DOCSLIB.ORG

FERC Project No. 14795-002 Washington

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FERC Project No. 14795-002 Washington DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Hydro Battery Pearl Hill Pumped Storage Project FERC Project No. 14795-002 Washington Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers August 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Application............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Purpose of Action and Need for Power ................................................................ 1 1.2.1 Purpose of Action .......................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Need for Power .............................................................................................. 3 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ................................. 3 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ......................................................................................... 3 1.3.2 Clean Water Act ............................................................................................ 4 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act ................................................................................ 5 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ..................................................................... 5 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................... 6 1.3.6 Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act ............................ 6 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ................................................................ 7 1.4.1 Scoping .......................................................................................................... 7 1.4.2 Interventions .................................................................................................. 8 1.4.3 Comments on the Application ....................................................................... 8 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................. 9 2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................ 9 2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL ............................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities ............................................................................ 9 2.2.2 Project Boundary ......................................................................................... 12 2.2.3 Project Safety .............................................................................................. 12 2.2.4 Project Operation ......................................................................................... 12 2.2.5 Operation and Environmental Measures ..................................................... 13 2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................... 15 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 17 3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN ...................................... 17 3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ........................................ 18 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ............................... 18 3.3.1 Geology and Soil Resources ....................................................................... 18 3.3.2 Aquatic Resources ....................................................................................... 23 3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................................... 44 3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................... 72 3.3.5 Recreation and Land Use ............................................................................ 77 3.3.6 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... 79 3.3.8 Socioeconomic Resources ......................................................................... 108 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................. 113 4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT ........................ 113 i 4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................... 116 4.2.1 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................... 117 4.2.2 Shell’s Proposal ......................................................................................... 117 4.2.3 Staff Alternative ........................................................................................ 118 4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES ................................................ 119 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 125 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE .............................................................................................. 125 5.1.1 Measures Proposed by Shell ..................................................................... 125 5.1.2 Additional Measures Recommended by Staff ........................................... 128 5.1.3 Measures Not Recommended .................................................................... 133 5.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ....................................................... 136 5.3 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 136 5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ................................... 142 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .................................................. 144 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................... 145 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................... 158 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the Pearl Hill Project (source: application). .................................... 2 Figure 2. Pearl Hill Project facilities (source: application). ............................................. 11 Figure 3. Average daily TDG measured at Chief Joseph Forebay (source: application). 28 Figure 4. Predicted water tank temperature increases over lake temperature for various start dates (source: application). ....................................................................... 34 Figure 5. Project discharge design (source: application). ................................................ 37 Figure 6. Proposed project boundary and works in relation to wetland (source: application). ...................................................................................................... 46 Figure 7. Wetland south of the proposed project boundary in the vicinity of the proposed upper reservoir (tank), August 2016 (source: application). .............................. 47 Figure 8. Wetland south of the proposed project boundary in the vicinity of the proposed upper reservoir (tank), facing northwest, June 2017 (source: application). ..... 48 Figure 9. Shoreline conditions in project vicinity, April 2017 (source: application). ...... 49 Figure 10. Proposed project boundary and works in relation to intermittent stream (source: application).......................................................................................... 50 Figure 11. Intermittent stream drainage within the proposed project boundary, June 2017 (source: application).......................................................................................... 51 Figure 12. The direct APE (outlined in black as the project boundary) and indirect APE (outlined in red) for the Hydro Battery Pearl Hill Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project (source: HRA 2017). .................................................... 80 Figure 13. KOP 1- view of new access road site. The new access road would originate at the curve in the road and continue in a straight line into the distance (source: application). ...................................................................................................... 97 Figure 14. KOP 2 – view of proposed penstock route (source: application). .................. 98 Figure 15. KOP 3 – view of location of penstock and upper reservoir tank site (source: application). ...................................................................................................... 99 Figure 16. KOP 4 - representation of a boater’s view of the proposed powerhouse platform and above-ground penstock sites (source: application). .................. 100 Figure 17. View of project site from Colville Reservation (source: application). ......... 101 Figure 18. View of proposed penstock and upper reservoir tank site from the Colville Reservation (source: application). .................................................................. 102 Figure 19. Locations of ambient sound recordings for the Hydro Battery Pearl Hill Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project sound study (source: application). .. 103 Figure 20. Visual rendering of what the completed project is anticipated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BRIDGEPORT STATE PARK Chief Joseph Dam, Washington
    BRIDGEPORT STATE PARK Chief Joseph Dam, Washington Sun Shelter and Play Area Group Camp Fire Circle Bridgeport State Park, located on systems; landscaping; and the Columbia River at Chief Joseph sprinkler irrigation. Osborn Pacific Dam, was an existing development Group provided complete design composed of a boat launch, services followed by completion campground, temporary of bid documents for the park and administration area, and day-use recreation amenity features, and group-use areas. The park was buildings, landscape architecture, created subsequent to the Chief and sprinkler irrigation. Joseph Dam construction and was Subconsultants provided civil, Picnic Shelter built by the U.S. Army Corps of structural, mechanical, and Engineers. The park is maintained electrical engineering. Site: Approximately 400 acres of rolling and operated by Washington State arid topography on shore of Rufus Parks. Woods Lake. Approximately 30 acres Project: is developed. Osborn Pacific Group Inc. was Bridgeport State Park Services: Client: retained by the U.S. Army Corps of Final design, construction documents, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle and cost estimate of park and Engineers to provide design District recreation amenity features, buildings, services and prepared construction Location: landscape architecture, and sprinkler documents for a $1.4 million park Chief Joseph Dam, Columbia River, irrigation. Contract administration expansion project. Features Washington and coordination for civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical included: upgrading and expanding engineering. recreation vehicle campground area, day-use picnic area and swim beach development; group camp area development; pedestrian and handicapped access trails; ranger residence; maintenance building; restrooms and shelters; roads; water, sanitary, and electrical .
    [Show full text]
  • Coe Portland District (Nwp) Hydropower Projects
    Updated March 30, 2021. Use the appropriate district distribution list below when submitting a System Operational Request (SOR). COE PORTLAND DISTRICT (NWP) HYDROPOWER PROJECTS COE SEATTLE DISTRICT (NWS) HYDROPOWER PROJECTS Bonneville Dam & Lake on Columbia River Libby Dam & Lake Koocanusa on Kootenai River The Dalles Dam & Lake Celilo on Columbia River Hungry Horse Dam & Lake on South Fork Flathead River John Day Dam & Lake Umatilla on Columbia River Albeni Falls Dam & Pend Oreille Lake on Pend Oreille River Chief Joseph Dam and Rufus Woods Lake on Columbia River Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division (NWD) Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division (NWD) SEATTLE DISTRICT (NWS) PORTLAND DISTRICT (NWP) TO: TO: BG Pete Helmlinger COE-NWD-ZA Commander BG Pete Helmlinger COE-NWD-ZA Commander COL Alexander Bullock COE-NWS Commander COL Mike Helton COE-NWP Commander Jim Fredericks COE-NWD-PDD Chief Jim Fredericks COE-NWD-PDD Chief Steven Barton COE-NWD-PDW Chief Steven Barton COE-NWD-PDW Chief Tim Dykstra COE-NWD-PDD Tim Dykstra COE-NWD-PDD Julie Ammann COE-NWD-PDW-R Julie Ammann COE-NWD-PDW-R Doug Baus COE-NWD-PDW-R Doug Baus COE-NWD-PDW-R Aaron Marshall COE-NWD-PDW-R Aaron Marshall COE-NWD-PDW-R Lisa Wright COE-NWD-PDW-R Lisa Wright COE-NWD-PDW-R Jon Moen COE-NWS-ENH-W Tammy Mackey COE-NWP-OD Mary Karen Scullion COE-NWP-EC-HR Lorri Gray USBR-PN Regional Director Lorri Gray USBR-PN Regional Director John Roache USBR-PN-6208 John Roache USBR-PN-6208 Joel Fenolio USBR-PN-6204 Joel Fenolio USBR-PN-6204 John Hairston BPA Administrator Kieran Connolly BPA-PG-5 John Hairston BPA Administrator Scott Armentrout BPA-E-4 Kieran Connolly BPA-PG-5 Jason Sweet BPA-PGB-5 Scott Armentrout BPA-E-4 Eve James BPA-PGPO-5 Jason Sweet BPA-PGB-5 Tony Norris BPA-PGPO-5 Eve James BPA-PGPO-5 Scott Bettin BPA-EWP-4 Tony Norris BPA-PGPO-5 Tribal Liaisons: Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Integrated Resource Plan
    DRAFT 2018 Integrated Resource Plan Public Utility District No. 1 of Benton County PREPARED IN COLLABORATION WITH Resolution No. XXXX Contents Chapter 1: Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1 Obligations and Resources ........................................................................................................................ 1 Preferred Portfolio .................................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2: Load Forecast .............................................................................................................................. 6 Chapter 3: Current Resources ....................................................................................................................... 7 Overview of Existing Long-term Purchased Power Agreements ............................................................... 7 Frederickson 1 Generating Station ........................................................................................................ 7 Nine Canyon Wind ................................................................................................................................. 7 White Creek Wind Generation Project .................................................................................................. 8 Packwood Lake Hydro Project ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Joseph Hatchery Program
    Chief Joseph Hatchery Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement DOE/EIS-0384 May 2007 Chief Joseph Hatchery Program Responsible Agency: U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Title of Proposed Project: Chief Joseph Hatchery Program Cooperating Tribe: Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation State Involved: Washington Abstract: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) describes a Chinook salmon hatchery production program sponsored by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Colville Tribes). BPA proposes to fund the construction, operation and maintenance of the program to help mitigate for anadromous fish affected by the Federal Columbia River Power System dams on the Columbia River. The Colville Tribes want to produce adequate salmon to sustain tribal ceremonial and subsistence fisheries and enhance the potential for a recreational fishery for the general public. The DEIS discloses the environmental effects expected from facility construction and program operations and a No Action alternative. The Proposed Action is to build a hatchery near the base of Chief Joseph Dam on the Columbia River for incubation, rearing and release of summer/fall and spring Chinook. Along the Okanogan River, three existing irrigation ponds, one existing salmon acclimation pond, and two new acclimation ponds (to be built) would be used for final rearing, imprinting and volitional release of chinook smolts. The Chief Joseph Dam Hatchery Program Master Plan (Master Plan, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, May 2004) provides voluminous information on program features. The US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District, and others have cooperated on project design and siting.
    [Show full text]
  • Dams and Hydroelectricity in the Columbia
    COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: DAMS AND HYDROELECTRICITY The power of falling water can be converted to hydroelectricity A Powerful River Major mountain ranges and large volumes of river flows into the Pacific—make the Columbia precipitation are the foundation for the Columbia one of the most powerful rivers in North America. River Basin. The large volumes of annual runoff, The entire Columbia River on both sides of combined with changes in elevation—from the the border is one of the most hydroelectrically river’s headwaters at Canal Flats in BC’s Rocky developed river systems in the world, with more Mountain Trench, to Astoria, Oregon, where the than 470 dams on the main stem and tributaries. Two Countries: One River Changing Water Levels Most dams on the Columbia River system were built between Deciding how to release and store water in the Canadian the 1940s and 1980s. They are part of a coordinated water Columbia River system is a complex process. Decision-makers management system guided by the 1964 Columbia River Treaty must balance obligations under the CRT (flood control and (CRT) between Canada and the United States. The CRT: power generation) with regional and provincial concerns such as ecosystems, recreation and cultural values. 1. coordinates flood control 2. optimizes hydroelectricity generation on both sides of the STORING AND RELEASING WATER border. The ability to store water in reservoirs behind dams means water can be released when it’s needed for fisheries, flood control, hydroelectricity, irrigation, recreation and transportation. Managing the River Releasing water to meet these needs influences water levels throughout the year and explains why water levels The Columbia River system includes creeks, glaciers, lakes, change frequently.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 22 Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit—Mainstem Upper Columbia River Critical Habitat Unit
    Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat Justification: Rationale for Why Habitat is Essential, and Documentation of Occupancy Chapter 22 Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit—Mainstem Upper Columbia River Critical Habitat Unit 575 Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat Justification Chapter 22 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service September 2010 Chapter 22. Mainstem Upper Columbia River Critical Habitat Unit The Mainstem Upper Columbia River CHU is essential for maintaining bull trout distribution within this unique geographic region of the Mid-Columbia RU and conserving the fluvial migratory life history types exhibited by many of the populations from adjacent core areas. It is essential for conservation by maintaining broad distribution within the Mid-Columbia RU across Washington, Idaho, and Oregon. Its location between Chief Joseph Dam in the most northern geographical area and John Day Dam in the most southern area provides key connectivity for the Mid-Columbia River RU. It is essential for maintaining distribution and genetic contributions to the Lower Columbia and Snake River Mainstems and 13 CHUs. Bull trout are known to reside year-round as sub-adults and adults, but spawning adults may utilize the mainstem Columbia River for up to at least 9 months as well. Several studies in the upper Columbia and lower Snake Rivers indicate migration between the Mainstem Upper Columbia River CHU and core areas, generally during periods of cooler water temperatures. FMO habitat provided by the mainstem Columbia River is essential for conservation because it supports the expression of the fluvial migratory life history forms for multiple core areas. In addition, there are several accounts of amphidromous life history forms present between Yakima and John Day Rivers that may still have the potential to express anadromy (see Appendix 1 for more detailed information).
    [Show full text]
  • Coe Portland District (Nwp) Hydropower Projects
    To submit a System Operational Request (SORs), please use the distribution list below for the relevant hydropower project. Updated September 3, 2019. COE PORTLAND DISTRICT (NWP) HYDROPOWER PROJECTS COE SEATTLE DISTRICT (NWS) HYDROPOWER PROJECTS Bonneville Dam & Lake on Columbia River Libby Dam & Lake Koocanusa on Kootenai River The Dalles Dam & Lake Celilo on Columbia River Hungry Horse Dam & Lake on South Fork Flathead River John Day Dam & Lake Umatilla on Columbia River Albeni Falls Dam & Pend Oreille Lake on Pend Oreille River Chief Joseph Dam and Rufus Woods Lake on Columbia River Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division (NWD) PORTLAND DISTRICT (NWP) Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division (NWD) TO: SEATTLE DISTRICT (NWS) BG Pete Helmlinger COE-NWD-ZA Commander TO: COL Aaron Dorf COE-NWP Commander BG Pete Helmlinger COE-NWD-ZA Commander Jim Fredericks COE-NWD-PDD Chief COL Mark Geraldi COE-NWS Commander Steven Barton COE-NWD-PDW Chief Jim Fredericks COE-NWD-PDD Chief Tim Dykstra COE-NWD-PDD Steven Barton COE-NWD-PDW Chief Julie Ammann COE-NWD-PDW-R Tim Dykstra COE-NWD-PDD Doug Baus COE-NWD-PDW-R Julie Ammann COE-NWD-PDW-R Aaron Marshall COE-NWD-PDW-R Doug Baus COE-NWD-PDW-R Tammy Mackey COE-NWP-OD Aaron Marshall COE-NWD-PDW-R Mary Karen Scullion COE-NWP-EC-HR Logan Osgood-Zimmerman COE-NWS-ENH-W Lorri Gray USBR-PN Regional Director Lorri Gray USBR-PN Regional Director John Roache USBR-PN-6208 John Roache USBR-PN-6208 Joel Fenolio USBR-PN-6204 Joel Fenolio USBR-PN-6204 Elliot Mainzer BPA Administrator Elliot Mainzer BPA Administrator Kieran Connolly BPA-PG-5 Kieran Connolly BPA-PG-5 Scott Armentrout BPA-E-4 Scott Armentrout BPA-E-4 Jason Sweet BPA-PGB-5 Jason Sweet BPA-PGB-5 Eve James BPA-PGPO-5 Eve James BPA-PGPO-5 Tony Norris BPA-PGPO-5 Tony Norris BPA-PGPO-5 Scott Bettin BPA-EWP-4 Scott Bettin BPA-EWP-4 Tribal Liaisons: Paul Cloutier (NWD), Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho Falls Power
    INTRODUCTION The first public utility in America began over Although Idaho Falls was not the first community to own and 120 years ago. The efforts of the early electrical operate its municipal utility, it is one of the oldest public power pioneers have allowed the nation’s municipal utilities communities in the Northwest. The city of Idaho Falls is to give inexpensive, reliable electric power to millions celebrating the past 100 years of providing its residents of Americans in the twentieth century. Today municipal ownership in its electric power system. This report municipal utilities give over 2,000 communities a will provide some interesting facts about the pioneers who sense of energy independence and autonomy they can installed a tiny electric generator on an irrigation canal in the carry into the twenty-first century. fall of 1900, establishing the beginning of the Idaho Falls municipal utility. Lucille Keefer pictured in front of the falls, is one of the more endearing images of Idaho Falls’ hydroelectric history. The Pennsylvania-born school teacher was the wife of the project’s construction superintendent. THE CANAL ERA The original 1900 power plant generated electricity from the water tumbling out of an irrigation ditch. When the Utah and Northern Railroad extended its tracks During the 1880s and 1890s, lumberyards, flourmills, to the rapids on the Snake River in 1879, the small town livestock auction houses, newspapers, banks, and clothing of Eagle Rock (now Idaho Falls) was established. The stores sprouted up along the railroad tracks. Population turn of the century not only brought more people to the surged as merchants and professionals flocked to the city to newly formed community but new developments as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Cover Black White
    r.'Z"r.1 ~ Teacher’s Guide to US Army Corps of Engineers® Bonneville Dam Portland District Teacher’s Guide To Bonneville Dam Packet #2 Initial Concepts and Pre-Draft: Patrick Barry Becky Bernson Deanne Converse Katie Kinney Kathy Peck Jim Runkles Dan Troglin Bill Wiley 1984 Summer Visitor Center Staff. Thanks to: George Wilson, Stevenson High School Bev McKinnon, Carson Elementary Final Edition Writers and Editors: Anna Bates and Shelley Gimbal Final Edition Review Team: Patrick Barry Jim Runkles 1988 Summer Visitor Center Staff i Table of Contents Page Goals of the Teacher’s Guide To Bonneville Dam ................................................................................................. v Objectives of the Teacher’s Guide To Bonneville Dam.......................................................................................... v Introduction To Teachers Guide: How this Guide is organized ................................................................................................................................1 Planning a visit to Bonneville Dam. .....................................................................................................................1 Facilities at Bonneville Dam................................................................................................................................ 2 Project Map......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Teacher’s Checklist ...............................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Flagship Col
    Work improves Chief Joseph Dam turbine efficiency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fall 2014 BUILDING STRONG Page 2 Fall 2014 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers inside Volume XXX No. 3 3 commentary 4-5 Faces From the Front: Maj. Tobin Flinn 6-7 Under Construction 8-9 Opportunities in Okinawa Cover: Turbine runner 10-11 Regional Leadership Development Program replacement project is in full swing at Chief Joseph Dam 12-13 Waste Water Treatment Plant Alstom Hydro workers set the wicket gate linkage on Unit 7 at Chief Joseph Dam in Bridgeport, Wash. The work is part of an effort to refurbish 16 14 Carbon Monoxide Dangers units and improve turbine efficiency to greater than 95 percent, increasing power production by nearly 450,000 mega-watt hours. Chief Joseph Dam is the nation’s second largest producer 15 Around the District of hydropower. The value of the elec- tricity produced at Chief Joseph Dam is about $450 million annually. (Corps 16 Signing Ceremony photo by Jeff Katz) Flagship Col. John G. Buck, Commander Patricia Graesser, Chief, Alisa Ralph: This Flagship is for you Public Affairs Tanya King, Editor Alisa Ralph is the Regulatory Branch’s Elizabeth Townsell, Editorial Special Programs Section chief. She is Assistant retiring in December after 32 years of Bill Dowell, Contributor outstanding service to a number of govern- Scott Lawrence, Contributor ment agencies in several countries. During Flagship is an unofficial publication the past seven years, Alisa managed a long authorized under AR 360-l, list of regulatory program challenges with published by the Public Affairs great professionalism, grace and unshake- Office, Seattle District, U.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington State Department of Commerce
    Washington State ^^ Department of Commerce Energy Independence Act innovation is in oiu nature. Application for Advisory Opinion and Renewable Energy Facility (WREGIS) commerce. wa. gov/eia Certification All information provided in this application or any supplemental or additional materials is subject to public disclosure. A separate Washington application is required for FACILIT/NAME: ChiefJoseph Dam each generating unit with a separate WREGIS GU WREGIS Generating Unit ID (if already registered): W4395 - 4410 ID. Applicant must select Washington in WREGIS generating unit registration. Section 1: Agency Action Requested Advisory Opinion and WREGIS Certification || Advisory Opinion Only Section 2: Applicant Information Applicant Contact: Deb Malin Title: Account Executive Applicant Phone: 503-230-5701 Applicant E-mail: djmalin@bpa. gov Applicant Company Name: Bonneville Power Administration Company Address: P.O. Box 3621 City: Portland State/Province: OR Zip Code:97208 Country: US Section 3: Facility Information Facility Owner Name of Facility Owner: US Army Corps of Engineers OR |_| The Facility Owner is the same as the Applicant. Address: 1125 NW Couch St., Suite 500 City/State/ZIP:Portland/OR/97209 Contact Name, Phone, and Email: Francis (Beth) Coffey, Francis.E. [email protected], 503-909-3880 Facility Identification and Location Unit Name: Unit 1-16 Facility Name: ChiefJoseph Dam Unit location (street address, legal description, or GPS coordinates): City: Bridgeport County: Douglas State/Province: WA Zip: 98813 Country: US Provide a description of the facility. Chief Joseph is a large concrete gravity dam with a spillway and powerhouse, constructed for flood control and hydropower. It's hydropower facility is composed ofone powerhouse containing 27 main generating units.
    [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]