DOCSLIB.ORG

Adult Lamprey Passage and Enumeration Study, Wells Dam, 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Adult Lamprey Passage and Enumeration Study, Wells Dam, 2013 ADULT LAMPREY PASSAGE AND ENUMERATION STUDY, WELLS DAM, 2013: The Effects of Head Differential on Entrance Efficiency, and of Picketed Leads on Count Window Enumeration Efficiency David Robichaud LGL Limited Sidney, BC, Canada and Chas Kyger Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County East Wenatchee, WA, USA Prepared for: Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County East Wenatchee, Washington September 2014 Wells Dam Adult Lamprey Passage Study, 2013 Executive Summary As part of the relicensing of Wells Dam, Douglas PUD along with 5 signatories to the Aquatic Settlement Agreement developed the Pacific Lamprey Management Plan (PLMP) for the Wells Hydroelectric Project (Wells Project), with the objective of identifying and addressing any adverse Project-related impacts on passage of adult Pacific lamprey. Under the PLMP, a radio telemetry study was conducted in 2013 with three goals: to assess how adult Pacific lamprey Entrance Efficiencies varied under two different head differential treatments; to assess the effectiveness of recent fishway modifications on Count Window Enumeration Efficiency; and to evaluate Passage Efficiency, average travel times and general behavior of lamprey in the Wells Project fishways. Adult Pacific lamprey were captured at Bonneville and Priest Rapids dams, and transported to the Wells Fish Hatchery for tagging. Radio and PIT tags were surgically implanted, and the tagged fish were released into the Wells Dam tailrace (n=92) or into the Wells Dam fishways above the adult fish trap (pool 38; n=18). To monitor movements, underwater antenna arrays were deployed throughout both Wells Dam fishways, and aerial antennas were deployed at the mouths of upstream tributaries (Okanogan and Methow Rivers). Two head differential treatments were compared: a high condition (0.48 m or 1.5 ft) and a moderate condition (0.31 m or 1.0 ft). Treatment conditions occurred in 7-hour blocks (19:00 through 02:00) and alternated daily. Between treatments, the head differential was set at 0.48 m (1.5 ft). From 7 July to 7 October, 80 treatment conditions were tested, including 40 replicate tests of each treatment. The lamprey that were released into the tailrace approached the fishways on 89 occasions (35 during the high differential treatment, 12 moderate). Entrance Efficiency (the proportion of approach events that were followed by an entrance event) was 67% during the moderate treatment and 51% during the high treatment. Differences were not statistically significant, but statistical power was low. Previous studies had identified an area (‘bypass’ behind the picketed lead) that allowed lamprey to move upstream through picketed leads without passing through the fishway video count window. Concerns about accurate passage count data prompted the installation of modified picketed leads with narrower spacing to help exclude lamprey from the bypass area. Count Station Passage (the proportion of tagged fish detected below the count window that were directed through the Count Station, rather than the bypass) was 88%, which was a significant improvement from before the new leads were installed (53.3%). Count Station Enumeration Efficiency (the proportion of fish known to have passed the count window that were tallied by the count video technicians) was significantly higher in the west fishway (68%) than in the east (33%), and was 51% overall. Count Station Enumeration Efficiency in 2013 was 11% higher than that estimated prior to installation of the modified picketed leads, but the statistical power of the comparison limited. In 2004, 2007-2008, and 2013, Total Fishway Passage Efficiencies (the proportion of entry events that ended with successful passage) were 25% (3 of 12), 33% (2 of 6), and 9.5% (6 of 63), respectively. These rates were low relative to other Columbia River dams. Lower Fishway passage efficiencies were 33%, 33% and 14%; and Upper Fishway Passage Efficiencies were 75%, 100% and 67%. Differences among years were not statistically significant, but statistical power was very low. Travel times varied among years. In 2004, total fishway passage times averaged 0.3 days (7.2 hours), with largest delays in the reach leading up to the ‘below trap’ area, and in the ‘above trap’ to ‘below video’ reach. In 2007, a single fish passed from entrance to exit in 31.5 hours. In 2008, lower fishway travel times ranged from 1.7 to 5.5 hours, and upper fishway passage times ranged from 2.6 to 15.1 hours. In 2013, lower fishway passage times ranged from 3.7 to 6.9 hours (median 4.8 hours), and total fishway passage times ranged from 9.8 hours to 2.4 days (median 12.6 hours). Upper fishway passage times for tailrace -released fish ranged from 3.8 hours to 7.1 days (median 6.5 hours). LGL Limited Page i Wells Dam Adult Lamprey Passage Study, 2013 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ i List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................................. v List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................ vi 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Goals and Hypotheses .......................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1. Adult Pacific Lamprey Upstream Passage Evaluation .................................................................................. 3 2.2. Fishway Counts and Alternative Passage Routes ......................................................................................... 4 3. Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 3.1. Wells Hydroelectric Project .......................................................................................................................... 4 4. Methods ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 4.1. Fish Source ................................................................................................................................................... 5 4.1.1. Trapping at Bonneville Dam ................................................................................................................ 6 4.1.2. Trapping at Priest Rapids Dam ............................................................................................................ 6 4.2. Tagging ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 4.3. Tracking ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.3.1. Fixed Station Receiver Arrays ............................................................................................................ 10 4.3.2. Mobile Tracking ................................................................................................................................. 12 4.3.3. PIT Tag Detections ............................................................................................................................. 12 4.4. Data Processing .......................................................................................................................................... 12 4.5. Head Differential Treatments .................................................................................................................... 12 4.6. Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 13 4.6.1. Detections ......................................................................................................................................... 13 4.6.2. Fishway Interaction Events ................................................................................................................ 13 4.6.3. Detection Benchmarks ...................................................................................................................... 14 4.6.4. Detection Efficiency and Receiver Performance ............................................................................... 14 4.6.5. Movements ....................................................................................................................................... 14 4.6.6. Benchmark Movement Durations ..................................................................................................... 15 4.6.7. Entrance Efficiency ............................................................................................................................ 15 4.6.8. Passage Efficiency .............................................................................................................................. 16 4.6.9. Count Station Passage ....................................................................................................................... 16
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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 ................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Upstream Migration Timing of Columbia Basin Chinook and Sockeye Salmon and Steelhead in 2017
    19-05 Upstream Migration Timing of Columbia Basin Chinook and Sockeye Salmon and Steelhead in 2017 Jeffrey K. Fryer, John Whiteaker, Denise Kelsey, and Jon Hess May 24, 2019 Upstream Migration Timing of Columbia Basin Chinook and Sockeye Salmon and Steelhead in 2017 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Technical Report for BPA Project 2008-518-00, Contract 76151 Report date range: 1/17–12/17 Jeffrey K. Fryer John Whiteaker Denise Kelsey Jon Hess May 24, 2019 ABSTRACT Between April 19 and October 18, 2017, we sampled Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) salmon as well as steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) at the Bonneville Dam Adult Fish Facility (AFF). Fish were measured for fork length, scales were collected for analysis of age, tissue samples collected for genetic analysis, and the fish were tagged with Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags. These fish were tracked upstream as they passed through sites with PIT tag antennas, including fish ladders at dams, juvenile bypasses, hatcheries, weirs, as well as in-stream antennas. Total numbers of fish tracked upstream were 829 spring Chinook, 1,005 summer Chinook, 971 fall Chinook, 836 steelhead, and 1,079 Sockeye Salmon. Chinook Salmon median migration rates between mainstem dams ranged between 18.7 km/day for fall Chinook migrating between McNary and Priest Rapids dams and 42.0 km/day for spring Chinook migrating between The Dalles and McNary dams. An estimated 31.8% of spring Chinook passed into the Snake Basin upstream of Ice Harbor Dam, while an estimated 58.0% of summer Chinook passed upstream of Priest Rapids dam into the Upper Columbia Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Through Rocl<Y Reach
    SUf\Zival estimate~ for. the passage of yearling fall chinool< salmon through Rocl<y Reach Fish Ecology and Rocf< Island Division Dams, 1998 Northwest Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service by M. Brad Eppard, Steven G. Smith, Seattle, Washington Benjamin P. Sandford, Gordon A. Axel, John G. Williams, and Robert D. McDonald (Chelan County PUD No. 1) July 1999 Survival Estimates for the Passage of Yearling Fall Chinook Salmon through Rocky Reach and Rock Island Dams, 1998 by M. Brad Eppard Steven G. Smith Benjamin P. Sandford Gordon A. Axel John G. Williams National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Fisheries Science Center Fish Ecology Division 2725 Montlake Boulevard East Seattle, Washington 98112 and Robert D. McDonald Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Prepared for: Public Utility District No. 1 ofChelan County P. O. Box 1231 Wenatchee, Washington 98807 July 1999 ~ I ., INTRODUCTION The mid-Columbia Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) includes a goal of 95% survival for juvenile salmonids passing the projects operated by Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County (District). To meet the objectives ofthe HCP, estimates ofmigrating juvenile salmonids are needed. In the spring of 1998, we conducted a pilot study designed to evaluate methods of estimating survival of downstream migrating salmon at the District's Rocky Reach and Rock Island Hydroelectric projects. Since 1993, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has conducted survival studies on migrant juvenile salmonids in the Snake River (Iwamoto et. aI., 1994: Muir et. aI., 1995, 1996; Smith et. al., 1998). Survival estimation on the Snake River was made possible by the development ofthe passive integrated transponder tag (PIT tag), installation of detection and slide-gate systems at Snake River and Lower Columbia River danis, and adaptation of established statistical models for release-recapture data (Cormack, 1964; Jolly, 1965; Seber, 1965) to estimate survival for migrating fish.
    [Show full text]
  • TMDL for Total Dissolved Gas in the Mid-Columbia River and Lake
    Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Dissolved Gas in the Mid-Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt Submittal Report Washington State Spokane Tribe U. S. Environmental Department of of Indians Protection Agency Ecology June 2004 Prepared jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington State Department of Ecology in cooperation with the Spokane Tribe of Indians Publication Information U.S. EPA For a printed copy or a compact disk of this publication, contact: Helen Rueda U.S. EPA 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 326-3280 E-mail: [email protected] Washington State This report is available on the Washington State Department of Ecology Wide Web at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0403002.html. For a printed copy of this publication, contact: Jean Witt Department of Ecology Publications Distributions PO Box 47600 Olympia WA 98504-7600 Phone: (360) 407-7472 E-mail: [email protected] Refer to Ecology Publication Number 04-03-002 The Washington State Department of Ecology and U.S. EPA are equal opportunity agencies and do not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, disability, age, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disabled veteran's status, Vietnam-era veteran's status, or sexual orientation. If you have special accommodation needs or require this document in alternative format, please contact Joan LeTourneau, Ecology, at (360)-407-6764 (voice), or Helen Rueda, EPA TMDL Project Manager, at (503) 326-3280 (voice). Ecology's telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY) number is (360) 407-6006. EPA's telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY) number is (503) 229-6993.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Basin Flood Control and Hydropower
    Climate and Hydrology Datasets for use in the RMJOC Agencies’ Longer-Term Planning Studies Part III – Reservoir Operations Assessment: Columbia Basin Flood Control and Hydropower Bonneville Power Administration U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Energy Northwest Division, Portland District Portland, Oregon Portland, Oregon May 31, 2011 BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINSTRATION Vision Statement BPA will be an engine of the Northwest’s economic prosperity and environmental sustainability. BPA’s actions advance a Northwest power system that is a national leader in providing high reliability, low rates consistent with sound business principles, responsible environmental stewardship, and accountability to the region. We deliver on these public responsibilities through a commercially successful business. These four characteristics define our public responsibilities. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division Mission Statement The Northwestern Division provides engineering services and stewardship of existing water resource infrastructure, conducts water resources development, military construction, environmental protection and restoration, and emergency response operations within our assigned areas of operations to serve the Army and the Nation. On order, the Northwestern Division provides Field Force Engineering services to deployed forces or other USACE elements." Photograph on front cover: Bonneville Dam (BPA Library photo archive). Climate and Hydrology Datasets for use in the RMJOC Agencies’ Longer-Term Planning Studies Part III – Reservoir Operations Assessment: Columbia Basin Flood Control and Hydropower Report Prepared by: Patricia Low Maler Annamalai U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division Brian Kuepper Eric Nielsen Dan Hua Bonneville Power Administration Contributions: Bruce Glabau - BPA Tony White – BPA Birgit Koehler – BPA Jennie Tran – BPA Toni Turner – Bureau of Reclamation Lori Postlethwait – Bureau of Reclamation James Barton – U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Lamprey Management Plan Wells Hydroelectric
    PACIFIC LAMPREY MANAGEMENT PLAN WELLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 2149 September 2009 Prepared by: Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County East Wenatchee, Washington © Copyright 2009. Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County. All Rights Reserved. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Pacific Lamprey Management Plan (PLMP) is one of six Aquatic Resource Management Plans contained within the Aquatic Settlement Agreement (Agreement). Collectively, these six Aquatic Resource Management Plans are critical to direct implementation of Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement measures (PMEs) during the term of the new license and, together with the Wells Anadromous Fish Agreement and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) will function as the Water Quality Attainment Plan (WQAP) in support of the Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the Wells Hydroelectric Project (Project). To ensure active stakeholder participation and support, the Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County (Douglas) developed all of the resource management plans in close coordination with agency and tribal natural resource managers (Aquatic Settlement Work Group or Aquatic SWG). During the development of this plan, the Aquatic SWG focused on developing management priorities for resources potentially impacted by Project operations. Members of the Aquatic SWG include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Colville), the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation (Yakama), and Douglas. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was invited to participate in the development of Aquatic Resource Management Plans, but declined because its interests are currently satisfied by the measures within the HCP.
    [Show full text]