DOCSLIB.ORG

Grand Coulee's Third Powerplant 500-Kilovolt Transmission Line Replacement Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Grand Coulee's Third Powerplant 500-Kilovolt Transmission Line Replacement Project BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION Grand Coulee's Third Powerplant 500-kilovolt Transmission Line Replacement Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment May 2011 DOE/EA-1679 Grand Coulee’s Third Powerplant 500-kV Line Replacement Project Summary and Synthesis Agency Proposing Action. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation the dam and continue over the Visitor’s Center and State is the lead NEPA agency. The Bonneville Power Route 155, where they would meet three, 300-foot tall Administration is assisting Reclamation through project towers. Lines would continue up an undeveloped hillside design, environmental review and construction, if the to a second set of three towers to reach the Spreader Yard. Proposed Action is taken. While the revised Proposed Action addresses most concerns regarding tower placement, the project is not Action. Reclamation is proposing to replace the six, 500- without adverse effects, including some that could be kV transmission lines of the Third Powerplant (TPP) at mitigated and some that would be unavoidable, as Grand Coulee Dam. The transmission lines are presently summarized below. installed within the dam and a two-chambered tunnel that leads to a Spreader Yard about a mile away. Specific Adverse Impacts Identified and Mitigation. (1) Due to electrical connections behind the TPP required for Purpose and Need. The TPP’s six generators and overhead transmission lines, the pedestrian tour bridge transmission lines are critical to the regional power supply. would be removed and the viewing balcony used for the Three of the six circuits installed within the dam and tunnel TPP public tour would be closed. A replacement tour are near failure and need to be replaced. In addition, the would provide similar viewing opportunities. (2) Visual entire installation within the dam and tunnel, designed changes from the proposed lines may adversely affect more than 30 years ago, does not meet present–day safety historic values of the TPP and Visitor’s Center. Mitigation and reliability standards. The interior installation needs to may be provided through a Memorandum of Agreement be either completely redesigned and rebuilt or replaced (MOA). (3) Removing existing towers from the Visitor’s with overhead lines. Center grounds would help offset some of the visual Original Proposal and Public Comments. Reclamation impacts, including changes to historic character (4) presented an initial plan to the public in 2009 proposing Proposed lines could still interfere with a portion of the overhead lines and towers generally using the same path laser show, but this could be mitigated by a laser show as existing backup lines and towers. Several members of replacement using more advanced equipment. (5) Erosion the local community were concerned that the proposed and storm water on steep slopes could be managed by towers would block the popular laser light show shown at design-level plans, (6) impacts on bald and golden eagle the dam, eliminate the public tour, and remove space on and other migratory birds could be managed and reduced the Visitor’s Center grounds needed for the annual Festival through monitoring and adaptive management conducted of America; an event that draws thousands of visitors each under an Avian Protection Plan. Independence Day, and that is important to the local Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. (1) While a revised public economy. Other public concerns included electric and tour would be provided, removal of the tour bridge and magnetic fields (EMF), loss of value for properties within closure of this portion of the tour cannot be avoided. (2) sight of the lines and towers. Visual changes would also be unavoidable. Lines and Revised Proposal. Reclamation responded to public towers would become part of the Grand Coulee Dam comments with a revised Proposed Action (Preferred viewscape. Visitor response to lines and towers is Alternative) that would span the Visitor’s Center, rather expected to be mixed, but overall neutral in terms of than placing towers on the lower Visitor’s Center grounds. experience and enjoyment. Visual changes are not likely Proposed lines would cross over the Columbia River below to change visitor numbers, (3) Some loss in bald eagle wintering and osprey foraging habitat may be unavoidable. (4) Some avian mortality from striking lines may be unavoidable. TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Chapter 1 Need and Purpose for Action ................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Need for Action ............................................................................................................ 1-4 1.3 Purposes ....................................................................................................................... 1-5 1.4 Cooperating Agencies .................................................................................................. 1-6 1.5 Public Involvement and Significant Issues .................................................................. 1-6 1.6 Issues to be Resolved ................................................................................................... 1-7 1.6.1 Key Issue 1 – Laser Light Show ....................................................................... 1-7 1.6.2 Key Issue 2 – Public Tour ................................................................................. 1-8 1.6.3 Key Issue 3 – Public Safety .............................................................................. 1-8 1.6.4 Key Issue 4 – Visual Changes .......................................................................... 1-8 1.6.5 Key Issue 5 – Visitor’s Center Grounds ........................................................... 1-8 1.6.6 Key Issue 6 – Tourism and Economy ............................................................... 1-8 1.7 Organization of this EA ................................................................................................ 1-8 Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives ........................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Overview ........................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Proposed Action Alternatives ........................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Overhead Alternatives .................................................................................................. 2-2 2.2.1 Alternative 1...................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................ 2-2 2.2.3 Alternative 3...................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.4 Alternative 4...................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Underground Alternative .............................................................................................. 2-8 2.3.1 Alternative 5 (Rebuild Alternative) .................................................................. 2-8 2.4 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................. 2-8 2.5 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study ................................... 2-8 2.5.1 Behind the Dam ................................................................................................ 2-8 2.5.2 Downriver ......................................................................................................... 2-9 2.6 Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................... 2-9 Chapter 3 Affected Environments, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Measures 3-1 Preliminary Environmental Assessment—May 2011 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences – Preferred Alternative ..................................... 3-8 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 3-9 3.2.4 Unavoidable Impacts Remaining After Mitigation ......................................... 3-10 3.2.5 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 3-10 3.2.6 Environmental Consequences – Alternatives ................................................. 3-10 3.3 Fish and Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 3-12 3.3.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 3-12 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences – Preferred Alternative ................................... 3-22 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Power System
    HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF THE ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST Kevin Schneider Ph.D., P.E. Chair, Seattle Chapter of the IEEE PES IEEE PES SCHOLARSHIP PLUS INITIATIVE 2 Washington State PES Scholars • Patrick Berg, Seattle University • Parichehr Karimi, University of • Zachary Burrows, Eastern Washington Washington UiUnivers ity • TiTravis Kinney, WhitWashington Sta te UiUnivers ity • Erin Clement, University of Washington • Allan Koski, Eastern Washington University • Anastasia Corman, University of • Kyle Lindgren, University of Washington, Washington • John Martinsen, Washington State • Gwendolyn Crabtree, Washington State University University • Melissa Martinsen, University of • David Dearing, Washington State Washington University • JthJonathan NhiNyhuis, SttlSeattle PifiPacific UiUnivers ity • Terra Donley, Gonzaga University Derek Jared Pisinger, Washington State Gowrylow, Seattle University University • Sanel Hirkic, Washington State University • Douglas Rapier, Washington State • Nathan Hirsch, Eastern Washington University University • Chris Rusnak, Washington State University • John Hofman, Washington State • Kaiwen Sun, University of Washington University • Joshua Wu, Seattle University • • Tracy Yuan, University of Washington 3 OVERVIEW Part 1: The Current Status of the Electricity Infrastructure in the Pacific North west Part 2: How the Current System Evolved Over Time Part 3: Current Challenges and the Path Forward Part 4: Concluding Comments PART 1:: THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE
    [Show full text]
  • Fishway Ladder
    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS A. Fishway B. Riverwalk C. DNR Compliance with NR 333 D. Dam Removal E. Property Issues F. Fish and Aquatic Life G. Wildlife H. Recreational Use A. Fishway 1. What is the estimated cost to build a fishway at Bridge Street dam? The engineering consultant, Bonestroo, has estimated the cost at $1.3 million per the NOAA grant. 2. If the fishway is constructed next year, will it have to be rebuilt when the dam needs to be removed and replaced? Essentially no. Most of the fishway is a separate upstream structure and will not be impacted by demolition and construction of a new dam. The fishway entrance area may need to be modified if a new dam is installed or if the dam abutments are altered. 3. Why is the fishway being constructed on the west bank of the river? The west bank allows land owned by the Village of Grafton to be used for a portion of the channel alignment. Furthermore, the heaviest construction will likely be in the area currently owned by the Village (penetration of the west dam abutment). Other advantages include the appeal to tourists able to view fish entering and ascending the fishway from the riverwalk, and the known presence of shallow bedrock helping assure good foundation characteristics. Furthermore, the historic mill race crosses the area, and a portion of the mill race alignment may assist with fishway construction. 4. How long will it take to complete the construction of the fishway? The fishway will be completed by late fall of 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria 2019
    FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA 2019 37.2’ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region June 2019 Fish and Aquatic Conservation, Fish Passage Engineering Ecological Services, Conservation Planning Assistance United States Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA June 2019 This manual replaces all previous editions of the Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 Suggested citation: USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2019. Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria. USFWS, Northeast Region R5, Hadley, Massachusetts. USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x List of Equations ............................................................................................................................ xi List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xii 1 Scope of this Document ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Role of the USFWS Region 5 Fish Passage Engineering ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Dams on Native Americans in the Columbia River Basin Elliott
    Dammed Societies: Effects of Dams on Native Americans in the Columbia River Basin Elliott McGill Senior Capstone Project Faculty Advisors: Dr. Jamie Dolan, Dr. Jeremy Johnson, and Dr. David McCanna McGill 1 Abstract Since dam construction began in the New Deal Era, it has represented a dominance of humankind over nature. These massive structures have harnessed, collected, and distributed electricity from the rivers they hold back and allow humans to reap the benefits of that cycle. One of the areas where dams are particularly apparent is in the Columbia River Basin in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. While the dams in this region certainly have allowed the area to develop and build by using the electricity collected by these dams, they have also had several negative effects on the tribal people in the region who once fished the mighty Columbia during its populous salmon runs and relied on the salmon for nutritional, economic, and cultural reasons. This project seeks to examine the costs of human advancement when it comes to dams, and will do so by studying three dams located in the Columbia River Basin: The Bonneville Dam, The Dalles Dam, and The Grand Coulee Dam. These dams will be studied using Black’s Theory of Law as a framework to examine the manner in which law was applied to each case. The research finds that although the dams certainly provide a useful resource to the people of the region, it has had negative effects on the Native American people who depended on the river. McGill 2 Introduction When President Franklin D.
    [Show full text]
  • Operation Glen Canyon Dam Spiliway: Summer 1983
    7jq Reprinted from the Proceedings of the Conference Water for Resource Development, HY Di v. /ASCE Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, August 14-17, 1984 Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Spiliways - Summer 1983 Philip H. Burgi 1/, M., ASCE, Bruce M. Moyes 2/, Thomas W. Gamble 3/ Abstract. - Flood control at Glen Canyon Do, is provided by a 41-ft (12.5-rn) diameter tunnel spillway in each abutment. Each spillway is designed to pass 138 000 ft3/s (3907.7 m3/s). The spillways first operated in 1980 and had seen very little use until June 1983. In early June the left spiliway was operated for 72 hours at 20 000 ft3/s (566.3 m3/s). After hearing a rumbling aoise in the left spillway, the radial gates were closed and the tunnel was quickly inspected. Cavitation damage had occurred low in the vertical bend, resulting in removal of approximately 50 yd3 (38.2 rn3) of concrete. Flood flows continued to fill the reservoir. Both spillways were operated releasing a total of 1 626 000 acre-ft (2.0 x m3) over a period of 2 months. Exteri- sive cavitation damage occurred in both spiliways in the vicinity of the vertical bend. Introduction. - The tunnel spiliways are open channel flow type with two 40- by 52.5-ft (12.2- by 16.0-rn) radial gates to control releases to each tunnel. Each spillway consists of a 41-ft (12.5-rn) diameter inclined section, a vertical bend, and 1000 ft (304.8 m) of horizontal tunnel followed by a flip bucket.
    [Show full text]
  • Ashley National Forest Visitor's Guide
    shley National Forest VISITOR GUIDE A Includes the Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Big Fish, Ancient Rocks Sheep Creek Overlook, Flaming Gorge Painter Basin, High Uinta Wilderness he natural forces that formed the Uinta Mountains are evident in the panorama of geologic history found along waterways, roads, and trails of T the Ashley National Forest. The Uinta Mountains, punctuated by the red rocks of Flaming Gorge on the east, offer access to waterways, vast tracts of backcountry, and rugged wilderness. The forest provides healthy habitat for deer, elk, What’s Inside mountain goats, bighorn sheep, and trophy-sized History .......................................... 2 trout. Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area, the High Uintas Wilderness........ 3 Scenic Byways & Backways.. 4 Green River, High Uintas Wilderness, and Sheep Creek Winter Recreation.................... 5 National Geological Area are just some of the popular Flaming Gorge NRA................ 6 Forest Map .................................. 8 attractions. Campgrounds ........................ 10 Cabin/Yurt Rental ............... 11 Activities..................................... 12 Fast Forest Facts Know Before You Go .......... 15 Contact Information ............ 16 Elevation Range: 6,000’-13,528’ Unique Feature: The Uinta Mountains are one of the few major ranges in the contiguous United States with an east-west orientation Fish the lakes and rivers; explore the deep canyons, Annual Precipitation: 15-60” in the mountains; 3-8” in the Uinta Basin high peaks; and marvel at the ancient geology of the Lakes in the Uinta Mountains: Over 800 Ashley National Forest! Acres: 1,382,347 Get to Know Us History The Uinta Mountains were named for early relatives of the Ute Indians. or at least 8,000 years, native peoples have Sapphix and son, Ute, 1869 huntedF animals, gathered plants for food and fiber, photo courtesy of First People and used stone tools, and other resources to make a living.
    [Show full text]
  • Landslides Along the Columbia River Valley Northeastern Washington
    Landslides Along the Columbia River Valley Northeastern Washington GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 367 Landslides Along the Columbia River Valley Northeastern Washington By FRED O. JONES, DANIEL R. EMBODY, and WARREN L. PETERSON With a section on Seismic Surveys By ROBERT M. HAZLEWOOD GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 367 Descriptions of landslides and statistical analyses of data on some 2OO landslides in Pleistocene sediments UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1961 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U.S. 'Geological Survey Library has cataloged this publication as follows : Jones, Fred Oscar, 1912- Landslides along the Columbia River valley, northeastern Washington, by Fred O. Jones, Daniel R. Embody, and Warren L. Peterson. With a section on Seismic surveys, by Robert M. Hazlewood. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1961. v, 98 p. illus., maps (part col.) diagrs., tables. 30 cm. (U.S. Geological Survey. Professional paper 367) Part of illustrative matter in pocket. Bibliography: p. 94-95. 1. Landslides Washington (State) Columbia River valley. 2. Seismology Washington (State) I. Embody, Daniel R., joint author. II. Peterson, Warren Lee, 1925- , joint author. III. Hazle­ wood, Robert Merton, 1920-IV. Title. (Series) For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, B.C. CONTENTS Page Statistical studies Continued Abstract _ ________________________________________ 1 Statistical analyses, by Daniel R. Embody and Fred Introduction, by Fred O. Jones___________ ____________ 1 O.Jones _-_-_-_-____-__-___-_-_-- _ _____--- 46 Regional physiographic and geologic setting________ 3 Analysis and interpretation of landslide data_-_ 46 Cultural developments.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on The
    REPORT ON THE U. S. D EPA R E INTERIOR BONNEVILLE IN ISTRATION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ----<COl--- . REPORT ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER POWER SYSTEM Consisting of THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION and Power Components of THE BONNEVILLE DAM PROJECT AND THE COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT (GRAND COULEE DAM) 19!6 Prepared by THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION 811 NORTHEAST OREGON STREET PORTLAND 8, OREGON LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 1 ~ONTENTS REVENUES 5 REPAYMENT OF FEDERAL INVESTMENT 6 INTEREST 8 ENERGY DELIVERIES 9 ENER<;Y PRODUCTION 12 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 15 MAP-TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 17 OPERATING RESULTS 20 POWER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 24 ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 26 CUSTOMER SERVICE 29 POWER RATES 31 PERSONNEL 34 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR December 31,1946. THE HoNORABLE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON, D. C. My dear Mr. Secretary: Transmitted herewith is a report showing the results of operations of the Bonneville Power Administration from July 1, 1945 to June 30, 1946. Where matters of significance have occurred since the close of the fiscal year additional data have been included. This report, to which is attached the second independent annual audit of the accounts of the Administra­ tion, conforms with the requirements of Section 9 (c) of the Bonneville Project Act. Financially, operations were satisfactory during the fiscal year 1946. Total revenues of $19,884,285 covered all costs of operation, maintenance, depreciation and interest and left a surplus of $4,754,895 for the year­ thus increasing surplus net revenues from power operations as of June 30, 1946 to $16,326,947.
    [Show full text]
  • Dam Awareness May 2018
    Dam Awareness May 2018 Introduction There is a general lack of knowledge, understanding, and awareness of dams and their risks, leaving those most affected by dams unprepared to deal with the impacts of their failures. This fact sheet provides a general overview of dams for consideration and use by the intended audience, based on their situation. Responsibility and Liability for Dam Safety Dams are owned and operated by individuals, private and public organizations, and various levels of government (federal, state, local, tribal). The responsibility for operating and maintaining a safe dam rests with the owner. Common law holds that the storage of water is a hazardous activity. Maintaining a safe dam is a key element in preventing failure and limiting the liability that an owner could face. The extent of an owner’s liability varies from state to state and depends on statutes and case law precedents. Federally owned and regulated dams are subject to federal regulations and guidelines and applicable federal and state laws. Owners can be fiscally and criminally liable for any failure of a dam and all damages resulting from its failure. Any uncontrolled release of the reservoir, whether the result of an intentional release or dam failure, can have devastating effects on persons, property, and the environment (FEMA, 2016a). Any malfunction or abnormality outside the design assumptions and parameters that adversely affect a dam’s primary function of impounding water is considered a dam failure. Lesser degrees of failure can progressively lead to or heighten the risk of a catastrophic failure, which may result in an uncontrolled release of the reservoir and can have a severe effect on persons and properties downstream (FEMA, 2016b).
    [Show full text]
  • NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
    20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM 20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM 20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM 20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM 20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ 5 TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. 6 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 11 1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................ 11 1.2 CONSULTATION HISTORY .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................................................................................... 11 1.4 ACTION AREA ................................................................................................................................................. 12 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Desautel (Sinixt)
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Desautel, 2017 BCSC 2389 Date: 20171228 Docket: 23646 Registry: Nelson Between: Regina Appellant And Richard Lee Desautel Respondent And Okanagan Nation Alliance Intervenor On appeal from: Provincial Court of British Columbia, March 27, 2017 R. v. DeSautel, 2017 BCPC 84, Nelson Registry No. 23646 Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Sewell Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Appellant: G. Thompson H. Cochran Counsel for the Respondent: M. Underhill K. Phipps Counsel for the Intervenor: R. Kyle Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Nelson, B.C. September 6-8, 2017 Place and Date of Judgment: Nelson, B.C. December 28, 2017 R. v. Desautel Page 2 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3 Position of the Parties ............................................................................................. 4 Background .............................................................................................................. 4 Grounds of Appeal ................................................................................................... 6 Are the Sinixt an aboriginal people of Canada ...................................................... 7 What is the Relevant Aboriginal Collective? ....................................................... 10 The Intervenor’s Submissions .............................................................................. 12 Discussion of Crown’s Submissions ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Alternatives for Tdg Abatement at Grand Coulee Dam
    STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES FOR TDG ABATEMENT AT GRAND COULEE DAM FEASIBILITY DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 2000 STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES FOR TDG ABATEMENT AT GRAND COULEE DAM FEASIBILITY DESIGN REPORT October, 2000 Prepared for U. S. Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region by Kathleen H. Frizell and Elisabeth Cohen Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Denver, Colorado Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................... i Executive Summary ................................................. ix Acknowledgments ..................................................xiii Background .......................................................1 Introduction .......................................................2 Grand Coulee Dam ..................................................2 TDG Evaluation for Existing Conditions ...................................3 Flow Mixing .................................................4 Existing Outlet Works TDG Generation .............................5 Feasibility Design Discharge and Tailwater ...........................7 Feasibility Designs for Structural Alternatives ................................8 Hydraulic Modeling ............................................9 Outlet Works Model .....................................9 Forebay Pipe with Cascade Model ..........................10 Cover and Extend Mid-level Outlet Works (Alternative 1) ................11 Description ...........................................11 Maintenance Issues ...............................12 Hydraulic and Total
    [Show full text]