19900214Application.pdf

SNAKE RIVER ../W-?3
HYDROPOWER
IDAHO POVVER COMPANY
RECEIVED m
ILED 0 BOX 70. BOISE, IDAHO 83707
90 fEB Pl AliiO 57 February 14, 1990
o PUBLIC
lLillES COMMISSiON72~
Mrs. Myrna J. Walters
Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Statehouse
Boise, Idaho 83720
Re: Case No. IPC-E-90-2
Initial Application to Rate Base Swan Falls Project
Dear Mrs. Walters:
Please find enclosed for fil ing in the above-entitled matter an
original plus seven copies of the Initial Application of Idaho Power Company for
Authority to Rate Base the Investment Required for the Rebuild of the Swan Falls
Hydroelectric Facility.
r
Larry . Ripley
Attorney
LDR:mmb
Enc.
../~/"?.3
17 E:Ct:J 1':"'0 fVL, rti i.
" !LED 0
jO FEB 1 ~ Fir/1U 57
,f
!JÌIL/T!E~o PUE3LteCOMll.lISSI0N
EVANS, KEANE, KOONTZ, BOYD, SIMKO & RIPLEY
c/o Idaho Power Company
1220 W. Idaho Street
P. O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
[phone]
STEVEN L. HERNDON
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
1220 W. Idaho Street
P. O. Box 70
Boi se, ID 83707
[phone]
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY
TO RATE BASE THE INVESTMENT REQUIRED
FOR THE REBUILD OF THE SWAN FALLS
HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-90-2
INITIAL APPLICATION
I NTRODUCT I ON
In Case No. U-1006-240 and Case No. IPC-E-89-8, the Idaho Publ ic
Utilities Commission (Commission) made it clear that Idaho Power Company (Idaho
Power or Company) should file an application with the Commission requesting
approval for the rate basing of construction costs before undertaking
reconstruct i on of the Swan Fa 11 s powerhouse and generating facil it i es (Swan
Falls or Project). As noted by the Commission, I.C. §61-526, does not require
that the Company apply for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to
increase the capac i ty of exi st i ng generat i ng plants, but the Commi ss i on does
require that the Swan Falls rebuild be reviewed, and Commission approval for rate
basing be obtained, before construction of the facilities commences.
~
..
By Order No. 22526 in Case No. IPC-E-89-8, the Commission noted that
the Company had stated it intended to initiate a formal proceeding before the
Commission, prior to undertaking the rebuilding of the Swan Falls Project. In
that order, the Commission dismissed the proceeding that it had initiated on
its own motion for review of the rebuild of Swan Falls, based upon the Company/s
represent at i on that it woul d fi 1 e an app 1 i cat i on wi th the Commi ss i on
approximately 30 days after it received FERC approval to rehabil itate the
facil ity. The ORDER AMENDING LICENSE for the Project was issued by the United
States of America, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on December 8,
1989 and became final on January 8, 1990. As a result of the FERC Order becoming
final, the Company/s Application to this Commission for authority to rate base
the investment required for the rebuild of Swan Falls can now be filed.
Much of the information required to support this application has
previously been filed with the Commission in earlier proceedings. However,
since those proceedings have been closed by the Commission, this Application,
in order to be complete, will restate as well as supplement the information
previously supplied to the Commission.
APPLICATION
i.
The Company proposes to retire the existing 10.4-megawatt (MW)
powerhouse at Swan Fa 11 sand redevelop the Proj ect. The red eve loped Proj ect
would consist of a new powerhouse, containing two generating units with a total
rated capacity of 25 MW; a new switchyard; a new transmission line; and other
existing project works.
The Project cons i sts of:
2
..
(1) the 25-foot- high, 1,218-foot-long concrete and rockfill Swan Falls
dam;
(2) the Swan Fall s reservoir wi th a surface area of 900 acres and a total
storage capacity of 4,800 acre-feet;
(3) a spillway with crest elevation of 2,300 feet mean sea level with
12 bays, each provided with radial gates 31 feet wide and 14.5 feet
high;
(4) a powerhouse at the east abutment of the Swan Falls dam containing
two ident i cal hori zonta 1 bul b-type turbi ne-generat i ng uni ts, each
with a rated capacity of 12.5 MW;
(5) a substat ion located 200 feet from the powerhouse, equ i pped wi th a
13.8/138-kilovolt (kV), 30,000-kilovolt-ampere, 3-phase transformer;
(6) a 1,400-foot-long, 120-foot-wide (bottom width) tailrace;
(7) a 1.2-mile-long, 138-kV transmission line connecting to an existing
138-kV transmission line owned and operated by the licensee; and
(8) appurtenant fac i 1 it i es.
A copy of the Order Amendi ng License issued by the FERC is attached
as Attachment 1.
I i.
In 1982, the Company appl ied for a permit for a water right for the
additional generation in connection with the Project. On April 10, 1989, the
Idaho Department of Water Resources issued a Memorandum Deci s i on and Order
i ssui ng a permi t for a water right. A copy is attached hereto as Attachment 2.
3
..
I II.
The Swan Falls facilities should be added to the Company/s ratebase
upon comp 1 et i on of the reconstruct i on. The Project has been, and wi 11 cont i nue
to be, integral to Idaho Power's Snake River hydroelectric system and will
continue to be used to serve retail and firm wholesale load. Reconstruction of
the Swan Falls facilities is also integral to retention of Idaho/s water
resources for the pub 1 i c interest of the state. The Project is a non -deferrab 1 e
resource in that the phys i ca 1 state of the plant requi res current, not future,
reconstruct i on and rehabi 1 i tat i on of the resource to ma i nta in safety and
ope rat i ona 1 standards.
IV.
The Project / s estimated generation is based upon medi an water
conditions,using the 1985 Depletion Study of the Idaho Department of Water
Resources. In assess i ng the abil ity of the Project and other hydroe 1 ectri c
resources to meet future load requirements, estimated future depletions are
assumed which are consistent with the Company/s forecast of irrigation load.
The Company/s existing water rights at Swan Falls, as well as the
projects upstream, are defined in the Swan Fall s Agreement between the State of
Idaho and Idaho Power Company. A copy was filed with this Commission in Case
No. U-I006-244. Basically, the rights are defined at a non-subordinated level
of 3900 cfs in the summer, and 5600 cfs in the wi nter, as measured at the Murphy
USGS gauging station downstream of Swan Falls Dam. The Company's water rights
above those flows are subject to subordination to new depletionary uses if they
comply with state law, including new criteria adopted as part of the Swan Falls
settlement. These new criteria are found in Idaho Code § 42-203C,
4
..
As part of the Swan Falls settlement package, the Idaho State Water
PL an was amended to refl ect the 3900 cfs and 5600 cfs flows. The Water PL an
minimum flow carries a priority date of the year it was imposed. Therefore, the
Water Plan minimum is a very junior priority.
The Swan Falls Agreement contemplates that the State of Idaho will
assert the Company's rights as necessary to protect the mi nimum flows establ i shed
by the Agreement. As the oldest hydro rights on the river, the water rights
associated with the Swan Falls Project are critical to the ability of the state
and the Company to protect the minimum flows establ ished by the Agreement and
the Water Pl an. It is, of course, essent i a 1 that the Swan Fall s' Project rem a in
in exi stence.
Protection of flows at the Swan Falls site is also of great
importance to flows in the river both above and below Swan Falls. While the
operation of FERC Project No. 1971 (the Hells Canyon complex) is subordinated
to upstream depletion, there is 1 ittle exposure to major depletions above
Brownlee and below Swan Falls. Therefore, protection of the Company's rights
at the Project has the effect of assuring a water supply at its downstream
plants. The same is true of the upstream plants, since the water ri ghts at those
plants are defi ned by the Agreement in terms of flows at the Murphy gage.
V.
The original Swan Falls license expired June 30, 1970. Idaho Power
operated the Project on annual 1 i cense renewals until such time as the Project
was relicensed on December 22, 1982. The license, as issued on December 22,
1982, provided for a complete rebuild and uprateof the Project to 25 MW with
an expiration date of June 30, 2010. In January of 1985, Idaho Power proposed
5
..
to postpone the complete rebuild of the Project until such time as the additional
capacity would be needed. On April 30, 1987, the FERC issued its Order deleting
the authori zat i on to add the 14.6 MWs of new capaci ty and reduced the 1 i cense
peri od by 10 years to June 30, 2000.
In January of 1989 a safety and operational report prepared by an
independent consultant indicated that the old power plant facility needed to be
repl aced by the year 1994. In response to those safety concerns, in Apri 1 of
1989 Idaho Power filed an appl ication to amend the License and again requested
authority from the FERC to rebuild the Project. In its Appl ication to FERC, the
Company requested and received a full 40-year license which expires June 30,
2010. The Portland Regional Office of FERC rates the Swan Falls facility as
having a high downstream hazard potential.
In its analysis of the Project, the Company's fixed charge cost
est imates have been based upon the useful 1 i fe of the Project as rebui 1 t and have
not been based upon the 1 i fe of the FERC 1 i cense. It is assumed that the Company
will relicense and operate the plant during its entire useful life.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NEED TO SUPPLEMENT
i.
In addition to the information set forth above, the Company
acknowledges that it is required to provide the Commission with a cost estimate
regard i ng the Project. The Company stated in response to quest ions posed ina
Commission OrderY concerning the filing of a cost estimate:
)J Idaho Power Company Responses to Questions Posed in Commission Order No.
22412 dated April 26, 1989.
6
..
"Idaho Power anti ci pates that it wi 11 recei ve Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") approval of its
1989 Supplement to its Second Amended App 1 i cat ion in
mid-summer of 1989. Final design of the project will
not be completed until March 1,1990, at which time the
Company would have the necessary data to comply with
the Commission's definitive cost estimate requirements
set forth in Order Nos. 19075, 19129, and 19623."
As previously set forth, final FERC approval was not obtained until January 8,
1990.
I i.
Large hydroelectric projects involve design and construction which
must be customized to the particular site. As a result, preliminary estimates
conta in many unknowns in both the fi na 1 project 1 ayout and scope. Detailed
engineering to finalize the layout and scope in order to obtain a more precise
estimate would result in extremely high front end costs on all projects. In
the event a particular project was not built, a significant expenditure would
be lost and woul d have to be wri tten off. Changes requi red as part of the
envi ronmenta 1 and regul atory revi ew process coul d also resul tin the need to
completely redesign a project, thus radically changing the original preliminary
estimate.
To avoid this, the FERC License Application is prepared on the basis
of preliminary layouts and without final design or a precise calculation of
required materials (i.e. concrete, fill dirt, etc.). This estimate which the
Company has termed the "FERC Appl ication Estimate" is subject to revi sion as the
project is finally designed.
7
..
III.
For most hydroelectric projects, including the Swan Falls Project,
the first major expenditure of funds, other than for engineering design, is the
purchase of the hydroe 1 ectri c turbi nes and generators. After comp 1 et i on of
design and solicitation of bids for the turbines and generators (planned June 1,
1990 for Swan Fall s), the Company wi 11 be ina better pos i t i on to make a cost
estimate for the project. This estimate, which the Company has termed a
"Commitment Estimate", woul d be the Company's best estimate of cost before the
award of any contract plus an additional amount of 25% to establ ish a cost
ceil ing for the project. The Company would commit to building the project for
less than the Commitment Estimate (as may be adjusted to account for documented
changes in esca 1 at i on rates or scopeY).I f the fi nal costs exceed the
"Commitment Estimate", the Company would absorb the extra costs, and would
include in its Idaho ratebase only the amount up to the Commitment Estimate.
Submittal of the Commitment Estimate in June will allow adequate time for an
IPUC review and decision before the Turbine Contract is scheduled to be awarded
on or about December 1, 1990.
iv.
When the turbi ne contract is awarded, or at other appropri ate times,
an updated estimate will be submitted to the Commission as part of the quarterly
construction report. These estimates will include any scope or escalation
Y Examples of possible scope changes which could affect the project ceiling are:
1. Force Majeure or acts of God impacting the construction;
2. Design optimization for which increased energy more than offsets the
increase in initial investment;
3. Foundation or site conditions significantly more expensive than
i nd i cated by exploratory dri 11 i ng .
8
..
changes. The fi na 1 cost report on the Project wi 11 st ill compare the actual
costs to the Commitment Estimate.
The Company wi 11 have the necessary data to submi t to the Commi ss i on
a Commitment Estimate on or about June 1, 1990. At that time, the Company will
supplement this Application with that information.
The Company has filed its Initial Application in this proceeding
recognizing that it will not have a Commitment Estimate until on or about
June 1, 1990. Nonetheless, the Company believed that it was obligated to file
its Initial Application, albeit incomplete, in order to comply with the
representations which have been made concerning filing dates in response to
previously issued Commission Orders.
DATED This 14th day of February, 1990 at Boise, Idaho.,/s~Larry D. Ri ey
Steven L. Herndon
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
9
..
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
BEFORE TH
IDAHO PUBLIC UTITIES COMSSION
CASE NO.IP-E-90-2
ATTACHM NO.1
FERC ORR MlG LICEN
~
....
VIITBD snTBS 01' AJRICA
I'BDBRA BURGY RBGULAIfRY COKKISSIOlf
Idaho Power Company project lfo. 503-006Idaho
ORDBll AKIlfG LICBSB
(DJOll)
ii.- ý-- y'l
Idaho Power Company (iPC)' filed an application under Part I
of the Federal Power Act (Act) to amend its license for the Swan
Falls Project, located on the Snake River, in Ada and Owhee
Counties, Idaho. The Snåke River is a navigable waterway of the
United States. The project partially occupies lands of the
Uni ted States administered by the Department of the Interior.
IPC proposes to retire the existing 10. 4-meqawatt (MW)
powerhouse and redevelop the proj ect. The redeveloped proj ect
would consist of a new powerhouse, containing two generating
units with a total rated capacity of 25 MW; a new switchyard; a
new transmission line; and other existing proj ect works.
On Decembr 22, 1982, IPC was issued a new license for the
Swan Falls Project.lI The license authorized IPC, among other
things, to replace the existing powerhouse and generating units,
thereby increasing the total rated capacity of the project from
10.4 MW to 25 MW. In January 1985, IPC asked permission to
postpone this work until the additional capacity is needed. An
order amending license, issued on April 30, 1987, granted the
request by deleting the project expansion from the license.1/
The April 1987 amendment also reduced the license term from
40 years to 30 years, because the modification of project works
was no longer authorized. Because this order reinstates that
project expansion, the term of the new license will be returned
to 40 years. This revision of the new license term is in
accordance with the Commission i s policy on relicensing, as stated
in The Montana. Power Company, 56 F.P.C. 2008 (1976).
Pulic notice of the application has been issued. The
comments filed by agencies and individuals have been fully
considered in determining whether to issue this order.
The Idaho Departent of Water Resources, an intervenor,
requests that any a.endment of the Swan Falls license be
1/ Idaho Power Company, 21 FERC ! 62,519 (1982).
1/ Idaho Power Company, 39 FEC i 62,114 (1987).
..
2
consistent with state law, with the provisions of the Swan Falls
Aqreement, wi th statewide comprehensive water resource
development plans, and with the recommendations of state resource
aqencies. We address these concerns in the attached
environmental assessment (EA) issued for the redevelopment of the
Swan Falls Project.
comprebensiyi Deyelogment
Section 4 (e) of the Act states that in decidinq whether to
issue a license, the Commission, in addition to considerinq the
power and development purposes of the project, shall qive equal
consideration to the followinq: the purposes of enerqy
conservation: the protection of, mitiqation of dam~qe to, and
enhancement of, fish and wildlife: the protection of recreational
opportuni ties: and the preservation of other aspects of
environmental quality. These purposes are considered in the
comprehensive development section of the EA prepared for thisproject.
section 10 (a) (2) of the Act requires the Commission to
conside~ the extent to which a project is consistent with federal
or state comprehensive plans for improvinq, developinq, or con-servinq a waterway or waterways affected by the proj ect.
Under section 10 (a) (2), federal and state aqencies filed 24
comprehensive plans that address various resources in Idaho. Of
these, the staff identified and reviewed seven plans relevant to
this proj ect.lI No confli~ts were found.
Based on our review of aqency and public comments filed in
this proceedinq and on our independent analysis, the Swan Falls
Project, as proposed to be modified, is best adapted to a
comprehensive plan for the Snake River.
11 Idaho fisheries manaqement plan, 1986, Idaho Departent of
Fish and Game: Idaho water quality standards and wastewater
treatment requirements, 1985, Idaho Departent of Health and
Welfare: Idaho outdoor recreation plan, 1983, Idaho Department of
Parks and Recreation: State water plan, 1986, Idaho WaterResourcesaoard: Northwest conservation and electric power plan,
1986, Northwest Power Planninq Council: Columia River Basin fish
and wildlife proqram, 1987, Northwest Power Planninq Council:
Protected areas amendments and response to comments, 1988,
Northwest Power Planninq Council.
....
3
Conservation
The Idaho Pulic utility commission requires IPC to submit
an annual plan for acquiring electric power conservation savings
on IPC' s electric power system.
In the April 15, 1989, conservation plan, IPC lists thesefeatures:
(1) using short term acquisition programs of 2 to 3 years to
acquire benetits from low-income customers;
(2) using efficient appliances and construction standards in
new buildings in the residential and commercial parts of the
IPC' s power system;
(3) conducting research and analysis programs to build
future conservation capability and to develop a better
understanding of conservation resources in its service area;
( 4) producing an estimated 1,700,000 megawatthours of
demand-side energy conservation by the year 2008.
This plan shows IPC is making a good-faith effort to improve
the efficiency of electricity consumption on its system.
Recommendati,oni ot Fege:ial ang state Fi,sh ang Wi,lgli,te Agenci,es
Section 10(j) of the Act requires the Commission to include
license conditions, based on recommendations of federal and state
fish and wildlife agencies, for the protection, mitigation, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife.
The attached EA for the Swan Falls Proj ect addresses the
concerns of the fish and wildlife agencies, made in response to
the public notice, and provides recommendations consistent with
those of the agencies.
Suma:i gt' Fi,ngi,ngs
The EA contains background information, analysis of impacts,
support for related license articles, and the basis for a finding
of no significant impact on the environment. issuance of this
amendment is not a maj or federal action significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment.
The design of this proj ect is consistent with theengineering standards governing dam safety. The proj ect will .be
safe if constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with
the requirements of this order. Analysis of related issues is
provided in the Safety and Oesign Assessment (S&OA), also
attached to this order.
. ,..
4
The Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, concludes that
the modified Swan Falls project would not conflict with any
planned or authorized development and would be best adapted to
comprehensive development of the waterway for beneficial publicuses..
'le Dii:ectorprdei:s:
(A) The license for the Swan Falls 'Project No. 503 is
amended, effective the first day of the month in which this order
is issued.
(B) Ordering paragraph (A) of the license for Project No.
503 is amended as follows:
(A) This license is issued to the Idaho Power Company
(licensee), of Boise, Idaho, under Part I of the
Federal Power Act (Act), for a period of 40 years from
the expiration date of the original license, henceterminating on June 30, 2.010, for the continuedoperation and maintenance of the Swan Falls Proj ect
No. 503, located in Ada' and OWhee Counties, Idaho, on
the Snake River, a navigable waterway of the United
States, and occupying lands of the United States
within the Birds of Prey Natural Area, which is
administered by the Departent of the Interior.
This license is subject to the terms and conditions of
the Act ,which is incorporated by reference as part of
this license, and subject to the regulations the
Commission issues under the provisions of the Act.
(C) Ordering Paragraph (B) (2) of the license for project
No. 503 is amended as follows:
(2) The project works consisting of: (1) the 25-foot-
high, 1,21S-foot-long concrete and rockfill Swan Falls dam;
(2) the Swan Falls reservoir with a surface area of 900
acres and a total storage capacity of 4,800 acre-feet; (3)
a spillway with crest elevation of 2,300 feet mean .sea
level with 12 bays, each provided with radial gates 31 feet
wide and 14.5 feet high; (4) a powerhouse at the east
abutment of the Swan Falls dam containing two identical
horizontal bUlb-type turbine-generating units, each with a
rated capacity of 12.5 MW; (5) a substation located 200
feet from the powerhouse, equipped with a 13.8/138-kilovolt
(kV), 30,000-kilovolt-ampere, 3-phase transformer; (6) a
1,400-foot-long, 120-foot-wide (bottom width) tailrace;
(7) a 1.2-mile-long, 138-kV transmission line connecting
to an existing 138-kV transmission line owned and operated
by the licensee; and (8) appurtenant facilities.
..
5
The project works generally described above are more
specifically shown and described by those portions of
exhibits A and F recommended for approval in the attached
S&DA.
(D) Ordering paragraph (C) of the license for Project No.
503 is amended as follows:
(C) The exhibit G described in ordering Paragraph (B) (1) of
the new license, issued Decemer 22, 1982, and those
sections of exhibits A and F recommended for approval in the
attached S&DA are approved and made par of the license.
(E) Article 42 (a) is amended as follows:
(a) For the purpose of reimbursing the united states for
the cost of administration of Part I of the Act, a
reasonable amount, as determined in accordance with the
provisions of the Commission's regulations in effect from
time to time. The authorized installed capacity for that
purpose is 33,300 horsepower.
(F) The. revised recreational plan, filed on September 19,
1989, consisting of pages 4 through 20, and providing for (a) an
extension of the upstream boat ramp and additional docks at this
location, (b) a public drinking water fountain at the upstream
picnic area, (c) a walkway to accommodate the handicapped, and
(d) a display of a turbine in the existing powerhouse, is
approved and made part of this license.
(G) The license is also subject to the following additionalarticles:
Artlçle 3Q1. Within 90 days after comleting construction,
the licensee shall file for the Commission approval revised
exhibits A, F, and G to describe and show the redeveloped project
as-buil t, and to describe all facili ties the Commission
determines are necessary and convenient for transmitting all of
the proj ect power to the interconnected system.
A¡lcle JQ2. Before starting construction, the licensee
shall review and approve the design of contractor-designedcofferdam and deep excavations and shall ensure that
construction of the cofferdams and deep excavations is consistent
with the approved design. At least 30 days before starting
construction of the cofferdam, the licensee shall submit to the
Commission l sRegional Director and to the Director, Division of
Dam Safety and Inspections, one copy of the approved cofferdam
construction drawings and specifications and a copy of the
letters of approval.
, ,..
6
Article 303. At least 60 days before starting construction,
the licensee shall submit one copy to the Commission's Regional
Director and two copies to the Director , Division of Dam Safety
and Inspections, of the final contract drawings and
specifications and of a supporting design report for pertinent
features of the project, such as water-retention structures, all
necessary transmission facilities, the powerhouse, and water
conveyance structures. The Director , Division of Dam Safety and
Inspections, may require changes in the plans and specificationsto assure a safe and adequte project.
Article 304. Wi thin 60 days after issuance of this order,
the licensee shall file for approval by the Director ,Division of
Dam Safety and Inspections, a plan and schedule for constructing
the new powerhouse and for modifying the existing powerhouse.
Artlçle 401. The Commission reserves the authority to
require the licensee to construct, operate, and maintain, or
provide for the èonstruction, operation, and maintenance of,
fishways prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.
A;içle 4 Q2 . The licensee shall implement the ramping rategaging plan outlined on page 28 of the licensee t s Septemer 19,
1989, additional information filing with the Commission. The
licensee shall make the gage operational within 6 months after
beginning the operation of the powerhouse authorized by this
order. The licensee shall determine the final location of the
gage after consulting with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife service and
the Idaho Department øf Fish and Game.
Article 4Q3. The licensee shall implement the reclamation
plan providing for the restoration of vegetative cover and
wildlife habitat, consisting of pages E-6 through E-l0 in the
exhibit E of the application for amendment of license, filed on
April 24, 1989. The measures shall be implemented according tothe schedule outlined in the plan.
Article 404. The licensee, before start.ing any maintenance
or repair work at the historic residences and buildings occupied
and used by project employees next to Swan Falls Dam and
Powerhouse and before starting any destruction, removal, or otheral teration of these structures, shall consult with the Idaho
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) about work necessary
to maintain the structures' historical integrity or to mitigate
impacts to the structures. Any such work shall be undertaken in
a manner satisfactory to the SHPO and in accordance with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines forArcheolog and Historic Preservation.
Within 1 year from the issuance of this order, the licensee
shall file for Commission approval a cultural resources
management plan, describing the standards and guidelines that
..
7
will be implemented to maintain and repair these residences and
buildings, and a copy of a letter from the SHPO commenting on the
acceptability of the plan.
If the licensee plans to alter or remove any structure, at
least 90 days before any alteration or removal of the structure,
the licensee shall file for Commi~sion approval (1) a specificmitiqative plan to docuent the significant information that
would be lost and to minimize impacts to associated historic
structures, and (2) a copy of a letter from the SHPO commenting
on the acceptaility of the plan. If the licensee and the SHPO
disaqree about the scope of maintenance, repair, or mitiqative
activities required at these structures, the Commission reserve$
the riqht to direct the licensee at its own expense to conductany work found necessary.
A¡ticl, 4Q5. The licensee, before startinq any land-
clearing, land-disturbinq, or spoil-producing activities within
the project bondaries, other than those specifically authorized
in this license, shall consult with the Idaho state Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), shall conduct a cultural resources
survey of these areas, and shall file for Commission approval a
cultural resources manaqement plan to avoid or mitigate impacts
to any siqnificant archeoloqical or historic sites identified
durinq the survey. The survey and plan shall be based on the
recommendations of the SHPO and shall be conducted and prepared
by a qualified cultural resources specialist.
If the licensee discovers any previously unidentified
archeoloqical or historic sites during the course of constructing
or developing project works or other facilities at the project,
the licenee shall stop all land-clearing, land-disturbinq, and
spoil-producing activities in the vicinity of the sites, shall
aqain consult with the SHPO, and shall file for Commission
approval a cultural resources management plan, prepared by a
qualified cultural resources management specialist, to avoid or
mitigate impacts to significant resources.
The survey and the' plan shall be documented in a report
containing the followinq: (1) a description of each discovered
site, showing whether it is listed or eligible to be listed on
the National Beqister of Historic Places: (2) a description of
the potential effect on each discovered site: (3) proposed
measures for avoiding or mitigating the effects: (4)
documentation of the nature and exent of consultation: and (5) a
schedule for mi tigatinq effects and conductinq additional
studies. The Commission may require changes to the plan or thereport.
The licensee shall not begin any land-clearing, land-disturbinq, or spoil-producing acti vi ties, other than those
specifically authorized in this license, or resume such
..
8
acti vi ties in the vicinity of a site discovered during
construction, until informed by the Commission that the
requirements of this article have been fulfilled.
Articli 406. The licensee shall construct, operate, and
maintain, or arrange for the construction, operation, and
maintenance of, recreational facilities and improvements proposed
in the revised recreation plan. Within 3 months after completing
these facilities or improvements, the licensee shall file with
the Commissionas-buil t drawings, showing the type and location
of the facilities or improvements.
Articli 427. During the first 2 years of operation of the
new powerhouse, the licensee, after consulting with the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), the National Park service (NPS), and the
Idaho Departent of Parks and Recreation (1DPR), shall monitor
the effects of sil tationcaused by powerhouse flow releases onthe downstream canoe-raft launching facil i ty .
Wi thin 3 month. after completing monitoring studies, the
licensee shall file with the Commission monitoring results,
including a description of the methodology used to monitor ttie
project's impacts on the canoe-raft launch facility.
If monitoring shows operation of the new powerhouse is
adversely affecting the canoe-raft launch facility, the licensee
shall include in this filing, for Commission approval, an
amendment to the recreational plan, prepared after consulting
with BLM, NPS, and IDPR, to relocate or to modify the canoe-raft
launch facility to avoid adverse effects from powerhouse
releases. The licensee also shall document consultation with the
agencies in the filing.
(H) The licensee shall serve copies of any Commission
filing required by this order on any entity specified in this
order to be consul ted on matters related to the Commission
filing. Proof of service on these entities must accompany the
filing with the Commission.
.. (I) This order is issued under authority delegated to the
Director and is final unless appealed to the Commission by any
party within 30 days from the issuance date of this order.
Filing an appeal does not stay the effective date of this order
or any date specified in this order. The licensee's failure to
appeal this order shall constitute acceptance of the terms ofthis amndnt Of license. ~
Fred E. Sprin r
Director, Office of
Hydropower Licensing
..
BNIRONHlfAL ASSBSSMElf
,"';-:;'-+.--';'_.
ßDBRA BlRGY RBGULATORY COMKISSIOlf
OFJICB OJ' HYDROPOWER LICElfSING
DIVISIOlf OJ' PROJECT REIEW
Date: December 1. 1989
project name: Swan ralls FERC Project No. ;03-006
A. APPLICATIOlf
1. Application type: Amendment of license
2. Date filed with the Commission: April 24, 1989
3. Applicant: IdOhg Pgwer Coiany (¡PC)
4. Water body: Snag River River basin: Upper Snake Rivet
5. Nearest city or town: Kuno. Igaho (See figyre 1.) lj
6. County: Agl, OWee State: ¡gobo
B. PURPOSB Al DED POI. ACTIOlf
1. Purpose.
IPC proposes to redevelop the Swan Falls Proj ect by retiring
the existing powerhouse that has a an installed capacity of 10. 4
megawatts (MW) and constructing a new powerhouse with a total
installed eapaci ty of 25 MW.
The proposed project would annually produ.ce about 166. igigawatthours (GW) of power. IPC would use the renewable energy
from the proj ect to meet its system load requirements.
2. Need for power.
Our review of the need for power shows it is in the public
interest to amend the Swan Falls license as proposed.
IPC plans to use the additional proj ect power on the IPC
system and to market excess power until all the amended proj ect
power can be used. IPC plans the development of their electric
power system on the basis of median water conditions, even though
most power producers in the Pacific Northwest plan system
development on the basis of critical water conditions.
l/ Illustrations and attachments referenced in the text are
omi tted from this document because of reproduction requirements.
-----~--_._~_._--_._---_.~---~------..,--_..~....-
..
2
IPC's March 1989 Resource Management Report shows
, peak-load elec~ric power resource deficits on its electric power
system about 2001, under median water and medium load conditions.
It shows energ deficits about 2003 under the same conditions.
The report also shows peak-load power deficits occurring under
high load and median vater conditions about 1996. Under medium
load and critical water conditions, a peak-load deficit would
occur as early as 1989.
The ¡PC report does not show a resource deficit until 2001
under the medium load conditions. But IPC's most recent economic
forecast--developed after it made the report--forecasts economic
growt in the applicant's service area. IPC says the increased
economic growt will let it absorb the additional Swan Falls
capability close to the 1993 on-line date for the project
amendment.
This is a reasonable position, because increased economic
growt would bring ¡PC's projected medium load closer to the high
load IPC proj ects in the rep.ort. The high load in the report
produced a resource deficit in 1996. .
iPC is located in the Nortwest Power Planning Council
(Council) Area. The Council's 1989 supplement to the 1986 power
plan shows a need for power could exist in the Council area any
time from the early to late 1990' s. The Council proj ects an area
resource deficit under medium-high load in 1995 and says a
deficit could occur on the investor-owned utility (IOU) systems
in the Council area in 1992.
The supplement shows power-resource deficits would occu in
the Council area in 1995 under the medium-high load and in the
year 2004 under the medium-low load. The medium load would
create a power resource deficit about 1998 and the high load
,would cause a deficit in 1992. The Council projects deficits on
iou systems by about 1992 with medium-high loads and by about
1998 with medium-low loads.
The supplement also projects a surplus of only 400 to 800
average megawatts in 1990. The Council notes that this level of
surplus requires action in the next few years in order to meet
the area electrical requirements.
In March 1989, the Pacific Northwest Utility Conference
Committee (PNUCC) issued the Northwest Regional Forecast of Power
Loads and Resources. This report shows resource deficits in the
Council area in 1993 under medium-load conditions. PNUCC shows
an iou p.ower-resource deficit could occur as early as 1991.
..
3
PNUCC says comparing loads and resources for the entire area
is academic at best. They note that the picture of each utility
can be quite different from the area-wide perspective.
Hydropower, coming on-line in 1993 , could be useful in
meeting a small part of the above need for power. When
operational, IPC' s proposed additional capacity and energy would
be available to displace thermal generation in the Western
Systems Coordinating Council--which encompasses the Council
area--until needed to serve load directly on ¡PC's system.
Displacing of thermal generation would conserve fossil fuels andreduce atmospheric pollution.
C. PROPOSED PROJECT AN ALTERNTIVES
1. Description of the proposed action. (See figure 2.)
IPC proposes to do the following: (a) replace the existing
powerhouse, which contains generating units with a total rated
capacity of 10.4 MW, with a new powerhouse on the east bank,
containing two identical generating units with a total rated
capacity of 25 MW¡ (b) remove all equipment from the existing
powerhouse and fill the draft tubes and turbine pits with
concrete to elevation 2,315 feet mean sea level (msl); (c)
construct a new switchyard on the east bank, 200 feet downstream
from the powerhouse; and (d) build a new, 1.2-mile-long, 138-
kilovolt (kV) transmission line. The existing powerhouse would
be left in place.
IPCcurrently releases flows over the spillway about 60
percent of the time. The turbine capacity would increase from
the current 8,000 cuic feet per second (cfs) to about 14,000
cfs, and spillway releases would occur only about 15 percent of
the time. There would be no change in the maximum and minimum
operating levels of the reservoir.
The existing Swan Falls dam impounds a reservoir about 12
miles long. At the normal maximum surface elevation of 2, 314. 0
feet msl, the reservoir has a surface area of approximately 900
acres. and a total storage capacity of about 4,800 acre-feet. The
upper 4 feet of the Swan Falls reservoir is used to reregulate
the discharge from thè C.J. Strike project, about 38 milesupstream.
IPC releases a minimum flow of 5,000 cfs from April 1
through September 30, except when the average daily inflow is
less than 5,000 cis; then ¡PC releases the average inflow. From
October 1 through March 31, IPC releases 4,000 cfs or the average
daily inflow, whichever is less. ¡PC controls changes in the
existing powerhouse discharge so that tailwater elevation changes
..4
do not exceed 1 foot per hour and limits the maximum dailyfluctuation of the tailwater elevation to 3 feet.
2. Applicant's proposed mitigative measures.
IPC would do the following: contour spoil areas, cover them
with topsoil, plant suitable vegetation, and determine the type
of vegetative cover it would plant in the spoil areas as a part
of a reclamation plan.
3. Federal lands affected.
_No. 2QYes; Bureau of Land Management (BLM): acreage= 338;
(agency)
__Conditions provided by letter dated I I
2QCondi tions have not been provided.
4. Alternatives to the proposed project.
a. XXNo reasonable action alternatives have been found.__Action al ternati ve:
The available alternatives are to modify or to replace the
existing generating plant to eliminate safety and operational
problems. Replacing the plant, as IPC proposes, would provide
about 50,000 megawatthours more energy annually than wouldmodifying the plant.
b. Alternative of no action.
~. No action, denial of the license, would preclude IPC from
constructing the proposed project. No action would involve no
alterations to the existing environment and would preclude IPC
" from producing electrical power at the site.
D. CONSULTATION AN COMPLIANCE
1. Fish and wildlife agency consultation (Fish & wildlifeCoordination Act) .
a. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS):b. State (s) :
c. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMS):
~Yes.~Yes.~Yes.
_No._No._NO.
2. Section 7 consultation (Endangered Species Act) .
a. Listed species: __None. XX Present: Bald eagles, which are
federally listed as endangered, are present in the proj ect area
(letter from Jonathan P. Deason, Director, Office of
Environmental proj ect Review, Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C., October 20,1989).
,..5
b. Consultation: - :zNotrequired;
. ~Reqúired; completed: I I
Remarks: Asmapy as_ 12 paL,d_'eagleshave been reported inthe proj ect are,a- during- 'the _ winter. We discuss the effects of
the proposed-amenâmeht ~onba¡d eagles and' other raptors in
section G.
3. Section 401 c:er-i.ficatio_n (Clean water Act) .
_Not required.
XARequired; IPC requested certification on 04/17/89.
status : XXGranted by the certifying agency on 06/28/89.
4. CUltural resource consultation (Historic Preservation Act) .
a. state Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO): XLYes.b. National Park Service (NPS): XLYes.c. National Reqister status: _None. XX Eligibled. Council: _Not required. -XCompleted: i Ie. Further consultation: .lNot required. _Required.
_No._No.or listed.
Remarks: Swan Falls Dam and Powerhouse (Dam and Powerhouse)
is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. An
archeological site near the dam (site 10AA17) is a component of
the Guffey Butte-Black Butte Archeological District, which is
also listed on the National Reglster. Next to the Dam and
Powerhouse, IPC' s project operators have residences and other
buildinqs that are eligible for inclusion in the National
Reglster. No other Ratlonal Realster listed or eligible sites
are located in the immediate vicinity of the project.
The SHPO only recently designated the project operators-'
residences and buildings as eligible for inclusion for the
Natlonal Reglster (letter from Dr. Thomas Green, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer, Boise, Idaho, March 16, 1989).
These structures would not be affected by IPC' s proposed land-
clearing or iand-disturbing activities at the project (Idaho
Power Company, 1989a).
5. Recreational consultation (Federal Power Act) .
a. U. S. Owners:
b. NPS:
c. StateCs):
xxYes.
XLYes.XLYes.
_No._No._No.
6. Wild and scenic rivers (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act) .
Status: XX None. _Listed. Determination completed: I I
..6
7. Land and Water Conservation Fund lands and facilities (Landand Water Conservation Fund Act).
Status: AÃNone._Designated.
8. Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act
Under section 4 (h) of the Pacific Northwest Power Planning
and Conservation Act, the NPPC developed the Columbia River Basin
Fish and Wildlife Program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish
and wildlife resources associated with development and operation
of hydroelectric projects within the Columia River Basin.
Section 4 (h) states that responsible federal agencies should
provide equitable treatment for fish and wildlife resources, in
addition to other purposes for which hydropower is developed, and
that these agencies shall take into account, to the fullest
extent practicable, the program' adopted under the Act.
The proqram directs agencies to consult with federal and
state fish and wildlife agencies, appropriate Indian Tribes, and
the NPPC during the study, .design, construction, and operation of
any hydroelectric development in the basin. At the time the
application was filed, our regulations required applicants to
initiate prefiling consultation with the appropriate federal and
state fish and wildlife agencies, the Tribes, and after filing,
to provide these groups with opportunities to review and to
comment on the application. IPC has followed this consultationprocess.
The program states that authorization for new hydroelectric
projects should include conditions for development that would
mitigate the impacts of the project on fish and wildliferesources. The relevant federal and state fish and wildlife
agencies have reviewed and commented on the applica~ion. In
addition, any order amending the license would require IPC to
take mitigative measures to protect fish and wildlife resources,
and therefore is consistent with section 1103 of the program.
Further, article 44 of the license gives the Com:r¡ission the
authori ty to require future alterations in proj ect structures and
operation so as to take into account, to the fullest extent
practicable, the applicable provisions of the program.
E. COMMNTS
1. The following agencies and entities provided comments on the
application or filed a motion to intervene in response to the
public notice dated 08/04/89.
..7
COmmenting agencies ang other entities Date of letter
Department of the Interior 10/20/89
Motions to intervene Date of . motion
Idaho Department of Water Resources '9/13/89
2. XAThe applicant responded to the comments or motion (s) to
intervene by letter(s) dated 09l18/89-.
F. AFPEC'rED ENVIRONKEN'
1. General description of the locale.
a. Description of the Upper Snake River Basin.
The upper Snake River Basin comprises an area of about70,000 square miles, extending from the river i s headwaters in
Wyoming at Yellowstone National Park downstream to weiser, Idaho.
The Snake River is the l.argest tributary of the Columbia
River, and the Upper Snake River Basin makes up about 28 percent
of the Columia River Basin. Major tributaries within the Upper
Snake River Basin are the Henry's Fork, Tet.on River, Big Wood
River, Bruneau River, Boise River, Owyhee River, Payette River,
and Weiser River. The water resources of the basin have been
developed extensively for irrigation, flood control, power,
municipal and industrial supplies, livestock water, pollution
abatement, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement (Federal
Power Commission, 1967).
b. Existing licensed projects and exempted projects in the river
basin, as of 12/01/89.
There are 49 licensed proj ects and 63 exemptions from
licensing in the Upper Snake River Basin.
c. Pending license and amendment to license applications
in the river basin, as of 12/01/89.
Project No.
18
4797
5090
5797
6329
8497
9452
proj ect name
Twin Falls
Auger FallsShelleyStar Falls
Oxbow Bend
Mesa II
Hardy Box Canyon
Water body
Snake River
Snake River
Snake River
Snake River
South Fork Payette River
Middle Fork Weiser River
Box Canyon Creek, Snake River
d. Target resources.
..8
We have identified riparian vegetation, wintering waterfowl,
and nesting raptors as target resources in the bas in based on
their regional importance, existence of these resources in the
- project area, and the effect of past development on these- resources..- "_._- .
The construction of water projects that ,have flooded
iowlying areas and diverted water from the river accounts for
much of the past losses .of riparian vegetation in the basin.
Significant losses of riparian vegetation are closely associatedwi th the conversion of free-flowing reaches of the Snake River topools' and impoundments. About 30 percent of the Snake River,
from its headwaters to Weiser, Idaho, has been converted from its
former free-flowing conditions as the result of dam construction
(Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 1987). Wildlife
populations associated with. the riparian communities have beenreduced.
The creation of impoundments have also negatively affected
waterfowl wintering habitat. Increases in ice cover during
severe winters reduces winter resting habitat. Conversely,
cereal grain crops associated with agricultural development
provides feeding areas for ducks and geese.
Nesting raptors have been adversely affected by the
conversion of large areas of native rangeland to agriculture.Raptor nesting has also been affected by loss of sui table nest
sites and mortality from electrocution.
e. Cumulative impacts.
Because the proposed action would not alter the flow regime
of the Snake River, no impacts to riparian communities orwintering waterfowl would occur.. The proj ect could have long-
term impacts on nesting raptors if the proj ect transmission line
is not designed to minimize electrocution hazards. Appropriate
raptorprotection measures are discussed in Section G.
2. Descriptions of the resources in the proj ect impact area
(Source: Idaho Power Company, 1981, application, exhibit E,unless otherwise indicated).
a. Geology and soils: The project lies within the Columbia
Intermountain geomorphic province , commonly referred to as the
Columbia Plateau. The area is characterized by thick accumula-
tions of nearly horizontal sheets of basalt.
The portion of the Snake River that is affected by the
existing proj ect generally flows in a narrow canyon several
hundred feet below the surrounding plateau. The Swan Falls dam
lies 650 feet below the rim of the canyon; the canyon is about
..
9
1,400 feet wide at the damsite. The canyon walls decrease in
height at the upper end of the reservoir.
Throughout the length of the reservoir, basalt isinterbedded with volcanic tuff and sedimentary deposits. A
reservoir shoreline stability survey conducted in 1989 revealed
no serious erosion or slope stability problems: no areas in need
of stabilization were identified.
b. Streamflow:
low flow: 7,421 cfs: flow parameter:
high flow: 18,999 cfs: flow parameter:average flow: 10,878 cfs.
average monthly low flow.average monthly high flow.
These flows are based on the period of record from 1928 to
1985.
c. Water qyallty: Water quality of the Snake River in the
project vicinity is of poor to fair quality, impaired by highnutrient concentrations and elevated sumer temperatures. IPC i S
water quality sampling of Swan Falls reservoir during July to
September 19 a 1 showed dissolved oxygen levels to be between 6. 4
and 10.8 milligrams per liter and water temperature between 16.and 23° Celsius.
d.. Fisheries:
Anadromous: XX Absent._Present.
Res~dent: _Absent.2QPresent.
The fish populations of Swan Falls reservoir is made up
-almost exclusively of nongame species, primarily largescale
sucker, carp, and northern squawfish. These nongame fish and
smallmouth bass, black crappie, mountain whitefish, and white
sturgeon are found in the Snake River, downstream of Swan Falls
dam.
e. Vegetation:
Cover type Dominant species .
Annual grassland Chea tqrass brome.
Shrub-grassland Big sagebrush,shadscale saltbush,
black greasewood,rubber rabbitbrush,
cheatgrass brome,
. ...10
inland sal tgrass,
broom snakeweed.
Herbaceous riparian Small willows,
beggarticks, common
cocklebur, sneeze-weed, goldenrod.
.. "...~...:.,. -
willows and common
cottonwood.Riparian woodland
f. Wiis;life: Mammals in the project area are mule deer, coyote,
badger, mountain cottontail, black-tailed jack rabbit, yellow-
bellied marmot, and Townsend's ground squirrel. California quail
is the most abundant upland game bird in the proj ect area. Other
upland game birds are ring-necked pheasant, chukar, gray
partridge, and mourning dove. Many of these species depend on
riparian vegetation for part of the year.
Substantial numers of ducks and geese use the proj ect area
for nesting, wintering, and resting during migration. The
stretch of the Snake River between Grandview and the Swan Falls
reservoir typically contains 10,000 to 15,000 wintering ducks.
Islands within theproj ect area are valuable nesting areas for
Canada geese, mallards, and other ducks.
The project is located within the Snake River Birds of Prey
Area (BOPA)., administered by BLM. Over 700 pairs of raptors nest
in the BOPA each year. Prairie falcons are the most abundant;
approximately 5 to 10 percent of the entire North American
prairie falcon population nests in the BOPA. Other raptors are
bald eagles, golden eagles, red-tailed hawk, ferruginous hawk,
Swainson's hawk, marsh hawk, and great horned owl (Idaho Power
Company, 1989a).
g. Çyl tural:
__National Register (listed and eligible) properties have not
been recorded.
-XThere are properties listed on, or eligible for listing on,
the National Register QÍ ijistoric PIgcesin the area of theproj ect 's potential environmental impact.
Description: The Swan Falls Dam and Powerhouse (Dam and
Powerhouse) was built in the early 1900's. Since 1920, there've
been four significant modifications of the facility: (1)
replacing a section of the original dam at the west abutment and
extending the concrete spillway (1936); (2) replacing two 750-kW
generating units with two l,100-kW units (1944); (3) improving a
project access road (1983); and (4) building a new spillway
(1986). At the time it was constructed, the Dam and powerhouse
..11
was an important source of power for southwestern Idaho,
contributing significantly to the early economic development of
the area.
Archeological site 10AA17 contains the remains of a
prehistoric dwelling and several layers of refuse. The site is
significant as a contributing component of the Guffey Butte-Black
Butte Archeological District. The District contains more than
114 archeological sites along a 35-mile section of the SnakeRi ver within the Snake River Birds of Prey Area. The District i s
sites are relatively undisturbed, giving archeologists a unique
data base for determining in some detail the prehistory of a
large section of southern Idaho and the arid West.
h. visual quality:
The proposed project would replace a section of the existing
Swan Falls dam with a new powerhouse. The existing dam is
situated in the broad Snake River canyon, carved into an open,predominantly grass.còvered landscape.
Canyon walls are mostly high, steep, and grass-covered at
the lower slopes, rock talus in the steeper slopes, and capped
with dark, vertical rock at the top. cottonwood trees and other
riparian vegetation occur only on the east side of the river,
near the dam. The existing dam has a powerhouse with attractive
architecture characteristic of the early 1900 iS. This powerhouse
is a valuable visual resource of the project site.
i. Recrea.tian: Fishing, hunting, powerboating, canoeing,
rafting, picnicking, and nature study are the primary recre-ationaluses that occur in the -proj ect area. Recreational
facilities at the project are: a picnic area just above the dam;
restrooms on the north end of the dam; a boat launch and docks on
ttie reservoir; a canoe-raft launch downstream of the dam; a walk-
way around the exterior of the existing powerhouse to allow
recreationists to cross the river; and a portage trail around the
south end of the dam for boaters. In 1987, approximately 11,000
people visited the project area.
The primary access to the Swan Falls dam area is by the Swan
Falls Road, which originates in the town of Kuna.
j. I&pd us¡e: L.and in the project area is used for irrigated
agriculture, cattle grazing, and wildlife management.
k. Socioeconomics¡: The project area is thinly populated. In
1980, the town of Kuna, 18 road miles north of Swan Falls, had a
population of 1,765 and the community of Melba, 5 miles northwest
of the Swan Falls dam, had a population of 276.
..12
G. ENVIRONKN'AL ISSUES AN PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
There are nine issues addressed below.
1. ReintraductiaD of anadromous fish: Construction9f fishwa.ysat Swan Falls dam may be desirable in thefutur,e~ .. FWS is.. -'.
evaiuating the possibility of returning'anadromous fish to the
Snake River basin, upstream of Brownlee res.erVoir., To make any
reintroduction attempts easier, the Department of the Interior
(Interior) wants to reserve authority under section .18, of the
Federal Power Act to prescribe f ishways if needed in the future.
If the agencies find anadromous fish can bereihtroducedto
the basin, fish passage at Swan Falls may be needed. Fish
passage would enhance the use of the middle and upper Snake River
basin by anadromous fish. Reserving to Interior the authority to
prescribe fishways would ensure appropriate facilities are
constructed,. if needed.
2. Gaging: Proper gaging is necessary to ensure compliance with
the ramping rates required by article 39 of the license. IPC
proposes to install a recording gage, downstream of the dam, that
would allow accuate monitoring of the ramping rates. FWS and
the Idaho Departent of Fish and Game (IDFG) agree with IPC isproposal.
IPC's proposed ramping rate gaging plan is sufficient to
ensurecomplia.nce with article 39. Therefore, IPC should install
the proposed gage at a suitable location downstream of the dam,
determined after consultation with FWS and IDFG.
3.Revegetatlan: constructing project facilities would cause the
temporary loss of about 23 acres of vegetative cover at areas
used for equipment laydown and asseinly, temporary construction
offices, and spoil disposal. This vegetative cover, primarily
grasses and scattered shrubs t prevents soil erosion and provides
food and cover for wildlife. IPC has a reclamation plan for
areas disturbed in the course of the proposed construction. The
plan, prepared after consulting with FWS, BLM, and IOFG, provides
for disking compacted soils, seeding, and monitoring the success
of revegetation.
Game and nongame animals use the grasslands and shrub-
grasslands that the proposed construction would affect.
Revegetating disturbed areas after construction would speed the
restoration of the wildlife habitat value of the area and would
minimize erosion. IPC's reclamation plan would ensure the
revegetation of disturbed areas and the plan should be approved.
4. Raotor protection: Raptors found in the project area include
bald eagles, golden eagles, prairie falcons, ferruginous hawks,and owls. Transmission lines may constitute an electrocution
..13
'hazard for raptors and other birds large enough to simultaneously,_:~- --'tÓü-ch'" twcf energized wires or other hardware. IPC proposes to
install anew, 1. 2-mile-long, 138-kV transmission line. As
required by article 42 of the license, IPC developed a plan to
, -prev-ent. ~the accidental electrocution of raptors . This plan,
,appi:ovecï on January 13, 1984, would adequately protect bald.. eagles and other raptors using the project area. Therefore, IPC
should construct the new, 1.2-mile-long transmission line
according to its approved raptor protection plan.
5. çonsyltatiQn with the Advisory council on Historic
PreserygtioD 0D tbe impacts to site Swan ralls Dgm and Powerhouse
and' site'iOl\17: The SHPO says that his office has no record .of
a memorandum of agreement between the Commission and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation on the measures necessary to
mitigate the proj ect' s impacts to the Swan Falls Dam and
Powerhouse and site 10AA17. The sapo says the Advisory Council
should be allowed to comment on the project's effects on these
sites. In his comments, the SHPO includes a draft memorandum,
which contains the conditions required in article 40 of the
project license, noting that no changes in mitigative measures
are necessary (letter from Dr. Thomas Green, Deputy state
Historic Preservation Officer, Idaho state Historical Society,
Boise, Idaho, March 16, 1989).
Before the Commission issued the license for the project, we
consul ted the Advisory Council on, Historic Preservation on the
project's effect on the Dam and Powerhouse and on site 10AA17.
wi th minor revisions, the Council. agreed with our recommended
mitigation (letter from Louis Wall, Chief, Western Proj ect
Review, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Golden,
colorado, December 16, 1982). The impacts to the Dam and
Powerhouse and to site 10AA17 of IPC's proposed license amendment
are the same as those we addressed when the proj ect was licensed.
Aricle 40 of the proj ect' s license contains our mitigation
and the Advisory Council's revisions. The SHPO states, and we
agree, that the conditions in article 40 are adequate to mitigate
the effects of the amended project and do not need to be updated
(letter from Dr. Thomas Green, Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise, Idaho, March 16,
1989). We told the Advisory Council we've included article 40 in
the license for the proj ect and that it addresses their concerns
(letter from Lawrence Anderson, Director, Office of Electric
Power Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D. C., May 26, 1983). Because the effects of the
proposed action on the Swan Falls Dam and Powerhouse and site
10AA17 are the same as those previously reviewed by the Advisory
Council, we conclude that further consultation is unnecessary.
Article 40 requires the protection of site 10AA17 by
fencing; the archeological excavations cited in the article have
. ,..14
been completed since issuance of the license. The article
requires the following mitigative work at the Dam and Powerhouse:
(a) restoration of the external appearance of the e~isting
powerhouse; (b) documentation of the impact areas according to
the standards of the Historic American Engineering Record. (HAER). of the National Park Service; (c) filing of copies of the
e~isting engineering drawings with the SHPO; (d) construction of
a public educational display concerning the historical signifi-
cance of the facility; and (e) offering of the historical
electrical equipment that will be disposed of to the Smithsonian
Institution or other appropriate institution. This work shall be
undertaken in a manner satisfactory to the SHPO and the HAER.
6. Maintenance 9t the histgrical integrity at the operator's
village agjaçent to tbe Swan Falls Dam and Powerhouse: The SHPO
recommends that IPC develop a long-term preservation plan for the
historical residences and buildings used by the proj ect operators
(letter from Dr. Thomas Green, Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise, Idaho, March 16,
1989). Such a plan would ' maintain the historical integrity ofthese structures.
We agree with the SHPO. Although these residences and
buildings would not be affected by proposed land-clearing and
land-disturbing activities, use of the structures and maintenance
and repair work associated with continued operation of the
proj ect could alter the historical integrity of these structures.
Removing or destroying a structure also could result in the loss
of historic information and could affect the historical integrity
of the structure and other structures in the area. We therefore
recomm.end that IPC maintain, repair, and document the historic
residences and buildings identified by the SHPO, if removal or
destruction would occur, in accordance with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation. Such work should be undertaken in a manner
satisfactory to the SHPO.
IPC should file for Commission approval a cultural resources
management plan, describing the standards and guidelines it would
follow in maintaining or repairing historic structures, togetherwi th the comments of the SHPO on the plan.
If IPC plans to alter or remove any structure, at least 90
days before any alteration or removal of the structure, IPC
should file for Commission approval: (a) a specific mitigative
plan to document the significant information that would be lost
and to minimize impacts to associated historic structures, and
(b) a copy of a letter from the SHPO, commenting on. the
acceptability of the plan.
7. Archeologiçal or historic sites discovered durino construction
or ooeration ot the pro; ect. or that mav be imoacted from changes
.'.
15
.
in the location of proiect facilities: . Although article 40 of
the license requires mitigative- work-to protect archeological
sites that may be discovered-dùririg land-clearing and land-
disturbing work associated with project construction, it does not
outline the specific' procedures tl;at should be undertaken to
protect such sites 'orr~ir.e-cuitJ.rai,resources investigations
in previously unsurveyed -areas' th'at'areaffected by changes in
. the location of project fa-eilities. We therefore recommend the
inclusion of a more comprehensive article to include such
procedures, and to mitigate_; impacts.from changes in the location
of project facilities. Here is our rationale for such mitigative
work.
The SHPO's comments on the proposed proj ect are based on the
premise that the project would be constructed as described in theapplication without significant changes. Changes to the proj ect,
especially changes in the proposed location and design of a
project, are occasionally found to be necessary after a license
has been issued, and may require an applicant to amend a license.
Under these circustances, whether or not an application for
amendment of license is required, the SHPO' s comments would no
longer reliably depict the cultural resources impacts that would
result from developing the project. Therefore, before beginning
land-clearing or land-disturbing activities within the project
boundaries, other than those specifically authorized in the
license and previously commented on by the SHPO, IPC should
consul twi th the SHPO about the need to conduct a cultural
resources survey and to implement avoidance or mitigativemeasures.
Also, land-clearing and land-disturbing activities could
adversely affect archeological and historic sites not identified
in the vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, if IPC
encounters such sites during the development of proj ect works or
related facilities, IPC should stop land-clearing and land-
disturbing activities in the vicinity of the sites, should
consult ~ith the SHPO on the eligibility of the sites, and should
carry out any necessary measures to avoid or to mitigate impactsto the sites.
Either before starting land-clearing or land-disturbingactivi ties associated with any changes to the proj ect, both
proposed and necessitated, or before resuming land-clearing and
land-disturbing activities in the vicinity of any previously
undiscovered sites, IPC should file with the Commission a plan
and a schedule for conducting the appropriate studies, along with
copies of the SHPO' s written comments on the plan and the
schedule. IPC should not start or resume land-clearing or land-
disturbing activities, other than those specifically authorized
in any order amending the license and commented on by the SHPO,
or ~esume such activities in the vicinity of an archeological or
historic site discovered during construction, until informed by
..16
the Commission that the requirements discussed above have beenfulfilled.
8. Recreational facilities: Providing improvements at existing
project recreational facilities would enhance recreational
opportunities at the project site. In its revised recreational
plan, ¡PC proposes to provide the following: (a) an extension of
the upstream boat ramp and additional docks at this location, (b)
a public drinkinq water fountain at the upstream picnic area, and
(c) a display of a turbine in the existing powerhouse. In
additlon, ¡PC proposes to renovate the powerhouse walkway and
upgrade the restrooms to accommodate the handicapped. Providing
these improvements would enhance existing opportunities and
better accommodate recreational use at the project site.Therefore, IPC i S revised recreational plan should be approved.
9. Impacts of powerhoyse releases on downstream canoe-raft
launching t.acility: Water releases during operation of the
proposed proj ect powerhouse could adversely affect the existing
downstream canoe-raft launching facility. Over time, changes in
streamflow could cause silt to collect in the launch area and
interfere with normal operation of the facility. This could
adversely affect recreational use of the river by reducing
downstream access for canoeing and rafting.
IPC proposes to monitor effects of tailrace discharqes on
the launching facility wi thin the first 18 months after proj ect
operation begins; if adverse effects are found, then IPC proposes
either to modify or to relocate the launching facility. Several
sites downstream of the dam would be suitable for relocating the
facility (personal communication, John Barnes, Idaho Department
of Parks and Récreation~ Boise, Idahö~ October 11, 1989). To
enSure that downstream recreationai opportunities are maintained
and existinq use is accommodated, IPC, after consulting with the
appropri~te agencies, should monitor the project i seffects on the
launching facility during the first 2 years of operation of ~he
new powerhouse. If monitoring shows project operation is having
an adverse effect on canoe and raft launching, IPC should
relocate or modify the facility to avoid adverse impacts from
powerhouse releases. .
.
H. ENVIRONMNTAL IMPACTS
1. Assessment of impacts expected from the applicant i s proposed
proj ect.(P), with the applicant i s proposed mitigation and any
conditions set by a federal land management agency; the pro-
posed project with any additional mitigation recommended by
the staff (Ps); and any action alternative considered (A).
Assessment symols indicate the following impect levels:
o = None;1 = :t1inor;2 = Moderate;3 = Major;
..17
.A = Adverse; B == Beneficial; L = Long-term;. S.= Short-t,erm.
Impact
I
Impact .
Resource P Ps A Resource p . Psi A .,-,
a.Go""1 nov-Q",'; i..lAS f.Wildlife lAS
g.Cultural:-
lb.-i "'W n Archen1 orr; ca 1 îÄT i '.
;:
c.Water quality:
Tem 0 Histor;c~l 2AL lAL
Dissolvedoxvoen n h.Visual mi~litv lAL
Turbidity and 2AS
sed;inøntation lAS L Rec"'e~tion lBL
d.Fisheries:.
A -0 ; .T,;nd 0use
Re . ~n i k.so~~ "'''~onnmics 0
e.Veo~ta~; on lAS
Remarks:
a. Constructing the new powerhouse and swi tchyard would require
the disposal of 70,000 cubic yards of spoil materials. Existing
roads, supplemented by short ,temporary construction roads, would
give access to construct the new powerhouse.
e., f. Constructing the new facilities would necessitate the
short-term loss of about 23 acres of annual grassland and shrub-
grassland habitat.
i. The downstream canoe-raft launch and the powerhouse walkwaycouldn i t be used during the proposed construction; this would be
an unavoidable adverse impact on recreation in the immediate dam
area. Improvements to existing recreational facilities would
enhance recreation opportunities in the proj ect area.
2. Impacts of the no-action alternative.
Under the no-action alternative, there would be no
construction of project facilities or changes to the existing
physical, biological, or cultural components of the area.
Electrical pOwer generated by the proposed hydroelectric project
would have to be generated from other available sources or offset
by conservation measures.
. "t ,..18
- 3. Recommended alternative (including proposed, required, and
,-'-- ,- -recommended mitigative measures) :
XX Proposed proj ect.__Action al ternati ve._No action.
~- -"4:. -Reason(s) for selecting the preferred alternative.
The proposed redevelopment would generate more electrical
energy from a renewable resource without significantly affecting
the existing environmentalcondi tions of the proj ect area.
I. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMNDED ALTERNATIVE
Excavation for the proposed powerhouse would generate spoil
materials, con$isting mostly of rock fragments. wildlife would
experience a minor, short-term adverse impact as a result of human
disturbance and the loss of 23 acres of habitat during the 3.5-
year construction period. Use of the downstream canoe-raft launch
and the p.owerhouse walkWay would be precluded during construction,
causing a moderate, short-term impact on recreational use in the
immediate area of the dam.
J. COMPREHENSIVE DEVLOPMENT
Section 4 (e) of the Federal Power Act (Act) states that in
deciding whether to issue a license, the commission, in additionto considering the power and development purposes of the proj ect,
must give equal consideration to the purposes of energy
conservation for the protection of , mitigation of,. damage to, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, the protection of recreational--
opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of
environmental quality.
-In section 10 (a), the Act further requires that the proj ect
adopted, in the judgment of the Commission, must be best adapted
to a comptehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway for
the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce; improving
and using water power development for the adequate protection,
utilization,a.nd enhancement of fish and wildlife (including
related spawning grounds and habitat), and other beneficial public
uses, including irrigation, flood control, water supply, and
recreational and other purposes discussed in section 4 (e) .
As we said ,the proposed redevelopment would generate 166.1
GWh of electrical energy per year. The proj ect also would provide
for displacement of fossil-fueled electric power plant generation,
improved air quality, and conservation of fossil fuels.
..19
We've evaluated the effects of project redevelopment on the
resources of the project area and discussed mitigative and
enhancement measures that should be implemented.
The mitigative measures we recommend are: (1) installing a
streamflow recording gauge, downstream from the proj ect; (2)
reclaiming areas disturbed during construction; (3) raptor-
proofing the new transmission line: (4) developing a cultural
resource management plah: (5) developing additional recreational
facilities: and (6) monitoring siltation at an existing canoe-raft
launching facility and, if necessary, modifying or relocating thefacility.
Based on our review under sections 4 (e) and 10 (a), we
conclude that the proposed amendment, with proposed and
recommended mi tigati ve and enhancement measures, would be best
adapted to a comprehensive plan for developing the Snake River.
x. COlfCIOSIOlf
XXFiiiclìiig of No siqiifìcait Impact. Approval of the recom-
mended alternative (H(3)) would not constitute a major
federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment: therefore, an environmental impact
statement (EIS) will not be prepared.
_intent to Prepare an EIS. Approval of the recommended
alternative (H(3) J would constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environ-
ment: therefore, an EIS will be prepared.
L. LITBll't CITBD
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1987. Draft environmental
impact statement for the Twin Falls (FERC No. 18), Milner
(FERC No. 2899), Auger Falls (FERC No. 4797), and star Falls
(FERC No. 5797) Hydroelectric Projects on the mainstem of :the
Snake River, Idaho. Washington, D.C. November 1987.
Federal Power Commission. 1967. Planning status report for the
Upper Snake River Basin: Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, andOregon. Washington, D. C. 23 pp.
Idaho Power Company. 1981. Second amended application for new
license for the Swan Falls Project, FERC Project No. 503,
Idaho. October 30, 1981.
Idaho Power Company. 1989a. Application for amendment of license
for the Swan Falls Project, FERC Project No. 503, Idaho.
April 24, 1989.
,...20
Idaho Power Company. ' 1989b. '-Response to staff request foradditional informêltîàn for the Swan Falls Project, FERC
Project No. 503, Idaho. September 19, 1989.
M. LIST OF PREPARERS~-Position title
Dianne Rodman
Suzanne Brown
.. .-...:..-.
Thomas C. Camp, Jr.
Timothy LooneyJohn Mitchell
Alan Mi tchnick
Kathleen Sherman
Edwin Slatter, Martin Thorpe
Ecologist (Coordinator)
Environmental ProtectionSpecialist
Landscape Architect
Civil Engineer
Wri ter-edi torSupervisory Ecologist
Soil ConservationistArcheologist
Electrical Engineer
..SAFETY AND DESIGN ASSESSMENT
SWAN FALLS PROJECT
FERC NO. 503, IDAHO
proj ect Design
The existing Swan Falls Project is on the Snake River, in Adaand OWhee Counties, Idaho about 40 miles southwest of Boise.
Idaho Power Company (IPC) proposes amending the . license to dothe following:
( 1) retire the existing powerhouse, remove the turbines and
generating equipment, and fill the draft tubes and
turbine pits with concrete;
(2) remove the existing fish ladder, sluiceway, and part of
the gravity dam to const~ct the new powerhouse;
(3) construct a new powerhouse on the east bank containing
two generating units with a rated capacity of 12.5
megawatts (HW) each;
(4) construct a new switchyard on the east bank;
(5) construct a new 1.2-mile-long, 138-kilovolt transmission
line; and
(6) construct appurtenant facilities.
For the last few years, the proj ect has produced an average
annual energy of about 83 gigawatthours (GWh) with a total ratedcapacity of - 10 . 4 MW.. With the proposed new turbines, the project
would produce about 166.1 GWh of electrical energy per year.
Determination of Licensable Transmisslon Facllltles
The new primary transmission line segment included in the
license would extend from tbe project generators, through voltage
transformation, to an interconnection with an existing .Idaho Power
Company (IPC) 138 kV transmission line. The primary line segment
would include about 1.2 miles of single circuit, 138 kV overhead
transmission line to connect the project switchyard to the IPC' s
existing transmission line between the Strike power plant and the
Bowmontand Caldwell substations, and appurtenant facilities.
pam Safety
The hazard potential of a dam is' the potential for loss of
human life or property damage that would result from failure of
the dam. Our Portland Regional Office (PRO) rates the Swan Falls
dam as having a high downstream hazard potential.
..2
In a letter of April 13, 1989, to IPC, PRO raised ,the hazard
potential from low to high, basing the change on IPC'-s-reVised
probable maximum flood levels, in the 1987 safety inspection
report to the Commission. The studies show that at flows_up to
the probable maximum flood, a dam failur.e wouiasignfficanti:y- .
inundate several downstream residences. - . .
For the 1987 safety inspection report~ IPC hired a consultant
to study the underwater concrete and rock foundati9.n_of the
powerhouse discharge area. Leakage through the wicket gates of
the powerhouse forms currents that make it hard to inspect the
downstream side of the powerhouse. Because the consultant
couldn't determine the condition of the powerhouse foundation--
other than erosion--he recommended:
(1) investigating the structural condition of the
powerhouse, and
(2) making a plan to deal with the erosion of the powerhousefoundation.
On April 11, 1989, IPC told PRO that they'd seen a new crack
in the powerhouse section that contains units 7 through 10. IPC's
consultant reviewed the safety of the powerhouse, said that the
powerhouse could be unstable under normal loading conditions, and
told IPC it should not let the reservoir water surface elevation
exceed 2,312.5 feet mean sea level until it completes foundationrepairs..
On May 18, 1989, IPCsent the Commission a report from the
consultant, recommending that IPC repair voids beneath the
powerhouse before the end of the year.
To insure a safe and adequate proj ect, we recommend including
license article 303 in any order issued. The article requires the
licensee to file final contract drawings and specifications and a
supporting design report for the new powerhouse and for modifying
the existing powerhouse.
To allow us to review and approve the sequence of the
construction of project features, we also recommend including
1 icense article 304 in any order issued. The article requires the
licensee to file a plan and schedule for constructing the new
powerhouse and for modifying the existing powerhouse.
Water BesQyrge Planning and ÇQmprehensiye Development
The existing powerhouse was builtin three different
sections, housing a total of 10 turbine-generating units with a
total installed capacity of 10.4 MW. Units 1 and 2 have been in
service for more than 40 years and are fast approaching the end of
..3
their sevicible life. units 3 through 10 have been in service for. -ìtore than 70 years and have reached the end of their serviciblelife.
~IPC' s expenditures for operation and maintenance of the_ -existing proj ect are much greater than the system average and areincreasing annually. IPC estimates overall plant efficiency is
presently about 74 percent--about16 percent lower than the
efficiency of a modern plant--and therefore proposes to replace
. the existing powerhouse with a new powerhouse containing two bulb-turbine generating units.
The two proposed bulb-turbine units would have a total .
installed capacity of 25 MW--an increase of 14.6 MW for the
project. The bulb-turbines would have a total hydraulic capacity
of 14,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), an increase of 6,000 cfs.
The project's hydraulic capacity would be exceeded about 15
percent of the time, and the project would generate about 166. i
GWh annually with a plant factor of about 75 percent.
Section 10 (a) (2) of the Act requires the Commission to
consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal
or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or
conserving a. waterway or waterways affected by the project.
We reviewed IPC' s proposed license' amendment to see if it is
consistent with the Northwest Power Planning Council's (Council)
Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan. The Council's
plan envisions meeting the growing regional energy requirements in
the most economical manner with environmentally acceptable
resources. The Council considers any environmentally acceptable
resource that is less expensive than coal-fueled steam electric
generation as an acceptable resource for development before thedevelopment of coal-fueled power plants (the council' s pl~pned
marg inal resource).
We developed life-cycle costs of power from the Council's
planned generic coal plant, which we assume would be needed about
the year 1998, for determining if proposed hydroelectric proj ects
are, in the long term, consistent with the Plan, as required bysection 10 (a) 2 of the Act. Our determination that the region,
when treated collectively, would need new coal-fueled steamgenerating plants about 1998, is based on the Council's proj ection
of regional power needs under the medium-high load forecast in its
1989 supplement to the 1986 plan.
Since the life-cycle levelized cost of IPC's proposed project
addition, as of its projected on-line date, is less than the
levelized life-cycle cost of the least-cost or marginal long-term
alternative, in the plan, IPC's proposed license amendment is not
inconsistent with the Council's plan and is economically
beneficial within the long-term objectives of the plan. On
..4
September 14, 1989, the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR)
filed a motion to intervene arguing that the Swan Falls Project
should be consistent with statewide comprehensive plans for
developing the water resources of the state. We find that the
proposed addition to the Swan Falls Project is consistent with the
Idaho state Water Plan.
IOWR also said we should require IPC to do the following:
(1) consider the potential for future water development
upstream from the project and consider the need to
assure that project operation will not interfere with
the current and future beneficial uses of water;
(2) address any effects on the proj ect of IPC' s complying
with comprehensive statewide plans, recommendations of
state resource agencies, and applicable Idaho laws.
In a September 19,. 1989, response to' IDWR, IPC says they
considered items 1 and 2 in preparing their application 21
for amendient.
21 IPC says the proposed license amendment does not conflict
with the following state and regional comprehensive water
resource development plans and programs:
o The Idaho State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan, Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation,
1983.
o The Snake River Birds of Prey Area Management Plan,
Bureau of Land Management, 1985.
o The Idaho Departent of Fisheries Management Plan;
1986-1990, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 1986.
o The Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan,
Northwest Power Planning Council, 1987.
o The Columia River Basin Fish and wildlife Program,
Northwest Power Planning Council, 1987.
o The Idaho State Water Plan, Idaho Department of
Water Resources, 1988.
o The Idaho Protected Rivers Bill, Idaho Legislature,
1988.
o Existing Land Use Policies and Plans of the
Counties of Ada, Elmore and Owyhee.
..5
Federal and- state agencies filed 24 comprehensive plans
discussing various 'resources' ,in Idaho .- We have reviewed these
pians and have deteriined- the proposed license amendment does not
conflict with any of these plans or with any existing or plannedwater resource development in the _Sriake River Basin.
. ._.... .In the -letters '-of--cotnent,no other state agency, federal
agency, or individual says ,the proposed expansion c.onflicts with
any existing or. planned water resource developments in the basin.
No one made specific _ c,omntsor. recoinendations . about ,flood
control, water supply, or irrigation requirements for the SnakeRiver.
Our Planning Status Report for the Upper Snake River Basin
and our Hydroelectric Site Data Base show no existing or proposed
proj ects that would conflict with the proposed expansion of the
Swan Falls Project.
¡conomlc iYlluAtlon
A proposed project is economically beneficial so .long as its
levelized cost is less than the long-term levelized cost of
alternative power to any utility in the region that can be servedby the proj ect.
IPC plans to use the additional power from the redeveloped
proj ect on their system and to market excess power until all the
project power can be used. Our economic analysis of IPC's license
amendment is based on IPC' s marketing of proj ect power in the
Pacific Northwest Region.
We calculate the 50-year levelized alternative power cost in
the region in 1993 will be about 89.4 mills per kilowatthour
(kWh) .
The alternative cost is the levelized unit cost of powerfrôm
coal-fueled steam electric plants we assumed will be needed in the
region by 1998 and the value of only displaced fuel consumption in
existing coal-fueled, steam-plants until that time. Based on the
Council's projected collective regional need for additional
generating resources in the Pacific Northwest, as shown for the
medium-high load forecast in the Council's 1989 supplement to the
1986 Power Plan, we assume that new coal plant generating
resources will be required within the region by 1998.
The 89.4 mills/kWh value includes an average capacity-value-
reduction component equal to the cost of adding combustion turbine
capacity to a hydro project to allow it, under critical water
conditions, to perform at the level of a coal plant.
..6
As we stated, ¡PC proposes to redevelop the Swan Falls
Proj ect by retiring the existing powerhouse and constructing a new
powerhouse containing two 12.5 MW bulb-turbines.
The existing powerhouse and generating units are in poor
condition. In the amendment application, IPC estimates the
development cost of the new powerhouse would be $45.3 million. On
september 19, 1989, IPC filed additional information showing the
estimated cost to repair or replace the civil, mechanical,
and electrical systems in the existing powerhouse to be $37.4
million. The 14.6 MW increment of capacity would cost $7.9
million to develop.
The refurbished proj ect would generate about 112.5 GWh
annually ¡ the new powerhouse would generate about 166.1 GWH
annually. Building the new powerhouse, would increase the annual
generation of the project by 53.6 GWh annually.
Using the regional power value, we examined the economics of
the proposed increase -in installed capacity. We estimate the
levelized annual cost of power from the project would be 32.5
mills/kwh and the levelized net benefit would be 56.9 mills/kwh.
Because the added capacity of the new powerhouse would be
economically beneficial, we recommend that IPC build it.
Exhibits
The following parts of exhibit A and the following exhibit F
drawings conform to the Commission J s Rules and Regulations are
approved and made a part of the license:
Exhiplt Ail: New Power Plant section on page A-9, Substation
section on page A-l0 and Transmission Line section on page A-ll.
EfÇlbit F:
Sheetil
1 of 6
FERC No.503 -sbowing
105 General Plan
3 of 6 107 Existing Powerhouse Structure
Plan and Section
4 of 6 108 Existing Powerhouse StructureSections
6 of 6 109 New Powerhouse Plan and Sections
ii Filed with the Commission on April 24, 1989.
"I ,...\
7
List of Preparers
Timothy Looney, civil Engineer.
Martin Thorpe, Electrical Engineer.
..
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
BEFORE TH
IDAHO PULI UTITIES COMSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-9o-2
ATIACHNT NO.2
IDAHO DEPARTMT OF WATER RESOUCES
~MEORAt DECISION AN) ORDER
..
BEFORE THE DEPARTM OF WATER RESOUCES
OF THE
STATE OF IDAHO
In the matter of Application for
Permit No. 02-7379 in the Name of
idaho Power Company
MEORAUM DECISION
AN
ORDER
This matter having corne before the idaho Department of Water Resources
(department) as a result of reviewing Application for Permit 02-7379 for
approval, the department Finds, Concludes and Orders as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On March 31, 1982, the Idaho Power Company (applicant) filed an
application for permit with the department proposing the diversion of 6,550
cubic feet per second (cfs) of water of the Snake River at a point within lots
10 and 11, Section 18, T2S, RlE, BM, Ada and Owhee counties. The proposed use
of the water is for power generation purposes at the existing Swan Falls dam
site located in Lot 11, Section 18, T2S, RlE, BM and the 'proposed season of use
is January 1 through December 31 of each year.
:2. The application was pulished on May 5 and 12, 1982 in the Owhee
Nugget, a newspaper of general circulation in Owhee County, Idaho and on May 6
and 13, 1982 in The Idaho Statesman, a newspaper of general circulation in Ada
County, Idaho.
3. On May 20, 1982, the application was protested by the South Board of
Control, Owhee Project. On October 25, 1982, the protest was withdrawn.
4. The appropriation sought is for a ru-of-river project and there
will be no change in the upstream or dowstream flow of the river. Storage will
not be increased over the storage impounded for the existing project.
5. On December 22, 1982, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) issued a new license (Major) in connection with the existing Swan Falls
project (No. 503) . The license authorized redevelopment of the project
including a new spillway, a new powerhouse and an increased total installed
capaci ty of 25 MW, replacing the existing capacity of 10.4 MW.
6. On April 30, 1987, FERC issued an amended license deleting author-
ization to add 14.6 MW of new capacity to the existing facility.
7. The applicant is in the process of submitting a second application
to amend the FERC license which would allow the applicant to again add 14.6 MW
of new capaci ty to the existing facili ty.
8. Section 42-203A( 5), Idaho Code, provides that an application may be
rejected or partially approved if the proposed use is such:
MEORAUM DECISION AN ORDER -- Page 1
..
a) that it will reduce the quantity of water under existingwater rights, or
b) that the water supply itself is insufficient for the
purpose for which it is sought to be appropriated, or
c) where it appears to the satisfaction of the departmnt
that such application is not made in good faith, is made
for delay or speculative purposes, or
d) that the applicant has not sufficient financial resources
with which to complete the work involved therein, or
e) that it will conflict with the the local public interest.
9. The applicant is a party to the contract and agreement affecting
rights to water use at Swan Falls dam and to use of water tributary to the Snake
River upstream from Swan Falls dam.
CONCLUSIONS OF LA
i. The proposed use of water is non-consumptive in nature and will not
increase or decrease the flows of the Snake River which exist in connection with
the existing project.
2. The proposed use will not increase the amount of water stored over
the amount already stored in connection with the existing project.
3. The proposed use i s non-consumtive in nature an will not reduce
the quantity of water under existing water rights.
4. The flows of the Snake River are sufficient at times to provide the -
water to increase the power generation capability of the Swan Falls facility.
5. The application is made in good faith, since the applicant is in
the process of obtaining other permits needed to construct and operate theproject.
6. The applicant has sufficient financial resources with which to
complete the project.
7. The application is in the local pulic interest.
8. The department should approve the application and issue a permt,
provided, however, such permi t should include conditions as necessary to
acknowledge certain agreements and contracts.
ORDER
It is therefore, hereby, ORDERD that Application for Permit No.
02-7379 be approved subject to the following condi tions:
1. The idaho Power Company (permit holder) shall either install a
measuring device or provide a certified measurement or flow computation prepared
MEORAUM DECISION AN ORDER -- Page 2
..
by a professional engineer based upon system design to show the amount of water
beneficially used in the power generating facility.
2. The diversion and use of water under this permit is subject to the
control of the watermaster of any water district established on the reach of the
Snake River which includes Swan Falls dam.
3. This permit is subject to the provisions of Sections 42-205 through
42-210, Idaho Code, restricting the sale, transfer, assignent, or mortgage of
this permit. Failure to comply with these provisions is cause for irmediate
cancellation of this permi t.
4. The diversion and use of water under this permit and any license
subsequently issued is subject to review by the director on the date(s) of
expiration of any license issued by FERC. Upon appropriate findings relative to
the interest of the public, the director may cancel all or any part of the use
authorized herein and may revise, delete or add conditions under which the right
may be exercised.
5. The water right acquired under this permit shall be junior and
subordinate to all rights to the use of water from the Snake River and sources
tributary thereto upstream from Swan Falls dam wi thin the state of Idaho that
are initiated later in time than the priority date of this permit and shall not
give rise to any right or claim against future rights to the use of water within
the state of Idaho initiated later in time than the priority of this permi t.
6. The director retains jurisdiction of this permit in order to limit
the use of water for hydropower generation purposes to a specific term of years
as required by Section 42-2038(7), Idaho Code.
7. Use of water under this permit shall be non-consumtive.
8. This permit is specifically subject to the agreement among the
state of Idaho, the Governor, the Attorney General and Idaho Power Company dated
October 25, 1984. It is also subject to the Contract between the state of Idaho
and the Idaho Power Company dated October 25, 1984.
9. Without regard to the right granted to the permi t holder to the
beneficial use of 6,550 cfs pursuant to Permit 02-7379, water may only be
claimed and used thereunder if and when the water is physically available and
such permit shall not give rise to any claim on the part of the permit holder to
a flow requirement in the Snake River which exceeds 3,900 cfs during the sumer
season and 5,600 cfs during the winter season as specified in the above
described agreement and contract.
10. Diversion and use of water by the reconstructed Swan Falls power
project shall be pursuant to water rights held by the permit holder (including
Permi t 02-7379) and as such rights are modified by the agreement and contract
and not otherwise.
11. Approval of this permit is subject to the requirement that the
permit holder shall advise the FERC through its licensing process (Section 9(b)
FPA) that the permit holder has been issued a water right permit for the flow
required to operate the planned power project subject to conditions.
MEORAUM DECISION AN ORDER -' Page 3
..
12. The failure of the permi t holder to comply with the condi tions of
the permi t or to obtain appropriate approvals from the FERC to construct and
operate this proposed project pursuant thereto is cause for the department to
cance 1 thi s pe rmi t.
13. Plans of the proposed redevelopment of the project shall be
sOOmi tted to the department for review and approval pursuant to provisions of
Sections 42-1709 through 42-1721, Idaho Code, and the Safety of Da Rules and
Regulations before construction is authorized.
14. Proòf of construction of works and application of water to
beneficial use shall be submitted to the department on or before April 1, 1994.)j) r! /1"Dated this _v day of bfPdL- , 1989.,
CERTIFICATE OF MALING
I HERY CERTIFY That on this the ~day of April, 1989, a true
and correct copy of the foregoing MEORAUM DECISION AN ORDER wasmailed postage prepaid to:
Idaho Power Company
P. O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707 ~£L
RITA I. FLECK
SecretaryjRecords Manager
MEORAUM DECISION AN ORDER - Page 4