Introduction

SCOPING DOCUMENT NO. 2

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE RELICENSING OF THE LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 637

July 16, 1999

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Wenatchee, Washington Table of Contents Appendices

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... i ACRONYM LIST ...... iii

SECTION 1:INTRODUCTION...... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Scoping Document ...... 1-2 1.2 Scoping Meetings...... 1-3 1.3 Request for Information ...... 1-4 1.4 EA Preparation Schedule ...... 1-5

SECTION 2:BACKGROUND...... 2-1 2.1 Project Description...... 2-1 2.2 Project Operation ...... 2-2

SECTION 3:PROPOSED ACTION ...... 3-1 3.1 Applicant’s Proposal ...... 3-1 3.2 Other Alternatives for Continued Project Operation...... 3-1 3.3 No-Action Alternative...... 3-1 3.4 Issues Considered but Eliminated from Further Study ...... 3-1

SECTION 4:ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ISSUES...... 4-1 4.1 Cumulative Impacts...... 4-1 4.2 Issues Identified for Analysis in the EA ...... 4-1

SECTION 5:PROPOSED EA OUTLINE ...... 5-1

SECTION 6:DISTRIBUTION LIST...... 6-1

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page i SS/1637_2 Table of Contents Appendices

APPENDIX A: Issue Identification...... A-1 LARC Group Agency Meeting, March 25, 1998...... A-3 Fish Group Agency Meeting, March 30, 1998...... A-13 Public Meeting, May 12, 1998...... A-21

APPENDIX B: STUDY PLANS...... B-1 Attachment A: Water Quality Monitoring Study Plan ...... A-1 Attachment B: Shoreline Erosion Control ...... B-1 Attachment C: Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases ...... C-1 Attachment D: Fishery Investigation ...... D-1 Attachment E: Anadromous Fish Outline ...... E-1 Attachment F: Columbia River Flow Augmentation...... F-1 Attachment G: RTE Botanical ...... G-1 Attachment H: Riparian Zone Investigation...... H-1 Attachment I: Wildlife Investigation...... I-1 Attachment J: Cultural and Historical Resources: Proposed Consultation Process ...... J-1 Attachment K: Cultural and Historical: Field Methods Survey ...... K-1 Attachment L: Fish Stranding Investigation...... L-1 Attachment M: Recreation Plan Update ...... M-1 Attachment N: Aesthetics ...... N-1 Attachment O: Paddling Feasibility...... O-1 Attachment P: Project Lands Management & Socioeconomics...... P-1

APPENDIX C: MAP LOCATING PROJECT AND RECREATIONAL SITES...... C-1

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page ii July 16, 1999 Acronym List

ACRONYM LIST

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ARP Alternative Relicensing Process Chelan PUD Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Colville Confederated Tribes Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation CRMP Cultural Resource Management Plan DEA Draft Environmental Assessment District Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement FEA Final Environmental Assessment FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission GIS Geographic Informations Systems Gorge Bypass Reach GPS Global Positioning System ICD Initial Consultation Document Lake Chelan Project Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project LARC Land Use, Aesthetics, Recreation & Cultural Working Group MW Megawatt NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGO Non-Governmental Organization NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NPS National Park Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places PA Programmatic Agreement PDEA Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum RTE Rare, Threatened and Endangered SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan SD1 Scoping Document No. 1 SD2 Scoping Document No. 2 USFS United States Forest Service

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page iii SS/1637_2 Section 1: Introduction

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), under the authority of the Federal Power Act*, may issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction, operation, and maintenance of non-federal hydroelectric developments. Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County (Chelan PUD) intends to file an application for a new license for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 637). The Lake Chelan Project is a major power project with an installed capacity of 48 megawatts (MW) and is currently operating under a license issued by the FERC on May 12, 1981, that expires on March 31, 2004. Chelan PUD intends to continue to operate and maintain the Lake Chelan Project, which is located approximately 32 miles north of Wenatchee, in Chelan County, Washington. All the power generated by the Lake Chelan Project is available to serve the homes and businesses of Chelan County.

Chelan PUD has requested and received approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to employ an Alternative Relicensing Process for the Lake Chelan Project, as allowed under FERC’s Final Rule issued on October 29, 1997 (Docket No. RM95-16-000; Order No. 596). The Alternative Relicensing Process proposed by Chelan PUD is intended to expedite the licensing process by combining the pre-filing consultation and environmental review processes into a single process, and by improving and facilitating communications among the participants in the licensing process.

Chelan PUD believes that this relicensing will not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the existing human and natural environment. As such, Chelan PUD proposes that the NEPA analysis for the Project relicensing can be completed as an Environmental Assessment (EA), rather than an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). However, the format and outline of the EA presented in Section 5 of this scoping document has been designed to be easily convertible to that of an EIS if, later in the evaluation and study process, it is determined by either the participants in the consultation process or by FERC staff that an EIS is required.

As noted above, the Alternative Relicensing Process (ARP) proposed by Chelan PUD and approved by FERC is designed to expedite the relicensing process by improving and facilitating communications among the participants involved in the relicensing consultation process. The approach chosen by Chelan PUD includes the following key concepts that have been selected to support the relicensing goals for the Lake Chelan Project:

• Implementation of NEPA scoping at the beginning of the relicensing process to facilitate early involvement by all interested parties and to focus study efforts on issues determined to be directly related to the Lake Chelan Project;

* U.S.C. Sect. 791(a)-825(r).

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page 1-1 SS/1637_2 Section 1: Introduction

• Implementation of a Communications Protocol designed to improve access to information developed during the consultation and study process by all interested parties;

• Preparation or conversion of relicensing and NEPA documents into electronic formats with the goal of reducing paperwork and creating documents that will be easily reusable by involved participants and the FERC;

• Completion of a series of pre-formal issues workshops with the resource agencies designed to provide interested parties with the opportunity to actively shape the content and direction of the proposed NEPA process; and

• Cooperatively scoping environmental issues and study approaches.

A Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) will be completed by Chelan PUD, in coordination with the collaborative relicensing team and FERC Staff, and filed with FERC in lieu of the Exhibit E Environmental Report as part of the Draft License Application. The PDEA and Draft License Application will also be circulated for review and comment to all interested parties. FERC staff will then review the PDEA and the License Application for adequacy, consider all comments submitted on these filings, and then issue a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for review and comment. The DEA will present FERC Staff’s conclusions and recommendations for the Commission to consider in reaching its final licensing decision for the Lake Chelan Project. FERC will then issue the Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) and the License Order for the Project after considering and incorporating comments submitted on the DEA.

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE SCOPING DOCUMENT The purpose of the scoping process is to:

• Identify important environmental and developmental issues related to the proposed Project relicensing;

• Identify reasonable alternatives that should be evaluated in the Environmental Assessment;

• Determine the scope and depth of analysis for environmental and developmental issues identified for evaluation in the Environmental Assessment; and

• Identify issues that are not important or that do not require detailed analysis.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page 1-2 July 16, 1999 Section 1: Introduction

This Scoping Document is intended to further all interested parties’ understanding of the Project and to encourage the parties to actively participate and contribute to the issues scoping and the resulting resource study approaches designed for analysis of Project relicensing.

The proposed Alternative Relicensing Process for the Lake Chelan Project offers interested parties a forum for remaining actively involved during the entire consultation and study process. Moreover, this approach will also present three formal comment opportunities as follows:

• Scope of Environmental Assessment - during formal public scoping meeting(s);

• Content of the Draft PDEA - during the comment period prior to submittal to FERC for review; and

• Content of the Final PDEA - during the public comment period so that comments can be received by FERC to consider in the FEA.

1.2 SCOPING MEETINGS Scoping of the issues related to the proposed relicensing began informally during the series of agency workshops sponsored by Chelan PUD beginning in March 1998. The agencies/public that have participated in the issues workshops have contributed significantly to the content of this scoping document. A series of informal scoping workshops occurred between March and July, 1998.

Chelan PUD held an informal meeting on September 23, 1998, to discuss the contents of the first scoping document (Scoping Document No. 1 or SD1). Formal scoping meetings were held on November 18 and 19, 1998. One meeting occurred on the evening of November 18, 1998. A second meeting occurred during the day on November 19, 1998. Based on comments and recommendations received at both meetings and at a series of meetings that occurred between December 1998 and June 1999, Chelan PUD is distributing this revised scoping document (Scoping Document No. 2 or SD2).

The formal scoping meetings held in November 1998 were recorded by a court recorder and taped so that all statements submitted became part of the formal public record for the Lake Chelan Project relicensing. Individuals who presented statements during the meeting were asked to sign in and clearly identify themselves for the record.

Interested parties who choose not to speak or were unable to attend the scoping meetings provided written statements, comments or information.

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page 1-3 SS/1637_2 Section 1: Introduction

Questions concerning the scoping process for the Lake Chelan Project should be directed to:

Mr. Gregg Carrington Project Manager for the Lake Chelan Relicensing Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, WA PO Box 1231 Wenatchee, WA 98807-1231 (509) 663-8121 [email protected]

Mr. Vince Yearick Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 (202) 219-3073 [email protected]

1.3 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION Federal, state and local governments and resource agencies, Tribes, NGOs, and individuals were requested to forward, or present at the scoping sessions, information they believe would assist Chelan PUD and FERC in conducting an accurate and thorough analysis of direct and indirect effects of the proposed Project relicensing. Types of information requested included, but were not limited to:

• Information, data, or professional opinions that may contribute to identifying and defining the scope of important environmental and developmental issues;

• Identification of, and information from any other similar analysis or study (completed, in progress, or planned) that is relevant to the proposed relicensing of the Lake Chelan Project;

• Information and quantified data that will aid in the characterization of the existing physical, chemical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic environments;

• Information on resources that may be cumulatively affected; and

• Information on future projects proposed by others in the vicinity of the Project area.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page 1-4 July 16, 1999 Section 1: Introduction

Comments on this final scoping document (SD2) are due by August 16, 1999, and should clearly identify the Project as The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 637 and be sent to the attention of:

Mr. Gregg Carrington Project Manager for the Lake Chelan Relicensing Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, WA PO Box 1231 Wenatchee, WA 98807-1231

1.4 EA PREPARATION SCHEDULE The preliminary schedule for preparing the Lake Chelan Project Environmental Assessment is as follows:

Issued Discussion Copy of SD1 ...... July 22, 1998 Issued Review Copy of SD1...... August 14, 1998 Conducted Informal Scoping Meeting ...... September 23, 1998 (Preliminary Comments Due) Issued Formal SD1 and ICD...... October 5, 1998 Formal Scoping Meetings ...... November 18 and 19, 1998 Comments on SD1 and ICD Due ...... January 19, 1999 Issued Final SD2 ...... July 16, 1999 Comments on SD2 Due...... August 16, 1999 Issue Informal Review Copies of Draft PDEA ...... January 2001 and Draft License Application Issue Draft PDEA and Draft License Application...... April 2001 Issue Informal Review Copies of Final PDEA...... December 2001 and Final License Application File PDEA and License Application ...... March 2002

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page 1-5 SS/1637_2 Section 2: Background

SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

This section of the SD2 presents a brief summary of the existing Project features and operation. The Initial Consultation Document (ICD)† presents detailed discussions about these topics that support the following summaries.

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PROJECT SETTING Chelan PUD owns and operates the 48-MW Lake Chelan Project, which is located on the Chelan River in Chelan County, Washington. The Project dam is located at the lower end of the 50.4- mile-long Lake Chelan and the powerhouse is located at the confluence of the Chelan River and the Columbia River, 4.1-miles downstream of the Project dam. Appendix C contains a map locating the Project.

Lake Chelan serves as the reservoir for the Project and is a deep, narrow, natural lake extending northwesterly from the City of Chelan, Washington, 50.4 miles up to the head of the lake near Stehekin, Washington. The maximum width of the lake is 1.8 miles and there are approximately 109.2 miles of shoreline. The maximum depth of Lake Chelan is 1,486 feet when the lake is at elevation 1,100 feet (extending approximately 400 feet below sea level). Lake Chelan is the third deepest freshwater lake in the United States, behind Crater Lake and Lake Tahoe. It has a maximum surface area of approximately 33,300 acres and contains 677,400 acre-feet of usable storage between a minimum elevation of 1,079 feet and a maximum elevation of 1,100 feet. Gross storage capacity of the Lake Chelan Project is 15.8 million acre-feet.

PROJECT FACILITIES The dam is constructed at the lower or southeasterly end of Lake Chelan where it flows into the Chelan River. The dam is a concrete-gravity, steel-reinforced structure approximately 40-feet- high and 490-feet-long. Incorporated into the dam are a gated spillway section, a trash sluice, and a power conduit intake structure.

The intake structure contains seven 17-foot-wide inlet openings protected by sectionalized steel trashracks extending from elevation 1,068 to elevation 1,103. The trashracks are cleaned manually with rakes while the larger debris is floated to the debris removal bay located at the left abutment of the spillway. The intake structure also contains ten 17-foot-wide inlet openings (without trashracks) for a possible 17-foot-diameter power tunnel that is sealed off at the dam axis adjacent to the existing power tunnel inlet.

The 14-foot-diameter tunnel is 2.2 miles long and extends from the intake structure at the dam to the powerhouse. A 45-foot-diameter by 125-foot-high steel surge tank located on the hillside

† The ICD was distributed on October 5, 1998.

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page 2-1 SS/1637_2 Section 2: Background approximately 700 feet from the powerhouse is connected to the lower portion of the lined conduit by an 11-foot-diameter, steel-lined shaft. The capacity of the surge tank is 1,260,000 gallons. The conduit reduces to 12-foot-diameter and then divides into two 9-foot-diameter penstock branches leading to 7.5-foot-diameter control valves before entering the scroll cases of the two turbines.

The powerhouse is an indoor type approximately 140-feet long by 100-feet wide and 124-feet high that is operated remotely from Chelan PUD’s dispatch center in Wenatchee, Washington. The powerhouse contains two vertical axis 34,000 hp Francis type turbines that drive generators rated at 24,000 kW each. At full gate and maximum head, the turbines discharge a maximum combined flow of approximately 2,200 cfs. The Project generates an average of 375,226 MWh annually. Section A2 of the ICD presents a detailed description of the installed Project facilities.

RECREATION FACILITIES There is a range of recreation sites located within the Project boundary, distributed along the shoreline of Lake Chelan. These facilities provide the public with a variety of recreational opportunities ranging from drive-in to boating-access-only sites. Table 8 in the ICD presents a listing of these sites and Appendix C in the SD2 shows the location of each.

2.2 PROJECT OPERATION

EXISTING OPERATION Chelan PUD operates the Lake Chelan Project to optimize use of the Chelan River water resource to produce electric energy while meeting flood control needs, irrigation requirements and recreational uses of Lake Chelan. The drainage basin encompasses approximately 924 square miles, of which approximately 50 percent is above 5,500 feet in elevation. The major portion of precipitation occurring within the watershed falls in the form of snow during the months of November through March. Flows into Lake Chelan are dominated by springtime snowmelt runoff, which generally occurs between April 15 and July 15. Historically, the annual peak runoff occurs in June.

The current operational regime generally includes power operation near the full installed flow capacity of the powerplant on a year-round basis. The discharge from Lake Chelan is regulated to assure with a 95-percent probability that the reservoir will refill to the normal maximum water surface elevation of 1,098.0 feet on or before June 30 of each year. To assure this refill, the inflow potential of the snowpack within the Chelan drainage basin is determined from snow measurements taken five times a year. Measurements are made by direct field or remote measurement methods from established snow courses. Runoff predictions are also based on probability curves defined by a relationship between the historical basin precipitation and the observed reservoir inflow.

The normal maximum elevation of the reservoir is elevation 1,098 feet. The maximum elevation is 1,100 feet and the minimum is elevation 1,079 feet. The average minimum drawdown of the

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page 2-2 July 16, 1999 Section 2: Background reservoir over 43 years of operation (1952-1995) has been to approximately 1084.2 feet. Annual drawdown of the lake begins in early October as average streamflows into the lake decline from the warm summer season. From October through April, the water flow into the power tunnel at the dam typically exceeds inflows into the lake and the reservoir elevation continues to decline. The lowest annual lake elevation normally occurs in April. From May through June, the lake refills as the spring runoff exceeds the hydraulic capacity of the power tunnel. The reservoir is maintained at or above elevation 1,098 feet from June 30 through September 30 for the summer recreation season.

The Lake Chelan Project has historically been operated to reduce peak flood flows on the Chelan River and on the lower stretch of the Columbia River when requested by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Chelan PUD proposes to continue the Project’s role in regional flood control management. The Project is and will continue to be operated in accordance with all applicable FERC license requirements and the laws of the State of Washington.

PROPOSED OPERATION Although Chelan PUD is not proposing any changes to the Project operation as part of relicensing, it is currently evaluating possible changes in consultation with the collaborative relicensing team.

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page 2-3 SS/1637_2 Section 3: Proposed Action

SECTION 3: PROPOSED ACTION

This section of the scoping document describes the range of actions currently under consideration for the relicensing of the Lake Chelan Project. This listing was developed cooperatively with the interested parties during the series of meetings held between March 1998 and June 1999.

3.1 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL Chelan PUD is proposing to identify Project-related issues and conduct studies designed to address these issues in order to obtain a new license for the continued operation of the Project. Chelan PUD will consider and propose appropriate Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement measures to address resources, which are determined to be affected by the Project after consultation and field studies are completed. Chelan PUD will consider proposed changes to the existing facilities, changes to the Project operational regime and environmental enhancements.

3.2 OTHER ALTERNATIVES FOR CONTINUED PROJECT OPERATION Any other alternatives proposed by agencies, non-government organizations (NGOs) and other interested parties will be considered by Chelan PUD and the collaborative relicensing team.

3.3 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The no-action alternative would relicense the Project for continued operation under the terms of the existing FERC license. No environmental enhancements would be provided under this alternative. The no-action alternative acts as the baseline against which the applicant’s proposal and all other relicensing proposals developed during the consultation process are evaluated.

3.4 ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY To date, federal takeover, nonpower license and decommissioning have been eliminated from further study. This list may change as studies are completed and the results are discussed with the collaborative relicensing team.

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page 3-1 SS/1637_2 Section 4: Environmental Resource Issues

SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ISSUES

4.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (§1508.7), an action may cause cumulative impacts on the environment if its impacts overlap in space and/or time with the impacts of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time and include hydropower and other land and water development activities.

4.1.1 Resources That Could Be Cumulatively Affected Cumulative impacts will be identified and addressed by the collaborative relicensing team.

4.1.2 Geographic Scope The geographic scope of the Cumulative Analysis will be limited to the area within the Project boundary and other areas that are likely to be impacted by Project operations.

4.1.3 Temporal Scope The temporal scope of the Cumulative Analysis will include past, present and future actions and their effect on each resource that could be cumulatively affected.

4.2 ISSUES IDENTIFIED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EA The issues identified below are a result of the meetings held with the agencies since March 1998 and the public since May 1998. All issues identified by interested parties to date in this process are provided in Appendix A. This all-inclusive list includes Project-related issues as well as non- Project-related issues.

Final study plans have been included in Appendix B. These study plans are intended to collect additional information about ongoing, project-related impacts so that future Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement measures can be developed by the collaborative team. In general, the issues that could potentially be affected by Project operations are, but not limited to the following:

Geology and Soils Resources Issues • Effects of reservoir management on shoreline erosion. Aquatic Resource Issues • Effects of lake-level fluctuations on fish access to tributaries and spawning success.

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page 4-1 SS/1637_2 Section 4: Environmental Resource Issues

• Effects of lake-level fluctuations on juvenile fish habitat and benthic macroinvertebrate production. • Effects of lake-level fluctuations on sedimentation and temperature in the lake and downstream areas. • Effects of infrequent flow releases into the bypass and the potential stranding of fish. • Effects of the project intake design and tailwater releases on temperature, dissolved oxygen, and total dissolved gas levels in the tailwater and lower Chelan River. • Effects of project releases to the tailwater on anadromous fish spawning and rearing habitat. • Effects of the removal of woody debris from the lake. Threatened and Endangered Species Issues • Effects of continued operation of the project on federal and state threatened and endangered fish species including various salmon and steelhead, and bull trout. • Effects of project operation on threatened and endangered terrestrial species including bald eagles (including perching and nesting habitat), peregrine falcons (including predator/prey relationship), gray wolf, grizzly bear, spotted frog. Wildlife and Riparian Habitat Issues • Effects of project operation (principally lake-level fluctuation and associated shoreline erosion) on wetland and riparian vegetation, and associated wildlife. • Effects of project operation on wildlife, particularly water bird nesting and rearing habitat and nesting success; small mammal habitat; amphibian habitat, and song bird habitat. • Effects of Chelan PUD's wildlife management actions on big-game habitat and what activities, if any, should be continued through the next license term. Botanical Resource Issues • Effects of project operation on rare plant species, including Epipactis gigantea (giant helleborine); Githopsis specularioides (common bluecup); Pellaea brachyptera (Sierra cliffbrake); Spiranthes porrifolia (western lady's tresses). • Effects of project operation on the spread of noxious weeds. Aesthetic Resource Issues • Effects of reservoir level management on shoreline aesthetics. • Effects of project structures on aesthetics. • Effects of flow releases on bypassed-reach aesthetics. • Effects of recreational facility development on shoreline aesthetics. Recreation Resource Issues • Effects of reservoir level management on access to public, and private lake access areas.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page 4-2 July 16, 1999 Section 4: Environmental Resources Issues

• Effects of various flow regimes on whitewater boating in the bypassed reach. • The extent and adequacy of public access facilities at the project. Cultural Resource Issues • Effects of project operation on cultural resources including any archeological sites, cultural properties, or other properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Land Use Issues • Whether or not, or under what conditions, relicensing the project would be consistent with the relevant comprehensive plans on the Commission's list of comprehensive plans.

The list of issues contained in Appendix A may change as a result of formal scoping and as studies are completed and the results are discussed with the collaborative relicensing team. A written record will be maintained that indicates the status of each issue (and how they were addressed). A detailed description of the issues is contained in each of the study plans presented in Appendix B.

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page 4-3 SS/1637_2 Section 5: Proposed EA Outline

SECTION 5: PROPOSED EA OUTLINE

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 2.1 Purpose of Action 2.2 Need for Power

3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 3.1 Project Description 3.2 Project Operation 3.3 Proposed Action 3.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 3.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

4.0 CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE 4.1 Issue Identification 4.2 NEPA Scoping 4.3 Agency Consultation 4.4 Interventions 4.5 Water Quality Certification 4.6 Shoreline Management Act 4.7 Section 18 Fishway Prescription 4.8 Section 4(e) Conditioning 4.9 Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act 4.10 Section 10(j) Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

5.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS

Introduction presenting alternatives considered during NEPA review and handling of the analysis within this section.

5.1 General Description of the Locale 5.2 Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis 5.2.1 Geographic Scope 5.2.2 Temporal Scope

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page 5-1 SS/1637_2 Section 5: Proposed EA Outline

5.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 5.3.1 Water Use and Quality 5.3.2 Fish, Wildlife and Botanical Resources 5.3.3 Historic and Archeological Resources 5.3.4 Recreational Resources 5.3.5 Land Management and Aesthetic Resources 5.3.6 Geological and Soil Resources 5.3.7 Socioeconomic Resources 5.4 No-Action Alternative

6.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS 6.1 Power and Economic Benefits 6.2 Cost of Environmental Measures

7.0 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

8.0 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

9.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

10.0 LITERATURE CITED

11.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

12.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page 5-2 July 16, 1999 Section 6: Distribution List

SECTION 6: DISTRIBUTION LIST

Mr. David P. Boergers, Secretary FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY Mr. Michael J. Egge, Hydraulic Engineer COMMISSION US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS M/S GC-10.2, Room 104-07 P O Box 2870 888 First Street NE Portland OR 97208-2870 Washington DC 20426 Ms. Debbie Knaub Mr. Tim Looney US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY P O Box 2829 COMMISSION Chelan WA 98816 888 First Street NE Washington DC 20426 Mr. William McGinnis, Chief, Power Branch US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Mr. Frank Winchell P O Box 2870 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY Portland OR 97208-2870 COMMISSION 888 First Street NE Ms. Lori Morris, Environmental Protection Specialist Washington DC 20426 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Regulatory Branch Mr. Robert Easton, Fisheries Biologist PO Box 3755 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY 4735 E Marginal Way South COMMISSION Seattle WA 98124-3755 Division of Licensing & Compliance M/S HL-11.4, Room 6H-07 Mr. Phil Archibald 888 First Street NE US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Washington DC 20426 Forest Service Wenatchee National Forest Mr. David Turner, Terrestrial Biologist P O Box 476 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY Entiat WA 98822 COMMISSION Division of Licensing & Compliance Mr. Rick Edwards M/S HL-11.4, Room 6H-05 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 888 First Street NE Forest Service Washington DC 20426 Wenatchee National Forest P O Box 476 Mr. Vince Yearick Entiat WA 98822 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Ms. Ann Fink Division of Licensing & Compliance US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE M/S HL-11.4, Room 63-13 Forest Service 888 First Street NE Wenatchee National Forest Washington DC 20426 215 Melody Lane Wenatchee WA 98801 Mr. Keith Brooks,Attorney FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY Ms. Powys Gadd, Forest Archaeologist COMMISSION US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of General Counsel Forest Service M/S GC-10.2, Room 101-52 Wenatchee National Forest 888 First Street NE 215 Melody Lane Washington DC 20426 Wenatchee WA 98807-0811

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page 6-1 SS/1637_2 Section 6: Distribution List

National Marine Fisheries Service Mr. Glenn Hoffman, Planning Staff Officer 525 NE Oregon St, Suite 500 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Portland OR 97232-2737 Forest Service Wenatchee National Forest Mr. Richard Domingue 215 Melody Lane US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Wenatchee WA 98801 Natl Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin National Marine Fisheries Service Mr. Barbara Jackson 525 NE Oregon St, Suite 500 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Portland OR 97232-2737 Forest Service Wenatchee National Forest Mr. Brett Joseph 215 Melody Lane US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Wenatchee WA 98801 Natl Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin National Marine Fisheries Service Mr. Joe Kastenholz, District FERC Coordinator 7600 Sandpoint Wy NE US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BIN #C-15700 Forest Service Seattle WA 98115 Wenatchee National Forest 428 W Woodin Ave Mr. Keith Kirkendall, FERC Coordinator Route 2, Box 680 US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Chelan WA 98816-9724 Natl Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin National Marine Fisheries Service Mr. R. Alex Martinez, FERC Coordinator 525 NE Oregon St, Suite 500 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Portland OR 97232-2737 Forest Service Wenatchee National Forest Mr. Bernard Burnham 215 Melody Lane US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Wenatchee WA 98801 Bureau of Indian Affairs 911 NE Eleventh Avenue Mr. Al Murphy, Chelan District Ranger Portland OR 97232 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Mr. Chuck James, Area Archaeologist Wenatchee National Forest US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 428 W Woodin Ave Bureau of Indian Affairs Route 2, Box 680 911 NE Eleventh Avenue Chelan WA 98816-9724 Portland OR 97232-4169

Mr. Stephen M. Senyitko, Chelan District Ranger Mr. Gene Nicholson, Executive Director US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Forest Service Bureau of Indian Affairs Wenatchee National Forest Colville Agency P O Box 655 P O Box 111 623 Mountain View Drive Nespelem WA 99155 Chelan WA 98816-9724 Ms. Sharon Redthunder, Real Property Officer Ms. Andrea L. Mann, Wetland Specialist US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Bureau of Indian Affairs Natural Resource Conservation Service Colville Agency 301 Yakima, Room 307 P O Box 111 Wenatchee WA 98801 Nespelem WA 99155

Mr. Robert Dach Mr. Stan Speaks, Area Director US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Natl Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin Bureau of Indian Affairs

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page 6-2 July 16, 1999 Section 6: Distribution List

Portland Area Office Mr. Jon Riedel, Park Geologist 911 NE Eleventh Avenue US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Portland OR 97232 National Park Service 7280 Ranger Station Rd Mr. John Evans, Environmental Coordinator Marblemount WA 98267 US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Mr. Dan Moses, Management Assistant Yakama Agency US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR P O Box 632 National Park Service Toppenish WA 98948 North Cascades National Park Service Complex 428 West Woodin Mr. Jim Fisher, Area Manager Chelan WA 98816 US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management Mr. Reed Glesne, Ecologist 915 Walla Walla Avenue US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Wenatchee WA 98801 National Park Service North Cascades National Park Service Complex Mr. Al Bolin, Electrical Engineer 2105 State Route 20 US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Sedro-Woolley WA 98284-1799 Bureau of Reclamation 1150 N Curtis, Suite 100 Mr. William F. Paleck, Superintendent Boise ID 83706 US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Mr. Brian Cates, Fish & Wildlife Biologist North Cascades National Park Service Complex US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 2105 State Route 20 Fish & Wildlife Service Sedro-Woolley WA 98284-1799 12790 Fish Hatchery Rd Leavenworth WA 98826 Mr. Scott Stonum, Resource Management Specialist US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. Rick Roy, Field Supervisor National Park Service US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR North Cascades National Park Service Complex Fish & Wildlife Service Box 7 517 S Buchanan Stehekin WA 98852 Moses Lake WA 98837 Mr. Dan Haas Mr. Richard A. Smith, Fish & Wildlife Biologist US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Fish & Wildlife Service Pacific Northwest Region 517 S Buchanan 909 First Avenue Moses Lake WA 98837 Seattle WA 98104

Mr. Estyn Mead, Energy & Power Coordinator Mr. Terence N. Martin, Team Leader US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish & Wildlife Service Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance Division of Habitat Conservation Natural Resources Management 911 NE Eleventh Avenue Main Interior Bldg, MS 2340 Portland OR 97232-4181 1849 C Street, NW Washington DC 20240 Mr. Bob Mierendorf US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. Preston Sleeger, Regional Environmental Officer National Park Service US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 728 Ranger Station Rd Office of the Environmental Project Review Marblemount WA 98267 500 NE Multnomah St, Suite 600 Portland OR 97232-2036

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page 6-3 SS/1637_2 Section 6: Distribution List

P O Box 42560 Mr. Nolan Shishido 1111 Washington St, 2nd Floor US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Olympia WA 98504-2560 Office of the Solicitor 500 NE Multnomah St, Suite 607 Mr. Lee Faulconer, Policy Assistant to the Director Portland OR 97232-2036 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Mr. John Bregar, Environmental Protection Specialist P O Box 42560 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1111 Washington St, 2nd Floor AGENCY Olympia WA 98504-2560 Regional Office, Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Mr. Greg Griffith Mail Stop ECO-088 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Seattle WA 98101 COMMUNITY, TRADE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Mr. Rick Parkin Archaeology & Historic Preservation Office Unit Manager, Geographic Implementation P O Box 48343 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Olympia WA 98504-8343 AGENCY Regional Office Mr. Steve Mathison Region 10 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF 1200 Sixth Avenue COMMUNITY, TRADE & ECONOMIC Mail Stop ECO-088 DEVELOPMENT Seattle WA 98101 Archaeology & Historic Preservation Office P O Box 48343 Mr. Harold Andress, Manager Olympia WA 98504-8343 US FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Dr. Robert Whitlam, State Archaeologist National Dam Safety Program WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF 500 C Street SW COMMUNITY, TRADE & ECONOMIC Washington DC 20472 DEVELOPMENT Archaeology & Historic Preservation Office Mr. Rita Henry, Assistant PO Box 48343 US FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Olympia WA 98504-8343 AGENCY National Dam Safety Program Mr. Arne Olson, Energy Policy Specialist/Economist 500 C Street SW WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Washington DC 20472 COMMUNITY, TRADE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Dr. Peter Paquet, Wildlife & Resident Fish Manager Energy Division US NORTHWEST POWER PLANNING 925 Plum Street SE, Bldg 4 COUNCIL P O Box 43173 851 SW Sixth Ave, Suite 1100 Olympia WA 98504-3173 Portland OR 97204-1348 Mr. Howard Schwartz Mr. William Frymire, Assistant Attorney General Senior Energy Policy Specialist WASHINGTON STATE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Attorney General's Office (WADFW) COMMUNITY, TRADE & ECONOMIC P O Box 40100 DEVELOPMENT Olympia WA 98504-0100 Energy Division 925 Plum Street SE, Bldg 4 Ms. Linda Crerar P O Box 43173 Policy Assistant, Natural Resources Olympia WA 98504-3173 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page 6-4 July 16, 1999 Section 6: Distribution List

Mr. Tony Usibelli, Senior Energy Policy Specialist WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Mr. Art Viola, District Fish Biologist COMMUNITY, TRADE & ECONOMIC WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT FISH & WILDLIFE Energy Division 3860 N Chelan 925 Plum Street SE, Bldg 4 Wenatchee WA 98801 P O Box 43173 Olympia WA 98504-3173 Mr. Bob Steele, Regional Habitat Program Manager WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Ms. Patricia S. Irle, Wenatchee Watershed Lead FISH & WILDLIFE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Habitat Management ECOLOGY 3860 Chelan Hwy N (US-97A) Central Regional Office Wenatchee WA 98801 Water Quality Program 15 W Yakima Ave, Suite 200 Mr. Rodney M. Woodin, Fish Passage Manager Yakima WA 98902-3401 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE Ms. Deborah Mull Intergovernmental Fisheries WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF 600 Capitol Way North ECOLOGY Olympia WA 98501-1091 Office of the Attorney General Ecology Division Mr. Bill Boyum, Manager of the Southeast Region P O Box 40117 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Olympia WA 98504-0017 NATURAL RESOURCES 713 East Bowers Road Mr. Brad Caldwell Ellensburg WA 98926 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mr. Bill Koss, Manager of Planning & Research Water Resources Program WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF 300 Desmond Drive PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION P O Box 47600 7150 Cleanwater Lane Olympia WA 98504-7600 P O Box 42668 Olympia WA 98504-2668 Mr. Jeff Marti, Hydropower Coordinator WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Mr. Dan Meatte ECOLOGY WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Water Resources Program PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 300 Desmond Drive 7150 Cleanwater Lane P O Box 47600 P O Box 42668 Olympia WA 98504-7600 Olympia WA 98504-2668

Ms. Joan Sterling Mr. Bill Fraser, Parks Planner WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Washington Military Department Eastern Region Emergency Management Division 2201 N Duncan Drive P O Box 40955 Wenatchee WA 98801-1007 Olympia WA 98504-0955 Ms. Jolene Gosselin, P.E. Mr. Tony Eldred, Fish & Wildlife Biologist Regional Planning Engineer WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE TRANSPORTATION 608 S Elliott Avenue North Central Region Wenatchee WA 98801 P O Box 98, 1551 North Wenatchee Avenue Wenatchee WA 98807

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page 6-5 SS/1637_2 Section 6: Distribution List

Mr. Dan Sarles, Jr., P.E. Mr. Bob Hughes, Planning Director Regional Projects Development Engineer CHELAN COUNTY WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Planning Department TRANSPORTATION Courthouse Annex North Central Region 411 Washington St P O Box 98 Wenatchee WA 98801 1551 North Wenatchee Avenue Wenatchee WA 98807 Mr. Terry Nowka, Coordinator CHELAN COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED Mr. Fredrick M. Suter, Transportation Planner CONTROL BOARD WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF 400 Washington Street TRANSPORTATION Wenatchee WA 98801 North Central Region P O Box 98 Honorable Leslie Emerick 1551 North Wenatchee Avenue Commissioner Wenatchee WA 98807 DOUGLAS COUNTY P O Box 747 Mr. Jim Eychaner, Planner Waterville WA 98858 WASHINGTON STATE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION Ms. Bonnie Cannon 1111 Washington St SE Port Commissioner P O Box 40917 PORT DISTRICT OF CHELAN COUNTY Olympia WA 98504-0917 P O Box 849 Wenatchee WA 98807 Honorable Jim Lynch Commissioner Ms. Nanc Reznicek CHELAN COUNTY PORT DISTRICT OF CHELAN COUNTY Courthouse 125 Easy Street Wenatchee WA 98801 P O Box 849 Wenatchee WA 98807 Honorable Esther Stefaniw Commissioner Mr. Mark Urdahl, Director CHELAN COUNTY PORT DISTRICT OF CHELAN COUNTY Courthouse 125 Easy Street Wenatchee WA 98801 P O Box 849 Wenatchee WA 98807 Ms. Carol Kibler CHELAN COUNTY Ms. Susan Young, Secretary Fire District No. 7 CHELAN FALLS, COMMUNITY COUNCIL OF P O Box 1317 851 First Street, P O Box 78 Chelan WA 98816 Chelan Falls WA 98817

Mr. Glen DeVries Mr. Dennis Osborn CHELAN COUNTY Planning/Community Development Director Planning Department CHELAN, CITY OF Courthouse Annex 317 E Johnson Avenue, P O Box 1669 411 Washington St Chelan WA 98816 Wenatchee WA 98801 Mr. Jerry Osterman, City Administrator Mr. John Harrington CHELAN, CITY OF CHELAN COUNTY 317 E Johnson Avenue Planning Department P O Box 1669 Courthouse Annex, 411 Washington St Chelan WA 98816 Wenatchee WA 98801

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page 6-6 July 16, 1999 Section 6: Distribution List

Mr. Brad Barnes Mr. Peter Rodionoff, City Council Member BARNES ORCHARD LTD. CHELAN, CITY OF 762 Winesap Ave P O Box 1543 Manson WA 98831 107 Junior Point Court Chelan WA 98816 Mr. Steve Walter, Controller BEEBE ORCHARD COMPANY Mr. David Sypher P O Box 878 Public Works Director/City Engineer 80 McNeil Canyon Road CHELAN, CITY OF Chelan WA 98816 50 Chelan Falls Highway P O Box 1669 Mr. Clint Campbell Chelan WA 98816 CAMPBELL'S RESORT P O Box 278 Mr. Greg Moser, Park and Recreation Director Chelan WA 98816 CHELAN, CITY OF Parks and Recreation Department Mr. Art C. Campbell, Jr. 619 W Manson Highway CAMPBELL'S RESORT P O Box 1669 P O Box 278 Chelan WA 98816 Chelan WA 98816

Mr. Lanny Armbruster, Member Mr. Art C. Campbell, Sr. COMMUNITY COUNCIL OF MANSON CAMPBELL'S RESORT P O Box 328 P O Box 278 Manson WA 98831 Chelan WA 98816

Ms. Kathleen P. Miller, Chairperson Mr. Nick Nolen, President MANSON, COMMUNITY COUNCIL OF CHELAN AIRWAYS P O Box 328 1328 W Woodin Manson WA 98831 P O Box W Chelan WA 98816 Mr. Joe Rumble MONITOR, COMMUNITY COUNCIL OF Ms. Bonnie Newman, Secretary P O Box 179 CHELAN FALLS IRRIGATION DISTRICT Monitor WA 98836 P O Box S Chelan WA 98816 Mr. Randall Dinwiddie STEHEKIN, COMMUNITY COUNCIL OF Ms. Lee Vonne Forney, Secretary 10 Silver Ray Road CHELAN RIVER IRRIGATION DISTRICT Stehekin WA 98852 P O Box 1837 Chelan WA 98816 Ms. Kim Scutt STEHEKIN, COMMUNITY COUNCIL OF Dr. Neal B. Gallagher Box 8 EIGENVECTOR RESEARCH, INC. 8 Stehekin Road P O Box 561 Stehekin WA 98852 Manson WA 98831

Mr. Thomas L. Clark Mr. Jon Small, President P O Box 1332 ENTIAT VALLEY CHAMBER OF Chelan WA 98816 COMMERCE 4620 Entiat River Road Mr. Ed Reynolds Entiat WA 98822 Chelan WA 98816

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page 6-7 SS/1637_2 Section 6: Distribution List

Mr. Robert Harris HARRIS MARINA CONDOMINUM Mr. Mike Scott ASSOCIATION 3965 W Eaglerock Drive Box 1920 Wenatchee WA 98801 Chelan WA 98816 Mr. George Spear Ms. Stella Walcker 2727 Malaga Highway HOTEL/MOTEL ASSOCIATION Malaga WA 98828 322 W Woodin P O Box 1509 Mr. Tom Taxelius Chelan WA 98816 782 S Lakeshore Road Chelan WA 98816 Mr. Willard E. Baylis 1629 Orchard Street Mr. Rich Thompson Wenatchee WA 98801 P O Box 2119 Chelan WA 98816 Mr. Ray M. Gilbert 300 S Elliott #4 Mr. Dev Thompson Wenatchee WA 98801 Chelan WA 98816

Mr. Paul Hampton Mrs. Howard Vurns 2725 Westview Drive 116 W Gibson E Wenatchee WA 98802 Chelan WA 98816

Mr. Allen R. Harman Mr. John Eidukas 58 Viewdale Street INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF Wenatchee WA 98801 ELECTRICAL WORKERS 27 N Chelan Mr. Daniel Herber Wenatchee WA 98801 P O Box 3121 Chelan WA 98816 Ms. Diane DiPrete, Secretary ISENHART IRRIGATION DISTRICT Mr. Don Jamtaas Highway 150 16234 South Lakeshore Road P O Box 428 Chelan WA 98816 Chelan WA 98816

Mr. Eric Jeanes Ms. Cindy Engstrom 15250 NE 95th Street LAKE CHELAN BOAT COMPANY Redmond WA 98052 P O Box 186, 1418 W Woodin Avenue Chelan WA 98816 Ms. Karen Jones 8625 NE Juantia Dr Mr. Jack Raines, President/Owner Kirkland WA 98034 LAKE CHELAN BOAT COMPANY P O Box 186, 1418 W Woodin Avenue Mr. Stanley G. Nelson Chelan WA 98816 13800 89th Avenue N Seminole FL 33776-2141 Ms. Loni Rahm, Executive Director LAKE CHELAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mr. Greg Potter 102 W Johnson, P O Box 216 P O Box 445 Chelan WA 98816 Manson WA 98831 Mr. Larry Peterson, CEO Mr. Larry Reznicek LAKE CHELAN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 10 S Cove #33 P O Box 908, 503 E Highland Avenue Wenatchee WA 98801 Chelan WA 98816

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page 6-8 July 16, 1999 Section 6: Distribution List

Mr. Paul Cross, Secretary-Manager Mr. Elmo Henry LAKE CHELAN RECLAMATION DISTRICT TROUT BLUE CHELAN P O Box J P O Box 669 80 Wapato Way Chelan WA 98816 Manson WA 98831 Mr. Paul Sebastian Mr. Tom Pickett, Superintendent TROUT BLUE CHELAN LAKE CHELAN SCHOOL DISTRICT P O Box 669 P O Box 369 Chelan WA 98816 Chelan WA 98816 Mr. Tim McLaughlin Mr. Curt Epperson Business Manager, Controller MANSON BUSINESSMENS' ASSOCIATION WELLS & WADE FRUIT P O Box 627 Twin WW & Oxteam Orchards Manson WA 98831 P O Box 259 E Wenatchee WA 98802 Mr. Doug England, General Manager MANSON GROWERS Mr. Bob Heinith, Hydro Coordinator 1670 Manson Blvd COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH P O Box 322 COMMISSION Manson WA 98831 729 NE Oregon, Suite 200 Portland OR 97008 Mr. Lanny Armbruster, Manager MANSON PARKS & RECREATION DISTRICT Mr. Robert Heinith, Hydro Coordinatory P O Box 590 COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH 300 Quetilquasoon COMMISSION Manson WA 98831 729 NE Oregon, Suite 200 Portland OR 97232 Mr. Robin Bloch, Board Member MANSON PARKS & RECREATION DISTRICT Mr. Chris Landreau P O Box 590 CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS 300 Quetilquasoon Yakama Indian Nation Manson WA 98831 P O Box 151 Toppenish WA 98948 Mr. Shannon Byquist, Chairman MANSON PARKS & RECREATION DISTRICT Mr. Paul Ward, Environmental Biologist P O Box 590 CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS 300 Quetilquasoon Yakama Indian Nation Manson WA 98831 Fisheries Resource Management P O Box 151 Mr. Dan Farrell, Superintendent Toppenish WA 98948 MANSON SCHOOL DISTRICT P O Box A Mr. Johnson Meninick Manson WA 98831 Program Director, Cultural Resources CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS Ms. Joan C. Lester Yakama Indian Nation, Office of Legal Counsel MANSON, COMMUNITY COUNCIL OF P O Box 151 P O Box 2524 Toppenish WA 98948 Chelan WA 98816 Mr. Steve Parker Ms. Phyllis Gleasman CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS TROUT APPLES Yakama Indian Nation, Office of Legal Counsel P O Box 669 P O Box 151 Chelan WA 98816 Toppenish WA 98948

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page 6-9 SS/1637_2 Section 6: Distribution List

Mr. Joseph A. Pakootas, Chairman Ms. Brett Swift CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE AMERICAN RIVERS COLVILLE RESERVATION 133 SW Second Ave, Suite 302 Colville Business Council Portland OR 97204-3526 P O Box 150 Nespelem WA 99155 Mr. John Gangemi AMERICAN WHITEWATER AFFILIATION Mr. Jerry Marco 482 Electric Avenue CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE Bigfork MT 59911 COLVILLE RESERVATION Fish & Wildlife Program Mr. Eric Link P O Box 150 AMERICAN WHITEWATER AFFILIATION Nespelem WA 99155 P O Box 122 Leavenworth WA 98826 Ms. Adeline Fredin, History/Archaeology Manager CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE Mr. Chad Steffen COLVILLE RESERVATION AMERICAN WHITEWATER AFFILIATION Historical & Archaeological Department 504 N Western P O Box 150 Wenatchee WA 98801 Nespelem WA 99155 Mr. Paul Delaney Mr. Johnson Meninick AMERICAN WHITEWATER AFFILIATION Manager of Cultural Resources Program Northwest Whitewater Association YAKAMA INDIAN NATION 4407 N Ella Road P O Box 151 Spokane WA 99212 Toppenish WA 98948 Mr. Brian Mayer, Secretary Mr. Gregg Carrington, Licensing Manager CHELAN BASS CLUB CHELAN COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY HC 80 Box 274 DISTRICT Chelan WA 98816 Licensing Department 327 N Wenatchee Avenue Mr. Audie Palmantier, President P O Box 1231 CHELAN BASS CLUB Wenatchee WA 98807 P O Box 212 314 Okanogan Street Mr. Douglas Ancona Chelan WA 98816 Manager, Natural Resources & Regulatory Affairs GRANT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY Mr. Eric Espenhorst DISTRICT FRIENDS OF THE EARTH P O Box 878 4512 University Way NE Ephrata WA 98823 Seattle WA 98105

Ms. Debbie Kuraspediani, Communications Director Mr. David Gray NORTHWEST PUBLIC POWER LAKE CHELAN BOATING CLUB ASSOCIATION 482 Loop Avenue P O Box 4576, 9817 NE 54th Street Manson WA 98831 Vancouver WA 98662-0576 Mr. Allen Steele, Commodore Mr. Fred Keast LAKE CHELAN BOATING CLUB POWER PURCHASER P O Box 325 PacifiCorp Chelan WA 98816 9951 SE Ankeny Portland OR 97216 Mr. Larry Majchrzak, Site Monitor/President LAKE CHELAN FLYERS

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page 6-10 July 16, 1999 Section 6: Distribution List

P O Box 907 1506 W Woodin Avenue Mr. David Letnes, Commodore Chelan WA 98816 LAKE CHELAN YACHT CLUB 12245-50 S Lakeshore Rd Ms. Helen Kirkpatrick Chelan WA 98816 LAKE CHELAN HISTORICAL SOCIETY Chelan WA 98816 Ms. Lauren Polson, Vice Commodore LAKE CHELAN YACHT CLUB Mr. Rich Uhlhorn, Secretary P O Box 279 LAKE CHELAN RECREATION ASSOCIATION Waterville WA 98858 315 E Woodin Avenue P O Box 402 Mr. Tim Flood Chelan WA 98816 LAKE LEVEL COMMITTEE 126 E Johnson Mr. Jim Urness, Board Member P O Box 2382 LAKE CHELAN RECREATION ASSOCIATION Chelan WA 98816 P O Box 402 Chelan WA 98816 Mr. Tracy Manning MULE DEER FOUNDATION Mr. John Walker, President 3506 Birchvale Road LAKE CHELAN RECREATION ASSOCIATION Wenatchee WA 98801 P O Box 402 Chelan WA 98816 Ms. Judith Clark NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY/SAVE THE Mr. Mike Campbell BUTTE LAKE CHELAN SPORTSMEN'S COUNCIL 1221 So Lakeshore Drive 217 Trow Street Chelan WA 98816-9753 Chelan WA 98816 Mr. Dave Fluharty Mr. Gary Denniston NORTH CASCADES CONSERVATION LAKE CHELAN SPORTSMEN'S COUNCIL COUNCIL 7530 Chelan Ridge Rd 3621 NW 64th Street Chelan WA 98816 Seattle WA 98107

Mr. David Rush Mr. Patrick D. Goldsworthy LAKE CHELAN SPORTSMEN'S COUNCIL NORTH CASCADES CONSERVATION 118 Park COUNCIL Chelan WA 98816 P O Box 95980 University Station Mr. Robert H. Watson, President Seattle WA 98145-1980 LAKE CHELAN SPORTSMEN'S COUNCIL 7750 South Lakeshore Rd #3 Ms. Liz Tanke Chelan WA 98816 NORTHWEST ECOSYSTEM ALLIANCE 1495 First Creek Road Mr. Ken Britt, Secretary/Treasurer Chelan WA 98816 LAKE CHELAN YACHT CLUB 1307 Saddlerock Dr Mr. Lee Bernheisel Wenatchee WA 98801-3268 OKANOGAN WILDERNESS LEAGUE 90 Twisp Carlton Road Ms. Robin Cooke Carlton WA 98814 LAKE CHELAN YACHT CLUB 12148 S Lakeshore Rd Ms. Rosanna Detering RR1, Box 109 ROCK AND MINERAL CLUB Chelan WA 98816 1120 Lower Joe Creek Manson WA 98831

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page 6-11 SS/1637_2 Section 6: Distribution List

Mr. Gordon Congdon Ms. Phyllis Murra 5116 Blair Slack Road SAVE CHELAN ALLIANCE Wenatchee WA 98801 P O Box 1205 Chelan WA 98816 Mr. Bill Wilson 60 E Street NE Mr. Phil Green Ephrata WA 98823 SNOWMOBILE CLUB P O Box 1155 Mr. Arnie Arneson Chelan WA 98816 CASCADE WOODLANDS P O Box 2236 Ms. Mona Janopaul, Esq. Wenatchee WA 98801 Conservation Counsel TROUT UNLIMITED Mr. Lawrence E. Riegert 1500 Wilson Blvd, Suite 310 HAMMOND, COLLIER & WADE- Arlington VA 22209-2404 LIVINGSTONE 104 E Ninth Street Mr. Scott Yates Wenatchee WA 98801 TROUT UNLIMITED 213 SW Ashe, Suite 211 Mr. Jay Brueggeman Portland OR 97204 PARAMETRIX, INC. 5808 Lk Washington Blvd NE Mr. Gordon Goodwin Kirkland WA 98033-7350 WASHINGTON SPORTSMEN ASSOCIATION 5002 Joe Miller Road Mr. Greg Green Wenatchee WA 98801 PARAMETRIX, INC. 5808 Lk Washington Blvd NE Mr. Jack Speer, Energy Manager Kirkland WA 98033-7350 ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 6200 Malaga Alcoa Highway Ms. Jennifer Olsen Malaga WA 98828-9728 SILVERLINE PROJECTS, INC. Recreation Planning & Development Mr. Jaime Howell 523 Valley Mall Parkway #432 WENATCHEE BUSINESS JOURNAL E Wenatchee WA 98802 P O Box 5000 Wenatchee WA 98807 Mr. Fred J. Lacey III, Consultant TECHNICAL ENTERPRISES, COMPANY 1621 Orchard Street Wenatchee WA 98801

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page 6-12 July 16, 1999 APPENDIX A: ISSUE IDENTIFICATION

APPENDIX A: Issue Identification...... A-1 LARC Group Agency Meeting, March 25, 1998...... A-3 Fish Group Agency Meeting, March 30, 1998...... A-13 Public Meeting, May 12, 1998...... A-21

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-1 SS/1637_2 LARC GROUP AGENCY MEETING, MARCH 25, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Flow Erosion Wildlife Fisheries Paddling Cultural/ Shoreline Historical Aesthetics Feasibility Monitoring Plan Update Fish Outline Fish Recreational Anadromous Investigation Issue Identification Rank Mean Investigation Investigation Investigation Bypass Reach Flow Releases Augmentation Water QualityWater Land Mgmt & Riparian Zone Fish Stranding RTE Botanical Socioeconomics

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-3 SS/1637_2 LARC GROUP AGENCY MEETING, MARCH 25, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Flow Erosion Wildlife Fisheries Paddling Cultural/ Shoreline Historical Aesthetics Feasibility Monitoring Plan Update Fish Outline Fish Recreational Anadromous Investigation Issue Identification Rank Mean Investigation Investigation Investigation Bypass Reach Flow Releases Augmentation Water QualityWater Land Mgmt & Riparian Zone Fish Stranding RTE Botanical Socioeconomics

All meeting attendees ranked the issues using a three-point scale: high priority (3), medium priority (2), or low priority (1). Refer to meeting minutes for details P = Primary study addressing this issue ! = Secondary study considering this issue (indirect) * = Year 2000 study More Water Quality: water quality enforcement: 18 2.71 P ! dumping effluent from boats Planning: consider changing demographics 19 2.69 P Planning: limits of acceptable change 20 2.69 P Lake Levels: operational flexibility as in 21 2.69 P recreational use seasons Lake Level Fluctuation: lake shore erosion 22 2.69 P Lake Level Fluctuation: public access areas 23 2.69 P Lake Level Fluctuation: impact on fisheries, flows 24 2.69 !! attract Columbia River fish Development: impact on septic systems (higher 25 2.69 P use) Development: potential for increased pollution 26 2.69 P More Water Quality: water quality enforcement 27 2.67 P ! Bypass Reach/recreation: impact on power 28 2.64 ! ! generation, cost of power Bypass Reach/recreation: safety: during spill and 29 2.64 P ! non-spill periods Timing of the Drawdowns: no bath tub ring 30 2.63 P during high visit season Economics: must be economically viable to PUD 31 2.63 !!!! !!!!!!!!!! Planning: monitoring recreational use 32 2.63 P Planning: water quality (septic and storm waters) 33 2.63 P !! Lake Level Fluctuation: riparian habitat 34 2.63 P !! Erosion: loss of soil 35 2.63 P !! Erosion: habitat in general 36 2.63 !! ! Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page A-4 July 16, 1999 LARC GROUP AGENCY MEETING, MARCH 25, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Flow Erosion Wildlife Fisheries Paddling Cultural/ Shoreline Historical Aesthetics Feasibility Monitoring Plan Update Fish Outline Fish Recreational Anadromous Investigation Issue Identification Rank Mean Investigation Investigation Investigation Bypass Reach Flow Releases Augmentation Water QualityWater Land Mgmt & Riparian Zone Fish Stranding RTE Botanical Socioeconomics

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-5 SS/1637_2 LARC GROUP AGENCY MEETING, MARCH 25, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Flow Erosion Wildlife Fisheries Paddling Cultural/ Shoreline Historical Aesthetics Feasibility Monitoring Plan Update Fish Outline Fish Recreational Anadromous Investigation Issue Identification Rank Mean Investigation Investigation Investigation Bypass Reach Flow Releases Augmentation Water QualityWater Land Mgmt & Riparian Zone Fish Stranding RTE Botanical Socioeconomics

All meeting attendees ranked the issues using a three-point scale: high priority (3), medium priority (2), or low priority (1). Refer to meeting minutes for details P = Primary study addressing this issue ! = Secondary study considering this issue (indirect) * = Year 2000 study Planning: anticipate future pressure from Puget 54 2.50 P ! Sound, etc. Planning: land conversions, lands that are changed 55 2.50 !!! P for alternate uses (affects habitat) Planning: seasonal flow augmentation (t/e 56 2.50 P ! species)(bypass reach and Columbia River) Recreation uplake from dam: sand management 57 2.50 P (shifting): lack of, or too much More Water Quality: need for boat dumping areas, 58 2.50 P boat launches? Economics: impact of pool changes on fishing 59 2.50 P ! (tourism) Flooding: higher lake levels increase flooding risk 60 2.50 Address Lake Chelan Valley comprehensive 61 2.50 ! P ! public trails plan Aesthetics – drawdowns ugly 62 2.50 ! P Flow impact on erosion in bypass 63 2.50 P ! !!!! Timing of the Drawdowns: no bath tub ring 64 2.47 P during high visit season Economics: upper lake recreation, distant draw 65 2.47 P downlake more local Shoreline issues: retaining wall encroachment and 66 2.47 P boat docks Bypass Reach/recreation: appropriate minimum 67 2.46 ! P ! flows Bypass Reach/recreation: impact on cultural 68 2.44 P ! resources Economics: fiscal needs of affected agencies 69 2.44 ! Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page A-6 July 16, 1999 LARC GROUP AGENCY MEETING, MARCH 25, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Flow Erosion Wildlife Fisheries Paddling Cultural/ Shoreline Historical Aesthetics Feasibility Monitoring Plan Update Fish Outline Fish Recreational Anadromous Investigation Issue Identification Rank Mean Investigation Investigation Investigation Bypass Reach Flow Releases Augmentation Water QualityWater Land Mgmt & Riparian Zone Fish Stranding RTE Botanical Socioeconomics

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-7 SS/1637_2 LARC GROUP AGENCY MEETING, MARCH 25, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Flow Erosion Wildlife Fisheries Paddling Cultural/ Shoreline Historical Aesthetics Feasibility Monitoring Plan Update Fish Outline Fish Recreational Anadromous Investigation Issue Identification Rank Mean Investigation Investigation Investigation Bypass Reach Flow Releases Augmentation Water QualityWater Land Mgmt & Riparian Zone Fish Stranding RTE Botanical Socioeconomics

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page A-8 July 16, 1999 LARC GROUP AGENCY MEETING, MARCH 25, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Flow Erosion Wildlife Fisheries Paddling Cultural/ Shoreline Historical Aesthetics Feasibility Monitoring Plan Update Fish Outline Fish Recreational Anadromous Investigation Issue Identification Rank Mean Investigation Investigation Investigation Bypass Reach Flow Releases Augmentation Water QualityWater Land Mgmt & Riparian Zone Fish Stranding RTE Botanical Socioeconomics

All meeting attendees ranked the issues using a three-point scale: high priority (3), medium priority (2), or low priority (1). Refer to meeting minutes for details P = Primary study addressing this issue ! = Secondary study considering this issue (indirect) * = Year 2000 study Upper/lower Lake Differences: opportunity 102 2.19 ! P differences, due to geography Lake Level Fluctuation: docks designed for ferries 103 2.19 !! Lake Level Fluctuation: fluctuating levels silt 104 2.19 P deposits from river Access: safety providing dam crossing 105 2.19 P Development: jet skis, noise pollution, etc. 106 2.19 P More Water Quality: park lawn areas contribute to 107 2.19 P ! pollution, lawn fertilizers Flooding: higher lake reduces dock and seawall 108 2.19 !! maintenance Recreation: swimming access 109 2.19 P Bypass Reach/recreation: positive economic 110 2.14 ! P benefit to Chelan Falls, City of Chelan: associated with higher use Bypass Reach/recreation: day-use hiking potential 111 2.13 ! P ! Education: relationship between LCH & lake 112 2.13 P Recreation: land available for trail linkages 113 2.13 P Bypass Reach/recreation: safety: vandalism, trash, 114 2.07 ! P ! graffiti, etc. Timing of the Drawdowns: no bath tub ring 115 2.06 P during high visit season Lake Levels: exposure to vandalism, cultural 116 2.06 P resources Commercial Impacts: jet skis 117 2.06 P Lake Level Fluctuation: increased use causes 118 2.06 safety concerns at powerhouse and the switchyard Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-9 SS/1637_2 LARC GROUP AGENCY MEETING, MARCH 25, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Flow Erosion Wildlife Fisheries Paddling Cultural/ Shoreline Historical Aesthetics Feasibility Monitoring Plan Update Fish Outline Fish Recreational Anadromous Investigation Issue Identification Rank Mean Investigation Investigation Investigation Bypass Reach Flow Releases Augmentation Water QualityWater Land Mgmt & Riparian Zone Fish Stranding RTE Botanical Socioeconomics

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page A-10 July 16, 1999 LARC GROUP AGENCY MEETING, MARCH 25, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Flow Erosion Wildlife Fisheries Paddling Cultural/ Shoreline Historical Aesthetics Feasibility Monitoring Plan Update Fish Outline Fish Recreational Anadromous Investigation Issue Identification Rank Mean Investigation Investigation Investigation Bypass Reach Flow Releases Augmentation Water QualityWater Land Mgmt & Riparian Zone Fish Stranding RTE Botanical Socioeconomics

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-11 SS/1637_2 FISH GROUP AGENCY MEETING, MARCH 30, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Update Outline Releases Fisheries Aesthetics Monitoring Bypass Flow Investigation Investigation Investigation Water QualityWater Riparian Zone RTE Botanical Fish Stranding Lands Mgmt & Socioeconomics Anadromous Fish Anadromous Shoreline Erosion Shoreline Recreational Plan Cultural/ Historical Cultural/ Flow Augmentation Paddling Feasibility Paddling Issue Identification Rank Mean Investigation Wildlife All meeting attendees ranked the issues using a three-point scale: high priority (3), medium priority (2), or low priority (1). Refer to meeting minutes for detail P = Primary study addressing this issue ! = Secondary study considering this issue (indirect) * = Year 2000 study Fish management: Native Species: Cutthroat - 13.00 P ! status? Fish management: Native Species: Bull Trout - 23.00 P ! status? Fish management: Native Species 3 3.00 P ! Fish management: 4 2.92 P ! Land development control 5 2.86 P Don't know what we have 6 2.78 P ! Lake level fluctuations: Tributary access 72.77 P ! (migration into and up) Rare plant survey 8 2.77 P ! Lake level fluctuations: Fish affects 9 2.75 ! P ! Shoreline protection of plant areas 10 2.75 P ESA impacts 11 2.75 PP!! ! Impacts on habitat from high lake levels 12 2.75 !! P Impacts on habitat fluctuations 13 2.75 P Noxious Weeds 14 2.75 P ! Comprehensive fishery management plan 15 2.69 P Lake level fluctuations: 16 2.67 P ! Lake level fluctuations: Spawning (tributaries and 17 2.67 ! P ! along lake) Fish management: Baseline condition 18 2.67 P ! Spotted Frog endangered 19 2.67 P !

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-13 SS/1637_2 FISH GROUP AGENCY MEETING, MARCH 30, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Update Outline Releases Fisheries Aesthetics Monitoring Bypass Flow Investigation Investigation Investigation Water QualityWater Riparian Zone RTE Botanical Fish Stranding Lands Mgmt & Socioeconomics Anadromous Fish Anadromous Shoreline Erosion Shoreline Recreational Plan Cultural/ Historical Cultural/ Flow Augmentation Paddling Feasibility Paddling Issue Identification Rank Mean Investigation Wildlife All meeting attendees ranked the issues using a three-point scale: high priority (3), medium priority (2), or low priority (1). Refer to meeting minutes for detail P = Primary study addressing this issue ! = Secondary study considering this issue (indirect) * = Year 2000 study Rearing (tailrace) - ESA 20 2.64 P !! Water quality records/background 21 2.64 P ! Fish management practices 22 2.63 P ! Lake level control 23 2.63 P Fish stranding (adult) during spill events 24 2.62 !! Maintain Water Quality in tailrace: Spawning and 25 2.62 P ! ! incubation Land development - affecting water quality, 26 2.62 !! ! fisheries: Comprehensive land management plan 27 2.62 ! P Lake level fluctuations: Stehekin flow affects: 28 2.62 Channel morphology* Loss of habitat for: 29 2.60 P ! Lake level fluctuations: Stehekin flow affects* 30 2.58 General amphibian habitat assessment 31 2.58 P ! Maintain Water Quality in tailrace: 32 2.54 P ! ! Rearing (tailrace) - ESA: Anadromous 33 2.54 P !! Lake level fluctuations: Riparian habitat 34 2.54 P (historic/pre-dam habitat) Nesting water birds: Loss of habitat at head of 35 2.54 P ! lake Nesting water birds: 36 2.50 P ! Maintain Water Quality in tailrace: And quantity 37 2.46 P ! !

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page A-14 July 16, 1999 FISH GROUP AGENCY MEETING, MARCH 30, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Update Outline Releases Fisheries Aesthetics Monitoring Bypass Flow Investigation Investigation Investigation Water QualityWater Riparian Zone RTE Botanical Fish Stranding Lands Mgmt & Socioeconomics Anadromous Fish Anadromous Shoreline Erosion Shoreline Recreational Plan Cultural/ Historical Cultural/ Flow Augmentation Paddling Feasibility Paddling Issue Identification Rank Mean Investigation Wildlife All meeting attendees ranked the issues using a three-point scale: high priority (3), medium priority (2), or low priority (1). Refer to meeting minutes for detail P = Primary study addressing this issue ! = Secondary study considering this issue (indirect) * = Year 2000 study Maintain Water Quality in tailrace: 38 2.46 ! P ! Resident/mergence Nesting water birds: Water fluctuation equals 39 2.46 P ! failed nests Lake level fluctuations: Fish affects: Spawning 40 2.45 P ! Water quality - powerhouse releases 41 2.42 P ! ! Loss of habitat for: small mammals 42 2.42 P ! Impacts on habitat from people encroachment 43 2.38 !! ! Woody debris: Amphibian, Invertebrate, fish, 44 2.31 P !! safety Fish management: Tributary access inspection 45 2.31 P !! Fish management: Fish stocking 46 2.31 P ! Loss of winter range 47 2.31 P Reintroduction - North Shore 48 2.31 P Lake level fluctuations: Stehekin 49 2.27 Fern species waterline habitat loss 50 2.27 P Lake level fluctuations: Stehekin flow affects: All 51 2.25 tributaries Loss of habitat for: song birds 52 2.25 P ! Impacts on biodiversity 53 2.25 P Impacts on non-native species 54 2.25 ! P ! Potential spawning area in lower bypass? 55 2.23 P !!

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-15 SS/1637_2 FISH GROUP AGENCY MEETING, MARCH 30, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Update Outline Releases Fisheries Aesthetics Monitoring Bypass Flow Investigation Investigation Investigation Water QualityWater Riparian Zone RTE Botanical Fish Stranding Lands Mgmt & Socioeconomics Anadromous Fish Anadromous Shoreline Erosion Shoreline Recreational Plan Cultural/ Historical Cultural/ Flow Augmentation Paddling Feasibility Paddling Issue Identification Rank Mean Investigation Wildlife All meeting attendees ranked the issues using a three-point scale: high priority (3), medium priority (2), or low priority (1). Refer to meeting minutes for detail P = Primary study addressing this issue ! = Secondary study considering this issue (indirect) * = Year 2000 study Land development - affecting water quality, 56 2.23 ! ! fisheries: Boats/people Fish management: Recreation fishing 57 2.23 !!! Fish management: Fish distribution pattern 58 2.23 P ! Fish management: Baseline condition: Larry 59 2.22 P ! Brown Rep? Are project operations likely to eliminate plants 60 2.20 P Bighorn versus domestic grazing permits 61 2.17 P Bald Eagle and Osprey: 62 2.17 P Bald Eagle and Osprey: Loss of nesting habitat 63 2.17 P !! Fish management: Fish stocking: Genetics 64 2.15 P ! Bypass reach flows 65 2.14 P Cruprina vulgaris 66 2.10 P Bald Eagle and Osprey: Reduced osprey numbers 67 2.09 P ! along Lake Chelan Knap weed 68 2.08 P Rearing (tailrace) - ESA: Resident 69 2.08 P !! Fish occlusion 70 2.08 P ! Sediment transport via bypass: Gravel recruit for 71 2.08 P ! spawning? Land development - affecting water quality, 72 2.08 ! ! fisheries: Building Fish management: Fish stocking: Disease 73 2.08 P !

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page A-16 July 16, 1999 FISH GROUP AGENCY MEETING, MARCH 30, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Update Outline Releases Fisheries Aesthetics Monitoring Bypass Flow Investigation Investigation Investigation Water QualityWater Riparian Zone RTE Botanical Fish Stranding Lands Mgmt & Socioeconomics Anadromous Fish Anadromous Shoreline Erosion Shoreline Recreational Plan Cultural/ Historical Cultural/ Flow Augmentation Paddling Feasibility Paddling Issue Identification Rank Mean Investigation Wildlife All meeting attendees ranked the issues using a three-point scale: high priority (3), medium priority (2), or low priority (1). Refer to meeting minutes for detail P = Primary study addressing this issue ! = Secondary study considering this issue (indirect) * = Year 2000 study Milfoil 74 2.08 P Analysis of barriers 75 2.00 P ! Quality of potential habitat 76 2.00 !! ! Woody debris: 77 2.00 ! P Loss of habitat from increased level 78 2.00 P ! Loss of habitat from water rising 79 2.00 P ! Fawning cover 80 2.00 P Thermal cover 81 2.00 P Water rights 82 2.00 P ! Chelan Mountain Snail 83 2.00 P ! Sediment transport via bypass 84 1.92 P ! Woody debris: recruit/removal 85 1.92 P Land development - affecting water quality, 86 1.92 ! !! fisheries: Agricultural runoff Land development - affecting water quality, 87 1.92 ! ! fisheries: Domestic use Habitat loss 88 1.92 P Protect until Reach 100 count 89 1.92 P Lake level fluctuations: Milfoil 90 1.91 P Water quality - powerhouse releases: TDG 91 1.89 P !

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-17 SS/1637_2 FISH GROUP AGENCY MEETING, MARCH 30, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Update Outline Releases Fisheries Aesthetics Monitoring Bypass Flow Investigation Investigation Investigation Water QualityWater Riparian Zone RTE Botanical Fish Stranding Lands Mgmt & Socioeconomics Anadromous Fish Anadromous Shoreline Erosion Shoreline Recreational Plan Cultural/ Historical Cultural/ Flow Augmentation Paddling Feasibility Paddling Issue Identification Rank Mean Investigation Wildlife All meeting attendees ranked the issues using a three-point scale: high priority (3), medium priority (2), or low priority (1). Refer to meeting minutes for detail P = Primary study addressing this issue ! = Secondary study considering this issue (indirect) * = Year 2000 study Land development - affecting water quality, 92 1.85 ! P ! fisheries: Erosion (waves due to boats) Land development - affecting water quality, 93 1.85 ! P ! fisheries: Aesthetics Lake level fluctuations: Docks 94 1.85 P No escape cover during drawdown 95 1.85 ! Maintain fir and maple habitat 96 1.85 P Invertebrate production? 97 1.83 P Kid survival rate, double the number 98 1.83 ! P Butterflies 99 1.78 P ! Supplementation of Columbia River Fish/water 100 1.77 ! P quality Water Temperatures - from powerhouse 101 1.77 P ! Quality of potential habitat: Gravel recruit 102 1.77 P ! Predation in winter 103 1.77 P Loss of foraging area 104 1.77 P Perrigrine Falcon: Predator/prey relationship 105 1.73 P Perrigrine Falcon: 106 1.71 P ! Upland birds: 107 1.71 P ! Mixing of fish species and genetics 108 1.69 P Human interaction 109 1.67 P Fish reproduction - minimum valve 110 1.62 P Black bear versus people 111 1.62 P Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page A-18 July 16, 1999 FISH GROUP AGENCY MEETING, MARCH 30, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Update Outline Releases Fisheries Aesthetics Monitoring Bypass Flow Investigation Investigation Investigation Water QualityWater Riparian Zone RTE Botanical Fish Stranding Lands Mgmt & Socioeconomics Anadromous Fish Anadromous Shoreline Erosion Shoreline Recreational Plan Cultural/ Historical Cultural/ Flow Augmentation Paddling Feasibility Paddling Issue Identification Rank Mean Investigation Wildlife All meeting attendees ranked the issues using a three-point scale: high priority (3), medium priority (2), or low priority (1). Refer to meeting minutes for detail P = Primary study addressing this issue ! = Secondary study considering this issue (indirect) * = Year 2000 study Maintain pre-fire population buck-to-doe ratio 112 1.58 P Predation on deer winter/spring range 113 1.55 P Temperature control at dam 114 1.54 P People and cougar interaction 115 1.50 P Big population = high predation on fawns 116 1.46 P Temperature changes due to potential changes in 117 1.42 P reservoir levels (lower end within Chelan area) Upland birds: Maintaining bird feeders 118 1.36 P !! Achieve huntable population 119 1.31 P

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-19 SS/1637_2 PUBLIC MEETING, MAY 12, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Flow Erosion Wildlife Fisheries Paddling Cultural/ Shoreline Historical Aesthetics Feasibility Monitoring Plan Update Fish Outline Fish Recreational Anadromous Investigation Investigation Investigation Investigation Bypass Reach

Issue Identification Rank Mean Flow Releases Augmentation Water QualityWater Riparian Zone Fish Stranding RTE Botanical Lands Mgmt & Socioeconomics All meeting attendees ranked the issues using a three-point scale: high priority (3), medium priority (2), or low priority (1). Refer to meeting minutes for detail P = Primary study addressing this issue ! = Secondary study considering this issue (indirect) * = Year 2000 study I.10 Impact on recreational facilities 1 3.00 P ! I.66 Recreational impacts 2 2.95 ! P ! I.64 Overall recreation - impact on economics - 32.83 ! P need for high quality recreational amenities I.11 Timing of the drawdowns: no bath tub 42.81 !! P ! ring during high visit season I.3 Integrated resource management as it 52.80 ! P relates to land use I.18 Lake levels higher May through 62.78 ! P September I.20 Lake fluctuation, including earlier and 72.78 ! P longer or up a month earlier than now I.35 Water quality monitoring 8 2.78 P I.42 Recreational carrying capacity 9 2.75 P I.43 Public boating access 10 2.74 P I.74 Economics of changing drawdown times 11 2.74 P I.6 Partnership with PUD agency to agency to 12 2.71 P share expertise, such as state grants, street- ends, others I.72 Need for year-round recreation economy 13 2.65 ! P I.41 Maintain fisheries programs 14 2.65 P ! I.57 Protection of shore line 15 2.62 P ! I.51 Need better boating destination points 16 2.59 P I.58 Planning: development of shoreline 17 2.59 P I.4 Comprehensive fishery management plan 18 2.56 P !

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-21 SS/1637_2 PUBLIC MEETING, MAY 12, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Flow Erosion Wildlife Fisheries Paddling Cultural/ Shoreline Historical Aesthetics Feasibility Monitoring Plan Update Fish Outline Fish Recreational Anadromous Investigation Investigation Investigation Investigation Bypass Reach

Issue Identification Rank Mean Flow Releases Augmentation Water QualityWater Riparian Zone Fish Stranding RTE Botanical Lands Mgmt & Socioeconomics All meeting attendees ranked the issues using a three-point scale: high priority (3), medium priority (2), or low priority (1). Refer to meeting minutes for detail P = Primary study addressing this issue ! = Secondary study considering this issue (indirect) * = Year 2000 study I.33 Debris 19 2.55 ! I.63 Stehekin maximum lake levels* 20 2.52 I.15 Impact on commercial facilities 21 2.50 ! P I.62 Stehekin mud flats safety (logs)* 22 2.50 I.54 Improved boating launches 23 2.48 P I.65 Stehekin mud flat debris (boating) and 24 2.48 sediment buildup* I.34 Water rights 25 2.48 ! I.73 Impact of project operation on economic 26 2.48 P base I.25 Loss of soil/land 27 2.45 P !! I.19 Better navigation aids on the lake, either 28 2.45 P maintaining the current or new, improved ones I.70 Lack of year-round economic base 29 2.43 P I.37 Fish management 30 2.40 P ! I.44 Marine and boat moorage 31 2.39 P I.5 Fish management: Fish stocking 32 2.39 P ! I.1 Coordination and communication of this 33 2.37 !! P and other public planning I.27 Structural damage (i.e. marina) 34 2.35 P I.36 Need for public marina at lower end of 35 2.35 P lake, use of District property/Goodfellow fill I.75 Economics of efficiency improvements 36 2.33 P and plant upgrades

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page A-22 July 16, 1999 PUBLIC MEETING, MAY 12, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Flow Erosion Wildlife Fisheries Paddling Cultural/ Shoreline Historical Aesthetics Feasibility Monitoring Plan Update Fish Outline Fish Recreational Anadromous Investigation Investigation Investigation Investigation Bypass Reach

Issue Identification Rank Mean Flow Releases Augmentation Water QualityWater Riparian Zone Fish Stranding RTE Botanical Lands Mgmt & Socioeconomics All meeting attendees ranked the issues using a three-point scale: high priority (3), medium priority (2), or low priority (1). Refer to meeting minutes for detail P = Primary study addressing this issue ! = Secondary study considering this issue (indirect) * = Year 2000 study I.17 Stehekin mud flats* 37 2.32 I.52 More parking at existing boat launches 38 2.32 P I.53 More boat launches 39 2.32 P I.68 Education: uniqueness of lake 40 2.32 !!P ! I.26 Shoreline access (undercut banks) 41 2.32 ! P ! I.7 Irrigation and pumping capabilities 42 2.29 !! I.59 Stehekin debris on mud flats* 43 2.27 I.8 Centralization of information 44 2.24 ! P I.55 Loss of public access points 45 2.23 ! I.69 Education: taking opportunities to educate 46 2.22 P public I.2 Long-term ramifications, who maintains, 47 2.21 ! P ! funded how I.13 Erosion during high water 48 2.21 ! P ! P ! I.28 Shoreline erosion caused by raising of the 49 2.20 ! P !! ! lake I.14 Structural damage, wear and tear on 50 2.19 P ! docks, special docks required I.32 Bio-engineering, rip rap, erosion control 51 2.18 P !! I.9 Large woody debris and fish habitat 52 2.16 P ! I.30 Sand drifting and impact of draw down 53 2.15 ! I.21 Improved snowpack forecasting 54 2.14 I.49 Impacts on recreation facilities that are not 55 2.14 P water-related I.60 Stehekin aesthetics regarding the mud 56 2.14 !! flats*

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-23 SS/1637_2 PUBLIC MEETING, MAY 12, 1998 White Papers/ICD ICD Flow Erosion Wildlife Fisheries Paddling Cultural/ Shoreline Historical Aesthetics Feasibility Monitoring Plan Update Fish Outline Fish Recreational Anadromous Investigation Investigation Investigation Investigation Bypass Reach

Issue Identification Rank Mean Flow Releases Augmentation Water QualityWater Riparian Zone Fish Stranding RTE Botanical Lands Mgmt & Socioeconomics All meeting attendees ranked the issues using a three-point scale: high priority (3), medium priority (2), or low priority (1). Refer to meeting minutes for detail P = Primary study addressing this issue ! = Secondary study considering this issue (indirect) * = Year 2000 study I.40 Timing of stocking/effectiveness 57 2.13 P I.48 Chelan Butte Trails 58 2.13 P I.50 Navigation on Stehekin River 59 2.10 P ! I.39 Comprehensive land management plans 60 2.05 ! P I.45 Address Lake Chelan Valley 61 2.05 ! P comprehensive public trails plan I.12 Aesthetics - drawdowns ugly 62 2.00 ! P ! I.22 Flow impact on erosion in bypass 63 2.00 ! P ! I.46 PUD recreational study plan does not 64 1.96 P address hang gliding or trails I.38 Land development control 65 1.95 P I.23 Day-use hiking potential 66 1.90 P I.31 Erosion during high water periods 67 1.90 P ! I.67 Must be economically viable to PUD 68 1.90 !!!! !!!!!!!!!! I.56 Penstock property as a recreation resource 69 1.90 P I.29 Funds needed to mitigate erosion 70 1.89 P ! I.47 Need for paragliding/hangliding landing 71 1.87 ! P areas - must secure landing zones I.16 Flooding: higher lake levels increase 72 1.85 flooding risk Stehekin I.24 Trails in Chelan Gorge 73 1.82 !!P I.71 Bypass Reach/recreation: positive 74 1.80 ! P economic benefit to Chelan Falls, City of Chelan I.61 Stehekin mud flats – dust* 75 1.59 Grand Mean 2.33

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Scoping Document 2 SS/1637_2 Page A-24 July 16, 1999 APPENDIX B: STUDY PLANS

Scoping Document 2 Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page B-1 SS/1637_2 WATER QUALITY MONITORING STUDY PLAN

Final

LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 637

July 16, 1999

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Wenatchee, Washington Water Quality Monitoring

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...... A-1 1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project ...... A-1 1.2 General Description of the Relicensing Process...... A-3 1.3 Need Statement...... A-7 1.4 Additional Issues ...... A-7

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL...... A-7

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA...... A-8

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY ...... A-8 4.1 Literature Review...... A-8 4.2 Field Investigations...... A-9 4.3 Associated Studies ...... A-11

SECTION 5: TASK LIST...... A-15

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING...... A-15

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS...... A-16

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE...... A-16

SECTION 9: BUDGET...... A-16

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS...... A-17

SECTION 11: REFERENCES ...... A-17

APPENDIX A...... A-19 Issues To Be Addressed...... A-19

APPENDIX B...... A-21 Monitoring Plan Format Example ...... A-21

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2098_6 Page A-i July 16, 1999 Water Quality Monitoring

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure A-1: Bypass Reach Location Map ...... A-5 Figure A-2: Lake Chelan and Tributaries ...... A-13

LIST OF TABLES

Table A-1: Historical Lake Averages ...... A-2 Table A-2: Parameters...... A-10 Table A-3: Schedule...... A-11 Table A-4: Depths...... A-11

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2098_6 Page A-ii July 16, 1999 Water Quality Monitoring

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project Lake Chelan is located in Chelan County in north central Washington. Lake Chelan is bordered to the south by the Entiat and Chelan Mountains and Glacier Peak complex. To the north it is bordered by the Sawtooth Mountain Range. From Twenty Five Mile Creek uplake, the terrain is mountainous and rugged. In many cases, the steep slopes run directly into the lake with no flat beaches or shoreline. The terrain of the lower end of the lake is much less severe, mainly arid or semi-arid. Except where irrigation has taken place, the hills of the lower end of the lake are barren with brown grasses and a few scattered pines.

Lake Chelan is deep and narrow, extending northwesterly approximately 50 miles from the City of Chelan at its lower end to Stehekin at the head of the lake. Lake Chelan is a natural lake that developed within a broad glacial trough. The lake averages 1 mile in width, and has depths of over 1,480 feet. Lake Chelan is bordered by more than 2 million acres of National Forest Lands, more than half of which are designated as wilderness. Surrounding peaks reach elevations as high as 7,000 feet. The lake serves as a waterway approach to the Forest Service’s Wenatchee National Forest above Twentyfive Mile Creek, and to the National Park Service’s Lake Chelan National Recreation Area at Stehekin. The lower 15 miles of the lake are mostly privately owned, the next 35 are within the Wenatchee Na- tional Forest, and the upper 5 miles are within the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.

The average surface area of the lake is 32,000 acres. The drainage area of the project at the dam is 924 square miles. The confluence of the Chelan River and Columbia River is approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the City of Chelan. The lake level and flow through the Chelan River drainage were altered through the construction of a hydroelectric project in the river channel near the City of Chelan in 1928.

The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project is located approximately 32 miles north of the City of We- natchee on the Chelan River. The 4.1-mile long bypass reach (Chelan River or gorge), the shortest river in Washington State, flows from the lower end of Lake Chelan to the Columbia River. The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project consists of a 40-foot high concrete gravity dam located at the City of Chelan, a 2.2-mile long steel and concrete tunnel (penstock) that is 14 feet in diameter, and a powerhouse located at the confluence of the Chelan and Columbia rivers near the City of Chelan Falls. The vertical elevation drop between the dam and powerhouse is 401 ft. The powerhouse contains two Francis turbine units, each rated at 34,000 hp at 1,100 cfs and 377 feet net head, that produce approximately 50 MW of electricity.

The project reservoir, Lake Chelan, is operated between a maximum water surface elevation of 1,100 feet (MSL) and 1,079 feet to ensure optimum utilization of the reservoir for power generation, fish and wildlife conservation, recreation, water supply, and flood control purposes. The average drawdown of the lake for the past 30 years has been to 1083.5 feet. The reservoir has 676,000 acre-feet of usable storage above 1,079 feet.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2098_6 Page A-1 July 16, 1999 Water Quality Monitoring

The annual drawdown of the lake begins in early October. The lowest lake elevation normally occurs in April. From May through June the lake refills from spring runoff. The reservoir is maintained at or above elevation 1,098 feet from June 30 through September 30 each year. Since the project was originally licensed in 1926, the lake has never been drawn down to the minimum allowable elevation (1,079 feet). The lowest drawdown on record was 1,079.7 feet in 1970. That occurrence coincides with the lowest annual precipitation on record. The Chelan PUD has never failed to refill the reservoir to elevation 1,098 feet by June 30.

Table A-1: Historical Lake Averages

Month Average Inflow (cfs) Average Outflow (cfs) Average Lake Elevation January 757 2140 1089.7 February 813 2017 1087.3 March 993 1795 1085.8 April 2076 1204 1086.4 May 5293 1486 1090.6 June 6379 3427 1097.3 July 3598 3287 1099.7 August 1506 1677 1099.6 September 759 1586 1098.9 October 673 1935 1096.9 November 1002 2049 1094.9 December 883 2104 1092.8 Period of record of flows: 1952-1995 Period of record for elevations: 1982-1995

The 4.1-mile long bypass reach is comprised of four distinct sections (Figure A-1). The 2.29-mile long upper section, Section 1, of the bypass reach below the dam is characterized by a relatively wide flood plain, low gradient, 55 ft/mile, and substrate comprised mainly of large cobble and boulders. Some spawning sized gravel is contained in the margins of the channel, deposited in these areas during high flow events during spring runoff.

Section 2 of the bypass reach, 0.75-mile long and located in the upper end of the gorge, is characterized by a narrow channel, steep canyon walls, low gradient, 57 ft/mile, and cobble and boulder substrate that is much larger than the upstream section. This section appears to contain very little salmonid spawning size substrate.

Section 3 of the bypass reach, referred to as the gorge area, is 0.38-mile long. The canyon walls are very steep and narrow. The gradient of the channel is very steep, 480 ft/mile. The stream channel is characterized by waterfalls, from 5 to 20 feet high, numerous cascades, bedrock chutes, and large, very deep pools. The substrate is very large, with some boulders exceeding 20 feet in diameter.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2098_6 Page A-2 July 16, 1999 Water Quality Monitoring

Section 4 of the bypass reach is 0.49-mile long and located below the gorge area. It is characterized by a wide flood plain, having gravel/cobble/boulder substrate, and low gradient, 22 ft/mile. Section 4 extends from the bottom of the gorge section downstream approximately 2,600 feet to the confluence of the powerhouse tailrace.

1.2 General Description of the Relicensing Process The Public Utility District No.1 of Chelan County (Chelan PUD) owns and operates the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project located on the Chelan River in Chelan, Washington. Chelan PUD is permitted to operate the project according to the terms and conditions contained in the existing license No. 637, issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on May 12, 1981. The current license expires on March 31, 2004.

The original project license was issued by the Federal Power Commission, now FERC, in May 1926. The FERC granted the new 30-year license to Chelan PUD on May 12, 1981, retroactive to 1974 when the original 50-year license expired.

Chelan PUD intends to seek a new license to operate the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project and has begun the preparation for the process referred to as “relicensing.” The FERC relicensing process is based on laws and regulations that require years of extensive planning, including environmental studies, agency consensus, and public involvement. The process to obtain a new license has changed considerably since the existing license was issued in 1981, primarily due to changes made to the Federal Power Act (FPA) as amended by the Electric Consumers Power Act (ECPA) in 1986. ECPA mandates that the FERC give equal consideration to the enhancement of existing environmental, recreation, fish, and wildlife resources, and to balance what are often competing uses of the water resources. ECPA also empowers the FERC to consider whether or not a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans.

Chelan PUD has requested and received approval from the FERC to employ an alternative relicensing process for the Lake Chelan Project, as allowed under FERC’s Final Rule issued on October 29, 1997 (Docket No. RM95-16-000; Order No. 596). The Alternative Relicensing Process (ARP) proposed by Chelan PUD is intended to expedite the licensing process by combining the pre-filing consultation and environmental review processes into a single process, and by improving and facilitating communications among the participants in the licensing process.

The first step taken by Chelan PUD in the Lake Chelan ARP was to solicit identification of issues from the participating stakeholders regarding all aspects of the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project that would need to be addressed during the relicensing process. Issues identified were then grouped according to similar topics. From the sub-groups of topics, study plans outlines were developed to address the pertinent issues. The detailed study plans are a further refinement of the study plan outlines.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-3 SS/2098_6 132 0 0 13 0 132 8 60 4 CHELAN 1 1 1 1 1240 3 1 2 5 0 6 1 4 2

4 4 4 0

0 0 # 0

0 0 8 1 LAKE CHELAN 4 4

4 1 0

97A 0 0

1 /( 6

6 1

4 0 0 6

1 12 0 12 4 2 8 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 1 0

0 0 2 6 1 5 0

0 1 6 DAM 8 9 2 0

1 0 0 1 240 80 Ü 0 0 1 Ê 10 8 0 SECTION 1 4 8 1320 1 0 4 8

150 0 Æ# 2 0 1 3 6 0

4 P 4 1 1 8

0 R 1 8 R

O E J

E V 80 I

14 C 0 C

T R

4 1 0 2 H 8

1 2 0

B 0 E 0

2 0

L O

0 1 4 A 8 1 0

1 U 0 N 840 0 1

0 N 8 8 1 D P 0

2 1680 R T A A U 11 9 I 1720 O N R 60

J N Y B E E R C I L V M 0 1 T E /(97 6 1 R 0 U 7 6 B 0 1920 2 O B 7 L U Y N G P O 0 D A 184 O S C A R S R G 960 E 0 Y 6 R 0 9 R 0 1 E 6 O A 2 1 C 7 A H 1 D 2160

0 8 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 8 0 2 3 8 2 2 6 2 4 1 1 1 1 0 1

1 0 5 0 0 24 9 2 2 6 0 5 0 6 1

2 0 4 0 0 2 6 2 1 0 9 600 8 Ü 1 4 8 0 8 0 1 SECTION 2 0 2 0 3 8 7 0 2 0 1 1 2 8 4 8 0 7 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 1 8 0 0 6 0

8 4 2 4 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 8 1 0 0 2 4 6 6 3 5 0 1 9 1 0 0 SHEET 1 2 1 6 8 3 9 0 1 SECTION 3 2 2 0

3 9 6 0 2

0 6

4 8 08 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 6 3 Ü (GORGE) 9 2 1 BYPASS REACH LOCATION MAP8 0 0 0 0 40 6 0 6 16 10 5 8 1 3 1 8 2 LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 1 2 2

0 0 2 2

0 1 8 6 3 0 0

FERC PROJECT NO. 637 0 0 3 2 8 3 0 3 0

2 0 6 0 DAYBREAK CANYON 0 22 7 PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 1 0 Ü 0 32 CH8ELA3N C0 OUNTY WENATCHEE, WASHINGTON 1 0 4 0 880 0 SECTION 4 3 32 2 1 0 0 204 1 6 04 2120 0 3 3 2 29 2 1 2 2 0 0 2 64 2240 POWER 76 0 2 % 3 0 0 HOUSE 2 8 0 80 24 0 0 0 40 8 2 2 0 6 2 5 3 3 60 2 6 0 5 1 0 6 1 BYPASS REACH SECTION BREAK 0 6 0 1 1 0 6 3 3 1 6 0 5 40 1 2 0 3 N 0 0 2 3 0 2 PRIMA0 RY HIGHWAY 6 6 40 0 7 7 0 0 2 0 1 8 1 6 0 35 0 2 SECONDARY ROADS 6 1 0 3480 40 1 0 34 0 2 0 8 0 9 0 4 1 1 0 ELEVATION CONTOURS 0 0 0 6 0 0 4 8 0 8 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 4 2 4 4 9 0 0 8 2 1 1 2 PROJECT BOUNDARY 1 4 0 2 0 2 80 2 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 8 4 0 TUNNEL 4 0 2 0 6 2 4 3 0 8 1 1 2 4 2 0 1 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 CHELAN 0 1 6 2 4 4 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 3 1 2 4 # 0 2 6 2320 2 FALLS 2 0 0 1 0 Miles 2 8 6 2 8 1 0 5 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 1:25,000 SCAL2E240 132 Water Quality Monitoring

1.3 Need Statement The effect of project operations on Lake Chelan and the Chelan River water quality is an issue that has been identified in the relicensing process and is reflected in Appendix A herein. An initial effort necessary in the Water Quality Monitoring Investigation is to compile and describe existing water quality conditions in Lake Chelan and the Chelan River. Another need is to describe current activities, such as recreation, that may effect Lake Chelan water quality, and determine whether or not these activities are being addressed appropriately. A specific issue critical to the relicensing process is to develop data, which will be determined by the Water Quality Working Group, sufficient to obtain a Section 401 Wa- ter Quality Certification from the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), which includes determination of effects of project operation on Lake Chelan and Chelan River water quality.

Section 401 Water Quality Certification requires compliance with Chapter 173-201A WAC, author- ized by 33 USC 1313 and Chapter 90-48 RCW. For a Class A stream, the characteristic uses to be met or exceeded include water supply; fish migration, rearing, spawning and harvesting; wildlife habitat; and recreation (including aesthetic enjoyment). Water quality parameters include fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, total dissolved gas, temperature, pH, turbidity, toxic materials, and aesthetic values. Fish migration, rearing, spawning and harvesting; wildlife habitat; and recreation (including aesthetics) are addressed in other studies associated with this project. Study of dissolved oxygen, total dissolved gas, temperature and pH is being supplemented by work done under the Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Re- leases Study Plan.

1.4 Additional Issues Additional issues identified during initial consultation (Appendix A) will be addressed during the course of the studies described previously, or in other studies associated with the Lake Chelan relicensing process. For example, fish use will be observed during the By- pass Reach Flow Releases Study and Fish Stranding Investigation. Recreation, other than fishing, aesthetics, kayaking, and safety issues will also be addressed in the Chelan River Recreational Flow Study and Paddling Feasibility Study. Power impacts of various scenarios will be addressed in this and other studies, such as Columbia River Flow Augmentation and Lake Level Investigation.

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL

Primary goals of the water quality monitoring study are to: 1) determine the effects of project operations on lake water quality; 2) determine the effects of project operations on bypass reach (Chelan River Gorge) water quality; and 3) determine the effects of project operations on tailrace (powerhouse discharge) water quality.

A stated objective of the Lake Chelan Water Quality Committee, of which Chelan PUD is a member, is to maintain the water quality of the lake at or near its present state while providing for growth in population and increases in tourism and recreational uses of the lake. This study supports this goal. Erosion will be addressed in a separate study except to the extent that erosion may result in a water quality problem.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2098_6 Page A-7 July 16, 1999 Water Quality Monitoring

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY

4.1 Literature Review Numerous water quality investigations have been conducted on Lake Chelan since the 1960s. A review of current water quality literature for Lake Chelan is contained in the Initial Consultation Document (ICD). The document contains a substantial section that presents a general overview of water use and quality in Lake Chelan, water quantity, water rights, beneficial uses, historical and existing water quality resources, standards, flow releases and water levels, and existing management framework. These data, along with the data collected during this study, will be summarized for the Water Quality Workgroup.

DOE conducted the most comprehensive water quality study, The Lake Chelan Water Quality Assess- ment (Patmont et. al. 1989), of the entire lake in 1986-87. This study was used as a basis for development of the Lake Chelan Water Quality Plan (1991), which included a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for phosphorus. Chelan PUD has played a major part in water quality management of the lake through the Lake Chelan Water Quality Committee.

Water quality monitoring was conducted in the Wapato Basin in 1995 and 1996 to provide data necessary to evaluate trends in conditions compared to 1986-87 baseline data (DOE, 1996; Sargeant, 1997). Water quality monitoring efforts have re-started beginning 1998, pursuant to a five-year, $25,000 grant from DOE. This "bare bones" grant involves monitoring of phosphorus during the summer over a five-year period at four locations in the lower Basin that were used in previous studies. This work has been funded, in part, by the State of Washington Centennial Clean Water program.

Water quality data for the bypass reach and tailrace are limited. In 1998, Chelan PUD collected water temperature data in the bypass reach, during releases, and in the tailrace of the powerhouse. A search and compilation of any other water quality data for these reaches needs to be completed.

This study plan describes water quality monitoring work proposed to support the relicensing effort and how this work will dovetail with the existing water quality monitoring program on Lake Chelan.

Based on the content of this study plan, consultants will prepare a formal water quality monitoring plan that conforms to direction in the document entitled "Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans" (DOE, 1991). DOE will approve this monitoring plan prior to commencement of sampling in 1999. All sampling stations will be located using GPS and entered into a GIS database.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2098_6 Page A-8 July 16, 1999 Water Quality Monitoring

Preliminary monitoring results will be evaluated by the Water Quality Working Group to determine the need for any revisions of the sampling protocol. A report will be prepared summarizing the data collected and conclusions drawn from all available information regarding the water quality of Lake Chelan. Preliminary details regarding sampling locations and protocol are summarized below. This information may be modified during development of the formal monitoring plan.

4.2 Field Investigations Gordon Congdon’s Grant Work Parameters: • 4 stations in lower basin as identified on map (Patmont Stations) • Transparency (secchi disc) • Sampling total phosphorous at depths at surface, 10 meters and 20 meters • Started in 1998 for five years • LCWQC work • Every 3 weeks, seven times over the summer, May to September • ICPMS – Manchester (DOE) phosphorous lab technique (now certified in std methods) • Focus is on phosphorous, the key nutrient pollutant in the lake • Done at Manchester since phosphorous levels so low, that most labs cannot analyze it.

1986-87 – Work was done at University of Washington (Patmont) 1995 – Work done by Steve Lazoff’s Aquatic Research Lab. They were right at limit of detection. 1996 – DOE did sampling using ICPMS method (method recommend by DOE protocol), Manchester Lab 1998 – Manchester lab

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-9 SS/2098_6 Water Quality Monitoring

Table A-2: Parameters S T A T I O N S

Lake River Tailrace (Powerhouse) Wapato Lucerne* Bypass Section 4 P Phosphorous r r r r A Persulfate r r R Nitrate Chlorophyll r r A DO r r r r r M Temperature r r r r r E Conductivity r r r r r T pH r r r r r E Secchi disk r r R TDG1 r r r r r S Flow r r r Pesticides2 r

Sediment Load r r r Fecal coliform r r *Reduce sampling appropriate less .5 to .33 in Lucerne Basin for winter. 1 One and ten m depths in lake. 2 First quarter only.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2098_6 Page A-10 July 16, 1999 Water Quality Monitoring

Table A-3: Schedule S T A T I O N S Lake River Tailrace (Pow- erhouse) S Wapato Lucerne Bypass Section 4 C March 2000 ? With Flow With Flow ? H Early May 1999 r r r r E D Summer 1999 r Station 5A r r r U every 3 weeks May - Aug September r r r r L E October r With Flow With Flow r

Table A-4: Depths S T A T I O N S Lake River Tailrace (Powerhouse) Wapato Lucerne Bypass Section 4 Surface r r r r r D 10 meters r r E 20 meters r r P 70 meters r r T 100 meters r r H 150 meters S 250 meters 400 meters

Sampling station coordinates will be determined and displayed using GPS and GIS technology. Prelimi- nary study data will be used by the Water Quality Workgroup to modify the sampling protocol if deemed necessary. A report will prepared summarizing the data collected during the year, and provide conclusions regarding the water quality of Lake Chelan.

4.3 Associated Studies Study of dissolved oxygen, total dissolved gas, temperature and pH is being supplemented by work done under the Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases Study Plan. These parameters will be collected in

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-11 SS/2098_6 Water Quality Monitoring

Sections 1 and 4 of the Chelan River and in the tailrace, to coincide with locations selected for the Wa- ter Quality Study.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2098_6 Page A-12 July 16, 1999 Stehekin ± River STEHEKIN k ree # le C k rp k e Pu ee e Cr r zard C Ha k re e o re v C e ek le D ile Cre urmi Onem Fo reek tle C Flick Creek Cas ek n Cre nyo k Ca e H re k un e ts C re C ek le Cre d ish id F R rine olve Creek

Wreek

C w o

Lighting Creek d a e reek M Cascade C LUCERNE k # e k e e Railroad Creek r e C r x C e e Domke Lake R k a n C s rk re e k a ek tl e P t re a C d R e l nc ra ri e P m k E ree r C ea k B Cree bor anoe Har C win T eek Cr k ee Creek r Little C ir k F e re

k e k e C re n e

C o t . k e d L a r mi o e r a e C

r r C y G t P e C tl t in m r. it a o k a C L o P r e h r a o G o e r b k o b r G r e g r a e i N C H r r a C o B t k b r. H e e e r in k g a C e d id o y r e H r. t e a R r r p P e C k

e C f C

e e k y a ls G

D b l e b t e e

o S a o r e k

e l N F y r t e L o C t

Corra A C C e l Cr e L ek K r

E s k

k C a

e e n e m re r o

a e C

C s

k i C ig d ld e o B a o e C r P r H G n E G C L l o l A i y N t n k S a e C re x C o k ll B e e re h tc C i k M Cree e tilon il An M ive SHEET 1 ntyf Twe LAKE CHELAN & TRIBUTARIES

LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Wapato Lake FERC PROJECT NO. 637 Dry Lake Roses Lake PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 ch CHELAN COUNTY WENATCHEE, WASHINGTON ul G n v a m tte JULY, 1999 First Creek ur v P e le CHELAN u R o E C #

p v V CHELAN WATERSHED BOUNDARY v I p C a h R n e K la n STREAMS R iv N ak Canyon e v WATER QUALITY MONITORING Daybre r STATIONS

5 0 5 IA MB LU Miles CO 1:335,000 SCALE Water Quality Monitoring

SECTION 5: TASK LIST

Task 1 – Literature Review 1.1 Description of existing water quality, uses and issues 1.1.1 Locate and compile all existing water quality data on bypass reach and tailrace 1.2 Description of current activities that will have a bearing on water quality 1.2.1 Growth Management Planning 1.2.2 Sewer system improvements and extensions 1.2.3 Obtain clarification on requirements for state water quality certification 1.3 Review current activities to determine if water quality issues are being appropriately addressed

Task 2 – Monitoring Plan Development 2.1 Consultant develop formal monitoring plan 2.2 Obtain DOE approval of monitoring plan 2.3 Secure services of certified laboratory facility meeting analysis requirements

Task 3 – Field Investigation

Task 4 – Analysis 3.1 In situ 3.2 Laboratory

Task 5 – Interpretation of Results 4.1 In situ 4.2 Develop information sufficient to obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification 4.3 Estimate effects of project operation on Lake Chelan water quality

Task 5 – Report

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

Analysis will include collection of field information necessary to estimate the effect of project operations on water quality. Laboratory analyses will be conducted on field samples per parameters listed in the Methodology section. Comparison of new data to historical data and Washington State Water Quality Standards will provide information as to the existing water quality in Lake Chelan and the Chelan River. All of the analyses and decisions made in conjunction with this study will be documented in a summary report after the 1999 field is completed. The indirect effects of project operations on other issues identified by the relicensing team e.g., impact on septic systems, will be addressed in the final report. Con- sultants will prepare a monitoring plan to be approved by the Washington Department of Ecology prior

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2098_6 Page A-15 July 16, 1999 Water Quality Monitoring to commencement of sampling in 1999. The monitoring plan shall be substantially in the form of that outlined in Appendix B

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS

Chelan PUD will hire a consultant(s) to assist in conducting the field investigations and reporting. Chelan PUD staff will oversee contracting and deliverable schedule for the selected consultant(s). Con- sultant(s) conducting field investigation in 1999 will be required to provide equipment and staff to conduct the contracted field investigations with minimal field support from the PUD. The PUD consultant and Gordon Congdon will coordinate field sampling methods to ensure that the sampling is consistent with previous field investigations conducted on Lake Chelan. PUD involvement will be primarily in the form of study plan development and implementation, project oversight, and providing input to the consultant(s) regarding decisions made by parties involved in the relicensing process.

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE

Jan 27, 1999 Comments Due on Draft Water Quality Monitoring Study Plan Feb 3, 1999 Meeting of Water Quality Work Group Feb 12, 1999 Distribute Final copy Mid-Feb1999 Submit Monitoring Plan to Dept of Ecology for approval Feb 24, 1999 Chelan Relicense Agency Meeting Mar 12, 1999 Final Comments on Study Plan Mar 24, 1999 Chelan Relicense Agency Meeting Mid-Mar 1999 Procure approval of Monitoring Plan from Dept of Ecology Apr 1, 1999 Begin Study Season May - Sept 1999 Sample at 3 week intervals Mar 2000 Grab Sampling May - Sept 2000 Sample at 3 week intervals (if needed) Mar 2001 Grab Sampling if needed

SECTION 9: BUDGET

To be determined based on contractor selection.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2098_6 Page A-16 July 16, 1999 Water Quality Monitoring

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS

• Review draft detailed study plans in-house for completeness. • Send draft study plans to the Water Quality Workgroup for review and comment. • Incorporate Water Quality Workgroup comments into detailed study plans. • Select consultant to conduct 1999 field investigations. • Finalize contract with selected consultant, and have them prepare for 1999 field season. • Conduct 1999 field studies.

SECTION 11: REFERENCES

Patmont, R.C., G.J. Pelletier, E.B. Welch, D. Banton, and C.C. Ebbesmeyer. 1989. Lake Chelan Water Quality Assessment. Final Report, Contract No. C0087072. State of Washington Department of Ecology.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-17 SS/2098_6 Water Quality Monitoring

APPENDIX A

Issues To Be Addressed

Issue Group Rank Issue Addressed

Recreation: sanitation LARC 16/149 Yes Dumping effluent from boats LARC 18/149 Yes Development: impact on septic systems (higher use) LARC 25/149 Yes Development: potential for increased pollution LARC 26/149 Yes Water quality enforcement LARC 27/149 Yes Economics: must be economically viable to PUD LARC 31/149 Yes Water quality (septic and storm waters) LARC 33/149 Yes Development: more boating, potential for pollution LARC 42/149 Yes Lake level fluctuations: Milfoil LARC 49/149 Yes More Water Quality: reservoir changes impact en- LARC 73/149 Yes forcement Park lawn areas contribute to pollution, lawn fertiliz- LARC 107/149 Yes ers Debris LARC 120/149 Other Study Flows could decrease downlake temperatures LARC 138/149 Yes

Temperature changes due to potential changes in Fish 17/119 Yes reservoir levels (lower end within Chelan area) Water quality records/background Fish 21/119 Yes Maintain Water Quality in tailrace: Spawning and Fish 25/119 Yes incubation Land development - affecting water quality, fisheries: Fish 26/119 Indirect Maintain Water Quality in tailrace: Fish 32/119 Yes Maintain Water Quality in tailrace: And quantity Fish 37/119 Yes Maintain Water Quality in tailrace: Resi- Fish 38/119 Indirect dent/emergence Water quality - powerhouse releases Fish 41/119 Yes Land development affecting water quality, fisheries: Fish 56/119 Indirect Boats/people Land development affecting water quality, fisheries: Fish 72/119 Indirect Building Milfoil Fish 74/119 Yes Land development affecting water quality, fisheries: Fish 86/119 Indirect

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-19 SS/2098_6 Water Quality Monitoring

Issue Group Rank Issue Addressed

Agricultural runoff Land development affecting water quality, fisheries: Fish 87/119 Indirect Domestic use Milfoil Fish 90/119 Yes Water quality - powerhouse releases: TDG Fish 91/119 Yes Land development affecting water quality, fisheries: Fish 92/119 Indirect Erosion (waves due to boats) Land development affecting water quality, fisheries: Fish 93/119 Indirect Aesthetics Water Temperatures - from powerhouse Fish 101/119 Yes Temperature control at dam Fish 114/119 Yes

Water quality monitoring Public 8/75 Yes Water rights Public 25/75 Indirect Education: uniqueness of the lake Public 40/75 Indirect Erosion during high water Public 48/75 Indirect Shoreline erosion caused by raising of the lake Public 49/75 Indirect Flow impact on erosion in bypass Public 63/75 Indirect Must be economically viable to PUD/rate payers Public 68/75 Indirect

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2098_6 Page A-20 July 16, 1999 Water Quality Monitoring

APPENDIX B

Monitoring Plan Format Example

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page A-21 SS/2098_6 SHORELINE & BYPASS REACH EROSION CONTROL STUDY PLAN

Final

LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 637

July 16, 1999

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Wenatchee, Washington TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...... B-1 1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project ...... B-1 1.2 General Description of the Relicensing Process...... B-2 1.3 Need Statement...... B-2

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL...... B-3

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA...... B-3

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY ...... B-3

SECTION 5: TASK LIST...... B-4

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING...... B-6

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS...... B-7

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE...... B-7

SECTION 9: BUDGET...... B-7

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS...... B-7 Evaluation of Issues Addressed...... B-8 Notes on Shoreline Inventory Form...... B-11

ATTACHMENTS

Evaluation of Issues Addressed Notes on Inventory Form Erosion Inventory Form Repair Evaluation Form Schedule Previously Mapped Sites

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page B-i SS/2097_6 Shoreline and Bypass Reach Erosion Control

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project is located approximately 32 miles north of the City of We- natchee, on the Chelan River. The 4.1-mile-long Chelan River (shortest river in Washington) flows from the lower end of the 50.4-mile-long Lake Chelan to the Columbia River. The project consists of a 40- foot-high concrete gravity dam, a 2.2-mile-long steel and concrete lined tunnel and a powerhouse located near the confluence of the Chelan and Columbia Rivers.

The State of Washington encompasses a wide range of physiographically diverse areas, from the marine-influenced ocean shores and Puget Sound, over the rugged Cascade Range to the rolling hills of the Columbia Plateau in central Washington, to the ancient mountain ranges of north central and eastern Washington. The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project is located on the Chelan River between two significantly different physiographic areas. In the Cascade Mountains to the west, metamorphosed sedimentary, volcanic, and granitic rock predominates. On the Columbia Plateau to the east, bedrock consists of vast, thick layers of basalt.

The climate in the project vicinity is semi-arid, averaging about 10 inches of precipitation a year, with average high temperatures of 100 degrees (Fahrenheit) and lows of 0 degrees. In the immediate project vicinity (lower end of the lake), shrub-steppe vegetation habitats predominate (sage/bitter brush), with cottonwoods and willows typically occurring in riparian strips along the Lake and its tributaries. In the broader region surrounding the project, higher elevations and increased amounts of precipitation support softwood forest habitats.

The drainage area of the project is 924 square miles. The project reservoir is operated between water surface elevations of 1,100 feet (MSL) and 1,079 feet to ensure optimum utilization of the reservoir for power generation, fish and wildlife conservation, recreation, water supply, and flood control purposes. The average maximum drawdown of the lake for the 44 years from 1952 to 1995 was 1084.2 feet. The reservoir has 677,400 acre-feet of usable storage above 1,079 feet. Of this, 612,400 acre-feet can be used for power generation and 65,000 acre-feet is available for irrigation.

Since the Project was originally licensed in 1926, the lake has never been drawn down to the minimum allowable elevation (1,079 feet). The lowest drawdown of record was 1,079.7 feet in 1970. That occurrence coincides with the lowest annual precipitation on record. Chelan PUD has never failed to refill the reservoir to elevation 1,098 feet by June 30.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page B-1 SS/2097_6 Shoreline and Bypass Reach Erosion Control

1.2 General Description of the Relicensing Process Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County (Chelan PUD) owns and operates the Lake Chelan Hy- droelectric Project located on the Chelan River in Chelan, Washington. Chelan PUD is permitted to operate the Hydro Project according to terms and conditions contained in an existing FERC license that was issued on May 12, 1981. The license expires in 2004.

The original license was granted for the present Lake Chelan Hydro Project in May, 1926, by the Fed- eral Power Commission, now FERC. On May 12, 1981, FERC granted Chelan PUD a new 30-year license for the Hydro Project, retroactive to 1974 when the original 50-year license expired.

Chelan PUD intends to seek a new federal license to operate the Lake Chelan Hydro Project and has begun preparation for the process referred to as “relicensing”. The FERC relicensing process is based on laws and regulations that require years of extensive planning, including environmental studies, agency consensus and public involvement. The process to obtain a new license has changed considerably since the existing license was issued in 1981, primarily due to changes made to the Federal Power Act (FPA) as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA) in 1986. ECPA mandates that FERC give consideration to the enhancement of existing environmental, recreational, fish, and wildlife resources affected by the project, equal to that given to power and development resources, to balance what are often competing uses of the water resources. ECPA also empowers the FERC to consider whether a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans.

Chelan PUD has requested and received approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to employ an Alterna- tive Relicensing Process for the Lake Chelan Project, as allowed under FERC’s Final Rule issued on October 29, 1997 (Docket No. RM95-16-000; Order No. 596). The Alternative Relicensing Process proposed by Chelan PUD is intended to expedite the licensing process by combining the pre-filing consultation and environmental review processes into a single process, and by improving and facilitating communications among the participants in the licensing process.

1.3 Need Statement Shoreline erosion along Lake Chelan and erosion along the bypass reach have been recognized as concerns for some decades, and are of some concern to private landowners and to agencies responsible for land management. Substantial shoreline erosion can threaten structures and other improvements near the lake. Also, though erosion is a natural process, it can affect the aesthetics of the shoreline. Simi- larly, continued erosion along the bypass reach can threaten nearby development and impacts the project tailrace channel. The District has participated in a number of efforts to inventory, evaluate and control shoreline erosion on public lands, beginning in the 1970s, and has devoted substantial efforts to controlling erosion along the bypass reach. As part of the relicensing process, the District will update the inventory of areas experiencing shoreline erosion to document current site conditions, evaluate the effectiveness of previous control measures, and to outline possible approaches to be used in future control efforts. At the same time, areas of active soil erosion along the bypass reach will be inventoried and evaluated.

Stakeholders have raised the issues of erosion around the lake and along the bypass reach in a variety of forms. The study described below is designed to provide information on the current status of shoreline and bypass reach erosion on both public and private lands. It is also intended to identify the most

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2097_6 Page B-2 July 16, 1999 Shoreline and Bypass Reach Erosion Control critical areas of erosion, where enhancement efforts would be expected to be most beneficial, and to identify cost-effective measures to control erosion in those area. The study report will identify options for protecting the integrity of project lands and waters.

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL

The shoreline and bypass reach erosion control study is intended to summarize past erosion control efforts and provide current information on the status of erosion along the lake shore, drawdown zone (1100 ft to 1084 ft), and bypass reach, on both public and private lands. The study will include an evaluation of the sites where erosion is occurring in an effort to evaluate the effects of project operations and select critical erosion areas, and development of conceptual designs for cost-effective erosion control measures for further consideration by the relicensing team and all interested parties. Evaluation of erosion sites will include an effort to estimate erosion rates. The study report will provide suggested designs for erosion control and attempt to clarify the permitting process for work below the ordinary high water line.

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA

The study of shoreline erosion will include areas within the project boundary around Lake Chelan (upstream of the dam), and areas immediately adjacent to the lake that have been impacted by shoreline erosion. The study of erosion along the bypass reach will include areas of outstanding erosion within the project boundary from below the dam to the mouth of the Chelan River.

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY

The approach to documenting and evaluating erosion sites is intended to be relatively basic and straightforward rather than attempting to develop or follow a complex methodology. Each site will be located on a USGS 1:24,000 topographic map using hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment. The GPS data collected will be used to document the site for later inclusion in a Geographi- cal Information Systems (GIS) map. Sites will be photographed for future reference and comparison with photographs from previous work. Each site will also be described based on visual observations made at the site, including sketches of elevation and cross-sectional ground surface profiles. Site characteristics to be described include such items as material type and slope angle at various levels, apparent degree of activity or inactivity, and height of slope. The items to be described are shown on the attached sample site log.

One of the site characteristics included on the sample log is a notation of any structures or other significant features that appear to be threatened by the erosion process. An effort will be made to rank or categorize the sites in terms of the degree of need for remedial action. This will be done by the reli-

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page B-3 SS/2097_6 Shoreline and Bypass Reach Erosion Control censing working group formed to deal with erosion issues, on the basis of the apparent severity of erosion at the site and the apparent threat to site features.

Conceptual designs of cost-effective measures intended to control the progress of erosion will be developed and included in the report. These may include approaches used previously at Lake Chelan and found to be effective, approaches used elsewhere and considered suitable for use at Lake Chelan and techniques developed as a part of the study. The selection of the control measures considered most appropriate will take into account the characteristics of the erosion sites considered most critical.

Alternatives considered: • Video taping of the shoreline was considered as an efficient, comprehensive means of documenting its condition. This approach could replace or supplement still photographs if suitable steps were taken to note the location of the sites filmed and correlate them with the film. Whether and to what degree this approach would add to the value and usefulness of the results is uncertain. • Studies of some other projects have included mapping the entire shoreline with respect to material type, steepness, erosion potential, etc. This would extend well beyond the scope of the current study and would add substantially to the cost. At the same time it would contribute little to the usefulness of the results, since the great majority of the areas that would be mapped are not suffering from significant erosion.

SECTION 5: TASK LIST

The study outlined above can most conveniently be broken into a series of tasks, as follows:

Task 1: Literature Review & Summary: A literature search will be carried out to obtain existing information on Lake Chelan shoreline and bypass reach erosion and control efforts, as well as information on erosion problems and control methods used elsewhere in similar settings. This search will include contacting government agencies with responsibility for management of land adjacent to the lake, owners of other projects and other parties expected to have related experience, and reviewing relevant web sites. This task can be performed concurrent with tasks 2 through 5, listed below.

Task 2: Inventory of Shoreline Erosion: An inventory of erosion sites will be made by visiting each site . Existing land form and soil survey information will be evaluated in advance of field work to assist in site interpretations and the identification of slope stability problems. The inventory will include erosion sites along the Lake Chelan shoreline greater than 50 ft in length or less than 50 ft in length, but which have the potential for affecting areas of significant value or which appear to be in the process of initiating erosion over substantially larger areas. Sites noted in previous inventories will also be included. The sites will be photographed, located for mapping purposes, and described using the attached site log. The inventory will be performed during the latter half of April 1999. This time of year, which coincides

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2097_6 Page B-4 July 16, 1999 Shoreline and Bypass Reach Erosion Control with the typical minimum water level in the lake, is selected to provide the best opportunity to observe aspects of the site conditions that are below lake level during most of each year.

Task 3: Inventory of Bypass Reach Erosion: An inventory of active erosion sites will be made along the bypass reach. The inventory will include erosion sites along the bypass reach greater than 50 ft in length, or judged to be important based on other factors, at which significant erosion of soils is currently taking place. Areas of bedrock erosion and areas in which the slopes appear relatively inactive will not be included in the inventory. Similarly, areas of potential instability unrelated to project operations or flow of water through the bypass reach will not be inventoried. The sites will be photographed, located for mapping purposes, and described using the attached site log. The inventory will be planned for April 1999, prior to the start of spillway releases.

Task 4: Data Processing: The data collected during the initial inventory will be processed for easier evaluation and inclusion in the report. GPS data will be used in preparation of maps, which locate the erosion sites. Photographs will be provided with captions and scanned, if necessary, for inclusion in the CD-ROM version of the report. Descriptions on site log forms will be typed in final form for inclusion in the report and to be more readily usable. Reference numbers will be provided to link the sites on the map with the photographs and site logs. This task will be initiated as soon as possible after the fieldwork is started and completed as soon as possible after collection of the data. Data will be made available to other working groups for their use and review.

Task 5: Evaluation: The information collected in the inventory will be reviewed to evaluate the degree of success achieved by previous control measures and to select the sites where the control of erosion in progress appears to be relatively critical. Evaluation of the effectiveness of previous erosion control efforts is expected to be helpful in deciding what approaches to pursue in Task 6. The ranking or selection of these sites will be based on whether the erosion appears to be a threat to structures, private property, cultural or historical resources, trails, or other important features of the site, and such considerations as the apparent degree of stabilization of the slopes involved, rate of erosion, distance of threatened features from the shoreline, bank material type and visual impact. This list of factors to be considered is not intended to be a complete or exclusive listing of all factors, but is intended to provide examples of the types of things that will be considered. As an example, an apparently very active erosion site where the eroding slope is approaching the hiking trail along the lake would be considered more critical than a site that appeared to be nearly re-stabilized or one that does not appear likely to impact any structures or important features of the landscape.

A map of erosion sites will be provided to members of the other working groups so that they can check for overlap with other resource areas , since this might influence what treatment would be considered appropriate. Sites along the lake shoreline and along the bypass reach will also be evaluated with respect to the possible influence of future project operations on the rate of further erosion. This evaluation will be performed subsequent to data processing. It may be necessary to revisit sites or to visit new sites based on the work of other working groups.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page B-5 SS/2097_6 Shoreline and Bypass Reach Erosion Control

Task 6: Design Development: Ideas for potentially useful erosion control methods will be evaluated and refined to suit conditions at Lake Chelan. These methods may be obtained from others or developed independently. Consideration will be given to constructability, anticipated effectiveness and lon- gevity, probable cost, availability of necessary materials, and fish and wildlife habitat values. A range of possible erosion control methods will be provided for consideration of the relicensing team and for use by property owners and agencies. Sketches of the options thought to be most appropriate will be prepared for inclusion in the report. This task will be performed subsequent to Task 1 and is anticipated to be complete by September 1999.

Task 7: Sedimentation at Head of Lake: Collect and correlate information on Stehekin River flows and lake level during flood events. Evaluate data to determine whether further study of sedimentation is needed.

Task 8: Draft Report: The study results will be presented in a draft report issued to the relicensing team and other interested parties for the purpose of obtaining comments. The draft report will be issued for two rounds of review during the fall of 1999.

Task 9: Final Report: After obtaining comments on the draft report, a final report of the study results will be prepared which addresses comments received. Allowing time for collection and resolution of comments, the final report will be issued in January 2000.

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

Field data and conclusions drawn from it will be summarized in the final report. The report will include an executive summary section suitable for use in the license application or other relicensing documents. Supporting information and data will be provided in appendices to the report.

Descriptions of erosion sites will be written and included in the report using the site log, attached. Analysis of this data will consist of comparison of current observations to the results of previous inventories, evaluation of the level of success achieved by previous remedial measures, identification of site criteria to facilitate selection of treatments, evaluation of the relative importance of sites, and development of conceptual designs and estimates of relative costs for remedial work.

Copies of the draft and final reports will be distributed to members of the erosion working group, relicensing team and other interested parties. The draft and final reports will make use of black & white xerographic reproduction of photographs in hard copy versions, with color photos included in CD- ROM versions of the final report.

The final report is expected to be used by the relicensing team for consideration of what remedial measures would be most beneficial in controlling shoreline erosion, and to what extent this work should be included in enhancement efforts associated with relicensing. The report will also prove helpful to indi-

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2097_6 Page B-6 July 16, 1999 Shoreline and Bypass Reach Erosion Control vidual agencies and private property owners by providing information on cost-effective and environ- mentally acceptable approaches to controlling shoreline erosion.

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS

The shoreline and bypass reach erosion control study can be accomplished by District personnel and other members of the erosion working group, but will require some equipment not already available. Equipment that will be needed in addition to that already available includes an inclinometer and rangefinder which, used together, should provide more reliable estimates of the height and angle of erosion slopes. The boat and pilot are expected to be chartered. The GPS unit is available within the District. The camera listed is expected to be either a standard 35-mm camera, or a digital camera if a suitable one is available. Use of a conventional camera would provide photographic prints in addition to digital files.

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE

The sequence of tasks and the expected duration of each task is illustrated by the attached schedule.

SECTION 9: BUDGET

The budget for this study will be determined after finalization of the study plan.

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS

Upon completion of the final report, the study results will be available to the work group, relicensing team and other interested parties for consideration of possible enhancement measures. The information is expected to be used by the work group and relicensing team in evaluating what enhancement measures are appropriate to undertake in conjunction with the project relicensing process. In addition, the study results will be available to interested agencies and members of the public for use in planning erosion control programs.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page B-7 SS/2097_6 Shoreline and Bypass Reach Erosion Control

Evaluation of Issues Addressed The table below lists all the comments from various groups thought to be relevant to the shoreline erosion control study. The last column is an evaluation of whether each issue will be addressed by the study as proposed. Where the word “indirect” is used, it is meant to indicate that the study will provide some information useful in addressing the issue, but will not by itself provide all the necessary information. Where “no” is used, it is meant to indicate that the study, as proposed, is not expected to provide information that contributes substantially to addressing the issue.

Issue Group Rank Addressed

Protection of shoreline LARC 1/149 Yes Erosion during high water LARC 17/149 Yes Lake shore erosion LARC 22/149 Yes Economics: must be economically viable to PUD LARC 31/149 Indirect Loss of soil LARC 35/149 Yes Impacts on habitat in general LARC 36/149 Indirect Impacts on shoreline access LARC 37/149 Yes Impacts on cultural resources LARC 43/149 Indirect Loss of land LARC 50/149 Yes Recreation uplake from dam: sand management (shift- LARC 57/149 No ing) Impacts on riparian habitat LARC 61/149 Indirect Flow impact on erosion in bypass LARC 63/149 Yes Shoreline erosion LARC 70/149 Yes Lake Level Fluctuation: fluctuating levels silt deposits LARC 104/149 No from river Recreation uplake from dam: Wind erosion during low LARC 119/149 No water, City Park Impact on trees for bald eagles LARC 122/149 Indirect Reservoir Fluctuations: Impact on Fish Fish 9/119 No Shoreline protection of plants Fish 10/119 Yes Impact on habitat from high levels Fish 12/119 Indirect Sediment transport via bypass: Gravel recruit for Fish 71/119 Yes spawning? Sediment transport via bypass Fish 84/119 Yes Land development – erosion Fish 92/119 Yes Quality of potential habitat: Gravel recruit Fish 102/119 Yes Protection of shoreline Public 15/75 Yes Loss of soil/land Public 27/75 Yes Erosion during high water Public 48/75 Yes Shoreline erosion caused by reservoir fluctuations Public 49/75 Yes Bioengineering, rip rap, erosion control Public 51/75 Yes

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2097_6 Page B-8 July 16, 1999 Shoreline and Bypass Reach Erosion Control

Issue Group Rank Addressed

Improved snowpack forecasting Public 53/75 No Flow impact on erosion in bypass Public 63/75 Yes Erosion during high water Public 67/75 Yes Must be economically viable to PUD Public 68/75 Indirect Funds needed to mitigate Public 70/75 Yes Bypass reach erosion NMFS Yes Effects of possible changes in project operation USFS Yes Sedimentation at head of lake (Year 2000 Study) NPS Yes

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page B-9 SS/2097_6 Shoreline and Bypass Reach Erosion Control

Notes on Shoreline Inventory Form 1982 Designation: If the site was included in the 1982 inventory, note the number used to designate the site at that time.

Site Sketch & Profile : Prepare an elevation view sketch. Note landmarks useful in orienting photos and future monitoring by comparison with the sketch. Prepare one or more ground surface profiles roughly perpendicular to the shoreline, extending from the water surface to a point above the eroded portion of the slope. Indicate profile location(s) on the elevation view.

Aspect / Sheltering: Note approximate fetch and exposure to winds and waves from uplake.

Slope Angle : Note estimated slope angle in terms of degrees and also in terms such as over-steepened, overhanging, undercut, and at or above angle of repose.

Material Types: Where possible, classify surficial materials as colluvium, alluvium, till, bedrock, or other. Describe soils based on visual observations. Estimate soil type, texture, apparent density, and modifiers related to particle size, such as “silty sand with cobbles.” Note approximate range of particle sizes and percent of large gravel- or cobble-sized pieces, characteristics of gravel and larger pieces such as angu- larity, and apparent density or looseness of soil. Note also indicators of soil depth or presence of bedrock.

Stability / Activity Level / Erosion Rate: Note indications of activity or stability such as fresh or recently disturbed surface soil versus soil that has apparently been exposed, but not disturbed, for some time, and surface conditions such as the presence or absence of small plants or layers of fallen leaves. Note changes or lack of change from previous photographs of the site using such things as identifiable trees near the top of the slope. Note characteristics of adjacent slopes, such as bedrock outcrops, that might influence their susceptibility to erosion.

Upslope Stability: Note presence or absence of unstable or potentially unstable areas upslope of shoreline sites. Note any other upslope effects that could add to site instability (e.g. concentrated surface runoff).

Veg. Cover: Estimate percentage of surface covered and density of coverage. Describe size of plants, and types if known. Estimate degree of visual screening by existing vegetation.

Prev. Site Work/Performance: Where erosion control work has taken place, note type and date of work. Use Repair Evaluation form to describe current condition and apparent effectiveness of erosion control efforts. Identify what site features could limit future treatment options and what observable features might have influenced the performance of past rehab. measures.

Affected Features: Note site features potentially threatened by erosion, such as structures, trails, dead trees important as habitat, et cetera.

Contributing Factors: Note any indications of what factors appear to contribute significantly to erosion at the site. Note signs that erosion predates project.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page B-11 SS/2097_6 Shoreline and Bypass Reach Erosion Control

LAKE CHELAN PROJECT – EROSION INVENTORY – Site #______1982 Designation ______by ______date ______page_____ of _____

ASPECT / SHELTERING

SLOPE ANGLE TOP MID TOE -1100’ MATERIAL TYPES TOP

MID

TOE

-1100’

STABILITY / ACTIVITY LEVEL / EROSION RATE / OVERALL CONDITION TREND TOP MID TOE UPSLOPE CONDITIONS (STABILITY) VEG. COVER / VISUAL SCREENING

PREV. SITE WORK / PERFORMANCE AFFECTED FEATURES

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

BYPASS REACH (GORGE) FLOW RELEASES STUDY PLAN

Final

LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 637

July 16, 1999

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Wenatchee, Washington Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...... C-1 1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project...... C-1 1.2 General Description of the Relicensing Process ...... C-3 1.3 Need Statement ...... C-7

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL...... C-7

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA...... C-7

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY ...... C-7 4.1 Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) Evaluation of Section 4 ...... C-7 4.2 Representative Reach Analysis of Section 1 and 2...... C-10 4.3 Barrier Analysis ...... C-11 4.4 Limiting Factor Analysis ...... C-11 4.5 Other Considerations ...... C-12

SECTION 5: TASK LIST...... C-12

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING...... C-13

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS...... C-14

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE...... C-14

SECTION 9: BUDGET...... C-14

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS...... C-14

SECTION 11: REFERENCES ...... C-15

APPENDIX A...... C-17 Issues To Be Addressed ...... C-17

APPENDIX B...... C-19 IFIM Field & Calibration Methods...... C-19

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page C-i SS/2096_6 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

APPENDIX C...... C-29 Barrier Analysis Method ...... C-29

LIST OF TABLES

Table C-1: Historical Lake Averages ...... C-2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure C-1: Bypass Reach Location Map (Include Project Boundary)...... C-5

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2096_6 Page C-ii July 16, 1999 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

Lake Chelan is deep and narrow, extending northwesterly approximately 50 miles from the City of Chelan at its lower end to Stehekin at the head of the lake. Lake Chelan is a natural lake that developed within a broad glacial trough. The lake averages 1 mile in width, and has depths of over 1,480 feet. Lake Chelan is bordered by more than 2 million acres of National Forest Lands, more than half of which are designated as wilderness. Surrounding peaks reach elevations as high as 7,000 feet. The lake serves as a waterway approach to the Forest Service’s Wenatchee National Forest above Twenty Five Mile Creek, and to the National Park Service’s Lake Chelan National Recreation Area at Stehekin. The lower 15 miles of the lake are mostly privately owned, the next 35 are within the Wenatchee Na- tional Forest, and the upper 5 miles are within the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.

The average surface area of the lake is 32,000 acres. The drainage area of the project at the dam is 924 square miles. The confluence of the Chelan River and Columbia River is approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the City of Chelan. The lake level and flow through the Chelan River drainage were altered through the construction of a hydroelectric project in the river channel near the City of Chelan in 1928.

The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project is located approximately 32 miles north of the City of We- natchee on the Chelan River. The 4.1-mile long Chelan River, the shortest river in Washington State, flows from the lower end of Lake Chelan to the Columbia River. The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Proj- ect consists of a 40-foot high concrete gravity dam located at the City of Chelan, a 2.2-mile long steel and concrete tunnel (penstock) that is 14 feet in diameter, and a powerhouse located at the confluence of the Chelan and Columbia rivers near the City of Chelan Falls. The vertical elevation drop between the dam and powerhouse is 401 ft. The powerhouse contains two Francis turbine units, each rated at 34,000 hp at 1,100 cfs and 377 feet net head, that produce approximately 50 MW of electricity.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page C-1 SS/2096_6 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

The annual drawdown of the lake begins in early October (Table C-1). The lowest lake elevation normally occurs in April. From May through June the lake refills from spring runoff. The reservoir is maintained at or above elevation 1,098 feet from June 30 through September 30 each year (Table C-1). Since the project was originally licensed in 1926, the lake has never been drawn down to the minimum allowable elevation (1,079 feet). The lowest drawdown on record was 1,079.7 feet in 1970. That occurrence coincides with the lowest annual precipitation on record. The Chelan PUD has never failed to refill the reservoir to elevation 1,098 feet by June 30.

Table C-1: Historical Lake Averages

The 4.1-mile long bypass reach (Chelan River or Chelan Gorge) is comprised of four distinct sections (Figure C-1). The 2.29-mile long upper section, Section 1, of the bypass reach below the dam is characterized by a relatively wide flood plain, low gradient, 55 ft/mile, and substrate comprised mainly of large cobble and boulders. Some spawning sized gravel is contained along the margins of the channel, deposited in these areas during high flow events during spring runoff.

Section 3 of the bypass reach, referred to as the gorge area, is 0.38-mile long. The canyon walls are very steep and narrow. The gradient of the channel is very steep, 480 ft/mile. The stream channel is characterized by waterfalls, ranging from 5 to 20 feet high, numerous cascades, bedrock chutes, and large, very deep pools. The substrate is very large, with some boulders exceeding 20 feet in diameter.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2096_6 Page C-2 July 16, 1999 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page C-3 SS/2096_6 132 0 0 13 0 132 8 60 4 CHELAN 1 1 1 1 1240 3 1 2 5 0 6 1 4 2

4 4 4 0

0 0 # 0

0 0 8 1 LAKE CHELAN 4 4

4 1 0

97A 0 0

1 /( 6

6 1

4 0 0 6

1 12 0 12 4 2 8 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 1 0

0 0 2 6 1 5 0

0 1 6 DAM 8 9 2 0

1 0 0 1 240 80 Ü 0 0 1 Ê 10 8 0 SECTION 1 4 8 1320 1 0 4 8

150 0 Æ# 2 0 1 3 6 0

4 P 4 1 1 8

0 R 1 8 R

O E J

E V 80 I

14 C 0 C

T R

4 1 0 2 H 8

1 2 0

B 0 E 0

2 0

L O

0 1 4 A 8 1 0

1 U 0 N 840 0 1

0 N 8 8 1 D P 0

2 1680 R T A A U 11 9 I 1720 O N R 60

J N Y B E E R C I L V M 0 1 T E /(97 6 1 R 0 U 7 6 B 0 1920 2 O B 7 L U Y N G P O 0 D A 184 O S C A R S R G 960 E 0 Y 6 R 0 9 R 0 1 E 6 O A 2 1 C 7 A H 1 D 2160

0 8 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 8 0 2 3 8 2 2 6 2 4 1 1 1 1 0 1

1 0 5 0 0 24 9 2 2 6 0 5 0 6 1

2 0 4 0 0 2 6 2 1 0 9 600 8 Ü 1 4 8 0 8 0 1 SECTION 2 0 2 0 3 8 7 0 2 0 1 1 2 8 4 8 0 7 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 1 8 0 0 6 0

8 4 2 4 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 8 1 0 0 2 4 6 6 3 5 0 1 9 1 0 0 SHEET 1 2 1 6 8 3 9 0 1 SECTION 3 2 2 0

3 9 6 0 2

0 6

4 8 08 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 6 3 Ü (GORGE) 9 2 1 BYPASS REACH LOCATION MAP8 0 0 0 0 40 6 0 6 16 10 5 8 1 3 1 8 2 LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 1 2 2

0 0 2 2

0 1 8 6 3 0 0

FERC PROJECT NO. 637 0 0 3 2 8 3 0 3 0

1.3 Need Statement Management goals concerning the fish bearing capabilities of the project bypass reach vary based upon the differing characteristics of each section. One goal for the entire reach is to provide a minimum flow, which is currently not required, to satisfy needs of water quality, fisheries, recreational fishing and aesthetics. Management of flow in the bypass reach is also targeting enhanced spawning, incubation and early life history rearing conditions for summer/fall chinook salmon in Section 4, and the production and sustainability of fishery resources specifically in Sections 1 and 2 as well as the entire reach (Limiting Factor Analysis). Analysis of potential barriers to anadromous adult upstream passage will be conducted in Section 3.

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL

The goal of the Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases Study is to: 1) identify the level of flow needed in the bypass reach for water quality, fish and fish habitat, and recreational purposes; 2) investigate releases that have potential to protect and enhance anadromous species and resident species in the bypass reach and powerhouse tailrace; 3) evaluation of barriers to anadromous fish passage in Section 3; and 4) conduct Limiting Factors Analysis.

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA

The study area encompasses the entire Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project bypass reach. The reach begins below the dam and joins the tailrace of the powerhouse near the Columbia River 4.1 miles downstream.

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY

4.1 Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) Evaluation of Section 4 When an existing or proposed project i.e., hydropower, irrigation, or municipal/industrial diversions, affects flow in a river or stream, resource agencies, such as the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), often request studies to evaluate the impacts of altered flow on instream resources (DFW 1996). Instream resources include fish habitat and production. The purpose of implementing these studies is to gather data for making decisions or recommendations on water use.

Altered stream flows have two types of impacts that affect fish: (1) flow alteration and (2) flow fluctuations. Flow alterations are defined as changes occurring over substantial periods of time (i.e., weeks or longer). Flow fluctuations are defined as changes occurring over short periods of time, (i.e., hourly or daily). Flow alterations and fluctuations can change the amount and type of instream habitat and, in turn, change fish production and fish species composition. Direct measurement of this impact in terms of lost fish production is difficult. However, a widely used method called the Instream Flow Incremental

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page C-7 SS/2096_6 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

Methodology (IFIM) (Bovee 1982; Milhous et al. 1989) is useful for determining the flows needed to maintain the fish production potential of a stream or river.

For projects requiring a federal license or permit involving a discharge into navigable waters, a section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required. Ecology is required to condition certifications to ensure compliance with state water quality standards and to prevent the degradation of existing uses such as fish and wildlife habitat, recreation and aesthetics.

Following is a general description of the IFIM and methodology for implementing IFIM studies (Caldwell and Catterson 1992):

The IFIM was developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Instream Flow Group in the late 1970’s (Bovee 1982). The primary achievement of the group was furthering techniques for calculating fish habitat-versus-flow relationships for multiple flows. The Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) is a collection of computer models used in IFIM assessment (Milhous et al. 1989). A hydraulic model will use data from multiple stream transects to predict water depth and velocity over a range of flows. Fish habitat is defined in the model by water velocity and depth, substrate type and/or cover.

After the hydraulic model is calibrated and run, another model e.g., HABTAT, combines the hydraulic output with a biological model. Included in the biological model are preference curves for each species regarding depth, velocity, substrate, and cover. Affected life stages, such as adult spawning, juvenile rearing, and adult holding, can be included for each species.

Fish habitat is eventually described in model output as Weighted Useable Area (WUA). Final results are listings of WUA fish habitat values, in units of square feet per 1,000 feet of stream. WUA results are listed with the corresponding flow or stream discharge in cfs.

The IFIM is a tool for assessing stream flow needs for fish. The entire assessment involves reviewing numerous variables, such as water quality, sedimentation, channel stability, water temperature, basin hydrology, and others affecting fish production.

Standard IFIM methods will be employed to gather detailed information on Section 4 of the bypass reach. Transects across the stream channel will be established that are representative of Section 4 stream channel conditions every 100 feet, or as needed. Data collected at specified intervals along each transect will include water depth, water velocity, substrate composition, and cover. The number of transects established in this section is expected to be between 8 and 12. Flow levels to be investigated are, 50 cfs, 100 cfs, 200 cfs, and 500 cfs. Snorkel surveys of Section 4 will be conducted to investigate fish presence, if any, species, densities, and habitat use.

This Study Plan describes that instream flow measurements will be acquired at, 50, 100 and 200, and 500cfs. There has been concern by some agencies whether these measurements will be sufficient to model depth and velocities in the river channel at higher flows. Discharges exceeding 1,000 cfs are common in the bypass reach during spill periods in the spring. Moreover, flows up to 6,000 cfs may be

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2096_6 Page C-8 July 16, 1999 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases released as part of proposed flow augmentation. Depth and velocity data at higher flows may provide useful information on fish habitat conditions occurring under spill and flow augmentation events, and on potential upstream passage of adult salmon and steelhead.

The hydraulic modeling methods that will be used as part of the bypass reach instream flow study can be used to predict depths and velocities at each transect between discharges of 10 cfs (i.e., 0.4 times lowest measured flow) and 500 cfs (i.e., 2.5 times highest measured flow). The range of discharges, which was recommended by the WDOE, is suitable for evaluating the effects of minimum flow releases in the bypass reach on fish habitat quantity and quality. The hydraulic modeling computer programs can be used to predict depths and velocities in the river channel at much higher discharges than 500 cfs. Unfortunately, the output from these models becomes progressively less accurate at higher flows.

Higher flows can be measured in the Chelan River, but present increasing safety risks to the field crew. As a rule of thumb, the highest flow which can be safely waded is one which produces depths less than 3 feet, and velocities less than 3 ft/sec (the multiple of depth times velocity should be always less than nine). In certain reaches of the Chelan River, it may be possible to measure velocities and depths from a boat. Measuring depths and velocities from a boat is the standard procedure for conducting instream flow studies in larger rivers (note: R2 has a boat outfitted for this purpose). However, boat access may be difficult in all but the lowest reach of the Chelan river (Reach 4).

For Reaches 1 through 3, the best method for modeling depths and velocities in the river channel will be to acquire water surface elevations at each transect at flows of 1,000 cfs or higher. Measuring water surface elevations at higher flows should not be difficult except for those transects where access to the river channel is limited by steep side slopes (e.g., Reach 3). Water surface elevation measurements can be obtained from the bank, and can thus be completed without endangering the field crew provided that safe access is available to the water’s edge.

We plan on measuring water surface elevations at all accessible transects at a flow of 1,000 cfs or greater in the Chelan River. Using exiting hydraulic modeling programs and Excel spreadsheets, depths and velocities can be predicted for flows up to 2.5 times greater than the highest flow under which the water surface elevation measurements are obtained. This will allow us to accurately predict depths and mean velocities in the river to flows of 2,500 cfs or higher. Hydraulic modeling of higher flows will be completed using the following procedures:

• Water surface elevation (stage) versus discharge relationships will be developed from measurements obtained under all flows, including, 50, 100, 200, 500 plus the “high flow” measurement (e.g., 4,000 cfs). The stage versus discharge relationships will be calibrated using a log-log regression method, a step backwater method (e.g., HEC-2), or a Manning’s equation based method (e.g. MANSQ). The calibration method used will vary among transects, and will depend upon local hydraulic conditions.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page C-9 SS/2096_6 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

• Depths across each transect will be calculated by subtracting bed elevations (measured under low- flow conditions with surveying equipment) from the water surface elevation predicted for a given discharge.

• Average channel velocity will be calculated by the following equation:

V = Q/A

Where V = average channel velocity (ft/sec) Q = discharge (cfs) A = cross sectional area at given discharge (easily calculated from water surface elevation and bed profile data)

• Velocities across the channel can be reasonably predicted at higher flows using the instream flow hydraulic modeling program (e.e., IFG4). This is accomplished by constraining the upper and lower limits of the “channel roughness” factor employed by this program to values which are appropriate for high flow conditions (note: roughness values typically become less variable at higher flows). It should be pointed out that velocity distribution predictions at these flows do not need to be higher accurate for instream flow habitat modeling purposes, since the velocities in the river channel usually exceed the upper range of velocities which are suitable for fish.

Data collected in IFIM investigations will be used to asses the ability to provide enhanced spawning opportunities for summer/fall chinook salmon in Section 4 of the bypass reach. Preference curves of various life stages, such as spawning, incubation, and early rearing, of anadromous and resident salmonids will be compared to physical characteristics of Section 4, determined through IFIM investigation, under different operational scenarios. Results from the IFIM analysis and the Limiting Factor Analysis (Section 4.4) will be used by the Fisheries Workgroup to determine flows that are necessary to protect, mitigate, or enhance fishery resources in Section 4 of the bypass reach.

4.2 Representative Reach Analysis of Section 1 and 2 A secondary benefit of minimum flows in the bypass reach may be to provide fish habitat in Section 1 and 2. To document these secondary benefits, a limited IFIM or representative reach analysis will be conducted in these two areas.

Sections 1 and 2 of the bypass reach will be divided into two or three representative areas, areas that have similar stream channel characteristics such as gradient, substrate type, etc. Two or three transects will be selected every 300 feet, or as needed, in each representative area to determine habitat availability. IFIM methodology will be used to collect data along each transect. Flow levels to be investigated in Sections 1 and 2 will be similar as in Section 4. Section 3 will not be investigated because this section of the bypass reach is very difficult to access.

Similar to the IFIM analysis conducted in Section 4, data collected in Sections 1 and 2 will be used to estimate useable habitat for fish production. Results from the representative reach analysis and the Lim-

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2096_6 Page C-10 July 16, 1999 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

iting Factor Analysis will be used by the Fisheries Workgroup to determine flows that are necessary to protect, mitigate, or enhance fishery resources in Section 4 of the bypass reach.

4.3 Barrier Analysis Barrier analysis will be conducted to determine whether or not falls and cascades observed in Section 3, or other sections, are impassible to resident and anadromous fish. Standard barrier analysis (Powers and Orsborn, 1985) uses techniques based on combining barrier characteristics and stream hydrology to define the existing conditions within a barrier. These conditions are then compared to fish capabilities, such as leaping, darting speed, swimming performance, etc. to determine fish passage success. A systematic classification is developed that defines the parameters for a specific barrier under various stream flow conditions. The analysis provides detailed comparison of hydraulic conditions associated with the barrier and fish capabilities as fish encounter the barrier, attempts to pass, and exit the barrier. From this comparison, the parameters that prohibit passage can be determined and barrier identified.

Barrier analysis will be conducted initially under the range of flows proposed in Section 4.1 for IFIM analysis, 50 cfs, 100 cfs, 200 cfs, and 500 cfs. Hydraulic conditions at higher flows at potential barriers will be conducted through use of, but not limited to, the following techniques: 1) extrapolating water velocities from the four lower flow measurements based on depth/flow/velocity correlation; 2) extrapolating elevation of potential barrier versus flow (crest gage); measuring plunge pool elevation relative to potential barrier height; 3) measure differences in water surface elevation relative to depth/flow/velocity correlation; and 4) provide video/photo documentation of water surface elevation and other physical parameters at higher flow levels. Identification of potential barriers will be conducted similarly to IFIM analysis: aerial video and photographs will be used initially to identify potential barriers. Results from the barrier analysis will be compared to performance curves i.e., cruising speed, sustained speed, burst speed, for species of interest, such as steelhead and chinook salmon.

GPS technology will be employed to provide coordinates for each potential barrier. These data will be input to a GIS database in order to provide mapping and precise locations of potential barriers.

Data will be reviewed as part of the barrier analysis to help evaluate the historical frequency of occurrence of anadromous fish attaining access to Lake Chelan.

4.4 Limiting Factor Analysis Additional bypass reach potential limiting factors and considerations are:

Fishery Resources • Spawning, rearing, and growth habitat • Nutrient input and food production • Aquatic and terrestrial food-web interactions • Water quality • Immigration and emigration • Fish catchability • Angler use/demand • Angler access • Conduct literature review to project what species may be present in the bypass reach under constant flow conditions • Gravel recruitment/sediment load transport • Low pool frequency and residual pool depth

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page C-11 SS/2096_6 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

Benthic macroinvertebrate analysis will be conducted as part of the Limiting Factors Analysis to estimate benthic production that may occur in the bypass reach if water was present continuously. Sam- pling stations will be located in the Project tailrace. A modified Hess sampler (standard benthic sampler) will be used to conduct benthic sampling. Samples will be collected in July, prior to warm weather and warm water temperatures, and again in late August or early September as weather and water temperatures cool. Two different riffles will be sampled and 3 samples taken at each site, for a total of 6 samples. Benthic sampling will be conducted following standard EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP). Part of the RBP includes development of voucher collection, identified by certified taxonomist. Hess sampling will provide species composition and total abundance (# insects/sq. m) which exceeds the EPA RBP.

Drift sampling will also be conducted as part of the benthic analysis. Standard 500 um Nitex drift sam- plers will be deployed. Two different riffles will be sampled and 3 samples taken at each site, for a total of 6 samples. Drift sampling will accomplish two tasks: 1) it will identify food items that are available to fish; and 2) identify zooplankton species originating in Lake Chelan that are available to fish and benthic macroinvertebrates. Benthos and drift organisms will be identified to genus, except for Chironomids and non-insects taxa.

4.5 Other Considerations • Potential for people getting trapped during releases • Emergency access limited • Vandalism • Impact on power generation • Impact of minimum flows and project discharges on spawning and rearing habitat (measure spawning & rearing habitat in tailrace and validate preference curves).

Most of the physical limiting factors will be documented by the field team during the IFIM investigation. These include fishability, access and safety. Water quality monitoring will also be conducted in the bypass reach and tailrace area during the IFIM investigation. Standard water quality measurements will be taken, such as, water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), total dissolved gas (TDG), nutrient loading, etc. These data will assist in predicting benthic production, determining the fish bearing capabilities of the bypass reach under the various scenarios investigated, and addressing the issues identified above.

Additional issues identified during initial consultation (Appendix A) will be addressed during the course of the studies described previously, or in other studies associated with the Lake Chelan relicensing process. For example, fish use will be observed during this study when flow is provided in the bypass reach, but primarily during the Fish Stranding Investigation. Recreation, other than fishing, aesthetics, kayaking, and safety issues will also be addressed in the Chelan River Recreational Flow Study and Paddling Feasibility Study. Power impacts of various scenarios will be addressed in this and other studies, such as Columbia River Flow Augmentation and Lake Level Investigation.

SECTION 5: TASK LIST

Task 1 - Literature Review 1.1 Determine potential IFIM transects from aerial video of Section 4

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2096_6 Page C-12 July 16, 1999 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

1.2 Determine potential IFIM transects from aerial video of Sections 1 and 2 1.3 Determine potential barriers from aerial video of Section 3 1.4 Investigate water in the bypass reach as a benefit to terrestrial/wildlife habitat 1.5 Review early project photos

Task 2 - Physical Habitat Survey 2.1 Section 1: every 300 feet, or as needed. 2.2 Section 2, 3, and 4: every 100 feet, or as needed.

Task 3 – Transect Location Selection 3.1 Select IFIM transects in Section 4 3.2 Select IFIM transects in Sections 1 and 2 3.3 Select potential barriers in Section 3

Task 4 – Field Investigation 4.1 Section 4 IFIM 4.2 Section 1 and 2 representative reach analysis 4.3 Barrier analysis 4.4 Limiting factor analysis

Task 5 – Analysis 5.1 Section 4: PHABSIM 5.2 Sections 1 and 2 representative reach 5.3 Barriers 5.4 Limiting Factors

Task 6 – Interpretation of Results

Task 7 – Report

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

Analysis will include collection of field information necessary to determine potential limiting factors. This will include selecting critical cross-sections in Sections 1, 2, and 4, and providing field verification of flow/depth/velocity relationships. Analysis of data will be conducted to determine the potential of supporting anadromous species and resident species in the bypass reach. A hydraulic model has been developed to aid in the decision-making process. Modeling results will be used to determine other flow/depth/velocity relationships in all sections of bypass reach. Barrier analysis will be conducted to determine whether or not falls and cascades observed in Section 3, or other sections, are impassible to resident and anadromous fish. En- hancement potential of developing additional spawning substrate in the tailrace will be investigated. Im- pacts to power generation will be determined based on modeling and field investigation results. Reli-

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page C-13 SS/2096_6 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases censing group decisions regarding appropriate flow levels in the bypass reach will be made supported by factual information. All of the analyses and decisions made in conjunction with this study will be documented in a summary report after the first field season and final report prior to Chelan PUD sub- mitting a new license application to FERC.

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS

Chelan PUD will hire a consultant(s) to assist in conducting 1999 field investigations. Chelan PUD staff will oversee contracting and deliverable schedule for the selected consultant(s). Consultant(s) conducting field investigation in 1999 will be required to provide equipment and staff to conduct the contracted field investigations with minimal field support from the PUD. PUD involvement will be primarily in the form of study plan development and implementation, project oversight, providing input to the consultant(s) regarding decisions made by parties involved in the relicensing process, and promoting discussion among stakeholders regarding study results.

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE

Initiation of this study will begin during spring 1999, most likely between late May and July. The estimated number of days to complete tasks outlined in Section 5 are as follows:

Task 1 - Literature Review 2 days Task 2 – Physical Habitat Survey 2 days Task 2 - Transect Location Selection 1 day Task 3 - Field Investigation 5 days Task 4 - Analysis 2 weeks Task 5 - Interpretation of Results 2 weeks: collaboration required with relicensing stakeholders Task 6 – Report 60 days

SECTION 9: BUDGET

To be determined based on contractor selection.

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS

• Review draft detailed study plans in-house for completeness. • Send draft study plans to the fishery working group for review and comment. • Incorporate stakeholder comments into detailed study plans. • Select consultant to conduct 1999 field investigations.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2096_6 Page C-14 July 16, 1999 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

• Finalize contract with selected consultant, and have them prepare for 1999 field season. • Conduct 1999 field studies.

SECTION 11: REFERENCES

Bovee, K.D. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodol- ogy. Instream Flow Paper No. 12. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. FWS/OBS-82/26.

Caldwell, B.C. and D. Catterson. 1992. Methow River basin fish habitat analysis using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Report 92-82. Water Resources Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

DFW. 1996. Instream Flow Study Guidelines. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olym- pia, WA.

Milhous, R.T., M.A. Updike, and D.M. Schneider . 1989. Physical Habitat Simulation system reference manual – Version II. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 26. Biological Report 89(16). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Powers, P.D. and J.F. Orsborn. 1985. An investigation of the physical and biological conditions affecting fish passage success at culverts and waterfalls. Project No. 82-14. Bonneville Power Admini- stration, Portland, OR. Contract DE-A179-82BP36523.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page C-15 SS/2096_6 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

APPENDIX A

Issues To Be Addressed Issue Group Rank Issue addressed

Safety LARC 4/149 Indirect Potential for being trapped LARC 9/149 Indirect Impact on power generation LARC 28/149 Indirect Economics: must be economically viable to PUD LARC 31/149 Indirect Emergency access LARC 40/149 Indirect Costs associated with flows LARC 45/149 Indirect Impacts on parks LARC 46/149 Indirect Appropriate minimum flows LARC 67/149 Indirect Positive economic benefit LARC 75/149 Indirect Safety: steep walls LARC 76/149 Indirect Impact on erosion LARC 77/149 Indirect Safety: vehicle traffic LARC 87/149 Indirect Aesthetic flows LARC 94/149 Indirect Positive economic benefit LARC 110/149 Indirect Day-use hiking potential LARC 111/149 Indirect Vandalism, trash, graffiti LARC 114/149 Indirect Land ownership LARC 127/149 Indirect Scenic viewing LARC 130/149 Indirect Fishability LARC 131/149 Yes Safety/development LARC 132/149 Indirect Fishing potential LARC 139/149 Yes Wildlife maintenance viewing LARC 145/149 Indirect Development LARC 146/149 Indirect Potential for kayaking LARC 149/149 Indirect

Maintain Water Quality in tailrace: Spawning and Fish 25/119 Indirect incubation Maintain Water Quality in tailrace: Fish 32/119 Indirect Rearing (tailrace) - ESA: Anadromous Fish 33/119 Yes Maintain Water Quality in tailrace: And quantity Fish 37/119 Indirect Maintain Water Quality in tailrace: Resi- Fish 38/119 Yes dent/mergence Water quality - powerhouse releases Fish 41/119 Indirect Potential spawning area in lower bypass? Fish 55/119 Yes Bypass reach flows Fish 65/119 Yes Rearing (tailrace) – ESA: Resident Fish 69/119 Yes

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page C-17 SS/2096_6 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

Sediment transport Fish 71/119 Indirect Quality of potential habitat Fish 76/119 Indirect Sediment transport Fish 84/119 Indirect Supplementation of Columbia River Fish 100/119 Indirect Quality of potential habitat: Gravel recruitment Fish 102/119 Indirect

Flow impact on erosion Public 63/75 Indirect Must be economically viable to PUD Public 68/75 Indirect Trails in gorge Public 73/75 Indirect Economic benefit of recreation Public 74/75 Indirect

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2096_6 Page C-18 July 16, 1999 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

APPENDIX B

IFIM Field & Calibration Methods This section describes the proposed field and calibration methodologies for the Chelan River instream flow study. In developing this approach, careful consideration has been given to the physical, operational, logistical, and safety constraints pertinent to this study. The Physical Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM) will be used to model habitat versus flow relationships in the Sections 1, 2, and 4 of the Chelan River. PHABSIM, which is the hydraulic modeling and habitat analysis component of Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM), is a comprehensive set of microcomputer based models used to simulate habitat conditions in rivers and streams for various species and life stages of fish over a range of discharge conditions (Milhous 1979; Milhous et al. 1984). This methodology was developed and is currently supported by the Midcontinent Ecological Services Center (MESC) of the U.S. Geological Survey (formerly Instream Flow Group, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to analyze the effects of alternative discharge regimes on the quantity and quality of habitat available to fish in rivers and streams (Bo- vee 1982).

The components of the Chelan River instream flow study will include:

• Habitat Mapping – A Pedestrian survey of habitat conditions will be conducted in the bypass reach. The location and length of each habitat unit (e.g., pool, run, riffle) will be recorded.

• Transect Location Selection – The number and location of transects where field measurements will be obtained will be identified in cooperation with consulting agencies.

• Field Measurements – Velocity, depth, substrate type, and habitat cover will be recorded across each transect during four flow conditions. In addition, suitability curves will be validated measurements will be obtained for chinook salmon spawning in Section 4.

• Data Analysis – Instream flow hydraulic and habitat simulation models will be used to develop habitat versus flow relationships for a number of fish species and life stages within Sections 1, 2, and 4.

1.0 HABITAT MAPPING

The initial step in conducting a PHABSIM is to stratify a river or stream into sections based upon hydrology, channel form, gradient, and habitat conditions. The segmentation of the Chelan River into four sections by Chelan PUD is described in the Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases Study Plan.

There are two general approaches in PHABSIM studies which can be used for delineating habitat conditions within river section. The first is the representative reach approach, in which one or more subsec-

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page C-19 SS/2096_6 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases tions within a given section are selected for hydraulic and habitat simulation modeling purposes. The length of a representative reach generally increases with the size of the river studied, and range in size between about 100 ft for small streams to more the 1000 ft for large rivers. The number of representative reaches placed in a river section depends upon the length and habitat complexity of the section being studied. Transects are typically placed across the river at different habitat types present within each reach (e.g., pools, runs, riffles). Each transected is weighted according to the length of habitat it repre- sents to the next upstream transect. The main assumption of this approach is that the selected reach is representative of the hydraulic relationships and habitat conditions of the entire river section.

A second approach, “habitat mapping,” has become widely used in instream flow studies since the late 1980s. All habitat units in the entire section (i.e., individual pools, runs, and riffles) are first surveyed on foot and/or with aerial photographs, and the length of each habitat unit measured. The percent composition by length of each habitat type (e.g., pools) within the entire section is then calculated. The weighting of each transect used in the instream flow study is determined by the total amount of linear habitat represented within the section by the habitat type (e.g., pool) the transect crosses. For example, if riffles are found to represent 60 percent of the linear habitat in Section 1, then a single transect crossing a riffle would be given a weighting of 60 percent in the PHABSIM habitat simulation analysis for this section. If two transects are placed across riffles, then each transect would be given a weighting of 30 percent for the section (i.e., both transects would be provide a total weighting of 60 percent). The main advantage with the habitat mapping approach is that it results in habitat simulations which are applicable to the entire section.

R2 habitat map of the entire 4.1 mi bypass reach of the Chelan River. The length of each habitat unit will be measured using a hip-chain, and the position of the habitat unit determined using a hand-held geographic positioning system (GPS). We will obtain the habitat mapping data under low flow releases (25 cfs) provided by Chelan PUD for the purpose of this survey. The following types of data will be collected at each habitat unit during the habitat mapping survey:

• Location (Latitude and Longitude) – the location of the lower end of each habitat unit will be identified using a GPS instrument. Location data will be post-processed using base-station data to correct for GPS differential selectivity, thus improving the accuracy of the data.

• Habitat Type – each habitat unit will be placed into one of the following categories:

Ø Falls – a river section in which water falls over 5-ft in height; the location and height of potential barriers will be recorded during this survey;

Ø Cascade – river sections containing turbulent, broken surface flow of water over a steeply inclined streambed; water plunges from one point to another;

Ø Riffle – relatively shallow section containing uneven water surface elevation, turbulent flows and swift velocities; "white water" may be present;

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2096_6 Page C-20 July 16, 1999 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

Ø Run – area of relatively deep, flowing water with relatively smooth (unbroken) water surface;

Ø Pool – relatively deep area exhibiting relatively low velocities, smooth water surface; scour is evident (unit possesses retention depth at zero flow conditions);

Ø Island Complex – multiple or split channels existing at all or most flows.

• Length of Habitat Unit (ft) – the length of each habitat unit will be measured from the downstream to upstream end using a hip chain;

• Mean and Maximum Depth (ft) – the average water depth of each habitat unit will be visually estimated. The maximum depth of pools will also be estimated,

• Mean Velocity (ft/sec) – the average water velocity of each habitat unit will be estimated using a surface float.

• Wetted and Total Channel Width (ft) – the average wetted and total width of the river channel at each habitat unit will be measured using a rangefinder.

• Substrate Type – substrate composition will be visually characterized into dominant and subdominant substrates in the following categories: large boulders (> 3 ft diameter); boulders (1 ft to 3 ft diameter), cobbles (3.0-11.99 inch), coarse gravel (1.0-2.99 inch), fine gravel (0.25 - 0.99 inch), sand, silt, and organic matter. The location of gravels (e.g., channel margins) will be recorded during the survey.

• Presence of Fish – the presence, relative abundance, and species composition of fish will be visually assessed at each habitat unit.

Habitat conditions throughout the bypass reach will be photographed and videotaped during the pedestrian habitat surveys. The results of the habitat mapping surveys will serve two valuable purposes: 1) they will be used describe and document habitat conditions in the bypass reach; and 2) they will serve as the basis for transect weighting for PHABSIM habitat versus flow modeling.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page C-21 SS/2096_6 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

2.0 TRANSECT SELECTION

Candidate transect locations will initially be selected by R2 based upon the habitat mapping data collected in the bypass reach. Transects will be selected to represent all of the major habitat types present within each section (i.e., habitat types which collectively represent 10 percent or more of the total length of a section). Based upon the review of the habitat mapping surveys and aerial photographs, areas of the river which are determined to be impossible or unsafe to access will be eliminated from consideration during the transect selection process. The candidate transect locations will be flagged by R2, and then reviewed by consulting agencies in the field. Based upon their review, the agencies may recommended changing the locations of certain transects, or require additional transects, to better represent habitat conditions in the bypass reach. We are proposing to the following number of transects for each river section:

• Section 1 (lower gradient, wide channel; 2.29 mi long) - Six transects (2 riffles, 2 runs, and 2 pools) will be used to develop habitat versus flow relationships for this section for resident fish (e.g., rainbow trout) spawning and rearing.

• Section 2 (lower gradient, narrow channel; 0.75 mi long) - Three transects (1 riffle, 1 run, and 1 pool) will be used to develop habitat versus flow relationships for resident fish in this section.

• Section 3 (high gradient, narrow channel; 0.38 mi long) - Three transects (1 riffle, 1 run, and 1 pool) will be used to describe the basic hydraulic geometry of this section (i.e., width, depth, and average velocity versus flow relationships). PHABSIM will not be used due to the difficult access and hydraulic complexity of this high gradient section. Measurements will be limited to cross-sectional bed profiles under low flow conditions, and water surface elevations at various release flows.

• Section 4 (lower gradient, wide depositional channel; 0.49 mi long) - Eight transects (3 riffles, 3 runs, and 2 pools) will be employed to develop habitat versus flow relationships for spawning summer/fall chinook salmon in this reach.

The candidate transect locations will be marked on topographic maps and aerial photographs, and will also be delineated in the field using brightly colored flagging. Recommended modifications in the locations and numbers of transects by the agencies will be completed prior to the commencement of instream flow field measurements. The rationale for final transect selection will be documented in the instream flow study report.

3.0 FIELD MEASUREMENTS

The flows under which PHABSIM measurements would be obtained was originally stated to be 25, 50, 100 and 200 cfs in the Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases Study Plan. At the request of consulting agencies (WDOE, WDFW, NMFS), we have changed this to flows of 50, 100, 200, and 500 cfs. This follows the recommendation by WDFW that transect measurements at 50 cfs would be suitable for

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2096_6 Page C-22 July 16, 1999 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases modeling habitat at flows as low as 20 cfs (0.4 times lowest measured flow), while transect measurements at 500 cfs would allow the habitat simulation model to be extrapolated to flows as high as 1,250 cfs (2.5 times highest measured flow). Flows of 500 cfs may be difficult to measure in Section 2 due to relatively narrow width of this reach, and because access into this reach may be difficult or unsafe under this flow. If this proves to be the case, then velocities will be measured only to 200 cfs in Section 2 (water surface elevations would still be measured at 500 cfs using stage crest gages).

We also plan to obtain a set of water surface elevations at selected transects during high flow conditions (> 1000 cfs), which will occur in the bypass reach during spill conditions which will occur this year during the late spring and summer. These water surface elevations will be measured using an automatic level in accessible areas (Sections 1 and 4). For inaccessible areas (Sections 2 and 3), water surface elevations under high flows will be determined using stage crest gages (e.g., ribbon of toothpaste placed vertically on bedrock walls), and by videotaping water surface elevations where reference marks which have been painted and surveyed on bedrock walls. This additional data could be used to describe habitat conditions in the bypass reach under high flow conditions, and for estimating gravel transport potential under these conditions. These natural high flow events may be an important limiting factor to resident fish populations in the bypass reach (i.e., fish bearing capacity).

3.1 PHABSIM Data Collection (Sections 1,2, and 4)

The collection of physical and hydraulic measurements at each transect in Sections 1,2 and 4 will be completed following the procedures for PHABSIM studies outlined by Bovee and Milhous (1978), Bo- vee (1982), and Trihey and Wegner (1984). Field data will be collected by a field crew of 2 to 3 individuals (depending upon flow conditions) having expertise in PHABSIM field methods, as well as in hydraulic and habitat simulation modeling procedures.

The establishment of transects at each location will be completed as follows:

• Locations of Transects – Transect locations will be determined using a satellite based Global Positioning System (GPS). Transect positions be recorded and mapped in a field book and on a topographic map. Fluorescent survey flagging will be used to mark the position of each transect.

• Establishment of Site Benchmark – A permanent benchmark (BM) will be established at transect. All survey measurements within a site, including headpin and water surface elevations, will be referenced to this benchmark. The benchmark (rebar) will be placed above the floodplain of the river, and marked with a permanent aluminum tag.

• Installation of Head Pins – Head pins (wooden stakes or rebar) will be installed on the left side of the river at the end point of each transect. These head pins will serve as a vertical reference point for water surface and bed elevation measurements collected across the river channel. The head pin of each transect will be identified with a permanent aluminum tag.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page C-23 SS/2096_6 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

• Establishment of Working Pins - Working pins (wooden stakes, rebar, or star-bolt anchors) will be established on either bank of a transect. These working pins will be positioned in such a way that the line connecting these points would be perpendicular to the main flow of the river channel. A surveying tape or cable will be stretched across the river channel and connected to these points during the collection of instream flow data.

• Survey of Headpin Elevations and Completion of Level Loop – Following the installation of the head pins, a level loop survey was completed to establish head pin elevations. This elevation data will obtained using a Nikon 32x Automatic Level and stadia rod (0.01 ft accuracy). The level loop will be considered accurate if closed to within 0.02 ft of the BM elevation.

As specified earlier, transect measurements will be obtained under four different flow scenarios (regimes) in Sections 1, 2, and 4 of the Chelan River: 50 cfs, 100 cfs, 200 cfs, and 500 cfs. Water surface elevations will be measured at each transect under all four discharges. Velocity profiles will be obtained across each transect at the same tape positions under these flow conditions. This will allow us calculate habitat versus discharge relationships using the regression-based velocity calibration method recommended by WDFW (1996), as well as the single-velocity (i.e., Manning’s N) calibration method recommended by NERC. The following data will be recorded at each transect:

• Section and Transect Number;

• Habitat Type – classified as run, riffle, or pool;

• Sampling Date/Time/Investigators/Flow – information regarding when data will be collected, who collected the data, and under what flow conditions the data will also be collected;

• Water Surface Elevations (WSEs) – Measured to the nearest 0.01 ft. at three locations in the channel: left bank, center of channel, and right bank;

• Photographs and Videotaping – each transect will be photographed and videotaped under each of the four flow conditions.

Data will also be collected a set intervals across each transect. These intervals will be established so that the flow between any two intervals (cell) does not exceed 10 percent of the total flow in the channel. The following data will be collected at measurement points (verticals) across each transect:

• Bed Elevations (to nearest 0.01 ft) – measured during low flow conditions using an automatic level and stadia rod (note: bed elevations may be determined by subtracting depth measurements from the water surface elevation in pools);

• Water Depth (to nearest 0.1 ft) – depths will be measured using either a 4-ft or 6-ft top setting rod;

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2096_6 Page C-24 July 16, 1999 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

• Mean Column Water Velocity (to nearest 0.1 ft/sec) – measured using a Swoffer Model 2100 velocity meter; velocities will be measured at 6/10ths depth in the water column for depths less than 2.5 ft, and 2/10ths and 8/10ths depth in the water column for depths greater than 2.5 ft;

• Substrate (dominant and subdominant) – classified using WDFW’s standard substrate categories (bedrock, large boulders, small boulders, large cobbles, small cobbles, large gravels, medium gravels, coarse gravels, sand, silt, and organic matter).

• Cover – the presence of bank cover, object cover (e.g., overhanging boulders), and woody debris cover will be recorded at each vertical using WDFW’s cover code designations (WDFW 1996).

3.2 Stream Geometry Data Collection (Section 3 only)

The transect data gathered in Section 3 will be similar to that collected in Sections 1,2 and 4, except that no velocity profile data will be collected. Substrate and bed elevation data will only be collected during low flow (25 cfs) or zero flow conditions. Water surface elevation will be marked using rebar or paint at each of the three proposed transects in this section (alternatively, a crest gage may be used for this purpose). The elevation of these marks will be measured with an automatic level and survey rod following the completion of all flow tests. As stated earlier, this data will not be used for PHABSIM habitat simulation purposes. Rather, the data collected at these transects will be used to describe stream geometry relationships (width, depth, and average channel velocity versus discharge) in this steep, narrow section.

3.3 Suitability Curve Validation (Section 4 only)

The WDFW has developed a set of “fallback” suitability curves which will be applied to the Chelan River. We propose to conduct a validation study of these curves for spawning summer/fall chinook salmon in Section 4 of the Chelan River. Depth, mean column velocity, nose velocity, and substrate data will be collected at holding and spawning positions of summer/fall chinook salmon in the field. This data will be collected after observing the position of holding or spawning fish, and then obtaining habitat measurements at the exact locations where these fish were observed. Suitability data will be collected by wading or from a boat, depending upon local depth and velocity conditions.

Between 150 and 200 observations are typically required for the development of “stand alone” suitability curves for river or stream (Bovee 1988). However, fewer numbers of observations can be valuable for validating suitability curves proposed for application to a river or stream. We propose to collect between 20 and 50 observations of summer/fall chinook salmon in the tailrace reach of Section 4 for validation purposes, depending upon the density of spawning fish. This number of observation is usually sufficient for validating purposes. More observations can be collected if densities of fish are high during the survey period. Suitability data will be conducted during the October spawning period of these fish (Chelan PUD 1998). The WDFW curves will be compared to the site-specific data collected in tailrace region of the Chelan River. The WDFW “fall back” curves will be modified using this site-

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page C-25 SS/2096_6 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases specific data, if necessary, in a suitability curve review meeting which will be conducted with WDFW, WDOE, and NMFS instream flow specialists.

4.0 DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 PHABSIM Modeling of Sections 1,2 and 4

Because many of the modeling procedures and options within PHABSIM can influence the habitat:flow relationships, it is important that all phases of the instream flow study be closely coordinated with state and federal resource agencies. A hydraulic calibration meeting will be conducted with these agencies following initial calibration of the model by R2. We will provide copies of all input and output files, as well as the hydraulic calibration worksheets recommended by WDFW (1996), for agency review prior to this meeting. The final hydraulic calibration procedures and options for the Chelan River will be developed in conjunction with agency instream flow specialists.

Hydraulic Modeling

Hydraulic and habitat simulation modeling will be conducted using PHABSIM Version II computer software (Milhous et al. 1989). Hydraulic simulations modeling will include the following steps:

• Raw field data will be entered into Excel spreadsheets, and then reviewed for data entry errors. Data entry errors will be identified, noted in a copy of the field notebook, and corrected. These computer spreadsheets will then be used to generate hydraulic data input files for the PHABSIM hydraulic simulation program IFG4. IFG4 format files will be generated from the spreadsheet data files using the program I4TEXT.

• The IFG4 data files will then be checked for any errors and erroneous field measurements using the REVI4 and CKI4 computer programs.

• Stage-discharge relationships will be developed using several different hydraulic simulation procedures, depending upon the hydraulic characteristics of individual transects. An initial stage-discharge calibration will conducted using the PHABSIM programs IFG4 and REVI4. Depending upon the hydraulic characteristics of a given transect, a stage-discharge relationships will be developed using one of three methods: a log-log regression method (rating curve developed using the program STGQS4), a channel geometry and roughness method (rating curve developed using the Manning’s Equation based program MANSQ), or a step-backwater method (rating curve developed using the program WSP or HEC-2).

• Velocities across each transect were then calibrated to provide a realistic distribution of mean column velocities across the river channel for the entire range of flows employed in habitat simulations. WDFW recommends the use of a regression-based velocity calibration method for PHABSIM studies conducted in Washington (WDFW 1996).

• Finally, the IFG4 hydraulic simulation model was used to predict wetted width, velocity, depth, substrate, and habitat cover conditions occurring at each transect for flows ranging from 20 cfs to 1,250 cfs (i.e., the extrapolation range for the proposed set of test release discharges).

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2096_6 Page C-26 July 16, 1999 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

Habitat Suitability Curves

Habitat suitability index (HSI) curves reflect species and life stage use and preference for selected habitat parameters, including depth, velocity, and substrate (cover is also used in some models); (Bovee 1982). WDFW “fallback” HSI curves will be applied to resident fish species (rainbow trout, cutthroat trout) in the Sections 1, 2, and 4 of the Chelan River. HSI curves for spawning summer/fall chinook salmon in Section 4 will be developed from existing curves in nearby drainages (e.g., Wenatchee River data), and from site specific suitability data obtained from the suitability curve validation study, which will be conducted downstream of the powerhouse during the October spawning period of summer/fall chinook salmon. These suitability curve set will be compared to the fallback curves developed by WDFW (note: these curves are likely a composite of suitability data gathered from various streams and rivers in Washington). The final curve set for spawning chinook salmon developed in cooperation with agency instream flow specialists, and will need to be approved by the agencies prior to their use in habitat simulation modeling.

Habitat Simulation Modeling

Output from the hydraulic simulation modeling will be used in conjunction with final HSI criteria to simulate habitat conditions for each target species and life stage over a wide range of flows (20 to 1,200 cfs) in Sections 1, 2, and 4. Habitat simulations will be conducted using the HABTAV habitat simulation modeling program. HABTAV uses velocities obtained directly from the hydraulic model (IFG4) output files for habitat area calculations (Milhous et al. 1989). This differs from the HABTAT model (i.e., a program commonly used for simulation modeling), which averages velocity values between adjacent verticals for use in habitat area calculations. Because HABTAT averages adjacent velocities, it sometimes does not realistically portray velocity distributions in boulder dominated streams where velocities among adjacent verticals are highly variable.

Habitat simulations will be conducted using possible methods: 1) the multiple velocity-set regression approach, which is a method often recommended by WDFW; or 2) the multiple “single-velocity set” approach (i.e., Manning's “n” method), which is the most commonly used method since the early 1990s. We will collect transect data which can employed by both approaches, since either may be recommended by the consulting agencies during their review process.

Weighted usable area (WUA) habitat versus discharge curves will be calculated for each target fish species and life stage for all transects in Sections 1, 2, and 4. WUA is a habitat index which combines the quantity and quality of that habitat provided by alternative flows. WUA is expressed in units of square feet of habitat area per 1,000 linear ft of stream (sq.-ft per 1,000 ft); (Bovee 1982, Milhous et al. 1989). The WUA versus habitat curves for each site will then used to calculate the total habitat area (HA) for each section (see Bovee 1982). HA is used to express the total habitat area provided by a specified flow for a given river or section, and is typically expressed in square feet, acres, or hectares. HA combines the amount of WUA provided among the different instream flow transects, sites, or representative reaches present in a river section. The WUA values for each transect will be weighted ac-

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page C-27 SS/2096_6 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases cording to the total length of habitat represented by the habitat type which that transect intercepts. As described previously, the habitat weightings applied to each transect will be based upon the results of the habitat mapping surveys.

4.2 Stream Geometry Analysis of Section 3

Bed elevation and water surface elevation measurements obtained at the three transects in Section 3 will be used to develop graphs portraying the wetted width, average channel depth, and average channel velocity under each of the four flow releases. A log-log regression will be used to fit a curve to each of these data points. These curves will the be used to describe the width:discharge, depth:dischage, and velocity:discharge relationships in Section 3.

5.0 LITERATURE CITED

Bovee, K.D., and R. Milhous. 1978. Hydraulic simulation in instream flow studies: theory and techniques. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-78/33. 130 p.

Bovee, K.D. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 12. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-82/26. 248 p.

Bovee, K.D. 1986. Development and evaluation of habitat suitability criteria for use in the instream flow incremental methodology. Instream flow information paper no. 21. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program. Biological Report 86(7).

Milhous, R.T., T. Wegner, and T. Waddle. 1984. User’s guide to the Physical Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM). Instream flow information paper no. 11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program. Revision FWS/OBS-81/43.

Milhous, R.T., M.A. Updike, and D.M. Schneider. 1989. Computer reference manual for the Physical Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM) - Version II. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center. Fort Collins, Colorado.

Trihey, E.W., and D.L. Wegner. 1981. Field data collection procedures for use with the Physical Habitat Simulation System of the Instream Flow Group. Cooperative Instream Flow Group. Fort Collins, Colorado. Rev. 1983.

WDFW. 1996. Instream flow study guidelines, State of Washington resource agencies (Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Department of Ecology). Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Olym- pia.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2096_6 Page C-28 July 16, 1999 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

APPENDIX C

Barrier Analysis Method This section describes the proposed field and calibration methodologies for the Chelan River barrier analysis study. In developing this approach, careful consideration has been given to the physical, operational, logistical, and safety constraints.

We will initially use three criteria for use in evaluating and selecting potential barriers which will be examined using detailed field measurements. These criteria include: 1) vertical drop - where estimates of the vertical change in water surface elevation exceed five or six feet; 2) launch condition - optimal leaping conditions are created where launch location is directly beneath the obstacle; and 3) presence of standing wave - provides upward current for greater vertical leap.

We will generally follow the passage barrier analysis methods described by Powers and Orsborn (1985) to evaluate the feasibility of adult anadromous fish passage through Section 3 of the bypass reach. To make a determination of passage potential, the physical configuration of each passage structure/feature will be evaluated in three views: upstream-downstream vertical profile, from above in plan view, and in cross-section (across the stream). Data obtained from the three views will then be combined with stream hydrology and hydraulic characteristics and compared with calculated or known fish leaping (Reiser and Peacock 1985) and swimming capabilities (Bell 1986) to determine the likeli- hood of fish passage over the feature

Potential Barrier Documentation

At each of the detailed sites, the following information shall be collected and recorded:

• Barrier location - barrier site location coordinates will be determined using a GPS. Location coordinates will be compatible with GIS database systems for precise location mapping.

• Photographs and videotaping - both panoramic and close view photographs and videotaping will be taken of potential barrier locations, and will include unique features, upstream and downstream views, dominant flow patterns, etc.

Survey Measurements and Calculations

Bed elevation surveying will occur when the bypass reach channel is dry (i.e., prior to controlled flow releases scheduled for the late spring / early summer of 1999). Water surface elevations of plunge pools located below potential barriers will also be measured during controlled flow releases of 50, 100, 200, and 500 cfs (see Appendix B for details). Stream geometry transects placed in Section 3 (see Ap- pendix B) will be used to calculate velocities over a range of flow conditions (20 through 1,200 cfs).

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page C-29 SS/2096_6 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

Surveying of each of the potential barrier shall include the following measurements:

• Longitudinal profile - the longitudinal profile of the feature will be surveyed from upstream of falls crest to a point downstream of the standing wave; all elevation changes greater than one half foot along the profile line will be measured;

• Barrier Crest - the minimum depth at the barrier crest will be measured; crest depth must be equal or greater than the depth of the fish;

• Horizontal distance - the horizontal distance will be measured from the launch site to the barrier crest;

• Launch angle - the angle formed between the launch site and the barrier crest will be measured or estimated; and

• Water surface elevation - differences in water surface elevations will be determined between the plunge pool and falls crest at all major drop points;

• Plunge pool depth - the maximum, unobstructed depth of the sour pool located at the terminus of the falls;

All survey measurements of the stream channel will be acquired using a total station instrument to ensure data accuracy and reduce data collection time. Field data, site sketches, incidental observations, and barrier descriptions will be recorded and stored in waterproof data books.

Data Analysis The determination of fish passage success at natural barriers requires a through understanding of stream hydraulic conditions, channel morphology, and fish capabilities. Once this is achieved, an assessment of potential passage problems which may occur at a barrier can be determined by comparing the physical and hydraulic characteristics at the site with the upper limits of salmonid swimming and leaping capabilities. Analysis procedures described in Powers and Orsborn (1985) provide a detailed, systematic analysis of falls and other types of natural and man-made passage barriers.

Fish passage criteria including minimum plunge pool depth, landing area depth, leaping curves, and maximum burst speed (Stuart 1964; Powers and Orsborn 1985; Bell 1990) will be compared to the hydraulic conditions predicted at each barrier over a range of flow conditions (20 cfs to 1,200 cfs) to determine fish passage potential. The timing of flows, and the timing and duration of the fish migration will be factored into this analysis to determine if “passage windows” exist within certain ranges of flows (i.e., flow which provide sufficient plunge pool depths for leaping, and velocities that do not exceed maximum burst speeds). Each potential barrier will be categorized in terms of its ability to impede the upstream passage of key anadromous and resident fish species.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2096_6 Page C-30 July 16, 1999 Bypass Reach (Gorge) Flow Releases

The location of each surveyed barrier will be mapped. The physical location of each surveyed barrier and its corresponding passage potential will be provided on a GIS map. This will allow for a reach scale perspective of the relationship of each barrier to one another, and will be useful in considering potential cumulative impacts of sequential falls and cascades on fish passage.

Literature Cited

Bell, M. 1990. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program, Army Corps of Engineers. North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon.

Powers, P.D., and J.F. Orsborn. 1985. Analysis of barriers to upstream fish migration. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration by Albrock Hydraulics Laboratory. Contract DE-A179- 82BP36523, Project No. 82-14. August 1985. 120 pp.

Reiser D.W. and R. T. Peacock. 1985. A technique for assessing upstream passage problems at small scale hydropower developments. pages 423-432 In Olson, F., and R.G. White, and R.H. Hamre. Proceedings of the Symposium on Small Hydropower and Fisheries. American Fish- eries Society Special Publication.

Stuart, T.A. 1964. The leaping behaviour of salmon and trout at falls and obstructions. Dept. of Agri- culture and Fisheries for Scotland, Endinburgh. 46 p.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page C-31 SS/2096_6 FISHERY INVESTIGATION STUDY PLAN

Final

LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 637

July 16, 1999

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Wenatchee, Washington Fishery Investigation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...... D-1 1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project...... D-1 1.2 General Description of the Relicensing Process ...... D-2 1.3 Need Statement ...... D-3

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL...... D-7

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA...... D-7

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY ...... D-7 4.1 Tributary Inspection...... D-7 4.2 Salmonid Investigations ...... D-9 4.3 Creel Survey...... D-9 4.4 Limnological Surveys...... D-13 4.5 Benthic Macroinvertebrates...... D-13 4.6 Littoral Zone Investigation...... D-13 4.7 Data Assessment...... D-14

SECTION 5: TASK LIST...... D-15

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING...... D-16

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS...... D-17

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE...... D-17

SECTION 9: BUDGET...... D-17

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS...... D-17

SECTION 11: REFERENCES ...... D-18

APPENDIX A...... D-19 Issues To Be Addressed ...... D-19

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure D-1: Bypass Reach Location Map...... D-5 Figure D-2: Lake Chelan & Tributaries...... D-11

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page D-i SS/2124_6 Fishery Investigation

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project Lake Chelan is located in Chelan County in north central Washington. Lake Chelan is bordered to the south by the Entiat and Chelan Mountains and Glacier Peak complex. To the north it is bordered by the Sawtooth Mountain Range. From Twentyfive Mile Creek uplake, the terrain is mountainous and rugged. In many cases, the steep slopes run directly into the lake with no flat beaches or shoreline. The terrain of the lower end of the lake is much less severe, mainly arid or semi-arid. Except where irrigation has taken place, the hills of the lower end of the lake are barren with brown grasses and a few scattered pines.

Lake Chelan is deep and narrow, extending northwesterly approximately 50 miles from the City of Chelan at its lower end to Stehekin at the head of the lake. Lake Chelan is a natural lake that developed within a broad glacial trough. The lake averages 1 mile in width, and has depths of over 1,480 feet. Lake Chelan is bordered by more than 2 million acres of National Forest Lands, more than half of which are designated as wilderness. Surrounding peaks reach elevations as high as 7,000 feet. The lake serves as a waterway approach to the Forest Service’s Wenatchee National Forest above Twenty Five Mile Creek, and to the National Park Service’s Lake Chelan National Recreation Area at Stehekin. The lower 15 miles of the lake are mostly privately owned, the next 35 are within the Wenatchee Na- tional Forest, and the upper 5 miles are within the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.

The average surface area of the lake is 32,000 acres. The drainage area of the project at the dam is 924 square miles. The confluence of the Chelan River and Columbia River is approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the City of Chelan. The lake level and flow through the Chelan River drainage were altered through the construction of a hydroelectric project in the river channel near the City of Chelan in 1928.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page D-1 SS/2124_6 Fishery Investigation

The 4.1-mile long bypass reach (Chelan River or Gorge) is comprised of four distinct sections (Figure D-1). The 2.29-mile long upper section, Section 1, of the bypass reach below the dam is characterized by a relatively wide flood plain, low gradient, 55 ft/mile, and substrate comprised mainly of large cobble and boulders. Some spawning sized gravel is contained along the margins of the channel, deposited in these areas during high flow events during spring runoff.

Section 3 of the bypass reach, referred to as the gorge area, is 0.38-mile long. The canyon walls are very steep and narrow. The gradient of the channel is very steep, 480 ft/mile. The stream channel is characterized by waterfalls, ranging from 5 to 20 feet high, numerous cascades, bedrock chutes, and large, very deep pools. The substrate is very large, with some boulders exceeding 20 feet in diameter.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2124_6 Page D-2 July 16, 1999 Fishery Investigation agency consensus, and public involvement. The process to obtain a new license has changed considerably since the existing license was issued in 1981, primarily due to changes made to the Federal Power Act (FPA) as amended by the Electric Consumers Power Act (ECPA) in 1986. ECPA mandates that the FERC give equal consideration to the enhancement of existing environmental, recreation, fish, and wildlife resources, and to balance what are often competing uses of the water resources. ECPA also empowers the FERC to consider whether or not a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans.

1.3 Need Statement Informational needs identified by the Lake Chelan relicensing stakeholders include: 1) the effects of project operations on the native fish and the lake sport fishery, as well as the effect of lake level fluctuations on spawning and incubation and rearing of native fish and salmonids in the fluctuation zone; and 2) the contribution of hatchery-planted cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, lake trout, landlocked chinook salmon and kokanee to the Lake Chelan sportfishery and natural production in Lake Chelan tributaries. The effect of hatchery releases of cutthroat trout will also be addressed, given the proposed listing of westslope cutthroat trout under the Endangered Species Act. 3) Effects of continuing hatchery plants on native stocks (eg., cutthroat trout and bull trout 4) Additional informational needs are investigating the potential of using hatchery stocks to re-introduce native fish to areas previously inhabited (e.g., bull trout), and/or areas of enhanced habitat. Study results will be used by the Fishery Workgroup to make sound, informed management decisions regarding the future of Lake Chelan fishery resources.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page D-3 SS/2124_6 132 0 0 13 0 132 8 60 4 CHELAN 1 1 1 1 1240 3 1 2 5 0 6 1 4 2

4 4 4 0

0 0 # 0

0 0 8 1 LAKE CHELAN 4 4

4 1 0

97A 0 0

1 /( 6

6 1

4 0 0 6

1 12 0 12 4 2 8 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 1 0

0 0 2 6 1 5 0

0 1 6 DAM 8 9 2 0

1 0 0 1 240 80 Ü 0 0 1 Ê 10 8 0 SECTION 1 4 8 1320 1 0 4 8

150 0 Æ# 2 0 1 3 6 0

4 P 4 1 1 8

0 R 1 8 R

O E J

E V 80 I

14 C 0 C

T R

4 1 0 2 H 8

1 2 0

B 0 E 0

2 0

L O

0 1 4 A 8 1 0

1 U 0 N 840 0 1

0 N 8 8 1 D P 0

2 1680 R T A A U 11 9 I 1720 O N R 60

J N Y B E E R C I L V M 0 1 T E /(97 6 1 R 0 U 7 6 B 0 1920 2 O B 7 L U Y N G P O 0 D A 184 O S C A R S R G 960 E 0 Y 6 R 0 9 R 0 1 E 6 O A 2 1 C 7 A H 1 D 2160

0 8 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 8 0 2 3 8 2 2 6 2 4 1 1 1 1 0 1

1 0 5 0 0 24 9 2 2 6 0 5 0 6 1

2 0 4 0 0 2 6 2 1 0 9 600 8 Ü 1 4 8 0 8 0 1 SECTION 2 0 2 0 3 8 7 0 2 0 1 1 2 8 4 8 0 7 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 1 8 0 0 6 0

8 4 2 4 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 8 1 0 0 2 4 6 6 3 5 0 1 9 1 0 0 SHEET 1 2 1 6 8 3 9 0 1 SECTION 3 2 2 0

3 9 6 0 2

0 6

4 8 08 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 6 3 Ü (GORGE) 9 2 1 BYPASS REACH LOCATION MAP8 0 0 0 0 40 6 0 6 16 10 5 8 1 3 1 8 2 LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 1 2 2

0 0 2 2

0 1 8 6 3 0 0

FERC PROJECT NO. 637 0 0 3 2 8 3 0 3 0

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL

The study goals of the Fishery Investigation are to: 1) evaluate the effect of project operations/lake level fluctuations on alluvial fan (drawdown zone) and tributary-spawning fish, and the lake sport fishery; 2) evaluate the efficacy of the kokanee and cutthroat and rainbow trout stocking/hatchery programs in terms of contribution to Lake Chelan spawning populations of these species; 3) determine the impact of the salmonid stocking program on lake sport fishery/native species; 4) update the data contained in Brown (1984) regarding Mysis shrimp and zooplankton densities; and 5) determine the potential use or modification of rearing facilities to supplement existing populations or with reintroduction of fish into restored and/or existing habitat.

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA

The study area encompasses the project boundary, which extends along the 1,100-foot contour line from the upper end of Lake Chelan near Stehekin to the City of Chelan. The area above the 1,100- foot contour line up to the first impassible barrier (or ¼ mile, whichever comes first) in each tributary will be included in this investigation. The project boundary continues down both sides of the bypass reach to the confluence of the Chelan and Columbia rivers. The focus of this investigation is fishery resources inhabiting Lake Chelan and tributaries.

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY

4.1 Tributary Inspection In order to evaluate project operations/lake level fluctuations on tributary-spawning fish and native, tributary inspections will be conducted in late-April 1999 when the lake reaches its lowest annual elevation. Stream characteristics in the drawdown zone will be documented for the following tributaries to Lake Chelan (Figure D-2):

Safety Harbor Creek First Creek Gold Creek Twenty five Mile Creek Mitchell Creek Grade Creek Prince Creek Fish Creek Railroad Creek

Chelan PUD has conducted kokanee spawning surveys since 1982 in these tributaries. Based on the results of these surveys, the PUD has determined that a majority of the natural production in Lake Chelan occurs in these tributaries other than the Stehekin River system. In addition, Brown (1984) determined that these nine creeks provided most of the habitat available for kokanee and trout and that 85% of the trout observed in the tributaries to Lake Chelan were captured in these nine creeks.

Additional tributaries that may be inspected are Deep Harbor and Graham Harbor Creeks.

Seasonal drawn down allows the formation of alluvial fans or deltas created from sediment carried down the streams. The alluvial fans may have suitable substrate for spawning and may be utilized by

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page D-7 SS/2124_6 Fishery Investigation rainbow and cutthroat trout that are spring spawners. When the lake level rises, redds in the alluvial fan may be flooded and the fish eggs killed. The alluvial associated with these tributaries will be surveyed during the maximum drawdown period in April 1999. Surveys of the tributaries 1/4 mile upstream of the normal operating pool level will be conducted in the spring of 1999 after the survey of the alluvial fan has been conducted. Objectives of these surveys are to:

1. Identify potential barriers to upstream passage for salmonids (spring spawners in particular - rainbow and cutthroat trout), and other native fish. 2. Identify spawning habitat in the alluvial fan/littoral zone. 3. Record observations of the presence or absence of spawning redds in the alluvial fan. 4. Document large woody debris in alluvial fan and littoral zone. 5. Quantify suitable spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids 6. Quantify physical stream channel attributes. 7. Quantify relative species abundance and utilization of study streams. 8. Species of interest: landlocked chinook, kokanee, rainbow, cutthroat, bull and lake trout and native fishes. 9. Record incidental observation of spawning salmonids (species, size, number, location).

Washington Department of Natural Resources, Forest Practices Board criteria for fish barriers will be used to determine upstream fish passage barriers. These criteria include: Falls greater than 12 feet I. Steepened channels with gradient greater than 16% lacking step-pool cascades. II. Electrofishing will be conducted upstream of potential barriers to verify absence of fish.

Rosgen’s Level III Stream Assessment protocol (1996) will be used to characterize the tributaries and alluvial fan. The following data will be collected: Habitat type with length, width, depth, LWD meander length, and sinuosity will be measured along the entire study reach. At 500-meter intervals, width, depth of wetted channel and bankfull channel will be measured, with substrate, Wolman pebble count, channel stability, and erosion potential. Photos will be taken to document each station in the study reach. Char- acterization of LWD and other habitat types will follow satndard USFS methodology.

In stream reaches where spawning activity is not identified, electrofishing will be conducted to identify species and life-stage utilization per NMFS electrofishing guidelines. Length, weight, lifestage, species, condition will be recorded and a scale sample will be collected to determine the origin of fish (hatchery or naturally reproduce with lock nets). Electrofishing will be non-random. Best available habitat will be targeted and a two-pass methodology will be utilized. Qualitative observations of both game and non- game fish utilization at the creek mouths and along the alluvial fans will be made by snorkeling. A literature review of life history requirements of non-game native fish will be conducted as well. Electrofishing along the alluvial fan will provide positive identification of fish observed by snorkeling. Snorkeling will be conducted in April (when lake levels are low) as well as in July and late September in the vicinity of the alluvial fans of the nine target tributaries as well as near the mouth of the Stehekin River.

The impact of project operation on benthic macroinvertebrates and the lake fluctuation zone will also be examined. This will be accomplished by conducting a literature review.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2124_6 Page D-8 July 16, 1999 Fishery Investigation

4.2 Salmonid Investigations One of the goals of the Fisheries Investigations is to determine the efficacy of the kokanee and cutthroat and rainbow trout stocking/hatchery programs in terms of contribution to Lake Chelan spawning populations of these species. During the Tributary Assessments (See Section 4.1), CCPUD will conduct electroshocking surveys to identify species and life-stage utilization of the tributaries. The Fisheries Workgroup for census data collection will select a reach in each tributary with similar characteristics to the reaches surveyed by Brown (1984).

As mentioned above, species, life stage, length, weight and condition of captured fish will be recorded. Scale samples will be taken from all salmonids captured to determine the origin of the fish (hatchery or naturally-produced). In addition, a fin clip will be taken of 50 cutthroat trout from each tributary captured during the surveys and from the creel survey. Genetic analysis will be conducted on all samples to determine whether the fish was of wild or hatchery origin. However, re-evaluation of this need may occur following scale analyses.

Westslope cutthroat trout, which are native to Lake Chelan, are currently under status review under the Endangered Species Act. Hatchery-origin rainbow trout and cutthroat trout from a variety of stocks have been planted in Lake Chelan and tributaries; however, the impact of these hatchery of hatchery fish to the native westslope cutthroat trout populations is unknown. In addition to the collection of fin clips and scales (see previous paragraph and Section 4.3), Chelan PUD will conduct a review of current literature and information on the “native” westslope cutthroat trout of the Lake Chelan drainage and the current classification of the Twin Lakes stock. Chelan PUD will also collect baseline genetic information on the Twin Lakes stock to compare with westslope cutthroat trout populations found in the tributaries and the creel. Genetic analysis will be conducted in consultation with the National Park Service, which is conducting genetic analysis on Stehekin River stocks, for consistency in methods.

4.3 Creel Survey In order to determine the impact of the salmonid stocking program on lake sport fishery, CCPUD will conduct creel surveys during 1999. Creel survey methods will be implemented per Hagen (1997). Sampling will be conducted on Lake Chelan, with a primary focus on the Wapato Basin area because previous studies indicate that the majority of sportfishing occurs in this area of Lake Chelan during spring and summer months (Brown 1984: Fielder 1985, 1986). More recent investigations, however, have suggested that increasing angler effort is being expended in the northern part of the lake; therefore, uplake surveys will be conducted on at least ten occasions during the sampling period. Catch data will be compiled for the following species: rainbow, cutthroat, and lake trout, kokanee, landlocked chinook salmon, smallmouth bass, and burbot. Although there have been no records of bull trout being caught in the lake for several decades, particular attention will be paid as to whether or not a specimen turns up during the course of the survey. Additional data will be collected on any other species retained or caught by sport fishermen.

The proposed roving creel survey protocol will use methods consistent with previous investigations for comparison with other baseline information (Hagen 1997; Brown 1984; Fielder 1985, 1986). Surveys will be initiated from selected locations, such as the boat launches at Old Mill Park near Manson or Riverwalk Park in Chelan, and begin in either clockwise or counter-clockwise direction, chosen randomly on each day, throughout the survey area. Survey personnel will interview occupants of every fishing boat en-

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page D-9 SS/2124_6 Fishery Investigation countered. Shore anglers will be interviewed when observed fishing from the main public access areas at the Manson boat launch and Riverwalk Park.

The following information will be included in the Creel Census Form:

1. Date of interview. Indication of weekday, weekend, holiday 2. Number of anglers boat-fishing, by adult/juvenile 3. Number of anglers bank-fishing, by adult/juvenile 4. Catch by species; release by species 5. Number of hours fished by each angler 6. Location of catch (Wapato/Stehekin Basin; related to closest tributary, if possible). 7. Fish sampling to include: fork length; weight (if not dressed); fin erosion (if present); sex (if possible) 8. Angler preference 9. Number of fish consumed annually.

In addition, scales samples, if allowed by the angler, will be collected for each species. Otoliths, rather than scales, will be collected from burbot, if allowed by the angler. Scale analysis using the proper methodology (Marcogliese and Casselman 1998) will provide distinction between hatchery origin and wild origin fish. A fin clip will also be taken from 50 cutthroat trout sampled in the creel surveys and will be preserved for genetic analysis at a later date. Genetic analysis will be conducted on all samples to determine whether the fish was of wild or hatchery origin. Biological data will also be collected for bass and sex/maturity for Lake trout.

Creel sampling will be conducted two to three days per week, including at least one weekday and one weekend day, including holiday weekends, from mid-late April through the beginning of October. Previous Lake Chelan creel surveys have shown angler effort to be typically greater on weekends (Brown 1984). Sampling will be stratified between upper and lower lake, and weekends and week- days; 80 percent of the sampling effort will concentrate in the lower area between April and June 15. Sampling effort will be split between the upper and lower lake (50 percent in the upper, 50 percent in the lower from June 15 to the end of the season.) The level of effort in any one area will be adjusted according to field observation. Sampling days each week will vary from week to week to ensure greater precision of catch estimates. At total of 60 surveys will be conducted.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2124_6 Page D-10 July 16, 1999 Stehekin ± River STEHEKIN k ree # le C k rp k e Pu ee e Cr r zard C Ha k re e o re v C e ek le D ile Cre urmi Onem Fo reek tle C Flick Creek Cas ek n Cre nyo k Ca e H re k un e ts C re C ek le Cre d ish id F R rine olve Creek

Wreek

C w o

k e k e C re n e

C o t . k e d L a r mi o e r a e C

r r C y G t P e C tl t in m r. it a o k a C L o P r e h r a o G o e r b k o b r G r e g r a e i N C H r r a C o B t k b r. H e e e r in k g a C e d id o y r e H r. t e a R r r p P e C k

e C f C

e e k y a ls G

D b l e b t e e

o S a o r e k

e l N F y r t e L o C t

Corra A C C e l Cr e L ek K r

E s k

k C a

e e n e m re r o

a e C

C s

k i C ig d ld e o B a o e C r P r H G n E G C L l o l A i y N t n k S a e C re x C o k ll B e e re h tc C i k M Cree e tilon il An M ive SHEET 1 ntyf Twe LAKE CHELAN & TRIBUTARIES

p v V CHELAN WATERSHED BOUNDARY v I p C a h R n e K la n STREAMS R iv N ak Canyon e v WATER QUALITY MONITORING Daybre r STATIONS

5 0 5 IA MB LU Miles CO 1:335,000 SCALE Fishery Investigation

4.4 Limnological Surveys Limnological surveys will be conducted per Brown (1984) to obtain and update data on Mysis relicata and zooplankton. Mysids will be collected once per month from April through October at Station 5 (Yacht club). Sampling will be conducted three times, 2100 hrs., 2400 hrs., and 0300 hrs., using a one-half meter tow net hauled vertically from a depth of 45.7 meters (150 feet) to determine Mysis density in the water column (Brown 1984). Sampling will be conducted during the dark or new phase of the moon. Mysids and large zooplankters will be preserved in 5% buffered formalin for later identification. A total of 24 samples will be collected during Mysis sampling

Zooplankton sampling will be conducted monthly from April through October at four stations (1, 3, 5, 7) described in Brown (1984), Figure 3. One vertical haul will be taken using a standard No. 10 plankton tow net from a depth of 45.7 meters (150 feet) during daylight hours. Zooplankton samples will be preserved for later identification. A total of 24 samples will be collected during zooplankton sampling.

In addition, the role of large woody debris in ultra-oligotrophic lakes will be reviewed in the literature.

4.5 Benthic Macroinvertebrates Evaluate the impact of project operation on benthic macroinvertebrate production in fluctuation zone. This will be accomplished by conducting a literature review.

4.6 Littoral Zone Investigation

Introduction During his comment to the Draft Fisheries Investigations on February 14, 1999, Mr. Art Viola of WDFW requested a littoral zone analysis of Lake Chelan for the Chelan Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 637). The intent of the analysis is to determine the percentage of the Lake Chelan shoreline that is productive littoral area.

The littoral region is an interface zone between the land of the drainage basin and the open water of lakes. The littoral zone is comprised of several distinct transitional zones form the shoreline to the pe- lagic waters of the lake (from Wetzel 1983):

The eulittoral zone encompasses that shoreline region between the highest and the lowest seasonal water levels, and is often influenced by the disturbances of breaking waves.

The infralittoral zone is subdivided into three zones in relation to the commonly observed distribution of macrophytic vegetation:

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page D-13 SS/2124_6 Fishery Investigation

1. The upper infralittoral or zone of emergent rooted vegetation; 2. The middle infralittoral or zone of floating-leaved rooted vegetation; and 3. The lower infralittoral or zone of submersed rooted or adnate macrophytes.

Methods Lake Chelan is in a fiord-like setting, with much of the shoreline consisting of steep mountainous terrain. It is expected that the littoral zone for the lake is rather limited. In order to identify those sections of the lake which have shallower areas adjacent to the shoreline, Chelan County PUD (District) will review aerial photos of Lake Chelan. These shallower areas will be flagged as having the potential to sustain rooted vegetation. Preliminary examination of aerial photos indicates that most of this potential habitat exists either in the Wapato Basin or in proximity to the alluvial fans of the tributaries draining into the lake.

Once these areas are identified, the District will field truth these sites. In areas where there is rooted aquatic vegetation, the points marking the beginning and ending of the aquatic plant beds (parallel to the shore) will be geo-referenced using differential GPS. To determine the extent (depth) of the rooted vegetation, a weighted line will be sent down at the outer end of the littoral zone. These points will be placed on the GIS base map being produced by the District, and the locations and lineal distances of productive littoral zone can be mapped as a GIS layer

Schedule Examination of Brown (1984) indicates that secchi transparency readings ranged from a high of approximately 16 m (52 ft) in May in the Lucerne Basin to a low of 7 m (23 ft) at Lakeside in the Wapato Basin in September and October. Decreased readings later in the season were a result of suspended solids introduced during run-off rather than a result of any increased primary production.

In order to more easily identify the extent of the littoral zone, the District recommends conducting the littoral zone survey in early – mid August. Full pool should be achieved by mid-June, so this time period will allow a window to fully survey potential sites before increased suspended solids in the early fall decrease visibility.

4.7 Data Assessment Data collected during the tributary inspection will be used to: 1) characterize stream morphology in the drawdown zone; 2) determine whether or not barriers to upstream passage exist; and 3) provide information regarding the potential effect of project operations/lake level fluctuations on the native fish, tributary-spawning fish and the lake sport fishery.

Data collected during the tributary investigations of salmonids will be used to: 1) compare stream census data to Brown 1984; 2) differentiate hatchery origin vs. naturally-producing salmonid hatchery stocks; 3) evaluate the contribution of hatchery vs wild fish to the spawning populations in Chelan tributaries; and 4) determine the origin of cutthroat trout populations in the tributaries (native vs. Twin Lakes vs. other hatchery stocks).

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2124_6 Page D-14 July 16, 1999 Fishery Investigation

Data collected during the creel survey will be assessed to address the following issues: 1) contribution of the salmonid stocking program on lake sport fishery; 2) potential efficacy of the kokanee and cutthroat and rainbow trout stocking/hatchery programs in terms of contribution to Lake Chelan spawning populations of these species by determining catch composition of wild and hatchery fish; and 3) based on wild versus hatchery fish catch composition, the potential for adaptation towards hatchery programs supple- menting existing populations or becoming involved with reintroduction of fish into existing habitat.

Limnological survey data collected on Mysid shrimp and zooplankton will be used to “field truth” Brown 1984. These data will provide good comparative information regarding various species population status, density, standing crop, biomass, etc. from 1981-82 to 1999.

Data collected during the literature review, benthic macroinvertebrate investigation, and littoral zone investigation will be used to assess the productivity of Lake Chelan and the effect of lake level fluctuations on productivity.

Additional issues identified during initial consultation (Appendix A) will be addressed during the course of the studies described previously, or in other studies associated with the Lake Chelan relicensing process. For example, fish use will be observed during the By- pass Reach Flow Releases Study and Fish Stranding Investigation. Recreation, other than fishing, aesthetics, kayaking, and safety issues will also be addressed in the Chelan River Recreational Flow Study and Paddling Feasibility Study. Power impacts of various scenarios will be addressed in this and other studies, such as Columbia River Flow Augmentation and Lake Level Investigation.

SECTION 5: TASK LIST

Task 1 – Literature Review 1.1 Review of current literature and information on “native” west slope cutthroat trout of the Lake Chelan drainage and current classification of Twin Lakes stock 1.2 Review of current literature of life history and habitat requirements of native non-game species. 1.3 Review and description of hatchery stocking programs, stocks used, release strategies used, fish size, and stocking locations, 1.4 Review on role of woody debris in oligotrophic lakes

Task 2 – Field Studies 2.1 Tributary Inspection 2.2 Salmonid Investigations 2.3 Creel Surveys 2.4 Limnological Investigations

Task 3 – Analysis 3.1 Assessment of “native” stocks, primarily west slope cutthroat trout 3.2 Tributary Inspection 3.2.1 Identification of potential barriers 3.2.2 Stream channel gradient 3.2.3 Channel width 3.2.4 Water depth 3.2.5 Stream discharge 3.2.6 Pool frequency

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page D-15 SS/2124_6 Fishery Investigation

3.2.7 Residual pool depth 3.2.8 Substrate composition (Wolman pebble count) 3.2.9 In-stream habitat characterization (LWD) 3.2.10 Assessment of alluvial ‘fan’ including evaluation of natural spawning within the lake fluctuation zone. 3.3 Creel survey. Summaries to include: 3.3.1 Date of interview. Indicate weekday or weekend day/holiday 3.3.2 Number of anglers boat fishing, by adult or juvenile 3.3.3 Number of anglers bank fishing, by adult or juvenile 3.3.4 Catch by species, number released by species. 3.3.5 CPUE 3.3.6 Location of each angler’s catch 3.3.7 Fork length, weight, whether any fin erosion, and sex (if possible). 3.3.8 Take scale samples (otoliths for burbot). 3.3.9 Construct length frequency histograms, mean fork length, weight, and condition (“K”) factor. 3.3.10 Angler preference; 3 preferred species in order of preference. 3.3.11 Age with fork lengths (scales and otoliths) 3.3.12 Hatchery vs. wild origin (from scales, and/or fin erosion) 3.3.13 Document which anglers are targeting waters within 100 yards of tributary mouths. 3.4 Field truthing Brown (1984) information 3.5 Hatchery rearing and stocking strategies 3.6 Role of woody debris (develop brief contingency plan) 3.7 Potential effects of project operations

Task 4 – Results 4.1 Assessment of “native” stocks, primarily west slope cutthroat trout 4.2 Drawdown zone investigation 4.3 Creel survey 4.3.1 CPUE 4.3.2 Scale/fin erosion analysis 4.3.3 Wild vs. hatchery contribution to sportfishery 4.3.4 Availability of hatchery fish to augment natural spawning 4.4 Field truthing Brown (1984) information 4.5 Hatchery rearing and stocking strategies 4.6 Role of woody debris 4.7 Potential effects of project operations 4.8 Discussion of modification of potential barriers

Task 5 - Report

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

Field truthing of current conditions in selected tributaries to Lake Chelan and limnological investigations will be conducted to update descriptions in Brown (1984) of existing tributary access, analysis of barriers, quality of potential habitat, and existing fish density. Analysis of current hatchery fish stock origin, primarily in the form of a literature review, recommendations for changes based on current ESA objectives, and development of a comprehensive management plan will be conducted. Literature review will also be conducted regarding the role of woody debris in large, ultra-oligotrophic lakes, littoral zone productivity, and benthic macroinverte-

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2124_6 Page D-16 July 16, 1999 Fishery Investigation brate productivity. Options for hatchery rearing and stocking strategies to encourage augmentation of natural spawning populations, as well as sport fishing enhancement, will also be evaluated. Analysis of potential lake operation changes, effects on native fish, wild salmonids and sportfishing success, and barrier analysis will be investigated. Creel documentation of the distribution and contribution of hatchery released fish and scale analysis to determine contribution of wild and hatchery fish to the sportfishery will be conducted. Genetic analysis will be conducted to determine the prevalence of hatchery fish spawning in the wild versus production from spawning ‘native’ fish.

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS

Chelan PUD will hire a consultant(s) to assist in conducting 1999 field investigations. Chelan PUD staff will oversee contracting and deliverable schedule for the selected consultant(s). Consultant(s) conducting field investigation in 1999 will be required to provide equipment and staff to conduct the contracted field investigations with minimal field support from the PUD. PUD involvement will be primarily in the form of study plan development and implementation, project oversight, and providing input to the consultant(s) regarding decisions made by parties involved in the relicensing process. Chelan PUD will notify the appropriate agencies as to the schedule for conducting field investigations.

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE

Literature review of historic fish stocking management, genetic information, and role of large woody debris could commence soon after final study plans are approved in early 1999. Field studies will begin during the month of April 1999. Lake levels are at the lowest elevation in April, which is also an optimum time to observe spawning rainbow and cutthroat trout in the tributary streams. Barrier analysis, stream characterization, and riparian habitat characterization in the drawdown zone will be most effective during this period of low lake elevation. The creel survey will be initiated in April and continue through September/October, 1999 in order to capture the majority of the sportfishing season. A second field season may be required based on the quality and quantity of data and the results of the first year study.

SECTION 9: BUDGET

To be determined based on contractor selection.

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS

• Review draft detailed study plans in-house for completeness. • Send draft study plans to the Fishery Workgroup for review and comment. • Incorporate Fishery Workgroup comments into detailed study plans. • Select consultant to conduct 1999 field investigations.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page D-17 SS/2124_6 Fishery Investigation

• Finalize contract with selected consultant, and have them prepare for 1999 field season. • Initiate literature reviews. • Conduct 1999 field studies.

SECTION 11: REFERENCES

Brown, L.G. 1984. Lake Chelan fishery investigations. Washington Department of Wildlife, We- natchee, WA. 183 p. plus appendices.

Brown, L.G. 1984. Lake Chelan Fishery Investigation. Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County and Washington Department of Game. 238 p plus appendices.

Fielder, P.C. 1985. Creel census and plankton sampling, Lake Chelan Washington, Spring 1985. Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Wenatchee, WA. 8 p.

Fielder, P.C. 1986. Creel census and plankton sampling, Lake Chelan Washington, Spring 1986. Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Wenatchee, WA. 11 p.

Hagen, J.E. 1997. An evaluation of a trout fishery enhancement program in Lake Chelan. M.S. The- sis. School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 53 p. plus appendices.

Marcogliese, L.A. and J. M. Casselman. 1998. Scale methods for discriminating between Great Lakes stocks of wild and hatchery rainbow trout, with a measure of natural recruitment in Lake Ontario. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:253- 268.

Wetzel, R.G. 1983. Limnology. CBS College Publishing. New York, NY. 753 p plus appendices.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2124_6 Page D-18 July 16, 1999 Fishery Investigation

APPENDIX A

Issues To Be Addressed

Issue Group Rank Issue Addressed

Economics: must be economically viable to PUD LARC 31/149 Indirect Erosion: habitat in general LARC 36/149 Indirect Land Use: spawning habitat, disruption and access LARC 39/149 Yes to Lake Level Fluctuation: lwd fish habitat LARC 72/149 Yes Recreation: sports fishing and management differ- LARC 97/149 Yes ences (commercial and notoriety)

Native Species: Cutthroat - status Fish 1/119 Yes Fish management: Native Species: Bull Trout – Fish 2/119 Yes status? Fish management: Native Species Fish 3/119 Yes Fish Management Fish 4/119 Yes Don't know what we have Fish 6/119 Yes Lake level fluctuations: Tributary access (migration Fish 7/119 Yes into and up) Lake level fluctuations: Fish affects Fish 9/119 Yes Impacts on habitat from high lake levels Fish 12/119 Indirect Comprehensive fishery management plan Fish 15/119 Yes Lake level fluctuations: Fish 16/119 Yes Lake Level fluctuations: Spawning Fish 17/119 Yes Fish Management: Baseline condition: Fish 18/119 Yes Maintain fisheries programs Fish 22/119 Yes Fish 23/119 Yes Land development - affecting water quality, fisheries: Fish 26/119 Indirect Loss of habitat for: Fish 29/119 Yes Lake level fluctuations: Fish affects: Spawning Fish 40/119 Yes Woody debris: Amphibian, Invertebrate, fish, safety Fish 44/119 Yes Fish Management: Tributary access inspection Fish 45/119 Yes Fish management: Fish Stocking, especially cutthroat Fish 46/119 Yes Impacts of non-native species Fish 54/119 Yes Fish 57/119 Indirect Fish Management: Fish distribution pattern Fish 58/119 Yes

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page D-19 SS/2124_6 Fishery Investigation

Fish Management: Baseline condition: Larry Brown Fish 59/119 Yes Rep? Fish management: Fish Stocking: Genetics Fish 64/119 Yes Fish occlusion Fish 70/119 Yes Fish management: Fish Stocking: Disease Fish 73/119 Yes Analysis of barriers, especially in lake levels Fish 75/119 Yes Quality of potential habitat Fish 76/119 Indirect Woody debris: Fish 77/119 Indirect Loss of habitat from increased level Fish 78/119 Yes Loss of habitat from water rising Fish 79/119 Yes Invertebrate production? Fish 97/119 Yes Mixing of fish species and genetics Fish 108/119 Yes Fish reproduction - minimum value Fish 111/119 Yes

Maintain fisheries programs Public 14/75 Yes Comprehensive fishery management plan Public 18/75 Yes Fish Management Public 30/75 Yes Fish Management: Fish stocking Public 32/75 Yes Coordination and communication of this and other Public 33/75 Indirect public planning Long-term ramifications, who maintains, funded how Public 47/75 Indirect Large woody debris and fish habitat Public 52/75 Yes Timing and manner of stocking/effectiveness Public 57/75 Yes Must be economically viable to PUD Public 68/75 Indirect

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2124_6 Page D-20 July 16, 1999 ANADROMOUS FISH OUTLINE

Final

LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 637

July 16, 1999

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Wenatchee, Washington Anadromous Fish Outline

FINAL

THE POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY OF ANADROMOUS SALMONIDS IN LAKE CHELAN AND THE SURROUNDING TRIBUTARIES

Section Title Source No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose Developed by consultant and Fisheries Working Group 1.2 General Background Literature Review 1.2.1 Overview of Native Fishery Literature Review 1.2.1.1 Lake Literature Review 1.2.1.2 Tributaries Literature Review 1.2.2 Overview of Hatchery Operations Literature Review 1.2.3 Status of Current Fishery Conditions Literature Review 1.2.3.1 Review of Past Studies Literature Review – Summarize past spawning surveys, creel surveys and water quality monitoring, etc. 1.2.4 Overview of Current Management Objectives Literature Review

2.0 FISH HABITAT AVAILABILITY 2.1 Lake Literature Review 2.1.1 Water Quality Literature Review and Water Quality Monitoring (existing) 2.1.2 Spawning/Incubation N/A 2.1.3 Rearing 2.1.3.1 Littoral Zone Literature Review and Fish- eries Investigation (new) – determine percent of lake with suitable littoral zone production (waters edge to end of plant growth) 2.1.3.2 Alluvial Fans (drawdown zone and area below low Fisheries Investigation (exist- water elevation) ing) – characterize existing habitat conditions near most productive streams. Identify fish species via snorkel surveys. 2.1.4 Barriers Literature Review (FS?) and

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page E-1 SS/2537_3 Anadromous Fish Outline

Fisheries Investigation (within fluctuation zone)

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2537_3 Page E-2 July 16, 1999 Anadromous Fish Outline

2.2 Tributaries 2.2.1 Water Quality Literature Review (Brown and FS). 2.2.2 Spawning/Incubation Fisheries Investigation (existing) – characterize existing habitat conditions in most productive streams. Also, identify fish species composition and density. Conduct barrier analysis (drawdown zone and in tributary). 2.2.3 Rearing Same as above. 2.2.4 Barrier Analysis Literature Review (Brown and FS). 2.3 Chelan Bypass Reach 2.3.1 Water Quality Water Quality Monitoring (existing) 2.3.2 Spawning and Incubation Instream Flow Investigation (existing) - (IFIM). 2.3.3 Rearing Instream Flow Investigation (existing) - (IFIM). 2.3.4 Barrier Analysis Instream Flow Investigation (existing) - (IFIM/Barrier analysis).

3.0 POTENTIAL SPECIES INTERACTIONS 3.1 ESA Listed Species/Current Species Literature Review – Case Stud- ies (Yakima River, Deschutes River, Tucannon River) 3.2 ESA Listed Species/Hatchery Populations Literature Review – Case Stud- ies 3.3 ESA Listed Species/Native Population Literature Review – Case Stud- ies 3.3 Other Wildlife Implications Literature Review – Case Stud- ies. Contribution to ecosystem, impact of salmon carcasses.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page E-3 SS/2537_3 Anadromous Fish Outline

4.0 POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY 4.1 Comparison of species preferences to available Literature Review and Fisheries habitat Working Group 4.2 Identify other potential affects Literature Review – Case Stud- ies 4.3 Best-case/Worst-case Analysis Literature review and Fisheries Working Group/Consultant

5.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Downstream Migration (juveniles) through Lake Literature Review and Fisheries Working Group 5.2 Socioeconomic Impacts Land Management Socioe- conomics Study Plan (existing)

6.0 PROJECT PASSAGE CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 Upstream Passage Facilities (gorge and dam) Literature Review – Case Stud- ies 6.2 Downstream Passage Facilities (dam) Literature Review – Case Stud- ies 6.3 Entrainment (present and potential andromous spe- Literature Review. cies)

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2537_3 Page E-4 July 16, 1999 COLUMBIA RIVER FLOW AUGMENTATION STUDY PLAN

Final

LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 637

July 16, 1999

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Wenatchee, Washington Columbia River Flow Augmentation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...... F-1 1.1 General Description of the Lake Chelan Project...... F-1 1.2 Conflicting Objectives for Reservoir Operations...... F-1 1.3 Ability of Project Storage to Augment Columbia River Flows ...... F-2 1.4 Need Statement ...... F-2

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL...... F-2

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA...... F-3

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY ...... F-3 4.1 Operations Modeling ...... F-3

SECTION 5: TASK LIST...... F-3

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING...... F-4

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS...... F-4

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE...... F-4

SECTION 9: BUDGET...... F-4

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS...... F-4

APPENDIX A...... F-7 Issues To Be Addressed ...... F-7

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page F-i SS/2123_4 Columbia River Flow Augmentation

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Description of the Lake Chelan Project Currently, the Chelan Project operates the reservoir, Lake Chelan, at a full pool elevation of between 1,098 feet and 1,100 feet from June 30 through September 30. The powerhouse generates power by using inflow to the lake during this period. The reservoir is drafted for flood control and power generation beginning in October and through the winter months, with the annual minimum reservoir level managed by Chelan PUD based on inflow and runoff forecasts to ensure refill by June 30. The average drawdown elevation is 1,084.2, which usually occurs in April. The maximum allowable drawdown is to elevation 1,079 feet, but the lake is rarely drafted below elevation 1,083 feet. The reservoir is refilled to 1,085 feet, if possible, by May 15 so that most irrigation pump intakes are functional for the beginning of the irrigation season.

The powerhouse is capable of discharges from 2,000 - 2,200 cfs, depending on headwater and tailwater conditions. To provide flows to the Columbia River that exceed this level requires spilling water from the reservoir. This is only possible at reservoir elevations exceeding 1087, which is the elevation of the spillway crest. While the spillway is capable of passing 31,000 cfs at full reservoir, the spillway discharge capacity diminishes rapidly as reservoir elevations are lowered. Spill levels above 12,000 to 15,000 cfs may cause severe erosion problems in the Chelan River bypass reach (Chelan River or Gorge).

Inflows to the reservoir are seasonally and annually variable, with peak inflow generally occurring in the period from late May to early July. Inflows average about 1,000 cfs in March, 2,000 cfs over the month of April, and 5,000 in May, but the inflows in May can vary considerably based on annual snowpack and the timing of warm weather or rainfall. By September, average inflow decreases to below 1,000 cfs, and ranges from 500 to 1,000 cfs through the winter months until April.

1.2 Conflicting Objectives for Reservoir Operations The use of Lake Chelan storage to augment Columbia River flows for protection of salmon and steelhead could require drafting of the reservoir during the month of April, July, August, and September. During April Columbia River flows can be low, and Columbia River reservoir operations are attempting to manage for flood control, flow augmentation for fish protection, and refill requirements. Lake Chelan is heavily used for recreation and the current license mandates reasonable efforts be made to be within 2 feet of full pool, elevation 1098 feet, by June 30 to accommodate recreation and recreation-based tourist industries. Current operations curtail drawdown in April to assure reaching elevation 1098 feet by June 30.

Issues raised by other stakeholders include an earlier refill schedule, which would require further limits in drawdown and earlier initiation of refill. Use of the reservoir for flood control and production of electricity is most needed during the months of October through February, when inflows are lowest and demand for electrical power are highest. Other fisheries protection objectives have potential conflicts with

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page F-1 SS/2123_4 Columbia River Flow Augmentation use of the reservoir for flow augmentation. Protection of spawning and incubation habitat below the powerhouse may require maintenance of powerhouse flow rates through incubation and emergence, which probably occurs in April and May. Delaying the refill period by using storage for flow augmentation will require curtailment of powerhouse flow to refill. Further, the erosion and sediment load carried across the salmon spawning area by flow augmentation in April would coincide with the most critical period for incubating embryos. Stakeholders interested in protection of fisheries resources in the reservoir have raised the issue of spillway discharge resulting in emigration of fish from the lake. All of the conflicting objectives need to be considered by the Fisheries Workgroup.

Unless recreation values of Lake Chelan are to be sacrificed for fish flows, the use of storage for augmentation will be further limited to assure timely refill of the lake, especially in years with low snowpack. Chelan PUD has investigated the impact of various flow releases on Lake Chelan elevations. The results of these investigations will be discussed with the Fisheries Workgroup.

1.3 Ability of Project Storage to Augment Columbia River Flows The usable storage of the Chelan Project to augment Columbia River flows is limited by several factors. These include the spillway crest elevation of 1,087 feet, which limits the amount of usable storage for flows exceeding powerhouse capacity to 13 feet. The usable storage in Lake Chelan is less if the reservoir is drafted for winter flood control and power production. Also, the amount of daily flow that could be used for Columbia River augmentation is limited to 15,000 cfs above normal powerhouse flows because of erosion concerns in the Chelan River Gorge.

1.4 Need Statement The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), Columbia River Operations Section, have requested that the Chelan Hydroelectric Project relicensing process consider using storage from Lake Chelan to provide augmentation of Co- lumbia River flows. The objective of flow augmentation in the Columbia River is to provide protection for downstream migrating juvenile salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act. NMFS considers waters impounded by the Chelan Hydroelectric Project as a portion of the system that can provide augmentation flows because the project impounds flows destined for the Columbia River.

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL

The goal of this investigation is to evaluate the feasibility of using water stored in Lake Chelan to help meet biological objectives on the Columbia river to benefit migrating juvenile salmon and steelhead, and to develop a plan for such augmentation should it prove feasible. A significant component of this feasibility study is consideration of all the multiple uses of Lake Chelan and making a reasonable effort to balance those competing uses.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2123_4 Page F-2 July 16, 1999 Columbia River Flow Augmentation

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA

The study area encompasses the project boundary, which extends along the 1,100-foot contour line from the upper end of Lake Chelan near Stehekin to the City of Chelan. The project boundary continues down both sides of the bypass reach to the confluence of the Chelan and Columbia rivers.

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY

4.1 Operations Modeling The reservoir operations model developed by Chelan PUD will be used to analyze the potential levels of augmentation possible with existing and modified project structures, the potential to refill the reservoir by June 30 with these augmentation operations, and the effect of the augmentation on Columbia River flows.

The project operations model being used is the CHEOPS model, prepared by Duke Engineering & Services. It operates in MS Excel, with the aid of Visual Basic subroutines. The model is able to evaluate a wide range of physical characteristics (turbine capacity, spillway configuration, storage capacity, etc.) and operational constraints (minimum flows, maximum lake levels, etc.) associated with relicensing. Based on input, including lake level and outflow data for years from 1952 through 1995, the model is able to calculate the effects of proposed changes in project operation on power production, lake levels, and flows from the project. These results can be obtained for individual years or groups of years, or on an average basis for the 44 years spanned by the input data.

The CHEOPS model can be considered as a combination of two sub-models. The first, called the Rule Curve model, handles the relationships between inflow, outflow, and lake level and will be used to evaluate the effects of project operations and mandatory releases on the lake level, and the impact of proposed lake level constraints on releases from the reservoir. The second sub-model, called the Energy model, uses the results of the Rule Curve model to evaluate the energy generation capability of the project under whatever constraints are input.

For purposes of this study, the model is expected to be used to evaluate the interaction of such things as releases of water for Colum- bia River flow augmentation and maintenance of minimum flows in the Chelan River with the lake level and other functions. It will also be used to evaluate the impacts of proposals for required releases and lake levels on the economic viability of the project.

Additional issues identified during initial consultation (Appendix A) will be addressed during the course of the studies described previously, or in other studies associated with the Lake Chelan relicensing process. For example, fish use will be observed during the By- pass Reach Flow Releases Study and Fish Stranding Investigation. Recreation, other than fishing, aesthetics, kayaking, and safety issues will also be addressed in the Chelan River Recreational Flow Study and Paddling Feasibility Study. Power impacts of various scenarios will be addressed in this and other studies, such as the Lake Level Investigation.

SECTION 5: TASK LIST

Task 1 – Procure flow augmentation scenarios in discussions with the Fisheries Workgroup

Task 2 – Conduct flow augmentation scenario modeling (releases of 2,000 cfs, 5,000 cfs and 6,500 cfs in April)

Task 3 – Provide the Fisheries Workgroup with model results and discuss effects on Lake Chelan

Task 4 – Provide additional modeling as requested by the Fisheries Workgroup

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page F-3 SS/2123_4 Columbia River Flow Augmentation

Task 5 – Prepare a report that summarizes modeling results and recommendations of the group (If appropriate, these recommendations will include the development of a salmon flow augmentation plan.)

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

Analysis and reporting will include operations modeling of flow augmentation scenarios identified and requested by NMFS. In analyzing the results of the flow augmentation study, consideration will be given to potential conflicts between salmon flow augmentation and other uses of the reservoir and its stored water. Issues such as power production, flood control, downstream erosion, and recreational opportunity will be considered when developing any flow augmentation plan. Results of model runs will be presented to the Fisheries Workgroup and discussed relative to impacts on Lake Chelan elevation, rule curve operation, and refill. Results of the modeling and discussions in the Fisheries Workgroup will be presented to the relicensing stakeholders and discussed in context of the multiple uses of Lake Chelan and the bypass reach. (If appropriate, these recommendations will include the development of a salmon flow augmentation plan.)

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS

Chelan PUD will provide staff to conduct modeling of flow augmentation scenario requests by NMFS. Additional PUD staff will participate in discussions with Fisheries Working Group to identify potential biological benefits, operation constraints, and effects on Lake Chelan operations.

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE

Discussions of modeling and results have been conducted by Chelan PUD staff. Modeling and discussions with the Fisheries Workgroup will continue as additional flow augmentation options are identified until such time as results satisfactory to NMFS to make management decisions are obtained.

SECTION 9: BUDGET

To be determined.

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2123_4 Page F-4 July 16, 1999 Columbia River Flow Augmentation

• Continue model evaluations per discussions with the Fisheries Workgroup.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page F-5 SS/2123_4 Columbia River Flow Augmentation

APPENDIX A

Issues To Be Addressed

Issue Group Rank Issue Addressed

Economics: must be economically viable to PUD LARC 31/149 Indirect Planning: seasonal flow augmentation (t/e spe- LARC 56/149 Yes cies)(bypass reach and Columbia River Flow impact on erosion in bypass LARC 63/149 Indirect

Rearing (tailrace) - ESA Fish 20/119 Yes Supplementation of Columbia River Fish/water qual- Fish 100/119 Yes ity

Must be economically viable to PUD Public 68/75 Indirect

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page F-7 SS/2123_4 BOTANICAL STUDY PLAN

Final

LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 637

July 16, 1999

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Wenatchee, Washington TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...... G-1 1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project ...... G-1 1.2 General Description of the Relicensing Process...... G-2 1.3 Need Statement...... G-7

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL...... G-7

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA...... G-7

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY ...... G-7

SECTION 5: TASK LIST...... G-11

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING...... G-12

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS...... G-12

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE...... G-12

SECTION 9: BUDGET...... G-13

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS...... G-13

APPENDIX A...... G-15 Issues to be Addressed...... G-15

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure G-1: Bypass Reach Location Map...... G-5 Figure G-2: Lake Chelan & Tributaries ...... G-9

Final Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page G-i SS/2094_5 Botanical

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

Lake Chelan is deep and narrow, extending northwesterly approximately 50 miles from the City of Chelan at its lower end to Stehekin at the head of the lake. Lake Chelan is a natural lake that developed within a broad glacial trough. The lake averages 1 mile in width, and has depths of over 1,480 feet. Lake Chelan is bordered by more than 2 million acres of National Forest Lands, more than half of which are designated as wilderness. Surrounding peaks reach elevations as high as 7,000 feet. The lake serves as a waterway approach to the Forest Service’s Wenatchee National Forest above Twenty Five Mile Creek, and to the National Park Service’s Lake Chelan National Recreation Area at Stehekin. The lower 15 miles of the lake are mostly privately owned, the next 35 are within the Wenatchee Na- tional Forest, and the upper 5 miles are within the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.

The average surface area of the lake is 32,000 acres. The drainage area of the project at the dam is 924 square miles. The confluence of the Chelan River and Columbia River is approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the City of Chelan. The lake level and flow through the Chelan River drainage were altered through the construction of a hydroelectric project in the river channel near the City of Chelan in 1928.

Final Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page G-1 SS/2094_5 Botanical

The 4.1-mile long bypass reach is comprised of four distinct sections (Figure G-1). The 2.29-mile long upper section, Section 1, of the bypass reach below the dam is characterized by a relatively wide flood plain, low gradient, 55 ft/mile, and substrate comprised mainly of large cobble and boulders. Some spawning sized gravel is contained in the margins of the channel, deposited in these areas during high flow events during spring runoff.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2094_5 Page G-2 July 16, 1999 Botanical based on laws and regulations that require years of extensive planning, including environmental studies, agency consensus, and public involvement. The process to obtain a new license has changed considerably since the existing license was issued in 1981, primarily due to changes made to the Federal Power Act (FPA) as amended by the Electric Consumers Power Act (ECPA) in 1986. ECPA mandates that the FERC give equal consideration to the enhancement of existing environmental, recreation, fish, and wildlife resources, and to balance what are often competing uses of the water resources. ECPA also empowers the FERC to consider whether or not a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans.

Final Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page G-3 SS/2094_5 132 0 0 13 0 132 8 60 4 CHELAN 1 1 1 1 1240 3 1 2 5 0 6 1 4 2

4 4 4 0

0 0 # 0

0 0 8 1 LAKE CHELAN 4 4

4 1 0

97A 0 0

1 /( 6

6 1

4 0 0 6

1 12 0 12 4 2 8 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 1 0

0 0 2 6 1 5 0

0 1 6 DAM 8 9 2 0

1 0 0 1 240 80 Ü 0 0 1 Ê 10 8 0 SECTION 1 4 8 1320 1 0 4 8

150 0 Æ# 2 0 1 3 6 0

4 P 4 1 1 8

0 R 1 8 R

O E J

E V 80 I

14 C 0 C

T R

4 1 0 2 H 8

1 2 0

B 0 E 0

2 0

L O

0 1 4 A 8 1 0

1 U 0 N 840 0 1

0 N 8 8 1 D P 0

2 1680 R T A A U 11 9 I 1720 O N R 60

J N Y B E E R C I L V M 0 1 T E /(97 6 1 R 0 U 7 6 B 0 1920 2 O B 7 L U Y N G P O 0 D A 184 O S C A R S R G 960 E 0 Y 6 R 0 9 R 0 1 E 6 O A 2 1 C 7 A H 1 D 2160

0 8 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 8 0 2 3 8 2 2 6 2 4 1 1 1 1 0 1

1 0 5 0 0 24 9 2 2 6 0 5 0 6 1

2 0 4 0 0 2 6 2 1 0 9 600 8 Ü 1 4 8 0 8 0 1 SECTION 2 0 2 0 3 8 7 0 2 0 1 1 2 8 4 8 0 7 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 1 8 0 0 6 0

8 4 2 4 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 8 1 0 0 2 4 6 6 3 5 0 1 9 1 0 0 SHEET 1 2 1 6 8 3 9 0 1 SECTION 3 2 2 0

3 9 6 0 2

0 6

4 8 08 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 6 3 Ü (GORGE) 9 2 1 BYPASS REACH LOCATION MAP8 0 0 0 0 40 6 0 6 16 10 5 8 1 3 1 8 2 LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 1 2 2

0 0 2 2

0 1 8 6 3 0 0

FERC PROJECT NO. 637 0 0 3 2 8 3 0 3 0

1.3 Need Statement Populations of four Washington state-listed rare plant species are historically known to occur within the project area, and along the shores of the lake. Federal and state status designations may change over time, so the status of some of the species found within the project may change in the future. Until surveys are initiated, it is difficult to ascertain potential problems and effects. As part of the relicensing process, rare plant populations within the Lake Chelan study area will be identified, mapped and described. The term "rare plant" is used here to indicate any plant species or variety of a species which is designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), or by the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) as Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive (WNHP 1997). This includes species or varieties which are included in the Washington "Review Group 1" list.

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL

The goal of the RTE Botanical Study is to: 1) identify occurrences of rare plant species, their distribution, and relative abundance; and 2) provide management and enhancement recommendations when appropriate.

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA

The study area includes the entire shoreline of Lake Chelan from the existing water level to an elevation approximately 30 feet above the high water level (1100 - 1130 feet m.s.l.). Selected creek drainages along the lake will be searched to a minimum of 30 vertical feet above the level of the lake or to the lowest fish barrier (Figure G-2). In addition to the Lake Chelan shoreline, the study area will also include the Chelan River Gorge, from the Chelan Dam, downstream to the confluence with the Columbia River. Survey work in the Chelan River Gorge will require coordination with Chelan PUD due to the possibility of unexpected flow releases from the Chelan Dam.

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY

The rare plant survey is being performed by Calypso Consulting using commonly accepted botanical survey methods to locate and identity rare plant occurrences within the study area. Rare plant survey methods are straightforward, and involve visually searching the study area for rare plant species. Timing for field surveys are based on flowering times of potential rare plant species, i.e., upland plant species

Final Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page G-7 SS/2094_5 Botanical will be searched for earlier in the field season than plants that occur in seeps and other wetland plant species, because the upland species typically bloom earlier. Some areas may need to be visited twice to search for both early and late blooming rare plant species. A potential rare plant species list will be assembled for the project area from variety of sources. It is estimated that at least 30 Washington state-listed plant species have the potential to occur within the survey area.

Survey strategies include, but are not limited to, searches of the shoreline during periods when rare plants are identifiable, visits to known occurrences of rare plants, literature review, herbarium research for additional information and species verification, and other methods agreed upon by the Calypso Con- sulting and Chelan PUD. Shoreline rare plant surveys will be conducted in 1998 and 1999 by walking, kayak, and motorized boat. Chelan PUD Fish and Wildlife Department personnel will provide logistical support as needed, particularly with the use of a motorboat to access remote areas in 1998 and 1999.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2094_5 Page G-8 July 16, 1999 Stehekin ± River STEHEKIN k ree # le C k rp k e Pu ee e Cr r zard C Ha k re e o re v C e ek le D ile Cre urmi Onem Fo reek tle C Flick Creek Cas ek n Cre nyo k Ca e H re k un e ts C re C ek le Cre d ish id F R rine olve Creek

Wreek

C w o

k e k e C re n e

C o t . k e d L a r mi o e r a e C

r r C y G t P e C tl t in m r. it a o k a C L o P r e h r a o G o e r b k o b r G r e g r a e i N C H r r a C o B t k b r. H e e e r in k g a C e d id o y r e H r. t e a R r r p P e C k

e C f C

e e k y a ls G

D b l e b t e e

o S a o r e k

e l N F y r t e L o C t

Corra A C C e l Cr e L ek K r

E s k

k C a

e e n e m re r o

a e C

C s

k i C ig d ld e o B a o e C r P r H G n E G C L l o l A i y N t n k S a e C re x C o k ll B e e re h tc C i k M Cree e tilon il An M ive SHEET 1 ntyf Twe LAKE CHELAN & TRIBUTARIES

p v V CHELAN WATERSHED BOUNDARY v I p C a h R n e K la n STREAMS R iv N ak Canyon e v WATER QUALITY MONITORING Daybre r STATIONS

5 0 5 IA MB LU Miles CO 1:335,000 SCALE Botanical

The entire study area will be searched as rare plant species could potentially be found in all of the habitat types comprising Lake Chelan and the Chelan River Gorge. A GPS unit will be used to accurately map rare plant populations. Photographs will be taken of all rare plant species (close-ups of individual plants and more general habitat shots). Plant collections will be made when it is deemed necessary to identify a plant. Most collections will eventually be deposited in the University of Washington herbarium. Should additional voucher specimens be available, they will be deposited with the appropriate agency. Complete species lists will be compiled for six subareas within the study area. These subareas were delineated before the survey began, and are based on habitat type and land ownership.

Depending on the habitat, the survey intensity employed in the field will be a combination of: moderate moderate search intensity through an area, with higher intensity surveys in the portions of the areas which appear unique or which appear to have a high potential for rare plant populations. complete close searching in areas with rare plant populations or with habitat with a very high potential of having rare plant populations.

It is expected that most of the study area will receive a moderate survey intensity. Areas that are too steep to survey on foot will be surveyed with binoculars.

Additional issues identified during initial consultation (Appendix A) will be addressed during the course of the studies described previously, or in other studies associated with the Lake Chelan relicensing process. For example, fish use will be observed during the By- pass Reach Flow Releases Study and Fish Stranding Investigation. Recreation, other than fishing, aesthetics, kayaking, and safety issues will also be addressed in the Chelan River Recreational Flow Study and Paddling Feasibility Study. Power impacts of various scenarios will be addressed in this and other studies, such as Columbia River Flow Augmentation and Lake Level Investigation.

SECTION 5: TASK LIST

Task 1 - Conduct first field season, 1998 (completed)

Task 2 - Conduct second year of study 2.1 Conduct field surveys in remainder of area within project boundary

Task 3 - Map additional botanical species

Task 4 - Prepare final report

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

Once located and positively identified, populations of rare plant species will be accurately mapped and documented according to Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) guidelines. Rare plant siting

Final Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page G-11 SS/2094_5 Botanical forms will be completed and submitted to the WNHP. Survey results will be summarized in a final report with a standard format similar to that used for the Rock Island and Rocky Reach relicensing projects. It will include: purpose, methods, results, discussion, figures, tables, maps, and rare plant siting forms. In addition, a summary narrative of the natural history of the plants found, potential threats to plant populations, and a complete list of all plants species found in the project area will be included. This information will address the concerns of resource agencies involved in relicensing as they relate to the botanical resources of the project area. Enhancement plans would be developed in coordination with resource agencies.

The final report will be in a format suitable for printing by Chelan PUD to satisfy relicensing requirements. The text of the report will be provided to Chelan PUD in electronic format for Word and Excel. Rare plant populations and areas searched will be mapped to allow for eventual incorporation into an existing GIS database. Information will be shared and transmitted to partners as appropriate.

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS

Calypso Consulting will provide staff and equipment required for the completion of the project. The Chelan PUD Fish and Wildlife Department will assist by providing motorboat support and if possible, a radio to for communications.

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE

The timing of tasks on this schedule is tentative. 1. Spring 1998 - Summer 1998: Literature review; consultation with the WNHP, USFS, USFWS, NPS, and other appropriate persons and agencies was done to identify the occurrence and distribution of rare plant species within the Lake Chelan study area. 2. Spring 1998: A field reconnaissance of the study area will be done to help plan the field season and map high potential areas. 3. Spring 1998 - late summer 1999: Field surveys have been and will be conducted by bota- nists on foot or watercraft along the entire shoreline of Lake Chelan and the Chelan River Gorge. Areas for which more than one visit will be required will be mapped. A report will be prepared for inclusion in the ICD. 4. Fall 1998 - spring 2000: Verification of findings and consultation with agencies. 5. Fall 1999 - March 31, 2000: A draft report will be provided to Chelan PUD for review and comment. 6. March 31 - June 15, 2000: A final report and relevant materials will be provided to Chelan PUD.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2094_5 Page G-12 July 16, 1999 Botanical

SECTION 9: BUDGET

To be determined.

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS

• Review draft detailed study plans in-house for completeness...... DONE • Send draft study plans to the Wildlife/Riparian Workgroup for review and comment...... DONE • Incorporate Wildlife/Riparian Workgroup comments into detailed study plans...... DONE • Select consultant to conduct 1999 field investigations...... DONE • Finalize contract with selected consultant, and have them prepare for 1999 field season...... DONE • Conduct 1999 field studies. • Prepare final report.

Final Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page G-13 SS/2094_5 Botanical

APPENDIX A

Issues to be Addressed

Issue Group Rank Issue Ad- dressed

Economics: must be economically viable to PUD LARC 31/149 Indirect

Rare plant survey Fish 8/119 Yes ESA impacts Fish 11/119 Yes Noxious Weeds Fish 14/119 Yes Fern species waterline habitat loss Fish 50/119 Yes Are project operations likely to eliminate plants Fish 60/119 Yes Cruprina vulgaris Fish 66/119 Yes Knap weed Fish 68/119 Yes

Must be economically viable to PUD Public 68/75 Indirect

Final Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page G-15 SS/2094_5 RIPARIAN ZONE INVESTIGATION STUDY PLAN

Final

LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 637

July 16, 1999

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Wenatchee, Washington TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...... H-1 1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project ...... H-1 1.2 General Description of the Relicensing Process...... H-2 1.3 Need Statement...... H-3

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL...... H-3

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA...... H-3

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY ...... H-3 4.1 Riparian Habitat Mapping...... H-3 4.2 Vertebrate Species Census...... H-4

SECTION 5: TASK LIST...... H-8

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING...... H-8

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS...... H-8

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE...... H-9

SECTION 9: BUDGET...... H-9

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS...... H-9

SECTION 11: REFERENCES ...... H-9

APPENDIX A...... H-11 Issues To Be Addressed...... H-11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure H-1: Lake Chelan & Tributaries...... H-5

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page H-i SS/2126_5 Riparian Zone Investigation

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project Lake Chelan is located in Chelan County in north central Washington. The lake is bordered to the south by the Entiat and Chelan Mountains and Glacier Peak complex, and to the north it is bordered by the Sawtooth Mountain Range. From Twenty Five Mile Creek uplake, the terrain is mountainous and rugged. In many cases, the steep slopes run directly into the lake without providing any level beaches or shoreline. The terrain of the semi-arid lower end of the lake is much less severe. Except where irrigation has taken place, the hills of the lower end of the lake are covered with sparse shrub-steppe vegetation and a few scattered pines.

Lake Chelan is deep and narrow, extending northwesterly approximately 50 miles from the City of Chelan at its lower end to Stehekin at the head of the lake. Lake Chelan is a natural lake that developed within a broad glacial trough. The lake averages 1 mile in width, and has depths of over 1,480 feet. Lake Chelan is bordered by more than 2 million acres of National Forest Lands, more than half of which are designated as wilderness. Surrounding peaks reach elevations as high as 7,000 feet. The lake serves as a waterway approach to the Forest Service’s Wenatchee National Forest above Twenty Five Mile Creek, and to the National Park Service’s Lake Chelan National Recreation Area at Stehekin. The lower 15 miles of both sides of the lake are mostly privately owned, the next 35 miles are within the Wenatchee National Forest, and the upper 5 miles are within the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.

The average surface area of the lake is 32,000 acres. The drainage area of the project at the dam is 924 square miles. The confluence of the Chelan River and Columbia River is approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the City of Chelan. The lake level and flow through the Chelan River drainage were altered through the construction of a hydroelectric project in the river channel near the City of Chelan in 1928.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page H-1 SS/2126_5 Riparian Zone Investigation

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2126_5 Page H-2 July 16, 1999 Riparian Zone Investigation

1.3 Need Statement The effect of the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project operation on riparian habitat, and the associated wildlife, such as birds and small mammals, reptiles and amphibians, is an issue that has been raised in the relicensing process. In order to assess the project’s affects, a thorough survey of riparian habitat, plant, and wildlife species, will be conducted. Where available, existing maps and photographs will be used to document changes that have occurred since construction of the project. Included in the survey will be assessment of riparian habitat types and structures e.g., number of canopy layers, snags, down woody debris, shoreline configuration.

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL

The goal of the Riparian Zone Investigation is to document the extent of the riparian zone and presence or absence of RTE and other vertebrate species. Two key objectives are to evaluate the: 1) existing riparian plant and wildlife species and current distribution; and 2) extent and structure of riparian habitat. This will include terrestrial as well as emergent aquatic components. This information will be blended with other safety, recreational, fisheries, ownership, and navigation concerns to form a comprehensive report that addresses the needs of the resources. Assessment of small animals such as furbearers, reptiles, and amphibians, will be included in this investigation. The rationale is that certain small animals are more closely associated with riparian habitat as op- posed to big game, which will be addressed in the Wildlife Investigation.

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA

The studies will be concentrated within the riparian zones of 8 tributaries and the Chelan River. Areas of study at each tributary will be the entire stretch of riparian habitat from the stream mouth upstream for 1,320 feet. The Stehekin River mouth riparian study area will include the woody and deciduous vegetation areas near the mouth of the river and at the head of the lake. The Big Creek study area will extend only from the mouth to the large grotto approximately 500 feet upstream. Vegetation analysis will also be done along the Chelan River. Most of the riparian habitat within the project boundary is very closely associated with tributaries to the lake.

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY

4.1 Riparian Habitat Mapping The first step in the riparian habitat mapping will be to delineate the extent of the riparian zones on Lake Chelan using aerial photography. Mapping resolution will be 0.2 ha (0.5 a.) or less, in order to describe discrete plant communities (Cooperrider et al. 1986). Because riparian systems are linear, frequently varying considerably in width, mapping should be scaled to include small communities that may support RTE plants and riparian-associated wildlife. Vegetation maps will be accompanied by mapping criteria used in naming major communities to provide consistency throughout this study and reference for future studies

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page H-3 SS/2126_5 Riparian Zone Investigation

Once the riparian areas have been delineated, 9 areas have been selected for detailed field study. The wildlife working group selected the following sample sites based on their diversity:

Mitchell Creek Grade Creek Box Canyon Prince Creek Fish Creek Bear Creek Stehekin River mouth Chelan River (bats only) Big Creek (amphibians only)

Detailed information on representative riparian zones will provide much better data on which to base management decisions than cursory study of more areas (Cooperrider et al. 1986). Vegetation structure and tree species composition will be quantified in 7 of the 9 communities along each representative tributary. These data are important components of naming communities and assessing structural con- figurations of vegetation. GPS technology will be employed to provide coordinates for plant communities. These data will be input to a GIS database in order to provide mapping and precise locations of plant communities.

4.2 Vertebrate Species Census The nine study areas to be surveyed for anticipated vertebrate species. The Chelan River will be inventoried only for bats and Big Creek will be inventoried only for amphibians because of unique habitats in those areas. Habitat requirements for anticipated species e.g., vegetation types, patch size and shape, proximity to water, presence of certain characteristics such as snags and downed wood, will be compared to existing vegetation data. These data will be used to develop survey areas, methods, intensity, and timeframe. The field surveys will coincide with the appropriate season to optimize opportunities for accurate observation and identification. Field surveys will also be conducted in conjunction with the riparian vegetation studies in order to maximize logistical efficiency.

Locations of all field observations, species observed and identified, and/or their sign (e.g., feathers, nests, pellets, egg masses) will be plotted using GPS technology. These data will then be incorporated into a GIS database. Observations will be documented on standard data forms e.g., location, behavior, nesting/denning sign, population status, and a description of habitat.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2126_5 Page H-4 July 16, 1999 Stehekin ± River STEHEKIN k ree # le C k rp k e Pu ee e Cr r zard C Ha k re e o re v C e ek le D ile Cre urmi Onem Fo reek tle C Flick Creek Cas ek n Cre nyo k Ca e H re k un e ts C re C ek le Cre d ish id F R rine olve Creek

Wreek

C w o

k e k e C re n e

C o t . k e d L a r mi o e r a e C

r r C y G t P e C tl t in m r. it a o k a C L o P r e h r a o G o e r b k o b r G r e g r a e i N C H r r a C o B t k b r. H e e e r in k g a C e d id o y r e H r. t e a R r r p P e C k

e C f C

e e k y a ls G

D b l e b t e e

o S a o r e k

e l N F y r t e L o C t

Corra A C C e l Cr e L ek K r

E s k

k C a

e e n e m re r o

a e C

C s

k i C ig d ld e o B a o e C r P r H G n E G C L l o l A i y N t n k S a e C re x C o k ll B e e re h tc C i k M Cree e tilon il An M ive SHEET 1 ntyf Twe LAKE CHELAN & TRIBUTARIES

p v V CHELAN WATERSHED BOUNDARY v I p C a h R n e K la n STREAMS R iv N ak Canyon e v WATER QUALITY MONITORING Daybre r STATIONS

5 0 5 IA MB LU Miles CO 1:335,000 SCALE Riparian Zone Investigation

4.2.1 Small Mammals The small mammal population would be sampled with “state of the art” methods for the various animal groups. These methods may include: Sherman live-traps, snap traps, pitfall traps, photograph, or visual observation of animals or their sign. Anticipated species to be specifically targeted include Trowbridge’s shrew, vagrant shrew, long-tailed vole, montane vole, heather vole, Pacific jumping mouse, and deer mouse. Other small mammals, such as squirrels, woodrats, beaver, muskrat, etc., will be noted via visual detection of animals or their sign.

4.2.2 Bats Bats would be recorded using “state of the art” methods that might include some bat detectors to record sonograms, mist nets or harp traps. Identification of up to 12 species of bats is anticipated.

4.2.3 Reptiles Simultaneous to the small mammal trapping, investigation for lizards and snakes will be conducted in the riparian zones. Reptiles will be recorded by “state of the art” methods that might include visual searches and observation, generally under rocks, for adults, larvae, and eggs, and using pitfall traps where ground conditions allow.

4.2.4 Amphibians Amphibians will be recorded by using “state of the art” methods that might include visual searches, net- ting, chorus call recordings, and pitfall traps. Tailed frogs and long-toed salamanders will be surveyed by looking within the streams, generally under rocks, for adults, larvae, and eggs. Tree frogs, spotted frogs, and western toads will be recorded via chorus call counts in the evening, as well as searching for eggs and larvae in any pools of water that might be present.

4.2.5 Birds Bird surveys will be conducted by establishing 1 or 2 call stations at each stream site in late May and/or June. An observer will record all birds heard/observed during a one-hour period beginning one-half hour before sunrise. After the morning call count, the bird observer will then traverse the entire study area searching for any other birds, including nests, pellets, etc., not recorded during the morning count. Additionally, all other participating biologists will record any previously unrecorded bird observations made during the other surveys. The observers will attempt, as best as practicable, to separate observations by habitat (riparian vs. upland). Waterfowl nest surveys will be conducted in the Stehekin River mouth study area.

Additional issues identified during initial consultation (Appendix A) will be addressed during the course of the studies described previously, or in other studies associated with the Lake Chelan relicensing process. For example, fish use will be observed during the By- pass Reach Flow Releases Study and Fish Stranding Investigation. Recreation, other than fishing, aesthetics, kayaking, and safety issues will also be addressed in the Chelan River Recreational Flow Study and Paddling Feasibility Study. Power impacts of various scenarios will be addressed in this and other studies, such as Columbia River Flow Augmentation and Lake Level Investigation.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page H-7 SS/2126_5 Riparian Zone Investigation

SECTION 5: TASK LIST

Task 1 – Literature Review 1.4 Existing information 1.5 Collect existing habitat maps and photographs

Task 2 – Field Investigation 2.1 Riparian Vegetation 2.2 Vertebrate Census

Task 3 – Analysis 3.3 Riparian Vegetation 3.4 Vertebrate Census

Task 4 – Interpretation of Results 4.1 Riparian Vegetation 4.2 Vertebrate Census

Task 5 – Report

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

Analysis and reporting will consist of an initial summarization of existing information regarding current and pre-project riparian habitat, (from existing maps and DFW photos). Field investigations will be conducted to characterize the existing vegetative habitat structure and species conditions, and the structure of the vertebrate community. Field observations and subsequent analyses will be vital to determining the inter-relationship between the vegetative and vertebrate communities, and the role Lake Chelan Project operations may play in these relationships. All data, field observations, analyses, and conclusions based on those analyses will be included in a draft and final report to Chelan PUD. Identification of possible enhancement opportunities will be included in the final report.

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2126_5 Page H-8 July 16, 1999 Riparian Zone Investigation

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE

Initiation of this study will begin during spring 1999, most likely between late May and early June. Neotropical migrants, such as warblers and flycatchers, and most reptiles will not be present or active until May. It may be possible to survey the warmer, drier Wapato Basin first and begin somewhat earlier. The estimated number of days to complete tasks outlined in Section 5 are as follows:

Task 1 – Literature review 2 days Task 2 - Field Investigation During months of May-June (minimum) Task 3 - Analysis 3 weeks Task 4 - Interpretation of Results 2 weeks: collaboration required with relicensing stakeholders Task 5 – Draft Report September 30 Task 6 – Final Report December 31

SECTION 9: BUDGET

To be determined based on contractor selection.

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS

SECTION 11: REFERENCES

Cooperrider, A.Y., R.J. Boyd, and H.R. Stuart, eds. 1986. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Dept. Inter., Bur. Land Manage. Service Center, Denver, CO. xviii. 858 pp.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page H-9 SS/2126_5 Riparian Zone Investigation

APPENDIX A

Issues To Be Addressed

Issue Group Rank Issue Addressed

Coordination and Communication of this and other LARC 2/149 Indirect public planning Integrated resource management as it relates to land LARC 7/149 Indirect use Integrate with other resource objectives LARC 13/149 Indirect Development of shoreline LARC 14/149 Indirect Economics: must be economically viable to PUD LARC 31/149 Indirect Lake Level Fluctuation: riparian habitat LARC 34/149 Yes Erosion - loss of soil LARC 35/149 Indirect Erosion - habitat in general LARC 36/149 Indirect shoreline access(undercut banks) LARC 37/149 Indirect Land conversions, lands that are changed for alter- LARC 55/149 Indirect nate uses

ESA impacts Fish 11/119 Yes Impacts on habitat from high lake levels Fish 12/119 Yes Impact on (riparian) habitat fluctuations Fish 13/119 Yes Spotted Frog endangered (project within historic Fish 19/119 Yes range) Loss of habitat for: Fish 29/119 Indirect General amphibian habitat assessment Fish 31/119 Yes Lake level fluctuations: Riparian habitat (historic/pre- Fish 34/119 Yes dam habitat) Nesting birds: Loss of habitat at head of lake and Fish 35/119 Yes failed nests Nesting water birds: Fish 36/119 Yes Nesting water birds: Water fluctuation equals failed Fish 39/119 Yes nests Loss of habitat for: small mammals Fish 42/119 Yes Loss of habitat for: small mammals Fish 43/119 Indirect Amphibian, Invertebrate, Fish, safety Fish 45/119 Indirect Loss of habitat for: song birds Fish 52/119 Indirect Loss of habitat for: song birds Fish 53/119 Yes

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page H-11 SS/2126_5 Riparian Zone Investigation

Issue Group Rank Issue Addressed

Impacts on biodiversity Fish 54/119 Yes Bald Eagle and Osprey: Fish 62/119 Yes Bald Eagle and Osprey: Loss of nesting habitat Fish 63/119 Yes Bald Eagle and Osprey: Reduced osprey numbers Fish 67/119 Yes along Lake Chelan Quality of potential habitat Fish 76/119 Indirect Woody debris: Fish 77/119 Yes Loss of habitat from increased level Fish 78/119 Indirect Loss of habitat from water rising Fish 79/119 Indirect Chelan Mountain Snail Fish 83/119 Yes Recruitment/Removal Fish 85/119 Yes Habitat loss Fish 88/119 Yes No escape cover during drawdown Fish 95/119 Indirect Maintain fir and maple habitat Fish 96/119 Yes Invertebrate production Fish 98/119 Indirect Butterflies Fish 99/119 Yes Indigenous wetlands at Stehekin and elsewhere Fish Yes

Timing of the Drawdowns: no bath tub ring during Public 4/75 Indirect high visit season Lake levels higher May through September Public 6/75 Indirect Lake fluctuation, including earlier and longer or up a Public 7/75 Indirect month earlier than now Impact on commercial facilities Public 21/75 Indirect Shoreline erosion caused by raising of the lake Public 49/75 Indirect Large woody debris and fish habitat Public 52/75 Indirect Stehekin aesthetics regarding the mud flats Public 56/75 Indirect Aesthetics - drawdowns ugly Public 62/75 Indirect Must be economically viable to PUD Public 68/75 Indirect Funds needed to mitigate erosion Public 70/75 Indirect Structural damage, wear and tear on docks, special Public 71/75 Indirect docks required

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2126_5 Page H-12 July 16, 1999 WILDLIFE INVESTIGATION STUDY PLAN

Final

LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 637

July 16, 1999

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Wenatchee, Washington Wildlife Investigation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...... I-1 1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project ...... I-1 1.2 General Description of the Relicensing Process...... I-2 1.3 Current Management Efforts ...... I-7 1.4 Need Statement...... I-7

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL...... I-7

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA...... I-7

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY ...... I-7

SECTION 5: TASK LIST...... I-8

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING...... I-8

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS...... I-8

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE...... I-9

SECTION 9: BUDGET...... I-9

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS...... I-9

SECTION 11: REFERENCES ...... I-9

APPENDIX A...... I-11 Issues to be Addressed...... I-11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure I-1: Bypass Reach Location Map ...... I-5

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page I-i SS/2132_5 Wildlife Investigation

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

Lake Chelan is deep and narrow, extending northwesterly approximately 50 miles from the City of Chelan at its lower end to Stehekin at the head of the lake. Lake Chelan is a natural lake that developed within a broad glacial trough. The lake averages 1 mile in width, and has depths of over 1,480 feet. Lake Chelan is bordered by more than 2 million acres of National Forest Lands, more than half of which are designated as wilderness. Surrounding peaks reach elevations as high as 7,000 feet. The lake serves as a waterway approach to the Forest Service’s Wenatchee National Forest above Twenty Five Mile Creek, and to the National Park Service’s Lake Chelan National Recreation Area at Stehe- kin. The lower 15 miles of the lake are mostly privately owned, the next 35 are within the Wenatchee National Forest, and the upper 5 miles are within the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.

The average surface area of the lake is 32,000 acres. The drainage area of the project at the dam is 924 square miles. The confluence of the Chelan River and Columbia River is approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the City of Chelan. The lake level and flow through the Chelan River drainage were altered through the construction of a hydroelectric project in the river channel near the City of Chelan in 1928.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page I-1 SS/2132_5 Wildlife Investigation

The 4.1-mile long bypass reach is comprised of four distinct sections (Figure I-1). The 2.29-mile long upper section, Section 1, of the bypass reach below the dam is characterized by a relatively wide flood plain, low gradient, 55 ft/mile, and substrate comprised mainly of large cobble and boulders. Some spawning sized gravel is contained in the margins of the channel, deposited in these areas during high flow events during spring runoff.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2132_5 Page I-2 July 16, 1999 Wildlife Investigation based on laws and regulations that require years of extensive planning, including environmental studies, agency consensus, and public involvement. The process to obtain a new license has changed considerably since the existing license was issued in 1981, primarily due to changes made to the Federal Power Act (FPA) as amended by the Electric Consumers Power Act (ECPA) in 1986. ECPA mandates that the FERC give equal consideration to the enhancement of existing environmental, recreation, fish, and wildlife resources, and to balance what are often competing uses of the water resources. ECPA also empowers the FERC to consider whether or not a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page I-3 SS/2132_5 132 0 0 13 0 132 8 60 4 CHELAN 1 1 1 1 1240 3 1 2 5 0 6 1 4 2

4 4 4 0

0 0 # 0

0 0 8 1 LAKE CHELAN 4 4

4 1 0

97A 0 0

1 /( 6

6 1

4 0 0 6

1 12 0 12 4 2 8 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 1 0

0 0 2 6 1 5 0

0 1 6 DAM 8 9 2 0

1 0 0 1 240 80 Ü 0 0 1 Ê 10 8 0 SECTION 1 4 8 1320 1 0 4 8

150 0 Æ# 2 0 1 3 6 0

4 P 4 1 1 8

0 R 1 8 R

O E J

E V 80 I

14 C 0 C

T R

4 1 0 2 H 8

1 2 0

B 0 E 0

2 0

L O

0 1 4 A 8 1 0

1 U 0 N 840 0 1

0 N 8 8 1 D P 0

2 1680 R T A A U 11 9 I 1720 O N R 60

J N Y B E E R C I L V M 0 1 T E /(97 6 1 R 0 U 7 6 B 0 1920 2 O B 7 L U Y N G P O 0 D A 184 O S C A R S R G 960 E 0 Y 6 R 0 9 R 0 1 E 6 O A 2 1 C 7 A H 1 D 2160

0 8 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 8 0 2 3 8 2 2 6 2 4 1 1 1 1 0 1

1 0 5 0 0 24 9 2 2 6 0 5 0 6 1

2 0 4 0 0 2 6 2 1 0 9 600 8 Ü 1 4 8 0 8 0 1 SECTION 2 0 2 0 3 8 7 0 2 0 1 1 2 8 4 8 0 7 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 1 8 0 0 6 0

8 4 2 4 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 8 1 0 0 2 4 6 6 3 5 0 1 9 1 0 0 SHEET 1 2 1 6 8 3 9 0 1 SECTION 3 2 2 0

3 9 6 0 2

0 6

4 8 08 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 6 3 Ü (GORGE) 9 2 1 BYPASS REACH LOCATION MAP8 0 0 0 0 40 6 0 6 16 10 5 8 1 3 1 8 2 LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 1 2 2

0 0 2 2

0 1 8 6 3 0 0

FERC PROJECT NO. 637 0 0 3 2 8 3 0 3 0

1.3 Current Management Efforts Chelan PUD has established comprehensive programs at Lake Chelan to reduce the impact of the project operations on fish and wildlife. Surveys of deer, mountain goat and bald eagle populations are conducted by boat along the reservoir to track their abundance and distribution, as well as the age and sex composition of the animals. Information derived from these surveys is used to manage the level of harvest and assess the condition of the wildlife habitat. Funds are provided for improving mule deer winter forage through prescribed burns and planting forage plants. Chelan PUD also assists wildlife during the winter months by maintaining upland bird feeders and mineral blocks for mule deer and mountain goats.

1.4 Need Statement The effect of project operations on big game species, Mule deer, Mountain goats, and Bighorn sheep, will be determined through results of wildlife surveys currently being conducted and consultation with the Wildlife Workgroup. The effect of project operations on small game and other species will be determined through the Riparian Zone Investigation.

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL

The goal of the Wildlife Investigation is to: 1) summarize existing wildlife information (ICD); 2) continue current wildlife surveys as per existing license; 3) discuss usefulness of current wildlife investigations and management activities; and 4) determine which activities should continue in the future license term.

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA

The study area encompasses the project boundary. The project boundary extends along the 1,100-foot contour line from the upper end of Lake Chelan near Stehekin to the City of Chelan. The project boundary continues down both sides of the bypass reach to the confluence of the Chelan and Columbia rivers. Big game species are often encountered within the project boundary, but spend a vast majority of their time outside the project boundary as defined for relicensing.

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY

The wildlife studies to be implemented in 1999 are the same methods employed since 1984. Big game wildlife surveys are conducted according to methodologies described by Fielder/McKay, 1984. Big game surveys will be conducted by two biologists from a boat. The boat will be motored slowly along the shoreline, usually within 60 m. Wildlife will be observed from the boat using 10 power binoculars or with a 15-60 power spotting scope from the shore. Both the north and south shore of Lake Chelan will be surveyed. The same areas will be surveyed on each survey trip. The shore surveyed in an up-lake and down-lake direction will be alternated each survey.

Big game surveys will be conducted during three time periods: 1) early winter (late November-early December); 2) mid-winter (late December-early January); and 3) late winter (February). Four surveys

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page I-7 SS/2132_5 Wildlife Investigation will be conducted during each time period. The early winter surveys are optimal for gathering data regarding mountain goat abundance, age, and distribution. The mid-winter surveys are optimal for gathering data regarding mule deer and sex composition. The late winter surveys provide data on late winter goat distribution and kid survival, and deer abundance (Fielder 1991).

Deer will be classified as does, fawns, bucks, or unknowns. The number of antler points will be recorded for bucks. Mountain goats will be classified as adults (older than one year), kids or unknown. Deer and goat locations will be identified by lake-mile and shore.

Additional issues identified during initial consultation (Appendix A) will be addressed during the course of the studies described previously, or in other studies associated with the Lake Chelan relicensing process. For example, fish use will be observed during the By- pass Reach Flow Releases Study and Fish Stranding Investigation. Recreation, other than fishing, aesthetics, kayaking, and safety issues will also be addressed in the Chelan River Recreational Flow Study and Paddling Feasibility Study. Power impacts of various scenarios will be addressed in this and other studies, such as Columbia River Flow Augmentation and Lake Level Investigation.

SECTION 5: TASK LIST

Task 1 - Summarize existing wildlife investigations and management activities. - Being summarized by February 12.

Task 2 - Meet with Wildlife Workgroup to discuss appropriate changes. - Will not change under current license.

Task 3 - Discuss potential additional big game enhancement measures.

Task 4 - Prepare summary report for entire relicensing team to consider.

Task 5 - Address appropriateness and study plan for black bear abundance, distribution and movements in relation to kokonee spawning populations and human recreation areas

Task 6 - Take steps to expand WDFW mule deer winter mortality study to include the Lake Chelan deer winter range area.

Task 7 - Compile information on migration routes for Lake Chelan mule deer populations to and from the wintering areas along Lake Chelan and the Columbia River that were purchased as mitigation lands by Chelan PUD to consider habitat con- nectivity and fragmentation.

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

Annual reports have been provided since 1984 for big game surveys and enhancement measures under the terms of the Revised Exhibit S of the current Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project license. Management activities will be summarized.

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2132_5 Page I-8 July 16, 1999 Wildlife Investigation

Chelan PUD will continue to provide the staffing and equipment requirements described in the Revised Exhibit S of the current Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project license.

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE

Continue to conduct annual big game surveys as described in the Revised Exhibit S of the current Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project license for the duration of the present license.

SECTION 9: BUDGET

To be determined.

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS

• Review draft detailed study plans in-house for completeness. (Tasks 5, 6 and 7) • Send draft study plans to the Wildlife Workgroup for review and comment. (Tasks 5, 6 and 7) • Incorporate Wildlife Workgroup comments into detailed study plans. (Tasks 5, 6 and 7) • Select consultant to conduct 1999 field investigations. (if Tasks 5, 6 and 7 proceed)

SECTION 11: REFERENCES

Fielder, P.C. and C.E. Mckay, Jr. 1984 Lake Chelan wildlife studies with emphasis on mountain goats and mule deer. Public Utility District No.1 of Chelan Co.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page I-9 SS/2132_5 Wildlife Investigation

APPENDIX A

Issues to be Addressed

Issue Group Rank Issue Ad- dressed

Economics: must be economically viable to PUD LARC 31/149 Indirect Activities on the Butte on wildlife LARC 101/149 Yes Erosion: perching trees for bald eagles LARC 122/149 Yes Bypass Reach/recreation: safety: wildlife viewing LARC 145/149 Indirect

ESA impacts Fish 11/119 Indirect Spotted Frog endangered Fish 19/119 Indirect General amphibian habitat assessment Fish 31/119 Indirect Nesting water birds: Loss of habitat at head of lake Fish 35/119 Indirect Nesting water birds: Fish 36/119 Indirect Nesting water birds: Water fluctuation equals failed nests Fish 39/119 Indirect Loss of habitat for: small mammals Fish 42/119 Indirect Impacts on habitat from people encroachment Fish 43/119 Indirect Woody debris: Amphibian, Invertebrate, fish, safety Fish 44/119 Indirect Loss of winter range Fish 47/119 Yes Reintroduction – North Shore Fish 48/119 Yes Loss of habitat for: song birds Fish 52/119 Indirect Impacts on non-native species Fish 54/119 Indirect Bighorn versus domestic grazing permits Fish 61/119 Yes Bald Eagle and Osprey: Fish 62/119 Indirect Bald Eagle and Osprey: Loss of nesting habitat Fish 63/119 Indirect Bald Eagle and Osprey: Reduced osprey numbers along Fish 67/119 Indirect Lake Chelan Fawning cover Fish 80/119 Yes Thermal cover Fish 81/119 Yes Chelan Mountain Snail Fish 83/119 Indirect Protect until reach 100 count Fish 89/119 Yes Kid survival rate, double the number Fish 98/119 Yes Butterflies Fish 99/119 Indirect Predation in winter Fish 103/119 Yes Loss of foraging area Fish 104/119 Yes Peregrine Falcon: Predator/prey relationship Fish 105/119 Yes Peregrine Falcon: Fish 106/119 Yes

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page I-11 SS/2132_5 Wildlife Investigation

Issue Group Rank Issue Ad- dressed

Upland birds: Fish 107/119 Yes Human interaction Fish 109/119 Yes Fish reproduction - minimum valve Fish 110/119 Yes Black bear versus people Fish 111/119 Yes Maintain pre-fire population buck-to-doe ratio Fish 112/119 Yes Predation on deer winter/spring range Fish 113/119 Yes People and cougar interaction Fish 115/119 Yes Big population = high predation on fawns Fish 116/119 Yes Upland birds: Maintaining bird feeders Fish 118/119 Yes Achieve huntable population Fish 119/119 Yes Mule Deer Mortality Fish Yes

Coordination and communication of this and other public Public 33/75 Indirect planning Must be economically viable to PUD Public 68/75 Indirect

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2132_5 Page I-12 July 16, 1999 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES: PROPOSED CONSULTATION PROCESS

Final

LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 637

July 16, 1999

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Wenatchee, Washington TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...... J-1 1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project ...... J-1 1.2 General Description of the Relicensing Process...... J-2 1.3 Need Statement...... J-3

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL...... J-3

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA...... J-4

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY ...... J-1

SECTION 5: TASK LIST...... J-1 Planning and Initiation of the Section 106 Consultation Process:...... J-1 Study Execution Phase:...... J-1

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING...... J-2

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS...... J-2

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE...... J-2

SECTION 9: BUDGET...... J-3

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS...... J-3

SECTION 11: REFERENCES ...... J-3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure J-1: Lake Chelan and Tributaries...... J-5 Figure J-2: Bypass Reach Location Map...... J-1

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page J-i SS/2095_7 Cultural and Historical Resources: Field Survey Methods

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project is located in approximately 32 miles north of the City of We- natchee on the Chelan River. The 4.1-mile-long Chelan River (shortest river in Washington) flows from the lower end of the 50.4-mile-long Lake Chelan to the Columbia River. The project consists of a 40- foot-high concrete gravity dam, a 2.2-mile-long steel and concrete tunnel and a powerhouse located at the confluence of the Chelan and Columbia Rivers.

The State of Washington encompasses a wide range of geographic diversity, from the marine influenced ocean shores and Puget Sound, over the rugged Cascade Range to the rolling hills of central Washing- ton, to the ancient mountain ranges of north central and eastern Washington. The Lake Chelan Hy- droelectric Project is located on the Chelan River between two significantly different physiographic areas. In the Cascade Mountains to the west, metamorphosed sedimentary, volcanic, and granitic rock predominates. On the Columbia Plateau to the east, bedrock consists of vast, thick layers of basalt.

The climate in the project vicinity is dry and semi-arid, averaging about 10 inches of precipitation a year, with average high temperatures of 100 degrees (Fahrenheit) and lows of 0 degrees. In the immediate project vicinity (lower end of the lake), shrub-steppe vegetation habitats predominate (sage/bitter brush), with cottonwoods and willows typically occurring in riparian strips along the Lake and its tributaries. In the broader region surrounding the project, higher elevations and increased amounts of precipitation, support softwood forest habitats.

The drainage area of the project is 924 square miles. The project reservoir is operated between water surface elevations of 1,100 feet (MSL) and 1,079 feet to ensure optimum utilization of the reservoir for power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation, water supply, and flood control purposes. The average maximum drawdown of the lake for the 44 years from 1952 to 1995 was 1084.2 feet. The reservoir has 677,400 acre-feet of usable storage above 1,079 feet. Of this, 612,400 acre-feet can be used for power generation and 65,000 acre-feet is available for irrigation.

People have occupied the Chelan Basin for nearly 10,000 years. Current archaeological knowledge suggests that the upper two thirds of the basin was occupied during the summer months by small hunting or trading parties, while portions of the lower third of the basin were occupied by larger groups for

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page J-1 SS/2619_3 Cultural and Historical Resources: Field Methods Survey Study Plan longer periods of time. Milder climates, a greater diversity of resources, flatter terrain, and proximity to the Columbia River fisheries would have encouraged the establishment of semi-permanent to permanent villages or camps in the lower basin. Euroamerican settlement in the Chelan Basin began in 1886 after the repeal of the Moses Reservation. Settlement of the lower Chelan Basin was well established by 1910 (Murphy, 1995).

Our knowledge of human activity in the Chelan basin prior to Euroamerican entry into the region is limited. Although most of the shoreline has not been intensely surveyed for cultural resources, known archaeological and historic cultural resources are scattered along the length of the lake. Prominent among these are several Lake Chelan pictographs, which are believed to date from the precontact period and to reflect, among other things, the importance of the valley to indigenous hunting activities.

1.2 General Description of the Relicensing Process Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County (Chelan PUD) owns and operates the Lake Chelan Hy- droelectric Project located on the Chelan River in Chelan, Washington. Chelan PUD is permitted to operate the Hydro Project according to terms and conditions contained in an existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license that was issued on May 12, 1981. The license expires in 2004.

Chelan PUD intends to seek a new federal license to operate the Lake Chelan Hydro Project and has begun preparation for the process referred to as “relicensing”. The FERC relicensing process is based on laws and regulations that require years of extensive planning, including environmental studies, agency consensus and public involvement. The process to obtain a new license has changed considerably since the existing license was issued in 1981, primarily due to changes made to the Federal Power Act (FPA) as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA) in 1986. ECPA mandates that FERC give equal consideration to the enhancement of existing environmental, recreation, fish, and wildlife resources affected by the project, to that of power and development resources, and to balance what are often competing uses of the water resources. ECPA also empowers the FERC to consider if a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans.

Chelan PUD has requested and received approval from (FERC) to employ an Alternative Relicensing Process for the Lake Chelan Project, as allowed under FERC’s Final Rule issued on October 29, 1997 (Docket No. RM95-16-000; Order No. 596). The Alternative Relicensing Process proposed by Chelan PUD is intended to expedite the licensing process by combining the pre-filing consultation and environmental review processes into a single process, and by improving and facilitating communications among the participants in the licensing process.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2619_3 Page J-2 July 16, 1999 Cultural and Historical Resources: Field Survey Methods

1.3 Need Statement The new license application requires fulfillment of consultation requirements of Section 106 of the Na- tional Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Section 106 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties and to seek comments from an independent reviewing agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Chelan PUD has limited information on cultural/historic resources in the project area and does not have staff with expertise in this area. The assistance of Cultural Resource Management specialists (prehistoric and historic archaeologists, historians, Traditional Cultural Properties specialists, and other specialists as needed) will be employed to help guide the relicensing team through this process, fill in the information gaps that are needed to assess the project effects on cultural resources, and coordinate and consult with stakeholder groups during the Section 106 consultation process.

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL

The Lake Chelan project area contains cultural resources recognized by multiple groups as important to their history and continuing relationship to this landscape as defined by NPS Bulletins 15, 16, 30 and 38. The treatment of these resources is governed by the following laws and regulations: The National Historic Preservation Act; Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act; the National Park Service’s procedures concerning the National Register of Historic Places; the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Procedures for the Protection of Cultural Properties; the Treatment of Ar- chaeological Properties of 1980; Determination of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places; Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections; The Sec- retary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation of 1983; the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA); the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA); the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA); and Executive Order 13007 ("Indian Sacred Sites"). The Lake Chelan project is subject to relicensing by FERC pursuant to Part 1 of the Federal Power Act, 16 USC 791 (a) through 825(r), as amended; and continued operation of the project under a new FERC license may affect properties included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and/or Tribal Registers of Historic Places (TRHP).

In this context, the primary objective of the cultural resources study is to provide sufficient information to comply with Section 106 of NHPA and address the issues covered by ARPA, AIRFA, NAGPRA and executive orders related to cultural resource management. Procedures for Section 106 consultation will be developed by the Cultural Resources Working Group. Issues anticipated for consideration will include development of agreement documents, confidentiality requirements, and procedures for commenting on and assisting with proposals made by the other working groups that may affect cultural resources. A programmatic agreement will be developed to frame the approach agreed upon by the working group. The working group will also develop field survey methodologies and a scope of work for the 1999 field study.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page J-3 SS/2619_3 Cultural and Historical Resources: Field Methods Survey Study Plan

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA

The proposed study area includes the entire shoreline of Lake Chelan from the ordinary low water level to the project boundary (1100-foot contour) (Figure J-1). In addition to the Lake Chelan shoreline, the study area will also include the Chelan River bypass reach, from the Chelan Dam, downstream to the confluence with the Columbia River (Figure J-2). Other project-related lands including areas of the penstock, powerhouse, park sites, and “areas of potential effect” as defined under the NHPA will also be included.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2619_3 Page J-4 July 16, 1999 Stehekin ± River STEHEKIN k ree # le C k rp k e Pu ee e Cr r zard C Ha k re e o re v C e ek le D ile Cre urmi Onem Fo reek tle C Flick Creek Cas ek n Cre nyo k Ca e H re k un e ts C re C ek le Cre d ish id F R rine olve Creek

Wreek

C w o

k e k e C re n e

C o t . k e d L a r mi o e r a e C

r r C y G t P e C tl t in m r. it a o k a C L o P r e h r a o G o e r b k o b r G r e g r a e i N C H r r a C o B t k b r. H e e e r in k g a C e d id o y r e H r. t e a R r r p P e C k

e C f C

e e k y a ls G

D b l e b t e e

o S a o r e k

e l N F y r t e L o C t

Corra A C C e l Cr e L ek K r

E s k

k C a

e e n e m re r o

a e C

C s

k i C ig d ld e o B a o e C r P r H G n E G C L l o l A i y N t n k S a e C re x C o k ll B e e re h tc C i k M Cree e tilon il An M ive SHEET 1 ntyf Twe LAKE CHELAN & TRIBUTARIES

p v V CHELAN WATERSHED BOUNDARY v I p C a h R n e K la n STREAMS R iv N ak Canyon e v WATER QUALITY MONITORING Daybre r STATIONS

5 0 5 IA MB LU Miles CO 1:335,000 SCALE 132 0 0 13 0 132 8 60 4 CHELAN 1 1 1 1 1240 3 1 2 5 0 6 1 4 2

4 4 4 0

0 0 # 0

0 0 8 1 LAKE CHELAN 4 4

4 1 0

97A 0 0

1 /( 6

6 1

4 0 0 6

1 12 0 12 4 2 8 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 1 0

0 0 2 6 1 5 0

0 1 6 DAM 8 9 2 0

1 0 0 1 240 80 Ü 0 0 1 Ê 10 8 0 SECTION 1 4 8 1320 1 0 4 8

150 0 Æ# 2 0 1 3 6 0

4 P 4 1 1 8

0 R 1 8 R

O E J

E V 80 I

14 C 0 C

T R

4 1 0 2 H 8

1 2 0

B 0 E 0

2 0

L O

0 1 4 A 8 1 0

1 U 0 N 840 0 1

0 N 8 8 1 D P 0

2 1680 R T A A U 11 9 I 1720 O N R 60

J N Y B E E R C I L V M 0 1 T E /(97 6 1 R 0 U 7 6 B 0 1920 2 O B 7 L U Y N G P O 0 D A 184 O S C A R S R G 960 E 0 Y 6 R 0 9 R 0 1 E 6 O A 2 1 C 7 A H 1 D 2160

0 8 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 8 0 2 3 8 2 2 6 2 4 1 1 1 1 0 1

1 0 5 0 0 24 9 2 2 6 0 5 0 6 1

2 0 4 0 0 2 6 2 1 0 9 600 8 Ü 1 4 8 0 8 0 1 SECTION 2 0 2 0 3 8 7 0 2 0 1 1 2 8 4 8 0 7 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 1 8 0 0 6 0

8 4 2 4 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 8 1 0 0 2 4 6 6 3 5 0 1 9 1 0 0 SHEET 1 2 1 6 8 3 9 0 1 SECTION 3 2 2 0

3 9 6 0 2

0 6

4 8 08 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 6 3 Ü (GORGE) 9 2 1 BYPASS REACH LOCATION MAP8 0 0 0 0 40 6 0 6 16 10 5 8 1 3 1 8 2 LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 1 2 2

0 0 2 2

0 1 8 6 3 0 0

FERC PROJECT NO. 637 0 0 3 2 8 3 0 3 0

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY

The Cultural Resources Working Group will help design the inventory strategy and methods. The Cul- tural Resources Working Group will include representatives of National Park Service, US Forest Serv- ice, Yakama Indian Nation, Colville Confederated Tribe, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Archae- ology and Historic Preservation, the Chelan Historical Society, and the PUD. Interested parties may express their concerns to Chelan PUD, and those concerns will be discussed at the workgroup level. Chelan PUD will include the inventory strategy and tactics developed by the Cultural Resources Work- ing Group in its scope of work to the contractor. The inventory requirements will be explicitly detailed in a document that will accompany a Programmatic Agreement between the members of the Cultural Resources Working Group, FERC and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

SECTION 5: TASK LIST

Planning and Initiation of the Section 106 Consultation Process: Task 1: Consultation Process Guidelines – Development of procedures to guide the consultation process among all the identified stakeholders and formation of Cultural Resources Working Group. Issues that are anticipated for consideration here will include development of agreement documents, mechanisms for keeping the rest of the working groups apprised of the Cultural Resources Working Group status, confidentiality requirements, and procedures for commenting on and assisting with proposals made by the other working groups that may affect cultural resources.

Task 2: Literature Review – Review and summarize the cultural and historic resource work that has been previously conducted for the project area for discussion and consideration by the Cultural Re- sources Working Group.

Task 3: Programmatic Agreement – Begin development of a programmatic agreement to frame the approach agreed upon by the Cultural Resources Working Group for managing the Section 106 consultation process.

Task 4: Study Methodologies – Development of appropriate survey methodologies in specific terms for filling in the data gaps identified during this research for discussion, consideration, and approval by the Cultural Resources Working Group.

Task 5: Develop scope of work for 1999 field study.

Study Execution Phase: Task 1: Detailed Scopes of Work for Required Field Work – The cultural resource field work will be initiated and executed in stages after the survey and testing methods have been defined and agreed

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page J-1 SS/2095_7 Cultural and Historical Resources: Proposed Consultation Process upon by the CWRG. The need for an additional field season will be assessed at the end of the 1999 field season. Study execution is not included in this study plan.

Task 2: Development of a Cultural Resource Management Plan

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

Documents delivered at completion of this study will include a report describing consultation guidelines and procedures, a cultural overview/literature review for the project area, a draft Programmatic Agree- ment, and a scope of work for the 1999 field survey.

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS

Chelan PUD will hire a consultant(s) to assist in process guidance and for conducting the field survey. Chelan PUD staff will oversee the contracting and deliverable schedule for the selected consultant(s). Chelan PUD involvement will be primarily in the form of study plan and agreement document development and implementation, project oversight, and providing input to the consultant regarding decisions made by parties involved in the relicensing process.

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE

The following proposed schedule is provided for discussion purposes at this point in time. The cultural resource consultant will develop a detailed schedule by task for review by the Cultural Resources Working Group.

Planning Phase 1. Spring 1999 - summer 1999: Literature review; consultation with agencies and other appropriate persons and will be done to identify cultural/historical resources within the Lake Chelan study area. 2. Spring 1999 – summer 1999: Development of a programmatic agreement by the Cultural Resources Working Group.

Estimated Schedule for Study Execution 1. Spring/summer 1999: Field surveys and testing will be conducted along the shoreline of Lake Chelan and the Chelan River bypass reach. 2. Fall 1999 - spring 2000: Verification of findings and consultation with agencies. 3. February 1, 2000: Draft inventory and evaluation report of 1999 field survey. 4. December 2000: Cultural Resource Management Plan due.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2095_7 Page J-2 July 16, 1999 Cultural and Historical Resources: Proposed Consultation Process

SECTION 9: BUDGET

To be determined after study plan is finalized.

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS

A working group will be established consisting of members’ participation in the Programmatic Agree- ment.

SECTION 11: REFERENCES

Murphy, A. 1995. Chelan Basin Watershed Assessment. Chelan Ranger District, Wenatchee Na- tional Forest.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page J-3 SS/2095_7 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES: FIELD SURVEY METHODS STUDY PLAN

Final

LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 637

July 16, 1999

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Wenatchee, Washington TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...... K-1 1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project ...... K-1 1.2 General Description of the Relicensing Process...... K-2 1.3 Need Statement...... K-3

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL...... K-3

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA...... K-4

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY ...... K-9

SECTION 5: TASK LIST...... K-9

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING...... K-12

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS...... K-13

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE...... K-13

SECTION 9: BUDGET...... K-14

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS...... K-14

APPENDIX A...... K-17 Issues To Be Addressed...... K-17

APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL PLAN...... K-19

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page K-i SS/2619_3 Cultural and Historical Resources: Field Methods Survey Study Plan

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure K-1: Lake Chelan and Tributaries ...... K-5 Figure K-2: Bypass Reach Location Map...... K-7

LIST OF TABLES

Table K-1: Estimated Time Schedule for the Years 1999 through 2000...... K-14

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2095_7 Page K-ii July 16, 1999 Cultural and Historical Resources: Field Survey Methods

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project is located approximately 32 miles north of the City of We- natchee on the Chelan River. The 4.1-mile-long Chelan River (shortest river in Washington) flows from the lower end of the 50.4-mile-long Lake Chelan to the Columbia River. The project consists of a 40- foot-high concrete gravity dam, a 2.2-mile-long steel and concrete tunnel and a powerhouse located at the confluence of the Chelan and Columbia Rivers.

The State of Washington encompasses a wide range of geographic diversity, from the marine influenced ocean shores and Puget Sound, over the rugged Cascade Range to the rolling hills of central Washing- ton, to the ancient mountain ranges of north central and eastern Washington. The Lake Chelan Hy- droelectric Project is located on the Chelan River between two significantly different physiographic areas. In the Cascade Mountains to the west, metamorphosed sedimentary, volcanic and granitic rock predominates. On the Columbia Plateau to the east, bedrock consists of vast, thick layers of basalt.

The drainage area of the project is 924 square miles. The project reservoir is operated between water surface elevations of 1,100 feet (MSL) and 1,079 feet to ensure optimum utilization of the reservoir for power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation, water supply, and flood control purposes. The average maximum drawdown of the lake for the 44 years from 1952 to 1995 was 1084.2 feet. The reservoir has 677,400 acre-feet of usable storage above 1,079 feet. Of this, 612, 400 acre-feet can be used for power generation and 65,000 acre-feet is available for irrigation.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page K-1 SS/2619_3 Cultural and Historical Resources: Field Methods Survey Study Plan longer periods of time. Milder climates, a greater diversity of resources, flatter terrain, and proximity to the Columbia River fisheries would have encouraged the establishment of semi-permanent to permanent villages or camps in the lower basin. Euroamerican settlement in the Chelan Basin began in 1886 after the repeal of the Moses Reservation. Settlement of the lower Chelan Basin was well established by 1910 (Murphy, 1995).

1.2 General Description of the Relicensing Process Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County (Chelan PUD) owns and operates the Lake Chelan Hy- droelectric Project located on the Chelan River in Chelan, Washington. Chelan PUD is permitted to operate the Hydro Project according to terms and conditions contained in an existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license that was issued on May 12, 1981. The license expires in 2004.

Chelan PUD intends to seek a new federal license to operate the Lake Chelan Hydro Project and has begun preparation for the process referred to as “relicensing”. The FERC relicensing process is based on laws and regulations that require years of extensive planning, including environmental studies, agency consensus and public involvement. The process to obtain a new license has changed considerably since the existing license was issued in 1981, primarily due to changes made to the Federal Power Act (FPA) as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA) in 1986. The ECPA mandates that FERC give equal consideration to the enhancement of existing environmental, recreation, fish and wildlife resources affected by the project, to that of power and development resources, and to balance what are often competing uses of the water resources. The ECPA also empowers the FERC to consider if a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans.

Chelan PUD has requested and received approval from FERC to employ an Alternative Relicensing Process for the Lake Chelan Project, as allowed under FERC’s Final Rule issued on October 29, 1997 (Docket No. RM95-16-000; Order No. 596). The Alternative Relicensing Process proposed by Chelan PUD is intended to expedite the licensing process by combining the pre-filing consultation and environmental review processes into a single process, and by improving and facilitating communications among the participants in the licensing process.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2619_3 Page K-2 July 16, 1999 Cultural and Historical Resources: Field Survey Methods

1.3 Need Statement The new license application requires fulfillment of consultation requirements of Section 106 of the Na- tional Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties and to seek comments from an independent reviewing agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Chelan PUD has limited information on cultural/historic resources in the project area and does not have staff with expertise in this area. The assistance of Cultural Resource Management specialists (prehistoric and historic archaeologists, historians, Traditional Cultural Properties specialists, and other specialists as needed) will be employed to help guide the relicensing team through this process, fill in the information gaps that are needed to assess the project effects on cultural resources, and coordinate and consult with stakeholder groups during the Section 106 consultation process.

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL

The Lake Chelan project area contains cultural resources recognized by multiple groups as important to their history and continuing relationship to this landscape as defined by NPS Bulletins 15, 16, 30 and 38. The treatment of these resources is governed by the following laws and regulations: The National Historic Preservation Act; Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act; the National Park Service’s procedures concerning the National Register of Historic Places; the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Procedures for the Protection of Cultural Properties; the Treatment of Ar- chaeological Properties of 1980; Determination of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places; Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections; The Sec- retary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation of 1983; the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA); the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA); and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The Lake Chelan project is subject to relicensing by FERC pursuant to Part 1 of the Federal Power Act, 16 USC 791 (a) through 825(r), as amended; and continued operation of the project under a new FERC license may affect properties included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and/or Tribal Registers of Historic Places (TRHP).

In this context, the primary objective of the cultural resources study is to provide sufficient information to comply with Section 106 of NHPA and address the issues covered by ARPA, AIRFA, NAGPRA and executive orders related to cultural resource management. Procedures for Section 106 consultation will be developed by the Cultural Resources Management Group. Issues anticipated for consideration will include development of agreement documents, confidentiality requirements, and procedures for commenting on and assisting with proposals made by the other management groups that may affect cultural resources. A programmatic agreement will be developed to frame the approach agreed upon by the management group. The management group will also develop field survey methodologies and a scope of work for the 1999 field study.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page K-3 SS/2619_3 Cultural and Historical Resources: Field Methods Survey Study Plan

This document address the activities that will be conducted during the April, 1999 Field Survey. It dis- cusses the areas that will be investigated, and some of the basic field methods. Other documents will be provided in the future that will be used to document other aspects of this project.

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA

The Area of Potential Effect (APE) includes the entire shoreline of Lake Chelan and at a minimum occurs from the low water level (1084.6 on April 01, 1999) to an elevation of 1100 feet above sea level (Figure K-1). On federal lands, areas associated with alluvial fans or where active erosion is identified, the APE will expand to include an additional 30 meters of shoreline at a minimum. Areas with active erosion will be based on investigations conducted in 1981 or field observations. Data from the 1999 erosion study will be used to identify additional survey areas as the data warrants. On private lands the APE will be confined to an area below the 1100-foot contour during the investigations to be conducted in 1999. The APE will be reassessed based on the literature search, the erosion survey, and the 1999 archaeological pedestrian survey. In the area of the bypass reach, the APE will follow the project boundaries on the east side of the Chelan River. On the west side of the river, the APE will follow the project boundaries from the dam to the point where it intersects with Gorge Road. It will then extend to the eastern edge of the road to a point where the road again intersects with the project boundaries. At this point the APE will again follow the edge of the defined project boundary to the confluence with the Columbia River (Figure K-2). Other project-related lands including areas of the penstock, powerhouse, park sites, other ancillary facilities and "areas of potential effect" as defined under the NHPA will also be included.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2619_3 Page K-4 July 16, 1999 Stehekin ± River STEHEKIN k ree # le C k rp k e Pu ee e Cr r zard C Ha k re e o re v C e ek le D ile Cre urmi Onem Fo reek tle C Flick Creek Cas ek n Cre nyo k Ca e H re k un e ts C re C ek le Cre d ish id F R rine olve Creek

Wreek

C w o

k e k e C re n e

C o t . k e d L a r mi o e r a e C

r r C y G t P e C tl t in m r. it a o k a C L o P r e h r a o G o e r b k o b r G r e g r a e i N C H r r a C o B t k b r. H e e e r in k g a C e d id o y r e H r. t e a R r r p P e C k

e C f C

e e k y a ls G

D b l e b t e e

o S a o r e k

e l N F y r t e L o C t

Corra A C C e l Cr e L ek K r

E s k

k C a

e e n e m re r o

a e C

C s

k i C ig d ld e o B a o e C r P r H G n E G C L l o l A i y N t n k S a e C re x C o k ll B e e re h tc C i k M Cree e tilon il An M ive SHEET 1 ntyf Twe LAKE CHELAN & TRIBUTARIES

p v V CHELAN WATERSHED BOUNDARY v I p C a h R n e K la n STREAMS R iv N ak Canyon e v WATER QUALITY MONITORING Daybre r STATIONS

5 0 5 IA MB LU Miles CO 1:335,000 SCALE 132 0 0 13 0 132 8 60 4 CHELAN 1 1 1 1 1240 3 1 2 5 0 6 1 4 2

4 4 4 0

0 0 # 0

0 0 8 1 LAKE CHELAN 4 4

4 1 0

97A 0 0

1 /( 6

6 1

4 0 0 6

1 12 0 12 4 2 8 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 1 0

0 0 2 6 1 5 0

0 1 6 DAM 8 9 2 0

1 0 0 1 240 80 Ü 0 0 1 Ê 10 8 0 SECTION 1 4 8 1320 1 0 4 8

150 0 Æ# 2 0 1 3 6 0

4 P 4 1 1 8

0 R 1 8 R

O E J

E V 80 I

14 C 0 C

T R

4 1 0 2 H 8

1 2 0

B 0 E 0

2 0

L O

0 1 4 A 8 1 0

1 U 0 N 840 0 1

0 N 8 8 1 D P 0

2 1680 R T A A U 11 9 I 1720 O N R 60

J N Y B E E R C I L V M 0 1 T E /(97 6 1 R 0 U 7 6 B 0 1920 2 O B 7 L U Y N G P O 0 D A 184 O S C A R S R G 960 E 0 Y 6 R 0 9 R 0 1 E 6 O A 2 1 C 7 A H 1 D 2160

0 8 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 8 0 2 3 8 2 2 6 2 4 1 1 1 1 0 1

1 0 5 0 0 24 9 2 2 6 0 5 0 6 1

2 0 4 0 0 2 6 2 1 0 9 600 8 Ü 1 4 8 0 8 0 1 SECTION 2 0 2 0 3 8 7 0 2 0 1 1 2 8 4 8 0 7 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 1 8 0 0 6 0

8 4 2 4 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 8 1 0 0 2 4 6 6 3 5 0 1 9 1 0 0 SHEET 1 2 1 6 8 3 9 0 1 SECTION 3 2 2 0

3 9 6 0 2

0 6

4 8 08 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 6 3 Ü (GORGE) 9 2 1 BYPASS REACH LOCATION MAP8 0 0 0 0 40 6 0 6 16 10 5 8 1 3 1 8 2 LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 1 2 2

0 0 2 2

0 1 8 6 3 0 0

FERC PROJECT NO. 637 0 0 3 2 8 3 0 3 0

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY

The development of the Public Utility District (PUD) research methods for the Lake Chelan Hydroelec- tric Project is designed to be a collaborative effort between the members of the Lake Chelan Cultural Resource Management Group (CRMG). At each stage of developing the plan the CRMG will be asked to provide input into the methods employed and to review each stage of work completed.

This document focuses upon the methods to be employed during the 1999 field inventory and is largely the result of discussions held with the CRMG during meetings held on January 21, February 23, and March 29, 1999. Additional investigations will likely be required in the year 2000.

SECTION 5: TASK LIST

The actions required to complete the 1999 fieldwork necessary to identify and document cultural resources located along Lake Chelan can most conveniently be broken into a series of tasks, as follows:

Task 1 - Pre-field Investigations Prior to conducting fieldwork, an examination of available records to identify the presence of previously recorded sites and site leads will be conducted. This will include a site file search for all sections in the project area, a literature search of archaeological materials relevant to the study area and an examination of General Land Office Survey Plats for each section. This data has been compiled and placed on the 7.5’ topographic maps to be used by the field supervisors. The CRMG was provided with a tabular summary of this data on March 8, 1999.

In addition, a boat trip to examine the Lake Chelan shoreline will be conducted. The purpose of this trip was to introduce the Field Supervisors to the CRMG and to other localities of concern. Tribal Elders and each member of the management group were invited to participate in the boat reconnaissance. Representatives of FERC, USFS, BIA, Chelan PUD and the CCT participated.

Task 2 - Shoreline Inventory Field crews will be made up of archaeologists qualified under the Secretary of Interior Standards and field technicians. An archaeologist will be present during all field surveys. Field survey of the defined APE will be undertaken with the exception of areas 1) previously surveyed (within the last 10 years) with transect intervals that were spaced no greater than 15 meters apart; 2) where terrain is dangerous or inaccessible; 3) where wet ground conditions make walking impossible; 4) where extant erosion control devices (rip-rap etc.) make the shoreline inaccessible; and 5) where landowner access has not been obtained.

Transect intervals will normally be 15 meters; however, it may expand to 30 meters where conditions warrant. Field surveyors will zigzag along their transects and maximize survey intensity by seeking out

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page K-9 SS/2619_3 Cultural and Historical Resources: Field Methods Survey Study Plan the best surface visibility. Landforms characterized by non-vegetated vertical banks will be intensively examined for buried deposits. The field archaeologists will note where pedestrian survey occurred and the level of intensity (15 or 30 meter transects). The field archaeologists will also note where and provide a reason why a pedestrian survey did not occur in any area located within the APE.

Diagnostics (e.g., projectile points) and highly significant or unusual artifacts found on federal or tribally alloted lands may be collected from the surface of the site during survey. The location of all removed items will be clearly marked on the site map and an unobtrusive marker will be placed at the site to mark its original location. It is understood that the final disposition of the artifacts has not been determined. If the CRMG determines the artifacts should be returned to the site, the artifacts will be returned to a spot as close to its original location as possible. If the artifacts are to be curated off-site, they will be stored at a federally accredited facility or returned to the landowner as appropriate.

Three major site type categories are defined for this project: prehistoric, traditional culture, and historic. The minimal prehistoric site definition will be any cultural feature or two artifacts within any 50 square meter area. A traditional culture site is defined as locations of traditional, ceremonial or cultural importance to members of Native American Tribes who once occupied the land. An historic site is defined by the presence of any cultural feature (e.g., foundation) or 5 or more historic cultural materials of at least two different material types within a 50 square meter area. Fewer or more dispersed artifacts will be recorded as isolated finds.

All identified sites will be recorded on the Washington State site form. Forms for previously recorded sites will be updated. Sites that extend outside the survey corridor will be recorded completely. The exception will be linear sites (trails, railroads, irrigation ditches, roads etc.), that will be recorded up to 30 m beyond the project boundary. Complete legals (1/4, 1/4, section, township, range and county), elevation, distance to water, water name, aspect and slope will be determined and noted on the form along with the USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map reference. The UTM coordinates will be obtained in the field from differentially corrected Global Positioning System (GPS unit, accurate to +/- 5 meters) readings. General information such as site description, artifact density, site dimensions, land- form, vegetation, investigative methods and recorder will also be provided. A site map and a site photograph will always be included with the form.

The CRMG will review the site forms. Recommended changes agreed upon by the CRMG will be made before the site forms are submitted to the Office of Archaeological and Historic Preservation (OAHP) to obtain a Smithsonian trinomial number. In addition to Smithsonian numbers, all sites found on Forest Service land will be provided with the appropriate Wenatchee National Forest site number.

Any human remains encountered during the pedestrian survey, or the course of PUD project operations will be treated in a respectful manner. Respectful treatment of burials means appropriate in terms of the culture of the individual being disinterred and in a manner consistent with applicable state and/or federal laws. NAGPRA procedures will be followed with respect to notification, removal (if any) and disposition of the remains. To ensure the appropriate treatment in the event of a discovery of identifiable human skeletal remains, the PUD will 1) immediately stop all work at the location of the human remains; 2) no-

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2619_3 Page K-10 July 16, 1999 Cultural and Historical Resources: Field Survey Methods tify the sheriff/coroner; 3) notify the OAHP, the appropriate agency and tribes (If the remains are located on state or federal lands, the appropriate agency will contact the tribes. If located on private lands, Ethnoscience will contact the tribes); 4) arrange a meeting of all interested parties, including the tribes, the landowners/stewards, PUD representatives, and Ethnoscience archaeologist or ethnographer. These parties will come to a consensus agreement for the respectful treatment of the remains. Tribal members of the CRMG will be asked to provide specific guidance in the case of Indian remains. For example, they may advise that it is appropriate to preserve and re-bury the sediments immediately surrounding the bones or that drawing of grave materials is more appropriate than photographing them.

In the event that human remains and/or grave associated artifacts are recovered on project lands during any action covered by this undertaking, the federal agencies in consultation with the CRMG will take all necessary actions to ensure compliance with the full extent and intent of NAGPRA, AIRFA, NHPA and any other relevant federal statues. In all cases, the principles of respectful treatment and timely rein- ternment will guide the recommendations.

Task 3 - Shovel Probing Shovel probes will be performed only at newly identified sites that exhibit the presence of active erosion. The primary purpose of the shovel probes will be to establish the site boundaries. In addition, the shovel probes may provide information regarding the nature of subsurface deposits (e.g., presence or absence of cultural artifacts or stratigraphy, density of cultural material and character of deposition). The number and placement of the shovel probes will be at the discretion of the Field Supervisor. The Field Supervi- sor will document his/her rationale for the number of probes used in each site. Shovel probes will average 30 cm in diameter and to a depth to be determined by the nature of the deposit and/or the presence of artifacts. All fill from the probes will be screened through 1/8 inch mesh. The excavation of each probe will be recorded, describing its location and dimensions, the soil type and the screening results. The probes will be plotted on the site map.

Although cultural material obtained from shovel probes may be removed from the site for further analysis, it is understood that the final disposition of the artifacts has not been determined. If the CRMG determines the artifacts should be returned to the site, the artifacts will be placed back into the shovel probes, or as close to this location as possible. If the artifacts are to be curated off-site, they will be stored at a federally accredited facility or returned to the landowner as appropriate.

Upon completing the fieldwork, the Supervisors will report their findings to the CRMG and describe site-specific investigations. The management group will assess the completeness of the fieldwork. If additional work is necessary, plans for additional field investigations will be made.

Task 4 - Ethnographic Investigations Ethnographic sources will be reviewed, and all data relevant to the project area will be compiled. All resultant data will be presented in narrative format. In addition, the site-specific data will be presented in tabular form and, where possible located by township, range, section and the appropriate 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map. The information and materials will be presented in a confidential report.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page K-11 SS/2619_3 Cultural and Historical Resources: Field Methods Survey Study Plan

These investigations will also require the collection of oral history data from the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation. The goal of this data collection task is to develop the background data necessary to identify potential Tradi- tional Cultural Properties as identified by Bulletin 38. This data gathering effort will focus on the spiritual environment of the project area and on where and how Indian people used the study area. In addition, information about the relative sensitivity of different site types and their appropriate treatment will be sought from the tribes.

Presently, the procedures have not been established for conducting ethnographic investigations of sites located along Lake Chelan. Designing the procedures to be used in these investigations is a high priority. Representatives of both the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation will be contacted to ascertain their appropriate protocol for conducting ethnographic investigations. Final procedures and subcontracting details for conducting ethnographic investigations will be finalized in consultation with each of the tribal representatives.

Oral history from the local residents will also be obtained. The goal of this data collection task is to develop the background data necessary to provide historic property documentation and information for non-tribal interpretative studies. This data gathering effort will focus on the historic ties to the project area and on where and how non-tribal peoples used the study area. Interviewees will be given the option of anonymity and provided culturally appropriate forms of recogni- tion. The exact mechanisms for doing this will be determined in accordance with the culturally appropriate rules of equity and courtesy. Interviewees will be given copies of their interviews for their review and editing. By participating in this project, no interviewee is authorizing the commercial use of the information they choose to share. Disclosure of site information is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

If site-specific information is available from ethnographic investigations, this will be noted on the site form. If the interviewee does not want the information presented on the site form, the following statement will be provided--"Oral documentation associated with this site was gathered. Requests to obtain this information must be made to Individual or Organization name.

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

Systematic and defensible site eligibility recommendations are critical to the successful completion of this phase of the project. Eligibility recommendations will result from criteria developed by the CRMG. Dis- cussions regarding site eligibility criteria will begin after the 1999 shoreline inventory has been completed. The criteria will be explicit, specific, and measurable in so far as possible and defensible. The CRMG is fully conversant with National Park Service bulletins 15, 16, 30 and 38. While it is not necessary to parrot these bulletins, it is critical to have a systematic defensible context for recommendations. Site-specific and general rural historic landscape eligibility recommendations will be articulated in culturally relevant terms and supported by ethnographic, archaeological or historic data.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2619_3 Page K-12 July 16, 1999 Cultural and Historical Resources: Field Survey Methods

A professional quality survey report including site evaluations for all sites for which surface remains and historic records are sufficient to make systematic defensible recommendations will be produced. For those sites that require more information to determine eligibility, the report will include recommendations concerning future work, i.e., consultation, testing, etc.

All resultant data will be presented in narrative format. In addition, the site-specific data will be presented in tabular form and, where possible, information on the township, range and section will be provided, and its location marked on the appropriate 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map. These materials will be presented in a confidential report. Copies of this report will be made available to members of the CRMG and reviewing agencies (e.g., Advisory Council, FERC).

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS

Ethnoscience will provide the personnel required to complete the archaeological and historical inventory. Ethnoscience will subcontract a large portion of the ethnographic investigations to the specialists acceptable to the CRMG. This will include the ethnographic overview and Traditional Cultural Property investigations of the tribally affiliated sites. Some equipment, not already available, will be obtained. This includes screens used in subsurface investigations and videotapes to document sites for ethnographic investigations. The boat and pilot used during the inventory will be chartered. The boat for the pre-field trip and a GPS unit will be provided by the PUD.

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE

Most of the literature required for this project has been compiled, and the location of potential sites within the project area have been plotted on 7.5 topographic quadrangle maps. A closer examination of the documents will occur throughout 1999 and will be used, in part, as a basis for establishing the NRHP evaluation criteria. The pre-field boat trip is scheduled for March 30, 1999. The field inventory is schedules to occur from March 31-April 16, 1999. A meeting to discuss what was found and what activities were conducted is tentatively planned for the week of April 30, 1999. Although plans to conduct the ethnographic investigations have not been finalized, it is believed that the bulk of these investigations will occur throughout the summer of 1999. Traditional Cultural Property Studies of tribally affiliated sites may also take place in this time period. However, if TCP studies require on-site visits by Tribal Elders to sites that are only accessible at low water, these studies cannot be completed until March-April 2000.

Throughout the summer and fall of 1999 the CRMG will establish the criteria for NRHP eligibility and begin discussions on possible treatments. A draft version of the site forms is tentatively scheduled to be completed in May, 1999 and will be submitted to the CRMG for review. The final site forms will not be submitted to the OAHP until after the TCP investigations have been completed (June 2000). During the

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page K-13 SS/2619_3 Cultural and Historical Resources: Field Methods Survey Study Plan winter, a large portion of the Inventory and Evaluation Report will be drafted. Additional fieldwork will likely need to be done in April, 2000. Information from these investigations will be incorporated into the Inventory and Evaluation Report and a Treatment Plan report. These are tentatively scheduled to be submitted to the CRMG by July, 2000. Implementation of mitigation effects or enhancement measures will be scheduled as soon as effects to eligible sites are documented.

Table K-1: Estimated Time Schedule for the Years 1999 through 2000

Estimated Time Estimated Time 1999 Task 2000 Task Schedule for 1999 Schedule for 2000

Additional Field Work 1/99-12/99 Examination of Liturature 4/2000 (Testing, TCP Visits?). 3/30/99 Pre-field Boat Trip 6/2000 through 9/2000 Site Visits by Tribal Elders Final Site Forms to be 3/31/99 through 4/16/99 Field Inventory 6/2000 Submitted to OAHP. Meeting to discuss Field I&E and Treatment Plan 4/20/99 7/2000 Inventory. Report Submitted. Summer 1999 Ethnographic Overview

CRMG Will Establish 6/99 through 10/99 Criteria for NRHP Eligibility and Site Treatments.

Completion and Submission 5/99 of Draft Site Forms to CRMG. Large portion of I&E Report 11/99 through 12/99 to be Drafted.

SECTION 9: BUDGET

A budget for 1999 work has been submitted to the PUD. Costs in 2000 cannot be determined until the number and type of sites is known. Further, these costs will be affected by the nature and extent of testing deemed adequate by the CRMG and the necessity and extent of TCP studies necessary in the year 2000.

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS

• Evaluate the adequacy of the 1999 fieldwork • Define criteria required to recommend a site as eligible to the NRHP • Conduct additional fieldwork • Submit Summary Report for review and address all comments • Discuss treatments for NRHP eligible sites • Submit a Treatment Plan for review and address all comments

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2619_3 Page K-14 July 16, 1999 Cultural and Historical Resources: Field Survey Methods

• Implement actions defined within the Treatment Plan

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page K-15 SS/2619_3 Cultural and Historical Resources: Field Survey Methods

APPENDIX A

Issues To Be Addressed

To be determined.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page K-17 SS/2619_3 Cultural and Historical Resources: Field Survey Methods

APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL PLAN

The Technical plan is a supplement to the study plan and is currently under review by the cultural resources working group.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page K-19 SS/2619_3 FISHERY STRANDING INVESTIGATION STUDY PLAN

Final

LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 637

July 16, 1999

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Wenatchee, Washington Fishery Stranding Investigation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...... L-1 1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project...... L-1 1.2 General Description of the Relicensing Process ...... L-2 1.3 Need Statement ...... L-7

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL...... L-7

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA...... L-7

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY ...... L-7 4.1 Snorkel Surveys ...... L-7 4.2 Fish Salvage Operations...... L-7 4.3 Additional Considerations ...... L-8

SECTION 5: TASK LIST...... L-8

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING...... L-9

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS...... L-9

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE...... L-9

SECTION 9: BUDGET...... L-9

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS...... L-9

APPENDIX A...... L-11 Issues To Be Addressed ...... L-11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure L-1: Bypass Reach Location Map ...... L-5

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page L-i SS/2125_5 Fishery Stranding Investigation

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

Lake Chelan is deep and narrow, extending northwesterly approximately 50 miles from the City of Chelan at its lower end to Stehekin at the head of the lake. Lake Chelan is a natural lake that developed within a broad glacial trough. The lake averages 1 mile in width, and has depths of over 1,480 feet. Lake Chelan is bordered by more than 2 million acres of National Forest Lands, more than half of which are designated as wilderness. Surrounding peaks reach elevations as high as 7,000 feet. The lake serves as a waterway approach to the Forest Service’s Wenatchee National Forest above Twenty Five Mile Creek, and to the National Park Service’s Lake Chelan National Recreation Area at Stehekin. The lower 15 miles of the lake are mostly privately owned, the next 35 are within the Wenatchee Na- tional Forest, and the upper 5 miles are within the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.

The average surface area of the lake is 32,000 acres. The drainage area of the project at the dam is 924 square miles. The confluence of the Chelan River and Columbia River is approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the City of Chelan. The lake level and flow through the Chelan River drainage were altered through the construction of a hydroelectric project in the river channel near the City of Chelan in 1928.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page L-1 SS/2125_5 Fishery Stranding Investigation

The 4.1-mile long bypass reach (Chelan River or Gorge) is comprised of four distinct sections (Figure L-1). The 2.29-mile long upper section, Section 1, of the bypass reach below the dam is characterized by a relatively wide flood plain, low gradient, 55 ft/mile, and substrate comprised mainly of large cobble and boulders. Some spawning sized gravel is contained in the margins of the channel, deposited in these areas during high flow events during spring runoff.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2125_5 Page L-2 July 16, 1999 Fishery Stranding Investigation agency consensus, and public involvement. The process to obtain a new license has changed considerably since the existing license was issued in 1981, primarily due to changes made to the Federal Power Act (FPA) as amended by the Electric Consumers Power Act (ECPA) in 1986. ECPA mandates that the FERC give equal consideration to the enhancement of existing environmental, recreation, fish, and wildlife resources, and to balance what are often competing uses of the water resources. ECPA also empowers the FERC to consider whether or not a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page L-3 SS/2125_5 132 0 0 13 0 132 8 60 4 CHELAN 1 1 1 1 1240 3 1 2 5 0 6 1 4 2

4 4 4 0

0 0 # 0

0 0 8 1 LAKE CHELAN 4 4

4 1 0

97A 0 0

1 /( 6

6 1

4 0 0 6

1 12 0 12 4 2 8 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 1 0

0 0 2 6 1 5 0

0 1 6 DAM 8 9 2 0

1 0 0 1 240 80 Ü 0 0 1 Ê 10 8 0 SECTION 1 4 8 1320 1 0 4 8

150 0 Æ# 2 0 1 3 6 0

4 P 4 1 1 8

0 R 1 8 R

O E J

E V 80 I

14 C 0 C

T R

4 1 0 2 H 8

1 2 0

B 0 E 0

2 0

L O

0 1 4 A 8 1 0

1 U 0 N 840 0 1

0 N 8 8 1 D P 0

2 1680 R T A A U 11 9 I 1720 O N R 60

J N Y B E E R C I L V M 0 1 T E /(97 6 1 R 0 U 7 6 B 0 1920 2 O B 7 L U Y N G P O 0 D A 184 O S C A R S R G 960 E 0 Y 6 R 0 9 R 0 1 E 6 O A 2 1 C 7 A H 1 D 2160

0 8 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 8 0 2 3 8 2 2 6 2 4 1 1 1 1 0 1

1 0 5 0 0 24 9 2 2 6 0 5 0 6 1

2 0 4 0 0 2 6 2 1 0 9 600 8 Ü 1 4 8 0 8 0 1 SECTION 2 0 2 0 3 8 7 0 2 0 1 1 2 8 4 8 0 7 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 1 8 0 0 6 0

8 4 2 4 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 8 1 0 0 2 4 6 6 3 5 0 1 9 1 0 0 SHEET 1 2 1 6 8 3 9 0 1 SECTION 3 2 2 0

3 9 6 0 2

0 6

4 8 08 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 6 3 Ü (GORGE) 9 2 1 BYPASS REACH LOCATION MAP8 0 0 0 0 40 6 0 6 16 10 5 8 1 3 1 8 2 LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 1 2 2

0 0 2 2

0 1 8 6 3 0 0

FERC PROJECT NO. 637 0 0 3 2 8 3 0 3 0

1.3 Need Statement Anadromous fish migration into the bypass reach, particularly Section 3, during the May to July spill period has been documented in past years by PUD personnel. Concern has been expressed by various stakeholders regarding potential stranding of anadromous fish in the bypass reach after spill is curtailed for the season, particularly those listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Investigation into the species, numbers of each, and origin of fish observed in the bypass reach prior to curtailing spill is vital to assessing the potential extent and impacts of stranding to fishery resources and development of potential measures to reduce or eliminate stranding.

SECTION 2: STUDY GOAL

The goal of the Fish Stranding Investigation is to: 1) determine the types and numbers of fish that may be present in the bypass reach after spill is curtailed; and 2) identify a mitigation strategy to protect anadromous and resident fish that may become stranded in the bypass reach after spill is curtailed.

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA

The study area encompasses the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project bypass reach, which begins below the dam and joins the tailrace of the powerhouse near the Columbia River. The bypass reach is comprised of four distinct sections (Figure L-1). Of particular interest is Section 3 of the bypass reach. It is in this section that anadromous fish have been observed in past years and have the greatest potential for stranding.

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY

4.1 Snorkel Surveys One snorkel survey will be conducted in the bypass reach as close to curtailment of spill as possible when inflows into the project recede to near hydraulic capacity of the powerhouse. Timing of the snorkel survey, and curtailment of spill, will be dependent upon runoff forecasts and other factors effecting Lake Chelan elevation. The snorkel survey will be conducted from the downstream end of Section 3 upstream to the first barrier deemed impassible to adult fish, which is approximately half way up the section. A team of two snorkelers will work upstream through the study area, each observing one half of the wetted area. All fish will be identified and enumerated, and inspected for marks (i.e. fin-clips on chinook and steelhead) and signs of hatchery origin (i.e. fin erosion on rainbow trout) to the best of the snorkeling team’s ability. Special attention will be paid to steelhead, listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and spring chinook salmon, proposed for listing under the ESA at this time. If an ESA listed fish is identified, then a specific location for each fish will be determined to assist in salvage operations.

4.2 Fish Salvage Operations Fish salvage operations will be conducted for each ESA listed fish identified in the bypass reach. Im- mediately upon curtailment of spill and recession of flows, salvage crews will initiate operations. Listed fish will be captured beach seine, dip net, or other practical capture device. Captured fish will be anes-

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page L-7 SS/2125_5 Fishery Stranding Investigation thetized lightly with MS-222, placed in a hatchery handling tank or pipe, carried downstream, allowed to recover from the anesthetic, and released at the confluence of the bypass reach and project tailrace.

Salvage operations will also be conducted in the stilling basin immediately downstream of the dam at the same time as salvage operations are being conducted in the lower bypass reach. A beach seine will be used to capture fish in the stilling basin. Captured fish will be placed in buckets, transported to a large holding tank placed in the bed of a pick-up truck, transferred to the nearest boat launch, and released back into the lake. Since most of the fish observed in 1998 were game fish e.g., hatchery rainbow trout, smallmouth bass, and landlocked chinook salmon, no anesthetic will be used in the holding tank. Other species observed in 1998, suckers, chiselmouth, etc. will also be included in the salvage operation. Northern Pikeminnows may not be returned to the lake, as was the case in 1998, since the WDFW representative present during the fish salvage operation requested these fish be killed. Cap- tured fish will be held in the holding tank as short a time as possible to reduce handling stress. All fish captured will be identified by species, enumerated, inspected for marks (i.e. fin-clips on landlocked chinook and steelhead) and signs of hatchery origin (i.e. fin erosion on rainbow trout), weighed and measured (fork length).

Other sections of the bypass reach will be surveyed to determine the potential extent of stranding that could occur in these areas. Attempts will be made to salvage fish located in these areas as best as practicable. All fish captured will be identified by species, enumerated, weighed and measured (fork length). All salvage operations will be coordinated with the appropriate agencies to ensure that the proper permits are obtained prior to handling any fish.

Additional issues identified during initial consultation (Appendix A) will be addressed during the course of the studies described previously, or in other studies associated with the Lake Chelan relicensing process. For example, fish use will be observed during this study when flow is provided in the bypass reach and also during the Bypass Reach Flow Releases Study. Recreation, other than fishing, aesthetics, kayaking, and safety issues will also be addressed in the Chelan River Recreational Flow Study and Paddling Feasibility Study. Power impacts of various scenarios will be addressed in this and other studies, such as Columbia River Flow Augmentation and Lake Level Investigation.

4.3 Additional Considerations • Barrier net above the dam to prevent emigration from the lake • Barrier at the head of Section 4 to prevent upstream passage into the gorge • Increase the number of stocked fish if they are the primary species leaving the lake • Investigate different stocking times, locations, strategies to prevent fish from leaving the lake • Investigate incidence of cutthroat trout, landlocked chinook salmon, and kokanee in the bypass reach

SECTION 5: TASK LIST

Task 1 – Snorkel Surveys 1.1 Conduct survey immediately prior to spill curtailment 1.2 Identify and enumerate fish species located in Section 3 of the bypass reach

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2125_5 Page L-8 July 16, 1999 Fishery Stranding Investigation

Task 2 – Fish Salvage Operations 2.1 Stilling basin 2.2 Bypass reach Section 3 2.3 Other bypass reach areas

Task 3 – Report

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

A summary report will be prepared to present the results of the snorkel observations and fish salvage operations. Results from the 1998 and 1999 field investigations will be used by the Fisheries Workgroup to determine if any additional measures need to be implemented to protect anadromous fish in the area.

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS

Chelan PUD will coordinate the Fish Stranding Investigation with the Lake Chelan work groups. The PUD will provide staff to conduct the snorkel and salvage operations. However, additional participants, such as Chelan Bass Club members in 1998, are welcome to assist in the operations. Chelan PUD will provide all equipment necessary to complete all tasks.

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE

Project spill curtailment, spring 1999 2-3 weeks Coordinate snorkel and salvage operations 1-2 weeks Conduct operations 1-2 days Report 1 week

SECTION 9: BUDGET

Not applicable.

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS

• Review draft detailed study plans in-house for completeness. • Send draft study plans to the Fisheries Workgroup for review and comment. • Incorporate Fisheries Workgroup comments into detailed study plans. • Select consultant to conduct 1999 field investigations. • Finalize contract with selected consultant, and have them prepare for 1999 field season.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page L-9 SS/2125_5 Fishery Stranding Investigation

• Conduct 1999 field studies.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2125_5 Page L-10 July 16, 1999 Fishery Stranding Investigation

APPENDIX A

Issues To Be Addressed

Issue Group Rank Issue Addressed

Impact on fisheries, flows attract Columbia River fish LARC 24/149 Indirect Economics: must be economically viable to PUD LARC 31/149 Indirect Loss of fish in the bypass reach LARC 121/149 Yes

ESA Impacts Fish 11/119 Indirect Rearing Tailrace – ESA Fish 20/119 Indirect Fish stranding (adult) during spill events Fish 24/119 Indirect Rearing (tailrace) – ESA: anadromous fish Fish 33/119 Indirect Potential spawning areas in lower bypass Fish 55/119 Indirect Rearing (tailrace) – ESA: Resident Fish 69/119 Indirect Fish occlusion Fish 70/119 Indirect Analysis of barriers Fish 75/119 Indirect

Must be economically viable to PUD Public 68/75 Indirect

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page L-11 SS/2125_5 LAKE CHELAN RECREATION STUDY PLAN

Final

LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 637

July 16, 1999

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Wenatchee, Washington Lake Chelan Recreation Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ...... M-1 1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project...... M-1 1.2 Project Location...... M-2 1.3 General Description of the Relicensing Process...... M-2 1.4 Recreation Overview...... M-3 1.5 Physical Setting...... M-3 1.6 Climate...... M-4 1.7 Current Lake Use Concept...... M-4 1.8 FERC Requirements ...... M-6

SECTION 2: STUDY GOALS...... M-6

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA...... M-7 3.1 Study Area ...... M-7

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY...... M-7 4.1 Recreation Study Methodologies...... M-7 4.2 Research Objectives ...... M-7

SECTION 5: TASK LIST...... M-7

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING...... M-8

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS ...... M-9 7.1 Staffing (TBD)...... M-9

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE...... M-9

SECTION 9: BUDGET...... M-10

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS...... M-10

SECTION 11: REFERENCES...... M-10

APPENDIX A...... M-11 Issues To Be Addressed...... M-11

APPENDIX B ...... M-15 Land & Resource Management Plan Wenatchee National Forest...... M-15

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page M-i SS/2105_6 Lake Chelan Recreational Study

MAP NO. 1 ...... M-17

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2105_6 Page M-ii July 16, 1999 Lake Chelan Recreation Study

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

The drainage area of the project is 924 square miles. The project reservoir is operated between water surface elevations of 1,100 feet (MSL) and 1,079 feet to ensure optimum utilization of the reservoir for power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation, water supply, and flood control purposes. The average maximum drawdown of the lake for the 44 years from 1952 to 1995 was 1084.2 feet. The reservoir has 677,400 acre-feet of usable storage above 1,079 feet. Of this, 612,400 acre-feet can be used for power generation and 65,000 acre-feet is available for irrigation.

Our knowledge of human activity in the Chelan basin prior to Euroamerican entry into the region is limited. While several isolated occurrences of cultural/historic sites are known on the Lake Chelan shoreline, the vast majority of the shoreline has not been surveyed in detail.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page M-1 SS/2105_6 Lake Chelan Recreation Study

1.2 Project Location The State of Washington encompasses a wide range of geographic diversity, from the marine influenced ocean shores and the Puget Sound, over the rugged Cascade Mountain Range to the rolling hills of central Washington, to the ancient mountain ranges of north central and eastern Washington. The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project is located on the Chelan River between two significantly different physiographic areas. In the Cascade Mountains to the west, a metamorphosed sedimentary, volcanic, and granitic rock predominates. On the Columbia River Plateau to the east, bedrock is covered by vast, thick layers of basalt.

Lake Chelan is located in Chelan County in north central Washington. This natural lake is deep and narrow and extends northwesterly approximately 50 miles from the city of Chelan at it’s lower end, to Stehekin at the head of the lake. The average surface area of the lake is 32,000 acres. The lake flows into the Chelan River at the City of Chelan. The Chelan River forms a confluence at the Columbia River about 1.5 miles southeast of the City of Chelan. The level of the lake and the flow through the Chelan River drainage were altered through the construction of a hydroelectric project in the river channel near the City of Chelan in 1928.

The drainage area of the project at the dam is 924 square miles. The project reservoir is operated between a maximum water surface elevation of 1,100 feet (MSL) and 1,079 feet to ensure optimum utilization of the reservoir for power generation, fish and wildlife conservation, recreation, water supply, and flood control purposes. The average drawdown of the lake for the past 30 years has been 1083.5 feet. The reservoir has 676,000 acre-feet of usable storage above 1,079 feet, of which 640,000 acre-feet is used for power generation and 33,000 acre-feet is used for irrigation.

Since the project was originally licensed in 1926, the lake has never been drawn down to the minimum allowable elevation (1,079 feet). The lowest drawdown on record was 1,079.7 feet in 1970. That occurrence coincides with the lowest annual precipitation on record. Chelan PUD has never failed to refill the reservoir to elevation 1,098 feet by June 30.

1.3 General Description of the Relicensing Process Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County (Chelan PUD) owns and operates the Lake Chelan Hy- droelectric Project located on the Chelan River in Chelan, Washington. Chelan PUD is permitted to operate the Hydro Project according to terms and conditions contained in an existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license that was issued on May 12, 1981. The license expires in 2004.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2105_6 Page M-2 July 16, 1999 Lake Chelan Recreation Study

Chelan PUD intends to seek a new federal license to operate the Lake Chelan Hydro Project and has begun preparation for the process referred to as “relicensing”. The FERC relicensing process is based on laws and regulations that require years of extensive planning, including environmental studies, agency consensus and public involvement. The process to obtain a new license has changed considerably since the existing license was issued in 1981, primarily due to changes made to the Federal Power Act (FPA) as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA) in 1986. ECPA mandates that FERC give equal consideration to the enhancement of existing environmental, recreation, fish, and wildlife resources affected by the project, to that of power and development resources, and to balance what are often competing uses of the water resources. ECPA also empowers the FERC to consider if a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans.

1.4 Recreation Overview Consistently ranked as one of the most pristine waters in the United States, Lake Chelan’s 50 mile length acts as a natural conduit between the rugged mountain peaks uplake and the lush, fertile downlake valley. With a depth of 1,486 feet, Lake Chelan is the second deepest lake in the nation, extending nearly 400 feet below sea level.

The clean, crystal clear blue water of Lake Chelan offers some of the best outdoor recreational opportunities in the country. Fishing, boating, water skiing, swimming, kayaking, parasailing, jet skiing, and tubing are just some of the many water based activities available. In addition, the surrounding National Forests, State and National Parks, and other public and private lands offer backpacking, hiking, camping, skiing and other year-round outdoor activity adventures.

1.5 Physical Setting Lake Chelan is bordered on the south by the Entiat and Chelan Mountains and the Glacier Peak complex. On the north side it is bordered by the Sawtooth Mountain Range. From 25 Mile Creek uplake, the terrain is mountainous and rugged. In many cases, the steep slopes run directly into the lake with no flat beaches or shoreline. The terrain of the lower end of the lake is much less severe, mainly arid or semi-arid. Except where irrigation has taken place, the hills of the lower end of the lake are barren with brown grasses and a few scattered pines.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page M-3 SS/2105_6 Lake Chelan Recreation Study lion acres of National Forest Lands, more than half of which are designated wilderness. Surrounding peaks tower as high as 7,000 feet above it’s 50 mile length. The lake serves as a waterway approach to the Forest Service’s Wenatchee National Forest above Twenty Five Mile Creek, and to the National Park Service’s Lake Chelan National Recreation Area at Stehekin. The lower 15 miles of the lake are mostly privately owned; the next 35 are within the Wenatchee National Forest; and the upper 5 miles are within the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.

1.6 Climate The climate in the vicinity of Lake Chelan is the semi-arid type which is typical of Eastern Washington. There are, however, significant variations in climate between the two ends of the lake. There is a seasonal range of temperatures in the area with winter averaging about 25°F and summer about 75°F. Spring and Fall temperatures average 50°F. Extreme temperatures can approach -30°F in winter and 110°F in summer. Temperature variation between the lower end (City of Chelan) and uplake (Stehekin) usually averages 10°F in summer and 3°F in winter. The precipitation is generally low at Chelan with an annual average of about 9.5 inches. The precipitation rises toward the crest of the Cascades with over 150 inches of average annual precipitation, the bulk of which falls between October and March.

1.7 Current Lake Use Concept The physical characteristics of the lake have contributed to a development pattern which has three zones: an Occupancy Zone, a Transitory Zone, and a Destination Zone. Each zone offers a unique recreation experience related to the setting in which recreation occurs. This experience is a combination of physical, biological, social, and managerial conditions that give value to a place. The setting is tied to six (6) manageable factors: (a) access, (b) non-recreational resource uses, (c) onsite management, (d) social interaction, (e) acceptability of visitor impacts, and (f) acceptable regimentation.

The Forest Service uses the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to describe the setting and experience that the recreation user can expect. The six (6) major classes in the ROS are Urban (U), Rural (R), Roaded Natural (RN), Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM), Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM), and Primitive (P).

The Occupancy Zone comprises the lower third of the lake. In it are most of the lake’s private recreation facilities (resorts) and about two thirds of the public recreation facilities. The water at this end of the lake is warmer in summer and as a result receives heavy use for water skiing, boating, swimming and other water related recreational activities. The landscape of the area is arid with sparse vegetation, having rounded hills with irrigated orchards located on most suitable soils. The occupancy zone has two main industries, tourism and fruit production.

The Occupancy Zone will probably continue as a major recreation destination for the Pacific Northwest Region. Unlike the other two lake zones, the occupancy zone is accessible by land transportation. It’s resorts and public recreational facilities have the capability to accommodate a diverse range of recrea-

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2105_6 Page M-4 July 16, 1999 Lake Chelan Recreation Study tional activities. The Occupancy Zone is classified as Urban to Rural with highly developed access, facilities and regimentation.

The Transitory Zone is a “water highway” and is made up of the water corridor between Twenty Five Mile Creek and Lucerne/Moore Point. The Transitory Zone is primarily Wenatchee National Forest lands with some private inholdings. Most uplake visitors travel through this zone by boat or plane with ultimate destinations at Stehekin or Lucerne. The landscape of the zone is alpine in character with steep mountain slopes and rock outcroppings rising from the lake to elevations of 2,000-5,000 feet a short distance from the lakeshore. Recreation sites in the Transitory Zone are mainly limited to small alluvial fans where mountain streams enter the lake. The water temperature in this zone is considerably colder than downlake.

The greatest portion of land in the Transitory Zone is owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. It has been designated “scenic” by the Forest Service, thus constraining the type of development along the water corridor. Other Forest Service lands to the south of the transitory zone have been designated as wilderness, thus placing limits on their development. The major means of access to both the scenic and wilderness areas is through the Transitory Zone. The Transitory Zone is classified as Roaded Natural along the lake. The upper elevations outside of the project boundary are classified Semi- Primitive Non-Motorized to Primitive.

The Destination Zone is primarily Wenatchee National Forest and National Park Service lands with some private inholdings, and extends from the Lucerne/Moore Point area to the head of the Lake at Stehekin. The Destination Zone is composed of three large sites (The Stehekin Valley, Moore Point and Lucerne) and several smaller ones. Although it somewhat overlaps the Transitory Zone, it offers a more diverse range of recreational activities with sites that have a sufficient land area to satisfy recreational needs over a longer period of time. The greater part of the Destination Zone is included in the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area of the North Cascades National Park, making the area a primary destination of thousands of day and overnight visitors annually. The landscape of this zone is basi- cally similar to the Transitory Zone, however, the sites are generally flatter in nature, and located on alluvial fans at stream mouths.

The ROS category for the Destination Zone is Roaded Natural along the lake with a Rural node class at Stehekin. The upper elevations outside the project boundary are classified Semi-Primitive Non- Motorized to Primitive, except for Holden, which is Natural along the travel route with a Rural node in Holden Village.

The Transitory Zone and Destination Zone are surrounded by the North Cascades National Park, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, and the Stephen P. Mather, Glacier Peak, and Lake Chelan Saw- tooth Wildernesses. The facilities in the Transitory and Destination Zones are accessible by boat, float plane, or ferry on lake Chelan. A network of non-motorized trails connect the upper end of Lake Chelan to other areas such as Entiat Ranger District, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, and the Okanogan National Forest.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page M-5 SS/2105_6 Lake Chelan Recreation Study

1.8 FERC Requirements The Lake Chelan Recreation Study will be conducted by the Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1 (hereinafter called District) prior to preparing a Report on Recreation Resources (hereinafter called Recreation Plan), as per 18CFR4.51(f), for the relicensing of Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637.

SECTION 2: STUDY GOALS

The purpose of the Recreation Study is to define the overall context of public recreation planning for Lake Chelan and to develop a concept for the coordinated development and utilization of the lake’s recreational resources. A primary goal of the Recreation Study is to focus on project-related impacts to recreation and addressing those issues.

Ultimately, the results from the Lake Chelan Recreation Study will be used by the Recreation Working Group to develop a Comprehensive Recreation Plan for Lake Chelan. The Recreation Study will contain:

• a description of any existing public and private recreational facilities within or adjacent to the project boundary, indicating whether the facilities are available for public use; • an estimate of existing and potential recreational use of the project area, in daytime and overnight visits; • a description of any measures or facilities recommended by the Recreation Working Group for the purpose of preserving or enhancing recreational opportunities at the project and in its vicinity (including opportunities for the handicapped), and for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the public in its use of project lands and waters; • a statement of the existing measures or facilities to be continued or maintained and any new measures or facilities proposed by the Chelan PUD for the purpose of preserving, or enhancing recreational opportunities at the project and in its vicinity, and for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the public in its use of project lands and waters; identification of the entities responsible for implementing, constructing, operating or maintaining any existing or proposed measures or facilities; • a schedule showing the intervals following issuance of a license at which implementation of the measures of construction of the facilities would be commenced and completed; • an estimate of the costs of construction, operation, and maintenance of any proposed facilities, including a statement of the sources and extent of financing; • a map or conceptual drawings showing the identity and location of any facilities, and indicating whether each facility is existing or proposed; • a description of any areas within or in the vicinity of the proposed project boundary that are included in or have been designated for study for inclusion in The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or that have been designated as a wilderness study area under the Wilderness Act.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2105_6 Page M-6 July 16, 1999 Lake Chelan Recreation Study

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA

3.1 Study Area The proposed study area is the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637 project boundary from Chelan Falls Powerhouse to Stehekin. The study area will include all public recreational resources within the project boundary, as identified on Map No. 1 (see page 15).

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY

4.1 Recreation Study Methodologies In order to develop a concept for Lake Chelan, the study will bring together all of the various elements necessary to formulate a comprehensive recreation plan. These elements include:

• Review of existing recreation resource assessment work • Summarize current management plans and policies of agencies • Inventory of existing public and private recreation resources • Analysis of recreational activities and demand for facilities • Analysis of recreational resource capacity for recreation development • Recreation resource mapping • Examination of potential recreational development opportunities and alternatives. • Determination of recreational impacts as a result of project operations and recommending changes to address those impacts. • Investigate feasibility of providing whitewater boating opportunities in bypass reach

4.2 Research Objectives Appendix “A” lists all the comments solicited from various groups relevant to the Recreation Study. The last column is an evaluation of whether each issue will be addressed by the study as proposed. Where the word “indirectly” is used, it is meant to indicate that the study will provide some information useful in addressing the issue, but will not by itself provide all the information necessary to address the issue. Where “no” is used, it is meant to indicate that the study, as proposed, is not expected to provide information that contributes substantially to addressing the issue.

SECTION 5: TASK LIST

1. Describe existing public and private recreational facilities at the project, indicating whether the facilities are available for public use. 2. Estimate existing and potential recreational use of the project area, in daytime and overnight visits. 3. Describe any measures or facilities recommended by the Recreation Working Group for the purpose of preserving or enhancing recreational, educational and interpretive opportunities at the proj-

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page M-7 SS/2105_6 Lake Chelan Recreation Study

ect and in its vicinity (including opportunities for the handicapped), and for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the public in its use of project lands and waters. 4. Describe the existing measures or facilities to be continued or maintained and the new measures or facilities proposed by the Chelan PUD for the purpose of preserving, or enhancing recreational opportunities at the project and in its vicinity, and for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the public in its use of project lands and waters. Identify the entities responsible for implementing, constructing, operating or maintaining any existing or proposed measures or facilities. 5. Develop a schedule showing the intervals following issuance of a license at which implementation of the measures of construction of the facilities would be commenced and completed. 6. Develop an estimate of the costs of construction, operation, and maintenance of any proposed facilities, including a statement of the sources and extent of financing. 7. Develop a map or conceptual drawings showing the identity and location of any facilities, and indicating whether each facility is existing or proposed. 8. Identify and describe any areas within or in the vicinity of the proposed project boundary that are included in or have been designated for study for inclusion in, The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or that have been designated as a wilderness study area under the Wilderness Act. 9. Completion of Recreation Study Report. A. Review draft copy of summary report by December 1, 1999 B. Final draft summary report to be completed by December 30, 1999.

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

All Recreation Study information should be summarized in a clear and concise format. The final report will:

• Define the overall context of recreation planning for the study area and develop a concept for the coordinated development and utilization of the lake’s natural resources. • Provide additional information regarding existing recreational use and future demands and needs. • Examine the need for additional recreational facilities, identify potential recreation sites, evaluate site suitability and resource capacity. • Compile, review, and summarize existing recreational resource management plans relevant to the recreational resources of the study area. • Summarize resource management plans with land use and recreation plans. • Map the existing recreational sites and facilities, and areas reserved for future recreational development. Recreation resource mapping will show the location, nature, and managing authority of existing and proposed recreational facilities, public access areas, undeveloped informal use locations, and areas set aside for future recreational development within the study area. Mapping will also identify the location and nature of Land and Water Conservation Fund Lands within the study area and all lands that have been designated for study for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Riv- ers System, or that have been designated as wilderness area, recommended for such designation, or designated for wilderness under the Wilderness Act. Mapping will also identify State, Federal, and

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2105_6 Page M-8 July 16, 1999 Lake Chelan Recreation Study

Indian Tribal agencies with responsibility for management of recreational resources on the affected lands and waters within the study area. • Provide a description and general overview of the existing recreational resources available for public use in the study area by identifying and mapping existing: 1. Recreation Features (location, type, significance and sensitivity). 2. Recreation Activity Areas (per SCORP planning) as they relate to the study area. 3. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes per USFS. 4. ADA compliance. 5. Physical carrying capacity of the public recreation sites. 6. Identification of any safety features to protect the public engaged in recreation. 7. Determine the adequacy and condition of existing recreation facilities. 8. Determine estimated operating costs, and identify operating agencies, of existing recreation facilities. • Define the existing recreational use in the study area including recreational activity types, high use locations by activity, daytime and overnight visits and temporal trends. • Evaluate recreation needs in the study area to determine whether the needs can be accommodated by existing facilities, or if additional facilities are needed in the study area. • Update the existing 1977 Lake Chelan Recreation Study Plan by defining short and long-range alternatives for recreation development and examine strategies for implementation.

The required reports will follow generally accepted recreational planning guidelines and will include all necessary text, tables, figures, and maps. The final report should also contain an executive summary section. Supporting information and hard data should be provided in the appendices. 10 copies of each report will be provided to the District. All reports should also be provided in electronic format for Mi- crosoft Word. All reports should also be consistent with the District’s Writing Style Guide (to be provided).

A “review” draft of the final report will be coordinated with the District for review and suggested revision prior to completion of the final draft report. This task should be completed by December 1, 1999. The District will provide comments by December 8, 1999 and the final draft report will be completed by December 30, 1999.

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS

7.1 Staffing (TBD)

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE

A Microsoft project schedule will be provided with detailed study plan.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page M-9 SS/2105_6 Lake Chelan Recreation Study

1. Develop study outline. (District and/or consultant) 14-28 days (June 25, 1999) 2. Collect existing information. 21-28 days (July 30, 1999) A. Who compiled the information B. How the information is gathered C. Organize in a consistent format 3. Evaluate, with agencies, accuracy of information. 4. Completion of Recreation Study Report containing a summary and interpretation of the information collected. A. Review draft summary report to be completed by December 1, 1999. B. Final draft summary report to be completed by December 30, 1999.

SECTION 9: BUDGET

The consultant will provide a detailed budget.

SECTION 10: NEXT STEPS

1. Develop a summary report of the existing and potential recreational use of the study area, including daytime and overnight visits.

2. Develop a summary report of existing recreational resource management plans relevant to the recreational resources within the study area.

3. Develop a summary report describing areas within the study area that are included in, or have been designated for study for inclusion in, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or that have been designated as wilderness area, recommended for such designation, or designated as a wilderness study area under the Wilderness Act.

4. Development of a comprehensive recreation plan that will describe existing recreational facilities to be continued or maintained and any measures or facilities being considered by the District (and/or agencies) for the purpose of creating, preserving, or enhancing recreational opportunities in the study area and in it’s vicinity, including an explanation of the District’s position on any measures or facilities recommended during consultation.

SECTION 11: REFERENCES

TBD (Provided by Chelan PUD and Consultant)

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2105_6 Page M-10 July 16, 1999 Lake Chelan Recreation Study

APPENDIX A

Issues To Be Addressed

Issue Group Rank Addressed

Economics: recreational impacts LARC 3/149 Indirect Bypass reach/recreation: safety LARC 4/149 Yes Planning: consider recreational use trends (technology, LARC 6/149 Yes etc.) Bypass reach/recreation: safety potential for being LARC 9/149 Yes trapped Planning: consider recreational carrying capacity LARC 12/149 Yes Lake Levels: use of recreational facilities LARC 15/149 Yes Lake Levels: operational flexibility as in recreational LARC 21/149 Yes use seasons Lake Level Fluctuation: public access areas LARC 23/149 Yes Bypass reach/recreation: safety - during spill and non- LARC 29/149 Yes spill periods Economics: must be economically viable to PUD LARC 31/149 Indirect Recreation: public boating access LARC 38/149 Yes Bypass reach/recreation: safety - concern for emer- LARC 40/149 Indirect gency services being accessible Recreation: carrying capacity LARC 44/149 Yes Bypass reach/recreation: impact on parks with higher LARC 46/149 Yes use Recreation uplake from dam: lake access including LARC 47/149 Yes low-water areas Recreation uplake from dam: year-round launch need LARC 48/149 Yes Recreation: marine and boat moorage LARC 51/149 Yes Education: uniqueness of lake LARC 52/149 Yes Education: taking opportunities to educate public LARC 53/149 Yes Planning: anticipate future pressure from Puget Sound, LARC 54/149 Yes etc. Planning: land conversions, lands that are changed for LARC 55/149 Indirect alternate uses (affects habitat) More Water Quality: need for boat dumping areas, LARC 58/149 Yes boat launches? Economics: impact of pool changes on fishing (tour- LARC 59/149 Yes ism)

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page M-11 SS/2105_6 Lake Chelan Recreation Study

Issue Group Rank Addressed

Address Lake Chelan Valley comprehensive public LARC 61/149 Yes trails plan Aesthetics – drawdowns ugly LARC 62/149 Indirect Flow impact on erosion in bypass LARC 63/149 Indirect Bypass reach/recreation: appropriate minimum flows LARC 67/149 Yes Bypass reach/recreation: positive economic impact to LARC 75/149 Indirect Chelan Falls, City of Chelan Bypass reach/recreation: safety - steep walls LARC 76/149 Yes Erosion: structural damage (i.e. marina) LARC 86/149 Yes Bypass reach/recreation: vehicle traffic in bypass reach LARC 87/149 Yes area Recreation uplake from dam: sand management (shift- LARC 88/149 Indirect ing) Extent of Drawdowns: facilities designed for historic LARC 89/149 Yes drawdowns Education: historic significance LARC 90/149 Yes Recreation: user conflicts between activities LARC 93/149 Yes Recreation: sports fishing and management differences LARC 97/149 Indirect (commercial and notoriety) Upper/lower Lake Differences: opportunity differ- LARC 102/149 Indirect ences, due to geography Lake Level Fluctuation: docks designed for ferries LARC 103/149 Indirect Access: safety providing dam crossing LARC 105/149 Yes Development: jet skis, noise pollution, etc. LARC 106/149 Yes Flooding: higher lake reduces dock and seawall main- LARC 108/149 Indirect tenance Swimming access LARC 109/149 Yes Bypass reach/recreation: day-use hiking LARC 111/149 Yes Education: relationship between LCH & lake LARC 112/149 Yes Recreation: land available for trail linkages LARC 113/149 Yes Bypass reach/recreation: safety, vandalism, trash, graf- LARC 114/149 Yes fiti Lake Levels: exposure to vandalism, cultural resources LARC 116/149 Yes Commercial Impacts: jet skis LARC 117/149 Yes Recreation uplake from dam: wind erosion during low LARC 119/149 Yes water, City Park Bypass reach/recreation: interpretive opportunities LARC 123/149 Yes Recreation: shoreline easements LARC 126/149 Indirect Bypass reach/recreation: land ownership along bypass LARC 127/149 Indirect Recreation: fuel access LARC 129/149 Yes Bypass reach/recreation: safety - photography, aes- LARC 130/149 Indirect

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2105_6 Page M-12 July 16, 1999 Lake Chelan Recreation Study

Issue Group Rank Addressed thetics, scenic viewing Bypass Reach/recreation: safety: associated with fur- LARC 132/149 Yes ther developments Commercial Impacts: commercial boating LARC 133/149 Yes Lake Level Fluctuation: impact on private property LARC 134/149 Indirect owners Lake Level Fluctuation: lwd debris boat safety LARC 135/149 Yes Access: link dam access to Riverwalk Park LARC 137/149 Yes Ballfield on PUD property: potential for expansion of LARC 140/149 Yes facilities Commercial Impacts: paragliding LARC 142/149 Yes Penstock property as a recreational resource LARC 143/149 Yes Access: across dam for the public LARC 144/149 Yes Bypass Reach/recreation: safety: wildlife viewing LARC 145/149 Yes Commercial Impacts: gaming decisions (casino) LARC 147/149 Indirect Hang Gliding and Paragliding: A place to land, front LARC 148/149 Yes and back side of the Butte

Impacts on sport fishing (tourism) Fish 57/119 Indirect

Impact on recreational facilities Public 1/75 Yes Recreational impacts Public 2/75 Yes Overall recreational impact on economy-need for high Public 3/75 Indirect quality year-round recreational economic base Recreational carrying capacity Public 9/75 Yes Improved public boating access including: im- Public 10/75 Yes proved/more boat launches/lanes; more boat parking; marine and boat moorage; year-round access Need for year-round recreation economy Public 13/75 Indirect Need better boating destination points Public 16/75 Yes Debris Public 19/75 Indirect Impact on commercial facilities Public 21/75 Yes Improved boating launches Public 23/75 Yes Better navigation aids on the lake, either maintaining Public 28/75 Yes the current or new, improved ones Marine and boat moorage Public 31/75 Yes Need for public marina, with fuel access, at the lower Public 35/75 Yes end of the lake More parking at existing boat launches Public 38/75 Yes More boat launches Public 39/75 Yes Education: uniqueness of lake Public 40/75 Yes

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page M-13 SS/2105_6 Lake Chelan Recreation Study

Issue Group Rank Addressed

Shoreline access (undercut banks) Public 41/75 Yes Irrigation and pumping capabilities Public 42/75 Indirect Loss of public access points Public 45/75 Indirect Education: taking opportunities to educate public Public 46/75 Yes Long-term ramifications, who maintains, funded how Public 47/75 Yes Erosion during high water Public 48/75 Yes Lake level fluctuations/structural damage/wear and Public 50/75 Yes tear on docks/special docks required Impacts on recreational facilities that are not water Public 55/75 Yes related Chelan Butte Trails Public 58/75 No Navigation on Stehekin River Public 59/75 No Address Lake Chelan Valley comprehensive public Public 61/75 Yes trails plan PUD recreational study plan does not address hang Public 64/75 Yes gliding or trails Day-use hiking potential Public 66/75 Yes Must be economically viable to PUD Public 68/75 Indirect Penstock property as a recreation resource Public 69/75 Yes Need for paragliding/hangliding landing areas - must Public 71/75 Yes secure landing zones Trails in Chelan Gorge Public 73/75 Yes

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2105_6 Page M-14 July 16, 1999 Lake Chelan Recreation Study

APPENDIX B

Land & Resource Management Plan Wenatchee National Forest

Recreation Opportunity – An opportunity for a user to participate in a preferred activity within a preferred setting, in order to realize those satisfying experiences which are desired.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) – Land delineations that identify a variety of recreation experience opportunities categorized into six classes on a continuum from primitive to urban. Each class is defined in terms of the degree to which it satisfies certain recreation experience needs. This is measured based on the extent to which the natural environment has been modified, the type of facilities provided, the degree of outdoor skills needed to enjoy the area, and the relative density of recreation use. The seven classes are:

1. Primitive – Area is characterized by an essentially unmodified natural environment of fairly large size. Interaction between users is very low, and evidence of other users is minimal. The area is managed to be essentially free from evidence of management restrictions and controls. Motorized use within the area is not permitted.

2. Semi-primitive Non-motorized – Area is characterized by a predominantly natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum onsite controls and restrictions may be present, but subtle. Motorized recreation use is not permitted, but local roads used for other resource management activities may be present on a limited basis. Use of such roads is restricted to minimize impacts on recreational experience opportunities.

3. Semi-primitive Motorized – Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum onsite controls and restrictions may be present, but subtle. Motorized recreation use of local primitive or collector roads with predominantly natural surfaces and trails suitable for motor bikes is permitted.

4. Roaded Natural – Area is characterized by predominantly natural-appearing environments with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be moderate to high, and evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is allowed and incorporated into construction standards and design of facilities.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page M-15 SS/2105_6 Lake Chelan Recreation Study

5. Roaded Modified – Area is generally natural appearing, but has significant vegetation management and resource modification. Modifications generally harmonize with the natural environment. A moderate opportunity exists for isolation and undisturbed activities but some interaction with other visitors can be expected. Conventional motorized use is allowed and incorporated into construction standards and designs of facilities.

6. Rural – Area is characterized by a natural environment that has been substantially modified by development of structures, vegetative manipulation, or pastoral agricultural development. Resource modification and utilization practices may be used to enhance specific recreation activities and to maintain vegetative cover and soil. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident, and the interaction between users is often moderate to high. A considerable number of facilities are designed for use by a large number of people. Facilities are often provided for special activities. Moderate user densities are present away from developed sites. Facilities for intensified motorized use and parking are available.

7. Urban – Area is characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although the background may have natural-appearing elements. Renewable resource modification and utilization practices are often used to enhance specific recreation activities. Vegetative cover is often exotic and manicured. Sights and sounds of humans are predominant on site and in nearby areas. Facilities for highly intensified motor use and parking are available with forms of mass transit often available to carry people throughout the site.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2105_6 Page M-16 July 16, 1999 ± STEHEKIN # Weaver PointT$ T$Purple Point T$Stehekin Manley WhamT$ T$Flick Creek

T$Moore Point Elephant RockT$

LucerneT$ # T$Refrigerator Harbor

Domke Lake

Domke FallsT$ Prince Creek T$

Graham Harbor CreekT$T$ Graham Harbor

T$Safety Harbor Corral CreekT$ LAK T$ E Big Creek T$Deer Point C HE LAN Twentyfive Mile CreeT$k State Park Fields Point LandingT$ T$Mitchell Creek SHEET 1

LAKE CHELAN RECREATION SITES LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Wapato Lake R FERC PROJECT NO. 637 Dry Lake E IV Roses Lake R PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 CHELAN COUNTY WENATCHEE, WASHINGTON T$Willow Point Park T$ ManT$son Bay Park JULY, 1999 Lake Chelan State ParkT$ Old Mill Park

CHELAN #T$Don Morse Park CHELAN WATERSHED BOUNDARY T$Riverwalk Park Lakeside ParkT$

STREAMS A I N B M RECREATION SITES U T$ L O C 5 0 5 Miles 1:335,000 SCALE 1999 AESTHETIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT STUDY PLAN

Final

LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 637

July 16, 1999

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Wenatchee, Washington TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...... N-1 1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project ...... N-1 1.2 Physical Setting ...... N-2

SECTION 2: STUDY GOALS...... N-2

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA...... N-3 3.1 Study Area...... N-3

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY ...... N-3 4.1 Views from Land (Lower Lake)...... N-3 4.2 Representative Views from Water (Lower and Upper Lake)...... N-3 4.3 Views of the Gorge ...... N-4 4.4 Views of Erosion Sites ...... N-4

SECTION 5: TASK LIST...... N-4

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING...... N-4

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS...... N-5

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE...... N-5

SECTION 9: BUDGET...... N-5

SECTION 10: REFERENCES ...... N-6

APPENDIX A...... N-7 Issues To Be Addressed...... N-7

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page N-i SS/2855_2 1999 Aesthetic Resources Assessment Study Plan

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

The drainage area of the project is 924 square miles. The project reservoir is operated between water surface elevations of 1,100 feet (MSL) and 1,079 feet to ensure optimum utilization of the reservoir for power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation, water supply, and flood control purposes. The average maximum drawdown of the lake for the 44 years from 1952 to 1995 was 1084.2 feet. The reservoir has 677,400 acre-feet of usable storage above 1,079 feet. Of this, 612,400 acre-feet can be used for power generation and 65,000 acre-feet is available for irrigation.

Water is delivered from the dam to the powerhouse through a tunnel and penstock. The vertical drop between the dam and powerhouse is nearly 400 feet. The only visible portion of the penstock is a 130- foot high surge tank that's designed to absorb the hydraulic momentum of the falling water, in the event

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page N-1 SS/2855_2 1999 Aesthetic Resources Assessment Study Plan that flow through the powerhouse needs to be stopped. When necessary, or during periods of high runoff, the dam spillgates may be utilized to regulate the lake level as it approaches maximum elevation. Water through the spillgates flows down the 4.1-mile Chelan River Gorge (bypass reach), past the powerhouse and into the Columbia River.

1.2 Physical Setting Lake Chelan is bordered on the south by the Entiat and Chelan Mountains and the Glacier Peak complex. On the north side it is bordered by the Sawtooth Mountain Range. From Twentyfive Mile Creek uplake, the terrain is mountainous and rugged. In many cases, the steep slopes run directly into the lake with no flat beaches or shoreline. The terrain of the lower end of the lake is much less severe, mainly arid or semi-arid. Except where irrigation has taken place, the hills of the lower end of the lake are barren with brown grasses and a few scattered pines.

Lake Chelan is a natural lake that developed within a broad glacial trough. The 32,000 acre lake averages 1 mile in width, and has depths of over 1,500 feet. Lake Chelan is bordered by more than 2 million acres of National Forest Lands, more than half of which are designated wilderness. Surrounding peaks tower as high as 7,000 feet above it’s 50 mile length. The lake serves as a waterway approach to the Forest Service’s Wenatchee National Forest above Twentyfive Mile Creek, and to the National Park Service’s Lake Chelan National Recreation Area at Stehekin. The lower 15 miles of the lake are mostly privately owned; the next 35 are within the Wenatchee National Forest; and the upper 5 miles are within the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.

The Chelan River Gorge (bypass reach) was formed when the Okanogan lobe of the Wisconsin Age continental glacier blocked the basin creating Lake Chelan and forced the outflow from the Lake Chelan to the south side of the basin. The bypass reach is 4.1-miles-long and has a total drop of 401 feet from the dam to the Columbia River.

SECTION 2: STUDY GOALS

The purpose of the Aesthetic Resources Inventory is to document (using photography and a written narrative) representative view-sheds (accessible by the public) within the Lake Chelan Project area. The inventory, consisting primarily of still photography on the lake (at mid and low pond elevations) and video in the gorge (at a range of flows), will provide baseline information on aesthetic resources in the project area. A summary of the results of this study will be included in the Report on Land Manage- ment and Aesthetics section of the Lake Chelan Project FERC license application.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2855_2 Page N-2 July 16, 1999 1999 Aesthetic Resources Assessment Study Plan

This study plan incorporates applicable portions of the USFS’ Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management (1996) and NPS’s General Management Plan. Also, as recommended by the USFS, the inventory will be based, generally, on A Study in Landscape Aesthetics for the Pelton- Round Butte Project (1998).

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA

3.1 Study Area The proposed study area is the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637 project boundary from Chelan Falls Powerhouse to Stehekin.

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY

The Aesthetic Resources Inventory will be separated into four categories; Views from Land (Lower Lake), Representative Views from Water (Lower and Upper Lake), Views of the Gorge, and Views of Erosion Sites would include information from the Erosion Working Group. Still and/or video photography will be taken from fixed locations in each of the areas listed above. Geographic Positioning System (GPS) will be used to find positions and locate them on photo-location maps.

4.1 Views from Land (Lower Lake) The following view-sheds will be documented using still photography at low, mid and high lake elevations:

• From old Bridge (Woodin Avenue) looking downstream toward the City of Chelan public boat launch; • From old Bridge (Woodin Avenue) looking upstream toward Lower Lake area; • From northeast shore along road to Manson; • From Field’s Point; • From TwentyFive Mile Creek; and • From South Shore by Half Moon Bay

4.2 Representative Views from Water (Lower and Upper Lake) The following view-sheds will be documented using still photography at mid, low and high lake elevations from the lake at fixed locations (identified using GPS) to maintain consistent views:

• South shore (2 views) and North shore (2 views) of Lower Lake area from water; and • Upper Lake area including views of Stehekin, Lucerne, Prince Creek, Moore Point, and Mitchell Creek;

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page N-3 SS/2855_2 1999 Aesthetic Resources Assessment Study Plan

4.3 Views of the Gorge The following view-sheds will be documented using video cameras located at publicly accessible areas along the Gorge, preferably during the Paddling Feasibility Study:

• From the public parking area adjacent to the Lake Chelan Project dam; • From the Riverview Cemetery Ave./Washington Ave. intersection; and • From the highway 97 bridge. • From top of gorge at Car Falls. • From river's edge at Daybreak Canyon.

Flow releases for the Paddling Feasibility Study and the Bypass Reach Flow Releases Study (50, 100, 200 and 500 cfs, as well as, during one high-flow natural spill event possibly June/July) will be videotaped to document bypass reach aesthetics;

4.4 Views of Erosion Sites Representative erosion sites may also be included in the inventory. Photographs and site descriptions will be taken from the Erosion Study being conducted by the Erosion Working Group.

SECTION 5: TASK LIST

Task 1 - Meet with Recreation and Aesthetics working group to discuss proposed study methods. Task 2 - Conduct fieldwork and prepare interim report. Task 3 - Compile data and prepare report. Task 4 - Submit report and videotapes for Recreation and Aesthetics working group comment. Task 5 - Finalize report based on comments.

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

The report will consist of written narratives of each view-shed contained in the photographic or video inventory. The narratives will be based on the USFS’ Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management (1996) including a discussion of the following key elements of each view-shed:

• Landscape Character; • Scenic Integrity; • Constituent Information (Based on 1998-99 Lake Chelan Recreation Survey and other relicensing studies); and • Landscape Visibility.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2855_2 Page N-4 July 16, 1999 1999 Aesthetic Resources Assessment Study Plan

The report may also include some analysis of view-sheds highlighting areas of special significance for public recreation or other uses.

Reporting will be concise and focused on the photographic inventory of the view-sheds listed above. Still photos of Lake Chelan and its shoreline will be presented in a photo-album type format with ac- companying narratives and maps showing the position from which each view-shed was documented.

The videotape of the Gorge at a range of flows will be edited and narrated to identify each of the flows observed and to highlight any flow-dependent or other characteristics of the view-shed. Narration will be kept at a minimum to acknowledge the natural sound and visual aesthetics of the viewpoint.

SECTION 7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS

Task 1 - Meet with Recreation and Aesthetics working group to discuss proposed study methods (Chelan PUD and Consultant) Task 2 - Conduct field work and prepare interim report, including sampling of field work to date. (Consultant with 35mm camera and boat to conduct fieldwork on lake, video camera will be used for documenting gorge aesthetics.) Task 3 - Compile data and prepare report including comments on interim report (Consultant). Task 4 - Submit report with photos and videotapes for Recreation and Aesthetics working group comment (Chelan PUD). Task 5 - Finalize report based on comments (Consultant).

SECTION 8: SCHEDULE

Task 1 - Meet with Recreation and Aesthetics working group to discuss proposed study methods - May 12, 1999; Task 2 - Conduct fieldwork and prepare interim report- May 1999 fieldwork (low-level lake elevation; June 1999 fieldwork (mid-level lake elevation); July 1999 field work (high-level lake elevation), provide interim report to working group early July 1999; (Discuss need for focus group evaluation.) Task 3 - Compile data , prepare report and submit for Recreation and Aesthetics working group comment - August 1999 Task 4 - Finalize report based on comments - September 1999

SECTION 9: BUDGET

The consultant will provide a detailed budget.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page N-5 SS/2855_2 1999 Aesthetic Resources Assessment Study Plan

SECTION 10: REFERENCES

Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management (Handbook No. 701). 1996. U.S.D.A. Forest Service.

NPS: General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. 1995.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2855_2 Page N-6 July 16, 1999 1999 Aesthetic Resources Assessment Study Plan

APPENDIX A

Issues To Be Addressed

Issue Group Rank Addressed

Timing of the Drawdowns: no bath tub ring during high LARC 10/149 Yes visit season Timing of the Drawdowns: no bath tub ring during high LARC 11/149 Yes visit season Timing of the Drawdowns: no bath tub ring during high LARC 30/149 Yes visit season Economics: must be economically viable to PUD LARC 31/149 Indirect Aesthetics – drawdowns ugly LARC 62/149 Yes Timing of the Drawdowns: no bath tub ring during high LARC 64/149 Yes visit season Timing of the Drawdowns: no bath tub ring during high LARC 79/149 Yes visit season Timing of the Drawdowns: no bath tub ring during high LARC 80/149 Yes visit season Timing of the Drawdowns: no bath tub ring during high LARC 81/149 Yes visit season Planning: disruptions of aesthetics LARC 83/149 Yes Commercial Impacts: aesthetics LARC 84/149 Yes Lake Level Fluctuation: aesthetics drawdowns ugly LARC 92/149 Yes Bypass Reach/recreation: appropriate minimum flows: LARC 94/149 Yes aesthetics Timing of the Drawdowns: no bath tub ring during high LARC 98/149 Yes visit season Lake Levels: shoreline (erosion and buildings) struc- LARC 99/149 Yes tures that trap debris Extent of Drawdowns: not for maximum drawdown LARC 100/149 Yes allowed Timing of the Drawdowns: no bath tub ring during high LARC 115/149 Yes visit season Interpretive opportunities LARC 123/149 Yes Bypass reach/recreation: safety - photography, aes- LARC 130/149 Yes thetics, scenic viewing

Timing of the drawdowns: no bath tub ring during high Public 4/75 Yes

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page N-7 SS/2855_2 1999 Aesthetic Resources Assessment Study Plan

Issue Group Rank Addressed visit season Aesthetics - drawdowns ugly Public 62/75 Yes Must be economically viable to PUD Public 68/75 Indirect

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2855_2 Page N-8 July 16, 1999 PADDLING FEASIBILITY STUDY PLAN

Final

LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 637

July 16, 1999

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Wenatchee, Washington Paddling Feasibility

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...... O-1 1.1 Project Information ...... O-1 1.2 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project...... O-1 1.3 General Description of the Relicensing Process ...... O-2 1.4 Recreation Overview...... O-3 1.5 Needs Statement ...... O-3

SECTION 2: STUDY GOALS...... O-3

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA...... O-4

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY ...... O-4 4.1 Data Collection...... O-4

SECTION 5: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING...... O-6

SECTION 6: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS...... O-6

SECTION 7: SCHEDULE...... O-6

SECTION 8: BUDGET...... O-7

SECTION 9: NEXT STEPS ...... O-7

SECTION 10: REFERENCES ...... O-7

APPENDIX A...... O-9 Issues To Be Addressed ...... O-9

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2100_6 Page O-i July 16, 1999 Paddling Feasibility

LIST OF FORMS

WAIVER OF LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION...... O-11 SINGLE FLOW EVALUATION FORM...... O-13 FLOW COMPARISON FORM ...... O-19

LIST OF TABLES

Table O-1: Historical Lake Averages...... O-2

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2100_6 Page O-ii July 16, 1999 Paddling Feasibility

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Information Chelan PUD owns and operates the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project, located approximately 32 miles north of the City of Wenatchee, on the Chelan River in north central Washington State. The 4.1- mile long Chelan River (shortest river in Washington State) flows from the lower end of the 50-mile long Lake Chelan into the Columbia River. The project consists of a 40-foot high concrete gravity dam, a 2.2-mile long steel and concrete tunnel and a powerhouse located at the confluence of the Chelan and Columbia rivers. The powerhouse contains two Francis-type turbines each rated at 34,000 hp at 1,100 cfs and a net head of 377 feet.

Whitewater interest groups have requested that Chelan PUD study and determine the feasibility of providing recreational flows in the 4.1-mile long Chelan River Gorge (bypass reach). The bypass reach has a total drop of 401 feet from the dam to the Columbia River.

This paddling feasibility study will be one of many studies that Chelan PUD and other interested parties review in determining the most appropriate allocation of water resources on the stretch of the Chelan River.

1.2 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project The State of Washington encompasses a wide range of geographic diversity, from the marine influenced ocean shores and Puget Sound, over the rugged Cascade Range to the rolling hills of central Washing- ton, to the ancient mountain ranges of north central and eastern Washington. The Lake Chelan Hy- droelectric Project is located on the Chelan River between two significantly different physiographic areas. In the Cascade Mountains to the west, metamorphosed sedimentary, volcanic, and granitic rock predominates. On the Columbia Plateau to the east, bedrock consists of vast, thick layers of basalt.

The drainage area of the project is 924 square miles. The project reservoir is operated between water surface elevations of 1,100 feet (MSL) and 1,079 feet to ensure optimum utilization of the reservoir for power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation, water supply, and flood control purposes. The average maximum drawdown of the lake for the 44 years from 1952 to 1995 was 1084.2 feet. The reservoir has 677,400 acre-feet of usable storage above 1,079 feet. Of this, 612,400 acre-feet can be used for power generation and 65,000 acre-feet is available for irrigation and domestic use.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2100_6 Page O-1 July 16, 1999 Paddling Feasibility

The annual drawdown of the lake begins in early October and the lowest lake elevation normally occurs in April. From May through June the lake refills due to spring runoff. The reservoir is maintained at or above elevation 1,098 feet from July 1 through September 30 of each year. Since the Project was originally licensed in 1926, the lake has never been drawn down to the minimum allowable elevation (1,079 feet). The lowest drawdown of record was 1,079.7 feet in 1970. That occurrence coincides with the lowest annual precipitation on record. Chelan PUD has never failed to refill the reservoir to elevation 1,098 feet by June 30.

Table O-1: Historical Lake Averages

1.3 General Description of the Relicensing Process Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County (Chelan PUD) owns and operates the Lake Chelan Hy- droelectric Project No. 637 located on the Chelan River in Chelan, Washington. Chelan PUD is permitted to operate the Hydro Project according to terms and conditions contained in an existing FERC license that was issued on May 12, 1981. The license expires in 2004.

The original license was granted for the present Lake Chelan Hydro Project in May, 1926, by the Fed- eral Power Commission, now FERC. On May 12, 1981, FERC granted Chelan PUD a new 30- year license for the Hydro Project, retroactive to 1974 when the original 50-year license expired.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2100_6 Page O-2 July 16, 1999 Paddling Feasibility

Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA). The new law requires that the importance of water quality, recreation and other non-generating benefits of the natural resource (i.e.: fish and wildlife) be weighted equally to power production.

1.4 Recreation Overview Consistently ranked as one of the most pristine waters in the United States, Lake Chelan’s 50-mile length acts as a natural conduit between the rugged mountain peaks uplake and the lush, fertile downlake valley. With a depth of 1,486 feet, Lake Chelan is the third deepest lake in the nation, extending nearly 400 feet below sea level.

The clean, crystal clear blue water of Lake Chelan offers some of the best outdoor recreational opportunities in the country. Fishing, boating, water skiing, swimming, kayaking, parasailing, jet skiing, and tubing are just some of the many water based activities available. In addition, the surrounding National Forests, State and National Parks offer backpacking, hiking, camping, skiing and other year-round outdoor activity adventures.

1.5 Needs Statement The Chelan River Paddling Feasibility Study will be conducted by the Chelan County Public Utility Dis- trict No. 1 (hereinafter called District) and other interested parties prior to preparing a Report on Rec- reation Resources (hereinafter called Recreation Plan), as per 18CFR4.51(f), for the re-licensing of Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637.

SECTION 2: STUDY GOALS

The goals of this Paddling Feasibility Study (Study) are to:

1) Conduct an on-land field investigation and flow study that includes: • Establish the navigability of the river channel from the dam to the confluence with the Columbia River; • Establish the degree of difficulty of the 4 mile reach based upon the international scale of river difficulty; • Identify a range of flows appropriate for a controlled flow study; • Identify geographically, access points, portage routes and general safety measures associated with whitewater flows in the gorge. 2) Conduct a recreational instream flow study that includes: • Identify the minimum and optimum flows for whitewater boating; • Determine the flow suitability for a range of water craft; • Assess the quality of the whitewater resources in the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637 bypass reach (challenge, play spots, safety, etc.).

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page O-3 SS/2100_6 Paddling Feasibility

• Identify other areas of concern such as access, safety, liability, etc.

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA

The proposed study area is the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637 bypass reach from Lake Chelan Dam to the tailrace of the Chelan Falls Powerhouse.

The bypass reach begins below the dam and continues for approximately 4 miles until it joins the tailrace of the powerhouse near the Columbia River. The bypass reach is comprised of four distinct sections. The 2.29 mile long upper section of the bypass reach below the dam is characterized by a relatively wide flood plain, low gradient (approximately 55 feet/mile), and substrate comprised mainly of large cobble and boulders. The second section of the bypass reach, 0.75 mile long and located in the upper end of the gorge, is characterized by a narrow channel, steep canyon walls, low gradient (approximately 57 feet/mile), and cobble and boulder substrate that is larger than the upstream section. The whitewater dificulty for this section is undetermined at this point. The third section of the bypass reach is the “Chelan Gorge” area, 0.38 mile long. The canyon walls are very steep and narrow. The gradient of the channel is very steep (approximately 480 feet/mile). The channel is characterized by waterfalls 5 to 20 feet high, numerous cascades, bedrock chutes, and large, very deep pools. The substrate is very large, with some boulders exceeding 20 feet in diameter. The whitewater difficulty for this section is undetermined at this point, but it is believed to be Class IV+ or greater.

The fourth section of the bypass reach is located below the gorge area and is 0.49 mile long. It is characterized by a wide flood plain, gravel/cobble/boulder substrate, and low gradient (approximately 22 feet/mile). Section 4 extends from the bottom of the gorge section downstream approximately 2,600 feet to the confluence of the powerhouse tailrace. The whitewater difficulty for this section is undetermined at this point.

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY

4.1 Data Collection The initial on-land flow assessment will be conducted in June 1999, by American Whitewater and ac- companies by two additional expert paddlers. Flows for the study will likely be between 250-500 cfs. Flows will need to be refined based upon an onsite evaluation of 500 cfs and 250 cfs prior to the instream assessment phase of the study.

A controlled instream field assessment is anticipated to occur in Spring 2000. The study will consist of three releases in two days. The magnitude of the releases will be based on recommendations the June 1999 on-land assessment. The exact dates of the boating study will depend on runoff patterns in the

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2100_6 Page O-4 July 16, 1999 Paddling Feasibility bypass reach. The study will be scheduled for a Saturday-Sunday to best accommodate the availability of study participants. Chelan PUD will attempt to give at least a two- to four-week notice (depending upon weather conditions) as to when the exact study dates are scheduled.

The study will rely on the expertise of regional paddlers to assess and quantify the paddleability and de- sirability of various flows in the bypass reach. Because the bypass reach has not been rated, participation in the study will be limited to expert paddlers and coordinated with American Whitewater. The final determination of what craft are suitable and safe for the bypass reach will be left to the expert paddlers who will be participating in the study.

Boaters participating in the study will meet the evening before the releases to be briefed by the consultant, American Whitewater and Chelan PUD on the details of the study, safety issues, review of the survey form and define any terms or rating scales unfamiliar to the participants.

On the morning of the first day of the study, boaters will scout the approximately 4-mile bypass reach from the Chelan dam to Chelan Falls Powerhouse Park, and make whatever safety preparations are necessary based on the safety plan which will be developed by the boaters. Boaters will then run the bypass reach under one study flows. On the second day, boaters will run the remaining study flows. Time will be available before each run to scout the bypass reach under the varying flow conditions.

At the beginning of the first of the evaluations, participants will meet to sign liability waivers (attached). After paddlers complete each run, they will be asked to complete a Single Flow Evaluation Form (attached). The Single Flow Evaluation Form will be used to assess the quality of the run at the given flow. Survey questions will solicit information regarding flow levels, play spots, safety concerns, and aesthetics. After the third and final evaluation, participants will complete a Flow Comparison Form (attached) to report information on their comparison of the three flows. This Flow Comparison Form will also solicit demographic and economic information. A study facilitator will be on-hand at the put-in and the take-out to answer any questions that may arise about the forms and assure that all study participants fill out the appropriate forms.

Videotaping will be performed at the three flow levels to document the whitewater characteristics of the river reach. Chelan PUD and American Whitwater will select 2-3 safe videotaping stations. Videotap- ing stations will be selected to capture both representative and unique reaches of the run while keeping in mind the safety of the video operator.

The video tape will be edited by Chelan PUD and included as an attachment to the study report to provide a brief summary of the whitewater opportunities and the activities associated with the Study. American Whitewater will be asked to review the edited videotape; and a copy of the unedited videotape will be provided to them.

American Whitewater will be responsible for working with Chelan PUD to finalize the list of study participants, and contacting study participants with information on the study schedule once study dates have been selected. American Whitewater will also be responsible for developing and implementing a safety

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page O-5 SS/2100_6 Paddling Feasibility plan, which will include a rescue plan specific to the safety concerns associated with boating in the bypass reach. This safety plan should be submitted to Chelan PUD for review before March 6, 1999.

SECTION 5: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

Data from the surveys will be compiled and analyzed, and presented in a study report. The report will present the following:

• Graphic displaying participant responses to each single flow release; • Graphic displaying participant responses to comparative of flow releases; • the range of responses and the most common value recorded (mode) on the Flow Comparison Form for minimum, optimum, and maximum flows; • the range of responses regarding the difficulty classes of the river reach at varying flows; • the range of responses regarding what class or classes of paddlers this river reach is suitable for under varying flows; • the range of responses regarding what type of craft this river reach is suitable for under varying flows; • a discussion of the quality of the experience and the relationship of quality to flow; and • an assessment of the number of trips that boaters would make to the bypass reach under varying flows.

SECTION 6: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS

Chelan PUD will provide up to three study facilitators to organize and coordinate the logistics of the Study. This will include assuring that participants have filed all the appropriate forms, coordinating access at the put-in and take-out areas, and videotaping the three flows during the Study.

American Whitewater will assist Chelan PUD in coordinating this study. American Whitewater will be responsible for selecting study participants (in cooperation with Chelan PUD), assuring that participants arrive at the correct date and time for the study, and providing trained safety and rescue personnel for the study.

SECTION 7: SCHEDULE

A Microsoft project schedule will be provided with the detailed study plan.

Phase 1 – On-Land Field Investigation: 1. Develop study outline. (District and/or consultant) 14-28 days (March 20, 1999) 2. Evaluate, with interested parties, accuracy of information.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2100_6 Page O-6 July 16, 1999 Paddling Feasibility

3. Complete on-land field assessment. 1-2 days (June, 1999) 4. Completion of on-land assessment report containing a summary and interpretation of the information collected. A. Review draft summary report to be completed by July 23, 1999. B. Final summary report to be completed by August 18, 1999.

Phase 2 – Recreational Instream Flow Study: 1. Completion of instream study (Spring 2000) 2. Completion of Paddling Feasibility Study Report containing a summary and interpretation of information collected. A. Review draft summary report by July 2, 2000. B. Final draft summary report on August 3, 2000. C. Final summary report to be completed by September 30, 2000.

SECTION 8: BUDGET

The consultant will provide a detailed budget.

SECTION 9: NEXT STEPS

Upon completion of the final report, the study results will be available to the relicensing team for consideration of possible enhancement measures. The information is expected to assist the team in evaluating what enhancement measures are appropriate to undertake in conjunction with the project relicensing process. In addition, the study results will be available to interested agencies and members of the public.

SECTION 10: REFERENCES

Whittaker, D. et al (1993) Instream Flows for Recreation: A Handbook on Concepts and Research Methods. USDI National Park Service.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page O-7 SS/2100_6 Paddling Feasibility

APPENDIX A

Issues To Be Addressed The table below lists all the comments from various groups thought to be relevant to the paddling feasibility study. The last column is an evaluation of whether each issue will be addressed by the study as proposed. Where the word “indirect” is used, it is meant to indicate that the study will provide some information useful in addressing the issue, but will not by itself provide all the necessary information. Where “no” is used, it is meant to indicate that the study, as proposed, is not expected to provide information that contributes substantially to addressing the issue.

Issue Group Rank Addressed

Bypass reach/recreation: safety potential for being LARC 9/149 Indirect trapped Bypass reach/recreation: impact on power generation, LARC 28/149 Indirect cost of power Bypass reach/recreation: safety - during spill and non- LARC 29/149 Indirect spill periods Economics: must be economically viable to PUD LARC 31/149 Indirect Erosion: loss of soil LARC 35/149 Indirect Erosion: habitat in general LARC 36/149 Indirect Bypass reach/recreation: safety - concern for emer- LARC 40/149 Yes gency services being accessible Bypass Reach/recreation: impact on power generation, LARC 45/149 Indirect cost of power: associated with increased flows in the gorge Bypass reach/recreation: impact on parks with higher LARC 46/149 Indirect use Flow impact on erosion in bypass LARC 63/149 Indirect Bypass reach/recreation: appropriate minimum flows LARC 67/149 Yes Bypass reach/recreation: impact on cultural resources LARC 68/149 Indirect Bypass reach/recreation: positive economic impact to LARC 75/149 Indirect Chelan Falls, City of Chelan Bypass reach/recreation: safety - steep walls LARC 76/149 Indirect Bypass reach/recreation: flow impact on erosion in LARC 77/149 Yes bypass Bypass reach/recreation: vehicle traffic in bypass reach LARC 87/149 Indirect area Bypass reach/recreation: day-use hiking LARC 111/149 Indirect

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page O-9 SS/2100_6 Paddling Feasibility

Issue Group Rank Addressed

Bypass reach/recreation: safety, vandalism, trash, graf- LARC 114/149 Indirect fiti Bypass reach/recreation: interpretive opportunities LARC 123/149 Indirect Bypass reach/recreation: land ownership along bypass LARC 127/149 No Bypass reach/recreation: safety - photography, aes- LARC 130/149 Indirect thetics, scenic viewing Bypass Reach/recreation: safety: associated with fur- LARC 132/149 Indirect ther developments Bypass reach/recreation: potential for kayaking LARC 149/149 Yes

Must be economically viable to PUD Public 68/75 Indirect

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2100_6 Page O-10 July 16, 1999 Paddling Feasibility

WAIVER OF LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION (please print)

Name:

Address:

Date of Requested Access:

Purpose

The undersigned requests access to certain Chelan PUD hydroelectric project lands, specified below, for purposes of ascertaining the lands’ recreational attributes and potential uses. Chelan PUD is willing to grant such request without charge in return for the following agreement:

WAIVER OF LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION:

Being 18 years of age or older, I understand, and show my understanding by signing this WAIVER OF LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION, that Chelan PUD is only willing to allow me to access Chelan PUD hydroelectric and non-hydroelectric lands along the Chelan River corridor ("Property") if I agree, and I do hereby agree, not to hold Chelan PUD, or its representatives, responsible for any form of personal injury or property damage which I may suffer while on the Property and to indemnify and hold Chelan PUD harmless for any harm to others or their property that I may cause while on the Property. I further understand by giving me permission, Chelan PUD does not (I) assure me that the property is safe for access purposes; (2) owe me any duty of care; or (3) assume any responsibility for or incur any liability for any injury to person or property which I may suffer while on the Property. I further understand that the Property and the Chelan River contiguous or near the Property are inherently risky and hazardous and I voluntarily assume the risk of any and all hazards in making access and in ascertaining the recreational attributes and potential uses of same. At all times while ac- cessing the Property, I agree to abide by and conform to the Safety Code of the American Whitewater Affiliation, a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment I.

I make this waiver and agree to this indemnification of my own free will because I want access to the Property. I further understand that the access granted by this waiver is effective only for the date stated above.

DATE: Signature:

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page O-11 SS/2100_6 Paddling Feasibility

SINGLE FLOW EVALUATION FORM

River: Chelan River Reach: Chelan Gorge Date:

Name:

PLEASE READ: The following questionnaire has been compiled to solicit standardized information. Some questions become easier to answer after you have seen the river under a variety of different flows. Please do your best to completely answer every question. If the meaning of the question is unclear, answer the question and then make a note as to your understanding of the question being asked. Use the attached map to designate areas of special interest or concern. Thank you for your time and help.

GENERAL INFORMATION

1. What type of water craft did you use for this run (Circle one)?

a. Kayak b. Open Canoe c. Closed Deck Canoe d. Cataraft e. Raft f. Inflatable kayak g. Tube h. Other (please list)

2. What flow does this evaluation refer to (Circle one)?

a. to be determined b. tbd cfs c. tbd cfs

3a. How long did it take you to complete this run? : (hours: minutes)

3b. Did this include any breaks for resting or scouting? Yes No

3c. If you answered “Yes” to 3b, how many breaks did you take? ______Approximately how long were all your breaks combined? ______(minutes)

4a. On a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high), how satisfying was this run (based on today's and past experiences on the bypass reach run )?

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page O-13 SS/2100_6 Paddling Feasibility

4b. Would a higher or lower flow make this run more enjoyable?

a. Higher b. Lower c. No change (this is the optimum flow)

5a. What class would you assign to this reach at this particular flow on an overall basis (using the I- VI International Scale of Difficulty)?

a. I b. II c. III d. IV e. V f. VI

5d. Please label individual classes (I-VI) of any other sections of the evaluated stretch on the attached map. Note any other critical reaches that stood out to you as extremely difficult or relatively difficult to the rest of the run at this flow.

a. I d. IV b. II e. V c. III f. VI

6. Which skill level is this flow most suited to? (More than one choice may be circled).

a. Novice b. Intermediate c. Advanced d. Expert e. Not runnable (explain)

7. Rate this flow for the following characteristics. (Scale: 1 = poor, 5 = excellent)

Boatability 1 2 3 4 5 Whitewater challenge 1 2 3 4 5 Safety 1 2 3 4 5 Rate of Travel 1 2 3 4 5 Length of WW Section 1 2 3 4 5 Big Water (waves) 1 2 3 4 5

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2100_6 Page O-14 July 16, 1999 Paddling Feasibility

“Playability” 1 2 3 4 5 Aesthetics 1 2 3 4 5

PORTAGING / BED CONTACT

1. Were you able to paddle the entire reach without having to drag your boat or portage around any locations? (If no, designate drag and portage areas on attached map.)

a. Yes b. No

2. If “No”, what hindered further travel (examples: hits, stops, falls, strainers, dangerous hydraulics, limited scouting opportunity, unable to assess danger, etc.)?

3. Are there adequate portages in areas where safety is a concern?

a. Yes b. No c. Other (explain)

4. Would a higher or lower flow allow the run to be more continuous (without portages)?

a. Higher b. Lower c. Neither d. Not applicable (“Yes” answer to Question 1)

SAFETY CONCERNS

1. Which of the following things did you perceive to be a hazard to navigation (Circle all that apply)?

a. Narrow channel width b. Exposed boulders or bedrock c. Rocks just under the water surface d. Submerged or partially submerged vegetation e. Overhanging shoreline vegetation (sweepers/strainers)

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page O-15 SS/2100_6 Paddling Feasibility

f. Man-made obstacles such as bridge abutments, etc. g. Other (explain) ______h. There were no navigation hazards in this reach

2. If “yes”, how and where (Designate on attached map)?

3. Would an increase or decrease in flow reduce the hazard potential?

a. Increased flow would reduce hazard. b. Decreased flow would reduce hazard. c. No effect.

4. What type(s) of water craft would be suitable for this reach? (Circle all that would be appropriate).

a. Kayak b. Open Canoe c. Closed Deck Canoe d. Cataraft e. Raft f. Inflatable kayak g. Tube h. Other (please list)

5. For safety reasons, what concerns or hazards would you emphasize in descriptive materials for paddlers wishing to run this section of river under the flow you just paddled? (Use the attached map to designate any areas of concern.)

ANTICIPATED FUTURE USE

1. How many miles would you be willing to travel for one weekend day of releases at this flow? a. 50 or less b. 50-100 c. 100-200 d. Over 200

2. How many miles would you be willing to travel for two consecutive weekend days of releases at this flow?

a. 50 or less b. 50-100 c. 100-200 d. Over 200

3. Given this flow, would you be likely to return here for future whitewater paddling?

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2100_6 Page O-16 July 16, 1999 Paddling Feasibility

a. Yes - likely b. Possibly c. No - not likely

4a. If you answered “Yes - likely” or “Possibly” to 3, and considering opportunities elsewhere, how many times would you return here if this flow were made available for one day every other weekend April - June (total = 6 days with this flow)?

a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6

4b. If you answered “Yes - likely” or “Possibly” to 3, and considering opportunities elsewhere, how many times would you return here if this flow were made available for two days every other weekend April - June (total = 6 weekends with this flow)?

a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6

5. In comparison to other whitewater opportunities in central Washington, how would you rate the bypass reach, under this flow, for the following characteristics: (Scale: 1 = poor, 5 = excellent)

Boatability 1 2 3 4 5 Whitewater challenge 1 2 3 4 5 Safety 1 2 3 4 5 Rate of Travel 1 2 3 4 5 Length of WW Section 1 2 3 4 5 Big Water (waves) 1 2 3 4 5 “Playability” 1 2 3 4 5 Aesthetics 1 2 3 4 5

6a. Was the put-in that you used adequate at this flow?

a. Yes b. No

6b. If “No”, what made the put-in inadequate? (More than one choice may be circled.)

a. Not enough parking b. Parking too far away

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page O-17 SS/2100_6 Paddling Feasibility

c. Put-in too steep d. Put-in too close to first rapid e. Other (explain)

7a. Was the take-out that you used adequate at this flow?

a. Yes b. No

7b. If “No”, what made the take-out inadequate? (More than one choice may be circled.)

a. Not enough parking b. Parking too far away c. Take-out too steep d. Take-out too close to last rapid e. Other (explain)

8. Provide any additional comments regarding this run below. Use attached maps to designate any specific referenced areas.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2100_6 Page O-18 July 16, 1999 Paddling Feasibility

FLOW COMPARISON FORM

River: Chelan River Reach: Chelan Gorge Date:

Name: Address:

Phone (w): (h):

THREE FLOW COMPARISON

1. From your past experience, and from today’s runs, what do you feel the minimum flow would be for kayaking this reach: ______

2. From your past experience, and from today’s runs, what do you feel the optimum flow would be for kayaking this reach: ______

3. From your past experience, and from today’s runs, what do you feel the maximum flow would be for kayaking this reach: ______

4. How would you expect your desired optimum flow for this reach to rank in the following areas? (Scale: 1 = poor, 5 = excellent)

5. Of all flows you have paddled here, which flow best suits your whitewater needs?

a. 200 b. 300 c. 500 d. Other ______

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page O-19 SS/2100_6 Paddling Feasibility

6. In terms of aesthetics or scenic quality, which of the flows that you have paddled was most de- sirable? a. 200 b. 300 c. 500 d. Other ______

PADDLER INFORMATION

1. What type of boat do you generally use for whitewater paddling?

a. Kayak b. Canoe c. Cataraft d. Raft e. Other (specify)

2a. On average, how many whitewater trips (single- or multi-day) do you make each year?

a. 1-5 b. 6-10 c. 11-15 d. Over 15

2b. Of those trips, how many are in Washington (annually)?

a. 1-5 b. 6-10 c. 11-15 d. Over 15

3. What whitewater rivers in Washington do you paddle most frequently?

4. What class of whitewater do you generally desire (Circle as many as you like)?

a. I b. II c. III d. IV e. V

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2100_6 Page O-20 July 16, 1999 Paddling Feasibility

f. VI

5. How would you rate you personal skill level?

a. Novice b. Intermediate c. Advanced d. Expert

6. How many years of whitewater paddling experience do you have? ______

7. To which whitewater organizations, groups, or clubs do you belong?

8. Please provide any additional comments regarding this run below. Use attached map to designate any specific referenced areas.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page O-21 SS/2100_6 PROJECT LANDS MANAGEMENT and SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY PLAN

Final

LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 637

July 16, 1999

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County Wenatchee, Washington TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT LAND MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...... P-1 1.1 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project ...... P-1 1.2 General Description of the Relicensing Process...... P-2 1.3 Need Statement...... P-3

ECONOMICS

SECTION 2.1: INTRODUCTION...... P-5

SECTION 2.2: STUDY GOAL...... P-5

SECTION 2.3: STUDY AREA...... P-5

SECTION 2.4: METHODOLOGY...... P-5

SECTION 2.5: TASK LIST...... P-5

SECTION 2.6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING...... P-8

SECTION 2.7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS...... P-8

SECTION 2.8: SCHEDULE...... P-8

SECTION 2.9: BUDGET ...... P-8

LAND MANAGEMENT AND PERMITTING

SECTION 3.1: INTRODUCTION...... P-9 3.1.1 Overview of Existing Comprehensive Land Management Plans...... P-9 3.1.2 Overview of Current Permitting Programs (Dock, etc.)...... P-10

SECTION 3.2: STUDY GOAL...... P-11

SECTION 3.3: STUDY AREA...... P-11

SECTION 3.4: METHODOLOGY...... P-11

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page P-i SS/2099_5 SECTION 3.5: TASK LIST...... P-11

SECTION 3.6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING...... P-12

SECTION 3.7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS...... P-12

SECTION 3.8: SCHEDULE...... P-12

SECTION 3.9: BUDGET ...... P-12

APPENDIX A...... P-13 Evaluation of issues addressed...... P-13

LIST OF TABLES

Table P-1: Historical Lake Averages ...... P-2

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2099_5 Page P-ii July 16, 1999 Project Land Management & Economics

PROJECT LAND MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

The drainage area of the project is 924 square miles. The project reservoir is operated between water surface elevations of 1,100 feet (MSL) and 1,079 feet to ensure optimum utilization of the reservoir for power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation, water supply, and flood control purposes. The average maximum drawdown of the lake for the 44 years from 1952 to 1995 was 1084.2 feet. The reservoir has 677,400 acre-feet of usable storage above 1,079 feet. Of this, 612,400 acre-feet can be used for power generation and 65,000 acre-feet is available for irrigation and domestic use.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page P-1 SS/2099_5 Project Land Management & Economics

Table P-1: Historical Lake Averages

1.2 General Description of the Relicensing Process Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County (Chelan PUD) owns and operates the Lake Chelan Hy- droelectric Project located on the Chelan River in Chelan, Washington. Chelan PUD is permitted to operate the Hydro Project according to terms and conditions contained in an existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license that was issued on May 12, 1981. The license expires in 2004.

Chelan PUD intends to seek a new federal license to operate the Lake Chelan Hydro Project and has begun preparation for the process referred to as “relicensing”. The FERC relicensing process is based on laws and regulations that require years of extensive planning, including environmental studies, agency consensus and public involvement. The process to obtain a new license has changed considerably since the existing license was issued in 1981, primarily due to changes made to the Federal Power Act (FPA) as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA) in 1986. ECPA mandates that FERC give equal consideration to the enhancement of existing environmental, recreation, fish, and wildlife resources affected by the project, to that of power and development resources, and to balance what are often competing uses of the water resources. ECPA also empowers the FERC to consider if a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2099_5 Page P-2 July 16, 1999 Project Land Management & Economics

1.3 Need Statement Project lands management along Lake Chelan have been recognized as a concern for some decades, and is of some concern to private landowners and to agencies responsible for land management. There are many organizations with land management responsibilities along Lake Chelan. These organizations include the U.S. Forest Service (which owns lands along two-thirds of the lake), the National Park Service, the County of Chelan, the Community of Manson, the City of Chelan, the Yakama and Colville Tribes and others. As part of the issue identification process for relicensing, integration of the various land management plans was ranked as one of the top issues.

Several stakeholders have raised the issue of lands management around the lake in a variety of forms. In addition, the impact of project operations on the local economy (socioeconomic) has also been raised as a concern. This study presents two plans: the first plan addresses socioeconomic issues; the second, land management and permitting issues.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page P-3 SS/2099_5 Project Land Management & Economics

ECONOMICS

SECTION 2.1: INTRODUCTION

There are many factors that affect the local economy in and around Lake Chelan. Most businesses in the area are either directly or indirectly linked to Lake Chelan. The need to assess the existing socioeconomic resources of the area and the impact of project operation (reservoir fluctuations and low-cost power) on those resources has been identified.

SECTION 2.2: STUDY GOAL

The primary goal of the study is to identify, describe and document factors that influence tourism and recreation, private and commercial development and agriculture in the Lake Chelan area and to estimate the impact of project operations on these resources. A secondary benefit of the study will be to identify the potential for expansion of existing markets and the potential for developing new markets.

SECTION 2.3: STUDY AREA

The study area will consist of the project boundary and communities immediately adjacent to the boundary and/or likely to be directly impacted by project operations. The project boundary extends along the 1,100-foot contour from the upper end of the lake near Stehekin to the City of Chelan. The boundary continues down both sides of the bypass reach to the confluence of the Chelan and Columbia rivers.

SECTION 2.4: METHODOLOGY

A consultant specializing in socioeconomic analyses will conduct the study using commonly accepted economic practices. Methodologies proposed by the consultant will be presented to the Land Man- agement Working Group.

SECTION 2.5: TASK LIST

Task 1 - Introduction and kick-off meeting. The Land Management Working Group will meet with the consultant to review the goal, objectives and methodologies proposed for the study. The group will

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page P-5 SS/2099_5 Project Land Management & Economics decide the most appropriate ways to provide input during the study and will offer suggestions regarding who should be contacted. Members of the working group will provide relevant reports, surveys, con- tacts and other items that may be useful to the consultant.

Task 2 – Identify which facilities or activities are directly or indirectly impacted by project operations. An inventory of relevant facilities and activities will be developed including, but not limited to:

• Accommodations • Hotel/Motel • Camping • Summer homes • Water-based Facilities • Boat Launches • Marina • Chelan Boat Company • Rental Companies • Float Plane • Fishing Guides and Charters • Fuel Suppliers • Timeshares – Wapato Point, Kelly’s, Peterson’s • Restaurants • Charter Boat/Barge Service • Public Facilities • Parks • Activities and Events • Other • Water/sewer • Irrigation/Orchardists • Hydro Project

Task 3 – Identify current market status and potential market opportunities.

Task 3(a) - The current status of local economy will be defined using following information:

• Population and demographic characteristics • Income characteristics • Labor force characteristics • Employment and unemployment rates • New construction permits • Retail sales trends • Lodging sales trends • Transportation indicators

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2099_5 Page P-6 July 16, 1999 Project Land Management & Economics

Task 3(b) - Based on existing information, an overview of the local economy will be developed. The overview will:

• Document the historical trends focusing on what drives tourism and recreation in the Chelan area and how these activities have changed. • define the local economy’s position within the northwest tourism and recreation base • describe current business patterns in the area as they relate to water-based tourism and recreation • estimate the potential growth of these activities; and • evaluate potential market opportunities (new and existing) by size and type of use.

Task 4 – Estimate impact of project operations and activities on local economy. Estimate the impact on facilities and activities (identified in Task 2) due to project operation and the impact of other Chelan PUD activities. Estimate the potential for revenue increases and/or decreases associated with the following factors:

• Local power rates • Chelan PUD parks and recreation facilities • Reservoir fluctuations (tourism and irrigation) • Chelan PUD sponsored fish and wildlife programs • Chelan PUD educational programs • Chelan PUD employment base • Chelan PUD employee participation in local organizations • Energy Conservation

The impact of local power rates will be determined by:

• Documenting the portion of the local economy that is dependent on low power rates • Estimating the direct economic impact associated with changes in reservoir levels in terms of direct jobs and payroll

The impact of reservoir fluctuations will be determined by:

• Documenting the portion of local growth that may be dependent on water levels • Summarizing results of recreational survey conducted by Chelan PUD as it relates to fluctuating water levels. • Interview knowledgeable stakeholders associated with facilities or activities that are directly impacted by project operations. • Summarizing case studies of fluctuating water levels in other similarly impacted areas. • Assessing the seasonality of tourism in other competing areas and compare to Chelan. • Estimating the direct economic impact associated with changes in reservoir levels in terms of direct jobs and payroll. • Estimating reduced costs on irrigators associated with changes in reservoir levels.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page P-7 SS/2099_5 Project Land Management & Economics

Task 5 – Recommend economic strategy for Chelan area.

SECTION 2.6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

All data will be summarized in the most concise and clear format possible. The final report will contain an executive summary section that can be directly imported into the Draft License Application. Supporting information and hard data will be provided in the appendices. All reports will be provided in electronic format for importing into Chelan PUD’s database and ultimately into the license application. All reports styles will be consistent with Chelan PUD’s writing style guidelines (to be provided).

SECTION 2.7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS

To be provided by consultant.

SECTION 2.8: SCHEDULE

The study will begin in April 1999 and a draft report will be available in August 1999.

SECTION 2.9: BUDGET

To be provided by consultant.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2099_5 Page P-8 July 16, 1999 Project Land Management & Economics

LAND MANAGEMENT AND PERMITTING

SECTION 3.1: INTRODUCTION

3.1.1 Overview of Existing Comprehensive Land Management Plans Local land management is addressed through several comprehensive planning documents and implementing regulations. Local governments have recently changed their planning processes to be consistent with Washington's Growth Management Act. The Act requires specific planning elements be addressed by each jurisdiction and that implementing regulations be consistent and concurrent with the plan.

The City of Chelan has adopted its comprehensive plan and implementing regulations. They have established an urban growth boundary, as well as critical areas including aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, wetlands and floodplains, geological hazard areas, and fish and wildlife areas. They also have a Shoreline Master Program addressing shoreline development waterward of the 1,100-foot elevation and within a 200-foot buffer zone upland of this elevation.

Chelan County currently utilizes the Chelan-Entiat Comprehensive Plan and the Lower Lake Chelan Basin Comprehensive Plan for guiding growth and development in the Lake Chelan area. The County is in the process of completing requirements of the Growth Management Act, which include the development and adoption of new comprehensive plans for the Lake Chelan area. They have adopted interim urban growth boundaries for the City of Chelan and the un-incorporated community of Manson. Chelan County has also adopted interim regulations for critical areas and resource lands. Critical areas include fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, wetlands and geologically hazardous areas. Resource lands include agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands of long-term commercial significance. The County also has a Shoreline Master Program addressing Shoreline Development.

3.1.1.1 Federal Land Management Plans Shoreline development on federal lands within the Project boundary is extremely limited. Such uses include erosion-protection measures, recreational facility development, and resource protection or enhancement measures.

National Park Service: The General Management Plan (GMP) completed and approved in June of 1995 for Lake Chelan Na- tional Recreation Area (NRA) will guide the management of the NRA for the next 10 to 15 years. The purpose of the GMP, and its associated implementation plans, is to manage visitor use, natural and cultural resources, development and operation of the NRA according to the enabling legislation and other laws and regulations affecting management of the NRA.

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page P-9 SS/2099_5 Project Land Management & Economics

US Forest Service: The USDA Forest Service manages all National Forest lands in the Chelan basin. The Wenatchee Land and Resource Management Plan and subsequent amendments contain the direction for managing all resources and uses on the National Forest. The Plan provides management direction through a series of specific land allocations that act in a manner similar to county zoning requirements. Each allocation has a set of standards and guidelines that govern activities and uses within it. The primary land allocations surrounding this project include: Wilderness, developed recreation, dispersed recreation, big game habitat, and riparian habitat. A major amendment to the original Plan known as the Northwest Forest Plan added additional requirements that must be addressed by all projects as well. It is important that all projects, including this project, be consistent with the Plan standards and guidelines in order to be approved.

3.1.2 Overview of Current Permitting Programs (Dock, etc.) Chelan County and the City of Chelan are participating in a program that has been developed to reduce the number of forms needed in complying with environmental laws that have a redundant purpose and authority. The process uses a Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA). One form can now be used to process any and all permits for:

1. Shoreline Substantial Development, Variance, or Conditional Use Permit issued by local government, 2. Temporary Modification of Water Quality Criteria issued by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), 3. Hydraulic Project Approval issued by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW), 4. Section 401 Water Quality Certification issued by Ecology, and 5. Corps of Engineers Section 404 and Section 10 Permits.

All actions undertaken are subject to Washington's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). SEPA is similar to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Act stipulates that compliance with NEPA will be considered adequate compliance with SEPA.

Chelan PUD uses a permit system to assess and track uses within the project boundary. Because of the multitude of regulatory requirements established by local, state and federal land management entities, development below elevation 1,100 feet is generally limited to irrigation water intakes, piers, floating docks, buoys, boat lifts, and shoreline protective measures and fish habitat and riparian enhancement measures. Chelan PUD's objective is to assure consistency with Project purposes including safety, environmental concerns, and aesthetics.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2099_5 Page P-10 July 16, 1999 Project Land Management & Economics

SECTION 3.2: STUDY GOAL

The goal of the study is to provide an overview of land management activities within the study area and to define Chelan PUD’s future role in these activities and consistency.

SECTION 3.3: STUDY AREA

The study area will consist of the project boundary. The project boundary extends along the 1,100- foot contour from the upper end of the lake near Stehekin to the City of Chelan. The boundary continues down both sides of the bypass reach to the confluence of the Chelan and Columbia rivers.

SECTION 3.4: METHODOLOGY

Chelan PUD will be summarizing existing land management plans provided by the managing agencies. Chelan PUD’s future role in permitting activities will be based on input from the Land Management Working group.

SECTION 3.5: TASK LIST

Task 1 - Literature Review. Chelan PUD will collect, compile and summarize existing land management plans for lands within the study area. Chelan PUD will identify inconsistencies between the various plans for the Land Management Working Group to consider. In addition, Chelan PUD will provide an overview of Chelan PUD’s past practices regarding permitting activities.

Task 2 - Inventory of shoreline development with emphasis on permitted structures and facilities (docks, piers and intakes). Inconsistencies will be identified and marked. The following categories will be used for the inventory:

1. Docks a. Non Commercial b. Commercial c. Cabana

2. Piers (Perpendicular to shoreline) a. Concrete b. Wood c. Rip-rap d. Natural

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page P-11 SS/2099_5 Project Land Management & Economics

e. Other

3. Bulkheads (Parallel to shoreline) (Same as piers)

4. Intakes

Task 3 – Mapping of shoreline development. Shoreline development will be mapped using a Global Positioning System (GPS) for direct input in Chelan PUD’s GIS system. Shoreline development maps will be made available for all working groups as protection, mitigation and enhancement (PME) measures are developed.

Task 4 – Determine Chelan PUD’s future role in land management activities along Lake Chelan. Chelan PUD will work with the Land Management Group to define role.

Task 5 – Summary report. All findings and recommendations will be provided in a summary report.

SECTION 3.6: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

All data and mapping will be summarized in the most concise and clear format possible. The final report will contain an executive summary section that can be directly imported into the Draft License Applica- tion for the project. Supporting information and maps will be provided in the appendices. All reports should also be provided in electronic format for importing into Soft Solutions and ultimately into the license application. All reports styles should be consistent with Chelan PUD’s writing style guidelines (to be provided).

SECTION 3.7: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS Chelan PUD will provide the necessary staff and/or consultants required to complete work.

SECTION 3.8: SCHEDULE The work will begin April 1999 and be completed by August 1999.

SECTION 3.9: BUDGET To be provided by consultant.

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2099_5 Page P-12 July 16, 1999 APPENDIX A

Evaluation of issues addressed The table below lists all the comments from various groups thought to be relevant to the land management and socioeconomics study. The last column is an evaluation of whether each issue will be addressed by the study as proposed. Where the word “indirect” is used, it is meant to indicate that the study will provide some information useful in addressing the issue, but will not by itself provide all the necessary information. Where “no” is used, it is meant to indicate that the study, as proposed, is not expected to provide information that contributes substantially to addressing the issue.

Issue Group Rank Addressed

Shoreline issues: protection of shoreline LARC 1/149 Indirect Planning: coordination and communication of this and LARC 2/149 Yes other public planning Economics: recreational impacts LARC 3/149 Yes Economics: long-term ramifications, who main- LARC 5/149 Yes tains/funded how? Planning: integrated resource management as it relates LARC 7/149 Yes to land use Planning: consideration into distant future LARC 8/149 Yes Planning: consider recreational carrying capacity LARC 12/149 Yes Planning: integrate with other resource objectives LARC 13/149 Yes Planning: development of shoreline LARC 14/149 Yes Lake Levels: use of recreational facilities LARC 15/149 Indirect Planning: consider changing demographics LARC 19/149 Yes Planning: limits of acceptable change LARC 20/149 Yes Economics: must be economically viable to PUD LARC 31/149 Indirect Land Use: spawning habitat, disruption and access to LARC 39/149 Indirect Erosion: loss of land LARC 50/149 Indirect Education: uniqueness of lake LARC 52/149 Indirect Education: taking opportunities to educate public LARC 53/149 Indirect Planning: anticipate future pressure from Puget Sound, LARC 54/149 Indirect etc. Planning: land conversions, lands that are changed for LARC 55/149 Yes alternate uses (affects habitat) Planning: seasonal flow augmentation (t/e spe- LARC 56/149 Indirect cies)(bypass reach and Columbia River) Economics: impact of pool changes on fishing (tour- LARC 59/149 Indirect Project Land Management & Economics

Issue Group Rank Addressed ism) Erosion: impacts on riparian LARC 61/149 Indirect Recreation: trails and coordinated trails planning LARC 63/149 Indirect Economics: upper lake recreation, distant draw LARC 65/149 Yes downlake more local Shoreline issues: retaining wall encroachment and boat LARC 66/149 Yes docks Bypass Reach/recreation: appropriate minimum flows LARC 67/149 Indirect Economics: fiscal needs of affected agencies LARC 69/149 Indirect Lake Level Fluctuation: wear and tear on docks, spe- LARC 71/149 Indirect cial docks required Economics: lack of year-round economic base LARC 74/149 Yes Bypass Reach/recreation: positive economic benefit to LARC 75/149 Yes Chelan Falls, City of Chelan Economics: higher summer use increases problems, LARC 78/149 Indirect more balance needed Planning: archeological (includes traditional cultural LARC 82/149 Yes uses) Planning: disruptions of aesthetics LARC 83/149 Indirect Commercial Impacts: aesthetics LARC 84/149 Indirect Recreation uplake from dam: marina not useable dur- LARC 85/149 Indirect ing low water Education: historic significance LARC 90/149 Indirect Planning: land ownership and jurisdiction (i.e., trust LARC 91/149 Yes lands) Land Use: vegetation manipulation LARC 95/149 Yes Economics: can this be done in a way that generates LARC 96/149 Yes new jobs for our people? Extent of Drawdowns: not for maximum drawdown LARC 100/149 Indirect allowed Upper/lower Lake Differences: opportunity differ- LARC 102/149 Yes ences, due to geography Lake Level Fluctuation: docks designed for ferries LARC 103/149 Indirect Flooding: higher lake reduces dock and seawall main- LARC 108/149 Indirect tenance Bypass Reach/recreation: positive economic benefit to LARC 110/149 Yes Chelan Falls, City of Chelan: associated with higher use Lake Level Fluctuation: flat ground is at a premium LARC 125/149 Yes

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2099_5 Page P-14 July 16, 1999 Project Land Management & Economics

Issue Group Rank Addressed

Recreation: shoreline casements LARC 126/149 Yes Bypass Reach/recreation: land ownership along the LARC 127/149 Yes bypass Lake Level Fluctuation: impact on private property LARC 134/149 Yes owners Lake Levels: property values LARC 136/149 Yes Planning: irrigation projects LARC 141/149 Yes Bypass Reach/recreation: zoning-school development, LARC 146/149 Indirect etc. Commercial Impacts: gaming decisions (casino) LARC 147/149 Yes

Land development control Fish 5/119 Yes Land development - affecting water quality, fisheries: Fish 26/119 Indirect Comprehensive land management plan Fish 27/119 Yes Impacts on habitat from people encroachment Fish 43/119 Indirect Land development – affecting water quality, fisheries: Fish 56/119 Indirect Boats/people Land development - affecting water quality, fisheries: Fish 72/119 Indirect Building Water rights Fish 82/119 Yes Land development - affecting water quality, fisheries: Fish 86/119 Indirect Agricultural runoff Land development - affecting water quality, fisheries: Fish 87/119 Indirect Domestic use Land development - affecting water quality, fisheries: Fish 92/119 Indirect Erosion (waves due to boats) Land development - affecting water quality, fisheries: Fish 93/119 Indirect Aesthetics Lake level fluctuations: Docks Fish 94/119 Yes

Impact on recreational facilities Public 1/75 Indirect Recreational impacts Public 2/75 Indirect Overall recreation - impact on economics - need for Public 3/75 Yes high quality recreational amenities Timing of the drawdowns: no bath tub ring during high Public 4/75 Indirect visit season Integrated resource management as it relates to land Public 5/75 Yes use Lake levels higher May through September Public 6/75 Yes

Study Plan Lake Chelan Project No. 637 July 16, 1999 Page P-15 SS/2099_5 Project Land Management & Economics

Issue Group Rank Addressed

Lake fluctuation, including earlier and longer or up a Public 7/75 Yes month earlier than now Economics of changing drawdown times Public 11/75 Yes Partnership with PUD agency to agency to share ex- Public 12/75 Yes pertise, such as state grants, street-ends, others Need for year-round recreation economy Public 13/75 Yes Planning: development of shoreline Public 17/75 Yes Impact of project operation on economic base Public 26/75 Yes Loss of soil/land Public 27/75 Indirect Lack of year-round economic base Public 29/75 Yes Coordination and communication of this and other Public 33/75 Yes public planning Structural damage (i.e. marina) Public 34/75 Yes Education: uniqueness of lake Public 40/75 Indirect Shoreline access (undercut banks) Public 41/75 Indirect Irrigation and pumping capabilities Public 42/75 Indirect Centralization of information Public 44/75 Yes Long-term ramifications, who maintains, funded how Public 47/75 Yes Erosion during high water Public 48/75 Indirect Shoreline erosion caused by raising of the lake Public 49/75 Indirect Structural damage, wear and tear on docks, special Public 50/75 Indirect docks required Bio-engineering, rip rap, erosion control Public 51/75 Indirect Stehekin aesthetics regarding the mud flats Public 56/75 Indirect Navigation on Stehekin River Public 59/75 Indirect Comprehensive land management plans Public 60/75 Yes Aesthetics - drawdowns ugly Public 62/75 Indirect Land development control Public 65/75 Yes Must be economically viable to PUD Public 68/75 Indirect

Lake Chelan Project No. 637 Study Plan SS/2099_5 Page P-16 July 16, 1999