DOCSLIB.ORG

Swan Falls Hydro 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Swan Falls Hydro 2012 United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IDAHO FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368 Boise, Idaho 83709 Telephone (208) 378-5243 https://www.fws.gov/idaho Kimberly D. Bose FEB 0 1 2012 Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 Subject: Swan Falls Hydroelectric Project-Ada and Owyhee Counties, Idaho-Biological Opinion In Reply Refer To: 14420-2011-F-0318 For Internal Use: CONS-lOOb FERCNo. 503 Dear Ms. Bose: Enclosed are the Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Biological Opinion (Opinion) and concurrence with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) determinations of effect on species listed under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, for the proposed Swan Falls Hydroelectric Project in Ada and Owyhee Counties, Idaho. In a letter dated August 21, 2011, and received by the Service on September 1, 2011, the Commission requested formal consultation on the determination under section 7 of the Act that the proposed project is likely to adversely affect the Snake River physa (Haitia (Physa) natricina). The Service acknowledges this determination. The enclosed Opinion and concurrence are based on our review of the proposed action, as described in your August 21,2011 amended Biological Assessment (Assessment), an updated analysis of Snake River physa substrate preferences, and the anticipated effects of the action on listed species, and were prepared in accordance with section 7 of the Act. Our Opinion concludes that the proposed project will not jeopardize the survival and recovery of Snake River physa. A complete record of this consultation is on file at this office. It is important to note that our analysis of effects of the proposed action on Snake River physa are based on several assumptions (see Section 2.5.1 ofthe Opinion), necessitated by the limited information available regarding the species. Given this, it is plausible that project-related impacts may have more or less severe effects on the species than our analysis indicates in this Opinion, based on our current understanding of the species, its habitat, and potential pathways of effect. A number of the Terms and Conditions provided in this document are intended to develop information on project-related impacts of the action on the Snake River physa. We wish to emphasize that should information on these impacts indicate effects to the species or its habitat such that the probability of its persistence is reduced in the Action Area, the Commission should re-evaluate the project's effects and consider reinitiation of section 7 consultation, as appropriate. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary 14420-2011-F-0318 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Swan Falls Hydroelectric Project Clean Water Act Requirement Language: This Opinion is also intended to address section 7 consultation requirements for the issuance of any project-related permits required under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Use of this letter to document that the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has fulfilled its responsibilities under section 7 of the Act is contingent upon the following conditions: 1. The action considered by the COE in their 404 permitting process must be consistent with the proposed project as described in the Assessment such that no detectable difference in the effects of the action on listed species will occur. 2. Any terms applied to the 404 permit must also be consistent with conservation measures and terms and conditions as described in the Assessment and addressed in this letter and Opinion. Thank you for your continued interest in the conservation of threatened and endangered species. If you have questions concerning this Opinion, please contact Dwayne Winslow at (208) 378- 5249 or Michael Morse at (208) 378-5261. Sincerely, ~~~ BrianT. Kelly State Supervisor Enclosure 2 BIOLOGICAL OPINION FOR THE Swan Falls Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 503 14420-2011-F-0318 February 1, 2012 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IDAHO FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE BOISE, IDAHO Supervisor ----;.A--=---:-..- ~~.. -~-___,...___ Date ___l__ Ol__,_ /_;_1__,,,_/_ao--=-..:/~a....:;;.,__ ___ Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary 14420-2011-F-0318 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Swan Falls Hydroelectric Project Table of Contents 1. BACKGROUND AND INFORMAL CONSULTATION ........................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History .............................................................................................................. 1 2. BIOLOGICAL OPINION .......................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Description of the Proposed Action ...................................................................................... 3 2.1.1 Action Area ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 5 2.1.2.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Analytical Framework for the Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Determinations ........... 7 2.2.1 Jeopardy Determination ................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Status of the Species .............................................................................................................. 8 2.3.1 Listing Status ............................................................................................................ 8 2.3.2 Species Description ................................................................................................... 8 2.3.3 Life History ............................................................................................................... 9 2.3.4 Status and Distribution ............................................................................................ 11 2.3.5 Conservation Needs ................................................................................................ 16 2.4 Environmental Baseline of the Action Area ........................................................................ 18 2.4.1 Species ........................................................................................................................... 18 2.4.1.1 Status of the Snake River physa in the Action Area ............................................ 18 2.4.1.2 Factors Affecting the Species in the Action Area ................................................ 24 2.5 Effects of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................ 29 2.5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action ....................................................... 30 2.5.1.1 Direct Effects ....................................................................................................... 30 2.5.1.2 Indirect Effects ..................................................................................................... 36 2.5.2 Effects of Interrelated or Interdependent Actions .......................................................... 40 2.6 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 41 2.6.1 Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 41 2.6.2 Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 42 2.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 42 i Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary 14420-2011-F-0318 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Swan Falls Hydroelectric Project 2.8 Incidental Take Statement ................................................................................................... 44 2.8.1 Form and Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated ......................................................... 44 2.8.1.1 Considerations in Determining Amount of Take ................................................. 44 2.8.1.2 Form and Extent of Take ..................................................................................... 44 2.8.2 Effect of the Take ........................................................................................................... 46 2.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures ................................................................................. 47 2.8.4 Terms and Conditions .................................................................................................... 47 2.8.5 Reporting and Monitoring Requirements....................................................................... 48 2.9 Conservation Recommendations ......................................................................................... 48 2.10 Reinitiation Notice ............................................................................................................. 48 3. LITERATURE CITED ...........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mckern Presentation
    WHO KILLED THE SNAKE RIVER SALMON JuneCELILO 1 FALLS COMMERCIAL HARVEST – 1860s to 1970s PEAK HARVEST 43 MILLION POUNDS – 1886 -SPRING CHINOOK SECOND PEAK 1910 – 43 MILLION POUNDS - ALL SPECIES EAST BOAT BASIN - ASTORIA MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT - 1972 NOAA RECENT ESTIMATE 20 TO 40 % OF SPRING CHINOOK Gold Dredge at Sumpter, Oregon Dredged Powder River Valley Oregon LOGGING WATERSHED DAMAGE EROSION SPLASH DAMS WATER RETENTION ROAD CONSTRUCTION METHODS Mainstem Snake River Dams WITHOUT FISH PASSAGE Oxbow dam – 1961 Shoshone Falls Hells Canyon Dam – (Upper Limit) 1967 Upper Salmon Falls – 1937 WITH FISH PASSAGE Lower Salmon Falls - Lower Granite Dam – 1910 1975 Bliss Dam – 1950 Little Goose Dam 1970 C. J. Strike Dam - Lower Monumental Dam 1952 – 1969 Swan Falls Dam -1901 Ice Harbor Dam - 1962 Brownlee Dam – 1959 SHOSHONE FALLS Tributary Dams Owyhee River Powder River Wild Horse Dam – 1937 Thief Valley Dam – 1931 Owyhee Dam – 1932 Mason Dam - 1968 Boise River Salmon River Anderson Ranch Dam – 1950 Sunbeam Dam – 1909 – 1934 Arrowrock Dam – 1915 Wallowa River Boise R Diversion Dam – 1912 OFC Dam 1898 - 1914 Lucky Peak Dam - 1955 Clearwater River Barber Dam - 1906 Lewiston Dam – 1917 - 1973 Payette River Grangeville Dam – 1910 – 1963 Black Canyon Dam – 1924 Dworshak Dam - 1972 Deadwood Dam - 1929 Malheur River Warm Springs Dam – 1930 Agency Valley Dam – 1936 Bully Creek Dam – 1963 Sunbeam Dam – Salmon River 1909 to 1934 1909 to 1920s - no fish passage 1920s to 1934 - poor fish passage Channel around by IDF&G 1934 NOTE 3 PEOPLE IN RED CIRCLE
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Fish Passage in Idaho Power Company's
    A Review of Fish Passage Provisions in the License Application for the Hells Canyon Complex August 2003 Prepared For Idaho Rivers United And American Rivers By Ken Witty S.P. Cramer and Associates S.P. Cramer & Associates, Inc. 600 NW Fariss Road Gresham, OR 97030 www.spcramer.com S.P. Cramer & Associates, Inc. Hells Canyon Complex August 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 HISTORIC PROSPECTIVE ................................................................................................................. 1 PASSAGE AT THE HCC ................................................................................................................ 1 PROPOSED DOWNSTREAM DAMS ............................................................................................ 1 LOWER SNAKE RIVER DAMS .................................................................................................... 2 LOWER SNAKE RIVER COMPENSATION PLAN ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 10024-0018 (Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior ,C£$ PftRKSERVIC National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Pla Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If an item does not ap property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcatei instructins. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name: American Falls Reservoir Flooded Townsite other name/site number: 2. Location street & number American Falls Reservoir [ ] not for publication city or town American Falls ______ [ X ] vicinity state: Idaho code: ID county: Power code: 077 zip code: 83211 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this [X] nomination [ ] request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36
    [Show full text]
  • OUTFITTER/GUIDE RIVER BOATING APPLICATION TRAINING REQUIREMENTS (FOR OG-11) See Rules for Complete Requirements
    OG-5 (10/15) OUTFITTER/GUIDE RIVER BOATING APPLICATION TRAINING REQUIREMENTS (FOR OG-11) See Rules for complete requirements. Unclassified river section qualifications: To qualify as a float boat guide on unclassified rivers and streams, the applicant shall have had one (1) complete trip on each of the rivers applied for under the supervision of a float boat guide licensed for each of those rivers. A completed OG-11 Training Log shall be submitted giving dates, river section, and the signatures of the supervisor, trainee, and licensed outfitter. Classified river section qualifications: A float boat guide on a classified river shall be licensed as a boatman or a lead boatman according to his experience on that specific river. Each float boat trip on a classified river shall have a lead boat operated by a guide licensed as a lead boatman for that specific river and all other boats participating in that trip shall follow the lead boat and shall be operated by a guide licensed as a boatman or a lead boatman for that specific river. (See Rule 040.01) Each training trip means the total section of river as designated by the Board. (See Rules 040, 041, 042 and 059) An applicant for a float boatman license on classified rivers may qualify in one of three ways: a. The guide shall have had three (3) complete float boat trips on each of the classified rivers applied for, under the direct supervision of a float boatman licensed for that river or they shall have had one or more complete float boat trips on each of the classified rivers applied for under the direct supervision of a float boatman licensed for that river with the remaining trip(s) in a boat with no more than one other trainee following a licensed float boatman for that river but they must not have passengers in the boat; or, b.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Minidoka Dam Spillway
    Draft Environmental Impact Statement Minidoka Dam Spillway Replacement Minidoka Project, Idaho U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Snake River Area Office Boise, Idaho December 2009 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian tribes and our commitments to island communities. MISSION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Minidoka Dam Spillway Replacement Minidoka Project, Idaho U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Snake River Area Office Boise, Idaho December 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Minidoka Dam Spillway Replacement Minidoka County, Idaho Lead Agency: For further information contact: U.S. Department of the Interior Allyn Meuleman Bureau of Reclamation Snake River Area Office Pacific Northwest Region 230 Collins Road Boise, ID 83702-4520 (208) 383-2258 Cooperating Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office Abstract: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) examines alternatives to correcting structural problems at the Minidoka Dam Spillway and associated facilities on Lake Walcott, Idaho. Alternatives considered in the Draft EIS are the No Action, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act; total replacement of the spillway and headgate structures; and replacement of just the spillway.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the 1984 Swan Falls Settlement
    UNDERSTANDING THE 1984 SWAN FALLS SETTLEMENT CLIVE J. STRONG & MICHAEL C. ORR FULL CITATION: Clive J. Strong & Michael C. Orr, Understanding the 1984 Swan Falls Settlement, 52 IDAHO L. REV. 223 (2016). This article Copyright © 2016 Idaho Law Review. Except as otherwise expressly provided, permission is hereby granted to photocopy this article for classroom use, provided that: (1) Copies are distributed at or below cost; (2) The author of the article and the Idaho Law Review are properly identified; (3) Proper notice of the copyright is affixed to each copy; and (4) Notice of the use is given to the Idaho Law Review. UNDERSTANDING THE 1984 SWAN FALLS SETTLEMENT CLIVE J. STRONG & MICHAEL C. ORR TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 224 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 226 III. THE SWAN FALLS CONTROVERSY AND SETTLEMENT ....................... 230 A. The Lawsuits ............................................................................................ 231 B. The Legislative Subordination Battle ....................................................... 234 C. The Negotiations ...................................................................................... 235 D. The Settlement “Framework” ................................................................... 237 E. The “Trust” Concept ................................................................................. 239
    [Show full text]
  • How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation
    NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETIN Technical information on the the National Register of Historic Places: survey, evaluation, registration, and preservation of cultural resources U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Cultural Resources National Register, History and Education How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to tribes. The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world. This material is partially based upon work conducted under a cooperative agreement with the National Conference ofState Historic Preservation Officers and the U.S. Department of the Interior. Date of publication: 1990; revised 1991, 1995, 1997. Revised for Internet 1995. Cover (Top Left) Criterion B - Frederick Douglass Home, Washington, D.C. From 1877- 1899, this was the home of Frederick Douglass, the former slave who rose to become a prominent author, abolitionist, editor, orator, and diplomat. (Walter Smalling, Jr.) (Top Right) Criterion D - Francis Canyon Ruin, Blanco vicinity, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. A fortified village site composed of 40 masonry-walled rooms arranged in a cluster of four house blocks. Constructed ca. 1716-17 42 for protection against raiding Utes and Comanches, the site has information potential related to Na­ vajo, Pueblo, and Spanish cultures.
    [Show full text]
  • Snake River Fall Chinook a Primer: 1900-1975
    Snake River Fall Chinook A Primer: 1900-1975 Mark Schuck – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Acknowledgements and note to the reader. The majority of the structure of the presentation was developed by Dr. Billy Connor (USFWS) and through extensive history research by Jim Chandler (Idaho Power Company). Additional insights and historical perspective were provided by several persons from numerous agencies involved with fall Chinook management {Stuart Rosenberger, IPC - GIS Division, Jay Hesse (NPT), Pete Hassemer (IDFG), and several other biologist and researchers that indirectly provided data for slides}. It was my privilege to assemble that information into this presentation. While some of the content from slides in the original presentation provided to the ISRP and attendees on August 6, 2013 will be included in this narrative and slide references are provided in the text that follows, I suggest the best approach to reviewing the history is to read this in concert with the slide presentation, available on the LSRCP website at: http://www.fws.gov/lsnakecomplan/ The purposes of this overview are: • Provide a history of the near demise of Snake Fall Chinook • Review the actions that resulted in the need for, and authorization of, the LSRCP in 1975 • Put everyone on the same plane so that they better understand fall Chinook history • Provide context to better evaluate the success or failure of the LSRCP fall Chinook program, because: We can’t know where we are going if we don’t know where we’ve been. Introduction Chinook are a cultural icon of the Pacific Northwest. King, Tyee or Chinook, the terms convey the aura of big hard fighting fish of the most splendid flavor.
    [Show full text]
  • Snake River Flow Augmentation Impact Analysis Appendix
    SNAKE RIVER FLOW AUGMENTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District’s Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Boise, Idaho February 1999 Acronyms and Abbreviations (Includes some common acronyms and abbreviations that may not appear in this document) 1427i A scenario in this analysis that provides up to 1,427,000 acre-feet of flow augmentation with large drawdown of Reclamation reservoirs. 1427r A scenario in this analysis that provides up to 1,427,000 acre-feet of flow augmentation with reservoir elevations maintained near current levels. BA Biological assessment BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis (U.S. Department of Commerce) BETTER Box Exchange Transport Temperature Ecology Reservoir (a water quality model) BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BID Burley Irrigation District BIOP Biological opinion BLM Bureau of Land Management B.P. Before present BPA Bonneville Power Administration CES Conservation Extension Service cfs Cubic feet per second Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CRFMP Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program CRP Conservation Reserve Program CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act CWA Clean Water Act DO Dissolved Oxygen Acronyms and Abbreviations (Includes some common acronyms and abbreviations that may not appear in this document) DREW Drawdown Regional Economic Workgroup DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane EIS Environmental Impact Statement EP Effective Precipitation EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ETAW Evapotranspiration of Applied Water FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FIRE Finance, investment, and real estate HCNRA Hells Canyon National Recreation Area HUC Hydrologic unit code I.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Swan Falls Project Consultation Appendix
    Idaho Power Company Consultation Technical Appendix CONSULTATION SUMMARY, RELATED CHARTS, AND CORRESPONDENCE APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE SWAN FALLS PROJECT FERC NO. 503 Narrative Summary of Idaho Power Company’s Consultation Efforts New License Application for the Swan Falls Hydroelectric Project Consultation Appendix Swan Falls Project June 2008 FERC No. 503 © 2008 Idaho Power Idaho Power Company Consultation Appendix TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i Introduction......................................................................................................................................1 Consultation Overview ....................................................................................................................1 Informal Consultation ......................................................................................................................2 First Stage Formal Consultation Pursuant to 18 CFR § 16.8...........................................................5 Formal Consultation Package, Including Study Recommendations—March 2005 ..................5 Aquatic Resources ...............................................................................................................5 Wildlife Resources...............................................................................................................6 Botanical Resources.............................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Water-Quality Assessment of the Upper Snake River Basin, Idaho and Western Wyoming Summary of Aquatic Biological Data for Surface Water Through 1992
    WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF THE UPPER SNAKE RIVER BASIN, IDAHO AND WESTERN WYOMING SUMMARY OF AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL DATA FOR SURFACE WATER THROUGH 1992 By TERRY R.MARET U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4006 Boise, Idaho 1995 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bruce Babbitt, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center 230 Collins Road Open-File Reports Section Boise, ID 83702-4520 Box 25286, MS 517 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 FOREWORD The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey Describe how water quality is changing over time. (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the Improve understanding of the primary natural and earth resources of the Nation and to provide informa­ human factors that affect water-quality conditions. tion that will assist resource managers and policymak- This information will help support the develop­ ers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound ment and evaluation of management, regulatory, and decisions. Assessment of water-quality conditions and monitoring decisions by other Federal, State, and local trends is an important part of this overall mission. agencies to protect, use, and enhance water resources. One of the greatest challenges faced by water- The goals of the NAWQA Program are being resources scientists is acquiring reliable information achieved through ongoing and proposed investigations that will guide the use and protection of the Nation's of 60 of the Nation's most important river basins and water resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Fisheries Losses in the Upper Snake River Basin in Idaho Attributable to Construction and Operation of Dams with Federal Hydropower Facilities
    ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES LOSSES IN THE UPPER SNAKE RIVER BASIN IN IDAHO ATTRIBUTABLE TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF DAMS WITH FEDERAL HYDROPOWER FACILITIES Idaho Department of Fish and Game IDFG Report Number 07-52 August 2007 ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES LOSSES IN THE UPPER SNAKE RIVER BASIN IN IDAHO ATTRIBUTABLE TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF DAMS WITH FEDERAL HYDROPOWER FACILITIES Prepared by: Idaho Department of Fish and Game 600 South Walnut Street P.O. Box 25 Boise, ID 83707 IDFG Report Number 07-52 August 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES LOSSES IN THE UPPER SNAKE RIVER BASIN IN IDAHO ATTRIBUTABLE TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF DAMS WITH FEDERAL HYDROPOWER FACILITIES................................................................................ 1 ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS.......................................................... 2 Anderson Ranch Dam and Reservoir ........................................................................................ 2 Black Canyon Dam and Reservoir............................................................................................. 3 Deadwood Dam and Reservoir.................................................................................................. 4 Boise River Diversion
    [Show full text]