Some Dam – Hydro News
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Final Environmental Impact Statement Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation Purpose and Need: The Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries are severely degraded as a result of two hydroelectric dams (projects) and their reservoirs built in the early 1900s. Congress has mandated the full restoration of this ecosystem and its native anadromous fisheries through the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act (Public Law 102-495). The Department of the Interior has found there is a need to return this river and the ecosystem to its natural, self-regulating state, and proposes to implement the Congressional mandate by removing both dams in a safe, environmentally sound and cost effective manner and implementing fisheries and ecosystem restoration planning. Only dam removal would fully restore the ecosystem or its native anadromous fisheries. Proposed Action: The U.S. Department of the Interior proposes to fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries through the removal of Elwha Dam and Glines Canyon Dam and implementing fish restoration and revegetation. Dam removal would occur over a 2-year period. Elwha Dam would be removed by blasting, and Glines Canyon Dam by a combination of blasting and diamond wire saw cutting. Lake Aldwell would be drained by a diversion channel, and Lake Mills by notching down Glines Canyon Dam. Stored sediment would be eroded naturally by the Elwha River. The proposed action is located in Clallam County, on the Olympic Peninsula, in Washington State. Lead/Cooperating agencies: The National Park Service is the lead agency. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. -
Lake Chelan Basin Overview View ‘Up-Lake’ of 90 Km (50 Mile) Long, 453 M (1486 Ft.) Deep Lake Chelan
J. Riedel Contributions to the 2018 Pacific Northwest Friends of the Pleistocene Field Conference Stop 1.2: Lake Chelan Basin Overview View ‘up-lake’ of 90 km (50 mile) long, 453 m (1486 ft.) deep Lake Chelan. There are three basins comprising Lake Chelan separated by bedrock sills: Stehekin, Lucerne, and Wapato (Figure 2). The Lucerne Basin is the deepest and longest, with relief of > 3200 m (10,660 000 ft.) from the bedrock floor of the valley to the summit of Bonanza Peak (2900 m) on its west valley wall (Figure 2). The shallower Wapato Basin is in part dammed by glacial drift south of Chelan (Stop 1.4; Runner 1921). Figure 1. Location of Lake Chelan in north-central Washington. Blue arrows at top indicate Fisher and Rainy passes, where Cordilleran Ice Sheet entered Chelan watershed. Waitt (2017) noted the ice sheet was 760 m thick over Rainy Pass. Figure 2. Longitudinal profile of the bottom of Lake Chelan (top) and seismic profiling of sub-bottom (UW and NPS unpublished). The Lucerne and Stehekin basins are superimposed on resistant Skagit Gneiss and Tertiary igneous bedrock. The upper part of the valley is cut into resistant gneiss, which allows the canyon walls to stand near vertically along the upper lake. The deepest part of Lake Chelan occurs in the Lucerne Basin in The Straits near Falls Creek, where the bedrock changes from gneiss to erodible volcanic rocks and schist. The lower two basins are separated at the Narrows, an accumulation of landslide debris from Slide Ridge on the south shore, and bedrock on the north shore (Whetten, 1967). -
Relicensing Update in This Issue: Settlement Discussions for Rocky Reach Relicensing
August 2005 Chelan County PUD RELICENSING UPDATE IN THIS ISSUE: Settlement discussions for Rocky Reach relicensing ..........1 Lake Chelan Dam still awaits biological opinion..............4 Lake Chelan Rocky Reach Hydroelectric Project Hydroelectric Project Settlement discussions for Rocky Reach relicensing flow into summer The Federal Energy project operations or make Regulatory Commission recommendations about (FERC) is currently preparing how Chelan County PUD a draft environmental should protect, mitigate or assessment of the license enhance resources affected application Chelan County by the project. Tribal PUD submitted in June, representatives, local agencies, 2004. In the meantime, the the City of Entiat and local utility continues to meet interested parties are also with a “Settlement Group” active Settlement Group of stakeholders who hope members. to propose a comprehensive The purpose of the settlement agreement to settlement process is to FERC before the end of this more effectively address year. issues which otherwise may During relicensing, a project result in legal challenge. Chelan PUD biologists Jeff Osborn (left) and Steve Hays is evaluated by FERC on the Resolving issues directly with (right) discuss the Bull Trout Management Plan with U.S. basis of how power and non- stakeholders allows local Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Steve Lewis (center). power uses of the affected solutions to prevail, rather water resource (i.e. the Rocky than awaiting decisions PMEs will be used by (for details on water quality Reach Reservoir) will be from Washington, D.C. FERC to develop license issues, see the March, 2005 managed for the next 30-50 Ultimately, a comprehensive articles, which will become Relicensing Update on years. -
Steelhead Response to the Removal of the Elwha River Dams
Steelhead response to the removal of the Elwha River Dams Photo by John McMillan Pacific Coast Steelhead Management Conference March 22 2018 Walla Walla, WA Acknowledgements Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Mike McHenry, Ray Moses, Larry Ward, Mel Elofson, Sonny Sampson, Wilson Wells, John Mahan, Doug Morill, Robert Dohrn, Randall McCoy, Matt Beirne National Park Service Brian Winter, Anna Geffre, Josh Geffre, Heidi Hugunin, Phil Kennedy, Sam Brenkman, Pat Crain, Kathryn Sutton NOAA Fisheries George Pess, Martin Liermann, Todd Bennett, Steve Corbett, Oleksandr Stefankiv, Amilee Wilson, Zach Hughes, Tim Tynan, Eric Ward USGS Jeff Duda, Andy Ritchie, Chris Curran, Amy East, Jon Warrick Trout Unlimited WDFW US Fish and Wildlife Service John McMillan Joe Anderson, Chris O’Connell, Randy Roger Peters US Bureau of Reclamation Cooper, Mike Gross, Andrew Claiborne & K Denton & Associates Jennifer Bountry, Tim Randle WDFW Fish Ageing Laboratory Keith Denton Elwha River 833 km2 watershed Elwha Dam • built 1913 • 32 m tall • River km 8 Glines Canyon Dam • Built 1927 • 64 m tall • River km 21 Pess et al. 2008 NW Science 115 km of habitat upstream of Elwha Dam site Photo montage compiled by George Pess Photos from NPS time lapse camera Photo montage compiled by George Pess Photos from NPS time lapse camera Sediment release • 21 million m3 of sediment stored in former reservoirs • 16 million m3 in Lake Mills (upstream of Glines) • 5 million m3 in Lake Aldwell (upstream of Elwha) • Approximately two-thirds evacuated from former reservoirs • 90% delivered to -
Lake Chelan Recertification Review Report 2018
REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR RE-CERTIFICATION BY THE LOW IMPACT HYDROPOWER INSTITUTE OF THE LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY Prepared by Patricia McIlvaine December 26, 2018; links added January 21, 2019 I. INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the review of the application submitted by the Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County (Chelan PUD or Applicant) to the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI) for re-certification of the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project FERC P-637 (Lake Chelan or Project). The Project was initially certified by LIHI as Low Impact in 2008 and re-certified in December 2012 as LIHI Certificate No. 30. The expiration date of the Certificate has been extended to allow for this review. This current re-certification review was conducted in compliance with LIHI’s Handbook, 2nd Edition, dated March 7, 2016. The December 2012 Recertification Report can be accessed via the link below. https://lowimpacthydro.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Recommendation-Memo-Lake-Chelan- 2012.pdf The Project’s December 2012 re-certification had no conditions. II. RECERTIFICATION PROCESS AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT Under the 2016 LIHI Handbook, reviews are a two-phase process starting with a limited review of a completed LIHI application, focused on three questions: (1) Is there any missing information from the application? (2) Has there been a material change in the operation of the certified facility since the previous certificate term? (3) Has there been a change in LIHI criteria since the Certificate was issued? In accordance with the Recertification Standards, if the only issue is that there is some missing information, the applicant will have the opportunity to provide the missing information, and this may or may not trigger a Stage II review. -
Coastal Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout (Salvelinus Confluentus)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Coastal Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Top left: Clackamas bull trout reintroduction, Clackamas River, Oregon. David Herasimtschuk, Freshwaters Illustrated; Top, right: Glines Canyon Dam removal, Elwha River, Washington. John Gussman, Doubleclick Productions; Center: South Fork Skagit River and Skagit Bay, Washington. City of Seattle; Bottom: Riverscape surveys, East Fork Quinault River, Washington. National Park Service, Olympic National Park Coastal Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) September 2015 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Lacey, Washington and Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office Portland, Oregon Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. A-1 Current Status of Bull Trout in the Coastal Recovery Unit ........................................................ A-6 Factors Affecting Bull Trout in the Coastal Recovery Unit ....................................................... A-8 Ongoing Coastal Recovery Unit Conservation Measures (Summary) ..................................... A-33 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation ..................................................................................... A-38 Recovery Measures Narrative ................................................................................................... A-39 Implementation Schedule for -
RELICENSING UPDATE in This Issue: Lake Chelan Project Study Updates
July 2000 Chelan County PUD RELICENSING UPDATE In this issue: Lake Chelan project Study updates ........................................................ Page 1 Rocky Reach project Study updates ........................................................ Page 2 Kayak photos A look at the gorge ................................................... Page 3 Get to know the PUD relicensing team Lake Chelan Rocky Reach Steve Hays, natural sciences consultant ....................... Page 4 Hydroelectric Project Hydroelectric Project License expires 2004 License expires 2006 LAKE CHELAN HYDRO PROJECT Kayakers make it through Chelan Gorge at three flows The flow of water in the gorge was controlled by opening Tracy Clapp of Sultan, Wash., a single gate at the Lake Chelan Dam upstream. Flows were finds his kayak 273 cubic feet per second the first day, 391 cfs the second pointing skyward day and 475 cfs the third day. Flows during spring runoff as he fights his way are more typically in the 1,000 to 2,000 cfs range, but they through whitewater can get above 12,000 cfs. in the gorge. Kayakers said they thought the middle flow was closest to what most visiting kayakers would like to see. But they also said the higher flow offered some extra challenges that visiting boaters would find enjoyable. More kayak The PUD must now wait for the final report from the photos, Page 3 kayaking study team evaluating the test. Then it will discuss the issue with other parties in the relicensing process to Six highly experienced kayakers made three successful determine whether kayaking will become part of the terms trips through the Chelan River Gorge July 8-10, demon- and conditions for a new license. -
Low Impact Hydropower Institute Re-Certification Application Lake
Low Impact Hydropower Institute Re-certification Application Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 637) Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County August 30, 2018 1 Contents Part 1. Facility Description ............................................................................................................. 3 The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 637. .................................................. 3 Part 2. Standards Matrices ............................................................................................................ 15 2.1 Zone of Effect 1 – Lake Chelan .......................................................................................... 15 Table 1 – Zone of Effect 1 ..................................................................................................... 15 2.2 Zone of Effect 2 – Reaches 1, 2, and 3 of the Chelan River ............................................... 28 Table 2 – Zone of Effect 2 ..................................................................................................... 28 2.3 Zone of Effect 3 – Reach 4 of the Chelan River ................................................................. 39 Table 3 – Zone of Effect 3 ..................................................................................................... 39 2.4 Zone of Effect 4 – Lake Chelan Project Tailrace ................................................................ 51 Table 4 – Zone of Effect 4 .................................................................................................... -
An Overview of Monitoring Options for Assessing the Response of Salmonids and Their Aquatic Ecosystems in the Elwha River Following Dam Removal
Michael L. McHenry1, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Fisheries Department, 51 Hatchery Road, Port Angeles, Washington 98363 and George R. Pess, NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, Washington 98112 An Overview of Monitoring Options for Assessing the Response of Salmonids and Their Aquatic Ecosystems in the Elwha River Following Dam Removal Abstract Removal of two hydroelectric dams on the Elwha River, Washington, one of the largest river restoration projects in the United States, represents a unique opportunity to assess the recovery of fish populations and aquatic ecosystems at the watershed scale. The current project implementation does not contain sufficient funding to support comprehensive monitoring of restoration ef- fectiveness. As a result, current monitoring efforts are piecemeal and uncoordinated, creating the possibility that project managers will not be able to answer fundamental questions concerning salmonid and ecosystem response. We present the initial elements of a monitoring framework designed to assess the effectiveness of dam removal on the recovery of Elwha River salmonids, their aquatic habitats, and the food webs of which they are an integral component. The monitoring framework is linked to the Elwha Fisheries Restoration Plan, which outlines the restoration of native stocks of salmon and relies upon a process of adaptive manage- ment. The monitoring framework includes two areas of emphasis—salmonid population recovery and ecosystem response. We provide study design considerations and make recommendations for additional monitoring efforts prior to dam removal. Based on a power analysis, we determined that a minimum of 3–11 years and up to 50 years of monitoring will be required to capture potential ecosystem responses following dam removal. -
Lake Chelan, Chelan River, Washington
Hydropower Reform Coalition Success Story LAKE CHELAN, CHELAN RIVER, WASHINGTON BALANCE IN LAKE CHELAN LEVELS Lake level management will protect against erosion at Stehekin Flats, control woody debris and riparian vegetation while maintaining local photo courtesy of recreation and tourism Chelan PUD industries NEW FLOWS IN THE CHELAN RIVER Minimum fl ows for fi sh habitat and special whitewater releases in the Chelan River photo courtesy of USGS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR LAKE CHELAN FISHERIES Watershed-wide improvements to Lake Chelan’s fi shery, including the removal of alluvium barriers in lake photo courtesy of tributaries and habitat National Park enhancements Service FERC PROJECT NUMBER: P-637 PROJECT OWNER: Chelan County PUD LAKE CHELAN PROJECT GENERATING CAPACITY: 59.2 MW PROJECT FIRST LICENSED: May 8, 1926 Chelan River, Washington SETTLEMENT ACHIEVED: October 8, 2003 CURRENT LICENSE ISSUED: November 6, 2006 LICENSE EXPIRATION DATE: October 31, 2056 Lake Chelan is a freshwater ord, a lake carved by ancient glaciers. At 1,500 feet deep and FEDERAL LANDS INUNDATED BY THE PROJECT: 361.4 55 miles long, it is the third deepest lake in the United States, and the longest and deepest acres (Wenatchee National Forest) and 104.1 acres lake in the state of Washington. The Chelan River, the lake’s outlet, fl ows four miles into the (Lake Chelan National Recreation Area of North Cascades National Park) Columbia River. Over a century ago, the Chelan River’s fl ows varied by a factor of ten: from 640 cfs in the winter to 6,400 cfs in late spring freshets. KEY SETTLEMENT SIGNATORIES AND SUPPORTERS: • Chelan County PUD (dam owner) Beginning in 1892, companies began to build dams at the outlet to raise and control Lake • Federal agencies: U.S. -
Wild Olympics
VOICE of the WILD OLYMPICS The Natural History of a Coastal Prairie In Olympic National Park by Ed Tisch Olympic Although typically they are forested, the tween Cape Alava and the north end of Lake Park Olympic lowlands support a sizeable number Ozette, belongs in the wet prairie category. It, Associates of coastal prairies. Harlan Bretz, an early too, has had a long fire history. In a recent in- Founded in 1948 Washington geologist, reported in 1913 that terview with Myra Vanderhoof, one of the last many of these occupy glacial outwash plains children born to homesteaders at the now-ex- and moraines (e.g., near Shelton and Sequim) tinct Lake Ozette settlement, she informed me Volume 10, No 2 where excessively-drained, gravelly soils pro- that in the early 1900s the white settlers found Spring 2002 duce summer-arid conditions. Fire has also an abundance of fire-scarred trees in the for- contributed to the sparsely-forested character ests adjoining Ahlstrom’s Prairie to the west. Contents of these “prairies,” which sometimes resemble At that time most of the trees between Ozette oak savannas. G.N. Jones, a 1937 University of and Cape Alava also seemed smaller than they Washington graduate student, felt that these are today. The homesteaders assumed that the OPA Meeting Schedule 2 “constituted the nearest approach to a grass- local Ozette Indians had burned their prairies land formation” in the Puget Trough region. to eliminate trees and to keep down the salal Congressional In stark contrast, however, the coastal prai- understories. When Myra first visited Contacts 2 ries of the rainy western Olympics are bog-like Ahlstrom’s Prairie, around 1927, she found it Roadless Bill ? 3 and tend to occur on clayey glacial tills where very sparsely forested. -
Salmon Vs. Dams: the Dam Removal Debate on the Elwha River
Salmon vs. Dams: The Dam Removal Debate on the Elwha River Teachers: This lesson contains a classroom project with background related to the AFG video clips about salmon vs. dams. These parts may be used individually or together, depending on the needs of your class. Note: You can access and view the video clips used in this lesson in the Teacher Resources section of the AFG Web site www.pbs.org/americanfieldguide/teachers. Grade Level: 10-12 Background Hydroelectric Power has long been touted as a clean alternative source of energy. It produces roughly 70% of the power in the Pacific Northwest. However, hydroelectric is not without its costs. Salmon runs on the major river systems, such as the Columbia River, and on minor rivers, such as the Elwha River in Olympic National Park, have suffered greatly in recent decades, and some of these salmon species are becoming listed as endangered or threatened species. Today, large dams on the Columbia River, owned by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) provide the majority of power for the Pacific Northwest. Yet hundreds of small, privately owned dams are scattered around the region. These are in various states of disrepair, and often only provide enough power to fuel a small community or one or two factories. However, these dams do as much or more damage to the salmon runs in their area than the large dams (BPA dams have extensive programs to help the fish successfully navigate the dams). This lesson is derived from real testimony given to Congress regarding two of these small dams in the pristine Olympic National Park in Washington.