ATTACHMENT A
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR’S PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS, PRESCRIPTIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FILED PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 4(e), 18, 10(j), AND 10(a) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT WITH THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION FOR THE SPOKANE RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AND POST FALLS HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT SPOKANE RIVER, IDAHO AND WASHINGTON
I. INTRODUCTION
The United States Department of the Interior (ADepartment@), including its component agencies the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Reclamation, is a party to the relicensing of the Spokane River Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2545-091, including the Post Falls Hydroelectric Development, FERC No. 12606-000 (Project). The Department has reviewed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission=s (“Commission@) Notice of Application Ready for Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions for the Project, located on the Spokane River in Idaho and Washington. The deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions with the Commission is July 17, 2006.
As outlined in detail below, the Department has numerous concerns associated with the Project=s continuing direct and indirect effects on fish and wildlife in and around the Project area, as well as the Project=s continuing direct and indirect effects on the natural, cultural, and recreational resources of the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation (Reservation). Pursuant to its authorities and responsibilities under sections 4(e), 18, 10(j), and 10(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Department has developed preliminary conditions, prescriptions, and recommendations that address these concerns. In this document, the Department identifies and explains these conditions, prescriptions, and recommendations, as well as their legal and evidentiary basis. The Department does not intend to object to issuance of a new license for the Project, provided its recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions are incorporated into the new license. The Department, however, reserves the right and opportunity to amend, modify or add to these recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions herein if resource conditions change, Project plans are altered, or new information is developed.
A. Project Description
The Spokane River Hydroelectric Project, including the Post Falls Hydroelectric Development (HED), is located on the Spokane River in portions of Steven and Lincoln counties in Washington and portions of Kootenai and Benewah counties in Idaho. The current license for the Project expires in August 2007. The Project is composed of five
1 hydroelectric developments which together have an installed capacity of 137.67 megawatts.
Post Falls HED, the most upstream of the developments, is located on the Spokane River at river mile 102, approximately 9 miles downstream of its headwaters at Lake Coeur d’Alene. Post Falls HED impounds the 9 miles of the Spokane River upstream, and controls the water levels in Lake Coeur d’Alene for six to seven months of each year. Post Falls HED creates an operating reservoir that encompasses Lake Coeur d’Alene, the lower portions of the St. Joe, St. Maries and Coeur d’Alene Rivers in Idaho, and the portion of the Spokane River between the lake outlet and the dam. The reservoir has a useable storage capacity of approximately 223,100 acre-feet. Post Falls HED includes three dams (north channel, middle channel and south channel), spillways along the top of the north and south channel dams, six penstocks, and a powerhouse integral to the middle channel. It has a total nameplate capacity of 14.75 megawatts.
Upper Falls HED is located downstream of Post Falls HED at river mile 74.2 in downtown Spokane, Washington. It creates a reservoir with a volume of 800 acre-feet and consists of two dams, a penstock and a single-unit powerhouse with a total nameplate capacity of 10 megawatts. Monroe Street HED is located just downstream of Upper Falls HED at river mile 74. It creates a 30 acre-foot reservoir, consists of a single, concrete gravity dam and has a single-unit powerhouse with a generator nameplate capacity of 14.82 megawatts. Nine Mile HED is located on the Spokane River at river mile 58. It consists of a single dam and associated powerhouse with a nameplate capacity of 26.4 megawatts. Long Lake HED is located approximately 24 miles downstream of Nine Mile HED. It creates a 23.5-mile-long reservoir (Lake Spokane) with a storage capacity of 105,080 acre-feet. Long Lake HED is a storage-type facility and consists of a 213-foot high main dam, a cutoff dam, four intake structures integral to the main dam, three penstocks and a powerhouse with four turbines and a total nameplate capacity of 71.7 megawatts.
B. Licensing history
The Spokane River Hydroelectric Project consists of five HEDs that were originally constructed between 1889 and 1922. When Post Falls HED, the dam located just nine miles downstream of the headwaters of the Spokane River at Lake Coeur d’Alene, was completed in 1906, nearly 6,000 acres of land on the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation were inundated.
Until 1965, these HEDs were unlicensed. In 1965, Avista Utilities (Avista) filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) to license four of the Project HEDs (Upper Falls, Monroe Street, Nine Mile and Long Lake). In the application, Avista contended that the Post Falls HED was exempt from licensing. In August 1972, the Commission issued Avista a license for the four HEDs but reserved for further consideration the issue of including Post Falls HED in the Project license. The Department intervened in the licensing proceeding in February 1973, and requested in its intervention that Post Falls HED be included in the Project license and that the
2 Commission fix a reasonable annual charge to be paid to the Coeur d’Alene Tribe for the use of inundated lands. The Coeur d’Alene Tribe also intervened in the proceeding, noting in its intervention that the Tribe had yet to receive compensation for the occupation and use by Avista of submerged lands within the Coeur d’Alene Reservation.
In July 1977, the Commission issued an order providing for hearing concerning the Commission’s jurisdiction over Post Falls HED. In 1979, as part of an uncontested offer of partial settlement, Avista agreed to include Post Falls HED in Project 2545. As part of that settlement agreement, the United States, the Tribe, and Avista agreed to litigate before an administrative law judge the ownership of submerged lands within the boundaries of the Coeur d’Alene Reservation.
On February 3, 1980, Avista filed an application to license the Post Falls HED. In April of that same year, an administrative law judge concluded that the submerged lands within the boundaries of the Coeur d’Alene Reservation passed to Idaho at statehood. On July 22, 1981, the Commission amended the Project license to include the Post Falls HED along with Lake Coeur d’Alene and its tributaries as part of the Spokane River Project No. 2545.1 In 1983, the Commission reversed the 1980 decision and concluded that Congress did not convey to Idaho on statehood a permanent occupancy right to the submerged lands within the Reservation. In 1988, the Commission ruled that it was without authority to determine title to ownership of submerged lands within the Reservation.
II. PRELIMINARY SECTION 4(e) CONDITIONS
Section 4(e) of the FPA provides that the Commission shall issue licenses within any federal reservation only after a finding by the Commission that the license will not interfere or be inconsistent with the purpose for which such reservation was created and acquired. 16 U.S.C. ' 797(e). Section 4(e) also provides that licenses for hydropower projects on federal reservations shall contain such conditions as the secretary of the department under whose supervision such reservation falls shall deem necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of such reservation. Thus, section 4(e) gives the Secretary of the Interior (ASecretary@) authority to impose conditions on licenses issued by the Commission for hydropower projects located on Areservations@ under the Secretary=s supervision. See 16 U.S.C. '' 796(2), 797(e); see also Escondido Mutual Water v. La Jolla Band of Mission Indians, 466 U.S. 765 (1984). According to the FPA, Areservations@ means:
national forests, tribal lands embraced within Indian reservations, military reservations, and other lands and interests in lands owned by the United States, and withdrawn, reserved, or withheld from private appropriation and disposal under the public land laws; also lands and interests in lands acquired and held for any public purposes; but shall not include national monuments or national parks.
1 16 FERC 62,096.
3 16 U.S.C. ' 796(2). The Project occupies lands owned by the United States, including approximately *** acres of Indian trust land on the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation, which is a reservation for purposes of the FPA. Accordingly, the Project license shall contain shall contain such conditions as the Secretary deems necessary for the adequate protection and utilization the Reservation.
The Coeur d’Alene Tribe, a legally constituted Indian Tribe recognized by the Department of the Interior and the United States Government, is headquartered within Idaho on the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation. Since time immemorial, the Tribe lived in a four million-acre area known as northern Idaho, eastern Washington and northwestern Montana. The heart of the Coeur d’Alene country has always been their lake and its three rivers, now known as Lake Coeur d’Alene and the St. Joe, Coeur d’Alene and Spokane Rivers. The Coeur d’Alene were a water people. Their villages were built around their lake and rivers. Resident fish were a mainstay of their diet as were small game and waterfowl that inhabited the area. The Coeur d’Alene gathered plants such as water potatoes from submerged lands as well as rushes and tule for baskets, mats and their lodges or homes. The lake and rivers were the Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s main transportation routes along with being central to the Tribe’s cultural, religious, economic, health, recreational, and burial practices. See Idaho v. United States, 533 U.S. 262, 265 (2001) (Idaho II) (“Tribal members traditionally used the lake and its related waterways for food, fiber, transportation, recreation, and cultural activities”), citing Judge Lodge’s findings, 95 F. Supp.2d 1094, 1099-1102 (D. Idaho 1998).
The Tribe has always depended upon the Coeur d’Alene-Spokane River Basin, including the entire Lake Coeur d’Alene and its tributaries, as well as their underlying submerged lands. The original Coeur d’Alene Reservation was established in 1873 by Executive Order of President Grant. That order adopted and endorsed the same Reservation boundaries fixed by an earlier 1873 bilateral Federal-Tribal Agreement not ratified by Congress. Idaho II, 533 U.S. at 266. As confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2001, this 1873 Agreement set aside for exclusive use of the Tribe the original Reservation boundaries including “part of the St. Joe River … and all of Lake Coeur d’Alene except a sliver cut off by the northern boundary.” Id. The 1873 Reservation included a portion of immemorial Tribal aboriginal territory extending from the upper Coeur d’Alene Basin down the Spokane River.
Prior to the State of Idaho’s admission to the Union in 1890, Congress had expressed its unequivocal intention that President Grant’s 1873 Order reserved for the Tribe’s exclusive occupancy and use virtually all submerged lands within the mutually agreed upon original Reservation. Id. at 267-281.2 Settlement pressures led to further bilateral agreements in 1887 and 1889, which were ratified and approved by Congress in 1891. By
2 The detailed historical findings in Idaho II demonstrate the absence of uncertainty by the Congress and the Executive Branch throughout the late 19th century that the Reservation’s boundaries, as originally defined in 1873 and as later modified in 1891, embraced dominion and sovereignty over submerged lands therein. Avista’s assertion to the contrary is flatly at odds with those findings. See Final Application by Avista for Post Falls Hydroelectric Project, filed July 28, 2005.
4 the 1887 Agreement, the Tribe ceded to the United States its aboriginal rights to occupy all lands outside the borders of the 1873 Reservation. The 1889 Agreement reduced those original boundaries. As found by the Supreme Court in 2001, the 1889 Agreement involved Tribal cession of “the northern portion of the [original] reservation,” with the “new boundary line, like the old one, [running] across the lake ….” 533 U.S. at 269-270.
In 2001, the Supreme Court also confirmed that, pursuant to the 1887 and 1889 Agreements, “the National Government holds title, in trust for the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, to [submerged] lands underlying portions of Lake Coeur d’Alene and the St. Joe River” within the current boundaries of the Reservation approved by Congress in 1891. Id. at 265. Those extant boundaries include the approximate southern third of the Lake and its tributaries.3
Consistent with the purposes of the Reservation, discussed above, and with the Secretary’s authority under section 4(e), the Department submits the following conditions that are necessary for the protection and utilization of the Reservation. Although all five of the hydroelectric developments of the Spokane River Project are currently licensed together as a single project, Avista has applied for separates: one for the Post Falls Hydroelectric Development (HED) and another for the other four HEDs. The Department opposes separate licenses because Avista operates all five of the Project HEDs in a coordinated manner and as a single project (See Attachment B). Because the Commission has not rendered a decision on this issue, however, the Department’s section 4(e) conditions reference the “Project,” generally. In the event that the Commission decides to continue to license these developments together in single license, the term “Project,” as used in the conditions, will refer to the Spokane River Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2545. On the other hand, if the Commission decides to issue a separate license for the Post Falls HED, the term “Project,” as used in the conditions, will refer to the Post Falls Hydroelectric Development, FERC No. 12606.
1. Spokane River Section 4(e) Implementation and Monitoring Plan and Annual Reporting
A. Section 4(e) Implementation and Monitoring Plan
1. Within 120 days after license issuance, the Licensee, in collaboration with the Department of the Interior and the Coeur d’Alene Indian Tribe (Tribe) shall prepare and submit for the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) an outline of a Section 4(e) Implementation and Monitoring Plan (IMP) providing specific information about how the Licensee intends to comply with the requirements specified in the Department’s Section
3 The Tribe asserts ownership of the northern two-thirds of Lake Coeur d' Alene, as well as approximately 2500 acres of submerged acres of land that are within the boundaries of the reservation but currently part of Heyburn State Park. These claims remain unresolved absent waiver of Idaho's sovereign immunity. See Idaho II; see also United States/Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. Idaho, 210 F.3d 1067, 1080 (9th Cir. 2000).
5 4(e) Conditions Nos. 2 through 7. In its submission, the Licensee shall include documentation of its collaboration with the above entities.
2. Subject to the same requirements as the outline described in paragraph (A)(1), the Licensee shall submit a final IMP within 1 year after license issuance. Subsequent to Secretarial approval, the Licensee shall submit the IMP to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission).
3. The IMP shall include the items listed below. More detail on what each item shall include is provided under the specific condition numbers listed in parentheses.
a. Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation Shoreline Erosion Control Plan (Condition No. 2); b. Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Condition No. 3); c. Cultural Resources Management Plan (Condition No. 4); d. Salmonid Fisheries Plan (Condition No. 5); e. Aquatic Weed Management Plan (Condition No. 6); f. Wetland and Riparian Habitat Plan (Condition No. 7).
4. In all elements of the IMP, the Licensee shall include:
a. Scientifically rigorous and current methodologies; b. Specifically quantified program goals; c. Criteria by which to measure progress towards program goals; d. Procedures for redirecting effort, including funding, as necessary under adaptive management to achieve the stated goals; e. Schedule for implementation of activities to achieve goals; f. A monitoring plan to evaluate progress towards achievement of goals; and g. A format for reporting annually, as required in paragraph (B), on i) progress made during the previous year and ii) the activities planned for the forthcoming year.
B. Annual Reporting
Each year on the anniversary date of the Secretary’s acceptance of the IMP, the Licensee shall submit to the Secretary an Annual Report detailing the work accomplished the previous year, progress made toward program goals, plans or suggestions to redirect effort per adaptive management with a detailed justification of why this is warranted, and documentation of collaboration with the Tribe and resource agencies and their responses.
1. The Annual Report shall include:
6 a. Technical progress report on shoreline erosion control including status of erosion control measures; GIS map of all erosion sites; status of pre-construction activities; updated implementation schedule for each site; and assessment of results of maintenance and monitoring activities (Condition No. 2); b. Results of water quality monitoring (Condition No. 3); c. Results of critical review of Water Quality Monitoring Plan in appropriate years and assessment regarding updating Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Condition No. 3); d. Results and documentation of water quality modeling in appropriate years (Condition No. 3); e. Summary of all activities performed under the Protection of Cultural Resources Condition including details of each project conducted and underway as well as recommendations for further treatment of cultural sites and properties (Condition No. 4); f. Results of salmonid escapement monitoring; progress towards tributary restoration; results of monitoring to support tributary restoration; progress towards restoration measures conducted in Coeur d’Alene Lake; progress towards establishment and stocking of ponds (Condition No. 5); g. Plans for completing the additional tributary restoration if necessary (Condition No. 5; Item (C)(1)(d)). h. Results of annual survey of aquatic weeds including maps; report on progress towards eradication, including overall effectiveness and cumulative impacts of management actions; and review of relevant case studies and literature on new weed management techniques and proposals for use on Coeur d’Alene Lake (Condition No. 6); i. All efforts and progress, including restoration and management plans, made in implementing the Wetland and Riparian Habitat Plan (Condition No. 7); j. An Annual Work Plan detailing the coming year’s expected activities. The work plan must provide sufficient detail for the Secretary to determine whether the Plan continues to provide for the protection and utilization of the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation (Reservation). The Annual Work Plan shall include but not be limited to: i) detailed information on methods to be employed; ii) schedule of activities; and iii) explanations of how planned activities will help attain program goals.
2. The Secretary will review the Annual Report and reserves the authority to accept, reject, or otherwise alter the document, in
7 whole or in part, to ensure the adequate protection and utilization of the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation. Subsequent to Secretarial acceptance of the Annual Report the Licensee shall submit the report to the Commission.
Justification
The IMP is a single comprehensive instrument by which the District will identify and describe to the Department and the Commission the steps the District plans to take to comply with certain of the Department=s conditions. The annual reporting process provides the Department and the Commission a means to both track the District=s compliance with the Department=s conditions and to implement adaptive management. As noted in the condition, the individual requirements of the IMP, as well as the justifications for those requirements, can be found within the individual conditions that follow. Similarly, annual reporting requirements are identified, where appropriate, in the individual conditions. With this condition, the Department has merely assembled those requirements in one location, providing the District a convenient reference.
2. Coeur d’Alene Lake and Tributary Shoreline Erosion Control
A. Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation Shoreline Erosion Control Plan
The Licensee shall, in collaboration with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe (Tribe), develop and submit for the review and approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) a Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation Shoreline Erosion Control Plan (Erosion Control Plan). The plan shall address erosion occurring on trust lands within the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation (Reservation) up to and including the 2,128-ft elevation and any uplands contiguous thereto. As part of the Erosion Control Plan, the Licensee shall:
1. Identify all existing erosion sites and designate as high priority those erosion sites in urgent need of repair (“high priority erosion sites”). The Licensee shall identify in detail all criteria used to make this designation. Such criteria shall include, but not be limited to, the effects of erosion on cultural resources; terrestrial, aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitats; water quality; and transport and deposition of heavy metals.
2. Include a map indicating the boundaries of each individually identified and numbered erosion site.
3. Include a complete physical description for each identified erosion site including the following:
a. measured dimensions and surface area of the current extent of erosion;
8 b. the estimated dimensions, including shoreline length, surface area, habitat type, and ecological function, that would, in the absence of erosion control, erode over the term of the license, along with the technical rationale for the estimate; c. a geotechnical characterization of the site and an assessment of site stability and factors contributing to instability; d. a minimum of one relocatable topographic survey transect; e. photographic documentation; and f. an elevation profile showing the 2,128-ft elevation and any uplands contiguous thereto.
4. Prepare a design of the erosion control measure (erosion control design) for each identified erosion site, including the following:
a. scale drawings and cross-sectional profile views of the erosion control design as an overlay on the existing topographic surface transect developed in accordance with part (A)(3)(d); b. estimation of the treatment surface area, quantity of treatment materials, and cost of constructing the erosion control measure; c. a schedule for implementation of all pre-construction, construction, maintenance and monitoring activities; d. estimation of the longevity of the erosion control measure and the frequency for reconstruction, if necessary, during the term of the new license; and e. technical analysis of the potential effects of the erosion control measure on cultural resources, terrestrial, aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitats, water quality, and transport and deposition of heavy metals.
5. Prepare and implement monitoring and maintenance procedures for each identified erosion site, including the following:
a. description of the monitoring techniques to assess the performance of the erosion control measure, which shall include but not be limited to, repeat photographic documentation, repeat shoreline profile transect surveys, and repeat vegetation survival and stem density measurements where revegetation is part of the erosion control design; b. frequency interval for monitoring; and, c. description of the potential maintenance activities needed and the criteria used to determine when maintenance will be performed, including any estimated reconstruction described in A(4)(d).
6. Describe all required pre-construction activities including, but not limited to, permitting, right-of way acquisitions, cultural resource surveys, and
9 other required approvals and authorizations to implement the erosion control measures, along with a schedule for implementation.
B. Implementation and Timelines
1. The Licensee shall prepare and submit the Erosion Control Plan in two parts:
a. Part I shall pertain to the high priority erosion sites identified in accordance with part (A)(1) and shall be submitted as part of the Section 4(e) Implementation and Monitoring Plan required by Condition No. 1;
b. Part II shall pertain to all other erosion sites identified in accordance with part (A)(1) and shall be submitted within two (2) years of license issuance.
2. For all high priority erosion sites designated in accordance with part (A)(1), the Licensee shall complete control measures within two (2) years of the Secretary’s acceptance of Part 1 of the Erosion Control Plan.
3. For all other erosion sites identified in accordance with part (A)(1), the Licensee shall complete the control measure within ten (10) years of the Secretary’s acceptance of Part II of the Erosion Control Plan.
C. Independent Erosion Expert
The Licensee shall contract with an independent third-party erosion control expert (erosion expert) approved by the Secretary and the Tribe to prepare and implement the Erosion Control Plan. The expert shall have, at a minimum, a B.S. degree in engineering, geology, or a closely related field and a minimum of 10 years of experience with both “soft” biotechnical (e.g., brush layering) and “hard” (e.g., rock rip-rap) erosion control methods.
D. Tribe Approval of Recommended Control Designs
1. Prior to submittal of the Erosion Control Plan to the Secretary in accordance with part (A), the Licensee shall submit for the Tribe’s approval all erosion control designs, developed in accordance with part (A)(4), for identified erosion sites on Trust lands.
2. The Tribe may accept or reject all submitted erosion control designs based on its evaluation of the following factors:
a. consistency with other Reservation resource protection and management objectives, including but not limited to cultural
10 resources; terrestrial, aquatic, riparian and wetland habitats; water quality; and transport and deposition of heavy metals.
b. technical analyses provided by the Licensee in accordance with parts (A)(4)(d) and (e)
3. The Tribe may accept or reject any erosion control design based on this evaluation. Any erosion control design that is not rejected within 90 days of receipt by the Tribe shall be deemed accepted by the Tribe for purposes of this condition.
4. If the Tribe rejects an erosion control design, the Licensee shall, in collaboration with the Tribe, restore or replace, preferably on the Reservation, an equivalent amount of shoreline length, surface area, habitat type, and ecological function that would, in the absence of erosion control, erode over the term of the license.
5. Any restoration or replacement of lands shall be done in collaboration with, and with prior approval of, the Tribe. Any land or interests in lands acquired pursuant to this condition shall be held for the term of the license, and any subsequent annual license, strictly for the purposes of replacing or restoring habitat consistent with the purposes of this condition.
C. Annual Reports
As part of the Annual Reports required in Condition No. 1, the Licensee shall provide a technical progress report including: status of erosion control measures for all erosion sites identified in accordance with part (A)(1); GIS mapping showing locations of all erosion sites; status of all pre-construction activities; an updated implementation schedule for each site; and an assessment of results of maintenance and monitoring activities performed in accordance with part (A)(5).
Justification
Please See Appendix A to these Conditions.
3. Water Quality Standards and Water Quality Monitoring
A. Applicable Water Quality Standards
The Licensee shall operate the Project so that at all times during the term of any license issued and any subsequent annual licenses, it does not contribute to exceedance of applicable numeric and narrative Federal, State, and Tribal water quality standards.
B. Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation Water Quality Monitoring Plan
11
As part of the IMP, the Licensee shall, in collaboration with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe (Tribe), develop and implement a Water Quality Monitoring Plan to discern and document the influence of the Project on water quality within the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation (Reservation) and the contribution of the Project to any exceedance of applicable Federal, State, and Tribal water quality standards. As part of the plan, the Licensee shall:
1. Monitor water quality parameters identified in part (B)(2) at the following sites:
a. mid-lake between University Point and Powderhorn Bay (historically referred to in recent USGS lake studies as site C4); b. mid-lake between Browns Point and north-end of Shingle Bay (historically referred to in recent USGS lake studies as site C5); c. Chatcolet Lake in the central portion of the deepest area (historically referred to in recent USGS lake studies as site C6); and d. the approximately 60-foot deep hole in the sharp bend upstream of USGS gage 12415140, St. Joe River near Chatcolet, Idaho (site to be referred to as SJ1).
2. Using submersible water quality instrumentation, develop profiles of water quality parameters, including temperature, specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, in situ chlorophyll fluorescence, and solar radiation, at each site. Profiles will be taken at 1 meter depth increments through the euphotic zone (defined as the depth to which 1% of incident solar radiation at the surface penetrates the water column). Profiles shall be conducted throughout the entire water column, precisely define the depth and magnitude of the thermocline, and thoroughly analyze the lower hypolimnion especially near the lake bottom at the following times:
a. during unstratified, pre-runoff conditions (March/April); b. during runoff (April/May); c. before onset of strong thermal stratification (mid June); d. during peak stratification (mid July); e. during peak stratification (mid August); f. in late summer (mid September); g. during breakdown of stratification (late October); and h. at or near the end of thermal stratification (late November/early December).
3. Using appropriate limnological/oceanographic equipment in accordance with sound limnological practices, collect water samples at each site at the times described in part (B)(2) as follows:
12 a. euphotic zone composite (defined as 3-4 evenly spaced samples taken from 0.5 m below the surface to the depth to which 1% of incident solar radiation at the surface penetrates, composited in a churn splitter); b. in the zone of maximum chlorophyll fluorescence; and c. 1 meter above the lake bottom.
4. Using appropriate quality assurance/quality control measures (such as field and equipment blank and duplicate samples), analyze the water samples collected pursuant to part (B)(3) for the following parameters (with the lowest detection limits attainable and at least those listed):
a. organic Nitrogen + ammonia (50 micrograms / L); b. nitrite (NO2) + nitrate (NO3) Nitrogen (10 micrograms / L); c. ammonia (NH3) (5 micrograms / L); d. total Phosphorus (5 micrograms / L); e. dissolved Phosphorus (10 micrograms / L); f. ortho Phosphorus (2 micrograms / L); g. chlorophyll a, only in Euphotic and Maximum Chlorophyll Zone samples (1 micrograms / L); h. Zinc (2 micrograms / L); i. Lead (3 micrograms / L); j. Cadmium (0.1 micrograms / L); and k. total hardness (expressed as milligrams / L calcium carbonate) l. Mercury; m. Arsenic; n. Antimony; o. Silver; p. Iron; q. Manganese; and r. Copper.
5. Collect phytoplankton and zooplankton samples from the euphotic zone at all sites on sampling occasions described in parts (B)(2)(c), (d), (e), and (f), and analyze these samples for taxa present (identified to species whenever possible), number of organisms present by species, and estimated biovolume by species.
6. Collect benthic invertebrate samples from lakebed sediments at each site on sampling occasions described in parts (B)(2)(a) and (d), and analyze these samples for taxa present and number of individuals by species.
7. Following sound limnological practices, maintain data using an electronic database and/or spreadsheet software, and report data in tabular, graphical and narrative formats.
13 8. Transmit to the Tribe all results of data collected in the field within three working days after collection or laboratory analysis by the Licensee, its agent(s) or subcontractor(s). The Licensee shall promptly respond to Tribal requests for additional information regarding such data. Upon Tribal request, the Licensee shall also promptly transmit to the Tribe copies of any drafts or work-products generated by the Licensee, its agent(s), or its subcontractor(s) that interpret, model, or otherwise analyze waters within the Project boundary.
9. Implement the plan within two (2) months of Secretarial approval. The Licensee shall report results of the water quality monitoring annually as required by Condition No. 1.
C. Monitoring Plan Review
1. The Licensee shall, in collaboration with the Tribe, conduct a critical review of the monitoring plan after 5 years and again after 10 years to assess whether data being collected adequately contributes to the purpose of examining and documenting the influence of the Project on water quality within the Reservation.
2. For the purpose in part (C)(1), the Licensee shall employ the services of a qualified, non-biased peer reviewer acceptable to the Tribe and the Secretary.
3. The Licensee shall include the results of this critical review as part of the annual report required by Condition No. 1, and shall include an assessment as to whether the monitoring plan should be updated based on this review, any new data, results of water quality modeling runs, data collection technologies, remediation technologies, or any other reason.
4. Any updates to the plan shall be made in collaboration with the Tribe and with the approval of the Secretary.
5. The Secretary may require additional monitoring stations if, upon review of data presented in the Annual Reports required by Condition 1, a greater level of water quality detail is necessary.
D. Water Quality Modeling At least every 5 years, the Licensee shall, in coordination and consensus with the Tribe, use suitable water quality models of the Project-affected waters above Post Falls Dam to assess the Project’s contribution to exceedance of applicable Federal, State, and Tribal standards. These modeling efforts shall be conducted with the best available scientific models at these respective times throughout the term of the license.
14 Justification
Please See Appendix B to these Conditions.
4. Protection of Cultural Resources
A. Geographic Scope
1. This condition shall apply to all pre-historic, proto-historic, and historic cultural resource sites, isolated artifacts, features and properties (cultural sites and properties), burial sites, and human remains located on the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation (Reservation) within the Project boundary and buffer area, and to Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) located within the area of TCP recording to be defined in the Traditional Cultural Property Pilot Study for Spokane River Project Hydro Relicensing, Coeur d’Alene Tribe Cultural Resources Management Report (TCP Pilot Study). The confidential draft of said study shall be submitted to the Commission within a reasonable period of time after the Licensee files with the Commission its final evaluation report of archeological inventory results.
2. The buffer area shall be defined as the greater of either: (a) 100 feet beyond the Project boundary on the Reservation; or (b) the Area of Potential Effects (APE) on Reservation. If a portion of a site falls within the buffer area, the Licensee shall consider the entire site for purposes of this condition.
B. Identification, Evaluation, Assessment and Treatment of Cultural Resource Sites
1. In consultation with the Tribe, including the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), and with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Licensee shall identify cultural sites and properties located on the Reservation within the Project boundary and buffer area.
2. The Licensee shall evaluate for eligibility on the National Register of Historic Places all identified cultural sites and properties located on the Reservation within the Project boundary and buffer area. In consultation with the THPO and the SHPO, and guided by the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines for Evaluation, the Licensee shall apply the National Register criteria (36 C.F.R. Part 60) to identified cultural sites and properties.
3. The Licensee shall assess effects of the Project on all cultural sites and properties located on the Reservation within the Project boundary and buffer area. If there are cultural sites and properties that may be affected by the Project, the Licensee shall immediately notify the Tribe, the THPO and the Secretary to invite their views on assessment of adverse effects. In meeting these requirements of this Condition, the Licensee, in consultation
15 with the Tribe, the THPO, the Secretary and the SHPO, shall apply the criteria of adverse effect (36 C.F.R. § 800.5(a.)(1)).
4. In collaboration with the Tribe, the Licensee, shall determine the appropriate treatment and protection of adversely affected cultural sites and properties located on the Reservation within the Project boundary and buffer area. In making this determination, the Licensee shall collaborate with the Tribe, the THPO, the Secretary and if applicable, the SHPO, to develop and evaluate alternatives or modifications to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects to cultural sites and properties.
C. Initial Cultural Resource Action Program
Within thirty (30) days after License issuance, the Licensee shall, in collaboration with the Tribe, develop and implement an Initial Cultural Resource Action Program to address immediate threats to cultural resources prior to the establishment of a Cultural Resource Management Plan. As part of the program, the Licensee shall:
1. Enter into an agreement with the Tribe to provide law enforcement to prevent unauthorized looting, collecting, vandalism and other destruction of cultural sites and properties corresponding to low water periods following regularly scheduled Project operations;
2. Conduct periodic monitoring of known cultural sites and properties on the Reservation within the Project boundary and buffer area to assess impacts from Project activities, recreational use, vandalism, erosion or any other impacts;
3. Continue on-going TCP inventory and evaluation consistent with the TCP Pilot Study and recommendations to be submitted by the Tribe to address information, treatment and preservation of significant TCPs and other cultural sites and properties located within the Reservation; and
4. Commence an ongoing cultural resource re-survey of the Reservation within the Project boundary and buffer area. The re-survey will be conducted at an annual rate of 12.5% per year.
D. Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation Cultural Resources Management Plan
Within one (1) year after license issuance, the Licensee shall, in collaboration with the Tribe and consultation with the THPO and SHPO, develop and submit to the Secretary for approval, a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP). The Licensee shall implement the plan immediately upon Secretarial approval. As part of the plan, the Licensee shall:
16 1. Complete the identification, evaluation, assessment and treatment of cultural sites and properties on the Reservation within the Project boundary and buffer area;
2. Re-survey Reservation lands within the Project boundary and buffer area at an annual rate of 12.5%;
3. Continuue on-going TCP inventory and evaluation beyond the TCP Pilot Study to address information, treatment and preservation of significant TCPs and other cultural sites and properties located within the Reservation;
4. Develop a Cultural Resources Research Design and Synthesis Plan to establish a rational and efficient approach to gathering and evaluating cultural sites and properties;
5. Enter into an agreement with the Tribe to provide law enforcement to prevent unauthorized looting, collecting, vandalism and other destruction of cultural sites and properties corresponding to low water periods following regularly scheduled Project operations;
6. Develop a program to educate the public about the importance of cultural sites and properties to the Tribe and to discourage unauthorized looting, collecting, vandalism and other destruction of cultural sites and properties corresponding to low water periods following regularly scheduled Project operations; and
7. Develop an emergency recovery plan for the efficient, timely and professionally acceptable treatment of inadvertent discovery of cultural sites and properties exposed and discovered as a result of Project operations.
E. Management of Material Remains and Records Recovered from Reservation Lands
1. The Licensee shall fund the initial processing, cataloging and accessioning of material remains and associated records recovered and developed as a result of cultural resource surveys or excavations on sites located on the Reservation within the Project boundary and buffer area pursuant to 36 CFR ' 79.7(d).
2. The Licensee shall fund the storage, inspection, inventory, maintenance and conservation of material remains and associated records recovered and developed as a result of cultural resource surveys or excavations on sites located on the Reservation within the Project boundary and buffer area pursuant to the requirements of 36 C.F.R. ' 79.7(d).
17
3. The Licensee shall fund the long-term curatorial services described in parts (A) and (B) in a suitable repository that meets the requirements of 36 C.F.R. ' 79.9. So long as the Tribe maintains a suitable repository on the Reservation, the Licensee shall fund the storage in that Tribal facility of all collections of material remains and associated records recovered from lands located on the Reservation within the Project boundary and buffer area. The Licensee shall fund any necessary upgrade and expansion, as well as related operation and maintenance, of the Tribe’s existing cultural resources facility, located in Plummer, Idaho, to meet the requirements of 36 C.F.R. ' 79.9.
F. Human Remains
1. The Licensee shall avoid disturbance of any human skeletal remains or graves known to exist on lands located on the Reservation within the Project boundary and buffer area. Prior to conducting any ground- disturbing activities on such lands, the Licensee shall contact the Tribe officials to initiate monitoring.
2. If, as a result of either Project operation or compliance with any condition of the license, the Licensee disinters or discovers human remains or graves on lands located on the Reservation within the Project boundary and buffer area, the following conditions shall apply:
a. The Licensee shall immediately cease work in the area of the disinterment or discovery; shall promptly protect the remains from public view and from exposure to weather; and shall immediately notify Tribal officials.
b. The Licensee, at its own expense, shall promptly retain a qualified archaeologist to determine whether any additional human remains exist in the area of the discovered human remains. If so, the archaeologist shall also determine whether, as a result of either the Licensee=s operation of the Project or its compliance with any condition of the license, the additional human remains are in danger of being disinterred or damaged.
c. The Licensee shall immediately collaborate with the Tribe to determine appropriate measures, including but not limited to appropriate temporary modifications to Project operations, necessary to secure, protect and prevent additional damage to any identified remains or associated graves or cemeteries. All measures to treat and protect human remains and graves shall be undertaken with strict adherence to all applicable Federal, State, and Tribal laws regarding the treatment of human remains. Such
18 laws include, but are not limited to, the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.; 43 C.F.R. § 10), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C.§§ 470aa-mm) and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. §§471 et seq.
G. As part of the Annual Report required by Condition No. 1, the Licensee shall present a summary of all activities performed under this Condition during the previous year, including details of each project conducted and underway, as well as recommendations for further treatment of cultural sites and properties. The Licensee shall provide copies of the report to the Secretary, the Tribe, the THPO and the SHPO.
Justification
Please See Appendix C to these Conditions.
5. Salmonid Fisheries
A. Salmonid Fisheries Plan
As part of the Section 4(e) Implementation and Monitoring Plan required by Condition No. 1, the Licensee, in collaboration with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe (Tribe) and collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall develop a Salmonid Fisheries Plan (Plan) detailing the methods and schedules the Licensee will use to achieve the following:
1. Escapement targets for westslope cutthroat trout and mountain whitefish (part (B));
2. Restoration of tributaries on the Coeur d’Alene Reservation (Reservation) to mitigate for the tributaries to Coeur d’Alene Lake (Lake) inundated by the Project (part (C)(1));
3. Restoration measures within the Lake (part (C)(2)); and
4. Supplemental fishing ponds on the Reservation to provide harvestable fish for the Tribe until such time as escapement targets are met (part (D)).
B. Escapement Targets
1. The Licensee shall monitor salmonid escapement on tributaries on the Reservation to achieve salmonid escapement targets identified in Table 1.
Table 1. Salmonid escapement targetsa.
19 Westslope Cutthroat Trout Mountain Whitefish
3,923 adfluvial adults/year 3,923 adults/year
a The number of breeding adult fish as indicated by returning spawners. This condition focuses on the southern arm of Coeur d'Alene Lake which is managed by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe. These totals are a composite of escapement for all tributaries on the Reservation with the caveat that no one tributary can have fewer than 100 returning adult spawners.
2. Escapement shall be estimated using upstream and downstream migrant counts. A minimum of 500 juvenile outmigrating fish per tributary longer than 90 mm total length shall be marked or tagged at capture. Tagging procedures shall be chosen to allow identification of natal/home tributary, year of first tagging, and within-lake survival for individually marked fish. Upstream migrating fish shall be counted and measured, but shall not be tagged. In subsequent years, upstream migrating adults shall be examined for existing tags.
3. For purposes of this condition, the Licensee shall consider to be adfluvial any tagged fish captured moving upstream out of the Lake into a tributary near the tributary mouth; the Licensee shall consider to be adfluvial any westslope cutthroat trout larger than 325 mm total length caught in any trap.
C. Restoration of Native Salmonids
In order to achieve the escapement targets identified in Table 1, and to restore naturally producing fish populations, the Licensee shall conduct tributary restoration and in-lake measures as follows. Priority levels for tributary and lake enhancement measures and supplementation shall be weighted in accordance with strategies identified, and the implementation schedule set forth in the Salmonid Fisheries Plan.
1. Tributary Restoration
a. The Licensee shall, in collaboration with the Tribe, calculate the number of tributary miles inundated by the Project around the Lake i) within the boundaries of the Reservation, and ii) outside the Reservation but within the Project boundary.
b. The Licensee shall restore the number of tributary miles calculated in accordance with Part (C)(1)(a)(i) above to provide suitable habitat for native salmonids. Tributary restoration shall be completed at a minimum rate of 2 miles per year; with all restoration completed 10 years after Secretarial acceptance of the Plan. Restoration activities shall occur entirely on tributaries to
20 Coeur d'Alene Lake, with first priority given to those tributaries within the Reservation. c. Restoration measures may include but are not limited to, instream and riparian restoration, conservation and maintenance, removal of impassable barriers, purchase of land or conservation easements, exotic species control, and supplementation. d. Tributary restoration shall contain the following elements:
i. Representative reaches of each restoration site shall be monitored at least once prior to on-the-ground restoration activities. Post-restoration monitoring shall occur no less frequently than once annually for a minimum of three years; ii. Restoration shall be considered achieved when annual stream monitoring demonstrates a score of 85% or greater of reference for streams in the Coeur d'Alene region as defined in the Plan; iii. Monitoring methods shall be chosen based on relevancy for the Coeur d'Alene region, consistency with available reference stream data sets, and shall represent best current science; and iv. Annual monitoring results and site trends shall be incorporated into the Annual Report required by Condition No. 1. e. If after all restoration is complete pursuant to part (C)(1)(b) above, escapement is less than 20% of the targets in Table 1 at that time, less than 25% of the targets 15 years after Secretarial acceptance of the plan, less than 50% of the targets 20 years after Secretarial acceptance of the plan, or less than 100% of the targets 25 years after Secretarial acceptance of the plan, the Licensee shall restore the number of tributary miles inundated by the Project outside of the Reservation, as calculated in accordance with Part (C) (1)(a)(ii), to provide suitable habitat for native salmonids. Such additional restoration activities shall occur entirely on tributaries to the Lake, with first priority given to restoration of such tributaries within the Reservation. Plans for completing the additional tributary restoration shall be developed in collaboration with the Tribe and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with concurrence by the Secretary, and shall be included in the Annual Report required by Condition No. 1 for that year. Additional tributary habitat restoration shall be subject to parts (C)(1)(c) and (d) of this condition.
21 f. When the targets in Table 1 have been met for 5 or more consecutive years, the Licensee is no longer responsible for additional tributary restoration, but shall continue to provide for operation, maintenance and monitoring of the success of restoration projects completed under this condition.
2. Lake Measures
The Licensee shall also conduct measures in Coeur d’Alene Lake to maximize chances to achieve escapement targets in Table 1. Such measures may include, but not be limited to, predator control and supplementation of target species of appropriate genetic stock.
D. Supplemental Fishing Opportunities
1. Within three years of License issuance, the Licensee shall, in cooperation with the Tribe, establish five (5) pond sites on the Reservation adequate to supplement salmonid harvest opportunities until adfluvial fish targets are met.
2. To prevent genetic introgression and potential spread of disease, all ponds shall be closed basin fisheries with no live water outlet or inlet to allow pond fish to escape into another water body. No ponds shall be located in drainages where westslope cutthroat trout restoration is occurring.
3. Ponds shall be stocked to maintain a minimum catchable fish density of 5,000 lbs. of fish/hectare. Total stocking per year shall be equal to 10,000 lbs. of catchable size salmonid fish.
4. Fish stocking required of the Licensee shall be reduced proportionately when escapement reaches 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of the targets in Table 1, respectively
5. Acceptable fish species for stocking include rainbow trout, westslope cutthroat trout and mountain whitefish.
6. Each pond site shall include adequate access and sanitation facilities. Costs for acquiring suitable land for the pond sites, fish for stocking each pond, and annual maintenance shall be borne by the Licensee.
E. The Licensee shall obtain all necessary permits and shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and Tribal planning requirements, including the National Environmental Policy Act.
22 F. The Secretary reserves the authority, in consultation with the Tribe, to modify target levels during the license period based on results of escapement surveys, population response to tributary enhancement and supplementation measures, fisheries management strategy changes and new information that may become available. In the event the Secretary makes such modifications, the Licensee shall modify the Salmonid Fisheries Plan accordingly.
Justification
Please See Appendix D to these Conditions.
6. Aquatic Weed Management
A. As part of the Section 4(e) Implementation and Monitoring Plan (IMP) required by Condition No. 1, the Licensee shall, in collaboration the Coeur d’Alene Tribe (Tribe), develop and implement a Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation Aquatic Weed Management Plan to eradicate exotic and noxious aquatic weeds in waters affected by the Project that are within and adjoining the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation (Reservation). As part of the plan, the Licensee shall:
1. Conduct annual surveys each fall using divers or appropriate underwater video equipment to identify, assess and map infestation and distribution of exotic and noxious aquatic weeds, such as, but not limited to, Eurasian watermilfoil;
2. Formulate management actions, based on results of annual surveys, specific to each identified weed for implementation the following spring during the growing season. Management actions shall include, but are not limited to, public awareness and education, appropriate and approved herbicide treatment, diver-operated suction removal, diver hand removal and bottom barriers;
3. Provide a schedule for annual surveying and implementation of management actions;
4. Coordinate management actions with management of other resources, including but not limited to effects on cultural resources and properties; terrestrial, aquatic, riparian and wetland habitat; water quality; wildlife; fisheries; recreation; and transport and deposition of heavy metals; and
5. Develop criteria to measure progress towards eradication of each identified weed.
B. The Licensee shall implement the plan the first fall after approval by the Secretary of the Interior.
23 C. As part of the Annual Report required in Condition No. 1, the Licensee shall include:
1. an annual survey report with a list and map of all aquatic weeds encountered during the survey and updated maps of aquatic weed infestation and distribution;
2. a report on progress toward eradication, including the overall effectiveness and cumulative impacts of management actions; and
3. a review of relevant case studies and literature, if available, identifying and assessing new weed management techniques and proposals for use on Coeur d’Alene Lake.
Justification
Please See Appendix E to these Conditions.
7. Wetland and Riparian Habitat Replacement and Maintenance
A. As part of the Section 4(e) Implementation and Monitoring Plan required by Condition No. 1, the Licensee shall, in collaboration with the Tribe, develop and implement a Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation Wetland and Riparian Habitat Plan (WRHP). As part of the plan, the Licensee shall:
1. Determine the total acreage and ecological function of forested, scrub- shrub, and/or emergent wetlands lost on the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation (Reservation) between the elevations of 2120 and 2128 feet;
2. Develope restoration and management procedures for each identified parcel, including monitoring and operation and maintenance for the duration of any license; and
3. Restore or replace the lost wetlands determined in accordance with part (A)(1) on lands within the Reservation.
a. If insufficient lands suitable for wetland replacement exist on the Reservation for purposes of this part, the Licensee may use lands it owns or acquires off the Reservation after receiving concurrence from the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) and the Tribe.
b. If insufficient lands suitable for wetland replacement exist on or off the Reservation for purposes of this part, the Licensee may use uplands on the Reservation; provided the protection and management of such uplands will enhance aquatic functions and increase the overall ecological functioning of replaced wetlands or of other aquatic resources within the watershed.
24
c. If insufficient lands suitable for upland replacement exist on the Reservation for purposes of this part, the Licensee may use lands it owns or acquires off the Reservation after receiving concurrence from the Secretary and the Tribe; provided the protection and management of such uplands will enhance aquatic functions and increase the overall ecological functioning of the replaced wetlands or of other aquatic resources within the watershed.
4. Any restoration or replacement of lands shall be done in collaboration with, and with prior approval of, the Tribe. Any land or interests in lands acquired pursuant to this condition shall be held for the term of the license, and any subsequent annual license, strictly for the purposes of restoring and replacing wetlands or uplands consistent with the purposes of this condition.
B. Within ten (10) years of license issuance, the Licensee shall identify, or acquire if necessary, all lands suitable for wetland and/or upland replacement in accordance with part (A)(2). C. Within 6 months of identifying, or acquiring if necessary, lands in accordance with part B, the Licensee shall, in collaboration and consensus with the Tribe, develop a restoration and management plan for each parcel that includes monitoring and operation and maintenance for the duration of the license and any annual licenses. The Licensee shall include such plans as part of the Annual Report required by Condition No. 1. D. Lands identified for wetland and/or upland replacement shall be considered restored or replaced upon meeting the performance criteria in the Attachment A to Appendix F.
E. In the Annual Report required by Condition No. 1, the Licensee shall report all efforts and progress made in implementing the WRHP and in achieving wetlands and/or uplands restoration, replacement or acquisition.
Justification
Please See Appendix F to these Conditions.
8. Collaboration and Dispute Resolution
A. For purposes of these conditions, collaboration is understood to be a system of decision making in which the Licensee and the Tribe work together to formulate plans and actions that are acceptable to both parties. When required to act “in collaboration with” the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, the Licensee shall, at the outset and continuously throughout the required action, attempt to reach consensus with the Tribe on all matters, engaging the Tribe cooperatively; seeking the Tribe’s expertise; sharing data, reports, studies and other information with the Tribe openly and in a timely manner; allowing the Tribe meaningful opportunities to
25 provide input; and conducting all compliance activities in a transparent manner to the benefit of both the Tribe and the Licensee.
B. If at any time the Tribe contends that the Licensee has not lived up to the idea of collaboration described above, or the Licensee contends that the Tribe has not reciprocated the same, either party may in writing, raise a dispute to the other parties. Upon receipt of a written dispute, the parties shall engage in good faith discussions to attempt to resolve the dispute for a period not to exceed 10 business days from the date that the written dispute is received, or such longer period by mutual agreement.
a. In the event that the Licensee and the Tribe cannot resolve a disputed technical or scientific issue, the Licensee shall, at its own expense, engage in a process of peer review by a mutually agreed upon and qualified expert. Within 30 days after the parties refer an appropriate dispute for peer review, the experts selected shall conclude their written analysis of the disputed science and provide a written opinion to the parties and the Commission.
b. In the event that the Licensee and the Tribe cannot resolve a disputed issue of law or policy, the Licensee shall, at its own expense, retain a mutually agreed upon third-party facilitator with expertise in the disputed matter. The parties and the facilitator shall agree on the means and schedule for achieving resolution under this process. In the event that such facilitation does not resolve the disputed matter, the parties shall retain all rights to pursue available judicial and administrative remedies under applicable law governing enforcement of these conditions.
Justification
The Department’s Section 4(e) conditions require planning and actions that will affect both the Avista and the Tribe, as well as the Reservation. Avista has the responsibility to properly implement these conditions to protect the Reservation. The Tribe has a capable, trained staff with unique and extensive experience and expertise in the protection and management of the Reservation and its natural and cultural resources. Accordingly, both the Company and the Tribe shall collaborate and work together in carrying out these conditions. The Department views the effective implementation of these conditions to depend upon the parties’ mutual understanding that collaboration requires a system of decision making in which the Licensee and the Tribe work together to formulate plans and actions that are acceptable to both parties. See generally, Crapo, “Collaboration as a Means to Formulating Mutually Beneficial Environmental Policy,” 41 Harv. J. on Legis. 351 (2004).
In these circumstances, collaboration should achieve the most effective, meaningful, efficient and cost-effective results. Collaboration will enhance Avista’s exposure to and familiarity with the Tribe’s perspective on its culture, natural resources, and protection and utilization of the Reservation. The Tribe must have a basic understanding of the
26 processes, concerns and perspectives of the Company. Each party must provide the technical information necessary to inform analysis, planning and implementation of the conditions. Working together should help avoid misunderstandings, miscommunication, and misperception. By working together, Avista and the Tribe can develop mutually acceptable solutions that produce stable outcomes, while fostering a necessary, long-term relationship and the foundation for future cooperation.
In the event collaboration cannot resolve differences, the parties may invoke a simple and efficient dispute resolution process. On technical or scientific issues the parties may utilize expert peer review to resolve the disputed issue. On disputed issues of law or policy, a facilitator shall attempt resolution with the parties. If facilitation fails to resolve the disputed matter, the parties are free to pursue legal remedies consistent with Section 4(e).
9. Filing With the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
For purposes of these conditions, whenever the Licensee is required to submit a plan, report, or program for the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, the Licensee shall obtain such approval before filing the plan with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Justification
The Department’s Section 4(e) conditions contained herein are those deemed necessary for the protection and utilization of the Reservation. Accordingly, it is appropriate that plans and reports Avista develops in compliance with these conditions be reviewed and approved by the Secretary or his designee. In the Department’s experience, however, other licensees subject to similar conditions and requirements have taken to the practice of filing plans and reports with the Commission at the same time they submit such plans and reports for the Secretary’s approval. The Department disagrees with this practice because it tends to create appearance that the filing has actually been approved, potentially creating significant confusion with the Commission and the public. In an effort to avoid this confusion, the Department is requiring that Avista obtain approval of plans and reports submitted in compliance with these conditions before it files them with the Commission.
10. Notice
For purposes of these conditions, whenever the Licensee is required to give notice to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) or the Coeur d’Alene Tribe (Tribe), or when notice may be required pursuant to dispute resolution procedures set forth in Condition No. 8, the following shall constitute notice:
A. Written notice to the Secretary or the Secretary’s designee.
27 B. Written notice to the Tribe, the Chairman of the Tribal council, the administrative director of the Tribe, and the Director of the Tribe’s Natural Resources Department.
C. In the event of an emergency requiring immediate notice to any of the above, a phone call to the above-mentioned parties, as appropriate, followed by written notice required by this Condition.
Justification
Several of the Department’s section 4(e) Conditions require that either or both the Secretary or the Tribe to be notified. This condition sets out a protocol by which such notice should occur. Notification is necessary to keep the Tribe informed about actions affecting resources of the Reservation and it is appropriate that the Tribe define what constitutes notice.
11. Inspection
The Licensee shall allow representatives of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe (“Tribe”) and the Department of the Interior (Department) access to, through, and across the Project lands and works for the purpose of inspecting facilities and monitoring data to ensure compliance with license conditions; provided that representatives of the Tribe and the Department show proper credentials, give the Licensee advanced notice of such inspections, and follow the Licensee’s standard safety procedure when engaged in such inspections.
Justification
The Reservation is impacted, both directly and indirectly, by the operation of the Project. The Project impoundment is located upon Reservation lands and thus directly impacts shorelines, water quality, native fish populations, and cultural resource sites. The Department has developed conditions that it has concluded are necessary to address these impacts and provide for the protection and utilization of the Reservation. Both the Tribe and the Department have a vested interest in seeing that Avista is meeting the requirements of these conditions. It is imperative, therefore, that the Tribe and the Department be allowed to access the Project to ensure that the District is complying with these conditions.
12. Secretarial Approval
For purposes of these conditions, whenever the Licensee is required to obtain the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), the Secretary or his designee may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the Licensee’s submission. In the event the Secretary rejects the Licensee’s submission, or any portion of it, the Licensee shall have 45 days to resubmit the rejected portion.
28 Justification:
Various conditions require that the District submit plans for Secretarial approval. This condition establishes a process through which Avista may resubmit information that is rejected upon submission. The Department will allow Avista 45 days to resubmit information in those instances. Instead of including language describing this new addition in each condition, however, the Department decided it would be more efficient to include it in one place and to make it applicable to all relevant conditions.
13. Consistency with Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act
The Licensee’s performance of all requirements of these conditions shall be consistent with the purposes of section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 797(e), to provide for the adequate protection and utilization of the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation (Reservation) and to ensure that the Project does not interfere or is not inconsistent with the purposes for which the Reservation was established.
Justification:
The notion that Avista’s performance of the requirements of the conditions be consistent with the Federal Power Act is implicit. This condition merely makes this notion explicit.
14. Reservation of Tribal Rights
Nothing in these conditions is intended to or shall modify or alter any rights held by the Coeur d’Alene Tribe under applicable Federal or Tribal law.
15. Secretarial Authority
A. Regardless of whether a condition requires review or approval by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), the Secretary reserves the authority to review the Licensee’s compliance with any requirement of these conditions. In the event that the Licensee is not in compliance with any requirement of these conditions, the Secretary may seek such permissible remedies as provided by the Federal Power Act and other applicable law.
B. The Licensee shall implement, upon order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, such additional measures as may be identified by the Secretary, pursuant to the authority provided in section 4(e), as necessary to ensure the adequate protection and utilization of the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation.
Justification:
Paragraph (A) of this condition reserves to the Secretary the right to seek enforcement of these conditions in the event that he determines that the District is not in compliance. This right, of course, is implicit, and this condition merely makes it explicit.
29
Paragraph (B) contains a general reservation of authority allowing the Secretary to consider additional data and other information as it becomes available during the license term and, potentially, to modify the existing section 4(e) conditions or prescribe additional conditions that may be necessary to provide for the adequate protection and utilization of the Reservation. The Department has done its best to analyze the impacts of the Project and to develop measures to mitigate for those impacts that will occur during the new license term. As long as Avista operates the Project according to the terms set out in its license application, and as long as it is in compliance with these and other conditions of its license, the Department does not anticipate that it would need to seek additional measures for the adequate protection and utilization of the Reservation. The Department’s ability to predict the future, however, is necessarily limited. Changes in the way the project is operated, new information about the Project or the resources it affects, new technology, and changes in applicable law are future contingencies for which the Department cannot plan. As Trustee, the Department must be able to respond to such contingencies.
While the reservation of section 4(e) authority has not been reviewed by the courts, Courts have upheld the ability of the Commission to reserve authority to modify license conditions during the term of a license to meet its obligations under section 10, and to enable the Secretary of the Interior to meet his obligations under section 18. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation v. FERC, 32 F.3d 1165, 1169 (7th Cir. 1994); American Rivers v. FERC, 201 F.3d 1186, 1206 (9th Cir. 1999). A similar rationale applies to the Department’s mandatory authority under section 4(e). Ample legislative history supports the conclusion that, in establishing the Commission’s role under the Federal Power Act, Congress wanted the Secretary to continue to play the major role in determining what conditions would be included in licenses to protect the resources of Indian reservations. See, Escondido, 466 U.S. 775. Thus, Congress has already decided that protective conditions may be necessary with respect to power projects that occupy Indian reservations, and Congress has delegated to the Secretary the authority to determine when and if such conditions are necessary.
III. RESERVATION OF AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE FISHWAYS PURSUANT TO SECTION 18 OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT
Section 18 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 811) states in part that “the Commission shall require the construction, maintenance, and operation by a licensee of ... such fishways as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of Interior.” Section 1701(b) of the National Energy Policy Act of 1992, P.L. 102-486, provides guidance as to what constitutes a fishway. Section 1701(b) states: “The items which may constitute ‘fishways’ under section 18 for the safe and timely upstream and downstream passage of fish shall be limited to physical structures, facilities, or devices necessary to maintain all life stages of such fish, and Project operations and measures related to such structures, facilities, or devices which are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of such structures, facilities, or devices, for such fish.”
30 At this time, fish passage at the Spokane River Project and the Post Falls Project is not a management priority. Accordingly, the Department proposes to exercise its statutory authority pursuant to Section 18 of the FPA, as amended, by reserving the authority to prescribe the construction, operation, and maintenance of fishways in the future during the term of the license. Therefore, the Department prescribes the following condition for inclusion in any license the Commission may issue for Project No. 12606-000 and Project No. 2545-091:
Authority is reserved for the Department of the Interior, as delegated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to prescribe the construction, operation, and maintenance of fishways at the Spokane River Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 2545-091, and the Post Falls Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 12606-000, as appropriate, pursuant to Section 18 of the Federal Power Act, as amended. This reservation includes, but is not limited to, authority to prescribe fishways for any fish species to be managed, enhanced, protected, or restored to the Spokane River and Coeur d’Alene River basins during the terms of the license(s).
Because the Department is reserving the Secretary's section 18 authority to prescribe fishways, the Department will not provide hearing or alternative review processes at this time, 70 Fed. Reg. 69829 (43 C.F.R. 4 45.l(c)). The Department will provide such processes if (and when) the Department exercises its reserved Section 18 authority during the term(s) of the license(s) issued in this proceeding.
IV. RECOMMENDED LICENSE CONDITIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 10(j) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT
The following fish and wildlife recommendations were developed to support regional fish an wildlife resource management goals and objectives in the Upper Coeur d’Alene, Coeur d’Alene Lake, St Joe, Upper Spokane and Lower Spokane Sub-basins in Idaho and Washington (NPCC 2004), and are consistent with the goals and objectives articulated in the Service’s Bull trout recovery plan (USFWS 2002). The Service’s highest priority for the next licensing period is to implement conservation measures to support the recovery of federally listed threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus); implement measures to support the conservation an development of westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi), a State of Idaho species of special concern (IDFG 2006); compensate for the continuing loss of riparian habitat and other wildlife habitat either inundated or affected by project operations, including that of the federally listed threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus); and to ensure increasing human activities and developments associated with the reservoirs do not negatively affect wildlife use and productivity in the project area.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 10(j) FPA (16 U.S.C. 791 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Service recommends that the Commission include in the new project licenses the following terms and conditions to protect, mitigate damages to, and enhance fish and wildlife resource values. The Service has prepared these recommended terms and conditions based on current information
31 regarding the proposed relicensing of the Post Falls and Spokane River Hydroelectric Projects. As more detailed plans are developed, new information becomes available, and project operations begin under a new license, deficiencies may be observed and modifications to these fish and wildlife recommendations may become necessary. The Service, therefore, reserves the right to amend these section 10(j) fish and wildlife recommendations as needed to be consistent with finalized design plans, new information developed as a result of the Commission’s environmental review process, or to correct deficiencies or problems found during post-licensing monitoring or evaluations.
We encourage the Commission and the applicant to continue consultation and coordination with Service regarding means and measures to ameliorate the projects’ effects on fish and wildlife and other environmental values. If Commission determines that any of the section 10(j) fish and wildlife recommendations provided herein are inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA, as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act, then the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office, 11103 East Montgomery Drive, Spokane, Washington 99206, Telephone: (509) 891-6839, should be contacted to resolve the inconsistencies prior to issuance of the licenses. Lastly, the Service recommends that the Commission initiate informal consultation discussions with the Service directly to jointly determine information needs to comply with Section 7 of the ESA on these licensing actions.
The following section 10(j) recommendations apply specifically to the Post Falls Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 12606-000:
1. Post Falls Hydroelectric Project Ramping Rates. The Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources, operate Post Falls Hydroelectric Project to ensure that there would be no more than a 4 inch drop per hour in downstream water levels at the USGS gaging station (12419000) as described in SRP- AR-1 (Part 3) (Avista 2005d: pp B-20).
Justification: The Service concurs with the applicant’s proposal to limit ramping rates at the Post Falls Hydroelectric Project to no more than a 4 inch drop per hour in downstream water levels at the USGS gaging station (12419000), and recommends that the Commission include this proposed environmental measure as an article in the new license. Currently, no site specific data are available to quantify the effects of current Post Falls downramping on fish in the Spokane River (Avista 2005d: pp 5-159). However, according to the applicant, the stranding of fish in the Spokane River is an unavoidable adverse effect of continued project operations regardless of the operational mode of the Post Falls and other project developments (Avista 2005a: pp 5-157). Adverse effects in downstream waters occur during decreasing flows primarily through the dewatering of spawning redds and the stranding of small fish in shallow-water or isolated habitats when flows decline rapidly. In the Spokane River, rainbow trout fry and juveniles would likely be the life stages most susceptible to rapidly declining river flows and become stranded in shallow water or isolated habitats. The current license for Post Falls does not require a minimum down-ramping rate for the Spokane River below the
32 project. The applicant’s proposal to limit ramping rates at the Post Falls Project to no more than a 4 inch drop per hour in would provide enhanced protection and minimize the stranding and entrapment of fish downstream from the project.
2. Coeur d’Alene Lake and Tributary Erosion Control and Wetland and Riparian Habitat Protection and Enhancement. The Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources, implement the Coeur d’Alene Lake and Tributary Erosion Control and Wetland and Riparian Habitat Protection and Enhancement measures described in PF-TR-1 (Avista 2005d: pp B-41 through B-45). In addition, the Licensee shall, within one year after license issuance and in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe (Tribe), develop a plan to restore 532 acres of wetlands classified as palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous (PFO1)4 and 250 acres of wetlands classified as palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) wetlands to offset the modification, loss, and/or degradation of wetlands due to the continued operation of the Post Falls Hydroelectric Project. Any bank protection work associated with this recommendation shall be designed so it is not detrimental to native salmonids. The wetland restoration effort shall be located in the floodplains of the following waters and associated Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) as defined by USGS (1981) upstream of the Post Falls Project and in the priority areas indicated below:
• (1st priority) St Joe River and St Maries River floodplain (within HUC # 17010304) • (2nd priority) North Fork Coeur d’Alene River floodplain (within HUC #17010301) • (3rd priority) Wolf Lodge Creek floodplain watershed (within HUC# 17010303)
Additional locations upstream from the Post Falls Project that may be suitable for wetland restoration may also be considered and approved by mutual agreement between the Licensee and the aforementioned resource agencies. The land base for the wetland restoration may be situated on public, Tribal, and/or private lands through long-term5 conservation agreements, leased easements, and/or land purchase. Although, the purchase of land may be considered as a means to obtain a land base for wetland restoration, it is not required to meet the terms of this recommendation.
To ensure long-term success of the wetland restoration effort, the wetland restoration plan should include a monitoring component, established performance criteria, and a remediation provision. The monitoring component should include a provision that the Licensee prepare and submit an annual monitoring report to the Service, Tribe, and IDFG, describing the results of the various wetland mitigation efforts. The monitoring by
4 Dominant overstory tree species in the riparian corridor and specifically on natural levees is black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa), and the priority tree species of this section 10(j) recommendation (USFS 2006) 5 Land base used for mitigation should be held in perpetuity, or at a minimum, for the duration of the new license.
33 the Licensee should continue for no less than ten years subsequent to the completion of each wetland restoration unit.
Within one year after approval of the wetland restoration plan by the Service, the Licensee should commence implementation of the first wetland restoration unit, including their wetland restoration effort.
The area of protected and restored wetlands needed to meet the requirements of this recommendation are in addition to the value of wetland acres needed to meet the requirements of section 10(j) recommendation No. 3, below.
Justification: Service review of pertinent information received to date, including a GIS data analysis to determine the surface acres of the wetland plant communities and ecotone modified by project operations between elevations 2,118 and 2,128 feet, determined that up to 11,099 acres of wetlands classified as palustrine emergent (PEM), PFO1, PSS, and unclassified wetlands have been modified, lost and/or degraded due to the operation of the Post Falls Project. Of the 11,099 acres of affected wetlands delineated in the analysis, up to 5,439 acres of PEM type wetlands, 3,552 acres of PFO1 type wetlands, 1,664 acres of PSS type wetlands, and 444 acres of unclassified wetlands and uplands have been modified by project operations between 19336 and present7 time (Idaho 1933; USDA 2004; USFWS 1987, 2006a). The Service considers the PFO1 and PSS type wetlands to be habitat of high value for evaluation species8 and are unique and of limited availability in the Upper Columbia River ecoregion.9
The values of the PEM type wetlands affected by the Post Falls Project vary from high to low depending on their level of disturbance. Often, the wetland plant communities affected by the project are monotypic, dominated by exotic or invasive weed species such as reed canary grass thus rendering those wetlands of minimal value to fish and wildlife (USFWS 2006a). An unquantified area below 2,128 feet elevation would have been classified as uplands under pre-project conditions. However, this area has and continues to be subject to seasonal water elevation fluctuations due to project operations during a significant portion of the growing season. This area is now part of the wetted perimeter of the Coeur d’Alene, St Joe, and St Maries Rivers and their tributaries within the project boundary and supports wetland vegetation well into the fall. Based on the project related loss of higher resource value PSS and PFO1 type wetlands, and the relative abundance of lesser value, PEM type wetlands in the project area, the Service recommends that the Licensee compensate for higher value PSS and PFO1 wetlands. We recommend that the Licensee restore at least 15 percent of the total area of PFO1 and PSS type wetlands delineated in the Service’s analysis (USFWS 2006a). Thus, the Licensee should be
6 The earliest date of aerial imagery used in the Service’s GIS analysis 7 For the purposes of this specific section 10(j) FPA recommendation, “Present” is defined as 2004, the most recent date of aerial imagery used in the Service’s GIS analysis 8 Specific evaluation species for this project are Bald eagle, bull trout, and westslope cutthroat trout. 9 “Ecoregion” refers to a large biogeographical unit characterized by distinctive biotic and abiotic relationships (USFWS 1981).
34 required to re-establish 532 acres10 of PFO1 type wetlands and 250 acres11 of PSS type wetlands upstream from the Post Falls HED as stipulated in this recommendation.
3. Protection and Restoration of Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved and Palustrine Scrub- Shrub Broad-leaved Wetlands Located on Natural Levees in the Lower St. Joe River. The Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources, implement the measures described in PF-TR-1 (Avista 2005d: pp B-41 through B-45) for the protection and restoration of palustrine forested broad-leaved and palustrine scrub- shrub broad-leaved wetlands located on natural levees in the Lower St. Joe River. In addition, within one year after license issuance, and in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe (Tribe), the Licensee shall develop a Wetland Protection and Restoration Plan to protect and/or restore 445 acres of palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous (PFO1)12 and 49 acres of palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) type wetlands in the lower St Joe River between River Mile (RM) 0.0 and 7.2. The wetland restoration and protection plan should include a description of the methods necessary to protect, restore, and sustain existing13 PFO1 and PSS type wetland plant community and associated habitat values in the reach of the St Joe River. To the extent practicable, the protection and restoration of wetlands should occur within the lower reach of the St Joe River. If, however, it is determined, after mutual agreement between the Licensee and the aforementioned resource agencies, that a portion of the existing PFO1 and PSS type wetland plant community cannot be protected and/or sustained in the reach of the St. Joe River between RM 0.0 and RM 7.2, then the Licensee should provide for the restoration of an equal area of PFO1 and PSS type wetlands, in total surface area of at least 494 acres, at a location in the St. Joe and/or St. Maries Rivers upstream from RM 7.2 in the St Joe River. The land base for the wetland restoration effort may be situated on public, Tribal, and/or private lands through long-term14 conservation agreements, leased easements, and/or land purchase. Although, the purchase of land may be considered as a means to obtain a land base for wetland restoration, it is not required to meet the terms of this recommendation.
To ensure the long-term success of the wetland restoration effort, the wetland restoration plan should include a monitoring component, established performance criteria, and a remediation provision. The monitoring component should include a provision that the Licensee prepare and submit an annual monitoring report to the Service, Tribe, and IDFG, describing the results of the various wetland mitigation efforts. The monitoring by the Licensee should continue for no less than ten years subsequent to the completion of each wetland restoration unit.
10 0.15 x 3552 = 532 acres 11 0.15 x 1664 = 249.6 acres 12 Dominant overstory tree species in the riparian corridor and specifically on natural levees is black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) and the priority tree species of this section 10(j) recommendation (USFS 2006). 13 For the purpose of this specific section 10(j) recommendation, “existing” is defined as June 2004, the date of the aerial photography used in the Service’s analysis (USDA 2004). 14 Land base used for mitigation should be held in perpetuity, or at a minimum, for the duration of the new license.
35
The area of protected, restored, and/or re-established wetlands needed to meet the requirements of this recommendation are in addition to the value of wetland acres needed to meet the requirements of section 10(j) recommendation No. 2, above.
Justification: Service review of the pertinent information received to date, including the preparation of a GIS analysis to determine the surface acres of natural levees along the lower 7.2 mile reach of the St. Joe River and the wetland plant communities modified by project operations at or above the elevation of 2,128 feet subsequent to the original operation of the Post Falls Project,15 determined that up to 494 acres of wetlands classified as PFO1 and PSS wetlands have been modified, lost and/or degraded due to the ongoing operation of the Post Falls Project. As of 2004, we determined that approximately 325 acres of PFO1 and PSS acres remain (although degraded in value due to lack of black cottonwood recruitment in the reach of the St. Joe River, described above. Thus approximately 169 acres were lost during that timeframe (Idaho 1933; USDA 2004; USFWS 2006b).
The operation of the project continues to erode levees, lakeshore, and river banks that presently support cottonwood trees that, under natural conditions, would regenerate new cottonwood stands (Avista 2005d: pp 5-205). Currently, individual cottonwood trees are falling down, existing cottonwood stands are aging, and cottonwood recruitment is limited in the project area. During the term of the new license this cottonwood component of the lower St. Joe River ecosystem may be lost or reduced significantly.
Cottonwood stands are an important element of riparian ecosystems. They contribute to hydrologic function, native plant community structure, and fish and wildlife habitat values including nesting, perching and foraging habitat for the federally listed bald eagle as well as numerous avian species found in the project area. The Service concurs with the applicant’s proposal to enhance and/or restore wetland and riparian habitat to conditions more closely resembling wetland and riparian habitat that existed historically (Avista 2005d: pp B-44).
4. Lake Coeur d’Alene and Tributary Erosion Control and Habitat Protection. The Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources, implement the measures described in PF-TR-1 (Avista 2005d: pp B-41 through B-43) for the protection of habitat and erosion control in Lake Coeur d’Alene and associated tributaries. Priority areas for protection and erosion control should be the remaining natural levees in the lower St. Joe River area, excluding those protected under section 10(j) recommendation Nos. 2 and 3 above, the upper St. Joe River, and the St. Maries River.
Justification: Service concurs with the applicant’s proposal to control erosion and protect riparian habitat as described in PF-TR-1 (Avista 2005d: pp B-41 to B-43), and
15 1933 aerial photographs are the earliest reliable record used in our analysis to determine the loss of PFO and PSS wetlands between RM 0 and 7.2 in the lower St. Joe River, to delineate the area and condition of wetland types found in that area (Idaho 1933).
36 recommends that the Commission include this environmental measure as an article within the new license. Available studies and analysis specific to erosion and the geomorphic process associated with project operations indicate that the Post Falls Project is contributing to ongoing erosion by holding the summer lake level at or very near a constant elevation. Boat and wind related wave action are the primary causes of erosion and are concentrated at the approximately 2,128-foot water surface/shoreline interface, as determined by the prevailing summer lake level (Avista 2005d: pp 5-45). The continued maintenance of the summer lake level Coeur d’Alene Lake at or near elevation 2,128 feet, as proposed, will continue to result in erosion-related loss of some wetland and riparian habitat along the shorelines of the lake and affected tributaries. This would result in the loss of some large conifer and cottonwood trees used by bald eagles (Avista 2005d: pp 5-205) and, therefore, decrease bald eagle nesting and foraging habitat. Lakeshore and river bank protection would reduce the potential for habitat loss and ensure the long term availability of suitable bald eagle nest and perch trees.
5. Post Falls Fish Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Program. Within one year after license issuance, the Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources and in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe (Tribe), develop and provide for Service approval, a Migration Corridor and Tributary Restoration Plan using standards commonly accepted by fishery habitat restoration resource managers. The plan shall include a description of measures necessary to restore a cumulative distance of thirty-three (33)16 river miles in the St Joe River upstream from the upper extent of the project area (above approximately RM 34). Restoration projects shall focus on improving water quality (e.g., reduction in sediment delivery and water temperature), adding habitat complexity, and reducing the suitability of habitat for non- native predators and competitors of bull trout. Restoration activities may include but are not limited to increasing pool habitat, increasing riparian habitat in headwater streams, increasing large woody debris, and restoring river morphology in the mainstem St Joe River from Gold Creek downstream to about RM 34. The Licensee shall commence restoration activities within one year from the date notified by the Service that the Migration Corridor and Tributary Restoration Plan has been approved.
Alternative location(s) for stream restoration work may be considered and adopted by mutual agreement between the Licensee and the Service. As an alternative, up to ten (10) of the thirty-three (33) river restoration miles described above may be undertaken in streams tributary to the St. Joe River, upstream from RM 34. The following tributary streams located in the St. Joe River sub-basin would be considered first priority for restoration work: Entente, Fly, Gold, Heller, Medicine, Red Ives, Wisdom, and Yankee Bar Creeks (USFWS 2002). Additional streams may be selected for restoration work by mutual agreement between the Licensee and the Service. The land base for wetland restoration efforts may be situated on public, Tribal, and/or private lands through long- term17 conservation agreements, leased easements, and/or land purchase. Although the
16 This value was derived from the total river miles affected by the Project in both the Coeur d’Alene and St Joe Rivers, and divided by two. Thus 34 + 32 = 66 (river miles) ÷ 2 = 33 river miles. 17 Land base used for mitigation should be held in perpetuity, or at a minimum, for the duration of the new
37 purchase of land may be considered as a means to obtain a land base for wetland restoration, it is not required to meet the terms of this recommendation.
Projects may include but are not limited to the following measures: 1. Bank stabilization a. Bank stabilization work should be conducted primarily for the purpose of reducing sediment input identified as a limiting factor to bull trout. Protection of infrastructure itself would not provide cause to conduct bank stabilization work. b. Examples of acceptable bank stabilization techniques include: i. Bank sloping ii. Creating bankfull benches iii. Planting native riparian vegetation iv. Installing log jams v. Installing in-stream structures such as j-hooks or angled barbs vi. Vegetated soil lifts c. The following examples of bank stabilization techniques are not advocated due to the potential adverse effects to the aquatic ecosystem: i. Riprap (may significantly negatively affect channel morphology, with minimal if any habitat benefit) ii. Bank hardening (same effect as riprap, with no habitat benefit) iii. Planting non-native vegetation (typically will out-compete native vegetation and is also contrary to Service policy for restoration activities) 2. Identify and remedy manmade fish passage barriers a. Examples include removal of culverts, weirs, and diversions b. Replacement of culverts with channel spanning bridges, bottomless arch culverts, buried culverts, or other fish passable structure. c. Addition of floodplain relief culverts 3. Restoration of forested riparian zone: a. A diversity of native trees and shrubs should be planted in such a density and width that when mature the resulting forest will provide substantial shade to the stream channel and provide a source of large woody debris to the channel.
Justification: Up to 34 miles of the lower St. Joe River18 are seasonally inundated or adversely affected by project operations during the timeframe when bull trout are migrating or may be present (IDFG 1999). In addition, up to 32 miles of the Coeur d’Alene River, between Cataldo and the river’s outlet to Lake Coeur d’Alene are also seasonally inundated or affected by project operations (Coeur d’Alene Tribe 2005: p 30). In both situations, the riverine environment has been seasonally19 modified to resemble a
license. 18 Downstream from about St. Joe City, Benewah County, Idaho to RM 0 in the south section of Lake Coeur d’Alene. 19 From about June 15th (on average) until late December or early January each year (Avista 2005d: p 3-
38 lacustrine environment. The restoration of 33 miles of the St. Joe River upstream from the influence of the operation of the Post Falls Project would compensate for the loss of up to 34 miles of mainstem riverine habitat in the lower St Joe River that are seasonally inundated or adversely affected by project operations (USFWS 2002:34; Avista 2005d: p 3-30, 2006).
The lower reach of the St Joe River has been designated critical habitat for bull trout under the ESA, and provides foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat for that species (USFWS 2002). The Coeur D’Alene River has also been designated critical habitat for bull trout and may on occasion support foraging and migration for bull trout. Adult bull trout are known to out-migrate from spawning streams in the upper St. Joe River sub-basin beginning in late August (IDFG 1999: p 4). Current project operations maintain lake levels at an average of 2,128 feet elevation until Labor Day weekend each year. This is followed by a slow decline in the water level throughout fall and into winter, thus increasing the risk of predation of bull trout and other native salmonids by piscivorous fish typically found in the lacustrine environment created by the Post Falls impoundment. The reduction in velocity in this reach may increase the time required for bull trout to migrate through the lower St. Joe River within the project area, resulting in longer exposure time to predation and elevated water temperatures in the lower reach of the river. In addition, the migration timing of juvenile and subadult bull trout is not fully known in the St. Joe River. Although there is a lack of empirical data regarding the migration timing for juvenile and subadult bull trout in the lower St Joe River, investigations of bull trout migration patterns in other waters indicate that juveniles migrate during the fall from natal streams (AFS 1992; Mackay et al. 1994; Skeesick 1989). The potential for these age classes to be present in the main-stem within the project area, when the lake level remains elevated, increases the potential for exposure to predation and other unfavorable environmental factors (AFS 1992).
The Service selected the St Joe River above the project boundary as the location for stream habitat restoration based on several factors. First, a migratory population of bull trout is known to be present in the St Joe River (USFWS 2002). Second, the St Joe River has been designated as critical habitat by the Service (USFWS 2005). Third, the reach of the river below about RM 34.0 is subject to the fluctuation of the project impoundment limiting the opportunities for instream aquatic habitat restoration that can be conducted there, i.e., the riverine system now functions as lacustrine system throughout the summer and into fall due to project operations (Avista 2005d: p 3-30). Fourth, the river and tributary streams above the project area have been degraded due previous natural and human caused events. For example, past human caused degradation is associated with road construction and logging in and adjacent to riparian corridors which has caused significant damage to the aquatic ecosystem throughout the subbasin (USFS 1998: pp 5- 7); Lastly, public ownership of land above the project area would likely provide an viable land base for stream restoration activities (USFS 1988).
The following section 10(j) recommendations apply specifically to the Spokane River Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 2545-091:
30)
39
6. Spokane River Project Transmission Line Management Program (Avian Collision and Electrocution Prevention). The Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources, implement the Spokane River Project Transmission Line Management Program for the prevention of avian collision and electrocution as described in SRP-TR-2 (Avista 2005d: pp B-51 to B-52).
Justification: The Service concurs with the applicant’s proposal to configure all new or replacement transmission line structures consistent with current guidelines for minimizing the potential for avian injury or mortality, inspect the transmission lines during the bird nesting season each year to prevent conflicts, and take remedial actions in the event of a bird injury, mortality, or other indication(s) that a particular pole structure an/or section of transmission line poses a threat to avian species, as described in SRP-TR- 2 (Avista 2005d: pp B-51 to B-52). We recommend that the Commission include these environmental measures as an article within the new license. Power lines pose a hazard to passerines, waterfowl and raptors including the federally listed bald eagle (APLIC 1994,1996). The protection measures identified in the applicant’s proposal are needed to prevent and/or minimize conflicts between the power lines associated with the project and avian species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Service has responded to requests by the applicant for technical assistance related to the potential injury and/or mortality of birds associated with the project’s transmission lines. The applicant has been cooperative in past situations concerning migratory bird conflicts and issues associated with transmission lines.
7. Upland Habitat Protection/Enhancement at Spokane River Project Long Lake Development. The Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources, implement the measures described in SRP-TR-1 (Avista 2005d: pp B- 47 through B-49) for the protection and enhancement of upland habitat at the Spokane River Project’s Long Lake Development. In addition, within one year after license issuance, the Licensee shall, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) prepare an Upland Habitat Protection and Enhancement Plan and submit the plan to the aforementioned resource agencies for approval. In the plan, the Licensee shall identify areas at Lake Spokane where lakeshore protection may effectively control erosion and protect upland habitat. The Licensee shall devise specific measures to conduct erosion control activities in vulnerable areas using adaptive management to determine the most effective method to protect affected resources. The plan shall also provide for the enhancement of at least 24 acres of upland habitat adjacent to Lake Spokane. Enhancement activities may include but are not limited to development of older and larger trees for cavity nesters, bald eagle nest and perch trees, and general wildlife habitat diversity within the area. In addition, the plan should include activities to enhance the quantity and quality of the shrub component to provide cover and forage for big game, migratory bird nesting habitat, upland game bird security, and overall habitat diversity. Within one year after notification by the Service and WDFW that the plan is approved, the Licensee shall commence the implementation of erosion control activities on slopes
40 adjacent to Lake Spokane. The implementation of upland habitat enhancement activities shall commence within two years after approval.
To ensure the long-term success of these upland habitat protection and enhancement efforts, the plan should include a monitoring component, established performance criteria, and a remediation provision. The monitoring component should include a provision that the Licensee prepare and submit an annual monitoring report to the Service and WDFW describing the results and progress of mitigation efforts. Monitoring by the Licensee should continue for no less than five years subsequent to the completion of the protection and enhancement activity(s).
Justification: The Service concurs with the applicant’s proposal to control erosion as described in SRP-TR-1 (Avista 2005d: pp B-47 through B-49), and recommends that the Commission include this environmental measures as an article in the new license. Portions of the steep slopes on the lower end of Lake Spokane are actively eroding due to the project related lake levels and the resultant erosion caused by wind and boat wave action. These areas will continue to experience shallow translation slides and wave- related erosion for the duration of the new license. Some of these upland areas adjacent to Lake Spokane are not able to support vegetation due to their slope, soil, and aspect, and therefore have reduced upland wildlife habitat value. Erosion of the lakeshore due to project operations has resulted in a loss of large conifer trees thus decreasing bald eagle nesting and foraging habitat. Lakeshore protection will ensure the long term availability of suitable bald eagle nest and perch trees. These steep slopes are estimated to cover a total of 24 acres along the approximately 40 miles of lakeshore (Avista 2005d: pp 5-38).
The following section 10(j) recommendations apply to both the Post Falls Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 12606-000, and to the Spokane River Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 2545-091:
8. Bald Eagle Nest Monitoring at Long Lake, Nine Mile, and Post Falls Developmehts. Within one year after license issuance, the Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources and in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe (Tribe), monitor on an annual basis all known bald eagle nests that are associated with waters impounded by the Post Falls, Long Lake, and Nine Mile Developments to determine bald eagle occupancy and nesting productivity. The monitoring effort would be conducted during the bald eagle nesting season (approximately February 1 - July 31 each year) and the results would be documented in a report to be submitted on an annual basis to the Service, IDFG, WDFW, and the Tribe.
Justification: Bald eagle nesting has increased in the project area over the past several years (IDFG 2000 to 2005). This increase can be generally attributed to the nationwide ban on DDT and recovery efforts by Federal and State resource management agencies with assistance from non-governmental organizations and the private sector. The project has created bald eagle habitat at Lake Spokane and enhanced bald eagle foraging habitat
41 at Coeur d’Alene Lake. However, the project has also enhanced conditions for human development and water related recreation opportunities due to the maintenance of a stable water level throughout the summer recreation period. Recreational activities that occur at project area recreation sites, specifically power boating, nature activities, hiking, beach visits, picnicking, and canoeing/kayaking are expected to increase by at least 30 percent during the next 20 years. Additionally, all other activities are expected to experience an increase in participants (Avista 2005d: pp 5-229). Disturbance from human activity may alter or limit bald eagle use on the project area resulting in displacement or non-breeding of bald eagles in the future (MBEWG 1991, 1994). Also, the operation of the project continues to erode levees, lakeshore, and river banks resulting in loss of bald eagle habitat (Avista 2005d: pp 5-45 and 5-205). The annual monitoring of bald eagle nests for occupancy and productivity is needed to detect potential changes in the status of breeding bald eagles in the project area, to track recovery and long term population maintenance, and to determine if any changes in the protection of bald eagles are necessary (USFWS 1986).
9. Bald Eagle Surveys for New Nests at Long Lake, Nine Mile, and Post Falls Developments. Within one year after license issuance, the Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources and in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe (Tribe), annually conduct at least one survey in the vicinity of the project area during the bald eagle nesting season (approximately February 1 - July 31 each year) to locate new bald eagle nests. The preferred survey procedure, in a five year period, would be to use a fixed winged aircraft for at least one survey and watercraft for the other four surveys. The results of the annual survey shall be documented in a report to be submitted on an annual basis to the Service, IDFG, WDFW, and the Tribe.
Justification: Bald eagle nesting has increased in the project area over the past several years (IDFG 2000 to 2005). This increase can be generally attributed to the nationwide ban on DDT and recovery efforts by Federal and State resource management agencies with assistance from non-governmental organizations and the private sector. The project has created bald eagle habitat at Lake Spokane and enhanced bald eagle foraging habitat at Coeur d’Alene Lake. However, the project has also enhanced conditions for human development and water related recreation opportunities due to the maintenance of a stable water level throughout the summer recreation period. Recreational activities that occur at project area recreation sites, specifically power boating, nature activities, hiking, beach visits, picnicking, and canoeing/kayaking are expected to increase by at least 30 percent during the next 20 years. Additionally, all other activities are expected to experience an increase in participants (Avista 2005d: pp 5-229). Disturbance from human activity may alter or limit bald eagle use on the project area resulting in displacement or non-breeding of bald eagles in the future (MBEWG 1991, 1994). Also, the operation of the project continues to erode levees, lakeshore, and river banks resulting in loss of bald eagle habitat (Avista 2005d: pp 5-45 and 5-205). Annual surveys for new bald eagle nests is needed to detect potential changes in the status of breeding bald eagles in the project area,
42 to track recovery and long term population maintenance, and to determine if any changes in the protection of bald eagles are necessary (USFWS 1986).
10. Bald Eagle Awareness/Protection for Long Lake, Nine Mile and Post Falls Developments. Within one year after license issuance, the Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources and in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe (Tribe), develop and implement an educational and interpretive program to inform the public about bald eagle use of Lake Coeur d’Alene and Lake Spokane, bald eagle sensitivity to human activity, and recommendations for recreational users and homeowners to protect bald eagles and their habitat. The program shall include the installation and maintenance of interpretive signs at all Licensee owned and public recreational facilities within the project area. The signs shall include information on bald eagle response to human disturbance, the effects of human disturbance on bald eagle breeding and foraging activities, and recommendations for proper behavior within bald eagle habitat. If possible, the program should also involve private land owners who are willing to protect bald eagle habitat on their property. Habitat protection guidelines could be distributed to willing landowners where lakeshore and river banks are affected by project operations. The focus would be to protect suitable nest trees and large snags near lakeshore and river banks within the project boundaries.
Justification: Bald eagle nesting has increased in the project area over the past several years (IDFG 2000 to 2005). This increase can be generally attributed to the nationwide ban on DDT and recovery efforts by Federal and State resource management agencies with assistance from non-governmental organizations and the private sector. The project has created bald eagle habitat at Lake Spokane and enhanced bald eagle foraging habitat at Coeur d’Alene Lake. However, the project has also enhanced conditions for human development and water related recreation opportunities due to the maintenance of a stable water level throughout the summer recreation period. Recreational activities that occur at project area recreation sites, specifically power boating, nature activities, hiking, beach visits, picnicking, and canoeing/kayaking are expected to increase by at least 30 percent during the next 20 years. Additionally, all other activities are expected to experience an increase in participants (Avista 2005d: pp 5-229). Disturbance from human activity may alter or limit bald eagle use on the project area resulting in displacement or non-breeding of bald eagles in the future (MBEWG 1991, 1994). An effective Bald Eagle Awareness and Protection Program would help to reduce and minimize human/bald eagle conflicts and ensure long term conservation of the species within the project area.
11. Bald Eagle Nest Management Plans. Within one year after license issuance, the Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources and in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe (Tribe), monitor actual bald eagle use within all known bald eagle nesting territories that are associated with waters impounded by the Spokane River and Post Falls Hydroelectric Projects. Monitoring should be conducted over two
43 consecutive nesting seasons to determine the breeding pairs primary use area and home range, and to identify key use sites, i.e. alternate nest stands, perch sites, and roost sites. Monitoring should also identify conflicts within the project area between bald eagles and humans such as recreational activities and human infrastructure development. Within three years after monitoring actual bald eagle use within all known bald eagle territories, the Licensee shall, in consultation with the Service, IDFG, WDFW, and the Tribe, develop a site-specific Nest Management Plan for selected nesting territories. The nesting territory selections would be based on those areas where project operations have had a significant effect on available bald eagle habitat and opportunities for protection are possible. The plan must include background information on the territory including key use areas, areas of conflict, and specific conservation measures that protect bald eagle habitat over time and minimize bald eagle/human conflicts (MBEWG 1994, appendix VI and VII).
Justification: Bald eagle nesting has increased in the project area over the past several years (IDFG 2000 to 2005). This increase can be generally attributed to the nationwide ban on DDT and recovery efforts by Federal and State resource management agencies with assistance from non-governmental organizations and the private sector. The project has created bald eagle habitat at Lake Spokane and enhanced bald eagle foraging habitat at Coeur d’Alene Lake. However, the project has also enhanced conditions for human development and water related recreation opportunities due to the maintenance of a stable water level throughout the summer recreation period. Recreational activities that occur at project area recreation sites, specifically power boating, nature activities, hiking, beach visits, picnicking, and canoeing/kayaking are expected to increase by at least 30 percent during the next 20 years. Additionally, all other activities are expected to experience an increase in participants (Avista 2005d: pp 5-229). Disturbance from human activity may alter or limit bald eagle use on the project area resulting in displacement or non-breeding of bald eagles in the future (MBEWG 1991, 1994). The development of site specific nest management plans would identify bald eagle/recreation conflicts and provide site specific bald eagle management direction to ensure long term conservation of the species within the project area. The Licensee would not be required to regulate land for bald eagle management not under its ownership.
12. Terrestrial Weed Management. Within one year after license issuance, the Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources, survey project lands for noxious weed infestations and map their locations. Within two years after license issuance, the Licensee shall, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe (Tribe), develop a management plan to control noxious weeds on project lands. The Plan may include the use of biological control, hand pulling, mechanical and chemical spraying to control existing infestations, and should emphasize using the method that would be most effective and least harmful to the environment. Control activities should be monitored and evaluated so that adjustments can be made to increase effectiveness and efficiency of these activities. Lastly, the Plan shall include a long term program to monitor the status
44 of noxious weeds and compile records for future reference and reporting to wildlife management agencies.
Justification: Federal agencies, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, should not authorize, fund or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species (Executive Order 1999). Diligent control of noxious weeds is necessary to maintain productive wildlife habitat on Licensee owned lands.
Literature Cited
AFS (American Fisheries Society). 1992. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society.
APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee). 1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power lines: The state of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute. Washington, D.C.
APLIC. 1996. Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines: The state of the art in 1996. Edison Electric Institute and the Raptor Research Foundation. Washington, D.C.
Avista (Avista Corporation). 2005a. Applicant Prepared Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment for Spokane River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2545), Volume II, Avista Corporation, Spokane, WA. February 2005.
Avista. 2005b. Final Application for New License Major Project – Existing Dam for Post Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2545), Volume I. Avista Corporation, Spokane, WA. July 2005.
Avista. 2005c. Final Application for New License Major Project – Existing Dam for Spokane River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2545), Volume I. Avista Corporation, Spokane, WA. July 2005
Avista. 2005d. Post Falls Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2545, Application for New License, Major Project – Existing Dam, Volume II, Applicant Prepared Preliminary Environmental Assessment. Dated July 2005. Avista Corporation, Spokane Washington
Avista. 2006. Avista Response to Additional Information Request. Spokane River Project, No 2545-091, Post Falls Project, No. 12606-000. Dated March 21, 2006. Avista Corporation, Spokane, Washington
Coeur d’Alene Tribe. 2005. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2545, Impact Assessment Report. Project Effects on Coeur d’Alene Tribe Natural Resources. Dated May 2005, Coeur d’Alene Tribe, Plummer Idaho
45
Executive Order Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (Executive Order). 1999. Executive Order on Invasive Species. Dated February 3, 1999. The White House. Washington, D.C.
Idaho, State of. 1933. Digitized Aerial Photography of Lower Coeur d’Alene Lake and St Joe River. Source photography from USDA 1933. Imagery obtained from Idaho Parks and Recreation.
IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 1999. Monitoring Bull Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout Movements in the St. Joe River Using Radio Telemetry. Draft document received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service August 16, 1999.
IDFG. 2000-2005. Idaho bald eagle nest monitoring annual reports. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID.
IDFG. 2006. Idaho species of special concern. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/nongame/specialspecies.cfm#fish
Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita. 1994. Friends of the Bull Trout, Conference Proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (BTTF). Alberta.
MBEWG (Montana Bald Eagle Working Group). 1994. Montana bald eagle management plan. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Billings, Montana. 104p.
MBEWG. 1991. Habitat management guide for bald eagles in northwestern Montana. Billings, Montana. 29p.
NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2004. “Coeur d’Alene Subbasin Plan” and “Spokane River Subbasin Plan.” In Intermountain Province Subbasin Plan, Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland, Oregon. http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/admin/level2/intermtn/plan/
Skeesick, D.G. 1989. Biology of the Bull Trout, Salvelinus confluentus, a Literature Review. Willamette National Forest, Eugene, Oregon
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2004. Aerial photography of Lake Coeur d’Alene and vicinity NAIP digital ortho-imagery. June 21 & 23, 2004. From Inside Idaho. University of Idaho. Moscow
USFWS. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
USFWS. 1987. National Wetland Inventory (NWI). Wetland maps prepared by U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute series base maps. Various NWI maps in Project Area, Idaho and Washington.
46
USFWS. 2002. Chapter 15, Coeur d’Alene Lake Basin Recovery Unit (Chapter 15), Idaho. 92 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon
USFWS. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Bull Trout. Federal Register Volume 70, No.185, September 26, 2005. Final Rule.
USFWS. 2006a. Quantification of Project Mitigation Debt for the Modification of Palustrine Deciduous Broadleaved Forest (PFO1), Palustrine Scrub-scrub (PSS), Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands Resulting from the Operation of Post Falls HED (not published). Dated June 30, 2006. Prepared by staff at the Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office, Spokane, Washington.
USFWS. 2006b. Quantification of Project Mitigation Debt for Loss and/or Degradation of Palustrine Deciduous Broadleaved Forest (PFO1) and Palustrine Scrub-shrub (PSS) in the Lower St. Joe River, Benewah County, Idaho (not published). Dated June 30, 2006. Prepared by staff at the Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office, Spokane, Washington.
USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1988. Idaho Panhandle National Forests, St Joe National Forest, Idaho and Montana. Secondary Base Map, showing private and public land ownership. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Northern Region.
USFS. 1998. Biological Assessment: St Joe River Basin/NF Clearwater. Final dated July 29, 1998. Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Coeur d’Alene.
USFS. 2006. Distribution and Occurrence, Species, Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa. Fire Effects Information System, USDA Forest Service, modified June 19, 2006.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1981. A U.S. Geological Survey Data Standard, Codes for the Identification of Hydrologic Units in the United States and the Caribbean Outlying Areas. Geological Survey Circular 878-A. Reston, Virginia.
USGS. 2004. Water Resources Data, Idaho, Water Year 2004. Published by Water Resources Division, USGS, Boise, Idaho
V. SECTION 10(a) RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 10(a) of the Federal Power Act provides that the project adopted, shall be in the judgment of the Commission best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of water-power development, for the
47 adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water supply, and recreational and other purposes referred to in 16 USC § 797(e).
Bureau of Land Management
BLM’s section 10(a) recommendation is designed to ensure that continued operation of the Post Falls Dam under FERC License No. 12606 adequately protects and enhances public recreational uses and the associated recreational use areas and is consistent with the Coeur d’Alene Resource Management Plan (RMP) (draft, USDI, 1/2006). The RMP designates the lake as a BLM Special Recreation Management Area and describes how BLM’s nine recreation sites adjoining the Project boundary should be managed. The RMP is required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1761, as amended). Most of the lands managed by BLM affected by the Project are upstream of the mouth of the Coeur d’Alene River in the “Chain Lakes” area east of Harrison, Idaho. However, BLM operates and maintains several recreation sites adjoining the Project on the main body of the lake.
Through the Alternative Licensing Process used by Avista in this proceeding, BLM actively participated in the Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics Work Group (RLUAWG) to develop Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement measures (PM&Es) that impact public lands managed by BLM. The PM&Es that affect BLM-managed lands were developed through a consensus process, agreed to by the 40+ members of the RLUAWG and Avista. BLM generally supports these PM&Es, recommending some wording changes that better reflect the intent of the PM&E. Pursuant to this authority, the BLM recommends the following terms and conditions be included in any license issued for the Post Falls Project, Project No. 12606-000:
10(a) Recommendation No. 1
Avista shall collaborate in the planning and design of recreation project development on BLM lands to be determined by BLM, and shall pay 25% of the construction cost of such development, not to exceed $200,000.00. Avista shall enter into a separate agreement with BLM to provide $28,000 annually to BLM for the term of the new license to use toward BLM’s costs for operation and maintenance of recreation facilities within or adjacent to the Project boundary. Upon BLM’s completion of the project development discussed above, Avista shall increase their operations and maintenance contribution to BLM to $33,000 per year. In addition, Avista shall provide to the recreation management agencies around Coeur d’Alene Lake funding in the amount of $60,000 annually to ensure existing public access and for new and/or reconstructed recreation facilities on or adjacent to the Project upstream of the Post Falls dam. The sums to be provided by Avista are stated in 2007 dollars and shall be adjusted upwards yearly in accordance with the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (US City Averages, All Items, Not Seasonally Adjusted).
48
Justification
Early in the workgroup negotiations with Avista, Avista recognized that their Post Falls dam was responsible for recreation activities on Coeur d’Alene Lake. It was also widely recognized by the workgroup participants that recreation activities would be occurring on Coeur d’Alene Lake whether the Post Falls dam was in place or not. The question, therefore, was how much the increased water level behind the dam contributed to recreation activities on the lake.
A large group of specialists from Federal, State, local government, and tribal interests met on several occasions to attempt to determine the extent that the Post Falls dam contributed to recreation activities on the lake. After weighing the shoreline configuration, the locations of the various governmental and tribal lands in relation to the shoreline, the probable access points in the event that the dam did not exist, and the probable recreation activities that would be occurring in the event that the dam did not exist, the group concluded that in their best professional estimate Avista’s Post Falls dam contributed approximately 25% of the recreation activities on the lake.
In order to meet the growing recreation demand on Coeur d’Alene Lake, BLM is planning to develop a yet-to-be-determined recreation site on public land adjacent to the project boundary. That development, which will include lake access and will be primarily used by lake oriented recreationists, is expected to cost at least $800,000. In addition to contributing to the planning and design of the development, Avista’s contribution (under the 25% scenario) is $200,000.
BLM’s current recreation operations and maintenance expenditures on recreation sites adjacent to the project boundary (in support of recreation activities currently occurring on the lake) is $112,000 per year (2005 figures). Under the 25% scenario, Avista’s responsibility toward funding the recreation activities provided by dam operations is $28,000 per year. Based on figures from comparable BLM recreation sites on the lake, it is estimated that the recreation operations and maintenance costs of the new project development noted above will be $20,000 per year. Avista’s contribution for that development would be an additional $5,000 per year, for a total of $33,000 once the new development is in operation.
It was recognized among the recreation management agencies on Coeur d’Alene Lake that, in addition to the normal operations and maintenance programs, that there would be occasional large capital repairs that must be made to various agencies’ facilities around the lake. Avista committed to the RLUAWG to fund this program in the amount of $60,000 annually, with the expenditure of the funds to be determined by the recreation management agencies. BLM supports this concept expressed in the PM&E.
BLM’s section 10(a) recommendation above is a slightly re-worded version of Avista’s PM&E measure PF-REC-2. BLM’s wording is more specific in that it more accurately reflects Avista’s commitment to fund the full 25% of a recreation development project to
49 be determined by BLM (not to exceed $200,000), and to fully fund their License Application commitment of $60,000 per year to the recreation management agencies.
National Park Service
The regulations established under authority of the Federal Power Act (FPA) require consultation with the National Park Service (hereinafter, “NPS” or “we”), among others. 18 C.F.R. §§ 4.38(a), 16.8(a), and 5.1(d). NPS also takes a special interest in recreational access and flow issues and provides technical assistance for outdoor recreation resources, through authority of the Outdoor Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 4601-1) and the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. § 1246(a)).
NPS appreciates the opportunity to participate in the relicensing process and has been involved in this process for the past four years. Our staff has been involved in a number of relicensing efforts and would like to commend Avista for its efforts in consultation and outreach. Avista has reached out to a number of groups, non-profits, Tribes, and agencies, and has ensured their inclusion in the relicensing process. We would also like to commend the licensee for its efforts to reach consensus in this process. Avista has also worked with stakeholders and contractors to develop good information to make decisions for mitigation.
NPS has been actively involved in the recreation workgroup and supports the recommendations in the recreation and aesthetics studies. NPS believes Avista has made a good faith effort to participate and negotiate an agreement. Unfortunately at this time, an agreement among all parties has not been reached.
We have reviewed the Final License Application/Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (FLA/PDEA) and believe that the proposals in these documents generally reflect the discussions and agreements that were reached among the stakeholders through the planning process. Therefore, we recommend that all of these proposals, reiterated below, should be implemented in their entirety and are especially appropriate as considerations under Section 10(a) of the FPA.
1. Recreational Facility Improvements.
NPS supports Avista’s proposals for river and reservoir facility improvements outlined in the PDEA. We recommend that a final Recreation Resource Management Plan be developed that incorporates these proposals, which provide for a range of recreation opportunities on the reservoirs and river reaches. Avista worked collaboratively with the recreation and land use work group (RLUWG) and the land managers to develop these proposals.
Justification
A recreation plan is required by FERC for the new license under 18 C.F.R. Part 4.41(f)(7). The proposals identified are consistent with the Washington and Idaho State-
50 wide Comprehensive Plans (SCORPs) as required under Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA. The recreation inventory and visitor study, completed during the relicensing process, helped to provide the basis for measures developed to improve access and facilities.
1. Whitewater Boating.
NPS recommends implementation of Avista’s proposal to improve whitewater boating opportunities downstream of Post Falls. These proposals include developing a flow information system, improving public access at certain sites, augmenting flows to improve the quality of boating at certain play spots, and providing summer boatable flows on selected weekends.
Justification
Project operations have affected whitewater boating opportunities. In many cases, a minor modification in project operations could significantly enhance play spots, which are sensitive to changes in flow. These recommendations are based on the whitewater boating in-stream flow assessment completed during the relicensing process.
2. Aesthetic Flows.
NPS recommends implementation of Avista’s proposal to continue providing flows at Monroe Street Dam as well as providing additional aesthetic flows at both Post Falls and the Upper Falls projects.
Justification
Project operations have greatly limited the time when water spills over the dams and falls. This proposal will implement a flow program where aesthetic flows are provided during high visitor use periods, thus allowing the public to view and experience the falls. Flows were developed based on the results of the aesthetic flows study conducted during the relicensing process. The proposal is not only cost-effective, but provides significant opportunities for the public to enjoy the Spokane River and falls.
51 Appendix A
Justification for Coeur d’Alene Lake and Tributary Shoreline Erosion Control Condition
This 4(e) condition is required for the adequate protection and utilization of the Coeur d’Alene Reservation. Shoreline erosion up to el. 2,128 ft along Coeur d’Alene Lake and tributaries is the result of Project operations. The erosion adversely impacts several Tribal trust resources and the impact will continue through the term of the new license because Project-caused raising of lake levels, which is the primary cause of the erosion, is proposed to continue into the future.
Shoreline erosion up to and, in some cases, above el. 2128 ft along Coeur d’Alene Lake and tributaries is the result of Project operations. This conclusion is based on the evidence described below which demonstrates how Project operations change the elevation, timing, and duration of lake levels and how these changes, in turn, eliminate shoreline vegetation, increase wind wave action, promote boating and associated wave action, and otherwise result in shoreline erosion.
1. Project operations maintain the water surface of Coeur d’Alene Lake at a higher level during certain times of the year than would otherwise occur naturally.
To demonstrate this, Avista performed an analysis (Avista, 2005) comparing historical simulated lake levels under the Natural Hydrograph scenario to historical measured lake levels under observed operations (i.e., actual measured historical lake levels). The Natural Hydrograph scenario represents simulated operations designed to mimic the lake level and flow conditions that would have occurred if the Project, particularly Post Falls HED, had not been there. Avista used for the comparison the historical period 1978 through 2002. The results of the analysis are depicted in Figure 1 below, which is an excerpt from the Avista analysis. The results demonstrate that Project operations maintain the water level in Coeur d’Alene Lake at a higher level during certain times of the year than would otherwise occur naturally.
The normal-year comparison (Figure 1, bottom graph) indicates that, under observed operations, Coeur d’Alene Lake is significantly higher (more than 1 foot) between May and December than under the Natural Hydrograph. From January through April, lake levels under observed operations are much more similar to the Natural Hydrograph. The greatest difference occurs during August and September, when lake levels under observed operations are more than 7 feet higher than under the Natural Hydrograph.
A-1
Figure 1. Observed wet, dry and normal year Coeur d’Alene Lake elevations under current Project operations and modeled lake levels under the Natural Hydrograph. (Source: Avista, 2005)
A-2 2. Project operations expand the area of Coeur d’Alene Lake within the Reservation that is accessible to boaters during the summer recreation season.
Project operations expand the area of Couer d’Alene Lake within the Reservation that is accessible to boaters during the summer recreation season. The Department uses a water depth of four feet as an estimate, for demonstration purposes, of the minimum depth required to provide sufficient clearance for a typical recreational boat to generate an erosive wake. Avista estimates that project operations increase the area of the lake within the Reservation that is 4 feet deep or deeper by approximately 1,800 acres. Most of this area is in the vicinity of Chatoclet Lake, Round Lake, and Benewah Lake, making these areas more accessible to higher speed boats. Figure 2 shows the areas of Project- caused expanded access. To create this figure, the Department used lake bathymetric data obtained from Avista (correspondence with CD containing data dated November 23, 2004), and compared the spatial distribution of lake depth that typically occurs during the summer recreation season under observed operations at el. 2128 ft with the distribution of lake depth that would have typically occurred under the Natural Hydrograph at el. 2122 ft.
A-3
Figure 2. Areas of Coeur d’Alene Lake that are 4 feet or deeper during a typical summer recreation season with and without the Project. Source: GIS analysis by Stetson Engineers, using Avista bathymetric data of Coeur d’Alene Lake (CD dated November 23, 2004)
A-4 3. Project operations increase the duration of time that higher elevations of the Reservation shoreline are exposed to the water surface than would otherwise occur naturally.
To demonstrate this, Avista again used its analysis (Avista, 2005) comparing historical simulated lake levels under the Natural Hydrograph scenario to historical measured Lake levels under observed (August 1978-July 31, 2002) operations. The results of the analysis are depicted as an elevation duration curve, as shown in Figure 3 below, an excerpt from the Avista analysis. The curve illustrates dramatic changes in the duration with which lake elevations near el. 2,128 ft occur. The curve shows the duration, in percent of time on an annual basis, that the lake level is at or above a given elevation. The percent of time the lake is within 3 inches of full pool or higher (above el. 2,127.75 feet) is approximately 32.2 percent of the time under current Project operations and approximately 12.7 percent of the time under the Natural Hydrograph (about 19.5 percent more of the time under observed operations).
The percent of time that the lake is maintained within the range of 3 feet below full pool (between el. 2,128 and el. 2125 feet) is approximately 58 percent of the time under current Project operations and approximately 20 percent of the time under the Natural Hydrograph (about 38 percent more of the time under observed operations). During the summer recreation season, defined here as June 1 through September 15, the percent of time that the lake is maintained within this range is approximately 96 percent of the time under observed operations and approximately 10 percent of the time under the Natural Hydrograph, as illustrated in Figure 4. This demonstrates that the Project significantly increases the duration of time that this narrow 3 foot elevation range is exposed to the season, when boat activity is highest. This increased exposure subjects the shoreline to increased erosive forces.
A-5
Figure 3. Elevation duration curve for Coeur d’Alene Lake, Idaho (August 1, 1978 through July 31, 2002) (Source: Avista, 2005)
A-6
2136
2134 Current Project Operations
Natural Hydrograph Post Falls 2132
2130
2128
2126 Lake Elevation (ft) Elevation Lake
2124
2122
2120
2118 0 102030405060708090100 Percent Exceedence (%)
Figure 4. Elevation duration curve during the summer recreation season June 1 through September 15, for Coeur d’Alene Lake, Idaho (1978 through 2002) (Source: Avista, CD dated November 23, 2004 containing bathymetric data of Coeur d’Alene Lake)
A-7
4. The shoreline vegetative community that would normally be present in a lake or riverine shoreline environment, and thus would stabilize the soil in the shoreline environment, has been eliminated due to Project operations, and will continue to be absent due to proposed Project operations during the new license term.
Vegetation in the Coeur d’Alene subbasin is dominated by interior mixed conifer forest, with small amounts of montane mixed conifer and lodgepole forests at the highest elevations and interior grasslands along the western boundary (Avista, 2004). Prior to the Post Falls HED the gently sloping topography of the southern end of Coeur d’Alene Lake contained diverse communities of wetlands and riparian vegetation communities. Extensive riparian areas developed along the lake shoreline, levees, and river deltas characterized by cottonwood galleries, willows, and other tree and shrub species (Coeur d’ Alene Tribe, 2005). Broadleaf-deciduous forested, scrub-shrub, aquatic-bed, emergent- marsh, and riparian wetlands are the primary wetland types (Avista, 2004). Vast areas of emergent wetlands and scrub-shrub habitat existed throughout the St. Joe River floodplain and the southern lakes. Culturally important plants included water potato and water-parsnip, camas, nodding onion, cow-parsnip, springbeauty, red-osier dogwood, black hawthorn, wild celery, black cottonwood, currant spp., and rose spp. (Coeur d’ Alene Tribe, 2005).
Historically, the shoreline vegetative community present along the lake, particularly along the St. Joe River, consisted of woody riparian and scrub-shrub riparian vegetation that had adapted to the natural hydrologic conditions. Along the St. Joe River, riparian vegetation worked in tandem with the natural hydrologic and geomorphic processes to form and stabilize the shoreline. In a report entitled, “Supplemental Report on the effect of Operating Post Falls Dam upon Land in Coeur D'Alene Indian Reservation,” dated December 30, 1909, J.C. Stevens, District Engineer for the USGS, describes these processes as follows:
“How the Bottom Lands Were Formed
The area in question was at one time a portion of Coeur d’Alene Lake. The lands have been built up by St. Joe River with sediment washed from the hills of its drainage area. This filling in has taken place in two directions. (1) from the mouth of the river outward into the lake and (2) from the banks of the river towards the hills on either side. There is no doubt but that Chatcolet Lake and other smaller lakes along both St. Joe and Coeur d’Alene Rivers were at one time a portion of the main body of Coeur d’Alene Lake. They have been separated and are gradually filled by sedimentation from the rivers. Along St. Joe River the immediate banks are the highest portions of the valley floor. This is readily accounted for by the fact that sediment in suspension is deposited in still water. The banks are covered with willows, brush and grasses which tend to create still water when the river is high and thus the sediment is
A-8 continually accumulating: To this fact is also due the depth of water in St. Joe River, that is, the banks are built up faster than the bed of the stream on account of the currents in the channel. The river overflows its banks nearly every year so that the deposits thereon are held by the growth of vegetation, while the deposits of one flood in the river channel may be washed away at the beginning of the next.”
Project operations have eliminated the natural shoreline vegetation communities and disrupted the above-described natural process that build, stabilize, and sustain the shoreline. As demonstrated in (1) above, from May through December of most years, Project operations raise lake levels up to el. 2128 ft and maintain lake levels 7 to 8 feet higher than would occur naturally. This annual period of artificially raised lake levels overlaps with the growing season for riparian vegetation, which typically extends from May 1 through September 30 in the Coeur d’Alene Lake area (Eckberg, 2006). Avista begins drawing down the lake in September of each year. Because the lake is not maintained long enough at el. 2128 ft to sustain shoreline vegetation at that level and because shoreline levels below el. 2128 ft are inundated during the growing season, Project operations have created a varial zone between approximately elevations 2128 ft and 2122 ft where woody riparian (e.g. cottonwood) and scrub-shrub riparian vegetation has been replaced by open water and littoral aquatic bed vegetation types. Open water/aquatic bed vegetation has replaced cottonwood forest and primarily tule- dominated emergent wetlands in the Project-influenced sections of St. Joe and St. Maries River (Parametrix, 2004).
Earth Systems and Parametrix (2004:x) concludes that “inundation and loss of vegetation in the 2122 to 2,128 ft elevation zone is from Post Falls HED operations” and that “Project summer inundation is responsible for nearly all of the vegetation change from 2,122 ft elevation to 2,128 ft elevation …” Earth Systems and Parametrix (2004:viii) describes how the el. 2,126.5 ft stable summer lake level maintained by Post Falls HED from 1909 to 1942 “shifted the tree, brush, and grass vegetation line up to the el. 2,126.5 ft level, and the previously existing front row of cottonwoods and other vegetation changed to aquatic or emergent wetland habitat due to summer submergence.” Then Earth Systems and Parametrix describe how “currently the lake level is maintained at 2,128 ft primarily for summer recreation and other non-power uses. The raised lake level has shifted the summer aquatic and wetland zones of Coeur d’Alene Lake and tributaries and the tree, brush, and grass vegetation line has moved up to 2,128 ft elevation.” Therefore banks which were formerly protected by vegetation are more vulnerable to erosive forces such as wave action, rain, rain on snow, bank seepage, and winter/spring floods.,
As Avista draws down the lake each year after Labor Day, the Project varial zone’s sparsely vegetated and bare soils along the lake shoreline are exposed to the open air and the water surface, particularly along major tributary river banks, revealing unvegetated, easily erodible wave-cut benches (a varial zone) formed by lateral bank erosion. According to Figure 3, the Project increases the duration of time that this unvegetated varial zone (between elevations of 2122 and 2128 feet) is exposed to wave action and the
A-9 other erosive forces cited above by about 40 percent of the time. Because this area is unvegetated due to project operations, shoreline erosion is increased.
5. Project operations facilitate recreational power boating and associated boat wake-induced wave energy impacts on the unvegetated shoreline environment.
As demonstrated in (1) and (2) above, Project operations increase the area of Coeur d’Alene Lake within the Reservation that is accessible to boaters -- Project operations maintain this accessibility throughout the summer recreation season (Earth Systems and Parametrix, 2004: 5-14). Earth Systems and Parametrix describe how “The summer lake level sets the elevation that wind and boat waves influence shorelines during the [summer].” Recreational boat traffic within the Reservation, as in the rest of the Lake, increases significantly during the summer recreation season. The additional recreational boating activity creates wave action, which results in shoreline erosion of Reservation lands. Earth Systems and Parametrix (2004) observed that “boat waves erode wave-cut ledges along the full length of the affected reaches of the St. Joe and St. Maries Rivers. The ledge shape, elevation, and in-place stumps indicate the ledge width has been eroded primarily by boat-generated waves. The boat waves cut a prominent notch at the 2,126 level up to the 1940s, which is still present, and the main notch has now moved up to the 2,126 to 2,128 ft elevation as a result of the lake levels since 1941. Stream currents also erode the channel banks, but only during floods and not in a continuous line along the entire river like the boat waves do.”
In recent times, boat wave action has been generated mainly by recreational boaters that access the lake within the Reservation mostly during the summer recreation season. As demonstrated in (3) above, by maintaining a stable full pool water level near el. 2128, the Project concentrates the exposure of the shoreline to a narrow vertical range during the season that boating activity is heaviest and, thus, boat wave action is greatest. As depicted in Figure 4 above, the Project increases the percent of time during the summer recreation season that the lake is maintained within the range of 3 feet from full pool (elevation 2125-2128 feet) by approximately 80 percent (under a natural hydrograph the Lake is between these elevations during the summer recreation season approximately 11% of the time, and under current project operations approximately 91% of the time). By increasing the duration of time that the upper 3 feet is exposed to boat-generated wave action, particularly during the summer recreation season when boating activity is heaviest, the Project operations result in shoreline erosion.
By dividing the average total lateral width of the wave-cut benches by the number of years of Project regulation, Earth Systems and Parametrix estimated that Post Falls HED operations cause St. Joe River banks to erode at a rate of 2.4 to 4 inches/year on the straighter river reaches and about 4 to 8 inches/year along river bends (2004:viii). Earth Systems and Parametrix (2004:viii) predicted that future shoreline erosion would continue at the same rate if future Project operations and recreational boat traffic are unchanged, such that there would be 6 to 17 feet of lateral bank erosion along both banks of the St. Joe River downstream from the St. Maries River confluence.
A-10
6. Project operations increase in the surface dimensions of Coeur d’Alene Lake, thereby increasing wind fetch and associated wave energy.
Wind wave height is positively related to wind velocity, water depth, and the fetch, or distance of open water over which the wind blows, as set forth in the equation below (U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, 2001):
⎧ 42.0 ⎫ ⎪ ⎛ gF ⎞ ⎪ 75.0 0125.0 ⎜ ⎟ gH ⎡ ⎛ gd ⎞ ⎤ ⎪ U 2 ⎪ ⋅= 578.0tanh283.0 ⋅ tanh ⎝ ⎠ 2 ⎢ ⎜ 2 ⎟ ⎥ ⎨ 75.0 ⎬ U ⎢ ⎝U ⎠ ⎥ ⎪ ⎡ ⎛ gd ⎞ ⎤ ⎪ ⎣ ⎦ 578.0tanh ⎪ ⎢ ⎜ 2 ⎟ ⎥ ⎪ ⎩ ⎣⎢ ⎝U ⎠ ⎦⎥ ⎭
Where H is wave height, U is wind speed, d is water depth, F is wind fetch, and g is gravitational acceleration constant.
The above equation shows how increasing water depth and fetch increases wind wave height. Earth Systems and Parametrix (2004; 5-11) found that winds above 15 mph resulted in wave heights of 0.5 feet or greater, large enough to create turbidity and begin to erode the shoreline banks. As demonstrated in (1) and (2) above, Project operations increase water depth 7 to 8 ft in normal years and the duration that this deeper water occurs in Coeur d’Alene Lake. Project operations also increase the fetch of Coeur d’Alene Lake, particularly during the summer recreation season in the area of Chatcolet Lake and Round Lake (Earth Systems and Parametrix, 2004; 5-12), as illustrated in Figure 5. The red line in the wind rose on Figure 5 indicates the direction of the strongest prevailing winds –generally from north to south. Winds blowing from north to south now have a greater surface area of water over which to blow. Accordingly, Project operations cause wind wave erosion of the shoreline, especially on the outside of the St. Joe and St. Maries River where Project operations increase the fetch and, consequently, wind wave height.
A-11
Figure 5. Expanded areas inundated by Coeur d’Alene Lake due to Project operations and the resulting increase in fetch during a typical summer recreation season with and without the Project. (Source: Avista, CD dated November 23, 2004 containing bathymetric data of Coeur d’Alene Lake)
A-12 7. Impacts of erosion to trust resources.
Below is a summary of impacts from erosion to trust resources.
Land Resources. Project storage and inundation eradicates tree, brush and grass vegetation, below 2128 feet elevation; thus shifting that vegetation to 2128 feet elevation and above. Project drawdown exposes unprotected soils to a variety of erosive forces, causing erosion of exposed banks between 2122 and 2128 feet elevation.
Vegetation Resources. The concentration of wave action near elevation 2128 ft focuses erosion on shoreline vegetation at that level throughout the summer. This impacts shoreline, wetland and riparian vegetation by continually undermining soils supporting plants, exposing roots, and causing soils and plants to collapse into open water.
Cultural Resources. Project operations result in adverse impacts to prehistoric, historic and traditional cultural sites. Many cultural sites have been identified and documented along the shoreline of Coeur d’Alene Lake and the St. Joe River. These sites are situated at, below and above 2,128 feet el.. Formal documentation of ongoing erosion to cultural deposits has occurred during recent surveys. Sites situated above, at and below the el. 2,128 ft level are threatened by erosion due to wave action, bank collapse, and unauthorized collection of artifacts where erosion has exposed cultural deposits. Cultural deposits are non-renewable resources. Their loss through erosion cannot be mitigated.
Water Quality Resources. Project operations result in shoreline erosion that releases soil particles into Coeur d’Alene Lake and the St. Joe River, thereby increasing the level of suspended particulates and degrading water quality. Where these suspended particulates mix and interact with heavy metals, the metals can and do dissolve into the water and become bio-available.
Aquatic Habitat Resources. Shoreline erosion contributes to deposition of fine sediment near tributary mouths and creates warm bays with silty substrates. These bays have been colonized by invasive aquatic macrophytes which have replaced many of the native aquatic plants. In addition, the increased sedimentation has clogged spaces between the rocky substrate along the shore where juvenile fish would otherwise attempt to find shelter and refuge from predators.
Stoker (2004) listed the dimensions of several potential candidate shoreline erosion control sites, but a full listing and mapping of the all of shoreline erosion sites has not been completed by an independent third-party erosion control expert. Accordingly, our condition addresses that by requiring the Licensee to enumerate, describe, and map all sites in sufficient detail to facilitate the preparation of comprehensive plans for obtaining landowner and agency approval, permitting, and realistic program scheduling. Because erosion is occurring at rapid rates in some places (e.g. St. Joe River levees), the Department is requiring a more rapid time line for repairing high priority sites.
A-13 Tribal approval of erosion control designs is necessary because trust lands include the beds and banks beneath navigable waters within on-Reservation portions of Lake Coeur d’Alene and the St. Joe River. Erosion controls as designed could significantly impact these submerged lands and other important Reservation resource protection and management objectives. Prior to implementing comprehensive erosion controls on its navigable waterways, the Tribe must assess the impacts and the effectiveness of such controls based on evaluation of stated criteria set forth in this condition. Following this evaluation, the Tribe may approve or reject erosion control designs. Designs determined to be inconsistent with Reservation protection and management goals may be rejected. If rejected, the erosion control will not be constructed. The resulting loss of lands and ecological function due to continued erosion at that site shall be replaced by the Licensee.
A-14 References
Avista, 2004. CD dated November 23, 2004 containing bathymetric data of Coeur d’Alene Lake
Avista, 2004. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project. FERC No. 2545. Application for New License. Major Project—Existing Dam. Volume II. Applicant-Prepared. Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment, 18 CFR, Part 4, Subpart F, Section 4.51. p. 635.
Avista, 2005. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project. FERC No. 2545. Application for New License. Major Project—Existing Dam. Volume II. Applicant-Prepared. Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment, 18 CFR, Part 4, Subpart F, Section 4.51.
Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 2005. Impact Assessment Report. Overview of Effects of the Post Falls HED on the Natural Resources of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, Spokane River Project (FERC Project No. 2545). p. 116.
Davenport, R.W., 1921. Coeur d’Alene Lake, Idaho, and the Overflow Lands. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 500-A.
Earth Systems and Parametrix, 2004. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project, Phase 2 Erosion Assessment.
Eckberg, N., 2006. Kootenai County Noxious Weed Superintendent. Personal communication. Kootenai County, 10905 N Ramsey Rd. Hayden, ID. 208/446-1290.
Parametrix, Inc., 2004. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project, Wetland and Riparian Habitat Mapping and Assessment. Parametrix, Inc. Kirkland, Washington.
Stevens, J.C., 1909. The Physical Effect on Lake Coeur d’Alene. U.S. Geological Survey, Portland, Oregon.
Stoker, B., 2004. Powerpoint Presentation ⎯ Spokane Project Erosion Control Review for the Terrestrial Resources Work Group.
U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, 2001. Shore Protection Manual, Volume I, p. 3-46. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
A-15 Appendix B
Justification for Water Quality Standards and Water Quality Monitoring Condition
Project Impacts
Project operations maintain the water surface of Coeur d’Alene Lake at a higher level, typically elevation 2128 feet, during certain times of the year than would otherwise occur naturally (see Appendix A, Justification for Coeur d’Alene Lake and Tributary Shoreline Erosion Control). In so doing, Project operations alter the natural hydrograph of Lake Coeur d'Alene from June through September of each year, with the greatest difference occurs during August and September, when lake levels under observed operations in a normal year are more than 7 feet higher than under the Natural Hydrograph. Direct and indirect effects of maintaining the lake elevation at 2128 feet during the summer and early fall include increased lake water retention time, increased epilimnion water temperatures, increased nutrient recycling, increased primary productivity, decreased cold water fish habitat, decreased levels of dissolved oxygen in the hypolimnion, potential for increased mining-associated metals remobilization, and substantive overall changes in aquatic ecology (IDHW-DEQ, 1977; Avista 2005; Woods and Beckwith 1997; Golder, 2004, 2005). These effects are evident in the waters of the Reservation that are inundated by the Project (Coeur d’Alene Tribe 2005a).
Temperature
By holding the lake more than 7 feet higher than would occur without project operations the Project creates large expanses of shallow water (especially within the Reservation) which warm up early in the summer and remain warmer than waters in the northern portions of the lake (Vitale et al 2003). Water temperatures in the Project area exceed state and tribal water quality standards during certain times of the year (Avista 2005). Exceedances occur near the mouths of the St. Joe and Coeur d’Alene rivers typically in the spring and summer. These warm waters influence the formation of the thermocline, increase phytoplankton and rooted aquatic plant growth and their subsequent decomposition which results in decreased water quality below the thermocline including anaerobic (no oxygen) conditions. The poor oxygen conditions in the hypolimnion (water below the thermocline) also lead to the increase in anaerobic bacteria that increases the acidity in the water with the likely result of increased heavy metal dissolution (Wetzel 2001).
An extensive database of water temperature profiles exists for the southern end of Coeur d’Alene Lake that allows for comparative descriptions of shallow water versus deeper water sites in the Lake (Vitale et al. 2003). Shallow water sample stations at Chatcolet Lake, Benewah Lake, Round Lake, and Hidden Lake all show increasing water temperatures earlier in the year and prolonged periods of higher water temperature
B-1 compared to deeper sites in the Lake (Vitale et al. 2003). During the June through September period for all years of record, there is a significant difference between the deep, open water sites and all other sites (Vitale et al. 2003). The deeper sites have lower temperatures within the upper water column. Typically, the deep, open sites had temperatures ranging from 6.5 and 21.0ºC at the end of July, 7.0 and 22.0ºC the end of August, and 9.6 and 18ºC the end of September (Vitale et al. 2003). Shallow water sites ranged between 10.5 and 22.8ºC at the end of July, 9.8 and 23.5ºC by the end of August, and 7.0 and 19.2ºC the end of September (Vitale et al. 2003). In most years, the shallow inundated habitats created by the Project do not stratify and stay uniformly warm throughout the water column. This is significant because elevated water temperatures effectively limit the use of inundated habitats to species adapted to warm waters (Mallet 1968; Anders et al. 2003). These species tend to be non-native predatory fish, and plants that contribute to eutrophication. In addition, the uniformly warm water provides no cold water refugia for native salmonids. See Appendix D (Justification for Salmonid Fisheries Condition) for further discussion of effects of water temperatures on fisheries.
Water quality effects of erosion and constituent transport as influenced by project operations
Studies conducted during the licensing process suggest that project operations contribute to increased riverbank and shoreline erosion rates and that this accelerated erosion is expected to remain a factor in the proposed license (Avista 2005, Coeur d’Alene Tribe 2005b, See Appendix A – Justification for Coeur d’Alene Lake and Tributary Shoreline Erosion Control). Erosion and sediment transport from the lower St. Joe and Coeur d’Alene Rivers (which are affected by project operations) contribute to the in-filling of Tribal waters and to the overall nutrient loading to the lake. In addition, the lower Coeur d’Alene River contributes mining-associated hazardous substances by direct erosion and sediment transport (Beckwith et al 1997, 1998), and potentially by geochemical processes associated with repeated saturation /desaturation associated with the operation of the Project. The increased erosive loss of these materials increases the movement of suspended particulates and dissolved metals into the lake and onto the Reservation (Woods and Beckwith 1997; Coeur d’Alene Tribe 2006).
Project effects on eutrophication and associated adverse impacts
Project operations hold the level of Coeur d’Alene Lake approximately 7 to 8 feet higher than would normally occur during the summer growing season, greatly enlarging shallow water areas suitable for the growth of rooted aquatic plants. These shallow areas are located primarily in the southern portion of the Lake and the lower St. Joe River within the boundaries of the Reservation. Rooted aquatic plants act as nutrient pumps, drawing nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) out of lake bottom sediments and ultimately releasing them into the water column when the plants die at the end of the growing season and decompose. Therefore, by increasing aquatic plant production, the Project increases associated overall nutrient loading (eutrophication) to the Lake. Plant growth, death, and decomposition in the shallow areas of the southern portion of the Lake (within the Reservation) are undoubtedly a significant source of nutrient loading (Wetzel
B-2 2001), leading to the observed mesotrophic conditions, and potentially leading to eutrophic conditions (Coeur d’Alene Tribe 2005c).
Eutrophication can lead to adverse water quality affects such as decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations which is consumed by the process of decomposition of the excess algae and aquatic plant matter produced. This is of particular concern in Coeur d’Alene Lake because of the vast amounts of hazardous substances (such as arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and zinc) deposited in the lakebed sediments from historic mining and ore- processing activities, including in Tribal waters extending almost to the mouth of the St. Joe River (Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 2006). Depletion of dissolved oxygen in the overlying water column can lead to geochemical processes that release these substances from the lakebed (Horowitz and others, 1995; Woods and Beckwith 1997; Kuwabara and others, 2003, 2005).
Increased potential for metals solubilization
The metals in lake bed sediments are mainly in the form of iron and manganese hydroxide complexes, as opposed to the sulfide minerals of the original ore bodies (Woods and Beckwith 1997). Under oxidizing conditions these hydroxide complexes are relatively insoluble. However, under the reducing conditions produced when the overlying waters become depleted in dissolved oxygen due to eutrophication, hydroxide complexes are much more soluble leading to potential release of toxic metals such as arsenic, cadmium, lead, and zinc into the overlying waters (Maest 2003). USGS researchers have observed releases of metals from sediments that are of similar magnitude to that of the dissolved metals transported by the Coeur d’Alene River into the Lake (Kuwabara et al. 2003). Releases of metals from sediments has occurred even with oxygenated waters in the bottom of the Lake (Kuwabara et al. 2003).
While lake bottom conditions in the northern part of the lake are not particularly suitable for the dissolution of metals from contaminated sediments, conditions in the southern portion of the lake (on Reservation) are quite different, limnologically. The northern portion of the lake, north of the mouth of the Coeur d’Alene River, is steep-sided and fairly deep with a distinct cold thermocline present during the summer. In contrast, the southern portion of the lake, which is marked by extensive warm, shallow areas containing rooted aquatic plants, is much more susceptible to hypolimnetic oxygen depletion (Coeur s’Alene Tribe 2005b). Thus, while the levels of heavy metals concentrations in the sediments in the southern part of the Lake are not as high those in the northern part, the water quality conditions in the southern portion of the Lake could lead to higher rate of heavy metal solubilization (Woods and Beckwith 1997, Coeur d’Alene Tribe 2005b, Maest 2003).
Department’s condition
Under proposed Project operations, the impacts described above are expected to continue over the course of the license, which could be as long 50 years. Given the potentially serious risk to public health associated with metals resolubilization, it is reasonable to
B-3 expect that Avista would conduct thorough analysis to definitely demonstrate its impacts on this and other water quality concerns. In the Department’s view, data collected by Avista during the licensing proceeding do not adequately evaluate the Project’s contributions on these complex and interrelated processes and impacts to the Reservation (Garcia and Associates 2005). Accordingly, the Department’s Section 4(e) condition requires that Avista collaborate with the Tribe to develop and implement a water quality monitoring program to adequately assess and identify Project effects on water quality under prolonged summer-time inundation in the southern portion of Lake that is primarily in Tribal waters. The water quality monitoring program outlined in the Department’s condition is in keeping with generally accepted current methods in limnology. It details locations, numbers of samples, and appropriate depths at which to sample. The water quality monitoring plan also describes which nutrients and metals, and other basic limnological data (pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, etc.) needs to be collected. These data will serve as inputs to modeling efforts to investigate and document Project impacts that are occurring, or are likely to occur, on the Reservation.
B-4 References Cited
Anders, P., J. Cussigh, D. Smith, J. Scott, D. Ralston, R. Peters, D. Ensor, W. Towey, E. Brannon, R. Beamesderfer and J.Jordan. 2003. Coeur d'Alene Tribal Production Facility, Volume I of III. Project No. 1990-04402, BPA Report DOE/BP- 00006340-2. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 424 electronic pages.
Avista. 2005. Application for New License: Major Project. Existing Dam. Vol II. Applicant Prepared Preliminary Draft Environment Assessment.
Beckwith, M.A. 1997. Transport of trace elements by the Coeur d'Alene River, Idaho. Abstract. Presented at Inland Northwest Water Resources Conference. April 28- 29, 1997. Spokane, Washington.
Beckwith, M.A. 1998. Selected Trace-Element and Synthetic Organic Compound Data for Streambed Sediment from the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille and Spokane River Basins, Montana, Idaho, and Washington. Helena, MT: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 02-336. 26 p.
Beckwith, M.A., P.F. Woods and C. Berenbrock. 1997. Trace-Element Concentrations and Transport in the Coeur d’Alene River, Idaho, Water Years 1993-94. Boise, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-398. 7 p.
Bervoets, L., M. Lodts, K. Van Campenhout, and R. Blust. 2002. Heavy metals as a threat for restored fish populations in a lowland river. Pages 250-261. In: Collares-Pereira, M.J., I.G. Cowx, M.M Coelho (Eds). Conservation of freshwater fishes: Options for the Future. Fishing New Books, Blackwell Science:London.
Coeur d’Alene Tribe (CDAT). 2006. Map of lead concentrations in Lake Coeur d’Alene. Coeur d'Alene Tribe, GIS, Plummer, ID. February 2006.
Coeur d’Alene Tribe (CDAT). 2005a. Tribe’s Impact Assessment.
Coeur d’Alene Tribe (CDAT). 2005b. Letter from Michael A. Beckwith, Limnologist, Water Resources Program to Bruce Howard, License Manager, Avista Utilities. Coeur d’Alene Tribe comments on Jan. 21 2005 Draft Final Phase 2 Water Quality Technical Assessment of Metals in lake Coeur d’Alene and Spokane River. Dated March 29, 2005.
Coeur d’Alene Tribe (CDAT). 2005c. Draft Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, Plummer, ID. 59p.
Coeur d’Alene Tribe (CDAT). 2004. Letter from Scott Fields, Water Resource Program manger, Coeur d’Alene Tribe, to Hank Nelson, Environmental compliance Coordinator, Avista Utilites. Comments on Draft Phase 2 Water Quality
B-5 Technical Assessment of Lake Coeur d’Alene Temperature. Dated March 31, 2004.
Davis, S. P. 1961. Master’s Thesis: A Limnology Survey of the Backwater of the Lower St. Joe River, Idaho. University of Idaho Graduate School. 69 p.
Fields, S. pers.comm. 2006. Phone Conversation on Water Quality. 7 July 2006.
Garcia and Associates. 2005. Comments on Draft License Application and Preliminary Draft Environmental assessment, Spokane River Hydroelectric Project, No. 2545. Prepared for US Department of the Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs. May 2005.
Golder Associates, Inc. 2005. Water Quality Technical Assessment: Lake Coeur d'Alene Temperature, Nutrients, Aquatic Plants, Dissolved Oxygen and pH. Part 1: Data Report. Redmond, WA.
Golder Associates. 2004. Status/Summary of Water Quality Studies. October 1, 2004. 2 p. 2.
Horowitz, A.J., K.A. Elrick, J.A. Robbins, and R.B. Cook. 1995. A summary of the effects of mining and related activities on the sediment-trace element geochemistry of Lake Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, USA. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 52 (1995) pp. 135-144.
Kuwabara, J.S., W.M. Berelson, L.S. Balistrieri, P.F. Woods, B.R. Topping, D.J. Steding, and D.P. Krabbenhoft. 2000. Benthic Flux of Metals and Nutrients into the Water Column of Lake Coeur d’Alene, Idaho: Report of an August, 1999, Pilot Study. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4132.
Kuwabara, J.S., J.L. Carter, B.R. Topping, S.V. Fend, P.F. Woods, W.M. Berelson, L.S. Balistrieri. 2003. Importance of Sediment-Water Interactions in Coeur d'Alene Lake, Idaho USA Management Implications. Environmental Management. 32(3): 348-359.
IDH and ATSDR. 2003. Health consultation.
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environment. 1977. Water Quality Summary Coeur d’Alene Lake, Idaho. 14 p.
Maest, A. 2001. Stratus Consulting. Exhibit 2828. IN United States Department of the Interior's United States v. Asarco et al. Idaho.
Maest, A. 2001. Stratus Consulting. Expert Witness Testimony. IN United States Department of the Interior's United States v. Asarco et al. Idaho. Pages 12452- 12455.
B-6
Mallet, J.L. 1968. State of Idaho Fish and Game Department, Coeur d’Alene Lake fisheries investigations. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID.
Maret, T. R. and E.M. Dutton. 1999. Summary of Information on Synthetic Organic Compounds and Trace Elements in Tissue of Aquatic Biota, Clark Fork-Pend Oreille and Spokane River Basins, Montana, Idaho, and Washington, 1974-76. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4254. Boise, ID: National Water-Quality Assessment Program. 55 p.
Maret, T. R. and K.D. Skinner. 2000. Concentrations of Selected Trace Elements in Fish Tissue and Streambed Sediment in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille and Spokane River Basins, Washington, Idaho, and Montana, 1998. Boise, ID: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 00-4159. 27 p.
Martinez, E.A. 1998. Evaluation of mouthpart deformities and heavy metals in chironomids from the heavy metal contaminated Coeur d'Alene River. Master’s Thesis. Washington State University. May 1998. 46 Pages.
Vitale, A.J., D. Lamb, R. Peters, M., M. Stanger, C.Moore, D. Chess. 2003. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Fisheries Program: Implementation of Fisheries Enhancement Opportunities on the Coeur d'Alene Reservation, Annual Report, 1999-2001 with Review of Annual Scopes of Work 1995-2001. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Department of Natural Resources Fish, Water, and Wildlife Program, Plummer, ID. April 2003.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1996. Water-quality data collected during floods in the Coeur d’Alene River, Northern Idaho, February 1996. October 1996. USGS, Boise, ID.
Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology: Lake and River Systems. 3rd Edition. Academic Press: San Diego.
Woods, P.F. and M.A. Beckwith. 1997. Nutrient and Trace-Element Enrichment of Coeur d’Alene Lake, Idaho. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2485. 93p.
B-7 Appendix C
Justification for Protection of Cultural Resources Condition
I. Compliance with Cultural Resource Protection Laws
Various Federal, State and Tribal laws and regulations exist to promote the identification, evaluation, protection and preservation of significant cultural properties, sacred sites and human remains within the project area. Such laws include the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, (16 USC § 470, 36 C.F.R. Part 800; the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C. §§ 3001 et seq., 43 C.F.R. Part 10; the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1996 and 1996a, Executive Order 13007; Regulations for the Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections, 36 C.F.R. Part 79; and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. §§ 470aa-mm. The Department has built into its conditions certain elements of these laws to assure that if Avista fails to comply with its duties under these laws, it may be subject to the Commission’s enforcement authority.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal agencies consider the effects that their projects and programs will have on historic properties. Although the agency official with jurisdiction over a project, in this case the Commission, is legally responsible for all required findings and determinations made pursuant to the section 106 process, regulations allow the agency official to “use the services of applicants, consultants, or designees to prepare information, analyses and recommendations ...” 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(a)(3). Throughout this license proceeding, the Commission has relied upon the Licensee to participate in, and meet the requirements of, the section 106 process. Although the Commission is ultimately responsible for completing the process, pursuant to Commission practice, it is the Licensee that is currently conducting compliance with section 106. Therefore, in the Department’s view, it is appropriate that, if and when the Commission issues a license for the Project, the license contain conditions requiring the Licensee to complete the various phases of the section 106 process.
Parts B(1)-(4) the Department’s conditions are designed to parallel certain requirements of the section 106 process. Whereas the cope of section 106 applies to properties outside the current boundaries of the Reservation, however, the these conditions serve the more narrow purpose of protecting cultural resources on present Reservation lands within the Project boundary and buffer area. Further, the conditions include consulting and approval requirements that are not contained in the NHPA. Because the conditions address the protection of cultural resources on the Reservation, however, the Department is of the view that it is appropriate that both the Tribe and the Secretary, as trustee, play a prominent role in overseeing the proper identification of cultural resources sites and properties, as well as the evaluation of, the assessment of adverse effects to, and the
C-1 treatment of, such sites and properties. By establishing these roles, this condition enhances adequate preservation of cultural resources within the Reservation. These consulting and approval requirements apply only to affected properties located on the Reservation within the Project boundary and buffer area; Avista is not required, at least by the Department’s conditions, to comply with such requirements with regard to cultural sites and properties located on private or other lands outside the Reservation.
Similarly, the regulations implementing the NHPA and the Archaeological Protection Act of 1979 establish requirements for the protection of archaeological resources recovered from public and Indian lands, including provisions for the preservation of material remains and associated records. See 36 C.F.R. Part 79. The Department’s condition cites these regulations because they contain requirements by which a repository for curatorial services may meet federal standards for curation. It is appropriate that Avista fund these curatorial services because its operation of the Project has disturbed and otherwise affected cultural sites of significance to the Tribe since Avista began water storage on- Reservation in 1907 (Sprague 2006 IN Sprague 1996). Where Avista’s Project has made necessary the recovery and displacement of the artifacts from their current locations, it is Avista’s responsibility to pay for curatorial services and storage for these artifacts at a suitable facility.
Cultural resources excavated or removed from Reservation lands remain the property of the Tribe. Thus, it is appropriate that collections recovered from lands located on the Reservation within the Project boundary and buffer area be stored and managed in a facility on the Reservation, where those collections would be available to the Tribal cultural resources department and Tribal members. The Draft Section 106 Historic Properties Evaluation Technical Report prepared for this licensing proceeding concurs with this view. The Report’s section on Archaeological Collections Recommendations not only summarizes the need for permanent curation of Project-generated cultural materials, but recommends that all archaeological materials collected during the Idaho portion of the project be curated with the Tribe (Historical Research Associates 2006). This draft report further recommends that Avista consider preparation of storage and curation agreements with the Tribe (Historical Research Associates 2006).
It is the Department=s view that enabling the Tribe to retain stewardship of its cultural history and artifacts on its Reservation, available for its use in a facility that meets federal standards for curation, is a reasonable exercise of the Secretary=s authority under section 4(e) (Sprague 2006 IN Sprague 1996) (“The Tribe, through its Cultural Resources Program, is seeking to recover, systematically inventory, and maintain its Indian artifacts and heritage through a variety of sound methods.”). At the present time, the Tribe’s cultural resource department has a facility in Plummer, Idaho, designated as the Tribe’s Artifact and Archive Facility, containing a secure vault appropriate for protection of sacred items, human remains and the most delicate cultural materials. See Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s Comments and Recommendations in Proceedings of Avista Corporation’s Spokane River Project No. 2545, Proposed for Relicensing as FERC Nos. 12606-000, 2545-091, filed on July 17, 2006. Accordingly, the Department’s condition requires that Avista fund curation in this facility, including any upgrades necessary to meet the
C-2 requirements of 36 C.F.R. ' 79.9, as well as expansion of this facility and related operation and maintenance that may be necessary to accommodate the volume of artifacts, records, or remains excavated or removed over the course of the new license.
Finally, the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 governs the inadvertent discovery of human remains on tribal lands. Erosion and construction activities involving ground disturbance can result in the displacement and eventual discovery of human graves or remains. If these are found to be Native American graves and remains, their protection is an especially sensitive issue. While NAGPRA contains general requirements for addressing such situations, the Department’s condition contains requirements that go beyond those found in that statute. The condition establishes for Avista a specific protocol for situations when, as a result of either its operation of the Project or its compliance with the conditions of the license, Avista, or one of its contractors or agents, inadvertently disinters or discovers human remains on the Reservation within the Project boundary and buffer area. Avista must retain, for example, an archaeologist to investigate the discovery and determine the extent of human remains, as well as the extent of potential damage to them. In the Department=s view, it is appropriate that Avista as Licensee bear these expenses in such situations where activities associated with its Project necessitate the need for this investigation. Similarly, it is appropriate that Avista pay for any measures the Tribe deems necessary to secure, protect, and prevent damage to discovered remains in those instances where Avista’s Project has created the potential danger to those remains. The Department notes that these special requirements apply only on Reservation lands within the Project boundary and buffer area; Avista is not required, at least by these conditions, to comply with these requirements when human remains are discovered on private or other lands outside the Reservation.
II. Buffer Area
As noted above, Avista has conducted the section 106 process for this license proceeding. Avista, through its contractors, conducted a cultural resources inventory. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) defined for the Project was to be “flexible,” including “lands outside the Project Boundary where project operations may affect the character or use of Historic Properties and/or Traditional Cultural Properties” (Hicks 2005). Archaeological surveys, however, were restricted to lands below elevation 2128, the normal high pool mark (Hicks 2005). That elevation also constitutes the Project boundary. In the Department’s view, restricting surveys in this manner is inappropriate considering the history of the Tribe and its well-documented use of the resources in and around the shorelines of Lake Coeur d’Alene and its tributaries (Hicks 2005, Sprague 2006 IN Sprague 1996). Hicks et al. (2004) found the majority of habitation sites within 100-200 feet of Coeur d’Alene Lake, the Spokane River and other small lakes. Most sites documented during prelicensing surveys ranged in size from 98 to greater than 328 feet in diameter (Historical Research Associates, Inc. 2006). In contrast, the inventory of above ground historic sites appears to have included lands within 100 feet above the high pool mark (Hicks 2005). See Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s Amended Additional Information/Study Requests for Avista Corporation’s Spokane River Project No. 2545 (as proposed by
C-3 Applicant, FERC Nos. 2545-091 and 12606-000) (hereinafter Tribe’s 9-27-05 AIR), filed on September 28, 2005, at pages 3-7.
The Department finds no rationale or justification for using different parameters for inventory of archaeological and historic properties. Accordingly, the Department’s condition requires that all Project-related cultural resource work conducted on the Reservation within the Project boundary include a buffer area of at least 100 feet above the Project boundary or the actual APE beyond the boundary, whichever is greater, to preserve invaluable and irreplaceable cultural sites and properties adjoining the Project border within the Reservation.
III. Cultural Resources Management Plan
A. Resurvey
Throughout the duration of the license, significant cultural remains may become evident and need to be inventoried and evaluated along with previously known site data. Typical SHPO standards call for resurvey of areas for Section 106 considerations approximately every 10 years, based on new exposure of cultural deposits, new technologies and methods for analyzing and evaluating cultural data, as well as standards for assessing and evaluating recurring impacts to cultural resource sites. Accordingly, one would expect resurvey to commence in approximately 2014, 10 years from the initial surveys. In the Department’s view, however, the initial surveys did not adequately cover Reservation lands. A majority of the documented cultural resource sites are known from surface deposits or, in only a few cases, limited subsurface sampling. Avista’s inventory is based on limited sampling unsuitable for extrapolation and suffers other deficiencies detailed in the Tribe’s 9-27-06 AIR, at pages 3-7. Consequently, the Department’s condition requires that Avista commence resurvey of Reservation lands within the Project boundary and buffer area within 30 days after license issuance. To ensure that resurvey is complete in time for the expected 10 year resurvey (approximately 8 years), the Department’s condition requires that resurvey be conducted at a rate of 12.5% per year.
B. Treatment and Protection of Traditional Cultural Properties
The people of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe hold important spiritual and cultural sites throughout the general Project area. Such Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) include specific or general locations where stories, teaching, activities, and resource utilization have been important to the people. Avista provided funding for a limited pilot study to begin to identify and document TCPs within the general Project area. The pilot study, conducted by the Tribe, addressed a limited number of place name locations, TCPs, and oral history interviews. Additionally, oral interviews with Tribal elders and other individuals commenced to document the details and importance of the locations. Although the pilot study was a positive initial step, it will not be adequate to address all significant TCPs for effective monitoring, evaluation and preservation. Additional significant TCPs remain to be identified. The potential for loss of significant traditional information is great, as Tribal elders with such knowledge pass away over the course of
C-4 the license period. Accordingly, the Department’s condition requires that Avista complete the TCP assessment begun under the pilot study to prepare a complete survey documenting important resource and spiritual locations key to preservation of the Tribe’s cultural heritage.
C. Monitoring
Many known sites on the Reservation have been subjected to erosion caused, or exacerbated by, the operation of the Project. Project operations during the future license term will continue to cause damage to these sites. Given the length of the licensing period, the Department is of the view that the license must provide for continuing review of Project effects to all known cultural resource sites on the Reservation within the Project boundary and buffer area. This review should assess direct Project effects, such as ground disturbance due to new Project construction, changes in impoundment levels, Project enhancement or mitigation activities, and indirect effects of the Project, such as vandalism, looting and collection at archaeological sites, including those sites discovered during the license term.
Although the Department’s condition requires that Avista identify all cultural resource sites on Reservation land within the Project boundary and buffer area, it is unlikely that such investigations will locate all such sites. Shorelines on these lands are being eroded, potentially exposing previously buried material at recorded sites. Consequently, the Department expects that additional materials will be discovered during the license term. Accordingly, monitoring is necessary to document cultural deposits and artifacts that become exposed on recorded sites on Reservation lands within the Project boundary and buffer area.
D. Public Education and Law Enforcement
As discussed above, an array of Federal laws protects the cultural resources of Indian Tribes. The existence of these laws both underscores the inestimable value that Tribes place on these objects and demonstrates that they are in great need of protection. Unfortunately, illegal looting, vandalism, and theft are so commonly associated with Indian cultural resources that Federal laws prohibit the disclosure to the public of information concerning the location and character of historic resources and the nature and location of archaeological resources. 16 U.S.C. ' 470w-3 and 16 U.S.C. ' 470hh.
In and around Coeur d’Alene Lake and its rivers, the history of scavenging Indian cultural resources and artifacts, also known as “pothunting,” is well-documented in periodicals, interviews, official records, and published literature dating from the turn of the century to present day (Sprague 2006 IN Sprague 1996). While this area is certainly not unique in this regard, the operation of the Project contributes acutely to the problem of pothunting, here. First, Project-caused erosion (see Appendix A – Justification for Coeur d’Alene Lake and Tributary Shoreline Erosion Control condition) exposes buried objects. Second, Avista’s routine drawdown of the lake level affords ample opportunities for these objects to be easily spotted by pothunters (Sprague 2006 IN Sprague 1996).
C-5 According to Sprague, the exposure and visibility of these objects “is well known to the general public and makes it easy for them to pick out the best times and areas in which to hunt for Tribal cultural objects and remains” (Sprague 2006 IN Sprague 1996). A 1995 resurvey of cultural sites in the southern portion of the lake noted the prevalence of these practices, concluding that “the archaeological record is being impacted by private collectors on state and reservation lands …” (Erb 1995 IN Sprague 1996 ).
While the Department recognizes that Avista does not in anyway promote or condone the illegal activities described above, the Project is integral to pothunting because its operations unbury cultural objects and remains, exposing them to routine gathering during low water periods that follow regularly scheduled drawdowns. Accordingly, the Department is of the view that Avista should play an integral role in helping to deter the unauthorized looting, collecting, vandalism and other destruction of cultural resources on the Reservation. To this end, the Department’s condition requires that Avista both enter into an agreement with the Tribe to provide law enforcement on the Reservation and develop a program to educate the public about the importance of cultural resources.
E. Initial Cultural Resource Action Program
The Initial Cultural Resource Action Program includes items—resurvey, TCP survey and evaluation, monitoring, and law enforcement—that are required as part of the CRMP, as discussed above. Development and implementation of the CRMP, however, may be at least a couple of years away. In the meantime, Tribal cultural resources are suffering immediate and on-going degradation. Consequently, the Initial Action Program is designed to ensure that certain actions be initiated immediately (within 30 days) after license issuance. The Department anticipates that the items in the Initial Action Program are ones that Avista can implement within this timeframe. The Department also anticipates that these items can easily be subsumed by and continued as part of the CRMP.
C-6 Literature Cited
Hicks, B. editor; Meoli, L.; Lakin, K.; Herkelrath, M; Montgomery, M; Rushing, B; and Demuth K. Senior Reviewer. August 2004. In association with Western Historical Services, Inc. Cultural Resource Overview for the Spokane River Hydroelectric Relicensing Project. Prepared for Avista Corporation, FERC License No. 2545.
Hicks, B.; J. Cziesla; M. Montgomery; K. Demuth (Entrix) and S. Hamilton (Applied Archaeological Research) with contributions by B. Rushing, L. Meoli, S. Mukhtyar. November 2005. Cultural Resources Inventory Technical Report for the Spokane River Hydroelectric Relicensing Project. Prepared for Avista Corporation, FERC License No. 2545.
Historical Research Associates, Inc., January 2006. Draft, Section 106 Historic Properties Evaluation Technical Report, Spokane River Project, prepared for Avista Corporation, Spokane River Project, FERC No. 2545.
Sprague, R. 1996. An Anthropological Summary of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s Occupation of the Coeur d’Alene Lake Area. Moscow, ID.
C-7
Appendix D Justification for Salmonid Fisheries Condition
Project Impacts
Project operations maintain the water surface of Coeur d’Alene Lake (Lake) at a higher level during certain times of the year than would otherwise occur naturally (see Appendix A; Justification for Coeur d’Alene Lake and Tributary Shoreline Erosion Control). This operation of the Project has significant impacts to physical and edaphic (water quality) conditions which, in turn, have affected the aquatic resources of the Lake (Table D-1). The following excerpt from Kleinschmidt (2004) generally describes these impacts:
The result of this [Post Falls] operating regime is higher Lake levels for longer periods during the summer months than occurred historically. In turn, a larger littoral zone is established creating more shallow water habitat which may result in localized higher water temperatures. Additionally, the mouths of tributaries are flooded throughout the summer and into late September resulting in changes in sediment deposition patterns accentuated by increases in erosion upstream, and formerly fluvial habitat is changed temporarily into lacustrine habitat. Potential biological effects are changes in food-web interactions as a result of increased shallow water and the loss of the original riparian zone adjacent to the Lake, loss or changes in spawning and rearing habitat for bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout in flooded tributaries, restriction or modification of migration patterns in the flooded reaches of the tributaries, and increased competition and predation on bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout as a result of the creation of habitat that may favor exotic species.
Cumulative effects of the altered hydrograph have changed the aquatic ecological conditions in the tributary mouths and lower reaches, altering them from coldwater, fast moving streams and rivers with riffles, runs, and pools and dominated by salmonids (cutthroat and bull trout, and whitefish), to an extended lotic, slow-moving transition zone community dominated by introduced yellow perch, tench, pumpkinseed and largemouth bass, kokanee and Chinook salmon (Scholz et al. 1985, Vitale et al. 1999, Vitale et al. 2003).
Impacts to the aquatic resources have been demonstrated and are expected to continue under the current operating scenario for Post Falls HED in terms of degraded coldwater salmonid habitat, exceedances of water quality standards, migratory barriers that fragment the watershed, and proliferation of macrophytes. Further, extending the period of inundation, as proposed under the new license agreement, will exacerbate the impacts particularly to the migratory salmonids species. Table D-1 summarizes the primary and secondary impacts of the operation of Post Falls HED on the aquatic ecology and communities in Coeur d'Alene Lake.
D-1
Table D-1. Summary of Project impacts on aquatic resources of Coeur d'Alene Lake. Impact References Primary Secondary Golder Assoc. 2004 Project elevates water level during Prolonged inundation of tributary mouths summer months Increase in sedimentation in tributary Graves et al. 1992, mouths Kleinschmidt 2004
Increase in slackwater habitat Kleinschmidt 2004 Reduction in attractant flows for spawning fish
Increased residence time of lake Increase in water temperatures, particularly Avista 2002 waters in inundated shallow areas; Golder Assoc. 2004 Increase in habitat suitability for Golder Assoc. 2004 introduced, predatory fishes; Decrease in habitat suitability for native Kleinschmidt 2004 salmonids; Potential for increase in migration time Parametrix 2004 during salmonid spawning due to thermal barriers
General Habitat Alterations – Lake and Tributary Streams
The characteristics of the mouths of the three major tributary rivers, and many smaller tributary streams of CdA Lake differ today from their historic state. The Project has created a backwater that results in essentially one long pool at each mouth with no significant velocity (Woods and Beckwith 1997). Above the inundated reaches, the Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe Rivers have substantially greater areas of suitable salmonid habitat, such as pools and deep runs, as compared to the inundated reaches (Parametrix 2004).
Impoundment and subsequent inundation has also changed the character of several chain lakes. Chatcolet, Round, and Benewah lakes are now one continuous low-velocity delta punctuated by shallow reaches that were formerly the connecting channels between the lakes. Impacts to the fisheries from degraded coldwater fish habitat are documented in the lake and tributaries (Vitale et al. 1999, Vitale et al. 2003, Kleinschmidt 2004) and are expected to continue under the current operating scenario for Post Falls HED.
Inundated Tributary Mouths
Avista’s proposed mitigation and enhancement plan for bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout (Kleinschmidt 2004) discusses several impacts due to inundation of tributary mouths:
In addition to simple inundation and the loss of fluvial characteristics, the flooding effect causes changes in deposition of sediment resulting in delta formation and finer sediments being deposited in the lower reaches of the rivers.
D-2
Those changes may have resulted in the loss of spawning and rearing habitat in those locations and may also indirectly affect fish migration by creating: a) Shallow or slow water which may increase warming and create limnological barriers, b) Physical blockages through deposition, and c) Habitat favored by predators of migrating fish
These inundated reaches provide less attractive habitat for westslope cutthroat trout. Yet, they represent a transitional area between the Lake and the free flowing reaches through which migratory fish must nevertheless traverse to reach spawning and rearing areas. In a radio tracking study conducted by Avista from 2003-2004, most of the fish that occupied the inundated reach in the Coeur d’Alene River were located in a relatively deep pool at RM 30.0, just downstream of the inundated reach boundary (as occurs at a lake elevation of 2128 ft) (Parametrix 2004).
This particular pool may provide some thermal refuge for fish, as relatively large numbers of untagged fish were also observed in this pool during the monitoring period. As a result, the distribution of fish in the inundated reach tended to be concentrated in this pool, while a relatively uniform distribution of the tagged fish was observed in the free-flowing reach immediately upstream.
That these fish congregated in this manner suggests both that they were avoiding the inundated reach, and that only small micro-habitats within the inundated reaches remain suitable for westslope cutthroat trout. Although this example is on the Coeur d'Alene River, fish in the St. Joe River are likely to seek out similar refugia.
The reduced velocities during much of the Project’s operations contribute to sedimentation, and result in expansion of river deltas into the main body of the lake (Vitale et al. 1999, Kleinschmidt 2004). The benthic invertebrates associated with these degraded conditions in the deltas are dominated by amphipods, oligochaetes, and leeches (Davis 1961). These delta areas provide ideal habitat for predators of westslope cutthroat trout, such as northern pike (Weitkamp 2003). With the presence of these and other predators, westslope cutthroat trout and other natives are excessively preyed upon and the refugia for juveniles are reduced. This results in a loss of fishery resources near shore for Tribal members.
The construction of Post Falls HED and the subsequent extended inundation of the tributary mouths eliminated many spawning areas historically available to native salmonids, and created slackwater environments that are favorable to other species, including northern pike, largemouth bass, northern pikeminnow and other non-native piscivores (Scholz et al. 1985, Kleinschmidt 2004). Adequate water velocities serve as an attractant for spawning fish as they migrate and are important for embryo survival and fry emergence, as these lifestages depend upon substrate conditions, including gravel size, porosity, permeability, and oxygen levels; substrate stability during high flows; and appropriate water temperatures (Bjornn and Reiser 1991, Spence et al. 1996). Waters with higher velocities also provide a mechanism to deliver oxygen and nutrients to incubating eggs, inhibit disease, and provide cool water refugia from warmer surface waters for juvenile fish (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). This refuge is important because metabolic demands are
D-3
determined by temperature, and for optimal function and growth, salmonid species need cooler water (Bjornn and Reiser 1991).
Elevated Water Temperatures
The Project holds the Lake at a constant level after spring runoff until September; about 8 ft above the natural sill that constricts the outlet of the Lake (Avista 2005). Under the new license, Avista proposes to continue to hold the Lake at this level until 15 September of each year (Avista 2005). Extended retention of the Lake level by the Project creates extensive shallow areas that under unregulated conditions would be emergent wetlands or shallow areas that dried out by late summer (Avista 2005). Solar radiation causes these areas of shallow waters to warm, and warms the sediment (Wetzel 2001), creating large areas of shallow warm water (Avista 2005, Golder 2005, Parametrix 2004) and thus altering the nature of the Lake. The Lake’s acreage expands by 28.5% (Avista 2005) at full pool compared to pool level 8 ft lower; this increase in surface is significant. Holding the Lake level in place during summer also maintains inundation of many miles of tributaries around the entire Lake (Avista 2005, Woods and Beckwith 1997), including approximately 25 miles of the Coeur d'Alene River, 30 miles of the St. Joe River, and 7 miles of the St. Maries River (Avista 2005). These large inundated, shallow, warm areas that were formerly riverine habitat in summer create thermal barriers for the movement of adfluvial and fluvial bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout (Munson et al 1980).
The Project contributes to the overall high temperatures in the epilimnion of the Lake due to increased residence time of water in the Lake, and because the altered hydrography of the tributary mouths extends the characteristics of a lake rather than a river system upstream into these tributary waters (Avista 2002). During the winter and spring months, when flows are highest through the Coeur d'Alene Lake outflow, residence time varies from 6 to 22 days; however, during the summer when flows are lowest, this period increases to 56 to 165 days (Golder 2004). Therefore, the Project creates a larger thermal mass and subjects the water to a longer warming period which in turn impacts temperature in the epilimnion and increases the duration of peak seasonal temperatures. Impacts to the spatial and temporal thermal variation have strong implications for fish movement, behavior and subsequent reproductive success (Munson et al. 1980, Birtwell et al 2003, Chaumont et al 2003).
CdA Lake temperatures exceed the optimum ranges for a cool water system on an annual basis during June, July, August, and September (Vitale et al. 1999, Vitale et al. 2003, Golder 2005) and are reported to exceed 15 oC in the epilimnion in some locations as early as June 8th (Vitale et al. 1999, Peters et al. 1998). Temperatures in Coeur d’Alene Lake frequently exceed Tribal and State of Idaho water quality standards for coldwater aquatic communities, bull trout, and salmonid spawning (IDEQ 1999, Golder 2005). In the southern shallow lakes the Project, through its maintenance of full pool level during summer, creates conditions favorable to warm water fish species, including non-natives, and detrimental to cold water, native fishes which were traditionally used by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe (Coeur d'Alene Tribe 2005). In July, water temperatures greater than 18 oC occur in Coeur d’Alene Lake extending from the surface to at least 20 ft deep (Parametrix 2004).
D-4
Avista and its contractors (Golder), as part of relicensing efforts, measured temperatures between June 3 and October 22 in 2003, at 42 locations in the Lake and tributaries, with temperatures recorded at 1- or 2-hour intervals (Avista 2005, Golder 2005). Coeur d’Alene Lake surface temperatures exceeded the optimum ranges for a coldwater fish community and salmonid spawning from July to October and are reported to be as high as 25 oC, which would prove lethal to westslope cutthroat trout (Spence et al 1996, Bear et al. 2005, Avista 2005). Data observed for Coeur d’Alene Lake at different time periods are shown in Table D-2.
Table D-2. Seasonal water temperatures reported in 2003 for Coeur d’Alene Lakea and its tributaries in degrees Celsius (Avista 2005).
Seasonal Maximum 7-Day Average Maximumb Site Date Value Date Value
Coeur d'Alene River mouth, 2m 7/26 24.8 7/29 24.5 Coeur d'Alene River mouth, 8m 8/19 21.7 8/21 21.4 St. Joe River mouth, 2.5m 8/28 21.3 8/26 21.2 St. Joe River mouth, 8.5 m 7/27 24.4 7/30 24.1 Coeur d'Alene Lake, Beauty Bay, 5.0m 8/01 24.8 7/30 24.4 Coeur d'Alene Lake, Carlin Bay, 5.0m 8/01 25.5 7/30 25.0 Coeur d'Alene Lake, Cougar Bay, 5.0m 8/10 24.2 8/01 23.9 Coeur d'Alene Lake, Windy Bay, 5.0m 7/30 24.0 8/08 23.5 a For more samples from Coeur d'Alene Lake and it tributaries see Avista 2005 or Golder 2005. bThe 7-day averages reported are the maximum of the rolling 7-day averages of daily maximums and the average of the daily minimums for the same 7-day period. The date given is the centerpoint of the 7-day period.
Adfluvial fish may survive in the deeper, hypolimnetic areas of Coeur d’Alene Lake, where the water is colder and closer to their preferred water temperatures (McIntyre and Rieman 1995). A study by Parametrix (2004) using sonic tagging generally found fish below 20 ft depth, especially in late summer. However, this use of cold, deeper water in Coeur d’Alene Lake may be detrimental to westslope cutthroat trout, a species that normally ranges throughout lake habitat, but when other fish are present, especially rainbow trout, use only nearshore, littoral areas (Wydoski and Whitney 2003).
Fish must traverse a barrier of water temperature that can be either horizontal (swimming a number of miles of inundated river to traverse from cold lake water to stream habitat) or vertical (swimming up through the thermocline to reach shallower waters to migrate up tributaries that are shallower than the Lake). Accurately characterizing the extent of these warm water barrier areas requires adequate sampling in the inundated areas at appropriate times of year corresponding to fish migration times. Adequate water temperature sampling has not been undertaken by Avista, making assessment of the extent of the barriers incomplete (Coeur d'Alene Tribe 2005, Garcia and Associates 2004, and DOI 2005).
The inflow of the St. Joe River to Coeur d’Alene Lake overflows the water in Coeur d’Alene Lake for much the year (Golder 2005). Overflow occurs when less dense water from a stream or river joins a lake, and because the inflowing water is less dense, it flows over the top of the water in the lake (Wetzel 2001). Water temperature is one of the main determinants of water density; thus, the warmer water from the St. Joe River overflows the colder water in Coeur d’Alene Lake. This overflow creates a situation where for much of the year (all months except October,
D-5
November and December) adfluvial fish need to swim up into the warmer plume of water, to access the shallow waters of the tributaries they are attempting to enter.
Temperatures in the inundated parts of the St. Joe River (just upstream of Benewah Lake and at St. Maries) exceeded salmonid spawning criteria a third of the time, and near Benewah Lake, exceeded these criteria 83% of the time (Golder 2005). In the Coeur d'Alene and St. Joe rivers temperatures measurements recorded in 2003 indicated an increase in temperature of 4 to 5 oC between the slack water transition areas and the river mouths (Golder 2005). Since temperatures above the slack water are sometimes in exceedance of cold water biota criteria (above 20 oC in 2003; Golder 2005), and fish must traverse many miles on each river to reach the Lake, this warming creates a long stressful barrier to fish transit for adfluvial westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Continuing current Project operations over the course of the new license will perpetuate summer water temperatures that likely will continue to violate Idaho, Coeur d'Alene Tribe, and Federal, water quality standards in the Lake (Table D-4).
Temperature data from 2003 at several locations in the St. Joe River, at depths of 2.5 and 8.5 m, showed daily water temperatures from July 26 to September 8 that consistently exceeded 20 oC and ranged up to 24 oC (Avista 2005). These temperatures were clearly well above those preferred for bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout and were at times at levels lethal to westslope cutthroat trout (Wydoski and Whitney 2003, Bear et al. 2005). Resident, adfluvial, and fluvial bull trout are present in the St. Joe River (S. Deeds pers. comm. 2006).
Temperatures in the Coeur d'Alene River at times exceed cold water biota criteria (IDEQ 1999). Temperatures in the Coeur d'Alene River at 2.5 and 8 m depth had seasonal maxima of 19.4 to 24.8 oC (at 8 m depth) in July and August (Avista 2005). The river warms as it flows slowly downstream to the Lake, in part because the river is too broad to be shaded. The weight of evidence from sampling by IDEQ and review of previous data (IDEQ 1999) indicates that standards for salmonid spawning are regularly exceeded in the upper reach of the river. IDEQ speculates that westslope cutthroat trout have adapted to temperature conditions by spawning earlier in the season to take advantage of cooler stream conditions, but data are not presented to support this conclusion (IDEQ 1999). Recent research on westslope cutthroat trout shows that their preferred temperature range is well below that found in the Lake epilimnion (Bear et al. 2005).
Water temperatures are critical to a fishery, affecting the growth and survival of fish (and their food web, including macroinvertebrates) throughout their various life cycles. Three measurements are typically used to assess the physiological and behavioral preferences of fishes: survival limits (upper and lower); optimum growth range; and behavioral preference and avoidance (McMahon et al. 2006). In addition to effects on survival and growth, water temperature can strongly affect competitive outcomes between species (Bear et al. 2005).
Optimal temperatures for bull, rainbow, and westslope cutthroat trout range from 0 to 20 oC (Table D-3). Westslope cutthroat trout prefer temperature less than 16 oC (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Coeur d’Alene Lake temperatures exceed the optimum ranges on an annual basis, frequently beginning in May (Parametrix 2004). Temperatures in the inundated parts of the St. Maries River approach 16 oC as early as late May and early June (Parametrix 2004).
D-6
Table D-3. Optimal and lethal temperatures among trout species, based on techniques used to determine incipient lethal temperatures (“ILT”) and critical thermal maxima (“CTM”).
Species Optimal Temperature (ºC) Lethal Temperature Technique¹ (ºC ) ¹
Rainbow trout 2.2 – 20.0 spawning² 29.4 CTM 12 - 19 adult³ 25.0 ILT
Brown trout 12 – 19 adult³ 29.9 CTM 7 – 19 juvenile³ 26.7 ILT 2 – 13 spawning³ Brook trout 11 – 16 adult³ 29.8 CTM 4.5 – 10 spawning³ 25.8 ILT
Cutthroat trout 5.0 – 10.0 migration² 22.8 4.4 – 12.8 spawning² Mountain whitefish 0.0 – 5.6 spawning²
Bull trout < 9.0 spawning² 2.0 – 6.0 incubation²
¹Adapted from (Bjornn & Reiser 1991) ² Spence et al 1996 ³ Raleigh et al 1984 in http://h20sparc.wq.ncsu.edu
Table D-4. IDEQ and Coeur d'Alene Tribe water quality temperature criteria applicable in the Project area (adapted from Golder 2004). Agency Specific use Numeric temperature Applicable time Applies to criteria period IDEQ Coldwater 22ºC instantaneous and Year-round Spokane River aquatic 19ºC maximum daily Coeur d'Alene Lake community average Saint Joe River (COLD) Coeur d'Alene River IDEQ Salmonid 13ºC instantaneous and 9ºC June 1 to October Spokane River spawning (SS) maximum daily average 31st Coeur d'Alene Lake Saint Joe River
IDEQ Bull trout 13ºC weekly maximum June 1 to August 31 Spokane River (BT) Coeur d'Alene Lake Saint Joe River
9ºC daily average September 1 to October 31 Coeur Coldwater 7 day average of the daily February 1 to June 30 Coeur d'Alene Lake d'Alene Tribe biota maximum temperatures is Saint Joe River
D-7
Table D-4. IDEQ and Coeur d'Alene Tribe water quality temperature criteria applicable in the Project area (adapted from Golder 2004). Agency Specific use Numeric temperature Applicable time Applies to criteria period (Tribe COLD) not to exceed 14°C and with Coeur d'Alene River no single daily maximum temperature over 18°C 7 day average of the daily July 1 to January 31 maximum temperatures is not to exceed 18°C with no single daily maximum over 21ºC Coeur Bull trout 7 day average of the daily June 1 to September d'Alene Tribe maximum temperatures is 30 not to exceed 10°C Coeur Cutthroat trout 7 day average of the daily February 1 to June 30 Saint Joe River d'Alene Tribe maximum temperatures is not to exceed 14°C (With no single daily maximum temp over 18°C ) 7 day average of the daily July 1 to January 31 maximum temperatures is not to exceed 18°C (With no single daily maximum temp over 21°C )
Westslope cutthroat trout migrate and spawn in spring, from March to July, with timing of migration primarily related to water temperatures. For adult migration, 18-23 oC is the upper lethal temperature range (Berman 1998). Spawning movements in the St. Joe River occur by early July (Wydoski and Whitney 2003); this time period overlaps with temperatures that are too high for westslope cutthroat trout (Berman 1998, Golder 2005). Recent tests comparing westslope cutthroat trout with rainbow trout (Fish Lake strain), showed similar temperatures for both species for behavioral preference (14-15 oC) and growth optima temperatures (13-14 oC) (McMahon et al. 2006 and Bear et al. 2005). However, rainbow trout could tolerate a wider range of temperatures and could survive at water temperatures 4 oC higher than westslope cutthroat trout could withstand before death ensued. Further, rainbow grew better both below 7 oC and above 21 oC water temperatures.
Avista and its contractors undertook a study to assess adfluvial westslope cutthroat trout use of inundated reaches of the Coeur d'Alene, St. Joe and St. Maries rivers (Parametrix 2004). However fish were caught too late in the year and well above inundated areas; thus, the study sampled mostly resident fish, not adfluvial fish (Peters 2004). As a result, this study failed to provide useful information with which to evaluate the ability of adfluvial fish to move through warm, inundated lower reaches of tributaries.
Bull trout migrate and spawn from August to late December, with a peak of spawning in September and early October when water temperature declines from about 9 oC to 5 oC (Berman 1998, McPhail and Baxter 1996, Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Optimal incubation temperatures for eggs are 2 to 4 oC (McPhail and Baxter 1996). They prefer waters less than 15 oC, and in
D-8
Idaho are at highest densities in habitats with water temperatures of 14 oC or lower (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). They are rarely found in habitat that exceeds 15 oC, and are extremely rare in habitat with temperatures above 18 oC. Further, although they will occur in bodies of water with temperatures up to 15 oC (Sauter et al. 2001), in water bodies where there is a thermal gradient of 8-15 oC, juvenile bull trout choose waters in the 8-9 oC range, demonstrating a strong behavioral preference for water temperatures in that range (Bonneau and Scarnecchia 1996).
Bull trout will only spawn in flowing water (McPhail and Baxter 1996), thus all slack water areas must be completely traversed by adfluvial forms. Bull trout are declining in many areas and reservoir flooding of low gradient sections of tributary streams, and thus inundation of spawning sites, is considered one of the negative impacts of impoundments on bull trout (McPhail and Baxter 1996). The Coeur d'Alene River subbasin is a core area for bull trout recovery and is being managed as such by the USFWS (DOI 2005). As detailed in Avista’s PDEA (Avista 2005; page 5-90), water temperatures in much of the summer in inundated tributaries also exceeded salmonid spawning and bull trout criteria.
Aquatic Macrophytes
The higher water levels sustained by the project during the growing season create large expanses of shallow bays and backwater areas which are highly favorable for noxious aquatic plant growth (see Appendix E - Justification for Aquatic Weed Management). Macrophyte beds provide dense cover for predatory fish such as largemouth bass and northern pike. The Tribe has conducted tagging studies showing that these fish not only select shallow habitats, but that their diet includes significant numbers of westslope cutthroat trout in several age classes (Vitale et al 1999, Vitale et al. 2003). The Tribe conducted a tagging and stomach contents analysis of northern pike, largemouth bass and smallmouth bass, and found that both ate westslope cutthroat trout in numbers large enough to cause an impact to the species.
The Historic Fishery
To put the Project’s impacts on fisheries, discussed above, into perspective, it is useful to consider what the fishery was like prior to Project operation. Post Falls HED began operation near the turn of the twentieth century; therefore, the changes in the Lake fishery likely began 100 years ago. Although state and tribal fisheries managers currently monitor fish populations in the lake, fish population data for pre-Project conditions are limited. However, Scholz et al. (1985) provide estimates of tribal fish consumption from approximately 1840. This information is best data available for estimating the size of a healthy, sustainable fishery. Although Coeur d'Alene tribal members consumed considerable amounts of salmon annually, Table D-5 is limited to the Tribe’s consumption of non-anadromous salmonid species. As indicated, historic tribal fish consumption exceeded 100 fish per capita, annually. Current tribal consumption is near zero for preferred species such as westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout because populations of these fish are so small (Anders et al. 2003).
D-9
Table D-5. Estimated resident fish consumption per tribal member at the time the first white contact (c.1840) (Scholz et al. 1985). Tribal Total number of fish Aboriginal Species Pounds/capita lbs/fish # fish/capita population consumed annually consumption Bull trout 30 20 1.50 700 1,050.00 3,675.00 cutthroat 120 2 60.00 700 42,000.00 147,000.00 whitefish 105 2.5 42.00 700 29,400.00 102,900.00 rough fish 45 3 15.00 700 10,500.00 36,750.00 Totals 300 118.50 82,950.00 290,325.00
That the Tribe harvested and consumed these fish in such large amounts clearly demonstrates that, at that time, the Lake and its tributaries supported a high-quality coldwater, adfluvial fishery. Today, that fishery has been replaced by a warm water lake resident fishery that is better adapted to the project-created environmental conditions. Exotic warm water fish now make up some 60-70 percent of populations in the Lake (Vitale et al. 1999, Vitale et al. 2003). It has been estimated that all salmonids comprise less than two percent of the total fish populations of the Lake and salmonid populations are dominated by the introduced kokanee and Chinook salmon. The most common fish in the Lake, the largescale sucker, is characterized as a bottom-feeding, opportunistic, omnivorous fish that prefers backwater areas for feeding or the still waters of the lower reaches of rivers (Dauble 1986). Yellow perch are the second most common fish in the Lake and their suitability curves indicate that habitat preference is optimum at zero velocity and becomes completely non-suitable at velocities greater than 0.4 ft/s (Krieger et al. 1983). Largemouth bass also prefer zero or low velocities. Conditions for largemouth bass are optimal at zero velocity and drop to completely unsuitable at velocities over 0.66 ft/s (Stuber et al. 1982). Tench are characterized as “a slow-moving, sluggish fish that prefers mudbottom ponds or the still waters of the lower reaches of rivers where rooted aquatic plants grow in profusion” (Scott and Crossman 1973). In short, the fish community that currently dominates the Lake (Table D- 6) has a clear preference for warmer, shallow waters, with near zero velocities.
Table D-6. Relative abundance of fish species in Coeur d'Alene Lake as measured by transect electrofishing at twelve areas distributed from Windy Bay south from 1994 to 1997 (Peters et al. 1998).
Species Code 1994 1995 1996 1997 Summary Yellow perch YP 367 458 118 1,055 1,998 Largescale sucker LSS 311 479 155 1,313 2,258 Largemouth bass LMB 263 228 40 456 987 Northern pikeminnow SQW 151 119 81 430 781 Pumpkinseed sunfish PSS 103 181 82 485 851 Black crappie BC 94 58 25 392 569 Tench TCH 34 72 16 161 283 Black/brown bullhead BBH 31 102 14 185 332 Northern pike PIK 21 1 3 23 48
D-10
Species Code 1994 1995 1996 1997 Summary Cutthroat trout CTT 18 13 2 36 69 Kokanee KOK 16 3 0 15 34 Sculpin SCP 7 5 0 20 32 Channel catfish CCF 1 0 0 4 5 Mountain whitefish MWF 1 7 0 7 15 Bull trout BLT 0 1 0 0 1 Chinook CHN 0 0 0 14 14 Rainbow trout RBT 0 0 0 1 1 Smallmouth bass SMB 0 0 0 2 2 Totals 1,418 1,727 536 4,599 8,280
The Department’s Condition
Under proposed Project operations, the impacts described above are expected to continue over the course of the license. Consequently, it is the Department’s view that Avista should mitigate for these impacts. To this end, the Department’s 4(e) condition provides for the restoration of a naturally reproducing adfluvial fishery on the Reservation, as well as for a supplemental “put- and-take” fishery in ponds on the Reservation in the interim.
Escapement Targets
Rieman and Allendorf (2001) derived equations for estimating effective salmonid population size based on the number of returning spawning adults. Effective population size is a measure of the rate of genetic drift and relates to the potential loss of genetic diversity within a population. Effective population size is important for the management of salmonid populations because depressed populations face increased risk of extinction and genetic inbreeding (USFWS 1998, Rieman and Allendorf 2001, Shepard et al. 2003). Constellations of smaller populations increase this risk if migration barriers, whether physical or environmental, reduce connectivity (Rieman and Allendorf 2001). Although Tribal harvest rates are unlikely to approach historic levels, the Department’s condition is designed to restore tribal utilization of this trust resource. In recent years the Tribe has attempted to replace the historic fishery with a pond based fishery. Response to this has been highly positive; however, the cultural experience of fishing on Coeur d’Alene Lake is still missing. Therefore the Department’s condition proposes to achieve a westslope cutthroat trout and whitefish fishery capable of sustaining annual harvest.
There are 17 tributaries that have been identified either as having existing westslope cutthroat trout populations or as being suitable for fisheries restoration activities within the Reservation boundary (IDFG 1998, Vitale et al. 1999, Peters pers. comm. 2006). Rieman and Allendorf (2001) found that a minimum of 100 adult spawners per tributary are necessary to retain genetic integrity and prevent inbreeding depression. This calculates out to 1,700 spawners annually. Rieman and Allendorf also found that the number of spawners observed varies between 0.5 to 1.0 times the actual effective population. Therefore 1,700 observed spawners translates to between 1,700 and 3,400 fish in the effective population, with a median estimate of 2,550 fish. Thirty-five percent is generally considered an acceptable harvest rate for a recreational fishery
D-11
that is managed in a natural environment as opposed to a closed situation such as a put and take pond (Rochet and Trenkel 2003, J. Vashro pers. comm. 2006). To allow 35% harvest, and still retain the minimum conservation population of 1,700 fish given Rieman and Allendorf’s potential ratio range, monitoring would need to document between 2,615 and 5,231 adfluvial spawners, with a median value of 3,923 adfluvial spawners annually. Accordingly, the Department concludes that 3,923 adfluvial spawners are the minimum necessary to reestablish naturally reproducing and harvestable adfluvial westslope cutthroat trout and whitefish populations within the Reservation.
Tributary and Lake Restoration
To meet the targets described above, it will be necessary to mitigate for the impacts to native salmonid habitat, discussed above. Because these are adfluvial fish, adequate habitat includes both Lake and tributary components. With regard to tributaries, the Department is requiring that Avista calculate, then restore, the number of tributary miles inundated by the Project around the Lake within the boundaries of the Reservation between the elevations 2120 and 2128 feet. Although the Tribe attempted to estimate this mileage in its Impact Assessment Report (Coeur d’Alene Tribe 2005), inconsistencies in bathymetry data sets used by the Tribe and Avista, as well as a lack of transparency with Avista’s data sets (see Appendix F - Justification for Wetland and Riparian Wetland and Riparian Habitat Replacement and Maintenance; Spinelli 2006) precluded the Department from establishing an exact mileage figure for this condition. Accordingly, the Department has required that Avista collaborate with the Tribe to resolve these inconsistencies by reaching consensus on an accurate mileage figure.
Tributary habitat is one limiting factor contributing to persistent depression of the native fishery. Impacts due to extended impoundment are exacerbated in the shallow southern arm of Coeur d'Alene Lake (Avista 2005, Golder 2005, Parametrix 2004). Although the native species targeted are migratory, they exhibit site fidelity to their natal tributaries or spawning areas and foraging sites (McIntyre and Rieman 1995, McPhail and Troffe 1998). Therefore, improvements in tributaries on the Reservation are more likely to contribute to the restoration of the Trust resource than if such restoration were dispersed across the entire Lake. There are more than twenty tributaries to Coeur d'Alene Lake within the Reservation including portions of the St. Joe River. Therefore, the Department is of the view that restoration activities should be targeted on reaches of Reservation tributaries above Project-caused inundation.
Of course, the Department anticipates that improvements in spawning and rearing habitat in these tributaries will translate to increased recruitment to the Lake of outmigrating juveniles. Modest increases in juvenile ( D-12 supplementation is not intended to be a means of achieving escapement targets simply by releasing fish into tributaries each year. Supplemental Fishing Opportunities The lack of available westslope cutthroat trout and other native salmonid fishing opportunities has reduced the tribal utilization of this Trust resource. Tribal fish and wildlife managers began developing and stocking ponds with rainbow trout in 1995. Response from the tribe was very positive. As a result, Worley pond has been stocked at a rate of 2,700 pounds of fish per acre on average for the past ten years. The fishery has expanded from a youth-only limited take pond to an all ages inclusive put and take fishery (Peters et al. 1998;Vitale et al. 2003). Tribal surveys document that almost all of the fish are caught before the end of each fishing season, although some fish appear to over winter successfully (Vitale et al. 2003). Fisheries managers in northwestern Montana use the same stocking rate for popular put and take recreational ponds (J. Vashro, pers. comm. 2006). Scholz et al. (1985) documented that the Tribe harvested approximately 42,000 westslope cutthroat trout and 29,400 whitefish annually at the time of white contact, and that (salmonid) fish comprised the overwhelming bulk of the protein in their diet. It is not surprising that, given the opportunity, tribal members avail themselves of a salmonid fishery resource. Because recovery of the tribal Trust resource will take time, it is imperative that tribal members have access to a fishery during the initial recovery period. The supplemental fishing opportunites required by the Department’s condition are designed to do exactly that. This condition provides 10,000 fish annually, less than 1/4 of the Tribe’s historic westslope cutthroat trout consumption, and less than 1/8 of its total fish consumption (Scholz et al. 1985). It allows replacement of westslope cutthroat trout with a surrogate species, rainbow trout, which are much less expensive to rear and stock, and can tolerate conditions in a pond environment better than the native westslope cutthroat trout. As Avista progresses towards achieving escapement targets, their obligation to maintain this supplemental fishery decreases proportionately. D-13 References Cited: Anders, P., J. Cussigh, D. Smith, J. Scott, D. Ralston, R. Peters, D. Ensor, W. Towey, E. Brannon, R. Beamesderfer and J.Jordan. 2003. Coeur d'Alene Tribal Production Facility, Volume I of III. Project No. 1990-04402, BPA Report DOE/BP-00006340-2. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 424 pages. Avista. 2002. Average Monthly Water Retention Time Graphs. Avista. 2005. Spokane River hydroelectric project, FERC No. 2545. Application for a new license major project - existing dam. Volume II, Part 1 of 2. Applicant-prepared preliminary draft environmental assessment. Avista Corporation, Spokane, WA. Bear, B.A., T.E. McMahon, and A.V. Zale. 2005. Thermal requirements of westslope cutthroat trout. Final report to the Wild Fish Habitat Initiative, Montana Water Center. Department of Ecology, Montana Sate University, Bozeman. Berman, C. 1998. Summary of Temperature Preference Ranges and Effects for Life Stages of Seven Species of Salmon and Trout. Appendix A. taken from a review of the State of Oregon standard for water temperature completed by Cara Berman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, on September 3, 1998. Birtwell, I.K., J.S. Korstrom, and A.E. Brotherston. 2003. Laboratory studies on the effects of thermal change on the behaviour and distribution of juvenile chum salmon in seawater. Journal of Fish Biology. 62: 85-96. Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitat. W. R. Meehan, editor. American Fisheries Society special publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Pgs 83-138. Bonneau, J.L. and D.L. Scarnecchia. 1996. Distribution of Juvenile Bull Trout in a Thermal Gradient of a Plunge Pool in Granite Creek, Idaho.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:628-630. Chaumont, A. S. Charles, P. Flammarion, and P. Auger. 2003. Do migratory or demographic disruptions ruled population impact of pollution in spatial networks? Theoretical Population Biology. 64:473-480. Coeur d'Alene Tribe. 2005. Impact Assessment Report: Overview of Effects of the Post Falls HED on the Natural Resources of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe. Spokane River Project (FERC Project No. 2545). Coeur d'Alene Tribe Natural Resources Department. Plummer, ID. Dauble, D.D. 1986. Life history and ecology of the largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus) in the Columbia River. American Midland Naturalist 116:356-367. D-14 Davis, S. P. 1961. Master’s Thesis: A Limnology Survey of the Backwater of the Lower St. Joe River, Idaho. University of Idaho Graduate School. 69 p. Deeds, S. 2006. Personal communication, June 8, 2006. Bull trout specialist, USFWS, Spokane, Washington. Department of the Interior (DOI). 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Bull Trout; Final Rule. 50 CFR Part 17. Fish and Wildlife Service. 26 September 2005. Garcia and Associates. 2004. Impact Assessment Report: Spokane River Project (FERC Project No. 2545). Prepared for: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest Regional Office. Garcia and Associates. Bozeman, MT. Golder Associates Inc., 2005. Water Quality Technical Assessment. Coeur d’Alene Lake Temperature, Nutrients, Aquatic Plants, Dissolved Oxygen and pH. Part 1: Data Report. 17 June 2005. Golder Associates Inc. 2004. Draft Final Water Quality Technical Assessment, Lake Coeur d’Alene Temperature, Nutrients, Aquatic Plants, Dissolved Oxygen and pH. Part 2: Modeling Report. Redmond, WA. Graves, S., K.L. Lillengreen, D.C. Johnson, and A.T. Scholz. 1992. Fisheries Habitat Evaluation on Tributaries of the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation: 1990 Annual Report. Prepared for: Bonneville Power Administration Division of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR. Project Number 90-44 Contract Number DE-BI79-90BP10544. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). 1999. Coeur d’Alene Lake and River (17010303) Sub-basin Assessment and Proposed Total Maximum Daily Loads. Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 1998. Comments to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Petition to List Westslope Cutthroat as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act. Boise, ID. Kareiva, P., M. Marvier, M. McClure. 2000. Recovery and management options for spring/summer Chinook salmon in the Columbia River basin. Science 290:977-979. Kleinschmidt. 2004. Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin Bull Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout Protection, Mitigation & Enhancement Implementation Plan. September 2004. Kleinschmidt Energy & Water Resource Consultants. Krieger, D.A., J.W. Terrell, and P.C. Nelson. 1983. Habitat suitability information: yellow perch. United States Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service. (FWS/OBS- 83/10.55), 37 pages. D-15 McIntyre, J.D. and B.E. Rieman. 1995. Chapter 1: Westslope Cutthroat Trout. In Conservation Assessment for Inland Cutthroat Trout. Young, M. K., editor, p. 61. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. General Technical Report. RM-GTR-310. McMahon, T.E., B.A. Bear, and A.V. Zale. 2006. Comparative Thermal Preferences of Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Rainbow Trout. Final Report to the Wild Fish Habitat Initiative Montana Water Center at Montana State University-Bozeman Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. McPhail, J.D. and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) life-history and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. Fisheries Management Report No. 104. Vancouver, B.C. McPhail, J.D. and P.D. Troffe. 1998. The mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni ): a potential indicator species for the Fraser System. Environment Canada, Environmental Conservation Branch Aquatic and Atmospheric Sciences Division. Vancouver, B.C. DOE FRAP 1998-16 Munson, B.H., J.H. McCormick, and H.L. Collins. 1980. Influences of thermal challenge on conditioned feeding forays of juvenile rainbow trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 109:116-121. Parametrix. 2004. Habitat use and movement of adult westslope cutthroat trout in Coeur d’Alene Lake, and lower St. Joe, St. Maries, and Coeur d’Alene rivers. 2003 – Interim Report. February 2004. Peters, R., A.J. Vitale, and K. Lillengreen. 1998. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Fish, Water, and Wildlife Program: Supplementation Feasibility Report. August 1998. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Department of Natural Resources. Plummer, ID. 167 pages. Peters, R. 2004. Tribe comments on the 2003 Interim Report on Habitat Use and Movement of Adult Westslope Cutthroat Trout in Coeur d'Alene Lake, and Lower St. Joe, St. Maries, and Coeur d'Alene Rivers. Peters, R. 2006. Fisheries Biologist, Coeur d’Alene Tribe. Personal communication re: Tributaries on Reservation that have westslope cutthroat trout. July 14, 2006. Raleigh, R. F., Hickman, T., Solomon, R. C., and Nelson, P. C. 1984. Habitat suitability Information: Rainbow Trout. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. USFWS/FWS/OBS- 82/10.60.64. Rochet, M. and V.M.Trenkel. 2003. Which community indicators can measure the impact of fishing? A review and proposals. Canadian journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 60:86-99. D-16 Rieman, B.E. and F.W. Allendorf. 2001.Effective population size and genetic conservation criteria for bull trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 21: 756-764. Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Bulletin 184.Ottawa. 966 pgs. Shepard, B.B., B.E. May and W. Urie 2003. Status of westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) in the United States: 2002. Bozeman, MT. Sauter, S. T., J. McMillan, and J. Dunham. 2001. Salmonid behavior and water temperature. Issue Paper 1. (EPA-910-D-01-00136). Prepared as Part of EPA Region 10 Temperature Water Quality Criteria Guidance Development Project. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. Scholz, A., K. O’Laughlin, D. Geist, D. Peone, J. Uehara, L. Fields, T. Kleist, I Zozaya, T. Peone, and K. Teesatuske. 1985. Compilation of information on salmon and steelhead total run size, catch and hydropower related losses in the Upper Columbia River Basin, above Grand Coulee Dam. Fisheries Technical Report No. 2. Upper Columbia United Tribes Fisheries Center, Dept. Biol., Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA. Spence, B. C., Lominsky, G. A. Hughes, R. M. Novitski, R. P. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. Management Technology. Corvallis, OR. Stuber, R.J., G. Gebhart, and O.E. Maughan. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index models: Largemouth bass. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (FWS/OBS-82/10.16). 41 pages. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout. Federal Register /Vol. 63, No. 111. 31647-31674. Vashro, J. 2006. Personal communication on June 9, 2006. Region 1 Regional Fisheries Manager, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell. Vitale, A., D.A. Bailey, R. Peters, and K. Lillengreen. 1999. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Fish, Water, and Wildlife Program. Implementation of Fisheries Enhancement Opportunities on the Coeur d’Alene Reservation, Annual Report, 1998. BPA Project #90-044-00. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Department of Natural Resources, Plummer, ID. Vitale, A., D. Lamb, R. Peters, M. Stanger, C. Moore, and D. Chess. 2003. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Fish, Water, and Wildlife Program. Implementation of Fisheries Enhancement Opportunities on the Coeur d’Alene Reservation, Annual Report, 1999 – 2001, with Review of Annual Scopes of Work 1995 – 2001. BPA Project #90-044-00, Contract # 90BP10544. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Department of Natural Resources, Plummer, ID. D-17 Weitkamp, D.E. 2003. Summary Review - Predation on Cutthroat Trout in Coeur d’Alene Lake. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2545, Avista Corporation. Wetzel, R. G. 2001. Limnology. 3rd Ed. Sunders College Publishing: San Francisco. Woods, P.F. and M.A. Beckwith. 1997. Nutrient and Trace-Element Enrichment of Coeur d’Alene Lake, Idaho. Denver, CO. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2485. 122 p. Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 2003. Inland fishes of Washington State. University of Washington Press. Seattle, WA. 384 Pages. D-18 Appendix E Justification for Aquatic Weed Management Condition 1. Project operations maintain the water surface of Coeur d’Alene Lake at a higher level during certain times of the year than would otherwise occur naturally. As discussed in Appendix A (Justification for Coeur d’Alene Lake and Tributary Shoreline Erosion Control Condition) Project operations maintain higher lake levels than under the natural hydrograph in Coeur d’Alene Lake until September. 2. Sustained Project high water levels inundate shallow areas for extended periods of time. The resulting large expanses of shallow bays and backwater areas create highly favorable conditions for noxious aquatic plant growth. Gently sloping shorelines on the Reservation that drained gradually during the summer growing season under the natural hydrograph are now submerged until September (Avista 2005; Parametrix 2004, p. 3-18, 3-22). The longer period of inundation creates large expanses of relatively shallow aquatic habitats in places that, under a natural hydrograph, would have drained and become drier over the summer with exposure to air and sun (Parametrix 2004, pp. 4-1, 4-2), exposing soils and plant communities located on levees, in river deltas, shallow bays and coves over the course of the growing season. Earth Systems and Parametrix (2004:x) conclude that “inundation and loss of vegetation in the 2122 to 2,128 ft elevation zone is from Post Falls HED operations.” These new aquatic habitats are devoid of previous emergent plants, generally warmer in temperature, have slower currents, facilitate sediment build-up, and are frequently used by boaters, all characteristics that are conducive to noxious aquatic plant infestation. Avista describes how these conditions create favorable noxious aquatic weed habitat in their Final PDEA (2005) section: Noxious Aquatic Weed and Invasive Non-native Plant Species Coeur d’Alene Lake, page 5-191, paragraph two: Currently, Post Falls HED maintains stable water levels throughout the summer growing season, resulting in large expanses of shallow bays and backwater areas on Coeur d’Alene Lake. These shallow- water zones provide highly favorable conditions for aquatic plant growth and are susceptible to noxious aquatic plants. Eurasian watermilfoil has been identified by the Coeur d’Alene Tribe in the south end of Coeur d’Alene Lake. Boating in and around the lake provides a means of spreading the weeds to other areas of the lake and tributaries. Recreational activities like boating, waterskiing, and fishing attract people from different parts of the Lake and from other lake systems throughout the country. Noxious aquatic plant seeds or plant parts capable of rooting can be transported into the Lake in this way. Avista (2005, p. 5-180) lists several noxious aquatic weeds already in the Project system, including Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), white water lily (Nymphaea E-1 odorata), and yellow floating heart (Nymphoides peltata), which is currently a problem in Long Lake (Avista 2005, p. 5-180; Lamb 2006), the nearest water body to the Lake. In additions, Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa) and Parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum) are found in western Washington State and could easily be transported to the Lake (Coeur d’Alene Tribe 2005b, Lamb 2006). Of these existing aquatic weeds, the first to create a major infestation in the Lake is Eurasian watermilfoil. This species, which is listed as a noxious species in Idaho (ISDA 2006a), has colonized and spread in the shallow bays and backwater areas of the Lake and is the primary species of concern at the time of license issuance. Avista and the Tribe have identified occurrences of Eurasian watermilfoil in the southern portion of Coeur d’Alene Lake, including the Reservation (Avista 2005; CdA Tribe 2005b). Avista has acknowledged that the Project has created suitable habitat for the species and that infestation has continued to spread (Avista 2005). 3. Exotic and/or noxious aquatic weeds have negative impacts on native vegetation, fisheries, wildlife, and other resources on the Coeur d’Alene Reservation. The topography of the Lake is such that while the northern lakeshores tend to be rockier, steeper, and less suitable for noxious aquatic weed colonization, the southern part of the lake where the Reservation is located has been gradually filled in by sediments from the Coeur d’Alene, St. Joe and St. Maries Rivers (Avista 2005, pp. 5-9, 5-10). Historically these shallower areas provided suitable habitat for a variety of wetland types that depended on seasonal inundation for plant community formation and development (COE 1987: 12). By holding the Lake at elevation 2128 throughout the summer, the Project has altered this seasonal inundation pattern. As a result, native macrophytes (aquatic plants growing at or under the surface of the water) are unable to maintain their populations because there is too much water. The disappearance of more diverse native plant communities facilitated the progression from a multi-species community to a dominant monoculture of aggressive, non-native noxious aquatic plants (ISDA 2006a). Impacts to native vegetation are addressed in the wildlife condition substantial evidence document. Many native aquatic and riparian plant and animal species rely on variable periods of inundation to fulfill certain portions of their life cycles. The flood pulse created by seasonal inundation from snowmelt and rainfall produces and maintains a highly diverse and dynamic structure of habitats in these systems (Junk et al. 1989). This pulse has been eliminated by the Project (Avista 2005; Parametrix 2004). The combination of shallower lakeshores, extended inundation, loss of native vegetation communities, and favorable conditions for noxious aquatic plant growth has already caused a major noxious aquatic weed infestation of Eurasian watermilfoil, the first major infestation experienced in CdA Lake under Project operations. Negative impacts on Tribal fisheries and wildlife resources have occurred by altering habitats for native fish, amphibians, waterfowl, and raptors dependent on shallow bays and backwaters for breeding, foraging, and travel (Eckberg 2006; ISDA 2006a). E-2 Impacts from Eurasian watermilfoil include hindrance of swimming and boat travel due to physical interference from excessive plant growth. This interference limits access to fishing and hunting areas (CdA 2005a; Eckberg 2006; ISDA 2006a). Degradation of fishing and fish habitat occurs when Dense mats of watermilfoil degrade fish habitat (and fishing) by increasing water temperatures, thus reducing habitat for cold water fishes, providing cover for warm water fish predator species, physically interfering with fishing lines and hooks (Eckberg 2006; ISDA 2006a), and creating ambush habitat for introduced warm water fish predators that prey on waterborne hatchlings (CdA 2005a). The Tribe conducted tagging studies that show these fish select shallow habitats, and their diets includesignificant numbers of westslope cutthroat trout in several age classes (Vitale et al 1999; Vitale et al. 2003). Dense mats of watermilfoil also degrade waterfowl foraging and rearing habitat impeding diving ducks’ access to food sources. Finally, dense mats of watermilfoil degrade foraging habitat for ospreys and eagles by increasing water temperature, thus reducing native cold water fish habitat, providing cover for fish to hide from aerial views, and physically interfering with the ability of these birds to dive into the water to catch and retrieve fish (Coeur d’Alene Tribe 2005a). 4. The Department’s condition requires that Avista develop an Aquatic Weed Management Plan to to eradicate existing and future noxious aquatic weed infestations in waters within and adjacent to the Reservation As discussed above, the Project creates conditions that enable the infestation of noxious aquatic weeds. Because Avista has not proposed any operational changes that will alter these Project-related conditions, it appears these conditions will persist over the course of the new license, which could last up to 50 years. Consequently, the only practical way to address this problem is to attempt to eradicate existing and future noxious aquatic weed infestations in the most effective and economic manner possible. The Department’s condition requires that Avista develop an Aquatic Weed Management Plan to do exactly that in waters within and adjacent to the Reservation. The plan requires annual fall survey of waters within and adjacent to the Reservation to identify and map aquatic weed infestation and distribution. Based the results of these surveys, Avista will design management actions specific to each identified weed. These management actions will be implemented during the following spring. The Department’s condition identifies several potential management actions, including public awareness and education, appropriate and approved herbicide treatment, diver-operated suction removal, diver hand removal, and bottom barriers. An essential first step is to educate the public about the existence and types of noxious aquatic weeds, reasons why they are problematic, ways they are spread to new areas, and appropriate actions that can be taken. This is a key provision in effective management because it enlists a large number of people who access all parts of the Lake system to help with the management effort. Enlisting the assistance of the people who use the Lake will help limit new weed sources, reduce new areas of colonization, and limit re-infection of treated areas. Other parts of the plan will address actual survey, treatment, and monitoring methods for long term management of the problem. E-3 The other management actions described in the condition are consistent with those used in other existing weed management programs. The Tribe’s Draft Invasive Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP, CdA Tribe 2005b) suggests methods appropriate for the Reservation (Appendix A) that have been tested, permitted, and/or implemented by state and county agencies such as Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA), Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), Kootenai County, ID, and Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). Sources for these methods and considerations for implementation are described on the Idaho State Department of Agriculture webpage (ISDA 2005), Washington Department of Ecology webpage (WDOE 2004, 2006), and in the Kootenai County Eurasian Watermilfoil Project reports (Eckberg 2006). While these management actions and techniques are known, the Department anticipates that research into aquatic weeds will be dynamic over the course of the license. The condition is also designed to be flexible so that information and techniques documented in relevant new case studies and literature can be incorporated into the plan from year to year. This allows the plan to adapt to changes in infestation parameters over time. In addition, the plan calls for coordination with other management activities for cultural, wildlife, fisheries, and recreational resources will maximize efficiency and effectiveness of all management plans. While the plan is to address noxious aquatic weeds, generally, Eurasian watermilfoil is an obvious initial target for management actions developed by the plan. Idaho has only recently begun addressing Eurasian watermilfoil infestation, and has several pilot projects underway at the time of relicensing (Eckberg 2006). The state has set up Cooperative Weed Management Areas to coordinate efforts and share effective methods and treatment techniques (ISDA 2006a). Examples also exist from nearby states where successful programs have been used by state agencies (WDOE 2004), and the state has already approved a variety of methods for control (ISDA 2006b). For example, the Kootenai County Idaho noxious weed management program refers to the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) Liberty Lake Aquatic Weed Management Plan (2004) for a variety of weed treatment techniques, including 2,4-D application. The Department anticipates that initial planning and management of watermilfoil can provide a template for addressing future aquatic weed infestations. E-4 Literature Cited Avista. 2005. Post Falls PDEA. Post Falls hydroelectric project. FERC No. 2545. Application for New License. Major Project—Existing Dam. Volume II. Applicant-Prepared. Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment, 18 CFR, Part 4, Subpart F, Section 4.51. 635 pp. Coeur d’Alene Tribe. 2005a. Impact Assessment Report. Overview of Effects of the Post Falls HED on the Natural Resources of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe Spokane River Project (FERC Project No. 2545). 116 pp. Coeur d’Alene Tribe. 2005b. Draft Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. 59p.Eckberg, N. June 14, 2006. Kootenai County Noxious Weed Superintendent. Personal communication. Kootenai County, 10905 N Ramsey Rd. Hayden, ID. 208/446-1290. Idaho State Department of Agriculture. 2005. Idaho’s Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious and Invasive Weeds. Idaho Weed Coordinating Committee. Meridian, ID. 32 pp. Idaho State Department of Agriculture. 2006a. Idaho’s Cooperative Weed Management Area webpage. http://www.agri.state.id.us/Categories/PlantsInsects/NoxiousWeeds/cwmas.php last accessed July 13, 2006. Idaho State Department of Agriculture. 2006b. Idaho’s noxious weed list webpage. http://www.agri.state.id.us/Categories/PlantsInsects/NoxiousWeeds/watchlist.php last accessed June 14, 2006. Idaho State Department of Agriculture. 2006c. Chemical product search webpage: http://www.kellysolutions.com/ID/searchbyproductname.asp , last accessed June 16, 2006. Junk, W. J., P. B. Bayley, and R. E. Sparks. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river- floodplain systems. p. 110-127. Lamb, D. July 11, 2006. Coeur d’Alene Tribe Lake Management. Personal communication. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, ID. 208/686-6206. Parametrix 2004. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project wetland and riparian habitat mapping and assessment. Draft. Prepared for Avista Corporation, Spokane WA. Parametrix, Kirkland, WA. United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. 143 pp. E-5 Vitale, A., D.A. Bailey, R. Peters, and K. Lillengreen. 1999. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Fish, Water, and Wildlife Program. Implementation of Fisheries Enhancement Opportunities on the Coeur d’Alene Reservation, Annual Report, 1998. BPA Project #90-044-00. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Department of Natural Resources, Plummer, ID. Vitale, A., D. Lamb, R. Peters, M. Stanger, C. Moore, and D. Chess. 2003. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Fish, Water, and Wildlife Program. Implementation of Fisheries Enhancement Opportunities on the Coeur d’Alene Reservation, Annual Report, 1999 – 2001, with Review of Annual Scopes of Work 1995 – 2001. BPA Project #90-044-00, Contract # 90BP10544. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Department of Natural Resources, Plummer, ID. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2001. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Assessment for Freshwater Aquatic Plant Management. Publication No.s 00-10-040 through 00-10-045. Olympia, WA. Available online: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/seis/risk_assess.html . Last accessed July 11, 2006. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2004. Liberty Lake Aquatic Weed Management Plan. http://www.libertylake.org/Website%20documents/Liberty%20Lake%20Aquatic %20Weed%20Management%20Plan_final.pdf , accessed June 16, 2006. 188 pp. E-6 Attachment A: Integrated methods for Eurasian Watermilfoil control These methods are described in the Draft IAVMP (2005b), and constitute an integrated approach to education, prevention, surveying, controlling, monitoring, and rehabilitation of Eurasian watermilfoil infestations with the goal of eradication of the species from Tribal waters of CdA Lake. Public Awareness and Involvement Program Stakeholder awareness and education about the Eurasian watermilfoil eradication program will aid in the success of the program (ISDA 2005, WDOE 2004). Information on the ecology of the plant, origins of the infestations, negative effects on fish, wildlife, birds, and humans, and control and monitoring efforts will keep the lake community informed and involved. The Draft IAVMP outlines subjects that may interest lake residents and users, including: simplified algae and aquatic weed information, sources of, and solutions to, nutrient enrichment, shoreline stabilization and revegetation, options for lawn fertilizer use, pet waste management, non-phosphate detergent use, discouraging bird and waterfowl feeding, and plant identification. Chemical controls: 2,4-D applications 2,4-D is a fast-acting systemic herbicide with two formulations approved for freshwater applications in Idaho (ISDA 2006c). It is a post-emergent herbicide that is primarily used to control watermilfoil, and does not affect submersed monocot plants (i.e. the pondweeds), making effective for targeted plant control. 2,4-D can be effectively used in spot-treatment programs in lakes or ponds. The timing of the application and density of the target plant community influence effectiveness of the treatment. Two treatments may be required when targeting dense communities. Susceptible plants will begin to show signs of injury one to two weeks after treatment, followed by plant breakdown and death. Application of 2,4-D does not require fishing or swimming restrictions, although the WDOE recommends "that due to risk of dermal contact, a swimming advisory shall be posted advising swimmers to wait 24 hours before reentering directly treated areas to allow time for granules to disperse" (WDOE 2001). 2,4-D cannot be used in waters used for irrigation, agricultural sprays, watering dairy animals or domestic water supplies (Dow Agrosciences 2001). The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the aquatic plant management program (WDOE 2001) indicated that "no significant adverse impacts on fish, free swimming invertebrates or benthic invertebrates" should be expected from 2,4-D (either formulation) applications at appropriate label rates. Advantages of 2,4-D for the Reservation, are that it is a fast-acting systemic herbicide which is effective in removing selected plants with little or no impact on certain non- target plants at labeled rates; applications are conducted easily with granular or liquid material in large or small scale applications; treated waters can be used for swimming; there are no fish consumption restrictions. Disadvantages are that application must be E-7 conducted 0.5 miles or greater from active drinking/domestic water withdrawals (unless approved by IDEQ); and treatment windows apply to areas were Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed salmonids occur. Diver Operated Suction Removal This technique utilizes a small watercraft carrying portable pumps with suction hoses directed by SCUBA divers. Divers dislodge the plant tissue and root system from the sediments and vacuum the plant material which is then suctioned back to the boat. Plant parts are then removed and retained for land disposal while water and sediment materials are returned into the lake. This technique can be highly effective under the appropriate conditions. Efficiency of removal is dependent on sediment condition, plant size and density, and underwater visibility. It is best used for localized infestations of low plant density where fragmentation must be minimized. Divers can also target a single species in a mixed population area. An environmental concern with diver suction removal is that of turbidity and nutrient release from disturbed sediments. This is primarily applicable with light, organic sediments that often accumulate in heavy weed bed areas. This can be avoided by maintaining distance between the suction intake and the sediments, and feeding the pulled target plants into the suction intake. While sediment curtains can be used to minimize the drift of re-suspended sediment materials and also escaped plant fragments, there is no practical way of controlling nutrient release. Advantages of this approach include species selective and site-specific control; minimal disruption of sediments and surrounding habitat with non-rooted plants; minimal release of plant fragments; no depth constraints, effective near obstacles; and is effective in covering large areas with light plant growth. Disadvantages of this approach are that it is labor intensive and expensive; may not be appropriate control method in dense plant beds; potential release of nutrients and sediments, potential short-term increased turbidity; and may not work well in gravelly or rocky areas due to the difficulty in pulling up all root fragments. Diver Hand Removal Removal of submerged vegetation by hand involves removing the entire plant (leaves, stems and roots) by hand or with a hand-held gardening tool. The plant materials is then stored in a bag for transport and disposal on shore. Divers are needed in water depth greater than three feet. The effectiveness of plant removal depends on sediment type, visibility (water clarity), plant type, and success in removing the entire plant. Based upon these variables, the level of plant control will may from one month to multi-year management. Advantages of this approach include immediate clearing of the water column; highly selective technique; can be implemented in sensitive areas; and is effective in aggressive control of sparse or small infestations in open water, around docks, or in swim areas. E-8 Disadvantages of this approach are that it is time consuming and labor intensive; visibility may become obscured by the disturbance of sediments during harvesting thus delaying plant removal; control may be short-term or seasonal; and effectiveness is affected by location and surrounding infestations. Bottom Barriers Bottom barriers are effective at controlling aquatic vegetation at a small to moderate scale. The barriers are typically made of synthetic fabrics, burlap, or a variety of other materials including sand-gravel, polyethylene, polypropylene, synthetic rubber, fiberglass screens, and nylon film. Plant growth is inhibited by blocking sunlight from the lake bottom sediments where the plants grow. Duration of control is dependent upon type of material used, application techniques, sediment deposition and permit requirements. Bottom barriers are most applicable for individual properties and are recommended for around docks. Bottom barriers may not work well in swimming areas when placed over soft sediments; if swimmers walk on them, they tend to push the mats into the sediment. Advantages to this approach are that no toxic chemicals are placed in the water; provides immediate removal of nuisance plant conditions upon placement; easily applied to small, confined areas around docks, moorage’s or beaches; they are hidden from view in deeper waters; effective in isolated management practices, especially in Milfoil control; and some materials are reusable. Disadvantages are that there is a potentially high material cost for synthetic products; labor intensive and high costs for utilizing divers; limited durability of certain materials; not species specific; potential permit restrictions on location of barrier (spawning areas), type of material, type of plants attempting to control and length of time barrier will be allowed in place; gas accumulation under barrier can cause barrier to be lifted hindering boat passage or swimmers; periodic maintenance needed to remove sediment build up and secure placement; and material may need to be removed after two years to allow native vegetation to re-establish. E-9 Appendix F Justification for Wetland and Riparian Habitat Replacement and Maintenance Condition 1. Project operations maintain the water surface of Coeur d’Alene Lake at a higher level during certain times of the year than would otherwise occur naturally. As discussed in Appendix A (Justification for Coeur d’Alene Lake and Tributary Shoreline Erosion Control), Project operation maintains higher Lake levels than under the natural hydrograph until September. 2. The extended inundation has eliminated, reduced or converted wetland habitats that existed on the Coeur d’Alene Reservation (Reservation) under the natural hydrograph. Seasonal inundation also inhibits proper function in existing wetlands on the Reservation. These processes have had a negative effect on Tribal resources, and will continue under the new license. Gently sloping shorelines on the Reservation that drained gradually during the summer growing season under the natural hydrograph are now submerged until September (Avista 2005; Parametrix 2004). The longer period of inundation creates large expanses of shallow aquatic habitats in places that, under a natural hydrograph, would have wetland vegetation communities that gradually drained and became drier as they were exposed to air and sun over the course of the summer (Parametrix 2004). A key aspect of wetland formation and distribution is submergence during only part of the vegetation growing season (COE 1987). For the CdA Lake region this is approximately May 17th to September 18th (UI 2006). Earth Systems and Parametrix (2004) conclude that “Project summer inundation is responsible for nearly all of the vegetation change from 2,122 ft elevation to 2,128 ft elevation …” Extended summer inundation eliminates the growing season for most classes of wetland plants, causing wetlands to either convert to different vegetation types or disappear altogether under open water. The habitats that now exist were created by the depth of water determined by the 2128 elevation Lake level. Forest and scrub-shrub classes were also affected by increased periods of root inundation and erosion related to wave motion (see Appendix A - Justification for Coeur d’Alene Lake and Tributary Shoreline Erosion Control) (Kozlowski 2002). Wetland and riparian systems in western landscapes provide unique diversity on multiple scales for avian and other wildlife species (Knopf and Samson 1994). Many native aquatic and riparian plant and animal species rely on variable periods of inundation to fulfill certain portions of their life cycles. The flood pulse created by seasonal inundation from snowmelt and rainfall produces and maintains a highly diverse and dynamic F-1 structure of habitats in these systems (Junk et al. 1989). Here, this pulse has been eliminated by the Project (Avista 2005; Parametrix 2004), thereby affecting resources of the Reservation by altering wetland habitat functions and reducing wildlife diversity typically present in northern Idaho wetland complexes (IDFG 1997). Earth Systems and Parametrix (2004:x) conclude “inundation and loss of vegetation in the 2122 to 2,128 ft elevation zone is from Post Falls HED operations.” Many of the functions performed by wetland habitats lost to Project operations were valuable to resources of the Reservation. Diverse wetlands provide habitat to waterfowl, songbirds, raptors, amphibians, and a variety of mammals such as beaver, mink, and bears (IDFG 1997). These resources were valuable to the Tribe for a variety of uses including food, spiritual ceremonies, and cultural activities such as hunting, medicine and technology (Coeur d’Alene Tribe 2005). Loss of bald eagle nesting habitat in riparian cottonwood galleries, for example, affected Tribal traditions that viewed eagles as spiritually important. Eagles and osprey also led fishermen to concentrations of fish, thus enhancing fishing success (Matheson 2005). Inundation has eliminated or greatly reduced the quantities of some culturally significant plant species such as camas, nodding onion, cow-parsnip, water parsnip, and wild celery from traditional use areas, especially in formerly wet meadows (Coeur d’Alene Tribe 2005). Emergent wetland communities produced water potato and tule (hardstem bulrush). Water potato harvest is now hindered or impossible in many areas due to Project operation because the surface water elevation is too high and the plants are inundated during their growing season (Coeur d’Alene Tribe 2005). 3. The use of multiple data sets and misinterpretations of wetland classes have produced varying estimates of lost wetland acreage. Numerous data sets have apparently been used to calculate wetland acreage losses for the Lake in general and for the Reservation in particular. These layers include a wetlands map and differing bathymetry models and Project boundary layers. In some cases it is unclear which sources were used in which models, thereby precluding assessment of accuracy and appropriateness. The Department attempted to clarify which bathymetry models Avista used, and the sources it cited, in its Response to the Commission additional information request (Spinelli 2006). The Department received no response. The Tribe found significant problems, including intersecting contour lines and data gaps, in Avista’s bathymetry model(s) and used other sources to correct these problems (Coeur d’Alene Tribe 2005). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service chose to use the Tribe’s updated bathymetry model in its acreage analyses (FWS 2006). Avista (2005) correctly demonstrated that Project operations converted large areas of emergent wetland to aquatic-bed habitat or open water, and significantly decreased emergent wetlands (Parametrix, 2004). Forested and scrub-shrub habitats on the lower St. Joe levee have been converted to aquatic bed, and open water/aquatic-bed habitat has increased overall (Parametrix, 2004). However, Avista incorrectly factored in F-2 aquatic bed wetlands, and characterized “open water” as a wetland class, to account for much of the lost emergent acreage, supporting its conclusion that wetlands acreages are similar pre- and post-Project (Avista 2005, Parametrix 2004). Although Avista cites Cowardin et al. (1979) as the source for this class, Cowardin does not identify open water as a wetland class, but instead refers to it when contrasting other wetland types in the context of the surrounding habitat matrix. All wetland types are not equal in terms of function (wildlife habitat, flood attenuation, water quality mediation, etc.) and value (services provided to people and the environment). Aquatic bed habitats are characterized by plants that grow principally on or below the surface of the water in depths generally less than 6.6 feet deep (Cowardin et al 1979). Conversion to aquatic bed (or as Avista claims, “open water”) habitat classes reduces diversity and changes function and value of wetland and riparian wildlife habitat (Brinson and Malvarez 2002; Guard, B. J. 1995; Kozlowski 2002; Poff et al. 1997). Further, areas that support only submergent aquatic plants are vegetated shallows, not wetlands (COE 1987). While these areas are important components of wetland systems, they do not provide vegetated habitat for wetland plants or terrestrial or avian wildlife and should not be considered as equal in function or value to wildlife or the Tribe. The The Department questions Avista’s analysis that equates aquatic beds with emergent wetlands and suggests that “open water” may offset losses of vegetated wetlands. In light of the inconsistencies between bathymetry analyses produced by Avista and the Tribe, and given the dubious nature of Avista’s wetland classifications, the Department finds that no single analysis to date has produced a reliably accurate estimate of wetland acreages lost on the Reservation. Consequently, the Department is requiring that Avista collaborate with the Tribe to resolve these inconsistencies by reaching consensus on an accurate acreage figure. 4. The Department’s Condition. As discussed above, Project operations have caused losses of riparian and wetland habitat on the Reservation, and inhibit proper function in existing wetlands. Avista has proposed no operational changes that would enable these wetland communities to be reestablished. Indeed, under proposed Project operations, the impacts described above are expected to continue over the course of the license, which could be as long as 50 years. Consequently, it is the Department’s view that Avista should mitigate for the loss and impairment of these wetlands by restoring wetland function on other lands, preferably within the Reservation or in its vicinity to preserve the Tribe’s reasonable access to these resources. Restoration efforts will require the manipulation of plants, soils and hydrology to recreate the unique environmental conditions necessary for sustainable wetland habitats (COE 2004; DOI 2003; DOI 1998). Once these components are in place, development of wetland habitats requires time to develop and mature (Cowardin et al 1979; COE 2004). The ten year period for identification and acquisition is intended to provide a realistic timeframe in which to acquire readily available lands, begin restoration efforts, and F-3 purchase remaining parcels, if necessary, as they come available. Emphasis should be on accomplishing as much of this restoration process as early as possible in the 10-year period to begin the biological processes, and to replace the Tribe’s lost benefits as soon as possible. The topography in the Reservation and surrounding areas, and continuation of Project operations, limits available lands that will be suitable for restoration. Reasonable options include drained or otherwise altered wetlands whose function can be restored through restoration of wetland hydrology and vegetation management (COE 2002). These areas have been altered by diking, ditching or pumping to create drier habits more suitable to agricultural use. Lands of this type occur in the St. Joe and St. Maries Rivers systems (Parametrix 2004), and could be suitable as replacement parcels. Other land types include upland buffer habitats where the protection and management of such areas will enhance aquatic functions and increase the overall ecological functioning of the mitigation sites, or of other aquatic resources, within the watershed (COE 2002). These wetland buffers (upland habitats that separate wetlands from developed areas, potential residential or commercial development, and agricultural lands) can be used, provided that they perform important physical, chemical, or biological functions, the protection and maintenance of which is important to the Tribal aquatic resources, and that they are under demonstrable threat of loss or substantial degradation (COE 2002). Each parcel identified will likely have different characteristics and requirements for restoration. Accordingly, a restoration and management plan developed for each parcel will ensure that methods, timeline, and monitoring will be appropriate, cost-effective, and successful. Each plan should include maps of boundaries for each parcel; construction methods and timing; water supply sources and connections to existing waters; proximity to uplands; native vegetation lists proposed for planting; plans for control of exotic invasive plant species; elevation and slope of the proposed mitigation site to confirm they are appropriate for the target plant species; erosion control practices; and a site management and maintenance plan (COE 2002). One of the most important components of a successful restoration program is establishing criteria to measure the performance of restored riparian and wetland habitats ( Idaho Department of Fish and Game [IDFG] 1997; DOI 1998, 2003). Each parcel will be evaluated using the criteria outlined in the attachment to this appendix. These criteria were derived from Federal and State wetland management agencies (Cowardin et al. 1997; Washington Department of Transportation (Ossinger 1999); US Army Corp of Engineers (COE 1987, 2004), and are designed to be appropriate for wetlands generally, and the Coeur d’Alene region in particular. The Cowardin and COE criteria are applicable to any North American riparian or wetland sites and describe parameters that can be applied to this region. The IDFG criteria were developed for northern Idaho environments at the Wetland Mitigation Bank Valencia Wetlands Trust in Priest River, Idaho. Parameters to be measured include plant survival, percent cover, plant diversity and structure, hydrology, and wildlife use. F-4 Literature Cited Avista. 2005. Post Falls PDEA. Post Falls hydroelectric project. FERC No. 2545. Application for New License. Major Project—Existing Dam. Volume II. Applicant-Prepared. Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment, 18 CFR, Part 4, Subpart F, Section 4.51. 635 pp. Avista. 2006. Response of Avista Corporation to Additional Information Request; Schedule A, Spokane River Developments, P- 2545-091 and Post Falls, P-12606- 000. March 21, 2006. 41 pp. Brinson, M.M., and A.I. Malvarez. 2002. Temperate freshwater wetlands: types, status, and threats. Environmental Conservation 29:115-133. Coeur d’Alene Tribe. 2005. Impact Assessment Report. Overview of Effects of the Post Falls HED on the Natural Resources of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, Spokane River Project (FERC Project No. 2545). 116 pp. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 131 pp. Earth Systems and Parametrix. 2004. Final Spokane River Hydroelectric Project phase 2 erosion assessment. Prepared for Avista Corporation, Spokane, WA. July 2004. Guard, B. J. 1995. Wetland Plants of Oregon and Washington. Lone Pine Publishing. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 239 pp. Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 1997. Conservation strategy for northern Idaho wetlands. Natural Resource Policy Bureau. Boise, ID. 253 pp. Junk, W. J., P. B. Bayley, and R. E. Sparks. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river- floodplain systems. p. 110-127. Knopf, F.L., and F.B. Samson. 1994. Scale perspectives on avian diversity in western riparian ecosystems. Conservation Biology 8(3):669-676. Kozlowski, T.T. 2002. Physiological-ecological impacts of flooding on riparian forest ecosystems. BioOne 22(3):550-561. Matheson, Q. May 17, 2005. Coeur d’Alene Tribe. Tribe RE eagle cultural question. Personal communication. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, ID. Ossinger, M. 1999. Success Standards for Wetland Mitigation Projects – a Guideline. Washington State Department of Transportation. F-5 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/biology/docs/success_guidelines.pdf. Last accessed June 28 2006. Parametrix 2004. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project wetland and riparian habitat mapping and assessment. Draft. Prepared for Avista Corporation, Spokane WA. Parametrix, Kirkland, WA. Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The Natural Flow Regime. BioScience 47: 769-784. Spinelli, P. June 1, 2006. Email: Some questions on Spokane R. contractors work email. United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. 143 pp. United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter 02-2. 16 pp. United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2004. Prospectus for the Wetland Mitigation Bank, Valencia Wetlands Trust, Phase I, Priest River, Idaho. http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/html/offices/op/rf/Valencia_Wetlands_Trust.htm Last accessed July 5, 2006. United States Department of the Interior. 1998. Riparian area management: Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Lentic Riparian-Wetland Areas. Technical Reference 1737-11. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. BLM/SC/ST-94/008+1737+REV98. 45 pp. United States Department of the Interior. 2003. Riparian area management: Riparian- wetland soils. Technical Reference 1737-19. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. BLM/ST/ST-03/001+1737. 109 pp. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). June 29, 2006. Rick Donaldson, personal communication. Spokane, WA. University of Idaho Extension Service. 2006. http://www.ag.uidaho.edu/sandpoint/w_records.htm#BenewahCounty . Website last accessed July 3, 2006. F-6 Attachment A: Wetland Mitigation Performance Standards Native Plant Species Species Cover: Restored wetlands shall be dominated by native plant species and their total area covered represents at least 20% of planting in Zones 2, 3, and 4 (the open water habitat [Zone 1] will not be planted) within three years of planting or seeding, and at least 40% forested, 50% scrub-shrub, and 80% emergent within five years. 1. Species Type: The types of all planted species shall be from local native available stock (preferably from on-site sources). 2. Survival: At least 70 percent of the planted or seeded native plants shall be alive and present at the end of the first, second and fifth year of monitoring. Natural colonization of local species is preferred and should be encouraged. Plant Diversity and Structure Each wetland class shall exhibit the following rates and structure: 1. Emergent: minimum of 3 native species occurring at a 10% frequency rate or greater. 2. Scrub-Shrub: minimum 3 native species: 2 woody (30% cover); 1 grass/forbs (75% cover). 3. Forest: minimum 3 native species: 2 woody (25% canopy cover); 1 grass/forbs (25% cover). Hydrology Hydrologic regime identifiers will follow classification by Cowardin et al 1979. Each parcel shall be evaluated to determine which zones are applicable and appropriate to facilitate restoration of emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested wetland habitat types. In parcels where a specific zone may not apply, the wetland will be saturated to the surface or ponded for at least 16 consecutive days (12.5% of growing season, COE 1987) between May 16th and September 19th (growing season as defined by the University of Idaho Extension Service) in years when rainfall meets or exceeds the 30-year average. These saturation criteria are designed to facilitate hydric soil development. Zone 1 is assumed to be permanently flooded (“Water covers the land surface throughout the year in all [sic] years. Vegetation is composed of obligate hydrophytes.”). F-7 Zone 2 will be semi-permanently flooded (“Surface water persists throughout the growing season in most years. When surface water is absent, the water table is usually at or near the surface.”). Zone 3 will be seasonally flooded to saturated (“Surface water is present for extended periods especially early in the growing season, but is absent by the end of the season in most years. When surface water is absent, the water table is often near the surface.”, and “The substrate is saturated to the surface for extended periods during the growing season, but surface water is seldom present.”). Zone 4 will range from being temporarily flooded to wetland hydrology lacking (upland “islands”). (“Surface water is present for brief periods during the growing season, but the water table usually lies well below the soil surface for most of the season. Plants that grow both in uplands and wetlands are characteristic of the temporarily flooded regime.”). Invasive species The mean percent cover of invasive species (e.g. reed canarygrass, hawkweed, and knapweed) shall in combination be limited to no more than 10 percent within each wetland type. Invasive species shall not dominate the vegetation in any area of the mitigation wetland. If the mean percent cover of invasive species is more than 10 percent within any wetland type or if there are areas of the mitigation wetland in which an invasive species is one of the dominant plant species, Avista shall work with the Tribe to develop and implement a control plan. Presence of Wildlife An important measure of successful mitigation will be demonstrable habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds and amphibians by year 5. Surveys designed to document general population trends and habitat use should be included in the restoration plan for each parcel. F-8 ATTACHMENT B THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR COMMENTS ON FINAL LICENSE APPLICATIONS SPOKANE RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AND POST FALLS HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT SPOKANE RIVER, IDAHO AND WASHINGTON I. INTRODUCTION The United States Department of the Interior (Department), through its component agencies—the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Reclamation—has reviewed, and provides the following comments on, the license applications filed by Avista Corporation for the Spokane River Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2545-091, including the Post Falls Hydroelectric Development, FERC No. 12606-000 (Project). II. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS General Comments 1. Interrelated Nature of Project Effects In comments submitted to the Commission on September 28, 2005, the Department demonstrated that Avista operates all five of the hydroelectric developments (HEDs) currently licensed as the Spokane River Project in a coordinated fashion and as a single unit of development.1 Accordingly, the Department argued, the Commission should continue to license all five developments as a single Project. Avista responded to the Department in comments dated November 9, 2005. In those comments, Avista did not challenge the Department’s contentions that the five Project HEDs are operated in a coordinated fashion2 but instead argued that the Commission should grant it separate licenses regardless. The Commission has long held that separate developments that are operated in a coordinated manner should be licensed as a single project.3 On rare occasion, however, 1 See U.S. Department of the Interior’s Comments on Separate License Applications and Additional Information Request, September 28, 2005. Briefly, Post Falls HED influences Avista’s four downstream hydroelectric developments – Upper Falls, Monroe Street, None Mile and Long Lake – because Post Falls HED is the most upstream facility and it provides 223,110 acre-feet of active storage. This equates to approximately 76% of active storage for the entire Project. In addition, Avista acknowledges that Post Falls HED controls water levels in the Spokane River about 6 months each year and that Avista releases water from Post Falls HED beginning in September each year to optimize energy production. Finally, Avista uses outflows from Post Falls HED to generate power at the other four Project HEDs. 2 Of course, Avista could not challenge this conclusion because its license application conceded this point. See PDEA 2-1; 3-7. 3 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 4 FERC ¶ 61,009, 61,013 (1978); See also Georgia Power Co., 37 FPC 1 the Commission has concluded that it is appropriate to issue separate licenses for different parts of a complete unit of development. Commission case law simply states that the Commission may issue separate licenses for “ownership or other reasons.” Erie Blvd Hydropower, 100 FERC ¶ 61,317, 62,417 (2002). Since ownership is not an issue in this case,4 the Commission’s determination regarding the issuance of separate license applications will turn on Avista’s reasons for seeking separate licenses. Avista has attempted to justify its decision to submit separate license applications by distinguishing Post Falls HED from the other four Project HEDs: Post Falls HED is distinct in several ways from the other four hydroelectric developments currently included in Project No. 2545. It is located in a different state than the other four HEDs, there is a separate FERC Project (Upriver Dam, owned by the City of Spokane) located between it and the next Project development (Upper Falls), and the issues raised during the pre-application filing process regarding Post Falls generally were distinct from those regarding the other four developments.5 While these factual distinctions may be true, Avista has failed to suggest any reason why these distinctions are pertinent considerations for treating the Post Falls HED separately from the other four Project HEDs in respect to licensing.6 Moreover, these distinctions were known, or at least readily foreseeable, when Avista began the ALP in 2002. Had Avista considered these to be “cogent,” “reasonable,” and “logical” reasons for seeking separate licenses, surely Avista would have sought separate licenses from the outset of the ALP. It did not.7 In fact, Avista first intimated that it was considering seeking 620 (1966) (Six developments operated as a unit; therefore, Commission licensed them as a single project); California Oregon Power Co., 23 FPC 59 (1960) (Proposed new development to be operated as a unit with existing developments; therefore, Commission amended license to include proposed development); Pacific Gas and Electric Co., 2 FPC 516 (1941) (same). 4 Ownership is not an issue because Avista proposes to continue to own and operate all of the Spokane River Project HEDs. 5 PDEA 3-13 n. 12. 6 Avista operates the five Project HEDs in a coordinated fashion, and the fact that Post Falls HED and the other four Project HEDs are in different states appears to present no obstacle to its ability to do so. Avista points to no situation in which the Commission has decided to issue separate licenses to parts of a single unit of development on the basis that parts of the Project were located in different states. Likewise, the location of a separate Commission-licensed project in between Post Falls HED and Upper Falls HED is also unavailing. In fact, Upriver Dam, which is operated as a run-of-river facility, appears to have a negligible effect on the flow of the Spokane River from Post Falls HED to Upper Falls HED. Finally, the Project spans a 111-mile watershed comprised of widely varying geologies, topographies, and climates, affecting a variety of natural resources. That substantive issues involving Post Falls HED, Lake Coeur d’Alene, and the upper Spokane River are distinct from those involving the other four Project HEDs and the lower Spokane River is, therefore, wholly unremarkable. Avista has made no showing that would justify a license for Post Falls HED separate from a license for the other four Project HEDs. 7 Avista’s Initial Information Document, issued in July 2002, states, “Avista Corporation is seeking a new operating license” for the “Spokane River Hydroelectric Project.” p. i. 2 separate licenses in its draft license application, nearly three years into the ALP. Avista’s July 2005 Final License Applications presented, for the first time,8 an analysis of the Spokane River Project under separate license applications. That Avista has advanced such insubstantial justification suggests that other reasons prompted Avista’s sudden move to seek separate licenses. The answer, found in Avista’s response to the Commission’s Additional Information Request (AIR response), appears to be project economics. Revised Table 6-6 of Avista’s AIR response states the net annual benefit of operating the Post Falls HED as proposed in Avista’s license application; Revised Table 6-7 states the same information for the other four Project HEDs.9 Simple arithmetic reveals that, as a single project, the five developments of the Spokane River Project have a net annual benefit of nearly $18 million. Apparently, however, the Post Falls HED is not as profitable as the other four Project HEDs. In fact, while Avista estimates the net annual benefit of operating the other four HEDs to be approximately $19.4 million, Avista estimates the net annual benefit of the Post Falls HED alone to be negative $1.44 million. Thus, by carving the Post Falls HED out of the current license, Avista appears to be attempting to accentuate the economic liabilities of Post Falls HED as a stand-alone project. The benefit to Avista of such a strategy appears to be twofold. First, Avista would be in a better position to argue that the imposition on its license of environmental measures under Sections 4(e), 10(j), and 10(a) of the FPA could render the Post Falls HED uneconomic.10 Second, Avista would be in a better position to attempt to restrict the annual charges it owes the Coeur d’Alene Tribe under Section 10(e) of the FPA for the use of Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation lands. Thus, Avista’s strategy of separating Post Falls HED from the other Project HEDs appears to be nothing more than a transparent attempt by to evade its obligations under the FPA. These are not legitimate reasons for seeking separate licenses. The Commission has flatly rejected the notion that licensees are entitled to make profits from hydroelectric projects. City of Tacoma, Washington, 86 FERC ¶ 61,311, 62,103 8 A Proposed Action including separate licenses has not been analyzed before the FLAs and PDEA. In fact, Avista stated explicitly in its Draft License Application (DLA) that a separate license for Post Falls HED was not part of the Proposed Action that Avista had analyzed in the DLA and draft PDEA. Draft PDEA 3-13 n. 9. Nevertheless, Avista invited comments on a scenario in which Avista sought two separate licenses. By the Department’s account, none of stakeholders who commented on this issue supported separate licenses. 9 Avista Corporation’s Response to Commission Staff’s December 21, 2005 Additional Information Request; Project Nos. 2545-091 and 12606-000. March 21, 2006. p. 11-12. 10 Statements Avista has already made concerning the economics of potential mitigation measures, including terms and conditions that might be issued by the Department, suggest that this is Avista’s strategy. A June 11, 2005, article in the Spokane Spokesman Review quotes Avista representatives’ concerns that Post Falls HED “could become uneconomical” in connection with “tribal demands and issues raised by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” The Department previously filed this article along with its September 28, 2005, comments. 3 (1999)(“In adopting the Federal Power Act in 1920, Congress did not guarantee any licensee it would make a profit.”). Moreover, new licenses issued by the Commission today typically contain conditions aimed at protecting environmental values that have grown in public estimation, and in significance under federal laws, in the years since a project was originally licensed. Id. “[I]t must be recognized,” the Commission has stated, “that meeting reasonable environmental costs is a part of today’s cost of doing business.” Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Project Decommissioning at Relicensing; Policy Statement, 60 Fed. Reg. 339, 343 (January 4, 1995). Accordingly, Avista’s arguments about project economics will likely be unavailing. Nevertheless, the larger point here is that Avista is attempting to manufacture the project economics issue. That is, project economics become an issue only when Post Falls HED is considered by itself. As noted above, however, it is clear that Avista does not operate Post Falls HED by itself, but in conjunction with the other four Project HEDs that make up the Spokane River hydroelectric system. When considered as such, the five Project HEDs have a net annual benefit of nearly $18 million. Thus, the Spokane River Project is quite economical and quite profitable. Therefore, the Commission should reject Avista’s attempt to inject project economics into this relicensing by artificially separating the Post Falls HED. As explained below, the Commission’s failure to do so could have significant consequences for the Coeur d’Alene Tribe in obtaining, pursuant to Section 10(e) of the FPA, a reasonable annual charge for use of Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation lands. Post Falls HED stores approximately 223,100 acre-feet of water on Lake Coeur d’Alene and will do so for the term of the new license. This would not be possible without the ability to store water on the Reservation lands. Thus, any license for the Post Falls HED is predicated upon occupancy of Reservation lands. While the other four Project HEDs are located on Avista’s lands, Avista uses water stored through the use of Reservation lands to generate power at Post Falls and at each of the other four Project HEDs. According to Avista’s response to the Commission’s AIR, Avista generates 33,101 MWh (3.8 aMW) at its HEDs, 26,106 MWh of which is generated at HEDs downstream of Post Falls HED.11 Thus, Avista derives an additional beneficial use from its occupancy of Reservation lands. See, e.g., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2 FPC 516, 32-3 (1941)(in a case where a proposed new development to be operated as a unit with existing developments occupying Government lands, Commission found pro tanto occupancy of Government lands by new development). Because the entire Project uses the water stored by virtue of the occupancy of Reservation lands, it is appropriate that the annual charge for the right to use those lands reflect the importance of those lands to the entire Project. In recent years, the Commission has used a net benefits analysis to determine the fair market value of reservation lands for purposes of section 10(e). If the Commission accepts Avista’s request and licenses Post Falls HED as a separate project, use of a negative net benefit in the analysis would likely result in no payment to the Tribe for use 11 Avista’s Response to AIR, p. 11-12. 4 of its lands. Such a result cannot be considered a “reasonable” annual charge as required by section 10(e). Licensing Post Falls HED as a separate project would allow Avista to artificially restrict its annual payments to the Tribe for the thousands of acres of Rservation lands it will occupy for the term of the new license. Such a result cannot be countenanced under section 10(e). Given the interrelatedness of the Post Falls HED and the other four Project HEDs from an electric, hydraulic, engineering, and economic standpoint, it is clear that Avista operates all five Project HEDs as a single unit, taking full advantage of the storage capacity behind Post Falls HED to control the flow of the Spokane River through, and thus the generation of power from, the other HEDs. 2. Cumulative Effects Analysis Like the DLA and PDEA, Avista’s FLAs fail to provide the thorough cumulative effects analysis required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). NEPA requires an analysis of the past, present and future effects of the proposed relicensing. Avista, however, continues to interpret this mandate as requiring only a comparison between proposed operations and current operations. The BIA’s comments on the PDEA and DLA12 (hereinafter “May 2005 filing”) directed Avista to a CEQ study which clarified that a cumulative effects analysis should include “the present and future effects added to the effects that have taken place in the past.” Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality, January 1997, table 1-2, p.8 (hereinafter “CEQ Study”) (emphasis added). This CEQ study makes clear that an appropriate cumulative effects analysis should consider both future and past degradation in evaluating the severity of impacts. As noted in the BIA’s May 2005 comments, an analysis of past effects is critical to evaluating the stress that may be brought about by even a relatively small incremental effect of a proposed action. The importance of a thorough cumulative effect analysis is underscored in cases, such as the relicensing of the existing hydropower projects, where past effects are the direct result the very project that is the subject of the proposed action. Indeed, if past effects are relevant regardless of the entity or agency that causes them, then they are most certainly relevant when caused by same entity that is proposing the current action – typically, the continuation of past and current operations. Such operations generally continue or perpetuate adverse effects that have occurred as a result of a project, yet license applicants tend to focus only on incremental effects that result from the differences between the proposed action and current operations. Limiting cumulative effects analyses in this manner renders the analyses meaningless because it ignores continuing adverse effects that often compound effects that have already occurred. A cumulative effects analysis that complies with NEPA must address the predicted incremental effects of a proposed action when added to past effects. 12 U.S. Department of the Interior’s letter to Bruce Howard, Avista Corporation, conveying comments on Draft License Application and Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment, May 23, 2005. 5 The Commission has repeatedly stressed the importance of considering past effects in licensing proceedings. The Commission has stated, for example, that “past environmental impacts of existing projects on specified resources are relevant in determining what measures are appropriate to protect, mitigate, and enhance environmental resources ... Enhancement may in many cases constitute a reduction of the negative impacts attributable to [a] project since its construction.” Eugene Water & Electric Board, 81 FERC ¶61,270, at 62,327; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 54 Fed. Reg. 23756 (June 2, 1989). As part of the Interagency Task Force on Improving the Hydroelectric Licensing Process, the Commission reaffirmed the importance of information on past conditions to its cumulative effects analysis: FERC uses information on past effects in two ways. First, in deciding whether or under what conditions to re-license a project, FERC can consider both past and present (or continuing) effects, including those attributable to the project since its construction, in deciding what conditions may be appropriate for the new license term. FERC also considers past and present (or continuing) effects, as well as reasonably foreseeable future effects, in its cumulative effects analysis. Interagency Task Force Report on NEPA Procedures in FERC Hydroelectric Licensing, May 22, 2000 (emphasis added). Because Avista’s PDEA, DLA and FLAs fail to thoroughly consider the past effects of the Project’s construction and operation and fail to analyze the impacts that will be exacerbated by the proposed action, the burden to conduct such analyses now falls upon the Commission. The BIA therefore urges the Commission to conduct this necessary cumulative impacts analysis and include it in the Commission’s DEIS. Specific Comments 1. EA Section 3.1; Page 3-1; second paragraph “Under current National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines and Commission policy, the No-action Alternative serves as the baseline against which the Applicant’s Proposed Action and other alternatives are evaluated.” The BIA reiterates the comments raised in General Comment 2, above, as well as in its May 2005 filing. Contrary to the assumptions of many license applicants, using the no- action alternative as a baseline for comparison of alternatives does not mean that current conditions are the status quo, or that incremental changes from the status quo are the sole focus of NEPA analysis. According to CEQ, NEPA requires analysis of how resources came to be in their current state: Much of the environment has been greatly modified by human activities, and most resources, ecosystems, and human communities are in the process of change as a result of cumulative effects. The analyst must determine the realistic potential for the resource to sustain itself in the future and whether the proposed action will affect this potential; 6 therefore, the baseline condition of the resource of concern should include a description of how conditions have changed over time and how they are likely to change in the future without the proposed action. CEQ study at 41. This is especially important in situations such as this one, where the majority of the changes to the lake ecosystem have resulted from operation of the Project for nearly 100 years. As discussed in General Comment No. 2, above, regardless of baseline, a cumulative effects analysis must include an assessment of incremental effects when added to past effects. According to CEQ, while the no-action alternative can serve effectively as the baseline for comparing the proposed action and reasonable alternatives, “its characterization is often inadequate for analyzing cumulative effects.” 2. EA Section 3.1.2.1; Page 3-8 and 3-9; last and first paragraphs, respectively “In the fall, Avista begins to release water at Post Falls HED, resulting in a gradual drawdown of the Lake water level. The drawdown, typically 1 to 2 feet per month, generally begins the week following Labor Day.” The BIA reiterates the comments raised elsewhere in this document as well as in its May 2005 filing. Under current operations the drawdown of Lake Coeur d’Alene begins on Labor Day, typically the first week in September. Under the Proposed Action the drawdown would begin on September 15, as much as 14 days later than the current drawdown onset. The extension of the artificially high pool level will exacerbate all of the negative effects of the project’s operations on the native fisheries including: the creation of habitats preferred by non-native fishes that prey on native species, the exclusion of native fishes from near-shore habitats dues to thermal barriers, and the exposure of young native fish to predation by non-native fishes. Extending of the artificial pool level until later in the fall will also extend the growing season for aquatic, thereby contributing to additional overall nutrient loading to the Lake ecosystem and increasing the opportunity for the spread of nuisance aquatic species such as Eurasian water milfoil. This extension of the high pool level is not simply a negligible modification of current operations; it has the potential to exacerbate existing negative impacts and should therefore be analyzed thoroughly. 3. EA Section 3.1.3; Page 3-12; first bullet Avista’s FLAs continue to list “Maintenance of the Coeur d’Alene Lake level at or close to 2,128 ft from late June or early July past Labor Day” as a voluntary measure specifically designed to protect and enhance Project-associated environmental and cultural resources. The BIA reiterates that this measure is primarily for recreation and not for improvement of environmental and cultural resources. Indeed, the FLAs contain numerous statements of the adverse impacts - erosion, decreased water quality, loss of wetlands, and increased areas of noxious macrophyte beds – that are associated with this voluntary measure. The BIA continues to question Avista’s characterization of this management scheme as a protection and enhancement measure. 7 4. EA Section 5.2.1.1; Page 5-3; fifth paragraph “Project operations at Post Falls HED maintain lake levels during the summer at an elevation higher than pre-Project conditions, and this, in conjunction with powerboat wakes and natural wind-driven wave energy, has a cumulative effect on shorelines and natural levees and deltas.” The BIA reiterates the comments raised previously in this document as well as in its May 2005 filing. In its EA, Avista continues to significantly understate the Project’s impacts on the lake’s shoreline. As stated previously, the BIA is of the view that maintenance of summer lake levels and the attendant concentration of wave energy at a near constant elevation during that period is the primary factor in creating the erosion that is occurring and that is expected to continue to occur during the new license term. 5. EA Section 5.2.1.4; Page 5-5; second paragraph “Anadromous fish are no longer present in the Project area, with upstream passage into Spokane River (i.e. to downstream of Little Falls Dam) currently precluded by several dams on the Columbia River.” Avista states that anadromous fish passage into the Spokane River is precluded by Columbia River dams, but fails to acknowledge that it was the construction of Nine Mile HED that effectively blocked the upstream migration of salmon in 1908. Avista’s statement misleadingly suggests that it is the Columbia River dams that are responsible for blocking fish passage into the Spokane River. 6. EA Section 5.2.1.5; Pages 5-5 and 5-6; last and first paragraphs, respectively “Project operation has increased the period of inundation of lower river shallow water habitats, converting pre-Project wetland and riparian habitat types.” This statement acknowledges the significant impacts of Project-induced inundation on wetlands and riparian habitat in the southern part of the Lake and tributaries. For additional discussion on this topic, please see the BIA’s May 2005 filing, particularly General Comment No. 1 and Comment No. 22 as well as Specific Comments Nos. 41, 70 and 88. 7. EA Section 5.2.1.5; Page 5-6; second paragraph “The loss of habitat due to development and exposure to metal-enriched sediments in wetlands and lakes, particularly in the lower Coeur d’Alene River area, have affected wildlife species.” 8 Avista again attempts to downplay the significant impacts that Project operations have had on wildlife species. For additional discussion on this topic, please see the BIA’s Specific Comments No. 87-94 in its May 2005 filing. 8. EA Section 5.3.1.1; Page 5-9; last paragraph “The rock notches and valley fill elevations along the lower Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe rivers indicate that current lake surface elevations have been roughly similar for at least several thousand years (Earth Systems and Parametrix 2004).” As noted in the BIA’s May 2005 filing, Avista’s operation of the Project has maintained lake levels at unnaturally high levels during the summer months for the last hundred years. This constitutes a significant change from the pattern of lake level elevations that occurred over the previous several thousand years. 9. EA Section 5.3.1.1; Page 5-10; third paragraph “Downstream of river mile 2, where the natural levees are youngest and therefore lower and narrower, grazing, erosion and soil saturation have eliminated much of the vegetation and increased the potential for erosion. The result is that the exposed portion of the levees has been narrowed or eliminated.” The BIA maintains the view that erosion of the levees in Coeur d’Alene Lake is the result of the altered hydrograph and, therefore, is a result of the Project. As discussed in Specific Comment 40 in the BIA’s May 2005 filing, Project operations result in an artificial full-pool level in the summer and early fall. This creates a larger expanse of water that intensifies wave energy and concentrates that energy at 2,128 feet. In the downstream section of the St. Joe River, the operation of the Project puts water levels at the tops of the younger, narrower levees. Vegetation at the transition zone - including large trees formerly found in wetland, riparian, and levee habitat - has died and not regenerated due to this inundation and erosion (Coeur d'Alene Tribe 2005). Remaining vegetation is saturated from constant wave action, making it more susceptible to erosion. The vegetation that would otherwise stabilize soils, absorb wind energy and as a result reduce wave intensity is being eroded. Parametrix (2004b) documented sites in the levees on St. Joe River that have been receding at a rate of over two feet per year. 10. EA Section 5.3.1.2; Page 5-15; second paragraph “The summer Lake level maintained by Post Falls HED during the past 50+ years shifted the vegetation line and upper extent of the summer beaches to the 2,128-foot elevation and has shifted the shallow aquatic and wetland zones.” In this revised EA, Avista no longer attempts to argue that the Project merely “plays a role” in altering the vegetation line and aquatic and wetland zone. Nonetheless, Avista attempts to downplay the significant impacts that the Project has had on aquatic vegetation and wetlands by describing the last hundred years of changes as a “shift.” As 9 noted in the BIA’s May 2005 filing, the Project has caused a significant loss in specific types of wetlands and associated function. Wetlands in the varial zone have not simply moved, but have disappeared. These wetlands have died and cannot regenerate under current conditions because the Project inundates the varial zone during the summer growing season. Avista’s EA continues to mischaracterize and downplay the Project’s impacts. 11. EA Section 5.3.1.4; Page 5-17; second paragraph “Local bank erosion is caused by wind-generated waves, boat wakes, and flood events.” This statement neglects to acknowledge that the Project dictates the lake elevation and therefore concentrates erosive forces (including waves and wakes) at the 2,128 foot level. In addition, Project operations results in a larger inundated area in which waves and wakes can propagate. 12. EA Section 5.3.1.4; Page 5-20; first paragraph “[S]ediment transport processes on the St. Joe River are expected to be similar to that of the Coeur d’Alene River…” In its May 2005 filing, the BIA asked Avista why it assumes that sediment transfers in the St. Joe River would be similar to those in the Coeur d’Alene River. The BIA noted that the Coeur d’Alene River is laden with metal-enriched sediments that cause the river’s soil to erode more slowly than those in the St. Joe River, which is relatively uncontaminated and erodes as a higher rate. In its FLAs, however, Avista ignores the BIA’s questions and reiterates the conclusion cited above without providing any evidence to support this conclusion. Since Avista cannot support its assumption that sediment transport processes on the St. Joe will be similar to those on the Coeur d’Alene, the BIA urges FERC to treat this statement as speculative. 13. EA Section 5.3.1.4; Page 5-20; second paragraph “Coeur d’Alene Lake levels and the naturally low gradient nature of the lower reaches of the tributary rivers affect sediment transport through their influence on water velocities in the affected reaches. According to the intercept method used on bathymetry data by Golder (2004c), the backwater transition on the Coeur d’Alene River is located at about river mile 32, or near where Interstate 90 crosses the river about 2 miles downstream of the town of Cataldo; at approximately river mile 34 on the St. Joe River, roughly 11 miles downstream of the town of Calder; and on the St. Maries River approximately 9 miles upstream of the town of St. Maries (which lies near the confluence with the St. Joe River) (see Figures 5-1 and 5-2).” The BIA notes that this section was amended to state that the intercept method assumed a lake level elevation of 2,128 feet. The BIA reiterates, however, its comments concerning the impacts of backwater length on adfluvial fish migration and sediment deposition. 10 Avista’s PDEA, DLA and FLAs fail to adequately discuss the potential impacts of the backwater transition area on these important resources. 14. EA Section 5.3.1.4; Page 5-22 to 5-23; generally In its May 2005 filing, the BIA expressed its concern that Avista failed to adequately analyze and evaluate Project effects on the fluxes of metal-contaminated sediments into and out of the lake. See Specific Comments 45 through 48. In particular, the BIA challenged the sufficiency and conclusiveness of the sediment routing study (“Golder study”) on which Avista relies. In the BIA’s view, this study fails to meet its primary objective of evaluating “effects…on the transport and deposition of sediments in Lake Coeur d’Alene [and] affected reaches of lake tributaries…” The study fails to sufficiently consider the effects of river and lake hydrodynamics on metals-contaminated sediment transport into and through the lake. Moreover, the study’s overall approach and methods are insufficient to allow for a thorough analysis and evaluation of Project effects. The BIA recommended that the Golder study be substantially revised, that additional hydrodynamic monitoring data be acquired, and that additional sediment sampling be conducted. Avista declined to revise the Golder study and continues to rely upon this study in its FLAs. The BIA reiterates its concern with the Golder study and asks the Commission to consider the study’s flaws when evaluating Project impacts on sediment transport. 15. EA Section 5.3.1.4; Page 5-22; fifth paragraph “Despite the complicated lake dynamics, Coeur d’Alene Lake is understood to have long acted as an effective sediment trap (Golder, 2004c). The sediment trapping capability of the lake is largely related to its configuration and the fact that the dominant source of sediment is located in the southern portion of the lake (i.e. from the St. Joe, St. Maries and Coeur d’Alene river systems). Golder (2004c) reviewed results of a variety of sediment samples collected from Coeur d’Alene Lake and its bays (Horowitz et al., 1992, as cited in Golder, 2004c) and found the majority to be fine-grained in texture. Many of the samples from the main part of Coeur d’Alene Lake contained a thin layer of reddish material with black flecks. This material is believed to be either derived from mining waste in the floodplains and banks of the Coeur d’Alene River or composed of mineral grains coated with iron and manganese oxides formed in the anoxic conditions in the lake (Golder, 2004c). Many of the samples collected in the lake south of Rockford Bay up to the mouth of the St. Joe River contained a layer believed to be deposition of ash from the Mount St. Helen’s eruption in 1980 (Golder, 2004c). Based on this layer, recent sedimentation rates in the lower part of the lake are believed to be on the order of 0.3 to 0.5 centimeters (cm) per year (Horowitz et al., 1992, as cited in Golder, 2004c).” The BIA reiterates the comments raised elsewhere in this document and in its May 2005 filing, and directs the Commission to Specific Comment 47 of that filing for a detailed discussion of lake hydrodynamics and a critique of the PDEA’s sediment transport analysis. The BIA notes that the USGS, in coordination with the Tribe and Western Australia University, are developing a hydrodynamic monitoring study which can 11 provide additional information as well as additional modeling necessary to examine the complexities of the interaction of nutrients, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and metals in the lake. 16. EA Section 5.3.1.4; Page 5-23; third paragraph “This phenomenon is complex and little research has addressed metals transport within the lake.” The BIA reiterates its view that Avista’s sediment routing study is sufficient for purposes of evaluating Project effects. The importance of understanding this “complex” phenomenon cannot be overstated, and in its May 2005 filing the BIA suggested improvements to the Golder study as well as additional sources of information that could inform the evaluation. Avista has declined to modify its study or to consider this additional information; accordingly, the BIA alerts the Commission to this deficiency and urges the Commission to ensure that the sediment transport analysis contained within the DEIS sufficiently analyzes these Project effects. 17. EA Section 5.3.1.5; Page 5-27 and 5-28; generally The BIA reiterates the comments raised elsewhere in this document and in its May 2005 filing. The BIA maintains that, but for the Project, wind waves would not be concentrated at the tops of the levees. Current operations hold the water level constant at the 2,128 foot elevation for three months, and these current operations expose soils at this elevation to extensive erosion. 18. EA Section 5.3.1.5; Section 5-29; first paragraph “[M]uch of the shoreline is already scoured to bedrock or is rocky in nature and therefore shore erosion has been fairly limited.” The BIA reiterates that this description does not accurately characterize the shorelines in the southern part of Coeur d’Alene Lake. The shorelines of the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation contain numerous shallow, sandy and muddy bays. Erosion in these bays has likely been more extensive than in bedrock areas in the northern part of the lake. In its May 2005 filing, the BIA noted that there is currently no way to compare shallow bays to bedrock areas, and suggested that aerial geographic maps are needed to more thoroughly assess the extent of erosion. 19. EA Section 5.3.2.1; Page 5-33; first bullet “Loss of vegetation in the 2,122 to 2,128-foot elevation zone is largely a result of inundation due to the existence of Post’s dams and the Project operations for nearly 100 years.” 12 The BIA reiterates the comments raised elsewhere in this document as well as in its May 2005 filing. The BIA has repeatedly noted that annual sustained inundation and loss of vegetation in the varial zone (between 2,122 and 2,128-foot elevation) is solely – not largely – the result of current Project operations that maintain a stable summer pool elevation at or about 2,128 feet. Vegetation within the varial zone has died and cannot regenerate as a result of current Project operations. Avista itself concedes in both its PDEA and EA that “inundation of the 2,122 to 2,128-foot elevation zone was the main change that resulted in the loss of upland vegetation.” 20. EA Section 5.3.2.1; Page 5-34; first bullet “Around Coeur d’Alene Lake, recent HED-related shoreline erosion has been fairly limited because the lake is operated within its natural range, much of the shore is bedrock or is rocky in nature… A combination of wind- and boat-generated waves creates the beach and shore conditions around the Lake.” As noted in the BIA’s May 2005 filing, stating that the shoreline erosion rates are “fairly limited” in bedrock-dominated portions of the lakeshore needs to be contrasted with actual quantitative estimates of the shoreline erosion rate in more erodible portions of the lakeshore. Also, as noted throughout this document, wind- and boat-generated waves and their effects on beach and shore conditions around the lake cannot be divorced from Project operations, which dictate the elevation at which waves impact these beaches and shores. 21. EA Section 5.3.2.1; Page 5-36; first bullet “The contribution of sediment from boat-wake erosion that occurs between June and September when Post Falls HED operation controls lake levels is minimal compared to the suspended sediment contribution resulting from naturally occurring peak flows.” Like the PDEA and the DLA, the FLAs fail to substantiate their conclusion that suspended sediment contributed to the lake from storage in lake shoreline deposits is significantly less than suspended sediment contributed to the lake from upland watershed areas. 22. EA Section 5.3.2.1; Page 5-36; first paragraph “Under current Project operations, most of the lateral Lakes along the two rivers also exhibit some erosion on shores exposed to wind waves. This erosion is on a scale similar to natural erosion; however, impacts are at a higher elevation due to the raised summer lake level.” The BIA reiterates the comments raised in its May 2005 filing. In short, the BIA is of the view that erosion occurring at a higher shoreline elevation as a result of lake levels maintained by the Project is, by definition, Project-caused erosion. But for the Project, erosion would not be occurring at the higher elevation, nor would it be concentrated at 13 that level for roughly three months. Such erosion resulting from artificially high water levels maintained by the Project is certainly not “natural.” 23. EA Section 5.3.2.2; Page 5-43; fifth paragraph “Sediment supply and deposition in the Lake is a function of the Lake’s tributary streams. Sediment supply and transport in the two largest tributaries, the Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe rivers, is largely unaffected under current Project operations and would remain so under the Proposed Action. Sediment supply to the Lake from its other tributaries is unaffected by the Project. This sediment transport to the Lake is typically through the bays into which these tributaries discharge. Sediment transport through these bays was analyzed by Golder (2004c) using the same methods as for lateral Lakes (discussed previously). Results were the same as for the lateral lakes: modeled horizontal water velocities within the small bays were found to be relatively small, with settling velocities approximately 1 to 2 order of magnitude less than the predicted horizontal velocities. Changes in velocity that occur for the modeled scenarios (i.e., regulated versus unregulated conditions) are typically relatively small and typically within the same order of magnitude, indicating that lake level has little effect on sediment transport in the bays. Hence, the Project has little, if any, effect on sediment supply and transport to the lake.” As noted in the BIA’s May 2005 filing, the statement that “the Project has little, if any, effect on sediment supply and transport to the lake” contradicts other statements in the FLAs. The BIA identified these discrepancies in its comments on Avista’s PDEA and DLA, and urged Avista to explain and correct the discrepancies in its FLA. Avista has ignored the BIA’s comments, and the BIA must therefore now urge the Commission to take a critical look at the sediment supply analysis that Avista conducted in its FLAs. Project-caused increase in sediment supply remains an important Tribal resource issue. Continued Project-caused increases in sediment supply, particularly through the erosive loss of sediments in the Coeur d’Alene River that contain heavy metals, could contribute to continued contamination of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and aquatic vegetation. These largely bio-available metals are incorporated into lower trophic levels of plants and invertebrates, ultimately leading to bioaccumulation of a wide variety of metals in the flesh of higher trophic level fish species, larger invertebrates, and harvestable edible plants. The fish advisory of 2003 (Idaho Division of Health 2003) was the result of the process of metals moving through the environment and into available food species. This advisory determined there are potential human-health related problems from high levels (subsistence) of fish consumption. Documentation in the advisory demonstrates there is a limited list of metal species that represent significant toxicological issues. The continuing loss of these materials from the banks into the water will continue to maintain the metal concentrations in the Lake. 24. EA Section 5.3.2.2; Page 5-46; last paragraph “Overall, the Project currently causes no change in the net sediment flux in Coeur d’Alene Lake. The supply of sediment and its transport to the Lake from its 14 tributaries/bays does not appreciably change with the Project in place, and ultimately the same amount of sediment enters the lake through the course of a season. Deposition of coarse sediment may be at a higher elevation along the Lakeshores and deltas is coarse sediment transport occurs during a time when lake levels are elevated by the Project, but winter and spring high flows subsequently transport this sediment to a lower elevation.” As discussed in the previous comment and throughout this document, the conclusion that the current Project causes no change in net sediment flux in the lake is not supported by the data and information contained elsewhere in the FLAs. Again, it is the BIA’s view that Project-caused shoreline erosion is an important issue and should not be ignored. Shoreline erosion not only contributes to sediment supply, it is also a toxicological problem, as some of these sediments are contaminated and contribute to pollution and bioaccumulation of toxicants in the lake ecosystem. 25. EA Section 5.3.4; page 5-48; third paragraph “Implementing the Proposed Action would not alter the cumulative effects already in evidence under current Project operations.” As the BIA has stated previously in this document and in earlier filings, Avista is required to conduct a cumulative effects analysis that considers how present and future effects compound those effects that have taken place in the past. A thorough cumulative effects analysis is especially important with regard to erosion on the natural levee systems. Already, the tops of the levees are eroded, reducing in some places the separation between the river and the lateral Lakes. Additional erosion that is expected to occur over the next license term may completely eliminate the ability of these natural levees to function. For additional discussion regarding the importance of a thorough cumulative impacts analysis, please see General Comment No. 2 and Specific Comment No. 62 in the BIA’s May 2005 filing. 26. EA Section 5.4.2.1; Page 5-69; third paragraph Avista’s Proposed Action would maintain the lake level elevation near 2,128 until September 15th of each year. As stated in its May 2005 filing, the BIA notes that by extending the lake level further into September Avista will not only change current operations but will exacerbate the significant adverse effects caused by inundation. For additional discussion, please see Comment No. 66 in the BIA’s May 2005 filing. 27. EA Section 5.4.2.1; Page 5-69; fifth paragraph “Implementation of the Proposed Action, including establishing September 15 as the date when drawdown begins and implementing the 600-cfs minimum discharge at Post Falls HED, would have a relatively minor effect on Coeur d’Alene Lake levels.” The BIA reiterates the statements made previously in this document as well as in its May 2005 filing. Again, holding Lake Coeur d’Alene at an elevation of 2,128 until September 15 15th each year will exacerbate many of the Project-caused impacts and, in particular, will extend the period of erosion further into the fall. 28. EA Section 5.5; Page 5-77; general comment As noted in Specific Comment 68 of the BIA’s May 2005 filing, Avista routinely exceeds a large number of the water quality criteria established by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe. Exceedances of the parameters established for temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH have been documented in monitoring programs and reported to appropriate agencies. Avista’s PDEA, DLA and FLAs acknowledge these water quality exceedances but do not discuss the potential impacts associated with the exceedances. In its response to comments on the PDEA and DLA, Avista states that “current operations have been established by FERC as the baseline to which a Proposed Action should be compared.” The BIA strongly disagrees with this interpretation of FERC’s “baseline.” As noted in Specific Comment 1, above, using the no-action alternative as a baseline for comparison of alternatives does not mean that current conditions are the status quo, or that incremental changes from the status quo are the sole focus of the NEPA analysis. Avista’s misinterpretation of “baseline” conveniently allows it to avoid analyzing the significant, ongoing and detrimental impacts that its project operations have on temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and other water quality parameters. The BIA urges the Commission to fully consider these ongoing impacts in its DEIS. 29. EA Section 5.5.1.2; Page 5-90; first paragraph “Results of the 2003 monitoring indicate that water temperatures in the Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe rivers generally peak between mid-July and mid-August (Golder, 2004d). The seasonal and daily temperature patterns in the Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe rivers were similar as they entered the slack water of the Lake, although the St. Joe River was warmer than the Coeur d’Alene River. Within the 2-mile-long reaches centered on the transition zone as the rivers enter the Lake, both rivers exhibit little thermal stratification and experience little warming (+0.2 to 0.3) degrees Celsius, based on differences in the average daily mean temperatures.” In its May 2005 comments, the BIA notes that Avista’s PDEA and DLA failed to adequately discuss the impacts associated with exceeding water quality criteria for temperature. For example, it is the BIA’s view that the increased summer lake level under current operations or the Proposed Action would increase water temperature at the mouths of the Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe rivers compared with the natural hydrograph, creating thermal barriers for fish. Rather than acknowledging and evaluating these impacts, Avista simply notes the exceedances and attempts to spin them as beneficial for warmwater species while remaining silent on the potentially significant and detrimental impacts to native salmonids. This is just one example of Avista’s failure to adequately evaluate Project impacts. Please see Specific Comment 69 of the BIA’s May 2005 filing for a more detailed discussion of these impacts to temperature. 16 In addition, the BIA notes that Avista has declined to collect the appropriate temperature monitoring data. It is the BIA’s longstanding view that such data is necessary in order to evaluate the impacts of sustained inundation, which raises water temperature. 30. EA Section 5.5.1.3; Page 5-96; first paragraph “Coeur d’Alene Lake’s trophic status transitioned from mesotrophic (moderate primary productivity) in 1975 to oligotrophic (low primary productivity) in the early 1990s, representing improving water quality conditions.” As stated in the BIA’s May 2005 filing, this statement over-simplifies the trophic structure of the Lake. Direct discharges to the Lake have been reduced since upgrading of wastewater treatment facilities (Woods and Beckwith 1997). However, the internal cycling of nutrients from the decomposition of the increased plant growth in the southern portion of the Lake is not discussed. The summer inundation has increased the area of shallow aquatic habitats, and eliminated emergent wetlands (and upland plants), which were the primary sources of productivity. The shallow water zones now provide increased habitat for rooted aquatic plants that can contribute significantly to the cycling of nutrients, as well as metals, mobilized from the sediment into the plant tissue. These rooted aquatic plants grow rapidly on fertile soils of old wetlands, then decay, contributing large amounts of organic matter into the water. This decaying plant matter contributes to further eutrophication. While the northern portion of the Lake may be more oligotrophic, the shallow southern portion appears to be moving into the eutrophic category. 31. EA Section 5.5.1.3; Page 5-97 and 5-98; table 5-23 The BIA reiterates its concern about role that inundation plays on lake dynamics. It is the BIA’s view that inundation causes anoxic conditions in the summer months and that this constitutes a significant impact that must be evaluated. Moreover, the BIA disputes Avista’s contention that Chatcolet Lake would be anoxic under a natural hydrograph. 32. EA Section 5.5.1.4; Page 5-108; first paragraph “Metal concentrations reported for Coeur d’Alene Lake studies conducted between 1989 and 2002 indicate higher metal concentrations in the hypolimnion than in the euphotic zone (the near–surface zone corresponding to light penetration depth) suggesting that Lake sediments may act as a source of dissolved metals. However, Lake sediments are not believed to be the primary source of metals to the Lake water column (Balistrieri, 1998 as cited in Golder 2004g).” Avista’s FLAs ignore the results of Kuwabara et al. 2003, an important study that directly measured the flux of a heavy metal (zinc) out of the sediment. The results of this study showed that even under oxic conditions, significant amounts of zinc are coming out of the sediment and into the overlying water column. In fact, the amount of zinc coming out of the sediment and into the water is roughly the same amount as zinc carried down the 17 contaminated Coeur d'Alene River and into the lake each year. Kuwabara’s test is the most accurate information available as it was a direct measure of metal flux out of the sediment, rather than an indirect assessment method or a model. The sediments in the lake are an important and significant source of metals into the lake’s water, even under oxic conditions. If conditions become anoxic, in part due to Project-related sustained inundation which leads to higher temperatures, more plant growth, and increased eutrophication, the potential amount of heavy metal release from the sediment into the overlying water column is significant. The BIA notes that this subsection has been significantly reworded. It is important to mention that this rewording downplays lead levels. The PDEA and DLA stated that there was in increase of 43% in lead levels; this statement has been simplified to say that “the annual load of dissolved lead increased.” For a detailed discussion of the BIA’s concerns about metals, please see Specific Comment 73 in the BIA’s May 2005 filing. 33. EA Section 5.5.2.1; Page 5-117; general comment The BIA stands by the critique of the CE-QUAL-W2 modeling that was provided in the BIA’s additional information request13 and in Specific Comment 24 of its May 2005 filing. In the BIA’s view, the CE-QUAL-W2 modeling results contain substantial technical uncertainties. Most significantly: • The modeler conducted model calibration with 1991-1992 data. The calibrated parameter of the wind shelter coefficient (which is the most sensitive parameter in the temperature calibration) is significantly different for the two years. The modeler then used the average value to predict water temperature and water quality trends for the ten year period of 1992 through 2001 (Golder 2004a). First, changing parameter values for different years essentially negates the predictive power of the model. Second, using the average value of calibration parameters for different years to predict future water quality is unacceptable from a sound modeling perspective. The BIA is of the view that the model calibration needs to be refined before the model is used for prediction. • The model needs time-series water quality input for each simulated constituent from the lake watershed. Time-series flow data are available while time-series data of constituent concentrations are incomplete. The modeler primarily used linear regressions to estimate unknown water quality data from known flow data. It appears some of the linear regressions are insignificant. Uncertain input data typically produce uncertain results. More detailed analysis of water quality input data needs to be conducted. 13 Department of the Interior, Comments on Separate License Applications and Additional Information/Study Request, September 28, 2005. 18 • Lake water quality modeling should include watershed input data from the mouths of its tributaries. For Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe river inputs to the lake, the modelers used data from Coeur d’Alene River at Cataldo 12413500 gage and the sum of the St. Joe River at Calder 12414500 and the St. Maries River near Santa 12414900 gages, respectively. These sites lie considerable distances upstream of their respective river mouths and thus do not account for stream flow, nutrient, and sediment inputs entering in the river reaches between. • The CE-QUAL-W2 simulates phytoplankton dynamics primarily by simulating phytoplankton growth and respiration. Phytoplankton growth is affected by limiting nutrient, temperature, and light, while phytoplankton respiration is affected by temperature. Quantifying the dynamics of phytoplankton community is notoriously difficult (Harris 1980). One can speculate that this might be a function of assuming, erroneously, invariant specific algal growth and respiration rates with time. To do so would be erroneous because a change in species dominance may occur even over a short period (Reynolds 1984; Steel 1995). Blue-green and green algae are capable of cell division several times a day. Phytoplankton may adjust its chlorophyll composition to adapt to the changes in solar radiation and the optimal light intensity varies for different phytoplankton groups (Jin et al. 1998). These reasons may explain why the model could not be well calibrated for the observed algal concentrations. Using the model to predict phytoplankton dynamics for a ten-year period is not reliable. The BIA is of the view that Avista could revise their modeling approach with an emphasis on the calibration period and operations changes since historical data for the calibration period are relatively intensive. • The current version of the CE-QUAL-W2 model does not have an aquatic plant module. This deficiency raises the question of the validity of the CE-QUAL-W2 model for assessing the potential effects on lake primary production of phytoplankton and macrophytes from Post Falls HED operations. Holding the lake surface elevation at 2,128 ft throughout the summer (flooding large areas that were once distinct Lake or wetland or terrestrial environments) has greatly increased the amount of habitat available for aquatic and wetland plants. Aquatic plants can significantly impact a system’s light environment and nutrient budget (Reckhow and Chapra 1999). Plant growth pulls nutrients from bottom sediments (that were once fertile, intermittently-flooded wetlands and valley bottomlands). The annual production and subsequent decomposition of this additional biomass undoubtedly contributes substantial nutrient loads, thus increasing overall primary productivity especially in the shallow southern portion of the lake in Tribal waters, but also in the lake as a whole. This potential for eutrophication is of particular concern because toxic metals from the vast amounts of mining- contaminated sediments covering the lakebed could be released (by geochemical processes) if lake productivity increases to the point that bottom waters overlying those sediments become depleted in dissolved oxygen (Woods and Beckwith 1997; Horowitz, et al. 1995). Increased nutrient loading resulting from Post Falls HED operations also has serious ramifications to interstate nutrient load allocation 19 and control efforts needed to manage and protect water quality downstream in the Spokane River and Lake Spokane (aka Long Lake). Avista should have addressed these issues, as well as other unaddressed issues raised in the BIA’s additional information request. 34. EA Section 5.6.1.1; Page 5-135; first paragraph “Primary headwater tributaries of the combined Lake-Spokane River Watershed drain the Bitterroot Mountains lying to the east of the Lake. These tributaries typically support coldwater resident, fluvial and adfluvial fish assemblages.” In its May 2005 filing, the BIA drew attention to the fact that Avista’s PDEA and DLA mention the tributaries’ resident fisheries but failed to discuss the importance of the tributaries to adfluvial fish. Avista’s FLAs amended this statement to include references to fluvial and adfluvial populations. Avista, however, declined to address the broader scope of the BIA’s original comment (Specific Comment 76), which went to the detrimental impacts that Project operations have had on adfluvial populations. In particular, the BIA reminds Avista and the Commission that large warm water pools at tributary mouths serve as thermal barriers to migrating salmonids, warm-water lacustrine conditions support non-native predators, and overall habitat for cold-water native fishes has been significantly degraded. 35. EA Section 5.6.1.1; Page 5-135; second paragraph Again, Avista attempts to deflect the impacts that its Project has on summer water temperatures by emphasizing the suitability of waters in excess of 19oC (66 oF) for species such as northern pike, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass and other warmwater species. In the BIA’s view this is simply a transparent effort to avoid acknowledging the significant impacts that the Project has on native salmonids. Current water temperatures in Coeur d’Alene Lake and the St. Joe River backwater are frequently in exceedance of State and Tribal standards and create conditions that are unsuitable for native salmonids. (Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 2004) The Commission’s DEIS should thoroughly discuss these impacts. 36. EA Section 5.6.1.1; Page 5-136; fourth paragraph “The southern end of the Lake is relatively shallow (typically less than 30 ft deep) and the mid- and northern portions of the Lake tend to be deeper. The shallow, southern portion of the Lake has the most extensive beds of aquatic macrophytes. … Such areas represent spawning and nursery habitat for many species of fish, including a number of introduced species such as northern pike, largemouth and smallmouth bass, yellow perch, black crappie, and pumpkinseed.” Specific Comment 78 in the BIA’s May 2005 filing notes that the extensive beds of aquatic macrophytes in the shallow, southern portion of the lake are key to creating an environment that is preferred by predaceous fish such as largemouth bass and northern 20 pike. These fish have come to dominate the southern end of the lake, and as a result, prey upon native westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout. These macrophyte beds are exacerbated by the inundation caused by Project operations. Accordingly, the Project contributes to the predation of native salmonids by providing spawning and nursing habitat for the above-mentioned predators. Avista responds to the BIA’s comment by “acknowledge[ing] prior project-related habitat alterations” but stating that “no additional alteration of riverine or lacustrine habitat is proposed.” In so doing, Avista ignores the ongoing impacts that its Project has on native fisheries. Avista cannot avoid a thorough analysis of Project impacts by couching them as “prior project-related habitat alterations.” The BIA urges the Commission to conduct an analysis of the ongoing impacts that Avista has declined to do. 37. EA Section 5.6.1.1; Page 5-137; second paragraph “During the warmest part of the summer, water temperature in the Lake epilimnion is typically above 20ºC (68°F), and during particularly warm summers, the water temperature can reach 26ºC (79°F) (Woods, 1996). In the hypolimnion, however, it is rarely above 18ºC (64°F) and usually much cooler and therefore suitable for most salmonids (see Table 5-24).” As noted in the BIA’s May 2005 filing at Specific Comment 79, the hypolimnion is not suitable for the growth and survival of salmonids. The hypolimnion is lower in dissolved oxygen and numbers of invertebrates, making it less productive foraging habitat than nearshore areas. Native salmonids are therefore relegated to a habitat that may have a tolerable water temperature but is stressful due to limited food and oxygen. 38. EA Section 5.6.1.2; Page 5-139; fourth paragraph “Anadromous fish are no longer present in the Project area, with upstream passage to the mouth of the Spokane River currently precluded by the Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams on the Columbia River. Fisheries management agencies and Native American tribes have expressed interest in restoration of anadromous fish to historical habitat in the Columbia River Basin, including portions of the Spokane River. If fish passage is ultimately provided at Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams, the issue of fish passage at Long Lake and Nine Mile HEDS would likely be revisited. There is not present or foreseeable future need for fish passage facilities at the Project developments related to anadromous fish passage.” Avista notes that passage to the mouth of the Spokane River has been precluded by the Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams, but fails to acknowledge that anadromous fish have been absent from the Spokane River since the construction of Nine Mile HED in 1908. The construction of this HED effectively blocked upstream migration of salmon more than thirty years before the operation of Grand Coulee Dam in 1941. 39. EA Section 5.6.2.1; Page 5-146 to 5-147; several paragraphs 21 Avista has significantly restructured this discussion about the impacts that Post Falls HED has on water temperature and, consequently, native fish species. The concerns raised by the BIA in its May 2005 filing, however, still remain. Please see Specific Comment 81 of that document for a detailed discussion of the impacts of increased water temperature on native fish species and their predators. In short, higher water temperatures are near optimal for non-native predators and are at best survivable for native salmonids. When summer stratification occurs, westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout are excluded from the nearshore habitats by warm water. After fall and spring turnover, predatory pike and largemouth bass ambush native fish that may be attracted to the nearshore areas to feed, find shelter, and begin reproductive migrations. The nearshore habitats and tributary mouths have become a predator trap where conditions favor predators and reduce the numbers of native fishes successfully surviving from one season to the next. The operation of Post Falls HED directly contributes to these conditions and maintains them well beyond what would occur under a natural hydrograph. 40. EA Section 5.5.2.1; Page 5-146 to 5-147; third paragraph “Observations of tagged cutthroat trout in 2003 indicated that there is not an effect on migration of fish through the inundated reaches and the free-flowing portions of Coeur d’Alene Lake … Results showed about one-quarter to one-half of the cutthroat trout tagged upstream in the tributaries migrated into or through the inundated reaches.” This comment is misleading. The 2005 Parametrix report states that 58 cutthroat trout were tagged in 2003 – nineteen in the Coeur d’Alene River, seventeen in the St. Maries River, 13 in the St. Joe River, two in the northern portion of the lake and seven in Lake Creek. The Parametrix report actually states only that eight of the fish tagged in the Coeur d’Alene River appeared to stay in the inundated reach for an undefined time. Only nine of the nineteen fish were consistently detected at all. Parametrix admits that “no consistent behavior patterns were observed during the study.” Dr. Weitkamp’s broad conclusion, therefore, is premature and unfounded. The BIA notes that low tag retention coupled with low sample size make it difficult to draw conclusions from this data set. Dr. Weitkamp attempts to draw conclusions that support his proposition that there are no Project impacts on fish migration, but in reality the data acquired just as easily supports the proposition that migration is affected. For example, none of the tagged fish from the St. Joe River ever migrated to Lake Coeur d’Alene (Parametrix 2005, page viii). The one fish that did move downstream toward Benewah Lake was killed or died because its tag was found out of the water after its movement downstream. The fish that did stay in the inundated reaches are noted to have congregated in the pools or more riffle and run habitat, which have cooler temperatures and higher aeration or dissolved oxygen than is typical for the inundated reach. To conclude that these fish have no behavioral response to the inundated reaches is therefore misleading because the fish in these reaches are seeking out microhabitat and exploiting that habitat to make the reaches survivable. In fact, Parametrix states that “the 22 distribution of fish appears to be influenced by specific habitat characteristics (i.e. deep pools) rather than free-flowing or inundation conditions in the affected reach.” (Parametrix 2005, p. xi). 41. EA Section 5.6.2.1; Page 5-147; fourth paragraph “The Proposed Action at Post Falls HED would result in Coeur d’Alene Lake levels that are the same as current conditions. The infrequent variation in Coeur d’Alene Lake water levels caused by maintaining an increased minimum discharge flow and/or by implementing the Upper Spokane River Rainbow Trout Spawning and Fry Emergence Protection Plan … is not expected to create a discernable effect on fish habitat upstream of Post Falls HED. Consequently, we conclude that reservoir water level management by Post Falls HED under the Proposed Action would not affect aquatic habitat or fish populations compared with current conditions.” The BIA reiterates the comments raised previously in this document as well as in its May 2005 filing. Proposed project operations will extend the full-pool elevation to September 15 each year, and the BIA is of the view that this extension, however brief, will cause additional deleterious impacts to fish and aquatic habitats. In the late summer and fall when the water level would otherwise be steadily lowering, the Project maintains the lake at a higher level. The maintenance of such higher water levels causes significant impacts to native salmonids. These impacts include thermal barriers, competition with and predation by non-native fishes, and habitat limitations experienced by migratory fishes. To the extent that drawdown under the Proposed Action would begin later than under current operations, these impacts would be compounded and exacerbated. 42. EA Section 5.6.2.1.and 5.6.2.7; Pages 5-146 to 5-147 and 5-167 to 5-169, respectively Avista has significantly modified these sections and has added a significant amount of text describing the components of its proposed Post Falls HED Fish Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement Program and the Spokane River Fish Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement Program. It appears that Avista has moved away from its earlier intent to limit its protection, mitigation and enhancement measures to a specific and discrete dollar amount. The BIA agrees that the detrimental impacts of the Project on fishery resources and fish habitat must be sufficiently mitigated regardless of cost. The Commission has recently expressed its displeasure with efforts to limit protection, mitigation and enhancement measures through “spending caps.” In one recent case, the Commission stated that a licensee “cannot abrogate its statutory responsibilities throughout the license term by agreeing to” such caps. The BIA cannot currently assess the sufficiency of the two programs referenced above, however, because the EA does not describe the specific projects that will be implemented under these programs. The EA simply states that Avista will “provide for a population and habitat protection and enhancement program for westslope cutthroat trout,” bull trout and rainbow trout and will “provide for fish-population and aquatic-habitat protection and enhancement efforts on the Spokane River and Lake Coeur d’Alene.” Without an 23 understanding of the number, type, geographic extent and duration of the programs’ projects, the BIA cannot comment on the adequacy of these programs. 43. EA Section 5.6.3; Page 5-171 The BIA reiterates the comments raised in General Comment 2, above. The BIA is of the view that Avista’s EA fails to adequately assess the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action because it refuses to address past impacts and how future impacts will exacerbate the degradation caused by past impacts. As noted in Specific Comment 86 of the BIA’s May 2005 filing, “the question to be analyzed through a cumulative effects analysis is not whether effects to aquatic resources will continue as in the past, but the effect that continuation of these impacts will have when added to impacts that have occurred in the past.” The BIA urges the Commission to conduct an appropriate and thorough cumulative effects analysis in its DEIS. 44. EA Section 5.7.1.1; Page 5-176; sixth paragraph “Because much of the Coeur d’Alene Lake shoreline is too steep to support wetlands, the majority of wetlands on the lake are in or adjacent to bays associated with stream outlets.” The BIA reiterates the comments made previously in this document as well as in its May 2005 filing. The BIA notes that the steep shorelines that are no longer suitable for supporting aquatic bed and emergent wetlands did not exist prior to the construction of the Project. Prior to the Project these shorelines were suitable for narrow bands of small- scale habitat. Extended inundation has caused significant erosion which has resulted in the creation of abrupt edges and the loss of vegetative diversity. 45. EA Section 5.7.2.1; Page 5-186; first paragraph “Project lake-level management under the Proposed Action would have essentially the same effect on terrestrial resources as current Project operations.” Avista is again attempting to significantly downplay the effects of the Proposed Action by comparing them to current Project operations. Avista fails to sufficiently acknowledge that current operations have adverse effects on terrestrial resources and that under the Proposed Action those effects would continue to compound for another 30 to 50 years. The cumulative effect of adding these future effects to the adverse effects that have occurred in the past should be evaluated and addressed in FERC’s DEIS. 46. EA Section 5.7.2.2; Page 5-187; second paragraph “Project operations upstream of Post Falls HED have remained relatively unchanged since 1941. As a result, the wetland communities have adjusted to current Project operations and have become relatively stable in both acreage and distribution of wetland and riparian habitat types throughout most of the area.” 24 The BIA disagrees that wetland communities have simply “adjusted” to the Project. As acknowledged in Avista’s PDEA, DLA and FLAs, certain wetland types have been converted to other, less valuable types. This conversion is still occurring in the inundated reaches of the lake, and recovery has been prevented by continued inundation. Further, these lost wetland types perform important functions, such as nutrient cycling, erosion control through established vegetation communities, sediment deposition and storage, and complexity in plant communities that the wetlands replacing them cannot provide. Avista’s response to the BIA’s May 2005 comments admits that the Proposed Action will continue to cause “erosion related changes” that will affect wetland communities. EA at Appendix C, p. C-17. The erosion that would continue under the Proposed Action will perpetuate the conversion of wetlands and will exacerbate the loss of valuable wetland types. 47. EA Section 5.7.2.4; Page 5-191; second paragraph “Currently, Post Falls HED maintains stable water levels throughout the summer growing season, resulting in large expanses of shallow bays and backwater areas on Coeur d’Alene Lake. These shallow-water zones provide highly favorable conditions for aquatic plant growth and are susceptible to noxious aquatic plants.” The BIA reiterates the comments raised elsewhere in the document and in its May 2005 filing. The BIA is of the view that Avista’s proposed protection, mitigation and enhancement measures for noxious weed management are insufficient to address the problem. The Project is responsible for creating and maintaining conditions that foster noxious weed growth and it is Avista’s responsibility to ensure that this impact is addressed. 48. EA Section 5.7.2.6; Page 5-180; fifth paragraph “Because Project operations have remained relatively constant for decades, special- status wildlife species have adapted to the current Project operations. None of the special-status wildlife species that could occur in the Project area are specifically wetland or riparian species, so on going erosion-related habitat loss is unlikely to affect any special status wildlife species.” The BIA again disagrees with the statement that species have “adapted” to Project operations. To suggest these species have adapted to the Project dismisses nearly 100 years of change that the Project has imposed upon the lake ecosystem. Project operations have had a significant impact on diverse wetland, riparian and levee ecosystems, and a new Project license that maintains current operations will perpetuate these impacts. It is therefore imperative that Avista take measures to mitigate these Project-caused impacts and protect these species from further detrimental impacts over the next license term. 49. EA Section 5.8.1.1; Page 5-197; second paragraph 25 “Threats to bull trout populations in the Coeur d’Alene Lake Basin have been identified by both the FWS and the Panhandle Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team and include habitat degradation and fragmentation, blockage of migratory corridors (e.g., improperly constructed culverts, remnant splash dams created during historical logging operations in the Marble Creek watershed, and various dikes and barriers at the mouths of tributaries that obstruct previously used habitat), reduced water quality, and past fisheries management practices, including the introduction of non-native species (Kleinschmidt, 2004).” The BIA reiterates that the thermal barriers created by inundation in the Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe Rivers can be as effective at blocking migration corridors as the physical barriers referenced here. 50. EA Section 5.8.1.1; Page 5-197; second paragraph “Efforts to determine outmigration behavior of juvenile bull trout from the St. Joe River to Coeur d’Alene Lake in 2003 provided inconclusive results from a small sample size.” The BIA reiterates its view that information on bull trout movement and recruitment is integral to understanding how the Project affects these fish and determining what types of mitigation would be most effective; Avista’s unsuccessful 2003 study failed to provide this necessary information. 51. EA Section 5.8.2.1; Page 5-201; second full paragraph “No direct effects on bull trout are known or suspected to occur under current Project operations or under the Proposed Action and its measures.” The BIA reiterates the position taken in its May 2005 comments. BIA is of the view that the change from riverine to lacustrine habitat at the mouths of major tributaries at the southern end of the Lake has had a direct effect on bull trout. In addition, bull trout entrainment in the Post Falls HED is a direct effect of the Project and should be mentioned here. 52. EA Section 5.8.2.1; Page 5-202 to 5-203; last and first paragraphs, respectively “Although implementation of the plan would likely enhance bull trout spawning and rearing habitat, because the specific actions to be implemented have not yet been defined, it is not possible to quantify the benefits of those actions.” The BIA reiterates the comments raised in its May 2005 filing. It is the BIA’s view that Avista has failed to acquire sufficient knowledge of the affected ecology. Consequently, Avista can only propose vague measures that lack specific mitigation actions and measurable goals. It is impossible to evaluate the potential effectiveness of a plan that lacks key information and thus fails to set forth concrete measures and specific goals. 53. EA Section 5.9; Page 5-207; generally 26 The BIA reminds Avista and FERC that the background inventory for cultural resources and National Register evaluation is still incomplete. Additional surveys, studies, inventory and evaluation are necessary, and such activities should not be limited by the 2,128 foot high water mark. 54. EA Section 5.9.1.1; Page 5-210; first paragraph “The Cultural Resources Work Group (CRWG) defined the APE for the Spokane River Project as follows: The APE includes, at a minimum, the lands within the Spokane River Project FERC boundary. Also included in the APE are the penstocks, powerhouses, dams, recreational sites, a limited number of power transmission lines, access roads, and other ancillary facilities as described in the FERC license. The APE also includes lands outside the Project boundary where Project operations may affect the character or use of historic properties or TCPs. The APE is a flexible boundary that may be adjusted as conditions change or additional effects are identified.” The BIA reiterates that the above definition is vague. It is the BIA’s view that Avista is responsible for assessing the effects of the Project on all historic and traditional cultural properties, including those that are located above the 2,128 foot high water mark. Avista notes that “adjustments to the APE would be made during the implementation of the HPMP, as appropriate….” The BIA is concerned that such “adjustments” might exclude important cultural resource sites, and therefore reiterates that all impacted historic and traditional cultural sights must be fully treated.14 III. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE General Comments 1. Preliminary Nature of Comments The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has concerns regarding the ongoing and future operations of the proposed projects, and their impact on fish and wildlife resources in and adjacent to the project area. Specific fish and wildlife resources that have and continue to be affected by the projects include federally listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats, non-listed migratory birds and their habitats, and other flora and fauna. However, the Service would not object to the issuance of new licenses for the Post Falls and Spokane River Hydroelectric Projects provided its Section 10(j) recommendations to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife resources are incorporated in the new licenses. Because a Draft Environmental Impact Statement or Draft Environmental Assessment has not yet been issued by the Commission, this 14 References to the citations included in the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ comments are listed at the end of this document. 27 response contains preliminary comments and recommendations only. Subsequently, the Service requests that the Department reserve the right of the Service to amend these comments and recommendations, if warranted, based on the results of new information and conclusions developed during the Commission=s environmental analysis process. 2. Extension of Summer Pool Elevation The Service does not support the applicant’s proposal for the Post Falls Project to extend the summer pool elevation of Lake Coeur d’Alene from Labor Day to September 15th each year. This proposal would maintain the pool elevation in Lake Coeur d’Alene at 2,128 feet15 about ten days longer then current practice before the applicant would begin to draw down the lake by releasing additional outflow into the Spokane River from the Post Falls Project. This action would extend the period of time when the lower St Joe River downstream from about River Mile (RM) 34.0 (the approximate upstream extent of the Post Falls impoundment) functions as a lacustrine rather than a more natural riverine system. In general, the maintenance of natural riverine conditions is of greater benefit to the native fishery. According to the applicant, the lower reach of the St Joe River has been designated critical habitat for bull trout under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and provides foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat for that species (Avista 2005b, 2005d, 2006). Adult bull trout are known to out-migrate from spawning streams in the upper St. Joe River sub-basin beginning in late August. Extending the lake level at 2,128 feet elevation for an additional ten days (average) would increase the risk of predation on bull trout and other native salmonids by non-native piscivorous fish typically found in the lacustrine environment created by the impoundment from Post Falls. In addition, the migration timing of juvenile and subadult bull trout is not fully known in the St. Joe River and there is the potential for these age classes to be present in the mainstem within the project area when the lake level would remain elevated longer than under present operating conditions. Again, the potential for increased exposure to predation and other environmental factors may affect bull trout. Therefore, extending the timeframe when the lake level is maintained at 2,128 feet will likely increase the level of take for federally listed threatened bull trout under the ESA. (USFWS 2002; IDFG 1999). 3. Limitation on Drawdown The Service does support the applicant’s proposal to limit the drawdown of Lake Spokane to fourteen feet, except under certain emergency conditions, and recommends that the Commission include this proposed action as an article within the new license (Avista 2005d: p 3-15). The current license for the Long Lake development allows a twenty-four foot maximum drawdown in Lake Spokane. In recent years, the Long Lake development has not exceeded a fourteen foot drawdown. The Lake Spokane aquatic ecosystem would likely benefit from the implementation of a fourteen foot drawdown limit (Avista 2005c: pp. H-31). 15 Measured at the U.S. Geological Survey gaging station (12415500) at Coeur d’Alene, Idaho (USGS 2004). 28 4. Fisheries Resources Public Information, Education and Law Enforcement Program The Service also supports the applicant’s proposal to establish a Post Falls Fisheries Resources Public Information, Education, and Law Enforcement Program (PF-AR-1- [Part 4]). The Service recommends that the Commission include this program as an article in the new license. The program would promote public awareness of native coldwater salmonids found in the project area, specifically for the federally listed threatened bull trout and for the westslope cutthroat trout, a State of Idaho species of concern (Avista 2005d: pp B20-21). IV. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT General Comments The Commission’s relicensing process provides an opportunity for government agencies, stakeholders, and the public to comprehensively address the effects of the Project on the human environment, bring the Project up to current environmental standards, strike a balance between the various competing uses of public resources (e.g., fish, water, recreation, and electric energy production), and assist the Commission in making a licensing decision that is in the public interest and based on substantial information. These comments are intended to reflect this comprehensive review and to respond to the public’s concerns regarding project impacts on public resources of the Spokane River Basin. The Final License Application (FLA) is the product of the Alternative Licensing Process. During the pre-application phase of this relicensing, Avista formed a collaborative team for the purpose of developing its draft License application. A negotiated settlement or agreement was envisioned as part of this process. The BLM was a fully involved participant in that process and recognizes the efforts of Avista to address the concerns of the Federal, State, and Tribal resource agencies. Although the FLA does not reflect a consensus of all relicensing participants regarding the effects of the Project on environmental and recreation values within the Project, it generally does meet the needs of the BLM in managing public lands within and adjacent to the project area. Specific Comments 1. PF-REC-1 In this PM&E, Avista proposes to develop a recreation management plan for the lands upstream of the Post Falls HED. The plan would be coordinated among the various land managers. This management plan would monitor recreation use, document the recreation facilities on the lake, and develop an implementation schedule for the various recreation improvements on the lake. 29 BLM supports this PM&E as written. PF-REC-1 would provide a vehicle for implementing Avista’s recreation-related PME measures. Avista, in consultation with the relevant cooperating parties, would develop these recreation plans that would include recreational facility improvements throughout the Project and a program to improve access and safety for boaters on Coeur d’Alene Lake. The recreation plan would include: 1. a general description of the recreational sites; 2. a discussion of the facilities that would be designed or redesigned to take into account the needs of disabled persons; 3. a description of the erosion- and-sediment control measures where ground-disturbing activities are proposed; 4. a means for monitoring and reporting recreational use; 5. a means to conduct consultation with stakeholders; and 6. an implementation schedule, estimated construction costs, and estimated annual operation and maintenance costs for all measures. The measure provides a framework for Avista to implement the recreational site improvements described in the Coeur d’Alene Lake Recreation PME and the Post Falls/Spokane River Recreation PME and coordinate management of recreational resources with the various land managers with jurisdiction over project lands. The goal of the PME measure is to provide for the coordinated development of Project-related recreation improvements. There currently is no coordinated recreation management plan concerning recreation opportunities on Coeur d’Alene Lake. The plan would provide the needed coordination in addressing project-related recreation. This would benefit recreationists by enhancing opportunities and safety as well as addressing recreation impacts to the environment. 2. PF-REC-4 In this PM&E, Avista proposes to develop a public outreach program. The goal of the PM&E is to inform the public, through interpretive and educational media, about Project- related natural and cultural resources and related laws and regulations. As part of this PM&E, Avista will conduct visitor use surveys to determine general trends among the recreation publics. The primary purpose of the public outreach programs would be to educate the recreating public about acceptable and prohibited recreational activities, as well as to identify the recreational resources available at Project developments and provide information about environmental and cultural resources associated with the Project. Implementation of the public outreach measures would be coordinated through the relevant cooperating parties. Educational components of the plans would include, as examples, Project operational information such as river flows, lake levels, public safety, and regulatory issues and authorities, as well as information on natural resource concerns such as bank stabilization. 30 BLM also supports this PM&E as written. Information that could educate the public about damage to cultural resources is currently non-existent on the lake. Surveys would be an invaluable management tool to land management agencies in terms of recreation needs and opportunities, and would allow more coordinated planning among the parties managing recreation in the Project area. The measure would improve the recreational experience by providing information about the Project and Project-related recreational, wildlife, aquatic, and cultural resources. Much of the I&E Program included in this measure would be focused on recreational sites that provide primary access to Project lands and waters, which is an appropriate place to reach the majority of recreational visitors. The program would educate visitors about appropriate uses and areas for recreational activities and would help protect Project environmental resources. Visitor survey information would provide data for assessing site capacity and adjusting recreational resource management practices to fit future recreational needs within the Project area. V. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE General Comments The National Park Service (NPS) appreciates the opportunity to participate in the relicensing process and has been involved in this process for the past four years. Our staff has been involved in a number of relicensing efforts and would like to commend Avista for its efforts in consultation and outreach. Avista has reached out to a number of groups, non-profits, Tribes, and agencies, and has ensured their inclusion in the relicensing process. We would also like to commend the licensee for its efforts to reach consensus in this process. Avista has also worked with stakeholders and contractors to develop good information to make decisions for mitigation. NPS has been actively involved in the recreation workgroup and supports the recommendations in the recreation and aesthetics studies. NPS believes Avista has made a good faith effort to participate and negotiate an agreement. Unfortunately at this time, an agreement among all parties has not been reached. Specific Comments We have reviewed the Final License Application/Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (FLA/PDEA) and believe that the proposals in these documents generally reflect the discussions and agreements that were reached among the stakeholders through the planning process. Therefore, we recommend that all of these proposals, reiterated below, should be implemented in their entirety and are especially appropriate as considerations under Section 10(a) of the FPA. 1. Recreational Facility Improvements. NPS supports Avista’s proposals for river and reservoir facility improvements outlined in the PDEA. We recommend that a final Recreation Resource Management Plan be 31 developed that incorporates these proposals, which provide for a range of recreation opportunities on the reservoirs and river reaches. Avista worked collaboratively with the recreation and land use work group (RLUWG) and the land managers to develop these proposals. 2. Whitewater Boating NPS recommends implementation of Avista’s proposal to improve whitewater boating opportunities downstream of Post Falls. These proposals include developing a flow information system, improving public access at certain sites, augmenting flows to improve the quality of boating at certain play spots, and providing summer boatable flows on selected weekends. 3. Aesthetic Flows NPS recommends implementation of Avista’s proposal to continue providing flows at Monroe Street Dam as well as providing additional aesthetic flows at both Post Falls and the Upper Falls projects. 32 Bureau of Indian Affairs References Cited Avista. 2004a. Upper Spokane River rainbow trout spawning and fry emergence protection plan. Avista, Spokane, Washington. Avista. 2004b. Consent mail: Proposed westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) genetics and radio telemetry study. Available on-line at: http://198.181.17.155/hydrodocs/clarkfork/2004-0610.pdf last accessed, 3/30/2005. Avista. 2004c. An overview of aquatic habitat and fish related impacts of the Spokane River hydroelectric project in Washington. Prepared by Avista Corporation in coordination with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Spokane, Washington. Avista. 2005. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2545). Application for a new license major project- existing dam. Volume II Applicant-prepared preliminary environmental assessment. Avista Corporation, Spokane, Washington. Bear, B.A., T.E. McMahon, and A.V. Zale. 2005. Thermal requirements of westslope cutthroat trout. Final report to the Wild Fish Habitat Initiative, Montana Water Center. Department of Ecology, Montana Sate University, Bozeman. Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Casselman, J.M., and C.A. Lewis. 1996. Habitat requirements of northern pike (Esox lucius). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53 (Supplement 1): 161-174. Council on Environmental Quality. 1986. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. Reprint 40 CFR Parts 1500- 1508. Washington, D.C. Coeur d'Alene Tribe. 2005. Impacts’ Assessment. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Natural Resources Department. Plummer, ID. April 2005. Coeur d’Alene Tribe. 2004. Letter from Scott Fields, Water Resource Program manger, Coeur d’Alene Tribe, to Hank Nelson, Environmental compliance Coordinator, Avista Utilites. Comments on Draft Phase 2 Water Quality Technical Assessment of Lake Coeur d’Alene Temperature. Dated March 31, 2004. 33 Coeur d’Alene Tribe. 2000. Water Quality Standards for surface waters of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe. Coeur d’Alene Tribe Natural Resources Department. Plummer Idaho. December 30, 2000. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Davis, S. P. 1961. Master’s Thesis: A Limnology Survey of the Backwater of the Lower St. Joe River, Idaho. University of Idaho Graduate School. 69 p. Dwyer, W.P., and R.H. Kramer. 1976. The influence of temperature on scope for activity in cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 104(3) 552-554. Earth Systems and Parametrix. 2004. Final Spokane River Hydroelectric Project phase 2 erosion assessment. Prepared for Avista Corporation, Spokane, WA. July 2004. Ellis, M.M. 1932. Pollution of the Coeur d'Alene River and adjacent waters by mining wastes. U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. GEI, Inc. 2004. Intermountain Province Subbasin Plan. Submitted to Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Spokane, Washington. Golder Associates Inc., 2004. Draft Final Water Quality Technical Assessment, Lake Coeur d’Alene Temperature, Nutrients, Aquatic Plants, Dissolved Oxygen and pH. Part 2: Modeling Report. Graul, W. D., and S. J. Bissell. 1978. Lowland river and stream habitat in Colorado: A symposium. Colorado Chapter of The Wildlife Society and Colorado Audubon Council. Denver, Colorado. Harris, G.P. 1980. Pattern, process and prediction in aquatic ecology. A limnological view of some general ecological problems. Freshwater Biology 32:143-160. Hart, E.R. 1996. A history of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe’s claim to Lake Coeur d'Alene. Volume I: 1780-1872. Expert testimony submitted to the United States Department of Justice. United States vs. Idaho, July 15, 1996. Hickman, T., and R. F. Raleigh 1982. Habitat Suitability Index models: Cutthroat Trout. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (FWS/OBS-82/10.5). Horowitz, A.J., Elrick, K.A., Robbins, J.A., and Cook, R.B., 1995. A summary of the effects of mining and related activities on the sediment-trace element geochemistry of Lake Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, USA. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 52: 135-144. 34 Idaho Division of Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2003. Health Consultation: Evaluation of metals in bullhead, bass, and kokanee from Lake Coeur d’Alene, Coeur d’Alene, Kootenai County, Idaho. Available online at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/coeurdalene/cda_toc.html Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Department of Environmental Quality. 2001. Idaho Water Quality Standards and wastewater treatment. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Department of Environmental Quality. Boise, Idaho. 183 pp. Available online at: http://www2.state.id.us/adm/adminrules/rules/idapa58/0102.pdf. Jepson, P. 1960. State of Idaho fish and game department, survey of fish populations in the lower St. Joe and St. Maries rivers, 1959. Idaho Fish and Game Department Boise. Jin, H., Egashira, S., Chau, K.W., 1998. Carbon to chlorophyll-a ratio in modeling long- term eutrophication phenomena. Water Science and Technology 38(11):227--235. Junk, W. J., P. B. Bayley, and R. E. Sparks. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river- floodplain systems. p. 110-127. In D. P. Dodge [ed.] Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106. Kuwabara, J.S., J.L. Carter, B.R. Topping, S.V. Fend, P.F. Woods, W.M. Berelson, L.S. Balistrieri. 2003. Importance of Sediment-Water Interactions in Coeur d'Alene Lake, Idaho USA Management Implications. Environmental Management. 32(3): 348-359. Lillengreen, K., A.J. Vitale, and R. Peters. 1999. Coeur d'Alene Tribe fish and wildlife management program, fisheries program management plan. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Department of Natural Resources Fish, Water, and Wildlife Program. Plummer, Idaho. Louis Berger. 2004. Recreation facility inventory and user survey for the Spokane River Project. No. 2545. Prepared for Avista Corporation, Spokane, WA. Louis Berger Group. Needham, MA. April 2004. Mallet, J.L. 1968. State of Idaho Fish and Game Department, Coeur d’Alene Lake fisheries investigations. Idaho Fish and Game Department Boise. McDermot, D., and K.A. Rose. 2000. An individual-based model of lake fish communities: Application to piscivorous stocking in Lake Mendota. Ecological Modeling 125:67-102. Nilsson, C. and M. Svedmark 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of changing water regimes: Riparian plant communities. Environmental Management 30(4): 468-480. 35 Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC), 2003. Spokane River Project Relicensing Water Budget and Identification of Beneficial Uses. Olsson, I.C., and L.A. Greenberg. 2001. Effect of an artificial pond on migrating brown trout smolts. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:498-506. Parametrix 2003. Final Report St. Joe River Juvenile Adfluvial Bull Trout Out-Migration Evaluation, 2003. Prepared for the Fisheries Work Group via Avista Corporation, Spokane, Washington. Parametrix. 2004. Habitat use and movement of adult westslope cutthroat trout in Coeur d’Alene Lake, and lower St. Joe, St. Maries, and Coeur d’Alene rivers. 2003 – Interim Report. February 2004. Parametrix (2004a). Wetland and Riparian Habitat Mapping and Assessment. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project. Parametrix (2004b). Spokane River Hydroelectric Project. Phase 2 Erosion Assessment. Peters, R. and A. Vitale. 1998. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Fish and Wildlife Program. Supplementation feasibility report. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Department of Natural Resources. Plummer, Idaho. Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, F.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks, and J.C. Stromberg. 1197. The Natural Flow Regime. BioScience 47: 769-784. Reckhow, K.H. and Chapra, S.C., 1999. Modeling excessive nutrient loading in the environment. Environmental Pollution 100: 197-207. Reynolds, C.S., 1984. Phytoplankton periodicity -- The interactions of form, function and environmental variability. Freshwater Biology 14(2):111-142. Rieman, B.E., R.C. Beamesderfer, S. Vigg, and T. Poe. 1991. Estimated loss of juvenile salmonids to predation by northern squawfish, walleye, and smallmouth bass in John Day Reservoir, Columbia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:448-458. Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report INT-302. Ogden, Utah. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. Rood, S.B. and J.M. Mahoney. 1990. Collapse of riparian poplar forests downstream from dams in western prairies: probable causes and prospects for mitigation. Environmental Management. 14(4): 451-464. 36 Save Lake Davis Task Force Steering Committee and the California Department of Fish and Game (SLDTFSC). 2000. Managing northern pike at Lake Davis: a plan for Y2000. Appendix 2: a review of the life history and biology of northern pike Esox lucius Linnaeus. Accessed on-line at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/northernpike/appendix2.htm date of access 3/30/2005. Spence, B. C., Lominsky, G. A. Hughes, R. M. Novitski, R. P. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. Management Technology. Corvallis, Oregon. Stalmaster, Mark. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books, NY. Steel, J.A., 1995. Modeling adaptive phytoplankton in a variable environment. Ecological Modeling 78(1--2):117--127. Streamnet. 2005. Water temperature data available form Streamnet. Prototype water temperature database. Downloaded from http://www.streamnet.org/online- data/temperature1.html on 4/26/2005. Stuber, R.J., G. Gebhart, and O.E. Maughan. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index models: Largemouth bass. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (FWS/OBS-82/10.16). Vitale, A., D. A. Bailey, R. Peters, and K. Lillengreen. 1999. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Fish, Water, and Wildlife Program. Implementation of Fisheries Enhancement Opportunities on the Coeur d’Alene Reservation, Annual Report, 1998. BPA Project #90-044-00. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Department of Natural Resources, Plummer, Idaho. Walker, E.W. Jr. 1998. “Plateau,” in Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 12, pgs. 315-317. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Wehrly, K.E., M.J. Wiley, and P.W. Seelbach. 2003. Classifying regional variation in thermal regime based on stream fish community patterns. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:18-38. Woods, P.F. 1989. Hypolimnetic concentrations of dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and trace elements in Coeur d’Alene Lake, Idaho. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 89-4032. Boise, Idaho. Woods, P.F. 2004. Role of Limnological Processes in Fate and Transport of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loads Delivered Into Coeur d'Alene Lake and Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho and Flathead Lake, Montana. National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Professional Paper 1682. US Geological Survey. Denver, CO. Woods, P.F. and Beckwith. 1997. Nutrient and trace-element enrichment of Coeur d’Alene Lake, Idaho. Water Supply Paper 2485. U.S. Geological Survey. 93 p. 37 Wydoski, R. S., and R. R. Whitney. 2003. Inland fishes of Washington State. Univ. Washington Press: Seattle, WA. 384 Pages. 38 ATTACHMENT C THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR INDEX TO DOCUMENTS FILED IN SUPPORT OF SECTION 4(e) CONDTIONS SPOKANE RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AND POST FALLS HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT SPOKANE RIVER, IDAHO AND WASHINGTON Anders, P., J. Cussigh, D. Smith, J. Scott, D. Ralston, R. Peters, D. Ensor, W. Towey, E. Brannon, R. Beamesderfer and J.Jordan. 2003. Coeur d'Alene Tribal Production Facility, Volume I of III. Project No. 1990-04402, BPA Report DOE/BP-00006340-2. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 424 pages. Avista. 2002. Average Monthly Water Retention Time Graphs. Avista. 2002. Initial information package for the FERC relicensing of the Spokane River Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2545). Spokane, WA. 156 pages. Avista. 2002. Tim Vore Presentation: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Project 2545 Technical Workgroup Meetings, July 2002. Document No. 2002-0351. Avista. 2004. Consent mail: Proposed westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) genetics and radio telemetry study. Available on-line at: http://198.181.17.155/hydrodocs/clarkfork/2004- 0610.pdf. Accessed, 3/30/2005. Avista. 2004. CD dated November 23, 2004 containing Bathymetric data of Coeur d'Alene Lake. Avista. 2004. Scoping Document 2: Issued in support of an environmental assessment for the relicensing of the Spokane River Hydroelectric Project FERC No.2545. Developed in consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Avista. 2004. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project Relicensing: Study Plan Summary and PM&E Summary. September 27, 2004. Avista. 2004. Spokane River hydroelectric project, FERC No. 2545. Application for a new license major project - existing dam. Volume II, Part 1 of 2. Applicant-prepared preliminary draft environmental assessment. 18 CFR, Part 4 Subpart F, Section 4.51. First working draft provided for Plenary Group review. Avista Corporation, Spokane, WA. Avista. 2005. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2545). Application for a new license major project- existing dam. Volume II Applicant-prepared preliminary environmental assessment. Avista Corporation, Spokane, WA. Avista. 2006. Response of Avista Corporation to Additional Information Request; Schedule A, Spokane River Developments, P- 2545-091 and Post Falls, P-12606-000. March 21, 2006. 41 pages. Bear, B.A., T.E. McMahon, and A.V. Zale. 2005. Thermal requirements of westslope cutthroat trout. Final report to the Wild Fish Habitat Initiative, Montana Water Center. Department of Ecology, Montana Sate University, Bozeman. Beckwith, M. 1997. Transport of Trace Elements by the Coeur d'Alene River, Idaho. IN Inland Northwest Water Resources Conference. April 28 & 29, 1997. Programs and Abstracts. Spokane, WA. 2 pages. Beckwith, M.A. 1998. Concepts for Monitoring Water Quality in the Spokane River Basin, Northern Idaho and Eastern Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 98- 534. Boise, ID. 25 pages. Beckwith, M.A. 2002. Selected Trace-Element and Synthetic Organic Compound Data for Streambed Sediment form the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille and Spokane River Basins, Montana, Idaho, and Washington, 1998. Helena, MT: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 02-336. 26 pages. Beckwith, M.A., P.F. Woods, and C. Berenbrock. 1997. Trace-Element Concentrations and Transport in the Coeur d’Alene River, Idaho, Water Years 1993-94. Boise, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-398. 7 pages. Berman, C. 1998. Summary of Temperature Preference Ranges and Effects for Life Stages of Seven Species of Salmon and Trout. Appendix A. taken from a review of the State of Oregon standard for water temperature completed by Cara Berman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, on September 3, 1998. Bervoets, L., M. Lodts, K. Van Campenhout, and R. Blust. 2002. Heavy metals as a threat for restored fish populations in a lowland river. Pp. 250-261. IN Collares-Pereira, M. M. Coelho, and I. G. Cowx. 2002. Conservation of freshwater fishes: Options for the future. Blackwell Science: Oxford. Birtwell, I.K., J.S. Korstrom, and A.E. Brotherston. 2003. Laboratory studies on the effects of thermal change on the behaviour and distribution of juvenile chum salmon in seawater. Journal of Fish Biology. 62: 85-96. Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. IN Meehan [ed.] Influences of Forest and Ragneland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, MD. Pgs 83-138. Bonneau, J.L. and D.L. Scarnecchia. 1996. Distribution of Juvenile Bull Trout in a Thermal Gradient of a Plunge Pool in Granite Creek, Idaho.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:628-630. Brinson, M.M., and A.I. Malvarez. 2002. Temperate freshwater wetlands: types, status, and threats. Environmental Conservation 29:115-133. Casselman, J.M., and C.A. Lewis. 1996. Habitat requirements of northern pike (Esox lucius). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53 (Supplement 1): 161-174. Chaumont, A. S. Charles, P. Flammarion, and P. Auger. 2003. Do migratory or demographic disruptions ruled population impact of pollution in spatial networks? Theoretical Population Biology. 64:473-480. Clarke, L.R., D.T. Vidergar, and D.H. Bennett. 2005. Stable isotopes and gut content show diet overlap among native and introduced piscivores in a large oligotrophic lake. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 14:267-277. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 18 – Conservation of Power and Water Resources Chapter I – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy Part 4 Licenses, Permits, Exemptions, and Determination of Project Costs: pp. 68-138. Retrieved on October 1, 2004 from the U.S. Government Printing Office WAIS Document Retrieval on the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/index.html. Coeur d’Alene Lake Project Focus Team. 2004. Project Information Required to Evaluate a Project for the Basin Commission Clean Water Act Projects Workplan – 2004: Simulation Model to Evaluate Coeur d’Alene Lake’s Response to Watershed Remediation. Coeur d’Alene Tribe. 2004. Letter from Scott Fields, Water Resource Program manger, Coeur d’Alene Tribe, to Hank Nelson, Environmental compliance Coordinator, Avista Utilites. Comments on Draft Phase 2 Water Quality Technical Assessment of Lake Coeur d’Alene Temperature. Dated March 31, 2004. Coeur d’Alene Tribe. 2004. Letter to Bruce Howard, Avista Utilities, Spokane, WA from Robert A. Matt, Director of the Lake Management Department, Coeur d’Alene Tribe, Plummer, ID. Document No. 2004-0320. August 3, 2004. Coeur d’Alene Tribe. 2004. Letter to Secretary Magalie Roman Salas, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC from Chairman Ernest L. Stensgar, Coeur d’Alene Tribe, Plummer, ID. June 28, 2004. Coeur d’Alene Tribe. 2005. Draft Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. 59 pages. Coeur d’Alene Tribe. 2005. Proposed Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region 10). Prepared by the Coeur d’Alene Tribe's Lake Management Department. Plummer ID. Coeur d’Alene Tribe. 2005. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2545. Impact Assessment Report: Project Effects on Natural Resources. Plummer, ID. 99 pages. Coeur d'Alene Tribe. 2005. Impact Assessment Report: Overview of Effects of the Post Falls HED on the Natural Resources of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe. Spokane River Project (FERC Project No. 2545). Coeur d'Alene Tribe Natural Resources Department. Plummer, ID. Coeur d'Alene Tribe. 2005. Letter from Michael A. Beckwith, Limnologist, Water Resources Program to Bruce Howard, License Manager, Avista Utilities. Coeur d’Alene Tribe comments on Jan. 21 2005 Draft Final Phase 2 Water Quality Technical Assessment of Metals in lake Coeur d’Alene and Spokane River. Dated March 29, 2005. Coeur d’Alene Tribe. 2006. Revised Coeur d’Alene Tribe Wetland Acreage Loss Summary. Plummer, ID. Produced June 14, 2006. Coeur d'Alene Tribe. 2006. 303(d) Streams with Lead. Map produced by CDAT GIS 02/17/2006. Plummer, ID Coeur d’Alene Tribe. 2006. Coeur d’Alene Tribe Cultural Resources Program Archival Materials Donation Agreement. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 131 pages. Dauble, D.D. 1986. Life history and ecology of the largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus) in the Columbia River. American Midland Naturalist 116:356-367. Dauvalter, V. 2000 Toxicity of heavy metals accumulated in lake sediments. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International. 7 ESPR Special (1) 2 pages. Davenport, R.W. 1909. Coeur d'Alene Lake, Idaho, and the Overflow Lands. USGS Water Supply Paper 500-A. Washington, D.C. Davis, S. P. 1961. Master’s Thesis: A Limnology Survey of the Backwater of the Lower St. Joe River, Idaho. University of Idaho Graduate School. 69 pages. Deeds, S. 2006. Personal communication, June 8, 2006. Bull trout specialist, USFWS, Spokane, Washington. Dow Agrosciences. 2001. DMA4IVM Herbicide Specimen Label. Indianapolis, IN. Dwyer, W.P., and R.H. Kramer. 1975. The influence of temperature on scope for activity in cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 104(3) 552- 554. Earth Systems and Parametrix. 2004. Final Spokane River Hydroelectric Project phase 2 erosion assessment. Prepared for Avista Corporation, Spokane, WA. July 2004. Eckberg, N. 2006. Kootenai County Noxious Weed Superintendent. Personal Communication. June 14, 2006. Ellis, M.M. 1940. Pollution of the Coeur d'Alene River and adjacent waters by mining wastes. U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. Epifanio, J. G. Haas, K. Pratt, B. Rieman, P. Spruell, C. Stockwell, F. Utter, and W. Young. 2003. Integrating conservation genetic consideration into conservation planning: a case study of bull trout in Lake Pend Oreille-lower Clark Fork River system. Fisheries 28:10- 24. Field L.J., MacDonald D.D., Norton S.B., Severn C.G., Ingersoll C.G. 1999. Beyond thresholds: Using logistic regression models to estimate the probability of sediment toxicity. Presented at the 20th annual meeting of SETAC, Philadelphia, PA, November 14-18, 1999. Fields, S. 2006. Phone Conversation on Water Quality. 7 July 2006. Fraley, J.J. and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Liofe History, Ecology, and Population Status of Migratory Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River System, Montana. Northwest Science. 63(4):133-143. Garcia and Associates. 2004. Impact Assessment Report: Spokane River Project (FERC Project No. 2545). Prepared for: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest Regional Office. Garcia and Associates. Bozeman, MT. GEI, Inc. 2004. Intermountain Province Subbasin Plan. Coeur d'Alene Subbasin Plan. Submitted to Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Spokane, WA. Golder Associates Inc. 2004. Draft Final Water Quality Technical Assessment, Lake Coeur d’Alene Temperature, Nutrients, Aquatic Plants, Dissolved Oxygen and pH. Part 2: Modeling Report. Redmond, WA. Golder Associates, Inc. 2004. Report on Temperature Analysis for Spokane River Recreation PM&E. Prepared for Avista Corporation. September, 2004. 11 pages and tables. Redmond, WA. Golder Associates, Inc. 2004. Review: Draft Coeur d’Alene Lake and Spokane River Sediment Routing Study: 7/14/04. Redmond, WA. Golder Associates Inc. 2005. Water Quality Technical Assessment. Lake Coeur d'Alene Temperature, Nutrients, Aquatic Plants, Dissolved Oxygen and pH. Part 1: Data Report. Redmond, WA. Golder Associates, Inc., and HDR Engineering, Inc. 2004. Phase 2 Spokane River water temperature report, Spokane River hydroelectric project. Prepared for water resources work group. Golder Associates, Inc. Redmond, WA. Graves, S., K.L. Lillengreen, D.C. Johnson, and A.T. Scholz. 1992. Fisheries Habitat Evaluation on Tributaries of the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation: 1990 Annual Report. Prepared for: Bonneville Power Administration Division of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR. Project Number 90-44 Contract Number DE-BI79-90BP10544. Guard, B. J. 1995. Wetland Plants of Oregon and Washington. Lone Pine Publishing. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 239 pages. HDR Engineering, Inc. 2004. Presentation: Spokane River Water Quality Modeling Update. Authors: Koreny, J. and J. Oppenheimer. Presented to Spokane River Hydroelectric Project Water Resources Work Group Meeting, July 14, 2004. Document No. 2004-0279. Hickman, T., and R. F. Raleigh 1982. Habitat Suitability Index models: Cutthroat Trout. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (FWS/OBS-82/10.5). Historical Research Associates, Inc., January 2006. Draft, Section 106 Historic Properties Evaluation Technical Report, Spokane River Project, prepared for Avista Corporation, Spokane River Project, FERC No. 2545. Horner, N. 2006. Lake trout suppression in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho. Bull trout symposium. Talk presented at Annual Meeting of the Western Division of the American Fisheries Society. Bozeman, Montana, May 22-25, 2006. Horner, N. 2006. Regional Fishery Manager, Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Personal Communication. 19 June 2006. Horowitz, A.J., Elrick, K.A., Robbins, J.A., and Cook, R.B., 1995. A summary of the effects of mining and related activities on the sediment-trace element geochemistry of Lake Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, USA. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 52: 135-144. Hutchinson, G.E. 1957. A Treatise on Limnology Vol.I. Geography, Physics and Chemistry. Wiley and Sons, 1015 pages. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). 1999. Lake Coeur d'Alene and River (17010303) Sub-basin Assessment and Proposed Total Maximum Daily Loads. Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 1958. Creel census summary, fish management area 1, (District #1). Unknown. Accessed October 21, 2004 at: https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/Fisheries%20Research%20Reports/Forms/Show%20All% 20Reports.aspx. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1997. Conservation strategy for northern Idaho wetlands. Natural Resource Policy Bureau. Boise, ID. 253 pages. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1998. Comments to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Petition to List Westslope Cutthroat as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act. Boise, ID. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2001. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN 2001-2006. Available online: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/fish/fishplan/. Accessed June 14, 2006. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2001. Pend Oreille River Drainage Fisheries Plan. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2004. Historical fish stocking for all fish types from 1967 through 2004. Accessed October 5, 2004 on-line at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/fish/stocking/fish_data.cfm. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Department of Environmental Quality. 2001. Idaho Water Quality Standards and wastewater treatment. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Department of Environmental Quality. Boise, Idaho. 183 pp. Available online at: http://www2.state.id.us/adm/adminrules/rules/idapa58/0102.pdf. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environment. 1977. Water Quality Summary Coeur d’Alene Lake, Idaho. 14 pages. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. 2003. Attention Anglers! 2003 Fish Consumption Advisory for Coeur d’ Alene Lake. Boise, ID. 2 pages. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. 2003. Coeur d’Alene Lake Fish Advisory. Boise, ID. 4 pages. Idaho Division of Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2003. Health Consultation: Evaluation of metals in bullhead, bass, and kokanee from Lake Coeur d’Alene, Coeur d’Alene, Kootenai County, Idaho. Available online at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/coeurdalene/cda_toc.html. Idaho State Department of Agriculture. 2005. Idaho’s Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious and Invasive Weeds. Idaho Weed Coordinating Committee. Meridian, ID. 32 pages. Idaho State Department of Agriculture. 2006. Idaho’s noxious weed list web page. http://www.agri.state.id.us/Categories/PlantsInsects/NoxiousWeeds/watchlist.php. Accessed June 14, 2006. Idaho State Department of Agriculture. 2006. Chemical product search webpage: http://www.kellysolutions.com/ID/searchbyproductname.asp. Accessed June 16, 2006. Jeppson, P.W., and W.S. Platts. 1959. Ecology and control of Columbia squawfish in northern Idaho Lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 88:197-203. Jin, H., Egashira, S., Chau, K.W., 1998. Carbon to chlorophyll-a ratio in modeling long-term eutrophication phenomena. Water Science and Technology 38(11):227-235. Junk, W. J., P. B. Bayley, and R. E. Sparks. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. p.110-127. In D. P. Dodge [ed.] Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium. Canadian Special Publication Fisheries Aquatic Sciences. 106 pages. Kareiva, P., M. Marvier, M. McClure. 2000. Recovery and management options for spring/summer Chinook salmon in the Columbia River basin. Science 290:977-979. Klienschmidt. 2004. Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin Bull Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout Protection, Mitigation & Enhancement Implementation Plan. September 2004. Kleinschmidt Energy & Water Resource Consultants. Knopf, F.L., and F.B. Samson. 1994. Scale perspectives on avian diversity in western riparian ecosystems. Conservation Biology 8(3):669-676. Kozlowski, T.T. 2002. Physiological-ecological impacts of flooding on riparian forest ecosystems. Wetlands 22(3):550-561. Krieger, D. A., J.W. Terrell, and P.C. Nelson. 1983. Habitat suitability information: yellow perch. United States Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service. (FWS/OBS- 83/10.55). 37 pages. Kuwabara, J.S., W.M. Berelson, L.S. Balistrieri, P.F. Woods, B.R. Topping, D.J. Steding, and D.P. Krabbenhoft. 2000. Benthic Flux of Metals and Nutrients into the Water Column of Lake Coeur d’Alene, Idaho: Report of an August, 1999, Pilot Study. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4132. Kuwabara, J.S., J.L. Carter, B.R. Topping, S.V. Fend, P.F. Woods, W.M. Berelson, L.S. Balistrieri. 2003. Importance of Sediment-Water Interactions in Coeur d'ALene Lake, Idaho USA Management Implications. Environmental Management. 32(3): 348-359. Lamb, D.S. 2004. Letter to Speed Fitzhugh, Avista, regarding Draft Coeur d'Alene Lake Weed PM&E. Plummer, ID. Lamb, D. 2006.Coeur d’Alene Tribe Lake Management. Personal communication. July 11, 2006. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, ID. 208/686-6206. Lillengreen, K., A.J. Vitale, and R. Peters. 1999. Coeur d'Alene Tribe fish and wildlife management program, fisheries program management plan. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Department of Natural Resources Fish, Water, and Wildlife Program. Plummer, ID. Maest, A. 2001. Stratus Consulting. Exhibit 2828. IN United States Department of the Interior's United States v. Asarco et al. Idaho. Maest, A. 2001. Stratus Consulting. Expert Witness Testimony. IN United States Department of the Interior's United States v. Asarco et al. Idaho. Pages 12452-12455. Maiolie, M.A. and S. Elam 1993 Dworshak Dam Impacts Assessment & Fisheries Investigations Annual Report 1992. Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Division of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR. Project Number 87-99. Contract Number DE-AI79-87BP35167. 66 pages. Maiolie, M. A., W. J. Ament, and B. Harryman 2001. Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Report Number 01-48. December 2001. Maiolie M., T. Bassista, M. Peterson, B. Ament, B. Harryman, M. Duclos, T. Siegford, J. Miller. 2004. Pelagic predators estimated. Lake Pend Oreille Quarterly Report April-June 2004. Mallet, J.L. 1968. State of Idaho Fish and Game Department, Coeur d’Alene Lake fisheries investigations. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. Maret, T. R. and E.M. Dutton. 1999. Summary of Information on Synthetic Organic Compounds and Trace Elements in Tissue of Aquatic Biota, Clark Fork-Pend Oreille and Spokane River Basins, Montana, Idaho, and Washington, 1974-76. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4254. Boise, ID: National Water-Quality Assessment Program. 55 pages. Maret, T. R. and K.D. Skinner. 2000. Concentrations of Selected Trace Elements in Fish Tissue and Streambed Sediment in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille and Spokane River Basins, Washington, Idaho, and Montana, 1998. Boise, ID: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 00-4159. 27 pages. Martinez, E. 1998. Evaluation of Mouthpart Deformities and Heavy Metals in Chironomids from the Heavy Metal Contaminated Coeur d;Alene River. Thesis. Washington State University. Matheson, Q. May 17, 2005. Coeur d’Alene Tribe. Tribe RE eagle cultural question. Personal communication. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, ID. McDermot, D., and K.A. Rose. 2000. An individual-based model of lake fish communities: Application to piscivorous stocking in Lake Mendota. Ecological Modeling 125:67-102. McIntyre, J.D. and B.E. Rieman. 1995. Chapter 1: Westslope Cutthroat Trout. IN Conservation Assessment for Inland Cutthroat Trout. (M. Young ed.) USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort COllins, CO. General Technical Report. RM-GTR-310. McMahon, T.E., B.A. Bear, and A.V. Zale. 2006. Comparative Thermal Preferences of Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Rainbow Trout. Final Report to the Wild Fish Habitat Initiative Montana Water Center at Montana State University-Bozeman Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. McPhail, J.D., and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) life-history and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. Fisheries Management Report No. 104. Vancouver, B.C. McPhail, J.D. and P.D. Troffe. 1998. The mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni ): a potential indicator species for the Fraser System. Environment Canada, Environmental Conservation Branch Aquatic and Atmospheric Sciences Division. Vancouver, B.C. DOE FRAP 1998-16. Munson B.H., J.H. McCormick, and H.L. Collins. 1980. Influence of Thermal Challenge on Conditioned Feeding Forays of Juvenile Rainbow Trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 109:116-121. Nilsson, C. and M. Svedmark 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of changing water regimes: Riparian plant communities. Environmental Management 30(4): 468-480. Nilsson, N.A. and T.G. Northcote. 1981. Rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) and cutthroat trout (S. clarki) interactions in coastal British Columbia lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 38:1228-1246. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC), 2003. Spokane River Project Relicensing Water Budget and Identification of Beneficial Uses. Olsson, I.C., and L.A. Greenberg. 2001. Effect of an artificial pond on migrating brown trout smolts. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:498-506. Ossinger, M. 1999. Success Standards for Wetland Mitigation Projects – a Guideline. Washington State Department of Transportation. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/biology/docs/success_guidelines.pdf. Accessed June 28 2006. Parametrix. 2003. Final Report St. Joe River Juvenile Adfluvial Bull Trout Out-Migration Evaluation, 2003. Prepared for the Fisheries Work Group via Avista Corporation, Spokane, WA. Parametrix. 2004. Habitat use and movement of adult westslope cutthroat trout in Coeur d’Alene Lake, and lower St. Joe, St. Maries, and Coeur d’Alene rivers. 2003 – Interim Report. February 2004. Peters, R. 2004. Tribe comments on the 2003 Interim Report on Habitat Use and Movement of Adult Westslope Cutthroat Trout in Coeur d'Alene Lake, and Lower St. Joe, St. Maries, and Coeur d'Alene Rivers. Plummer, ID. Peters, R. 2006. Fisheries Biologist, Coeur d’Alene Tribe. Personal communication Re Tributaries on Reservation that have westslope cutthroat trout. July 14, 2006. Peters, R., Vitale, A.J. and K. Lillengreen. 1998. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Fish and Wildlife Program. Supplementation feasibility report on the Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Department of Natural Resources, Plummer, ID. 167 pages. Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, F.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks, and J.C. Stromberg. 1997. The Natural Flow Regime: A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47: 769-784. Raleigh, R. F., Hickman, T., Solomon, R. C., and Nelson, P. C. 1984. Habitat suitability Information: Rainbow Trout. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. USFWS/FWS/OBS- 82/10.60.64. Reckhow, K.H. and Chapra, S.C., 1999. Modeling excessive nutrient loading in the environment. Environmental Pollution 100: 197-207. Rich, C.F., Jr., T.E. McMahon, B.E. Rieman, and W.L Thompson. 2003. Local-habitat, watershed, and biotic features associated with bull trout occurrence in Montana streams. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society 132:1053-1064. Rieman, B.E. and F.W. Allendorf. 2001. Effective Population Size and Genetic Conservation Criteria for Bull Trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:756–764. Rieman, B. E., and K. A. Apperson. 1989. Status and analysis of salmonid fisheries: westslope cutthroat trout synopsis and analysis of fishery information. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, Project F-73-R-11, Boise, ID. Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report INT-302. Ogden, Utah. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. Boise, ID. Rieman, B.E., R.C. Beamesderfer, S. Vigg, and T. Poe. 1991. Estimated loss of juvenile salmonids to predation by northern squawfish, walleye, and smallmouth bass in John Day Reservoir, Columbia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:448-458. Rochet, M. and V.M.Trenkel. 2003. Which community indicators can measure the impact of fishing? A review and proposals. Canadian journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 60:86-99. Sauter, S. T., J. McMillan, and J. Dunham. 2001. Salmonid behavior and water temperature. Issue Paper 1. (EPA-910-D-01-00136). Prepared as Part of EPA Region 10 Temperature Water Quality Criteria Guidance Development Project. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. Save Lake Davis Task Force Steering Committee and the California Department of Fish and Game (SLDTFSC). 2000. Managing northern pike at Lake Davis: a plan for Y2000. Appendix 2: a review of the life history and biology of northern pike Esox lucius Linnaeus. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/northernpike/appendix2.htm. Accessed 3/30/2005. Scholz, A., K. O’Laughlin, D. Geist, D. Peone, J. Uehara, L. Fields, T. Kleist, I Zozaya, T. Peone, and K. Teesatuske. 1985. Compilation of information on salmon and steelhead total run size, catch and hydropower related losses in the Upper Columbia River Basin, above Grand Coulee Dam. Fisheries Technical Report No. 2. Upper Columbia United Tribes Fisheries Center, Dept. Biol., Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA. Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Bulletin 184.Ottawa. 966 pages. Shepard, B.B., B.E. May and W. Urie 2003. Status of westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) in the United States: 2002. Bozeman, MT. Spence, B. C., Lominsky, G. A. Hughes, R. M. Novitski, R. P. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. Management Technology. Corvallis, OR. Sprague, R. 1996. An Anthropological Summary of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s Occupation of the Coeur d’Alene Lake Area. Moscow, ID. Spinelli, P. 2006. Email to Bruce Howard, Avista Utilities. June 1, 2006. Stevens, J.C. 1909. Supplemental Report on the Effects of Operating Post Falls Dam upon Land in Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation. USGS. Stoker, B. 2004. Spokane River Project Erosion Control Review Presentation - August 24, 2004. Earth Systems. Monroe, WA. Streamnet. 2005. Water temperature data available form Streamnet. Prototype water temperature database. Downloaded from http://www.streamnet.org/online-data/temperature1.html on 4/26/2005. Stuber, R.J., G. Gebhart, and O.E. Maughan. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index models: Largemouth bass. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (FWS/OBS-82/10.16). 41 pages. United States Army Coastal Engineering Research Center. 2001. Shore Protection Manual. Volume 1. U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. p3-46. United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS. 143 pages. United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter 02-2. 16 pages. United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2004. Prospectus for the Wetland Mitigation Bank, Valencia Wetlands Trust, Phase I, Priest River, Idaho. http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/html/offices/op/rf/Valencia_Wetlands_Trust.htm. Last accessed July 5, 2006. United States Department of the Interior. 1995. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. United States Department of the Interior. 1998. Riparian area management: Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Lentic Riparian-Wetland Areas. Technical Reference 1737-11. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. BLM/SC/ST- 94/008+1737+REV98. 45 pages. United States Department of the Interior. 2003. Riparian area management: Riparian-wetland soils. Technical Reference 1737-19. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. BLM/ST/ST-03/001+1737. 109 pages. United States Department of the Interior (DOI). 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Bull Trout; Final Rule. 50 CFR Part 17. Fish and Wildlife Service. 26 September 2005. United States Department of the Interior. 2005. DOI's Comments on Separate License Applications and Additional lnformation/Study Request. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2545-091 and Post Falls Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 12606-000. September 2005. United States Department of the Interior. 2005. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs Comments on Draft License Application and Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment - Spokane River Hydroelectric Project No. 2545. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout. Federal Register /Vol. 63, No. 111. 31647-31674. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Final Report: Health of Waterfowl Utilizing Lake Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Brian L. Spears, Daniel J. Audet and Jim A. Hansen. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office, Spokane, WA. 21 pages. United States Forest Service. 1989. Biology of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, a literature review. U.S. Forest Service, Dept. Agri., Willamette National Forest, Eugene, OR. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1996. Water-quality data collected during floods in the Coeur d’Alene River, Northern Idaho, February 1996. USGS Fact Sheet FS-219-96. Boise, ID. 4 pages. University of Idaho Extension Service. 2006. North Idaho Weather Records and Averages - Benewah County. http://www.ag.uidaho.edu/sandpoint/w_records.htm#BenewahCounty. Accessed July 3, 2006. Vashro, J. 2006. R1 Regional fish manager, Kalispell FWP office, Montana. 406-751-4550. Personal Communication. June 2006. Vidergar, D.T. 2000. Population estimates, food habits, and estimates of consumption of selected predatory fishes in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho. Master’s thesis. Moscow, ID. University of Idaho. 111 pages. Vitale, A., D. Lamb, R. Peters, M. Stanger, C. Moore, and D. Chess. 2003. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Fish, Water, and Wildlife Program. Implementation of Fisheries Enhancement Opportunities on the Coeur d’Alene Reservation, Annual Report, 1999 – 2001, with Review of Annual Scopes of Work 1995 – 2001. BPA Project #90-044-00, Contract # 90BP10544. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Department of Natural Resources, Plummer, ID. Vitale, A., D.A. Bailey, R. Peters, and K. Lillengreen. 1999. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Fish, Water, and Wildlife Program. Implementation of Fisheries Enhancement Opportunities on the Coeur d’Alene Reservation, Annual Report, 1998. BPA Project #90-044-00. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Department of Natural Resources, Plummer, ID. Wagner, J.M. 2006. CdA Tribe Cultural Resources. Personal communication Re: Cultural Resources 4(e) conditions, justifications and substantial evidence. 5/22/06. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2001. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Assessment of Aquatic Herbicides. Publication No.s 00-10-040 through 00-10- 045. Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Ecology. 2004. Liberty Lake Aquatic Weed Management Plan. http://www.libertylake.org/Website%20documents/Liberty%20Lake%20Aquatic%20We ed%20Management%20Plan_final.pdf accessed June 16, 2006. 188 pages. Washington Department of Ecology. 2006. Eurasian watermilfoil – a problem aquatic plant. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/weeds/aqua004.html accessed June 14, 2006. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Water Resources Work Group. 2004. Spokane River Relicensing Water Resources Work Group. Draft Meeting Summary. August 19, 2004. Wehrly, K.E., M.J. Wiley, and P.W. Seelbach. 2003. Classifying regional variation in thermal regime based on stream fish community patterns. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:18-38. Weitkamp, D.E. 2003. Summary Review - Predation on Cutthroat Trout in Coeur d’Alene Lake. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2545, Avista Corporation. Wetzel, R. G. 2001. Limnology - Lakes and River Ecosystems. Thrid Edition. Academic Press. San Diego, CA. Woods, P.F. 1989. Hypolimnetic concentrations of dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and trace elements in Coeur d’Alene Lake, Idaho. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 89-4032. Boise, ID. Woods, P.F. 2004. Role of Limnological Processes in Fate and Transport of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loads Delivered Into Coeur d'Alene Lake and Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho and Flathead Lake, Montana. National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Professional Paper 1682. US Geological Survey. Denver, CO. Woods, P.F. and M.A. Beckwith. 1997. Nutrient and Trace-Element Enrichment of Coeur d’Alene Lake, Idaho. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2485. 122 pages. Wydoski, R.S., and R.R. Whitney. 2003. Inland fishes of Washington State. University of Washington Press: Seattle, WA. 384 pages.