DOCSLIB.ORG

Albeni Falls Dam Flexible Winter Power Operations Bonner County, Idaho

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Albeni Falls Dam Flexible Winter Power Operations Bonner County, Idaho Albeni Falls Dam Flexible Winter Power Operations Bonner County, Idaho Final Environmental Assessment October 2011 BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bonneville Power Administration. 2011. Final Environmental Assessment—Albeni Falls Dam Flexible Winter Power Operations, Bonner County, Idaho. July. (DOE/EA-1894.) Albeni Falls Dam Flexible Winter Power Operations Bonner County, Idaho Final Environmental Assessment October 2011 The responsible agencies for this work are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). Summary: BPA has proposed the Corps operate Albeni Falls Dam (AFD) during the winter months to utilize a larger portion of the authorized operating range from what has occurred in recent years. The objective is to increase Federal Columbia River Power System operational flexibility for power production utilizing available storage at AFD. The action would allow BPA to more effectively meet winter power demands in the northwestern United States. The proposal includes storing and discharging water behind AFD for power purposes during the winter months. This would result in fluctuating the surface elevation of Lake Pend Oreille between the annual minimum control elevation (MCE) (usually between 2051 and 2055 feet) and 2056 feet from about mid-December until March 31 every year. The proposal is a change to the way AFD has been operated in the winter time in recent years, in which the surface elevation of Lake Pend Oreille has generally been targeted at 2051 or 2055 feet with a one foot operating range. In years where the annual MCE is set at 2055 feet, this proposal will not be different than current operations. This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates effects of the proposal and will help BPA and the Corps determine whether or not a supplement to Columbia River Power System Operation Review Environmental Impact Statement is needed. The EA is intended to meet requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act consistent with implementing regulations for the Corps (ER 200-2-2) and BPA (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 1021). THE OFFICIAL COMMENT PERIOD FOR THIS EA WAS FROM 28 JULY 2011 TO 13 SEPTEMBER 2011. This document is available online under the project name “Albeni Falls Dam Flexible Winter Power Operations, Bonner County, Idaho” at: http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/ers/doc_table.cfm and http://bit.ly/n0a0wx. The points of contact for this EA are: Ms. Leah Wickstrom Mr. John Barco CENWS-PM-CP-CJ Senior Policy Analyst U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Bonneville Power Administration, KEC-4 P.O. Box 3755 P.O.Box 3621 Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 Portland, Oregon 97208-3621 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1. Project Authority .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2. Operations ........................................................................................................................ 1-2 1.3. Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................ 1-3 1.4. Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-4 Chapter 2 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1. Columbia River Power System Operation Review .......................................................... 2-1 2.2. No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3. Flexible Winter Power Operations Alternative (Preferred Alternative) .......................... 2-3 2.4. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration ............................. 2-4 Chapter 3 Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1. Hydrology ........................................................................................................................ 3-2 3.2. Ice .................................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.3. Docks, Infrastructure, and Ice .......................................................................................... 3-8 3.4. Flood Risk Reduction .................................................................................................... 3-10 3.5. Shoreline Erosion ........................................................................................................... 3-12 3.6. Water Quality—Nutrients .............................................................................................. 3-13 3.7. Water Quality—Gas Supersaturation ............................................................................ 3-14 3.8. Resident Fish .................................................................................................................. 3-17 3.9. Anadromous Fish ........................................................................................................... 3-19 3.10. Vegetation and Wetlands ............................................................................................... 3-20 3.11. Wildlife .......................................................................................................................... 3-21 3.12. Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................. 3-22 3.13. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-24 3.14. Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 3-25 3.15. Power ............................................................................................................................. 3-26 3.16. Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................. 3-28 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................... 4-1 4.1. Hydrology ........................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2. Ice .................................................................................................................................... 4-9 4.3. Docks, Infrastructure, and Ice ........................................................................................ 4-10 4.4. Flood Risk Reduction .................................................................................................... 4-14 4.5. Shoreline Erosion ........................................................................................................... 4-15 4.6. Water Quality—Nutrients .............................................................................................. 4-16 4.7. Water Quality—Gas Supersaturation ............................................................................ 4-17 4.8. Resident Fish .................................................................................................................. 4-20 4.9. Anadromous Fish ........................................................................................................... 4-27 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and i Bonneville Power Administration 4.10. Vegetation and Wetlands ............................................................................................... 4-27 4.11. Wildlife .......................................................................................................................... 4-29 4.12. Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................. 4-29 4.13. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-32 4.14. Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 4-33 4.15. Power ............................................................................................................................. 4-34 4.16. Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................. 4-36 4.17. Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4-36 Chapter 5 Comparison of FWPO to SOR EIS Proposed Action ......................................................... 5-1 Chapter 6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1. Gas Supersaturation ......................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2. Fish and Aquatic Habitat ................................................................................................. 6-2 6.3. Wildlife and Wetland Habitat .......................................................................................... 6-6 6.4. Flowering Rush ...............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • License Application Boundary Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2144)
    License Application Boundary Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2144) Seattle City Light September 2009 LICENSE APPLICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS AND DEFINITIONS List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... xiv List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................... xxi INITIAL STATEMENT EXHIBIT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 Contents and Purpose of This Exhibit .............................................................................. A-1 2 General Project Description............................................................................................... A-1 3 Project Area and Vicinity ................................................................................................... A-1 4 Project Lands ...................................................................................................................... A-5 5 License Requirements ......................................................................................................... A-5 5.1. License Articles ............................................................................................................. A-5 5.2. Additional FERC Orders ............................................................................................... A-8 5.3. Other Licenses/Permits
    [Show full text]
  • FERC Project No. 2058
    FERC Project No. 2058 Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Fishery Enhancement Program Appendix A As approved by the Management Committee on 3/14/2017 2017 ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUMMARY – APPENDIX A Clark Fork Project, FERC No. 2058 Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids Hydroelectric Developments Title Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Fishery Enhancement Program Implementation Staff Lead Ken Bouwens, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, (208) 770-3766, [email protected] Background The purpose of this program is to offset the impacts of the power peaking operation of the Cabinet Gorge Project to native salmonids through the restoration and enhancement of lower Clark Fork River and Lake Pend Oreille (LPO) tributary watersheds, fishery monitoring and management support, and a public education and enforcement initiative focused on Bull Trout and their associated habitats in Idaho. Outlined below is the 2017 annual implementation plan for Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Enhancement and Fish Resource Monitoring, Enhancement, and Management portions of this program. The public education and enforcement component of this program is described in Appendix D of the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement (CFSA). In addition, other CFSA appendices also support watershed and native salmonid protection, restoration, and enhancement (e.g., Fish Passage/Native Salmonid Restoration Plan, Watershed Council Program), and thereby augment the efforts to be initiated under this program. 2017 Project Plans Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Enhancement Fund 1. Habitat Restoration Scoping Allocation 2. Idaho Land Conservation Strategy 3. Habitat Restoration Maintenance and Monitoring Allocation 4. Grouse Creek Resurvey 5. Lightning Creek Large Woody Debris and Recruitment Project 6. Twin Creek Restoration Revegetation 7.
    [Show full text]
  • BCUC IR1 Response
    Diane Roy FortisBC Vice President, Regulatory Affairs 16705 Fraser Highway Surrey, B.C. V4N 0E8 Gas Regulatory Affairs Correspondence Tel: (604)576-7349 Email: [email protected] Cell: (604) 908-2790 Fax: (604) 576-7074 Electric Regulatory Affairs Correspondence www.fortisbc.com Email: [email protected] October 1, 2020 British Columbia Utilities Commission Suite 410, 900 Howe Street Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2N3 Attention: Ms. Marija Tresoglavic, Acting Commission Secretary Dear Ms. Tresoglavic: Re: FortisBC Inc. (FBC) Project No. 1599119 Annual Review for 2020 and 2021 Rates (Application) Response to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) Information Request (IR) No. 1 On August 19, 2020, FBC filed the Application referenced above. In accordance with BCUC Order G-211-20 setting out the Regulatory Timetable for the review of the Application, FBC respectfully submits the attached response to BCUC IR No. 1. If further information is required, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, FORTISBC INC. Original signed: Diane Roy Attachments cc (email only): Registered Parties FortisBC Inc. (FBC or the Company) Submission Date: Annual Reivew for 2020 and 2021 Rates ~ Project No. 1599119 (Application) October 1, 2020 Response to British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) Information Request (IR) Page 1 No. 1 1 Table of Contents Page no. 2 A. LOAD FORECAST AND REVENUE AT EXISTING RATES ................................................. 2 3 B. OTHER REVENUE .............................................................................................................28
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration Plan for Bull Trout in the Clark Fork River Basin and Kootenai River Basin Montana
    RESTORATION PLAN FOR BULL TROUT IN THE CLARK FORK RIVER BASIN AND KOOTENAI RIVER BASIN MONTANA Prepared by: MONTANA BULL TROUT RESTORATION TEAM FOR GOVERNOR MARC RACICOT c/o Montana Department of Fish,Wildlife and Parks 1420 East Sixth Avenue Helena, Montana 59601 JUNE 2000 RESTORATION PLAN FOR BULL TROUT IN THE CLARK FORK RIVER BASIN AND KOOTENAI RIVER BASIN, MONTANA This restoration plan for bull trout in Montana was developed collaboratively by, and is supported by, the Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, appointed by Governor Marc Racicot. Restoration Team members represented the organizations listed below. All parties to this restoration plan recognize that they each have specific statutory responsibilities that cannot be abdicated, particularly with respect to the management and conservation of fish and wildlife, their habitat, and the management, development and allocation of land and water resources. Nothing in this plan is intended to abrogate any of the parties' respective responsibilities. Each party has final approval authority for any activities undertaken as a result of this agreement on the lands owned or administered by them. The Restoration Plan was developed by the Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, represented by the following organizations and agencies (arranged in alphabetical order by agency/organization): American Fisheries Society Bonneville Power Administration Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation National
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Management's Discussion and Analysis
    2010 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS March 4, 2011 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) is designed to provide the reader with a greater understanding of the Company’s business, the Company’s business strategy and performance, the Company’s expectations of the future, and how the Company manages risk and capital resources. It is intended to enhance the understanding of the audited annual consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes, and should therefore be read in conjunction with these documents, and should also be read together with the text below on forward-looking statements. Reference in this MD&A to the “Company” or to “SNC-Lavalin” means, as the context may require, SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. and all or some of its subsidiaries or joint ventures, or SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. or one or more of its subsidiaries or joint ventures. Unless otherwise indicated, all financial information presented in this MD&A, including tabular amounts, is in Canadian dollars, and prepared in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS Statements made in this MD&A that describe the Company’s or management’s budgets, estimates, expectations, forecasts, objectives, predictions or projections of the future may be “forward-looking statements”, which can be identifi ed by the use of the conditional or forward-looking terminology such as “anticipates”, “believes”, “estimates”, “expects”, “may”, “plans”, “projects”, “should”, “will”, or the negative thereof or other variations thereon. The Company cautions that, by their nature, forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, and that its actual actions and/or results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements, or could affect the extent to which a particular projection materializes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement
    Volume 26 Issue 2 U.S. - Canada Transboundary Resource Issues Spring 1986 The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement Jackie Krolopp Kirn Marion E. Marts Recommended Citation Jackie K. Kirn & Marion E. Marts, The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement, 26 Nat. Resources J. 261 (1986). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol26/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. JACKIE KROLOPP KIRN* and MARION E. MARTS** The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement SETTING AND BACKGROUND The Skagit River is a short but powerful stream which rises in the mountains of southwestern British Columbia, cuts through the northern Cascades in a spectacular and once-remote mountain gorge, and empties into Puget Sound approximately sixty miles north of Seattle. The beautiful mountain scenery of the heavily glaciated north Cascades was formally recognized in the United States by the creation of the North Cascades National Park and the Ross Lake National Recreation Area in 1968, and earlier in British Columbia by creation of the E.C. Manning Provincial Park. The Ross Lake Recreation Area covers the narrow valley of the upper Skagit River in Washington and portions of several tributary valleys. It was created as a political and, to environmentalists who wanted national park status for the entire area, controversial, compromise which accom- modated the city of Seattle's Skagit River Project and the then-planned North Cascades Highway.
    [Show full text]
  • Fortisbc Inc. an Indirect Subsidiary of Fortis Inc. Annual Information Form
    FortisBC Inc. An indirect subsidiary of Fortis Inc. Annual Information Form For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Dated March 10, 2020 FortisBC Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION .................................................................................................................... 3 GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.0 CORPORATE STRUCTURE .............................................................................................................................. 6 1.1 NAME AND INCORPORATION ................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 INTER-CORPORATE RELATIONSHIPS ..................................................................................................... 6 2.0 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS ......................................................................................... 6 2.1 THREE-YEAR HISTORY ......................................................................................................................... 6 3.0 THE BUSINESS OF FORTISBC INC. ................................................................................................................ 6 3.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 GENERATION AND POWER SUPPLY ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Notes September 11, 2018 Noxon Emergency Services Building
    Water Resources Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Notes September 11, 2018 Noxon Emergency Services Building WRTAC Representatives Attendees: Avista – Eric Oldenburg Bull River Watershed Council – Kathy Ferguson Idaho Department of Fish and Game – Ken Bouwens Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) – Ryan Kreiner Montana Dept. of Environmental Quality – Randy Apfelbeck Noxon-Cabinet Shoreline Coalition – Rick Robinson Panhandle Chapter Trout Unlimited – Bill Love U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Kevin Aceituno U.S. Forest Service (USFS) – Doug Grupenhoff Other Attendees: Avista – Nate Hall, Shana Bernall, Lisa Vollertsen, Susan Drumheller, and Sean Moran; Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group – Brita Olson; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks – Jason Blakney and Mike Hensler (showed up at 10:28). General Updates: • Consent mails: o One consent mail was approved since the spring Management Committee (MC) meeting. This consent mail was for $10,000 to conduct a LiDAR survey of the future stream restoration site up Crow Creek as well as to provide $10,000 additional dollars for the Prospect Creek PIT tag array. • Budget Update o Eric discussed a correction regarding funding of the Westslope Cutthroat Trout Experimental Passage project during 2017. There were no concerns from the group. • 2019 project plans and annual work summaries o Project plans for 2019 are due to Avista on November 1. If you have a new project you would like to propose for next year you need to be working with the appropriate Program Leader so that deadline can be met. Project plan guidelines will be sent to the Program Leaders within the next couple weeks. The 2018 Annual Work Summary guidelines will also be sent to the Program Leaders in a couple of weeks.
    [Show full text]
  • CLARK FORK PROJECT FERC No
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT OF LICENSE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN UPSTREAM FISH PASSAGE FACILITY AT THE CABINET GORGE DAM CLARK FORK PROJECT FERC No. 2058-098 Idaho and Montana Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426 August 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 APPLICATION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION ........................................................................................... 1 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS...................................... 2 1.3.1 Clean Water Act ................................................................................................. 2 1.3.2 Endangered Species Act ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 142 FERC ¶ 62,231 UNITED STATES of AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION City of Seattle, Washington Project No. 2144-0
    20130320-3036 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 03/20/2013 142 FERC ¶ 62,231 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION City of Seattle, Washington Project No. 2144-038 ORDER ISSUING NEW LICENSE (March 20, 2013) INTRODUCTION 1. On September 29, 2009, the City of Seattle, Washington (Seattle)1 filed, pursuant to sections 4(e) and 15 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),2 an application for a new license to continue operation and maintenance of its Boundary Hydroelectric Project (Boundary Project or project). The project’s authorized capacity being licensed is 1,003.253 megawatts (MW). The project is located on the Pend Oreille River near the city of Metaline Falls, in Pend Oreille County, Washington.3 The project occupies 609.24 acres of federal land managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) within the Colville National Forest, and 329.35 acres of federal lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).4 2. As discussed below, this order issues a new license for the Boundary Project.5 1 The Boundary Project is operated and maintained by the City of Seattle’s Seattle City Light Department, often referred to as SCL. 2 16 U.S.C. §§ 797(e) and 808 (2006), respectively. 3 The Federal Power Commission (FPC), now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), found the Pend Oreille River from Pend Oreille Lake in Idaho downstream to the United States – Canada border to be a navigable waterway of the United States. See Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, Washington, 11 F.P.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia POWER Corporation
    COLUMBIA POWER COrpORATION REVISED SERVICE PLAN 2013/14 - 2015/16 LETTER TO THE MINISTER Honourable Bill Bennett Minister of Energy and Mines On behalf of the Board of Directors, I am pleased to portant addition to the portfolio of hydroelectric assets submit Columbia Power Corporation’s revised Service in the Columbia Basin. Plan 2013/14—2015/16. Columbia Power has three priorities for the next year: This revised Service Plan has been updated to reflect the recent re-organization of government ministries. Continue to effectively manage the construction of As well, the 2012/13 performance measures and sum- the Waneta Expansion safely, on-schedule and on- mary financial outlook tables have had the forecast budget, while meeting our community, First Nations information removed and replaced with 2012/13 pre- and environmental commitments. liminary actual results. • The Project is on-schedule and on-budget; the Project recently reached over 1.1 million person-hours without Columbia Power Corporation (“Columbia Power”), a a major safety or environmental incident. commercial Crown corporation, develops and operates • Currently over 300 people work on the Waneta hydro power projects in the Columbia Basin. Columbia Expansion Project; of those, over 75 per cent reside Power and its partner, Columbia Basin Trust (“CBT”) within 100 km of the Project. These employment own the Brilliant Dam and Generating Station, the Bril- opportunities and the associated economic benefits— liant Terminal Station, the Arrow Lakes Generating Sta- over $123 million to date has been spent in the local tion and the Brilliant Expansion Generating Station and economy—have a positive impact on the communities associated transmission lines.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report Our Values Speak Directly to How We Run Our Business, Express Ourselves As a Group and Inspire Trust in Our Stakeholders
    ♦)) SNC • LAVALIN At Work 2014 Annual Report Our values speak directly to how we run our business, express ourselves as a group and inspire trust in our stakeholders. Teamwork and excellence We are innovative, collaborative, competent and visionary. Customer focus Our business exists to serve and add long-term value to our customers’ organizations. Strong investor returns We seek to reward the trust of investors by delivering competitive returns relative to our industry, and by developing vital projects that make them proud. Health, safety, security and environment We have a responsibility to protect everyone who comes into contact with our organization. Ethics and compliance We are unrelentingly committed to ethics and compliance excellence. Respect We consistently demonstrate respect for all our stakeholders. A Tier-1 Engineering & Construction Company SNC-Lavalin is on a journey to become the world’s leading engineering and construction frm. By “leading” we mean the company in our industry that is the most relied-upon to safely, effciently and ethically deliver outstanding performance for resources, power and infrastructure clients—regardless of project location or complexity. We’re working hard to become thought leaders who contribute meaningfully to our clients’ growth strategies. We can be counted on to fnd ingenious solutions to challenges and to deliver the most comprehensive and highest quality services across our chosen markets. By doing all of this and more, we’ll grow in size, reputation and proftability. TABLE OF CONTENTS
    [Show full text]