Hydropower Resource Assessment at Existing Reclamation Facilities

Executive Summaryof 2005. The same 530 sites are reevaluated in this Resource Assessment. Thefirst step in the Resource Assessment was collecting available flow, head waterand tail water elevation data for each site. Significant efforts were made tocollect hydrologic data for all 530 sites, including obtaining data from existingstream gages, facility designs, Reclamation offices’ and irrigation districts’records, and field staff knowledge. Minimum data required for analysis includethe state the site is located in, a continuous period of daily flow records of atleast 1 year (3 years recommended), defined head water and tail waterelevations, and distance to the nearest transmission or distribution line.Data collection indicated that each of the 530 sites were in one of the followingdata categories. Table ES-1 summarizes how the sites were categorized.1) Site has some level of hydropower potential – Hydrologic data was collectedfor the site and the Hydropower Assessment Tool indicated that some levelof hydropower could be generated at the site;2) Site does not have hydropower potential – Local area knowledge oravailable hydrologic data indicated that the site does not have hydropowerpotential because flows or net head are too low or infrequent forhydropower development;3) Canal or tunnel site that needs further analysis – All dams and diversiondams were evaluated for hydropower potential, but further analysis isneeded to determine net head and seasonal flows at some canal and tunnelsites to determine hydropower potential. Reclamation canal and tunnel sitesare being addressed in a separate ongoing analysis; or4) Site should be removed from the analysis – The site was either a duplicate toanother site identified, no longer a Reclamation-owned site, had hydropoweralready developed or hydropower was being developed at the site.Table ES-1 Site SummaryNo. of SitesTotal Sites Identified 530Sites with No Hydropower Potential 218Total Sites with Hydropower Potential 191Canal or Tunnel Sites (Separate Analysis In 52Progress)Sites Removed from Analysis 1 691 – Sites were removed from the analysis for various reasons, including duplicate toanother site identified, no longer a Reclamation-owned site, hydropower alreadydeveloped or being developed at the site.Because data varied substantially across all sites, Reclamation categorized datacollected as high, medium, or low confidence based on data source, availabilityES-2 – March 2011