UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Public Utility District No.1 of Chelan County Project No. 637-022 - WA
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(October 10, 2003)
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 F.R. 47897), Office of Energy Projects staff have reviewed the application for a new license for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project, an existing, operating facility located on the Chelan River near the City of Chelan, Washington. The 48- megawatt project occupies land managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service. In the FEA, the staff has analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the existing project and has concluded that approval of the project, with appropriate environmental protection measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
We are aware that Chelan PUD and a number of parties continue to pursue a settlement in this case. If a settlement is filed, it will be noticed for public comment. Whether the FEA is supplemented will be based on the content of any filed settlement and subsequent comments we may receive.
The FEA can be viewed at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the "eLibrary" link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502- 8659.
Magalie R. Salas Secretary FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE
Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 637
Washington
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower - Environment and Engineering 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426
October 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ...... v
I. APPLICATION ...... 1
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 1 A. Purpose of Action ...... 1 B. Need for Power ...... 2
III. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 3 A. Chelan PUD's Proposal ...... 3 1. Project History and Facilities ...... 3 2. Project Operation ...... 4 3. Environmental Measures ...... 5 B. Staff-recommended Alternative ...... 6 C. No-Action Alternative ...... 7 D. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 7
IV. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE ...... 8 A. Agency Consultation ...... 8 1. NEPA Scoping ...... 8 2. Interventions and Comments ...... 9 B. Compliance ...... 10 1. Water Quality Certification ...... 10 2. Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions ...... 12 3. Section 4(e) Conditions ...... 12 4. Section 10(j) Recommendations ...... 19 5. Endangered Species Act ...... 19 6. Coastal Zone Management Act ...... 20 7. National Historic Preservation Act ...... 20 8. Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act ...... 21
V. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...... 21 A. General Description of the Lake Chelan Basin ...... 22 B. Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis ...... 23 1. Geographic Scope ...... 23 2. Temporal Scope ...... 23 C. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives ...... 24 1. Geological and Soils Resources ...... 24 2. Water Resources ...... 39
i 3. Fisheries Resources ...... 54 4. Terrestrial and Wildlife Resources ...... 123 5. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 148 6. Cultural Resources ...... 161 7. Recreation, and other Land and Water Resources ...... 166 8. Aesthetic Resources ...... 196 D. No-Action Alternative ...... 201
VI. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ...... 202 A. Power and Economic Benefits of the Project ...... 202 B. Cost of Environmental Measures ...... 203 C. Comparison of Alternatives ...... 204
VII. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ...... 213 A. Recommended Alternative ...... 213 B. Conclusion ...... 239
VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES ...... 239
IX. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ...... 253
X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ...... 254
XI. LITERATURE CITED ...... 254
XII. LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 265
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Comparison of averages for Lake Chelan elevations ...... 29 Figure 2. Predicted estimates of thermal energy delivered to the Columbia River at different flows through the bypassed reach ...... 53 Figure 3. Summer water temperatures for four locations at Lake Chelan...... 82 Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the subreaches of Reach 4...... 104 Figure 5. Braid bar emphasizing spawning and rearing habitat in the modified tailrace...... 105
ii LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Proposed Minimum lake Level Targets ...... 28 Table 2. Average Monthly lake levels (feet, USGS) for the original license, existing license, and proposed lake level cycle ...... 28 Table 3. Comparison of Stehekin Particulate Concentrations to National Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 38 Table 4. Summary of water quality data for 1987, 1995, 1996 and 1999 for Lake Chelan ...... 42 Table 5. Selected water quality standards for Lake Chelan, tributaries and bypassed reach ...... 44 Table 6. List of species historically and currently present in Lake Chelan Basin .... 57 Table 7. Electrofishing results and estimated population statistics for all trout ..... 66 Table 8. Number of fish found during Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project fish stranding surveys...... 70 Table 9. Bypassed reach flow proposal ...... 72 Table 10. Estimated available habitat (in acres) for cutthroat trout and suckers in Reaches 1 and 2 of the bypassed reach...... 76 Table 11. WDFW's initial minimum flow recommendation that was proposed during prefiling...... 78 Table 12. Estimates of the temperature of the proposed 80 cfs minimum flows comprised of an equal mixture of water collected the lake surface near the dam and the lake bottom 2 miles up-lake...... 85 Table 13. Estimated available habitat (in acres) for chinook salmon and steelhead in Reach 4 of the bypassed reach...... 87 Table 14. Interior's recommended ramping rates which are based on Hunter (1992). . 97 Table 15. Examples of changes in water surface elevations in Reaches 1, 2, and 4 of the Lake Chelan Project bypassed reach...... 99 Table 16. Results of the barrier assessment in alluvial fans, April 1999 ...... 112 Table 17. Summary of total entrainment study catch ...... 114 Table 18. Predicted Columbia River flows at Priest Rapids and McNary ...... 119 Table 19. Estimates of smolt production and spawners required to support the smolt yield in Lake Chelan for three species of anadromous salmonids...... 122 Table 20. Deer days of use along Lake Chelan based upon pellet transect data, winters of 1985-86 through 2001-02 ...... 129 Table 21. Rare plant populations for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project based on 1998-1999 fieldwork ...... 153 Table 22. Summary of key parameters for economic analysis of the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project ...... 203 Table 23. Effect of proposed operational changes on dependable capacity and average annual generation at the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project...... 203
iii Table 24. Costs of proposed and recommended protection, mitigation and enhancements for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project ...... 206 Table 25. Summary of project economics for the no-action, the proposed project and the proposed project with staff-recommended modifications alternatives for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project ...... 211 Table 26. Analysis of fish and wildlife agency recommendations for the Lake Chelan Project ...... 243
iv SUMMARY
The Lake Chelan Project is an existing, operating hydroelectric facility located on the Chelan River near the City of Chelan, Washington. The 48-megawatt project currently has a total average annual generation of 380,871 megawatt hours (MWh), and an average net annual benefit of $9,258,000 or $24/MWh. The project occupies 465 acres of land managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service. The project is licensed to Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County. The current project license expires in April of 2004. On March 28, 2002, Chelan filed an application for a new license, proposing to continue operating the project with additional environmental enhancement measures. No new capacity is proposed.
This Final Environmental Assessment analyzes the effects of Chelan's proposal, alternative recommendations and conditions filed by federal, state and local agencies and interest groups, staff recommendations, and a no-action alternative. Based on our analysis, we are recommending a staff alternative that includes the following environmental measures proposed by Chelan and the agencies with some modifications: (1) a new lake level regime, (2) erosion control on select sites, (3) survey monument relocation, (4) measures to reduce dust in Stehekin Flats, (5) developing and implementing a Lake Chelan Fisheries Management Plan, (6) physical removal of Lake Chelan tributary barriers, (7) funding for a cutthroat trout hatchery and stocking program, (8) developing a final design and implementation plan for the 25-mile Creek spawning and incubation channel, (9) funding for Lake Chelan fishery studies and monitoring, (10) developing and implementing a final Chelan River Biological Evaluation and Implementation Plan (CRBEIP), (11) minimum and spawning flows in the bypassed reach, (12) implementing temperature mitigation measures for the bypassed reach, (13) a habitat enhancement project in the bypassed reach and tailrace, (14) maintaining a 2 inch per hour ramping rate in the bypassed reach, (15) bypassed reach and tailrace monitoring, (16) entrainment monitoring at the diversion dam, (17) installing protective screens at the tailrace pump intakes, (18) implementing tailrace flow security measures, (19) funding for native vegetation restoration, (20) noxious weed control, (21) a sensitive species management plan, (22) a programmatic agreement to implement a historic properties management plan , (23) continued operation and/or management of all currently licensed recreation facilities, (24) a whitewater boating evaluation, (25) a new trail in the bypassed reach, and (26) reserved land for potential future recreation development. Most of these measures are included in management plans, currently drafted, that would be finalized and filed with the Commission.
Under the staff alternative, the project would produce total average annual generation of 364,982 MWh, with a net annual project benefit of about $7,573,000
v ($21/Mwh), and soils, water quality, fisheries, terrestrial, recreational and cultural resources would be improved. Under Chelan PUD's proposal, the project would produce the same amount of energy, but the net annual project benefit would be somewhat less; about $7,516,000 or $21/Mwh.
vi FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING REVIEW
Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 637 Washington
October, 2003
I. APPLICATION
The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project is located on the Chelan River in Chelan County, Washington. Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County (Chelan PUD) holds a license for the 48-megawatt project that expires in March of 2004. On March 28, 2002, Chelan PUD filed an application for a new license. The project boundary includes lands within the Wenatchee National Forest and the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
A. Purpose of Action
The Commission must decide whether to issue a new license to Chelan PUD and what conditions to place on any license issued. In deciding whether to authorize continued operation of the project in compliance with the Federal Power Act (FPA) and other applicable laws, the Commission must determine that the project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing the waterway. In addition to the power and developmental purposes for which licenses are issued (e.g., flood control, irrigation, and water supply), the Commission must give equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation; the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat); the protection of recreational opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality.
In this final environmental assessment (FEA), we assess the environmental and economic effects of: (1) operating the project as proposed by Chelan PUD and (2) operating the project as proposed by Chelan PUD with alternative enhancement measures. We also consider a no-action alternative.
1 B. Need for Power
Under current operating conditions, the Lake Chelan Project generates an average of 384,020 megawatt hours (MWh) of electric energy per year which is available to serve the homes and businesses of Chelan County, Washington. The project, which has a nameplate capacity of 48 megawatts (MW), has a dependable capacity of 57.5 MW based on the actual operating hydraulic head and flow conditions.
Chelan PUD serves nearly 30,000 residential accounts, more than 1,117 irrigation customers, more than 4,525 commercial accounts and 27 industrial accounts within Chelan County. The load represented by these customers amounts to more than 1.3 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) annually. Further, Chelan PUD transmits about 63 percent of its power to more than seven million customers and to its four major power purchasers in the Pacific Northwest.
The project is located in the Northwest Power Pool Area (NWPP) of the Western Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC) region of the North American Electric Reliability Council. The peak demand and annual energy requirements for the NWPP area are projected to grow at an average annual compound rate of 2.5 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively, over the 10-year period from 2002 through 2011.1
With planned generation additions of 16,307 MW, generating capacity reserve margins as a percent of firm peak winter demand in the NWPP area are projected to range from 36.3 to 47.0 percent over the 10-year planning period. The future adequacy of the generation supply in the NWPP area will depend on how many of the planned projects, which are mostly natural gas-fired, combined cycle combustion turbines, actually get built.
The power from the Lake Chelan Project would continue to be useful in meeting a small part of the regional need for power. The project would displace some of the fossil- fueled electric power generation the regional utilities now use, and thereby conserve nonrenewable resources and reduce the emission of noxious byproducts caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.
1 Western Electricity Coordinating Council, 10-Year Coordinated Plan Summary, 2002-2011, September, 2002.
2 III. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
A. Chelan PUD's Proposal
1. Project History and Facilities
Since 1892, five dams have been constructed at the project site on the Chelan River for navigation, water supply, and power purposes. Between 1892 and 1903, spring floods caused failure of three of the dams. The City of Chelan completed construction of a fourth dam and powerhouse by 1906. The Chelan Electric Company purchased the property in 1907 and operated the plant until 1928. On May 8, 1926, the Federal Power Commission issued a 50-year license to the Chelan Electric Company authorizing the construction of the existing project to replace the dam and powerhouse constructed in 1906. In 1937, all Chelan Electric Company properties were transferred to the Washington Water Power Company. On June 21, 1955, Chelan PUD purchased the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project properties and the Commission transferred the project license to Chelan PUD. The project was initially relicensed May 12, 1981 and the current license terminates March 31, 2004 (15 FERC 62,168).
The existing Lake Chelan Project consists of:
(a) Lake Chelan, a 1,486-foot-deep natural glacial lake that was raised 21 feet by construction of the dam to a current normal maximum water surface elevation of 1,100 feet United States Geological Survey datum (USGS2) with a maximum surface area of 32,560 acres, a gross storage of 15.8 million acre-feet and a usable storage of 677,400 acre-feet between elevations 1,079 and 1,100 USGS;
(b) a 40-foot-high, 490-foot-long, concrete gravity, steel-reinforced dam with a central spillway containing eight 20-foot-wide-by-14-foot-high tainter gates and a sluiceway section containing one 10-foot-wide-by-13-foot-high stoplog sluiceway;
(c) a reinforced-concrete side discharge intake structure that is integral with the dam and extends upstream into the reservoir and contains seven 17-foot-wide-by-35- foot-high openings and provides flows to the two generating units;
2 All elevations are based on the USGS datum used when the Project was constructed in 1926-27. To convert to the newer U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USC&GS) datum commonly used on the Columbia River, subtract 1.78 feet.
3 (d) a second reinforced-concrete side-discharge intake structure constructed for potential third and fourth units, that is also integral with the dam and extends upstream into the reservoir and contains ten 17-foot-wide-by-35-foot-high openings and that is currently sealed at the dam axis;
(e) a 14-foot-diameter power tunnel, controlled by a 14-foot butterfly valve, that is approximately 2.2 miles long and extends from the intake structure to the penstock transition, consisting of a 10,578-foot-long, concrete-lined section and a 1,000- foot-long, steel-lined section;
(f) a 45-foot-diameter-by-125-foot-high steel surge tank located along the power tunnel approximately 700 feet upstream of the powerhouse;
(g) a 90-foot-long penstock transition that reduces from 14 feet in diameter to 12 feet in diameter and then bifurcates;
(h) two 9-foot-diameter, steel-lined, concrete-encased penstocks that reduce to 7.5 feet in diameter at the turbine shutoff valves;
(i) a 140-foot-long, 100-foot-wide and 124-foot-high powerhouse with a reinforced concrete substructure and a reinforced concrete frame superstructure with brick walls that contains two vertical-shaft, Francis-type turbines with a rated generating capacity of 24,000 kilowatts (kW) each;
(j) a 1,700-foot-long excavated tailrace channel adjacent to the mouth of the Chelan River that discharges into the Columbia River; and
(k) five 300-horsepower, six-stage, 14-inch vertical turbine irrigation pumps, each rated at 2,250 gallons per minute (gpm) at 435 feet of total dynamic head.
2. Project Operation
Chelan PUD operates the reservoir between water surface elevations 1,100 and 1,079 USGS, although the reservoir is maintained above elevation 1,098 for most of the summer recreation period. The reservoir is drawn down annually for power generation and to allow for flood control and storage of spring snowmelt. The drawdown typically begins in early October, and the lowest lake level normally occurs in April. The lake is refilled through May and June, with a goal to reach elevation 1,098 on or before June 30. The reservoir is maintained above elevation 1,098 through September 30. Of the 677,400 acre-feet of usable storage, 65,000 acre-feet is reserved for irrigation and municipal and domestic water supplies. When inflows exceed the hydraulic capacity of the powerhouse
4 units (2,300 cfs), water may be spilled over the spillway into the bypassed reach. Spills into the bypassed reach usually occur during May, June and July. Historically, the project has been operated to reduce peak flood flows in the Chelan River. The existing license for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project does not require minimum flow releases.
3. Environmental Measures
Chelan PUD proposes the following measures:
(1) Implement a new lake level operating plan to improve tributary access for fish and improve early-season recreational access;
(2) Perform repairs or provide funds for monitoring and repairing selected erosion sites on National Park and National Forest lands under separate plans for both areas;
(3) Locate and, if necessary, replace specific survey monuments around Lake Chelan according to a Survey Monument and Relocation Plan;
(4) Provide funds for developing and implementing dust control in the Stehekin Flats, and monitor changes to the Stehekin River channel at its mouth according to a Stehekin Area Implementation Plan;
(5) Implement a Lake Chelan Fishery Management Plan that includes removing tributary barriers, modifications to stocking, and monitoring;
(6 ) Monitor entrainment at the dam;
(7) Implement a Chelan River Biological Evaluation and Implementation Plan (CRBEIP) that includes minimum flows, spawning flows, ramping rates, habitat enhancements, temperature mitigation, tailrace flow security, and monitoring;
(8) Provide funds for native riparian revegetation, noxious weed control and monitoring in the Stehekin flats area through a Stehekin Area Implementation Plan;
(9) Implement a Wildlife Habitat Plan that would include providing labor and funds ($30,000 annually) for wildlife habitat improvements of state and federal lands in Chelan County within about 6 miles of the Rocky Reach Reservoir ;
(10) Develop and implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan ; and
5 (11) Implement a Recreation Resources Management Plan
B. Staff-recommended Alternative
(1) Chelan PUD's proposed new lake level operating plan;
(2) Chelan PUD's proposed measures for identified erosion sites;
(3) Chelan PUD's proposed relocation of survey monuments, but only those lost due to project operation.
(4) Chelan PUD's proposal for dust control in the Stehekin Flats area.
(5) A Lake Chelan Fishery Management Plan that includes: tributary barrier removal with monitoring throughout a new license term; Chelan PUD's proposed hatchery and stocking funding; restoration of the 25-Mile Creek spawning channel; Chelan PUD's proposed entrainment monitoring at the diversion dam; and Chelan PUD's proposed Lake Chelan fisheries monitoring;
(6) A Chelan River Fishery Management Plan that includes: Chelan PUD's minimum flows; Chelan PUD's spawning flows; Chelan PUD's ramping rates; Chelan PUD's proposed habitat modifications, including gravel supplementation; Chelan PUD's proposed bypassed reach temperature mitigation; Chelan PUD's proposed tailrace flow security; and Chelan PUD's proposed monitoring;
(7) A final design of the Reach 4 pump system that includes measures to prevent entrainment and reduce impingement;
(8) Chelan PUD's proposed measures for native vegetation restoration and noxious weed control under the Stehekin River Implementation Plan;
(9) Chelan PUD's proposed measures for wildlife habitat improvements under its Wildlife Habitat Plan, but only for lands most closely associated with the Lake Chelan Project;
(10) An integrated weed management plan;
(11) A sensitive species management plan;
(12) A programmatic agreement that implements a Cultural Resources Management Plan;
6 (13) A Recreation Resources Management Plan that includes: retention in the project license of existing facilities as proposed by Chelan PUD, but including the Shore Access Site; a final plan for a three-year evaluation of whitewater boating flow releases; a plan for constructing Chelan PUD's proposed Chelan River trail that includes a feasibility study of a trail connection; reserving land for future recreational use; and funding a share of dock replacement cost.
C. No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to operate under the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. We use this alternative as the baseline environmental condition for comparison with other alternatives.
D. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
Other alternatives to the relicensing proposal were considered, but eliminated from detailed study because they are not reasonable in this case. They are:
Federal takeover and operation
Federal takeover and operation of the Project is not reasonable. Chelan PUD is a municipal entity and therefore Federal takeover of the project was barred by Congress in the Act of August 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 587.
Nonpower license
Issuing a nonpower license would not provide a long-term resolution of the issues presented. A nonpower license is a temporary license that the Commission would terminate whenever it determines that another government agency would assume regulatory authority and supervision over the lands and facilities covered by the nonpower license. In this case, no agency has suggested its willingness or ability to do so. No party has sought a nonpower license, and the applicant has no basis for concluding that the project should no longer be used to produce power. Thus, in these circumstances, a nonpower license is not a realistic alternative to relicensing.
7 Project retirement
Project retirement could be accomplished with or without dam removal. Either alternative would involve denial of the license application and surrender or termination of the existing license with appropriate conditions. Dam removal would not be appropriate in this case, and we have no basis for recommending it. If the dam was removed, it could significantly adversely affect a recreation industry that has developed along with a reservoir operating regime that has kept the lake full during the peak recreation season. Removing the dam could also adversely affect reservoir water withdrawal for irrigation.
The second decommissioning alternative would involve retaining the dam and disabling or removing equipment to generate power. Project works would remain in place and could be used for historic or other purposes. This would require identifying another government agency with authority to assume regulatory control and supervision of the remaining facilities. No agency has stepped forward, and no participant has advocated this alternative for the project, nor is there any basis for recommending it. Because the power supplied by the projects is needed, a source of replacement power would have to be identified. In these circumstances, removal of the electric generating equipment is not considered to be a reasonable alternative.
IV. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE
A. Agency Consultation
The Commission’s regulations require applicants to consult with appropriate state and federal environmental agencies and the public before filing a license application. This consultation is the first step in complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Historic Preservation Act, and other federal statutes. Pre-filing consultation must be complete and documented in accordance with the Commission’s regulations.
1. NEPA Scoping
Chelan PUD prepared and circulated a Scoping Document (SD) and an Initial Consultation Document (ICD) to federal, state and local resource agencies and other interested parties on October 5, 1998. Two formal public meetings to review and comment on the content of the SD were held the evenings of November 18 and 19, 1998. The Commission issued a public notice of the scoping meetings and site visit on October 20, 1998. Chelan PUD reviewed all comments received as a result of the scoping process
8 and issued a revised SD on July 16, 1999, which incorporated those comments. Comment letters and the dates received for the SD were:
Commenting Entities Date of Letter
Washington Department of Ecology ...... September 30, 1998 and January 19, 1999 Commission staff ...... January 14 and 29, 1999 North Cascades Conservation Council ...... January 14, 1999 U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service ...... January 15, 1999 Lake Chelan Sportsman’s Association ...... January 16, 1999 American Whitewater ...... January 18, 1999 American Rivers ...... January 19, 1999 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission ...... January 19, 1999 U.S. Department of the Interior ...... January 19, 1999 Lake Chelan Recreation Association ...... January 19, 1999 Northwest Ecosystem Alliance ...... January 19, 1999 U.S. Forest Service ...... January 19, 1999 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ...... January 19, 1999 Comission staff ...... August 6 and 10, 1999 American Rivers ...... August 11, 1999 Daniel Herber ...... August 19, 1999 U.S. National Park Service ...... August 25, 1999
2. Interventions and Comments
On April 29, 2002, the Commission issued a notice accepting Chelan PUD’s application to relicense the Lake Chelan Project. This notice set a 60-day period during which interventions and comments, as well as terms, conditions, prescriptions, and recommendations could be filed.
The following entities filed comments, terms, conditions, prescriptions, or recommendations. An (I) indicates the entity also filed a motion to intervene.
Entity Date of Letter
Washington Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation ...... May 17, 2002 U.S. Department of Agriculture (I) ...... May 30, 2002 U.S. Department of the Interior (I) ...... June 17, 2002 National Marine Fisheries Service (I) ...... June 17, 2002 Lake Chelan Valley Collaborative Stakeholders(I) ...... June 20, 2002 Washington Department of Ecology (I) ...... June 25, 2002
9 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ...... June 26, 2002 American Whitewater (I) ...... June 26, 2002 U.S. Department of the Interior ...... June 26, 2002 U.S. Forest Service ...... June 27, 2002 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (I) ...... June 28, 2002 American Rivers (I) ...... June 28, 2002 U.S. Department of the Interior ...... July 5, 2002
Chelan PUD filed reply comments by letter dated August 12, 2002.
The Commission issued a DEA for the proposed relicensing of the Lake Chelan Project on November 25, 2002, and requested that comments be filed within 45 days of the issuance date. The following entities commented:
Commenting Entities Date of Letter
Manson Park and Recreation District ...... December 4, 2002 American Rivers ...... January 6, 2003 Washington Department of Ecology ...... January 9, 2003 American Whitewater ...... January 9, 2003 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ...... January 9, 2003 Chelan PUD ...... January 9, 2003 National Marine Fisheries Service ...... January 10, 2003 U.S. Department of the Interior ...... January 10, 2003 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission ...... January 10, 2003 U.S. Forest Service ...... January 10, 2003 Chelan PUD ...... February 7, 2003
Our responses to the comments are found in Appendix A. We modified the FEA in response to the comments, as appropriate.
B. Compliance
1. Water Quality Certification
On March 27, 2002, Chelan PUD applied to the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) for Water Quality Certification (WQC) for the project, as required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The WDOE issued a WQC, with conditions, for the project on March 24, 2003. The WQC conditions, discussed in Section V.C.2, are summarized below.
10 Conditions I.A,C,E,F, and G are administrative conditions.
Condition I.B requires Chelan to implement the measures in the CRBEIP under the schedule agreed to within the Settlement Agreement.3
Condition I.D prohibits Chelan from discharging any solid or liquid waste without approval from WDOE.
Conditions II.A through G describe WDOE's findings.
Condition III.A requires Chelan to provide the minimum flows described in the CRBEIP to the bypassed reach.
Condition III.B requires Chelan to not exceed a ramping rate of 2 inches per hour within the Chelan River.
Condition III.C requires Chelan to implement flow security criteria for the tailrace as described in the CRBEIP.
Conditions IV.A and B require Chelan to improve habitat within Reach 4 of the bypassed reach and the tailrace as described in the CRBEIP.
Condition IV.C establishes biological objectives for chinook salmon and steelhead in Reach 4 and cutthroat trout in Reaches 1, 2 and 3 of the bypassed reach.
Conditions IV.D through J describes options for achieving biological objectives and various administrative measures related to achievement of biological objectives.
Conditions V.A through E require Chelan to monitor, model, and report on the water quality within the bypassed reach, penstock, and tailrace.
Conditions VI. A through C instruct Chelan to minimize impacts to turbidity and other water quality parameters during in-stream work and construction of habitat.
Conditions VII.A through C require Chelan implement measures to prevent and control oil, fuel, or chemical spills.
3At this time, no Settlement Agreement has been filed with the Commission or included as part of the 401 WQC; however, in several filings made with the Commission, Chelan has indicated it is participating in settlement discussions with various parties.
11 Conditions VIII and IX are administrative.
The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission filed an appeal with WDOE claiming that the 401 WQC is invalid and contrary to law. WDOE has set dates of March 1-3, 2004, for hearing the case.4
2. Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions
Section 18 of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. §811, states that the Commission shall require construction, maintenance and operation by a licensee of such fishways as the Secretaries of Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior (Interior) may prescribe. The Department of Commerce (letter dated June 27, 2002) and Interior (letter dated July 5, 2002) have asked the Commission to reserve their authority to prescribe the construction, operation and maintenance of any such fishways.
3. Section 4(e) Conditions
Because the Project occupies lands within the Wenatchee National Forest and the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) and the National Park Service (Park Service) have the authority to issue conditions under Section 4(e) of the FPA.5 Preliminary 4(e) conditions have been filed by the Forest Service (electronic filing dated July 5, 2002) and Interior, National Park Service (dated June 28, 2002), and are summarized below.
Forest Service Preliminary 4(e) conditions
(1) Reserves Forest Service authority to add to, delete from, or modify the preliminary terms and conditions in the event that the Licensee, the USDA Forest Service and other stakeholders enter into a settlement agreement resolving some or all of the issues.
(2) Reserves Forest Service the authority to modify their conditions if the term of the new license exceeds 30 years or if upon completion of the Forest Service appeals process substantial changes to terms and conditions are made.
4Depending on the disposition of other cases, the hearing could be moved up to November 12-14, 2003.
5 16 USC. 791a-825r 12 (3) Precludes the licensee from commencing implementation of habitat or ground disturbing activities on National Forest System lands pending completion of the appeals process
(3a) Obtain a special-use authorization for occupancy and use of National Forest System lands added to the Project area boundary in the new license.
(3b) Obtain written approval from the USDA Forest Service to the extent required by law prior to making changes in the location of any constructed Project features or facilities, or in the uses of Project land and waters on or affecting National Forest System lands and resources, or any departure from the requirements of any approved exhibits filed by the Licensee with the Commission.
(3c) Requires Chelan PUD, before starting any activity on National Forest System land that the Forest Service determines may affect another authorized activity, to resolve potential conflicts with representatives of those permitted uses.
(3d) Prepare site-specific plans two years in advance of required implementation dates for habitat and ground disturbing activities on National Forest System Lands including activities contained within resource management plans that will be prepared subsequent to license issuance.
(3e) Conduct or fund the environmental analysis necessary for site-specific plans including, but not limited to, scoping, site-specific resource analysis, and cumulative effects analysis sufficient to meet the criteria set forth in USDA Forest Service regulations for NEPA in existence at the time the process is initiated.
(4) Prepare a Resource Coordination and Monitoring Implementation Plan within two years of license issuance .
(5) Within three years of license issuance, re-establish the Public Land Survey Meander Corners, or establish witness corners governing National Forest System property boundaries within and adjacent to the Project area determined to have been lost due to construction or operation of the Project as of December, 2001
(6) Prepare a final CRMP.
(7) Conduct site-specific project level planning, in accordance with Condition (3b) for activities required by the license on National Forest System lands that could affect aesthetics resources, bur not covered under Condition 9.
13 (8) Prepare a final RRMP.
(9) Implement Erosion Control Treatments and Concepts for Lake Chelan Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests (Chelan PUD, 2001f).
(10) Implementat a plan to achieve the desired purposes and management actions described in the Large Woody Debris Management Plan (Chelan PUD, 2001h) on National Forest System lands.
(13) Develop, within 1 year of license issuance, a plan for restoring resident fish populations and habitat within the project area. in consultation with and subject to approval of USDA Forest Service and fund the plan within two years of license issuance. The overall objective of the plan is to provide for native fish access from Lake Chelan to Lake Chelan tributaries.
(14) Within one year of the license issuance, finalize a lake level operation plan, in consultation with and approved by the Forest Service. The plan shall be consistent with the provisions of the Lake Level Management Draft (Chelan PUD, 2002f) and the Chelan River (Bypassed Reach) Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan (Chelan PUD, 2001d) with the exceptions of drought, high runoff, and late runoff.
(15) Prepare and implement an Integrated Weed Management Plan (IWMP) in consultation with and subject to approval by the USDA Forest Service and file the plan with the Commission.
Interior preliminary 4(e) conditions:
(1) Reserves Interior's right to add to, delete from, or modify the preliminary terms and conditions in the event that the Licensee, the National Park Service, and other federal and state agencies enter into a settlement agreement resolving some or all of the issues raised in this ongoing license proceeding, in order to provide preliminary terms and conditions that are consistent with the terms of any such agreement.
(2.1) Reserves Interiors's authority to modify conditions upon the issuance of a new license by the Commission for a term exceeding 30 years or upon completion of the administrative appeals process.
(2 2) Requires Chelan PUD to work with the National Park Service and other interested parties to develop operatingprocedures to implement the various actions specified in the management plans within one year of receiving a new license.
14 (2.3) Requires an administrative General Agreement to be completed between the Licensee and the National Park Service within one year of receiving a new license for the transfer of funds to accomplish protection, mitigation, and enhancement work.
(2.4) Requires Chelan PUD to establish Resource Coordinating Committees for water quality, fisheries; erosion control, recreation, and cultural resources with a membership representing FERC, Chelan PUD, and the major stakeholders, plus an Adaptive Management Team of decision-makers that meets once every five years to assure that the Terms and Conditions and associated license articles are: Cost efficient and effective, Objectively monitored and evaluated; and Representative of the best available management and scientific information in an established assessment process.
(2.5) Requires the Licensee or Commission to fund any environmental or cultural resource compliance required by later modifications) of the license articles and projects through adaptive management, in compliance with, but not limited to, the National Environmental Policy Act or the National Historic Preservation Act.
(3) Requires Chelan PUD to finalize a lake level operation plan, for National Park Service approval, to reduce the duration of full pool. This plan shall help reduce shoreline erosion and restore aquatic habitat while ensuring that the recreation season needs are met.
(4) Requires Chelan PUD to complete erosion control measures for identified sites.
(5) Requires Chelan to prepare and implement a plan to acive the desired purposes and Management action in Large Woody Debris Management Plan, December, 2001
(6) Requires Chelan to reduce the magnitude and duration of the fugitive dust events (especially total suspended particulates (TSP), a dust plume blown into Stehekin Landing and further down lake from the exposed reservoir drawdown zone, by 25% in the first 10 years and 50% in the first 20 years of the license period.
(7) Requires Chelan PUD to protect the existing riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat along the reservoir shoreline and in the inundation zone from further loss, plus enlarge and connect these riparian areas. Riparian wildlife species richness and population dynamics would be monitoring indicators of success or failure in rehabilitating the riparian plant community along the shoreline under the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan, "Monitoring Native Riparian Wildlife".
15 (8) Requires Chelan to reduce of the current abundance, distribution, and cover of reed canary grass and other non-native invasive plant species and noxious weeds along the reservoir shoreline as described in the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan.
(9.1) Requires Chelan PUD to monitor the topographic effects of reservoir water levels on the Stehekin River channel using hydraulic models, cross-section measurements, and aerial photography to determine long-term trends in sedimentation at the river mouth and within the hydraulic backwater zone is required.
(9.2) Requires Chelan PUD, to monitor the Total Suspended Particles (TSP) portion of fugitive dust events as an indicator of dust abatement once every 5 years from mid-March to mid-June at Stehekin Landing.
(9.3) Requires Chelan PUD to monitor abundance, distribution, and cover of native riparian plants and non-native plants along the reservoir shoreline to determine their status and trends.
(9.4) Requires Chelan PUD, to monitor the environmental effects of large woody material and rock placed in the drawdown zone for dust abatement once every 10 years for the duration of the license period.
(9.5) Requires Chelan PUD, to monitor Osprey and Bald Eagle demography at Stehekin annually for the period of the license.
(9.6) Requires Chelan PUD to monitor riparian wildlife to determine the status and trends of these populations (abundance, distribution, and species richness) and their community patterns along the reservoir shoreline.
(10) Requires Chelan PUD to complete a RRMP and implementation schedule that addresses the maintenance of existing recreation facilities, boat docks and associated campgrounds, to acceptable National Park Service standards.
(11) Requires Chelan PUD to provide for improvements to the recreation facilities at Stehekin Landing and marina including construction of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible floating dock to accommodate year around use by commercial ferries, a covered visitor contact shelter, a public boat ramp, improved parking at the landing and stabilization of the landing area and bulkhead.
(12) Requires Chelan PUD to construct a floating dock and campground at Riddle Creek to accommodate future increases in visitor use that will result from the proposed lake
16 level operations for the new license period. The boat dock should would useable from May 15th to September 30th.
(13) Requires a CRMP to implement inventory, evaluation and assessment, mitigation, and monitoring of those cultural resources.
(13.1) Requires Chelan PUD to obtain approval of the CRMP by the State Historic Preservation Officer and begin to implement this plan within the first year of the license.
(13.2) Requires Chelan PUD to conduct limited test excavations of several pre-contact age archeological sites for the purpose of assessing their potential significance according to National Register criteria.
(13.3) Requires Chelan PUD to conduct an intensive archeological survey and limited test excavations of historic-age (post-1815) archeological sites for the purpose of assessing their potential significance according to National Register criteria.
(13.4) Requires Chelan PUD to conduct studies, in collaboration with project affected tribal governments, such as the Colville Confederated Tribes and the Yakama Nation, for the purpose of assessing their potential significance according to National Register criteria.
(13.5) Requires Chelan PUD to assure that other protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures do not conflict with the protection of cultural resources
(14.1) Requires Chelan PUD to serves as a coordinator of a Fisheries Advisory Committee in thedevelopment and implementation of a Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan (CFMP) and fish monitoring and evaluation plan (M&E plan).
(14.2) Requires Chelan PUD to provide funds to support recovery of west slope cutthroat trout and to maintain recreational fishing opportunities for cutthroat trout.
(14.3) Requires Chelan PUD assists the Park Service and other management agencies by providing annual funds and support to monitor and evaluate status and trends in cutthroat populations, and for assessment and evaluation of management actions focused on cutthroat trout recovery and protection.
(14.4) Requires Chelan PUD to fund and support to continue ongoing annual kokanee spawner assessments in the Stehekin River and other Lake Chelan tributaries. In addition, Chelan PUD would provide funds and support to expand existing kokanee spawner surveys in order to allow statistical extrapolation of the total number of spawners
17 in the mainstem, side channels, and tributaries of the Stehekin River, and to provide information concerning their distribution within the Stehekin system.
(14.5) Requires Chelan PUD to assist the Park Service and other management agencies by providing funding and support to develop and implement a bull trout recovery plan for the Chelan basin.
(14.6) Requires Chelan PUD to assist the Park Service and other management agencies by providing funds and support to conduct a bioenergetics study concerning relationships of competition, predation, and lake productivity required to assess impacts of non- native fish on native fish populations.
(14.7) Requires Chelan PUD to manage water levels in Lake Chelan to eliminate alluvial barrier development and optimize available spawning, incubation and rearing habitat in tributaries.
(14.8) Requires Chelan PUD to coordinate annual monitoring for fish passage transitory barriers in the lower reaches and drawdown zone of tributaries, and for timely removal of all identified barriers (transitory barriers include drift logs and accumulations of sediment and debris caused by project operations).
(14.9) Requires Chelan PUD to develop and implement a plan to minimize loss of fish through entrainment/spills.
4. Section 10(j) Recommendations
Under Section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission must include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. The Commission is required to include these conditions unless it determines that they are inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA or other applicable law. Before rejecting or modifying an agency recommendation, the Commission is required to attempt to resolve any such inconsistency with the agency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency.
Section 10(j) recommendations were filed by the following entities: National Marine Fisheries Service (letter dated June 27, 2002); Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (letter dated June 26, 2002); and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (letter dated July 5, 2002). The agency-recommended measures include: minimum flows, ramping
18 rates, lake level management, tributary access improvements, bypassed reach habitat improvements, and wildlife habitat enhancements.
Table 21, in Section VIII lists each of the recommendations subject to Section 10(j), and whether the recommendations are recommended for adoption under the staff alternative. Recommendations that we consider outside the scope of Section 10(j) have been considered under Section 10(a) of the FPA. All recommendations are addressed in the specific resource sections of this EA.
By letters dated November 29, 2002, we advised the above agencies of our preliminary findings of inconsistency. The agencies responded to our 10(j) letter within their comment letters on the DEA. Only one agency, NMFS, requested a meeting to discuss our findings. Since we have revised several of our recommendations, we intend to schedule a 10(j) meeting with NMFS pending their review of the FEA.
5. Endangered Species Act
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened species or to cause the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species. Three federally listed fish species (bull trout, Upper Columbia summer steelhead and Upper Columbia spring-run chinook salmon), five federally listed wildlife species (bald eagle, Canada lynx, northern spotted owl, gray wolf and grizzly bear), and one federally listed botanical species (Ute ladies-tresses) could occur in the project area. Our assessment of effects on listed species is discussed in Section V.C.5. We conclude that licensing the Lake Chelan Project with staff recommended measures would not affect the Canada lynx, northern spotted owl (or its critical habitat), gray wolf, and grizzly bear; would not be likely to adversely affect the bald eagle, Ute ladies-tresses, bull trout, and Upper Columbia River spring-run spring chinook salmon; but would be likely to adversely affect Upper Columbia River steelhead due to displacement and disturbance of juvenile and perhaps adult steelhead from turbidity and noise resulting from construction of habitat improvements in the bypassed reach and tailrace. This FEA serves as our biological assessment. We will be seeking concurrence with our determinations from the FWS and requesting formal consultation with the NMFS following issuance of the FEA. Need to update
6. Coastal Zone Management Act
According to a personal communication between Jeff Marti, WDOE and Jeff Osborne, Chelan PUD, WDOE does not intend to require a Costal Zone Management Consistency Statement for the Lake Chelan Project (source: www.chelanpud.org).
19 7. National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) requires that federal agencies consider the effects of their actions, and actions that they may assist, permit, or license, on historical properties, and that those agencies give the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such actions. Section 106 applies to properties that have been listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), properties that have been determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register, and properties that may be eligible but which have not yet been evaluated.
Chelan PUD developed a Historic Properties Protection Plan (HPRP) in consultation with the SHPO, Forest Service, Interior, Yakama Nation, Colville Tribes, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, and the ACHP that outlines appropriate treatment plans for cultural resources that have been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. We intend, subsequent to the issuance of this EA, to execute a programmatic agreement (PA) among the Commission, SHPO, and Council with the other consulted entities as concurring parties. The PA would implement the HPRP as a condition of any new license issued.
8. Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act
Under section 4 (h) of the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act, the Council developed the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program to protect, mitigate, and enhance the operation of the hydroelectric projects within the Columbia River Basin. Section 4(h) states that responsible federal and state agencies should provide equitable treatment for fish and wildlife resources, in addition to other purposes for which hydropower is developed, and that these agencies shall take into account, to the fullest extent practicable, the program adopted under the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act.
Chelan PUD’s proposed fish and wildlife enhancements are discussed in Sections V. of this EA. The recommendations are consistent with applicable provisions of the program. Further, a condition of any new license issued would reserve to the Commission the authority to require future alterations in project structures and operations to take into account, to the fullest extent practicable, the applicable provisions of the Program.
As part of the program, the Council designated over 40,000 miles of river in the Pacific Northwest region as “protected areas” which are not suitable for hydroelectric development. The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project is not located within a protected
20 area. In addition, because this is a relicensing proceeding for an existing project, it is not affected by the protected area designation.6
V. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In this section, the environmental setting in the Lake Chelan Basin and the scope of the cumulative effects analysis are described. Environmental analysis of the proposed action and action alternatives is also included. Sections are organized by resource area (geological and soil resources, etc.). Under each resource area, historical and current conditions are described. The existing environment is the baseline against which the environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives are compared. Then, for each resource area the environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives are described, including an assessment of the effects of proposed mitigation, protection and enhancement measures and any potential cumulative effects of the proposed actions and alternatives.
A. General Description of the Lake Chelan Basin
Lake Chelan, the third deepest freshwater lake in the nation, is located between two significantly different physiographic provinces in North Central Washington, the Cascade Mountains to the west and the Columbia Plateau to the east. The project area is bordered to the south by the Entiat and Chelan Mountains and the Glacier Peak geological complex and to the north by the Sawtooth Mountain Range. Topographic elevations in the Project vicinity range from over 9,000 feet above sea level at the crest of the Cascade Mountains to 700 feet on the Columbia River.
The majority of inflow to Lake Chelan is from two major tributaries. The Stehekin River, which extends along the glacial valley beyond the head of the lake, provides 65 percent of the total inflow to Lake Chelan, and Railroad Creek located in the Upper Basin Zone provides 10 percent of the total lake inflow. Approximately 50 small streams provide the remaining 25 percent of the total inflow. Due to the shape of the valley, most tributaries have steep gradients and are short.
Lake Chelan is a long and narrow glacial lake situated on the east slope of the Cascade Mountains. From Twentyfive Mile Creek uplake, the terrain is mountainous and
6 Section 12.2A of the Program specifically excludes from its protected area requirements hydroelectric developments licensed or exempted before August 10, 1998, and relicenses of existing projects.
21 rugged. In many cases, steep slopes run directly into the lake with no flat beaches or shoreline. The terrain of the lower end of the lake is much less severe and mainly arid to semi-arid. The upper end of Lake Chelan is bordered by approximately 50 miles of shoreline in National Forest and almost 12 miles of shoreline in National Park land.. The lower end of the lake is primarily in private ownership and is very popular for summer recreation.
The climate in the project vicinity is predominantly the semi-arid type typical of Eastern Washington; however, significant variations in climate exist between the two ends of the lake. Average annual precipitation in the area ranges from a high of 150 inches near the crest of the Cascade Mountains to a low of 11 inches at the Columbia River. Total annual precipitation at Stehekin at the head of the lake averages 35 inches, the majority of which is snowfall from November through March. Temperatures fluctuate widely with the seasons. At Chelan, the average summer maximum temperature for the month of July is 86.4° Fahrenheit (F), while the average minimum temperature for January is 19.8°F. Extreme recorded temperatures range from a low of minus 15°F to a high of 106°F.
Significant variation also occurs in vegetation, ranging from moderately dense stands of mixed conifer forest along the upper end of the lake to mixed ponderosa pine and shrub-steppe (sage/bitter brush) zones at the lower end and downstream of the lake.
Downstream of the dam, the 3.9-mile-long Chelan River is bypassed by the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project. The bypassed reach, also known as the gorge, passes through glacial moraine and outwash deposits and then a segment of bedrock, dropping about 360.5 feet between the dam and its confluence with the Columbia River. The Lake Chelan Project is the only hydropower project on the Chelan River. The project drains into the Columbia River about 20 miles upstream of Chelan PUD’s Rocky Reach Project and 30 miles upstream of the Rock Island Project.
B. Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis
According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s Regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA—40 CFR §1508.7), an action may cause cumulative effects on the environment if its effects overlap in space and/or time with effects of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time, including hydropower and other land and water development activities.
22 We have identified water use within the Chelan basin as having the potential to be cumulatively affected by this project in combination with the operations of other small hydropower developments [at Lucerne Resort (currently out of operation), Copper Creek at Holden Village, Buckner, and Stehekin] and of non-hydropower activities, such as water supply, irrigation and flood control.
1. Geographic Scope
The geographic scope of the analysis defines the physical limits or boundaries of the proposed action’s effects on the resources. Our analysis of the cumulative effects on water resources is limited in geographic scope to Lake Chelan and its tributaries and to the Chelan River downstream to its confluence with the Columbia River, about 3.9 miles downstream of the dam.
2. Temporal Scope
The temporal scope of analysis includes a consideration of the past, present, and future actions and their effects on fishery resources. Based on the term of the proposed license, we projected 30 to 50 years into the future, concentrating on the effects on water use from reasonably foreseeable future actions. The historical discussion is limited, by necessity, to the amount of available information. We identified the present resource conditions based on the license application, comprehensive plans, and scoping comments received from various agencies.
C. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives
In this section, the effects of the proposed action and action alternatives on environmental resources are discussed. For each resource, the affected environment, which is the existing condition and baseline against which we measure effects, is described. Specific environmental issues are then discussed and analyzed.
1. Geological and Soils Resources
Affected environment:
Lake Chelan
Lake Chelan is a 1,486-foot-deep lake that predates the project. Its valley and much of the geomorphology of the area resulted from glaciation. The lake is retained in a basin by bedrock overlain by a moraine formed by glaciers that scoured out the lake bed.
23 The natural outfall from the lake and the location of the project dam are at its southeast end in the City of Chelan.
Glacial till materials along Lake Chelan are variable in texture and source but generally consist of gravel and cobbles in a matrix of silty sand. Most of the colluvial soils are composed of the same materials but have been more recently deposited. Some colluvial deposits, derived from bedrock rather than till, are rockier with less silty sand. A few deposits of silty sand without gravel or cobbles can be found around the lake. These are often associated with areas of slumping because of their lower permeability and strength. Alluvial deposits found at tributary mouths range from sand to cobbles and boulders, depending on the source materials and configuration of the tributary and its fan. Outwash deposits found around the lower end of the lake range from silty sands to sandy gravel and cobbles.
The susceptibility of the various Lake Chelan soils to erosion varies widely. Some of the tills are resistant, while the colluvial and alluvial deposits erode more easily. In many parts of the drawdown zone around the lake, the finer particles which form the matrix of the tills and colluvial deposits have been removed from the near-surface soils by wave action, leaving behind coarse gravels, cobbles and boulders. Alternatively, where slopes are flatter and sandy soils more predominant, the drawdown zone is characterized by sand or sandy gravel.
There are examples of slope instability, including some slumping, rockslides and debris flows, along portions of the relatively steep shoreline. Some of these appear to be related to weathering of the slope materials, groundwater seepage through fine soils or human activities other than project operations, and some are more likely related to the development or operation of the project. Historical photographs show a natural rock beach in the lake fluctuation zone of about 1,079 to 1,085 feet. Historical photographs also typically show timber clearing operations or semi-open shrub steppe. None of the photographs show any incidences of erosion at or near the 1,100-foot elevation.
Sediment deposits at the mouths of some tributaries have created barriers to upstream fish spawning areas. A tributary barriers analysis that focused on eight representative tributaries showed sediment barriers in seven of the eight study tributaries (about 95 percent of all spawning occurs at these eight tributaries). These barriers become exposed to varying degrees when the lake level is drawn down below the normal maximum pool elevation of 1,100 USGS. All seven barriers are exposed when the lake is below an elevation of 1,090 USGS. These barriers are of concern whenever they are exposed, particularly during the period from April to June when cutthroat and rainbow trout are attempting upstream migration for spawning. This issue is discussed further in Section V.C.3, fisheries resources.
24 Stehekin Flats
At the head of the lake, the delta of the Stehekin River forms a broad flat area known as Stehekin Flats, much of which is covered by silty sand. A mixture of shoreline wetlands and deciduous riparian zones grading into cedar and other lowland conifers originally covered this area. Project records mention riparian species such as cottonwoods, cedar, fir and willows. The Fields Hotel and several other buildings and homesteads were located in this area. The portion of the area that was inundated by the project is approximately 310 acres, roughly 175 of which is seasonally exposed in a typical year.
The flow in the Stehekin River presumably slows and drops some of its sediment load in this area, though the area available for deposition varies with lake level. Localized flooding of the shoreline occurs when the river experiences high flows. Stehekin Flats is inundated most of the year when lake levels are high, but is exposed when the lake is drawn down in late winter through spring. In early spring, wind passing down the valley can pick up dust from Stehekin Flats and carry it downlake into Stehekin Landing.
Chelan River (bypassed reach)
Prior to the development of the dam, the Chelan River naturally drained Lake Chelan. The 3.9-mile-long river channel, which is currently bypassed except when the project is spilling water, passes through glacial moraine, outwash deposits and bedrock before joining the Columbia River. The river quickly changes from a shallow broad outwash plain to a narrow walled valley, and then a rapidly descending narrow gorge.
The bypassed reach gradient varies widely (0.4-9.0 percent) but is steep at several points. The bypassed reach can be conveniently divided into four subsections (Figure 2). Reach 1, immediately downstream of the dam, has a relatively low gradient (1 percent). Moraine and outwash remains from the glaciation of the area are found throughout Reach 1. Some of these deposits are over-consolidated and slightly cemented and so are able to stand at slopes much steeper than their normal angle of repose. The valley is relatively open in this reach, but there are a number of areas characterized by steep or near-vertical erosion faces over 100 feet high. Though the outwash deposits are susceptible to erosion, these faces existed pre-project in roughly their present form.
Reach 2 maintains a similar gradient, but the stream channel is cut into bedrock and the valley is narrower and steep-sided. Reach 3, commonly known as the gorge, has the steepest gradient (9 percent) of the four reaches. Reach 4 extends from the gorge to
25 the confluence with the Columbia River. Here the river flows mostly through gravel, cobbles and larger rock deposited during floods. Reach 4 has the flattest gradient (0.4 percent) of the four reaches.
An inventory of erosion identified 21 erosion sites along the bypassed reach (Chelan PUD, 2000a). All of these sites were on Chelan PUD land. Erosion and transport of sand and gravel along the bypassed reach have partially filled a portion of the project tailrace, creating approximately 1.8 acres of spawning habitat for anadromous salmonids.
Environmental impacts and recommendations:
Lake Level Management
The annual fluctuation of lake levels under project operation can affect shoreline erosion. During the current license term, the lake has been filled earlier and kept full into the fall to enhance recreational access. This may have aggravated shoreline erosion by exposing parts of the shoreline most susceptible to wave action for a longer period each year.
Chelan PUD proposes a change in lake level management that would lower the water more quickly in late summer and fall (see Table 1, and Figures 2 and 3), but raise it earlier in the summer. The proposal is based on the last of 14 operating regimes (PME14) evaluated by a Lake Level Management Group that met throughout the pre- filing consultation process.
The primary purpose of the new regime is to improve fish access to the lake's tributaries (see Section V.C.3, Fisheries Resources for that discussion), but it is also expected to reduce erosion. Chelan PUD's lake level management proposal is reflected in a paper dated February 25, 2002, referenced by several agencies in their recommendations, and described below.
Chelan PUD's proposal is to manage minimum elevations for Lake Chelan within the following set of priorities:
(1) maintaining minimum flows in the Chelan River (priority over lake levels); (2) reducing high flows in the Chelan River (priority over lake levels); (3) satisfying regulatory requirements for flood control (lake level); (4) providing usable lake levels for recreation (which varies between elevation 1,090 and 1,098 ft. depending on the slope of the shoreline and boat dock configurations);
26 (5) reducing shoreline erosion; and (6) enhancing tributary fish passage.
Chelan PUD intends to obtain the following minimum elevations by the dates below (within reasonable predictive probability):
Table 1. Proposed Minimum lake Level Targets
Day Minimum Elevation (ft) May 1 1,087.6 June 1 1,094.0 July 1 1,098.0 August 1 1,099.0 September 7 1,098.7 October 1 1,097.2
Operation in accordance with the conditions and minimum elevations described above is expected to result in the average monthly elevations and lake level cycle shown below in Table 2 and illustrated by Figure 3.
Table 2. Average Monthly lake levels (feet, USGS) for the original license, existing license, and proposed lake level cycle (Source: Chelan PUD) Day Original License Existing License Proposed (1927-1981) (1981-2000) Alternative January 1 1,090.7 1,091.7 1,089.2 February 1 1,088.4 1,089.2 1,087.1 March 1 1,086.6 1,087.1 1,085.7 April 1 1,085.6 1,086.3 1,085.4 May 1 1,087.6 1,088.0 1,087.8 June 1 1,094.8 1,094.4 1,095.2 July 1 1,099.3 1,099.2 1,099.3 August 1 1,099.7 1,099.7 1,099.7 September 1* 1,098.8 1,099.5 1,098.9 October 1 1,096.9 1,098.3 1,097.4 November 1 1,094.7 1,095.8 1,094.3 December 1 1,092.9 1,094.2 1,091.8 *September 1-7 (Labor Day)
27 Figure 1. Comparison of averages for Lake Chelan elevations
Interior, in their Condition No. 3, Forest Service, in their Condition No. 14, and WDFW in recommendation Item 4, would require that Chelan PUD finalize a lake level operating plan based on the proposed lake level operating plan. The agencies believe that the modified lake level regime would help reduce shoreline erosion, restore aquatic habitat, and provide for recreation needs. They note that shoreline erosion is documented in Chelan PUD's Shoreline Erosion Inventory.
WDFW also recommends that the plan include maximum monthly elevations (for flood control). Under WDFW's plan, Chelan PUD would manage the water surface elevation of Lake Chelan to minimize the frequency and magnitude of involuntary spill into the Chelan River channel in excess of the design capacity of proposed channel modifications in the bypassed reach (discussed further in Section V.C.3 Fisheries). This would be accomplished in part by managing the water surface elevation between elevation 1,094.0 and 1,098.0 for the period June 1 through July 15. The actual daily elevation would be managed based upon prevailing hydraulic conditions, re: tributary inflow volume and timing, to achieve elevation 1,098.0 no later than July 15. For the
28 period September 7 through November 1 Chelan PUD would draft the lake at a rate which results in a lake elevation of 1,094.3 by November 1.
Our Analysis
Based on the results of Chelan PUD's erosion study (Chelan PUD 2000a), operation of the project is one of the main contributing factors to shoreline erosion at lake Chelan, most of which is due to wave action. Other factors include boat wakes, shoreline traffic, surface drainage, and construction activity. Shoreline erosion is, overall, a minor problem at Lake Chelan, and appears to be advancing slowly, but is expected to continue through a new license term. Although much erosion is likely unavoidable, the way the reservoir level is managed can either improve conditions or accelerate the process.
Average monthly lake levels under the proposed regime would be lower 9 months of the year [January-May and September-December] compared to the current, baseline condition. The monthly average during these periods would be 0.2 to 2.5 feet lower. This change in lake level management should decrease shoreline erosion by reducing the amount of time that parts of the shoreline most susceptible are exposed to wave action. The proposed changes in lake level management would also have a net positive effect on potential undermining of existing structures along the shoreline, again by reducing the amount of time that the bases of these structures are exposed to wave action. The amount of shoreline erosion attributable to project operation and therefore the actual effect of the proposed change is, however, difficult to quantify given the number of factors involved.
There appears to be general agreement among the agencies that Chelan PUD's proposed lake level regime is appropriate and would be effective, but Interior, the Forest Service, and WDFW all recommend that a final plan be developed. Collaboration in the development of a final plan would facilitate resolution of plan details such as triggering mechanisms and whether monthly minimum or maximum levels are appropriate.
Erosion Control
An inventory of shoreline erosion identified 232 individual erosion sites along the lake (Chelan PUD, 2000a). Of the identified sites, 39 are located on Park Service lands, and 117 are located on Forest Service lands. Chelan PUD proposes to perform repairs or provide funds for repairing and monitoring identified erosion sites. They have developed separate plans for erosion control on Park Service and Forest Service lands.
Interior, in their Condition 4 would require erosion control measures at 17 sites identified in Chelan PUD's Erosion Inventory Report and in an Park Service Erosion Control Plan. Interior is recommending shoreline stabilization using native materials,
29 revegetation, monitoring and maintenance, and mitigation (unspecified). Interior states that at all of these sites, existing recreational, public safety and access or management facilities are threatened by erosion caused by operation of the project. Interior Condition 5 is related, and would require Chelan PUD to include Large Woody Material in the design of the erosion control sites through the implementation of a Large Woody Material Management Plan based on an existing Chelan PUD plan (Chelan PUD, 2001h).
Chelan PUD, in their reply comments notes that their proposal for erosion control on Interior land is reflected in: Lake Chelan Erosion Control Plan, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (Chelan PUD, 2001g). Under that plan, Chelan PUD would provide $789, 875 to the Park Service who would implement the plan. Chelan PUD also notes that under their proposed Recreational Resources Management Plan (Chelan PUD, 2001e), they would provide an additional $209,000 to the Park Service for erosion control at recreation sites affected by erosion.
Chelan PUD believes that Condition No. 4 and its justification, as stated by the Park Service, assume that Chelan PUD will implement the plan. They also state that the Park Service has not taken into account key factors important to the shoreline erosion control work. These include damage waivers and the actual significance of the erosion at certain of the listed sites. For instance, Chelan PUD states that several of the sites are covered by damage waivers in which the landowner released Chelan PUD from responsibility for a variety of damages, including those caused by erosion. The damage waivers are not contingent on land use or current ownership. In purchasing land covered by these waivers, Chelan PUD contends that Park Service accepted responsibility for the effects of project operation or shoreline erosion.
Regarding LWM, Chelan PUD does not believe there is any identified project effect on either the entry of LWM into Lake Chelan or its retention in the lake. Chelan PUD contends the majority of LWD entering Lake Chelan is from tributary streams during flood events or following fires, and that LWD from the lake shoreline is minor because the shoreline consists mostly of steep, rocky shorelines and cliffs on the west end of the lake and rolling hillsides with shrub-steppe vegetation on the east end of the lake. Chelan PUD feels that erosion of lake shoreline, whether affected by the project's operation or not, is a minor contributor to LWD because there are very few trees at the normal high water line and little riparian vegetation along the lake. Chelan PUD doesn't believe the project causes a loss of LWD from the lake because LWD typically becomes waterlogged and sinks before it reaches the end of the lake near the project dam. Chelan PUD adds that operation of the project does not change water velocities, wind or other parameters that could affect the downstream movement of LWD, and no change in LWD transport, as a result of project operations, has been observed or documented since prior to project development. Most removal of LWD results from actions taken following
30 major flood events, when very large quantities of LWD posed hazards to navigation following flood events. Chelan PUD notes that a cleanup effort was done for navigation safety in 1996 following the flood event of 1995. This cleanup removed an estimated 690 tons of LWD from the lake, including more than 900 large logs. Some of the wood from 1995 was used for ecological purposes in tributary enhancements. Other activities that result in the removal of LWD are human associated, ranging from collection of driftwood for firewood at campsites to removal by boaters.
Chelan PUD has, however, agreed to include LWD in the design and implementation of erosion control measures on lands owned by the Park Service and Forest Service. The use of LWD for erosion control on these federal lands is defined under either: Lake Chelan Erosion Control Plan or the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan (Chelan PUD, July 2002). Under this tentative agreement, Chelan PUD would only be responsible for the procurement and placement of LWD at the sites that would be funded by Chelan PUD. Chelan PUD would participate in the procurement and stockpiling of LWD as defined in the Lake Chelan Large Woody Debris Management Plan, final issued December 7, 2001, for those erosion control sites that will be funded by Chelan PUD.
Forest Service Condition No. 9 would require that Chelan PUD develop an Erosion Control Plan that implements Erosion Control Treatments and Concepts for Lake Chelan, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests (Chelan PUD, 2001f). The plan is to address site-specific locations with conceptual procedures, measures, and actions Chelan PUD would undertake to control shoreline erosion on National Forest System lands. The plan would require Chelan PUD to develop site-specific plans for erosion control, erosion prevention, and/or remediation activities on a list of priority sites. The condition would also require that Chelan PUD develop and implement an erosion monitoring plan within two years of license issuance.
Chelan PUD, in their reply comments notes that under the proposed erosion control plan for Forest Service land, Chelan PUD would implement erosion control measures at 39 Forest Service sites covering 9,383 feet of shoreline.
WDFW recommends (10(j) Recommendation 5) that within one year of license issuance, Chelan PUD prepare a plan to assist, direct, and participate in prevention, containment, and restoration of eroded shoreline areas of Lake Chelan. Within two years of license issuance Chelan PUD would implement the plan, including funding. WDFW 10(j) recommendation 6 is related, and would require that Chelan PUD, within two years of the date of license issuance, finalize a large woody debris (LWD) distribution and monitoring plan, in consultation with a Fishery Advisory Committee (FAC) and approved by WDFW, and file it with the Commission. The intent of this plan would be to
31 distribute an adequate supply of LWD for use in WDFW-approved projects of shoreline protection, erosion control, restoration of eroded sites, and improvement of fish and wildlife habitat on non-federal shore lands. The plan would also include funding and distribution of LWD to intermediate storage sites in the southern half of the lake, placing and storing LWD in intermediate sites, with delivery to the user at the lake shore (as appropriate). Chelan PUD would fund all aspects of LWD intermediate storage sites, including acquisition, operation, and any required rehabilitation of storage sites. WDFW's desired intermediate LWD storage locations are: (1) Green’s Landing-to- Wapato Point, (2) Mill Bay-to-Spader’s Bay, (3) Lakeside-to-Sunnybank, and (4) Missouri Harbor-to-Twenty-five Mile Creek. Chelan PUD also would fund monitoring to determine the effectiveness of (a) shoreline use of LWD as to safety of structures, fisheries and wildlife use, benthic production, and reducing wave energies, erosion control, and restoration of eroded sites, and (b) deep-water use of LWD as to safety of structures, fisheries and wildlife use, and benthic production. The provisions of this plan would be coordinated with, and/or integrated into other programs of erosion control and would be reviewed and modified as appropriate at five-year intervals, or sooner as monitoring indicates modifications are needed.
Chelan PUD, in their reply comments states that, while they have agreed to include LWD placement as part of their proposed erosion control on federal lands affected by project operation, they do not agree that the project has affected LWD delivery to the lake. Chelan PUD, therefore, only proposes a limited use of LWD as a measure that could be used to control erosion.
Our analysis
Based on Chelan PUD's inventory of erosion sites, the sites have a combined length of 18.8 miles, or about 16 percent of the 118.8 miles of shoreline. The average rate of recession is estimated to be about 0.14 feet per year, which is equivalent to a total loss of about 0.3 acres per year or about 9 acres over the term of a 30-year license, assuming the rate of recession stays the same. Given that the project potentially affects a 188.8 mile-long, 21-foot-wide (at the least) strip of shoreline (between elevation 1079 and 1100), this level of erosion seems very minor. Put another way; of a minimum of 301.6 acres of shoreline potentially affected, only 9 acres or about 3 percent of shoreline material would be lost due to erosion over the term of a 30 year license.
However, some of the erosion sites affect recreational access, and access to emergency response and administration facilities. Seventeen such high priority sites are the focus of the proposed erosion control measures under the erosion control plan for Park Service lands (Chelan PUD 2001g), which is reasonable. Thirty-three priority sites
32 are identified in the proposed plan for sites on Forest Service land (Chelan PUD, 2001f).
Implementation of erosion control plans for Park Service, and Forest Service lands would ensure stabilization of high-priority erosion sites that are actively eroding and would lessen or eliminate future erosion at these sites. Monitoring the shoreline against the baseline established during the relicensing studies would identify where future remedial measures are needed. Regarding LWM, because of the nature of the shoreline and the overall low level of erosion, it appears the project has little effect, except on those occasions when LWM was removed after flood events. The use of LWM as a potential habitat enhancement is addressed in Section V.C.3.
Bypassed reach erosion
High spillway flows can occur in years of high snow-pack and/or late runoff if the lake is kept at or raised to higher water elevations too early in the year. The proposed operation would lessen this by providing longer-term releases at lower levels and by allowing delays of a few to several days in reaching minimum elevations for May 1, June 1 and July 1 during years of unusually high snow-pack and/or late runoff.
Survey monument location and replacement
Twenty-five survey control monuments around the lake’s perimeter were difficult or impossible to locate during survey work over the last few decades. Some of these have been lost to erosion or other hazards or were not relocated when the lake was initially raised. The Forest Service considers these survey monuments important to its land management.
Forest Service Condition No. 5 would require that Chelan PUD re-establish Public Land Survey Meander Corners, or establish witness corners governing National Forest System property boundaries within and adjacent to the project area determined to have been lost due to construction or operation of the project as of December, 2001 and those corners that may be affected by implementation of activities on National Forest System lands required by the license.
In their reply comments, Chelan PUD states that while they have agreed to support the re-establishment of certain survey corners, they do not believe that the project has caused the loss of all corners. They cite a Survey Monument Location and Re- establishment Plan (Chelan PUD and Forest Service, 2001). Under that plan, Chelan PUD would provide funding of up to $80,000 for survey work to locate, re-establish if needed, and document 26 survey corners.
33 Our analysis
Survey monuments can facilitate survey activities associated with project facilities and recreation sites. Relocating or re-establishing survey monuments would benefit future surveying activities and land management in the area. Implementation of proposed erosion control measures at high-priority erosion sites, along with the proposed new lake level management regime, would reduce shoreline erosion and the likelihood of future loss of survey monuments. However, given the limited number of survey corners that would be located at the reservoir margin, and the low degree of erosion at the project, it seems unlikely that the loss of most survey markers has been project related.
Stehekin Area Sedimentation
Interior Condition No. 9 would require that Chelan PUD monitor the topographic effects of reservoir water levels on the Stehekin River channel using hydraulic models, cross-section measurements, and aerial photos to determine long-term trends in sedimentation at the river mouth and within the hydraulic backwater.
In their reply comments, Chelan PUD states that they have tentatively agreed to address the issue of monitoring at the Stehekin River mouth as part of the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan, July 31, 2002. Under that plan, Chelan PUD would provide up to $90,000 and would implement monitoring of the river channel near its mouth for long term changes. The proposed monitoring would include resurveying selected cross sections at approximately 10-year intervals and including the results in a hydraulic model of the river mouth.
Our analysis
Chelan PUD conducted two studies related to this issue in the Stehekin area. A report on Stehekin River Sedimentation (Chelan PUD, 2001a) that was part of their shoreline erosion study, and an Evaluation of the Backwater Hydraulic Profile of the Lower Stehekin River (Chelan PUD 2001b).
Results of the backwater analysis indicate that project operation up to a lake level of 1,100 feet causes a small backwater effect in the Stehekin River over a distance of approximately 2,000 feet. This effect reaches a maximum depth of 6 inches and tapers to zero at each end. The backwater effect, including its influence on lateral spreading of the river, does not extend beyond the area covered by damage waivers held by Chelan PUD, evidence that this effect was anticipated when the project was originally constructed.
34 The analysis found that the influence of more recent changes in the area, unrelated to the project, was much greater than that of the project. For example, fill placed by private landowners in the 1960s to create additional usable land at the river's mouth increases river levels more than 2 feet during certain flood events, compared with the 6- inch increase caused by the project.
The sedimentation study results indicate that while some sediment deposition exists in the flats and will likely continue in the area, the Stehekin River, even after 70 some years of project operation, maintains a well-defined channel across the delta. Therefore, most sediment is likely being transported beyond the flats into deeper parts of the lake. Lake level management appears to be a relatively minor factor on sedimentation when compared with river gradient and flow volume, and other factors, especially the effect of fill placement. The fill placed at the mouth of the river has changed the shape and alignment of the channel both upstream and downstream of the fill. It also creates a backwater effect that is roughly 4 times as great as the effect from a full reservoir.
In summary, the study results indicate that while some sedimentation is occurring, it is minor. Managing the lake level lower nine months of the year as proposed, would allow for more flushing of the Stehekin River channel by high flows in the fall and winter and would decrease the potential influence of the project on flooding at the river mouth. The proposed monitoring of the Stehekin River channel would allow for continued documentation that the project's influence remains within the limits of its easements.
Stehekin Flats Dust
The Park Service is concerned about dust effects in Stehekin Landing including reduced visibility, irritation of skin, nose, and eyes, increased housekeeping and maintenance costs, and damage to equipment such as computers.
Interior Condition No. 6 would require Chelan PUD to reduce the magnitude of fugitive dust events (especially TSPs) by 10 percent in the first 10 years of a new license and by 50 percent in the first 20 years of a new license. Interior Condition No. 9.2 would require that Chelan PUD monitor TSPs in fugitive dust events as a measure of the effectiveness of dust abatement measures. Condition 9.2 would also require that Chelan PUD monitor the effectiveness of LWM and rock used for dust abatement every 10 years for the term of the license.
In their response comments, Chelan PUD states that they have tentatively agreed to address the monitoring of fugitive dust in accordance with a Stehekin Area Implementation Plan, (Chelan PUD, 2002d). Chelan PUD and the Park Service have developed the Stehekin Plan to address Park Service relicensing issues, one component of
35 which is rehabilitation of the Stehekin reservoir drawdown zone, or “flats.” The Stehekin Plan includes airborne dust abatement, riparian vegetation rehabilitation, non-native plant control, riparian wildlife habitat rehabilitation, and a monitoring component to determine the efficacy of these management actions.
Our analysis
In the spring of 2000, the PUD joined with the Park Service to sponsor a study of the dust in response to concerns expressed by Park Service staff and the public. Monitoring was performed at Stehekin Landing to measure the amount and nature of the dust and obtain information about conditions in which the dust reaches the landing. Dust events were found to occur under conditions of northerly winds in excess of 5.5 meters per second (about 12 mph) when the reservoir level was below 1,093 feet. Results of the monitoring program are summarized below.
Among the applicable standards, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are intended to address health considerations, as well as "effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, buildings, property, animals, wildlife, visibility, transportation, and other economic values, as well as personal comfort and well-being" related to suspended particulates. The NAAQS include limits for two particle size categories, PM2.5 (less than 2.5 microns) and PM10 (less than 10 microns). These are referred to as "respirable dust." Larger particles, referred to as "non-respirable dust," are also included in the total suspended particulates (TSP). While older versions of the NAAQS included limits on total suspended particulates (TSP), the current version considers particles larger than PM10 too large to be inhaled and, therefore, not a health concern. For this reason the NAAQS do not currently include a limit for TSP.
Table 3 shows routine and dust event monitoring results at Stehekin Landing in comparison with the NAAQS 24-hour and annual standards. The routine measurements are directly comparable to the 24-hour NAAQS, but direct comparison of dust event readings with the standards is complicated by the fact that the duration of the dust events was between 4 and 11 hours, while the most nearly comparable standards are based upon averages over 24 hours or one year.
Wind blown dust was analyzed for 36 chemical elements because of public concerns about levels of naturally occurring arsenic and possible pollutants from the Holden Mine Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Super Fund Site. With the exception of lead, the EPA has not set national standards for these elements. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) standards are intended for the workplace (8-hour daily exposure) and do not necessarily apply directly to Stehekin
36 Landing. The concentrations of the measured elements, however, were well below both sets of standards in all cases (ARS, 2001).
Table 3. Comparison of Stehekin Particulate Concentrations to National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM (mg/m3) 24-hr Annual Min. Mean Max. NAAQS NAAQS Particulate Type (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) PM10 Routine1 1.2 7.7 32.5 150 50 Event2 18.3 31.7 72.1 PM2.5 Routine1 0.4 3.5 8.2 65 15 Event2 8.0 11.8 19.5 TSP Event2 19.4 111.5 376.9 N/A N/A 1All routine samples ran for about 24 hours. 2Event samples ran for about 4 to 11 hours as determined by the duration of the event.
Based on nephelometer readings, the average optical quality of the air at Stehekin Landing was better than two Class I sites (Alpine Lakes Wilderness and Three Sisters Wilderness) and a Class II site (Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area). Lake Chelan LCNRA is a Class II area under the Clean Air Act. The other sites are not subject to dust events as experienced at Stehekin Landing. Also, the majority of dust particles at Stehekin Landing are larger than PM10 and the nephelometer does not detect them as well as smaller particles. During the dust events, however, the visibility at Stehekin Landing is thought to be significantly worse than the dirtiest days at the Wilderness sites previously mentioned.
Finding feasible methods for eliminating the wind blown dust has been difficult; however, methods for reducing the amount of dust during these events is still being evaluated. Chemical dust suppressant sprays have not been found that are suitable for use in areas that form part of the lake bed for much of each year because of the possible long- term impact from such chemicals on water quality and aquatic life. Other proposed methods have similarly been found to include one or more features that are unacceptable; for instance, use of irrigation equipment to control dust was expected to be unsightly, and creation of small dikes and ponds would be likely to disturb sites of cultural importance.
The proposed lake level management regime may allow some areas in and around Stehekin Flats to be revegetated that would otherwise be inundated for too long each year for vegetation to survive. New vegetation would decrease the exposure to wind near the shoreline, but it is thought that the primary source area for dust is far enough from the shoreline that it will be essentially unaffected. Feasible methods for reducing dust have
37 not been found to date. Control of dust from the flats will require some additional effort to select an acceptable method and may require some experimentation to find a method that works to the extent desired.
Although the dust does not violate any health-related or other standards; it is still a nuisance. Dust control efforts included in the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan, could lessen the problem.
Unavoidable adverse impacts: Even with an erosion control program in place, some minor erosion along the shoreline of Lake Chelan and in the bypassed reach is probably unavoidable. Likewise, even with dust abatement measures, there will probably still be nuisance dust events in Stehekin when the reservoir is drawn down.
2. Water Resources
Affected environment:
Lake Chelan lies within a 924-square-mile drainage basin located along the eastern slopes of the Cascade Mountains in North Central Washington. The lake is oriented generally in a northwest-to-southeast direction within a deeply glaciated valley. Lake Chelan comprises approximately 50.4 miles of the 75-mile-long basin. Lake Chelan’s primary tributary, the Stehekin River, feeds into the lake from the west. Lake Chelan waters drain easterly to the Columbia River either through releases at the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project dam into the 3.9-mile long bypassed reach of the Chelan River or through a diversion at the dam into a 2.2-mile-long power tunnel, which passes the water through the powerhouse for hydroelectric generation. The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project raised the elevation of the lake by 21 feet above normal high water levels, to a maximum elevation of 1,100 feet USGS. The upper 21 feet of the reservoir is allocated as storage (677,400 acre-feet), usable by the project for hydroelectric generation and other purposes. The average annual drawdown, which occurs during the fall, winter and spring, is 15.8 feet, to elevation 1,084.2 feet.
The lake consists of two distinct basins separated by a relatively shallow sill 135 feet below the surface of the lake at its narrowest part. The larger Lucerne Basin, comprising the upper 38.4 miles of the lake, has a maximum depth of 1,486 feet and contains over 92 percent of the total lake volume. The smaller Wapato Basin is relatively broad and shallow, with a length of 12 miles and a maximum depth of 400 feet. Water entering the Lucerne Basin has an average residence time of approximately 10 years, however, the residence time of water within the smaller Wapato Basin is much shorter, ranging from approximately 0.2 to 1 year, depending on climatic factors.
38 Water use and quantity
Lake Chelan has a volume of 15.8 million acre-feet based on a water-surface elevation of 1,100 feet. The majority of the precipitation within the watershed falls as snow and accumulates to create a snow-pack. Annual precipitation varies widely in the basin. Average annual precipitation may range from more than 150 inches per year near Dome Peak in the upper basin, to approximately 11 inches per year in the City of Chelan (Gladwell and Muellar, 1967). The spring melt of the winter snowpack primarily extends from April 15 through July 15; the annual peak runoff occurs in June.
A 1925 water right issued to the Chelan Electric Company (Water Permit No. 584, now known as Water Right Certificate No. 319) allows Chelan PUD to use 4,000 cfs from the Chelan River for project operation. The permit reserves 33,000 acre-feet per year for allocation as consumptive-use water rights, but allows Chelan PUD to continue to use any unappropriated portion of that amount for hydroelectric generation. Under a 1992 agreement with WDOE, the amount set aside for allocation as consumptive-use water rights was increased to 65,000 acre-feet. This agreement resolved several uncertainties and allows for future development within the watershed.
The discharge from Lake Chelan is regulated to assure, with a 95-percent probability, that the reservoir will refill to the normal full pool elevation of 1,098 feet on or before June 30 of each year for recreational use. The average minimum elevation of the reservoir over 44 years of operation (1952-1995) has been approximately 1,084.2 feet USGS. The annual drawdown of the lake begins in early October and refill generally begins in April.
Consumptive uses of surface water in the Chelan watershed include irrigation and domestic and municipal water supply. Water rights have been allocated mainly within the Wapato Basin. The majority of existing consumptive surface-water rights are for irrigation. This use represents 79 percent of the total annual quantity and 63 percent of the total instantaneous rate of use. WDOE (1995) estimates that water permits and certificates have been issued for an instantaneous withdrawal rate of 293.2 cfs and annual use of 39,500 acre-feet.
The Chelan River at its confluence with the Columbia River conveys the combined flows of the powerhouse discharge from the tailrace and any flows spilled into the bypassed reach. When reservoir outflow is less than the hydraulic capacity of the project (2,300 cfs), all of the outflow is directed through the powerhouse and into the tailrace which flows into the Columbia River at the community of Chelan Falls. The tailrace is characterized as a moderately deep channel that is influenced by the elevation of the
39 Rocky Reach pool. The bypassed reach is generally dry throughout most of its length except during spill events. The minimum, average and maximum daily flows for the Chelan River (powerhouse releases and spill from the dam) from 1905-1996 are 0 cfs, 2,041 cfs and 18,400 cfs, respectively. (These flows, calculated values provided by Chelan PUD since project development, were recorded as USGS Gage No. 12452500, Chelan River at Chelan, Washington.)
Water quality
Lake Chelan is characterized as ultra-oligotrophic (low biological productivity and high water clarity) and has generally good water quality, although in comments on the DEA, Interior reported that Lake Chelan has the highest levels of PCB and DDT in sediments and fish tissues of any lake in the United States.
There have been a number of water quality studies conducted in the Chelan Basin. Periodic monitoring of the water quality of Lake Chelan began in the 1960s, and the first detailed baseline water quality characterization of the lake was completed in 1987. The results of this baseline study, two subsequent comprehensive studies and 1999 field studies are summarized in Table 4. This table lists summary statistics for various water quality parameters that were measured in 1987 in the epilimnion (Patmont et al., 1989), 1995 (Congdon, 1995, 1996), 1996 (Sargeant, 1997) and 1999 (Anchor, 2000). Reported data does not include winter samples.
40 Table 4. Summary of water quality data for 1987, 1995, 1996 and 1999 for Lake Chelan (Source: Patmont et al [1989] as reported in Congdon [1995, 1996]; Sargeant [1997] and Anchor Environmental [2000]) Parameter Year Average Median Minimum Maximum Range (units) pH 1987 7.8 7.9 7.4 8.2 0.8 (std.unit) 1995 7.2 7.2 6.0 8.4 2.4 1996 7.7 7.8 7.0 8.8 1.8 1999 * 7.8 7.9 7.4 8.2 0.8 DO conc. 1987 10.4 10.5 9.2 11.9 2.7 (mg/l) 1995 10.7 10.7 8.4 12.4 4.0 1996 10.5 10.6 8.4 12.2 3.8 1999 * 11.3 10.9 9.0 14.1 5.2
DO sat. 1987 110 110 96 122 26 (percent) 1995 114 113 90 139 49 1996 103 104 84 116 32 1999 * 112 111 99 128 29 Secchi 1987 33.2 34.1 23.4 43.9 20.5 (Feet) 1995 42.9 46.2 30.6 53.6 23.1 1996 39.0 38.0 38.0 51.4 21.8 1999 * 35.0 35.6 19.4 48.0 28.5 TP 1987 3.5 3.2 1.5 10.0 8.5 (:g/l) 1995 2.2 2.2 0.6 4.1 3.5 1996 2.6 2.1 1.2 4.0 2.8 1999 * 1.8 1.6 0.5 4.3 3.8
TN 1987 105 91 23 317 294 (:g/l) 1995 103 85 <50 296 246 1996 53 56 <10 113 103 1999 * 81 79 <50 140 90
41 Table 4. Summary of water quality data for 1987, 1995, 1996 and 1999 for Lake Chelan (Source: Patmont et al [1989] as reported in Congdon [1995, 1996]; Sargeant [1997] and Anchor Environmental [2000]) Parameter Year Average Median Minimum Maximum Range (units)
NO3-NO2 1987 44 30 9 36 27 : ( g/l) 1995 18 12 <10 35 25 1996 27 23 <10 62 52 1999 * 29 23 <10 66 56
Chl a 1987 0.66 0.62 0.13 1.66 1.53 (:g/l) 1995 1.08 1.10 0.10 2.90 2.8 1996 0.86 0.75 <0.50 3.10 2.6 1999 * 1.09 0.85 0.10 3.9 3.8 Phaeo a 1987 0.28 0.27 - 1.20 - (:g/l) 1995 0.30 0.30 0.10 1.60 1.50 1996 0.56 <0.50 <0.50 1.60 1.10 1999 - - - - - Temp. 1987 15.9 16.5 7.8 21.0 13.2 (° C) 1995 16.2 16.4 9.2 21.8 12.6 1996 12.2 12.3 5.0 21.8 16.8 1999 * 15.5 16.2 7.1 22.1 15.0
Conduct. 1987 59 59 56 62 6 (:mho/cm) 1995 61 62 53 67 14 1996 56 59 43 66 23 1999 * 56 57 53 59 7 * Epilimnion of Wapato Basin
The WDOE classifies Lake Chelan as Lake Class, its tributaries as Class AA and the bypassed reach as Class A. Selected Washington State water quality standards for these classifications are shown in Table 5.
42 Table 5. Selected water quality standards for Lake Chelan, tributaries and bypassed reach (Source: WDOE as presented in the ICD) Parameter Class AA Class A Lake Class
Fecal Coliform Not to exceed Not to exceed Same as class AA geometric mean of geometric mean of 50 col/100 ml, less 100 col/100 ml, less than 10 % of all than 10 % of all samples exceeding samples exceeding 100 col/100 ml 200 col/100 ml
Dissolved Oxygen Must exceed 9.5 Must exceed 8.0 No measurable mg/l mg/l decrease from natural conditions Total Dissolved Not to exceed 110 Same as Class AA Same as Class AA Gas % of saturation1 Temperature Must not exceed Must not exceed No measurable 16.0°C2 18.0°C change from natural conditions
pH Within 6.5 - 8.53 Within 6.5 - 8.5 No measurable change from natural conditions
Turbidity Not to exceed 5 Not to exceed 5 Not to exceed 5 NTU over NTU over NTU over background, or 10 background, or 10 background % over background % over background of 50 NTU of 50 NTU or more 1 Does not apply when stream flow exceeds the seven-day, 10-year frequency flood. 2 Human activities shall not result in more than a 0.3°C increase when water temperatures naturally exceed this maximum criteria. Incremental temperature increase resulting from point source activities shall not exceed t=28/(T+7) where T=background temperature; maximum incremental increase for non-point sources is 2.8°C. 3 Human caused variation must be ± 0.2 pH units.
43 Maintenance of the ultra-oligotrophic status of Lake Chelan, with its extremely high clarity, has been a major focus of programs to maintain water quality. Management of nutrient loading to the lake is a critical management component . The biological productivity of the lake is phosphorous limited (Patmont et al., 1989). Levels of chlorophyll a, zooplankton, and benthic organisms have been reported as quite low, particularly in the Lucerne basin.
Documented water-quality deficiencies in the lake have included elevated bacterial levels near water supply intakes, elevated metals (iron, zinc and arsenic) in Railroad Creek due to runoff from abandoned contaminated tailings at the Holden Mine and elevated pesticide residues in lake sediments and fish populations. There have also been releases of pesticides, especially DDT, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into Lake Chelan. In 1998, Lake Chelan was listed as an Impaired and Threatened Water body due to the detection of elevated concentrations of DDT metabolites and PCBs in fish tissues (WDOE, 1998). The historical reservoir of DDT present in sediment deposits of the lake appears to be at least partially responsible for elevated DDT metabolite concentrations detected in fish tissues (Davis and Johnson, 1994; Davis and Serdar, 1996). These levels are expected to decrease slowly over time as a result of natural decomposition and sedimentation processes.
In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for total phosphorous in Lake Chelan. This TMDL was established at the threshold for maintaining the ultra-oligotrophic condition of the lake. Coordination with local agencies and public-planning involvement for the implementation of measures to not exceed this TMDL are a major focus of the Lake Chelan Water Quality Committee (LCWQC). The LCWQC is composed of five local agencies and the Forest Service, who jointly prepared a Lake Chelan Water Quality Plan to provide a framework to maintain and monitor water quality in Lake Chelan.
Temperatures in Lake Chelan range seasonally from 2°C to 23°C at the surface. Both basins in Lake Chelan develop a seasonal thermocline at an average depth of 100 to 150 feet during the summer (R.W. Beck, 1991). Summer surface temperatures in the Wapato Basin reach 23oC, while summer temperatures in the upper portions of the Lucerne Basin averaged 15 to 16oC. Deep-water temperatures in both basins average 5 to 6oC throughout the year. Surface temperatures in the Wapato Basin are cooler in winter than in the Lucerne Basin due to the smaller volume (and therefore lower heat retention capacity) of the Wapato Basin. In comments on the DEA, the Forest Service indicated that without the project, summer flow through the shallow Wapato basin would be less than under current conditions. These reduced flows would likely result in peak summer water temperatures exceeding 23oC, suggesting that the operation of the project may
44 result in lower surface temperatures in the Wapato Basin and releases into the Chelan River than would have occurred under natural conditions.
The temperature of water flowing into the bypassed reach is determined by water temperatures in the lower end of Lake Chelan. Near-surface water from the lake enters the Chelan River as it flows over a shallow sill at the outlet of the lake. Temperatures in the bypassed reach cover the same range as the surface waters of the lake, 2°C during the coldest period of winter to 23°C during the hottest days of summer. Water flowing through the penstock and discharged from the powerhouse into the tailrace is neither cooled nor heated in transit. Water spilled into the bypassed reach is subject to both cooling and heating effects. The degree of heating and cooling is primarily a function of the total flow (mass volume) released through the bypassed reach, the width to depth ratio of the river sections, the difference between the initial water temperature and the air temperature and solar radiation. A small amount of ground water, about 2 cfs, enters the bypassed reach in the steep areas within the gorge, but the cooling effect of this flow is negligible except at low flows of less than 100 cfs (R2 and IA, 2000, Figure 2-2; Chelan PUD, unpublished data).
Environmental impacts and recommendations:
During prefiling consultation, a Natural Sciences Working Group considered a number of proposals for water use and lake level management for the benefit of fisheries resources. These include use of lake storage for augmentation of Columbia River flows, earlier drawdown of the lake in summer for maintenance of tributary access for spawning fish, and various instream flow regimes for the bypassed reach. These alternatives for fisheries resources were eventually refined into Chelan PUD's proposal.
Chelan PUD proposes to operate the project to maintain power generation and provide minimum flows to the bypassed reach, while minimizing adverse effects on other beneficial uses of the lake, such as recreation, fisheries resources, irrigation and domestic water supplies. Additionally, Chelan PUD proposes a new lake level management regime that would draw down the lake earlier in the fall to enhance access to the tributaries for spawning trout, while providing a minimum flow to the bypassed reach. Since the change in lake level management is primarily for the benefit of fisheries resources and would have no apparent effects on water quality, the lake level proposal is discussed in detail in Section V.C.3, Fisheries Resources.
Chelan PUD proposes that a minimum flow of 80 cfs guaranteed be released into the bypassed reach throughout the year. The objective of this proposal is to establish a naturally functioning aquatic ecosystem, capable of providing adequate depths and velocities for the opportunity for cutthroat trout rearing. In addition, the lower end of the
45 bypassed reach would have higher flows provided by pumps during the spawning season for steelhead trout and chinook salmon. The pumps would be used to increase flows, depths and velocities over the potential spawning sites in Reach 4 to provide preferred habitat conditions for these species, while conserving water stored in the lake to meet lake level management objectives and for power generation. The bypassed reach minimum flow proposal is discussed in detail in Section V.C.3, Fisheries Resources.
During prefiling consultation, WDOE expressed concern that lake level fluctuations could affect fecal coliform contamination from near-shore septic tanks and leakage from sewer lines. We discuss the relationship between lake levels and fecal coliform levels below.
Under Section 4(e) of the FPA, Forest Service and Interior would require that Chelan PUD : 1) develop and implement an Erosion Control and Monitoring Plan; 2) a Large Woody Debris Management Plan; and, 3) a Lake Level Management Plan. Under Section 10(a) of the FPA, Interior also recommended that Chelan PUD develop a Lake Chelan Water Quality Monitoring Plan.
Under Section 10(j), Interior, NMFS, and WDFW made several recommendations that could changes the project effects on water quantity or quality. These measures include: (1) drawing down the lake to allow native fish access to Lake Chelan tributaries (WDFW); (2) implementing a new lake level plan that reduces the duration of full lake and the magnitude of involuntary spill (NMFS and WDFW); (3) prevent, contain, and restore areas of shoreline erosion (WDFW); (4) implement the new instream flows (Interior, NMFS, and WDFW); and, (5) provide a minimum flow of 500 cfs to the project tailrace (Interior and NMFS).
We evaluate the effects of Chelan PUD's proposal and the measures proposed by the agencies on water quantity and water quality in the section below.
Our analysis
Water use and quantity
Under the current license, the annual winter drawdown takes place after the end of the irrigation season and after the intensive recreation summer season. The drawdown exposes shoreline areas, affecting aquatic food organisms for fish and limiting recreation access at some docks and some boat launches. However, the drawdown does provide beneficial opportunities for lakeshore property owners to repair docks, access pump intakes and shoreline areas. The drawdown has the additional beneficial effect of
46 inhibiting the proliferation of nuisance aquatic vegetation, particularly the exotic noxious weed Eurasian milfoil, Myriophyllum spicatum.
Chelan PUD proposes a lake level management program that would attempt to maintain recreation values while providing improved access to tributaries for spawning fish. Average monthly lake levels under the proposed regime would be lower 9 months of the year [January-May and September-December] compared to the current, baseline condition. The monthly average during these periods would be 0.2 to 2.5 feet lower. The proposed additional drawdown that would occur during the winter would expand the amount of shoreline exposed to freezing and likely result in a further decrease of milfoil reproduction. In June and July, the lake would be held somewhat higher. Interior, NMFS, WDFW, and Forest Service appear to support Chelan PUD's lake level proposal and under Section 10(j) and/or 4(e), these agencies recommend that Chelan PUD develop a final lake level management plan. Chelan PUD's proposal would not adversely affect the consumptive water uses of domestic water and irrigation. The changes to lake level schedules from the current condition, to the proposed lake level management regime are discussed in detail in Section V.C.3.
The existing license has no requirement for minimum flow releases into the bypassed reach. Chelan PUD's proposal for minimum flows would attempt to establish a naturally functioning aquatic ecosystem in the bypassed reach by providing year-round flows in the bypassed reach. The recommended minimum flow of 80 cfs and additional supplemental flows would result in a reduction in power production from the project, but minimum flows of this magnitude would not affect lake levels in a manner that would affect consumptive water use for domestic water supply and irrigation. In years of extreme low snowfall and delayed snowmelt, the maintenance of minimum flows could delay refill of the lake to the level desired for recreation. Because minimum instream flows primarily affect fisheries resources, we provide detailed discussion of minimum instream flows for the bypassed reach in Section V.C.3.
Water quality
To evaluate Lake Chelan water quality issues, Chelan PUD conducted water quality monitoring in the lake and in the bypassed reach during 1999 (Anchor, 2000). The 1999 data indicate that water quality conditions in the lake have been very stable since monitoring began in 1987. The lake remains ultra-oligotrophic, as evidenced by low total phosphorus (TP) and chlorophyll a concentrations. Seasonal epilimnetic TP has met the TMDL of 4.5 :g/l in each year studied. The stable high water quality of the lake is also reflected in nearly constant (and relatively minor) hypolimnetic oxygen depression. Lake level fluctuations resulting from current Chelan PUD operations do not appear to influence TP concentrations within the lake, as determined from multiple
47 regression analyses; therefore, we would not expect Chelan PUD's proposed lake level management regime to adversely affect Lake Chelan phosphorus levels.
Although lake level was statistically correlated with fecal coliform levels, this is likely an artifact of seasonal differences in waterfowl abundance, recreation use and irrigation return flow that coincide with lake level fluctuations. The highest lake levels are maintained during the summer by project operation. As a result, the highest lake levels also coincide with the highest seasonal population in the area, peak irrigation operations and waterfowl activity. Based on a review of the available data, as discussed in the Anchor report and in Patmont et al. (1989), waterfowl activities appear to be the most likely source of the observed bacterial inputs, although in comments on Chelan PUD's PDEA, Interior expressed concern that it could be associated with inundation or leaking septic systems. Additionally, in comments on the DEA, the Forest Service and Interior suggested that waterfowl abundance in Lake Chelan may be too low (see Section V.C.4) to affect bacteria levels. Nevertheless, even during summer high lake level conditions, fecal coliform levels in the Wapato Basin have not exceeded applicable state water quality standards. All information considered, lake level fluctuations appear unlikely to have a direct or indirect effect on fecal coliform levels in Lake Chelan and we would not expect operation under the proposed lake level management regime to change fecal coliform levels in Lake Chelan.
Based on the above, we conclude that the lake level management regime proposed by Chelan PUD and recommended by Interior, Forest Service, NMFS, and WDFW would not likely affect water quality within Lake Chelan. Chelan PUD does not propose any specific enhancement measures to address water quality in Lake Chelan, although the erosion control projects proposed by Chelan PUD and recommended by Interior, Forest Service, and WDFW may improve water quality conditions by causing localized reductions in turbidity and suspended solids at the sites where erosion mitigation would be implemented.
Interior recommends under Section 10(a) of the FPA, that for the protection, public health and utilization of the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, that Chelan PUD be required to implement a comprehensive Lake Chelan water quality monitoring program. However, as we said above, Chelan PUD's actions have little, if any, influence on Lake Chelan water quality and while we acknowledge that monitoring would be valuable for assisting in the maintenance and protection of Lake Chelan water quality, we are unable to find any significant connection to the project suggesting that this should be Chelan PUD's responsibility.
Monitoring of the tailrace during prefiling consultation indicated that total dissolved gas (TDG), pH levels and total suspended solids were within state standards for
48 this area which is classified as Class A water body (Anchor, 2000). However, naturally warm conditions in the lake near the project intakes do occasionally cause tailrace water temperatures to exceed the state standard for Class A waters. In their PDEA, Chelan PUD suggested that because tailrace temperatures are elevated due to naturally warm conditions in the lake and temperature does not increase more than 0.3°C within the penstock or powerhouse, elevated tailrace temperatures are not a violation of state standards. Regardless, we would not expect any of the measures proposed by Chelan PUD or the agencies to result in changes to water quality as it passes through the penstock and powerhouse into the tailrace and we would not expect any measures to significantly affect water quality parameters in the lake which obviously strongly influences tailrace conditions. As a result, we do not expect any of the proposed measures to result in project-related changes to water quality in the tailrace or any harm to aquatic resources.
Monitoring of the bypassed reach during prefiling consultation indicated that TDG, pH levels and total suspended solids were within state standards for this area which is classified as a Class A water body (Anchor, 2000). Unlike the tailrace, water quality in the bypassed reach can be influenced by the volume of flow and natural factors as water moves downstream through the reach. Currently the bypassed reach does not convey flows year-round; however, Chelan PUD proposes and the agencies recommend that minimum flows be established for the bypassed reach. Because the length of the bypassed reach is only 3.9 miles and there are no major sources of soluble minerals or nutrient input, we would not expect the minimum flows to result in changes in chemical water quality parameters, such as nutrients, hardness, pH and conductivity. Similarly, there are no sewage discharges or septic tank drainfields within the bypassed reach, thus we would not expect any changes in fecal coliform levels due to the release of minimum flows. In regard to dissolved gases, we would expect the shallow stilling basin at the dam and the turbulent conditions within the bypassed reach to result in normal levels of oxygen saturation with little potential for excessive TDG. In their PDEA, Chelan PUD reported that most of the highly unstable bank areas within the bypassed reach have been armored following past high flow events. Based on this information, we would expect that there would be little erosion due to minimum flows and no measurable affect on turbidity.
In regard to water temperature, minimum flows passing through the bypassed reach would be subject to natural warming and cooling processes. During the summer months, thermal loading from warm air, direct solar radiation and indirect heat transfer from surrounding shoreline areas would increase water temperatures as water passes through the bypassed reach. These increases would be moderated somewhat by small amounts of cool groundwater inflow and by evaporative cooling as water passes through the cascades and falls in the high gradient segment of the bypassed reach. During the
49 winter, water temperatures cool as water passes through the bypassed reach due primarily to contact with cold air. We would not expect any adverse effects from any cooling of the proposed minimum flows during the winter months. However, studies conducted during prefiling consultation indicated that regardless of the magnitude of the minimum flows, water temperatures within the bypassed reach would experience some warming during the summer months and could exceed the state guidance of a maximum increase of 0.3°C (see above) for naturally warm Class A waters (R2 & IA, 2000).
During prefiling consultation, Chelan PUD and the stakeholders reviewed various thermal models for the bypassed reach and considered methods to moderate thermal loading . Chelan PUD did not propose any specific measures in its license application to moderate temperature increases in the bypassed reach. However, Chelan PUD did suggest that if it became necessary and compatible with other management objectives, measures with significant potential for moderating temperature increases in the bypassed reach could be incorporated into the channel modifications planned for improving fish habitat and ecosystem function. In the CRBEIP, Chelan indicated that to limit temperature increases in the bypassed reach it would: release minimum flows from the penstock to avoid warming on the spillway and a shallow portion of the bypassed reach; increase flows during warm periods; modify portions of the channel; and plant trees to increase shading. These measures are included in the WQC issued by WDOE. Thermal loading of the mainstem Columbia River, a possible indirect effect of temperature increases in the bypassed reach, is discussed below. We discuss the details of the instream flow regime, channel modifications and fish habitat measures in Section V.C.3.
As indicated above, water passing through the penstock and powerhouse does not experience any significant temperature changes; however, water passing through the bypassed reach during the summer months warms between the dam and the confluence of the bypassed reach and tailrace prior to entering the mainstem Columbia River. When compared to current conditions (i.e. little or no flow passing through the bypassed during the summer), these temperature increases constitute an increase in thermal loading to the mainstem Columbia River. However, thermal loading to the mainstem Columbia River would be lower with Chelan PUD's and the agencies' proposed flow regime than would have occurred under natural, unregulated conditions.
Thermal loading to the Columbia River under natural flow conditions would add a significant amount of heat energy during the hot periods in summer. This is illustrated by comparing the total heat energy that would be retained by water passing through the bypassed reach under different flow levels (Figure 3). In this case, higher flow levels would be in the range of natural flows and lower flow levels represent the proposed minimum flows. Even though the increase in temperature in the bypassed reach that would occur with higher flows is smaller than for lower flows, the total heat contained
50 within the much greater mass of water at natural flow levels is nearly five times greater than the heat energy carried to the Columbia River at the 80 cfs instream flow proposed by Chelan PUD and the agencies. Thus while the Columbia River (which is also temperature sensitive in the summer), would receive a higher thermal load with the proposed flow regime than under current conditions, the proposed regime results in the Columbia River receiving a lower thermal load than would occur under natural conditions.
We present the following analysis to demonstrate how The thermal loading described above may influence water temperatures within the mainstem Columbia River. Warm summer water temperatures within the mainstem Columbia River are typically 18°C. Under a worst-case scenario, flows within the Columbia River would be low and flows from the Lake Chelan Project would be high and warm. An example of low Columbia River flows would be approximately 70,000 cfs, which occurred during the drought of 2001. High summer flows from the Lake Chelan Project would consist of roughly 1,500 cfs from the bypassed reach and 2,000 cfs from the powerhouse. If the temperature of the water from Lake Chelan was 23°C and it warmed approximately 2°C within the bypassed reach, temperatures of the mainstem Coumbia River would increase by less than 0.3°C.7 If the bypassed reach flows were 80 cfs, as proposed by Chelan, temperature increases in the mainstem Columbia River would be less than 0.15°C. These water temperature increases would only occur under an unlikely worst-case scenario and represent the possible maximum water temperature increase within the mainstem Columbia River. In addition, not all of the water temperature increase would be project related. To some extent, warming within the bypassed reach could be attributed to reduced flows which is a project effect; however, water passing through the penstock is not exposed to warm temperatures, thereby preventing natural warming that would occur if these flows were passed through the bypassed reach. Therefore, while flows from Lake Chelan could result in some minor warming of the mainstem Columbia River, this warming is not likely to adversely effect aquatic resources within the mainstem and very little of the warming would be project-related.
7We estimated the approximate increase in mainstem water temperatures for this scenario using the following calculation: ((70,000*18) + (2,000*23) + (1,500*25)) / (70,000 + 2,000 + 1,500) = 0.28.
51 Figure 2. Predicted estimates of thermal energy delivered to the Columbia River at different flows through the bypassed reach of the Chelan River during a two-week period of hot weather. (Source: PDEA)
Cumulative effects: In addition to direct and indirect project effects, a variety of factors could cumulatively affect water use associated with Lake Chelan. Non-project activities that could affect water use in the Lake Chelan system include, but are not limited to agriculture, domestic water supply, and other hydropower generation (e.g. Rocky Reach operations affect Lake Chelan Project tailrace elevations). These activities may result in consumptive use of water (i.e. loss of water) or changes in the availability of water (i.e. storage and/or regulation of water) within the Lake Chelan system. Cumulatively the effects of the Lake Chelan Project and the other factors listed above would influence the lake and stream hydrograph within the Lake Chelan system and to a lesser extent the hydrograph of the Columbia River.
52 Chelan PUD has not proposed any measures that would significantly change the consumptive use of water within the Lake Chelan system; however, modification of the lake level management and maintenance of permanent minimum flows in the bypassed reach constitute changes in water use within the Lake Chelan system. When considered in combination with other activities within the Lake Chelan system, we do not expect these changes to have any significant adverse cumulative effect on water use or availability.
Unavoidable adverse impacts: None
3. Fisheries Resources
Affected environment:
General description of the fish community and habitats
Lake Chelan
Lake Chelan is an ultra-oligotrophic water body, characterized by deep, cold, clear water, little organic material in the sediments, high DO levels and relatively low fertility. This type of water body supports cold-water fish species, especially salmonid species. Lake Chelan supports an important sport fishery consisting of kokanee (landlocked sockeye salmon), landlocked chinook salmon, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, lake trout and burbot. Other fish include smallmouth bass, pygmy and mountain whitefish, bluegill sunfish , northern pikeminnow, suckers, minnows and sculpins. Brown (1984) provides an overview of the Lake Chelan fishery resource, based on intensive creel, limnological and tributary surveys done in 1981 and 1982. Relicensing studies conducted on Lake Chelan in 1999 and 2000 provide comparative data to those collected by Brown (1984) (DES, 2000a).
With the exception of the Stehekin River, the tributaries to Lake Chelan are very similar to each other morphometrically (DES, 2000a). They are steeply incised stream channels with cobble, boulder and large gravel substrate, with fair to poor channel stability. The Stehekin River differs from other tributaries in that it has a lower gradient and is less incised than the other streams. The fish-rearing habitat is fair, with an adequate number of pools and riffles, but spawning habitat is limited due to the lack of appropriate-sized gravel. Instream cover for fish is limited to cobbles and boulders with a few pieces of woody debris.
53 Chelan River and bypassed reach
The Chelan River extends from the project dam downstream to the Columbia River for approximately 3.9 miles. Virtually the entire length of the Chelan River is bypassed by the Lake Chelan Project. The bypassed reach can be divided into four reaches based on gradient, confinement and fluvial geomorphological characteristics (R2 and IA, 2000). These are described below.
Reach 1 extends from the diversion dam (Lake Chelan outlet) downstream for 2.29 miles. The bed of this low gradient (1 percent) segment is primarily composed of large cobbles and small boulders, with gravels generally limited to the margins of the river channel. Streamside vegetation is scarce along this reach of the river and is mainly present as patches of cottonwoods and alders and isolated conifer stands. Reach 1 just below the dam is approximately 100 feet to 140 feet wide; it then narrows toward the middle of the segment, and widens again at the lower end, spreading into multiple channels. Fish habitat is primarily riffles and runs, with some of the runs becoming pools at low flows.
Reach 2 is 0.75 miles long. The gradient in this section is low (1 percent), similar to Reach 1. This section of the river is confined by steep hillslopes and, consequently, is much narrower than Reach 1. Large cobbles and boulders, somewhat larger than those in Reach 1, dominate the substrate. There is little streamside vegetation present in this reach. Fish habitat within this reach is primarily composed of riffles.
Reach 3 is the gorge section and is 0.38 miles in length. It is characterized by a steep gradient (9 percent) channel that is located in a narrow canyon confined by steep bedrock walls. The river channel becomes as narrow as 15 to 20 feet wide through the gorge section. Bedrock and large boulders comprise much of the river bottom, and fish habitat conditions in this reach are generally poor due to the dominance of bedrock. The deep pools and groundwater that enters in this reach may provide thermal refugia during summer, but fish passage from Reach 3 to Reaches 1 and 2 is unlikely because of impassable barriers (waterfalls and cascades) (R2 and IA, 2000). Several deep plunge pools (20 feet to 30 feet depth) occur below waterfalls and steep bedrock cascades.
Reach 4 is a 0.49-mile-long section that extends from the mouth of the gorge to the powerhouse tailrace. Reach 4 has a low gradient of 0.4 percent and a fairly unconfined channel. Reach 4 is an active alluvial zone where large and small boulders, cobbles and gravels originating from the highly erosive banks in Reaches 1 and 2 are deposited after being flushed through the gorge by high-flow events. Substrates in Reach 4 are composed of boulders and large cobbles in the thalweg and large gravels deposited on high bars by high flows. The channel in this reach widens rapidly as it exits the gorge
54 and enters the Columbia River floodplain, splitting into multiple channels about 1,000 feet upstream of the backwater of the Columbia River. Fish habitat in this reach is mostly riffles and runs.
Currently there is no year-round flow released into the bypassed reach. The bypassed reach is generally dry from mid-July through mid-May of the following year. Inflow in excess of powerhouse capacity is spilled into the bypassed reach. Occasionally, storms in fall or winter cause refill of the reservoir which result in spill into the bypassed reach.
The powerhouse tailrace is a 1,700-foot-long channel adjacent to the lower end of the bypassed reach. The tailrace has a variable, near-zero gradient due to the backwater from the downstream Rocky Reach Project on the Columbia River. At the time of construction of the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project, the tailrace was excavated from the powerhouse to the Columbia River, and an earthen dike (now vegetated) was established between the tailrace and the bypassed reach. The tailrace discharges into the Columbia River near the community of Chelan Falls. Following construction, several events have occurred that have resulted in channel modifications in the vicinity of the tailrace. Construction of the Rocky Reach Project resulted in back-watering of the Columbia River into the tailrace, and the construction of the railroad and Chelan Falls Road have resulted in the redirection of bypassed reach flows into the lower tailrace, about 1,300 feet downstream of the powerhouse. Redirection of bypass flows into the lower tailrace has resulted in the deposition of gravels and sediment into the lower 400 feet of the tailrace. The high quality of gravel and generally consistent flow regime from the powerhouse discharge provide conditions that can support spawning by summer and fall chinook salmon.8
Native fishery resources - Lake Chelan
The predominant salmonid species native to the Lake Chelan Basin are cutthroat trout and bull trout. The latter was previously classified as Dolly Varden (Cavender, 1978; Pratt, 1992). The other top-level predator in the lake is burbot (freshwater ling cod). Many cyprinid and catostomid fish are native to Lake Chelan; the more abundant species are northern pikeminnow, redside shiner and bridgelip sucker (Hillman and Giorgi, 2000; Table 5). Native bull trout are discussed in Section V.C.4. The current and historical status of the more abundant species is discussed below.
8The project provides consistent flows to the tailrace for most of the year, although some discontinuation of flows occurs during the spring for reservoir refill and at other times for maintenance or load rejection.
55 Table 6. List of species historically and currently present in Lake Chelan Basin (Sources: Brown, 1984; Hillman and Giorgi, 2000; DES, 2001a) Species Scientific name Origin Cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii Native Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Introduced in 1916 Kokanee Oncorhynchus nerka Introduced in 1917 Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Introduced in 1974 Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Native Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush Introduced in 1980 Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalus Introduced in 1934 Grayling Thymallus arcticus One-time plant introduced in 1945 Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni Native Pygmy whitefish Prosopium coulteri Native Burbot Lota lota Native Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui Introduced in 1990 Northern pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis Native Lake chub Couesius plumbeus Presumed native Bridgelip sucker Catostomus columbianus Native Largescale sucker Catostomus macrocheilus Presumed native Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus Presumed native Carp Cyprinus carpio Introduced (date unknown) Peamouth chub Mylocheilus caurinus Presumed native Redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus Presumed native Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Presumed native Slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus Native Tench Tinca tinca Introduced (date unknown) Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Introduced (date unknown)
Cutthroat trout
Cutthroat trout were once abundant and supported a significant fishery in the lake. Currently, few native cutthroat trout are caught by anglers (Brown, 1984; Hagen, 1995; DES, 2000a; Hillman and Giorgi, 2000), and cutthroat comprise a very small part of the Lake Chelan fish community. Brown (1984) suggested that a combination of several factors contributed to the decline of the cutthroat trout fishery: (1) the State of Washington trapped adult cutthroat trout in tributaries to use as broodstock for a statewide hatchery program; (2) in 1917, the Washington Department of Game (WDG) introduced non-native rainbow trout and kokanee salmon into the lake, resulting in some hybridization of adfluvial rainbow and cutthroat trout and decreased productivity from competition between the species; and (3) high harvest rates of cutthroat trout, a species
56 typically vulnerable to high fishery exploitation, rapidly reduced their abundance and productivity.
In comments on Chelan PUD's PDEA, WDFW indicates that from 1917 to 1923 approximately 17 million cutthroat trout eggs were collected from spawning fish in the Stehekin River. None of the fish reared from these eggs were stocked back into the river and only 600,000 sac fry from these eggs were stocked into the lake between 1924 and 1927. From 1927 to 1976, WDG sporadically planted hatchery-reared cutthroat trout (Lake Chelan and Twin Lakes strains) in Lake Chelan and its tributaries. Cutthroat trout have been planted into the following tributaries to Lake Chelan: Twentyfive Mile Creek, Rainbow Creek, Railroad Creek, Pyramid Creek, Safety Harbor Creek, Mitchell Creek, Fish Creek, First Creek, Stehekin River and Domke Lake. Since 1980, juvenile cutthrout have been stocked into Lake Chelan on nearly an annual basis, totaling nearly 2,000,000 cutthroat through 1999. In spite of years of stocking cutthroat trout, the population has declined or remained at low levels. WDFW indicates that many of the cutthroat trout stocked in Lake Chelan over the years were small fingerlings subject to predation by larger fish and because of barriers, unable to access typical rearing habitat in the lake tributaries. Additionally, they point out that any stocked cutthroat trout that were able to survive to spawning size were probably not able to access historic spawning areas due to the formation of alluvial barriers at the tributary mouths.
Burbot
Burbot are one of the three game fishes native to Lake Chelan, along with cutthroat trout and bull trout. The Lake Chelan burbot fishery has maintained a low profile since the turn of the century. Burbot are piscivorous, feeding on benthic fishes and crayfish (Carlander, 1969; Wydoski and Whitney, 1979). The introduction of Mysis shrimp (Mysis relicta) into Lake Chelan as forage for kokanee has probably indirectly benefitted burbot, as they were found in eight of 26 burbot guts sampled in 1984 (Brown, 1984). Limited information describing the burbot population is available; however, information collected in the early 1980s (Brown, 1984) indicated that in spite of a slow growth rate the population appeared to be stable and healthy. A length frequency analysis of 58 burbot sampled in 1981 and 1982 showed most fish to be 50-55 cm total length (range: 30 - 63 cm) with an average age of 8.8 years (range: 4 - 14; Brown, 1984). Virtually all fish were caught by set line. The 1981 success rate for burbot was 0.48 fish per hook fished, with an estimated annual catch of 1,626 fish (Brown, 1984).
57 Other native species
Several other species are native to Lake Chelan, including mountain whitefish, pygmy whitefish, northern pikeminnow, peamouth chub and redside shiner (Table 5). No management actions or active fisheries for these species currently exist.
Introduced fishery resources – Lake Chelan
Several aquatic species have been introduced into Lake Chelan in efforts to establish and support recreational fisheries. These species include kokanee, rainbow trout, landlocked chinook salmon, lake trout, smallmouth bass and Mysis shrimp.
Kokanee
Kokanee (landlocked sockeye salmon) became the mainstay of the Lake Chelan fishery shortly after they were introduced in 1917. Kokanee were artificially propagated from 1940 to 1946 at the Chelan Falls Fish Hatchery (CFFH)9, yet some smaller outplants of hatchery kokanee occurred from 1934 through 1966 (Brown, 1984). Broodstock were collected from Twentyfive Mile Creek, Railroad Creek, Prince Creek, Spring Creek and Stehekin River; egg take ranged from 1.8 million in 1941 to 21.9 million in 1943. Kokanee fry were planted extensively, with over 40,000,000 released in the main body of Lake Chelan from 1934 through 1966 by WDG (planting records for years prior to 1934 are not available). Little is known about the success of these outplants. Many of the larger early plants were probably not successful as they were of swim-up fry placed in the lake in winter when plankton densities were low.
As part of the 1975 application to relicense the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project, Chelan PUD agreed to fund a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) hatchery program to plant 1.5 million kokanee fry annually into Lake Chelan. The primary goal of the enhancement program was to increase sport fishing opportunities by increasing the kokanee population. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, Chelan PUD agreed to increase annual hatchery capacity at CFFH to two million kokanee eggs (or 1.5 million fry). Kokanee releases since 1980 have totaled nearly 10,000,000
9 The Chelan Falls Hatchery is located on the Columbia River above Rocky Reach Dam near Chelan Falls, Washington. It began operation in 1965 as mitigation for Rocky Reach Dam. Chelan PUD owns the hatchery and funds its operation and maintenance (source: www.cbr.washington.edu).
58 juveniles. However, only once has more than one million kokanee fry been planted in Lake Chelan since 1984, because the hatchery could not acquire sufficient eggs from outside sources to meet program objectives. Since the hatchery could not meet the 1.5 million fry production goal, fishery managers, with voluntary funding from Chelan PUD, elected to enhance the sport fishery, particularly in the Wapato Basin, in another manner by releasing catchable-size rainbow trout beginning in 1990. This rainbow trout program has continued with annual plants from 1990 to the present (see rainbow trout below).
In comments on the DEA, WDFW stated that the size of kokanee and kokanee catch rates are dependent on population size. Brown (1984) stated that when populations have been high, adult size has been small, and conversely, when the kokanee population crashed in the late 1970's, the average adult size increased. Catch rates of kokanee have varied considerably since 1940, when angler records were first available. Catch rates were highest (about 3.0 kokanee per hour) in the mid-1940s when hatchery outplants were large. They were lowest in the 1950s and the 1980s. In the early 1950s, catch rates were less than 0.1 fish per hour. This was probably a combined result of the catastrophic floods of 1948 and 1949 and the reduction in hatchery production. The population rebounded through the 1960s and 1970s (catch rates reached about 2.0 kokanee per hour) but then dropped to less than 0.1 fish per hour in the 1980s. This was likely a result of the introductions of landlocked chinook salmon, a predator of kokanee, and Mysis shrimp, which are believed to compete with kokanee for food. Hagen (1995) reported the catch rates for kokanee to be 0.12 fish per hour in 1993 and 0.28 fish per hour in 1994. Although these values remain low, they are higher than those observed in 1981 (0.03 fish per hour; Brown, 1984). Kokanee catch per unit effort (CPUE) for 1999 (0.245 fish per hour) compares favorably with previous investigations (DES, 2000a). The 1993 CPUE (0.12 fish per hour) reflected catch and effort data only through July; the higher 1994 CPUE (0.28 fish per hour) reflects an earlier starting time for the 1994 creel survey, which began in mid-May. In 1999, surveys began in April and extended through October. If kokanee data for 1999 are restricted to the May through July period, the 1999 CPUE is 0.338 fish per hour.
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout were introduced to Lake Chelan in 1916. Plants of juvenile rainbow trout totaled over 2.5 million fish prior 1970. Since 1970, stocking of juveniles continued. Total stocking of rainbow trout has been nearly 2 million fish, juveniles and larger, since 1980. Rainbow trout fishery enhancement has increased since 1990 when Chelan PUD began funding a program to release catchable-size rainbow trout (average size of 2.5 to 4.5 fish per pound [fpp]). The larger fish were intended to provide immediate benefits to the sport fishery, with the potential to allow some overwinter survival for harvest of larger fish in following years. Rainbow trout also provide a
59 longer fishery in the lower lake (May through September) in comparison to kokanee (May and June). Between 1990 and 1999, a total of 818,990 catchable rainbow trout were released in various locations of Lake Chelan.
In 1993, Hagen (1995) examined 308 rainbow trout and found that 92 percent were 20 cm to 30 cm, the size range of the hatchery-released fish. Nearly all the fish had eroded fins. These observations indicate the sport fishery effectively harvested hatchery fish during their year of release. Scale pattern analysis later verified this assertion (Hagen, 1995). Based on length-frequency analysis, Hagen (1995) estimated that only about 8 percent to 10 percent of the released hatchery rainbow trout survived over winter to contribute to the following year’s fishery. Unlike Hagan's results, Brown (1984) found that few rainbow trout collected in 1981 and 1982 had eroded fins. The difference between these observations suggests a shift from populations dominated by natural propagation in the early 1980s to one currently dominated by hatchery fish. Also, while natural reproduction appears to be low on average, Interior suggests that significant natural reproduction is occurring in the Stehekin River, including hybridization with native cutthroat trout. WDFW suggests that the loss of natural propagation may be the result of formation of alluvial barriers in the tributary mouths which prevent adult rainbow trout from accessing spawning areas.
Landlocked chinook salmon
Beginning in 1974 and annually through 1978, the WDFW introduced landlocked chinook salmon into Lake Chelan. The initial plant in 1974 was 16,500 fish at 3 fpp (5,500 pounds). Subsequent plants made from 1975 to 1978 were smaller-sized fish: 70,500, 72,500, 123,800, and 40,000 fish, respectively, ranging from 48 fpp to 8 fpp. Juveniles were released from net pens located near Twentyfive Mile Creek, with some isolated smaller releases in the lower end of the lake. Introduction of landlocked chinook salmon was intended to provide a trophy fishery for Lake Chelan. Some landlocked chinook have established adfluvial (lake resident) populations, and currently spawn in the Stehekin River, Company Creek and Blackberry Creek (Fielder, 1999; DES, 2001c).
The first year of the landlocked chinook salmon fishery in 1975 consisted entirely of small, immature fish. Fishery managers examined gut contents and found that the hatchery landlocked chinook fed primarily on aquatic and terrestrial insects (WDFW, 1976). Over the next few years, creel surveys indicated that anglers caught fish weighing an average of 2 kilograms (kg), with larger fish reaching 6 kg (Brown, 1984). This indicated good early growth of the initial plants, but by 1978 growth rates decreased considerably, perhaps in part due to the decline of the kokanee population which may have served as food for landlocked chinook (Brown, 1984). The original landlocked chinook stocking program was terminated in 1979.
60 The landlocked chinook population has remained at low levels in recent years but has been a very popular sport fishery nonetheless. WDFW suggests that the recent decline in this population is likely the result of flooding in 1995 that destroyed redds in the Stehekin River system. The levels of natural recruitment in the past few years suggests that the population is beginning the recover from the impacts of the 1995 flood. To aid in the recovery of the chinook population, WDFW revised the regulations thereby reducing harvest.
In response to requests by anglers, WDFW re-established the hatchery outplants in 1990, using late-spawning ocean-type chinook salmon from the Wells Fish Hatchery. In this operation, between 88,000 and 145,000 juvenile fall chinook salmon at 7 to 38 fpp have been released into the lake and these fish have been marked with fin clips to aid in documenting their contribution to the fishery. Based on a 1993 creel survey, catch per unit effort remains low (0.02 fish per hour; Hagen 1995). In 1999, average catch per hour was 0.008, ranging from a high of 0.020 fish per hour in the Lucerne Basin to a low of 0.003 in the Wapato Basin (DES, 2000a). However, the CPUE for fishermen stating their target species was landlocked chinook was much higher, at a rate of 0.049 fish per angling hour. Brown (1984) reported that age three landlocked chinook comprised the majority of the catch (59 percent), followed by age four (32 percent). The largest fish recorded in the 1981 and 1982 surveys was 3.6 kg (Brown, 1984), yet the fish have a high variability in length and age. A total of 1.4 million chinook have been stocked into Lake Chelan since the program began in 1974.
Lake trout
Lake trout were introduced to Lake Chelan in 1980 by fishery managers believing they would provide a trophy-type, top-level predator at the time landlocked chinook stocking ceased. Lake trout are longer lived than landlocked chinook and have successfully exploited Mysis shrimp and kokanee populations in lakes where one or both have been introduced. Like landlocked chinook, however, they require an abundant food base to achieve a large size for a trophy fishery. Lake trout have become very popular as a trophy sport fish in Lake Chelan due to the increase in individual fish size and decrease in the landlocked chinook population (DES, 2000a). The Washington State record lake trout (35 lb. 6.7 oz.) was caught from Lake Chelan in December 2001 and several other fish over 30 pounds have been caught in the lake.
Stocking of lake trout has been discontinued since 1999, but the releases of hatchery lake trout totaled over 770,000 until then. WDFW indicates that stocking of lake trout was discontinued based on information from other systems that suggest that if lake trout become too abundant they can overwhelm other species and could substantially
61 reduce the numbers of kokanee, landlocked chinook, or cutthroat trout. Recently, four juvenile fish believed to be lake trout were observed during snorkeling surveys near tributary mouths providing some evidence of natural lake trout reproduction in Lake Chelan. In comments on the DEA, Interior stated that current information, such as the continued increase in harvest, indicates that lake trout are successfully reproducing in Lake Chelan. Interior also suggested that the lake trout represent a significant threat to native fish species in Lake Chelan and continued reproduction of this species may affect the ability of fisheries managers to recover and restore native fish species.
Other species
Over the years, other species of fish have been introduced into Lake Chelan, either by management agencies or illegally by individuals. WDFW planting records also indicate that sockeye salmon, kamloops strain of rainbow trout, brook trout and grayling have been planted in Lake Chelan at one time or another. Smallmouth bass have appeared in Lake Chelan and become abundant in the Wapato basin in recent years. Incidental catches of bluegill and other species have also been reported.
Mysis Shrimp
Mysis shrimp were transplanted into Lake Chelan from Kootenay Lake, B.C. in 1968, 1969 and 1971 (1.5 million total) and were firmly established by 1975. The Mysis were transplanted to provide food for kokanee. The intent was to produce larger kokanee for the sport fishery. Kokanee size increased, but the total population decreased, clouding any relationship between the Mysis shrimp food source and kokanee.
Mysis shrimp in Lake Chelan have a life cycle of 15 to 18 months, the young being produced in midwinter and the parent year class disappearing about the end of June as the oncoming brood approaches 8-10 mm in length. Their growth (measured as length) is nearly linear throughout their life cycle, with faster growth occurring in summer. Analysis of growth rates of Mysis shrimp in Lake Chelan indicate that their growth is not food limited (Brown, 1984). Modal size of mature Mysis shrimp is 18 mm, with a range of 8-22 mm (Brown, 1984). As in other oligotrophic water bodies, Mysis shrimp exhibit diel vertical migrations that are influenced by both light and temperature. In general, Mysis shrimp remain deeper than 46 m during the day and deeper than the 18oC thermocline at all times (Brown, 1984).
Brown (1984) found the density of Mysis shrimp in Lake Chelan during the 1981 and 1982 sampling period was 0.56 to 1.62 Mysis/m3. This is considerably lower than found in other oligotrophic lakes, such as Lake Pend Oreille (Idaho) and Lake Tahoe (California/Nevada).
62 The population of Mysis shrimp has increased nearly fourfold since 1982, and their predation on larger zooplankton has likely shaped the zooplankton community to favor smaller organisms such as Cyclops bicuspidatus thomasi (DES, 2000a). Though cyclops is abundant relative to other zooplankton, it is not a preferred prey item for kokanee or rainbow trout. Consequently, the sparse density and the shift to less preferred prey species has created a zooplankton community less able to provide adequate forage for kokanee, and to a lesser extent cutthroat trout or rainbow trout. In addition, because of negative phototaxis exhibited by Mysis, it is not available as forage when kokanee feed. Lake trout and landlocked chinook salmon utilize Mysis as a food source that could result in higher survival rates of both species and, consequently, increased predation on other fish species.
Relicensing studies
Relicensing studies in 1999 and 2000 were conducted to determine the current status of the fishery in Lake Chelan. Studies investigated: (1) sport catch through conducting a creel survey; (2) incidence of barriers to upstream spawning migration in lake tributaries; (3) timing of fry emergence; (4) tributary spawning and rearing habitat availability; (5) tributary fish populations; (6) limnological conditions; and (7) the role of large woody debris (LWD).
Lake Chelan
The status of the current sport fishery was evaluated with a roving creel investigation throughout the recreational fishery (DES, 2000a). The creel survey provided catch and effort data for kokanee, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, landlocked chinook salmon, lake trout, smallmouth bass and burbot by season and lake sector. The number of fish reported in the section describing creel surveys are the actual number caught, not expanded counts.
Kokanee were the primary species targeted by anglers in the lake (when combining all areas), followed by rainbow trout, lake trout and landlocked chinook. Most of the interviews were conducted in the Wapato Basin, where kokanee were mentioned as the targeted species in 261 interviews, followed by lake trout, landlocked chinook and rainbow trout in order of preference. For the entire lake fishery, kokanee were mentioned in the top three angler preferences over 50 percent of the time. Rainbow trout, lake trout and landlocked chinook were mentioned fairly evenly, ranging from approximately 25 percent to 28 percent of the time.
63 Kokanee were the most abundant fish in the creel, with nearly 1,000 captured during the surveys. About 70 percent of these fish were captured in the Wapato Basin, where kokanee were targeted. Rainbow trout were the second most abundant species in the surveys, with 240 captured, accounting for about 16 percent of the creel. The rainbow were planted in the Wapato Basin and the majority were caught there (56 percent of the total) followed by the Lucerne Basin (41 percent of the total).
Lake trout and landlocked chinook are considered the “trophy fish” in Lake Chelan. Anglers caught 150 lake trout and 31 landlocked chinook during the 1999 creel surveys. The majority of the lake trout were caught in the Wapato Basin and at the Narrows (89 percent of total), while more landlocked chinook were caught in the Lucerne Basin than anywhere else in the lake (61 percent).
Smallmouth bass, which are found in lakes around rocky reefs and gravel bars, prefer temperatures between 21oC and 27oC (Wydoski and Whitney, 1979). These fish are found in the lower Wapato Basin, where temperatures tend to be warmer and the lake is shallower. A total of 35 smallmouth bass, all in the Wapato Basin, were captured during creel surveys in 1999.
Burbot prefer deep waters within lakes (Wydoski and Whitney, 1979). Twelve total burbot were caught on set lines in the Wapato and Lucerne basins.
Cutthroat trout, a fish native to Lake Chelan and its tributaries, were nearly absent from the creel, with a harvest of only three noted during 1999 (Catch Per Unit Effort [CPUE] of 0.001). Hagen (1997) did not estimate cutthroat trout CPUE in 1993 or 1994, while Brown (1984) estimated CPUE of 0.026 and 0.014 in 1981 and 1982, respectively. As noted earlier, an annual average of 87,498 cutthroat trout were released into Lake Chelan from 1993-94 and 1995-97. It is apparent from the 1999 creel survey results that these hatchery plants are not contributing to the creel of Lake Chelan (DES, 2000a). WDFW suggests that stocked cutthroat trout are not being recruited to the fishery because they are stocked into the lake, rather than the tributaries where they would typically rear, and they are stocked at a small size that is susceptible to predation. Additional information regarding the recruitment of cutthroat trout is presented in the analysis section below. No bull trout, another fish native to Lake Chelan, were sampled during the creel survey.
Tributaries
One of the goals of the fisheries investigations was to determine the efficacy of the kokanee, cutthroat and rainbow trout stocking/hatchery programs in terms of contribution to Lake Chelan spawning populations of these species (DES, 2000a). An assessment of
64 the salmonid population was made by electrofishing 100 meters (328 feet) in each of eight selected study streams. Each captured fish was identified to species and measured for weight and fork length. Electrofishing was not conducted in Railroad Creek due to high flows that made electrofishing conditions inefficient and unsafe.
Rainbow trout were captured during each of two samplings on the same day in each of the selected tributaries. Cutthroat trout were captured in Grade, Safety Harbor, Prince and Fish creeks. Six brook trout were captured in Twentyfive Mile Creek. The results of the electrofishing study are listed in Table 7.
Table 7. Electrofishing results and estimated population statistics for all trout (Source: DES, 2000a) ESTIMATED POPULATION Creek Sample Sample Total 100 1/4 Mile 1999 Brown percent 1 2 Catch Meter (402.3m) per km (1984) 1999:1984 per km First 35 14 49 58 235 583 1552 37.6 Mitchel 68 43 111 185 744 1850 800 231.2 Gold 32 17 49 68 275 683 4927 13.9 Grade 59 32 91 129 2681 1289 2060 62.6 25 Mile 51 31 82 130 523 1301 2430 53.5 Safety 47 27 74 111 444 1105 3440 32.1 Prince 42 29 71 136 546 1357 3820 35.5 Fish 21 10 31 40 161 401 1932 20.8 1 Only 211m (1/8 mile) are available to adfluvial fish so fish population is estimated for that distance.
A comparison to the results from Brown (1984) shows that the population of trout in all of the selected tributaries, with the exception of Mitchell Creek, was lower in 1999. The population of trout in Mitchell Creek was 2.3 times higher in 1999 than reported by Brown (1984). From 1992 to 1994, the Forest Service constructed a number of fish habitat enhancement structures in Mitchell Creek and improved the riparian community along the creek, which likely has contributed to the increase in the fish population. It is difficult to determine a direct cause for the differences in fish populations found in the creeks other than Mitchell due to a number of variables in both the environmental conditions and data collection methodologies. A comparison of the two studies conducted 17 years apart cannot take into account the fluctuations of fish populations throughout that period, and general population trends cannot be determined from only two data sets.
65 Snorkeling at the mouths of the eight selected tributaries and the Stehekin River was conducted in late April, late July and early October of 1999. In 2000, snorkeling surveys were performed in nine tributaries. The surveys took place at two-week intervals beginning in early April, and they continued through mid-July. Surveys in 2000 began at the stream mouths and continued upstream for a distance of at least 100 meters. The objective of the studies was to determine fish presence and use at the creek mouths as well as the lower reaches of the streams, in particular by adult adfluvial cutthroat trout and rainbow trout for staging upstream migration.
Bridgelip or largescale suckers were the dominant species observed at the creek mouths in both years. These fish appeared to be feeding on material washed out by the creeks. In April, a night snorkeling survey was conducted at First and Twentyfive Mile creeks to compare daytime and nighttime snorkeling. Juvenile northern pikeminnow were observed on these surveys. In July, snorkeling was conducted at the creek mouths and for a distance upstream. Large numbers of suckers were observed in pools in the creeks. These fish were assumed to be migrating upstream to spawn. Large adult rainbow and cutthroat trout were observed in Prince Creek in July of 1999. In 2000, resident trout were observed in all nine study streams and adfluvial trout were observed in First, Grade, Twentyfive Mile, Safety Harbor, Prince and Railroad creeks. Based on their size, these fish were believed to be adfluvial fish migrating upstream to spawn.
Natural production of trout in the study tributaries to Lake Chelan is limited by tributary access (discussed in the analysis section below), the scarcity of spawning habitat, and possibly by species interactions. Cobbles and boulders dominate substrate in the study streams, with very little appropriately sized gravel for trout spawning. Historically, the Lake Chelan population of native cutthroat trout began spawning in mid- April and continued through June. The timing of trout spawning appeared to be delayed in 1999, based on back-calculating time of emergence (DES, 2000b). With the exception of Mitchell and Railroad creeks, spawning timing for the year 2000 was estimated to occur within the historical period (DES, 2001a).
Trout spawning was estimated to occur from June 10 through August 10 in 1999, with a majority occurring in July. In 2000, trout spawning was estimated to occur from April 30 through August 12, with most spawning occurring during June and July. During the snorkeling surveys, large numbers of suckers (most likely bridgelip sucker) were observed spawning in the stream channels in June and July. The fish were in spawning condition, with bright orange lateral bands on their sides. The spawning timing of both adfluvial and resident trout appears to coincide with sucker spawning, and competition for spawning habitat may occur. This may result more from limitations in accessing the tributary spawning habitat (discussed below) than from the natural spawning times of these species. Bridgelip suckers broadcast spawn over rocky substrate ranging in size
66 from gravel to cobbles (Dauble, 1980). Since spawning substrate is limited in the stream channels, the bridgelip sucker, which is a larger fish and occurs in greater numbers, may push the trout further upstream or into less favorable spawning habitat. In addition, the emergent sucker fry may compete with the emergent trout fry for food. If this is the case, then increased competition for spawning and rearing habitat would diminish natural production of trout. In comments on the DEA, Interior indicated that it does not believe that suckers and native cutthroat trout compete for habitat since suckers are broadcast spawners and trout construct redds in the gravel.
Kokanee spawning surveys have been conducted annually in five tributaries to Lake Chelan, and in five additional tributaries intermittently, since 1984. These five primary tributaries include the majority of the kokanee spawning in the Lake Chelan drainage and include: First Creek, Twentyfive Mile Creek, Safety Harbor Creek and two tributaries of the Stehekin River: Company and Blackberry creeks. Landlocked chinook salmon spawners are also recorded during the kokanee spawning surveys. Landlocked chinook spawning has been documented only in Company Creek, Blackberry Creek and the Stehekin River (Fielder, 2000; DES, 2001c).
Spawning surveys from 1990 through 2000 show that kokanee runs are much higher than they have been seen since intensive surveys of those spawning streams started in 1981 (Fielder, 1999). From 1984 through 1995, kokanee escapement in streams surveyed rarely exceeded 40,000 spawners. However, in 1996 and 1997, over 54,000 and 67,000 spawners, respectively, used the spawning streams. In 1999, the total estimated numbers of kokanee spawners (excluding spawning in the mainstem Stehekin River) exceeded 101,000 fish, which is the highest count on record (Fielder 1999) and the escapement of 90,700 kokanee spawners in 2000 was nearly as high (Fielder, 1999). Company Creek and Blackberry Creek, both tributaries of the Stehekin River, support most of the kokanee spawning within the drainage, frequently upward of 95 percent since 1990.
Tailrace and lower end of the bypassed reach
The tailrace contains populations of fish that enter from the Columbia River. Chelan PUD biologists have observed several native fish species congregating on the alluvial fan where the tailrace, the bypassed reach of the Chelan River and the Columbia River converge. Summer and fall chinook salmon spawn on gravel in this area in October and November. The gravel and flow conditions are also appropriate for native cyprinid fishes, such as chiselmouth chubb, peamouth chubb and northern pikeminnow. Suckers have been observed spawning in the spring.
67 Redd counts of chinook spawning on the alluvial fan at the end of the tailrace and in the confluence of the Chelan and Columbia rivers have ranged from 16 - 69 redds per year from 1981 to 1999 (Chelan PUD, 1991; Chelan PUD, 2000b). Spawning occurs in October when water temperatures have declined to below 16°C. The spawning locations, velocity, depth and substrate preferences for chinook salmon spawning in the tailrace, under conditions present in 1990 and 1991, were reported by Giorgi (1992) and, during 2000 conditions, were reported by Chelan PUD (R2 and IA, 2000). Giorgi reported that a fall/winter flood in 1990 deposited several feet of bedload material on top of redds he had marked that fall, which were located on the steep edge where the alluvial fan of the bypassed reach spilled into a deep channel at the end of the tailrace. The events subsequent to 1990 have resulted in very large depositions of bedload material in the tailrace and into the Columbia River and have completely filled the deep channel surveyed by Giorgi. While the factors that characterize preferred spawning habitat have not changed, major spill events in the bypassed reach subsequent to 1995 have changed the spawning locations to a broader area than documented by Giorgi. The filled channel now provides suitable velocity, substrate and depth across the full width of the river where the tailrace and bypassed reach converge.
A summer/fall chinook salmon spawning survey in 2000 revealed 190 redds (Kris Peterson, WDFW, personal communication to Steve Hays, Chelan PUD, November 16, 2000). Redds were located both above and below the highway and railroad bridges spanning the Project tailrace. Spawning substrate downstream from these bridges appears to be increasing as spring spill events move gravel down through the bypassed reach and into the tailrace.
Fish stranding surveys have been conducted after flows are curtailed at the termination of each annual spill event in the bypassed reach since 1998 (Table 8). The goal of these surveys is to identify any Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species (upper Columbia River summer steelhead or upper Columbia River spring chinook salmon) or RTE species that have the potential to become stranded in the bypassed reach, and to return them to the Columbia River to resume their spawning migration. No ESA- listed or RTE species were observed in the bypassed reach in any of the fish stranding surveys (Chelan PUD, 2000b).
Earlier observations included several chinook salmon in pools in the bypassed reach in 1993. Also, a radio-tagged spring chinook from a Rocky Reach fishway passage study was observed in the lower gorge section of the bypassed reach in 1993 (Stuehrenberg, et al., 1995).
One adipose-clipped rainbow trout/steelhead of approximately 20 inches was observed during an initial snorkel survey in 1998 in the lower end of the bypassed reach.
68 The following day the fish could not be found and it was assumed to have moved back downstream to the mainstem Columbia River.
After spill events, flows to the bypassed reach are slowly ramped down over a period of days to allow fish to leave the reach before spill is ended for the season. The stranding surveys confirm that fish have left the area before all flows are curtailed. Fish stranded in the stilling basin immediately below the spillway are collected through seining operations and returned alive to Lake Chelan.
Table 8. Number of fish found during Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project fish stranding surveys. Species Date: 8/18/00 Date: 9/22/99 Date: 9/29/98 Northern pikeminnow 334 370 49 rainbow trout (stocked) 25 106 13 smallmouth bass 8 24 6 largescale sucker 0 1 3 chinook salmon 0 0 2 (landlocked)
Environmental impacts and recommendations:
Several fisheries resource issues were discussed during prefiling consultation including: minimum flows in the bypassed reach, a Chelan River Fishery Management Plan (CRFMP), development of a Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan (LCFMP) for the lake, lake level management for fish protection, entrainment, a management plan for large woody debris, the effect of Lake Chelan operations on Columbia River flows , and the introduction of anadromous fish into Lake Chelan. We discuss these issues below.
Restoration and Enhancement of the Bypassed Reach and Tailrace
Chelan PUD proposes to provide a year-round minimum flow of 80 cfs to the bypassed reach. Approximately 80 percent of the time, Chelan PUD proposes to release higher flows in the spring/early summer to mimic the natural hydrograph to some extent. Chelan PUD's proposed flows are presented in Table 9. Chelan PUD also proposes to comply with a maximum ramping rate of 2 inches per hour throughout the bypassed reach when providing minimum flows and whitewater flows, but not during periods of higher
69 spill flows (Chelan, 2001c). To enhance anadromous salmonid spawning habitat in reach 4, Chelan PUD proposes to provide a minimum flow of 320 cfs from March 15 to May 15 and from October 15 to November 30 each year. These minimum flows would be achieved through a combination of the minimum flows released at the dam that pass through reaches 1, 2, and 3, and additional water pumped from the tailrace to the upstream end of reach 4. As part of this proposal Chelan PUD proposes to construct a pump system to convey flows from the tailrace into reach 4. Chelan PUD proposes to use backup pump or releases from the dam to provide the reach 4 flows if the primary pump system fails. Additionally, Chelan PUD proposes to modify fisheries habitat in reach 4 and the project tailrace to create additional anadromous fish spawning and rearing habitat and modify habitat and/or release higher daytime flows in reaches 1 and 2 to reduce warming. As part of the CRBEIP (CRBEIP), Chelan proposes to implement measures to limit project-related redd dewatering and low intragravel DO during salmon and steelhead incubation in the tailrace. Chelan PUD proposes to limit erosion and protect the stream channel enhancements that would be in Reach 4 of the bypassed reach by modifying project operations and avoiding high spillway flows to the extent feasible. Lastly, Chelan PUD proposes to monitor the effectiveness of the proposed minimum flows and habitat enhancements.
Table 9. Bypassed reach flow proposal Reach Dry year (cfs) Average year (cfs) Wet year (cfs) 1, 2 & 31 80 all months 80 July 16-May 14 80 July 16-May 14 May 14 May 14 ramp up to 2003 ramp up to 3203 200 May 15-July 15 320 May 15-July 15 July 16 July 16 ramp down to 803 ramp down to 803 42 80 + 240 pumped 320 by combination of 320 by combination of Spawning March 15 to spill & pumping spill & pumping flow May 15 and March 15 to May 15 March 15 to May 15 October 15 to and October 15 to and October 15 to November 30 November 30 November 30 Incubation flow, as Incubation flow, as needed needed 1 Flows measured at the dam by calibrated gate rating. 2 Flows measured at the dam or through calibrated pump discharge curves. 3 In the CRBEIP (CRBEIP), Chelan proposed to implement a ramping rate of 2 inches per hour.
70 Interior, NMFS, and WDFW recommend under Section 10(j), that Chelan PUD be required to provide the minimum flows presented in Table 9. Interior, NMFS, and WDFW also recommend that Chelan PUD develop and implement plans to improve habitat in the tailrace and reach 4, develop a means to provide backup flows to reach 4 in the event of a failure of the primary system, develop a plan to monitor and evaluate the benefits of the measures implemented in the bypassed reach and tailrace. NMFS and WDFW specifically recommend a gaging plan to monitor flows in the bypassed reach and tailrace. To minimize the frequency and magnitude of involuntary spills that could damage habitat improvements within the bypassed reach, NMFS and WDFW recommend that there be some flexibility in achieving the July 1 lake elevation target of 1,098 feet. NMFS recommends that Chelan PUD's proposed pump system for providing flows to reach 4 from the tailrace include measures to minimize attraction and impingement of juvenile salmonids. Interior and NMFS recommend a minimum flow of 500 cfs in the project tailrace from October 1-July 31 each year to protect salmon spawning and incubating steelhead eggs. Lastly, Interior recommends that Chelan PUD supplement gravels in reach 4 to restore pre-dam fish production levels.
As part of the 401 WQC issued on April 21, 2003, WDOE included conditions requiring Chelan to provide the minimum flows presented in Table 9, implement a ramping rate of 2 inches per hour in the Chelan River, conduct habitat improvements in reach 4 and the tailrace, implement measures to limit project-related redd dewatering and low intragravel DO during salmon and steelhead incubation in the tailrace, pump tailrace water into reach 4 as necessary to prevent dewatering redds or to reduce warm water temperatures for rearing salmonids, and reduce warm river temperatures in reaches 1, 2, and 3 by increasing daytime flows, increasing shade, and/or enhancing coolwater refugia habitat.
In comments on the DEA, American Rivers indicates that the EA should evaluate the minimum flows that were proposed by WDFW during the prefiling period and range from 350 to 650 cfs.10 To reduce warming in the bypassed reach, American Rivers recommends that the EA include an analysis of natural flows and withdrawing water from deeper portions of Lake Chelan. Lastly, American Rivers recommends that the EA include an analysis of a flow regime that includes supplementing Chelan River flows during dry years.
Our analysis
10Subsequent to making this proposal and prior to issuance of the DEA, WDFW revised its position and formally recommended, under Section 10(j) of the FPA, minimum flows consistent with Chelan's proposal and the recommendations of NMFS and Interior.
71
In their PDEA, Chelan PUD indicates that during prefiling consultation, six objectives for restoring the bypassed reach were defined. We summarize these objectives below:
(1) Establishing westslope cutthroat trout populations in the upper reaches of the bypassed section of the Chelan River; (2) Establishing a minimum instream flow for the bypassed reach; (3) Developing parameters to guide simulation of natural seasonal variations in flow; (4) Establishing summer steelhead and summer/fall chinook salmon populations in the lower portion of the bypassed reach; (5) Modifying physical habitat in the lower portion of the bypassed reach; and (6) Ensuring compatibility of any proposed minimum flows and physical habitat modifications with management of lake fisheries, lake elevations, and power production.
Below, we evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed minimum bypassed reach flows, the minimum tailrace flows, habitat enhancement, ramping rates, and followup monitoring. At the end of this section, we summarize the effects of the proposed measures on aquatic resources and review these effects in regard to the objectives listed above.
Minimum Flows in the Bypassed Reach
The minimum flows proposed by Chelan PUD in the license application and specified by Interior, NMFS, WDOE, and WDFW would vary during the spring and early summer depending on the level of winter snow and runoff forecast. In dry years, when the runoff is predicted to be less than normal (within the 80% exceedance range of historical runoff volumes), then only the 80 cfs guaranteed minimum flow would be released year-round. In average water years, when the runoff is predicted to be normal (within the 21% - 79% exceedance range or 60% of the years based on historical records), then a 200 cfs minimum flow would be released from May 15 to July 15. In wet years, when runoff is predicted to be greater than normal (within the 20% exceedance level), then a 320 cfs minimum flow would be released from May 15 to July 15. The exact timing of the flow increases could change depending on climatic conditions (spring temperatures or rain) and biological evaluations. In years with higher than average snowpack, flow in the bypassed reach would often exceed the minimum flow levels specified in Table 9 due to high spill flows that would occur when lake inflow exceeds the hydraulic capacity of the Project and the lake is full (elevation 1,099 feet or higher).
72 Spills in the bypassed reach of the Chelan River have at times reached levels as high as 15,000-20,000 cfs. Flows of this magnitude can result in significant erosion of the toe of the steep gravel banks within the Chelan River gorge and significant reshaping of the channel. NMFS has expressed concern that these high spill flows could damage or destroy the habitat improvements proposed for reaches 1, 2, and 4. The significant bedload movement and potential entrainment of significant amounts of sediment from the gorge cliffs during high spill events could result in channel reshaping within modified sections or deposition in areas of deep holding habitat or areas designed as thermal refugia. NMFS suggests that to reduce the occurrence of these high involuntary spill flows, Chelan should delay filling the lake to the July 1 target of 1,098 feet by two weeks during years of high or late runoff. This delay would provide additional storage below 1,098 feet that could be used to retain some of the excessive runoff during high inflow events and therefore reduce spills into the bypassed reach. NMFS did not present any specific information or data to indicate how much spills would be reduced by adding two weeks of flexibility to the refill target. Additionally, NMFS did not indicate how much storage would be needed (i.e. how far below 1,098 feet) to adequately reduce spills. Without this information, we are unable to quantify the amount of reduction in spill and we can only conclude that delaying refill to the July 1 target could reduce spills to the bypassed reach to some degree. Without additional information, including detailed hydrological modeling of lake levels and spill flows and the maximum design flows for the proposed habitat enhancements, we can not determine if this measure would reduce damage to habitat within the bypassed reach.
Under current conditions, the bypassed reach provides no year-round riverine habitat and the only permanently wetted areas include a series of groundwater fed pools. As a result, the bypassed reach functions similar to an ephemeral stream in only providing true riverine habitat for aquatic resources during the short periods each year that spill occurs at the Lake Chelan dam. The proposed minimum flows however would create a permanently wetted channel through the bypassed reach and, at a minimum would provide some year-round habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms as well as potentially establish some riparian habitat (see Terrestrial and Wildlife Resources). During prefiling consultation, Chelan PUD and stakeholders collaborated to define the goal of establishing a natural functioning ecosystem in the Reaches 1, 2, and 3 of the bypassed reach, with the desire that these reaches would support cutthroat trout and other native coolwater fish species, benthic invertebrates, and riparian vegetation.
Instream flow studies conducted during prefiling were used to estimate the amount of habitat created in Reaches 1 and 2 for adult cutthroat trout and juvenile, adult, and spawning suckers under the proposed flow regime (Table 10). The results of this study suggest that the maximum amount of adult cutthroat trout habitat would be 7.75 acres which would occur at a 200 cfs flow. Under the proposal made by Chelan and the
73 agencies, this flow would occur for 2 months during the late spring and early summer in approximately 60 percent of the years during the license term. In 20 percent of the years, 320 cfs would be provided at this time of year. This flow would result in 7.30 acres or approximately 94 percent of the maximum adult cutthroat trout habitat. During the other 20 percent of the years, the minimum flow would be 80 cfs during the late spring and early summer. In all years, 80 cfs would be the minimum flow provided to the bypassed reach during the other 10 months of the year (i.e., July 16 to May 14). The 80 cfs minimum flow would provide approximately 5.93 acres or 77 percent of the maximum available habitat for cutthroat trout.
The maximum amount of juvenile and adult sucker habitat would be 7.05 acres which would occur at the proposed 80 cfs flow which would be the minimum flow for approximately 10 months during average and wet years and 12 months during dry
Table 10. Estimated available habitat (in acres) for cutthroat trout and suckers in Reaches 1 and 2 of the bypassed reach. Proposed and recommended minimum flows and the associated habitat values are in bold. Underlined values are maxima. (Source: R2 and IA; 2000).
Adult cutthroat trout habitat Juvenile and adult sucker habitat Sucker spawning habitat (acres) (acres) (acres)
Flow (cfs) Reach 1 Reach 2 Total Reach 1 Reach 2 Total Reach 1 Reach 2 Total
20 1.38 0.70 2.08 2.88 1.37 4.25 0.71 0.13 0.84
40 2.59 1.12 3.71 4.53 1.68 6.21 1.08 0.15 1.23
60 3.58 1.43 5.01 5.30 1.62 6.92 1.28 0.18 1.46
80 4.34 1.59 5.93 5.58 1.47 7.05 1.42 0.21 1.63
100 5.00 1.66 6.66 5.51 1.30 6.81 1.53 0.25 1.78
120 5.51 1.67 7.18 5.30 1.14 6.44 1.60 0.29 1.89
140 5.88 1.64 7.52 4.98 0.96 5.94 1.63 0.32 1.95
160 6.09 1.59 7.68 4.68 0.79 5.47 1.64 0.32 1.96
180 6.22 1.52 7.74 4.41 0.66 5.07 1.63 0.32 1.95
200 6.31 1.44 7.75 4.18 0.57 4.75 1.63 0.30 1.93
220 6.34 1.35 7.69 4.00 0.50 4.50 1.61 0.28 1.89
240 6.33 1.28 7.61 3.87 0.46 4.33 1.58 0.26 1.84
260 6.31 1.21 7.52 3.74 0.43 4.17 1.54 0.24 1.78
280 6.32 1.16 7.48 3.64 0.42 4.06 1.50 0.22 1.72
300 6.30 1.12 7.42 3.58 0.40 3.98 1.45 0.21 1.66
320 6.22 1.08 7.30 3.53 0.40 3.93 1.39 0.19 1.58
74 340 6.16 1.04 7.20 3.50 0.39 3.89 1.33 0.18 1.51
3501 6.13 1.03 7.16 3.50 0.39 3.89 1.31 0.18 1.49
360 6.10 1.01 7.11 3.49 0.38 3.87 1.28 0.18 1.46
380 6.05 0.98 7.03 3.51 0.37 3.88 1.23 0.17 1.40
400 5.98 0.96 6.94 3.55 0.36 3.91 1.18 0.17 1.35
450 5.82 0.92 6.74 3.69 0.35 4.04 1.09 0.16 1.25
500 5.71 0.89 6.60 3.89 0.36 4.25 1.04 0.15 1.19
550 5.71 0.87 6.58 4.04 0.36 4.44 0.99 0.15 1.14
600 5.71 0.86 6.57 4.22 0.36 4.58 0.95 0.16 1.11
650 5.70 0.86 6.56 4.42 0.37 4.79 0.90 0.16 1.06 1 Habitat areas for 350 cfs were not provided in R2 & AI (2000); therefore, we used the average of habitat areas for 340 and 360 cfs to estimate habitat areas for this flow. years. The higher 200 and 320 cfs minimum flows that would be released during average or wet years would provide 67 percent and 56 percent of the maximum available habitat from mid-May to mid-July, respectively.
The maximum amount of sucker spawning habitat would be 1.96 acres which would occur at a 160 cfs flow. The 80 cfs minimum flow proposed for the bypassed reach would provide approximately 1.63 acres or 83 percent of the maximum available habitat for sucker spawning. The higher 200 and 320 cfs minimum flows that would be released during average or wet years would provide 98 percent and 81 percent of the maximum available habitat from mid-May to mid-July, respectively.
In comments on the DEA, American Rivers stated that the FEA should consider supplementing the 80 cfs minimum flow in dry years. They suggest that additional flows may be needed most in dry years (rather than average or wet year) to ensure a healthy aquatic ecosystem. American Rivers did not identify any impacts to the bypassed reach or fish that would occur during dry years. The proposed 80 cfs minimum flow would maintain 77 percent of the maximum habitat for adult cutthroat trout and 83-100 percent of the maximum habitat for suckers. Supplementing this flow, which would occur in 80 percent of the years under average and wet conditions, would potentially increase cutthroat habitat, but sucker habitat would not change significantly. American Rivers did not specifically indicate that fish would need additional habitat during dry years and we are unable to identify any reason additional habitat would be needed under dry conditions. American Rivers' recommendation may be based on the association of dry years with warm air temperatures and their recommendation may be directed at limiting water temperature increases during warm periods rather than providing habitat during dry periods. Increasing flows to reduce water temperatures in the bypassed reach is part of
75 Chelan's current proposal and was included as a condition to WDOE's 401 WQC. We evaluate this measure below.
During prefiling consultation, WDFW recommended flows intended to optimize habitat availability for cutthroat trout, steelhead, and chinook salmon in the bypassed reach (Table 11). Under these flows, adult cutthroat trout habitat would range from 6.56 - 7.16 acres within the bypassed reach. Juvenile and adult sucker habitat would range from 3.89 - 4.79 acres and sucker spawning habitat would range from 1.06 - 1.49 acres. While these flows would provide slightly more habitat for adult cutthroat trout (as much as 21%), they would provide approximately half as much sucker habitat as the flows proposed by Chelan and the agencies. We evaluate how these flows would affect water temperature within the bypass reach and how much salmon and steelhead habitat they would provide below.
Table 11. WDFW's initial minimum flow recommendation that was proposed during prefiling. (Source: WDFW; 2000) Time of year Minimum flow (cfs) January 1 - March 15 350 March 16 - March 31 450 April 1- June 30 650 July 1 - October 15 350 October 16 - November 30 650 December 1 - December 31 450
Each of the minimum flows evaluated above would provide some habitat in the bypassed reach for cutthroat trout and other native cool-water species; however, warm water temperatures during the summer could limit the ability to establish a viable cutthroat trout population in the bypassed reach. As a result of natural warming in the relatively shallow Wapato Basin, water temperatures at the dam often exceed 15oC, which represents the upper limit for optimal cutthroat trout growth (R2 and IA, 2000). Data collected between 1998 and 2002 indicates that water temperatures at the dam (prior to entering the bypassed reach) ranged from 15-20oC in June, 17-25oC in July, 20-25oC in August, and 17-23oC in September (CRBEIP; 2003). Based on these data, water released into the bypassed reach would generally exceed the temperature of zero net growth (19oC) for cutthroat trout during the months of July and August (R2 and IA, 2000) and occasionally water temperatures would exceed the ultimate upper incipient lethal
76 temperature (UUILT; 23.2oC)11 for adult cutthroat trout (R2 and IA, 2000) for several hours. Therefore, while the various minimum flows would provide habitat for cutthroat trout, it appears that water temperatures within the bypassed reach could stress and possibly even result in some mortality of cutthroat trout inhabiting the bypassed reach. Additionally, while lower or higher minimum flows would warm at different rates, the fact that the temperature of the source water from Lake Chelan occasionally exceeds the desired range for cutthroat trout indicates that adjusting the minimum flows in either direction is unlikely to prevent all exceedences of cutthroat trout thermal limits.
A water temperature model developed for Chelan, predicted that even discharges of several thousand cubic feet per second would warm during transit through the bypassed reach on hot summer days. This suggests that even under natural flow conditions, water temperatures within the bypassed reach would display some daytime warming. Additionally, temperatures exceeding the UUILT or the threshold for zero net growth would continue to occur under these flows since increasing flows would not change the temperature of the source water coming from Lake Chelan.
Depending on ambient whether conditions, water released to the bypassed reach will either increase or decrease in temperature. Because of their lower heat capacity, low flows are more responsive to ambient conditions than high flows. Therefore, low flows in the bypassed reach would warm to a greater maximum daily water temperature than would higher flows during hot summer days. Conversely, low flows would cool more than high flows during cool summer nights. In other words, the flows proposed by Chelan and supported by the agencies would be somewhat warmer during the daytime and somewhat cooler at night than natural flows or the flows presented in Table ZZ.
To enable Chelan to release minimum flows at all lake elevations, Chelan is proposing to construct a new minimum flow release structure at the diversion dam. In the CRBEIP, Chelan indicates that this structure could reduce temperature increases at the diversion dam. Currently, water released at the dam passes over the spillway apron and into a broad, shallow river channel. Substantial warming of minimum flows can occur in these areas because of the shallow depths and large water surface exposed to warm air and solar radiation. Chelan reported in the CRBEIP (2003), that a thermograph placed below the spillway apron indicated that water temperature could increase by as much as 0.2oC passing over the spillway apron. The new minimum flow release structure would divert water from the existing penstock and release water below the spillway apron and
11In general, the UUILT represents a species upper limit for temperature exposure and indicates the point at which significant mortality would likely occur.
77 approximately 200 feet of the broad, shallow river channel. This action should result in some reduction in the warming of water released into the bypassed reach.
Chelan also proposes to monitor the effects of temperatures within the bypassed reach on cutthroat trout. If peak daytime water temperatures impair success of the population, Chelan would consider releasing increased flows during the daytime or modifying the stream channel. For daytime releases, Chelan proposes to release a maximum flow of 1,500 cfs or inflow to the lake, whichever is less. Chelan proposes to limit the total annual quantity for daytime releases to 5,000 cfs-days. This would translate to approximately 80 hours of discharge at 1,500 cfs and a longer period of time at lower flows. Considering the need to ramp flows, increased releases would likely occur for 4 - 6 hours when necessary. Chelan's proposal would therefore allow for approximately 14 - 20 days of increased daytime flows at 1,500 cfs and more days at lower flows. As indicated above, water released from Lake Chelan would still exceed the desired range for cutthroat trout; however, these releases would likely limit additional temperature increases that would occur within the bypassed reach and would approximate natural conditions.
Chelan is proposing to consider a variety of methods for modifying the stream channel and reducing temperature increases in the bypassed reach. In the CRBEIP, Chelan stated that solar radiation is the primary source of warming within the bypassed reach. Chelan suggests that the use of instream hydraulic structures and boulders could encourage the thalweg to migrate closer to the steep banks of the gorge and increase the amount of shade on the water surface. Chelan also indicates that establishment of cottonwood or other trees in portions of reach 1 may be possible and the increased shade from these trees would help to reduce warming of the minimum flows. Lastly, Chelan suggests that areas of groundwater input to the bypassed reach may function as thermal refuge and it may be possible to enhance these areas. These enhancements might include deepening the channel in areas where groundwater enters the stream and/or directing the main flow around groundwater pools to reduce turbulence and mixing with warmer water. Implementing these measures, if necessary, would increase shading within the bypassed reach and increase the amount of thermal refuge habitat. All the actions proposed by Chelan would increase the potential for establishing a viable cutthroat trout population within the bypassed reach.
In their comments on the DEA, WDFW provided a recommendation12 to create a defined thalweg in reaches 1 and 2 and to create or augment one large pool (ten feet or
12WDFW provided this recommendation as an additional Section 10(j) recommendation to their recommendations filed on June 26, 2002.
78 deeper) within reach 1 and reach 2. The pools would be sited in shaded areas and enhanced with large woody debris. Additionally, the pools would be provided with 1 cfs of well water at all times when the water temperatures exceed 20oC. The existing channel through reaches 1 and 2 is broad and shallow and conducive to warming through solar radiation or exposure to warm air temperatures. Creating a more defined thalweg would narrow the wetted channel width and result in a deeper stream channel. This would reduce the exposure of minimum flows to warm air temperatures and reduced warming from solar radiation in non-shaded areas. However, because the bypassed reach has not experienced a steady, consistent flow from the dam for approximately 75 years and the only flows that do occur are high spring spills, the current channel shape is likely not representative of its ultimate shape once minimum flow releases begin. We would expect that a steady, year-round minimum flow of 80 cfs would likely form a defined thalweg within a few years of beginning releases. Therefore, while WDFW's recommendation would likely help to limit thermal input to flows in the bypassed reach, it is possible that this benefit may be realized naturally without the need to physically manipulate the stream channel.
WDFW's recommendation to create two deep pools for thermal refuge with reach 1 and 2 (one pool in each) is similar to the potential enhancement of thermal refuge habitat that Chelan is considering. WDFW recommends that the pools be at least 10 feet deep, be enhanced with large woody debris, and receive 1 cfs of well water to create refuge habitat. Creating two deep pools would likely require using heavy equipment within the stream channel to excavate gravel . Additionally, a hydraulic structure would need to be designed in association with the pool to maintain degradation and scour during high flows. Otherwise, the pools would fill in and need to be re-excavated each year after the spring spills. While not specifically stated in their recommendation, the large woody debris proposed by WDFW could be used to create a hydraulic structure that would maintain the depth of the pools during high flows and prevent aggradation of sediments and gravels. Providing 1 cfs of groundwater to each deep pool would create at least a small area of reduced water temperatures for refuge of adult cutthroat trout and it is possible that some thermal stratification of the deep pools would occur if the pools were designed to limit turbulence and mixing of the minimum flows released from the dam. In the CRBEIP, Chelan examined the possibility of providing 5 cfs to the bypassed reach and concluded that the availability of groundwater would require a substantial well field to produce 5 cfs. Chelan's analysis suggests that if located in a relatively productive portion of the aquifer between Lake Chelan and the Columbia River, a single well would produce approximately 0.3 cfs. Based on this estimate it is likely that 7 or more wells would be needed to supply 2 cfs to the two refuge pools within reach 1 and 2. Under the WDFW proposal, there would be the potential for the pools to require significant annual maintenance and/or significant pumping costs if the aquifer proves to be less productive than described by Chelan. However, if successful, the creation of this refuge habitat
79 would likely be more beneficial than the enhancement of refuge habitat proposed by Chelan. Chelan's proposal would only enhance existing refuge habitat within reach 3, whereas WDFW's proposal would create new refuge habitat within reaches 1 and 2, where no refuge habitat currently exists.
In comments on the DEA, American Rivers suggested that pumping water from deeper portions of Lake Chelan could provide cooler water for the minimum flows. Chelan reported in the CRBEIP (2003), that because the Wapato Basin is relatively shallow, it would require a 5-mile-long pipeline to obtain cold water from below the lake thermocline.13 Water temperatures collected in 1999 at a location 5 miles upstream from the dam and from a depth of 40 meters are shown in Figure 5 (Anchor; 2000). Chelan estimated a pipeline capable of conveying all of the summertime minimum flow (i.e., 80 cfs) from this location would cost approximately $25,000,000. However, if all 80 cfs were obtained from this location, water temperatures in the bypassed reach would rarely exceed 12 degrees and would actually remain several degrees below the preferred temperature for cutthroat trout (15oC). Chelan also investigated the cost for a smaller pipe with a 24 cfs capacity that could be used to supplement warm surface waters from the area near the dam. Chelan estimated that the cost of this pipe would be approximately $12,500,000.
An option not presented by Chelan in the CRBEIP, would be to obtain water from a location closer to the dam and from a depth shallower than the thermocline but still cooler than the surface waters near the dam. We reviewed the temperature data from the Anchor (2000) report and found that water temperatures at a station roughly 2 miles upstream from the dam and at a depth of approximately 18 meters (2 meters off the lake bottom) were significantly cooler than the surface waters near the dam (see Figure 5).
The limited data from the summer of 1999 (i.e., 8 samples) suggests that if the entire 80 cfs minimum flow were obtained from this location, water temperatures entering the bypassed reach would likely remain below the temperature for zero net growth for cutthroat trout and may remain below the WDOE temperature criteria of 18oC throughout most, if not the entire summer period. Dissolved oxygen levels among these 8 samples ranged from 10.1 - 14.1 mg/l which would be more than adequate to support cutthroat trout. Water obtained from this location would likely eliminate any potential temperature
13Within thermally stratified water bodies, the thermocline is the region where water temperature decreases dramatically with a relatively minor increase in depth.
80 concerns associated with establishment of cutthroat trout in the bypassed reach. Based on Chelan's cost estimate for a pipe with an 80 cfs capacity, the cost of this pipeline would be approximately $10,000,000; however, because frictional losses would be much less over a 2 mile pipeline than within a 5 mile pipeline, a smaller and therefore less expensive pipe could be used. We estimated the cost of installing an 80 cfs capacity pipe from the dam to a point 2 miles upstream at $10,000,000.
81 Figure 3. Summer water temperatures for four locations at Lake Chelan.
Another option would be to construct a smaller pipe from this location and mix the cooler waters with releases from the area near the dam to achieve the proposed 80 cfs release. Using the data from 1999, we estimated what the water temperature of the 80 cfs minimum flow would be using 40 cfs of water from the lake surface near the dam and 40
82 cfs from the lake bottom 2 miles up-lake (Table 12). These estimates suggest that the water temperature of minimum flows would remain below the threshold for zero net growth (19oC) through most of the summer and would not exceed the UUILT. However, this analysis is based on only 8 samples and a limited number of surface temperatures which are known to exceed the range considered in these calculations. Therefore, we estimated what the minimum flow temperatures might be during periods when the surface waters would spike as high as 23 - 25oC or roughly 4 degrees warmer than the warmest temperature reported in Table 12. Because of the depth (18 meters) of the source water at the location two miles up-lake from the dam, we would not expect temperatures at this location to be as susceptible to wide fluctuations in temperature as the surface waters that are exposed directly to warm air temperatures and solar radiation. Therefore, we assumed that while temperatures at this location would likely increase during warmer periods, we would not expect them to increase as much as 4 degrees above the highest reported temperature (i.e., 17.9 + 4 =21.9oC). Instead, we assumed that it would be unlikely that temperatures at this depth would exceed 20 degrees under any conditions and we estimated minimum flow temperatures using this temperature as a worst-case scenario. If surface water temperatures near the dam were 23oC and were mixed with 20oC water from the up-lake location, the resulting minimum flow would be 21.5oC. If the surface water temperatures were 25oC, the mixed minimum flows would result in a temperature of 22.5oC. These temperatures are below the UUILT for cutthroat trout; however, they do exceed the threshold for zero net growth. Additionally, these temperatures would increase as they passed through the bypassed reach and they could increase enough to exceed the UUILT for several hours during peak periods. Because these temperatures represent a worst case scenario, we would not expect them to occur on a regular basis and, in fact, it is possible they would never occur. Constructing a 40 cfs capacity pipeline from a location 2 miles up-lake would likely prevent exceedence of the 23oC UUILT under most circumstances and it would greatly reduce the amount of time when temperatures exceed the threshold for zero net growth. We estimated the cost of constructing this pipeline at $5,000,000.
83 Table 12. Estimates of the temperature of the proposed 80 cfs minimum flows comprised of an equal mixture of water collected the lake surface near the dam and the lake bottom 2 miles up-lake. (Source: Anchor (2000) and FERC staff) Water temperature at 18 meters Temperature of Percent reduction in Surface water deep, 2 miles an equal water temperature of temperature up-lake from mixture of released minimum Date near dam1 the dam water2 flows
6/2/1999 15.3 10.8 13.1 14.7 6/15/1999 17.7 10.8 14.3 19.5 7/6/1999 18.1 12.3 15.2 16.0 7/30/1999 20.9 14.8 17.9 14.6 8/17/1999 21.0 17.2 19.1 9.1 9/8/1999 19.1 17.9 18.5 3.1 9/30/1999 17.4 16.1 16.8 3.7 1Water temperatures reported for June 2 to August 17, 1999, were collected at a location approximately 0.2 miles up-lake from the dam. Water temperatures reported for September 8 and 30, 1999, were collected at a location approximately 0.8 miles u-lake from the dam. 2These water temperature estimates are based on an equal mixture of water from the lake surface near the dam and from the lake bottom approximately 2 miles up-lake from the dam.
Using cooler water from these deep, up-lake locations could also be used to provide natural flows or the flows presented in Table 11. However, the cost of a pipeline with the capacity to convey these flows would greatly exceed the $25,000,000 estimate provided by Chelan. Alternatively, the smaller pipelines discussed above could be used to supplement flows ranging from 350 - 1,500 cfs. An 80 cfs capacity pipeline for routing water from a location 5 miles up-lake would reduce temperatures by less than 13% with a 350 cfs minimum flow, although there would be even less reduction in temperature at higher releases ranging up to 1,500 cfs. While use of a pipeline from an up-lake location would have some benefit in reducing water temperatures and could help in creating a viable cutthroat trout fishery, this alternative would likely be cost prohibitive due to the combined costs associated with lost generation from the high flows and the construction of the pipeline.
84 The proposed minimum flow regime would be implemented to provide habitat for native cool-water species (suckers and minnows) and cutthroat trout while establishing and protecting other resources including the benthic macroinvertebrate and riparian communities. Our analysis suggests that the flow regime proposed by Chelan and the agencies could be combined with various forms of temperature mitigation to create habitat for the target fish species. As indicated in our analysis above, higher minimum flows would not greatly increase the likelihood of establishing a viable aquatic ecosystem, because while they may limit temperature increases through the bypassed reach, they would not prevent exceedence of critical thermal limits and they reduce the available habitat under most circumstances. Piping cooler water from deep, up-lake locations would greatly increase the likelihood of establishing and maintaining a cutthroat trout population within the bypassed reach due to cooler temperatures. The costs of this option are relatively high, and when considered in combination with the revenue lost from decreased generation due to the release of the minimum flow, these options may be cost prohibitive.
Salmon and Steelhead Spawning Flows in Reach 4
Chelan PUD and the agencies have proposed to enhance habitat conditions in Reach 4 during the steelhead and chinook salmon spawning period by providing additional flows above those released at the dam. These additional flows would be provided via a pump system that would move water from the tailrace to the upstream end of Reach 4. If the primary pump system fails, Chelan PUD proposes to maintain flows in Reach 4 with a backup pump or by releasing additional water at the diversion dam. Interior, NMFS, and WDFW recommended Chelan PUD develop a backup system for supplying water to Reach 4. To enhance the value of these pumped flows within Reach 4, Chelan and the agencies recommend modifying the stream channel to create and maintain additional salmonid habitat. During prefiling, WDFW recommended flows ranging from 350-650 cfs that were intended to optimize habitat availability for cutthroat trout in reaches 1, 2, and 3, and steelhead, and chinook salmon in reach 4 (Table 11). Unlike Chelan and the agencies' current flow proposal, WDFW did not propose any habitat enhancement along with these flows.
Under the initial flow regime proposal made by WDFW, all flows for salmon and steelhead in reach 4 would be released at the dam rather than pumping back a portion from the tailrace. These flows were selected to maximize salmon and steelhead spawning habitat and juvenile steelhead rearing habitat. Flows would be maintained at 650 cfs during the spring when steelhead would spawn and the fall when summer chinook salmon would spawn. At a flow of 650 cfs, spawning habitat for steelhead and chinook salmon would be maximized in Reach 4 at 2.18 and 2.79 acres, respectively (Table 13). Changes
85 in flows that occur after the spawning period could dewater incubating redds; however, because no spawning currently occurs within reach 4, it is unclear how much flow would be needed to prevent dewatering. According to data presented in R2 & AI (2000), there would be roughly 8.14 acres of wetted habitat in reach 4 at 650 cfs and 7.42 acres of wetted habitat at 350 cfs, the lowest flow recommended in WDFW's initial flow proposal. Because roughly 91 percent of the stream channel that would be wetted during spawning would remain wetted at all other times, we would not expect significant dewatering of redds under this proposal.14 In regard to juvenile steelhead, flows ranging from 350 - 650 cfs would provide 1.56 - 1.70 acres of steelhead rearing habitat throughout the year. These flows would maintain nearly all of the juvenile steelhead rearing habitat within the reach 4 as it is currently configured (i.e., without habitat manipulation or modification).
Chelan PUD proposes to provide a flow of 320 cfs to Reach 4 using a combination of flows released at the dam and flows pumped from the bypassed reach. The additional pumped flow would be released into Reach 4 just upstream of the existing substation and the discharge location would be designed to be protected from damage during high spill periods. Chelan PUD proposes to supply the additional flow (beyond the 80 cfs minimum) by pumping from the tailrace rather than via the dam spillway and lake storage
Table 13. Estimated available habitat (in acres) for chinook salmon and steelhead in Reach 4 of the bypassed reach. Proposed and recommended minimum flows and the associated habitat values are in bold. Underlined values are maxima. (Source: R2 and IA; 2000).
Steelhead spawning Juvenile steelhead Chinook salmon Juvenile chinook habitat habitat (acres) spawning habitat salmon habitat (acres) Flow (cfs) (acres) (acres)
20 0.08 0.29 0.00 0.22
40 0.16 0.42 0.03 0.42
60 0.23 0.54 0.08 0.69
80 0.31 0.66 0.17 0.95
100 0.40 0.77 0.28 1.16
120 0.49 0.87 0.42 1.32
14This same analysis cannot be performed for Chelan and the agencies' current flow proposal because as part of this proposal the channel and habitat within Reach 4 would be significantly modified and the flow versus wetted habitat relationship is unknown.
86 140 0.58 0.97 0.57 1.44
160 0.68 1.06 0.74 1.52
180 0.78 1.15 0.90 1.58
200 0.89 1.23 1.07 1.62
220 0.99 1.30 1.24 1.62
240 1.08 1.37 1.40 1.62
260 1.18 1.42 1.55 1.61
280 1.28 1.48 1.69 1.59
300 1.38 1.53 1.83 1.57
3201 1.47 1.56 1.95 1.53
350 1.61 1.61 2.12 1.48
400 1.80 1.67 2.36 1.38
450 1.94 1.70 2.55 1.28
500 2.05 1.69 2.68 1.20
550 2.12 1.66 2.74 1.13
600 2.17 1.63 2.78 1.06
650 2.18 1.60 2.79 1.00
700 2.16 1.57 2.77 0.96 1 Habitat areas for 320 cfs were not provided in R2 & AI (2000); therefore, we linearly interpolated between the habitat areas for 350 and 300 cfs to estimate habitat areas for this flow. since the additional flow could reduce habitat availability for some target species in Reaches 1 and 2 (R2 and IA, 2000 and discussed earlier) and could adversely affect lake levels and/or power generation. Chelan PUD indicates that if the primary pump system fails during spawning or when being used for redd incubation, the water supply would be maintained by providing the needed flow from a backup pump or from lake storage until the pump system is returned to service.
Chelan and the agencies' proposed flows would be released each year from March 15 to May 15, to provide steelhead spawning habitat, and from October 15 to November 30, to provide summer chinook salmon spawning habitat. Providing 320 cfs would increase depths and velocities in Reach 4 and provide approximately 1.47 and 1.95 acres of steelhead and salmon spawning habitat (Table 13), respectively. These estimates do not include any possible additional benefit from the habitat improvements described below. Chelan PUD indicated in their PDEA that the 80 cfs guaranteed minimum flow
87 from the dam would be adequate for protecting redds in the reconfigured Reach 4 during incubation; however, depending on the location of salmon and steelhead redds in Reach 4, the pumps may be used on an as-needed basis to prevent dewatering. The 320 cfs flows in Reach 4 would not likely provide any significant rearing habitat for juvenile summer chinook salmon since they would be expected to move downstream and out of the Chelan River within a few days to weeks after emergence in April or May. However, because juvenile steelhead typically remain in tributaries for 2-3 years before outmigrating, the spring and fall releases of 320 cfs would provide approximately 1.5 acres of rearing habitat in reach 4 as it is currently configured. . When considered along with the higher 200-320 flows released from May 15 to July 15 at the dam during approximately 80 percent of the years, steelhead rearing habitat in Reach 4 as it currently exists would exceed the estimated 0.66 acres maintained by an 80 cfs minimum flow for a significant portion of the year during most years. Because a significant objective of Chelan and the agencies' proposal is to improve juvenile salmonid rearing habitat in addition to improving spawning habitat, we would expect that after channel modification and other habitat improvements, Reach 4 would provide substantially greater than 0.66 acres of juvenile steelhead rearing habitat and potentially even more habitat at flows of 200 and 320 cfs.
Tailrace minimum flows
As part of their license application, Chelan PUD indicated that if needed, it would maintain suitable spawning and intra-gravel incubation flows in the tailrace through operation of the powerhouse at minimum flow levels or through water pumped into the spawning gravel through perforated pipe laid into the tailrace streambed. Interior, WDFW, and NMFS recommended that Chelan PUD be required to provide a 500 cfs minimum flow to the project tailrace from October 1 to July 31 each year. As explained below, anadromous salmonids (primarily summer chinook salmon) currently spawn in the tailrace area and Chelan PUD's plans to improve the spawning habitat in this area (see discussion below) would be expected to maintain or increase the amount of spawning .
In the DEA, we concluded that based on the limited information in our record, primarily the results of BiolAnalysts (2002) study report, that the proposal to pump water through perforated pipe or provide a minimum flow for incubation would be unnecessary. We also concluded that because the complete cessation of powerhouse flows could cause salmon to abandon redds during their construction a study exploring the need for providing a minimum tailrace flow during the spawning period for summer/fall chinook salmon (i.e. late September and mid November) may be warranted.
In response to the DEA, Chelan filed comments stating that the proposed lake level operations would include a more rapid draw-down of the lake starting in late September
88 that would essentially require powerhouse operation from early October through the end of November. Chelan implies that the potential for disruption in powerhouse releases during this time would be low; therefore, there would be no need to require minimum flows during the spawning period of summer chinook salmon (October to mid November in the project tailrace). The information provided by Chelan suggests that disruption of chinook spawning would be unlikely during normal operations under the proposed lake level management regime and that requiring a minimum flow may be unnecessary. However, there would still be the potential for occasional disruptions in flow during the chinook spawning season due to unplanned shutdowns such as emergencies and mechanical failures. We recognize that it would be unreasonable and potentially impossible for Chelan to provide minimum flows during these times, but a requirement for Chelan to notify WDFW, USFWS, and NMFS when powerhouse flows would be disrupted during the chinook salmon spawning period may allow for agency involvement that would aid in minimizing or documenting potential effects of any flow disruptions.
In comments on the DEA, NMFS indicates that maintaining flows during spawning would also be important to avoid potential effects on steelhead. NMFS indicated that at least part of the reason they recommended a minimum tailrace flow from October 1 to July 31 was to overlap the likely spawning period for steelhead (i.e., mid March to mid-May). Proposed modifications to the tailrace habitat (discussed below) along with the creation of new habitat within Reach 4 may result in establishment of steelhead spawning in the project tailrace; however, at this time, there is no evidence that any significant amount of steelhead spawning occurs within the project tailrace. Therefore, providing minimum flows to protect steelhead spawning within the project tailrace would appear to be premature. Rather, we recommend that Chelan implement the proposed monitoring of steelhead spawning in the project tailrace. If steelhead spawning is documented in the tailrace, Chelan could consult with the agencies and develop a means for determining the potential effects of flow disruptions on these fish and any possible remedies to limit these effects.
Discontinuation of powerhouse flows could result in two effects during incubation of salmon and steelhead eggs in the project tailrace: dewatering redds and decreased water quality within redds. In the DEA, we concluded that prolonged discontinuation of flow from the project powerhouse would not affect the survival of salmon redds incubating in the project tailrace. This conclusion was based on all information in the Commission's record, including BioAnalysts (2002) report which demonstrated that egg and alevin survival during a 19 day shutdown was unaffected when compared to survival in a reference stream. In comments on the DEA, WDFW and NMFS provided new information indicating that during a 90 day shutdown in the spring of 2001, surveys of the project tailrace revealed numerous dead eggs and alevins and no living alevins or chinook salmon fry. Additionally, these agencies indicated that while the elevations of the Rocky
89 Reach pool may affect tailwater elevations up to the powerhouse, cessation of powerhouse flows could still result in enough decrease in tailwater elevations to expose incubating redds.
As part of the CRBEIP, Chelan proposes to monitor redds in the tailrace and implement various measures to prevent dewatering and reduce impacts to intragravel water quality. If monitoring identifies redds in the tailrace upstream of the confluence with reach 4 that could be dewatered, Chelan would prevent dewatering to the extent within the control of the project. Subsequent to the incubation period, Chelan would consider modifying the spawning habitat to prevent redd construction in areas likely to be dewatered in the future but without reducing the overall quantity of spawning habitat. To ensure that intragravel water quality would be adequate for redd survival, Chelan would monitor intragavel DO in the tailrace on an hourly basis during shutdowns and monitor redd survival rates. If intragravel DO were to fall below 6.0 mg/l, Chelan would begin periodic operation of the powerhouse rather than complete project shutdown. Determination of poor redd survival would result in periodic operation of the powerhouse or installation of perforated pipe to increased intragravel flow during incubation. The 401 WQC issued by WDOE, establishes flow security criteria for the tailrace and requires implementation of the measures proposed by Chelan in the CRBEIP. As described above, Interior, NMFS, and WDFW recommend that Chelan provide a tailrace minimum flow of 500 cfs from October 1 to July 31 to prevent redd dewatering and impacts to intragravel water quality. While providing a minimum flow would likely be beneficial to anadromous salmonids spawning in the project tailwater, we have no information in our record or provided by the Interior, WDFW, or NMFS to indicate how much flow would be needed to prevent dewatering redds or disruption of spawning behavior. We have no data to indicate at what flow redds within the existing tailrace become dewatered and if the tailrace channel is modified as proposed by Chelan, it is likely that a specific minimum flow requirement would need to be developed based on the reconfigured channel and new stage/discharge relationship.
Egg and alevin survival within redds can be influenced by intragravel DO levels and the rate of intragravel flow. In comments on the DEA, NMFS and WDFW stated that the importance of maintaining intragravel DO and intragravel flow on salmonid egg and alevin survival is well docmented. More specifically, BioAnalysts (2003)15 cites several
15A "first draft" of BioAnalysts (2003) was released on the Chelan PUD website on June 30, 2003. We recognize that the results have not been thoroughly reviewed and revised in consultation with the Chelan and the agencies; however, we concluded that inclusion of the relevant information in this draft report in the FEA was more appropriate than its omission.
90 studies that indicate salmonid redd survival is generally highest when intragravel DO and remains above 6.0 mg/l and intragravel flow remains above 100 centimeters per hour (cm/h). Maintenance of adequate intragravel DO prevents suffocation of developing embryos and alevins. Maintenance of adequate intragravel flow assists in maintaining intragravel DO and prevents a buildup of metabolic waste within the redd that could increase oxygen demand or create toxic conditions for the developing embryos and alevins.
During the spring of 2003, BioAnalysts (2003) measured intragravel DO and intragavel flow within incubating redds in the Lake Chelan Project tailrace during a variety of shutdown scenarios, including a 3 day continuous shutdown. The results of this monitoring suggested that the gravels within the project tailrace were porous and highly permeable and that shutdown of the project decreases intragravel DO and intragravel flow. However, BioAnalysts (2003) reports that during each of the various shutdown scenarios, including the 3 day continuous shutdown, intragravel flow remained above 100 cm/h at all times and there was only one occurrence of intragravel DO below 6.0 mg/l (5.2 mg/l in a redd approximately 6 feet deep). BioAnalysts (2003) suggests that during shutdown of the Lake Chelan Project, intragravel flow within the tailrace is maintained above 100 cm/h by fluctuations in the Rocky Reach pool. As indicated above, the Rocky Reach pool influences water surface elevations within the project tailwater and fluctuations in the pool elevations likely result in water moving into and out of the Lake Chelan Project tailrace. While fluctuations in the Rocky Reach pool elevation may prevent significant adverse reductions in intragravel flow within most redds located within the project tailrace, BioAnalysts (2003) reported that deep water redds appear to be less influenced by the pool fluctuations. This would suggest that eggs and alevins within deep water redds may be more vulnerable to mortality during project shutdown.
The study prepared by BioAnalysts (2003) suggests that fluctuations in the Rocky Reach pool maintain intragravel DO and flow during project shutdown for all but perhaps some of the deeper redds. However, the maintenance of a 500 cfs minimum flow within the project tailrace from October 1 to July 31 as recommended by the agencies would likely ensure that even deep water redds would not experience periods of low intragravel DO or flow. These flows would essentially encompass the entire period when either chinook salmon or steelhead eggs and alevins may be present within the gravels of the project tailrace. Considering the high permeability and porosity of the tailrace gravels reported by BioAnalysts (2003), it is likely that a 500 cfs minimum flow would be more than adequate to maintain intragravel water quality conditions. Additionally, this alternative would ensure that intragravel conditions would be maintained even if Rocky Reach pool elevations were stable.
91 The measures proposed by Chelan and included by WDOE in the 401 WQC, would require substantial monitoring during the incubation period. If the monitoring program were properly designed (i.e., adequate number of samples across all strata), it is likely that severe declines in intragravel water quality would be detected quickly. Periodic operation of the project would likely increase intragravel conditions and avoid any substantial mortalities; however, the proposed continuous monitoring would allow for changes to operations as necessary, including potentially providing continuous flows if periodic operations failed to maintain adequate conditions. As a long-term solution, pumping flows through perforated pipe installed in the tailrace gravels could be effective. In comments on the DEA, NMFS stated that spawning fish would not be able to identify the location of these pipes during operations when spawning would occur and that redds located away from pipes would not receive any benefit. We would expect that after modification of the tailrace habitat and several years of monitoring, the likely location areas for spawning would be well documented. Therefore, we would expect that installation of piping within these areas in combination with the high porosity and permeability of the gravels would make this a viable option for maintaining intragravel water quality.
NMFS and WDFW did not specify if redd dewatering or poor intragravel water quality led to the mortalities of chinook salmon eggs and alevins observed during the spring of 2001. However, it is likely that the extreme drought conditions and basin-wide low flows in 2001 enhanced the severity of the event. NMFS and WDFW reported that the Lake Chelan Project was shutdown for approximately 90 consecutive days during the spring in 2001. We suspect that this prolonged shutdown was the result of Chelan attempting to refill the lake while inflow to the lake was at all time lows. At the same time flows within the mainstem Columbia River were at all time lows and the Rocky Reach pool elevation was likely maintained at an elevation below normal and/or fluctuated less than normal. The combination of the prolonged shutdown at the Lake Chelan Project and the probable unique operation of the Rocky Reach pool likely resulted in both significant reductions in tailrace elevations and intragravel flow, thereby dewatering redds and creating adverse intragravel water quality. While the loss of most or perhaps all of the redds during the spring of 2001 was a significant event, we would conclude that it represents a worst-case scenario that is not likely happen on a regular basis. However, all of the measures proposed by Chelan or the agencies would likely have reduced, if not totally prevented the occurrence of this event.
Habitat
In their license application, Chelan PUD proposed to modify habitat in Reach 4 of the bypassed reach and the project tailrace to improve conditions for spawning and rearing salmon and steelhead. Chelan provided some additional detail regarding these
92 modifications in the CRBEIP. Within the upstream portion of Reach 4, Chelan indicated they would move the channel away from the road. Chelan also intends to reshape the channel throughout Reach 4 to create a more consistent gradient and channel width. Throughout Reach 4 they propose to place boulders to create cover and form pools and add or move spawning gravel into the channel. Within the project tailrace, Chelan proposes to use selected substrate materials to create a braided channel with submerged and emergent bars. As part of the 401 WQC, WDOE included a condition for Chelan to implement the habitat enhancement measures described in the CRBEIP for Reach 4 and the project tailrace. Habitat enhancement measures proposed to enhance reaches 1 and 2 of the bypassed reach are discussed earlier as part of the analysis of minimum flows and water temperatures within the bypassed reach.
In addition to the measures proposed by Chelan PUD and included in the 401 by WDOE, Interior and NMFS recommend that the final design for habitat enhancement features in reach 4 and the tailrace should: 1) be developed by a team of experts; 2) force the river away from the road; 3) assure that the meander pattern for Reach 4 uses known relationships between surface width and meander length, amplitude, and curvature; 4) assure that the completed channel can safely convey up to a 5-10 year return interval peak discharge while providing good habitat conditions under the minimum flow regime; and, 5) maintain the new habitat features in good condition throughout the term of any new license. Additionally, Interior recommends that Chelan PUD supplement gravels in Reach 4 to restore pre-dam fish production potential and ensure no net loss of fish habitat occurs due to disruption of bedload transport.
In their PDEA, Chelan PUD stated that existing channels in Reach 4 and the tailrace lack habitat diversity necessary to support rearing juvenile anadromous salmonids and other functions of a natural aquatic ecosystem. Reach 4 has little sinuosity and no large boulders or structure to create gravel catchments, scour pools and other habitat features. Ground surveys (Chelan PUD, 2002e) of substrates in Reach 4 found that the wetted areas of salmon and steelhead spawning gravel in the existing river channel are confined to small pockets, with little structure to provide stability under higher flows that occur during spill conditions. Gravel pockets are not the preferred spawning habitat for chinook salmon, which generally spawn on gravel bars at the ends of pools or in runs and glides with large areas of gravel. Ground surveys and GIS mapping of spawning-sized gravel in Reach 4 determined that the wetted area of spawning gravels is less than 0.25 acres at flows of 650 cfs, and only about 0.56 acres at 2,000 cfs. Without morphological modifications to the channel, the maximum spawning area for steelhead and chinook salmon in Reach 4 was estimated to be 2.2 and 2.8 acres, respectively. Additionally, there is approximately 1.7 acres or less of rearing habitat in Reach 4 for these species (R2 and IA, 2000). To improve habitat conditions within Reach 4, Chelan PUD would add boulders for cover and pool formation and use other
93 standard stream habitat restoration techniques to create and maintain gravel areas for spawning and increase sinuosity. Conceptual habitat modifications to Reach 4 are shown in Figure 4. Most of these modifications would be performed with a bulldozer when the channel is dry or at the 80 cfs minimum flow.
Habitat in the project tailrace lacks low velocity areas for salmon and steelhead rearing and provides limited habitat for salmon and steelhead spawning. At a powerhouse discharge of 2200 cfs, spawning habitat for chinook salmon and steelhead in the tailrace was estimated to be 2.1 and 1.3 acres, respectively. To create additional spawning and rearing habitat in the tailrace, Chelan PUD proposes to partially fill an area upstream from the confluence with the bypassed reach with suitable-sized substrate and create a braided bar with low velocities. This proposed modification is shown conceptually in Figure 4.
Chelan PUD's proposed channel modifications in the project tailrace would create about 500 lineal feet of river channel with the proper gradient, depths, and velocities for spawning chinook and steelhead, which Stillwater Sciences (2001) estimates would create one acre of spawning habitat. Chelan PUD has also suggested it may add large woody debris into the tailrace area which would provide preferred low velocity rearing habitat for chinook salmon fry.
Chelan PUD's proposed habitat modifications in Reach 4 and the tailrace would provide habitat diversity currently absent from both these areas. Boulder placement in Reach 4 would create habitat diversity and hold gravel under a range of velocities. The proposal to add or move gravel to the tailrace and Reach 4 and adding large boulders to Reach 4 would increase the availability of stable gravel bars and larger pockets of gravel in both areas for spawning chinook salmon and steelhead. The increase in habitat diversity in Reach 4 and the tailrace would also increase the area of usable rearing habitat for juvenile chinook and steelhead. The addition of boulders and sinuosity in Reach 4 would create more pools, eddies, and other low velocity rearing-type habitats close to boulder and velocity cover. While it is unclear exactly how many acres of habitat would be created, Chelan indicates in the CRBEIP that for Reach 4, the objective is to create 2 acres of chinook salmon spawning habitat at a flow of 320 cfs and to increase or expand spawning and rearing habitat in the tailrace by 1 to 2 acres.
In the CRBEIP, Chelan outlined the process for developing a final mitigation and enhancement plan for Reach 4 and tailrace habitat modifications. Chelan indicates that the plan would be developed in consultation with the fisheries agencies, as well as other stakeholders. Developing a final plan in consultation with the agencies would allow agency professionals to address specific concerns, including moving the Reach 4 channel away from the road, creating the appropriate meander pattern, and developing a design
94 that could withstand high spill flows. In discussing the final plan in the CRBEIP, Chelan indicates that it would maintain the habitat modifications throughout the term of the license. Chelan's proposal for developing a final plan would address all of the recommendations of Interior and NMFS except Interior's recommendation regarding gravel supplementation. Prior to issuance of the DEA, Interior recommended that Chelan return Reach 4 to its pre-dam fish production potential and ensure no net loss of fish habitat due to disruption of bedload transport. There is no information within our record or provided by Interior to describe the pre-dam fish production potential of Reach 4; however, Chelan has proposed to move existing gravel from the channel or add gravel to develop spawning areas with an objective of creating approximately 2 acres of spawning habitat. In their comments on the DEA, Interior revised its recommendation and stated that gravel supplementation to pre-dam conditions may not be necessary; however, the need to maintain adequate gravel recruitment to Reach 4 is important. Interior implies that project operations have disrupted bedload movements through Reach 4; however, they provide no specifics regarding how this has occurred. We speculate that Interior is referring to reduced spring flows which may have resulted in less entrainment of new sediments from the banks of the bypassed reach and therefore less bedload movement through the bypassed reach. Interior provides no specific information to indicate how Chelan should improve or maintain bedload recruitment to Reach 4; however, because Chelan is proposing to maintain the habitat improvements within Reach 4, including moving or adding additional gravel during the term of any license, we conclude that Interior's revised recommendation would be satisified at least in part by Chelan's proposal.
To prevent damage to habitat created within Reach 4, NMFS and WDFW recommended that in managing the Lake Chelan reservoir, Chelan PUD allow two weeks of flexibility in reaching full pool (i.e., 1098 feet elevation), which is currently targeted for July 1. Two weeks of flexibility would allow Chelan to anticipate high runoff events that may occur in early July and use storage within Lake Chelan to reduce spills to the bypassed reach. We discuss this measure in more detail earlier in this section.
Ramping Rates
In their license application, Chelan PUD proposed to ramp all changes in minimum flows and whitewater flows over a 2 hour period, but they did not propose to restrict ramping rates during periods of spill flows. Chelan PUD does not propose to vary this ramping restriction daily or seasonally.
Under Section 10(j), Interior recommends daily and seasonal ramping rates (Table 14). Interior indicates that these ramping rates would apply to the bypassed reach flows and shall not be exceeded except under emergency conditions or due to "natural (i.e. non-
95 project) downramp rates." In comments on the DEA, NMFS indicated it supports Interior's recommended ramping rates.
Table 14. Interior's recommended ramping rates which are based on Hunter (1992). Time of year Daylight rates (in/hr) Night rates (in/hr) February 16-June 15 0 2 June 16 - October 31 1 1 November 1 - February 15 2 2
Subsequent to issuance of the DEA, Chelan prepared the CRBEIP. In this plan, Chelan suggests that they would limit ramping in the bypassed reach to 2 inches per hour when fry may be present and study the need to impose ramping at other times to prevent stranding of fish.
As part of the 401 WQC issued on April 21, 2003, WDOE included a requirement for Chelan to limit ramping in the Chelan River to 2 inches per hour to prevent fish stranding.
In comments on the DEA, WDFW indicated that, to the extent practicable, a maximum ramping rate of 1 inch per hour should be adhered to during all flow conditions.
As indicated by Interior, flow fluctuations have been documented to cause stranding of juvenile salmonids and exposure of eggs to avian predators and dessication. However, in regard to the regulation of flows within the bypassed reach, ramping rates are unlikely to significantly influence egg to fry survival, because any ramping restriction in the bypassed reach would only influence the time at which the eggs and/or redds become exposed and would have little effect on the total exposure time. Virtually all ramping in the bypassed reach, except perhaps emergency related events, would be related to seasonal changes in minimum flows, providing whitewater boating flows, or releasing high spill flows. Under any of these conditions, a ramping restriction would only change the time at which the eggs became exposed and the eggs would likely perish, regardless of the ramping rate. Eggs that become exposed due to a reduction in minimum flows or spill flows would likely be exposed for several days or even months before becoming rewetted. As an example, under Chelan's proposal, when the proposed minimum flows in Reaches 1-3 would be reduced from 200 or 320 cfs down to 80 cfs on July 16, areas that become exposed would not likely be rewetted until spill flows are released or until the minimum flows would be increased the following May 1. In regard
96 to whitewater flows, we would expect that little spawning would occur during the approximate 8 hour period of increased flows for whitewater boating and therefore no eggs would be exposed upon cessation of these flows (i.e. returning to the minimum flow). Based on this discussion, we conclude that ramping rates would have no effect in the bypassed reach on egg to fry survival and our analysis of ramping rates in the bypassed reach only considers effects on the survival of fry and juvenile fish.
In order to protect juvenile salmonids from adverse effects of rapid fluctuations, ramping rates need to be gradual enough to allow fish to move into and out of shallow rearing zones without becoming stranded when flows decrease or suddenly becoming entrained or displaced by main channel flows when flows increase. Depending on the channel shape, a fluctuation of 1 in/hr could mean a juvenile fish needs to move several inches or many feet to stay in a wetted area with suitable habitat. In the case of the Lake Chelan Project bypassed reach, flow fluctuations would occur as a result of seasonal changes in minimum flows, releases of whitewater flows, and releases of spill flows. Seasonal minimum flow fluctuations could range from 80 to 320 cfs and fluctuations from whitewater flows could range from 80 to 450 cfs. Spill flow fluctuations would follow the natural range of fluctuations in inflow to Lake Chelan since they would only occur during periods when the reservoir would be full and inflow to the lake exceeds the project turbine capacity.
Water elevations at various flows and locations were recorded during the instream flow studies in the bypassed reach of the Chelan River (Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases Study – R2 Resource Consultants and Ichthyological Associates, Inc., 2000). Measurements taken during prefiling studies at a number of transect locations in Reaches1, 2 and 4 of the bypassed reach provide an indication of the amount of stage change that would occur under Chelan PUD's and the agency recommended flow regimes (Table 11). In Reaches 1 and 2, a flow increase from 81 to 260 cfs would change the average water elevation in the channel by 0.7 - 1.0 feet. In Reach 4, a change from 117 to 539 cfs resulted in changing the water surface elevation by approximately 1.1 feet .
Table 15. Examples of changes in water surface elevations in Reaches 1, 2, and 4 of the Lake Chelan Project bypassed reach. (Source: CRCMP; 2001) Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 4 Water Water Water surface surface surface Discharge elevation Discharge elevation Discharge elevation (cfs) (feet ) (cfs) (feet ) (cfs) (feet ) 81 88.04 81 91.12 117 87.87
97 260 88.73 260 92.09 539 88.93 Difference 0.69 Difference 0.98 Difference 1.06
Based on this information, we expect the maximum seasonal change in bypassed reach minimum flows (i.e. range 80 - 320 cfs) to result in approximately a 1 foot change in water surface elevation or less in Reaches 1, 2, and 4. In regard to whitewater flows, American Whitewater proposes up to a 450 cfs release which we estimate could result in up to a 2 foot change in water surface elevation in Reaches 1 and 2 when it occurs in combination with a dry year minimum flow of 80 cfs. In Reach 4 the whitewater flows would result in a change in water surface elevation of less than 1 foot . As indicated above the rate of change associated with spill flows would be similar to the natural rate of change in inflow to Lake Chelan since spill flows into the bypassed reach would only occur when the lake would be at full pool and inflow to the lake exceeds the project turbine capacity.
Regarding effects on juvenile fish, we expect the rate of any spill flow changes to be within the an acceptable range for the native species being managed in the bypassed reach since they would follow the natural hydrograph for inflow to the lake. However, flow changes related to whitewater releases and seasonal changes in minimum flows could adversely affect fry or juvenile fish inhabiting the bypassed reach.
Under Chelan's license application proposal, the water surface elevation within the bypassed reach would fluctuate as much as 2 feet in a 2 hour period. We would not expect this rate of increase in river stage to cause harm to juvenile or adult fish. Adult and juvenile fish would quickly relocate as a result of increased flows and, other than some minor energy expended in search of suitable habitat, adverse effects on juvenile or adult fish would not be likely. However, fry, which are generally poor swimmers and inhabit the shallow stream margins, may be less likely to relocate to suitable habitat. Fry could become entrained in rapidly increasing flows and either be displaced downstream or exposed to increased predation.
While there could be some adverse affects associated with rapidly increasing flows, decreasing flows generally result in greater harm to fish species. A rapid decrease in flow can result in stranding of fry and juvenile fish on exposed substrate surfaces or trapping in isolated pools. As implied by Hunter (1992), adult fish are less vulnerable to stranding than fry or juvenile fish and we would not expect significant stranding of adult fish as a result of Chelan's proposed ramping rate. However, it is likely that Chelan's proposed ramping rates would result in some stranding of fry and juvenile fish. Stranded fish would die rapidly from exposure and any fish trapped in isolated pools would likely
98 die as a result of predation, exposure to poor water quality conditions, or eventual dessication as the pools dry up. Under Chelan's proposal, some trout, salmon, and steelhead inhabiting the bypassed reach would likely be stranded or trapped if the minimum flows were reduced by as much as 1 foot per hour.
The ramping rate included by WDOE in the 401 WQC and proposed by Chelan in the CRBEIP would be 2 inches per hour. This ramping rate would result in much slower increases and decreases in river stage than those proposed by Chelan in their application for relicense. As we said above, we would not expect any significant harm from increasing river stage, even at rates higher than 2 inches per hour. However, there could be some benefits associated with slower decreases in river stage. Hunter (1992) reports that down-ramping should be 2 inches per hour or less depending on the time of year, the time of day, and the species present. Results of other studies reported in Hunter (1992) indicate that slower rates of decrease in river stage reduce the amount of stranding but have little effect on the amount of fish that become trapped in isolated pools. Therefore, its likely that the ramping rates proposed by WDOE, and Chelan in the CRBEIP would result in less stranding than Chelan's original proposal, but they may not have any affect on the incidence of fish becoming trapped in isolated pools.
Unlike the ramping rates proposed by WDOE and Chelan in the CRBEIP, Interior has recommended that ramping in the bypassed reach be restricted on a within day and seasonal basis and their proposed ramping rates range from 0-2 in/hr (described above). NMFS supports these rates.
As indicated in their comments on the DEA, Interior's proposed ramping rates are based on rates developed by Hunter (1992). These rates include seasonal differences designed to avoid impacts to salmon and steelhead fry during emergence. Additionally, the guidelines developed by Hunter (1992) include diel variations in rates. These differences appear to be intended to avoid flow changes during the day when chinook fry are present, based on reports that chinook fry are less habitat oriented and therefore less vulnerable to stranding at night. As part of their Section 10(j) recommendation, Interior states that daytime rates were recommended to protect salmon fry and the night-time rates were recommended to protect salmon and steelhead fry. We assess the potential benefits of Interior's recommended ramping rates on salmon and steelhead fry below.
Because of barriers in Reach 3, chinook salmon and steelhead spawning would only occur within Reach 4. The fry of summer/fall chinook salmon would emerge in April or May and because they are ocean-type salmon, these fry would typically begin their outmigration within a few days to weeks of emergence. During this time period, flows in the Chelan River would be held constant at the proposed minimum flows or increase consistent with the natural hydrograph due to spill flows. However, under
99 Chelan's proposed minimum flows, flows in the Chelan River would be reduced from 200 or 320 cfs in dry and average years to 80 cfs on May 15. It is likely that many or even most summer/fall chinook salmon fry would have emigrated from the Chelan River to the Columbia River by May 15 and would therefore be unaffected by any changes in flow. However, some fry would likely still be present and could be stranded due to a decrease in flows. Under Interior's recommended ramping rates, there would be no ramping during the day at this time of year and any changes in flow would be restricted to 2 inches per hour at night. As indicated above, Hunter (1992) suggests that chinook fry are less habitat oriented and therefore less vulnerable to stranding at night; therefore, Interior's recommended ramping rates may result in less stranding of chinook salmon fry in reach 4 than the ramping rates recommended by WDOE and Chelan (in the CRBEIP). Under these other proposals, ramping could occur during the day when chinook salmon fry may be more vulnerable to stranding.
WDOE and other stakeholders have indicated a desire to establish steelhead runs within the tailrace and Reach 4 once it becomes permanently wetted. However, unlike summer/fall chinook salmon which spawn annually in the Lake Chelan tailrace and would be likely to establish a spawning run in Reach 4 once it becomes permanently wetted, there is no evidence at this time that any significant amount of steelhead spawning occurs in the Lake Chelan tailrace and the potential to establish steelhead spawning within Reach 4 is less certain than for chinook salmon. Various factors, including warm water temperatures, may limit the success of establishing a steelhead run in Reach 4; however, if a run is established, steelhead spawned in Reach 4 would emerge from the late spring through August. During this time, flows through Reach 4 would decrease from as much as 320 cfs to 80 cfs on July 15 and on approximately 4 days in July flows would be ramped up to as much as 450 cfs and back down to 80 cfs within a short period (i.e., 8-12 hours) for whitewater releases. Interior's recommendation would require ramping down 1 inch per hour at this time of the year, rather than the 2 inches per hour recommended by WDOE and proposed by Chelan in the CRBEIP. If steelhead successfully spawn in Reach 4, it is possible that Interior's more restrictive ramping requirement would provide some additional protection against stranding for steelhead fry.
In comments on the DEA, WDFW indicated that, to the extent practicable, a maximum ramping rate of 1 inch per hour should be adhered to during all flow conditions. WDFW indicated that rapid flow fluctuations during high flow events have the potential to strand adult, as well as juvenile fish. WDFW's recommendation would require Chelan to implement ramping during the spring runoff period. This would likely require Chelan to modify the natural hydrograph during spring spills by occasionally storing water during periods of increasing inflow to Lake Chelan and releasing flows in excess of inflow during periods of decreasing spills. It is not clear why modification of the natural hydrograph would be necessary to protect fish within the bypassed reach and
100 WDFW did not provide any justification for this aspect of their recommendation. In regard to the specific rate recommended by WDFW, they did not provide any additional information to suggest why a 1 inch per hour ramping rate would be necessary to prevent stranding. Additionally, there is no information within the Commission's record for this proceeding or publicly available literature, such as Hunter (1992) to support this recommendation. While it is likely that this more restrictive ramping rate would further reduce stranding when compared to the ramping rates proposed by Chelan in the CRBEIP, WDOE and Interior, the incremental benefit of this requirement is likely to be minor.
Monitoring
Chelan PUD proposes monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the flow and habitat measures proposed for enhancing and restoring the bypassed reach and tailrace. Proposed monitoring activities include spawning surveys and spawning habitat utilization, surveys of aquatic invertebrates, incubation survival evaluations, snorkel surveys in Reaches 1 and 2, and juvenile salmon surveys in Reach 4 and the tailrace. Chelan PUD also proposes to provide steelhead spawning habitat in Reach 4 and the tailrace. Chelan PUD indicates that the monitoring results would be used by Chelan PUD and various stakeholders to implement an adaptive approach to managing the bypassed reach and tailrace. More discussion of this collaborative management group is described below.
Under Section 10(j), Interior, NMFS, and WDFW recommend that Chelan PUD develop a plan for monitoring and evaluating the benefits of measures implemented in the bypassed reach and tailrace. Additionally, both NMFS and WDFW recommend that Chelan PUD develop and implement a plan for gaging flows in the bypassed reach and tailrace. American Rivers also recommends that Chelan PUD develop a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plan and include a mechanism for modifying flows if necessary. In comments on the DEA, WDFW stated that other means besides gauging could be acceptable for documenting flows in the tailrace. WDOE in the 401 WQC included a condition for Chelan to measure flows within the bypassed reach and penstock hourly but does not specify the method for measuring flows.
Gaging flows, as recommended by NMFS and WDFW, would provide information for determining compliance with any flow requirements, including ramping rates, and would also provide accurate flow information for consideration along with data collected through biological monitoring. As indicated by NMFS, as many as three separate gages could be needed, one for each area being considered for a stream flow and/or ramping requirement (i.e. the tailrace, Reach 4, and the upper portion of the bypassed reach). Rather than measure flows with a standard stream gauge, Chelan could measure flows
101 released into the bypassed reach with a weir and releases to the tailrace could be measured through the penstock, as suggested by WDOE.
The biological monitoring proposed by Chelan PUD and recommended by the agencies would allow for assessment of the effectiveness of the proposed flow and habitat modifications in the bypassed reach and tailrace. This information could be used by Chelan PUD, in consultation with the group described below, to make decisions to improve or maintain conditions for aquatic resources in the bypassed reach and tailrace while optimizing the management of lake levels and power generation. For instance, flow adjustments that could disrupt spawning behavior could be postponed until after the spawning period is over or monitoring results may identify habitat limitations and suggest adjustments to the physical habitat in Reach 4 or the tailrace. Additionally, monitoring may determine that lower flows would accomplish the same benefit for aquatic resources but would improve conditions in regard to lake levels or power generation. Regardless of what future adjustments may be recommended, monitoring flows and biological conditions would be valuable for tracking the effectiveness of measures implemented in the bypassed reach and tailrace.
102 Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the subreaches of Reach 4.
103 Figure 5. Braid bar emphasizing spawning and rearing habitat in the modified tailrace.
104 Based on the discussion above, we believe that the proposed minimum flows and other measures to be implemented in the bypassed reach and tailrace would provide an opportunity to establish cutthroat trout and other native coolwater species in Reaches 1, 2, and 3 of the bypassed reach and to provide spawning and rearing habitat for summer chinook and steelhead in Reach 4 and the tailrace. Additionally, using Chelan PUD's proposed monitoring and working collaboratively with stakeholders during the license term would help ensure that the proposed measures would succeed.
Lake Chelan fisheries management
In addition to increasing access to Lake Chelan tributary streams (discussed below), Chelan PUD proposes to improve conditions for Lake Chelan fisheries and their management by coordinating the development of a LCFMP. Features of this plan would include: establishment of a Fisheries Advisory Committee (FAC) that would develop guidance and recommendations regarding the management of Lake Chelan fisheries; coordinating an annual meeting of the FAC; and funding for the Chelan Falls Hatchery, cutthroat trout and potentially bull trout restoration, genetic analyses, spawning surveys, tributary population surveys, creel surveys, food web modeling, and other monitoring and evaluation activities.
Under Section 10(j), WDFW recommends that Chelan PUD develop and implement a Supportive Fish Management and Coordination Plan, organize and support the FAC, prepare and fund a plan to modify the Chelan Falls Hatchery for restoration of cutthroat trout, conduct studies of interactions and impacts of kokanee stocking on cutthroat trout, reconstruct and operate the existing spawning and incubation channel on Twenty-Five Mile Creek, prepare a plan to survey adfluvial salmonid spawning during the spring and fall, develop and implement a plan to conduct population surveys of Lake Chelan tributaries, and prepare and implement a plan to survey sport angler harvest.
Under Section 10(j) and/or Section 4(e), Interior recommends that Chelan PUD develop and implement a LCFMP, organize and coordinate the FAC, prepare and fund a plan to modify the Chelan Falls Hatchery for restoration of cutthroat trout, conduct studies of interactions and impacts of kokanee stocking on cutthroat trout, reconstruct and operate the existing spawning and incubation channel on Twenty-Five Mile Creek, prepare a plan to survey adfluvial salmonid spawning during the spring and fall, develop and implement a plan to conduct population surveys of Lake Chelan tributaries, prepare and implement a plan to survey sport angler harvest, conduct genetic analyses of cutthroat trout and rainbow trout hybridization, fund and support a program to eradicate and control of non-native fish species, fund and support assessment of burbot populations, and conduct bioenergetics studies of competition, predation, and lake productivity.
105 Our analysis
Lake Chelan Fish Management Plan
Currently, there is no comprehensive, multi-agency plan for managing the fisheries or fish populations of the Lake Chelan Basin. At times, decisions regarding fisheries management at Lake Chelan have been made with the intent of restoring or improving existing fisheries, whether native or non-native, while at other times new species have been introduced to the lake with the intent of creating new fisheries. These different management strategies can be problematic when introduced species compete with native or otherwise established species and actually impact a successful sport fishery or reduce the potential for recovery of a preferred species. The proposed FAC and Lake Chelan fish management plan would include a list of goals including species targeted for recovery or enhancement. A fish management plan would include strategies for increasing or maintaining desired fisheries while potentially imposing measures that would put undesired species at a disadvantage.
WDFW has provided participants in the Lake Chelan relicensing with a draft Lake Chelan Fish Management Plan (LCFMP) to be used as a template for a multi-agency comprehensive plan. During prefiling consultation Chelan PUD drafted a LCFMP which included a wide range of proposals such as: recover native cutthroat trout, potential reintroduction of bull trout, monitor native burbot populations, manage kokanee and chinook salmon as quality sport fisheries, control or reduce smallmouth bass and lake trout populations, reduce or eliminate rainbow trout populations, study Mysis shrimp ecology in Lake Chelan, and prevent introduction of new species. More recently in comments on the DEA, Chelan PUD indicated the current version of the LCFMP addresses: 1) Chelan Falls Hatchery stocking; 2) Westslope cutthroat trout and potential bull trout restoration; 3) tributary barriers; 4) genetic analyses; 5) spawning surveys; 6) tributary population surveys; 7) creel surveys; 8) food web modeling; and 9) other monitoring and evaluation activities. The goals of these proposals appear to be supported by the agencies and other stakeholders; however, many of the specific strategies for achieving these goals have not been fully developed or finalized. Establishment of the FAC and development of a fish management plan for Lake Chelan, in consultation with the agencies and stakeholders, would finalize the strategies for achieving the proposed goals and coordinate efforts to ensure successful implementation.
Hatchery Modifications and Stocking Practices
The current license requires Chelan PUD to provide hatchery capacity and funding for rearing two million kokanee eggs and 50,000 cutthroat juveniles per year. In addition, Chelan PUD funds a stocking program of 100,000 legal-sized rainbow trout for
106 sport fishing enhancement. WDFW indicates that the rainbow trout stocking serves as a substitute for shortfalls in the kokanee stocking, which generally achieves only 500,000 fish (rather than the targeted 2 million fish).
The agencies recommend that, over a four year period,stocking rainbow trout be phased out in favor of stocking cutthroat trout. WDFW and Interior indicate that Chelan PUD should provide funding to modify the Chelan hatchery to produce cutthroat trout. Chelan PUD has proposed to provide annual funding of $30,000 (2001$) into an interest- bearing account, by January 31 of each year for fish stocking and/or tributary enhancement in Lake Chelan. It is unclear if this level of funding would support the hatchery program as proposed by the agencies.
Ongoing stocking efforts at Lake Chelan have been primarily intended to promote sport fisheries. A component of these efforts includes WDFW's independent stocking of chinook salmon and lake trout and Chelan PUD's funding of WDFW's stocking rainbow trout in Lake Chelan. These stocked species could have adverse effects on the potential restoration of native cutthroat trout. Landlocked chinook salmon and lake trout are potential predators on native cutthroat trout and rainbow trout are direct competitors with native cutthroat trout. The Park Service considers stocking these species counterproductive to efforts to promote native species, principally the restoration of adfluvial cutthroat populations.
Developing a fish management plan would establish clear goals in regard to stocking chinook salmon and lake trout and phasing out rainbow trout would help to eliminate competition with cutthroat trout. Modifications to the Chelan Hatchery would make it more suitable for cutthroat trout production; however, it is unclear how much this would cost and if Chelan's proposed funding level would account for these expenses. Stocking larger size cutthroat trout, which is also being considered, would likely increase survival until spawning, which could help in restoring a self-sustaining population. In combination, these measures would contribute significantly towards improving the likelihood of restoring the native cutthroat trout population in Lake Chelan.
Twenty-Five Mile Creek Spawning and Incubation Channel
Interior indicates that a spawning and incubation channel located on Twenty-Five Mile Creek is currently in poor condition and gravels there are heavily inundated and impacted with silt. Both Interior and WDFW recommend repairing and maintaining this channel as part of the effort to restore native cutthroat trout. WDFW indicates that this measure would partly mitigate for impacts of project operations that have resulted in the formation of tributary barriers that prevent native cutthroat trout from accessing natural spawning areas. Additionally, WDFW indicates that use of the spawning channel would
107 provide an index of egg incubation survival which would be useful for tracking the recovery of cutthroat trout.
Chelan PUD indicates that questions still remain whether the Twenty-Five Mile Creek spawning channel could be reconstructed and whether this would be an effective investment of resources towards recovery of cutthroat trout. Chelan PUD also statesthat funding for the spawning channel should be provided through the Rocky Reach Project relicensing.16
Although Chelan PUD indicates that the value of restoring the Twenty-Five Mile Creek spawning and incubation channel is uncertain; it is clear that most of the stakeholders want to restore the native cutthroat trout populations to Lake Chelan and that the Project operations have, at least to some extent, contributed to the decline of this species. In comments on the DEA, both Chelan and WDFW indicated that some interim work has already begun on the spawning channel during the fall of 2002. Several sections of the existing channel were cleaned of accumulated silt. WDFW suggests protection of the channel from future sedimentation could be accomplished with a porous gravel berm at the point where the channel diverges from Twenty-Five Mile Creek. WDFW suggest that a fully restored facility could support up to 1,300 female cutthroat trout as well as additional kokanee and bull trout spawners during the fall.
Monitoring and Studies
Interior and WDFW recommend that Chelan PUD prepare a plan to survey adfluvial salmonid spawning during the spring and fall, develop and implement a plan to conduct population surveys of Lake Chelan tributaries, prepare and implement a plan to survey sport angler harvest, conduct genetic analyses of cutthroat trout and rainbow trout hybridization, fund and support assessment of burbot populations, and conduct bioenergetics studies of competition, predation, and lake productivity. The agencies indicate that monitoring would be useful when making future decisions regarding fish management in Lake Chelan.
16In comments on the DEA, Chelan indicated that the spawning and incubation channel was originally constructed as off-site mitigation for recreational fishing opportunities as part of the original construction of Rocky Reach Dam. Chelan considers the spawning channel to be a Rocky Reach Project facility and recommends that the long term rehabilitation and enhancement work be determined by the Lake Chelan Fishery Advisory Committee and the funding be obtained through the Rocky Reach relicensing process.
108 Chelan PUD proposes to share funding for monitoring enhancement and restoration activities that are not linked to project effects. Chelan PUD provides no indication which measures these would be; however, they do indicate that they would consider conducting genetic analyses, spawning surveys, tributary population surveys, creel surveys, food web modeling, and other monitoring and evaluation activities. Chelan PUD proposes to provide matching funds of up to $7,500 (2001$) by January 31 of each year for monitoring and evaluation programs that were previously described in the LCFMP.
Surveys of tributary spawning, tributary population size, and sport angler harvest would provide the management agencies with valuable information in regard to the health of the cutthroat trout population during restoration efforts. As indicated by WDFW, spawning surveys would provide a measure of survival to maturity and adult to adult replacement, tributary populations estimates would provide a measure of reproductive success, the population age structure, and survival, and the sport angler survey would provide estimates of harvest and exploitation rates. In regard to other native species, these data and more specific data directed at gaining information about burbot would be useful in managing that species.
Genetics studies would primarily assess the level of hybridization between cutthroat trout and rainbow trout. We would expect this information to be used to refine efforts to restore cutthroat trout. As an example, if various creeks are targeted for habitat enhancements, results of the genetics analyses could be used to avoid improving conditions in systems dominated by hybrid fish and emphasis could be placed on systems containing pure form cutthroat trout. Additionally, genetic analyses could be useful for identifying a source of potential hatchery brood stock from the lake population.
Studies of the trophic ecology of Lake Chelan (i.e. food web studies) could reveal valuable information regarding the management of target species. As part of the management of Lake Chelan, WDFW proposes to study the continuation and potential recovery of the kokanee fishery. Kokanee are not native to Lake Chelan and likely compete with native cutthroat trout for resources, especially food which primarily consists of large zooplankton. Additionally, kokanee may comprise a significant portion of the diet for other larger predatory species such as chinook salmon or lake trout. A better understanding of the food web interactions between these and other species that inhabit Lake Chelan would assist the management agencies in making decisions regarding restoration efforts, stocking proposals, or even harvest regulations.
The various monitoring studies proposed by Chelan PUD and the agencies would provide information regarding the status of restoration efforts and would assist fishery managers in the implementation of a Lake Chelan fish management plan.
109 Tributary access
During prefiling consultation , several stakeholders expressed concerns regarding the ability of native fish within Lake Chelan to access tributary spawning and rearing habitat. Chelan PUD proposes to fund tributary access projects and to alter the lake operating regime to reduce the formation of barriers at stream mouths. Chelan PUD also proposes to fund a program to monitor the accessability and spawning success within the tributaries during the license term.
Under Section 10(j), WDFW and Interior recommend that Chelan PUD develop and implement a program to provide native fish access to tributaries throughout the term of the license. Under Section 4(e), Interior would require that Chelan PUD manage water levels in Lake Chelan to eliminate alluvial barrier development and optimize available spawning, incubation, and rearing habitat in tributaries.
Under Section 4(e), the Forest Service would require that Chelan PUD develop and implement a plan to provide native fish access to Lake Chelan tributaries. The plan would address managing lake levels to prevent tributary barrier formation, mechanical removal of existing barriers, and followup monitoring to ensure barriers do not reform and access to Lake Chelan tributaries is not impeded during the term of the license.
During prefiling consultation , Chelan PUD and stakeholders established a goal to focus management of Lake Chelan fisheries resources on enhancement/recovery of native species, i.e. cutthroat trout and bull trout, primarily through natural reproduction. In Lake Chelan, the native cutthroat trout reproduce during the spring in the lake tributaries.
In April of 1999, Chelan PUD conducted a survey of passage barriers within the drawdown zone of nine tributaries to Lake Chelan. This analysis assessed passage based on gradient, depth, and velocity. Gradient barriers were determined using the Forest Practices Board Emergency Rule where a channel gradient of greater than 16 percent to 20 percent is considered a barrier to fish passage. Stream channels with a gradient between 16 percent and 20 percent may be passable if step-pools are present where fish may rest during upstream migration. Gradients greater than 20 percent are considered a barrier to fish migration.
Depth and velocity barriers were determined using methods outlined by Thompson (1972), also known as the “Oregon Method.” Adult trout require a minimum depth of 0.4 feet with water velocity less than 4.0 ft/sec. These criteria must be met over 25 percent of the total stream width, with a continuous section of at least 10 percent of
110 the total stream width. Six of the tributaries had fish-passage barriers due to insufficient water depth, three of the tributaries had barriers due to high water velocity, and five of the tributaries had gradient barriers. Table 12 lists the study tributaries, type of barrier present in each stream, lake elevation at which upstream passage would become possible and the dates in 1999 when passage became possible.
Table 16. Results of the barrier assessment in alluvial fans, April 1999 (Source: DES, 2000b ) Creek Discharge Gradient Depth Velocity Passage Date (cfs) barrier Barrier Barrier Elevation Passage (feet) Achieved First 74 No No No 1,083 4/20/99 Twentyfive 107 No No No 1,083 4/20/99 Fish 27 Yes Yes No 1,090 6/3/99 Safety 30 Yes Yes Yes 1,092 6/12/99 Prince 73 Yes Yes Yes 1,092 6/12/99 Gold 19 No Yes No 1,092 6/12/99 Grade 23 Yes Yes No 1,094 6/16/99 Mitchell 27 Yes Yes No 1,095 6/17/99 Rail Road 176 No No Yes 1,097 6/23/99
Barriers to upstream fish passage were identified in seven of the selected nine study tributaries to Lake Chelan (DES, 2000b). These barriers become exposed (i.e. begin to affect passage) when the lake is drawn down from its high pool elevation of 1,100 feet USGS. All seven barriers inhibit passage when the lake is below a pool elevation of 1,090 feet which would occur during the spring when adfluvial cutthroat and rainbow trout may be attempting to migrate up the tributaries to spawn.
During prefiling consultation, several stakeholders suggested that holding the lake level steady for an extended period (June 30 through September 30) contributes to the formation of these barriers through the buildup of sediment at the mouths of the tributaries. Current operation of the project does not allow adequate time for the streams to cut a channel through sediment deposits in the drawdown zone. Under the current lake hydrograph, the drawdown zone is exposed when the creeks have the lowest flows and insufficient energy to cut a channel through the sediment that forms the barriers. The lake elevation is raised during the spring snowmelt when the streams have the highest energy. Instead of the stream cutting a channel through the sediment, additional material is transported and deposited in the drawdown zone. Depth, gradient and velocity barriers are caused by project operation because the lake elevation is raised and held constant when the creeks would be cutting a channel through the deposited sediments.
111 Under Chelan PUD's proposal, mechanical means would be used where appropriate to remove barriers at the mouths of tributaries to Lake Chelan. Additionally, Chelan PUD proposes to modify the lake level management to aid in the removal of annual depositions of alluvial material and maintaining channel integrity following mechanical removal and any stream channel restoration projects that may be conducted. Part of Chelan PUD's proposal includes lowering Lake Chelan earlier in the late summer and fall to allow flows in tributaries around the lake to carve through cobble sediment barriers at the mouths of the streams. In addition to carving out existing barriers, lowering the lake level earlier in the year would reduce the probability of new barriers being created during rare fall flood events.
At this time it is unclear if mechanical removal would be needed only to initially restore passage or if mechanical removal would be needed on a regular basis. If the proposed lake level management would maintain access to tributary streams, it is possible that no further mechanical removal would be necessary. However, in comments on the DEA, Chelan indicated it is committed to addressing project-related impacts and providing tributary access, suggesting that Chelan would remove any reformed barriers that could be attributed to the project. Based on Chelan PUD's survey of existing barriers, it appears that current conditions limit native salmonid access to tributary habitat and successful implementation of the proposed measures to remove barriers and provide tributary access would be a significant step toward establishing natural spawning populations of cutthroat trout and other native salmonids.
Entrainment and Impingement
Chelan PUD proposes to continue monitoring for entrainment at the project intakes and to redesign and replace the existing trashracks with appropriate fish exclusion structures if monitoring indicates native salmonids are being entrained.
Interior , under Section 4(e), would require that Chelan PUD develop and implement a plan to minimize loss of fish through entrainment and spills. Under Section 10(j), WDFW recommends that Chelan PUD develop and implement a plan to exclude fingerling salmonids from the project intakes. NMFS, under Section 10(j) recommends that Chelan PUD design the pump system for Reach 4 of the bypassed reach to minimize attraction and impingement of juvenile salmon and steelhead.
Between May and mid-July 2001, traps, nets, and conventional fishing gear were used to collect fish in the vicinity of the project intakes (Table 13). As suggested by Chelan PUD in their PDEA, these results represent, to some extent, the numbers and species that could be entrained at the Lake Chelan Project.
112 Table 17. Summary of total entrainment study catch (Source: DES, 2001b) Species Total Number Oneida Trap Gillnet Hook & Line Captured Peamouth Chub 697 63 760 Northern Pikeminnow 195 24 219 Rainbow Trout 16 41 95 152 Bridgelip Sucker 77 0 77 Large Scale Sucker 36 0 36 Smallmouth Bass 3 1 16 20 Chiselmouth 12 0 12 Westslope cutthroat 1 0 1 trout Tench 0 1 1 Bluegill 0 0 1 1
Between late-July and late-September in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, and 2003, Chelan PUD conducted counts of fish trapped in the stilling basin below the dam after spills were discontinued. The primary fish species collected in the stilling basin include: rainbow trout; smallmouth bass; and northern pikeminnow. Two landlocked chinook salmon were captured during the 1998 survey: one was approximately 6 pounds and the other was a small juvenile of approximately 6 inches in length. Four Westslope cutthrout trout were collected in 2003. These fish had eroded fins indicating they were of hatchery origin. No bull trout or kokanee were collected during any of the collections. These results indicate that some fish move over the spillway during spill periods and that these same species may be susceptible to entrainment at the project intakes.
Fish that pass into the bypassed reach via spill flows or minimum flow releases would be lost from the lake population, although they could survive and become resident within the bypassed reach or areas downstream. Fish that become entrained at the project intakes would also be lost from the lake population and could be injured or killed during turbine passage; however, individuals that survive passage could become resident within the tailrace, lower bypassed reach or mainstem Columbia River. Regardless, Interior and WDFW have expressed concern that the loss of native salmonids (primarily cutthroat trout) to entrainment or passage over the spillway could adversely affect the ability to recover these populations within the lake system. While limited in their scope, the results of the various studies described above suggest that few cutthroat trout are currently leaving the lake system ; however, the cutthroat trout population within Lake Chelan is currently depressed and entrainment or spill of these fish could increase if the lake population recovers or increases.
113 Chelan PUD indicates that it would continue to monitor potential entrainment of fish at the dam and if unacceptable losses of target species occurs, they would develop a means to exclude fish for passing into the project intakes. Interior, Forest Service, and WDFW indicate that Chelan PUD should develop and implement a plan to exclude fish from becoming entrained at the project intakes or passing over the spillway upon license issuance. While the agencies approach would ensure that adequate measures would be taken to protect against losses of species targeted for recovery, it could prove to be an unnecessary expense if the targeted species avoid the area near the dam or, at least, avoid the project intakes or spillway. Chelan PUD's proposed approach on the other hand could result in some losses during the time that studies would be conducted and up to the point that any necessary exclusion device is installed. At this time, we have no means to estimate the losses of cutthroat trout that could occur due to entrainment or spills during the license term; therefore, we are unable to describe the potential losses or benefit associated with Chelan PUD's or the agencies' proposals.
In comments on the DEA, WDFW indicated that the presence of rainbow trout in the forebay near the intake structure and the documentation of downstream movement at the spillway, is very strong circumstantial evidence for entrainment into the power intake under current operating conditions. WDFW further suggests that when cutthroat trout populations are rebuilt and natural reproduction is occurring regularly within the Chelan Basin, sub-adult cutthroat trout will regularly occur at the forebay. WDFW indicates that at this time it is seeking development of a design and implementation plan for the exclusion of fingerling size and larger trout from the intake. WDFW indicates that development of the plan now would reduce delay once monitoring confirms the presence of fingerling trout in the forebay in the future. While we agree that developing the plan now could reduce future delays, we do not believe it is a certainty that fingerling trout will occur in the forebay or experience significant entrainment. This is at least part of the basis for the continued monitoring by Chelan. If entrainment were a certainty once cutthroat trout reestablish, there would be no need to monitor for potential entrainment at the dam and only a need to track the growth of the cutthroat trout population. Additionally, it is not clear at this time that if entrainment becomes a problem in the future that intake screening would be the best or only remedy. Placement of behavioral deterrents near the intakes, replacement of estimated fish losses with hatchery production, or some other form of out-of-kind mitigation (e.g., creation of additional spawning habitat in other portions of the lake area) could be more appropriate. Lastly, because the technology within the field of fish passage and protection continues to evolve, we do not believe it would be prudent to develop a plan based on current technologies when it may not be needed until the future when perhaps better technologies would be available.
In regard to the pump system that would draw water from the tailrace and supply water to the upper end of Reach 4, NMFS has indicated that Chelan PUD should design
114 the pump intakes to minimize attraction and impingement of juvenile salmon and steelhead. In comments on the DEA, Chelan indicated it had already begun designing screens for these intakes. This measure would protect juvenile salmonids rearing in the project tailrace area from potential injury or mortality. Minimizing the impingement of juvenile fish at the pump intakes may improve the success of the overall efforts in this area which includes the proposal to create additional spawning and rearing habitat for salmon and steelhead in the project tailrace and lower bypassed reach. We would expect design features for excluding juvenile salmonids to include locating the pump intakes in an area less likely to provide substantial juvenile habitat (i.e. deeper portions of the tailrace or within the disharge flows from the powerhouse) and inclusion of a screen system with a large enough surface area to result in relatively low velocities at the screen surface. These measures could be developed in consultation with the agencies as part of any final design plans that may be associated with installation of the pump system.
Large woody debris (LWD) management plan
Chelan PUD proposes to incorporate LWD into the design and implementation of erosion control measures on lands owned by Interior and the Forest Service.
Under Section 10(j), WDFW recommends that Chelan PUD develop and implement a plan to distribute LWD on non-federal shore lands for shore protection, erosion control, restoration of eroded sites, and improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. Under Section 4(e), Interior and Forest Service would require that Chelan PUD prepare and implement a plan to use LWD for fisheries, wildlife, and riparian habitat rehabilitation and shoreline erosion control. Both Interior and Forest Service indicate that these LWD projects would be implemented on lands owned by Interior or Forest Service.
115 Permanently and intermittently submerged LWD provides valuable habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial organisms. For fisheries, LWD in shallow habitat can provide shelter for juvenile fish and serves as important habitat for benthic organisms that may also serve as food for juvenile fish. LWD in deeper water areas would support benthic organisms which in turn would attract a variety of fish species, some of which could serve as forage for larger predatory species. Additionally, LWD in deep water could provide cover for larger fish species.
The agencies are recommending that where possible, Chelan PUD use LWD to control erosion around the lake shoreline. In the case of Interior, the use of LWD would also be incorporated into airborne dust abatement in the Stehikin area. Using LWD to control erosion and fugitive dust would indirectly benefit aquatic organisms by providing habitat while reducing erosion and any secondary effects from increased sediment input to the lake. We analyze the need for erosion control and fugitive dust control measures in Section V.C.1.
Project Effects on Columbia River flows
During prefiling and in the PDEA, Chelan investigated the effects of the project on mainstem Columbia River flows. Chelan concluded that the proposed operation of the project, primarily storage of water in the lake, would have a minor affect on mainstem flows but would not significantly influence the outmigration survival of juvenile salmon and steelhead. In a letter filed on February 6, 2003, and in comments on the DEA, NMFS indicated that the FEA should include an analysis of project effects on Columbia River flows and stated that storage of water from April to early July reduces Columbia River flows during the peak of the juvenile steelhead outmigration.
During the period of salmon and steelhead outmigration (i.e., April to August), operation of the project alters the natural discharge from the Chelan River into the Columbia River. Historically, Chelan River discharge is lower than natural inflows from April to June and Chelan River discharge is higher than natural inflows from mid-August to February. During July when the reservoir is usually full, the discharge from the Chelan River is equal to natural inflow to the lake.
NMFS has suggested that operation of the project results in storage of 650,000 acre-feet of water during the period from April to July that would otherwise contribute to Columbia River flows. We estimate that this volume of water would increase Columbia River flows by approximately 3,300 cfs if released over a period of 100 days. If the releases were compressed into a 30 day period, the increase in Columbia River flows would be approximately 11,000 cfs. Average monthly Columbia River flows at Rocky
116 Reach dam during the late spring and early summer are generally 110,000 (April) - 195,000 (June) cfs. Increasing these flows by 3,300 cfs would correspond to a 1.7 - 3.0 percent increase in flows for 100 days. Increasing the mainstem flows by 11,000 cfs would result in a 5.6 to 10.0 percent increase in flow for 30 days.
Releasing the flows described above would require significant changes to the operation and managed uses of Lake Chelan. Releasing 3,300 cfs per day for 100 days from April through early July would delay the refill of the lake for the recreation season. Releasing 11,000 cfs during April would require maintaining significantly higher lake elevations through the fall and winter, which would reduce the amount of flood storage within Lake Chelan. Both of these alternatives would also likely affect power generation.
To demonstrate the effect of the project on Columbia River flows, Chelan developed a model to predict Columbia River flows with the influence of project operations and without any influence from the project (i.e., natural flows; Table 18). These results show that without the project, flows in the Columbia River during the juvenile salmonid outmigration period (April to August) would be approximately 1,000 cfs greater in April, 3,900 cfs greater in May, and 2,400 cfs greater in June. Flows would be essentially unchanged during July and August. The increase in Columbia River flows due to natural flows in the April to June period would range from 0.6 to 2.0 percent. The effect of the proposed changes in operations to the Lake Chelan Project would be substantially less. Therefore, we would not expect that the proposed operation of the Lake Chelan Project would significantly affect the survival of juvenile salmon and steelhead during their outmigration. In addition, a recent review of the effects of flow augmentation prepared by the Independent Scientific Advisory Board17 concluded that the assertion that in-river smolt survival is proportionally enhanced by any amount of added water, is no longer supportable.18 The ISAB suggested that while augmenting low flows may benefit outmigration survival, there does appear to be a point beyond which there is little additional benefit from further increases in flow. Projects within the Columbia River Basin are currently operated to achieve the flow targets established in the 2000 biological opinion on operation of the federal Columbia River power system (NMFS;
17ISAB. 2003. Review of Flow Augmentation: Update and Clarification. Report prepared for the Northwest Power Planning Council, NMFS, and the Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes. ISAB 2003-1.
18The report supports the NMFS's-developed "broken stick" model which suggests that there is a strong effect of flow on survival of outmigrants at lower flows, but that above some breakpoint (100 kcfs in the Snake River system), there is no apparent relationship between flow and survival.
117 2000). While it is possible to modify the operation of Lake Chelan to provide a few thousand additional cfs to the mainstem flows, we do not believe there is substantial evidence that these additional flows are necessary or would be significantly beneficial. Additionally, the effects of modifying Lake Chelan Project operations to achieve such limit benefits for smolts would risk substantial harm to other beneficial resources such as power generation, recreation, and restoration of the bypassed reach.
Table 18. Predicted Columbia River flows at Priest Rapids and McNary with and without the influence of Lake Chelan Project operations. (Source: Chelan; 2003 Attachment A to February 7 filing)
Columbia River flows at Priest Columbia River flow at McNary Rapids (kcfs) (kcfs) With Lake With Lake Chelan Natural Percent Chelan Natural Percent Month Project flows difference Project flows difference January 80.1 78.9 -1.42 155.0 153.9 -0.73
February 81.4 80.6 -0.96 168.0 167.8 -0.46 March 82.5 82.3 -0.22 175.1 174.9 -0.11 April 104.0 105.2 1.15 197.8 198.9 0.60 May 192.8 196.6 1.98 275.1 279.0 1.39 June 267.4 269.8 0.90 319.3 321.7 0.75 July 198.1 198.3 0.12 204.5 204.8 0.12 August 120.5 120.2 -0.26 138.0 137.7 -0.23 September 82.4 81.5 -1.06 108.1 107.2 -0.81 October 72.1 70.5 -2.30 108.7 107.1 -1.53 November 73.2 71.8 -1.84 120.6 119.3 -1.11 December 77.3 76.0 -1.64 140.9 139.6 -0.90 Annual 119.4 119.4 0.00 175.9 175.9 0.00
Introduction of Anadromous Fish to Lake Chelan
118 CRITFC indicates that salmon tagging studies should be conducted to determine if introducing salmon to Lake Chelan would be feasible. CRITFC suggests that the passage of juvenile and adult salmon, with priority for sockeye salmon, through the bypassed reach and into Lake Chelan should be explored under a range of flows during the new license as part of an adaptive management process.
As part of its Comprehensive Fish Management Plan, Chelan PUD proposes to prohibit introduction of new exotic species to Lake Chelan, including attempts to establish anadromous populations of salmon and steelhead.
Our Analysis
Several important aspects of establishing a successful run of anadromous salmonids include: providing a means for adult fish to access to the lake, determining that adequate spawning and rearing habitat exists, and providing juvenile fish with safe and effective egress from the lake. Additionally, as indicated and supported by WDFW, the effects of anadromous salmonids on the ecology of Lake Chelan would need to be evaluated prior to their introduction.
During prefiling consultation, Chelan PUD reviewed available information to determine the historical occurrence of anadromous salmonids in Lake Chelan (Hillman and Giorgi, 2000). This review found no verifiable evidence that anadromous salmonids occurred in Lake Chelan under natural conditions (i.e. prior to construction of a dam at the outlet of Lake Chelan), Hillman and Giorgi (2000) concluded that natural barriers to upstream passage existed in the Chelan River (i.e. the bypassed reach). Additional studies conducted by R2 and IA (2000) verified that the bypassed reach contains 4 hydraulic features that would likely function as passage barriers to adult salmon and steelhead under all possible flows. While passage over the Lake Chelan dam may be possible using a ladder or other device, the identification of potential passage barriers in the bypassed reach complicates the issue of providing access to Lake Chelan for adult salmonids migrating from the Columbia River.
Comments by CRITFC suggest they believe the results of these studies are inconclusive and that only a tagging study conducted over a range of flows in the bypassed reach would actually be valid in determining whether the bypassed reach is passable or not. We believe that the evidence is quite compelling in concluding that anadromous fish never passed through the bypassed reach of the Chelan River; however, there are other means that could provide anadromous fish access to Lake Chelan. Several options including providing passaging using a fish ladder or similar device at locations believed to be barriers as well as the dam or constructing a collection facility in the lower
119 section of the bypassed reach and physically hauling adult salmon or steelhead to Lake Chelan.
Upon accessing the lake, adult fish would need to locate suitable spawning habitat. Of the three species likely for introduction into Lake Chelan, chinook salmon and steelhead are stream spawners and sockeye can spawn in both streams and along lake shorelines. The Stehekin River, Fish Creek, Railroad Creek, and Twenty-Five Mile Creek would likely provide most of the spawning habitat for stream spawning (BioAnalysts, 2000). Shoreline spawning by sockeye salmon could occur in Lake Chelan. However, shoreline spawning by kokanee (i.e. landlocked sockeye salmon) has never been observed in Lake Chelan suggesting that suitable shoreline spawning habitat may be rare or non-existent.
BioAnalysts (2000) derived estimates of juvenile anadromous fish production in Lake Chelan (Table 13). Based on these estimates for smolt production and somewhat optimistic smolt-to-adult survival rates, BioAnalysts suggested that chinook salmon and steelhead would be unable to form self-sustaining populations in Lake Chelan and that establishment of a self-sustaining sockeye salmon population could be possible but unlikely. These results suggest that any population of anadromous salmonids inhabiting Lake Chelan would require some level of supplementation to maintain the population size and in fact, the level of supplementation could be significant, especially since BioAnalyst's estimates did not account for possible harvest of returning adults.
Table 19. Estimates of smolt production and spawners required to support the smolt yield in Lake Chelan for three species of anadromous salmonids. (Source: BioAnalysts 2000) Species Smolt yield1 Spawners required Chinook salmon 91,000 3,200 Steelhead 36,000 1,400 Sockeye salmon 1.3 - 3.7 million 137,000 1 BioAnalysts (2000) suggests these estimates are optimistic and likely to be conservatively high.
In regard to juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead, BioAnalysts (2000) note that the migration of these species is driven, at least in part, by velocity cues that would likely be insignificant in Lake Chelan. Therefore, it is likely that the juveniles of these two species would experience significant difficulty locating an egress route from the lake. However, as indicated by Hillman and Giorgi (2000), sockeye salmon are known to successfully egress from lakes as large or even larger than Lake Chelan without difficulty.
120 In addition to concerns about the ability of juveniles to locate the lake outlet, providing a safe and effective route to the Columbia River may also be complicated. Juvenile salmonids migrating out of Lake Chelan would likely pass through the project intakes and powerhouse or over the dam and through the bypassed reach. Fish entrained at the project intakes would be subjected to possible turbine-related injuries or mortality. These effects could be minimized if the project intakes were screened; however, installation of an effective design could be costly. Guiding fish into the bypassed reach would likely be the safest route, although it is possible that predators such as smallmouth bass or northern pikeminnow would concentrate near the lake outlet or in the upper end of the bypassed reach and prey on juvenile salmon or steelhead as they exit the lake. To ensure safe passage from the lake to the Columbia River, juvenile salmonids could be collected and hauled from the area of the lake outlet to the confluence of the Chelan and Columbia Rivers. Of course, this method of providing passage would have some level of risk and mortality associated with it, as well as potentially high costs.
In addition to general concerns regarding passage and habitat conditions, introducing anadromous salmonids to Lake Chelan could have adverse ecological consequences. Juvenile salmon and steelhead would likely compete for food and space with native species targeted for restoration, such as cutthroat trout and bull trout. They could also compete with existing non-native species that support valuable recreational fisheries. At a minimum we would expect juvenile anadromous chinook salmon to compete with the existing landlocked chinook juveniles and juvenile anadromous sockeye salmon would compete with the existing kokanee juveniles. Lastly, diseases such as, bacterial kidney disease, are not known to presently occur in Lake Chelan but are known to occur in several salmonid stocks inhabiting the Columbia River. Therefore, introduction of anadromous salmonids from the Columbia River to Lake Chelan could result in the introduction of diseasesand adversely affect the recovery or maintenance of fish populations such as cutthroat trout or kokanee.
Based on the information summarized in this section, we conclude that Lake Chelan was historically inaccessible to anadromous salmonids; therefore, any effort to introduce anadromous fish to Lake Chelan would serve as an enhancement measure rather than mitigation for ongoing projects effects. We conclude that introduction of anadromous salmonids would likely include providing passage through or around the bypassed reach, supplementation of smolt production to sustain the population, installation of protective measures to prevent project entrainment, and potentially collection and hauling of juveniles from the area of the lake outlet to the Columbia River. In total we would expect these measures to be quite costly and at the same time it appears unlikely that a successful population would be established. We conclude that in addition to the other obstacles identified above, the lack of significant velocity cues within the Lake Chelan system to direct juveniles out of the lake would likely prevent successful
121 introduction of chinook salmon and steelhead. Sockeye salmon would be the most likely candidate for introduction to Lake Chelan; however, in addition to the various passage- related risks we have outlined above, it is quite clear that introducing sockeye salmon would conflict with other fish management goals, primarily recovery of the native cutthroat trout population and maintenance or enhancement of the kokanee fishery. Competition for food or space and the potential introduction of disease to the Lake Chelan system would likely adversely affect existing fish populations within Lake Chelan.
Unavoidable adverse impacts: With or without measures to exclude fish from the project intakes, some level of entrainment of fish from the lake would likely occur and some of these fish would likely be killed or injured during turbine passage.
4. Terrestrial and Wildlife Resources
Affected environment:
Upland vegetation
The Lake Chelan watershed lies within the Northern Cascades physiographic province (Franklin and Dyrness, 1973), but the southern third of the watershed contains elements more characteristic of the Columbia Basin Province. The Northern Cascades Province is montane, exhibits great topographic relief and receives high amounts of precipitation annually. The typical vegetation in this area is coniferous forest. In contrast, the Columbia Basin Province is characterized by much lower topographic relief, semi-arid to arid conditions, and is vegetated by shrub steppe and grassland plant communities. These extremes allow for a diversity of plant and animal species across the Chelan Basin.
With annual precipitation ranging from 11 inches at the City of Chelan to over 150 inches on the Cascade crest, the Lake Chelan Basin includes a diversity of life zones and a variety of plant and animal species. The basin is characterized by six vegetation zones: ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, grand fir, subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, and big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass (Franklin and Dyrness, 1973).
The Douglas fir zone dominates the project area, extending from lakeshore to about the 4,000-foot elevation, where it merges into the grand fir and subalpine forest zones. The Douglas fir zone occurs along the upper three-fourths of the lake shoreline and in the Stehekin Valley. The major tree species in this zone include Douglas fir (the climax species) and the fire-dependent lodgepole pine and fire-tolerant ponderosa pine
122 and larch. Snowberry, spirea and rose are the dominant shrubs, with bluebunch wheatgrass and fescue as the dominant grasses.
A mixture of ponderosa pine and shrub-steppe zones, with agricultural crops intermingled, borders the southeastern portion of Lake Chelan. The ponderosa pine zone typically occurs between the higher elevation Douglas fir zone and the lower steppe zone. The ponderosa pine zone has a short growing season, minimal summer precipitation, summers with hot days and cool nights and low winter temperatures that result in heavy snow accumulations. Within the Lake Chelan area, the ponderosa pine zone is vegetated by ponderosa pine, Douglas fir and, in riparian bottoms, aspen and cottonwood. Common shrubs include bitterbrush, sagebrush, rose, ceanothus and serviceberry. Dominant forbs and grasses are arrowleaf balsamroot, eriogonum, bluebunch wheatgrass, needle and thread and, recently, the noxious cheatgrass.
The lower steppe zone, from the foot of Lake Chelan to the Columbia River, is occupied by the big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass association. This association is generally composed of four vegetation layers: (1) a shrub layer of principally big sagebrush, bitterbrush and rabbitbrush; (2) a layer of perennial grasses dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass; (3) a layer of low-growing grasses such as Sandberg bluegrass and cheatgrass; and (4) a surface crust of crustose lichens and mosses.
Several factors have altered the historic vegetation of the basin, including grazing, logging, mining, fires and fire suppression, farming, residential development, reservoir operation, and weed invasions.
Wetlands and riparian vegetation
The amount of wetland and riparian vegetation in the basin is limited naturally by the geology of the area. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps detailing the Lake Chelan area indicate small, localized wetlands along lake tributaries. Pockets of wetlands are identified on the Stehekin River delta entering the lake and within the bypassed reach of the Chelan River. Historical maps indicate that prior to project construction a large (24 to 30 acres) wetland existed near Mason (Eldred, 2002) and over 300 acres of riparian and wetland vegetation existed in the Stehekin River delta (FS 1999); now wetlands are only known to occur near the mouth of the Stehekin River (DES, 2000c). The wetlands in the Stehekin area are dominated by invasive reed canary grass but also support small areas of native wetland vegetation.
Reports produced by the Chelan Electric Company, Chelan PUD's predecessor, during the construction of Lake Chelan Dam describe a lake margin composed of coarse substrates and varying in composition and abundance of vegetation. A January 1930
123 report by Chelan Electric Company notes significant removal of timber and other vegetation from over 120 miles of shoreline (1400 acres), with most of the timber removal occurring from the northern half of the lake. The report notes removal of a heavy growth of timber composed of willows, cottonwood, cedar, and fir from creek mouths and even along the lake shoreline between steep bluffs. The southern end of the lake was sparsely timbered. WDFW estimates over 31 linear miles of riparian corridor were lost from project construction. FS estimates that 40 to 50 percent (approximately 340 acres) of the riparian resources located within ¼ mile of the lake were affected by project construction.
Chelan PUD conducted a detailed riparian zone investigation in 1999 along eight focus tributaries and the bypassed reach (DES, 2000c) to characterize existing riparian conditions. Riparian vegetation along the shoreline of Lake Chelan is concentrated in the areas of relatively flat terrain on tributary alluvial fans, at the head of Lake Chelan in the Stehekin River delta, and in scattered areas near Manson. This is because the watershed basin is mostly steep-sided, due to its formation by glacial activity, and much of the shoreline consists of coarse substrates, including cobbles, boulders, and bedrock, with little soil for vegetation establishment. The long and narrow basin results in heavy wave action during the frequently windy conditions. These conditions generally limit the establishment of riparian vegetation throughout most of the shoreline.
The riparian habitats found along the eight Lake Chelan focus tributaries exhibited considerable variation. DES (2000c) concluded that three primary factors influence the current condition and extent of riparian habitats along the focus tributaries: (1) the drainage configuration; (2) the aspect of the drainage; and (3) the presence of human activities, including project operation.
The drainage configuration ultimately determines the amount of land suitable for the growth and persistence of riparian vegetation along the tributaries. Because riparian vegetation requires available water, narrow steep-walled drainages or deeply incised creek channels limit the area suitable for riparian habitats. This accounts for the condition of riparian habitats at Grade Creek, Mitchell Creek, Box Canyon, Big Creek, Bear Creek, Prince Creek and Fish Creek, all of which are relatively narrow due to incised creek beds and/or confining canyons. In contrast, the Stehekin River at the head of Lake Chelan is low gradient and has a wide alluvial channel within a broad U-shaped valley with abundant lowlands suitable for riparian vegetation. The riparian community associated with the Stehekin River delta was the most extensive, diverse, and structurally developed of any of the study streams, resulting in the greatest diversity of wildlife of any of the study streams.
124 The aspect of the tributaries has a significant influence on the local microclimate and thus the surrounding vegetation. Sites with a southwest aspect tend to have relatively drier microclimates resulting in arid habitats surrounding narrow riparian corridors. The dominant vegetation surrounding both Grade Creek and Mitchell Creek is an arid-shrub- steppe habitat. Further west (i.e., uplake), the vegetation surrounding sites with a west to southwest aspect, including Prince Creek and Fish Creek, consist predominantly of relatively open conifer habitats. Sites with a northeast aspect, such as Box Canyon and Bear Creek, tend to have more dense vegetative cover within and adjacent to the riparian zone. The northeast aspect helps retain moisture, which promotes dense vegetative growth both within and adjacent to the riparian zone. This results in habitats characterized by heavy shade, cool temperatures and high humidity. Sites with a northeast aspect also tend to have soils with significant amounts of organic material, while the soils associated with sites having a southwest aspect tend to have a lower proportion of organic material. Due to the low organic content, these sites are relatively sandy, and they drain more quickly, resulting in less than ideal conditions for riparian vegetation. The importance of aspect is even illustrated at some sites by differences in side-slope vegetation patterns, where somewhat more arid conditions prevail on east-facing slopes.
Human activities also influence the extent and condition of riparian zones. Developed camping areas are located adjacent to Mitchell Creek, Big Creek, Prince Creek, Fish Creek and the Stehekin River. There is an undeveloped campsite located at Grade Creek. These camping areas, particularly Mitchell Creek, Prince Creek, Fish Creek and the Stehekin River, were heavily used during field studies conducted in 1999. Although most recreation activity was concentrated within the designated camping areas and trails, some activity was noted within riparian habitats. Campers and day-users were also observed at Grade Creek; uncontrolled use of this area was partly responsible for somewhat degraded riparian conditions near the mouth of the creek. However, recreation activities are a relatively insignificant factor influencing riparian habitats compared to human development (DES 2000c). There is considerable residential development near the mouth of the Stehekin River where native vegetation has been removed and low areas filled-in. This development consists primarily of seasonal homes. Much of the development at the Stehekin River is adjacent to high quality riparian habitats, and human disturbance to riparian habitats and wildlife probably occurs. Although no dwellings were located near the remaining tributaries studied, there is development occurring within the alluvial fans of other tributaries to Lake Chelan.
Riparian conditions vary also along the Chelan River, which flows from the outlet of Lake Chelan four miles to the Columbia River. The upper section, extending from the dam to about 2.3 miles downstream, has a wide floodplain and relatively low gradient. Large cobbles and boulders predominate the substrate within this reach. Riparian
125 vegetation within the upper segment is sparse, but there are scattered patches of shrub and conifer habitats. The Chelan Gorge is characterized by a very narrow river channel, with a steep gradient, bordered by steep, sheer cliffs. Large cobbles, boulders and bedrock dominate available substrates. Due to the coarse substrates and confined channel there is little riparian vegetation. Below the gorge, the floodplain widens and forms a relatively low gradient channel dominated by cobbles and boulders. There is some shrub habitat within this segment, but much of the reach consists of bare ground and developed urban/recreational areas (DES 2000c).
Wildlife
DES (2000c) documented 92 avian species, three amphibians, nine reptilian and 15 mammalian species during the riparian zone investigation. Ten of the 92 species of birds documented during the riparian zone investigation are considered Priority Species by the WDFW. These are common loon, Barrow's goldeneye, harlequin duck, golden eagle, northern goshawk, blue grouse, chukar, Vaux's swift, Lewis' woodpecker and pileated woodpecker. Common loon, golden eagle, northern goshawk, Vaux's swift, Lewis' woodpecker and pileated woodpecker are also state candidate species for possible future listing. The Stehekin River study area had the greatest amount and diversity of riparian habitat types, the highest number of species and relative abundance of both birds and small mammals, and greatest number of amphibians and reptiles of any riparian study reach.
Big game species present in the Lake Chelan vicinity include: mule deer, mountain goats, black bears and cougars. Lesser numbers of white-tailed deer, Rocky Mountain elk and moose have been reported. Chelan PUD has conducted winter surveys for mountain goats, mule deer, big horn sheep, coyotes, bald eagles, and golden eagles since 1982 (Fielder 2002).
Mountain goats, considered a Priority Species by WDFW, use steep, high- elevation habitats on both the north and south shores of Lake Chelan. Goats winter at lower elevations along the lake and seek higher elevations for summer range. The current population is about 100 animals, down from an estimated 550 in 1961 (Kaputa 2002), but holding relatively stable at an average of 115 animals per year since the early 1980s; this is below the population objective of 150 animals (Kaputa 2002). Fielder (2002) observed 74 mountain goats during the winter of 2001-02. The number of mountain goats observed over the last 20 years has ranged from 54 to 185 (Fielder 2002).
Thirteen bighorn sheep were reintroduced to the north shore of Lake Chelan in March of 1999 (Fielder 2002); 34 more were released in February and March 2000. A survey conducted by WDFW in June 2002 counted 44 sheep (32 ewes, 10 lambs, and 2
126 rams) between Mitchell Creek up-lake to Deer Point (Kaputa 2002). During the winter of 2001-01, Fielder (2002) observed 46 sheep between Mitchell and Poison creeks.
Riparian and lower steppe habitats are important as mule deer wintering habitat; Lake Chelan shoreland habitats are considered “premium” mule deer winter range because of reduced snow depth at or near lake elevations (Eldred 2002). Fielder (2002) observed a total of 489 deer and 32 deer along the north and south shore, respectively, during boat surveys conducted between November 21, 2001 and January 11, 2002. The data indicated generally lower than normal use (Fielder 2002). Data from deer pellet transects, which Chelan PUD has conducted since April 1985, shows a similar trend of lower than normal use (Fielder 2002). Using data from the pellet transects, Fielder (2002) calculated an average of 39.7 deer days of use/acre on the north shore and 0.8 deer days of use/acre on the south shore of the lake during spring 2001 to spring 2002 (Table 14). Fielder (2002) attributes the lower than normal use to a combination of (1) low deer numbers resulting from the severe winter conditions of 1996-97 when, according to WDFW estimates, 70 percent of the Chelan County mule deer herd died, and (2) the relatively mild winters following the 1996-97 winter that did not force deer to the low elevations where they could be observed from the lake. These observations are consistent with observed mule deer population trends in central and eastern Washington as a whole and within the Chelan population management unit (WDFW 2001). WDFW (2001) reports that deer populations in central and eastern Washington are recovering from the most recent severe winter of 1996-97. WDFW (2001) also reports that the mule deer herd population in the Chelan population management unit declined severely from the combined effects of the severe winter of 1996-97, lost habitat from the Tyee wildfire in 1994, and hunting.
Table 20. Deer days of use along Lake Chelan based upon pellet transect data, winters of 1985-86 through 2001-02. (Source Fielder 2002).
Winter Mitchell Deer Safety Point- Prince Little Big Grouse Avg. Avg. Creek Point Harbor No- Creek Creek* Mountain* North South Point Shore Shore
1985-86 50 68 41 57 30 20 8 49.2 14.0
1986-87 45 57 51 20 26 10 7 39.8 8.5
1987-88 55 79 50 37 38 19 5 51.8 12.0
1988-89 36 86 46 30 60 14 0 51.6 7.0
1989-90 12 50 26 45 57 9 2 38.0 5.5
1990-91 57 63 86 90 40 10 2 67.2 6.0
127 Table 20. Deer days of use along Lake Chelan based upon pellet transect data, winters of 1985-86 through 2001-02. (Source Fielder 2002).
Winter Mitchell Deer Safety Point- Prince Little Big Grouse Avg. Avg. Creek Point Harbor No- Creek Creek* Mountain* North South Point Shore Shore
1991-92 20 53 32 39 18 7 0 32.4 3.5
1992-93 60 79 54 89 75 16 8 71.4 12.0
1993-94 48 36 70 72 26 17 6 50.4 11.5
1994-95 63 88 66 100 80 19 1 79.4 10.0
1995-96 14 60 67 32 41 17 1 42.8 9.0
1996-97 63 113 104 146 53 11 9 95.8 10.0
1997-98 25 57 30 26 43 2 2 36.2 2.0
1998-99 8 38 44 33 32 3 0 31.0 1.5
1999-00 30 26 27 7 18 1 0 21.8 0.4
2000-01 2 64 60 17 16 0 0 31.8 0.0
2001-02 4 55 60 51 28 2 0 39.7 0.8
Average 34.8 63.1 53.8 52.4 40.1 10.4 3.0 48.8 6.7 *The little Big Creek and Grouse Mountain transects are on the south shore and the remaining transects are on the north shore of Lake Chelan.
Breeding bird surveys conducted during the Lake Chelan riparian zone investigation documented few breeding waterfowl species. Chelan PUD reports that Lake Chelan does not support many waterfowl, relative to the lake's large size. Most of the lake has steep sides, with few shallow areas. There are no islands in the lake, and the limited plankton productivity of the lake does not produce an invertebrate food base for waterfowl. Relatively small numbers of waterfowl use the shallow southeastern portion of the lake near Chelan and the shallow portion of the lake at the mouth of the Stehekin River. The Park Service reports that the head of the lake in the Stehekin area is important to migratory species such as pied grebes, trumpeter swans, buffleheads, golden eyes, horned grebes, mallards, mergansers, loons, and blue herons and that Park Service personnel have verified Canada geese, mallards, and loons nesting at the head of the lake in the Stehekin area. Harlequin ducks are reported to nest in the Stehekin River tributaries (Kuntz and Glesene 1993) and the Park Service states that there are also
128 reports of horned grebes attempting to nest but fluctuations in lake levels as a result of project operations have resulted in failed nesting attempts.
Eleven amphibian species potentially occur in the vicinity of Lake Chelan (Dvornich et al., 1997; Storm and Leonard, 1995; Leonard et al., 1993). Three species of amphibians and nine species of reptiles were documented during the riparian zone investigation (DES, 2000c). During the time-constrained surveys, western fence lizards were the most commonly observed species.
Environmental impacts and recommendations:
Scoping, prefiling consultation with a Natural Sciences and Social Sciences Working Group, and resource agency recommendations focused on the following terrestrial issues: habitat loss associated with shoreline erosion; effects of project operation on riparian, wetland and upland habitats, with particular importance placed on big game wintering habitat; Chelan River instream flows to form a naturally functioning aquatic ecosystem; noxious weed control; and project effects on threatened and endangered and other rare species. We discuss measures to stabilize and revegetate high priority soil erosion sites along the project reservoir in Section V.C.1. These measures would help prevent further loss of existing riparian communities and wildlife habitats from erosion. Revegetating with native species as part of the erosion control measure would benefit wildlife by improving existing habitats. We discuss impacts to threatened and endangered species in Section V.C.1. We address the remaining issues below.
Stehekin Flats Riparian and Wetland Effects
Fluctuating water levels can affect the abundance, growth and establishment of native riparian vegetation through freezing or desiccation of overwintering vegetative structures (Evans and Beaven 1993) and inundation of vegetation colonizing the drawdown zone during the summer. Fluctuating reservoir levels creates an environment that prevents colonization and successful establishment of riparian and wetland vegetation. To reduce airborne dust events, restore native riparian vegetation, reduce the invasion of non-native plants and enhance habitat for native wildlife that use the drawdown zone, shoreline, and adjacent lands in the Stehekin Flats area (the reservoir drawdown zone at the head of the lake), Chelan PUD proposes to provide labor or funds to implement tasks defined in a draft Stehekin River Implementation Plan (February 19, 2002) developed in consultation with the Park Service. Funding would be for noxious weed control and monitoring measures in the draft plan, including native riparian habitat rehabilitation, control of reed canary grass, and monitoring of vegetation and wildlife to evaluate the effectiveness of the protection measures; however, the Park Service would implement all measures (Chelan PUD 2002b). Chelan PUD would assist in obtaining
129 permits for work on land owned by Chelan PUD. Chelan PUD would provide the funding under the Wildlife Habitat Plan.
The Park Service would require that Chelan PUD implement the Lake Level Management Plan proposed by Chelan PUD to reduce the duration of full pool (Interior Condition 3). The Park Service also would require that Chelan PUD implement the management actions defined in the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan in the first year of the license to protect the existing riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat along the reservoir shoreline and in the inundation zone from further loss, plus enlarge and connect these riparian areas by recreating, a multi-storied, diverse riparian plant community (Park Service Condition 7). The Park Service would further require Chelan PUD to reduce the current abundance, distribution, and cover of reed canary grass and other non-native invasive plant species and noxious weeds along the reservoir shoreline as described in the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan (Park Service Condition 8). The Park Service reserved the right to require changes to the Implementation Plan based on monitoring results. The Park Service would require Chelan PUD to monitor abundance, distribution, and cover of native riparian plants and non-native plants along the reservoir shoreline to determine their status and trends (Park Service Condition 9). Planted riparian vegetation would be monitored biannually; mortality, plant condition, percent browse and signs of disease would be documented. The Park Service would also require Chelan PUD to monitor osprey and bald eagle demography (individuals and breeding pairs, nesting attempts, offspring hatched, reared and fledged, and returning immature birds) because riparian vegetation and habitat improvements may affect osprey and bald eagle recovery. The Park Service would also require Chelan PUD to monitor riparian wildlife at riparian habitat restoration sites for 2 consecutive years at years 10-11 and 20-21 (assuming a 30- year license period).
Our Analysis
Project operation results in a drawdown zone of about 300 acres at the head of Lake Chelan, also known as the Stehekin Flats, that is inundated for four months of the year and exposed in varying degrees during the remainder of the year. Annual reservoir fluctuation levels create an environment over a large part of the drawdown zone that is inhospitable for riparian vegetation establishment and growth, resulting in a mudflat composed of fine sediments that are exposed to the drying sun and wind after the snow melts at the end of February or first of March, until the reservoir is refilled in late June. Within the drawdown zone, 4 to 7 acres of deltas and islands have become vegetated with a mix of native riparian species and non-native reed canary grass. Reed canary grass has become the dominate plant cover in these areas and has spread into wetlands at the head of the lake, across the Stehekin Road, into the little Boulder Creek floodplain, and into inland riparian areas. This grass can displace native grasses, sedges, willows and other
130 riparian species. The Park Service estimates that 10 acres of private lands and 12 acres of public lands along the reservoir shoreline are infested with reed canary grass.
The only information on the record linking project operations to the establishment and spread of non-native weeds, is the planting of cereal rye grass and reed canary grass in the drawdown zone during the 1980s to reduce the problem of wind-borne dust.
Proposed changes in lake level management would affect the timing of annual fluctuations, but not the extent of the area affected. Under the proposed lake level management, lake levels would begin to be lowered in August (as opposed to September under the current operation) and would average slightly lower through early spring than under current operation. The growing season is from mid-May through early September, at least for the upper basin area. Because the lower lake levels would occur during the latter stages of the growing season when the plants are most likely to be "shutting down" for the winter in response to shorter days and freezing night temperatures that occur in September, we expect to see only minor improvements, if any, to native riparian vegetation composition and abundance from changes in lake level management.
The objectives of the Stehekin River Implementation Plan with respect to riparian habitat and its associated wildlife include: protect existing shoreline riparian vegetation to prevent a decrease in total acreage and to maintain and improve plant species diversity, forest structure, and riparian habitat connectivity by enlarging and connecting existing riparian vegetation; improve species richness and function of wildlife habitat; eliminate reed canary grass from the perimeter of areas of native vegetation and plant native vegetation to achieve 50 percent native plant cover along the drawdown zone shoreline within the first 25 years of the license; and reduce the total shoreline area currently covered by non-native plant species by 50 percent within the first 25 years of the license and avoid new invasions. The draft plan identifies conceptual actions, which would be applied to Park Service land and land under Chelan PUD control, to achieve these objectives including: mapping areas of reed canary grass, implementing control techniques to remove the grass within and between native riparian vegetation through perimeter pulling, seed head cutting, and mowing operations, and transplanting native riparian species propagated from local stock and maintaining and protecting the plantings for two years. If successful, significant benefits to riparian/wetland resources and the wildlife dependant on these communities would be attained.
According to the Park Service, revegetation at the head of the lake and along the perimeter of the inundated zone would be used to offset the negative effects of the colonization of non-native reed canary grass. The plan anticipates that developing shrubs and trees eventually would shade-out the reed canary grass and provide a multi-storied diverse riparian community. However, as the draft implementation plan discloses,
131 control efforts are not expected to completely eliminate reed canary grass. For such actions to be effective and any gains maintained, they would need to be conducted throughout the license period and efforts should be coordinated with the Natural Resource Conservation Service and private landowners. Although riparian habitats in the Stehekin Flats are diverse and species rich (DES, 2000d) under current operation and we would expect them to remain so under the proposed lake level operations, the riparian community in Stehekin Flats would benefit from the control of noxious weeds and the preservation and further establishment of native riparian vegetation.
Monitoring is generally necessary and often required by the Commission to determine if implemented measures are achieving desired objectives and to formulate alternative actions where needed. However, the objectives must be measurable to be effectively monitored. The Stehekin Area Implementation Plan contains measurable objectives for the control of reed canary grass and establishment of native riparian vegetation only. The monitoring requirements for riparian vegetation and reed canary grass identified by the Park Service would help ensure that riparian habitat improvements sought in the area are achieved. Chelan PUD has agreed to provide funding under the Wildlife Habitat Management Plan to conduct the riparian wildlife monitoring . Any habitat improvements from a reduction in non-native weeds and establishment of native riparian vegetation would be expected to directly benefit wildlife resources. In their comments on the DEA, the Park Service reiterated its belief that the monitoring results would help the Park Service and Chelan PUD in their assessment of success of the revegetation efforts and would provide a basis for future Chelan PUD changes and implementation; however it did not specify what those future changes and implementation actions may entail. While monitoring could be used to define timing of management actions (such as the timing of large woody debris placement in the drawdown zone for dust control or implementation of vegetation efforts around the head of the lake) in the Stehekin Flats to avoid disturbing nesting eagles or ospreys, the Park Service did not clarify what other riparian wildlife species would be monitored or how such data would be used. We cannot fully determine the benefit that such data may provide without more detail on the management objectives sought for other riparian wildlife populations, the relationship of these objectives to project operations and proposed management actions, and potential future actions that Chelan PUD may be required to undertake. This is particularly relevant considering that a diverse and species rich community already exists in the area and any improvements to native vegetation, which would be monitored, would only serve to enhance conditions for wildlife.
Other Riparian and Upland Habitat Effects
To address wildlife issues associated with both the relicensing of the Lake Chelan and Rocky Reach (Project No. 2145) projects, Chelan PUD proposes to develop and
132 implement a Wildlife Habitat Plan that would provide labor and funds (estimated at $30,000 annually19) to aid in wildlife management of state and federal lands in Chelan County within about 6 miles of the Rocky Reach Reservoir. This area includes the WDFW Swankee, Entiat, and Chelan Butte Wildlife Management Areas20 and Forest Service lands in the Lake Chelan Basin between the lake and the 3,500 feet elevation. A draft of the plan has been prepared for discussion dated February 28, 2002 Under the proposal, a Wildlife Coordinating Committee (WCC), composed of represenatives from WDFW, Forest Service, Park Service, FWS, and Chelan PUD, would discuss and coordinate expenditures of funds and resources on an annual basis, based on the existing plans as well as unexpected events, to best meet the needs of wildlife; funds and resources would be directed toward lands along Lake Chelan and Rocky Reach reservoir, or a varying portion toward each area.21 Potential habitat enhancement measures that could be conducted include deer winter range improvements, creating wildlife food plots, planting shrubs and trees in riparian and wetland areas, erosion control, installing watering devices, irrigation improvements, providing and maintaining wildlife feeders (deer and bird), providing raptor nesting and perching structures, re-introducing native
19By letter dated August 12, 2002, Chelan PUD states that the draft Wildlife Habitat Plan would be revised to reflect the funds necessary to implement the native riparian plant and wildlife rehabilitation and monitoring in the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan. To better evaluate the costs of these measures relative to the measures in the Wildlife Habitat Plan, we have not combined these costs.
20The Chelan Butte Wildlife Area, covering about 8,200 acres, occurs just outside the town of Chelan on the south-facing slopes of Chelan Butte and over looks the Columbia River and the Rocky Reach Project. Swakane and Entiat Wildlife Areas cover about 19,200 acres and occur on the slopes and valley bottoms between Wenatchee and Chelan on Highway 97 west of the Columbia River and the Rocky Reach Project (http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/lands/r2chelan.htm). Lands within these wildlife areas were purchased, at least in significant part, with funds provided by Chelan PUD pursuant to a July 2, 1963, agreement between Chelan PUD and Washington Department of Game (now WDFW) as mitigation for the construction of the Rocky Reach Project; in accordance with the agreement the wildlife areas are managed by WDFW.
21The FS supports the concept of the WCC. The USDA Forest Service sees the WCC as agencies coordinating and discussing the relationship of various land management decisions made by the individual agencies with a “Landscape Perspective” toward wildlife improvement. Each agency would be responsible for implementation and allocation of appropriate PM&E dollars from the Lake Chelan Project to be used under this umbrella wildlife habitat plan for both the Rocky Reach and Lake Chelan projects.
133 wildlife (e.g. sharp-tailed grouse), and restoring, enhancing, or protecting migration corridors.
To mitigate for the continued inundation of 361 acres of National Forest System land, which included 70 acres of key upland shrub-steppe mule deer and elk winter range along the north shore of Lake Chelan and 10 acres of tributary riparian habitats, the Forest Service would require Chelan PUD to acquire or otherwise provide for management and protection of lands providing or capable of providing at least 10 acres of early-mid seral riparian/wetland habitat within the Chelan Basin and 70 acres of shrub- steppe big game winter range habitat located along the northern side of the reservoir between Safety Harbor and Manson (Forest Service Condition 12). The lands would be acquired within the first 10 years after license issuance. Within one year of acquiring management control of the lands, Chelan PUD would develop, and upon Commission and Forest Service approval, implement site-specific habitat management plans in consultation with the Forest Service that detailed proposed management of the parcels and any improvements necessary to restore the habitat if in a degraded condition. The plan would also include an effectiveness monitoring program to determine whether the restoration actions create habitat for riparian and wetland-associated wildlife and key habitat components for mule deer winter range and other shrub-steppe wildlife species.
To mitigate the impacts of continued inundation of 655 acres of valuable wildlife habitat (riparian, wetland, and shorelands not exceeding 40 percent gradient) on non- federal lands (Eldred 2002), the WDFW recommends, under Section 10(j), that Chelan PUD develop and implement a comprehensive Wildlife Protection and Management Plan (WDFW Recommendation 18) within one year of license issuance that would have the licensee fund acquisition of a minimum of 610 acres of wetlands, riparian areas, or land capable of being enhanced to create a mix of wetlands, riparian areas, and shore lands associated with uplands (WDFW Recommendation 19). Acquired lands would be relatively flat land containing good soil and sufficient moisture or irrigation to support wetland or riparian vegetation; acquisition and habitat enhancement would be completed within 10 years of license issuance. In addition, WDFW recommends that Chelan PUD prepare and implement specific management plans for each site or block of lands to enhance or restore wildlife habitat functions and values. WDFW would also have Chelan PUD fund during the term of the license certain ongoing wildlife protection and management actions including: (a) 12 big game and eagle population surveys per year within the Lake Chelan Basin and report results to WDFW; (b) annual funding of $17,000 (in 2001 dollar value), indexed to an appropriate consumer price index, for big game habitat improvement in the Lake Chelan Basin; (c) provide labor assistance to WDFW of no less than 75 man-days per year for fish and wildlife purposes, and (d) maintain the condition and feed stocking of four winter wildlife feeders (WDFW Recommendation 20). The plan would also establish monitoring guidelines that include:
134 (a) interim goals to ensure successful plan implementation, (b) an evaluation schedule with predetermined review targets, (c) adequate funding and staff to preform monitoring activities, and (d) a contingency plan to help enhancement efforts respond to changing conditions (WDFW Recommendation 21). The plan would be developed in consultation with a Wildlife Coordinating Committee (WCC), organized, supported and hosted by Chelan PUD and consisting of representatives from Chelan PUD, WDFW, Forest Service, Park Service, and FWS (WDFW Recommendation 22). The plan would be approved by the WDFW before filing with the Commission.
Chelan PUD is opposed to the purchase of any lands as compensation for inundated lands that resulted from original project construction.
Our Analysis
Chelan PUD and the resource agencies generally agree, as do staff, that As stated previously, project operations likely affect riparian vegetation and associated wildlife through annual reservoir fluctuations in the range of 16-20 feet—fluctuating reservoir levels results in freezing or desiccation of overwintering vegetative structures and inundation of vegetation colonizing the drawdown zone during the summer growing season, in turn affecting the wildlife that use these habitats. Annual fluctuations create an environment that prevents colonization and establishment of vegetation, resulting in areas during the winter drawdown that are void of vegetation and provide poor wildlife habitat. The amount of habitat having limited wildlife value is unknown and cannot be accurately determined from the data on record. However, because riparian and wetland habitats are naturally limited by the steep topography and glacial influences of the basin, the greatest effectsare limited to areas with suitable substrate for riparian vegetation establishment. Most of the riparian areas now found around Lake Chelan are small, distinctly linear, and found around the mouths of tributaries. Riparian habitats constitute a small portion of all habitats in the area—the exception is the Stehekin Flats discussed above. There are approximately 50 small tributaries leading into the lake. Assuming a riparian corridor of less than 100 feet around these small tributaries, Chelan PUD estimates that the total length of riparian areas is less than 1 percent (1.18 miles) of the total shoreline length (about 118.8 miles).
For the reasons already discussed for Stehekin Flats, we expect to see little change in riparian vegetation and other habitats along the project shoreline as a result of the proposed changes in lake level management or from continued operation. Significant increases in riparian and wetland vegetation are not possible under current or proposed project operations. There is no information on the record to indicate that continued project operation would reduce wildlife populations.
135 During harsh winters mule deer and other wildlife can become more concentrated in the lowest elevation habitats (i.e. snow depth progressively increasing with elevation) that provide suitable forage and cover, taxing the habitat's ability to support wildlife. Availability of good big game winter range at low elevations is critical to the survival of mule deer during severe winters, as evidenced by the die-off during the winter of 1996-97. Chelan PUD's wildlife surveys show increased use of the shore line habitats during severe winters and Eldred (2002) reports observations of deer standing in the lake for extended periods of time during severe winters. Over the years, there has been a significant reduction in quantity and relative quality of available big game winter range from a variety of factors: over grazing, weed infestations, stand replacing wildfires, residential and commercial development, conversion to orchards, snowmobile use, and development of hydropower (Forest Service 1998).22 Blockage of migration routes to historic winter range by fences, highways, and a railroad also significantly contribute to the cumulative loss of available winter range. Wild fires can place even more stress on wildlife using the remaining habitat. For example, the Rex Creek (summer of 2001) and Deer Point (summer of 2002) fires burned most of the winter range along 30 miles of the north shore of Lake Chelan, leaving about a 2-mile long segment of unburned wintering habitat between Safety Harbor and Coyote creeks (Fielder 2002). Shrub-steppe habitats are becoming increasingly decadent from sucessional progression, a problem faced across much of the Columbia River basin and throughout mule deer winter range (Clements and Young 1997; Hoffman and Wambolt 1996; Kay 1995). The amount and quality of shrub- steppe habitat in the project area would likely continue to decline with age over the course of any new license period without habitat improvement measures.
22Eldred’s (2002) review of historic photos and letters indicate that land conversions associated with farming and domestic development in the lower basin removed much of the native shrub and shrub-steppe and riparian vegetation from Chelan north along the north shore to Manson and along the south shore to about Minneapolis Beach. Northward (up-lake) of these areas, the photos showed slopes densely to moderately vegetated with coniferous and deciduous vegetation down to the shoreline (Eldred 2002). Eldred (2002) also cites letters regarding construction of the project from Chelan Electric Company dated July 9, 1927 and January 9, 1930 which stated “...the lower central section had the same general topographical features but was heavily timbered on the west (south) side of the lake, principally with fir, and sparsely timbered on the east side, principally with pine. The upper central section, in general, had steep precipitous rock slopes and in many stretches, especially at creek mouths, a heavy growth of timber was encountered. The shore line between the steep bluffs was also heavily timbered...the clearing operations covered about 1,400 acres over 120 miles of shore line...”
136 Because significant riparian and wetland acreage could not be developed in the project area, acquiring and managing 690 acres of low-elevation upland habitat 23 would benefit wildlife in the basin by preserving some remaining shrub-steppe habitat in private ownership surrounding Lake Chelan that are important to wildlife populations, including mule deer, big-horn sheep, mountain goats, ruffed grouse, migratory birds, and other wildlife, and that could be subject to the pressures of continued residential and commercial development. WDFW and FS have identified over 750 acres of shrub- steppe habitat on private lands on the north shore of Lake Chelan, between Deer Point and Gold Creek that receive high deer use.24 Thirty percent of all deer observed along the north shore of Lake Chelan during 2001-02 winter boat surveys (compared to 66 percent, 50 percent, 90 percent, and 45 percent during the previous four winters) were seen within the 6-mile segment of shoreline between Mitchell and Camas Creek, which includes the area of the private parcels identified by WDFW and FS (Fielder 2002). Table 14 shows that about 24.5 percent of all deer use surveyed over 17 years occurred in this area (i.e. Deer Point) of the north shore.
However, neither WDFW or Forest Service identified any potential parcel(s) for acquisition. There is no information on record to suggest that there are key habitats remaining along the shores of Lake Chelan that are available for purchase or would occur in blocks large enough to effectively manage. Assuming such parcel(s) are available,
Both the Forest Service and WDFW already manage significant acreage of winter range in the area; the Forest Service alone manages 11,721 acres25 on the Wenatchee National Forest (Forest Service 1990) and WDFW manages 8,200 acres on the Chelan Butte Wildlife Area. However, the north shore deer herd does not have access to the Chelan Butte Wildlife Area due to migration barriers. Acquiring and managing, or obtaining a conservation easement with rights to manage, 690 acres of shrub-steppe habitat along the north shore of Lake Chelan would primarily benefit the north shore deer
23This is the combined acreage upland shrub-steppe, riparian, and wetland habitats that would be acquired pursuant to Forest Service 4(e) conditions and WDFW 10(j) recommendations.
24The private parcels are in-holdings within the national forest.
25This is the sum of Key Deer and Elk Habitat (EW-1) and Key Big Game Habitat/Unroaded (EW-3) land allocations in the Northshore Watershed Analysis area (Forest Service 1998).
137 herd.26 It would increase this herd's winter deer range under federal management control by about 6 percent. Because these lands are already being used by wintering deer, the quality of the habitat is unknown, and the future fate of these lands (i.e. development pressure) is unknown, we cannot fully determine what acquisition of these lands or a conservation easement to manage these lands may mean to the north shore deer population. However, because orchard and residential development continue to threaten and reduce available winter range in the Wenatchee District (WDFW 2001) and existing shrub-steppe habitats are known to be decadent; it is reasonable to assume that preservation and habitat improvement on such lands could help maintain, if not boost, survival rates of the north shore deer herd during harsh winters. Acquiring critical mule deer habitat or conservation easements on critical habitat is one strategy proposed by WDFW in its state draft Game Management Plan for 2003 through 2009 to offset habitat lost to urban/suburban sprawl, expansion of agriculture into mule deer habitat, fire suppression, and ecological succession of younger aged habitat (WDFW 2002).
Acquiring and managing riparian and adjacent upland habitats along the Lake Chelan shoreline that may be used as winter range would be costly—at $ 9,700 per acre,27 acquisition of 690 acres would cost $6,693,000.28 Managing these lands would cost $10,350 annually, assuming $15 per acre. If significant wildlife habitat restoration is needed, initial costs could be even greater; using a cost of $300 to $500 per acre provided by WDFW in their comments on the DEA, restoration costs could be as high as $345,000. To put the cost and benefit of acquiring additional land in perspective, we also looked at the costs and benefits of improving existing habitat under federal and state
26There are no population estimates or goals for the north shore deer herd on record from which we could evaluate the population needs or benefits of the additional habitat. However, the Chelan basin deer herd, which includes both the north and south shores of Lake Chelan and the wildlife areas along the Columbia River, is reported to be recovering rapidly from the 1996-97 die-off (WDFW 2001) .
27We estimated the cost of acquiring lands from a September 13, 2002, internet search on real estate listings of land with waterfront property on Lake Chelan and having an area greater than 20 acres in size, reasoning that such land would approximate the types of lands sought and would be of sufficient size to reasonably manage for wildlife. This search yielded only two properties for sale that clearly met the criteria: (a) 20 acre parcel listed at $179,000 and (b) 20 acre parcel listed at $209,000.
28While obtaining conservation easements may be less costly than the acquiring lands in fee-simple title, we have little information on which to estimate such costs.
138 management as proposed by Chelan PUD. Additionally, Existing winter range is becoming increasingly decadent, less capable of supplying suitable winter forage, and likely to require intensive management for many years to off-set the effects of recent wild fires (Fielder 2002).29 Further, state funding levels for management of existing winter range may be insufficient to improve habitat conditions.30
Chelan PUD's proposed comprehensive Wildlife Habitat Management Plan would provide resources (funds and labor), which may be lacking, for measures that would significantly benefit a variety of wildlife because the plan (a) would target a variety of habitat types (native shrub-steppe/grassland habitat, riparian/wetlands, Ponderosa pine/bitterbrush winter range), (b) would include a variety of habitat enhancement and management activities, (c) would be flexible enough for the resources agencies, Chelan PUD, and the Tribes to coordinate measures that are in the greatest need at the time and place they are needed, thereby increasing the ease and scope of implementation, (d) would involve a number of wildlife interest groups (Wildlife Coordinating Committee) in identifying resource needs, (e) would include criteria for expenditures that would ensure that any activities undertaken would benefit resources directly related project area lands, and (f) would include a monitoring program to track the effectiveness of the habitat enhancements and the effectiveness of the plan itself. Activities that would be implemented under the plan would be expected to, among other benefits, improve the winter carrying capacity of existing big game winter range.
Chelan PUD's proposal has its drawbacks: (a) development of the final plan would depend on the outcome of the studies and discussions regarding project impacts and needed environmental measures associated with the Rocky Reach Project, potentially resulting in the delay of implementation of wildlife enhancement measures; (b) there would be no guarantee that specific resources would be allocated in any given year to benefit wildlife associated with Lake Chelan—i.e. the measures would not necessarily be project specific; and (c) the plan does not describe how the WCC would function, decisions would be made, and resources allocated between state and federal lands.
29While grasses and forbs are likely to revegetate the burned areas, they may not be available during cold winters with deep snowfalls as would the bitterbrush that was lost to the fires. This may require supplemental feeding to get deer, mountain goats and sheep through the winter. Such actions could be funded through Chelan PUD's Wildlife Habitat Plan.
30See: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/viewing/wildarea/wildarea.htm 139 As a general practice , environmental measures should involve activities as close to the project as is appropriate, and should, where possible, at least be within the same river basin as the project. Assisting with the management of state and public lands immediately surrounding the project (i.e. Forest Service lands, Park Service lands, and Chelan Butte Wildlife Area) would likely provide the greatest benefit to wildlife resources most closely associated with the Lake Chelan Project. There are ample lands, opportunities, and habitat improvement needs for lands surrounding Lake Chelan to focus management efforts on, without extending those efforts to lands that may be more closely associated with the Rocky Reach Project.31
WDFW also recommends that Chelan PUD continue to provide annual funding of $17,000 and no less than 75 man-days per year for fish and wildlife purposes, which we assume would be applied only to state-managed lands. In addition, WDFW recommends that Chelan PUD continue its 12 annual big game and eagle surveys and maintenance and stocking of four winter wildlife feeders. Chelan PUD has estimated it would cost $30,000 annually to implement the new Wildlife Habitat Plan, which would include these measures along with noxious weed control and other wildlife management activities on both Forest Service and state lands.32
If all funds are directed toward habitat restoration efforts, at $15 per acre, Chelan PUD's proposal would appear to be sufficient to substantially enhance wildlife habitat conditions on about 2,000 acres, which well exceeds the area affected by continued project operation. We base this conclusion on information regarding the operational budget for state wildlife areas. The operational budget for 15 state-funded wildlife areas is $2.58 per acre and that for seven mitigation-funded areas is $10-15 per acre; the
31The effects of the Rocky Reach Project and the needs of resources associated with the Rocky Reach Project will soon be considered in a separate relicensing proceeding.
32Chelan PUD proposes to increase this amount by $20,000 per year for the first 5 years of the license and $10,000 per year for the remaining years of the license period to fund rehabilitation of native vegetation in the Stehekin Implementation Plan and to monitor vegetation and wildlife populations associated with this effort. We note however that this funding level is inconsistent with estimated costs for the riparian zone revegetation effort provided in the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan. The total cost of the riparian zone revegetation effort provided in the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan is $211,500, which based on the itemized costs provided, averages $24,930 per year for the first 10 years. Additional monitoring costs would vary depending on the year, but could be as high as $21,000 depending on the year.
140 WDFW says that the higher funding level for the mitigation-funded areas allows for significant habitat improvements such as replanting riparian areas or native grasslands.33 Even if costs were increased to $300 to $500 per acre for intensive habitat rehabilitation as suggest by WDFW, Chelan PUD's proposed $30,000 funding levels would be sufficient to enhance habitat conditions on 60 to 100 acres each year, if all funds were allocated to restoration efforts. Over a 30 year license, this would equate to habitat restoration/enhancements on over 1,800 to 3,000 acres. If the 12 annual big game and eagle surveys were to reduce available funds by half as suggested by WDFW, the amount of acreage the could be improved would vary from 1000 acres (at $15 per acre) to 30 acres (at $500 per acre) each year. These estimates are predicated on the assumption that all funds would be applied to intensive site rehabilitation. Other measures (i.e. noxious weed control, food plots, wildlife drinkers, etc) would reduce available funds for habitat restoration efforts, but would also provide benefits to wildlife resources associated with Lake Chelan. Thus, the exact benefit to wildlife habitat and populations would depend on the activity being implemented, which would vary by area and year. Such flexibility in determining appropriate management actions are provided through Chelan PUD's proposal.
Chelan PUD's proposed Wildlife Habitat Plan also indicates that a monitoring program would be developed to track the effectiveness of habitat enhancements and the plan itself. Such monitoring is integral to the success of implementing habitat enhancements, particularly over the long-term. Information that would be gathered from continuing the annual big-game surveys would assist in monitoring the progress and effectiveness of the measures implemented under the Wildlife Habitat Plan and could assist with management decisions, but would not result in direct habitat or wildlife population benefits. Implementing monitoring under Chelan's proposal would further reduce the level of funding available for direct habitat improvements, the degree to which is undeterminable and could vary each year because monitoring efforts would depend in large part on the management actions implemented in any given year.
Chelan River Instream Flows
Riparian vegetation downstream of dams is affected by the timing, duration and magnitude of flows and availability of suitable substrate. Under existing project operation, no water is discharged into the bypassed reach (the Chelan River) except during the spring spill period, typically from May to July, and occasionally during fall/winter storms.
33See: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/viewing/wildarea/wildarea.htm. 141 To achieve a naturally functioning aquatic ecosystem and establish minimum flows adequate to support riparian vegetation, benthic food organisms, cutthroat trout and native cool-water species in Reaches 1, 2 and 3 of the bypassed reach, Chelan PUD proposes to provide year-round minimum flow releases into the bypassed reach.
To limit erosion and protect stream channel enhancements in Reach 4 of the Chelan River bypassed reach, high spillway flows would be avoided to the extent feasible. High spillway flows can occur in years of high snowpack and/or late runoff if the lake is kept at or raised to higher water elevations too early in the year. The proposed operation would accommodate this by providing for longer-term releases at lower lake levels and by allowing delays of a few to several days in reaching minimum elevations during years of unusually high snowpack and/or late runoff.
Our Analysis
Providing year-round minimum flows may improve riparian conditions in the upper reaches (Reaches 1, 2 and 3) of the Chelan River by providing water in areas that are currently dry. The continuous flow of 80 cfs would increase available water supply for sustaining riparian vegetation and wildlife associated with these habitats. However, the dominance of coarse substrates and the occurrence of high spill flows which could scour away establishing vegetation would likely continue to heavily influence the amount and type of vegetation that could become established.34 Although high flows would be reduced by the proposed operating regime, they would not be eliminated. Once the lake is full and inflows to the project exceed the hydraulic capacity of the project (2,300 cfs), Chelan PUD must spill water into the bypassed reach to prevent flooding around the lake. In the past, spills have exceeded 20,000 cfs. The proposed allowance of exceptions to the lake elevation requirements is expected to help avoid these high rates of spill.
In the lowermost section of the bypassed reach (Reach 4), minimum flows would be directed into a new stream channel, with some protection from scouring during high flows. The provision of constant flow may promote establishment of riparian plant species along the new stream channel, which in turn could provide an improved level of vegetative cover and shade for temperature control. If successful, this would also instigate an improved food supply for rearing fish from terrestrial insect drop and leaf
34Chelan PUD reports that a review of historical photos of the bypassed reach prior to construction of the project indicates riparian resources in the bypassed reach area have always been limited in quantity and quality. Chelan PUD attributes this to the arid climate and high springtime flows that have removed riparian vegetation and soils necessary to establish a riparian zone.
142 litter for aquatic insect production.
Effects of recreation enhancements on riparian and wildlife resources
Several proposed recreational enhancements could effect riparian vegetation and associated wildlife. Recreational enhancements being considered in this EA that may affect riparian vegetation and wildlife resources include: development of a comprehensive dock management plan for docks on National Forest System lands; making available for recreation use, up to 22 acres of appropriate, developable lands (parcels 2 to 4 acres on slopes less than 10 percent) or otherwise providing for the expansion of semi-primitive, non-motorized recreation capacity in the middle to upper Lake Chelan basin during the life of the license; and development of a 27-mile-long Lower Lake Chelan Shoreline Trail System.
Our Analysis
Development of the comprehensive dock management plan would result in only minimal adverse effects on riparian vegetation and wildlife. While some riparian and shoreline habitats may be cleared to improve and expand docks on Forest Service and Park Service lands, and wildlife using these habitats may be disturbed during construction, the impacts would be localized, would occur in areas already impacted by development, and would be temporary. No one has proposed any measures to minimize these recreational impacts and we do not recommend any measures.
The Forest Service did not identify specific parcels for development of additional semi-primitive, non-motorized recreational activities. However, in their comments on the draft EA, the FS points out that (a) the desired parcels are scattered along the shoreline of Lake Chelan in the middle and upper lake zones, (b) many have some existing facilities (docks/cabins) and developable flat ground, and (c) the FS routinely designs the recreational facilities to blend in and minimize the human impact on the landscape while providing for human use and occupancy. Additionally, as the FS points out, visitors to these areas are seeking relatively primitive and remote experiences that would primarily occur during the summer months such that impacts to wintering deer and other wildlife would be minimized. The eventual development of new docks and recreational facilities could lead to increased use of the riparian communities and shoreline at recreation sites , resulting in additional trampling and cutting of vegetation and the disturbance of wildlife. Examples of these secondary effects are present at existing facilities and undeveloped camping sites. Given the wide dispersal and semi-developed status of these potential acquisitions, impacts during construction and operation of these facilities are likely to be very localized, minor and short term; however, the degree of such effects can not be fully determined until such lands are identified.
143 Development of the lower Lake Chelan Shoreline Trail System could also result in loss of riparian vegetation and disturbance to wildlife. The degree of such impacts would depend on the final design and location of the trails. Potential adverse impacts of the portion of the proposed trail system from Manson to Chelan and the south shore of Lake Chelan are tempered somewhat by the developed urban environment and the proposed use of existing road rights-of-way and other developed areas of the shoreline within public rights-of-way.
Integrated Weed Management
Several species of noxious weeds were documented along the lake and in adjacent areas during Chelan PUD's rare plant surveys: common crupina, yellow star thistle, diffuse knapweed, spotted knapweed, Russian knapweed, and Dalmation toadflux (Chelan PUD, 2000c). Common crupina was discovered in the Lake Chelan area in the late 1980's and has been the subject of intense control efforts by the Forest Service ever since. Haubrich (2000) estimates that 480 acres in the Lake Chelan watershed are infested with crupina. Knapweed species were found along roads and within campgrounds. Crupina and knapweed species pose a potential threat to rare plant populations found during the surveys.
The Forest Service would require Chelan PUD to prepare and implement an Integrated Weed Management Plan (Weed Management Plan). The Weed Management Plan would be filed within one year of license issuance and would require Chelan PUD to: (a) identify and implement methods for prevention and control of noxious weeds on National Forest system lands affected by project activities, (b) perform periodic surveys of National Forest system lands affected by project-related activities for the identification of new invader species within the project area, and identify and implement control measures for these occurrences after receiving approval for the control measures by the Forest Service, and (c) develop and implement a monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of revegetation, vegetation control, and noxious weed control measures in preventing and controlling the establishment and spread of noxious weeds on National Forest system lands affected by project activities.
Chelan PUD did not respond to this 4(e) condition initially. In their comments on the DEA, Chelan PUD objected to preparing an Integrated Weed Management Plan because the project did not cause the initial invasion of noxious weeds and thus it should not be responsible for mitigating the effects of poor grazing and recreational management practices. Nonetheless, Chelan PUD proposes, as part of the funds or labor that would be provided under the Wildlife Habitat Management Plan, to monitor and control noxious weeds and re-establish competitive permanent, native vegetative cover on state lands and
144 Forest Service lands between the lake and the 3,500 foot elevation.
Our Analysis
The Forest Service and the Park Service state that erosion processes (shoreline undercutting, bank topping, slumping, and associated surface erosion) created by the extended period of full pool, results in unstable soils that, along with seasonal inundation, provides a prime seedbed for noxious weeds and could result in proliferation of some weed species in the future. They state that increased development and recreational use, coupled with increased exposure of soils on the lake shoreline for longer periods of time increases the chance that additional populations of noxious weeds will become established in the future.
With the exception of reed canary grass (discussed above relative to the Stehekin Flats), there is no evidence on record that shows project operations have caused the occurrence or are contributing to the spread of noxious weeds. While erosional process associated with elevated lake levels may create disturbed soils suitable for colonization by noxious weeds, many factors are likely responsible for their occurrence and spread in the project area, not the least of which is historical grazing practices which likely encouraged invasion of weedy species. These weeds are also prone to spread in high-use areas such as recreation areas. However, the Forest Service asserts that the lake provides an excellent transport medium and the exposed soils on the shoreline immediately adjacent to the lake edge for longer periods of time under the new lake management regime could increase the chance that additional populations of noxious weeds would become established.
Our review of the biology of the spotted knapweed35 illustrates how this could occur. The spotted knapweed is a perennial that can live up to nine years and is capable of producing 5,000 to 40,000 seeds per square meter, with more being produced during wet years. Seeds germinate in the fall and early spring when moisture and temperature are suitable and are capable of maturing into seed-producing adults in one year. Mature seeds are formed by mid-August and are generally shed upon maturity (two to three weeks). Seeds can be spread by wind, animal, undercarriages of vehicles, shoes, and through rivers and watercourses. Under current operations, reservoir levels are maintained at full pool from June 30 to September 30. Under Chelan PUD's proposed lake level management the lake would start to be drawn down in August. This provides ample time for seeds to disperse along the lake margin, be deposited by receding lake levels, and germinate. A draw down starting in August would more closely coincide with
35See: http://www.mtweed.org/Identification/Knapweed/knapweed.html. 145 seed dispersal and would allow more time for fall germination, assuming the dispersing seeds find suitable substrate which may be limited by the characteristic coarseness of the lake shoreline. Moreover, only the extreme margin of the shoreline would likely be suitable for colonizing because the plants would be subject to the extreme drying and wetting conditions created by the water fluctuations. While the above scenario is plausible, establishing that the occurrence and spread of any weeds is project-related (and ultimately who is responsible for their control) is likely to be problematic considering potential confounding factors of adjoining land uses (i.e. established sites resulting from grazing, private land uses, recreation unrelated to the project, etc.).
In addition to proposed project operations, other proposed project-related activities that could result in the spread of noxious weeds include supplemental feeding of hay to wintering deer , establishing of food plots, any land disturbing activities (for example recreation developments) and other actions proposed under the draft Wildlife Habitat Management Plan. As acknowledged above, establishing the source of any weeds resulting from these activities is likely to be equally problematic, but monitoring following any land-disturbing activities would help detect and control the spread of noxious weeds in the area of such actions.
Noxious weeds are prolific and extremely competitive, and once established often displace native vegetation and reduce the quality of rangeland for wildlife. The spread of these and other noxious weeds are the subject of intense control efforts by state and county noxious weed control boards and landowners (including the Park Service and Forest Service). Implementing noxious weed control under the auspices of the Wildlife Habitat Management Plan would be consistent with intent of the Forest Service's integrated plan and would benefit wildlife resources.
Unavoidable adverse impacts: None.
5. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
Affected environment:
Federally-listed threatened and endangered species
Five federally listed threatened or endangered wildlife species were identified by the USFWS as potentially occurring in the vicinity of the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project: bald eagle, northern spotted owl, gray wolf, grizzly bear and Canada lynx (letter from Kurt R. Campbell, Supervisor, USFWS, Moses Lake Field Office, Moses Lake, Washington, to Steve Bondi, EDAW, Inc., Seattle, Washington, May 1, 1998). No
146 federally listed plant species have been documented in the project area. However the Ute ladies-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis), listed as a threatened species by the USFWS, may occur in the project area.
Three federally listed threatened and endangered fish species occur in the project tailrace and Reach 4 of the bypassed reach: Upper Columbia River (UCR) spring-run chinook salmon, UCR steelead, and bull trout. Historically bull trout were also found in Lake Chelan although all recent evidence suggests this species has been extirpated from this part of the system.
Bald eagle: Bald eagles, a federally listed endangered species, use Lake Chelan during the winter months, primarily between mid-November and early March. Since 1982, the Chelan PUD has conducted bald eagle surveys every two weeks during this period. During the past five years, peak counts have ranged from six in 1993-94 to 29 during the 1996-97 survey. On average, 2.6 bald eagles have been observed per survey (Kaputa 2002). Kuntz and Glense (1993) report of wintering bald eagles feeding on decaying fish in the Stehekin Valley; however they will also feed on carcasses of winter killed deer, sheep and waterfowl. Wintering areas are usually located in areas with an abundant food supply and minimal disturbance (FWS 1986). Winter roosts are typically associated with isolated old-growth stands that have trees taller than the surrounding trees (FWS 1986). No specific winter or communal roost sites have been identified on Lake Chelan. The Park Service reports that in 2001 a pair of bald eagles attempted to nest near Weaver Point in the Stehekin Valley for the first time since the designation of the Lake Chelan LCNRA in 1968. In their comments on the DEA, the Park Service reports that eagles have successfully nested in the riparian zone at the head of the lake, producing one eaglet each year in 2001 and 2002.
Northern spotted owl: Based on the WDFW Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) database, six spotted owl territories occur in the vicinity of Lake Chelan. Two territories exist at the western end of Lake Chelan and include portions of the lake and its shorelines, as well as the Stehekin River. Three of the four remaining territories occur south of the lake between Domke Lake and Lake Chelan State Park; the sixth is at the extreme western border of the project boundary.
Gray wolf: The endangered gray wolf, a wide-ranging species, has been slowly re- establishing populations in the North Cascades. After years of relatively few sightings, a den was documented in North Cascades National Park in the late 1980s. Since then, the number of known dens and gray wolf observations has increased throughout the North Cascades, north of the project area. No sightings have been documented in the project area, however.
147 Grizzly bear: The WDFW database has three records of grizzly bear sightings in the region, all distant from Lake Chelan (letter from Lori Guggenmos, Cartographer, WDFW PHS, Olympia, Washington, to Chelan PUD, dated May 15, 1998). Currently, this area (approximately 10,000 square miles) probably supports fewer than 20 grizzlies, and only one sighting of an adult grizzly and cub near Moore Point has been reported since 1991 (Almak et al., 1993) .
Canada lynx: In Washington, the threatened Canada lynx, is primarily found in high elevation (4,920 to 6,560 feet), moist Douglas fir and western spruce/fir forests of northeast and north-central Washington, including Okanogan, Chelan, Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille counties (FWS 2000; Stinson 2001). The project is surrounded by suitable lynx habitat; Lynx management zones were defined in the year 2000 by the Wenatchee National Forest to include suitable habitats down to 3,500 feet and excluded non-lynx habitats–dry pine and open areas (Stinson 2001).
Ute ladies-tresses: Ute ladies-tresses, listed as a threatened species by the USFWS, is a perennial, terrestrial orchid endemic to moist soils in mesic or wet meadows near springs, lakes, or perennial streams. The species occurs primarily in areas where vegetation is relatively open and not overly dense, overgrown or overgrazed (Coyner, 1989, 1990; Jennings, 1989, 1990). Three large-scale botanical studies have been conducted within the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric project area including: (1) a botanical reconnaissance of the Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Ridge Area (Alverson and Arnett, 1986); (2) a floristic inventory of the lower Stehekin River (Taylor, 1985); and (3) a rare plant survey of the project area (Calypso Consulting 2000). Potential habitat for Ute ladies-tresses exists in the project area; however, no populations were recorded during the rare plant survey (Calypso Consulting 2000). Three populations of Ute ladies-tresses have been documented within the Rocky Reach project boundary north of Beebe Bridge (Calypso Consulting 2000).
UCR spring-run chinook salmon: UCR spring-run chinook salmon are occasionally present in the project tailrace and Reach 4 of the bypassed reach. Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon were listed as endangered on March 24, 1999. Critical habitat for this ESU was designated on February 16, 2000, and generally includes all river reaches accessible to listed chinook salmon in Columbia River tributaries upstream of the Rock Island Dam and downstream of Chief Joseph Dam in Washington, excluding the Okanogan River.
Spring-run chinook salmon return to mid-Columbia River tributaries from late April through June, after spending 2 to 3 years in the ocean. Spawning generally occurs from late July through September and typically peaks in late August, although the peaks vary among tributaries. Spring-run chinook salmon eggs hatch in late winter and the fry
148 emerge from the gravel in April and May. Most of these juveniles rear in freshwater for 1 year before migrating to the ocean, passing the mid-Columbia River dams between mid- April and mid-June.
UCR steelhead: UCR steelhead are occasionally present in the project tailrace and Reach 4 of the bypassed reach. UCR steelhead were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on August 18, 1997. Critical habitat for this ESU was designated on February 16, 2000, and generally includes all river reaches accessible to listed steelhead in Columbia River tributaries upstream of the Yakima River, Washington, and downstream of Chief Joseph Dam.
Adult steelhead typically pass the mid-Columbia River dams from June through late September and spawn the following March through July. Unlike other anadromous salmonids, some steelhead adults (kelts) return to the ocean after spawning and may spawn more than once during their lifetime; however, repeat spawning in the mid- Columbia River region is typically 2.1 percent or less. Steelhead eggs incubate from late March through June, and fry emerge in late spring to August. Outmigration of smolts generally occurs from March to mid June, after spending 1 to 7 years in freshwater, but most leave after 2 to 3 years. Some steelhead are thought to residualize and live their entire lives in freshwater.
Bull trout: Bull trout are occasionally present in the project tailrace and Reach 4 of the bypassed reach. Historically, bull trout were abundant in Lake Chelan and the Stehekin River basin although it appears this species no longer occurs in this portion of the system. In comments on the DEA, Interior indicated that it intends to restore bull trout in the Stehekin River in the near future and that bull trout will undoubtedly influence future fish management decisions proposed under the Lake Chelan Fisheries Management Plan.
Columbia River bull trout were listed as threatened under the ESA on June 10, 1998. No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Bull trout exhibit several life-history forms including migratory and resident forms; however, even resident bull trout are known to make seasonal movements to overwintering areas (Jakober, 1995 as cited in the USFWS letter filed January 18, 2000). Bull trout typically spawn from August to November during periods of decreasing water temperatures. Migratory bull trout frequently begin spawning migrations as early as April, and have been known to move upstream as far as 155 miles (250 kilometers) to spawning grounds (Fraley and Shepard, 1989).
Other Species of Concern
149 The Forest Service identified 11 plant, fish and wildlife species listed on the Regional Forester's Sensitive Species list or the State of Washington sensitive species list that are either known to occur or may potentially occur in the project area: giant helleborine, common bluecup, Sierra cliffbrake, Seeley's silene, Western lady's tresses, Townsend's big-eared bat, California wolverine, common loon, Western gray squirrel, peregrine falcon, and westslope cutthroat trout. Of these species, only the giant helleborine, common bluecup, Sierra cliffbrake, Western lady's-tresses , common loon, western gray squirrel, and westslope cutthroat trout have been documented in the project area. The biology and project effects on westslope cutthroat trout are described above in Section V.C.3.
A total of 14 populations (Table 15) of the five rare plant species were found within the project area during the rare plant survey (Calypso Consulting 2000). Populations of common bluecup and western lady's tresses were found in areas of moisture and ephemeral seeps as they came down slopes (Chelan PUD 2000).
Table 21. Rare plant populations for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project based on 1998-1999 fieldwork (Source: Chelan PUD, 2000c)
Status Number of Common Name Scientific Name Forest WA Populations Service giant helleborine Epipactis S 1 gigantea common bluecup Githopsis S 4 specularioides Sierra cliffbrake Pellaea S S 2 brachyptera
Seely’s silene Silene seelyi T S 1 western ladies- Spiranthes S S 6 tresses porrifolia Total number of populations within the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric 14 Project Area T - Threatened S - Sensitive
150 Common loon: This piscivorus bird is a rare breeder but common migrant and wintering species within the state. A total of 20 confirmed nest sites are known to have been active for at least one year during the years 1979-1999 in Chelan, Douglas, Ferry, King, Okanogan, and Whatcom counties (Richardson et al. 2002). Two common loon broods are reported to have been produced in 2000 on Lake Chelan, which is a first noted occurrence (Eldred, 2001). Common loon typically breed on forest lakes with deep inlets or bays and numerous islands, with preferred nesting sites providing some shelter from winds, broad view of the loon's territory, and screening vegetation (McIntyre and Barr 1997; Richardson et al. 2002). Common loons nest at ground level within 1.5 m (5 ft) of water (McIntyre and Barr 1997; Richardson et al. 2002). Nesting can begin as early as late March with males establishing and defending territories. The date of first egg laying varies, likely depending on weather, pair bond formation, and nest site availability; the latter is sometimes affected by water levels, particularly on reservoirs. Egg laying has begun as early as 4 April and 20 May, with most occurring between the last week in April and 11 May in King County. Hatching generally occurs the last week of May or early June, but can occur as early as mid-May or as late as 7 July. Juvenile loons are likely to remain on natal lakes until at least August or September, and have been observed as late as October on lakes and reservoirs in western Washington (Richardson et al. 2002).
Western gray squirrel: The western gray squirrel, listed as threatened by the state of Washington, is associated with westside oak and dry douglas fir forest and agricultural, pasture and mixed environs in Okanogan and Chelan Counties, from sea level to 4,500 feet (Johnson and O'Neil 2001). Populations in Washington are declining from habitat loss due to fire suppression, urbanization, selective logging, and competition with eastern gray squirrel. Small isolated populations remain in south Puget Sound, the Lake Chelan area, the southeast slope Cascade region and the Columbia River Gorge, the latter being the largest in the state.
Impacts and Recommendations
Federally-listed threatened and endangered species
Bald eagle: Licensing the Lake Chelan Project as proposed by Chelan PUD, with Park Service, Forest Service, and our recommended measures, would not be likely to adversely affect the bald eagle because (a) wintering populations have been increasing under current operations and would be expected to continue under proposed operations, (c) while no known communal roosting sites have been recorded on Lake Chelan, proposed erosion control measures could benefit the species by protecting shoreline trees that may be used for perching, roosting, or nesting, (c) use of and improvements to recreation sites would occur at time when most bald eagles are not likely to be present (i.e. spring and
151 summer), and (d) continued eagle surveys would continue to benefit current knowledge of use and trends in the populations in the Lake Chelan area. If nesting attempts continue near Weaver Point, some disturbance of the nesting pair may occur from moving and placing the rafts of large woody debris within the 10 acres of Stehekin Flats for dust control; the area of treatment would be east of the Stehekin River channel and Weaver Point. However, the installation of the large woody debris would not likely occur every year and through appropriate scheduling (added by continued bald eagle surveys), in consultation with the Park Service and FWS, the large woody debris placement activities could be planned to occur after nesting and brood rearing (i.e after mid-July), such that the potential for disturbance would be minimal.
Northern spotted owl: Licensing the Lake Chelan Project as proposed by Chelan PUD, with Park Service, Forest Service, and our recommended measures, would not affect the northern spotted owl because (a) current and proposed project operations and proposed recreation enhancement measures would not be expected to remove or alter nesting, foraging, or roosting habitats, or (b) result in the disturbance of nesting, foraging, or roosting individuals. The northern spotted owl is a bird associated with interior old growth forest. No actions are proposed that would reduce or alter this habitat. No designated critical habitat occurs within the project boundary and no actions are proposed within or near designated critical habitat; therefore we conclude that the project would not affect any critical habitat.
Gray wolf, Grizzly bear, and Canada lynx: Licensing the Lake Chelan Project as proposed by Chelan PUD, with Forest Service and our recommended measures, would not affect these species because (a) these species are wide-ranging, are not known to occur near the project, and, if they do occur, use the project area only intermittently due to their selection and preference of higher elevation forests, and (b) current and proposed operations would not result in loss or degradation of cover, denning, foraging or dispersal habitats that may be used by these species. Proposed dock improvements are intended to accommodate existing uses, and should not significantly increase recreational use of the project area. The potential for human disturbance of these species is expected to be infrequent to non-existent, considering their large home range sizes, rarity, and abundance of cover offered by the rugged terrain and surrounding forests. If constructed, the construction and use of the Lower Lake Chelan Shoreline Trail System also would not be expected to effect these species because it would be located predominately in a more urbanized environment that is likely to be avoided by these species. We cannot access the potential affects of the ultimate development of 22 acres of non-motorized, primitive recreational sites required by the Forest Service because the sites have not been identified. However, in their comments on the draft EA, the FS points out that the private lands with shoreline desired by the FS are scattered along the shoreline of Lake Chelan. Many have some existing facilties (docks/cabins) and developable flat ground. The 22
152 acres would preferably not be contiguous but spread along the middle and upper zones. Visitors to these zones are seeking relatively primitive and remote experiences. Given the wide dispersal and semi-developed status of these potential acquisitions, impacts to wildlife species would be minimal. An assessment of the effects would be needed at the time of the development of these sites, if ultimately required.
Ute ladies-tresses: Licensing the Lake Chelan Project as proposed by Chelan PUD, with Forest Service and our recommended measures, would not be likely to adversely affect this species because it is not known to occur in the project area. Proposed changes in lake level management are not expected to adversely affect suitable habitats for this species because the changes would have little effect on existing riparian zones (see discussion in section 5.3.3.2). Implementation of the integrated weed control plan could improve habitat conditions for this species by helping to control the spread of noxious weeds that could compete with this species if it were to be found in the area.
UCR spring-run chinook salmon: UCR spring-run chinook salmon would likely occur, at least occasionally, within the tailrace and Reach 4 portions of the project area. However, we would not expect any significant spawning or rearing activity by this species in these areas and their occurrence in the project area could be characterized as incidental. Providing continuous flows to the bypassed reach, improving habitat conditions in the tailrace and Reach 4, limiting ramping rates in the bypassed reach, and reducing high spill flows would likely improve conditions for any individuals that may enter the tailrace or bypassed reach portions of the project. We would expect that construction in the bypassed reach and tailrace for habitat improvements would be conducted when UCR spring-run chinook salmon would not be present and that the combination of ramping rates with a backup for the pump system would prevent any significant stranding of juveniles or adults of this species. Operation of the project as proposed by Chelan would result in a minor change in thermal loading and flows within the mainstem Columbia River (See Fisheries Section); however, we would not expect these changes to result in take or any measurable adverse effects on UCR chinook salmon. We would expect that the other proposed measures would be entirely beneficial to this species and we conclude that the proposed project, with our recommended measures would not likely adversely affect UCR spring-run chinook salmon.
UCR steelhead: UCR steelhead could occur within the tailrace and Reach 4 portions of the project throughout the year. Adult fish could occur in these areas anytime although they would most likely only be present during spawning which typically takes place from March to July. If successful spawning occurs in these areas, redds and fry would likely be present from March to August. Juvenile steelhead, which rear in freshwater for 1 to 7 years, would likely be present in these areas year round, especially considering the proposed habitat modifications are intended to create suitable steelhead rearing habitat.
153 Operation of the project as proposed by Chelan would result in a minor change in thermal loading and flows within the mainstem Columbia River (See Fisheries Section); however, we would not expect these changes to result in take or any measurable adverse effects on UCR steelhead. Providing continuous flows to the bypassed reach, improving habitat conditions in the tailrace and Reach 4, limiting ramping rates in the bypassed reach, and reducing high spill flows would likely improve conditions for any steelhead occurring in the tailrace or bypassed reach. The backup system for the pumped flows in Reach 4 would likely prevent any significant dewatering or stranding of redds, juveniles, or adults. However, because steelhead would likely be present in these areas year round, construction related to habitat improvements in the bypassed reach and tailrace would likely displace or disturb some juvenile and perhaps adult steelhead due to increased turbidity and noise. We would not expect these disturbances to result in any mortalities or injuries, but they would likely result in some stress to the individuals present. Based on this , we conclude that the proposed project, with our recommended measures, may adversely affect UCR steelhead.
Bull trout: Bull trout would likely occur, at least occasionally, within the tailrace and Reach 4 portions of the project area. However, it is unlikely that any significant spawning or rearing activity by this species occurs in these areas. Providing continuous flows to the bypassed reach, improving habitat conditions in the tailrace and Reach 4, limiting ramping rates in the bypassed reach, and reducing high spill flows would likely improve conditions for any individuals that may enter the tailrace or bypassed reach portions of the project. We would expect that construction in the bypassed reach and tailrace for habitat improvements would be conducted when bull trout would not be present and that the combination of ramping rates with a backup for the pumped system would prevent any significant stranding of juveniles or adults. We would expect that the proposed measures would be entirely beneficial to this species and we conclude that the proposed project, with our recommended measures would not likely adversely affect bull trout.
Interior has indicated that it intends to restore bull trout to the Stehekin River in the near future; however, at this time no bull trout are known to exist within Lake Chelan or the Stehekin River. Because bull trout do not currently occur in these areas, we conclude that the relicensing activities that would affect Lake Chelan and the Stehekin River would have no effect on bull trout.
Endangered Species Consultation Plan
Interior, pursuant to section 10(j) of the FPA, and the FS, pursuant to section 10(a) of the FPA, recommends that within one year of license issuance and prior to any ground disturbing activities that Chelan PUD prepare a proposed, threatened, and endangered
154 species consultation plan that would (1) describe how Chelan PUD would coordinate and consult with FWS, NMFS, Forest Service, and the Commission on matters related to proposed or listed species that may be affected by project-related activities during the term of the license; (2) describe the process Chelan PUD would follow for completing a biological assessment of potential effects of any changes in project operations and project-related habitat or ground disturbing activities; (3) develop procedures to minimize or mitigate effects to newly-listed species; (4) describe how measures used to reduce effects to listed species will be monitored to ensure the effectiveness of these measures; and (5) include a provision to update the plan as new species are listed or as new information pertaining to the management of listed species is obtained. Interior's justification for this measure,36 however, is to ensure that the Commission reinitiates consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
While such a plan would help the Commission identify a potential need to initiate consultation with FWS or NMFS and may streamline future management actions, it is not needed to reinitiate consultation or to take measures to protect threatened and endangered species. The Commission routinely includes in licenses an article that provides the Commission with the ability to require additional measures for the protection of fish and wildlife (including listed species), on the motion of fish and wildlife agencies or on its own motion.37 Such actions would be subject to consultation under the ESA. Procedures for dealing with newly listed species or new information suggesting a potential project effect on listed species or critical habitat post-licensing have been developed and agreed
36The reason offered by the FS for inclusion of the endangered species consultation plan, among two other discussed elsewhere, pursuant to section 10(a) of the FPA, was that "the recommendation would implement desirable and reasonable enhancements fo the resources and uses with the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project."
37See Order Denying Petition, Blue Ridge Project, P-2304-005, 94 FERC ¶ 61,202, February 23, 2000 in which the Commission states: [W]hen the Commission becomes aware of information to suggest that ongoing operation of a project may affect a threatened or endangered species, it is our practice to direct our staff to investigate the situation, in consultation with the licensee, the FWS (or NMFS, as appropriate), and any other interested participants, to determine what effects, if any, may be occurring, and what changes, if any, should be considered to avoid or mitigate those effects or to benefit the listed species. If changes are considered either necessary or desirable, the Commission can then institute a reopener proceeding to require them, or can entertain a voluntary amendment application from the licensee. In either case, Commission action would be required to accomplish the change, thus providing the requisite federal agency action for formal ESA consultation.
155 on by an interagency task force work group on the endangered species consultation process, which included FWS and FS.38
Other Species of Concern
Giant helleborine, Common bluecup, Sierra clifbrake, Seeley's silene, Western lady's tresses: The populations of these five plant species are not known to be currently affected by project operations. Noxious weeds have been found in association with several of the rare plant populations and appear to be the current major threat to these plant populations (Chelan PUD, 2000c). The seasonal flooding of vernal seeps and steep slopes may limit the ability of moist site plants (giant helleborine, common bluecup, and western lady's tresses) to expand their populations (Chelan PUD, 2000c).
The Forest Service would require that Chelan PUD, within one year of license issuance, develop and implement a Sensitive Species Management Plan that includes noxious weed prevention and control in the vicinity of populations of western lady's tresses, giant heleborine, Sierra cliffbrake and common bluecup located adjacent to the reservoir. The plan would include annual monitoring of the sensitive plant populations, effectiveness of noxious weed prevention and control measures, and the response of the populations to the controls. Control of noxious weeds would cease when monitoring indicated that noxious weeds were no longer competing with sensitive plant populations for a period of three years or more; noxious weed control would resume when monitoring indicates the need to continue. Chelan PUD did not comment on this measure, but we assume that Chelan PUD would be willing to undertake such monitoring and noxious weed control if so directed by the WCC under Chelan PUD's Wildlife Habitat Management Plan and such activities were within the expenditure limitations of the plan.
Control of weeds may help ensure the population viability of these sensitive plant
38The Interagency Task Force's Work Group on the Coordination of Federal Mandates included FERC, the Departments of Commerce, Interior, and Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation. The findings of the group were published in: Work Group on the Coordination of Federal Mandates. 2000. Interagency Task Force Report on Improving Coordination of ESA Section 7 Consultation with the FERC Licensing Process. December 12, 2000. (http://www.ferc.gov/hydro/docs/esa_final.pdf and www.ferc.gov/hydro/docs/esafigs_final.pdf). See also: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2001. Hydropower licensing and endangered species: a guide for applicants, contractors, and staff. December 2001. (http://www.ferc.gov/hydro/docs/esa_guide.pdf).
156 populations in the project area, considering that there may be limited habitats available for expanding these remnant populations.
The Forest Service would further require Chelan PUD to prepare within 5 years of license issuance management plans for each of these five species, including provisions for updates and revision of the management plans based on monitoring results or when the status of the species changed. The Forest Service did not explain how these management plans would differ from the Sensitive Species Management Plan, or what additional measures would be expected, considering that noxious weeds appear to be the principal threat to these plants and operational impacts have been identified. We, therefore, cannot evaluate the benefits of these plans or its costs.
Common loon: Suitable habitats for the common loon are likely limited to the Stehekin Flats because this is the area with the most vegetative cover. If loons were to attempt to nest in the Stehekin Flats or along the reservoir prior to the reservoir reaching full pool in June, the nests and egg and young could be flooded out. Proposed changes in lake level management would not alter the timing of the spring rising limb of reservoir elevation, thus project operation would continue to potentially affect availability of suitable nesting sites. Apparently, common loons were able to overcome this potential effect and successfully produced two broods in 2000. The slightly earlier drawdown of the reservoir should not affect survival of young because most juveniles are likely to be leaving their natal grounds by August. Any improvement to shoreline vegetation that may result from the implementation of the Stehekin River Implementation Plan or actions undertaken through the Wildlife Habitat Mangement Plan may improve nesting cover of the common loon.
Western gray squirrel: Continued project operation would not affect this species because no actions are proposed that would occur in or alter suitable habitat. Habitat improvements undertaken through the Wildlife Habitat Management Plan could benefit this species.
Sensitive Species Consultation Plan
The Forest Service would have Chelan PUD prepare, within one year of license issuance and prior to any habitat or ground disturbing activities on National Forest System lands, a sensitive species consultation plan. The plan would describe how Chelan PUD would coordinate with the Forest Service for the management of sensitive species that are on the Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List or identified as survey and
157 manage species39 by the Northwest Forest Plan. The plan would (1) describe the process by which Chelan PUD would complete biological evaluations of potential effects of any changes in project operations, ongoing project operations, habitat improvements, or ground disturbing activities on sensitive species; (2) describe the process Chelan PUD would follow to comply with survey and subsequent management requirements of survey and management species; (3) describe how measures used to reduce adverse effects to sensitive species would be monitored to ensure their effectiveness; (4) ensure that surveys are conducted by Chelan PUD as appropriate to determine project related effects; (5) ensure coordination with the Forest Service, if during the term of the license, re-initiation of ESA section 7 consultation is required; and (6) include provisions for the plan to be updated as new sensitive or survey and manage species are listed or delisted.
Development and implementation of these measures would ensure that any future land disturbing actions (that were not already contemplated by this environmental analysis) would not adversely affect these sensitive species. However, with the exception of habitat improvements that might be conducted in consultation with the Forest Service while implementing the Lake Chelan Wildlife Habitat Management Plan, we are unaware of any circumstances that would warrant the need for these measures. Any future changes in operations would require an amendment to the license and Commission approval, and would be subject to consultation with the Forest Service and other resource agencies. Concerns regarding effects to listed species could be raised and considered at that time. Nonetheless, developing such a plan may help streamline such future actions.
39Survey and manage species are species characteristic of, or endemic to, old- growth forests. The Northwest Forest Plan established strategies or guidelines for additional protection of these rare and endemic species, including conducting surveys prior to ground disturbance and protecting and managing occupied sites. On April 15, 2003 the FS issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to remove or modify the survey and manage mitigation measure standards and guidelines; its preferred alternative is to remove the measures and rely on existing special status species programs to conserve rare species.
158 6. Cultural Resources
Affected environment:
General description of the cultural resources
Prehistoric information
A number of archaeological resource types may be found along the 50-mile stretch of Lake Chelan. The variety of topographic environments and ecosystems constrained the ways that humans used the landscape prior to modern times. Along the steep, rocky shorelines in the northern portion of the lake, occupation was seasonal, and movement was generally restricted. Temporary hunting camps and resource processing and procurement sites are the types of archaeological sites documented to date along the northern portion of the lake. In contrast, the gentle, broad slopes and gradual beaches along the southern shores provided excellent locations for winter villages and larger seasonal encampments.
Prehistoric occupations are found to date from as early as 8,000 years ago in the Lake Chelan basin (Hartmann 1979) based on identification of diagnostic projectile point fragments characteristic of Cascade points from radiocarbon-dated locations elsewhere in the Columbia Basin. Allen Smith (1983a, 1983b, 1988) provides a comprehensive review of the written ethnographic and ethnohistoric data relevant to the project area. During the protohistoric period (AD 1600-1750), the peoples of Lake Chelan lived primarily around the southern end of the lake. Most lowland camps and villages were at the confluence of streams or other flat areas that bordered the lake. The peoples living in the area caught fish found in the lake and the streams with weirs, nets, spears and other methods. They gathered a wide variety of plants in the lowlands in the spring and gradually moved inland and up slope where they could acquire other berries and roots as the weather continued to warm. While the women and children primarily gathered, the men fished and hunted both in the lowlands and on south-facing slopes in the winter and on the slopes and uplands in the summers. Mule deer were probably the animals most commonly taken, but other animals such as mountain goats, elk and smaller game like rabbits and marmots were also used. Some Chelan peoples also lived on the west side of the Columbia below Chelan Falls and went as far southeast as Badger Mountain to procure resources throughout the year. Although salmon would have been available to the Chelan people from fisheries along the Columbia River, they had no major salmon fishing locations in their territory. Native indigenous fish in Lake Chelan such as whitefish, pike, suckers, and trout were utilized by the Chelan people.
159 Historical information
Historic-era habitation was similar to the protohistoric. During the 1880s and 1890s, fur traders, miners, lumbermen and farmers settled in the project area. Some chose to settle in the newly established town of Chelan, while others opted for locations along the south shore of the lake. Some of the more hardy pioneers established homesteads at the head of the lake and along the Stehekin River.
The Columbia or Moses Reservation was established on Lake Chelan in 1879. However, few groups other than the Chelan and Entiat people made the move to this reservation (Lindston 1975). In the late 1880s, the reservation was opened to white settlement and 10 allotments were claimed along the lakeshore by the native people.
Current information
Today the majority of the shoreline communities are located in the southern end of the lake, where the climate is warmer and drier and the landscape is less rugged. Increasing use and development of residential areas is likely to have an adverse influence on the preservation of the cultural remains for this area. Alternatively, because much of the lake margin remains undeveloped, it is also possible that settlement, development and construction did not alter some archaeological sites. As has happened in the past, project operations could potentially expose or allow greater opportunity for discovery during drawdown conditions.
Chelan PUD conducted several cultural resources studies within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The APE for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project includes lands within the FERC boundary as it is delineated in the current FERC license. The APE may also include lands outside the project boundary where project operation may affect the character or use of Historic Properties and/or Traditional Cultural Properties that are eligible for the National Register during the term of the license.
Studies include a cultural resources overview (Hartmann, et al., 2000), a traditional cultural properties (TCP) study for the Yakama Nation and Colville Confederated Tribes (AF, 2002), and an archaeological survey (Ethnoscience, 2000a,b). A site evaluation survey was completed in 2001 (AINW, 2002).
Twenty-five prehistoric sites have been identified within the APE. Site types include village sites, campsites, lithic scatters, pictographs and rock features. Several burial sites have also been identified near the project, but have not been exposed by project activities. Of these sites, seven have been evaluated as potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Additional testing is
160 recommended to determine the eligibility of these sites.
Sixty-nine historic sites were identified in the Lake Chelan APE. Historic sites include hotels, highways and bridges, homesteads, logging and mining structures, trash scatters, irrigation structures, buildings, mining adits and crib docks. One site associated with mining is potentially eligible for the National Register, and additional research is recommended for 22 of the remaining sites. The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Power Plant, placed in service in 1927, is listed in the National Register under Criteria A and C. Contributing elements include the dam, surge tank, intake tubes, power tunnel, the penstock and the powerhouse. The plant is considered to be a good example of 1920s state-of-the-art hydroelectric technology.
Due to the unique regional setting and character of Lake Chelan along the eastern slopes of the North Cascades, the affected cultural resources are likely to embody important information about indigenous economic use of mountain ecosystems, travel, trade through the mountains, upland settlement and spiritual or ceremonial activities. This information can contribute to our knowledge of historic themes such as subsistence and migration patterns, resource utilization, settlement, trade, and economic development, which will aid in addressing the significance of archaeological sites.
Environmental impacts and recommendations:
The project may affect cultural resources important to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CCT) and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (YN). The CCT retain all rights and authority in accordance with the Executive Order of 1879, and the YN retain all rights and authority provided under the Treaty of 1855. The project may also affect cultural resources managed by the Forest Service, Park Service, BIA, and Washington State Parks. Federal land management agencies along Lake Chelan, particularly the Forest Service, Park Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs all have a legal obligation to protect tribal land, assets, resources and treaty rights, as well as a duty to carry out the mandates of federal law with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes. Also, these agencies have a legal obligation to comply with regulations set forth in 36 CFR Part 800 governing the treatment of cultural resources.
Within the APE, documented effects to historic properties include erosion of artifact-bearing soils and sediments resulting in exposure of lithic artifacts and features, vandalism of at least one pictograph site, and looting (through artifact collection) of several sites. Fish habitat and spawning enhancements in the lower section of the bypassed reach could impact unidentified cultural resources in the area. Allowing access into the bypassed reach and development of trails could also impact cultural resources in this portion of the project area.
161 Reserved Indian Rights and Federal Agency Trust Responsibilities
Certain lands within the APE were ceded to the U.S. Government under treaties signed with Indian groups in the mid-1850s. These lands in the Lake Chelan APE fall within areas ceded by the Yakima Treaty and include allotments of the Chelan and Moses Columbia People managed by the CCT under Executive Orders creating the Moses and Colville Reservations. The YN maintains reserved rights under the Yakima Treaty of 1855. However, the Indian Claims Commission expressly held that the CCT properly “represents the interests of the Chelan, Entiat, Wenatchi, Columbia and Palus Tribes” (United States Court of Claims No. 261-70, filed July 27, 1973).
Indian tribes hold certain rights and privileges reserved under treaty, statute, and executive orders. Courts have recognized the origins of certain treaty rights as being “reserved” by tribes from land cessions made by tribes to the United States rather than as rights “granted” to tribes by the United States. Indian reserved rights continue to be exercised by tribes and their members today under tribal regulation and remain enforceable under the supremacy clause of the Constitution until extinguished by express Congressional action.
The concept of a federal trust responsibility comes from early Supreme Court decisions that sought to interpret Indian treaties and to determine the relationship between Indian tribes, Indian property rights and the federal government. These early cases determined that Indian tribes occupy a unique position as “domestic dependent nations”; that is, sovereign entities with authority to prohibit state intrusions but with a “guardian- ward” relationship with the federal government. Through the treaty process, Indian tribes gave up land in exchange for promises from the federal government. The tribes trusted the federal government to fulfill its promises, and the government has thereby incurred a duty to protect the best interests of the tribes.
The implementation of the HPCRMP would insure that treaty and trust rights of both tribes for the protection of valued cultural resources are respected through the term of the new license, along with continued consultation occurring among the tribes, USFS, NPS, PUD, SHPO, BIA, and other interested parties, along with oversight from Commission staff.
Cultural Resources Management Plan
Chelan PUD has developed a HPCRMP to ensure that continued project operation would not adversely affect the National Register-eligible historic properties or other significant cultural resources currently identified within the APE. Chelan PUD received input from the SHPO, Forest Service, Park Service, Yakama Nation, Colville
162 Confederated Tribes, BIA, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) on the HPCRMP. The HPCRMP will be submitted to FERC with documentation of the views of the SHPO, ACHP, agencies and Tribes.
Our analysis
Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, and in order to protect historic properties, we would craft and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) to implement the HPCRMP as a condition of any new license for this project. The final PA would be executed among FERC, the SHPO and the ACHP, with the Forest Service, Park Service, Yakama Nation, Colville Confederated Tribes, BIA, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and Chelan PUD invited to sign the PA as concurring parties. With execution and implementation of the PA and HPCRMP, we would not anticipate any adverse effects on cultural resources.
Unavoidable adverse impacts: None.
7. Recreation, and other Land and Water Resources
Affected environment (Source: Chelan PUD application and ICD)
Recreation and Tourism
Due to its remarkable scenic quality, dry climate and abundant sunshine, Lake Chelan has become one of Washington's premier destinations. Because it is the main portal to the Lake Chelan LCNRA and the southern portion of North Cascades National Park, Lake Chelan is a regional and national attraction. In the Lake Chelan Basin, agriculture (primarily orchards) and tourism are the most significant industries. Agriculture is concentrated around the lower end of the lake, while tourism is more widespread.
The largest communities in the basin are Chelan, Manson and Stehekin. The combined population of Chelan and Manson, was 8,851 in 1997. Stehekin, a small settlement located at the head of Lake Chelan, averaged 96 permanent, full-time residents during most of the 1990s. Because of the recreational nature of the Lake Chelan area, seasonal population numbers at these communities can vary significantly. Summer populations can raise the number of people considerably, with tourist activity on peak weekends reaching 100,000 people. Winter populations drop, with a number of residents traveling to warmer climates.
163 Estimated expenditures by tourists at Lake Chelan were approximately $49.8 million in 1997, accounting for 0.3 percent of the Pacific Northwest (PNW) market. These estimated expenditures would place the Lake Chelan area 60th among the PNW counties (if it were treated as a separate county). The Lake Chelan area and other parts of the Chelan Valley represent an estimated 25 percent of the Chelan County visitor market in terms of sales and 27 percent of jobs.
Recreation opportunities
Recreational opportunities in the Lake Chelan Basin are dependent primarily on the topography and the type of access available. The lake serves as a waterway approach to the Forest Service’s Wenatchee National Forest above Twentyfive Mile Creek, and to the National Park Service’s Lake Chelan National Recreation Area at Stehekin. The lower 15 miles of the lake are mostly privately owned; the next 35 miles are within the Wenatchee National Forest; and the upper 5 miles are within the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. Most of the entire Lake Chelan area is presently roadless, but such primitive roads as do exist form an important part of the recreational resource. The area’s mining history, Stehekin’s relaxed character, and the campgrounds, trailheads, and resort facilities along the waterway are all popular recreation attractions. The physical characteristics of the lake itself have contributed to a development pattern which has three primary zones: an Occupancy or Lower Zone, Transitory or Middle Zone, and a Destination or Upper Zone.
Occupancy or Lower Zone
The Lower Zone comprises the lower third of the lake, extends from the dam to Twentyfive Mile Creek and includes the towns of Manson and Chelan. Most of the lake’s private recreation facilities (resorts), and about two-thirds of the public recreation facilities are located within the Lower Zone. The Lower Zone consists of roaded urban and rural areas, unroaded backcountry areas and a mix of public and private land ownership. The Lower Zone is a major recreation destination for the Pacific Northwest Region, and, unlike the other two zones, is accessible by land transportation. Chelan is a major point of departure for visitors traveling up-lake on the “Lady of the Lake” commercial ferry boat, as well as for those launching their own boats. Summer months are the busiest for recreational use, followed by spring and fall, with winter the slowest season. The Lake Chelan Chamber of Commerce estimates more than 500,000 annual visitors to the Lake Chelan area with as many as 25,000 per day on peak weekends. The Lower Zone’s resorts and public recreational facilities have the capacity to accommodate a diverse range of recreational activities. Recreation opportunities in the occupancy zone include golfing, a waterslide park, hanggliding, paragliding, hiking, biking, and public parks. Because the water at this end of the lake is warmer in summer due to shallower
164 depths, water based activities are popular and include heavy use for swimming, water skiing, jet skiing, boating, fishing and other water related recreational activities. Camping near the lake, in the Lower Zone, is designed primarily for the recreational vehicle camper.
Transitory or Middle Zone
The Middle Zone (water highway) is generally made up of the water corridor between Twentyfive Mile Creek and Lucerne/Moore Point. Most uplake visitors travel through this zone by boat or plane with ultimate destinations at either Stehekin or Lucerne. The landscape of this zone is alpine in character with steep mountain slopes and rock outcroppings rising from the lake to elevations of 2,000-7,000 feet, a short distance from the lakeshore. The area is mostly roadless and recreation sites in the transitory zone are primarily limited to small alluvial fans where small mountain streams enter the lake. The water temperature in the Middle Zone is considerably colder than the water in the occupancy zone, thus constraining many water based activities such as swimming. The primary recreational uses in this area are backpacking, dayhiking, hunting, fishing, camping, boating, and . Because of the small size of the sites, and the limited range of recreational activities available, most visitation within the Middle Zone is limited to a few days.
Destination or Upper Zone
The Destination zone extends from Lucerne to the head of the lake at Stehekin. The greater part of the Destination Zone is located within the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area of the North Cascades National Park. This in itself makes the area a primary destination for thousands of day and overnight visitors annually. This zone is composed of three large recreation sites (The Stehekin Valley, Moore Point and Lucerne) and several smaller ones. Although the Destination Zone somewhat overlaps the Transitory Zone, it offers a more diverse range of activities with sites which have sufficient land area to satisfy use over a longer period. The landscape of this zone is basically similar to the Transitory Zone, however, the sites are generally flatter, larger, and more suitable for development. The recreation sites are located on alluvial fans at stream mouths. Recreation activities available include hunting, fishing, horseback riding, backpacking, dayhiking, river rafting, cross-country skiing, and mountain climbing.
Bypassed reach
While the upstream waters of Lake Chelan provide well-known recreational resources, the bypassed reach has attracted far less attention. Chelan PUD owns the majority of the land surrounding the bypassed reach, with only a few privately owned
165 parcels. The immediate area surrounding the bypassed reach is not open to public access primarily due to the unstable nature of bedrock cliffs and unanticipated spill volumes of water through the bypassed channel from high inflows into Lake Chelan. Additionally, access to the bypassed reach is difficult, particularly in the gorge. A road, owned by Chelan County, runs along the canyon but only approaches the river in a few places.
The bypassed reach is dry most of the year, except where ground water infiltration enters the river. Spill releases at the dam generally occur in June or July as snowmelt from the North Cascade Mountains feeds into Lake Chelan and the storage capacity of Lake Chelan exceeds the hydraulic capacity of the project. Depending on the amount of snowpack and weather conditions, maximum flows in the bypassed reach during the spring/summer seasons can range from 2,000 to 20,000 cfs.
Lake Access
Tourism and recreational activity in the Lake Chelan area is heavily dependent upon access to the waters of the lake. For people launching boats, access to the lake is made possible by six public boat ramps. People preferring to moor their boats at the lake may rent slips at a private marina or, if they own property adjacent to the lake, may moor their boats at their own dock, piers or buoys. Swimming and water play is possible at public parks and beaches, private resorts and other private facilities.
Because the use of water-based recreational facilities is dependent upon lake level, the operating regime of the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project has significant influence on recreational use at the lake facilities. When the project was relicensed in 1981, a number of agencies and local stakeholders requested that the reservoir pool be held at 1,098 feet (or above) to accommodate the summer tourism and recreation season. Under the current license, lake levels are maintained at or above 1,098 feet from June 30 through September 30 to accommodate recreational access to the lake during the summer recreation season.
The six public boat ramps at Lake Chelan are all located in the lower lake zone and are operable between elevation 1,090 and elevation 1,098 feet, which is considered full pool. Three of the boat ramps are designed to be operable year-round. Marinas that ring the lake are generally accessible over a narrower range of elevations than the ramps, typically between elevation 1,090 and 1,095 feet. There are approximately 848 docks at Lake Chelan, most of which are fixed. Most of these docks were designed to be functional at the 1,098 feet level. In addition to docks, the use of other waterfront structures and recreational facilities is also tied to lake level. These structures and facilities include piers, buoys, bulkheads and water intakes. Most water intake systems (including irrigation systems for parks and resorts) are designed to operate at an elevation
166 of 1,079 feet, although some operate closer to an elevation of 1,090 feet. Lake levels are generally above this level between May and October. By May 15, Chelan PUD's goal is to provide a lake level of 1,085 for irrigation intake systems.
The Middle and Upper Basin Zones of the lake also have water-based recreational facilities, primarily fixed and floating docks. The Forest Service manages 18 docks, 12 of which are floating, and the Park Service manages five docks, four of which are floating. These facilities allow moorage for approximately 92 boats at Forest Service facilities and 50 boats at Park Service facilities. Approximately 58 boats can moor at a lake level elevation of 1,090 feet, 82 at 1,094 feet, 131 at 1,096 feet and the remaining 11 slips require a lake level of 1,098 feet to be fully usable.
Recreation Facilities
Licensed Facilities
The current project license includes an Exhibit R or recreation plan that, during the first relicensing, called for the development of four recreation sites in the Lower Zone to assure public access and recreation within the project area: (1) Chelan Riverwalk Park; (2) Shore Access Site; (3) Manson Bay Park; and (4) Old Mill Park. These licensed project features are discussed in more detail below.
Chelan Riverwalk Park Located on the Chelan River in Downtown Chelan, this 12-acre park consists of a one-mile scenic loop trail, boat launch, short-term moorage, boat trailer parking, grass playfield, restrooms, picnic areas and a picnic shelter. Chelan Riverwalk Park is owned and operated by Chelan PUD.
Shore Access Site This is a small site located about 200 feet to the East of Chelan Riverwalk Park and immediately adjacent to State Highway 97. The site, owned by the City of Chelan, is adjacent to the U.S. Forest Service Chelan Ranger Station and is used as a shore access point. The site is operated by the U.S. Forest Service.
Manson Bay Park Located on the north shore of Lake Chelan in downtown Manson, this six-acre park features a lake overview, swim area, picnic area, restrooms, boat launch (winter only), and public boat docks. Access to the site is from Highway 150. Manson Bay Park is owned by Chelan PUD and is operated by the Manson Park and Recreation District.
Old Mill Park Located two miles east of Manson, this 20-acre park features a four-lane boat launch, short-term moorage, a marine dump station, boat trailer parking, picnic area,
167 fish cleaning station, and restrooms. Access to this site is from Highway 150. Old Mill Park is owned by Chelan PUD and operated by the Manson Park and Recreation District.
Other Lower Zone Facilities
Chelan Ballfield Complex This 12-acre facility is located in the southern-most portion of downtown Chelan. It is bordered to the south by the Chelan River and by residential areas on three sides. Access to the site is from Navarre and Bradley Streets. Recreation facilities include 12 horse shoe pits, concession and restroom buildings, a storage building, a children’s play area, a lighted baseball field, a lighted softball field, a multi- purpose playfield, overflow camping sites, a batting cage, and parking area. This site is owned in part by Chelan PUD and the City of Chelan, and is operated by the City of Chelan.
Lakeshore Marina Lakeshore Marina is a five-acre park and is located on the north shore of Lake Chelan, next to Don Morse Park in downtown Chelan. Access to the site is from highway 150. Facilities include aboat launch, gas pump and storage tank, restrooms, a park office, pumpout structure, a storage building, and breakwater and boat moorage docks. Lakeshore Marina is owned and operated by the City of Chelan.
Lakeshore Recreational Vehicle Park This 20-acre park is located on the north shore of Lake Chelan, next to Don Morse Park in downtown Chelan. Access to the site is from Highway 150. Facilities at the site include a Parks and Recreation Office, maintenance shop with gas pump and storage, restrooms and shower buildings, and 151 RV camping sites (with cable TV, water, sewer and electrical service) Lakeshore RV Park is owned and operated by the City of Chelan.
Don Morse Memorial Park This 20-acre park is located on the north shore of Lake Chelan, in between Lakeshore RV Park and the Lakeshore Marina Complex in downtown Chelan. Access to the site is from Highway150. Facilities include a guarded swim area, a beach bulkhead, day use area, picnic areas, a bandstand, lighted tennis courts, sand volleyball courts, basketball courts, children’s play area with playground equipment, concession and restroom building, paved pathways, a bumper boat pool, 18 hole putting course, office building, and the “rally alley” race track. The Don Morse Memorial Park is owned and operated by the City of Chelan.
Willow Point Park Located three miles north of Manson, this 1.85 acre site is a neighborhood, day use park featuring 500 feet of waterfront and a picnic area. The park is surrounded by a residential area and steeply slopes from an existing county road toward the lake. Willow Point Park is owned and operated by the Manson Park and
168 Recreation District.
Lakeside Park This 10 acre park is located on the south shore of Lake Chelan along State Route 97A, about one mile west of downtown Chelan. Facilities include a volleyball court, basketball court, restrooms, storage building, picnic shelter, children’s play area, sand beach and swimming area, picnic areas, and parking. Access to the site is from Johnson Place and Terrace Avenue via Highway 97A. This site is owned and operated by the City of Chelan.
Lake Chelan State Park This 127-acre park is located on the south shore of Lake Chelan on Lake Chelan’s South Shore Drive approximately nine miles from the town of Chelan. The park features 6,454 feet of waterfront on Lake Chelan and 1,640 feet of stream frontage on First Creek. Park facilities include 144 campsites (including 17 full hook-up sites), a day use area with children’s playground, a guarded swim beach, 52 picnic sites, a concession/store, horseshoe pits and a small softball diamond, five restroom buildings with hot showers, a boat launch with parking space for 28 cars and trailers, and limited extra vehicle parking. This park is owned and operated by Washington State Parks and Recreation.
Twentyfive Mile Creek State Park This 235-acre site is located on the south shore of Lake Chelan on Lake Chelan’s South Shore Drive approximately 18 miles north of the town of Chelan.The park is bordered on the north by Twentyfive Mile Creek. The park features 1,500 feet of waterfront on Lake Chelan, 63 standard campsites, 23 campsites with utilities, a group camp site, a day use area with six picnic sites, a grocery store, two comfort stations, a boat marina with docks and piers, a boat launching ramp, a marine gasoline pump, staff residence, three garages, storage shed pumphouse, shop building, and day use parking. This park is owned and operated by Washington State Parks and Recreation.
National Forest and National Park Facilities
Fields Point Landing This 17 acre site is the last uplake car-access stop of the Lady of the Lake. Fields Point was developed jointly by the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service to provide orientation and secure parking for visitors to Lake Chelan and the uplake areas. Facilities include picnic areas, parking, restroom facilities, and an information center building operated by a private concessionaire providing snacks, souvenirs and recreation information.
Wenatchee National Forest There are 12 uplake campgrounds on Lake Chelan operated by the U.S. Forest Service: Big Creek, Corral Creek, Graham Harbor, Graham Harbor
169 Creek, Domke Falls, Refrigerator Harbor, Lucerne, Moore Point, Prince Creek, Safety Harbor, Deer Point, and Mitchell Creek. The U.S. Forest Service has determined, based upon the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) that all of the uplake sites are “Roaded Natural” sites. Roaded Natural Areas are characterized by predominately natural- appearing environments with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be moderate to high, with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is allowed and incorporated into construction standards and design of facilities. The “road” to the uplake sites is Lake Chelan.
Lake Chelan National Recreation Area The Lake Chelan LCNRA is part of the 684,242-acre North Cascades National Park Service Complex which also includes the Ross Lake LCNRA. The park is located deep in the wild, almost impenetrable northernmost reaches of the Cascade Mountain Range in north-central Washington and is characterized by a mix of jagged mountain peaks, huge evergreens and tumbling waterfalls. The Stehekin District and the Lake Chelan LCNRA encompass the upper 4.5 miles of Lake Chelan and the Stehekin Valley. The park and recreation areas are surrounded on the west, south, and east by six million acres of National Forest Lands, of which 1.4 million acres are designated wilderness. Across the international boundary to the north are a park, recreation area, and forestlands administered by the province of British Columbia. Together these public lands create an outstanding wilderness and recreation complex.
Stehekin means “The Way Through”. Evidence indicates that prehistoric and historic Indians used Lake Chelan and the Stehekin Valley to travel between the eastern and western slopes of the Cascade Mountains. Today you may hike, boat, fly or ride a horse into Stehekin, but you can’t drive there. A variety of recreational opportunities are available at Stehekin Landing and facilities include the following: Golden West Visitor Center and Gallery, Ranger Station, laundry and shower facilities, shuttle bus service, camping and lodging facilities, restaurant, convenience store, Cascade Corrals, McGregor Mountain Outdoor Supply, bus tours, bike rentals, bakery, marina, boat docks and moorage, and a post office. Recreational activities include day hiking, backpacking, fishing, hunting, canoeing, boating, camping, cross-country skiing, naturalist activities and sightseeing. All campgrounds in the Lake Chelan LCNRA are primitive, backcountry campsites. All campsites in the Stehekin Valley require a permit. Group camping is available in the Stehekin Valley at Harlequin and Bridge Creek with advanced reservations.
Stehekin Valley Camping: Twelve campgrounds are located along the Stehekin Valley Road; many more are accessible by foot or trail. Camping permits are required and are on
170 a first-come, first-served basis at the Golden West Visitor Center. Campgrounds within the Lake Chelan LCNRA are accessible by boat and include Purple Point, Weaver Point, Manly Wham, andAFlick Creek.
Recreation Use
During 1998 and 1999, Chelan PUD conducted a recreation study to identify and characterize recreation use within the Lake Chelan Basin (Howe and DES, 2000). Recreation use was estimated during the peak recreation season (Memorial Day through Labor Day) and during the off-seasons in the fall (September and October) and spring (April and May). Data was collected through the use of car observation, boat observation, on-site surveys, survey boxes, traffic counter data and historical recreation visitor use statistics from the Forest Service, Park Service, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, the City of Chelan, and the Manson Parks and Recreation District. Chelan PUD estimates recreation use in the project area at about 590,000 visitor days at developed recreation sites during the peak season (Memorial Day to Labor Day). After Labor Day through October 1 and from April through Memorial Day, recreationists spend an estimated 38,000 and 21,000 visitor days, respectively, at developed recreation sites.
Use versus capacity
Estimated use exceeds estimated capacity at several sites in the Lower Zone and some sites in the Upper and Middle Zones, primarily on Independence Day and Labor Day holidays and some weekends in July and August.
Based on field observation during the peak-season in the lower zone, use exceeds the estimated capacity as follows:
A 50 percent of the time at Chelan Riverwalk Park Boat Launch A 17 percent of the time at the Shore Access site in Chelan A 19 percent of the time at Lakeside Park A 14 percent of the time at Don Morse Memorial Park A 9 percent of the time at Old Mill Park A 36 percent of the time at Manson Bay Park; and A 13 percent of the time at Willow Point Park.
In addition, the Lakeshore RV Park was full 31 percent of the days that observations were made, Lake Chelan State Park campground was full 25 percent of the time, and the Twentyfive Mile Creek State Park campground was full 5 percent of the
171 time. During off-season monitoring, the Chelan Riverwalk Boat Launch estimated use exceeded the estimated capacity of the site 17 percent of the time in the fall and 11 percent of the time in the spring.
Based on field observation during the peak-season in the upper and middle zones, use exceeds estimated daily capacity as follows:
A 25 percent of the time at Safety Harbor A 17 percent of the time at Graham Harbor Creek A 8 percent of the time at Refrigerator Harbor A 25 percent of the time at Lucerne, A 8 percent of the time at Moore Point A 8 percent of the time at Purple Point; and A 25 percent of the time at Stehekin day use area.
Visitor satisfaction
Visitors give the sites and the activities in the project area high ratings, and are generally satisfied with recreation opportunities. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, visitors rate all sites above 8 with the exception of the Lakeshore RV Park and the Twentyfive Mile Creek State Park, which received ratings of 7.9 and 6.2, respectively. Visitors also give their primary activities high ratings. Visitors rated all primary activities above 8, except for fishing and water skiing, which received ratings of 7 and 6.2, respectively.
The more frequently reported comments visitors give regarding what could make the recreation sites in the study area better included fewer geese, more grass and trees, better and more swimming beaches, more play equipment, cleaner facilities, more parking, fewer people and more docks. The most common response during the spring was a request for higher lake levels. Most visitors have been coming to the area for several years (average of eight to 15 years), and most visitors come back to the area several times a year.
Whitewater boating
On July 8, 9 and 10, 2000, Chelan PUD conducted a boating study in the Chelan River bypassed reach to determine if the river was boatable and to assess flows for whitewater boating opportunities.
The bypassed reach is divided into four reaches based upon gradient and other
172 river characteristics as described in Section 5.3.1. The level of whitewater difficulty for each reach at flows up to 500 cfs is as follows: Reach 1 - Class II; Reach 2 - Class II with some Class III rapids; Reach 3 - Class V and VI, and Reach 4 - Class I.
Reach 3 is the “gorge” section of the Chelan River. The whitewater difficulty in Reach 3 is predominantly Class V. Two rapids were portaged in this stretch during the study and are considered Class VI. In general, rapids in this area feature strong hydraulics and steep drops (some may approach 20 feet), followed by small pools. Near the end of this section, Class IV and Class I boating opportunities exist as the channel widens and is less constricted.
Reach 4 is relatively short and unlikely to be boated on its own. Powerboats and personal watercraft from the Columbia occasionally use the tailrace, as do swimmers from Chelan Falls and Powerhouse parks.
Environmental impacts and recommendations:
Lake level management
The proposed lake level management for the new license would set target minimum lake elevations for the first day of each month. Under the current lake level regime, a majority of private and public docks are not accessible until late June, when the lake level reaches full pool (1,098 feet). Chelan PUD's proposal would raise lake levels earlier in May than the current regime, and gradually lower the lake level earlier in the fall. From July 1 through October 15, the average lake levels would be similar to averages from the first license term. In May, Lake Chelan area lodging receipts are lower than most comparable areas in Washington, but not in September (BST, 2000). On average, May receipts in Chelan are approximately 1.1-percent lower than comparable competitive facilities. It is difficult to assess exactly what percentage of the comparable area difference in May receipts is directly attributed to lake levels. However, it is believed by many residents and business owners on Lake Chelan that an economic gain from tourism may be realized if lake levels are higher in May and June, due to subsequent improved access to lake facilities (e.g., boat ramps, marinas, fixed docks, etc.).
Our analysis
Upper and Middle Zones
The Middle and Upper Basin Zones have several water-based recreation facilities, primarily floating docks that support Forest Service and Park Service facilities. The
173 proposed lake level scenario would allow easier access to any fixed docks earlier in the spring and summer, but would probably have little benefit for floating docks. The lake level would begin rising in May, resulting in a June 1 average of 1,095.2 (the proposed June 1 minimum target elevation would be 1,094 feet.) This would be 0.8 feet higher than the pool level under the current license and would improve access to nearly all docks and boat slips in the Upper and Middle Zones. During June, the proposed lake level scenario would be very similar to the existing operating regime although full pool (1,098 feet) would usually be reached earlier in the month. By July 1, the average lake elevation would be 1,099.3 and would be 1,099.7 on August 1. The proposal would, on average, also allow full use of docks in the Upper and Middle Zones in early fall (September), as the lake level would average 1,098.9 on Labor Day, with a minimum elevation of 1,098.7 maintained through Labor Day.
Lower Zone
The six public boat ramps at Lake Chelan are all located in the Lower Zone and are operable between elevation 1,090 feet and full pool (elevation 1,098 feet). Two of the six boat launches are owned by Chelan PUD and are operable down to elevation 1,079. Private marinas that ring the lake are usable over a narrower range of elevations, typically between 1,090 and 1,095 feet. Most private docks located in the Lower Zone are fixed and were designed to be functional at the 1,098 lake level. In addition to docks, the use of other waterfront structures (bulkheads, irrigation intakes) and recreational facilities (buoys, piers, beaches) found in the Lower Zone are also tied to lake levels similar to those of the fixed docks.
The proposed lake level increase in May and June would result in the average June 1 pool elevation being 0.8 feet (elevation 1,095.2) higher than the existing operating regime. The proposal will also increase the minimum elevations on June 1 by 4.2 feet (elevation 1,094.0) higher than the existing operating regime. This would increase accessibility to nearly all facilities such as boat ramps and the lake’s 22 marinas.
By July 1, the average pool elevation would be 1,099.3, which would be 0.1 feet higher than the current regime. At this elevation, all water-based recreation facilities in the Lower Basin Zone would be fully operational and would, on average, be usable a few days earlier in the summer than they are with the current operating regime.
In July and August, pool elevations would be above 1,098 feet, such that all water- based recreation facilities in the Lower Basin Zone would be usable. The September 7 average pool elevation would be 1,098.9, which would be 0.5 feet lower than the current operating regime. All ramps and marinas would continue to be usable through Labor Day based on the minimum level of 1,098.7. With the current operating regime, all or most of
174 the docks are generally usable throughout the month of September.
By October 1, the proposed average pool elevation would be 1,097.4 feet or 0.9 feet lower than the current operating regime. Boat ramps would continue to be operational in October, and all of the marinas would be usable at least during the first part of the month. Few fixed docks built to accommodate the 1,098 level would be usable in October. Under the current operating regime, boat ramps are usable still in October, as are most or all of the marinas and some (but not most) fixed docks in the Lower Basin Zone.
In summary, the new lake level regime would most benefit recreation in the lower zone where most use occurs. The benefits of the proposed lake level regime compared to current operation would be that more water-based recreation facilities would be operational and accessible earlier in the year providing potential economic benefit to the local economy. If this results in additional early season (spring) use, recreational spending would increase. At a minimum, because early spring water levels are a concern to current users, the lake level change should improve visitor satisfaction. Finally, most fall (September, early October) water-based recreation opportunities would be maintained under the proposed change.
Recreation Resources Management Plan (RRMP)
Chelan PUD proposes to implement a Recreation Resources Management Plan (RRMP) they developed with a Social Sciences Working Group during prefiling consultation. The RRMP would include the following elements, addressed individually, below:
(1) continued management and/or operation and maintenance of existing, licensed, recreation facilities at Chelan Riverwalk, Old Mill and Manson Bay parks including some capital improvements, estimated at $250,000 annually;
(2) scheduled whitewater boating releases in the Chelan River bypassed reach for a 3- year study period except during drought or energy emergencies;
(3) capital funding of $775,400 for Forest Service docks and recreation facilities, distributed periodically over a new license term, along with $39,000 annually for O&M on Forest Service docks;
(4) capital funding of $476,000 for Park Service recreational facilities and docks, distributed periodically over a new license term; and
175 (5) one-time capital funding of $250,000 for planning and development of a trail for access to Reach 1 of the Chelan River bypassed reach.
The IAC generally supports the RRMP, and recommends the RRMP be updated in concert with required FERC Form 80 filings.
Management and operation of existing recreational facilities
Chelan PUD would continue their ownership and/or management and operation of three existing project recreation facilities (Chelan Riverwalk Park, Old Mill Park, Manson Bay Park) located within the project boundary to assure continued public access to project lands and water.
The IAC supports Chelan PUD's proposal for existing facilities and recommends that Chelan PUD provide one-time funding for a master plan for 25-Mile State Park. IAC notes that in Chelan PUD's recreation study, the park received the lowest visitor satisfaction rating of any facility on Lake Chelan.
In their response comments, Chelan PUD states they are willing to consider supporting a master plan for 25-Mile State Park depending on the scope and financial commitment involved.
Our analysis
Keeping Chelan Riverwalk Park, Old Mill Park, and Manson Bay Park as licensed project features, as proposed, would ensure that Chelan PUD is ultimately responsible for their operation and maintenance. Given the high level of recreational use at Lake Chelan, this would be a long term benefit, ensuring public access to the lower zone lake area where most land is in private ownership. Chelan PUD's support of a master plan for 25- mile State Park would be beneficial from a park planning standpoint, but its long term benefit is unclear if the state could not implement the plan's recommendations due to lack of funds.
Whitewater boating
Chelan PUD proposes to provide scheduled water releases into the bypassed reach, ranging from 300 cfs to 450 cfs, on two weekends each in July and September for kayaking. Working with American Whitewater, Chelan PUD would conduct a three-year study to monitor existing demand for the flow releases. Specific details associated with the three-year monitoring study would be included in Chelan PUD’s final RRMP. The IAC supports the proposed 3-year study.
176 American Whitewater supports Chelan PUD's proposal, but suggests the following specific language for a flow release license condition:
Upon reservation by six or more boaters by 3 PM on Friday before the weekend of a scheduled release, the licensees shall release 300-375 cfs on Saturday and 400- 450 cfs on Sunday for 8 daylight hours (10:00 AM to 6:00 PM) each weekend day. Flows should alternate on weekends so that a standard trip with flows between 300-375 cfs are provided on Saturday and a high challenge trip with flows 400- 450 cfs are provided on Sunday. Every effort would be made by the licensee to vary the flows from one weekend to the next within the identified range for the respective standard and high challenge trip types on Saturdays and Sundays. Whitewater releases are scheduled for the second and fourth weekend in July and the first and third weekend in September.
In their reply comments, Chelan PUD notes that the RRMP includes language consistent with American Whitewater's recommended language.
American Whitewater also recommends the following specific language for a license condition on the proposed whitewater use monitoring, and for a reservation system.
The licensee will jointly develop with American Whitewater a study designed to monitor the adequacy of the scheduled whitewater releases. The monitoring plan will evaluate the following; 1) demand for whitewater boating in the Chelan Gorge; 2) adequacy of existing release volumes for hardshell boats; 3) assess the effectiveness of the reservation system; and 4) assess the carrying capacity. During the first three years from license issuance, the licensee will file annual reports with the FERC by February 1 and a final report at the conclusion of the three-year monitoring plan. The report should include recommendations for implementing whitewater releases for the remainder of the license. The Licensee must provide American Whitewater a 30-day comment period on the annual reports and final recommendations.
The licensee will jointly develop a reservation system with American Whitewater. By April 1 each year, the licensee will disseminate the dates for whitewater releases and clearly list instructions for the reservation system including a toll free phone number and website for reservations. Boaters making a reservation will receive confirmation of the release from Chelan PUD once the quota of six boaters is achieved.
At the conclusion of the three-year monitoring plan, Chelan PUD, American
177 Whitewater and interested stakeholders would make a recommendation for the quota of boaters required to register for each whitewater release.
In their reply comments, Chelan PUD notes that the RRMP is generally consistent with American Whitewater's proposed language, but, regarding the registration quota, suggests that, not only must at least 6 boaters register to trigger a release, but that at least 6 boaters must actually arrive to participate for a flow to be released.
Finally, American Whitewater notes that Chelan PUD's proposal contains no provision to provide real-time flow information for the Chelan River below the project dam. They feel that timely flow information is critical for the paddling community to determine if flow conditions are within an acceptable range. Recreational users such as fisherman, hikers, sightseers etc. use this information to plan their travel. Therefore, American Whitewater requests that the license contain a provision requiring Chelan PUD to publish real-time flow information using a toll free flow phone and website.
In their reply comments, Chelan PUD agrees to publish real-time flow information on their internet web site.
Our analysis
Chelan PUD and American Whitewater's proposals for whitewater releases and monitoring are similar in most respects, but with a potentially fundamentally different purpose. It appears that Chelan PUD's proposed 3-year study would be designed to determine whether there would be sufficient demand over the course of a new license to justify whitewater releases beyond the 3-year study term, whereas American Whitewater's monitoring would be used to fine-tune a whitewater release program that would continue through the term of a new license.
Continued, post licensing study of actual use of flow releases would enable a better-informed decision on whether releases should continue long-term as we don't know how much use this resource would attract. If a long-term release program is ultimately included in the license, the experience and data obtained from the study would be very helpful in designing a release program.
Making study releases contingent on an actual number of boaters present would avoid making a release for only a few boaters, but would penalize those who upheld their commitment to participate. Finally, providing real-time flow information would benefit potential users of spill flows whether or not a long-term flow release program is implemented.
178 Forest Service docks and facilities
Forest Service Condition No. 8 would require that Chelan PUD finalize the RRMP in consultation with and subject to approval of the Forest Service and file the plan with the Commission. Under Condition 8, the RRMP would include:
1. A Dock Management and Lands Replacement Plan that would include developing a dock management plan in consultation with and approved by the Forest Service for docks on National Forest System lands.
The dock part of the plan would:
i. Be based on actual site conditions for docks on National Forest System lands. ii. Define the commensurate shares of Forest Service and Chelan PUD responsibility for dock operations, maintenance and dock replacement. iii Address dock age, existing conditions, and maintenance needs for each dock. iv. Define how Chelan PUD would implement its responsibilities for maintenance and replacement of existing and new docks over the license term.
The lands part of the plan would focus on Chelan PUD providing increased capacity for semi-primitive, non-motorized recreational use of the shoreline in the Middle or Upper Lake Basin.
The lands part of the plan would require that Chelan PUD:
i. Make available for recreation use, up to 22 acres of appropriate, developable lands or otherwise provide for expansion of semi-primitive, non-motorized recreation use capacity in the Middle to Upper Lake Chelan Basin during the life of the license. Appropriate developable lands would generally be semi-primitive, non-motorized, shoreline parcels of 2 to 4 acres on slopes less than 10 percent. ii. Provide a commensurate share of new dock construction, maintenance and replacement required at these lands.
2. An adaptive management plan for recreation on Forest Service lands. This plan would include a methodology and schedule for:
i. Providing on-going evaluation of recreation use, preferences and trends within the project area. Chelan PUD would use this methodology as part of a collaborative process with stakeholders every 6th year in conjunction with Form 80 reporting, to update the RRMP to reflect changing conditions, requirements, and demands. ii. Completing a comprehensive recreation use assessment to result in any needed
179 revision of the RRMP every 2nd 6th year cycle. iii. Trigger points to indicate a need to develop more and/or different recreation facilities and /or opportunities and/or management.
The Forest Service feels that operation of the project has triggered a need for additional floating docks at Forest Service sites due to the greater lake level fluctuations. They feel that the 21-foot water fluctuation caused by project operation has altered and concentrated wave action, resulting in increased lateral and vertical wave damage to existing docks which has resulted in excessive wear and tear and limits on access to the docks during various times of the year due to the drawdown of the lake.
The Forest Service believes that because IAC planning documents estimate a 7% population growth rate in the project area, combined with the fact that the majority of recreation visitors (40% plus) come from out of the region there is a need for additional facilities. During the summer season, weekend capacities at all Forest Service lakeside campgrounds are near 100 percent and about 50 percent on the weekdays. Most of the boat accessible public lands in the middle lake Chelan Basin are currently being used for recreation.
The Forest Service states that campsites at Middle Zone sites are generally meeting average peak (all summer) weekend demand with an average utilization of around 55 percent using 3 PAOT, but that when looking at individual sites, recent estimated use exceeded or was near estimated site capacities on occasion at Mitchell Creek, Safety Harbor and Graham Harbor Creek. The Forest Service expects that some recreation sites in the Middle Zone will fill up more often in the future, especially on peak season holidays and weekends. They add that the 2001 Final Draft RRMP shows that the current (1998) average peak (Licensee’s Memorial Day to Labor Day) utilization at Forest Service sites using a design standard of 3 people per site is around 80%” and that the plan indicates that utilizations will be more than 100%. Finally, they state that estimated use has exceeded or was near estimated site capacities on occasion at Refrigerator Harbor, Lucerne, and Moore Point.
Finally, the Forest Service states that when the project was constructed, approximately 361 acres of National Forest System lands were inundated. Of these 361 acres, approximately 22 acres were suitable for Forest Service developed recreation sites. Based on their analysis, between 20.84 to 23.44 acres of National Forest System lands suitable for recreation development would continue to be inundated over the next license term.
Chelan PUD in their reply comments states that the Forest Service assumes the project is the primary cause of increased maintenance and replacement costs from lake
180 fluctuations greater than a pre-project condition. They add that based on their records, the average pre-project fluctuation was 8 feet compared to 16 feet now, and the maximum pre-project fluctuation was 12 feet compared to 21 feet now.
Regarding Forest Service docks, Chelan PUD notes they are comprised of four main sections: a fixed section (connected to land), a ramp, floatation, and pilings. Ongoing maintenance costs are impacted by:
• lateral movement caused by wave action (side movement) • vertical movement caused by wave action, • vertical movement caused by project operation, • weather, and • use.
Chelan PUD states that here are two components that need to be considered when determining the impacts to docks from lake level fluctuations and operation of the project. First, lateral movement caused by wave action significantly impacts docks, but the project does not increase wave action. The docks are only slightly impacted by vertical movement. If the vertical movement from waves (estimated at 4,000,000 feet per year) is compared to the vertical movement from fluctuations (32 feet), the project share is negligible. Second, Chelan PUD notes that ongoing maintenance costs for docks are caused by weather and recreational usage, and that the project does not affect weather and has minimal impact on recreational usage. Therefore Chelan PUD feels that replacement costs for the fixed and floating portions of the docks are unaffected by the project.
Additionally, Chelan PUD feels that, as written, Condition No. 8 does not adequately differentiate between sites with damage waivers and those without. Of the Forest Service sites, Chelan PUD feels they are only responsible for a project share at the 18 sites without damage waivers. Finally, Chelan PUD disagrees with the Forest Service assessment of required compensation for inundated lands.
Our analysis
Forest Service docks and land replacement
Chelan PUD and the Forest Service proposals for developing a comprehensive dock management plan could be beneficial as long term planning tool in that it could result in standards for dock design or renovation at Lake Chelan or in a set of best management practices for dock maintenance. A move toward standardization could benefit owners of multiple docks through economies of scale savings when purchasing
181 building and maintenance materials.
Both proposals include an analysis of Chelan PUD’s share of ongoing project- related impacts on docks. In the DEA we stated that it was unclear how project effects are to be quantified. Since lateral movement on docks from wave action is not project related, we assumed some analysis would be conducted of the project's contribution to vertical movement under the proposed reservoir operating regime versus a regime that would allow the reservoir to fluctuate only in response to changes in inflow. We also expressed a need for a method to determine what effect that difference is having on dock maintenance costs. We suspected that natural wave action so overshadows project- related vertical movement that any effects are insignificant and unquantifiable.
Chelan PUD, in their DEA comments, proposes a way to estimate the project's share of the cost of dock installation and replacement. Although they do not believe operation of the project affects dock maintenance costs, they agree with the agencies that the project's seasonal reservoir drawdown has created the need for longer dock ramps (the part of the dock connecting fixed and floating sections). They also acknowledge that the piles to secure the floating part of the docks have to be longer due to the seasonal drawdown. They believe the ramp portion of the docks on Lake Chelan is 50 percent longer and the piles are 10 feet longer (or 25 percent of a typical 40-foot-long pile) due to project operation. The estimate the cost of dock ramps at $255 per foot and the cost of replacement piles at $2,650 each. Given these costs, and assuming: (1) the ramps would be replaced twice during the term of a new license; (2) some of the piles would have to be replaced twice; and (3) there are 284 feet of Forest Service ramps and 46 piles, Chelan PUD estimates the project share at $136,857.
Chelan PUD's RRMP-proposed $775,400 for dock maintenance and replacement over the term of a new license would result in improvements to Forest Service docks which would benefit the public because these are public facilities. Its unclear at this point based on their DEA comments whether Chelan is still proposing the RRMP amount or a lower, revised amount based on their more recent estimate of costs. Either amount would effectively address project-related impacts on docks at Lake Chelan
Regarding the lands replacement component; making 22 acres available for recreational use or otherwise expanding semi-primitive, non-motorized recreational capacity in the Middle to Upper Zones during a new license term would benefit users. Based on Chelan PUD's recreation needs forecast, campgrounds in the Middle and Upper Zone are currently meeting demand, except on busy peak-season weekends and holidays at some sites. The capacity of sites is expected to be exceeded, however, more often during a new license term. Surveys indicate that the social capacity of Middle and Upper Zone sites is likely less than the physical capacity of sites (visitors chose uplake sites for their
182 remoteness and even though recreation sites may not by physically full, they are exceeding some visitors’ social capacity). Additional capacity would lessen the number of people at a time for a given land area, thus improving the experience to the extent that any physical modification of the landscape doesn't detract form the remote nature of the setting. We note, however, that if additional lands were added to the license it would be an enhancement compared to the existing condition, or baseline, not mitigation for land inundated when the project was initially constructed.
Adaptive management plan
Providing an on-going evaluation of recreation use, preferences and trends on Forest Service recreation sites in the project area during a new license term would help the Forest Service plan ahead for any needed expansion of recreation facilities.
Park Service docks and facilities
Interior Condition 10 would require that Chelan PUD's RRMP include maintenance of existing Park Service recreation facilities, boat docks and associated campgrounds, to acceptable Park Service standards. Existing Park Service recreation facilities include boat docks with campgrounds at Flick Creek, Manly Wham, Purple Point, Weaver Point, and Stehekin Marina. Implementation of the plan would begin during the first year of a new license.
Interior contends that operation of the project impacts these facilities requiring upgrades, maintenance, and replacement for public health and safety. Interior expects that mitigation for these impacts would include site stabilization from erosion damages at dock facilities at Weaver Point and Purple Point, redesign, relocation, and replacement of the dock facilities at Flick Creek and Manly Wham, placement of a vault toilet facility at Manly Wham and the upgrade and connection of the toilet at Purple Point Campground to the Stehekin sewage system. Additional projects would include annual maintenance at all dock facilities, any needed future replacement of the dock facilities at Weaver Point and Purple Point during the life of the license and the upgrade and standardization of all campground facilities at four Park Service dock/campground sites.
Interior believes that if natural lake conditions existed on Lake Chelan most docks could be constructed as fixed docks. They feel the 15 ft. to 18 ft. fluctuations in lake levels created by the operation of the project by Chelan PUD necessitate floating docks be constructed to provide accessibility during the primary visitor use season from May 15th to September 30th. Interior also states that the annual Park Service base budget is not sufficient to construct, replace, operate, and maintain these docks on an annual basis as fluctuations in water levels maintained by Chelan PUD impact the overall condition of
183 these facilities. Interior believes this is especially true if expanded "shoulder" season use is desired.
Interior states that boating and camping contribute to a variety of recreational opportunities for users of Lake Chelan LCNRA. The maintenance and repair costs of lakeshore campground facilities are directly related to the operation of the reservoir and lake level changes that increase tourism and recreational activities on Lake Chelan. As recreational use downlake increases, more use of facilities will occur up lake creating additional impacts to Park Service campsites and hiking trails. The need for and improvements to these campground facilities was identified in the Recreational Use Study and Recreational Needs Assessments completed by the PUD as well as the 1995 Lake Chelan LCNRA General Management Plan. Interior believes this project will mitigate the needs for operation and maintenance of camping facilities resulting from increased recreational impacts to up lake facilities. Interior feels this project will help to insure the visiting/boating public has a pleasant and safe camping experience and recreational opportunity with minimal adverse effects on the surrounding natural environment.
Chelan PUD's response to Interior Condition No. 10 is the same as their response to Forest Service Condition 8, namely that the project's contribution to dock damage is very minor when compared to effects from natural wave action. Additionally, Chelan PUD notes that Condition No. 10 does not adequately differentiate between sites with damage waivers and those without. Of the five sites listed, Chelan PUD believes they are partially responsible for damage only at the Flick Creek and Manly Wham sites.
Interior Condition 11 would require that Chelan PUD improve the recreation facilities at Stehekin Landing and marina including constructing an accessible floating dock to accommodate year-round use by commercial ferries, a covered visitor contact shelter, a public boat ramp, improved parking at the landing and stabilization of the landing area and bulkhead.
Interior states that improvements to these facilities are part of the 1995 Lake Chelan LCNRA General Management Plan and its accompanying Development Concept Plan. Again, they note the 15 ft. to 18 ft. annual average fluctuation in water levels of the Lake Chelan reservoir, as a result of lake level operations by Chelan PUD, has a direct impact on the ability of passenger ferries to use Stehekin. Interior adds that during late fall, winter, and spring the passenger ferries must unload passengers on the cobblestone ramp adjacent to the landing because the landing is not accessible due to the lower reservoir water levels; and if an increase in recreational use during shoulder seasons is a desirable outcome of the management of reservoir water levels, improvements to this facility are needed to make it accessible year-round and meet public health and safety requirements. Interior states that the recreational needs assessment conducted by Chelan PUD found that
184 93% - 97% of visitors to Stehekin in the Lake Chelan LCNRA arrive via the Lake Chelan Boat Company. These landing improvements would also provide a covered shelter for visitors for protection from strong winds and inclement weather. It would also enable visitors who are unfamiliar with the Stehekin Valley to become oriented to the opportunities and services available in the valley offered by the Park Service as well as private businesses. Improved parking would mitigate the frequent congestion noted in Chelan PUD's Recreation Use Study. Interior has already completed the site specific Developmental Concept Plan, and natural and cultural resource legal compliance for this project.
Chelan PUD, in their response comments states that although they and the Park Service have tentatively agreed to address improvements at Stehekin Marina and Landing in the RRMP through Chelan PUD's funding, Stehekin Landing is a public facility used by commercial transportation companies and is not a responsibility of the project.
Interior Condition 12 would require that Chelan PUD construct a floating dock and campground at Riddle Creek to accommodate future increases in visitor use up-lake that Interior expects would result from the proposed lake level operations for the new license period. The boat dock would be useable from May 15th to September 30th annually. The project would include design and construction of a campground, installation of a vault toilet, and the construction of a dock facility in year 10 to 15 of the license period. The upgrade and/or replacement of the dock facility and stabilization of the adjacent shoreline by year 30 would also be required.
Interior states that Riddle Creek is one of the few up-lake areas available for the construction of new public docks and campsites. Over the course of the new license and as recreation increases downlake, additional facilities will be needed up-lake to handle displaced recreational demands. Interior states that the construction of this up-lake facility will help mitigate identified future recreational needs. This project will help to insure the visiting/boating public has a pleasant and safe camping experience and recreational opportunity with minimal adverse effects on the surrounding natural environment.
Our analysis
Park Service dock maintenance and replacement
Chelan PUD's RRMP-proposed $198,500 (out of a total $476,000 for Park Service facilities) for dock maintenance and replacement over the term of a new license would improve Park Service docks which would benefit the public since these are public facilities. As we said above, lateral movement on docks from wave action is not project related, and we suspect that natural wave action so overshadows project related vertical
185 movement that any effects are insignificant and unquantifiable.
However, as we discussed above in our discussion of the Forest Service dock issue, operation of the project by Chelan PUD has necessitated that floating docks be constructed farther out into the lake to provide accessibility during the primary visitor use season from May 15th to September 30th, and during the spring and fall shoulder seasons. As we noted, Chelan PUD has proposed a method for estimating the project's share of the increased cost of dock installation or replacement due to the season reservoir drawdown. That method would also apply to Park Service docks using Chelan PUD's method, but the cost for these docks is unknown at this time.
Other Park Service facility improvements
Chelan PUD's funding of recreational facility improvements at upper zone sites (a floating dock and parking enhancements at Stehekin Landing and a floating dock and campground at Riddle Creek) would enhance year-round recreational use of these areas. Off-loading of passenger ferries would be easier, parking would be improved, and recreational capacity would be increased. These conditions (11 and 12) are based primarily on three anticipated or ongoing impacts: (1) increases in recreational use over a new license term (due to demographics and the proposed new reservoir operation) causing a need for new capacity, (2) lower zone use exceeding capacity and visitors being displaced from lower zone to middle and upper zone areas; and (2) continued operation of the project with a winter drawdown creating a continuing need for floating docks.
Regarding increased recreational use during a new license term, we agree that use of Lake Chelan will probably increase during a new license term, assuming the area remains as attractive as it it is now, all other things being equal. Based on the current use and capacity study, however, it appears the capacity of middle and upper zone sites would be sufficient well into a new license term. Whether the proposed change in lake level management would cause a significant increase in early season use is unknown at this time. Based on current use data, facility capacity increases would be most likely needed in the lower zone before they are needed in the middle and upper zone. We wouldn't expect most displaced users to move up-lake because currently displaced users are moving to different sites within the same general area. Finally, regarding the winter drawdown's effect on recreation facilities, it is the lower zone facilities where there are mostly fixed docks, that are most affected by the seasonal drawdown. It also seems likely, based on Chelan PUD's study of erosion, that even if the lake is managed to mimic a more natural condition, the lake would still fluctuate over a range of several feet and would move up and down more often.
Access to Chelan River through trail development
186 Chelan PUD proposes to contribute $250,000 to develop and implement non- motorized, non-paved, multi-use trail access into Reach 1 of the Chelan River bypassed reach that would be connected to the existing Riverwalk Loop Trail, and to study the feasibility of additional viewing and managed access to other sections of the Chelan River. Design standards and the exact location of the planned access would be decided with input from local stakeholders to assure consistency with other trail planning. The intent is that the Reach 1 access will facilitate development of connecting trails as outlined in a Chelan Valley Comprehensive Trails Plan.
The IAC supports Chelan PUD's trail proposal and adds a recommendation that Chelan PUD fund the development of a trail connection between the trail proposed above and the existing Chelan Riverwalk system.
Our analysis
The proposed trail would provide about 2.2 miles of multi-use trail in the lower zone which would double the length of existing trails. Existing trails are nearly at capacity during weekdays during the peak recreation season, and trail use is expected to increase during a new license term.
Interpretation and education program
Forest Service recommendation No. 1 would require that Chelan PUD develop and implement a comprehensive Recreational Information and Education (I&E) program to be used to complement efforts underway locally. Under the program, Chelan PUD would provide appropriate types and levels of information available to the public about the recreation facilities and opportunities at or near the project.
The Forest Service notes that this recommendation integrates I&E needs beyond National Forest System lands. The program would blend cultural and historic I&E, with multiple agency (WDFW, Park Service, and Forest Service) and community recreational I&E programs for visitors. This would provide flow and consistency to recreational visitors regardless where they heard the I&E message and avoid overlap and duplication.
Interior Recommendation No. 2 would require that Chelan PUD cooperate to provide environmental, interpretive, and educational opportunities to recreational visitors to the area. Interior feels that interpretive staff is needed at Fields Point to provide information and educational programs to passengers traveling up-lake on the Lady of the Lake boats. They note that the Forest Service currently provides a part time interpreter for the Lady of the Lake ferry for three trips per week from Fields Point to Lucerne. This
187 seasonal position is subject to fluctuations in budgets by the Forest Service, therefore, the long-term viability of this project is highly questionable. The Park Service, PUD, nor the Chamber of Commerce currently has any public contact information persons at this location for public information or education. The Lake Chelan Boat Company, that operates the ferries, occasionally provides a staff person to provide minimal visitor information. This is, however, not the best situation according to the Park Service because, (1) the person is not trained in interpretive techniques and (2) the person typically only responds to basic visitor questions. Interior feels that visitor information and education is a key component in helping the public understand the issues concerned with hydroelectric power, fish, wildlife, local history, cultural resources, etc.
Chelan PUD, in their response comments states they are committed to working collaboratively with the Park Service and others in providing coordinated and cohesive educational and interpretive information. However, they believe that funding for interpretive staff on a commercial ferry service on Lake Chelan is beyond the requirements for relicensing the project.
Our analysis
Whenever there are multiple providers of recreation opportunities in close proximity as is the case with the Lake Chelan area it can be beneficial to have a clearing house of sorts for information. Any entity (Chelan PUD, the federal land managing agencies, state parks, Chambers of Commerce, tourism boards, etc.) could assume that role if funding and access to the information is not an issue. Since most recreation providers now have internet web sites, public access to real time information is not as big an issue as it was historically. Numerous existing web sites, such as the Lake Chelan Chamber of Commerce's site www.lakechelan.com currently have links to most recreation opportunities in the project area. Providing professional interpretive services at Park Service uplake access points would benefit visitors, but it is unclear what ongoing project impact this measure would address.
Lower Zone Facility Enhancements
A local group that includes the City of Chelan, Lake Chelan Recreation Association, Lake Chelan Chamber of Commerce, Lake Chelan School District No. 129, Lake Chelan Lodging Association, Lake Chelan Public Trails Association, Chelan Business Association, and the Lake Chelan Tourism Promotion Group (Legacy Group) recommends a package of recreation enhancements called the Lake Chelan Legacy. Under this proposal, Chelan PUD would cost-share 50% of a total estimated cost of $18 million for several lower zone recreation facility improvements. This amount would be placed into an endowment fund that would serve as an adaptive management tool to fund three
188 principle enhancement measures and additional enhancements over the life of a new license.
In support of their proposals, the legacy group notes that the proposed facilities will improve access to, and appropriately supplement the capacity and function of existing project parks, which are proven to be near or over capacity on a regular basis without placing the full burden of cost on Chelan PUD. The legacy group feels this would address mitigation relevant to the top needs identified in the relicensing studies for recreation and socioeconomics, and that the proposed facilities are also highly consistent with the top priorities established in state & local comprehensive outdoor recreation plans. They further note that recreation and agriculture are the primary drivers in the Lake Chelan area economy, and Chelan PUD's socioeconomic study points to a need for additional recreation opportunities and the extension of the tourist season. Finally, they note Chelan PUD's cultural resources report indicates that historic shoreline trails served as primary transportation routes by early explorers and homesteaders, and that many of these historic corridors have been inundated by the reservoir. The proposed recreation improvements are discussed below.
Lakeshore Park Complex Erosion Control & Beach Restoration
This project would involve restoring the public beach at Don Morse Park, improving shoreline public access, reconstructing a children’s swim area, and fortifying the breakwater at the adjacent Lakeshore Marina in downtown Chelan. The estimated cost is $4.76 million. Chelan PUD's share would be $2.38 million. The legacy group feels these improvements would mitigate for loss of beaches and public access opportunities on lower Lake Chelan that have occurred due to the operation of the project. The planned amenities would include public sanitary facilities (ADA restrooms and litter receptacles) and environmental mitigation measures (native plantings for bank stabilization & erosion control).
In their reply comments, regarding the Lakeshore Park, Chelan PUD states that they purchased flowage easements when the project was built and compensated landowners for the right to flood these lands. Chelan PUD adds that they hold a damage waiver or easement at the City of Chelan's Lakeshore Park Complex (Don Morse and Lakeshore Parks). Chelan PUD further states that the project did not produce the loss of beach sand problem occurring at the Don Morse Park site, rather a retaining wall built by the City of Chelan at Don Morse Park, to keep sand from overflowing into the park area, is the main reason that shoreline erosion is occurring.
Our analysis
189 The Don Morse Park site is identified as an area of erosion (Site no. 164) in Chelan PUD's inventory of shoreline erosion. The study indicates that part of the site is stable, part is healing or stabilizing, and part is eroding. It's unclear whether any of the erosion issue at this site is project-related because of the presence of the retaining wall referenced above. If there was no beach erosion issue prior to the wall's installation, then it's most likely the beach erosion problem was caused by the wall, not project operation. Bulkheads and other similar shoreline armoring devices are known to cause increased erosion and beach damage (www.ecy.wa.gov; Kelly, 2000). From a recreation perspective, based on Chelan PUD's needs forecast and analysis, improvements to Don Morse Park would help meet demand for additional beach and day-use area capacity in the lower zone.
Lake Access Micro Parks
This project would involve developing lake access at 2 or 3 street-end locations currently in public ownership and conducive to public access improvements within City limits. The legacy group states that several City right-of-ways were vacated to accommodate building the dam and filling the reservoir, and developing the Micro Parks would allow some of the right of ways to be reclaimed for public use and needed access. The estimated cost is $950,000; Chelan PUD's share being $475,000. The legacy group states the sites were identified in the relicensing process because additional public access to the lake is needed, and these are some of the few locations left in public ownership. The "micro parks" could stand alone, i.e. be implemented and useful whether a trail goes in or not.
Chelan PUD's response is that most of the points of access they own are already being used and have been developed as parks. They acknowledge ownership of a strip of shoreline property located on Water Street and an adjacent street right-of-way along the lower south shore of Lake Chelan, but state that the majority of this property is under water and on a steep bank, and add that developing access to the lake at this site was initially considered but determined difficult with limited area for development of shoreline and parking. Chelan PUD also notes that in 1985, they constructed the shore access micro park near Riverwalk Park near downtown Chelan. Recreation use surveys conducted through the relicensing process conclude that the estimated average daily use by month was well below the estimated daily capacity of the site (site capacity is 75 people per day), with July having the greatest estimated daily use of 33 people per day. On one occasion in late July, the estimated daily use did exceed the capacity with an estimated 97 people visiting the site. Few visitors (about 6) were observed during the fall and no visitors were observed at the site during the spring monitoring efforts.
Our analysis
190 The primary basis for the street-end micro park recommendation appears to be mitigation for impacts of project construction. Given our baseline, we view these as potential recreation enhancement measures that could help meet existing recreation needs. The greatest recreation facility needs in the lower zone are for public trail and beach access, parking for boat launch facilities, and additional campsites. To the extent a micro park(s) could be designed to help meet these needs, given the limited available site options, the micro parks would be beneficial.
Lower Lake Chelan Shoreline Trail System
This project would involve developing approximately 10 miles of public multi-use trail from Manson to Chelan PUD’s Lakeside Park using available public lands & right of ways in closest proximity to the lake. A feasibility study of a public trail, up to 17 miles in length, on the Southshore of Lower Lake Chelan would be included. The estimated cost is $12.19 million, and Chelan PUD's share $6.095 million. The legacy group states that the project would provide essential mitigation for inundated public shorelands and subsequent loss of the lineal public access corridor around lower Lake Chelan.
In their reply comments, Chelan PUD believes the trail proposal unreasonable, outside their responsibility, and based on a pre-project baseline. They add that the proposal is in direct conflict with past and current stakeholder requests to maintain "higher" lake levels for access, recreation and tourism benefits.
Our analysis
Chelan PUD's needs forecast and analysis indicates that the addition of trails in the lower zone, especially if linked to beach access would help meet the needs of a large variety of recreational users, and that trails would provide more year-round use than any other facility need identified in the project area. Therefore, the proposed trail system would be beneficial and would meet an identified area need. The only project related effect this could be considered mitigation for would be the operational option of holding the lake full during the primary recreation season which limits the amount of exposed shoreline potentially useable for pedestrian travel. However, even if the reservoir was drawn down during the recreation season during the current license period, we question whether a trail of this scale would have been developed, it is such a large undertaking.
Chelan Gorge Managed Access Program
Under this proposal, Chelan PUD would prepare & implement a managed access program to allow compatible public uses of appropriate areas of the Chelan River gorge area, and surrounding Chelan PUD-owned natural resource lands. The plan would be
191 developed by qualified recreation planners/architects in consultation with user groups, local agencies, and other interested parties. The cost of this proposal is unknown.
Chelan PUD replies that they have agreed to develop a multi-use, non-motorized, non-paved access trail in Reach 1 of the Chelan River and study the feasibility of managed access in the Chelan River Gorge as outlined in the Recreation Resources Management Plan.
Our analysis
The bypassed reach area is one of the few places in the project vicinity that has been underutilized for recreation. It is very interesting visually, and has potential for hiking, sightseeing, mountain biking and other day-use activities. It is a much different landscape than other areas in the vicinity of the lake in the lower zone. If access was managed, it could attract significant use, especially if connected to existing trails.
Reserve Land for Future Use
Under this proposal, Chelan PUD would reserve two pieces of their property for future recreation development: a piece of shoreland near Water Street for a potential public marina and/or beach improvement, and another piece over the upper penstock area which could be developed for ball fields, campground, or other public recreation facility depending on the needs over the term of a new license. The cost of this proposal is unknown.
Chelan PUD's response is that they have agreed to reserve project-owned lands over the penstock and near Water Street for future recreational and/or public development.
Our analysis
Chelan PUD's needs forecast and analysis indicates that average weekend summer use of lower zone non-boating day use facilities is about 90% of capacity and the prediction is that by the year 2020, use will exceed capacity. Therefore it is highly likely there would be a need for additional capacity during a new license term. It also seems that there are limited opportunities for additional shoreline access as much of the lower zone shoreline is developed, private land. Setting some land aside now for potential future use would ensure that if addition facilities were required, some land would be available.
Unavoidable adverse impacts: Even with the proposed new lake level management regime, during the winter drawdown, some water access facilities along Lake Chelan
192 would be unusable.
8. Aesthetic Resources
Affected environment:
General description of the aesthetic resources
Lake Chelan and the surrounding Lake Chelan Basin have high scenic values. In the late 1890s and early 1900s, Lake Chelan was billed by promoters as the "Switzerland of America" because of the alpine setting and nearby mountain ranges that rise nearly 9,000 feet. The landscape surrounding Lake Chelan varies considerably, both in climate and terrain. The snow and glacial melt-off from the lake’s pristine headwaters have resulted in a sapphire blue lake that is remarkably clear and clean. The beauty and remoteness of the lake and its basin helped bring about the establishment of the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, the North Cascades National Park, Sawtooth Wilderness and the Glacier Peak Wilderness.
The Upper Basin Zone consists of pristine waters and a broad valley lined by snowcapped rocky mountain peaks. The character of the landscape in the upper basin is mostly natural, with a few areas (near Stehekin and Lucerne) that have a rural character. Areas of past disturbance (e.g. abandoned destination resorts such as Moore Point and Field Point resorts) are generally returning to a natural appearance. The landscape in the upper basin is spectacular and has been rated by the Forest Service as having a scenic integrity ranging from high to very high. Viewers in this zone include residents and tourists at Stehekin, people being transported by boat or floatplane to areas within the zone, campers at lakeside campgrounds and boaters.
The Middle Basin Zone is characterized by rocky mountain peaks and very rugged rock cliffs at the water's edge. The impressive Chelan and Sawtooth Mountain ranges can be viewed in the background to the south and north. As with the upper basin, the character of the middle basin is primarily natural in appearance. Developed campgrounds located along the edges of the lake in rustic settings are the most common locations where human activity can be observed. The scenic integrity rating of the middle basin ranges from high to very high. Viewers in this zone include people being transported by boat or floatplane to areas within and beyond the zone (to the Upper Lake Chelan Zone), campers at lakeside campgrounds and boating recreationists.
In the Lower Basin Zone, the landscape changes dramatically. The vegetative and geologic pattern transitions from the glaciated steep mountain ranges in the upper portions of the lake to rolling hills at the lower end of the lake. The landscape is generally rocky
193 and reflective of a drier climate (the shrub/steppe vegetative type) with patches of grass and smaller fir or pine trees scattered across the hillside. The landscape character of the upper part of the Lower Basin Zone ranges from natural appearing to agricultural. In the lower portion of the zone, shoreline development has created rural and urban landscapes. The scenic integrity rating for the landscape in the lower basin ranges from very low to high. This zone has by far the greatest number of viewers. Viewers include residents (in lakeside homes and from the surrounding area and the City of Chelan), tourists at resorts and the City of Chelan, water- and land-based recreationists, campers at state parks and other campgrounds, drivers on nearby highways and roads and people being transported by boat or floatplane to areas within or beyond this zone.
The bypassed reach is composed of four distinct reaches as we've noted. The landscape character of Reach 1 ranges from rural to natural appearing. The scenic integrity rating of Reach 1 ranges from moderate to high. Although this is the part of the bypassed reach most easily viewed, the number of viewers along this reach is small. Viewers are primarily nearby residents and people driving the unpaved county road. Although there are some views into the river from residences and the county-owned gravel road, views of the river in this reach are not plentiful. Chelan PUD owns much of the land adjacent to this reach (and the other reaches) and does not allow public access for safety reasons. The landscape character and scenic integrity rating of Reach 2 is the same as in Reach 1. There are even fewer viewing opportunities along this reach than in Reach 1. The landscape character of Reach 3 is natural in appearance and the scenic integrity rating is high. Views of the bypassed reach in Reach 3 are also very limited. The only legal place to view the bypassed reach in Reach 3 is from the county-owned gravel road; however, the road only approaches the river in a few places. The landscape character of the upper part of Reach 4 is natural in appearance, while the lower portion near the Project powerhouse and its associated facilities has an industrial character. The scenic integrity rating of Reach 4 is low to very low. The primary viewers of this reach are people driving by on State Route 150 and Chelan Falls Road near the community of Chelan Falls. An abandoned bridge runs across the Chelan River in Reach 4. The bridge is owned by Chelan County and is the remaining structure of a road that once led to the town of Chelan Falls. The bridge remains closed to public access due to its poor structural condition.
The existing license does not require minimum flow releases into the bypassed reach. Under the existing license, the bypassed reach is generally dry from mid-July through mid-May of the following year, except where ground water infiltration enters the river.
Aesthetic resources in the gorge downstream of the project were documented during pre-filing consultation using video from five locations along the bypassed reach under six different flow releases (DES, 2000d). Flows recorded were 32 cfs, 81 cfs, 260
194 cfs, 500 cfs, 2,000 cfs, and 4,400 cfs. Aesthetics were documented from four publicly accessible locations and two locations within Reach 3 of the Chelan Gorge not open to public access.
Project facilities
Project facilities are not generally visible from most parts of the project area. The project facilities that are visible to some degree include the diversion dam, powerhouse, switchyard and surge tank.
The concrete, 40-foot-high and 490-foot-long dam, situated about one-quarter-mile downstream of the Chelan Riverwalk Park, is not visible from many places in Chelan. Due to its low-lying features, the top of the dam does not catch the eye of the casual viewer looking downstream from Riverwalk Park. Views of the dam are limited to the forebay area and are generally visible from the river channel upstream and the adjacent shoreline. The dam's spillways are rarely viewed by the public due to surrounding steep hillsides and limited access to areas downstream of the structure.
The powerhouse is a significant scenic feature and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places along with the dam. Built in 1926 at the confluence of the Chelan and Columbia Rivers in Chelan Falls, the powerhouse is Romanesque in style with brick walls, tile roof, arched windows and rectangular shapes. A switchyard and shop facility are located adjacent to the powerhouse building. The powerhouse, surge tank and switchyard are visible at a distance from the Columbia River and by passing motorists on state Highway 97. The powerhouse is situated in an area zoned medium intensity industrial, and surrounding visible facilities include transmission lines, fruit processing warehouses, a railroad, roads and highways.
Aesthetics and lake levels
Aesthetics of the Upper, Middle and Lower Basin Zones were documented during pre-filing consultation using still photography from land-based and water-based viewpoints (DES, 2000d).
In the Upper Basin Zone, lake elevations have typically been lowest in the early spring, when Chelan PUD is waiting for snow runoff to fill the lake. At that time of year, the primary effect of operations on the aesthetic quality of the upper zone is exposure of shorelines, particularly at Stehekin Flats near the community of Stehekin. The low lake elevations can result in exposing an area up to 175 acres at Stehekin Flats. During the winter, snow covers the exposed mud flats making them invisible. When the snow melts in the spring, the exposed mud flats are perceived by some residents as aesthetically
195 undesirable. When the mud flats begin to dry out, winds pick up dust and transport it across the lake into the community of Stehekin. The Park Service considers the dust a nuisance and an aesthetic problem. In addition, the Park Service believes that the Stehekin Flats area is largely unvegetated because it is inundated for most of each year. Low lake elevations in the Upper Basin Zone also expose areas that have been subject to erosion. For most visitors to the upper zone, however, the areas that have erosion concerns are not readily visible because the sites are small relative to large features that capture viewers’ attention such as the expanse of the lake, the nearby hillsides or the towering snowcapped peaks. Most viewers likely do not notice the relatively insignificant (from a visual perspective) areas of erosion. These areas are most noticeable by people viewing them close up, either from nearby primitive shoreline campsites or from boats traveling near the shore. In the Middle Basin Zone, low lake elevations contribute to erosion of exposed areas. As in the upper basin, these areas are generally not very visible and have little effect on aesthetic quality of this zone. As with the other parts of the lake, more shoreline areas in the lower zone are exposed when the lake is drawn down. Like the other parts of the lake, areas with erosion are also more visible during times of year when the pool elevations are lowest.
Under current Project operations, typically no water is discharged into the bypassed reach except during the spring spill period, normally from May to July, and occasionally during fall/winter storms. Although releases into the bypassed reach (particularly Reach 3 - the gorge) can result in spectacular whitewater features, only a few viewers observe these conditions because, except for the upper reaches (Reach 1 and 2), access is limited.
Environmental impacts and recommendations:
Lake level management, shoreline erosion and minimum flows
Aesthetic resources at the project could be affected by changes in lake level management, shoreline erosion and provision of minimum flows to the bypassed reach. Chelan PUD proposes to modify the current lake level management regime and provide minimum flows in the bypassed reach.
Our analysis
Lake level management
By keeping average lake elevations slightly higher than the existing operating regime in the late spring and most of summer, Chelan PUD's proposal would expose slightly less shoreline than the existing regime. Average lake elevations in the late fall,
196 winter and early spring would be lower than the existing operating regime. This would result in the exposure of more shoreline compared to existing operations but during times when visitation has dropped off and many seasonal residents have left. In the Stehekin Flats area, the slight negative effects of the lower lake elevations would be offset by the proposal to plant native vegetation around the mud flats and along parts of the Stehekin River. The vegetation would reduce the amount of mud flats exposed and would reduce the amount of dust.
Shoreline erosion and tributary barriers
As part of the relicensing process and in consultation with the Forest Service, the Park Service and other entities managing land around Lake Chelan, Chelan PUD has agreed to perform repairs or provide funding for scheduled repairs at high-priority erosion sites on federal lands. The proposed erosion repairs would stabilize and protect shoreline areas that have various resource values, including sites chosen primarily because of their aesthetic value. These sites are not highly visible to most viewers. However, any improvement as a result of replanting or other activities would improve the aesthetic quality of the area.
Chelan PUD proposes to address concerns related to tributary access and vegetation by altering the lake level operation of the project and by placing LWM on Stehekin Flats. The lowering of lake elevations in the fall would allow the tributary streams to work their way through barriers that have been deposited at the mouths of the tributaries. The lower lake elevations would also allow for re-establishment of riparian and other shoreline vegetation, primarily in Stehekin Flats. These measures would encourage the re- establishment of riparian and other shoreline vegetation and would benefit the aesthetic resources of the project. Therefore, from an aesthetic perspective, the proposed lake level management regime would improve the aesthetic qualities of Stehekin Flats over the long term as riparian vegetation is re-established around the mud flats and in other areas visible from the lake.
Minimum flows and trail development in the bypassed reach
Proposed minimum flows for the bypassed reach to enhance fishery resources would also provide secondary benefits for aesthetics, water quality, wildlife and riparian resources.
Although there are only a limited number of publicly accessible viewing areas in the bypassed reach, year-round flows would enhance the visual experience for the visitor, especially in Reach 4 as riparian areas develop along the proposed enhanced stream channel. Provision of whitewater releases would provide higher flows in September than
197 would normally be seen this time of year in the bypassed reach (typically there are currently no flows in September). However, only a limited number of viewers (principally kayakers) would see flows through the gorge. Construction of a trail in Reach 1 would enhance access for viewing that part of the bypassed reach.
Unavoidable adverse impacts: Even under the prosed new lake level management regime, a drawdown zone would be visible around Lake Chelan.
D. No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to operate as required by the existing project license, and there would be no change to the existing environmental setting or project operation.
VI. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS
In this section, we analyze the project’s use of the available water resources to generate hydropower, estimate the economic benefits of the project, and estimate the cost of various environmental enhancement measures and the effects of these measures on project operation. Chelan PUD does not propose any modifications to project generation facilities, but it does propose environmental and recreational enhancements, both structural and operational that would affect project costs and generation.
A. Power and Economic Benefits of the Project
The main purpose of the project is to provide power for Chelan PUD’s customers. Chelan PUD has studied the existing project facilities, operation and utilization of flows and concludes that the project, as proposed, would be developed to its optimal capacity.
Consistent with the Commission's approach to economic analysis, we equate the power benefits of the project to the current (2002) amount that would be paid for the same amount of power using alternative resources; we do not consider any future inflation or escalation effects for benefits or costs beyond the license issuance date.40 For the Lake Chelan Project, we assume the value of generation is similar to the cost of purchasing the equivalent generation from Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) at its new resource
40 Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC¶ 61,027 (July 13, 1995).
198 rate for firm power.41 Using the average of the monthly high and low load hourly energy rates for BPA customers buying power for all 5 years of the 5-year rate period, we get an average energy value of 34.4 mills per kWh. We use BPA's new resource capacity demand rate schedule to value the Project's 57,500 kW of dependable capacity at $24 per kW per year (kW-yr).
These values yield a reasonable estimate of project value for the purposes of our economic analysis, which are: (1) to provide a basis for measuring the economic benefits of continued project operation; and (2) to provide a basis for estimating the cost of replacing power for any environmental enhancements that would reduce project generation. Table 17 summarizes the key parameters we use for our economic analysis.
Table 22. Summary of key parameters for economic analysis of the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project (Source: Chelan PUD, 2000)
Period of analysis 30 years1 Term of financing 30 years1 Interest/discount rate 7 percent2 Net Investment $20,365,7203 Licensing costs $4,000,0004 Annual O&M Cost $3,308,000 per year4 Average annual generation 384,020 MWh4 Energy value 34.4 mills per kWh5 Dependable capacity 57.5 MW4 Capacity value $24/kW-yr5 1 Staff 2 Chelan PUD's average cost of debt financing. 3 Chelan PUD's Net Investment as of December 31, 1999, adjusted to 2001 using the double-declining balance method. 4 Chelan PUD, 2002 5 Staff, from BPA Wholesale Power Rate Schedules, December, 2001.
B. Cost of Environmental Measures
Certain measures would affect project economics by adding to the energy production cost (requiring new capital expenditures or additional annual costs for
41 Boneville Power Administration, 2002 Wholesale Power Rate Schedules (Revised December, 2001)
199 operation and maintenance). Other measures, such as reservoir operation changes and minimum flows for the bypassed reach, would reduce the project's power production capability. Table 23 shows how the operational changes considered in this EA would affect the project’s dependable capacity and average generation.
Table 23. Effect of proposed operational changes on dependable capacity and average annual generation at the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project. (Source: Staff) Recommendation Dependable Average Foregone Foregone Capacity Generation Capacity Generation
No action 57.5 MW 384,020 MWh 0 0 New Lake Level 57.2 MW 379,784 MWh 0.3 MW 4,235 MWh Management Plan Bypassed reach 57.5 MW 369,602 MWh 0 14,418 MWh minimum flows Whitewater 57.5 MW 383,636 MWh 0 384 MWh boating releases
To estimate the cost of measures that would change how the project is operated, we add the cost of replacing lost energy and capacity to any capital or annual operation and maintenance costs required to implement the measure. We show the cost of each measure as a levelized annual cost over the 30-year period of our analysis. Table 24 lists the measures considered in this EA, shows the entity or entities supporting each measure and the estimated implementation cost.
C. Comparison of Alternatives
Table 25 provides a summary of the annual cost, power benefits and annual net benefits for three alternatives: no-action, Chelan’s proposed project alternative, and the proposed project with staff-recommended modifications. The proposed project alternative includes the environmental and recreational enhancements, both structural and operational, proposed by Chelan PUD. In the Comprehensive Development section (Section VII), we discuss both the economic and environmental basis for the staff- recommended alternative.
No-action alternative
Under the no-action alternative there would be no funding of new environmental
200 protection, mitigation and enhancement measures beyond what is currently being provided and the project would continue to provide 57.5 MW of dependable capacity and generate an average of 384,020 MWh of electricity annually. Based on our estimate of the current cost of replacing this amount of power with no consideration of inflation over the 30-year period of our analysis, the average annual power value of the Project under the no-action alternative would be $14,590,000 (about $38/MWh) and the average annual cost would be $5,333,000 (about $14/MWh) resulting in an average annual net benefit of $9,258,000 (about $24/MWh).
Proposed project
Under the proposed project alternative, Chelan PUD would implement the environmental protection, mitigation and enhancement measures identified in Table 19 as being recommended by Chelan PUD. The measures included in this alternative would result in a decrease in dependable capacity from 57.5 MW to 57.2 MW42 and a reduction in average annual generation from 384,020 MWh to 364,982 MWh43. Based on our estimate of the current cost of replacing this amount of power with no consideration of inflation over the 30-year period of our analysis, the average annual power value of the Project as proposed by Chelan would be $13,928,000 (about $38/MWh) and the average annual cost would be $6,412,000 (about $17/MWh) resulting in an average annual net benefit of $7,516,000 (about $21/MWh).
Staff-recommended alternative
Under the proposed project alternative with staff-recommended modifications, the project would have the same power benefit as for the alternative Chelan PUD proposes. Compared to the no-action baseline for our economic analysis, the measures included in this alternative would result in a decrease in dependable capacity from 57.5 MW to 57.2 MW and a reduction in average annual generation from 384,020 MWh to 364,982 MWh. The current cost of replacing this amount of power with no consideration of inflation over the 30-year period of our analysis, would be $13,928,000 (about $38/MWh) and the average annual cost would be $6,356,000 (about $17/MWh) resulting in an average annual net benefit of $7,573,000 (about $21/MWh).
The staff-recommended alternative would not include some of the environmental
42 Reduction in dependable capacity caused by new lake level management plan.
43 Reduction in average annual generation caused by new lake level management operation, new minimum flow releases to the bypassed reach, and new whitewater boating flow releases.
201 protection, mitigation and enhancement measures that Chelan PUD has proposed and would, therefore, cost about $57,000 less, annually, than the proposed project alternative. We discuss the reasons for staff modifications in the comprehensive development section.
202 Table 24. Costs of proposed and recommended protection, mitigation and enhancements for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project (Source: Chelan PUD, 2002e, modified by staff)
Recommending Annual Annual Total Recommendation Entity Capital Cost O&M Cost Lost Levelized Generation Cost1 New lake level operating plan Chelan, Staff $100,000 $0 $153,000 $161,000 Erosion Control Plan for Park Service sites2 Chelan, Interior, Staff $998,875 $0 $0 $83,000
Erosion control plan for Forest Service sites3 Chelan, Forest $2,643,370 $0 $0 $220,000 Service, Staff Locate and replace survey monuments Chelan, Staff $80,000 $0 $0 $6,700 Dust control measures at Stehekin Flats Chelan, Staff $150,000 $0 $0 $12,500 Monitor Stehekin Area sedimentation4 Chelan, Interior $90,000 $0 $0 $7,500 Monitor Lake Chelan water quality Interior $unknown $unknown $unknown $unknown Lake Chelan Fishery Management Plan: Maintain tributary access Chelan, WDFW, $100,000 $0 $0 $8,300 Forest Service, Interior, Staff Hatchery modifications and stocking Chelan, WDFW, $unknown $30,000 $0 $30,000 practices Interior, Staff Restore Twenty-Five Mile Creek Chelan, WDFW, $unknown $unknown $0 $unknown spawning and incubation channel Interior, Staff
203 Table 24. Costs of proposed and recommended protection, mitigation and enhancements for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project (Source: Chelan PUD, 2002e, modified by staff)
Recommending Annual Annual Total Recommendation Entity Capital Cost O&M Cost Lost Levelized Generation Cost1 Monitoring and studies of Lake Chelan, WDFW, $unknown $7,500 $0 $7,500 Chelan fisheries Interior, Staff Chelan River Biological Evaluation and Implementation Plan: Minimum bypassed reach flows of Chelan, $350,000 $0 $496,000 $525,000 80/200/320 cfs5 WDFW,WDOE Interior, NMFS, Staff Seasonal salmon and steelhead Chelan, $unknown $unknown $unknown $unknown spawning flows in Reach 4 WDFW,WDOE Interior, NMFS, Staff Bypassed reach and tailrace habitat Chelan, $2,000,000 $0 $0 $166,000 enhancement WDFW,WDOE Interior, NMFS, Staff Ramping rates Chelan, Interior, $0 $0 $unknown $unknown WDOE Staff Bypassed reach temperature Chelan, WDOE, Staff $0 $0 $unknown $unknown mitigation Tailrace flow security Chelan, WDOE, Staff $0 $0 $unknown $unknown
204 Table 24. Costs of proposed and recommended protection, mitigation and enhancements for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project (Source: Chelan PUD, 2002e, modified by staff)
Recommending Annual Annual Total Recommendation Entity Capital Cost O&M Cost Lost Levelized Generation Cost1 Bypassed reach and tailrace Chelan, WDFW, $0 $20,000 $0 $20,000 monitoring Interior, NMFS, Staff Tailrace minimum flows Interior, NMFS $unknown $unknown $unknown $unknown Continue monitoring entrainment and Chelan, Staff $0 $0 $0 $0 impingement at project intakes Develop plan to prevent entrainment and Interior, WDFW $unknown $unknown $unknown $unknown impingement at project intakes Design Reach 4 pump system intakes to limit NMFS, Staff $unknown $unknown $0 $unknown entrainment and impingement Supplementing minimum flows in dry years American Rivers $unknown $unknown $0 Deep water intake in Lake Chelan for American Rivers $5,000,000 $0 $0 $415,000 to minimum flows to $2,077,000 $25,000,0006 Augment Columbia River flows CRITFC $unknown $unknown $0 Introduce anadromous fish to Lake Chelan CRITFC $unknown $unknown $unknown $unknown Terrestrial Habitat - Stehekin River Chelan, Interior, Staff $211,500 $3,500 $0 $21,000 Implementation Plan
205 Table 24. Costs of proposed and recommended protection, mitigation and enhancements for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project (Source: Chelan PUD, 2002e, modified by staff)
Recommending Annual Annual Total Recommendation Entity Capital Cost O&M Cost Lost Levelized Generation Cost1 Wildlife Habitat Management Plan Chelan PUD, WDFW, Staff $0 $30,000 $0 $30,000 Big Game/Eagle Survey WDFW, Staff $0 $15,000 $0 $15,000 Weed management plan Forest Service, Staff $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,200 Acquire and manage riparian and upland WDFW, Forest $10,350 $ habitat area (combined acreage) Service $6,693,000 $566,000 Endangered species consultation plan Interior, Forest $2,000 $0 $0 $200 Service Sensitive species management plan Forest Service, Staff $0 3,500 $0 $3,500 Cultural resources management plan Chelan PUD, Staff $0 $0 $0 $0 Recreation resources management plan: Management and operation of existing Chelan PUD, Staff $0 $204,000 $0 $204,000 recreational facilities7 Fund share of Forest Service and Park Staff $136,857 0$ 0$ $11,400 Service Dock Replacement Whitewater boating flows8 Chelan PUD, Staff $0 $0 $13,200 $13,200 American Whitewater
206 Table 24. Costs of proposed and recommended protection, mitigation and enhancements for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project (Source: Chelan PUD, 2002e, modified by staff)
Recommending Annual Annual Total Recommendation Entity Capital Cost O&M Cost Lost Levelized Generation Cost1 Trail access to Chelan River Chelan PUD, Staff $250,000 $0 $0 $21,000 Reserved Land Chelan PUD, Staff $0 $0 $0 $0 Fund Forest Service boat dock replacement Chelan PUD, Forest $775,400 $0 $0 $64,000 Service Fund Park Service boat dock maintenance Chelan PUD, Interior $198,500 $0 $0 $16,500 and replacement Fund Park Service recreation facility Interior $unknown $unknown $unknown $unknown improvements at upper zone sites Interpretation and education program Forest Service, $unknown $unknown $unknown $unknown Interior Lake Chelan legacy proposal: Lakeshore Park Complex Legacy Group $2,800,000 $0 $0 $233,000 Lake access micro parks Legacy Group $475,000 $0 $0 $40,000 Lower Lake Chelan Train System Legacy Group $6,090,000 $0 $0 $506,000 Advisory Committees project management Chelan PUD, Staff $0 $124,000 $0 $124,000 1 Total levelized costs: The constant stream of values, using the 7% discount rate, that produces the same NPV as the projected costs for the noted PME (non-constant stream of values) spread out over the same time period.
207 2 Includes $789,875 to be provided by Chelan to Park Service, who would implement the plan and an additional $209,000 under the proposed RRMP to the Park Service for erosion control at recreation sites affected by erosion. 3 Based on the estimated cost for Chelan to implement the Forest Service section 4(e) erosion control requirements. 4 Based on monitoring sedimentation at the mouth of the Stehekin River as part of the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan. 5 Includes capital cost of sluice gate required to make controlled releases to bypassed reach and replacement of foregone power benefits. 6 The cost range is based on Chelan PUD's estimate of $12,500,000 to $25,000,00 for a 5-mile-long pipeline, and Staff's estimate of $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 for a 2-mile-long pipeline. 7 Based on existing O&M cost at parks ($204,000). 8 Based on cost of replacing power benefits associated with providing whitewater releases in July and September.
Table 25. Summary of project economics for the no-action, the proposed project and the proposed project with staff- recommended modifications alternatives for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project (Source: Staff)
ALTERNATIVE
No action Proposed Proposed Project with Project staff modifications
Average annual generation 384,020 MWh 364,982 MWh 364,982 MWh
Dependable capacity 57.5 MW 57.2 MW 57.2 MW
Average annual cost $5,333,000 $6,412,000 $6,356,000 ($14/MWh) ($17/MWh) ($17/MWh)
Average annual power $14,590,000 $13,928,000 $13,928,000 benefit ($38/MWh) ($38/MWh) ($38/MWh)
208 Average net annual project $9,258,000 $7,516,000 $7,573,000 benefit ($24/MWh) ($21/MWh) ($21/MWh)
209 VII. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
Sections 4(e) and 10(a) of the FPA require the Commission to give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a hydropower project is located. When we review a project, we consider fish and wildlife, water quality, recreational, and other non-developmental values of the involved waterway equally with its electric energy and other developmental values. In determining whether, and under what conditions, to license a project, the Commission must weigh the various economic and environmental tradeoffs involved in the decision. This section contains the basis for, and a summary of, our recommendations for relicensing the Lake Chelan Project. We weigh the costs and benefits of our recommended alternative against other proposed measures.
A. Recommended Alternative
Based on our independent review and evaluation of the proposed project, a staff alternative, and the no-action alternative, we are recommending the staff alternative. We are aware that the parties are currently engaged in a settlement negotiation, and depending on the result of that process, an additional alternative(s) could be included in our analysis. A comprehensive settlement would carry sufficient weight that, on balance, our recommendations could change.
We are recommending a staff alternative because: (1) issuance of a new license would allow Chelan PUD to continue to operate the project as a dependable source of electric energy for its customers; (2) the 48-MW project would avoid the need for an equivalent amount of fossil-fuel fired electric generation and capacity elsewhere, continuing to help conserve these nonrenewable energy resources while reducing atmospheric pollution; and (3) the recommended environmental protection and enhancement measures would improve water quality, protect fish and terrestrial resources, improve public use of recreation facilities and resources, improve multiple use and management of project lands, and maintain and protect historic and archeological resources within the area affected by project operation.
Chelan PUD proposes and we agree that the following environmental measures should be included in any license issued by the Commission for the Lake Chelan Project:
210 Lake Level Regime
Chelan PUD proposes and there is general agreement among stakeholders (Interior condition No. 3, Forest Service Condition No. 14, and WDFW recommendation 4) on a change in the lake level management regime that would lower the lake more quickly in late summer and fall, but raise it earlier in the spring. This change in lake level management should decrease shoreline erosion by reducing the total amount of time that parts of the shoreline most susceptible are exposed to wave action, enhance fish access to lake tributaries for spawning, and encourage additional early-season recreational use. The change in lake level management would cost about $161,000 annually, including the current value of a 4,235-MWh reduction in average annual generation and a 0.3-MW reduction in dependable capacity. If the fishery and recreational use respond as expected, the cost of this measure would be offset by increased recreational spending and fisheries benefits. Some final details on administering the lake level regime need to be addressed, therefore we are recommending Chelan PUD, after consulting with the stakeholders, file a final plan with the Commission for approval as a condition of any new license issued. We recommend that development of this plan include a discussion and analysis of adding flexibility to the July 1 lake level target that would create storage in Lake Chelan during high or late runoff years and reduce high-volume spills in the bypassed reach. If a final plan is filed prior to a new license being issued, the plan could be incorporated into the license as a condition.
Erosion Control
Operation of the project effects shoreline erosion in that the lake is kept full during the summer to enhance recreational access. This exposes part of the shoreline to wave action for an extended period. Overall, erosion is a minor issue at Lake Chelan, 18.8 miles are affected, or about 16 percent of the 118.8 miles of shoreline and the rate of recession is relatively slow. However, because of the lake's large size, 232 individual erosion sites have been identified. Chelan PUD proposes to perform repairs or provide funds for repairing and monitoring on identified high priority erosion sites. They have developed separate plans for erosion control on Park Service (17 sites, Interior Condition 4) and Forest Service lands (39 sites, Forest Service Condition 9); Lake Chelan Erosion Control Plan, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (Chelan PUD, 2001g), and Erosion Control Treatments and Concepts for Lake Chelan, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests (Chelan PUD, 2001f). Under the Park Service plan, Chelan PUD would provide $789,875 to the Park Service who would implement the plan, and an additional $209,000 under their proposed recreation plan to the Park Service for erosion control at recreation sites affected by erosion. The annual cost would be about $83,000. Under the Forest Service plan, Chelan PUD would implement the plan at an estimated cost of $2,643,370. The annual cost would be $220,000. Implementing these plans would ensure that high
211 priority actively eroding sites are stabilized and future erosion is prevented or significantly diminished. To benefit aquatic resources, we recommend that Chelan use LWD to stabilize or protect erosion sites when possible.
Survey Monument Relocation
Twenty-five survey control monuments around the lake’s perimeter were reportedly difficult or impossible to locate during survey work. Some of these have been lost to erosion or other hazards or were not relocated when the lake was initially raised. Chelan PUD proposes funding of $80,000 (annual cost of about $6,700) to support a Survey Monument Location and Re-establishment Plan (Chelan PUD and Forest Service, 2001) to locate, re-establish if needed, and document 26 survey corners. Forest Service Condition No. 5 would require that Chelan PUD re-establish survey corners, or establish witness corners governing National Forest System property boundaries within and adjacent to the project area determined to have been lost due to construction or operation of the project . We agree that Chelan PUD should be required to relocate survey markers lost due to project operation, because survey monuments can facilitate survey activities associated with project facilities and recreation sites. It unclear how many of Chelan PUD's 26 survey corners have been affected by project operation, but we do not recommend requiring mitigation for survey monuments lost when the project was initially constructed or are otherwise unrelated to continued project operation. We, therefore recommend that any new licensed issued include a condition that Chelan PUD file a revised Survey Monument Location and Re-establishment Plan that includes only those sites affected by project operation.
Stehekin Area Dust
In the Stehekin area of the reservoir much of the drawdown zone is covered by fine sediments. The sediments are exposed after the snow melts in March until the lake is refilled in June. Strong down-valley winds can lift the fine sediments into the air causing a dust problem or dust event. Chelan PUD proposes to address the dust issue through the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan, (Chelan PUD, 2002d). Under the plan, Chelan PUD would place large woody material in strategic locations to act a windbreaks, and would monitor its effectiveness. The work would occur over the term of a new license, the goal being to reduce the magnitude of dust events by 25% during the first 10 years and 50% with the first 20 years of a new license. The cost is estimated at $150,000 ($12,500 annually). Interior Condition No. 6 would require Chelan PUD to reduce dust by 10 percent in the first 10 years of a new license and by 50 percent in the first 20 years of a new license. Interior Condition No. 9.2 would require monitoring of dust events. Although the dust does not violate any health-related or other standards; it is still a nuisance. Dust control efforts included in the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan, should
212 lessen the problem. We recommend that Chelan PUD's proposed plan for addressing this issue be included in any new licensed issued. We do not recommend a condition that requires a fixed percentage reduction however, as we don't know whether it is possible to achieve a specific numerical reduction.
Lake Chelan Fisheries Management Plan
Currently, there is no comprehensive plan for managing the fishery in Lake Chelan. Chelan PUD and the agencies propose to establish a Fisheries Advisory Committee (FAC) to direct technical management decisions for Lake Chelan and have drafted a Lake Chelan Comprehensive Fish Management Plan to guide those decisions. The plan's objectives include restoring/enhancing native species where feasible, supporting the recreational sport fishery, enhancing tributary access, potential bull trout reintroduction, and monitoring. These objectives appear to be supported by the agencies and other stakeholders; however, many of the specific strategies for achieving these goals have not been fully developed or finalized. Establishing the FAC and developing a final plan, in consultation with the agencies and stakeholders, would finalize the methods for achieving the proposed goals and coordinate efforts to ensure successful implementation. Therefore, we recommend that any license issued for the Lake Chelan Project include a requirement to establish a FAC and file a final fisheries management plan for Lake Chelan. Since the plan is essentially drafted, we anticipate very minor cost for this measure. Chelan PUD's responsibilities under the current version of plan are discussed below.
Tributary Access
Chelan PUD would fund the initial mechanical removal of alluvium tributary barriers (estimated at $100,000; $8,300 annual cost) in addition to altering the lake operating regime (discussed above) to reduce the formation of barriers. Chelan PUD would also fund a program to monitor accessability and spawning success within the tributaries during the license term.
Under Section 10(j), WDFW (Recommendation 3) and Interior (Recommendation 23) recommend that Chelan PUD develop and implement a program to provide native fish access to tributaries throughout the term of the license.
Forest Service Condition 13 includes a requirement that Chelan PUD develop and implement a plan to provide native fish access to Lake Chelan tributaries. In addition to managing lake levels, the plan would address mechanical removal of existing barriers, and followup monitoring to ensure barriers do not reform and access to Lake Chelan tributaries is not impeded during the term of the license.
213 Barriers to upstream fish passage exist in seven streams that would likely support cutthroat trout spawning. These barriers inhibit passage when the lake is below a pool elevation of 1,090 feet which would occur during the spring when adfluvial cutthroat and rainbow trout may be attempting to migrate up the tributaries to spawn. Based on this information, it appears that current conditions limit native salmonid access to tributary habitat and successful implementation of the proposed measures to remove barriers and provide tributary access would be a significant step toward establishing natural spawning populations of cutthroat trout.
At this time it is unclear if mechanical removal would be needed only to initially restore passage or if mechanical removal would be needed on a regular basis. If, as we expect, the proposed lake level management regime maintains access to tributary streams, no further mechanical removal would be necessary. However, if the lake level management is ineffective at preventing the reformation of barriers, access for trout to tributary spawning habitat could become blocked. Therefore, we recommend the plan include a requirement that Chelan PUD monitor tributary access and physically remove existing barriers if the modified lake operation is not effective in maintaining tributary access. The exact cost of potential followup barrier removals is unknown; however, we would expect that it would be less than Chelan's initial cost estimate for removal (i.e. $100,000).
Hatchery Modifications and Stocking Practices
The agencies have recommended (Interior Condition 14 and WDFW and Interior Section 10(j) Recommendations 7 and 23) that over a four year period, Chelan PUD gradually phase out stocking rainbow trout in favor of stocking cutthroat trout. WDFW and Interior indicate that Chelan PUD should provide funding to modify the Chelan hatchery to produce cutthroat trout. Under the plan, Chelan PUD would provide annual funding of $30,000 into an interest-bearing account, each year for fish stocking and/or tributary enhancement.
Modifications to the Chelan Hatchery would make it more suitable for cutthroat trout production. Stocking larger size cutthroat trout, which is also being considered, would likely increase survival until spawning, which could help in restoring a self- sustaining population. In combination, these measures would contribute significantly to improving the likelihood of restoring the native cutthroat trout population in Lake Chelan. Therefore, we recommend the plan include a requirement to fund stocking and fund modifications to the Chelan hatchery to the extent that necessary modifications are identified in the plan.
214 Twenty-Five Mile Creek Spawning and Incubation Channel
Under Section 10(j), Interior (Recommendation 23) and WDFW (Recommendation 8) recommend repairing and maintaining a spawning and incubation channel located on Twenty-Five Mile Creek as part of the effort to restore native cutthroat trout. At the time the DEA was issued, Chelan PUD indicated that the value of restoring the Twenty-Five Mile Creek spawning and incubation channel was uncertain; however, Chelan subsequently began restoring the channel suggesting they had determined that it would be worthwhile. It is clear that most of the stakeholders want to restore native cutthroat trout populations in Lake Chelan and project operation has, at least to some extent, contributed to the decline of this species. Therefore, we recommend that Chelan develop a final design and implementation plan for restoring the Twenty- Five Mile Creek spawning channel. The cost of this measure is unknown.
Monitoring and Studies of Lake Chelan Fisheries
Under the plan, Chelan PUD would provide matching funds of up to $7,500 by January 31 of each year for monitoring enhancement and restoration activities not linked to project effects. Chelan PUD provides no indication which measures these would be, but indicate they would consider conducting genetic analyses, spawning surveys, tributary population surveys, creel surveys, food web modeling, and other monitoring and evaluation activities.
Interior (Condition 14 and Section 10(j) Recommendation 23) and WDFW (Section 10(j) recommendations 9, 10, and 11) recommend that Chelan PUD prepare a plan to survey adfluvial salmonid spawning during the spring and fall, develop and implement a plan to conduct population surveys of Lake Chelan tributaries, prepare and implement a plan to survey sport angler harvest, conduct genetic analyses of cutthroat trout and rainbow trout hybridization, fund and support assessment of burbot populations, and conduct bioenergetics studies of competition, predation, and lake productivity. The agencies indicate that the results of these studies and monitoring evaluations would be used to make future decisions on fisheries management in Lake Chelan.
The various monitoring studies proposed by Chelan PUD and the agencies would provide information regarding the status of restoration efforts and would assist fishery managers implementing a Lake Chelan fish management plan. Therefore, we recommend that the plan include a requirement to monitor fish management decisions in Lake Chelan and that Chelan PUD provide its proposed $7,500 annually for monitoring.
Chelan River Management Plan
215 Chelan PUD's measures for enhancing aquatic resources in the bypassed reach and tailrace are included in a Chelan River Management Plan they drafted during prefiling in consultation the agencies and other stakeholders. Subsequently, Chelan prepared the CRBEIP which describes protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures for the bypassed reach and tailrace in more detail that the original Chelan River Management Plan. We recommend that any license issued include a requirement to file a final CRBEIP. We discuss each component we are recommending be included in the plan below.
Minimum Flows in the Bypassed Reach
During parts of the year, no flow is released into the bypassed reach of the Chelan River. In the license application and the CRBEIP, Chelan PUD proposes to provide a year-round minimum flow of 80 cfs, and 200 or 320 cfs in May and June depending on whether it is a normal, dry or wet year. The same flows are recommended by Interior, NMFS, WDOE, and WDFW. The cost of providing these flows and the spawning flows discussed below is estimated at $350,000 for the addition of a new gate at the project dam, and $418,000 in lost generation. The annual cost for providing the specified flows would be $496,000. Minimum flows would provide habitat for native cool-water species (suckers and minnows) and cutthroat trout while establishing and protecting other resources including macroinvertebrate and riparian communities. This would be a significant improvement over existing conditions in the bypassed reach where there is no year-round fishery. Additionally, these flows would provide more habitat at a lower cost than higher flows proposed during prefiling by WDFW or natural flows. We, therefore, recommend the flows proposed by Chelan in the CRBEIP be included in the plan.
Spawning Flows
Chelan PUD is proposing seasonal salmon and steelhead spawning flows in the lower bypassed reach (Reach 4) through a combination of spill and pumping from the tailrace. The same flows are recommended by Interior, NMFS, WDOE, and WDFW (Section 10(j) Recommendation 13). Additionally, Chelan PUD and the agencies agree as do we, that there should be a backup method for providing these flows. The spawning flows would provide additional spawning habitat for summer chinook salmon and steelhead beyond what currently exists in the tailrace and even more than would occur under the minimum flows proposed for release at the dam. Additionally, when combined with the habitat modifications described below, these flows would likely provide as much or more habitat at a lower cost than higher flows proposed during prefiling by WDFW or natural flows. Therefore, we recommend these pumped flows be included in the plan, including a means for providing the flows if the primary system fails. The cost of this measure is unknown.
216 Bypassed Reach Temperature Moderation
Minimum flows released into the bypassed reach would frequently exceed the temperature for zero net growth of cutthroat trout and would occasionally result in mortalities. As part of the CRBEIP, Chelan proposes to construct a new minimum flow release structure that would bypass the spillway apron and a broad, shallow portion of the bypassed reach where minimum flows could warm quickly. Chelan also proposes to monitor minimum flow temperatures and release up to 1,500 cfs, to a total of 5,000 cfs- days during peak temperature periods. Lastly, Chelan proposes to use habitat modifications to encourage the thalweg to migrate into the shadows of the gorge banks, develop riparian areas to increase shade, and develop several thermal refuge areas. In combination, these measure would reduce increases in minimum flow water temperatures as flows pass through the bypassed reach.
WDFW recommends that Chelan create two large pools with large woody debris for habitat enhancement and 1 cfs of pumped well water at all times when water temperatures exceed 20oC. While these pools would be beneficial in providing refuge habitat, our analysis suggests they would have a very localized benefit and they could be difficult to maintain because of the bedload movement during spring spills. Additionally, the withdrawal of 2 cfs of groundwater would likely require many wells and the drilling and pumping costs could cumulatively be significant.
Our analysis suggests that Chelan's proposal would benefit all of the bypassed reach rather than two localized areas and would have a greater chance at preventing extreme temperature excursions that could lead to zero growth or mortality. Therefore, we recommend that Chelan be required to implement the temperature mitigation measures described in the CRBEIP and included in the 401 WQC. . The cost of this measure is unknown.
217 Bypassed Reach 4 and Tailrace Habitat Enhancement
Chelan PUD proposes to physically modify parts of Reach 4 of the bypassed reach and the project tailrace to improve habitat for spawning and rearing salmon and steelhead. Along with the measures proposed by Chelan PUD, Interior recommends (Section 10(j) Recommendation 22), that Chelan PUD supplement spawning gravels in Reach 4 to pre- project conditions. Habitat modifications to Reach 4 and the project tailrace would increase the effectiveness of proposed minimum flows and improve salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing habitat. Therefore, we recommend the plan include the proposed habitat modifications. We also recommend the plan address the need for gravel supplementation, as recommended by Interior although we do not recommend that pre- project conditions be used as the baseline for determining the level of gravel supplementation. We believe this measure would be worth the estimated capital cost of $2,000,000 ($166,000 annually).
Ramping Rates
Chelan PUD proposes to ramp all changes in minimum and whitewater flows to 2 inches per hour , but they are not proposing to restrict ramping rates during periods of spill. Chelan PUD does not propose to vary this ramping restriction daily or seasonally. Interior recommends (Section 10(j) Recommendation 21) daily and seasonal ramping rates. During the daytime, Interior recommends ramping 0.0 inches per hour (in/hr) from February 16-June 15, 1.0 in/hr from June 16-October 31, and 2.0 in/hr from November 1- February 15. During the nightime, Interior recommends 1.0 in/hr from June 16-October 31 and 2.0 in/hr from November 1-June 15.
Chelan PUD's proposal to ramp flows 2.0 in/hr would adequately protect aquatic resources in the bypassed reach from any adverse effects associated with changes in discharge. Interior's proposed ramping rates would be more restrictive than Chelan PUD's proposed rates at some times with the intent of providing additional protection for chinook salmon and steelhead fry. Based on the proposed minimum flow regime, the proposed release schedule for minimum flows, and the likelihood that chinook salmon fry would quickly move out of Reach 4 into the Columbia River, we do not believe additional protection beyond the ramping rates proposed by Chelan would result in any significant benefit. Additionally, a specific ramping rate to protect steelhead fry does not appear to be necessary at this time since this species is not currently reproducing within the project area and Chelan's proposed rates would likely provide a similar benefit during the few instances when non-spill-related flows changes occur within the bypassed reach.Therefore, we recommend that the plan include a requirement to ramp all changes in minimum flows and whitewater flows at 2 inches per hour. We don't believe there would be a significant cost for this measure.
218 Bypassed Reach and Tailrace Monitoring
Chelan PUD proposes monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the flow and habitat measures proposed for enhancing the bypassed reach and tailrace. Monitoring would include surveys of spawning and spawning habitat utilization, surveys of aquatic invertebrates, incubation survival evaluations, snorkel surveys in Reaches 1 and 2, and juvenile salmon surveys in Reach 4 and the tailrace. Chelan PUD also proposes to introduce steelhead into Reach 4 and the tailrace to establish natural reproduction in these areas. Monitoring results would be used by Chelan PUD and various stakeholders to adaptively manage the bypassed reach and tailrace.
Under Section 10(j) Recommendation 16, Interior, NMFS, and WDFW recommend that Chelan PUD develop a detailed plan for monitoring and evaluating the benefits of measures implemented in the bypassed reach and tailrace. Additionally, both NMFS and WDFW recommend (Section 10(j) recommendation 17) Chelan PUD develop and implement a plan for gaging flows in the bypassed reach and tailrace. We believe Chelan should document flows in the tailrace based on penstock flow measurements and in the bypassed reach based on measurements of releases through the proposed minimum flow structure and Reach 4 pumping records. Biological monitoring proposed by Chelan PUD and recommended by the agencies would allow for assessment, and if needed, modification of the proposed flow and habitat modifications. We recommend that any license issued for the project include a requirement to conduct the monitoring described above and we believe the benefits of these measures would be worth the estimated cost of $20,000.
Entrainment and Impingement at the Project Intakes
Chelan PUD proposes to continue monitoring for entrainment at the project intakes and to redesign and replace the existing trashracks with appropriate fish exclusion structures if monitoring indicates native salmonids are being entrained. Interior would require Chelan PUD to develop and implement a plan to minimize loss of fish through entrainment and spills. Under Section 10(j) Recommendation 12, WDFW recommends that Chelan PUD develop and implement a plan to exclude fingerling salmonids from the project intakes.
Based on the results of the various studies conducted during prefiling consultation, it appears few cutthroat trout or other desired fish species are leaving the lake system via the project intakes or the spillway. However, in regard to cutthroat trout, the lake population is currently depressed and entrainment or spill of these fish could increase as the lake population recovers or increases. Based on current information, we find no reason to recommend requiring protection measures at the project intakes at this time and
219 we recommend that Chelan PUD develop a plan to continue to monitor project entrainment. If, in the future, monitoring reveals significant entrainment or impingement of cutthroat trout or another desired or valued species, the Commission could consider or Interior could prescribe under Section 18, facilities to prevent or reduce effects on target fish species at the project intakes or spillway at that time.44
Entrainment and Impingement at the Reach 4 Pump System Intakes
NMFS, (Section 10(j) Recommendation 18), recommends that Chelan PUD design the pump system for Reach 4 of the bypassed reach to minimize attraction and impingement of juvenile salmon and steelhead. Design features to exclude juvenile salmonids could include locating the pump intakes in an area less likely to provide substantial juvenile habitat (i.e. deeper portions of the tailrace or within the disharge flows from the powerhouse) and inclusion of a screen system with a large enough surface area to result in relatively low velocities at the screen surface. These measures would protect juvenile salmonids rearing in the project tailrace area from potential injury or mortality; therefore, we recommend that any license issued for the project include a requirement for Chelan PUD to develop final design plans for the pump system in consultation with the agencies to ensure measures are included to reduce impingement. We expect the cost of this measure to be minimal because it would be included in the initial pump system design and may already be included.
Tailrace Flow Security
The available information suggests that redds constructed within the tailrace can be dewatered due to discontinuation of flows from the Lake Chelan Project powerhouse. Discontinued operation of the project can also result in decreased DO and flow through tailrace redds, although these decreases may not be severe enough to threaten redd survival. As part of the CRBEIP, Chelan has proposed to implement various tailrace flow security measures including monitoring redds for dewatering and monitoring intragravel water quality. Chelan proposes to prevent redd dewatering or poor intragravel flow or DO conditions through either continuous or intermittent operation of the project.
Interior and NMFS have recommended (Section 10(j) recommendation 19) that Chelan be required to provide a minimum tailrace flow of 500 cfs from October 1 to July
44At this time we are recommending that Chelan PUD not be required to develop plans for preventing entrainment at the project intakes or spillway; however, this measure was included as part of Interior's Section 4(e) measures and would be included in any license issued for the Lake Chelan Project.
220 31 each year. It is not known if this flow would be adequate to prevent redd dewatering; however, it is likely that it would prevent significant declines in intragravel DO and flow. While maintenance of this flow would likely prevent most redd dewatering and problems with intragravel water quality, continuous releases of flows during certain portions of the year could adversely affect other resources such as recreation. Additionally, this measure does not appear to provide any greater level of protection than what has been proposed by Chelan. Therefore, because Chelan's proposed flow security measures would have the same benefit as the agencies' proposed minimum flow without potential indirect affects on other resources, we are recommending that Chelan implement the measures proposed in the CRBEIP.
Terrestrial Habitat - Stehekin Area Implementation Plan
Interior would require (Interior condition 7) and Chelan PUD proposes to fund implementation of a Stehekin Area Implementation Plan which includes measures to restore native riparian vegetation, noxious weed control , and monitoring. Based on costs included in the Stehekin Implementation Plan, Chelan PUD would provide $211,500 over the first 10 years or so of a new license and about $3,500 annually for monitoring riparian vegetation, annual bald eagle and osprey monitoring, and monitoring riparian wildlife richness and abundance (during years 10, 11, 20, and 21, assuming a 30 year license term). Funding for revegtation and monitoring would be managed and provided under Chelan PUD's Wildlife Habitat Management Plan.
The riparian communities associated with Lake Chelan support relatively high numbers of plants and animals, and are, therefore valuable, but are not abundant. The revegetation efforts would enhance riparian habitat in the largest, most diverse riparian habitat community associated with Lake Chelan. Therefore, we agree these measures should be implemented. However, by combining funding and labor for revegetation and wildlife monitoring within the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan with those of the proposed Wildlife Habitat Management Plan tracking compliance and benefits of the separate plans could be difficult and may create conflicts for the Wildlife Coordinating Committee implementing the various measures. Therefore, we believe that it would make more sense to keep implementation and funding of the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan and the Wildlife Habitat Management Plan separate. As part of the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan, Interior would also require (Condition 7) Chelan PUD to fund monitoring of wildlife species richness, and population dynamics as an indicator of success or failure in rehabilitating the riparian community, and to provide a baseline for future project changes and implementation. Interior does not describe how such data may be measured and related to the revegetation efforts or what additional measures might be required based on the monitoring program. A very species rich and diverse wildlife community exists in the Stehekin flats area. We expect any successful
221 reestablishment and expansion of native riparian vegetation (for which the Stehekin Implementation Plan does contain defined and measurable objectives) would further improve and enhance habitat conditions for native wildlife. Therefore, staff question the need for such monitoring efforts. Nonetheless, to the extent that Chelan PUD is willing to fund such monitoring efforts, and because it has a relatively minor cost (about $3,500 annually), we would not object to it's implementation because the data may benefit other resource management decisions in the Stehekin Flats area such as helping define when installation of install woody debris for controlling erosion or riparian planting efforts could be conducted to minimize disturbing nesting eagles and ospreys
Wildlife Habitat Management
Chelan PUD proposes to develop and implement a Wildlife Habitat Management Plan that would provide labor and funds (estimated at $30,000 annually) for wildlife management on state and federal lands in Chelan County within about 6 miles of the Rocky Reach Reservoir. The plan would cover land associated with both the Lake Chelan and Rocky Reach Projects. Under the proposal, a Wildlife Coordinating Committee (WCC), composed of representatives from WDFW, Forest Service, Park Service, FWS, and Chelan PUD, would discuss and coordinate expenditures of funds and resources on an annual basis to best meet the needs of wildlife, includingwinter range improvements, noxious weed control, establishing food plots and other wildlife management efforts. Chelan PUD's proposed comprehensive Wildlife Habitat Management Plan would provide resources (funds and labor) which may be lacking for measures that would significantly benefit a variety of wildlife and habitat types (native shrub-steppe/grassland habitat, riparian/wetlands, Ponderosa pine/bitterbrush winter range). Chelan PUD's proposal would appear to be sufficient to substantially enhance wildlife habitat conditions on about 2,000 acres each year if all funds were allocated to habitat improvements,45 which well exceeds the area affected by continued project operation.
However, we recommend that the wildlife habitat management plan focus on resources most closely linked to Lake Chelan, rather than those associated with both the Lake Chelan and Rocky Reach Projects. This would improve our ability to ensure compliance with any future license for each project, and would ensure that the resources
45This is based on an estimate of $15 per acre for habitat improvement measures; the amount of habitat improved would depend on the actions employed and the cost of the effort. For example, if more intensive habitat restoration efforts are employed in any given year, the cost could be as high as $300 to $500 per acre; the amount of habitat improved would be reduced accordingly.
222 associated with each project are addressed. Even though the projects are located close to each other and join at the Columbia River, there are ample lands, opportunities, and habitat needs surrounding Lake Chelan to focus management efforts on these areas, without extending management efforts to lands that may be more closely associated with the Rocky Reach Project.
Therefore, we recommend that a Final Lake Chelan Wildlife Habitat Management Plan be prepared based on the activities and principals contained in Chelan PUD's draft plan and filed for Commission approval within six months of license issuance. The Final Lake Chelan Wildlife Habitat Plan should describe how the WCC would function, decisions would be made, and resources would be allocated to the various management projects on state, federal, and appropriate private lands. The final plan should include provisions for filing an annual report by December 31 of each year with the Commission, prepared in consultation with the Park Service, Forest Service, FWS, and WDFW, describing how the funds and resources were allocated and identifying proposed projects for the next year.
WDFW, in their DEA comments, argues that Chelan PUD's proposed funding levels are inadequate to implement large scale, habitat restoration/enhancement projects. . WDFW argues that funding for continuing the big game/eagle survey efforts (which WDFW estimates would cost $15,000 annually), maintenance of the wildlife feeders (which we estimate would cost $2,000 annually), and any monitoring efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of any actions implemented under the management plan should be in addition to funds provided for habitat management efforts because these measures substantially would reduce resources available for habitat improvements.
WDFW's proposed measures and support for the measures are no more detailed than Chelan PUD's proposed measures, WDFW has not provided any specific management objectives or an estimate of suitable funding levels to achieve these management objectives. As noted above, how much habitat would be improved in any given year would depend on how funds are allocated among different management actions and objectives sought by the WCC. Annual big game and bald eagle surveys along Lake Chelan, conducted since 1985, have and would continue to provide information useful to management decisions. However, as WDFW points out, funding these measures would substantially reduce available resources ($30,000 in labor and funds as proposed by Chelan PUD) for management actions that would more directly benefit wildlife populations through wildlife habitat improvements. Therefore we recommend that Chelan PUD continue the 12 annual wildlife surveys and report the results to WDFW, FS, NPS, and FWS. Such actions may be an element of the Wildlife Habitat Management Plan, but should be separately funded from habitat management actions included in the Wildlife Habitat Management Plan.
223 As proposed by Chelan PUD, monitoring of actions implemented under the Wildlife Habitat Management Plan would be valuable in evaluating the efficacy of any implemented action and should be conducted. The cost of implementing the monitoring efforts would depend on the specific management action undertaken and the monitoring protocol (i.e. successful establishment of vegetation, success of noxious weed control, etc) and thus cannot be estimated. Nonetheless, monitoring would further reduce available resources for on-the-ground habitat improvements. For reasons noted above, we recommend that monitoring efforts be funded separately from the habitat improvement projects. We recommend that the Final Lake Chelan Wildlife Habitat Plan include: short-term and long-term goals; an evaluation schedule with measurable targets to evaluate the success of the measures; defined funding levels; and contingency plans to respond to changing conditions and problems encountered during implementation.
Providing and maintaining wildlife feeders is a management tool that also directly benefits wildlife populations. Even though it has a small annual cost and would not directly improve habitat conditions, allocation of funds toward the use of this management tool is best left to consideration of the WCC and thus appropriately included within the cost of implementing the Wildlife Habitat Management Plan.
In summary, Therefore, we recommend Chelan PUD finalize the Wildlife Habitat Management Plan based on the principles and actions defined in the draft Wildlife Habitat Management Plan, but commit no less than $30,000 in funds and/or labor to wildlife habitat management projects that directly improve or support wildlife populations associated with Lake Chelan.46 Chelan PUD should continue to conduct 12 annual big game/bald eagle surveys each year and report the results to WDFW, the Park Service, FS, and FWS. The Wildlife Habitat Management plan should define how the WCC would function and resources would be allocated. The final plan should include provisions for monitoring actions implemented under the plan, including goals, success criteria, funding levels, and contingency measures. Our recommended measure would increase the project's annual cost by about $15,000 over that proposed by Chelan PUD; the benefit to big game and other wildlife from direct habitat improvements and from the information obtained from the surveys is worth the additional cost.
Integrated Weed Management
46 The $17,000 funding levels, 75 man-days assistance, and wildlife feeder maintenance measures sought by WDFW would provide direct wildlife habitat benefits and is include within staff's recommendation for $30,000 funding level obligation.
224 Chelan PUD proposes to control noxious weeds as an activity funded under its draft Wildlife Habitat Plan, Although a separate noxious weed control plan is not contemplated , we estimate it would cost about $2,000 to develop such a plan and $2,000 annually to complete shoreline surveys for noxious weeds. The Forest Service would require (Condition No. 15) that Chelan PUD prepare and implement a Weed Management Plan that includes implementing noxious weed control on Forest Service lands affected by project-related activities, including periodic surveys and monitoring the effectiveness of any control methods. Costs associated with control methods and monitoring would depend on the extent of the infestation and the control methods. While these costs are not excessive, and such control efforts would benefit native vegetation and wildlife, and would be consistent with state and local and federal efforts, it would be difficult to determine if project activities were responsible for the occurrence and spread of noxious weeds. The exception to this are land-disturbing activities (i.e. recreational site developments). Where land-disturbing activities may occur, pre- and post-construction surveys would assist in identifying the spread of noxious weeds and would dictate appropriate control methods. Therefore, to the extent that Chelan PUD is willing to conduct such measures and these measures are consistent with the Final Lake Chelan Wildlife Habitat Management Plan, we would agree with the development and implementation of the Weed Management Plan.
Sensitive Species Management Plan
The Forest Service would require (Condition No. 11) that Chelan PUD develop and implement a Sensitive Species Management Plan that includes noxious weed prevention and control in the vicinity of populations of western lady's tresses, giant heleborine, Sierra cliffbrake and common bluecup adjacent to the reservoir. The plan would include annual monitoring of the plant populations' response to the weed controls until weeds were no longer competing with sensitive plants for a period of three years or more. Although it's unclear whether populations of these plant species are currently affected by project operations, noxious weeds have been found in association with several of the rare plant populations and appear to be the current major threat to these plant populations (Chelan PUD, 2000c). The seasonal flooding of vernal seeps and steep slopes may limit the ability of moist site plants (giant helleborine, common bluecup, and western lady's tresses) to expand their populations (Chelan PUD, 2000c). We estimate it would cost about $3,500 annually to implement noxious weed control and population monitoring of these known populations. These measures would ensure the viability of these rare plants in the project area and would be worth this minor cost.
225 Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP)
Chelan PUD has developed a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) to ensure that continued project operation would not adversely affect National Register- eligible historic properties. We expect to execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) to implement the CRMP as a condition of any new license. Executing the PA would have negligible cost.
Recreation Resources Management Plan (RRMP)
Chelan PUD proposes to implement a Recreation Resources Management Plan (RRMP) that includes several elements, addressed individually, below.
Management and operation of existing recreational facilities
Chelan PUD would continue their ownership and/or management and operation of existing project recreation facilities (Chelan Riverwalk Park, Old Mill Park, Manson Bay Park) located within the project boundary to assure continued public access to project lands and water. Annual operation and maintenance of the facilities is estimated at $204,000. an additional, licensed facility , the Shore Access Site; a small day-use site located about 200 feet to the East of Chelan Riverwalk Park and immediately adjacent to State Highway 97, is operated and maintained as part of Riverwalk Park.. Keeping Chelan Riverwalk Park, Old Mill Park, Manson Bay Park, and the Shore Access site as licensed project features, as proposed, would ensure that Chelan PUD is ultimately responsible for their operation and maintenance. Given the high level of recreational use at Lake Chelan, this would be a long term benefit, ensuring public access to the lower zone lake area where most land is in private ownership.
Forest Service and Park Service Dock Replacement
Both Chelan PUD's proposed RRMP and Forest Service Condition 8 include an analysis of Chelan PUD’s share of ongoing project-related impacts on docks, and maintenance and replacement of docks during a new license term. We said in the DEA that we were uncertain how project effects on docks would be quantified since it appears that natural wave action so overshadows project-related vertical movement that any effects are very minor. However, in their DEA comments, Chelan proposes a method for estimating the project's share of the cost of replacing docks over the term of a new license. This method is based on the fact that due to the project's seasonal drawdown, floating docks on Lake Chelan have to be extended farther into the lake than they would need to be under a more natural lake level regime. This method of estimating the
226 project's impact on dock costs seems reasonable. For Forest Service docks, the cost over the term of a new license would be $136,857; the cost for Park Service docks is currently unknown.
Whitewater Boating
Chelan PUD proposes to provide scheduled water releases into the bypassed reach on two weekends each in July and September. Chelan estimates these whitewater releases would reduce generation by 384 MWh annually; based on our estimate of the value of power, this amount of generation would cost about $13,200 to replace. Working with American Whitewater, Chelan PUD would conduct a three-year study to monitor demand for the flow releases to determine whether whitewater releases beyond the three-year study term are justified. American Whitewater also recommends a post-licensing study, but our assessment is that their monitoring would be used to fine-tune a whitewater release program that would continue through the term of a new license. American Whitewater also requests real-time flow information for the Chelan River below the project dam. Finally, there is disagreement regarding the flow release registration quota, whether not only must at least 6 boaters register to trigger a release, but that also at least 6 boaters must actually arrive to participate for a flow to be released.
We recommend the RRMP include a plan for continued, post licensing study of actual use of flow releases to enable a better-informed decision on whether releases should continue, because we don't know how much use this resource would attract. If a long-term release program is ultimately included in the license, the experience and data obtained from the study would be very helpful in designing a release program. We understand that making study releases contingent on an actual number of boaters present would avoid making a release for only a few boaters, and would penalize those who upheld their commitment to participate. However, we would expect a long-term release program would be contingent on a threshold number of participants, so we see no reason for a study to be designed differently. For the final plan, Chelan PUD and American Whitewater are free to negotiate that threshold number. Finally, providing real-time flow information would benefit potential users of spill flows whether or not a long-term flow release program is implemented and would have little cost, so we recommend that provision be included in the plan.
Access to Chelan River through trail development
Chelan PUD proposes to contribute $250,000 (about a $21,000 annual cost) to develop a non-motorized, non-paved, multi-use trail in Reach 1 of the Chelan River bypassed reach, and to study the feasibility of extending the existing Riverwalk Loop trail and providing managed access to other sections of the Chelan River. The new trail would
227 add about 2.2 miles of multi-use trail in the lower zone which would double the length of existing trails. We recommend this enhancement because: (1) existing trails are nearly at capacity during weekdays during the peak recreation season; (2) trail use is expected to increase during a new license term; and (3) the bypassed reach area is currently underutilized for recreation. Our preference would be that the new trail be connected to existing trails, but we have no information on the cost and feasibility of making such a connection.
Reserved Land
Chelan PUD's proposal to reserve project-owned lands over the penstock and near Water Street for future recreational and/or public development could help meet future recreation facility needs in the lower zone area. Currently the cost and viability of developing these lands is unknown, but we recommend that any new license include a requirement that these lands be reserved.
Advisory Commitees
Interior would require and Chelan PUD proposes to establish Resource Coordinating Committees for water quality, fisheries, erosion control, recreation, and cultural resources plus an adaptive management group that meets once every five years to assure that the terms and conditions and associated license articles are: cost efficient and effective, objectively monitored and evaluated; and representative of the best available management and scientific information. In their PDEA, Chelan PUD estimates the cost of administering these committees at $124,000 annually. It appears that this cost is Chelan's estimate of the cost of such administration for all of the resource plans included in their proposal, and since we are recommending these plans (with some modifications) we have no basis for disagreeing with this measure.
We are not recommending the following measures:
Stehekin Area Sedimentation Monitoring
Chelan PUD proposes, and Interior would require as part of Condition 9, monitoring of sedimentation at the Stehekin River mouth as part of the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan. Under that plan, Chelan PUD would provide up to $90,000 to monitor the river channel near its mouth for long term changes. We are not recommending this measure because were are not convinced operation of the project is causing adverse sedimentation effects. Sedimentation study results indicate that while some sediment deposition exists in the Stehekin flats area and will likely continue, the Stehekin River, even after 70 years of project operation, maintains a well-defined channel
228 across the delta at the mouth of the river. Therefore, most sediment is likely being transported beyond the flats into deeper parts of the lake. Lake level management appears to be a relatively minor factor on sedimentation when compared with river gradient and flow volume, and other factors, especially the effect of fill placement. Fill, placed at the mouth of the river by landowners, has changed the shape and alignment of the channel both upstream and downstream of the fill. It also creates a backwater effect that is about 4 times more than the effect of a full reservoir. In addition, Interior states, and we agree, that monitoring likely will not allow for separation of the effects of reservoir operation from the effects of other significant influences.
Lake Chelan Water Quality Monitoring
Interior recommends under Section 10(a) of the FPA, that for the protection, public health and utilization of the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Chelan PUD be required to implement a comprehensive Lake Chelan water quality monitoring program. However, we believe that Chelan PUD's operation of the project has little, if any, influence on Lake Chelan water quality and while we acknowledge that monitoring would be valuable for maintaining and protecting Lake Chelan water quality, we find no significant connection to the project suggesting that this should be Chelan PUD's responsibility. The cost of this measure is not known.
Supplementing Minimum Flows in Dry Years
Under Chelan and the agencies' proposal, minimum flows to the bypassed reach would be supplemented during the late spring and early summer in average and wet years. In comments on the DEA, American Rivers states that the Commission should consider supplementing flows during dry years. American Rivers states that the additional flows may be needed most in dry years to ensure a healthy aquatic ecosystem. American Rivers did not specify what impacts could be prevented by supplementing flows nor how much additional flow would be needed.
The proposed 80 cfs minimum flow would provide 77 percent of the maximum habitat for adult cutthroat trout and 83-100 percent of the maximum habitat for suckers. Supplementing this flow could increase cutthroat trout habitat but it would have little effect on sucker habitat. Additionally, it is unclear why additional habitat would be needed more during a dry year than at any other time. Chelan has proposed to supplement flows during warm periods to reduce increases in water temperatures, which could be more common during a dry year; however, during a dry year with cool water temperatures, there would not be any supplementation. Supplementing bypassed reach flows during a dry year when water is scarce would have much greater impacts to other resources such as lake level management, recreation, and generation than would occur
229 during an average or wet year. Because there is no apparent need to supplement flows during dry years and there would be corresponding adverse affects on other resources as a result, we do not recommend requiring Chelan to implement this measure.
Deep Water Minimum Flow Intake in Lake Chelan
To provide minimum flows to the bypassed reach, Chelan proposes to divert water from the penstock. Water taken from this location would generally come from the surface of the lake and be some of the warmest water within Lake Chelan. American Rivers suggests that Chelan PUD consider pumping cool water from deeper portions of the lake to provide the minimum flows. In the CRBEIP, Chelan presents an analysis indicating that to obtain cold water for the bypassed reach, a 5-mile-long pipeline costing $12,500,000 - $25,000,000 would needed.
In reviewing water quality data collected during prefiling, we believe that it may be possible to obtain cool water from a location only 2 miles up-lake from the dam rather than 5 miles. We estimate that constructing a pipeline from this location would cost between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000. While this measure would likely ensure that water temperatures within the bypassed reach would remain within the suitable range for cutthroat trout, other factors such as the cost of lost generation and potentially limiting factors such as benthic macroinvertbrate production and food availability combine to make this both a costly and potentially risky proposal. Because of this, we do not recommend Chelan be required to construct a pipeline structure to obtain minimum flows from deeper portions of Lake Chelan.
Columbia River Flow Augmentation
NMFS suggests that water stored in Lake Chelan could be used to augment Columbia River flows and increase outmigration survival of juvenile salmon and steelhead. Outmigration of anadromous salmonids generally occurs from April through August. When comparing the proposed operation to an estimated natural release scenario from Lake Chelan, flows would generally be 1,000 cfs greater in April, 3,900 cfs greater in May, and 2,400 cfs greater in June under natural flows (without the project). Flows during July and August would be essentially the same. This natural release scenario would effect a 0.0 to 2.0 percent increase in Columbia River flows. However, if the management of Lake Chelan for recreation and generation was reduced to a lower priority, the project could provide as much as 11,000 cfs for 30 days during the spring, which would constitute a 5.6 to 10.0 percent increase in Columbia River flows. In terms of increased survival of outmigrating salmonids, the precise benefit of these releases is uncertain. However, a recent review of flow augmentation by the Independent Scientific Advisory Board to the Northwest Power Planning Council stated that the assertion that
230 in-river smolt survival is proportionally enhanced by any amount of added water, is no longer supportable. Therefore, it is possible that adding flows from Lake Chelan would have no effect on outmigrant survival. Release of these flows would potentially require spills which would reduce generation and cause lake drawdowns during the summer, which would impact recreation. Because the benefits of this measure are uncertain and the costs are likely to be very high, we do not recommend that Chelan be required to augment Columbia River flows.
Introduction of Anadromous Fish to Lake Chelan
CRITFC suggests that the passage of juvenile and adult salmon, with priority for sockeye salmon, through the bypassed reach and into Lake Chelan be explored under a range of flows during the new license as part of an adaptive management process. Under its Comprehensive Fish Management Plan, Chelan PUD would prohibit introduction of new exotic species to Lake Chelan, including attempts to establish anadromous populations of salmon and steelhead.
We believe Lake Chelan was historically inaccessible to anadromous salmonids 47; therefore, any effort to introduce anadromous fish to Lake Chelan would serve as an enhancement measure rather than mitigation for ongoing projects effects. Introduction of anadromous salmonids to the lake would likely include providing passage through or around the bypassed reach, supplementing smolt production to sustain the population, installing protective measures to prevent project entrainment, and potentially collecting and hauling juveniles from the area of the lake outlet to the Columbia River. In total, we expect these measures to be quite costly and at the same time it appears unlikely that a successful population would be established. Additionally, the agencies responsible for managing the Lake Chelan and Columbia River fisheries have provided no indication that introduction of anadromous fish to Lake Chelan would be desirable or consistent with recently developed management goals. Based on this information we are not recommending that Chelan PUD be required to further investigate the potential introduction of anadromous salmonids to Lake Chelan.
Acquisition and Management of Riparian and Upland Habitats
47CRITFC indicates it is currently engaged in a paleolimnological study to examine the historical presence of salmon in Lake Chelan. CRITFC suggests that it is premature to conclude that salmon were not in the lake until the results of the study are finalized. CRITFC indicated the report would be complete in 2003. At this time, neither a final or draft report has been filed with the Commission.
231 The Forest Service would require (Condition No. 12) Chelan PUD to acquire or otherwise provide management and protection of lands providing or capable of providing at least 10 acres of early-mid seral riparian/wetland habitat within the Chelan Basin and 70 acres of shrub-steppe big game winter range habitat located along the northern side of the reservoir between Safety Harbor and Manson as mitigation for the continued inundation of 361 acres of National Forest System land. WDFW recommends (Section 10(j) Recommendation No. 29) that Chelan PUD acquire a minimum of 610 acres of wetlands, riparian areas, or land capable of being enhanced to create a mix of wetlands, riparian areas, and shore lands associated with uplands to mitigate the impacts of continued inundation of 655 acres of valuable wildlife habitat on non-federal lands. However, in their comments on the DEA, WDFW notes that there are no lands capable of developing significant riparian vegetation and thus focuses its recommendations on acquiring or obtaining easements to manage shrub-steppe habitats on Lake Chelan's north shore between Safety Harbor and Manson.
The shrub-steppe habitats identified by WDFW and FS are heavily used by wintering mule deer, likely subject to development pressure, and may be in need of restoration or management. Acquiring or obtaining easements with the rights to manage these areas for wintering mule deer should help maintain, if not boost, survival of the north shore deer herd during severe winters (the north shore deer herd does not have access to other large wintering areas associated with the state game areas along the Columbia River). We estimate acquisition of 690 acres of riparian, wetland, and low- elevation shrub steppe upland habitats, if such habitats are available, would cost $6,693,000. Added to this would be annual management costs of $10,35048 (annual cost to the project of about $566,000).
Annual reservoir fluctuations create an environment that prevents colonization and establishment of vegetation, resulting in areas during the winter drawdown that are void of vegetation and provide poor wildlife habitat. The amount of habitat having limited wildlife value is unknown and cannot be accurately determined from the data on record. However, because riparian and wetland habitats are naturally limited by the steep topography and glacial influences of the basin, the greatest effectsare limited to areas with suitable substrate for riparian vegetation establishment—far less than the 690 acres identified by the Forest Service and WDFW. Acquiring or obtaining an easement to manage these lands would increase winter range under direct state or federal management
48This estimate assumes an annual habitat maintenance cost of $15 per acre. WDFW apparently would have Chelan PUD implement any habitat improvements in the first year of acquiring the property. If significant habitat restoration efforts were needed, the initial costs could increase by $345,000.
232 by about 6 percent. Further, implementing Chelan PUD's Wildlife Habitat Managment Plan would improve wildlife habitat conditions on a significant portion of existing habitat in the basin, including habitats along the north shore of Lake Chelan, at a much reduced cost to the project, about $30,000 annually. Such actions would also improve survival of wintering deer herds and other wildlife and thus would be adequate to protect and enhance wildlife resources.
Endangered Species and Sensitive Species Consultation Plans
Interior (Section 10(j) Recommendation No. 27) and Forest Service (Section 10(a) Recommendation No. 3) recommend that Chelan PUD prepare an endangered species consultation plan that would describe how Chelan PUD would coordinate and consult with FWS, NMFS, Forest Service, and the Commission on matters related to proposed or listed species that may be affected by project-related activities during the term of the license. The plan would describe the process Chelan PUD would follow for completing a BA, develop procedures to minimize or mitigate effects on newly listed species, describe how measures to reduce effects would be monitored to ensure their effectiveness, and include provisions for updating the plan as new species are listed. The Forest Service would similarly require (Condition No. 11) Chelan PUD to prepare a sensitive species consultation plan that describes how Chelan PUD would coordinate with the Forest Service for managing sensitive species and survey and manage species.
Interior's and Forest Service's reasoning for such measures is to ensure future consultation and consideration of measures for threatened and rare species by the licensee and the Commission. While development of such plans would represent a nominal cost ($2,000) to the project and may assist the Commission in identifying actions that could require future consultation with FWS or NMFS, we question the need for such measures. Any license issued for the project would contain the Commission's standard reservation of authority to reopen the license for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources, including threatened and endangered species, sensitive species, and survey and manage species (assuming that such designations are still applicable). Any action requiring a change to project operations would require Commission approval and would be subject to consultation with the agencies, including section 7 consultation as appropriate. Moreover, it is the Commission's practice to work with licensees and resource agencies and other interested parties to address listed and rare species needs following the issuance of a license. Procedures for dealing with newly listed species or new information suggesting a potential project effect on listed species or critical habitat
233 post-licensing have been developed and agreed on by FWS and Forest Service.49 We have considered the agencies comments, but still find the recommended endangered species and sensitive species consultation plans to be redundant with our standard license requirements and practices and therefore do not need to be included in any future license.50
Forest Service facilities
Part of Forest Service Condition 8 would require Chelan PUD to make 22 acres available for recreational use or otherwise expanding semi-primitive, non-motorized recreational capacity in the Middle to Upper Zones during a new license term would benefit users. However, the primary justification for this condition appears to be based on the 361 acres of Forest Service land inundated when the project was constructed, approximately 22 acres of which were suitable for developed recreation sites. This is inconsistent with the Commission's baseline, and we do not believe there is a documented need at this time for additional capacity.
Park Service facilities (Interior Conditions 11, 12)
Chelan PUD's funding of recreational facility improvements at upper zone sites (a floating dock and parking enhancements at Stehekin Landing and a floating dock and campground at Riddle Creek) would enhance year-round recreational use of these areas. Off-loading of passenger ferries would be easier, parking would be improved, and recreational capacity would be increased. However, we are not recommending these measures as license requirements because: (1) it appears the capacity of middle and upper zone sites would be sufficient well into a new license term; (2) although the proposed change in lake level management could cause a significant increase in early season use,
49See: Work Group on the Coordination of Federal Mandates. 2000. Interagency Task Force Report on Improving Coordination of ESA Section 7 Consultation with the FERC Licensing Process. December 12, 2000. (http://www.ferc.gov/hydro/docs/esa_final.pdf and www.ferc.gov/hydro/docs/esafigs_final.pdf). See also: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2001. Hydropower licensing and endangered species: a guide for applicants, contractors, and staff. December 2001. (http://www.ferc.gov/hydro/docs/esa_guide.pdf).
50We note, however, that the sensitive species consultation plan would be made part of any license issued if the Forest Service includes the condition in the final terms and conditions filed pursuant to section 4(e) of the FPA.
234 facility capacity increases would be most likely needed in the lower zone before they are needed in the middle and upper zone; and (3) we are not convince that operation of the project is significantly affecting dock operation and maintenance. The cost of these measures is unknown.
Interpretation and education program
Forest Service's recommendation that Chelan PUD develop and implement a comprehensive Recreational Information and Education program to be used to complement efforts underway locally and Interior's recommendation that Chelan PUD provide environmental, interpretive, and educational opportunities to park visitors would probably benefit visitors. However, we are not recommending the Forest Service measure because there is already a significant amount of public information available on Lake Chelan recreation opportunities. We are not recommending Interior's measure because it does not address an ongoing project impact. The cost of this measure is unknown.
Lake Chelan Legacy Proposal
We are not recommending some measures in the Legacy Group's proposal that Chelan PUD provide a total of $ 9.0 million in matching funds for recreation projects in the lower zone for a variety of reasons. We are not recommending $2.8 million for the City's Lakeshore Park Complex because we are not convinced operation of the project has caused the erosion issues at this site. We are not recommending $475,000 for lake access micro parks because, although we are recommending Chelan PUD reserve lakeshore land it owns for future recreational use (discussed above), its unclear whether or how those lands could be used for recreational purposes. We are not recommending $6.09 million for the proposed Lower Lake Chelan Train System because we believe Chelan PUD's proposed bypassed reach trail would help address the need for additional trails in the area, and because the size of the trail and cost is beyond what we consider a reasonable enhancement. We believe the Legacy Group's proposal that Chelan PUD prepare a Chelan Gorge Managed Access Program would essentially be addressed through our recommedation that a new license include Chelan PUD's proposed trail for that area. Finally, the group's proposal that Chelan PUD reserve land for future recreational use would be addressed by our recommendation that Chelan PUD, as proposed reserve project-owned lands over the penstock and near Water Street for future recreational and/or public development.
B. Conclusion
235 Based on our independent analysis of the Lake Chelan Project, we recommend continued operation of the project with our recommended measures. The project would produce about 364,982 megawatt hours of energy, would have a net annual benefit of about $7,576,000 ($21/Mwh), and soils, water quality, fisheries, terrestrial, recreational and cultural resources would be improved.
VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES
Under the provisions of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission shall include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project.
Section 10(j) of the FPA states that whenever the Commission believes that any fish and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent with the purposes and the requirements of the FPA or other applicable law, the Commission and the agency shall attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency.
Table 26 lists the federal and state recommendations filed subject to Section 10(j), and whether the recommendations are adopted under the staff alternative. Recommendations that we consider outside the scope of Section 10(j) have been considered under Section 10(a) of the FPA and are addressed in the specific resource sections of this document.
We are making a preliminary determination that the WDFW's section 10(j) recommendation to develop a plan to protect and exclude fingerling salmonids from the project intakes is inconsistent with the public interest standard of Section 4(e) and the comprehensive planning standard of Section 10(a) of the FPA, and consequently we do not adopt this recommendation under the staff alternative. There is little evidence that juvenile or adult salmonids, especially cutthroat trout or bull trout, are entrained at the Lake Chelan Project intakes or lost over the project spillway. However, the cutthroat trout population is currently depressed and entrainment or spill of these fish could increase if the lake population recovers or increases. Therefore, rather than proceeding with an action that could result in little or no benefit at this time, we are recommending that Chelan PUD be required to monitor fish losses at the project intakes and spillway as the native cutthroat trout population increases and only develop a plan and install protective measures if significant losses are measured in the future.
236 We are making a preliminary determination that Interior's and NMFS' section 10(j) recommendation to provide a minimum flow of 500 cfs to the project tailrace from October 1 to July 31 each year is inconsistent with the substantial evidence standard of Section 313(b) of the FPA, consequently we do not adopt this recommendation under the staff alternative. Existing data suggests that no minimum flow would be needed to protect incubating eggs from decreases in intragravel DO or flow. Additionally, Chelan is proposing to monitor for redd dewatering or poor intragravel water quality and provide flows on an as needed basis. Therefore, we conclude that at this time there is no evidence to indicate the recommended flows would be necessary and we are instead recommending that Chelan PUD implement their proposed flow security measures, monitor flows in the project tailrace, and provide flows to prevent dewatering or poor intragravel conditions when necessary.
We are making a preliminary determination that NMFS' and WDFW's section 10(j) recommendation to install and operate a gage in the project tailrace for monitoring minimum flows is inconsistent with the public interest standard of Section 4(e) and the comprehensive planning standard of Section 10(a) of the FPA, and consequently we do not adopt this recommendation under the staff alternative. As we said , we do not recommend Chelan PUD be required to provide a minimum tailrace flow; therefore, no gage would be needed to monitor these flows. Additionally, we expect that the calibration of any tailrace gage would be costly since the Rocky Reach pool backwaters the Lake Chelan tailrace. Lastly, we would expect that for the purposes of monitoring flow effects on spawning salmon or steelhead, Chelan PUD could reasonably approximate discharge to the project tailrace from generation and operating conditions. Therefore, we are not recommending that Chelan PUD be required to install a tailrace gage.
We are making a preliminary determination that Interior's section 10(j) recommendation to follow daily and seasonally ramping rates varying from 0 to 2 inches per hour is inconsistent with the substantial evidence standard of Section 313(b) of the FPA, consequently we do not adopt this recommendation under the staff alternative. Chelan PUD, WDFW, WDOE, and NMFS are recommending that Chelan PUD conduct all minimum flow and whitewater flow changes in the bypassed reach using a ramping rate of 2 inches per hour at all times of the day and all seasons. Our analysis suggests that this ramping rate would be adequate to protect trout and other species in reaches 1, 2, and 3, and that due to the limited number of projected changes in flow within reach 4, there is no need for stricter ramping rates to protect chinook salmon and steelhead fry. Interior provided no information to indicate why its recommended ramping rates are needed nor why they would be more appropriate than the ramping rates recommended by Chelan PUD, NMFS, WDOE, and WDFW. Therefore, we conclude that there is no evidence to indicate Interior's recommended ramping rates are necessary and we are
237 instead recommending Chelan PUD be required to follow the ramping rates proposed by Chelan PUD, NMFS, WDOE, and WDFW.
In the DEA, we made a preliminary determination that Interior's section 10(j) recommendation to restore gravels in Reach 4 to pre-dam fish production potential is inconsistent with the substantial evidence standard of Section 313(b) of the FPA, consequently we did not adopt this recommendation under the staff alternative. Chelan PUD proposes to add boulders for cover and pool formation and use other standard stream habitat restoration techniques to create and maintain gravel for salmon and steelhead spawning and incubation in Reach 4. Chelan PUD would add or move gravels in Reach 4 as part of these habitat improvements and we expect that Chelan PUD's proposed habitat measures combined with minimum flows would adequately restore fish production in Reach 4. However, we have no evidence to suggest that gravel supplementation would need to recreate pre-dam conditions to have productive conditions for salmon and steelhead. In comments on the DEA, Interior indicated that gravel supplementation to pre-dam conditions may not be necessary. However, to ensure this issue gets addressed, we are recommending that Chelan PUD define, in consultation with the fish and wildlife agencies, an appropriate amount of gravel supplementation as part of its final design plans for habitat restoration in Reach 4.
In response to the DEA, Interior recommended that we reconsider adopting their recommendation because such a plan would be advantageous to the applicant in streamlining future management actions to address federally listed species, similar to the benefit identified for the Sensitive Species Consultation Plan required by the FS. Interior also noted that having both plans–a Sensitive Species Plan and a Endangered Species Consultation Plan–would serve to prioritize the importance of addressing specific species based on their respective population indices. We decline to recommend adopting this measure for reasons already stated even though it would be a nominal cost to the project.
We do not recommend adopting WDFW's recommendation that Chelan PUD acquire and manage 610 acres of wetlands, riparian areas, or land capable of being enhanced to create a mix of wetlands, riparian areas, and shore lands associated with uplands to mitigate the impacts of continued inundation of 655 acres of wildlife habitat on non-federal lands. Impacts to riparian and wetland resources are expected to be minor in scope and extent. Lands capable of developing significant stands of riparian vegetation do not exist adjacent to Lake Chelan. Acquisition of 610 acres could cost $5,917,000; management of those land would cost $9,150 annually. This would result in an
238 annualized cost to the project of $.51 Implementation of the Final Lake Chelan Wildlife Habitat Management Plan would cost $30,000 annually and would be sufficient to manage and enhance wildlife habitat conditions over large area (up to 2000 acres) each year. . Therefore, we find that WDFW's recommendation may be inconsistent with the comprehensive planning standard of Section 10(a) of the FPA.
In their comments on the DEA, WDFW states that bald eagle and big game surveys and any monitoring efforts should be funded separately because the cost of the surveys ($15,000 annually) and monitoring substantially reduces funds available for wildlife habitat improvement projects. We agree and are recommending that Chelan PUD commit no less than $30,000 annually to habitat management actions that directly benefit wildlife resources associated with Lake Chelan..
51This estimate is prorated from the total levelized cost of purchasing 690 acres of habitat at $823,000 annually (Table 18).
239 Table 26. Analysis of fish and wildlife agency recommendations for the Lake Chelan Project.
Agency Within scope of Staff Recommendation Agency Section 10(j) Annual cost Recommendation
1. Develop a WDFW Yes. Included in Adopt. Considered the Supportive Fish item 23. same as item 23. Management and Coordination Plan within one year of license issuance.
2. Organize and Interior,W No, not a specific Unknown part Adopt under Section support the Fish DFW measure to protect, of $124,000 10(a). Advisory mitigate, or enhance for all resource Committee (FAC). fish and wildlife committees resources.
3. In consultation with WDFW Yes. $8,300. Adopt. the FAC, develop and implement a program providing for native adfluvial fish access into Lake Chelan tributary streams throughout the term of any new license.
4. In consultation with NMFS, Yes. $161,000 Adopt. the FAC, prepare WDFW and file with the Commission a lake level management plan to reduce the duration of full lake and the amount and magnitude of involuntary spill into the bypassed reach.
240 5. In consultation with WDFW No, not a specific Unknown Adopt under Section the FAC, prepare measure to protect, 10(a). and file with the mitigate, or enhance Commission a plan fish and wildlife to prevent, contain, resources. and restore shoreline erosion.
6. In consultation with WDFW No, not a specific Unknown. Adopt under Section the FAC, prepare measure to protect, 10(a). and file with the mitigate, or enhance Commission a large fish and wildlife woody debris resources. distribution and monitoring plan.
7. In consultation WDFW Yes. $30,000 Adopt. with the FAC, prepare a plan to modify the hatchery for the restoration of native adfluvial westslope cutthroat trout and conduct a pilot study to elicit information for the long-term support of the kokanee salmon fishery.
8. In consultation WDFW Yes. Unknown. Adopt. with the FAC, prepare and file with the Commission a plan to reconstruct and operate the existing adfluvial trout spawning and incubation channel at Twenty-Five Mile Creek.
241 Table 26. Continued
Agency Within scope of Staff Recommendation Agency Section 10(j) Annual cost Recommendation
9. In consultation with WDFW Yes. $7,500 Adopt. the FAC, prepare and file with the Commission a plan to survey for annual spring and fall adfluvial salmonid spawing.
10. In consultation with WDFW Yes. Included in Adopt. the FAC, finalize a item 9. plan, including funding and implementation, to provide fish population surveys in Lake Chelan tributary streams.
11. In consultation with WDFW Yes. Included in Adopt. the FAC, prepare item 9. and file with the Commission a plan, including funding and implementation, to provide sport angler harvest surveys in the Lake Chelan watershed.
12. In consultation with WDFW Yes. Unknown. Not adopted. the FAC, prepare Inconsistent with the and file with the comprehensive Commission a plan, planning standard of including funding Section 10(a). and Recommend continued implementation, to monitoring of protect and exclude entrainment as desired salmonids of species are restored. fingerling size and larger from the project intakes.
242 Table 26. Continued
Agency Within scope of Staff Recommendation Agency Section 10(j) Annual cost Recommendation
13. Within 6 months of Interior, Yes. $525,000 Adopt. license issuance NMFS, implement the WDFW instream flow schedule listed in Table 8 of the PDEA. (Interior did not specifically cite Table 8; however, their recommended flows appear to be based on these flows)
14. Within 1 year of Interior, Yes. $166,000 Adopt. license issuance, NMFS, develop and WDFW implement, in consultation with the resource agencies, designs to achieve the tailrace channel and reach 4 habitat improvements.
15. Within 1 year of Interior, Yes. Included in Adopt. license issuance, NMFS, item 13. develop, construct, WDFW and maintain structures or facilities necessary to maintain adequate flows within Reach 4 in the event of a failure of the primary water delivery system.
243 Table 26. Continued
Agency Within scope of Staff Recommendation Agency Section 10(j) Annual cost Recommendation
16. Within 1 year of Interior, Yes. $20,000 Adopt. license issuance, NMFS, facilitate the WDFW development of detailed plans for monitoring and evaluating the benefits of measures implemented in the bypassed reach and the tailrace.
17. Within 1 year of NMFS, Yes. Unknown. Not adopted. license issuance, WDFW Inconsistent with the develop and comprehensive implement a gaging planning standard of plan to monitor Section 10(a). Not required recommending streamflows in the minimum tailrace flow bypassed reach and (see item 19); tailrace. therefore, gauging not necessary.
18. Design, construct, NMFS Yes. Unknown. Adopt. and maintain the proposed pump stations in the tailrace in a manner that minimizes attraction and impingement of juvenile salmon and steelhead.
244 Table 26. Continued
Agency Within scope of Staff Recommendation Agency Section 10(j) Annual cost Recommendation
19. From October 1 - Interior, Yes. Unknown. Not adopted. July 31 each year, NMFS Inconsistent with the provide a minimum substantial evidence flow of 500 cfs to standard of Section the project tailrace 313(b). Minimum to protect spawning flows not needed for salmon and incubation period and incubating may not be needed for steelhead eggs. spawning period. Recommend monitoring relationship between flows and tailrace spawning,
20. Reservation of Interior No, not a specific None. Not adopted. authority to amend, measure to protect, modify, or add to mitigate, or enhance Section 10(j) fish and wildlife recommendations. resources.
21. Comply with the Interior Yes. Unknown. Not adopted. following ramping Inconsistent with the rates for increasing substantial evidence and decreasing standard of Section flows in the 313(b). Ramping rates bypassed reach: proposed by Chelan PUD would provide Day equle or better February 16-June 15 protection under 0 Inches per hour virtually all conditions. June 16-October 31 1 Inch per hour November 1-February 15 2 Inches per hour
Night November 1-June 15 2 Inches per hour June 16-October 31 1 Inch per hour
245 Table 26. Continued
Agency Within scope of Staff Recommendation Agency Section 10(j) Annual cost Recommendation
22. Supplement gravels Interior Yes. Unknown. Not adopted. in Reach 4 to Inconsistent with the restore pre-dam fish substantial evidence production potential standard of Section and ensure no net 313(b). Recommend loss due to habitat enhancement in disruption of Reach 4 that would bedload transport. include some gravel supplementation; however, no evidence that restoring to pre- dam levels would be necessary to achieve goals.
23. Within 2 years of Interior Yes. $45,800 (sum Adopt. license issuance, of items 3,7, prepare and and 9) implement a Lake Chelan Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan (CFMP). In addition to the measures recommended above by WDFW (items 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, & 16), Interior recommends that the CFMP includes items 24, 25, and 26 below.
24. Conduct genetic Interior Yes. Included in Adopt. analyses at 5 year item 9. intervals to determine the extent of cutthroat trout hybridization in Lake Chelan tributaries.
246 Table 26. Continued
Agency Within scope of Staff Recommendation Agency Section 10(j) Annual cost Recommendation
25. Provide funding Interior Yes. Included in Adopt. and support to item 9. develop and implement a bull trout recovery and evaluation plan for the Chelan basin.
26. Provide annual Interior Yes. Included in Adopt. funding and support item 9. to conduct monitoring and evaluation programs to include eradication and control of non- native fish species, assessment of burbot populations, and bioenergetics studies of competition, predation, and lake productivity to assess impacts of non-native fish on native fish populations.
27. Within 1 year of Interior No-not a specific fish nominal Not adopted; standard license issuance but and wildlife protection article 15 would suffice before any ground measure disturbing activities, prepare a threatened and endangered species consultation plan.
247 Table 26. Continued
Agency Within scope of Staff Recommendation Agency Section 10(j) Annual cost Recommendation
28. Fund the WDFW Yes $30,000 Adopted. development and implementation of a wildlife protection and management plan that comprises a comprehensive program of wildlife protection, mitigation, and enhancement, including maintenance and monitoring.
29. Fund acquisition WDFW Yes Not Adopted. Habitat and management of gains do not warrant a minimum of 610 the excessive cost. acres of wetlands Inconsistent with and riparian areas sections 4(e) and 10(a) or lands capable of of the FPA. being enhanced to create a mix of wetlands, riparian areas, and shore lands associated with uplands.
30. Fund wildlife WDFW Yes Included in the Adopted to the extent protection and cost of item 28 that the costs and management except surveys measures are consistent actions including: are an with and included in 1) twelve big game additional the Final Lake Chelan and eagle $15,000 Wildlife Habitat Plan. population surveys per year; 2) $17,000 per year for big game habitat improvement; 3) 75 man-days per year of labor assistance to WDFW; and, 4) maintain the condition and feed stocking of 4 winter wildlife feeders.
248 Table 26. Continued
Agency Within scope of Staff Recommendation Agency Section 10(j) Annual cost Recommendation
31. As part of the WDFW Yes Unknown Adopted . Wildlife Plan described in item 28, develop guidelines for monitoring enhancement efforts: 1) interim goals to ensure successful plan implementation; 2) an evaluation schedule with predetermined review targets; 3) adequate funding and staff to perform monitoring; and, 4) a contingency plan to help enhancement efforts respond to changing conditions and correct omissions that are identified during the implementation plan.
32. Organize, support, WDFW No. Not a specific $500 Adopted . and host a wildlife wildlife protection coordinating measure. committee that would assist in development of the Wildlife Plan and review and approve wildlife lands proposed for acquisition.
249 IX. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, and conserving waterways affected by the project. Under Section 10(a)(2), federal and state agencies filed 75 plans that address various resources in Washington; 16 of which are relevant to the Lake Chelan Project.52 No conflicts were found.
52 (1) Forest Service. 1990. Wenatchee National Forest land and resource management plan. Department of Agriculture, Wenatchee, Washington. 361 pp. and appendices. (2) Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. 1985. Washington Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, sixth edition. Olympia, Washington. March 1985. 309 pp. and appendices. (3) Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. 1995. State of Washington outdoor recreation and habitat: Assessment and policy plan 1995-2001. November 1995. 28 pp. and appendices. (4) Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. 1995. Voices of Washington. November 1995. 20 pp. (5) National Park Service. 1988. General management plan: North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. Department of the Interior, Sedro Woolley, Washington. June 29, 1988. 77 pp. (6)Northwest Power Planning Council. 2000. 2000 Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife program. Council document 2000-19. Portland, Oregon. December 2000 . (7) Northwest Power Planning Council. 1986. Northwest conservation and electric power plan. Portland, Oregon. Two volumes. (8) Washington State Department of Community Development. Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 1987. Resource protection planning process -- mid-Columbia study unit. Olympia, Washington. 81 pp. (9) Washington State Department of Ecology. 1994. State wetlands integration strategy. Olympia, Washington. December 1994. 80 pp. and appendices. (10) Washington State Department of Ecology. Shorelands and Costal Zone Management Program. 1986. Application of shoreline management to hydroelectric developments. Olympia, Washington. September 1986. 9 pp. (11) Washington State Department of Fisheries. 1987. Hydroelectric project assessment guidelines. Olympia, Washington. 91 pp. (12) Washington State Department of Game. 1986. 1987 strategies for Washington's wildlife.Olympia, Washington. December 1986. 300 pp. (13) Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1987. State of Washington natural heritage plan. Olympia, Washington. 108 pp. and appendices. (14) Washington State Energy Office. 1992. Washington State hydropower development resource protection plan. Olympia, Washington. December 1992. 34 pp. and attachments. (15) Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. 1990. Washington outdoors: assessment and policy plan, 1990-1995. Tumwater, Washington. April 1990. 94 pp. (16) Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. 1991. Washington State trails plan: policy and action document. Tumwater, Washington. June
250 X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Implementing the enhancement measures described in this environmental assessment would ensure that the environmental effects of continued project would be insignificant. On the basis of our environmental analysis, issuance of a new license for the Lake Chelan Project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
XI. LITERATURE CITED
Air Resource Specialists, Inc (ARS). 2001. Particle and visibility monitoring data analysis report, Stehekin, Washington. Prepared by Air Resource Specialists, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado, for Chelan PUD and the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. January 10, 2001. 192 pp.
Almack, J. A. (9 authors). 1993. North Cascades grizzly bear ecosystem evaluation, final report. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, Denver, Colorado. 156 pp.
Alverson, E. and J. Arnett. 1986. From the steppe to the alpine: a botanical reconnaissance of the Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Ridge area, Washington. R.Kruckeberg, editor. In Plant life of the North Cascades: Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Ridge, Stehekin Valley, and Glacier Peak. Douglasis Occasional Papers, Vol. 2. Washington Native Plant Society, Seattle, Washington.
Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. (Anchor). 2000. 1999 Water quality monitoring report - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Chelan PUD. September 26, 2000. 83 pp.
Archaeological Frontiers (AF). 2002. Traditional cultural property study - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637 and Rocky Reach Hydroelectric Project No. 2145, Eugene, Oregon. Prepared for Chelan PUD. January 7, 2002. 148 pp.
Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc., (AINW). 2002. Evaluation of cultural resources - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637, Portland, Oregon. Prepared for Chelan PUD. January 7, 2002. 168 pp.
1991. 59 pp. and map.
251 BioAnalysts. 2000. Potential productivity of anadromous salmonids in Lake Chelan, Washington, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Prepared by BioAnalysts, Inc., Redmond, Washington, for Chelan PUD. July 2000. 73 pp.
BioAnalysts. 2002. Effects of a powerhouse shutdown on summer/fall chinook salmon incubation success. Prepared by BioAnalysts, Inc., Redmond, Washington, for Chelan PUD. September 2002.
Brown, L. G. 1984. Lake Chelan fishery investigations. Report to Chelan PUD and Washington Department of Game.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service. 1994. Standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. April 1994. Portland, Oregon.
Carlander, K. D. 1969. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology. Vol. 1. Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press. 752 pp.
Cavender T. M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout Salvelinus confluentus (Suckley) from the American northwest. California Fish and Game 64(3): 139-174.
Chelan PUD. 1991 Application for raising the pool elevation from 707 feet to 710 feet, Rocky Reach Hydroelectric Project No. 2145.
Chelan PUD. 2000a. Inventory of shoreline erosion Lake Chelan and bypass reach study report - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington. September 1, 2000.
Chelan PUD. 2000b. Fish stranding survey notes from Jeff Osborn to the Lake Chelan Project relicensing files.
Chelan PUD. 2000c. A rare plant survey of the Lake Chelan Project area - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Prepared by Calypso Consulting, Seattle, Washington. September 26, 2000 45 pp.
Chelan PUD. 2000d. A rare plant survey of the Rocky Reach reservoir - final, Rocky Reach Hydroelectric Project No. 2145. Prepared by Calypso Consulting, Seattle, Washington. December 15, 2000 45 pp.
252 Chelan PUD. 2001a. Stehekin River sedimentation summary - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington. May 24, 2001.
Chelan PUD. 2001b. Evaluation of the backwater hydraulic profile of the lower Stehekin River - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington. January 15, 2001. 166 pp.
Chelan PUD. 2001c. Lake Chelan comprehensive fishery management plan - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington. December 7, 2001. 22 pp.
Chelan PUD. 2001d. Chelan River (bypassed reach) comprehensive management plan - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington. December 7, 2001. 22 pp.
Chelan PUD. 2001e. Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project recreation resources management plan - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Prepared by Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington; Howe Consulting, Inc., Seattle, Washington; and DES, Bothell, Washington for Chelan PUD. December 7, 2001. 98 pp.
Chelan PUD. 2001f. Erosion control treatments and concepts for Lake Chelan, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington, and Forest Service, Wenatchee, Washington, for Chelan PUD. December 7, 2001. 91 pp.
Chelan PUD. 2001g. Lake Chelan erosion control plan, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington, and Park Service, North Cascades Complex, Sedro Woolley, Washington, for Chelan PUD. December 7, 2001. 53 pp.
Chelan PUD. 2001h. Lake Chelan large woody debris management plan - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Lake Chelan Erosion Working Group Wenatchee, Washington, for Chelan PUD. December 7, 2001. 18 pp.
Chelan PUD. 2002a. Wildlife habitat plan - discussion-copy, Rocky Reach Hydroelectric Project No. 2145 and Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington. January 9, 2002. 8 pp.
253 Chelan PUD. 2002b. Water Quality 401 Certification Analysis - review draft, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington. January 25, 2002. 28 pp.
Chelan PUD. 2002c. Lake Chelan cultural resources management plan - revised final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington, and Morgan Consulting Services, Inc., Beverly, Washington for Chelan PUD. February 15, 2002. 114 pp.
Chelan PUD. 2002d. Stehekin area implementation plan - first draft, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington. February 15, 2002. 21 pp.
Chelan PUD. 2002e. Preliminary DEA, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637, Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Wenatchee, Washington. March 28, 2002
Chelan PUD. 2002f. Lake level management white paper - first draft, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington. February 25, 2002. 5 pp.
Chelan PUD and Forest Service. 2001. Survey monument location and re-establishment plan - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington, and Forest Service, Wenatchee, Washington. December 7, 2001. 5 pp.
Clements, C.D. and J. A. Young. 1997. A viewpoint: rangeland health and mule deer habitat. Journal of Range Management 50(2):129-138.
Congdon, G. 1995. Epilimnetic water quality in the Wapato Basin of Lake Chelan, summer 1995. Lake Chelan Water Quality Committee, Wenatchee, Washington.
Coyner, J. 1989. Status check on reported historic populations of Spiranthes diluvialis. Memorandum, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, Utah. 9 pp.
Coyner, J. 1990. Report for population study Spiranthes diluvialis. Unpublished report. Bureau of Land Management and Red Butte Gardens, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 29 pp.
254 Davis, D. and A. Johnson. 1994. Washington State pesticide monitoring program reconnaissance sampling of fish tissue and sediments. Washington Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington.
Davis, D. and D. Serdar. 1996. Washington State pesticide monitoring program – 1994 fish tissue and sediment sampling report. Publication No. 96-352. Washington Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington.
Dauble, D. D. 1980. Life history of the bridgelip sucker in the Central Columbia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 109:92:98.
Duke Engineering & Services (DES). 2000a. Lake Chelan fisheries investigation - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Prepared by Duke Engineering & Services, Inc., Bellingham, Washington for Chelan PUD. September 26, 2000. 95 pp.
DES. 2000b. Tributary barrier analysis - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Prepared by Duke Engineering & Services, Inc., Bothell, Washington, for Chelan PUD. September 26, 2000. 14 pp.
DES. 2000c. Riparian zone investigation - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Prepared by Duke Engineering & Services, Inc., Bellingham, Washington, for Chelan PUD. September 26, 2000. 230 pp.
DES. 2000d. 1999 Aesthetic Resources Assessment Study Report- final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Prepared by Duke Engineering & Services, Inc., Bothell, Washington, for Chelan PUD. April 10, 2000. 60 pp.
DES. 2001a. Fisheries investigation addendum study report - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Prepared by Duke Engineering & Services, Inc., Bothell, Washington, for Chelan PUD. March 16, 2001. 16 pp.
DES. 2001b. Lake Chelan entrainment investigations, 2000-2001 - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Prepared by Duke Engineering & Services, Inc., Bothell, Washington, for Chelan PUD. December 7, 2001. 18 pp.
DES. 2001c. Stehekin River investigations, 2000-2001 - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Prepared by Duke Engineering & Services, Inc., Bellingham, Washington, for Chelan PUD. December 7, 2001. 42 pp.
255 Dvornich, K. M., K. R. McAllister, and K. B. Aubry. 1997. Amphibians and reptiles of Washington State: location data and predicted distributions, Volume 2 In: Washington State gap analysis - final report. K. M. Cassidy, C. E. Grue, M. R. Smith, and K. M. Dvornich, eds. Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle. 146 pp.
Eldred, Duane R. 2002. An estimate of the amount of shoreline lands inundated by Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. in letter from Tony Eldred, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wenatchee, Washington to Gregg Carrington, Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1, March 29, 2002.
Evans, M.S. and L. Beaven. 1993. Dams and the Waskesiu, Crean, and Kingsmere ecosystems.National Hydrology Research Centre, Contribution Number 93002, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
Ethnoscience. 2000a. Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project - Draft overview. Manuscript on file at Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington.
Ethnoscience. 2000b. The 1999 Cultural Investigations of the Lake Chelan and Bypass Regions. Draft manuscript on file, Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington.
Fielder, P. C. 1999. Lake Chelan spawning ground survey - 1999. Prepared for Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington.
Fielder, P. C. 2002. Lake Chelan Big Game Status Report, Winter 2001-2002. Chelan PUD, Wenatchee, Washington, August 2002.
Franklin, J. F., and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW- 8. Portland, Oregon.
Giorgi, A. E. 1992. Fall chinook salmon spawning in Rocky Reach pool: effects of a three foot increase in pool elevation. Research report to Chelan PUD by Don Chapman Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington.
Gladwell, J. S. and A. C. Mueller. 1967. Water resource atlas of the State of Washington. Vol. 2, Part B of: An initial study of the water resources of the State of Washington. State of Washington Water Research Center, Pullman, Washington.
256 Hagen, J. E. 1995. Lake Chelan sport fishery creel study. Parametrix, Kirkland, Washington. 24 pp.
Hartmann, G. D. 1979. Archaeological Test Excavations on Lucerne Bar, Chelan Ranger District, Wenatchee National Forest, Washington. Central Washington Archaeological Survey. Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington.
Hartmann, G. D. (10 authors). 2000. Cultural Resources Overview for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Relicensing Project. Report to Chelan PUD prepared by Hemisphere Field Services.
Haubrich, G. (2000) Personal communication. Washington State Department of Agriculture Noxious Weed Division as cited in Calypso Consulting. 2000. A rare plant survey of the Lake Chelan Project Area, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. prepared for Chelan PUD, Seattle, Washington. 45 pp..
Hillman, T. W, A. E. Giorgi. 2000. Historical occurrence of anadromous salmonids in Lake Chelan, Washington, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Prepared by BioAnalysts, Inc., Redmond, Washington, for Chelan PUD. February 2000. 29 pp.
Hoffman, T.L. and C.L. Wambolt. 1996. Growth response of Wyoming big sagebrush to heavy browsing by wild ungulates. In. Proceedings: shrubland ecosystem dynamics in a changing environment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR-338; pp: 242-245.
Howe Consulting, Inc., and Duke Engineering & Services (Howe and DES) 2000. 1998/1999 recreational use assessment - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637., Prepared by Howe Consulting, Inc., Seattle, Washington, and Duke Engineering & Services, Bothell, Washington, for Chelan PUD. July 19, 2000. 173 pp.
Hunter, M.A. 1992. Hydropower flow fluctuations and salmonids: a review of biological effects, mechanical causes, and options for mitigation. Washington Department of Fisheries. Technical Report 119. 46p.
Jennings, W. F. 1989. Final report. Species studied: Eustoma grandiflorum, Spiranthes diluvialis, Malaxis brachypoda, Hypoxis hirsuta, Physaria bellii, Aletes humilis. Unpublished report prepared for the Nature Conservancy under the Colorado
257 Natural History Small Grants Program. The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado. 48 pp.
Jennings, W. F. 1990. Final report. Species studied: Spiranthes diluvialis, Sisyrinchium pallidum. Unpublished report prepared for The Nature Conservancy under the Colorado Natural History Small Grants Program. The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado. 29 pp.
Johnson, D.H. and T. A. O'Neil. 2001. Wildlife relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.
Kaputa, M. 2002. Draft Lake Chelan Subbasin Summary. prepared for the Northwest Power Planning Council. Chelan County Watershed Program. May 17, 2002. URL:http://www.cbfwa.org/files/province/cascade/subsum/020517Chelan.doc.
Kay, C. E. 1995. Browsing by native ungulates: effects on shrub and seed production in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. In Proceedings: wildland shrub and arid land restoration symposium. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR-315; pp: 310-320.
Kelly, S.W.. 2000. The Utilization of Seawalls in Response to Shoreline Erosion - Consequences, Socio-economic, Political and Legal Forces, and Alternatives. University of California, Santa Barbara.
Kuntz, R. C. and R.S. Glesne. 1993. A terrestrial vertebrate inventory of the Stehekin Valley, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. North Cascades National Park Service Report, Report Park Service/PNRNOCA/NRTR-93/101, Sedro Wooley, WA.
Leonard, W. P., H. A. Brown, L. L. C. Jones, K. R. McAllister, and R. M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. 168 pp.
Lindstron, J. 1975. Historic Highlights. In Lake Chelan History Notes Vol. III (1):3-8. The Lake Chelan Historical Society, Washington.
McIntyre, J. W. and J. F. Barr. 1997. Common Loon. No. 313 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America.Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.
258 Patmont, C. R., G. J. Pelletier, E. B. Welch, D. Banton, and C. C. Ebbesmeyer. 1989. Lake Chelan water quality assessment. Final report of Harper-Owes to Washington Department of Ecology.
Pratt, K. L. 1992. A review of bull trout life history. Pages 5-9 in Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout symposium. Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society.
R2 Resource Consultants and Ichthyological Associates, Inc. (R2 and IA). 2000. Bypass reach (gorge) flow releases study report - final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Redmond, Washington, and Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Lansing, New York, for Chelan PUD. September 26, 2000.
R. W. Beck and Associates. 1991. Lake Chelan Water Quality Plan. Report to Lake Chelan Water Quality Committee.
Richardson, S., D. Hays, R. Spencer, and J. Stofel. 2002. Washington State Status Report for the Common Loon. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. p.62
Sargeant, D. 1997. Water quality in the Wapato Basin of Lake Chelan, summer 1996. Washington Department of Ecology Report No. 97-323. Olympia, Washington.
Smith, A. H. 1983a. Ethnohistory 1811-1855; the Native Peoples. In Cultural Resources of the Rocky Reach of the Columbia River, Project Report No. 1, Vol. 1. Edited by R. F. Schalk and R. R. Mierendorf, pp. 25-135. Center for Northwest Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Smith, A. H. 1983b. The Native Peoples. In Cultural Resources of the Rocky Reach of the Columbia River, Project Report No. 1, Vol. 1. Edited by R. F. Schalk and R. R. Mierendorf, pp. 135-333. Center for Northwest Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Smith, A. H. 1988. Ethnography of the Northwest Cascades. Center for Northwest Anthropology, Washington State University Project Report No. 7, for North Cascades National Park Service Complex and Cultural Resource Division, Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington.
Stillwater Sciences (SS). 2001. Conceptual alternative for Chelan River restoration - draft final, Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Prepared by Stillwater
259 Sciences, Berkely, California, for Chelan PUD and the state/federal/tribal caucus. June 20, 2001. 238 pp.
Stinson, D. 2001. Washington state recovery plan for the lynx. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 78pp.
Storm, R. M. and W. P. Leonard (editors). 1995. Reptiles of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. 176 pp.
Stuehrenberg, Lowell C., et al. 1995. Migrational characteristics of adult spring, summer and fall chinook salmon passign trough reservoirs and dams of the Mid-Columbia River. Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division Northwest Fisheries Science Center National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington. 117 pp.
Taylor, R. 1985. Floristics of the Stehekin River riparian zone. Pages 64-76 in D.T. Mason and J. Koon. Habitat values of woody debris accumulations of the lower Stehekin River, with notes of disturbances of alluvial gravel. National Park Service, Contract No. CX-9000-3-E066.
Thompson, K. 1972. Determining stream flows for fish life. From: Instream flow requirement workshop, March 15-16, 1972.
Forest Service. 1990. Wenatchee National Forest land and resource management plan. Department of Agriculture, Wenatchee, Washington. 361 pp. and appendices.
Forest Service. 1998. North Shore of Lake Chelan Watershed Analysis Version 1.0. Wenatchee National Forest. Wenatchee, Washington.
Washington Department of Ecology. (WDOE) 1995. Initial watershed assessment water resources inventory area 47 Chelan, Watershed. Open File Rpt. 95-13. Washington Department of Ecology. Tacoma, Washington.
WDOE. 1998. Ecology’s candidate 1998 list of impaired and threatened water bodies - the 303(d) list. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Internet Web site: http://www.wa.gov/ecology/wq/303d.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1976. Chinook salmon plants in eastern Washington lakes. Unpublished report. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington.
260 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2001. 2001 Game status and trend report. Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. Game Management Plan. Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA.
Wydoski, R. S., and R. R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
261 XII. LIST OF PREPARERS
Vince Yearick Project Coordinator; Geology and Soils, Recreation, Aesthetic Resources (Environmental Protection Specialist; M.S., Recreation and Parks, B.S., Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology)
Robert Easton Aquatic Resources (Fisheries Biologist; M.S., Fisheries)
David Turner Terrestrial Resources (Wildlife biologist; M.S., Zoology)
Frank Winchell Cultural Resources (Archeologist, Ph.D., Anthropology)
Charles Hall Engineering and Project Economics (M.S., Civil Engineering; B.S., Geology)
262 APPENDIX A
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
In this section, we respond to comment letters filed on the DEA. We've modified the EA as indicated in our responses. Our responses are in bold and included within the text of each letter.
263 Manson Park and Recreation District
This is a comment regarding the Draft Environmental Assessment for Public Utility District No. 1, Relicensing project No. 637-022.
1 The Manson Parks District has maintained and operated both Exhibit R parks (Old Mill Park and Manson Bay Park) since the day these parks were opened to the public. Over the years, any large capital improvements have been paid for by the PUD, for which we are forever grateful. All day to day operations have been managed and operated by the Manson Parks District. Our money for maintaining these facilities comes from revenue that is generated by these facilities and a local levy. Our levies have been passing with the required 60% majority since these recreation projects have bean operating. We feel that Manson Parks has proved to the PUD that not only can we maintain these parks in tip top shape, but that the local community is a key support is making this possible.
2 The only income generated by these two parks is the boat launch at OId Mill, and morage fees at Manson Bay. We spend about $15,000 per year at Manson Bay alone just for full time lifeguards. To our knowledge, these are the only lifeguards on public facilities on Lake Chelan.
3 Our comment and our concern with the Draft Environmental Assessment is that nothing is stated an pages 163 and 164 about future development on already existing PUD owned relicensing property. Page 162, under "Our Analysis", states that "the greatest recreation facility needs in the lower zone are for public trails and beach access, parking for boat launch facilities, and additional campsites." Manson Bay has hundreds of feet of lake access that is not developed. Old Mill Park has over 7 acres of underdeveloped property next to the lake and boat launch. Both of these facilities are partially developed and owned by the PUD.
Response. The referenced section addresses the Legacy Group recommendation for micro parks in the City of Chelan, and concludes that, if the micro parks could be designed to meet identified lower zone needs, they would be beneficial. We didn't mean to imply there are no opportunities for expanding existing facilities elsewhere.
4 The Manson Parks District would like to have included as one of the highest priorities, land already owned and partially developed by the PUD and is in the scope of Exhibit R property, in the Draft Environmental Assessment, under Reserve Land for Future Use on page 163.
264 Response. The referenced section addresses a proposal to reserve land for future recreational development in the City of Chelan at locations where no shoreline access currently exists. We acknowledge there may be a need in the future to expand the capacity of existing facilities like Old Mill and Manson Bay Parks, but absent a specific proposal, its unclear whether such a capacity expansion would require additional project land.
5 The Manson Parks District has a great working relationship with the PUD. We feel our proven accomplishments warrant at least a mention in the Environmental Assessment for future development for recreational needs in the Lake Chelan Valley.
Response. The DEA notes that these parks are managed by the Manson Parks District.
We thank the FERC for this opportunity to comment.
265 American Rivers
AMERICAN RIVERS’ COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1 On November 25, 2002, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) gave Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA). The Notice established January 6, 2003 as the deadline for filing comments. American Rivers appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the DEA. We have reviewed the document and offer the following comments.
2 American Rivers finds that the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) is deficient in several respects. It fails to adequately assess the environmental benefits of the proposed protection, mitigation and enhancement measures associated with the various alternatives, and it fails to consider a reasonable range of alternatives.
I. National Environmental Policy Act
3 The National Environmental Policy Act requires development of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for all major actions significantly affecting the environment. Issuing a hydropower license for a term not less than 30 years constitutes such an action, requiring FERC to complete an EIS. The proposed action at issue will continue to have an adverse impact on resources in the Chelan River Basin for the duration of the license.
Response. We do not agree on the proposed action's level of significance and the need for an EIS.
4 Contained in an EIS should be a discussion of the “alternatives to the proposed action.” NEPA, §101(2)(C)(iii ). The discussion of alternatives is at “the heart” of the NEPA process. 40 C.F.R. §1502.14. The CEQ regulations require the agency to “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives.” 40 C.F.R. §1502.14(a). All federal agencies shall, to the fullest extent possible, “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” 42 U.S.C. § 4322(2)(E); Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1519-20 (9th Cir. 1992). A federal agency must look at every reasonable alternative within the “nature and scope of the proposed action,” California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 761 (9th Cir. 1982), “sufficient to permit a reasoned choice.” Methow Valley Citizens Council v. Regional Forester, 833 F.2d 810, 815 (9th Cir. 1987), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989). The failure to
266 consider all reasonable alternatives is fatal to the adequacy of an agency’s NEPA analysis. Idaho Conservation League, 956 F.2d at 1519 (“The existence of a viable, but unexamined alternative renders an environmental impact statement inadequate.”). The DEA is deficient with regard to the alternatives considered.
5 Stripping away the alternatives given only brief consideration and eliminated in the DEA, and the “no action” alternative – FERC is left with only two alternatives that are incredibly similar in nature. In fact, both consider and evaluate the same flow regime for the Chelan River. Such a narrow range of alternatives does not fulfill NEPA’s mandate to rigorously explore alternatives. For example, the Court in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Clark, 594 F. Supp. 1373 (D. Mass. 1984), found that the Department of Interior had not considered an adequate range of alternatives in its analysis of an offshore oil drilling proposal. Of the thirteen alternatives presented in the document, the court found that, “once the illegal and overlapping alternatives are removed from the FEIS, the Secretary was presented with basically only two different configurations for the sale... the FEIS is hopelessly skewed in favor of only small deletions from the propos[ed action].” Id. at 1380.
Response. While numerous individual measures for environmental resources have been recommended, no comprehensive package of measures for all resource areas has been proposed aside from Chelan PUD's proposal, and the staff alternative. Where a recommendation or an issue is addressed in the EA (individually or as part of a discreet alternative package of measures) to us is an issue of form over function. If a settlement agreement is filed, it will be assessed as a discreet alternative in the FEA.
6 The DEA fails to consider any alternative that would be more protective of fish and water quality, including a more protective flow regime in the Chelan River. While such alternatives may cost more, the DEA presents no information for the decision-maker or the public to draw any conclusion about the benefits, or costs of such a measure. Accordingly, we recommend that FERC consider and evaluate a range of reasonable flow regimes, including the one represented in Table 9 of the applicants’ Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License (August 15, 2001). Table 9 represents an initial proposal made by the fisheries agencies (Woodin Letter, September 22, 2000). In contrast to the flow regime proposed by Chelan PUD, this flow regime would optimize benefits to various fish species, would provide greater certainty that such benefits would be attained, and would result in better water quality. FERC should thoroughly analyze several alternative flow regimes in the Final Environmental Assessment.
II. Need for Power – Section II (B)
267 7 The DEA notes that the project will continue to meet a very small part of the regional need for power. While we agree that this is the case, there is no documentation to support the further assertion that it would displace some of the fossil fuel electric power generation the regional utilities now use. It is more likely that fossil fuel plants will continue to generate until such time as they are no longer functional; there is no indication that such energy will be taken off line because of the existence of the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project. As such, the Final Environmental Assessment should provide information to support such assertion or eliminate it as a potential benefit from relicensing the project.
Response. The referenced section provides estimated demand growth and generation resource availability in accordance with the Western Electricity Coordinating Council's 10-year Coordinated Plan Summary, 2002-2011. See footnote 1 of the DEA. We do not state that the relicensing of the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project would result in fossil- fueled power generation facilities going offline. As power from the project would continue to meet part of the regional need for power, the project would also continue to displace some of the need for fossil-fueled power generation. Without the project generation, more fossil-fueled generation would be required.
III. Environmental Analysis – Section V
8 The Federal Power Act, as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act, requires that “equal consideration” be given to non power values, including fish, wildlife, recreation, and environmental quality, when relicensing a hydroelectric project. 16 U.S.C. § 803(a). The FPA’s legislative history further clarifies that the intent of the 50- year cap on hydroelectric licenses was to ensure the reevaluation of the commitment of a river to power production. Consistent with this view is the Ninth Circuit’s holding that relicensing is a new commitment of resources rather than continuation of the status quo. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation v. FERC, 746 F.2d 466, 476-77. The court explained that “[r]elicensing . . . is more akin to an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of a public resource than a mere continuation of the status quo.” Id. Accordingly, a proper assessment of the best use of the river given today’s values requires an evaluation and understanding of how the project has affected environmental resources and the potential for restoring these resources. In several respects, the DEA fails to comport with this approach.
A. Water Quality
9 The water quality analysis in the DEA is deficient in several respects. It is unclear on what data FERC is relying, there is inadequate analysis of the effects of the proposed flow regime on water quality, the DEA fails to include analysis of the other flows
268 purportedly studied by Chelan County PUD and why it recommends the one it does, and the DEA fails to include other measures necessary to improve compliance with state water quality standards.
10 The PUD has failed to conduct adequate water quality studies to assess the impacts of the project and the potential benefits of various proposed environmental measures. The DEA indicates that it is relying on a single 1999 study (Anchor 2000), but also asserts reliance on studies conducted during prefiling consultation. It is our understanding that problems encountered during implementation of studies to evaluate water quality in the Chelan River resulted in insufficient data. To date, the data is insufficient to conclude that the proposed flow regime will comply with state water quality standards, especially temperature. As such, analysis in the DEA is based on inadequate data.
Response. Based on your comments above, it is unclear how we could improve our analysis or recommendations. The bypassed reach (i.e. the majority of the Chelan River) has essentially been without consistent flow during the summer months since the construction of the project in the early 1900's. Therefore, little data exists to document the relationship of flow and temperature in this area. However, we have used all available data to assess the potential effects of providing flow to this area which includes the Anchor (2000) study that you cite as well as R2 & IA (2000) and other studies that describe the water quality conditions in the Wapato Basin of Lake Chelan (i.e. the source of bypassed reach flows). We also considered more recent data prepared by Chelan as part of its CRBEIP. In the DEA, we concluded that Chelan PUD's proposed flow or any other flow that has previously been proposed (less than natural flow) would likely violate state water temperature standards in the bypassed reach (see pages 49 and 50 of the DEA); however, subsequent to our issuance of the DEA, WDOE issued on April 21, 2003, a 401 WQC requiring Chelan's proposed flows which are the same flows as recommended in our DEA. The 401 WQC was subsequently appealed and until this issue is resolved, it is our opinion that providing some minimum flow to the Chelan River which would result in some occasional exceedences of state temperature standards would be more beneficial to fish and aquatic resources than continuing to provide no minimum flow.
11 Moreover, the DEA fails to include sufficient analysis of the other flow levels purportedly studied by Chelan County PUD. The DEA contains inadequate detail regarding various flow levels analyzed and the accompanying increases in water temperature. FERC acknowledges the corresponding relationship between flow and temperature and asserts that likely increases in temperature in the Chelan River that would occur under higher flows are less than would occur with lower flows. Nonetheless, there is no analysis of the variations that would result under different flow regimes and no analysis of the adequacy of the proposed flow regime. In fact, the DEA
269 acknowledges that there will likely be violations of state water quality standards under the proposed flow regime. At a minimum, FERC should provide greater analysis of the flow regime proposed by Chelan County PUD and supported by FERC, the other flow regimes analyzed by the applicant in the prefiling process, and the flow regime set forth in Table 9 of the Applicant’s Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License. Analysis of a single flow regime, and one that likely fails to comply with state water quality standards, is wholly inadequate for purposes of NEPA.
Response. We have revised the discussion of the various flow proposals to include an analysis of the flows presented in Table 9 of the PDEA as well as natural flows.
12 Importantly, despite acknowledging likely violations, FERC fails to analyze and call for additional measures that adequately protect water quality in the Chelan River. Rather, it references a so-called adaptive management program that fails to specify triggers for additional measures, a reasonable timeframe, or possible measures. While we support use of adaptive management in limited circumstances, we do not support its use to justify accepting inadequate measures. FERC should require measures at the outset that will result in adequate environmental protection, especially with regard to water quality. For example, since the initial temperatures are a direct reflection of the water withdrawn from the lake, FERC should consider alternate areas from which to withdraw Chelan River flows, including lower depths where cooler temperatures exist. In addition, FERC should consider flow regimes that comply with water quality standards.
Response. As indicated above, a 401 WQC that would comply with WDOE water quality standards has been issued for the project. Additionally, we have added a discussion of alternative sources for minimum flows, including withdrawal of cool water from deep portions of Lake Chelan roughly 2-5 miles up-lake from the dam.
B. Fisheries
13 Our main concern with the DEA analysis of potential fisheries measures to be incorporated into a new license is the lack of adequate analysis of potential flow regimes in the Chelan River. The DEA lacks information regarding historic flow regimes, rendering it difficult to evaluate whether Chelan County PUD’s proposed flow regime or any other that should be analyzed are within the range of natural variability or reflect the natural hydrograph of the river. To determine the appropriate level of protection requires an understanding of the ecological conditions necessary to support healthy, self- sustaining fish and wildlife populations as well as an analysis of what harm has accrued since project construction and what will continue if the project is relicensed. Only with the identification of historic conditions within which fish and wildlife evolved can effective PM&E measures be developed and analyzed. Accordingly, the Final
270 Environmental Assessment should include greater discussion of the historic flow regime and the relation of potential flow regimes.
Response. As indicated above, we have revised the minimum flow analysis to include discussion of alternate flow regimes, including natural flows.
14 Additionally, as we noted in our comments on the Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment, the DEA appears to overstate the expected benefits of the proposed flow regime for the Chelan River – a central protection, mitigation, and enhancement measure. The DEA asserts that the goals of the flow regime include (1) establishing a naturally functioning aquatic ecosystem; and (2) providing spawning and rearing habitat in the lower reach of the river. While these may be two goals of the flow program, the DEA contains insufficient analysis of their adequacy. The flow studies used to support the PUD’s proposed flow regime utilized a methodology – IFIM – that assesses flows needed for fish, but does not evaluate other parameters of river health. While the proposed flow regime is certainly an improvement over existing conditions in the river, the analysis to date is inadequate to find that a viable riverine ecosystem will result from the proposed flows. Benefits to riparian vegetation and other aquatic organisms have not been considered. The DEA should thoroughly evaluate the potential benefits of the proposed flow regime on a range of resources – including macroinvertebrate communities, riparian vegetation, and so forth – in the Chelan River or acknowledge the lack of information regarding such.
Response. A discussion of the effects of the various flows on riparian habitat is presented under the terrestrial resources section. We briefly mention macroinvertebrate communities in the fisheries section; however, we were unable to fully address the potential effects on this resource due to a general lack of existing information and an inability to predict any effects.
15 The DEA also fails to adequately analyze the costs and benefits of the provisions of the flow regime related to low and high flow years. Chelan PUD proposes additional flow in average and wet years in order to reflect historic conditions, however, there is no proposal for additional flow in dry years, often the time when it is needed most to ensure a healthy aquatic ecosystem. The DEA completely fails to consider the impacts of providing that additional flow, or some percentage of it, in all years to supplement the proposed minimum flow of 80 cubic feet per second (cfs). American Rivers recommends that the Final Environmental Analysis include evaluation of a flow regime that includes supplementing Chelan River flows even in dry years.
271 Response. We have added a discussion and analysis of supplementing the 80 cfs minimum flow in dry years to the FEA.
16 Finally, we are concerned about the limited discussion of Chelan County PUD’s proposal to modify habitat in Reach 4 of the Chelan River, including the associated financial cap. The DEA discusses the potential benefits of the proposal but does not evaluate the risks associated with trying to create such habitat or with the proposed monetary cap. We are particularly concerned about the limited analysis in light of the problems estimating potential habitat and creating such habitat that have been encountered at the North Umpqua Hydroelectric Project. Rather than assuming that such habitat creation is possible, FERC should evaluate the proposal in the context of other similar projects, such as North Umpqua, and the success that was achieved. And, if FERC relies on this measure as one of the principal protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures, it should establish appropriate habitat and biological goals that must be achieved, rather than relying on an artificial cost cap.
Response. Our analysis does not consider the monetary cap in regard to enhancement of Reach 4. Rather we have presented an analysis of the potential of Chelan's proposal and the requirements of the 401 WQC to create productive salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing habitat in Reach 4.
C. License Term
17 While some of the analysis in the DEA is based on a 30-year time frame, it is unclear what license term FERC is recommending. The Final Environmental Assessment should clearly indicate the proposed term. Based on the DEA, American Rivers recommends that the Commission consider a 30, rather than a 50-year license for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project. Pursuant to Section 15(e) of the Federal Power Act, relicense terms shall not be less than 30 years nor more than 50 years from the date on which the license is issued. It is FERC’s general policy to establish 30, 40, or 50-year terms for projects with, respectively, little, moderate, or extensive redevelopment, new construction, new capacity, or additional environmental measures.
Response. If a new license is issued, the order issuing the license will set the license term as well as discuss the term's rationale. We don't typically recommend a license term in NEPA documents.
18 In this case, where there is no new construction or new capacity, and only minimal environmental measures, a 30-year term is appropriate. Moreover, there is no need to commit to 50 years of ongoing adverse impacts to the Chelan River, especially in light of evolving energy technology. Technology is rapidly evolving, particularly new renewable
272 energy technologies. For example, according to the Renewable Northwest Project, since 1998 wind power has been the fastest-growing new source of electricity in the world, expanding an average of 30% a year. The Pacific Northwest has the potential to generate 133,000 average megawatts or more of electricity from wind power. Solar energy is also rapidly evolving in both the efficiency of solar cells and in the cost of production, which has dropped 40 percent in the past five years. The Pacific Northwest has the potential to generate 200,000 average megawatts or more of electricity from solar power. The Pacific Northwest also has the potential to generate up to 11,000 megawatts of electricity from geothermal power. Finally, hydrogen fuel cells and other emerging energy technologies are now progressing to the point where they are becoming economically competitive with conventional power conversion technologies. Thus, the Commission should protect the public interest in ensuring minimal impacts on the Chelan River ecosystem by avoiding the potentially unnecessary dedication of the Chelan to power production beyond the period it is actually needed. Accordingly, American Rivers recommends that the license term for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project be no greater than 30 years, consistent with § 15(e) of the Federal Power Act.
IV. Conclusion
19 For the foregoing reasons, American Rivers finds that the Draft Environmental Assessment is deficient in several respects. We recommend that the Final Environmental Assessment be revised accordingly.
Respectfully submitted this 6th day of January, 2003.
______Brett M. Swift American Rivers 320 SW Stark, Suite 418 Portland, Oregon 97204 Washington Department of Ecology
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426
RE: Chelan Dam Re-licensing Project; FERC No. 637 FERC Environmental Assessment
273 Dear Ms. Salas:
We present below our comments for your consideration.
1 With respect to the Water Quality Certification, we would like to note that the Chelan Public Utility District, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries, US Forest Service and the Washington State Department of Ecology continue to work together to produce a document that will address the biological uses of the Chelan River. We have replaced the Chelan River Management Plan with the “Chelan River Biological Evaluation and Implementation Plan” (Biological Evaluation). The Biological Evaluation is currently in draft form and we expect to use it or a modified version of it as the basis for the 401 certification. The document focuses on identifying fish objectives and using a variety of reasonable and feasible implementation measures to achieve those objectives. The initial proposed flows, temperature mitigation measures, and physical habitat modifications are just some of the potential implementation measures.
2 For the purposes of addressing project impacts to water quality and of meeting the state water quality standards for the water quality certification, the Environmental Assessment (EA) needs a detailed discussion of the impacts of dam operation on the temperature needs of fish. In particular, the EA should address the difficulty in attaining state water quality standards for temperature. Meeting those needs is extremely difficult. Besides noting that water entering the Chelan River is already warm, the EA should describe how dam-controlled flows affect stream temperatures and describe the ensuing impact (of up to 2oC above natural conditions) on fish. State water quality standards reflect a concern that at these elevated stream temperatures small changes in water temperature can significantly impact fish survival.
Response. We have revised our discussion of temperature effects on fish to address your concerns.
3 In the EA it is implied that when temperatures are above a certain optimum for a given fish species, that any exceedance above this temperature is not relevant. However, this is contrary to state water quality standards. If implemented, it could allow, for instance, situations where under natural temperatures (and state standards) fish mortality would be only 50%, but under dam-controlled temperatures mortality would be 100%.
Response. In the FEA, we have attempted to address the importance of minimizing increases in water temperatures above the various criteria, including points at which mortality occurs. Additionally, we have attempted to separate project effects from natural warming.
274 4 Given the significant exceedance of state water quality standards, plus the requirement that the project receive a water quality certification confirming compliance with those standards, we would expect the EA to provide significantly more discussion on dam- related impacts of elevated temperatures on the specific fish species of concern in their various stages (e.g., spawning, rearing).
Response. As indicated above, we have revised this section to provide more analysis of the effects of water temperature on fish.
Specific Comments
Page 11: See above discussion regarding Water Quality Certification.
6 Page 73: The statement was made that, “adjusting flows in either direction is unlikely to prevent any exceedances of cutthroat trout thermal limits”. You may want to qualify that with the phrase: “during the hottest portions of the year.” However, two points should be noted: although increasing the flow may not prevent exceedances, it may 1) prevent even more damage to the population that might occur; and 2) help attain the State’s water quality standard.
Response. It is inferred from the discussion, that the primary time when excessive water temperatures would occur would be "during the hottest portions of the year". We have revised the sentence and the associated analysis to clarify that increasing flows can reduce project-related warming in the bypassed reach.
7 Page 76: Note that the PUD now proposes, in their “Chelan River Biological Evaluation and Implementation Plan” (Biological Evaluation) to increase flows by some small amount during the hottest periods. Based on the results of future studies, flows above this amount may be needed.
Response. We have added an analysis of this measure to the FEA.
8 Page 76: The statement that, “[the PUD] would increase pool depth and narrow stream width in Reach 1 to reduce any warming that may occur…” is unclear in its intent. Does it mean they will mitigate for all unnatural warming? It should be noted that it has not been demonstrated that these two actions alone could accomplish this. (Also, as written, the sentence could be interpreted to include mitigation for natural warming as well, which we do not believe is anyone’s intent.)
Response. We have revised this section to clarify what measures Chelan is proposing as temperature mitigation.
275 9 Page 78: “The primary sources of heat energy in the bypassed reach are warm air temperatures and solar radiation.” This is true, but it should be made clear that deepening pools and reducing stream width are not the only methods to address heating caused by these sources. Increasing shade is another potential mitigation method. So is flow, although it is less intuitively obvious. The larger volume of water associated with higher flows means more water that has to be heated before the temperature will increase. Also, higher flows may create higher velocities. The modeling results for this site indicate that the dominant human influence on river temperature is reduced flow.
Response We have revised this section to address both the importance of stream channel morphology and shade on warming.
10 Page 85: “We believe that the proposed minimum flows and other measures to be implemented in the bypassed reach and tailrace would provide a reasonable opportunity…” This section should be updated to reference the “Chelan River Biological Evaluation and Implementation Plan” with its defined goals and use of adaptive management.
Response We have revise the FEA to address the CRBEIP
11 Section VII. “Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative” addresses the Chelan River Management Plan, including minimum flows and habitat enhancement, but does not address state water quality standards for temperature in the Chelan River. The applicable state water quality standards (based on the federal Clean Water Act) for temperature and fish habitat are found at WAC 173-201A-030(2) for Class A rivers.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (509) 457-7107.
Sincerely,
G. Thomas Tebb Section Manager Water Quality Program Central Regional Office
276 American Whitewater
COMMENTS BY AMERICAN WHITEWATER AFFILIATION ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR A NEW LICENSE FOR THE LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, FERC NO. 637-022
Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. §385.214, the American Whitewater Affiliation hereby request leave to comment on the FERC Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the Lake Chelan Hydropower Project, FERC No. 637-022 on the Chelan River in Chelan County, Washington. American Whitewater has been an active participant in this Alternative License Proceeding. American Whitewater filed a motion to intervene in this proceeding on July 2, 2002.
I. INTRODUCTION
1 American Whitewater’s comments and recommendations are intended to focus on whitewater boating releases, the reservation system, the whitewater monitoring plan and components for flow information. These comments are based in part on American Whitewater’s active participation in the relicensing of this project including the design and implementation of the whitewater flow study and jointly developing the Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment (APEA) used as the basis of Chelan PUD’s license application. The APEA was developed as part of an Alternative Licensing Procedure (ALP) and reflects the collective agreement among parties to the ALP. As such, our comments reflect the content and intent of the APEA captured in the License Application.
2 The DEA mistakenly states that whitewater releases are scheduled for the first three years of the license only and that future releases are subject to the results of the three-year monitoring plan. Yet, the DEA provides no regulatory mechanism, protocols or measures from which to make a decision or initiate a process for review. In this scenario, stakeholders would be starting over in year three after license issuance to negotiate a license condition that had already been carefully crafted in the ALP.
Response. Chelan PUD's proposal, as we read it from page 5 of their PDEA (license application) was to implement a Recreation Resources Management Plan (RRMP), part of which was the 3-year boating study. The whitewater boating study part of the RRMP says nothing about flow releases for the term of the license. It only states the purpose of the study is to evaluate existing demand for the boating resource, and that a final report with recommendations would be prepared at the end of the study. Later in the PDEA, as you note accurately below, Chelan PUD indicates some form of release schedule would remain in effect. We made the assumption in the DEA that the RRMP was the more accurate description of Chelan's proposal.
277 The regulatory mechanism for a decision on a long-term release program would be a license article requiring the 3-year study and report with a recommendation for or against a long term release program.
3 The parties to the ALP intended to have whitewater releases for the life of the license. Because project operations have precluded whitewater recreation in the past there is very little data on the demand for the resource. Due to this uncertainty the parties agreed that a three-year monitoring plan should accompany the license article for whitewater releases to better assess user demand, the timing and volume of releases, and implementation of the reservation system. At the conclusion of the three-year study the parties felt there would be sufficient information to improve on the existing license condition for scheduled whitewater releases. Clearly, the intent was for scheduled whitewater releases to occur for the remainder of the license. American Whitewater requests the FERC to correct this oversight in the FEA. Including scheduled whitewater releases as a condition for the remainder of the license with adjustments for demand quotas is a critical component of the APEA and Settlement Agreement currently being crafted.
Response. As we said above, when we prepared the DEA, there appeared to be disagreement on the issue of a long-term release program at the project.
III. Comments and Recommendations
4 Contrary to the FERC’s DEA interpretation, review of the language in the Final License application dated March 31, 2002 confirms the intent of the parties to have whitewater releases for the term of the license.
“American Whitewater and Chelan PUD propose that Chelan PUD provide scheduled water releases in the bypassed reach, ranging from 300 cfs to 450 cfs, on two weekends each in July and September for whitewater kayaking. Working with American Whitewater, Chelan PUD would implement a three-year study period to monitor whitewater boating use. Specific details associated with the three-year monitoring study would be included in Chelan PUD’s Recreation Resources Management Plan. The study would enable Chelan PUD, in collaboration with American Whitewater and the FERC, to craft a license condition for the remainder of the license term that addresses demand, access, safety, reservation system and flow requirements. A whitewater boating plan with an annual schedule of whitewater releases in the Chelan River would then be developed for the term of the new license.” (Final License Application, p. 154, March 31, 2002)
Response. We addressed this issue above.
278 5 Clearly, the License Application first defines the annual frequency and volume of releases for inclusion in the new license. There is no mention of limiting the schedule to the initial three-years in the first sentence. Sentence two goes on to describe the three-year monitoring plan but this is clearly a subset of sentence one and in no way limits releases to the initial three years. Sentence four clearly states that the three- year monitoring plan will assist with crafting improvements to the license condition for whitewater releases for the remainder of the license.
Response. We addressed this issue above, and note, again, that this language was not in the RRMP referenced by Chelan PUD in their proposal.
6 In contrast, the FERC DEA requires whitewater boating releases for the first three years only as part of a monitoring plan. The DEA suggests that future release be based on the results of the whitewater monitoring plan but fails to include a concrete regulatory procedure, timeframe or specific metrics to determine the outcome for future releases for the remainder of the license. American Whitewater opposes limiting whitewater releases to the three year plan proposed in the DEA due to the lack of a clear regulatory framework for determining future releases, lack of defined measures in the FERC’s three-year plan to compliment a regulatory framework and, most importantly, inconsistency with language already agreed to by the parties jointly developing the final license application that formed the basis of this DEA. American Whitewater requests the FERC revise the DEA so that it is consistent with the final license application. Including whitewater releases as a condition for the term of the license is a critical component of the APEA and Settlement Agreement currently being crafted.
Response. We believe it makes sense to further evaluate the demand for this resource before requiring it for the term of a license.
7 The three-year monitoring plan was specifically identified in the license application due to considerable uncertainty on user demand, implementation of a reservation system and flow volumes and timing. The three-year monitoring plan serves as the building blocks for management decisions for whitewater resources during the remainder of the license. Upon completion of the three-year monitoring plan the parties do not “start over” as the DEA suggests but rather fine tune the whitewater releases in an iterative manner for the remainder of the license term. The present release schedule provides Chelan PUD a cap on the volume and frequency of releases as well as the monitoring requirements. American Whitewater and Chelan PUD may jointly determine through monitoring to adjust the frequency, volume or timing of releases to better suit the paddling public. Furthermore, American Whitewater and
279 Chelan PUD may jointly determine that whitewater releases are no longer appropriate for the Chelan Gorge.
Response. The uncertainty on user demand is the main reason we did not recommend a long-term release program.
8 American Whitewater requests the FERC clarify in the FEA that scheduled whitewater releases are for the term of the license and that during the first three years a whitewater monitoring plan will be conducted. Failure to correct this deviation from the license application will result in a new license that is grossly inconsistent with the language jointly prepared in the APEA license application. American Whitewater also recommends the FERC require reports on the whitewater releases every six years coinciding with the FERC Form 80 reports.
Response. We believe our recommendation was consistent with the whitewater boating portion of the RRMP referenced in the application.
9 Recommended language for Whitewater Release Condition for the Chelan Hydroelectric Project:
Within one year after Chelan PUD has accepted a new license, Chelan PUD will provide scheduled whitewater releases for kayaking in the Chelan River Bypassed Reach ranging from 300 cfs to 450 cfs on the second and fourth weekend in July and the second and fourth weekend in September for six daylight hours (12:00 Noon to 6:00 PM) each weekend day. Flows will alternate on Saturday and Sunday so that flows between 300 cfs to 375 cfs are provided on Saturday and flows from 400 cfs to 450 cfs are provided on Sunday. Every effort would be made by the Licensee to vary the flows from one weekend to the next within the identified range for the respective standard and high challenge trip types on Saturdays and Sundays. Only non-motorized, hard-shelled kayaks will be allowed and no kayaker less than 18 years old shall be allowed.
Chelan PUD shall file with the Commission for approval, plans for a three- year whitewater boating study to monitor whitewater boating use in the Chelan River bypass. The plan shall be developed by Chelan PUD, in consultation with the American Whitewater Affiliation.
Upon Commission approval of such three-year study plan, Chelan PUD shall develop a reservation system, whereby the scheduled water releases are made only if six or more kayakers make a reservation by 5:00 P.M. on the Thursday prior to
280 the scheduled release date, and are physically present at the designated kayak put- in location by 9:00 A.M. on the date of the release. Each kayaker shall be required to sign a liability waiver in a form satisfactory to Chelan PUD prior to launching his or her kayak in the Chelan River bypassed reach.
During the three-year study and for the remainder of the license term, Chelan PUD shall publish information on the Chelan PUD Web site, including, but not limited to, kayaking release dates, the reservation system, and real-time flow data information.
Upon completion of the three-year study and for the remainder of the license term, Chelan PUD shall provide whitewater releases on the second and fourth weekends in July and September, provided that a minimum number of kayakers make a reservation by 5:00 PM Thursday prior to the scheduled release, through a reservation system developed and implemented by Chelan PUD. Chelan PUD shall determine, in consultation with the American Whitewater Affiliation, the minimum number of kayakers required for future flow releases, but in no event should the number be less than six. Chelan may also make changes to the schedule and/or reservation procedures, in consultation with the American Whitewater Affiliation.
Chelan PUD shall not provide whitewater boating flow releases in the Chelan River bypassed reach when the previous day’s average Stehekin River inflow is less than 333 cfs, or when the Mid-Columbia Index is greater than $150/MWh ($2001).
Response. We will consider your language when any license conditions are crafted.
10 The three-year monitoring study will enable Chelan PUD in collaboration with American Whitewater and the FERC to craft a license condition for the remainder of the license term that addresses user demand, implementation of the reservation system, adjustments to flow volume and timing, and the frequency of whitewater releases annually. A key component of the three- year monitoring plan is development of a survey instrument for distribution among boating participants. The survey will query boaters paddling the Gorge about the reservation system, access, safety, flows, and whitewater schedule. A report should be issued annually with a final report and recommendations at the conclusion of the three-year study. Chelan PUD should work closely with American Whitewater drafting these reports and developing the survey tool.
11 The three-year monitoring study will enable Chelan PUD, American Whitewater and the FERC to adaptively manage the license condition in a fashion that best meets existing conditions and demand for the whitewater resource. This adaptive management plan would contain in part
281 the following elements: 1) ability to adjust the reservation quota required to trigger a release; 2) ability to adjust the annual number of releases based on demand during the previous year (annual number of release days could fluctuate between two and eight—no more or less); 3) ability to adjust the release volume and timing; and 4) ability to alter the reservation system to better meet the communication needs of the public.
Response. We agree with the adaptive management concept, but have seen no justification for not going below two or above eight days of releases.
12 American Whitewater proposes the FERC consider the following language for this three- year monitoring plan:
Within one year of license issuance, the Licensee will submit a study plan jointly developed with American Whitewater Affiliation to monitor whitewater boating in the Chelan Gorge for the first three years of the license. The monitoring plan should include at a minimum the following components; 1) quantification of use on whitewater release days; 2) assessment of boater preferences for release volumes and timing; 3) evaluation of access sites to meet boater demand; 4) assessment of the effectiveness of the reservation system in terms of ease of use for the public and ability to track demand; and 5) adequacy of the annual number of whitewater releases to meet demand. During the first three years from license issuance the Licensee will file annual reports with the FERC by February 1 and a final report at the conclusion of the three-year monitoring plan. The report should include recommendations for implementation of whitewater releases for the remainder of the license. The Licensee must provide American Whitewater Affiliation a 30-day comment period on the annual reports and final recommendations.
Response. We will consider your language when any license conditions are crafted.
Reservation System
13 American Whitewater supports a reservation requirement once demand is established for the Chelan Gorge. The reservation requirement during the first three years of the monitoring should be set at six boaters to trigger a release. Reservations must be made by 5:00 PM Thursday on the week of the scheduled release. A minimum of six boaters must be physically present by 9:00 AM at the Chelan Dam on the day of the release to trigger the release. Upon
282 conclusion of the three year monitoring plan this quota may be adjusted based on evaluation of existing demand for the whitewater resource. The license condition should not place restrictions on launch times or group size other than forbidding solo boating.
Response. The three-year monitoring program should help establish whether and what type of reservation system is appropriate.
14 At the present time, the paddling community is largely unaware of boating opportunities on the Chelan Gorge due to dewatering from project operations. Over time, paddlers will become increasingly more familiar with this resource and demand will increase. In the meantime, requiring greater than six boaters is unrealistic. Requiring greater than six paddlers in the first few releases would result in canceled spills and the Chelan would gain a reputation of being unreliable thus further discouraging the whitewater community to travel to Chelan. At the culmination of the three-year study Chelan PUD, American Whitewater and the FERC will be better able to assess demand for the Chelan Gorge whitewater resource and make appropriate adjustments to participant quotas for the remainder of the license term.
Response. Getting fewer than six people to participate would certainly be an indication of low demand for this research.
15 The success of the reservation system and ensuing use of the whitewater releases is contingent on the paddling communities knowledge of the release dates and reservation phone number. Chelan PUD should work closely with American Whitewater announcing the reservation system. Dates for scheduled releases should be published annually and distributed within the Oregon and Washington paddling community through use of the Internet, mailings to retail stores, and announcements in paddling journals. The announcement should clearly explain the reservation system as well as provide a phone number and website URL for reservations. American Whitewater will assist with the dissemination of the release schedule and reservation requirements.
Response. Provding information on the boating release should not be a problem.
16 The reservation system will also need to be included in a license article. American Whitewater provides a draft below adapted to the Chelan PUD project.
The Licensee will jointly develop a reservation system with American Whitewater Affiliation. By April 1 each year, the Licensee will disseminate the dates for whitewater releases and clearly list instructions for the reservation system including a toll free phone number and website for reservations. The reservation quota may be adjusted after year three.
283 Response. We will consider your language when any license conditions are crafted.
17 American Whitewater agrees with the provision in the DEA to provide real-time flow information for the Chelan River below Lake Chelan Dam. Accurate and timely flow information is critical for the paddling community to determine if flow conditions are within an acceptable range. Recreational users such as fisherman, hikers, sightseers etc. use this information to plan their travel. The license should contain a provision requiring Chelan PUD to publish real-time flow information using a toll free flow phone and website URL. Flow information on the Internet should be reported in four-hour intervals based on the average of one-hour record intervals. Because of dramatic daily flow fluctuations in western snowmelt driven rivers, daily averages of flow can be misleading not reflective of existing conditions in a river channel. Four-hour data sets are far more accurate.
Response. We will consider this information in crafting any needed articles.
IV. Conclusion
18 American Whitewater supports issuing a new license for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 637-016. American Whitewater recommends the FERC DEA be corrected to reflect the agreement between American Whitewater and Chelan PUD and other parties to the ALP that whitewater releases be included for the life of the license but subject to adjustment based on the three-year monitoring plan and ongoing adaptive management after year three. Chelan PUD should file annual reports on whitewater boating in years one through three with a final report at the end of the three-year monitoring. American Whitewater should be given a 30-day period to review and comment on the annual and final reports. After year three, Chelan PUD should include whitewater use in their From 80 reports.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
January 9, 2003
Ms. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426
Re: Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637-022-WA
284 Response to Draft Environmental Assessment
Dear Ms. Salas:
1 The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) appreciates the careful consideration that your staff has given to the 22 Section 10(j) recommendations that were submitted for the relicense of Lake Chelan Project No. 637-022-WA. We are providing additional evidence, information, and comment regarding the five WDFW Section 10(j) recommendations that were rejected by your staff. Also, temperature data for 2002 and additional temperature modeling results have been presented subsequent to the development of WDFW’s original Section 10(j) recommendations. This additional information has been developed and presented by Chelan PUD in the course of its preparation of an application for a water quality certification in accordance with Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act. WDFW has developed an additional Section 10(j) recommendation to mitigate for the extreme temperature spikes that will occur in the bypassed reach of the Chelan River during the summer months.
Additional Section 10(j) Recommendations
Term and Condition No. 23
2 The licensee shall, within one year of license issuance, in consultation with the resource agencies, develop and implement designs to create a defined thalweg in the Reach 1 and 2 channel. Also, create or augment one large pool within each of Reaches 1 and 2 to provide pool depth of ten feet or greater. These pools should be sited to utilize existing or created site potential shade and have large woody debris placed within them to create in-water cover and shade. Each pool will be supplied with a piped supply of approximately 1 cfs of well water to create a thermal refuge during the summer months. The well water shall be provided continuously during the time period when the temperature of the Chelan River at the forebay of the Chelan Dam is at or greater than 20° C and flow into Reach 1 is less than 600 cfs. The thalweg channel, deep pools, and well water supply must be maintained throughout the duration of the project license.
Justification
3 Within the current Reach 1 and 2 channel configuration, the proposed 80 cfs minimum flow will result in daily temperature spikes on hot summer days from 2 to 3.5° C above ambient temperature at the Chelan Dam forebay. The resulting daily peak temperatures will exceed the Ultimate Upper Incipient Lethal Temperature (UUILT) for cutthroat trout on a regular basis and exceed the UUILT for rainbow trout occasionally each summer. Without the creation of thermal
285 refugia, cutthroat and rainbow trout, which attempt to colonize Reach 1 and 2 of the Chelan River will, at best, be forced to move into Reach 3 or the Columbia River, and at worst, be exterminated each summer. Rainbow trout have been documented to regularly emigrate from Lake Chelan into the bypassed reaches of the Chelan River when spill flows occur. WDFW expects cutthroat trout to exhibit the same behavior when they become reestablished as an abundant species within the Lake Chelan watershed. Operating the Lake Chelan Project with an 80 cfs minimum flow in the summer months, without proactive creation of thermal refugia, would essentially create a lethal thermal trap for rainbow and cutthroat trout. WDFW is concerned with the protection of naturally produced rainbow and cutthroat trout which emigrate into the bypassed reaches of the Chelan River, as well as cutthroat which have been stocked into the Lake Chelan Basin for restoration purposes.
Response. We have added an analysis of this measure to the FEA.
4 The creation of a thermal trap is unacceptable and inconsistent with the intent to establish a viable functioning aquatic ecosystem within the Chelan River. If Chelan PUD and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) find the proactive creation of thermal refugia unacceptable, the only viable alternative is to provide full inflow to the bypassed reaches of the Chelan River at all times when daily average temperatures in the forebay are at 20° C or greater. Without appropriate maintenance, the function of these thermal refugia habitats will deteriorate over time.
Response. We have addressed various means for reducing warming, providing refuges, and even cooling minimum flows in the FEA
5 Recommendation No. 8 – Spawning / Incubation Channel: The spawning/incubation channel at Twenty-Five Mile Creek was originally constructed to accommodate kokanee which have similar spawning habitat requirements to cutthroat trout. Thus, the rejuvenation of this facility can play a critical role in the rebuilding of cutthroat trout populations in the Lake Chelan Basin by providing accessible spawning, incubation, and early rearing habitat. Access to this potential high quality habitat is more readily established than to many of the other tributaries that have been blocked via alluvial barriers that are created by project operating regimes. The tributary barrier removal plan that WDFW and others, including FERC staff, support has scheduled the removal of only two barriers per year. Therefore, it will require several years to reestablish cutthroat trout access to substantial areas of spawning and rearing habitat. The Twenty-Five Mile Creek channel represents an opportunity to rapidly provide access to substantial spawning habitat. The channel has approximately 6,092 square feet of suitable spawning habitat that could accommodate about 1,300 cutthroat females. The channel will also provide spawning habitat for kokanee and bull trout that are fall spawners, while avoiding conflict with cutthroat spawning. In addition, this tributary is in the lower basin where warmer
286 temperatures will accommodate earlier spawning which is important for the development of a diverse cutthroat population within the Lake Chelan Basin.
6 We are not aware of the cost estimate that Chelan PUD provided to FERC staff for the renovation and maintenance of the Twenty-Five Mile Creek spawning channel. It is difficult to understand the characterization of this activity as “a costly action” when Chelan PUD has already renovated one half of the facility by utilizing its own labor force and equipment. The spawning channel is situated in what is essentially a side channel that could be protected from future influx of heavy sediment loads via the construction of an inexpensive filtration barrier at the inlet to the channel. This filtration barrier could be as simple as a porous gravel berm at the point where the side channel diverges from Twenty-Five Mile Creek. WDFW staff have observed rainbow trout juveniles utilizing the recently renovated channel areas as rearing habitat and anticipate the cutthroat would also utilize this habitat as they become reestablished in the watershed.
Response. We have revised and updated this section of the FEA based on the information you have provided.
7 Recommendation No. 12 – Entrainment: The entrainment investigations and fish salvage operations conducted over the past several years, each time the Chelan River has been dewatered subsequent to spring/summer spill events, provide ample evidence that rainbow trout and other fish are present in the immediate vicinity of the intake and currently pass downstream over the spillway. The presence of rainbow trout in the forebay, adjacent to the intake structure and the documentation of downstream movement at the spillway, are very strong circumstantial evidence for entrainment in the power intake under current operating conditions. This documentation of current trout presence is a strong indication that when cutthroat trout populations are rebuilt and natural reproduction is occurring regularly within the Chelan Basin that sub-adult cutthroat trout will regularly occur at the forebay of the project.
8 WDFW is seeking to have a design and implementation plan developed for the exclusion of fingerling size, and larger, trout from the power intake. We believe that it is reasonable for Chelan PUD to incur the modest cost associated with exclusion structure design and implementation planning for the purpose of reducing the delay and associated resource damage that will result if this action is deferred to the time period when monitoring confirms the presence of fingerling trout in the forebay of the project.
Response. While the specific cost of the plan may seem insignificant to WDFW, we continue to believe that development of a plan at this time would be premature. Continued monitoring should be sufficient to quickly identify increases in entrainment. Additionally, monitoring will potentially provide important design information such as species, size, distribution within the
287 water column, etc. Lastly, a plan based on current technology could potentially be useless if the need for protection does not occur until many years from now when better technologies may be available.
9 Recommendation No. 15 – Minimum Flows in Tailrace: FERC staff have apparently not reviewed the full evidentiary record regarding survival of eggs and fry in chinook redds spawned within the Chelan trailrace. During the winter of 2000-2001, the Chelan powerhouse was shut down for extended periods of time (greater than 21 days and later in the incubation season than in the fall of 2001). WDFW and Chelan PUD staff conducted an assessment of the viability of redds in the Chelan tailrace during the expected emergence period in the late winter/early spring of 2001. We found no fry present and only dead eggs and alevins in excavated redds. The complete absence of fry was a strong indicator of probable severe mortality since there were hundreds of redds spawned in this area in the fall of 2000.
Response. We have added this information, which was not previously part of our record, to the FEA.
10 Flow of highly oxygenated water within the hyporheic habitat is critical to the survival of emergence and alevins growth of salmonids (Coble 1961; Silver, et. al., 1963; Shumway, et. al., 1964; Sowden and Power 1985). In addition, the rate of hyporheic flow helps to control the removal of metabolic wastes (Chapman 1988).
11 It is WDFW policy to avoid and/or prevent harm to resources through proactive mitigation measures rather than conduct post-hoc reactive compensation for major fish kills. We strongly recommend that FERC adopt a comparable policy. Implementation of this strategy for the Chelan tailrace and Reach 4 spawning areas requires the maintenance of minimum flows throughout the incubation period for salmonids. We are amenable to working with Chelan PUD, and the other parties, to determine the appropriate minimum flow requirement for these newly created habitats as they are constructed. Construction of a system to provide pumped upwelling water through the tailrace spawning gravels could be a viable option. Such a system would be much easier to install concurrent with the creation of the tailrace channel modifications, rather than as a retrofit. The water supply could be provided from the pumping station that is planned for the flow augmentation into Reach 4. Finding an appropriate time window for providing such a system as a retrofit will be difficult from both the biological and project operations perspective. However, the FERC staff approach of documenting a major fish kill prior to taking affirmative action regarding incubation flows is unacceptable.
288 Response. We have updated and revised this section of the FEA to address your concerns and Chelan's revised proposal for providing flow security in the tailrace.
12 Recommendation No. 17 – Tailrace Flow Gaging: As discussed under Recommendation No. 15, there is an absolutely essential requirement for minimum flows in the tailrace area. However, if the documentation for the maintenance of the minimum flows can be provided through alternatives to a gaging station, WDFW is amenable to such an option.
Response. We have revised this section of the FEA to address your comments and Chelan's current proposal for gauging flows.
13 Recommendation No. 19 – Wildlife Habitat Acquisition: The proposed operation of the Lake Chelan Project, under the new license, will continue to make the 655 acres of inundated riparian lands and wetlands unavailable as critical wildlife habitat. WDFW has conducted a preliminary assessment of the potential to acquire conservation easements on private lands as an alternative to direct acquisition. We believe that this is a viable alternative that could provide the essential wildlife habitat mitigation at a fraction of the cost that Chelan PUD estimated for acquisition. Also, the FERC staff acceptance of the Chelan PUD “Final Lake Chelan Wildlife Habitat Management Plan” (WHP) as an alternative means of mitigation is disappointing because the Chelan PUD WHP is only a collection of amorphous, undefined measures for wildlife habitat improvement. We are also concerned that FERC staff have accepted a specific dollar cap for funding this amorphous WHP as a satisfactory program to address terrestrial wildlife habitat impacts. We are also concerned that acceptance of the WHP of February 28, 2002, would create a competition among stakeholders for funding of candidate Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancements (PMEs). Such competition would likely have a negative effect on overall habitat improvement and management efforts within the Lake Chelan Basin.
Response. Neither WDFW, Forest Service, or Chelan PUD has identified any specific parcels for acquisition or provided an estimate the cost for acquiring such land(s). Therefore, staff estimated the cost of acquiring lands from an internet search on real estate listings of land with waterfront property on Lake Chelan and at least 20 acres in size. More informaion on how we arrived at the costs is provided in the FEA. While conservation easements can and often are a less expensive alternative to fee-title purchase, they are negotiated agreements. WDFW provides no information to evaluate possible costs.
The EA acknowledges the problem of limited detail provided in Chelan PUD's draft wildlife habitat management plan. We recommend finalizing the plan in consultation with the resource agencies. However, the EA also points out the habitat benefits that could be attained from implementing the types of measures identified in the wildlife habitat management plan. These habitat management actions are likely to be the same that WDFW would expect to be applied
289 on any lands acquired pursuant to their recommendation. Because the wildlife habitat management plan would be implemented over the term of the license (30 to 50 years), the specific actions and locations of actions would change from year to year, necessitating some level of flexibility in the management plan.
The EA states that the proposed funding level appears sufficient to fulfill the actions defined in Chelan PUD's proposed Wildlife Habitat Management Plan and would provide significant habitat improvements over a large area each year. We have revised our recommendation to indicate that proposed funding levels should not be reduced by survey and monitoring efforts to ensure adequate funding for more direct habitat benefits. However, the Commission has stated that it cannot constrain the fulfillment of its statutory responsibilities by agreeing to a spending cap for environmental measures. Such a spending cap could interfere with the Commission's authority to require the licensee to implement the resource plans required by the license or to include in those plans appropriate resource measures, including those that may be necessary to address new or unexpected circumstances that may arise (Thunder Bay Power Company 88 FERC ¶ 61,078, 1999; Carolina Power and Light Company 69 FERC ¶ 61,168, 1994). The Commission has rarely applied the concept of a funding cap outside of a settlement agreement. Thus, while a requirement to provide a certain level of funding may be included in any license issued, those funding levels could be revisited when a final wildlife habitat management plan is filed for Commission approval.
Finally, the EA acknowledges the problem of choosing among habitat management actions that may be proposed by the different resource agencies. Staff recommends that Chelan PUD finalize the wildlife habitat management in consultation with the Forest Service, NPS, FWS, and WDFW to better frame the wildlife habitat plan and to define how the wildlife coordinating committee would decide on any suite of management actions that would be implemented each year. In any case, staff's responsibility and recommendations are based on the requirement of ensuring that the resource needs associated with the Lake Chelan Project are addressed on balance with other needs, not to ensure that a particular resource agency receives a particular share.
Specific Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment
Water Quality
14 Page 50. Para. 2. Temperature data for the 2002 flow year, and additional temperature model results, were not available during the prefiling consultation process and at the time WDFW developed its initial Section 10(j) recommendations. Therefore, the additional Section 10(j) recommendation, presented earlier, was developed to mitigate the effects of the
290 daily temperature spikes that will occur in the bypassed reach of the Chelan River during the summer period.
Response. We have added this measure to our analysis in the FEA.
Fishery Resources
15 Page 52. Para. 1. WDFW data indicates that bluegill are the only “pan fish” found in Lake Chelan. We suggest that the language “a variety of pan fish” be deleted from your document.
Response. We have revised the language to address your comment
16 Page 54. Para. 4. The word “Catostomids” is spelled incorrectly.
Response. We have corrected the spelling
17 Page 56. Para. 1. The failure of small cutthroat, planted directly into Lake Chelan, to survive to adult size highlights the critical function of the tributaries as rearing habitat for juvenile cutthroat. The tributaries are where juvenile cutthroat have suitable food resources for foraging and adequate cover from predators. These are some of the principal reasons why the removal of alluvial barriers to accommodate access to tributaries is a critical element for the recovery of cutthroat trout in the Lake Chelan Basin. Also, WDFW does not intend to utilize direct plants of cutthroat fry into Lake Chelan as a primary recovery strategy for cutthroat as documented in the Lake Chelan Fish Management Plan.
Response. We have added this information to the FEA
18 Page 58. Para. 1. The discussion would be improved by adding the fact that the size of individual kokanee and kokanee catch rates are both dependent on population size. Brown (1984) wrote, “As might be expected, kokanee adult size varied with population size. When populations were high, adult size was small, and conversely, when the kokanee population crashed in the late 1970s, the average adult size increased.” WDFW intends to work cooperatively with the Lake Chelan Fishery Advisory Committee to determine the appropriate kokanee population size for maintenance of satisfactory catch rates of fish of acceptable size.
Response. We have added this information to the FEA
291 19 Page 60. Para. 1. It should be noted that all of the hatchery origin chinook released into Lake Chelan in recent years have been marked with fin clips to aid in documenting their contribution to the sport fishery and spawning populations. WDFW intends to continue this marking protocol, as well as modify release strategies to improve the contribution of future hatchery releases.
Response. We have added this information to the FEA
20 Page 61. Para. 5. The third sentence should indicate that the present day zooplankton community is now less able, not unable, to provide adequate forage for kokanee. Presently, it is unclear how much trout depend upon zooplankton and how much competition for zooplankton occurs between kokanee and trout. The minor amount of information that we have suggests that zooplankton makes up only a minor proportion of the trout diets. Naturally produced cutthroat and rainbow trout spend their early life in the tributaries and forage on aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates. They are not in the lake feeding on zooplankton. Also, the information we presently have suggests that when these trout enter the lake at larger sizes, only a small portion of their diet is zooplankton. Brown (1984) found that stomach samples from both cutthroat and rainbow trout that were sport caught in the lake contained greater than 90 percent terrestrial and aquatic insects.
Response. We have added this information to the FEA
21 Page 68. Para. 2. The maximum ramprate limit of 1 inch per hour should be adhered to, to the extent practicable, during all flow conditions. Rapid flow reductions during higher flow events have the potential to strand adult, as well as juvenile, fish.
Response. We have included an analysis of a 1 inch per hour ramping rate in the FEA
22 Page 86. Para. 3. It should be noted that WDFW has produced, and provided to the participants in Lake Chelan relicensing, a Draft Lake Chelan Fish Management Plan which can provide a template for the multi-agency comprehensive plan.
Response. We have revised the FEA to indicate the preparation of this plan
23 Page 86. Para. 4. The stocking program, with 100,000 legal sized rainbow trout, is provided as a substitute for a portion of the original kokanee due to the restriction of the kokanee stocking program to a level of 500,000 (rather than 2 million). The 100,000 rainbow trout are not additional voluntary production on the part of Chelan PUD.
Response. We have added this information to the FEA
292 24 Page 87. Para. 1. WDFW believes that Chelan PUD should provide the funds necessary to successfully convert the current rainbow trout stocking program to a cutthroat trout stocking program. This includes modifications to Chelan Hatchery, as well as operations and maintenance funding. This activity will make a substantial contribution to the efforts of the Fishery Advisory Committee for the rebuilding of cutthroat trout populations in the Lake Chelan Basin.
Response. We have revised the discussion in the FEA to clarify the distinction between funding the modifications to the hatchery and support for the stocking program
25 Page 88. Para. 1. The value of the Twenty-Five Mile Creek spawning/incubation channel for cutthroat trout restoration was presented above in the discussion of Recommendation No. 8.
Response. As indicated above, we have revised the discussion of this measure
25 Page 89. Para. 1.Chelan PUD has estimated the cost for tributary access projects at $100,000. WDFW’s fishery engineering staff have not been consulted regarding these cost estimates, and we are not aware of any other resource professional engineering consultation associated with this estimate. Establishment and maintenance of tributary access is critical to the restoration of cutthroat trout populations within the Lake Chelan Basin. This activity must be accomplished regardless of whether the cost is lesser or greater than the Chelan PUD cost estimate.
Response. As indicated in their comments on the DEA, Chelan is committed to eliminating project-related tributary barriers and the $100,000 value was an estimate of the expected costs rather than a cap. The FEA has been revised to reflect this clarification
26 Page 92. Para. 2.Regarding your analysis of the tributary barrier problem and your adoption of our recommendation as indicated on page 205, it is unclear if you are accepting the PUD cost limit for this action or the WDFW position of no cost limit. We continue to believe that a cost limit is not appropriate and seek clarification of your position.
Response. We recommend Chelan be required to remove project-related tributary barriers and have revised the FEA to clarify that the $100,000 value is only an estimate of the potential costs. We do not recommend establishing a cost cap for this measure.
27 Page 96. Para. 1.WDFW supports the need for evaluation of the potential effects on the existing ecology of Lake Chelan that would be associated with the potential introduction of
293 anadromous fish. The proposed Fishery Advisory Committee would be an appropriate forum to direct such an evaluation.
Response. We have revised the FEA to include this information.
Acquisition and Management of Riparian and Upland Habitats
28 Page 109. Para. 1. “A draft of the plan has been prepared for discussion dated February 28, 2002 and modifications to the plan are being negotiated.” This statement appears to be erroneous. We are not aware of any plan modification negotiations having taken place or are planned. At present, this remains a conceptual document lacking in detail.
Response. The reference to negotiations has been removed.
29 Page 110. Para. 1. “Although no specific operational impacts on riparian, wetland and upland habitats were raised by agencies (other than continued inundation) ....” A subtle, but critical, ecological mechanism was briefly touched on in Eldred (2002) . See “Shore lands,” page 4 of the reference. This is nutrient storage and recycling. The shoreward region of a lake is known as the littoral region, and is composed of the eulittoral and sublittoral zones. The eulittoral is the region of seasonally fluctuating water level (and changing moisture conditions) between the natural high and low water marks, in which the beating of waves is effective. The eulittoral and upper sublittoral are especially significant in nutrient storage and recycling. Wind-caused surface current and internal current of various origins (e.g., wind, rapid changes in barometric pressure, and rain showers) causes surf to wash the eulittoral zone, and/or turbulence in the sublittoral zone, to pick up, transport, and reintroduce nutrients into the water column. These resuspended nutrients are then more readily available to stimulate the metabolism of pelagic, benthic, and shore land inhabitants, both plant and animal (Ruttner 1953, Wetzel 1983). The depth of the native Lake Chelan shore lands and littoral areas (that is, the distance from the lake in the direction toward higher ground) affected by hydro fluctuations extends from the bottom of the upper sublittoral zone up slope to the 1,100 foot elevation. The current riparian zone of Lake Chelan is reduced from what it was, or would have become, in a native condition (USDA Forest Service 1999). With the native water surface elevation at 1,080 feet most of the year, but increasing to about 1,085 feet during spring-early summer snow melt, the riparian vegetation growth would have, and did, extend down the slope of the shore lands to about the top of the eulittoral zone, approximately 1,088 feet (i.e., the top of the native beach zone — 1,085 feet — plus about three feet for the height of wind-driven surf). Museum archive photos corroborate this. Presently, from 1,088 feet (in what had been the eulittoral zone) down to the bottom of the upper sublittoral zone, the beneficial attributes of the littoral zone are degraded due to the ecological instability that results from the 16-20 foot annual
294 fluctuation of the lake surface. With hydro operations, as the water surface rises and then recedes during the year, the approximate lower limit of the sublittoral zone (and the eulittoral zone above it) becomes higher, then lower, in the water column. Because of this, the littoral zone’s native productivity is diminished by not concentrating stored nutrients in a relatively narrow elevation band (e.g., 1,080 ft - 1,085 ft), but spreading out and thinning them during large annual hydro-caused fluctuations (e.g., 1,084 ft - 1,100 ft). In summary, a subtle result of large fluctuations caused by project operation is that “big shots” of nutrients no longer occur early in the growing season, but are reduced to little dribbles. The natural mode of annual nutrient storage and reinjection back into the water column that was important throughout the entire lake for pelagic, benthic, and shore land animals and plants has been greatly degraded.
Response. While it may be reasonable to conclude that the current lake level regime results in a shift in the timing of nutrient resuspension in Lake Chelan, it is unclear based on your comments how this effect is related to the amount of available riparian habitat or how obtaining additional off-site shrub-steppe habitats you now recommend would mitigate this effect.
30 Page 111. Para. 1. “...resource agencies generally agree, as do staff, that project operations likely affect riparian vegetation and associated wildlife — fluctuating water levels result in freezing or dessication of over wintering vegetative structures and inundation of vegetation colonizing the drawdown zone during the summer growing season, in turn affecting the wildlife that use these habitats. The effects, however, are limited to areas with suitable substrate for riparian vegetation establishment and low-gradient shorelines.” In regard to this last sentence above, local WDFW wildlife staff have determined that there are no suitable areas adjacent to Lake Chelan for developing significant stands of riparian vegetation to replace the inundated riparian areas. As an alternative, they have inspected shrub forage in the steppe areas where deer commonly winter now. Their conclusion is that shrubs are becoming increasingly decadent and are less capable of supplying suitable forage, especially in the winter. Increasing decadence is at least partly the result of deer cropping the succulent young shrub recruits. This “high grading” is the consequence of deer not being able to winter in former commonly occurring riparian areas, forcing them to concentrate in the most desirable lower uplands that are left. Thus, the mule deer are in fact “eating themselves out of house and home.” The most practical means to enhance critical winter habitat is to ensure sufficient survival and recruitment of young forage shrubs by planting an adequate density of them in suitable soil.
Response. The FEA has been revised to indicate your opinion of no suitable areas adjacent to Lake Chelan for developing significant stands of riparian vegetation. This is consistent with staff's view of the information on the record. The FEA acknowledges the problem of
295 increasing decadence of winter browse; a common problem for much of Columbia River basin that is attributed mostly to successional progression from grazing and altered fire regimes (Clements and Young 1997). It is well documented that heavy browsing of shrub can lead to lower quality habitat and reproduction (Hoffman and Wambolt 1996; Kay 1995). Glacial and topographical influences suggest that riparian areas along Lake Chelan were never overly abundant. To attribute the "high grading" almost entirely to a reduction in available riparian habitats ignores other factors that have reduced the abundance and quality of more common shrub-steppe wintering habitats, i.e. agricultural conversion, residential development, and migration barriers to lower elevation habitats. Nonetheless, planting shrubs is a common practice for increasing the carrying capacity of deer habitats. It is this type of action that is contemplated by Chelan PUD's Wildlife Habitat Plan and recommended by staff.
31 Page 111. Para. 3. “Availability of good big game winter range at low elevations is critical to the survival of mule deer during severe winters ... Chelan PUD’s wildlife surveys show increased use of the shore line habitats during severe winters ....” The importance of keeping critical habitat healthy, as related immediately above, is demonstrated by data in DEA Table 14. During the 1995-1996 winter, 232 deer-days of use/acre were estimated to have occurred on surveyed areas of the north and south shores combined. The next winter, the long, hard one of 1996-1997, saw an estimated 499 deer-days of use/acre in the same survey areas. This was a 115 percent increase in deer use during a critical winter.
Response. The FEA acknowledges the value of low elevation habitats during sever winters. Note, however, we corrected the typographical error for the average north shore count for the year 1987-88 from 5108 to 51.8.
32 Page 112. Para. 1. “However, neither WDFW or Forest Service identified any potential parcel(s) for acquisition. There is no information on record to suggest that there are key habitats remaining along the shores of Lake Chelan that are available for purchase or would occur in blocks large enough to effectively manage.” Continuing investigation has identified approximately 750 acres of private lands on the north shore, between Deer Point and Gold Creek, as potential parcels having high wildlife value. Wildlife surveys in the winter of 1996-1997 found approximately 25 percent of all mule deer counted were in these four shoreline miles. DEA Table 14 shows 24.5 percent of all deer use surveyed over 17 years occurred in this portion (i.e., Deer Point).
Response. The FEA has been revised to include the information on the areas you have identified.
296 33 Page 112. Para. 1. “Assuming such parcels are available ... at $14,175 per acre, acquisition of 690 acres would cost $9,780,750 ... managing these lands would cost $10,350 annually, assuming $15 per acre.” We have identified conservation easements as an alternative to fee title acquisition, and are investigating this possibility. This alternative could effectively protect and enhance these habitats at a fraction of the cost stated.
Response. See response to WDFW paragraph 13.
34 Page 114. Para. 2. “In addition, WDFW recommends that Chelan PUD continue its 12 annual big game and eagle surveys and maintenance and stocking of four winter wildlife feeders. Chelan PUD has estimated it would cost $30,000 annually to implement the new Wildlife Habitat Plan, which would include those measures along with noxious weed control and other wildlife management activities ... At $15 per acre, Chelan PUD’s proposal would appear to be sufficient to substantially enhance wildlife habitat conditions on about 2,000 acres ....” There are several problems with this analysis. (1) Chelan PUD’s $30,000 estimate is based on a conceptual document which lacks detail and is, therefore, not a reliable basis for funding. (2) We estimate the cost of conducting the 12 winter wildlife surveys, analyzing information, and writing the annual report to be approximately $15,000. This would be half of the proposed funding for the plan. These surveys are an important monitoring activity we wish to see continued, but result in no habitat enhancement — zero acres. The surveys, if funded from the budget for the Wildlife Habitat Plan, would reduce the amount available for habitat enhancement. The wildlife surveys, et al., should be funded in addition to the Wildlife Habitat Plan, not as a portion of it. (3) The $15 per acre figure is grossly insufficient to fund substantial habitat enhancement. This level of funding allows for significant habitat improvements to be conducted on portions of mitigation-funded areas, not the entire wildlife area. It is planned into O & M level funding for an entire wildlife area over an extended period (for example, five years or more). The cost-per-acre of most pure habitat enhancement activities is much higher, especially if any kind of restoration is involved. On the order of $300-$500 per acre can be expected (Juli Anderson and Marc Hallet, both WDFW Wildlife Area Managers. Pers. comm. 2003). Large scale, pure enhancement/restoration projects are commonly funded as capital items. The WDFW website information is misleading in that the $15/acre figure likely relates to limited habitat enhancements planned into extended O & M budgets. One cannot assume that annual state wildlife area funding levels, averaged across the area occupied by those wildlife area lands, accurately portrays the cost of pure habitat restoration/improvement activities on a per acre basis.
Response. We respond to your points in the order given.
First, see response to WDFW paragraph 13 regarding the completeness of the plan.
297 Second, we agree that the ability to provide wildlife habitat enhancements would be significantly reduced if funding for the wildlife survey efforts were provided from the wildlife habitat plan budget. We have no basis to disagree with your estimate for conducting the wildlife surveys and have included the cost in the FEA. We recommend in the FEA that the bald eagle and big game surveys be continued, but funding levels within the wildlife habitat plan be increased appropriately to separately fund these activities.
Third, the WDFW's web site states that a operational budget of $10 to $15 per acre allows for significant habitat improvements such as replanting riparian areas or native grasslands, activities specifically contemplated by Chelan PUD's wildlife habitat management plan. In our view, Chelan PUD's proposal equates to an extended operational budget over a defined area, not unlike that for a state wildlife management area–which in this instance does include wildlife management areas. Thus, even if these management efforts and costs were to represent "limited habitat improvements" over an extended operational period as you suggest, we see no reason why similar expectations for wildlife habitat benefits could not be achieved by Chelan PUD's Wildlife Habitat Management Plan. We have revised the FEA to indicate that the amount of habitat improved will depend on the level of restoration efforts.
35 Page 114. Para. 3. “At $15 per acre, Chelan PUD’s proposal would appear sufficient to substantially enhance wildlife habitat conditions on about 2,000 acres ....” Please refer to comment for page 114, second full paragraph, (3), immediately above.
Response. See response to WDFW paragraph 34 above.
36 Page 114. Para. 5. “Chelan PUD’s proposed draft Wildlife Habitat Plan also indicates that a monitoring program would be developed to track the effectiveness of habitat enhancements and the plan itself. This is consistent with WDFW’s recommended monitoring requirements ....” This assertion of consistency with WDFW’s recommended monitoring requirements is erroneous. The WHP enhancement measures and monitoring activities are unspecified. We reiterate that the only specific detail in the plan is the funding level, which is unsupported by data or detail, and appears to us to be grossly inadequate to provide the long list of non-specific products attributed to it. It is imperative that, at a minimum, a detailed, specific plan and budget be developed as a prelude to logical evaluation of the completeness of that plan and the adequacy of its funding. In other words, “Here in detail is what we need to do and is there enough money to do it?”
Response. We removed the reference to consistency with WDFG's proposed measures. However, we note that WDFW recommends a monitoring plan be developed to ensure the effectiveness of the habitat management measures. WDFW includes no more justification or detail than provided in Chelan PUD's proposal. Nonetheless, the FEA acknowledges that a
298 monitoring program has not been fully defined. In large part this is by necessity for the type and level of monitoring will depend on the management activity implemented (i.e. success of native plantings, successful control of noxious weeds). Again, staff believes that the details of the management actions and the type and level of monitoring are best left to the resource agencies and the licensee to work out in finalizing and implementing the plan. See also response to WDFW paragraphs 13 and 34.
Integrated Weed Management
37 Page 119. Para. 2. “... supplemental feeding of hay to wintering elk ....” The project area is entirely within a designated elk exclusion zone, and WDFW is opposed to activities to benefit elk in this area.
Response. The FEA was revised to indicate that the proposed management plan included measures for supplemental feeding of wintering deer, not elk.
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
Federally-listed threatened and endangered species
Bald Eagle
38 Page 120.Chelan PUD, not WDFW, has conducted bald eagle surveys since 1982.
Response. The FEA has been corrected.
Other species of concern
Western gray squirrel
39 Page 125. The Western gray squirrel is State classified as Threatened.
Response. This information has been included in the FEA.
Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative
Wildlife Habitat Management
299 40 Page 191. Para. 2. Recommend changing “... on state and federal lands.” to read “... on state, federal, and appropriate private lands.” Please refer to our comment for page 112, first paragraph.
Response. Staff agrees that wildlife habitat enhancements could be applied on private lands under Chelan PUD's control or in coordination with the state; therefore the FEA has been revised as suggested. However, we are not recommending that Chelan PUD acquire such private lands (See response WDFW paragraph 13).
41 Page 191. Para. 3. “To the extent that Chelan PUD’s current labor and fund allocations, wildlife surveys, and maintenance of wildlife feeders are consistent with and included in the Final Lake Chelan Wildlife Habitat Management Plan, ....” We agree that these measures should continue. However, they must be in addition to any wildlife habitat management funding obligations required under the new license; otherwise, these activities will reduce funding available for habitat restoration and management activities. These should be complementary, not competing, activities.
Response. In the FEA, we recommend that the wildlife surveys be a separately funded item in the Wildlife Habitat Management Plan. The cost associated with these surveys is relatively small ($15,000 per year), would provide useful information for management decisions, and would increase available resources for habitat management activities that more directly benefit habitat or wildlife populations. However, we understand that current fund and labor allocations are used for habitat improvements. Maintaining wildlife feeders can be a useful management tool to supplement habitat conditions to sustain wildlife populations and result in direct wildlife habitat benefits. If supplemental feeding is not consistent with state and federal management objectives, Chelan PUD's proposal would provide a mechanism by which the RCC could reevaluate whether it would prefer to allocate funds for such activities differently.
42 Page 191. Para. 4. “We also concur with the need for monitoring the effectiveness of any measures implemented under the Final Lake Chelan Wildlife Habitat Management Plan.” WDFW concurs with this, but monitoring should be in addition to any wildlife habitat restoration/improvement and management funding obligations required under the license. Otherwise, monitoring will reduce funding available for habitat restoration/enhancement and management activities. These should be complementary, not competing, activities.
Response. We agree. The FEA has been revised accordingly.
Acquisition and Management of Riparian and Upland Habitats
300 43 Page 197. Para. 2. “Acquiring and managing riparian, wetland, and low-elevation shrub steppe upland habitats would benefit wildlife, particularly big game species which appear to represent a major management emphasis in the basin, by preventing further habitat loss. However, reservoir fluctuation effects are, and would continue to be, limited to small areas associated with project tributaries ....” (Emphasis added). Riparian vegetated areas on non- federal lands of the native lake totaled approximately 251 acres. Using a comparison analogous to Chelan PUD’s, on page 111, relative to present riparian abundance, these 251 acres equated to approximately 31 linear miles of riparian corridor. This was equal to 26 percent of the native shoreline. This much riparian had to have been important to mule deer survival, especially in the winter. The forcing of mule deer to lower elevation uplands, and the current limited recruitment of young forage shrubs, resulting in increasing decadence of older plants, is a direct adverse project effect. With almost all of the riparian gone, and no prospects of it coming back, there was no hospitable habitat elsewhere for the deer to go. (Refer to DEA discussion of fluctuation effect on riparian reestablishment, at top of page 111).
Response. The FEA acknowledges the value of riparian habitat to winter deer survival. See also response to WDFW paragraph 31 and 32.
44 Page 197. Para. 3. “Further, implementing Chelan PUD’s Wildlife Habitat Management Plan would improve wildlife habitat conditions on a significant portion of existing habitat in the basin at a much reduced cost to the project, about $30,000 annually. Such actions would be adequate to protect and enhance wildlife resources.” The cost expectations, reported above, of two veteran WDFW Wildlife Area Managers who are experienced in large scale arid lands habitat restoration, suggest that the protection and enhancement of wildlife resources at the $15/acre level could be on the order of $15/$400, or less than five percent of that envisioned by the DEA. At the $15/acre level, we ask what habitat would be improved? How would wildlife habitat conditions be improved? How much is a “significant” portion of existing habitat?
Response. As proposed in the Wildlife Habitat Management Plan, habitats subject to management actions would include state and federal lands in Chelan County within about 6 miles of the Rocky Reach Reservoir. This area includes the WDFW Swankee, Entiat, and Chelan Butte Wildlife Management Areas and Forest Service lands in the Lake Chelan Basin between the lake and the 3,500 feet elevation. This encompasses an area in excess of 30,000 acres. However we recommend that management efforts be confined to the Lake Chelan basin to directly benefit resources most closely associated with and affect by the Lake Chelan Project. How much wildlife habitat or wildlife populations would benefit would depend on the measures to be employed. Nonetheless, public lands account for 60 percent of the Lake Chelan basin, thus actions taken to improve habitats on these lands represent a
301 significant portion of existing wildlife habitats in the basin. See also response to WDFW paragraphs 13, 34, and 36.
Endangered Species and Sensitive Species Consultation Plans
45 Page 198. Para. 2. “Any license issued for the project would contain the Commission’s standard reservation of authority to reopen the license for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources, including threatened and endangered species.” (Emphasis added). We ask if the Commission’s future docket will be able to assure a timely reopening should that be necessary?
Response. The FEA has been revised to describe the Commission's policy regarding section 7 consultation and reopening licenses to address threatened and endangered species, as well as staff's commitment and procedures for working with the licensee and resource agencies in that regard.
Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
46 Page 204. Para. 2. “We do not recommend adopting WDFW’s recommendation that Chelan PUD acquire and manage 610 acres of wetlands, riparian areas, or land capable of being enhanced ... Implementation of the Final Lake Chelan Wildlife Habitat Management Plan would cost $30,000 annually and would be sufficient to protect and enhance over 2,000 acres of land.” It is WDFW’s belief that habitat protection, mitigation, and enhancement/restoration should be driven by the desired outcome; allocated cost should not drive the outcome. We also believe FERC staff confidence in the outcome of Chelan PUD’s WHP implementation is based on inappropriate information and is not justified at present.
Response. The comprehensive development requirement of section 10(a)(1) requires the Commission to consider all aspects of the public interest. Udall v. FPC, 387 U.S. 429 (1967). Project economics is one of the many public interest factors the Commission considers in project licensing. Staff weighed the economic and environmental tradeoffs of acquiring and managing additional lands and found that WDFW's recommendation was inconsistent with the balancing standard of section 10(a) of the FPA and that staff's recommendations would adequately and equitably protect, mitigate damages to, and enhance fish and wildlife.
47 Page 211. Table 20. Recommendation 28. “Fund the development and implementation of a wildlife protection and management plan that comprises a comprehensive program of wildlife protection, mitigation, and enhancement, including maintenance and monitoring.” This recommendation, as shown, suggests that WDFW requests and FERC adopts, this
302 measure at an annual cost of $30,000. WDFW neither proposes nor accepts the $30,000 annual cost as adequate to fund the measures FERC staff recommends Chelan PUD undertake under the wildlife plan.
Response. The costs reported are staff's estimate of the annualized cost of implementing the various proposed measures. The FEA acknowledges WDFW's disagreement with proposed funding levels for the wildlife habitat management plan.
48 Page 212. Table 20. Recommendation 29. Acquisition and management may be accomplished through conservation easements at a fraction of the annual cost stated.
Response. See response to WDFW paragraph 13.
49 Page 212. Table 20. Recommendation 30. “Fund wildlife protection and management actions including: 1) 12 big game and eagle population surveys per year; 2) $17,000 per year for big game habitat improvement; 3) 75 man-days per year of labor assistance to WDFW; and 4) maintain the condition and feed stocking of four winter wildlife feeders.” These measures should be funded separately, and in addition to, Recommendation 28.
Response. See response to WDFW 41 and 42.
50 Page 212. Table 20. Recommendation 31. “As part of the Wildlife Plan described in item 28, develop guidelines for monitoring enhancement efforts: 1) interim goals to ensure successful plan implementation; 2) an evaluation schedule with predetermined review targets; 3) adequate funding and staff to perform monitoring; and 4) a contingency plan to help enhancement efforts respond to changing conditions and correct omissions that are identified during the implementation plan.” Monitoring measures should be funded separately, and in addition to, Recommendation 28.
Response. See response to WDFW 41 and 42.
51 Page 212. Table 20. Recommendation 32. “Organize, support, and host a wildlife coordinating committee that would assist in development of the Wildlife Plan and review and approve wildlife lands proposed for acquisition.” If FERC staff accepts the Chelan PUD proposal for a wildlife coordination committee, it should be funded separately, and in addition to, Recommendation 28.
Response. We agree. Such measures should represent a nominal cost to the project. The FEA has been revised accordingly.
303 Chelan PUD
January 9, 2003
Ms. Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426
Subject: Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project - Project No. 637-022: Chelan PUD Response to FERC Draft Environmental Assessment
Dear Ms. Salas:
On behalf of Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County (Chelan PUD), this letter responds to the draftenvironmental assessment (DEA) for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project issued by the Commissionstaff on November 25, 2002. Chelan PUD appreciates the opportunity to provide comment andclarification.
This response is submitted at a time when Chelan PUD and the intervenors continue to make substantial progress through settlement negotiations. On October 11, 2002 Chelan PUD provided a settlement updateto the Commission. The report highlights the issues that are being addressed through the settlement negotiations process, which was initiated July 9, 2002. In a joint letter filed with the Commission on December 17, Chelan PUD and the intervening federal and state agencies requested a delay in theissuance of the final environmental assessment until after a settlement agreement has been filed.Meetings of Chelan PUD and the intervenors continue on a regular basis, and we expect to file asettlement agreement with the Commission by April 15, 2003. Chelan PUD is committed to the settlement process, and looks forward to the successful resolution of the outstanding issues in that forum.
However, we recognize that a successful resolution of the outstanding issues is not certain. Therefore, this letter will comment on the DEA on the assumption that a comprehensive settlement agreement is not reached.
This letter is in three parts. Part I contains Chelan PUD’s response to the proposed 4(e) conditions that we believe are beyond the scope of Section 4(e), are not supported by substantial evidence, or are otherwise legally deficient. Part II provides additional comment or clarification on specific issues raised by Commission staff. In this Part, references have been made to a comprehensive plan1 being developed 1 A Comprehensive Plan is being
304 developed as part of ongoing settlement discussions. The Plan has eleven chapters: Chapter 1: Erosion Control Treatments and Concepts for Lake Chelan (USFS); Chapter 2: Lake Chelan Erosion Control Plan (NPS); Chapter 3: Lake Chelan Large Woody Debris Management Plan; Chapter 4: Stehekin Area Implementation Plan; Chapter 5: Survey Monument Location and Re-establishment Plan; Chapter 6: Lake through settlement negotiations where it is useful in clarifying the Commission’s questions or concerns. Part III provides editorial and typographical comments.
Part I: Section 4(e) conditions that are, in whole or in part, beyond the scope of Section 4(e), or not supported by substantial evidence
1 4(e) Conditions Beyond the Scope of Section 4(e) Must Be Considered as Recommendations Under Section 10(a)
2 A number of the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) and Department of Interior’s National Park Service (NPS) proposed Section 4(e) conditions are beyond the scope of that section. The Commission is required to include in a license only Section 4(e) conditions that relate to project works within a reservation.
3 In Duke Power, the Commission recently reiterated that “Section 4(e) authority may only be applied to that portion of a project that is actually located on a reservation.”3 The Commission also affirmed that it had no obligation to include conditions “relative to reservations that are affected by a project but contain no project works.”4
4 The Commission also has stated that “the FPA contemplates that the Commission will act under Section 10(a)(1) to protect reservations in instances where Section 4(e) does not apply.”5 Therefore, in the event a settlement is not reached regarding the relicensing of the Lake Chelan Project, we request that the Section 4(e) conditions proposed by Interior and the Forest Service that are beyond the scope of that section be evaluated by the Commission under Section 10(a). In many instances, such conditions considered under Section 10(a) should be rejected in whole or in part based upon the analyses already set forth in the DEA, comments provided by Chelan PUD on August 12, 2002, and in this letter.
Proposed Forest Service Section 4(e) conditions that in whole or in part are beyond the scope of Section 4(e) include:
5 • Condition No. 2 - Modification of USDA Forest Service Conditions Condition No. 2 purports to reserve to the Forest Service the authority to modify its Section 4(e) conditions during the term of the new license. Such a reservation of authority is beyond the scope of Forest Service authority under Section 4(e). Pursuant to Section 15(e) of the
305 FPA, only the Commission has authority to set the term of a new license. Once a new license has been issued, only the Commission may modify it pursuant to Section 6 of the FPA.6 In light of the above, the Forest Service is without Chelan Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan; Chapter 7: Chelan River Biological Evaluation and Implementation Plan; Chapter 8: Lake Level Management; Chapter 9: Wildlife Habitat Plan; Chapter 10: Lake Chelan Historic Properties Management Plan; Chapter 11: Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project Recreation Resources Management Plan.authority to unilaterally modify any of its conditions during the term of the new license and thus the Commission must not include Condition No. 2 in the new license issued for the Lake Chelan Project.
6 • Condition No. 4 - Resource Coordination and Monitoring Implementation Plan Forest Service Condition No. 4 is beyond the scope of Forest Service authority under Section 4(e) because it concerns the implementation of a wide range of management plans such as recreation, aesthetic resource management, fish and wildlife management that are not limited to the portion of the Wenatchee National Forest Reservation occupied by the Lake Chelan Project. As stated above, “Section 4(e) authority may only be applied to that portion of a project that is actually located on a reservation.”7 Further, the Commission has no obligation to include conditions “relative to reservations that are affected by a project but contain no project works.”8 Therefore, the Forest Service legal justification that such a condition “will ensure that the USDA Forest Service maintains a reasonable level of control over project operations and activities that affect NFS lands, resources and programs”9 does not support the imposition of such a condition under Section 4(e).
7 • Condition No. 6 - Historic Properties Condition No. 6 is beyond the scope of Forest Service Section 4(e) authority to the extent it applies to lands other than the portion of the Wenatchee National Forest Reservation occupied by the Project.
8 • Condition No. 8 - Recreation Management Plan Condition No. 8 is beyond the scope of Forest Service Section 4(e) authority to the extent it applies to lands other than the portion of the Wenatchee National Forest Reservation occupied by the Project. Moreover, the portion of Condition No. 8 requiring that up to 22 acres of land be made “available for recreational use,” as well the requirements in Condition No. 12 that Chelan PUD acquire or provide for the management and protection of 10 acres of riparian/wetland habitat and 70 acres of shrub-steppe big game habitat are also beyond the scope of Forest Service authority under Section 4(e). Under Section 4(e), the Forest Service may impose conditions “to protect reservations from the impacts of project works located on them.”10 However, the land acquisition requirements of Conditions No. 8 and No. 12 do not in any way protect the Wenatchee National Forest reservation from the impact of Lake Chelan Project works located on it. To the contrary, they involve the purchase of lands at unidentified locations in the Lake Chelan basin that are not part of the
306 Wenatchee National Forest reservation. Moreover, although Chelan PUD does not agree that there are any project impacts in support of these conditions, even if such impacts do exist, the Forest Service is without authority to impose such the licensee and the Commission.” In order to provide some authority to modify an existing license consistent with Section 6, the Commission has had a longstanding practice of inserting standard reopener language in the new licenses that it issues. For example, the standard license articles in FERC Form L-1 require that the licensee “comply with such reasonable modifications of the project structure and operations as may be ordered by the Commission…” Therefore, only the Commission has authority to modify an existing license and such modifications must be “reasonable.” conditions because Section 4(e) “imposes no obligation on the Commission or power on the Secretary with respect to reservations that may somehow be affected by, but will contain no part of, the licensed project works.”11 Although the Forest Service has not identified the lands it seeks to require Chelan PUD to purchase, it is apparent that such purchases will not contain any part of the licensed project works of the Lake Chelan Project. In addition, as explained more fully in the Chelan PUD Response to Forest Service Comments filed on August 12, 2002: 1) the Forest Service has no authority under Section 4(e) to require compensation for historic inundation at relicensing; and, 2) the Region 6 paper that appears to be the basis for these conditions, Continuing Impacts Analysis in Hydropower Licensing for Inundated Areas, is counter to federal court and Commission precedent rejecting efforts to obtain mitigation for hypothetical “preproject” or “without project” resources.
9 • Condition No. 11 - Sensitive Species Consultation Plan Forest Service Condition No. 11 is also beyond the scope of Forest Service authority under Section 4(e)because it is an expansive series of requirements related to the management of sensitive species that is not limited to the portion of the Lake Chelan Project that is actually located on the Wenatchee National Forest reservation. The Commission has previously rejected a similar Forest Service condition as beyond the scope of Section 4(e). In Southern California Edison Co., the Commission held that a Forest Service requirement “to monitor riparian and aquatic habitat” within a reservation but outside the project boundary, was beyond the scope of Section 4(e).12 Indeed, the Condition No. 11 does not appear to have any particular nexus to the Project itself or its impacts on reservation lands on which a portion of the Project is located. Therefore, it may not be imposed by the Forest Service as a Section 4(e) condition.
10 • Condition No. 12 - Riparian and Upland Habitats See response to Condition No. 8, above.
11 • Condition No. 13 - Restoration of Resident Fish Habitat Condition No. 13 is beyond the scope of Forest Service Section 4(e) authority to the extent it applies to lands and resources other than the portion of the Wenatchee National Forest Reservation occupied by project works. The fish in Lake Chelan are the property of the State of Washington, and are not part
307 of the Wenatchee National Forest reservation. Therefore, the provisions of Condition No. 13 that are broadly applicable to Lake Chelan fisheries are beyond the scope of Section 4(e). For example, the provision of Condition No. 13 that requires Chelan PUD to file for Forest Service approval a plan that, among other things, provides “for coordinated fisheries management in the Lake Chelan watershed” is beyond the scope of Section 4(e).
12 • Condition No. 14 - Lake Level Management Condition No. 14 is beyond the scope of Forest Service Section 4(e) authority to the extent it applies to lands other than the portion of the Wenatchee National Forest Reservation occupied by project works. For example, the portion of Condition No. 14 that requires that operations shall be consistent with the provisions of the Chelan River (Bypassed Reach) Comprehensive Management Plan are beyond the scope 11 Escondido Mutual Water Co. v. La Jolla Band of Mission Indians 466 U.S. 765 at 780-81. 12 Southern California Edison Co. 86 FERC ¶ 61,230 at 61,835 (1999). of Section 4(e) because the Lake Chelan dam itself, as well as the bypassed reach of the Chelan River, are not located on the Wenatchee National Forest Reservation. The Forest Service may not impose conditions on the portions of the Project that are not within the Reservation.
13 • Condition No. 15 - Integrated Weed Management Condition No. 15 is beyond the scope of Forest Service Section 4(e) authority to the extent it applies to lands other than the portion of the Wenatchee National Forest Reservation occupied by project works. As drafted, the Condition requires Chelan PUD to implement measures concerning weeds on “National Forest System lands affected by Project-related activities (emphasis added).” As stated previously, under current law the Commission is not obligated to include 4(e) conditions “relative to reservations that are affected by a project but contain no project works.”13
Proposed National Park Service conditions that are in whole or in part beyond the scope of Section 4(e), but may be considered by the Commission under Section 10(a) include:
13 • Condition No. 2 - Implementation and Modification of National Park Service Conditions
14 Condition No. 2.1 purports to reserve to the NPS the authority to modify its Section 4(e) conditions subsequent to the issuance of a new license. Such a reservation of authority is beyond the scope of NPS authority under Section 4(e) because, pursuant to Section 15(e) of the FPA, only the Commission has authority to set the term of a new license. Moreover, under the FPA, the NPS is without authority to unilaterally modify any of its conditions. Once a new license has issued, only the Commission may modify it pursuant to Section 6 of the FPA. 14. Conditions 2.4 Adaptive Management, and 2.5 Additional Environmental
308 Quality and Cultural Resources Analyses, that are within Condition No. 2 are also beyond the scope of Section 4(e). Both of these conditions are general provisions not specifically tied to addressing the impacts of the Lake Chelan Project on NPS reservation lands occupied by the Project. Instead, they appear to be an attempt to require Chelan PUD to pay for a range of unidentified measures in the future.
15 For example, Condition No. 2.5 provides that Chelan PUD “shall conduct or fund any environmental or cultural resource compliance required by later modification(s) of the license articles and projects through adaptive management.” To the extent such funding questions arise in the future due to an action by the Commission to modify the Lake Chelan Project license, the Commission, not NPS, will address such matters. Similarly, the justification for Condition No 2.4 states that the adaptive management team “needs to be empowered with some funding in order to implement the recommended changes.” In light of all of the above, the Commission must not include Conditions No. 2.1, 2.4 and 2.5 in the new license issued for the Lake Chelan Project.
16 • Condition No. 7 - Native Riparian Plant Community and Wildlife Rehabilitation. Condition No. 7, Native Riparian Plant Community and Wildlife Rehabilitation, is in part beyond the scope of Section 4(e) because NPS “reserves the right to change this component of the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan…” As explained above, the NPS is without authority to unilaterally modify a hydroelectric license issued under the FPA.
17 • Condition No. 8 - Non-Native Plant Control Condition No. 8 is beyond the scope of NPS’s Section 4(e) authority to the extent it applies beyond the portion of the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area reservation occupied by project works. The Condition is ambiguously worded to apply to “noxious weeds along the reservoir shoreline.” It should be modified to clarify that it only applies within the NPS reservation.
18 • Condition No. 14 - Fisheries Management Condition No. 14 is also beyond the scope of Section 4(e) to the extent it does not involve the impacts of the Lake Chelan Project on NPS reservation lands occupied by project works. The fish in Lake Chelan are the property of the State of Washington, and are not part of the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area reservation. Therefore, the portion of Condition No. 14 that provides that “Chelan PUD is responsible for developing and implementing a plan to minimize loss of fish through entrainment/spills” is beyond the scope of NPS Section 4(e) authority. This is because the Lake Chelan Project dam, where entrainment minimization measures would be implemented, does not occupy NPS reservation lands, and therefore NPS has no conditioning authority over the dam under Section 4(e).
309 19 2. Requiring Mitigation for Erosion and Other Impacts on Lands Where Chelan PUD Has a Flowage Easement is a Taking Although NPS may have Section 4(e) conditioning authority to require Chelan PUD to implement erosion control measures on NPS sites where Chelan PUD has flowage easements, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution would still apply to such conditions.15 Chelan PUD has full damage waiver easements on 10 of the 17 sites where NPS seeks to require Chelan PUD to conduct erosion control measures.16 Therefore, to the extent the erosion control requirements in Condition No. 4 apply to these 10 flowage easement sites, an unlawful taking would occur and NPS is obliged to compensate Chelan PUD for the loss of its easement property right.
20 The Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. A taking occurs, and compensation is required, when a government action denies a property owner “all economically beneficial or productive use” of a property interest.17 Here, NPS proposes that Chelan PUD provide compensation related to inundation of NPS lands where Chelan PUD has flowage easements, thus proposing to take from Chelan PUD “all economically beneficial use” of its easements, which were purchased for the purpose of enabling Chelan PUD to inundate such lands.
21 No statute, including Section 4(e) of the FPA, can override the obligation of the Forest Service and NPS to comply with the Fifth Amendment. Therefore, requiring compensation for inundation of lands on which Chelan PUD possesses a flowage easement is an unconstitutional taking of private property for public use without just compensation.
22 When the D.C. Circuit recently upheld the authority of a resource agency to impose 4(e) conditions on lands where a flowage easement existed, the court stated that if a licensee “does indeed own easements to flow the agencies’ lands and if FERC’s order has prevented it from using its property rights, the government may well have affected an unconstitutional taking.” Therefore, in the event a settlement is not reached and the Commission believes it is obliged to include NPS Condition No. 4 in its entirety in the Lake Chelan Project new license, Chelan PUD requests that the Commission independently analyze this takings issue to assist potential judicial review in the federal courts.
Response. The validity or legality of 4(e) conditions is typically not addressed in the Commission's NEPA documents. These issues are addressed in the Commission's order on the relicense application. If a 4(e) condition is found to be invalid, it will be assessed under Section 10(a).
Mandatory Conditions Must Be Supported by Substantial Evidence
310 23. A number of the Forest Service and Department of Interior proposed Section 4(e) conditions are not supported by substantial evidence, and are therefore unlawful. Although the Commission does not have authority to reject mandatory conditions on substantial evidence grounds, the courts have made it clear that the Commission may make findings and recommendations regarding whether mandatory conditions are lawful, reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, in the event that a settlement is not reached in this matter, Chelan PUD requests that the Commission make such findings and recommendations. Such a review would be of assistance to the Court of Appeals in the event that the new license is subject to judicial review. Furthermore, such a review will help the Commission meet its public interest and balancing responsibilities under Section 10(a) of the FPA.
Response. We typically do address all terms, conditions, prescriptions, and recommendations on their own merits whether or not they are mandatory.
Proposed Forest Service Section 4(e) conditions that in whole or in part are not supported by substantial evidence:
24 • Condition No. 8 - Recreation Resources Management Plan See Chelan PUD Response to Forest Service Comments, August 12, 2002, p. 7 - 8 and the July 8, 2002 Chelan PUD Response to Forest Service Proposed Conditions to Compensate for Inundation of Pre-Project Resources
Response. We addressed this issue in the DEA.
25 • Condition No. 12 - Riparian and Upland Habitats See Chelan PUD Response to Forest Service Comments, August 12, 2002, p. 4. Moreover, as stated by FERC in the DEA (page 198), the reservoir fluctuation effects that result from operation of the project are limited to small areas associated with project tributaries, far less than the acreage identified by the Forest Service. Implementing the Chelan PUD Wildlife Habitat Management Plan would improve the habitat value on a significant portion of the 20,000 acres of existing habitat in the basin at a much reduced cost to Chelan PUD.
26 • Condition No. 5 - Survey Monuments See Chelan PUD Response to Forest Service Comments, August 12, 2002, p. 6. In addition, the DEA (page 34) states that it “seems unlikely that the loss of most survey markers has been project-related.” Chelan PUD concurs that no evidence has been presented to support the conclusion that the Project is responsible for the loss of survey monuments. Some monuments were not relocated when the Project was developed, some have been destroyed in a variety of ways, and some
311 are still present but have proved difficult to locate over the last several years. Chelan PUD should be responsible only for monuments that have been destroyed or damaged by Project operations.
Response. We agree.
27 • Condition No. 10 - Large Woody Debris There is no identified Project effect on either the entry of LWD into Lake Chelan or in regard to its retention in the lake. The majority of LWD entering Lake Chelan enters the lake via tributary streams during flood events or fires. No change in LWD transport, as a result of Project operations, has been observed or documented. Project operation does not change water velocities, wind or other parameters that could affect the downstream movement of LWD. Most removal of LWD results from actions taken following major flood events, when large quantities of LWD posed hazards to navigation. Other activities that result in the removal of LWD are human activities not related to or caused by Project operation, such as collection of driftwood for firewood. See also Chelan PUD August 12, 2002 response to Forest Service comments, p. 9 - 10.
Response. Our analysis does not suggest that the project significantly affects the availability of LWD; however, we are recommending that where possible, you use LWD to control erosion.
Proposed National Park Service Section 4(e) Conditions that are in whole or in part not supported by substantial evidence:
28 • Condition No. 5 - Large Woody Debris See response to Forest Service Condition No. 10 above. Also see Chelan PUD August 12, 2002 response to DOI-NPS comments at p. 6 - 7.
29 • Condition No. 6 - Fugitive Dust Mitigation and Abatement Condition No. 6 and its justification, as written by the NPS, overlook some important factors and contain a number of imprecise descriptions that overstate the problem of fugitive dust and its significance. The period during which dust events commonly occur is overstated by citing the time period during which the flats are exposed, instead of the time during which dust events typically occur. Moreover, it fails to take into account that the period of dust events varies from year to year. The period during which dust events occur in a given year is typically substantially shorter than the early-March to late-June range mentioned. In addition, the NPS justification overstates the significance of dust events without documentation or measurements, and does not give a clear description of how many people are affected. It is important to note that without exception, the dust problems attributed do not come close to violating the applicable NAAQS. The anti-degradation standards included in the Clean Air Act are written specifically to protect air quality and visibility in areas such as the Lake Chelan NRA, so it is
312 significant that no violation of those standards exists. No substantial change in the dust or the factors causing it has been observed or documented since prior to passage of the Clean Air Act or establishment of the Lake Chelan NRA. In effect, the fugitive dust is part of the baseline condition inherited by the NPS in Stehekin. See also Chelan PUD August 12, 2002 response to DOI-NPS comments at p. 7 - 11.
Response. We considered this information in the DEA.
30 • Condition No. 7 - Native Riparian Plant Community and Wildlife Rehabilitation The basis for this condition is clearly pre-Project conditions, which do not form a valid basis for the condition. Only by comparison with postulated pre-Project conditions can NPS say that an impact exists that needs to be addressed. Further, the basis for stating what conditions existed over 75 years ago is not clear. One example is the statement about the area being “covered” by large trees. It is known that Stehekin Flats included a hotel, numerous outbuildings, several homesteads, roads, orchards, etc. These would necessarily prevent the area from being “covered” by large trees. See also August 12, 2002 response to DOI-NPS comments at p. 11 - 12.
Response.. The FEA discusses the effects of the recommendations on project operations and resources relative to environmental conditions as they exist today. We defer any comments on the legal basis of Chelan PUD's arguments to the license order. However, we note that descriptions of historic conditions can help inform our judgement concerning appropriate mitigation and enhancement measure, and where appropriate, have been described in the EA.
31 • Condition No. 8 - Non-Native Plant Control The justification for this condition lacks a connection between non-native species and Project operations. Therefore, substantial evidences does not exist in support of the condition. It is thought that a connection exists between past dust control efforts and the introduction of reed canary grass to the area, but other plant and animal species are not so connected. Further, the condition and justification do not differentiate between lands controlled by the NPS and Chelan PUD, and those controlled by private owners. If undertaken, efforts to control non-native plants should be confined to lands over which the NPS and Chelan PUD exercise control. For this reason, Chelan PUD’s goal should be defined as control of reed canary grass on NPS and Chelan PUD lands in the area. See also Chelan PUD August 12, 2002 response to DOI-NPS Comments at p. 12.
Response. The FEA describes how project operations and any proposed measures that result in soil disturbance could facilitate the spread of noxious weeds. Because the control of noxious weeds is of national and local importance, would be consistent with Chelan PUD's proposed habitat enhancement measures, and would be prudent stewardship, staff
313 recommends that Chelan PUD work with the NPS, Forest Service, NRCS, and private land owners along the lake in controlling noxious weeds. We defer any comments on the legal basis of Chelan PUD's arguments to the license order.
32 • Condition No. 9 - Monitor native riparian plans and non-native plants along the reservoir shoreline The basis for this condition is speculation regarding pre-Project conditions 75 years ago, which does not form a valid evidentiary basis for the condition.
Response. The Park Service states that the purpose of such monitoring is to evaluate the effectiveness of riparian revegetation and noxious weed control efforts in Stehekin flats and to help determine future operation changes. The FEA discusses the effects of the recommendations on project operations and resources. See also response to Chelan PUD paragraph 30.
33 • Condition No. 9.1- Monitor Stehekin River Sedimentation The DEA notes correctly that the Project’s influence on sedimentation at the Stehekin River mouth appears to be insignificant. No evidence has been presented that the Project has a significant impact on the Stehekin River or Stehekin Flats related to sedimentation or flooding. Evidence has been presented that suggests that other factors not related to the Project have had significant negative impacts. Therefore, there is no basis to require monitoring of the Stehekin River channel by Chelan PUD). See also Chelan PUD Response to DOI-NPS Comments, August 12, 2002, p. 13.
Response. This is consistent with what we said in the DEA.
34 • Condition No. 9.5 - Monitor Native Raptors Condition No. 9.5 and its justification, as written by the NPS, do not establish, or even assert, a connection with the Project. For this reason, this work should not be a responsibility of the Chelan PUD. See also Chelan PUD Response to DOI-NPS Comments, August 12, 2002, p.15.
Response. The Park Service states that the raptor monitoring would assist in scheduling management actions (planting vegetation, large woody debris manipulation) in the Stehehin flats to avoid disturbing nesting bald eagles. The FEA discusses the effects of the recommendations on project operations and resources. We defer any comments on the legal basis of Chelan PUD's arguments to the license order.
35 • Condition No. 9.6 - Monitor Riparian Wildlife Condition No. 9.6 and its justification, as written by the NPS, do not establish a need for this monitoring. Its association with the condition of riparian habitat is noted, but the purpose of specific monitoring of wildlife is not
314 given. For this reason, this work should not be a condition of a new license for the Project. See also Chelan PUD Response to DOI-NPS Comments, August 12, 2002, p.15.
Response. The Park Service states that the purpose of such monitoring is to evaluate the effectiveness of riparian revegetation and noxious weed control efforts in the Stehekin flats and to help determine future operation changes. The FEA discusses the effects of the recommendations on project operations and resources. See also response to Chelan PUD paragraph 30.
36 • Condition No. 10 - Boat Docks and Campgrounds See response to Forest Service condition No. 8 above. Also see Chelan PUD Response to DOI-NPS Comments, August 12, 2002, p. 15 - 16.
37 • Condition No. 11 - Stehekin Marina and Landing. Stehekin Landing is a public facility used by commercial transportation companies and is not a responsibility of the Project. There is no evidence that there is a link between this requirement and the effects of the project on the NPS Lake Chelan NRA reservation. The reason for improving the facilities is to meet the requirements of the ADA, which is a responsibility solely of the facility's owner. Furthermore, Chelan PUD holds a damage waiver easement on this location. See also Chelan PUD Response to DOI-NPS Comments, August 12, 2002, p. 17.
Response. We considered this information in the DEA.
Part II: Additional Information and Clarifications
Section III. Proposed Action and Alternatives, Section D. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study
38 Strike the second sentence of the paragraph that begins “Federal takeover and operation of the Project…..” and insert “Chelan PUD is a municipal entity and therefore federal takeover of the Project was barred by Congress in the Act of August 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 587.”
Response. Correct. We will make this change in the FEA.
Section V. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Section C. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives
C. 1., Lake Level Management
315 39 The DEA (page 29) notes that collaboration in the development of a final plan would facilitate resolution of plan details for a new lake level operation regime. Within one year of the license issuance, Chelan PUD intends to finalize a lake level operation plan in consultation with and approved by the Forest Service. The plan is already being developed through the settlement negotiations process (Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8: Lake Level Management) and is consistent with the provisions of the Lake Level Management Draft (Chelan PUD, 2002f) and the Chelan River (Bypassed Reach) Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan (Chelan PUD, 2001d). Although Chelan PUD intends to meet lake level target elevations outlined on page 26 of the DEA, it is important to note that lake level management for Chelan River flow regulation and flood control will take priority.
Response. That flow regulation and flood control are the priority for lake level management is noted.
C. 1., Stehekin Flats Dust
40 The DEA (page 37) correctly notes that the dust from Stehekin Flats, blown into Stehekin Landing, is well within all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). It is also noteworthy that the dust predates creation of the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (LCNRA) and does not violate standards in the Clean Air Act specifically created to prevent deterioration of air quality in National Recreation Areas. The NPS has presented no evidence, beyond anecdotal evidence, that the dust creates any significant problems. Therefore, the Stehekin Flats dust control conditions proposed by the NPS should be rejected by the Commission.
Response. We considered this information in the DEA
C. 2., Environmental Impacts and Recommendations (related to Cutthroat Trout)
41 Chelan PUD recommends re-wording the statement describing the objective of the proposal on page 45 from, “capable of providing adequate depths and velocities for cutthroat trout rearing,” to “capable of providing adequate depths and velocities for the opportunity for cutthroat trout rearing.” As discussed in the DEA, the Limiting Factors Analysis (Chelan PUD 2000) indicates many conditions unfavorable to cutthroat trout habitation are predicted for the Chelan River. The goal of the Chelan River Biological Evaluation and Implementation Plan (Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan being developed through settlement discussions22) is to restore a function aquatic ecosystem to the Chelan River, thereby providing an opportunity for cutthroat trout rearing.
Response We have revised the FEA to address this comment.
316 C. 2., Water quality
42 The DEA (page 48) correctly concludes that lake level fluctuations and the lake level management regime would not have a direct or indirect effect on fecal coliform levels in Lake Chelan or a significant effect on other water quality parameters. Chelan PUD concurs that water quality monitoring in Lake Chelan is not a responsibility of Chelan PUD. Chelan PUD concurs with the conclusion on page 49 of the DEA that there are no project-related changes to water quality or harm to aquatic resources that will occur in the Project tailrace or in the chemical and microbial water quality parameters in the bypassed reach. The DEA (page 50) states that FERC is not recommending any measures to address potential temperature increases in the bypassed reach due to the release of minimum flows. Rather, such measures, if needed to meet biological objectives, could be implemented through an adaptive management approach. Chelan PUD concurs that these measures should not be implemented until biological evaluations have demonstrated a need and the efficacy of measures to moderate temperatures have been evaluated. Chelan PUD believes that the implementation of temperature control measures should be defined in an implementation protocol that includes pre-established criteria based on biological necessity and feasibility. These criteria would be used to determine whether additional measures should be implemented.
Response. The FEA includes a revised and updated analysis of measures to reduce warming in the bypassed reach, including your measures proposed in the CRBEIP.
C. 3., Environmental impacts and recommendations (related to Columbia River flow augmentation)
43 The DEA (page 68) identifies eight resource issues in the introductory paragraph, one of which was using Lake Chelan storage for Columbia River flow augmentation (issue 7). No discussion of this issue is included in this section of the DEA. Chelan PUD believes that a discussion of the lack of biological benefit, operational practicality, impact on recreational/economic resources, and the rationale for removing the issue from further consideration during the collaborative alternative licensing process should be included in the DEA in order to address these issues more completely.
Response. We have added an analysis of Columbia River flow augmentation to the FEA
C. 3., Minimum Flow in the Bypassed Reach
44 The DEA states (pages 69, 76) that Chelan PUD proposes “in reach 1 to create pools and reduce streamwidth for water temperature enhancement” and “increase pool depth and
317 decrease stream width in Reach 1 to reduce any warming …”. The need for such measures and sequence of actions to be taken for temperature control in Reach 1 is currently under discussion with Ecology and the other agencies. The most recent modeling information indicates that channel modifications will be unlikely to prevent temperatures from exceeding 23/C in Reaches 1 and 2 due to the initial water temperatures and climatic 22 This document, soon to be a chapter in the Comprehensive Plan, was filed December 13 with the Commission as background material relevant to the Department of Ecology’s public notice (December 9) of a scheduled workshop and hearing (January 16) on the Lake Chelan Project water quality certification application. conditions. Under these circumstances, the protection and enhancement of thermal refugia produced by sub-gravel and ground water flows entering pools may be more effective than other actions, such as modifications to channel width. Chelan PUD is developing a detailed Chelan River Biological Evaluation and Implementation Plan in the settlement discussions that will better define the initial actions and decision triggers for additional measures based on results from the monitoring and evaluation program.
Response. The FEA includes a revised and updated analysis of measures to reduce warming in the bypassed reach, including your measures proposed in the CRBEIP
45 The DEA on page 69 (table 9), and 70 - 71 references Chelan PUD’s proposal to increase minimum flows from May 1 – July 12. Currently, the proposal is to conduct this flow increase from May 15 – July 15, which more closely corresponds to the natural spring runoff timing. As stated in the DEA, the current proposal still allows that the exact timing of the flow increases could change depending on climatic conditions and biological evaluations. On page 71, first paragraph, the reference should be to Table 9, not Table 8. The DEA (page 73-74) reiterates the point above that additional flow releases cannot prevent water temperatures in the bypassed reach exceeding thermal limits for cutthroat trout. Thus, emphasis should be placed on setting flows and protecting channel conditions that promote sub-gravel flow and prevent dilution of thermal refugia by mixing with warm water.
Response. The FEA includes a revised and updated analysis of the proposed and recommended minimum flows for the bypassed reach, including the revised flows proposed in the CRBEIP.
C. 3., Tailrace minimum flows
46 The DEA (page 75-76) is correct in concluding that there is insufficient evidence at this time to conclude that powerhouse or pumped flows are necessary to protect incubating chinook eggs and embryos. It is unlikely that special operations will be required for spawning chinook because the primary objective of the lake level operations is to run the
318 powerhouse at full capacity and reduce lake level before fall rainstorms could create tributary barriers. Thus, the powerhouse will be operating and providing flow from the beginning of the spawning period in October through the end of spawning in November. Chinook do not begin spawning in September because water temperatures are not yet cool enough and the fish are from a stock that typically spawns from mid October – mid- November. Chelan PUD agrees with the FERC staff assessment that providing minimum flows for salmon egg/alevin incubation in the tailrace may be unnecessary. However, Chelan PUD is committed to investigating the effects of powerhouse shut down on incubation success in the tailrace through measures included in Chelan River Biological Evaluation and Implementation Plan.
Response. The FEA includes a revised and updated analysis of the proposed and recommended minimum flows for the tailrace, including the measures proposed in the CRBEIP.
C. 3., Habitat
47 The DEA (page 7) recommends that the Chelan River Fishery Management Plan include “an analysis on the need for gravel supplementation.” Nowhere else in the DEA is a gravel supplementation “analysis” mentioned. Chelan PUD requests clarification on this issue and what is meant by “analysis.”
Response. Your current proposal includes moving existing or adding new gravel into Reach 4 during habitat modifications. We have revised the language in the FEA to clarify that the plan should address gravel needs as part of the designs for Reach 4 modifications. However, we are not recommending a separate analysis.
C. 3., Monitoring
48 The DEA states (page 81) that “Chelan PUD also proposed to introduce steelhead into Reach 4 and the tailrace to attempt to establish a naturally reproducing population.” Actually, it is expected by Chelan PUD and the intervenors that the Fisheries Advisory Committee may make that proposal in the future. Currently, the NMFS has determined that the amount of habitat in the Chelan River is too small to independently support a “naturally reproducing population” of steelhead, given the extensive period of fresh-water rearing that steelhead require. The current NMFS objective is to provide suitable spawning habitat for steelhead. Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan (Lake Chelan Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan) is being developed through settlement discussions to address lake fishery management issues, including funding for a monitoring and evaluation program.
319 Response. We have revised the FEA to clarify the objective of these actions in regard to steelhead.
C. 3., Lake Chelan Fisheries Management
49 Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan (Lake Chelan Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan) is being developed through settlement discussions to address lake fishery management issues, including: 1) Chelan Falls Hatchery fish stocking; 2) Westslope cutthroat trout (WSCT) and potential bull trout restoration; 3) tributary barriers; 4) genetic analyses; 5) spawning surveys; 6) tributary population surveys; 7) creel surveys; 8) food web modeling; and 9) other monitoring and evaluation activities.
Response. This information has been included in the FEA
C. 3., Hatchery Modifications and Stocking Practices
50 On page 87 of the DEA, references to “Chelan PUD” that imply control over hatchery stocking practices should be changed to “WDFW.” WDFW has authority and the responsibility for stocking fish into Lake Chelan. Chelan PUD provides funding to the Chelan Falls Hatchery, which is a WDFW-operated facility, but has no fishery management authority.
Response. We have revised the FEA based on your comments
C. 3., Environmental impacts and recommendations, Our Analysis, Twenty-Five Mile Creek
Spawning and Incubation Channel
51 On page 88 of the DEA, FERC staff note that “Chelan PUD states, without apparent justification, that any funding for the spawning channel should be provided through the Rocky Reach Project relicensing.” The justification for funding Twenty-Five Mile Creek spawning channel rehabilitation as part of the Rocky Reach Project relicensing is that the channel was built as off-site mitigation for recreational fishing opportunities as part of the original construction of Rocky Reach Dam23. Because this is a Rocky Reach Project-related facility, Chelan PUD recommended that any modifications to the channel, and associated funding, be implemented through the Rocky Reach relicensing process. This work has already been performed as an enhancement in coordination with WDFW through the Rocky Reach relicensing process. In fact, interim rehabilitation work already was completed in the fall of 2002. Several sections of the existing spawning channel were cleaned of accumulated
320 silt to provide spawning area for kokanee and, potentially, Westslope cutthroat trout (WSCT) returning to the creek from previous eyed-egg plants. Long term rehabilitation and/or enhancement work to the channel will be determined by the Lake Chelan Fishery Advisory Committee (LFAC) and funded through the Rocky Reach relicensing process. The LFAC will need to address questions such as whether the spawning channel is needed for kokanee production and production of other species, and if so, does it need rehabilitation or enhancement to meet such production goals.
Response. We have revised the analysis of the Twenty-Five Mile Creek spawning channel based on your comments and other comments on the DEA.
C. 3., Tributary Access
52 Chelan PUD has tentatively agreed to provide funding for tributary access improvement projects and to alter the lake level operating regime, both of which will improve tributary access. Page 92 of the DEA suggests that “Chelan PUD proposes to limit spending on mechanical removal at $100,000….”. Actually, the cost estimate for conducting tributary barrier removal is $100,000, and is not intended to be a funding cap. Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan (Lake Chelan Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan), being developed through the settlement process, includes a systematic approach to investigating the cause of barrier formation, the effect of a new lake level management measures on barrier formation, and treatment of barriers if they develop throughout the term of the new license term. Chelan PUD is committed to addressing project-related impacts and providing tributary access to spring spawning fish species, particularly Westslope cutthroat trout. 23 See July 2, 1963 agreement between Public Utility Distric No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington and the State of Washington, Department of Game; see also Memorandum of Understanding between State of Washington Department of Game and Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Relative to Expenditure of Fish and Wildife Mitigation Funds, Rocky Reach Hydroelectric Project. March 13, 1970.
Response. We have revised the FEA to clarify that the $100,000 value represents a cost estimate rather than a cost cap.
C. 3., Entrainment and Impingement
53 The DEA addresses entrainment on pages 92 – 94. Chelan PUD believes that being required to minimize loss of fish through entrainment is beyond the scope of Interior’s 4(e) conditioning authority. Additionally, Chelan PUD disagrees that preventing loss of fish from Lake Chelan through spill is its responsibility. Fish emigrating downstream from Lake Chelan is a natural process that occurred prior to Project construction. All fish moving
321 through the Chelan River would be lost from the system due to barriers that are impassible to upstream migration. Because the loss of these fish is not related to Project effects, Chelan PUD should not be required to provide mitigation for the loss. With regard to the pump system that would draw water from the tailrace and supply it to the upper end of Reach 4, Chelan PUD has already begun work on a design that includes screens to exclude juvenile salmonids. Two ESA-listed species, Upper Columbia River (UCR) summer steelhead and UCR spring chinook salmon, occur in the project area. Additionally, late-run chinook salmon spawn and rear in the existing tailrace. Screens to exclude juveniles of these species are required by NMFS and WDFW (Nordlund, 1996)24.
Response. We have revised the analysis of the need for screens at the project intakes based on your comments and other comments on the DEA
C. 3., Introduction of Anadromous Fish to Lake Chelan
54 Chelan PUD supports the assessment (pages 95 - 98) of the information on anadromous fish access to Lake Chelan; these species never achieved access to the lake to establish or maintain viable populations. The analyses conducted by Chelan PUD clearly demonstrates this fact.
C. 4., Stehekin Flats Riparian and Wetland Effects
55 Through settlement discussions, the NPS and Chelan PUD have tentatively agreed to address the issue of rehabilitation of native riparian plants along the shoreline near Stehekin in accordance with Chapter 4 (Stehekin Area Implementation Plan) and Chapter 9 (Wildlife Habitat Plan) of a Comprehensive Plan for the Lake Chelan Project. Under the plan, Chelan PUD will provide a level of funding for work described in the plans, which NPS staff will implement, including wildlife and riparian habitat enhancement and monitoring.
Response. The FEA is revised to clarify that under Chelan PUD's proposal, the Park Service would implement all measures in the Stehekin River Implementation Plan with funding provided by Chelan PUD.
C. 4., Acquisition and Management of Riparian and Upland Habitat
56 The first paragraph of the footnote (page 112) discusses Eldred’s (2002) review of habitat alteration in the lower Lake Chelan area. The primary causative factors identified are farming and domestic development, neither of which are project related impacts. The WDFW
322 contends that project operation has reduced the amount of riparian habitat around Lake Chelan, and requested mitigation in the form of upland habitat acquisition and enhancement. These recommendations are clearly outside the scope of relicensing, and this conclusion should be reflected in the final EA. FERC staff identifies potential “drawbacks” to the Chelan PUD wildlife proposal, such as sufficiency of funding and development of a final plan. At this time, a Wildlife Habitat Plan is being developed through the settlement process as Chapter 9 in a Comprehensive Plan for the Project. All parties in the settlement process, excluding WDFW, currently support the Wildlife Habitat Plan concept. Chelan PUD is currently working with WDFW to develop a program to specifically address WDFW issues. Due to ongoing discussions among Chelan PUD and the intervenors, the Wildlife Habitat Plan contained in Chapter 9 of the Comprehensive Plan is substantially different than the one described by FERC staff in the DEA. Elements include upland habitat enhancement funding from Chelan PUD for the NPS and Forest Service; riparian habitat enhancement funding from Chelan PUD for the NPS and USFS; and funding from Chelan PUD for conservation easement acquisition, habitat restoration, and additional 24 Nordlund, B. 1996. Designing fish screens for fish protection at water diversions, Addendum, Juvenile fish screen criteria for pump intakes. National Marine Fisheries Service. 39 pp. habitat enhancement. These new elements are all contingent on the achievement of a settlement agreement. Cost estimates for the program are also substantially greater than the program described in the DEA.
Response. The FEA discusses the effects of WDFW's recommendations on project operations and resources. We defer any comments on the legal basis of Chelan PUD's arguments to the license order. See also response to Chelan PUD paragraph 30. Our analysis is based on the proposal before us.
C. 4., Chelan River Instream Flows
57 Chelan PUD concurs with FERC staff assessment (pages 115-116) of the potential for establishing riparian vegetation in the Chelan River after implementation of minimum flows. Pre-Project photographs show, clearly, that riparian vegetation was sparse along the Chelan River due to natural high, scouring flows, very low rainfall (>10 inches annually), and shrub- steppe vegetation, which is representative of arid conditions. Chelan PUD expects some improvement in riparian vegetation from establishing flow in the Chelan river, but nothing greater than that shown in the pre- and early Project photographs.
Response. Your observations are consistent with our findings in the EA.
323 C. 4., Integrated Weed Management
58 Chelan PUD concurs with FERC staff’s analysis (page 118) that “With the exception of reed canary grass…there is no evidence…that shows project operations have caused the occurrence or …spread of noxious weeds.” Project operations have had little impact on noxious weeds. The initial invasion of noxious weeds was due to historical grazing practices and recreation enhancements on Forest Service lands. Chelan PUD is not responsible for mitigating poor management practices implemented by the USFS on its lands. The request for noxious weed control is not project related and is beyond the scope of Forest Service 4(e) conditions. FERC staff (page 119) provides an explanation of the Forest Service argument as to how Project operations could contribute to distribution and proliferation of spotted knapweed. The Forest Service explanation centers on Project operations drawing down the lake and exposing more shoreline for colonization. However, the initial invasion of noxious weeds, as stated in paragraph 2, was due to “historical grazing practices” and recreation enhancements. Therefore, the “but for” cause of the noxious weeds is these historical grazing practices and recreation enhancements, not the operation of the project.
Response. The FEA acknowledges that the project was not responsible for the introduction of noxious weeds, except for possibly reed canary grass, and that historic grazing and recreation have played a role in their occurrence and spread. However, the issue is whether project operations may be contributing or could contribute to the spread of noxious weeds and thus if implementation of noxious weed control measures would be in the public interest. Based on our analysis of the biology of the noxious weeds, potential effects of project operations, adverse effects of the spread of noxious weeds on native wildlife and their habitats, and the local and national effort expended to control noxious weeds, we find that it would be good stewardship and in the best public interest for Chelan PUD to develop a plan to ensure that its actions, particularly any land-disturbing activities, do not further the spread of noxious weeds.
C. 5., Sensitive Species Consultation Plan
59 Chelan PUD agrees with the FERC staff recommendation (page 128) that development of an Endangered Species Consultation Plan is not necessary for the relicensing process. The agencies with ESA authority and responsibility, NMFS and USFWS, have been involved throughout the alternative licensing process and directed development of PME’s to address listed species. Additionally, the issue of how to address future, “unforeseen circumstances,” such as the listing of a new species under the ESA during the new license term, is currently being discussed in settlement negotiations.
324 Response. As noted in the EA, we do not recommend the inclusion of the endangered species consultation plan (or Sensitive Species Consultation Plan) because of the redundancy with standard license requirements. Commission policy and practice adequately permits the resource agencies and the Commission to reopen the license and to reinitiate consultation to address new listings or new information. The FEA has been revised to clarify these conclusions. See also response to Interior paragraph 28 and Forest Service paragraph 50.
C. 7., Management and operation of existing recreational facilities
60 The DEA (page 193) notes that the applicant-prepared environmental assessment does not mention the Shore Access Site, a small day-use site located about 200 feet to the east of Chelan Riverwalk Park. Chelan PUD recognizes that this is an additional, licensed facility, and although not specifically mentioned in the applicant-prepared environmental assessment, it is operated and maintained by Chelan PUD as part of the Riverwalk Park and trail system. The site is included in the as-built drawings for Riverwalk Park, and is included as a project feature in Chapter 12 of the Comprehensive Plan (Recreation Resources Management Plan) that is being developed as part of the settlement agreement.
Response. We will note in the FEA that the shore access site is operated and maintained as part of Riverwalk Park.
C. 7., Whitewater boating
61 On pages 148 – 150, the DEA discusses planning for potential future whitewater releases in the Chelan River. Chelan PUD and the American Whitewater Affiliation will develop a plan for implementing a three-year whitewater boating study in the Chelan River Bypassed Reach and file it with the Commission. The three-year monitoring study will enable Chelan PUD, with input from American Whitewater and the FERC, to evaluate existing demand for the whitewater resource. A survey will be developed jointly with American Whitewater as part of the three-year monitoring study. The survey will query kayakers paddling the Chelan River about the reservation system, access, safety, flows and carrying capacity. A summary will be issued annually with a final report and recommendations at the conclusion of the threeyear study. Upon completion of the three-year study period, Chelan PUD shall determine, in consultation with the American Whitewater Affiliation, the minimum number of kayakers required for future flow releases. Additionally, due to liability and risk to Chelan PUD ratepayers, the commencement of the whitewater kayaking program is contingent upon the State of Washington executing an indemnity and/or hold harmless agreement in a form satisfactory to Chelan PUD. Such an agreement would indemnify Chelan PUD for all costs incurred by Chelan PUD as a result of the death or injury of a kayaker in the Chelan
325 River bypassed reach, including rescue costs, costs, attorneys’ fees, and expert witness fees incurred in any threatened or actual litigation, including all resulting appeals and the cost of any money judgment entered.
Response. It would seem appropriate to also use the 3-year test to gage whether there is demand to support continued flow releases.
C. 7., Park Service docks and facilities
62 As stated in the DEA (page 156), Chelan PUD does not consider Stehekin Landing to be a responsibility of the Project. However, the NPS and Chelan PUD have tentatively agreed through settlement discussions to address improvements at Stehekin Marina and landing in accordance with Chapter 12 of the Comprehensive Plan (Recreation Resources Management Plan).
C. 7., Access to Chelan River through trail development
63 The DEA (page 158) states that the Reach 1 access trail proposed in the applicant- prepared environmental assessment would not initially be connected to existing trails. However, Chelan PUD’s proposal includes a connection from the existing Riverwalk Loop Trail to the proposed Reach 1 access trail. Planning for the Chelan River access trail will be developed within the first year of the new license. The plan will be developed with input from the public and local organizations and agencies. The proposed Reach 1 access trail would provide an additional twomiles of multi-use trail within walking distance of the City of Chelan.
Response. We will note the trail connection in the FEA
Part III: General Edits
64 Page, 3, Fisheries Resources, Affected Environment, Native fishery resources - Lake Chelan, paragraph 1 Change “Cyprinid” and “Catastomid” to lower case. Page 13, B., 3., USFS, 4(e) (10) Change “Implementat” to “Implementation”
Response. We have corrected this text in the FEA.
65 Page 14, B., 3., Interior, 4(e) (2.2) Change “…operating procedures…” to “…operating procedures…”
66 Page 16, B., 3., Interior, 4(e) (14.1)
326 Insert space between “the” and “development.”
67 Page 17, B., 3., Interior, 4(e) (14.4) Do not capitalize kokanee. Fish species/common names are always lower case.
Response. We have corrected this text in the FEA
68 Page 19, 6. Coastal Zone Management Act Change “Osborne” to “Osborn.
69 Page 25, 1, Affected Environment, Chelan River (bypassed reach), paragraph 2 “(Figure 2)” should be changed to “(Figure 1).”
70 Page 25, 1, Affected Environment, Chelan River (bypassed reach), paragraph 3 “Reach 2…cut into bedrock…” Reach 2 substrate is comprised primarily of glacial till, just much larger in size than Reach 1, with some bedrock formations. Sole substrate composition of bedrock formations do not occur until the head of Reach 3.
71 Page 27, Table 2 “September 1-7” should be changed to “September 7” in the text and footnote.
72 Page 28, Figure 2 “Figure 2” is repeated in the figure title. Page 50, 1, Affected Environment, Environmental impacts and recommendations, paragraph 2 Change “passing through the flowline…” to “passing through the penstock…”
Response. We have corrected this text in the FEA.
73 Page 83, Figure 4 “Figure 4” is repeated in the figure title.
Response. We have corrected this text in the FEA.
74 Page, 87, Fisheries Resources, Environmental impacts and recommendations, Hatchery Modifications and Stocking Practices, paragraph 3 Add “funded” between “PUD’s” and “program”
Response. We have corrected this text in the FEA.
75 Page, 96, Fisheries Resources, Environmental impacts and recommendations, Introduction of Anadromous Fish to Lake Chelan, Our Analysis, paragraph 2 Change “bypassed reach contains 3 hydraulic features that would likely…” to “contains 4 hydraulic features…” The Barrier Analysis conducted as part of the Bypassed Reach (Gorge)
327 Flow Releases Study Report (R2 and IIA 2000) assessed the ability of steelhead, in ocean condition, to pass five features in Reach 3 of the bypassed reach. Of these features, only one was determined to be passable and only then at “perfect” conditions. Therefore, 4 features are impassable, not 3.
Response. We have corrected this text in the FEA.
Page 102, Terrestrial and Wildlife Resources, Affected Environment, Wildlife, paragraph 2 The list of big game species, “mule deer, mountain goats, black bears and cougars,” should include big horn sheep.
Page 104, Table 14 Insert upper case “L” in the footnote for “Little Big Creek.”
76 Page 113, Terrestrial and Wildlife Resources, Environmental impacts and recommendations, Acquisition and Management of Riparian and Upland Habitat, Our Analysis, footnote 13. Please clarify the last sentence of the footnote.
Response. Footnote 13 was removed from the FEA.
77 Page 120, Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species, Affected Environment, Federally- listed threatened and endangered species, Bald eagle The second sentence should read “Since 1982, Chelan PUD has…” not “WDFW.”
Response. The FEA has been revised to indicate Chelan PUD has conducted the surveys.
Page 122, Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species, Affected Environment, Federally-listed threatened and endangered species, UCR spring-run chinook salmon The first sentence should read “UCR spring-run chinook salmon are rarely present in the project tailrace and Reach 4…” instead of “…occasionally present…” Only one spring chinook salmon has ever been documented in either the tailrace or Reach 4 of the Chelan River.
Response. We have corrected this text in the FEA.
78 Page 120, Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species, Affected Environment, Federally- listed threatened and endangered species, Bull trout The first sentence should read “Bull trout are occasionally present in the tailrace…” instead of” are likely to be occasionally…” citation for this change is R2 and IA 2000. Several bull trout were documented to be present in the tailrace during this study.
Response. We have corrected this text in the FEA.
328 79 Page 123, Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species, Affected Environment, Other Species of Concern, The first sentence identifies the Western lady’s tresses as one species of concern. The second sentence identifies the Western lady’s slipper as being present in the Project area. “Western lady’s tresses” should be used consistently throughout the document.
Response. We will make the noted edits in the FEA.
Conclusion
80 As noted at the beginning of this letter, Chelan PUD provides these comments on the assumption that a comprehensive settlement agreement is not reached for this Project. However, we continue to work in a productive manner with the intervening parties and look forward to resolving these issues in the collaborative context of the alternative licensing process. Again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Commission’s DEA. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with comments or questions.
National Marine Fisheries Service
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Public Utility District No.1 of Chelan Co. ) Project No. 637-022 ) (Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project) Application for Major New License ) ______)
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE’S COMMENTS ON FERC’S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, RESPONSES TO FERC STAFF’S PRELIMINARY FINDING OF 10 (j) INCONSISTENCY, AND REVISED RECOMMENDED TERMS AND CONDITIONS
I. Introduction
The U.S. Department of the Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) has reviewed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) draft environmental assessment (DEA), dated November 25, 2002; and FERC staff’s preliminary finding of inconsistency, dated November 29, 2002, for one of NOAA Fisheries’ 10(j) recommended conditions. By errata notice dated
329 November 26, 2002, FERC identified January 10, 2003 as the due date for comments on the DEA. The existing license for this project will expire on March 31, 2004. NMFS hereby timely submits its comments, response to FERC staff’s inconsistency finding, and revised recommended terms and conditions, and fishway prescriptions.
II. Background and Project Description
NOAA Fisheries incorporates here by reference comments filed on June 27, 2002 summarizing the project background and description. National Marine Fisheries Service’s Motion to Intervene, Comments, and Modified Preliminary Terms, Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions, June 27, 2002, pages 2 - 5.
330 III. Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment
1 Page 11. Section 18 Fishway Prescription. The DEA states that the Department of Commerce and Interior have asked that the Commission reserve authority to prescribe construction, operation and maintenance of any such fishway. This language should be clarified to indicate that the Department of Commerce has reserved its authority to prescribe such additional or modified fishways at those locations and at such times as Department of Commerce may subsequently determine are necessary.
Response. We have revised the FEA to accurately reflect the language used by Commerce as part of its Section 18 Fishway Prescription.
2 Page 18. Endangered Species Act. The DEA notes FERC’s conclusion that the project is not likely to adversely affect Upper Columbia River (UCR) spring-run chinook salmon, but would be likely to adversely affect UCR steelhead. FERC staff also notes that the DEA shall serve as the biological assessment for the purpose of ESA section 7 consultation. NOAA Fisheries letter of December 27, 2002, attached and incorporated herein by reference, provides a response to FERC’s request to initiate consultation and an assessment of the adequacy of the information for initiating consultation provided in the DEA. NOAA Fisheries reiterates here its conclusion that the information is not sufficient to initiate consultation at the time. Consequently, NOAA Fisheries cannot concur with the not likely to adversely affect (UCR spring chinook) finding at this time. NOAA Fisheries agrees with the finding of likely adverse affect for UCR steelhead.
Response. We have revised the FEA based on your comments and comments received on the DEA. We anticipate that this updated and revised version will provide sufficient information to initiate and complete formal consultation in a timely manner
3 Page 25-29, 45-46, 78, 181. Lake Level Management. The DEA fails to analyze NOAA Fisheries modified preliminary 10(j) recommendation to allow two weeks of flexibility in achieving the 1,098 feet lake elevation in order to minimize the frequency and magnitude of involuntary spill over Lake Chelan Dam. Spills in excess of the design flow for the modified stream channel in Reach 4 of the Chelan River could cause extensive damage to this resource and would reduce the benefits of this mitigation measure. NOAA Fisheries recommended that the date for achieving 1,098 feet elevation continue to be July 1 in most years, except that refill should be delayed for up to two weeks in years of high and late runoff. The DEA acknowledges the recommendation, but provides no analysis of it and does not adopt it. For example, in the DEA, pages 28 and 46, FERC acknowledges that WDFW and NMFS have recommended flexible refill timing to reduce the magnitude and frequency of involuntary
331 spill, but the staff analysis that follows does not discuss this recommendation. The DEA concludes at page 78 that Chelan PUD’s lake level management proposal is consistent with WDFW and NMFS recommendation. This conclusion appears to be based on Chelan PUD’s lake level management proposal to reduce high flows in the Chelan River (DEA page 26, para. 3, item (2)), yet the DEA fails to describe the mechanism to achieve that outcome. In addition, DEA Table 1 specifies a minimum lake level of 1,098 ft. on July 1, with no indication of flexibility on that date. The only mechanism available to reduce the magnitude and frequency of high flows in the Chelan River is the maintenance of adequate storage capacity in Lake Chelan to capture high inflows. Hydrologic analysis conducted by Chelan PUD shows that this can be best accomplished by allowing flexibility in the timing of lake refill (Chelan PUD 2002). Unfortunately, that study failed to indicate the level of flexibility necessary to achieve the desired outcome. The DEA fails to acknowledge that refill flexibility was needed to achieve the stated goal of avoiding high rates of spill at Lake Chelan Dam. Chelan PUD has indicated that it prefers to consider the minimum lake levels presented in DEA Table 1 as targets rather than regulatory minimum levels (Steve Hays, Chelan PUD, personal communication, January 8, 2003). Further, Chelan PUD has indicated that to avoid adverse fill and spill operations in all years, it would be necessary to allow flexibility in achieving the Table 1 values in May and June as well as July. The DEA appears to defer resolution of lake level refill management to development of a final plan by the PUD and agencies, presumably after license issuance. See DEA at 29 (“Collaboration in the development of a final plan would facilitate resolution of plan details such as triggering mechanisms and whether monthly minimum or maximum levels are appropriate.”)
4 Given the high level of interest and the range of resources potentially affected by lake level management, NOAA Fisheries believes it would be better to fully resolve this issue prior to license issuance. Without a well-defined lake level management proposal for this project it would not be possible to fully define the likely effects of the proposed action. DEA Table 1 and the accompanying discussion should be revised to clearly indicate that actual water surface elevations may be below those specified in the table if necessary to avoid or minimize high involuntary spills. The likely outcomes of such flexibility, in terms of anticipated lake levels and the anticipated frequency and magnitude of spills under a variety of hydrologic conditions, should be clearly disclosed in the final EA issued for this project. NOAA Fisheries reserves the right to modify its recommendation for this measure following any modification of the proposed action pertaining to lake level management in the final EA.
Response. We have added an analysis of this proposal to the FEA.
332 5 Pages 49-50. Discussion of the effects of the proposed action on water temperature in the Chelan River. The DEA fails to consider fully the fact that the amount of warming likely to occur to water released into the Chelan River at the Lake Chelan dam during the summer is inversely proportional to the discharge rate. Less warming would occur with higher discharges than would occur with lesser discharges. The larger the mass of an object the larger the heat energy input necessary to increase its temperature. Thus, the impact of the project on summer water temperature in the Chelan River is the difference in the water temperature that would occur under natural flows (>1,000 cfs) and the water temperature that would occur under the proposed action (80 cfs). The DEA should be revised to include an estimate of this water temperature effect of the proposed action.
Response. We have revised and updated our analysis of the discharge versus temperature relationship in the FEA.
6 Page 51, Figure 3. Potential thermal impact of water released at Lake Chelan on the Columbia River. The DEA quantifies the likely effects of alternative minimum summer release rates from the Lake Chelan dam to the Chelan River on the heat energy entering the Columbia River. This demonstration (DEA Figure 3) suggests that about 68,000 GigaJoules more heat energy would enter the Columbia River over a two-week hot spell if the total natural flow of the Chelan River were passed through the bypassed reach than would occur under the proposed minimum flow.
7 As a general matter, late summer water temperatures in the Columbia River are a concern to NOAA Fisheries, however, the DEA makes no effort to convert this heat energy into an estimate of the likely change in water temperature in the Columbia River under each alternative. Such effects are small. For example, if we assume flows of 70,000 cfs in the Columbia River (flow of Columbia River at Rocky Reach dam in August 2001 - a very low water year) at an average daily water temperature of 18E C (a typical temperature of the Rocky Reach project scrollcase in August 2001) and assume that the Chelan River reaches a mean daily water temperature of 25E C, the increase in Columbia River water temperature at a Chelan River discharge rate of 1,500 cfs would be less than 0.15E C based on mass balance. While the effect of an 80 cfs discharge rate at the same temperature would be about 1/20th this amount, neither value would present a biologically significant project effect on Columbia River aquatic life. 2001 was a very low water year and a hot summer, so this brief demonstration reasonably reflects a worse case outcome. We recommend that the DEA be modified to provide a more meaningful analysis of the effects of alternative release rates on Columbia River water temperatures rather than the gross heat energy presentation currently in the DEA.
333 Response. We have supplemented our analysis of effects on the Columbia River by adding an analysis similar to the one in your comment.
8 Page 54, para. 3. Powerhouse tailrace description. The last sentence of this description should be revised. It currently states that the powerhouse tailrace receives “consistent flow”. Although the powerhouse usually operates and provides flow in the tailrace during the summer chinook spawning season, the powerhouse often goes off-line eliminating all tailrace flow during the spring when listed upper Columbia River steelhead are spawning and incubating. The sentence should be revised to indicate that under the proposed action the project has fairly consistent tailrace flows during part of the year, but that the PUD discontinues flows during the spring during reservoir refill and at other times for water conservation, project maintenance, or load rejection.
Response. We have revise this sentence in the FEA to clarify that flows from the powerhouse can vary and be discontinued at times.
9 Page 73, para 2. The statement: “Additionally, while lower or higher minimum flows would warm at different rates than the proposed flows, the fact that the temperature of the source water from Lake Chelan occasionally exceeds the desired range for cutthroat trout indicates that adjusting the minimum flows in either direction is unlikely to prevent any exceedences of cutthroat trout thermal limits.” is misleading. It suggests that discharge rate has no effect on the thermal stress exerted on cutthroat trout in the Chelan River. That is not true.
10 We agree that summer Chelan River water temperatures in excess of the ultimate upper incipient lethal temperature (UUILT) for westslope cutthroat trout are likely under a wide array of discharge rates. However, the discharge rate affects the magnitude, frequency, and duration of such exceedences. Whenever the equilibrium water temperature is warmer than the discharged water temperature, a common summer condition during the daylight hours, the increase in water temperature experienced in the bypass reach would be inversely proportional to the discharge rate. In other words, if the daylight hour discharge rate was increased, then the amount of temperature increase experienced in the bypass reach would be decreased. Thus, higher discharge rates from Lake Chelan would reduce the likelihood that Chelan River water temperatures would exceed the UUILT for westslope cutthroat trout. Moreover, the above referenced statement does a disservice to the efforts by Chelan PUD and the resource agencies to develop measures to mediate high river water temperatures, such as increasing the discharge during summer high heating hours. We recommend deleting this potentially misleading statement.
334 Response. We have revised this sentence to more accurately portray the effect of increasing flows. Additionally, we have revised, updated, and expanded the discussion and analysis of this issue in the FEA.
11 Page 75-76. Tailrace minimum flows. This section expresses concern for the potential effect of powerhouse shutdown on spawning behavior and dismisses resource agency concerns for the effects of powerhouse shutdown on incubation and emergence as unwarranted. NOAA Fisheries shares FERC’s concern that suspending powerhouse operation during spawning could disrupt spawning behavior and has included the spawning seasons for steelhead and summer/fall chinook in its recommendation to maintain continuous powerhouse operation from the onset of spawning through emergence. We disagree that recent data should alleviate our concern regarding powerhouse shutdowns during incubation and emergence. See discussion infra Section IV. The DEA should be revised to consider the likely effects of powerhouse shutdown on spawning success. NOAA Fisheries supports development of a cost-effective fish protection strategy and further investigation of this issue. In the event that maintaining high quality incubation conditions in the project tailrace is not achievable, we would need to consider changing our goals for this project feature from enhancing habitat conditions for these fish to excluding fish from this attractive but risky habitat.
Response. We have revised this analysis based on the information you have provided as well as the information provided by WDFW and Chelan.
12 Page 80, Table 11. Ramping rate discussion. The DEA presents incorrect units in this table. The referenced stages at various discharges from the original PHABSIM model work were in feet. The DEA reports these values as inches. FERC staff should thoroughly reconsider its recommendation, which is based on these values. NOAA Fisheries supports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) recommended ramping rates. Excessive downramping rates have been shown to entrap and strand juvenile salmon at other nearby projects. Note also, following channel modification, the stage-discharge relationship will change. Specifically, stage will change more rapidly with discharge as the stream width is reduced. Given that final designs of the channel improvements are not yet available, it is somewhat premature to develop specific discharge ramping rate limits based on change in stage per unit time criteria. We recommend that FERC adopt FWS’ ramping rate recommendations and allow Chelan PUD one year from the date that the channel improvements are complete to define specific operational criteria based on those limits and as-built field investigation of the stage-discharge relationship in each stream reach. We also recommend that FERC correct the analysis presented in the DEA.
335 Response. We have revised the ramping rate discussion based on your comments and corrected the stage-discharge relationship data in the FEA.
13 Pages 126-127. Effects of the proposed action on species listed under the Endangered Species Act. This section is incomplete. Please refer to the letter from Brian Brown, NOAA Fisheries, to Vince Yearick, FERC, of December 27, 2002, attached and incorporated by reference, for details of additional information needs.
14 The DEA reiterates its conclusion that the project is not likely to adversely affect Upper Columbia River (UCR) spring-run chinook salmon, but would be likely to adversely affect UCR steelhead. NOAA Fisheries concludes that the information available is not sufficient to initiate consultation at the time. Consequently, NOAA Fisheries cannot concur with FERC staff’s not likely to adversely affect (UCR spring chinook) finding at this time. NOAA Fisheries agrees with the finding of likely adverse affect for UCR steelhead.
15 Page 126. Impacts to upper Columbia River spring chinook salmon. This section fails to consider the water resource management effect of the project on UCR spring chinook salmon. By storing over 650,000 acre-feet of water between April and early July, the proposed action diminishes flows in the Columbia River during the peak of juvenile UCR spring chinook outmigration. We have covered this issue with more detail in our December 27, 2002 response to FERC’s request to initiate ESA consultation on the effects of the proposed action on listed anadromous fish. The DEA should be revised to include an assessment of the proposed action’s effects on Columbia River flows during refill operations.
Response. We have added an analysis of the effects of the project on Columbia River flows to the FEA.
16 Page 127. Impacts to upper Columbia River steelhead. This section fails to consider the water resource management effect of the project on UCR steelhead. By storing over 650,000 acre-feet of water between April and early July, the proposed action diminishes flows in the Columbia River during the peak of juvenile UCR steelhead outmigration. We have covered this issue with more detail in our December 27, 2002 response to FERC’s request to initiate ESA consultation on the effects of the proposed action on listed anadromous fish. The DEA should be revised to include an assessment of the proposed action’s effects on Columbia River flows during refill operations.
Response. We have added an analysis of the effects of the project on Columbia River flows to the FEA.
336 17 Page 186. Minimum Flows in the bypassed reach. NOAA Fisheries reiterates its earlier 10(j) condition, not addressed in the DEA, to require implementation of the minimum instream flows no later than 6 months after license issuance.
Response. The timing of implementation would be determined in any order issuing a license for the Lake Chelan Project.
18 Page 187. Bypassed Reach and Tailrace Habitat Enhancement. NOAA Fisheries recommended pursuant to section 10(j) that the final design for the habitat enhancement features should (1) be subject to NOAA Fisheries approval, (2) be developed by a team of experts, (3) force the river away from the highway, (4) assure that the meander pattern for Reach 4 utilizes known relationships between surface width and meander length, amplitude, and curvature, (5) assure that the completed channel can safely convey up to a 5 -10 year return interval peak discharge while providing good habitat conditions under the minimum flow regime. In addition, NOAA Fisheries recommended that FERC include a condition to require that the licensee maintain the new habitat features in good conditions throughout the term of the license, and that the Chelan PUD develop a backup system in the event of pump failure. FERC does not appear to adopt any of these recommendations in its preferred alternative and fails to explain its omission of these important items. The DEA should be revised to include these items in FERC’s preferred alternative as minimum components of the reach 4 and tailrace restoration plans.
Response. To the extent these measures would have effects on the environment, we have addressed them in the FEA. Administrative measures such as "subject to NOAA Fisheries approval" are listed in the FEA but will be addressed in the order.
19 Page 187. Ramping Rates. FERC-staff’s recommendation should be reconsidered following correction of stage-change data under Chelan PUD’s proposed operations (DEA Table 11).
Response. As indicated above, we have corrected the stage-discharge data and revised the analysis in this section.
20 Page 196. Tailrace minimum flows. See comments infra section IV.
IV. Response to FERC Staff’s Preliminary Finding of Inconsistency
21 NOAA Fisheries filed its preliminary recommended terms and conditions on June 27, 2002. In the DEA and by letter of November 29, 2002 from Vince Yearick, FERC staff, to Bob Lohn, NOAA Fisheries, FERC staff indicated its preliminary finding of inconsistency
337 for one of our recommendations. That letter requested our position on an alternative term presented by FERC staff, or if any other measures would accomplish the objectives of our original recommendation, or any additional evidence to support our recommendation. For clarity, we present the original recommendation below:
22 [2]h. The licensee shall provide a continuous minimum discharge from the powerhouse to the tailrace of the one-turbine minimum (~500 cfs), or provide equivalent flow through the tailrace using pumps from October 1 through July 31 each year to protect spawning salmon and steelhead and their incubating eggs.
23 Rationale: Given existing use of the Columbia River/Chelan River/tailrace confluence by fall chinook, it is highly likely that, if appropriately improved, the tailrace would prove highly attractive to spawning salmonids. Even with the proposed minimum instream flows in the river, the powerhouse would continue to convey most of the project water making it the predominant habitat available, likely attracting most of the post-licensing spawning activity. Providing flow surety to this resource is very important to its likelihood for success of our restoration efforts.
NOAA Fisheries’ Response and additional evidence:
24 The DEA (pages 75-76) bases its rejection of NMFS 10(j) condition on a study by BioAnalysts (2002) and the watering of the tailrace channel by the backwater effect of the Rocky Reach project on the Columbia River downstream from the Chelan River confluence. The DEA goes on to suggest that based on this information, contingency actions proposed by Chelan PUD were unnecessary, suggesting instead that continuous flow may be appropriate during the spawning season to avoid conditions that might cause spawning salmon to abandon their redds during construction. We agree that a continuous spawning season flow is needed in the project tailrace. We included the spawning seasons for summer/fall chinook and steelhead in our recommendation.
Response. We have revised this section of the FEA and our recommendation. We are now recommending adoption of the flow security measures proposed in the CRBEIP and included in the 401 WQC.
25 We do not agree that the Rocky Reach backwater effects and the BioAnalysts study obviate a need for continuous flow through incubation and emergence. The BioAnalysts study compared intragravel dissolved oxygen concentrations (DO) and chinook egg to fry success ratios in the lowermost portion of the project tailrace and the mouth of the Chelan River in the late fall of 2001 to those measured in the nearby Entiat River. This study was useful and informative, but it did not cover the range of conditions likely to exist following
338 relicensing of the project along the lines of the proposed action. For example, existing spawning sites in the project tailrace and Chelan River are near the confluence with the Columbia River and may receive intragravel flow from the Columbia River. The proposed action includes substantial filling of the project tailrace further from Columbia River to expand the available spawning habitat. There is no basis in the record for FERC to assume that intragravel conditions in this new, further upstream habitat would be similar to those near the Columbia River confluence.
26 The BioAnalysts study is not necessarily determinative, because it did not consider long duration shutdowns, such as that which occurred at the project in 2001. In 2001, the project was shut down for a period of about 90 days. A study covering the effects of project shutdown for 19 days may not be indicative of the likely effects of much longer shutdowns. Following the extended project shutdown in the spring of 2001, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife personnel conducted a snorkel survey and examined redds in the same general area of the project tailrace and Chelan River as was investigated by BioAnalysts (WDFW 2001). During that investigation, dead eggs and fry were observed but no live fish or live eggs were observed.
27 In addition to this anecdotal observation of the impact of project outages on egg and fry survival, the need for continuous intragravel flow through chinook salmon and steelhead redds is well documented and discussed in the scientific literature (e.g., Groot and Margolis 1991). Intragravel flow brings DO to the embryos and carries away their metabolic wastes. Without sufficient intragravel flow and DO the eggs or alevins would suffocate and die. These fish are adapted to spawning in flowing water. Among the Pacific salmon, only sockeye (Oncorynchus nerka) are known to spawn in still waters, typically along shorelines subject to wave action. Chinook and steelhead redd site selection appears to be at least partially based on perceived intragravel flow and redd construction creates undulated bed forms that enhance intragravel flow.
28 There is little dispute over the need for intragravel flow for salmon reproductive success among the parties to this relicensing consultation. At issue is how best to achieve it. NOAA Fisheries’ recommendation for continuous one-turbine minimum discharge was predicated on Chelan PUD’s desire to avoid physical plant modification to provide a continuous flow. Lesser flow rates may prove acceptable, however, flows less than the one-turbine minimum at the Chelan powerhouse would require physical plant modifications. This issue remains under discussion by the settlement parties. NOAA Fisheries’ continuous one-turbine flow 10(j) condition is the most certain and at this time cost-effective way to assure protection of eggs and fry.
339 29 NOAA Fisheries views Chelan PUD’s proposal to place perforated pipe into the spawning substrates and provide, via pumps, a continuous supply of intragravel flow as an experimental approach that could result in highly spatially variable intragravel flow rates. Sites near the pipe would likely receive higher flow and DO than sites at a greater distance from the pipe. While the powerhouse is operating, spawning fish would not be able to identify spawning locations that would benefit from piped flows following powerhouse shutdown. Thus an individual fish’s spawning success would become more random rather than an expression of fitness.
30 Chelan PUD has also discussed the option of providing powerhouse operation for a portion of each day. Although some scientific evidence suggests that incubating salmon eggs can withstand brief periods of zero intragravel flow without a significant increase in mortality (Reiser and White 1983), continuous flow provides greater protection for eggs and fry.
31 We are not rejecting these options outright. With adequate development and evaluation an alternative mechanism to provide suitable intragravel conditions in the reconfigured project tailrace throughout spawning and incubation may be acceptable to NOAA Fisheries. To be acceptable, FERC and Chelan PUD would need to provide sufficient information on any alternative to demonstrate a high probability of success. A detailed monitoring and evaluation program as well as a contingency plan would also be needed. NOAA Fisheries remains open to considering all options for ensuring adequate conditions for salmon and steelhead reproductive success in the project tailrace. Until and unless such an alternative is developed, continuous powerhouse operation from the onset of spawning through emergence remains the best mechanism available to ensure a high probability of salmon and steelhead reproductive success in the reconfigured powerhouse tailrace.
32 For these reasons, NOAA Fisheries continues to support its recommended conditions dated June 27, 2002. Our previous rationale and the information provided in these comments, as well as other information filed with FERC in this proceeding, provide substantial evidence to support this recommended condition.
Response. As indicated above, we have revised this section of the FEA based on these comments and others and we have revised our recommendation. We are now recommending adoption of the flow security measures proposed in the CRBEIP and included in the 401 WQC.
33 In response to the specific queries raised in your letter of November 29, 2002: NOAA Fisheries does not find FERC-staff’s alternative recommendation acceptable; NOAA Fisheries continues to work with Chelan PUD and other parties to the settlement
340 negotiations to identify acceptable alternative measures and submits the above information as additional substantial evidence in support of its recommended 10(j) condition to provide continuous flow in the tailrace. In the event we are able to reach settlement on this issue, NOAA Fisheries would provide a revised 10(j) recommendation for FERC’s consideration. We request that FERC staff arrange for a 10(j) dispute resolution meeting or conference call to consider this issue in greater detail.
Response. Because of the substantial revisions made to the EA between the draft and final stage, we request that you review the FEA before we conduct a Section 10(j) meeting. If after review of the FEA, you wish for a dispute resolution meeting or conference call, please contact Bob Easton at (202) 502-6045 or [email protected].
IV. Revised 10(j) Recommended Conditions
34 As noted above, NOAA Fisheries filed its recommended modified preliminary terms and conditions and preliminary fishway prescriptions on June 27, 2002, pursuant to sections 10(j) and 18 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 803 ad 811, as amended, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), 16 U.S.C. § 661 et seq., and other laws governing NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction and authority for anadromous and marine fish resources affected by hydropower development.
35 NOAA Fisheries is not revising its recommended terms and conditions, and fishway prescriptions at this time. NOAA Fisheries reserves the right to modify its recommended terms and conditions and prescriptions. In addition, ESA section 7(a)(2) consultation will be required for at least one ESA listed species. NOAA Fisheries reserves the right to recommend such alternatives to the proposed action as may be identified by NOAA Fisheries as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of ESA-listed species, or to avoid adverse modification of their critical habitat, or such terms and conditions as may be necessary to minimize and mitigate the incidental take of ESA-listed species.
V. Conclusion
36 NOAA Fisheries respectfully requests that the Commission address the above DEA comments, response to FERC-staff’s preliminary 10(j) inconsistency finding, and incorporate the revised recommended terms and conditions in its preferred alternative, subject to any modifications that may be prescribed or recommended by NOAA Fisheries following issuance of a final environmental assessment for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project.
341 DATE this 10th day of January, 2003.
Respectfully submitted, FOR THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE:
/S/ Margaret Delp ______Margaret E. Delp Attorney Advisor NOAA, Office of General Counsel 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, Washington 98115 (206) 526-6153 (fax -6542)
342 U.S. Department of the Interior
Electronically Filed
Honorable Magalie R. Salas Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington, D.C. 20426
Subject: Review of Draft Environmental Assessment for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 637-022, Chelan River, Chelan County, Washington
The Department of the Interior has reviewed Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 637-016, located on the Chelan River, Chelan County, Washington. The Department offers the following comments:
GENERAL COMMENTS
1 The subject DEA is a product of the ALP and generally reflects the consensus of the Department and other ALP participants regarding the effects of the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project on fish and wildlife resources and other environmental and recreation values within the Lake Chelan and Chelan River watershed. Most of the concerns and issues raised by the Department during the ALP have been adequately addressed. The document’s analysis of action alternatives is adequate and generally reflects the gradual progress and issues that have been discussed by the NSWG during the ALP. Most of the measures recommended by the Department for the protection, mitigation of damages to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife and recreation resources have been adopted. However, a few key issues regarding the applicant’s proposed operational and conservation measures remain unresolved or require additional detail. As indicated in our December 13, 2002, joint request for a stay in issuing the final environmental assessment (FEA), these unresolved issues are the subject of ongoing settlement discussions between the applicant and the state and Federal interveners in the Lake Chelan proceeding. The parties believe that a comprehensive settlement agreement will be submitted to the Commission on or before April 15, 2003. We encourage the Commission to act expeditiously on our joint request for a stay with the goal of producing a more complete FEA.
343 Ramping Rates (DEA p. 18; p. 80, Table 11)
2 The ramping rates recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are based on Hunter (1992)53 and have been applied by the both Service and the Commission at other non-federal hydroelectric projects throughout the Pacific Northwest. These ramping rate recommendations were presented by the Service during the ALP.
3 In Table 11, it appears that the units of measurement are incorrect. The referenced stages at various discharges from the original PHABSIM instream flow study were in feet. These values are reported as inches in Table 11 and the referenced discussion. Given that the DEA’s analysis of stage changes is based on these data, the resultant DEA recommendation should be thoroughly reconsidered. It is also important to recognize that following channel modification, the stage-discharge relationship will change. Specifically, stage will change more rapidly with discharge as the stream width is reduced. Given that final designs of the channel improvements are not yet available, it is probably premature to develop specific, permanent discharge ramping rate limits based on change in stage per unit time criteria. Rather, we recommend that the FEA adopt the Service’s ramping rate recommendations and allow the applicant one year from the date that the channel improvements are completed to define specific operational criteria based on those limits and as-built field investigation of the stage-discharge relationship in each stream reach. We also recommend that the analysis of stage changes presented in the DEA be corrected in the FEA.
Response. We have corrected the data used for our analysis of ramping rates and revised the discussion of the various proposed ramping rates accordingly.
Bull Trout (DEA pp. 18 and 127)
4 The historical status of bull trout in the Stehekin Basin area of the Lake Chelan Project should be discussed more completely in the FEA. It is the intent of the Service to restore bull trout into the Stehekin Basin in the near future. Such a discussion is needed to establish the fact that bull trout were not only once abundant in Lake Chelan, but were quite numerous in the Stehekin Basin as well. This information is also germane because the restoration of bull trout into the Stehekin Basin will undoubtedly influence future fish management decisions implemented under the proposed Lake Chelan Fisheries Management Plan (LCFMP). We note that the Department’s preliminary section 4(e) conditions include a
53 Hunter, M.A. 1992. Hydropower flow fluctuations and salmonids: a review of biological effects, mechanical causes, and options for mitigation. Washington Department of Fisheries Technical Report 119. 46p.
344 requirement that the applicant be an active participant in bull trout restoration efforts over the term of the new license (Condition 14.5, DEA p. 17).
Response. We have revised the DEA to respond to this comment.
Erosion Impacts (DEA pp. 25-29)
5 The Department believes that the Commission has minimized the problem of project- related erosion in the DEA. The Commission acknowledges that “based on results of Chelan PUD’s erosion study, operation of the project is one of the main contributing factors to shoreline erosion, most of which is due to wave action,” but goes on to state that other factors contributing to erosion include “shoreline traffic, surface drainage, and construction activity.” The latter activities occur only at a very few sites and are minimal as compared to the direct impacts of fluctuating lake levels. Steep slopes along the shoreline also contribute to the magnitude of the problem in several ways, including retreat rate, size of failure, and cost of mitigation. Erosion is a serious concern based on the following:
6 The estimated 9 acres of land lost to erosion over the course of the next license period are gone forever. (Current value of developable lakeshore property around Lake Chelan is approximately $100,000 per acre).
Response. Placing that kind of value on land potentially eroded over the term of a new license seems unreasonable. It's unclear whether any of the sites are actually developable, because the 9 acres in question is cumulative, spread over a total of over 200 sites.
7 The PUD erosion site inventory data indicates that approximately 30% of the shoreline in Lake Chelan NRA is eroding (3.7 miles of erosion/12 miles of shoreline). Clearly this is a significant problem within the NPS area.
Response. We are not sure where this data on the NRA can be found within the report, but on page 28, it states that "78% of the site ends around the lake are restricted from further growth". While individual sites may be in serious need of attention, we believe that, in general, erosion is not a major issue at Lake Chelan.
8 Erosion initiated by the Project will continue as long as lake levels are manipulated. This conclusion is supported by numerous studies on reservoir erosion.
Response. While we agree that the way the lake level is managed, to enhance public recreation and tourism, contributes to increased erosion at certain sites, we wouldn't go so far as to say the project initiates the erosion because the majority of the erosion in question is
345 from wave action. With this in mind, we could say that any action that encourages more boating activity (more waves) on the lake, contributes to erosion. Such actions would include recreation facility development, designating lands as NRA, recreation marketing, etc.
9 There are very few relatively flat areas along the shore of the lake that are suitable for recreation (or have limited habitat value). Thus, erosion of these areas is critical.
Response. Agreed, but encouraging recreational use of these areas also contributes to erosion.
10 Erosion rates reported by the PUD are rough estimates, and probably low. Therefore, they underestimate the impact of erosion induced by this project. Erosion rates reported from other reservoirs in the vicinity are an order of magnitude higher than those the PUD estimated for Lake Chelan. Further, the average rate for the north end of the lake is higher than the average of 0.14 ft/yr, and is more likely on the order of 0.5 – 2 ft/yr due to steeper slopes and the predominance of glacial deposits at the north end of the lake.
Response. Again, we were talking in the DEA about the overall erosion picture, not about individual sites or sections of the shoreline.
Stehekin Sedimentation Monitoring (DEA pp.34-35)
11 The Commission justification for not recommending Stehekin River sedimentation monitoring is not valid for the following reasons: The applicant’s backwater study focused only on backwater effect, not sedimentation or Large Woody Material (LWM). Backwater not only effects sediment and LWM but flooding and channel pattern as well. Backwater effect is significant at 2000 feet long and 0.5 feet increase in water surface elevation (see FEMA floodplain development guidelines). The issue is not related to the Stehekin Flats and dust, but is focused at the mouth of the Stehekin River.
Response. Our analysis made use of both Chelan PUD's Stehekin River sedimentation study as well as their backwater analysis, both of which are cited in that section of the DEA. These analyses indicate that sedimentation is a very minor or non-issue, and that the backwater effect is within the limits of what was expected when the project was constructed which was before that part of Lake Chelan was designated a NRA.
12 The impacts of fill are not relevant to this issue. Fill material was placed during the last license, and thus should not be part of a pre-project baseline condition.
346 Response. As we've said, our baseline is not pre-project, but current conditions. Your pre- project baseline condition would also seem to pre-date designation of the NRA.
13 The Department also believes that cumulative effects of sediment deposition in the Stehekin River warrant consideration. While there are changes to the geology of the Stehekin River mouth not caused by the applicant, they are still relevant when assessing the overall impact of sediment on the river.
Response. We acknowledged the effects of fill placement in the DEA as you noted above.
Lake Chelan Water Quality (DEA pp. 40-47)
14 The Department does not believe that adequate information exists to support the conclusion that the project has no effect on Lake Chelan water quality. While project operations may not have caused some of the existing water quality problems project operations may exacerbate them. The DEA makes reference to an existing Lake Chelan Water Quality Committee (LCWQC) that has prepared a water quality plan as a framework to maintain and monitor water quality in Lake Chelan. This group is an ad hoc group with no charter, no monitoring capabilities, or funding mechanisms other than consensus by the participating members to address issues concerning Lake Chelan water quality nor do they have the ability to assess water quality impacts from project operations. The Department therefore, reiterates its recommendation that a Lake Chelan Water Quality Monitoring Plan be developed to determine the effects operations have on water quality.
Response. While there may be a desire to maintain the quality of Lake Chelan water and a lack of funding mechanisms for conducting desired monitoring, there is no evidence in our record or your comments to indicate that operation of the Lake Chelan Project influences water quality.
Chelan River Water Quality (DEA pp. 49-50)
15 The Department recommends incorporating the applicant’s “Chelan River Biological Evaluation and Implementation Plan” into the FEA’s analysis of project effects. This plan is a collaborative NSWG work product and provides needed insight into how lethal temperatures can potentially be minimized (i.e., summer time frame) in the Chelan River during the inception of the minimum flow regime. The NSWG biological objective for the upper reaches of the Chelan River is to establish Westlope cutthroat trout, and one feature of the applicant’s instream flow proposal is a commitment to attempt to minimize incipient lethal temperatures by augmenting flows and establishing riparian habitat. This effort will be an important step towards lowering average water temperatures in the Chelan River.
347 Response. We have revised the discussion of minimum flows and water temperatures within the bypassed reach to address the measures proposed in the CRBEIP.
Lake Trout (DEA p. 60)
16 Current information indicates that lake trout reproduction in Lake Chelan is more than anecdotal as indicated by the continued increase in the harvest of lake trout. Lake trout in Lake Chelan represent a significant threat to native fish species. The discussion of the effects of the continued non-native fish reproduction, including lake trout, on the recovery and restoration of native fish species in Lake Chelan should be expanded in the FEA.
Response. We have revised the EA to respond to this comment
Lake Chelan Fish Management (DEA pp. 87-89,92, 176, 185-187, and 206-208)
17 We are concerned that the proposed funding levels for support of Lake Chelan fish management activities under the new license may not be adequate. The applicant has offered to secure funding for the initiation of the Dr. Dave Beauchamp’s Lake Chelan Bioenergetics Study during the first year of the study. However, we have concerns related to the funding mechanism for the latter part of the study, which proposes cost sharing among Federal and state agencies. Also, funding for other needed fish monitoring programs may suffer due to a lack of long term funding during the term of the license. Adequate long term funding and monitoring is needed so population trends in Lake Chelan can be examined and accompanied with appropriate fish management modifications and adjustments. Appropriate funding levels is one issue expected to be resolved during the ongoing settlement discussions.
18 On a related matter, we support the reintroduction of native fish species (i.e. Westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout) into Lake Chelan and the Chelan River. The restoration of native cutthroat trout and bull trout populations and the protection of other native fish were a major objective of the ALP and are appropriately recognized in the DEA. Native fish stocking, however, should be approached with caution in light of the potential for severe predation by lake trout and rainbow trout, as well as other potential negative effects related to inter-species competition for available habitat. Discontinuing the stocking of land-locked chinook salmon and kokanee as a potential means to benefit the reestablishment of native fish species should be addressed in the FEA.
Response. We have added your suggestion that stocking of land-locked chinook salmon and kokanee should be discontinued for the benefit of native species to the FEA. However, because you provided no information to support your supposition, we could only speculate on the ecological processes that might result in such an effect.
348 Tailrace Minimum Flows (DEA pp. 75-76; 202)
19 We agree that a better understanding of the role that tailrace flow has on intergravel flow, water quality, and ultimately egg survival would be useful. Such information may be developed through in-season intragravel flow and dissolved oxygen monitoring. However, this section of the DEA suggests that obtaining such information should precede any actions meant to protect incubating eggs and newly hatched alevins. We do not agree. Rather than accepting a risky operation, investigating the outcomes, and taking actions only after an adverse effect has been proven, the applicant should be required to develop and implement cost-effective redd protection strategies immediately. The Service’s recommendation for a continuous approximately 500 cfs powerhouse discharge was a solution for the issue based on the applicant’s desire to avoid modifications of the project’s physical plant. We note that the applicant has recently taken protective measures to deal with extended powerhouse shutdowns prior to a clear indication that such action is needed to prevent mortality. The Service is continuing to work with the applicant to develop an alternative approach to this issue. The “do nothing until studies are complete” approach proposed by the DEA is unacceptable. In the event that maintaining high quality incubation conditions in the tailrace is not achievable, the we would need to consider changing our goals for this project from enhancing habitat conditions for spawning salmonids to excluding fish from this attractive but risky habitat area.
Response. We have revised the analysis of the need for a tailrace minimum flow based on your comments and the comments and information provided by other agencies and Chelan. We are now recommending that Chelan implement the flow security measures included in the CRBEIP and the 401 WQC.
National Park Service Docks and other Recreation Facilities (DEA pp. 152-158)
20 The National Park Service (NPS) believes that the Commission missed several key points in the analysis of impacts to NPS docks and recreation facilities caused by project operations. While there are multiple factors affecting damage to docks and direct project effects may be hard to quantify, we do not agree with the Commission’s conclusion that project effects on docks are insignificant. This difficulty in quantifying the impacts should not relieve the licensee from any responsibility related to project impacts to recreation resources.
21 The Commission analysis of fixed docks vs. floating docks and lake level fluctuations does not take into consideration that fluctuations of one foot may have a magnified effect on the docks located along the shoreline at the upper end of the lake, and that one foot in lake elevation change may mean a difference of actual water level at a dock site of 6 or more feet depending on the depth of the lake at the site and the length of the dock.
349 22 The information obtained by the NPS on pre-project lake level fluctuations from the original license show a 15-year average (1911-1924) pre-project fluctuation of 3.66 feet as compared to the applicant’s pre-project assessment of 8 feet. We believe this information is important in showing that the Project caused a significant change that required construction of floating docks as opposed to fixed docks and longer floating docks to provide access than would not have been necessary under pre-project natural lake conditions if lake levels only fluctuated an average of 3.66 feet as opposed to the current license level of 15.4 feet.
Response. According to Chelan PUD, based on USGS data, during the period of 1911-1925, the lake level fluctuated an average of 4.33 feet each year with a total range of lake levels of 7.2 feet. During this period, however, there was still a dam at the lake outlet that kept the lake from dropping to the lowest possible level. Regardless of the annual average, we assume dock designers try to account for the likely range of annual fluctuations, and floating docks, it would seem, would be the most accessible option. We agree that the project's lake fluctuations may require longer floating docks than under a no-dam condition, but the project predates the NRA, so our understanding is that NPS docks were originally designed with the project lake fluctuations in mind.
23 The Department disagrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the operation of the project has very little effect on recreation use of Lake Chelan. The applicant has acknowledged that project lake level operations are focused on increasing public recreation opportunities on Lake Chelan during spring and fall shoulder seasons, and the proposed lake level regime has been crafted to assist in maximizing the shoulder season recreation use.
Response. We didn't say the project has no effect on recreation. Rather, the dominant factors that make Lake Chelan a recreation destination would exist without the project.
24 Recreation use studies have confirmed that recreation use on Lake Chelan during shoulder spring and fall seasons is increasing, and this increase in usage directly affects the overall cost of dock facilities needed to provide public recreational access.
Response. Since the proposed new operating regime is not in effect, the increase in recreation during shoulder seasons must be due to other factors not related to the project. To treat the new operating regime which is being proposed to improve recreation as an adverse effect on a National Recreation Area, to us seems unreasonable.
25 The Department disagrees with the Commission’s assessment that NPS should only need to provide accessible docks during the peak visitor use season and that fixed docks should meet this need. NPS docks are needed at least mid-spring to late fall to service facilities and access trails in the Lake Chelan NRA, as well as to provide Stehekin residents (who can only
350 access the Stehekin community by boat) and commercial boat users with year around docking and mooring facilities. This necessitates a dock design to accommodate all lake level operations at Stehekin and most lake levels at other docks.
Response. We didn't say the NPS should only need to provide accessible docks during the peak recreation season. We said, in answer to the NPS assertion that the project creates a need for floating docks, that because the project is operated with a stable pool during the peak recreation season, the project, during this period actually makes fixed docks more feasible. We remain convinced that floating docks would be the best solution to a lake that fluctuates several feet with or without the project.
26 In addressing other recreation facilities, the Commission’s conclusion is based on 3 main points. “(1) It appears the capacity of middle and upper zone sites would be sufficient well into a new license term.” The 20-year recreation use survey conducted by PUD stated that uplake facilities would be crowded during the high visitor use season nearing the end of the 20-year period. Beyond that timeframe, facilities at Stehekin would require an upgrade to accommodate higher recreation visitor numbers. Also, the facilities at Riddle Creek would provide for public recreation on one of the last remaining areas suitable for use in the upper lake. (Recreation Study Report, February 2000, p. 127 Summary).
Response. That up-lake facilities are not expected to become crowded until near the end of the 20-year period, supports the DEA statement that "it appears the capacity of middle and upper zone sites would be sufficient well into a new license".
(2) "Although the proposed change in lake level management could cause a significant increase in early season use, facility capacity increases would be most likely needed in the lower zone before they are needed in the middle and upper zone.”
Response. The operative word in that sentence, from Section VII (Comprehensive Development) of the EA is "could". In our analysis of this issue on page 157 of the DEA, we also said "Whether the proposed change in lake level management would cause a significant increase in early season use is unknown at this time".
The Recreation Use Survey conducted by PUD showed that a significant number of recreational users of Lake Chelan are seeking quiet and solitude (Recreation Needs Forecast, pp. 6-40). The remote nature of upper Lake Chelan, particularly that portion within the national recreation area, provides this option. Increasing facility capacity in the lower zone may not meet the needs of a significant number of recreation users. It is highly likely that as lower zone facilities on Lake Chelan become more crowded a significant number of users will seek uplake areas to meet their needs for quiet and solitude. The ability to provide
351 suitable locations uplake to accommodate this recreational need and still provide a remote lake experience is limited. Facility improvements at Stehekin (ADA compliance, p. 40) and campground dock construction at Riddle Creek would help address this identified public recreational need. Reference: PUD Recreation Needs Forecast and Analysis, July 2000, pp. 6-38 and 40. “It can be expected that all campgrounds in the Upper Chelan Basin zone will fill up more often in the future.”
Response. We noted in the DEA (page 158) that we didn't expect people that may be displaced from lower zone recreation areas to seek areas up-lake because that is not how displaced users react now. While we agree that certain up-lake sites are at or near capacity during the peak season, the Chelan PUD study you reference found that "During the busiest time of the year (peak-season weekends), Upper Chelan Basin Zone recreation sites' capacity utilization for all activities is estimated to be approximately 56%".
(3) “We [the Commission] are not convinced that operation of the project is significantly affecting dock operation and maintenance.” The Department believes the condition and maintenance of dock facilities on Lake Chelan is directly impacted by project operations. The Commission’s conclusion that project operations has minimal effects on NPS dock and other recreation facilities are inaccurate and unsupported.
Response. During the peak recreation season, project operation benefits recreation by maintaining a stable reservoir level. Project operation does cause a seasonal drawdown greater than would occur without the project. This effect increases the cost of constructing or replacing docks as Chelan PUD recognizes in their February 7, 2003, reply comments. The major issue, however, for dock maintenance at Lake Chelan is wave action which is not a project effect.
Gravel Supplementation (DEA p. 203)
27 The Department requires clarification regarding the Commission’s decision not to uphold gravel supplementation in Reach 4 of the Chelan River. The recruitment of adequate spawning gravels in Reach 4 will be essential in restoring salmon and steelhead habitat. Periodic maintenance of the Reach 4 restoration project will be necessary throughout the license term, and gravel supplementation is a key element of the restoration effort. The applicant has proposed gravel supplementation and other standard stream habitat restoration techniques to create and improve habitat for salmon and steelhead spawning and incubation in Reach 4. While we may agree that gravel supplementation to pre-dam conditions may not be necessary; the need to maintain adequate gravel recruitment for the term of the license is basic to the restoration of the reach. The DEA does not examine the maintenance of appropriate spawning gravels in sufficient detail.
352 Response. We have updated the discussion in the FEA of the need for gravel supplementation based on your comments and your revised recommendation.
Threatened and Endangered Species Contingency Plan (DEA pp. 203-204)
28 The DEA states that “Therefore, even though the preparation of such a plan [Threatened and Endangered Species Contingency Plan] would represent a nominal cost to the project, we conclude that this recommendation may be inconsistent with substantial evidence of Section 313(b) of the FPA and with the comprehensive planning standard of Section 10(a) of the FPA. This logic of this statement contradicts the reasoning of the DEA on p. 130 regarding the preparation of a Sensitive Species Consultation Plan as prescribed by the USFS. Here the DEA concludes, “Nonetheless, developing such a plan [Sensitive Species Consultation Plan] may help streamline such future (management) actions.” The only difference between these two plans is that one is mandatory pursuant to the USFS’s section 4(e) authority, whereas the Service’s recommendations for a Threatened and Endangered Species Contingency Plan is not. The Service would resubmit its recommendation for reconsideration. The requirements of Federal and state listings of fish and wildlife in the Lake Chelan Project area make the creation of two contingency plans advantageous to the applicant due to the existence of differing jurisdictions and the current population status of specific species. The creation of two plans would serve to prioritize the importance of addressing specific species based on their respective population indices.
Response. The FEA acknowledges that an endangered species consultation plan could assist the Commission in identifying actions that would require future section 7 consultation and may also help streamline future management actions. However, it is not necessary and we do not recommend the inclusion of the endangered species consultation plan or the sensitive species consultation plan for similar reasons—i.e. redundancy with standard license requirements and Commission policy and practice which adequately permit the resource agencies and the Commission to reopen the license and to reinitiate consultation to address new listings or new information. We revised the discussion in the FEA to clarify these conclusions.
Minimum Flows in the Chelan River (DEA Table 20, p. 207)
29 The Department would re-emphasize the fact that flow regime specified by the Service in its 10(j) recommendations for the Chelan River is a product of the NSWG. A major objective of the ALP from its beginning was the restoration of flow to the Chelan River for the express purposes of restoring anadromous fish production and well as re-establishing a functional ecosystem below the dam. We are pleased that the DEA adopts the flow recommendations of the NSWG.
353 SPECIFIC COMMENTS
30 Page V, Summary, last sentence: Cultural resources should not be included in the statement of resources being improved. The concept of “improvements” to cultural resources is inappropriate, in contrast to its common usage in other parts of this document in regards to habitats, conditions, species, and facilities.
Response. We maintain that through continued use, stabilization, protection, and monitoring, cultural resources will be improved. Examples would include continued use of the project powerhouse and related historic facilities, stabilization and/or protection of eroded areas along archeological sites, and monitoring and prevention of unauthorized artifact collecting and looting on such sites.
31 Page 24: Steep slopes along the shoreline should be mentioned as a critical erosion factor. Steep slopes contribute to the magnitude of the shoreline erosion problem in several ways, including retreat rate, size of failure, and cost of mitigation.
Response. The last paragraph on page 23 recognizes the shoreline is steep.
32 Page 24, 2nd paragraph, Stehekin Flats: Sentence stating, “Stehekin Flats is inundated most of the year when lake levels are high, but is exposed when the lake is drawn down in late winter through spring”, is not totally accurate. Stehekin Flats is actually only inundated for four months a year. The Flats are visibly exposed from the end of September until the beginning of June.
Response. We will make this change in the FEA.
33 Page 25: Lake Level Management, first sentence, “…. lake levels under project operation do (not can) affect shoreline erosion.
Response. We will note in the FEA that Chelan PUD's study of erosion found that the practice of keeping the lake full during the recreation season increases erosion at some sites.
34 Page 29, Our Analysis: We believe the Commission has unduly minimized the erosion problem. The Commission acknowledges that “based on results of Chelan PUD’s erosion study, operation of the project is one of the main contributing factors to shoreline erosion, most of which is due to wave action.” Other factors such as “shoreline traffic, surface drainage, and construction activity” only occur at a very few sites and are minimal as compared to the direct impacts of fluctuating lake levels. We believe erosion is a moderate to major problem based on the following:
354 35 The estimated 9 acres of land lost to erosion over the course of the next license period are gone forever. (Current value of developable lakeshore property around Lake Chelan is approximately $100,000 per acre).
Response. We addressed this above.
36 The PUD erosion site inventory data indicates that approximately 30% of the shoreline in Lake Chelan NRA is eroding (3.7 miles of erosion/12 miles of shoreline). Clearly this is a significant problem within the NPS area.
Response. We addressed this above.
37 Erosion initiated by the Project will continue as long as lake levels are manipulated. This conclusion is supported by numerous studies on reservoir erosion.
Response. We don't disagree.
38 There are very few relatively flat areas along the shore of the lake that are suitable for recreation (or have limited habitat value). Thus, erosion of these areas is critical.
Response. We address this above.
39 Erosion rates reported by the PUD are rough estimates, and probably low. Therefore, they underestimate the impact of erosion induced by this project. Erosion rates reported from other reservoirs in the vicinity are an order of magnitude higher than those the PUD estimated for Lake Chelan. Further, the average rate for the north end of the lake is higher than the average of 0.14 ft/yr, and is more likely on the order of 0.5 – 2 ft/yr due to steeper slopes and the predominance of glacial deposits at the north end of the lake.
Response. We addressed this above.
40 Page 29, Our Analysis: The Commission states, “operation of the project is one of the main contributing factors to shoreline erosion at Lake Chelan, most of which is due to wave action.” Continuing …. “the way the reservoir level is managed can either improve conditions or accelerate the process.” This theory seems to be the same principle on which project related impacts to recreation docks (that are located on some of these erosion sites) should be assessed. How can wave action created by project operations be identified as a major contributing factor in shoreline erosion but then be dismissed as not being a major
355 factor in the Commission’s assessment of impacts to docks or recreation facilities located on erosion sites? We will discuss this issue further in the Draft EA section on recreation.
Response. We did not say wave action was a project effect.
41 Page 29, Erosion Control, 1st paragraph: As a point of clarification, the 232 sites in the shoreline erosion inventory are only representatives of those sites greater than 50 ft. long.
Response. According the Criteria and Methods section of the study report, the inventory also included sites less than 50 feet in length and some sites in the bypassed reach.
42 Page 30, 3rd paragraph: The statement that the NPS did not “take into account key factors important to the erosion control work” is inaccurate. NPS considered the significance of erosion in determining which of the 39 sites inventoried by the NPS should be mitigated. As a result, erosion control work was limited to only portions of 16 of the 17 sites identified. Easements were not initially considered as relevant when the PUD did the erosion site inventory (i.e., all sites were inventoried) and when the NPS selected the 16 sites from the 39 to assess for mitigation. Further, the NPS has not acknowledged that damage waivers preclude the PUD from the responsibility of addressing impacts to recreation facilities.
Response. The statement in question was a comment from Chelan PUD, as reported in the DEA.
43 Page 30, 4th paragraph: The project does have impacts to the velocity of flow of the Stehekin River and some tributaries, and thus does have an impact on Large Woody Material (LWM) recruitment. Project effects include: Backwater effect at the head of the lake causes sediment deposition and, ultimately, the deposition of LWM in the lower Stehekin River channel. Recent NPS surveys of LWM, made available to the applicant, clearly indicate that a massive amount of LWM is accumulating at the mouth of the Stehekin River.
Response. Chelan PUD's study of sedimentation found the following: (1) "The well defined nature of the Stehekin River’s main channel across the delta lacks clear signs of sediment buildup or progressive deposition in the channel which would be required to induce changes farther upstream"; (2) "...... splits and shifts in the channel, near the reservoir's high water mark as well as some of the more prominent collections of sediment and LWD are thought to be the result of placement of an artificial fill at the river mouth in the 1960s. The fill obstructed one part of the river’s channel, shifting the flow of the river to the right. This has resulted in sediment deposition and collection of LWD in obstructed channel(s) and enlargement of the previously minor channel, which has also been shifted to the right."; (3) "Aside from the continuing effects of constriction and displacement of the river mouth, flood
356 flows and lower flows which cross the flats at low lake levels appear to maintain a relatively well defined channel for the Stehekin River across the flats. Except where caused by other influences such as artificial fill placement, there are no clear signs of substantial aggradation along the channel."; (4) "Other channels present on the flats appear to be in the same locations as can be observed in preproject photographs. This, together with the condition of stumps, visible over large areas of the flats, indicate that much of the flats area is relatively stable, experiencing relatively little deposition or erosion. The presence of mid-channel bars and collections of LWD along the Stehekin River, which can be noted for miles upstream of the influence of the lake, are a result of the river’s progressively decreasing gradient."
44 Lake level manipulations keep LWM mobile, affecting its accumulation along shorelines. Steep, eroding shorelines are unlikely to accumulate LWM. A natural lake/shoreline configuration, with a shoreline beach, would help retain LWM along shoreline areas.
Response. We are not sure that the season drawdown at Lake Chelan, versus an unregulated reservoir that fluctuates less but more often, creates more LWM mobilization.
47 Page 32, Our Analysis: Once again we disagree with the statement that the level of erosion is minor as previously discussed. Erosion impacts are clearly directly project related.
Response. We discussed this issue above.
48 Page 34, last paragraph: We disagree with the statement that the backwater effect is small. It affects almost a half-mile of the lower river, and raises flood elevations up to 0.5 ft.
Response. Apparently, compared to the effects of fill, it is small, and it is unclear whether it is causing a problem.
49 Page 35: The PUD backwater study focused only on water, not sediment or wood, and therefore the results do not adequately characterize project impacts on sediment or LWM. The backwater study was also limited in scope to the river channel. Backwater effects, when viewed in a cumulative sense, have potential to exacerbate flooding beyond the limits of the damage waivers. Due to the flat nature of the lower Stehekin valley floor, a small increase in water elevation can move water a long distance laterally from the river channel.
Response. The following statement is from the backwater study: "It should be noted that fluvial placement of large woody debris occurs both upstream and within the backwater effects of the lake. No apparent increase in the incidence of large wood debris accumulation was observed within the lake’s backwater effect area in comparison to upstream areas of the Stehekin River. A significant amount of loosened large wood debris continues to exist within
357 and upstream of the study reach. The wood debris upstream of the study reach has been loosened, probably as a result of large, naturally occurring floods experienced during 1990 and 1995/1996. The lesser gradient of the entire lower Stehekin River appears to encourage accumulation of mobilized wood debris and a large amount of wood debris is available in the upper river. Considering these factors, the adverse effect the wood debris has in raising the hydraulic profile of the lower river, and likely within the upper river should be expected to continue."
50 Page 35, 3rd paragraph: Sedimentation was not a focus of the PUD backwater effects study. Any efforts to look at sediment via changes in channel elevation were limited by a lack of historic data and difficulty relocating old surveys thus the NPS and PUD concluded that additional monitoring of sedimentation at the mouth of the Stehekin River was supportable. The Commission conclusion to not support a sedimentation monitoring effort is based on a backwater effects study that did not focus on sedimentation monitoring.
Response. We based our conclusions both on the sedimentation and the backwater studies.
51 Page 37: It is significant to the NPS mission at Lake Chelan NRA that visitors to Stehekin have views into Class I areas Glacier Peak Wilderness and Stephen Mather Wilderness. Further, it is misleading to state that average air quality at Stehekin is better than the listed Class I areas. It is clearly not better during a dust storm event and the dust events are the issue, not average comparisons. Further, Alpine Lakes and Columbia Gorge Class I areas are heavily impacted by nearby urbanization and are not appropriate for comparison to the remote Stehekin Valley.
Response. That section also notes that during dust events, the visibility at Stehekin landing is thought to be significantly worse than the dirtiest days at those wilderness sites.
52 Page 38, 2nd paragraph: The proposed native revegetation at the head of the lake involves the areas that are only inundated four months of the year. The land that is exposed in the Stehekin Flats is too deep, when inundated, for vegetation to become established. The new lake level proposal will not “allow some areas in and around Stehekin Flats to be revegetated that would otherwise be inundated for too long each year for vegetation to survive.” Inundation occurs during the prime growth and development period for vegetation in the Stehekin area (June-September).
Response. We noted in that section that the primary source of dust would likely not be effected by the new lake level regime.
358 53 Page 40, Water Quality: Recent Lake Chelan Mirror newspaper articles quote EPA sampling conducted in November 2002 that found Lake Chelan had the highest levels of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and DDT levels in sediment and fish of all the lakes sampled in the US. This information would seem not to support the DEA claim that Lake Chelan “is considered one of the most pristine water bodies in North America.”
Response. We have revised the language to more accurately portray the quality of water within Lake Chelan and include the information you have provided.
54 Page 48, 1st paragraph: The FERC DEA seems to support the conclusion that waterfowl contribute significantly to the fecal coliform levels in Lake Chelan but on pages 104-105 state that, “Lake Chelan does not support many waterfowl relative to the lake’s size.” These statements seem to be contradictory. Although waterfowl would appear to be the most likely source of the bacterial input in Lake Chelan this conclusion has never been proven. Other sources such as sewage leaks, boat sewage, lawn fertilizers and recreation use and facilities are also significant contributors. Since an important focus of lake level management on Lake Chelan is enhancing and increasing public recreation and public recreation may be a contributing factor to fecal coliform levels, we do not believe a conclusion that project operations has no effect on Lake Chelan water quality can be supported from current information.
Response. We have revised this section to include your comments regarding the contribution of waterfowl to fecal coliform levels. We recognize that there are potentially many sources of fecal coliform within Lake Chelan and some of these are likely related to recreation activities. Additionally, we recognize that recreational use is related, at least in part, to lake level management. However, we would not imply that the public interest would be better served by managing lake levels to discourage additional recreation and thereby limit additional input of recreation-related fecal coliform, especially when this water quality parameter is already within state standards. The tenuous connection between fecal coliform levels and lake level management does not justify requiring Chelan to conduct a comprehensive, long-term, lake-wide water quality monitoring program.
55 Page 52, last paragraph: The Stehekin River is the main tributary to Lake Chelan and is an exception to other lake tributaries as described in this paragraph as being “similar to each other morph-metrically and with steeply incised stream channels…” The Stehekin River channel runs through the much flatter valley floor at the upper end of Lake Chelan and flows into Lake Chelan over more level terrain than other Lake Chelan tributaries.
Response. We have revised the text more accurately describe the Stehekin River.
359 56 Page 59, Rainbow Trout: Although rainbow trout reproduction may be limited in the smaller tributaries to Lake Chelan, significant reproduction is occurring in the Stehekin River and has recently been evidenced by the high rate of hybridization with cutthroat trout in the Stehekin River.
Response. We have added this information to the FEA.
57 Page 65, 3rd paragraph, Tributaries: The NPS does not agree the suckers could be competing with cutthroat for spawning habitat. The suckers broadcast spawn while cutthroat deposit eggs in redds. Since the suckers would not be disturbing the substrate there would be little if any impact on existing cutthroat redds.
Response. In the DEA and FEA, we acknowledge the differences in the spawning behavior of these two species. We are not suggesting that suckers spawn in the gravel thereby displacing cutthroat trout. Instead, we are suggesting that competition for space in the water column and food resources may occur among spawning and rearing suckers and trout. We have revised the FEA to indicate your disagreement that these two species compete.
58 Page 89, Tributary Access: “As part of its license application, Chelan PUD proposes to provide funding for tributary access improvement projects…” In this statement improvement seems to infer this is an enhancement project. This is clearly a protection and mitigation measure.
Response. We have deleted the term "improvement" from this sentence in the FEA.
59 Page 95, Our Analysis: Delete the “It appears that.” The agencies are recommending that where possible, the applicant should use LWM to control erosion around the lake shoreline.
Response. We used this language to indicate that not all of the Section 10(j) recommendations were clear in regard to this measure. Thank you for the clarification.
60 Pages 104-105: The statement that Lake Chelan does not support many waterfowl relative to the lake’s large size could be misleading. The head of the lake in the Stehekin area is important to migratory species such as pied grebes, trumpeter swans, buffleheads, golden eyes, horned grebes, mallards, mergansers, loons, and blue herons. The statement that “very little, if any waterfowl nesting occurs along Lake Chelan” is misleading. NPS personnel have verified Canadian geese, mallards, and loons nesting at the head of the lake in the Stehekin area. There are also reports of horned grebes attempting to nest but fluctuations in lake levels as a result of project operations have resulted in failed nesting attempts.
360 Response. The FEA is revised to reflect this anecdotal information.
61 Page 108, 2nd paragraph: Any data gathered from riparian wildlife monitoring would be used to assist in resource management decisions in the Stehekin Flats area such as timing of LWM placement in the drawdown for dust mitigation or implementation of vegetation efforts around the head of the lake.
Response. The FEA is revised to reflect how the Park Service would use this data.
62 Page 114, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: The NPS should be included with Forest Service and State Lands in this sentence because footnote 14 includes reference to the Stehekin Area Plan which is on NPS lands.
Response. As we understand Chelan PUD's proposal, the $30,000 dollars estimated for habitat improvements would be for actions on Forest Service and state lands. As we explain in footnote 14, Chelan PUD intends on revising the draft wildlife habitat management plan to increase the level of funding to address management actions in the Stehekin Implementation Plan, but to date a revised management plan has not been filed. Furthermore, we kept the costs for the wildlife habitat management plan separate from the Stehekin Implementation Plan for the purposes of evaluating the costs and benefits of the Chelan PUD's habitat management plan relative to the Forest Service and WDFW land acquisition recommendations. Therefore, it would be incorrect to include the Park Service in the sentence as requested.
63 Pages 118-119, Our Analysis: The project does cause unvegetated areas that are exposed at various times of the year. Non-native invasive weed species are opportunists that do well in disturbed sites. Frequently, non-native plants become established in very poor soils or even rock. Weeds do well in areas of disturbance because they have seed dissemination capabilities, have large numbers of seeds, and are able to grow and develop under substandard conditions. They out-compete native species in these areas. Therefore, if the project is creating erosion zones or exposure of unvegetated shoreline, it is contributing to potential non-native plant occurrence and spread.
Response. Your comments are consistent with our analysis. Therefore, no changes to the FEA were required.
64 Page 120, Bald Eagle: It should be noted that the eagles have successfully nested with one eaglet each year in 2001 and 2002 in the riparian zone at the head of the lake.
Response. This information has been added to the bald eagle discussion in section 5.
361 65 Page 132, 3rd paragraph: In first sentence, “…the southern regions,” should read “…the southern end of the lake.” The second sentence should read, “Increasing use and development of residential areas is likely to have had an adverse influence on the preservation of cultural resources.” The last sentence should begin, “As has happened in the past, project operations….”
Response. Changes were made to text as recommended.
66 Page 133, 3rd paragraph, third sentence: Should read, “The project may also affect cultural resources managed by the Forest Service, Park Service…” The fourth sentence should read, “Federal land management agencies along Lake Chelan, particularly the Forest Service, Park Service,….”
Response. Changes were made to text as recommended.
67 Also there should be a final sentence added to this paragraph to read, “Also, these agencies have a legal obligation to comply with regulations set forth in 36CFR Part 800 governing the treatment of cultural resources.”
Response. Changes were made to text as recommended.
68 Page 133, last paragraph, first sentence: Sentence should end with, “…in exposure of lithic artifacts and features.”
Response. Changes were made to text as recommended.
69 Page 134, 2nd paragraph, first sentence: Sentence should begin “To meet our obligations pursuant to the National Historic Preservations Act….”
Response. Changes were made to text as recommended.
70 Page 145, Our Analysis, Upper and Middle Zones: Although the lake level would be slightly higher in May and June under the proposed lake level regime it should be noted that two of the NPS docks at the upper end of the lake would still not be accessible until near the end of June in most years. Manly Wham and Weaver Point are not accessible at lake levels below 1097.5 feet.
Response. We will note these exceptions.
362 71 Page 152, 3rd paragraph: The PUD states, “the average pre-project fluctuation was 8 feet compared to 16 feet now, and the maximum pre-project fluctuation was 12 feet compared to 21 feet now.” A review of the lake elevation information from the original license does not support this statement. The original hydrograph information had recorded data from December of 1910 to August 1925. The maximum peak recorded on that graph was 1084.2 in the middle of June 1921. The lowest point recorded was 1077.4 at the beginning of April 1917. Thus the fluctuation shown from the pre-project records, that we obtained, show a maximum fluctuation of 1077.4 – 1084.2 or 6.8 feet. This is a significant difference from the pre-project maximum of 12 feet referred to in this statement. Thus the average recorded pre- project fluctuation was not 8 feet but 3.66 feet. See Table 1:
TABLE 1 – YEARLY HIGHS AND LOWS WITH 15-YEAR AVERAGE ORIGNAL LICENSE YEAR HIGH LOW YEAR HIGH LOW 1911 1081.7 1078.0 1919 1082.0 1078.8 1912 1081.3 1078.8 1920 1082.0 1077.9 1913 1082.4 1077.5 1921 1084.2 1079.5 1914 1081.1 1078.3 1922 1082.0 1077.9 1915 1079.5 1078.7 1923 1081.6 1078.0 1916 1083.2 1078.3 1924 1082.3 1077.9 1917 1080.5 1077.4 1918 1081.2 1077.6 15 yr 1081.86 1078.2 average
Response. We discussed this information above, and will note the revised numbers in the FEA.
72 This information also shows project operations cause a significantly larger range of fluctuation than occurred under natural conditions. Current Project operations, using the Comparison of Averages Graph (DEA p. 28), peak at 1099.8 and drop to 1085.4 for an average change of 15.4 feet in lake level compared to the pre-project average change of 3.66 feet as shown from the information in Table 1 above. We believe this information is important in showing that the Project caused a significant change that required construction of floating docks as opposed to fixed docks and longer floating docks to provide access than would have been necessary under pre-project natural lake conditions if lake levels only fluctuated an average of 3.66 feet as opposed to the current license level of 15.4 feet.
Response. We discussed this issue above.
363 73 Page 153, Our Analysis, 2nd paragraph: Our comments here also apply to p. 155, 3rd paragraph. The applicant asserts that the “lateral movement caused by wave action significantly impacts the docks.” The applicant then states that, “the project does not increase wave action.” We agree with both of these points. However, the above statements are misleading and do not completely address the issue. The Project does concentrate wave energies, directly impacting dock facilities by the following Project operations:
74 In holding the lake level at a high level for much longer than normal duration (2 ½ months to help maximize recreation usage of the lake) wave energies are pounding docks both vertically and horizontally for a longer than normal time period on docks and other shoreline recreation facilities than would have occurred under pre-project conditions.
Response. It would seem that floating docks are affected by waves during this time period regardless of the lake level. It would also seem that the shoreline facilities would have been developed so they were in contact with the water under whichever lake level regime existed at the time.
75 Project operations have annually raised the lake level far more than the assumptions of the PUD, based on the data in Table 1 above. This information provides substantial evidence that at a 3.6 feet average lake fluctuation fixed docks would have worked in many locations. To accommodate the 15.4 feet average fluctuation of current project operations significantly longer floating docks are required at uplake locations. The fact that longer floating docks are needed, extending docks into lake depths to account for the 15.4 feet fluctuation allow greater horizontal and vertical wave energies to impact the docks, since they are now in deeper water than would have been needed under pre-project conditions. This changes the slope profile that affects wave energies. Essentially, shorter fixed docks closer to shoreline in shallow water are impacted less by wave action than longer floating docks in deeper water designed to be accessible with 15.4 feet of average lake level fluctuation.
Response. We discussed this issue above.
76 Page 155: It should be noted that the NPS disagrees with Chelan PUD on the application of flowage easements to recreation facilities. An NPS review of specific easement language indicates that these easements in some instances are not clear as to their application to recreation facilities that may be located on easement lands. For example, under some of the existing flowage easements there is specific language referring to damage from flowage or flooding of lands and facilities. In other easements there is no reference to “docks or facilities” that may be located on these lands. The PUD appears to have easements on lands where 3 of the 5 NPS dock sites on Lake Chelan are located. The specific easement
364 language for these 3 sites makes no reference to recreation facilities that may be located on these lands in the future.
Response. So noted.
77 Page 155 - 157: The NPS disagrees with PUD’s overall assessment that the project contribution to dock damage is very minor compared to effects from natural wave action and that the project has minimal impact on recreation use. (See previous NPS comments DEA p. 153 that also applies to this discussion.) The Commission seems to support this conclusion in its assessment. On p. 29 and pp. 10-111, in discussions on erosion and wildlife, the Commission acknowledges that “operation of the project is one of the main contributing factors to shoreline erosion much of which is due to wave action”, and further “the way the reservoir level is managed can either improve conditions or accelerate the process.” This theory surfaces again in discussions on how lake level fluctuations impact riparian areas and wildlife on pp. 110-111. The NPS fails to see how Commission can conclude that lake level fluctuations have mitigateable impacts concerning erosion, riparian areas, and wildlife but not concerning docks and recreation facilities that are located in the same areas as other affected resources.
Response. While there may be an ongoing project impact to docks from keeping the reservoir full during the primary recreation season, we still believe the impact is minor.
78 Page 156, 2nd paragraph: The last sentence of the paragraph is not completely accurate. The Stehekin Marina and Landing is a public use facility that provides a year around docking and mooring facility for the public, Stehekin residents, and the commercial ferry transporting the public to the Stehekin Area.
Response. We will clarify this is the FEA.
79 Page 157, Our Analysis: We believe that the Commission missed several key points in the analysis of impacts to NPS docks and recreation facilities caused by project operations. The NPS acknowledges that there are multiple factors affecting damage to docks but we do not agree with the Commission’s conclusion that project effects on docks are insignificant (See comments pp. 153 and 155-157). However, we do agree that because of multiple factors the direct project effects may be hard to quantify. This difficulty in quantifying the impacts should not relieve the licensee from any responsibility related to project impacts to recreation resources.
365 Response. We did not say the project has no responsibility for impacts to recreation resources. Chelan, in their response comments, proposes a way to quantify project-related impacts on docks that seems reasonable.
80 The Commission analysis of fixed docks vs. floating docks and lake level fluctuations does not take into consideration that fluctuations of one foot may have a magnified effect on the docks located along the shoreline at the upper end of the lake, and that one foot in lake elevation change may mean a difference of actual water level at a dock site of 6 or more feet depending on the depth of the lake at the site and the length of the dock. For example, the NPS Weaver Point and Manly Wham docks located at the head of Lake Chelan are not accessible at lake levels below 1097.5 feet. At the proposed lake level regime these facilities are only accessible from approximately mid-June to end of September. Project operations affect the overall cost of dock facilities needed to provide public recreational access during a recreation season that, by the PUD’s own acknowledgement in recreation use studies and relicensing discussions, is focused on increasing public recreation opportunities on Lake Chelan during spring and fall shoulder seasons. It is because of these recreation use studies and PUD statements in discussions related to recreation that confirmed increasing recreation use on Lake Chelan during shoulder spring and fall seasons to be a primary focus of project lake level operations. The proposed lake level regime has been crafted to assist in maximizing the shoulder season recreation use on Lake Chelan. It is, therefore, hard to understand how the Commission analysis concludes that the operation of the project has very little effect of recreation use of Lake Chelan.
Response. We didn't say operation of the project has very little effect on recreation, but we expect that even without the project, the features that attract people to Lake Chelan would still draw significant use. Also, just because the new lake level regime has as one of its goals to increase shoulder season recreation doesn't mean there will be a significant increase in use.
81 Page 157, Our Analysis: Furthermore, NPS docks are needed at least mid-spring to a late fall basis to service facilities and access trails in the Lake Chelan NRA as well as provide Stehekin residents (who can only access the Stehekin community by boat) and commercial users with year around docking and mooring facilities. This necessitates a dock design to accommodate all lake level operations at Stehekin and most lake levels elsewhere. Project operations have a direct affect on the design standards for these dock facilities. The Commission’s assessment that we should only need to provide accessible docks during the peak visitor use season, therefore, fixed docks should meet this need is seriously flawed.
Response. We discussed these issues above.
366 82 Page 158, 1st paragraph: The NPS disagrees with the statement regarding winter drawdown that, “it is the lower zone facilities where there are mostly fixed docks, that are most affected by seasonal drawdown.” Once again we would refer to our previous discussion on the magnified effects of fluctuations in lake levels on recreation facilities at the head of the lake due to lake depth, shoreline configuration, the length of existing docks, and the need to access NPS dock facilities outside of the peak visitor season for administrative purposes. Although all 5 NPS docks on Lake Chelan are floating docks, Weaver Point and Manly Wham are no longer accessible at lake levels below 1097.5 feet and Purple Point and Flick Creek are no longer accessible at lake levels below 1090 feet. The Stehekin Marina is the only NPS dock accessible on a year around basis.
Response. We still believe water fluctuations affect dock access more for fixed docks versus floating docks.
83 Page 168, Lake Level Management: The statement that the, “slight negative effects of the lower lake elevations would be offset by the proposal to plant native vegetation around the mud flats and along parts of the Stehekin River,” does not accurately describe the revegetation project. The mud flats are inundated too long during the productive summer months to be vegetated. NPS has only proposed revegetation at the head of the lake and the perimeter of the inundated zone to offset the negative effects of the colonization of the non- native reed canary grass. The revegetation project will not be positively or adversely affected by the proposed change in lake levels.
Response. We meant the revegetation effort would at least partially offset visual effects of the new regime during the late fall, winter, and early spring.
84 Page 168, Lake Level Management: The proposed lake level regime will not improve the aesthetic qualities of the Stehekin Flats. Indeed the opposite may be true. Although, the proposed lake levels will rise faster in late May and June the lower proposed lake levels in April and May will expose more sediment than under the current lake level regime. The greater area of sediment available for dust storm commencement may actually make the dust storms worse. The dust storm events detract from the overall aesthetic qualities of the Stehekin area.
Response. We didn't say aesthetic qualities would be improved at Stehekin Flats.
85 Page 183, Stehekin Area Dust: The following information should be added to the statement, “Although the dust does not violate any health-related or other standards; it is still a nuisance.” “Although the dust does not violate any health-related standards, it does violate the NPS mission that preserves and protects the resources for this and future generations.”
367 Scenic views are an important part of the NPS visitor experience to the Stehekin area as confirmed by visitor surveys. Those views are significantly diminished when dust storms pass through the area.
Response. Given that the project predates the NRA, the project's seasonal drawdown operation should preserve the resource present when the park was established.
86 Page 184, Tributary Access: Blockage of tributaries for fish spawning is a significant issue directly related to the operation of the project. NPS expects that access of fish to all suitable tributaries will be provided under the new license regardless of the estimated $100,000 cost limit set by the applicant for barrier removal.
Response. Chelan has indicated it is committed to removing all project-related barriers to tributary access regardless of cost. We have revised this discussion to clarify that the $100,000 value represents a cost estimate rather than a cost cap.
87 General, pp. 87-89, 92, 176, 185-187, and 206-208: The NPS is not in agreement with the applicant’s proposed funding levels for support of Lake Chelan Fish Management activities under the new license as reflected in this document.
Response. We note your disagreement with the proposed levels of funding; however, you have provided no biological justification or other evidence to indicate why these funding levels would be inadequate. Additionally, we point out that at this time we have given no indication in regard to the adequacy of these funding levels. Instead we have recommended that the proposed measures be implemented as part of the Lake Chelan Fish Management Plan. We would expect that the actual cost of these measures would be revised upon the Commission's acceptance of a final Lake Chelan Fisheries Management plan that includes the goals, objectives, and level of effort for implementing these programs.
88 Page 190, Terrestrial Habitat: The section title and first sentence should be corrected to reference the Stehekin Area Implementation Plan and not the Stehekin River plan.
Response. The text has been revised as recommended.
89 Page 191, 2nd paragraph: In reference to the monitoring of wildlife species richness and population dynamics as an indicator of success or failure in rehabilitating the riparian community, the NPS believes this monitoring will help the NPS and PUD in their assessment of success of the project and give us a baseline for future PUD project changes and implementation.
368 Response. Your comment has been incorporated into the text. However, we still remain unconvinced that such monitoring is necessary without better defined objectives and potential contingency measures that may be employed based on the monitoring results. Moreover, studies conducted for the preparation of the application should adequately serve as a baseline of the environmental conditions.
90 Page 196, Stehekin Area Sedimentation Monitoring: The Commission’s justification for not recommending Stehekin River sedimentation monitoring is not valid. To reiterate reasons previously stated:
The applicant studied only backwater effect, not sediment. Backwater also effects sediment, LWM, flooding and channel pattern. Backwater effect is significant at 2000 feet long and 0.5 feet increase in water surface elevation (see FEMA floodplain development guidelines). The issue is not related to the Stehekin Flats and dust, but is focused at the mouth of the Stehekin River. The impacts of fill are not relevant. This material was placed during the last license, and thus is not part of the pre-project baseline condition.
Response. We addressed these issues above.
91 Page 200, NPS dock maintenance and replacement: As previously stated the NPS believes dock facilities are directly affected by project operations. As previously described the issue of dock design on NPS land at the head of Lake Chelan requires docks be constructed to accommodate multiple season use. Fluctuations in lake level as a result of project operations at these uplake locations are exponentially greater per increment of lake level change as one foot in lake elevation change may result in 6 feet or more of surface area change on the dock facility. Therefore, docks must be constructed and maintained to accommodate the public and agency needs relative to lake level operations.
Response. We addressed this issue above.
92 Page 200, Interpretation and education program: The NPS does not totally agree with the Commission’s assessment of this issue. The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project has a direct affect on the Lake Chelan area and local resources. Because 93-97% of the lake visitors that travel to the Stehekin area use the Lady of the Lake Ferry the ability to provide education and interpretation of not only the Lake Chelan area, but hydroelectric projects and their benefits to the American public cannot be quantified. The federally funded and maintained Fields Point visitor facility and the uplake ferry system provide an educational opportunity to develop public knowledge and support of federal agency, the Commission, and local PUD
369 and community partnerships in hydropower projects. Visitor information facilities have been provided at other licensed hydroelectric sites funded, at least, in part by the licensee. The Recreation Needs Forecast and Analysis, Section 6.5, discussion on pp. 6-52 includes the statement, “Interpretive facilities should be considered when making improvements to existing recreation sties within the Project Area.”
Response. The recommendations this discussion refers to go beyond project facilities. We don't believe it's the licensee's responsibility to coordinate or provide interpretive programs for the region.
93 Page 200, Other NPS facility improvements: The NPS does not agree with the Commission’s conclusion. The Commission determination is based on 3 points. “(1) It appears the capacity of middle and upper zone sites would be sufficient well into a new license term.” The recreation use survey conducted by PUD looked only 20 years out. The survey did state that up lake facilities would be crowded during the high visitor use season as we approach the end of that 20-year period. A different conclusion could be drawn from these statements. As we look at 30 years the upgrading of facilities at Stehekin would be necessary to accommodate higher recreation visitor numbers. Also, the facilities at Riddle Creek would provide for public recreation on one of the last remaining areas suitable for use in the upper lake. (Recreation Study Report, February 2000, p. 127 Summary). “(2) Although the proposed change in lake level management could cause a significant increase in early season use, facility capacity increases would be most likely needed in the lower zone before they are needed in the middle and upper zone.” The Recreation Use Survey conducted by PUD showed that a significant number of recreational users of Lake Chelan are seeking quiet and solitude (Recreation Needs Forecast, pp. 6-40). The remote nature of upper Lake Chelan, particularly that portion within the national recreation area, provides this option. Increasing facility capacity in the lower zone may not meet the needs of a significant number of recreation users. It is highly likely that as lower zone facilities on Lake Chelan become more crowded a significant number of users will seek uplake areas to meet their needs for quiet and solitude. The ability to provide suitable locations uplake to accommodate this recreational need and still provide a remote lake experience is limited. Facility improvements at Stehekin (ADA compliance, p. 40) and campground dock construction at Riddle Creek would help address this identified public recreational need. Reference: PUD Recreation Needs Forecast and Analysis, July 2000, pp. 6-38 and 40. “It can be expected that all campgrounds in the Upper Chelan Basin zone will fill up more often in the future.” (3) “We (the Commission) are not convinced that operation of the project is significantly affecting dock operation and maintenance.” The condition and maintenance of dock facilities on Lake Chelan is directly impacted by project operations as we have previously stated and for those same reasons the NPS feels the Commission’s conclusions here are inaccurate and unsupported.
370 Response. We addressed these issues above.
SUMMARY COMMENTS
94 We appreciate this opportunity to provide comments on the DEA for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 637-022. We look forward to working with the Commission, the applicant, and other parties involved in the ALP to produce a new license that conserves and develops existing fish and wildlife resources and other environmental values. Questions or requests for clarification regarding any of the fish and wildlife comments contained herein may be directed to Mr. Mark Miller, Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Central Washington Field Office, 215 Melody Lane, Suite 119, Wenatchee, Washington 98815 at (509) 665-3508. Questions or requests for clarification regarding any of the recreation resource comments contained herein may be directed to Mr. Dan Moses, National Park Service, North Cascades National Park, 810 State Route 20, Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284-1239, at (509) 682-2549.
371 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
January 10, 2002
Honorable Magalie R.Salas Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426
RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lake Chelan Hydroproject No. 637-022 WA
Dear Ms. Salas:
1 The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Lake Chelan Hydroproject (FERC No. 637-022). Application for the Hells Canyon Complex (FERC No. 1971). We offer the following general and specific comments on the Draft Assessment (herein “DA”). We also include by reference the comments dated January 6, 2003 of American Rivers on the DA. We have supplied copies of these comments to all parties of this license proceeding.
General Comments
2 The Yakama Nation and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation aboriginally occupied lands in what is today the Mid-Columbia region in Washington State. The Columbia River and its tributaries are a part of that land. Protection of rivers and flows for anadromous fish and wildlife populations, as well as cultural resources and other matters are critically important to these tribes. The existence and operation of the Lake Chelan Hydroproject impacts the treaty-reserved natural resource interests of all four CRITFC member tribes. The outcome of the DEIS process could significantly affect rebuilding of fish and wildlife populations impacted by the Project. Therefore, the tribes have a unique interest and stake in this process that cannot be represented by any other entity.
3 Anadromous fish stocks that originate within the boundaries of the Lake Chelan Hydroproject are adversely affected by the presence and operation of the Projects. These stocks support ceremonial, subsistence and occasional commercial treaty fisheries in Lower Columbia River Zone 6 by all of the CRITFC member tribes. Thus, CRITFC has a unique interest in this process that cannot be represented by any other party.
4 On January 19, 1999, CRITFC filed detailed scoping comments on the Lake Chelan Hydroproject. We include those comments by reference in these comments. CRITFC opposed the alternative relicensing process for this relicensing proceeding due to the unreasonable costs to its member tribes and lack of available resources to fully engage in the process, and requested funding from Chelan PUD to offset these deficiencies. Chelan PUD
372 failed to provide the necessary funding, and FERC disregarded these substantial tribal issues and approved the application for the alternative process.
Response. In a December 21, 2001, letter, responding to a request for such Commission funding, Chairman Wood noted that the Commission is not authorized to fund the participants to its hydropower proceedings.
In taking this action, FERC disregarded its federal trust responsibility to the tribes. CRITFC and its member tribes have been unable to adequately represent their interests in the relicensing throughout the proceeding. In the CRITFC scoping comments, a number of issues were raised for analysis.
These included:
5 Establishment of pre-project conditions as an environmental baseline
Response. The Commission's policy on an existing conditions baseline for relicensing projects has been in place since 1989. 54 More recently, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in American Rivers v. FERC stated: "In the applying these principles here, we must determine whether the Commission's decision to employ an existing project baseline fills the interstices of the FPA in a permissible fashion. The Commission concluded in the Order on Rehearing that "it is highly doubtful that attempts to ascertain the status of various resources prior to the time a 50-year-old project was constructed would result in the development of any useful information." 81 Fed. Energy Reg. Comm'n Rep. (CCH) at 62,327 (citations omitted). We believe that this conclusion furnishes a reasonable interpretation of the FPA. It defies common sense and notions of pragmatism to require the Commission or license applicants to "gather information to recreate a 50-year-old environmental base upon which to make present day development decisions." 54 Fed. Reg. at 23776.
6 Conduct an analysis of Project decommissioning
Response. In the DEA, we did not find a basis for a detailed analysis of project retirement. As we said, project retirement could significantly adversely affect recreation and irrigation. Further, no compelling need for retiring the project and losing its electric generation has been presented. Significant enhancements to fishery resources are being proposed and can be implemented with the project in-place.
7 Reestablishment and enhancement of anadromous fish populations including coho and Pacific Lamprey in the Chelan River using supplementation and habitat enhancement
Response. Our analysis includes an in-depth discussion of the potential use of the Chelan River by anadromous fish. In regard to coho and lamprey, these fish could utilize the
54REG-PREAMBLE, FERCSR 1986-1990 ¶30,869, Hydroelectric Relicensing Regulations Under the Federal Power Act; Order on Rehearing, Order No. 513-A, December 26, 1989, Docket No. RM87-33-001, 18 CFR 16, 55 FR 4
373 accessible portions of the Chelan River once minimum flows and habitat enhancements have been provided.
9 Establishing/reestablishing sockeye populations in Lake Chelan by installation of upstream and downstream passage through the project
Response. We addressed this proposal in the DEA and FEA.
10 Enhancing existing fragmented chinook and steelhead populations in the Chelan River.
Response. We addressed this proposal in the DEA and FEA
11 Examining the impacts of the Rocky Reach Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2145) as it affects operations of Project 637 with respect to anadromous fish.
Response. In the DEA and FEA, we addressed how the Rocky Reach pool affects water levels and intragravel water quality within the Lake Chelan tailrace. No other specific relationship between these two projects has been identified.
12 An analysis of dam safety.
Response. The Commission will address dam safety in its licensing order on the project.
13 A cumulative impact analysis of the full range of alternatives on the restoration of anadromous fish in the Chelan River basin
Response. Our analysis addressed all reasonable alternatives and proposals filed with the Commission, including the potential effects of establishing anadromous fish within the Chelan River basin.
14 Full examination of Yakama Nation cultural issues with respect to the future condition of the project
Response. A traditional cultural property (TCP) study for the Yakama Nation was completed in April 2001 that examined many of the Tribe's cultural perspectives for future conditions of the project. For example, the results of the study identified a number potentially significant TCPs, four of which are currently inundated by Lake Chelan. Based on recommendations from the Yakama Tribe–and stated in the present draft HPCRMP–if the presently inundated TCPs were to become exposed, they should be recorded and evaluated for future management. Furthermore, attempts are being made to contact elders of the Yakama Tribe in cooperation with Forest Service personnel to locate other TCPs that may be above the lake level. Members of the Tribe have also expressed keeping the locations of TCPs secret, if and when such TCPs are discovered. These recommendations are also acknowledged in the present draft HPCRMP.
374 15 CRITFC intervened in the license proceeding on June 28, 2002. We include this filing by reference in these comments. CRITFC provided comments on the applicants’ draft environmental assessment, restating the need to examine anadromous fish passage above the project, noting the applicant had not demonstrated the need to purchase additional power for local consumption when Chelan PUD has power available at their mainstem hydroprojects adjacent to Lake Chelan, Rocky Reach and Rock Island, that the license term should be 30 years, that Chelan lake level management has been modified for power production and that a full range of instream flows have not been provided for analysis during the relicensing.
Response. The Commission will set the license term in its decision on the relicense application.
16 A key omission of the DA is the consideration of tribal treaty fishing rights. In 1855, separate treaties with CRITFC’s member tribes were negotiated with the United States government, of which FERC is a part. Retaining the right to continue traditional fishing practices was a primary objective of the Columbia River tribes during treaty negotiations. Each treaty contained a substantially identical provision reserving to the tribes the right to take fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with citizens of the United States. The fishing clause is the heart of the Columbia River tribes’ treaties.
Response. We will acknowledge treaty rights in the cultural resources section of the FEA.
17 The Federal Power Act and the National Environmental Policy Act require FERC to fully consider environmental consequences of a proposed hydroproject before issuing a new license for dam operation, and the Federal Power Act specifically requires an applicant for relicensing to include conditions that will, “adequately and equitably protect” fish resources. Because tribes have treaty rights to fish at all usual and accustomed places, including the lands occupied by the Lake Chelan Hydroproject, the tribes view the restoration of anadromous fish to these lands as particularly important. Anadromous fish restoration, and the necessary components of such restoration, must be advanced during the relicensing process in order to avoid a continuation of impacts to anadromous fish for a new license term.
Response. Projects effects on anadromous fish are being addressed through ramping rate restrictions, bypassed reach minimum flows, and tailrace habitat improvements. The record in this case does not support the contention that anadromous fish existed in Lake Chelan prior to the project, so we would view anadromous fish in Lake Chelan as an introduced species.
18 We find the DA insufficient, among other things, due to the failure to fully consider restoration or reestablishment of anadromy above the project, failure to fully examine water quality impacts of the project, failure to fully examine a full range of flows to enhance habitat functions and values in the Chelan River for anadromous fish, failure to examine the socio- economic and environmental justice impacts to tribes from a full range of alternatives, including anadromous fish production and enhancement above, within and below the Lake Chelan Project and failure to produce an adequate cumulative affects analysis. There is a
375 serious lack of studies and analysis surrounding this licensing process and the DA makes a series of speculative assumptions and/or encourages studies after the license is issued. This is not acceptable, as all uncertainties surrounding a full range of alternatives must be resolved before the license is issued to properly balance developmental and non-developmental issues. Accordingly, we recommend that; 1) the applicant finalize all studies and analyses and, 2) FERC conduct an environmental impact statement to fully examine these issues as required by NEPA.
Response. We discussed introduction of anadromous fish above. We believe we have adequately addressed resources impacted by this project and alternative measures for improving those resources. We don't believe relicensing the Lake Chelan Project is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. We also don't agree that we are relying on an inordinant amount of post-licensing study. Most of the measures we are recommending don't rely on any post-licensing study. However, we don't believe that, as you say, all uncertainties can be or must resolved now. Regarding environmental justice, this is the first time this issue has been raised in this relicensing. Further, we are not aware of how relicensing the project would produce disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low- income populations, or tribes. On the contrary, relicensing the project would improve environmental conditions.
Specific Comments
Page 22
20 The DA did not include the impacts of the Rocky Reach Project in the geographic scope. The Rocky Reach Project inundates the lower portion of the Chelan River, impacting anadromous fish resources and also, with the Rock Island Hydroproject, provides a link to power production substitution for the Lake Chelan Project. These alternatives were not examined in the DA. Further, the DA did not examine the historical baseline for comparison of present or future conditions.
Response. We addressed the baseline issue above. Regarding power production substitution for power not generated if the Lake Chelan project was retired, the 48 MW of generation from Lake Chelan would be lost to the regional system, and would have to be replaced. We didn't include the Columbia River beyond the confluence with the Chelan River in the geographic scope because we didn't think the project's affect on Columbia River flows or anadromous fish was significant enough to analyze in detail.
Page 25-39
21 The DA fails to address the issue of flood control for the lake. Hydrologic modeling and data by the Northwest Power Planning Council55 indicates that the lake level are being
55 The GENESYS model was developed by the Northwest Power Planning Council as a basinwide hydrologic model. It incorporates water routing, reservoir elevations and flood
376 unnecessarily managed for lower levels than is necessary for flood control. For example, the model indicates that in high flow years the lake can be maintained at 3-4 feet higher throughout April and May than under current operations. Retaining higher lake elevations would insure filling the lake for fish and recreational needs while assuring a higher probability that Chelan River flow regimes, including those for passage and habitat maintenance, including temperature moderation, can be met. While this may increase the probability of spill into the Chelan River, the applicant is responsible to control dissolved gas from dam spill into the river. The DA does not address structural measures at the dam to reduce dissolved gas, which can violate water quality standards. These are significant deficiencies that must be addressed in an EIS.
Response. Management of lake levels in Lake Chelan includes the consideration of many factors including, but not limited to, uncontrolled spill (i.e. flood control), recreation, aquatic resources, erosion, and generation. We evaluate the effects of the proposed lake level regimes on these factors in the FEA. In regard to control of dissolved gas at the diversion dam during spill, there is no evidence in the Commission's record to suggest this has been or would be a problem with increased gas levels and we would expect that even if elevated gas levels occur immediate below the diversion dam, they would quickly reach equilibrium as they pass through the turbulent bypassed reach.
Page 45-53 and Page 71-73
22 The applicant has not provided an adequate range of flows to study passage of anadromous fish through the Chelan River, nor has the applicant provided flows to create the data to properly analyze flow effects on thermal regimes downstream of the dam. While FERC staff assume that more water into the river from the lake would increase temperatures, there is no data or analysis indicating that this is the case. Subterranean flows could contribute cooler temperatures in the river under higher flow regimes from the lake, so FERC staff assumptions are speculative. Data and analysis must be acquired and included in the EIS. It is not known how invertebrate productivity, critical to fish production, would respond to different flow regimes, because the applicant has not provided or evaluated these parameters.
Response. We believe the Commission's record contains adequate information to make a determination in regard to fish passage and thermal mitigation in the bypassed reach. As we concluded in the DEA and FEA, water passing through the bypassed reach increases in temperature although temperature increases are lower as flows increase. We assess the value of groundwater flows in creating refuge habitat and cooling minimum flows in the DEA and FEA. In regard to invertebrate productivity within the bypassed reach, no continuous flows have passed through this reach for over 80 years; therefore, there is no invertebrate community to study at this time. Organisms such as micro-crustaceans, aquatic insects, gastropods, molluscs, and annelids, would take several months to years to fully establish populations in the reach once it becomes permanently wetted. It would be unreasonable to control management thorough the Federal Columbia River Power System using a data base of 50 years of historical runoff.
377 require Chelan to provide several years of continuous minimum flows to the bypassed reach on an experimental basis to study invertebrate productivity.
Page 70-74
23 The DA approves the applicant’s proposal that in medium and low runoff years Chelan River flows be respectively reduced while lake storage to the project remains intact. This is not equitable treatment of the water resource as required by the Federal Power Act. Flows to the project in lower runoff years should be reduced in proportion to that released from the lake for non-developmental resources in the river.
Response. During low runoff years, it is likely that both lake levels and power generation would be affected and only the proposed minimum flows would be guaranteed to be unaffected. During low runoff years less water would be diverted to the powerhouse and power generation would likely be reduced. Additionally, lake levels would be somewhat lower on average during low runoff years.
Page 81
24 Steelhead are already present in Reach 4.
Response. We have corrected the FEA. You are correct that fish believed to be steelhead have been observed within Reach 4 after spills have been discontinued.
Page 95
25 The DA rejects CRITFC’s position that reintroduction of salmon and particular sockeye, should be studied in this relicensing. The DA presents a very short and speculative “paper” analysis to justify this position. The DA states that river barriers are impassable, yet salmon have shown to pass many barriers deemed impassable, such as Celilo Falls on the mainstem Columbia River. Until fish are given an opportunity to test conditions with a range of flows, passage will remain speculative. The DA also anticipates that juvenile salmon would be entrained into the powerhouse turbines, but presents arguments elsewhere in the document that turbine entrainment is not a problem for resident fish in the lake and only needs to be monitored. The BioAnalysts Report indicates that primary productivity in Lake Chelan exceeds other lakes where sockeye production is successful.
Response. The reintroduction of salmon was studied during relicensing and we included a discussion of this and our own analysis within the DEA and FEA. Based on information in our record, we continue to believe that passage through the bypassed reach is not possible. In addition, a range of flows is essentially tested for passage each spring when Chelan releases spill flows. The fact that no salmon or steelhead have been observed immediately below the diversion dam after suspension of these spill flows provides additional evidence, albeit anecdotal, that regardless of flow levels, passage is not possible. In regard to entrainment, protection for resident fish would not be a concern unless large numbers of fish were entering the project intakes. This does not appear to be the case at this time.
378 Conversely, because of their life-history requirement to migrate from the lake to the ocean, it is likely that large numbers of outmigrating salmon would be attracted to the project intakes as they seek egress from the lake. To ensure their safe passage to the Columbia River, some form of protection at the intakes would likely be required. Primary productivity is one of many factors taken into consideration as part of the decision to introduce salmon to Lake Chelan. The fact that primary productivity within Lake Chelan exceeds other lakes where sockeye production is successful does not in and of itself suggest that introduction to Lake Chelan would be successful.
26 The DA states that there is no evidence that salmon ever existed in or above the lake, thus, to put salmon above the lake would be an enhancement. CRITFC is currently engaged in a paleolimnogical study to examine the historical presence of salmon in the lake. It is premature to conclude that salmon were not in the lake until the results of the study are finalized with the report that should be available during 2003. The results of the study should be included in the EIS.
Response. Upon it's completion, please file the results of your paleolimnogical study with the Commission. We will consider this information in any order issued for the project.
Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
27 The DA fails to include an analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of the Complex under different relicensing operations and structural configurations, including a no project configuration. All of these configurations will generate different potential for the enhancement and productivity of existing anadromous fish populations and the restoration of anadromy of anadromous fish above and within the project boundaries. All of the salmon wealth historically present above and within the Complex and much of it below the Complex has been taken away from the tribes and redistributed to non-tribal people such as Chelan PUD in the form of hydropower production. The redistribution of wealth from tribal people that originated in the Mid-Columbia River and also the Lower Columbia River has resulted in elevated poverty and death rates within tribal populations (CH2 M Hill 1999). The Yakama Nation has lost 90% of their historical salmon wealth and the Umatilla Tribe has lost 97% of their historical salmon wealth (CH2 M Hill 1999).
Response. It is unclear to us what "Complex" you are referring to.
28 Loss of tribal wealth and diminishment of opportunities to exercise treaty fishing rights from the depletion of anadromous fish has resulted in disproportionate rates of poverty, disease, mental illness and death in tribal communities compared to non-tribal communities (CH2 M Hill 1999). For example, the per capita income of a Yakama Nation tribal member is only 43% of the State of Washington per capita income and the poverty rate of a Yakama Nation tribal member is 42.8% compared to the average citizen of Washington State at 10.9% (CH2 M Hill 1999).
Response. While we don't dispute these figures, they are due to many factors, not just depletion of anadromous fish. We also have difficulty assigning responsibility for these
379 issues to the Lake Chelan Project, when, as we said, relicensing will improve environmental conditions.
29 The US Environmental Protection Agency’s environmental justice criteria address two key issues: Does the community affected by industrial development include minority or low income populations? Are the environmental impacts of industrial development likely to fall disproportionately on minority and/or low income members of the community and/or on tribal resources? The EIS should analyze the socioeconomic and environmental justice impacts and benefits to tribes from various project configurations that enhance and restore anadromous fish productivity above, within and below the project.
Response. We don't believe this case meets those criteria.
Conclusion
30 Among other things, CRITFC finds the DA failed to: 1) consider restoration or reestablishment of anadromy above the project, 2) fully examine water quality impacts of the project, 3) fully examine a full range of flows to enhance habitat functions and values in the Chelan River for anadromous fish, 4) examine the socio- economic and environmental justice impacts to tribes from a full range of alternatives, including anadromous fish production and enhancement above, within and below the Lake Chelan Project, 5) produce an adequate cumulative affects analysis. There is a serious lack of studies and analysis surrounding this licensing process. This is not acceptable, as all uncertainties surrounding a full range of alternatives must be resolved before the license is issued to properly balance developmental and non-developmental issues. Accordingly, we recommend that; 1) the applicant finalize all studies and analyses and, 2) FERC conduct an environmental impact statement to fully examine these issues as required by NEPA. These actions are critical for FERC to uphold its trust responsibility to CRITFC’s member tribes.
Response. We addressed these issues above. As stated above, we also added a discussion about reserved Indian rights and federal agency trust responsibilities in the cultural resources section of the FEA.
31 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DA. Should you have questions regarding these comments, please contact Bob Heinith at (503) 238-0667.
Sincerely,
Don Sampson Executive Director
380 U.S. Forest Service
GENERAL COMMENTS
1 USDA Forest Service has carefully reviewed the November 2002 Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) For Hydropower License for the Lake Chelan Project. Our most significant concern is staff’s incomplete consideration of information provided by USDA Forest Service previously and, in our view, an incorrect portrayal of Commission policy relative to “baseline” in arriving at their recommendation that several USDA Forest Service measures not be incorporated into the new project license.
2 As noted specifically below, staff recommends against adopting USDA Forest Service terms and conditions which address impacts to resources of importance today which will continue under the operations proposed in the license application. These impacts include continued inundation of riparian and terrestrial habitats and lands suitable for recreation development.
3 The most direct reference by staff to the Commission’s baseline policy is made on page 199 of the DEA where staff state: “However, the primary justification for this condition appears to be based on the 361 acres of Forest Service land inundated when the project was constructed, approximately 22 acres of which were suitable for developed recreation sites. This is inconsistent with the Commission’s baseline, and we do not believe there is a documented need at this time for additional capacity.” Staff do not provide reference to where documentation of the Commission’s baseline policy can be found and have ignored evidence provided by USDA Forest Service relative to the capacity issue as noted below.
Response. Documentation of the Commission's baseline policy can be found in our response to CRITFC Item 5.
4 USDA Forest Service concurs with opinions by the DC and 9th Circuit Courts which address and affirm the Commission’s policy as described before these courts. In American Rivers vs. FERC the court stated: “Moreover, we agree with the Commission that the adoption of an existing project baseline [in the context of the Commissions NEPA analysis] does not preclude consideration and inclusion of conditions in a license that enhance fish and wildlife resources and reduce negative impacts attributable to a project since its construction.” In Conservation Law Foundation vs. FERC, the DC Circuit Court went even more directly to the heart of the baseline issued and stated: “The baseline business has the whiff of a red herring. Baseline or no baseline, the question is whether the Commission has fully examined options calling for greater or lesser environmental protection.”
Response. We believe we have fully examined the options for greater or lesser environmental protection.
5 In Section 3.12 of the recent FERC Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the North Umpqua Project staff state: “[T]he commitment of land and water to energy production is not
381 considered to be irreversible or irretrievable.” USDA Forest Service concurs with this view and maintains that consideration of continuing impacts to resources including those that are inundated in the light of present day needs, is consistent with stated Commission policy and case law.
Response. We agree with the statement you cite from the North Umpqua DEIS. However, the second part of the statement is "However, the substantial costs of removal and restoration and the loss of energy and recreational benefits make it unlikely that project removal and restoration would be done in the foreseeable future". The only restoration option for inundated lands is project removal. The Commission collects annual fees from licensees for the use and occupancy of federal lands. Charging the licensee again for the same use every time the project license is renewed seems unreasonable.
6 USDA Forest Service consideration of such impacts has been conducted consistently with this scheme. USDA Forest Service conditions which address continuing impacts arising from inundation are based first on an assessment of the importance of these resources over the new license term and second on the real, as opposed to hypothetical resource, that would emerge if the lands were not inundated. In this case, several USDA Forest Service conditions are based on the fact that the reservoir will continue to inundate lands that would otherwise (in fact some were developed historically) be suitable for development of recreation sites or which would, over time, “grow” into riparian or upland habitats for species of importance today. It is also worth noting that USDA Forest Service is not proposing conditions which require mitigation for all historically inundated lands. Based on today’s land and resource management objectives, USDA Forest Service is proposing action be taken to mitigate (in this context, the distinction between enhance and mitigate is irrelevant as implied by the DC Circuit Court) for continuing impacts to 102 acres of the approximately 361 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands that will continue to be inundated over the next license term.
Response. We do not consider lands inundated by a project a continuing impact. The impacts of inundating lands impounded by the dam were addressed when the project was constructed.
7 Once the baseline is set aside as cause to reject a proposed measure, the test becomes whether the need for the measure is supported by substantial evidence. As noted above, USDA Forest Service has a general concern that staff did not carefully consider information provided by USDA Forest Service previously in arriving at conclusions regarding proposed USDA Forest Service terms and conditions. This concern is taken up specifically in the comments which follow.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
8 Pages iv and v: (7) funding Forest Service and Park Service docks and recreation facilities and (8) replacement of inundated Forest Service land are not recommended by FERC staff The USDA Forest Service disagrees with the dismissal of these issues, as clearly, docks and recreation facilities are affected by project operations. Justifications Statements (USDA
382 Forest Service, June 27, 2002) previously elaborate these impacts. These items should also be included in the FERC staff’s RRMP recommendation on Page 8 (14).
Response. We understood you would likely disagree with some of our DEA recommendations.
9 Page 20: Environmental Analysis: While the existing environment may be the baseline, historical and potential conditions and information need to be understood in order to assess the effects and to determine appropriate protection, mitigation and enhancement measures. Staff employs this appropriate analytical technique inconsistently. Contrast the staff analysis and conclusion at paragraph 1 on page 197 with the logic employed on pages 89, 98 and 154.
Response. Its unclear, based only on your page citations, where the inconsistencies lie.
10 Page 21, 2nd full paragraph: The 50 miles of shoreline along National Forest System (NFS) lands are designated Scenic Travel-1 (ST-1) in the Forest Plan not “Wilderness”. Wilderness provides the visual background above these NFS shorelines.
Response. We will correct this in the FEA.
11 Page 22: Cumulative Effects Analysis and Temporal Scope: When the Project was constructed, approximately 361 acres of NFS lands were inundated (USDA Forest Service 2002). These shoreline lands were well dispersed and on both sides of the lake in the middle and upper zones. Of these inundated acres, approximately 22 were suitable for and being used as recreation sites, 70 acres provided key winter range. Pre-Project recreation opportunities and activities are well documented. The DEA does not reflect the necessary analyses nor the appropriate mitigation for these ongoing impacts to recreation and wildlife.
Response. We discussed this above and disagree it is an ongoing impact.
12 Page 24: 1st partial paragraph: “Historical photographs show a natural beach in the lake fluctuation zone of about 1079 to 1085 feet… None of the (early) photographs show any incidences of erosion at or near the 1,100 ft. elevation”. However, now it is noted with a maximum pool of 1100 feet elevation that “ …operation of the project is one of the main contributing factors to shoreline erosion at Lake Chelan.”(Page 29)
13 Page 29: 1st full paragraph: Staff minimizes and may not adequately understand the erosion problem. Staff acknowledges that the “Project is one of the main contributing factors” yet calls the problem “a minor problem”. Aesthetics, soil productivity and water quality are important resources on NFS lands along Lake Chelan. Erosion has affected the natural appearing foreground of the lake and degrades the recreation setting and experience for recreation users. The Lake Chelan waterway is a scenic viewshed corridor (ST-1) with a scenic quality objective of Retention, natural appearing foreground. Much of the shoreline erosion exceeds the acceptable range for a natural appearing setting. The “other factors” referenced (e.g. shoreline traffic) are a minor contributor to erosion when compared to project operations. These “other factors” may account for a few hundred feet of the 40,780
383 feet (7.7 miles) of NFS shoreline affected. Erosion is a problem for about 16 % of the 50 miles of NFS lands along the shoreline. The USFS has carefully prioritized treatment on about ¼ (10,000 feet) of the most significant areas of erosion. Studies have been completed acknowledging the amount of shoreline erosion attributable to the project operation. The USDA Forest Service disagrees with staff’s statement that it is “difficult to quantify given the number of factors involved.”
Response. We contend that project operation can be one of the main contributing factors in what is a relatively minor problem. The other factors we noted included wave action, shoreline traffic, surface drainage, and construction. What we found difficult, was assigning a share of the erosion issue to project operation. We have not seen the study that quantifies the amount of shoreline erosion attributable to project operation.
14 Page 32: Our analysis: Staff minimizes the shoreline erosion issue by trying to statistically relate a 16% linear distance to a surface area of 3%. The USDA Forest Service disagrees with the staff statement that this seems to be “very minor”. Lake Chelan is a lake of regional and national significance (p. 134). Aesthetics, soil productivity and water quality are of significance to the USDA Forest Service. High priority sites (approximately ¼ of the erosion footage) have been identified and need protection and mitigation.
Response. While we may disagree about the level of impact, we did recommend implementing the proposed erosion control plans in a new license because there is a connection to project operation (seasonal draw-down of the reservoir) and the plans focus on the high priority sites.
15 Page 33: 2nd paragraph: Incorrect reference in shown in the final sentence. The correct reference is Section V.C.3.
Response. We'll make this correction in the FEA.
16 Page 34: 1st full paragraph: “Our analysis”: “given the limited number of survey corners that would be located at the reservoir margin”: All of the corners in the re-establishment plan are or were in the inundation zone and are or were impacted by project operations. The ongoing loss of most survey markers is project related. A USDA Forest Service analysis of this information show missing monuments numbers 1, 3, 10, 12, and 18 (Section 2 Description List of corners for Lake Chelan in the December 7, 2001 Survey Monument Location and Re-establishment Plan, CPUD) correspond to erosion sites 151, 185, 142, 58B, and 52 respectively. Missing monuments numbers 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 15, 14, and 13 have never been re-located, all original corners are located in the inundation zone. Monuments 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 16 and 19 were originally relocated outside of the inundation zone in the 1920’s, but have not been found in recent survey work and are feared lost.
Response. We don't consider those monuments that were lost when the project was constructed as being affected by ongoing project operation. We also have difficulty assigning ongoing project responsibility to the monuments that were relocated in the 1920s,
384 not found in recent survey work, and that are not associated with an erosion site. These monuments would likewise seem to have been lost for reasons other than project operation.
17 Page 44: 4th paragraph: (Point of information in regards to water temperatures in the Chelan River) Note that the current surface temperatures already reach 23 degree C in the Wapato Basin under higher than normal natural flow conditions. If the Project were not in place these shallow water areas would warm even faster and have a greater negative impact on Chelan River temperatures.
Response. We have revised the EA to include this information.
18 Page 46: Water use and quantity: “beneficial effect of inhibiting”: The area between lake elevation levels 1089 – 1091.5 will be de-watered during the new proposed lake level management plan and will likely freeze during the winter causing a beneficial effect by potentially limiting milfoil reproduction in the fluctuation zone.
Response. We have revised the EA to include this information.
19 Page 48: 1st full paragraph: Comparing this paragraph to the discussion of few waterfowl being supported on Lake Chelan on Pages 104-105 (“Lake Chelan does not support many waterfowl…Very little, if any, waterfowl nesting occurs along Lake Chelan.), it is difficult to conclude that “waterfowl activities appear to be the most likely source of the observed bacterial inputs…”
Response. We have revised the EA to include this information.
20 Page 50: 1st partial paragraph: The statement “… that regardless of the magnitude of the minimum flows, water temperatures within the Chelan River (bypassed reach) would experience some warming during the summer months and could exceed the state guidance of a maximum increase of 0.3 degrees C.” should be referenced to the appropriate citation which is R2 Resource Consultants, and Ichthyological Associates, Inc (R2 & IA), 2000. Bypass reach (gorge) flow releases study report-final Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Redmond, WA and Icthyological Associates, Inc. Lansing, New York for Chelan PUD September 26, 2000.
Response. We have revised the EA to include this information.
21 Page 65, 3rd paragraph: The USDA Forest Service disagrees with the inferences of the following statement, “The spawning timing of both adfluvial and resident trout appears to coincide with sucker spawning, and competition for spawning habitat may occur”. Natural spawning of these two species is different in our review of the information. West Slope cutthroat trout do begin to spawn earlier than bridgelip suckers, but they both only have access to the tributaries once the lake level rises above the tributary barriers. This project may be giving the bridgelip an advantage over the resident native trout species. Please review the discussion and conclusions (sections 4 and 5) of the March 16, 2001 Fisheries
385 Investigation Addendum report prepared for Chelan PUD by Duke Engineering & Services, Inc. Bellingham, WA.
Response. We have revised the EA to clarify this point.
22 Page 89: Tributary access: “As part of its license application, Chelan PUD proposes to provide funding for tributary access improvement projects….”. This measure clearly is not an enhancement measure but a protection and mitigation measure for ongoing project impacts.
Response. We have deleted the word 'improvement'.
23 Page 92, tributary access: The data collected and presented during this relicensing about tributary access make it clear that Project operations have caused these barriers to develop and be maintained. The data (Lake Chelan Fisheries Investigation, Final, September 2000. prepared by Duke Engineering Services Inc. Bellingham, WA) from table 6.1-1 page 39 shows known elevations where tributaries have been blocked and for what periods of time. The USDA Forest Service maintains these barriers are 100% Project related and that access to the tributaries should be maintained for the term of the new license.
Response. The intent of this discussion is to identify the effects of Chelan's proposal and the various agency proposals. We believe we have accurately characterized these effects and it is unclear from your comment what revisions to our description of the effects of Chelan proposed action are needed.
24 Page 92, Entrainment: The USDA Forest Service terms and conditions do not address the entrainment issue.
Response. We have corrected the text by deleting the reference to the Forest Service.
25 Page 95: 3rd paragraph: Please delete “It appears that the” from the first sentence of the third paragraph. Agencies are recommending that where (reasonably) possible, Chelan PUD should use LWD to control erosion around the lake shoreline. “The Plan (LWD Plan) provides for limited LWD restoration and placement where biological and safe opportunities exist within other shoreline or aquatic habitats.” See: Justification Statements (USDA Forest Service, June 2002)
Response. We have revised the text as requested.
26 Page 98: 2nd full paragraph: Staff use of historical information: The USDA Forest Service concurs with the logic here regarding the consideration of historical information to access potential mitigation or enhancement from ongoing Project related effects but notes that this same logic is not used elsewhere in the document for Project impacts to recreation and wildlife.
386 27 Page 100: Wetlands and riparian vegetation: “Pockets of wetlands are identified on the Stehekin River delta and …. Historical maps indicate… a large (24 to 30 acres) wetland existed near Manson”. The historical perspective while valuable, should be further quantified as to the significance of the riparian resources impacted as the result of the Project. For example, the significant riparian losses include the 300 plus acres of identified habitat in the Stehekin River delta as documented in historical FERC documents (Existing Information Analysis, USDA Forest Service, 1999). Due to the natural limitation of wetland and riparian vegetation in the Project area, the Project has made the most significant cumulative adverse impact to riparian resources since Project creation. The historical information provides a measure of the significance off ongoing Project impacts to wetland and riparian resources.
Response. Reference to earlier documents reporting on the historical amount of wetlands and riparian vegetation found in the Stehekin River delta has been added to the FEA. The FEA acknowledges and staff does not dispute the value of riparian habitats.
28 Page 103: last paragraph: The number of deer that died in 1996-1997 from starvation is a result of reduced habitat quality generally and a direct result of the reduced amount of habitat. The fact that population trend surveys show that they have not recovered indicates both the magnitude of the population crash and that other complicating factors within the winter range remain. The continuing and ongoing impact of Project operations contribute to a loss of premium winter range habitat that likely contributed to the die off.
Response. WDFW (2002) reports that deer populations are recovering from the population crash of 1996-1997. The FEA acknowledges that project construction removed important riparian and low-gradient slopes, which are premium winter range. The FEA also acknowledges that project operation results in poor wintering habitat along the reservoir margin, and that there are a number of factors limiting the quality and amount of winter range. This does not, however, alter staff's conclusion that alternative measures proposed by Chelan PUD could also improve winter survival of deer at a lower cost. See also response to WDFW paragraph 13 and 34.
29 Page 107: 1st full paragraph: It is plausible to consider that the Project may have increased recreation use through improved access to the lake which may also have contributed to the establishment and spread of non-native weeds.
Response. While plausible, there is no information on the record to support this assertion and available literature suggests that the more likely cause is poor land practices.
30 Page 108/109: Wildlife Habitat Plan: This plan is still in draft. The USDA Forest Service sees the WCC as agencies coordinating and discussing the relationship of various land management decisions made by the individual agencies with a “Landscape Perspective” toward wildlife improvement. Each agency will be responsible for implementation and allocation of appropriate PM&E dollars from the Chelan Project to be used under this umbrella WHP plan for both the Rocky Reach and Chelan Projects.
387 Response. The FEA acknowledges that the plan is in draft form. Staff recommends filing the final plan, developed in consultation with the Forest Service, FWS, WDFW, and NPS, for Commission approval. We clarified the Forest Service vision for the WCC in the FEA.
31 Page 110: Our Analysis: The USDA Forest Service disagrees with the staff that no specific operational impacts were raised by the agencies other than continued inundation. Please review the list of Riparian concerns listed in Scoping Document 2, July 1999, pages A-13 to A-19. The words “and associated wildlife” cover a large number of species from mollusks and amphibians to mammals and birds.
Response. The broadly characterized issues listed Scoping Document 2 revolve around the continued inundation of riparian and wetland habitats and the effects of reservoir fluctuations on these habitats and their associated fauna and flora. Without further clarification, we believe the FEA accurately characterizes the Forest Service's concerns.
32 Page 111: 1st partial and 1st full paragraphs: The USDA Forest Service is supportive of the conclusion of staff that project operations likely affect riparian vegetation and associated wildlife, but is unclear why this thinking does not seem to carry over to other wildlife or docks. These are all impacts of reservoir fluctuation that are ongoing effects of continued project operation. There are inundation impacts such as the continuing loss of 22 acres suitable for recreation or 70 acres of premium winter range on NFS lands; however, the project annually has an additional impact that goes beyond the direct loss of the acres. The Project raised the snow free line along the shoreline to an area of steeper slopes. The steeper habitat causes a decline in the amount of snow free habitat. Lower elevations with less slope have more area of habitat. Current intermittently inundated areas have no habitat value because they have no vegetation.
Response. The FEA has been revised to more clearly acknowledge that reservoir fluctuations result in a band along the reservoir margin that is void of vegetation, which results in poor wintering habitat for mule deer and poor habitat for other wildlife. The effects of reduced habitat quality is most important during harsh winters with heavy snowfall. See response to Forest Service paragraphs 13 and 34.
33 Page 111: 1st partial paragraph: “Riparian habitats constitute a small portion of all habitats in the area.” The USDA Forest Service agrees and submits that this is why such habitats are so important. The earlier discussion discounts the significance of the 300 acres of Stehekin Flats loss by using a linear calculation. A more accurate representation of this information would be 40 to 50 percent (approximately 340 acres) of the riparian resources located within ¼ mile of the lake have been impacted by the project. FERC staff’s analysis minimizes the cumulative impact of the lost 340 acres of habitat.
Response. Available information on historic riparian resources are characterized in the affected environment, as appropriate.
34 Page 111: 1st full paragraph: “There is no information on record to indicate the continued project operation would reduce wildlife populations.” The USDA Forest Service disagrees.
388 While the information is not conclusive, documentation of the decline of Westslope cutthroat populations indicate direct Project impacts (primarily through tributary barriers) and the mule deer die-off of 1996-97 indicates loss of habitat is having population ramifications. There may be more factors complicating these impacts, however the continued Project operations do indirectly impact these populations (Fisheries Investigation Addendum Study Report, CPUD March 2001). There is also a high likelihood of threatened and sensitive plant populations being impacted by the project (Enclosure II Justification Statement, UDSA Forest Service, June 2002). There is no pre-Project population data for these newly listed species, however the close proximity of habitat supporting such species to habitats inundated or intermittently inundated by the operation of the project reservoir. Supports a conclusion that the Project has impacted these populations.
Response. Project operational effects on westslope cutthroat trout populations are discussed in section V.C.3. The referenced sentence has been deleted from the FEA. However, the FEA notes that mule deer populations are recovering and that a variety of factors are likely responsible for significant deer population declines, including most significantly residential and agricultural development of winter range. We discuss operational effects on rare plant populations in section V.C.5. See also response to Forest Service paragraph 3.
35 Page 112: 1st full paragraph: There are, in fact, key habitats remaining along the shores of Lake Chelan that are potentially available for purchase. Please refer to a Project lands map to establish a reference as to which private lands may be available and review the CPUD winter use surveys referenced on page 103 to determine which private lands are currently support high winter use.
Response. The FEA has been revised to indicate that there are private in-holdings within the National Forest adjoining Lake Chelan that are heavily used by wintering deer. However, neither the Forest Service nor WDFW have specifically identified any parcel and provided no information on their availability for purchase.
36 Cost of land estimates: The $14,175 per acre shoreline cost estimate for shoreline areas is not consistent with information available to USDA Forest Service and local independent land appraisers. The number needs to be validated.
Response. No estimates of land acquisition costs have been provided for the record or consideration in the FEA. Therefore, staff estimated the cost from real estate listing posted on the internet (See response to WDFW paragraph 13).
37 Cost of land management: While an annualized cost may be approximately $15 per acre for some lands, actual costs will vary depending on the intensity of management during any given year, location, and/or accessibility to the site. Most all of the NFS lands along the shoreline is accessible by boat only; greatly increasing management costs.
Response. The FEA acknowledges that annual costs will vary by management activity and location.
389 38 Page 112: 1st full paragraph: “Moreover, Both the Forest Service and WDFW already manage significant acreage in winter range in the area”: The Project impact some of the highest quality natural habitat available; the 70 impacted acres on NFS lands were very important winter range. Most of the acres that are currently managed for winter range are a significant distance from water. The state does not manage any land within a mile of the 51- mile long northern shore of Lake Chelan. The Chelan Butte lands are not available for the north shore herd. See: Justification Statements (USDA Forest Service, June 2002).
Response. The FEA has been revised to indicate that the Chelan Butte management area is not available to the north shore deer herd and that proposed land acquisitions or conservation easements would primarily benefit the north shore deer herd.
39 Page 112/113: effects of recent wild fires: The winter range has a natural history of fire occurrence. The response of forbs and grasses will likely be similar to or slightly improved with respect to pre-fire conditions depending on burn intensities and residual weed seeds. The development of multi- aged bitterbrush stands will require longer time frames. USDA Forest Service management experience has shown that only pockets of the burn mosaic will require “intense management for many years”. Monitoring and evaluating are key components to successfully re-establishing bitterbrush and other desired species. Rather than focusing on the effects of recent wildfires, the discussion should be focused on mitigating for the Project’s effects to this habitat.
Response. The FEA acknowledges that forbs and grasses will likely recover quickly, but may not be available as winter forage for mule deer. The analysis illustrates the cumulative factors affecting available winter range and the potential for undertaking management actions to improve existing habitats relative to the benefits of acquiring additional lands.
40 Page 113: 1st and 2nd full paragraphs: The USDA Forest Service agrees with the potential benefits of a comprehensive Wildlife Habitat Management Plan and acknowledges drawbacks to the current proposal. While staff indicate that the plan would “provide resources (funds and labor)” for measures, the present plan does not include any quantitative monetary commitment by the licensee. To ensure that resource benefits as envisioned in the plan are realized, specific funding commitments (e.g. $50,000 per year…(p 114)) need to be identified in the plan to address the effects of the Lake Chelan Project on the basin.
Response. The Chelan PUD proposal includes providing $30,000 per year to implement the plan. In the FEA, we recommend that the $30,000 (labor and funds) be applied to habitat improvements or other management actions (i.e. wildlife feeders, guzzelers, etc.) that directly benefit wildlife.
41 Page 113: Footnote #13: Staff incorrectly interprets and should not assume that the existing Forest Plan allows past or continuing impacts to go un-mitigated. While energy production and other commercial uses are recognized legitimate uses of NFS lands, impacts associated with construction and operation of such projects are mitigated. The key factor is to ensure impacts are addressed consistently with management direction of the Forest Plan. Moreover, Forest Plans are dynamic and change as direction for managing natural resources
390 changes. (e.g. Northwest Forest Plan amendment) The USDA Forest Service is required to bring activities and projects on NFS lands into compliance with Forest Plan direction by Section 6 of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-588).
Response. The footnote has been deleted from the FEA.
42 Page 114: “ c) the plan (WHP) does not describe how the WCC would function, (how) decisions would be made…”. The USDA Forest Service agrees. This issue is currently being addressed in settlement discussions. The WCC should help improve communications and coordinate resources.
Response. Staff's recommendations would ensure that this occurs.
43 Page 114: 1st full paragraph: “As a general rule”: Which rule or FERC regulation is referred to?
Response. The language in the FEA has been revised to clarify that this is a general practice of Commission staff when reviewing proposed measures, not a "legal" rule as implied here. For example, see Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Wasington 46 FERC ¶ 61,033 (1989).
44 Page 114: 1st full paragraph: “There are ample lands, opportunities”. The USDA Forest Service agrees and supports the flexibility for activities within the basin. Most of Chelan Butte (WDFW) wildlife lands are not within the basin (p.112).
45 Page 114: 3rd full paragraph: While $15/acre may be sufficient for some lands, the USDA Forest Service does not believe that it is sufficient to substantially enhance wildlife habitat conditions for remote NFS lands which are not accessible by motor vehicles, where management goals are different than just forage production, etc. Operational costs are influenced by many factors and vary from site to site.
Response. See response to Forest Service paragraph 37.
46 Pages 116- 117: There appears to be a double standard being used by staff here. Part of the rationale for dismissing the need to acquire the 22 acres of developable land is that these lands would result in further loss of important wildlife habitat. Conversely, the loss of 70 acres of wildlife habitat is considered inconsequential in and of itself. Of the 361 acres of NFS land inundated, only 22 acres are proposed for developed recreation priority. On such acres, the USDA Forest Service designs facilities to blend in and minimize the human impact on the landscape while providing for human use and occupancy. Integration is always a part of planning and project implementation. Shoreline acquisitions would convert existing private lands which may have some development to lands for specific resource objectives, in this case for wildlife habitat or recreation use. Impacts during construction and operation of these facilities would be very localized, minor and short term. The semi-primitive recreation use occurring uplake is predominately summer camping, the impacts of which would not conflict with winter range objectives for these sites.
391 Response. The reason staff did not recommend acquiring additional lands for recreation and wildlife was because wildlife needs could be adequately meet through implementation of Chelan PUD's wildlife habitat management plan at a much lower cost. The FEA has been revised to clarify how the Forest Service would develop private parcels for recreation in a manner compatible with wildlife objectives.
47 Page 119: 1st and 2nd paragraph: Noxious weed analysis by FERC staff: The USDA Forest Service agrees with staff that the potential risk of spreading of noxious weeds could be triggered by direct or indirect Project actions and activities. While the Project may not be responsible for initially introducing the noxious weed, Project operations may influence the dispersal and rate of spread of new populations thus potentially affecting NFS lands. All land disturbing project actions should require noxious weed monitoring and control.
Response. The Forest Service comments are consistent with staff's analysis in the FEA. However, we note that the Forest Service justification for controlling and monitoring noxious weeds appears to focus on the effects of reservoir fluctuations, not future land-disturbing activities. The FEA notes that land-disturbing activities may also result in the spread of noxious weeds and staff recommends monitoring following such activities.
48 Page 126: 1st full paragraph: Private lands with shoreline are scattered along the shoreline of Lake Chelan. Many have some existing faculties (docks/cabins) and developable flat ground. The 22 acres would preferably not be contiguous but spread along the middle and upper zones. Visitors to these zones are seeking relatively primitive and remote experiences. Given the wide dispersal and semi-developed status of these potential acquisitions, impacts to wildlife species would be minimal and potentially reduced from existing conditions. The USDA Forest Service concurs with staff that analyzing the exact impacts is difficult without identifying the parcels and will provide staff with an shoreline ownership map so that the analysis could be undertaken in the FEA.
Response. The FEA has been revised to include the above information. However, exact impacts would depend on the exact parcels acquired. No further information has been provided by the Forest Service to date for staff to evaluate these further.
49 Page 128: Other species of concern: “Populations of these five plant species are not known to be currently affected by project operations”. The USDA Forest Service disagrees with statement. See Comments to Page 193: 3rd paragraph.
Response. The FEA acknowledges that seasonal flooding of vernal seeps and steep slopes may limit the ability of these moist site plants to expand their populations. See response to comments on the baseline in Forest Service paragraphs 3 and 5.
50 Pages 128-129: Sensitive species: It appears that staff has confused the sensitive species management plan with the consultation plan. The sensitive species plan section (page 130) lists six key points that address current and future sensitive or survey & management species. It identifies the process and standards as to how Biological Evaluations (BE’s) will be
392 completed through the license term. BE’s should be completed for any change in Project operations, habitat improvement work, or ground disturbing activities, and be incorporated into any subsequent NEPA process analyzing activities on NFS lands. See Justification Statements (USDA Forest Service, June 2002). The “management plans” for the five sensitive species are site and plant specific plans which will be updated at regular intervals and include current locations, threats, treatments, monitoring results, and population data. This information will track the status and population changes over time and be used in Project BE’s.
Response. The FEA analyzes the benefits of the two plans separately and as described by the Forest Service. As noted in the FEA, with the exception of habitat improvement work under the Lake Chelan Wildlife Management Plan, staff is not aware of any circumstances that would require future biological evaluations for sensitive species not already contemplated by the FEA. Other actions that would require amendment of the license would be subject to future consultation with the Forest Service, at which time necessary analyses would be identified and appropriate actions taken to minimize adverse impacts to sensitive species. Therefore, staff continues to believe that standard license articles provide the means to address any future concerns for sensitive species. See also response to Interior 28, regarding re-initiation of ESA section 7 consultation.
51 Page 129: 1st full paragraph: “Control of weeds may help insure the population viability of these sensitive plant populations in the Project area”. The USDA Forest Service agrees that there should be noxious weed management and control around these sensitive plant populations and includes this requirement in our terms and conditions.
Response. The FEA reflects the Forest Service's terms and conditions.
52 Page 130: 2nd full paragraph: Staff states it is “unaware of any circumstances that would warrant the need for these measures”. Staff needs to review the number of listings for the last 30 years as possible insight into the future. While the Project itself may not undergo significant changes, new regulations, new information, and knowledge of species interactions will likely require additional consultation over the life of the license. Adaptive management measures could also affect species. USDA Forest Service concurs with staff’s closing statement that “such a plan may help streamline such future action”.
Response. Any license issued would contain standard provisions through which the Forest Service could reopen the license to address new listings. See response to Interior paragraph 28.
53 Page 136: Middle Zone: The Middle Zone is also a destination for visitors and is an important recreation opportunity for camping, boating and sightseeing. There are 10 developed campgrounds and docks available on NFS lands. It should also be noted that before the Project, most of the recreation sites occupied more acreage and were not as constrained as they are now being “primarily limited to small alluvial fans”.
Response. We will add this information to the FEA.
393 54 Page 136: Upper Zone: Sightseeing, camping and boating are important activities in the Upper Zone that were not mentioned. There are 3 developed campgrounds, 1 day use site and docks available to access NFS lands.
Response. We will add this information to the FEA.
55 Page 142: Recreation Use: The study started summer of 1998 and ran only one year. Averaging summer use over the period from Memorial Day thru Labor Day masks the impacts on and demand for recreation that exists during the actual peak season of July and August. See: Justification Statements (USDA Forest Service, June 2002), which document the USDA Forest Service analysis which establishes ongoing and predicted recreation use and impacts.
Response. We agree that the more narrowly you define the peak season, the more likely during that shorter period, sites are used at capacity. We also don't dispute that certain sites in the middle and upper zones are at capacity at certain times. We don't see how the justification statement documents the Forest Service analysis, however, when it simply cites the analysis.
56 Page 145: 1st full paragraph: “The Middle and Upper Zones have several water-based recreation facilities”. There are a total of nineteen developed recreation facilities in the middle and upper zone. All are affected by the project.
Response. We will add that information to the FEA.
57 Page 147: RRMP: The USDA Forest Service agrees with the general types of actions described in the RRMP but the details have yet to be finalized. The Chelan PUD, the Forest Service and other members of the Settlement Group are continuing to address these details.
Response. We understood that settlement discussion were ongoing.
58 Page 151: next to last paragraph: See comment for Page 152, 3rd paragraph
Response. Your comment for page 152, 3rd paragraph speaks to reservoir fluctuations, not recreation site use.
59 Page 151: last paragraph: The USDA Forest Service agrees and notes our findings are based on the documented use surveys and user preference surveys listed under our Recreation Use Section of the. Justification Statements previously submitted to FERC (USDA Forest Service, June 2002).
Response. We expected you would agree with that as its simply a reiteration of what you said in your justification statement.
60 Page 152: 1st paragraph: “estimated use has exceeded or was near estimated site capacities” During the real peak season of July and August, Mitchell Creek, Safety Harbor,
394 Graham Harbor Creek and other sites are often full on weekends. Additional capacity is currently needed to meet the demand on some weekends; demand and need for additional capacity are expected to increase in the future. See: Justification Statements, (USDA Forest Service, June 2002), and Continuing Impacts Analysis (USDA Forest Service, September 2002).
Response. Again, this section was a reiteration of what you said in your justification statement.
61 Page 152: 2nd paragraph: “ approximately 361 acres of National Forest System lands were inundated”: This information is documented in the Initial Consultation Document, CPUD, October 5, 1998, and Justification Statements (USDA Forest Service, June 2002).
Response. That some acreage was inundated when the project was constructed is not disputed.
62 Page 152: 3rd Paragraph: A review of the Diagram No.1 Actual Lake Elevations from the original license does not support the statements below; “the average pre-project fluctuation was 8 feet compared to 16 feet now, and the maximum pre-project fluctuation was 12 feet compared to 21 feet now.” The original graph has recorded data from December of 1910 to August of 1925. The maximum peak recorded on this graph is approximately 1084.2 in the middle of June 1921. The lowest point recorded is 1077.4 recorded at the beginning of April 1917. Thus the maximum pre-project records we can obtain show a maximum fluctuation of (1084.2 – 1077.4) 6.8 feet a significant different than the 12 feet listed and the licensed 21 feet currently. Table 1. Displays yearly lows and highs averaged.
Table 1. Yearly Highs and Lows with 15 year Average Year High Low Year High Low 1911 1081.7 1078.0 1920 1082.0 1077.9 1912 1081.3 1078.8 1921 1084.2 1079.5 1913 1082.4 1077.5 1922 1082.0 1077.9 1914 1081.1 1078.3 1923 1081.6 1078.0 1915 1079.5 1078.7 1924 1082.3 1077.9 1916 1083.2 1078.3 1925 1083.0 1078.5 1917 1080.5 1077.4 1918 1081.2 1077.6 15 yr 1081.86 1078.20 Average 1919 1082.0 1078.8
Thus the average recorded pre-project fluctuation was not 8 feet but 3.6-3.7 feet. This information is important in showing that the Project caused a significant change that required and continues to require more complex docks to provide access. It shows that project operations cause a significantly larger range of fluctuation than occurred naturally. Project operations average (using hydrograph graph), (DEA Figure 2. page 28) peak at 1099.8 and drop to 1085.4 as operating averages showing an average change of 15.4 feet in lake level
395 compared to the pre-project 3.6 feet. Operational changes have caused longer, more complex docks to be required resulting in more exposure of the docks to complex wave impacts. Also see: Justification Statements (USDA Forest Service, June 2002).
Response. We addressed this issue in our response to Interior.
63 Page 153: 1st partial paragraph: Chelan PUD believes the “lateral movement caused by wave action significantly impacts the docks”, they then state that “the project does not increase wave action”. The USDA Forest Service concurs. However, the real issue is that the Project has created a need for longer, floating docks. Project operations concentrate wave energies and impacts by holding the lake level at high level for a much longer than normal duration (2 ½ months). The continued Project operations have annually raised the lake level far more than indicated by the CPUD. For many locations, fixed crib docks could accommodate a 3.6 average lake fluctuation. However, significantly longer, floating docks units are required to accommodate the 15.4 feet Project’s current annual lake level fluctuation. The greater floating length needed extends docks into deeper waters and results in higher construction and maintenance costs and greater horizontal and vertical wave energies.
Response. We address this issue in our response to Interior. Chelan PUD, their reply comments has proposed to mitigate for the need for longer docks.
64 Page 153: 1st partial paragraph: “Chelan PUD feels that replacement costs for the fixed and floating portions of the docks are unaffected by the project”: See comment above.
65 Page 153: last paragraph: “how project effects are to be quantified”: The USDA Forest Service would accept a mutually agreeable consultant to establish this share.
Response. Chelan has proposed a method for calculating the project share in their reply comments that seems reasonable.
66 Page 153: last paragraph: “Since lateral movement on docks from wave action is not project related”: See comment above for 1st paragraph, page 153.
67 Page 153: last paragraph: The staff conclusion that they “consider this an enhancement, not mitigation for an ongoing project impact” is not supported by the information available which clearly indicates some degree of mitigation is appropriate. The USDA Forest Service supports CPUD doing an engineering “Study to determine” the amount Project impacts on docks.
Response. That statement refers to the land replacement component of the RRMP, not docks.
68 Page 154: 1st paragraph: The USDA Forest Service uses recreation lands as the quantifier because there is sufficient historical information regarding the loss of 22 acres to set a reference point. Recreation was not originally impacted despite the acreage loss, since
396 recreation demands merely moved to lands that were available. Now, however, the demand for this type of semi-primitive recreation has increased the number of sites where use capacities are exceeded. The operation of the Project continues to prevent use of these lands. Lost recreation opportunities is the major concern
Response. Again, we don't consider land inundation as an ongoing project impact.
69 Page 158: 1st partial paragraph: “use of Lake Chelan will probably increase during a new license…it appears the capacity of middle and upper zones sites would be sufficient well into the new license term”: The USDA Forest Service disagrees. Use is already exceeding capacity on NFS lands for some sites in the middle and upper zones during the peak season, especially on weekends during the real peak season of July and August. Demographic and recreation trends suggest that demand will increase. Additional capacity will be needed to meet these demands over the life of the license.
Response. Please see our response to Interior.
70 Page 160: 1st partial paragraph: “unclear what ongoing project impact this measure would address”: Please refer to 18CFR 2.7. The “ultimate development of these resources” includes informing the public of opportunities for recreation. Chelan PUD’s recreational developments do contribute to the attractiveness and use of the area, thus sharing in interpretive and educational measures is appropriate and Project related. The integration of Information and Education (I&E) needs throughout the Project area would serve PUD, multiple agency (WDFW, NPS, USDA Forest Service) and community needs.
Response. The commission's recreation policy which you correctly reference at 18 CFR Section 2.7, focuses on project recreation resources. The policy at Section 2.7 (h) expects licensees "To inform the public of the opportunities for recreation at licensed projects, as well as of rules governing the accessibility and use of recreational facilities". The recommendation discussed in that section of the DEA for an interpretation and education program goes beyond project facilities and opportunities.
71 Page 163: 1st full paragraph: “Chelan PUD believes the trail proposal unreasonable, …., and based on a pre-project baseline”: The USDA Forest Service disagrees with the CPUD that a trail proposal of this type is based on a pre-project baseline argument. As staff acknowledges, the trail system would be beneficial and would meet an identified need. The use of a pre-project baseline should not preclude consideration of PM&E measures that address an identified need. Staff appears to use historic information (that the trail had not been built) to dismiss the trail proposal whereas elsewhere staff does not consider historic occurrence as validating the need for a PM&E measure.
Response. We believe the request was based on a pre-project baseline because it was recommended as mitigation for "inundated public shorelands". We were not talking about pre-project historic information when we spoke of the reservoir being draw-down during the recreation season. Rather, we meant that even if the reservoir was managed to provide more shoreline for a trail, we question whether another entity would fund the other half of the $12
397 million cost.
72 Pages 167 Aesthetics and lake levels: The negative visual impact associated with the mud flats becomes masked by the snow, however, when the snow melts, the mud flats become dominant to the average person viewing the “lake” in this area.
Response. We noted in the DEA that when the snow melts, the exposed mud flats are aesthetically undesirable to some residents.
73 Page 167/168: continued paragraph: “a visual perspective of erosion”: From a Landscape Aesthetics viewpoint, shoreline erosion is significant at Lake Chelan. The scenic dominance of a large lake and snowcapped mountains lessens some people’s awareness of erosion. Shoreline erosion has affected the natural appearing foreground of the lake and degrades from the recreation setting and experience. The Lake Chelan waterway is designated a scenic viewshed corridor (Scenic Travel (ST-1)) with a Retention, natural appearing foreground, scenic quality objective. Many areas of the foreground have extensive shoreline erosion and do not meet the “natural appearing setting” objective. Erosion areas are visible. Erosion scars result in negative landscape character deviations as seen along all shorelines. Erosion is a significant aesthetics issue at this project. See Aesthetic Resources Assessment Study Report (Chelan PUD 1999) and EIA (WNF, 1999).
Response. We don't dispute that some foreground views are impacted by erosion. However, the Aesthetics Resources Assessment Study found the overall scenic integrity of the upper and middle zones was high to very high.
74 Page 169: 2nd paragraph: Aesthetic value was one of the criteria for determining the high-priority erosion sites based on the visibility of sites. Response. We understood this.
75 Page 183: 1st full paragraph: Staff recommends a revised Survey Monument Plan: The USDA Forest Service disagrees. The plan already filed only has sites affected by continued project operations. See comments to page 34.
Response. We addressed this issue above.
76 Page 185: 2nd full paragraph: “The exact cost of potential follow up barrier removals is unknown; however, we would expect that i(t) would be less than the initial removal costs (i.e.$100,000).” The USDA Forest Service agrees. As long as this is an uncapped amount, it is currently accepted as a reasonable estimate for this activity.
77 Page 189: last paragraph: The USDA Forest Service presented no entrainment requirements and appears to have been confused with another agency.
Response. We have deleted reference to the Forest Service to correct the text.
78 Page 190: Footnote 23: Please correct; the Forest Service has not required this measure
398 in a 4(e) condition.
Response. We have deleted reference to the Forest Service to correct the text.
79 Page 192: 1st partial paragraph: “Chelan PUD’s proposal would appear to be sufficient to substantially enhance wildlife habitat conditions on about 2,000 acres, which well exceed the area affected by continued project operation.” (emphasis added). Staff appears to imply in this case that continued project operations do have an impact to wildlife but staff does not use the same logic for other resources.
Response. See response to Forest Service paragraph 28 and 32.
80 Page 193: Integrated Weed Management: USDA Forest Service disagrees with the statement “it would be difficult to determine if project activities were responsible for the occurrence and spread of noxious weeds”. The USDA Forest Service has proposed project monitoring for all land disturbing activities both prior to construction and after to document noxious weeds. This monitoring can be included with other pre-ground disturbance inventories and evaluations. If there are adverse Project impacts, analysis and monitoring should determine the Project connection. See comments for page 119.
Response. See response to Forest Service paragraph 47.
81 Page 193: 3rd paragraph: Sensitive Species: “It’s unclear whether populations of these plant species are currently affected by project operations”: The USDA Forest Service disagrees. Resource specialists have stated the high suitability of inundated lands. See Justification Statements (USDA Forest Service, June 2002). Re-colonization of historic habitat is likely prevented by ongoing Project operations.
Response. The FEA acknowledges that seasonal flooding of vernal seeps and steep slopes may limit the ability of these moist site plants to expand their populations. See response to comments on the baseline in Forest Service paragraphs 3 and 5.
82 Page 198: 3rd paragraph: “reservoir fluctuation effects are, and would continue to be, limited to small areas associated with project tributaries”: The USDA Forest Service disagrees with this conclusion. See comments for pages 98 and 111.
Response. See response to Forest Service paragraph 4, 27, and 33.
83 Page 198: 4th paragraph: “Such actions would be adequate to protect and enhance wildlife resources”: The USDA Forest Service disagrees. See Justification Statements (USDA Forest Service, June 2002). Staff’s conclusion is unsupported by the record or new information provided in the DEA.
84 Page 199: Endangered Species: “we question the need for such measures”: While staff may question the need for a sensitive species plan, the USDA Forest Service considers that this plan is necessary to ensure that management and consultation occur for sensitive and
399 survey and manage species impacted or potentially impacted by the Project over the license term.
Response. No revision to the FEA is necessary because the text already reflects your opinion of the necessity of the sensitive species consultation plan.
85 Page 199: Forest Service docks and facilities: The USDA Forest Service disagrees with staff’s conclusions. See comments for pages 110-111, 117, 126, and 152-154. The average natural fluctuations of 3.6 feet are significantly less than the existing average Project fluctuations 15.4 feet. This difference is not a minor impact and requires further study.
Response. We address this issue in our response to Interior.
86 Page 200: 1st partial paragraph: The USDA Forest Service disagrees with FERC staff’s comment that the primary justification for the condition is just based on inundated NFS lands when the Project was constructed. As discussed in earlier comments and considered in detail in the Justification Statements, the fact that 22 acres of NFS lands that were developed or available for recreation purposes are inundated does not, in and of itself, provide the basis for the condition. The basis for the condition revolves around the current demonstrated need and anticipated future needs for recreation facilities and opportunities within the Project area to meet standards and objectives of USDA Forest Service management direction. The USDA Forest Service also disagrees strongly with staff’s assertion that “this is inconsistent with the Commission’s baseline (policy?)…” and that there is not “a documented need at this time for additional capacity”. Assuming that staff meant to bring forward the Commission’s baseline “policy”, it would be appropriate to cite where this “policy” can be found and provide explanation of how the “policy” is applicable in this case. Concerning a documented need for additional capacity, dismissing a measure by using staff’s belief that there is not an immediate need is somewhat short sighted considering the uncontradicted information in the record that recreation use/demand is anticipated to increase substantially through the next license period. Even now, Chelan PUD data indicates that many sites are at capacity during July and August, especially on weekends. Chelan PUD studies indicate that recreation users are looking for less crowded opportunities.
Response. We addressed this issue in our response to Interior. We cited the Commission's baseline policy in our response to CRITFC. We reiterate that if this measure is required, it would be an enhancement measure, not mitigation for an ongoing project impact.
87 Page 214: Consistency with Comprehensive Plans: “No conflicts were found” The USFS disagrees. FERC Staff appears to have not considered the Justification Statements filed by the Forest Service (USDA Forest Service, June 2002) which set out LRMP direction and potential “conflicts” with those plans.
Response. We did considered you justification statements. Regarding the Forest Plan, its not clear from your justification statements where these potential conflicts lie.
88 Page 215: Literature cited. This section lacks much of the literature provided to FERC
400 staff by the Forest Service. The Wenatchee LRMP is not listed as cited although on p. 113 it is cited. Only two Forest Service documents appear to have made the Literature Cited list: The Northwest Forest Plan 1994 and the North Shore of Lake Chelan Watershed Analysis 1998. The USFS requests that FERC staff take advantage of the valuable information provided in the many documents the Forest Service has submitted and in particular the Justification Statements (USDA Forest Service, June 2002).
Response. We did review your justification statements in preparing the DEA, and will include the Forest Plan in the literature cited list. Its unclear to us which literature you provided to staff that is not on out literature cited list.
401 Chelan PUD
February 7, 2003
Ms. Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426
Subject: Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project - Project No. 637-022: Chelan PUD response to comments from agencies and other intervenors on the FERC Draft Environmental Assessment
Dear Ms. Salas:
Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County (Chelan PUD) would like to take this opportunityto provide the Commission with additional information and clarification related to issues raisedby agencies and non-governmental organizations in letters filed with the Commission during thepublic comment period on the draft environmental assessment that closed January 10, 2003.This letter highlights some of the issues that Chelan PUD determined need further clarification;our detailed response to the DEA is contained in the letter we filed with the Commission on January 10.
Several of the entities that commented on the DEA addressed similar issues or concerns. This letter is organized by relevant heading/topic and page number/s in the order these items areaddressed in the DEA. Under each topic area, we summarize the relevant comments filed by agencies or other organizations and then provide Chelan PUD’s response.
1 Endangered Species Consultation (DEA pages 18, 126-127) On pages 2, 7, and 8 of its comment letter dated January 10, 2003, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) references its December 27, 2002, letter to FERC regarding the request for initiation of Section 7 consultation under the ESA. In that response to FERC’s request to initiate consultation, NMFS stated a need for an analysis of the potential effects of the Project on ESA listed species that inhabit the Columbia River over 100 miles downstream from the Project. The December NMFS letter also specifically requested an analysis of the effects of Lake Chelan storage and refill operations on Columbia River flows downstream of the confluence of the Chelan River with the Columbia River, specifically at the Priest Rapids and McNary projects. This information is provided in detail in Attachment A, and is summarized here.
2 The operation of the Lake Chelan Project has the effect of reducing the inflow to the Columbia River from the Lake Chelan Basin during the months of April – June, with a slight reduction also occurring in July. Inflow to the Columbia River from the Lake Chelan Basin is increased during the months of August – March by operation of the Lake Chelan Project. The
402 effects of these changes in inflow to the Columbia River are not seen directly in the form of increases or decreases in Columbia River flows. Rather, the side flow from the Lake Chelan Basin is considered, along with the side flows from all other tributaries below the Grand Coulee Project, when the operators of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) make decisions on flow releases from reservoirs throughout the Columbia River Basin. Details related to how the operation of the Lake Chelan Project affects these decisions are contained in Attachment A.
3 The refill of Lake Chelan has a slight effect on meeting salmon migration target flows in May. The average change in Columbia River inflow that results from operation of the Lake Chelan Project is equivalent to a 2 percent change in monthly average flow at the Priest Rapids Project and a 1.4 percent change in monthly average flow at the McNary Project. The average total effect for the months of April – June is 441,000 acre-feet, not 650,000 acre-feet as stated by NMFS in their December letter.
4 The effect of small changes to Columbia River flows on the survival of salmon migrants is an issue that has been debated by scientists for years. A number of scientific studies have examined the flow targets set in the NMFS 2000 BiOp (2000 Biological Opinion on Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System). For example, the Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC) is currently considering amendments to its Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program that would change the operations of storage reservoirs and reduce flow through the lower Columbia hydrosystem in both spring and summer. In its call for comments on the proposed amendments1, the NWPPC states “it is the Council’s hypothesis that these flow reductions would be statistically insignificant and not adversely affect the survival of listed anadromous fish migrating through the system at these times, while improving the biological benefits for listed and non-listed resident fish in and around storage reservoirs.”
5 This and other proposed changes are out for public comment, but the proposed change in reservoir operations and resultant flow reductions demonstrate that the weight of scientific evidence does not show a direct correlation between salmon migrant survival and relatively minor changes in Columbia River flows. The NWPPC also is considering the appropriate reservoir operations and effect on flow targets for late summer and fall, when the FCRPS is attempting to maintain storage reservoir elevations so that water will be available to meet the region’s electrical load during the winter months. The operation of the Lake Chelan Project augments flow objectives of the FCRPS during these months, as well as helps meet the region’s electrical load in winter.
6 Erosion Control (DEA page 29 – 33) Chelan PUD questions several assertions related to erosion control made by the Department of Interior (DOI) (National Park Service, or NPS) in its January 10, 2003, comment letter. The DOI letter concludes that shoreline erosion around Lake Chelan is caused primarily by the annual cycle of lake level fluctuation resulting from Project operations; that such erosion would not occur on a natural lake; and that such erosion will continue, unabated, as long as the lake level fluctuates as a result of Project operations. In its letter (DOI p. 2, para.4 and p.8 para.4), the National Park Service (NPS) states that studies support these conclusions.
403 The NPS and the referenced studies, however, do not explain why similar shoreline erosion is found in some locations around Lake Wenatchee, which is an unregulated, natural lake. They also do not explain why many sites appear to have made significant progress toward restabilization in the 70-plus years since development of the Project.
7 In addition, NPS states that the rates of erosion estimated by the relicensing Erosion Control Working Group are probably low, but it offers no support for that assertion (DOI p. 3, para.1 and p. 9, para.1). Similarly, it offers no support for stating that the erosion rate for sites in the upper end of the lake is “more likely on the order of 0.5-2 ft/yr…” The Erosion Inventory Report provides documentation of the stated erosion rate and the method used to calculate it. Based on that data, the average annual erosion rate on DOI sites (the upper end of the lake) is only about 0.1 ft/year, or one fourth that found on the lake as a whole. If DOI has site-specific data to the contrary, it would be helpful if they could provide it to the FERC and others for consideration.
8 NPS also oversimplifies the criteria used in the shoreline erosion inventory (p. 9, para.1). FERC staff should refer to the study report for clarification of the criteria used to inventory erosion sites. Per those study criteria, sites less than 50 feet in length were included if they appeared to have potential for developing into larger concerns, or if they threatened some site feature of interest. Also, a few sites that did not meet the criteria were included at the insistence of the NPS.
Response. We have reviewed the study report cite selection criteria.
9 On page 8 (para.5), NPS requests clarification for why erosion caused by waves is considered a Project impact, while wave damage to docks is not considered a Project impact. This is because the Project raised the water level so that waves were able to impact a part of the shoreline that was not previously subject to wave action. The Project does not cause the waves, but does cause them to reach a higher part of the shore. For this reason, the result of the wave action is attributable to the Project. All the docks on the lake, however, have been designed and constructed for the existing cycle of water levels. They are impacted by waves under conditions that were extant at the time of their design and construction. The Project does not increase the impact of these waves on the docks, and therefore wave action does not constitute a Project impact.
10 Stehekin Area Sedimentation (DEA pages 34 -35) In its January 10, 2003, comment letter, the Department of Interior (DOI/NPS) discusses sedimentation at the Stehekin River mouth. It states that the study of backwater effects and sedimentation “focused only on backwater effects, not sedimentation or Large Woody Material (LWM)” (DOI p. 3, para. 2). This statement is inaccurate. The Evaluation of the Backwater Hydraulic Profile of the Lower Stehekin River, dated January 15, 2001, recognizes the connections among backwater, channel shape, sedimentation and LWD. This report includes an evaluation of the effects of LWD near the river mouth. In addition, the Stehekin River Sedimentation Summary, dated May 4, 2001, includes an evaluation of trends and timing of changes in the river channel and sedimentation, based on aerial and other photographs of the area. This report addresses essentially all of the NPS comments.
404 11 It is important to note that in a delta area, such as that found at the Stehekin River mouth, strictly natural processes cause deposition, changes in channel shape and alignment, and flattening of the stream gradient over time, with attendant accumulation of LWD. These trends would continue to occur in such a setting with or without the Project. No known monitoring or modeling technique can separate the results of these natural processes from postulated Project impacts.
12 NPS also states that the backwater study was limited to the river channel (p. 9, para. 6). This statement is inaccurate. The study of the backwater effect included areas outside the normal river channel that might become part of the channel during floods. Also, NPS notes that flooding aggravated by the backwater effect could “exacerbate flooding beyond the limits of the damage waivers” and affect a wide area of the valley. Water leaving the Stehekin River at the upstream end of the backwater effect and flowing perpendicular to the channel would not leave the area covered by the project’s damage waivers. We reiterate that all the effects of the backwater are contained within the Project easements.
13 Finally, NPS staff expressed an interest in an evaluation of cumulative impacts, and yet state that the impacts of fill placed near the river mouth are not relevant. An evaluation of cumulative impacts can’t ignore the single factor that has the most prominent impact.
14 Stehekin Flats Dust (DEA pages 35 -38) In its January 10, 2003, comment letter, the Department of Interior (DOI) requests that FERC staff omit part of the phrase on page 183 of the DEA that states the dust does not violate any health-related “or other standards” (p. 15, para. 3). It is accurate and important to continue to note that the dust in the Stehekin area does not violate any air quality standards, including standards related to visibility and standards established under the Clean Air Act to prevent deterioration of air quality in National Recreation Areas.
Response. We have not changed that section of the EA.
15 Water quality (Fecal coliform, DEA page 48) In its January 10, 2003, comment letter, the Department of Interior (DOI) speculates that fecal coliform counts are related to recreational boating (DOI p. 10, para. 4). It should be noted that dumping feces in the lake is illegal. The project is not responsible for illegal activities conducted by others.
16 Water Quality (Temperature, DEA pages 49 – 52) and Minimum Flows in the Bypassed Reach (DEA pages 70 -74) Several letters focused on the relationship between water temperature and minimum flows in the Chelan River bypassed reach, so we have combined our response to letters that focus on these related issues under this section.
17 Washington State Department of Ecology In its January 9, 2003, letter, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) comments that Chelan PUD has submitted additional information related to management of the Chelan River for meeting water quality and biological objectives. Chelan PUD filed this additional information, the Chelan River Biological Evaluation and Implementation Plan
405 (CRBEIP), with FERC on December 17, 2002. As stated by Ecology, the CRBEIP is intended to replace the Chelan River Management Plan that was presented as part of the preliminary draft environmental assessment submitted to FERC on March 28, 2002. The CRBEIP adds substantial information on the biological basis for the recommended minimum instream flows and alternative flow levels that were examined from a perspective of fish habitat and water quality standards. The CRBEIP provides a detailed implementation approach that uses monitoring and evaluation of biological success as the determining factor for triggering implementation of alternative actions for achieving the biological and water quality objectives of the CRBEIP.
18 Ecology suggests that FERC should include a detailed discussion of the impacts of dam operation on the temperature needs of fish and on dam-related impacts of elevated temperatures on the specific fish species of concern. FERC staff should note that the CRBEIP, especially Appendix A, contains a detailed thermodynamic model evaluation of the relationship between minimum flow levels and water temperature, which is the principal water quality concern related to impacts of dam operation. Detailed information on the effects of temperature on salmonid fish from scientific literature is also available from the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Regional Temperature Criteria Guidance, Technical Papers.2
19 In addition, two articles recently published in the Transactions of the American Fisheries Society (132:92-99; 132:100-109) have added valuable information that helps evaluate the potential effects of the Chelan River temperature regime on cutthroat trout. These two studies found that these fish can tolerate daytime temperatures that are higher than the 7-day upper incipient lethal temperature (LT50 = 24.2/C) experienced under a constant temperature regime, provided that nighttime temperatures are cooler.
20 In the field study, Bonneville cutthroat trout not only survived over 2-5 weeks of daily exposure to a thermal regime with maximum daily water temperatures as high as 27/C, the fish also showed no signs of emigration or mortality and there was no evidence that the fish used localized cool water refuges. The studies could be interpreted to suggest that the daily mean temperature was more important as a determining factor for cutthroat survival than the daily maximum temperature.
21 In the laboratory study, all cutthroat survived a cyclical temperature regime that ranged from 16-26/C, despite a 6-hour daily exposure to temperatures greater than the 24.2/C LT50 temperature. However, a cyclical regime of 18-28/C did cause mortality. Whether mortality was mostly a result of the peak temperature of 28/C, or because the daily mean temperature of 23/C was higher, could not be determined from the study. As it relates to the Chelan River, this information may support the hypothesis that the lower nighttime temperatures that occur with minimum flows could be beneficial, despite higher daytime peak temperature.
22 The results of the SNTEMP model (CRBEIP, Appendix A) showed very little difference in the daily mean temperature between flows ranging from 80 cfs up to 4,000 cfs (Figure 38) and daily mean temperatures rarely exceeded 23/C, which occurred only a few days each year (and at all flows). However, at the minimum flow of 80 cfs, somewhat cooler water
406 temperatures would be experienced by the fish during the night.
23 Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) In its January 10, 2003, letter, the CRITFC resurrects a number of issues that were thoroughly investigated by the Lake Chelan Project relicensing Natural Sciences Working Group and in the DEA. The record is adequate to support the recommended alternatives in the DEA. CRITFC fails to support with any evidence their claims that water quality impacts of the Project, cumulative impacts, and minimum flows in the Chelan River were inadequately addressed through studies and analysis. The inclusion of the information contained in the CRBEIP, described above, provides a thorough analysis of the relationship between instream flows and water temperatures in the Chelan River.
24 American Rivers In its January 6, 2003, letter, American Rivers claims that the DEA is deficient because the range of alternatives and environmental benefits of alternative flow options was not adequately addressed (AR, p. 2). The DEA provides sufficient information to support the recommended alternatives. However, the additional information contained in the CRBEIP, which examines a range of flows from 40 cfs through 4,000 cfs, provides more than enough information to address American Rivers’ concerns about the adequacy of the DEA. The information in the CRBEIP should be incorporated into the final environmental assessment.
25 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) In its January 9, 2003, comment letter on the DEA, the WDFW proposes a new 10(j) recommendation to address temperature issues in the bypassed reach of the Chelan River during the summer months. WDFW’s Term and Condition No. 23 would require construction of artificial pools and wells to pump 1 cfs of groundwater into each pool in an attempt to create thermal refuges for trout when water temperatures are 20/C or greater (WDFW p. 1, para. 2).
26 WDFW fails to document whether their recommended action would be successful at creating thermal refuges. In addition, it fails to demonstrate the biological necessity for such refuges, even if it were feasible to create them. New scientific research on the effects of diurnal temperature fluctuations on cutthroat trout (see response to Ecology above), certainly put in doubt the WDFW assertion that “without the creation of thermal refugia, cutthroat and rainbow trout, which attempt to colonize Reach 1 and 2 of the Chelan River will, at best, be forced to move into Reach 3 or the Columbia River, and at worst, be exterminated each summer” (WDFW p. 2, para.1).
27 The CRBEIP filed by Chelan PUD on December 17 provides for a mechanism to evaluate biological and physical evidence prior to initiating actions like those proposed by WDFW. Monitoring, evaluation and reasoned implementation of measures described in the CRBEIP will provide the evidence to determine whether any temperature control measures are needed, or if less intensive measures can provide the biological requirements of cutthroat trout and other aquatic species in the Chelan River.
28 WDFW also fails to demonstrate why 20/C is the trigger temperature for its
407 recommended action. Under any flow condition, the Chelan River will exceed 20/C for extended periods of time. WDFW provides no logic to support its statement that “if Chelan PUD and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) find the proactive creation of thermal refugia unacceptable, the only viable alternative is to provide full inflow to the bypassed reaches of the Chelan River at all times when daily average temperatures in the forebay are at 20/C or greater” (WDFW p. 2, para. 2). The SNTEMP model clearly demonstrates that the provision of full flow in the Chelan River will not improve the daily mean temperature, which will still exceed 20/C for extended periods of the summer. In light of the above, it appears that there would be little or no biological benefit to the WDFW recommendation, which would be costly to implement.
29 Tailrace Minimum Flows (DEA page 75 - 76) In its January 10, 2003, comment letter, the Department of Interior (DOI)(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) calls for action to solve a postulated problem with egg survival in the Chelan tailrace (DOI p.5, para.1). Chelan PUD studied this issue and determined that dissolved oxygen levels were higher in the Chelan River than in a control river nearby (see Effects of Powerhouse Shutdown on Summer/Fall Chinook Salmon Incubation, September 30, 2002).
30 Ramping Rates (DEA page 80, Table 11) The Department of Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or USFWS) points out an error in the unit of measurement in the ramping rates table (DEA Table 11) (DOI, p. 2, para 1). The same error was noted in the letters from NMFS (p. 9, para 2). Chelan PUD has reviewed the analysis used to create that table and determined that the USFWS is correct. A transcription error in the original data set on river stage at various flows resulted in measurements in feet being incorrectly reported as inches. This error was not previously detected, despite reviews of the table by the Natural Sciences Working Group that date back to fall of 2001. DEA Table 11 should be corrected to change the unit of measurement. This change results in a maximum change of river elevation of 1 foot for flow changes from 80 cfs to 320 cfs. Chelan PUD agrees with the USFWS that ramping rates necessary to prevent stranding of fish in the Chelan River, Reaches 1-3, and the new configuration of Reach 4 after habitat enhancements, should be determined from the biological evaluations that will be conducted in the CRBEIP. The ramping rates recommended by USFWS in its initial terms and conditions seem overly restrictive and may not be feasible to implement under conditions when natural variations in Project inflow (spill events) may necessitate changes in spill volume of over 1,000 cfs in a day. Chelan PUD recommends that a ramping rate of 2 inches per hour be maintained, when feasible, until biological evaluations have determined the ramping rates necessary to prevent stranding of fish in the Chelan River.
31 Hatchery Modifications and Stocking Practices (DEA pages 86-87) In its January 9, 2003, comment letter, WDFW incorrectly characterizes the current license commitment of Chelan PUD (WDFW p. 6, para. 5-6). The 100,000 legal sized rainbow trout program as a voluntary program by Chelan PUD to provide better sports fishing opportunities in Lake Chelan. There are no formal agreements obligating WDFW to limit kokanee production to 500,000. Further, the cost to produce and transport 100,000 legal sized rainbow is several times higher than the cost of the entire kokanee program as
408 envisioned in the license article contained in the current Project license. Chelan PUD voluntarily assumed this additional cost because the rainbow program provides a substantial benefit to the sports fishing community, particularly in the lower lake area where other sports fishing opportunities are limited.
32 Introduction of Anadromous Fish to Lake Chelan (DEA page 95) The Paleolimnological study that CRITFC claims to be conducting (CRITFC p. 5, para. 4) is irrelevant. Chelan PUD conducted a review of available information found no evidence that anadromous salmonids occurred in Lake Chelan prior to dam construction. Moreover, studies conducted during the relicensing process have verified that the bypassed reach contains hydraulic features that would likely function as passage barriers under all possible flows. Finally, Chelan PUD investigated the potential productivity of salmon in Lake Chelan and determined that developing a self sustaining fishery was not feasible.
33 Recreation Use (DEA page 142, 157 - 158) In its comment letter dated January 10, 2003, the USDA Forest Service (USFS) states that the recreation use study conducted by Chelan PUD “ran only one year” and that “[a]veraging summer use over the period from Memorial Day thru Labor Day masks the impacts on and demand for recreation that exists during the peak season of July and August” (USFS p. 42, para. 2).
34 Methodologies used to form the analysis in the Lake Chelan Recreation Use Assessment Report included acquisition of historical recreation visitor use statistics collected from the NPS, USFS, Washington State Parks, City of Chelan, Manson Parks and Recreation, and Chelan PUD (Recreation Use Assessment Report, February 2000, Section 4, Table 3). Historical data, as well as information gathered during the 1998/99 study period, was used to determine recreational use statistics and analysis. Average daily use by month and daily capacity of recreation sites are provided in the Recreation Use Assessment Report, Section 4, Table 4.
35 USFS also states that “additional capacity will be needed to meet these (middle and upper zone USFS recreation site use) demands over the life of the license” (USFS p. 44, para. 4). However, based on USFS management standards, the Middle and Upper Chelan Basin Zone campground utilization for all activities (camping and picnicking) during the peak season monitoring conducted during 1998 is estimated to be about 38 percent and 48 percent of capacity (respectively) and is expected to be about 54 percent and 67 percent of capacity in year 2020 (respectively). Little recreation use was observed at recreation sites during the off- seasons. While capacity may be exceeded at some USFS recreation facilities on some occasions during late summer and on holiday weekends, Chelan PUD does not agree that additional facilities should be developed to accommodate such special occasions. In particular, more facilities could also reduce the remote and unique recreation experience sought by users of such sites. The USFS fee program should be used to better spread out visitors to less used sites and limit use at sites where overuse is a concern. Off-season and early summer use is currently well below capacity and is not expected to be substantial in the future.
409 36 Chelan PUD also disagrees with the notion that the Project is responsible for the natural population growth, increases in different types of outdoor activities, and scenic beauty and recreational opportunities that draw visitors to the upper lake area. Lake Chelan, the largest natural lake in Washington State and the third deepest lake in the United States, attracted visitors even before construction of the Project, and will continue to do so. With or without the presence of the Project, the public would no doubt demand the opportunity to launch boats or travel uplake to access the world-class destinations on the nearly 61,000 acres of NPS land (Lake Chelan National Recreation Area) and 2.2 million acres of USFS land (of which about 40% is designated Wilderness area) surrounding Lake Chelan. These federal lands have a national (and potentially international) reputation for outstanding scenic beauty and recreational opportunity. It is also important to note that the USFS regularly advertises and promotes use of its facilities.
37 Forest Service and Park Service docks and facilities (DEA pages 150 – 157) In their comment letters (DOI 1/10/03 and USDA Forest Service 1/10/03), the USFS and NPS revisit the issue of Project impact on docks. Chelan PUD does not agree that lake level fluctuations caused by the Project have a significant impact on the wear and tear on docks. Therefore, Chelan PUD objects to the requested level of funding for dock maintenance and replacement requested by the USFS and NPS.
38 In this section, Chelan PUD will address the key arguments set forth throughout the USFS and NPS letters, specifically:
39 1) Current License as Baseline The USFS and NPS use a pre-project baseline (described variously as pre-project, pre-dam, and natural conditions) presumably represented by water level data from the years between 1910 and Project development. This is indicative of a certain amount of confusion, since dams have existed on Lake Chelan since the late 1800s. No water level information is available from a predam or natural condition. Dams were first constructed on the lake to facilitate navigation at lower water levels by limiting how low the lake level could go.
40 The most appropriate baseline for consideration is that of existing conditions. The USFS and NPS argue that the proposed lake level cycle will create a substantial change in use of docks, and therefore dock costs, due to raising the lake level earlier. Review of the proposed lake level cycle shows that the lake is expected to be filled an average of seven days earlier than the average for the existing license, during a time of year when use of the lake is relatively low. The additional dock costs from this change are expected to be negligible. For this reason, if a baseline of existing conditions is used to assess the project’s share of dock costs, the share should also be negligible.
41 2) Pre-Project Conditions as Baseline The other arguments presented by the USFS and NPS are based on what is known or assumed about pre-Project lake level fluctuations. The USFS and NPS are attempting to use a pre-Project average lake level fluctuation of 3.66 feet as the basis for how docks would be designed in the absence of the Project. The USFS and NPS assume that a fixed dock would have been suitable to provide lake accessibility under pre-Project natural lake conditions if
410 lake levels only fluctuated an average of 3.66 feet each year. However, it should be noted that a useable dock design would have to take into account the overall range of lake level fluctuations, not simply average fluctuation. In addition, fixed docks provide limited accessibility during most of the lake level cycle.
42 The figures of 8 feet and 12 feet cited in the DEA were based on Chelan PUD’s inspection of a graph of model results based on the period of 1952 through 1995. To obtain a rough idea of lake level fluctuations that might be expected without the Project over a longer period of record, the Project operations model was run assuming the spillway gates to be left open. The 8-foot figure was not a numerical average of annual fluctuation, but was chosen from the graph as a reasonable range to be accommodated by docks and other facilities. The 12-foot figure anticipated an extreme event that would probably not be considered in designing such facilities.
43 Based on pre-Project data from the USGS for 1911 through 1925, the lake level fluctuated an average of 4.23 feet each year. During that same period, the range of lake levels was 7.2 feet. A reasonable dock design would anticipate a larger range of water levels, particularly since USGS numbers were derived from only 15 years of data. Also, the data used are from a time when a dam limited the low point of the annual lake level cycle. Without the dam, the outlet channel would have been narrower, so the range of water levels would have been greater. The present operation of the lake provides a consistent upper limit to the water level, which can be used in design of docks. In the absence of the Project, both he upper and lower limits to lake level would be uncertain, but a dock that could accommodate an 8-foot range would be unlikely to be submerged and would be useful in the majority of years for the intended part of the year, like the existing docks. In contrast, fixed docks designed for an average annual fluctuation figure would experience water levels outside the range of levels for which they were designed much more frequently. Such docks could become potential hazards when submerged in years of high lake level, and would frequently be useless in years of low water. Therefore, assuming that fixed docks would replace floating docks is not reasonable or practical.
44 3) Fixed Docks and Access Beyond the flaws in the USFS and NPS argument supporting the feasibility of using fixed docks under pre-Project conditions, such docks would not provide the level of access that floating docks would allow, even if there were a consistent cycle of fluctuation of 4.2 feet. Such a design would require users to climb up at least two or three feet for much of the recreation season, and so would be much less useable than a floating dock.
45 Similarly, while docks in a pre-Project scenario might not need to extend as far into the lake to provide for the necessary draft, they would have to be just as large to accommodate a similar number of boats. Unlike floating docks in the present lake level regime, fixed docks would require much more underwater construction. For these reasons, fixed docks of similar capacity might actually prove to be more costly than floating docks.
46 Finally, the difficulty of obtaining permits for the in-water work to construct or repair a fixed dock could make a floating dock seem the only practical option, even in a situation
411 with a very small range of water levels.
47 4) Estimate of Project Share Chelan PUD has evaluated the project’s effect on operations and maintenance (O&M) costs and on the capital cost of constructing or replacing a dock in order to provide an estimate of the proportion of dock costs that can be reasonably allocated to the Project. Chelan PUD does not believe the Project has any effect on O&M costs for docks. This is because the docks have been designed and constructed for the existing cycle of water levels. They are impacted by waves under conditions that were extant at the time of their design and construction. Most damage is caused by waves and wind which are not related to Project operations.
48 The USFS and NPS argue that docks must project farther into the lake due to Project lake level fluctuations, and are therefore more exposed to the elements. However, this argument does not take into account the fact that dock length may be governed by the number of boats to be accommodated, not just water depth. It also does not account for the arrangement and degree of exposure at each site. No allowance for O&M should be included in the Project share for docks based on this premise.
49 Chelan PUD recognizes, however, that the increased range of water level fluctuations associated with Project operations increases the expense of constructing or replacing docks. Chelan PUD’s estimate of its responsibility for the construction and replacement of docks is summarized below.
The following key assumptions were factored into the estimate.
50 In the absence of the Project, docks would need to be designed to accommodate a range of lake levels of 7 to 8 feet. The Project regulates the water level so that the range is approximately twice that amount;
51 To provide comparable access and utility in the absence of the Project, docks would still have to be floating docks;
52 The fixed portion of a floating dock may be in a different location, but would be otherwise roughly the same with or without the Project;
53 The floating portion of a dock, sized to accommodate a selected number of boats, would be the same with or without the Project;
54 The ramp between the fixed and floating portions of the dock is affected by differences in the range of water levels. To maintain the same maximum slope, each ramp has to be roughly twice as long with the project as it would have to be without the project. This is true regardless of the slope of the lake bottom under the dock. For this reason, the project share is assumed to include 50 percent of the cost of ramps;
55 The piles commonly used to restrain the floating portions of docks have to be longer
412 because of project operations. A typical pile length of 40-feet was assumed, with 20 feet embedded and 20 feet above ground. Of that length, the project would be responsible for 8 feet. The cost estimate assumes the project share of piles to be 25 percent, or 10 feet. Many piles in use are actually shorter than 40 feet, which makes the 10-foot assumption liberal;
56 A reasonable unit price for ramps is $255 per foot. This estimate is based on Chelan PUD’s experience with similar docks. The ramps will need to be replaced twice during the next license;
57 A reasonable unit price for piles is $2,650 per pile. This estimate is based on actual costs of piles installed at Lake Chelan. Some piles will have to be replaced twice during the next license.
58 The length of ramps on floating docks owned by the USFS is about 284 feet, and ramps will be replaced twice during the next license. Assuming half of the cost of those ramps is the Project’s responsibility, the Project share is $72,420. The number of piles for USFS docks is 46, and some will be replaced twice during the next license. Assuming 25 percent of the cost of those piles is the Project’s responsibility, the Project share is $41,738. The total Project share for USFS docks would be $136,857. Chelan PUD is currently compiling similar numbers for NPS docks.
Response. We will consider the information above in the FEA.
59 Lake Level Management (Aethetics and lake levels) (DEA page 168) In its letter dated January 10, 2003, the NPS states (DOI p.15, para.1) that the change in lake level cycle will make no difference to vegetation around the lake. This conclusion is contradicted by photographic evidence of changes in vegetation produced by the difference between the first and second license. By lowering the lake level slightly earlier in the fall, the proposed lake level cycle will encourage growth of riparian plants along the edge of the lake to a slightly lower elevation than is currently feasible. This will have a beneficial effect, however slight, on aesthetics and riparian habitat of the Stehekin area.
Response. We will consider this information in the FEA.
60 Conclusion
I hope FERC staff finds this additional information useful as they compile the final environmental assessment. If you have further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, Gregg Carrington Director of Licensing
Attachment A
413 61 Effect of Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project storage and refill operations on Columbia River flows at the Priest Rapids and McNary dams
62 The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project uses water stored in Lake Chelan to provide hydroelectric generation during the late fall, winter and early spring (September – March). The Project then uses inflow that occurs from April – June to refill Lake Chelan. This operating regime affects flow operations in the Columbia River by reducing the inflow from the Chelan River Basin to the Columbia River during the Lake Chelan refill period, then increasing inflow to the Columbia River during the fall and winter.
63 The Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) is managed to provide flows for flood control, hydroelectric power generation and fish migrations on a regime determined by congressional mandates and the 2000 BiOp (2000 Biological Opinion on Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System, Including the Juvenile Fish Transportation Program, and 19 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin; NMFS, Northwest Region, December 21, 2000).
64 The US Corps of Engineers Reservoir Control Center manages the federal reservoirs for the purposes of flood control, refill requirements and refill targets mandated in the 2000 BiOp. Within these constraints, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) manages flow releases on a day-to-day basis to meet fish migration flow targets contained in the 2000 BiOp and to meet the regional demand for hydroelectric generation. All side flows, inflows to the Columbia River from tributaries below Grand Coulee Dam and on the Snake River below storage reservoirs, are taken into account when BPA and the operators of the federal storage projects determine the flow release schedule for the FCRPS. The inflow to the Columbia River from the Lake Chelan Basin is included when side flows are accounted for and the operation of the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project is incorporated into the FCRPS flow release schedule. Thus, the operation of the Lake Chelan Project does not determine or affect the flows at downstream projects, such as Priest Rapids and McNary, because the much larger FCRPS storage system is used to meet the FCRPS flow release schedule.
65 The storage and refill operations of the Lake Chelan Project do affect, to a small degree, the reservoir operations of the FCRPS because storage release decisions incorporate the quantity of downstream side flows when determining how to meet the flow targets of the 2000 BiOp. When discharge from the Lake Chelan Project is greater than natural inflow, such as occurs from August – March, the additional flow released from the Lake Chelan Project reduces the amount of flow that is needed from storage at Grand Coulee to meet the same flow in the Columbia River. During the refill cycle (April – June), the refill rate of Grand Coulee Reservoir may be slightly reduced in order to meet the Columbia River flow target. The actual storage management decisions that federal operators would make if the Lake Chelan Project did not exist cannot be completely predicted. However, the output of the Lake Chelan Basin, without the Lake Chelan Project, would only average 1,200 cfs more flow in April, 3,800 cfs more in May and 2,410 cfs more in June than occurs with the operations proposed for the new license.
66 The relative difference in monthly average flows at the Priest Rapids and McNary
414 projects, with and without the Lake Chelan Project, is shown in Table 1. These relative differences in flow are projected with the assumption that the FCRPS did not take Lake Chelan Basin side flows into account when managing river flows to meet 2000 BiOp salmon migration flow targets. This assumption does not reflect reality, but it provides a clear graphical representation of the relative contribution of flow from the Lake Chelan Basin to the flows in the Columbia River. In reality, other storage operations throughout the upper Columbia and Snake river basins, including irrigation storage in Banks Lake, the Yakima River Basin and other locations, affect the management of the FCRPS to provide for flood control, hydroelectric generation and flow releases to meet the salmon migration targets at the McNary Project. The McNary data are from 1960 through 2002. The Priest Rapids data are averages from a similar period. The graphs are expected to be representative of conditions expected during the next license period. Inflow data to Lake Chelan are used to represent outflow without Lake Chelan Project storage and refill operations. This neglects the damping effect of changes to the volume of Lake Chelan that would occur without the Lake Chelan Project, but this is expected to be fairly small for purposes of these comparisons. As shown in Table 1, the greatest impact of Lake Chelan is an increase in flows of 2.3 to 1.5 percent during the month of October at Priest Rapids and McNary, respectively.
67 The average daily flow at the Priest Rapids Project and McNary Project, during the months of April, May and June, are shown in the following figures. The average daily flows are from the 1960 – 2002 period of flow records from these hydroelectric projects. The potential effect of additional flow that could result if the operation of the Lake Chelan Project was changed is also shown in these graphs. The additional flow shown in the graphs assumes that the operation of the FCRPS did not adjust for the additional side flow by changing storage and refill operations.
415