DOCSLIB.ORG

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM 20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM 20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM 20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM 20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ 5 TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. 6 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 11 1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................ 11 1.2 CONSULTATION HISTORY .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................................................................................... 11 1.4 ACTION AREA ................................................................................................................................................. 12 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ................................................................................................................. 14 2.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE BIOLOGICAL OPINION ....................................................................................................... 14 2.2 RANGE‐WIDE STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT ................................................................................. 15 2.2.1 Climate change ...................................................................................................................................... 20 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ............................................................................................................................... 21 2.3.1 Overview of the Environmental Baseline ............................................................................................... 22 2.3.2 Project Components ............................................................................................................................... 23 2.3.2.1 Wells Dam ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 2.3.2.2 Wells Reservoir ............................................................................................................................................. 23 2.3.2.3 Wells Tailrace ................................................................................................................................................ 26 2.3.2.4 Wells and Methow Hatchery Programs ........................................................................................................ 26 2.3.2.5 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 27 2.4 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON THE SPECIES AND ITS DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT ....................................................... 27 2.4.1 Method of Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 27 2.4.2 Spring‐run Chinook salmon .................................................................................................................... 28 2.4.2.1 Analysis of Effects ......................................................................................................................................... 28 2.4.3 UCR Spring Chinook Salmon Designated Critical Habitat ...................................................................... 39 2.4.4 UCR Steelhead ........................................................................................................................................ 41 2.4.4.1 Analysis of Effects ......................................................................................................................................... 41 2.4.5 UCR Steelhead Critical Habitat .............................................................................................................. 52 2.5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...................................................................................................................................... 54 2.6 INTEGRATION AND SYNTHESIS ............................................................................................................................ 56 2.6.1 Current Rangewide status of UCR spring‐run Chinook salmon and UCR steelhead ............................... 56 2.6.2 Environmental baseline ......................................................................................................................... 57 2.6.3 Effects of the proposed action ............................................................................................................... 57 2.6.3.1 Effects of the proposed action on UCR spring‐run Chinook salmon and designated critical habitat ........... 57 2.6.3.2 Effects of the proposed action on UCR steelhead and designated critical habitat ....................................... 59 2.6.4 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................................. 59 2.6.5 Summary—Integration and Synthesis ................................................................................................... 59 2.6.5.1 Summary for UCR Spring Chinook Salmon and designated critical habitat .................................................. 59 2.6.5.2 Summary for UCR Steelhead and designated critical habitat ....................................................................... 59 2.7 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 60 2 20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM 2.8 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 60 2.8.1 Amount or Extent of Take ...................................................................................................................... 61 2.8.2 Effect of the Take ................................................................................................................................... 64 2.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions ............................................................. 65 2.9 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 67 2.10 REINITIATION OF CONSULTATION ....................................................................................................................... 67 2.11 “NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT” DETERMINATION .......................................................................................... 67 3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION ................................................................. 69 3.1 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT .............................................................................................. 69 3.2 ADVERSE EFFECTS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ..................................................................................................... 69 3.3 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 69 3.4 STATUTORY RESPONSE REQUIREMENT ................................................................................................................. 70 3.5 SUPPLEMENTAL CONSULTATION ......................................................................................................................... 70 4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW ...................................................................................................................................... 71 5. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 73 3 20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. GENERAL LOCATION OF THE WELLS PROJECT. ..................................................... 13 4 20120307-5193 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 3/7/2012 4:54:15 PM LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. ADULT CONVERSION RATES FOR ALL AVAILABLE RELEASE GROUPS OF UCR SPRING CHINOOK SALMON TO THE POINT AT WHICH A SPAWNER EXITS WELLS RESERVOIR (DOUGLAS PUD AND ANCHOR ENVIRONMENTAL. 2012) ............................ 34 TABLE 2. JUVENILE AND ADULT PASSAGE STUDIES AND EFFECTS ON UCR SPRING CHINOOK UNDER THE PROPOSED ACTION (PER YEAR) ...................................................... 39 TABLE 3. PROJECT EFFECTS ON UCR SPRING CHINOOK CRITICAL HABITAT ....................... 40 TABLE 4. ADULT STEELHEAD CONVERSION RATES FOR ALL AVAILABLE RELEASE GROUPS. ..........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Power System
    HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF THE ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST Kevin Schneider Ph.D., P.E. Chair, Seattle Chapter of the IEEE PES IEEE PES SCHOLARSHIP PLUS INITIATIVE 2 Washington State PES Scholars • Patrick Berg, Seattle University • Parichehr Karimi, University of • Zachary Burrows, Eastern Washington Washington UiUnivers ity • TiTravis Kinney, WhitWashington Sta te UiUnivers ity • Erin Clement, University of Washington • Allan Koski, Eastern Washington University • Anastasia Corman, University of • Kyle Lindgren, University of Washington, Washington • John Martinsen, Washington State • Gwendolyn Crabtree, Washington State University University • Melissa Martinsen, University of • David Dearing, Washington State Washington University • JthJonathan NhiNyhuis, SttlSeattle PifiPacific UiUnivers ity • Terra Donley, Gonzaga University Derek Jared Pisinger, Washington State Gowrylow, Seattle University University • Sanel Hirkic, Washington State University • Douglas Rapier, Washington State • Nathan Hirsch, Eastern Washington University University • Chris Rusnak, Washington State University • John Hofman, Washington State • Kaiwen Sun, University of Washington University • Joshua Wu, Seattle University • • Tracy Yuan, University of Washington 3 OVERVIEW Part 1: The Current Status of the Electricity Infrastructure in the Pacific North west Part 2: How the Current System Evolved Over Time Part 3: Current Challenges and the Path Forward Part 4: Concluding Comments PART 1:: THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Joseph Hatchery Program
    Chief Joseph Hatchery Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement DOE/EIS-0384 May 2007 Chief Joseph Hatchery Program Responsible Agency: U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Title of Proposed Project: Chief Joseph Hatchery Program Cooperating Tribe: Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation State Involved: Washington Abstract: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) describes a Chinook salmon hatchery production program sponsored by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Colville Tribes). BPA proposes to fund the construction, operation and maintenance of the program to help mitigate for anadromous fish affected by the Federal Columbia River Power System dams on the Columbia River. The Colville Tribes want to produce adequate salmon to sustain tribal ceremonial and subsistence fisheries and enhance the potential for a recreational fishery for the general public. The DEIS discloses the environmental effects expected from facility construction and program operations and a No Action alternative. The Proposed Action is to build a hatchery near the base of Chief Joseph Dam on the Columbia River for incubation, rearing and release of summer/fall and spring Chinook. Along the Okanogan River, three existing irrigation ponds, one existing salmon acclimation pond, and two new acclimation ponds (to be built) would be used for final rearing, imprinting and volitional release of chinook smolts. The Chief Joseph Dam Hatchery Program Master Plan (Master Plan, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, May 2004) provides voluminous information on program features. The US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District, and others have cooperated on project design and siting.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Dams on Native Americans in the Columbia River Basin Elliott
    Dammed Societies: Effects of Dams on Native Americans in the Columbia River Basin Elliott McGill Senior Capstone Project Faculty Advisors: Dr. Jamie Dolan, Dr. Jeremy Johnson, and Dr. David McCanna McGill 1 Abstract Since dam construction began in the New Deal Era, it has represented a dominance of humankind over nature. These massive structures have harnessed, collected, and distributed electricity from the rivers they hold back and allow humans to reap the benefits of that cycle. One of the areas where dams are particularly apparent is in the Columbia River Basin in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. While the dams in this region certainly have allowed the area to develop and build by using the electricity collected by these dams, they have also had several negative effects on the tribal people in the region who once fished the mighty Columbia during its populous salmon runs and relied on the salmon for nutritional, economic, and cultural reasons. This project seeks to examine the costs of human advancement when it comes to dams, and will do so by studying three dams located in the Columbia River Basin: The Bonneville Dam, The Dalles Dam, and The Grand Coulee Dam. These dams will be studied using Black’s Theory of Law as a framework to examine the manner in which law was applied to each case. The research finds that although the dams certainly provide a useful resource to the people of the region, it has had negative effects on the Native American people who depended on the river. McGill 2 Introduction When President Franklin D.
    [Show full text]
  • Dams and Hydroelectricity in the Columbia
    COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: DAMS AND HYDROELECTRICITY The power of falling water can be converted to hydroelectricity A Powerful River Major mountain ranges and large volumes of river flows into the Pacific—make the Columbia precipitation are the foundation for the Columbia one of the most powerful rivers in North America. River Basin. The large volumes of annual runoff, The entire Columbia River on both sides of combined with changes in elevation—from the the border is one of the most hydroelectrically river’s headwaters at Canal Flats in BC’s Rocky developed river systems in the world, with more Mountain Trench, to Astoria, Oregon, where the than 470 dams on the main stem and tributaries. Two Countries: One River Changing Water Levels Most dams on the Columbia River system were built between Deciding how to release and store water in the Canadian the 1940s and 1980s. They are part of a coordinated water Columbia River system is a complex process. Decision-makers management system guided by the 1964 Columbia River Treaty must balance obligations under the CRT (flood control and (CRT) between Canada and the United States. The CRT: power generation) with regional and provincial concerns such as ecosystems, recreation and cultural values. 1. coordinates flood control 2. optimizes hydroelectricity generation on both sides of the STORING AND RELEASING WATER border. The ability to store water in reservoirs behind dams means water can be released when it’s needed for fisheries, flood control, hydroelectricity, irrigation, recreation and transportation. Managing the River Releasing water to meet these needs influences water levels throughout the year and explains why water levels The Columbia River system includes creeks, glaciers, lakes, change frequently.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on The
    REPORT ON THE U. S. D EPA R E INTERIOR BONNEVILLE IN ISTRATION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ----<COl--- . REPORT ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER POWER SYSTEM Consisting of THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION and Power Components of THE BONNEVILLE DAM PROJECT AND THE COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT (GRAND COULEE DAM) 19!6 Prepared by THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION 811 NORTHEAST OREGON STREET PORTLAND 8, OREGON LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 1 ~ONTENTS REVENUES 5 REPAYMENT OF FEDERAL INVESTMENT 6 INTEREST 8 ENERGY DELIVERIES 9 ENER<;Y PRODUCTION 12 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 15 MAP-TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 17 OPERATING RESULTS 20 POWER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 24 ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 26 CUSTOMER SERVICE 29 POWER RATES 31 PERSONNEL 34 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR December 31,1946. THE HoNORABLE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON, D. C. My dear Mr. Secretary: Transmitted herewith is a report showing the results of operations of the Bonneville Power Administration from July 1, 1945 to June 30, 1946. Where matters of significance have occurred since the close of the fiscal year additional data have been included. This report, to which is attached the second independent annual audit of the accounts of the Administra­ tion, conforms with the requirements of Section 9 (c) of the Bonneville Project Act. Financially, operations were satisfactory during the fiscal year 1946. Total revenues of $19,884,285 covered all costs of operation, maintenance, depreciation and interest and left a surplus of $4,754,895 for the year­ thus increasing surplus net revenues from power operations as of June 30, 1946 to $16,326,947.
    [Show full text]
  • Desautel (Sinixt)
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Desautel, 2017 BCSC 2389 Date: 20171228 Docket: 23646 Registry: Nelson Between: Regina Appellant And Richard Lee Desautel Respondent And Okanagan Nation Alliance Intervenor On appeal from: Provincial Court of British Columbia, March 27, 2017 R. v. DeSautel, 2017 BCPC 84, Nelson Registry No. 23646 Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Sewell Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Appellant: G. Thompson H. Cochran Counsel for the Respondent: M. Underhill K. Phipps Counsel for the Intervenor: R. Kyle Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Nelson, B.C. September 6-8, 2017 Place and Date of Judgment: Nelson, B.C. December 28, 2017 R. v. Desautel Page 2 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3 Position of the Parties ............................................................................................. 4 Background .............................................................................................................. 4 Grounds of Appeal ................................................................................................... 6 Are the Sinixt an aboriginal people of Canada ...................................................... 7 What is the Relevant Aboriginal Collective? ....................................................... 10 The Intervenor’s Submissions .............................................................................. 12 Discussion of Crown’s Submissions ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Alternatives for Tdg Abatement at Grand Coulee Dam
    STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES FOR TDG ABATEMENT AT GRAND COULEE DAM FEASIBILITY DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 2000 STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES FOR TDG ABATEMENT AT GRAND COULEE DAM FEASIBILITY DESIGN REPORT October, 2000 Prepared for U. S. Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region by Kathleen H. Frizell and Elisabeth Cohen Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Denver, Colorado Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................... i Executive Summary ................................................. ix Acknowledgments ..................................................xiii Background .......................................................1 Introduction .......................................................2 Grand Coulee Dam ..................................................2 TDG Evaluation for Existing Conditions ...................................3 Flow Mixing .................................................4 Existing Outlet Works TDG Generation .............................5 Feasibility Design Discharge and Tailwater ...........................7 Feasibility Designs for Structural Alternatives ................................8 Hydraulic Modeling ............................................9 Outlet Works Model .....................................9 Forebay Pipe with Cascade Model ..........................10 Cover and Extend Mid-level Outlet Works (Alternative 1) ................11 Description ...........................................11 Maintenance Issues ...............................12 Hydraulic and Total
    [Show full text]
  • Wells Hydroelectric Project Total Dissolved Gas Abatement Plan 2013 Annual Report
    Wells Hydroelectric Project Total Dissolved Gas Abatement Plan 2013 Annual Report Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County 1151 Valley Mall Parkway East Wenatchee, WA 98802-4331 Prepared for: Pat Irle Hydropower Projects Manager Washington Department of Ecology 15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 200 Yakima, WA 98902-3452 January 2013 This page intentionally left blank TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Fixed Monitoring Site Locations .................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 2013 Gas Abatement Plan Approach ............................................................................................ 3 1.4.1 Operational ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.4.2 Structural ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.4.3 Consultation .......................................................................................................................... 4 2 OPERATIONS ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from the DRS Website At
    Quincy Chute Hydroelectric Project Wanapum Dam Seattle Spokane Grant County Potholes Priest Rapids East Canal Dam Headworks Nine Canyon Wind Farm WANAPUM DAM QUINCY CHUTE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Generation Units . 10. Rated Capacity . 1,203.6. MW Rated Capacity . 9.4. MW Concrete/Earthfill Length . 8,637. FT First Power Generation . .1985 Rated Head . 80 FT Construction Started . .1959 First Power Generation . .1963 POTHOLES EAST CANAL HEADWORKS PROJECT PRIEST RAPIDS DAM Rated Capacity . 6.5. MW First Power Generation . .1990 Generation Units . 10. Rated Capacity . 950. MW Concrete/Earthfill Length . 10,103. FT NINE CANYON WIND PROJECT Rated Head . 78 FT Construction Started . .1956 12 .5% of Project Peak Capacity . .12 MW First Power Generation . .1959 First Power Generation . .2003 ELECTRIC SYSTEM Overhead Distribution Lines . 2,795 MILES Underground Distribution Lines . 1,102. MILES Overhead Transformers . .24,477 Padmount Transformers . 9,935 115kV Transmission Lines . 282. MILES 230kV Transmission Lines . 202. MILES ACTIVE METERS Residential . 39,103. Irrigation . 5,193 Industrial . 122 Commercial . 7,248 Large Commercial . 107 Street Light and Other . .439 Total Active Meters . 52,212. SUBSTATIONS Distribution . 49 Transmission . 5. Transmission/Distribution . 3. HIGH SPEED NETWORK Customers with fiber-optic availability . .33,149 Customers using fiber-optic service . 19,043 Customers using wireless service . 290 As of Dec. 31, 2019 Grant PUD was established by local residents in 1938 to provide power service to all of the county’s residents. We honor the resolve of our founders through our guiding vision, mission and values. VISION Excellence in service and leadership. We continually ask how we can improve service quality, reliability and stewardship of our resources in the most cost-effective manner .
    [Show full text]
  • Catch Record Cards & Codes
    Catch Record Cards Catch Record Card Codes The Catch Record Card is an important management tool for estimating the recreational catch of PUGET SOUND REGION sturgeon, steelhead, salmon, halibut, and Puget Sound Dungeness crab. A catch record card must be REMINDER! 824 Baker River 724 Dakota Creek (Whatcom Co.) 770 McAllister Creek (Thurston Co.) 814 Salt Creek (Clallam Co.) 874 Stillaguamish River, South Fork in your possession to fish for these species. Washington Administrative Code (WAC 220-56-175, WAC 825 Baker Lake 726 Deep Creek (Clallam Co.) 778 Minter Creek (Pierce/Kitsap Co.) 816 Samish River 832 Suiattle River 220-69-236) requires all kept sturgeon, steelhead, salmon, halibut, and Puget Sound Dungeness Return your Catch Record Cards 784 Berry Creek 728 Deschutes River 782 Morse Creek (Clallam Co.) 828 Sauk River 854 Sultan River crab to be recorded on your Catch Record Card, and requires all anglers to return their fish Catch by the date printed on the card 812 Big Quilcene River 732 Dewatto River 786 Nisqually River 818 Sekiu River 878 Tahuya River Record Card by April 30, or for Dungeness crab by the date indicated on the card, even if nothing “With or Without Catch” 748 Big Soos Creek 734 Dosewallips River 794 Nooksack River (below North Fork) 830 Skagit River 856 Tokul Creek is caught or you did not fish. Please use the instruction sheet issued with your card. Please return 708 Burley Creek (Kitsap Co.) 736 Duckabush River 790 Nooksack River, North Fork 834 Skokomish River (Mason Co.) 858 Tolt River Catch Record Cards to: WDFW CRC Unit, PO Box 43142, Olympia WA 98504-3142.
    [Show full text]
  • The Water Rises: Clarence C. Dills Battle for Grand Coulee Dam Columbia Magazine, Fall 2001: Vol
    The Water Rises: Clarence C. Dills Battle for Grand Coulee Dam Columbia Magazine, Fall 2001: Vol. 15, No. 3 By Kerry E. Irish After the inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in March 1933, the nation's capital entered a period of frenzy known as the Hundred Days. Washington senator Clarence Dill's primary role in the New Deal came in regard to the Communications Act of 1934 and in the battle for Grand Coulee in 1933. In his battle for the great dam, Dill had to contend with those who were opposed to the dam, both in his own state of Washington and in Washington, D.C.; with those who were zealous for the dam but knew little of how things were accomplished in the nation's capital; and with a president who had far greater concerns than Grand Coulee. In 1933 Clarence Dill helped outflank the dam's opponents, guided its supporters toward what was possible, and was the leading member of Washington's congressional delegation in gaining FDR's approval of the great dam. Dill's initial plan to secure the dam in March 1933 included incorporating it into an unemployment bill, but there were a number of possible ways to proceed. However, he recognized that the banking crisis paralyzed the nation and he must exercise patience in relation to Grand Coulee. This prudence and sense of priorities has been inaccurately cited as evidence that the dam meant little to Dill. He wanted the dam for many reasons: jobs, future development, long-term reclamation projects, and perhaps most importantly, as a lasting monument to his own political career.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Community Structure
    EFFECTS OF POOL FLUCTUATIONS ON NATURAL RESOURCES IN THE ROCKY REACH PROJECT AREA Prepared by: A. E. Giorgi BioAnalysts, Inc. 7981 168th Avenue NE Redmond, WA 9805 and M. D. Miller BioAnalysts, Inc. 3653Rickenbacker Ste 200 Boise, ID 83705 Prepared for: Chelan County Public Utility District P.O. Box 1231 327 North Wenatchee Ave. Wenatchee, WA 98807 November 2000 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 3 FACTORS AFFECTING POOL ELEVATION............................................................3 EFFECTS ON FISHERIES RESOURCES....................................................................4 Stranding ........................................................................................................................ 4 Spawning......................................................................................................................... 6 Wells Tailrace ............................................................................................................. 6 Chelan Falls.................................................................................................................7 Fish Migration................................................................................................................ 7 RIPARIAN HABITAT ..................................................................................................... 9 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]