Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />annually and the reservoir spills would be <br />reduced from 15 to 5 years and the average <br />spill would decrease from 45,100 A-F to <br />29,100 A-F. The plan would have one unit <br />operating from October to March and two units <br />from April to September. This plan would <br />require 150 cubic feet of water per second for <br />each unit with an average head of 170 feet. <br /> <br />No.4 - This alternative would utilize one 3.9 MW unit <br />and would operate for a six-month period from <br />April to September as a base-load plant. The <br />unit would produce 15,412 MWh annually and <br />would require 240 cubic feet of water per <br />second and an average head of 170 feet for <br />operation. The reservoir spills would be <br />reduced to 8 years and the average spill <br />reduced to 36,700 A-F. <br /> <br />No.5 - This plan includes a single 2.4 MW unit that <br />would be operated on a peaking power basis. It <br />WQuld operate approzimately 5 hours per day on a <br />year-round basis. The plant would produce an <br />annual average of 10,750 MWh of energy consisting <br />of 6,330 MWh of base-load and 4,420 MWh of peaking. <br />The unit would require a maximum flow of 210 cubic <br />feet of water per second with an average head of <br />170 feet. This alternative would require a 100 <br />A-F afterbay for flow regulation. The operation <br />study was not revised for this plan, but the <br />change in spills and amount spilled from <br />Alternative No. 1 would be very minor. <br /> <br />Environmental Summary <br /> <br />There does not appear to be any major environmental <br />hazards associated with this project. The main <br />items of concern involve the reservoir fluctuations, <br />endangered species, fisheries, and economic impli- <br />cations during and after construction. The report <br />states that there will be some loss of recreation <br />benefits due to a fluctuating reservoir, but the <br />critical level of surface reduction for fisheries <br />is 30%. The largest reduction in area involves <br />alternative 3 which has approximately a net surface <br />reduction of 22%. The endangered species on the <br />lower rivers will be protected by additional releases <br />from the CRSP, if the need arises. In general, the <br />fisheries of the region will be improved due to <br />better regulation of flows. The economic peak will <br />be reduced because the construction period will be <br />lengthened and the peak work force will be lowered <br />with the addition of any of the power alternatives. <br /> <br />-2- <br />