DOCSLIB.ORG

Baker River Hydroelectric Project FERC No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Baker River Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2150 PDEA Initial Review Comments 1/16/04 The documents available to the general public, apparently Volume I, Part 1 of 2, and Volume II, Part 1 of 2, exclude key information including the results of numerous studies and other documents that are part of the license submittal. Because so many studies are incomplete and have therefore not been incorporated into the substantive compilation of factual material relevant to the current re-licensing effort, it is difficult to comment from the County’s perspective regarding addition of flood storage in the Baker Project. For example, there are several references to study “A09,” as yet incomplete, which will provide essential information regarding salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. It is also difficult to comment on a report that does not include the recommended conditions considered necessary to protect fish and wildlife from the federal resource agencies. In numerous instances, the PDEA refers to future actions that will be undertaken after the license is issued. (See page 5-117.) The mechanism to ensure these actions are completed is not clear. It should be noted that Puget Sound Energy (PSE) has refused to conduct a flood control study1 requested by Skagit County on December 2, 2002, to verify the County’s reservoir elevation recommendations, primarily based upon a concern that this study will not be complete in time to include with the license submittal. Yet in several other areas of the re-licensing effort, results of other studies are clearly late being produced. Volume I Page VI, (8 iii) While the Project is not physically located within a special purpose district, the operations of the Project can and will have significant impacts upon the following special purpose districts that are downstream: Dike District #1 Dike District #12 Dike District #3 Dike District #17 Dike District #4 Dike District #20 Dike District #8 Dike District #22 Dike District #9 Note that the above referenced special purpose districts have expressed interest in the application for the Baker Project per the letter to Stephen P. Reynolds, President, CEO and Director of PSE.2 1 Baker River Project Relicensing Study Request titled “Evaluation of Optimal Flood Control Storage in Baker Project,” submitted by Dave Brookings, Skagit County Public Works, Skagit County PUD #1, City of Anacortes, and the Town of Concrete to the Economics and Operations Working Group, December 2, 2002. Skagit County PDEA Initial Review Comments, FERC No. 2150 Page VI, (8 iv) There are other political subdivisions that would be affected by the operations of the Baker Project that are not identified. The following cities and towns have expressed an interest in the proposed license application for the Baker Project per the letter to Stephen P. Reynolds, President, CEO and Director of PSE (see footnote 2): Town of Concrete Town of Hamilton Town of Lyman City of Sedro-Woolley City of Burlington City of Mount Vernon Town of La Conner Page B-5, B.2.4 - Reservoir Operation Curves, B.2.4.1 Lower Baker Development While flood control storage is not legally mandated in the Lower Baker Project, both historic and recent (October 2003) flood events clearly demonstrate that if the reservoir in Lake Shannon was managed correctly at the onset of a given flood event that the resulting reduction in downstream flood damages would be significant. The spreadsheets and graphs3 illustrate that during the 1990 and 1995 flood events, Lake Shannon was held at elevation 438, which is nearly at full pool providing virtually no relief for the local inflow and spill coming from the Upper Baker reservoir when it exceeds its capacity. By keeping Lake Shannon full during these events, the result was an increase in downstream water surface elevations and damages. The 1990 and 1995 events were federally declared disasters causing over $60 million dollars in actual documented damages.4 At the February 2003 Executive Committee Meeting, Skagit County and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) agreed to hire a consulting firm, Pacific International Engineering (PIE), to perform a reconnaissance level reevaluation of the potential benefits of additional storage.5 The results indicated that a full optimization of flood storage should be evaluated. Skagit County in coordination with the Corps hired engineering consultant, PIE, to perform the study to evaluate how the reservoirs were being operated and whether they could be further 2 May 5, 2002 letter to Stephen Reynolds, President Chief Executive Officer and Director of PSE, signed by 41 Skagit County Government Officials including the Board of County Commissioners, City and Town Mayors and Special Purpose District Commissioners requesting additional Baker Project Flood Control Storage. 3 Hydrologic data spreadsheets and graphs illustrating 1990 and 1995 flood events and Baker Dam response prepared from data supplied by PSE to the Aquatic Working Group. Analysis and supporting graphs prepared by Skagit County Public Works and distributed to PSE working groups and Corps Flood Control Operations and Corps General Investigation personnel in September and October 2003. 4 Upper Baker Flood Control PowerPoint presentation by Wayne Wagner, Corps, November 16, 2000, Page 22. Presented to the PSE Aquatic Work Group. 5 Technical Assessment of additional flood control storage at Baker River Project prepared by PIE at the direction of the Executive Committee of the Skagit River Flood Hazard Reduction Feasibility Study, completed April 9, 2003. Page 2 of 15 C:\Documents and Settings\briany\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C4\PDEA (2).DOC Skagit County PDEA Initial Review Comments, FERC No. 2150 optimized for flood control.6 The Board of Skagit County Commissioners (Board) then sent a letter on May 5, 2003 to PSE, signed by 41 Skagit County government officials requesting that additional flood control be included as part of the re-licensing process. The early results of the Baker River Storage Study investigation indicated that the existing Corps hydrological data under-estimated the Baker River hydrology by 25%. The Corps is currently in the process of reevaluating and revising this data. Further results of the flood control optimization produced a model using an Excel spreadsheet which helped demonstrate the amount of additional storage available at the Baker River Project.7 This study clearly concluded that the Lower Baker reservoir could be operated differently by creating additional storage at the initial threat of a flood and at the beginning of the flood season to augment the flood control storage in Upper Baker.8 This minor adjustment in operating procedure could result in fewer downstream levee failures, reduce flood damages and save lives. In September 2003, the Board sent a letter to the Solution Team members to explain the County’s position on requesting that additional flood control be included as part of the re- licensing process.9 The Board was convinced of these findings and sent the attached letter10 to PSE on October 14, 2003, specifically requesting that the Lower Baker reservoir be maintained at an elevation of 430 (NGVD 29) from November 15 to January 15, and upon notification from Skagit County based on a National Weather Service forecast of an approaching storm event with significant flood potential, Lake Shannon be dropped an additional five feet to elevation 425 (NGVD 29) to make room to attenuate a flood event. The County also requested that generation at both of the Baker Dams be curtailed when flood flows exceed 120,000 cfs at the Concrete gage. On October 21, 2003, the Skagit River and many of its tributaries experienced heavy rainfall resulting in a 50-year flood event. PSE and the Corps collectively operated the Lower Baker11 in a manner consistent with the Boards request which resulted in a lower water surface elevation12 6 Baker River Dams Storage Evaluation scope of work prepared by Corps, revised June 11, 2003, as a delivery order to participate in and provide hydraulic engineering expertise for an evaluation for the optimal flood storage that can be utilized for Lower and Upper Baker Dams to reduce flood damages for the Skagit River floodplain. 7 Draft Executive Summary for the Baker River Dams Storage Evaluation Numeric Modeling of Historic Flood Events and illustration of model output prepared by PIE. 8 PowerPoint presentation by Corps, October 18, 2002, titled “Information and Coordination Meeting with Skagit County, Upper Baker Flood Control Project.” 9 September 9, 2003 letter to Solution Team members from the Board of Commissioners on the additional flood storage and revised operation of the Baker Hydroelectric Project. 10 October 14, 2003 letter to Stephen P. Reynolds, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of PSE from the Board Commissioners requesting that PSE modify the operation of Lake Shannon pool during the upcoming flood season. 11 October 2003 Skagit River Flood Control PowerPoint presentation prepared by Marian Valentine, P.E., Corps, and presented to Burlington City Council on December 11, 2003. Page 3 of 15 C:\Documents and Settings\briany\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C4\PDEA (2).DOC Skagit County PDEA Initial Review Comments, FERC No. 2150 and reduced damages that otherwise could have occurred.13 While Skagit County is very appreciative of this recent action,14 it clearly demonstrates the need for PSE, Skagit County and the Corps to reevaluate the reservoir operation curves and operations at both reservoirs for flood control as part of the licensing process.15 While we understand the challenge that PSE faces with balancing competing interests, we feel that the optimization of flood control should be assigned the highest priority and be given adequate consideration in the licensing process. To date, as PSE diligently tries to persuade the resource agencies to sign a settlement agreement that addresses environmental concerns, they have continually delayed any analysis of the flood control issue by withholding information and failing to act upon the County’s December 2002 study request for a thorough review of improving flood control.
Recommended publications
  • Baker Sockeye Briefing

    Baker Sockeye Briefing

    Baker Sockeye Briefing Aaron Dufault and Edward Eleazer Commission Meeting 10/27/2017 WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Information subject to changes 1 Outline • History/Background • Fishery Management • Harvest/Sharing Updated through 2017 • Challenges • Proposed solutions • Summary Commission Meeting 10/27/2017 WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Information subject to changes 2 Baker Lake History • Native Baker River sockeye run blocked by Lower Baker Dam (Lake Shannon) in 1925 – ladder for fish passage • Upper Baker Dam (1959) – enlarged Baker lake • Blocked upstream fish passage • Human transport of adults/smolts from lake to Baker river • Hatchery dependent run – low levels of natural spawning in Baker Lake/River Commission Meeting 10/27/2017 WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Information subject to changes 3 Fishing Locations – Skagit R. Baker Lake Lake Shannon Tribal U&A * Baker Trap Rec. Fishery * Mt. Vernon Skagit Bay Commission Meeting 10/27/2017 WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Information subject to changes 4 In-Season Management • Baker Trap Counts • Flow Dependent – can be variable • 20 day migration from mouth to trap • Treaty Test Fisheries 6/1 6/11 6/21 7/1 7/11 7/21 7/31 8/10 8/20 8/30 • Started in 2012 – no timeline if/when test fisheries will become useful for in-season run updates • In-Season Update (ISU) Models– utilize trap counts to predict total runsize • Reliability of models greatly increases after 50% migration • Migration time limits effectiveness of in-season actions Commission Meeting 10/27/2017 WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Information subject to changes 5 2014/15 Baker Lake Workshops • 2 Public Workshops in Fall/Winter 2014/15 • Prompted following poor return in 2014 and sharing imbalance between state and tribes • Primary Outcomes: • River vs Lake Fishery Priority of harvest (sliding scale with runsize) • Bag limits (runsize dependent in lake) • Fisheries start and end dates • Post 2014/15 workshops, continue to work with key stakeholders to address concerns • Most recent meeting on Oct.
  • Mount Baker, Washington

    Mount Baker, Washington

    WATER-QUALITY EFFECTS ON BAKER LAKE OF RECENT VOLCANIC ACTIVITY AT MOUNT BAKER, WASHINGTON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1022-B Prepared in cooperation with the State of Washington Department of Ecology Water-Quality Effects on Baker Lake of Recent Volcanic Activity at Mount Baker, Washington By G. C. BORTLESON, R. T. WILSON, and B. L. FOXWORTHY VOLCANIC ACTIVITY AT MOUNT BAKER, WASHINGTON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1022-B Prepared in cooperation with the State of Washington Department of Ecology UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1977 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Bortleson, Gilbert Carl, 1940- Water-quality effects on Baker Lake of recent volcanic activity at Mount Baker, Washington. (Volcanic Activity at Mt. Baker) (Geologic Survey Professional Paper 1022-B) Bibliography: p. 30. Supt.ofDocs.no.: I 19.16:1022-6 1. Water quality-Washington (State)--Baker Lake. 2. Volcanism-Washington (State). 3. Baker, Mount, Wash. I. Wilson, Reed T., joint author. II. Foxworthy, Bruce, La Verne, 1925- joint author. III. Washington (State). Dept. of Ecology. IV. Title. V. Series: Volcanic activity at Mount Baker, Washington. VI. Series: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1022-B. TD224.W2B67 363.6'1 77-21097 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 024-001-03008-0 CONTENTS Conversion factors _________________________. Ill Quality of surface waters draining to Baker Lake ______B16 Abstract__________________________________. Bl Water in Sherman Crater __________________ 16 Introduction ______________________________. 1 Boulder Creek and other streams _____________.
  • Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Geothermal Power Plant Environmental Impact Assessment Evan Derickson Western Washington University

    Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Geothermal Power Plant Environmental Impact Assessment Evan Derickson Western Washington University

    Western Washington University Western CEDAR Huxley College Graduate and Undergraduate Huxley College of the Environment Publications Winter 2013 Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest geothermal power plant environmental impact assessment Evan Derickson Western Washington University Ethan Holzer Western Washington University Brandon Johansen Western Washington University Audra McCafferty Western Washington University Eric Messerschmidt Western Washington University See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/huxley_stupubs Part of the Environmental Studies Commons Recommended Citation Derickson, Evan; Holzer, Ethan; Johansen, Brandon; McCafferty, Audra; Messerschmidt, Eric; and Olsen, Kyle, "Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie National Forest geothermal power plant environmental impact assessment" (2013). Huxley College Graduate and Undergraduate Publications. 29. https://cedar.wwu.edu/huxley_stupubs/29 This Environmental Impact Assessment is brought to you for free and open access by the Huxley College of the Environment at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Huxley College Graduate and Undergraduate Publications by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Author Evan Derickson, Ethan Holzer, Brandon Johansen, Audra McCafferty, Eric Messerschmidt, and Kyle Olsen This environmental impact assessment is available at Western CEDAR: https://cedar.wwu.edu/huxley_stupubs/29 Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Geothermal Power
  • CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN Baker River Alluvial Fan Enhancement

    CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN Baker River Alluvial Fan Enhancement

    SKAGIT COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN Baker River Alluvial RESTORATION STRATEGY CONCEPT ELEMENTS 1. Increase off -channel rearing habitat by excavating a 11. Replace the existing shoreline stairway 66.6. Substitute pervious, natural-surface pedestrian channel connecting the mainstem Skagit with an off - shoreline access trails for impervious road surfaces. Fan Enhancement channel pond. 22.2. Reduce imperviousness of vehicular and pedestrian access along river banks 77.7. Provide channels to link habitats of the historic Little BACKGROUND 2. Improve instream complexity by adding large woody Baker River channel and alluvial fan as a backwater debris. 3.3. Replace invasive plant species with native trees and The Baker River Alluvial Fan area at the confl uence with 3 channel. shrubs. the larger Skagit River is located partly within the Town 3. Substitute pervious pedestrian trails for impervious 88.8. Provide low-impact recreational improvements such of Concrete and partly in unincorporated Skagit County. vehicular access road and parking areas where feasible 44. Improve the existing WDFW boat launch site as campgrounds outside the fl oodway. For more than a decade, various stakeholders including in areas adjacent to the Baker and Skagit Rivers. user groups, landowners, local governments, and other 55.5. Improve sinuosity of lower Baker River, establish 99.9. Place boulders, log structures, and/or engineered log interested parties have been considering habitat and 4. Remove invasive plant species and replace them with fl oodplain benches and meanders. jams to increase low-fl ow complexity and improve recreational improvement opportunities along the lower native trees and shrubs to provide riparian functions salmonid fi sh habitat for juvenile rearing and adult Baker River and its associated alluvial fan.
  • The Wild Cascades

    The Wild Cascades

    THE WILD CASCADES Fall, 1984 2 The Wild Cascades PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE ONCE THE LINES ARE DRAWN, THE BATTLE IS NOT OVER The North Cascades Conservation Council has developed a reputation for consistent, hard-hitting, responsible action to protect wildland resources in the Washington Cascades. It is perhaps best known for leading the fight to preserve and protect the North Cascades in the North Cascades National Park, the Pasayten and Glacier Peak Wilderness Areas, and the Ross Lake and Lake Chelan National Recreation Areas. Despite the recent passage of the Washington Wilderness Act, many areas which deserve and require wilderness designation remain unprotected. One of the goals of the N3C must be to assure protection for these areas. In this issue of the Wild Cascades we have analyzed the Washington Wilderness Act to see what we won and what still hangs in the balance (page ). The N3C will continue to fight to establish new wilderness areas, but there is also a new challenge. Our expertise is increasingly being sought by government agencies to assist in developing appropriate management plans and to support them against attempts to undermine such plans. The invitation to participate more fully in management activities will require considerable effort, but it represents a challenge and an opportunity that cannot be ignored. If we are to meet this challenge we will need members who are either knowledgable or willing to learn about an issue and to guide the Board in its actions. The Spring issue of the Wild Cascades carried a center section with two requests: 1) volunteers to assist and guide the organization on various issues; and 2) payment of dues.
  • Historical Record of Fish Related Issues on the Skagit River

    Historical Record of Fish Related Issues on the Skagit River

    HISTORICAL RECORD OF FISH RELATED ISSUES ON THE SKAGIT RIVER SKAGIT COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1897 THROUGH 1969 By Larry Kunzler June 4, 2005 Updated and republished June 2008 www.skagitriverhistory.com Historical Record of Fish Related Issues On The Skagit River Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ 2 PREFACE....................................................................................................................................... 4 Levees and Fish Discussed Early in Skagit History ....................................................................... 5 Flood Control Projects Impacted Fish Runs ................................................................................... 5 Fish Hatchery At Baker Lake Stops Work For Winter................................................................... 6 Seattle To Build State Hatchery On Upper River........................................................................... 6 Forest Service To Survey Road From Here To Baker Lake........................................................... 7 O’malley Is Appointed As Fish Commissioner.............................................................................. 7 Fish Hatchery Man Has Exciting Trip To Lake.............................................................................. 7 Preliminary Work On Baker Lake Road Started This Week.......................................................... 8 Power Company To Continue
  • Assessment of Energy Storage Alternatives in the Puget Sound Energy System

    Assessment of Energy Storage Alternatives in the Puget Sound Energy System

    PNNL- 23040 Assessment of Energy Storage Alternatives in the Puget Sound Energy System Volume 1: Financial Feasibility Analysis December 2013 Patrick Balducci, PNNL Patrick Leslie, Puget Sound Energy Chunlian Jin, PNNL Charles Daitch, Puget Sound Energy Di Wu, PNNL Andy Marshall, Primus Power Michael Kintner-Meyer, PNNL PNNL-23040 Assessment of Energy Storage Alternatives in the Puget Sound Energy System Volume 1: Financial Feasibility Analysis P Balducci, PNNL C Jin, PNNL D Wu, PNNL M Kintner-Meyer, PNNL P Leslie, Puget Sound Energy C Daitch, Puget Sound Energy A Marshall, Primus Power December 2013 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 and the Bonneville Power Administration. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Executive Summary For more than a decade, the Pacific Northwest has been capable of generating more electric energy than the region’s utilities required for meeting customer demand. Now, however, the Regional Resource Adequacy Forum’s five-year forecast indicates the region will soon reach load-resource balance. As capacity constraints loom, the percentage of renewables on the grid continues to grow, driven by renewable portfolio standards throughout the region, production tax credits and decreasing costs. In the Bonneville Power Administration region, with a total of 6 gigawatts of wind power, the need to manage the variability and intermittency of renewable energy resources has become a very real challenge, sometimes necessitating wind curtailments to sustain reliable operations. The continued increase of these renewable sources will necessitate the deployment of technologies that can address intermittency in an environmentally sustainable fashion. Energy storage systems have the potential to improve the operating capabilities of the electricity grid.
  • Propagation and Distribution of Food Fishes

    Propagation and Distribution of Food Fishes

    U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE R. P. LAMONT, Secretary BUREAU OF FISHERIES HENRY O'MALLEY, Commieeioner Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 1098 PROPAGATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD FISHES FISCAL YEAR 1930 By GLEN C. LEACH APPENDIX XVI TO REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1930 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON i 1931 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. - - - - - - - - - Price 15 cents PROPAGATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD FISHES, FISCAL 1 YEAR 1930 By GLEN C. LEACH, Chief, Division of Fish Culture CONTENTS Page Introduction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1125 Part 1.—Fish Production: Propagation and Rescue Work Species handled _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1126 Output 1127 Cooperation with other conservation agencies - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1128 Cooperative fish nurseries - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1129 State fish-cultural activities - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1132 Salvage of food fishes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1135 Transfers of eggs between stations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1136 Shipments to foreign countries - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1137 Output of stations and substations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1137 Egg collections - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  • D Electric Resources & Alternatives

    D Electric Resources & Alternatives

    D Electric Resources & Alternatives This appendix describes PSE’s existing electric resources; current electric resource alternatives and the viability and availability of each; and estimated ranges for capital and operating costs. 1 1 / Operating costs are defined as operation and maintenance costs, insurance and property taxes. Capital costs are defined as depreciation and carrying costs on capital expenditures. D- 1 FINAL PSE 2021 IRP D Electric Resources & Alternatives Contents 1. RESOURCE TYPES D-3 2. EXISTING RESOURCES INVENTORY D-7 • Supply-side Thermal Resources • Supply-side Renewable Resources • Supply-side Contract Resources • Supply-side Transmission Resources • Demand-side Resources • Demand-side Customer Programs 3. ELECTRIC RESOURCE ALTERNATIVES D-36 • Demand-side Resource Costs and Technologies • Supply-side Renewable Resource Costs and Technologies • Supply-side Thermal Resource Costs and Technologies D- 2 FINAL PSE 2021 IRP D Electric Resources & Alternatives 1. RESOURCE TYPES The following overview summarizes some of the distinctions used to classify electric resources. Supply-side and Demand-side Both of these types of resources are capable of enabling PSE to meet customer loads. Supply- side resources provide electricity to meet load, and these resources originate on the utility side of the meter. Demand-side resources contribute to meeting need by reducing demand. An “integrated” resource plan includes both supply- and demand-side resources. SUPPLY-SIDE RESOURCES for PSE include: • Generating plants, including
  • Total Dissolved Gas Abatement Plan

    Total Dissolved Gas Abatement Plan

    TOTAL DISSOLVED GAS ABATEMENT PLAN BAKER RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 2150 Puget Sound Energy Bellevue, Washington November 2, 2009 Baker TDG Abatement Plan.Doc PUGET SOUND ENERGY Baker River Hydroelectric Project Doc ID: BAK.20091102.0201.PSE.DOE 2 November 2009 Total Dissolved Gas Abatement Plan CONTENTS CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of this TDG Abatement Plan .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Organization of This TDG Abatement Plan...................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Project Features............................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 TDG Information........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 TDG Sources at Hydroelectric Projects...........................................................................................................................
  • Section 2. Hazard Summaries

    Section 2. Hazard Summaries

    Whatcom County SECTION 2: HAZARD SUMMARIES Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan SECTION 2. HAZARD SUMMARIES The following seven natural hazards were identified to be significant risks to the county, and specifically hazardous to the populated western areas of Whatcom County: 1. Earthquakes 2. Flooding 3. Geologic Hazards 4. Severe Storms 5. Tsunamis 6. Volcanoes 7. Wildland Fires The updated HIVA was received late in the plan update process and will be the basis for the next version of the all hazards plan. The following sections describe the seven significant natural hazards and their potential threats to Whatcom County. Much of the information collected in these hazard summaries came from local experts working in hazard assessment or hazard mitigation for a specific hazard. The summaries describe the hazards, convey the areas at potential risk from each hazard, and describe mitigation measures as implemented in the past or to be implemented in the future to manage the effects of natural disasters in Whatcom County. Each hazard description is organized into the following parts: Hazard Related Definitions Background Information General description of the hazard relevant to Whatcom County and Washington State History Historical background on the presence of the hazard in Whatcom County; much of this information was obtained from agencies such as FEMA, the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), and the U.S. Geological Society (USGS) Vulnerability Assessment Descriptions of specific areas within the county at risk for each hazard, when this information was available Mitigation Strategies Recommended mitigation strategies to lessen the dangers posed by each hazard Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office Division of Emergency Management Original Submission: June 1, 2015 2 - 1 FEMA Approval: Dec 15, 2016 Whatcom County SECTION 2: HAZARD SUMMARIES Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Whatcom County’s Planning and Development Services provided the entire hazard GIS datasets, except for the Wildland Fire data, which came from WDNR’s North Region.
  • Puget Sound Power and Light Company Records, Acc. No. 2250

    Puget Sound Power and Light Company Records, Acc. No. 2250

    UNIVERSITY U BRARIES w UNIVERSITY of WASHI NGTON Spe ial Colle tions Puget Sound Power and Light Company records Inventory Accession No: 2250-001 Special Collections Division University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, Washington, 98195-2900 USA (206) 543-1929 This document forms part of the Guide to the Puget Sound Power and Light Company Records. To find out more about the history, context, arrangement, availability and restrictions on this collection, click on the following link: http://digital.lib.washington.edu/findingaids/permalink/PugetSoundPowerLight2068_2250_5689/ Special Collections home page: http://www.lib.washington.edu/specialcollections/ Search Collection Guides: http://digital.lib.washington.edu/findingaids/search PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY #2250 Guide Organizational History On October 19, 1885 the Seattle Electric Company, the earliest pred- ecessor of the present Puget Sound Power & Light Company, was organized. It began generating electricity on March 22, 1886. During the next ten years as many as 30 small electric companies operated within Seattle, but most were lost to financial insolvency and merger by 1899. During this same period the Stone & Webster Service Corporation was formed and began to provide management for small utilities nationwide. In 1899 Stone & Webster was engaged to study the competitive situation in Seattle. The result was a consolidation in 1900 which placed most of the power, light and railway -services in Seattle under the management of the newly organized Seattle Electric Company and thus established the city's first unified electric system. The increasing electrical demands of the following decade necessi- tated further mergers among the more than 50 separate utilities in the Puget Sound region, from which emerged five major operating companies.