Before the Federal Energy Regulation Commission

APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE

PACKWOOD LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

FERC NO. 2244

Energy Northwest Richland, Washington

FEBRUARY 2008

Volume II (Public) Table of Contents

PACKWOOD LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 2244

FINAL APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I (Public) Initial Statement Exhibit A – Project Description Exhibit B – Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit C – Construction History and Proposed Construction Schedule Exhibit D – Costs and Financing Exhibit G – Project Boundary Maps Exhibit H – Description of Project Management and Need for Project Power

VOLUME II (Public) Exhibit E – Environmental Exhibit

VOLUME III (Public) Appendices Appendix A – Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan Appendix B – Energy Northwest Responses to Agency Comments on PLP Appendix C – Forest Service/Agency Preliminary Terms and Conditions Appendix D – Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Appendix E – Noxious Weed Management Plan

VOLUME III (CEII) Exhibit F – General Design Drawings

VOLUME IV (CEII) Supporting Design Report

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project i Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 EXHIBIT E ENVIRONMENTAL EXHIBIT Exhibit E – Table of Contents

EXHIBIT E ENVIRONMENTAL EXHIBIT

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... E-1 Introduction ...... E-1 Proposed Operation ...... E-1 Proposed Environmental Measures ...... E-2 Alternatives Considered ...... E-4 Agency Terms and Conditions ...... E-4 Conclusion ...... E-4 E.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...... E.1-1 E.1.1 General Description of the Cowlitz River and Lake Creek ...... E.1-1 E.2. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... E.2-1 E.2.1 Geographic Scope ...... E.2-1 E.2.2 Temporal Scope ...... E.2-1 E.2.3 Cumulatively Affected Resources ...... E.2-1 E.2.3.1 Geology ...... E.2-1 E.2.3.2 Water Quality ...... E.2-1 E.2.3.3 Fish and Macroinvertebrates ...... E.2-2 E.2.3.4 Wildlife ...... E.2-2 E.2.3.5 Botanical ...... E.2-3 E.2.3.6 Recreation and Aesthetics ...... E.2-3 E.2.3.7 Cultural ...... E.2-3 E.2.3.8 Socioeconomic ...... E.2-3 E.3 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS ...... E.3-1 E.3.1 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act ...... E.3-1 E.3.2 Endangered Species Act ...... E.3-1 E.3.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ...... E.3-2 E.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ...... E.3-2 E.3.5 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act ...... E.3-2 E.3.6 Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act ...... E.3-3 E.3.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers and Wilderness Acts ...... E.3-3 E.4 PROJECT FACILITIES AND OPERATION ...... E.4-1 E.4.1 Project Lands and Waters ...... E.4-1 E.4.1.1 FERC Project Boundary ...... E.4-1 E.4.1.2 Packwood Lake ...... E.4-3 E.4.1.3 Lake Creek ...... E.4-5 E.4.1.4 Cowlitz River ...... E.4-5 E.4.1.5 Snyder and Hall Creeks ...... E.4-5 E.4.2 Packwood Lake Project Facilities ...... E.4-5 E.4.2.1 Intake and Drop Structure ...... E.4-6 E.4.2.2 Pipeline and Tunnels ...... E.4-9 E.4.2.3 Surge Tank and Penstock Isolation Valve ...... E.4-9 E.4.2.4 Penstock ...... E.4-10

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-i Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Table of Contents

Table of Contents (continued)

E.4.2.5 Raw Water Tank and Constant Head Tank ...... E.4-10 E.4.2.6 Electrical Supply and Control Cables ...... E.4-10 E.4.2.7 Powerhouse ...... E.4-11 E.4.2.8 Turbine/Generator ...... E.4-12 E.4.2.9 Tailrace ...... E.4-12 E.4.2.10 Switchyard ...... E.4-13 E.4.2.11 Transmission Line ...... E.4-13 E.4.2.12 Access Roads ...... E.4-14 E.4.3 Project Operation ...... E.4-16 E.4.3.1 Current Operation ...... E.4-16 E.4.3.2 Proposed Operation ...... E.4-17 E.4.4 Project Alternatives Considered ...... E.4-19 E.4.4.1 No Action Alternative ...... E.4-19 E.4.4.2 Agency Terms and Conditions ...... E.4-19 E.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ...... E.5.1-1 E.5.1 Geology and Soils ...... E.5.1-1 E.5.1.1 Affected Environment ...... E.5.1-1 E.5.1.2 Environmental Analysis ...... E.5.1-4 E.5.1.2.1 Engineering Needs Study Results ...... E.5.1-4 E.5.1.2.2 Packwood Lake Shoreline Erosion Study Results ...... E.5.1-8 E.5.1.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ...... E.5.1-11 E.5.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... E.5.1-12 E.5.2 Water Resources ...... E.5.2-1 E.5.2.1 Affected Environment ...... E.5.2-1 E.5.2.1.1 Water Rights ...... E.5.2-1 E.5.2.1.2 Hydrology and Flow Data ...... E.5.2-1 E.5.2.1.3 Water Quality Standards ...... E.5.2-13 E.5.2.2 Environmental Analysis ...... E.5.2-15 E.5.2.2.1 Packwood Lake Drawdown Study ...... E.5.2-15 E.5.2.2.2 Water Quality Study...... E.5.2-27 E.5.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ...... E.5.2-70 E.5.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... E.5.2-72 E.5.3 Fishery and Aquatic Resources ...... E.5.3-1 E.5.3.1 Fishery Resources ...... E.5.3-1 E.5.3.1.1 Affected Environment ...... E.5.3-2 E.5.3.1.1.1 Packwood Lake ...... E.5.3-2 E.5.3.1.1.2 Packwood Lake Tributaries ...... E.5.3-3 E.5.3.1.1.3 Lake Creek Below Packwood Lake ...... E.5.3-4 E.5.3.1.1.4 Hall Creek and Snyder Creek ...... E.5.3-5 E.5.3.1.1.5 Project Tailrace and Tailrace Slough ...... E.5.3-5 E.5.3.1.1.6 Cowlitz River ...... E.5.3-5 E.5.3.1.2 Environmental Analysis ...... E.5.3-9 E.5.3.1.2.1 Fish Distribution and Species Composition Study ...... E.5.3-9

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-ii Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Table of Contents

Table of Contents (continued)

E.5.3.1.2.2 Packwood Lake Drawdown Study Results ...... E.5.3-38 E.5.3.1.2.3 Stream Connectivity Study ...... E.5.3-49 E.5.3.1.2.4 Packwood Lake Entrainment Study ...... E.5.3-53 E.5.3.1.2.5 Study of Fish Population Characterization Below the Drop Structure ...... E.5.3-62 E.5.3.1.2.6 Lake Creek Instream Flow Study ...... E.5.3-73 E.5.3.1.2.7 Gravel Transport/Large Wood Studies ...... E.5.3-86 E.5.3.1.2.8 Anadromous Spawning Survey Study ...... E.5.3-95 E.5.3.1.2.9 Fish Passage Barriers Study ...... E.5.3-106 E.5.3.1.2.10 Tailrace Slough Use by Anadromous Fish Study .... E.5.3-113 E.5.3.1.2.11 Tailrace Slough IFIM ...... E.5.3-119 E.5.3.1.2.12 Geomorphology of the Tailrace Slough Study ...... E.5.3-132 E.5.3.1.2.13 Engineering Study Tailrace Barrier Plan ...... E.5.3-135 E.5.3.1.2.14 Tailrace Seining Efforts (Fish Rescue) ...... E.5.3-138 E.5.3.1.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ...... E.5.3-140 E.5.3.1.3.1 Measures to Address Project Effects on Trout in Packwood Lake ...... E.5.3-141 E.5.3.1.3.2 Measures to Address Entrainment of Fish at the Project Intake ...... E.5.3-144 E.5.3.1.3.3 Measures to Augment Lower Lake Creek Rainbow Trout Population ...... E.5.3-147 E.5.3.1.3.4 Measures to Address Project Effects on Fish Habitat in the Anadromous Zone of Lower Lake Creek ...... E.5.3-148 E.5.3.1.3.5 Measures to Address Project Effects on Fish Habitat in Reach 5 of Lake Creek ...... E.5.3-161 E.5.3.1.3.6 Measures to Address Effects on Fish Passage at Snyder Creek Tailrace Crossing ...... E.5.3-163 E.5.3.1.3.7 Measures to Address Project Effects on Fish in the Tailrace Slough ...... E.5.3-165 E.5.3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... E.5.3-166 E.5.3.2 Macroinvertebrates ...... E.5.3-167 E.5.3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... E.5.3-167 E.5.3.2.2 Environmental Analysis ...... E.5.3-167 E.5.3.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ...... E.5.3-176 E.5.3.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... E.5.3-176 E.5.4 Wildlife Resources ...... E.5.4-1 E.5.4.1 Affected Environment ...... E.5.4-1 E.5.4.2 Environmental Analysis ...... E.5.4-3 E.5.4.2.1 Bald Eagle and Osprey Survey Results ...... E.5.4-3 E.5.4.2.1.1 Bald Eagle ...... E.5.4-3 E.5.4.2.1.2 Osprey ...... E.5.4-3 E.5.4.2.2 Amphibian Survey Results ...... E.5.4-4 E.5.4.2.2.1 Packwood Lake and Tributaries ...... E.5.4-4

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-iii Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Table of Contents

Table of Contents (continued)

E.5.4.2.2.2 Lake Creek below Packwood Lake ...... E.5.4-6 E.5.4.2.2.3 Hall Creek Wetland ...... E.5.4-7 E.5.4.2.2.4 Terrestrial Amphibians ...... E.5.4-7 E.5.4.2.2.5 Amphibians in Lacustrine Fringe Wetlands ...... E.5.4-7 E.5.4.2.2.6 Amphibians in Lake Creek below Packwood Lake ...... E.5.4-9 E.5.4.2.3 Packwood Lake Drawdown Study ...... E.5.4-10 E.5.4.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ...... E.5.4-10 E.5.4.3.1 Bald Eagle Nesting ...... E.5.4-10 E.5.4.3.2 Raptor Protection - Primary Distribution Line ...... E.5.4-10 E.5.4.3.3 Amphibians ...... E.5.4-11 E.5.4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... E.5.4-11 E.5.5 Botanical Resources ...... E.5.5-1 E.5.5.1 Affected Environment ...... E.5.5-1 E.5.5.1.1 Vegetation Cover Types ...... E.5.5-1 E.5.5.1.2 Noxious Weeds ...... E.5.5-1 E.5.5.1.3 Rare Plant Species ...... E.5.5-1 E.5.5.2 Environmental Analysis ...... E.5.5-1 E.5.5.2.1 Vegetation Cover Types ...... E.5.5-1 E.5.5.2.2 Packwood Lake Drawdown Study ...... E.5.5-4 E.5.5.2.3 Noxious Weed Study Results ...... E.5.5-5 E.5.5.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ...... E.5.5-8 E.5.5.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... E.5.5-10 E.5.6 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species ...... E.5.6-1 E.5.6.1 Affected Environment (Fishery Resources) ...... E.5.6-1 E.5.6.1.1 Federal Endangered and Threatened Species ...... E.5.6-1 E.5.6.1.1.1 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ...... E.5.6-1 E.5.6.1.1.2 Coho Salmon ...... E.5.6-4 E.5.6.1.1.3 Steelhead Trout ...... E.5.6-7 E.5.6.1.2 USDA Forest Service Sensitive Species ...... E.5.6-9 E.5.6.1.2.1 Interior Redband Trout ...... E.5.6-9 E.5.6.1.2.2 Pygmy Whitefish ...... E.5.6-9 E.5.6.1.2.3 Puget Sound Coastal Cutthroat Trout ...... E.5.6-9 E.5.6.1.3 Washington State Listed Species ...... E.5.6-9 E.5.6.2 Affected Environment (Wildlife Resources) ...... E.5.6-11 E.5.6.2.1 Federal Endangered and Threatened Species ...... E.5.6-11 E.5.6.2.1.1 Northern Spotted Owl ...... E.5.6-11 E.5.6.2.1.2 Gray Wolf ...... E.5.6-12 E.5.6.2.1.3 Grizzly Bear ...... E.5.6-12 E.5.6.2.2 USDA Forest Service Sensitive Species ...... E.5.6-13 E.5.6.2.2.1 Wolverine ...... E.5.6-14 E.5.6.2.2.2 Pacific Townsend’s Big-eared Bat ...... E.5.6-14 E.5.6.2.2.3 Common Loon ...... E.5.6-14 E.5.6.2.2.4 Peregrine Falcon ...... E.5.6-15 E.5.6.2.2.5 Bald Eagle ...... E.5.6-15

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-iv Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Table of Contents

Table of Contents (continued)

E.5.6.2.2.6 Cope’s Giant Salamander ...... E.5.6-15 E.5.6.2.2.7 Cascade Torrent Salamander ...... E.5.6-16 E.5.6.2.2.8 Larch Mountain Salamander ...... E.5.6-16 E.5.6.2.2.9 Van Dyke's Salamander ...... E.5.6-17 E.5.6.2.2.10 Mollusks ...... E.5.6-17 E.5.6.2.3 Washington State Listed Species ...... E.5.6-17 E.5.6.2.3.1 Northern Goshawk ...... E.5.6-18 E.5.6.2.3.2 Golden Eagle ...... E.5.6-18 E.5.6.2.3.3 Merlin ...... E.5.6-18 E.5.6.2.3.4 Vaux’s Swift ...... E.5.6-19 E.5.6.2.3.5 Pileated Woodpecker ...... E.5.6-19 E.5.6.2.3.6 Western Toad ...... E.5.6-19 E.5.6.3 Affected Environment (Botanical Resources) ...... E.5.6-19 E.5.6.3.1 Federal Endangered and Threatened Species ...... E.5.6-19 E.5.6.3.2 USDA Forest Service Sensitive Species ...... E.5.6-19 E.5.6.3.3 Washington State Listed Species ...... E.5.6-20 E.5.6.4 Environmental Analysis ...... E.5.6-20 E.5.6.4.1 Federal Endangered and Threatened Species ...... E.5.6-20 E.5.6.4.1.1 RTE Fish Species Study Results ...... E.5.6-20 E.5.6.4.1.2 RTE Wildlife Study Results ...... E.5.6-23 E.5.6.4.1.3 RTE Plant Study Results ...... E.5.6-24 E.5.6.4.2 USDA Forest Service Sensitive Species ...... E.5.6-24 E.5.6.4.2.1 Fish Study Results ...... E.5.6-24 E.5.6.4.2.2 Wildlife Study Results ...... E.5.6-25 E.5.6.4.2.3 Rare Plant Study Results ...... E.5.6-25 E.5.6.4.3 Washington State Listed Species ...... E.5.6-34 E.5.6.4.3.1 Fish Study Results ...... E.5.6-34 E.5.6.4.3.2 Wildlife Study Results ...... E.5.6-35 E.5.6.4.3.3 Rare Plant Study Results ...... E.5.6-35 E.5.6.5 Proposed Environmental Measures ...... E.5.6-39 E.5.6.5.1 Federal Endangered and Threatened Species ...... E.5.6-39 E.5.6.5.1.1 Fish ...... E.5.6-39 E.5.6.5.1.2 Wildlife ...... E.5.6-41 E.5.6.5.1.3 Botanical ...... E.5.6-42 E.5.6.5.2 USDA Forest Service Sensitive Species ...... E.5.6-42 E.5.6.5.2.1 Fish ...... E.5.6-42 E.5.6.5.2.2 Wildlife ...... E.5.6-43 E.5.6.5.2.3 Botanical ...... E.5.6-43 E.5.6.5.3 Washington State Listed Species ...... E.5.6-44 E.5.6.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... E.5.6-45 E.5.7 Recreation and Land Use ...... E.5.7-1 E.5.7.1 Affected Environment ...... E.5.7-1 E.5.7.1.1 Regional Setting ...... E.5.7-1 E.5.7.1.2 Packwood Lake History ...... E.5.7-2

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-v Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Table of Contents

Table of Contents (continued)

E.5.7.1.3 Project Lands ...... E.5.7-2 E.5.7.2 Land Use and Relevant Resource Management Plans ...... E.5.7-4 E.5.7.2.1 GPNF Land and Resource Management Plan ...... E.5.7-4 E.5.7.2.2 Lewis County Comprehensive Plan ...... E.5.7-11 E.5.7.2.3 Washington State SCORP ...... E.5.7-13 E.5.7.2.4 National and State Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Trails ...... E.5.7-14 E.5.7.3 Environmental Analysis ...... E.5.7-15 E.5.7.3.1 Recreation Resources Study Results ...... E.5.7-15 E.5.7.3.2 Recreation Needs Analysis Results ...... E.5.7-18 E.5.7.4 Proposed Environmental Measures ...... E.5.7-23 E.5.7.5 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... E.5.7-24 E.5.8 Aesthetic Resources ...... E.5.8-1 E.5.8.1 Affected Environment ...... E.5.8-1 E.5.8.2 Environmental Analysis ...... E.5.8-12 E.5.8.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ...... E.5.8-12 E.5.8.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... E.5.8-12 E.5.9 Cultural Resources ...... E.5.9-1 E.5.9.1 Affected Environment ...... E.5.9-1 E.5.9.2 Environmental Analysis ...... E.5.9-4 E.5.9.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ...... E.5.9-9 E.5.9.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... E.5.9-13 E.5.10 Socioeconomic Resources ...... E.5.10-1 E.5.10.1 Affected Environment ...... E.5.10-1 E.5.10.2 Environmental Analysis ...... E.5.10-2 E.5.10.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ...... E.5.10-3 E.5.10.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... E.5.10-3 E.6 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ...... E.6-1 E.7 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ...... E.7-1 E.8 CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION ...... E.8-1 E.9 LITERATURE CITED ...... E.9-1

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-vi Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Table of Contents

List of Figures

Figure E.1-1. Project Location ...... E.1-2 Figure E.4-1. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Facilities, General Location ...... E.4-2 Figure E.4-2. Packwood Lake Elevation, Aug. 1959-Aug. 1964 (USGS gage no. 14225400) ...... E.4-4 Figure E.4-3. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Facilities ...... E.4-6 Figure E.4-4. Powerhouse Cross-Section ...... E.4-11 Figure E.4-5. Project Access Roads ...... E.4-15 Figure E.5.1-1. Culverts and Mass Wasting Sites on Project-related Roads and Trails...... E.5.1-5 Figure E.5.1-2. Packwood Lake/Drawdown Zone Shoreline Erosion Potential...... E.5.1-10 Figure E.5.2-1. Annual Flow Duration Curve, 1912-1962...... E.5.2-9 Figure E.5.2-2. Packwood Lake and Associated Wetlands ...... E.5.2-16 Figure E.5.2-3. Piezometer Locations at Upper Packwood Lake Wetland Complex...... E.5.2-17 Figure E.5.2-4. Piezometer Locations in the Osprey Creek Wetland Complex...... E.5.2-17 Figure E.5.2-5. Packwood Lake Level (ft) and Inflow (cfs) ...... E.5.2-18 Figure E.5.2-6. Packwood Lake Level (Lake) and Wetland (piezometer, P) Water Levels during the 2005-2006 Drawdown Period...... E.5.2-20 Figure E.5.2-7. Piezometer 5 Water Level (ft) and Packwood Lake Level (ft) ...... E.5.2-21 Figure E.5.2-8. Piezometer 2 Water Level (ft) and Packwood Lake Level (ft) ...... E.5.2-22 Figure E.5.2-9. Piezometer 2 Water Level (ft) and Packwood Lake Inflow (cfs) ...... E.5.2-22 Figure E.5.2-10. Water Level for Piezometers at the upper end of Packwood Lake Level for summer/fall 2006 ...... E.5.2-23 Figure E.5.2-11. Piezometer 4 Water Level (ft) and Packwood Lake Level (ft) ...... E.5.2-24 Figure E.5.2-12. Piezometer 4 Water Level (ft) and Packwood Lake Inflow (cfs) ...... E.5.2-24 Figure E.5.2-13. Anglers at Packwood Lake near the Intake ...... E.5.2-26 Figure E.5.2-14. Vertical Temperature Profiles for Packwood Lake Site A (deepest area of lake) ...... E.5.2-40 Figure E.5.2-15. Secchi Depth (m) for Packwood Lake 2005 ...... E.5.2-46 Figure E.5.2-16. Phytoplankton Composition Density for Packwood Lake Photic Zone Site A 2005 ...... E.5.2-50 Figure E.5.2-17. Phytoplankton Composition Biovolume for Packwood Lake Photic Zone Site A 2005 ...... E.5.2-50 Figure E.5.2-18. Phytoplankton Composition Density for Packwood Lake Photic Zone Site B 2005 ...... E.5.2-51

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-vii Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Table of Contents

List of Figures (continued)

Figure E.5.2-19. Phytoplankton Composition Biovolume for Packwood Lake Photic Zone Site B 2005 ...... E.5.2-51 Figure E.5.2-20. Chlorophyll a for Packwood Lake ...... E.5.2-52 Figure E.5.2-21. 7-Day Average of Maximum Daily Temperature (7- DADMax) for Lake Creek below the Drop Structure ...... E.5.2-56 Figure E.5.2-22. Diurnal Dissolved Oxygen Patterns for August 31 through September 2, 2004...... E.5.2-59 Figure E.5.2-23. Hourly Discharge and Water Temperature Data for the Intake (LCDS) and Tailrace (upper end POWT1; lower end POWT2) for mid-July through August, 2005...... E.5.2-61 Figure E.5.2-24. 7-day Average of the Maximum Daily Water Temperature for POWT2 (tailrace) and CRTSC (side channel of Cowlitz River)...... E.5.2-64 Figure E.5.2-25. Groundwater level within wetlands based on lake level when lake inflow is representative of a median year...... E.5.2-73 Figure E.5.3.1-1. Cowlitz River Hatchery Adult Returns for Spring Chinook, Fall Chinook, and Coho Salmon...... E.5.3-7 Figure E.5.3.1-2. Cowlitz River Hatchery Steelhead Escapement for Winter and Summer Steelhead ...... E.5.3-8 Figure E.5.3.1-3. Netting Locations at Packwood Lake ...... E.5.3-11 Figure E.5.3.1-4. Rainbow Trout Size Ranges for Fish Captured at Site Near Osprey Creek ...... E.5.3-12 Figure E.5.3.1-5. Captured Rainbow Trout Size Ranges at Upper Packwood Lake Site ...... E.5.3-13 Figure E.5.3.1-6. Hydroacoustic Cross Sections - May 2007 Survey ...... E.5.3-14 Figure E.5.3.1-7. Rainbow Trout Depth Ranges ...... E.5.3-15 Figure E.5.3.1-8. Rainbow Trout Size Ranges ...... E.5.3-16 Figure E.5.3.1-9. Hydroacoustic Cross Section Locations for the August, 2007 Survey ...... E.5.3-17 Figure E.5.3.1-10. Packwood Lake Hydroacoustic Survey Rainbow Trout Depth Distribution, August 8, 2007 ...... E.5.3-18 Figure E.5.3.1-11. Packwood Lake Hydroacoustic Survey Rainbow Trout Size Distribution, August 8, 2007 ...... E.5.3-19 Figure E.5.3.1-12. Packwood Lake Tributary Study Sites ...... E.5.3-20 Figure E.5.3.1-13. Upper Lake Creek Habitat Percentages by Study Site ...... E.5.3-21 Figure E.5.3.1-14. Beaver Bill Creek Habitat Percentages by Study Site ...... E.5.3-22 Figure E.5.3.1-15. Lower Lake Creek Reaches 1 and 2 ...... E.5.3-26 Figure E.5.3.1-16. Lower Lake Creek Reaches 3 through 5 ...... E.5.3-27 Figure E.5.3.1-17. Study Site Habitat Frequencies by Reach on Lower Lake Creek (RM 0.0 – 5.4) ...... E.5.3-28 Figure E.5.3.1-18. Species Habitat Utilization on Lower Lake Creek...... E.5.3-29 Figure E.5.3.1-19. Size Ranges for Species Observed in Reach 1 on Lower Lake Creek ...... E.5.3-30

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-viii Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Table of Contents

List of Figures (continued)

Figure E.5.3.1-20. Size Ranges for Species Observed in Reach 2 on Lower Lake Creek ...... E.5.3-31 Figure E.5.3.1-21. Size Ranges for Rainbow Trout Observed in Reach 3 on Lower Lake Creek ...... E.5.3-32 Figure E.5.3.1-22. Size Ranges for Rainbow Trout Observed in Reach 4 on Lower Lake Creek ...... E.5.3-33 Figure E.5.3.1-23. Size Ranges for Rainbow Trout Observed in Reach 5 on Lower Lake Creek ...... E.5.3-34 Figure E.5.3.1-24. Study Site Locations on Snyder Creek ...... E.5.3-35 Figure E.5.3.1-25. Snyder Creek Habitat Percentages by Study Site ...... E.5.3-36 Figure E.5.3.1-26. Size Ranges for Species Captured at Four Study Sites on Snyder Creek ...... E.5.3-37 Figure E.5.3.1-27. Hall Creek Habitat Percentages by Study Site ...... E.5.3-38 Figure E.5.3.1-28. Map of Packwood Lake illustrating transect locations and data points (green dots) and Project boundary (white)...... E.5.3-40 Figure E.5.3.1-29. Bathymetric Map of Packwood Lake Littoral Habitat...... E.5.3-41 Figure E.5.3.1-30. Bathymetric Map of Littoral Habitat at upper end of Packwood Lake...... E.5.3-42 Figure E.5.3.1-31. Bathymetric Map of Littoral Habitat near Mouth of Osprey Creek...... E.5.3-43 Figure E.5.3.1-32. Water Surface Level for Packwood Lake September 2005 through November 2006...... E.5.3-45 Figure E.5.3.1-33. Surface Area (acres) as a Function of Water Surface Elevation for Packwood Lake...... E.5.3-45 Figure E.5.3.1-34. Daily Change in Surface Area (acres) for Packwood Lake September 2005 through March 2006...... E.5.3-46 Figure E.5.3.1-35. Major rainbow trout spawning tributaries ...... E.5.3-48 Figure E.5.3.1-36. Average Packwood Lake elevation (1971-2006)...... E.5.3-49 Figure E.5.3.1-37. Schematic Drawing of Packwood Lake Intake Structure ...... E.5.3-54 Figure E.5.3.1-38. Packwood Lake Entrainment Data (2006)...... E.5.3-57 Figure E.5.3.1-39. Fish entrained on traveling screens during 2007...... E.5.3-58 Figure E.5.3.1-40. 2007 Entrained fish size distribution...... E.5.3-59 Figure E.5.3.1-41. 2007 Packwood Lake Entrainment and Packwood Lake Spawning Timing...... E.5.3-61 Figure E.5.3.1-42. Barrier Falls (11.80 Ft) Located 1464 Feet Below the Drop Structure ...... E.5.3-63 Figure E.5.3.1-43. Barrier Falls (11.80 Ft) and Lower 4 Ft Falls Approximately 1464 Feet Below the Drop Structure ...... E.5.3-64 Figure E.5.3.1-44. Length vs. Weight of Rainbow Trout Captured in August 2006 ...... E.5.3-67 Figure E.5.3.1-45. Length vs. Weight of Rainbow Trout Captured in October 2006 ...... E.5.3-68 Figure E.5.3.1-46. Length vs. Weight Correlation for Lake Creek Rainbow Trout Captured Below Drop Structure ...... E.5.3-69

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-ix Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Table of Contents

List of Figures (continued)

Figure E.5.3.1-47. Primary Netting Location Below Packwood Lake Drop Structure ...... E.5.3-70 Figure E.5.3.1-48. Packwood IFIM Study Site Locations ...... E.5.3-75 Figure E.5.3.1-49. Salmon and trout spawning and rearing WUA, for June...... E.5.3-82 Figure E.5.3.1-50. Spawning habitat for salmon and trout in Lake Creek study reaches as a percentage of total habitat...... E.5.3-84 Figure E.5.3.1-51. Lake Creek rearing WUA as a percentage of total habitat available in Lake Creek at the various study sites and transects...... E.5.3-85 Figure E.5.3.1-52 Comparison of Without- and With-Project annual highest mean daily flow, Lake Creek near Packwood Gage (near mouth of Lake Creek)...... E.5.3-87 Figure E.5.3.1-53. Large Wood in Wetted Channel (2005 inventory)...... E.5.3-88 Figure E.5.3.1-54. Large Wood in Bankfull Channel (2005 inventory)...... E.5.3-88 Figure E.5.3.1-55. Spawning-sized gravel in wetted channel / stream gradient in lower Lake Creek (2005 inventory) ...... E.5.3-91 Figure E.5.3.1-56. Comparison of 2005-2007 Spawning-sized gravel in wetted channel in lower Lake Creek...... E.5.3-93 Figure E.5.3.1-57. Association of Spawning-sized Gravel in Wetted Channel (2007) ...... E.5.3-94 Figure E.5.3.1-58. Lake Creek Spawning Survey Data ...... E.5.3-97 Figure E.5.3.1-59. Lower Lake Creek concentrated spawning areas ...... E.5.3-98 Figure E.5.3.1-60. Lake Creek Flow vs. Spawn Timing (2004/2005 Season) .. E.5.3-101 Figure E.5.3.1-61. Lake Creek Flow vs. Spawn Timing (2005/2006 Season) .. E.5.3-101 Figure E.5.3.1-62. Lake Creek Spawner and Water Temperature Information (2004/2005) ...... E.5.3-102 Figure E.5.3.1-63. Lake Creek Spawner and Water Temperature Information (2005/2006) ...... E.5.3-103 Figure E.5.3.1-64. Packwood Tailrace Slough Spawner and Water Temperature Information (2004/2005) ...... E.5.3-104 Figure E.5.3.1-65. Survey reaches and areas of concentrated spawning on Hall and Snyder Creeks and the Tailrace Slough...... E.5.3-105 Figure E.5.3.1-66. Culvert Locations ...... E.5.3-108 Figure E.5.3.1-67. Snyder Creek Culvert Level B Assessment Spreadsheet .. E.5.3-111 Figure E.5.3.1-68. Study Area for Tailrace Slough Use by Anadromous Salmonids ...... E.5.3-115 Figure E.5.3.1-69. Packwood Hydroelectric Project Tailrace, Tailrace Slough, and Mainstem Cowlitz River ...... E.5.3-120 Figure E.5.3.1-70. Tailrace Slough Transects ...... E.5.3-122 Figure E.5.3.1-71. Cowlitz River Flows vs. Tailrace Slough ...... E.5.3-123 Figure E.5.3.1-72. Mean Monthly Flows, Cowlitz River and Packwood Lake Project, 2000 - 2004 ...... E.5.3-125 Figure E.5.3.1-73. Amount of salmon and steelhead spawning gravels in left channel of Tailrace Slough (Transects 1 – 4 and 6) ..... E.5.3-127

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-x Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Table of Contents

List of Figures (continued)

Figure E.5.3.1-74. Amount of salmon and steelhead spawning gravels immediately below the Project tailrace (Transect 8) ...... E.5.3-128 Figure E.5.3.1-75. Cowlitz River Channel Changes near Tailrace Terminus ... E.5.3-134 Figure E.5.3.1-76. Packwood Tailrace Barrier Preliminary Design – Plan View Drum Screen ...... E.5.3-136 Figure E.5.3.1-77. Packwood Tailrace Barrier – Drum Screen Section View .. E.5.3-137 Figure E.5.3.1-78. Proposed Minimum Lake Elevation Rule Curve for Packwood Lake ...... E.5.3-143 Figure E.5.3.1-79. Snyder Creek Crossing, Existing and Proposed ...... E.5.3-164 Figure E.5.4-1. Larval amphibian habitat in Packwood Lake lacustrine fringe wetland between Upper Lake Creek and Muller Creek ...... E.5.4-5 Figure E.5.5-1. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Noxious Weed Study Area Map ...... E.5.5-7 Figure E.5.6-1. Final Critical Habitat for the Lower Columbia River, Chinook Salmon ESU, Upper Cowlitz River Subbasin ...... E.5.6-5 Figure E.5.6-2. Final Critical Habitat for the Lower Columbia River, Steelhead Trout ESU, Upper Cowlitz River Subbasin ...... E.5.6-10 Figure E.5.6-3. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Rare Plant Study Area Map ...... E.5.6-27 Figure E.5.7-1. Location of Project Features ...... E.5.7-3 Figure E.5.7-2. GPNF Management Allocations ...... E.5.7-6 Figure E.5.7-3. Packwood Land Use/Current Zoning ...... E.5.7-12 Figure E.5.7-4. Packwood Lake Trails ...... E.5.7-16 Figure E.5.8-1. Visual Quality Objectives ...... E.5.8-2 Figure E.5.8-2. Aerial Views of Packwood Lake ...... E.5.8-5 Figure E.5.8-3. Views from Packwood Lake Northshore Looking Southeast ...... E.5.8-6 Figure E.5.8-4. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Intake and Diversion Structures ...... E.5.8-7 Figure E.5.8-5. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Intake Canal/Outlet to Packwood Lake ...... E.5.8-8 Figure E.5.8-6. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Surge Tank ...... E.5.8-9 Figure E.5.8-7. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Powerhouse and Warehouse Area ...... E.5.8-10 Figure E.5.8-8. Project Tailrace and Community of Packwood ...... E.5.8-11 Figure E.6-1 Pacific Northwest Future Power Price Forecasts ...... E.6-2

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-xi Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table E-1. Proposed instream flows (cfs) for Lake Creek, as measured at the drop structure...... E-2 Table E.4-1. Proposed instream flows (cfs) for Lake Creek, as measured at the drop structure...... E.4-18 Table E.5.1-1. Summary of Road and Trail Inventory ...... E.5.1-4 Table E.5.2-1. Mean monthly and annual flows (cfs) of Lake Creek near Outlet (Gage 14225500), 1912 – 1962...... E.5.2-3 Table E.5.2-2. Mean monthly and annual flows (cfs) of Cowlitz River at Packwood (Gage 14226500), 1912 – 2002...... E.5.2-6 Table E.5.2-3. Monthly and annual flows, Lake Creek and Cowlitz River at Packwood, WY 1912 – 1962...... E.5.2-9 Table E.5.2-4. Mean monthly inflow from Lake Creek at Packwood Lake outlet (Gage No. 14225500) and Lake Creek above mouth (Gage No. 14226000) ...... E.5.2-11 Table E.5.2-5. Summary of overtopping events, Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, 1967 – 2007 ...... E.5.2-12 Table E.5.2-6. Water Quality Criteria (WAC 173-201A) ...... E.5.2-13 Table E.5.2-7. Water Quality Criteria Calculations for Packwood Lake, Lake Creek, and Upper Cowlitz River ...... E.5.2-14 Table E.5.2-8. Water Quality Parameters, Sampling Sites and Sampling ... E.5.2-29 Table E.5.2-9. Water Quality Sampling Sites...... E.5.2-31 Table E.5.2-10. Monthly Average of Daily Maximum, Mean & Minimum Water Temperatures (°C) ...... E.5.2-32 Table E.5.2-11. Packwood Project Water Temperature Summary, 2004 ...... E.5.2-38 Table E.5.2-12. Packwood Project Water Temperature Summary, 2005 ...... E.5.2-39 Table E.5.2-13. Monthly Temperatures for Packwood Lake, 2004 ...... E.5.2-41 Table E.5.2-14. Monthly Temperatures for Packwood Lake, 2005 ...... E.5.2-41 Table E.5.2-15. Mean Annual Values for Water Quality Parameters for Packwood Lake 2004 ...... E.5.2-42 Table E.5.2-16. Mean Annual Values for Water Quality Parameters for Packwood Lake 2005 ...... E.5.2-44 Table E.5.2-17. Monthly Data for Secchi Depth (m) for Packwood Lake ...... E.5.2-46 Table E.5.2-18. Trophic State Indices (TSI) for Packwood Lake ...... E.5.2-47 Table E.5.2-19. Annual and Seasonal Mean TN:TP Ratios ...... E.5.2-48 Table E.5.2-20. Annual and Seasonal Mean TIN:TIP Ratios ...... E.5.2-49 Table E.5.2-21. Mean Annual Values for Water Quality Parameters for Tributaries to Packwood Lake, 2004 ...... E.5.2-53 Table E.5.2-22. Mean Annual Values for Water Quality Parameters for Tributaries to Packwood Lake, 2005-2006 ...... E.5.2-54 Table E.5.2-23. Difference in Temperature for LCDS1500 minus LCDS ...... E.5.2-56 Table E.5.2-24. Mean Annual Values for Water Quality Parameters for Lower Lake Creek April 2004 – March 2005 ...... E.5.2-57 Table E.5.2-25. Mean Annual Values for Water Quality Parameters for Lower Lake Creek April 2005-March 2006 ...... E.5.2-58

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-xii Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Table of Contents

List of Tables (continued)

Table E.5.2-26. Difference in Temperature for POWT1 minus LCDS ...... E.5.2-62 Table E.5.2-27. Difference in Temperature for POWT2 minus POWT1 ...... E.5.2-63 Table E.5.2-28. Mean Annual Values for Water Quality Parameters for the Tailrace and Tailrace Slough 2004 ...... E.5.2-65 Table E.5.2-29. Mean Annual Values for Water Quality Parameters for the Tailrace and Tailrace Slough 2005 ...... E.5.2-66 Table E.5.2-30. Effects of Temperature on Fish (Bell 1990) ...... E.5.2-68 Table E.5.2-31 7-DADMax Water Temperature at Lake Creek Mouth Relative to Flow below the Drop Structure ...... E.5.2-70 Table E.5.2-32. Proposed instream flows (cfs) for Lake Creek, as measured at the drop structure...... E.5.2-71 Table E.5.3.1-1. Summary of Rainbow Trout Tributary Spawning Survey Data ...... E.5.3-4 Table E.5.3.1-2. Number of Fish and Associated Depth Ranges for Transects ...... E.5.3-15 Table E.5.3.1-3. Packwood Lake Fish and Depths Observed - August Hydroacoustic Survey ...... E.5.3-17 Table E.5.3.1-4. Habitat Percentages for the Five Reaches Surveyed on Lower Lake Creek ...... E.5.3-27 Table E.5.3.1-5. Surface Area for Packwood Lake and Acreage Affected by Drawdown ...... E.5.3-44 Table E.5.3.1-6. Daily Change in Acres of Exposed Lake Bed for Packwood Lake: September 2005 through March 2006 ...... E.5.3-46 Table E.5.3.1-7. Area (acres) below 2,857.0 ft Dewatered for Packwood Lake: September 2005 through March 2006 ...... E.5.3-47 Table E.5.3.1-8. Limit of Incision and Location of Permanent Grade Control in Packwood Lake Tributaries ...... E.5.3-50 Table E.5.3.1-9. Summary of Approach Velocity Measurements at Packwood Lake Intake Structure. Minimum, Mean, and Maximum Velocities are in ft/sec ...... E.5.3-55 Table E.5.3.1-10. Comparison of Mean Screen Velocities with Calculated Mean Velocities ...... E.5.3-55 Table E.5.3.1-11. Rainbow Trout Mortalities on Packwood Lake Intake Screen, 2006 ...... E.5.3-56 Table E.5.3.1-12. Rearing and Spawning Habitat Data for Lake Creek Below the Drop Structure ...... E.5.3-65 Table E.5.3.1-13. Wetted and Bankfull Width Data for Isolated Reach Below Drop Structure ...... E.5.3-66 Table E.5.3.1-14. Wetted and Bankfull Width Data for Isolated Reach Below Drop Structure ...... E.5.3-66 Table E.5.3.1-15. Mean monthly Weighted Usable Area (WUA) values (in ft2/1,000 ft of stream) for the species and life stages present in Lake Creek under the current license conditions...... E.5.3-72

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-xiii Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Table of Contents

List of Tables (continued)

Table E.5.3.1-16. Preference Curves (Habitat Suitability Indices – HSI) for Use in Lake Creek Instream Flow Study ...... E.5.3-76 Table E.5.3.1-17. Final Transect Weighting for Study Site 1 ...... E.5.3-77 Table E.5.3.1-18. Final Transect Weighting, Study Site 2 ...... E.5.3-77 Table E.5.3.1-19. Final Transect Weighting, Study Site 3 ...... E.5.3-77 Table E.5.3.1-20. Final Transect Weighting, Study Site 4 (Reach 5) ...... E.5.3-78 Table E.5.3.1-21. Lake Creek Study Site Weighting...... E.5.3-78 Table E.5.3.1-22. Lake Creek Fish Periodicity ...... E.5.3-79 Table E.5.3.1-23. Lake Creek Amphibian Periodicity ...... E.5.3-80 Table E.5.3.1-24. Average Monthly Inflow to Lake Creek below Packwood Lake ...... E.5.3-81 Table E.5.3.1-25. Lake Creek Inflow at Each Study Site ...... E.5.3-81 Table E.5.3.1-26. Salmon and trout spawning WUA as a percentage of total available habitat per study site and transects...... E.5.3-84 Table E.5.3.1-27. Salmon and trout rearing WUA as a percentage of total available habitat per study site and transects...... E.5.3-85 Table E.5.3.1-28. Area of spawning-sized gravel inventoried in Lake Creek (2005 Inventory) ...... E.5.3-90 Table E.5.3.1-29. Area of spawning-sized gravel inventoried in sub- reaches of Lake Creek (2007) ...... E.5.3-92 Table E.5.3.1-30. Anadromous Spawning Survey Dates and Corresponding River Miles ...... E.5.3-96 Table E.5.3.1-31. Chinook and Coho Releases by WDFW (2004-2006) ...... E.5.3-99 Table E.5.3.1-32. Spawning Fish per Square Meter in Lower Lake Creek ..... E.5.3-100 Table E.5.3.1-33. Percentage Spawning Gravel Used in Lower Lake Creek . E.5.3-100 Table E.5.3.1-34. 2004/2005 Packwood Tailrace Slough Spawning Data ...... E.5.3-104 Table E.5.3.1-35. Hall Creek 2005/2006 Coho Spawning Data ...... E.5.3-106 Table E.5.3.1-36. Fish Bearing Determination for Culvert Analysis ...... E.5.3-109 Table E.5.3.1-37. Fish passage design criteria for culvert installation ...... E.5.3-110 Table E.5.3.1-38. Fish Passage Priority Index (PI) for coho salmon and cutthroat trout on Snyder Creek...... E.5.3-112 Table E.5.3.1-39. Habitat Variables and Coho Numbers in the Tailrace Slough ...... E.5.3-116 Table E.5.3.1-40. Transect Descriptions and Weighting ...... E.5.3-122 Table E.5.3.1-41. Summary of Calibration Flow Measurements and Water Surface Elevations for Tailrace Slough Transects ...... E.5.3-124 Table E.5.3.1-42. Flow Exceedence Values (in cfs) for July 2003 – 2006, Cowlitz River and Tailrace Slough ...... E.5.3-129 Table E.5.3.1-43. Cowlitz River at Packwood and Project Flows Required to Protect 100% of Spring Chinook Spawning Habitat in the Left Channel of the Tailrace Slough 1/ ...... E.5.3-130 Table E.5.3.1-44. Packwood Stilling Basin Seining Capture Numbers ...... E.5.3-139 Table E.5.3.1-45. Proposed instream flows (cfs) for Lake Creek, as measured at the drop structure...... E.5.3-141

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-xiv Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Table of Contents

List of Tables (continued)

Table E.5.3.1-46 Estimated Costs for Proposed Debris Screen Modification and Monitoring Plan ...... E.5.3-146 Table E.5.3.1-47. Estimated Costs for Proposed Reach 5 Fish Population Monitoring ...... E.5.3-148 Table E.5.3.1-48. Summary of Rearing WUA by Month for Study Site 1, Lower Lake Creek (Pre-Project, Current Conditions and Proposed Flows with enhancement with the 50% exceedence level) ...... E.5.3-153 Table E.5.3.1-49. Summary of Rearing WUA by Month for Lower Lake Creek (Pre-Project, Current Conditions and Proposed Flows with enhancement with the 50% exceedence level) ...... E.5.3-155 Table E.5.3.1-50. Summary of Spawning WUA by Month for Study Site 1, Lower Lake Creek (Pre-Project, Current Conditions and Proposed Flows with enhancement with the 50% exceedence level) ...... E.5.3-157 Table E.5.3.1-51. Summary of Spawning WUA by Month for Lower Lake Creek (Pre-Project, Current Conditions and Proposed Flows with enhancement with the 50% exceedence level) ...... E.5.3-159 Table E.5.3.1-52. Estimated Costs for Proposed Lake Creek Habitat Enhancement Reaches 1 & 2 ...... E.5.3-161 Table E.5.3.1-53. Estimated Costs for Proposed Reach 5 Habitat Enhancement ...... E.5.3-163 Table E.5.3.1-54. Estimated Costs for Proposed Snyder Creek Re-route ...... E.5.3-164 Table E.5.3.1-55. Estimated Costs for Proposed Change to the Annual Maintenance Outage ...... E.5.3-166 Table E.5.3.2-1. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Results Summary ...... E.5.3-170 Table E.5.4-1. Potential effects of Project operations on amphibians breeding in Packwood Lake lacustrine fringe wetlands...... E.5.4-8 Table E.5.5-1. Summary of Mapped Cover Types in the Study Area...... E.5.5-2 Table E.5.5-2. Class B designate, Class B select, and Class C select noxious weeds observed in the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Study Area, 2005-2006 (LCWCB 2007)...... E.5.5-6 Table E.5.6-1. List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species- Fish ...... E.5.6-1 Table E.5.6-2. USDA Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Fish Species ...... E.5.6-9 Table E.5.6-3. USDA Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Wildlife Species...... E.5.6-13 Table E.5.6-4. Federal Endangered and Threatened Plant Species Potentially within the Project Area ...... E.5.6-20 Table E.5.6-5. Project Effects for Federal Listed Plant Species, Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project...... E.5.6-24

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-xv Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Table of Contents

List of Tables (continued)

Table E.5.6-6. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List, Vascular Plants. Updated April 2006...... E.5.6-28 Table E.5.6-7. USDA Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Plant List, Lichens and Bryophytes. Updated April 2006...... E.5.6-30 Table E.5.6-8. Sensitive Species Vascular Plant List for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, from the Region 6 Forest Service Sensitive Species Plant List, April 2006...... E.5.6-31 Table E.5.6-9. USDA Forest Service, Region 6 Sensitive Plant List, Lichens and Bryophytes. Updated April 2006...... E.5.6-34 Table E.5.6-10. List of Known Occurrences of Rare Plants in Lewis County (WNHP 2007)...... E.5.6-36 Table E.5.6-11. List of Known Occurrences of Rare Plants in Lewis County (WNHP 2007)...... E.5.6-38 Table E.5.7-1. Packwood Lake Visitor Activities ...... E.5.7-18 Table E.5.7-2. Goat Rocks Wilderness Historic Visitor Use ...... E.5.7-23 Table E.5.7-3. Estimated Costs for Recreation Measures ...... E.5.7-24 Table E.5.8-1. USDA Forest Service Visual Quality Objectives...... E.5.8-3 Table E.5.9-1. Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects...... E.5.9-8 Table E.6-1. Annual Project Costs, 2002-2007 ...... E.6-3 Table E.6-2. Estimated Costs of Proposed Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement (PM&E) Measures ...... E.6-4

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-xvi Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Environmental Exhibit

EXHIBIT E ENVIRONMENTAL EXHIBIT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Energy Northwest submits this Exhibit E to the Final Application for New License for the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project) being filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission). Energy Northwest elected to relicense the Project using the Commission’s Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). Pursuant to the process and schedule requirements of the ILP, as defined in 18 CFR Part 5, Energy Northwest filed a Preliminary Licensing Proposal (PLP) with the Commission and participating agencies, tribes and the public on September 17, 2007. Comments were subsequently received from the Commission and resource agencies. These comments are addressed within this Exhibit E, and in the attached Appendix B to this application.

The Packwood Lake Project consists of an intake canal; a concrete drop structure (dam); an intake building on Lake Creek about 424 feet downstream from the outlet of Packwood Lake; a 21,691-foot system of concrete pipe and tunnels; a 5,621-foot penstock, a surge tank, and powerhouse with a 26,125 kW turbine generator. Packwood Lake, a natural lake on Lake Creek, provides the water for the Project. It is located at an elevation of approximately 2857 feet MSL, about 1,800 feet above the powerhouse. Water discharged from the Project is returned to the Cowlitz River via a tailrace canal. Power from the Project is delivered over an 8,009 foot, 69 kV transmission line to the Packwood substation.

Proposed Operation

Energy Northwest proposes the following operating conditions for the Project. These are explained in detail in Exhibit B:

• Eliminate the current maximum water surface elevation of 2858.5 feet MSL (which corresponds to the drop structure crest), since the drop structure spillway is uncontrolled (no spillway gates), and lake levels that exceed this elevation are self- regulating and cannot be directly controlled by the Project. • Begin the annual outage for Project maintenance on August 15 of each operating year, and resume operation by September 15, or earlier if all necessary work has been completed. • Maintain a minimum lake elevation of 2856.5 feet MSL between May 1 and September 15. • Maintain a minimum lake elevation of 2849 ft. MSL between Sept. 16 and April 30.

The lake typically will be drawn down for the fall/winter to the 2852-2854 ft range, depending on winter lake inflows, but the minimum lake level of 2849 ft MSL will provide

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Environmental Exhibit

flexibility if a lower level is required to allow continued winter operations under low inflow conditions, as well as to allow maintenance at the intake structure.

This operating regime will assure that adequate water is available to continue providing bypass flows for anadromous incubation/rearing in Lake Creek, aquatic habitat forming flows, and plant flows, which will enhance protection of anadromous incubation/rearing in the tailrace slough of the Cowlitz River. These environmental measures are described below.

Proposed Environmental Measures

Energy Northwest proposes the following environmental protection, mitigation and enhancement (PM&E) measures for the next license term, to address concerns regarding the resources potentially affected by the Project (described in Exhibit E). This list does not include all of the agency requested resource management conditions.

• Provide increased instream flows in Lake Creek according to the schedule below.

Table E-1. Proposed instream flows (cfs) for Lake Creek, as measured at the drop structure. Month Instream Flow (cfs) January 4 February 4 March 4 April 7 May 15 June 10 July 15 August 1 – 15 15 Aug 16 – Sept 15 20 September 16 – 30 15 October 10 November 7 December 4

• Aquatic Habitat Forming Flows: Provide a spill event of greater than or equal to 285 cfs for as long as lake inflows can sustain that flow or a maximum of 24 hours, every other water year or 3 out of 6 water years. (If the frequencies of the spill events cannot be achieved, the agencies will be consulted for an alternate plan.) • Reduce entrainment at the Project intake with a 3-phase, adaptive plan. 1. Replace existing debris screens with better fitting screens, and monitor results to determine if entrainment is less than targets established. If target numbers are met, this effort is deemed acceptable. 2. If targets are not met; remove the debris screens, develop other means for cleaning debris from the trash racks, and monitor to determine if entrainment is less than the threshold targets. If targets are met, this effort is deemed acceptable.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Environmental Exhibit

3. If impingement on the screens under Phase 2 exceeds threshold levels, Energy Northwest will consult with the natural resource agencies and tribes to determine an alternative means of protecting fish at the intake. • Ensure a specified resident trout population in Reach 5 of Lake Creek by periodically moving Packwood Lake trout to Lake Creek downstream of the drop structure either by overtopping events (aquatic habitat flows) or by physically collecting and moving fish. • Provide gravel and wood recruitment stations in Reach 5 below the drop structure. Wood and gravel located at these structures would be carried downstream during the channel forming flows provided as part of the aquatic habitat spill events described above. • Develop and implement a stream restoration and enhancement plan for lowest 1.0 mile of Lake Creek, in the anadromous zone, in consultation with the natural resource agencies and tribes. • Improve fish passage on Snyder Creek where it crosses the tailrace canal by rerouting Snyder Creek into Hall Creek on the downstream side (south) of the tailrace canal within five years of license issuance. • Install flow measurement equipment, within the first year of the issuance of the new operating license and begin recording data at the Lake Creek Road Bridge. • Maintain and monitor effectiveness of the tailrace fish barrier. • Inspect the tailrace slough prior to the annual outage for adequate flows, and rescue fish, if necessary. • Develop a monitoring plan in consultation with WDOE, to evaluate the effectiveness of Project operations, including the timing of the annual outage, in meeting the applicable temperature standard at the confluence of the Project tailrace with the Cowlitz River. If the tailrace temperature standard is not sufficiently resolved by changes in Project operations, Energy Northwest will consult with WDOE on additional ways to address this issue. • Develop and implement a rare plant management plan. • Develop and implement an integrated weed management plan incorporating the current weed control plan. Provide for regular weed control and site-specific efforts. • Develop and implement a Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Management plan. • Provide a composting toilet at the lake • Provide annual Operation and Maintenance for the composting toilet. • Provide for a means to address impacts from dispersed recreation. • Implement the August 30, 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan. • Assure that the Project transmission line conforms with APLIC Standards for raptor protection. • Establish a road maintenance plan for Pipeline Road (FS Road 1260-066), Pipeline Trail (Trail No. 74), and Latch Road (FS Road 1262 above the gate), in consultation with the USDA Forest Service. • Continue providing power to the USDA Forest Service guard station.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E – Environmental Exhibit

• As repairs and maintenance to the intake building are performed, consult with the USDA Forest Service on appropriate paint colors and materials to assure the building blends in with the surrounding area. • Develop and implement a plan to monitor the Project Pipeline, Surge Tank and Penstock to protect National Forest lands from leakage or failure of the facilities.

Costs and schedules for these measures are discussed in the relevant sections of the Exhibit E, Environmental Report.

Alternatives Considered

Energy Northwest initially considered the No Action Alternative viable for a second license term. This alternative would preserve current operational parameters and would not involve any new environmental measures, and represents the baseline for environmental assessment of the Project’s effects. Consultation with the stakeholder agencies and tribes, and results of the relicensing studies indicated that the No Action alternative is not the preferred alternative, and that the PM&E measures listed above and described in the sections of Exhibit E, below, should be included in Energy Northwest’s proposed Project for the next license term.

Agency Terms and Conditions

Energy Northwest has consulted with the resource management agencies and interested tribes from the earliest stages of the Project’s relicensing process. In order to submit a licensing proposal that appropriately addresses Project resources, Energy Northwest conducted discussions intended to gain consensus on proposed PM&Es, to the extent possible, in the short timeframe provided under the ILP. The environmental analysis provided in this application includes those agreed measures as elements of the Proposed Project. It is expected that there will be additional, detailed administrative requirements, particularly in the Section 4(e) Conditions that will be submitted by the USDA Forest Service. The environmental analysis contains the measures that have been agreed to with the Forest Service, WDFW, the USFWS, and NOAA/NMFS. These include the substance of the attached preliminary terms and conditions provided by the Forest Service (Appendix C). It is understood that details or wording of the proposed PM&Es may change somewhat in the final conditions and recommendations that are later submitted.

Conclusion

Energy Northwest notes that the environmental baseline for assessing effects of Project relicensing is the current conditions, which have existed for nearly 50 years under the original Project license. Energy Northwest believes the proposed measures for Project operation, and environmental protection and enhancement, will provide greater benefits for Project resources, while ensuring generation of clean, low cost hydroelectric power.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E-4 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.1 – Environmental Analysis

E.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

E.1.1 General Description of the Cowlitz River and Lake Creek

Packwood Lake is located within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, in the upper Cowlitz River watershed (Figure E.1-1). Packwood Lake existed as a natural lake prior to the Project. It was formed when a large mass of soil and rock slid off Snyder Mountain and dammed Lake Creek approximately 1,100 years ago (Swanson 1996). Water that originates as rainfall and snowmelt in the Goat Rocks Wilderness Area and the Cascade Mountains drains into Packwood Lake via several tributaries, including: Osprey Creek, Trap Creek, Muller Creek, Upper Lake Creek, and Crawford Creek. Lower Lake Creek serves as the outlet to Packwood Lake. The Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project) operations divert water approximately 424 feet downstream from the outlet of Packwood Lake (lower Lake Creek) and return the diverted flow to the Cowlitz River approximately 4 miles downstream from the mouth of Lake Creek at RM 125.2. The normal surface area of the lake is 452 acres at elevation 2857 feet MSL.

Lake Creek flows in a northwest direction from Packwood Lake approximately 5.3 miles to a point of confluence with the upper Cowlitz River, at approximately River Mile (RM) 129.2. Lake Creek has a drainage area of approximately 7.3 square miles, which supplements the flows released by the Project at the diversion site. The Lake Creek drainage is mostly within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, with the lowest 0.7 miles of Lake Creek on private lands. The gradient of lower Lake Creek is relatively high, averaging about 6.3% from the lake to its confluence with the Cowlitz River. Segment gradients range from a low of about 2% immediately upstream of the Cowlitz River to 20% in the canyon reach (EES Consulting 2005c).

The Project is situated on the west side of the Cascade Mountain range. The area’s climate is maritime. Average rainfall for Packwood is approximately 57 inches per year while the national average is 37 inches. Average snowfall for Packwood is 27 inches per year and the national average is 25 inches. Average high in July is 79°F and the average low is in January with 29°F (http://climate.fizber.com/Washington-city- packwood-climate.html). Precipitation falls year-round but mainly as rain in the fall and spring and as snow in the winter. Summer is the driest period.

Land uses within the upper end of the Project area on National Forest Service lands are recreation (wilderness and non-wilderness) and power generation. At the lower end of the Project within the town of Packwood, land use is rural, small town, industrial with mineral and timber extraction activities.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.1-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.1 – Environmental Analysis

Figure E.1-1. Project Location

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.1-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.1 – Environmental Analysis

Lewis County is making a transition from a resource-based, extractive economy to one with an emphasis on light manufacturing, wholesale distribution, and commerce. The Lewis County Economic Development Council and the East Lewis County Public Development Agency established the Packwood Industrial Park with an 8,000-square foot-building and 16 acres of developable land in 2000 (White Pass Highway Shopper/Lewis County Public Development Authority 2004). Two tenants currently occupy the industrial park. The annual average wage in Lewis County in 2005 was $23,694 (Washington State Office of Financial Management 2006) compared to the Washington State average annual wage of $40,385 (Washington State Employment Security 2006). The annual unemployment rate for Lewis County in 2005 was 7.7% (Washington State Employment Security Department 2007).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.1-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.2 – Cumulative Effects

E.2. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

E.2.1 Geographic Scope

The geographic scope of the analysis defines the physical limits or boundaries of the proposed action’s effect on the resources. Because the proposed action would affect different resources differently, the geographic scope for each resource may vary. Cumulative effects have been considered in and around Packwood Lake, the Lake Creek watershed, and the Cowlitz River downstream of the confluence with Lake Creek.

E.2.2 Temporal Scope

The temporal scope of the cumulative effects analysis will include a discussion of past, present, and future actions and their effects on each resource that could be cumulatively affected. Based on the potential term of a new license, the temporal scope will look 40-50 years into the future, concentrating on the effect on the resources from reasonably foreseeable future actions. The historical discussion will, by necessity, be limited to the amount of available information for each resource.

E.2.3 Cumulatively Affected Resources

E.2.3.1 Geology

Erosion associated with Project and non-Project use of roads and trails results in small amounts of fine-grained sediment delivery to streams (estimated 7 tons/year over the 14 miles of roads and trails). No water quality or aquatic habitat concerns related to sediment were noted. Non-Project use of the roads and trails is anticipated to continue for the next license term at a similar rate to current conditions, since the lake is relatively remote, within a wilderness area, access by private vehicles is restricted, and no facilities for overnight use or water activities are maintained there anymore. Since the Wilderness designation is not expected to change, those circumstances are also not expected to change significantly.

Work that will occur to refit new intake debris screens under the new license will require only an additional five round trips to the lake by ATV on Trail #74 and the road maintenance agreement with the Forest Service addresses the condition of Project roads and trails. Thus, no foreseeable cumulative effects on erosion at the Project are anticipated.

E.2.3.2 Water Quality

Residential development near the mouth of Lake Creek has resulted in a slight reduction in riparian canopy, which consequently affects water temperature. The water quality model results indicated a slight warming in this lower reach. No future logging is anticipated in the area because the Late-Successional Resource designation of the Forest Service for the Project area currently precludes timber harvest. Licensing of the

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.2-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.2 – Cumulative Effects

Project has no relation to residential development since Energy Northwest does not supply power to the community, except in certain emergency situations.

Energy Northwest anticipates that the work to reroute Snyder Creek under the new license, will be subject to permit conditions that will require measures to prevent erosion or discharge of any sediment or materials into any streams. Thus, no foreseeable cumulative effects on erosion at the Project are anticipated.

No cumulative effects on water quality are reasonably foreseeable.

E.2.3.3 Fish and Macroinvertebrates

Past timber harvest in riparian areas between RM 0 and 0.8 in Lake Creek is likely one of the primary reasons that there is little wood in this section of the stream and, therefore, little potential spawning habitat. The lack of large wood and other large roughness elements results in a lack of gravel storage areas in the reach. Residential development in the lower 0.3 miles of Lake Creek and construction of two road bridges also constrain the stream and affect stream geomorphology and aquatic habitat.

Alteration of stream flows has affected the macroinvertebrate community within Lake Creek. Historical logging within the riparian zone adjacent to Lake Creek has had a cumulative impact by reducing the availability of large woody debris to be recruited to the stream channel. The measures to restore habitat in lower Lake Creek and to provide additional instream flow, above current levels, will result in beneficial effects to fish and macroinvertebrates. No future logging is anticipated because the Late- Successional Resource designation of the Forest Service for the Project area currently precludes timber harvest.

Installing new debris screens at the Project intake will increase protection of Packwood Lake trout. Rerouting Snyder Creek will enhance fish passage in that stream. Moving the annual Project maintenance outage will provide additional protection for spawning salmonids in the side channel of the Cowlitz River below the tailrace.

No negative cumulative effects to fish or macroinvertebrates are reasonably foreseeable.

E.2.3.4 Wildlife

Wildlife in the Project area have been cumulatively affected by recreation that occurred at Packwood Lake, which pre-dated the Project. See Section E.5.7 for a full description of the recreational uses in the area dating back to the beginning of the early 1900s. Trails were constructed and also a resort at the lake that included a tent camp, a two- story cedar lodge with store, kitchen and dining area, floating dock, boathouse and rowboats. In the mid-1930s, 11 small wood cabins were added. The main lodge, utility room, and the boiler building were damaged by fire in 1972, and most of the cabins were removed in 1974. The boat concession, with boathouse and dock, continued

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.2-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.2 – Cumulative Effects

operation until 1991. Recreational use of all these facilities unrelated to the Project likely affected patterns of wildlife use of the lake area and the areas around the roads and access trails.

Wildlife has also been subject to the effects of residential and commercial development around the area, as well as by prior logging and other forest management practices.

No significant changes are currently planned to the level of access or recreation in the Project area. It is not anticipated that providing a toilet at the lake will attract many more recreational users given the remoteness of the lake (4 mile hike in) and the lack of overnight facilities. The wilderness designation around much of the lake should ensure that access and use of the area will continue to be limited and likely will be more limited in the future rather than less.

Activities such as providing new debris screens at the Project intake to protect fish, and rerouting Snyder Creek will be very short in duration and, normal operation is not anticipated to include any additional noise or disturbance causing activities. Therefore, the usual level of noise and disturbance to wildlife is not expected to increase under the new license. No cumulative effects to wildlife are expected.

E.2.3.5 Botanical

The occurrence and distribution of vegetation cover types in the Project vicinity is affected by forest practices and other land uses undertaken by USDA Forest Service and other land owners. However, the Late-Successional Resource designation of the Forest Service for the Project area currently precludes timber harvest.

Recreationists bringing pack horses into the lake area provide a potential vector for introducing non-native plant species.

E.2.3.6 Recreation and Aesthetics

No cumulative effects to aesthetics are known.

E.2.3.7 Cultural

No cumulative effects on traditional cultural properties are known.

E.2.3.8 Socioeconomic

No cumulative effects are known with respect to socioeconomic resources.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.2-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.3 – Compliance with Applicable Laws

E.3 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS

E.3.1 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act

Section 401 of the “Clean Water Act” (Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 - 1376; Chapter 758; P.L. 845, June 30, 1948; 62 Stat. 1155, as amended) requires that a water quality certification be issued for the relicensing of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project. FERC regulations require that an applicant for new license using the Integrated Licensing Process file its request for water quality certification or waiver with the applicable agency within 60 days of the issuance by FERC of the notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis (REA) (18 CFR §5.23). Energy Northwest anticipates filing its application for water quality certification following receipt of the REA notice.

Energy Northwest has consulted with the Washington Department of Ecology since 2004 to ensure that the necessary data would be collected to support its application for water quality certification. Studies that have been conducted included: the Lake Creek Instream Flow and Habitat Assessment; the Packwood Lake Drawdown Study; the Tailrace Slough Instream Flow Study; the Water Quality Study and Water Quality Modeling.

E.3.2 Endangered Species Act

Consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884, as amended), to ensure that issuance of a new Project license is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat. Several listed species occur within or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project. Energy Northwest requested to be, and was designated FERC’s nonfederal representative for ESA consultation with respect to the relicensing. See the correspondence in Appendix BA-1 to the Biological Assessment (BA), which is Appendix D to this application.

Both National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identified listed and proposed species that may occur within the Project area (see Table E.5.6-1). They include Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (O. kisutch), chum salmon (O. keta), steelhead trout (O. mykiss), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Bull trout and chum salmon were determined not to occur in the upper Cowlitz River and, therefore, were eliminated from further analysis. The USFWS website indicated that the bald eagle, northern spotted owl, gray wolf and grizzly bear are ESA-listed terrestrial species for Washington.

Energy Northwest conducted the studies requested by the fish and wildlife management agencies with respect to ESA-listed species and prepared a Draft BA, which was submitted to NMFS and USFWS in the Preliminary Licensing Proposal (Energy Northwest 2007j). Comments were received from FERC and the resource agencies. The BA was revised, based on these comments, and is included in Appendix D to this

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.3-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.3 – Compliance with Applicable Laws

application. In addition, Energy Northwest has been engaging in ongoing consultation with the agencies to develop agreed measures for protection of ESA species affected by the Project. The measures agreed upon to date are included in this application and the BA.

E.3.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. §1801- 1882, April 13, 1976, as amended), requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries regarding activities that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The objectives of EFH consultation are to determine whether the proposed action would adversely affect designated EFH. Energy Northwest has consulted with NOAA/NMFS and conducted the requested fishery studies described in Exhibit E, Sections E.5.3 and E.5.6. Energy Northwest’s assessment of Project effects on EFH is in Appendix BA-3 to the BA in Appendix D to this application.

E.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act

Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, (CZMA) (16 U.S.C. 1451-1456, as amended), federal licenses must be consistent with approved state coastal management programs. The Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project does not lie within a coastal management zone and, therefore, the CZMA does not apply to its relicensing.

E.3.5 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470a, as amended), Section 106 requires that prior to the issuance of any license, federal agencies must, “…. take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.”

Other Federal laws related to the NHPA, with which agencies must comply, are: the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (AHPA) (Public Law 86-523, 16 U.S.C. 469-469c-2); the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) (Public Law 96-95; 16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm); and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) (Public Law 101-601, 25 USC §3001-13). Compliance with all of these statutes is intended to be achieved by the measures included in the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the Project.

The lead federal agency must consult with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (AHPA) to ensure that its action or “undertaking” is consistent with the requirements of the laws and regulations governing treatment of historic and cultural resources. Energy Northwest conducted a survey of historic and cultural resources within the Project area (Dampf and Thompson, 2006), and developed an Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP), which was submitted to FERC, the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer, the USDA Forest Service, the interested tribes, and to the AHPA. See Section

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.3-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.3 – Compliance with Applicable Laws

E.5.9 for further description of the HPMP and the consultation conducted in relation to historic and cultural resources at the Project.

E.3.6 Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act

The Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Council’s Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program is the largest regional effort in the nation to recover, rebuild, and mitigate impacts on fish and wildlife. The Council adopted the first program in November 1982. The 2000 program addresses all of the “Four Hs” of impacts on fish and wildlife – hydropower, habitat, hatcheries and harvest and marks a significant departure from past versions, which consisted primarily of a collection of measures directing specific activities. The 2000 Program establishes a basinwide vision for fish and wildlife along with biological objectives and action strategies that are consistent with the vision. The program is ultimately implemented through subbasin plans developed locally in the more than 50 tributary subbasins of the Columbia and amended into the program by the Council. The Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project is located within the Cowlitz subbasin. Relicensing of the Project including measures outlined in Exhibit E, Section 5 of this Final License Application are expected to be consistent with the objectives of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. To ensure the Project’s consistency with the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, all concerned fish and wildlife agencies and tribes have been consulted throughout the relicensing process.

E.3.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers and Wilderness Acts

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed by Congress in 1968 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1271- 1287, October 2, 1968, as amended) to ensure that some of the nation’s most spectacular rivers remain in a natural, free-flowing state for future generations to enjoy. To be eligible, a river system must possess one or more “outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values.” Currently, there are no congressionally designated Wild, Scenic, or recreational rivers on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

The Wilderness management allocation (shown in Section E.5, Figure E.5.7-2) is a designated Congressionally Reserved Area. In 1964, Congress passed the Wilderness Act, which added the Goat Rocks to the new National Wilderness Preservation System. Over three-quarters of the Packwood Lake shoreline is in the designated Wilderness boundary. The original Project license and construction predated the Wilderness designation. None of the Project works other than part of the “reservoir,” the pre- existing Packwood Lake, lie within the boundary of the Wilderness. The remaining Lake shoreline and Project area is within the Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) designation which overlaps several management allocations within the Project boundary. Energy Northwest has consulted, and will continue to consult with the Forest Service to manage its use of Project roads, trails and facilities under the new license. Energy Northwest, together with the Forest Service, will develop new or revised agreements and plans

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.3-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.3 – Compliance with Applicable Laws

such as the road maintenance agreement and Noxious Weed Control Plan, to minimize effects of routine Project operation on the forest and nearby wilderness lands.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.3-4 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation

E.4 PROJECT FACILITIES AND OPERATION

The Project is located in Lewis County in southwest Washington near the unincorporated town of Packwood about 20 miles south of Mt. Rainier. Packwood Lake is located in the Cascade Mountain Range within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (see Figure E.4-1). The upper portion of the lake is bordered the Goat Rocks Wilderness Area.

E.4.1 Project Lands and Waters

E.4.1.1 FERC Project Boundary

The Project boundary, as shown in Exhibit G, is defined to include Packwood Lake up to an elevation of 2860 feet mean sea level (MSL) and the intake canal, intake structure, drop structure, pipeline and tunnels, penstock, powerhouse area, tailrace, and transmission line (see Figure E.4-1). The Project boundary is generated through a combination of an elevation contour line around Packwood Lake as described above, and metes and bounds, beginning at the intake/drop structure and continuing down to the tailrace (see Exhibits G-2 through G-7). The Project includes 503.25 acres of USDA Forest Service land, 20.94 acres of Energy Northwest-owned land (R.W. Beck 1980) and 15.04 acres of Washington State lands. Total land acreage within the FERC boundary is approximately 540 (539.23) acres (R. W. Beck 1980).

The transmission line falls within the larger blocks of land reserved for other facilities of the Project or share a similar occupancy with other utilities. Accordingly, the transmission line was specified by length in feet that it occupies in each land ownership block. For example, the first 748 feet of transmission line leaving the Project switchyard traverses Forest Service managed land. The line then runs 3,873 feet along the Energy Northwest-owned tailrace corridor. Upon reaching U.S. Highway 12, the line changes direction and runs 3,361 feet along the state highway right-of-way on poles shared by other power and telecommunication utilities until it reaches the Packwood substation, which includes 27 feet on Lewis County PUD land. The right-of-way varies within the Project boundary from 110 feet across Highway 12 up to 125 feet at the end of the line near the Packwood substation. The acreage of the line along Highway 12 is 8.78 acres and 1.52 acres of Lewis County PUD land at the Packwood substation.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation

Figure E.4-1. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Facilities, General Location

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation

E.4.1.2 Packwood Lake

Packwood Lake is located within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, in the upper Cowlitz River watershed, in the eastern half of Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 26. Packwood Lake existed as a natural lake prior to the Project. It was formed when a large mass of soil and rock slid off Snyder Mountain and dammed Lake Creek approximately 1,100 years ago (Swanson 1996). Water that originates as rainfall and snowmelt in the Goat Rocks Wilderness Area and the Cascade Mountains drains into Packwood Lake via several tributaries, including: Osprey Creek, Trap Creek, Muller Creek, Upper Lake Creek, and Crawford Creek. Lower Lake Creek serves as the outlet to Packwood Lake. The Project diverts water approximately 424 feet downstream in Lake Creek from the outlet of the lake and returns the diverted flow to the Cowlitz River approximately 4 miles downstream from the mouth of Lake Creek. The normal surface area of the lake is 452 acres at elevation 2857 feet MSL. The natural range of elevation varied between elevation 2856 and 2858 feet MSL during the peak runoff months of May, June, and July (Energy Northwest 1965).

The normal surface area of the lake is 452 acres at elevation 2857 feet MSL. Lake level data for the years 1959 to 1980 was obtained from the USGS. The elevation of Packwood Lake was recorded by the USGS Station No. 14225400, “Packwood Lake near Packwood.” Normal lake elevations generally fluctuated between 2856.5 and 2857.5 feet MSL. Lake elevations were higher during late fall and winter rain storms and spring snow melt. Figure E.4-2 shows available Lake elevation data for the period 1959 through 1964 before and immediately after the construction of the drop structure. Project construction did not begin to affect lake elevations until late July of 1963, when the drop structure was constructed.

According to the USGS gage data, minimum lake elevations generally began in August and persisted through October or until the fall rainfall started. Minimum lake levels periodically occurred during winter and early spring months when temperatures were too low to initiate snow melt. Minimum lake elevations were generally between 2856.0 and 2856.5 ft MSL. The lowest Lake elevation recorded between September 1959 and July 1963 was 2855.94. A pre-Project lake level of 2856.6 ft MSL was shown on a Project Drawing (No. 124-C-370P) dated September 25, 1958. The natural maximum lake elevation for Packwood Lake was estimated by the Forest Service as 2859.1 feet MSL (Hurd 1964). A study conducted in the early 1960s indicated that the lake fluctuation for the May 1 to September 15 period from 1960 through 1963 was 1.2 to 2.1 feet, with the differences for the annual maxima and minima ranging from 2.3 to 3.4 feet (Royce 1965a).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation

Packwood Lake Elevation

2860.0

2859.5

2859.0

2858.5

2858.0

2857.5

2857.0

Lake Elevation (ft) (MSL) 2856.5

2856.0

2855.5

9 9 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 3 4 4 6 6 62 6 6 6 -5 -5 -6 - -6 -6 - l-6 l- g v b y v b y-62 v-62 r- u u o ov-6 a o a o Ju J A N Feb- May-60 Aug N Fe M Aug-61 N Fe M Aug-62 N Jan- May-63 Oct-63 Jan-64 Ap Date

Elevation

Figure E.4-2. Packwood Lake Elevation, Aug. 1959-Aug. 1964 (USGS gage no. 14225400)

The current license requires that Packwood Lake be maintained at a constant elevation of approximately 2857 feet MSL during the recreation season, May 1 through September 15. This elevation corresponds to a normal lake surface area of approximately 452 acres. During the remainder of the year, the license allows lowering the lake level not more than eight feet below the summer lake level down to an elevation of 2849 feet MSL (422 acre minimum surface area). The 8 feet of vertical storage allows the Project to store and utilize winter runoff for power generation. When seasonal high runoff exceeds the Project capacity and the available lake storage capacity, the drop structure is overtopped. When the lake level rises above elevation 2858.5 feet MSL (maximum surface area of about 456 acres), flow across the uncontrolled spillway begins and, excess runoff is directed down Lake Creek. Considering the maximum (2858.5) and minimum (2849) reservoir elevations in the original license, the storage of the Project is approximately 4162 acre-feet. This usable storage is reduced under the original license to approximately 452 acre-feet between May 1 and September 14 because of the requirement to maintain a lake elevation of 2857 +/- 0.5 feet MSL. Plant operations during this period must be restricted to match inflows in order to maintain a relatively constant lake elevation. The maximum depth of

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-4 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation the lake is between 110 and 120 feet, with a mean depth of 71 feet. The lake volume is approximately 28,000 acre-feet. The length of the shoreline is approximately 4.26 miles (Washington Department of Ecology 1991).

E.4.1.3 Lake Creek

Lake Creek is the outlet stream for Packwood Lake and flows from the lake to the northwest approximately 5.3 miles, to a point of confluence with the upper Cowlitz River, at approximately River Mile (RM) 129.2. Water for the Project is diverted approximately 424 feet downstream from the outlet of the lake. Lake Creek has a drainage area of approximately 7.3 square miles located between the drop structure and the Cowlitz River, which supplements the required bypass flows released by the Project at the diversion site (EES Consulting 2007m). The Lake Creek drainage is mostly within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, with the lowest 0.7 miles of Lake Creek on private lands. The gradient of Lake Creek is relatively high, averaging about 6.3% from the lake to its confluence with the Cowlitz River. Segment gradients range from a low of about 2% immediately upstream of the Cowlitz River to 20% in the canyon reach (EES Consulting 2005c).

E.4.1.4 Cowlitz River

The Project is located in the upper Cowlitz River watershed, in the eastern half of Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 26. The mainstem of the Cowlitz River is formed at the confluence of the Ohanapecosh River and the Muddy and Clear Forks of the Cowlitz River, at approximately RM 132. Outlet flows from the Project are returned to the Cowlitz River at RM 125.2, approximately 4 miles downstream from the mouth of Lake Creek.

E.4.1.5 Snyder and Hall Creeks

Snyder Creek is the outlet stream for Snyder Lake and provides drainage for the area immediately above the powerhouse. Snyder Creek is approximately one mile in length and passes through a culvert under the tailrace canal near its confluence with the Hall Creek wetland area. Hall Creek is somewhat larger than Snyder Creek and drains much of the area to the northeast of the powerhouse between the Snyder Creek and Lake Creek drainages. Hall Creek flows southwest along the mountain front and eventually reaches Johnson Creek and the Cowlitz River about 3 miles from the powerhouse. In the vicinity of the powerhouse, Hall Creek consists of a large wetland area. The Project tailrace passes over this wetland area in an elevated 356-foot-long flume.

E.4.2 Packwood Lake Project Facilities

The Project consists of an intake canal, a concrete drop structure (dam) and intake building on Lake Creek located about 424 feet downstream from the outlet of Packwood Lake, a 21,691-foot system of concrete pipe and tunnels, a 5,621-foot penstock, a surge

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-5 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation tank, powerhouse with a 26,125 kW turbine generator, stilling basin, tailrace canal, tailrace fish barrier, and a short transmission line. Packwood Lake is the source of water for the Project. It is located at an elevation of approximately 2857 feet MSL, about 1,800 feet above the powerhouse. Water discharged from the Project is returned to the Cowlitz River via a tailrace canal. Power from the Project is delivered over an 8,009 foot, 69 kV transmission line to the Packwood substation. Figure E.4-1 shows the general locations of Project facilities using a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map and Figure E.4-3 provides a schematic of Project facilities. Detailed drawings of the facilities are included in Exhibit F.

Surge Tank Lake Creek Intake and Drop Structure Tunnel & Pipeline

Penstock

Switchyard

Turbine Generator Tailrace

Cowlitz River

Figure E.4-3. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Facilities

E.4.2.1 Intake and Drop Structure

The Project intake structure is located approximately 424 feet downstream from the outlet of Packwood Lake. The intake structure is connected to the lake by an excavated inlet canal. This canal was excavated to an invert elevation of approximately 2843.5 feet MSL. This corresponds to a water depth of approximately 13.5 feet when the lake is at its summertime elevation of approximately 2857 feet MSL.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-6 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation

The intake structure contains two fixed trash rack screens that were installed to protect the intake structure from large debris. These two vertical trash racks are each approximately 10 feet by 11 feet in dimensions with 2-5/16-inch openings. They cover the building intake openings and are located between elevations 2840 and 2850 feet MSL. The flow through these vertical trash racks is supplemented by two horizontal gratings located at elevation 2850 feet MSL. These two horizontal grates are approximately 10 feet by 3 feet in dimension with 1-3/16-inch openings.

An outer layer of expanded-metal screen material has been placed over the vertical intake openings to capture small debris and keep it from fouling the permanent trash racks. These debris screens can be hoisted out of the water for cleaning. The debris screens are cleaned on an as-needed basis about 3 to 4 times a year. Plant operators judge when intake performance is being inhibited by debris building up on the screens. When power generation schedules allow, water flow through the intake building is reduced and the screens are then hoisted out of the water and cleaned. Cleaning normally occurs in the spring (March-April), late summer (September) and in October during the outage. Additional cleanings may be necessary in some years during the winter months or occasionally during mid-summer. The screen material has oval shaped openings approximately 1-1/8 inches by 2-1/8 inches. Floating booms are located at the lake entrance to the intake canal and near the intake building to prevent the largest debris (e.g., logs) from reaching the intake building as well as to prevent access by boats for safety reasons.

Inside the intake building and situated between the outer trash racks and the entrance to the pipeline are two traveling screens. These traveling screens operate automatically, as needed, or can be manually operated from either the powerhouse or the intake building. These screens each consist of 9-ft-wide connected metal basket frames that are covered with a wire cloth. This screen material is a 4 x 4 mesh (wires per inch) with a wire thickness of 0.080 inches that results in an opening size of 0.170 inches. The screens extend from the bottom of the intake building at elevation 2840 feet MSL to a point above the upper floor of the building (2868 feet MSL) to cover the wide range of lake elevations. The total surface area of the traveling screens is a function of the lake level and ranges between 162 square feet at minimum pool (elevation 2849 feet MSL) to 306 square feet at the summertime pool elevation of 2857 feet MSL. If the differential pressure (i.e., water elevation) across the screens increases due to fouling of the screens, the screens are automatically rotated when the setpoint is exceeded.

A fixed-wheel gate controls the water entering the 72-inch concrete pipeline that supplies water to the powerhouse. This gate is not used to regulate the flow of water entering the pipeline and is either full open or closed. The opening and closing of the gate is controlled by a hydraulic system. The system includes hydraulic accumulators that are designed to close the gate on loss of AC power. The headgate also can be manually operated from either the powerhouse or the intake building. Powerplant safety control circuits are designed to close the gate during automatic plant shutdowns or as a result of excess flow in the pipeline system.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-7 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation

Flow through the pipeline is measured downstream of the headgate using two ultrasonic flow sensors connected to signal processing and display instrumentation in the intake building (GE Panametrics ultrasonic liquid flowmeter). The resulting flow signal is sent via underground cable to the powerhouse where it creates a permanent record on a circular chart recorder. This chart recorder also utilizes software to convert the flow signal to volume in acre-feet for recording by staff in the daily plant logs.

The intake structure also houses a 24-inch pipeline and butterfly valve that is used to bypass water around the drop structure for release into Lake Creek. The control valve can be operated either from the intake building or remotely from the powerhouse. The pipeline operates by gravity flow and is, therefore, dependent on the position of the control valve and the level of the lake (i.e., the hydraulic head). It has a maximum flow of about 32 cfs at a lake elevation of 2857 feet MSL. The upstream opening of this pipe is located inside the intake building (centerline elevation 2846.5 feet MSL) adjacent to the main pipeline and downstream of the traveling screens. Flow through this bypass pipe is measured at its discharge point in the stilling basin immediately below the drop structure. Two ultrasonic flow sensors are used to measure the flow. These sensors are connected to signal processing and display instrumentation in the intake building (GE Panametrics ultrasonic liquid flowmeter). The resulting flow signal is sent via underground cable to the powerhouse where it creates a permanent record on a circular chart recorder. This chart recorder also utilizes software to convert the flow signal to volume in acre-feet for recording by staff in the daily plant logs.

Lake level is measured in the intake building utilizing a metal float housed in a stilling well. The stilling well is connected by pipe to the forebay outside the intake building for more accurate readings. The metal float is connected to a Stevens water level recorder. The mechanical movement of the float is converted to an electrical signal that is transmitted via underground cable to the powerhouse. At the powerhouse, a permanent record is created by a Stevens chart recorder. In addition, the lake level is recorded by staff in the daily plant logs.

Inflow to Packwood Lake from the stream tributaries is not measured directly. The reported lake inflow is calculated by plant staff once a day (7 a.m.) for the previous 24- hour period. The inflow is calculated based on the lake volume change that occurred during the previous 24 hours (derived from lake elevation) and the volume of water that flowed through the powerhouse and the bypass volume that was either released or spilled down Lake Creek during the same period. The result of the calculation is expressed in average inflow in cfs for the previous 24-hour period. This method averages out the highs and lows of the inflow during the period. The average inflow value is used by the operators to help match plant water use to natural inflow so that the lake level remains relatively constant during the summer months.

A concrete drop structure (dam) constructed across Lake Creek, adjacent to the intake structure, diverts water to the powerhouse. The drop structure rises approximately 10.5 feet above the level of Lake Creek (below the dam), and extends 80 feet in width at the dam crest. The structure is tied into impervious earth fill cutoff walls on each side that

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-8 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation extend into the natural embankment. This structure does not have spillway gates or other means to release water down Lake Creek. The name “drop structure” refers to the design of the uncontrolled spillway that allows water to free fall the short distance to the stilling basin below, which is approximately 4 ft deep. The crest of the drop structure spillway is located at elevation 2858.5 feet MSL and water will spill over the structure only when the lake level rises above this level. Spill flow across the drop structure is calculated from rectangular weir formulas using lake elevation to determine the flow of water over the crest.

E.4.2.2 Pipeline and Tunnels

Approximately 16,759 feet of 72-inch pipe and two tunnels convey water from the lake to the surge tank. The 72-inch pretensioned concrete pipeline is buried in a trench on a pipeline bench varying between 20 and 150 feet in width depending upon terrain. The pipe has a minimum wall thickness of 2-1/16 inches with standard lengths of 32 feet except in areas where 20-foot lengths were used to follow sharper contours of the mountainside. Pretensioned concrete cylinder pipe consists of a 3/16-inch welded steel cylinder, steel joint rings welded to its ends, and a 3/8-inch steel reinforcing rod wound around the cylinder under measured tension. This steel core is then protected with a 3/4-inch thick concrete coating inside and out to provide corrosion protection.

Two tunnels carry Project waters in areas where the steep terrain or unstable material made construction of a pipeline undesirable. The first tunnel (Tunnel No. 1), located approximately 1,299 feet downstream from the outlet of Packwood Lake, is approximately 1,730 feet long and is lined in a circular configuration with a 6-foot diameter. The second tunnel (Tunnel No. 2), located approximately 4,741 feet below the downstream outlet of Tunnel No. 1, is roughly 3,202 feet in length and is partly lined with concrete in a configuration with rectangular walls and an arched ceiling. The width of the concrete-lined sections of Tunnel No. 2 is 6.5 feet, and the height is 8.5 feet. Approximately 256 feet of Tunnel No. 2 were repaired in 2001, making the dimensions of the repaired section 7 feet tall by 5 feet wide.

E.4.2.3 Surge Tank and Penstock Isolation Valve

The Project’s surge tank is 14 feet in diameter and rises approximately 191 feet above the pipeline invert and approximately 135 feet above ground level. The inner chamber of the tank is 5.5 feet in diameter. The surge tank is painted green and is visible from the community of Packwood. The penstock isolation (butterfly) valve is located at the base of the surge tank and is used to isolate the 21,690-foot pipeline from Packwood Lake from the steel penstock that transports water to the powerhouse. The surge tank also serves as a location for radio antennas and transmitters for state and county agencies, the nearby national park, and a local community radio service.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-9 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation

E.4.2.4 Penstock

The steel penstock connecting the pipeline to the powerhouse is approximately 5,621 feet long, and is secured along the route by concrete anchors located at numerous points where the contour of the mountain requires changes in alignment or grade. The wall thickness of the steel in the penstock varies from 3/8 to 1-5/16 inches, with an outside diameter varying from 57 inches down to 46.5 inches where it enters the powerhouse (American Pipe and Construction Drawing D-4269). The normal static water pressure in the penstock at the powerhouse is about 780 psi. The penstock is buried throughout its length from the surge tank to the powerhouse. There are nine manholes providing access to the pipe. The nominal design discharge of the pipeline and penstock system is 236 cfs (Drawing 124-C-302P).

Monitoring has been performed annually since the Project began operation to verify the integrity of the water conveyance. Monitoring includes visual inspections of penstock, pipeline, and control piping, both internally and externally where possible. External inspections include the condition of the surrounding terrain, with particular attention to land movement, wet spots, changes in drainage patterns, and erosion (Counsil 1994).

E.4.2.5 Raw Water Tank and Constant Head Tank

The raw water tank is connected to the penstock and provides water for fire suppression and backup cooling water supply for the powerhouse. It has a capacity of about 20,000 gallons and is located about 1,150 feet from the powerhouse. The constant head tank is located about 300 feet from the powerhouse and prevents over pressurization of the powerhouse cooling water system. The constant head tank uses water from Packwood Lake to operate the cooling systems associated with turbine-generator and has a capacity of approximately 2,500 gallons. Excess water from the tank overflows through a short length of pipe to a natural drainage that leads to Snyder Creek. The water joins Snyder Creek near the south fence of the Powerhouse switchyard (see Exhibit G, Sheet 7). The amount of water flowing to the creek varies by the amount of cooling demand. Accordingly, the flow tends to be seasonal, with the highest flows in the winter when the cooling demand is at its minimum, and the lowest flows (or none) in the summer months when the maximum cooling demand exists.

E.4.2.6 Electrical Supply and Control Cables

Underground electrical supply and communications cables have been buried alongside the penstock and pipeline to provide power and control functions to the penstock isolation valve building near the surge tank and to the intake building located at Packwood Lake. The cables were buried next to the pipe with the exception of the two tunnels where the cables were routed through the tunnel. Large electrical junction boxes are located on the surface along the pipeline route for servicing the cables.

A 4160 volt AC electric service cable and a multiple pair communications cable provide the necessary services. The communications cable provides powerhouse control

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-10 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation functions and transmits instrument signals such as lake level and pipeline flows. The electrical supply cable is connected to transformers (non-PCB dry type) that are located at each of the facilities to step down the voltage to a usable range. A separate electrical supply to the USDA Forest Service ranger station at Packwood Lake has also been provided from the intake building.

E.4.2.7 Powerhouse

The Project powerhouse is located just east of the community of Packwood with the power production portion constructed below ground and the control building and office located above ground (See Figure E.4-4). Associated with the powerhouse are a warehouse and maintenance shop building and a fenced storage yard with storage sheds for plant support equipment.

Inside the powerhouse, the penstock water separates into two streams (see Figure E.4- 4) that are each directed at the turbine runner (water wheel) through needle valves with jet openings approximately 8.75 inches in diameter.

Control Building

Ground Surface

Discharge Conduit

Penstock Turbine Generator

Figure E.4-4. Powerhouse Cross-Section

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-11 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation

E.4.2.8 Turbine/Generator

The Pelton turbine was manufactured by Allis Chalmers and is a 36,700 horsepower, horizontal shaft, double-jet impulse wheel with ellipsoidal buckets. The runner operates at 360 rpm under a total head of approximately 1,800 feet and an effective head of approximately 1,650 feet. The turbine runner is directly connected by means of a horizontal shaft to a single 26,125-kilowatt electric generator (nameplate rating of 27,500 kVA at 0.95 power factor) that converts the mechanical energy into electrical energy. The generator is capable of higher outputs for short periods of time. The generator produces electricity at 13,800 volts that is increased to 69,000 volts (69 kV) by the step-up transformer in the station switchyard. A Woodward hydraulic governor and a solid-state ABB excitation system control the turbine generator unit.

E.4.2.9 Tailrace

The water from the powerhouse turbine is released into a shallow constructed stilling basin that leads to an asphalt-lined tailrace canal. The tailrace canal is trapezoidal in shape, with a width at the top of the asphalt lining of approximately 29 feet and approximately 9 feet at the base. The average depth of the lined part of the tailrace is 5.75 feet. The tailrace canal discharges to the Cowlitz River at RM 125.2, approximately 4 miles downstream of the mouth of Lake Creek. The majority of the tailrace is protected with a 6-foot security fence for safety.

Snyder Creek passes under the tailrace canal near the powerhouse stilling basin. This crossing is accomplished by means of a 75-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter corrugated metal pipe. The upper end of the pipe terminates in a 6-foot diameter vertical drop inlet and the lower end empties into a broad 14 foot by 18 foot concrete apron area. The lower apron rises in elevation to control the water surface elevation throughout the pipe.

A flume was constructed to pass the tailrace water over Hall Creek and its associated wetland. The open-topped flume is roughly circular in shape with a diameter of about 10.4 feet and a length of approximately 356 feet. Another culvert pipe was constructed to pass the water under U.S. Highway 12. This oval-shaped culvert (approximately 8 by 5 feet in cross-section) is about 240 feet in length.

The original tailrace canal was approximately 8,100 feet in length. However, in 1977, the Cowlitz River changed its channel and approximately 1,400 feet of the constructed tailrace canal was washed out, including the fish screens that had been installed at its terminus to keep fish from entering the tailrace. Following the flood, the tailrace canal was shortened and reconstructed with bank protection. It is currently approximately 6,690 feet in length (Butler Surveying 2004).

When the washout of the tailrace screen occurred, the fishery management agencies did not require Energy Northwest to replace the fish screen, but reserved the right to require construction of a new fish barrier if anadromous fish were re-introduced in the upper Cowlitz River (Sandison and Larson 1978). Anadromous fish were re-introduced

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-12 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation in 1994 into the upper Cowlitz River through a trap and haul operation by Tacoma Power. The agencies requested Energy Northwest to install a fish barrier. Accordingly, new fish screens (tailrace barrier) were constructed in the tailrace canal in October 2007 and began operation in November 2007.

The barrier was constructed within the bounds of the original canal and consists of an approximately 50 x 30 foot rectangular concrete weir to control water velocity with two 4 x 14 foot drum screens to prevent fish passage. The drum screens are mechanically rotated to pass debris downstream and are covered with a woven wire mesh with 1/4- inch openings to prevent fish from passing upstream into the tailrace. Two vertical perforated panels are located directly above the drums to prevent fish passage during flood events on the Cowlitz River that may cause water surface elevations to rise above the top of the drum screens. These perforated panels have 1/4-inch holes on 5/16-inch staggered centers. The panels are hinged at the top so they can be swung out of the way to pass debris or to allow tailrace water to pass if the drum screens were to be completely plugged with debris (emergency conditions). They can be locked in place during flood events. A similar perforated panel was manufactured to fit in a vertical guide slot located upstream of the drum screens so that the drums may be removed for maintenance without the loss of the screen function. This panel is normally stored until needed.

E.4.2.10 Switchyard

In the switchyard, there are two large transformers; a main 40 MVA step-up transformer and a 24 MVA spare transformer. There are two small transformers, a station service transformer, and a 4,160 volt transformer that takes power generated by the plant and steps it down for use at the intake structure. There are also two SF6 circuit breakers that will open to disconnect the 69 kV line. Energy Northwest has been actively phasing out PCB-contaminated equipment for many years. A review of records indicates that transformers and other equipment at the Project do not contain PCBs. CT bushings that had contained PCBs in the range of 80.6 to 87.1 mg/kg were drained of oil in October 2005 (Energy Northwest 2007e). No other equipment at the Project is reported to contain PCBs (Energy Northwest 2007e). The Project also has a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan, which is included as Appendix A.

E.4.2.11 Transmission Line

The power from the Project is delivered over an 8,009-foot long, 69 kV transmission line to the Packwood substation owned by Public Utility District No. 1 of Lewis County (Lewis County PUD) (Butler Surveying 2004). The power is then delivered by Lewis County PUD to the Bonneville Power Administration federal transmission system at the Silver Creek substation in Lewis County.

The transmission line falls within the larger blocks of land reserved for other facilities of the Project or shares a similar occupancy with other utilities. Accordingly, the transmission line was described by the length in feet that it occupies for each land

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-13 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation ownership block. For example, the first 748 feet of transmission line leaving the Project switchyard traverses USDA Forest Service-managed land that also includes the powerhouse, penstock, constant head tank, switchyard, warehouse, stilling basin, tailrace, and access roads. The line then runs 3,873 feet along the Energy Northwest- owned tailrace corridor. Upon reaching U.S. Highway 12, the line changes direction and runs 3,361 feet along the Highway 12 right-of-way on poles shared by other power and telecommunication utilities until it reaches the Packwood substation, where it travels across 27 feet of Lewis County PUD land. The right-of-way varies within the Project boundary from 110 feet wide, across Highway 12, to 125 feet wide, at the end of the line near the Packwood Substation. The acreage of the line along the highway right-of-way where there is no other Project component is approximately 8.78 acres of Washington State Department of Transportation land and 1.52 acres of Lewis County PUD land at the Packwood substation.

E.4.2.12 Access Roads

Several access routes to Packwood Lake are available. Three roads and two trails are used to provide access to the lake from the town of Packwood. The roads include Snyder Road (FS Road 1260), Pipeline Road (FS Road 1260-066), and Latch Road (FS Road 1262) and Trail Nos. 74 and 78 (See Figure E.4-5). Access to the lake from Packwood (Highway 12) is by traveling east on Snyder Road, which is approximately 5.9 miles long with a parking lot at the end. The public can then either use Trail #78 or return a short distance down Snyder Road to the entrance of the Pipeline Road. Operation and maintenance of the Project facilities are accomplished by using foot trails and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) or snowmobiles, depending on the time of year.

Snyder Road (FS Road 1260) is a double-lane paved road that extends 5.8 miles from Highway 12 to the parking lot at Trail No. 78. Lewis County has jurisdiction for the road segment leading to the Forest Service boundary (MP 0 to MP 0.83) and maintains the road to MP 1.2. Snyder Road is designated by the Forest Service as a maintenance level 2 (ML2) road from MP 1.2 to the trailhead at MP 5.8. ML2 means the road is passable by high-clearance vehicles, drainage structures are maintained, and the tread is maintained to accommodate speeds of 15 mph or less. The parking area at the end of Snyder Road is utilized by hikers, horseback riders, and ATV’s. Energy Northwest uses Snyder Road generally once per week for accessing either the Latch Road or the Pipeline Road and Trail No. 74.

Pipeline Road (FS Road 1260-066) is a single-lane native surface road with wide spots. This road is gated at MP 0.03 and is 1.3 miles in length. Trail No. 74, which extends from the end of the Pipeline Road, is another 2.3 miles in length where it reaches Packwood Lake. This road is located near the end of Snyder Road beginning at MP 5.55 (See Figure E.4-5). The Pipeline Road and Trail No. 74 provide motorized access to Packwood Lake. The Pipeline Road and Trail No. 74 are maintained by Energy Northwest and are Energy Northwest’s primary access for operation and maintenance of the Project’s intake facilities during the summer. The Pipeline Road junction is located approximately 100 yards from the parking lot at the end of Snyder Road.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-14 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation

Figure E.4-5. Project Access Roads

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-15 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation

Energy Northwest’s use of the Pipeline Road and Trail No. 74 is generally once per week, to check on intake facilities and perform needed maintenance. Public access on foot, horseback, bicycles or by all terrain vehicles (ATVs) is allowed by the Forest Service around Energy Northwest’s locked vehicle gate on the Pipeline Road.

Latch Road (FS Road 1262) is a single-lane gravel road with few turnouts. This road begins 1.66 miles up Snyder Road. Approximately 3 miles of Latch Road is in the Lake Creek drainage. Latch Road is gated and locked approximately 2.4 miles from the junction with Snyder Road. There is no public vehicular traffic behind the gate, although a few hunters may use the road up to the gate in the fall. From this gate, it is another 2.2 miles to where the road ends and a short access trail connects to Trail No. 74. Energy Northwest uses Latch Road and one mile of the connecting Trail No. 74 to access the intake facilities, mainly in the months when snow makes access difficult on the Pipeline Road and Trail. Forest Service trail crews also use this road for working on trails in the Packwood Lake area.

E.4.3 Project Operation

E.4.3.1 Current Operation

The original license for the Project was issued on July 7, 1960 (effective March 1, 1960), for a period of 50 years, for construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project on Lake Creek and Packwood Lake, affecting lands of the United States within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, subject to the terms and conditions of the Federal Power Act.

Article 37 of the license established the maximum operating water surface for Packwood Lake as 2858.5 feet MSL and the minimum operating water surface level as 2849 feet MSL. It further required that Energy Northwest maintain the lake level at elevation 2,857 feet MSL during the period between May 1 to September 15, unless conditions prevail that are beyond the control of the Licensee.

A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Washington Public Power Supply System (now Energy Northwest), the USDA Forest Service, the Washington Game Commission and Washington Department of Fisheries (now Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), the Department of the Interior/Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, and Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife (now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) was signed in 1968. A FERC license amendment dated February 17, 1976 incorporated that portion of the MOA dealing with the release of water to Lake Creek. Article 14 was revised by that amendment to require that during the entire year, the Project release a minimum of 3 cfs from Packwood Lake to Lake Creek to enhance the aquatic habitat. Further, during the period May 15 to September 15, the Project was required to release up to a maximum of 5 cfs, in order to facilitate a flow of 15 cfs at the gaging station identified as “Lake Creek at Mouth” (USGS Station No. 14226000). By letter dated October 20, 1980, FERC authorized the discontinuance of the USGS gaging stations related to the

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-16 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation

Project (i.e., Station Nos. 14225500 and 14226000; also see Article 41 [Energy Northwest 2004c]).

An annual plant shutdown to perform equipment maintenance and inspection has historically been scheduled to occur during the first three weeks of October. October was chosen in order to minimize the economic impact of the outage, because it is typically a month with low inflows to the lake. In preparation for the outage, the lake is normally drawn down during the last two weeks in September. The resulting low lake level facilitates the work around the intake structure and minimizes the potential of an uncontrolled spill event down Lake Creek during the outage period. During the outage, the pipeline and penstock are normally dewatered to facilitate inspections and minor maintenance.

E.4.3.2 Proposed Operation

The intent of lake elevation management is to provide sustainable physical, biological and aesthetic stream and lake functions and processes. The current Project license specifies a maximum water surface elevation of 2858.5 feet MSL and a minimum water surface elevation of 2849.0 feet MSL for Packwood Lake. Energy Northwest proposes that the current maximum water surface elevation of 2858.5 feet MSL be eliminated. The maximum water surface elevation allowed under the terms of the current Project license physically corresponds to the drop structure spillway crest. The drop structure spillway is uncontrolled (no spillway gates), and lake levels that exceed this elevation are self-regulating and cannot be directly controlled by the Project. Any spill over the drop structure currently exceeds the existing license elevation limit, causing a “non- compliance” with the license. Because water spilling over the drop structure is an expected condition and is projected to occur more frequently under the terms of a new license, Energy Northwest proposes to eliminate this unnecessary upper lake elevation limit.

Energy Northwest proposes to continue to shut down the Project annually to perform scheduled equipment maintenance. The Project will begin shutting down for the annual outage on August 15 of each operating year. The intent is to complete all major maintenance and inspections within the first three weeks of the outage and perform all testing and preparation for startup in the fourth week. Operations will resume by September 15, or earlier if all necessary work has been completed. If the Project experiences an unscheduled outage, emergency maintenance will be conducted as needed to restore the unit to operating status. Under the current License the lake is drawn down to 2849 ft. MSL prior to the outage. Energy Northwest proposes that this pre-outage drawdown be eliminated.

Energy Northwest proposes to maintain a minimum lake elevation of 2856.5 feet MSL between May 1 and September 15. This is the same minimum as under the current license. This proposal eliminates the upper summer limit of 2857.5 since higher summer lake levels are necessary to fulfill the requirement to conduct 285 cfs spill flows and to allow for higher expected lake levels during the August 15 – September 15

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-17 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation outage period. Between September 16 and April 30, minimum lake elevation will be 2849 ft. MSL. Winter drawdown will continue to be needed in order to provide sufficient water for increased bypass flows to Lake Creek and for continuous plant flows that provide Project generation which in turn provides uninterrupted flows for fish in the tailrace slough after the maintenance outage. Due to the elimination of the pre-outage drawdown, the lake levels will stay higher in August and September, which will result in higher groundwater levels in the affected lake wetlands, and the ability to conduct a more gradual winter drawdown.

Fall/winter drawdown will occur over time, beginning September 16 when the Project returns to service with a relatively high lake level. The Project will manage the operating pool to assure that required by-pass flows are met, as well as providing plant flows for generation, which also supplies continuous flows to the tailrace slough area and out into the Cowlitz River. The lake typically will be drawn down to the 2854-2852 ft range, depending on winter lake inflows, but Energy Northwest proposes to maintain the minimum lake level at 2849 ft MSL in order to provide flexibility if a lower level is required to allow continued winter operations under low inflow conditions as well as to allow maintenance at the intake structure.

Instream flows to Lake Creek will be increased (from 3 cfs) according to the schedule below.

Table E.4-1. Proposed instream flows (cfs) for Lake Creek, as measured at the drop structure. Month Instream Flow (cfs) January 4 February 4 March 4 April 7 May 15 June 10 July 15 August 1 – 15 15 Aug 16 – Sept 15 20 September 16 – 30 15 October 10 November 7 December 4

Aquatic Habitat Forming Flows

Energy Northwest will provide aquatic habitat forming flows in lower Lake Creek greater than or equal to 285 cfs for as long as lake inflows can sustain that flow, or a maximum of 24 hours, every other water year1 or 3 out of 6 water years, starting in the first water year after issuance of the new license and continuing for the life of the new license.

1 Water year is defined as an annual precipitation cycle, October 1 through September 30.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-18 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation

Energy Northwest will take the necessary measures to control Packwood Lake elevation and power generation to ensure that aquatic habitat forming flows are achieved and maintained for up to 24 hours. If the desired frequencies of the aquatic habitat forming flows cannot be achieved, the agencies will be consulted for an alternate plan.

The objective of aquatic habitat forming flows is to provide flows of sufficient magnitude, duration, and frequency to sustain habitat forming and maintaining processes in lower Lake Creek during the operation and maintenance of the Project. Some of these processes include the recruitment, mobilization, and deposition of sediment, wood and other organic material.

Energy Northwest will monitor aquatic habitat forming flows at the drop structure and record the bypass flow and spill flow over the drop structure at appropriate time intervals. The magnitude of flows will be calculated by adding the measured bypass flows to the spill flows over the drop structure, as calculated from lake elevation using the stage/discharge relationship established for the drop structure.

Energy Northwest will provide the agencies an annual report on aquatic habitat forming flow attempts and activities including the magnitude, duration, and frequency of these flows and associated power generation throughout the past year, 30 days prior to the annual Resource Coordination meeting. The annual report shall also provide details for the out-year planned activities. Energy Northwest will allow a minimum of 60 days for the agencies to comment and to make recommendations prior to filing the final report with the Commission for approval. If Energy Northwest does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the reasons, based on Project-specific information.

E.4.4 Project Alternatives Considered

E.4.4.1 No Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Project would continue to operate under the terms and conditions of the existing license, with no new environmental measures. Any ongoing effects of the Project would continue. Energy Northwest is using this alternative to establish baseline environmental conditions for comparison with other alternatives.

E.4.4.2 Agency Terms and Conditions

Energy Northwest has consulted with the resource management agencies and interested tribes from the earliest stages of the Project’s relicensing process. In order to submit a licensing proposal that appropriately addresses Project resources, Energy Northwest has conducted discussions intended to gain consensus on proposed protection, mitigation and enhancement measures (PM&Es), to the extent possible, in the short timeframe provided under the Integrated Licensing Process. The environmental analysis provided in this application includes those agreed measures as

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-19 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.4 – Project Facilities and Operation elements of the Proposed Project. It is expected that there will be additional, detailed administrative requirements, particularly in the Section 4(e) Conditions that will be submitted by the USDA Forest Service. The environmental analysis contains the measures that have been agreed to with the Forest Service, WDFW, the USFWS, and NOAA/NMFS. These include the substance of the attached preliminary terms and conditions provided by the Forest Service (Appendix C). It is understood that details or wording of the proposed PM&Es may change somewhat in the final conditions and recommendations that are later submitted.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.4-20 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.1-Geology/Soils

E.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES

E.5.1 Geology and Soils

E.5.1.1 Affected Environment

The Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project is located just west of the crest of the Cascade Mountains and south of Mt. Rainier in central Washington near the town of Packwood (elevation 1,050 feet MSL). Packwood Lake (452 acres) is located in a mountainous region about 5 miles east of the town at an elevation of 2,857 feet MSL. The lake is bounded on both the east and west by mountains with ridgetop elevations of approximately 5,000 feet or higher. Snyder Mountain (elevation 5,011 feet MSL) is located immediately west of the lake.

The lake is located at the lower end of the Upper Lake Creek valley, midway between the Old Snowy Mountain (Goat Rocks) and the Cowlitz River. A number of small streams flow into the lake, but the primary source of water is Upper Lake Creek, which originates from Packwood Glacier, and other snowfields on the flanks of the Goat Rocks. Packwood Lake is drained by Lake Creek, a tributary of the Cowlitz River, and by the Project. Upper Lake Creek and lower Lake Creek have a northwest – southeast trend in parallel with the other streams in the area (e.g., Coal Creek, Hager Creek, and Johnson Creek).

Packwood Lake was originally formed by the Snyder Mountain landslide, which blocked the valley and caused the lake impoundment. Radiocarbon dates from two snags near Agnes Island indicate that the lake was impounded approximately 1,100 years ago (Swanson 1996). Although the lake owes its current appearance to the landslide, erosion by alpine glaciers and interglacial streams common to the Cascade Mountains are responsible for the overall look of the Packwood Lake basin and Upper Lake Creek valley.

A compilation geologic map and summary of the stratigraphic units in the Project area can be found in Schasse (1987). The summary below was based on this work. More geologic mapping of the Project area can be found in USGS Open-File Reports 96-704 and 97-157 (Swanson 1996; Swanson et al. 1997).

In the Packwood area, the oldest pre-Tertiary rocks are not exposed. The closest exposure is the Russell Ranch Formation (Cretaceous-Jurassic) that is exposed in the Tieton River drainage and Rimrock Lake areas about 20 miles east of the Project. This unit consists of deformed interbedded lithofeldspathic sandstone and mudstone, with lesser amounts of conglomerate and greenstone, minor chert, and green tuff.

The Ohanapecosh Formation is presumed to unconformably overlie the Russell Ranch Formation in the Packwood area. This early to middle Oligocene unit comprises altered basaltic and andesitic lava flows and dacitic and andesitic volcaniclastic rocks including breccias, tuffs, siltstones, sandstones, and conglomerates. This unit is pervasive in the

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.1-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.1-Geology/Soils

area and is exposed on the southwest side of the lake and along the Upper Lake Creek valley.

Unconformably overlying the Ohanapecosh Formation are the late Oligocene to early Miocene volcanic sediments of the Stevens Ridge Formation and other unnamed early Miocene volcanic sediments. The Stevens Ridge Formation comprises rhyodacite ash flow tuff and well-bedded volcanic sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, and tuff. This formation is found along the eastern side of the lake and above the pipeline route. The unnamed early Miocene unit consists of gently dipping tuffaceous siltstone and sandstone, locally carbonaceous, with interbedded tuff and tuff breccia, and felsite. These Miocene volcanic sediments are found along much of the lower Lake Creek drainage, a portion of the penstock route, and in places along the pipeline route.

The Oligocene and Miocene stratified rocks have been modified by injection of Oligocene to Pliocene intrusive rock in the Packwood area. These intrusive andesites form shallow stocks and plugs, dikes, dike swarms, and sills throughout the area. These intrusive rocks can be found along much of the pipeline and penstock route.

Pliocene – Pleistocene volcanic rocks can also be found overlying the older units. These units include the mafic rocks of Hogback Mountain, the dacite of Snyder Mountain, and the andesite of the Goat Rocks. The andesite of Goat Rocks is the remnant of the Goat Rocks stratovolcano and can be found in the Project area south of the lake on the ridge between Snyder Mountain and Johnson Peak. Of similar age is the basalt of Hogback Mountain that occurs approximately 10 miles west of the lake in the White Pass area. These basalts formed a shield volcano on the northern flank of the Goat Rocks stratovolcano. The slightly younger dacite of Snyder Mountain erupted just west of Packwood Lake and consists of a series of thin flows. This unit can be found at the summit of Snyder Mountain and its southwestern flank.

Holocene eruptions of the Cascade volcanoes (i.e., Mount Rainier, Mount St. Helens, Mount Mazama) have deposited tephra throughout the Packwood area. These tephras, where preserved, can be found within the soils of the Project area. There are no major geologic faults mapped under the Project facilities (Schasse 1987). The nearest mapped faults are those of Butter Creek and Muddy Fork located in the mountains north of the Cowlitz River.

Landslides are frequently identified in the Cascade Mountains and there are several large landslides that have been mapped in the Packwood area. These slides are likely the result of steep terrain, unstable materials, and the wet climate of the area. As discussed above, the Snyder Mountain landslide occurred approximately 1,100 years ago, blocking the valley and creating Packwood Lake. Now the drop structure controls water levels in Packwood Lake. The Project intake building, drop structure, and the upper pipeline route were constructed in the now-stable landslide debris. These structures are frequently inspected and have not shown any deformation attributable to landslide movement or settlement.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.1-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.1-Geology/Soils

During the original construction of the Project, two areas along the pipeline route were identified as having overly steep slopes that could challenge the long-term stability of the pipe. Tunnels were constructed to bypass these unstable areas (i.e., Tunnel No. 1 and Tunnel No. 2). A landslide occurred along the pipeline route during the heavy rains of November 6, 2006. The slide was located just below the pipeline alignment (between stations 70 and 73) along an unnamed drainage just east of Art Lake. The slide damaged Trail No. 74 (Pipeline Trail) and the debris covered Latch Road (Forest Service Road 1262) blocking a span of several hundred feet. The pipeline was not directly affected but its long-term stability was diminished. Excavation of Latch Road was completed during the summer of 2007 and the road was returned to service. The long-term stability of the pipeline was restored in the fall of 2007 with the installation of a soldier-pile retaining wall in the affected area. Final earthwork and trail restoration is scheduled to be completed during the summer of 2008.

Over the past 40 years, Tunnel No. 2 (3,200 feet total length) has experienced slow deformation of the concrete liner in two places and has required repair. An approximately 100-foot-long zone of deformation is located near station 99 (i.e., the middle section of the tunnel) and a second zone can be found in the lower 400 feet of the tunnel from approximately station 106 to 110. The tunnel lining has exhibited cracking, convergence of the walls, and uplift and buckling of the invert in these areas. The two zones of deformation have been correlated with geologic units of low strength (i.e., thin-bedded shales, sandstones, and tuffs) that were mapped during the original excavation of the tunnel. These rock types are too weak to redistribute the stress around the tunnel causing overburden pressures to be applied to the unreinforced tunnel lining.

The zone near station 99 was repaired by rock bolting (from station 98+57 to 99+83) and replacement of a short section of the tunnel floor in 1976. Horizontal struts were added to the area in 1982 (from station 98+83 to 99+39). About 42 feet of the tunnel floor was replaced again in 1991 (from station 98+88 to 99+30). In the fall of 2001, the lining in the lower section of the tunnel was repaired by the installation of a flexible waterproof liner and structural reinforcement with steel sets and lagging (from station 106+56 to 107+00 and from 107+72 to 109+84).

Before repair, the cracked and deformed lining in the lower section of Tunnel No. 2 allowed water leakage from the downstream portal area. The rate of leakage increased over time, saturating the soils on the steep hillside below the tunnel. This leakage caused small landslides in surficial materials to occur in 1994 and again in 2000. The repair of the tunnel in 2001 with a waterproof liner has practically eliminated the leakage (i.e., from approximately 4 cfs to a small wet spot) and should prevent future slides in this area. The area is periodically monitored to detect any new leakage.

There are no disposal sites that are associated with hazardous waste within the Project boundary.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.1-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.1-Geology/Soils

E.5.1.2 Environmental Analysis

Two studies related specifically to geology/soil resources were identified by resource agencies during relicensing. The first addressed the condition and maintenance needs for roads and trails used by Project personnel to access Project features (Engineering Needs Report, Watershed GeoDynamics 2007b). The second study was included as part of the Packwood Lake Drawdown Study and concerned erosion of the lake shoreline as a result of Project operations (EES Consulting 2007g).

E.5.1.2.1 Engineering Needs Study Results

Three access roads and three trail sections on USDA Forest Service land are used by Project personnel to access the Project intake and penstock. They are Snyder Road (USFS Road 1260); Pipeline Road (USFS Road 1260-066); Latch Road (USFS Road 1262); Pipeline Trail (USFS Trail No. 74) with the split in the trail divided into the upper and lower trail sections; and the short trail leading from the end of Latch Road to Trail No. 74 (referred to as Latch Trail in this report). A detailed inventory of road/trail conditions, culverts, and mass wasting sites along each of the roads and trails was made to determine the current condition of Project-related roads and to help determine compliance with USDA Forest Service maintenance levels set for each road/trail. A summary of the total length inventoried, number of culverts and mass wasting sites, and the length of each road or trail that was determined to be hydrologically connected to streams is included in Table E.5.1-1. Culvert locations and mass wasting sites are shown on Figure E.5.1-1.

Table E.5.1-1. Summary of Road and Trail Inventory Percent of Road Total Length Number of Mass Wasting Hydrologically Road Inventoried (miles) Culverts Sites Inventoried Connected Snyder Road 5.12 53 0 16% Pipeline Road 1.42 0 1 0% Pipeline Trail (along upper 2.27 19 7 7% route to Lake) Lower Pipeline 0.80 2 2 0% Trail Latch Road 4.54 26 0 14% Latch Trail 0.10 0 0 0%

Snyder Road Snyder Road (USFS Road 1260) is a double-lane paved road that extends 5.8 miles from Highway 12 to the parking lot at Trail No. 78. Energy Northwest uses Snyder Road generally once per week for accessing either the Latch Road or the Pipeline Road and Trail No. 74. The purpose of these trips is to check on intake facilities and perform needed maintenance. Snyder Road is a Maintenance Level 2 (ML2) road from Milepost (MP) 1.2 to the trailhead at MP 5.9, as assigned by the Forest Service. ML2 means the road is passable by high-clearance vehicles, drainage structures are maintained, and the tread is maintained to accommodate speeds of 15 mph or less. Public use of Snyder Road is encouraged by the Forest Service. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.1-4 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.1-Geology/Soils

Figure E.5.1-1. Culverts and Mass Wasting Sites on Project-related Roads and Trails.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.1-5 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.1-Geology/Soils

Snyder Road is generally in good condition and appears to meet the USFS ML2 requirements.

Pipeline Road USFS Road 1260-066, better known as the Pipeline Road, is a single-lane native surface road with wide spots. The Forest Service has assigned Maintenance Level 2 (ML2) to Pipeline Road. Pipeline Road and the connecting trail (Trail No. 74) provide motorized access to Packwood Lake. Public vehicular use of Pipeline Road is prohibited, but it is open to public ATV and non-motorized use. Pipeline Road and Trail No. 74 are maintained by Energy Northwest and are Energy Northwest’s primary access for operation and maintenance of the Project’s intake facilities. Energy Northwest’s use of the Pipeline Road and connecting trail is generally once per week, to check on intake facilities and perform needed maintenance. Access is sometimes restricted during winter and spring months due to snow conditions. There are several manhole sites located on this road that provide access to the pipeline that are used by Energy Northwest staff during the annual maintenance shutdown.

The tread of this road is generally in fair condition with potholes in several locations. The road is passable by high clearance vehicles. One past/potential future mass wasting site was inventoried. This site is an old shallow debris slide that is currently inactive.

Pipeline Trail Pipeline Trail (Trail No. 74) provides primary ATV access to Packwood Lake for Energy Northwest. Trail No. 74 is maintained by Energy Northwest. The trail extends from the end of Pipeline Road to Packwood Lake. The trail splits into an upper steeper trail and a lower flat trail 1.42 miles from the end of Pipeline Road. Energy Northwest use of the Pipeline Trail is generally once per week to check on intake facilities and perform needed maintenance. Access to portions of the trail is sometimes restricted during winter and spring months due to snow conditions and safety concerns on the narrow trail. There are several manhole sites that are used to access the pipeline along the trail.

The Pipeline Trail is native surfaced, with the drivable tread averaging 6.5 feet wide. The tread is generally in fair condition, with potholes in several spots and ruts on one steep section of the upper trail. Nineteen culverts on the Pipeline Trail had partially blocked inlets (10 of these were over 50% blocked).

Two sets of double culverts were identified as having a high plug potential, and were 25-75% plugged during the inventory. One of the sets is the site of a slide that occurred during the November 2006 rainfall event. This site is currently being repaired and resolved outside of the FERC relicensing process; it appears that the fillslope was saturated by the abnormally heavy rains that occurred during the November 2006 rainfall event (declared as a regional disaster by the State of Washington).

Nine mass wasting sites were inventoried on the Pipeline Trail; five inactive sites, and four active/potential sites. Eight of the sites are shallow debris slides and one was a

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.1-6 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.1-Geology/Soils

stream washout. Only the stream washout and one potential site along the lower Pipeline Trail delivered or could deliver sediment directly to a stream.

Latch Road Latch Road (USFS Road 1262) is a single-lane gravel road with few turnouts. The Latch Road is gated and locked approximately 2.28 miles from the junction with Snyder Road. There is no public vehicular traffic behind the gate; a few hunters and recreationists use the road up to the gate, and foot traffic and ATV use is evident past the gate. Energy Northwest uses this road in the winter and spring months (approximately once per week) because access on Pipeline Road becomes difficult due to snow depths. The Forest Service has assigned Maintenance Level 2 (ML2) to Latch Road.

Latch Road is gravel surfaced, with the drivable tread averaging 12 feet wide. The road is generally in fair condition, with potholes and ruts in several spots. The November 2006 slide from the uphill Pipeline Trail blocked Latch Road. This slide has been cleared.

Latch Trail Latch Trail is the short section of trail that extends from the end of Latch Road (USFS Road 1262) to the Pipeline Trail (Trail No. 74). It is used by Energy Northwest personnel to access the lake/intake by snowmobile when snow conditions prevent the use of Pipeline Road. It is also the quickest possible route in an emergency situation when personnel on ATV must access the intake. Latch Trail is a short (546 feet long) steep trail (8-20% gradient) with an average width of 5 feet. The trail is in fair to poor condition with ruts, exposed roots, and large rocks in several places along the steeper sections. There are no culverts or mass wasting areas. A sign at the top end of the trail indicates it is closed to motorized public use.

This trail is in need of drainage and tread maintenance. The tread is eroding and rutted in the steeper sections; waterbars and/or surfacing improvements/hardening are needed to prevent further rutting and erosion, particularly if ATV use continues.

Estimated Sediment Input from Roads The total length of Project-related roads and trails is 14 miles, of which 1.6 miles (11%) are hydrologically connected to streams. Total sediment delivered to streams from Project-related road and trail erosion is low, with an estimated average of 7 tons/yr from road surface erosion from all traffic (Watershed GeoDynamics 2007b). Turbidity and sediment indicators in lower Lake Creek are consistent with low road-related sediment input. Turbidity is low, except during high spring flows (EES Consulting 2007a). There is no indication of macroinvertebrate impairment due to high sediment load (EES Consulting 2007d). Gravel samples in Lake Creek did not show evidence of high fine sediment content (Watershed GeoDynamics 2007a).

The November 7, 2006 slide along Pipeline Trail (# 74) did not deliver sediment to Lake Creek. The terminus of the slide was approximately 1,100 ft from Lake Creek. Runoff from the slide was channeled down the west side of the drainage parallel to Latch Road

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.1-7 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.1-Geology/Soils

and infiltrated into the low gradient depression and did not deliver to Lake Creek (Bill Kiel, Energy Northwest, personal communication).

Pipeline Leakage The Forest Service expressed concerns regarding leakage from the Project pipeline in two locations identified as the French drain on Trail No. 74 and the wet area above Latch Road at approximately MP 3.9. These areas were investigated by Forest Service and Energy Northwest personnel before and after the pipeline was drained for maintenance in October 2005 and no indications of pipeline leakage were found.

Summary and Maintenance Needs Relatively little sediment is delivered to streams from Project-related use of roads and trails. No road sediment-related effects were found during water quality or aquatic habitat inventories. The following road/trail maintenance needs were identified:

• Snyder Road meets ML2 requirements. • Pipeline Road meets ML2 requirements. • Pipeline Trail will likely require maintenance (cleaning) of culverts to maintain drainage, repair and/or installation of buttressing at several mass wasting locations, and maintenance of ruts in the steep section of the upper trail. • Latch Road meets ML2 requirements. • Latch Trail will likely require treatment of the tread to reduce rutting if it is to be used by ATVs.

E.5.1.2.2 Packwood Lake Shoreline Erosion Study Results

Project operations include seasonal fluctuations of Packwood Lake between a normal summer water surface elevation (2857.5 ft MSL) and a low surface elevation (2849 ft MSL), with occasional higher water levels during floods and overtopping events (top of drop structure 2858.5 ft MSL). A survey of the Packwood Lake shoreline and drawdown zone was made during low water conditions to evaluate the potential for Project-related shoreline erosion. In addition, a comparison of historical and recent aerial photographs was made to determine any areas of bank erosion (aerial photos from 1958, 1973, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, and 1992 were used). Three types of potential shoreline erosion were identified: bank erosion at full pool; erosion of exposed sediment in the drawdown zone; and mass wasting of shoreline areas.

Bank Erosion at Full Pool Natural bank erosion processes such as undercut banks and tree toppling associated with wave action at full pool levels would occur with or without Project operations since Packwood Lake is a pre-existing lake. Little change in bank position was noted between historic and recent aerial photographs, indicating rapid bank erosion is not occurring. The shoreline of Packwood Lake has 1-2 foot high banks that are stabilized by tree roots and vegetation. No areas of rapid bank erosion were noted during the field survey. Trampling of the banks and associated bare soil areas were noted at the outlet of the lake and at two of the dispersed use campsites along the northeastern shore of

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.1-8 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.1-Geology/Soils

the lake. This erosion is caused by recreational use, and not associated with Project operations.

Drawdown Zone Erosion of substrate in the drawdown zone of Packwood Lake (elev. 2849-2857 ft MSL) has occurred as a result of Project-related lake level fluctuations. Fine-grained sediments (silt/clay and some sand) have been removed from the drawdown zone and re-deposited in the lake. In order to determine the potential for future erosion in the drawdown zone, substrate/erosion potential categories were mapped in the field (Figure E.5.1-2). The four mapping categories include:

Bedrock – No future erosion potential. Total length: 1,809 feet (8% of shoreline length); Total area: 1.4 acres (4% of drawdown area).

Gravel/cobble/boulder – Low erosion potential. Much of the drawdown zone is armored by a mix of gravel, cobble, and boulders. The substrate is large enough that it resists surface erosion during rainfall events and erosion by waves as lake levels fluctuate. No evidence of recent erosion was observed in these areas. It is possible that some slow erosion will occur in these areas during the term of the new license (primarily during large wind storms when the lake is drawn down), but the future erosion potential is low. Total length: 13,186 feet (58% of shoreline length); Total area: 19.7 acres (51% of drawdown area).

Sand and gravel – Moderate erosion potential. There are several sites, primarily in protected bays and at the mouths of very small tributaries, where sand dominates the substrate. These areas are likely to have some surface erosion associated with Project operations in the future, but since these sites are somewhat protected either in bays or in areas where the fetch is limited, erosion will not likely be very rapid (several of the sites had some gravel armor). There was minor, local evidence of recent erosion in these areas. Total length: 4,155 feet (18% of shoreline length); Total area: 5.4 acres (14% of drawdown area).

Sandy – active stream delta erosion and deposition. The mouths of three of the largest tributaries have active deltas. These areas include the mouths of Lake/Muller creeks, Osprey Creek, and the tributary north of Osprey Creek. These creeks are building deltas in Packwood Lake. Sediment is deposited just below water level, resulting in a moving zone of deposition between full pool and low pool elevations. When the lake level is below full pool, the streams cut through the deposits and transport the sediment to the current pool level. The Upper Lake Creek delta is also exposed to full-fetch wind waves. The result is a zone of very active and varying erosion and deposition. Total length: 3,433 feet (15% of shoreline length); Total area: 12.1 acres (31% of drawdown area).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.1-9 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.1-Geology/Soils

Figure E.5.1-2. Packwood Lake/Drawdown Zone Shoreline Erosion Potential.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.1-10 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.1-Geology/Soils

Mass Wasting Sites Two landslides were observed around the lake shore. The largest of these slides is located on the northeastern side of the lake. This historic slide occurred prior to the Project (it is present on the 1959 aerial photographs). This slide is not related to Project operations since the slide occurred prior to Project initiation, and there is a standing line of mature trees along the lake shoreline at the toe of the slide. It appears that the slide initiated upslope of the lake and the toe/run-out zone just reaches the full pool shoreline.

Wave action at full pool levels may undercut the toe of the slide in the future, but this would not be related to Project operations. Water level fluctuations are not anticipated to affect this slide since the toe does not extend into the drawdown zone, and the rapid permeability of the sand/gravel/cobble beach would allow water in the soil to drain rapidly so that oversaturation of the toe is not likely.

The other slide is on the west side of Agnes Island. This is a small translational slide (approx. 10 ft wide, 20 ft long) in an area that has evidence of a past fire. It is possible that this slide was influenced by Project operations, but it was most likely triggered by wave action at full pool, a natural occurrence. This slide is too small to be seen on aerial photographs, so it is not known when it occurred.

Based on the complete road inventory, measurements of traffic levels, and measurements of water quality, operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project over the period of the new license is likely to have the following effects on geological/soil resources:

• Continued use of roads and trails to access Project facilities will result in minor erosion and ongoing maintenance needs. • Continued erosion/deposition in active deltas in Packwood Lake will result from lake level fluctuations. No measurable effects on water quality or aquatic or terrestrial habitat are anticipated. • Slow erosion may occur in Moderate Potential erosion areas in the drawdown zone of Packwood Lake during low lake levels. Little additional erosion is expected to occur as a result of the proposed mid-summer drawdown since the drawdown will last for only 7-10 days. No measurable effects on water quality or aquatic or terrestrial habitat are anticipated.

E.5.1.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

Based on the Project effects noted above, Energy Northwest proposes to, develop a Road Maintenance Plan for the Pipeline Road (FS Road 1260-066) (level 2-drainage maintenance), Pipeline Trail (Trailhead No. 74) (maintaining the trail [drainage, trail clearing, and vegetation management to USDA Forest Service standard] and install and maintain a Kiosk for signage for “Pack it In/Pack it Out”), and Latch Road (FS Road 1262 above the gate) (level 2-drainage maintenance and vegetation management - brushing), in consultation with the Agencies. The plan will be developed in consultation with the USDA Forest Service and will be coordinated with the Integrated Weed

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.1-11 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.1-Geology/Soils

Management Plan and the Recreation Resource Management Plan. (The Road Maintenance Plan is also described in Section E.5.7.5, Proposed Environmental Measures for Recreation Resources.) The cost of the plan development and implementation is estimated to be approximately $18,280.

E.5.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Erosion associated with Project and non-Project use of roads and trails results in small amounts of fine-grained sediment delivery to streams (estimated 7 tons/year over the 14 miles of roads and trails). No water quality or aquatic habitat concerns related to sediment were noted.

Erosion and trampling of high recreation use areas will continue over the term of the new license. Erosion of these areas is primarily associated with non-Project recreational use, but Project-related fluctuations of the lake level could contribute to some minor ongoing erosion in these areas.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.1-12 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

E.5.2 Water Resources

E.5.2.1 Affected Environment

E.5.2.1.1 Water Rights

Energy Northwest holds a water right for 260 cfs (1700 acre-feet reservoir storage) issued on October 30, 1964 with a priority date of November 18, 1958.

E.5.2.1.2 Hydrology and Flow Data

Energy Northwest met with the natural resource agencies and tribes in 2004 to discuss the information that would be needed for issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification for relicensing. Because the historical information that was available did not appear to provide the type of data required to support issuance of a water quality certification by the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), Energy Northwest proposed to conduct an instream flow study on Lake Creek and to conduct water quality monitoring studies.

In those early meetings, the parties expressed a desire to review the available hydrologic information for Lake Creek. Because the Project reduces flow in the 4 miles of the upper Cowlitz River between the outlet of Lake Creek and the Project tailrace, concerns were expressed about the potential effects of the Project on the Cowlitz River as well as on Lake Creek. A hydrology report was completed for the Project (EES Consulting 2005b).

Currently, the FERC license for the Project requires a minimum instream flow of 3 cfs at the drop structure immediately downstream of the outlet of Packwood Lake (License Article 14, as amended February 17, 1976). The license also requires a flow of 15 cfs at the confluence of Lake Creek with the Cowlitz River. Energy Northwest is not currently required to measure instream flows at the confluence, although water release flows to lower Lake Creek are recorded daily at the Project drop structure. The instream flow study obtained information to determine if these instream flow requirements are appropriate to continue into the new license term (flow requirements are anticipated to be issued as part of the Section 401 water quality certification for Project operation under a new FERC license). Instream flow study objectives were:

• Quantify the hydrology for the Project in Lake Creek; • Determine the rate of inflow from the Project drop structure downstream to the confluence of Lake Creek with the Cowlitz River; • Quantify the hydrological contribution of Lake Creek to the upper Cowlitz River, particularly during low flow months; and • Examine the frequency of drop structure overtopping and quantify the associated discharge into upper Lake Creek.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Energy Northwest downloaded information from the USGS web site for the following gages:

• Lake Creek at the outlet of Packwood Lake (immediately downstream of the drop structure [No. 14225500]) • Lake Creek upstream of the confluence with the Cowlitz River (No. 14226000) • Cowlitz River at Packwood, WA (No. 14226500)

Energy Northwest reviewed and summarized Project operations data. The data reviewed included daily lake level, Project flows, release (instream) flows, and approximate inflow to the lake. Data were also reviewed to determine the frequency and extent that Packwood Lake levels overtopped the drop structure, and the resultant flow during these spillage events.

Lake Creek Hydrology The USGS has records for the Lake Creek Gaging Station No. 14225500 from October 11, 1911 through September 30, 1980, with a total of 18,555 daily measurements for that period of record. Gaps exist in the data for the following periods:

• October 1925 – September 1930 (5 years) • November 1943 – September 1948 (4 years 11 months) • May 1954 – August 1959 (5 years 4 months)

Table E.5.2-1 summarizes mean monthly and annual flows for Lake Creek near the lake outlet for the period. Mean annual flow was 100.7 cfs, ranging from a low of 56.5 cfs in WY 1941 to a high of 135.6 cfs in WY 1921. September and October tended to be the driest months, averaging 55.9 and 62.8 cfs, respectively. The lowest mean monthly flow during this period was 21.5 cfs in November 1936, while the wettest month during this period was 364.5 cfs in December 1933.

The USGS Gage Station No. 14226000 (Lake Creek near Mouth) includes data from September 1, 1907 through November 22, 1977. As was the case for Gage No. 14225500, the record is incomplete. Significant gaps exist in the data for the following periods:

• October 1912 – September 1913 (1 year) • October 1914 – September 1962 (53 years) • October 13 – 29, 1976

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-1. Mean monthly and annual flows (cfs) of Lake Creek near Outlet (Gage 14225500), 1912 – 1962. WY Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Annual 1912 47.1 109.0 81.9 96.3 118.6 58.7 59.1 158.7 244.2 138.5 97.4 75.4 106.8 1913 50.1 72.9 63.0 86.5 64.8 60.2 69.7 160.2 315.8 215.1 110.2 75.5 112.1 1914 75.0 70.2 57.1 100.6 55.7 83.8 109.2 153.9 152.2 125.3 71.0 59.9 93.0 1915 63.9 137.2 55.3 42.1 34.3 38.0 86.1 83.8 95.5 90.9 69.4 51.4 70.7 1916 46.5 94.9 94.8 53.9 78.4 120.5 98.6 148.9 260.1 270.1 134.0 80.2 123.5 1917 40.0 54.0 53.6 45.7 54.6 42.4 48.9 118.7 299.3 315.8 125.5 76.4 106.4 1918 47.0 41.6 326.1 174.4 105.2 54.2 71.8 115.5 254.6 150.8 87.2 52.2 123.7 1919 66.2 69.8 104.4 122.4 61.7 44.6 83.1 160.6 169.0 151.5 70.8 49.8 96.4 1920 31.9 66.4 70.5 107.2 69.7 45.0 45.5 102.8 182.0 164.3 85.6 84.7 88.0 1921 108.0 102.2 77.0 135.1 112.7 118.3 94.1 181.9 304.7 208.3 121.5 63.7 135.6 1922 57.6 127.4 217.0 53.1 36.6 34.2 38.1 136.3 244.7 116.1 73.5 67.4 100.5 1923 43.5 43.8 64.9 223.2 57.5 46.9 111.5 168.7 198.8 195.4 79.1 50.5 107.5 1924 55.5 49.8 79.0 69.8 153.8 58.9 50.7 168.7 139.3 97.5 58.8 39.4 84.8 1925 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1926 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1927 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1928 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1929 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1930 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 40.4 N/A 1931 39.3 35.2 36.0 49.4 61.0 60.9 90.7 174.6 139.7 70.3 45.2 41.8 70.3 1932 41.4 45.5 40.6 56.9 49.4 106.5 100.8 175.8 236.4 173.9 84.1 54.8 97.3 1933 58.6 229.5 117.6 85.0 50.2 51.5 60.5 128.0 301.4 229.4 115.1 75.1 125.2 1934 147.4 134.5 364.5 201.3 85.5 128.3 153.8 133.6 98.5 66.2 47.8 39.2 134.1 1935 68.5 137.6 106.5 89.5 87.8 53.7 52.7 132.6 212.7 134.9 65.3 45.3 98.9 1936 31.4 26.2 28.4 60.2 35.6 55.0 109.2 257.4 236.7 105.8 51.3 43.5 86.8 1937 31.0 21.5 49.4 32.9 31.2 40.1 71.6 160.9 309.2 172.3 65.4 50.6 86.5 1938 42.9 114.8 114.1 91.5 48.8 50.3 114.6 196.1 208.3 121.1 50.9 35.5 99.2 1939 44.0 52.0 81.6 74.7 49.0 53.3 103.2 172.7 160.6 135.7 60.6 44.3 86.2 1940 39.4 45.5 98.0 78.7 85.2 82.8 90.8 156.2 121.3 70.1 43.7 34.2 78.9 1941 34.6 39.0 70.9 52.0 40.7 35.9 47.7 99.5 95.3 62.5 38.9 59.9 56.5

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-1. Mean monthly and annual flows (cfs) of Lake Creek near Outlet (Gage 14225500), 1912 – 1962. WY Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Annual 1942 93.5 90.1 143.8 53.9 48.2 43.4 70.0 116.3 164.2 139.7 46.4 31.2 87.0 1943 28.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1944 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1945 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1946 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1947 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1948 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1949 61.5 131.1 91.1 72.2 74.2 99.9 91.9 153.7 323.9 278.4 123.6 62.2 130.4 1950 121.9 151.6 183.9 96.8 150.6 65.4 104.1 190.5 181.1 125.6 61.8 49.0 123.3 1951 112.7 81.1 81.4 37.9 57.0 42.7 90.9 174.7 169.8 145.3 65.6 37.1 91.3 1952 34.0 23.2 26.7 144.6 138.5 54.4 67.3 147.3 170.1 200.0 89.7 45.9 94.9 1953 75.0 70.2 57.1 100.6 55.7 83.8 109.2 153.9 152.2 125.3 71.0 59.9 93.0 1954 56.5 77.3 157.5 81.3 86.5 72.1 84.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1955 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1956 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1957 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1958 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1959 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 124.1 N/A 1960 189.3 196.6 103.9 47.7 65.6 52.4 94.7 147.0 220.8 125.5 66.4 51.8 113.4 1961 55.5 137.9 76.4 108.3 159.1 89.0 94.8 159.1 285.3 146.7 71.2 55.1 119.3 1962 57.3 64.0 92.6 137.6 68.1 46.5 124.0 167.3 176.7 147.4 94.0 47.2 101.9

Mean 62.8 86.6 102.0 90.1 74.5 63.9 85.1 153.2 206.8 152.0 77.0 55.9 100.7

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-4 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Upper Cowlitz River Hydrology The USGS Gage Station No. 14226500 (Cowlitz River at Skate Creek Road Bridge in the Town of Packwood) includes 29,307 daily flows from July 1, 1911 to September 30, 2002. Gaps in the record for the WY 1912 – 1962 period were:

• October 1913 – September 1914 (1 year) • October 1928 – September 1929 (1 year)

Table E.5.2-2 summarizes mean monthly and annual flows for the Cowlitz River at Packwood. For the period WY 1912 – 1962, mean annual flow is approximately 1,650 cfs, ranging from a low of 922 cfs in WY 1941 to a high of 2,406 cfs in WY 1956. September and October tend to be the driest months, averaging 606 and 916 cfs, respectively. The lowest mean monthly flow during this period of record was 196 cfs in November 1952, while the wettest mean monthly flow during this period was 6,025 cfs in December 1933. For the WY 1912 – WY 2001 period, mean annual flow was approximately 1,594 cfs.

Exhibit B provides mean monthly hydrographs as well as monthly flow duration curves for Lake Creek at Packwood Lake outlet and for the upper Cowlitz River at Packwood for pre-project and post-project hydrology.

Table E.5.2-3 summarizes monthly flow statistics for the 1912-1962 period and compares the flow in Lake Creek immediately below the outlet of Packwood Lake to the Cowlitz River at Packwood. On average, Lake Creek flows constitute approximately 6% of the flow in the upper Cowlitz River. During September and October, Lake Creek contributes less than 8% of the flow in the upper Cowlitz River. Measurement error for flow measurements is normally considered to be +10%, indicating that the contribution of flow from Lake Creek as measured at the lake outlet is within the measurement error; i.e., Lake Creek is a relatively small contributor to the total flow of the Cowlitz River.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-5 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-2. Mean monthly and annual flows (cfs) of Cowlitz River at Packwood (Gage 14226500), 1912 – 2002. WY Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Annual 1912 390 1,737 1,023 1,645 1,548 577 1,037 2,677 3,102 1,398 916 876 1,407 1913 509 1,588 849 1,017 1,011 821 1,528 2,875 3,983 2,467 1,056 762 1,538 1914 1915 983 3,633 584 597 573 1,034 2,082 1,220 1,091 809 721 451 1,146 1916 873 1,373 1,475 764 1,902 2,681 2,130 3,015 4,964 4,691 1,837 772 2,207 1917 397 614 584 614 905 477 1,165 2,907 5,119 4,818 1,383 760 1,648 1918 525 516 5,760 3,497 1,230 850 1,682 1,979 3,436 1,512 733 572 1,858 1919 790 930 1,922 2,771 783 711 1,633 2,699 3,032 2,200 987 510 1,581 1929 1930 298 201 706 512 2,228 1,185 2,295 2,152 2,136 1,121 616 431 1,157 1931 354 599 684 1,650 1,121 1,287 1,901 3,047 1,862 860 564 381 1,192 1932 543 1,211 1,053 1,183 1,521 2,088 2,048 3,034 3,907 2,400 929 505 1,702 1933 646 3,390 1,583 1,438 396 796 1,460 2,562 5,175 4,265 1,688 939 2,028 1934 2,586 1,939 6,025 3,572 1,499 3,157 2,662 2,229 1,351 858 618 397 2,241 1935 1,901 3,205 1,679 1,709 1,617 954 1,172 2,968 3,904 1,868 789 600 1,864 1936 411 401 603 1,318 614 1,270 2,393 4,547 3,922 1,459 752 504 1,516 1937 405 326 913 364 396 1,081 1,884 3,204 4,898 1,963 756 551 1,395 1938 601 2,708 2,002 1,606 688 938 2,572 3,319 2,879 1,159 553 451 1,623 1939 441 804 1,601 1,384 658 1,173 2,080 3,401 2,593 1,648 759 467 1,417 1940 400 576 2,037 1,134 1,639 1,753 1,620 2,443 1,408 772 545 397 1,227 1941 499 921 1,270 971 689 811 1,161 1,589 1,134 752 522 745 922 1942 1,092 1,411 2,278 761 753 700 1,482 1,976 2,506 1,389 677 425 1,287 1943 330 2,167 1,666 1,036 944 1,122 2,555 2,729 3,495 2,509 806 522 1,657 1944 435 574 1,272 758 841 939 1,200 2,071 1,802 862 504 586 987 1945 520 773 941 1,882 1,668 854 1,045 3,340 2,243 1,214 605 753 1,320 1946 999 1,167 1,621 1,395 982 1,154 1,948 4,232 4,054 2,770 995 569 1,824 1947 966 1,912 3,058 1,324 1,581 1,413 2,203 3,338 2,453 1,229 674 646 1,733 1948 2,451 2,295 1,750 1,270 1,110 974 1,249 3,337 5,041 1,844 860 572 1,896 1949 933 1,192 832 479 810 1,270 2,166 5,209 4,386 2,750 1,027 614 1,806 1950 1,001 3,076 1,532 1,421 1,514 1,950 1,757 2,937 4,902 3,942 1,544 700 2,190 1951 1,905 2,966 3,429 1,462 2,499 996 2,133 3,169 2,985 1,491 657 510 2,017 1952 1,671 1,386 1,240 487 1,207 736 2,273 3,410 2,885 1,796 730 386 1,517 1953 327 196 319 3,651 2,009 816 1,422 2,748 2,884 2,880 1,050 597 1,575

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-6 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-2. Mean monthly and annual flows (cfs) of Cowlitz River at Packwood (Gage 14226500), 1912 – 2002. WY Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Annual 1954 613 1,296 2,587 1,170 1,692 1,141 1,625 3,367 3,822 3,699 1,478 795 1,940 1955 894 1,822 1,105 951 951 495 1,010 2,791 5,128 3,028 1,095 648 1,660 1956 2,683 3,533 2,716 1,475 634 931 2,456 4,571 4,524 3,451 1,204 688 2,406 1957 960 1,355 2,919 728 1,032 1,557 1,950 3,750 2,683 1,149 638 518 1,603 1958 490 620 1,374 1,545 1,816 826 1,603 3,874 2,717 1,153 691 485 1,433 1959 817 3,726 3,073 2,374 832 945 2,100 2,307 3,724 2,118 740 1,527 2,024 1960 2,513 3,138 1,936 831 1,432 1,158 1,745 2,720 3,747 1,652 676 521 1,839 1961 788 2,991 1,467 2,129 3,113 1,566 1,799 2,995 4,283 1,832 898 518 2,031 1962 707 1,010 1,896 2,166 1,179 687 2,466 1,954 2,936 1,789 914 607 1,526 1963 890 2,537 2,076 927 2,608 964 1,430 2,144 2,047 1,053 668 508 1,488 1964 450 1,348 1,278 1,494 941 709 1,085 2,316 4,769 3,438 1,321 731 1,657 1965 917 1,269 2,593 2,232 1,677 979 2,036 2,308 2,841 1,562 840 447 1,642 1966 445 795 711 785 505 923 1,787 3,037 2,458 1,521 674 501 1,179 1967 576 1,006 2,194 1,569 1,293 837 707 2,810 4,637 2,002 771 526 1,577 1968 1,626 1,490 1,824 2,166 2,960 1,426 925 2,051 2,649 1,088 876 1,052 1,678 1969 1,210 2,295 1,314 1,834 537 813 1,700 4,161 3,281 1,070 570 632 1,618 1970 680 800 976 2,060 1,324 1,039 942 2,209 3,318 1,383 618 525 1,323 1971 461 1,463 1,221 1,817 2,083 841 1,226 3,665 3,752 3,835 1,585 678 1,886 1972 532 1,161 1,019 1,372 2,322 3,478 1,642 4,252 4,915 3,594 1,550 989 2,236 1973 528 834 2,450 1,663 560 644 936 2,096 1,892 1,040 618 525 1,149 1974 648 1,858 2,165 4,104 1,306 1,281 1,619 3,234 6,085 3,698 1,599 743 2,362 1975 364 700 1,966 2,671 1,057 1,152 668 2,662 4,143 2,679 1,186 612 1,655 1976 836 2,181 4,731 2,195 1,026 652 1,311 3,401 3,086 2,876 1,414 728 2,036 1977 412 646 550 862 682 718 1,670 1,548 1,982 639 721 826 938 1978 560 3,105 4,510 1,107 902 1,145 1,220 1,918 2,468 1,494 695 809 1,661 1979 412 729 1,054 467 961 1,692 1,081 2,691 1,914 970 498 474 1,079 1980 521 458 2,696 998 1,679 1,125 1,977 2,423 2,132 1,111 574 492 1,349 1981 299 1,851 3,968 1,074 2,242 816 1,758 1,715 2,144 965 593 451 1,490 1982 863 998 1,481 1,090 3,118 1,457 1,297 2,755 3,998 1,880 736 466 1,678 1983 709 963 1,806 2,147 1,506 1,886 1,388 2,716 2,477 1,924 940 651 1,593 1984 399 2,200 943 3,078 1,179 1,435 1,037 2,167 2,832 1,743 750 500 1,522 1985 559 951 643 559 530 627 1,936 3,294 3,656 1,265 531 417 1,247 1986 1,057 1,610 527 1,578 2,363 1,725 1,093 2,138 1,759 714 584 421 1,297

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-7 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-2. Mean monthly and annual flows (cfs) of Cowlitz River at Packwood (Gage 14226500), 1912 – 2002. WY Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Annual 1987 447 2,108 835 785 1,257 1,652 1,786 2,522 1,435 697 445 344 1,193 1988 237 223 1,082 687 1,016 1,383 2,674 2,617 2,069 1,200 608 491 1,190 1989 809 2,119 1,313 1,166 711 1,218 2,688 2,419 2,842 1,188 556 364 1,450 1990 273 1,745 1,910 2,247 1,142 1,289 2,769 2,303 2,957 1,379 642 444 1,592 1991 1,196 3,624 1,104 1,576 3,009 913 2,833 1,815 2,160 2,105 1,354 909 1,883 1992 312 1,821 1,662 1,576 2,049 1,541 1,851 1,570 842 527 456 457 1,222 1993 388 986 642 838 702 1,632 1,560 3,215 1,834 925 621 355 1,142 1994 275 220 808 1,556 603 1,740 2,021 2,434 1,801 1,024 518 451 1,121 1995 755 1,075 2,484 1,622 3,976 1,492 1,055 2,561 2,219 1,390 634 464 1,644 1996 1,548 5,023 3,447 3,015 4,690 1,175 1,848 2,035 1,999 1,302 602 406 2,257 1997 593 1,758 1,622 2,714 1,762 2,374 1,983 4,485 3,908 2,413 749 758 2,093 1998 2,035 1,471 1,091 1,329 948 1,274 1,146 2,508 2,482 1,309 584 357 1,378 1999 306 1,452 2,303 1,887 1,188 1,178 1,332 2,603 3,845 3,498 1,824 655 1,839 2000 600 3,190 2,372 853 1,077 886 2,247 2,575 3,153 1,536 734 583 1,650 2001 731 432 486 699 613 913 1,177 2,520 1,626 911 647 436 933 2002 594 2,108 1,454 2,055 1,132 974 1,892 2,396 4,488 2,072 722 425 1,693

1912- 916 1,632 1,784 1,426 1,240 1,147 1,817 2,967 3,327 2,039 880 606 1,649 1962 1912- 796 1,598 1,758 1,519 1,386 1,198 1,700 2,787 3,100 1,857 847 586 1,594 2002

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-8 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-3 and Figure E.5.2-1 summarize flow duration statistics for Lake Creek as measured at the lake outlet and the Cowlitz River at Packwood, respectively.

Table E.5.2-3. Monthly and annual flows, Lake Creek and Cowlitz River at Packwood, WY 1912 – 1962. Month Lake Creek (cfs) Cowlitz River (cfs) Percentage October 63 916 6.9% November 87 1,632 5.3% December 102 1,784 5.7% January 90 1,426 6.3% February 74 1,240 6.0% March 64 1,147 5.6% April 85 1,817 4.7% May 153 2,967 5.2% June 207 3,327 6.2% July 152 2,039 7.5% August 77 880 8.8% September 56 606 9.2% Annual 101 1,649 6.1%

8,000 400

7,000 350 Cowlitz River Lake Creek 6,000 300

5,000 250

4,000 200

3,000 150 Daily Average Discharge (cfs) Daily Discharge Average

2,000 100 Lake Creek at Packwood Lake Outlet Cowlitz River Daily Average Discharge (cfs) Discharge Average Daily Cowlitz River

1,000 50

0 0 0 102030405060708090100 Percent Exceedence

Figure E.5.2-1. Annual Flow Duration Curve, 1912-1962. Based on average daily records at USGS Gage No. 14226500, Cowlitz River at Packwood, WA and USGS Gage No. 14225500, Lake Creek at Packwood Lake Outlet

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-9 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Accretion to Lake Creek Energy Northwest examined water years when the gages were installed and operating both at the outlet of Packwood Lake (USGS No. 14225500) and on Lake Creek near its confluence with the Cowlitz River (USGS No. 14226000). The years that coincided were WY 1912, 1914, and 1963 – 1977. Due to data inconsistencies, WY 1912 was excluded from the analysis.

Table E.5.2-4 summarizes inflow from the Packwood Lake outlet (approximate River Mile [RM] 5.4) to the gage located upstream from the mouth of Lake Creek (approximate RM 0.3). Average annual inflow was 26.7 cfs, with minimum inflows occurring during August (9.8 cfs), September (8.6 cfs) and October (9.2 cfs). Maximum inflows occurred during December (40.6 cfs), January (55.6 cfs) and February (40.9 cfs). Lowest mean annual accretion was during WY 1977 (14.9 cfs) while the highest mean annual accretion was during WY 1972 (42.4 cfs).

Project Spills and Overtopping Energy Northwest examined daily operations records to determine the frequency of overtopping and whether the overtopping occurred while the Project was operating or not. Daily readings were not always taken at the intake structure. When a data gap existed and spilling was observed on either side of a data gap, spill was suspected of occurring, and the spill was estimated for the time period in question. Table E.5.2-5 summarizes overtopping events from 1967 – 2003.

Overtopping has occurred or suspected to have occurred on 504 days during this time period, averaging 13.7 days per year. In some years, no spill occurred; in 1994, spill occurred on 66 days. Of the 504 days that the drop structure was overtopped, the Project was not operational on 216 days. The maximum spill event was estimated at 1,014 cfs which corresponds to a lake elevation of 2861.12 feet MSL observed on November 7, 2006 during a heavy rainfall event. As a comparison, during the 1912 – 1962 period (pre-Project), the maximum flood was 1,300 cfs (December 22, 1933). Additional flows for channel maintenance and riparian corridors would have been provided by these higher outflows from the lake.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-10 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-4. Mean monthly inflow from Lake Creek at Packwood Lake outlet (Gage No. 14225500) and Lake Creek above mouth (Gage No. 14226000). WY Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Annual 1914 11.8 21.8 18.6 50.7 25.1 36.7 42.8 41.4 26.7 22.2 10.3 12.3 26.7 1963 11.7 25.8 29.4 23.0 39.8 26.5 36.4 20.3 13.5 8.8 5.1 6.5 20.4 1964 5.9 26.7 26.6 47.1 35.4 29.0 37.6 30.3 26.0 17.1 12.9 8.6 25.2 1965 12.3 21.9 79.4 87.3 52.3 28.7 23.8 26.3 21.8 14.9 9.0 6.7 32.0 1966 5.8 8.7 13.5 29.0 20.2 37.2 34.8 25.1 18.9 12.7 8.5 5.9 18.4 1967 4.8 10.4 39.8 64.1 43.1 24.3 16.0 18.4 19.4 14.1 8.2 6.1 22.4 1968 11.9 21.2 38.9 39.2 62.1 36.0 26.8 15.7 14.3 9.6 8.0 9.4 24.3 1969 19.3 38.5 47.4 55.4 22.8 29.5 33.1 26.6 24.4 13.4 8.6 7.3 27.2 1970 8.9 11.6 22.4 62.2 47.1 30.0 27.2 17.9 15.0 10.2 6.6 5.6 22.0 1971 6.1 19.1 30.2 67.6 55.4 33.6 36.2 41.5 32.5 22.0 11.2 8.8 30.3 1972 9.0 21.6 37.9 66.4 79.7 99.7 50.3 48.2 42.7 26.1 14.9 13.7 42.4 1973 9.7 16.0 54.9 47.1 23.9 19.2 14.5 13.5 12.1 9.6 7.4 6.9 19.6 1974 6.8 34.4 56.8 82.5 49.8 43.4 46.7 44.2 52.5 26.0 14.5 9.3 38.9 1975 6.7 15.0 44.6 85.5 47.2 41.6 23.2 27.1 24.5 13.0 11.5 8.6 29.1 1976 8.7 30.8 92.8 67.3 36.4 29.7 37.5 35.7 27.2 18.7 12.9 9.2 34.0 1977 7.6 11.6 12.4 15.5 15.7 23.6 22.7 19.6 18.0 11.4 8.7 12.2 14.9 Mean 9.2 20.9 40.6 55.6 40.9 35.5 31.8 27.9 24.4 15.6 9.8 8.6 26.7

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-11 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-5. Summary of overtopping events, Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, 1967 – 2007. Days Days Days Days Suspected Days Plant Adj. Max Flow Year Overtop Overtop Total Down Total (cfs) 1967 7 2 9 0 9 212.0 1968 3 3 0 3 407.3 1969 20 6 26 0 26 225.0 1970 2 2 0 2 35.0 1971 8 2 10 0 10 198.0 1972 29 4 33 0 33 50.0 1973 2 2 2 0 14.3 1974 29 4 33 0 33 311.0 1975 11 9 20 9 11 825.3 1976 0 0 0 0 1977 16 16 0 16 624.0 1978 0 0 0 0 1979 0 0 0 0 1980 6 6 0 6 310.4 1981 24 24 24 0 684.8 1982 13 13 0 13 159.5 1983 4 4 0 4 61.1 1984 0 0 0 0 1985 14 14 0 14 330.1 1986 6 6 0 6 154.2 1987 0 0 0 0 1988 0 0 0 0 1989 0 0 0 0 1990 4 4 0 4 388.2 1991 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 1993 10 10 0 10 154.6 1994 7 59 66 59 7 326.3 1995 10 55 65 55 10 673.2 1996 4 4 0 4 405.5 1997 14 22 36 22 14 453.3 1998 0 0 0 0 1999 13 13 0 13 161.1 2000 12 12 12 0 47.0 2001 33 33 33 0 275.3 2002 35 35 0 35 170.0 2003 5 5 0 5 260.0 2004 5 5 0 5 47 2005 0 0 0 0 2006 41 41 0 41 1014 2007 8 8 0 8 258 Total 341 163 504 216 288

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-12 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

E.5.2.1.3 Water Quality Standards

The State of Washington has adopted water quality standards that set limits on pollution in lakes, rivers, and marine waters in order to protect water quality. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) (33 U.S.C. 1251 - 1376; Chapter 758; P.L. 845, June 30, 1948; 62 Stat. 1155), as amended, requires that the state water quality standards protect beneficial uses, such as swimming, fishing, aquatic life habitat, and agricultural and drinking water supplies. The current state water quality standards became effective in December 2006 (Ecology 2006a).

The standards for streams and rivers provide for aquatic life uses based upon key species. The categories for aquatic life uses are: 1) char spawning and rearing; 2) core summer salmonid habitat; 3) salmonid spawning, rearing and migration; 4) salmonid rearing and migration only; 5) Non-anadromous interior redband trout; and 6) indigenous warm water species. Under the 2006 standards, the Cowlitz River from the base of Riffe Lake Dam (RM 52.0) to headwaters has an aquatic life use of core salmon/trout and extraordinary primary contact recreation. Lake Creek is included in this designation. Packwood Lake is a member of the lake class where water quality must meet or exceed the requirements for all, or substantially all, uses. The Cowlitz River upstream of the confluence with Skate Creek, which encompasses the Project affected reach, is designated as requiring supplemental spawning and incubation temperature protection (Ecology 2006b); the 7-DADMax for this reach may not exceed 13°C between September 1 and May 15. Table E.5.2-6 summarizes water quality criteria for several key parameters.

Table E.5.2-6. Water Quality Criteria (WAC 173-201A) Temperature Highest 7-day average of the daily maximum temperature (7-DADMax) not to exceed 16°C. When a water body’s temperature is warmer than the criteria and that condition is due to natural conditions, then human actions cumulatively may not cause an increase in the 7-DADMax more than 0.3°C. Incremental temperature increases must not exceed 28/(T+7) where T represents the background temperature. For waters designated by WDOE as requiring supplemental spawning and incubation temperature protection (Ecology 2006b); the 7-DADMax for this reach may not exceed 13°C between September 1 and May 15. Dissolved Lowest 1-Day Minimum 9.5 mg/L Oxygen Turbidity 5 NTU over background when background is < 50 NTU; or a 10% increase in turbidity when background > 50 NTU pH 6.5 – 8.5 Total dissolved Not to exceed 110% saturation for flows up to the 7Q10 flood. gas Fecal coliform Geometric mean value of 50 colonies/100 mL and not have more than 10 percent of all samples obtained for calculating the geometric mean value exceeding 100 colonies/100 mL Geometric mean value of exceeding 100 colonies/100 mL

Toxic, radioactive, or deleterious material concentrations shall be below those levels that have the potential either singularly or cumulatively to adversely affect characteristic water uses, cause acute or chronic conditions to the most sensitive biota dependent upon those waters, or adversely affect public health. Aesthetic values shall not be

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-13 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality impaired by the presence of materials or their effects, excluding those of natural origin, which offend the senses of sight, smell, touch, or taste. Packwood Lake has been classified as an oligotrophic lake (Washington State Department of Ecology 1991); total phosphorus in the lake should be set at 10 ug/L or natural levels. The action value is 35 ug/L for oligotrophic lakes (Ecology 2006a); however, the action value for Packwood Lake may differ because of the naturally high phosphorus level due to glacial inflow.

Criteria for toxic substances have been established for all surface waters of the State of Washington for the protection of aquatic life. Table E.5.2-7 provides a summary of toxic substance water quality criteria for Packwood Lake, Lake Creek, and the Cowlitz River. For the calculations performed to create Table E.5.2-7, temperature of 16°C, a hardness of 15 mg/L, and a pH of 7.0 were used.

Table E.5.2-7. Water Quality Criteria Calculations for Packwood Lake, Lake Creek, and Upper Cowlitz River Substance Acute Criteria (ug/L) Chronic (ug/L) Aldrin/Dieldrin 2.5 a 0.0019 b Ammonia, Total (mg NH3 + NH4/L) 23.8 g 2.4 g (1997 standards) Ammonia, (un-ionized NH3 in mg) (1997 70.2 f, c 7.0 f, c standards) Ammonia, Total (mg NH3 + NH4/L) 24.1 f, c (2003 standards) Ammonia, (un-ionized NH3 in mg) 7.0 f, d (2003 standards) Arsenic (Dissolved fraction) 360.0 c 190.0 d Cadmium (Dissolved fraction) 0.47 h, c 0.25 h, d Chlordane 2.4 a 0.0043 b Chloride (Dissolved) j 860.0 g, c 230.0 g, d Chlorine (Total Residual) 19.0 c 11.0 d Chlorpyrifos 0.083 c 0.041 d Chromium (Hex), (Dissolved fraction) 15.0 c 10.0 d Chromium (Tri) i 116.03 h, c 37.64 h, d Copper (Dissolved fraction) 2.85 h, c 2.24 h, d Cyanide 22.0 c 5.2 d DDT (and metabolites) 1.1 a 0.001 b Dieldrin/Aldrin e 2.5 a 0.0019 b Endosulfan 0.22 a 0.056 b Endrin 0.18 a 0.0023 b Heptachlor 0.52 a 0.0038 b Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane) 2.0 a 0.08 b Lead (Dissolved fraction) 7.79 h, c 0.30 h, d Mercury k 2.1 c, l, m 0.012 d, n Nickel (Dissolved fraction) 284.35 h, c 31.58 h, d Parathion 0.065 c 0.013 d Pentachlorophenol (PCP) 9.07 o, c 5.73 o, d Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 2.0 b 0.014 b Selenium (Total recoverable) 20.0 c 5.0 d Silver (Dissolved fraction) 0.13 N/A Toxaphene 0.73 c 0.0002 d Zinc (Dissolved fraction) 22.94 c 20.94 d

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-14 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-7. Water Quality Criteria Calculations for Packwood Lake, Lake Creek, and Upper Cowlitz River a. An instantaneous concentration not to be exceeded at any time. b. A 24-hour average not to be exceeded. c. A 1-hour average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years on the average. d. A 4-day average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years. e. Aldrin is metabolically converted to Dieldrin. Therefore, the sum of the Aldrin and Dieldrin concentrations are compared with the Dieldrin criteria. f. Based upon a temperature of 16°C and pH of 7.0 units, and salmonids present. See WAC 173-201A-040 for formulas. g. Measured in mg/L rather than ug/L. h. Assumes a hardness of 15 mg/L. See WAC 173-201A-040 for formulas. i. Where methods to measure trivalent chromium are unavailable, these criteria are to be represented by total-recoverable chromium. j. Criterion based on dissolved chloride in association with sodium. This criterion probably will not be adequately protective when the chloride is associated with potassium, calcium, or magnesium, rather than sodium. k. If the four-day average chronic concentration is exceeded more than once in a three-year period, the edible portion of the consumed species should be analyzed. Said edible tissue concentrations shall not be allowed to exceed 1.0 mg/kg of methylmercury. l. Conversion factor to calculate dissolved metal concentration is 0.962. m. These ambient criteria in the table are for the dissolved fraction. The cyanide criteria are based on the weak acid dissociable method. The metals criteria may not be used to calculate total recoverable effluent limits unless the seasonal portioning of the dissolved to total metals in the ambient water are known. When this information is absent, these metals criteria shall be applied as total recoverable values, determined by back-calculations, using the conversion factors incorporated in the criterion equations. Metals criteria may be adjusted on a site- specific basis when data are made available to the department clearly demonstrating the effective use of the water effects ratio approach established by US EPA, as generally guided by the procedures US EPA Water Quality Standards Handbook, December 1983, as supplemented or replaced. Information which is used to develop effluent limits based on apply metals partitioning studies of the water effects ratio approach shall be identified in the permit fact sheet developed pursuant to WAC 173-220-060 or 173-226-110, as appropriate, and shall be made available for the public comment period required pursuant to WAC 173-220-050 or 173-226-130(3), as appropriate. n. These criteria are based on the total-recoverable fraction of the metal. o. Assumes a pH of 7.0.

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to list water bodies that are impaired because of water quality problems. Although the Cowlitz River has 303(d) listings, there are none for Lake Creek, or for the Cowlitz River in the area of the Project (Washington Department of Ecology 2004a, b, c, d).

E.5.2.2 Environmental Analysis

E.5.2.2.1 Packwood Lake Drawdown Study

A study was conducted that assessed the character and functions of the two large wetlands adjacent to Packwood Lake (the wetland complex between Upper Lake Creek and Muller Creek, and a complex near Osprey Creek; see Figure E.5.2-2) and investigated the level of hydrologic connectivity between the lake level and the groundwater within the wetlands. The study was completed in coordination with the

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-15 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality vegetation mapping and amphibian studies; these latter two studies contributed information useful for assessing Project effects. The Final Packwood Lake Drawdown Study Report provides data on the hydrologic connectivity between lake level and groundwater level within wetlands (EES Consulting 2007g). The Final Vegetation Cover Type Mapping Study Report (DTA 2007c) documents vegetation cover types and plant species communities within the wetlands.

Figure E.5.2-2. Packwood Lake and Associated Wetlands: (1) at the head of the lake adjacent to Upper Lake Creek and Muller Creek, and (2) on the southwest shore of the lake adjacent to Osprey Creek.

Seven piezometers were installed in the wetlands adjacent to Packwood Lake such that the groundwater level could be automatically measured and recorded hourly. The locations of piezometers within the two wetland complexes are shown in Figures E.5.2-3 and E.5.2-4. Piezometers 1 and 2 were installed at the head of Packwood Lake adjacent to Muller Creek. Piezometers 3, 4, and 7 were installed at the head of the lake adjacent to Upper Lake Creek. Piezometers 5 and 6 were installed in the Osprey Creek wetland complex on the southwest side of Packwood Lake. A Baralogger® was deployed at the existing weather station situated near the intake structure at the outlet of Packwood Lake.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-16 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Piezometer 7 Piezometer 4 Piezometer 3 qp

o Piezometer 2 n Piezometer 1

Figure E.5.2-3. Piezometer Locations at Upper Packwood Lake Wetland Complex.

Baralogger ® 

Piezometer 5 r s Piezometer 6

Figure E.5.2-4. Piezometer Locations in the Osprey Creek Wetland Complex.

Water levels in the piezometers, as well as lake water surface elevations were monitored, and records compared, to establish the response of groundwater level within the wetlands to fluctuations in lake level. Data collection began in mid-September 2005 and extended through mid-November 2006.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-17 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

In addition to the hydrologic data that was gathered, major vegetative and structural characteristics were documented using a plotless, rapid vegetation assessment method (See DTA 2007c).

Brinson (1993) developed a hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification based on the geomorphic setting, water source and hydrodynamics of wetlands. The wetland complex at the head of Packwood Lake is characteristic of a low gradient alluvial floodplain wetland with seasonal surface drainage, precipitation, and groundwater seepage being the water sources. The hydrodynamics include biodirectional flow, as the lake also influences the wetland hydrology. According to Brinson (1993), wetlands of this category have high wildlife biodiversity and high nutrient retention.

The wetland complex adjacent to Osprey Creek is classified as a low gradient alluvial floodplain according to Brinson. Water sources are dominated by groundwater seepage and precipitation. The hydrodynamic energy gradient is low.

Core samples of the upper 15 to 20 inches of soil within the wetlands evaluated as part of the drawdown study were collected and examined for indicators of hydrologic condition. Figure E.5.2-5 shows lake level and inflow to the lake for the period that the piezometers were operated. Lake level data are a compilation of the daily data reported by Energy Northwest and hourly data recorded by a SolonistTM levellogger placed in the intake stilling well; the latter source of data available beginning June 16, 2006. These two data sources had an excellent correlation (R2 = 1.00).

Packwood Lake Wetland Hydrology

2863 500 Lake Level inflow 450 2861 400 2859 350 v L 300 f 2857 250

(ft.) MS 2855 Inflow (c Inflow

Water Le Water 200

2853 150 100 2851 50 2849 0

6 6 6 06 06 06 06 06 005 005 005 006 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 /2 /2 /2 /2 /20 6/2 9/2 9/2 /14/2005/15 /15 /16 /16 /1 /1 /1 /20/2 /20/2 /21/2 /21/2 /21/2006 22 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10/ Date

Figure E.5.2-5. Packwood Lake Level (ft) and Inflow (cfs).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-18 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

In 2005, drawdown of Packwood Lake began on September 15, 2005, soon after installation of piezometers on September 14, 2005. A rapid increase in inflow to the lake beginning October 1 had little immediate effect on lake level. Lake level steadily increased through October to an average level of 2855.43 ft MSL in November. At the end of November and early December, a smaller drawdown occurred just prior to significant inflow at the end of December and early January. Inflow peaked at approximately 439 cfs on January 10, 2006, concurrent with the lake level reaching the crest of the drop structure. Inflow decreased throughout the remainder of winter 2005/2006 prior to snowmelt runoff in the following spring.

High inflow in spring 2006 resulted in the lake exceeding the drop structure crest elevation nearly continuously for the period May 17 through June 19, 2006. The lake level gradually lowered as inflow tapered off. The lake level reached 2857 ft MSL by July 8, 2006, where it was maintained (± 0.5 ft) until mid-September. During the fall 2006 drawdown, the lake elevation was lowered to a minimum of 2849.55 ft MSL, which was reached on October 1, 2006. The lake level steadily increased throughout October during the Project shutdown. Lake level rapidly increased at the beginning of November when a large storm event resulted in a peak inflow of approximately 1800 cfs. The lake level exceeded 2861 ft MSL during this storm event, which resulted in the wetlands adjacent to the lake being fully inundated.

Lake level and piezometer water level were each analyzed as a function of daily precipitation data from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Cooperative station in Packwood. The correlations were poor (R2 < 0.1) in all cases. Correlation analyses were completed for the entire study period as well as for just the wet period (November through June). Inflow also did not show a good correlation with precipitation. Inflow is predominantly from Upper Lake Creek. In the spring and early summer, a large portion of the inflow is from snowmelt. In winter months, precipitation falls as snow at higher elevations within the drainage basin, which contributes to a low correlation between inflow and precipitation.

Figure E.5.2-6, the Box-whisker diagram below shows Packwood Lake level and wetland (piezometer, P) water levels during the 2005-2006 drawdown period. It illustrates minimum and maximum (blue diamond), the 1st and 3rd quartile (box), median (line through box), mean (red cross), and outliers (vertical line) values for each data distribution.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-19 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

2863 WET 2 WET 4 WET 6 Lake Level 2861

2859

2857

2855

Water Elevation Elevation Water 2853

2851

2849 WET 1 WET 3 WET 5 WET 7

Figure E.5.2-6. Packwood Lake Level (Lake) and Wetland (piezometer, P) Water Levels during the 2005-2006 Drawdown Period.

The two large wetland complexes adjacent to Packwood Lake showed very different responses to drawdown. The wetland complex adjacent to Osprey Creek includes both palustrine emergent seasonally flooded and palustrine forested wetlands dominated by red alder. Other tree species in this wetland include mountain hemlock and red cedar. There is abundant downed large woody debris. The soils in this wetland are saturated near the surface nearly year-round. The upslope hydrology was the primary determinant of groundwater hydrology for this wetland complex. Water level within the piezometers was unresponsive to lake level drawdowns. Shallow groundwater hydrology supporting wetlands adjacent to Osprey Creek was very stable throughout the monitoring period. Water levels in P-5 remained stable, in spite of significant changes in lake level (Figure E.5.2-7) and inflow. Water level in P-6 was also stable throughout a majority of the monitoring period.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-20 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Packwood Lake Wetland Hydrology Piezometer 5 2863 Lake Level Piezometer 5 2861

f 2859 2857 2855

Water Level ( 2853 2851 2849 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 /0 /05 /05 /05 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /06 0 4 6 6 9 9 0 0 1 1 21 22/ /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /2 /2 /2 /2 / 0/ 9 10/15 11/15 12/16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Date

Figure E.5.2-7. Piezometer 5 Water Level (ft) and Packwood Lake Level (ft)

Upper Lake Creek and Muller Creek flow through the wetland complex at the upper end of the lake. The near-shore area of this wetland complex exhibited complex hydrologic functions. Low-lying areas as of the wetland near Muller Creek, best represented by P- 2, are seasonally flooded much of the year. The groundwater level at both of these piezometers was primarily a function of lake level during the drier portion of the year (July through October). Precipitation and upslope hydrology (inflow) were the primarily determinants of groundwater level during the rest of the year. The transition was abrupt in both 2005 and 2006 with the onset of the first large fall storm events in October – November.

The water table at slightly higher ground elevations that occur on hummocks (similar to P-3) was within the upper 18 inches of soil but only sporadically saturated to the surface. The fall drawdown had the effect of lowering the groundwater level 1.0 ft to 1.3 ft, which resulted in the groundwater level being lower than 18 inches below the ground surface; the latter is considered the vegetation rooting zone (Brinson 1993). This magnitude of change was muted relative to a lake level change of approximately 7.5 ft. The water table and ground level was at a higher elevation at P-1 than P-2 with the slope towards the lake; however the relative magnitude of the effects of lake drawdown on wetland water elevation were very similar.

Figure E.5.2-8 and Figure E.5.2-9 show piezometer water level at P-2 relative to lake level and inflow, respectively.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-21 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Packwood Lake Wetland Hydrology Piezometer 2 2863 2861 Lake Level Piezometer 2 ground

f 2859 2857 2855

Water Level( 2853 2851 2849 05 006 006 /2005 /2006 /2006 5/2005 6/2006 /20/2006 9/14 10/1 11/15/200512/16/20 1/1 2/16/20063/19/2 4/19/2 5 6/20/20067/21 8/21 9/21/200610/22/2006 Date

Figure E.5.2-8. Piezometer 2 Water Level (ft) and Packwood Lake Level (ft)

Packwood Lake Wetland Hydrology Piezometer 2 2863 500 450 2861 Piezometer 2 Inflow 400

f 2859 350

2857 300 w 250 (cfs) 2855 200 Inflo

Water Level ( Water 2853 150 100 2851 50 2849 0 5 6 6 6 0 05 05 06 06 0 0 06 06 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 /20 /20 /20 20 /200 5 5/2 6/2 6/2 6/2 9 0 0/ 1/2 1/2 2 /1 1 1 1 0/1 /2 /2 /2 0/2 9/14/20051 11 12/ 1/ 2/ 3/19/20064/1 5/2 6 7 8 9/21/20061 Date

Figure E.5.2-9. Piezometer 2 Water Level (ft) and Packwood Lake Inflow (cfs).

The groundwater level at P-3, which is closer to Lake Creek, was not closely associated with lake level. The gradual decline in water level at P-3 during the summer months suggests that the hydrology for the wetland in the vicinity of this piezometer was primarily a function of upslope hydrology or inflow. The water level at P-3 dropped about 0.6 ft during the fall 2006 drawdown; however, this rate of decline was similar to

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-22 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

rates observed earlier in the summer (Figure E.5.2-10). The minimum elevation for the water table at P-2 was very similar to the level at P-3 for the fall 2006 drawdown, which suggests that the lake level may define the minimum water table elevation throughout the near shore area of this wetland. The lake level likely had some influence on wetland hydrology during the drawdown but the effect was partially masked by the greater influence of upslope hydrology.

Packwood Lake Wetland Hydrology

2863 200 Lake Level P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 Inflow 180 2861 160 2859 140 120 2857 100 2855

(ft.) MSL 80 Inflow (cfs) Water Level Level Water 2853 60 40 2851 20 2849 0

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 06 06 06 06 00 00 /20 /200 /20 5/200 9/200 0/200 7/1/20067/8/20 8/5 9/2/20069/9 /21/20 7/1 7/22/2 7/2 8/12 8/19/20068/26/2 9/16/2009/23/20069/3 10/7/200610/14/200610 10/28/2006 Date

Figure E.5.2-10. Water Level for Piezometers at the upper end of Packwood Lake Level for summer/fall 2006

Piezometer P-3 was located approximately 200 ft from the lake shoreline. Piezometers P-4 and P-7 were located approximately 60 ft from the shoreline. While the summer/fall groundwater table at P-3 was primarily a function of upslope hydrology, the groundwater hydrology was strongly controlled by lake level for the nearshore environment adjacent to Lake Creek, as represented by P-4 and P-7. Water level at P-4 and P-7 were highly variable, but closely tracked lake level during the monitoring period (Figure E.5.2-11). P-4 water levels were not well correlated with inflow (Figure E.5.2-12). Results suggest a high level of continuity between lake level and water level below the clay layer perforated by P-4. Water level in P-4 was highly correlated to lake level (R2 = 0.939). The coefficient for the regression was 0.89, which indicates a very close relationship; a coefficient or slope of 1.0 would occur if P-4 water level exactly matched lake level.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-23 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Packwood Lake Wetland Hydrology Piezometer 4 2863 2861 Lake Level Piezometer 4

f 2859 2857 2855

Water Level ( Water 2853 2851 2849

5 05 6 6 6 06 00 005 006 00 0 006 0 /2 20 /2006 /2006 20 /2006 9/ 9 0 1/ 1 /15 1 /1 /2 2 /2 9/14/210 11/15/200512/16/201/16/2 2/16/2 3/ 4 5 6/20/20067/21/2 8/ 9 10/22/20 Date

Figure E.5.2-11. Piezometer 4 Water Level (ft) and Packwood Lake Level (ft).

Packwood Lake Wetland Hydrology Piezometer 4 2863 500 450 2861 Piezometer 4 Inflow 400 f 2859 350

2857 300 w 250 (cfs) 2855 200 Inflo

Water Level ( Level Water 2853 150 100 2851 50 2849 0 6 05 06 2006 2006 4/20055/20 5/20056/20056/200 6/20069/20069/ 0/ 1/20 1/20061/20062/2006 /1 1 /2 9/1 10/1 11/1 12 1/1 2/1 3/ 4/1 5/20/20066/2 7/2 8/2 9 10/2 Date

Figure E.5.2-12. Piezometer 4 Water Level (ft) and Packwood Lake Inflow (cfs).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-24 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

The soil near P-4 and P-7 was characterized as clay overlaying sandy clay. The soil profile was heavily gleyed, which is indicative of seasonal saturation for extended periods. A clay lens was perforated when P-4 was installed. A second piezometer (P- 7) installed nearby at a slightly shallower position in the soil did not perforate the clay lens. Both piezometers reported nearly identical trends for water level, which indicated that the installation of P-4 did not bias results. Although the water table at this location dropped to a level several feet below the ground surface at this location, the surface soils remained saturated due to their high clay content. The soils were also saturated near the surface in July and August, despite a groundwater level well below the surface.

The effect of lake drawdown on the hydrology of the wetland complex at the upper end of the lake was most pronounced adjacent to the lake at the outlet of Muller Creek. The lake level had very little effect on wetland hydrology at a point approximately 200 ft from the shoreline for the eastern portion (closer to Lake Creek). The soil hydrology of the portion of this wetland closer to Muller Creek was a function of lake level during the drier months (July - October) and a function of upslope hydrology during wetter months. Even in areas where the water table dropped below the typical vegetation root zone of 18 inches, the high clay content of the soil kept it at or near saturation. See the Final Packwood Lake Drawdown Study Report for detailed description of the study and hydrologic data (EES Consulting 2007g).

A pre-Project lake level of 2856.6 feet MSL was shown on a Project Drawing (No. 124- C-370P), dated September 25, 1958. The natural maximum lake elevation for Packwood Lake was estimated by the Forest Service as 2859.1 feet MSL (Hurd 1964). A study conducted in the early 1960s indicated that the lake fluctuation for the May 1 to September 15 period from 1960 through 1963 was 1.2 to 2.1 feet, with the differences for the annual maxima and minima ranging from 2.3 to 3.4 feet (Royce 1965a).

The elevation for Packwood Lake is available for 1959 to 1980 from Lake level records from USGS Station No. 14-225400, Packwood Lake near Packwood. From 1959 through early July of 1963, the lake elevations were not affected by Project construction. Normal lake elevations generally fluctuated between 2856.5 and 2857.5 feet MSL. Lake elevations were higher during late fall and winter rainstorms and spring snow melt. Minimum lake elevations generally began in August and persisted through October or until the fall rainfall started. Minimum lake levels periodically occurred during winter and early spring months when temperatures were too low to initiate snow melt. Minimum lake elevations were generally between 2856.0 and 2856.5 feet MSL. The lowest Lake elevation recorded between September 1959 and July 1963 was 2855.94 feet MSL.

Maintaining the lake level at 2857 +0.5 ft MSL may have the effect of maintaining a slightly higher groundwater table within the nearshore portion of the wetland complex at the head of Packwood Lake during late summer. The linear trend for summer groundwater elevation at P-3 is shown in Figure E.5.2-10. The groundwater level reached an equilibrium elevation relative to lake level by mid-August and remained at that elevation until drawdown. The level then dropped to a level comparable to the elevation that would have likely occurred had the seasonal trend continued. The USFS

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-25 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

(February 12, 1961) noted that the outlet of Packwood Lake was characterized by an alluvial deposit with continuous seepage flows of 10-15 cfs. Royce (1965a): notes,

The changes in lake level recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey through the years ’60 through ’63 show differences between annual maxima and minima ranging from 2.3 to 3.4 feet. The summer changes in lake level between May 1 and September 15 during these same years ranged from approximately 1.2 to 2.1 feet. The “normal” elevation of the lake is not clear to me because of minor differences in the surveys. (The USFS quadrangle shows elevation 2867; about 10 feet more than recent surveys.) However, I would judge from the shoreline development that the seasonal average in lake level must have been in the neighborhood of 2856 to 2857 feet, as measured by the most recent surveys.

Figure E.5.2-13 shows Packwood Lake in August 1937; the water level near the intake appears very similar to summer water elevations today. The minimum groundwater elevation during the Project lake drawdown for most of the wetland complex at the upper end of Packwood Lake may be similar to and probably not more than the groundwater level for pre-project conditions if the summer lake level fluctuation was in the range reported by Royce. The duration of the drawdown effect is limited to two to four weeks in September and October with the wetlands being quickly recharged with the onset of fall precipitation.

Figure E.5.2-13. Anglers at Packwood Lake near the Intake. (Photograph by Ray M. Fillon, August 29, 1937 [Courtesy of USDA Forest Service]).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-26 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

E.5.2.2.2 Water Quality Study

A 2-year water quality study was conducted in accordance with the FERC-approved water quality study plan (EES Consulting 2005n).

The goal of this study was to develop information to support the water quality certification that will be issued by the WDOE, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, for the operation of the Project under a new FERC license. This study documented the existing water quality conditions in Packwood Lake, Lake Creek and other waters affected by the Project. This study also investigated the effects of Project operation on water quality. Those parameters for which the WDOE has established numeric or narrative water quality standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC) were addressed in this study. The determination of compliance with some water quality standards requires an understanding of the natural conditions (as defined in Chapter 173-201 WAC) that would occur without the Project. Information on water quality within Project waters prior to the existence of the Project is very limited. Water quality modeling was completed to better understand water quality conditions in absence of the Project.

The objectives for the water quality study were:

• Document existing water quality conditions within the Project area, lake tributary inflows, and in the Cowlitz River (Lake Creek confluence to just below Project tailrace). • Document Project effects on existing water quality conditions with reference to WDOE water quality standards. • Model temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and nutrients for Packwood Lake, Lake Creek and the tailrace to characterize water quality for these waters in absence of the Project. • Determine Project effects relative to WDOE antidegradation policy and determine Cowlitz River assimilative capacity. • Collect, analyze, and archive data in a manner that will support the identification of long-term water quality monitoring needs, if appropriate, and will ensure compatibility of data to the greatest extent feasible.

A 2-year water quality monitoring study was conducted for waters of the Project. Samples were collected monthly at all sampling sites within Packwood Lake and its tributaries from April 2004 through October 2004 for the first year. Sampling extended from April 2004 through March 2005 for the other sites that remained accessible during the winter. Sampling in the second year extended from April 2005 through March 2006 with the lake and lake tributary sites only being sampled for the period April through October. Two sampling events occurred in August 2005 for sample sites within Packwood Lake and its tributaries, as well as Lake Creek just downstream of Packwood Lake.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-27 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Continuous recording Optic tidbitTM thermographs were deployed at the locations listed in Table E.5.2-8. Thermographs recorded hourly temperature. Riverine thermographs were deployed in close proximity to the channel bed at a position that minimizes potential for dewatering. Thermographs deployed downstream of tributary confluences were located at a point where complete mixing occurs. Lake thermographs were deployed at the same positions where other water quality data were being collected; two stations in the lake included one at the approximate deepest area (PLA) and one near the lake outlet (PLB). At both lake sites, multiple thermographs were deployed on a buoy line at vertical positions 2 m below the surface and 1 m from the bottom. For the thermograph buoy line at approximately the deepest point in the lake, a third thermograph was positioned at 9 m depth; this depth corresponds to the highest Secchi depth reported by Ecology (1991) for Packwood Lake.

Methods, including quality control, are fully described in EES Consulting (2005n). Four reports were issued that describe the study results (EES Consulting 2005a, 2006a, 2007b, 2007m). Table E.5.2-8 provides a list of water quality parameters sampled at each site. Table E.5.2-9 lists the site acronyms and their description.

Table E.5.2-10 shows monthly maximum, minimum and mean temperature statistics. Table E.5.2-11 and Table E.5.2-12 list the annual highest 7-day average of the maximum daily temperatures (7-DADMax) for each site for 2004 and 2005, respectively.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-28 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-8. Water Quality Parameters, Sampling Sites and Sampling L C D S P P C C O C M U L 1 L O O R R S S S R U L P P P C 5 C W W T U G N N M M M M L L L D 0 M T T S L W U M Number of Sampling Parameter H H H H A B C S 0 H 1 2 C C 1 P H Sites Sampling Frequency Chemical: Total Phosphorus (TP) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 13 Monthly1 Ortho-phosphorus ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 13 Monthly1 + NH4 -N ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 13 Monthly1 TKN ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 13 Monthly1 - - 1 NO2 N + NO3 N ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 13 Monthly Total Alkalinity ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 13 Monthly1 pH ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 13 Monthly1 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 13 Monthly1 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 13 Quarterly DO (water column) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 13 Monthly1 Total Dissolved Gasses ● 1 Monthly and Continuous3 Silica (Lake only) ● ● ● 3 Monthly1 Conductivity ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 13 Monthly1 Specific Conductance ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 13 Monthly1 Hardness ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 13 Monthly1 Carbonate ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 13 Monthly1 Total Organic Carbon ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 13 Monthly1 Petroleum NWTPH-HCID ● ● 2 Monthly1 Fat, Oil, and Grease ● ● 2 Monthly1 Physical: Temperature ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 14 Continuous4 Turbidity ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 13 Monthly1 Secchi Transparency ● ● 2 Monthly1 (Packwood Lake only) Aesthetics2 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 12 Monthly1 Biological: Total Fecal Coliform ● 1 Monthly (June-Oct.) (Packwood Lake only)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-29 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-8. Water Quality Parameters, Sampling Sites and Sampling L C D S P P C C O C M U L 1 L O O R R S S S R U L P P P C 5 C W W T U G N N M M M M L L L D 0 M T T S L W U M Number of Sampling Parameter H H H H A B C S 0 H 1 2 C C 1 P H Sites Sampling Frequency Noxious/invasive Macrophytes and ● ● 2 One time emergent plants Chlorophyll a (phytoplankton) ● ● 2 Monthly (Apr-Oct.) (Packwood Lake only) Taxonomic (phytoplankton) ● ● 2 Monthly (Apr-Oct.) 1Monthly from April through October (2004 and 2005) for Packwood Lake and its tributaries (weather permitting); monthly April 2004 through March 2006 for all other sites. During August of each year, an additional sampling trip was scheduled for both sites within Packwood Lake and Lake Creek just downstream of the drop structure. 2Odors, fungi or other growths, sludge/deposits, discoloration, scum, oily slick, floating solids. 3 TDGP and other relevant parameters were monitored continuously in the tailrace for selected two week periods as well as being a parameter for monthly water quality sampling. 4 Temperature was monitored continuously from April 2004 through October (2004 and 2005) for Packwood Lake and April 2004 through March 2006 for all other sites including tributaries to Packwood Lake.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-30 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-9. Water Quality Sampling Sites LOCATION AND (SITE CODE) Tributaries to Packwood Lake Osprey Creek (OSMH) Crawford Creek (CRMH) Muller Creek (MUMH) Upper Lake Creek (ULMH) Packwood Lake at maximum depth (PLA) Packwood Lake near outlet (PLB) Packwood Lake littoral site (PLC) Lake Creek below diversion structure (LCDS) Lake Creek 1500 ft downstream of drop structure (LCDS-1500) Lake Creek near mouth (LCMH) Powerhouse tailrace upper end (POWT1) Powerhouse tailrace lower end (POWT2) Cowlitz River tailrace side channel (CRTSC) Cowlitz River upstream of Lake Creek (CRULC) Groundwater spring (if available) Groundwater runoff from tunnel 1 (GW1) Snyder Creek upstream of ancillary water inflow (SNUP) Snyder Creek at confluence with Hall Cr (SNMH)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-31 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-10. Monthly Average of Daily Maximum, Mean & Minimum Water Temperatures (°C) May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 Site Code Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min OSMH 5.15 4.67 4.30 7.26 6.60 6.06 10.02 9.23 8.56 10.07 9.55 9.06 MUMH 9.78 9.15 8.65 8.25 6.94 6.03 10.01 8.27 7.11 9.93 8.57 7.64 ULMH 8.48 6.61 5.31 9.53 8.04 6.88 8.31 7.78 7.40 CRMH 11.23 9.65 8.45 11.11* 9.62* 8.62* 13.47* 12.52* 11.62* (OB)PLA 4.78 4.62 4.54 4.74 4.71 4.69 5.39 5.25 5.12 (EP)PLA-02 11.22 10.66 10.04 12.75 11.63 10.71 16.64 15.76 14.86 18.44 18.40 17.63 (ME)PLA 8.22 7.61 7.02 8.69 8.23 7.82 10.42 9.44 8.73 14.37 13.80 13.26 (OB)PLB 6.78 6.54 6.36 6.95 6.81 6.70 8.08 7.71 7.41 (EP)PLB-02 10.74 9.98 8.76 12.28 11.02 9.76 18.02 16.48 14.88 18.99 18.29 17.12 LCDS 11.19 10.29 9.27 13.08 11.85 10.66 18.08 17.27 16.21 19.50 18.63 17.92 LCDS 1500 15.19 13.90 12.87 17.46 16.44 15.60 18.50 17.74 17.11 LCMH 9.12 8.41 7.79 10.76 9.81 8.97 13.19 12.24 11.36 13.44 12.74 12.09 POWT1 11.18 10.48 9.50 12.93 11.94 10.71 18.33 17.47 16.31 19.46 18.90 18.27 POWT2 11.42 10.63 9.58 13.21 12.10 10.80 18.63 17.64 16.36 19.80 19.07 18.39 CRTSC 15.61 14.54 13.10 18.86 17.82 16.58 20.27 19.19 18.26 CRULC 7.25 6.21 5.34 9.83 8.39 7.14 13.46 11.42 10.07 14.00 11.70 10.39 P1 14.85 12.31 10.55 20.15 16.31 13.38 20.34 18.31 16.67 17.41 16.68 16.08 SNUP 11.10 10.57 10.03 13.19 12.55 11.88 16.23 15.55 14.92 16.62 16.00 15.41 SNMH 11.17 10.61 10.05 13.28 12.58 11.86 16.27 15.54 14.88 16.64 15.95 15.32 * Partial month data

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-32 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-10. Monthly Average of Daily Maximum, Mean & Minimum Water Temperatures (°C) - continued September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 Site Code Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min OSMH 7.81 7.48 7.16 8.17 6.42 4.93 MUMH 8.26 7.41 6.80 7.22 6.58 6.08 ULMH 7.58 6.97 6.63 5.97 5.54 5.24 CRMH 10.45 9.33 8.51 (OB)PLA 5.32 5.25 5.17 5.32 5.32 5.30 (EP)PLA-02 13.11 12.74 12.39 10.85 10.56 10.35 (ME)PLA 11.32 11.12 10.88 10.45 10.24 10.06 (OB)PLB 8.72 8.38 8.11 (EP)PLB-02 14.45 13.96 13.42 LCDS 14.84 14.18 13.58 12.03 11.72 11.41 LCDS 1500 14.08 13.56 13.04 11.62 11.31 10.99 LCMH 10.78 10.38 10.15 8.78 8.42 8.04 6.48 6.08 5.70 POWT1 15.02 14.47 13.95 12.82 12.43 12.00 8.03 7.89 7.77 POWT2 CRTSC 15.40 14.67 13.96 11.14 9.48 8.19 7.63 7.42 7.23 CRULC P1 13.47 12.94 12.46 11.15 10.65 10.22 SNUP 13.26 12.76 12.25 10.86 10.35 9.79 7.60 7.29 6.92 SNMH 13.25 12.74 12.19 10.86 10.30 9.72 7.65 7.26 6.82

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-33 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-10. Monthly Average of Daily Maximum, Mean & Minimum Water Temperatures (oC) - continued December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 Site Code Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min OSMH 3.63 3.47 3.26 2.98 2.75 2.48 2.55 2.24 1.90 3.74 3.39 2.98 MUMH 4.11 3.77 3.45 3.88 3.42 2.98 3.99 3.16 2.56 5.31 4.30 3.53 ULMH 4.62 4.34 4.07 4.36 4.00 3.59 4.68 4.03 3.59 5.70 4.82 4.22 CRMH 2.99 2.48 2.00 2.33 1.99 1.67 1.82 1.24 0.73 3.67 2.96 2.22 (OB)PLA- (EP)PLA-02 (ME)PLA- (OB)PLB- (EP)PLB-02 LCDS 4.95 4.85 4.74 3.52 3.36 3.19 3.81 3.52 3.32 5.66 5.09 4.60 LCDS 1500 LCMH 5.83 5.53 5.25 5.08 4.65 4.27 4.43 4.04 3.67 6.21 5.70 5.14 POWT1 4.97 4.91 4.83 3.78 3.64 3.47 4.00 3.86 3.73 5.76 5.35 5.01 POWT2 5.23 5.13 5.05 3.86 3.67 3.48 4.34 3.89 3.61 6.07 5.51 5.05 CRTSC 5.37 5.07 4.86 4.47 4.02 3.60 5.43* 4.31* 3.71* 6.21* 5.19* 4.43* CRULC 5.06* 4.38* 3.87* SNUP 6.02 5.74 5.48 5.21 4.89 4.50 5.07 4.47 3.90 7.03 6.52 5.94 SNMH 6.14 5.82 5.51 5.25 4.90 4.51 5.12 4.51 3.92 7.18 6.58 5.95 * Partial month data

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-34 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-10. Monthly Average of Daily Maximum, Mean & Minimum Water Temperatures (oC) - continued April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 Site Code Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min

OSMH 3.94 3.56 3.22 6.31 5.84 5.43 7.13 6.58 6.17 9.24 8.52 7.95 MUMH 6.13 4.85 3.92 7.77 6.77 5.98 7.79 7.02 6.40 9.81 8.15 7.01 ULMH 5.61 4.77 4.21 6.23 5.44 4.87 6.90 6.16 5.60 9.01 7.67 6.68 CRMH 3.97 3.17 2.49 7.43 6.48 5.65 8.27 7.38 6.60 12.02 10.86 9.71 (OB)PLA 4.42* 4.38* 4.34* 4.43 4.43 4.43 4.55 4.55 4.55 4.70 4.62 4.59 (EP)PLA-02 8.99* 8.46* 8.03* 11.74 11.20 10.64 13.88 13.48 13.13 17.76 17.27 16.83 (ME)PLA 6.93* 6.39* 5.85* 8.42 7.97 7.48 10.64 10.14 9.66 13.51 13.07 12.59 (OB)PLB 5.39* 5.13* 4.99* 5.71 5.42 5.28 6.91 6.26 5.93 7.31 6.74 6.35 (EP)PLB-02 8.62* 7.81* 6.92* 10.98 10.13 9.24 13.17 12.42 11.46 18.86 16.18 15.13 LCDS 6.91 6.15 5.48 11.44 10.58 9.68 13.57 12.83 12.14 18.19 17.35 16.68 LCDS 1500 8.71* 7.85* 7.07* 10.70 9.96 9.26 12.67 11.97 11.43 17.17 16.33 15.73 LCMH 7.32 6.68 6.08 9.08 8.49 7.97 10.04 9.24 8.71 12.49 10.82 11.62 POWT1** 5.70 5.30 5.01 12.69* 11.85* 11.08* 13.47 12.92 12.25 19.03** 18.26** 17.39** POWT2** 7.21 6.52 5.92 11.69 10.86 9.97 13.84 13.09 12.27 18.93** 17.51** 16.17** CRTSC 7.57 6.28 5.41 10.59 9.44 8.51 13.26 11.67 10.44 17.07 14.63 12.53 CRULC 6.33 5.48 4.74 8.84 7.93 7.15 11.06 9.73 8.79 14.02 11.76 10.26 SNUP 7.21* 6.64* 6.09* SNMH 8.45 7.80 7.20 11.35 10.80 10.26 12.25 11.74 11.27 15.35 14.54 13.80 *Partial month data **Period of record includes dates when the Project was shut down for one or more days in July, August, September and all of October

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-35 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-10. Monthly Average of Daily Maximum, Mean & Minimum Water Temperatures (oC) - continued August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 Site Code Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min

OSMH 9.55 8.98 8.45 7.71* 7.36* 7.01* MUMH 9.81 8.27 7.20 8.32* 7.27* 6.54* ULMH 9.19 7.60 6.81 8.32 7.17 6.46 7.23* 6.67* 6.28* CRMH 12.89 11.70 10.53 9.68 8.29 6.97 7.66* 6.98* 6.37* (OB)PLA 4.75 4.75 4.74 4.77 4.75 4.75 4.84* 4.82* 4.81* (EP)PLA- Thermologger 16.40 16.13 15.9012.48* 12.27* 12.09* 02 Malfunction (ME)PLA 16.75 16.30 15.77 16.04 15.89 15.74 12.29* 12.17* 12.17* (OB)PLB 8.47 7.97 7.58 9.15 8.73 8.40 9.66* 9.44* 9.21* (EP)PLB- Thermologger 15.89 15.66 15.36 12.23 12.14 12.08 02 Malfunction LCDS 20.30 19.50 18.92 16.23 15.73 15.37 12.28 12.02 11.80 LCDS 1500 18.95 18.29 17.68 15.32 14.84 14.36 11.74* 11.48* 11.24* LCMH 12.84 11.41 12.13 POWT1** 20.95 20.24 19.51 16.80 16.35 15.94 13.59 12.84 12.10 7.66 7.58 7.38 POWT2** 20.42 19.06 17.65 16.13 14.94 13.75 11.51 9.92 8.25 7.40 7.23 7.06 CRTSC 17.46 14.95 12.86 14.84 13.16 11.54 6.78 6.71 6.65 CRULC 13.27 11.50 10.26 10.22 9.84 9.51 8.76 8.22 7.78 5.82* 5.40* 4.97* SNUP SNMH 16.47 15.52 14.55 13.16 12.34 11.40 10.61 10.11 9.59 8.07 7.75 7.50 *Partial month data **Period of record includes dates when the Project was shut down for one or more days in July, August, September and all of October

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-36 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-10. Monthly Average of Daily Maximum, Mean & Minimum Water Temperatures (oC) - continued December 2005 January 2006 Site Code Max Mean Min Max Mean Min OSMH MUMH ULMH CRMH (OB)PLA (EP)PLA-02 (ME)PLA (OB)PLB (EP)PLB-02 LCDS LCDS 1500 LCMH POWT1 4.24 4.14 4.03 3.44* 3.32* 3.18* POWT2 3.94 3.80 3.66 2.80* 2.66* 2.50* CRTSC 4.47 4.36 4.25 4.28 4.03 3.77 CRULC SNUP SNMH * Partial month data

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-37 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-11. Packwood Project Water Temperature Summary, 2004 Hottest 7 Days 7-DADMax Maximum Hourly No. Days Exceeding Monitoring Site (Range) (°C) Temperature 16°C OSMH1 7/23-7/29 11.19 11.94 0 MUMH 7/22-7/28 10.69 11.00 0 ULMH 7/22-7/28 9.78 10.36 0 CRMH 8/13-8/19 15.56 15.86 0 (OB)PLA 8/16-8/22 5.65 5.79 NA (EP)PLA-02 8/16-8/22 21.04 23.65 NA (ME)PLA 8/19-8/25 14.71 14.91 NA (OB)PLB 9/21-9/27 9.16 10.88 NA (EP)PLB-02 8/16-8/22 20.45 20.74 NA LCDS 8/15-8/21 20.95 21.42 73 LCDS 1500 8/15-8/21 19.82 20.12 53 LCMH 8/11-8/17 14.36 14.78 0 POWT1 8/14-8/20 20.67 21.07 74 POWT2 8/15-8/21 21.25 21.51 79 CRTSC 8/15-8/21 21.91 22.38 80 CRULC 7/29-8/4 14.90 15.33 0 P1 7/12-7/18 20.99 22.27 89 SNUP 8/11-8/17 18.02 18.30 38 SNMH 8/11-8/17 17.99 18.34 39 1Thermograph nearly out of water

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-38 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-12. Packwood Project Water Temperature Summary, 2005 Hottest 7 Days Maximum Hourly No. Days Monitoring Site (Range) 7-DADMax (°C) Temperature Exceeding 16°C OSMH1 7/26-8/1 10.15 10.39 0 MUMH 7/25-7/31 10.55 10.69 0 ULMH 8/4-8/10 9.53 10.20 0 CRMH 7/13-7/19 12.56 14.43 0 (OB)PLA 10/19-10/25 4.91 4.91 0 (EP)PLA-02 7/14-7/20 18.63 19.31 35 (ME)PLA 9/1-9/7 17.89 18.30 40 (OB)PLB 9/13-9/19 9.91 10.13 0 (EP)PLB-02 7/13-7/19 17.68 17.37 38 LCDS 8/15-8/21 20.81 21.42 77 LCDS 1500 8/9-8/15 19.46 20.03 62 LCMH 7/30 -8/05 13.51 13.74 0 POWT12 8/4-8/10 21.82 24.28 81 POWT22 8/4-8/10 20.83 21.34 82 CRTSC 7/25-7/31 18.41 19.16 0 CRULC 7/25-7/31 15.10 15.92 0 SNMH 8/4-8/10 16.98 17.86 36 1 Thermograph nearly out of water 2 Project was shutdown with no water flowing out of powerhouse on August 6-7

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-39 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Packwood Lake Packwood Lake was unstratified at the onset of sampling in April for both 2004 and 2005 although a thermocline existed. Surface waters of the lake continued to warm as the season progressed. The criterion for stratification was, at most, marginally met during summer months. Stratification is defined by Horne and Goldman (1994) as a temperature change in the region of the thermocline (metalimnion) greater than 1.0oC per 1.0 m depth. Temperature profile data indicates slight stratification in Packwood Lake during the summer. The thermocline initiated at the surface without a distinctive epilimnetic layer; i.e., a vertical temperature gradient existed but an upper layer of water with a homogeneous temperature (epilimnion) was not apparent. Figure E.5.2-14 shows the seasonal change in water temperature profiles for Packwood Lake at site A (deepest portion of lake) for 2005; a similar seasonal trend was observed in 2004. In 2005, the lake was weakly stratified from late June through September with the depth of the thermocline extending down to 12 m in the summer. The epilimnion and thermocline deepened with the initiation of the drawdown. The epilimnion extended down 6 m on September 21, 2005, which contrasted with a 2 m epilimnion in August. Surface temperatures continued to cool in October. During the fall drawdown, Packwood Lake was homothermous for the upper 11 m with a temperature of 11oC. The tributary inflow to the lake is cold relative to surface waters; the inflow’s density would place it at an intermediate depth.

Temperature (C) 0 2 4 6 8 101214161820 0

5

10

m 15

Depth ( Depth 20

25

30

35 4/20/2005 5/25/2005 6/23/2005 7/19/2005 8/3/2005 8/31/2005 9/21/2005 10/26/2005

Figure E.5.2-14. Vertical Temperature Profiles for Packwood Lake Site A (deepest area of lake)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-40 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-13 (2004 data) and Table E.5.2-14 (2005 data) list the monthly temperature statistics for Packwood Lake. Near surface temperatures were significantly cooler near the intake canal (Site B) than at the middle of the lake (Site A).

Table E.5.2-13. Monthly Temperatures for Packwood Lake, 2004 May June July Site Code Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min (OB)PLA Not available 4.78 4.62 4.54 4.74 4.71 4.69 (EP)PLA-02 11.22 10.66 10.04 12.75 11.63 10.71 16.641 15.761 14.861 (ME)PLA-09 8.22 7.61 7.02 8.69 8.23 7.82 10.42 9.44 8.73 (OB)PLB 5.95 5.78 5.67 6.78 6.54 6.36 6.95 6.81 6.70 (EP)PLB-02 10.74 9.98 8.76 12.28 11.02 9.76 18.02 16.48 14.88 August September October Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min 2 2 2 (OB)PLA 5.31 5.16 4.99 5.32 5.25 5.17 5.32 5.32 5.30 (EP)PLA-02 18.441 18.001 17.631 13.11 12.74 12.39 10.85 10.56 10.35 (ME)PLA-09 14.39 13.76 13.17 11.32 11.12 10.88 10.45 10.24 10.06 (OB)PLB 8.08 7.71 7.41 8.72 8.38 8.11 Not available (EP)PLB-02 18.99 18.29 17.12 14.45 13.96 13.42 Not available 1Partial data; missing data for 7/13/04 through 8/10/04 2 Partial data: missing data for 9/5/04 through 9/29/04

Table E.5.2-14. Monthly Temperatures for Packwood Lake, 2005 April May June July Site Code Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min (OB)PLA 4.42* 4.43 4.43 4.43 4.55 4.55 4.54 4.70 4.62 4.59 (EP)PLA-02 8.89* 8.46* 8.03* 11.74 11.20 10.6 13.88 13.48 13.13 17.76 17.27 16.8 4 3 (ME)PLA-09 6.93* 6.39* 5.85* 8.42 7.97 7.48 10.64 10.14 9.66 13.51 13.07 12.5 9 (OB)PLB 5.39* 5.13* 4.99* 5.71 5.42 5.28 6.91* 6.26* 5.93* 7.31 6.74 6.35 (EP)PLB-02 8.62* 7.81* 6.92* 10.98 10.13 9.24 13.17 12.42 11.46 16.86 16.18 15.1 3 August September October Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min (OB)PLA 4.75 4.75 4.74 4.77 4.75 4.75 4.84* 4.82* 4.81* (EP)PLA-02 Thermologger 16.40 16.13 15.90 12.5* 12.3* 12.1* Malfunction (ME)PLA-09 16.75 16.30 15.77 16.04 15.89 15.74 12.29 12.17 12.03 (OB)PLB 8.47 7.97 7.58 9.15 8.73 8.40 9.66* 9.44* 9.21* (EP)PLB-02 Thermologger 15.89 15.66 15.36 12.2* 12.1* 12.1* Malfunction * Partial record for month

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-41 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Mean values for additional water quality parameters are reported in Table E.5.2-15 (2004 results) and Table E.5.2-16 (2005 results) for the lake sampling locations. Water transparency as measured by Secchi depths was primarily a function of runoff and suspended sediment load in Upper Lake Creek. Water transparency showed an increasing trend throughout the spring and summer with the exception of a minor decline in late August 2005 due to increased runoff from Upper Lake Creek associated with a rainstorm (Figure E.5.2-15). Transparency declined in October. The maximum transparency occurred in late September 2005 (12.0 m) and the minimum Secchi depth (3.48 m) was recorded in April 2005. Transparency was 50% greater in summer 2005 than in summer 2004. Transparency in August 2005 exceeded the bottom depth at the sample site nearest the lake outlet. The trend in Secchi depths was similar at both monitoring locations (Table E.5.2-17) with minor differences likely attributed to travel time for a parcel of water to traverse the lake. Total dissolved solids were slightly higher in 2005 than the previous year.

Table E.5.2-15. Mean Annual Values for Water Quality Parameters for Packwood Lake 2004 Alkalinity, Secchi Sp. Bicarbonate Total Disk Depth Conductance as CaCO3 Alkalinity Hardness pH (m) (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) PLA(PH) 3 7.5 3.6 0.0372 24 23 21.9 PLA(EP) 4 20 20.0 PLA(ME) 7.3 0.0293 22 25 21.3 PLA(OB) 6.9 0.0444 27 29 24.5 PLB(PH) 3 7.5 3.6 0.0382 25 33 22.2 PLB(EP) 4 7.2 0.0209 22 21.5 PLB(OB) 7.1 0.0397 25 24 22.9 Annual 7.25 Spring 7.33 0.0501 25 25 22.6 Summer 7.44 0.0324 24 24 21.9 Fall 7.13 0.0318 25 25 23.7 TSI Total Dissolved Total Nitrate + Silica (TDS) Suspended Ammonia as Nitrite as Nitrite as N (mg/L) (mg/L) (TSS) (mg/L) N (mg/L) N (mg/L)1 (mg/L) 1 PLA(PH)3 5.86 40.13 1.46 0.021 0.015 0.013 PLA(EP) 4 5.25 36.50 0.70 0.020 0.015 0.010 PLA(ME) 5.87 39.67 3.13 0.023 0.015 0.010 PLA(OB) 6.02 44.13 2.36 0.023 0.015 0.058 PLB(PH) 3 5.77 39.33 4.72 0.022 0.015 0.011 PLB(EP) 5.35 38.50 0.55 0.016 0.015 0.013 PLB(OB) 6.05 42.13 3.89 0.023 0.015 0.022 Annual Spring 5.17 43.09 1.39 0.020 0.015 0.023 Summer 5.94 39.35 3.84 0.023 0.015 0.018 Fall 6.56 41.44 2.37 0.021 0.015 0.033 TSI

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-42 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-15 (cont.). Mean annual values for water quality parameters for Packwood Lake 2004 Total Total Kjeldahl Organic Phosphate, Nitrogen Carbon Ortho as P Phosphorus, (TKN) (TOC) (mg/L) 1 Total (mg/L) 2 (mg/L) 2 (mg/L) TN:TP2 TIN:TIP1,2 PLA(PH) 0.020 0.022 0.238 0.89 202.9 26.0 PLA(EP) 0.050 0.053 0.050 0.90 1.5 0.9 PLA(ME) 5 0.035 0.036 0.050 0.75 26.0 18.9 PLA(OB) 6 0.019 0.021 0.188 0.84 192.7 72.4 PLB(PH) 0.019 0.008 0.317 0.95 228.2 27.4 PLB(EP) 0.021 0.022 0.050 0.75 40.9 23.2 PLB(OB) 0.019 0.020 0.169 0.85 138.9 37.5 Annual 0.022 0.022 160.6 36.2 Spring 0.016 0.015 0.200 0.85 116.0 32.5 Summer 0.018 0.037 0.053 0.91 28.6 20.3 Fall 0.001 0.001 0.433 0.80 526.8 74.7 TSI 54.87 Spring = April – June Summer = July – August Fall = September – October 1 For samples that the orthophosphorus level was below detection limit, a value of 0.95 * total phosphorus was used as an estimate of orthophosphorus. 2 For purposes of calculating a mean, non-detects were assigned a value of 0.5*detection limit. 3 The photic zone (PH) sample was collected by an integrated hose sampler that represents the water column from the surface to twice the photic depth or a maximum of 5 m, whichever is the lesser. 4 Epilimnion (EP) samples were collected from a depth of 1-2 m for the July and August sample trips only. 5 Metalimnion (ME) samples were only collected from site A for July and August. Samples were collected at a depth of approximately 4 m and as deep as 10 m dependent upon the temperature profile. 6 Off bottom (OB) samples were collected from 1 m off the lake bed at sample site.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-43 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-16. Mean Annual Values for Water Quality Parameters for Packwood Lake 2005 Alkalinity, Secchi Specific Bicarbonate Total Disk Conductance as CaCO3 Alkalinity Hardness pH Depth (m) (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) PLA(PH) 3 7.64 7.2 0.0344 25 25 23 PLA(EP) 4 23 23 23 PLA(ME) 25 25 22 PLA(OB) 6.95 0.0399 26 26 24 PLB(PH) 3 7.64 7.2 0.0158 25 25 23 PLB(EP) 4 7.83 0.0501 22 22 20 PLB(OB) 7.46 0.0367 26 26 24 Annual 7.33 7.2 0.0371 25 25 23 Spring 7.42 5.0 0.0236 25 25 Summer 7.32 10.2 0.0430 25 25 Fall 7.02 6.1 0.0402 27 27 TSI Total Dissolved Total Silica (TDS) Suspended Ammonia as Nitrite as Nitrate as (mg/L) (mg/L) (TSS) (mg/L) N (mg/L) N (mg/L)2 N (mg/L) 2 PLA(PH)3 6.19 43.50 0.99 0.021 0.015 0.010 PLA(EP) 4 5.80 46.50 0.75 0.028 0.015 0.010 PLA(ME) 5.78 43.00 0.75 0.025 0.015 0.010 PLA(OB) 6.46 45.50 1.20 0.022 0.015 0.049 PLB(PH) 3 6.30 46.33 1.35 0.020 0.015 0.010 PLB(EP) 5.60 46.00 0.60 0.041 0.015 0.010 PLB(OB) 6.11 40.38 1.13 0.021 0.015 0.010 Annual 6.17 43.89 1.07 0.022 0.015 0.018 Spring 6.40 43.00 1.28 0.019 0.015 0.014 Summer 5.86 45.94 0.63 0.025 0.015 0.017 Fall 6.97 44.00 1.86 0.020 0.015 0.024 TSI

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-44 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-16. Mean Annual Values for Water Quality Parameters for Packwood Lake 2005 (cont’d) Total Total Kjeldahl Organic Phosphate, Phosphorus, Nitrogen Carbon Ortho as P Total (mg/L) (TKN) (TOC) (mg/L) 1 2 (mg/L) 2 (mg/L) TN:TP2 TIN:TIP1,2 PLA(PH) 0.022 0.023 0.319 1.00 248.0 32.3 PLA(EP) 0.001 0.001 0.175 0.43 200.0 55.3 PLA(ME) 5 0.023 0.024 0.190 0.96 102.6 33.1 PLA(OB) 6 0.023 0.024 0.100 0.81 117.9 61.6 PLB(PH) 0.025 0.026 0.208 0.68 115.4 28.9 PLB(EP) 0.001 0.001 0.300 0.46 325.0 69.5 PLB(OB) 0.024 0.025 0.243 0.98 154.1 29.3 Annual 0.021 0.023 0.214 0.85 160.6 39.5 Spring 0.042 0.044 0.071 1.15 16.0 26.5 Summer 0.015 0.016 0.197 0.51 158.2 43.3 Fall 0.029 0.030 0.400 0.88 273.4 35.9 TSI 54.780 Spring = April – June Summer = July – August Fall = September – October 1 For samples that the orthophosphorus level was below detection limit, a value of 0.95 * total phosphorus was used as an estimate of orthophosphorus. 2 For purposes of calculating a mean, non-detects were assigned a value of 0.5*detection limit 3 The photic zone (PH) sample was collected by an integrated hose sampler that represents the water column from the surface to twice the photic depth or a maximum of 5 m, whichever is the lesser. 4 Epilimnion (EP) samples were collected from a depth of 1-2 m for the July and August sample trips only. 5 Metalimnion (ME) samples were only collected from site A for June and August. Samples were collected at a depth of approximately 4 m and as deep as 10 m dependent upon the temperature profile. 6 Off bottom (OB) samples were collected from 1 m off the lake bed at sample site.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-45 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00 Secchi depth (m) depth Secchi 2.00

0.00

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - -0 - - - - -0 - - - l - - r t r r y n v c n b u g p a c a p a u o e a e J u e M A J O J F M M A S N D PLA(PH) PLB(PH)

Figure E.5.2-15. Secchi Depth (m) for Packwood Lake 2005 (Secchi depth exceeded bottom depth in August).

Table E.5.2-17. Monthly Data for Secchi Depth (m) for Packwood Lake Aug 05 Aug 05 Apr 05 May 05 Jun 05 Jul 05 early late Sep 05 Oct 05 PLA(PH) 3.48 3.5 5.25 8.25 11.25 9.3 12 4.4 Photic Sample Depth (m) 1 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 PLB(PH) 4.1 5.5 8.25 11.2 8.9 992 4.4 3.5 Photic Sample Depth (m) 1 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 1(PH) = photic zone, which is twice Secchi depth or 5 m; whichever is less 2 Exceeded bottom depth

Dissolved oxygen (D.O.) at lower depths in the lake was gradually depleted but remained well above anoxic conditions. Surface D.O. in 2005 ranged from 8.3 mg/L to 10.6 mg/L while D.O. in the deepest region of the lake ranged from a measured high of 9.1 mg/L in April 2005 to a low of 4.93 mg/L in September 2005. During summer months, maximum D.O. levels occurred at a depth of approximately 9 m to 10 m. These trends are nearly identical to patterns observed in 2004. The cooler water at this depth is capable of holding more dissolved oxygen without depletion occurring due to respiration. Primary productivity may also contribute to this D.O. bulge.

The pH showed relatively little spatial or temporal variation within Packwood Lake. The lake pH is neutral (annual mean pH 7.3). Alkalinity is a measure of a water body’s buffering capacity to resist change in pH. Packwood Lake has a moderately low alkalinity so it is potentially sensitive to events that could alter its pH.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-46 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Lake nutrients varied temporally, but there were minimal vertical and horizontal differences in nutrient levels as measured at the two lake monitoring sites. Ammonia levels were at the lower range of detectable laboratory limits for all months. Nitrites were consistently below detection levels for all sampling points and nitrates were below minimum detection limits for approximately 78% of the lake samples. The majority of nitrogen occurred as organic nitrogen, which is a portion of Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and therefore was not available for immediate biological uptake. TKN levels were higher in 2005 than in 2004; a similar trend was observed in lake tributaries. Inorganic nitrogen (nitrite-nitrate + ammonia) accounted for 48 percent, on average, of total nitrogen levels.

Trophic Status Index (TSI) developed by Carlson (1977) and Carlson and Simpson (1996), and modified for nitrogen by Kratzer and Brezonik (1981) revealed that Packwood Lake is generally classified as mesotrophic (moderate primary productive). Carlson and Simpson (1996) suggest that the TSI for Chlorophyll a be the primary determinant of trophic status with the other TSI values qualifying the index status. Application of Carlson’s (1977) trophic index is problematic for Packwood Lake because the inflow includes glacial meltwater, which elevates turbidity and the total phosphorus load during periods of snowmelt. Ecology (1991) previously characterized the lake as oligotrophic based on Secchi disk transparency and epilimnetic concentrations of total phosphorus and chlorophyll a. Although the TSI (total phosphorus) would classify the lake as eutrophic, the biologically available phosphorus is below detection levels. Therefore, the trophic status is better viewed as mesotrophic. Table E.5.2-18 lists TSI scores for Packwood Lake based on 2005 water quality data. Most of the chlorophyll a samples had TSI scores in the oligo-mesotrophic range, which best characterizes the lake’s productivity. The TSI score for TP was similar for 2004 and 2005. Other TSI scores were slightly lower in 2005; however, trophic classification was the same for both years for all parameters except Secchi depth, which was classified as oligotrophic in 2005 compared to mesotrophic in 2004.

Table E.5.2-18. Trophic State Indices (TSI) for Packwood Lake TSI Secchi TSI TP TSI TN TSI Chlorophyll a Trophic Oligotrophic Eutrophic Mesotrophic Mesotrophic Status TSI TSI= TSI= TSI= TSI= Formula 60-14.41*ln(SD) 14.42*ln(TP)+4.15 54.45+14.43ln(TN) 9.81*ln(Chl)+30.6 TSI Score 2004 41.7 54.5 50.3 41.8 TSI Score 2005 28.4 54.8 34.24 31.71

TN:TP ratios, the ratio of total nitrogen to total phosphorus by mass, are an indicator of nutrient conditions that define factors potentially limiting lake productivity. Lower TN:TP ratios indicate possible nitrogen limitation relative to available phosphorus. Current literature suggests that nitrogen limitation in terms of TN:TP ratios varies, but generally TN:TP ratios less than 10:1 can indicate nitrogen limitation (Horne and Goldman 1994). Smith (1983) found that non-nitrogen fixing algae tended to be dominant at TN:TP ratios that were greater than 29:1. Hillebrand and Sommer (1999) found nitrogen to be limiting at ratios less than 13:1 along with Downing and McCauley (1992) who

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-47 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality determined nitrogen-fixing algae were favored at TN:TP ratios of 14:1. Barica (1990) determined that spring-minima TN:TP ratios of 6:1 or less were the best indicator of nitrogen limitation despite seasonal TN:TP means as high as 20:1 and 30:1. In comparison, the annual mean TN:TP ratio in Packwood Lake was 248 for the photic zone and 160.6 for samples from all depths (Table E.5.2-19). Annual average TN:TP ratios were identical for 2004 and 2005. There was greater variability for TN:TP scores in 2005 than the previous year and TN: TP scores were higher in summer 2005 relative to 2004. These values indicate phosphorus is limiting relative to the availability of nitrogen. The TN:TP ratios for August; however, are less than or equal to 8.0, which is indicative of a nitrogen limitation. The trend suggests that phosphorus is limiting most of the year but primary productivity during the summer exhausts nitrogen supplies. The seasonal trend was similar in 2004 although TN was exhausted earlier in 2005.

Table E.5.2-19. Annual and Seasonal Mean TN:TP Ratios (Ratios listed are inclusive of all sampling depths, where applicable) Annual Seasonal Mean Mean Spring Summer Fall 2004 Packwood Lake 160.6 116 28.6 526.6 Osprey Creek 104.3 121.3 24.8 198 Muller Creek 60.8 25.4 1.5 155.5 Upper Lake Creek 80.5 19.9 1.6 114 Crawford Creek 111.9 121.6 1.38 157.5

2005 Packwood Lake 160.6 16.0 158.2 273.4 Osprey Creek 263.8 104.0 138.9 611.0 Muller Creek 277.9 348.4 42.8 772.0 Upper Lake Creek 248.2 48.4 190.2 534.8 Crawford Creek 260.2 40.5 205.6 561.6

Biologically available nutrients are low for Packwood Lake. The majority of nitrogen in Packwood Lake occurred as organic nitrogen, which is TKN less ammonia; organic nitrogen is not available for immediate biological uptake. Inorganic nitrogen (nitrite- nitrate + ammonia) was 4 – 63 percent of total nitrogen levels. Available phosphorus (measured as ortho-phosphorus) was below detection limits for all lake samples.

The TIN:TIP ratios were analyzed (where TIN = sum of all inorganic nitrogen: ammonia+nitrite+nitrate and TIP = ortho-phosphorus), resulting in lower nitrogen to phosphorus ratios, with an annual mean of 39.5 (Table E.5.2-20). Although Barica (1990) determined that inorganic nitrogen to phosphorus ratios tended to fluctuate more widely than TN:TP ratios between sampling periods in hypereutrophic and eutrophic lakes, Packwood Lake TIN:TIP ratios tended to be more stable between sampling periods and were lower than TN:TP ratios. The TIN:TIP ratios also support a conclusion that phosphorus is limiting primary productivity relative to nitrogen availability.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-48 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-20. Annual and Seasonal Mean TIN:TIP Ratios (Ratios listed are inclusive of all sampling depths, where applicable) Annual Seasonal Mean Mean Spring Summer Fall 2004 Packwood Lake 36.2 32.5 20.3 74.7 Osprey Creek 13.2 11.5 7.7 24.2 Muller Creek 30.5 5.8 0.8 84.7 Upper Lake Creek 28 2.4 0.8 67.4 Crawford Creek 41.4 16.4 0.3 86.8 2005 Packwood Lake 39.5 26.5 43.3 35.9 Osprey Creek 12.7 16.1 11.3 11.4 Muller Creek 43.6 50.2 26.3 75.8 Upper Lake Creek 34.6 24.3 40.3 36.3 Crawford Creek 17.0 16.0 21.3 11.8

Silica is necessary for diatom growth. Silica levels in Packwood Lake remained fairly constant throughout the growing season. Total dissolved solids (TDS) are a measure of the concentration of dissolved material in the water. Major cations contributing to TDS include calcium, magnesium, sodium, chlorides, carbonates, iron and manganese. Other trace materials are also dissolved in water. Total suspended solids (TSS) were often below the detection limit but within a range that a reasonable measurement could still be reported by the laboratory. Fecal coliform levels were very low throughout the sample period for Packwood Lake with less than 1 colony/100 mL sample. The highest fecal coliform count was sampled on September 1, 2004 following a storm event; the fecal coliform count averaged 27 colonies per 100 mL sample, which is still well below the compliance criteria.

The phytoplankton species community and total phytoplankton biomass are characteristic of an oligotrophic (low primary productivity) lake (Wetzel 1983). Diatoms (bacilliophyta) dominated the algae community throughout the growing season. Phytoplankton biomass and density within the photic zone both peaked in May 2005 (earlier than in 2004) at approximately 34,473 μm/mL and 590 units/mL, respectively. This peak was far smaller than the peak in 2004. Phytoplankton was at season minimum in late August 2005; biomass was 3,820 μm/mL and density was 73 units/mL. The time and magnitude of the minimum phytoplankton biomass were similar for both years. No cyanophyta were documented in 2005. Phytoplankton biomass and density had a secondary peak in August that is primarily attributed to Chlorophyta. Figures E.5.2-16 through E.5.2-19 show the seasonal trends in phytoplankton stratified by phyla as characterized for 2005.

A multiple regression analysis did not show any significant relationships between photic zone Chlorophyll a (dependent variable) and other water quality parameters including Secchi depth, Silica, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus. The lack of relationship suggests that different factors may regulate algae growth at different times during the year. Chlorophyll a seasonal trends for 2005 are shown in Figure E.5.2-20.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-49 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Phytoplankton Composition by Density (#/mL) at Packwood Lake Site A Photic Zone

3,000

2,750

2,500

2,250

2,000

1,750

1,500

1,250 Density (#/mL) Density

1,000

750

500

250

0 April May June July Aug Aug(2) September Date Bacilliophyta Chlorophyta Chrysophyta Cryptophyta Cyanophyta Dinophyta Figure E.5.2-16. Phytoplankton Composition Density for Packwood Lake Photic Zone Site A 2005

Phytoplankton Composition by Biovolume (um3/mL) at Packwood Lake Site A Photic Zone

100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000 Biovolume (um3/mL) Biovolume 30,000

20,000

10,000

0 April May June July Aug Aug(2) September Date

Bacilliophyta Chlorophyta Chrysophyta Cryptophyta Cyanophyta Dinophyta Figure E.5.2-17. Phytoplankton Composition Biovolume for Packwood Lake Photic Zone Site A 2005

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-50 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Phytoplankton Composition by Density (#/mL) at Packwood Lake Site B Photic Zone

3,000

2,750

2,500

2,250

2,000

1,750

1,500

1,250 Density (#/mL) Density

1,000

750

500

250

0 April May July August August (2) September Date Bacilliophyta Chlorophyta Chrysophyta Cryptophyta Cyanophyta Dinophyta Figure E.5.2-18. Phytoplankton Composition Density for Packwood Lake Photic Zone Site B 2005

Phytoplankton Composition by Biovolume (um3/mL) at Packwood Lake Site B Photic Zone

100,000

90,000 80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000 Biovolume (um3/mL) 30,000

20,000

10,000

0 April May July August August (2) September Date

Bacilliophyta Chlorophyta Chrysophyta Cryptophyta Cyanophyta Dinophyta

Figure E.5.2-19. Phytoplankton Composition Biovolume for Packwood Lake Photic Zone Site B 2005

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-51 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5 Chlorophyll a (ug/L) Chlorophyll a 1.0

0.5

-

5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - r l- y n g p u u u e J Ap J Ma A S

PLA(PH) PLB(PH)

Figure E.5.2-20. Chlorophyll a for Packwood Lake

Tributaries to Packwood Lake Water quality was monitored at the mouths of four tributaries flowing into Packwood Lake. The tributaries monitored include Osprey (OSMH), Muller (MUMH), Upper Lake (ULMH), and Crawford (CRMH) creeks. Upper Lake Creek is considerably larger than any of the other tributaries and provides the majority of inflow into Packwood Lake. Upper Lake Creek drains glaciers at its headwater so it carries a high suspended sediment load, causing high turbidity during the spring snowmelt and early summer. Discussion of the results for the groundwater monitoring site (GW1) is included in this section as groundwater inflow is a boundary condition when modeling water quality.

Mean annual values for measured water quality parameters for tributaries to Packwood Lake are reported in Table E.5.2-21 (first year results) and Table E.5.2-22 (second year results). All water quality standards were met in the four tributaries to Packwood Lake for all months sampled. The 7-DADMax values were below 16°C (2006 criterion) for all tributaries to Packwood Lake. The tributaries are characterized as cold water streams, low in nutrients. They are phosphorus limited relative to nitrogen as indicated by low TN:TP ratios. Nearly all of the nitrogen is in the organic form (TKN) and is not available for biological uptake. Inorganic nitrogen was at or below detection limits for all samples. Orthophosphorus and total phosphorus were below detection limits for the majority of

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-52 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality samples. Total phosphorus levels were slightly above detection limits in late August and September 2005 compared to an earlier timed peak in 2004 (July and early August).

Table E.5.2-21. Mean Annual Values for Water Quality Parameters for Tributaries to Packwood Lake, 2004 Alkalinity, Sp. Bicarbonate Total Turbidity Conductance as CaCO3 Alkalinity Hardness pH (NTU) (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Crawford 7.55 0.92 0.0262 21.8 21.8 17.6 Osprey 7.14 1.01 0.0108 18.0 18.0 8.7 Upper Lake 7.31 14.11 0.0290 22.4 22.4 21.8 Muller 7.22 2.50 0.0322 24.7 24.7 21.3 Total Total Dissolved Suspended Ammonia Nitrite as Nitrate + Silica Solids Solids as N (mg/L) N (mg/L) Nitrite as (mg/L) (TDS) (mg/L) (TSS) (mg/L) 2 2 N (mg/L) 2 Crawford 5.18 32.40 1.40 0.023 0.02 0.042 Osprey 11.81 42.25 1.56 0.020 0.02 0.021 Upper Lake 4.92 35.40 15.90 0.020 0.02 0.045 Muller 7.63 41.17 5.20 0.019 0.02 0.063 Total Total Kjeldahl Organic Phosphate, Phosphorus, Nitrogen Carbon Ortho as P Total (mg/L) (TKN) (TOC) (mg/L) 1 2 (mg/L) 2 (mg/L) TN:TP TIN:TIP Crawford 0.014 0.015 0.083 0.960 111.9 41.4 Osprey 0.022 0.023 0.125 1.117 104.3 13.2 Upper Lake 0.026 0.027 0.075 0.333 80.4 28.0 Muller 0.028 0.030 0.120 0.883 60.8 30.5 1 For samples that the orthophosphorus level was below detection limit, a value of 0.95 * total phosphorus was used as an estimate of orthophosphorus. 2 For purposes of calculating a mean, non-detects were assigned a value of 0.5*detection limit.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-53 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-22. Mean Annual Values for Water Quality Parameters for Tributaries to Packwood Lake, 2005-2006 Alkalinity, Specific Bicarbonate Total Turbidity Conductance as CaCO3 Alkalinity Hardness pH (NTU) (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Crawford 7.45 2.28 0.0348 25.3 25.3 Osprey 7.21 1.08 0.0244 18.0 18.0 Upper Lake 7.23 2.02 0.0422 26.7 26.7 Muller 7.18 2.01 0.0401 25.4 25.4 GW1 7.01 0.12 0.0253 18.6 18.6 Total Total Dissolved Suspended Silica Solids Solids Ammonia as Nitrite as Nitrate as (mg/L) (TDS) (mg/L) (TSS) (mg/L) N (mg/L) 2 N (mg/L) 2 N (mg/L) 2 Crawford 5.6 38.7 1.2 0.023 0.016 0.014 Osprey 13.3 50.7 1.9 0.022 0.016 0.013 Upper Lake 6.6 46.6 1.4 0.022 0.016 0.047 Muller 9.1 49.1 1.9 0.018 0.015 0.062 GW1 10.5 37.6 0.3 0.020 0.015 0.097 Total Kjeldahl Total Phosphate, Phosphorus, Nitrogen Organic Ortho as P Total (mg/L) (TKN) Carbon (mg/L) 1 2 (mg/L) 2 (TOC) (mg/L) TN:TP TIN:TIP Crawford 0.027 0.026 0.286 0.76 260.2 17.1 Osprey 0.028 0.018 0.279 2.00 263.8 12.7 Upper Lake 0.025 0.026 0.257 0.30 248.2 34.6 Muller 0.029 0.031 0.286 0.94 277.9 43.6 GW1 0.036 0.025 0.288 0.35 336.2 50.7 1 For samples that the orthophosphorus level was below detection limit, a value of 0.95 * total phosphorus was used as an estimate of orthophosphorus. 2 For purposes of calculating a mean, non-detects were assigned a value of 0.5*detection limit. Shaded values include non-detect data in average

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-54 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Lake Creek and Cowlitz River Upstream of Lake Creek Water quality was monitored at two locations downstream of Packwood Lake; station LCDS is immediately downstream of the drop structure and station LCMH is at the mouth of Lake Creek. Water quality was also monitored in the Cowlitz River just upstream of the confluence with Lake Creek. When no spill over the drop structure occurs, the flow in lower Lake Creek is from accretion except for the 3 to 5 cfs minimum flow release from Packwood Lake. Water quality downstream of the drop structure was not monitored during winter months due to access limitations.

Summer water temperatures decline in a downstream direction within Lake Creek. While the water temperature immediately downstream of the lake commonly exceeds the State water temperature criteria, the water temperature near the mouth never exceeded the criteria. The number of days in 2004 that the 7-DADMax water temperature criteria of 16°C was exceeded was 74, 54 and 0 days for LCDS, LCDS1500 and LCMH, respectively. The number of days in 2005 that the water temperature criterion of 16°C was exceeded is 74, 54 and 0 days for LCDS, LCDS1500 and LCMH, respectively.

Immediately downstream of the drop structure (LCDS), the water temperature is a function of the lake temperatures at the intake. For the period July through October, the average maximum daily water temperature declines 1°C within approximately 1,500 ft downstream of the drop structure. This decline is attributed to the water temperature responding to ambient conditions within the channel; riparian shade is high relative to the lake and some cold groundwater inflow is assumed. Figure E.5.2-21 shows the trend for the 7-DADMax for Lake Creek downstream of the drop structure.

Table E.5.2-23 summarizes the difference in the daily temperatures between LCDS (immediately downstream of the drop structure) and LCDS1500 (approximately 1,500 ft downstream). The maximum 7-day average of the maximum daily water temperature (M7-DADMax) occurred on August 15, 2005. The M7-DADMax was 1.34°C cooler at the downstream site. Trends and differences between stations in lower Lake Creek were nearly identical for 2004 and 2005.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-55 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

7 Day Average of Maximum Daily Temperature Comparison for Lake Creek and Lake Creek 1500ft Downstream

25

20

15

10 Temperature (*C)

5

0

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /1 /8 5 2 9 /5 2 9 6 /3 0 7 4 1 /7 4 1 8 /4 1 8 5 /2 /9 6 5 5 /1 /2 /2 6 /1 /1 /2 7 /1 /1 /2 /3 8 /1 /2 /2 9 /1 /1 /2 0 /1 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 1 10 0 1

LCDS 1500 LCDS

Figure E.5.2-21. 7-Day Average of Maximum Daily Temperature (7-DADMax) for Lake Creek below the Drop Structure

Table E.5.2-23. Difference in Temperature for LCDS1500 minus LCDS Maximum Daily Temperatures (C ) Mean Daily Temperatures (C ) Mean Max Range for Mean Max Range for Delta Delta St Dev Delta Delta Delta St Dev Delta May -0.74 -1.47 0.25 -1.47 to -0.23 -0.62 -1.26 1.02 -1.26 to -0.16 June -0.90 -1.19 0.21 -1.19 to -0.40 -0.86 -1.10 0.14 -1.10 to -0.52 July -1.02 -1.38 0.28 -1.38 to -0.09 -1.02 -1.26 0.17 -1.26 to -0.67 August -1.35 -1.86 0.19 -1.86 to -1.04 -1.21 -1.56 0.12 -1.56 to -0.97 September -0.90 -1.20 0.30 -1.20 to -.08 -0.89 -1.12 0.22 -1.12 to -0.37 October -0.56 -1.01 0.17 -1.01 to -.39 -0.56 -0.85 0.14 -0.85 to -0.34 M7-DADMax -1.34 Difference computed as monthly average of daily values for LCDS 1500 minus LCDS. A positive value indicates temperature at LCDS1500 is warmer than LCDS. A negative value indicates temperature at LCDS1500 is cooler than LCDS. Instrument precision is +/- 0.18oC. A difference of <=0.3oC is insignificant; significant differences indicated in bold type. M7-DADMax is the maximum 7-day average of the maximum daily temperature.

Mean annual values for water quality parameters in lower Lake Creek are listed in Table E.5.2-24 (first year results) and Table E.5.2-25 (second year results).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-56 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-24. Mean Annual Values for Water Quality Parameters for Lower Lake Creek April 2004 – March 2005 Alkalinity, Sp. Bicarbonate Total Turbidity Conductance as CaCO3 Alkalinity Hardness pH (NTU) (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) LCDS 7.52 5.46 0.0273 23.3 23.3 22.0 LCMH 7.44 3.12 0.0371 30.6 30.6 27.0 CRULC 7.12 25.94 0.0207 20.2 20.2 19.2

Total Total Dissolved Suspended Nitrate + Silica Solids (TDS) Solids Ammonia as Nitrite as Nitrite as N (mg/L) (mg/L) (TSS) (mg/L) N (mg/L) N (mg/L) (mg/L) LCDS 5.71 39.38 4.15 0.021 0.02 0.015 LCMH 7.42 47.50 4.18 0.019 0.02 0.060 CRULC 5.60 36.83 45.71 0.023 0.02 0.029

Total Phosphate, Total Kjeldahl Organic Ortho as P Phosphorus, Nitrogen Carbon (mg/L) Total (mg/L) (TKN) (mg/L) (TOC) (mg/L) TN:TP TIN:TIP LCDS 0.013 0.014 0.163 0.814 633.0 53.4 LCMH 0.016 0.017 0.083 0.995 173.9 45.8 CRULC 0.018 0.019 0.091 0.883 88.5 16.2 1 For samples that the orthophosphorus level was below detection limit, a value of 0.95 * total phosphorus was used as an estimate of orthophosphorus. 2 For purposes of calculating a mean, non-detects were assigned a value of 0.5*detection limit.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-57 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-25. Mean Annual Values for Water Quality Parameters for Lower Lake Creek April 2005-March 2006 Alkalinity, Specific Bicarbonate Total Turbidity Conductance as CaCO3 Alkalinity Hardness pH (NTU) (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) LCDS 7.58 1.38 0.0316 24.6 24.3 22 LCMH 7.30 1.74 0.0361 22.0 22.0 27 CRULC 7.36 13.78 0.0940 29.8 29.8 22

Total Total Dissolved Suspended Silica Solids (TDS) Solids Ammonia as Nitrite as Nitrate as (mg/L) (mg/L) (TSS) (mg/L) N (mg/L) N (mg/L) N (mg/L) LCDS 6.3 43.8 2.1 0.021 0.016 0.014 LCMH 7.2 49.8 15.1 0.036 0.016 0.021 CRULC 8.0 52.8 2.7 0.021 0.016 0.052

Total Phosphate, Total Kjeldahl Organic Ortho as P Phosphorus, Nitrogen Carbon (mg/L) Total (mg/L) (TKN) (mg/L) (TOC) (mg/L) TN:TP TIN:TIP LCDS 0.020 0.021 0.238 1.03 237.3 19.1 LCMH 0.040 0.042 0.446 0.61 91.4 21.0 CRULC 0.039 0.041 0.212 0.72 114.3 24.8 1 For samples that the orthophosphorus level was below detection limit, a value of 0.95 * total phosphorus was used as an estimate of orthophosphorus. 2 For purposes of calculating a mean, non-detects were assigned a value of 0.5*detection limit. Shading indicates that samples used to calculate the mean include non-detects.

Dissolved oxygen was the only water quality criteria exceeded in lower Lake Creek; exceedences of the criteria of 9.5 mg/L for core summer salmonid habitat occurred at all sites in 2004 and only once near the mouth (LCMH) in 2005. The DO for July 2005 near the mouth was 7.8 mg/L relative to the water quality criteria of 9.5 mg/L. Dissolved oxygen was consistently higher at the mouth of Lake Creek relative to just downstream of the drop structure, which is consistent with colder water temperatures near the mouth as well as turbulent flow in the stream. Continuous monitoring of dissolved oxygen for the period August 31 through September 2, 2004 showed little diurnal variability. Weather during this period was cool with rain so diurnal patterns may have been muted. Essentially no diurnal variation was observed for dissolved oxygen at the mouth of Lake Creek. A minor decline in dissolved oxygen levels was recorded during the night for Lake Creek below the drop structure (Figure E.5.2-22).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-58 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Aug 31 - Sept 2, 2004

12.0

11.5

11.0

10.5

10.0

9.5

9.0 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Oxygen Dissolved

8.5

8.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : : : : : : : : :

0 6 2: 8: 0 6 2: 8 0 6 2 8: 0

1 1 1 1 1 1

LCMH LCDS Lake at 3.7 m depth

Figure E.5.2-22. Diurnal Dissolved Oxygen Patterns for August 31 through September 2, 2004. (Data are 15-minute interval Hydrolab data.)

Water depth is insufficient to reliably measure total dissolved gas (TDG) in Lake Creek downstream of the drop structure. Although data should be considered suspect, all readings for monthly sampling were 100% saturation or less. Measurements in the lake in front of the intake where depth was sufficient to measure TDG, also indicated saturation was 100% or less.

Nutrients are relatively low and phosphorus is limiting relative to nitrogen. Orthophosphorus was relatively lower in summer 2005 than the previous year; however, levels were low in both years. Turbidity was consistently lower in Lake Creek than in the Cowlitz River. Turbidity at the mouth of Lake Creek was typically similar or lower than just below the drop structure except in July and August when turbidity was low at both stations.

Tailrace and Cowlitz River Downstream of Tailrace Water quality in the tailrace was monitored at the lower end of the lined tailrace (POWT2) and at the outflow of the stilling basin (POWT1), which is immediately downstream of the powerhouse. Water quality was also monitored in the side channel of the Cowlitz River into which the tailrace discharges. Data are not available for the lower end of the tailrace for October since no flow occurred in the tailrace during this month due to Project shutdown. Flow in the side channel is partially from the Cowlitz River and partially from the Project tailrace when the Project is operating.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-59 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

The side channel geometry and flow pattern was dramatically altered by flood events in December 2004 and January 2005. Flows in the upper Cowlitz River at Packwood increased by over an order of magnitude from December 9 to December 11, 2004, when river flows were increased from 1,050 cfs to 12,800 cfs. As a result of this event, the Cowlitz River changed course in the vicinity of the tailrace side channel and reconnected a previously dormant side channel below the tailrace terminus. Subsequently, another high flow event occurred in January 2005. It was estimated that about 20% of the upper Cowlitz River was directed through this side channel subsequent to the January 2005 storm. A subsequent flood event in November 2006 altered the side channel again and resulted in the vast majority of the flow in the side channel being from the Cowlitz River.

Minimal change in water temperature was observed between the intake (LCDS) and the powerhouse outflow (POWT1). On average, the difference in temperature was insignificant; however, there were significant differences on a few selected days. In 2005, the Project periodically shut down for short periods (1-3 days) during mid-July through mid-September due to low inflow to the lake. The water in the stilling basin immediately downstream of the powerhouse warmed up as much as 3.5°C relative to temperatures at the intake during these shutdowns. Excluding days when the Project was not operating all 24 hours, the difference in maximum daily temperature between the intake and the powerhouse outflow in August 2004 ranged from -0.67°C cooler to 0.78°C warmer at the stilling basin with two days significantly warmer (>0.3°C) at the stilling basin. In August 2005, the difference in maximum daily temperature ranged from –0.5°C cooler to 0.63°C warmer at the stilling basin. The difference in maximum daily temperature was significantly warmer (>0.3°C) on only two days in August 2005 and three days in September 2005. Figure E.5.2-23 shows hourly temperature data as well as flow through the powerhouse for mid-July through mid-September 2005. Water temperatures in the stilling basin (POWT1) spiked upward during shutdowns. The much cooler minimum daily water temperatures recorded at the lower end of the tailrace (POWT2) are due to the very shallow flow during shutdown being highly responsive to night time cold air temperatures. It is possible that the POWT2 probe was dewatered at times during shutdowns. The power plant was shut down in October 2005 for maintenance, so tailrace temperatures at POWT1 are for residual non-flowing water in the tailrace stilling basin.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-60 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

25 120

24 100 23

22 80 21

20 60

19

Temperature (C) Temperature 40 18 Powerplant Discharge (cfs) 17 20 16

15 0

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 /0 /0 /0 /05 /0 /0 /0 / /0 /0 5 2 9 6 2 9 / / / 15 22 29 1 1 2 16 / / / 8 / / / 9 9 / 7 7 7 8 8 8 9

POWT1 POWT2 LCDS Discharge

Figure E.5.2-23. Hourly Discharge and Water Temperature Data for the Intake (LCDS) and Tailrace (upper end POWT1; lower end POWT2) for mid-July through August, 2005

On average, daily maximum water temperatures were slightly warmer at the lower end of the tailrace (POWT2) relative to the upper end (POWT1). Temperatures exceeded the water quality criteria of 16°C on 81 days at the upper end and 82 days at the lower end of the tailrace. Despite the tailrace having little or no shade, only minor increases in water temperature occur. The tailrace water originates from the surface of Packwood Lake, which is also exposed to maximum solar radiation. Therefore, the equilibrium temperature for the tailrace and the surface water of Packwood Lake are similar. Figure E.5.2-23 shows that hourly temperatures at the intake on the lake (represented by LCDS) are very similar to temperatures at the lower end of the tailrace. Table E.5.2-26 lists the difference in temperature between the intake (as represented by LCDS) and the stilling basin (POWT1) for 2005. Similar trends were reported for 2004 (EES Consulting 2005c). Table E.5.2-27 lists differences in temperature between the upper and lower end of the tailrace.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-61 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-26. Difference in Temperature for POWT1 minus LCDS Maximum Daily Temperatures (C ) Mean Daily Temperatures (C ) Mean Max Mean Max St Delta Delta St Dev Range Delta Delta Dev Range November (04)* 0.22 0.39 0.1 (0.07-0.39) 0.23 0.33 0.06 (0.12-0.33) December (04)* 0.18 0.39 0.1 (0.07-0.39) 0.21 0.29 0.05 (0.11-0.29) January (05) 0.26 0.7 0.22 (-0.09-0.70) 0.27 0.62 0.17 (0.04-0.62) February 0.19 0.39 0.14 (-0.09-0.39) 0.34 0.41 0.04 (0.28-0.41) March 0.09 -1.33 0.38 (-1.33-0.70) 0.26 0.59 0.16 (-0.07-0.59) April* -0.04 -1.17 0.42 (-1.17-0.70) 0.23 0.52 0.19 (-0.33-0.52 May* -0.09 -0.37 0.30 (-0.37-0.26) 0.06 0.54 0.25 (-0.36-0.54) June -0.10 -0.53 0.30 (-0.53-0.44) 0.08 0.30 0.12 (-0.19-0.31) July** -0.10 -0.52 0.21 (-0.52-0.21) 0.16 0.33 0.09 (-0.33-0.33) August** -0.16 0.63 0.290 (-0.51-0.63) 0.36 0.58 0.12 (0.07-0.58) September** 0.02 0.59 0.32 (-0.36-0.59) 0.32 0.58 0.10 (0.18-0.58) October Plant shutdown for maintenance Difference computed as monthly average of daily values for POWT1 minus LCDS. A positive value indicates temperature at POWT1 is warmer than LCDS. A negative value indicates temperature at POWT1 is cooler than LCDS. Instrument precision is +/- 0.18oC. A difference of <=0.3oC is insignificant; significant differences indicated in bold type. Days when the powerhouse was operating less than 24 hours (no flow) were not included. *Partial month data. **Period of record includes dates when the powerplant was shut down for one or more days in July, August, September and all of October.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-62 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-27. Difference in Temperature for POWT2 minus POWT1 Maximum Daily Temperatures (C ) Mean Daily Temperatures (C )

Max Mean Max Mean Delta Delta St Dev Range Delta Delta St Dev Range November (04)* 0.05 0.20 0.10 (-.12-0.2) 0.05 0.12 0.03 (0.01-0.12) December (04)* 0.09 0.22 0.08 (-0.10-0.22) 0.06 0.12 0.04 (-0.05-0.12) January 2005 0.08 0.38 0.17 (-0.25-0.38) 0.03 0.15 0.08 (-0.12-0.15) February 0.34 0.54 0.17 (-0.10-0.54) 0.03 0.17 0.04 (-0.06-0.17) March 0.31 0.99 0.25 (-0.11-0.99) 0.16 0.29 0.05 (0.04-0.29) April* 0.38 0.84 0.32 (-0.10-0.84) 0.23 0.53 0.09 (0.14-0.53) May* 0.34 0.62 0.15 (0.17-0.62) 0.17 0.36 0.18 (-0.24-0.36) June 0.36 1.10 0.30 (-0.02-1.10) 0.17 0.39 0.08 (0.04-0.39) July** 0.40 0.77 0.20 (-0.04-0.77) 0.05 0.16 0.07 (-0.07-0.16) August** 0.27 0.60 0.23 (-0.36-0.60) -0.10 -0.19 0.06 (-0.19-0.00) September** 0.03 -0.51 0.26 (-0.51-0.47) -0.13 -0.26 0.06 (-0.26-0.0) October Plant shutdown for maintenance Data for POWT1 are reported but are considered suspect as the hourly temperature profile shows strong deviations, which suggest the thermograph may have been intermittently removed from the water for extended periods in July through early September. Difference computed as monthly average of daily values for POWT2 minus POWT1. A positive value indicates temperature at POWT2 is warmer than POWT1. A negative value indicates temperature at POWT1 is cooler than POWT2. Instrument precision is +/- 0.18oC. A difference of <=0.3oC is insignificant; significant differences indicated in bold type. Days when the powerhouse was operating less than 24 hours (no flow) were not included. * Partial month data. **Period of record includes dates when the powerplant was shut down for one or more days in July, August, September and all of October.

The tailrace empties into a side channel of the Cowlitz River. Figure E.5.2-24 shows the 7-day average of the maximum daily temperatures (7-DADMax) for the lower end of the lined tailrace (POWT2) and the side channel (CRTSC). Unlike the previous summer, the majority of the flow in 2005 for the tailrace side channel originates from the Cowlitz River, which is cold relative to the summer tailrace temperatures. The 7- DADMax in the tailrace side channel exceeded 16°C for most of July and August (criteria for core summer salmonid habitat - WAC 173-201A-200 December 2006). The 7-DADMax exceeded the 13°C in nearly all of September 2005 that the WDOE has established for supplemental protection of salmonid spawning and incubation that applies to this reach of the Cowlitz River.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-63 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

7-Day Average of Maximum Daily Temperature Comparison of CRTSC and POWT2 25

20

15

10

Temperature (C) Temperature 5

0

4 4 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 04 0 0 0 0 0 05 0 0

20 20 2 20 20 20 20 20 2 / / / / / / / / / 0 9 7 8 8 7 5 5 /9 / / 2 2 1 2 1 2 / 1 / 4 / / 9 9 1 2/ 2 5 7 0/ 1 1 POWT2 CRTSC 7-Day avg for POWT2 affected by project shoutdown

Figure E.5.2-24. 7-day Average of the Maximum Daily Water Temperature for POWT2 (tailrace) and CRTSC (side channel of Cowlitz River).

Mean annual values for water quality parameters for the tailrace and Cowlitz River side channel (tailrace slough) are listed in Table E.5.2-28 (2004 results) and Table E.5.2-29 (2005 results).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-64 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-28. Mean Annual Values for Water Quality Parameters for the Tailrace and Tailrace Slough 2004 Alkalinity, Sp. Bicarbonate Total Turbidity Conductance as CaCO3 Alkalinity Hardness pH (NTU) (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) POWT1 7.25 3.21 0.0294 26.8 27.0 23.3 POWT2 7.44 2.74 0.0272 24.8 24.8 22.6 CRTSC 7.25 26.79 0.0261 23.0 23.0 21.3

Total Total Dissolved Suspended Nitrate + Silica Solids (TDS) Solids Ammonia as Nitrite as Nitrite as N (mg/L) (mg/L) (TSS) (mg/L) N (mg/L) 2 N (mg/L) 2 (mg/L) 2 POWT1 5.89 44.15 1.58 0.026 0.02 0.025 POWT2 5.76 39.82 1.86 0.022 0.02 0.025 CRTSC 7.56 40.00 85.27 0.029 0.02 0.027

Total Kjeldahl Total Phosphate, Phosphorus, Nitrogen Organic Ortho as P Total (mg/L) (TKN) Carbon (mg/L) 1 2 (mg/L) 2 (TOC) (mg/L) TN:TP TIN:TIP POWT1 0.014 0.015 0.082 0.948 179.7 20.4 POWT2 0.018 0.019 0.150 1.251 86.4 18.9 CRTSC 0.021 0.029 0.145 1.015 219.6 46.9 1 For samples that the orthophosphorus level was below detection limit, a value of 0.95 * total phosphorus was used as an estimate of orthophosphorus. 2 For purposes of calculating a mean, non-detects were assigned a value of 0.5*detection limit.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-65 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-29. Mean Annual Values for Water Quality Parameters for the Tailrace and Tailrace Slough 2005 Alkalinity, Specific Bicarbonate Total Turbidity Conductance as CaCO3 Alkalinity Hardness pH (NTU) (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) POWT1 7.28 1.53 0.0381 25.5 24.5 POWT2 7.31 1.72 0.0377 23.3 23.3 CRTSC 7.33 5.52 0.0372 23.5 23.5

Total Total Dissolved Suspended Silica Solids (TDS) Solids Ammonia as Nitrite as Nitrate as (mg/L) (mg/L) (TSS) (mg/L) N (mg/L) 2 N (mg/L) 2 N (mg/L) 2 POWT1 6.4 49.5 0.9 0.023 0.016 0.018 POWT2 6.4 46.5 1.0 0.024 0.016 0.017 CRTSC 6.6 46.5 5.3 0.022 0.016 0.043

Total Kjeldahl Total Phosphate, Phosphorus, Nitrogen Organic Ortho as P Total (mg/L) (TKN) Carbon (mg/L) 1 2 (mg/L) 2 (TOC) (mg/L) TN:TP TIN:TIP POWT1 0.038 0.040 0.245 1.17 89.5 13.0 POWT2 0.045 0.048 0.240 0.81 84.1 9.0 CRTSC 0.044 0.046 0.200 0.72 70.5 11.4 1 For samples that the orthophosphorus level was below detection limit, a value of 0.95 * total phosphorus was used as an estimate of orthophosphorus. 2 For purposes of calculating a mean, non-detects were assigned a value of 0.5*detection limit.

Dissolved oxygen levels were below the criteria of 9.5 mg/L (WDOE 2006a) in the tailrace in July through September, which is less time than exceedences occurred in 2004. Dissolved oxygen levels in the tailrace side channel were below the criteria of 9.5 mg/L in July and August. The lowest dissolved oxygen levels were recorded in July 2004. Turbidity in the tailrace was equal or less than turbidity in the receiving side channel of the Cowlitz River.

Organic nitrogen (TKN less ammonia) was elevated in July 2005 within the tailrace (0.56 mg/L at POWT1); the cause is unknown. A similar outlier occurred in May 2004. Phosphorus trends in the tailrace were similar to those for Packwood Lake near the intake. Phosphorus is limiting relative to nitrogen for tailrace waters. Although periphyton growth was not quantified in the tailrace, productivity did not visually appear excessive. Previous attempts to place tiles upon which to culture periphyton were vandalized. Growth was patchy with short, dense mats in some locations.

Total dissolved gasses (TDG) were also monitored in the tailrace. During monthly sampling, the hydrolab probe was deployed for at least 15 minutes to allow for equilibration before recording total dissolved gas pressure (TDGP). Continuous sampling for 3-7 days was also conducted seasonally. Local barometric pressure at the time of sampling was also recorded. Percent saturation for total dissolved gasses (%TDG) ranged from 98% to 102%. Percent TDG levels were generally close to 100%

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-66 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality saturation and well below the 110% criteria. There was no evidence of TDG spikes during Project shutdown or startup since water depths in the tailrace are less than the minimum compensation depth (about 3 m), all total dissolved gas data is conditional, because air bubbles trapped on the probe membrane can give erroneous data when the probe is deployed at depths less than the minimum compensation depth.

Project effects related to water quantity are discussed in Exhibit E, Section E.5.3. The following narrative addresses Project effects on water quality.

Potential effects that were raised as water quality issues and subsequently determined not to be adverse Project effects included:

• Adverse effects to rainbow trout rearing in Packwood Lake due to elevated turbidity resulting from shoreline erosion during drawdown, • Adverse effects on total dissolved gas, and • Adverse cumulative temperature effects in the Cowlitz River.

Project effects that are addressed by the PM&Es include:

• Project effects on summer water temperatures in Lake Creek downstream of the drop structure due to Project-released instream flows, • Summer water temperatures in the constructed tailrace, and • Low dissolved oxygen in the tailrace stilling basin during Project shutdowns.

Turbidity in Packwood Lake High turbidity in Packwood Lake coincides with periods of high runoff from Upper Lake Creek (EES Consulting 2006a, 2007b). Turbidity levels measured in Packwood Lake during the 2004 and 2005 drawdown periods were relatively low (range from 1.3 NTU to 8.87 NTU). Runoff and high turbidity in Upper Lake Creek were noted during a storm event that preceded the date when turbidity levels of 8.87 NTU were measured in Packwood Lake. Whereas Upper Lake Creek, which is glacial in origin, carries a high suspended sediment load, there are only relatively minor sources of erodible material along the shores of Packwood Lake. The majority (69%) of the drawdown zone has a low or moderate erosion potential (EES Consulting 2007a). The Synthesis Report (Energy Northwest 2007f) concluded that drawdown does not substantially contribute to turbidity levels in Packwood Lake.

Total Dissolved Gas Instantaneous sampling and continuous monitoring of total dissolved gas (TDG) levels in the tailrace stilling basin and in Packwood Lake upstream of the intake documented that operation of the Project does not contribute to elevated total dissolved gas pressure. The %TDG was below the water quality standard of 110% for all samples (EES Consulting 2006a).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-67 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Temperature in Lower Lake Creek The natural pre-Project streamflow from Packwood Lake in August is approximately 77 cfs (period of record 1912 – 1962). The 7Q2 and 7Q10 August low flow is 56.4 cfs and 39.9 cfs, respectively, as measured at the lake outlet. The water temperature downstream of the Project intake in Lake Creek associated with this flow volume out of the lake would be considerably warmer than the temperatures occurring with the Project flow diversion. For example, the maximum daily water temperature near the mouth of Lake Creek for August 12, 2004 was 13.38°C when there was a 3 cfs release below the drop structure. Climatic conditions for this date represent the 10% exceedence for air temperature; i.e., daily maximum air temperatures at Packwood are only hotter 10% of the time for August. The maximum daily water temperature predicted by the QUAL2Kw model for the same date and climatic conditions but with the 7Q2 and 7Q10 flow downstream of the drop structure was 18.8°C and 18.4°C, respectively.

Lower temperatures in Lake Creek associated with Project operation may affect amphibians living within the stream, coastal giant salamander and coastal tailed frog. Growth and development rates of amphibian embryonic and larval stages are directly and positively related to temperature, provided that temperatures are within tolerances. Recorded temperatures within Lake Creek are well within tolerance and are comparable to temperatures normally experienced by these species at other locations in their ranges, which extend to high elevation sites (coastal giant salamander to 6,000 ft and coastal tailed frog to 7,000 ft). Under experimental conditions deVlaming and Bury (1970) determined that tailed frog larvae selected temperatures below 22°C, with first- year larvae actually selecting temperatures below 10°C.

Table E.5.2-30 shows effects of temperature on fish in the rearing and spawning life history stages (from Bell 1990).

Table E.5.2-30. Effects of Temperature on Fish (Bell 1990) Preferred Life History Stage Species Lower Lethal Lower Upper Upper Lethal Rearing Chinook 0.0 1.1 14.4 25.0 Coho 0.0 3.3 20.6 25.6 Steelhead/Rainbow 7.2 7.2 14.4 23.9 Cutthroat 0.6 9.4 12.8 22.8 Spawning Chinook 0.0 5.6 10.61/ Coho 4.4 9.4 Steelhead/Rainbow 3.9 9.4 Cutthroat 6.1 17.2 1/ Upper Threshold

Temperatures at the drop structure exceed the preferred temperatures of most of the resident fish and anadromous salmonids found in Lake Creek; however, these temperatures are below the upper lethal temperatures for these species. Cooler temperatures downstream of the drop structure are beneficial to those species found in Lake Creek.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-68 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

The water quality standard for temperature is based on the 7-day average of the maximum daily water temperature (7-DADMax). The highest measured 7-DADMax for Lake Creek immediately below the drop structure (LCDS) occurred for the period ending August 21 for both 2004 and 2005 (EES Consulting 2005a, 2007b). The 7-DADMax for Lake Creek without the Project was calculated by modeling temperatures for the 7-day period August 15-21, 2004. The model scenarios for August 15-21, 2004 used the natural inflow to the lake for the flow at the upper end of the modeled reach. The natural inflow range during this period was 1.153 - 2.093 cms (41 - 74 cfs). The median daily lake inflow was 1.302 cms, which is 15% greater than the 7Q10 flow. The flow was approximately equal to the 7Q10 flow on 3 of the 7 days. Groundwater accretion within the modeled reach was kept the same for calibration and without Project model runs; accretion rates were only minimally adjusted between days within the modeled period for calibration model runs.

The 7-DADMax temperature was evaluated for with and without the Project. When the Project is operating, water travels downstream from Packwood Lake via two routes; the release flow into Lake Creek below the drop structure and the pipeline/powerhouse tailrace flow. The 7-DADMax temperature near the mouth of Lake Creek for without Project is substantially higher than the 7-DADMax for the existing condition. A small amount of cooling occurs for water flowing out of Packwood Lake down Lake Creek due to shading and, more importantly, the addition of cold groundwater accretion. There was no significant difference for measured water temperatures measured at the outlet of the lake and the lower end of the tailrace. The period August 15-21, 2004 represented the highest temperatures for Lake Creek below the drop structure as well as tailrace temperatures recorded in 2004 and 2005. The QUAL2Kw model was applied to existing conditions for each day during this period. The predicted 7-DADMax at the mouth of Lake Creek without the Project was 19.09oC, which compared to a measured 7- DADMax at the lower end of the tailrace of 21.25 °C. The flow weighted average 7DADMax for the combined flows of Lake Creek at mouth and the tailrace was 18.56oC. A similar comparison for the period of highest measured water temperatures in 2005 was not completed since the Project was shut down intermittently in August 2005 without a consecutive 7-day operating period.

Any increase in flow released below the drop structure in the summer results in warmer temperatures throughout lower Lake Creek relative to the existing condition with a 0.085 cms (3 cfs) release below the drop structure. Table E.5.2-31 lists the 7-DADMax at the mouth of Lake Creek associated with various flow releases below the drop structure.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-69 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Table E.5.2-31 7-DADMax Water Temperature at Lake Creek Mouth Relative to Flow below the Drop Structure Flow below Drop Structure cms (cfs) 0.085 (3) 0.198 (7) 0.283 (10) 0.425 (15) 0.566 (20) 7-DADMax (oC) 14.16 15.67 16.20 16.95 17.54 Based on August 15-21, 2004, warmest 7-day period for 2-year monitoring period

Water Temperature in the Tailrace The tailrace is a constructed channel that did not exist prior to the Project. Summer water temperatures in the tailrace, on average, are not significantly different from water temperatures in the lake near the Project intake. The temperature of water flowing out of Packwood Lake is naturally warm relative to summer water temperatures for natural conditions at the mouth of Lake Creek; the tailrace summer water temperature is warm relative to water temperatures at the mouth of Lake Creek. A permanent fish barrier was installed in October of 2007, which now prevents fish from entering the tailrace. Therefore, any temperature exceedence in the tailrace no longer adversely affects fish.

Low Dissolved Oxygen in the Tailrace Stilling Basin The Project experiences both planned and occasional unplanned shutdowns and outages. Dissolved oxygen levels were measured, and were observed to drop below the state water quality standard after several days when unplanned outages occurred during the months of August and September, when high water temperatures affect the DO saturation level. Both anadromous and resident fish had access up the tailrace into the stilling basin (pool) below the powerhouse after the original Project tailrace fish screen was washed out in the 1970s by flooding in the Cowlitz River. A permanent fish barrier was installed in October of 2007, which now prevents fish from entering the tailrace. Therefore, any low DO levels in the stilling basin during Project outages no longer adversely affects fish.

E.5.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

Based on the results of the drawdown study and the water quality studies, Energy Northwest proposes the following measures:

• Move the annual Project maintenance outage from October to August 15 through September 15. • Eliminate drawdown of the lake prior to the annual maintenance outage. • Increase instream flows in Lake Creek. • Provide an aquatic habitat forming flow. • Develop a monitoring plan in consultation with WDOE to evaluate the effectiveness of Project operations under the new license in meeting the applicable temperature standard at the confluence of the Project’s tailrace with the Cowlitz River side channel.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-70 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Energy Northwest proposes to continue to shut down the Project annually to perform scheduled equipment maintenance beginning on August 15 of each operating year. Operations will resume by September 15, or earlier if all necessary work has been completed. Currently the lake is drawn down to 2849 ft. MSL prior to the outage. Energy Northwest proposes that this drawdown before the outage be eliminated.

The water quality criteria for temperature is exceeded in the Project tailrace between the last part of July and the end of August. The 7-DADMax for natural conditions in Lake Creek is estimated to be 19.09°C at the mouth of Lake Creek. Since Lake Creek naturally exceeds 16°C during August, the state temperature limit would be 0.3°C above the 7-DADMax for natural conditions, which is 19.4°C at the mouth of Lake Creek. The 7-DADMax at the lower end of the tailrace exceeded this value for the period July 22 through August 26, 2004 with a peak 7-DADMax of 21.25°C on August 21, 2004. The 7-DADMax for the lower tailrace exceeded 19.09°C for the period July 15 through August 22, 2005; however, the Project was intermittently shut down in August, so that 7- day averages could not be effectively calculated for August 2005. Moving the annual outage to August 15 through September 15 shortens the period when temperatures in the Project tailrace are likely to exceed temperature criteria for the tailrace at its confluence with the Cowlitz River.

Energy Northwest proposes that instream flows be increased year round in Lake Creek as shown in Table E.5.2-32, below:

Table E.5.2-32. Proposed instream flows (cfs) for Lake Creek, as measured at the drop structure. Month Instream Flow (cfs) January 4 February 4 March 4 April 7 May 15 June 10 July 15 August 1 – 15 15 Aug 16 – Sept 15 20 September 16 – 30 15 October 10 November 7 December 4

Water temperature in Lake Creek was also considered in relation to establishing instream flows for Lake Creek downstream of the drop structure. Any increase in flow released below the drop structure in the summer results in warmer temperatures throughout lower Lake Creek relative to the current conditions (3 cfs release below the drop structure). However, the summer water temperature regime in Lake Creek with the proposed Project instream flow releases will be cooler than natural conditions without the Project, so that an increase in water temperature associated with increased minimum flow requirements will not cause exceedence of the water quality standard for temperature.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-71 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

Energy Northwest will develop a monitoring plan in consultation with WDOE, to evaluate the effectiveness of Project operations, including the timing of the annual outage, in meeting the applicable temperature standard at the confluence of the Project tailrace with the Cowlitz River. If the tailrace temperature standard is not sufficiently resolved by changes in Project operations, Energy Northwest will consult with WDOE on additional ways to address this issue. Possible options to address this issue would be to establish a mixing zone in the Cowlitz River below the tailrace or to implement additional reasonable measures to reduce or eliminate exceedence of the temperature criteria.

Energy Northwest proposes that the minimum lake elevation will be 2849 ft. MSL. Fall/Winter drawdown will continue to be needed in order to provide sufficient water for increased flows in Lake Creek, for Project generation and for continuous flows in the tailrace after the maintenance outage. Due to the elimination of the pre-outage drawdown, the lake level will stay higher during August and September, which will result in higher wetland groundwater levels, and will allow a more gradual winter drawdown.

See Table E.6-2 in Section E.6 of Exhibit E for the costs of these measures.

E.5.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Energy Northwest’s proposed operations will result in minimal, if any unavoidable adverse effects on wetlands around the lake. A drawdown of the lake beginning September 15 (following the annual maintenance outage) is necessary to maintain instream flows in Lake Creek and meet Project generation needs. Post-outage drawdown is also necessary to ensure, to the extent possible, continuous flows in the tailrace side channel, which in some years may be important to support potential aquatic habitat for ESA-listed fish.

Groundwater levels in one wetland at the head of Packwood Lake are affected by lake drawdowns between September 16 through October 31. Lake drawdowns that occur November through June have no effect on wetland hydrology, which is a function of upslope hydrology during those months. Figure E.5.2-3 above, shows the location of piezometers used to assess the effect of lake level on groundwater level within the wetlands at the upper end of Packwood Lake (EES Consulting 2007g). Groundwater levels at P1, P2 and P4 are correlated to lake level during the dry part of the year (July 1 – October 31). The groundwater at site P3 (inland from P4) is a function of upslope hydrology rather than lake level for the entire year. Plants growing in the vicinity of P3 or at a greater horizontal distance from the lake would not be affected by an earlier Project outage than currently occurs. Correlation analysis was used to assess the effect on wetland hydrology from a drawdown following the annual maintenance outage.

The mid-September drawdown is proposed to be conducted much more gradually than currently as well as compared to historical fall drawdowns. This more gradual drawdown also ensures a targeted flow range in the Cowlitz River side channel below the tailrace, to support incubation of anadromous fish eggs in years when they are present. Thus, unavoidable effects due to drawdown of the lake after September 15

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-72 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality each year would be limited to very minor effects on one of the wetland areas at the head of the lake for a period of about six weeks. Energy Northwest proposes monitoring of the wetland area to determine if northwestern salamander are stranded in the affected area during the drawdown. See Section E.5.4.3.3, below.

The groundwater level at the wetland in the vicinity of Muller Creek (P1 and P2; see Figure E.5.2-4 above) currently drops approximately 1 ft below the groundwater level prior to the annul shutdown. This level gradually decline occurs over a six-week period (September 16 – October 31) with a lake drawdown to 2849 ft MSL. A proposed Project drawdown of the lake where the lake level would be lowered beginning September 15 to its lowest level by October 31, would typically only bring the level down to about 2854 ft, so the corresponding groundwater response would be less than under the current operation. For the wetland near Muller Creek, the soil will remain saturated within the rooting zone, so that effects on vegetation will be minimal. Plants are also entering dormancy during this period. During the remainder of the winter, wetland hydrology is a function of upslope hydrology and not correlated to lake level, and therefore drawdown will not affect wetland resources.

The groundwater level in the vicinity of P4 closely tracks lake level (Figure E.5.2-25). The groundwater level at P4 is already below the rooting zone during the summer when the lake is at 2857 ft MSL so vegetation should be unaffected.

Groundwater Level for Wetland - Median Inflow for Lake Level

2862

2860

2858

2856

2854 Water Surface elevationWater Surface (ft) 2852

2850

2848 1-Jul 15-Jul 29-Jul 12-Aug 26-Aug 9-Sep 23-Sep 7-Oct 21-Oct Date License Level Calculated Lake Level P1 P2 P4 Figure E.5.2-25. Groundwater level within wetlands based on lake level when lake inflow is representative of a median year.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-73 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.2-Water Resources/Water Quality

No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated due to the proposed change of the annual Project maintenance outage from October to August 15 through September 15.

No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated due to the proposed elimination of lake drawdown prior to the annual maintenance outage.

No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated due to the proposed more gradual winter drawdown.

No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated due to the proposed increased instream flows.

No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated due to the proposed provision of an aquatic habitat forming flow.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.2-74 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

E.5.3 Fishery and Aquatic Resources

E.5.3.1 Fishery Resources

The fish-bearing waters at the Project hold a variety of anadromous and resident fish. Energy Northwest has assembled available historical information and conducted extensive fisheries studies for the relicensing of the Project. These studies have identified current species distribution and composition along with a variety of relevant habitat characteristics in the following bodies of water (see Figure E.4-1, above, for a map of the Project area):

• Packwood Lake • Packwood Lake Tributaries ○ Upper Lake Creek, including Beaver Bill Creek ○ Crawford Creek ○ Muller Creek ○ Trap Creek ○ SE Trap Creek ○ Osprey Creek • Lake Creek below Packwood Lake • Hall and Snyder creeks • Project Tailrace and Tailrace Slough • Cowlitz River

The following fish species were encountered in at least one of these bodies of water:

Resident Species • Westslope and Coastal Cutthroat Trout • Rainbow Trout • Sculpin • Pacific Lamprey

Anadromous Species • Chinook Salmon • Coho Salmon • Steelhead Trout • Sea-run Cutthroat

Section E.5.3.1.1 summarizes the information that was available regarding fish resources in the Project area previous to relicensing studies. See Section E.5.6.1, for additional information relating to ESA-listed species. Section E.5.3.1.2 discusses the findings of the studies that were conducted, and describes the current distributions of resident and anadromous species within Project-area waters along with potential migration and habitat quality issues.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

E.5.3.1.1 Affected Environment

A literature review was included in the Fish Distribution and Species Composition Report (EES Consulting 2007o). Relevant literature related to historical distributions of resident and anadromous species was reviewed to gain an understanding of the resources at the Project.

E.5.3.1.1.1 Packwood Lake

Rainbow trout is the only species of fish ever documented to exist in Packwood Lake. Packwood Lake was colonized by a population of inland rainbow trout near the end of the last ice age; subsequent re-colonization of coastal rainbow following other geologic events may have also occurred. Five distinct populations of non-indigenous rainbow trout were also stocked in the lake between 1954 and 1965 (Lucas and Chilcote 1982). Population size and genetic specifics of the fish in Packwood Lake have varied over the years with plantings of various strains by WDFW. (Until 1988, the agency was known as the Washington Department of Game [WDG]; from 1988 to 1994, the Washington Department of Fisheries [WDF] and the Washington Department of Wildlife [WDW]; subsequently the two agencies merged to form WDFW). The WDG installed fish traps and an eyeing station at the Lake from 1933 to 1940 (Royce 1965b). The spawn was taken and the eggs eyed out before they were packed out on horses and either planted in the egg stage or taken to hatcheries (Combs 1954). It was estimated that as many as 3,021,000 eggs were taken from the trout of Packwood Lake (Royce 1965a). It was reported that starting in 1958, the WDG stocked Packwood Lake with 70,800 rainbow trout and 39,000 Kamloops trout (Cardwell 1966). A larger variety of rainbow trout was imported from Montana and planted into Packwood Lake. Planting of the larger variety of trout caused the size of the fish to increase (Combs 1954). To preserve the genetic integrity of the Packwood Lake rainbow trout, no fish have been stocked in Packwood Lake since 1965 (Washington Department of Ecology 1989).

Packwood Lake currently supports an adfluvial population of rainbow trout, which moves between the lake and its tributaries (USDA Forest Service 2004c). Packwood Lake rainbow trout evolved in the Upper Lake Creek basin and have maintained a self- sustaining population whose life cycle depends on the lake environment for adult holding and foraging, and the tributaries for spawning and rearing habitat (USDA Forest Service 2004c). Genetic comparisons of Packwood Lake rainbow trout with “inland” and “coastal” populations revealed that Packwood rainbow are more closely related to inland populations than coastal. Large portions of the resident population of rainbow in the lake are infected with Diphyllobothrium, a tape worm that commonly infects fish (Lucas and Chilcote 1982).

In 1982, the annual recreational harvest of rainbow trout from Packwood Lake was estimated to be 4,000-5,000 fish.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

E.5.3.1.1.2 Packwood Lake Tributaries

The first study to conclude that fish inhabited the tributaries to Packwood Lake was conducted in 1965. It was estimated that the tributaries to the lake supported as many as 3,000 adult rainbow trout during spawning season (late May through early July). As documented in Royce (1965a), the rainbow trout that spawn in the tributaries are adfluvial and utilize Packwood Lake for nearly all of their rearing purposes. These rainbow trout have persisted on their own for many years despite heavy fishing pressure and annual flooding in the tributaries. Lowering the elevation of the lake did not appear to inhibit trout from entering the tributaries. It was observed that the tributaries cut channels through the substrate as the lake is lowered, allowing fish to enter the tributaries during low water periods (Royce et al. 1971).

Since 1980, rainbow trout spawning has been documented in six tributaries to Packwood Lake:

• Osprey Creek • Trap Creek • Muller Creek • Upper Lake Creek, including its tributary, Beaver Bill Creek • Southeast Trap Creek • Crawford Creek

Crawford Creek has a large population of spawners, as determined during the Fish Species Composition and Distribution Study (Section E.5.3.1.2.1 below). Crawford Creek may have been a tributary to Upper Lake Creek in previous years. Spawning in any particular tributary varies significantly from year to year. The two tributaries that have consistently supported the most spawning are Muller and Upper Lake creeks (USDA Forest Service 2004c). The peak of rainbow trout spawning in the tributaries occurs around mid-June, when stream temperatures warm slightly (Lucas 1989). Table E.5.3.1-1 summarizes the spawning survey data in the tributaries to Packwood Lake from 1981-2007.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-1. Summary of Rainbow Trout Tributary Spawning Survey Data Creek Year Osprey Trap Muller Upper Beaver Trib Crawford Creek Total Creek Creek Creek Lake Bill SE of Creek1/ Creek Trap Creek 1981 16 18 67 5 106 1982 0 0 0 0 1983 0 0 0 1984 55 317 40 412 1985 3 0 14 200 0 217 1986 13 112 125 1987 78 332 410 1988 180 61 721 4 966 1989 490 160 180 405 82 5 1322 1990 24 5 149 60 238 1991 314 94 399 363 0 1170 1995 1 0 86 166 253 1996 0 3 299 238 540 1997 29 13 590 214 846 1998 28 9 374 220 631 1999 19 30 155 107 311 2000 355 27 249 153 784 2002 138 60 414 265 8 885 2003 181 6 201 305 0 693 2004 37 17 245 485 3 0 787 2005 0 0 157 280 14 0 451 2006 0 10 465 155 0 630 2007 441 86 3665 112 2 0 513 4819 Avg 115 38 241 227 25 5 513 602

Note: Blanks indicate years when no survey was conducted for a particular stream and “0” indicates a year when a survey was conducted and no fish were observed. 1/ May have included Crawford Creek on certain years

E.5.3.1.1.3 Lake Creek Below Packwood Lake

Packwood Lake drains into lower Lake Creek, which has a historical mean annual flow of 100.7 cfs. Measurements were taken at the USGS Gage at the outlet to Packwood Lake (immediately downstream of the drop structure) No. 14225500. The USGS has records for the Lake Creek Gaging Station No. 14225500 from October 11, 1911 through September 30, 1980. Daily flow records were analyzed for the period of record from Water Year (WY) 1912 through WY 1962, prior to the start of the Project. Gaps exist in the data for the following periods:

• October 1925 – September 1930 (5 years) • November 1943 – September 1948 (4 years 11 months) • May 1954 – August 1959 (5 years 4 months)

Lower Lake Creek is 5.4 miles long, stretching from the Project drop structure to its confluence with the Cowlitz River. Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead trout

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-4 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources have all been documented in lower Lake Creek. The Cowlitz River Project had been required to plant Spring Chinook and coho salmon fry and fingerlings in tributaries of the upper Cowlitz River (USDA Forest Service 2004c). Records show that 24,500 coho were planted in Lake Creek in 1976; 297,500 Spring Chinook were planted in 1977; and 107,800 coho were planted in 1982 (Stober 1986). Other streams in which fry and fingerlings were planted include Johnson Creek, Butter Creek, Skate Creek, Hall Creek, Smith Creek, Silver Creek, and the Ohanapecosh River. WDFW periodically conducted anadromous salmonid spawner surveys in lower Lake Creek (up to the old Highway 12 bridge) after the reintroduction effort on the Cowlitz River. Aside from supporting anadromous species during spawning and rearing periods, previous information indicated that Lake Creek also supports resident populations of rainbow and cutthroat trout (USDA Forest Service 1993). Sea-run cutthroat trout would also have access to the lowest 1.03 miles of Lake Creek. For more detailed discussion, see the study results (Section E.5.3.1.2) below.

E.5.3.1.1.4 Hall Creek and Snyder Creek

Two small creeks that cross the Project boundary are Hall and Snyder creeks. They both cross the Project tailrace downstream of the stilling basin (see Figure E.4-1). Hall Creek has 2.0 miles of accessible steelhead spawning grounds (Kray 1957); coho salmon have also been observed spawning in the upper reaches (EES Consulting 2007c – Anadromous Spawner survey report – Section 5.3.1.2.8). Snyder Creek also provides anadromous habitat in its lower reach (USDA Forest Service 2004c). No studies conducted prior to relicensing had previously attempted to identify and/or enumerate resident or anadromous fish populations in Hall or Snyder creeks. Information on the fisheries investigations conducted in the Fish Species Distribution and Composition Study that included Hall and Snyder creeks is found below in Section E.5.3.1.2.1.

E.5.3.1.1.5 Project Tailrace and Tailrace Slough

Energy Northwest has referred to the area where the end of the Project tailrace meets the Cowlitz River in Packwood as the “tailrace slough,” although it is really only a side channel of the Cowlitz River into which the water from the Project flows. Anadromous species (Chinook and coho salmon and steelhead and sea-run cutthroat trout) along with resident species (rainbow and cutthroat trout and mountain whitefish) are known to inhabit the tailrace slough side channel of the river at various life stages. For further historical distribution information, see Section E.5.3.1.1.6, Cowlitz River, below.

E.5.3.1.1.6 Cowlitz River

The upper Cowlitz River historically produced large numbers of anadromous salmonids. Several anadromous and resident species inhabit the upper Cowlitz River. Natural migration for anadromous species was affected, beginning in the 1930s due to construction of the Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River. Construction of the first dam on the Cowlitz River, Mayfield Dam, began in 1955, but was not completed until 1962.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-5 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Mossyrock Dam was completed in 1968, while the Cowlitz Falls Project was finished in 1994. Tacoma Power built the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery and Cowlitz Trout Hatchery in 1968 to mitigate the reduction in wild salmon and steelhead caused by the Mayfield and Mossyrock dams and reservoirs. A trap and haul program began in 1994, transporting Chinook and coho salmon as well as steelhead and cutthroat trout to the upper Cowlitz River.

In 1948, it was estimated that of the more than 32,000 adult Spring Chinook found in the Cowlitz River; 1,700 utilized the upper Cowlitz River for spawning and subsequent rearing habitat (CBFWA 2002). Spawning surveys conducted in 1951 indicated that all Spring Chinook spawning in the upper Cowlitz River occurred in 3 places: 1) above the current site of Mayfield Dam; 2) above Packwood, and 3) in the Cispus River between Iron and East Canyon creeks (WDW 1990). Nearly 10,000 Spring Chinook were counted annually (1962-1966) at Mayfield Dam following its completion. From 1974- 1980, the number of Spring Chinook trapped and hauled upstream on the Cowlitz River averaged 2,838 annually. The average number of Spring Chinook counted annually at Mayfield Dam dropped to 3,894 during the 1975 to 1985 period (excluding 1984) (LCFRB 2004). (See also Section E.5.6.1 for information on ESA-listed fish species).

From 1988 to 1999, native Spring Chinook spawning numbers in the upper Cowlitz River never exceeded 600, with a low of 34 adults in 1996, confirming the importance of hatchery programs for sustaining the species (WDFW 2001). Because of the low natural escapement numbers of Spring Chinook, Tacoma Power hauled approximately 2,000 adults upstream of Mayfield Dam to spawn in 2002 (Mottram 2003).

Fall Chinook also utilize the Cowlitz River for spawning and rearing. In 1948, before the impoundment of the Cowlitz River, fall Chinook abundance was estimated at 63,612 with escapement above the future site of Mayfield Dam estimated to be at least 14,000 fish (LCFRB 2004). Another study in 1951 estimated that fall Chinook escapement was approximately 31,000 fish, 10,900 of which were on the mainstem Cowlitz River (CBFWA 2002). From 1961 to 1966, an average of 8,535 fall Chinook were counted at the Mayfield Dam site (LCFRB 2004); during this time approximately 37% of the fall Chinook redds counted on the Cowlitz River were above the Mayfield Dam site (WDW 1990). The percentage of fall Chinook spawning that took place above Mayfield Dam rose from 37% in the 1960s to 46% in 1994 (CBFWA 2002). Twenty-one years after the completion of Mayfield Dam, the natural spawning population of fall Chinook was estimated at 3,695 adults. One year later, the escapement of fall Chinook was estimated to be 2,606 adults (DeVore 1987).

Coho salmon spawn and rear in the Cowlitz River. Coho escapement numbers exceeded 77,000 fish in 1948 (LCFRB 2004). Coho counted at Mayfield Dam over a 5- year period, from 1961 to 1966, averaged 24,579 fish annually (WDW 1990). Two separate stocks of coho utilize the Cowlitz River and its tributaries for spawning. “Early” spawning coho typically spawn from October to December and “late” spawners usually spawn from January through early March. Traditionally, managers refer to early coho as “Type S” coho because their ocean distribution is generally south of the Columbia

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-6 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

River, and refer to late coho as “Type N” coho due to their general ocean distribution north of the Columbia River (LCFRB 2004). The combined natural spawning population of early and late coho in the Cowlitz River was estimated to be 5,229 in 1982. Of the coho that use the Cowlitz River to spawn, 77% of them do so above Mayfield Dam (CBFWA 2002). Recent studies on the Cowlitz River indicated that the number of female adult coho transported around Mayfield Dam increased from 594 in the 1996-97 spawning season to over 15,000 for the 2000-01 spawning season (CBFWA 2002). During 2002, more than 80,000 coho adults were trucked upstream of Mayfield Dam and released to spawn (Mottram 2003). A number of sources on Cowlitz River coho suggest that these fish utilize the mainstem Cowlitz River and its tributaries in and around the Project. Figure E.5.3.1-1 summarizes the hatchery adult salmonid returns to the Cowlitz River for spring Chinook, fall Chinook, and coho salmon from 1980-2004.

Cowlitz River Salmon Hatchery Adult Return

80000

70000

60000

50000

40000 Number of Fish 30000

20000

10000

0 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Time (years)

Spring Chinook Fall Chinook Coho

Figure E.5.3.1-1. Cowlitz River Hatchery Adult Returns for Spring Chinook, Fall Chinook, and Coho Salmon.

Historically, large numbers of steelhead trout have spawned in the Cowlitz River. Both summer and winter steelhead have been documented in the Cowlitz River; however, summer steelhead run numbers have historically been lower than winter run numbers. During the 1962 to 1966 period, only 75 of 54,044 steelhead counted at Mayfield Dam were summer steelhead (WDW 1990). Using the 1961 to 1966 period average, 11,081 winter steelhead were collected annually at the Mayfield Dam fish passage facility (LCFRB 2004). The Washington Department of Wildlife (1990) also reported that from 1977 to 1979, and 1985 to 1989, hatchery winter steelhead made up 98.3% of the total winter steelhead run in the Cowlitz River. It has been estimated that approximately 80%

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-7 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources of steelhead spawning in the Cowlitz River occurs above Mayfield Dam. Wild steelhead production has been documented as minimal, and summer steelhead exist in the Cowlitz River only as a hatchery stock below Mayfield Dam. Although natural propagation of steelhead in the Cowlitz River and its tributaries is minimal, hatchery programs allow the continued survival of the species in the watershed. Cowlitz River hatchery steelhead escapement from 1995-2004 is shown in Figure E.5.3.1-2.

Cowlitz River Hatchery Steelhead Escapement

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000 Number of Fish Number

4000

2000

0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Time (years)

Winter Steelhead Summer Steelhead

Figure E.5.3.1-2. Cowlitz River Hatchery Steelhead Escapement for Winter and Summer Steelhead

A population of sea-run cutthroat trout exists in the Cowlitz River. From 1962 to 1966, sea-run cutthroat counts averaged 8,698 annually at Mayfield Dam (LCFRB 2004). From 1964-66 out-migrating sea-run cutthroat numbers averaged 5,295 fish annually (Young 1974). A hatchery program began in 1967 and continues today. Both native and hatchery sea-run cutthroat have the potential to utilize Project-affected waters (WDFW 2005).

Rainbow trout, mountain whitefish, northern pikeminnow, sculpin, bridgelip and mountain sucker, longnose and speckled dace, western brook trout and Pacific lamprey have been documented as resident species in the Cowlitz River. It has also been suggested that a remnant population of sturgeon may exist above Mayfield Dam in Riffe Lake (CBFWA 2002).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-8 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

E.5.3.1.2 Environmental Analysis

The purpose of the fisheries investigations for relicensing was to supplement data previously collected and summarized in the Pre-Application Document (PAD) (Energy Northwest 2004c), and more fully describe the fish resources within the Project boundaries, to support FERC’s analysis of the Project’s effects, for the issuance of a new license. The scope of the studies was developed in consultation with the natural resource agencies and tribes and approved by FERC. Fourteen studies related to fisheries were conducted as part of relicensing. The results of the studies related to fish at the Project are summarized below.

E.5.3.1.2.1 Fish Distribution and Species Composition Study

This study examined the fish-bearing waters potentially affected by the Project and included Packwood Lake and tributaries (Upper Lake, Osprey, Muller, Trap, Crawford, Beaver Bill creeks and the unnamed tributary southeast of Trap Creek), lower Lake Creek below the drop structure, and Hall and Snyder creeks (EES Consulting 2007o). Beaver Bill Creek was investigated because there is no barrier to upstream migration between Upper Lake Creek and the confluence of Beaver Bill Creek. Snyder Creek was examined from its confluence with Hall Creek upstream to the barrier falls at RM 0.80. Hall Creek was examined from immediately above Snyder Creek Road (RM 3.45) to the falls at RM 3.7. Past and present studies and scientific literature were reviewed to identify areas where information was lacking. A combination of underwater observation (snorkeling), electrofishing, netting and spawning surveys was employed in the study areas, as appropriate.

Packwood Lake was examined using passive gill net and fyke net sets. Efforts were made to target both cutthroat and rainbow trout during times when these fish were believed to congregate in specific areas near the mouths of major spawning tributaries. Study field work was conducted between July 2006 and July 2007. Ice, snow, high flows and decreased visibility precluded the biologists from conducting fieldwork prior to early July in 2006. Because of the seasonality requirements for resident spawning surveys at the Packwood Lake tributaries and the poor weather conditions during late April through June 2006, a supplemental set of surveys was completed during that same period in 2007.

Packwood Lake and Tributaries Fish species distribution and composition data were collected in Packwood Lake and its tributaries using a variety of methods, including:

• Gill Nets – Two sites in Packwood Lake • Fyke Nets – Two sites in Packwood Lake • As a supplement to the passive net sets in Packwood Lake, Energy Northwest conducted two hydroacoustic surveys to gain a better understanding of the overall population size of Packwood Lake rainbow trout

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-9 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

• Out-migrant Traps – Mouths of tributaries (Crawford, Upper Lake, Muller, Trap and Osprey creeks) • As a supplement to the out-migrant traps in the tributaries to Packwood Lake, Energy Northwest conducted a series of six surveys utilizing a combination of snorkeling and visual observations to better understand out-migrant populations and timing. • Snorkeling - Tributaries • Electrofishing – Tributaries • Tributary Spawning Surveys – Tributaries (Crawford, Upper Lake, Beaver Bill, Muller, Trap, SE of Trap and Osprey creeks)

Packwood Lake: A series of gill and fyke net sets were used to assess fish population characteristics of Packwood Lake. Nets were placed approximately 50 ft from the point immediately downstream of the mouth of Osprey Creek and at the upstream end of the lake approximately 100 ft from shore between the mouths of Muller Creek and Upper Lake Creek (Figure E.5.3.1-3).

A total of 52 rainbow trout were captured in Packwood Lake at the site near Osprey Creek. The rainbow ranged in size from 115 mm to 310 mm. Figure E.5.3.1-4 documents the sizes of all fish captured at the site near Osprey Creek. No other species were captured at this site. The second pair of nets was located between the mouths of Muller and Upper Lake creeks (upper Packwood Lake site), which captured a total of 53 rainbow trout ranging in size from 215 mm to 280 mm. Figure E.5.3.1-5 summarizes the size ranges of fish captured at the upper Packwood Lake Site. No other fish species were observed at any of the capture sites.

Due to high mortality rates of rainbow captured at both sites during overnight sets, (approximately 50%), the gill nets were deployed for shorter one day sets. No fish were captured at either site. Given the lack of fish captured during the day set in July, a fyke net was used for the final overnight set. One rainbow trout measuring 125 mm was captured at the site near Osprey Creek and 5 rainbow trout ranging from 110 mm to 125 mm were captured at the upper Packwood Lake site.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-10 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-3. Netting Locations at Packwood Lake

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-11 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Netting at Osprey Point (53 Total Rainbow Captured) 25

20

15

10 Number of Rainbow Captured of Rainbow Number

5

0 100-125 125-150 150-175 175-200 200-225 225-250 250-275 275-300 300-325 Size Ranges (mm)

Figure E.5.3.1-4. Rainbow Trout Size Ranges for Fish Captured at Site Near Osprey Creek

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-12 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Upper Packwood Lake Netting (58 Total Rainbow Captured)

35

30

25

20

15

Number of Rainbow Captured of Rainbow Number 10

5

0 100-125 125-150 175-200 200-225 225-250 250-275 275-300 300-325 Size Ranges (mm)

Figure E.5.3.1-5. Captured Rainbow Trout Size Ranges at Upper Packwood Lake Site

Packwood Lake Hydroacoustics: Two hydroacoustic surveys were conducted on Packwood Lake in 2007. The first survey took place on May 23, 2007, prior to adult rainbow trout migration into the tributaries for spawning purposes. The second survey occurred on August 8, 2007, after all rainbow trout spawning in the tributaries was documented as complete, and fish had migrated back to the lake. The intention was to collect data from nine cross sections during each of the two surveys. However, due to three corrupt data files during the May survey, only six cross sections were analyzed.

May 23, 2007 Hydroacoustic Survey

Six transects were analyzed during the May 23 assessment (Figure E.5.3.1-6). Two of the transects (Transects 1 and 6), were placed in the littoral zone of the lake. Transects 2 and 5 were in the transition zone between littoral and deep zones. Transects 3 and 4 were in the deep basin south of Agnes Island.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-13 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-6. Hydroacoustic Cross Sections - May 2007 Survey

A relatively even distribution of rainbow trout was observed at the six transects analyzed during the May, 2007 survey. The largest number of rainbow trout was observed on Transect 3 in the deep basin south of Agnes Island. The least number of fish was documented on Transect 6, the littoral zone near Osprey Creek. Fish were observed in every 5 m increment of the water column from the surface to 35 m. The highest number of fish (42), was observed between 5.1 m and 10.0 m. Only one fish was observed between 25.1 m and 30.0 m and one between 30.1 m and 35.0 m. Table E.5.3.1-2 documents numbers of rainbow trout and the associated depth ranges where they were observed for each transect in 5 m increments. The table also displays the sample volume for each transect. The sample volume is defined as the amount of water sampled along a specific transect, measured in cubic meters.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-14 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-2. Number of Fish and Associated Depth Ranges for Transects Transect Location Number of Fish Depth Range (m) Sample Volume (m3) 1 Littoral 10 1-10 1194.78 2 Transition 20 4-25 21875.25 3 Deep 22 4-31 57768.88 4 Deep 21 5-18 50405.02 5 Transition 14 5-18 18565.99 6 Littoral 9 4-26 9368.57

There were 96 rainbow trout observed during the May 2007 hydroacoustic survey on Packwood Lake (Figure E.5.3.1-7). Lengths ranged from 1.6 cm to 111.1 cm. It is important to note that the size of fish is measured in terms of target strength. Target strength is the response of the echo sent into the water column after it has struck the air bladder of the fish. It is possible for a fish to appear smaller than it actually is, because of its specific orientation in the water column and the associated ability of the transducer to accurately document the size of the air bladder. In general terms, a fish that is oriented perpendicular to the direction of the echo will give the most accurate reading of size. Figure E.5.3.1-8 below displays the size ranges and relative numbers of rainbow trout identified in each from Packwood Lake during the May survey.

Figure E.5.3.1-7. Rainbow Trout Depth Ranges

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-15 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-8. Rainbow Trout Size Ranges

August 8, 2007 Hydroacoustic Survey

Nine cross sections were analyzed during the August hydroacoustic survey of Packwood Lake. Transects 1, 8 and 9 were in the littoral zone. Transects 2 and 7 were located in transition zones between shallow and deep water. Transects 3 through 6 were in the deep basin south of Agnes Island (Figure E.5.3.1-9).

Transect 7 (transition zone) had the highest number of fish observed (44), while the lowest number of fish was documented on Transect 1 in the littoral zone at the far south end of the lake (8). No fish were documented above 5 m at any of the cross sections. The deepest documented rainbow trout occurred at Transect 5 at approximately 28 m. Table E.5.3.1-3 documents the numbers of rainbow trout and the associated depth ranges where they were observed for each transect. The table also displays the sample volume for each transect. Figure E.5.3.1-10 displays the total number of fish identified in depth ranges segmented into 5 m increments.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-16 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-9. Hydroacoustic Cross Section Locations for the August, 2007 Survey

Table E.5.3.1-3. Packwood Lake Fish and Depths Observed - August Hydroacoustic Survey Transect Location Number of Fish Depth Range (m) Sample Volume (m3) 1 Littoral 8 8-17 10975.94 2 Transition 18 8-25 26018.41 3 Deep 24 7-23 38285.28 4 Deep 34 7-26 46888.68 5 Deep 32 7-28 58249.25 6 Deep 15 5-19 22462.81 7 Transition 44 8-24 19210.79 8 Littoral 21 7-22 9127.58 9 Littoral 15 8-14 5097.925

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-17 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-10. Packwood Lake Hydroacoustic Survey Rainbow Trout Depth Distribution, August 8, 2007

There were 211 rainbow trout documented during the August 8, 2007 hydroacoustic survey of Packwood Lake. The lengths of the fish ranged from 1.6 cm to 111.1 cm. As discussed above, the size of fish is measured in terms of the response to the hydroacoustic echo and is affected by the position of the fish in the water column and the associated ability of the transducer to accurately document the size of the air bladder. Figures E.5.3.1-10 and E.5.3.1-11 display the depth and size ranges of rainbow trout identified in each from Packwood Lake during the August survey.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-18 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-11. Packwood Lake Hydroacoustic Survey Rainbow Trout Size Distribution, August 8, 2007

Upper Lake Creek: Five 60 m study sites were snorkeled in the lower 5,000 ft of Upper Lake Creek between August and October 2006. Figure E.5.3.1-12 displays the study sites for all Packwood Lake tributaries. One rainbow trout was observed in Study Site 2 measuring 120 mm.

Habitat types were relatively consistent throughout all of the study sites. Figure E.5.3.1- 13 displays the percentage of the various habitat types present at each study site.

Outmigrant trapping was conducted using a modified fyke net after annual rainbow spawning in the tributaries had ceased and the fish had the opportunity to return to the lake. Visual surveys were conducted to observe fry in their natal streams and the timing of their emigration to the lake.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-19 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-12. Packwood Lake Tributary Study Sites

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-20 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Upper Lake Creek Habitat Percentages by Study Site

120

100

80

60 Percent

40

20

0 12345 Reaches

Pools Glides Runs Riffles High Gradient Riffles Plunge Pools Falls Cascades Figure E.5.3.1-13. Upper Lake Creek Habitat Percentages by Study Site

Beaver Bill Creek: Two 30 m study sites extending upstream from the confluence with Upper Lake Creek at RM 0.8 were snorkeled on Beaver Bill Creek on August 8, 2006 (Figure E.5.3.1-12). No fish were observed in the upper two sites. Four newly emerged juvenile rainbow trout, measuring approximately 20 mm, were observed at the other site. Figure E.5.3.1-14 displays habitat percentages for the two study sites on Beaver Bill Creek.

Spawning Surveys – Eight surveys were conducted on a 0.1 mile stretch of Beaver Bill Creek below the first barrier on the stream. The spawning surveys were conducted between the weeks of May 20 and July 8, 2007. Two rainbow and nine redds were observed during the surveys, with the peak occurring on June 11 when nine redds were observed near the mouth. The June 6 survey was compromised due to high flow and reduced visibility.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-21 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Beaver Bill Creek Habitat Percentages by Study Site

50

45

40

35

30

25 Percent

20

15

10

5

0 12 Study Site

Pools Glides Runs Riffles High Gradient Riffles Plunge Pools Cascades Falls

Figure E.5.3.1-14. Beaver Bill Creek Habitat Percentages by Study Site

Crawford Creek: Only one 30 m study site was electrofished near the mouth of Crawford Creek on August 8, 2006 due to the shocking of large numbers of newly emerged rainbow fry. It was determined that visual assessment would be sufficient, and large numbers of fry were visually confirmed at both the first and second study sites. Energy Northwest attempted to capture newly emerged rainbow trout fry with a modified fyke net in late June 2006 to determine their emigration timing. One 120 mm rainbow was captured in early July. The fish was dead and likely a first-year, spawned-out fish that had died upstream subsequent to spawning. No other fish were captured prior to the net being removed in September 2006.

Outmigration – Rainbow trout fry were observed during all six outmigration surveys on Crawford Creek. The largest numbers of fry were observed on the August 9, 2007 survey. During the initial site visit on July 24, fry were approximately 10-15 mm in length. By the time most were documented to have left the creek for Packwood Lake, (August 20, 2007), their size was estimated to be 30-35 mm. Crawford Creek had no visible flow on the final survey (August 30, 2007) and only pockets of water remained in some areas upstream of the mouth where fry had been observed during prior surveys. No fry were present during the last survey in any of these pockets of water; however large numbers of fry were observed in the lake very near the mouth of Crawford Creek.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-22 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Water temperatures ranged from a low of 8°C on August 9 and 20, 2007, to a high of 10°C on three surveys (August 2, 16 and 30, 2007).

Spawning Surveys – Eight spawning surveys were conducted on a 0.25 mile stretch of Crawford Creek between the weeks of May 20 and July 8, 2007. A total of 513 fish and 214 redds were observed over the course of the surveys. The peak survey occurred on June 11, when 148 fish and 134 redds were observed. A majority of the fish and redds were observed just upstream of a large root wad at the mouth of the creek.

Muller Creek: Two 30 m study sites were surveyed on August 8, 2006 beginning at the mouth of Muller Creek and working upstream. No fish were captured or observed. A modified fyke net was put in place in late June 2006 in an effort to capture newly emerged rainbow to determine their out-migrant timing. The net was set upstream of the backwatering influence of Packwood Lake approximately 300 ft from the mouth. No fish were captured during the approximately three months of deployment.

Outmigration – Rainbow trout fry were observed in Muller Creek during all surveys between August 2 and August 30, 2007. The largest number of rainbow fry was observed on August 9. A general downstream progression of rainbow fry in Muller Creek was observed. During the first two surveys when fry were observed, they could be seen throughout the lowest 2,000 ft. of stream, congregating in small groups. During subsequent surveys, the fry grew larger and collected in larger groups closer to the mouth. By August 30, most of the fry were out of the creek and observed in Packwood Lake near the creek mouth. Water temperatures varied from a low of 5°C on August 9 to a high of 8°C on August 20.

Spawning Surveys – A 0.7 mile stretch of Muller Creek was surveyed eight times between the week of May 24 and the week of July 12, 2007. A total of 3665 fish and 1147 redds were observed. The peak survey occurred on June 18, 2007 when 1336 fish and 1093 redds were observed. It is important to note that with the high level of spawning occurring in Muller Creek some superimposition and mass spawning was occurring, making accurate enumeration of redds difficult. The technicians are well trained in evaluating rainbow trout spawning and an appropriate amount of time was spent deciphering the correct number of redds in each area.

Trap Creek: The lowest 0.2 miles of Trap Creek, below a large falls, is a high gradient step pool-type stream with abundant short runs, cascades and plunge pools. Two 30 m study sites were surveyed on the lower 0.2 miles of Trap Creek on August 8, 2006. No fish were captured or observed. The water level in Trap Creek was low during the August 2006 surveys, but was of sufficient volume to permit survival of adult rainbow trout. Trapping with a modified fyke net in late June 2006 was attempted, to capture newly emerged rainbow to determine their out-migrant timing. Given the low water in Trap Creek, the trap was placed near the mouth. No fish were captured during the approximately three month long deployment period.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-23 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Outmigration - Rainbow trout fry were observed in Trap Creek on all surveys between July 24 and August 16, 2007. The largest number of fry was observed during the August 2 survey. Relative to the other creeks, rainbow trout fry spent less time in Trap Creek prior to migrating to Packwood Lake and did so at a smaller size. Trap Creek went dry between the August 20 and August 30 surveys, leaving small pockets of non- flowing water in the channel. No fry were observed stranded in the creek and a large number could be seen near the mouth in Packwood Lake. Water temperatures in Trap Creek ranged from a low of 8.5°C on August 9 to a high of 10.5°C on August 2.

Spawning Surveys – Trap Creek was surveyed from the mouth approximately 0.1 mile upstream to the first barrier. Eight surveys were conducted between the weeks of May 20 and July 8, 2007. A total of 86 fish and 38 redds were observed. The peak survey occurred on the June 6 survey when 60 fish and 30 redds were observed.

Southeast Trap Creek – Southeast Trap Creek is a high gradient step pool stream with a majority of the habitat made up of runs, high gradient riffles, cascades and plunge pools. The lower 0.2 mile of Southeast Trap Creek was surveyed by electrofishing two 30 m study sites. No fish were captured during the August 8, 2006 survey. Due to steep channel walls and low water during the potential survey months in Southeast Trap Creek, trapping of emigrating fish was not possible.

Spawning Surveys – Eight surveys were conducted on Southeast Trap Creek between the week of May 20 and July 8, 2007. A 0.1 mile section was surveyed from the mouth to the first barrier. No fish or redds were observed in Southeast Trap Creek during any of the surveys.

Outmigration – No outmigration surveys were conducted on Southeast Trap Creek because no adult rainbow trout or redds were observed during surveys.

Osprey Creek: Lower Osprey Creek is a low-gradient system with diverse aquatic habitat. Two electrofishing sites were established approximately 0.2 miles upstream of Packwood Lake in Osprey Creek. No fish were observed during the electrofishing surveys. A modified fyke net with wings long enough to span the channel width was put in place in late June 2006 in an effort to capture newly emerged rainbow to determine their outmigrant timing. The trap was placed approximately 0.15 miles upstream of the mouth in a plunge pool. No fish were captured during the approximately three month deployment of the trap.

Outmigration – Rainbow trout fry were observed in Osprey Creek during all surveys. The highest number observed occurred on August 20, 2007. Two distinct sizes of fry were observed related to two different emergence timings on Osprey Creek. The first took place sometime between the August 2 and August 9 survey; the second between August 16 and August 20. The water flow in Osprey Creek was very low and few fry remained in the creek on the August 30 survey. Large numbers of fry were observed near the mouth in Packwood Lake. Water temperatures ranged from a low of 6°C on August 9 to a high of 8.5°C on August 30.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-24 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Spawning Surveys – A 0.35 mile stretch of Osprey Creek was surveyed eight times between the weeks of May 20 and July 8, 2007. A total of 441 fish and 134 redds were observed during the survey period. The peak spawning survey occurred on June 6, when 160 fish and 98 redds were observed.

Lower Lake Creek: The entire 5.4-mile section of lower Lake Creek was surveyed during July, August and September of 2006, including 26 sites in five segmented reaches (Figures E.5.3.1-15 and E.5.3.1-16). Snorkeling and electrofishing techniques were used to document species abundance and distribution data. An assessment was conducted at each site to determine which method would be most effective. Variables taken into account included flow, stream width, water clarity and depth.

A habitat analysis was conducted at each site prior to either snorkeling or electrofishing the site. Each fish observed was related to the specific habitat unit in which it was identified. Table E.5.3.1-4 and Figure E.5.3.1-17 display habitat frequencies for all five reaches on lower Lake Creek. Species encountered during the surveys on lower Lake Creek included rainbow trout, coho salmon juveniles and sculpin. Figure E.5.3.1-18 documents habitat preferences for all three species encountered relative to all habitat units analyzed. All of the coho were observed below the chute at RM 1.03.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-25 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Reach #2 (RM 0.7-1.3)

Reach #1 (RM 0.0-0.7)

Figure E.5.3.1-15. Lower Lake Creek Reaches 1 and 2

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-26 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Reach #4 (RM 3.5-4.9)

Reach #3 (RM 1.3-3.5)

Reach #5 (RM 4.9-5.4)

Figure E.5.3.1-16. Lower Lake Creek Reaches 3 through 5

Table E.5.3.1-4. Habitat Percentages for the Five Reaches Surveyed on Lower Lake Creek Reach Plunge (RM) Pools Glides Runs Riffles HGR Pools Falls Cascades 1 0 53 33 8 0 7 0 0 2 0 9 39 0 0 35 0 0 3 1 27 37 0 15 5 0.5 13 4 6 34 39 1 13 2 0 5 5 29 31 32 0 0 0 0 8

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-27 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Lake Creek Habitat Percentages by Reach 60

50

40

30 Percent

20

10

0 0.0-0.7 0.7-1.3 1.3-3.5 3.5-4.9 4.9-5.4 Reach (RM)

Pools Glides Runs Riffles High Gradient Riffles Plunge Pools Falls Cascades

Figure E.5.3.1-17. Study Site Habitat Frequencies by Reach on Lower Lake Creek (RM 0.0 – 5.4)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-28 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008

Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Habitat Utilization by Speci es Captured on Lower Lake Creek 140

120

100

80

60 Number of Fish Number

40

20

0 Pool Plunge Pool Glide Run Riffle HGR Cascade Habitat Type

Rainbow Coho Sculpin

Figure E.5.3.1-18. Species Habitat Utilization on Lower Lake Creek

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-29 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008

Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Reach 1 (RM 0.0-0.7): Two study sites were surveyed in Reach 1 of lower Lake Creek. A total of 9 rainbow, 30 coho juveniles and 1 sculpin were observed in Reach 1. All fish were observed using the snorkeling methodology described by Dolloff et al. (1996). Figure E.5.3.1-19 displays the range of sizes for fish species captured in Reach 1.

Fish Observations on Lower Lake Creek (RM 0.0-0.7)

9

8

7

6

5

4 Number of Fish Number

3

2

1

0 0-25 25-50 50-75 75-100 100-125 125-150 150-175 175-200 200-225 225-250 250-275 275-300 300-325 Size Range (mm)

Rainbow Coho Sculpin

Figure E.5.3.1-19. Size Ranges for Species Observed in Reach 1 on Lower Lake Creek

Reach 2 (RM 0.7-1.3): Three 60 m study sites were examined over the 0.6 mile stretch of Reach 2. The lower 2 study sites were snorkeled and the upper site electrofished. A total of 61 rainbow, 27 coho and 5 sculpin were observed in this area. The rainbow ranged in length from 15 mm to 175 mm, coho from 50 mm to 100 mm and the sculpin were all between 40 mm and 80 mm (Figure E.5.3.1-20).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-30 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Fish Observations on Lower Lake Creek (RM 0.7-1.3)

45

40

35

30

25

20 Number of Fish Number

15

10

5

0 0-25 25-50 50-75 75-100 100-125 125-150 150-175 175-200 200-225 225-250 250-275 275-300 300-325 Size Range (mm)

Rainbow Coho Sculpin

Figure E.5.3.1-20. Size Ranges for Species Observed in Reach 2 on Lower Lake Creek

Reach 3 (RM 1.3-3.5): Ten 60 m study sites were investigated between Reach 3 on lower Lake Creek. All sites had sufficient depth for the snorkeling methodology to be properly applied. A total of 164 rainbow trout were observed in this reach. No sculpin or coho were identified. The rainbow ranged in size from 50 mm to 325 mm in length with the majority of them (135) ranging from 75 mm to 225 mm (Figure E.5.3.1-21).

Rainbow trout were observed in all habitat units identified, with a majority (64%) located in glides and runs.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-31 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Fish Observations on Lower Lake Creek (RM 1.3-3.5)

45

40

35

30

25

20 Number of Fish Number

15

10

5

0 0-25 25-50 50-75 75-100 100-125 125-150 150-175 175-200 200-225 225-250 250-275 275-300 300-325 Size Ranges (mm)

Rainbow

Figure E.5.3.1-21. Size Ranges for Rainbow Trout Observed in Reach 3 on Lower Lake Creek

Reach 4 (RM 3.5-4.9): Eight 60 m sites were snorkeled in Reach 4. A total of 155 rainbow trout were observed, measuring between 30 mm and 200 mm. The majority of the fish (148) ranged in size from 25 mm to 175 mm. No sculpin or coho were identified (Figure E.5.3.1-22). Rainbow were observed in all habitat units identified, with a majority (63%) located in pools and glides.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-32 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Fish Observations on Lower Lake Creek (RM 3.5-4.9)

50

45

40

35

30

25

Number of Fish Number 20

15

10

5

0 0-25 25-50 50-75 75-100 100-125 125-150 150-175 175-200 200-225 225-250 250-275 275-300 300-325 Size Ranges (mm)

Rainbow

Figure E.5.3.1-22. Size Ranges for Rainbow Trout Observed in Reach 4 on Lower Lake Creek

Reach 5 (RM 4.9-5.4): Detailed discussion regarding this area is provided in the Fish Population Characterization Near the Drop Structure Study Report (EES Consulting 2007i) and in Section E.5.3.1.2.5. Three sites were electrofished in this reach (approximately 1,200 ft). Five rainbow trout were captured in Reach 5 ranging in length from 40 mm to 140 mm (Figure E.5.3.1-23). No sculpin were observed during the surveys.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-33 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Electrofishing Observations for Lake Creek (RM 4.9-5.4)

2.5

2

1.5

1 Number ofNumber Fish Observed

0.5

0 0-25 25-50 50-75 75-100 100-125 125-150 150-175 175-200 200-225 225-250 250-275 275-300 300-325 Size Range (mm)

Rainbow

Figure E.5.3.1-23. Size Ranges for Rainbow Trout Observed in Reach 5 on Lower Lake Creek

Snyder and Hall Creeks: Four 60 m study sites were surveyed using electrofishing in Snyder Creek in August 2007, from the Packwood tailrace upstream 0.8 miles to the falls. Two study sites were analyzed below a large culvert under a Forest Service Road approximately 1800 ft upstream of the mouth of Snyder Creek. The other two study sites were placed upstream of the culvert (Figure E.5.3.1-24).

A habitat analysis was conducted at each study site prior to electrofishing the site. Each fish observed was then related to the specific habitat unit in which it was identified. Figure E.5.3.1-25 displays habitat types present and their respective percentages at each study site.

Twenty-four coho juveniles were observed during the Snyder Creek surveys. A total of 58 westslope cutthroat, three lamprey, and 16 sculpin were captured. No coho juveniles were captured above Study Site 1. A majority of the cutthroat were captured at Study Site 2 immediately below the Forest Service Road and culvert. Figure E.5.3.1- 26 documents size ranges of fish captured at Snyder Creek.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-34 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-24. Study Site Locations on Snyder Creek

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-35 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Snyder Creek Habitat Percentages by Study Site

100

90

80

70

60

50 Percent

40

30

20

10

0 1234 Reaches

Pools Glides Runs Riffles High Gradient Riffles Plunge Pools Falls Cascades

Figure E.5.3.1-25. Snyder Creek Habitat Percentages by Study Site

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-36 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Fish Shocking Observations for Snyder Creek

25

20

15 Cutthroat Coho Sculpin Lamprey 10 Number of Fish Observed

5

0 0-25 25-50 50-75 75-100 100-125 125-150 150-175 175-200 200-225 225-250 250-275 275-300 300-325 Size Ranges (mm)

Figure E.5.3.1-26. Size Ranges for Species Captured at Four Study Sites on Snyder Creek

Two 30 m study sites were snorkeled on Hall Creek and a 30 m study site was snorkeled on Johnstone Creek (a tributary to Hall Creek) on March 8, 2007. All three study sites were upstream of the Snyder Creek Road. Ten rainbow trout ranging in size from 75 mm to 250 mm, and 18 westslope cutthroat trout from 75 mm to 210 mm were present in the plunge pool immediately upstream of the confluence of Hall Creek with Johnstone Creek (Study Site 2 on Hall Creek). No other fish were observed in Hall Creek. At Study Site 3 on Johnstone Creek, just upstream from the confluence with Hall Creek, a 50 mm sculpin and a 75 mm rainbow were observed in the glide. Figure E.5.3.1-27 documents the habitat percentages surveyed during the Hall Creek surveys.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-37 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Hall Creek Habitat Percentages by Study Site

80

70

60

50

40 Percent

30

20

10

0 123 Study Site

Cascades Glide Plunge Pool Riffle Run Falls High Gradient Riffle Pool

Figure E.5.3.1-27. Hall Creek Habitat Percentages by Study Site

E.5.3.1.2.2 Packwood Lake Drawdown Study Results

Energy Northwest conducted a study to analyze the effects of Project-induced lake drawdowns (EES Consulting 2007g). Objectives of this study were to determine acres of drawdown zone exposed at various seasonal pool levels and evaluate effects on fish and wildlife (See also Sections E.5.3.2.2 and E.5.4.2).

Bathymetric data were collected at 31 transects, each located perpendicular to the shoreline. Shorelines include Agnes Island in Packwood Lake. The placement of transects along the shoreline was based on variability of littoral habitat. Transect density was greater in areas with broad littoral habitats.

The lake bathymetric GIS layer for littoral areas was used to compute the area below elevation 2,857 ft MSL that is dewatered relative to water elevation within the operational range (2857 ft MSL to 2849 ft MSL). The area dewatered due to Project operation was reported as monthly maximum, minimum and mean values. An annual exceedence curve for the dewatered area was computed, based on the period of record (June 20, 1967 to present).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-38 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

The locations of transects are shown on Figure E.5.3.1-28. Contours were created by interpolation between elevation points and following a similar shape to the previously mapped 10 ft contours. Surveyed elevation data fit well with the Project boundary previously mapped at 2860.0 ft MSL. The Project boundary map around the lake was based on an approximation from existing topographic data available from USGS. Figure E.5.3.1-29 shows the resulting bathymetric map for littoral habitat in Packwood Lake. The elevation contours are at 1 ft increments between 2849.0 ft MSL and 2859.0 ft MSL. The uppermost contour band (white) is the Project boundary at approximately elevation 2860 ft MSL. Figures E.5.3-30 and E.5.3-31 provide higher resolution maps of littoral habitat at the upper end of the lake and at the mouth of Osprey Creek, respectively.

Table E.5.3.1-5 lists the total surface area of Packwood Lake (acres) at various water surface elevations as computed from the GIS contour map (Figure E.5.3.1-29). The total lake surface area as calculated in this table is consistent with previously reported surface area (Energy Northwest 2004c). The Project is operated to maintain a lake elevation of 2,857 ft + 0.5 ft during the summer months. Beginning in mid-September, the lake is drawn down to no lower than 2,849.0 ft MSL. The lake level rises with natural inflow during the Project shutdown period in October. If the lake is lowered to the minimum allowed elevation of 2,849.0 ft MSL at the beginning of the Project annual outage, 30 acres would be temporarily dewatered. This is a 7% reduction in surface area of the lake relative to the surface area when the lake is at EL. 2,857.0 ft MSL.

The change in surface area of the lake bed dewatered as a function of lake surface elevation was calculated for both the horizontal planar area and the slope surface area. The difference was less than 0.1%.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-39 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-28. Map of Packwood Lake illustrating transect locations and data points (green dots) and Project boundary (white).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-40 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-29. Bathymetric Map of Packwood Lake Littoral Habitat. (Uppermost contour [white] is Project boundary; other contour intervals shown at 1 ft increments between 2859 ft and 2849 ft.)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-41 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-30. Bathymetric Map of Littoral Habitat at upper end of Packwood Lake. (Uppermost contour [white] is Project boundary; other contour intervals shown at 1 ft increments between 2859 ft and 2849 ft.)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-42 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-31. Bathymetric Map of Littoral Habitat near Mouth of Osprey Creek. (Uppermost contour [white] is Project boundary. Other contour intervals shown at 1 ft increments between 2859.0 ft and 2849.0 ft.)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-43 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-5. Surface Area for Packwood Lake and Acreage Affected by Drawdown (Acreages per 1-foot contour between El. 2859 and 2849). Water Surface Elevation Surface Area Change in Area (ft ) (acres) (acres) 2859.0 460 0 2858.0 456 4 2857.0 452 4 2856.0 448 4 2855.0 445 3 2854.0 441 4 2853.0 437 4 2852.0 433 4 2851.0 430 3 2850.0 426 4 2849.0 422 4

Energy Northwest monitors lake level for Packwood Lake. The lake level is currently drawn down in the latter half of September in advance of the annual Project shutdown that occurs in October for maintenance. The license provides for Energy Northwest to utilize up to 8 vertical feet of storage in Packwood Lake for energy production between September 15 and April 30. Spill occurs when inflow exceeds Project operational needs and the lake level reaches at least 2858.5 ft MSL. Figure E.5.3.1-32 shows the fluctuation in lake surface area for the period September 2005 through November 14, 2006. Figure E.5.3.1-33 shows the relationship between lake level and surface area. This relationship was used to plot the daily change in lake surface area for September 2005 through November 14, 2006 (Figure E.5.3.1-34). An increase in lake surface area corresponds to a rising lake level and a reduction in the amount of exposed lake bed. Table E.5.3.1-6 lists the monthly average and range for daily change in area of exposed lake bed for the period. The rate of change and total daily fluctuation is a function of both Project operation and natural inflow. The largest daily change observed for a single day was a change of 24.4 acres, which corresponded to a rapid rise in lake level on November 6, 2006 from 2854.9 ft to 2861.12 ft when the daily inflow was approximately 1800 cfs.

Table E.5.3.1-7 lists the amount (area) of exposed lake bed below the elevation 2857 ft MSL, which is the lake level for summer months. The average monthly lake level in January and February 2006 was above 2857.0 ft MSL. The maximum area dewatered below 2857.0 ft MSL was 27.6 acres, which occurred on September 29, 2005 at the end of the fall drawdown when the lake reached an elevation of 2849.81 ft MSL.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-44 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Packwood Lake Surface Area

460.00 450.00 440.00 430.00

Acres 420.00 410.00 400.00

5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Figure E.5.3.1-32. Water Surface Level for Packwood Lake September 2005 through November 2006.

Figure E.5.3.1-33. Surface Area (acres) as a Function of Water Surface Elevation for Packwood Lake.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-45 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Packwood Lake Daily Change in Surface Area

8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 Acres -2.00 Fall Drawdown -4.00 -6.00

5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 / / /2 /2 /2 /2 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Figure E.5.3.1-34. Daily Change in Surface Area (acres) for Packwood Lake September 2005 through March 2006. (Data are reported relative to acreage at 2857.0 ft MSL.)

Table E.5.3.1-6. Daily Change in Acres of Exposed Lake Bed for Packwood Lake: September 2005 through March 2006 Daily change in acres of exposed lake bed1 Month Maximum Mean Minimum Sep-05 5.1 1.0 -0.6 Oct-05 -0.3 -0.7 -2.0 Nov-05 1.2 0.0 -3.0 Dec-05 1.5 -0.1 -3.5 Jan-06 2.1 -0.5 -7.7 Feb-06 1.2 0.2 -0.7 Mar-06 0.6 0.3 0.0 Apr-06 0.6 -0.3 -3.6 May-06 1.3 -0.2 -6.3 Jun-06 2.1 0.2 -4.2 July-06 3 0.2 -1.8 Aug-06 0.5 0.1 -1.0 Sept-06 4.6 1.0 -1.0 Oct-06 0.8 -0.4 -1.0 Nov-062 1.4 -2.2 -24.4 1 A negative value indicates the area of exposed lake bed was reduced due to a rising water level from the previous day 2 Partial month

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-46 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-7. Area (acres) below 2,857.0 ft Dewatered for Packwood Lake: September 2005 through March 2006 Acres of exposed lake bed1 Month Maximum Mean Minimum Sep-05 31.6 12.1 -0.6 Oct-05 29.8 20.7 10.4 Nov-05 9.8 8.7 6.2 Dec-05 22.8 15.7 6.8 Jan-06 4.0 -4.4 -11.6 Feb-06 -3.6 -6.8 -9.5 Mar-06 5.0 1.0 -3.0 Apr-06 5.6 3.5 -3.6 May-06 -2.4 -8.1 -13.0 Jun-06 -2.4 -8.5 -13.0 July-06 0.0 -2.6 -8.1 Aug-06 2.5 1.1 0.0 Sept-06 32.2 11.2 0.5 Oct-06 32.5 26.1 20.8 Nov-062 21.6 1.2 -13.0 1 A negative value indicates the lake level was above 2,857.0 ft MSL 2 Partial month

Annually, after September 15, Energy Northwest is allowed to drop the Packwood Lake level by a maximum of eight feet to 2849.0 ft MSL. The eight feet of vertical storage allows the Project to store and utilize winter runoff for power generation. Once the lake level has been lowered in September, Project generation is shut down for a period of three to four weeks so that annual maintenance tasks can be accomplished. Agency concerns were raised during relicensing consultation regarding the effects of drawdown on the migration of rainbow trout between Packwood Lake and its major tributaries. Agency concern centered on the potential for lake drawdown to hinder resident rainbow trout attempting to move for spawning and rearing purposes between Packwood Lake and the major tributaries.

An adfluvial population of rainbow trout resides in Packwood Lake and utilizes the major tributaries for spawning and fry rearing purposes. A typical year would see rainbow trout migrating from Packwood Lake from May through early July to spawn in the tributaries shown in Figure E.5.3.1-35. Spawners typically return to the lake immediately after spawning, leaving the tributaries by early July at the latest (EES Consulting 2007o). The rainbow trout spawning migration coincides with spring runoff when stream flows and the corresponding lake level are typically at the highest stage of the year (Figure E.5.3.1-36). Rainbow trout fry emerge from the gravel from late July through mid-August, and migrate to the lake through late August.

Site-specific analyses examining the lake and tributaries during drawdown concluded that no barriers to connectivity exist in tributaries used by rainbow trout for spawning. Furthermore, the timing of the drawdown as currently conducted (late September and October), does not coincide with the May and June spawn timing for rainbow trout nor the emigration of fry from the tributaries to the lake. Connectivity issues during

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-47 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources drawdown as they relate to resident rainbow trout at Packwood Lake are further discussed in Section E.5.3.1.2 above. No evidence was found of effects on spawning and rearing trout in Packwood Lake due to the current Project drawdown regime.

Figure E.5.3.1-35. Major rainbow trout spawning tributaries

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-48 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Average Daily Packwood Lake Elevation (1971-2006)

2860 2859 2858 2857 2856 2855 2854 2853 2852 2851 2850

Lake Surface Elevation (ft) 2849

l t n r r y n v n b u g p c c a o a a e a u J u e J J Ap J - O - - F M - M - A Se - N D - - - 8 - - - - 0 0 9 8 6 9 0 9 2 7 6 5 5 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2

Figure E.5.3.1-36. Average Packwood Lake elevation (1971-2006).

E.5.3.1.2.3 Stream Connectivity Study

Operation of the Project results in fluctuations of the lake levels. During the summer months, the lake is held at the license required level of 2857.0 ft MSL plus or minus 6 inches. After mid-September, the lake level may be drawn down as much as 8 feet to a level no lower than 2849.0 ft MSL. During times when the lake is drawn down, tributaries entering the lake temporarily experience a lower base level. If tributary flows are high during drawdown, erosion and headcutting in the tributaries upstream of the lakeshore could occur. Fish migration could also be affected if streams become too wide and shallow to allow passage as they flow across the drawdown area. The Stream Connectivity Study evaluated the effects of drawdown on the ability of tributary stream channels to pass fish, transport sediment, and provide functional habitat for aquatic organisms (Watershed GeoDynamics and EES Consulting 2007).

Longitudinal profiles and cross sections were surveyed in six Packwood Lake tributaries through the drawdown zone and stream channel to analyze the potential for fish migration concerns and channel incision.

Tributary Stream Processes Field evidence and survey data show that the small tributaries (Osprey, Trap, Southeast of Trap and Crawford creeks) entering Packwood Lake from the steep valley sides may be incised to a point approximately 0-125 feet upstream from full pool level (Table E.5.3.1-8). These streams are all graded to the high lake level, suggesting that incision

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-49 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources has not occurred. However, other channel indicators (higher bankfull depths) indicate that there may be minor incision, influenced either by fluctuations in lake levels due to Project operations or the streams cutting down into their alluvial fans to meet the lake. Large woody debris jams are associated with the upward limits of incision in the streams; most of these streams are small enough that it is unlikely the debris jams will wash out in anything but a very large flow event or debris torrent. Additional woody debris jams are located throughout the channels upstream of the current limit of incision that could help to limit any further upstream incision if the current wood washes out. Some of the debris jams did wash out throughout the streams during the November 2006 peak flow event. Inflow during this event was estimated to be close to 1,800 cfs, the largest on record. Localized channel incision was associated with the washed-out debris jams, and aggradation occurred upstream of existing and new jams. The incision and aggradation were likely the result of the extremely large input of water, wood, and sediment from upstream sources and represent normal stream processes in these alluvial fan environments rather than effects of Project operation.

Table E.5.3.1-8. Limit of Incision and Location of Permanent Grade Control in Packwood Lake Tributaries Approximate limit of incision Permanent grade control Tributary (feet upstream from full pool) (feet upstream from full pool) Osprey Creek 0-125 796-835 Trapp Creek 0-100 296 SE of Trapp 0-50 213 Mueller Creek 500 n/a Upper Lake Creek 400 n/a Crawford Creek 0 871-925

These small streams are located in alluvial-fan type environments resulting from a rapid decrease in gradient as the streams flow off the steep valley walls into the lower gradient valley. Evidence of past alternate channels on these fans was noticed in the field; it is likely that these streams will switch channel locations at some time in the future (the timing of channel switching could be on the order of centuries). Permanent grade control features such as falls, large boulder cascades, or major log jams are located at the points where each of the small tributaries enters the confined, higher- gradient steep valley wall.

As a result of the limited channel changes upstream of the lake in each of these small tributaries, and low risk of substantial future incision, there has been little effect on instream, terrestrial, and riparian habitat or wetlands. There are likely some minor, localized increases in turbidity and suspended sediment during high flows under drawdown conditions as each tributary cuts across the delta deposits in the drawdown zone. The stream channels in the drawdown zones are relatively wide and shallow.

Upper Lake and Muller creeks are located in a broad, low-gradient valley. Field evidence and the stream survey suggest these two creeks are incised approximately 400-500 feet upstream from full pool. This incision is likely the result of drawdown of Packwood Lake during the fall and winter. Incision upstream of the drawdown zone results in deep pools during full pool. There do not appear to be any changes to

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-50 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources riparian vegetation or disconnection from the floodplain in Upper Lake or Muller creeks because backwater from the lake at full pool fills these channels during the growing season, and during very large flow events Packwood Lake fills with water, bringing water levels up in the floodplain. Abundant large woody debris in Upper Lake and Muller creeks has resulted in numerous log jams that act as grade control features and also trap gravel coming from upstream. Upper Lake Creek carries the majority of the water and sediment from the upper valley, and has numerous gravel aggradation zones, particularly 1,000-2,500 feet upstream of the lake, resulting from the large sediment sources upstream. Muller Creek only extends about one mile up the valley and carries comparatively little water or sediment.

Muller and Upper Lake creeks will continue to cut down through the delta deposits in the drawdown zone during low lake levels. Downcutting will result in sediment transport from the upper delta area into the lower delta in the lake. There could be minor local increases in turbidity during the downcutting, however Upper Lake Creek is influenced by glacial runoff and has high turbidity and suspended sediment levels during periods of glacial melt and peak flow conditions, so the increased turbidity would likely not be noticeable. The channels across the delta are wide and shallow during low lake conditions.

There is a low to moderate risk of future headcutting in the Muller and Upper Lake creek channels upstream of Packwood Lake. However, the abundant log jams upstream of approximately station 700 reduce the risk of incision progressing rapidly upstream (the log jams and buried wood would need to be disrupted before downcutting can occur). During peak flows necessary to erode the channel or move the log jams, the lake fills rapidly, limiting the potential for channel degradation.

The low to moderate risk of future Project-related downcutting may affect the aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial habitat in Upper Lake and Mueller Creeks as follows:

• Potential for lost instream and terrestrial habitat – During low lake levels, instream habitat in the lower 500 feet of Muller and Upper Lake creeks includes pools, riffles, and runs. During full lake level, the incised portions of the channels are pool habitat. There is abundant woody debris. There does not appear to have been much loss of terrestrial habitat in the past. There is a low risk of substantial terrestrial habitat loss in the future due to effects of Project operations because major channel widening is not occurring. • Loss of riparian vegetation – there does not appear to have been much loss, if any, of riparian habitat due to Project effects and little risk of future loss. • Downstream flooding – there is no risk of downstream flooding from Project-related changes since the channel changes are so close to the lake. • Channel widening – there is limited past channel widening. Widening up to 10 feet may have occurred in the lower 500 feet of the Upper Lake Creek channel as a result of reservoir operations. Some limited future channel widening upstream of the lake would be expected if any additional downcutting occurs.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-51 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

• Mid-channel bar formation due to increased sediment load – there is a high potential for mid-channel bar formation in the Upper Lake Creek channel, but this is not related to Project operations. Mid-channel bars are forming under current conditions throughout the channel due to the high load of gravel from the upper watershed. • Decreased bank stability – there may be some local bank erosion, but the silt and clay banks are cohesive and quite stable. • Loss of wetlands – there are no wetlands in the vicinity of the Lake Creek channel, and no loss of wetlands from channel incision near the Muller Creek channel.

There is a low risk of future Project-related headcutting in the other tributaries.

Fish Passage between Tributaries and Packwood Lake The Project is currently operated to maintain a lake elevation of 2857 ft MSL + 0.5 ft in summer months. Beginning in mid-September, the lake is drawn down to no lower than 2849 ft MSL. The lake level rises with natural inflow during the Project shutdown period in October. Fish passage to Packwood Lake tributaries is impeded during the summer and the drawdown period by low flows and associated minimum depths in: Southeast Trapp, Trapp, Crawford, and Osprey creeks. Minimum depths in these creeks during summer and drawdown at times do not meet criteria standards for fish passage. Low flows and associated minimum depths, however, are not related to Project operations. A barrier to upstream passage exists in the drawdown zone on Southeast Trapp Creek due to the high gradient of the stream entrance; however, passage would be impeded even without the drawdown due to the low natural flows that exist during this time of the year. Fish passage surveys indicated that fish are no longer present in these tributaries by late summer. The results of the Fish Distribution and Species Composition Study (EES Consulting 2007o) and the Final Stream Connectivity in Packwood Lake Tributaries Study (Watershed GeoDynamics and EES Consulting 2007), indicate that because these creeks have historically dried up in the late summer months, the rainbow trout in these tributaries have adapted a strategy of emigrating from the creeks to the lake during August before flows decrease or dry up completely. By the time the drawdown begins, adult fish have moved from the streams (by early July) and juvenile fish have emigrated to the lake, where they move into deeper waters.

During the annual drawdown, the total area of lacustrine aquatic habitat is reduced. If the lake is lowered to the minimum allowed elevation of 2849.0 ft MSL at the beginning of the Project annual outage, this results in 30 acres being temporarily dewatered (adjusting for slope had no significant difference in area). This is a 7% reduction in surface area of the lake relative to the surface area at 2857 ft MSL. The daily rate of change in aquatic lake habitat during the 2005 drawdown period averaged an increase of 0.6 acres/day with the maximum 1-day change being 1.6 acres.

There are only minor effects to fluvial aquatic habitat as a result of headcutting, since the extent of headcutting is limited. The longest extent of headcutting is in Upper Lake Creek and Muller Creek (up to a total of 1,000 lineal feet between the two tributaries). The headcutting has changed aquatic habitat in these areas at full lake levels to pool habitat.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-52 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

E.5.3.1.2.4 Packwood Lake Entrainment Study

As part of the relicensing of the Project, Energy Northwest was requested to evaluate the potential for fish entrainment at the Project intake structure. Fish entrained at the intake are removed from the lake population and no longer available for recruitment to the lake fishery (EES Consulting 2007n).

The target species for the entrainment study was rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the adult life stage. It was assumed that rainbow trout would be most active in the spring and travel the lake more extensively during their spawning period in search of suitable tributary spawning habitat. Rainbow trout spawning is known to occur from late May through early July in the Packwood Lake tributaries, based upon surveys by WDFW and EES Consulting.

A preliminary study at the intake structure commenced during October 2004. A formal study was requested during subsequent relicensing consultation, so that the efficacy of the screens and the potential effects of entrainment could be determined (EES Consulting 2005k). Objectives of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Entrainment Study included:

• Determine species relative abundance, age/size, timing and composition at the intake structure. • Evaluate the effectiveness of the Project’s screens in terms of protecting fish. • Assess the potential effects of entrainment or impingement from the lake elevation and Project flow fluctuations. • Develop a rule curve for lake level elevation and diversion rate, since approach velocities may exceed the state criteria of 0.33 fps at some operating scenarios.

Water enters the intake structure through two trash racks that extend the width of the structure opening, and from the bottom of the intake structure (2840 ft MSL) up to 2850 ft MSL, as well as through a horizontal grill at 2850 ft MSL (Figure E.5.3.1-37). The water flowing through the trash racks then fills the entire intake well to the lake elevation. The two fixed trash rack screens protect the intake structure from large debris. An outer layer of expanded-metal screen material has been placed over the vertical intake openings to capture small debris and keep it from fouling the permanent trash racks. These debris screens can be hoisted out of the water for cleaning. They are cleaned on an as-needed basis usually 3 or 4 times a year.

Within the intake well, traveling screens (with 4 mm X 4 mm mesh screen) prevent debris and fish from entering the intake tunnel, which transports the water for instream flows to lower Lake Creek as well as to the powerhouse for power production.

If the outer debris screens are not seated or cleaned correctly, rainbow trout in the lake can become entrained between the trash racks and the traveling screens, resulting in mortalities. Fish also are found on the traveling screens during and immediately after

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-53 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources the rainbow trout spawning period, which extends from early May until early July. These rainbow trout, however, appear to be post-spawn fish that are either significantly weakened or are dying. Post-spawning fish were observed in the vicinity of the Project intake, and would likely experience high mortality rates regardless of the presence of the intake structure.

Figure E.5.3.1-37. Schematic Drawing of Packwood Lake Intake Structure

Approach Velocities Approach velocities at the fish screens were measured over the course of several months during 2007. The measurements took place over a range of 1.35 ft in lake elevation, 2856.80 to 2858.15 ft MSL, with Project flows ranging from 44 cfs – 190 cfs. Table E.5.3.1-9 provides minimum, maximum and mean approach velocities for both screens at each set of measurements.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-54 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-9. Summary of Approach Velocity Measurements at Packwood Lake Intake Structure. Minimum, Mean, and Maximum Velocities are in ft/sec Screen 1 Velocities (ft/sec) Screen 2 Velocities (ft/sec) Lake Plant Date Elevation Flow (cfs) Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum Mean Maximum 6/20/2007 2857.64 150 0.02 0.33 1.50 0.01 0.48 1.78 6/28/2007 2857.72 115 0.02 0.37 1.78 0.01 0.32 1.45 7/5/2007 2857.55 190 0.03 0.57 2.85 0.01 0.53 2.16 7/13/2007 2858.15 116 0.01 0.29 1.46 0.01 0.29 0.99 7/18/2007 2857.84 59 0.00 0.15 0.72 0.00 0.14 0.60 7/24/2007 2857.71 55 0.00 0.15 0.64 0.00 0.11 0.42 8/2/2007 2857.26 66 0.00 0.14 0.55 0.00 0.10 0.33 8/9/2007 2857.08 44 0.00 0.14 0.58 0.00 0.11 0.40 8/16/2007 2856.77 59 0.00 0.19 0.67 0.00 0.19 0.54 8/29/2007 2856.80 73 0.01 0.24 0.89 0.00 0.20 0.54

Table E.5.3.1-10 compares the calculated mean velocities for each calibration set with the actual measurements taken on Screens 1 and 2. Mean velocities between calculated and measured velocities were very similar. In all instances, the measured mean discharges were less than the calculated mean discharges.

Table E.5.3.1-10. Comparison of Mean Screen Velocities with Calculated Mean Velocities Mean Velocities (ft/sec) Lake Date Elevation Plant Flow Screen 1 Screen 2 Both Screens Calculated 6/20/2007 2857.64 150 0.33 0.48 0.40 0.47 6/28/2007 2857.72 115 0.37 0.32 0.35 0.36 7/5/2007 2857.55 190 0.57 0.53 0.55 0.60 7/13/2007 2858.15 116 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.36 7/18/2007 2857.84 59 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.18 7/24/2007 2857.71 55 0.15 0.11 0.13 0.17 8/2/2007 2857.26 66 0.14 0.10 0.12 0.18 8/9/2007 2857.08 44 0.14 0.11 0.13 0.14 8/16/2007 2856.77 59 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 8/29/2007 2856.80 73 0.24 0.20 0.22 0.24

Mean screen velocities are a useful statistic; however, at the higher Project flows (115- 190 cfs) areas of increased velocities (i.e., “hot spots”) occurred. Screen 1 had a hot spot during the first four sets of measurements near an elevation of 2,846 ft on the side of the screen nearest the inlet channel. A similar hot spot was found on Screen 2, but closest to the shore side.

Water enters the intake structure through two trash racks that extend the width of the screens, and from the bottom of the intake structure (2840 ft MSL) up to 2850 ft MSL, as well as through a horizontal grill at 2850 ft MSL. The water flowing through the trash racks then fills the entire intake well to the lake elevation. At elevations above 2850 ft MSL, the water diffuses upwards first, and then approaches the screens at much lower

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-55 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources velocities than at the lower elevations, where water is guided directly to the screens behind the opening. The debris screens that hang in front of the trash racks are designed to prevent aquatic vegetation from entering the intake. They extend from the base of the intake (El 2840 ft MSL) to approximately El 2857 ft MSL). These debris screens consist of expanded metal with openings of approximately 1 in by 2 in, which effectively blocks fish passage into the intake wells when they are seated properly. If debris prevents the screens from being placed in the correct position, fish are able to get into the intake structure, but would have difficulty finding their way out again.

Entrainment at the Intake Screens Beginning in May of 2006, the traveling screens were rotated weekly by Energy Northwest personnel. Any fish found entrained on the traveling screens were noted and measured. Energy Northwest resumed operating the screens in the manual mode, checking the screens weekly in January and continuing through early September 2007.

2006 A total of 63 fish were found on the traveling screens from May 23 through September 28, 2006 (Table E.5.3.1-11). All fish found on the screens were rainbow trout. On Screen 1, 36 fish were collected and 27 fish were collected on Screen 2.

The size of fish entrained on the intake screens averaged 194 mm, ranging from a minimum of 64 mm to 324 mm. Five fish (7%) were less than 100 mm in length; over 76% of the rainbow trout (48) ranged from 161 mm – 240 mm (approximately 6.4 – 9.5 inches) (Figure E.5.3.1-38).

Table E.5.3.1-11. Rainbow Trout Mortalities on Packwood Lake Intake Screen, 2006 Screen 1 Screen 2 May 23 11 16 May 25 8 2 June 7 2 0 June 10 1 1 June 15 1 0 June 20 2 0 June 22 1 0 June 36 1 2 June 28 4 0 July 5 1 3 July 17 2 0 July 23 1 0 Sep 26 0 1 Sep 28 1 2 Total 36 27

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-56 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-38. Packwood Lake Entrainment Data (2006).

Nearly 60% (37) of the fish were found on the screens during the two inspections in May. All of these fish exceeded 146 mm in length, averaging 206 mm. The maximum mean screen velocities during this period were 0.52 ft/second. Given the size of these fish, it is highly unlikely that healthy fish of this size would be impinged on these screens due to their swimming speeds.

Fish begin spawning in Packwood lake tributaries in late May. EES Consulting, as part of the Fish Distribution and Species Composition Study Plan (EES Consulting 2005o) fished Packwood Lake with gillnets on May 2 and 3, 2006. Although nets were set out at dusk and retrieved at dawn as required by the study plan, 52 of the 106 fish captured were mortalities in the nets, with many of those released sustaining some level of injury. The status of these released fish is unknown, but it is likely that some may have experienced mortalities. Inflows to the lake during this period reached 455 cfs. These inflows, coupled with Project flows ranging from 131 – 179 cfs and lake elevations reaching 2859.65 ft MSL (equating to a spill of 291 cfs) would facilitate transport of fish downstream, where they would float into the intake structure and be impinged on the screen. The simultaneous occurrence of these events could have caused fish to be found on the intake screens, although it is not known for certain.

Data on rainbow trout swimming speeds are lacking, but it seems reasonable that rainbow trout cruising, sustained and burst speeds would be comparable to those of cutthroat trout. Bell (1990) provided the cruising, sustained, and darting speeds for a variety of fish species. Cruising, sustained, and burst speeds for cutthroat trout are listed as 2.4 ft/sec, 6.0 ft/sec, and 13.5 ft/sec, respectively. Bell (1990) suggests that

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-57 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources darting/burst speed can be maintained for 5 to 10 seconds. These assumed rainbow trout swimming and burst speeds (Bell 1990; Jain and Farrell 2003) far exceed the 0.52 ft/sec present at the intake screens during this period of time.

2007 A total of 357 rainbow trout were entrained on the traveling screens during the January – August, 2007. One hundred and ninety eight fish were observed on Screen 2 and 159 on Screen 1. The distribution of fish on the screens was bimodal; an early peak occurred in late winter/ early spring, with the other occurring during the summer (Figure E.5.3.1-39).

2007 Entrained Fish 60 Screens not set correctly 250

50 200

40

150 (cfs ) Entrained

30 Fish Flow

of

100 Plant

20 Number

50 10

0 0

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 /0 0 /0 7 /07 /07 0 /0 /07 /0 0 /07 /0 /0 3 7 8 /6 /0 7 7 /3 /0 /5 /0 1 /5 /0 /6 /0 7 8 0 8 2/ /2 0 /2 3 /2 4 4 5/3/07 /2 3 6/ 6 6 /1 /2 /2 7/3/07 7/6/07 1/2 1/31/ 2 2 3/15/ 3/22/07 3 4/10/07 5 6/14/ 6 6 6

Date

S creen 1 S creen 2 Plant Flow

Figure E.5.3.1-39. Fish entrained on traveling screens during 2007.

The highest number of fish impinged at one time was on March 15, 2007 when 69 were observed. The period of time from January to early May was dominated by fish being impinged mainly on Screen 2 (137 of 176 total fish). From mid-May to early July, Screen 1 (120 fish) impinged more fish than Screen 2 (61 fish). No fish were impinged after July 6, although the screens were checked weekly into September 2007. The majority (72%) of the fish entrained on the screens with measured lengths had fork lengths in the range of 201-250 mm (Figure E.5.3.1-40) and no fish were smaller than 50 mm. The size ranges of 151-200 mm and 251-300 mm were almost equal, with 20 and 21 fish respectively. The size distribution of the fish on both screens was centered on the 201-250 mm size range.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-58 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-40. 2007 Entrained fish size distribution.

Underwater video cameras were installed to record and monitor fish behavior behind the trash racks, in front of Traveling Screen 2. Flows and water conditions were not conducive to using the video cameras for continuous monitoring of fish behavior. Biologists were able to manually manipulate the cameras and capture video evidence of fish behavior for short periods of time. Two rainbow trout were observed inside the intake structure. Both fish were oriented into the flow behind a concrete wall that extends into the water column approximately 9 ft, immediately behind the trash racks. Fungus was observed growing on the caudal fin of one of the rainbow trout.

In 2007, Energy Northwest began monitoring the traveling screens in January, and fish were observed on the screens by the end of January. Plant flows were higher than average in March and June of 2007. During this time, numbers of entrained fish also reached maximum levels. In general, more fish were observed entrained at the higher project flows; however, fish were not observed on the screens in the area of highest velocities. Rather, most fish were found in the trays in the upper 4 ft of the lake, where velocities were the lowest. Higher Project flows, therefore, are not the sole cause of fish being entrained on the traveling screens.

Factors other than Project flow that can affect entrainment on the traveling screens include the effectiveness of the debris screens, the placement of the debris screens, water quality, water clarity, and the overall condition of the population of fish in Packwood Lake. Energy Northwest staff periodically pulls the debris screens out of the water to clean off debris. On January 23, 2007, Energy Northwest staff pulled the debris screens to clean them, but could not properly reset them due to large amounts of debris in the forebay as a result of the flood in November 2006.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-59 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Energy Northwest was not able to reset the debris screens properly until April 5, 2007. Entrainment numbers during this period were abnormally high, particularly on Screen 2. Screen 2 accounted for 128 of the 166 total fish (77%) entrained during this period. Another factor that most likely affected entrainment during this period was the water quality early in 2007. A flood in November 2006 washed a large sediment load into Packwood Lake, significantly adding to the upper Lake Creek delta and increasing turbidity in the lake. Increased turbidity can lead to decreased dissolved oxygen levels. If the fish in Packwood Lake were experiencing low levels of dissolved oxygen, they would be much weaker and more susceptible to impingement on the traveling screens.

Three factors appear to have influenced entrainment during the period from January through April 2007:

1. The debris screens were not reset properly, allowing more fish to get behind them. 2. Water quality was abnormally poor due to high turbidity from the flood in November, most likely weakening fish from continued low dissolved oxygen levels. 3. High Project flows

Five days after the debris screens were properly reset, nine fish were discovered on the traveling screens when they were checked. It is possible that those fish entered the intake before the trash racks were reset properly and survived a few days before succumbing and becoming entrained on the screens. Figure E.5.3.1-39 shows the period of time when gaps in the outer debris screens allowed fish to enter the intake wells, the level of entrainment, as well as Project flows.

Fish begin spawning in Packwood Lake tributaries in late May. No fish were discovered on the screens until May 3, when one fish was impinged on Traveling Screen 2. Entrainment significantly increased during the period from late May to early July, a period of time that correlates directly to rainbow trout spawning in the tributaries to Packwood Lake (Figure E.5.3.1-41). Rainbow trout are known to experience post- spawning mortality, and many of the fish that EES Consulting staff observed in the vicinity of the Project intake after spawning commenced in upper Packwood Lake tributaries exhibited fungus on fins and body, as well as general lethargy.

A number of factors affect fish entrainment at the intake. The positioning of the debris screens and the condition of the fish population (fish weakened from spawning) are very important factors that seem to have the greatest effects. Water quality clearly has an effect on entrainment, as poor water quality can lead to less healthy fish. Project flow also influences entrainment, in that higher flows can (depending upon lake elevation) result in higher approach velocities. The orientation of the screens with respect to the inlet channel explains why, when the debris screens are positioned properly, Screen 1 entrains more fish than Screen 2; Screen 1 is in the direct interception line for fish traveling down the intake canal.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-60 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Packwood Lake Entrainment and Spawning Timimg

1,800 45

1,600 40

1,400 35

1,200 30

1,000 25

800 20

600 15 (Number of(Number Fish) Spawning Escapement

400 10 Entrainment (Number of Fish) Entrainment

200 5

0 0 5/16/2007 5/26/2007 6/5/2007 6/15/2007 6/25/2007 7/5/2007 7/15/2007 Date

Escapement Both Screens

Figure E.5.3.1-41. 2007 Packwood Lake Entrainment and Packwood Lake Spawning Timing.

Debris on the debris screens and around the intake also affects entrainment. Debris on the screens serves as a control for approach velocities. An obstruction on the debris screens will reduce velocities in one area and increase them in another as water is forced around the obstruction. Debris can also prevent correct positioning of the screens. To minimize entrainment, the debris screens must be clean and positioned properly.

Fungus growing on the caudal fin of one of the live rainbow trout observed with an underwater video camera and a large number of fish impinged on the traveling screens suggest that fish enter the intake alive and gradually grow tired from constant swimming into the current. Both fish observed with the video camera were at or near the surface where the current is directed more to the sides of the intake than directly into the traveling screens. It is likely that when the fish grow tired, they chafe their tails on the rough concrete inside the intake, making them susceptible to fungus growth and impingement.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-61 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

E.5.3.1.2.5 Study of Fish Population Characterization Below the Drop Structure

This study characterized the abundance, distribution, movement, and structure of the fish communities and available habitat potentially impacted immediately below the Project drop structure, downstream to the first natural barrier (EES Consulting 2007i). Study objectives included the following:

• Determine the location of the first fish passage barrier waterfall downstream of the drop structure, thereby delineating the isolated reach of Lake Creek. • Determine the amount of suitable spawning and rearing habitat available for rainbow and cutthroat trout and other fish species within the isolated reach. • Determine the fish species present within the isolated reach. • Determine the population size and age/size structure of all fish species within the isolated reach. • Determine upstream migration timing (spawning, foraging, and other movement) of rainbow and cutthroat trout and other fish species within the isolated reach.

A barrier falls exists 1,464 ft below the drop structure. The barrier was surveyed as a vertical falls of 11.80 ft as measured at a baseflow release of 3.5 cfs at the drop structure (Figure E.5.3.1-42). This falls exceeds the leaping capability for rainbow trout and other resident fish found in Lake Creek. Immediately downstream of this falls is another barrier that exceeds 4 ft in height (Figure E.5.3.1-43).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-62 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-42. Barrier Falls (11.80 Ft) Located 1464 Feet Below the Drop Structure

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-63 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-43. Barrier Falls (11.80 Ft) and Lower 4 Ft Falls Approximately 1464 Feet Below the Drop Structure

Three 30 m study sites were surveyed on August 23, 2006, in the approximately 1,464 ft long section of the stream below the drop structure. A distinct habitat break exists near Study Site 2, characterized by higher gradient (6.23%), much coarser substrate and shorter habitat units than farther upstream. Table E.5.3.1-12 displays the variables that were measured in order to adequately input habitat gain into the Priority Index Model.

The Priority Index Model indicated values for rainbow trout of 2.55 and 3.04, respectively, for wetted and bankfull width, respectively. These values are relatively low.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-64 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-12. Rearing and Spawning Habitat Data for Lake Creek Below the Drop Structure Study Site #1 Gradient % Spawning Gravel % Rearing Habitat % Instream Cover % Canopy Cover % Water Temp. (C) 1.37% 5% 70% 5% 1% 17.0 Distance (ft) Unit Distance (ft) Habitat Substrate Wetted Width (ft) Bank Full Width (ft) 0-16 16 Glide 86.7 16.6 27.0 16-32 16 Run 68.6 17.9 32.0 32-98 66 Pool 65.7 20.6 38.0

Study Site #2 Gradient % Spawning Gravel % Rearing Habitat % Instream Cover % Canopy Cover % Water Temp. (C) 6.23% 1% 30% 30% 20% 17.0 Distance (ft) Unit Distance (ft) Habitat Substrate Wetted Width (ft) Bank Full Width (ft) 0-16 16 Glide 86.8 8.0 30.5 16-82 66 Run 86.7 16.6 34.5 82-98 16 Cascade 86.7 22.7 34.0

Study Site #3 Gradient % Spawning Gravel % Rearing Habitat % Instream Cover % Canopy Cover % Water Temp. (C) 3.63% 0% 70% 35% 8% 16.0 Distance (ft) Unit Distance (ft) Habitat Substrate Wetted Width (ft) Bank Full Width (ft) 0-14 14 Split Glide 86.8 31.7 55.5 14-21 7 Cascade 86.9 24.0 50.0 21-31 10 Run 86.9 24.3 51.0 31-73 42 Glide 68.8 16.6 51.3 73-90 17 Pool 86.7 29.0 38.8

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-65 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Total wetted width and bankfull width habitat for rearing in the isolated reach was determined to be 395.0 m2 (wetted) and 797.6 m2 (bankfull). Wetted width for spawning habitat was determined to be 9.1 m2 and bankfull width for spawning was calculated to 2 be 19.6 m for the entire isolated reach (Tables E.5.3-13 and E.5.3-14).

Table E.5.3.1-13. Wetted and Bankfull Width Data for Isolated Reach Below Drop Structure Wetted Width Modified Wetted Width Modified Rearing Rearing Spawning Spawning Study Site Habitat (M2) Modifier Value Habitat (M2) Modifier Value 1 124.31 1.00 124.3 8.88 0.67 5.92 2 44.22 0.67 29.5 1.47 0.33 0.49 3 132.99 0.33 44.3 0.00 0.00 0.00

Wetted Width Modified Wetted Width Modified Rearing Rearing Spawning Spawning Study Site Habitat (M2) Modifier Value Habitat (M2) Modifier Value 1 224.48 1.00 224.48 16.03 0.67 10.69 2 92.22 0.67 61.48 3.07 0.33 1.02 3 289.46 0.33 96.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

Table E.5.3.1-14. Wetted and Bankfull Width Data for Isolated Reach Below Drop Structure Modified Modified Wetted Width Rearing Wetted Wetted Width Spawning Spawning Reach Length Width Value Rearing Habitat Wetted Width Habitat Reach (M) (M2) Available (M2) Value (M2) Available (M2) 1.0 26.4 4.1 109.5 0.2 5.2 2.0 239.6 1.0 235.6 0.02 3.9 3.0 33.8 1.5 49.9 0.0 0.0 Total 395.0 Total 9.1

Modified Modified Spawning Bankfull Width Rearing Bankfull Width Bankfull Spawning Reach Length Bankfull Width Rearing Habitat Width Value Habitat Reach (M) Value (M2) Available (M2) (M2) Available (M2) 1.0 26.4 7.5 197.7 0.4 9.4 2.0 239.6 2.1 491.2 0.03 8.1 3.0 33.8 3.2 108.7 0.0 0.0 Total 797.6 Total 17.6

Fish presence information was gathered during the rearing and spawning habitat evaluation on August 23, 2006. During the second survey in October, the entire 1464-ft reach was surveyed. Two electrofishing passes were made at each site. Five rainbow trout were captured (3 at Study Site 1, 2 at Study Site 2). The fish captured ranged in length from 40 mm to 140 mm and in weight from 1.0 g to 28.0 g. Scale samples were collected, and all fish were released unharmed. No visible disease or physical abnormalities were noted. Figure E.5.3.1-44 displays the length versus weight ratio of fish captured during the August 2006 study effort.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-66 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Fish Population Characterization Below Drop Structure Rainbow Trout Fork Length vs. Weight (August 2006)

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0 Rainbow Trout Weight (g)

10.0

5.0

0.0 40 110 120 125 140 Length (mm)

Figure E.5.3.1-44. Length vs. Weight of Rainbow Trout Captured in August 2006

The entire 1,464-ft isolated reach of lower Lake Creek was surveyed for fish presence on October 17 and 18, 2006. Reaches between 150 and 200 ft in length were segmented using block nets, and two electrofishing passes were made. Twelve rainbow trout were captured, measuring between 70 mm and 165 mm and weighing between 3.7 g and 39.5 g. All fish were captured in the upper 340 feet of the 1464-ft reach, above the distinct habitat break at Study Site 2. The majority of the fish were captured in the lower gradient pools and glide that define the upper area of this reach. Scale samples were collected from all fish, and fish were released unharmed. No visible disease or physical abnormalities were noted. Figure E.5.3.1-45 displays the length versus weight ratio of fish captured during the October 2006 analysis. Figure E.5.3.1-46 displays a scatter plot with a line of best fit for all fish captured in both August and October.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-67 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Fish Population Characterization Below Drop Structure Rainbow Trout Fork Length vs. Weight (October 2006)

45

40

35

30

25 Rainbow 20 Weight (g)

15

10

5

0 70 75 75 80 82 115 123 123 125 127 135 165 Length (mm)

Figure E.5.3.1-45. Length vs. Weight of Rainbow Trout Captured in October 2006

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-68 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Length vs. Weight Correlation for Rainbow Trout Captured Below the Drop Structure (2006)

45.0

y = 0.0019x2 - 0.0642x 40.0 R2 = 0.9699

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0 Weight (g) Weight

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0 0 20406080100120140160180 Length (mm)

Rainbow Poly. (Rainbow)

Figure E.5.3.1-46. Length vs. Weight Correlation for Lake Creek Rainbow Trout Captured Below Drop Structure

Due to heavy snow and high flows creating overtopping events through June 2006, the net was not able to be put in place in the stilling basin until mid-July. Several overtopping events occurred in May and June 2006. Prior to, and after the net deployment, many rainbow trout (up to 20 at one time), approximately 200 to 300 mm in size, were observed near the net orienting themselves directly into the current from the outflow pipe. These fish were located in an area that could not be covered by the fyke net due to the dimensions of the stilling apron.

A fyke net was used to capture fish apparently attempting upstream migration near the drop structure. The fyke net consisted of a 3 ft by 3 ft mouth with a 10 ft long tapered collection area and two 15 ft long wings used as a guidance mechanism. Initially, several configurations were tried to determine the optimal location for capturing fish. It was determined that orienting the mouth of the fyke net so that it was directly in the current of the outflow pipe from the lake was most effective. Figure E.5.3.1-47 displays the location of the fyke net. The net was fished continuously in this location from mid- July through late October 2006. One rainbow trout measuring 220 mm was captured in the net over the 4.5-month period it was in place.

A supplemental gill netting effort immediately below the drop structure took place on March 28 and 29, 2007. A total of 43 rainbow trout were captured during the 24-hour

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-69 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources set. These fish ranged in length from 205 mm to 290 mm and from 75 g to 210 g in weight. It is important to note that these fish had been observed for several weeks below the drop structure after a series of overtopping events associated with high inflows to Packwood Lake.

Figure E.5.3.1-47. Primary Netting Location Below Packwood Lake Drop Structure

Analysis of the dimensions of the drop structure was conducted to determine the potential for injury and mortality related to drop during an overtopping event (Appendix B of this study report [EES Consulting 2007i]). This analysis along with site-specific November, 2006 data concluded that water up to 1 foot over the top of the drop structure related to approximately 1000 cfs and did not cause mortality or injury to overtopped fish.

Separation of Lower Lake Creek from Packwood Lake A 1,464-ft stretch of lower Lake Creek is separated from Packwood Lake by the drop structure, which acts as the diversion for the Project. Lower Lake Creek consists of a series of naturally isolated reaches segmented by falls and cascades. A falls approximately 11 ft high exists at the lower end of this reach. A small population of resident rainbow trout was documented in this isolated section of lower Lake Creek. No spawning activity was documented during spawner surveys in May and June, 2007. Lack of suitable spawning and rearing habitat in this reach has likely resulted in fish seeking more suitable habitat downstream for these purposes, since access to Packwood Lake and its tributaries is precluded by the drop structure.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-70 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

During the 2006 and 2007 fisheries studies on lower Lake Creek, many rainbow (up to 20 at one time) approximately 200 to 300 mm in size, were observed in the basin immediately below the drop structure orienting themselves directly into the current from the outflow pipe. It is likely that these large fish observed immediately below the drop structure moved downstream as a result of overtopping events in May and June, 2006 and the large flood in November, 2006. These rainbow trout were observed directly in front of the outflow pipe, likely attempting to return to Packwood Lake.

The Lake Creek Instream Flow Study Report (EES Consulting 2007m) and Fish Species Distribution and Composition Below the Drop Structure Study Report (EES Consulting 2007o) contain further details regarding the resident fish population in this reach and the associated habitat characteristics. The primary conclusion from study results discussed the healthy rainbow trout population in Packwood Lake and the fact that the occasional relocation of a small number of fish from the lake to lower Lake Creek has no negative effect on Packwood Lake trout populations and may benefit lower Lake Creek by supplementing existing populations.

Effects on fish habitat below the drop structure in Lower Lake Creek Energy Northwest releases a minimum of 3 cfs of Packwood Lake water into lower Lake Creek to protect resident and anadromous fish and other aquatic species. Additional accretion from snowmelt and groundwater occurs along the 5.4 mile stretch of Lake Creek between the Project intake and the confluence with the Cowlitz River. Prior to installation of the drop structure and intake building for the Project in 1960, lower Lake Creek naturally drained all runoff that entered Packwood Lake from the upper tributaries. (For further habitat suitability and species information, see the Lake Creek Instream Flow Study (in Section E.5.3.1.2.6) and the Population Distribution below the Drop Structure Report discussed in Section E.5.3.1.2.5).

Weighted usable area (WUA) is a quantification of available habitat for a specific species. The variables taken into account include water depth and velocity and substrate. Weighted usable area is typically measured in square feet per 1000 ft. of stream. Table E.5.3.1-15 displays average monthly WUA values for fish species in lower Lake Creek under the existing license conditions. The lower 1.03 miles of lower Lake Creek is accessible to Chinook, coho, steelhead and coastal cutthroat with an additional 0.92 miles accessible to steelhead. There is a general lack of quality habitat in the accessible portion of lower Lake Creek for anadromous spawning and rearing fish.

Annual mean flows down lower Lake Creek are approximately 100 cfs, but range from as low as 25 – 35 cfs during the drier months to much higher flows during the spring run-off months. Although lower Lake Creek reached flows of approximately 1,600 cfs during a flood event in November, 2006, a general lack of high flow events with the magnitude to induce channel forming processes exists in the watershed.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-71 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-15. Mean monthly Weighted Usable Area (WUA) values (in ft2/1,000 ft of stream) for the species and life stages present in Lake Creek under the current license conditions. Month Chinook Coho Steelhead Cutthroat Rainbow Winter

Rearing Spawning Rearing Spawning Rearing Spawning Rearing Spawning Rearing Spawning Rearing

January 4,922 3,562 211 4,001 3,703 24 2,746 6,617 February 4,812 3,694 200 3,632 3,561 24 2,603 6,912 March 4,773 3,770 3,416 90 3,459 23 2,520 7,113 April 4,765 3,765 3,389 93 3,449 2,510 May 4,642 3,883 3,196 76 3,301 2,458 83 June 4,521 3,909 3,201 63 3,174 2,522 85 July 3,944 4,297 2,349 2,613 2,102 61 August 3,327 26 4,536 1,826 2,116 1,828 September 3,123 17 4,574 1,701 1,978 1,752 October 3,210 4,497 120 1,834 2,077 1,809 November 4,072 4,171 166 2,628 2,781 43 2,202 7,844 December 4,669 3,761 197 3,462 3,376 29 2,556 7,071

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-72 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Operation of the Project reduces peak flow magnitude and frequency in Lake Creek below the drop structure. The majority (65%) of highest annual flows prior to the Project were between 200-500 cfs. After the Project was in place (1964), 24% of the high flows were between 200-500 cfs. Sixty percent of highest annual flows after 1964 were between 0-200 cfs.

Large logs that reach the outlet of Packwood Lake are currently retained at a log boom and typically float back into the lake. Some pieces of smaller wood are moved over the drop structure by high flows. Under normal operating conditions, very few large logs reach the log boom each year.

Historically and with the Project in place, Packwood Lake has acted as a gravel sink, essentially absorbing all gravel from the tributaries prior to their potential movement down to lower Lake Creek. There are limited gravel sources in Lake Creek downstream of the drop structure. Lower Lake Creek is a high gradient, course substrate (boulder/cobble) system. The majority of large wood in lower Lake Creek (including very old wood) is not fluvially transported, indicating most large wood is derived from local sources rather than wood transport. For further information regarding wood and gravel transport see the Gravel Transport and Large Wood Study Results in Section E.5.3.1.2.7.

The magnitude and frequency of gravel transport in lower Lake Creek is altered by Project operations. There is relatively little large wood in the lower 0.8 miles of lower Lake Creek that would provide gravel retention areas. As a result, the anadromous zone of lower Lake Creek contains very little adequate spawning gravel. The lack of large wood is likely the result of past forest practices and human disturbance that are not Project related. The low amount of spawning-sized gravel in the anadromous zone of lower Lake Creek is likely the combined result of a lack of structure to hold gravel (not Project related), few sediment sources downstream of the drop structure (not Project related), and reduced transport from upstream sources below the drop structure (Project related). All gravel associated with spawning habitat is currently being utilized in the anadromous zone of lower Lake Creek.

E.5.3.1.2.6 Lake Creek Instream Flow Study

Currently, the FERC license for the Project requires a minimum instream flow of 3 cfs, as measured at the drop structure immediately downstream of the outlet of Packwood Lake (License Article 14, as amended February 17, 1976). There is also an instream flow requirement of 15 cfs at the confluence of Lake Creek with the Cowlitz River. Flow and the rate of change in flow are both significant aspects of stream habitat that are usually affected by a hydroelectric project.

Energy Northwest conducted an instream flow study on lower Lake Creek (from RM 5.4 near the drop structure downstream to its confluence with the Cowlitz River; EES Consulting 2007m). This instream flow study assessed the relationship between flow and habitat for fish and other aquatic life in lower Lake Creek.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-73 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

The overall objective of this study was to develop information that supports the continuation of these instream flow requirements, which would be conditions of the Section 401 water quality certification and the new FERC license issued for Project operation.

Specific objectives of the IFIM study were:

• Provide a well-documented, scientific basis to serve as a decision-making tool for instream flow evaluations. • Quantify the relationship between stream flow and available aquatic habitat for appropriate salmonid and amphibian species and life stages for Lake Creek. In order to quantify this relationship: • Define the seasonal and annual hydrologic regime, including estimates of accretion, using existing hydrologic records for Lake Creek downstream of Packwood Lake. • Define study reaches and study transects that are representative of the habitat variability within Lake Creek downstream of the drop structure at the lake outlet. Existing habitat survey data and data from supplemental habitat surveys conducted by EES Consulting in 2004 were used (EES Consulting 2007m). • Document the relative abundance, distribution and species composition for resident and anadromous fish in Lake Creek between the outlet at Packwood Lake and the stream’s confluence with the Cowlitz River. Existing information and supplemental surveys were used. • Identify target species for instream flow studies in Lake Creek downstream of the drop structure at the lake outlet.

A physical habitat survey was conducted in 2004 to identify relevant habitat types, delineate reaches, and select and weight transects for the study. After consultation, a total of 34 transects were selected in four study sites (Figure E.5.3.1-48).

Energy Northwest released calibration flows ranging from approximately 5 cfs to 35 cfs during 2004. The natural resource agencies requested that the study be able to model up to 260 cfs, the extent of the Project water right. The Project spilled water to accommodate this request in 2006 as part of a flow release strategy for the instream flow, tailrace barrier analysis, large woody debris, and gravel transport studies.

WDFW was consulted for model calibration, transport and study weighting, hydrology and Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) criteria approval. In summary, the following components were approved by WDFW and used in the analysis:

• Species and life history stages of interest • Species distribution in lower Lake Creek • HSI curves for fish and amphibians found, or potentially found, in lower Lake Creek (Table E.5.3.1-16 for above three components)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-74 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-48. Packwood IFIM Study Site Locations

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-75 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

• Three velocity set and one velocity set hydraulic models (a total of 68 models; two for each transect) • Transect and study site weighting (Tables E.5.3-17 to E.5.3-21) • Fish and amphibian periodicity (Tables E.5.3-22 and E.5.3-23) • Inflow from the drop structure to the confluence of Lake Creek with the Cowlitz River, and the hydrology data that estimated inflow for each study site per month, based upon USGS gage data on Lake Creek (Tables E.5.3-24 and E.5.3-25)

Table E.5.3.1-16. Preference Curves (Habitat Suitability Indices – HSI) for Use in Lake Creek Instream Flow Study Lake Creek Reach (RM) Species Life Stage Source RM 0.0 - 1.03 Steelhead Spawning WDFW/WDOE Juvenile Rearing WDFW/WDOE Chinook Spawning WDFW/WDOE-small rivers Juvenile Rearing WDFW/WDOE Coho Spawning WDFW/WDOE Juvenile Rearing WDFW/WDOE Rainbow Trout Spawning WDFW/WDOE Juvenile/Adult Rearing WDFW/WDOE Winter Rearing WDFW/WDOE Cutthroat Trout Spawning WDFW/WDOE Juvenile/Adult Rearing WDFW/WDOE Winter Rearing WDFW/WDOE RM 0.7 – 1.03 Ascaphus truei All stages WDFW, DTA (4/24/07) Dicamptodon spp. All stages WDFW, DTA (4/24/07) RM 1.04 - 1.95 Steelhead Spawning WDFW/WDOE Juvenile Rearing WDFW/WDOE Rainbow Trout Spawning WDFW/WDOE Juvenile/Adult Rearing WDFW/WDOE Winter Rearing WDFW/WDOE Ascaphus truei All stages WDFW, DTA (4/24/07) Dicamptodon spp. All stages WDFW, DTA (4/24/07)

RM 1.96 - 5.4 Rainbow Trout Spawning WDFW/WDOE Juvenile/Adult Rearing WDFW/WDOE Winter Rearing WDFW/WDOE Ascaphus truei All stages WDFW, DTA (4/24/07) Dicamptodon spp. All stages WDFW, DTA (4/24/07) RM 3.5 – 4.9 Rhyacotrin cascadae All stages WDFW, DTA (4/24/07)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-76 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-17. Final Transect Weighting for Study Site 1 Transect Transect Description Frequency Percentage 1 Glide 4.0 16.67% 2 Run 4.0 16.67% 3 Low Gradient Cascade/Run 5.0 20.83% 4 Plunge Pool Tailout 0.5 2.08% 5 Plunge Pool 1.2 5.00% 6 Run 4.0 16.67% 7 Plunge Pool Tailout 0.5 2.08% 8 Low Gradient Cascade/Plunge Pool 3.6 15.00% 9 Plunge Pool 1.2 5.00% Total 24 100%

Table E.5.3.1-18. Final Transect Weighting, Study Site 2 Transect Transect Description Frequency Percentage 1 Wide Run 10 10.64% 2 Pool Tailout/Glide 13.67 14.54% 3 Plunge Pool 8.8 9.36% 4 Plunge Pool Tailout 3.33 3.55% 5 Plunge Pool/Cascade 20.4 21.70% 6 Run 19 20.21% 7 Plunge Pool 8.8 9.36% 8 Chute 10 10.64% Total 94 100%

Table E.5.3.1-19. Final Transect Weighting, Study Site 3 Transect Transect Description Frequency Percentage 1 Head of Pool 3.6 8.2% 2 Pool 3.6 8.2% 3 Pool Tailout 1 2.3% 4 Narrow Run (Boulder w/perched gravel) 16 36.4% Narrow Cascade/Plunge Pool (boulder 5 w/perched gravel) 13.8 31.4% 6 Glide narrow/chute (cobble/boulder) 6 13.6% Total 44 100%

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-77 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-20. Final Transect Weighting, Study Site 4 (Reach 5) Transect Transect Description Frequency Percentage 1 Wide Run 1.33 8.33% 2 Plunge Pool 1.33 8.33% 3 Narrow Run (boulder and cobble) 1.33 8.33% Pool (bedrock on sides; cobble/boulder 4 on margins 1.33 8.33% 5 Split Channel Glide ((boulder/cobble) 1.33 8.33% 6 Run (below plunge pool) 1.33 8.33% 7 Split Channel w/lateral pool 2 12.50% 8 Wide Glide 1.33 8.33% 9 Pool Tailout 2 12.50% 10 Wide Pool 1.33 8.33% 11 Riffle (gravel and cobble) 1.33 8.33% Total 16 100%

Table E.5.3.1-21. Lake Creek Study Site Weighting Study Site Begin End Total Percentage 1 0.0 0.7 0.7 13.0% 2 0.7 3.5 2.8 51.9% 3 3.5 4.9 1.4 25.9% 4 4.9 5.4 0.5 9.3% Total 5.4 100.0%

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-78 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-22. Lake Creek Fish Periodicity Species Lifestage Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Spawning Spring Chinook Incubation Rearing Spawning Coho Incubation Rearing Spawning Steelhead Incubation Rearing Spawning Cutthroat Trout Incubation Rearing Spawning Rainbow Trout Incubation Rearing

Based on: John Serl, WDFW Fish Biologist, Cowlitz Falls (May 10, 2007)

Key: Black indicates periods of heaviest use Grey indicates periods of moderate use Blank areas indicate periods of little or no use

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-79 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-23. Lake Creek Amphibian Periodicity Species Lifestage Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept

Eggs Giant Salamander Larvae

Eggs Coastal Tailed Frog Larvae

Cascade Torrent Eggs Salamander Larvae

Based on: S. Nyman, DTA (05/24/07); M. Hayes, WDFW (05/25/07)

Key: Black indicates periods of heaviest use Blank areas indicate periods of little or no use

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-80 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-24. Average Monthly Inflow to Lake Creek below Packwood Lake (Average Inflow to Lake Creek [cfs] per Square Mile of Drainage Area) WY Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 1914 1.6 3.0 2.5 6.9 3.4 5.0 5.9 5.7 3.7 3.0 1.4 1.7 1963 1.6 3.5 4.0 3.2 5.5 3.6 5.0 2.8 1.8 1.2 0.7 0.9 1964 0.8 3.7 3.6 6.5 4.8 4.0 5.2 4.2 3.6 2.3 1.8 1.2 1965 1.7 3.0 10.9 12.0 7.2 3.9 3.3 3.6 3.0 2.0 1.2 0.9 1966 0.8 1.2 1.8 4.0 2.8 5.1 4.8 3.4 2.6 1.7 1.2 0.8 1967 0.7 1.4 5.5 8.8 5.9 3.3 2.2 2.5 2.7 1.9 1.1 0.8 1968 1.6 2.9 5.3 5.4 8.5 4.9 3.7 2.2 2.0 1.3 1.1 1.3 1969 2.6 5.3 6.5 7.6 3.1 4.0 4.5 3.6 3.3 1.8 1.2 1.0 1970 1.2 1.6 3.1 8.5 6.5 4.1 3.7 2.5 2.1 1.4 0.9 0.8 1971 0.8 2.6 4.1 9.3 7.6 4.6 5.0 5.7 4.5 3.0 1.5 1.2 1972 1.2 3.0 5.2 9.1 10.9 13.7 6.9 6.6 5.8 3.6 2.0 1.9 1973 1.3 2.2 7.5 6.5 3.3 2.6 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.9 1974 0.9 4.7 7.8 11.3 6.8 5.9 6.4 6.1 7.2 3.6 2.0 1.3 1975 0.9 2.1 6.1 11.7 6.5 5.7 3.2 3.7 3.4 1.8 1.6 1.2 1976 1.2 4.2 12.7 9.2 5.0 4.1 5.1 4.9 3.7 2.6 1.8 1.3 1977 1.0 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.2 3.2 3.1 2.7 2.5 1.6 1.2 1.7 Mean 1.3 2.9 5.5 7.6 5.6 4.9 4.4 3.9 3.3 2.1 1.4 1.2

Table E.5.3.1-25. Lake Creek Inflow at Each Study Site SS2 SS1 SS1 Study Site SS4 SS3 T2-8 SS2 T1 T5-9 T1-4 Added Drainage Area 0 0.84 4.70 4.76 7.30 7.38 Month cfs/mile2 Added Flow in cfs per Month at Each Study Site Jan 7.6 0 6.4 35.7 36.2 55.5 56.1 Feb 5.6 0 4.7 26.3 26.7 40.9 41.3 Mar 4.9 0 4.1 23.0 23.3 35.8 36.1 Apr 4.4 0 3.7 20.7 20.9 32.1 32.5 May 3.9 0 3.3 18.3 18.6 28.5 28.8 June 3.3 0 2.8 15.5 15.7 24.1 24.3 July 2.1 0 1.8 9.9 10.0 15.3 15.5 Aug 1.4 0 1.2 6.6 6.7 10.2 10.3 Sept 1.2 0 1.0 5.6 5.7 8.8 8.9 Oct 1.3 0 1.1 6.1 6.2 9.5 9.6 Nov 2.9 0 2.4 13.6 13.8 21.2 21.4 Dec 5.5 0 4.6 25.8 26.2 40.2 40.6 Annual 3.7 0 3.1 17.3 17.5 26.8 27.1

Within the HABTAT program, output from the hydraulic modeling was combined with habitat suitability criteria for depth, velocity, and substrate/cover for the target species life stages. The output from this model is expressed as Flow (Q in cfs) vs. Weighted Usable Area (WUA), which is an index of available habitat (in ft2 per 1,000 lineal ft of stream for each species and life stage of concern).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-81 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Transects were aggregated into groupings for each study site as listed below:

• Study Site 1, Transects 1 – 4 • Study Site 1, Transects 5 – 9 • Study Site 2, Transect 1 • Study Site 2, Transects 2 – 8 • Study Site 3 • Study Site 4

Finally, WUA integrates hydrology, study site and transect weighting, fish and amphibian distribution, and periodicity of life stages. The following data were used to develop WUA tables per month.

• Monthly Inflow • Periodicity • Fish Distribution • Amphibian Distribution • Study Site Weighting

Results were combined to indicate WUA values by month for Lake Creek by species and life stages of anadromous and resident fish and amphibians. The curves that display these values are found in the Final Lake Creek Instream Flow Study Report (EES Consulting 2007m). An example is given that shows values for salmon and trout spawning and rearing during June (Figure E.5.3.1-49)

8,000 300

7,000 250 6,000 200 5,000

4,000 150 Stream) Stream) 3,000 100 2,000 50 1,000 WUA (Sq. Ft. of Habitat per 1000 Ft. of of Ft. 1000 per (Sq. Habitat Ft. of WUA of Ft. 1000 per (Sq. Habitat Ft. of WUA

0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Streamflow in Cubic Feet Per Second

Chinook Rearing Coho Rearing Steelhead Rearing Cutthroat Rearing Rainbow Rearing Steelhead Spawning (Rt Scale) Rainbow Spawning (Rt Scale)

Figure E.5.3.1-49. Salmon and trout spawning and rearing WUA, for June.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-82 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Fish Spawning Habitat Spawning habitat for both anadromous and resident fish in Lake Creek is scarce; it is defined as the area (in square feet) where the combination of suitable spawning-sized substrates, and water depths and velocities that anadromous and resident fish prefer for spawning and depositing eggs in redds, is present. Figure E.5.3.1-50 shows that for the month of June steelhead trout spawning WUA is maximized at a release flow of 25 cfs, while rainbow trout spawning is maximized at a release flow of 35 cfs. Spawning habitat in Lake Creek, however, is extremely limited, and comprises on average less than 1% of the total habitat available (Figure E.5.3.1-50; Table E.5.3.1-26). WUA is calculated as the number of square feet of habitat per 1000 linear feet of stream. For example, rainbow trout spawning is maximized at a value of 263 ft2/1000 ft of stream at a flow of 35 cfs. One way to evaluate this is to imagine a strip of good habitat 0.263 ft (or about 3 inches) wide that extends up and down the entire length of Lake Creek from the drop structure to its confluence with the Cowlitz River. The average wetted width of Lake Creek under the scenarios modeled for June is 23.93 feet; therefore, spawning habitat for rainbow trout comprises 1.1% of the total habitat. It is extremely important, however, to note that WUA is an index of habitat suitability; a maximum WUA value could represent a small amount of very suitable habitat, a larger amount of very marginal habitat, or sometimes a combination of both.

The IFIM is a tool to evaluate different scenarios and evaluate changes in habitat quantity and quality under different flow regimes. It does not evaluate how fish populations respond to these changes in habitat.

Salmon and Trout Rearing Habitat Figure E.5.3.1-49 shows rearing habitat for salmon and steelhead in Lake Creek during June (derived from Figures 5.2-12 and 5.2-13 of the Lake Creek Instream Flow Study Report, EES Consulting 2007m). Different species and life stages prefer various depths and velocities; as a result, maximum WUA rarely coincides at the same flow for all species. Rainbow trout prefer greater depths and velocities, and its habitat units are maximized at a flow of 200 cfs; coho juveniles prefer lesser depths and velocities, and its habitat is maximized at 2 cfs. Off-channel habitat, important for over-wintering of coho juveniles, is scarce in lower Lake Creek. Other species have life history requirements where depths and velocities are met over a wider range of flows (e.g., Chinook salmon, where WUA is maximized at 110 cfs, but habitat units remain fairly constant from 25 cfs to 260 cfs).

Rearing habitat is also limited in Lake Creek for anadromous and resident salmonids. Table E.5.3.1-27 summarizes rearing WUA as a percentage of total available habitat. Transects 5 – 9 of Study Site 1 has the most habitat per unit, while lower Study Site 2 had the lowest amount of habitat per unit. Figure E.5.3.1-51 depicts rearing habitat as a percentage of total habitat available.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-83 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Spawning WUA as % of Total Habitat Available

2.0%

1.8%

1.6%

1.4%

1.2% Chinook Coho 1.0% Steelhead Cutthroat Percent Rainbow 0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0% SS1 T1-4 SS1 T5-9 SS2 T1 SS2 T2-8 SS3 SS4 Study Site and Transects

Figure E.5.3.1-50. Spawning habitat for salmon and trout in Lake Creek study reaches as a percentage of total habitat.

Table E.5.3.1-26. Salmon and trout spawning WUA as a percentage of total available habitat per study site and transects. Study Site Transects Statistic Chinook Coho Steelhead Cutthroat Rainbow 1 1-4 Mean 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% Maximum 2.0% 1.2% 1.9% 1.0% 1.1% 1 5-9 Mean 1.4% 1.4% 0.7% 0.4% 0.1% Maximum 1.9% 4.0% 0.9% 0.7% 0.2% 2 1 Mean 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.6% Maximum 0.3% 0.3% 0.7% 0.3% 1.2% 2 2-8 Mean 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% Maximum 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% 3 1-6 Mean N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.0% Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.9% 4 1-11 Mean N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.0% Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.1%

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-84 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Rearing WUA as % of Total Habitat

30%

25%

20%

Chinook Coho Steelhead 15% Cutthroat

Percentage Rainbow W Rearing

10%

5%

0% SS1 T1-4 SS1 T5-9 SS2 T1 SS2 T2-8 SS3 SS4 Study Sites and Transects

Figure E.5.3.1-51. Lake Creek rearing WUA as a percentage of total habitat available in Lake Creek at the various study sites and transects.

Table E.5.3.1-27. Salmon and trout rearing WUA as a percentage of total available habitat per study site and transects. Study Winter Site Transects Statistic Chinook Coho Steelhead Cutthroat Rainbow Rearing 1 1-4 Mean 12.0% 7.4% 15.3% 9.4% 10.1% 15.1% Maximum 18.0%20.7% 19.7% 12.5% 13.3% 52.5% 1 5-9 Mean 27.7%12.5% 26.1% 20.5% 21.0% 21.5% Maximum 33.1% 31.6% 33.1% 22.9% 26.2% 62.8% 2 1 Mean 1.0%1.1% 3.4% 0.7% 5.8% 18.4% Maximum 2.7% 3.6% 6.7% 1.8% 14.7% 79.8% 2 2-8 Mean 2.4% 1.1% 11.3% 1.8% 18.3% 13.8% Maximum 3.0% 3.6% 13.6% 2.4% 21.8% 57.2% 3 1-6 Mean N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.5% 14.8% Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A 13.7% 51.5% 4 1-11 Mean N/A N/A N/A N/A 16.5% 23.5% Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A 19.3% 55.7%

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-85 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

E.5.3.1.2.7 Gravel Transport/Large Wood Studies

Continued operation of the Project results in changes to peak flow magnitudes and frequencies in Lake Creek downstream of the drop structure. In order to determine the effects of the changes in peak flow on gravel and large wood in lower Lake Creek, an inventory of wood and gravel in the entire lower Lake Creek was conducted in 2005 (Watershed GeoDynamics 2007a and 2007d) and the lower 2 miles of Lake Creek were re-inventoried following the November 2006 peak flow event. Painted rocks were deployed at seven sites and large wood was marked at five sites in 2005. The rocks and wood were checked for movement following planned releases of approximately 16, 34, and 299 cfs in 2006. Wood was also checked for movement following the large (est. 1,000 cfs at the drop structure) peak flow event in November 2006. Additional rocks were deployed at five transects in the lower mile of Lake Creek to further test for movement at releases of approximately 16, 35, and 285 cfs in 2007.

Peak Flows Peak flows are altered by operation of the Project. Figure E.5.3.1-52 shows a comparison of highest annual mean daily flow near the mouth of Lake Creek from the pre- and post-Project periods (Watershed GeoDynamics 2007a). The majority (65%) of highest annual flows before the Project were between 200-500 cfs. During the post- Project period, 24% of the high flows were between 200-500 cfs. Sixty percent of peak flows during the post-Project period were less than 200 cfs. Flows over about 600 cfs appear to have a similar frequency during the without- and with-Project periods.

Large Wood Wood and floating debris collects at the log boom in Packwood Lake. Some of the smaller wood (small enough for 2 people to carry) is moved over the drop structure. Larger logs collect on the log boom and either sink or float back into the lake. A total of 18 pieces of wood were collected on the log boom between September 2005 and August 2007. Many of these arrived during the May 2006 planned spill event when the lake level was raised to allow for spill tests.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-86 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

Percent of total high annualPercentof total highflow over period. 0%

0 00 00 00 100 200 800 500 0- 0-300 1000 1600 00-500 0-1700 100- 20 300-4004 500-600600-7 700- 800-9 00-1100 900- 0 100-1200200-13 300-140400-1 500- 60 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Flow (cfs)

* 1912-1963 includes 1912-1917, 1919-1924, 1931-1942, 1950-1954, 1960-1963 1912-1963* 1965-2006** ** 1965-2006 does not include the 299 cfs spill performed as part of licensing studies

Figure E.5.3.1-52 Comparison of Without- and With-Project annual highest mean daily flow, Lake Creek near Packwood Gage (near mouth of Lake Creek).

The primary source of instream wood in Lake Creek downstream of the drop structure is local trees falling into the creek by windthrow, tree mortality, and mass wasting (Watershed GeoDynamics 2007d). Wood and log jams are abundant upstream of approximately River Mile 2.1, with 90-130 pieces of countable wood/mile (over 12 inches in diameter and 25 feet long) in the combined wetted and bankfull channel in Reaches 3, 4, and 5 (Figures E.5.3-53 and E.5.3-54). The undisturbed riparian forest in these reaches and riparian protections under the USFS Forest Plan should result in a continued wood supply in these reaches in the future.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-87 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Large Wood per Mile in Wetted Channel

90

80

70

60

50 Small Medium 40 Large 30 Wood pieces/mile

20

10

0 12345 Reach

Figure E.5.3.1-53. Large Wood in Wetted Channel (2005 inventory).

Large Wood per Mile in Bankfull Channel

90

80

70

60

50 Small Medium 40 Large 30 Wood pieces/mile Wood

20

10

0 12345 Reach

Figure E.5.3.1-54. Large Wood in Bankfull Channel (2005 inventory).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-88 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

There is less wood in the lower 2.1 miles of Lake Creek. In 2005, 35 countable pieces of wood/mile were inventoried in Reach 2, and 15 pieces of wood/mile in Reach 1. There are few local sources of future large wood in Reaches 1 or 2. These reaches are less confined than upstream reaches, and appear to have been affected by past harvest of mature trees from the riparian zone in at least some locations. It is likely that mature conifer stands will not be available to provide local sources of instream wood in these reaches over the term of the new license. The Project has no control over, and continued operation of the Project has no effect on, the past or future harvest of riparian areas along Lake Creek.

Packwood Lake is not a major source of wood for Lake Creek. Information collected as part of the large wood study suggests that the majority of instream wood in Lake Creek comes from local sources. The numerous channel constrictions and large boulders make it nearly impossible for wood to be transported very far in the stream. No wood in the large size class, 6% of medium wood, and 12% of small wood showed signs of fluvial transport during the 2005 inventory. Fluvially transported wood was either old or very old, further reinforcing the hypothesis that large woody debris is transported very infrequently in lower Lake Creek. The lower 2 miles of Lake Creek were re-visited in 2007, following the November 2006 peak flow event, and the tagged wood was checked at all five wood study sites. The magnitude of flows near the mouth of Lake Creek during that event was not recorded, but an estimated 1,000 cfs passed over the drop structure. It is likely that several hundred cfs of inflow occurred between the drop structure and the mouth based on inflow during historic peak flows and the USGS flood records (the November 2006 flow in the Cowlitz River at Packwood had the highest peak recorded since recording began in 1911). There was movement of large woody debris in the lower 2 miles of Lake Creek during the 2006 peak flow event. Approximately 56% of the small size pieces of wood (over 12 inches in diameter and over 25 feet long) showed evidence of fluvial transport in the 2007 inventory, compared to the 12% of small sized pieces that showed evidence of fluvial transport in the 2005 inventory. Six percent (3 pieces) of large or medium wood showed evidence of fluvial transport in 2007 in the reaches surveyed (RM 0-2). All pieces of tagged large wood had moved in Reaches 1, 2, and 3, and it was evident that other non-tagged wood had also moved in the lower portion of the stream. Tagged wood at the study sites in Reaches 4 and 5 did not show much movement; only 2 of the 10 tagged logs had moved. There was less evidence of wood movement or changes to channel morphology in these upstream reaches of lower Lake Creek, suggesting that flows were much lower than in downstream sections. This would be expected, since flows increased downstream as a result of accretion.

Spawning-sized Gravel Gravel is an important component of aquatic habitats because it provides spawning substrate for fish, and habitat for other aquatic organisms. The size of gravel used by fish varies by species, but the majority of anadromous fish (Chinook, coho, chum, steelhead) prefer gravel in the range of 0.5-4 inches; sea-run cutthroat trout prefer gravel between 0.2 and 2 inches in diameter.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-89 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Packwood Lake was formed by a large landslide that blocked Lake Creek approximately 1100 years ago (Swanson 1996). Packwood Lake is large and deep enough (452 acres and over 100 feet deep) that it traps all sand, gravel, and larger material that are transported into it from upstream sources. The only source of sand, gravel, cobble, and boulders to Lake Creek downstream of Packwood Lake is from tributaries, landslides, and erosion in the lower stream watershed. Operation of the Project does not change the trap efficiency of sand and larger particles in the lake.

Lake Creek downstream from Packwood Lake is a cobble/boulder bedded stream with a dominantly step-pool structure. A 2005 inventory of spawning-sized gravel between the drop structure and the confluence with the Cowlitz River found a total of 42,660 sq ft of gravel, with the highest concentrations in Reaches 2, 3, and 4 between RM 0.8-RM 4.9 (Table E.5.3.1-28, Figure E.5.3.1-55, Watershed GeoDynamics 2007a).

Table E.5.3.1-28. Area of spawning-sized gravel inventoried in Lake Creek (2005 Inventory) River Average Gravel in wetted channel Gravel in bankfull channel* Reach Mile Gradient Area (sq ft) Sq ft/mile Area (sq ft) Sq ft/mile 1 0-0.7 2.9% 2,775 4,070 2,700 3,960 2 0.7-1.3 7.3% 6,175 11,644 2,375 4,479 3 1.3-3.5 8.0% 22,025 8,946 7,550 3,066 4 3.5-4.9 4.3% 11,635 9,599 7,925 6,538 5 4.9-5.3 8.4% 50 132 0 0 Total 0-5.3 6.3% 42,660 8,102 20,550 3,903 *Not including wetted channel

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-90 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

3000 40% Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5 35% 2500

30%

2000 25%

1500 20% ` 15% 1000 Gradient Stream

Area of gravel in sq. ft. ft. sq. in of gravel Area 12 3-2 3-1 4-14-24-3 10%

500 5%

0 0% 012345 Distance from Mouth (miles)

Gravel Log Jams Gradient Gravel Study Sites Tributaries

Figure E.5.3.1-55. Spawning-sized gravel in wetted channel / stream gradient in lower Lake Creek (2005 inventory)

During November, 2006 a large peak flow occurred. The estimated flow over the drop structure was 1,000 cfs. Additional inflow occurred between the drop structure and the mouth of Lake Creek; inflow was not measured, but it was estimated to be 200-600 cfs.

Following the 2006 peak flow, gravel was re-inventoried between RM 0 and RM 2.05. As expected, the stream showed evidence of a very large flow event (fresh channel scour and deposition, movement of wood and gravel, fresh high flow side channels, flood debris 3-5 feet above the low flow water elevations). The total gravel in the wetted channel was slightly higher than in the 2005 inventory (Table E.5.3.1-29) and there was over twice the amount of gravel in the bankfull channel. The large increase in gravel in the bankfull channel was likely due in some part to removal of vegetation that had been obscuring gravel on the stream banks as well as deposition of new gravel on the banks.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-91 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-29. Area of spawning-sized gravel inventoried in sub-reaches of Lake Creek (2007) Gravel in wetted channel Gravel in bankfull channel Reach Station (ft) River Mile Area (sq ft) Sq ft/mile Area (sq ft) Sq ft/mile 1A 0-1500 0-0.28 300 1,071 1675 5,982 1B 1600-3600 0.28-0.68 3,225 8,063 5,000 12,500 2A 3700-5400 0.68-1.03 3,500 10,000 3,425 9,786 2B/3A 5500-10300 1.03-1.95 7,200 7,826 7,300 7,935 Anadromous 14,225 7,295 17,400 8,923 0-10300 0-1.95 accessible

The longitudinal distribution of gravel in the wetted channel was slightly different than in 20051 (Figure E.5.3.1-56). Some of the largest deposits in 2005 were upstream of log jams or large pieces of wood that spanned the channel and retained gravel. Several of these log jams or wood dams were breached during the peak flow, and the gravel deposits were re-distributed downstream.

During the 2005 inventory, it was observed that the majority of instream gravel was located behind large-scale roughness elements such as large boulders or large woody debris. However, this was not quantified in 2005. During the 2007 inventory, the location of the instream gravel deposits was noted and if the gravel was associated with something that helped retain gravel. Gravel was associated with: large boulders, large woody debris, pool tailouts, and located near the sides of the channel or in side channels. The majority (66%) of gravel in the wetted channel was associated with boulders or wood (Figure E.5.3.1-57). Gravel not associated with boulders or wood was located at the side of the channel, in a side channel (particularly in Reach 1 which was less confined), or in pool tailouts. Only a small percentage (9%) of the gravel was not associated with roughness elements and located within the main channel of the stream.

1 Note that stationing was slightly different in 2005 and 2007 due to a shift in the location of the mouth of the stream. The mouth shifted approximately 200 feet upstream. As a result, direct correlation between 2005 and 2007 stationing is not possible.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-92 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 1400 14%

1200 12% 1-3 1-2 1-1 2-2 2-1 1000 10%

800 8%

600 6% Stream Gradient Stream

Area of gravel in sq. ft. 400 4%

200 2%

0 0% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Distance from Mouth (miles)

2005 Gravel 2007 Gravel 2005 Log Jams 2007 Log Jams Gradient Gravel Study Sites Tributaries

Figure E.5.3.1-56. Comparison of 2005-2007 Spawning-sized gravel in wetted channel in lower Lake Creek.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-93 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

8000

7000

6000

5000 Reach 3 4000 Reach 2 Reach 1 3000

Spawning Sized Gravel (sq ft) 2000

1000

0 Bouder Wood Side of Side channel Pool tailout Other channel Gravel Association

Figure E.5.3.1-57. Association of Spawning-sized Gravel in Wetted Channel (2007)

Movement of painted rocks placed at gravel study sites throughout the stream suggest that high flows (on the order of 250-300+ cfs) are needed to mobilize the largest sized spawning gravels (3-4 in. diameter) across the entire channel width. Lower flows would likely mobilize smaller gravels if they occurred in the middle of the channel, but the majority of gravel is stored on the channel margins or behind boulders/logs, requiring higher flows to be mobilized. During the 2005 painted rock study, fewer rocks (5-9%) were retained at the transects in Reaches 1 and 2 than at the transects in Reaches 3 and 4. These test results are consistent with the gravel inventory results; there is less gravel downstream of RM 0.8 than in Reaches 3 and 4. One hypothesis for the lower amounts of gravel downstream of RM 0.8 is that the Project has reduced the frequency of flows capable of transporting gravel, so gravel is being retained in upstream reaches. Another hypothesis is that channel conditions that favor gravel retention (log jams, large woody debris, large boulders) are not as frequent downstream of RM 0.8 so that much of the gravel transported from upstream reaches during high flows is not retained downstream of RM 0.8. The low amount of spawning-sized gravel in the lower 0.8 miles of Lake Creek is likely the combined result of a lack of structure to hold gravel, few sediment sources downstream of the drop structure, and reduced transport from upstream reaches.

Additional painted rock sites were deployed in the lower mile of Lake Creek during the Spring of 2007 (Final Draft, Gravel Transport Study Report, Watershed GeoDynamics

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-94 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

2007a). Flows of approximately 16, 34, and 285 cfs were released from the drop structure. There were considerably more rocks remaining following the 284 cfs release than after the 299 cfs release in 2006. Estimated flows at these transects were not greatly different between the two years, with flows of 323-327 in 2006 and 294 in 2007. The one difference between the two years was the duration of spill. In 2006, approximately 299 cfs was released for 24 hours; and release was maintained above 250 cfs for an additional 24+ hours. In 2007, the 284 cfs release was maintained for approximately 12 hours, with flows dropping to 250 near the end of that period. The test results suggest that: 1) gravel transport initiates in a narrow range between 285 and 325 cfs; and 2) a longer duration (but lower magnitude 24 hour) flow release results in more transport.

Fish Spawning and Rearing With the current amount of gravel and structures in lower Lake Creek, the spawning grounds below RM 1.03 (site of the lower anadromous barrier) are very limited. Habitat is also limited below RM 1.95 (location of the anadromous barrier for steelhead trout); however, no steelhead have been observed in this reach of Lake Creek (EES Consulting 2007m). One steelhead redd was observed in lower Lake Creek at approximately RM 0.3 in 2007. Anadromous spawner surveys conducted for Energy Northwest over a 2-year period indicated that suitable spawning gravels were fully seeded (EES Consulting 2007c). Snorkeling and electrofishing surveys conducted for the Fish Distribution and Species Composition Study (EES Consulting 2007o) indicated stable populations and low density levels, indicating limited rearing habitat that may also be fully seeded.

E.5.3.1.2.8 Anadromous Spawning Survey Study

Two years of spawner surveys were conducted from July 2004 to July 2006 on lower Lake Creek upstream to the anadromous barrier at RM 1.95 and in the tailrace slough in both channels to the confluence with the mainstem Cowlitz River. Snyder and Hall creeks, and the Cowlitz River below the confluence with Lake Creek were surveyed for more than a year: Snyder Creek starting in April, Hall Creek in May, and the Cowlitz River starting in July 2005 through July 2006. Further information is provided in the Anadromous Salmonid Habitat and Spawning Survey Report (EES Consulting 2007c)

Anadromous spawners and redds were visually confirmed in all systems except Snyder Creek. Coho and Chinook salmon and/or redds were observed in Lake Creek, while coho only were seen in the tailrace slough and Hall Creek. When only redds were present, time of year and freshness of the redds allowed the biologists to determine whether a specific redd was made by either a coho or Chinook salmon spawning pair. No coho spawners were observed in Snyder Creek above the tailrace; however, coho juveniles were found on Snyder Creek above the tailrace and below the culvert barrier. No resident salmonid spawning was observed.

A preliminary anadromous and resident barrier assessment was conducted to determine the upstream terminus of surveys on Hall, Snyder and Lake creeks. (See

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-95 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Fish Passage Barriers Study Report (EES Consulting 2007j) for additional information on the barriers.) Table E.5.3.1-30 lists the beginning and ending dates of anadromous spawning surveys on these systems and the locations at which surveys were terminated, by river mile (RM). Surveys on Snyder Creek were terminated at the Forest Service road crossing (RM 0.36), due to the presence of a culvert that prevented upstream fish passage beyond this point.

Table E.5.3.1-30. Anadromous Spawning Survey Dates and Corresponding River Miles Beginning Ending Terminus Location Creek Date Date (RM) Lower Lake Creek (Including Cowlitz 7/26/04 7/26/06 1.95 River) Snyder Creek 5/10/05 7/26/06 0.36 Hall Creek 4/12/05 7/26/06 3.70 Tailrace Slough (Including Cowlitz 7/26/04 7/26/06 N/A River)

Lower Lake Creek The anadromous zone of Lake Creek was surveyed on a twice-monthly basis from July 2004 until July 2006 (Figure E.5.3.1-58). Over the 2-year period, a total of 85 fish were seen and 56 definite redds were observed. Of the 86 fish visually identified, 83 were coho and 3 were Chinook salmon. No carcasses were observed during any of the surveys. No steelhead trout were documented during the surveys. [Note: A single steelhead redd was observed in lower Lake Creek about RM 0.3 during May 2007.] Figure E.5.3.1-59 documents the areas of concentrated spawning during the 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 surveys.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-96 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Lake Creek Anadromous Spawning Surveys (2004-2006)

30.00

Coho

25.00

20.00

Fish Observed 15.00 Definite Redds Possible Redds

10.00 Fish and Redd Numbers

Chinook 5.00

0.00

4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 04 0 04 05 05 05 0 0 0 0 t-0 - -0 -05 -0 r- -0 l- t-05 -0 -0 r-06 r-06 -0 p-0 c c n-0 b y n- u c v- c n-06 y n-0 Jul- e a e a u J o e a p a u Jul- Aug- Se O Nov D J F Mar Ap M J Aug- Sep- O N D J Feb Ma A M J Date

Figure E.5.3.1-58. Lake Creek Spawning Survey Data

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-97 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

All 85 Fish and 56 Redds Observed in This Area

Area Snorkeled

Figure E.5.3.1-59. Lower Lake Creek concentrated spawning areas

Snorkeling surveys were conducted once per month from August–November 2004, documenting the lack of anadromous species above the chute at RM 1.03. No anadromous adults or juveniles were observed during any of the subsequent snorkeling efforts for this study and the Fish Distribution and Species Composition Study (EES Consulting 2007o). The chute at RM 1.03 subsequently was determined to be an upstream barrier for Chinook and coho, while the falls at RM 1.95 was documented as the barrier for steelhead. The Fish Passage Barriers Study Report (EES Consulting 2007j) documented the barriers on all the creeks associated with the Project.

Peak spawning behavior for coho in Lake Creek during the two years of surveys occurred between November 1 and January 31. Over 90% of fish and redds were identified during this period for both years. Two Chinook salmon were documented in

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-98 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Lake Creek on August 11, 2004 and one was observed on August 25, 2004 along with a potential redd. These were the only Chinook salmon observed in Lake Creek during the course of the surveys.

It is important to note that entrance and spawn timing are highly related to the timing of the trap and haul program for the Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2016) downstream of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project. That program transports fish from Barrier Dam to the Skate Creek Road Bridge (Franklin Bridge). The dates of transport vary, depending on return timing of fish downstream of the dam. Table E.5.3.1-31 documents the WDFW’s adult Chinook and coho releases in the upper Cowlitz Basin from 2004-2006. A total of 9,641 Chinook and 39,648 coho were released in the upper Cowlitz River from 2004 through 2006. None of the areas surveyed by Energy Northwest (Lake, Hall and Snyder creeks and the Cowlitz River slough below the tailrace) were examined by WDFW during 2005 and 2006.

Table E.5.3.1-31. Chinook and Coho Releases by WDFW (2004-2006) Scanewa Day Species Cispus Franklin Bridge Use Totals 2004/2005 Coho 733 4657 30698 36088 2005/2006 Coho 360 643 2557 3560 2005 Chinook 619 724 5163 6506 2006 Chinook 787 1,859 489 3135 Totals 2499 7883 38907

During the 2004/2005 coho spawning period, a total of 36,088 coho adult salmon were released into the upper Cowlitz Basin, beginning the week of August 29, 2004 and continuing until the week of February 8, 2005. Spawning activity in the Energy Northwest survey area (lower Lake and Hall creeks and the tailrace slough), took place between the weeks of October 28, 2004 and February 8, 2005. Only 3,560 coho adults were released during the 2005/2006 season between the week of December 15, 2005 and the week of January 12, 2006 and all spawning activity in the survey area took place between the week of December 15, 2005 and March 9, 2006.

A physical habitat assessment of lower Lake Creek was conducted by EES Consulting in April 2004 (EES Consulting 2005c). Wetted width information was utilized, along with the spawning survey data collected, to determine the numbers of fish per square meter of wetted habitat. Table E.5.3.1-32 displays yearly usage data of habitat per square meter in lower Lake Creek below RM 1.03. For the two survey years combined, there were 0.01 spawners per square meter of wetted habitat. Data collected during the gravel study on lower Lake Creek was analyzed in 100 ft. stream length increments from the mouth to RM 1.03. The number of square feet of gravel in each 100 ft reach was used to calculate the percentage of spawning gravel used in the anadromous zone of lower Lake Creek. Over the course of the two years of spawning surveys, coho used approximately 28.0% and Chinook used 2.8% of available spawning gravel (Table E.5.3.1-33).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-99 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-32. Spawning Fish per Square Meter in Lower Lake Creek 2004/2005 Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. M. Fish/ Sq. Meter Avg Width 33.00 179,454.00 1,6671.28 Length 5,438 0.003 Number of Fish 54 2005/2006 Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. M. Fish/ Sq. Meter Avg Width 33.00 179,454.00 1,6671.28 Length 5,438 0.002 Number of Fish 32 Total Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. M. Fish/ Sq. Meter Avg Width 33.00 179,454.00 1,6671.0 0.005 Length 5,438 Number of Fish 86

Table E.5.3.1-33. Percentage Spawning Gravel Used in Lower Lake Creek 2004/2005 Number of Mean Redd Species Sq Ft. Sq. M. Fish Size (sq m) Sq.M Used % Used Coho 7,975 740.0 51 5 127.50 17.21 Chinook 7,975 740.0 3 14 21.00 2.83 2005/2006 Number of Mean Redd Species Sq Ft. Sq. M. Fish Size (sq m) Sq.M Used % Used Coho 7,975 740.0 32 5 80.00 10.80 Chinook 7,975 740.0 0 14 0.00 0.00 Total Number of Mean Redd Species Sq Ft. Sq. M. Fish Size (sq m) Sq.M Used % Used Coho 7,975 740.0 83 5 207.50 28.0 Chinook 7,975 740.0 3 14 21.00 2.80

A permanent staff gage was installed prior to beginning the spawning surveys on lower Lake Creek at the Lake Creek Road Bridge. Discharge measurements were taken during spawning surveys to develop a rating curve for the gage. Flow values for the surveys are displayed in Figures E.5.3.1-60 and E.5.3.1-61. Over the course of the surveys, flow readings on survey dates ranged from 7.4 cfs to 50 cfs. The highest number of fish and redds seen during the 2004/2005 spawning surveys was during the week of January 25, 2005 at an approximate flow of 30.5 cfs. The highest number of fish and redds seen during the 2005/2006 season was during the week of November 18, 2005 when the Lake Creek flow was approximately 29.5 cfs.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-100 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Lake Creek Anadromous Spawning Surveys Flow (cfs) vs. Spawning Timing (2004/2005 Season) 30.00 35

30 25.00 25.00

25 Coho Spawning 20.00 Chinook Spawning

20

15.00

15 Lake Creek Flow (cfs)

Fish Observed + Redds 10.00

7.00 10 6.00 6.00 8.00

5.00 4.00 6.00 5.00 5 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /2 /2 /20 /2 /20 /20 /2 /2 /2 2 /2 2 /2 /20 /2 /20 /20 /20 /200 /2 /200 /2 /20 6 /9 3 /6 0 4 8 /1 5 9/ 3 7/ 0 4 /7 /7 /4 8 /2 6 0 /2 8 /2 9 /2 0/ /1 1 /1 /2 1 /2 /1 /2 2 /21 3 /21 4 /1 5 /1 /3 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2/ 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 Date

Observed Fish Observed Redds Lake Creek Flow (cfs)

Figure E.5.3.1-60. Lake Creek Flow vs. Spawn Timing (2004/2005 Season)

Lake Creek Anadromous Spawning Surveys Flow (cfs) vs. Spawning Timing (2005/2006 Season)

18.00 54 52 16.00 50 16.00 48 46 44 14.00 15.00 42 40 38 12.00 Chinook Spawning Coho Spawning 36 34 10.00 32 10.00 11.00 30 28 26 8.00 24 22 20 6.00 18 16 Lake Flow Creek (cfs) 4.00

Spawners ObservedSpawners Redds + 14 4.00 12 10 8 2.00 1.00 1.00 6 2.00 4 2 0.00 0

5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 05 0 0 05 05 0 0 0 0 06 0 0 0 005 0 0 0 006 0 0 0 006 0 0 0 0 2 /2 2 2 2 2 /2 2 /2006 2 /2 2 2 /2 1/20055/ /8 2/ /6/ 2/ 6/ /9 3/ /9/20 0/20064 8/ /1 5/ 9/ 1 /2 9 /2 0 /1 /2 2 /2 3 4/6/20062 5/ /1 6 /1 /2 /13 8/ 8 9 1 11/3/200 12/1/20052/15/20052/29/20051 1 2 3/23/200 4/ 5 6 6 7 10/20/20 11/17/20 1 1 Date

Observed Fish Observed Redds Lake Creek Flow (cfs)

Figure E.5.3.1-61. Lake Creek Flow vs. Spawn Timing (2005/2006 Season)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-101 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

A thermologger was installed at the gage site through January of 2006 and recorded Lake Creek water temperature every 15 minutes. Figures E.5.3-62 and E.5.3-63 plot average daily water temperature on spawning survey dates along with the total number of fish and redds seen per survey.

The maximum average daily water temperature for a survey day during the period was on August 11, 2004 (13.44°C). The minimum temperature day was on December 15, 2005 (2.71°C). The mean daily water temperature for the 2004/2005 survey during peak spawning (January 25, 2005) was 6.07°C. The mean daily water temperature for the 2005/2006 survey date during peak spawning (November 18, 2005) was 5.83°C.

Lake Creek Spawners + Redds vs. Average Daily Water Temperature (2004/2005)

30.00 16.00

25.00 14.00 25.00 Chinook Spawning Coho Spawning 12.00

20.00 10.00

15.00 8.00

6.00 Temperature (C) 10.00 8.00 7.00 Observed Spawners + Redds 6.00 6.00 6.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 04 05 05 05 05 05 5 05 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 00 00 00 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 6 /9 3 6 0 4 8 1 5 9 3 7 0 4 7 1 7 1 4 8 2 6 0 /2 8 2 9/ 2 / 1 / 1 2 1 2 1 2 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 1 3 7 8/ 9/ 10 0/ 1 / / / / / / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / / 1 1 11 11 12 12 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 Date

Observed Spawners Observed Redds Temperature (C)

Figure E.5.3.1-62. Lake Creek Spawner and Water Temperature Information (2004/2005)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-102 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Lake Creek Spawners + Redds vs. Average Daily Water Temperature (2005/2006)

18.00 14.00

16.00 Chinook Spawning 16.00 15.00 12.00

14.00 Coho Spawning 10.00

12.00 11.00 10.00 10.00 8.00

8.00 6.00 Temperature (C) Temperature 6.00 4.00 4.00 Observed Spawners + Redds 4.00

2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 05 05 05 05 0 05 0 05 06 06 06 005 00 00 00 00 00 0 00 0 /20 /200 /200 /2006 20 20 1/20 5/20 1/2 8/20 2/20 3/2 0/2 7/2 0/2 7/2 4 5/2 2 5 /1 /18 /2 9/ 9/ /15/20 /2 /29/20 2/8/2 1/ /12/ /19/2 /26/ 8 8 8 9 9 9 10/6/20050/1 0/2 11/3/20051/1 12/1/20051 1 1 1 1 10/2 1 1 11/1 11/2 12/1 12/2 12/29/200 Date

Observed Redds Observed Fish Water Temperature (C)

Figure E.5.3.1-63. Lake Creek Spawner and Water Temperature Information (2005/2006)

Tailrace Slough (Cowlitz River Side Channel) The entire tailrace slough downstream of the mouth of the Packwood tailrace to its confluence with the mainstem Cowlitz River was surveyed twice monthly from July 26, 2004 to July 26, 2006. A total of 34 coho salmon and 57 redds were observed over the two-year period. All but one of the 34 coho and all 57 definite redds were observed during the 2004/2005 season. No Chinook salmon or steelhead trout were observed over the course of the surveys. For a majority of the 2005/2006 coho salmon spawning period, the water was abnormally high and turbid, making observations of fish and redds difficult. If water clarity was deemed even remotely acceptable when the biologists were on site twice monthly, a survey took place. The left side channel that contains a majority of the accessible spawning habitat was dry during some of the Chinook and coho spawning periods.,.

A thermologger was in place in the tailrace slough throughout the spawning survey period. The maximum mean daily water temperature for a survey day during the period was on July 26, 2004 (18.95°C) and the low was on January 4, 2005 (3.25°C). The mean daily water temperature for the 2004 survey during peak spawning (December 9, 2004) was 5.38°C. Figure E.5.3.1-64 displays temperature data and spawning information during the 2004/2005 spawning period.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-103 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

The entire coho spawning period during the 2004/2005 season in the tailrace slough took place between November 11, 2004 and December 21, 2004. Table E.5.3.1-34 summarizes the surveys conducted during this period. The peak number of observations occurred on December 9, 2004 when 14 fish and 45 redds were observed. No carcasses were observed during any of the surveys. As noted earlier, a major influence on entrance and spawn timing is the timing of the trap and haul program. Fish are transported from Barrier Dam to the Skate Creek Road Bridge (Franklin Bridge) and the dates of transport vary depending on return timing of fish downstream of the dam. Figure E.5.3.1-65 displays areas of concentrated spawning in the Tailrace Slough during the 2005/2006 spawning surveys.

Table E.5.3.1-34. 2004/2005 Packwood Tailrace Slough Spawning Data Mean Daily Water Date Fish Observed Redds Observed Temperature (oC) 11/11/04 3 3 7.73 11/23/04 14 9 7.00 12/9/04 14 45 5.38 12/21/04 2 0 4.63

Tailrace Slough Spawners + Redds vs. Average Daily Water Temperature (2004/2005) 50 20.00 45 45 18.00

40 16.00 Chinook Spawning Coho Spawning 35 14.00

30 12.00

25 10.00

20 8.00 Temperature (C)

14 14 15 6.00 Observed Spawners + Redds Spawners Observed

9 10 4.00

5 3 2.00 2

3 0 0.00

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 04 04 0 04 04 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 20 /2 /2 2 2 2 2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 20 6/2004 /6/ 7/2 9 6 3 0 7 3/ 2 8/2/2 8/9/2 /30/ 9 13 20 2 2 1 2 /2 1/ /10/2005 7/ 8/16/ 8/23/ 8 9/ 9/ 9/ 10/4/2 11/1/ 11/8/ 12/ 1 1/17/20051/24/2005 10/11/ 10/18/ 10/25/2004 11/15/211/22/211/ 12/ 12/ 12 Date

Observed Fish Observed Redds Temperature (C)

Figure E.5.3.1-64. Packwood Tailrace Slough Spawner and Water Temperature Information (2004/2005)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-104 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-65. Survey reaches and areas of concentrated spawning on Hall and Snyder Creeks and the Tailrace Slough

Hall Creek A 400 m section of Hall Creek (200 m below and 200 m above the Project flume crossing) was to be surveyed twice monthly from May 10, 2005 to July 26, 2006 (see Figure E.5.3.1-65). Surveys indicated that the reach 200 m above the flume crossing was wide and marshy, with slow velocities and no spawnable substrate. As a result, spawning surveys were shifted to the stream section upstream of Snyder Road, where substrate, velocities and channel type were suitable for salmonid spawning. The surveys were conducted from this point upstream to RM 3.70, the location of an anadromous barrier. A total of 34 coho were observed, along with 10 redds. All fish and redds were seen between December 29, 2005 and January 26, 2006. No Chinook salmon or steelhead trout were seen during the surveys; however, 3 rainbow trout were observed on April 6, 2006. No carcasses were observed during any of the surveys. Table E.5.3.1-35 summarizes the coho spawning period for the 2005/2006 season. A major determinant of entrance and spawn timing is the timing of the trap and haul program at the Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2016) downstream. Fish are transported from Barrier Dam to the Skate Creek Road Bridge (Franklin Bridge) and the dates of transport vary depending on return timing of fish downstream of the dam.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-105 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-65 displays areas of concentrated spawning in Hall Creek during the 2005/2006 spawning surveys.

Table E.5.3.1-35. Hall Creek 2005/2006 Coho Spawning Data Date Spawners Observed Redds Observed 10/6/05 0 0 10/19/05 0 0 11/2/05 0 0 11/18/05 0 0 12/15/05 0 0 12/29/05 19 8 1/11/06 10 0 1/26/06 5 2 2/9/06 0 0

Snyder Creek Snyder Creek from its confluence with Hall Creek, immediately below the Project tailrace, upstream to the end of the anadromous zone (RM 0.36), was surveyed twice monthly from April 12, 2005 thru July 26, 2006 (see Figure E.5.3.1-65). The survey ended at a culvert under Forest Service Road 1260-013 (extension of Powerhouse Road) (see Fish Passage Barriers Study Report, EES Consulting 2007j). Neither adult anadromous salmonids nor any redds were observed during any of the surveys. Juvenile coho salmonids, however, were seen in Snyder Creek during many of the surveys, as were cutthroat trout.

Cowlitz River No salmonids or redds were observed in the 2000 ft section of the Cowlitz River immediately downstream of Lake Creek, which was surveyed in 2005 and 2006, or the portion of the Cowlitz River below the tailrace slough, which was surveyed from July 2004 to July 2006. Surveys of these areas were conducted concurrent with the surveys on lower Lake Creek and in the tailrace slough.

E.5.3.1.2.9 Fish Passage Barriers Study

The goal of the barrier analysis was to identify natural barriers to anadromous fish on Lake Creek as well as barriers to fish passage from Project facilities such as roads, trails, pipelines, and the tailrace. The area for the barrier analysis specifically included: Lake Creek below the Project intake to the Cowlitz River, culverts on Snyder Creek under the Project tailrace and on Forest Service Road 1260-013, the tailrace flume crossing over Hall Creek, Pipeline Road (F.S. Road 1260-066), and three culvert crossings along Pipeline Road/Trail No. 74, including Art Lake Creek.

Lake Creek Natural Barrier Analysis The falls/chute complex at RM 1.03 was surveyed at three different flows in 2004. Lake Creek flows were provided by the Project, plus additional accretion from tributaries downstream of the Project intake structure. Measurements in 2004 were taken at base, middle, and high calibration flows for the Lake Creek instream flow study; and in 2006,

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-106 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources at spill flows of 130 and 300 cfs. Passage was assessed for all species and life stages present. In 2005, surveys were undertaken on an additional bedrock waterfall complex at RM 1.95. Release flows of 3.5 cfs, 17 cfs, and 35 cfs occurred in 2005 and spill flows of 130 cfs and 300 cfs were measured in the spring, 2006.

The methods for the barrier analysis followed the criteria developed by Powers and Orsborn (1985); some of the methods have been updated since publication of that report. These methods take into account a complex of factors, including depth and velocity of the water, depth of leaping pool, conditions at potential landing areas, vertical and horizontal leaping ability of each species, and swimming speeds for each species.

The barrier at RM 1.03 is a chute/falls complex that is classified as a chute. The barrier at RM 1.95 consists of falls of approximately 25 ft in height coupled with a high gradient chute. The effects of these features on passage are dependent upon the condition of the fish that could enter Lake Creek prior to spawning. A condition factor (Cf) of 1.00 is generally used to analyze barriers; this indicates fish in excellent condition that are bright (fresh out of salt water or still a long distance from spawning grounds; spawning colors not yet developed).

If Cf 1.00 is used, the chute at RM 1.03 could be negotiated at certain flows by steelhead but would be a total barrier to Chinook and coho salmon and sea-run cutthroat trout; if a Cf 0.50 is used, this chute is a barrier to all anadromous species that are being trucked above the Cowlitz River Project dams. The falls/chute complex at RM 1.95 is a barrier to all salmonids, regardless of condition factor. Therefore, the barrier at RM 1.03 is the upper extent of Chinook and coho salmon and sea run cutthroat trout spawning and rearing, while the barrier at RM 1.95 is the upper extent of steelhead trout spawning and rearing.

Culvert Crossings Evaluation of culverts for fish passage followed the protocol set forth in WDFW’s fish passage guidelines entitled “Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Passage Barrier and Surface Water Diversion Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual” (TAPPS 2000), and the “Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage” (WDFW 2003) document. This protocol is widely accepted throughout Washington as a means to prioritize fish barriers for replacement across differing jurisdictions in the state, and to create a single database depository. Anadromous access, the amount of usable habitat, the habitat quality throughout all reaches, and additional barriers (human-made and natural) were verified via downstream and upstream checks to provide a higher level of data confidence. Figure E.5.3.1-66 shows the location of culverts within the Project area.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-107 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-66. Culvert Locations

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.3.5-108 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-36 summarizes the criteria established for the culverts analyzed. Using the WDFW criteria, the culverts on the Snyder Road 0.95 miles behind the Pipeline Road Gate, the Pipeline Road Trail No. 74, and Art Lake Creek culverts did not qualify for determination of passage due to lack of fish presence, high gradient, and the seasonal nature of flows at these culverts. The Snyder Road Culvert at the Powerhouse and the Snyder Creek Crossing at the tailrace warranted further analysis. Additional detailed information is reported in the Fish Passage Barriers Study Report (EES Consulting 2007j).

Table E.5.3.1-36. Fish Bearing Determination for Culvert Analysis Wetted Width Listed in >0.6m; Phinney and DNR Stream Fish Gradient < Bucknell Culvert Type Presence 20% (1975) Snyder Rd Culvert on Pipeline Road Np/4 No No N/A 0.95 Mile Behind Pipeline Road Gate Ns/5 No No N/A Pipeline Rd / Trail No. 74 Culverts Ns/5 No No N/A Art Lake Creek Culvert Ns/4 No No N/A Snyder Cr. Above Powerhouse F/3 Yes Yes N/A Snyder Cr. at Tailrace F/3 Yes Yes N/A

Snyder Creek

Snyder Creek Culvert on Forest Service Road 1260-013: The culvert on FS Road 1260- 13 with the upstream end approximately 1,790 ft above the tailrace was determined to be a barrier primarily because of the outfall drop. This culvert is located outside the Project boundary and is not associated with any Project feature; however, it was analyzed since it was the feature that segregated anadromous from resident fish populations in Snyder Creek.

Snyder Creek at Tailrace: Two analyses were conducted at the Snyder Creek crossing under the Project tailrace. Level A analysis indicated that because the culvert was not 75% as wide as the toe-width of the stream, a Level B analysis should be conducted. The Level B analysis indicated that the Snyder Creek Crossing was passable to adult salmonids. (See Level B Spreadsheet for Snyder Creek culvert, Figure E.5.3.1-67). Both coho salmon fry and juvenile cutthroat trout were found in the reach above this Project feature.

WDFW was consulted regarding the applicability of using the Level B analysis to determine passage of this culvert (email correspondence between Pete Rittmueller, EES Consulting and Pat Klavas, WDFW, July 12, 2007). WDFW recommended analyzing the culvert using the criteria established in WAC 220-110-070, Table 1, which are shown in Table E.5.3.1-37, below.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-109 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-37. Fish passage design criteria for culvert installation Adult Chinook, coho and Criteria Adult Trout> 6 in steelhead Velocity Culvert Length 60 - 100 ft 4.0 ft/s 5.0 ft/s Flow Depth Minimum (ft) 0.8 ft 1.0 ft Hydraulic Drop Maximum 0.8 ft 1 ft Table 1, WAC 220-110-070

WDFW further indicated that the criteria should be met up to the Q2 flow event, referring to Appendix C of the WDFW culvert design manual (Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage, 2003 Edition, WDFW, 2003). Snyder Creek drainage area was smaller than the minimum size required for this analysis for Region 3, High Elevation (0.91 miles2 vs. 3.29 miles2). The use of site-specific drainage area and precipitation records, however, indicates peak flows of 9.8 – 17.5 cfs, or maximum culvert velocities of 1.39 ft/sec would be obtained at the Snyder Creek crossing. The culvert is, under all conditions, fully backwatered, so that the depth remains 4 ft under all conditions with no hydraulic drop.

The natural resource agencies requested that Energy Northwest analyze the existing culvert using the no-slope design and stream simulation design options. It is important to note, however, that both of these options can only be applied to culvert replacements and new culvert installations, and their use to analyze the existing culvert may not be appropriate (WDFW 2003). Nonetheless, the analyses were conducted.

The WDFW stream simulation model indicated the culvert was not passable because the culvert diameter of the crossing (4 ft) is not 1.2 X or 1X + 2 ft of the bankfull channel width (6.5 ft). The Priority Index (PI) was estimated for coho salmon and for resident cutthroat trout (EES Consulting 2007j). A Habitat Quality Modifier (HQM) of 0.67 was used, taking into account low summer flows that limit rearing habitat. Table E.5.3.1-38 summarizes the data used to calculate the Priority Habitat Index for the 1,790 ft reach from the crossing upstream to the first barrier, as well as from the first barrier to the falls. The PI for coho salmon and resident cutthroat trout was 2.48 and 1.66, respectively, for a total Priority Habitat Index for the site of 4.13 below the Forest Service Culvert. The total PI from the tailrace crossing upstream to the falls on Snyder Creek is 5.58.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-110 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Fish Passage Barrier Assessment and Priortization Manual Level B Spreadsheet Site Information: Source Worksheet: Stream: Snyder Creek Culvert Hydrology Site ID: 0 " Sequencer: 1 "

Hydrology: Hydrology Method Selected: Regression Method. Hydrology Hydrologic Region: 3L Hydrology Basin Area (Square Miles): 1 " Precipitation, inches: 45 " Regression Coefficient a: 0.278 " Regression Coefficient b: 1.41 " Regression Coefficient c: 0.55 "

Downstream Channel Cross Section TopLB ToeLB Bed1 Bed2 Bed3 ToeRB TopRB X Section Station: 00.11.44.25.677.2 " Elev.: 1045 1044.59 1044.39 1044.45 1044.54 1044.49 1045.1 "

DS Control Water Surface Elevation: 1044.79 X Section Water Surface Elevation 50 ft DS: 1044.3 " Manning's "n" for channel 0.04 " Cross Section Water Surface Elevation at Qfp: 1044.7 "

Culvert Length: 75 ft Round Maximum Velocity: 4.0 fps (WAC Criteria) Minimum Water Depth: 1.0 ft (WAC Criteria) Maximum hydraulic drop in fishway: 1.0 ft (WAC Criteria) Culvert Type: Round Culvert X Section

Culvert Analysis Round Culvert Diameter (ft): 4 Round " Manning's n for culvert: 0.0140 " Culvert Length (ft): 75 " U/S Invert Elevation: 1037.50 " D/S Invert Elevation: 1037.20 " Normal Flow Depth (ft): 0.45 " Culvert Slope (ft/ft): 0.0040 " Velocity w/o backwater (fps): 2.90 " Water Surface Elevation at DS end of culvert: 1044.70 " Flow Depth at DS end of culvert: 7.50 " Culvert Influenced by Backwater: Yes " Outlet Submerged: Yes " Length Submerged (ft): 75.00 " 911.45 " Backwater length plus submerged length (ft): 986.45 " Maximum Velocity in culvert (fps): 0.18 " Minimum Depth in culvert (ft): 7.50 " Figure E.5.3.1-67. Snyder Creek Culvert Level B Assessment Spreadsheet

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-111 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Fish Passage Barrier Assessment and Prioritization Manual Level B Spreadsheet Summary of Analysis Snyder Creek Culvert 1. High Fish Passage Design Flow, Qfp was determined by the: Regression Method. Qfp = 2.3 cfs 2. Next, the culvert was analyzed at Qfp without backwater. Max. Velocity (w/o backwater) = 2.90 cfs Satisfies WAC criteria Min. Depth (w/o backwater) = 0.45 ft Does not satisfy WAC criteria 3. Finally, the backwater condition was analyzed. Is the culvert influenced by backwater? Yes The culvert is completely backwatered. Is the culvert outlet submerged? Yes The entire culvert is submerged. Max. Velocity (w/ backwater) = 0.18 fps Satisfies WAC criteria. Min. Depth (w/ backwater) = 7.50 ft Satisfies WAC criteria. 4. The Final Answer: The culvert satisfies the WAC criteria due to backwater. The culvert is not a barrier. Figure E.5.3.1-67 (cont.). Snyder Creek Culvert Level B Assessment Spreadsheet

Table E.5.3.1-38. Fish Passage Priority Index (PI) for coho salmon and cutthroat trout on Snyder Creek. Below FS Culvert Above FS Culvert Variable Coho Cutthroat Cutthroat B 0.33 0.33 0.33 P 0.05 0.04 0.04 H 285.26 285.26 162.02 M 2 1 1 D 2 1 1 C 2 2 2

PI 2.48 1.66 1.44 Total PI 5.58 B= Proportion of fish passage improvement; P=annual adult equivalent production potential for m2; H = Habitat gain in m2; M = Mobility modifier; D = Species condition modifier; C = Cost modifier

Hall Creek The tailrace flume over Hall Creek was analyzed to determine if it impeded fish passage, by surveying the cross-sectional profile of Hall Creek underneath the flume. Hall Creek was determined to be passable at all flows. The area that Hall Creek drains is extremely low gradient and Hall Creek inundates a wide area laterally. Hall Creek has a main channel, and its thalweg, where it crosses under the tailrace flume, was over 3.0 ft in depth. The cross-sectional area of Hall Creek under the flume is over 100 ft2

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-112 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources and this opening can easily accommodate fish passage at much higher flows without creating any velocity barriers to fish.

Effects on Fish Passage in Snyder Creek Snyder Creek was re-routed under the concrete lined tailrace during the development of the Project. Snyder Creek originates from Snyder Lake and enters a vertical drain on the upstream side of the tailrace. The drain is covered by a grate, with openings as large as 9.6 in x 6 in. Below the grate, the creek drains vertically 4.65 ft before connecting with an approximately 75 ft. culvert, which extends across and underneath the tailrace.

Anadromous species are known to move through the culvert; however, the culvert as currently configured does not meet WDFW criteria for passage. Coho adults and juveniles have been observed above and immediately below the culvert on Snyder Creek. Resident species observed above the culvert include westslope cutthroat and sculpin. The natural resource agencies have raised concerns regarding the ability of anadromous fish to pass the culvert due to its configuration, combined with sediment build-up caused by annual high flow events. A clean-out of the Snyder Creek culvert, including the area immediately upstream and downstream took place in August 2007. Annual maintenance events consistent with the needs of the culvert area are planned. For further information regarding fish passage and species presence in Snyder Creek, see the Fish Passage Barriers and Fish Distribution and Species Composition Study Results in Section E.5.3.1.2.1 above. The resource agencies have suggested that Energy Northwest reroute Snyder Creek into Hall Creek above the tailrace, and abandon the Snyder Creek culvert. For additional information, see Section E.5.3.1.3.6.

E.5.3.1.2.10 Tailrace Slough Use by Anadromous Fish Study

The goal of this study was to identify the anadromous salmonids that use the tailrace slough and define them by life stage, timing, and type of use. The objectives were to identify specific habitat use in the tailrace slough by juvenile salmonids; identify habitat use of the tailrace slough by migrating adult salmonids; and identify spawning habitat in the tailrace slough. Further information is provided in the Tailrace Slough Use by Anadromous Salmonids Study Report (EES Consulting 2007k)

The study area consisted of the tailrace slough immediately downstream of the Project tailrace terminus to its confluence with the Cowlitz River (Figure E.5.3.1-68). Given that the configuration of the side channel is known to change often, the study reach consisted of the area within the bankfull channel of the side channel at the time of the study.

Habitat use information was gathered by a combination of visual, electrofishing, and snorkeling surveys. Electrofishing was used sparingly due to possible injury of listed salmonids. Snorkeling surveys were initially deemed to be the most efficient study method, given the ability to accomplish up close, non-harmful identification of species.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-113 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Thirty of every 160 meters was snorkeled in both side channels and the main channel, assessing:

• Fish species presence • Life stage and approximate length • Water Depths • Velocities • Substrate Composition • Riverine Habitat Types

The study took place over one year, with an investigation of the same 30 m study sites taking place on a seasonal basis. The study was to begin with a Spring 2006 investigation but high water precluded biologists from conducting an effective assessment. Therefore, the study began with a Summer investigation in July 2006 and concluded with a Spring survey in June 2007. Table E.5.3.1-39 summarizes the habitat characteristics and juvenile coho numbers observed during each survey.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-114 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

X X X

X

Right Channel Tailrace Terminus

X Main Channel Above Split

Left Channel

X = Study Sites

Figure E.5.3.1-68. Study Area for Tailrace Slough Use by Anadromous Salmonids

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-115 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-39. Habitat Variables and Coho Numbers in the Tailrace Slough July 2006 Habitat Percentages Depth Velocity Riffle Run Glide Pool Substrate Range Range (ft) (fps) Left Side Channel 10 17 74 0 Cobble/Gravel 0.35/1/35 0.09/1.39 Right Side Channel 0 0 100 0 Sand 0.85/1.4 0.3/1.01 Main Channel Above 0 0 100 0 Sand/Gravel 1.2/3.75 0.1/1.27 Split Number of Coho 0 155 710 0 Juveniles Observed January 2007 Habitat Percentages Depth Velocity Riffle Run Glide Pool Substrate Range Range (ft) (fps) Left Side Channel 0 0 83 17 Sand/Cobble 0.9/1.8 0.01/0.65 Right Side Channel 0 50 50 0 Gravel/Cobble 0.85/1.65 1.18/2.57 Main Channel Above 0 0 100 0 Sand/Cobble 0.65/3.0 0.97/1.73 Split Number of Coho 0 0 0 0 Juveniles Observed April 2007 Habitat Percentages Velocity Depth Riffle Run Glide Pool Substrate Range Range (ft) (fps) Left Side Channel 12 0 88 0 Gravel/Cobble 0.2/1.0 0.0/2.33 Right Side Channel 0 100 0 0 Gravel 0.6/1.4 2.17/3.32 Main Channel Above 0 0 100 0 Sand/Gravel 0.3/3.6 0.12/1.6 Split Number of Coho 501 Juveniles Observed June 2007 Habitat Percentages Velocity Depth Riffle Run Glide Pool Substrate Range Range (ft) (fps) Left Side Channel 0 17 83 0 Sand/Cobble 0.5/1.6 0.09/1.42 Right Side Channel 0 100 0 0 Gravel 1.0/1.3 2.11/3.10 Main Channel Above 0 0 100 0 Sand/Cobble 0.8/3.8 0.34/2.63 Split Number of Coho 200 1225 Juveniles Observed

During the summer (July) 2006 investigation, five 30 m study sites were established and analyzed. During the survey, the Cowlitz River flow in the Packwood area was approximately 925 cfs and the Project contributed 94 cfs to the tailrace slough via the tailrace.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-116 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Habitat composition of the left side channel study sites was primarily glides (74%) with small percentages of runs (17%) and riffles (10%). Depths and velocities ranged from 0.35 ft to 1.35 ft and 0.09 fps to 1.39 fps. Substrate was primarily a combination of cobble and gravel. A total of 618 coho juveniles were observed in the left side channel with approximately 75% of those fish located in glide habitat.

One 30 m study site was established in the right channel and consisted entirely of glide habitat. Depths and velocities across the channel ranged from 0.85 ft to 1.4 ft and 0.3 fps to 1.01 fps respectively. Substrate composition was made up entirely of sand. Two root wads were present along the margin. Fifty coho juveniles were documented in the right side channel, all in glide habitat associated with the root wads.

Two 30 m study sites were examined in the main side channel upstream of the split. Habitat composition of the two study sites during the summer 2006 investigation consisted entirely of glide habitat. Depths and velocities ranged from 1.2 ft to 3.75 ft and 0.1 fps to 1.27 fps. Substrate composition at the study site further downstream primarily consisted of sand while the upstream site was made up of a combination of gravel and cobble. Two hundred coho juveniles were identified in the main channel upstream of the split also all in glide habitat. Rainbow trout, mountain whitefish and sculpin were also observed.

Due to the floods in early November and the subsequent damage and water clarity issues, biologists were not able to get an effective survey done in the fall, and the survey was postponed until January 15, 2007. As a result, the final two surveys were also shifted in time in an effort to space the surveys far enough apart to document any change in fish presence. High water had dramatically changed the riverine habitat types at the study sites and the corresponding substrate composition. Habitat typing and substrates were re-assessed as in the initial study plan. Because of the low flow conditions during this survey, electrofishing was deemed the most efficient method for identification purposes. During the survey, the Cowlitz flow in the Packwood area was approximately 1,370 cfs and the Project was contributing 58 cfs to the tailrace slough via the tailrace.

After the flooding, glides comprised 83% of the habitat at the two study sites in the left side channel, with the remainder being made up of pools. Substrate compositions consisted primarily of a combination of sand and cobble. Depths and velocities ranged from 0.9 ft to 1.8 ft and 0.01 fps to 0.65 fps respectively. Rainbow trout, mountain whitefish and sculpin were documented at the study sites. No anadromous species were observed.

The right side channel study site had been transformed into 50% runs and 50% glides. Substrates consisted of a mixture of gravel, cobble and small boulders. Depths and velocities ranged from 0.85 ft to 1.65 ft and 1.18 fps to 2.57 fps respectively. Rainbow trout, mountain whitefish and sculpin were the only species observed.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-117 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

The main channel above the split had been turned into a long glide by the flooding in November 2006. Substrate composition was primarily sand with small amounts of cobble intermixed at both study sites. Depths and velocities ranged from 0.65 ft to 3.0 ft and 0.97 fps to 1.73 fps respectively. Rainbow trout, mountain whitefish and sculpin were documented and no anadromous species were observed.

During the April 26, 2007 survey, an on-site decision was made to evaluate habitat and substrate characteristics at the established study sites again, due to high water conditions since the previous survey, and to maintain consistency with the previous two surveys. It was further agreed that habitat and substrate analysis would take place during the final survey in June. Due to the low flow conditions during the June survey, electrofishing was deemed the most efficient method for identification purposes. During the survey, the Cowlitz flow in the Packwood area was approximately 1430 cfs and the Project was contributing 44 cfs to the tailrace slough via the tailrace.

During the April investigation, the left side-channel study sites were made up of approximately 88% glide with the remainder consisting of riffles. The primary substrates were a combination of gravel and cobble intermixed with a small amount of sand. Depths and velocities ranged from 0.2 ft to 1.0 ft and 0.0 fps to 2.33 fps respectively. Approximately 300 coho fry measuring roughly 20 mm were observed at the upstream study site on the left side channel. A single coho measuring approximately the same length was observed at the downstream site. Rainbow trout and sculpin were also observed at both study sites. The habitat composition of the right channel was made up entirely of a single run. Depths and velocities ranged from 0.6 ft to 1.4 ft and 2.17 fps to 3.32 fps respectively. The substrate at the study site was primarily a mixture of small and large gravel. One Chinook juvenile measuring approximately 40 mm was identified at the site. Rainbow trout and sculpin were also present. The two study sites in the main side channel above the split were entirely made up of glide habitat. Substrates consisted primarily of sand and small gravel. Depths and velocities ranged from 0.3 ft to 3.6 ft and 0.12 fps to 1.6 fps respectively. Approximately 200 coho fry measuring around 20 mm were documented at the downstream study site in the main side channel prior to the split. No anadromous species were observed at the upper site. Rainbow trout, mountain whitefish and sculpin were also observed.

The final survey was conducted on June 19, 2007. Water clarity and flow conditions allowed the biologists to snorkel the sites. During the survey, the Cowlitz flow in the Packwood area was approximately 2,030 cfs and the tailrace was contributing 110 cfs to the tailrace slough. Glides made up a majority of the left channel habitat (83%), with a long run making up the remaining 17%. Sand and cobble were the primary substrates in the left side channel. Depths and velocities ranged from 0.5 ft to 1.6 ft and 0.09 fps to 1.42 fps respectively. Approximately 1,200 coho juveniles measuring around 75 mm in length were observed in the lower study site in the left side channel. The coho were all associated with a downed tree on the right margin, which provided cover and a velocity break that was advantageous for feeding and resting purposes. Approximately 200 coho juveniles measuring 75 mm were observed in the run at the upstream end of the upper study site on the left side channel. These fish were also associated with large

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-118 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources woody debris on the margin. Two small rainbow trout measuring approximately 100 mm were also observed.

A long run made up the entirety of the 30 m study site in the right side channel. Substrate composition consisted of medium and large gravel. Depth and velocities ranged from 1.0 ft to 1.3 ft and 2.11 fps to 3.10 fps respectively. The channel was uniform from margin to margin with a relatively high flow and no cover. As a result, no fish were observed in the study site.

All 60 m of the main channel study sites were included in a single long glide. Substrate composition of the study site further downstream was made up almost entirely of sand, while the upstream study site consisted of cobble and boulders. Depths and velocities ranged from 0.8 ft to 3.8 ft and 0.34 fps to 2.63 fps respectively. Twenty-five coho juveniles measuring approximately 70 mm were observed in the lower study site. All were associated with slow moving pocket water along the margins. Approximately 30 whitefish and 40 bridgelip suckers were observed at the upper study site.

Effects on Anadromous Salmonid Spawning and Rearing in the Tailrace Slough The tailrace slough is a dynamic segment of the Cowlitz River. Habitat characteristics in the slough can change on an annual basis depending on high flows and the relative contribution of the river and tailrace. Under its current condition, the tailrace slough has been dependant on tailrace flows to provide adequate habitat (depth and velocity), for anadromous salmonid spawning and rearing at certain times of the year. A Project shutdown period associated with annual maintenance procedures occurs in late September and potentially runs through the third week in October. During this time, the flow of water out of the tailrace and into the tailrace slough is cut off and the potential exists for the dewatering of redds and rearing areas.

Currently, the shutdown schedule coincides with the latter portion of spawning for Chinook salmon (when eggs have already been deposited) and with rearing timing for coho. Both coho adults and juveniles as well as juvenile Chinook salmon have been documented in the tailrace slough during studies conducted from 2005-2007. For additional information regarding adequate flow and habitat issues and fish species presence data see the discussion of the Tailrace Slough Use by Anadromous Fish, Tailrace Slough IFIM, and Anadromous Spawner Survey Study results in (Section E.5.3.1.2 above).

E.5.3.1.2.11 Tailrace Slough IFIM

High flow events have changed the Cowlitz River channel in the vicinity of the Project tailrace many times. During a 1977 high flow event, the main Cowlitz River channel migrated rapidly toward the east and across the end of the manmade Project tailrace channel. During this high flow, approximately 1,400 feet of the lined tailrace was eroded and removed by the river (Figure E.5.3.1-69). What is called the tailrace slough is actually a side channel of the Cowlitz River that is sometimes watered by the main channel, and at other times, is not. During some years (e.g., 2005) flood flows in the

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-119 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Cowlitz River configure this side channel (tailrace slough) so that it derives most of its flow from the Cowlitz River. In other years, the river flows largely bypass the side channel. For example, during 2004 and 2006, the river had largely migrated away from the tailrace side channel so the tailrace slough area was dependent upon Project flows to keep spawning habitat inundated during the low flow period of the year (typically August through October).

Figure E.5.3.1-69. Packwood Hydroelectric Project Tailrace, Tailrace Slough, and Mainstem Cowlitz River

The Cowlitz River has fluctuated dramatically over the years since the Project has been in place. In some years significant river flows course through the “tailrace slough” area, providing attractive spawning conditions, and in other years very little of the river flows through the area, providing poor conditions for spawners. Thus the amount of spawning in this area has always been inconsistent. During routine, scheduled Project shutdowns for maintenance activities in October, generation ceases and water from the Project is not added to the Cowlitz River via the tailrace, which, as the river is currently configured, may result in decreased flows through the side channel slough area. Unanticipated forced outages can also reduce or cut off tailrace flows.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-120 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

The Cowlitz River experienced a significant high flow event in November 2006. Therefore, the results presented in the Tailrace Slough Instream Flow (EES Consulting 2007p) report are no longer valid and only represent a snapshot of the condition present during the summer of 2006, when data were collected for the study. The Cowlitz River being extremely volatile, conditions in the tailrace slough have changed significantly twice in the period between when the study was conducted and at the time of this summary (June 2007). Results of the study should be viewed as representative of conditions at one point in time in the tailrace slough area, and it should be emphasized that conditions will continue to change, often dramatically, depending upon the Cowlitz River.

After development of the study plan, it was determined that the study would focus the analysis on maintaining sufficient water over potential redds to prevent dewatering of incubating eggs. As a result, the following information was collected during field investigations:

• Water Surface Elevations (WSE) at three widely separated calibration flows • Discharge measurements at the three calibration flows • Discharge measurements in the tailrace slough, noting the relationship between the Cowlitz River, the tailrace slough, power production flows, and the split between the left and right channels. • Substrates present along each transect

Measurements were taken of the discharge in the tailrace slough during the late winter and early spring 2006, for the purpose of determining the proportion of the Cowlitz River that was coursing through the tailrace slough. The following data were recorded during each measurement:

• Instantaneous measurement of the Cowlitz River at Packwood • Project flow • Measurement of tailrace slough flow

With these three data points, the relationship between the Cowlitz River and tailrace slough was determined by subtracting the Project flows from the tailrace slough discharge. Stage and discharge information for calibration measurements were also collected, as well as bed profiles and the substrates present in the tailrace slough.

The tailrace slough was surveyed from where it joins the lined tailrace downstream to its confluence with what was the main portion of the Cowlitz River. The tailrace slough splits into two channels before rejoining the Cowlitz. Survey results indicated that at the time of the study, the left channel (looking downstream) in the tailrace slough contained nearly all of the spawnable habitat available in the area for anadromous and resident salmonids. The balance of the spawnable habitat was found either immediately below the Project’s lined tailrace before it joined the slough, or in the main channel of the slough before it split into right and left channels. The right channel consisted nearly exclusively of sand substrate, and for purposes of the study was only used to determine

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-121 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources the relationship and distribution of flows in the left and right channels (see Figure E.5.3.1-70 and Table E.5.3.1-40).

Q meas Trans 8 Q Meas Trans 7

Trans 6 Trans 4 Trans 5 Trans 2 Trans 3

Trans 1

Figure E.5.3.1-70. Tailrace Slough Transects

Table E.5.3.1-40. Transect Descriptions and Weighting Analysis Length Length Transect Description (feet) (feet) Percent 1 Glide with lateral pocket water 123 123 13.1% 2 Riffle below split channel 150 150 16.0% 3 Split channel run 196 196 20.9% 4 Split channel run 169 169 18.0% 5 Deep Pool 1/ 231 N/A N/A 6 Spawning riffle/run 300 300 32.0% Wide Glide below tailrace discharge with Cowlitz 7 River 1/ 1091 N/A N/A 8 Pool/Glide immediately below tailrace 28 28 3.0% Total 2260 938 1/ Transects 5 and 7 were eliminated after flood event of November 2006.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-122 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Eight transects were selected for modeling; however, Transects 5 (a pool) and 7 (glide) were obliterated by the November 2006 flood, and were dropped from the analysis.

Fisheries resources of primary concern in the tailrace slough include Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho (O. kisutch) salmon, steelhead trout (O. mykiss), sea-run cutthroat trout (O. clarki clarki), and resident rainbow trout (O. mykiss). All of these species can utilize the study area during some part of their life cycle.

Review of the upper Cowlitz River and Project flows for the period 2000 – 2004 helped to determine when redds were most susceptible to dewatering.

Six measurements were used during the spring of 2006 to develop a relationship between the Cowlitz River and the tailrace slough. The tailrace slough flows were reduced by the Project flow to determine the contribution of the Cowlitz River to the tailrace slough. Figure E.5.3.1-71 depicts this relationship.

Three sets of velocity calibration measurements were collected at each transect at high, medium and low flows. The three calibration flows are shown in Table E.5.3.1-41. During the low flow measurement, the Cowlitz River was fluctuating rapidly, which resulted in different flow measurements for many of the transects.

Contribution of Cowlitz R to Tailrace Slough (cfs)

140

120

ough 100

80

60

40

20

Contibution to Tailrace Sl 0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 -20 Cowlitz R Discharge

Figure E.5.3.1-71. Cowlitz River Flows vs. Tailrace Slough

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-123 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-41. Summary of Calibration Flow Measurements and Water Surface Elevations for Tailrace Slough Transects Low Calibration Mid Calibration High Calibration Measurement Measurement Measurement Transect Flow- cfs WSE-ft Flow-cfs WSE-ft Flow-cfs WSE-ft 1 6.30 90.87 151.66 92.05 309.86 92.88 2 9.92 90.31 151.66 91.35 309.86 92.01 3 8.01 96.51 154.50 97.75 324.86 98.51 4 10.77 97.42 155.00 98.46 339.86 99.05 5 11.12 93.16 156.00 94.78 354.86 95.57 6 11.07 96.53 158.58 97.75 370.95 98.52 7 89.19 91.45 251.34 92.17 471.96 92.71 8 102.04 92.18 159.00 92.92 220.00 93.08

Flows were measured at three places in the tailrace slough:

• Main channel upstream of the split channels (downstream of Transect 7) • Left channel (on Transects 1 and 6) • Right Channel

In addition, Project flows were recorded so that flow levels could be determined for Transect 8 and calculated the relationship between the main channel of the tailrace slough and the left channel, where the majority of the spawning habitat was found. Although this relationship was valid at the time the measurements were taken, the Cowlitz River has altered the tailrace slough twice since then; as a result, this relationship no longer represents the current condition in the tailrace slough area.

Project flows generally follow Cowlitz River flows, with one notable exception. Project flows in late September are higher than would be expected due to scheduled Project shutdown and maintenance in October. After September 15, the Project is not required to hold lake elevation to 2857.0 +/- 0.5 ft MSL. The Project typically runs to full capacity after September 15 in order to lower Packwood Lake to the lowest elevation allowed (El 2849.0 ft MSL) to prepare for the annual shutdown. The process allows the Project to create margin in order to minimize overtopping spills during the shutdown. This results in higher Project discharge flows than would be normal, based on natural lake inflows, for that period in September (Figure E.5.3.1-72).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-124 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

3,000 160

140 2,500

120

2,000 100

Cowlitz R 1,500 80 Power Flows

60 Cowlitz River Flows (cfs) 1,000 Power Production Flows (cfs) Flows Production Power

40

500 20

0 0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Month

Figure E.5.3.1-72. Mean Monthly Flows, Cowlitz River and Packwood Lake Project, 2000 - 2004

Effects of flows on spawning and incubation of target species were examined, with an objective of evaluating the effects of planned Project shutdowns on incubating eggs in the tailrace slough. Below is a summary of expected impacts on target species with the current scheduled outage in October.

Coho Salmon • Peak spawning occurs in January and February. • Cowlitz River flows decrease in February before increasing again in March. • Project shutdown as currently scheduled will not impact coho salmon redds.

Cutthroat Trout • Peak spawning occurs in January and February. • Cowlitz River flows decrease in February before increasing again in March. • Project shutdown as currently scheduled will not impact cutthroat trout redds.

Steelhead Trout • Peak spawning occurs in April and May. • Cowlitz River flows peak in June and begin to decrease until September. • Project shutdown as currently scheduled will not impact steelhead trout redds.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-125 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Rainbow Trout • Peak spawning occurs from mid- May until the end of June. • Cowlitz River flows peak in June and begin to decrease until September. • Project shutdown as currently scheduled will not impact rainbow trout redds.

Spring Chinook Salmon • Peak spawning is from August– September. • Cowlitz River and Project flows are highest in May and June, decreasing through September. • Project shutdown as scheduled has potential to affect Spring Chinook salmon incubating eggs, depending upon Cowlitz River configuration.

Based on this assessment, it was determined that Project shutdown in October has the potential to negatively affect incubating spring Chinook salmon eggs deposited in the tailrace slough, if the tailrace slough is receiving inadequate flow from the Cowlitz River to support spawning and is entirely dependent on water from the Project tailrace.

On average, the highest likelihood for reduction in spawning habitat and dewatering of incubating eggs occurs between October and February annually. This directly coincides with Chinook and coho spawning and incubation. Depending upon how the tailrace slough has been configured by the Cowlitz River, low flows down the tailrace as a result of low lake levels and a lack of generation capability, may contribute to the overall lack of water in the tailrace slough. The result is a lack of production potential if anadromous species are utilizing the slough for spawning and rearing purposes during that period.

The transects were calibrated, and the HABTAT sub module for each transect was run, using WDFW/WDOE HSI curves for Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. Preference values for all depths and velocities were given a value of 1, which allows WUA to respond only to substrate preferences for spawning.

Figure E.5.3.1-73 depicts the amount of spawnable gravels available in the left channel of the tailrace slough in the vicinity of the tailrace IFIM (Transects 1 – 4 and 6) for salmon and steelhead. The linear length of habitat represented by this figure is 910 feet. Figure E.5.3.1-74 shows the amount of salmon and steelhead spawning gravels at Transect 8, immediately below the tailrace. The length of habitat represented by this figure is 28 feet.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-126 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

60,000

50,000

40,000

Chinook 30,000 Steelhead

SqFt of SpawningHabitat 20,000

10,000

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 Left Channel Tailrace Slough Flow (cfs)

Figure E.5.3.1-73. Amount of salmon and steelhead spawning gravels in left channel of Tailrace Slough (Transects 1 – 4 and 6)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-127 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

800

700

600

500

Chinook 400 Steelhead

300 Sq ft of spawing gravel

200

100

0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 Tailrace Discharge (cfs)

Figure E.5.3.1-74. Amount of salmon and steelhead spawning gravels immediately below the Project tailrace (Transect 8)

Under the current operational regime, Spring Chinook salmon incubating eggs are the most susceptible to dewatering and desiccation. Dr. Hal Beecher of WDFW was consulted regarding the analysis of the potential effects on incubating eggs during the months of July, August, September and October. For purposes of this analysis, the years 2003 – 2006 were used, and the monthly 20%, 50%, and 80% flow exceedence values were examined for the Cowlitz River, tailrace slough and Project flows (J. Blum, personal communication with Dr. H.A. Beecher, WDFW, May 3, 2007). Exceedence values are calculated by sorting the monthly flows in order. The highest evaluated flow is the 20% exceedence flow, which is greater than 80% of the flows. The median flow is the 50% exceedence flow, while the 80% exceedence flow is only higher than 20% of the measured flows during that period of time for the Cowlitz River, tailrace slough, and the Project. The following analysis was conducted:

• The monthly 20%, 50%, and 80% flow exceedence values were calculated for the Cowlitz River at Packwood and the Project flows. Years were grouped from 2003 – 2006 for the flow exceedence values, and 2006 was run independently as well, since the study was conducted in 2006, and the regression analyses were developed for flow conditions in 2006.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-128 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

• The proportion of the Cowlitz River diverted to the tailrace slough was calculated. The Project flow was then added to the amount of water from the Cowlitz River to arrive at a total tailrace slough flow. • The proportion of the total tailrace slough flow diverted through the left channel was calculated.

Note: Flow conditions in the tailrace slough have changed every year. Since 2004, the tailrace slough configuration has changed four times: in the fall 2004; in the fall 2005; in the fall 2006, and in the spring 2007. In the fall of 2004 and 2006 and spring of 2007, Cowlitz River flows configured the tailrace slough as to make it dependent upon the Project during low flow conditions. In 2005, however, a much larger percentage of the Cowlitz River was diverted into the slough; therefore, it was not dependent upon the Project during low flows. Appendix E of the Tailrace Slough Instream Flow Study (EES Consulting 2007p) shows photos of the tailrace slough after the November 2006 flood event.

Table E.5.3.1-42 summarizes the flows used to analyze potential spawning areas of Transects 1 – 4, 6, and 8 for the month of July. Additional tables are found in the Tailrace Slough Instream Flow Report (EES Consulting 2007p).

Table E.5.3.1-42. Flow Exceedence Values (in cfs) for July 2003 – 2006, Cowlitz River and Tailrace Slough 2003-2006 2006 % Cowlitz Left Cowlitz Tailrace Left Exceedence River Slough Plant Channel River Slough 1/ Plant Channel 10% 1,560 115 141 163 2460 231 188 319 20% 1,350 88 122 118 1940 164 135 204 30% 1,180 66 113 89 1490 106 123 137 40% 1,120 58 95 64 1340 86 122 117 50% 1,020 45 84 42 1160 63 111 84 60% 921 32 76 22 1080 53 94 59 70% 846 23 64 1 1020 45 86 43 80% 691 2 56 0 939 35 58 7 90% 590 0 52 0 878 27 58 0 1/ Waters from the Cowlitz River; does not include Project flows.

Table E.5.3.1-43 back-calculates the amount of flow required from the Cowlitz River and/or the Project to provide the 100% level of protection of incubating eggs. For purposes of this analysis, the amount of flow required was bracketed in 25% increments (e.g., when the Cowlitz River provided 100%, 75%, 50%, 25% and no water for the left channel, with the Project providing the complementary component). For example, if the 20% exceedence flow for the 2003 – 2006 September period was 64 cfs in the left channel of the tailrace slough, 25 cfs would be required in order to afford 100% protection of those eggs. This level could be achieved if the Cowlitz River at Packwood had a flow of 1,533 cfs, and there was no Project contribution. At the other extreme, if the flow in the Cowlitz was less than 625 cfs, the same level of protection would be available if the Project provided a flow of 112 cfs.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-129 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-43. Cowlitz River at Packwood and Project Flows Required to Protect 100% of Spring Chinook Spawning Habitat in the Left Channel of the Tailrace Slough 1/ % Flow (cfs) Cowlitz Cowlitz Project Cowlitz Project Cowlitz Project Project Month Period Percent Exceedence Spawning Incubation Protected 100% 75% 25% 50% 50% 25% 75% 100% July 2003- 20% 118 85 100% 2,018 1,682 44 1,345 87 843 152 175 2006 37 95% 1,630 1,390 31 1,151 62 911 93 124 27 90% 1,549 1,330 28 1,110 57 891 85 114 14 80% 1,444 1,251 25 1,058 50 864 75 100 10 70% 1,412 1,227 24 1,041 48 856 72 96 4 60% 1,363 1,190 22 1,017 45 844 67 90 1 50% 1,339 1,172 22 1,005 43 838 65 87 50% 42 15 100% 1,452 1,257 25 1,062 51 866 76 101 10 95% 1,412 1,227 24 1,041 48 856 72 96 5 90% 1,371 1,196 23 1,021 45 846 68 91 3 80% 1,355 1,184 22 1,013 44 842 67 89 1 70% 1,339 1,172 22 1,005 43 838 65 87 1 60% 1,339 1,172 22 1,005 43 838 65 87 1 50% 1,339 1,172 22 1,005 43 838 65 87 80% 0 0 July 2006 20% 204 115 100% 2,261 1,864 52 1,466 103 1,069 155 206 91 95% 2,067 1,718 451,369 90 1,020 136 181 70 90% 1,897 1,591 40 1,284 79 978 119 159 45 80% 1,695 1,439 33 1,183 66 927 100 133 18 70% 1,477 1,275 26 1,074 52 872 78 104 12 60% 1,428 1,239 25 1,050 49 860 74 98 5 50% 1,371 1,196 23 1,021 45 846 68 91 50% 84 35 100% 1,614 1,378 31 1,143 61 907 92 122 20 95% 1,493 1,287 27 1,082 53 876 80 106 16 90% 1,460 1,263 26 1,066 51 868 77 102 12 80% 1,428 1,239 25 1,050 49 860 74 98 6 70% 1,380 1,202 23 1,025 46 848 69 92 3 60% 1,355 1,184 221,013 44 842 67 89 1 50% 1,339 1,172 221,005 43 838 65 87 80% 0 0 0 0

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-130 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-43 (continued). Cowlitz River at Packwood and Project Flows Required to Protect 100% of Spring Chinook Spawning Habitat in the Left Channel of the Tailrace Slough1/ % Flow (cfs) Cowlitz Cowlitz Project Cowlitz Project Cowlitz Project Project Month Period Percent Exceedence Spawning Incubation Protected 100% 75% 25% 50% 50% 25% 75% 100% August 2003- 20% 0 0 0 0 2006 50% 0 0 0 0 80% 0 0 0 0 2006 20% 0 0 0 0 50% 0 0 0 0 80% 0 0 0 0 September 2003- 20% 64 25 100% 1,533 1,318 28 1,102 56 887 84 112 2006 17 95% 1,468 1,269 26 1,070 52 870 78 103 and 14 90% 1,444 1,251 25 1,058 50 864 75 100 2006 11 80% 1,420 1,233 24 1,045 49 858 73 97 5 70% 1,371 1,196 231,021 45 846 68 91 2 60% 1,347 1,178 22 1,009 44 840 66 88 1 50% 1,339 1,172 22 1,005 43 838 65 87 2003- October 2006 20% 0 0 0 0 50% 0 0 0 0 80% 0 0 0 0 2006 20% 0 0 0 0 50% 0 0 0 0 80% 0 0 0 0 1/ Based upon analysis of Transects 1 – 4 and 6 and channel configuration as measured during summer 2006.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-131 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

The side channel of the Cowlitz River that flows past the outlet of the Project tailrace is a complex, dynamic environment that may remain stable or change many times during the course of any given year. The analysis in this report represents conditions present during the summer 2006. Since then, the tailrace slough channel has changed twice; it is certain that it will change many more times in the future. As the result, the analysis shown here is no longer applicable to the tailrace slough as it is currently configured.

In some years, the Cowlitz River does not provide much or any water to the tailrace slough during spawning periods, especially in late August – October for Spring Chinook salmon. Project flows typically mirror conditions in the upper Cowlitz River; in these instances, unless the Project flows are of sufficient quantity to provide an attractant flow, Project operations will not likely attract fish for spawning. If this hypothesis holds, then Project flows are not required for protection of incubating eggs, because the tailrace slough would be dry without the Project.

Whether and how, Project flows may be of benefit to the fish in the tailrace slough depends upon the following:

• The contribution of the Cowlitz River to the tailrace slough side channel; in some years, a large enough percentage of the Cowlitz River courses through the tailrace slough so that Project flows represent a small percentage of the total flow. • Project flows, which are dependent upon: ƒ Instream flow requirement for Lake Creek below the drop structure; ƒ Inflows to Packwood Lake, which affect Packwood Lake elevations and storage requirements. • Flexibility of the Project to adjust the timing of the scheduled maintenance outage to avoid attraction flows in late August. • Utilization of the Project water storage to provide uninterrupted flows to the tailrace during September and October.

Measures to minimize risk to Chinook salmon spawning and incubating eggs in the tailrace slough are included in Section 5.3.1.3.7.

E.5.3.1.2.12 Geomorphology of the Tailrace Slough Study

Water flows from the powerhouse of the Project through the manmade, concrete-lined tailrace to the Cowlitz River. The Cowlitz River is an active, braided, glacially influenced channel that has changed position significantly in the vicinity of the tailrace outflow many times since the Project was constructed in the 1960s. The river washed out 1400 feet of the Project’s manmade tailrace during the 1977 flood. These major shifts have resulted in large changes in the distance water flows from the outlet of the tailrace until it meets a flowing channel of the Cowlitz River, ranging from approximately 1,500 feet when the Project was constructed to 0 feet following the 1977 flood to approximately 250-3,000 feet (depending on river flow) under current conditions. The Geomorphology of the Tailrace Slough Study provides information on the potential for changes in the tailrace, tailrace slough, and Cowlitz River channel over the course of the new license

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-132 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

(Watershed GeoDynamics 2007c). This information will help to provide understanding of Project effects on salmonids that use the habitat in the vicinity of the tailrace outlet.

Figure E.5.3.1-75 shows the varying locations of the Cowlitz water surface (solid lines) and the edge of the active flood flow channel (dashed lines) from 1959 through 2003. The Cowlitz River channel location is fixed upstream of the tailrace at the Skate Creek Road bridge, but is unconfined and free to migrate across the flood plain downstream of the bridge. Between 1959 (prior to Project construction), 1966, and 1973, the river channel upstream of the tailrace was slowly migrating toward the tailrace and airstrip. Water exiting the tailrace flowed into an old, dry side channel. Tailrace water flowed south several thousand feet before joining the main Cowlitz River flow.

During the 1977 high flow, the main Cowlitz channel migrated rapidly toward the airstrip and across the end of the tailrace. During this high flow, approximately 1400 feet of the lined tailrace was eroded and removed by the river. A rip-rap lined levee was constructed along the river bank in the late 1970s to protect the tailrace and airstrip. This halted the southern migration of the high flow channel. In the vicinity of the tailrace, the main low flow channel migrated progressively southward across the broad high flow channel, toward the rip rap, tailrace and the airstrip through the mid 1990s. During this same period, the river upstream of the tailrace migrated toward Skate Creek, eventually breaking through and forming a side channel that connected with Skate Creek, effectively shortening Skate Creek by several thousand feet. Between the 1993 and 1999 aerial photos, the main flow shifted to this northern channel near Skate Creek, widening the northern channel. At present, the main flow is in the northern channel, with a smaller amount of flow in the southern channel near the tailrace. A high flow event occurred in November 2006, with a provisional peak flow of 37,100 cfs. This estimated peak flow is the highest on record for the Packwood gage. During this high flow, water overtopped the road just downstream of the current end of the lined tailrace and eroded a channel between the road and Teal Lake (the road prism was not washed out). The southeastern channel downstream of the end of the original tailrace also experienced erosion and deposition, resulting in a different configuration than in 2006. It is very likely that the channel will shift again in the future, with minor annual shifts to be expected, and major shifts during peak flows (at least eight high peak flows have occurred and several major channel shifts since 1959).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-133 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-75. Cowlitz River Channel Changes near Tailrace Terminus (1959-1999; base photo shows 2003 river position)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-134 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

E.5.3.1.2.13 Engineering Study Tailrace Barrier Plan

Anadromous salmonids are known to spawn in both lower Lake Creek and in the tailrace slough where it adjoins the Cowlitz River. A tailrace barrier previously existed at the terminus of the tailrace before it was washed out by a flood in the 1970s. The state fish and game agencies agreed that the barrier did not need to be replaced at that time, but reserved the right to require replacement if anadromous fish were reintroduced to the upper Cowlitz basin (Sandison and Larson 1978). Neither the USFWS nor NMFS commented regarding the fish barrier at that time.

The Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2016) was initially required to plant Spring Chinook and coho salmon fry and fingerlings in tributaries of the upper Cowlitz River. Records show that 24,500 coho were planted in Lake Creek in 1976; 297,500 Spring Chinook were planted in 1977; and 107,800 coho were planted in 1982 (Stober 1986). A returning trap and haul program was begun in 1994 for Spring Chinook, fall Chinook, steelhead, and coho (Northwest Power and Conservation Council 2004a and 2004b). As part of the Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project settlement agreement of August 10, 2000, adult anadromous fish are being trapped and hauled to the upper Cowlitz River above Barrier, Mossyrock, and Cowlitz Falls dams. The target species under this agreement are Chinook, coho, and steelhead. There were also plans developed to release cutthroat trout above the dams (City of Tacoma 2000). Currently, anadromous salmonids that have been transported upstream from the lower Cowlitz River hydroelectric projects have access to the upper Cowlitz River, as well as Lake Creek and the Project tailrace.

After consultation with NMFS, the other agencies, tribes, and FERC, Energy Northwest obtained authorization, and installed a permanent fish barrier drum screen near the end of the lined tailrace in October 2007. The design is based on two 14-foot long by 4-foot diameter drum screens fabricated by the WDFW Screen Shop in Yakima, Washington. The drum screens lower into guide slots in the concrete weir structure within the tailrace using a rail/hoist system and connect to a mechanical system that will turn the drums. Figures E.5.3.1-76 and E.5.3.1-77 present the plan and sectional views of the drum screens.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-135 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-76. Packwood Tailrace Barrier Preliminary Design – Plan View Drum Screen

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-136 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Figure E.5.3.1-77. Packwood Tailrace Barrier – Drum Screen Section View

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-137 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

E.5.3.1.2.14 Tailrace Seining Efforts (Fish Rescue)

Prior to the installation of the tailrace fish screen, Energy Northwest instituted a Fish Rescue Plan requiring removal of fish from the Project tailrace, and if necessary, the stilling basin during Project outages. The objectives of the plan were to remove fish in danger of being stranded in the tailrace and stilling basin in a manner that was of least impact to the fish and to maximize protection of fish, including federally listed species. The fish were returned to appropriately designated habitat in the Cowlitz River as quickly as possible.

A large seine was used during outages to collect stranded fish from the stilling basin. A minimum of two seining passes were made during each rescue effort. Upon completion of the seining, three biologists worked down the entirety of the concrete-lined tailrace using a backpack electroshocker and dip nets to collect any stranded fish. Monitoring of the fish barrier will also include seining to ensure the effectiveness of the barrier.

Five seining efforts took place in association with Project maintenance work and other powerhouse shutdowns from 2005 through 2007. Seining efforts were also scheduled to focus on Chinook spawning periods in an effort to remove potentially spawning fish from the stilling basin. Status reports documenting numbers of fish captured and species information were submitted to the agencies. Table E.5.3.1-44 displays species capture information for the five seining events that took place through October 2007.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-138 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-44. Packwood Stilling Basin Seining Capture Numbers October 2005 Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3 Total Species Number Number Number Number Captured Captured Captured Captured Coho Juvenile 503 29 5 537 Cutthroat Adult 8 1 0 9 Cutthroat Juvenile 9 2 0 11 Coastal Cutthroat Adult 1 0 0 1 Steelhead Juv. 11 5 3 19 Rainbow (Ad Clip) 2 1 0 3 "Packwood Rainbow" 1 1 0 2 Mountain Whitefish 5 6 5 16 Largescale Sucker 1 0 2 3 Spring Chinook Juv. 2 0 0 2 Northern Pike Minnow 0 1 0 1 Totals 543 46 15 604 August 2006 Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3 Total Number Number Number Number Species Captured Captured Captured Captured Coho Juvenile 322 247 569 Chinook Juvenile 15 0 15 Chinook Adult 0 2 2 Rainbow (subadult) 1 0 1 Steelhead Juv. 6 2 8 Rainbow (adult) 3 0 3 Cutthroat 11 5 16 Mountain Whitefish 25 11 36 Largescale Sucker 10 11 21 Totals 393 278 671 October 2006 Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3 Totals Number Number Number Number Species Captured Captured Captured Captured Coho Juvenile 983 54 2 1039 Coho Adult 1 2 4 7 Steelhead Juv. 23 13 1 37 Mountain Whitefish 7 1 1 9 Coastal Cutthroat 5 0 0 5 Westslope Cutthroat 1 0 0 1 Sculpins 0 1 0 1 Suckers 0 0 2 2 Totals 1020 71 10 1101 August 2007 Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3 Totals Number Number Number Number Species Captured Captured Captured Captured Coho Juvenile 147 24 171 Coho Adult 0 0 0 Steelhead Juv. 8 0 8 Mountain Whitefish 12 10 22 Coastal Cutthroat 18 6 24

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-139 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-44. Packwood Stilling Basin Seining Capture Numbers Westslope Cutthroat 6 0 6 Sculpins 0 1 1 Suckers 3 4 7 Spring Chinook 2 0 Rainbow Trout 7 1 8 Totals 203 46 249 October 2007 Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3 Totals Number Number Number Number Species Captured Captured Captured Captured Coho Juvenile 181 7 3 191 Coho Adult 4 4 Steelhead Juv. 19 19 Mountain Whitefish 10 1 11 Coastal Cutthroat 3 3 Westslope Cutthroat 3 3 Sculpins Suckers 42 2 3 47 Rainbow Trout 3 3 Totals 265 9 7 281

E.5.3.1.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

Based on the results of the studies examining presence/abundance of fish species in the waters potentially affected by the Project, and the flow and habitat data that were gathered to assess possible Project effects, Energy Northwest proposes the following measures to protect and enhance the fishery resources in Packwood Lake, lower Lake Creek, Snyder Creek and the Tailrace Slough.

• Eliminate the maximum elevation restriction on lake elevation. • Maintain a minimum lake elevation of 2856.5 ft MSL between May 1 and September 15 to ensure tributary stream connectivity with Packwood Lake for spawning adult rainbow trout and fry emigration from Packwood Lake tributaries into Packwood Lake. • Move the annual Project maintenance outage to begin August 15 and end by September 15, or earlier if all necessary work has been completed. • With a minimum operating water surface elevation of 2849.0 ft MSL, manage the operating pool from September 16 to April 30 in order to provide water: (1) to enhance the bypass flow down Lake Creek in September and October, and (2) for uninterrupted operation that will ensure continuous flow in the tailrace slough during the drier fall months, and (3) for Project generation during low inflow winter months. • Increase the annual minimum bypass flow to Lake Creek (as measured at the drop structure) in accordance with the schedule shown in Table E.5.3.1-45, below. • Aquatic habitat forming flows: Energy Northwest will provide a spill event of greater than or equal to 285 cfs for as long lake inflows can sustain that flow, or a maximum of 24 hours. Energy Northwest will take the necessary measures to adjust lake elevation and power generation to ensure that the spill event is achieved and

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-140 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

maintained for up to 24 hours. A spill event, as described, will be achieved every other water year or 3 out of 6 water years. If the frequencies of the spill events cannot be achieved, the agencies will be consulted for an alternate plan. • Reduce entrainment at the Project intake with a 3-step, adaptive plan. 1. Replace existing debris screens with better fitting screens, and monitor results to determine if entrainment is less than targets established. If target numbers are met, this effort is deemed acceptable. 2. If targets are not met; remove the debris screens, develop other means for cleaning debris from the trash racks, and monitor to determine if entrainment is less than the threshold targets. If targets are met, this effort is deemed acceptable. 3. If targets are not met; consult with agencies/tribes to develop alternatives. • Achieve a specified population of resident rainbow trout population in the upper section of Reach 5 of Lake Creek by periodically moving Packwood Lake trout downstream of the drop structure, either through overtopping events (aquatic habitat flows) or by collecting and moving fish. • Provide gravel and wood recruitment stations in Reach 5 of Lake Creek below the drop structure. Wood and gravel located at these structures would be carried downstream during the aquatic habitat forming flows described above. • Develop a stream restoration and enhancement plan for lowest 1.0 mile of Lake Creek, in the anadromous zone, in consultation with the natural resource agencies and tribes. • Improve fish passage on Snyder Creek where it crosses the tailrace canal by rerouting Snyder Creek into Hall Creek on the downstream south side of the tailrace flume.

Table E.5.3.1-45. Proposed instream flows (cfs) for Lake Creek, as measured at the drop structure. Month Instream Flow (cfs) January 4 February 4 March 4 April 7 May 15 June 10 July 15 August 1 – 15 15 Aug 16 – Sept 15 20 September 16 – 30 15 October 10 November 7 December 4

E.5.3.1.3.1 Measures to Address Project Effects on Trout in Packwood Lake

Energy Northwest proposes to make minor changes to the rule curve for the operation of Packwood Lake. The extremely robust trout population in Packwood Lake is a good

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-141 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources indication that the fish population has thrived under the current rule curve for Packwood Lake, which provides for a minimum lake elevation of 2857.0 ft +/- 0.5 ft from May 1 through September 14 and a minimum elevation of 2849.0 ft MSL during the rest of the year. The proposed rule curve would retain the lower summer lake elevation of 2856.5 feet MSL from May 1 to September 15 (Figure E.5.3.1-78). The proposed rule curve would eliminate the summertime upper lake elevation restriction of 2857.5 ft MSL for the period May 1 through September 15 and the maximum operating water surface elevation of 2858.5 ft MSL. The existing maximum lake elevation requirement of 2858.5 ft MSL serves no purpose since it corresponds to the elevation of the drop structure spillway crest, which consists of an uncontrolled spillway.

Elimination of the maximum lake elevations would benefit the Project and resources by allowing staging of the lake for spill events to move wood and sediment down Lake Creek and to provide additional storage for instream flow and continuous generation needs after the annual maintenance outage (August 15 to September 15). The annual post-outage minimum pool elevation of 2849.0 ft MSL is still necessary in order to provide for: (1) maintenance needs for the Project at the intake; (2) additional storage to permit increased instream flows for Lake Creek; (3) flow continuation for the tailrace slough during the drier parts of the year, as well as to (4) meet power production needs. The current two-week fall drawdown in late September would be eliminated. Lake elevation will be drawn down to meet power production, Lake Creek instream flow, and continuous flows in the tailrace slough.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-142 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Proposed Packwood Minimum Lake Elevation Rule Curve

2858

2857

2856

2855

2854

2853

2852

Lake Elevation (ft) Lake Elevation 2851

2850

2849

2848 29-Nov 18- 9- 28-Apr 17- 6-Aug 25- 14- 3-Jan 22- M J J S Nov F an ar un ep eb

Date

Proposed Minimum

Figure E.5.3.1-78. Proposed Minimum Lake Elevation Rule Curve for Packwood Lake

A typical year would see rainbow trout migrating from Packwood Lake in May and June to spawn in the tributaries. Spawners typically return to the lake immediately after spawning occurs, leaving the tributaries by early July at the latest (EES Consulting 2007o). Rainbow trout spawning migration coincides with spring runoff when stream flows and the corresponding lake level are typically at the highest stage of the year.

Both historical spawning data and surveys conducted in conjunction with Energy Northwest’s relicensing effort demonstrate that spawning rainbow migrating from Packwood Lake to the tributaries do not encounter any Project-related blockages. This is due to an overall lack of passage obstructions and higher water conditions during the spawning period. Specifics related to connectivity issues at each tributary are found in the Final Stream Connectivity in Packwood Lake Tributaries Study Report (Watershed GeoDynamics and EES Consulting 2007).

The timing of the fall drawdown (beginning on September 16) does not coincide with the May to early July spawning period for rainbow trout. Connectivity issues during drawdown as they relate to resident rainbow trout at Packwood Lake are further

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-143 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

discussed in Section E.5.3.1.2 above. Rainbow trout fry have moved from the tributaries to Packwood Lake by the latter part of August. No evidence of effects on spawning and rearing trout in Packwood Lake due to Project drawdown was found or is expected.

E.5.3.1.3.2 Measures to Address Entrainment of Fish at the Project Intake

Rainbow trout from Packwood Lake have been found on the traveling screens in front of the Project intake, as discussed in Section E.5.3.1.3.2, above. Many of these trout, in poor health after spawning, likely moved downstream and were caught on the traveling screens in either a weakened condition or while experiencing post spawning mortality. The timing of their appearance at the intake screen closely mirrored spawning in Packwood Lake tributaries. During the winter/spring months of 2007, fish also were found on the traveling screens that may be attributed to improper replacement of the debris screens over the trash racks after cleaning. Energy Northwest recognizes that the ill-fitting screens at the intake allowed fish to enter the intake structure. The water velocities within the intake structure, and the few exit spaces, prevented fish from being able to find their way out. As a result, the fish swam until exhausted and floated up into the low-velocity trays at the top of the traveling screen, where they remained.

To address agency concerns with respect to the existing fish screens meeting the statutory velocity requirements, Energy Northwest proposes a three-phased approach, described below. If at any time during this phased approach, Energy Northwest determines that an alternate means of excluding debris, or removing debris from the trash racks may prove equally or more effective, Energy Northwest will consult with the natural resource agencies and tribes regarding the acceptability of the new approach.

Phase 1: 1. Energy Northwest will consult with the natural resource agencies and tribes to develop a monitoring plan and to establish threshold levels for impingement at the Packwood Lake Intake Structure. 2. Energy Northwest proposes setting a threshold level of 400 fish mortalities on the “outer” debris screens and 50 on the “inner” traveling screens, recorded during any one-year time period (one calendar year). If fish mortalities exceed this level on both screens, for two consecutive years, Energy Northwest will inform the natural resource agencies and tribes and proceed to Phase 2. 3. Energy Northwest proposes to modify the existing debris screens that cover the front of the main (permanent) trash racks as well as the horizontal grating at elevation 2850 ft MSL. 4. The proposal is intended to provide a more effective and better fitting debris screen that is easily removable for cleaning and monitoring.

Plan: 1. Initiate a contract for design/build and installation of new outer debris screens at the intake structure in 2008.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-144 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

2. Dimensions for design and fabrication will be obtained during the October 2008 outage. 3. If a more effective alternative for eliminating debris from the permanent trash racks is developed, that option will be presented to the Agencies for evaluation and Phase 2 would be initiated. 4. An approved screen design would be completed by June of 2009. 5. Installation of screens would be completed during the October 2009 annual plant outage. 6. Energy Northwest will initiate a monitoring program to evaluate impingement on the removable debris screens, or approved alternative, and the permanently installed traveling screens.

Monitoring: 1. Prior to Installation: a. Continue monitoring the existing traveling screens for fish mortality b. The operators shall inspect the traveling screens during each visit and record mortalities on the station log at a minimum of monthly during the winter months (November–March) and weekly during the summer period (April – October) when fish are more likely to be present. c. This activity will continue until the new debris screens, or approved alternate are installed

2. Post Debris Screen Installation: a. Monitor the traveling screens at a minimum of monthly during the winter months (November–March) and weekly during the summer period (April – October), as access to the intake structure allows b. Monitor the debris screens by lifting the screen out of the water and inspecting for fish on the screen face or lying in the debris basket. c. An inspection will be performed between May 15 and August 15, once every two weeks, during peak spawning seasons. Since the Project is shutdown from August 15 through September 15 inspections will resume October 1 and continue on a monthly frequency unless winter conditions make the work too hazardous. d. Because a majority of monitoring occurs when lake in-flows are highest, the Project will be required to reduce generation for each inspection to allow personnel to lift the screens.

Recording: 1. Record any fish mortalities and document the following in the intake building permanent plant log: a. Number and size of fish b. General condition c. Location found (outer debris screen; traveling screen (including tray number) 2. The results of the surveys are to be reported to the Project Manager on a monthly basis.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-145 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

3. The Project Manager will prepare an annual report and submit it to the natural resource agencies and tribes for review. 4. The monitoring will continue for two years, and if the mortality rate falls below the set threshold level, no further monitoring will be required.

Conclusion: If Project-related impingement falls below the threshold level of 400 fish on the debris screens and 50 on the rotating screens, the measures taken are deemed effective. If threshold levels are exceeded for two consecutive years, Energy Northwest will initiate the actions as outlined in Phase 2, below.

In the event of a screen misalignment that is caused by debris, the operators will contact the Project Manager and a plan to dislodge the debris and reset the debris screens will be initiated and carried out. The screen condition will be recorded in the station logs when a misalignment is discovered, and after it is cleared.

Phase 2 (if required): 1. Energy Northwest will remove the debris screens from the exterior surface of the trash racks. 2. Energy Northwest will continue to monitor impingement on the traveling screens for a period of two years at a minimum of monthly during the winter months (November– March) and weekly during the summer period (April – October). 3. For maintenance purposes, new debris screens may be installed under the floating log boom in the forebay to help capture floating debris. In order to eliminate any fish passage issues, these screens will not be tight fitting nor will they extend to the bottom of the inlet canal. These screens may be removed in the future if they prove ineffective. Mechanical means to clean the trash racks may also be evaluated and installed during this phase. 4. If Project-related impingement falls below the threshold level of 400 fish per year on the traveling screens for two consecutive years, the measures taken are deemed effective and no further actions are required. If the Project exceeds the impingement thresholds for two consecutive years, Phase 3 consultation will be initiated.

Phase 3 (if required): If impingement on the screens (under Phase 2) exceeds threshold levels, Energy Northwest will consult with the natural resource agencies and tribes to determine an alternative means of protecting fish at the intake.

Estimated costs for this PM&E are summarized in the table below (Table E.5.3.1-46).

Table E.5.3.1-46 Estimated Costs for Proposed Debris Screen Modification and Monitoring Plan Proposed Measure Capital Cost Annual Cost Upgrade debris screens at intake $37,000 Remove and inspect screens $13,280 Collect and report fish mortality $4,316 data Totals $37,000 $17,596

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-146 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

E.5.3.1.3.3 Measures to Augment Lower Lake Creek Rainbow Trout Population

A significant population of rainbow trout exists in Packwood Lake. Historically, a number of that population most likely migrated from the lake when populations reached or exceeded the carrying capacity of the lake. The current lake population is estimated at approximately 30,000 fish (Fish Distribution and Species Composition Report, EES Consulting 2007o). Downstream passage of fish from above the drop structure to lower Lake Creek occurs only when the Project intake structure is overtopped, since the bypass flows pass through the traveling screens prior to reaching lower Lake Creek. This separation of the lake from the creek has been the existing condition for nearly the last 50 years, thus it must be considered part of the baseline for evaluation of Project effects.

Lake Creek below the Project intake consists of a series of naturally isolated reaches (approximately 20 falls and chutes) with barriers prohibiting upstream migration. The uppermost reach (Reach 5) has very limited spawning and rearing habitat, resulting in the production of very few fish in this reach. Estimates from 2006 – 2007 surveys ranged from 12 – 47 fish (EES Consulting 2007c). To address the resource agency concern that there be a self-sustaining resident rainbow trout population in Reach 5 of Lake Creek, Energy Northwest proposes to take the following steps.

Energy Northwest will conduct full reach surveys of the upper 1464 ft. of Reach 5 once every two years for eight years, to confirm a population of at least 30 rainbow trout. The first survey will be conducted within a year after license issuance, before the first aquatic habitat forming flow event, to provide baseline information on the rainbow trout population in Reach 5.

It is expected that fish will move from the Lake to Reach 5 during the proposed aquatic habitat forming (285 cfs) spill events that will take place every other water year, or 3 out of every 6 years. Movement of fish by this method may be enough to maintain the desired population in Reach 5. At the frequency specified below, Energy Northwest will conduct electrofishing or snorkel surveys to confirm a population of 30 adult rainbow trout in the isolated section (upper 1464 ft) of Reach 5. If 30 adult rainbow trout are not observed, Energy Northwest proposes to collect and move 30 healthy, adult rainbow trout from Packwood Lake to Reach 5 of lower Lake Creek during the year following each survey. If 30 or more adult rainbow trout are observed during a survey, Energy Northwest will not collect and move any adult rainbow trout.

The objective of the relocation of fish is to maintain the viability of the resident rainbow trout population in lower Lake Creek. Additional healthy rainbow trout from Packwood Lake are intended to supplement the existing population and over time, promote the age class variability indicative of a healthy, self-sustaining population.

Upon the completion of the first four surveys, 8 years of after monitoring begins, Energy Northwest will meet with agency representatives to discuss the findings of the surveys and to make collaborative decisions regarding the need to continue fish

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-147 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

supplementation and monitoring. If three consecutive surveys of the reach have documented the presence of 30 adult rainbow trout, monitoring of the reach will be discontinued for the remainder of the license period. After the first four surveys, if three consecutive surveys have not confirmed the presence of 30 adult rainbow trout, Energy Northwest will continue to monitor Reach 5 at a reduced frequency of once every four years or until 3 consecutive surveys document the presence of 30 adult rainbow trout. Scale samples will be collected during electrofishing surveys to monitor trends of fish age class variability within the reach.

Energy Northwest will provide the agencies with a report every two years documenting the rainbow trout population monitoring and supplementation efforts in the upper portion of Reach 5. The report will discuss the existing population characteristics of the resident rainbow trout in the 1464 ft reach. Energy Northwest will allow the agencies 60 days to comment on the draft monitoring report prior to filing the final document with FERC. Costs of these measures are estimated in Table E.5.3.1-47, below.

Table E.5.3.1-47. Estimated Costs for Proposed Reach 5 Fish Population Monitoring Proposed Measure Capital Cost Annual Cost Design and installation of trap (if $12,000 needed) Trap and haul (if needed) $4,000/2 year Reach 5 Survey $5,000/2 year Total $12,000 $2,500/year

E.5.3.1.3.4 Measures to Address Project Effects on Fish Habitat in the Anadromous Zone of Lower Lake Creek

Energy Northwest proposes to develop and implement a stream restoration and enhancement plan for the lowest 1.0 mile of Lake Creek (the anadromous zone) in consultation with the natural resource agencies and tribes. The purpose of this plan will be to restore rearing and spawning habitat for anadromous and resident salmonids in lower Lake Creek. Energy Northwest anticipates using an adaptive management approach to develop the plan, and expects that goals, objectives and evaluation metrics will be developed and modified or amended as discussion continues with the stakeholders. Energy Northwest proposes, as a foundation of the plan, to increase the instream flow in Lake Creek below the drop structure according to the schedule above in Table E.5.3.1-45.

The primary objective for rehabilitation of the target reach (RM 0.3 to 1) of Lake Creek is to convert the existing boulder plane-bed/step-pool channel into a wood forced step- pool system that more accurately reflects the natural channel form and processes appropriate for this reach. This strategy will increase the quantity and quality of habitat for aquatic species in a manner that is compatible with existing geomorphic and hydrologic processes. Currently, Reach 1 (RM 0.0 – 0.7) has only 12% pool habitat (EES Consulting 2007m), considerably lower than what would be expected on a natural stream of this size and gradient. Most of the habitat (56%) is currently in glide or run

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-148 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

habitat, which has less habitat value than riffles or pools. Pool habitat will be created primarily though incorporation of large woody debris (LWD) into the channel.

Existing assessments have demonstrated that this lower reach has very low amount of LWD (Watershed GeoDynamics 2007a). Whereas upper reaches contain as much as 90-130 pieces of wood per mile, the lower reaches contain less than 30 pieces per mile. This is attributable to past riparian timber harvest and lack of transport from upstream reaches. Because of the small size, confined channel, and step-pool character of upstream reaches, wood is not readily transported to the lower mile of the stream and therefore most of the instream wood below RM 1.0 originates from mortality or windthrow from the channel banks. Under existing conditions, the size and age of riparian timber stands are unable to provide wood in the quantity or sizes needed to create high quality habitat conditions.

To enhance the function of LWD in the creek, wood accumulations will be installed within channels and along channel margins to create and enhance pool habitat and to provide cover. Wood quantities and jam spacing will be based on reference conditions within Lake Creek and other similar streams. Wood will be placed to create plunge pool and lateral scour pool habitat as appropriate depending on site conditions. Wood installations will need to be adequately anchored to ensure that wood is not transported during flood events to downstream areas where it could cause potential damage to bridges (Highway 12 and the Lake Creek Road Bridge) or private residences. Anchoring can occur through burial, attachment or placement near existing trees, or through boulder ballast. No cables, chains, or rebar will be used to secure wood or boulders.

In select areas, channel unit boundaries will be reshaped to provide narrower widths and greater depths in order to increase rearing habitat during low summer flows when much of the streamflow is diverted for power generation. This will increase residual depths of pools, providing a more reliable amount of available rearing habitat during low water periods. Pool structure will be maintained with wood and boulders. Narrowing and deepening pools will also increase the amount of cover provided by installed LWD, an important component for juvenile salmonid protection and feeding. Although Lake Creek gets cooler as it courses downstream due to spring inflows, narrowing the channel will reduce the potential for water temperature extremes in the summer and winter. These temperature extremes can have adverse effects on rearing fish.

Gravel augmentation will occur in combination with other rehabilitation measures. Except for a short section of stream from RM 0.8 to 1.1, gravel quantities are low in the lower reaches of Lake Creek (Watershed GeoDynamics 2007b). This is attributable to a lack of gravel transported from upstream reaches and to a lack of large roughness elements (i.e. logs and boulders) that are necessary to retain gravel in the lower reach. Gravel in step-pool systems typically remains in place through protection by larger roughness elements in the stream. This condition was observed as part of the Lake Creek gravel transport study (Watershed GeoDynamics 2007b), where 66% of the gravels (0.5-4 in) were found to be associated with logs or boulders. Only 9% were

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-149 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources within the main channel and unassociated with boulders or logs. It is therefore critical that placed gravels are associated with logs or boulders to ensure they are not readily transported out of the reach. In addition, spawning-sized gravels are best placed at pool tailouts where water depths and velocities meet spawning criteria.

The overall purpose is to increase juvenile rearing habitat for salmonids, and secondarily, to enhance salmonid spawning habitat. The following list describes potential enhancements to Reach 1 of Lake Creek that may be selected for implementation in consultation with the resources agencies:

• LWD Jams: Place wood jams approximately every 250 ft, or about 15 jams from RM 0.3 – 1.0 • LWD Numbers: Total numbers of wood will be increased to within 90-130 pieces per mile (assuming 12” diameter and 25 ft minimum to qualify as LWD). This is in keeping with wood quantities that have been observed in the upper reaches of Lake Creek, and it exceeds the federal standard for achieving ‘properly functioning condition’ (>80 pieces per mile, NMFS 1996). • Boulder Placements: Boulders will be incorporated into large wood structures to increase complexity, help to develop step-pool channel units, and to provide ballast for large wood placements. Boulders can also be placed in the lowest 0.3 miles of stream to create steps and complexity to enhance juvenile rearing habitat, especially for steelhead and rainbow trout. • Profile: Average reach slope will not be altered, but profile will be modified from a plane-bed/step-pool profile into a wood-forced step-pool profile. Residual pool depths and vertical variation in slope will be increased. • Habitat Units: The percentage of the channel in runs and pools will be reduced in favor of additional pool habitat. Current percentage of pools is < 15%, with a goal of increasing the percentage of pools to 30%. Glide and pool frequency will be reduced from over 50% to less than 40%. • Substrates: Gravels will be placed upstream of bed control elements (i.e. riffles, steps) to enhance spawning capacity and quality. Specific size and distribution of bed material will be determined through hydraulic analysis, reference conditions, and species requirements for spawning. • Gravels will be placed directly in the newly constructed habitat units. • Monitoring: Energy Northwest will monitor gravel movement and retention. • Supplementation: Energy Northwest will supplement stream structures with gravel recruitment stations. • Aquatic habitat forming flows: Energy Northwest will provide a spill event of greater than or equal to 285 cfs for as long lake inflows can sustain that flow, or a maximum of 24 hours. Energy Northwest will take the necessary measures to adjust lake elevation and power generation to ensure that the spill event is achieved and maintained for up to 24 hours. A spill event, as described, will be achieved every other water year or 3 out of 6 water years. If the frequencies of the spill events cannot be achieved, the agencies will be consulted for an alternate plan. • Energy Northwest will develop and implement a monitoring and evaluation plan. Numeric targets will be set for a specific quantity of habitat, and standards for

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-150 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

measuring the habitat will be developed. Monitoring at specified intervals and areas will be carried out with consultation and input of the appropriate resource agencies.

Based on field surveys in Lake Creek, Figure E.5.3.1-53 shows that Reach 1 (accessible to all anadromous fish) has very little LWD in the wetted channel. This lack of LWD results in spawning sized gravel being washed through the system or stored on the channel margins where it is rarely functional as spawning habitat for salmon or trout. Results of the Lake Creek Instream Flow Study also concluded that spawning habitat for both anadromous and resident fish in lower Lake Creek is scarce and comprises on average less than 1% of the total habitat available (Figure E.5.3.1-50, Table E.5.3.1-27). Spawner surveys conducted for the relicensing noted that all available gravels in Reach 1 were already fully utilized (EES Consulting 2007c).

Based on the results of the Lake Creek Instream Flow Study, and accounting for accretion downstream of the drop structure, the proposed instream flow regime and habitat enhancement will have beneficial effects on spawning and rearing habitat for all species and life stages. To ensure that these benefits are realized, goals, metrics and monitoring for enhanced rearing habitat will be established.

EES Consulting and Interfluve modified some of the pool and glide/run transects in lower Lake Creek (Reach 1; RM 0.0 – 0.7 and lower Reach 2: RM 0.7 – 1.0) to reflect changes that could be made to Lake Creek. These changes included:

• Increasing the residual pool depth of two transects each in Reaches 1 and 2; • Decreasing the wetted width and increasing the depth of run transects in Reaches 1 and 2; • Improving the cover components of the pools and runs to increase rearing habitat • Improve the substrate component of pool tailouts to reflect improved spawning habitat • Adjusting the transect weighting in these reaches to reflect decreased run/glide and increased pool and pool tailout habitat.

The PHABSIM models were then run using a depth calibration, since measured velocities were available for these newly engineered transects. Depth calibration models do not necessarily predict WUA in the same manner as the regression and one- velocity set models do. In order to make them comparable to the existing models, EES Consulting modeled the transects (before enhancement) using both the regression/one velocity set models and the depth calibration models. That gave a “scaling factor” for each flow modeled and each life history stage that was used to have the depth calibration model produce the same results as the regression/one flow models for each transect. EES Consulting then used the scaling factors for each transect to the enhanced transects, in order to produce comparable WUA results. In order to evaluate the effects of the habitat restoration and the proposed flow regime, Energy Northwest combined the scaled WUA from these transects with the transects that had not been transformed; the models were then run with the proposed flow regimes to predict WUA at those proposed flows.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-151 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Tables E.5.3.1-48 through E.5.3.1-51 show the effects of the proposed instream flows (including accretion) and habitat enhancement on rearing and spawning habitat WUA in both Reach 1 and all of Lake Creek downstream of the drop structure.

For each species, spawning habitat is substantially increased with the proposed flow and habitat enhancement when compared to either without-Project or current conditions. Appendix K of the Lake Creek Instream Flow Report (EES Consulting 2007m) includes the WUA curves and tables that compare without Project, current operation, and proposed flows with enhancement. These WUA values were calculated using the 50% exceedence flows for each month (before Project, current Project operation, and with the proposed instream flows and habitat enhancement in the lower 1.0 miles of Lake Creek. Without Project conditions were calculated using the current habitat with before Project flows down Lake Creek. The clear benefit shown in these comparisons, underscores the high value of habitat enhancement in creating conditions for fish populations to thrive in Lake Creek.

• Rearing WUA: o At Study Site 1, using the 50% exceedence accretion flow, annual rearing habitat (WUA) increased on average 26.8% over the without-Project condition. Using without Project conditions as the benchmark, mean annual WUA at Study Site 1 (e.g., Reach 1) ranged from a low of 95.3% for steelhead rearing to a high of 155.5% for Chinook salmon juvenile rearing (Table E.5.3.1-48). o In Lake Creek overall, enhanced rearing habitat (WUA) averaged 124.2% of without Project, ranging from 78.1% for steelhead rearing to 200.4% for coho rearing (Table E.5.3.1-49). o Examination of monthly WUA, which consider the needs of all rearing species modeled for that particular month, indicate a net increase over without-Project conditions.

• Spawning WUA: o At Study Site 1, using the 50% exceedence accretion flow, annual spawning habitat (WUA) averaged 485.3% over the without-Project condition. Using without Project conditions as the benchmark, mean annual WUA at Study Site 1 (e.g., Reach 1) ranged from a 284% for Chinook spawning to 970 times as much for rainbow trout spawning (Table E.5.3.1-50). The percentage increases in WUA are so high because of the scarcity of suitable habitat prior to enhancement. o In Lake Creek overall, enhanced spawning habitat averaged 213.3% of without Project, ranging from 118.8% for rainbow trout spawning to 1190% for cutthroat trout spawning (Table E.5.3.1-51). o Examination of monthly WUA, which consider the needs of all spawning species modeled for that particular month, indicate a net increase over without-Project conditions.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-152 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-48. Summary of Rearing WUA by Month for Study Site 1, Lower Lake Creek (Pre-Project, Current Conditions and Proposed Flows with enhancement with the 50% exceedence level) Chinook Coho Steelhead Cutthroat Rainbow Winter Month Treatment Rearing Rearing Rearing Rearing Rearing Rearing Mean %age 1/ January Pre-Project 4,785 3,018 N/A N/A N/A 5,8794,560 100.0% Current Conditions 4,853 2,831 N/A N/A N/A 6,259 4,648 101.9% Prop w/Enhance 7,633 3,481 N/A N/A N/A 6,230 5,781 126.8% February Pre-Project 4,526 3,082 N/A N/A N/A 6,1084,572 100.0% Current Conditions 4,862 2,923 N/A N/A N/A 6,618 4,801 105.0% Prop w/Enhance 7,801 3,546 N/A N/A N/A 6,442 5,929 129.7% March Pre-Project 4,432 3,097 N/A N/A N/A 6,0124,514 100.0% Current Conditions 4,722 3,152 N/A N/A N/A 7,125 4,999 110.8% Prop w/Enhance 7,838 3,813 N/A N/A N/A 6,956 6,202 137.4% April Pre-Project 4,797 3,024 5,502 3,969 3,782 N/A 4,215 100.0% Current Conditions 4,766 3,097 3,558 3,047 3,276 N/A 3,549 84.2% Prop w/Enhance 7,821 3,629 6,205 5,961 5,391 N/A 5,801 137.7% May Pre-Project 5,707 2,050 6,377 4,634 4,421 N/A 4,638 100.0% Current Conditions 4,481 3,460 3,145 2,870 2,984 N/A 3,388 73.0% Prop w/Enhance 7,801 3,546 6,389 5,967 5,342 N/A 5,809 125.3% June Pre-Project 5,968 2,045 6,532 4,924 4,458 N/A 4,785 100.0% Current Conditions 4,373 3,602 2,988 2,796 2,858 N/A 3,323 69.5% Prop w/Enhance 7,812 3,930 5,600 5,815 5,451 N/A 5,721 119.6% July Pre-Project 5,575 2,234 6,342 4,562 4,486 N/A 4,640 100.0% Current Conditions 3,717 4,036 2,163 2,251 2,171 N/A 2,868 61.8% Prop w/Enhance 7,745 4,129 5,249 5,622 5,404 N/A 5,630 121.3% August Pre-Project 4,448 3,092 4,777 3,371 3,640 N/A 3,866 100.0% Current Conditions 2,905 4,229 1,615 1,800 1,707 N/A 2,451 63.4% Prop w/Enhance 7,406 4,631 4,473 4,997 5,122 N/A 5,326 137.8% September Pre-Project 4,692 2,945 4,531 3,367 3,706 N/A 3,848 100.0% Current Conditions 2,711 4,278 1,499 1,698 1,607 N/A 2,359 61.3% Prop w/Enhance 7,703 4,210 5,117 5,522 5,367 N/A 5,584 145.1% October Pre-Project 4,717 2,928 4,480 3,354 3,708 N/A 3,837 100.0% Current Conditions 2,711 4,278 1,499 1,698 1,607 N/A 2,359 61.5% Prop w/Enhance 6,617 5,272 3,689 4,346 4,632 N/A 4,911 128.0%

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-153 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-48. Summary of Rearing WUA by Month for Study Site 1, Lower Lake Creek (Pre-Project, Current Conditions and Proposed Flows with enhancement with the 50% exceedence level) Chinook Coho Steelhead Cutthroat Rainbow Winter Month Treatment Rearing Rearing Rearing Rearing Rearing Rearing Mean %age 1/ November Pre-Project 4,439 3,096 N/A N/A N/A 5,9924,509 100.0% Current Conditions 3,948 3,992 N/A N/A N/A 8,385 5,442 120.7% Prop w/Enhance 7,310 4,729 N/A N/A N/A 8,251 6,763 150.0% December Pre-Project 4,626 3,064 N/A N/A N/A 6,0644,585 100.0% Current Conditions 4,722 3,152 N/A N/A N/A 7,125 4,999 109.0% Prop w/Enhance 7,838 3,813 N/A N/A N/A 6,956 6,202 135.3% Pre-Project 4,893 2,806 5,506 4,026 4,029 6,011 4,545 100.0% Current Conditions 4,064 3,586 2,352 2,309 2,316 7,102 3,622 79.7% Mean Prop w/Enhance 7,610 4,061 5,246 5,461 5,244 6,967 5,765 126.8% Pre-Project 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current Conditions 83.1% 127.8% 42.7% 57.3% 57.5% 118.2% 79.7% Mean % Prop w/Enhance 155.5% 144.7% 95.3% 135.7% 130.2% 115.9% 126.8% 1/ As Percent of Pre-Project Flow WUA

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-154 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-49. Summary of Rearing WUA by Month for Lower Lake Creek (Pre-Project, Current Conditions and Proposed Flows with enhancement with the 50% exceedence level) Chinook Coho Steelhead Cutthroat Rainbow Winter Month Treatment Rearing Rearing Rearing Rearing Rearing Rearing Mean %age1/ Pre-Project 5,298 3,127 N/A N/A N/A 5,2674,564 100.0% January Current Conditions 5,085 3,405 N/A N/A N/A 6,630 5,040 61.8% Prop w/Enhance 1/ 7,754 5,046 N/A N/A N/A 7,679 6,826 126.8% Pre-Project 5,068 3,364 N/A N/A N/A 5,7054,712 100.0% February Current Conditions 5,062 3,478 N/A N/A N/A 6,830 5,123 61.6% Prop w/Enhance 1/ 7,718 5,363 N/A N/A N/A 7,588 6,890 137.1% Pre-Project 4,931 3,459 N/A N/A N/A 5,7584,716 100.0% March Current Conditions 4,938 3,650 N/A N/A N/A 7,148 5,245 61.9% Prop w/Enhance 1/ 7,466 5,979 N/A N/A N/A 6,679 6,708 121.2% Pre-Project 5,304 3,093 6,047 4,023 4,223 N/A 4,538 100.0% April Current Conditions 4,974 3,608 3,472 2,530 3,582 N/A 3,633 116.9% Prop w/Enhance 1/ 7,680 5,511 5,163 4,130 5,556 N/A 5,608 150.3% Pre-Project 5,640 1,955 7,125 4,839 4,282 N/A 4,768 100.0% May Current Conditions 4,726 3,886 3,094 2,407 3,326 N/A 3,488 113.2% Prop w/Enhance 1/ 7,908 5,049 5,434 4,569 5,746 N/A 5,741 151.3% Pre-Project 5,610 1,890 7,055 4,952 4,147 N/A 4,731 100.0% June Current Conditions 4,592 4,018 2,902 2,340 3,187 N/A 3,408 110.4% Prop w/Enhance 1/ 7,537 5,933 4,835 4,095 5,521 N/A 5,584 149.6% Pre-Project 5,607 2,108 7,115 4,840 4,376 N/A 4,809 100.0% July Current Conditions 3,904 4,415 2,170 2,018 2,497 N/A 3,001 108.7% Prop w/Enhance 1/ 7,491 6,068 4,708 4,179 5,489 N/A 5,587 146.2% Pre-Project 4,960 3,439 5,161 3,675 4,093 N/A 4,265 100.0% August Current Conditions 3,158 4,601 1,686 1,746 1,994 N/A 2,637 111.2% Prop w/Enhance 1/ 6,907 6,916 4,181 3,877 5,162 N/A 5,409 142.2% Pre-Project 4,984 3,470 4,624 3,367 4,018 N/A 4,093 100.0% September Current Conditions 2,938 4,641 1,540 1,649 1,842 N/A 2,522 80.1% Prop w/Enhance 1/ 7,550 5,997 4,722 4,285 5,498 N/A 5,611 123.6% Pre-Project 4,999 3,459 4,571 3,346 4,009 N/A 4,077 100.0% October Current Conditions 2,938 4,641 1,540 1,649 1,842 N/A 2,522 73.2% Prop w/Enhance 1/ 5,857 7,380 3,522 3,421 4,523 N/A 4,941 120.4%

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-155 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-49. Summary of Rearing WUA by Month for Lower Lake Creek (Pre-Project, Current Conditions and Proposed Flows with enhancement with the 50% exceedence level) Chinook Coho Steelhead Cutthroat Rainbow Winter Month Treatment Rearing Rearing Rearing Rearing Rearing Rearing Mean %age1/ Pre-Project 4,962 3,434 N/A N/A N/A 5,7824,726 100.0% November Current Conditions 4,116 4,364 N/A N/A N/A 8,092 5,524 72.0% Prop w/Enhance 1/ 6,534 6,999 N/A N/A N/A 7,771 7,101 118.0% Pre-Project 5,174 3,242 N/A N/A N/A 5,4874,634 100.0% December Current Conditions 4,938 3,650 N/A N/A N/A 7,148 5,245 62.4% Prop w/Enhance 1/ 7,466 5,979 N/A N/A N/A 7,590 7,012 116.2% Pre-Project 5,211 3,003 5,957 4,149 4,164 5,600 4,681 100.0% Current Conditions 4,281 4,030 2,343 2,048 2,610 7,170 3,747 80.1% Mean Prop w/Enhance 1/ 7,322 6,018 4,652 4,079 5,357 7,461 5,815 124.2% Pre-Project 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current Conditions 82.1% 134.2% 39.3% 49.4% 62.7% 128.0% 80.1% Mean % Prop w/Enhance 1/ 140.5% 200.4% 78.1% 98.3% 128.6% 133.2% 124.2% 1/ As percent of Pre-Project Flow WUA

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-156 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-50. Summary of Spawning WUA by Month for Study Site 1, Lower Lake Creek (Pre-Project, Current Conditions and Proposed Flows with enhancement with the 50% exceedence level) Spawning WUA Month Treatment Chinook Coho Steelhead Cutthroat Rainbow Mean %age 1/ January Pre-Project 342 22 182 100.0% Current Conditions 142 7 74 40.8% Prop w/Enhance 737 450 594 325.4% February Pre-Project 228 23 126 100.0% Current Conditions 154 7 80 64.1% Prop w/Enhance 719 462 590 470.3% March Pre-Project 123 22 72 100.0% Current Conditions 187 9 98 135.4% Prop w/Enhance 448 515 482 668.0% April Pre-Project 158 158 100.0% Current Conditions 198 198 125.2% Prop w/Enhance 488 488 308.0% May Pre-Project 125 7 66 100.0% Current Conditions 130 145 138 209.4% Prop w/Enhance 507 657 582 884.3% June Pre-Project 123 0 62 100.0% Current Conditions 109 138 124 200.2% Prop w/Enhance 427 607 517 838.2% July Pre-Project 12 12 100.0% Current Conditions 69 69 573.2% Prop w/Enhance 590 590 4872.9% August Pre-Project 122 122 100.0% Current Conditions 7 7 5.4% Prop w/Enhance 491 491 403.3% September Pre-Project 247 247 100.0% Current Conditions 4 4 1.6% Prop w/Enhance 557 557 225.2% October Pre-Project 139 139 100.0% Current Conditions 70 70 50.5% Prop w/Enhance 501 501 360.3%

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-157 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-50. Summary of Spawning WUA by Month for Study Site 1, Lower Lake Creek (Pre-Project, Current Conditions and Proposed Flows with enhancement with the 50% exceedence level) Spawning WUA Month Treatment Chinook Coho Steelhead Cutthroat Rainbow Mean %age 1/ November Pre-Project 167 21 94 100.0% Current Conditions 156 52 104 110.6% Prop w/Enhance 555 532 543 578.2% December Pre-Project 273 23 148 100.0% Current Conditions 171 9 90 60.7% Prop w/Enhance 674 515 594 400.8% Pre-Project 185 215 132 22 6 112 100.0% Current Conditions 5 127 156 17 117 85 75.5% Mean Prop w/Enhance 524 614 468 495 618 544 485.3% Pre-Project 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current Conditions 2.9% 59.2% 118.0% 75.6% 1845.0% Mean % Prop w/Enhance 283.9% 286.0% 353.5% 2226.5% 9707.7% 1/ As Percent of Pre-Project Flow WUA

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-158 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-51. Summary of Spawning WUA by Month for Lower Lake Creek (Pre-Project, Current Conditions and Proposed Flows with enhancement with the 50% exceedence level) Spawning WUA Month Treatment Chinook Coho Steelhead Cutthroat Rainbow Mean %age 1/ January Pre-Project N/A 293 N/A 28 N/A 161 100.0% Current Conditions N/A 199 N/A 17 N/A 108 67.1% Prop w/Enhance N/A 567 N/A 309 N/A 438 272.7% February Pre-Project N/A 219 N/A 29 N/A 124 100.0% Current Conditions N/A 207 N/A 17 N/A 112 90.5% Prop w/Enhance N/A 558 N/A 318 N/A 438 354.1% March Pre-Project N/A N/A 114 29 N/A 71 100.0% Current Conditions N/A N/A 91 19 N/A 55 76.9% Prop w/Enhance N/A N/A 187 354 N/A 270 378.7% April Pre-Project N/A N/A 125 N/A N/A 125 100.0% Current Conditions N/A N/A 98 N/A N/A 98 77.9% Prop w/Enhance N/A N/A 206 N/A N/A 206 164.3% May Pre-Project N/A N/A 149 N/A 160 155 100.0% Current Conditions N/A N/A 63 N/A 72 67 43.4% Prop w/Enhance N/A N/A 218 N/A 212 215 139.4% June Pre-Project N/A N/A 137 N/A 155 146 100.0% Current Conditions N/A N/A 51 N/A 68 59 40.5% Prop w/Enhance N/A N/A 181 N/A 163 172 117.4% July Pre-Project N/A N/A N/A N/A 162 162 100.0% Current Conditions N/A N/A N/A N/A 51 51 31.7% Prop w/Enhance N/A N/A N/A N/A 192 192 118.3% August Pre-Project 158 N/A N/A N/A N/A 158 100.0% Current Conditions 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 6.0% Prop w/Enhance 341 N/A N/A N/A N/A 341 216.5% September Pre-Project 261 N/A N/A N/A N/A 261 100.0% Current Conditions 7 N/A N/A N/A N/A 7 2.5% Prop w/Enhance 412 N/A N/A N/A N/A 412 158.1% October Pre-Project N/A 176 N/A N/A N/A 176 100.0% Current Conditions N/A 103 N/A N/A N/A 103 58.2% Prop w/Enhance N/A 398 N/A N/A N/A 398 226.1%

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-159 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-51. Summary of Spawning WUA by Month for Lower Lake Creek (Pre-Project, Current Conditions and Proposed Flows with enhancement with the 50% exceedence level) Spawning WUA Month Treatment Chinook Coho Steelhead Cutthroat Rainbow Mean %age 1/ November Pre-Project N/A 178 N/A 28 N/A 103 100.0% Current Conditions N/A 175 N/A 40 N/A 107 103.9% Prop w/Enhance N/A 441 N/A 365 N/A 403 390.2% December Pre-Project N/A 248 N/A 29 N/A 138 100.0% Current Conditions N/A 212 N/A 19 N/A 116 83.7% Prop w/Enhance N/A 530 N/A 354 N/A 442 319.6% Pre-Project 209 215 131 29 159 149 Current Conditions 8 166 75 22 64 67 Mean Prop w/Enhance 377 482 198 340 189 317 Pre-Project 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current Conditions 3.8% 77.4% 57.4% 78.1% 39.9% 45.2% Mean % Prop w/Enhance 180.1% 224.2% 150.6% 1189.9% 118.8% 213.3% 1/ As Percent of Pre-Project Flow WUA

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-160 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Shifting the outage to August 15 – September 15, without having a pre-outage drawdown, may cause spill at the drop structure during the outage. A concern expressed by the agencies was that additional water down Lake Creek during the Chinook spawning period may result in Chinook salmon spawning higher along the stream margins than would normally occur. The concern was that additional flows would be required to safely incubate the eggs deposited in the gravel. Analysis conducted by Energy Northwest indicated that, given the proposed instream flows and current hydrology, spills at the drop structure will occur during median and high year inflows. Even with these spills, analysis of existing potential spawning transects in Study Site 1 indicated that no additional water is required to protect incubating Chinook eggs, given the existing instream flow releases and accretion in Lake Creek.

Energy Northwest used previously conducted analysis to determine the flows necessary to protect better quality spawning habitat with at least 0.1 ft of water. The results indicated that, even given high mean spill flows, the proposed instream flows, combined with the 50% exceedence inflows, would provide this level of protection. Energy Northwest proposes that once restoration efforts are complete, surveys will be conducted concurrent with spill and Chinook spawning/incubation to ensure that the eggs are adequately protected.

Estimated costs of the measures proposed for Lake Creek Habitat Enhancement are shown in Exhibit D and in Table E.5.3.1-52, below.

Table E.5.3.1-52. Estimated Costs for Proposed Lake Creek Habitat Enhancement Reaches 1 & 2 Proposed Measure Capital Costs Annual Costs Establish gauging station at Lake $12,000 $25,600 Creek Road Br. and monitor. Survey, design and enhance $700,000 habitat, RM 0.0 – 1.0 Monitoring $25,000/year for 10 years Costs of providing additional $359,000/year instream Flows $10,770,000 for 30 yr license $17,950,000 for 50 yr license Totals $712,000 $409,600

E.5.3.1.3.5 Measures to Address Project Effects on Fish Habitat in Reach 5 of Lake Creek

Lake Creek below the Project intake structure is a series of naturally isolated reaches (approximately 20 falls and chutes) with barriers prohibiting upstream migration. The uppermost reach (Reach 5) has very limited spawning and rearing habitat, resulting in the production of very few fish in this reach. Estimates from 2006 – 2007 surveys ranged from 12 – 47 fish (EES Consulting 2007c).

Energy Northwest proposes to establish small woody debris and gravel recruitment stations in the upper portion of the 1464 ft isolated reach of Reach 5 of Lake Creek. The wood and gravel placed there are intended to be transported by the required 285 cfs spill events that will take place every other water year, or 3 out of every 6 years.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-161 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Each year, beginning within the first year after license issuance and after the first (baseline) fish and habitat surveys in that reach, wood from the Project intake and windthrow collected along Forest Service Trail 74 that can be handled safely by two Energy Northwest employees, and that is in excess of six feet long and 4 inches in diameter, will be placed in the upper portion of Reach 5 in Lake Creek. Additionally, Energy Northwest will deposit one cubic yard of variable diameter gravel (between 0.5 and 3.0 inches diameter), onto an exposed bank within the bankfull channel once per year for the first four years of the license. Energy Northwest will record documentation specific to:

• Length of wood deposited (cumulative linear feet) • Diameter of wood deposited • Number of pieces of wood deposited • Type of wood deposited • Dates of gravel and wood deposits

The objective of wood and gravel placement in Reach 5 is to provide additional structure and spawning area for resident rainbow trout throughout lower Lake Creek. Recruitment of gravel and wood throughout the system has the ability to increase the amount of spawning and rearing habitat in lower Lake Creek for resident rainbow trout.

A baseline survey of spawning and rearing habitat in Reach 5 will be conducted within one year of license issuance, prior to any gravel or wood supplementation. Small wood and gravel will be added to the reach beginning in the year after the baseline survey. Then, Energy Northwest will monitor the amount of spawning and rearing habitat present (in square meters) every four years thereafter. During each survey, Energy Northwest will quantify the amount of spawning and rearing habitat present in the upper 1464 ft. of Reach 5.

Upon the completion of the second 4 year survey, Energy Northwest will meet with agency representatives to discuss the survey findings. If significant habitat improvement is documented, collaborative decisions will be made as to the quantity and duration of gravel and wood placement in lower Lake Creek in the future and whether continuing the surveys is warranted. Conversely, if the anticipated improvements to in- channel habitat are not occurring, increases in the amount of gravel and wood placement will be discussed.

Energy Northwest will provide the agencies with a report every four years documenting the rainbow trout spawning and rearing habitat monitoring efforts in the upper portion of Reach 5. The report will discuss the quantity of rearing and spawning habitat for resident rainbow trout in the 1464 ft. reach, and trends that become apparent over time. Energy Northwest will allow the agencies 60 days to comment on a draft of the monitoring report prior to filing the final report with FERC. Estimated costs are summarized in the table below (Table E.5.3.1-53).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-162 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.1-53. Estimated Costs for Proposed Reach 5 Habitat Enhancement Proposed Measure Capital Cost Annual Cost Survey, design and initial $66,600 installation Wood Supplementation $6,640 Gravel Supplementation $4,820 Monitoring habitat $7,000/4 years Total $66,600 $13,210/year

E.5.3.1.3.6 Measures to Address Effects on Fish Passage at Snyder Creek Tailrace Crossing

Snyder Creek currently passes through a 75-ft long culvert under the Project tailrace and joins Hall Creek downstream of the tailrace. This crossing creates a partial barrier to upstream migration of anadromous species currently listed under the Endangered Species Act. Energy Northwest has observed both coho salmon and cutthroat trout utilizing Snyder Creek above the tailrace crossing. The crossing is complex and completely backwatered, but does not allow for full passage of all species and life stages at all times. Past high flow events have also filled the culvert with sediment, further impeding upstream passage. The culvert as currently configured does not meet WDFW criteria for size relative to the stream channel downstream nor slope, given the 90 degree connecting culvert at the upstream end (See Figure 4.2 of the Final Fish Passage Barriers Report; EES Consulting 2007j).

Because the analysis showed that the existing culvert does not allow full fish passage, Energy Northwest initially proposed to clean out the existing culvert, and consult with the agencies and tribes regarding the methodology and precautions needed to successfully restore full fish passage. In meetings of the Water Quality and Aquatic Resources Committee, the following options were discussed regarding the Snyder Creek crossing of the tailrace:

1. Clean out the culvert to provide passage if the culvert, as currently configured, is passable; 2. Abandon the culvert and divert Snyder Creek back into Hall Creek downstream of the tailrace; or 3. Replace the culvert with a new structure.

Energy Northwest cleaned out the culvert in August 2007. As requested by the Water Quality and Aquatic Resources Committee, to determine if Option 2 is viable, Energy Northwest examined a drainage path that runs parallel to the tailrace, entering Hall Creek just downstream of the flume. This reach is approximately 800 ft in length. The 300 ft closest to Snyder Creek is dry, but has a bankfull width of about 10 ft. The next 300 ft is a backwater (no discernable flow – bankfull width of approximately 20 ft), which then connects to a dry reach as it enters Hall Creek (bankfull width at this location is approximately 2 ft). There are no barriers to upstream anadromous migration within this 800 ft reach.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-163 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Energy Northwest proposes to re-route Snyder Creek to connect to the backwater channel of Hall Creek downstream (south) of the Project flume. A conceptual drawing of the re-routing of Snyder Creek is included as Figure E.5.3-79. Energy Northwest will retain stream restoration specialists and consult with the natural resource agencies and tribes in the re-routing of this creek.

Figure E.5.3.1-79. Snyder Creek Crossing, Existing and Proposed

Since the culvert currently does pass fish (although the percentage is not known) Energy Northwest proposes that this culvert be maintained and kept in operating condition until 2015. By this time, Energy Northwest proposes to have Snyder Creek rerouted into Hall Creek downstream of the Project tailrace so as to provide full passage to anadromous fish. Estimated costs for this PM&E measure are summarized in Table E.5.3.1-54.

Table E.5.3.1-54. Estimated Costs for Proposed Snyder Creek Re-route Proposed Measure Capital Cost Annual Cost Survey, design and construct Re- $240,000 route of Snyder Creek Monitoring $8,000 Totals $240,000 $8,000

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-164 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

E.5.3.1.3.7 Measures to Address Project Effects on Fish in the Tailrace Slough

Energy Northwest proposes to shift the timing of the annual outage in order to provide additional protection to spawning Chinook in the tailrace. Energy Northwest proposes to move the outage to August 15 – September 15. In order to avoid potential impacts to the Packwood Lake environment, Energy Northwest does not propose a pre-outage drawdown. The outage time period was chosen for a number of reasons:

• Spring Chinook salmon spawning begins in the upper Cowlitz River on approximately August 15. By starting the outage on August 15 rather than the current outage timing, the Project will avoid providing attraction water that would draw adult Chinook salmon into the tailrace slough to spawn. • Performing the outage in August and September, when lake inflows are traditionally low, will help assure adequate water is available to provide bypass flows for Lake Creek that support spawning, incubation, and rearing of anadromous fish. • Eliminating the pre-outage drawdown will ensure lake storage necessary for continuous operation of the Project from the end of the outage in mid-September through the end of October. Uninterrupted Project operation results in continuous discharge to the tailrace slough in years when the Project flows play a significant part in maintaining spawning and incubation in this area after mid-September. • Eliminating a pre-outage drawdown minimizes the negative effects at Packwood Lake on: o Out migration of juvenile fish from lake tributaries o Lowering water levels in wetland areas o Amphibian impacts due to lower wetland water levels o Littoral fish habitat issues o Concerns on limiting uncontrolled shoreline access by recreationists. • Changing the outage timing has helped minimize the dependence on the Cowlitz River to provide flows during critical periods in the tailrace slough. • The shifting of the outage to this period also helps avoid the discharge of naturally warmed Packwood Lake water to the Cowlitz River, when summer temperatures are at their highest.

Several measures will be required during the outage to protect fish in the tailrace area:

• Prior to the annual Project shutdown Energy Northwest will inspect the Cowlitz River side channel that flows into the tailrace slough area. The purpose of this inspection is to verify that the river is providing flow through the side channel into the slough and document the results of the inspection in the station logs. If there is flow through the side channel, no fish rescue is required. If the side channel is dry, a fish rescue will be initiated within 12 hours of cessation of flows through the Project tailrace. If fish are stranded, then fish rescue protocols will be followed to capture them and move them into safe habitat in the Cowlitz River.

• In accordance with the established schedule developed to determine the efficiency of the tailrace fish barrier, the section of tailrace upstream of the fish barrier will be

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-165 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

inspected and electrofished, as necessary, within 12 hours of the Project's annual maintenance outage. A block net will be installed where the tailrace exits the stilling basin prior commencing the tailrace fish rescue. The stilling basin will be seined within 72 hours of the shutdown. All captured fish will be recorded and the information provided to the aquatics resource panel in the annual report.

Estimated costs are provided in Table E.5.3.1-55 below.

Table E.5.3.1-55. Estimated Costs for Proposed Change to the Annual Maintenance Outage Phase Cost Comments Price of Power for shifting 1. Based on an increase of 3 hours of labor per week Project maintenance 1. $16,268 for weekly inspections and 40 hours per year for outage annual maintenance (196 manhours). Seining in Stilling Basin 2. $12,980 2. 2 continuous years of seining the stilling basin and in Tailrace Slough (if 3. $5,772 and tailrace fish rescue. If capture is below conditions warrant) threshold set by the BO, seine 2 more times 3 years apart. Each occurrence requires a Fish capture permit and personnel with a fish handling experience Total is: 4 consultants trained in fish handling/snorkeling (80hrsX$95/hr=$7600) + Per Diem for 4 Consultants @$90 per day for two days=$720) + 2 Plant Staff $83/hr X 10hrs =$1660) + $3,000 annual permit costs 3. If the plant must be shut down to perform the stilling basin seining and tailrace fish rescue. The cost for a shutdown in August is estimated at $5,772. (Based on a minimum shutdown duration of 12 hours X blended costs of $48.1/Megawatt hr X 5 MW/hr X 12 hrs; each occurrence). Total $35,020

E.5.3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Energy Northwest has taken considerable care to propose measures that will address effects of the Project on Packwood Lake rainbow trout, on anadromous species that have access to the lower end of Lake Creek from the Cowlitz River, and those that may inhabit the Cowlitz river side channel adjoining the tailrace slough, in addition to macroinvertebrate species in Lake Creek. It should be noted that separation of Packwood Lake and Lake Creek, and flow and drawdown effects on fish resources under the current operating regime have been ongoing for almost 50 years, since the Project was constructed, and are part of the environmental baseline for assessing Project impacts.

No additional unavoidable adverse effects are anticipated to occur during the course of a new 50 year license. Energy Northwest anticipates that the proposed measures for fish and aquatic resources will be more beneficial than under the current license conditions.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-166 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

E.5.3.2 Macroinvertebrates

E.5.3.2.1 Affected Environment

No historical information was available for macroinvertebrates within the Project area.

E.5.3.2.2 Environmental Analysis

A complete description of methods is provided in the macroinvertebrate study plan (EES Consulting 2005n). Fall benthic samples from Lake Creek were collected using the Ecology protocol (Ecology 2001). October was chosen for the primary seasonal index period for sampling for several reasons. The benthic invertebrate community is believed to be more predictable at this time of year than in spring or summer for between station and year comparisons. Impacts to the benthic communities should be more discernable at the tail end of the lowest flow and highest temperature period of the year (late summer-early fall). The fall window allows the overlap of the summer and winter benthic communities to be viewed; the most tolerant and intolerant organisms that are present in the system can be sampled at this time. The period of lowest flow is also the most practical time to sample erosional habitats.

A primary focus of the macroinvertebrate study was to obtain a detailed assessment of changes in benthic invertebrate abundance, species composition and community structure along a longitudinal and altitudinal profile from headwater tributaries of the Lake Creek basin above all hydroelectric power development, downstream through Project-affected waters.

Possible alterations and impacts to benthic macroinvertebrate community structure in Lake Creek due to the Project were evaluated by plotting the response curve of selected community metrics along the longitudinal profile of Lake Creek. Metrics selected are generally responsive to declines in water and habitat quality.

A complete description of the methods and results for the macroinvertebrate study are provided in EES Consulting (2007d). A total of 116 benthic invertebrate taxa were identified from lotic habitats in the Lake Creek basin macroinvertebrate study. Results are based on a Level 3 and 4 taxonomic effort, where the final level of identification varies from species to phylum, depending on the group.

Wisseman (1996a, 1996b) summarized ranges of invertebrate abundance, total taxa richness, EPT taxa richness, and % dominant (3 taxa) typical of mid-order, forested, montane, west-Cascade mountainous streams. The average macroinvertebrate abundance per Lake Creek sample site, 619 organisms, falls into the low range (500 – 1000) based on Wisseman (1996a, 1996b); however, regional differences may exist between Lake Creek and reference sites for this metric. The average percent dominant (3 taxa) index (55%) is in the fair range (50-74%) as described by Karr and Chu (1999). The overall multi-metric Cascade index scores (Wiseman 2003) for both upper and lower Lake Creek were 32, which is rated as good.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-167 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Of the 116 taxa encountered in the basin, 64 taxa (approximately 55%) were rare or uncommon with no apparent trend or association with any of the sample sites or reaches. Although common elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest, it is not surprising that Hemiptera (true bugs) were not found and Odonata (dragonflies/damselflies) were not common in samples from the Lake Creek basin. Most Hemiptera and Odonata species are not stream-bottom-dwelling species; they prefer lentic habitats. Hemipterans are typically found swimming in the water column (e.g., Corixidae, Notonectidae) or skating on the water surface (e.g., Gerridae) of stream pools and backwaters. Most Odonata also prefer lentic habitats or backwaters and pools in streams and rivers. Dragonflies of the genus Cordulegaster, however, have flattened bodies and long legs for sprawling on sandy and silty substrates in lotic habitats (Merritt and Cummins 1996).

Seven taxa (approximately 6%) were rare or absent downstream from Packwood Lake, but were more common in unstable or scoured substrates in Upper Lake Creek. Eight taxa (approximately 7%) tended to be restricted to areas above the lake. These species were predominantly in the “shredder” feeding group. Shredders feed on leaf litter and other live and dead plant matter found along the stream bottom. One might expect to find more shredders in Upper Lake Creek above Packwood Lake where leaf litter is common as compared with areas downstream of the lake. Vegetative matter tends to accumulate in the lake bottom rather than pass downstream.

Eleven taxa (approximately 9.5%) were restricted to or preferred Reach 5, which was influenced by lake-water outflow. These species tended to be those of the “filterer” feeding group and included a significant percentage of “tolerant” taxa. It is not unusual for lakes to have large numbers of filterer-type taxa and “tolerant” taxa immediately downstream from the lake outlet. Both natural and artificial lakes tend to elevate downstream water temperatures and pass suspended, fine particulate matter making this habitat most favorable to these feeding group and tolerant taxa types.

Four taxa (approximately 3.5%) were restricted to or in greatest abundance in sample site 3-U and somewhat in sample site 4-L. These taxa included members of the “intolerant” taxa and semi-voltine (long-lived) species. In addition, this section of Lake Creek was the only section with significant numbers of predator species, suggesting that this portion of Lake Creek provides complex habitat and supports a healthy biota.

Four taxa (approximately 3.5%) were restricted to the lowermost reaches of Lake Creek. Two of the four taxa, Skwala and Arctopsyche grandis were most abundant at Site 1-L, the lowest site sampled in the drainage. It is not surprising that these were found in greatest numbers at low elevations. Skwala and Arctopsyche grandis tend to favor larger rivers and streams; these species are likely to be found in large numbers in large streams like the Cowlitz River. Populations from the Cowlitz River may colonize the lower reach of Lake Creek.

The remaining taxa were either common in all reaches (13 taxa, approximately 11%) or were common in all reaches below the lake (5 taxa, approximately 4%). In the Lake Creek drainage, the most common taxa include those generally categorized as

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-168 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

“gatherer” feeding group. Some of these taxa that are common to Lake Creek are widespread, occurring in temperate regions throughout the world (e.g., Hydropsychidae caddisflies).

Table E.5.3.2-1 summarizes 32 metrics across the longitudinal profile of sample sites in the Lake Creek drainage.

Invertebrate abundance in both Upper and lower Lake Creek rated “low” as compared with similar west-Cascade mountainous streams (Wisseman 1996a, 1996b). This appeared to be more associated with low nutrient availability in the entire drainage, rather than due to Project effects. In fact, the highest abundance of macroinvertebrates was on lower Lake Creek (site 5-O) immediately downstream of Packwood Lake and the Project diversion. The comparison to reference conditions may have limited value for this metric since the reference conditions are primarily from Oregon streams, which may have a natural bias. Wisseman (2003) in his analysis of 48 streams in the Washington Cascades did not consider invertebrate abundance as a potential metric for his regional benthic index of biological integrity (BIBI).

Total taxa richness was generally poor in Upper Lake Creek. Sample sites U-1 (within the lake drawdown zone at elevation 2856 ft MSL) and U-3 (0.6 miles upstream of the lake) were characterized as unstable, erosional reaches with low habitat complexity and subject to periodic scour and deposition. Sample site U-2 (0.3 miles upstream of the lake) was a depositional area with higher habitat complexity from debris jams and pools. Total taxa richness was variable in Reach 5 with a poor value immediately downstream of the drop structure. Low richness is typical of lake outlet benthic communities. Sample site 5-U was in shallow riffle habitat with more substrate heterogeneity. Sample site 5-L was located in a wide shallow, high embedding, erosional chute, which did not provide for diverse benthic habitat but is typical of the reach. Total taxa richness generally increased in a downstream direction to medium levels in Reach 3 where habitat complexity was high and cold groundwater accretion accounts for the majority of the instream flow. Downstream of Reach 3, taxa richness was relatively similar to medium levels found at site 3-L. The sample site 2-L was slightly more constrained than other sample sites in reaches 1 and 2. Sites in reaches 1 and 2 are high erosional habitat with less gravel storage (Watershed Geodynamics 2007a), lack large woody debris (LWD) (Watershed GeoDynamics 2007d) and habitat complexity is less relative to Reach 3 (EES Consulting 2005c).

All major invertebrate groups that one would expect to find in a mid-order, montane, forested stream were present and generally in expected densities. Stoneflies (Plecoptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera), and mayflies (Ephemeroptera) were relatively common and abundant in habitats one would expect them to inhabit. Most other lotic habitat taxa were found in Lake Creek, though in lower densities than mayflies, caddisflies, and stonesflies. Equally as informative as what invertebrate groups were found is information about the invertebrate groups that were not found. Macroinvertebrate taxa common in lentic (still) water bodies were either not found, or found in very low numbers. These taxa included: true bugs (Hemiptera), dragonflies

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-169 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.2-1. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Results Summary Lower Lake Creek (Downstream of Packwood Lake) Reach 1 2 3 4 5 Upper Lake Creek Site Location Packwood in Reach Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Outlet Lake Lower Middle Upper Site Name 1-L I-U 2-L 2-U 3-L 3-U 4-L 4-U 5-L 5-U 5-O U-1 U-2 U-3 Direction of Flow Invertebrate 457 698 344 591 479 990 431 506 655 437 1352 602 668 460 abundance (m2) % Dominant 53 47 48 45 48 34 38 52 69 49 85 87 46 79 (3 taxa) Major Invertebrate Groups – Abundance per sq meter Non insects 17 20 12 27 24 84 88 27 19 93 576 0 14 7 Odonata- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 dragonflies Ephemerotera 179 320 155 266 211 243 142 147 236 47 123 185 76 169 -mayflies Plecoptera- 44 49 12 62 42 354 23 19 8 16 70 390 269 282 stoneflies Trichoptera- 133 234 138 176 116 174 105 208 348 163 516 1 27 1 caddisflies Coleoptera- 28 32 18 8 15 48 41 38 3 3 0 0 0 0 beetles Misc. Diptera- 26 16 7 36 54 47 18 31 34 42 33 12 43 0 true flies Diptera- 32 27 3 16 18 39 15 36 7 62 33 14 240 1 Chironomidae- midges Major Invertebrate Groups – Percent Contribution Non insects 3.5 2.9 3.5 4.6 5.1 8.5 20.4 5.3 2.9 21.3 42.6 0.0 2.0 1.5 Odonata- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 dragonflies Ephemerotera 39.2 45.8 45.1 45.0 43.9 24.6 32.9 29.1 36.1 10.8 9.1 30.7 11.3 36.7 -mayflies Plecoptera- 9.6 7.0 3.5 10.5 8.7 35.8 5.3 3.7 1.2 3.7 5.2 64.8 40.2 61.3 stoneflies

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-170 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Table E.5.3.2-1. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Results Summary Lower Lake Creek (Downstream of Packwood Lake) Reach 1 2 3 4 5 Upper Lake Creek Site Location Packwood in Reach Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Outlet Lake Lower Middle Upper Site Name 1-L I-U 2-L 2-U 3-L 3-U 4-L 4-U 5-L 5-U 5-O U-1 U-2 U-3 Trichoptera- 29.0 33.5 40.0 29.7 24.2 17.5 24.5 41.1 53.2 37.4 38.2 0.2 4.0 0.3 caddisflies Coleoptera- 6.1 4.6 5.1 1.4 3.1 4.9 9.4 7.5 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 beetles Misc. Diptera- 5.8 2.3 2.0 6.2 11.3 4.7 4.1 6.1 5.2 9.6 2.5 2.0 6.5 0.0 true flies Diptera- 6.9 3.9 0.8 2.7 3.7 4.0 3.5 7.2 1.0 14.2 2.5 2.2 36.0 0.3 Chironomidae- midges Feeding Groups – Percent Contribution Predator 6 8 6 8 5 21 8 4 6 6 3 1 9 4 Gatherer 40 38 33 46 49 30 29 26 28 16 10 24 15 12 Filterer 15 9 6 10 7 2 16 38 46 52 80 2 5 0 Scraper 18 25 37 19 16 14 33 21 9 10 1 71 6 78 Shredder 9 6 3 7 7 19 3 3 1 9 4 1 38 4 Warm water biota (tolerant taxa) Abundance 0 1 0 7 0 4 0 1 4 16 13 0 1 0 per sq meter Percent 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.6 4.1 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Number of 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 7 2 0 1 0 taxa Cold water biota Abundance 55 125 86 108 114 418 110 92 113 4 10 5 54 40 per sq meter Percent 12.1 18.0 25.1 18.0 23.9 42.1 25.7 18.1 17.3 0.9 0.7 0.9 8.3 8.8 Number of 14 13 7 11 9 17 11 10 8 2 2 3 10 6 taxa Long lived taxa (semivoltine,>1 year life cycle) Abundance 18 13 3 29 14 303 25 13 30 16 7 2 15 3 per sq meter Percent 4 2 1 5 3 31 6 3 5 4 0 0 2 1 Number of 6 5 3 4 4 7 7 4 3 4 1 3 4 1 taxa

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-171 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

(Odonata), beetles (Coleoptera), true flies (Diptera), and non insects (e.g., Nematoda, Amphipoda, Copepoda). These species can occur in low-gradient streams with backwater habitat.

Approximately 55% of the taxa identified were rare or uncommon with no apparent trend or association with stream characteristics or Project effects. Fifteen taxa (13%) were mostly limited in their distribution to the Upper Lake Creek reach, above Packwood Lake. Eleven taxa (9.5%) were mostly restricted to Reach 5 of lower Lake Creek, preferring the warmer lake outflow that has higher phytoplankton biomass for nutrients. Four taxa (3.5%) were limited to an area approximately midway between the Packwood Lake outlet and the confluence of lower Lake Creek with the Cowlitz River. These four taxa were found primarily at sites 3-U and 4-L, which may be influenced by accretion of cold groundwater, as suggested by the presence of intolerant and long-lived (semi- voltine) taxa. Four taxa (3.5%) that favor larger rivers and streams were found in highest abundance near the confluence of Lake Creek with the Cowlitz River. Two of the four large-system taxa, Skwala and Arctoppsyche grandis, might well be in highest abundance in Reach 1 of lower Lake Creek because of association with a larger population in the Cowlitz River. The remaining 18 taxa (15.5%) were either common throughout lower Lake Creek or were common throughout both Upper and lower Lake Creek.

The four feeding groups most prevalent in Lake Creek were scrapers, shredders, filterers, and gatherers. Shredders were most prevalent in Upper Lake Creek and relatively uncommon downstream of Packwood Lake, which is consistent with riparian conditions. A mixed riparian stand that includes a high percentage of deciduous trees is in close association with the highly braided channel upstream of the lake provides course particulate organic matter (CPOM) for shredders to feed on. The riparian stands downstream of the lake are primarily conifer, which provide less CPOM. The channel is confined and the higher gradient results in less storage of CPOM.

Filterers were most prevalent in reaches 4 and 5 downstream of Packwood Lake, which provides a good food source for this feeding group. Their densities quickly diminish further downstream. Gatherers were present in higher abundance in reaches 1 and 2 than in reaches 3 through 5. The reduced gradient and less confined channel provide for more velocity shelters where food sources for this feeding group are available. The percent of gatherers was lower in upper Lake Creek than expected based on gradient alone. The higher mobility of the substrate and frequent channel shifts may reduce the quality of habitat for gatherers in upper Lake Creek. Predator macroinvertebrates occurred throughout Lake Creek with the highest abundance in Reach 3.

The highest benthic diversity including the greatest abundance and richness of semi- voltine taxa occurred at the sample site in upper Reach 3, which indicates high habitat diversity. While still steep, the gradient is slightly reduced at sample site U-3 and large boulder substrate along with woody debris provides a diverse and relatively stable habitat. The low predator percent composition at site U-1 (within the lake drawdown zone) is likely due to the higher sediment deposition as well as this site being lentic in

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-172 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

the summer months as it is below the elevation of the natural lake elevation. Scraper abundance generally increased in a downstream direction; however, showed high variability.

Tolerant taxa can tolerate warmer water, lower dissolved oxygen, and higher levels of sand, silt and filamentous algae. Tolerant taxa represented less than 10% of the community composition at all sites except 5-U. Site 5-U had a tolerant taxa level of 13%, which is consistent with the warmer water temperatures for outflow from the lake. Intolerant taxa were present in significant numbers (greater than 10% contribution) in all reaches of the lower Lake Creek bypass reach. As one might expect, intolerant taxa levels immediately below Packwood Lake were very low (0.7% and 0.9% at sites 5-O and 5-U, respectively). Intolerant taxa percent contribution; however, was found to be 17% just 0.3 miles below the lake outlet and was found to be as much a 42% of the community composition at site 3-U. The flow in Lake Creek downstream of Packwood Lake is primarily from groundwater accretion except when spill over the drop structure occurs. The groundwater is cold relative to summer lake outflow temperatures (EES Consulting 2005a, 2006c, 2007b). The high scores for the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) throughout Lake Creek are not consistent with the high percentage of intolerant taxa in most reaches. The HBI did not provide a discriminate tool for this drainage and is likely affected by the tendency of this metric to mask differences in tolerance. The tolerant and intolerant taxa richness metrics provide a more discriminating and accurate representation of the benthic community in Lake Creek.

Macroinvertebrate samples from the Lake Creek (upstream and downstream of Packwood Lake) were analyzed for an array of metrics. Longitudinal trends and comparison to reference conditions in the Washington Cascades (Wisseman 2003) were evaluated.

Multi-metric scores BIBI (Wiseman 2003) were rated high for sample sites in reaches 1 though lower reach 4 as well as for Upper Lake Creek upstream of the outlet to Packwood Lake. Ratings were fair for upper Reach 4 and most of Reach 5 as well as Lake Creek at the outlet to Packwood Lake. The only poor multi-metric score occurred immediately downstream of the drop structure. Tolerant taxa richness was highest in reaches 4 and 5. The lake outlet community is dominated by filter feeding caddisflies (Hydropsyche) and mollusks (Pisidium). The high scores for the multi-metric index indicate a robust and diverse benthic community throughout Lake Creek with the exception of immediately downstream of the drop structure. With the exception of just downstream of the drop structure, the macroinvertebrate community is characteristic of that expected in Washington Cascade streams with minimal human disturbance.

Karr’s BIBI for stream benthic invertebrate communities indicated the three dominant taxa (%) metric as noted in Table E.5.3.2-1 ranged from a low of 34 at site 3-U to a high of 87 at site U-1 in upper Lake Creek. These values correspond with BIBI ratings of “good” and “poor,” respectively. BIBI ratings were generally “poor” in Upper Lake Creek and at the outlet of Packwood Lake. BIBI scores improved to “good” at site 5-U, less

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-173 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

than 0.1 miles downstream from the outlet of Packwood Lake. BIBI scores were only fair at sites 5-L and 4-U, but improved to “good” for the remainder of lower Lake Creek.

Lower habitat complexity often allows a few taxa to become super dominant (Stanford & Ward 1983). This may have been the case in Upper Lake Creek, where there is low habitat diversity, streambanks are highly unstable and entrenched, and the glacial hydrology results in a high annual disturbance and very high seasonal disturbance. Low habitat diversity at site 5-O (immediately downstream of the drop structure) and the uniqueness of warm water at this site resulted in a few species having a high dominance.

There is no indication that Threatened, Endangered, benthic Species of Concern or Watch List benthic Species occur within Project waters. Considering the types of aquatic habitats encountered during sampling and using best professional judgment, it is highly unlikely that any such species would be encountered in the Project area (R. Wisseman, Pers. Comm., July 9 2006).

Macroinvertebrates were not sampled in the tailrace slough. This area is subject to frequent channel shifts that scour and deposit substrate as well as significantly alter the flow regime. These channel shifts are attributed to floods on the Cowlitz River and not a Project effect. The probable macroinvertebrate community occurring within the side channel habitat would be dominated by relatively few taxa that are capable of pioneering and rapidly exploiting a habitat subject to frequent change. The Project may allow for temporal abundance of warm water tolerant species as the tailrace discharge is warm relative to the Cowlitz River. Because the macroinvertebrate community is primarily a function of the frequent channel shifts of the Cowlitz River and would likely show a high elasticity, the value of sampling is very limited.

Literature reviews were completed prior to field work in October 2005. Literature indicated that federal and state Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern (SOC) were unlikely to occur in Project waters. Review of the Washington State Watch List also suggested that no species were anticipated to be found.

Macroinvertebrate sampling in October 2005 resulted in no Threatened, Endangered, Species of Concern or Watch List species found. Based on the types of aquatic habitats encountered during sampling and best professional judgment, it is highly unlikely that any such species would be encountered in the Project area (R. Wisseman, Pers. Comm. July 9, 2006).

Potential Project effects that were raised as issues during the development of the study plan include:

• Effect on macroinvertebrate populations of reduced instream flows in Lake Creek downstream of the drop structure, and • Project effects on macroinvertebrate populations in the tailrace slough.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-174 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

Low scraper percent composition in Reach 5 is attributed to filamentous algae and fine sediment deposition, which are a consequence of reduced flow. Naturally warmer water temperatures in Reach 5 are also a contributing factor. The relatively higher percent contribution of collector-gatherers in Reach 5-O is a function of reduced flow that allows deposition of fine sediment and fine particulate organic matter.

Percent Ephemeroptera generally showed a downstream increasing trend with the lowest percentages reported just downstream of the drop structure. Low values are typical downstream of lakes where filter feeders are more predominate. Only one of the comparison reference sites (Wiseman 2003) included sample data from downstream of a lake and the lake was located at a distance from the reference sample site. This metric may be sensitive to stream flow. The longitudinal trend from poor in reaches 3 and 4 to medium in downstream reaches 1 and 2 is at least partially attributable to the increased flow in lower reaches. The poor rating in Reach 3; however, is attributed to how this metric is calculated rather than a Project effect. A highly diverse benthic community as occurred in Reach 3 will score low for this metric since the percentage is expressed as a percentage of the entire community.

Total taxa richness was generally moderate as compared with similar west-Cascade mountainous streams (Wiseman 2003). Increases in total taxa richness in a downstream direction appeared to be associated with increased channel stability, greater habitat complexity, cooler temperatures relative to Reach 5, and reduced disturbance regimes downstream from Packwood Lake. Total taxa richness immediately downstream of the drop structure is likely due to a few species exploiting the warm water habitat within this reach. The reduced flow in this reach precluded some taxa that are normally associated with larger streams; however, this effect only extends a short distance downstream. Malmquist and Eriksson (1995) found that taxa richness at lake outlets is primarily a function of pH and flow; higher flows resulted in higher diversity and the amount of seston being transported was not correlated with taxa richness at lake outlets. Further downstream, the Project may positively affect total taxa richness in lower Lake Creek since reduced stream flow has the effect of cold groundwater accretion providing the majority of the flow and subsequently providing opportunities for cold water taxa.

Changes in metrics along the longitudinal profile of the Lake Creek drainage were generally consistent with expectations that energy flow and benthic invertebrate community structure will shift in a gradual fashion along a gradient of increasing stream size (and decreasing elevation) in a watershed (Vannote et al. 1980). Rapid changes in metrics immediately downstream from Packwood Lake (e.g., high invertebrate abundance, reduced total taxa richness, and presence of “tolerant” taxa) were generally limited to the area immediately below the lake (approximately 0.1 to 0.3 river miles). These effects are primarily the result of natural influences of Packwood Lake rather than Project operation. The outflow from the lake is warm relative to upstream and downstream water temperatures. The outflow also is higher in nutrients due to phytoplankton production in the lake’s surface waters. These differences result in the changes in the aquatic invertebrate community.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-175 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

The benthic macroinvertebrate community at site U-1 (Upper Lake Creek within the drawdown zone) is influenced by the summer lake elevation, which inundates this site with approximately 1 ft of water. The lake is maintained at 2,857 ft + 0.5 ft MSL during May through mid-September, which is the natural lake elevation. The site rated at the low end of fair for the multi-metric index. Since the lake was at its natural elevation for the period preceding the macroinvertebrate sampling, the macroinvertebrate community is not considered to be impacted by the Project at this site.

The amount and stability of large woody debris (LWD) in a stream can affect macroinvertebrate abundance and taxa composition. LWD was highest in Reaches 4 and 5 in lower Lake Creek (Watershed GeoDynamics 2007d) with most of the wood being recruited from the adjacent channel banks as opposed to downstream transport. Because the Project does not appear to adversely affect the distribution of woody debris in the channel, there is no corollary Project effect on macroinvertebrates.

Reduced flow out of Packwood Lake has the effect of shortening the stream length populated by tolerant taxa. The reduced stream flow does favor feeding groups that are dependent upon fine particulate organic matter and negatively affected by filamentous algae. These effects only extend a short distance downstream of the drop structure. Natural mean monthly inflow from Packwood Lake for August through October ranges from 71 cfs to 56 cfs. The Project releases 3 cfs just downstream of Packwood Lake. The natural flow would have the effect of extending the length of channel with warm water temperatures. Total taxa richness in downstream reaches, particularly Plecoptera and Ephemeroptera) would likely be lower without the Project. The proportion of warm water Trichoptera taxa would be greater than the mix of cold and warm water taxa that now occur in Reach 4 and further downstream. The aquatic invertebrate community characteristic of Reach 5 that had higher tolerant taxa richness would extend further downstream.

E.5.3.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

Minimum instream flows and channel maintenance flows have been developed through extensive consultation between Energy Northwest and the agencies. Habitat restoration and habitat enhancement measures have also been identified. A description of these measures and their associated costs are provided in section E.5.3.1.3. No additional measures are proposed for macroinvertebrates; however, macroinvertebrate populations will benefit from environmental measures proposed for fisheries resources in Lake Creek. Augmentation of large woody debris, as a habitat enhancement for fish would also positively benefit macroinvertebrate community diversity and abundance.

E.5.3.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Energy Northwest has taken considerable care to address concerns for resources affected by the Project, and has proposed numerous PM&E measures, including increasing instream flows in tandem with habitat restoration and enhancement. It

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-176 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.3-Fishery/Aquatic Resources

should be noted that most of the proposed measures address Project effects that have existed under the current license for almost 50 years. Very few additional negative effects are anticipated as a result of relicensing the Project with the proposed set of PM&E measures. Although the habitat restoration and enhancement are primarily aimed at fish habitat, macroinvertebrate populations will also benefit, macroinvertebrate density is expected to be greater in reaches where log placement and structural habitat modifications are made. There may be some temporary adverse impacts on macroinvertebrates during the construction period due to disturbance of the channel bed.

Summer water temperatures will be warmer in lower Lake Creek than currently exist due to the provision of increased instream flows requested by the resource agencies. The result will be that the longitudinal extent of warm water and tolerant taxa observed in Reach 5 will extend further downstream.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.3-177 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.4-Wildlife Resources

E.5.4 Wildlife Resources

E.5.4.1 Affected Environment

The Project lies within a mosaic of mostly forested habitats with stands ranging from late-successional areas that have never been harvested (“old-growth”) to regenerated areas that were harvested within the past ten years. Much of the area is designated by the Forest Service as a Late-Successional Reserve (LSR). LSR management is intended to protect and enhance habitat conditions favored by northern spotted owl and other species typically associated with late-successional forests (USDA Forest Service 1995b). These conditions include a multi-storied forest canopy; the presence of large diameter trees and snags; and large woody debris. The Project area also borders the Goat Rocks Wilderness area where human activities are limited to low-impact recreation. Black-tailed deer, elk, black bear, and other wide-ranging wildlife species are known or likely to occur throughout the Project area. The rugged terrain, cliffs, and rocky outcrops that occur in the upper Project area are likely used by mountain goats as winter range. Reports of possible sightings of gray wolves and grizzly bears from the Wilderness Area in recent years have not been substantiated (USDA Forest Service 2004a).

Avian species known to occur at Packwood Lake during migration include common loon, common goldeneye, and Barrow’s goldeneye (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Because Packwood Lake is a relatively deep lake, it may not attract flocks of migrating waterfowl that seek areas where they can both rest and forage. The Cowlitz River reportedly serves as a migration corridor for waterfowl and other species, provides harlequin duck nesting habitat, and is regularly used by bald eagles in winter, including foraging activity near the mouth of Lake Creek (EES Consulting 2005e). Bald eagles have also been occasionally observed at Packwood Lake in May and June, although nesting has never been documented. Ospreys reportedly nest on the Cowlitz River within 2.5 miles of the mouth of Lake Creek and at Packwood Lake. Bald eagle and osprey nest surveys were conducted by Energy Northwest in 2006 to update available information and the results are described in Section E.5.4.2.1.

According to the USDA Forest Service (2004a), one pair of northern spotted owls is known to occur in the Lake Creek drainage. Habitat conditions for this species in the Project vicinity are considered suitable for nesting, particularly in the old-growth forest stands in this area. However, USDA Forest Service records also include numerous detections of barred owls in the drainage and evidence for occasional hybridization with northern spotted owls. Recent studies suggest that barred owls are replacing northern spotted owls in many areas, possibly through competitive exclusion, even in habitats highly suitable for northern spotted owl (Pearson and Livezey 2003). No studies of spotted owls were requested for relicensing. See Section E.5.6.2.1.1 for further discussion of spotted owls.

Various wildlife species were noted opportunistically in the Project vicinity by biologists conducting relicensing studies. Birds detected along trails and forests in the Project

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.4-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.4-Wildlife Resources area included: ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber), violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), chestnut-backed chickadee (Parus rufescens), red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), American robin (Turdus migratorius), varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), Townsend’s warbler (Dendroica townsendi), western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis). Along Lake Creek, American dippers (Cinclus mexicanus) were observed, and winter wrens (Troglodytes troglodytes) were particularly associated with dense riparian cover in this area. Red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) occurred in the Hall Creek wetland, which undoubtedly is also used by migrating waterfowl.

Observations of mammals or their sign were limited to muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) (feeding signs detected in the Hall Creek wetland), Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii) (in forested areas around Lake Creek and Packwood Lake), pika (Ochotona princeps) (heard in boulder talus areas on the penstock route and by Packwood Lake), mountain cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttalli) (observed on an access trail), black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus) (detected throughout the Project area), elk (Cervus elaphus) (observed near the Project tailrace), weasel (either short-tail [Mustela erminea] or long- tail weasel [M. frenata]) (tracks observed in a forested wetland), cougar (Felis concolor) (tracks found along trails), coyote (Canis latrans) (scat detected along trails), and black bear (Ursus americanus) (scat detected along trails).

Two species of reptiles were observed in the Project vicinity: a pair of northern alligator lizards (Elgaria coerulea) was found in a talus slope along Lake Creek, and common garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis) were observed at several locations in the Hall Creek wetland.

As many as 16 species of amphibians potentially occur in the Project vicinity. Prior to the current relicensing process, little information was available from which to describe amphibian occurrences associated with the Project area. Other than opportunistic sightings of frogs and salamanders (not identified to species) by Energy Northwest personnel, the only verified species was Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli), which was reported on the basis of four incidental sightings of salamanders under coarse woody debris in old-growth forest areas along hiking trails and within 100 feet of the lake shoreline (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Larch Mountain salamander is a completely terrestrial species often associated with cobble and gravel substrates in talus, caves, and around lava tube entrances, but also occurring in late successional conifer forests without rocky cover, but where soils are derived from pumice deposits (Jones et al. 2005). The species is known from at least 138 localities (many of which evidently represent isolated populations) centered in the Columbia River Gorge in Oregon and Washington, and extending further north to Pierce County, Washington in the Cascades Range (Jones et al. 2005).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.4-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.4-Wildlife Resources

E.5.4.2 Environmental Analysis

Wildlife studies conducted during relicensing included surveys for bald eagles and osprey as well as amphibians. The results of these studies and analysis of the Project effects are discussed below.

E.5.4.2.1 Bald Eagle and Osprey Survey Results

Surveys were conducted by helicopter in 2006 to ascertain whether bald eagles nest in the vicinity of Packwood Lake, and to obtain current information on osprey nesting in this area. The surveys occurred on April 18 and June 21, 2006, and encompassed the forested area within about 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Packwood Lake, and Lake Creek down to the Cowlitz River (EES Consulting 2005f).

E.5.4.2.1.1 Bald Eagle

No bald eagle nests were observed during the surveys, nor were any bald eagles sighted. Energy Northwest is aware of four recent individual bald eagle sightings at Packwood Lake: on June 24, 2004 and again on June 24, 2005 a bald eagle was observed perching and foraging near Crawford Creek; and in 2007 a bald eagle was observed in flight over Packwood Lake on two dates (May 3 and May 23). Bob Lucas, who has performed spawner surveys on tributaries to Packwood Lake for WDFW for many years, has occasionally observed the species in the Upper Lake Creek area (personal communication January 10, 2007).

E.5.4.2.1.2 Osprey

The surveys revealed five osprey nests, two of which were reproductively active, based on the presence of eggs or hatchlings. The active nests were located in live, broken top, coniferous trees, and were within approximately 500 feet of the Packwood Lake southwest shoreline. Individual ospreys were present at two of the other nests (one adjacent to Packwood Lake and the other by Lake Creek more than 3 miles below Packwood Lake) during either the first or second survey, but neither of these nests showed signs of reproductive activity. The fifth observed nest was not attended by an osprey during either survey and was in disrepair, indicating prior abandonment. Due to the steep topography along the southwest shore of Packwood Lake, nests were located well above (estimated 30-160 ft) the surface elevation of the lake.

No adverse effects of Project operations on bald eagle or osprey have been suggested. The Project has no known effect on trees that are or might be used in the future for nesting, perching, or roosting. It is also not foreseeable that Project activities might be a source of disturbance to nesters (e.g., from noise or close approach), given the remote nature of the nests. Because these bird species are fish-eaters, there is the potential that Project operations affecting fish may indirectly affect the birds. However, there is no clear basis for identifying or quantifying such an effect, if it exists. The long-term

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.4-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.4-Wildlife Resources presence of nesting osprey at Packwood Lake suggests that food resources are adequate for at least two pairs and their young. Bald eagles may not currently nest in this area, but might do so in the future.

E.5.4.2.2 Amphibian Survey Results

A survey for amphibians as conducted in 2005 and 2006 to provide information on the occurrence of amphibians, including several special status species that may be present in the Project area. The study plan provided for surveys of Upper Lake Creek near Packwood Lake and Lake Creek below Packwood Lake to the confluence with the Cowlitz River (i.e., areas where a Project effect can be postulated) (DTA 2005a). Some other areas outside of the survey scope, but suitable for amphibians, were also searched opportunistically. The Cowlitz River, Project tailrace, and tailrace slough do not contain habitats suitable for amphibians and were not surveyed.

E.5.4.2.2.1 Packwood Lake and Tributaries

The lacustrine habitats of Packwood Lake are not suitable for amphibians except where relatively shallow, vegetated areas occur. Isolated depressions not accessible by fish and protected from wave action have the greatest potential to support larval amphibians on the lacustrine fringe. Wetlands of this kind were observed on Packwood Lake in only two locations at the southeast end of Packwood Lake between the mouths of Upper Lake Creek and Muller Creek.

During a survey on July 18, 2006, in one of these areas (Figure E.5.4-1) larvae of three species (northwestern salamander [Ambystoma gracile], Pacific treefrog [Pseudacris regilla], and Cascades frog [Rana cascadae]) were found. Water depth here was mostly less than three feet, and the area was vegetated by emergent small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), bur-reed (Sparganium sp.), common scouring-rush (Equisetum hyemale), sedge (Carex sp.), and skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum). Although contiguous with Packwood Lake, large logs situated between the main body of the lake and the site appeared to pose a barrier to fish movement and protection from wave action.

The second location with larvae consisted of a small, isolated depression, which was sparsely vegetated and not connected to the lake by surface water when observed; larval Cascades frogs were found here. At these sites, Cascades frog and Pacific treefrog larvae were in advanced stages of development (some individuals of both species had hind limbs) and would likely have reached metamorphosis before the end of August. The northwestern salamanders were small, first-year larvae that would require at least an additional year to reach metamorphosis.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.4-4 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.4-Wildlife Resources

Figure E.5.4-1. Larval amphibian habitat in Packwood Lake lacustrine fringe wetland between Upper Lake Creek and Muller Creek.

Amphibian larvae were not found in other parts of the extensive wetland complex southeast of Packwood Lake where deep mud, but only very shallow standing water (usually no more than 1-3 inches deep) was present. With few exceptions, the tributary streams entering Packwood Lake are not evidently used by amphibians. These streams are generally unsuitable for species that breed in lotic (flowing water) habitats because substrates are dominated by fine particles (gravels and smaller), or species associated with lentic (stillwater) habitats because of cold, fast flowing water and generally scarce hiding cover. During the amphibian survey, only one species was found in Upper Lake Creek: a few small Cascades frog larvae in an isolated, shallow pool of a muddy tributary approximately 1,000 feet upstream from Packwood Lake. A swampy area near Osprey Creek may also be used by Cascades frogs. Habitats suitable for giant salamanders (Dicamptodon spp.), coastal tailed frog (Ascaphus truei), or other species associated with lotic habitats were not observed at Upper Lake Creek, Muller Creek, or Osprey Creek near Packwood Lake.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.4-5 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.4-Wildlife Resources

E.5.4.2.2.2 Lake Creek below Packwood Lake

Surveys in and along Lake Creek revealed more species (eight) than found in other areas, although only two of these species (coastal giant salamander1 [Dicamptodon tenebrosus] and coastal tailed frog) are reliant on stream habitats. Coastal giant salamanders were found in a variety of microhabitats, including pools, runs, and riffles, in Reaches2 2, 3, 4, and 5. Observations of this species were most numerous in areas where side channels or stepping creates small pools. Habitat limitation due to sand- embedded substrates was apparent at some sites, but was limited in extent (e.g., occurring in areas at low gradient or downstream of sediment sources). This observation was consistent with results of the Lake Creek Physical Habitat Assessment Survey (EES Consulting 2005c), and the Lake Creek Gravel Transport Study (Watershed GeoDynamics 2007a), which documented a preponderance of coarse substrates in Lake Creek.

Coastal tailed frogs were also observed in Reaches 2, 3, 4, and 5. Because most of the observations were of adults or sub-adults, it is not known whether larvae have a similar or more localized pattern of distribution (evidence for a patchy distribution of larvae within streams is presented by Diller and Wallace 1999, and Hayes et al. 2006). Larval coastal tailed frogs tend to favor higher stream gradients and areas of faster flow velocity than those used by coastal giant salamanders (Parker 1991, Diller and Wallace 1999). In streams smaller than Lake Creek, Wahbe and Bunnell (2003) found the majority (66 percent) of larvae in runs, with the rest in pools and riffles. Surveys by Diller and Wallace (1999) showed that larvae occupied high gradient riffles more than other microhabitats, and were most frequently associated with cobble or gravel substrates, a low degree of substrate embeddedness, and low percentage of fine sediments.

Adult and juvenile Cascades frogs were frequently observed along Lake Creek, particularly upstream of the waterfall at RM 2.05. This species breeds in lentic habitats, including off-channel pools along streams. Four other species with larvae adapted for lentic habitats were also found in small numbers during Lake Creek surveys (rough- skinned newt [Taricha granulosa], Pacific treefrog, western toad [Anaxyrus boreas], and northern red-legged frog [Rana aurora]), suggesting the use of off-channel pools or dispersal from other remote breeding sites.

A completely terrestrial species, western red-backed salamander, was most numerous in areas of seasonally moist talus and other sites where rocky rubble has accumulated below cliffs; these terrestrial habitats are not affected by flows in Lake Creek. A semi- aquatic species, Cascades torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton cascadae), and a

1 A related species, Cope’s giant salamander (Dicamptodon copei) was not documented on the basis of morphological characteristics, coloration, and developmental patterns, but could nevertheless be present. If this species does occur in lower Lake Creek, habitat use patterns should be similar to those displayed by coastal giant salamander. 2 See Figures E.5.3.1-15 and E.5.3.1-16 for descriptions and geographic extent of the five designated Reaches of Lake Creek.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.4-6 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.4-Wildlife Resources terrestrial species primarily associated with seeps and splash zones, Van Dyke’s salamander (Plethodon vandykei), were not found despite repeated searches of perennial tributaries, seeps, waterfall splash zones, cliffs with seeps, and talus along Lake Creek. The survey results do not conclusively demonstrate the absence of these species (Van Dyke’s salamander in particular can be difficult to find even at sites known to be occupied [Jones 1999, McIntyre 2003]). Nonetheless, this would not be an unreasonable conclusion in that habitat conditions do not closely match reported habitat requirements of either species (e.g., Jones 1999, McIntyre 2003, Jones et al. 2005).

E.5.4.2.2.3 Hall Creek Wetland

Hall Creek and Snyder Creek were not within the area designated for search during the amphibian survey. However, a limited survey was conducted within the large emergent wetland associated with the confluence of these creeks. Larvae of two species, northern red-legged frog and northwestern salamander, were found. The Project tailrace intersects this wetland, but is elevated in a 356-foot long flume over Hall Creek, ensuring unimpeded flow.

E.5.4.2.2.4 Terrestrial Amphibians

Terrestrial amphibians such as western red-backed salamander, Larch Mountain salamander, and the terrestrial phases of pond- or stream-breeding species are not likely to be affected by Project operations.

E.5.4.2.2.5 Amphibians in Lacustrine Fringe Wetlands

Amphibian species that breed in wetlands adjacent to Packwood Lake may be affected by Project-induced lake level fluctuations. However, the chronology of amphibian activity relative to Project operations suggests that effects are likely to be limited in extent. Amphibians using these wetlands are potentially exposed to three different operational regimes annually: 1) between November-April lake water surface elevation fluctuates as needed; 2) from May to mid-September lake water surface elevation is held within a narrow range (2857 ft MSL + 0.5 ft); and 3) from mid-September-October the annual drawdown occurs and the lake subsequently refills. Amphibian activity patterns during these three operational phases are summarized in Table E.5.4-1.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.4-7 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.4-Wildlife Resources

Table E.5.4-1. Potential effects of Project operations on amphibians breeding in Packwood Lake lacustrine fringe wetlands. Operational Period Amphibian Activity Potential Project Effects November-April Amphibian breeding is initiated by If eggs are deposited during this warming conditions, which can occur period, they may be temporarily in late April, but often not until May. exposed or stranded. May to mid- Amphibians breed, eggs hatch, and Conditions favor growth and September most complete metamorphosis and development; stranding unlikely. exit wetlands during this period. Mid-September to Larvae of only one species Northwestern salamander larvae are October (northwestern salamander) are likely to be stranded by drawdown, present. unless they can escape into the lake.

Amphibian eggs deposited in the lacustrine fringe wetlands prior to May could be subject to water level fluctuations sufficient to cause temporary exposure or stranding, and result in desiccation, freezing, or predation of embryos. Cascades frog egg masses are most at risk of stranding because this species oviposits in very shallow water. However, Cascades frog egg masses are also somewhat tolerant of temporary or partial stranding (Corkran and Thoms 1996). Beginning in May, effects on developing eggs and larvae are unlikely to occur because lake water surface elevation is held relatively constant. Cascades frogs and Pacific treefrog larvae grow and develop during this period, and should have completed metamorphosis well in advance of mid-September. In contrast, the remaining species, northwestern salamander, develops more slowly and larvae require additional months before metamorphosing. This species may be adversely affected by dewatering of lacustrine fringe wetlands during the annual drawdown unless larvae can escape from the pools into the lake, or can survive in moist substrates.

The significance of any drawdown-related mortality to northwestern salamander at the population level is not known. However, it is clear that this species would not be present if a sustainable population did not exist here or somewhere in the vicinity. Larvae either survive in drawdown zone wetlands at least occasionally, or the salamanders breed and survive elsewhere within dispersal distance of the Packwood Lake wetlands.

There is only very limited information on seasonal lake level fluctuations prior to construction of the Project. U.S. Geological Survey data from 1960 to 1963 reportedly show an annual fluctuation in lake level ranging from 2.3 to 3.4 feet, and Royce (1965a) surmised that lake elevation in summer probably was between 2856 to 2857 ft MSL. The Forest Service (February 12, 1961) noted that the outlet of Packwood Lake was characterized by an alluvial deposit with continuous seepage flows of 10-15 cfs.

Maintaining the lake level at 2857. +0.5 ft MSL may have the effect of supporting a slightly higher groundwater table within the nearshore portion of the wetland complex at the head of Packwood Lake during late summer than would naturally occur. The groundwater level monitored by the Packwood Lake Drawdown Study followed a downward trend in summer, but reached an equilibrium elevation relative to lake level by mid-August and remained at that elevation until drawdown (EES Consulting 2007g).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.4-8 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.4-Wildlife Resources

Upon drawdown, the groundwater level declined, reaching an elevation comparable to that which would have occurred had the seasonal downward trend continued. The duration of the drawdown effect is currently limited to two to four weeks in September and October with the wetlands being quickly recharged with the onset of fall precipitation.

Under the proposed license, the maintenance outage will be moved from October to mid-August and the late September pre-outage drawdown will be eliminated. Following Project shutdown in August, the lake will begin to rise with natural inflow and the resulting lake levels will be higher than those previously experienced. The effect of the new license will be higher lake levels in the late summer (August 15 – September 14) with a longer and slower fall drawdown beginning September 15.

E.5.4.2.2.6 Amphibians in Lake Creek below Packwood Lake

Coastal giant salamanders and coastal tailed frogs in Lake Creek below Packwood Lake could be affected by Project operations if flows are insufficient to move fine sediments, resulting in embedded substrates or smothering food organisms. However, a high degree of embeddedness was only infrequently observed during the amphibian survey or other relicensing studies, and substrates were not covered by silt.

It is normal for instream amphibians to be periodically exposed to higher than average flows resulting from precipitation events and snowmelt. During periods of high flow, aquatic amphibians move under sheltering substrates, but are liable to be swept downstream when flows are sufficient to move coarse substrates. Flood-induced reduction of a larval tailed frog population in an unregulated stream has been reported (Metter 1968). High flow events occur periodically on lower Lake Creek and are important in maintaining fluvial processes, such as sediment transport. High flow events are overwhelmingly controlled by inflow coming from precipitation and/or snow melt. The Project does not increase the incidence of high-flow events, which occur when inflow exceeds the storage and bypass capacity of the system. The magnitude and rate of stage increase during high flow events is beyond the control of the Project. If the Project is not operating at full capacity, the Project could increase power production to reduce flows going over the drop structure; however, the controlling factor for stage change and overtopping events remains inflow.

Streamside-specialist amphibians probably do not occur along lower Lake Creek; however, if either Cascade torrent salamander or Van Dyke’s salamander is present, there is the potential for flow effects from Project operations (e.g., diminishment of splash zones). Potential habitats for streamside amphibians along Lake Creek are concentrated within splash zones associated with several waterfalls, chutes, and cascades; rocky tributaries; and seeps. The waterfalls, chutes, and cascades mostly occur in areas of bedrock or steep-gradient boulder-dominated sections; accumulations of loose rocks that could be used as cover by streamside amphibians are infrequent within associated splash zones and adjacent areas that might be enveloped by splash at higher flows, and the bedrock did not exhibit deep fracturing that could provide hiding

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.4-9 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.4-Wildlife Resources areas and retreats when surface conditions are unfavorable. Flow within tributaries and seeps are not affected by the Project. Based on these observations, a Project effect is unlikely if these species are present.

E.5.4.2.3 Packwood Lake Drawdown Study

There are two wetlands adjacent to Packwood Lake: a large complex of forested and emergent wetlands between Upper Lake Creek and Muller Creek at the head of Packwood Lake, and a smaller area of wetlands near Osprey Creek. A study was conducted that assessed the character and functions of these two wetlands and investigated the level of hydrologic connectivity between the lake level and the groundwater in them (EES Consulting 2007g). The study was completed in coordination with the vegetation mapping and amphibian studies in order to provide information useful for assessing Project effects on botanical resources and amphibians. A summary description of the study is found in Section E.5.2.2.1 of the Water Resources section.

E.5.4.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

The following measures are proposed to address concerns for wildlife affected by the relicensing of the Project.

E.5.4.3.1 Bald Eagle Nesting

No Project effects on bald eagle nesting are known, so no protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures are proposed. Incidental bald eagle observations on or near the project will be recorded and reported in an annual report to the Agencies. Data will include the date, location, number, and behavior of the eagles.

E.5.4.3.2 Raptor Protection - Primary Distribution Line

Electrocutions are rare or nonexistent (none have been reported) because the distances between conductors, and between conductors and grounded hardware, are greater than the wingspan of any avian species. Collisions between birds and transmission lines are difficult to document, however, there are a number of factors that suggest the Packwood primary distribution line does not represent a significant collision risk to avian species in the vicinity. Nevertheless, within one year of license issuance, Energy Northwest proposes to survey Project-related distribution lines to identify the potential for avian electrocution. These include the following:

(1) powerhouse substation vertical configuration poles; (2) tailrace wishbone configuration poles; and (3) Highway US-12 “type line” poles.

Energy Northwest will “raptor-proof” (i.e., rebuild or retrofit) power lines or poles under their control that are involved in a bird fatality or injury. The guidelines provided in the

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.4-10 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.4-Wildlife Resources publication “Avian Protection Plan Guidelines” (APLIC/USFWS 2005), or the most current Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) publication for avian protection will be followed. Should electrocutions or collisions occur in the future, Energy Northwest will follow APLIC guidelines in implementing measures to correct the problem; will keep records (species, location, etc) of any raptor bird fatalities; and will provide the records to the agencies annually.

The cost of the raptor proofing measures described here is expected to be approximately $4,800 for plan development and $8,964 for quarterly inspections and annual reporting.

E.5.4.3.3 Amphibians

Several aquatic protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures are proposed that may affect amphibians. A proposed increase in Lake Creek minimum instream flow releases to 20 cfs during August and September is unlikely to have any adverse effect on amphibians in Lake Creek. An aquatic habitat forming flow release (greater than or equal to 285 cfs for as long as lake inflows can sustain that flow, or a maximum of 24 hours, to occur every other water year1 or 3 out of 6 water years), is likely to be beneficial to coastal tailed frogs and coastal giant salamanders by periodically removing fine sediments from instream habitats.

Amphibians breeding in lacustrine fringe wetlands at the head of Packwood Lake are unlikely to be affected by an earlier annual outage and elimination of the pre-outage drawdown, except in one small, isolated depression where Cascades frog larvae were found in 2006. The larger area used by amphibians would not be dewatered. Because the larger area used by amphibians would not be dewatered, this change in operations should benefit first-year northwestern salamander larvae which are more likely to perish under current operations that dewater this area in September. During the outage, the lake would gradually refill, depending upon 1) the rate of inflow; and 2) the instream flow requirements for Lake Creek.

The proposed change to the winter drawdown will limit potential effects on larval amphibians to one species: northwestern salamander. This is the only species that requires a second growing season before metamorphosing, and thus the only species that would be exposed to a winter drawdown. Amphibian surveys conducted by the Licensee revealed the presence of northwestern salamander larvae at one location on the perimeter of upper Packwood Lake (described as “Site B”). Although contiguous with Packwood Lake, this site is screened from the main body of the lake by large logs, which provide protection from wave action. It is not known whether the logs also pose a barrier to northwestern salamander larvae moving into the lake as water levels decline during drawdown, or whether there may be a sill of accumulated sediments that blocks these movements. The significance of Site B to the local population of northwestern salamander is also undetermined (possibly, northwestern salamander breeds at other undiscovered sites in the large wetland complex southeast of Packwood Lake)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.4-11 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.4-Wildlife Resources

As a PM&E measure to address effects of the drawdown on northwestern salamander, the Licensee will initiate the following monitoring program:

1. In the first year of the new License, Site B will be monitored before and after drawdown to determine: (a) whether northwestern salamander larvae are present, and (b) whether larvae are able to move into the lake, or if there is a barrier to their movement. In September prior to the drawdown Site B will be monitored for larvae. Methods will entail use of dip-net and/or aquatic funnel traps; the number and size (snout-vent length) of larvae found will be recorded. Following the drawdown, Site B will be re-visited and the following information documented: (a) if Site B is not dewatered when examined, the site will again be sampled for larvae; (b) the topography of the site will be documented by field notes and photographs, and the depth of any remaining water within Site B will be measured; and (c) the outlet of Site B to the lake will be examined to determine whether there is a barrier to larval movement into the lake (i.e., do the logs or a sill block movement). If the results of monitoring show that there is not a barrier to northwestern salamander larval movement into the lake, Step 2 (below) would not be required.

2. If the first year monitoring demonstrates that northwestern salamander larvae are unable to move into the lake to survive drawdown, a second year of monitoring would occur as follows to determine the relative importance of Site B to the local population of the species. A post-breeding (probably late May) survey for northwestern salamander egg masses will be conducted in Site B and in the wetland complex southeast of the lake. Because northwestern salamander egg masses are large and conspicuous, a survey at this time would have the highest probability of detection. Two biologists will systematically survey wetlands up to 1 mile from the Packwood Lake and will record the number and location of egg masses. If the survey indicates that the number of northwestern salamander egg masses at Site B is 10% or less than the number of egg masses found elsewhere, no further action will be required. If Site B is found to be relatively more important, then Energy Northwest will consult with the agencies regarding appropriate habitat improvements (e.g., reconfiguring Site B to improve connectivity to the lake).

Costs of the proposed amphibian survey measures are anticipated to total approximately $15,000.

E.5.4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Regardless of the timing of a required annual drawdown of Packwood Lake, it is possible that adverse effects on amphibians may occur because larvae of at least one species (northwestern salamander) could be present at any time. However, this is not a new condition associated with the relicensing of the Project. Rather, it should be considered part of the baseline conditions for environmental analysis. Furthermore, the proposed change in the winter drawdown schedule, whereby it will occur much more gradually, instead of within a two week period as happens now, is expected to minimize

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.4-12 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.4-Wildlife Resources any possible effects on amphibians. No other unavoidable adverse effects on wildlife are believed to be likely.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.4-13 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.5-Botanical Resources

E.5.5 Botanical Resources

E.5.5.1 Affected Environment

E.5.5.1.1 Vegetation Cover Types

A variety of upland, wetland, and riparian vegetation cover types occur in the Project vicinity. Lacustrine and riverine open water habitats associated with Packwood Lake, Lake Creek, the Cowlitz River, and the Project tailrace are also identifiable as non- vegetated cover types. For descriptive purposes, the area within 100 meters surrounding the FERC Project boundary, Lake Creek below Packwood Lake, and Project-affected access roads were mapped for cover types and the results are summarized below in Section E.5.5.2.1. The hydrology of wetlands located adjacent to Packwood Lake was also assessed (see Section E.5.2.2.1 of Exhibit E).

E.5.5.1.2 Noxious Weeds

Prior to relicensing, information on invasive weeds and botanical resources generally in and near the Project area was limited (Energy Northwest 2004c). No known dedicated invasive weed surveys had been conducted in USDA Forest Service-managed portions of the Project area. A invasive weed survey of limited scope was conducted in 2004 along the Project tailrace, around the stilling basin, and along Lake Creek from its confluence with the Cowlitz River upstream to the Forest Service property boundary (DTA 2004).

E.5.5.1.3 Rare Plant Species

A discussion of rare plants in and around the Project area can be found in the Rare, Threatened and Endangered Section of Exhibit E in Section E.5.6.

E.5.5.2 Environmental Analysis

E.5.5.2.1 Vegetation Cover Types

Cover-type mapping encompassed all lands within 100 meters of the Project Boundary, as well as all lands within 100 meters of the centerline of Project-related roads and trails (Pipeline Road [FS Road 1260-066], Latch Road [FS Road 1262], and Trail #74), Lake Creek below Packwood Lake, and the wetland complex associated with Hall Creek, although this wetland extends more than 100 meters beyond the Project Boundary. The principal purposes of the study were to enable revision of existing Forest Service cover type maps, interpretation of aerial ortho-photographs, and extensive ground-truthing at representative locations. Study products included a GIS-based map depicting major vegetation cover types. The study area covered approximately 2,181 acres, of which 461 acres were bodies of water (principally Packwood Lake and Cowlitz River).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.5-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.5-Botanical Resources

Mapping results, summarized in Table E.5.5-1, indicated that upland forests are the predominant cover types in the study area (61% of the study area and 78% of the area excluding water bodies). Two of the types are USDA Forest Service forest zones or series, as defined by USDA Forest Service Plant Association and Management Guides (Brockway et al. 1983, Topik et al. 1986). Forest series are based on site potential, largely governed by elevation. The Silver Fir series has a limited distribution in the study area, occurring only around parts of Packwood Lake and other relatively high elevation areas, whereas the Western Hemlock series is more widely mapped. Western Hemlock stands were typically characterized by one or more of the following coniferous trees: western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata). Subdominant species include Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), vine maple (Acer circinatum), and red alder (Alnus rubra). Salal (Gaultheria shallon) and dwarf Oregon-grape (Mahonia nervosa) were the most commonly occurring shrubs at ground-truth sampling points. Dominant tree species at the Pacific Silver Fir sampling plots were also Douglas-fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock; Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis) occurred at only three of nine sampling plots, and was co-dominant at only one of these. The most common shrubs were vine maple, Alaskan huckleberry (Vaccinium alaskense), salal, and dwarf Oregon-grape.

Table E.5.5-1. Summary of Mapped Cover Types in the Study Area. Cover Type Acreage Description Uplands Upland coniferous forest type at lower elevations; site potential Western Hemlock1 1,019 for western hemlock. Pacific Silver Fir1 Upland coniferous forest type at higher elevation; site potential for 308 Pacific silver fir. Upland forest type with a mixture of conifer and deciduous broad- Mixed Forest2 12 leaved species. Occurring in small, fragmented or disturbed stands. Upland, non-forested type dominated by grasses or low growing Field2 13 weedy species; maintained by mowing or other regular disturbance. Talus slopes, sometimes with associated cliffs or bedrock Boulder/Talus2 2 outcrops. Sometimes vegetated by vine maple or scattered conifers Wetland and Riparian Palustrine Emergent Wetlands characterized by rooted herbs. Hydrologic 92 Wetland2 characteristics and landscape setting variable. Palustrine Scrub- Wetlands dominated by shrubs. Hydrologic characteristics and 1 Shrub Wetland2 landscape setting variable. Palustrine Forested Wetlands dominated by trees. Hydrologic characteristics and 61 Wetland2 landscape setting variable. Forests associated with streams and rivers. Along high order Riparian Forest2 53 streams may not be discernibly different from upland forests. Developed or Non-vegetated Residential, Industrial, 129 All developed areas including the Project facilities. or Roads1 Non-vegetated1 23 Barren or sparsely vegetated areas. Unconsolidated Barren or sparsely vegetated alluvium (e.g. sand or gravel bars). 7 Shore2 Mapped only by Cowlitz River.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.5-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.5-Botanical Resources

Table E.5.5-1. Summary of Mapped Cover Types in the Study Area. Cover Type Acreage Description Water Bodies of water, notably Packwood Lake at summer operational Lakes, rivers, etc.3 461 level (approximately 2857 ft elevation), and Cowlitz River. 1Cover type categories used in Forest Service GIS data. 2Descriptive cover type used for this study (not included in Forest Service data). 3Does not include bodies too small or narrow to be not easily discernible on ortho-photographs.

Stand age in areas mapped as Western Hemlock and Pacific Silver Fir series varied considerably (less than 10 to 347 years old [USDA Forest Service Undated]), but most of the forested area mapped on either side of Lake Creek on Forest Service lands are old-growth forest stands, which have never been harvested. Similarly, Packwood Lake is generally surrounded by old-growth stands.

Three other upland cover types were defined during the cover-typing study to address habitats not described by the USDA Forest Service: Mixed Forest, Field, and Boulder/Talus. Although distinct, these are uncommon cover types, each occurring on fewer than 15 acres within the study area. Of these, Mixed Forest and Field cover types are restricted to lower Project elevations.

Riparian Forest cover types were mapped along Lake Creek and around the portion of the study area on the Cowlitz River. The riparian zone mapped along Lake Creek was approximated because a distinct vegetation type was generally not discernible on aerial ortho-photographs. No riparian vegetation types were differentiated in the Forest Service GIS base-map; therefore, no pre-existing data were available to describe the extent or composition of riparian communities within the study area. Riparian habitats were differentiated in the study based on the dominant vegetation, resulting in three mapped types: Red Alder Dominated, Black Cottonwood Dominated, and Mixed Riparian (in which there was not a clear dominant species). The Lake Creek riparian zone is mostly narrow, reflecting steep-gradients, narrow valley form, and limited floodplain. In addition to red alder and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera var. trichocarpa), big-leaf maple, western red cedar, western hemlock, and Pacific silver fir sometimes occurred within riparian areas, but usually as sub-dominant species. Shrubs found in Riparian Forests included vine maple, salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), stink currant (Ribes bracteosum), Devil’s club (Oplopanax horridum), willows (Salix spp.), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis).

Three wetland cover types occur, each classified according to dominance by herbaceous species (Palustrine Emergent), shrubs (Palustrine Scrub-shrub), or trees (Palustrine Forested). The two largest wetland complexes in the study area are associated with Hall Creek and upper Packwood Lake, respectively. Apparent sources of hydrology of the Hall Creek wetland are several small streams (Hall Creek, Snyder Creek, Hager Creek, and another unnamed creek); the outlet (Hall Creek) flows to the southwest. The majority of the Hall Creek Palustrine Emergent Wetland was classified as seasonally flooded (about 36 acres); semi-permanently flooded Palustrine Emergent Wetland (13 acres) was mostly confined to channels and deeper depressions.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.5-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.5-Botanical Resources

Dominant species in this wetland included slough sedge (Carex obnupta), small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), manna grass (Glyceria sp.), and reed canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea).

Wetlands southeast at the head of Packwood Lake were mostly mapped as Palustrine Forest with a small area of Palustrine Emergent. These wetlands extend well beyond the study area boundary and include areas dominated by red alder, black cottonwood, and western red cedar. Much of this wetland is seasonally flooded or seasonally saturated, but the only significant depressional areas were on the margin of Packwood Lake. Shrub cover in forested areas ranged from about 10-30% and was dominated by red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) and vine maple. Herbaceous cover at sampling points was 70-90%; representative species were lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina), skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum), cow-parsnip (Heracleum lanatum), Cooley’s hedge- nettle (Stachys cooleyae), mitrewort (Mitella sp.), piggy-back plant (Tolmiea menziesii), forget-me-not (Myosotis laxa), and monkey-flower (Mimulus sp.). The hydrology of these wetlands appears to be complex, with a groundwater aspect, but is driven by stream discharge through an alluvial valley (Kent Doughty, EES Consulting, personal communication), and affected by Packwood Lake only at the margin (see Section E.5.5.2.2).

The wetland complex adjacent to Osprey Creek includes both palustrine emergent seasonally flooded and palustrine forested wetlands dominated by red alder (DTA 2007c). Other tree species in this wetland include mountain hemlock and red cedar. A band of scirpus sp. 10-20 wide extends back from the shoreline. There is abundant downed large woody debris throughout this wetland.

The occurrence and distribution of vegetation cover types is largely unrelated to Project operations. However, Project related maintenance of roads and trails, and the right-of- way associated with the penstock, pipeline, and tailrace is required for access to Project facilities. Periodic manual or mechanical brush clearing or mowing maintains these areas in a non-forested condition. These effects are highly localized, although they may influence the occurrence and distribution of invasive weeds. Similarly, water level changes associated with Project operation of Packwood Lake do not evidently affect the occurrence of wetland cover types, but potentially affect existing invasive weed populations. Invasive weed issues are described in detail below.

E.5.5.2.2 Packwood Lake Drawdown Study

A study was conducted that assessed the character and functions of the two large wetlands adjacent to Packwood Lake (the wetland complex between Upper Lake Creek and Muller Creek, and a complex near Osprey Creek; see Figure E.5.2-2 in the Water Resources Section of Exhibit E), and investigated the level of hydrologic connectivity between the lake level and the groundwater in them. The study was completed in coordination with the vegetation mapping and amphibian studies; these latter two studies contributed information useful for assessing Project effects. The Final Packwood Lake Drawdown Study Report provides data on the hydrologic connectivity

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.5-4 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.5-Botanical Resources

between lake level and groundwater level within wetlands (EES Consulting 2007g). The Final Vegetation Cover Type Mapping Study Report (DTA 2007c) documents vegetation cover types and plant species communities within the wetlands.

The two large wetland complexes adjacent to Packwood Lake showed very different responses to drawdown. The wetland complex adjacent to Osprey Creek includes both palustrine emergent seasonally flooded and palustrine forested wetlands dominated by red alder. Other tree species in this wetland include mountain hemlock and red cedar. There is abundant downed large woody debris. The upslope hydrology was the primary determinant of groundwater hydrology for this wetland complex, and the soils in this wetland are saturated near the surface nearly year-round regardless of lake level. Water level within the piezometers was unresponsive to lake level drawdowns. Shallow groundwater hydrology supporting wetlands adjacent to Osprey Creek was very stable throughout the monitoring period.

The effect of lake drawdown on the hydrology of the wetland complex at the upper end of the lake was most pronounced adjacent to the lake at the outlet of Muller Creek. The lake level had very little effect on wetland hydrology at a point approximately 200 ft from the shoreline for the eastern portion (closer to Lake Creek). The soil hydrology of the portion of this wetland closer to Muller Creek was a function of lake level during the drier months (July - October) and a function of upslope hydrology during wetter months. Even in areas where the water table dropped below the typical vegetation root zone of 18 inches, the high clay content of the soil kept it at or near saturation. See the Final Packwood Lake Drawdown Study Report for detailed description of the study and hydrologic data (EES Consulting 2007g).

E.5.5.2.3 Noxious Weed Study Results

The noxious weed survey of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric study area focused on locating, documenting and mapping weed species listed by the Lewis County Noxious Weed Control Board (LCWCB) as Class A, Class B designate, Class B select, and Class C select. The presence of Class B and Class C weeds within the study area was noted. Complete lists of noxious weeds for Lewis County may be found at: https://fortress.wa.gov/lewisco/home/lc/WeedControl/WeedList.aspx. Categories of noxious weeds are defined as follows (LCWCB 2006):

Class A weeds are non-native species with a limited distribution in the state. Eradication of all Class A weeds is required by law.

Class B weeds are established in some regions of Washington, but are of limited distribution or not present in other regions of the state. Because of differences in distribution, treatment of Class B weeds varies between regions of the state. Class B designate weed species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet widespread. Class B select weed species are those for which there is mandatory control in selected areas in Lewis County.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.5-5 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.5-Botanical Resources

Class C weeds are non-native species that are already widely distributed in Washington or are of special interest to the state’s agricultural industry. Placement on the state Class C noxious weed list allows counties to enforce control if locally desired. Class C select weed species are those for which there is mandatory control in selected areas in Lewis County.

Noxious weed surveys at the Project focused on species the Forest Service was tracking as noxious weeds in addition to those listed by the LCWCB. The Noxious Weed Study Plan and the Noxious Weed Final Report, which details the survey and findings, can be found on the Energy Northwest website: http://www.energy- northwest.com/generation/packwood/relicensing/Aquatic_studyplan_reports.php (Beck Botanical Services 2007a). The Noxious Weed Study area (or Study area) is larger than, and includes the Project area such that some of the noxious weeds located in the Study area are not included within the Project boundary. Figure E.5.5-1 displays the Study area, Project area, and the approximate locations of noxious weed infestations located during the Noxious Weed Survey.

Field surveys for noxious weeds were conducted for five days in late July 2005, seven days in mid-July 2006, and August 23, 2006. No Class A noxious weeds were located in the Study area. Two Class B designate, one Class B select, and three Class C select noxious weeds were found in the Study area (Table E.5.5-2). Populations of meadow knapweed, Canada thistle, and reed canary-grass were found on Forest Service land.

Table E.5.5-2. Class B designate, Class B select, and Class C select noxious weeds observed in the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Study Area, 2005-2006 (LCWCB 2007). Population Size and Common Name Scientific Name Class General Location Butterfly bush Buddleja davidii C select Small population on Cowlitz River gravel bar near tailrace Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa B designate Small population along the tailrace Meadow knapweed Centaurea jacea x nigra B designate Medium population along FS (moncktonii) Roads 1260 and 1262, on FS land Canada thistle Cirsium arvense C select Medium/large population at southeast end of Packwood Lake, on FS land Reed canary-grass Phalaris arundinacea C select Small patches on margin of Packwood Lake, FS land Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum B select Small population on side channel of Cowlitz River

Noxious weed infestations degrade native vegetation and wildlife habitats and are typically associated with natural or human-caused disturbances. Ground disturbance and noxious weed introduction and spread in the Project area are caused by a variety of factors, only some of which are Project related. For example, the roads and trails associated with the Project are also maintained and open for public use. Project related and non-Project related use and maintenance of right-of-ways, roads, penstock,

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.5-6 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.5-Botanical Resources

Figure E.5.5-1. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Noxious Weed Study Area Map

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.5-7 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.5-Botanical Resources pipeline, tailrace, trails, and power lines create disturbed habitat in the Project area where weeds tend to a have a competitive advantage over native plant species. Once noxious weeds are established in an area, they are often self-sustaining regardless of whether the disturbance continues. On-going operation of the Project may provide avenues for noxious weed introduction, establishment and spread. Other uses in and around the Project area, including recreation, hiking and pack animal use may also provide avenues for noxious weed introduction, establishment and spread.

The fall drawdown beginning in mid-September has a limited effect in lowering the groundwater table at the two largest wetland complexes adjacent to Packwood Lake. The drawdown affects only the margin of the wetland at the upper end of Packwood Lake and a small area around the outlet of Osprey Creek. For the wetland at the upper end of Packwood Lake, noxious weeds are localized in areas closest to the lake shoreline. Although soil moisture in this area is a function of lake level, the soil dries out in the summer despite elevated lake level (EES Consulting 2007g). The apparent absence of noxious weeds in other parts of this wetland may be related to various factors including hydrologic differences and greater canopy shading. Noxious weeds were not found at Osprey Creek.

Noxious weeds present in the Project area include: meadow knapweed, Japanese knotweed, butterfly bush, diffuse knapweed, Canada thistle, and reed canary grass. These weeds are associated with various types of disturbance, whether or not they are a direct result of Project-related activities. It is not known how long these populations have been present in the Project area or how they were introduced. Energy Northwest has a noxious weed control plan, which establishes responsibilities and requirements for the control of noxious weed infestations, and which addresses noxious weed species currently present in the Project area (Energy Northwest 2007g). Noxious weed control efforts in the Project area will be done in coordination with the USDA Forest Service and the Lewis County Noxious Weed Control Board.

E.5.5.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

Energy Northwest proposes to continue to shut down the Project annually to perform scheduled equipment maintenance. The Project will begin shutting down for the annual outage on August 15 of each operating year. The intent is to complete all major maintenance and inspections within the first three weeks of the outage and perform all testing and preparation for startup in the fourth week. Operations will resume by September 15, or earlier if all necessary work has been completed. Currently the lake is drawn down prior to the annual outage in October. Energy Northwest proposes that this pre-outage drawdown be eliminated. Scheduling the drawdown beginning September 15 (following the annual maintenance outage) and eliminating the lake drawdown prior to the outage during summer months will have no negative impact on wetland plants relative to natural conditions.

Energy Northwest proposes a minimum lake level of 2849.0 ft MSL for the period September 16 through April 30. Lowering the lake below 2855.5 ft MSL in October

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.5-8 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.5-Botanical Resources could result in temporary lowering of the groundwater table for a portion of the wetland complex at the upper end of the lake. However, Energy Northwest proposes that the post-outage drawdown to be conducted over six weeks, from September 16 to October 31, rather than over two weeks, as occurs under the current license. This more gradual drawdown will greatly minimize or even eliminate effects on the wetland complex. Groundwater level is a function of upslope hydrology for the majority of this wetland complex. By November, the increase in seasonal precipitation results in no effect on groundwater from lake level regulation. The Project effect would be no greater than occurs for existing conditions.

Energy Northwest currently has a Noxious Weed Control Plan in place, which addresses invasive weed infestations present in the Project area and which establishes responsibilities and requirements for the control of invasive weed infestations at the Project (Energy Northwest 2007g). The plan is attached as Appendix E to this application. As agreed with the Forest Service, Energy Northwest proposed that the plan will be revised and incorporated into an Integrated Weed Management Plan that will be developed in consultation with the Forest Service. The plan will be updated every 5 years, to include changes in the Lewis County noxious weed list and management guidelines and the requirements for management of weeds on Forest Service land, including the Gifford Pinchot National Forest Site Specific Invasive Plant Treatment DEIS, and the Region 6 Invasive Plant FEIS and Record of Decision.

The Integrated Weed Management Plan will provide a framework for consultation about invasive weed management between Energy Northwest, the Forest Service, private landowners, and appropriate agencies. Any revegetation of Forest Service lands will be done according to USDA Forest Service Region 6 policy.

Based on the results of the Noxious Weed Study, site-specific treatments within the Project boundary will be proposed for three weed species at three sites on Forest Service lands; including populations of reed canary-grass and Canada thistle at Packwood Lake (within the Goat Rocks Wilderness Area), and meadow knapweed along Forest Service Road 1262. Control work within the Project area will be coordinated with the Forest Service such that the Forest Service will control invasive weeds outside the Project boundary at the same time.

In addition, site-specific weed treatments are proposed for two species at two sites on private lands in the Project area: diffuse knapweed and butterfly bush. This work will be done in consultation with the LCWCB. The Japanese knotweed site is outside of the Project area. Potential treatments for both Forest Service, private, and Energy Northwest lands will include a variety of methods: manual methods, physical methods, biological control, herbicide application, and control by planting other species to shade out undesirable weed populations. Where practical, manual and/or mechanical methods will be used. Energy Northwest has no obligation to control invasive weeds outside of its Project area boundaries.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.5-9 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.5-Botanical Resources

Due to the importance of early detection and treatment of new invasive weed infestations, invasive weed surveys of the Project area will be periodically performed at an interval set in the Integrated Weed Management Plan for the duration of the License period. Areas within the Project boundary that have a higher likelihood of being infested with new populations of invasive weeds would receive a higher survey priority. The survey and documentation protocol outlined in the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Noxious Weed Survey study plan would form the basis of the survey.

Cost Estimate and Schedule

Energy Northwest will develop an Integrated Weed Management Plan for the Project using the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Noxious Weed Control Plan as the basis. The plan will be updated every 5 years, and updates in the plan would reflect changes in the Lewis County Noxious Weed List and new treatments protocols.

Within a year of the issuance of the Final License and after the issuance of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest Site Specific Invasive Plant Treatment FEIS, Energy Northwest will consult with the USFS to create a framework to provide site-specific management plans to control and monitor three invasive weed species on USFS lands. Control and monitoring of these invasive weed infestations would be done yearly. Within a year of the issuance of the Final License, Energy Northwest will consult with LCWCB to create site specific management plans to control and monitor two invasive weed species on private lands in the Project area. Control and monitoring of these invasive weed infestations would be done yearly. Due to the importance of early detection and treatment of new invasive weed infestations, invasive weed surveys of the Project area will be periodically performed at an interval set in the Integrated Weed Management Plan for the duration of the License period. Areas within the Project area that have a higher likelihood of being infested with new populations of invasive weeds would receive a higher survey priority. The survey and documentation protocol outlined in the Noxious Weed Survey study plan would form the basis of the survey.

The annual cost of plan development, updates and weed control efforts is estimated to be approximately $13,200.

E.5.5.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

All invasive weed control activities would be conducted in accordance with Forest Service and LCWCB laws and regulations, and would seek to minimize unavoidable adverse impacts of invasive weed control on associated fish, wildlife and plant species. Unavoidable adverse impacts of site-specific invasive weed control efforts in the Project area might include localized ground disturbance, the removal of some desirable plants, effects to animal species, and herbicide drift. The magnitude of these effects depends on the treatment chosen, application method, timing of treatment, size of infestation, and habitat of the target species (wetland or upland). These adverse impacts, if any, would be short-term in nature.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.5-10 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.5-Botanical Resources

Weed control efforts would ultimately reduce the negative effects of invasive weeds in the vicinity of the Project and would contribute to the overall enhancement and protection of native plant and wildlife habitats.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.5-11 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

E.5.6 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species

This section discusses the rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) species as they pertain to the Project. This discussion is broken out by resource area (fishery, wildlife, and botanical resources) for each level of governmental listing (federal threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), USDA Forest Service sensitive species, and Washington State listed species). A Biological Assessment, including an Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, has been prepared and is located in Appendix D to the FLA.

E.5.6.1 Affected Environment (Fishery Resources)

E.5.6.1.1 Federal Endangered and Threatened Species

Both National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have identified listed and proposed species that may occur within the Project area (see Table E.5.6-1). They include Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (O. kisutch), chum salmon (O. keta), steelhead trout (O. mykiss), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Chum salmon and bull trout are not considered to be distributed in the upper Cowlitz River subbasin. Sea-run cutthroat trout (O. clarki clarki) were once proposed for listing, but USFWS withdrew them from consideration. As a result, bull trout, chum salmon and sea-run cutthroat trout will not be addressed

Table E.5.6-1. List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species-Fish Species Federal Status Presence Within Project Vicinity Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon Threatened Present Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon Threatened Present Lower Columbia River Steelhead Trout Threatened Present Columbia River Bull Trout Threatened Not Present Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon Threatened Not Present

E.5.6.1.1.1 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon

Background West coast Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) found in the Cowlitz River system belong to the Lower Columbia River Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), as defined by NMFS. NMFS completed a comprehensive status review of 15 ESUs and on March 24, 1999 listed the Lower Columbia River ESU of Chinook as threatened. That status was re- affirmed on June 28, 2005. The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from the Columbia River and its tributaries from its mouth at the Pacific Ocean upstream to a transitional point between Washington and Oregon east of the Hood River and the White Salmon River, and includes the Willamette River to Willamette Falls, Oregon, exclusive of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Clackamas River, as well as seventeen artificial propagation programs: the Sea Resources Tule Chinook Program, Big Creek Tule Chinook Program, Astoria High School (STEP) Tule Chinook Program, Warrenton High School (STEP) Tule Chinook Program, Elochoman River Tule Chinook Program, Cowlitz Tule Chinook Program, North Fork Toutle Tule

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Chinook Program, Kalama Tule Chinook Program, Washougal River Tule Chinook Program, Spring Creek NFH Tule Chinook Program, Cowlitz spring Chinook Program in the Upper Cowlitz River and the Cispus River, Friends of the Cowlitz spring Chinook Program, Kalama River spring Chinook Program, Lewis River spring Chinook Program, Fish First spring Chinook Program, and the Sandy River Hatchery (ODFW stock #11) Chinook hatchery programs (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon- Populations/Chinook/ CKLCR.cfm).

The abundances of natural-origin spawners range from near extirpation for most of the spring-run populations to over 7,841 for the Lewis River bright population. The fall-run tule populations include a substantial percentage of hatchery-origin spawners and may be sustained largely by hatchery production. Although quantitative information is not yet available, preliminary examination of scales indicates that almost all current spring-run spawners in the Washington part of the Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU are of hatchery origin. The majority of the spring run populations have been extirpated, largely as the result of dams blocking access to their high elevation habitat. The two bright Chinook populations (i.e., Lewis and Sandy) have relatively high abundances, particularly the Lewis (cited from http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ ESA-Salmon- Listings/Salmon-Populations/ Chinook/ CKLCR. cfm).

The Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2016) was required to plant spring Chinook and coho salmon fry and fingerlings in tributaries of the upper Cowlitz River. Records show that 24,500 coho were planted in Lake Creek in 1976, 297,500 spring Chinook were planted in 1977, and 107,800 coho were planted in 1982 (Stober 1986). Other streams in which fry and fingerlings were planted include Johnson Creek, Butter Creek, Skate Creek, Hall Creek, Smith Creek, Silver Creek, and the Ohanapecosh River. Chinook have been observed below the Project tailrace and in Lake Creek below the chute at RM 1.03 (Energy Northwest 2004c).

Current Status of Species The Lower Columbia River ESU exhibits three major life history types: fall run (tules), late-fall run (brights), and spring run. The ESU spans three ecological zones: coastal (rain-driven hydrograph), western Cascade (snow- or glacial-driven hydrograph), and Columbia Gorge (transitioning to drier interior Columbia River basin ecological zones). The fall-run Chinook salmon populations are currently dominated by large-scale hatchery production, relatively high harvest, and extensive habitat degradation (discussed in previous status reviews). The Lewis River late-fall-run Chinook salmon population is the healthiest in the ESU and has a reasonable probability of being self- sustaining. The spring-run populations are largely extirpated as the result of dams, which block access to their high-elevation habitat. Abundances have largely declined since the last status review update (1998), and trend indicators for most populations are negative, especially if hatchery fish are assumed to have a reproductive success equivalent to that of natural-origin fish. In 2001, however, abundance estimates increased over the previous few years for most of the lower Columbia River ESU Chinook salmon populations. (Status information cited from http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/ Chinook/ CKLCR.cfm).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Life History Historically, spawning of Cowlitz spring Chinook occurred above Tacoma’s Mayfield Dam site, particularly in the mainstem Cowlitz River above Packwood and in the Cispus River. The historical upper Cowlitz River adult population is estimated from 35,000 to 60,000 fish (Northwest Power and Conservation Council [NPCC] 2004a). Completion of Mayfield Dam blocked access above the dam. Spring Chinook were passed over the dam from 1962-1966. From 1974-1980, spring Chinook were hauled to the upper Cowlitz River. A returning adult trap and haul program began in 1994. Spring Chinook enter the Cowlitz River from March through June (NPCC 2004b). Natural spawning for spring Chinook occurs between late August and early October, with spawning primarily occurring in the mainstem upper Cowlitz River above Packwood and in the Cispus River between Iron and East Canyon creeks (NPCC 2004a). Fry emerge between November and March, depending on time of egg deposition and water temperature; spring Chinook fry spend one full year in fresh water, and emigrate in their second spring as age-2 smolts (Energy Northwest 2004c).

Historically, fall Chinook were distributed from the Cowlitz River mouth to upper tributaries such as the Ohanapecosh and Tilton rivers. Fall Chinook were passed over the dam from 1962 to 1966. From 1967 to 1980, small numbers of fall Chinook were hauled to the Tilton and upper Cowlitz rivers. A returning adult trap and haul program began in 1994. Fall Chinook enter the Cowlitz River from early September to late November. Natural spawning occurs between mid-August and the end of September in the Project area (J. Serl, WDFW, pers. communication, May 10, 2007). Fry emerge around March or April, depending on time of egg deposition and water temperature; fall Chinook fry spend the spring in fresh water and emigrate in the summer as subyearlings (Energy Northwest 2004c).

Current Distribution in the Project Area Currently, the Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project traps and hauls spring Chinook salmon from below the project’s dams and releases them into the upper Cowlitz River. Lower Columbia River Spring Chinook have been found in the upper Cowlitz River, lower Lake Creek and in the tailrace slough below the Project tailrace. A natural barrier at RM 1.03 prevents Chinook salmon access above that point in Lake Creek. See the Anadromous Salmonid Habitat and Spawning Survey Final Report (EES Consulting 2007c) for further details.

Critical Habitat The Endangered Species Act (Act), Section 3(5)(A) defines "critical habitat" for a threatened or endangered species as:

(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of this Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species, and

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

(II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

A final designation was published on September 2, 2005, for Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU, Upper Cowlitz River subbasin, effective January 2, 2006. Critical habitat is found in the mainstem Cowlitz River, but does not include Lake Creek or other tributaries within the Project (Figure E.5.6-1).

E.5.6.1.1.2 Coho Salmon

Background Completion of Tacoma Power’s Mayfield Dam (FERC No. 2016) on the Cowlitz River in 1962 blocked access above the dam for coho. A returning adult trap and haul program began in 1994. The record shows coho were historically abundant in the Cowlitz River, with an estimated historical upper Cowlitz adult coho population ranging from 20,000 to 70,000 fish (NPCC 2004b). Thompson and Rothfus (1969 as cited in Harza 1996) reported coho spawning in most reaches and tributaries of the Cowlitz River, with coho counts at the Mayfield Dam site ranging from 22,701 to 31,000 between 1961 through 1969. Adult hatchery escapement at the Cowlitz Falls Salmon Hatchery ranged from 4,913 to 63,407 during 1967 - 1994, with an average return of 23,000 adults (Harza 1996).

Current Status of Species Originally part of a larger Lower Columbia River/Southwest Washington ESU, Lower Columbia coho were identified as a separate ESU and listed as threatened on June 28, 2005. The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in the Columbia River and its tributaries in Washington and Oregon, from the mouth of the Columbia up to and including the Big White Salmon and Hood Rivers, and includes the Willamette River to Willamette Falls, Oregon, as well as 25 artificial propagation programs: the Grays River, Sea Resources Hatchery, Peterson Coho Project, Big Creek Hatchery, Astoria High School (STEP) Coho Program, Warrenton High School (STEP) Coho Program, Elochoman Type-S Coho Program, Elochoman Type-N Coho Program, Cathlamet High School FFA Type-N Coho Program, Cowlitz Type-N Coho Program in the Upper and Lower Cowlitz Rivers, Cowlitz Game and Anglers Coho Program,

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-4 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Figure E.5.6-1. Final Critical Habitat for the Lower Columbia River, Chinook Salmon ESU, Upper Cowlitz River Subbasin

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-5 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Friends of the Cowlitz Coho Program, North Fork Toutle River Hatchery, Kalama River Type-N Coho Program, Kalama River Type-S Coho Program, Washougal Hatchery Type-N Coho Program, Lewis River Type-N Coho Program, Lewis River Type-S Coho Program, Fish First Wild Coho Program, Fish First Type-N Coho Program, Syverson Project Type-N Coho Program, Eagle Creek National Fish Hatchery, Sandy Hatchery, and the Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow complex coho hatchery programs (cited from: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Coho/COLCR cfm).

Life History Coho life histories are extremely variable, and coho examined in different years or from different locations or habitats within a basin may display different life history characteristics. The majority of coho salmon adults are 3-year-olds, having spent approximately 18 months in fresh water. The primary exception to this pattern are jacks, sexually mature males that return to freshwater to spawn after only 5-7 months in the ocean (Weitkamp et al. 1995).

The timing of upstream migrations is influenced by many factors; one of the most important appears to be river flow (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Coho salmon wait for freshets before entering rivers, so a delay in fall rains delays river entry and, potentially, time of spawning as well. Adult coho typically begin to enter the Cowlitz River from the ocean from August through February.

The majority of coho returns are late stock, which spawn from late November to March. Natural spawning occurs in the mainstem and tributaries of the upper Cowlitz, Cispus, and Tilton rivers. Juvenile rearing occurs upstream and downstream of spawning areas. Juveniles rear for a full year before migrating as yearlings in the spring (NPCC 2004a).

Coho juveniles in the Cowlitz River appear to reside in the river for one year before migrating downstream. While in freshwater streams, juvenile coho generally require habitat created by large woody debris and streamside vegetation. To survive during the winter, juvenile coho need to find shelter to avoid being swept downstream in the high flows. Coho escape to slow-flowing backwater areas, side-channels, beaver ponds, and wetlands.

Habitat destruction (including lack of suitable winter habitat and increases in stream temperatures during the summer months), overfishing, artificial propagation, and poor ocean conditions have been cited as the causes of decline for coho salmon. Up to 80% of coho spawning in the Cowlitz are hatchery stock (Harza 1996; DE&S 1999).

Current Distribution in the Project Area Currently, the lower Cowlitz River projects trap and haul coho salmon from below the dams to the upper Cowlitz River. Coho have been found in the upper Cowlitz River, lower Lake Creek and in the tailrace slough below the Project tailrace. A natural barrier at RM 1.03 on Lake Creek prevents access above that point in Lake Creek. See Anadromous Salmonid Habitat and Spawning Survey Final Report (EES Consulting

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-6 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

2007c) for further details. Coho salmon are the most abundant of the federal ESA-listed species in the vicinity of the proposed barrier as well in the Project stilling basin and tailrace.

Critical Habitat There is currently no critical habitat proposed for Lower Columbia River coho salmon.

E.5.6.1.1.3 Steelhead Trout

Background Lower Columbia River steelhead (O. mykiss) populations are listed as threatened under the ESA (3/19/98;63 FR 13347). The state of Washington has initiated the Lower Columbia Steelhead Conservation Initiative (LCSCI) in an effort to develop a comprehensive approach to evaluate and restore Washington steelhead populations. Historically, winter steelhead trout were distributed throughout the upper Cowlitz, Cispus, and Tilton rivers. The estimated upper Cowlitz winter steelhead adult population is 2,000 to 17,000 fish (Northwest Power and Conservation Council 2004a).

Current Status of Species Listed as a threatened species on March 19, 1998; threatened status reaffirmed on January 5, 2006. The Distinct Population Segment (DPS) includes all naturally spawned anadromous steelhead populations below natural and manmade impassable barriers in streams and tributaries to the Columbia River between the Cowlitz and Wind rivers, Washington (inclusive), and the Willamette and Hood rivers, Oregon (inclusive), as well as ten artificial propagation programs: the Cowlitz Trout Hatchery (in the Cispus, Upper Cowlitz, Lower Cowlitz, and Tilton rivers), Kalama River Wild (winter- and summer-run), Clackamas Hatchery, Sandy Hatchery, and Hood River (winter- and summer-run) steelhead hatchery programs. Excluded are O. mykiss populations in the upper Willamette River basin above Willamette Falls, Oregon, and from the Little and Big White Salmon rivers, Washington. (cited from: (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA- Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Steelhead/Index.cfm).

Life History Steelhead trout, the anadromous form of rainbow trout, have a variable life history pattern. There are two distinct races of steelhead in the Cowlitz River - summer-run and winter-run, determined by the timing of spawning and extent of sexual maturity upon return to freshwater (Harza 1996).

Summer-run steelhead were rare in the Cowlitz River prior to implementation of a planting program in 1968. Of the 54,044 steelhead counted from 1962 through 1966 at Mayfield Dam, only 75 were observed during the July through October period (Thompson and Rothfus 1969, as cited in Harza 1996). The Cowlitz Trout Hatchery now produces 400,000 summer-run smolts annually for a projected return of 12,700 fish for sport harvest. Average return to the hatchery has ranged from 2,410 in 1988/89 to 16,429 in 1993/94 (Harza 1996, Table 4.5-2). Currently summer steelhead enter the Cowlitz River as immature fish from April through October, with spawning occurring

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-7 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

from December through May. Fry emergence begins in March. Juvenile steelhead spend two years in freshwater, the first year rearing as smolts in the hatchery (WDW 1990 as cited in Harza 1996).

Winter steelhead were historically more abundant in the Cowlitz River prior to construction of the Mayfield Dam, with an annual run estimated at 22,000 fish (Moore and Clark 1948 as cited in Harza 1996). Currently the Cowlitz Trout Hatchery production goals are 600,000 smolts annually, with estimated adult returns ranging from 8,339 in 1990/91 to 30,200 in 1994/95 (Harza 1996, Table 4.5-2).

Known spawning areas included the mainstem Cowlitz River near Riffe and the reach between the Muddy Fork and the Clear Fork and the lower Ohanapecosh River. Adult migration timing for Cowlitz winter steelhead is from December through April (Northwest Power and Conservation Council 2004b). Spawning time is generally March to June. Juvenile rearing occurs both downstream and upstream of the spawning areas (Northwest Power and Conservation Council 2004a). Wild steelhead fry emerge from March through May; juveniles generally rear in fresh water for two years; juvenile emigration occurs from April to May, with peak migration in early May (Northwest Power and Conservation Council 2004b). A returning adult trap and haul program was begun in 1994 (Northwest Power and Conservation Council 2004b as cited in Energy Northwest 2004c).

Adult steelhead trout require cool, deep holding pools during the summer and fall to rest in prior to spawning. Habitat requirements for young steelhead include large woody debris, and a complex habitat of slow-flowing backwater areas, side-channels, beaver ponds, and wetlands to escape high flows during the winter months. The lack of the latter is believed to be a major factor in the decline of natural populations. Another factor is the decrease of summer stream flows from diversions, coupled with a lack of streamside vegetation, resulting in increased stream temperatures and reduced oxygen content of the water (LCSCI- Draft, 1998; DE&S 1999).

Current Distribution in the Project Area Currently, the Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2016) conducts a trap and haul steelhead trout program from below the project’s dams to the upper Cowlitz River. Steelhead have been found in the upper Cowlitz River. Spawner surveys for the Packwood Lake relicensing have not documented the presence of steelhead trout in lower Lake Creek and in the tailrace slough below the Project tailrace; however, a steelhead redd was noted in Lake Creek (approximately RM 0.3) in May 2007. An analysis of the natural barriers in Lake Creek indicated that a steelhead in excellent condition would be able to successfully navigate the barrier at RM 1.03. The next natural barrier, however, a falls at RM 1.95 on Lake Creek prevents access to steelhead trout above that point. See the Anadromous Salmonid Habitat and Spawner Survey Final Report (EES Consulting 2007c) and the Final Fish Passage Barriers Report for the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (EES Consulting 2007j) for further details.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-8 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Critical Habitat Figure E.5.6-2 shows Final Critical Habitat for the Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU, upper Cowlitz River Subbasin. The Critical Habitat designation includes the mainstem Cowlitz River in the vicinity of the Project, as well as Lake, Hall, and Johnson creeks.

E.5.6.1.2 USDA Forest Service Sensitive Species

Table E.5.6-2 provides a list of USDA Forest Service Sensitive fish species. A discussion of each fish species is below.

Table E.5.6-2. USDA Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Fish Species Review Species Name Habitat Present? Species Present? Fish Interior Redband Trout (O. mykiss) No No Pygmy Whitefish (Prosopium coulteri) No No Puget Sound Coastal Trout (O. clarki clarki) Yes No

E.5.6.1.2.1 Interior Redband Trout

Interior Redband trout are not found in the Project area, nor is there habitat present for this species. Interior Redband Trout will not be addressed herein.

E.5.6.1.2.2 Pygmy Whitefish

Pygmy Whitefish are not found in the Project area, nor is there habitat present for this species. Pygmy Whitefish will not be addressed herein.

E.5.6.1.2.3 Puget Sound Coastal Cutthroat Trout

Puget Sound Coastal Cutthroat trout are not found in the Project area, nor is there habitat present for this species; Puget Sound Coastal Cutthroat Trout will not be addressed herein.

E.5.6.1.3 Washington State Listed Species

The following stated listed or candidate species are found in the Project area:

• Chinook Salmon (state listed or candidate) • Rainbow Trout/Steelhead (state listed or candidate)

Refer to the discussion in Sections E.5.6.1.1.1 and E.5.6.1.1.3, respectively, for more information.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-9 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Figure E.5.6-2. Final Critical Habitat for the Lower Columbia River, Steelhead Trout ESU, Upper Cowlitz River Subbasin

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-10 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

The following species are listed or candidate species, but not found in the Project area:

• Bull Trout • Chum Salmon • Pygmy Whitefish • Sockeye Salmon

E.5.6.2 Affected Environment (Wildlife Resources)

E.5.6.2.1 Federal Endangered and Threatened Species

The USFWS website indicates that the northern spotted owl, gray wolf and grizzly bear are listed species for Washington. Bald eagle, a species known to frequent the area of the Project and addressed by relicensing surveys (see Section E.5.4.2), was de-listed effective June 28, 2007. Northern spotted owl is known to occur in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest; however, no nests have been documented in the vicinity of the Project. Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) are also listed species (both threatened), but neither species occurs in the vicinity of the Project. The Project area is about 1.5 miles east of the known or expected range of marbled murrelet (USFWS Critical Habitat Portal ) and far south of the range of Canada lynx in Washington, which is limited to the Okanogan Highlands and the northeastern corner of the state. Neither of these species was included in the USDA Forest Service Existing Information Analysis (2004a).

E.5.6.2.1.1 Northern Spotted Owl

The northern spotted owl is commonly associated with old-growth or mature conifer forest stands, especially during nesting (USFWS 1992), although younger stands that have late-successional stand remnant structures are also sometimes used (Thomas et al. 1990). The Project lies within an area designated as Critical Habitat for northern spotted owl. Revisions to the northern spotted owl recovery plan have been recently proposed and are currently in the public comment period (USFWS 2007b). The revised plan includes an option to adopt greater flexibility in conservation area management, as well as research and experimental management focused on the possible role of barred owls in affecting northern spotted owl recovery. A large area suitable as northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat occurs in the Packwood Late- Successional Reserve, and, more specifically, in the vicinity of the Project. According to the Forest Service (2004a), two northern spotted owls were detected in the Lake Creek drainage in 2004. Habitat conditions are considered good, but the number of barred owls in the area is a negative feature. Barred owls may competitively exclude northern spotted owls from suitable habitat (Courtney et al. 2004, USDA Forest Service 2004a). The presence of barred owls may also inhibit the smaller northern spotted owls from calling and thus affects standard survey procedures for this threatened species (USFWS 2007b).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-11 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Northern spotted owls typically roost in areas with large diameter trees and a high canopy closure; in the summer, roost sites are often in cooler locations, such as near a stream (USFWS 1992). Northern spotted owls may forage in a variety of forest types where prey (especially woodrats [Neotoma spp.] and northern flying squirrels [Glaucomys sabrinus]) occur [USFWS 1992]). During dispersal (particularly young birds seeking territories) northern spotted owls may prefer denser vegetation to avoid predation by great horned owls (Forsman et al. 1984, USFWS 1992).

E.5.6.2.1.2 Gray Wolf

The gray wolf is extremely rare in western Washington, with sporadic sightings mostly in the North Cascades (Johnson and Cassidy 1997, Smith 2002, USDA Forest Service 2006c). According to Smith (2002), gray wolves observed in Washington represent transient individuals that have not formed packs, are not increasing in numbers, and may not do so in the future without changes to the current management approach. USFWS has not issued a recovery plan for gray wolf in western Washington or recovery objectives specific to this area, and has no plans to initiate recovery efforts.

There are no known den or rendezvous sites on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, and no substantiated reports of gray wolf occurrence. Unsubstantiated sightings of gray wolves in the adjacent Goat Rocks Wilderness may be misidentifications (USDA Forest Service 2004a). This species is unlikely to be present in the Project vicinity other than as a rare transient.

Historically, wolves utilized a broad spectrum of habitats, reflecting the habitat requirements of their prey. The Recovery Plan for gray wolf (USFWS 1987) indicates that the key components of habitat are: (1) a sufficient, year-round prey base of ungulates (big game) and alternate prey; (2) suitable and somewhat secluded den and rendezvous sites; and (3) sufficient space with minimal exposure to humans. Riparian habitats may be important as travel corridors.

E.5.6.2.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Small numbers of grizzly bears are believed to currently occur in the North Cascades and Selkirk Mountains in Washington, part of larger populations in contiguous areas of Canada (Johnson and Cassidy 1997). Although this species is probably not established south of Snoqualmie Pass, individual grizzly bears are wide ranging, and possible detections have been reported as far as the Mount St. Helens area (Johnson and Cassidy 1997). These reports typically lack detailed documentation, and may often represent misidentified black bears. Grizzly bear is unlikely to occur in the Project vicinity other than as a rare transient. USFWS has not issued a recovery plan for grizzly bear in the Cascades or recovery objectives for this area, and has no plans to initiate recovery efforts.

Grizzly bear recovery will require reducing illegal mortality, maintaining and improving habitat quality through management, reducing land-use conflicts, and increasing public

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-12 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

acceptance of this species (USFWS 1993). Preferred habitats of grizzly bears include sub-alpine meadows and open or semi-open forests, but individuals are very wide- ranging and can be found in diverse habitats. Dens are typically located far away from human activity on steep slopes where snow accumulation is deep and persistent.

E.5.6.2.2 USDA Forest Service Sensitive Species

Eleven wildlife species designated as Sensitive by the USDA Forest Service have been documented or may occur in the Project vicinity (Table E.5.6-3). Most of these species inhabit upland areas and the list includes species likely to occur at most only as transients in the Project area. The possible presence of sensitive aquatic and riparian- associated amphibian species was addressed in Section E.5.4.2.2.

Table E.5.6-3. USDA Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Wildlife Species.

Species Occurrence Comments

Wolverine Possible Wide ranging species associated with undisturbed Gulo gulo luteus high elevation areas. Status uncertain.

Pacific Townsend’s big-eared bat Possible Has been found opportunistically in the region. No Corynorhinus t. townsendii systematic surveys have been conducted.

Common loon Documented Known to occur at Packwood Lake during migration, Gavia immer but no breeding records.

Peregrine falcon Possible Wide ranging species that often nests on high cliffs. Falco peregrinus Might occur in Project vicinity during migration

Bald eagle Documented Known to occur on Cowlitz River, particularly during Haliaeetus leucocephalus salmon runs, and observed at Packwood Lake. Surveys for nests were conducted by Licensee.

Cope’s giant salamander Possible Usually aquatic (in small streams) in all life stages. Dicamptodon copei Occurrence evaluated as part of amphibian survey.

Cascade torrent salamander Possible Semi-aquatic in rocky seeps and small streams. Rhyacotriton cascadae Occurrence evaluated as part of amphibian survey

Larch Mountain salamander Documented Terrestrial in all life stages. Has been found Plethodon larselli opportunistically near trails by Packwood Lake.

Van Dyke’s salamander Possible Usually associated with seepages or splash zones. Plethodon vandykei Occurrence evaluated as part of amphibian survey

Puget Oregonian [snail] Possible Moist, mature and older forests, often associated Cryptomastix devia with big-leaf maples.

Malone jumping-slug Possible Moist upland forests, often associated with sword Hemphillia malonei fern and woody debris.

Blue-gray tail-dropper (slug) Possible Rarely occurring in Washington in upland forests in Prophysaon coeruleum moist microhabitats.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-13 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

E.5.6.2.2.1 Wolverine

The wolverine occurs in Washington in very low numbers mostly in mountainous areas, especially in alpine, sub-alpine, and lower forest zones (Johnson and Cassidy 1997). Individual wolverines are wide-ranging (Banci 1994). Natal dens may be located in tree cavities, holes dug under standing trees or downed logs, among boulders, and in old bear dens (Banci 1994). Riparian areas are used as travel corridors and topographic features such as rivers, lakes, and mountain ranges do not appear to block the movement of wolverines. The current distribution of this species in Washington is uncertain, but there have been sightings from designated wilderness areas and other remote locations, including areas near Mt. Rainier (USDA Forest Service 2006c). Transient occurrences in the Project vicinity are possible.

E.5.6.2.2.2 Pacific Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

The Pacific Townsend’s big-eared bat can be found in low to mid-elevation coniferous forests. Summer roosts sites are almost exclusively buildings, caves, or abandoned mines. Maternal roosts and winter hibernation sites are also located in caves and mines. In general, these bats prefer to hibernate in cold places and have been known to tolerate exceptionally cold conditions for short periods (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993).

This species has been documented on the Cowlitz Ranger District, but not in the vicinity of the Project (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Records mostly represent opportunistic sightings of individual bats roosting under bridges, and do not reflect results of comprehensive surveys. Solitary summer roosts are possible in the Project vicinity.

E.5.6.2.2.3 Common Loon

The common loon is a rare breeder in Washington State, with fewer than 20 confirmed nest sites known to have been active for at least one year between 1979 to 1999 (Richardson et al. 2000). There is little information available on the former abundance and distribution of this species in Washington. Most current observations of common loon represent birds in migration.

In Washington, the common loon breeds on large lakes or reservoirs with undisturbed shorelines, usually within forested landscapes. Nests may be located on hummocks, stumps, beaver lodges, artificial platforms, floating debris, or within scrapes along the shore. Some evidence suggests that loons prefer to nest on islands (Richardson et al. 2000). Loons are very sensitive to human disturbance during nesting; decreased reproductive success in loons has been associated with shoreline development and recreational boat traffic (Vermeer 1973, Titus and Vandruff 1981). Common loons feed primarily on fish and may be absent from otherwise suitable habitats that have insufficient forage fish populations. The common loon has been documented during migration at Packwood Lake (USDA Forest Service 2004a), but no nests have ever been recorded.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-14 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

E.5.6.2.2.4 Peregrine Falcon

Peregrine falcon is a semi-migratory species associated with a variety of habitats including reservoirs, rivers, marshes, grasslands, agricultural areas, and urban environments (Sibley 2003). Common prey is waterfowl, shorebirds, and doves taken in flight. Nests are situated on cliffs and comparable anthropogenic sites (e.g., ledges on high bridges or buildings), and foraging occurs over adjacent habitats (Sibley 2003).

Since a sharp decline in the mid-1970s, the peregrine falcon has shown a dramatic increase in the number of nests and successful breeding in response to recovery efforts (USFWS 2006). During nesting, the peregrine falcon can be highly sensitive to disturbance, which can force nest abandonment or cause chicks to fledge prematurely (Hayes and Milner 1999). There are no records of peregrine falcon and no presumed nesting habitat within the Project area. Although cliffs in the Lake Creek watershed may possess suitable nest locations, potential prey may be insufficient to support nesting.

E.5.6.2.2.5 Bald Eagle

The bald eagle had been listed as a threatened species since the Endangered Species Act was enacted in 1973, but has been de-listed effective June 28, 2007 based on widespread recovery (USFWS 2007d). During winter, bald eagles have been observed on the Cowlitz River, where they feed on anadromous fish. Sightings have been documented at the mouth of Lake Creek and in the tailrace slough. The species also occurs at least occasionally at Packwood Lake. There are no known bald eagle nest records in the Project vicinity and currently no nests along Lake Creek or within at least 1,000 feet of Packwood Lake.

Bald eagles tend to nest in relatively open stands of mature or old-growth forest (Anthony et al. 1982, as cited in Peterson 1986) in proximity to lakes, reservoirs, rivers, coastal waters, or estuaries (Murphy 1965, as cited in Peterson 1986). Nests are massive stick structures (often 5 feet wide and three feet deep), requiring the support of a very large tree, often the tallest in the stand, affording a clear view of the surrounding area (Lehman 1979). Fish are the primary diet of bald eagles; however, waterfowl, gulls, other birds, mammals, and carrion may also be taken. Open, easily approached perches and feeding areas are preferred. In winter, bald eagles form large, communal roosts at traditional sites. These roosts are generally located close to open water but can be as far as 20 miles from foraging areas (Marshall et al. 1996). Important perch and roost sites include snags and dead-topped, live trees located in areas with minimal human disturbance (Brown and Stevens 1997, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). Bald Eagle nest survey results for the Project area are described in Section E.5.4.2.1.

E.5.6.2.2.6 Cope’s Giant Salamander

Closely related to the more common coastal giant salamander, with which it is sometimes sympatric, Cope’s giant salamander differs in rarely undergoing metamorphosis into a terrestrial form in most populations. The paedomorphic adults of

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-15 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

this species are much smaller, with shorter legs than adult coastal giant salamanders; larvae of the two species can usually be differentiated by coloration (Jones et al. 2005). Microhabitat affinities of Cope’s giant salamander have not been widely studied to determine how they compare to coastal giant salamander. Bury et al. (1991) found Cope’s giant salamanders most frequently from pool habitats, whereas coastal giant salamanders occurred in both pools and riffles.

Cope’s giant salamander is known to occur as near as four miles northwest of the mouth of Lake Creek at Skate Creek, a Cowlitz River tributary The results of the amphibian survey suggest that Cope’s giant salamander does not occur at Lake Creek below Packwood Lake. Body size and proportions, coloration, and developmental patterns of salamanders observed during the survey were consistent with expected characteristics of coastal giant salamander.

E.5.6.2.2.7 Cascade Torrent Salamander

All of the torrent salamander species are associated with perennial lotic habitats where clear, cold, well-oxygenated water trickles or percolates through, or splashes over rocky cover. At some sites during periods of low flow and warm temperatures, torrent salamanders disappear from the surface, apparently retreating deep into rocky substrates (Jones et al. 2005, Nyman, personal observation). Cascade torrent salamander larvae possess very short gills and are aquatic; Crisafulli (in Jones et al. 2005) describes larval habitats as “valley and head-wall seeps and spray zones at the base of waterfalls and cascades, where gravels and cobbles are present with shallow (<1 cm), low-velocity flows.” Adults can be found in the same habitats as larvae, but also occur in other microhabitats, including locations where hydration is merely a surface film, and may venture most widely on cool, rainy nights.

The Cascade torrent salamander is endemic to the west slope of the Cascade Range in southern Washington south to Douglas County, Oregon. In Washington, all but one of the known occurrences are south of the Cowlitz River. The amphibian survey conducted in 2005 and 2006 (DTA 2007a), included repeated searches of all of the perennial tributaries and seepages along Lake Creek below Packwood Lake, as well as searches for this species in waterfall splash zones and many areas on the margin of the stream where shallow water trickled through gravel and rocks. Pacific giant salamander larvae were frequently found during these searches, but not Cascade torrent salamanders.

E.5.6.2.2.8 Larch Mountain Salamander

The Larch Mountain salamander is a completely terrestrial species endemic to the Columbia River Gorge in Washington and Oregon, and the southern Cascade Range of Washington as far north as Mount Rainier, with known localities in eastern Lewis County (Dvornich et al. 1997, Jones et al. 2005). Populations are typically associated with moist, forested talus slopes or boulder fields, but have also been found in mature or old-growth forested sites in the absence of talus (Larsen 1997). Larch Mountain

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-16 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

salamander is documented from four sites in old-growth forest near Packwood Lake (USDA Forest Service 2004a). This is an upland species not targeted by the 2005-2006 amphibian survey; however, apparently suitable habitat (talus slopes) along Lake Creek below Packwood Lake was searched repeatedly as possible Van Dyke’s salamander habitat. Western red-backed salamander occurred in these areas, but no Larch Mountain salamanders were found.

E.5.6.2.2.9 Van Dyke's Salamander

Like other species of Plethodon, Van Dyke's salamander is a terrestrial species without an aquatic, larval phase; however, it is strongly associated with habitats that are consistently moist to wet. Populations are most numerous along streams, particularly at rock outcrops, rocky seeps, areas of talus, and splash zones of waterfalls (Larsen 1997). The distribution of Van Dyke's salamander consists of widely scattered centers in the Olympic Peninsula, Willapa Hills, and southern Cascade Range, with known occurrences in eastern Lewis County (Dvornich et al. 1997). Populations of this species are evidently small and typically disjunct from each other, and much of the apparently suitable habitat appears to be unoccupied (Wilson et al. 1995).

The amphibian survey conducted in 2005 and 2006 included repeated searches of perennial tributaries and seepages, waterfall splash zones, and moist talus and cliff faces along Lake Creek below Packwood Lake (DTA 2007a). No Van Dyke’s salamanders were found.

E.5.6.2.2.10 Mollusks

Three species of terrestrial mollusks designated as Sensitive species could potentially occur in the Project area. All of these species are forest-associated, occurring in moist micro-habitats, such as under large woody debris and leaf litter. The Puget Oregonian is a snail often found near mature big-leaf maples; although documented at numerous sites, populations are reportedly often small (USDA Forest Service 2004a, USDA Forest Service 2006c). The Malone jumping-slug is typically found in mature or late- successional coniferous forest stands, particularly with sword-fern and large woody debris, but almost all of the known sites are south of the Project area (USDA Forest Service 2006c). The blue-gray tail-dropper is known from very few sites in Washington, although three sites are in the Cowlitz Valley. Because potential habitat for terrestrial mollusks has not been surveyed in the Project vicinity, the presence of these species cannot be discounted; nonetheless, the potential for effects on these upland species is low.

E.5.6.2.3 Washington State Listed Species

All of the federally listed species discussed in Section E.5.6.2.1 (gray wolf, grizzly bear, and northern spotted owl) are also State listed as endangered. Bald eagle, recently de- listed under the ESA, remains a State threatened species (also a USDA Forest Service Sensitive species, discussed in E.5.6.2.2). Survey results to determine whether bald

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-17 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

eagle nests are in the Project area are described in Section E.5.4.2.1.1. Peregrine falcon and Larch Mountain salamander (USDA Forest Service Sensitive species, discussed in Section E.5.6.2.2) are State sensitive species. Species categorized as state candidates also include the following species already addressed in Section E.5.6.2.2: wolverine, Pacific Townsend’s big-eared bat, peregrine falcon, common loon, Larch Mountain salamander, Van Dyke’s salamander, and blue-gray tail-dropper.

Other wildlife species designated as Washington State Candidates that have been documented or may occur in the Project vicinity are discussed below. With the exception of western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), which breeds in shallow water, these other species inhabit upland areas, and if they occur, are not closely associated with or affected by the Project. The possible presence of sensitive aquatic and riparian- associated amphibian species, including western toad, was addressed in Section E.5.4.2.2, above.

E.5.6.2.3.1 Northern Goshawk

The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is an uncommon raptor found in mature conifer forests with large trees, snags, downed logs, and an open understory essential for hunting. Goshawk nests are generally located at the top of trees and adjacent to suitable hunting perches (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Primary prey includes birds and small mammals (Sibley 2003). Apparently suitable forested habitat is found throughout the Lake Creek watershed.

E.5.6.2.3.2 Golden Eagle

The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is a large, solitary bird of mountainous areas where suitable rock ledges or other nesting habitat is found; it rarely occurs in open country (Sibley 2003). Golden eagles typical prey upon rabbits or other small mammals detected from the air or a conspicuous perch. Apparently suitable sub-alpine habitat with rock faces is found in the Upper Lake Creek watershed.

E.5.6.2.3.3 Merlin

The merlin (Falco columbarius) is an uncommon falcon associated with open habitats including grasslands, open forests, edges, coastal shorelines, lakes, and large wetlands. Prey species are small birds, small mammals, and occasionally insects. The merlin is believed to occur in Washington primarily during migration, nesting only rarely, mostly in coastal and high-elevation forests; however, data are limited (Smith et al. 1997). Apparently suitable foraging areas occur in the Project vicinity, particularly along the shoreline of Packwood Lake and the Hall Creek wetland, although no nests have been documented.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-18 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

E.5.6.2.3.4 Vaux’s Swift

Vaux’s swift is a Neotropical migrant occurring in all elevations. This species is associated with late successional forests, where it nests and roosts in colonies in large, hollow, broken-topped snags, and trees with large cavities. Vaux’s swift is a high flying, aerial insectivore, foraging above the canopy or over streams. Late successional forests are common in the Lake Creek watershed and it is likely that suitable conditions exist for the species.

E.5.6.2.3.5 Pileated Woodpecker

Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) is considered a common species in mature and old-growth forests in Washington (Smith et al. 1997), but requires large areas of suitable habitat for foraging. The principal foraging substrates are large, decaying snags (over 20 inches diameter), stumps, and logs in which they forage for carpenter ants, beetles, and insect larvae (Bull and Meslow 1977). Hard snags at least 20 inches in diameter are also required for nest holes. Foraging excavations probably attributable to pileated woodpecker were observed in the Project vicinity. Apparently suitable foraging and nesting habitat is found throughout the Lake Creek watershed.

E.5.6.2.3.6 Western Toad

Western toad is a highly terrestrial species, except when breeding, and can be found in relatively dry habitats far from water. A wide variety of sites serve as breeding habitat, where standing or sluggish-moving, shallow water exists; ponds, marshes, the margins of lakes, floodwater pools, and backwaters are all used (Leonard et al. 1993, Dvornich et al. 1997). Western toad is not currently rare in Washington, but may be declining. A juvenile western toad (probably young-of-the-year) was found by Lake Creek during an amphibian survey in September 2005 (DTA 2007a).

E.5.6.3 Affected Environment (Botanical Resources)

E.5.6.3.1 Federal Endangered and Threatened Species

There are no known records of federal Endangered or Threatened plant species in or near the Project area (WNHP 2004). Table E.5.6-4 lists federal Endangered and Threatened Plant Species that have the potential to occur within the Project area. No federally listed species were found during rare plant surveys associated with relicensing of the Project.

E.5.6.3.2 USDA Forest Service Sensitive Species

Previous to the rare plant surveys for Project relicensing, existing information on rare plants and botanical resources generally in and near the Project area was very limited. There were no known occurrences of USDA Forest Service Sensitive plants in or near

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-19 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

the Project area. No known dedicated rare plant surveys had been conducted in or near the Forest Service land within the Project area (WNHP 2004).

Table E.5.6-4. Federal Endangered and Threatened Plant Species Potentially within the Project Area Scientific Common Federal Identification Presence Within Name Name Status Typical Habitat period Project Vicinity Howellia Howellia LT Low elevation April - August Not Present aquatilis minerotrophic wetland community types, 10 to 2300 feet in elevation. Lupinus Kinkaid’s LT Native upland prairies April – June Not Present sulphureus sulfur and open oak woodlands ssp.Kincaidi lupine at low elevations. Sidalcea Nelson’s LT Along streams and in May – Sept. Not Present nelsoniana checker- meadows, prairies, mallow grasslands and other open places at low elevations. Federal Status: Federal Status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA) as published in the Federal Register: LE = Listed Endangered. In danger of extinction. LT = Listed Threatened. Likely to become endangered.

E.5.6.3.3 Washington State Listed Species

Previous to the rare plant surveys for relicensing, existing information on rare plants and botanical resources generally in and near the Project area was very limited, and no known dedicated rare plant surveys had been conducted in or near the Project area. The WNHP reports no records of state-listed rare plants in or near the Project area (WNHP 2004).

E.5.6.4 Environmental Analysis

E.5.6.4.1 Federal Endangered and Threatened Species

E.5.6.4.1.1 RTE Fish Species Study Results

Anadromous fish spawning surveys were conducted for the Project from 2004 – 2006. Anadromous barrier surveys were also conducted, to determine the extent of anadromous distribution within Project waters. Federally listed fish species were found to utilize, or potentially utilize, the following Project areas:

Chinook Salmon • Lake Creek from its confluence with the Cowlitz River upstream to RM 1.03 (lowest anadromous barrier) • Tailrace slough below the Project tailrace • Project stilling basin and tailrace

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-20 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Fish were excluded from the tailrace and stilling basin after construction of a new tailrace barrier in October 2007.

Coho Salmon • Lake Creek from its confluence with the Cowlitz River upstream to RM 1.03 (lowest anadromous barrier) • Tailrace slough below the Project tailrace • Snyder Creek from the Project tailrace crossing upstream to the Forest Service culvert. • Project stilling basin and tailrace

Fish were excluded from the tailrace and stilling basin after construction of a new tailrace barrier in October 2007.

Steelhead trout • Lake Creek from its confluence with the Cowlitz River upstream to RM 1.95 • Tailrace slough below the Project tailrace • Snyder Creek from Project tailrace crossing upstream to the FS culvert • Project stilling basin and tailrace

Fish were excluded from the tailrace and stilling basin after construction of a new tailrace barrier in October 2007.

Studies conducted to date for Project relicensing have determined that Project effects, under the current operating conditions, on fish species designated endangered and/or threatened and the associated habitat inside the Project boundaries are limited. These effects include the following:

Packwood Lake Drawdown Effects The Packwood Lake annual drawdown currently occurs immediately before the Project is shut down for annual maintenance. Since the annual project shut down will now begin August 15 and require no drawdown, the proposed drawdown starting September 15, will be very gradual and occur over approximately 6 weeks instead of 2 weeks. The drawdown affects Packwood Lake and its tributaries. No threatened or endangered fish are found in this area, since natural barriers in lower Lake Creek prevent access to the lake. Therefore, there is no effect to these species.

Entrainment of Fish at Project Intake The Project intake is located near the outlet to Packwood Lake. No threatened or endangered fish are found in this area, since natural barriers in lower Lake Creek prevent access to the lake. Therefore, there is no effect to these species.

Separation of Lower Lake Creek from Packwood Lake The drop structure separates Packwood Lake from lower Lake Creek. No threatened or endangered fish are able to access the 1464-ft reach of lower Lake Creek immediately below the Project drop structure, since natural barriers exist between there and the

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-21 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

lower reaches of the creek. Therefore, there is no effect to threatened or endangered species due to the Project’s separation of lake and creek.

Project Effects on Fish Habitat in Lower Lake Creek Energy Northwest releases a minimum of 3 cfs of Packwood Lake water into lower Lake Creek to protect resident stream fish and other aquatic species. Additional accretion from snowmelt and groundwater occurs along the 5.4-mile-stretch between the Project drop structure and the confluence of Lake Creek with the Cowlitz River.

The lower 1.03 miles of lower Lake Creek is accessible to Chinook, coho and steelhead, with an additional 0.92 miles accessible to steelhead. Results of the instream flow study on lower Lake Creek (EES Consulting 2007m) indicated that spawning and rearing habitat may be reduced by the current instream flow releases from the drop structure when compared to maximum Weighted Usable Area (WUA). Analysis of spawning habitat also indicated that gravel is scarce in lower Lake Creek, with much of the gravel that is present in lower Lake Creek often perched on the banks, requiring substantially higher flows to provide adequate depths and velocities over the spawning substrate. (For additional information regarding flow data and habitat availability in lower Lake Creek, see Instream Flow Effects on Fish Habitat below the Drop Structure in lower Lake Creek [Section E.5.3.1.3.4].)

Operation of the Project also reduces peak flow magnitude and frequency in lower Lake Creek. Annual mean flows down lower Lake Creek are approximately 100 cfs. Although lower Lake Creek reached flows of approximately 1,600 cfs during a 1976 flood, there is a general lack of high flow events of the magnitude to induce channel forming processes in the lower Lake Creek Basin.

Historically, and since construction of the Project, Packwood Lake has acted as a gravel sink, essentially absorbing all gravel from the tributaries prior to their potential movement down lower Lake Creek. The lack of gravel in the anadromous zone of lower Lake Creek is exacerbated by the lack of large wood. Past forest practices and human disturbance are likely the main reason for lack of wood in the area. The majority of the large wood in lower Lake Creek is not fluvially transported. (For elaboration on Project effects related to flows down lower Lake Creek and the associated transport of gravel and wood, see Lack of Channel Maintenance Flows for High Quality Fish Habitat in Lower Lake Creek [Section E.5.3.1.3.5].)

Project Effects on Fish Passage in Snyder Creek Snyder Creek crosses under the Project tailrace through a 4 ft diameter culvert. Level A analysis indicated that Level B analysis was warranted, since the culvert was not equal to at least 75% of the toe width of the channel downstream. Level B analysis indicated that the crossing met WDFW criteria for depth and velocity. Study protocol also dictated that a WDFW stream simulation be used to analyze passage. Because the culvert did not meet criteria for width, a Priority Habitat Index (PI) model was run, so as to quantify the amount and quality of the habitat in Snyder Creek for coho salmon that have spawned in this creek.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-22 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

This crossing of Snyder Creek under the tailrace would be considered a partial barrier to upstream migration of adult coho salmon, given the results of the WDFW stream simulation; however, coho fry have been found above the crossing, indicating that passage is possible. No Chinook or steelhead have been documented in Snyder Creek. (For elaboration on Project effects related to fish passage, see Effects of Tailrace on Fish Passage in Snyder Creek [Section E.5.3.1.3.6].)

Project Effects on Anadromous Salmonids in the Tailrace Slough Generation shutdown currently occurs for maintenance purposes in late September and typically lasts until the third week in October. During this period, the water that is supplied via generation to the tailrace slough is cut off. The shutdown coincides with the timing for spawning and incubation of Chinook salmon and rearing for coho salmon and steelhead in the tailrace slough.

The tailrace slough is a dynamic side channel of the Cowlitz River. Habitat characteristics in the slough can change on an annual basis depending upon high flows and the relative contribution of the river and the Project tailrace. With the current configuration of the Cowlitz River, the tailrace slough side channel has been dependent on tailrace flows to provide adequate habitat (depth and velocity), for anadromous salmonid spawning and rearing at certain times of the year. (For elaboration on Project effects related to tailrace slough flows and species issues, see Packwood Lake Operations and Outage Effects on Anadromous Salmonid Spawning and Rearing in the Tailrace Slough [Section E.5.3.1.3.7].)

Project Effects on Hall Creek Fish Passage The Project tailrace flume over Hall Creek was surveyed in 2004. It was determined that the Project flume did not impede fish passage in any way and was not a barrier to upstream migration for any of the species listed under the Endangered Species Act (see Fish Passage Barriers Study Report, EES Consulting 2007j).

E.5.6.4.1.2 RTE Wildlife Study Results

Two studies were requested and conducted related to the occurrence of RTE wildlife: the Bald Eagle and Osprey Nest Survey, the results of which are described in Section E.5.4.2.1; and the Amphibian Survey, described in Section E.5.4.2.2. At the time that studies were planned and implemented, the bald eagle was federally listed as a threatened species (de-listed effective June 28, 2007). No bald eagle nests were found. The only RTE amphibian species found during the amphibian survey was western toad. Cope’s giant salamander was not documented by morphological criteria but its presence cannot be ruled out.

Grizzly bear and gray wolf could conceivably occur sporadically in the Project area; however, these are upland species that would not be likely to be directly or indirectly affected by Project operations. Northern spotted owl, also an upland species, is known to occur in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, but a Project effect either through

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-23 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

disturbance, effects on forest habitats, or prey used by this species is not likely. Unusual circumstances requiring repair to Project-associated facilities (e.g., major repair to access roads or the pipeline) are a potential source of temporary noise disturbance but not deemed likely to have any significant or lasting effect on any individuals if they are present in the vicinity of the Project.

E.5.6.4.1.3 RTE Plant Study Results

The federally listed plants noted in Table E.5.6-4 above, were determined to have the potential to occur in the Project study area (USFWS 2007c, USDA Forest Service 2006c). Habitat and identification period information was taken from the WNHP website (2007). The Rare Plant Survey Study Plan (Beck 2005b) and the Rare Plant Survey Final Report (Beck 2007b), which detail the survey and findings, can be found on the Energy Northwest website: http://www.energy-northwest.com/generation/packwood/ relicensing/ Aquatic_studyplan_reports.php.

Field surveys were conducted for five days in late July 2005, seven days in mid-July 2006, and August 23, 2006. No federally listed Endangered or Threatened species were located in the study area.

No federally listed Endangered or Threatened species were located in the study area. The habitats (low elevation prairie, grassland habitats or other specialized habitats) required for the listed species are not present in the study area and, thus, the Project is determined to have no effects on federally listed species (Table E.5.6-5).

Table E.5.6-5. Project Effects for Federal Listed Plant Species, Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project. Common Federal Habitat quality Present in Scientific Name Name Status in Study area Study area Determination Howellia aquatilis Howellia LT Low No No Effect Lupinus sulphureus Kinkaid’s sulfur LT Low No No Effect ssp. Kincaidii lupine Sidalcea Nelson’s LT Low No No Effect nelsoniana checker-mallow

E.5.6.4.2 USDA Forest Service Sensitive Species

E.5.6.4.2.1 Fish Study Results

Three species of fish are listed as “Sensitive,” by the USDA Forest Service for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. These are:

• Interior Redband Trout • Pygmy Whitefish • Coastal Cutthroat Trout

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-24 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

USDA Forest Service-listed sensitive species are not found in the Project area and were not observed during any of the fisheries investigation undertaken during Project relicensing. As a result there is no effect on these species by the Project.

E.5.6.4.2.2 Wildlife Study Results

Two studies were conducted related to the occurrence of RTE wildlife, the Bald Eagle and Osprey Nest Survey, the results of which are described in Section E.5.4.2.1, and the Amphibian Survey, described in Section E.5.4.2.2. At the time that studies were planned and implemented, bald eagle was federally listed as a threatened species (de- listed effective June 28, 2007). Bald eagle retains status as a USDA Forest Service Sensitive species and Washington State listed species.

The Project may affect individuals or habitat but will not be likely to contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the populations or species of Forest Service sensitive wildlife species. The Project has little or no potential to affect terrestrial species or species that may occur only as rare transients. Amphibian surveys did not reveal the presence of Cope’s giant salamander, Van Dyke’s salamander, or Cascade torrent salamander in the Project area. Although the presence of Cope’s giant salamander was not documented by morphological criteria, the presence of this species in lower Lake Creek cannot be ruled out. Because the Project has effects on Lake Creek flows, if Cope’s salamander is present, the Project may impact individuals of this species or its habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Common loon sometimes occurs during migration at Packwood Lake but does not breed in the area; naturally steep shorelines may be unsuitable for nesting. Therefore, the Project has not potential to affect the habitat or viability of the common loon.

E.5.6.4.2.3 Rare Plant Study Results

The Rare Plant study area is larger than the Project boundary. The study area includes the Project area such that some of the rare plants located in the study area are not included within the Project boundary. Figure E.5.6-3 displays the study area, Project area and the approximate locations of rare plant populations located during the Rare Plant Survey.

Of the six rare plant species located in the Rare Plant study area, only two are located in the Project area: The Oregon goldenaster population near the tailrace and the Peltigera pacifica population along FS Road 1260-066 (Pipeline Road).

Vascular Plants There are 55 species listed on the updated Sensitive Species Vascular Plant List for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, which is derived from the Region 6 Sensitive Species Plant List (USDA Forest Service 2006b) (Table E.5.6-6). No USDA Forest Service Sensitive vascular plant species were located in the study area.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-25 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Lichen, Bryophyte and Fungi There are 26 sensitive lichen, bryophyte and fungi species listed for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (Table E.5.6-7). Habitat information is taken from WNHP (2007), McCune & Geiser (1997), Brodo et al. (2001), and Schofield (1992).

A population of each of the five Forest Service Sensitive lichen species Collema nigrescens, Nephroma bellum, Nephroma occultum, Platismatia lacunosa and Peltigera pacifica was located in Forest Service-managed portions of the study area. Forest Service sensitive lichen species Collema nigrescens, Nephroma bellum, Nephroma occultum, and Platismatia lacunosa were found together growing in a one-acre stand of vine maple within the Goat Rocks Wilderness area. This vine maple stand is growing on a south-facing, stabilized, boulder field near the Packwood Lake shore. It is surrounded by old growth western hemlock and western red cedar forest. The Upper Lake Creek Trail bisects the stand and is used by hikers and pack animals. It is evident that pack animals graze the deciduous shrubs and trees on the side of the trail in this area. No noxious weeds are present in the area. The vine maple stand is not in the Project area or near any Project facilities or management activities.

Collema nigrescens is a foliose lichen, which is black, translucent and jelly-like when wet. It typically grows on the bark of broad-leaved trees and shrubs in low-elevation, hardwood forests, often in riparian areas. In the study area, it was collected from the trunk of a single large Douglas maple in the vine maple stand. A total of ten Collema nigrescens thalli were observed, though there may be additional thalli higher up in this or other tree canopies.

Nephroma bellum is an epiphytic cyanolichen that grows on the boles, lower limbs, or lower twigs of conifers and hardwoods. In the study area, it was collected from the trunks of vine maples in a vine maple stand. An estimated total of 125 - 150 Nephroma bellum thalli were observed, though there may be additional thalli higher up in other tree canopies. There were three other species of Nephroma in the stand.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-26 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Figure E.5.6-3. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Rare Plant Study Area Map

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-27 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Table E.5.6-6. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List, Vascular Plants. Updated April 2006. Species Name Typical Habitat Agoseris elata Meadows, open woods, and expose rocky ridge tops from low elevations to timberline Bolandra oregana Near Columbia River, mostly low elevations near streams and moist rocky places in deep shade Botrychium lanceolatum Subalpine meadow, glacial till Botrychium montanum Forested wetlands Calochortus longebarbatus Clay loams in vernally moist sites in meadows, forest-meadow edges var. longebarbatus and semi-open areas in coniferous woods Carex densa Eroding hummocks in intertidal marshland Carex heteroneura Wet meadows to dry slopes Carex stenophylla Dry to somewhat moist plains and foothills, open gravelly sites and grassy areas in mountains Chrysolepis chrysophylla Dry open sites to fairly thick woodlands, to 2500 feet elevation. Cicuta bulbifera Edges of marshes and lake margins in bogs, wet meadows, shallow standing water and along slow moving streams Cimicifuga elata In or along margins of mixed, mature or old growth stands of mesic coniferous forest. Most sites below 600 feet. Coptis asplenifolia Cool moist forests in old growth forests with well developed litter layer, to 2200 feet elevation Coptis trifolia Habitats ranging from muskegs to deep woods Corydalis aquae-gelidae In or near cold flowing water, seeps, small streams in western hemlock and silver fir forest, 2500 – 3800 elevation Cryptantha rostellata Dry microsites in the Columbia Basin. Shrub-steppe Cyperus bipartitus Streambanks and other wet low places in valleys and lowlands, also tolerant of alkaline conditions Cypripedium fasciculatum Mid to late seral Douglas fir forests with closed herbaceous layer on northerly aspects Cypripedium montanum Dry to moist shrub and forest covered valleys and mountain sides Damasonium californicum Damp ground in vernal pools, on margins of intermittent streams, sloughs, mud flats in marshy places, low elevations Erigeron howellii Steep north facing slopes with microsites with very little soil development, sparsely vegetated Erigeron oreganus Moist shady basalt cliffs and ledges, typically beneath overhangs, near waterfalls, to 1200 feet elevation Eryngium petiolatum Wet prairies and low ground Euonymus occidentalis Shaded woods, moist draws and ravines, oak savannahs Fritillaria camschatcensis Near lakes, streams wet meadows, salt marshes, marshes, sphagnum bogs, coniferous wetlands, deciduous forests Galium kamtshaticum Moist, cold coniferous forests Heuchera grossulariifolia var. Basalt cliffs and steep slopes where moist tenuifolia Howellia aquatilis1 Low elevation minerotrophic wetland community types, 10 to 2300 feet in elevation Linanthus bolanderi Dry rocky place often on open slopes growing in fire texture mineral soils. To 1800 feet elevation Liparis loeselii Around springs, in bogs, and wet sunny places within Douglas fir dominated forests Lomatium suksdorfii Semi-open to open, dry rocky hillsides on moderate to steep slopes. With Oregon oak, ponderosa pine, Douglas fir

1 LT = Listed Threatened. Likely to become endangered.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-28 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Table E.5.6-6. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List, Vascular Plants. Updated April 2006. Species Name Typical Habitat Luzula arcuata High elevations (above 7000 feet) on a well vegetated or rocky exposed ridge between snowfields Meconella oregana Open grassland or forest grassland mosaic, moist in spring than dry in summer Microseris borealis Wet meadows, sphagnum bogs, and in the mountains Mimulus jungermannioides Basalt crevices in seepage zones in vertical cliff faces and canyon walls Mimulus pulsiferae Seasonally moist, open areas, often in exposed mineral soil from valleys and foothills to mid-elevations Mimulus suksdorfii Open, moist, or rather dry places from valleys and foothills to high elevations, usually in shrub-steppe Montia diffusa Moist forests in lowland and lower montane zones, occasionally in xeric soils Navarretia tagetina Open, stony or rocky places to 450 feet, where there is standing water or saturated soils in early spring Ophioglossum pusillum Terrestrial in pastures, old fields, roadside ditches and floodplain woods in seasonally wet rather acid soils Parnassia fimbriata var. Very wet meadows with springs, streams, and ponds on low rock hoodiana outcrops and near small spring-fed ponds. Pedicularis rainierensis Moist alpine meadows, open coniferous forest, rocky slopes Penstemon barettiae Crevices Pityopus californica Mixed coniferous forests. Washington site with significant moss cover, 480 feet elevation Platanthera orbiculata var. Moist, mossy forests orbiculata Platanthera sparsiflora Open, wet areas, seeps and bogs. Poa laxiflora Moist woods to rocky open slopes, sea level to lower mountain elevations Polemonium carneum Woody thickets, open and moist forest, prairie edges, roadsides Potentilla breweri Moist meadows and stream banks to open exposed slopes Ranunculus reconditus Meadow-steppe habitat dominated by perennial xerophytic bunchgrasses and broad leafed herbs Rorippa columbiae Water bodies, including rivers, intermittent snow-fed streams, permanent lakes, snow-fed lakes, wet meadows, wet ditches Scribneria bolanderi Grass and forb dominated habitats in sandy to rocky soil, sometimes along roadsides Sidalcea hirtipes Remnant prairie fragments, fence rows, mesic areas near creeks Sisyrinchium sarmentosum Meadows and small openings that fill with snow and or water in winter and spring, and dominated by sedges and grasses Utricularia intermedia Shallow ponds, slow-moving streams, and wet sedge or rush meadows, to 4000 feet elevation. Veratrum insolitum Open, rocky slope and openings in thickets and mixed-evergreen forest on red clay, to 1300 feet elevation

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-29 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Table E.5.6-7. USDA Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Plant List, Lichens and Bryophytes. Updated April 2006. Species Name Typical Habitat LICHENS Cetrelia cetrarioides Moist riparian and valley bottom forests esp. older alder stands over seepy or swampy ground Chaenotheca subroscida Boles of live trees and snags in moist forest habitat Collema nigrescens Bark of broad leaved trees, shrubs, low elev. Forests often riparian Dendriscocaulon intriculatum Mossy tree trunks at humid sites Dermatocarpon luridum Frequently wetted streamside or lakeside rocks Hypogymnia duplicata Conifer bark, cool moist forests, coastal to low elevation Hypotrachyna revoluta Trees and rocks Leptogium burnetiae var. Bark or epiphytic on decaying logs mosses and rock, coniferous hirsutum forest Leptogium cyanescens Bark, rotten logs and rocks Leptogium rivale Siliceous rocks in or near water, submerged much of year Lobaria linita var. tenuoir Soil and mossy vegetation in arctic or alpine sites, or on trees, especially tree bases on the coast Nephroma bellum Trees, often riparian hardwoods, shrubs and mossy rocks, in moist forests with strong coastal influences Nephroma occultum Bark and wood of conifers, in old growth forests, west Cascades Pannaria rubiginosa Bark and wood of conifers and hardwoods, moist lowland habitats, coastal thickets of old shrubs on wet deflation plains Peltigera neckeri Mossy logs, soil and tree bases esp in wet habitats, lowland forests Peltigera pacifica Soil, rocks, moss, logs, tree bases, low elevation moist forests Pilophorus nigricaulis Moist conifer forests Platismatia lacunosa On bark and wood, esp. alders, rarely on mossy rocks, moist riparian forests, and moist cool upland sites Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis Bark and wood of conifers often overgrowing moss mats, moist old growth forests, low to mid elevations Tholurna dissimilis Conifer twigs, rarely on rock, exposed subalpine ridges and peaks, occasionally low to mid elevations at cool, moist sites Usnea longissima On bark and wood of riparian conifer and hardwood trees at low elevations BRYOPHYTES Encalypta brevicolla var. Rock crevices in exposed montane areas crumiana Schistostega pennata Fine mineral soil in shaded pockets of overturned root wads adjacent shallow pools of standing water or shaded cliff crevices Scouleria marginata Rocks and boulders in water courses Tetraphis geniculata Cut or broken ends of lower half of large decaying trees also peaty banks in moist coniferous forests FUNGUS Bridgeoporus nobilissimus Large snags of true firs

Nephroma occultum is a foliose lichen that typically grows on the bark and wood of conifers in the mid to upper canopy in moist old-growth forests. In the study area, Nephroma occultum occupies the trunks of vine maples with a high diversity of other lichen species. A total of 15 Nephroma occultum thalli were observed in the stand, though there may be other thalli higher up in tree canopies in the stand. In the study area, it grows with a number of other similar appearing lichens from which it must be

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-30 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

differentiated. Only eight other Nephroma occultum populations are known in Washington (COSEWIC 2006).

Platismatia lacunosa is a foliose lichen that typically occurs on the boles and branches of hardwoods and conifers in moist, cool upland sites as well as in moist riparian forests to 3500’ in elevation. In the study area, Platismatia lacunosa occupies the trunks of vine maple trees with a high diversity of other lichen species. A total of three Platismatia lacunosa thalli were observed in the stand, though there may be other thalli higher up in the tree canopies in the stand. In the study area, it grows with Platismatia glauca, Platismatia herrei, and Platismatia norvegica; very similar looking lichens from which it must be differentiated.

Peltigera pacifica is a foliose lichen species that grows on soil, duff, woody debris and occasionally on tree bases in low elevation, moist forests. In the study area, eight subpopulations were mapped in a scattered patchy distribution adjacent to FS Road 1260-066 (Pipeline Road) and Pipeline Trail #74 (an ATV trail). The population is 1.25 miles long. Subpopulation sizes range from 3 to 25 thalli, for an estimated total of 80 - 100 thalli in the population. Peltigera pacifica occupies a narrow forested strip between the roadside and the Pipeline Trail, and the buried pipeline. It typically grows on rocks on moss beneath a stand of young coniferous trees. Moss cover is generally high in the immediate area where Peltigera pacifica grows. Thalli have become established since the road, trail and pipeline were constructed and buried in the early 1960s. This species is able to establish itself in an early seral forested community and apparently tolerates some degree of disturbance given its location next to a road and pipeline. Non-native species do not seem to be a threat to this population, though several weed species such as Cytisus scoparius, Leucanthemum vulgare, and Tanacetum vulgare grow in a narrow strip between Peltigera habitat and the roadbed. There may be additional Peltigera pacifica subpopulations along FS Road 1260-066 (Pipeline Road) and the Pipeline Trail, as the species must be individually differentiated from seven other species of Peltigera occupying similar habitat.

Vascular Plants Table E.5.6-8 contains a list of potential Sensitive vascular plant species for Gifford Pinchot National Forest, habitat suitability for each potential species in the study area, whether the species is present in the study area, and a determination of Project effect. No USDA Forest Service Sensitive vascular plant species were located in the study area or are any determined to be effected by the Project.

Table E.5.6-8. Sensitive Species Vascular Plant List for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, from the Region 6 Forest Service Sensitive Species Plant List, April 2006. Habitat Present Documented on Suitability in in Study Species Name Gifford Pinchot NF Study area area Determination Agoseris elata Low No No Effect Bolandra oregana X Low No No Effect Botrychium lanceolatum X Low No No Effect Botrychium montanum X Low No No Effect

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-31 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Table E.5.6-8. Sensitive Species Vascular Plant List for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, from the Region 6 Forest Service Sensitive Species Plant List, April 2006. Habitat Present Documented on Suitability in in Study Species Name Gifford Pinchot NF Study area area Determination Calochortus longebarbatus X Low No No Effect var. longebarbatus Carex densa X Low No No Effect Carex heteroneura X Low No No Effect Carex stenophylla Low No No Effect Chrysolepis chrysophylla X Low No No Effect Cicuta bulbifera Low No No Effect Cimicifuga elata X High No No Effect Coptis asplenifolia Low No No Effect Coptis trifolia Low No No Effect Corydalis aquae-gelidae X Low No No Effect Cryptantha rostellata Low No No Effect Cyperus bipartitus Low No No Effect Cypripedium fasciculatum X Medium No No Effect Cypripedium montanum Low No No Effect Damasonium californicum Low No No Effect Erigeron howellii Low No No Effect Erigeron oregana Low No No Effect Eryngium petiolatum Low No No Effect Euonymus occidentalis Medium – High No No Effect Fritillaria camschatcensis Medium No No Effect Galium kamtschaticum Medium No No Effect Heuchera grossulariifolia Low No No Effect var. tenuifolia Howellia aquatilis Low No No Effect Linanthus bolanderi Low No No Effect Liparis loeselii Low No No Effect Lomatium suksdorfii Low No No Effect Luzula arcuata X Low No No Effect Meconella oregana Low No No Effect Microseris borealis X Low No No Effect Mimulus jungermannioides Low No No Effect Mimulus pulsiferae Low No No Effect Mimulus suksdorfii Low No No Effect Montia diffusa X Medium – High No No Effect Navarretia tagetina Low No No Effect Ophioglossum pusillum Low - Medium No No Effect Parnassia fimbriata var. Low - Medium No No Effect hoodiana Pedicularis rainierensis Low No No Effect Penstemon barettiae X Low No No Effect Pityopus californica Low No No Effect Platanthera orbiculata var. Low No No Effect orbiculata Platanthera sparsiflora Low No No Effect Poa laxiflora Low No No Effect Polemonium carneum Low No No Effect Potentilla breweri Low No No Effect

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-32 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Table E.5.6-8. Sensitive Species Vascular Plant List for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, from the Region 6 Forest Service Sensitive Species Plant List, April 2006. Habitat Present Documented on Suitability in in Study Species Name Gifford Pinchot NF Study area area Determination Ranunculus reconditus Low No No Effect Rorippa columbiae Low – Medium No No Effect Scribneria bolanderi Low No No Effect Sidalcea hirtipes X Low No No Effect Sisyrinchium sarmentosum X Low No No Effect Utricularia intermedia X Medium No No Effect Veratrum insolitum Low No No Effect

Lichens, Bryophytes and Fungi Table E.5.6-9 contains the Regional Forester’s list of Sensitive lichens, bryophytes and fungi, the suitability of habitat in the study area, whether the species is present in the study area and a determination of Project effect. A population of each of the four Forest Service Sensitive lichen species Collema nigrescens, Nephroma bellum, Nephroma occultum, and Platismatia lacunosa were located in a single locality in the Goat Rocks Wilderness Area, a Forest Service-managed portion of the study area. The Upper Lake Creek Trail bisects the stand and is used by hikers and pack animals. It is evident that pack animals graze the deciduous shrubs and trees on the side of the trail in the vicinity of the lichen populations. While the four Sensitive lichen populations are in the Rare Plant study area, they are not within the Project boundary or near any Project facilities or management activities. The Project is determined to have no effects on the Forest Service Sensitive lichen species Collema nigrescens, Nephroma bellum, Nephroma occultum, and Platismatia lacunosa.

A population of the Forest Service sensitive lichen Peltigera pacifica was located in young coniferous forest habitat in the Project area along the FS Road 1260-066 (Pipeline Road) and Pipeline Trail #74 (an ATV trail) between the roadside and the buried pipeline. The population comprises eight small subpopulations and is approximately 1.25 miles in length. The two easternmost subpopulations are along the first half-mile of the Pipeline Trail. The road and Pipeline Trail are gated, although they are used by Energy Northwest personnel to access Project facilities with vehicles and ATVs, and by the public to access the Packwood Lake with ATVs. FS Road 1260-066 is in fair condition but may need minor reconstruction in a few areas (USDA Forest Service 2005b). Pipeline Trail #74 is in fair to poor condition and is in need of maintenance. In the past, Energy Northwest has performed minor maintenance on the road. If ground disturbing maintenance on the road, trail or pipeline were to occur in the vicinity of the lichen population, Peltigera pacifica thalli could potentially be affected through direct loss, disturbance, or habitat alterations, at least in the short term. If disturbance were unavoidable in its habitat or to its population, Peltigera pacifica may be able to successfully maintain or re-establish itself based on the observation that the population initially established itself in the young forested stand that grew up after the road and pipeline were constructed in the early 1960s.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-33 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Table E.5.6-9. USDA Forest Service, Region 6 Sensitive Plant List, Lichens and Bryophytes. Updated April 2006. Documented on Habitat quality Present in Species Name Gifford Pinchot NF in Study area Study area Determination LICHENS Cetrelia cetrarioides X Medium - High No No Effect Chaenotheca subroscida X Medium No No Effect Collema nigrescens X Medium Yes No Effect Dendriscocaulon X Medium No No Effect intriculatum Dermatocarpon luridum X High No No Effect Hypogymnia duplicata Low No No Effect Hypotrachyna revoluta Low No No Effect Leptogium burnetiae var. Low No No Effect hirsutum Leptogium cyanescens Low No No Effect Leptogium rivale X Low No No Effect Lobaria linita var. tenuoir X Medium – High No No Effect Nephroma bellum X High Yes No Effect Nephroma occultum X Medium Yes No Effect Pannaria rubiginosa Medium No No Effect Peltigera neckeri Low No No Effect Peltigera pacifica X High Yes Potential Effect Pilophorus nigricaulis X Low No No Effect Platismatia lacunosa X High Yes No Effect Pseudocyphellaria X Medium No No Effect rainierensis Tholurna dissimilis X Low - Medium No No Effect Usnea longissima X Medium No No Effect BRYOPHYTES Encalypta brevicolia var Low No No Effect crumiana Schistostega pennata X High No No Effect Scouleria marginata Medium No No Effect Tetraphis geniculata X High No No Effect FUNGI Bridgeoporus nobilissimus X Low No No Effect

E.5.6.4.3 Washington State Listed Species

E.5.6.4.3.1 Fish Study Results

The following state-listed or candidate species of trout and salmon, or whitefish were found to utilize or potentially utilize the following Project areas:

Chinook Salmon • Lake Creek from its confluence with the Cowlitz River upstream to RM 1.03 (lowest anadromous barrier) • Tailrace slough below the Project tailrace

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-34 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

• Project stilling basin and tailrace [Note: Fish were excluded from these areas after construction of a new tailrace barrier in October 2007.]

Steelhead Trout • Lake Creek from its confluence with the Cowlitz River upstream to RM 1.95 • Tailrace slough below the Project tailrace • Snyder Creek from Project tailrace crossing upstream to the FS culvert • Project stilling basin and tailrace [Note: Fish were excluded from these areas after construction of a new tailrace barrier in October 2007.]

Rainbow Trout • Lake Creek from its confluence with the Cowlitz River upstream to Packwood Lake • Packwood Lake and its tributaries • Tailrace slough • Project stilling basin and tailrace [Note: Fish were excluded from these areas after construction of a new tailrace barrier in October 2007.] • Hall Creek

Additional information regarding the study results is found in Sections E.5.3.1.2 and E.5.6.4.1.1.

E.5.6.4.3.2 Wildlife Study Results

Two studies were conducted related to the occurrence of RTE wildlife, the Bald Eagle and Osprey Nest Survey the results of which are described in Section E.5.4.2.1, and the Amphibian Survey, described in Section E.5.4.2.2. At the time that studies were planned and implemented, bald eagle was federally listed as a threatened species (de- listed effective June 28, 2007).

No adverse effects of the Project on Washington State listed wildlife species, most of which are upland species or are likely to occur only as transients, are postulated. Bald eagles regularly occur in the Project area, but no nests are within more 1,000 feet of the Project area, do not appear to be affected.

E.5.6.4.3.3 Rare Plant Study Results

The Rare Plant study area is larger than, and includes the Project area, such that some of the rare plant populations located in the study area are not within the Project boundary. Figure E.5.6-3 displays the study area, Project area and the approximate locations of rare plant populations located during the Rare Plant Survey.

Table E.5.6-10 contains a list of known occurrences of rare plants tracked by the Washington Natural Heritage Program in Lewis County, Washington (WNHP 2007). This list of 24 species was the Washington state list of potential rare plant species for the study area. Some of these species are also present on the Federal and U.S. Forest Service lists above.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-35 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

The only state listed rare plant species documented during the rare plant survey was one population consisting of two subpopulations of the state Threatened species Oregon goldenaster (Heterotheca oregona). Both subpopulations were located on private land. Plants grow on semi-stabilized cobble and gravels, i.e., on neither the oldest or youngest vegetated substrate, at sunny to partially shaded sites along the Cowlitz River. This species was not initially included on the WHNP list of potential rare plant species for Lewis County as the only previously documented occurrence of it was from Yakima County (WNHP 1996). The typical habitat of Oregon goldenaster is open, sunny to partially shaded sites on sand and gravel bars along rivers. Seasonal river flooding is probably important in maintaining the habitat for this species (WNHP 2007).

Table E.5.6-10. List of Known Occurrences of Rare Plants in Lewis County (WNHP 2007). Common State Federal Scientific Name Name Status Status Typical Habitat Balsamorhiza Puget R2 Open, deep soiled places in the Puget deltoidea Balsamroot Trough Calamagrostis Blue Joint R2 Wet places from sea level to the mountains canadensis var. Reedgrass imberbis Carex densa Dense T Eroding hummocks in intertidal marshland Sedge Cimicifuga elata Tall Bugbane S SC Margins of mixed, mature, or old-growth mesic coniferous forest Delphinium Pale E SC Undisturbed dry bluffs, open ground, moist leucophaeum Larkspur lowland meadows Erigeron aliceae Alice's S Moist or dry soil in sandy or open places in Fleabane the mountains Eryngium Oregon T Wet prairies and low ground petiolatum Coyote- thistle Erythronium Pink Fawn- S Moist mineral soil in open or moderately revolutum lily shady areas Euonymus Western T Shaded woods, moist draws and ravines, occidentalis Wahoo oak savannahs Githopsis Common S Open areas, bedrock outcrops, talus specularioides Blue-cup slopes, and gravelly prairies Heterotheca Oregon T Sand and gravel bars along rivers oregona goldenaster Isoetes nuttallii Nuttall's S Wet ground or seepages and in mud near Quillwort vernal pools, low elevations Lathyrus Thin-leaved E SC Roadsides, fencerows, grasslands, with holochlorus Peavine Garry oak, low elevations Lathyrus vestitus Pacific Pea E Open to wooded areas, low elevations ssp. bolanderi Lupinus Kincaid's E LT Native upland prairies, and open oak sulphureus ssp. Sulfur Lupine woodlands, low elevations kincaidii Meconella oregana White T SC Open grassland or forest grassland Meconella mosaic, moist in spring, then dry Montia diffusa Branching S Moist forests in lowland and lower Montia montane zones, occasional in xeric soils

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-36 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Table E.5.6-10. List of Known Occurrences of Rare Plants in Lewis County (WNHP 2007). Common State Federal Scientific Name Name Status Status Typical Habitat Pedicularis Mt. Rainier S Moist alpine meadows, open coniferous rainierensis Lousewort forest, rocky slopes Poa laxiflora Loose- T Moist woods to rocky open slopes, sea flowered level to lower mountain elevations Bluegrass Polemonium Great T Woody thickets, open and moist forest, carneum Polemonium prairie edges, roadsides Potentilla Brewer’s T Moist meadows and stream banks to open drummondii ssp. Cinquefoil exposed slopes Breweri Sidalcea hirtipes Hairy- E Remnant prairie fragments, fence rows, stemmed mesic areas near creeks Checker- mallow Sidalcea Nelson's E LT Along streams and in meadows, prairies, nelsoniana Checker- grasslands, low elevations mallow Trillium parviflorum Small- S Moist areas dominated by hardwoods, flowered Oregon ash, red alder Trillium State Status of plant species is determined by the Washington Natural Heritage Program. Factors considered include abundance, occurrence patterns, vulnerability, threats, existing protection, and taxonomic distinctness. Values include: E = Endangered. In danger of becoming extinct or extirpated from Washington. T = Threatened. Likely to become Endangered in Washington. S = Sensitive. Vulnerable or declining and could become Endangered or Threatened in the state. X = Possibly extinct or Extirpated from Washington. R1= Review group 1. Of potential concern but needs more field work to assign another rank. R2 = Review group 2. Of potential concern but with unresolved taxonomic questions.

Federal Status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA) as published in the Federal Register: LE = Listed Endangered. In danger of extinction. LT = Listed Threatened. Likely to become endangered. PE = Proposed Endangered. PT = Proposed Threatened. C = Candidate species. Sufficient information exists to support listing as Endangered or Threatened. SC = Species of Concern. An unofficial status, the species appears to be in jeopardy, but insufficient information to support listing. NL = Not Listed. Used when two portions of a taxon have different federal status.

The only state listed rare plant species documented during the rare plant survey was one population consisting of two subpopulations of the state Threatened species Oregon goldenaster (Heterotheca oregona). Although both subpopulations were located on private land, only one of the subpopulations is included in the Project area. The typical habitat of Oregon goldenaster is open, sunny to partially shaded sites on sand and gravel bars along rivers. Seasonal river flooding is probably important in maintaining the habitat for this species (WNHP 2007).

Storm events that create high flows in Lake Creek and the tailrace are not of a significant magnitude to negatively impact Oregon goldenaster populations in the study

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-37 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species area, relative to peak flows of the Cowlitz River. Both subpopulations of Oregon goldenaster are located upstream of, or are elevationally higher than Project-related high flows at either the tailrace or Lake Creek. Population dynamics of the Oregon goldenaster subpopulations are largely inter-dependant on the hydraulics of the Cowlitz River with which they are associated. Project related operations and maintenance do not negatively impact the Oregon goldenaster subpopulations in the Project area.

Table E.5.6-11 contains a list of known occurrences of rare plants in Lewis County, the suitability of habitat in the study area, whether the species is present in the study area and a determination of Project effect. No state listed rare plant species, including Oregon goldenaster, are determined to be affected by the Project.

Table E.5.6-11. List of Known Occurrences of Rare Plants in Lewis County (WNHP 2007). Habitat quality in Present in Scientific Name Common Name Study area Study area Determination Balsamorhiza deltoidea Puget Balsamroot Low No No Effect Calamagrostis canadensis Blue Joint Reedgrass Low No No Effect var. imberbis Carex densa Dense Sedge Low No No Effect Cimicifuga elata Tall Bugbane High No No Effect Delphinium leucophaeum Pale Larkspur Low No No Effect Erigeron aliceae Alice's Fleabane Low No No Effect Eryngium petiolatum Oregon Coyote-thistle Low No No Effect Erythronium revolutum Pink Fawn-lily Medium No No Effect Euonymus occidentalis Western Wahoo High No No Effect Githopsis specularioides Common Blue-cup Low No No Effect Heterotheca oregona Oregon goldenaster High Yes No Effect Isoetes nuttallii Nuttall's Quillwort Medium No No Effect Lathyrus holochlorus Thin-leaved Peavine Low No No Effect Lathyrus vestitus ssp. Pacific Pea Low No No Effect bolanderi Lupinus sulphureus ssp. Kincaid's Sulfur Lupine Low No No Effect kincaidii Meconella oregana White Meconella Low No No Effect Montia diffusa Branching Montia Med – High No No Effect Pedicularis rainierensis Mt. Rainier Lousewort Low No No Effect Loose-flowered Poa laxiflora Low No No Effect Bluegrass Polemonium carneum Great Polemonium Low No No Effect Potentilla drummondii ssp. Brewer’s Cinquefoil Low No No Effect Breweri Hairy-stemmed Sidalcea hirtipes Low No No Effect Checker-mallow Nelson's Checker- Sidalcea nelsoniana Low No No Effect mallow Trillium parviflorum Small-flowered Trillium Low No No Effect Habitat information extracted from the WNHP field guide (WNHP 2007), USDA Forest Service Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Pre-field review (USDA Forest Service 2005a), and other botanical resources.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-38 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

E.5.6.5 Proposed Environmental Measures

E.5.6.5.1 Federal Endangered and Threatened Species

E.5.6.5.1.1 Fish

Results of the studies examining presence/abundance of fish species designated to be threatened and endangered in the waters potentially affected by the Project were correlated with flow and habitat data to assess potential Project effects on fish and fish habitat. Studies addressed agency concerns that the Project may affect fish resources and fish habitat in the Project area. Potential measures to protect and enhance the fishery resources of Packwood Lake, lower Lake Creek, Snyder Creek, and the tailrace slough include:

• Increase the annual minimum bypass flow to Lake Creek. (4 cfs in January, February, March, and December, 7 cfs in April and November, 10 cfs in June and October, 15 cfs from July 1 to August 15 and September 16 to September 30 and 20 cfs from August 16 to September 15). • Increase the frequency of gravel and wood movement in Lake Creek by providing a spill event of greater than or equal to 285 cfs for as long as lake inflows can sustain that flow or a maximum of 24 hours, every other water year or 3 out of 6 water years. • Increase the Lake Creek anadromous spawning and rearing habitat by installing wood and boulder stream structures to provide for additional pools, gravel retention, and other beneficial habitat features in Lake Creek (RM 0-1). Gravel will be added to these structures to immediately improve habitat. • Monitor stream enhancement measures to verify improvements to habitat. • Supplement stream structures with gravel recruitment stations. • Shift time of the annual maintenance outage to August 15 to September 15 in order to minimize impacts to spring Chinook salmon by eliminating attraction flows in the tailrace slough and to avoid discharge of naturally warmed Packwood Lake water to the tailrace during peak summer temperatures. • Improve fish passage on Snyder Creek where it crosses the tailrace canal by rerouting the stream to enter Hall Creek downstream of the Project flume.

The proposed protection, mitigation and enhancement measures are discussed below grouped according to the Project effects they are intended to address

Measures to Address Project Effects on Fish Habitat in Lower Lake Creek Habitat assessments and barrier assessments on lower Lake Creek have established the anadromous zone to be from the mouth to RM 1.03 for Chinook and coho and to RM 1.95 for steelhead. Energy Northwest is proposing to provide several measures to improve habitat for RTE species in lower Lake Creek. • Increase the annual minimum bypass flow to Lake Creek (4 cfs in January, February, March, and December, 7 cfs in April and November, 10 cfs in June and October, 15 cfs from July 1 to August 15 and from September 16 to September 30, and 20 cfs from August 16 to September 15).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-39 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

• Increase the frequency of gravel and wood movement in Lake Creek by providing a spill event of greater than or equal to 285 cfs for as long as lake inflows can sustain that flow or a maximum of 24 hours, every other water year or 3 out of 6 water years. • Increase the Lake Creek anadromous spawning and rearing habitat by installing wood and boulder stream structures to provide for additional pools, gravel retention, and other beneficial habitat features in Lake Creek (RM 0-1). Gravel will be added to these structures to immediately improve habitat. • Monitor stream enhancement measures to verify improvements to habitat. • Supplement stream structures with gravel recruitment stations to provide adequate movement of gravel into the anadromous reach.

Lack of gravel and large wood in the anadromous zone of lower Lake Creek has been established as a primary reason for the lack of overall quality habitat in the lower 1.95 miles of Lake Creek. The Lake Creek Instream Flow Study (EES Consulting 2007m) concluded that spawning habitat for both anadromous and resident fish in Lake Creek is scarce and comprises on average less than 1% of the total habitat available. Spawner surveys conducted for the Project noted that all available gravels in Reach 1 were already fully utilized (EES Consulting 2007c). Field surveys of large woody debris (LWD) in Lake Creek showed that Reach 1 (accessible to all anadromous fish) has very little LWD in the wetted channel. This lack of LWD results in spawning-sized gravel being washed through the system or stored on the channel margins where it is rarely functional as spawning habitat for salmon or trout.

For elaboration on the proposed enhancement measures related to lower Lake Creek see Section E.5.3.1.3.4.

Measures to Address Fish Passage at Snyder Creek Tailrace Crossing Snyder Creek currently passes through a 75-ft long culvert that crosses under the Project tailrace and joins Hall Creek upstream of the tailrace. This crossing creates a partial barrier to upstream migration of anadromous species, currently listed under the Endangered Species Act. This crossing is complex and completely backwatered, but does not allow for full passage of all species and life stages at all times. Past high flow events have filled the culvert with sediment, further impeding upstream passage. Energy Northwest has observed both coho salmon and cutthroat trout utilizing Snyder Creek above the tailrace crossing.

Energy Northwest has consulted with the natural resource agencies and tribes to determine how best to improve the crossing, and agreed to reroute Snyder Creek to enter a backwater channel of Hall Creek downstream of the culvert. Re-routing the creek, rather than simply replacing the culvert with a new structure, will provide the most cost-effective and best solution for the resource and avoid the need for difficult maintenance measures. (For additional information, see Section E.5.3.1.3.6) Since the culvert currently does pass fish (although the percentage is not known), Energy Northwest proposes that this culvert be maintained and kept in operating condition until Year 5 of the license, by which time Energy Northwest will complete the rerouting of Snyder Creek.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-40 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Measures to Address Effects to Anadromous Salmonids in the Tailrace Slough The tailrace slough is a highly dynamic side channel and is altered by high flow events in the Cowlitz River. Some years the tailrace slough is largely dependent upon the Cowlitz River during low flow months; however, in other years, a greater percentage of the flow in the tailrace slough comes from the Project than from the river.

Under the current operational regime, the Project’s annual outage for maintenance occurs during October. Spring Chinook periodicity indicates that spawning timing ranges from the middle of August through the end of September. Under the Project’s current operational regime, in certain years where flows in the side channel from the Cowlitz River are low compared to the Project’s outflow contribution, Spring Chinook could be attracted to spawn in the tailrace slough by Project flow, and incubating eggs in the tailrace could be dewatered when the Project shuts down for annual maintenance. Low Packwood Lake inflows during August and September have also forced the Project to shut down occasionally on weekends, since mandatory lake elevations could not otherwise be maintained. This situation also has the potential to subject incubating eggs and fry in the tailrace slough to the risks of dewatering or stranding during these periods.

Energy Northwest proposes to shift the timing of the annual outage in order to provide additional protection to spawning Chinook in the tailrace. Energy Northwest proposes to move the outage to August 15 – September 15. In order to avoid potential impacts to the Packwood Lake environment, Energy Northwest does not propose a pre-outage drawdown. The outage time period was chosen for a number of reasons:

• Spring Chinook salmon spawning begins in the upper Cowlitz River on approximately August 15. By starting the outage on August 15 rather than the current outage timing, the Project will avoid providing attraction water that would draw adult Chinook salmon into the tailrace slough to spawn. • Performing the outage in August and September, when lake inflows are traditionally low, will help assure adequate water is available to provide bypass flows for Lake Creek that support spawning, incubation, and rearing of anadromous fish. • Eliminating the pre-outage drawdown will ensure lake storage necessary for continuous operation of the Project from the end of the outage in mid-September through the end of October. Uninterrupted Project operation results in continuous discharge to the tailrace slough in years when the Project flows play a significant part in maintaining spawning and incubation in this area after mid-September. • Eliminating a pre-outage drawdown minimizes the negative effects at Packwood Lake on: o Out migration of juvenile fish from lake tributaries o Lowering water levels in wetland areas o Amphibian impacts due to lower wetland water levels o Littoral fish habitat issues o Concerns on limiting uncontrolled shoreline access by recreationists.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-41 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

• Changing the outage timing has helped minimize the dependence on the Cowlitz River to provide flows during critical periods in the tailrace slough. • The shifting of the outage to this period also helps avoid the discharge of naturally warmed Packwood Lake water to the Cowlitz River, when summer temperatures are at their highest.

Several measures will be required during the outage to protect fish in the tailrace area:

• Prior to the annual Project shutdown Energy Northwest will inspect the Cowlitz River side channel that flows into the tailrace slough area. The purpose of this inspection is to verify that the river is providing flow through the side channel into the slough and document the results of the inspection in the station logs. If there is flow through the side channel, no fish rescue is required. If the side channel is dry, a fish rescue will be initiated within 12 hours of cessation of flows through the Project tailrace. If fish are stranded, then fish rescue protocols will be followed to capture them and move them into safe habitat in the Cowlitz River.

• In accordance with the established schedule developed to determine the efficiency of the tailrace fish barrier, the section of tailrace upstream of the fish barrier will be inspected and electrofished, as necessary, within 12 hours of the Project's annual maintenance outage. A block net will be installed where the tailrace exits the stilling basin prior commencing the tailrace fish rescue. The stilling basin will be seined within 72 hours of the shutdown. All captured fish will be recorded and the information provided to the aquatics resource panel in the annual report.

See Section E.5.3.1.3 for estimated costs of these measures.

E.5.6.5.1.2 Wildlife

Because no effects to federally listed species or their habitats were found in the Project area, no measures are proposed.

E.5.6.5.1.3 Botanical

Because no federally listed species or their habitats were found in the Project area, no measures are proposed and no costs are anticipated.

E.5.6.5.2 USDA Forest Service Sensitive Species

E.5.6.5.2.1 Fish

Because no USDA Forest Service Sensitive fish species are found in the Project area, no measures are being proposed.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-42 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

E.5.6.5.2.2 Wildlife

Because no effects on USDA Forest Service Sensitive wildlife species were found, no measures are proposed.

E.5.6.5.2.3 Botanical

As shown in Table E.5.6-9 and Table E.5.6-10, with the exception of Peltigera pacifica, no Project-related activities are anticipated to affect any USDA Forest Service Sensitive species that are either listed and not located during surveys, or to Sensitive species that were documented in the Project area.

Peltigera pacifica Project-related maintenance of the FS Road 1260-066 (Pipeline Road), Pipeline Trail #74, or the buried pipeline has the potential to affect the Peltigera pacifica population through direct loss, disturbance, noxious weed spread or habitat alterations. Invasive plant species could potentially degrade or occupy Peltigera habitat. The Peltigera occupies habitat adjacent to FS Road 1260-066 and the Pipeline Trail, which has been subject to minimal routine maintenance during the last several years. While there are no planned changes to how the road, Pipeline Trail or pipeline will be used or maintained under the new license, inevitably some maintenance to the road, trail, or pipeline will be necessary in the future. Ground-disturbing activities associated with maintenance could damage Peltigera thalli or habitat. The overstory canopy of young coniferous tree species and tall shrubs growing along the road and pipeline where the Peltigera pacifica grows might become too large and require trimming or removal. If disturbance were unavoidable in its habitat or to its population, Peltigera pacifica may be able to successfully maintain or re-establish itself based on the observation that the population initially established itself in the young forested stand that grew up after the road and pipeline were constructed in the early 1960s.

Energy Northwest proposes the following measures for protection, mitigation, and enhancement of the Peltigera pacifica population near the Project. A rare plant management plan for the Project will be developed, in consultation with the Forest Service and appropriate agencies. This plan will have the goal of providing site-specific management to protect and monitor occurrences of rare plant species located in the Project boundary on Forest Service and Energy Northwest lands. It will also provide a framework for consultation about rare plant management between Energy Northwest, the Forest Service and appropriate agencies. The rare plant management plan will determine how often and when field surveys should occur, how field surveys and documentation should occur, how often the plan will be updated, and what measures should be taken to avoid or reduce adverse effects to rare plant species as Project- related road maintenance and other activities occur throughout the new license term.

Cost Estimate and Schedule Within a year of issuance of the new License, a rare plant management plan will be developed for the USFS-managed portion of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-43 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species area for the License period. The plan would define how and when rare plant field surveys and monitoring of a limited scope would be undertaken to assess whether proposed changes in Project operations or ground disturbing activities could potentially affect rare plants on USFS lands. Surveys will be conducted according to USFS standards. Protection measures, and survey, monitoring reporting, and plan update standards and schedules will be developed in consultation with the Forest Service. The plan will be consistent with the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Noxious Weed Control Plan. As a part of the rare plant management plan, Energy Northwest will consult with the Forest Service to create a site-specific rare plant management plan for the Peltigera pacifica population located on Forest Service lands in the Project area. The circumstances under which this population would require surveying and monitoring will be defined by the plan.

The cost of consultation and development of the rare plant management plan is estimated to be approximately $10,000. The plan will include monitoring of confirmed sensitive species sites every 2 years for 6 years following license issuance and at 3- year intervals thereafter, unless a determination is made at Year 6 that no additional monitoring is necessary. The cost of a survey and monitoring effort for the Peltigera pacifica population or for a rare plant survey of limited scope is estimated to be $3,000.

E.5.6.5.3 Washington State Listed Species

As shown in Table E.5.6-10, no Project-related activities are anticipated to affect any Washington state listed species that are either potentially present and not located during surveys, or to Oregon goldenaster, which was documented in the Project area.

Oregon goldenaster Project-related effects that would cause direct loss, disturbance, or habitat alterations are not likely to occur either under the current license or under the proposed Project operating regime. Project operations are not likely to negatively affect the Oregon goldenaster population in the Project area.

Listed noxious weeds such as butterfly bush and Japanese knotweed could cause habitat degradation and destruction within the Oregon goldenaster population. Operation of the Project may provide continued avenues for noxious weed introduction, establishment and spread. Energy Northwest has a noxious weed control plan for the Project, which establishes responsibilities and requirements for the control of noxious weed infestations within the Project area (Energy Northwest 2007g). Noxious weed control would be deemed necessary, if listed noxious weeds such as butterfly bush or Japanese knotweed are present within Oregon goldenaster habitat in the Project area. As directed by the Noxious Weed Control Plan, Energy Northwest is required to remove butterfly bush, knotweed species and other weed species listed by the LCWCB within the Project boundary. Though control of the noxious weeds in and near the population would be beneficial, care should be taken that rare plants are not negatively affected by trampling or control measures.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-44 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.6-RTE Species

Energy Northwest proposes the following measures for protection, mitigation, and enhancement of the Oregon goldenaster population near the Project.

A rare plant management plan for the Project will be developed in consultation with appropriate agencies. This plan will have the goal of providing site-specific management to protect and monitor occurrences of rare plant species located in the Project boundary on private and Energy Northwest lands. It will also provide a framework for consultation about rare plant management between Energy Northwest and appropriate agencies. The rare plant management plan will determine how often and when field surveys should occur, how field surveys and documentation should occur, how often the plan will be updated, and what measures should be taken to avoid or reduce adverse effects to rare plant species.

Cost Estimate and Schedule Within a year of issuance of the new License, a rare plant management plan will be developed for the Energy Northwest and privately owned portions of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project area for the License period. The plan would define how and when rare plant field surveys and monitoring of a limited scope would be undertaken to assess whether proposed changes in Project operations or ground disturbing activities could potentially affect rare plants on private and Energy Northwest lands. Protection measures, and survey, monitoring, reporting, and plan update standards and schedules will be developed in consultation with appropriate agencies. The plan will be consistent with the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Noxious Weed Control Plan. As a part of the rare plant management plan, Energy Northwest will consult with appropriate agencies to create a site specific rare plant management plan for the Oregon goldenaster population, which is located on private lands in the Project area. The circumstances under which this population would require survey and monitoring will be defined by the plan. Costs for these measures are included in the plan and monitoring that is described in Section E.5.6.5 immediately above.

E.5.6.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

It is not anticipated that any proposed measures for the relicensing of the Project will result in unavoidable impacts to federally listed, USDA Sensitive or Washington State listed fish species were found in the Project area.

It is not anticipated that any proposed measures for the relicensing of the Project will result in unavoidable impacts to federally listed, USDA Sensitive or Washington State listed wildlife species in the Project area. Any effects of the Project on amphibian species that are known to exist, or that could exist, within the Project are included in the baseline for environmental analysis; these effects were due to the original construction and operation of the Project.

It is not anticipated that any proposed measures for the relicensing of the Project will result in unavoidable impacts to populations of rare plants and their management in the Project area.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.6-45 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

E.5.7 Recreation and Land Use

E.5.7.1 Affected Environment

E.5.7.1.1 Regional Setting

The Project is located in southwest Washington State, in rural east Lewis County. Forested lands cover most of the eastern portion of Lewis County and major land uses revolve around the forest environment. Within the county borders are portions of Mount Rainier National Park, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Goat Rocks Wilderness Area, and Tatoosh Wilderness Area. Minor agricultural uses occur in the area, primarily along U.S. Highway 12 and in the Cowlitz River valley.

The Project is near the unincorporated community of Packwood, which is located along Highway 12, near the northern part of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (GPNF) (see Figure E.1-1). The Packwood community is primarily residential, with small businesses. Packwood is 20 miles west of the White Pass Ski area, and is situated approximately 9 miles south of Mt. Rainier National Park and approximately 30 miles northeast of Mt. St. Helens National Monument. The metropolitan areas of Seattle and Portland are both approximately two and one-half hours away by motor vehicle. Because of Packwood’s close proximity to several recreational areas, there are many nearby recreational opportunities such as hiking, hunting, fishing, bird and wildlife watching, skiing, snowboarding, snowmobiling and camping. The town of Packwood has an RV campground just off Highway 12, and there are several other RV/campgrounds and resorts within 20 miles of Packwood. The town of Packwood offers a number of events including two flea markets, an art exhibition, hot rod car show, music festival and several BBQs in the summer, and a Christmas festival, winter carnival and a snowmobile hill climb in the winter.

The majority of the Project lies within the GPNF, which is one of America’s oldest national forests. Covering a good portion of the area's Cascade Mountains, it includes over 1.3 million acres, including the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument and seven Wilderness areas. The GPNF offers over 1,400 miles of trails at varying difficulty. Most of the trails are located in upper-elevation forest and alpine areas and many trails on the Forest are open to mountain bikers. Over 300 miles of trail are located within the wildernesses. Approximately 150 miles of new trails are constructed to barrier-free standard, which also includes several levels of difficulty (USDA Forest Service 2007d).

The GPNF contains 44 developed campgrounds, and ten “horse camps” that are located on or near horse trails, and 16 Sno-Parks. Dispersed camping is permitted throughout most of the Forest. The GPNF also provides excellent opportunities for canoeing, kayaking, rafting, and other forms of boating.

The northern portion of the GPNF, where the Packwood Lake Project is located, is within the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District. Recreation opportunities within the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District include hiking, biking, backpacking, camping, horseback riding,

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

motorcycle and all terrain vehicle (ATV) riding, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, boating, skiing, and snowmobiling. Goat Rocks Wilderness is located on the east side of this District, between Mount Rainier and Mount Adams. Goats Rocks Wilderness is approximately 105,600 acres; GPNF administers approximately 71,219 of these acres. There are 18 primary trailheads with approximately 134 trail miles within the GPNF- administered part of the Wilderness (USDA Forest Service 1998).

E.5.7.1.2 Packwood Lake History

Packwood Lake was formed about 1,100 years ago when a landslide from Snyder Mountain blocked the Lake Creek valley. Historical trails provided access to Packwood Lake and recreation use at Packwood Lake occurred well before the Project was completed and began operation in 1964.

Historically Packwood Lake was extremely popular for fishing, boating and camping. Archaeological evidence demonstrates Native American use of the Packwood Lake area in the late prehistoric period (HRA 2005). Local Native American visits to Packwood Lake recorded in the early 19th and 20th centuries included temporary camps, fishing, and huckleberry picking. By 1900, local settlers in the upper Cowlitz River were attracted to Packwood Lake, “for recreation pleasure as well as to catch large amounts of fish,” (Combs et al. 1954). Trail #78 to Packwood Lake was built in 1909 by the Valley Development Company; and Trail #81, which runs along the east side of Packwood Lake, was first noted on a 1931 map.

In 1917, the Forest Service established a public campground at Packwood Lake. The popularity of the Lake led to the development of a tent camp resort near the Lake outlet in 1921 under permit to the Forest Service, where meals and rented boats were provided. A two-story cedar lodge complete with store, kitchen and dining area, and floating dock, boathouse and new rowboats and 11 small wood cabins were provided in the mid 1930s. In 1972, the main lodge, utility room, and the boiler building were damaged by fire and most of the cabins were removed in 1974. The boat concession, with boathouse and dock, continued until 1991. The remaining structures were removed by the Forest Service in the 1990s (Bedell 2004).

E.5.7.1.3 Project Lands

The Project is located mostly within the GPNF, and the lands surrounding Packwood Lake are primarily located in the Goat Rocks Wilderness Area. The Project boundary, as shown on Figure E.5.7-1, includes 503.25 acres of Forest Service-managed land and approximately 21 acres of Energy Northwest-owned land (Energy Northwest 2004c) within Lewis County jurisdiction.

The Project boundary within Forest Service lands includes Packwood Lake up to an elevation of 2860 feet MSL, and the intake canal, intake structure, drop structure (dam), pipeline and tunnels, surge tank, penstock, and powerhouse. Near the powerhouse area, less than 400 feet, out of the approximate 6,690 foot long tailrace, is located within

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

Figure E.5.7-1. Location of Project Features

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

Forest Service lands; the remainder of the tailrace, from the Forest Service boundary to the Cowlitz River, is located on Energy Northwest property. From the powerhouse substation, approximately 748 feet of transmission line is within Forest Service lands. The rest of the transmission line is located on Energy Northwest property (3,873 feet along the Project tailrace); State of Washington’s right-of-way for Highway 12 (3,361 feet); and 27 feet on Lewis County property (Energy Northwest 2004c).

The Project access road (Pipeline Road) provides ATV access from Snyder Road (Forest Service Road 1260) to a point approximately two miles from the lake. Energy Northwest use of the road and connecting Trail #74 is generally one to two times per week, to check on intake facilities and perform needed maintenance. Energy Northwest maintains this road and connecting trail. Public access on foot, horseback, or by ATV is provided around Energy Northwest’s vehicle gate to the Pipeline Road and connecting Trail #74. Energy Northwest also allows public access to the powerhouse area and portions of the tailrace, near the Cowlitz River.

An allotment of power from the Project intake structure is reserved for use by the Forest Service at the Packwood Lake Guard Station and is used for heating, lighting, and cooking. The National Park Service uses the surge tank facilities for a radio repeater to enhance radio communications from the west and east sides of Mt. Rainier. This repeater station provides a reliable communication system for Mt. Rainier and the surrounding National Park area. In addition to the National Park Service, the surge tank also houses repeaters for the Lewis County Fire District, Lewis County Communications, Washington Department of Transportation, and a local community radio service.

E.5.7.2 Land Use and Relevant Resource Management Plans

E.5.7.2.1 GPNF Land and Resource Management Plan

The GPNF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) was adopted in 1990 (USDA Forest Service 1990). Since then, several amendments have been approved and incorporated into the LRMP. In February 1995, the LRMP was amended (USDA Forest Service 1995b) to incorporate the Northwest Forest Plan comprehensive ecosystem management strategy for managing National Forest System lands within the range of the northern spotted owl. In 1996, a Region-wide implementation monitoring program was initiated to monitor implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan standards and guidelines. In 1999, a Decision Notice amended wilderness management standards and guidelines particularly those related to determining limits of acceptable change (USDA Forest Service 1998).

The LRMP establishes management areas for lands within the GPNF along with goals and objectives and standards and guidelines. The Project boundary is located within several Management Allocations (Figure E.5.7-2). Over three quarters of the Packwood Lake shoreline borders the designated Wilderness (WW) boundary. The remaining Lake shoreline and Project area is within the Late-Successional Reserve (LSR)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-4 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

designation, which overlaps several management allocations within the Project boundary.

Wilderness Area The Wilderness (WW as shown on Figure E.5.7-2) management allocation is a designated Congressionally Reserved Area. In 1964, Congress passed the Wilderness Act, which added the Goat Rocks to the new National Wilderness Preservation System. The Wilderness Act continues to be the guiding piece of legislation for all Wilderness areas. The Act defines Wilderness as follows:

“…lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition…” Section 2(a) “…an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man…” Section 2(c) “…an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvement or human habitation…” Section 2(c) “…generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable…” Section 2(c) “…has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation…” Section 2(c) “…shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreation, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation and historic use.” Section 4(b)

As described in the GPNF LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1995b), the goal of the Wilderness designation is to preserve the wilderness character, allowing for natural processes and providing opportunities for solitude, challenge and inspiration. Within this intent, primitive or unconfined type of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational and historical uses are allowed. Desired future conditions of Wilderness follows a policy of non-degradation of Wilderness character and includes no motorized activities and no roads within the Wilderness, except as required to serve valid mineral or energy projects initiated prior to December 31, 1983.

Management objectives and policies for recreation within the Wilderness include the following (USDA Forest Service 2007a):

• Provide, consistent with management of the area as wilderness, opportunities for public use, enjoyment and understanding of wilderness, through experiences that depend upon a wilderness setting. • Provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. • Maximize visitor freedom within the wilderness. Minimize direct controls and restrictions. Apply controls only when they are essential for protection of the wilderness resource and after indirect measures have failed. • Use information, interpretation, and education as the primary tools for management of wilderness visitors.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-5 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

Figure E.5.7-2. GPNF Management Allocations

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-6 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

• Manage for recreation activities that are dependent on the wilderness environment so that a minimum of adaptations within wilderness are necessary to accommodate recreation. • Consistent with management as wilderness, permit outfitter/guide operations where they are necessary to help segments of the public use and enjoy wilderness areas for recreational or other wilderness purposes.

Under the authority of 36 CFR 261.50(a) (Order # 139-B), it is a violation of Wilderness regulation to camp within 100 feet of lakeshores.

The Wilderness Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (WRS) provides a way to describe the variations in the degree of isolation from the sounds and influences of people, and the amount of recreation visitor use. There are four WRS classes: Transition, Semi- Primitive, Primitive and Pristine. The Wilderness area along the east side of Packwood Lake is designated as “Transition” in the WRS, while the Wilderness along the west side of the Packwood Lake is designated as “Pristine” (USDA Forest Service 1995b).

The Transition WRS designation is generally characterized by a predominantly unmodified environment; however, the concentrations of visitors can be moderate to high at various times. These areas can have a large number of day users who are often mixed with overnight and long-distance travelers on trails near trailheads and wilderness boundaries. The WRS management prescription for the Transition class directs that the average number of people encountered each day should be 24 or less and that no more than two campsites should be visible from a given site (USDA Forest Service 1998). The 1990 Forest Service standard for this classification is for sites not to exceed 600 sq. ft. of vegetation loss (USDA Forest Service 1990); however, a single upper limit standard of 900 sq. ft. of barren core (virtually free of vegetation) has been proposed for all sites, with an acceptable range of 0 to 900 sq. ft., and a collective target average of approximately 450 sq. ft. (USDA Forest Service 1998).

The “Pristine” WRS designation is characterized by an essentially unmodified, natural environment with low concentrations of visitors and minimal human use. These areas have a high opportunity for isolation, solitude, exploration, risk, and challenge. The WRS management prescription for the Pristine class directs that the average number of people encountered each day should be limited to an average of three per day and that no other campsites should be visible from a given site. The 1990 Forest Service standard for this WRS is 0 sq. ft. of vegetation loss (USDA Forest Service 1990).

In 2004, annual visitor use in Goat Rocks Wilderness was 14,409 (USDA Forest Service 2006a). Site-specific monitoring of 42 sites in the Goats Rocks Wilderness (13% of the known sites in the Goat Rocks Wilderness) in three areas was conducted in 2004 and results were compared with monitoring results from 1990. Standards were not met in two of the three areas monitored, Packwood Lake and Alpine Camp; new sites had been created, and the average campsite condition had deteriorated (USDA Forest Service 2006a).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-7 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

GPNF Non-Wilderness Area The Late Successional Reserve designation includes Project area lands outside of the Wilderness boundary. The LRMP management goal of the LSR is to protect and enhance habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species, including the northern spotted owl (USDA Forest Service 1995b).

Several management allocations overlap the LSR designation, including Unroaded Recreation without Timber Harvest (UH), Roaded Recreation without Timber Harvest (RL), Visual Emphasis (VL), and Utility (4W). The UH, RL, and 4W management categories are designated Administratively Withdrawn Areas. Administratively Withdrawn Areas include wildlife, recreation, visual, and other areas not managed to provide timber outputs. Where administratively withdrawn areas (UH, RL and 4W) overlap the Late Successional Reserve (LSR), standards and guidelines from both designated areas may apply (USDA Forest Service 1995b).

Packwood Lake itself is within the UH management allocation outside of the Wilderness and LSR boundaries (Figure E.5.7-2). The lake’s northern shoreline and lands to the north of Packwood Lake, including the intake and upper pipeline route, are located within the LSR and UH management category. Under the UH allocation, the resource management goal is to provide a variety of dispersed recreation opportunities in a semi- primitive or undeveloped setting, with an emphasis on maintaining a predominantly natural or naturally appearing environment. As stated, hydroelectric facilities should be designed to minimize adverse effects on the natural setting.

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class assigned to this management area is Semi-primitive Motorized. Under this class, motorized use is permitted in a moderate to large area characterized by a predominantly natural environment, with low interaction, and little site modification. Management standards and guidelines for this ROS class include (USDA Forest Service 1995b):

• Off-road vehicle use is usually limited to trails that are typically difficult and challenging. • Portions of the area or trails may be closed seasonally or year-round to prevent resource damage and conflicts between different users and to accomplish management goals for adjacent areas. • Trails will be designed to disperse use and take advantage of scenic views and other points of interest whenever possible. Existing primitive roads may be designated for ORV use. • Trails will be constructed and maintained to a standard no higher than that designated. • Native, local, or natural-appearing materials will be used in trail construction and maintenance, including culverts and bridges. • Facilities are predominantly those required to distribute users. • The area will be managed to produce no more than 15 encounters between groups of visitors per day. Groups should be no larger than 25 persons (encounter no more than 400 individuals each day).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-8 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

• Campsites should be located away from lakeshores (100 feet [Bedell 2004]), streamsides, and trails. • No more than three other campsites should be visible from a given site and ORVs will avoid lakeshore and streamside areas. • There will be no on-site informational facilities. • Prescribed fire is limited to areas where ground vegetation will recover in two years.

The middle section of the pipeline route is located within the RL (Roaded Recreation without Timber Harvest) management category. The RL management area lands provide a variety of dispersed recreational opportunities in areas conveniently reached by auto, and are managed to provide for interaction with a near-natural environment. The ROS class for this management area is Roaded Natural. This class is characterized by predominantly natural appearing environment with evidence of sight/sounds of humans, moderate site and resource modification, and conventional motorized use. The Management standards and guidelines for the Roaded Natural class include (USDA Forest Service 1995b):

• Access should be provided to developed sites, trailheads, and other recreation areas. • Access should be managed to provide for low to moderate concentrations of recreation users. • Access should provide opportunities for dispersed motorized or non-motorized activities. • Access should emphasize scenic values associated with driving for pleasure. • Signs should be posted on all recreation roads and trail junctions, and at all trailheads. • Facilities will be provided equally for protection of the site and comfort of users. • Parking facilities will be designed to accommodate the number of visitors appropriate to a given trail or recreation site. • Adequate and safe loading facilities for recreation livestock, boats, oversnow vehicles, and other ORVs may be provided. • Facilities should be designed to accommodate handicapped persons whenever practicable. • Camp units should be placed outside the foreground view from lakes, streams, trails, and key interest features. • Simple wayside exhibits may provide information about features of the area. Information may also be conveyed via the news media and maps, brochures, and contacts at administrative headquarters and entry points.

The lower section of the Project pipeline route is within a VL (Visual Emphasis) management area (Figure E.5.7-2). The management goal of VL area is to provide a visually natural or near-natural landscape as viewed from the designated travel route or use area. Relevant standards and guidelines for this category allow for enhancing viewing opportunities by opening views to such features as distant peaks, unique rock forms, and unusual vegetation. The ROS class for the VL management area is Roaded Natural, which is the same as the RL management area, described above.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-9 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

The Project powerhouse site is located within a 4W (Utility) management category (Figure E.5.7-2). The ROS class for the 4W management area is Rural, which is characterized by substantially modified site and natural environment. The management goal of the 4W area is to provide effective and economical utilities with the least impact on the various natural resources involved. Relevant Forest Service standards and guidelines for this category include (USDA Forest Service 1995b):

• May provide opportunities to harvest Christmas trees, view wildlife, operate off-road vehicles, hunt, cross-country ski, and pursue other recreational activities. • May permit off-road vehicles on designated trails or areas. • Consider wildlife habitat improvements. • Adhere to Federal standards for use of chemicals to control vegetation. • Utilize existing sites and corridors, whenever possible, for additional facility needs. • Rehabilitate site or corridor that is no longer in use.

Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy Overlaying all land allocations outlined in the LRMP are watersheds and riparian reserves along lakes, streams, and wetlands, which are key components of the Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS), which seeks to restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within them on public lands. Out of the nine ACS objectives outlined within the range of the northern spotted owl, four provide management direction associated with recreation use at Packwood Lake. These include (USDA Forest Service 1995b):

• Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations. • Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities. • Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. • Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

Federally managed lands within the Lake Creek Watershed are designated as a Tier 1 Key Watershed. Tier 1 Key Watersheds were selected for directly contributing to anadromous salmonid and bull trout conservation and are highest priority for watershed restoration. Riparian Reserves are portions of watersheds where standards and guidelines prohibit or regulate activities that retard or prevent attainment of the ACS objectives. Riparian reserves are not “buffers” in the traditional sense where

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-10 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

management activities are prohibited; they are areas where special care is taken to assure protection of watershed and riparian processes and functions. For Packwood Lake, the riparian reserve consists of the Lake itself, and the Riparian Reserves along the lake shoreline. The width of the Riparian Reserve is the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or to the extent of seasonally saturated soil, or to the extent of unstable and potentially unstable areas, or to a slope distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest.

Standards and guidelines that apply to new and existing recreation facilities within Riparian Reserved are summarized below (USDA Forest Service 1995b):

• New recreational facilities within Riparian Reserves, including trails and dispersed sites, should be designed to meet ACS objectives. For existing recreation facilities within Riparian Reserves, evaluate and mitigate impact to ensure that these do not prevent, and to the extent practicable contribute to, attainment of ACS objectives. • Adjust dispersed and developed recreation practices that retard or prevent attainment of ACS objectives. Where adjustment measures such as education, use limitation, traffic control devices, increased maintenance, relocation of facilities, and/or specific site closures are not effective, eliminate the practice or occupancy.

E.5.7.2.2 Lewis County Comprehensive Plan

Project lands located within rural Lewis County jurisdiction, including most of the tailrace from the Project powerhouse site to the Cowlitz River, and part of the transmission line, traverse through open rural, residential, commercial and undeveloped and rural timbered lands. Figure E.5.7-3 shows the current zoning of these lands, which include RDD – 5, RDD – 10 and RDD – 20 near the powerhouse; STMU and STI near Highway 12; and RDD – 20 and Mineral Resource Lands near the Cowlitz River. These designations are described as follows (Lewis County 2002):

RDD (Rural Development District): This is a mixed-use zoning district that allows a number of different land uses such as single family residential, resource uses and limited types of commercial activity. For more information please consult LCC 17.42.040. There are three density designations for this zone that determine the potential for future subdivision in this zone. RDD-5 allows a density of one dwelling unit per five acres for subdivision purposes. RDD-10 allows a density of one dwelling unit per ten acres for subdivision purposes. RDD-20 allows a density of one dwelling unit per 20 acres for subdivision purposes. The purpose of the RDD zone is to achieve a variety of lot sizes, protect rural character, and protect small rural businesses that have historically served the people of Lewis County.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-11 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

LEGEND

Source: Lewis County Comprehensive Plan, 2002

Figure E.5.7-3. Packwood Land Use/Current Zoning

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-12 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

STMU (Small Town Mixed Use): This zone allows commercial and residential activities. For more information, consult LCC 17.42.030. The STMU designation is designed to assure infill development that is consistent with the surrounding uses, existing public facilities and character of the area.

STI (Small Town Industrial): This zone allows for industrial development, resource uses, and limited types of commercial and residential development. For more information, consult LCC 17.42.030. The STI designation was created to assure that areas historically devoted to intensive employment activities are protected and to assure the continuation of locations that support long-term commercially significant resource activities.

Mineral (Mineral Resource Land): This zone is primarily devoted to the extraction of minerals of commercial significance. Mineral resource lands are currently subject to an order of invalidity imposed by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.

Lewis County Comprehensive critical areas mapping identifies the FEMA 100-year floodplain from the Cowlitz River to the Forest Service boundary and National Wetlands Inventory and Hydric Soils along the tailrace route west of the powerhouse site and east of Highway 12. Slopes greater that 30% are identified throughout Forest Service lands.

Lewis County’s vision for rural areas, such as the Packwood area, includes continuing to provide residents of Lewis County a quality rural lifestyle, with development of a character and density that is largely self-sufficient and allows for more efficient use of land, while preserving the overall rural character. Existing rural settlements, such as the small town of Packwood, will be preserved and enhanced as the continued centers of opportunity for business and services in the rural areas (Lewis County 2002).

Recreation policies and goals outlined in the Lewis County Comprehensive Plan (Lewis County 2002) encourage opportunities for recreational and tourist activities that are well managed with respect to the overall preservation of natural resources. The County encourages the multiple use of forest land, which acknowledges the primary use and provides for other compatible uses. These uses may include air and water quality, fauna, flora and their habitats, viewsheds, watersheds and dispersed recreation.

E.5.7.2.3 Washington State SCORP

In its licensing decisions, FERC considers a hydroelectric project’s consistency with relevant comprehensive plans for developing or conserving waterways, which includes the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation’s (IAC) Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) (IAC, 2002 and 2003), as amended. The IAC SCORP encourages hydropower project operators to review recreation enhancement opportunities at projects. The IAC SCORP, as amended, presents the state’s strategic

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-13 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

plan for the acquisition, renovation, and development of recreational resources and preservation of open space. Specifically, the IAC SCORP recommends that hydropower operators, “…enhance inventory with trails and paths for walking and bicycling, manage dispersed shoreline camping, improve access for on-water recreation, and improve opportunities for nonconsumptive interaction with nature, including fish and wildlife.” In cases where hydropower operators have built recreation facilities on lands owned by other operators, IAC recommends that the licensee provide maintenance and operation assistance.

E.5.7.2.4 National and State Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Trails

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed by Congress in 1968 (P.L. 90-542) to ensure that some of the nation’s most spectacular rivers remain in a natural, free- flowing state for future generations to enjoy. To be eligible, a river system must possess one or more “outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values.” Currently, there are no congressionally designated Wild, Scenic, or recreational rivers on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. As required under Section 5(d) of the Act, the National Park Service maintains a Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI), which is a register of river segments that potentially qualify as national wild, scenic or recreational river areas. The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) has more than 3,400 free-flowing river segments in the United States that are believed to possess one or more “outstandingly remarkable” natural or cultural values judged to be of more than local or regional significance. Segments of the Cowlitz River are listed in the NRI, including a 42-mile-long segment between Muddy Creek and Riffe Lake. Within this segment, Lake Creek and the Project’s tailrace waters enter the Cowlitz River. The NRI shows scenery and geology as outstandingly remarkable values in this segment of the Cowlitz River, and gives this segment a preliminary classification as a Recreation River. Additionally, the GPNF LRMP recommends the Lewis River, Cispus River, and the Muddy Fork and Clear Fork of the Cowlitz River be designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers (USDA Forest Service 1995b), all of which are outside the Project boundary.

Washington State scenic rivers legislation (RCW 79A.55) establishes that certain rivers, due to their “outstanding natural, scenic, historic, ecological, and recreational values” are preserved in “as natural a condition as practical and that overuse of such rivers…shall be discouraged.” Rivers included in the Washington State scenic river system include the Skykomish River, and its tributaries upstream of the Sultan River, and portions of the Beckler River, Tye River, and Little Spokane River. The Project is not located near any Washington State scenic rivers.

The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail crosses the GPNF near its eastern boundary, approximately eight air miles east of the Project.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-14 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

E.5.7.3 Environmental Analysis

E.5.7.3.1 Recreation Resources Study Results

A recreation resources study was conducted in 2005/2006 to obtain additional information regarding recreation facilities, visitor use, including activity types and location around Packwood Lake, as well as utilization of the Pipeline Road/Trail #74 and Trail #78 and the parking lot that services both trails (Howe Consulting 2007).

Recreation use near the Project occurs within Forest Service lands near the upper portions of the Project around Packwood Lake. Visitor access to Packwood Lake is available via the motorized Pipeline Road (FS Rd 1260-066) and connecting trail (Trail #74) and a non-motorized trail maintained by the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District (Packwood Lake Trail #78). Both routes to Packwood Lake are 4.5 miles long and are both accessed from the parking lot at the end of Snyder Road (FS Rd 1260). The Pipeline Rd/Trail #74 route ends at the lakeshore. Trail #78 goes to the lakeshore, then continues across a bridge at the lake outlet and heads up to Mosquito Lake and Lost Lake. Trail #81 veers off of Trail #78 and continues along the lakeshore, and along Upper Lake Creek (see Figure E.5.7-4).

Visitor surveys conducted in 2006 indicate that the majority of visitors during all seasons hike Trail #78 to Packwood Lake. Hiking along the Pipeline Rd/Trail #74 route is the second most popular method that visitors use to access Packwood Lake. A relatively smaller percentage of visitors access Packwood Lake using horse/pack on Trail #78 and via ATV, motorcycle, and bike on the Pipeline Rd/Trail #74 route. Based on surveys, some Packwood Lake visitors use horse/pack on the Pipeline/Trail #74 route, although the majority of horse/pack used Trail #78.

An inventory of recreation facilities and dispersed sites at the Packwood Lake trailhead and around Packwood Lake was conducted in 2006 (Howe Consulting 2007). A paved parking lot, for approximately 30 to 45 vehicles, and the Packwood Lake trailhead (Trail #78) are located at the end of FS Rd 1260. A well maintained single vault toilet is located at the parking lot as well as an outhouse that is not maintained, which is located within the trees north of the trailhead.

Near Packwood Lake, at the end of Trail #74, is an unpaved area for ATV/motorized vehicle parking. The Project’s intake, dam and associated control building are located approximately 424 feet downstream from the outlet of Packwood Lake. A Forest Service guard station is located along Trail #78 where the trail drops down to Packwood Lake, and an historic ranger station is located along Trail #78, near the Lake Creek foot bridge. An old well is located about 100 feet west of the historic ranger station; however, due to unacceptable water tests, the well has been dismantled to prevent public use. Three toilets/outhouses are located within the Forest Service non- Wilderness area along Packwood Lake. All three toilets are in poor condition and have not been serviced or maintained. The Forest Service generally maintains and clears trails #78 and #81 once a year and conducts other maintenance in the Packwood Lake area on an as-needed, as-time-permits basis.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-15 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

Figure E.5.7-4. Packwood Lake Trails

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-16 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

Within the Wilderness area around Packwood Lake, 23 Forest Service monitored sites are documented. A total of 18 dispersed camp sites and 2 dispersed day-use only sites were identified during the 2006 inventory near the non-Wilderness shoreline of Packwood Lake (Howe Consulting 2007). Connector trails were observed between many of the campsites, below trails #78 and #81.

Based on visitor surveys conducted at the Packwood Lake Trailhead parking lot, an estimated average of less than 30 people per day during the peak-season went to Packwood Lake from the trailhead parking lot, with an estimated 50 people per day on peak-season weekends (Howe Consulting 2007). The total recreation days, based on the 2006 surveys at the trailhead parking lot and the Forest Service’s Person Days or Person Days Per Year (PDPY) formula, were estimated as 5080 during the peak season, 134 during the spring off-season, and 1,024 during the fall off-season. An estimated 2,535 people visited Packwood Lake during the peak season, 114 people in the spring off-season, and 588 people in the fall off-season went to Packwood Lake.

At most FERC Hydroelectric Project recreation sites, visitors are counted at the campsites, day-use/boat launch sites, etc., so the numbers of visitors at each of these sites are counted at the recreation sites. The Forest Service estimates the number of visitors to the area via Wilderness permit data obtained from the Wilderness Permit Stations located at the Wilderness boundaries. Because the Packwood Lake area has only dispersed recreation within non-Wilderness and Wilderness areas and because it involved a 4.5 mile hike to access this area, visitors at Packwood Lake were counted at the Trailhead and not at the Packwood Lake site. For these type of counts, the Forest Service uses the formula of (party size x overnights) + (1 x party size) to estimate USFS Person Days Per Year (PDPY). Using this formula for a party of five day users, the total would equal the party size or number of people that visited the Packwood Lake area for the day ((5 x 0) + (1 x 5) = 5). However, for one overnight, each visitor would spend two days in the area (which is accounted for by adding the party size to the first part of the equation). For instance, if a party of five visitors stayed one night they would arrive on the first day (day 1), spend the night (1 night) then leave the following day (day 2). This would result in person days or recreation days of (5 x 1) + (1 x 5) = 5 + 5 = 10. So in fact, 5 visitors spend two days in the area if they stay overnight one night. Likewise, visitors would spend three days in the area, if they stay 2 nights. This formula may result in a slightly higher visitor use estimate than the FERC defined 24-hour recreation day; however, it is more applicable for this type of survey and is preferred by the Forest Service. For recreation management planning purposes, and because the Forest Service owns and manages the recreation areas around Packwood Lake, the Forest Service’s Person Days formula was used to estimate Recreation Days.

Approximately 54 percent of peak-season visitors to Packwood Lake were day users and 46 percent were overnight users. Spring off-season visitors consisted of 83 percent day users and 17 percent overnight users, while fall off-season visitors consisted of 40 percent day users and 60 percent overnight users.

Based on the 2006 surveys, visitors to Packwood Lake participated in a number of activities during their visit. The most popular activities of visitors to Packwood Lake,

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-17 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use during all seasons, was visiting the beach, hiking and picnicking followed by camping and wading/swimming at Packwood Lake (Table E.5.7-1). Fishing for rainbow trout in Packwood Lake is also popular and is generally good, especially in late spring.

Table E.5.7-1. Packwood Lake Visitor Activities Activity Peak-Season Spring-Season Fall-Season Visiting Beach 82% 100% 88% Hiking 77% 100% 76% Picnicking 74% 67% 74% Camping 36% 33% 44% Wading/Swimming 39% 0% 6% Shore Fishing 26% 33% 15% Boat Fishing 4% 17% 0% Taking Pictures 1% 20% 3% Other Boating 1% 33% 0% Hunting 1% 0% 3%

Based on surveys, the majority of Packwood Lake visitors went to the non-Wilderness portion of Packwood Lake versus the Wilderness portion of Packwood Lake

Most visitors to the Packwood Lake area come from Western Washington with most from the local area, specifically Lewis and Pierce Counties. Many visitors also come from King and Thurston Counties. Some visitors come from eastern Washington, mostly Yakima County.

Recreation use of Lake Creek (the bypass reach) is very minimal due to the creek’s location within a steep canyon and limited access. Morning and afternoon observations of Lake Creek conducted in 2006 from the Old Highway 12 bridge, found no people recreating at Lake Creek.

E.5.7.3.2 Recreation Needs Analysis Results

An analysis of recreation needs was conducted to evaluate recreation use and demand and identify recreation needs and associated options in the Project area that recreation resource managers should strive to address (Howe Consulting/EES Consulting 2007). The purpose of the needs analysis is not to assign specific responsibility for implementing potential actions, but to provide information for Energy Northwest, and recreation resource managers and providers, to use in making decisions regarding recreation resources in the Project area.

Regional and national recreation studies and historical trends indicate that recreation use will not grow at the same rate as population growth. (IAC 2003). Although population in Washington State continues to increase, studies show an apparent growing number of inactive people resulting in a decline in participation as a percent of total population. Studies also indicate that recreation growth differs by activity. For instance, some recreation activities, such as hiking and dispersed camping, are expected to have only minimal growth while other recreation activities, such as

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-18 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use developed camping, are predicted to have greater growth due mainly to an aging population and resulting desire for RV camping and developed sites with amenities.

Physical, social, ecological and managerial constraints in the area as well as recreation use projections are used to estimate existing and future recreation capacity and potential recreation needs. Physical capacity generally refers to the number of dispersed sites, parking spaces, condition of facilities, etc. Social capacity is based on visitor’s perceptions and opinions regarding recreation use and crowding. Ecological capacity concerns ecologically sensitive areas, vegetation loss and other signs of over- use, and sanitation concerns, while managerial capacity refers to Forest Service standards and guidelines that generally relate to ecological and physical constraints and recreation use.

Packwood Lake Dispersed Sites

Typically, visitors who hike to lakes want to picnic or camp on the lake shoreline. Consequently, numerous dispersed camp sites have been created over the years along the Packwood Lake non-Wilderness and Wilderness shoreline. Visitors use these dispersed sites for overnight camping as well as day-use activities, including visiting the beach, swimming, and shore fishing. The current physical capacity, based on the number of existing dispersed sites at Packwood Lake and visitor use, is generally not exceeded during the busiest time of the year (peak-season weekends). During peak- season weekends, the estimated average capacity (or utilization of existing dispersed sites) is nearly 75% for non-Wilderness areas and 47% for Wilderness areas; however, during some peak-season weekends it is likely that most dispersed sites along the Packwood Lake non-Wilderness shoreline are occupied. Visitors surveyed in 2006 gave the Packwood Lake area high ratings and did not indicate that the area was overcrowded.

The majority of the dispersed camp sites around Packwood Lake are in violation of ecological and associated Forest LRMP standards. Sixteen (16) out of 20 non- Wilderness dispersed sites and 20 out of 23 Wilderness dispersed sites around Packwood Lake are within 100 feet of the shoreline, which is in violation of the GPNF LRMP (as amended by the Wilderness Protection Environmental Assessment, 1998). Additionally, many of the existing dispersed sites exceed Forest visibility, site density, and vegetation loss standards.

With no implementation or enforcement of ecological and managerial constraints, the average future recreation utilization (or physical capacity) along the non-Wilderness area of Packwood Lake, based on activity projections and the current number of dispersed sites, would likely be over 90% during peak-season weekends by the year 2030; while the Wilderness area along Packwood Lake would continue to be below the physical capacity (estimated at 57%), assuming the current number of dispersed sites are available. Current and projected non-Wilderness and Wilderness visitor utilization/capacity during peak-season weekdays and during off-seasons is significantly

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-19 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use less than peak-season weekends and is not expected to reach or exceed the capacity of dispersed sites, assuming that the current number of dispersed sites are available.

With enforcement of ecological and management constraints, the number of dispersed sites around Packwood Lake would be significantly reduced, and current and future utilization of the remaining sites will be extremely high, especially during peak-season weekends and weekdays. For the purpose of comparison, estimated utilization (or capacity) with ecological and managerial compliance within the non-Wilderness area at Packwood Lake, based on current peak-season weekend visitor use, would be 372% and the future utilization based on projected 2030 visitor use would be 454%. The Wilderness area at Packwood Lake would have an estimated current utilization of 279% and a future 2030 utilization of 341% if ecological and managerial compliance is implemented and enforced. As demonstrated, current and future recreation demand at Packwood Lake would not be met if ecological and management constraints are implemented and enforced.

With evolving concerns for the Forest communities, especially in Wilderness areas, related to human impacts and associated ecological changes to the Forest setting, implementation of management controls is desired. However, implementation can be difficult in settings such as Packwood Lake, where visitors want to camp or spend the day along the shoreline. Compliance with Forest Service standards will necessitate the elimination of most of the existing dispersed sites around Packwood Lake. The majority of Packwood Lake visitors surveyed in 2006 thought that moving camping areas away from the lake shoreline was a bad idea, demonstrating the difficulty in meeting both managerial standards and visitor demands.

If dispersed sites are eliminated, additional sites would be needed to accommodate existing and future recreation demand. However, few options exist for dispersed camp sites in the area that meet standards due to steep slopes along the majority of the east and southwest sides of the Lake, wetlands along the southern side of the Lake, and difficulties in accessing the west side of the Lake.

Packwood Lake Trails

Current peak-season weekend use of Trail #74 is estimated to be an average of 18 people per day. Future (2030) peak-season weekend trail use, based on activity type projections, is estimated to be around 24 people per day, which is below Forest management standards for number of encounters. Current and projected peak-season weekday and off-season use of Trail #74 is significantly less. The Forest Service has indicated that the motorized Pipeline Road/Trail #74 access to Packwood Lake contributes to the level of use and refuse, and detracts from the aesthetic environment in the area. Current public motorized use of this route was authorized by the Forest Service, and the Forest Service can likewise mandate that no public motorized use be allowed on this route.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-20 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

Trail #78 received more use than Pipeline Rd/Trail #74 with an estimated average of 30 people per day during the busiest time of the year (peak-season weekends) and an estimated future (2030) use of 38 people per day on peak-season weekends, based on activity type projections. A section of Trail #78 within the Wilderness boundary, between the Packwood Lake trailhead parking lot and Packwood Lake, likely exceeds the “Primitive” Forest standard of no more than 6 encounters per day during many peak- season weekends. Trail #81 along the east side of Packwood Lake within the Wilderness boundary may exceed the “Transition” Forest standard of no more than 24 encounters per day during some peak-season weekends. In order to meet Forest standards in these areas, visitor use may need to be limited.

Packwood Lake Trailhead Parking Lot

The Packwood Lake trailhead parking lot capacity is currently exceeded only on occasion during peak-season weekends. Future use projections indicate that the parking lot will be full more often on peak-season weekends. Currently, when the parking lot is full visitors turn away, thereby limiting the number of visitors to Packwood Lake. Current and future use projections indicate that the Packwood Lake trailhead parking lot will continue to have plenty of vehicle parking spaces during peak-season weekdays and during the off-seasons.

Packwood Lake Facility Needs/Concerns

Remains of the old Forest Service’s permitted resort, including two pit toilets within the non-Wilderness area along Packwood Lake, continue to be used; however, they are not maintained and are out of compliance with Forest standards. Another portable toilet installed more recently by the Forest Service near the old historic ranger station is located in a swampy area and has not been serviced in the last couple of years. New toilets are needed to reduce sanitation concerns in the area. Potential trash collection or education options were also identified needs to reduce trash and associated sanitation and ecological concerns in the area.

Due to the dispersed nature of the Packwood Lake area and ecological concerns, barrier free access to this area is likely not a feasible or practical option.

Recreation Management at Packwood Lake

Potential needs to address ecological and associated managerial standards may change the visitor experience and/or significantly reduce the ability to recreate at Packwood Lake. The Forest Service will need to allow exceptions to management standards for the Packwood Lake area or visitor use will need to be limited, and limits enforced, to prevent further visitor created camp sites. Compliance with management standards will result in few dispersed sites near Packwood Lake and will reduce recreation opportunities and use in the area. Consequently, significantly reduced recreation use at Packwood Lake may reduce the need for new toilets and potential trash collection or education options to alleviate the current sanitation concerns.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-21 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

Management decisions will need to be made by the Forest Service to balance the level of impacts to the environment as well as recreation visitors.

Continued operation of the Project will not affect recreation activities at Packwood Lake. Measures proposed as part of the new License are not expected to affect fishing and boating at Packwood Lake and Lake Creek or recreation resources and opportunities at Packwood Lake.

Prior to development of the Project, access to Packwood Lake was by a 6-mile foot trail. During Project construction, Energy Northwest constructed approximately 3.5 miles of permanent road (FS Road 1260) to Forest Service standards and constructed the parking lot located at the end of the access road to accommodate a maximum of 50 cars and five trailers. Energy Northwest also reconstructed the hiking trail (part of Packwood Lake Trail #78) to Forest Service standards for public recreation access from the parking lot to the Lake and Wilderness areas beyond. The Project access road (Pipeline Road, FS Rd 1260-066) and connecting trail (Trail #74) is Energy Northwest’s primary access for operation and maintenance of the hydroelectric diversion dam at the lake’s outlet. The Pipeline Road/Trail #74 is located approximately 100 yards from the parking lot, down Forest Service Road 1260. Public access on foot, horseback, or by ATV is also provided around Energy Northwest’s locked vehicle gate on the Pipeline Road.

Currently, public access to Packwood Lake is by either the 4.5 mile non-motorized Forest Service trail (Trail #78), or the 4.5 mile motorized trail (Energy Northwest’s Pipeline Road and connecting Trail #74). Although Energy Northwest maintains the Pipeline Road/Trail #74, the Forest Service mandates the type of public use/travel allowed on this route. Forest Service directive resulted in allowing public ATV use of the Pipeline Road and connecting Trail #74. Energy Northwest will continue to comply with Forest Service direction regarding the type of use on the Pipeline Rd/Trail #74 access route.

Although the Project provided improved access to Packwood Lake, the Project did not create Packwood Lake or the recreational opportunities and use within the National Forest and wilderness lands. Recreation activities occurred at Packwood Lake prior to construction and operation of the Project (refer to Section E.5.7.1.2 above).

Prior to closing down the Forest Service permitted resort in 1992, visitor use at Packwood Lake was estimated to be an average of about 60 people per day during the summer months with up to 300 people per day on weekends (Bedell 2004). Based on the average number of visitors per day, prior to 1992, it is estimated that 6060 people visited Packwood Lake during the summer months.

After the Forest Service permitted resort and facilities were removed, visitor use decreased significantly. Based on surveys conducted in 2006 at the Packwood Lake trailhead parking lot, an estimated average of less than 30 people per day visited Packwood Lake during the peak-season, with an estimated 50 people per day on

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-22 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use weekends (Howe Consulting 2007). Based on the 2006 surveys, an estimated 2,535 people visit Packwood Lake during the summer months (peak-season).

Table E.5.7-2 shows Historic Visitor Use at Goat Rocks Wilderness. As shown, visitor use at Packwood Lake has decreased significantly since closure of the resort and facilities at Packwood Lake.

Table E.5.7-2. Goat Rocks Wilderness Historic Visitor Use 1986-2004 1986 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 % Change

22,560 12,730 17,500 8,760 13,340 18,080 14,409 -36% Source: USDA Forest Service 2006a

Construction and operation of Project does not affect or induce recreation use at Packwood Lake. Recreation/visitor use at Packwood Lake was influenced by the Forest Service permitted facilities at Packwood Lake, described above, and past and present Forest Service management directives, not the Project.

E.5.7.4 Proposed Environmental Measures

Energy Northwest proposes the following measures related to recreation at the Project. Within one year of License issuance, Energy Northwest will develop the Packwood Lake Recreation Management Plan (Recreation Plan), and file the Recreation Plan with the Commission for approval. The Recreation Plan will address Project-related recreation resources located on NFS and other lands affected by the Project within the existing Project boundary or as otherwise ordered by the Commission. The Recreation Plan will include provisions for adaptive management to address changing recreation needs and preferences and will be updated as appropriate every six years in conjunction with filing the Commission Form 80. The Recreation Plan will be prepared in coordination with the Agencies. Energy Northwest will allow a minimum of 60 days for the Agencies to review and comment on the draft Recreation Plan and make additional recommendations if applicable, prior to filing the Plan with the Commission for approval. Energy Northwest will include with the Recreation Plan documentation of coordination, copies of Agency comments and recommendations on the completed draft Recreation Plan after it has been prepared and provided to the Agencies for review, and will include specific descriptions of how the Agency comments and/or recommendations are addressed by the Recreation Plan. If Energy Northwest does not adopt a recommendation, the filing will include the reasons, based on Project-specific information.

The Recreation Plan will include an annual implementation schedule, consultation, and approval procedures and include:

1. Measures to adequately address the Agencies resource concerns and standards of quality (e.g., Meaningful Measures) throughout the License term; 2. Requirement to obtain and install a composting toilet at the Packwood Lake recreation site within three years of the issuance of the license;

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-23 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.7-Recreation/Land Use

3. Provisions for Operation and Maintenance annual funding over the life of the new license, for the composting toilet; 4. Provisions for Operation and Maintenance annual funding over the life of the new license, to address impacts from dispersed recreation beginning the first year of the License; 5. Development of a Road Maintenance Plan for the Pipeline Road (FS Road 1260- 066) (level 2-drainage maintenance), Pipeline Trail (Trailhead No. 74) (maintaining the trail [drainage, trail clearing, and vegetation management to USDA Forest Service standard] and install and maintain a Kiosk for signage for “Pack it In/Pack it Out”), and Latch Road (FS Road 1262 above the gate) (level 2- drainage maintenance and vegetation management - brushing), in consultation with the Agencies. Coordinate the Road Maintenance Plan with the Integrated Weed Management Plan. 6. Continued provision of electricity to the USDA Forest Service guard station; and 7. Consultation with the USDA Forest Service, as repairs and maintenance to the Project intake-related structures or facilities are performed, on appropriate paint colors and materials to make the building blend in with the surrounding area.

Estimated costs for these measures are provided below in Table E.5.7-3.

Table E.5.7-3. Estimated Costs for Recreation Measures PM&E Measure Capital Cost Annual Cost Develop Recreation Management Plan $14,000 $3,400 Update every 6 years with form Obtain/install composting toilet at $175,000 Packwood Lake O&M annual funding of composting toilet $5,612/year Provide funding for a USDA Forest $14,000/year Service ranger to provide onsite surveillance and recreation assistance at Packwood Lake for the summer season. Road and Trail Maintenance $18,280 Provide electricity to USDA Forest $1,660/year Service guard station Consult with USDA Forest Service on $0 repairs/maintenance of intake-related structures

E.5.7.5 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

No unavoidable adverse impacts on recreation due to relicensing the Project have been identified.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.7-24 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.8-Aesthetic Resources

E.5.8 Aesthetic Resources

E.5.8.1 Affected Environment

The Project is mostly located in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (GPNF) within the Lake Creek drainage. The Project area is characterized by forested slopes and rugged and glaciated peaks in the upper elevations. Packwood Lake is approximately 1.5 miles long and 0.5 miles wide and is located at the end of a long glacially carved valley. Its main source of water is glacier-fed Upper Lake Creek, which descends from Gilbert Peak (also known as Old Snowy Mountain). The forest above Packwood Lake harbors old-growth forest. Western hemlock, Western red cedar, and Douglas fir are the most common large varieties. Below Packwood Lake, lower Lake Creek flows through a steep canyon and through the Cowlitz River valley floodplains, where the community of Packwood is located. The combination of various landforms, vegetation and rock and water features produces a distinctive and highly scenic landscape in the Project area.

Project facilities within Forest Service lands include the intake canal, a concrete drop structure (dam), intake and control building on Lake Creek, located about 424 feet downstream from the outlet of Packwood Lake; a 21,694-foot system of buried pipe and tunnels; a surge tank and a 5,621-foot buried penstock, and powerhouse (see Figure E.1-1 for a map of the Project area). Packwood Lake is the source of water for the Project, and is included within the Project boundary. It is a natural lake at an elevation of approximately 2857 feet MSL and is about 1,800 feet above the powerhouse. Water discharged from the Project is returned to the Cowlitz River via a tailrace channel. The tailrace and transmission line are outside of Forest Service lands, within Lewis County jurisdiction.

During the recreation season, May 1 through September 15, when visitor use at Packwood Lake is the greatest, Packwood Lake is maintained at its approximate natural elevation (2857 feet MSL). During the remainder of the year, the existing FERC license allows lowering the lake level not more than eight feet below the summer lake level down to an elevation of 2849 feet MSL.

Aesthetic resource management in the GPNF is guided by the LRMP Scenery Management System (SMS), which sets Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) designed to protect or enhance scenic recreational values. VQOs associated with the Project are shown on Figure E.5.8-1 and described on Table E.5.8-1. The standards are developed for viewsheds seen from campgrounds, viewpoints, picnic areas, and other developed sites, as well as those seen from designated travel routes such as roads and rivers (USDA Forest Service 1995a).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.8-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.8-Aesthetic Resources

Figure E.5.8-1. Visual Quality Objectives

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.8-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.8-Aesthetic Resources

Table E.5.8-1. USDA Forest Service Visual Quality Objectives Location Relative to Project Visual Quality Objective1 Boundary/Project Facilities. Preservation – allows ecological changes only. Over three-quarters of Packwood Lake Management activities, except for very low visual impact shoreline (the Project boundary) is recreation activities, are prohibited. Applies to Wilderness adjacent to the Wilderness boundary and primitive areas. In general, human activities are not (South side of Lake). No Project detectable to the visitor. facilities are located within the Wilderness Boundary. Retention – Human activities are not evident to the casual Includes Packwood Lake and the intake visitor. Activities may only repeat form, line, color, and canal, concrete drop structure (dam), texture which are frequently found in the characteristic and control building on Lake Creek and landscape. Changes in their qualities of size, amount, the upper portion of the pipeline route, intensity direction, pattern, etc., should not be evident. which also provides motorized (ATV) access to Packwood Lake. Project specific standards and guidelines: • Ground disturbance by any activity should be rehabilitated within one year to natural appearance. • Buildings should be located and designed to blend with the natural character of the land. • Revegetation for visual quality and erosion control should be completed within one season after construction. • Roads may not dominate the natural form, line, color and texture. • All utility right-of-way should be located and designed to blend with natural appearances. • Transmission towers will be screened or designed to blend with their surroundings. Partial Retention – Human activities remain visually Includes the majority of the Project subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may pipeline route (including the lower repeat form, line, color or texture common to the section of the access route to Packwood characteristic landscape but changes in their qualities of Lake), surge tank, and the penstock. size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape.

Activities may also introduce form, line, color, or texture which are found infrequently or not at all in the characteristic landscape, but they should remain subordinate to the visual strength of the characteristic landscape. Modification – Human activities may visually dominate the Powerhouse and associated facilities. original characteristic landscape. However, activities of vegetative and land form alteration must borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture so completely and at such a scale that its visual characteristics are those of natural occurrences within the surrounding area or character type.

Project specific standards and guidelines: • Revegetation for visual quality and erosion control should be completed within one season after construction. 1 USDA Forest Service (1974, 1995a)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.8-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.8-Aesthetic Resources

Packwood Lake is the dominant feature in the Project boundary. The 452-acre lake was formed when a large mass of soil and rock slid off Snyder Mountain and dammed Lake Creek 1,100 years ago. Packwood Lake sits in the midst of superlative old forest and dramatic, glacially sculpted scenery that provides a variety of visual elements in terms of the forms, lines, colors and textures present in the surrounding landscape. The rugged Goat Rocks Wilderness surrounds the upper portion of the lake, while the area around the lake outlet lies outside the Wilderness.

Figure E.5.8-2 provides aerial photographs of Packwood Lake, looking north towards the Lake’s outlet. Due to the thick forest cover in the area, Project facilities located on the north end of the Lake are not readily visible. Figure E.5.8-3 shows views, looking southeast, of Packwood Lake and the Wilderness which surrounds most of the Lake. The foreground and middleground landscape includes the lake and forested shorelines and slopes, while the background landscape shows the steep forested hills and rugged snow covered peaks that are characteristic of the Wilderness’ higher elevations. As shown on Table E.5.8-1, no Project facilities are within the Wilderness, which has a VQO of Preservation. Packwood Lake, itself is outside the Wilderness and retains a VQO of Retention. Project facilities are not apparent from the Wilderness or from Packwood Lake or shoreline viewpoints.

The Project’s intake canal, dam and intake control building are located over 400 feet downstream from the outlet of Packwood Lake within an area with prescribed VQO of Retention. These facilities are visible from Forest Service Trail #74 that runs adjacent to the intake control building, and from the Forest Service Trail #78 bridge that crosses Lake Creek near the Lake outlet. Figures 3.8-4 and 3.8-5 provide photographs of these facilities. Figure E.5.8-5 shows the Forest Service bridge in the foreground. In accordance with the landscape design for the intake control structure, natural vegetation was planted in the 1960s to screen the intake area as much as possible. As can be seen in the photograph, vegetation has grown along the intake canal. In 1976, the structures were painted to blend in with the natural environs. Colors chosen were shades of brown (called new bark) and green (called olive branch) and were approved by the Forest Service. In August 2005, the intake control structure received a new roof and paint. The USDA Forest Service was consulted and the roofing and paint color were approved by the USDA Forest Service. The new metal roof is slate colored and the color of the structure is brown. The log booms at the intake structure are brown in color to simulate the color of logs.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.8-4 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.8-Aesthetic Resources

Figure E.5.8-2. Aerial Views of Packwood Lake

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.8-5 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.8-Aesthetic Resources

Figure E.5.8-3. Views from Packwood Lake Northshore Looking Southeast

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.8-6 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.8-Aesthetic Resources

Figure E.5.8-4. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Intake and Diversion Structures

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.8-7 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.8-Aesthetic Resources

Figure E.5.8-5. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Intake Canal/Outlet to Packwood Lake

Access to Packwood Lake is via two 4.5-mile long routes; the Forest Service’s non- motorized trail (Forest Service Trail #78) and the motorized (ATV) trail (Pipeline Road/Trail #74). Both routes traverse through heavy timbered areas and sections along Trail #78 offer scenic vistas including views of Mt. Rainer. The Pipeline route is located within areas with prescribed Retention and Partial Retention VQOs, while the Forest Service Trail #78 traverses through areas with Retention, Preservation and Partial Retention VQOs. A parking lot, located at the end of Forest Service Road 1260, is the starting point for both trails. From this parking lot, visitors can enjoy scenic views of the surrounding mountains. The parking lot is located within the Partial Retention VQO. Both trails and the parking lot are compatible with the objectives of the Scenery Management System.

The Project’s pipeline and penstock are both buried and, therefore, are not visible. The most visible structure associated with the Project is the surge tank. Figure E.5.8-6 is a photograph of the surge tank taken from the community of Packwood. The surge tank is located within the Partial Retention VQO, which allows human activities that are generally visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. The green color for the tank was chosen based upon requirements of the Forest Service, and to reduce the contrasts of this structure with the backdrop.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.8-8 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.8-Aesthetic Resources

Figure E.5.8-6. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Surge Tank

Figure E.5.8-7 provides an aerial photograph of the powerhouse and warehouse area. This area is within the VQO of Modification. The site is generally surrounded by forested areas, and is not visible from the community of Packwood or nearby forests. The transmission lines on Forest Service property are also masked by the forested areas.

Figure E.5.8-8 is a photograph of the Project tailrace and the community of Packwood, taken from the surge tank area. Although the tailrace is a notable feature, the general appearance is similar to the surrounding area.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.8-9 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.8-Aesthetic Resources

Figure E.5.8-7. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Powerhouse and Warehouse Area

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.8-10 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.8-Aesthetic Resources

Figure E.5.8-8. Project Tailrace and Community of Packwood

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.8-11 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.8-Aesthetic Resources

E.5.8.2 Environmental Analysis

The buildings, intake and drop structure and associated facilities of the Project have placed man-made features in an otherwise undeveloped landscape. Continued operation of the Project will not change these existing conditions.

In general, the Project blends well with its natural surroundings. The surge tank and diversion dam and associated structures are the most noticeable. The surge tank is visible in the middleground from the community of Packwood; although the coloring of the structure reduces the visibility to some extent. The Project’s diversion dam, intake canal and intake control structure are visible in the foreground from Trail #74, and from the Trail #78 Lake Creek bridge crossing. Although vegetative screening and use of colors for the structure and log boom reduces the visual impact, the structures do not necessarily conform to the rustic theme consistent with the VQO area.

Current and future operations of the Project do not involve activities that directly affect aesthetic resources. Lake drawdowns can result in exposed shorelines around the Lake, although the visual impact to visitors is believed to be minor. Under the current FERC license, Packwood Lake is maintained at 2,857 feet MSL +/- 0.5 ft from May 1 through September 15. The Lake is then drawn down in the latter half of September prior to the annual Project shutdown for maintenance. Once the Project is shut down (typically October 1), the lake level rises dependent upon natural inflow rates. Based on recreation surveys (Howe Consulting 2007), relatively few people visit Packwood Lake in late September, and most visit the eastern side of the Lake. Study of Packwood Lake drawdowns (EES Consulting 2007g) show greatest shoreline exposure due to Lake drawdowns at the upper end (south side) and west side of the Lake. The changes in the shoreline are less dramatic in the areas where most people visit and the shoreline substrate and associated potential for erosion is minimal thereby reducing the potential for visitors to appreciably notice, or be visually affected during their visit to the Packwood Lake area.

E.5.8.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

As repairs and maintenance are performed to the intake building, Energy Northwest will consult with the USDA Forest Service on appropriate paint colors and materials to make the building blend in with the surrounding area. Energy Northwest proposes to move its annual maintenance outage to mid-August, and eliminate the current pre-outage drawdown of the lake and, thus, avoid any aesthetic impacts to lake visitors during the recreation season. This measure is not expected to require any additional cost.

E.5.8.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

No unavoidable adverse impacts have been identified.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.8-12 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.9-Cultural Resources

E.5.9 Cultural Resources

The sections below discuss the cultural context of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project along with the methods used and the results of efforts to identify historic properties at the Project (cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic properties regardless of their nature or age). Information on the identified properties is included, as well as a description of Project effects, and proposed mitigation and enhancement measures. Information is summarized from the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (GPNF) existing information analysis (McClure 2004a), the inventory report (Dampf and Thompson 2006), and the Historic Properties Management Plan (Thompson 2007).

E.5.9.1 Affected Environment

Cultural Context

The GPNF has conducted studies of the area's prehistory over many years. That research forms the basis for a summary of prehistory from about 7,000 years ago through the late prehistoric period (about 1,500 to 150 years ago) (McClure 1998).

Early Prehistoric Period: ca. 7,000 to 3,500 Years Ago. Archaeological remains show evidence of initial human use of the upper Cowlitz watershed beginning about 7,000 years ago. Pollen analysis suggests that more dry species, such as oak, were present during this early period (Barnosky 1981). The residents likely foraged for their foods and other materials, using a broad range of resources and shifting their residences frequently as local resources became depleted. Storage technology was probably not an important feature of this mobile settlement pattern.

The most important resources appear to have been deer and fish. Other resources included elk, mountain sheep, snowshoe hare, mountain beaver, and grouse, along with such plant foods as elderberries, huckleberries, and hazelnuts. Trade occurred with groups from other areas, with materials including clamshell and Olivella shell beads from the coast, obsidian stone from Oregon, and other types of tool stone from the crest of the Cascade Range.

Abandonment: ca. 3,500 to 1,500 Years Ago. A large eruptive phase (termed Smith Creek) of Mt. St. Helens dating 3,900 to 3,500 years ago appears to correspond to human abandonment of the area. The eruptions of tephra may have killed trees and buried shrubs and herbs under as much as a meter-thick deposit of pumice, with sediment choking area streams (McClure 1992). The loss of subsistence resources would have been catastrophic for the prehistoric population.

Late Prehistoric Period: ca. 1,500 to 150 Years Ago. By about 1,500 years ago, people returned to the area, using previous sites as well as new locations. Their subsistence strategy may have shifted toward the harvest, processing, and storage of key resources at the seasons and places they were most abundant. The settlement pattern might

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.9-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.9-Cultural Resources have included the occupation of semi-permanent winter villages with warmer season use of temporary residential and procurement/processing sites. This environmental adaptation supported groups of Native American inhabitants, who were encountered by the early Euro-American settlers.

Native American Context. In the early nineteenth century, the Project area lay within the territory of the Taidnapam, or Upper Cowlitz Indians. This territory included the Cowlitz River from about Mossyrock to its headwaters (Spier 1936). The Taidnapam spoke a dialect of the same language spoken by the Yakama Indians. Taidnapam settlements were located along the upper Cowlitz River and included one at Skate Creek near present-day Packwood. Another village and fishing locations were likely located along the river near Packwood (Bouchard et al. 1998:285). The Cowlitz sometimes met to trade with the Yakama Indians at the location of Packwood (Kiona 1953:31). In her testimony for the Cowlitz Tribe before the Indians Claims Commission, Mary Kiona mentioned the use of the uplands above the Cowlitz River for huckleberry picking, hunting, and fishing (Kiona 1953:61).

Taidnapam use of the Packwood Lake basin is well documented. Born in the late 1840s and a Taidnapam elder of the Packwood area, Jim Yoke described the original name of the lake as Cuyu'ik (Yoke 1934:231). Packwood Lake was important to local native people for its resident trout (ay'witcin or aytmín, according to Mary Kiona). Information on Indian use of the lake comes from a taped interview with Mary Kiona, held by Martha Hardy in September 1964 and August 1965, and deposited with the GPNF. Ms. Kiona reportedly visited the lake to obtain fish; she states in the 1964 tape that her father’s mother was very familiar with fishing at the lake, probably during the period from about 1820-1850 (McClure 1987a:10). Jim Yoke reports that the Indians caught the trout as they entered the small streams that flow into the lake during spawning. Taidnapam use of the lake in the period ca. 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more seasonal residential site locations (McClure 1987a:10,12).

Fishing likely involved the use of small weirs or basket traps. Also, the people dammed a stream and diverted the water through a small ditch. Where the steam bed dried, they collected the fish (McClure 1987a:12). Racks were set up over fires to dry the fish; some were also skewered and roasted (McClure 1987b). In late summer, native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries (Irwin 1994; McClure 1987a, citing Kiona 1965). Huckleberry patches were probably located on south-facing slopes and ridges around the lake. Taidnapam oral traditions recorded in the early twentieth century include two variations of a legend regarding the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909; Jacobs 1934). They also performed a ritual that involved throwing out leaves, which may have indicated the number of fish that were desired or referred to the use of poison to harvest fish.

Euro-American Context. In 1861, James Longmire and William Packwood were the first non-natives to travel into the area (Delacy 1861). William Packwood is credited with the Euro-American discovery of Coal Creek and Lake Creek in 1869 (Combs et al. 1954).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.9-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.9-Cultural Resources

By 1900, local settlers were attracted to the lake for fishing and other recreation (Combs et al. 1954).

In 1906, the Portland Railway Light and Power Company (now Portland General Electric) started preliminary surveys for construction of a hydroelectric power plant at Packwood Lake. The Valley Development Company (VDC) ultimately planned to divert water from a number of area streams for storage in Packwood Lake and to construct a 100-foot-high dam near the outlet of the lake with a flume to transport water to a generating plant near the present community of Packwood. Although there was initial speculation about the use of the power for a possible railroad across White Pass, the company planned to sell electricity to the City of Tacoma.

Construction began in 1910, but was subsequently suspended when City of Tacoma officials determined the project was infeasible (Combs et al. 1954). Construction included a trail to the lake and a temporary power plant (dismantled and removed to Portland in 1920) that was put in on Snyder Creek. The temporary plant was to provide electricity to the construction camp located on the outskirts of Packwood, then called Lewis in honor of the VDC's president. Also in 1910, four log buildings were constructed near the outlet to Packwood Lake on the southwest side of Lake Creek near the foot bridge: a cookhouse, two bunkhouses, and an office building. All supplies and equipment were brought in on packhorses (Combs et al. 1954).

Early Forest Ranger William Sethe stated that until 1905 trails consisted chiefly of old Indian trails, with a few built by prospectors or surveyors. Shortly after that, during the period 1907-1911, the Valley Development Company constructed many miles of trail in their pursuit of waterpower development, when the company employed a large crew of men to build some roads and a tramway in addition to the trails.

In 1917 the Forest Service established a public campground at Packwood Lake and at the same time assumed ownership of the VDC holdings at the lake. The Forest Service used a former VDC cabin as a summer ranger station to conduct fire patrols, trail maintenance, and general recreation management activities, and for staging trips into the mountainous backcountry (USDA Forest Service 1936). The popularity of the lake among anglers led to the development of a tent camp resort near the outlet in 1921, providing meals and renting handmade cedar boats. In 1936, new owners constructed a lodge with store, kitchen, and dining area as well as a floating dock and a boathouse, and they brought in new rowboats (McClure 1987b; Neeley and Neeley 1968). They built 11 small rental cabins and powered their operation with electricity from a water- driven generator on Lake Creek. Following construction of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in 1963, the Forest Service built a new guard station at the lake. The other three log buildings no longer exist; one building was destroyed by fire and two were dismantled in the 1930s (McClure 1987a, 2004b).

The concession changed hands several times until 1972, when the parts of the resort were damaged by fire (Chehalis Chronicle 1972). The boat concession, with boathouse and dock, continued until 1991.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.9-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.9-Cultural Resources

E.5.9.2 Environmental Analysis

Identification of Historic Properties

The identification of historic properties involved defining the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE), consulting with interested Tribes and agencies, conducting background research, and implementing field survey to develop an inventory of resources. This work concludes with the application of criteria for National Register eligibility to recommend which are eligible for listing. The following sections summarize this work, and further details are found in the Project's inventory report (Dampf and Thompson 2006).

Area of Potential Effects

An APE is defined as "the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist" (36 CFR 800.16d). For the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, the APE consists of the land within the Project boundary. At Packwood Lake, the Project boundary is at elevation 2860 feet MSL, which encompasses 3 vertical feet above the lake's usual summer water level. Additional areas included the water conveyance system that extends from Packwood Lake to the town of Packwood, and the sites of the powerhouse, tailrace, and transmission line. Energy Northwest believes that the Project does not affect cultural resources outside the Project boundary.

Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group

Several meetings and a field trip with tribal and agency representatives took place during the cultural resource work for relicensing the Project. The Cultural Resource Committee (CRC) for the Project's relicensing included representatives of Energy Northwest, Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT), Yakama Nation (YN), GPNF, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), FERC, and consultant firm Historic Research Associates (HRA). Cultural resources also were discussed briefly during larger agency meetings on relicensing. The CRC group discussed the study plan and the draft inventory report, with discussion topics including the methods, schedule, and GPNF special use permit for archaeological fieldwork, the confidential nature of traditional cultural property (TCP) and archaeological site information, and the curation of collected artifacts. CRC members visited the archaeological fieldwork during survey of the Packwood Lake APE, to discuss the methods and results of the inventory work. CRC members also received the draft HPMP for review.

The identification of potential TCPs also took into consideration National Register Bulletin No. 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990). The work involved discussions with tribal representatives. This Study Plan specified that the CIT and YN representatives would

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.9-4 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.9-Cultural Resources obtain any tribal information on TCPs that they wanted to have considered for Project relicensing.

Tribe members often are reluctant to disclose the location of potential TCPs due to their confidential and sometimes sacred nature. Disclosure of these locations can be a violation of their sacredness, and disclosure of resource gathering locations could lead to overuse and possible depletion of a particular resource. The YN representative to the CRC stated in one meeting that the Tribe had an oral history of their use of the Cowlitz River area and would treat any information they possessed on TCPs as confidential. The Tribes identified no TCPs associated with the Project. If the Tribes had mentioned the existence of TCPs at the Project but not their specific locations, Energy Northwest would have worked with the tribal representatives to identify the general issues and concerns that the Tribes might have regarding potential impacts of the Project upon resources known to the Tribes and worked to develop agreeable measures to alleviate these concerns.

The Gifford Pinchot National Forest contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al. 1995). Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members. The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al. 1995).

Mr. Johnson Meninick, an elder and Manager of the YN's Cultural Resources Program, provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6, 1999). Mr. Meninick's comments included the upper Cowlitz River area, where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood. Hunting included the vicinity of Mt. Rainier. Mr. Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area. He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation, and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River.

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7, 1998, showed that Mr. Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River, although he didn't know the exact locations.

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project. No specific locations of TCPs were identified.

Background Research

Archaeologist/Heritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b). HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail. The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments, the

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.9-5 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.9-Cultural Resources cultural history of the area, the additional types of resources that might be found, and their locations. To guide the field survey, researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE. The information also was used in the prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic-period context for evaluation of the Project's archaeological and historical resources. The background research examined published and unpublished written, map, and photographic sources. The places contacted or visited included GPNF, DAHP, CIT, YN, and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library, Microforms and Special Collections.

Field Inventory

To guide the archaeological survey, the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map showing the high, medium, and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources, based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the Mount Baker- Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996; Hollenbeck 1985; McClure 2004b). The archaeologists used background research, including ethnographies, histories, aerial photographs, and historical maps of the Project vicinity. In addition, the GPNF Heritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project vicinity. The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics, ethnographic and historic data, and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity.

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey, taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF. Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability. Sampling aimed for 100% of high probability areas, 50% of medium probability areas, and 10-20% of low probability areas. Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear, or "scrape," 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts, features, soil discoloration, and so on. Thus, shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing.

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains. Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas. Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because, while some areas, such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake, are high probability (e.g., areas likely to contain culturally modified trees), conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes. To avoid creating safety hazards, subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to, but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas. When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence, the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 1/8-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.9-6 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.9-Cultural Resources define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area. The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes, maps, photographs, and drawings, as appropriate.

Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility

To qualify for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, resources must possess integrity and meet one of the four National Register criteria, which are codified in 36 CFR 60.4:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and:

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition to these criteria, properties can be valuable as traditional cultural properties because of their "association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that community's history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community." Thus, a property may also be National Register eligible if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans. Finally, resources need to have integrity or the capability of conveying their significance. Aspects of integrity include location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Table E.5.9-1 lists the sites reported to be within or very close to the Project’s Area of Potential Effects and whether or not the field survey encountered them. The table lists resource's number and name, whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE, and whether the survey encountered site remains. If the site was encountered, the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.9-7 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.9-Cultural Resources

Table E.5.9-1. Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects. FS Name Inside/Outside APE NHRP Significance Number Packwood Lake Archaeological Site 13102115 Inside Eligible 45LE285 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible Valley Development Company Inside but not 13092303 Not Applicable telephone line encountered Valley Development Company tramway 13092304 Just outside Not Applicable hoist house Valley Development Company road and 13092305 Outside Not Applicable flume bed Valley Development Company Inside but not 13092401 Not Applicable road/flume bridge encountered Inside but not Valley Development Company Trail Not Applicable encountered Inside but not Recommended Not 13102803 Cuyu'ik Site 45LE296 encountered Eligible Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley 13102101 Just outside Eligible Development Company cabin remains) Not Individually Eligible; Could be USGS Gaging Station and Cableway Inside Eligible as Part of a Trolley Multiple Property Submission Packwood Lake Trail (Trail #74), currently maintained as the Pipeline Inside Not Eligible Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail Only boat dock was 13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site inside; was removed Not eligible & not encountered Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island – Inside but not 13102804 Not Applicable prehistoric isolated artifact encountered Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail Inside but not #86]); fragments in lower elevations Not Applicable encountered below maintained portion Unknown trail fragment, reported by Outside Not Applicable Wyman Ross, possible part of Trail #86 13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

Historic Properties within the Project Area of Potential Effects

Packwood Lake Archaeological Site (FS #13102115, 45LE285). Archaeological site 45LE285, a stratified site with occupation dating between 500 and 1,100 years ago, is located inside the Project APE. The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP because it has yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987a).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.9-8 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.9-Cultural Resources

USGS Gaging Station/Cableway Trolley. The USGS gaging station shed and cableway trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. They did not, however, appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner. Packwood Lake Gaging Station No. 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A. It does not appear to be associated with the life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded, or it is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D). It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing, especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures. The property is mentioned because Energy Northwest needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the building/structure.

The Project is anticipated to have some effects on the Packwood Lake Site (45LE285) but not on the USGS Gaging Stating/Cableway Trolley. The Project contributes to shoreline recession at 45LE285. It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the site. Similarly, the Gaging Station could deteriorate and/or could be vandalized. In addition, ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license, which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials.

E.5.9.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

Proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures are discussed in the Historic Properties Management Plan (Thompson 2007), submitted to the Commission on August 30, 2007. Both general and specific management measures are proposed, with the general ones including:

• Establish management goals, principles, and standards; • Appoint an Energy Northwest Historic Preservation Coordinator; • Manage cultural resources data confidentially; • Conduct consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes; • Train Project personnel; • Provide for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains; and • Prepare reports of activities conducted under the HPMP.

Specific measures include: • Review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities, • Monitor the condition of archaeological site 45LE285, • Coordinate with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism, • Develop procedures for inadvertent discovery of archaeological materials and human remains, • Develop actions to respond to urgent conditions, • Develop protective measures, if needed, for archaeological site 45LE285,

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.9-9 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.9-Cultural Resources

• Monitor the condition of the gaging station/cableway trolley, and • Public education and interpretation.

These measures are briefly discussed below.

General Measures

Management Goals, Principles, and Standards. The HPMP sets out the guidance Energy Northwest will follow in managing cultural resources.

Historic Preservation Coordinator. Energy Northwest will appoint a Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) who will have oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project, with duties that include: • Implementing the HPMP, • Compiling and protecting the confidentiality of information on the Project’s inventory status and history properties, • Coordinating the review of potential Project effects on historic properties and maintaining documents on decision making, • Administering training materials and reports, • Coordinating and participating in consultation and meetings with DAHP and the affected Tribes, • Suggesting information for interpretation and education, and • Arranging for curation of any artifacts and documents that might be collected.

Energy Northwest estimates the cost of this measure to be approximately $5,000 to contract with an HPMP consultant to develop and advise on initial training protocol and train an Energy Northwest HPC. Estimated cost to issue the annual report is $2,620/year.

Data Management and Confidentiality Policy. Energy Northwest’s policy will be to protect information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but share it with the affected Tribes, GPNF, and DAHP. Energy Northwest also will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess on TCPs or Native American burial sites, although this information would be shared, if necessary, with DAHP, GPNF, and FERC. Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts. The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information.

Consultation and Meetings. Energy Northwest will implement the HPMP measures in consultation with the affected Tribes, GPNF, and DAHP, depending on land ownership within the Project boundary. Energy Northwest will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities. Energy Northwest will arrange meetings as needed to address specific work, issues or problems that may arise. The company will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project, so that tribal and GPNF representatives may participate in or visit the work as desired. Planned ground-disturbing activities for maintenance, operations or Project improvements will be discussed, and the Tribes and GPNF consulted.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.9-10 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.9-Cultural Resources

Personnel Training. To ensure that the HPMP measures are properly implemented, Energy Northwest will provide training for staff members in key positions. Affected staff members will receive training about procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties, compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains.

Annual training for site personnel is estimated to be $1,660/year (20 hours staff training).

Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains. Energy Northwest would provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project on private land and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility, on an interim or long-term basis. Energy Northwest would follow Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) provisions for any burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land. Decisions about the disposition of any human remains would be made in consultation with the affected Tribes, following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands.

Reporting. The HPC will prepare a brief report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the affected Tribes, GPNF, DAHP, and FERC with information summarizing activities that involved historic properties, and management measures exercised over the past period. The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period.

The annual cost of this measure is estimated to be $2,660.

Specific Measures

Specific management measures include review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities, monitoring the condition of archaeological sites, coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism, handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains, taking action in response to urgent conditions, and measures for 45LE285 and the Gaging Station/Cableway Trolley.

Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities. Although Energy Northwest plans no ground-disturbing activities, it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license. Energy Northwest will require that any plans for new ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review. The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a Project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed, or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years. The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist, if necessary, prior to undertaking ground-disturbing activities.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.9-11 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.9-Cultural Resources

The HPC will consult with the members of the Cultural Resource Committee: GPNF (if the activity is planned for National Forest System land), the affected Tribes, and DAHP, meeting with them if necessary. If additional archaeological work is needed, the HPC will arrange for the work to be done and provide reports of it.

Monitoring Archaeological Sites. Energy Northwest will arrange for a professional archaeologist to monitor the condition of 45LE285 at least once every three years. In addition, Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting and/or vandalism. Energy Northwest's HPC will report on the monitoring to the CRC members and meet with them if needed.

Estimated cost for this measure is $7,620 every third year.

Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism. Looting (the illegal, unscientific removal of archaeological resources) and vandalism (the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource) are common challenges in cultural resource management. These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes. Energy Northwest will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program. These steps will include confidentiality, site monitoring, education, and coordination with law enforcement.

Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains. Over the new license period, unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period archaeological materials and human remains could occur. The remains could be uncovered by erosion, recreation activities, or vandalism, or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project. Energy Northwest has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains. The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP, the affected Tribes, and with GPNF, if the find occurs on Forest Service land located within the Project boundary.

Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions. Energy Northwest would have to respond urgently when life, safety, property, or continued operations are at risk by an unpredictable action, such as fire, flood, extreme weather conditions, or facility malfunctions. During such urgent conditions, Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols. Upon resolution of the urgent condition, managers or other emergency coordinators will report the locations and actions taken to the HPC, who will follow up with whatever inspection and/or specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to a historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition. Consultation with the agencies and Tribes may be necessary. Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery.

Measures for Archaeological Site 45LE285. Energy Northwest will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every three years about the site's condition. If the monitoring results show that the

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.9-12 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.9-Cultural Resources

Project has an adverse effect on the site, Energy Northwest will work with GPNF, the Tribes, and DAHP to develop measures to resolve the effect.

Measures for the Gaging Station/Cableway Trolley. Energy Northwest staff will observe the gaging station structures during their regular work activities. If any vandalism occurs, Energy Northwest will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager. Energy Northwest staff also will report on the condition of the building, especially the roof, every three years as part of the periodic report.

Public Education and Interpretation. Energy Northwest will relay selected information on prehistory and history to increase public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake. Energy Northwest will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations. Energy Northwest will work with the Forest Service to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake.

Estimated cost of this measure is an initial cost of $3,500 to build and place the sign and $3,275 for agency coordination.

HPMP Revisions. At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP, EN will review the document to see if revisions may be warranted. The company will notify the other parties (affected Tribes, GPNF, DAHP, and FERC) in writing that a review is to be conducted. The review can include such matters as changes in regulations, cultural resource technology, inventory results, and National Register status of a property. Any interested party may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties. The company will provide for a meeting if necessary, which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Meeting, for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement on them. The agreed revisions will be made and the revised plan, or the relevant pages, will be circulated to the parties for review and concurrence. This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report. If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision, the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA.

The cost of the 10-year plan revisions is anticipated to be included in the cost of the regular periodic Cultural Report.

E.5.9.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

No unavoidable adverse impacts have been identified.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.9-13 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.10-Socioeconomic Resources

E.5.10 Socioeconomic Resources

E.5.10.1 Affected Environment

The Project is located in rural east Lewis County outside the unincorporated community of Packwood, Washington, approximately 75 miles east of the county seat of Chehalis, approximately 11 miles from the Ohanapecosh entrance for Mount Rainier National Park, and approximately 20 miles from the White Pass ski area. Part of the Project lies within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. The metropolitan areas of Seattle and Portland are both approximately two and one-half hours away by motor vehicle.

Forested lands cover most of Lewis County (Lewis County Public Works 2004). Within the county borders are portions of Mount Rainier National Park, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Goat Rocks Wilderness Area, and Tatoosh Wilderness Area.

According to the 2000 Census information, the Packwood area, as delineated by zip code, had a population of 1,209 residents (United States Census Bureau 2000). Because the 1990 census information was not tabulated by zip code, a comparison cannot be made to the 1990 census data. Student population at Packwood Elementary School decreased from 153 students in 1990 (Tobe 2002) to 67 students in October 2003 (Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction 2003), indicating that population in Packwood as a whole had declined. The elementary school was closed in June 2004 due to declining enrollment.

The Washington State Office of Financial Management (2007) shows an estimated population of 1,140 for the nearby town of Morton for 2007 (which was an estimated gain of about 100 from the 2000 census figure of 1,045) and estimated population of 485 for the town of Mossyrock, slightly farther west and associated with the Cowlitz River Project’s Mossyrock Dam. The 2007 estimate represented a loss of one from the Year 2000 figure. It appears from the available information that the smaller towns along Highway 12 are gradually losing population and that their populations are predominantly retirees and the larger towns are growing very slowly.

The 2000 Census information indicated that the median age of the population in Packwood was 48.6 years, whereas the median age for Washington State was 35.4. The Census showed a total of 561 family households and 196 non-family households in the area, with an average household size of 2.16, versus the State as a whole having an average household size of 2.53. The percentage of households in Packwood with individuals 65 years or older was 34 percent versus the state at 27.6 percent. These statistics indicate that the Packwood area had a high percentage of retirees.

The community of Packwood is essentially residential, with small businesses, fire station, water system, branch library, post office, and county-owned airstrip. Packwood had the Packwood Lumber Mill, which was closed and purchased by Hampton Associates in 1998. Employment in the Packwood area and east Lewis County has

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.10-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.10-Socioeconomic Resources

been primarily in the lumber and wood products industry. Lumber and wood products industry employment peaked in the County in 1978 with 3,920 employees (Tobe 2002), and in 2001 with 2,099 employees (Washington State Employment Security 2001).

Lewis County is making a transition from a resource-based, extractive economy to one with an emphasis on light manufacturing, wholesale distribution, and commerce. The Lewis County Economic Development Council and the East Lewis County Public Development Agency established the Packwood Industrial Park with an 8,000-square foot-building and 16 acres of developable land in 2000 (White Pass Highway Shopper/Lewis County Public Development Authority 2004). Two tenants currently occupy the industrial park. The annual average wage in Lewis County in 2005 was $23,694 (Washington State Office of Financial Management 2006) compared to the Washington State average annual wage of $40,385 (Washington State Employment Security 2006). The annual unemployment rate for Lewis County in 2005 was 7.7% (Washington State Employment Security Department 2007).

A group of local business owners in Packwood formed the Destination Packwood Association in 1997 to focus on tourism (Tobe 2002). The group has developed a website that advertises local businesses, local history and provides a calendar of current events of interest to tourists and residents (http://www.destinationpackwood.com).

E.5.10.2 Environmental Analysis

During normal operations, the Project does not provide power directly to the community and has a minimal effect on the socioeconomic resources in the Packwood area. A regional benefit of the Project is the positive effect, through tax dollars, that go to the local county and community. As a public agency, Energy Northwest does not pay property taxes. However, Energy Northwest does pay generation taxes, which include privilege and excise taxes (See RCW 54.28.020 and RCW 54.28.050). For calendar year 2006, Energy Northwest paid $21,072.58 to the State of Washington for Privilege tax. Of this total, 37.6% or $7,923.29 went to the state fund for public schools and 62.4% or $13,149.29 went to Lewis County. The project also provides the Packwood Fire District #10 with an annual direct payment of $2,500. In addition, local businesses such as hardware stores, motels, restaurants, automotive repair, etc., realize direct economic benefits in support of Project activities.

Another important benefit is that in situations where the Lewis County Public Utility District must remove their distribution lines from service to perform maintenance, or where they experience an unplanned distribution outage, the Project would continue to supply electrical load for the area affected by the outage by running “Isolated” from the main transmission grid. During such events, the Project’s ability to keep the community’s lights on has a significant, positive socioeconomic impact. These types of situations have occurred numerous times in the past and will continue to occur in the future. The Project is capable of supplying electricity to an area as large as Packwood

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.10-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.5.10-Socioeconomic Resources to Morton, but a typical “Isolated” operations would supply load from Packwood to Randall, an average of 8 megawatts.

E.5.10.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

No environmental measures are proposed with respect to socioeconomic resources.

E.5.10.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

No unavoidable adverse impacts have been identified.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.5.10-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.6-Economic Analysis

E.6 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project) generates on average over 90,000 MWhrs of power annually. Issuance of a new license would provide a beneficial, dependable, economic, and clean source of electric energy. The renewable energy generated annually at the Project would avoid the use of power from fossil-fueled generating plants, conserving non-renewable energy resources, and reducing atmospheric emissions.

The 12 Public Utilities that are participants in the Project are block, slice or full service customers of BPA. However, a new BPA rate case, expected in 2011, may establish a high water mark for each participant’s access to Tier 1 power that may be affected by their ownership in the Project. At that time, there is a possibility that some participants could replace Project output with BPA cost-based power purchases or choose to receive their share of the project output through a transmission exchange agreement with BPA. This possibility would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for each participant.

As shown in Figure E.6-1 below, forecast Mid-C prices increase from $62.6/MWh in calendar year 2009 to $71.9/MWh in 2018. BPA cost-based rates increase from $27.4/MWh in 2009 to $32.7/MWh in 2018.

Forecast Mid-C prices for calendar year 2008 through 2011 are based on prices published in the October 18, 2007 issue of “Megawatt Daily” (Platts). Mid-C prices escalate at 2 percent annually beyond 2011. Calendar year 2008 and 2009 BPA cost- based rates are melded rates based on current (PF-07) BPA on-peak energy, off-peak energy, demand and load variance rates and a typical winter-peaking BPA customer load shape. Tiered rates begin in October 2011. Tier 1 rate levels are assumed to be near current, cost-based melded PF rates. Cost-based BPA rates beyond the current rate period, which terminates in October 2009, are assumed to escalate annually at 2 percent.

The annual cost of operating the Project (excluding relicensing) over the past six years (FY2002 to FY2007) is approximately $2,000,000 per year (see Table E.6-1). This value includes operations and maintenance, taxes, capital expenses, and debt service. Future operating costs are expected to escalate with inflation. Short-term increases in capital cost are possible associated with major equipment failure and replacement or repair. No significant major maintenance or equipment replacements are anticipated for the initial years of the new license period. The debt service payments will be completed in 2012 as the project bonds are retired.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.6-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.6-Economic Analysis

Pacific Northwest Future Power Price Forecasts ($/MWh)

100 95 90 85 80 75 70 Mid-Columbia 65 Market/BPA 60 Tier 2 Rates 55 50 BPA Cost- 45 Based/Tier 1 40 Rates 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

8 1 2 3 6 7 8 2 3 4 7 8 9 0 1 1 2 2 2 Y1 Y1 Y1 Y1 Y2 Y2 Y2 CY CY09 CY10 C C CY CY14 CY15 C C CY CY19 CY20 CY21 C CY CY CY25 CY26 C C CY CY30

Figure E.6-1 Pacific Northwest Future Power Price Forecasts

In addition to the need to replace Project generation if the Project were not relicensed, the Project would provide the proposed operational and environmental measures, including benefits to ESA-listed fish and wildlife that would all be foregone. The estimated costs of the proposed Project Operation and Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement measures are listed in Table E.6-2 (below also in Exhibit D, Table D-2).

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.6-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.6-Economic Analysis

Table E.6-1. Annual Project Costs, 2002-2007 Actuals PACKWOOD HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FY-2002 FY-2003 FY-2004 FY-2005 FY-2006 FY-2007 (Dollars in thousands) REVENUE Sale of Electricity $ 3,122 $ 2,744 $ 2,568 $ 2,673 $ 2,655 $ 3,194 Investment Income 36 44 26 64 99 144 TOTAL REVENUES $ 3,158 $ 2,788 $ 2,594 $ 2,737 $ 2,754 $ 3,338 EXPENSES Operations & Maintenance $ 1,372 $ 1,090 $ 1,146 $ 1,006 $ 1,306 $ 1,302 Generation Tax 17 19 19 19 18 20 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 1,389 $ 1,109 $ 1,165 $ 1,025 $ 1,324 $ 1,322

CAPITAL Other $ 37 $ 137 $ - $ - $ - $ 106 Relicensing - - 293 646 690 1,016 TOTAL CAPITAL $ 37 $ 137 $ 293 $ 646 $ 690 $ 1,122

DEBT SERVICE Interest on Long Term Debt $ 188 $ 171 $ 151 $ 130 $ 108 $ 82 Provision for Bond Retirement 527 542 573 598 623 574 Less Prior Year Deficit 67 - - - - - TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $ 782 $ 713 $ 724 $ 728 $ 731 $ 656

TOTAL COSTS $ 2,208 $ 1,959 $ 2,182 $ 2,399 $ 2,745 $ 3,100

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.6-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.6-Economic Analysis

Table E.6-2. Estimated Costs of Proposed Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement (PM&E) Measures Capital Proposed Measure Cost Annual Cost Costs Analysis Increase instream (bypass) flows Costs for increasing bypass fish flows are based on the average $359,000 1 0 market price for secondary power sales (see Table D-3). Cost for 30 year is $10,770,000. Create aquatic habitat enhancing Total of 1130 Acre feet of water per event (1762.3 MWhrs lost

spill (flushing) flows of 285 cfs for generation X $48.1 per MWhrs, secondary sales. Frequency of spill 2 0 $42,384/yr 24 hours down Lake Creek. event is every 2 years or 3 times in a 6 year period). $84,768 per

occurrence Design and install habitat $25,000 Estimated capital costs provided by Interfluve for design, enhancements in Lake Creek, with Annually for construction and project oversight during construction. Costs to be 3 $700,000 annual monitoring (lower Lake first 10 years spread over the first five years of the contract. Annual costs Creek Reaches 1 and 2) =$5,000/yr estimated for maintenance and monitoring and spawning surveys. Change timing of Maintenance Increased labor costs (overtime and per diem) to shift outage to 4 0 $19,100 Outage (Aug 15 – Sept 15) August. Outage must be compressed to minimize spill. Eliminate Maximum Lake Operating No costs involved. 5 00 Elevation Survey Lake wetlands Zone B An additional Amphibian survey to determine if Zone B has lake area for amphibians connectivity during winter drawdown. If not, the survey will be 6 $15,000 0 expanded to 1 mile up Lake Creek to determine the overall amphibian population in that area. Move fish downstream from Estimated capital costs to design, build and install fish trap. Annual Packwood Lake to below the drop labor costs estimated at 40 hours to perform trap and haul. Costs 7 $12,000 $2,500/yr structure incurred within 4 years of license renewal. Monitoring every other year for 8 years/then every 4 years, if needed Restore fish passage for the Snyder Based on Interfluve estimates for Snyder and Hall Creek habitat Creek/tailrace canal crossing evaluation, design and construction. Capital costs to be expended in 8 $240,000 $1,600/yr first 5 years of new license. Capital cost total includes $60,000 for engineering, permitting; and $180,000 for stream enhancement. Annual costs for efficacy monitoring $8,000for 10 years.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.6-4 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.6-Economic Analysis

Table E.6-2. Estimated Costs of Proposed Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement (PM&E) Measures Capital Proposed Measure Cost Annual Cost Costs Analysis Repair or upgrade debris screens at Cost estimate includes engineering, fabrication, installation of 9 intake and monitor fish entrainment $37,000 0 movable screens. Two screens 10’X11’ with catch baskets, approved for up to 6 years tested pick point for rigging. Develop and implement an Develop 3 phase program to monitor efficacy of modified screens. operations and maintenance plan Will require 1. $13,280 for intake debris screens 1. Removal and inspection program - Numerous removals/ 10 0 2. $4,316 inspections of the screen for fish entrainment. Total=$17,596 2. Data collection and report development. Station personnel estimated at 52 hrs/year X $83/hr= $4,316 Tailrace Fish Barrier maintenance, 1. Based on an increase of 3 hours of labor per week for weekly monitoring and fish rescues inspections and 40 hours per year for annual maintenance (196 staff hours) 2. 2 continuous years of seining the stilling basin and tailrace fish rescue. If capture is below threshold set by the BO, seine 2 more times 3 years apart. Each occurrence requires a Fish 1. $16,268 capture permit and personnel with a fish handling experience 2. $12,980 Total is: 4 consultants trained in fish handling/snorkeling 11 0 3. $5,772 (80hrsX$95/hr=$7600) + Per Diem for 4 Consultants @$90 per day for two days=$720) + 2 Plant Staff $83/hr X 10hrs =$1660) + $3,000 annual permit costs 3. If the plant must be shut down to perform the stilling basin seining and tailrace fish rescue. The cost for a shutdown in August is estimated at $5,772. (Based on a minimum shutdown duration of 12 hours X blended costs of $48.1/Megawatt hr X 5 MW/hr X 12 hrs; each occurrence). Develop a Packwood Lake Project 1. In the first year of the license develop a recreation plan in Recreation Plan collaboration with the USFS and update the plan every six years. 2. $3,400 Costs based on the use of a recreation consultant to develop the (per 12 1. $14,000 plan and Energy Northwest management to oversee the effort. occurrence) (Consultant Costs of $115/hr X 80 hrs= $9,200 + EN Mgmt at

$120/hr X 40 hrs= $4800) 2. Annual Consultant Review = $3400 (6-year interval)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.6-5 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.6-Economic Analysis

Table E.6-2. Estimated Costs of Proposed Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement (PM&E) Measures Capital Proposed Measure Cost Annual Cost Costs Analysis Within one year of License Plan development w/annual agency consultation issuance, the Licensee shall, in Estimated cost to develop plan (by EN Staff): consultation with and approval by 1. Technician; 12 manweeks X $65.50/hr = $31,440 the Agencies, prepare a Resource 2. Project Mgr. Oversight; 6 manweeks X $120/hr = $28,800 Coordination Plan (RCP) and file 3. Annual cost for report preparation and resource agency 1. & 2. 13 the plan with the Commission for 3. $7,420 consultation meetings: Tech. 40 hr’s = $2620 + 40 hours Project approval. $60,240 Manager = $4,800 Plan includes: Fire Prevention Plan; Recreation Management; Road and Trail Maintenance, Pipeline, Surge Tank and Penstock Monitoring; Exotic and Invasive Vegetative Management; Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Plan Sensitive species Plan and Plan Requires the following: Monitoring required by the USDA 1. Initial species list Forest Service draft preliminary 2. Updating the species list, conducting baseline surveys

terms and conditions – Appendix C 3. Preparing biological evaluations, Monitoring project effects - For

Agencies Sensitive species and Federal Species of Concern

4. Plan should include monitoring to identify project effects at

confirmed sensitive species sites every 2 years for 6 years

following license issuance and at 3-year intervals thereafter,

unless a determination can be made at year 6 that no additional

14 monitoring is necessary.

5. Implementing protective measures

Costs:

1. $13,800 1. Costs for plan development are estimated and 120 hours

Consultant time to coordinate/consult with Agencies in

developing the elements of the plan and the monitoring/reporting

requirements. 2. Unknown 2. Costs for implementation of the plan are not included because at this time there are no known threatened or endangered species within or near the project boundary Provide electricity to USFS guard No discernable cost for power - a contingency cost for parts and 15 cabin 0 $1,660 maintenance of the electrical system at the cabin is included (20 manhours per year). Recreation - install a single Initial costs to procure and install (estimated capital costs to procure 16 $175,000 0 composting toilet and install)

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.6-6 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.6-Economic Analysis

Table E.6-2. Estimated Costs of Proposed Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement (PM&E) Measures Capital Proposed Measure Cost Annual Cost Costs Analysis Recreation - provide operations and 64 hours/season for project staff maintenance, plus $300 supplies 17 0 $5,612 maintenance of toilet annually. Recreation - provide maintenance Provide funding for a USFS ranger to provide onsite surveillance and 18 of recreation sites 0 $14,000 recreation assistance at Packwood Lake for the summer season. (Cost provided by USFS). Develop and implement an avian 1. Survey the existing project transmission line using APLIC protection plan for the project guideline, record appropriate information. Inspect for signs of transmission line avian fatalities as part of the tailrace inspection program as the 1.&2. line runs within the project boundary. 19 $4,800 3. $8,964 2. Project Mgr to research/develop and submit plan for approval estimated at 40hrs X $120/hr (EN, PM)= $4,800 3. Quarterly Inspection estimated at 6 hrs X $83/hr Labor X 3 per year = $8,964 Develop and implement a noxious Incorporate existing plan and coordinate with the USFS and Lewis weed plan County Weed Control Board. Provide support labor to mitigate areas 20 0 $13,200 within project boundaries. Estimate 160 labor hrs/yr for weed control Plan is in place and just need annual updates, no significant costs. Develop and implement a rare plant Botanist required to coordinate with the USFS to develop a rare plant management plan management plan. Consultant estimate cost of $10,000 to develop 21 $10,000 $1500 plan and $3,000 each bi-annual survey for the first 6 Years. (Per USFS recommended PME) Consult with USDA-FS regarding No cost 22 aesthetics of future intake building 00 repairs and maintenance. Provide Public Education and Energy Northwest will work with CRC members to develop an Interpretation $3,500 interpretive sign detailing the aspects of the prehistoric and historic $3,275 0 use of Packwood Lake and work with the USFS to place that sign at 23 (initial the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake. (Build and place sign costs) $3,500; 50 hours of HPC time for coordination and development, $3,275 Cultural resource training and 1. Initial cost to develop training protocol/train HPC. ($5,000) Monitoring archaeological site 1. $5,000 2. Contract for services to provide for a professional Archaeologist to 2. ($7,620 evaluate the condition of identified site 45LE285 and prepare report - 24 0 every 3 yrs) every three years. Contract costs $5,000 and EN HPC cost ($2,620) 3. $1660/yr for coordination of site inspection and preparation of report . 4. $2660/yr 3. Annual staff training $1,660 4. HPC to Issue Annual report $2,660

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.6-7 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.6-Economic Analysis

Table E.6-2. Estimated Costs of Proposed Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement (PM&E) Measures Capital Proposed Measure Cost Annual Cost Costs Analysis Habitat enhancement in Lake Creek Estimate provided by Interfluve. Includes: Geomorphic survey, Reach 5. Establish Small wood and topographic survey, and hydraulic design. Designs and plans for gravel recruitment station approx. 3. $1,500 small wood and gravel recruitment stations, and installation. 400 feet below drop structure and 1. $63,000 (material) Perform a habitat survey to identify the appropriate location for the provide gravel and annually gravel recruitment station. Develop a means for moving gravel from 2. $3,600 4. $3,320 trail 74 down to the creek bank (using a chute system) (labor) 1. Surveys and Plan development 25 5. $1,680 2. Purchase a trailer that can be pulled behind a quad runner to haul gravel approximately 2 miles from Pipeline Bench road Total= parking lot to the drop zone. Must be equipped with balloon tires $66,600 3. Materials (gravel, etc) 4. Staff to place a minimum of 1 cubic yard per year at station, for 3 years and evaluate program (40 hrs per year labor) 5. Habitat monitoring every 4 yrs. = $7,000 Provide additional small wood Project personnel to move small wood debris into Lake Creek using debris for Lower Lake Creek below windthrow gathered from clearing Project trails, small wood removed 26 the drop structure 0 $6,640 from the debris screens, and other sources approved by the USFS (estimated at 80 labor hours per year) Establish Gauging station at Lake Install gauging station near Lake Creek Rd bridge to record flow Creek Road bridge; Monitor/ data. download data and periodic 2. $8,000 1. Purchase, setup and calibration of equipment 27 reporting 1. $12,000 3. $8,000 2. Annual costs for Vendor maintenance and calibration 4. $9,600 3. Labor required to monitor site; download/compile data estimated Total=$25,600 at 8 hours per month X 12 months 4. Record keeping, report generation; 80 hrs Project Manager time. Establish a road maintenance plan Project will contract road maintenance services for Latch Rd. for Pipeline Road (FS Road 1260- (FS1262) and Pipeline Rd. (FS1260-066) on an as needed basis. 066), Pipeline Trail (Trail No. 74), $18,280 Brushing will be done on a tri-annual basis or more frequently as 28 0 and Latch Road (FS Road 1262 needed. (est. contract costs $5,000/year) Project personnel will above the gate), in consultation with continue to provide trail maintenance on Trail No. 74. (Est. 160 the USFS hours/Year) TOTALS $1,367,215 $611,916

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.6-8 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.7-Comprehensive Plans

E.7 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

(F) Consistency with comprehensive plans. Identify relevant comprehensive plans and explain how and why the proposed project would, would not, or should not comply with such plans and a description of any relevant resource agency or Indian tribe determination regarding the consistency of the project with any such comprehensive plan.

Under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is required to consider the extent to which a proposed project would be consistent with federal and state comprehensive and resource plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by a project.

Plans that meet four criteria listed in Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA are treated as “qualifying comprehensive plans.” Qualifying plans must:

1. be prepared by an agency established pursuant to a federal law that has authority to prepare such a plan or by a state agency authorized to conduct such planning pursuant to state law; 2. represent a comprehensive study of one or more of the beneficial uses of a waterway or waterways; 3. include a description of the standards applied, data relied upon, and methodology used in plan preparations; and 4. be filed with the Secretary of the Commission.

The latest list of qualifying comprehensive plans published by FERC (2007e) identifies numerous comprehensive plans filed by federal and state agencies that address various resources in Washington State. Many of these plans are either specific to geographical locations not relevant to the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, or do not apply to existing or relicensing projects. The following evaluates the consistency of the Project with the FERC-approved comprehensive plans that may be relevant to the Project. Other plans not on file with the FERC as comprehensive plans that are potentially relevant for resource management decisions are described for environmental resources, where applicable, in Exhibit E, Section 5.7 of this Final License Application.

USDA Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990, 1995 and 1998)

The Gifford Pinchot National Forest (GPNF) Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) was adopted in 1990 (USDA Forest Service 1990) and has been amended several times since 1990. In 1995, the Forest Plan was revised to incorporate the Northwest Forest Plan comprehensive ecosystem management strategy for managing National Forest System lands within the range of the northern spotted owl (USDA Forest Service 1995b). The LRMP establishes land allocations and management direction within the forest boundaries.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.7-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.7-Comprehensive Plans

Approximately 503 acres of Project lands are within the Forest Service boundary. Over three quarters of the Packwood Lake shoreline borders the designated Wilderness (WW) boundary. The remaining Lake shoreline and Project area is within the Late Successional Reserve (LSR) designation, which overlaps several management allocations within the Project boundary including Unroaded (UH) and Roaded (RL) Recreation without Timber Harvest, Visual Emphasis (VM), and Utility (4W-Powerhouse site). Packwood Lake itself is within the UH management allocation outside of the WW and LSR boundaries. Overlaying all these designations and management allocations is a Key Watershed and Riparian Reserves. Refer to Exhibit E, Section 5.7 of this Final License Application for specific information regarding designated areas and management goals in the Project area.

In general, the management direction in the Project area includes preserving the wilderness character, providing for dispersed recreation opportunities and visual landscapes, and protecting habitat and the ecological health of the watershed and aquatic ecosystems.

Energy Northwest received Special Use Permits from the Forest Service for its use of Forest Service lands, and no new construction or modifications are proposed as part of relicensing of the Project. Relicensing of the Project would allow Energy Northwest to continue operating the Project. Conditions of current operations would not alter the Forest Service’s ability to manage its lands. Measures included as part of the relicensing (outlined in Exhibit E, Section 5.0 for each resource) are consistent with the GPNF LRMP.

Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, Washington's Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (2002-2007)

The Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation’s (IAC) Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) (IAC, 2002 and 2003), as amended, presents the state’s strategic plan for the acquisition, renovation, and development of recreational resources and preservation of open space. Specifically, the IAC SCORP recommends that hydropower operators “…enhance inventory with trails and paths for walking and bicycling, manage dispersed shoreline camping, improve access for on-water recreation, and improve opportunities for nonconsumptive interaction with nature, including fish and wildlife.” In cases where hydropower operators have built recreation facilities on lands owned by other operators, IAC recommends that the licensee provide maintenance and operation assistance. Lands surrounding Packwood Lake are managed by the USDA Forest Service. Relicensing of the Project is consistent with the objectives of the SCORP because the objectives are already met, are not impeded, or are not applicable (refer to Exhibit E, Section 5.7 of this Final License Application).

National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Fishery Management Council (1978)

The Pacific Fishery Management Council developed fishery management plans for salmon, ground fish, halibut and other coastal pelagic species in the United States.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.7-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.7-Comprehensive Plans

Exclusive Economic Zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Measures included in the relicensing of the Project are consistent with the objectives of these plans to sustain populations of anadromous salmonids.

National Park Service, The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (1993)

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed by Congress in 1968 (P.L. 90-542) to ensure that some of the nation’s most spectacular rivers remain in a natural, free- flowing state for future generations to enjoy. To be eligible, a river system must possess one or more “outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values.” Currently, there are no congressionally designated wild, scenic, or recreational rivers on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. As required under Section 5(d) of the Act, the National Park Service maintains a Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI), which is a register of river segments that potentially qualify as national wild, scenic or recreational river areas. The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) has more than 3,400 free-flowing river segments in the United States that are believed to possess one or more “outstandingly remarkable” natural or cultural values judged to be of more than local or regional significance. Segments of the Cowlitz River are listed in the NRI, including a 42-mile long segment between Muddy Creek and Riffe Lake. Within this segment, Lake Creek and the Project’s tailrace waters enter the Cowlitz River. The NRI shows scenery and geology as outstandingly remarkable values in this segment of the Cowlitz River, and gives this segment a preliminary classification as a Recreation River. Relicensing of the Project will not affect the NRI identified values for the Cowlitz River or potential future listings.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (2000)

The Council’s Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program is the largest regional effort in the nation to recover, rebuild, and mitigate impacts on fish and wildlife. The Council adopted the first program in November 1982. The 2000 program addresses all of the “Four Hs” of impacts on fish and wildlife – hydropower, habitat, hatcheries and harvest and marks a significant departure from past versions, which consisted primarily of a collection of measures directing specific activities. The 2000 Program establishes a basinwide vision for fish and wildlife along with biological objectives and action strategies that are consistent with the vision. The program is ultimately implemented through subbasin plans developed locally in the more than 50 tributary subbasins of the Columbia and amended into the program by the Council. The Project is located within the Cowlitz subbasin. Relicensing of the Project including measures outlined in Exhibit E, Section 5 of this Final License Application are expected to be consistent with the objectives of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. To ensure the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project’s consistency with the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, all concerned fish and wildlife agencies and tribes are consulted throughout the relicensing process.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.7-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.7-Comprehensive Plans

Northwest Power and Conservation Council, The Fifth Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Plan (2005)

The Northwest Power and Conservation Council is required to develop a 20-year power plan under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act to assure the region of an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power system. The power plan is updated every five years. To accomplish the goals of the Act, the plan addresses future uncertainties; identifies realistic resource alternatives; analyzes the costs and risks that arise from the interaction of resource choices and uncertain futures; and lays out a flexible strategy for managing those costs and risks. Recommendations outlined in the plan include conservation, developing demand- response programs - agreements between utilities and customers to reduce demand for power during periods of high prices and limited supply, and development of additional generating resources to meet future energy needs.

Issuance of a new license for the Project will allow Energy Northwest to continue to contribute to the power supply in the region.

Washington State Department of Ecology, State Wetlands Integration Strategy (1994)

The Washington State Wetlands Integration Strategy was established to develop and implement a more coordinated system for protecting state wetland resources. This document provides recommendations for government agencies to implement to achieve a more streamlined and uniform governance of wetland regulations. Consultation with government agencies throughout the relicensing process will ensure consistency with wetland regulations.

Washington State Department of Ecology, Application of Shoreline Management to Hydroelectric Developments, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program (1986)

In order to comply with the Washington State Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, all hydroelectric projects located within the Coastal Zone must be consistent with the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and its implementing regulations. Relicensing of the Project does not conflict with the provisions outlined in the Act.

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Hydroelectric Project Assessment Guidelines (1995)

The 1987 guidelines, originally issued by the Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), were updated in 1995 to explain the management goals and provide instructions for gathering information that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) considers necessary to assess potential impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitat. The guidelines provide direction to hydropower project proponents in developing a

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.7-4 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.7-Comprehensive Plans

license or exemption application to the FERC. Consultation with the WDFW will continue throughout the Project relicensing efforts to ensure consistency with WDFW goals.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources, State of Washington Natural Heritage Plan (1995)

The plan, updated in 1995, identifies special plants, animals, terrestrial ecosystems, wetland and aquatic ecosystems, and unique geologic features throughout Washington State. Priority numbers are established in the plan to be used by resource agencies to determine the level of protection. The plan also identifies "natural areas" in Washington State. Natural areas are defined as "any tract of land or water which supports high quality examples of terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems, habitats and populations of rare or endangered plant or animal species, or unique geologic features, and is managed specifically to protect those examples."

Exhibit E, Section 5 addresses special species and natural areas identified within the Project area. Ongoing consultation with resource agencies throughout the relicensing process will ensure compliance with this comprehensive plan.

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Washington State Scenic Rivers Program - State Scenic River Assessment (1988)

The Washington State Scenic Rivers Program was created by the Legislature in 1977 (RCW 79A.55) for the purpose of balancing the use and development of rivers with an effort to protect the natural character of Washington’s rivers that possess outstanding natural, scenic, historic, ecological, and recreational values of present and future benefit to the public. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission published the Washington State Scenic River Assessment in 1988. The assessment did not identify Lake Creek, the Cowlitz River or any other rivers near the Project as state scenic rivers. The Project’s consistency under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Program will be documented through consultation with the Forest Service.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.7-5 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.8-Consultation Documentation

E.8 CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION

(G) Consultation Documentation. Include a list containing the name, and address of every Federal, state, and interstate resource agency, Indian tribe, or member of the public with which the applicant consulted in preparation of the Environmental Document.

Secretary Mr. Keith Kirkendall Federal Energy Regulatory Commission National Marine Fisheries Service 888 First Street, N.E. Hydropower Division Washington, DC 20426 1201 Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97232 Mr. Ken Hogan Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mr. Bryan Nordlund 888 First Street, N.E. National Marine Fisheries Service Washington, DC 20426 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 103 Lacey, WA 98503 Mr. Timothy Looney Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chris Fontecchio, GCNW 888 First Street, N.E. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration Washington, DC 20426 National Marine Fisheries Service 7600 Sand Point Way, NE Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Seattle, WA 98115-0070 Portland Regional Office 101 SW Main St, Suite 905 Mr. Mike Gerdes Portland, OR 97204 US Forest Service rd 3160 NE 3 St Mr. Brian Peck Prineville, OR 97754 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 510 Desmond Dr., S.E., Suite 102 Mr. Rick McClure Lacey, WA 98503 US Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Mr. Ken Berg 2455 Highway 141 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Trout Lake, WA 98650 510 Desmond Dr., S.E. Lacey, WA 98503 Ms. Ruth Tracy US Forest Service Mr. Tim Romanski Gifford Pinchot National Forest U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 10600 NE 51st Circle 510 Desmond Dr., S.E. Vancouver, WA 98682 Lacey, WA 98503 Mr. Carl Corey U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service US Forest Service Regional Office c/o Mt Hood National Forest Attn: FERC Coordinator 16400 Champion Way 911 NE 11th Ave Sandy, OR 97055 Portland, OR 97232-4169 Ms. Margaret Beilharz Mr. Blane Bellerud US Forest Service National Marine Fisheries Service 57600 McKenzee Hwy 1201 Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100 McKenzee Bridge, OR 97413 Portland, OR 97232

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.8-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.8-Consultation Documentation

Mr. Ken Wieman Mr. Walt Dortch US Forest Service US Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Darrington Ranger District 10600 NE 51st Circle 1405 Emens St. Vancouver, WA 98682 Darrington, WA 98241-9502

Ms. Danna Hadley Environmental Project Agency US Forest Service Region 10 10024 Hwy 12 1200 Sixth Avenue P.O. Box 670 Seattle, WA 98101 Randle, WA 98377 Federal Emergency Management Agency Ms. Kristie Miller Regional Office Cowlitz Valley Ranger District Office 130 228th Street, SW US Forest Service Bothell, WA 98021 10024 Hwy 12 P.O. Box 670 US Army Corps of Engineers Randle, WA 98377 State District Office Regulatory Branch/Permits Ms. Karen Thompson PO Box 3755 Cowlitz Valley Ranger District Office Seattle, WA 98124-3755 US Forest Service 10024 Hwy 12 US Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 670 Divisional Office Randle, WA 98377 Regulatory Branch PO Box 2946 Ms. Linda Swartz Portland, OR 97208-2946 Cowlitz Valley Ranger District Office US Forest Service Bureau of Indian Affairs 10024 Hwy 12 Northwest Regional Office P.O. Box 670 911 NE 11th Avenue Randle, WA 98377 Portland, OR 97232

Ms. Diane Bedell Bureau of Land Management Cowlitz Valley Ranger District Office Spokane District Office US Forest Service 1103 N. Fancher 10024 Hwy 12 Spokane, WA 99212-1275 P.O. Box 670 Randle, WA 98377 Ms. Susan Rosebrough National Park Service Mr. Jack Thorne 909 First Avenue US Forest Service Seattle, WA 98104 10024 Hwy 12 P.O. Box 670 Department of Interior Randle, WA 98377 Bureau of Reclamation Regional Office Mr. Tom Kogut 1150 North Curtis Road, Suite 100 US Forest Service Boise, ID 83706-1234 10024 Hwy 12 P.O. Box 670 Northwest Power Planning Office Randle, WA 98377 851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204 Mount Rainier National Park Star Route, Tahoma Woods Ashford, Washington 98304

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.8-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.8-Consultation Documentation

Mr. Mark Hunter SEPA Center Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Dept of Natural Resources 600 Capital Way North PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98501 Olympia, WA 98504-7015

Ms. Charlene Andrade Dr. Allyson Brooks Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife State Historic Preservation Officer 600 Capital Way North Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia, WA 98501 PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Mr. Brock Applegate Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Mr. William C. Frymire, Senior Counsel 600 Capital Way North Assistant Attorney General Olympia, WA 98501 Office of the Attorney General Fish, Wildlife and Parks Division Mr. Hal Beecher P.O. Box 40100 Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Olympia, WA 98504-0100 600 Capital Way North Olympia, WA 98501 Environmental Programs Manager Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission Mr. Brad Caldwell P.O. Box 42668 Washington Department of Ecology Olympia, WA 98504 PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504 Mr. Jim Eychaner Interagency Commission for Outdoor Recreation Ms. Deborah Cornett P.O. Box 40917 Washington Department of Ecology Olympia, WA 98504-0917 PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Mr. Eric Johnson, Commissioner Lewis County Mr. Paul Pickett 351 NW North Street Washington Department of Ecology Chehalis, WA 98532 PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Director Lewis County Planning Department Mr. Kelly Susewind 351 NW North Street Department of Ecology Chehalis, WA 98532 PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Mr. Mike Iyall Cowlitz Tribe SW Regional Director 1215 SE Hall Washington Department of Ecology Lacey, WA 98503 PO Box 47775 Olympia, WA 98504-7775 Mr. Taylor Aalvik Cowlitz Tribe State of Washington PO Box 2547 Washington Department of Agriculture Longview, WA 98632 PO Box 42560 Olympia, WA 98504-0001 Mr. George Lee Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Mr. James Miernyk PO Box 151 Washington Utilities and Transportation Toppenish, WA 98948 PO Box 47250 Olympia, WA 98504-7250

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.8-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.8-Consultation Documentation

Ms. Andrea Spencer Ms. Kathy Dubé, R.G Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Watershed GeoDynamics PO Box 151 14145 97th Ave NE Toppenish, WA 98948 Bothell, WA 98011

Mr. Carroll Palmer Mr. Stephen Nyman Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Devine Tarbell & Associates PO Box 151 1111 N. Forest St. Toppenish, WA 98948 Bellingham, WA 98225

Mr. Clifford Casseseka Ms. Katy Beck Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Calypso Consulting PO Box 151 1130 21st St Toppenish, WA 98948 Bellingham, WA 98225

Mr. Clarence Holford Ms. Gail Thompson Bureau of Indian Affairs Historical Research Associates Yakama Agency 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 240 PO Box 632 Seattle, WA 98101 Toppenish, WA 98948-0632 Mr. Greg Koonce Mr. John Blum Inter-fluve EES Consulting, Inc. 1020 Wasco St., Suite I 1155 N State Street, Suite 700 Hood River, OR 97031 Bellingham, WA 98225 Mr. Gardner Johnston Mr. Kent Doughty Inter-fluve EES Consulting, Inc. 1020 Wasco St., Suite I 1155 N. State Street, Suite 700 Hood River, OR 97031 Bellingham, WA 98225 Packwood Timberland Library Mr. Pete Rittmueller PO Box 589 EES Consulting, Inc. Packwood, WA 98361-0589 1155 N. State Street, Suite 700 Bellingham, WA 98225 Goat Rocks Homeowners Association ATTN: Don Barto Mr. Cory Warnock 159 Tatoosh U Drive EES Consulting, Inc. Packwood, WA 98361 1155 N. State Street, Suite 700 Bellingham, WA 98225 Destination Packwood P.O. Box 64 Ms. Janet White Packwood, WA 98361-0064 EES Consulting, Inc. 570 Kirkland Way, Suite 200 Packwood Improvement Club Kirkland, WA 98033 Attn: Mr. Steve McVicker P.O. Box 111 Ms. Lisa Fortney Packwood, WA 98361 EES Consulting, Inc. 570 Kirkland Way, Suite 200 Mr. John Squires Kirkland, WA 98033 CPR Fish PO Box 801 Debby Howe Packwood, WA 98361 EES Consulting, Inc. 570 Kirkland Way, Suite 200 Kirkland, WA 98033

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.8-4 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.8-Consultation Documentation

Mr. Mike Kohn Mr. Glen Mixdorf Lewis County PUD Snohomish PUD PO Box AJ P.O. Box 1107 Morton, WA 98356 Everett, WA 98206

Ms. Rebecca Sherman Hydropower Reform Coalition 320 SW Stark Street, Suite 429 Portland, OR 97204

Mr. Thomas O’Keefe PNW Stewardship Director American Whitewater 3537 NE 87th St. Seattle, WA 98115

Mr. Mark G. LaRiviere Tacoma Power 3628 South 35th Street Tacoma, WA 98409-3192

Ms. Dawn Presler Snohomish PUD 2320 California St. Everett, WA 98206

Mr. Bruce Meaker Snohomish PUD P.O. Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206

Ms. Karen Bedrossian Snohomish PUD P.O. Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board 2127 8th Avenue Longview, WA 98632

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.8-5 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

E.9 LITERATURE CITED

Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 47:332-342. As cited in: Peterson, A. 1986.

Attorney General of Washington, Ecology Division. 2005. Study Plan Request: Turbidity in Project Waters. Study Plan Request: Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen in Project Waters and Lake Trophic Status. Study Plan Request: Total Dissolved Gas in Project Waters. Study Plan Request: Oils and Toxic Materials in Project Soil, Sediments, and Water. Study Plan Request: Lake Creek Instream Flow and Habitat Assessment. March 11, 2005.

Banci, V. A. 1994. Wolverine. Pages 99-127, in: L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, (editors). The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores, American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254, Fort Collins, Colo.

Barica, J. 1990. Seasonal variability of N:P ratios in eutrophic lakes. Hydrobiologia 191 97-103.

Barnosky, Cathy W. 1981. A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake, southern Puget Lowland, Washington. Quaternary Research 16:221-239.

Beck Botanical Services. 2005a. Revised Noxious Weed Survey Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington. August 22, 2005.

Beck Botanical Services. 2005b. Revised Rare Plant Survey Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington. August 22, 2005.

Beck Botanical Services. 2007a. Noxious Weed Survey, Final Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No, 2244, Lewis County, Washington. January 2007.

Beck Botanical Services. 2007b. Rare Plant Survey, Final Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No, 2244, Lewis County, Washington. January 2007.

Bedell, Diane. 2004. Existing Information Analysis for Packwood Lake Recreation Resources. USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest. December 13, 2004.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-1 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

Bell, M.C. 1990. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division, Portland, OR.

Bouchard, Randy, Dorothy Kennedy, and Mark Cox. 1998. Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company, I-90 Land Exchange Project. Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company. Wenatchee National Forest Report #061703 & 08/98-06a; Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report #CRR-98-002.

Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetland Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Brockway, D.G., C. Topik, M.A. Hemstrom, and W.H. Emmingham. 1983. Plant Association and Management Guide for the Pacific Silver Fir Zone: Gifford Pinchot National Forest. U.S. Forest Service R6-Ecol-130a-1983. 122pp.

Brodo, I.M., S.D. Sharnoff, and S. Sharnoff. 2001. Lichens of North America. Yale University Press.

Brown, B. T. and L. E. Stevens. 1997. Winter bald eagle distribution is inversely correlated with human activity along the Colorado River, Arizona. Journal of Raptor Research 31:7-10.

Bull, E.L., and E.C. Meslow. 1977. Habitat requirements of the pileated woodpecker in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Forestry 75:335-337.

Bury, R. Bruce; Corn, Paul Steven; Aubry, Keith B. (and others). 1991. Aquatic amphibian communities in Oregon and Washington. In: Ruggerio, Leonard F.; Aubry, Keith B.; Carey, Andrew B.; Huff, Mark H. Tech. Cords. Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-fir Forests. Gen. Tech. Re. PNW-GTR-285. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Res. Sta.: 353-362.

Butler Surveying. 2004. Water Tank and Powerhouse Exhibit, Tailrace Exhibit 1 and Tailrace Exhibit 2. September 27, 2004.

Cardwell, Rod. 1966. “A Tale About Wild Goat’s Milk.” The Tacoma New Tribune and Sunday Ledger. Tacoma, Washington. June 5, 1966.

Carlson, R.E. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography. 22:361-369.

Carlson, R.E. and J. Simpson. 1996. A coordinators guide to volunteer lake monitoring methods. North American Lake Management Society. 96 pp.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-2 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis, Washington]. 1909. Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers. 10 December:10.

Chehalis Chronicle [Chehalis, Washington]. 1972. Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake. October 24. http://www.energy northwest.com/gen/packwood/reference/chehalischronical.htm

City of Tacoma, Cowlitz Hydroelectric Project. 2000. Settlement Agreement License Article 3. August 10, 2000.

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA). 2002. Draft Cowlitz River Subbasin Summary. Prepared for the Northwest Power Planning Council.

Combs, Mrs. Sherman et al. 1954. History Committee Report. Packwood, Washington.

Corkran, C.C. and C. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Lone Star Publishing, Renton, WA. 175 pp.

COSEWIC. 2006. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Cryptic Paw Nephroma occultum in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. Vi + 28pp.

Counsil, W.G. 1994. Letter from W.G. Counsil (Washington Public Power Supply System) to Arthur C. Martin (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) re: Status Report for Inspection and Maintenance of Penstocks and Other Conduits. August 24, 1994.

Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, Oregon.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS2/OBS-79/31, US Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Biological Services, Washington D.C.

Crisafulli, C.M. 2005. Species account of Cascade Torrent Salamander (Rhyacotriton cascadae). In: Jones, L.L.C., W.P. Leonard, and D.H. Olson (editors). Amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. 227 pp..

Dampf, Steven, and Gail Thompson. 2006. Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwest's Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2244) Lewis County, Washington. Confidential report produced by Historical Research Associates, Inc. for Energy Northwest.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-3 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

Delacy, W.W. 1861. "Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of Mount Rainier." Pioneer and Democrat, p. 3. Olympia, Washington. March 29

Destination Packwood Association. 2004. White Pass Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan. http://www.destinationpackwood.com/scenic.html

Devine Tarbell and Associates (DTA). 2004. Memorandum from D. Malkin, Devine, Tarbell & Associated, Inc. to Kent Doughty, EES Consulting Re: Packwood Lake Project Aquatic/Emergent Weed Survey. September 24, 2004.

Devine Tarbell and Associates (DTA). 2005a. Revised Amphibian Survey Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington. August 22, 2005.

Devine Tarbell and Associates (DTA). 2005b. Revised Vegetation Cover Type Mapping Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington. August 22, 2005.

Devine Tarbell and Associates (DTA). 2007a. Final Amphibian Survey Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington. January 2007.

Devine Tarbell and Associates (DTA). 2007b. Final Bald Eagle and Osprey Nest Survey Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington. January 2007.

Devine Tarbell and Associates (DTA). 2007c. Final Vegetation Cover Type Mapping Study Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington. March 2007. deVlaming, V.L. and R.B. Bury. 1970. Temperature selection in tadpoles of the tailed frog (Ascaphus truei). J. Herpetology 4:179-189.

DeVore, J. 1987. Analysis of the 1983-85 Cowlitz River Runs of Fall Chinook and Coho Salmon. Progress Report No. 254. State of Washington Department of Fisheries. Olympia, Washington.

Diller, L.V. and R.L. Wallace. 1999. Distribution and habitat of Ascaphus truei in streams on managed, young growth forests in North Coastal California. J. Herpetology 33:71-79.

Dolloff A., J. Kershner, and J. Thurow. 1996. Underwater Observation. Pages 533- 551. In Murphy, B.R. and D.W. Willis, editors. 1996. Fisheries techniques 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-4 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

Downing, J.A. and E. McCauley. 1992. The nitrogen: phosphorus relationship in lakes. Limnology and Oceanography. 37(5) 936-945

Duke Engineering & Services (DE&S). 1999. Lake Mayfield Village Wastewater Facility Construction Fisheries Biological Assessment. Prepared for Lewis County Water and Sewer District No. 6. Mossyrock, WA.

Dvornich, K.M., K.R. McAllister, and K.B. Aubry. 1997. Amphibians and reptiles of Washington State: Location data and predicted distributions, Vol. 2 In: Washington State Gap Analysis - Final Report, (K.M. Cassidy, C.E. Grue, M.R. Smith and K.M. Dvornich, eds.), Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, 146 pp.

EES Consulting. 2005a. Interim Report Water Temperature Report (2004) for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. February 2005

EES Consulting. 2005b. Summary of Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Hydrology (FERC No. 2244), Lake Creek and Cowlitz River at Packwood. June 2005.

EES Consulting. 2005c. Final Lake Creek Physical Habitat Assessment Survey. July 2005.

EES Consulting. 2005d. Final Lake Creek and Tailrace Slough Spawning Surveys, 2004. July 2005.

EES Consulting. 2005e. Revised Anadromous Salmonid Habitat and Spawning Survey Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington. August 22, 2005.

EES Consulting. 2005f. Revised Bald Eagle and Osprey Nest Survey Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington. August 22, 2005.

EES Consulting, 2005g. Revised Engineering Study Related to Barrier Replacement on the Project Tailrace for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. August 22, 2005.

EES Consulting. 2005h. Revised Fish Distribution and Species Composition Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. August 22, 2005.

EES Consulting, 2005i. Revised Fish Passage Barriers Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. August 22, 2005.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-5 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

EES Consulting, 2005j. Revised Fish Population Characterization Near the Drop Structure Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. August 22, 2005.

EES Consulting, 2005k. Revised Packwood Lake Entrainment Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. August 22, 2005.

EES Consulting, 2005l. Revised Tailrace Slough Instream Flow Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. August 22, 2005.

EES Consulting, 2005m. Revised Tailrace Slough Use by Anadromous Salmonids Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. August 22, 2005.

EES Consulting, 2005n. Revised Water Quality Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. August 22, 2005.

EES Consulting. 2006a. Water Quality Interim Report: 1st Year Study Results for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. April 2006.

EES Consulting. 2006b. Draft Packwood Lake Drawdown Study Wetland Hydrology Interim Report: 1st Year’s Study Results for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. May 26, 2006.

EES Consulting. 2006c. Draft Water Temperature Report for 2005 for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. August 2006.

EES Consulting. 2006d. Fish Rescue Plan, Project Tailrace and Stilling Basin for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. Revision 0. September 2006.

EES Consulting. 2006e. Draft Fish Passage Barriers Study Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. November 2006.

EES Consulting. 2006f. Draft Interim Report, Fish Population Characterization Near the Drop Structure. November 2006.

EES Consulting. 2006g. Draft Packwood Lake Entrainment Study Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. November 2006.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-6 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

EES Consulting. 2006h. Draft Macroinvertebrate Study Report, Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. December 2006.

EES Consulting. 2007a. Water Quality Report: 2nd Year Study Results for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. February 2007.

EES Consulting. 2007b. Final Report Water Temperature Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. February 2007.

EES Consulting. 2007c. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2244), Anadromous Salmonid Habitat and Spawner Survey Report. Bellingham, WA. April 2007.

EES Consulting, 2007d. Macroinvertebrate Study Final Report, Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project. May 2007.

EES Consulting. 2007e. Draft, Lake Creek Instream Flow Study for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. June 2007 (in preparation).

EES Consulting, 2007f. Draft Tailrace Slough Instream Flow Study Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project. Bellingham, WA. June 2007.

EES Consulting. 2007g. Final Packwood Lake Drawdown Study Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. July 2007.

EES Consulting. 2007h. Draft Fish Distribution and Species Composition Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. August 2007.

EES Consulting. 2007i. Final Fish Population Characterization Near the Drop Structure Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. August 2007.

EES Consulting. 2007j. Final Fish Passage Barriers Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. August 2007.

EES Consulting. 2007k. Draft Final Report, Tailrace Slough Use by Anadromous Salmonids, Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2244). August 2007.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-7 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

EES Consulting. 2007l. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-2244, Biological Assessment. Tailrace Barrier and Construction, Post Construction Monitoring and Evaluation. Bellingham, WA. April 2007.

EES Consulting. 2007m. Final, Lake Creek Instream Flow Study for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. October 2007.

EES Consulting. 2007n. Final, Packwood Lake Entrainment Study Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. October 2007.

EES Consulting. 2007o. Final Fish Distribution and Species Composition Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. September 2007.

EES Consulting, 2007p. Final Tailrace Slough Instream Flow Study Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project. Bellingham, WA. September 2007.

EES Consulting and Watershed GeoDynamics. 2005a. Revised Engineering Needs for Access Routes Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. August 22, 2005.

EES Consulting and Watershed GeoDynamics. 2005b. Revised Packwood Lake Drawdown Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington. August 22, 2005.

Energy Northwest. 1965. Appraisal-Impact on Recreation Resources; Exhibit No. 11 “Packwood Lake Level Comparison Historical Limits and License Limits During Recreation Season.”

Energy Northwest. 2004a. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2244, Pre-Application Document, November 10, 2004.

Energy Northwest. 2004b. Notification of Intent, Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project Number 2244, November 10, 2004.

Energy Northwest. 2004c. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project No. 2244. Pre-Application Document. Supplement No. 1. Richland WA. December 6, 2004.

Energy Northwest. 2005a. Letter dated April 26, 2005, J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest) to Magalie R. Salas (FERC), “Submittal of Proposed Study Plans.”

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-8 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

Energy Northwest. 2005b. Letter dated August 22, 2005, J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest) to Magalie R. Salas (FERC), “Submittal of Revised Study Plans.”

Energy Northwest. 2005c. Letter dated September 7, 2005, J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest) to Magalie R. Salas (FERC), “Clarification Regarding Waiver of Article 37.”

Energy Northwest. 2006a. Letter dated January 17, 2006, J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest) to Magalie R. Salas (FERC), “Lake Drawdown and Ramping Rate Plans.”

Energy Northwest. 2006b. Letter dated September 18, 2006, J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest) to Magalie R. Salas (FERC), “Study Progress Report.”

Energy Northwest. 2006c. Letter dated October 17, 2006, J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest) to Magalie R. Salas (FERC), “Meeting Summary.”

Energy Northwest. 2006d. Letter dated December 19, 2006, J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest) to Magalie R. Salas (FERC), “Response to Filings.”

Energy Northwest. 2006e. Letter dated December 20, 2006, J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest) to Magalie R. Salas (FERC), “Meeting Summaries.”

Energy Northwest. 2007a. Letter dated February 26, 2007, J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest) to Magalie R. Salas (FERC), “Response to Filings.”

Energy Northwest. 2007b. Letter dated March 22, 2007, J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest) to Philis Posey (FERC), “Packwood Lake Drawdown Study Draft Final Report.”

Energy Northwest. 2007c. Letter dated April 9, 2007, J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest) to Philis Posey (FERC), “Construction of Tailrace Fish Barrier.”

Energy Northwest. 2007d. Letter dated April 18, 2007, J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest) to Philis Posey (FERC), “Proposed Waiver of Article 37.”

Energy Northwest. 2007e. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-2244, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 179 Powerhouse Road, Packwood, WA. April 2007.

Energy Northwest. 2007f. Electronic mail dated June 8, 2007, Laura Schinnell (Energy Northwest) to Aaron Liberty et. al., “Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project - Synthesis Report Draft.”

Energy Northwest. 2007g. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Noxious Weed Control Plan, Revision Number 2, July 12, 2007.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-9 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

Energy Northwest. 2007h. Letter dated August 6, 2007, J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest) to Kimberly D Bose (FERC), “Second Season Study Progress Report.”

Energy Northwest. 2007i. (Letter dated August 29, 2007, J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest) to Kimberly D. Bose and Nathaniel J. Davis (FERC), “Meeting Summaries").

Energy Northwest. 2007j. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Preliminary Licensing Proposal. September 14, 2007.

Energy Northwest and EES Consulting. 2005. Revised Engineering Study Related to Barrier Replacement on the Project Tailrace. August 22, 2005.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2004. Handbook for Hydroelectric Project Licensing and 5 MW Exemptions From Licensing. April 2004.

FERC. 2005a. Scoping Document 1, Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Washington, Project No. 2244-012, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Division of Hydropower Licensing, January 2005.

FERC. 2005b. Scoping Document 2, Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Washington, Project No. 2244-012, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Division of Hydropower Licensing, April 2005.

FERC. 2005c. Letter dated March 14, 2005, Timothy J. Welch (FERC) to Magalie R. Salas (FERC), “Study Request, Staff Comments on PAD, and Requests for Additional Information.”

FERC. 2005d. Letter dated September 21, 2005, J. Mark Robinson (FERC) to J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest), “Study Plan Determination for the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project and Contingent Approval of Waiver of Article 37.”

FERC. 2005e. Letter dated September 29, 2005, George H. Taylor (FERC) to J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest), “Interim Tailrace Barrier Feasibility Study.”

FERC. 2006. Order Approving Packwood Lake Drawdown Plan, Lake Creek Ramping Rate Plan, and Temporary Waiver of Article 27. February 8, 2006.

FERC. 2007a. Letter dated January 19, 2007, J. Mark Robinson (FERC) to J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest), “Phase 1 Modifications to Studies and/or Schedules.”

FERC. 2007b. Letter dated March 30, 2007, J. Mark Robinson (FERC) to J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest), “Phase 2 Modifications to Studies and Soliciting Comments on a Proposed Waiver of Article 37.”

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-10 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

FERC. 2007c. Letter dated April 26, 2007, J. Mark Robinson (FERC) to J.W. Baker (Energy Northwest), “Order Approving Temporary Waiver of Article 37.”

FERC. 2007d. Letter dated May 25, 2007, George H. Taylor (FERC) to Ken Berg (USFWS) and Blaine Bellerud (NMFS), “Biological Assessment: Application to install tailrace barrier.”

FERC. 2007e. List of Comprehensive Plans. Revised August 2007.

Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1–64.

Graefe, A.R., et al. 2002. Recreationists on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest: A Survey of User Characteristics, Behaviors, and Attitudes. Final Report Submitted to the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Region 6, Portland, OR. November 11, 2002.

Groot, C., and L. Margolis (eds.). 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. p. 231-309. Univ. BC Press, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Harza Northwest, Inc. 1996. Initial Consultation Package. Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project Mossyrock Facility and Mayfield Facility. FERC No. 2016. Prepared for Tacoma City Light.

Hajda, Yvonne, David V. Ellis, John L. Fagan, Douglas C. Wilson, and Bonnie J. Mills. 1995. Ethnographic Sites of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Washington, Volume I. Archaeological Research Investigations Northwest, Inc, Report No. 59. Heritage Program, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Vancouver, Washington.

Hayes, D.W and R. L Milner. 1999. Management Recommendations – Peregrine Falcon. Found at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/vol4/birdrecs.htm. Accessed June 29, 2007.

Hayes, M.P., T. Quinn, D.J. Dugger, T.L. Hicks, M.A. Melchiors, and D.E. Runde. 2006. Dispersion of coastal tailed frogs (Ascaphus truei): an [sic] hypothesis relating occurrence of frogs in non-fish bearing headwater basins to their seasonal movements. J. Herpetology 40:531-543.

Hearne, Carol T. and Jan L. Hollenbeck. 1996. Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Mountlake Terrace, Washington.

Hillebrand, H. and U. Sommer. 1999. The nutrient stoichiometry of benthic microalgal growth: Redfield proportions are optimal. Limnology and Oceanography. 44(2) 440-446.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-11 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. The Great Lakes Entomologist, 20: 31-39.

Historical Research Associates (HRA). 2005. Cultural Resources Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington. August 22, 2005.

Hollenbeck, Barbara J. 1985. Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. In Archaeological Inventory and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest, Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service, compiled and edited by Richard F. Darsie, James D. Keyser, and Stephen Hackenberger, pp. 71- 75.

Horne, A.J. and C.R. Goldman 1994. Limnology. McGraw-Hill. New York.

Howe Consulting, Inc. 2005. Revised Recreation Resources Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244. August 22, 2005.

Howe Consulting, Inc. 2007. Final Recreation Resources Study Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington. April 2007.

Howe Consulting/EES Consulting. 2007. Recreation Needs Analysis for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington.

Hurd, Owen W. 1964. Letter from Owen W. Hurd (Washington Public Power Supply System) to F. Stewart Brown (Federal Power Commission), dated November 27, 1964. http://www.energy-northwest.com/gen/packwood/reference/hurd-owen-1964.htm

Interagency for Outdoor Recreation (IAC). 2002. An Assessment of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State: A State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planning (SCORP) document 2002-2007. October 2002.

Interagency for Outdoor Recreation (IAC). 2003. Estimates of Future Participation in Outdoor Recreation in Washington State. March 2003.

Irwin, Judith W. 1994. "The Dispossessed." The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor. The Columbian, 1994 Summer. Copyright 2002, Cowlitz Indian Tribe. Reprinted to http://www.cowlitz.org/history/dispossed.htm.

Jacobs, Melville M. 1934. Northwest Sahaptin Texts, Part I. Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, 19(1). Columbia University Press, New York.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-12 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

Jain, K.E., and A.P. Farrell. 2003. Influence of seasonal temperature on the repeat swimming performance of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. J. Exp. Biol. Oct 206 (pt 20): 3569-79.

Jarrett, Don. 2005. Memorandum from Don Jarrett (EES Consulting) to Laura Schinnell (Energy Northwest) Re: Packwood Tailrace Barrier. October 18, 2005.

Johnson, R. E., and K. M. Cassidy. 1997. Mammals of Washington state: location data and modeled distributions. Washington State GAP Analysis, Volume 3. In: Cassidy, K. M., C. E. Grue, M. R. Smith, and K. M. Dvornich (editors). Washington State Gap Analysis – Final Report. Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Johnson, O.W., W.S. Grant, R.G. Kope, K. Neely, F.W. Waknitz, and R.S. Waples. 1997. Status review of chum salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-32, 280 p.

Jones, L.L.C. 1999. Survey protocol for the Van Dyke’s salamander (Plethodon vandykei), Version 3.0. pp. 165-208 In: Survey Protocols for Amphibians Under the Survey and Manage Provision of the Northwest Forest Plan, Version 3.0., Deanna H. Olson, Editor and Subgroup Lead, October, 1999. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Jones, L.L.C., W.P. Leonard, and D.H. Olson, editors. 2005. Amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. 227 pp.

Karr, J.R. & E.W. Chu. 1999. Restoring life in running waters: better biological monitoring. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Kiona, Mary. 1953. Testimony in Simon Plamondon, on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs. the United States of America, Docket No. 218, Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission. United States Court House, Seattle. August 5, 1953.

Kiona, Mary. 1965. Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy. Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file, Heritage Program, Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

Kratzer, CR, and P.L. Brezonik. 1981. A Carlson-type trophic state index for nitrogen in Florida lakes. Water Resources Bulletin 17(4) 713-715.

Kray, A. 1957. A Survey of Resident and Anadromous Game Fish Populations of the Cowlitz River above Mayfield. State of Washington Department of Game. Seattle, Washington.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-13 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

Lange, Larry. 1977. “Packwood: It’s worth the hike.” The Columbian. Vancouver, WA. September 11, 1977.

Larsen, E.M., ed. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority species. Volume III: Amphibians and reptiles. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia. 122pp.

Lehman, R. N. 1979. A survey of selected habitat features of 95 bald eagle nest sites in California. California Dept. of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Branch, Admin. Report. 79-1. As cited in: Peterson, A. 1986.

Leonard, W. P., H. A. Brown, L. L. C. Jones, K. R. McAllister, and R. M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA.

Lewis County. 2002. Lewis County Comprehensive Plan. Lewis County Community Development Dept. Adopted June 1, 1999, Amended December 18, 2000 and April 4, 2002.

Lewis County Department of Public Works. 2004. Lewis County Land Use/Land Cover http://www.co.lewis.wa.us/publicworks/maps/Environmental/landuse_cover.pdf

Lewis County Noxious Weed Control Board (LCWCB). 2006. 2006 Noxious Weed List Lewis County, WA. Also available online at URL: https://fortress.wa.gov/lewisco/home/lc/WeedControl/WeedList.aspx

Lower Columbia Fisheries Recovery Board (LCFRB). 2004. The Lower Columbia Salmon Recover and Fish and Wildlife Subbasin Plan. Portland, Oregon.

Lucas, R. E. 1989. Fishery Management Report 89-1. Washington Department of Wildlife.

Lucas, R.E. and M.W. Chilcote. 1982. Life history and possible genertic origins of rainbow trout from Packwood Lake, Washington. WDFW Report.

Malmquist, B. and A. Eriksson. 1995. Benthic insects in Swedish lake-outlet streams: patterns in species richness and assemblage structure. Freshwater Biology 34: 285- 296.

Marshall, D. B., M.W. Chilcote, and H. Weeks. 1996. Species at Risk: Sensitive, Threatened and Endangered Vertebrates of Oregon. 2nd edition. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon.

McClure, Richard H., Jr. 1987a. Cultural Resource Survey Report, Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement. USDA Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Packwood Ranger District. Report on file, Heritage Program, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Trout Lake, Washington. OAHP Log. No. 950-06.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-14 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

McClure, Richard H., Jr. 1987b. Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE- 285, Packwood Lake, Lewis County, Washington. USDA Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Packwood Ranger District. Report on file, Heritage Program, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Trout Lake, Washington.

McClure, Richard H., Jr. 1992. An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415), Gifford Pinchot National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Region Six. Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Vancouver, Washington.

McClure, Richard H., Jr. 1998. Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades. In Environment, Prehistory & Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park, Washington, by Greg C. Burtchard. Report prepared for the National Park Service, Seattle, Washington.

McClure, Richard H., Jr. 2004a. Heritage Resource Survey Report, Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation. USDA Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Report on file, Heritage Program, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Trout Lake, Washington. OAHP Log. No. 042804-03-USFS-GP.

McClure, Richard H., Jr. 2004b. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2244, USDA Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources, September 7, 2004. To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf

McCune, B. and L. Geiser. 1997. Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR.

McIntyre, A.P. 2003. Ecology of populations of Van Dyke’s salamanders in the Cascade Range of Washington State. Master’s thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Merritt, R.W. & K.W. Cummins. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Third edition. 862 pp. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.

Metter, D.E. 1968. The influence of floods on population structure of Ascaphus truei Stejneger. J. Herpetology 1:1-4.

Mittge, Brian. 2003. “Rifle Manufacturer to Locate His Shop in Packwood Industrial Park,” The Chronicle, Centralia, WA. November 18, 2003. http://www.energy-northwest.com/gen/packwood/reference/mittge-brian.pdf

Morton Journal. 1974. “Lake Concessions to Open Again.” Morton Journal. Morton, Washington. February 21, 1974.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-15 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

Mottram, B. 2003. Dam Bypass: Power Utilities Truck Fish Upstream and Down Past Hydro Barriers. The News Tribune. Tacoma, Washington.

Murphy, J. R. 1965. Nest site selection by the bald eagle in Yellowstone National Park. Proc. Utah Acad. Sci. 42:261-264. As cited in: Peterson, A. 1986.

Nagorsen D.W. and R.M. Brigham. 1993. Bats of British Columbia. UBC Press. Vancouver, British Columbia. 166pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service1978. Seattle, Washington; Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon. Final environmental impact statement and fishery management plan for commercial and recreational salmon fisheries off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California commencing in 1978. Department of Commerce. March 1978.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Coastal salmon conservation: working guidance for comprehensive salmon restoration initiatives on the Pacific Coast. USDC-NOAA, NMFS, Portland, OR. Report dated September 15, 1996.

National Park Service. 1993. The nationwide rivers inventory. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1993.

Neeley, Agnes, and Ralph Neeley. 1968. Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy. On file, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. March 17.

NOAA-Fisheries. 2005. Letter dated March 11, 2005, Keith Kirkendall (NOAA- Fisheries) to Magalie R. Salas, “Packwood Lake Dam Hydroelectric Project (FERC NO. P-2244-012) Study Requests.”

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2000. Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife program. Portland, Oregon. Council Document 2000-19.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2004a. “Cowlitz Subbasin - Upper Cowlitz.” Lower Columbia Salmon and Steelhead Recovery and Subbasin Plan. Volume II. Chapter 7. Prepared by Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. Draft. May 28, 2004. . http://www.nwppc.org/fw/subbasinplanning/lowerColumbia/plan/ManagementPlan/V olumeII/MP%20Vol%20II%20Ch%2007%20U%20Cowlitz.pdf

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2004b. “Cowlitz Subbasin – Upper Cowlitz”. Lower Columbia Salmon and Steelhead Recovery and Subbasin Plan. Volume II, Chapter 9. Prepared by Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. Draft. May 28, 2004. http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/lowerColumbia/plan/TechnicalFounda tion/VolumeII/Vol.%20II%20Ch.%209%20Cowlitz%20-Upper%20Cowlitz.pdf

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-16 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2005. The Fifth Northwest electric power and conservation plan. Portland, Oregon. Council Document 2005-07.

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington State. 2003. Washington State Report Card, Packwood Elementary. http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/Reports/demographics.aspx?schoolId=1845&report Level=School

Parker, M.S. 1991. Relationship between cover availability and larval Pacific giant salamander density. Journal of Herpetology 25:355-357.

Parker, Patricia L., and Thomas F. King. 1990. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Park Service Bulletin 38. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Pearson, R.R., and K.B. Livezey. 2003. Distribution, numbers, and site characteristics of spotted owls and barred owls in the Cascade Mountains of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 37(4):265-276.

Peterson, A. 1986. Habitat suitability index models: bald eagle (breeding). U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol Rept. 82(10.126). 25pp.

Powers, P.D. and J. F. Orsborn. 1985. An investigation of the physical and biological conditions affecting fish passage success at culverts and waterfalls. In: Analysis of barriers to upstream fish migration. Part 4. Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon.

Richardson, S.; D. Hays, R. Spencer, and J. Stofel. 2000. Washington state status report for the common loon. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 53 pp.

Royce, William F. 1965a. “Effect of changes in lake level on fishing in Packwood Lake”. University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Royce, William F. 1965b. Letter from William. F. Royce (University of Washington) to Owen W. Hurd (Washington Public Power), dated January 14, 1965.

Royce, W. F., Gessel, S. P., and R. W. Beck & Associates. 1971. Environmental Report for Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project.

R.W. Beck. 1980. Letter from R.W. Beck to Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission re: Packwood Hydroelectric Project, FERC – Project No. 2244- Washington. January 16, 1980.

Sandison, Gordon and Ralph W. Larson. 1978. Letter from Gordon Sandison (Department of Fisheries) and Ralph W. Larson (Department of Game) to

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-17 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

Washington Public Power Supply System re: Tailrace Screen Structure on Cowlitz River at Packwood, Washington. March 31, 1978.

Schasse, H.W. 1987. Geologic Map of the Mount Rainier Quadrangle, Washington, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report 87-16.

Schofield, W.B. 1992. Some Common Mosses of British Columbia. Royal British Columbia Museum. Victoria, Canada.

Sibley, D.A. 2003. The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America. Alfred A. Knopf. New York, NY. 473pp.

Smith, V.H. 1983. Low nitrogen to phosphorus ratios favor dominance by blue-green algae in lake phytoplankton. Science 221: 669-671.

Smith, M.E. 2002. Western Washington Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment. Certified letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dated 29 October. 34pp.

Smith, M. R., P. W. Mattocks, Jr., and K. M. Cassidy. 1997. Breeding birds of Washington State: Location data and predicted distributions. Volume 4 In: Cassidy, K. M., C. E. Grue, M. R. Smith, and K. M. Dvornich (editors). Washington State Gap Analysis – Final Report. Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Spier, Leslie. 1936. Tribal Distribution in Washington. General Series in Anthropology 3. Menasha, Wisconsin.

Stanford, J.A. & J.V. Ward. 1983. Insect species diversity as a function of environmental variability and disturbance in stream systems. Pp. 265-278 in: Barnes, J.R. & G.W. Minshall (eds.) Stream Ecology-Applications and Testing of General Ecological Theory. Plenum Publishers, New York.

State of Washington. 1998. Lower Columbia steelhead conservation initiative. Draft, Olympia.

Stober, Q.J. 1986. “Reintroduction of Anadromous Fish Runs to the Tilton and Upper Cowlitz Rivers.” Fisheries Research Institute, School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. January 13, 1986.

Swanson, D.A. 1996. Geologic Map of the Packwood Lake Quadrangle, Southern Cascade Range, Washington. USGS Open-File Report 96-704.

Swanson, D.A. and R.B. Moore and N.B. Banks. 1997. Geologic Map of the Packwood Lake Quadrangle, Southern Cascade Range, Washington. USGS Open-File Report 97-157.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-18 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

Technical Application Division (TAPPS). 2000. Fish Passage Barrier and Surface Water Diversion Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program, Environmental Restoration Division.

Thomas, Jerry R. and Jack K. Nelson. 1996. Research Methods in Physical Activity, 3rd ed. Human Kinetics Publishers, Champaign, IL.

Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl. Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDI National Park Service. Portland, Oregon. 458 pp.

Titus, J. R., and L. W. Vandruff. 1981. Response of the common loon (Gavia immer) to recreational pressure in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area northeastern Minnesota. Wildlife Monograph 79:5-59.

Thompson, Gail. 2007. Draft Final Historic Properties Management Plan for Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2244), Lewis County, Washington. Confidential report produced by Historical Research Associates, Inc. for Energy Northwest. On file, State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.

Thompson, J. and L. Rothfus. 1969. Biological observations of salmonids passing Mayfield Dam. Washington Department of Fisheries.

Tobe, Lisa. 2002. “Packwood, Lewis County, Washington,” Forest Community Research. Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative Assessment, Taylorsville, CA. http://www.energy-northwest.com/gen/packwood/reference/tobe-lisa.pdf

Topik, C., Halverson, N.M., and D.G. Brockway. 1986. Plant Association and Management Guide for the Western Hemlock Zone: Gifford Pinchot National Forest. U.S. Forest Service R6-Ecol-230a-1986. 133pp.

United States Census Bureau, Census 2000. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics, Geographic Area: Washington and Geographic Area: 98361 5-Digit ZCTA. Washington, D.C. http://www.energy-northwest.com/gen/packwood/reference/us census-bureau.pdf

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1996. Visitation Estimation and Reporting System (VERS) Workshop. Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). Not dated. Forest Service GIS vegetation data. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/forest-research/gis/. Accessed April 2006.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-19 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1936. Recreational Unit Plan. In Columbia National Forest Recreation Atlas. On file, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Trout Lake, Washington.

USDA Forest Service. 1961. Letter from Forestry Service to Joseph C. Swidler, FERC dated February 12, 1961.

USDA Forest Service. 1973. National Forest Landscape Management: Volume 1. Agriculture Handbook 434. U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1973.

USDA Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management: Volume 2. Chapter 1: The Visual Management System. Agriculture Handbook 462. U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC. April 1974.

USDA Forest Service. 1975. National Forest Landscape Management: Volume 2. Chapter 2: Utilities. Agriculture Handbook 478. U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC. 1975.

USDA Forest Service. 1977. National Forest Landscape Management: Volume 2. Chapter 4: Roads. Agriculture Handbook 483. U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC. March 1977.

USDA Forest Service. 1987. National Forest Landscape Management: Volume 2. Chapter 8: Recreation. Agriculture Handbook 666. U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC. December 1987.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. First Publication. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Level II stream survey conducted on Lower Lake Creek. Lewis County, Washington. Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook 701 (replaces Handbook 462). U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC. December 1995.

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Land and Resource Management Plan, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC. Amendment 11 (Update #3, replaces pp. IV-45 to IV-150 of the plan).

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Wilderness Resource Protection Environmental Assessment, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-20 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

USDA Forest Service. 2001. The Built Environment Image Guide For the National Forests and Grasslands. FS-710. U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC. September 2001.

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Gifford Pinchot National Forest: Existing Information Analysis for Terrestrial Resources. Prepared by T. Kogut for the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2244. Dated December 3, 2004. 12pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Suiattle Watershed Analysis: Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Pacific Northwest region. Found at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/projects/suiattle-wsa/. Accessed on June 29, 2007.

USDA Forest Service. 2004c. Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Aquatic Biology Resources. Vancouver, WA. Prepared by Ken Wieman. December 3, 2004.

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Pre-field Review. Summary of Potential Botanical Concerns, Packwood Lake. A. Ruchty, Forest Service. February 7, 2005.

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Packwood Lake Access. D. Hadley, Forest Service. Edited March 3, 2005.

USDA Forest Service. 2005c. Letter dated March 11, 2005, Claire Lavendel (USDA Forest Service) to Magalie R. Salas (FERC), “COMMENTS: Comments on PAD and Scoping Document 1 and Study Requests, Packwood Lake Project Number 2244- 012.”

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Fourteenth Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Fiscal Year 2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC. March 2006.

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Region 6 USDA Forest Service Sensitive Species Plant List, April 2006.

USDA Forest Service. 2006c. Brief life History narratives for botanical, wildlife, and fish species of local interest: Appendix C. Gifford Pinchot National Forest Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, Washington side Invasive Plant Treatment DEIS. August, 2006. Prepared by: Shohet, C., Bautista, C and D. Perez.

USDA Forest Service. 2006d. Letter dated November 20, 2006, Kristie L. Miller (USDA Forest Service) to Magalie R. Salas (FERC), “Forest Service Response to Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (No. 2244) Initial Study Report Findings.”

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-21 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2320 – Wilderness Management. U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC. Amended January 2007.

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Letter dated January 29, 2007, Claire Lavendel (USDA Forest Service) to Magalie R. Salas (FERC), “Forest Service Response to Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (No. 2244) Initial Study Report Findings.”

USDA Forest Service. 2007c. Letter dated April 18, 2007, Claire Lavendel (USDA Forest Service) to Philis Posey (FERC), “Forest Service response to FERC solicitation for comments on a proposed Waiver of Article 37 for (Docket No. 2244- 012).”

USDA Forest Service. 2007d. Recreation Opportunities in Gifford Pinchot National Forest. http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/recreation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 119pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Draft final recovery plan for the northern spotted owl. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, MT. 181 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Final rule to reclassify the bald eagle from endangered to threatened in all of the lower 48 states. Federal Register volume 60, No.133, 36000-36010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Letter dated March 11, 2005, Ken S. Berg (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to Magalie R. Salas (FERC), “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Comments on the Pre-Application Document, Scoping Document 1, and Study Requests for the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project # P-2244-012.”

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Peregrine Falcon - fact sheet. Found at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/recovery/peregrine/factsheet.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2007.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Letter dated January 24, 2007, Ken S. Berg (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to Magalie R. Salas (FERC), “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Comments on the Supplemental Study Report Meeting Summaries, held on December 12 and 13, 2006 for the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Federal Regulatory Commission Project # P-2244-012.”

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-22 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina): Merged Options 1 and 2. Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. April 2007. 170pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007c. Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat; Candidate Species; and Species of Concern in Western Washington. Lewis County. http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/se/SE_List/LEWIS.htm, accessed May 2007

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007d. Bald eagle soars off the endangered species list: USFWS official site for the bald eagle. Located at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/baldeagle.htm. Accessed June 29, 2007.

Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 38: 130-137.

Vermeer, K. 1973. Some aspects of the nesting requirements of common loons in Alberta. Wilson Bulletin 85:429-435.

Wahbe, T.R. and F.L. Bunnell. 2003. Relations among larval tailed frogs, forest harvesting, stream microhabitat, and site parameters in southwestern British Columbia. Can. J. For. Research 33:1256-1266.

Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). 1986. Application of shoreline management to hydroelectric developments. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program. Olympia, Washington. September 1986.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1989. Lake Water Quality Assessment Project

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1991. Lake Water Quality Assessment Project, 1989. Document 91-60. November 1991.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1994. State wetlands integration strategy. Olympia, Washington. December 1994.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2001. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Biological Monitoring Protocols for Rivers and Streams. Publication No. 01-03-028.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2004a. 2002/2004 Proposed Assessment – Category 5 – The 303(d) list. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2002/wria_pdfs/cat5.pdf

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-23 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2004b. 2002/2004 Proposed Assessment - Category 4C Listings. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2002/wria_pdfs/cat4c.pdf

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2004c. 2002/2004 Proposed Assessment - Category 2 Listings. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2002/wria_pdfs/cat2.pdf

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2004d. Category 1 waters formerly on the 1998 303(d) list – excluding sediment listings. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2002/wria_pdfs/cat1-x1998list.pdf

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2006a. Water quality standards for surface waters of the State of Washington. Chapter 173-201A WAC (amended November 20, 2006). Olympia, WA.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2006b. Waters requiring supplemental spawning and incubation protection for salmonid species. WA Dept of Ecology Report 06-10-038. Olympia ,WA.

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1995. Hydroelectric project assessment guidelines. Olympia, Washington.

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2001. Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan: Cowlitz River “Type N” Coho Plan. Olympia, Washington.

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2003. Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage, 2003 Edition. Olympia Washington.

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2005. Letter dated March 9, 2005. Lauri Vigue (WDFW) to Magalie R. Salas, “Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-2244-012, ‘Comments on the Pre-Application Document’, ‘Study Requests’, ‘Comments on Scoping Document 1.’”

WDFW. 2006. Letter dated November 20, 2006, Charlene Andrade (WDFW) to Magalie R. Salas (FERC), “Comments on Initial Draft Study Reports for FERC Docket No. P-2244, Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Energy Northwest.”

Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1995. State of Washington natural heritage plan. Olympia, Washington.

Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). 1990. Cowlitz River Subbasin Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan. Olympia, Washington.

Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP). 1996. WNHP rare plant survey form – Heterotheca oregona EO-001, reported by Curtis R. Bjork.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-24 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

Washington Natural Heritage Program. 2004. Memorandum from S. Swope, WHNP. Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Relicensing Project (T13NR09-10E). June 2, 2004.

Washington Natural Heritage Program. 2007. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washington. On-line at: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/fguide/pdf/hetore.pdf

Washington State Employment Security. 2001. Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch. Lewis County Profile, March 2001. Olympia, WA. http://www.workforceexplorer.com/cgi/databrowsing/IndustryExplorerViewAll.asp

Washington State Employment Security Department. 2006. Workforce Explorer, Labor Market Info at: http://fortress.wa.gov/esd/portal/info/newsroom/releases/waannualwage2005

Washington State Employment Security Department. 2007. Labor Market Economic Analysis, Lewis County Profile, June 2007, at: http://www.workforceexplorer.com/cgi/databrowsing/localAreaProfileQSResults.asp? selectedarea=Lewis+County&selectedindex=21&menuChoice=localAreaPro&state=t rue&geogArea=5304000041&countyName=

Washington State Office of Financial Management. 2006. 2005 Data Book. Lewis County Profile. Last modified January 19, 2006. http://www.ofm.wa.gov/databook/county/lewi.asp

Washington State Office of Financial Management. 2007. Official April 1, 2007 Population Estimates, Rank of Cities and Towns. http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/rank2007.pdf

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. 1988. Scenic rivers program - report. Olympia, Washington. January 29, 1988.

Watershed GeoDynamics. 2005a. Revised Geomorphology and Habitat of the Tailrace Slough Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington. August 22, 2005.

Watershed GeoDynamics. 2005b. Revised Gravel Transport Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington. August 22, 2005.

Watershed GeoDynamics. 2005c. Revised Large Wood Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington. August 22, 2005.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-25 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

Watershed GeoDynamics. 2005d. Revised Stream Connectivity in Packwood Lake Tributaries Study Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington. August 22, 2005.

Watershed GeoDynamics. 2007a. Final Draft, Gravel Transport Study Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. July 2007.

Watershed GeoDynamics. 2007b. Final Engineering Needs for Access Routes Study Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. May 2007.

Watershed GeoDynamics. 2007c. Final Geomorphology and Habitat of the Tailrace Slough Study Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. May 2007.

Watershed GeoDynamics. 2007d. Final Large Wood Study Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, WA. August 2007.

Watershed GeoDynamics and EES Consulting. 2007. Final Stream Connectivity in Packwood Lake Tributaries Study Report for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244, Lewis County, Washington. July 2007.

Weitkamp, L. A., T. C. Wainwright, G. J . Bryant, G. B. Milner, D. J. Teel, R. G. Kope, and R. S. Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commer., NMFS-NWFSC-24, 258 p.

White Pass Highway Shopper/Lewis County Public Development Authority. 2004. Packwood Industrial Park. http://highwayshopper.com/pda.html

Wilson, A.G. Jr, J.H. Larsen, and K.R. McAllister. 1995. Distribution of Van Dyke’s Salamander (Plethodon vandykei Van Denburgh). American Midland Naturalist 134: 388-393.

Wiseman, C. 2003. Multi-metric index development for biological monitoring in Washington State streams. Publ. No. 03-03-035. WA Dept. of Ecology. Olympia WA.

Wisseman, R.W. 1996a. Version 1.0. Unpublished ecological coding attributes for freshwater invertebrate taxa in western North America. Available from the author in electronic format. This version of the coding is in general use by agencies in western North America, including the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-26 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008 Exhibit E.9-Literature Cited

Wisseman, R.W. 1996b (unpublished). Benthic invertebrate biomonitoring and bioassessment in western montane streams. Aquatic Biology Associates, Inc., Corvallis, Oregon. 12 pp + tables.

Wisseman, R.W. July 9, 2006. Personal Communication.

Yoke, Jim. 1934. Upper Cowlitz Geographic Notes. In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I, by Melville Jacobs, pp. 228-237. Columbian University Press, New York.

Young, W. 1974. A Summary of the Cowlitz River Creel Census for the 1971-72 and 1972-73 Winter Seasons. Washington State Department of Game.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project E.9-27 Final Application for New License FERC No. 2244 February 2008