DOCSLIB.ORG

Grand Coulee G1 Through G18 Generating Units Modernization and Overhaul Grand Coulee Project, Washington

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Grand Coulee G1 Through G18 Generating Units Modernization and Overhaul Grand Coulee Project, Washington Finding of No Significant Impact Final Environmental Assessment Grand Coulee G1 through G18 Generating Units Modernization and Overhaul Grand Coulee Project, Washington U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Office Boise, Idaho August 2018 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The mission of the U.S. Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to tribes. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Grand Coulee G1 through G18 Generating Units Modernization and Overhaul U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region PN FONSI 17-03 August 2018 Introduction The Bureau of Reclamation has prepared this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to comply with the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This document briefly describes the proposed action, the alternatives considered, the environmental consequences expected from implementation of the alternatives, the scoping process, Reclamation’s consultation and coordination activities, and Reclamation’s finding. The final Environmental Assessment (EA), attached, fully documents the analysis. Background The purpose of the Project is to replace and upgrade existing components of the left and right powerhouses that are exhibiting substantial age-related wear and to increase the operational reliability and flexibility of the powerhouses. The need for the action is to ensure continued operation to provide electrical power while maintaining hydraulic capacity. Many of the plant’s principal components are being operated far beyond their intended service life, which may lead to increased hardware failures and forced outages and increasingly challenging repairs resulting from obsolescence and lack of spare parts. In order to avoid unplanned outages for repair, Reclamation proposes to address the needed overhaul in a planned approach. Decision Based on the analysis in the EA, it is my decision to select for implementation the Preferred Alternative (Alternative B). This action will best meet the Purpose and Need identified in the EA. Grand Coulee G1-G18 Generating Units Modernization Overhaul August 2018 Finding of No Significant Impact Alternatives Considered The EA analyzed three alternatives for the Project: Alternative A – No Action, Alternative B – Grand Coulee G1 through G18 Modernization and Overhaul – Work on Two Units at a Time (Preferred Alternative); and Alternative C – Grand Coulee G1 through G18 Modernization and Overhaul – Work on One Unit at a Time. Alternative A – No Action Under the No Action alternative, Reclamation would continue operating the G1 through G18 generating units with no scheduled component modernization and overhaul. The 18 units would continue generating power until a failure occurs, at which time the generating unit would be taken offline and overhaul would be done. Because the modernization and overhaul work would not be planned under this Alternative, units may be offline for extended periods. Repair costs and time needed to obtain replacement parts would likely continue to increase based on the aging technology and the scarcity of parts. Age-related wear issues would remain and may become worse over time. Unit components would be modernized and overhauled as failure occurred. Alternative B – Grand Coulee G1 through G18 Modernization and Overhaul – Work on Two Units at a Time – Preferred Alternative Under Alternative B, Reclamation would overhaul the 18 generating units in the left and right powerhouses. The modernization and overhaul work would include work on the generators, windings, stator core, penstocks, exciters, iso-phase bus, and internal and external cranes. The objective would be to repair and restore these machines for reliable operation for an additional 30 years in a timely manner while maintaining hydraulic capacity at Grand Coulee. Work would occur on two of the 18 units at a time (in the left powerhouse and right powerhouse combined). All work would progress in a coordinated manner. Reclamation anticipates the construction portion of the Project would occur from 2018 to 2029, but unforeseen circumstances (for example, equipment breakdown, unexpected outages, or manufacturing delays) could delay completion. Alternative C – Grand Coulee G1 through G18 Modernization and Overhaul – Work on One Unit at a Time This alternative would be similar to the Alternative B, but rather than completing work on two generating units at a time, work would only occur on one unit at a time. This would extend the work out an additional 6 or 7 years, depending on the speed of completion. August 2018 Grand Coulee G1-G18 Generating Units Modernization Overhaul Finding of No Significant Impact Summary of Environmental Consequences The following is a summary of the environmental consequences of the Preferred Alternative, inclusive of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The attached EA contains a full description of the environmental consequences. Fisheries Under the Preferred Alternative, no effects to the fisheries in Franklin D. Roosevelt Reservoir (Lake Roosevelt) or in the Columbia River downstream of Grand Coulee Dam are expected. Reclamation is not proposing to change reservoir operations or hydropower operations under the Preferred Alternative. Aquaculture operations and fish collection facilities below the dam and any fishing opportunities in the surrounding area would not be affected by this Project. Comment letters received on the draft EA expressed concern about the Project’s impact on the potential reintroduction of anadromous salmon at Grand Coulee and potential passage facilities. Because the Project is not changing operations or configuration at Grand Coulee, Reclamation determined that there would be no impact or new limitations to any future reintroduction or passage projects. Modifications that would hinder or promote either reintroduction or passage were not proposed. Water Resources/Hydrology No changes to surface or groundwater quality, quantity, or surface flows are anticipated under the Preferred Alternative. Because operations are not changing, reservoir management inclusive of water levels would remain the same. Hazardous or Toxic Wastes Established worker safety standards and contract specifications adequately address the potential worker exposure to generated hazardous/dangerous wastes. Waste management standard operation procedures, contract specifications, and Federal, State, and local environmental regulations ensure that the potential for the release of hazardous/dangerous wastes to the environment is minimal. It is anticipated that the proposed modernization represents a minimally elevated potential for impact to human health or the environment. Cultural Resources The proposed modernization would not have any impact on archeological resources or properties of traditional cultural or religious significance to tribes. The Project would have an adverse effect on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) eligible Grand Coulee Dam historic district as a result of the replacement of the G1-G6 floor-mounted exciters, five bridge cranes, and four gantry cranes. When an undertaking is found to have an adverse effect, Section 106 requires consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other interested parties regarding appropriate avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures. The product of consultation would be a Memorandum of Agreement, Grand Coulee G1-G18 Generating Units Modernization Overhaul August 2018 Finding of No Significant Impact per 36 CFR 800.6(c), among Reclamation, SHPO, and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO). Under NEPA, these adverse effects would be identified as minor impacts. Environmental Justice The existing demand for rental housing in the Grand Coulee area is generally considered to be high relative to the currently available supply, and the Project would be expected to contribute to that demand; however, it is not reasonably foreseeable that this would result in adverse impacts that could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Indian Sacred Sites Based upon the review of existing information and consultations with the Confederated Tribe of the Colville Reservation Tribal Historic Preservation Office, implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in direct or indirect impacts to Indian sacred sites. Indian Trust Assets The Preferred Alternative would not result in any significant negative effects on Indian Trust Assets. The project would not involve actions on trust lands, and it would not reduce the ability of Indians to hunt, fish, and boat in the Colville or Spokane Reservations or associated trust lands. The project would not affect the amount of water available in the Columbia River, and therefore would not affect any water rights that might be claimed by the Colville or Spokane Tribes. Transportation Delivery truck traffic and worker commuter traffic would increase slightly during implementation of the Preferred Alternative, but not enough to generate more than negligible impacts on local traffic. Parking would be provided in a temporary
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Power System
    HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF THE ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST Kevin Schneider Ph.D., P.E. Chair, Seattle Chapter of the IEEE PES IEEE PES SCHOLARSHIP PLUS INITIATIVE 2 Washington State PES Scholars • Patrick Berg, Seattle University • Parichehr Karimi, University of • Zachary Burrows, Eastern Washington Washington UiUnivers ity • TiTravis Kinney, WhitWashington Sta te UiUnivers ity • Erin Clement, University of Washington • Allan Koski, Eastern Washington University • Anastasia Corman, University of • Kyle Lindgren, University of Washington, Washington • John Martinsen, Washington State • Gwendolyn Crabtree, Washington State University University • Melissa Martinsen, University of • David Dearing, Washington State Washington University • JthJonathan NhiNyhuis, SttlSeattle PifiPacific UiUnivers ity • Terra Donley, Gonzaga University Derek Jared Pisinger, Washington State Gowrylow, Seattle University University • Sanel Hirkic, Washington State University • Douglas Rapier, Washington State • Nathan Hirsch, Eastern Washington University University • Chris Rusnak, Washington State University • John Hofman, Washington State • Kaiwen Sun, University of Washington University • Joshua Wu, Seattle University • • Tracy Yuan, University of Washington 3 OVERVIEW Part 1: The Current Status of the Electricity Infrastructure in the Pacific North west Part 2: How the Current System Evolved Over Time Part 3: Current Challenges and the Path Forward Part 4: Concluding Comments PART 1:: THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE
    [Show full text]
  • Grant County Pud Under the Clean Water Act
    KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW BRIAN A. KNUTSEN Licensed in Oregon & Washington 503.841.6515 [email protected] September 19, 2018 Via CERTIFIED MAIL – Return Receipt Requested Re: NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE GRANT COUNTY PUD UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT Terry Brewer Dale Walker PUD Commissioner District 1 PUD Commissioner District 2 Grant County Public Utility District Grant County Public Utility District P.O. Box 878 P.O. Box 878 Ephrata, WA 98823 Ephrata, WA 98823 Larry Schaapman Tom Flint PUD Commissioner District 3 PUD Commissioner A-At Large Grant County Public Utility District Grant County Public Utility District P.O. Box 878 P.O. Box 878 Ephrata, WA 98823 Ephrata, WA 98823 Bob Bernd Managing Agent PUD Commissioner B-At Large Wanapum Dam Grant County Public Utility District Grant County Public Utility District P.O. Box 878 P.O. Box 878 Ephrata, WA 98823 Ephrata, WA 98823 Managing Agent Priest Rapids Dam Grant County Public Utility District P.O. Box 878 Ephrata, WA 98823 Dear Commissioners Terry Brewer, Dale Walker, Larry Schaapman, Tom Flint, and Bob Bernd, and Managing Agents for the Wanapum Dam and the Priest Rapids Dam: This letter is to provide you with sixty days notice of Columbia Riverkeeper’s (“Riverkeeper”) intent to file a citizen suit against the Grant County Public Utility District and Commissioners Terry Brewer, Dale Walker, Larry Schaapman, Tom Flint, and Bob Bernd, in their official capacity as the Commissioners of the Grant County Public Utility District (collectively, “PUD”) under section 505 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Dams on Native Americans in the Columbia River Basin Elliott
    Dammed Societies: Effects of Dams on Native Americans in the Columbia River Basin Elliott McGill Senior Capstone Project Faculty Advisors: Dr. Jamie Dolan, Dr. Jeremy Johnson, and Dr. David McCanna McGill 1 Abstract Since dam construction began in the New Deal Era, it has represented a dominance of humankind over nature. These massive structures have harnessed, collected, and distributed electricity from the rivers they hold back and allow humans to reap the benefits of that cycle. One of the areas where dams are particularly apparent is in the Columbia River Basin in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. While the dams in this region certainly have allowed the area to develop and build by using the electricity collected by these dams, they have also had several negative effects on the tribal people in the region who once fished the mighty Columbia during its populous salmon runs and relied on the salmon for nutritional, economic, and cultural reasons. This project seeks to examine the costs of human advancement when it comes to dams, and will do so by studying three dams located in the Columbia River Basin: The Bonneville Dam, The Dalles Dam, and The Grand Coulee Dam. These dams will be studied using Black’s Theory of Law as a framework to examine the manner in which law was applied to each case. The research finds that although the dams certainly provide a useful resource to the people of the region, it has had negative effects on the Native American people who depended on the river. McGill 2 Introduction When President Franklin D.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Vantage Crossing
    Vantage Crossing Crossing the Columbia River on I‐90 at Vantage is dramatic, even if routine. From either direction the highway drops over 1000 feet from the relatively lofty Columbia Plateau and crosses a 2500‐foot‐long bridge over Wanapum Dam Reservoir. You may be surprised to learn that in 1914 only two cars at a time could cross at one time on a rickety car ferry. Quick Timeline Before the Settlement Era ‐ The region along the Columbia River from the Beverly Gap (10 miles south of Vantage) to the Snake River was inhabited by the Wanapum tribe of Native Americans in prehistoric times and into the early exploration and settlement era. 1805 ‐ Lewis and Clark spend two days with the Wanapum people near the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers. 1910 ‐ First Vantage townsite platted by Willard Van Slyke who divided it into 120 lots with a 20‐acre easement down the middle. 1914 ‐ Van Slyke establishes a two‐car ferry across the Columbia from the Vantage townsite. The Sunset Highway at this time connected Vantage and Ellensburg via the old Vantage Highway, north of I‐90. 1927 – Washington State Highway Department. (WSDOT) opens a 1,640‐foot, two‐lane cantilever bridge, replacing the car ferry. 1962 ‐ A steel tied‐arch bridge opens at Vantage as part of Interstate 90 traffic construction, above the expected level of water behind the soon to be finished Wanapum Dam. 1964 ‐ Wanapum Dam begins operations 1968 – I‐90 down and through Ryegrass Coulee is completed and traffic no longer goes through Vantage.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on The
    REPORT ON THE U. S. D EPA R E INTERIOR BONNEVILLE IN ISTRATION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ----<COl--- . REPORT ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER POWER SYSTEM Consisting of THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION and Power Components of THE BONNEVILLE DAM PROJECT AND THE COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT (GRAND COULEE DAM) 19!6 Prepared by THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION 811 NORTHEAST OREGON STREET PORTLAND 8, OREGON LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 1 ~ONTENTS REVENUES 5 REPAYMENT OF FEDERAL INVESTMENT 6 INTEREST 8 ENERGY DELIVERIES 9 ENER<;Y PRODUCTION 12 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 15 MAP-TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 17 OPERATING RESULTS 20 POWER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 24 ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 26 CUSTOMER SERVICE 29 POWER RATES 31 PERSONNEL 34 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR December 31,1946. THE HoNORABLE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON, D. C. My dear Mr. Secretary: Transmitted herewith is a report showing the results of operations of the Bonneville Power Administration from July 1, 1945 to June 30, 1946. Where matters of significance have occurred since the close of the fiscal year additional data have been included. This report, to which is attached the second independent annual audit of the accounts of the Administra­ tion, conforms with the requirements of Section 9 (c) of the Bonneville Project Act. Financially, operations were satisfactory during the fiscal year 1946. Total revenues of $19,884,285 covered all costs of operation, maintenance, depreciation and interest and left a surplus of $4,754,895 for the year­ thus increasing surplus net revenues from power operations as of June 30, 1946 to $16,326,947.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Report 2007-Draft
    Technical Report 2013-3 __________________________________________________________________ ADULT PACIFIC LAMPREY MIGRATION IN THE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER: 2012 HALF-DUPLEX PIT TAG STUDIES A Report for Study Code ADS-P-00-8 by M. L. Keefer, C. C. Caudill, E. L. Johnson, T. S. Clabough, M. A. Jepson, C. T. Boggs Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-1136 and S. C. Corbett & M. L. Moser Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries 2725 Montlake Blvd. East, Seattle, WA 98112 For U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District, Portland OR 2013 Technical Report 2013-3 ADULT PACIFIC LAMPREY MIGRATION IN THE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER: 2012 HALF DUPLEX PIT-TAG STUDIES A Report for Study Code ADS-P-00-8 by M. L. Keefer, C. C. Caudill, E. L. Johnson, T. S. Clabough, M. A. Jepson, C. T. Boggs Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-1136 and S. C. Corbett & M. L. Moser Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries 2725 Montlake Blvd. East, Seattle, WA 98112 For U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland and Walla Walla Districts 2013 ii Acknowledgements Many people assisted with the field work and data compilation for this report and its successful completion was made possible through their efforts. Dennis Quaempts, Carl Schilt and Chris Noyes were responsible for collecting and tagging lampreys. Travis Dick assisted with the maintenance and downloading of the monitoring equipment. Staff at other agencies also provided lamprey detection data, including Matt Fox and Cyndi Baker (Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon), Rod O’Connor (Blueleaf Environmental for Grant County Public Utility District), and Jeff Osborn (Chelan County Public Utility District).
    [Show full text]
  • NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
    20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM 20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM 20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM 20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM 20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ 5 TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. 6 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 11 1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................ 11 1.2 CONSULTATION HISTORY .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................................................................................... 11 1.4 ACTION AREA ................................................................................................................................................. 12 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Desautel (Sinixt)
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Desautel, 2017 BCSC 2389 Date: 20171228 Docket: 23646 Registry: Nelson Between: Regina Appellant And Richard Lee Desautel Respondent And Okanagan Nation Alliance Intervenor On appeal from: Provincial Court of British Columbia, March 27, 2017 R. v. DeSautel, 2017 BCPC 84, Nelson Registry No. 23646 Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Sewell Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Appellant: G. Thompson H. Cochran Counsel for the Respondent: M. Underhill K. Phipps Counsel for the Intervenor: R. Kyle Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Nelson, B.C. September 6-8, 2017 Place and Date of Judgment: Nelson, B.C. December 28, 2017 R. v. Desautel Page 2 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3 Position of the Parties ............................................................................................. 4 Background .............................................................................................................. 4 Grounds of Appeal ................................................................................................... 6 Are the Sinixt an aboriginal people of Canada ...................................................... 7 What is the Relevant Aboriginal Collective? ....................................................... 10 The Intervenor’s Submissions .............................................................................. 12 Discussion of Crown’s Submissions ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Passage Route Survival and Behavior of Juvenile Salmon at Priest Rapids Dam, Columbia River, WA Kyle B
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ScholarWorks at Central Washington University Central Washington University ScholarWorks@CWU Electronic Theses Student Scholarship and Creative Works Fall 2015 Passage Route Survival and Behavior of Juvenile Salmon at Priest Rapids Dam, Columbia River, WA Kyle B. Hatch Central Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons Recommended Citation Hatch, Kyle B., "Passage Route Survival and Behavior of Juvenile Salmon at Priest Rapids Dam, Columbia River, WA" (2015). Electronic Theses. Paper 271. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship and Creative Works at ScholarWorks@CWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@CWU. PASSAGE ROUTE SURVIVAL AND BEHAVIOR OF JUVENILE SALMON AT PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, COLUMBIA RIVER, WA A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty Central Washington University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Biology by Kyle Barrett Hatch November 2015 CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Graduate Studies We hereby approve the thesis of Kyle Barrett Hatch Candidate for the degree of Master of Science APPROVED FOR THE GRADUATE FACULTY ______________ _________________________________________ Dr. Clay Arango, Committee Chair ______________ _________________________________________ Dr. Alison Scoville ______________ _________________________________________ Dr. Paul James ______________ _________________________________________ Dean of Graduate Studies ii ABSTRACT PASSAGE ROUTE SURVIVAL AND BEHAVIOR OF JUVENILE SALMON AT PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, COLUMBIA RIVER, WA by Kyle Barrett Hatch November 2015 Columbia River hydropower is an economic mainstay of the Pacific Northwest.
    [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]
  • Downloaded from the DRS Website At
    Quincy Chute Hydroelectric Project Wanapum Dam Seattle Spokane Grant County Potholes Priest Rapids East Canal Dam Headworks Nine Canyon Wind Farm WANAPUM DAM QUINCY CHUTE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Generation Units . 10. Rated Capacity . 1,203.6. MW Rated Capacity . 9.4. MW Concrete/Earthfill Length . 8,637. FT First Power Generation . .1985 Rated Head . 80 FT Construction Started . .1959 First Power Generation . .1963 POTHOLES EAST CANAL HEADWORKS PROJECT PRIEST RAPIDS DAM Rated Capacity . 6.5. MW First Power Generation . .1990 Generation Units . 10. Rated Capacity . 950. MW Concrete/Earthfill Length . 10,103. FT NINE CANYON WIND PROJECT Rated Head . 78 FT Construction Started . .1956 12 .5% of Project Peak Capacity . .12 MW First Power Generation . .1959 First Power Generation . .2003 ELECTRIC SYSTEM Overhead Distribution Lines . 2,795 MILES Underground Distribution Lines . 1,102. MILES Overhead Transformers . .24,477 Padmount Transformers . 9,935 115kV Transmission Lines . 282. MILES 230kV Transmission Lines . 202. MILES ACTIVE METERS Residential . 39,103. Irrigation . 5,193 Industrial . 122 Commercial . 7,248 Large Commercial . 107 Street Light and Other . .439 Total Active Meters . 52,212. SUBSTATIONS Distribution . 49 Transmission . 5. Transmission/Distribution . 3. HIGH SPEED NETWORK Customers with fiber-optic availability . .33,149 Customers using fiber-optic service . 19,043 Customers using wireless service . 290 As of Dec. 31, 2019 Grant PUD was established by local residents in 1938 to provide power service to all of the county’s residents. We honor the resolve of our founders through our guiding vision, mission and values. VISION Excellence in service and leadership. We continually ask how we can improve service quality, reliability and stewardship of our resources in the most cost-effective manner .
    [Show full text]