Federal reviewers consider removing aging infrastructure at two retired Colorado hydropower sites near Salida
Along the South Arkansas River in Chaffee County, Colorado, two hydropower facilities have stood largely quiet for years — aging structures on a mountain waterway that once generated electricity but no longer do.
Now, federal regulators are formally weighing what comes next. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has completed an environmental assessment of a proposal by Public Service Company of Colorado to decommission both sites — Salida Hydro Nos. 1 & 2 — remove the remaining infrastructure, and restore the land. Part of that land sits within a U.S. Forest Service district, adding a layer of federal stakes to the decision.
Two powerhouses, one river, and decades of history
The Salida Hydro Nos. 1 & 2 Project — designated FERC Project No. 2275 — is operated by Public Service Company of Colorado. The two facilities sit along the South Arkansas River and Fooses Creek in Chaffee County, a stretch of mountain waterway that draws anglers, rafters, and wildlife in roughly equal measure. Part of the project footprint falls on federal land managed by the U.S. Forest Service’s Pike-San Isabel National Forests & Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands, specifically the Salida Ranger District.
Aging small hydropower infrastructure — much of it licensed decades ago under very different environmental standards — is gradually being retired across the country.
Both units are already retired. The structures aren’t generating power — they’re just occupying space on a river corridor that has kept flowing around them. That dormancy sets the stage for what regulators are now formally considering: a deliberate, managed exit.
What decommissioning actually means on the ground
Decommissioning isn’t demolition for its own sake. According to the proposal filed by Public Service Company of Colorado, the licensee intends to surrender the FERC project license and physically remove certain Salida U2 facilities — removal that would extend to the remaining decommissioned Salida U1 powerhouse and its adjacent substation.
The plan doesn’t stop at removal. After the structures come down, the site would be actively restored, and that distinction matters. Abandonment leaves a mess; decommissioning paired with restoration aims to return the land and water closer to a natural condition. For a small hydropower site tucked into a mountain river valley, the footprint may be modest, but its presence on the streambank is real.
Federal regulators step in: the environmental review process
Before any physical work begins, FERC must complete its regulatory review. Commission staff prepared an Environmental Assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act — the foundational law requiring federal agencies to analyze environmental consequences before approving significant actions. The EA examines potential environmental effects of the proposed surrender and considers alternatives to the proposed action.
FERC staff concluded that the decommissioning and license surrender “would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” That’s a specific legal finding, and it matters for how the review proceeds. This is a process, not a verdict — the EA’s availability is an invitation for scrutiny, and the public comment period remains open.
A window for the public to weigh in
If you have a stake in this stretch of river — as a resident, a conservationist, a recreationist, or simply someone who cares about how federal land is managed — you have until November 9, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time to file comments with FERC.
The Commission encourages electronic filing through its eFiling system at ferc.gov. For a brief comment without registering, the eComment system accepts up to 6,000 characters. Reference docket number P-2275-052 on any submission. For questions about the project itself, contact Rebecca Martin at 202-502-6012 or [email protected]. FERC’s Office of Public Participation can help with the filing process at (202) 502-6595 or [email protected].
Public comment isn’t a formality on decisions touching federal land and navigable waterways. Input gathered during review periods can genuinely shape final conditions and outcomes.
What river restoration could mean for the South Arkansas
The Salida sites are part of a broader national pattern. Aging small hydropower infrastructure — much of it licensed decades ago under very different environmental standards — is gradually being retired across the country. Where decommissioning follows, river restoration often comes with it: improved fish passage, rebuilt riparian habitat, more natural flow regimes.
What that looks like specifically along the South Arkansas and Fooses Creek remains to be seen. The EA process is still unfolding, and the details of any restoration plan will depend on what regulators, the licensee, and the public work out together.
There’s also a quieter tension that communities near retiring dams often feel — between honoring the industrial heritage of a place and allowing the river to reclaim what was altered. Neither impulse is wrong. The review process is, in part, where those competing values get aired.
Watch for FERC’s next steps after the November comment deadline closes. What the agency decides — and under what conditions — will signal how seriously the restoration commitment holds.
Kelly is an experienced writer with 15 years of experience exploring the big stories that shape our world, from tech breakthroughs and space exploration to climate, energy, and the fascinating quirks of science. She has a talent for turning complex ideas into sharp, memorable insights that stay with readers long after they’ve finished reading.
