DOCSLIB.ORG

A Review of Fish Passage in Idaho Power Company's

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Review of Fish Passage in Idaho Power Company's A Review of Fish Passage Provisions in the License Application for the Hells Canyon Complex August 2003 Prepared For Idaho Rivers United And American Rivers By Ken Witty S.P. Cramer and Associates S.P. Cramer & Associates, Inc. 600 NW Fariss Road Gresham, OR 97030 www.spcramer.com S.P. Cramer & Associates, Inc. Hells Canyon Complex August 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 HISTORIC PROSPECTIVE ................................................................................................................. 1 PASSAGE AT THE HCC ................................................................................................................ 1 PROPOSED DOWNSTREAM DAMS ............................................................................................ 1 LOWER SNAKE RIVER DAMS .................................................................................................... 2 LOWER SNAKE RIVER COMPENSATION PLAN ..................................................................... 2 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN FISHERY AGENCIES AND IPC ............................ 2 ANADROMOUS FISH RUNS IN THE SNAKE RIVER ............................................................... 2 ADEQUACY OF PASSAGE STUDIES .............................................................................................. 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................................. 3 PASSAGE SCENARIOS.................................................................................................................. 4 Fish Passage Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 4 UPSTREAM PRODUCTION POTENTIAL ................................................................................. 10 Anadromous Smolt Production Potential.................................................................................... 10 Quantification of Habitat for Anadromous Fish above HCC ..................................................... 13 DOWNSTREAM SURVIVAL ....................................................................................................... 14 Survival at Dams ......................................................................................................................... 14 Mixed-Stock Fisheries Impacts................................................................................................... 16 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IPC HATCHERY AND PASSAGE PROGRAMS ...................... 17 FISH STOCKS................................................................................................................................ 17 Suitable and Available Stocks .................................................................................................... 17 Use of Listed Species .................................................................................................................. 17 PRESENCE OF COHO SALMON ................................................................................................ 19 CONNECTIVITY OF BULL TROUT, WHITE STURGEON, AND OTHER ENDEMIC SPECIES OF FISH ......................................................................................................................... 19 Bull Trout .................................................................................................................................... 19 White Sturgeon ........................................................................................................................... 20 Endemic Species of Fish ............................................................................................................. 20 PATHOGEN AND INTRA-SPECIFIC INTERACTION CONCERNS ....................................... 20 Pathogens .................................................................................................................................... 20 Intra-specific Interaction ............................................................................................................. 21 PACIFIC LAMPREY PASSAGE .................................................................................................. 21 MEASURE OF SUCCESS ......................................................................................................... 21 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTS ................................................................................. 22 ANADROMOUS FISH PASSAGE AT THE HCC ....................................................................... 22 Background Information ............................................................................................................. 22 The Recommended Study ........................................................................................................... 22 Basis for this Information Request ............................................................................................. 23 Who Should Conduct and Participate in the Study ..................................................................... 23 Objectives and Methodologies for the Study .............................................................................. 23 i S.P. Cramer & Associates, Inc. Hells Canyon Complex August 2003 Acceptance by the Scientific Community................................................................................... 23 How will the Information be Useful in Furthering Resource Goals ........................................... 24 Length of Study........................................................................................................................... 24 Why Study Objectives Cannot be Achieved with Available Data ............................................. 24 HABITAT SURVEYS FOR PRODUCTION OF COHO SALMON ............................................ 24 Background Information ............................................................................................................. 24 The Recommended Study ........................................................................................................... 25 Basis for this Information Request ............................................................................................. 25 Who Should Conduct and Participate in the Study ..................................................................... 25 Objectives and Methodologies for the Study .............................................................................. 25 Acceptance by the Scientific Community................................................................................... 25 How the Information will be Useful in Furthering Resource Goals ........................................... 25 Length of the Study ..................................................................................................................... 25 Why Study Objectives Cannot be Achieved with Available Data ............................................. 26 CONNECTING ENDEMIC RESIDENT FISH POPULATIONS ................................................. 26 Background Information ............................................................................................................. 26 The Recommended Study ........................................................................................................... 26 Basis for this Information Request ............................................................................................. 26 Who Should Conduct and Participate in the Study ..................................................................... 26 Objectives and Methodologies for the Study .............................................................................. 26 Acceptance by the Scientific Community................................................................................... 27 How will the Information be Useful in Furthering Resource Goals ........................................... 27 Length of Study........................................................................................................................... 27 Why the Study Objectives Cannot be Achieved with Available Data ........................................ 27 CONNECTING AND RESTORING POPULATIONS OF WHITE STURGEON ....................... 27 Background Information ............................................................................................................. 27 The Recommended Study ........................................................................................................... 28 Basis for this Information Request ............................................................................................. 28 Who Should Conduct and Participate in the Study ..................................................................... 28 Objectives and Methodologies of the Studies ............................................................................. 28 Acceptance of the Scientific Community ..................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mckern Presentation
    WHO KILLED THE SNAKE RIVER SALMON JuneCELILO 1 FALLS COMMERCIAL HARVEST – 1860s to 1970s PEAK HARVEST 43 MILLION POUNDS – 1886 -SPRING CHINOOK SECOND PEAK 1910 – 43 MILLION POUNDS - ALL SPECIES EAST BOAT BASIN - ASTORIA MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT - 1972 NOAA RECENT ESTIMATE 20 TO 40 % OF SPRING CHINOOK Gold Dredge at Sumpter, Oregon Dredged Powder River Valley Oregon LOGGING WATERSHED DAMAGE EROSION SPLASH DAMS WATER RETENTION ROAD CONSTRUCTION METHODS Mainstem Snake River Dams WITHOUT FISH PASSAGE Oxbow dam – 1961 Shoshone Falls Hells Canyon Dam – (Upper Limit) 1967 Upper Salmon Falls – 1937 WITH FISH PASSAGE Lower Salmon Falls - Lower Granite Dam – 1910 1975 Bliss Dam – 1950 Little Goose Dam 1970 C. J. Strike Dam - Lower Monumental Dam 1952 – 1969 Swan Falls Dam -1901 Ice Harbor Dam - 1962 Brownlee Dam – 1959 SHOSHONE FALLS Tributary Dams Owyhee River Powder River Wild Horse Dam – 1937 Thief Valley Dam – 1931 Owyhee Dam – 1932 Mason Dam - 1968 Boise River Salmon River Anderson Ranch Dam – 1950 Sunbeam Dam – 1909 – 1934 Arrowrock Dam – 1915 Wallowa River Boise R Diversion Dam – 1912 OFC Dam 1898 - 1914 Lucky Peak Dam - 1955 Clearwater River Barber Dam - 1906 Lewiston Dam – 1917 - 1973 Payette River Grangeville Dam – 1910 – 1963 Black Canyon Dam – 1924 Dworshak Dam - 1972 Deadwood Dam - 1929 Malheur River Warm Springs Dam – 1930 Agency Valley Dam – 1936 Bully Creek Dam – 1963 Sunbeam Dam – Salmon River 1909 to 1934 1909 to 1920s - no fish passage 1920s to 1934 - poor fish passage Channel around by IDF&G 1934 NOTE 3 PEOPLE IN RED CIRCLE
    [Show full text]
  • OUTFITTER/GUIDE RIVER BOATING APPLICATION TRAINING REQUIREMENTS (FOR OG-11) See Rules for Complete Requirements
    OG-5 (10/15) OUTFITTER/GUIDE RIVER BOATING APPLICATION TRAINING REQUIREMENTS (FOR OG-11) See Rules for complete requirements. Unclassified river section qualifications: To qualify as a float boat guide on unclassified rivers and streams, the applicant shall have had one (1) complete trip on each of the rivers applied for under the supervision of a float boat guide licensed for each of those rivers. A completed OG-11 Training Log shall be submitted giving dates, river section, and the signatures of the supervisor, trainee, and licensed outfitter. Classified river section qualifications: A float boat guide on a classified river shall be licensed as a boatman or a lead boatman according to his experience on that specific river. Each float boat trip on a classified river shall have a lead boat operated by a guide licensed as a lead boatman for that specific river and all other boats participating in that trip shall follow the lead boat and shall be operated by a guide licensed as a boatman or a lead boatman for that specific river. (See Rule 040.01) Each training trip means the total section of river as designated by the Board. (See Rules 040, 041, 042 and 059) An applicant for a float boatman license on classified rivers may qualify in one of three ways: a. The guide shall have had three (3) complete float boat trips on each of the classified rivers applied for, under the direct supervision of a float boatman licensed for that river or they shall have had one or more complete float boat trips on each of the classified rivers applied for under the direct supervision of a float boatman licensed for that river with the remaining trip(s) in a boat with no more than one other trainee following a licensed float boatman for that river but they must not have passengers in the boat; or, b.
    [Show full text]
  • Snake River Flow Augmentation Impact Analysis Appendix
    SNAKE RIVER FLOW AUGMENTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District’s Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Boise, Idaho February 1999 Acronyms and Abbreviations (Includes some common acronyms and abbreviations that may not appear in this document) 1427i A scenario in this analysis that provides up to 1,427,000 acre-feet of flow augmentation with large drawdown of Reclamation reservoirs. 1427r A scenario in this analysis that provides up to 1,427,000 acre-feet of flow augmentation with reservoir elevations maintained near current levels. BA Biological assessment BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis (U.S. Department of Commerce) BETTER Box Exchange Transport Temperature Ecology Reservoir (a water quality model) BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BID Burley Irrigation District BIOP Biological opinion BLM Bureau of Land Management B.P. Before present BPA Bonneville Power Administration CES Conservation Extension Service cfs Cubic feet per second Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CRFMP Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program CRP Conservation Reserve Program CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act CWA Clean Water Act DO Dissolved Oxygen Acronyms and Abbreviations (Includes some common acronyms and abbreviations that may not appear in this document) DREW Drawdown Regional Economic Workgroup DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane EIS Environmental Impact Statement EP Effective Precipitation EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ETAW Evapotranspiration of Applied Water FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FIRE Finance, investment, and real estate HCNRA Hells Canyon National Recreation Area HUC Hydrologic unit code I.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Water-Quality Assessment of the Upper Snake River Basin, Idaho and Western Wyoming Summary of Aquatic Biological Data for Surface Water Through 1992
    WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF THE UPPER SNAKE RIVER BASIN, IDAHO AND WESTERN WYOMING SUMMARY OF AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL DATA FOR SURFACE WATER THROUGH 1992 By TERRY R.MARET U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4006 Boise, Idaho 1995 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bruce Babbitt, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center 230 Collins Road Open-File Reports Section Boise, ID 83702-4520 Box 25286, MS 517 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 FOREWORD The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey Describe how water quality is changing over time. (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the Improve understanding of the primary natural and earth resources of the Nation and to provide informa­ human factors that affect water-quality conditions. tion that will assist resource managers and policymak- This information will help support the develop­ ers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound ment and evaluation of management, regulatory, and decisions. Assessment of water-quality conditions and monitoring decisions by other Federal, State, and local trends is an important part of this overall mission. agencies to protect, use, and enhance water resources. One of the greatest challenges faced by water- The goals of the NAWQA Program are being resources scientists is acquiring reliable information achieved through ongoing and proposed investigations that will guide the use and protection of the Nation's of 60 of the Nation's most important river basins and water resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Seepage and Discharge Uncertainty in the Middle Snake River, Southwestern Idaho
    Prepared in cooperation with the State of Idaho, Idaho Power Company, and the Idaho Department of Water Resources Evaluation of Seepage and Discharge Uncertainty in the Middle Snake River, Southwestern Idaho Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5091 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Streamgage operated by Idaho Power Company on the Snake River below Swan Falls Dam near Murphy, Idaho (13172500), looking downstream. Photograph taken by Molly Wood, U.S. Geological Survey, March 15, 2010. Evaluation of Seepage and Discharge Uncertainty in the Middle Snake River, Southwestern Idaho By Molly S. Wood, Marshall L. Williams, David M. Evetts, and Peter J. Vidmar Prepared in cooperation with the State of Idaho, Idaho Power Company, and the Idaho Department of Water Resources Scientific-Investigations Report 2014–5091 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2014 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion for the Idaho Water Quality Standards for Numeric Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 911NE11 th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 In Reply Refer To: FWS/Rl/AES Dan Opalski, Director JUN 2 5 2015 Office of Water and Watersheds U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth A venue Seattle, Washington 98101 Dear Mr. Opalski: Enclosed are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Biological Opinion (Opinion) and concurrence determinations on the Idaho Water Quality Standards for Numeric Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants (proposed action). The Opinion addresses the effects of the proposed action on the following listed species and critical habitats: the endangered Snake River physa snail (Physa natricina), threatened Bliss Rapids snail (Taylorconcha serpenticola), endangered Banbury Springs lanx (Laroe sp.; undescribed), the endangered Bruneau hot springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis), the threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confluenlus) and its critical habitat, and the endangered Kootenai River white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) and its critical habitat. The concurrence determinations address the following listed species: the threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), endangered Southern Selkirk Mountains woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), threatened Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), threatened northern Idaho ground squirrel (Spermophilus brunneus brunneus), threatened MacFarlane's four-o'clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei), threatened water howellia (Howellia aquatilis), threatened Ute ladies' -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis),
    [Show full text]
  • Swan Falls Technical Working Group Presentation | February 23, 2021
    2021 Swan Falls Technical Working Group Presented by Ethan Geisler February 23, 2021 2020 Provisional AADF 16,000 Minimum Streamflow --Snake River nr Murphy Minimum of Record (1981- 2019) 14,000 --Snake River nr Murphy Median of Record (1981- 2019) - 2020 - Snake River nr Murphy Gage - Snake River at Milner Gage 12,000 - AADF- 3 Day Average 10,000 V) U 8,000 6,000 4,000 Flow 2,000 Flood Control Aug IPC Storage IPC Storage 0 Review of Changes to 2021 Swan Falls AADF • Utilizing CJ Strike at Boat Dock nr CJ Strike Dam (13171495) instead of CJ Strike Dam Headwater data (13171550) • Utilizing 15 minute data for all reservoir datasets now – CJ Strike Reservoir Data • CJ Strike Dam at Boat Dock nr CJ Strike Dam (13171495) • CJ Strike at Cottonwood Park nr Bruneau, ID (13170340) • Snake River at Loveridge Bridge nr Bruneau, ID (13157350) – Lower Salmon Falls Dam, Bliss Dam, and Swan Falls Dam are already 15 min datasets • Swan Falls Dam Lag – Lag time changed from two hours to zero hours (no lag) – Lag times from other reservoirs have been kept the same at this time ~A LIQ Deportment of 13 170340 JD'/ \I 11 Water Resources Cottonwood Pa rk Sampling Interval "" 5 min Averaging Interval = 30 seconds (12 samples per !.ccond) Timc:;~ric!. ,\~ii.able tor AJ\DF Idaho Power’s Proposed Sfati~tiea! computat ion performed in Aquarius: t hat crea:e:; a 15mi n mean value fro m t he Sm!n sample i collected Change to Data Collection r1 I l n1-1 er1e,_.
    [Show full text]
  • Potamopyrgus Antipodarum) Clones in the Snake River Basin, Idaho, USA
    Biol Invasions (2010) 12:1521–1532 DOI 10.1007/s10530-009-9564-7 ORIGINAL PAPER Microsatellite evidence of invasion and rapid spread of divergent New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) clones in the Snake River basin, Idaho, USA Robert Hershler Æ Hsiu-Ping Liu Æ William H. Clark Received: 2 March 2009 / Accepted: 10 August 2009 / Published online: 4 September 2009 Ó U.S. Government 2010 Abstract We used microsatellites to assess genetic documented in this study suggests that caution should diversity and spatial structuring of the invasive be used in the application of biological control apomictic New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus measures for this pest species. antipodarum) in the initial focal area of its recent North American invasion, a portion of the upper Keywords Invasive species Á Snake River basin (Idaho) that is segmented by a New Zealand mudsnail Á Potamopyrgus Á series of hydropower dams. Thirty-four samples (812 Microsatellites Á Genetic diversity Á total snails) from a 368 km reach of this drainage Population structuring were genotyped for six loci. Sixty-five distinct clones were detected and grouped into four divergent clusters based on chord distances. Genetic structuring of populations was generally low. Our results indicate that the founding population(s) of this invasion was Introduction composed of a small number of putative clonal lineages which spread rapidly within this fragmented The New Zealand mudsnail, Potamopyrgus antipoda- watershed owing to the enhanced dispersal ability of rum (Gray 1843), is a small aquatic gastropod native these parthenogens. The substantial genetic variation to New Zealand (Winterbourn 1970) that has been widely introduced in Australia (Ponder 1988), Europe (Ponder 1988), North America (Zaranko et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Upper Snake Subbasin Summary
    Draft Upper Snake Subbasin Summary May 17, 2002 Prepared for the Northwest Power Planning Council Editor Stacey H. Stovall, Conservation Innova tions, Inc. Subbasin Team Leader Chad Colter, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Contributors Chad Colter, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Jeff McCreary, Ducks Unlimited Jim Mende, Idaho Department of Fish and Game Debbie Mignogno, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Dave Mosier, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Chuck Warren, Idaho Department of Fish and Game Kathy Weaver, Idaho Soil Conservation Commission Upper Snake Subbasin Summary Table of Contents Background.................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2 Subbasin Description .................................................................................................................... 3 General Location....................................................................................................................... 3 Drainage Area ........................................................................................................................... 6 Topography/geomorphology..................................................................................................... 6 Soils........................................................................................................................................... 8 Climate
    [Show full text]
  • Growing Small in Rural Southern Idaho: Small-Scale Hydropower Development in Agriculture-Based Communities
    GROWING SMALL IN RURAL SOUTHERN IDAHO: SMALL-SCALE HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT IN AGRICULTURE-BASED COMMUNITIES by Paulina Littlefield A capstone submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Energy Policy & Climate Baltimore, Maryland March 2020 © 2020 Paulina Littlefield All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT In Southern Idaho, a growing concern regarding water access is an issue caught between the need for affordable, renewable energy, and the need for irrigation supply. Large hydropower projects can intensify the seasonal availability of water supplies for agricultural practices if there is lack of connection to irrigation infrastructure or conflicts with water use. The amount of land developed for agriculture can also pose problems for the projects, reducing the flow reaching the projects.1 Small projects can be placed in many different waterways, such as an irrigation canal, which can improve efficiency. These projects are achievable in Southern Idaho, though it is a matter of the weight of the impacts on important agricultural areas and the surrounding environment. For example, there are environmental concerns regarding major deployment of small hydropower projects, particularly in a concentrated area, compared to those being more spatially dispersed. By examining several small and large projects in the Snake River Plain region of Southern Idaho and the associated environmental impact indicators, this paper examines the impacts of projects based upon installed units, installed capacity, power generation, flow rate, reservoir size and storage capacity, connection to irrigation infrastructure, and flood regulation, and shows that size of hydropower project does not drastically impact the relative environmental integrity or the agricultural activity in the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision Support Systems Maximizing Operational Efficiency of Dams Maintaining Regulatory Compliance
    Decision Support Systems Maximizing Operational Efficiency of Dams Maintaining Regulatory Compliance Mark D. Morehead, PhD Outline • Who is Idaho Power • Hydropower System • Mid‐Snake & Bliss Dam – Bliss DSS • Hells Canyon Complex – HCC DSS Bliss Rapids Snail Idaho Power An Investor Owned, Regulated Electric Utility • Service Area • Fully Integrated Utility – Southern Idaho – Generate Power – Eastern Oregon – Interstate Transmission – 24,000 sq. mi – Distribute to Customers • Population • Regulated by – 1 Million – FERC • Total Sales • USFS • IDEQ – 15,500,000 MW / year • ODEQ • Employees • NOAA … – 2,000 – Idaho PUC – OPUCOregon PUC Idaho Power Resources & Service Territory 300 MW 2010 Fuel Mix Biomass Wind 0.5% Waste 31%3.1% 05%0.5% Natural Gas Other 2.6% 0.7% Hydroelectric Coal 48.8% 43.9% Problem ? • Maximize Operational Efficiency – MhPMatch Power LdLoad – Account for variable wind generation • Protect the Environment ‐ Maintain Reggypulatory Compliance – Reservoir • Min/Max Levels • Ramp Rates – River • Minimum instream flows • Ramp Rates – Water Quality Criteria • Temperature • NtiNutrien ts • Dissolved Gas Previous Methodology is Unsuitable Wave Propagation Time Bliss Model - Travel Time - Hysteresis 10000 8000 Q (cfs)Q (cfs) 6000 40 45 50 55 60 (ft) (ft) Travel Time (min) 2580 Elevation Elevation 2578 ugeuge Water Water 2576 40 45 50 55 60 Travel Time (min) BlissBliss Ga Ga Channel Morphology Controls Flood Wave Propagation Shallow Water Wave Speed ~ √gh Bliss Dam Built 1950 Height 70’ VlVolume 8 KAF Capacity 75 MW Qmax 15,000
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Risk Assessment for the Middle Snake River, Idaho
    United States Office of Research and EPA/600/R-01/017 Environmental Protection Development February 2002 Agency Washington, DC 20460 Ecological Risk Assessment for the Middle Snake River, Idaho National Center for Environmental Assessment—Washington Office Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC EPA/600/R-01/017 February 2002 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE MIDDLE SNAKE RIVER, IDAHO U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Assessment-Washington Office Office of Research and Development Washington, DC Office of Environmental Assessment Region 10 Seattle, Washington DISCLAIMER This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ABSTRACT An ecological risk assessment was completed for the Middle Snake River, Idaho. In this assessment, mathematical simulations and field observations were used to analyze exposure and ecological effects and to estimate risk. The Middle Snake River which refers to a 100 km stretch (Milner Dam to King Hill) of the 1,667 km long Snake River lies in the Snake River Plain of southern Idaho. The contributing watershed includes 22,326 square km of land below the Milner Dam and adjacent to the study reach. The demands on the water resources have transformed this once free-flowing river segment to one with multiple impoundments, flow diversions, significant alterations
    [Show full text]