DOCSLIB.ORG

Albeni Falls Dam Fish Passage Project, Pend Oreille River, Bonner

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Albeni Falls Dam Fish Passage Project, Pend Oreille River, Bonner Evan Lewis , Chief, Environmental and Cultural Resources Branch 01EIFW00-2018-F-0259 US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Albeni Falls Dam Fish Passage Facility Table of Contents BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4 Consultation History.............................................................................................................. 4 BIOLOGICAL OPINION ........................................................................................................ 5 Description of the Proposed Action ........................................................................................ 5 Action Area ........................................................................................................................ 5 Proposed Action.................................................................................................................. 6 Construction................................................................................................................. 8 Operation and Maintenance of Facility .........................................................................14 Analytical Framework for the Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Determinations ................18 Jeopardy Determination .....................................................................................................18 Adverse Modification Determination ..................................................................................19 Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ..............................................................................20 Bull Trout ..........................................................................................................................20 Listing Status ..............................................................................................................20 Reasons for Listing and Emerging Threats ...................................................................21 Species Description .....................................................................................................23 Life H istor y ................................................................................................................23 Population Dynamics ..................................................................................................24 Status and Distribution ................................................................................................27 Conservation Needs.....................................................................................................33 Federal, State, and Tribal Conservation Actions Since Listing ......................................35 Contemporaneous Federal Actions ...............................................................................35 Bull Trout Cr it ica l Habitat ..................................................................................................36 Legal Status ................................................................................................................36 Conservation Role and Description of Critical Habitat ..................................................38 Current Rangewide Condition of Bull Trout Critical Habitat .........................................39 Environmental Baseline of the Action Area ...........................................................................40 Status of the Bull Trout in the Action Area...................................................................41 Status of Bull Trout Critical Habitat in the Action Area ................................................45 Effects of the Proposed Action..............................................................................................47 1 Evan Lewis , Chief, Environmental and Cultural Resources Branch 01EIFW00-2018-F-0259 US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Albeni Falls Dam Fish Passage Facility Beneficial Effects to Bull Trout ..........................................................................................47 No Effect to Bull Trout ......................................................................................................47 Insignificant and Discountable Effects to Bull Trout............................................................48 Effects of the Proposed Action on Bull Trout ......................................................................49 Effects of the Proposed Action on Bull Trout Critical Habitat ..............................................54 Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................................56 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................58 Bull Trout ..........................................................................................................................58 Bull Trout Cr it ica l Habitat ..................................................................................................58 Incidental Take Statement.....................................................................................................58 Form and Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated ................................................................59 Effect of the Take ..............................................................................................................60 Reasonable and Prudent Measures ......................................................................................60 Terms and Conditions ........................................................................................................60 Conservation Recommendations ...........................................................................................62 Reinit iat ion Not ice ...............................................................................................................62 3. LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................................63 3.1 Published Literature .......................................................................................................63 3.2 In Litteris References .....................................................................................................72 3.3 Personal Communications ..............................................................................................72 List of Table s Table 1. Construction schedule for the AFD Fish Passage Facility............................................ 9 Table 2. Designated bull trout critical habitat by state. ............................................................37 Table 3. Bull trout redd counts from tributaries of Lake Pend Oreille Basin. ............................44 2 Evan Lewis , Chief, Environmental and Cultural Resources Branch 01EIFW00-2018-F-0259 US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Albeni Falls Dam Fish Passage Facility List of Figures Figure 1. Albeni Falls Dam. .................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2. Layout of proposed fish passage facility.................................................................... 8 Figure 3. Approximate locations of isolation devices ..............................................................12 Figure 4. Location of the six bull trout Recovery Units. ..........................................................28 Figure 5. Status assessment tool scores for each of the six bull trout recovery units.. ................33 Figure 6. Expected area of impacts from underwater blasting ..................................................51 3 Evan Lewis , Chief, Environmental and Cultural Resources Branch 01EIFW00-2018-F-0259 US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Albeni Falls Dam Fish Passage Facility BACKGROUND Introduction The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Biological Opinion (Opinion) of the effects of the Albeni Falls Dam (AFD) Fish Passage Project (Project) on bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and its designated critical habitat. In an October 25, 2017, email (received on the same day), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) requested formal consultation with the Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, for proposed implementation of the Project. The Corps determined that the Project is likely to adversely affect bull trout and “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” designated bull trout critical habitat. As described in this Opinion, and based on the Biological Assessment (Corps 2017, entire) developed by the Corps and other information, the Service has concluded that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of bull trout or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its designated critical habitat. Consultation History The Corps, Bonneville Power Association, and Bureau of Reclamation have completed several iterations of section 7 consultation for the operation and maintenance of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS), of which AFD is a component, with both the Service (USFWS: 1998 and 2000), and with the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS: 1995, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2008, as supplemented in 2010 and 2014, the last currently in effect).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bathymetry, Morphology, and Lakebed Geologic Characteristics
    SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS MAP 3272 Bathymetry, Morphology, and Lakebed Geologic Characteristics Barton, G.J., and Dux, A.M., 2013, Bathymetry, Morphology, and Lakebed Geologic Characteristics of Potential U.S. Department of the Interior Prepared in cooperation with the Kokanee Salmon Spawning Habitat in Lake Pend Oreille, Bayview and Lakeview Quadrangles, Idaho science for a changing world U.S. Geological Survey IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Abstract lake level of 2,062.5 ft above NGVD 1929 (figs. 4–6) has been maintained during the summer (normal maximum summer full Scenic Bay, includes 254 acres and 2.8 mi of shoreline bordered by a gentle-to-moderate-sloping landscape and steep mountains. Methods conditions vary within each study unit: 2,100 photographs were subsampled for Scenic Bay, 1,710 photographs were subsampled lake morphology, lakebed geologic units, and substrate embeddedness. Descriptions of the morphology, lakebed geology, and pool), with drawdowns in autumn to reach a minimum winter level. Before 1966, the winter lake level was variable, and an A second study unit, along the north shore of Idlewild Bay, includes 220 acres and 2.2 mi of shoreline bordered by a gentle-to- for Idlewild Bay, and 245 photographs were subsampled for Echo Bay. These photographs were reviewed, and additional embeddedness in the shore zone, rise zone, and open water in bays and the main stem of the lake are provided in figures 5–6. Kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) are a keystone species in Lake Pend Oreille in northern Idaho, historically exceptional fishery continued with the Albeni Falls Dam in operation.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • SECTION 1: Pend Oreille COUNTY
    SECTION 1: Pend Oreille COUNTY DESCRIPTION OF PEND OREILLE COUNTY Just as the Rocky Mountains plunge into the United States on their majestic march from British Columbia, a western range called the Selkirk Mountains, runs in close parallel down into Idaho and Washington. This rugged spur offers exposed segments of the North American Continent and the Kootenay Arc, tectonic plates that began colliding over a billion years ago, and provides exceptional year-round settings for a variety of recreational opportunities. This lesser range is home to bighorn sheep, elk, moose, deer, bear, cougar, bobcats, mountain caribou, and several large predatory birds such as bald eagles and osprey. Not far from where these Selkirk Mountains end, Pend Oreille County begins its association with the Pend Oreille River. Pend Oreille County is a relatively small county that looks like the number “1” set in the northeast corner of the State of Washington. Pend Oreille County is 66 miles long and 22 miles wide. British Columbia is across the international border to the north. Spokane County and the regional trade center, the City of Spokane, lie to the south. Idaho’s Bonner and Boundary counties form the eastern border, and Stevens County, Washington forms the western border. (For a map of Pend Oreille County, see Appendix A) Encompassing more than 1400 square miles, most of Pend Oreille County takes the form of a long, forested river valley. This area, known as the Okanogan Highlands, is unique since it is the only area in the country where plant and animal species from both the Rocky Mountain Region and the Cascade Mountain region can be found.
    [Show full text]
  • July 27, 2000 Dear
    July 27, 2000 Dear: In December 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received a request from the Bonneville Power Administration, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) for formal consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act on the effects of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) on threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat. In response to that request, we have prepared the attached draft biological opinion. Although it is our policy to limit the distribution of draft biological opinions to Federal action agencies and any applicants, we and the action agencies believe it prudent to provide you with our draft opinion in light of widespread regional interest in this matter. In accordance with the implementing regulations under section 7, the Federal action agencies submitted a biological assessment (BA) evaluating the effects of the FCRPS on listed species and critical habitat. In addition to the BA, the action agencies’ request included a draft feasibility report/environmental impact statement, executive summary, and 18 technical appendices for the Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study (draft FR/EIS). The draft FR/EIS describes four different alternatives for design and operation of the FCRPS for an unspecified duration and does not identify a preferred alternative. The alternatives focus on the design, operation and maintenance of the Lower Snake Project portion of the FCRPS, but effects from proposed changes in flow could occur throughout the Columbia Basin. Due to on-going analyses and information gathering processes related to the FCRPS, the BA describes a proposed action that has uncertainties regarding both the design and operation of facilities in the FCRPS.
    [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]
  • Irrigation and Streamflow Depletion in Columbia River Basin Above the Dalles, Oregon
    Irrigation and Streamflow Depletion in Columbia River Basin above The Dalles, Oregon Bv W. D. SIMONS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1220 An evaluation of the consumptive use of water based on the amount of irrigation UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1953 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Douglas McKay, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 50 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose and scope....................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments......................................................................................................... 3 Irrigation in the basin......................................................................................................... 3 Historical summary...................................................................................................... 3 Legislation................................................................................................................... 6 Records and sources for data..................................................................................... 8 Stream
    [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]
  • The Canada-United States Controversy Over the Columbia River
    Washington Law Review Volume 41 Number 4 8-1-1966 The Canada-United States Controversy over the Columbia River Ralph W. Johnson University of Washington School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr Part of the International Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Recommended Citation Ralph W. Johnson, The Canada-United States Controversy over the Columbia River, 41 Wash. L. Rev. 676 (1966). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol41/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Law Review by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CANADA-UNITED STATES CONTROVERSY OVER THE COLUMBIA RIVERf RALPH W. JOHNSON* In a comprehensive study of the recent dispute between Canada and the United States over the Columbia River, Professor Johnson traces its history through the birth of the Harmon doctrine in 1898, the signing of the Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909, and the first Canadianclaim to downstream benefits in the early 1950's. Against this background, he analyzes the negotiations and events-particu- larly the Canadianproposals to divert the Columbia into the Fraser, and to develop the Peace River instead of the Columbia-that culmi- nated in the Columbia River Treaty in 1961. Before Canadian ratification of the Treaty, however, additional problems presented by the split between the Provincial and National governments had to be resolved. Their resolution brought about the signing of a Protocol with the United States in 1964, as well as ratification of the Treaty.
    [Show full text]
  • Bookletchart™ Lake Pend Oreille NOAA Chart 18554 a Reduced-Scale NOAA Nautical Chart for Small Boaters
    BookletChart™ Lake Pend Oreille NOAA Chart 18554 A reduced-scale NOAA nautical chart for small boaters When possible, use the full-size NOAA chart for navigation. Included Area Published by the launching ramp, winter storage, and hull and engine repairs. The drawspan of the railroad bridge across the Pend Oreille River, at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration river and lake junction, is in the permanently closed position. (See 117.1 National Ocean Service through 117.59 and 117.383, chapter 2, for drawbridge regulations.) Office of Coast Survey U.S. Route 95 fixed highway bridge crosses the river just above the railroad bridge; the least clearance for both bridges is 14 feet. At www.NauticalCharts.NOAA.gov Bayview (47°59'N., 116°34'W.), at the SW end of the lake just W of 888-990-NOAA Scenic Bay, has several marinas that can provide transient berthing, gasoline, diesel fuel, launching ramps, winter storage, marine supplies, What are Nautical Charts? water, and pump-out stations; complete marine services are available. Additional information about facilities and services may be obtained Nautical charts are a fundamental tool of marine navigation. They show from the Sandpoint Chamber of Commerce, Sandpoint, ID 83864. water depths, obstructions, buoys, other aids to navigation, and much This chapter describes the Pacific coast of the State of Washington from more. The information is shown in a way that promotes safe and the Washington-Oregon border at the mouth of the Columbia River to efficient navigation. Chart carriage is mandatory on the commercial the northwesternmost point at Cape Flattery.
    [Show full text]
  • Returning Salmon to the Upper Columbia
    Returning Salmon to the Upper Columbia Sheri Sears Colville Confederated Tribes Map of Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Chronology of Dam Construction and the loss of Fish Passage ● Rock Island – 1933 with fish passage ● Grand Coulee – 1942 without fish passage ● Brilliant – 1944 without fish passage ● Waneta – 1954 without fish passage ● Chief Joseph – 1955 without fish passage ● Under Columbia River Treaty – 1964 ● Hugh Keenleyside – 1968 without fish passage ● Mica – 1973 without fish passage The Loss of Salmon The Loss of Culture, Religion, Health, and Identity Adverse Results ● Lost over 1,100 miles of primary stream habitat for salmon, steelhead and resident species ~ 45% of historic habitat. ! ● Lost important nursery lakes (i.e. Arrow, Slocan) ! ● Lost annual aboriginal harvest of about 3 million salmon and steelhead. ! ● Lost cultural connection to salmon ! ● Previously active fishing sites eliminated: ● Celilo Falls; Kettle Falls; Spokane Falls Eco-System Impacts of Dams ● Altered the seasonal flow of the river ● By 1980, the summer proportion of flow was about 50 percent or the original flow ● Eliminating the seasonal pattern and normal hydrograph ● Altered the landscape and ecosystem of the river ● Blocked fish passage above Chief Joseph Dam ● Slack water pools between each dam ● increased migration time from weeks to months ● elevated water temperatures ● Both leading to increased mortality in fish Fish Passage at Lower Dams ● Many of the lower dams have problems with ladders and juvenile fish passageways ● Ladders used to pass adults some very lethal ● Juvenile passed through turbines in early years ● 1969 COE developed bypass systems and installed them on all dams except at the Dalles ● PH2 at Bonneville caused high mortality in the 1990 ● In early 2000’s a single day descaling rate exceeded 257K ● Juvenile fish collectors installed in 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 093 Article 03 FISH HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS of the PEND
    Volume 093 Article 03 FISH HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS OF THE PEND OREILLE RIVER, IDAHO Project F-73-R-15 Subproject VI, Study VII by David H. Bennett and Joseph M. DuPont September 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ...............................................................1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................3 OBJECTIVES .............................................................4 STUDY AREA .............................................................4 OBJECTIVE 1. To identify and evaluate existing physico-chemical and biotic habitat conditions in the Pend Oreille River, Idaho. METHODS ................................................................6 Physico-Chemical Conditions ......................................6 Biotic Conditions ................................................7 RESULTS ................................................................8 Physico-Chemical Conditions ......................................8 Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen ...........................8 Conductivity, Ph, Transparency and Phosphorus ..............8 Water Level Fluctuations .................................. 12 Substrate Composition ..................................... 12 River Velocities .......................................... 15 River Depths .............................................. 15 Biological Components ........................................... 15 Zooplankton ............................................... 15 Benthic Macroinvertebrates ................................ 22 Aquatic Macrophytes
    [Show 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 .....................................................
    [Show full text]