DOCSLIB.ORG

Long Lake Dam Tdg Abatement Feasibility Phase Iii Physical Model Study 2011 Interim Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Long Lake Dam Tdg Abatement Feasibility Phase Iii Physical Model Study 2011 Interim Report LONG LAKE DAM TDG ABATEMENT FEASIBILITY PHASE III PHYSICAL MODEL STUDY 2011 INTERIM REPORT Prepared for: February 2012 Prepared by: Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Long Lake Dam TDG Abatement Feasibility Phase III Physical Model Study 2011 Interim Report Prepared for: Avista Utilities 1411 East Mission Ave. Spokane, WA 99220 Prepared by: northwest hydraulic consultants 835 South 192nd St. Building C, Suite 1300 Seatac, WA 98148 February 9, 2012 21885 DISCLAIMER This document has been prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices and is intended for the exclusive use and benefit of the client for whom it was prepared and for the particular purpose for which it was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. and its officers, directors, employees, and agents assume no responsibility for the reliance upon this document or any of its contents by any party other than the client for whom the document was prepared. The contents of this document are not to be relied upon or used, in whole or in part, by or for the benefit of others without specific written authorization from Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. and our client. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 System Description ........................................................................................ 1 1.1.1 Long Lake Hydroelectric Development ................................................... 1 1.1.2 TDG Abatement Implementation ........................................................... 2 1.2 Study Objectives ............................................................................................ 3 1.3 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... 4 2 TDG abatement Alternatives ......................................................................................... 5 2.1 Alternative 1 – Spill Bay 7-8 Deflectors ............................................................ 5 2.2 Alternative 6 – Stepped Spillway Structure ....................................................... 7 2.3 Alternative 7 – Noxon Spillway Concept ............................................................ 7 3 Physical Model Description ......................................................................................... 10 3.1 Similitude and Scale ..................................................................................... 10 3.2 Model Description ........................................................................................ 11 3.2.1 Model Construction ........................................................................... 11 3.2.2 Model Measurements and Instrumentation ......................................... 12 4 Model Calibration and Baseline Testing ....................................................................... 16 4.1 Calibration Testing ....................................................................................... 16 4.2 Baseline Test Plan ....................................................................................... 17 4.3 Baseline Test Results ................................................................................... 18 4.3.1 Baseline Test 1: 32,000 cfs .............................................................. 18 4.3.2 Baseline Test 2: 15,300 cfs .............................................................. 19 4.3.3 Baseline Test 3: 50,000 cfs .............................................................. 19 5 Alternative 1 – Spillway Deflector ................................................................................ 21 5.1 Test Plan ..................................................................................................... 21 5.1.1 Developmental Test Plan ................................................................... 21 5.1.2 Final Documentation Test Plan ........................................................... 22 5.2 Developmental Testing Results .................................................................... 22 5.2.1 Configuration 1 – Deflector Elevation 1358 ft ...................................... 22 5.2.2 Configuration 2 – Deflector Elevation 1363 ft ...................................... 23 5.2.3 Configuration 3 – Deflector Elevation 1368 ft ...................................... 24 5.2.4 Configuration 4 – Deflector Elevations 1368 ft and 1373 ft .................. 24 5.2.5 General Flow Classification Observation Unique to Long Lake ............... 26 5.2.6 Plunge Pool Sensitivity ....................................................................... 27 5.3 Final Documentation ..................................................................................... 28 5.3.1 Alternative 1 Final Test 1: 32,300 cfs ................................................. 29 5.3.2 Alternative 1 Final Test 2: 15,300 cfs ................................................. 30 5.3.3 Alternative 1 Final Test 3: 50,000 cfs ................................................. 30 6 Alternative 6 – Stepped Weir Structure ........................................................................ 32 Long Lake Dam TDG Abatement Feasibility Phase III Physical Model Study 2011 Interim Report Page i List of Tables Table 3-1 Model Scale Relationships Table 3-2 Model Construction Accuracy Table 4-1 Calibration Test Operating Conditions Table 4-2 Baseline Test Plan Table 4-3 Calibration Test Data Table 4-4 Baseline Test 1 Data Table 4-5 Baseline Test 2 Data Table 4-6 Baseline Test 3 Data Table 5-1 Alternative 1 – Spillway Deflector – Developmental Test Plan Table 5-2 Alternative 1 – Spillway Deflector – Final Documentation Test Plan Table 5-3 Alternative 1 Spillway Deflector Configuration 4 Flow Performance Table 5-4 Alternative 1 Final Test 1 Data Table 5-5 Alternative 1 Final Test 2 Data Table 5-6 Alternative 1 Final Test 3 Data List of Figures Figure 1-1 Aerial View of Long Lake Hydroelectric Dam Figure 1-2 Graph of Tailwater Surface Elevation below Long Lake Dam Figure 2-1 Noxon Rapids Hydroelectric Dam Figure 3-1 Model Layout – General Arrangement Figure 3-2 Model Layout – Spillway Gates and Piers Figure 3-3 Model Layout – Spillway Sections Figure 3-4 Model Layout – Pier Sections Figure 3-5 Model Layout – Powerhouse Intake and Draft Tube – Sections Figure 3-6 ERDC Flow Classifications Figure 5-1 Model Layout – Alternative 1 – Spill Bay 7 & 8 Deflectors Figure 6-1 Model Layout – Alternative 6 – Stepped Spillway – Plan Figure 6-2 Model Layout – Alternative 6 – Stepped Spillway – Typical Section and Elevation List of Reference Figures Reference Figure 100 Alternative 1 – Spill Bay 7- 8 Deflectors – Overall Plan Reference Figure 101 Alternative 1 – Spill Bay 7- 8 Deflectors – Sections 1 Reference Figure 102 Alternative 1 – Spill Bay 7- 8 Deflectors – Sections 2 Reference Figure 103 Alternative 1 – Spill Bay 7-8 Deflectors – Deflector Area Plan Reference Figure 104 Alternative 1 – Spill Bay 7-8 Deflectors – Deflector Area Sections Reference Figure 105 Alternative 1 – Construction Sequence Plan Reference Figure 600 Alternative 6 – Stepped Spillway Plan Reference Figure 601 Alternative 6 – Stepped Spillway Plan – Sections and Details Reference Figure 602 Alternative 6 – Stepped Spillway Plan – Sections 1 Reference Figure 603 Alternative 6 – Stepped Spillway Plan – Sections 2 Long Lake Dam TDG Abatement Feasibility Phase III Physical Model Study 2011 Interim Report Page iii Reference Figure 604 Alternative 6 – Stepped Spillway Plan – Sections 3 List of Photo Plates Photo Plate 3-1 Model Overview Photo Plate 3-2 Model Details Photo Plate 3-3 Model Controls and Instrumentation Photo Plate 4-1 Calibration Testing – Total River Discharge: 26,500 cfs Photo Plate 4-2 Baseline Test 1 – Total River Discharge: 32,300 cfs Photo Plate 4-3 Baseline Test 2 – Total River Discharge: 15,300 cfs Photo Plate 4-4 Baseline Test 3 – Total River Discharge: 50,000 cfs Photo Plate 5-1 Configuration 1 – Deflector Elevation 1358 ft Photo Plate 5-2 Configuration 2 – Deflector Elevation 1363 ft Photo Plate 5-3 Configuration 3 – Deflector Elevation 1368 ft Photo Plate 5-4 Configuration 4 – Deflector Elevations 1368 ft and 1373 ft Photo Plate 5-5 Plunge Pool Fixed Bed Sensitivity Tests Photo Plate 5-6 Plunge Pool Mobile Bed Stability Tests Photo Plate 5-7 Plunge Pool Mobile Bed Test – 12.5 ft Diameter Material Photo Plate 5-8 Plunge Pool Mobile Bed Test – 10.0 ft Diameter Material Photo Plate 5-9 Plunge Pool Mobile Bed Test – 7.5 ft Diameter Material Photo Plate 5-10 Alternative 1 – Final Configuration Photo Plate 5-11 Alternative 1 – Final Test 1 – Total River Discharge: 32,300 cfs Photo Plate 5-12 Alternative 1 – Final Test 2 – Total River Discharge: 15,300 cfs Photo Plate 5-13 Alternative 1 – Final Test 3 – Total River Discharge: 50,000 cfs Long Lake Dam TDG Abatement Feasibility Phase III Physical Model Study 2011 Interim Report Page iv 1 Introduction Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC) was retained by Avista Utilities (Avista) to construct and test a hydraulic physical model of Long Lake Dam. 1.1 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 1.1.1 Long Lake Hydroelectric Development The Long Lake Hydroelectric Development (Long Lake) is located at river mile 34, approximately 5 miles upstream of Little Falls Hydrolectric Project, and is the most downstream project of Avista’s FERC licensed Spokane River Project. Figure 1-1 shows an aerial photograph of the Long Lake
Load more

Recommended publications
  • One Thread That Weaves Throughout Our 125-Year History Is That of Innovation
    ON THE COVER Summer storms hitting 10 days apart caused extensive damage throughout Avista’s Washington/Idaho service area in 2014, knocking out power to nearly 100,000 customers. Crews and office staff worked around the clock, restoring power quickly and safely, keeping customers informed through traditional and social media channels. 1411 EAST MISSION AVENUE | SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99202 | 509.489.0500 | AVISTACORP.COM One thread that weaves throughout our 125-year history is that of innovation. A LANDMARK Dear Fellow Shareholder: It’s been a landmark year at Avista for many reasons — we celebrated our milestone 125th anniversary; we sold Ecova, our home-grown energy and sustainability management business; we acquired Alaska Energy and Resources Company (AERC) and its primary subsidiary Alaska Electric Light and Power Company (AEL&P) in Juneau, Alaska; and we continued to make significant progress in achieving our goals of investing in our infrastructure, upgrading our technology and preparing our utility to effectively and efficiently implement 21st century energy delivery. For the first time in a generation, we can consider ourselves close to being a “pure play” utility. None of this would have been possible without our cadre operations were $1.93 per diluted share, with net income of dedicated and knowledgeable employees. There’s a from continuing operations attributable to Avista Corp. confidence that comes with competence, a steadiness that shareholders of $119.8 million for 2014. builds on itself and makes things happen. It’s not flashy, but Our balance sheet and credit ratings remain healthy. the effects speak for themselves. Avista’s employees embody At year-end, Avista Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • SECTION 21 – Table of Contents
    SECTION 21 – Table of Contents 21 Spokane Subbasin Overview........................................................................2 21.1 Regional Context ........................................................................................................ 2 21.2 Spokane Subbasin Description ................................................................................... 3 21.3 Logic Path ................................................................................................................. 24 21-1 21 Spokane Subbasin Overview 21.1 Regional Context The Spokane Subbasin shares a border with the Upper Columbia Subbasin to the north, the Pend Oreille Subbasin to the northeast, and the Coeur d’ Alene Subbasin to the east (Figure 21.1). The outlet of Coeur d’ Alene Lake forms the headwaters of the Spokane River, which flows westerly to its confluence with the Columbia River (Lake Roosevelt). The major river in the Subbasin is the Spokane River, which runs 111 miles from the outlet of Coeur d’ Alene Lake to its confluence with the Columbia River. The major tributaries of the Spokane River listed from upstream to downstream include Hangman Creek (also known as Latah Creek), Little Spokane River, and Chamokane Creek (also known as Tshimikain Creek). In eastern Washington and northern Idaho there are seven dams on the Spokane River. The city of Spokane Water Department owns, operates, and maintains Upriver Dam and is licensed for fifty years (FERC license 3074-WA, 1981-2031). Avista Corporation owns and operates the other six hydroelectric facilities. The six dams (from upstream to downstream) include Post Falls in Idaho, Upper Falls, Monroe Street, Nine Mile, Long Lake, and Little Falls located in Washington. Five of the six dams owned by Avista were constructed and were operating between 1906 and 1922. Monroe Street Dam was initially built in 1890 (Avista 2002; Scholz et al. 1985) and then reconstructed in 1973.
    [Show full text]
  • A Storypath Exploring the Lasting Legacy of Celilo Falls by Shana Brown
    Living in Celilo A Storypath Exploring the Lasting Legacy of Celilo Falls by Shana Brown Office of Native Education Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction Washington State Trillium Publishing, Inc. Acknowledgements Contents Shana Brown would like to thank: Carol Craig, Yakama Elder, writer, and historian, for her photos of Celilo as well as her Introduction to Storypath ..................... 2 expertise and her children’s story “I Wish I Had Seen the Falls.” Chucky is really her first grandson (and my cousin!). Episode 1: Creating the Setting ...............22 The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission for providing information about their organization and granting permission to use articles, including a piece from their Episode 2: Creating the Characters............42 magazine Wana Chinook Tymoo. Episode 3: Building Context ..................54 HistoryLink.org for granting permission to use the article “Dorothea Nordstrand Recalls Old Celilo Falls.” Episode 4: Authorizing the Dam ..............68 The Northwest Power and Conservation Council for granting permission to use an excerpt from the article “Celilo Falls.” Episode 5: Negotiations .....................86 Ritchie Graves, Chief of the NW Region Hydropower Division’s FCRPS Branch, NOAA Fisheries, for providing information on survival rates of salmon through the Episode 6: Broken Promises ................118 dams on the Columbia River system. Episode 7: Inundation .....................142 Sally Thompson, PhD., for granting permission to use her articles. Se-Ah-Dom Edmo, Shoshone-Bannock/Nez Perce/ Yakama, Coordinator of the Classroom-Based Assessment ...............154 Indigenous Ways of Knowing Program at Lewis & Clark College, Columbia River Board Member, and Vice President of the Oregon Indian Education Association, for providing invaluable feedback and guidance as well as copies of the actual notes and letters from the Celilo Falls Community Club.
    [Show full text]
  • Spokane River Basin
    334 Figure 40. Location of surface-water and water-quality stations in the Spokane River Basin. Figure 41. Schematic diagram showing surface-water and water-quality stations in the Spokane River Basin. 335 336 SPOKANE RIVER BASIN 12419000 SPOKANE RIVER NEAR POST FALLS, ID ° ° 1⁄ 1⁄ 1⁄ LOCATION.--Lat 47 42'11", long 116 58'37", in SW 4SW 4SW 4 sec.4, T.50 N., R.5 W., Kootenai County, Post Falls quad., Hydrologic Unit 17010305, on right bank, 1 mi downstream from powerplant of Avista Utilities, 1.5 mi southwest of Post Falls, and at mile 100.7. DRAINAGE AREA.--3,840 mi2, approximately, of which about 122 mi2 in the vicinity of Hayden Lake is noncontributing to this station. WATER-DISCHARGE RECORDS PERIOD OF RECORD.--October 1912 to current year (prior to January 1913, monthly discharge only, published in WSP 870 and 1736). Prior to October 1949, published as “at Post Falls.” GAGE.--Water-stage recorder. Datum of gage is 2,050 ft, referred to originally accepted elevation of 2,157.40 ft for the U.S. Geological Survey bench mark in southeast corner of Idaho First National Bank Building (see WSP 882). Gage datum is 2,047.00 ft above NGVD of 1929. Jan. 1, 1913, to Nov. 21, 1920, nonrecording gage, and Nov. 22, 1920, to Sept. 15, 1934, recording gage 0.6 mi upstream. From Sept. 16, 1934, to Nov. 15, 1949, recording gage 0.8 mi upstream. From Nov. 16, 1949, at present site. Datum of all gages prior to Sept. 30, 1964, 50 ft lower.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 I N V E S T I N G I N O U R S H a R E D F U T U R E 2010
    INVESTING IN OUR SHARED FUTURE 2010 ANNUAL REPORT A STATEMENT OF OUR PURPOSE: DELIVERING RELIABLE ENERGY SERVICE AND THE CHOICES THAT MATTER MOST TO YOU. THIS IS THE IDEA THAT GUIDES OUR WORK EVERY DAY • IT IS THE YARDSTICK AGAINST WHICH WE GAUGE OUR PRIORITIES AND MEASURE OUR RESULTS. IT EXPRESSES WHAT WE WORK TOWARD • OUR SHARED FUTURE. ON THE COVER: Avista looks back on 2010 as a year of investment in our shared future. Operational challenges were met head-on and programs successfully implemented which resulted in strong financial health and a clear, empowered vision for moving forward. ON THIS PAGE: Natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel. Its most efficient use is to directly heat homes and businesses. Construction of new natural gas lines continues as Avista meets increasing residential and business demand for this clean heating source. Scott Morris Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer D EAR FelloW SHAREHOLDERS: Let’s talk about two thoughts: FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS We’ve come through 2010 with solid [ shared value and shared future. As a financial results and modest growth. We believe these are good outcomes given the shareholder of Avista Corp., you have weak economy both regionally and nationally. invested in the work of this company – The year started with weather that once again set records. This time, though, it wasn’t record for today and for tomorrow. As the snow levels as in 2009; instead 2010 was one of the warmest January to March time chairman of Avista Corp., my job is periods in this region. This resulted in lower than normal energy use from customers to to see that your trust in our work is heat their homes and businesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Consultation
    Health Consultation EVALUATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) IN FISH FROM LONG LAKE (A.K.A. LONG SPOKANE) SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON APRIL 25, 2005 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Atlanta, Georgia 30333 Health Consultation: A Note of Explanation An ATSDR health consultation is a verbal or written response from ATSDR to a specific request for information about health risks related to a specific site, a chemical release, or the presence of hazardous material. In order to prevent or mitigate exposures, a consultation may lead to specific actions, such as restricting use of or replacing water supplies; intensifying environmental sampling; restricting site access; or removing the contaminated material. In addition, consultations may recommend additional public health actions, such as conducting health surveillance activities to evaluate exposure or trends in adverse health outcomes; conducting biological indicators of exposure studies to assess exposure; and providing health education for health care providers and community members. This concludes the health consultation process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR which, in the Agency’s opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued. You May Contact ATSDR TOLL FREE at 1-888-42ATSDR or Visit our Home Page at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov HEALTH CONSULTATION EVALUATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) IN FISH FROM LONG LAKE (A.K.A. LONG SPOKANE) CITY OF SPOKANE, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON Prepared by: Washington State Department of Health Under Cooperative Agreement with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F Generation Cost and Performance Appendix Fbi Biomass
    APPENDIX F GENERATION COST AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................................................2 ANALYTICAL APPROACH............................................................................................................................................3 REPRESENTATIVE RESOURCE CHARACTERIZATIONS .............................................................................................................3 APPENDIX FBI BIOMASS APPENDIX FNU NUCLEAR POWER APPENDIX FCO COAL APPENDIX FOE OCEAN ENERGY APPENDIX FGT GEOTHERMAL APPENDIX FSO SOLAR APPENDIX FHY HYDROPOWER APPENDIX FWN WIND APPENDIX FNG NATURAL GAS F-1 Draft Fourth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan, Appendix F GENERATION COST AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Appendix F provides the analysis used to characterize the generating resource alternatives described in this draft plan. Table F-1 lists the types of resources analyzed and summarizes the resulting cost and resource potential. Following this overview are detailed descriptions of each resource. A brief description of the process used to analyze each resource follows. Table F-1 Generating Resource Costs and Potential Block Code Resource Base-Year Technology Ref. Lev. Energy CostsBlock Firm Energy (m/kWh, real): (MWa) GEO 1 Geothermal 1995 Flash or Binary 49.7 576 GEO 103 Geothermal 1995 Flash or Binary 49.7 576 GEO 2 Geothermal 1995 Flash or Binary 59.6 414 GEO 3 Geothermal 1995 Flash or Binary 72.8
    [Show full text]
  • October 2017) (Implements RCW 34.05.320) Do NOT Use for Expedited Rule Making
    CODE REVISER USE ONLY PROPOSED RULE MAKING CR-102 (October 2017) (Implements RCW 34.05.320) Do NOT use for expedited rule making Agency: Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) ☒ Original Notice ☐ Supplemental Notice to WSR ☐ Continuance of WSR ☒ Preproposal Statement of Inquiry was filed as WSR 19-13-052 June 13, 2019 ; or ☐ Expedited Rule Making--Proposed notice was filed as WSR ; or ☐ Proposal is exempt under RCW 34.05.310(4) or 34.05.330(1); or ☐ Proposal is exempt under RCW . Title of rule and other identifying information: (describe subject) The department is considering amendments to freshwater recreational gamefish rules. 220-310-070 – Statewide bait rules 220-310-090 – Game fish possession limits and size limits 220-312-010 – Freshwater exceptions to statewide rules – General rules 220-312-020 – Freshwater exceptions to statewide rules – Coast 220-312-030 – Freshwater exceptions to statewide rules – Southwest 220-312-040 – Freshwater exceptions to statewide rules – Puget Sound 220-312-050 – Freshwater exceptions to statewide rules – Eastside Hearing location(s): Date: Time: Location: (be specific) Comment: October 18-19, 2019 8:00 am Natural Resource Building, 1111 Washington St. SE, Olympia, WA 98501 Date of intended adoption: October 20, 2019 (Note: This is NOT the effective date) Submit written comments to: Name: WDFW Rules Coordinator Address: PO Box 43152 Olympia, WA 98501 Email: [email protected] Fax: 360-902-2155 Other: By (date) October 17, 2019 Assistance for persons with disabilities: Contact WDFW ADA Manager Phone: 360-902-2349 Fax: TTY: 360-902-2207 Email: [email protected] Other: By (date) October 17, 2019 Page 1 of 4 AMENDATORY SECTION (Amending WSR 18-06-045, filed 3/1/18, effective 4/1/18) WAC 220-312-010 Freshwater exceptions to statewide rules—Gener- al rules.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of (Historic Places Registration Form
    NPS Form 'iO-900 ~«QM.B No. 10024-0018 (Oct. 1990) United States Department of [the In National Park Service APR I 8 f995 National Register of (Historic Places Registration Form UtMC'r RESOURCES DIVISION NATIONAL PARK SERVICE This form is for use in nominating oiireauesWc| ^tttrtfeinHfctefe^»tt<dBH^UfiMperties aha-1dT^frhife.rH<^S^K^eS£IM<9!ON c1omPtefe the National Register of Historic Places fie£/is1r%fio7)Fo7rirfni^^ 3i9l|4dtfaGtiM4lj1Bftft|( 9£$pfh'c?(" >n the pppropriate box or by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the |—[—K[**...;...| j^...^^^ g^^ "NW for fyflt applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from {he Infill UUIIUiu. I 'tale additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NFS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name Spokane River Bridge at Long Lake Dam other names/site number WSDOT 231/101 2. Location street & number State Route 231. spanning the Spokane River D not for publication city or town Rearden____________________________ _ S vicinity state Washington code WA county Lincoln & Stevens code 043 T zip code 99Q29 _____________________________065 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this IE1 nomination D request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property Kj meets D does not meet the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • A Storypath Exploring the Lasting Legacy of Celilo Falls
    Living in Celilo – A Storypath Exploring the Lasting Legacy of Celilo Falls By Shana Brown Office of Native Education/Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Washington State In cooperation with Trillium Publishing, Inc. Acknowledgements Shana Brown would like to thank: Carol Craig, Yakama Elder, writer, and historian, for her photos of Celilo as well as her expertise and her children’s story, “I Wish I Had Seen the Falls.” Chucky is really her first grandson (and my cousin). The Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission for providing information about their organization and granting permission to use articles, including a piece from their magazine, Wana Chinook Tymoo. HistoryLink.org for granting permission to use the article, “Dorothea Nordstrand Recalls Old Celilo Falls.” The Northwest Power and Conservation Council for granting permission to use an excerpt from the article, “Celilo Falls.” Ritchie Graves, Chief of the NW Region Hydropower Division’s FCRPS Branch, NOAA Fisheries, for providing information on survival rates of salmon through the dams on the Columbia River system. Sally Thompson, PhD., for granting permission to use her articles. Se-Ah-Dom Edmo, Shoshone-Bannock/Nez Perce/Yakama, Coordinator of the Indigenous Ways of Knowing Program at Lewis and Clark College, Columbia River Board Member, and Vice- President of the Oregon Indian Education Association, for providing invaluable feedback and guidance as well as copies of the actual notes and letters from the Celilo Falls Community Club. The Oregon Historical Society for granting permission to use articles from the Oregon Historical Quarterly. The Oregon Historical Society Research Library Moving Image Collections for granting permission to use video material.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Lake Spokane Fishery Enhancement
    AVISTA CORPORATION REVISED LAKE SPOKANE FISHERY ENHANCEMENT AND CREEL SURVEY PLAN LICENSE ARTICLE 406 Spokane River Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2545 Revised By: Avista Corporation in Coordination with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Prepared By: NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 40 Cascade Ave. Suite 40 PO Box 1159 Stevenson, WA 98648 Revised March 15, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 Plan Overview ..................................................................................................................... 4 4.0 Trout Stocking .................................................................................................................... 5 4.1 Procurement and Criteria ................................................................................................ 5 4.2 Stocking Schedule and Location .................................................................................... 5 5.0 Creel Survey ....................................................................................................................... 6 5.1 Survey Design Overview ................................................................................................ 6 5.2 Angler Counts ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Health Consultation
    Health Consultation EVALUATION OF PCBs, PBDEs AND SELECTED METALS IN THE SPOKANE RIVER, INCLUDING LONG LAKE SPOKANE, WASHINGTON AUGUST 28, 2007 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Atlanta, Georgia 30333 Health Consultation: A Note of Explanation An ATSDR health consultation is a verbal or written response from ATSDR to a specific request for information about health risks related to a specific site, a chemical release, or the presence of hazardous material. In order to prevent or mitigate exposures, a consultation may lead to specific actions, such as restricting use of or replacing water supplies; intensifying environmental sampling; restricting site access; or removing the contaminated material. In addition, consultations may recommend additional public health actions, such as conducting health surveillance activities to evaluate exposure or trends in adverse health outcomes; conducting biological indicators of exposure studies to assess exposure; and providing health education for health care providers and community members. This concludes the health consultation process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR which, in the Agency’s opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued. You May Contact ATSDR Toll Free at 1-800-CDC-INFO or Visit our Home Page at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov HEALTH CONSULTATION EVALUATION OF PCBs, PBDEs AND SELECTED METALS IN THE SPOKANE RIVER, INCLUDING LONG LAKE SPOKANE, WASHINGTON Prepared By: Washington State Department of Health Under a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Spokane River Evaluation Foreword The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) has prepared this health consultation in cooperation with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
    [Show full text]