19901109Packwood Direct.pdf

..
RECEIVED 0
FtLt:D 0
;SQ NOU 9 Pl1 3 19
it',,,..,. .uAnO PUBLiC
U ¡ JunES COMMISSION
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
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
DIRECT TESTIMONY
OF
JAN B. PACKWOOD
CASE NO. IPC-E-90-2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
..
Please state your name, business address and
present position with Idaho Power Company (Idaho
Power) .
My name is Jan B. Packwood and my business address
is 1220 W. Idaho street, Boise, Idaho. I am Vice
President of Power Supply for Idaho Power.
What is your educational background?
I graduated in 1966 from the University of Nevada
with a degree in electrical engineering. In
August, 1984, I received the degree of Master of
Business Administration from Boise state
University.
Please outline your business experience.
I served four years as a commissioned officer in
the united states Army, following graduation. My
military experience included assignments as a
Company Commander in the Federal Republic of
Germany and the Republic of Vietnam as well as
eight months of technical engineering with the
Army Material Command. I am registered as a
Professional Engineer in the States of Idaho and
Nevada.
I joined Idaho Power in 1970 as an Associate
Engineer in the Company's Central Division in
Boise. My duties included designing electrical
Packwood, Di 1
Idaho Power Company
..
1 transmission and distribution systems to meet
2 customer and Company needs. In 1973, I advanced
3 to Division Engineering Supervisor where I oversaw
4 the design efforts of a 12 employee engineering
5 department.
6 In 1975, I was transferred to Twin Falls as
7 Assistant Electrical Superintendent. A year
later, I became the Electrical Superintendent and8
9 was responsible for all construction, operation
10 and maintenance wi thin the Company's Southern
11 Division. I moved back to Boise in 1980 and
12 assumed similar responsibilities as the Electrical
Superintendent of the Company's Central Division.13
15
I became Manager of Substations in 1983 with
responsibility for the mechanical, electrical,
14
16 control, system protection and communication
17 functions of the Company's generation,
18 transmission and distribution stations. In 1985,
19 I became Superintendent of Engineering with
responsibility for all the non-generation
engineering functions of the Company.
In 1986, I assumed the position of Assistant
20
21
22
23 to the President and Chief Executive Officer with
24 special projects assigned by the CEO.
25 I returned to engineering and operations in
Packwood, Di 2
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
..
1988 as Senior Manager of Power Supply with
responsibility for resource planning, system
planning, high voltage lines and stations,
generation engineering, wholesale marketing and
contract development and administration. In 1989,
I was elected to my current position as Vice
President of Power Supply with added
responsibility for power production, power
operations, thermal generation and environmental
affairs.
What is the purpose of your testimony in this
proceeding?
My testimony will explain Idaho Power Company's
proposal for the reconstruction of the Swan Falls
powerhouse and generating facilities. Questions
concerning the effect of rate basing the Swan
Falls Project should be directed to Mr. James L.
Baggs, Manager of Rates for Idaho Power Company.
Please generally describe the Company's Swan
Fall's proj ect.
The existing 10. 4-megawatt (MW) powerhouse at Swan
Falls will be retired and the Project will be
redeveloped. The redeveloped Project will consist
of a new powerhouse, containing two generating
units with a total rated capacity of 25 MW¡ a new
Packwood, Di 3
Idaho Power Company
..
1 switchyard; a new transmission line; and other
2 existing project works.
3 The Project, upon completion, will consist of:
4 (1) the 25-foot- high, 1,218-foot-Iong concrete
5 and rockfill Swan Falls dam;
6 (2) the Swan Falls reservoir with a surface area
7 of 900 acres and a total storage capacity of
8 4,800 acre-feet;
9 (3) a spillway with crest elevation of 2,300 feet
10 above mean sea level with 12 bays, each
11 provided with radial gates 31 feet wide and
14.5 feet high;12
13 ( 4) a powerhouse at the east abutment of the Swan
15
Falls dam containing two identical horizontal
pi t turbine-generating units, each with a
14
16 rated capacity of 12.5 MW;
17 (5) a substation located on the upper deck of the
powerhouse, equipped with a 13. 8/138-kilovolt
(kV), 30, OOO-kilovolt-ampere, 3-phase
18
19
20 transformer;
21 (6) a 1,400-foot-Iong, 120-foot-wide (bottom
22 width) tailrace;
(7) a 1. 2-mile-Iong, 138-kV transmission line23
24 connecting to an existing 138-kV transmission
25 line owned and operated by the licensee; and
Packwood, Di 4
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
..
(8) appurtenant facilities.
Has the Company received an Order from the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission amending the license
for the Swan Falls Hydroelectric Facility?
Yes, Exhibit 1 is a copy of the Order Amending
License issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission for the Swan Falls Project.
Please describe the Company's recent efforts in
regard to the FERC license for the Swan Falls
Project.
The original Swan Falls license expired June 30,
1970. Idaho Power operated the Project on annual
license 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 uprate of the Project to 25
MW with an expiration date of June 30, 2010. In
January of 1985, Idaho Power proposed 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 authorization to add the 14.6 MWs of
new capacity and reduced the license period by 10
years to June 30, 2000.
In January of 1989 a safety and operational
Packwood, Di 5
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
..
report prepared by an independent consultant
indicated that the old power plant facility needed
to be replaced by the year 1994. In response to
those safety concerns, in April of 1989 Idaho
Power filed an application to amend the License
and again requested authority from the FERC to
rebuild the Project. In its Application 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.
Q.Please describe the status of the company's water
rights for the Swan Falls project.
In 1982, the Company applied 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 Decision and Order issuing a permit for
a water right. Exhibit 2 is the Department. s
Memorandum Decision and Order.
The Company' s existing water rights at Swan
Falls, as well as the projects upstream, are
define~ in the Swan Falls Agreement between the
State of Idaho and Idaho Power Company. A copy
Packwood, Di 6
Idaho Power Company
..
1 was filed with this Commission in Case No. U-1006-
2 244. Basically, the rights are defined at a non-
subordinated level of 3900 cfs in the summer, and3
4 5600 cfs in the winter, as measured at the Murphy
USGS gauging station downstream of Swan Falls Dam.5
6 The Company' s water rights above those flows are
subj ect to subordination to new depletionary uses7
8 if they comply with state law, including new
criteria adopted as part of the Swan Falls9
10 settlement. These new criteria are found in Idaho
11 Code § 42-203C.
12 As part of the Swan Falls settlement package,
13 the Idaho State Water Plan was amended to reflect
14 the 3900 cfs and 5600 cfs flows. The Water Plan
15 minimum flow carries a priority date of the year
it was imposed. Therefore, the Water Plan minimum16
17 is a very junior priority.
18 The Swan Falls Agreement contemplates that
the State of Idaho will assert the Company' s19
20 rights as necessary to protect the minimum flows
21 established by the Agreement. As the oldest hydro
22 rights on the river, the water rights associated
23 with the Swan Falls Project are critical to the
ability of the state and the Company to protect
the minimum flows established by the Agreement and
24
25
Packwood, Di 7
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
A.
..
the Water Plan. It is, of course, essential that
the Swan Falls' Project remain in existence.
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 little 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 rights at
those plants are defined by the Agreement in terms
of flows at the Murphy gauge.
Please briefly explain the process by which Idaho
Power Company estimates the cost for the
construction of hydroelectric projects.
Large hydroelectric projects involve design and
construction which must be customized to the
particular site. As a result, preliminary
estimates contain many unknowns in both the final
project layout and scope. Detailed engineering to
finalize the layout and scope in order to obtain a
more precise estimate would result in extremely
Packwood, Di 8
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
..
high front end costs on all projects. In the
event a particular project was not built, a
significant expenditure would be lost and would
have to be written off. Changes required as part
of the environmental and regulatory review process
could also result in 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 Application Estimate" is subject to
revision as the project is finally designed.
Q.Recognizing that the Idaho Public utilities
Commission has stated that the Company must
provide a more accurate cost estimate than the
"FERC Application Estimate", how does the
Company' s Application in this proceeding meet this
requirement?
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 hydroelectric turbines and
Packwood, Di 9
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
..
generators. After completion of design and
solicitation of bids for the turbines and
generators, the Company is in a better position to
make a cost estimate for the project. This
estimate, which the Company has termed a
"Commitment Estimate", is the Company's best
estimate of cost before the award of any contract
plus an additional amount of 25% to establish a
cost ceiling for the project. The Company has
committed to building the project for either the
amount of the Commitment Estimate (as it may be
adjusted to account for documented changes in
escalation rates or scope) or the actual cost of
the facility, whichever is less. If the final
costs exceed the "Commitment Estimate", the
Company will absorb the extra costs, and will
include in its Idaho ratebase only the amount up
to the Commitment Estimate.
Q.You have stated that the Commitment Estimate may
be adjusted to account for documented changes in
escalation rates or scope. Please provide some
examples.
A.Examples of possible scope changes which could
affect the project ceiling are: (1) Force Majeure
or acts of God impacting the construction; (2)
Packwood, Di 10
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
A.
A.
A.
..
Design optimization for which increased energy
more than offsets the increase in initial
investment; (3) Foundation or site conditions
significantly more expensive than indicated by
exploratory drilling.
What is the Company's Commitment Estimate for
constructing the Swan Falls Hydroelectric
Facility?
Exhibit 3 is the Swan Falls Project Cost Estimate
and Commitment Estimate for (1) the
decommissioning of the old powerhouse, (2) FERC
required renovation of the old powerhouse
structure for historical purposes, and (3)
construction of the new powerhouse.
Q.As the Project is constructed, will the Commission
be provided with construction updates?
Updated Proj ect cost estimates will be submitted
to the Commission as part of the Company's
Quarterly Report of Construction Projects and will
include any scope or escalation changes.
Q.Has Idaho Power Company been required to
accelerate its construction schedule due to the
physical deterioration of the Swan Falls Facility?
Idaho Power has been required by FERC to establish
an expedited construction schedule to insure
Packwood, Di 11
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Q.
A.
A.
..
stabilization of the existing powerhouse by
April 1, 1994, with concentration on compressing
the schedule to January 31, 1994. Exhibit 4 is
Idaho Power's letter, dated March 16, 1990, that
submi tted a revised schedule and plan, and Exhibit
5, FERC's letter, dated March 26, 1990, is the
approval of the revised schedule and plan.
Is it in the public interest for the Commission to
authorize the construction of the Swan Falls
Hydroelectric Facility?
Yes, the reconstructed Swan Falls facilities
should be added to the Company's ratebase upon
completion of the reconstruction. The Proj ect has
been, and will continue 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 public interest of
the state. The Project is a non-deferrable
resource in that the physical state of the plant
requires current, not future, reconstruction and
rehabilitation of the resource to maintain safety
and operational standards.
Q.Does this complete your testimony.
Yes it does.
Packwood, Di 12
Idaho Power Company
.1 '...
BEFORE TH
IDAH PUBUC UTES COMSSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-9Q-2
IDAHO POWER COMANY
EXHBI 1
....
tDDD S'lADS OJ' AJJUCAnDBU UERGY REGt1'lRY COKHSSiOii
Idao Power Company project Ho. 503-006Idaho
omu AJI1G LICDSB
(DJOR)IZ-ý-yy
Idaho Power Comany (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 naviqable waterway of the
United States. The project partially occupies lands of the
United States a~inistered by the Departent of the Interior.
IPC proposes to retire the existinq 10.4-meqawatt (MW)
powerhouse and redevelop the project. The redeveloped project
would consist ot a new powerhouse, containing two generatinq
units with a total rated capacity of 25 MW; a new switchyard; a
new trsission line; and other existinq proj ect works.
On Decemer 22, 1982, IPC was issued a new license for the
Swan Falls Prject.l/ The license authorized IPC, among other
thinqs, to replace the exstinq powerhouse and qenerating units,
thereby increasing the total rated capacity of the proj ect from
10.4 MW to 25 MW. In January 1985, IPC asked permission topostpone this work until the additional cap.aci ty is needed. An
order amendinq license, issued on April 30, 1987, granted therequest by deleting the project exanion from the license.Z/
The April 1987 amendment also reduced the license term from
40 year to 30 year, because the modfication of project works
was no lonqer 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 relicensinq, as stated
in The Montana Power Company, 56 F.P.C. 2008 (1976).
Pulie notice of the application has been issued. Thecommnts filed by aqencies and indivièuals have been fully
eonsiderad in determning whether to issue this orãer.
The Idao Deparbent of Wa1:er Resoures, an interenor,
requests that any amendment of the Swan Falls license be
1/ Idaho Power Company, 21 nRC ! 62,519 (1982).
Y Idaho Power Company, 39 nRC ! 62,114 (1987).
EX 1
CASE NOIP-&2PA. Ifl
PAGE 1 OF 35
..
2
consistent with state law, wi th the provisions of the Swan Falls
Aqreement, with statewide comprehensive water resource
development plan, and with the recommendations of state resource
agencies. We address these concerns in the attachedenvironmtal assessment (EA) issued for the redevelopment of theSwan Falls Proj ect.
coireb,nsive Dev,lc;P1,nt
Section 4 (e) of the Act states that in deciding whether to
issue a license, the Commission, in addition to considering the
power and development puroses of the proj ect, shall give equal
consideration to the followinq: the puroses of enerqy
conservation: the protection of, mi tiqation of dam~qe to, andenancemt of, fish and wildlife; the protection of recreational
oPPortunities; 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 exent to Which a project is consistent with federal
or state comprehensive plan for improving, developing, or con-
servinq a waterway or waterwys affected by the project.
Under section 10 (a) (2), federal and state aqencies filed 24
comprehenive plans that addess various resources in Idaho. Of
these, the staff identified and reviewed seven plans relevant to
this project.¡¡ No confli~s were found.
Based on our review of agency and pUblic comments filed in
ths proceedinq and on ou independent analysis, the Swan Falls
Project, as proposed to be modified, is best adapted to a
comprehensive plan for the Snake River.
¡¡ Idaho fisheries manaqement plan, 1986, Idaho Deparent of
Fish and Gae: Idaho water quality standard and wastewatertreatment requirements., 1985, Idaho Departent of Health andWelfare: Idaho outdoor recreation plan, 1983, Idaho Departent of
Parks and Recreation; State water plan, 1986, Idaho Water
Resources Board; Nortwest conservtion and electric power plan,
1986, Nortwest Power Planing council: Columia River Basin fishand wildlife program, 1987, Nortwest Power Planinq Council;
Protected areas amendments and response to comments, 1988,
Nortwest Power Planing Council.
EX1
CASE NO IPC-62PAC, Il
PAGE2OF3S
..
3
Conservation
The Idaho Pulic Utility Commission requires IPC to submit
an anual plan for acquiring electic power conservation savingson IPC i S electic power system.
In the April 15, 1989, conse~ation plan, IPC lists thesefeatues:
(1) usinq short term acquisition programs of 2 to 3 years to
acquire benefits from low-income cutomers;
(2) usinq efficient appliances and construction standards in
new buildinqs in the residential and commercial parts of the
IPC i S power system;
(3) conducting research and analysis proqrams to build
future conservation capability and to develop a better
understanding of conservation resources in its service area;
(4) producinq an estimated 1,700,000 meqawatthours ofdemnd-side ener conservation by the year 2008.
This plan shows IPC is makinq a good-faith effort to improve
the efficiency of electricity consumption on its system.
ReC9mmendations 9f federal and state Fish And Wilglife Agencies
Section 10 (j) of the Act requires the Comission to include
license conditions, based on recommendations of federal and state
fish and wildlife aqencies, for the protection, mitigation, andencement of fish and wildlife.
The attached EA for the Swa Falls Prj ect addresses the
concerns of the fish and wildlife aqencies, made in response to
the public notice, and provides recommendations consistent with
those of the aqencies.
SumAry of' flngings
The EA contain background information, anlysis of impact,
support for related'licene articles, and the basis for a findingof no significant imact on the enironment. Issuance of thisamendmt is not a maj or federal action significatly affectinq
the quality of the hum environment.
The design of this project is consistent with theenqineerinq $tandard governinq dam safety. The proj ect will be
safe if constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with
the requirements of this order. Anaiysis of related issues is
provided in the Safety and Design Assessment (S&DA), also
attached to this order.
EX8l1
CASE NO. 1F,e2PAC. IP
PAGE 3 OF 35
..
..
The Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, concludes that
the modified Swan Falls Project would not conflict with any
planed or authorized development and would be best adapted to
comprehensive development of the waterway for beneficial publicuses.,
The pir,çtor ord,rs:
(A) The licene 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 exiration date of the original license, hence
terinatinq on June 30, 2.010, for the continued
operation and maintence ot the Swa Falls Project
No. 503, located in Ada and OWhee Counties, Idaho, on
the Snake River, a naviqable waterway of the United
States, and occupying lands ot the United Stateswithin the Birds of Prey Natual Area, wich is
administered by the Deparent of the Interior.
This license is suj ect to the term and conditions of
the Act, which is incorporated by reference as par of
this license, and sub.ject to the regulations the
Commission issues under the provisions of the Act.
(C) Ordering Paragraph (B) (2) of the license for Prject
No. 503 is amended as follows:.
(2) The project works consisting of: (1) the 25-foot-
high, 1,218-foot-lonq concrete and rockfill Swan Falls dam;
(2) the Swa 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
abut:ent of the Swan Falls da containing two identical
horizontal bul-type turbine-qeneratinq units, each with a
rated capacity of 12.5 MW; (5) a substation located 200
feet from the powerhouse, equipped with a 13.8l138-kilovolt
(kV), 30,000-kilovolt-ampere, 3-phase tranformer; (6) a
1, 400-foot-long, 120-foot-wide (bottom width) tailrace;
(7) a 1.2-mile-lonq, 138-kV transmission line connectinq
to an existing l38-kV transmission line owned and operated
by the licensee; and (8) appurtenant facilities.
EX1CA NOIP-e2PAC. IP
PAGE4OF35
..
5
The proj ect 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.OA.
(D) Ordering paragraph (C) of the license for Project No.
503 is amended as follows:
(C) The exibit 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) Aricle 42 (a) is amended -as follows:
(a) For the purose of reimbursinq 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 iS requlations in effect from
time to time. The authorized installed capacity for that
purose is 33,300 horsepower.
(F) The revised recreational plan, filed on Septemer 19,
1989, eonsistinq of pages 4 though 20, and providinq for (a) anexension of the upstream boat ram and additional docks at thislocation, (b) a public drining water fountain at the upstrea
picnic area, (C) a walkway to accomodate 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 additionalarieies:
Article ~Ql. Within 90 days after completinq construction,
the licensee shall file for the Commission approval revised
exibits A, F, and G to describe and show the redeveloped project
as-buil t, and to describe all facilities the Commissiondetermes are necessary and convenient for transmitting all of
the proj ect power to the interconnected system.
Articie 302. Before staring construction, the licensee
shall review and approve the design of contractor-designed
cofferdam and deep excavations and shall enure thatconstruction of the cofferdam and deep excavations is consistent
with the approved design. At least 30 days before strting
construction of the cofferda, the licensee shall submi t to the
Commssion i s Reqional Director and to the Director , Division of
Dam Safety and Inspections, one copy of the approved Cofferdam
construction drawinqs and specifications and a copy of the
letters of approval.
EXIB 1CA NOIF~2PAC If
PAGe 5 OF 35
..
,
Article 303. At least 60 days before starting construction,
the licenee shall submit one copy to the Commission i s Regional
Director and two copies to the Director, Division of Dam Safety
and Inspections, of the final contract drawings and
SPcifications and of a supporting desiqn 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 specifications
to assure a safe and adequate project.
Article 304. Within óO 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.
Article 401. The Commission reserves the authority to
require the licensee to construct, operate, and maintain, or
provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of,
fishways prescribd by the Secretary of the Interior.
Artisle 492. The licensee shall imlement the rampinq rategaqinq plan outlined on page 28 of the licensee i s Septemer 19,
1989, additional informtion tiling with the Commission. Thelicensee shall make the qage operational wi thin ó month 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 Departent of Fish and Game.
Artlcle 403. The licenee shall implement the reclamation
plan providinq tor the restoration of vegetative cover and
wildlife haitat, consisting of pages E-ó though E-10 in the
exibit E of the application for amendment of license, filed on
April 24, 1989. The measures shall be implemented accordinq to
the schedule outlined in the plan.
Aricle 404. The licensee, before starting any maintenance
or repair work at the historic residences and buildinqs occupied
and used by proj ect employees nex to Swan Falls Dam and
Powerhouse and before starting any destrction, removal, or other
alteration of these strctes, shall consult with the Idaho
State aistoric Preseration Officer (SHP) about work necessaryto maintain the structures i historica inteqri ty or to mi tiqate
imact to the structes. Any such work shall be undertaken in
a maner satisfactory to the SHP and in accordance with the
Secretary of the Interior i s Standards and Guidelines for
Archeoloqy and Historic Preservation.
Within 1 year from the issuance of this order, the licensee
shall file for Commission approval a cultural resources
maagement plan, describing the standards and guidelines that
EX1CA NO 1l-EPAIf
PAGE 6 OF 35
..
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 Commission approval (1) a specific
mi tiqative plan to docuent the siqnificant 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 SHP
disaqree about the scope of maintenance, repair, or mitiqative
activities required at these structures, the Commission reserves
the right to direct the licensee at its own expense to conductany work found necessary.
Article 4Q5. The licensee, before starting any land-clearinq, land-disturbinq, or spoil-producing acti vi ties wi thin
the project bounaries, other than those specifically authorized
in this licene, shal consult with the Idaho State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHP), shll conduct a cultural resources
surey of these areas, and shall file for COmmission approval a
cultural resources manaqement plan to avoid or mitiqate impacts
to any siqnificant archeological or historic sites identified
durinq the surey. The survey and plan shall be based on the
recommendations of the SHP and shall be conducted and prepared
by a qulified cultural resources specialist.
If the licensee discovers any previously unidentified
archeoloqical or historic sites during the course of constructing
or developinq project works or other facilities at the project,
the liceee shall stop all land-clearing, land-distubinq, and
spoil-Proucinc¡ activities in the vicinty of the sites, shall
aqain consult with the SB, and shal file for Commission
approval a cu tural resouces maagement plan, prepared by a
qualified culturl resources magement specialist, to avoid ormitiqate imact to significant resources.
The survey and the' plan shall be docuented in a report
containing the followinc¡: (1) a description of each discovered
site, showing whether it is listed or eligible to be listed on
the National Register of Historic Ploces; (2) a description of
the potential effect on each discovered site; (3) proposedmeases for avoidinq or mitiqating the effect; (4)docuentation of the nature and exent of consultation; and (5) a
schedule for mitic¡atinq effect and conducting additional
studies. The Commission may require chanqes to the plan or thereport.
The licensee shall not begin any land-clearinq, land-
disturbing, or spoil-producing activities, other than those
specifically authorized in this license, or resume such
El1CA NO 1f2PAKW. lP
PA7OF3S
..-
8
activities in the vicinity of a site discovered during
construction, until informed by the Commission that the
requirements of this article have been fulfilled.
A¡t~cle 406. The licensee shall construct, operate, and
maintain, or arrange for the construction, operation, and
maintenance of, recreational facili ties and improvements proposed
in the revised recreation plan. Within 3 months after completinq
these facilities or improvements, the licensee shall file with
the Commssion as-built drwinqs, showing the type and location
of the facilities or improvements.
Article 407. During the first 2 years of operation of the
new powerhouse, the licensee, after consulting with the Bureau of
Lad Manaqement (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), and the
Idaho Departent of Parks and Recreation (IDPR), shall monitor
the effects of siltation caused by powerhouse flow releases on
the downstream canoe-raft launching facility.
Wi thin 3 month after completing moni torinq studies, the
licensee shall file with the eossion monitoring resuits,
includinq a description ot the methodoloqy used to monitor ~eproj ect i s impacts on the canoe-raft launch facility.
If monitorinq shOliS operation of the new powerhouse is
adversely affectinq the caoe-raft launch facility, the licensee
shall include in this filinq, for Commission approval, an
amendment to the recreational plan, prepared after consultinq
with BLM, NPS, and IDPR, to relocate or to modify the canoe-raft
launch facility to avoid adverse effect from powerhouse
releases. The licensee also shall document consultation with the
aqencies in the filing.
(H) The licenee shall sere copies of any Commssion
filinq required by this order on any entity specified in this
order to be consul ted on matters related to the Commission
filinq. 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 wi thin 30 days from the issuance date of this order.
Filinq an appeal does not stay the effective date of this orderor any date specified in this order. The licensee i s failure toappeal this order shall constitute acceptace of the term ofths amendment ot licee. ~
Fred E. Sprin r
Director, Office of
Hydropower Licensinq
EX 1CA NOIP-E2PA.IPPA8OF35
,..
..'I-~... :_
B1ROmmirAL ASSESSimir
:rDA EmRGY REGULATORY COHHSSiOii
ORia OJ' KYROPOWER LICESING
DIVSIOH OF PROECT REVIEW
Date: pecemer 1, 1989
Project name: Swan Falls nRC Project No. ~-006
A. APPLiCATiOii
1. Application type: Amendment of license
2. Date filed with the Commission: April 24, 1989
3. Applicant: IdAho pgwer Comany (IPCl
4. Water body: Snake River River basin: Upper Snate River
5. Nearest city or town: ¡una, IdGo (See figyre ¡. 1 !I
6. County: AdO. Owhee State: Idaho
B. PtJSE AN HE J'oa AC'IOH
1. Purpose.
IPC proposes to redevelop the Swan Falls Proj ect by retirinq
the existinq powerhouse that has a an installed capacity of 10.4
lDeqawatts (MW) and constrcting a new powerhouse with a total
instaled capacity of 25 MW.
The proposed project would anually produce about 166.1qiqawatthours (GW) of power. IPC would use the renewable enerqy
from the project to meet its system load requirements.
2. Need for power.
OU review of t:e need for power shows it is in the public
interest to amend the Swa Falls license as proposed.
IPC plan to use the additional proj ect pow.er on the IPC
system and to market excess power until all the amended' proj ect
power can be used. IPC plan the development of their electric
power system on the basis of median water conditions, even though
most power producers in the Pacific Nortwest plan system
development on the basis of critical water conditions.
!I Illustrations and attachents referenced in the text areolDi tted 'frolD this docuent because of reproduction requirements.
~~- -_~.__ -__-0_-..
EX 1
CA NO 1P-E2PAC. IP
PAGE 9 OF 35
..
2
IPC's March 1989 Resource Management Report shows
peak-load electric 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 water conditions about 1996. Under medium
load and critical water conditions, a peak-load deficit would
occu as early as 1989.
The IPC report does not show a resource deficit until 2001
under the medium load conditions. But IPC's most recent economic
forecast--developed atter it made the report--forecasts economic
gro~.. in the applicant's service area. IPC says the increased
economic growt will let it absorb the additional Swan Fallscapabili ty close to the 1993 on-line date for the proj ect
amendment.
This is a reasonable position, because increased economic
growt would brinq IPC's projected medium load closer to the high
load IPC project in the report. The hiqh load in the report
produced a resource deficit in 1996. .
IPC is located in the Nor-..west 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 anytime from the early to late 1990' s. The Council projects an area
resource deficit under medium-high load in 1995 and says a
deficit could occu 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 resoure deficit about 1998 and the high load
,Would cause a deficit in 1992. The Council proj ects deficits on
iou system by about 1992 with medium-hi;h loads and by about1998 with medium-low loads.
The supplement also projects a surlus of only 400 to 800
ave:-age meqawatts in 1990. The Council notes that this level of
surlus requires action in the nex few years in order to meetthe area electical requirements. '
In March 1989, the Pacific Nortwest Utility Conference
Cami ttee (PNUCC) issued the Nortwest Reqional 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 power-resource deficit could occu as early as 1991.
EX1
CA NO 1P-E2PAKW. IP
PAGE 10 OF 35
.-.
3
PNCC 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, comig on-line in 1993, could be useful in
meetinq a small par of the above need for power. Whenoperational, IPC i S proposed additional capaci ty and enerqy 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 IPC i s system.
Displacing of thermal generation would conserve fossil fuels and
reduce atmospheric pollution.
C. PROPOSED PRO~ Al ALnim1'IVS
1. Description of the proposed action. (See fiqure 2.)
IPC proposes to do the following: (a) replace the existing
powerhouse, which contains generting units with a total rated
capacity of 10.4 MW, with a new powerhouse on the east bank,
containinq two identical genertinq units with a total rated
capacity of 25 MW; (b) reiove all equipment from the existinq
powerhouse and fill the draft tubes and turbine pits with
concrete to elevation 2,315 feet mean sea level (msl); (c)
construC' a new switehyard on the east ban, 200 feet downstream
from the powerhouse; and (d) build a new, 1.2-mile-long, 138-
kilovolt (kV) tranission line. The existinq powerhouse would
be left in place.
IPC CUently releases flows over the spillway about 60
percent of the time. The tubine capacity would increase from
the cuent 8,000 cuic feet per second (cfs) to about 14,000
cfs, and spillway releases would occu only about 15 percent of
the time. There would be no change in the maximui 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 IIl, the reservoir has a surface area of approximately 900
acres.a.nd a total storage capacity of about 4,800 acre-feet. The
upper 4 feet of the Swan Falls reservoir is used to rerequlate
the discharge from the C.J. Strike Project, about 38 milesupstream.
IPC releases a minim flow of 5,000 cfs from April 1
through Septemer 30, except when the average daily inflow is
less than 5,000 cfs; then IPC releases the average inflow. From
October 1 though March 31, IPC releases 4,000 cfs or the average
daily inflow, whichever is less. IPC controls chanqes in ~~e
existing powerhouse discharqe so that tailwater elevation changes
EX1
CA NO JF2PA IP
PAGE 11 OF 35
..-
4
do not exceed 1 foot per hour and limits the maximum dailyfluctuation of the tailwater elevation to 3 feet.
2. Applicant i s proposed mitiqative measures.
IPC would do the followinq: contour spoil areas, cove~ them
with topsoil, plant suitable veqetation, 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. XXYes; Bureau of Land ManAgement (BLMl; ac~eage- 338;
(agency)__Conditions provided by letter dated / I
XXConditions have not been provided.
4. Alternatives to the proposed project.
a. XXNo reasonable action alternatives have been found.__Action alternative:
The available alternatives are to modify or to replace the
existing generatinq plant to eliminate safety and operational
problem. Replacing the plant, as IPC proposes, would provide
about 50,000 meqawatthours more enerqy anually than wouldmodifyinq 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
al terationsto the existing environment and would preclude IPC
... frOm producinq elee:ical power at the site.
D. CONStnTA~ION AN COKPLIANCZ
1. Fish and wildlife agency consultation (Fish & WildlifeCoordination Act).
a. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS):b. S'tate (s) :
c. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMS):
XXYes.
XXYes.
XXYes.
_No._No._No.
2. Section 7 consultation (Endangered Species Act).
a. Listed species: __None. Åj; Present: Bald eagles, which are
federally lis'ted as endangered, are present in the proj ect area
(letter from Jonathan P. Deason, Director, Office of
Environmental Proj ect Review, Depar-~ent of the Interior,
Washington, D. C., October 20, 1989).
EX 1CA NO IfPA,IP
PAGE 12 OF 35
..
5
b. Consultation:' . ~N~~ required;
~ReqUired; compl eted: I I
Remarks: As many as. 12 ):ald.eagles have been reported inthe proj ect areer.du-ring.the. winter. We discuss the effects of
the proposed "amendment ~n bald eaqles and other raptors in
section G.
3. Section 401 car.ication (Clean Water Act) .
_Not required.
ÃXRequired; IPC requested certif ica tion on 04/17/89.
Status : ÃXGranted by the certifying agency on 06/28/89.
4. Cultural resource consultation (Historic Preservation Act) .
a. State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO): XXYes.b. National Park Service (NPS): XAYes.c. National Register status: __None. ÃXEliqibled. Council: _Not required. ..Completed: I (
e. Fuer consultation: -XNot required. _Required.
_No._NO.or listed.
Remarks: Swan Falls Dam and Powerhouse (Dam and Powerhouse)
is listed on the Nat~onal Register of Histo¡ic Places. An
archeoloqical site near the dam (site 10AA17) is a component of
the Guffey Butte-Black Butte Archeological District i which is
also listed on the Natlonal Register. Next to the Dam and
Powerhouse, IPC's project operators have residences and other
buildinqs that are eligible for inclusion in the Natlonal
ReqisteT. No other Rat1oDêl Regist,r listed or eligible sitesare located in the imediate vicinity of the project.
The SBPO only recently designated the proj ect operatori'
residences and buildings as eliqible for inclusion for the
NatioDal Reqlster (letter from Dr. Thomas Green, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer, Boise, Idaho, March 16, 1989).
These structures would not be affected by ¡PC's proposed land-
clearinq or land-disturbinq activities at the project (Idaho
Power Company, 1989a).
5. Recreational consultation (Federal Power Act) .
a . 0'. S. Owners:
b. NPS:
c. StateCs):
XLYes.XÄYes.
XAYes.
_No._No._No.
6. Wild and scenic rivers (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act) .
Status: ~None. __Listed. Determination completed: I I
EX1
CA NO 1P-E2PAIf
PAGE 13 OF 35
..
6
7. Land and Water Conservation Fund lands and facilities (Land
and Water Conservation Fund Act) .
Status: X!None._Desiqnated.
8. Pacific Nortwest Power Planinq and Conservation Act
Under section 4 (h) of the Pacific Northwest Power Planninq
and Conservation Act, the NPPC developed the Columia River Basin
Fish and Wildlife Proqram to protect, mitiqate, and enhance fish
and wildlife resources associated with development and operationof hydroelectric proj ects wi thin the Columia River Basin.
Section 4 (h) states that responsible federal agencies should
provide equitable treatment for fish and wildlife resources, in
addi tion to other purposes for which hydropower is developed, and
that these aqencies shall take into account, to the fullest
extent practicable, the program- adopted under the Act.
The program directs agencies to consult with federal and
state fish and wildlife aqencies, appropriate Indian Tribes, and
the NPPC durinq the stUdy, .design, construction, and operation of
any hydroelectric development in the basin. At the time the
application was filed, our requations required applicants to
initiate prefiling consultation with the appropriate federal and
state fish and wildlife aqencies, the Tribes, and after filinq,
to provide these groups with opportunities to review and to
comment on the application. IPC has followed this consultationprocess.
The proqr~ states that authorization for new hydroelectric
proj ects should include conditions for develo~ment that would
mitiqate the impacts of the project on fish añd wildliferesources. The relevant federal and state fish and wildlife
agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. In
aòdition, any order amendinq the license would require IPC to
take mitigative measures to protect fish and wildlife resources,
and therefore is consistent with section 1i03 of the proqrai.
Fu~~er, article 44 of the license qi ves the com=.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 . COioNTS
1. The followinq agencies and entities provided cor~ents on the
application or filed a motion to intervene in response to the
public notice dated 08/04/89.
EX1CA NOIP~2PAKWli:
PA 14 OF 35
...
7
Commenting agencies and other entitIes Date of 1 ette~
Depar-~ent of the Interior 10/20/89
Motions to intervene Da":~ of motion
Idaho Departent of Water Resources 9/13/89
2. XXThe applicant responded to the comments or motion (s) to
interene by letter(s) dated 09/1S¿S9-. .....-
F. AFFECTED ENVRONHN'
1. General description of the locale.
a. Description of the Upper Snake River Basin.
The Upper Snake River Basin comprises an area of about
70,000 square miles, exending from the river's headwaters in
Wyoming at Yellowstone National Park downstream to Weiser, Idaho.
The Snake River is the largest tributary of the Columia
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, Teton 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 irriqation, flood control, power,
municipal and industrial supplies, livestock water, pollution
abatement, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement (FederalPower Commission, 1967).
b. Existinq liCensed proj ects and exempted proj ects 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.
Pro;ect No.
l8
4797
5090
5797
6329
8497
9452
Pro; ect name
Twin Falls
Auger FallsShelleyStar Falls
Oxbow Bend
Mesa II
Hardy Box canyon
WAter bodv
Snake RiverSnake River
Snake RiverSnake River
South Fork Payette River
Middle Fork Weiser River
Box Canyon Creek, Snake River
è. Target resources.
EX 1CA NOIP-E2PA.IP
PA 15 OF 35
-..-
8
We have identified riparian veqetation, winterinq waterfowl i
and nesting raptors as target resources in the basin based on
their reqional 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
lowlyinq areas and diverted water from the river accounts for
much of the past. losses of riparian vegetation in the basin.
Siqnificant losses of riparian vegetation are closely associated
with the conversion of free-flowinq reaches of the Snake River to
pools' and impoundments. About 30 percent of the Snake River,
from its headwaters to Weiser, Idaho, has been converted from its
former free-flowinq conditions as the result of dam construction
(Federal Enerqy Regulatory Commission, 1987). Wildlife
populations associated with the riparian communi ties have beenreduced.
The creation of iioundments have also neqatively affected
waterfowl wintering habitat. Increases in ice cover during
severe winters reduces winter restinq habitat. conversely,
cereal qrain crops associated with aqricultural development
provides feeding areas for ducks and qeese.
Nestinq raptors have been adversely affected by the
conversion of larqe areas of native rangeland to agriculture.
Raptor nestinq has also been affected by loss of suitable nest
sites and mortality from electrocution.
e. cuulative impacts.
Because the proposed action would not al ter t.~e flow reqimeof the Snake River, no impact to riparian communities or ...wintering waterfowl would occu.. The proj ect could have long-
term impacts on nesting raptors if the project transmission line
is not designed to minimize electrocution hazards. Appropriate
raptor protection 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. geoloav aDS soils: The project lies within the Columia
Intermountain qeomorphic 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 t.~e Snake River that is affected by the
existing proj ect qenerally flows in a narrow canyon several
hundred feet below the surroundinq plateau. The Swan Falls dam
lies 650 feet below the rim of the canyon; the canyon is about
._-_._-_..~ --~ ...-
EX1CA NOIP2PA.1f
PA 16 OF 35
..
9
1,400 feet wide at the damite. The canyon walls decrease in
height at the upper end of the reservoir.
Throuqhout the lenqt of the reservoir, basalt is
interbedded with volcanic tuff and sedimentary depos its. 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. Streamtlow:
low flow: 7,421 cfs; flow parameter:
hiqh flow: 18,999 cfs; flow parameter:average flow: 10,878 cfs.
averaqe monthly low flow.average monthly hiqh flow.
These flows are based on the period of record from 1928 to
1985.
c. Water 9Ya.llt:y: Water quality of the Snake River in tbe
project vicinity is of poor to fair quality, impaired by high
nutrient concentrtions and elevated sumer temperatures. IPC Iswater quality samling of Swan Falls reservoir during July toSeptemer 1981 showed dissolved oxygen levels to be between 6.4
and 10.8 milliqram per liter and water temperature between 16.and 23. Celsius.
d. Fisheries:
Anadromous: XXAbsent._Present.
Res ~dent: _Absent.xxPresent.
The fish populations of Swan Falls reservoir is made up
-aliost exclusively of nongame species, primarily larqescale
sucker, carp, and nortern squawfish. These nonqame fish and
smallmouth bass, black crappie, mountain whitefish, and white
sturqeon are found in the Snake River, downstream of Swan Falls
dam.
e. Veaetation:
Cgver tye pgminant s'Oecies .
Anual qrassland Cheatqrass brome.
Shru-qrassland Big saqebrush,shadscale saltbush,
black qreasewood,
ruber rabbitbrush,
cheatqrass brome,
EX 1
CA NO 1f-E2. iwKW1I
PA 17 CF 35
..10
inland sal tqrass,
broom snakeweed.
. . - ". . . _... ... "...
Small willows,
beqqarticks, common
cocklebur, sneeze-
weed, goldenrod.
Herbaceous riparian.
Riparian woodland Willows and common
cottonwood.
f. wildlife: Mamals in the project area are mule deer, coyote,
badger, moutain cottontail, black-tailed jack rabbit, yellow-
bellied marmot, and Townsend' s gro~~d 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.
Substatial numers of ducks and qeese use the proj ect areaf or nesting, wintering, and resting during miqra tion. The
stretch of the Snake River between Grandview and the Swan Falls
reservoir typically contains 10,000 to lS, 000 wintering ducks.
Islands within the project area are valuable nestinq 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 S to 10 percent of the entire Nort American
prairie falcon population nests in the BOPA. Other raptors are
bald eaqles, qolden eagles, red-tailed hawk, ferrginous hawk,
Swainson's hawk, marsh hawJ.:, and great horned owl (Idaho Power
Company i 1989a).
q. CUI tu¡:l :
__National Register (listed and eligible) properties have not
been recorded.
-AThere are properies listed on, or eliqible for listing on,
the National Register 2Í Historic Places in the area of theproj ect 's potential environmental impact.
Oescription: 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)
replacinq a section of the oriqinal dam at the west abutme~tand
extendinq the concrete spillway (1936); (2) replacinq two i50-kW
generating units with two 1,100-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
EXBl1CA NO 1f2PAKW. lP
PA 18 OF 35
..1l
was an important source of power for southwestern Idaho,
contributinq siqnificantly to the early economic development of
the area.
ArCheoloqical site 10AAl7 contains the remains of a
prehistoric dwelling and several layers of refuse. The site is
siqnificant as a contributinq component of the Guffey Butte-Black
Butte Archeological District. The District contains more than
114 archeological sites along a 35-mile section of the Snake
.River within the Snake River Birds of Prey Area. The District's
sites are relatively undisturbed, qiving archeoloqists a unique
data base tor determining in some detail the prehistory of a
large section of southern Idaho and the arid West.
h. Visyal qualitv:
The proposed proj ect would replace a section of the existing
Swan Falls. dam with a new powerhouse. The existinq dam is
situated in the broad Snake River Canyon, carved into an open,predominantly grass-covered landscape.
Canyon walls are mostly hiqh, steep, and grass-covered at
the lower slopes, rock talus in the steeper slopes, and capped
with dark, verticai rock at the top. Cottonwood trees and otherriparian vegetation occu only on the east side of the river,
near the dam. The existinq dam has a powerhouse with attractive
archi teeture characteristic of the early 1900' s. This powerhouse
is a valuable visual resource of the project site.
i. Recreation: Fishing, hunting, powerboating, canoeinq,
rafting, picnicking', and nature study are the primary recre-
ationalu.es that ocCur in the -proj ect area. Recreational
facilities at the project are: a picnic area just above the dam;
restrooms on the no~~ end of the dam; a boat launch and docks on
the reservoir; a canoe-raft launch downstream of the dam; a walk-
wåy around the exterior of the existinq 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. Land use: Land in the project area is used for irriqated
aqricul ture, cattle qrazing, and wildlife manaqement.
k. Soc;igecgDorolcs: The proj ect 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
o~ the Swan Falls dam, had a population of 276.
EX1CA NO IfPA. IP
PAGE 19 OF 35
..
1.2
G. E~RONKAL ISSUES AN PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
There are nine issues addressed below. ..
1. Reintrogyçtion of anedrgmous fish: Construction 9f fish~aj'sat Swan Falls dam may be desirable in thefuture-~ .FWS is.; _'.
evaluating the possibility of returning 'anadromous fish .to the
Snake River basin, upstream of Brownlee res.ervoir.. To mal~e any
reintroduetioR attempts easier, the Departent of the Interior
(interior) wants to reserve authority.under section .18. ofthe
Federal Power Act to prescribe fishways if needed in the future.
If the agencies find anadromous fish can be reintroduced to
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. Gaqing: Prper gaqing is necessary to ensure compliance with
the raminq rates required by article 39 of the license. IPC
proposes to intall a recordinq qaqe, downstream of the dam, that
would allow accuate moni torinq of the raping rates. FWS and
the Idaho Oepartent of Fish and Game (IOFG) agree with IPC'sproposal.
iPC' s proposed raping rate qaqinq plan is sufficient to
ensure compliance with article 39. Therefore, IPC should install
the proposed gage at a suitable location downstream of the dam,
determined after consultation with n~s and IDFG.
3. Reveqetation: Constrcting project facilities would cause thetemora loss of about 23 acres of vegetative cover at areas
used for equipment laydown and assemly, temporary construction
offices, and spoil disposal. This veqetative cover, primarily
grasses and scattered shrus, 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 consul tinq with FWS, BLM, and IDFG, provides
for disking compacted soils, seedinq, and monitoring the success
of revegetation.
Game and nonqame animals use the grasslands and shru-grasslands that the proposed const.-uction would affect.
Revegetating disturbed areas after construction would speed the
restoration of the wildlife habitat v~lue of the area and wouldminimize erosion. IPC' s reclamation ~lan would ensure the
revegetation of disturbed areas and the plan should be approved.
4. Raptor orotection: Raptors found in the project area include
bald eaqles, golden eaqles, prairie falcons, fer=uginous hawks,and owls. Transmission lines may constitute an electrocution
EX1CA NOIP-e2PA.IP
PA 20 OF 35
..13
. hazard for raptors and other birds large enouqh to simultaneously.~ .~~ '-toù'ch- twc:f energized wires or other hardware. ¡PC proposes to
install a new, 1.2-mile-Ionq, 138-kV transmission line. As
required by article 42 of the license, ¡PC developed a plan to.prev.ent. .the accidental electrocution of raptors. 'This plan,
'.æpproveã on January l3, 1984, would adequately protect bald'eagles and other raptors using the proj ect area. Therefore, IPC
should construct the new, 1.2-mile-lonq transmission line
accordinq to its approved raptor protection plan.
5. Consultation with the Advisory Counçil on Historic
Presetyatlon on the impact! to !ite Swan Falls Dam and Powerhouse
and site 10M17: The SHPO says that his office has no record of
a memorandum of aqreement between the Commission and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation on the measures necessary to
mitiqate the project's impacts to the Swan Falls Dam and
Powerhouse and site 10AA17. The SHP says the Advisory Council
should be allowed to comment on the proj ect '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 licene, noting that no changes in mitiqative measures
are necessary (letter from Dr. Thomas Green, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer, Idaho State Historical Society,
aoise, Idaho, March 16, 1989).
aefore the cemmission issued the license for the proj ect, 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, Weste:- Project
Review, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Golden,
colorado, Decemer 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 project was licensed.
Aricle 40 of ~e proj ect 's iicense contains our mi tiqation
and the Advisory council's revisions. The SHPO states, and we
aqree, that the conditions in article 40 are adequate to mitiqate
the effects of the amended proj ect and do not need to be up~a ted
(letter from Dr. Thomas Green, Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer, Idaho State Historical Society, aoise, Idaho, March 16,
198 g). We ~old the Advisory council we i ve included article 40 in
the lic~'"se for the project and that it addresses their concerns
(letter from Lawrence Anderson, Director, Office of ElectricPower Requlation, Federal Enerqy Requatory comission,
Washington, D. C., May 26, 1983). Because the effects of the
proposed action on the Swan Falls Dam and Powerhouse and site10M17 are the same as those oreviously reviewed by the Advisory
Council, we conclude that further consultation is unnecessary.
Article 40 requires the protection of site 10M17 by
fencing; the archeological excavations cited in the article have
-..- -..__...._. ...._- -- -ElBl1CA NOIP-E2PAC.1f
PAGE 21 OF 35
..--
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 existing
powerhouse; (b) docuentation 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
existinq enqineering drawings with the SHPO; (d) construction of
a public educational display concerninq the historical siqnifi-
cance of the facility: and (e) offering of the historical
electrical equipment that will be disposed of to the SmithsonianInsti tution or other appropriate institution. This work shall beunåertaken in a manner satisfactory to the SHPO and the HA.
6. Maintenance of the historical integrity of the operator'svillaae Sid; SiCent to the SWSin Falls Dam Sind Powerhouse: The SHPO
recommends that IPC develop a lonq-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,
19 a 9). Such a plan would - maintain the historical inteqri ty ofthese structures.
We agree with the SHPO. Althouqh these residences and
buildings would not be affected by proposed land-clearing and
land-disturbinq activities, use of the structures and maintenance
and repair work associated with continued operation of the
project could alter the historical inteqrity of these structures.
Removinq or destroyinq a structure also could result in the loss
of historic information and could affect the historical inteqri ty
of the structure and other structures in the area. We therefore
recommend that IPC maintain, repair, and document the historic
residences and buildinqs identified by the SHPO, if removal orciestruction would occu, in accordance with the Secretary of the
Inter-ior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation. Such work should be undertaken in a manner
satiSfactory to the SRPO.
IPC should file for Commission approval a cultural resources
management plan, describinq the standards and guidelines it would
follow in maintaining or repairinq 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, IPCshould file for comission approval: (a) a specific mitigative
plan to docuent 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, commentinq on the
acceptability of the plan.
7. A:-cheolocical 0;- h'lstoric sites c;'scove;eè durincr construction
0;- ooeration Ok the pro; ect, or that rna\' be im'Oac~ed from chancres
EXIB 1CA NO 1f2PAKWIP
.. .------... _. -- .__.._- --"- PA 22 OF 35
--_.......
15
.
in the location of pro;ect facilities: . Although article 40 ofthe license requires mitig.ative.. work-to protect archeological
sites that may be discovered-dürinq lanå-clearing and land-
disturbing work associated with project construction, it does not
outline the specific. procedur~s that should be undertaken toprotect such sites' .orre-.:ire "Cul tJliai resources investigations
in previously unsurveyed -areas- that . are affected by changes in
. the location of project fa.ilities. We therefore recommend the
inclusion of a more comprehensive article to include suchprocedures. and to mitigate-. impacts.from changes in the location
of project facilities. Here is our rationale for such mitigative
work.
The SHPO i 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. Chanqes 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.
Onder these circutaces, 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 developinq the project. Therefore, before beginninq
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 t with 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 archeoloqical and historic sites not identified
in the vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, if IPC
encounters such sites during L~e development of proj ect works or
related facilities, IPC should stop land-clearinq and land-
disturbing activities in the vicinity of the sites, should
consult with the SHP on L~e eligibility of the sites, and should
carr out any necessary measures to avoid or to mitigate impactsto the sites.
Either before starting lanå-clearing or land-disturbing
activities associated with any chanqes to the proj ect, both
proposed and necessitated, or before resuming land-clearing and
land-disturbir.g 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, alonq with
copies of the SHPO' s written comments on the plan and theschedule. IPC should not start or resume land-clearinq or land-
disturbing activities, other than those specifically authorized
in any order amendinq the license and commented on by the SE?O,
or resume such activities in the vicinity of an ar=heological or
his~oric site discovered durinq construction, until informed by
EX 1CA NO JPPAIP
PAGE 23 OF 35
..
16
the Commission that the requirements discussed above have beenful:illed.
s. Recreational facil i ties: Providinq improvements a ~ existinq
proj ect recreational facilities would enhance recreational
oppc~unities at the project site. In its revised recreational
plan, IPC proposes to provide the followinq: (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. Providinq
these improvements would enhance existing cpportuni ties and
bet~er accommodate recreational use at the project site.
Therefore, ¡PC i s revised recreational plan should be approved.
9. !moaets of powerhouse releases on downstream canoe-raft
lAunchinafaclli ty: Water releases during operation of the
proposed proj eet 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 eanoeing and raftinq.
IPC proposes to monitor effects of tailrace discharges on
the launchinq facility wi thin the first 18 months after proj ect
operation beqins: if adverse effects are found, then IPC proposes
ei ther 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 Rëcreation~ Boise, Idaho; October 11, 1989). To
enSUre that downstream recreationa~ opportunities are maintained
and existinq use is accommodated, ¡PC, after consulting with theappropris.te agencies, should monitor the proj ect i s effects on the
launching facility durinq ~~e first :2 years of operation of the
new powerhouse. If monitorinq shows project operation is having
an adverse effect on canoe and raft launching, ¡PC should
relocate or modify the facility to avoid adverse impacts from
powerhouse releases.
11. ENRONY-NAL IKPACTS
1. Assessment of impacts exected from the applicant i s proposed
project (P), with the applicant i s proposed mitiqation and any
conditions set by a federal land management agency; the pro-
posed project with any additional mitigation recommended by
t~e staff (Ps): and any action alternative considered (A).
Assessment symols indicate the following impact levels:
o = None:1 = !o1inor;:2 = Moderate;3 = Major;
EX1CA NOIP-e2PAIf
PA 24 OF 35
,..17
.A = Adverse; B = Beneficial; L = Long-ter.~ S.= Short-term.
Impact Iinpact
Resource pips A Resource P r PsJ . A -. .I .. t -
a.t:e~l ~t'-~oiis I lAS f.wii d' ; 'fe iÃS
q.cultural: .
I îir.1 I ..
b -, l"0 i,i-!"henl 0"";"''''I ..
c.Water quality:-tni-e 0 ~; sto,.i ca 1 2ÃL i ÃT
Dissolved lÃLI0Ih.Vi !:Ul'' mi;: 1 'Îtv
Turbidity and 2AS
ise~;"""''';-ation lAS i.Re~eat;on , 'RT.
d.Fisheries:
I..~0 ,~ .T.;:,.d use 0
~.!:; A......0 i 1t c:~..; ~"'''I'n''''; ,...n
Ie.VêC'e"'ati~T', i,~
Remarks:
a. constructing the new powerhouse and swi tchyard would require
the disposal of 70,000 cuic yards of spoil materials. Existinq
roads, supplemented by short, temporary construction roads, would
qi ve access to construct the new powerhouse.
e., f. Constrcting the new facilities would necessitate theshort-te=m loss of about 23 acres of annual qrassland and shru-
qrassland habitat.
i. The downstream canoe-raft launch and the powerhouse walkway
couldn 't be used durinq the proposed construction; this would be
an unavoidable adverse impact on recreation in the immediate dam
area. Improvements to existinq recreational facilities would
enhance recreation opportunl ties in ~~e proj ect area.
2. Impacts of the no-action alternative.
Under the no-action al ternati ve, there would be no
construction of project facilities or changes to the existinq
physical, bioloqical, or cultural components of the area.
Electrical power qenerated by the proposed hydroelectric project
would have to be qenerated from other available sources or offset
by conservation measures.
EXlCA NO 1f2PA IP
PA 25 OF 35
. ....
18
. 3. Recommended alternative (includinq proposed, required, and
- - recommended ~i tiqati Ve measures):
XX Proposed project.__Action alternative._No action.
_. . "k. . Reason ( s ) for selecting the preferred alternative.- ...". . ..
The proposed redevelopment would generate more electrical
enerqy from a renewable resource without significantly affectinqthe existing environmental conditions of the proj ect area.
I. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IHPAC'S OF '1 iuCOMHNDED ALTERNTIVE
Excavation for the proposed powerhouse would qenerate spoil
materials, consisting 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 powerhouse walkway would be precluded during construction,causing a moderte, short-term impact on recreational use in the
imediate area of the dam.
J. COKPUDSIV DEVPHE
Section 4 (e) of the Federal Power Act (Act) states that in
decidinq whether to issue a license, the Commission, in addition
to considering the power and development purposes of the project,
must give equal consideration to the puroses of enerqy
conservation for the protection of, mitigation of, damage to, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, the protection of recreational-
opportities, and the preseration of other aspects of
environmental quality. .
In section 10 (a), the Act furter requires that the project
adopted, in the judqment 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 usinq water power development for the adequate protection,
utilization, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including
related spawning grounds and habitat), and other beneficial public
uses, includinq irrigation, flood control, water supply, andrecreational and other puroses discussed in section 4 (e) .
As we said, the proposed redevelopment would generate 166.1
G~~ of electrical enerqy per year. The proj ect also would providefo:: displacement of fossil-fueled electric power plant generation,
improved air quality, and conservation of fossil fuels.
EXBI 1
CASE NO lPC2PA.1P
PAGE 26 OF 35
"..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 mitiqative measures we recomlend are: (1) installinq 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 plan; (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 mitiqative and enhancement measures, would be best
adapted to a comprehensive plan for developing the Snake River.
It. CONCLUSION
4X!'iii4iiig ot No Sic¡ficait Impact. Approval of the recom-
mended alterntive (H(3) J would not constitute a major
federal action significantly affectinq the quality of the
human environment; therefore, an environmental iinpact
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. LI'1Eu'1' CITe
Federal Enerqy Requatory Commission. 1987. Draft environmental
impact statement for the TWin Falls (FEC No. 18), Milner
(FERC No. 2899), Auger Falls (FEC No. 4797), and Star Falls
(FERC No. 5797) Hydroelectric Project on the mainstem of the
Snake River, Idaho. Washinqton, D.C. November 1987.
Federal Power Commission. 1967. Planning status report for the
Upper Snake River Basin: WYOJinq, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, andOregon. Washinqton, 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.
EXiCA NO 1f2PA,IfPA 10 OF 35
"...-. .. ~.
20
Idaho Power Company. 1989b... '-.-Response -to staff request for
additional information- for the Swan Falls Project, FERC
Project No. 503, Idaho. September 19, 1989.
K. L!Sfl OF PiuP~RS- ._.~.Position title
Ecologist (Cöordinator)
Environmental ProtectionSpecialist
Landscape Architect
Civil EnqineerWriter-editor
Supervisory Ecologist
Soil ConservationistArcheologist
Electrical Enqineer
Dianne Ro~
Suzanne Brown
Thomas C. Camp, Jr.
Timothy LooneyJohn Mitchell
Alan Hi tchnick
Kathleen Sherman
Edwin Slatter
Martin Thorpe
EX1CA NO lf2PA.IA
PA 28 OF 35
..
SAFTY AND DESIGN ASSESSMENT
SWAN FAL PROJECT
FERC NO. 503, IDAHO
Project Design
The existinq Swan Falls Proj ect is on the Snake River, in Ada
and Owyhee Counties, Idaho about 40 miles southwest of Boise.
Idaho Power Company (IPC) proposes amendinq the. license to dothe following:
(1) retire the existinq 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) constrct a new powerhouse on the east bank containinq
two generating units with a rated capacity of 12.5
meqawatts (MW) each;.
(4) construct a new swi tchyard on the east bank;
(5) construct a new 1.2-mile-lonq, 13S-kilovolt transmission
line; and
(6) construct appurenant facilities.
For the last few years, the proj ect has produced an average
annual enerqy of about 83 giqawatthours (GW) with a total rated
capacity of-l0.4 MW." With the proposed new turbines, the project
would produce about 166.1 GW of electrical energ per year.
Determination of Licensable Transmission Facil¡ties
The new primary trasmission line seqment included in thelicense would exend from the proj ect generators, throuqh voltage
transformation, to an interconnection with an existinq" Idaho Power
Company (IPC) 138 kV transmission line. The primary line seqment
would include about 1.2 miles of single circuit, 138 kV overhead
tranmission line to connect the project switchyard to the IPC i S
existing transmission line between the Strike power plant and the
Bowmont and Caldwell substations, and appurenant facili ties.
Dam 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 hiqh downstream hazard potential.
- .-_.._.. --_..._- -_.. ._--- -_. .-
ÐC1CA NOIR-e2PA.1f
PAGE 29 OF 35
..2
In a letter of April 13, 1989, to IPC, PRO raised the hazardpotential from low to hiqh, basing the change on rpc I.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 failure woul~ significantly
inundate several downstream residences..
For the 1987 safety inspection report~ IPC hired a consultant
to study the underwater concrete and rock foundatlQn_of the
powerhouse discharge area. Leakage though the wicket qates of
the powerhouse form 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) investiqating 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 crackin the powerhouse section that contains units 7 though 10. IPC's
consul tant reviewed the safety of the powerhouse, said that the
powerhouse could be unstable under norml 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, IPC sent the Commission a report from the
consultant, recommendinq that IPC repair voids beneath the
powerhouse before the end of the year.
To insure a safe and adequate project, 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 desiqn report for the new powerhouse and formodifyinq
the existing powerhouse.
To allow us to review and approve the sequence of the
construction of project features, we also recommend including
license 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 R,igure§ ;Planning and Comreh,nsive Oev§lopm,nt
'!e existing powerhouse was built in three different
sections, housing a total of 10 turbine-qenerating units with a
total installed capacity of 10.4 MW. Units i and 2 have been in
service for more than 40 years and are fast approaching the end of
Ðl1CA NOIf2PAKWIl
PAGE 30 OF 35
.~...
3
their sevicible life. Units 3 throuqh 10 have been in service for
. -~are than 70 years and have reached the end of their serviciblelife.
. IPC 's expenditures for operation and maintenance of the.- . "existinq project are much qreater than the system averaqe and areincreasing annually. IPC estimates overall plant efficiency is
presently about 74 percent--about 16 percent lower than the
efficiency of a modern plant--and therefore proposes to replace
the existinq powerhouse with a new powerhouse containinq 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
pro; ect. The bulb-turbines would have a total hydraulic capacityof 14,000 cuic 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 l66.1
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, orconservinq a waterwy or waterways affected by the proj ect.
We reviewed IPC' s proposed license' amendment to see if it is
consistent with the Nortwest Power Planninq Council's (Council)
Nor-~west Conservation and Electric Power Plan. The Council's
plan envisions meeting the growinq reqional energy requirements in
the most economical manner with environmentally acceptable
resources. The Council considers any environmentally acceptable
resource that is less exensive than coal-fueled steam electric
qeneration as an acceptale resource .for development before thedevelopment of coal-fueled power plants (the Council' s pl~nnedmarqinal resource).
We developed life-cycle costs of power from the Council i 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 lonq term, consistent with the Plan, as required by
section LO (a) 2 of the Act. Our determination that the region,
when treated collectively, would need new coal-fueled steamgeneratinq plants about 1998, is based on the Council's proj ection
of reqional 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 proj ectaddition, as of its projected on-line date, is less thn the
levelized life-cycle cost of the least-cost or marginal long-termal terna ti ve, in the plan, ¡PC'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
El1CA NOlf2PA. IF
PAGE 31 OF 35
11'. V ...
4
Septemer 14, 1989, the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IOWR)
filed a motion to intervene arguing that the Swan Falls Proj ect
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 followinq:
(1) consider the potential for future water development
upstream from the proj ect and consider the need to
assure tht proj ect operation will not interfere withthe cuent and future beneficial uses of water;
(2) address any effects on the project of IPCls complyinq
with comprehensive statewide plans, recommendations of
state resource agencies, and applicable Idaho laws.
In a September 19,. 1989, response to' IOWR, IPC says they
considered items 1 and 2 in preparing their application ~
for amendment.
21 IPC says the proposed license amendment does not conflict
with the following state and reqional comprehensive water
resource development plans and program:
o The Idaho State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan, Idaho Oepartent of Parks and Recreation,
1983.
o The Snake River Birds of Prey Area Management Plan,
Bueau of Lad Maagement, 1985.
.0 The Idaho Deparent of Fisheries Manaqement Plan;
1986-1990, Idaho Departent of Fish and Game, 1986.
o The Nortwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan,Nortwest Power Planninq Council, 1987.
o The Columia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program,
Nortwest Power Planninq Council, 1987.
o The Idaho State Water Plan, Idaho Oepartent of
Wa ter Resources, 1988 .
o The Idaho Protected Rivers Bill, Idaho Leqislature,
1988.
o Existing Land Use Policies and Plans of the
Counties of Ada, Elmore and Owyhee.
EX 1CA NOIf2PA.IP
PA 32 OF 35
iii. "/..
5
Federal and- state agencies filed 24 comprehensive plans
discussing various-resources' -in Idaho. - We have reviewed theseplans and have determiried"- the proposed license amendment does not
conflict with any of these plans or with any existinq or plannedwater resource development in the Snake. River Basin.. . . - '..-..". ".- .In the -letters '.of-'comment,no. other state agency, federal
agency, or individual says -the proposed expansion c~nflicts with
any existing or- planned water- resource developments in the basin.No one made specific. comnts or. recommendations. about _flood
control, water supply, or irriqation requirements for the SnakeRiver.
Our Planninq Status Report for the Upper Snake River Basin
and our Hydroelectric Site Data Base show no existinq or proposed
projects that would conflict with the proposed expansion of the
Swan Falls Project.
EconQlic Eyaluation
A proposed project is economically beneficial so lonq as its
levelized cost is less than the lonq-term levelized cost of
alternative power to any utility in the region that can be servedby the project.
IPC plans to use the additional power from the redeveloped
proj ect on their system and to market excess power until all theproject power çan be used. Our economic analysis of IPC' s license
amendment is based on IPCl s marketinq of project power in the
Pacific Nortwest Region.
We calculate the SO-year levelized alternative power cost in
the reqion in 1993 will be about 89.4 mills per kilowatthour
(kWh) .
The alternative cost is the levelized unit cost of power from
coal-fueled steam electric plants we assumed will be needed in the
reqion 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 Nortwest, as shown for the
medium-hiqh load forecast in the Council's 1989 supplement to the
1986 Power Plan, we assume that new coal plant qenerating
resources will be required within the region by 1998~
The 89.4 mills/kWh value includes an averaqe capacity-value-
reduction component equal to the cost of addinq combustion turbine
capacity to a hydro project to allow it, under critical water
conditions, to perform at the level of a coal plant.
EX'CA NQ1f2PAKWIP
PAGE 33 OF 35
\. " ""..
6
As we stated, IPC proposes to redevelop: the Swan Falls
Proj ect by retirinq the existing powerhouse and constructing a new
powerhouse containinq two 12.5 MW bulb-turbines.
The existinq 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. OnSeptemer 19, 1989, IPC filed additional information showing the
estimated cost to repair or replace the civil, mechanical,
and electical systems in the existinq powerhouse to be $ 37 . 4
million. The l4. 6 MW increment of capacity would cost $7.9
million to develop.
The refurbished proj ect would generate about 112. S GWh
annually; the new powerhouse would qenerate about 166.1 GWH
annually. Building the new powerhouse, would increase the annual
generation of the project by S3. 6 GW annually.
Using the reqional power value, we examined the economics of
the proposed increase - in intalled capacity. We estimate the
levelized annual cost of power from the proj ect would be 32. S
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 followinq parts of exhibit A and the followinq exhibit Fdrawings conform to the Comission l s Rules and Regulations are
approved and made a part of the license:
EXbiplt A ~: New Power Plant section on paqe A-9, Substation
section on page A-10 and Transmission Line section on paqe A-l1.
Exhibit F:
Sheet ~
1 of 6
Fie No.
593 -Showing
105 General Plan
3 of 6 l07 Existinq Powerhouse Structure
Plan and Section
4 of 6 108 Existing Powerhouse StructureSections
6 of 6 109 New Powerhouse Plan and Sections
~ Filed with the Commission on April 24, 1989.
EXie1CA NO 1f2PAKW. IP
PA 34 OF 35.... -- ....,_.~.. -~.._..
,'- ..."C ,. ..--e.
7
List of lreparers
Timothy Looney, Civil Engineer.
Martin Thorpe, Electrical Enqineer.
:.
EX 1
CA NO 1F-E2PAKW IPC
._ .._ __ PAGE 3S OF 35
,...,
BEFOR TH
DAHO PlUC UTUTES COMMSI
CASE NO.IP-E-92
IDAH POWE COtAN
EXHlT 2
,.-.
BEFORE T"rlE DEPP-.?TI'IENT OF WATE RESOUCES
OF T".dE
STTE OF ID.O
In the matter of Application for
Perm t No. 02-7379 in the Name of
Idaho Powr Company MEORAUM DECISION
AN
OPER
This matter having come before the Idaho Depar~~ent of Water Resources
(departmnt) as a result of reviewing Application for Permt 02-7379 for
approval, the department Finds, Concludes an Orders as follow:
FINDINGS OF FACl
1. on March 31, 1982, the Idaho Powr comany (applicant) filed an
application for permt with the department proposing the diversion of 6,550
cuic feet per second (cfs) of water of the Snake River at a point within lots10 and 11, Section 18, ns, RlE, Bli, Ad an Owhee c:ties. '!e proposed use
of the water is for por generation purpses at the existing Swa Falls dam
site located in Lot 11, Section 18, ns, Rl::, 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 newpaper of general circuation in Owee Couty, Idao and on May 6
and 13, 1982 in The Idao Statesm, a newspaper of general eir~Jlation in Ada
County, Ida.
3. On May 20,1982, the application was protested by the South Board of
Control, Owee Project. On October 25, 1982, the protest was withrawn.
4. The appropriation sought is for a ruf-river project and there
will be no chage in the upstream or dowtream flow of the river. Storage willnot be increased over the storage imed for the existing project.
5. On Decembr 22, 1982, the Federal Enrgy Reguatory Comssion
(nRC) issued a new license (Major) in connection with the existing Swa Falls
Project (No. 503). '!e license authorized redevelopmnt of the projectincluding a new spillway, a new porhouse and an increased total installed
capacity of 25 MW, replacing the existing capacity of 10.4 MW.
6. On April 30', 1987, FEC issued an amnded license deleting author-
ization to add 14.6 MW of new capaci ty to the existing facili ty.
7. The applicant is in the process of sutting a second application
to amnd th nRC license which wod allow the applicant to again ad 14.6 MW
of new capaci ty to the existing facili ty .
8. Section 42-203A( 5), Idao Code, provides that an application may be
rejected or partially approved if the proposed use is such:
MEOP.AOM DECIS!ON AN ORDE.'= - Page 1
EXIB2CA NOIP-E2PAKW. lP
PA 1 OF4
,..
a) that it will "re¿uce the quantity of water under existing
water 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 aooears to the satisfaction of the deoartmnt
tht such åpplication is not made in good faith, is made
for delay or specuative purpses, or
d) that the applicant has not sufficient finacial resources
with which to ccmplete the work involved therein, or
e) that it will conflict with the the local pulic interest.
9. The applicant is a party to the contract and agreement affecting
rights to water use at Swan Falls da and to use of water tributary to the Snake
River upstream from Swa Falls dam.
CONCLUSION OF LA
1. The propsed use of water is non-contive in nature an will not
increase or decrease the flows of the Snake River which exist in c:ection withthe existing project.
2. The proposed use will not increase the amt of water stored over
the aiunt already stored in connection with the existing project.
3.. The proposed use is non-eontive in nature an will not redce
the qutity of water under existing water rights.
4. The flow of the Snake River are sufficient at times to provide the .
water to increase the por generation capability of th Swa Falls facility.
s. The application is mae in good faith, since. the applicant is in
the process of obtaining other permts needed to cotruct an operate theproject.
6. The applicant has sufficient finacial" resources with which tocomlete the project.
7. The application is in the local pulic interest.
8. The departmnt should approv the application an issue a permt,provided, howver, such permt should include condtions as necessary to
acknowledge certain agreements and contracts.
ORDER
It is therefore, hereby, ORO tht Aplication for Permt No.
02-7379 be approved suject to the following cond tion:
1. The Idaho Powr Comany (permt holder) shall either install ameasuring device or provide a certified measurement or flow comtation prepared
MERA DECISION AN OP.oER - Page 2
El2
CA NO 1P-e2PAKWIP
PAGE2OF4
f ..
by a professional engine~r based upon system design to show the amunt 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 da.
3. This permit is subject to the provisions of Sections 42-205 through
42-210, Idaho Code, restricting the sale, transfer, assignnt, or mortgage of
this permt. Failure to comply with these provisions is cause for immediate
cancellation of this permit.
4. The diversion and use of water under this permt and any licensesubsequently issued is subject to review by the di rector on the date (s) of
expiration of any license issued by FEC. Upon appropriate findings relative to
the interest of the pulic, the ctrector may cancel all or any part of the use
authorized herein and may revise, delete or adè condi tions under which the right
may be exercised.
5. The water right acqired ur.der this permt shall be junor an
surdinate to all rights to the use of water from the Snae River and sourees
tributary thereto upstree. from Swa ralls da wi thin the state of Idaho tht
are initiated later in time th th priority date of ths permt and shal not
give rise to any right or claim against future rights to the use of water withinthe state of Idaho initiated later in ti th the priority of ths permt.
6. The director retains jurisdction of this permt in order to limit
the use of water for hydropowr generation purpses to a specific term of years
as required by Section 42-2038(7), Idao Code.
7. Use of water under this permt shall be non-eoritive.
8. This permt is specifically subject to the agre.ement amng thestate of Idaho, the Goernor, the Attorney Gene:al an Idao Powr Coman dated
October 25, 1984. It is also suject to the Contract betwen the state of Idao
an the Ida Por Comany dated OCtober 25, 1984.
9. Without regard to th right granted to the permt holder to the
beneficial use of 6,550 cfs pursut to Permt 02-7379, water may only be
claimed and used thereunder if an when the water is physically available andsuch permt shall not give rise to any claim on the part of the permt holder to
a flow reqirement in the Snake River whch exceeds 3,900 cfs during the sur
season and 5,600 cfs during the winter season as specified in the ab
described agreement and contract.
10. Diversion and use of water by the reconstructed Swa ralls por
project shall be pursuant to water rights held by the permt holder (includingPermt 02-7319) and as such rights are mofied by the agreemet and contract
and not otherwise.
11. Approval of this perm t is suject to the reqrement that the
permt holder shall advise the rnc through its licensing process (Section 9(b)
FPAJ that the permt holder has been issued a water right permt for the flowrequired to operate the planned por project subject to eonditions.
MEOF.Uli DECISION AN ORDER - Page 3
El2CA NO n:PA IPC
PAGE3OF4
l .-.
12. The failure of the permt holder to comply with the conditions of
the perm t or to obtain appropriate approvals from the FERC to construct and
operate this proposed project pursuant thereto is cause for the department to
cancel this permit.
13. Plans of the propsed redevelopmnt of the project shall be
su tted to the departmnt for review an approvl pursut to provisions ofSecton 42-1709 through 42-1721, Idao Code, and the Safety of ca Rues anReguations before cotruction is authorized.
14. Proof of cotruction of works and acolication of water to
beneficial use shall be sutted to the department on ôr before April 1, 1994.
Dated ths !~ rJ day of ¡J€-Il- , 1989.
;
CEFICA or MALIN
i miy C!TIP' Tht on ths the /I ~daY of April, 1989, a true
and correct co of the foreginq ~tJ DECISICN AN æoE' wa
mailed postaqe prepad to:
Idaho Powr Comany
P. O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707 Q.~~L
RITA I. nzcxSecretaryjRcords Mager
ME DECISION AN ORDER - Page 4
El2CA NO IPC.e2PA.IP
PA 4 OF 4
''T~
v .
BEFOR TH
.
DAHO PULI UTES COMMSSION
CASE NO. PC-E-92
DAHO POWE COMANY
EXIT 3
,J~
l'~
, ..-.IDAHO POWER COMPANY
SWAN FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
COMMITMENT ESTIMATE
(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLAS)
PROJECT
ESTIMATE 1/
1 NEW POWERHOUSE:
2 DIRECTS:
3 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS $23,065
4 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS 19,192
5 OTHER CONTRACTS & FACILITIES 926
6 TOTAL DIRECTS $43,183
7 INDIRECTS 404
8 OVERHEADS 9,504
9 AFUDC 6,843
10 TOTAL NEW POWERHOUSE $59,934....................
11 DECOMMISSION OLD POWERHOUSE:
12 DIR.ECTS:
13 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS $2,900
14 PROCUREMNT CONTRATS 0
15 OTHER CONTRACTS & FACILITIES 9
16 TOTAL DIRECTS $2,909
17 INDIRECTS a
18 OVERHEAS 435
19 AFUDC 108
20 TOTAL DECOMMISSION OLD POWERHOUSE $3,452..............
21 RESTORATION OLD POWERHOUSE:
22 DIRECTS:
23 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS $ 66824 PROCUREMENT CONTRATS 0
25 OTHER CONTRACTS & FACILITIES 0
26 TOTAL DIRECTS $ 66827 INDIRECTS a28 OVERHEAS 15529 AFUDC 19
30 TOTAL RESTORATION OLD POWERHOUSE $ 842.............
31 TOTAL SWAN FALLS PROJECT 2/ $ 64,22832 1.25
33 TOTAL COMMITMENT ESTIMATE $80,285..............
1/ COST ESTIMATE REPORTED IN DOLLAS AT COMPLETION.
2/ COST ESTIMATE EXCLUDES 'REMOVAL COSTS' Of $804,000.
ATTACHMENT 3.
SUPPLEMENT TO INITIAL APPLICATIONEl3CA NOlPPA If
PA 1 OF1
"..
BEFORE TH
IDAH PUBUC UTES COMSI
CASE NO.IPC-E-92
DAHO POWE COMANY
EXBlT 4
SNAKE RIVERA!~,;S1~~&ò ,.,.'p ..
'.. . " /¿.
'1:.. ~..ÄHYDRO POWR
. .
IDAHO PO'WER COMPANY
iox 70. ioise, IDAHO 1~707
March 16, 1990
"
Mr Ronald A CorsoDirector .
D-D-S-I
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
825 North Cap; ta 1 Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
Subject: Swan Falls Hydroelectric Project
Proj ect No. 503, Idaho
Dear Mr Corso:
This is in reference to our March 12, 1990 meeting with you and
staff on the schedule and existing powerhouse stabi 1 ization plans for the Swan
Fa 11 s Project.
As agreed, the presented schedu 1 e, opti on 2, wi 11 be adopted.
Duri ng the progress of the design and construction, our effort will be con-
centrated on finishing the stabilization of the existing powerhouse one yearearlier than our previous schedule, dated Janua~ 22, 1990. ,
Resubmitted' for your approval under Article 304 of the Swan Falls
Amended License are an original and fourteen (14) copies of the revised
schedule, dated March 14, 1990, with a revised plan. The plan also includes
these additional features as agreed in our meeting:
o Pri or to the new powerhouse excavati on:
- Piezometers for monitoring existing powerhouse uplift under the
east bay adjacent to unit 110, and under the wall between units
#8 and 9 wi 11, be ins ta 11 ed .
- Concrete backfill will be placed in the east bay adjacent to
unit #10. Concrete backfill will also be placed in the bay
between units #6 and 17 if it will not interfere with aCcess
and operation of the powerhouse.
o The current monitoring program for the existing powerhouse in-eludes:
EX4CA NOlP-E2PAIP~.4 PA1OF8St '. .I APCAON
..
Mr Ronald A Corso
Page 2
March 16, 1990
- Continuation of the current crack monitoring that consists of:
1. Read and record the Avongaard monitors at least once per
month. Addi ti ona 1 measurements shall be taken pri or to,
during, and immediately after any dewatering activity or a
reservoir drawdown in excess of 3.5 feet. There are two
monitors located below the generator floor; one on the
right wall of unit 110, and one on the left wall of unit #7.
"2. Measure and record the generator floor longitudinal crack
at locations in units 3, 4, 5 and 10 every three months.
3. Survey and record horizontal and vertical movement of points
located on the generator floor over each wall between all
uni ts every six months.
These moni tori ng i nterva 1 s are in atcordance wi th FERC i S reg; on-
a 1 di rector's 1 etter of January 26, 1990, our 1 etter of Feb~Jary
22, 1990, and the March 13, 1990 confirmation phone discussion
with Mr Norm Weseloh of the regional office.
o Monitoring of the existing powerhouse during the new powerhouse
excavation includes:
- The current monitoring will be continued until the existing
powerhouse is stabilized, except during blasting for the new
powerhouse excavation. During this period, the monitoring.
i nterva 1 wi 11 be increased to da ily for moni tori ng numbered (l),
every week for monitoring numbered (2), and monthly for monit-
ori ng numbered ( 3) . However, if cond i ti ons change for the
numbered (1) or (2) monitoring, then more frequent interval for
monitoring numbered (3) will be established consistent with
need. Intervals for monitoring numbered (1) and (2) will also
be adjusted to refl ect any changed condi tion.
- Read and record piezometers daily during blasting for the new
powerhouse excavation and existing powerhouse stabilization.
Mon i tori n9 i nterv a 15 wi 11 be adj u s ted to re fl ect any changed
condition. At other times duri ng new powerhouse construction.
monitoring wi 11 be 1 ess frequent, but responsive to encountere
condi ti ons.
- Seismic monitoring of the existing powerhouse for each blast
during new powerhouse excavation.
- Monitoring by one person and prompt dissemination of the in-
formati on to those designated.
EX4CA NO 1f2I" IP
PAGE 20F 8
.~.
Mr Ronald A Corso
Page 3
March 16, 1990
o Pool lowering elevations during blasting for the new powerhouse
excavation will be established to satisfy requirements for the
existing powerhouse stability. The pool levels will be coordi-
nated with headwater concerns including irrigation.
"
o As-built drawings for the entire project, including the prev.iously
constructed new sp i 1 1 way and ta i 1 race channel, wi 11 be submi tted
after project comletion.
o Monitoring data will be summarized and provided to the Portland
Regional Office at the end of each month unless unusual instru-
mentation data devel opes. When unusual readings of the instru-
mentation data occurs, it wi 11 be reported to the regional office
immediately, along with 'plans for assessing the significants of
the data as it may affect the projects structural integrity.
Correspondence on Swan Falls was recei ved on Ma rch 13, 1990, fro
your regional office relative to Part 12, Safety of Water Power Projects.
However, our response to this matter will be addressed by separate letter.
Sincerely,
0"£ ~/dX/Jt).
Steven L HerndonAttorney -
SLH:EOG:cy
Encs
cc: Arthur Martin, FERC
Lee S Sher 1 i ne t Lei ghton & Sher 1 i ne
L E Lanham
E 0 Groff
El4CA NO 1f2PAIPPAGE3OF8
....._-..-:......-:(..-~-;..-.
SWAN FALLS PROJECT
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
FERC Project No 503
Idaho
PLAN AND SCHEDULE
Revi sed March 16, 1990
Subject
.f
Plan and schedule for constructing the new powerhouse and for modifying
the existing powerhouse.
Reference
Order Amend i ng Li cense issued Decemer 8, 1989, Proj ect No 503-006,'
Article 304.
Schedule
Attached is a detailed schedule showing each activity of work. Also,
attached is a summa~ schedule showing the project by major feature.
Plan
o Worle began on January 22, 1990, to actively pursue the design, con-
struction and begin operation of the new 25 MW powrhouse as scheduled.
o The earlier 19805 design effort expended toward building the new plant
at that time is being utilized to the fullest extent feasible. How-
ever, a review of each feature is being made to talce advantage of
recent experience of similar plants and the latest technology for the
most efficient and safe construction and plant operation. The bulb
turbine with a speed inci;easer and high-speed generator has been
detenni ned to be mos t cost effecti ve and effi ci ent for opera ti on.
o The initial critical item is to develop specifications for a single
supply contract for the two 12.5 MW turbines with speed increasers,generators and governors. Informtion from the turbine supplier for
turbine setting, water intake and waterway configurations is needed
earlier to finalize the powerhouse bid solicitation drawings. The
powerhouse contractor will install the turbines and associated equip-
ment with direction from the turbine erection engineer.
o The powrhouse contract will be awarded by April 15, 1991. The overall
excavation and concrete placing durations allow for winter weather in
1991-92 and 1992-93. Installation of the first turbine will begin by
February 1, 1993.
o Major accessory equipment will be suppl ied by individual contracts and
fumi shed to the powerhouse contractor for install ation.
o Power on-line is scheduled for the first unit on November 1, 1993, and
the second unit on January 1, 1994.
EX 4CA NO 1f2PA.IPPA4OF8
.......
o The existing powerhouse will be operated until the first unit in the
new powerhouse is on line. Then the existing powerhouse will begin
decomissioning, turbine/generators and accessory equipment will be
removed, draft tubes and sero 11 cases wi 11 be fi 11 ed wi th concrete, one
complete generating unit will be prepared for public exhibit, and the
powerhouse superstructure will be repaired and preserved.
o The existing powerhouse is near the new powerhouse, some cracks have
developed in the structure, and stabi 1ity of the structure is a concern
especially during excavation for the new powerhouse. Therefore, thisprogram is established. .'
A. Prior to the new' powerhouse excavation:
- ~iezometers for monitoring existing powerhouse uplift under the
east bay adjacent to unit #10, and under the wall between units
#8 and 9 wi 11 be ins ta 11 ed.
- Concrete backfi 11 wi 11 be i'1 aced in the east bay adj acent to
unit 110. Concrete backfill will also be placed in the bay
between un i ts 16 and fI if it wi 11 not interfere wi th access
and operation of the powerhouse.
B. The current monitoring program for the existing powerhouse in-
eludes:
- Continuation of the current crack monitoring that consists of:
1. Read and record the .Avongaard monitors at least once per
month. Additional measuremnts shall be taken prior to,
dLlring, and iiiediate1y after any dewatering activity or a
reservoir drawdown in excess of 3.5 feet. There are tw
monitors located below the generator floor; one on the right
wall of unit 110, and one on the left wall of unit 17.
2. Measure and record the generator floor longitudinal crack
at locations in units 3, 4, 5 and 10 every three months.
3. Survey and record hori zonta 1 and verti ca 1 movement of po i nts
located on the generator floor over each wall between all
units every six months.
These moni tori ng i nterva 1 s are in accordance with FERC's regi an-
al director's letter of January 26, 1990, our letter of February
22, 1990, and the March 13, 1990 confinution phone discussion
with Mr Norm Weseloh of the regional office.
C. Monitoring of the existing powerhouse during the new powrhouse
excavation includes:
- The current monitorina will be continued unti 1 the existing
powerhouse ìs stabiližed, except during blasting for the new
~5CA NQ1P~2PA IPPA5OF8
..... ---- .'.
. ....
powerhouse excavation. During this period, the monitoring
interval will be increased to daily for monitoring numbered (1),
every week for monitoring numbered (2), and monthly for monit-
ori ng numbered (3) . However, if conditi ons change for the
numbered (1) or (2) monitoring, then more frequent interval for
monitoring numbered (3) will be established consistent with
need. Intervals for monitoring numbered (1) and (2) will also
be adjusted to reflect any changed condition.
.. Read and record piezometers daily during blasting for the new
powerhouse excavation and exi sting powerhouse stabi iization.
Monitoring intervals will be adjusted to reflect any changed
condition. At other times during new powerhouse construction,
mon i tori ng wi 11 be 1 ess frequent, but respons i ve to encountered
condi ti ons.
- Seismic monitoring of the existing powerhouse for each blast.
du ri ng new powerhous e ex cava t i on.
- Monitoring by one person and prompt dissemination of the in-
formation to those designated.
O. Pool lowering elevations during blasting for the new powerhouse
excavation wi 11 be establ ished to satisfy requirements for the
existing powerhouse stability. The pool levels will be coordi-
nated with headwater concerns including irrigation.
o As-built drawings for the entire project, including the previously
constructed new spillway and tailrace channel, will be submitted after
proj ect camp 1 et ion.
o Monitoring data will be sumarized and provided to the Portland Region-
al Office at the end of each month unless unusual instrumentation data
deve lopes. When unusua 1 readi ngs of the ins trumenta ti Ol' data occurs,
it will be reported to the regional office immediately, along with
plans for assessing the significants of the data as it may affect theprojects structural integrity.
o The entire project will be comleted by October 1, 1994.
EX &CA NOIf~PAIPPA&OF8
SW
A
N
',
,
'
5
5
I
O
N

,
.

.
.o
w
R

'
"

L
I
N
E

.
V

k
o
v

i
I
:
I
:
I
'''
J
i
'
'
'
o
o
.
P
o
w
i
i

O
N

L
;
N
t

J
4
N
.

.
D£
W
A
U
J

O
l
D

J
U
R
S
U
;
t
S
,.
-

A
L

L

S
PR
O
J
E
C

T
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
St
.
H
E
D
U
L

E
EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
CO
N
T
R
O
L
S
DR
A
F
T
TU
B
E
CA
T
E
S
I
0
.
1
.

G
A
I
t
s
so
i
i
c
r
r

l
I

.
I
V
l
I
I
A
I
D
I
I
W
I
N
C
S
I
:
sr
o
:
l
:
W
;
~
:
~
C
K
S
i
I
i

¡

~
~
1.
.
I
:
,.
J
A
H
O
S
C

C
A
.
.
-1
õ

i
c
i
i

'
I
D
~
01
1
:
=
.
.,_
_

S
SO
l
i
i
:
1
i

l
i
N
--
-

V
E
N
D
"
"
""
"
I
N
G
S
A
IN

T
A
K
E
ST
D
P
L
D
C
S
AN
D
TR
A
S
H
R
A
C
K
S
CR
A
N
E
S
rW
-
\
\
_.
C
l
~
A
E

C
A
_

¡
~A
E
.
A
A
E

~
A
N
O
s
i

,
u
~
s

.

S
P
E
C

I
iv
i
i
w

I
I
HE
e
H
A
N

I

C
A
L
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
E~
C
A
V
"
'
O
I
I
..
l
.
.
A
c
,
U
f
c
¡p
s
eu
,
v
i
.
AN
D

t
E
s
r
A
Co
o
R
I
S
S
"
"

.
lO
.
e
"

l
I
N

:
D:
L
"
=
S
I I
'"
ó
t
A
C
I
U
R
(
.
R
H
S
O
PO
W
E
R
H
O
U
S
E
co
r
r
U
D
.
.
TU
R
B
I
N
E
;
,
CE
N
E
R
A
T
O
R
;
,
CO
V
E
R
N
O
R
;
,
SP
E
E
O

I
N
C
.
AW
:
l
h
Ç
S
H4
H
U
f

A
t

f
U
R
t

1
i
~'I
W
1
'
7
S

.
vr
.
.
ø
o
OIl
A
V
I
:
H
C
S
HA

I
N
TR
A
N
S
F
R
M
R
I
M.

V
.
SW
I

T
C
H
C
E
A
R
L
.

v
.

I
i
""
4
/
.
0
SW
I

T
C
H
G
E
A
R
1
"'
l
J
/
t
o
DE
l
I
V
E
~
MA
N
U

A
c
t
"
'
f

l
.

v
.

S
W
~
.
Dl
L
I
V
l
A
:
Ei
7
CA

N
O

1
P
-
l
2
PA
C
K
W
.
I
P
PA
G
E
7
O
F
8
50
3
s8
t
t
c
'
;
~
l
ó
s
I I I I I I I.I I .
RE
H
O
V
E

I
l
l
D

E
O
U
I
P
.
(
S
W
A
N

C

.

A
L
L

S

P
R
O

J

E

C

T
O
E

V
E
L

0

P

M
E
N

T

S

'
,
-

,
.

E
D

U

L

E
50
3
EN
G
I
N
C
E
R
I
N
G
'
TU
R
8
I
N
E
/
G
E
N
SP
E
C
S
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
81
D

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
S
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T

I
O
N
DR
A
W
I
N
G
S
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
SU
P
E
R
V
I
S
I
O
N
CO
N
S
l
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PO
W
R
H
O
U
S
E
CO
F
F
E
R
D
A
M
S
PO
W
R
H
O
U
S
E
EX
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
DE
l
I
V
E
R
EM
B
E
D
D
E
D
PA
R
T
S
PO
W
R
H
O
U
S
E
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
EQ
U
I

PH
E
N
T
DE
L
I
V
E
R
Y
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
IN
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
CO
f
f
E
R
D
A
M
RE
H
O
V
A
L
~
pI
l.
Lj
N
E
NO
V
I
I
I I I I I
.
I
~
L
I
N
E

!
J
A
N
.

1
I I I I I I
..
I
:
-t
l~i
:
I
¡
I
.
I
l
I
I
¡
I
:
I
:
I
¡
I
:
I
.
2n
~

U
N
I
T
i
-.
.
\
EX
B
l
4
CA
S
E

N
O
.
I
P
-
E
2
PA
.
I
P
PA

8
OF

8
I.~..:.
BEFOR TH
DAH PUUC UTUTIES COMSSION
CASE NO.IP-E-92
IDAH POWE COAN
EXT 5
\ "( -
.'
_.":..
.'. . '.~'
~v
( .""----
..
FEDERAL ENE.aGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON. O. C. 20426
lI 2 6 199
Proj ect No. 503
Swan Falls Dam
Idaho Power Company
~.r. Steven L. HerndonAttorney
Idaho Power Company.
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Dear Mr. Herndon:
We have received your letter dated March 16, 1990 submittinq
your revised plan and schedule for constrction of the new
powerhouse and stabilization of the existinq powerhouse at the
Swan Falls Project No. 503. The revised schedule and thefeatures of the revised plan are acceptale.
The revised schedule, presented as option 2 in our March 12,
1990 meetinq, indicates completion of the powerhouse
stabilization one year earlier th that presented in theprevious schedule of January 22, 1990. The revised plan
adequately addresses instrentation and moni torinq program
durinq construction, concrete backfillinq in the east bay and the
bay between units no. 6 and 7 during the early phases of
construction, and reservoir drawdown during blasting for the new
powerhouse.
Sincerely,~t2r'~
Ronald A. Corso, Director
Division of Dam Safety andInspections
EX5
CA NO 1I-E2PA.1fAT 5 PAGE 1 OF 1St ..m IN APCMON