “Good wine is a necessity of life.” - -Thomas Jefferson Ron’s wine pick of the week: 2009 Concannon Conservancy Crimson & Clover “No nation was ever drunk when wine was cheap.” - - Thomas Jefferson

Dams: (Enough has been said about this subject, but no one seems to being challenging the NRC on their suspect engineering and science.) Nuke safety expert eyes flooding risk at Oconee plant David Lochbaum with Union of Concerned Scientists to speak Wednesday in Clemson By Anna Bard Brutzman, independentmail.com, November 8, 2012

Clemson, SC —Federal regulators already know a small chance exists that a dam break upstream of the Oconee Nuclear Station could flood the three reactors outside Seneca. Just what to do about that — and how soon that ought to happen — will be the subject of a public discussion Wednesday hosted by a local chapter of the Sierra Club of South Carolina. The group has invited nuclear safety expert David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists to come to Clemson for a talk dubbed "An American Fukushima? Understanding the Risks Oconee Nuclear Station-Photo By Ken Ruinard, Anderson of an Upstream Dam Failure at the Oconee Independent Mail // Buy This Photo Nuclear Station." The Oconee Nuclear Station is owned by Duke Energy and is one of the largest employers in the Upstate. Reached at his office 1

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

this week in Tennessee, Lochbaum said concerns about flooding at Oconee predate the March 2011 disaster at Fukushima, Japan, where a 43-foot wall of sea water inundated backup cooling systems. The reactors there melted down as a result and released radiation into the environment. "Nuclear plants are fairly robust," Lochbaum said. "You have safety systems and backups to backups. But flood waters can disable much of that. Electric motors don't work well underwater."

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified 35 reactors in the United States — about a third of those currently operating here — that are at risk of flood damage, he said. "Near the top of the list were the three reactors at Oconee," Lochbaum said. Duke Energy's Preston Gillespie, the site vice president at Oconee, said the Jocassee Dam, built to guarantee water supply to Lake Keowee downstream, was designed with the potential for earthquake damage in mind. Keowee provides cooling waters for the nuclear plant. With the disaster at Fukushima, Gillespie said, every nuclear plant in the country has reassessed risks. Duke, he said, has already increased the heights of barriers around critical equipment to protect against a range of natural disasters, including floods. "We had a head start because of work our engineers had done," Preston said. John Boska, the project manager in the federal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, said Duke has been addressing flood risk at Oconee "for years." After federal inspectors studied a breach in a flood wall at Oconee in 2006, they conducted an independent study on the likelihood and consequences of a dam failure at Jocassee, A previous study, conducted in 1995, was undertaken by Duke. "That's when we concluded there was a higher probability than was previously thought," Boska said. The "breach" that prompted the regulators' closer review was a panel left open so that plant operators could run some cables through. The panel remained open for about two years. Lochbaum said the NRC ordered Duke in June 2010 to take a number of steps to better protect Oconee from a dam break at Jocassee upstream. Regulators estimated a wall of water as high as 14 feet could hit Oconee, where a flood wall protects against surges of up to five feet. Gillespie said Duke is already working on improvements and has long-term plans for more. "The good news is they know what the problems are and have taken some steps," Lochbaum said. After the disaster at Fukushima, the NRC ordered every nuclear plant in the country to reassess risks from natural disasaters. With Duke already reassessing Oconee, Lochbaum said, these new orders actually had the effect of delaying the deadline for Duke's response.

Under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's resposne to Fukushima, Duke must submit a flooding hazard report by March 2013, Boska said. Lochbaum received a degree in nuclear engineering in 1979 from the University of Tennessee and worked in the nuclear power industry for 17 years before going to work for the Union of Concerned Scientists. He had reported a problem at a plant where he was working in eastern Pennsylvania and ultimately took his concerns to the U.S. Congress. "They put pressure on the NRC, which put pressure on the power company, which ultimately fixed the problem," he said, adding that after speaking out his career was "toast." He said he went to work for the Union of Concerned Scientists shortly thereafter and has since focused on how commercial power producers and regulators handle hazards, however remote. NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said his agency can't talk about all the actions Duke is taking to protect the reactors. He said a taller wall to divert a flash flood from Jocassee down the Keowee River basin to Hartwell Lake is among the possibilities — but designing such a structure is complex. "The long-term effect you want is to keep water away from the plant," Burnell said. "At the same time, if you don't plan that properly, you could divert water somewhere where it does more harm or, depending on whether it's planned properly, the diversion wall could present other issues for the plant." A dam break at Jocassee is not the only way Oconee could flood, he said, and he cited the possibility of a super storm settling over the area for five days. "If you put the wall in the wrong place, you could hold water in," he said.

2

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

(Some dam history!) Shasta Dam November 8, 2012, blogs.redding.com/dsmith

Construction began in 1938; in 1945 Shasta Dam was completed. It was built and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation for the specific purposes of river regulation, navigation, improved fisheries and wildlife, power generation, domestic water supply, irrigation, flood control, and improved water quality. Additional purposes are control of water quality, fish conservation and recreation. Shasta Dam is one of the largest concrete gravity dams ever built in the United States, is the key structure of the Central Valley Project, and is one of the nation's major water development projects. It dams the waters of the Sacramento, Pit and McCloud Rivers. Shasta Dam holds the distinction of being the highest center spillway dam in the United States. It was, when built, the second largest in the world, a distinction it no longer holds. Shasta Dam was first unofficially known as Kennett Dan, Coram Dam, and McColl Dam; Mr. Mae Helene Bacon Boggs is responsible for naming Shasta Dam. Total building costs rounded off to the closest million is $100 million. Shasta Dam and powerplant were determined eligible for placement on the National Register of Historic Places, for both historical and engineering significance. The powerplant is located at the base of Shasta Dam on the west side of the Sacramento River and is one of the largest hydroelectric plants in California.

(This sounds like a dam horror story!) DNR, lake owners debate responsibility for dam Ron Shawgo | The Journal Gazette, November 11, 2012, journalgazette.net

It seemed like a sweet deal. When Paul and Deborah Malone bought an old campground northeast of Decatur in 1998, the seller threw in the 30-acre lake for $1. In its heyday the lake, up an embankment off County Road 200 East in Adams County, had been a destination for many. Boats rented for $2 a day, campsites with electricity for $6.50. The camp offered fishing and swimming, with a lifeguard on duty from noon to 8 p.m. There was an amusement park, too. Three decades later, all that remains are an old cinderblock building surrounded by overgrowth, a scattering of mobile homes and a row of seven or eight houses built atop that 15-foot embankment. It’s that bank – an earthen dam, actually – that has the Malones wanting to give back their $1. The houses, some of them decades old and one with a basement, should never have been built on the dam, classified by the state as “high hazard” capable of causing death if breached. The dam could be compromised; the last official inspection 12 years ago found problems, and remedies could be costly. Perhaps most remarkable is that the dam’s spillway, the area that is supposed to let excess water out, runs under one of the houses.

Citing that and other safety concerns, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources won a court judgment in June against the Malones and the owner of the house built over the spillway, Paul R. Hammond, demanding repairs. The Malones say they have no money and don’t own the dam, anyway, just the water next to it. Several people own property on the crest, including Hammond, who said he is working with the DNR to find a solution, though nothing has been resolved. “It’s been one headache after another,” Paul Malone said. Built in the early 1940s by the Depression- era Works Progress Administration that put people to work, Saddle Lake has also been known as Clem’s Lake and Shroyer Lake through the years. The DNR wields authority over it and other dams based on water capacity. About 75 percent of the embankment crest was lowered 4 feet in 1954 without state approval, according to both a 1980 inspection for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the last official state inspection in 2000. Construction of the houses followed. While not specifically prohibited by state and federal laws, building on a dam goes against common practices, according to the DNR. “Normal activities associated with home construction – basements, crawl spaces, footers, buried utility lines, water and sewer lines, septic systems – can contribute to weakening a dam’s structural integrity and create possible seepage flow pathways that add to the risk problems if a home is built on an earthen embankment,” DNR spokesman Phil Bloom said in an email. Because the lawsuit remains open, the DNR declined to answer questions specific to the Saddle Lake Dam. Paul Malone said he believes the first house on the 3

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

crest was built in the early 1960s. County building permits continued to be granted for more houses. Most recently, a new house was noted in the 2000 dam inspection, and a pole barn was built after 2005. Neil Ogg, Adams County building commissioner, acknowledges the pole barn was a mistake. “In retrospect, that permit probably should not have been issued,” Ogg said. But Ogg, who referred to the dam as more of a non-threatening dike, said the county was unaware of the state’s issues with Saddle Lake until they arose while the county compiled a comprehensive building plan in 2003. While maintaining the shallow lake doesn’t appear to pose much of a threat, Ogg said the county recognizes the need for a building moratorium. “We know now we can’t allow this to go on,” he said.

Real danger? Just how much of a threat the dam poses is unclear. The 1980 inspection found the dam in generally good condition but its spillway inadequate and deteriorating. Earth tremors could cause minor damage, it stated, but the inspection found, “no evidence of excessive settlement, cracking or slope instability.” The spillway under the house, “represents a potentially hazardous condition,” according to the inspection. And “In the event the dam were overtopped and erosion of the downstream slope occurred, there is a possibility that the dam could fail depending upon the depth and duration of the overtopping flow.” The inspection in 2000 found the dam in “conditionally poor” shape, the middle grade in a five-grade scale. It also noted problems with the spillway similar to those identified 20 years earlier. The inspection asked for trees to be cleared on the entire embankment, the spillway repaired and an emergency plan written in case the dam failed. But in the 12 years since that report, little if anything has been done to repair the dam, according to the DNR’s recent lawsuit. While state law requires owners of high-hazard dams to submit professional inspections every two years, none have been done since 2000. In meetings with the Malones and Hammond in 2007 and 2008, the DNR told them to upgrade the dam and spillway. The alternative would be to lower the lake level and excavate an emergency spillway to remove the dam from DNR’s jurisdiction, according to DNR’s violation notice sent to the owners last year. Together the owners face fines of up to $10,000 a day for violating state law. The Malones and Hammond say the DNR would prefer not to have jurisdiction, and so far no fines have been issued. The Malones, who live across the lake from the dam, own the lake bottom, the upstream slope of the dam and the spillway inlet, according to the DNR. The Malones contend they own the few acres of land their mobile home sits on and lots of water, nothing more. Because it is shallow, lowering the lake to satisfy the DNR would leave nothing but mud, Paul Malone said. Besides, the spillway seems to be working properly because it survived a 100-year flood in 2003, he added. “If it didn’t do anything with a 100-year flood we’ll have to have something more than that,” Malone said, “and I don’t think we’ll get something more than that.” Malone said he has heard it could cost as much as $50,000 to repair the dam. Disabled and on a fixed income, Malone said the state should target those with property on the dam crest or even the county, which allowed the houses to be built. “If they want to fight me all I can say is, ‘Hey, it’s yours. Do what you want with it,’ ” he said. The DNR’s Bloom said the agency has intentionally dealt only with owners of Saddle Lake property where reconstruction likely will be needed. “In addition, we know that sometime in the 1990s, the federal Soil Conservation Service – now called the Natural Resources Conservation Service with the U.S. Department of Agriculture – met with many property owners and encouraged them to form a lake association,” he added. Whatever happens is likely to affect Hammond’s house over the spillway. Joe McAlhaney, 32, who rents the house from Hammond, said he wasn’t aware the spillway conduit went from the back of the house, under the garage, under the road in front of the house and then into a farm field across the road. But he’s not concerned. “I’m just kind of surprised they’re worried about it,” he said. “It doesn’t seem like it’s going to be too big of a worry.” Hammond also doesn’t seem too worried. The lawsuit, he said, is on hold, “just to figure out what to do with that spillway.” He expects a settlement with the DNR to be reached next year. While it could mean an expense for him, money hasn’t been a factor in discussions so far, he said. “I think it’s going to cost a little,” he said. “But $1,000 or $2,000 to get it out of jurisdiction is fine by me.”

4

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

Hydro: (Win some, lose some. We’re talking about losing by 110 votes. Local politics can get ugly. Aspen does have some nice scenery – Added to article, Aspen trees in the fall.) Aspen voters shoot down hydroelectric proposal Castle Creek power project in limbo Andre Salvail, The Aspen Times, aspentimes.com, Aspen, CO Colorado, November 7, 2012

Aspen, CO — By a mere 110 votes, Aspen voters rejected an advisory question designed to move the city's controversial Castle Creek hydroelectric power project forward. Complete but unofficial returns Tuesday night put the tally at 2,044, or 51.38 percent, against the project, while 1,934, or 48.62 percent, supported the city's intention to finish it. While the city is not legally bound to adhere to the result, observers say that to ignore the will of the voters on the issue would be a gigantic political misstep. Adam Frisch, who was elected to the City Council in mid-2011 just as project opponents were intensifying their efforts to fight the initiative, said city officials and others who openly supported hydropower failed to rally swing voters over to their side. Frisch supported the hydro project when it first passed local voter muster in 2007 as $5.5 million bond issue. This time around, he voted against it, saying he wasn't happy with cost overruns that raised the project's pricetag to $10.5 million. He said that although overruns sometimes occur with capital projects, he never got a reasonable explanation for the higher costs and that no one in City Hall was ever held accountable for the error. He suggested that swing voters might have come to believe that during the public process over the Castle Creek hydroelectric project, the city wasn't adhering to the same standards that it employs when scrutinizing private development applications. From the start, the city should have pursued an application with federal regulators that required a full environmental review, he said, instead of seeking exemptions from stringent reviews and then changing its mind in the face of mounting opposition. “I think the city opened itself up to a lot of flak over something we should have been able to control better,” he said. Frisch said although the question was advisory — a binding referendum on the project was not a possibility because a city council cannot tie the hands of future councils — he doubts there will be a move among officials to keep going forward in the short term. ------. Full article here: http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20121107/NEWS/121109865/1077&ParentProfile=1058

5

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

(Note that this article does not recognize hydropower as a renewable energy source. You can argue its impact on the environment, but there is no denying that it IS a renewable energy source! Nor does the article mention that wind and solar power are not dependable and require backup power from fossil energy sources or other energy sources. The article criticizes IEA for consulting with hydro companies to do its report, but there is no mention that all of INR’s views come from only one source – anti-dam organizations. The pot calling the kettle black syndrome.) Hydropower Propaganda Disguised as Science internationalrivers.org, 11/08/2012 - By: Peter Bosshard

The International Energy Agency (IEA) advises Photo by Rich Beilfuss industrialized countries on energy policy and energy security. For decades, the organization has been beholden to the oil, gas, nuclear and hydropower industries. A Technology Roadmap on Hydropower published recently by the IEA reads like a propaganda piece by the dam industry. It calls for increased government subsidies, and consistently downplays the impacts and risks of hydropower projects.The IEA published its new hydropower report as part of a series of energy sector roadmaps. Hydropower is a long established technology, and produces almost one sixth of the world’s electricity. The report asserts that the technology generates “much more [electricity] than wind, solar, geothermal and other sources combined,” and will remain “the major renewable electricity generation technology worldwide … for a long time.”

With thousands of projects built in past decades, hydropower still generates much more energy than renewable sources. Yet when it comes to creating new capacity to mitigate climate change, wind and solar energy have overtaken hydropower. In 2011, for example, 40 gigawatts of wind and 30 gigawatts of solar capacity came online, compared to 25 gigawatts for hydropower. The IEA, which has neglected renewable energy sources for years, is silent about this trend. The IEA predicts that hydropower capacity will roughly double to 1,947 gigawatts by 2050. This would require the construction of thousands of new large dams. The biggest increases are expected to occur in China and other Asian countries and – at a much lower level – in Africa. Dams ravage floodplains which are among the richest and most productive ecosystems on Earth. Freshwater systems such as rivers, wetlands and lakes are already more seriously affected by species extinction than any other major ecosystem, and dams are one of the main reasons for this. You would expect that a roadmap for the global expansion of hydropower would assess how much more damming freshwater ecosystems can absorb before they collapse. Yet the IEA skirts this question. The new report acknowledges that hydropower plants “may significantly affect natural aquatic and terrestrial habitats.” Yet it asserts, without elaboration, that “all these effects can be mitigated by thorough flow-management programmes.” This contradicts the empirical evidence of the independent World Commission on Dams, which found that efforts to mitigate (rather than avoid) the environmental impacts of dams have usually failed. The most attractive locations for dams have already been used, and doubling hydropower capacity would likely require the displacement of scores of millions of people. The report does not address the widespread impoverishment and misery that dam displacement has caused. Again without elaboration, it claims that “with careful planning and implementation these issues can be avoided, minimized, mitigated or compensated.”

The IEA report also downplays the amount of greenhouse gases produced by hydropower projects. Shallow tropical reservoirs can emit more greenhouse gases – particularly methane – than thermal power projects with an equal output of electricity. A peer-reviewed research paper 6

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

estimates that such reservoir emissions may amount to 4% of all human climate impacts. The IEA report simply states that “some hydropower plants could contribute to GHG emissions.” It proposes measuring these emissions, but excludes the large emissions from deforestation caused by dam building in pristine forests. The more intense droughts brought about by climate change will reduce the economic viability of hydropower dams, and the escalating floods will affect their safety. The new publication acknowledges that climate change can have “substantial” impacts on hydropower projects, but does not assess how these long-term changes will affect their economics. This puts a fundamental question mark behind the report’s ambitious expansion targets.

More than 40 countries – including the US, China, India and Brazil – offer subsidies and other incentives for hydropower projects. The IEA report proposes to expand such government support. Its recommendations include: x All countries with hydropower potential should prepare inventories, set targets for new projects and track their implementation. x Since neither the public nor private investors are keen on dam building, governments should “promote public and private acceptance of hydropower.” x Governments should “develop effective financial models to support the large number of appropriately sized hydro projects in developing regions. x Governments should “streamline administrative processes [which include environmental assessments] to reduce the lead time for hydropower projects.” x Developers should follow sustainability guidelines and protocols, and “avoid, minimize, mitigate or compensate negative socio-economic and environmental impacts.” Yet the report does not even mention the framework of the World Commission on Dams, which provides the strongest guidelines on dam building.

The International Energy Agency has a long record of boosting conventional energy sources at the cost of renewables. Based on an analysis of forecasts about the development of wind power, the Energy Watch Group found in 2008 that the IEA was “by far the leading issuer of faulty predictions.” The new report was prepared in close cooperation with the hydropower industry. The IEA authors consulted 34 experts for the publication, 29 of which work for hydropower companies and other institutions promoting the technology. It is no surprise that an industry lobby would prepare a biased and unscientific report. It is less clear why the IEA’s member governments would pay for and legitimize such a piece of propaganda. Peter Bosshard is the policy director of International Rivers

Water: (This could be significant to deal with CA water problems.) Study Examines Operations of Dams to Provide Water for Salmon and Farmers Submitted by Pamela Martineau, 11/05/2012 - acwa.com

One of California’s largest agricultural water districts and a leading environmental organization have released a joint study showing that agriculture and ecosystems could benefit from operating major storage reservoirs in conjunction with groundwater basins. Glenn Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) and the Natural Heritage Institute (NHI) jointly commissioned a study in 2006 on the impacts of changing operations of two Oroville Dam 7

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

of California’s largest reservoirs so they capture a larger amount of annual rainfall and snowmelt. The reservoirs – Shasta , the largest in the federal Central Valley Project (CVP), and Oroville, a key water storage facility in the State Water Project (SWP) – are both located in the Sacramento Valley and control water flows on the Sacramento River and the Feather River. The study found that water yield in the reservoirs could be increased by re-operating the reservoirs to release additional water to meet irrigation demands and provide ecosystem enhancements, including benefits for salmon runs. The study, which was funded by the state Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, shows that without the occasional use of groundwater, such releases could create a risk that the reservoirs might not refill during the following winter and spring, particularly in dry years. That risk could be eliminated by drawing upon groundwater aquifers in the Sacramento Valley to supplement deliveries from the reservoirs, the study found.

If this technique had been used during the 82 years that records have been kept, the study found it would have been necessary to turn to the groundwater system to assure full deliveries in only four of those years for the federal reservoir and six for the state reservoir. The study also asserts that groundwater levels would have rebounded during the following precipitation season, or soon thereafter. “This is surely the most rigorous study to date on the potential for optimizing the operations of existing water infrastructure in California to produce benefits for both the environment and water supply that are complementary rather than competitive,” Gregory Thomas, chief executive officer of NHI, said in a press statement accompanying the release of the report. “We know from this study what will work and what may work even better by more fully integrating the management of existing reservoirs and ground water systems and by physically interconnecting them.” Thaddeus Bettner, general manager of GCID, added: “This detailed study and investigation has shown that there is the capacity to re-operate existing surface water reservoirs and generate new yield to the system to benefit the environment and water users with minimal risk.” The report also contains recommendations for refining Sacramento Valley conjunctive water use management, including evaluating the effects of climate change, recognizing trade-offs among different types of environmental water users, and conducting detailed water temperature modeling. The report is available here. https://www.box.com/s/d03jv3puuuofau2pf6tm/1/147449373/3851065270/1.

Environment: (Those little salmon have to navigate a hungry bunch of birds!) Which Kills More Fish: Cormorants Or Dams? November 7, 2012 | ecotrope.opb.org | By Cassandra Profita

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recently reported a startling statistic: Double-crested cormorants living at the mouth of the Columbia River are eating 18 percent of the juvenile salmon swimming toward the ocean. The agency is looking for ways to reduce the impacts cormorants have on protected species of salmon and steelhead, and it has a list of options including hazing the birds, changing their habitat at East Sand Island, or maybe even killing some. Watch video here: http://ecotrope.opb.org/2012/11/which- 8

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

kills-more-fish-cormorants-or-dams/. Using studies of the birds’ stomach contents and fish tags found in bird droppings, among other methods, scientists have determined that the cormorants ate an estimated 20.5 million salmon and steelhead smolts last year. That’s up from 19.2 million in 2010 and more than double the average of what the birds ate annually from 2000 to 2009. OPB’s Vince Patton was wondering whether the number of smolts killed by cormorants last year rivals the number that are killed by dams. As soon as he asked, I knew I would have to find the answer.

According to Corps biologist Brad Eppard, it’s tricky to compare the number of fish eaten by birds at the mouth of the river to the number that die while passing through the eight federal dams in the Columbia River Basin. Only some fish go through all eight dams – the ones that hatch in the upper reaches of the river system. Others only go through seven dams or six or five or … you get the picture. But all the surviving fish are swimming through the estuary and right by the largest cormorant colony in western North America. According to Eppard, the survival rate through each dam is 96 percent or better. So, he said, the cormorants are definitely killing more baby salmon and steelhead than Bonneville Dam, and it’s probably safe to say you could add a couple more dams to the tally before the number of smolts killed by dams would surpass the number killed by cormorants. The survival rate for all outmigrating salmon and steelhead going through all eight dams is 53 percent, Eppard said. That’s taking into account other impacts such as avian predators, pike minnow and bass that are also known to eat salmon and steelhead smolts. So, by comparison, the cormorants are a fraction of the total impacts to juvenile salmonids throughout the river system. But it’s a healthy fraction. There are about 150 million smolts that make it to the section of the lower estuary where the cormorants live. And the cormorants claim about 18 percent of those. Caspian terns – another bird that nests at the mouth of the river – took about 5 million smolts last year. But that’s down from about 6.5 million in 2008. The Corps has reduced the habitat available for Caspian terns at the mouth of the Columbia and built new nesting space in other locations to shrink their impact on salmon and steelhead listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act. (see the Oregon Field Guide episode above). Now the agency is looking to do the same with the cormorants. There are several public meetings coming up to discuss their proposals: • On Thursday from 5 to 8 pm at the Phoenix Inn, 415 Capital Way N., in Olympia, Wash.; • On Nov. 13 from 5 to 8 pm at the Red Lion Lloyd Center, 1021 NE Grand Ave. in Portland; and • On Nov. 15 from 5 to 8 pm at the Holiday Inn Express, 204 W. Marine Dr., in Astoria.

Experimental release scheduled at Glen Canyon Dam The Associated Press, deseretnews.com, Nov. 8 2012

Page, Ariz. — The U.S. Department of the Interior has scheduled another high-flow experimental release at Glen Canyon Dam in Page. The Nov. 19 release will be the first at the dam since 2008. This one is expected to last nearly five days. It's part of a long-term protocol announced in May by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to meet water and power needs. Federal officials say the release will allow better conservation of sediment downstream, control non-native fish predation and continue scientific experimentation in the Colorado River below the dam. Scientists have determined that the right conditions exist to conduct a high-flow release to benefit downstream resources including camping beaches, sandbars, backwater habitats and riparian vegetation.

9

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

(Here’s another fish before people case. And, in a previous article, the science used has many questions that need answered.) Water agency challenges Yuba River dam ruling By Matt Weiser, sacbee.com, Nov. 9, 2012

The Yuba County Water Agency is challenging new federal rules that require two dams on the Yuba River to be modified for salmon passage. The agency on Wednesday submitted a 60-day notice of intent to sue the National Marine Fisheries Service, citing potential harm to water supplies, water quality and flood control. The agency delivers Yuba River water to irrigate 85,000 acres of farmland. The notice is required under the Endangered Species Act before filing a lawsuit. Water agency officials said they hope the notice leads to a compromise that avoids court action. "We really don't want to file a lawsuit," said Curt Aikens, Yuba County Water Agency general manager. "But the issues are so critical to us that if we have to, we will." At issue are two dams operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Englebright and Daguerre Point. They were built more than 70 years ago to contain sediment and other debris eroded from the Sierra Nevada by hydraulic gold mining activity. In response to a federal court ruling, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued new rules in March to protect endangered fish in the Yuba River. It concluded that long-term survival of the river's salmon, steelhead and sturgeon are in jeopardy unless the Army Corps builds a way for fish to migrate around the two dams.

Daguerre Point Dam, the lowest and smallest of the two dams, has an old fish ladder that provides some fish passage. Englebright Dam, located upstream, has no fish ladders. The rules say dam removal is the "preferred approach" to protecting the species, but do not require this. New fish ladders or a "trap and haul" program that moves fish in trucks are other options. The Yuba County Water Agency operates New Bullards Bar Dam upstream on the Yuba River. This dam is not directly affected by the rules. But the water agency argues that flow changes required by modifying the Corps of Engineers dams could reduce water supplies available for irrigation. It is also concerned that huge amounts of sediment stored behind the two dams could cause water pollution and flood control problems if the dams are removed. The National Marine Fisheries Service had no comment on the details of the water agency's action. "We just received the notice and we are closely reviewing it," spokesman Jim Milbury said.

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

10

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

HappyThanksgiving! 11/23/2012

Some Dam – Hydro News TM

And Other Stuff i

Quote of Note: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” - Voltaire “Good wine is a necessity of life.” - -Thomas Jefferson Ron’s wine pick of the week: 2008 Sineann US Red Blend "Abondante Red Wine" “No nation was ever drunk when wine was cheap.” - - Thomas Jefferson

Dams: (Guess that for now this is of interest if you own a dam in Pennsylvania, but maybe other States will follow suit.) DEP moving to increase dam fees By Robert Swift (Harrisburg Bureau Chief), November 12, 2012, citizensvoice.com

Harrisburg - A proposal to generate $1 million annually from state fees on dams to help pay for safety inspections is close to implementation after nearly three years of consideration. The purpose of the proposal is to offset costs of monitoring and inspecting dams by the Department of Environmental Protection and reduce the program's reliance on the taxpayer-supported General Fund by one-third. About $3 million is spent annually on the dam safety program. "This (fee proposal) will ensure that dams are maintained as designed and will help protect the public safety of the communities downstream and assist the public who depend on dams for water supply, flood control and recreation," said a DEP statement. The proposed regulation won final approval last month from the rule-making Environmental Quality Board and goes to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission and the state attorney general's office for review. It could go into effect as early as this winter, said DEP spokeswoman Amanda Witman. The current fees date to 1991. The proposal establishes an annual registration fee in the amount of either $1,500 or $800 depending upon the dam category for private owners of some 646 dams that would create significant economic or public safety concerns if they were breached. In addition, permit application fees for projects to build new dams or modify existing ones would be increased on a 1

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

sliding scale based on the hazard potential category of the dam. For example, permit fees to modify dams listed in the most hazardous category would increase from $3,000 to $18,500.

Breathing easier: Kern River Valley leaders like Isabella Dam "fix" By Carol Ferguson, EyeWitness News, Nov.14, 2012, bakersfieldnow.com

Lake Isabella, Calif. (KBAK/KBFX) -- The final plans are ready for a "fix" of the two dams at Lake Isabella, and Kern River Valley leaders say they like what they hear. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is holding a series of public meetings, and also held a special tour of the site. "They've listened to us from the minute that we got involved in this," Cheryl Borthick told Eyewitness News on Wednesday. She's the president of the Kernville Chamber of Commerce, and a local business owner. Kern County Supervisor-elect Mick Gleason also got the update. "I'm impressed," Gleason said. "With the community and with the Army Corps of Engineers." As Eyewitness News was first to report, the Corps uncovered new concerns with the two earth-filled dams back in 2006. The community's been waiting since then to see what engineers would do, and how that would affect their businesses and homes. Engineers now plan to raise the top of both dams by 16 feet and build a "buttress" on the downstream side of the Auxiliary Dam. To construct that, they'll use materials blasted out near the Main Dam as they first build a new spillway at that facility. Plans also call for adding new drain and filter systems, and re- aligning the Borel Canal at the Auxiliary Dam.

The two dams were completed in 1953, and engineers now say they've discovered active earthquake faults in the area, they're worried about water "seeping" through, and the dams aren't high enough to prevent "over topping" in a worst-case storm event. After the years of study, the Corps now has the plan to address those situations. But, local residents know they'll have to deal with the effects of construction. Gerald Wenstrand leases ranch land, and built his dream house just below the Auxiliary Dam. "It appears at times it's in the storage area," Wenstrand says, referring to his property. He'll have to figure out where to move some of his operations, "That's a financial burden and so forth," Wenstrand said. That's why he was at a public meeting the Corps held Tuesday night in Kernville, and he was at the briefing at the dam location. He's hearing he'll be compensated. "That can be possible, in the words I was told," Wenstrand said. "But everything's kind of on the fence." He still believes the project is important. As a business-owner in Kernville, Borthick worries about impacts on the important tourism industry when construction is underway. She's worried about where crews will stay. "Are they going to take up the rooms in Kernville? Are they going to fill the restaurants?" she asked the Corps spokesmen. "And not leave room for our visitors that come up year round." She was assured there will only be around 150 workers at a time, and many may rent apartments -- since major construction will take about three years. Others in the valley worry about impacts on Highway 178 and Highway 155. Each has to be moved over for a stretch when the crests of the dams are raised. Highway 155 will have to be relocated for about a mile, and 178 for less than a mile. Wednesday, Corps spokesmen said their agency will design the road changes, but they'll be done to Caltrans standards. They'll also work to avoid any road closures. The Corps has a public meeting set for Wednesday night at the Senior Citizen Center in Lake Isabella, and another one starting at 6:00 p.m.Thursday night at the Rabobank Convention Center in Bakersfield.

More design and planning work will continue, and engineers say major construction will start in 2017 and continue for five to six years. Another big concern is how much the lake water level will be lowered during the work. Local leaders are relieved about the latest plans for that. "The draw- 2

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

down of the lake is probably not going to be any more than it is right now," Borthick said. "And, it's not going to happen until 2020." Engineers plan to do that during the winter, when water levels are lower anyway. The lower water period is now set for late 2020, through the following March. The project is one of the biggest and most important, Corps spokesmen say. "It's one of the highest-priority projects, probably in the top ten," Rick Poeppelman said. He's the dam safety officer for the project. He says the Isabella Dams are a focus because of the significance of the problems and risks at the two structures, balanced against the consequences if the dams failed. "The consequence is the population downstream, and in Bakersfield," Poeppelman said. He notes the area has grown significantly since the dams were built in 1953. But, as they factor that, and improve the dams -- engineers are also considering the project impacts on people around the area. "I think we've got a pretty good plan that kind of balances all those things together," he said. Supervisor Mick Gleason is glad to hear that. "They're demonstrating a significant interest in public concern, and they're interested in making the dam a successful project," he said. But, Gleason was also asking hard questions about whether there will be enough funding to complete the dam fix. Poeppelman set the cost at $400- to $600 million, and Gleason wants assurances the funding will come through to complete the project. The Corps said they feel good about funding because the Isabella project's considered such a high priority. Gleason thinks at this point they've got a good foundation of cooperation between the Corps and the community, and that'll go a long way to ensuring that the project is completed -- regardless of issues that come up. "I'm confident that they've got the right people on the job," Gleason said about the Corps. "And I'm confident that certainly this community up here has the right people involved so we'll tackle that problem -- each of them -- as we come along."

(Better safe than sorry.) Dam in Jenkins inspected after earthquake wkyt.com, Nov 14, 2012

Jenkins, Ky (WYMT) - Saturday's earthquake is still causing concern in one eastern Kentucky city. State officials were in the City of Jenkins Wednesday afternoon inspecting the dam after local engineers noticed a few problems after the 4.3 quake. City officials say they are taking all the necessary steps to make sure the structural integrity of the dam was not compromised. The dam was built in 1912, and Jenkins Mayor G.C. Kincer says they are constantly checking it. "We've always been very aware of the dam, and we keep check on it regularly, not that we are threatened by it, we just want to make sure everything is good and solid," said Kincer.

After Saturday's earthquake, Kincer says they immediately came to the dam to make sure there was no major damage. He also called in the city's engineering firm, Nesbitt Engineering. "When I walked the base of the dam it appeared that the water at the base of the dam that was coming up had increased greater than what I had seen a year ago," said Paul Nesbitt, President of Nesbitt Engineering. He says the water that leaks from the bottom of the dam is usually only a few inches wide, so they decided to call in Kentucky's Department of Water. "They are just making sure that everything is as it should be. They found maybe a few little changes that they might be concerned about," said Kincer. Nesbitt says that all dams are prone to leak, but he says this stream since the earthquake he estimates has grown ten times. State officials recommended some water testing and continued monitoring. "As engineers, we want numbers, so we want to put something in that we can actually get specific numbers to see if the flow continues to increase," said Nesbitt. Mayor Kincer does not want citizens to worry about the dam. Kincer says the right people are investigating any problems. We also called to check on other dams in the area. Officials say the

3

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

dam at Carr Creek Lake and the dam at Fish Pond have both been inspected since the earthquake, and they found no problems.

Dam ahead of schedule, Corps says Kentucky earthquake caused no damage tennessean.com, Nov 15, 2012

An Army Corps of Engineers official said this week that repairs to the Wolf Creek Dam are ahead of schedule and that an earthquake in Kentucky over the weekend caused no damage to the dam. Colonel James DeLapp, district manager for the Army Corps of Engineers, addressed the Hendersonville League of Women Voters Monday night at Merrol Hyde Magnet School. DeLapp said the 4.3 magnitude earthquake in eastern Kentucky did not damage the dam, which is on the Cumberland River. The public meeting between the group and the Corps had been scheduled before the earthquake occurred. The Hendersonville League of Women Voters, which brings public attention to environmental issues facing the city, wanted to learn more about the progress of the work being done on the dam.

Repairs since the '70s The Wolf Creek Dam is undergoing repairs that began in the 1970s in response to leaks that were discovered in the late 1960s. The first set of repairs failed, and in 2007 the Army Corps of Engineers began a five-year project to install a cement wall 275 feet into the ground. “This fix is intended to be permanent,” DeLapp said. Repairs to the wall, scheduled to be completed December 2013, are 76 percent complete and ahead of schedule. The project budget of $594 million is fully funded. “The Wolf Creek Dam is critical to maintaining safe levels of water in Hendersonville,” DeLapp said. “Many people think Old Hickory Dam was designed for flood control, but it wasn’t. It was designed for hydro-power and navigation.” The dam is the largest on the river. With it, the Army Corps of Engineers manages the flow of water through Hendersonville and Nashville, and ultimately to the Ohio River. Until the Wolf Creek Dam project is complete, the dam itself is compromised. DeLapp explained that a major rain incident above the Wolf Creek Dam or serious damage from an earthquake or other natural force could cause a breech. In that case, flood waters would reach Hendersonville in 36-48 hours.

The May 2010 flood raised the water levels on Old Hickory Lake to 52 feet. If Wolf Creek Dam failed, it could raise flood levels to 72 feet. “Our dam is part of a system of dams that impact our lives daily,” said Bonnie Fertig, member of the Hendersonville League. “We enjoy the lake that our dam provides us, and we think the dam is here to keep us safe. But, it’s not here to protect us from flooding.” The U.S. Army corps of Engineers is responsible for disaster recovery and cleanup, and for operating the locks, dams, hydropower and navigation on the Cumberland River.

Hydro: (A new license always comes with a big price tag. The real story is that they did the licensing process under budget. That must be a first, unless the budget was high! And, they are already saving money for the next relicensing. Hope I’m around to see that one too!) Wells Dam gets new 40-year license By Christine Pratt, World staff writer, November 13, 2012, wenatcheeworld.com

East Wenatchee, WA — The people of Douglas County can count on 40 more years of local control of Wells Dam. The Douglas County PUD Friday received a new 40-year federal license to operate the Columbia River dam, which is about 14 miles north of the community of Chelan Falls. It contains a PUD 4

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

commitment to spend $654 million over the next four decades on projects that benefit hydropower generation, fish and wildllife protection and recreation. The license ensures local control of the dam, via an elected board of commissioners, through 2052 and guides all aspects of how the PUD operates the dam. The 840-megawatt dam is capable of supplying power to 420,000 Northwest homes. “The license places this resource at our customers disposal for many years into the future,” PUD General Manager Bill Dobbins said this morning. “I’m just really proud of everybody who’s worked on it for more than seven years.

The relicensing process cost the utility some $10 million — about $7 million under budget — including consultant and staff time. It produced volumes of paper and digital bytes. Dobbins said staffers are reviewing the new license now and will meet Friday morning to discuss any potential sticking points that could need further negotiation. He said early analysis hasn’t revealed any. The utility applied for a 50-year license, but officials suspected they’d get less than that, amid the feds’ ongoing efforts to align expiration years on licenses held by all the region’s dam-operating PUDs. Earlier dam-relicensing efforts by the Chelan and Grant County PUDs took a decade or more. The feds’ subjected the Douglas PUD to an abbreviated relicensing process that followed a relatively strict timeline. PUD officials expected to receive the license in May and, when that didn’t come, knew its arrival was imminent. The utility paid for the relicensing process with savings and will put the $7 million it didn’t spend toward the next relicensing process, Dobbins said. The utility is planning a community event to celebrate the new license. They’ll work out the details in the coming weeks.

(You gotta love this hydro site.) Hydroelectric plant may give Bennington more “green” power By Patrick McArdle, Staff Writer | November 15,2012, rutlandherald.com

Bennington, VT — The Select Board moved closer to an agreement to buy locally generated hydroelectric power, which Chairman Joseph Krawczyk Jr. said could mean the town would get almost all of its electricity from renewable, “green” sources. William Scully, co-owner of Carbon Zero, appeared at Monday’s Select Board meeting to answer questions about his proposal that the town buy electricity from the project he is setting up at the former Vermont Tissue Mill in North Bennington. The project is expected to be able to generate up to about 1.5 gigawatt hours a year.

In 2009, Scully bought the former manufacturing site, which had been classified as a “brownfield,” with the intent of restoring the hydroelectric generation capability that once powered the mill. Scully’s proposal had the advantage that much of the infrastructure is already in place from the site’s previous use as a mill, but progress has still been slow because of state requirements regarding work done in Vermont waterways. However, he told the Select Board on Monday that he believes he is close to getting all of the needed permits and wanted the town to consider becoming a partner by buying electricity from his company. The arrangement would not save the town any money on electric costs but would contribute toward making the municipality’s power consumption green in the future. Krawczyk said that between a solar project proposed by Encore Redevelopment of Burlington, which would bring solar panels to the former landfill on Houghton Lane, and Scully’s proposal, the town would be getting almost all of its electricity from clean and renewable sources. While no vote was taken, the Select Board agreed by consensus to allow town staff to continue working with Scully on creating an agreement between Bennington and Carbon Zero.

5

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

The town would not be directly receiving electricity from the hydroelectric generators that will be powered by the Walloomsac River. Instead, the power would be fed into the grid operated by Green Mountain Power and the town would be buying into the credit given to Carbon Zero for the electricity it puts into the grid. Scully said at the meeting Monday he expected to have his remaining permits by the end of the year. He estimated an eight-month construction period and said the project could be online in August, September or October. The town could see another benefit from working with Scully on the project which involves an existing dam. The site is close to the covered bridge on Murphy Road and a group of mobile homes in the area known as Paper Mill Village. During times of heavy rains, the area is prone to flooding and the evacuation of those homes during Tropical Storm Irene sent two people, including North Bennington Fire Chief Ed Myers Jr., to the hospital. Scully said that he believed controlled use of the spillway at the dam could alleviate flooding conditions in the area and said he had already entered into a memorandum of agreement with the town that would allow municipal employees to open the spillway as needed. According to Scully, he was notified about a month ago that after he remediated the property, it has been found to no longer be a brownfield, which is a term used for a contaminated, former industrial site. After being asked about his relationship with the electric utility company, Scully said he had found Green Mountain Power was more cooperative than Central Vermont Public Service had been because of the new owner’s commitment to renewable energy sources.

(When it comes to deals – this is a big deal!) ALCOA closes dam sale: Tapoco now Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower By Robert Norris | thedailytimes.com, 11/15/12

Tapoco-APGI, ALCOA’s hydroelectric project built to power Tennessee Operations, is now Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower. The sale of the 378-megawatt project that includes four dams on the Little Tennessee and Cheoah Rivers in East Tennessee and Western North Carolina was completed Thursday, the companies announced. The price tag: $600 million. Along with Calderwood and Calderwood Chilhowee Dams in Blount and Monroe Dam Built 1930 counties and Santeetlah and Cheoah Dams in Graham County, N.C., the transaction included the four generating stations, 86 miles of transmission line and about 14,500 acres of land associated with and surrounding Tapoco. Electricity production by the Tapoco project — originally called the Tallassee Power Company — provided energy to ALCOA for nearly a century. The four dams came into service between 1919 and 1957, with Cheoah the first built and Calderwood the last.

The buyer, Canada-based Brookfield Renewable Energy Partners, is one of the largest publicly traded, pure-play, renewable power platforms globally. Its portfolio is primarily hydroelectric and totals about 5,000 megawatts of installed capacity. Diversified across 69 river systems and 11 power markets in the United States, Canada and Brazil, Brookfield generates enough electricity from renewable resources to power 2 million homes on average each year. The company’s U.S. operations are headquartered in Marlborough, Mass. When the planned sale was announced in June, Brookfield Director of Corporate Communications Julie Smith-Galvin said, “Brookfield does not plan to make any changes to the land holdings or land use at this time. We recognize the importance of watersheds and have a strong record of working with stakeholders within them.” Tapoco — operated by ALCOA Power Generating Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of ALCOA Inc. — employed 35 people, 26 hourly and nine salaried employees when the plans were originally announced, Smith-Galvin said Brookfield expected to retain most of those employees. Tapoco was originally developed by ALCOA Inc. to provide power for its aluminum smelting and rolling 6

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

mill operations in Alcoa. The need for that power was substantially reduced when the potlines at the Tennessee Operations South Plant were closed in March 2009 after ALCOA and the Tennessee Valley Authority were unable to agree to a long-term power contract. Brookfield Renewable owns about 25 percent interest in Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower and will manage and integrate the assets into its North American operating platform. The remaining equity interest will be funded by an institutional fund manager by Brookfield Asset Management. The Tapoco portfolio is in the latter stages of an extensive asset modernization program which is expected to increase its average annual generation of about 1.4 million megawatt hours, according to Brookfield. In August 2010, ALCOA kicked off a $110 million modernization project at Cheoah Dam to increase the dam’s efficiency and energy output and increase its life by another 40 to 50 years.

BEFORE (Mmmm! At 12 cents per kWh, you’d think any hydro project would be economical.) Auburn city councilors cautious to approve purchase of equipment for dam November 16, 2012 3:05 am • Nathan Baker The Citizen, auburnpub.com

Auburn, New York | Hoping to avoid another disappointing energy project, the Auburn City Council tabled the order of $900,000 of turbine equipment for the Mill Street Dam against the recommendations of the engineering firm hired to get the hydroelectric dam back online. With the hundreds of thousands of dollars lost annually at the 2-year-old landfill gas to energy co-generation plant prominently in their thoughts, the councilors decided to seek more information on possible electric rates before giving the go-ahead on the $3.7 million dam project. "I want to be on the safe side here, I don't want to get burned," Councilor Matthew Smith said, questioning the calculations of engineering firm Siemens Industry that show $931,343 of energy savings from the project after 20 years.

One of the risk factors affecting the profitability of the dam is the value of the electricity produced by the generator. Recent amendments to the state's Public Service Commission Law allowed the produced electricity of small hydroelectric dams to be credited to other accounts, which means the city can offset some of its electricity costs at other municipal operations. But the tariffs to be used by utilities setting the reimbursement costs for the electricity won't be finalized until Feb. 1. Siemens Account Executive Steve Heaslip said he is reasonably confident that the rate of credit will be 12 cents per kilowatt-hour, and the firm's calculations were based on that figure. He said to meet the September deadline for the $185,000 funding agreement with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, the turbine needs to be ordered soon. "The general wait to have a turbine manufactured is 14 to 16 months," project manager Gene Schoonmakerfranczek said. "We have an agreement with the manufacturer that if we order it by Nov. 15 we will have it in time to make the deadline." Councilor William Graney motioned to table the turbine purchase authorization, expressing reserves about the uncertain energy prices. "I think I'd be more comfortable if I could see how you get those NYSEG numbers," he said. "I just want to gain more confidence in how the numbers are going to work out." Before the vote to table, Heaslip said delaying the project further could affect the funding. "We're probably not going to get an official extension from NYSERDA, so that just puts us back even further behind," he said. "We're up against the wall and we need to keep things moving." The City Council will again visit the proposal at the rescheduled meeting at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 20. AFTER (Well they did it!)

7

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

Auburn City Council approves moving ahead with upgrading hydroelectric facility By Kelly Voll, The Citizen, November 20, 2012, auburnpub.com

Auburn, NY | The way of the past may become the way of the future. The Auburn City Council, in its Tuesday work session, unanimously approved a resolution authorizing a notice to proceed to order equipment for the Mill Street Dam Hydroelectric Generation Facility project. The project picked up steam in January 2012 when the city entered into a $185,000 funding agreement with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority to buy Renewable Energy Credits generated by upgrading and re-powering the Mill Street Dam Hydroelectric Generation Facility. With the NYSERDA funds, however, came requirements, one of them being a deadline of Sept. 30, 2013 to have the facility up and running. That deadline is an extension of an earlier deadline, according to Christina Selvek, the city's director of capital projects and grants. "At this point, the city needs to be doing due diligence in trying to make this project work by the Sept. 30 deadline," Selvek said.

At the last council meeting, councilors tabled the resolution to buy $900,000 of turbine equipment to move the project along because they were uncertain of the electric rates the city would be reimbursed if the facility were to be put back online. Representatives from Siemens Industry, Inc., the firm that has been evaluating the Mill Street Dam facility, said at the last meeting and at Tuesday's meeting that the reimbursement rate will be 12 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is very favorable, Selvek said. The project can save the city hundreds of thousands of dollars after the first 20 years of paying back the $3.7 million project, Selvek said. The way the credit system works is that energy credits created by the dam can be applied to other sites in the city, reducing the city's overall electric costs. Councilor Peter Ruzicka expressed his support for the project. "The governor of New York is making moves to consider shutting down aging nuclear power plants," he said. "We now have the opportunity to recapture the energy source that built this city, a city founded on mills and grew to manufacturing industries all powered by the Owasco River. ... It's clean, renewable energy that is free for capture and environmentally responsible." Selvek agreed with Ruzicka. "The true benefit is the city getting back into the hydro-power business," she said. "(Mill Street) was definitely one of our more profitable sites and it will be nice to see it get up and running."

(Why not?) Dams Could Be Counted As Renewable Resources East Oregonian | Nov. 17, 2012, Contributed By: Anna :LOODUG

A proposed initiative has been filed with the Oregon Secretary of State to allow more power from hydroelectric dams to satisfy the state’s renewable energy requirements. Paul S. Cosgrove is one of the chief petitioners for the proposed initiative filed Oct. 18 for the 2014 general election. Cosgrove said, as a lawyer and lobbyist, he has dealt with energy issues for years in Salem. The Oregon Renewable Portfolio Standard, created in 2007 with Senate Bill 838, requires large utilities provide 25 percent of their retail electric sales from new renewable energy sources by 2025, which doesn’t include hydroelectric dams. Legislation passed in 2010 allowed up to 40 megawatts from some newer dams to qualify as renewable energy. However, older hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River — McNary Dam, for example — do not qualify as renewable. “People are looking at the Renewable Portfolio Standards and asking does this really make sense in Oregon,” Cosgrove said. “The initiative is to make common sense of what people think is renewable by refining what is renewable.” Bob Jenks, director of the Portland-based Citizen’s Utility Board, said the proposed initiative “misses the boat.” The board, founded in 1984, is a non-profit organization. Jenks has held the director position for 20 years. “If you look at the portfolio, it only looks at forward-looking projects and it is only going to be focused on involving the policy goal to drive new investment to new resources,” Jenks said. “Resources that will last decades.” Jenks said hydroelectric power is renewable, but

8

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

the portfolio should not include what was built 50 years ago. The standards include what is set to be built next.

Portland General Electric is one of three utilities in Oregon required to provide 25 percent of electric retail sales from renewable energy sources by 2025. Portland General Electric has also vowed to eliminate the use of coal at the Boardman Power Plant by 2020. One proposed renewable energy project in Boardman is Portland General Electric’s effort to convert the Boardman Power Plant from coal to torrefied — or charred — Arundo donax. The fast-growing grass is also known as giant cane. The utility would require about 8,000 tons of giant cane per day to run the plant each day, requiring between 60,000-80,000 acres of irrigated land to grow the crop. Steve Corson, PGE spokesman, said the utility has not taken a position on the proposed initiative, but has reached about 11 percent of retail electric sales coming from renewable energy. “We are on track with the renewable standards to achieve the goals set out,” Corson said. “We just finished a request for proposals on a project that would get us to the 2015 goal of 15 percent.” Representatives from the Oregon Secretary of State’s office did not return

calls regarding the proposed initiative or the approval process. All proposed measures are subject to a pre-election review of constitutional requirements for initiative petitions. Water: (Something to ponder regardless of the facts) America's water mirage Even at Hoover Dam, the ugly truth about our water crisis is being ignored. Lake Mead - Lake Mead's "bathtub ring" is stark visual evidence of the misuse of a precious resource. (Julie Jacobson / Associated Press / March 23, 2012) By Cynthia Barnett, November 11, 2012, care2.com

On an unseasonably hot morning this fall, my 11-year-old son and I set off for Hoover Dam, his first time to tour the American engineering wonder that draws nearly 1 million visitors a year. In recent years, I'd visited the dam and adjacent reservoir, Lake Mead, as a journalist who reports on water. But I hadn't been there as a tourist since my own childhood. I looked forward to hearing how the dam's minder, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, would tell such a big story to such a big audience. I expected to hear about the drama, human sacrifice and technical prowess behind the dam's construction. I also expected some of the growing concerns about the Colorado River that feeds the dam, having seen the bureau's worrisome charts that show how demand for the water shared by seven U.S. states and Mexico has exceeded supply — a gap growing ever wider amid epic drought and epic waste.

Americans operate under an illusion of water abundance. That fiction makes the reality of water scarcity a particularly hard concept to get across. From California to Florida, freshwater aquifers are being pumped so much faster than they recharge that many parts of the country can no longer rely on groundwater to supply future populations. But we can't see dried-out aquifers the way we could see black Dust Bowl storms in the 1930s or water pollution in the early 1970s. So we still pump with abandon to do things like soak the turf grass that covers 63,240 square miles of the nation. We flush toilets with this same fresh, potable water, after treating it at great expense to meet government standards for drinking. We fill the fridge with beef, the shopping bags with cotton T's, the gas tank with corn-made ethanol — all with little inkling of how we're draining to extinction the Ogallala aquifer that irrigates a quarter of the nation's agricultural harvest. Water authority members who oversee the Ogallala and farmers who pump it have a chilling term for its use: "managed depletion." Your guess is as good as theirs where the staples will come from when the depletion is done. Overtapped rivers are likewise out of sight for most people, who may 9

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

encounter the source of their shower only as they drive by a carefully managed reservoir. Since Georgia's Lake Lanier, managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is holding Chattahoochee River water again, Atlantans can turn on the lawn sprinklers, never having to think about how that action is wiping out an oyster fishery, and a way of life, downstream in Apalachicola, Fla.

But Lake Mead is different. It's one of the few places in the United States where the illusion of water abundance is being exposed for what it is: a beautiful bubble doomed to pop, just like other great national illusions — the unending bull market, say, or upward-only housing prices. For 12 years, the nation's largest reservoir has dropped steadily to reveal a calcium-carbonate bathtub ring, evidence of human folly and nature's frailty — the over-allocation of the Colorado River and the drought still battering so much of the United States. The chalky, ever-widening ring is the perfect starting point to talk to the millions who show up at Hoover Dam about our need to live differently with water. Instead, the hourlong tour that my son and I took was as whitewashed as Mead's bathtub ring. It began with a film describing the system as an "assured and reliable water supply" for Southwestern cities and farms. Then, two guides led our attentive group on a bullish circuit of the generating plant and dam. Their only mention of the ring brushed it off as a high- water mark left from the Colorado River's 1983 flood, a compelling story that ended with the dam's heroic success in containing the swollen river nearly 30 years ago. They uttered not one word about the dramatic drought that has unfolded since, much less what the widening bathtub ring portends for the future of the arid Southwest. This is the illusion of water abundance at its most obscene. The water sector and large water users are so adept at capturing water and moving it around our cities and regions that the average American never has to worry about how it all works — until it doesn't, just like credit default swaps or too-big-to-fail banks.

The conveyance of clean water into our cities, and the movement of wastewater out, was among the greatest scientific achievements of the 20th century, one that saved countless lives. But now that achievement has metastasized into an unsustainable entitlement. As cheap water flows from our taps like magic, our freshwaters have become the single most degraded of America's major resources, identified by the USGS and other agencies as having lost a greater portion of their species and habitat than land ecosystems. More than any other factor, human use of that freshwater — for agricultural irrigation, energy production and water for our homes and businesses — is to blame. And yet, from Australia to Texas, people and businesses are proving how painless it is to live with a lot less water. In Australia, the backyard rainwater tank has become so ubiquitous that Australian Geographic named it one of its "100 Aussie icons," right up there with the boomerang and the didgeridoo. The water revolution Down Under is not about mega-technologies such as desalination plants but tiny technologies such as micro-irrigation for agriculture and waterless everything — waterless urinals, waterless carwashes, even waterless woks in the Chinese restaurants. Texans in San Antonio have cut their water use in half, mostly by breaking off their love affair with the lawn. In parched north and west Texas, cattle operations such as Dixon Ranches are figuring out how to raise livestock on nonirrigated grasslands by mimicking the historic grazing patterns of Plains bison. Still, the illusion of water abundance blinds most of the nation to all the good reasons why we should be doing all of that and more. As with the financial and housing illusions, government water managers and the largest private water users are often too mesmerized by their own mirage to help the rest of us see the threats to U.S. aquifers and rivers. From the docents at the Hoover Dam to the biggest users to our own, overwatered backyards, let's break that cycle — and stem the drain on America's water resources before it's too late. Cynthia Barnett is a journalist and the author of "Blue Revolution: Unmaking America's Water Crisis,"

(I don’t really know what this is about, but it has something to do with CA water Rights!) "Dam California" Movie Premiere kolotv.com, Nov 16, 2012

A red carpet reception is taking place in Downtown Reno Saturday. It marks the premiere of "Dam California," a movie developed and shot 10

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

right here in Northern Nevada. Writer and Director, Isaac Piche says it started as a student project, but quickly grew into a full-fledged production. He says he chose to shoot a movie about a California town in Nevada because the landscape is diverse, and everything he needed to make the film was readily available. "It's about people seeking purpose, and they come together to tell the story of a controversy, a fictional controversy, based on real events within the water rights scenario of California." With many local actors and a theme that resonates with the high desert community, Piche says there's a lot about the movie that will appeal to locals. Two screenings of the film will be held Saturday at the pioneer underground. The first is at 5:00 PM, the second starts at 8:30 PM. A Charity auction is scheduled to talk place between the two shows to benefit the group We Care Reno, which helps feed Reno's homeless four nights a week. Piche says he is now looking for a distributor for the film, and he already has a couple other projects in the works. "We have a web series that we're putting together called project 'Pale Horse'" he says, "we'll release the teaser here, we'll show it right before the film" He says he's also working on another feature film called "Manifest Destiny", so be sure to keep watching for this up and coming movie maker at next year's film festivals.

Environment: (This is going to take a long long time!) NW Fishletter #310, November 12, 2012 [7] Little Elwha Could Become Big Muddy

A new report from the United States Geological Survey has estimated that very little sediment has been sluiced by natural river flows from behind two partially removed Elwha River dams on the Olympic Peninsula. So far, the report said, only 0.4 percent of an estimated 19 million cubic yards of sediment Lower Lake Mills in its current state. behind the breached projects has been Courtesy National Park Service. removed. While scientists think 7 million to 8 million cubic yards will eventually erode from the deltas formed by the sediment outflow, most of it remains trapped by what's left of Glines Canyon dam, which at the end of September was about half of its original height. In the report--from the Oct. 23 issue of EOS, a weekly newsletter published by the American Geophysical Union--USGS scientists found that the first half of the 2012 water year (October 2011-March 2012) "was relatively quiet" hydrologically speaking, with total water discharge only 90 percent of normal based on records that go all the way back to 1918. The largest flow event, in November 2011, measured 290 cfs, only 73 percent of the two- year recurrence-level flood. "During the first six months of dam removal, most of the sediment released was silt and clay, which caused substantial--but not unexpected--turbidity in the river and coastal waters," said Jonathan Warrick, lead author and USGS research geologist, in an Oct. 23 statement. "As dam removal progresses we expect more and more sand and gravel to be released into the river, which will likely help build river bars and slow coastal erosion near the Elwha River mouth." Warrick added, "Although the river has been quite turbid since dam removal began, most of the sediment-transport action is yet to come." The report noted that sediment had also eroded from temporary cofferdams constructed as the dams are being removed incrementally. Reservoir drawdowns are stopped during "holding periods" and "fish windows" to let the river erode laterally into delta sediment, and reduce effects of turbid water on migrating juvenile or adult salmonids.

The new report said there will likely be "much larger and sustained" turbidity and effects of sediment transport in the coming year. That could be something of an understatement. USGS 11

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

scientists said the region may not get what it bargained for in the $300-million restoration effort. "It is also likely that dam removal and ecosystem restoration may not simply restore the ecosystem to its pre-dam state, but may instead result in something new," they said in a 2011 report. They said a large-phase shift such as removing the dams could give rise to a new stable state. After all, it is going to be the largest "controlled release of sediment in the history of North America." The 2011 USGS report expected fish numbers to improve, but spawning grounds in the lower river might deteriorate, as well as kelp beds offshore, though more spawners could boost overall biological productivity. "The response of ecosystem processes, structure, habitat, and the biological resources they support will be complex and largely unpredictable," the report said. "The construction of dams can cause major disruptions to natural processes on riverways, and we can expect their removal to also have anomalous effects for some time until rivers regain their equilibrium," said USGS Director Marcia McNutt in the Oct. 23 statement. "What we are learning from the response of the Elwha River ecology to increased sedimentation during dam removal will help guide other large dam removal and river restoration projects in the future."

Last year, several well-known Northwest fish biologists, including Lars Mobrand, former chair of the region's hatchery scientific review group, recommended using a hatchery to safeguard the "unique" genetics of the native Elwha fish, since most of the sediment transport would occur during stormy periods in the late fall when fish were in the river and eggs were incubating. "This is a potential recipe for disaster," they told The Seattle Times in an op-ed piece. Even NMFS regional administrator Will Stelle expected the worst. In his own op-ed in the Times last year, he said, "Upon removal, mountains of sediment behind the dams will be swept downstream and reshape the lower end of the river and the shoreline/estuarine habitats at its mouth. While efforts have been made to create safe fish refuge and top scientists believe the floodplain may attenuate some of the impacts, entire populations of the remaining wild salmon and steelhead could disappear in this tumultuous period of transformation. Not our desired outcome." With a relatively sedate water year to look forward to--NOAA has predicted below-average precipitation for most of the Northwest through January--and a winter that may well be El Niño-neutral, the river will likely get pretty murky, but could deposit sand and gravel without huge disruptions. Or not. University of Washington atmospheric science professor Cliff Mass noted on his weather blog on Oct. 22 that "neutral" Northwest winters tend to produce the biggest windstorms, floods and snowstorms. Over the next four years, the bed of the upper part of the lower Elwha is expected to rise, or "aggrade," up to 2.5 meters according to a 2009 USGS simulation. Earlier simulations by the Bureau of Reclamation estimated, in the short term, that areas in the lower river would aggrade from 0 to 3 meters and average about half of that in the decades after dam removal. Levees have already been raised and new ones constructed to protect landowners in the lower reaches from a 100-year flood threat that is now estimated to be less than 1 meter higher than before dam removal began. -B. R. Oct. 23 issue of EOS

(It’s always the dam’s fault.) Idaho sockeye named one of the most endangered species By :Katherine Wutz, November 15th, 2012, mtexpress.com

Idaho’s endangered sockeye salmon are highlighted as one of the nation’s most endangered species in a report released Wednesday by the Endangered Species Coalition. The report, "Water Woes: How Dams, Diversions, Dirty Water and Drought Put America’s Wildlife at Risk" examines the ways that poor water quality and reduced water quantity threaten imperiled species in 10 ecosystems across the United States. It cites three west coast salmon species — including Idaho sockeye. “This report reiterates what folks in Idaho have known for a long time, and that’s that our sockeye salmon — and all of our salmon — are suffering because of unneeded dams on the lower Snake River,” said IRU board member Tom Stuart. “This year is the 20-year anniversary of the return of a lone sockeye salmon to Idaho. And we unfortunately haven’t come very far since then.” “Dams built for hydropower, navigation, and water diversion are major factors impacting these three species’ declining populations,” the report states. “In addition to blocking migration routes to and from spawning habitat, dams create slow-moving water reservoirs, which allow river temperatures to reach levels considered dangerous or even lethal to cold-water 12

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

species like the sockeye.” The Endangered Species Coalition has produced a “Top 10” report annually for the last five years. "Water Woes" can be downloaded http://waterwoes.org.

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

13

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





   
   



 











   



  


 
 



         
      
   ! " #$%& # '    & % (    ) 




 

 

 
  % ) * + ( , 




!  
" #$ #
%
&'
( 
$ 
 )

!
" *)

  
'
++ )  )
+
'
& 
, 
  -  




$ # 
&'
.
! 
/ "
+
0  
 
'
" $

'


1
+
)"  
'
" *)
* 
+ 
+



 -2) 
, 
'
" $
) 
'
& 

+ 

"
' 
'
 ) 
 
$ 
'
)  
' 
+ )
'


 "
'

+


$ '

+
'
 

 
  
 
   
  
'

$  
+
'

" 
'
'
& 

 


' '
'
 
 
& 
3' 
'
/$ 4- & 

)  
+
'
) " 5
6   
(  )

)  
''
'

++ ) 
  
 
'

 

, 
'
" $


""
  
$' 
'
) "
) 


 - 
 

"  
'
+ $
+
 ) )
  
+ 
)  
'
/$ 4
, 
 
)  
'
#
+
+  
&'
) "
 
'
7-+-


'
 -8


9"   
   :

'
"  
$ 
'
+ $
+

; )# 
+ 
'
 
 
' 
'
 ) 
 

'

" 
$  
  
 )')#
+
)'
+
'
 
)

&' 5

)'
 
) 

"  


'
+  )
<5
#

 --  
'
) 5
"

" )#
"
 


                -  ,     . ))        =  
)-=+ '%&'
&  -  
%%
  -   )

&'
3 '

,   
!  
--

 
+
" " 
+
$
; 
+ $
 
   
)   

'

+
+
3 '
, 
(
--



>" 
()
?
 
@
#' 
> 
'
  
 
@
#' 
"" 
'
  


 
) 
'
 +- " 
 

'"
'
/  
$ 
 
'
" " 

'
 
+
'
 
&'
'

'"" 
 
$' 
#' 
""


  

+
+
>  
'
  
' 
 
)
""  
$'
 
) 
+
'
 
+
'
3 ,!
&'
+ '

'
3 '


)#
 
'

)
$ '
'
)  
+
$
+ $ 
' '
+

" 

6) + / "

'
) 
+

 

&'


  
" 
  
'

+
+ '
)
 
 

'
$
3 '
 

 
+ 

'
""
 
)'
 
'
'
 '
" 

 
$ 
!+

+
   
'
3 ,!
$
 
"

  
 )  
 
 
'
  
 " 

 

" ) 

' 
+
 ) 
2""  

 
 
 
$#
) 

 
"    
+
'
"
A 
& 
 
 

)    
$'

'
' 
 

$

 
'

+
 
  
'
'
+
 
 
" )
+ '
 
'
$  +

'
 
&'
 
/ 
 
+
"  
"" 
'
  

> 
'
3 ,!

& 
!
+
" 
 
'
 
$
 
+
>
#' 
$'
"" 
'
>  

2
B  
'
3 '

/   
/ )
--
'
 "
+
#' 
'
+ 
'
3 ,!
 
'
'
' 

 

--


'
 

!; )
/  
$' 

' 

 
+ 
+
""  

'
3 ,!
 
"" 

'
3 ,!

'
C
 )  
) 

" )
 
 

" )
+

 
 )

'
D 
0  
,  
/  C
 ) 
" )
+
'
 C
+

'

" )

' 

'

B
,  )
/  
 
--

6) + / "C
; 
2""  

'
3 ,!
 
'
'
#' 
' 

D0,/
+ )
6) + / "


'
 
! )
, 
/ + 
,  
( )

,' 
 
'
>") 

   )
9D0,/
'

; 



  
 
'
$ '
+
'

$  :
'
 
! )
, 
")  4

 ) 
" )  
 
,' 
 
'
  4 

 "  
+
 


'
 
'
 "

'
)  

9<
'
 
 
) +  )
'
D0,/
$ 
  
'
' 



'
  
)  :
'
 
E #
& 
0>) 
( )
& 
D )'
 

'
D0,/
$ 

 
'

+
'
3 '

$ '
'
  
9B
' #
' C


)' )
+
'
+

""  

'
$:
'
 
 
'

+
'
) 
$
)'
'
" )
$ 
#
)
+

  

9<C

$ 
+
' 
  ) :
D )'
 
9B
'

  
'
)" 
 

'



 :
 

  
,)  
 
/   
(  )
/  
6
 
 
'
3 ,!
' 
+ '
") 

  
" +  )

""

+  
 
>"  
 

'
  
9<
) C
   
'$
'
) 
 
 
:
'
 
 
" )
) 
3 '
, 
)
D )
6)
)'
'
) ) 
 
'
$
  
  
+ 

"  
 
'
+ '
$  
$ 
++ 
,' 
 
'

+
'
D0,/
" )
)' 

 
'
3 ,!
) 
    
$
  
 
$
; 
" 
'
$ 
' "
'

 
'
 ' 

" )
$

 
""  
+
'
  
 #
'
+)
'
 
)   
 
+ '
 

$ 
)' )
+
) 
+
'
$ 
)#
"
'
3 '



                )   

'
> 

3 #
& 
3 '
/  
/  
&)#
 ) 
'
3 ,!


9 
  :

9!
' +
+
 )

'
) 
)
#
$C 
'$
   :
'
 
&)#
 

 # 
/ 
C
'
+ 
 

$'
+
#
'
 
 
 

'
 + 
+
'
  
9&'
 

) +  )
'
'
 


'
  :
&)#
 
"
& 
/ ) $
 


  

>"  
) )

$
+ $

$
"" 
$
3 '
+ '
 
'
'
3 ,!
$ 
+ 

'
'
+
'
"
A 
& 

 
'
'
. 

 
'

$

  
 
$

+ ' 
'


 
'
$ 
 + 
$ '
'
  
+
$
+
'

' 4

'
3 ,!
'
) 
"
$
'
'
9 )'"
+
)) :

" ) 
& 
 
3 '
$ 
 
) 
+
'
 "


'
3 ,!
>" 
 
  

  

&)#
 
'
3 #
& 

'
3 ,!


>" 
+
 
' 
B '
'
3 ,!

" )
'
3 #
& 
$ 
'

 
 

+ $
)   
   
+
'

 
'
*
 ) 
$ '
' 
++  
&)#
 

 
'
+ 
  
'

  

)

'
  
+
  
"
'
'
'


+ ' 

'
& 
,  
 
+
' 
'""

"
'
+ ' 

" 
"
)
)

'
  

"



' +
B'
 
  

' 
'
  

+ )

)' 


&)#
 
<
'
) 
+
'
3 ,!

" )#
'

+
'
#' 
  

 
'
 C
#
$
'
"
A 
& C
'

)  
'
  
C
) 


' +
2'

B  C
 
) 
+
 
  "  )
 
'
3 ,!
" ) 
9<
 C
' #
$
$ 

  
'
)   
" ) :
0    
6 ) 
< +  
/ 
/   
( )
!  $
2 ' #
 
9B



'

 
"
" ) 
,'
'
)  

$'
"  
) 
 

<
 #
'

"
'
 :
6)
 
 
 #
+
'
  


  

9<C

 
 
+

""  

' :
'
 
9B
 C
'
)  )
" ) :

D +'
(  )
"  
,
  
$'


+
+
>  
'
  

& 
 #
3 //
 "




+ 
 
$ '
'
  )'
'

'

 
'
'
3 ,!

'
 
  
+
'
 

9 
 
 
 
+  


+
'
" ):
  
 
$ '
'
)  
+
'
#'  

  
 
'
 
+ 
) +  
'
'
  
$ 

> 
9<
' C
' 
  
$'
 C
$ 

 

 
 
 
+

'
$
/   :
'
 
D )'
 
)   
 
)"  
$ 
#


  
3 '
 

9
--

--
)
 
+

'
+

+

'
'
 
>")
"  
' :
'
 

&)#
 
'
 
+
'
"" 

'
$
3 '

'
'

 F

 

9<C


'
) 
<
# $
'
'
"
 

$ 
'

+ >:
&)#
 
9<C
 



 
B

' 
+ ' 
$ '
)'
' 
B'
$
$'
$

'G
6) + / ":

&'
$ 
'

  ) 

+$
$#
)#

'
+  
=

+ ' 5

+ >
'

+

+ ' 5
' 
E
'

"   

+ /%+   ) ))  0 '&* 1(  
! >
/  

 

# )


                *
H#
3 
/ 
.'
I
/  ) 
) $
'
+ '

"  
J+ >J

'
 #
*
H#


3 
/ 
&'
.'
(  
+
B  +
,  ) 
3 
/ 
 
< 
/ 
" )'


' "
$ '
'
KL
" )

B'
'
- - 

 #
 
'
 
+ ' 
$ 
) ) 
'
#
$ 
)"  
  
()  
$

 
++)
 

'
*
H#
+ 
 
+
"'
+
'
.'
(  
+
B  +
,  ) C
"

H
2   
'
(B,
$
'
*
H#


3 
/   

$ 
 
7

" )
'

' # 

$ 
#
'
 


'
)  
+  
+

  
$

$' )'
$ 
) 
' 
K
  
$ 
+
 
"' 
) 

 
" )
  
(B,
++ ) 
) 


'
"  
+ >
 

" 
+

"   
  

7

JB
""
"
 
 
$'
'
$ 

''
$
$  C
 

$
'
'
' 


 
+

$
'
'
$

" 
" )
 J
 
, )'
"$ '

   
$ '
'
(B,

J 
$'
'


'C
$'
$
$ 
'C
$'
$
 

J
'
 
*
H#


"" 
#
+
+ '  
"$ '
  
1
" ) 
+
  
$'
 
'
#
 
+ 

+

J&'
)
+ 
H
A
 
'
/ + J
'
 
J<C

 
 
 
+

)
) 
<
' "
; 

 J
&'
#

$ 
+ 

$ '
$ 

"$ '

'
 
J+
"J
$
'""
 
'
" 
 ++

'
) 
) 

"  
+

' 
+ '  
JB

'
$
 
+ 
$
 
$C 

 
'$
'
+ '
' 
$
#

' '
'
$  J
'
 
,  
+
$'
'"" 
(B,
'
"  

)#
'
#
$ '
J )- 4J
+ '

'
" 

B'
$ 
' #



) 
  
*"

$ 


"  
=
$'
'


 
' 5
 $
$

'
"   23 (  & & ) 4, %) 


3
/ +  


B 
++
B  
%7%
 $ )

<"  
M #
(

'
#
) 
'
) 
+
& 
)
#

 ) 
 " 
+
'
! # 
, 
)  
))  


 #
+ )
+ 


'

9&'
& #
D )
 
'
  
N$

'
 5

'
 
 
"  
  
+
  
)  )
 " 
  
'
)  :
))  

'
, 
( " 
& #
D )5
+ 
)   
9&$ 
'
 
$
 
'

" 
M #
H#



'
 
++) 
)  

 
+ 
 " :
&'
 #
+ )
$
  '

'
 5
2++ )
 
/ 
/ )

!"

  +
"
'
) 

#

"  4
 " 
  
'
 &'
 #
+ )

)' 

"   

)  

'
/ 
/ )

()
L


                  &'

'
  ) 
'
<    

$ #
  5
# !) 25  ) $ % 3 %+ ++6 00,0
$ 

@

""    

&'
<    
0  
! )
<0!
 
4

2)
8
  

" 

'$

 
'  ) ) 
" ) 
$ $ 

7
&'
" 
&)'  
," F
 "$ 
)'  
'
 
'
'
$ C
'  ) )
  )
'
"#
< 


  
)  
'
 + ) 
"  

  
 ) ) 
+ 
 
"   
&'
" ) 

) 

+ 
" )
#
 
  
'
)  
)    
)  
   
    

 
 
" )
))" )
( 
 
  
" ) 
+ 
' "$
) 
"   
"  
"

?
 

+
) 
 > 
 
  
 "$

'
$ C
 
 $ 
 ) ) 
   
)'  
$ '
$
)") 
  
)
7
   
 
 ) ) 
'

'
 $ 
) 
&'
" 
 ) 
'
) C
  
  
+ 
 -+- 

  
"  
 
""-  
' "$ 
 
)
+

'  )
"" )'

"  
'
) 
'
 ")
+
$
  
! 
'
" C
)  

'
  
'
#' 
' 
  '

"
'
  
+
' "$
"  

$


' "$
 " 
" 
$ '
  

'
<0!
6 
,  F
)2   ,    &   
  + 47894 

<    
O
' 5

) 
' 
$

' 
" *)
) 
@
) 
"$


>" 
$' 
'
)

"$
+ 
6!
+
?
) 

#B'
! $' 

'
 '$ 
'
$ 

)'"
"$ 
/ + 
"
?

@
 

)'
+
"$  :) )    $() )  
P 
)'$ 4

6  
( 
$ 
"    $ )




6 
!   
B '
I
6 
!  
) 
++ ) 
  5
>) 
 
$'
'
$ 


$ '
'
-+-) 
'  ) )
+) 
  
 
/ #
' 
7
 
'
+
$' 
'
) #
" 
 
.
 '$

2 
' 

)  
'$ F
&'
 5
$ 

" 
'
  
K

$ 
#



"
 
 
 
/ 
) $
) 
"  
+
'
'  ) )
" *)
   
 '
 

87

!"
+
+  

" )
+
)'  
)  
+
 ) ) 
   

" ) 
/ 
6$
,  )
 
6'
H #
 

+
'
) 5
. 
!  
/ 

'
& 
 
 
$#
H #
 
) 
++

 4
" 
'
+) 5
"$ ' 
$' )'
  
 ) ) 
$ '
'
' "
+
'
+ $ 
$
+
 
/ #
 




$ '
'
) 
 

'
 
+
 ) ) 
" )

9<5

'$ 
5
 


) 
++) 
+
'
) 

)  
"  
+
'
+) :
H #
 
/ 

   
 

#
" 
'
'
" 
'
+) 
 
" 
'
)  

6 
!  
/ 
/ )

+
 ) 

'
 
'
) 
& 

&'
 
/ #
" *)
$' )'
$
' 
$
881
 
@


)  

'
) 
+
 


" )
"$ 
'  ) 
"  
' 
?
" ) 
+
'
) 5

"$
 
H #
 
9! 
'
$ 

;   
+
?
) 


K
 :
'
 
)  &'
" *)
) 

K?
 

 

81
$' )'
$ 
  


KL7
 


  
))  

'
+ 
 
+
H
  )
+  
) )  
H #
  
'
 
/ #
+) 
) 
'
) 
$
K@
 
K@
"
$-'

'
) 
+

"   
D
)"  
'
) 
)   
"

 
)' 
+
' 
K?
"
$-'
+
 ) ) 
+ 
'
  
6$
!    

&'
 
/ #
  



@L7
# $ I ' 
 '

"$
@7
 

 
 
+
 ) ) 
+
'
  
$ 
 

+
)") 
H #
>"  
9<+

$

 
+ ) 


                +

"$
"" 
'
  
"  )
+
'
+) 
$ 

 :
H #
 
 )

H #
  
'
) 
" 

K
"

+ >
) 

'
+) 
 
'
' 
) 
$ 
 )#
  

+
'
) 
)' 


 
" 

9Q<
'
+ R
'
) 
) 

" 
K

K
"

* 
+
'
"  
+
#" 
'
+) 

 
:
H #
 
6 
'
"$ -   
; " 

 
$ 

#" 

'
$

  


'

) 

 
)#

   
; )# 
H #
>"  
<
  

" ) 
'
+) 

 


"    
 

H #
 

' 
" 
$ 

 

 
'

 
$
"  
'
>"  
  

 
'
)'  
+ 
'
) 

H #
 
 
+
'
  
"  

 

0 "
 
 

'  ) )
; " 
$' 
'
'

 

B ' 
 

  

'
+) 
+
'  )
" "  
H #
) 

  +
'
$
  
"   
<+
'
) 
$ 


'
+) 
H #
 
'
+) 5
D 
0  
,  
/ 
) 
$' )'
'
) 
)   
'  
$ 
 
# 
'


  + 

'
$
$  
$' )'
H #
  
) 
#
$
 
 
$
 
6' ) 
 
'
)'  
"$ ' 
 
 ) 
) ) 
 ) 
$ 
 
 
# 
#

 


 
 
)   
$ '
'

("  
+
0) 
 
("  
+
D '
 
B  +
)

) #
)  

 
H #
>"  

&'
+) 
 
) 

) ) 
$
  
$
)  )

8@

"  
'
/ 
+
6 
!  
$ '
$ 

'
 
'  ) )
" *)

H #5
# $ 
 

'
 '
2 " )
6  
'
'
'
0 $'
 
= 
/ 
 

&'
) 
""
 
'
$ 
 
))"  
@-+
" " 


$
 )

81
$'
'
0 $'
, 
)
'
) 5

$
"" 
))  

6  
( 
$
 )'  
H #
 
'
 

# $
'
>)
   
+
  
'
+) 

'
+ 
" )

  
) 
++ ) 

'
 
+ 

  
) 
 
$
7
 
1
" ) 
 
 $'

  
 
+
'
) 

9! 
'
++)  
+
'
  5
Q  R
)   
" 
'

 

"  :
H #
 
,) 

'


'
+)

)   

'

  )
+
$ 
  
)  
H #
 
 
5
'
)   
'
#
'
   )
+


'  ) )
+) 
" ) ) 

9!
 #
+ )
'
'$ 
)   
"  
 
 
 
++) :
H #
 
9 
 
+
'
) 

 
+
'
  :

&'
$

* 
'
 
+
'
++ 

 )#
'
" *)
&'



' #
  




) 
 

 ;
<
$ 
+
'

 #

'
/  
$'
'

 
* 
'
+
 
  $   %    % 4+%  ;) ,  < , )' 
H
S



  # ")')

B'
$ 

'
) 
  


+
17


! )


 
) 

  
,  

 
 
'



$'

 

 
"" 

 
+  
&'
 


" " 

+
 '


 ) 


 
 

)  

)" >
)  


+ - )#
$ 
)  ) 
) 

 
 

$ 

 
"
 
 
'
'
" *)
 '

  J( 
 J

 
  
'

' 
'
"  
&'
H  
)  
'
" 
 
+
'
  
-+ 
" *)

!  #
'  
<+
'
H  


'
  5

'
'5
"  
'


 F

+$
"  

> 

"   
&'
  
(

 
'

 )' 
+ 

@- -  
  
@
" ) 
 
$

$ 
'

  
B
+ $

+


                '

  
 ) ) 
B 

$'
 ) ) 

 

&'
)  
+ $

 
* 
 
+ 
$' )'
  
 -$ 

'
) 

+
'
)  
$
'

+   ) 
$ 
+
'
 
&'
9
  :
" 

)  )
) 
'
$ 
 )' 
$
 
 


'
)


'
 
 

 
++

'
&' 
$



)  

+ $
E 
 
$

)  
  



+  '
<+
 
  
'
$
   


'
)
" 
 
  - 4F
 
" 
, 
)
$
 

$')#
P)# 
'
+ $

+
"
 
'
$
$ 5
 $
+
 
+ 4 
 $)'  
  
 
 
) 
$


 
) 
'
)
)
$ 5

 
&'

$ 5


+
  "  
)  


))
$ 5
'
  
)' 
) 
+ $
$

 $
  
&'
  
'

-+
 
 ) ) 
 



$

)  


*
" 
+
+

'
  
! 
'

$

' 

"" 
)  )
' 
+ 
 

$
"" 
17
" ) 
+
'
' 
+
 
 ) ) 

 
+
'
,  
 
'

$ 
 
 

" 
 
)  


" )
 
> 

D  # 

$
 

" *)
 
'
$
" 
'
$'
$' 
'

$' )'
$ 

 
7
" ) 
+
,  
  
 

" '
' 
 
+ 
&' 
 
 
"   

 
'
 
  
&''

$ 
 
'

18
;#



'
" " 


$ '
$
+ 
 
 
 ) 


 
"  
! 
'
")

 )' 
) 
+
)  ) 

 
"$ 
 

-+
 " 
+
1?1
) 
*


 
"  
.   
 
 


'
  

 
 

 
"  


&'
!  #
0  
!' 
)' 
$ '
  
'

'

 $

' 
"   
&'
 
9  :
'

 
 )
 
' 
 
--
'
!  #
("  
+
D '
 
=
.
D '
 
B  +
  )
  
 
D ' 
  )
  
6 #
  )
 
'
--
'
 

) 
 
'
'
 
' 

' 
 
+   

 $
$ '
'
 # )#
")
!0!

" 

$'
'""
+
+
 
 
 

'

'

 5

 G
B'5
6 

+
,  
 ) ) G
&'5
'
  
"  
!  #
'
87
" ) 
+
'
  5
"  
+
 
  
"

7
$
'

$ 
" )
?
$
  
!  #
'
'
' 
   

' 
  )
$ 5

 
+

 

)
<
'
  
$

'
  
"" 
+
 
 
<+

"  ) 
 
$ 

 

  
 
'
$  5

$  
 
 
 


  ) 

'
$ 5


 
'
 -

'
  
&'
$ 
"
'
"   )
" *)
 
 

'
 

'
 
$ # 
'
$
 
)  

'
'
)
 $

,  
  
  <5
 
+

-  
'
'

5
)  

$'5
" 
   G

  

                     

  !
&' 
)  
)#

'
.
)'

' 
 
$
'5 
)  
'
.
  
&'
= 
H#
 
+ 
$ '
'
 
'5 
"  
+ 

+ 
5

 
 
) 
' 
 

 
    :) 2  ,   & &%   '     , &     )%)% , %))  )&   & & %   /  '  4  ,% % / ! ( 
6'
,)#+  
") 

&'
&  



   )

20
#

"'
+
'
' )#

+
)#-' 
+  '$
 
)  
$
#


(
'
 
+
H#


'
/  
,  
' 

 '

)  )
  
'

$


' 
+
' 
"  + )
 
") 
#
' 

'
6) + )
 '$ 
$' 
 
'
' +
+

 ) ) 

  

' "$
 
( - 4
4 
 
;
 
)'

 
)# 
" 
I
  
 
 
*)
I


                 
)

  " 

'
$
 
$'
$ ) +
 

&'
)
  

+
$
+

 
 

'
'
)    
&'
< "  
0)  )
!  
 
$' )'
 
'
 '$ 
6$
 
/   
/ ) 
  
'
"  
) 
+
)   

 
+  
 
)  
' "$
 
+ '-" 
+)  
 
$ 
) 

+
 
+
 
"
 
D ' 
'

) 
+
" ) 
#
 
 
 
 
+)  
 
'
$
 
 
 )  
") 
 
)   
+ 
$ ) +
  
'
  
"   
" )
)  
 
  # 
 
)   
$ 

'
K
 
"
 
'
 
  
(  

 ) 

B '  
<'
2 
 
  
 
") 
$ ) +
  
'
 '$ 
+ 
H#

 
'
  - + 
$
  
)  
'
= 
H# 
/ )  
'
+

'
")
 
'
?
$ ) +


 
 )"

'
$ 
+ 
&'
++ 
$' 
  

  + 
 
  ++
&'



"
"
'
 
 
'

+ 
  )



B
 
 
'
+  

<
 )'
 

'
 '$ 
6$
 
/   
/ )
$ 


+
'
  5
)    
  
  
'
K
 

) 

'
D '
 
B  +
  )

+
+ )

?

' "
 '$ 

 
'

+
") 
  
&'
D '
 
B  +
  )
 
 
+ $
' '


"  

)  

") 
 
  
+
) )   
$'
 
))
" 

+ 
$
 
#
H#


&'
)    
  
'

   
' "+

$ # 
$ '
'


 
$  
 
+)
'
  
+
+ 
 ) 

'
"  
+
')
 
>    
>" 
' 
 
#
' 

'
 '$ 
&'

+
   
") 
 
)   
 
 
;
+  
+
' 
$
 
>  
+)  
 

'
 
)'  

'
 
&' 
 


  

+ 
$
'
++)
+  
 
")  
 

 
+ 
 ) 
  

)
$ '
'
 
 
  )
'
"  
  
") + ) 



   
+
'
+ 
H)
!)

  " 
4 
 
) 

 


;
  
&'
$
" 
 
))'
"
$ '
'
" 
" 
+
;
  
)   
)  + 
 


9 ") 
+
) ) :
&'

$
)  + 
4 
 


9 * 
")  :
'
") 
 
*  
 
;
 
)  



"   

' '
#
) 
+
'
 

-)"
4  
0 '
/  
' 
 
'
H)
!)

) 4
;
 


' 
* 

 

4 
  

+ 
 ) 
' 
)' 
'
  
))   
&'
$ 
#

 
+
'
D '
 
B  +
  )

 
$ ) +
")  
"  )
  
 
 )
"" " 
+  

'
+ '
&'
' 

 
< ) 

 
#
'
 
+
'
' "$ 
 
 
  
 




 
'
 + ) 
  


'
" 
)

 
 
 ' )
+ '
") 

'
/  
, 
 
)  
 
'

4
'
 


'  

   
"
    #        $ % " %        & #    =    ) ,3 ) < #
*  4
@

)

&#
2 
I
"$ 
 
 
 '
)
$
*"
 
$ 
' '

 -
" 

'

" 
(


"  
+
'
 '
.";
, 
'
+ '
' 5
  
+
L
 
/  ) 
$ ""
"
'
 '

6) + / "5
KL
 
+ '
 
 
 
 
 
 

&'
 5
)"  
+
 
' 

+
)  ) 
 
) ) 

1-


$''

 

+ '
" 



'

L
 
 
+
,  
 
= 
$'

'
" *)
+
6) + / "
 
'
+ '
" 
  )
)" 
   

                <+

' 5





'

 *
+
 
$

'
 
  )G
B
'
)  


+

 G > %  (& %   ,,  
?
S 

!
)'+ 
< ; 
++
B  
  )  "' )

2#$

-
B '

   
"$ ' 
 
+   
  
+
 
) ) 
 
)  
'
/ $ 
(
C

  C

+
 
 )  

'
$


 
+
'
 
 ) 
 

'
)  
+
'
 )-   
! )
 
 
2
'
$
'
'
*  )
 
$ '
'
  ) 
$' 
'
 

 
)   

'



 
'
+
'
6   
 
  
'
 ;' 
,  
$' 
'
$
" 
'
>
+$
 ' 
&'
'
)

+

'
+ '
'
 
)#

'
#
 
+
'
  
 
" 


'
'


'
  
 ) )   5

 
  ) 

'
  F
'"F%%$$$" -4)%   % $ %    %   - -  -)  - ---LL?L?8%

               
&'
)"  
+
  ) 
 
'
+  

"  


) 
+
' 
  

' "$ 
 
 
$
  )

 
 " 
 
' 


 
+
 
) ) 

'
" " 
! 
)" '
 
' 

  
$ '
" + 

" 
+ 
' 
$'
'

  

)  
'
+  
+
 -" + 
 
)  
" "