DOCSLIB.ORG

Fish Connectivity at the Boundary Hydroelectric Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fish Connectivity at the Boundary Hydroelectric Project Early Information Development: Fish Connectivity at the Boundary Hydroelectric Project Boundary Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2144) Prepared for: Seattle City Light Seattle, Washington Prepared by: R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. Redmond, Washington November 2006 EARLY INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT: FISH CONNECTIVITY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1. Project Description............................................................................................. 1-2 2 Potential Habitat Connectivity ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.1. Adfluvial Fish Habitat within Boundary Reservoir............................................ 2-4 2.2. Status of Fish Passage and Adfluvial Fish Habitat at other Pend Oreille River Projects ............................................................................................................... 2-8 2.2.1. Waneta .................................................................................................. 2-8 2.2.2. Seven Mile............................................................................................ 2-8 2.2.3. Box Canyon........................................................................................ 2-10 2.2.4. Albeni Falls......................................................................................... 2-12 2.2.5. Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids ...................................................... 2-13 2.3. Summary of Potential Habitat Connectivity..................................................... 2-14 3 Target Fish Species .............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1. Seasonal Fish Distribution and Abundance........................................................ 3-1 3.1.1. Bull Trout.............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2. Westslope Cutthroat Trout.................................................................... 3-2 3.1.3. Mountain Whitefish .............................................................................. 3-4 3.1.4. Other Species........................................................................................ 3-6 3.2. Biological Factors............................................................................................... 3-7 3.2.1. Fish Size................................................................................................ 3-7 3.2.2. Fish Distribution................................................................................... 3-8 3.2.3. Swimming Capacity.............................................................................. 3-9 4 Entrainment: Physical Risk Factors .................................................................................. 4-1 4.1. Conditions Potentially Damaging to Fish........................................................... 4-1 4.2. Turbines .............................................................................................................. 4-2 4.3. Spillways............................................................................................................. 4-8 4.4. Sluiceways ........................................................................................................ 4-13 Boundary Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2144 Seattle City Light 1565.02/FishPassageEID_Boundary_11.06 ii November 2006 EARLY INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT: FISH CONNECTIVITY 4.5. Skimmer Gate................................................................................................... 4-15 4.6. Entrainment Summary...................................................................................... 4-15 5 Summary............................................................................................................................... 5-1 6 References Cited................................................................................................................... 6-1 APPENDIX A: Consultation Record Between Relicensing Participants Boundary Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2144 Seattle City Light 1565.02/FishPassageEID_Boundary_11.06 iii November 2006 EARLY INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT: FISH CONNECTIVITY FIGURES Figure 1-1. Boundary Project vicinity map. .......................................................................... 1-3 Figure 1-2. Aerial overview of Boundary Dam and associated facilities.............................. 1-4 Figure 3-1. Average monthly water temperature in Boundary Reservoir near Metaline Falls (USGS Gage 12398550) from 2000 to 2003. .......................................... 3-11 Figure 4-1. Comparison of mortality estimates for Units 51-54 to Stone & Webster (1992).................................................................................................................. 4-6 Figure 4-2. Spillway 1 and skimmer gate chute on left bank................................................ 4-8 Figure 4-3. Spillway 2 on right bank..................................................................................... 4-9 Figure 4-4. Spill flow looking from above.......................................................................... 4-10 Figure 4-5. Spill flow looking from downstream................................................................ 4-11 Figure 4-6. Downstream face of the dam showing the sluice gates .................................... 4-14 Boundary Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2144 Seattle City Light 1565.02/FishPassageEID_Boundary_11.06 iv November 2006 EARLY INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT: FISH CONNECTIVITY TABLES Table 3-1. Age, mean length, and sample size of cutthroat trout and mountain whitefish captured in Boundary Reservoir during 2000 (McLellan 2001)......... 3-6 Table 3-2. Back-calculated mean length in mm (sample size) at age for fish capture in Boundary Reservoir during 2000 and Box Canyon Reservoir during 1988 to 1990 (Ashe and Scholz 1992; Ashe et al. 1991; Barber et al. 1990; and Barber et al. 1989). ............................................................................ 3-6 Table 3-3. Approximate cruising, sustained, and burst swimming speeds for salmonids and suckers from Bell (1991). ......................................................... 3-10 Table 4-1. Boundary Project turbine characteristics............................................................ 4-4 Table 4-2. Estimated mortality ranges for existing downstream passage routes. .............. 4-16 Table 5-1. Potential Boundary Project fish connectivity program....................................... 5-3 Boundary Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2144 Seattle City Light 1565.02/FishPassageEID_Boundary_11.06 v November 2006 EARLY INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT: FISH CONNECTIVITY Early Information Development: Fish Connectivity at the Boundary Hydroelectric Project Boundary Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2144) 1 INTRODUCTION The Boundary Hydroelectric Project, (the "Boundary Project"), is owned and operated by Seattle City Light (SCL) under a license administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The present license for the Boundary Project (FERC No. 2144) expires in September 2011, and in accordance with FERC regulations, SCL must file its application for a new license no later than September 2009. For the relicensing of the Boundary Project, SCL is using the FERC Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) to provide the framework for its consultation with stakeholders during the period leading up to the filing of its license application. As part of the ILP, SCL is responsible for developing a Proposed Study Plan that describes each study to be conducted in support of relicensing, a study schedule, and considerations of level of effort and cost. SCL identified the subject of fish habitat connectivity and potential fish entrainment as areas where early (i.e., prior to formal study phase) information development (EID) would be beneficial. Boundary Dam is situated in a narrow canyon at River Mile (RM) 17.0 on the Pend Oreille River. The dam is 340 feet high and was built without fish passage facilities. Anadromous fish access to the upper Columbia River basin, including access to the Pend Oreille River, was blocked in 1942 by construction of Grand Coulee Dam 164 miles downstream. While anadromous fish no longer have access to the Pend Oreille River, potential fish connectivity between habitats upstream and downstream of Boundary Dam, and potential injury or mortality of fish that may be entrained in Project facilities have been identified as relicensing study issues. The objective of this EID effort is to compile existing information to support future stakeholder discussions of potential fish connectivity and entrainment effects during FERC relicensing of the Boundary Project. No site-specific field studies of entrainment or upstream and downstream fish connectivity are anticipated prior to development of proposed study plans in 2006. As part of this EID effort, descriptions of existing Boundary Project facilities and operations and background information relevant to fish connectivity and entrainment have been compiled for the Boundary Project. Because the movement and potential connectivity of fish throughout the Pend Oreille River system is pertinent to the issue of fish passage at the Boundary Project; a summary of existing and planned fish connectivity programs has also been compiled for other hydropower projects on the Pend Oreille
Load more

Recommended publications
  • License Application Boundary Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2144)
    License Application Boundary Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2144) Seattle City Light September 2009 LICENSE APPLICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS AND DEFINITIONS List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... xiv List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................... xxi INITIAL STATEMENT EXHIBIT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 Contents and Purpose of This Exhibit .............................................................................. A-1 2 General Project Description............................................................................................... A-1 3 Project Area and Vicinity ................................................................................................... A-1 4 Project Lands ...................................................................................................................... A-5 5 License Requirements ......................................................................................................... A-5 5.1. License Articles ............................................................................................................. A-5 5.2. Additional FERC Orders ............................................................................................... A-8 5.3. Other Licenses/Permits
    [Show full text]
  • FERC Project No. 2058
    FERC Project No. 2058 Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Fishery Enhancement Program Appendix A As approved by the Management Committee on 3/14/2017 2017 ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUMMARY – APPENDIX A Clark Fork Project, FERC No. 2058 Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids Hydroelectric Developments Title Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Fishery Enhancement Program Implementation Staff Lead Ken Bouwens, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, (208) 770-3766, [email protected] Background The purpose of this program is to offset the impacts of the power peaking operation of the Cabinet Gorge Project to native salmonids through the restoration and enhancement of lower Clark Fork River and Lake Pend Oreille (LPO) tributary watersheds, fishery monitoring and management support, and a public education and enforcement initiative focused on Bull Trout and their associated habitats in Idaho. Outlined below is the 2017 annual implementation plan for Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Enhancement and Fish Resource Monitoring, Enhancement, and Management portions of this program. The public education and enforcement component of this program is described in Appendix D of the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement (CFSA). In addition, other CFSA appendices also support watershed and native salmonid protection, restoration, and enhancement (e.g., Fish Passage/Native Salmonid Restoration Plan, Watershed Council Program), and thereby augment the efforts to be initiated under this program. 2017 Project Plans Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Enhancement Fund 1. Habitat Restoration Scoping Allocation 2. Idaho Land Conservation Strategy 3. Habitat Restoration Maintenance and Monitoring Allocation 4. Grouse Creek Resurvey 5. Lightning Creek Large Woody Debris and Recruitment Project 6. Twin Creek Restoration Revegetation 7.
    [Show full text]
  • BCUC IR1 Response
    Diane Roy FortisBC Vice President, Regulatory Affairs 16705 Fraser Highway Surrey, B.C. V4N 0E8 Gas Regulatory Affairs Correspondence Tel: (604)576-7349 Email: [email protected] Cell: (604) 908-2790 Fax: (604) 576-7074 Electric Regulatory Affairs Correspondence www.fortisbc.com Email: [email protected] October 1, 2020 British Columbia Utilities Commission Suite 410, 900 Howe Street Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2N3 Attention: Ms. Marija Tresoglavic, Acting Commission Secretary Dear Ms. Tresoglavic: Re: FortisBC Inc. (FBC) Project No. 1599119 Annual Review for 2020 and 2021 Rates (Application) Response to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) Information Request (IR) No. 1 On August 19, 2020, FBC filed the Application referenced above. In accordance with BCUC Order G-211-20 setting out the Regulatory Timetable for the review of the Application, FBC respectfully submits the attached response to BCUC IR No. 1. If further information is required, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, FORTISBC INC. Original signed: Diane Roy Attachments cc (email only): Registered Parties FortisBC Inc. (FBC or the Company) Submission Date: Annual Reivew for 2020 and 2021 Rates ~ Project No. 1599119 (Application) October 1, 2020 Response to British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) Information Request (IR) Page 1 No. 1 1 Table of Contents Page no. 2 A. LOAD FORECAST AND REVENUE AT EXISTING RATES ................................................. 2 3 B. OTHER REVENUE .............................................................................................................28
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Management's Discussion and Analysis
    2010 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS March 4, 2011 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) is designed to provide the reader with a greater understanding of the Company’s business, the Company’s business strategy and performance, the Company’s expectations of the future, and how the Company manages risk and capital resources. It is intended to enhance the understanding of the audited annual consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes, and should therefore be read in conjunction with these documents, and should also be read together with the text below on forward-looking statements. Reference in this MD&A to the “Company” or to “SNC-Lavalin” means, as the context may require, SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. and all or some of its subsidiaries or joint ventures, or SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. or one or more of its subsidiaries or joint ventures. Unless otherwise indicated, all financial information presented in this MD&A, including tabular amounts, is in Canadian dollars, and prepared in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS Statements made in this MD&A that describe the Company’s or management’s budgets, estimates, expectations, forecasts, objectives, predictions or projections of the future may be “forward-looking statements”, which can be identifi ed by the use of the conditional or forward-looking terminology such as “anticipates”, “believes”, “estimates”, “expects”, “may”, “plans”, “projects”, “should”, “will”, or the negative thereof or other variations thereon. The Company cautions that, by their nature, forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, and that its actual actions and/or results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements, or could affect the extent to which a particular projection materializes.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Basin Plan
    FOR REFERENCE ONLY This version is now archived. Updated 2019 Columbia Region Action Plans available at: fwcp.ca/region/columbia-region Photo credit: Larry Halverson COLUMBIA BASIN PLAN June 2012 Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program ........................................................................ 1 Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Principles .................................................................................................................................. 2 Partners .................................................................................................................................... 2 Policy Context ........................................................................................................................... 2 Program Delivery ...................................................................................................................... 4 Project Investment Criteria ...................................................................................................... 4 2. The Columbia River Basin .................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Setting .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement
    Volume 26 Issue 2 U.S. - Canada Transboundary Resource Issues Spring 1986 The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement Jackie Krolopp Kirn Marion E. Marts Recommended Citation Jackie K. Kirn & Marion E. Marts, The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement, 26 Nat. Resources J. 261 (1986). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol26/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. JACKIE KROLOPP KIRN* and MARION E. MARTS** The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement SETTING AND BACKGROUND The Skagit River is a short but powerful stream which rises in the mountains of southwestern British Columbia, cuts through the northern Cascades in a spectacular and once-remote mountain gorge, and empties into Puget Sound approximately sixty miles north of Seattle. The beautiful mountain scenery of the heavily glaciated north Cascades was formally recognized in the United States by the creation of the North Cascades National Park and the Ross Lake National Recreation Area in 1968, and earlier in British Columbia by creation of the E.C. Manning Provincial Park. The Ross Lake Recreation Area covers the narrow valley of the upper Skagit River in Washington and portions of several tributary valleys. It was created as a political and, to environmentalists who wanted national park status for the entire area, controversial, compromise which accom- modated the city of Seattle's Skagit River Project and the then-planned North Cascades Highway.
    [Show full text]
  • Fortisbc Inc. an Indirect Subsidiary of Fortis Inc. Annual Information Form
    FortisBC Inc. An indirect subsidiary of Fortis Inc. Annual Information Form For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Dated March 10, 2020 FortisBC Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION .................................................................................................................... 3 GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.0 CORPORATE STRUCTURE .............................................................................................................................. 6 1.1 NAME AND INCORPORATION ................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 INTER-CORPORATE RELATIONSHIPS ..................................................................................................... 6 2.0 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS ......................................................................................... 6 2.1 THREE-YEAR HISTORY ......................................................................................................................... 6 3.0 THE BUSINESS OF FORTISBC INC. ................................................................................................................ 6 3.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 GENERATION AND POWER SUPPLY ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Impact Statement Template
    y g r n e o n ry i E s to is Office of Energy Projects l a ra l m e u September 2011 d g m e e o R C F FERC/FEIS – 0239F Final Environmental Impact Statement Application for Hydropower License for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2144-038, Washington And Application for Surrender of Hydropower License for the Sullivan Creek Project FERC Project No. 2225-015, Washington Sullivan Lake Dam Boundary Dam Mill Pond Dam Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 FERC/F-0239 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Application for Hydropower License for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2144-038, Washington And Application for Surrender of Hydropower License for the Sullivan Creek Project FERC Project No. 2225-015, Washington Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 September 2011 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20426 OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS To the Agency or Individual Addressed: Reference: Final Environmental Impact Statement Attached is the final environmental impact statement (final EIS) for the relicensing of the City of Seattle, Washington’s Boundary Hydroelectric Project No. 2144-038 and the surrender of Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, Washington’s, Sullivan Creek Project No. 2225-015. The Boundary Project is located on the Pend Oreille River in Pend Oreille County, Washington. The Sullivan Creek Project is located on Sullivan Lake, and Sullivan Creek and Outlet Creeks, tributaries to the Pend Oreille River that empty into the Boundary Project reservoir.
    [Show full text]
  • Institutional Factors Affecting Fish Passage in the Columbia River Treaty Renegotiation
    Water International ISSN: 0250-8060 (Print) 1941-1707 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwin20 Institutional factors affecting fish passage in the Columbia River Treaty renegotiation Graeme A. Lee Rowlands & Richard A. Wildman To cite this article: Graeme A. Lee Rowlands & Richard A. Wildman (2018): Institutional factors affecting fish passage in the Columbia River Treaty renegotiation, Water International, DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2018.1511200 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2018.1511200 Published online: 10 Sep 2018. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rwin20 WATER INTERNATIONAL https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2018.1511200 RESEARCH ARTICLE Institutional factors affecting fish passage in the Columbia River Treaty renegotiation Graeme A. Lee Rowlandsa and Richard A. Wildmana,b aQuest University Canada, Squamish, Canada; bGeosyntec Consultants, Portland, OR, USA ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The United States and Canada have begun renegotiating the Received 21 April 2017 Columbia River Treaty, which is an international model for trans- Accepted 9 August 2018 fi boundary water governance. This paper identi es six institutional KEYWORDS ff fi factors that will a ect negotiations pertaining to sh passage dur- Dams; fish passage; ing the renegotiation of the treaty: geographical advantage, issue governance; Indigenous linkage, a basin commission, the duration of agreements, negotiat- peoples; salmon; Columbia ing autonomy and side payments. These factors and the methods River Treaty used to determine them can be applied to other transboundary river basins where basin states have a history of transboundary resource governance.
    [Show full text]
  • CLARK FORK PROJECT FERC No
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT OF LICENSE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN UPSTREAM FISH PASSAGE FACILITY AT THE CABINET GORGE DAM CLARK FORK PROJECT FERC No. 2058-098 Idaho and Montana Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426 August 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 APPLICATION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION ........................................................................................... 1 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS...................................... 2 1.3.1 Clean Water Act ................................................................................................. 2 1.3.2 Endangered Species Act ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 142 FERC ¶ 62,231 UNITED STATES of AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION City of Seattle, Washington Project No. 2144-0
    20130320-3036 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 03/20/2013 142 FERC ¶ 62,231 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION City of Seattle, Washington Project No. 2144-038 ORDER ISSUING NEW LICENSE (March 20, 2013) INTRODUCTION 1. On September 29, 2009, the City of Seattle, Washington (Seattle)1 filed, pursuant to sections 4(e) and 15 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),2 an application for a new license to continue operation and maintenance of its Boundary Hydroelectric Project (Boundary Project or project). The project’s authorized capacity being licensed is 1,003.253 megawatts (MW). The project is located on the Pend Oreille River near the city of Metaline Falls, in Pend Oreille County, Washington.3 The project occupies 609.24 acres of federal land managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) within the Colville National Forest, and 329.35 acres of federal lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).4 2. As discussed below, this order issues a new license for the Boundary Project.5 1 The Boundary Project is operated and maintained by the City of Seattle’s Seattle City Light Department, often referred to as SCL. 2 16 U.S.C. §§ 797(e) and 808 (2006), respectively. 3 The Federal Power Commission (FPC), now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), found the Pend Oreille River from Pend Oreille Lake in Idaho downstream to the United States – Canada border to be a navigable waterway of the United States. See Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, Washington, 11 F.P.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia POWER Corporation
    COLUMBIA POWER COrpORATION REVISED SERVICE PLAN 2013/14 - 2015/16 LETTER TO THE MINISTER Honourable Bill Bennett Minister of Energy and Mines On behalf of the Board of Directors, I am pleased to portant addition to the portfolio of hydroelectric assets submit Columbia Power Corporation’s revised Service in the Columbia Basin. Plan 2013/14—2015/16. Columbia Power has three priorities for the next year: This revised Service Plan has been updated to reflect the recent re-organization of government ministries. Continue to effectively manage the construction of As well, the 2012/13 performance measures and sum- the Waneta Expansion safely, on-schedule and on- mary financial outlook tables have had the forecast budget, while meeting our community, First Nations information removed and replaced with 2012/13 pre- and environmental commitments. liminary actual results. • The Project is on-schedule and on-budget; the Project recently reached over 1.1 million person-hours without Columbia Power Corporation (“Columbia Power”), a a major safety or environmental incident. commercial Crown corporation, develops and operates • Currently over 300 people work on the Waneta hydro power projects in the Columbia Basin. Columbia Expansion Project; of those, over 75 per cent reside Power and its partner, Columbia Basin Trust (“CBT”) within 100 km of the Project. These employment own the Brilliant Dam and Generating Station, the Bril- opportunities and the associated economic benefits— liant Terminal Station, the Arrow Lakes Generating Sta- over $123 million to date has been spent in the local tion and the Brilliant Expansion Generating Station and economy—have a positive impact on the communities associated transmission lines.
    [Show full text]