PacifiCorp, Cowlitz PUD, Washington; Notice of Availability
[Federal Register: May 19, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 27037-27052]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19my03-57]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project Nos. 935-037, 2071-015, 2111-011, and 2213-002]
PacifiCorp, Cowlitz PUD, Washington; Notice of Availability
May 13, 2003.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for amendment to
licenses for the Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects (Merwin P-935, Yale
P-2071, Swift No. 1 P-2111, and Swift No. 2 P-2213), located on the
North Fork Lewis River in Cowlitz, Clark, and Skamania counties,
Washington and has prepared a Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) for
the projects. No Federal lands are involved.
The FEA contains the staff's analysis of the potential
environmental impacts of the projects and concludes that approving the
amendments to the licenses, with appropriate environmental protective
measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the FEA is available for public inspection in the Public
Reference Room of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The FEA may also be viewed on the Internet at
http://www.ferc.gov 
using the ``FERRIS'' link--select ``Docket
#'' and follow the instructions. For assistance, please
[[Page 27038]]
contact FERC online support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call toll-
free 866-208-3676 or (202) 502-8659 (for TTY). Attachments A and C of
the FEA are currently available on FERRIS.
Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm
to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
For further information, contact Allison Arnold at (202) 502-6346
or allison.arnold@ferc.gov.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
Environmental Assessment
Project Name: Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects.
FERC Project Numbers: P-935, P-2071, P-2111, P-2213.
May 12, 2003
1.0 Application
1.1 Application type: Amendment of License.
1.2 Date filed: July 6, 2000.
1.3 Applicant: PacifiCorp (Portland, Oregon), Cowlitz PUD (Cowlitz
County, Washington).
1.4 Water body: North Fork Lewis River.
1.5 Nearest city or town: Woodland, Washington.
1.6 County and State: Cowlitz, Clark and Skamania Counties,
Washington.
2.0 Purpose and Need for Action
On July 6, 2000, PacifiCorp filed an application to amend its
licenses for the North Fork Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects (Lewis
River Projects) (Merwin P-935, Yale P-2071, and Swift No. 1 P-2111) and
supplemented that filing on August 17, 2000. On August 17, 2000,
Cowlitz PUD No. 1 (PUD) filed an application to amend its license for
the Swift No. 2 Project (P-2213) also located on the Lewis River. The
Swift No. 2 Project is operated by PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp and PUD
request approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) to include within its licenses measures for protecting,
enhancing, or mitigating impacts to endangered and threatened and
proposed and candidate fish species under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (ESA). These measures are intended to provide
PacifiCorp and PUD with ESA compliance for the Merwin, Yale, and Swift
No. 1 and Swift No. 2 hydroelectric projects until collaborative
relicensing is completed. By amending its licenses, PacifiCorp and PUD
hope to incidental take of listed and proposed species occurring as a
result of current facility operations.
3.0 Summary
In this Environmental Assessment (EA), Commission staff review the
proposed amendments to the Merwin, Yale, Swift No. 1 and Swift No. 2
licenses to determine if the measures for protecting, enhancing, and
mitigating impacts to fish species listed under the ESA will likely
reduce incidental take of those species resulting from the operation of
the four projects.
The recommended alternative is approving the amendment of
PacifiCorp's and PUD's licenses to adopt and implement the proposed
conservation strategy. Incorporating the terms of the conservation
strategy into PacifiCorp's and PUD's licenses will significantly reduce
incidental take of listed species resulting from operation of the Lewis
River Projects. Such conservation measures likewise represent important
near-term conservation opportunities that may be lost if not secured
while the parties collaboratively devise long-term conservation
strategies.
4.0 Background
PacifiCorp and PUD (Licensees) have initiated a collaborative ALP
for four hydroelectric projects on the North Fork Lewis River in
Cowlitz, Clark, and Skamania counties in southwest Washington.
PacifiCorp owns and operates the Merwin, Yale, and Swift No. 1
projects. PacifiCorp operates Swift No. 2 under a 1957 contract with
Cowlitz PUD. Under that contract, PacifiCorp has sole charge and
responsibility for generation and delivery of the power and energy from
Swift No. 2.\1\ Each of these projects has a different FERC license
number, original license expiration date, and production capacity. See
(Table 4.0-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The operating agreement provides, in relevant parts:
Whereas, the District and Pacific entered into a contract on June 4,
1957, which provides for the delivery to Pacific of all the power
and energy to which the District may be entitled under the terms of
said contract and for the withdrawal of all or any part of such
power and energy by the District in accordance with the conditions
stated in said contract and also provides for the coordinated
operation of the said Swift Plants Nos. 1 and 2 so as to produce the
optimum project output and such coordinated operation will be
facilitated by the operation of both plants under one direction and
control and to accomplish such purpose and to achieve economy of
operation Pacific should be authorized to operate Swift Plant No. 2
under the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.
* * * * *
``Section 3. Manner of Operation of Swift Plant No. 2
(a) Pacific will operate and maintain Swift Plant No. 2 in an
efficient manner, consistent with established electric utility
practices for the operation and maintenance of hydroelectric
projects of similar type and size and in accordance with any
applicable provisions of the Federal Power Commission License for
Swift Plant No. 2, as the same may be amended from time to time.
(b) Pacific shall perform the work hereunder as an independent
contractor and shall not be subject to the control or supervision of
the District except as to the results of the work.''
Cowlitz PUD, as licensee, has the right to notice of
PacifiCorp's actions and such notice has been given. Cowlitz PUD
also may wish to be involved in PacifiCorp's discussions with the
Commission staff, USFWS and NMFS (and has been to date). However, as
contract operator, PacifiCorp has full discretion to take necessary
steps to obtain ESA compliance for its operation of Swift No. 2.
Table 4.0-1.--FERC License Number, Original License Expiration Date, and Production Capacity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC Capacity
Project name Project owner license No. License expiration (MW)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yale................................. PacifiCorp.............. 2071 May 1, 2001............ 134
Swift No. 1.......................... PacifiCorp.............. 2111 May 1, 2006............ 240
Swift No. 2.......................... Cowlitz PUD............. 2213 May 1, 2006............ 70
Merwin............................... PacifiCorp.............. 935 May 1, 2006 \1\........ 136
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Original license expiration date was 2009.
The current license for the Yale Project expired on May 1, 2001,
five years prior to the expiration of the licenses for Swift Nos. 1 and
2 projects (May 1, 2006) and about eight years before the original
expiration date of the current license for the Merwin Project (December
11, 2009). On April 1, 1999, the Commission approved PacifiCorp
[[Page 27039]]
and PUD's request to use the Commission's ALP and for the simultaneous
and coordinated processing of the applications for all four projects.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that federal agencies ensure
that their actions do not jeopardize federally-listed species. The
Commission has recognized PacifiCorp as a non-federal designee under
Section 7 in a letter dated October 20, 1999. PacifiCorp has developed
a multi-species Biological Assessment (BA) (Attachment A) that includes
a number of measures to protect, enhance and mitigate project impacts
to proposed and listed species under the ESA for the Commission's
review and adoption. In the BA, PacifiCorp requests the Commission to
amend its licenses, which constitutes a federal action triggering a
Section 7 consultation. Specifically, PacifiCorp's application for
amendment of its licenses to provide ESA compliance for its ownership
of three of the facilities (Merwin, Yale and Swift No. 1) and operation
of all four projects (Merwin, Yale and Swift Nos. 1 and 2).
5.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives
The Proposed Action is Commission approval of the Application for
Amendment of PacifiCorp's (Merwin, Yale, and Swift No. 1) and PUD's
(Swift No. 2) Licenses.
5.1 Proposed Measures
The following section describes proposed measures to reduce the
effects of the Lewis River Projects on certain fish species that are
listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the ESA.
PacifiCorp proposes to implement pertinent measures upon issuance of
license article amendments by the Commission after consultation with
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and (USFWS) under section
7(a)(2) of the ESA, and subsequent issuance of a Biological Opinion
(BO)(Attachment C), and its associated incidental take statement, as it
pertains to the proposed operation of the Lewis River Projects. Table
5.1-1 summarizes PacifiCorp's proposed measures. The BO, filed June 28,
2002 by NMFS and USFWS, is consistent with and supports the proposed
amendments to the license.
Table 5.1-1.--Summary of PacifiCorp's Proposed Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Project Effects ESA alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steelhead, Chinook, Chum, Coho and Merwin.................... Instream Flows altered Change existing
Cutthroat. hydrograph ramping. ramping rates
downstream of Merwin.
Steelhead, Chinook, Chum, Coho and Merwin.................... Upstream Migration Provide funds for
Cutthroat. Block/reduced habitat. Clark County to
purchase Eagle Island
for the protection of
anadromous fish
rearing habitat.
Steelhead, Chinook, Chum, Coho and Merwin.................... Dewatering/stranding Implement Merwin
Cutthroat. incidents. redundancy equipment
to prevent potential
dewatering of
riverbed, fish trap
and hatcheries. Work
with Washington
Department of Fish
and Wildlife (WDFW)
to provide for
habitat enhancement
measures in the Lewis
River and tributaries
to benefit salmon
populations.
Steelhead, Chinook, Chum, Coho and Merwin.................... Hatchery Program...... Continue to fund WDFW
Cutthroat. Section 10 annual
evaluation.
Bull Trout.......................... Yale...................... Upstream Passage block Continue net and haul
process Enhance/
protect habitat
upstream at Yale and
Swift.
Bull Trout.......................... Yale...................... Entrainment........... Addressed in the ALP
--turbines............ discussions Study
--spill............... strobe effectiveness.
Develop a preliminary
engineering design
study to modify the
Yale spillway.
Purchase Cougar Cr.
Area C to protect and
enhance spawning/
rearing habitat and
create a conservation
easement.
Bull Trout.......................... Swift..................... Limited spawning/ Purchase Swift Cr.
rearing. Area A (Devil's
Backbone) to protect
bull trout sub-adult.
Bull Trout.......................... Swift..................... Population Status..... Continue PacifiCorp,
WDFW and USFWS
monitoring program on
Swift.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.1.1 Steelhead, Chinook, Chum and Coho (Downstream From Merwin Dam)
The Lewis River anadromous salmonids, with the exception of the
fall chinook, are currently of hatchery origin from other basins and
have been supplemented or introduced since the early 1930's. In
addition, current management is aimed at maintaining hatchery stocks in
the North Fork Lewis River for the purposes of sport harvest
(essentially a terminal fishery) (WDFW and Western Washington Treaty
Tribes 1997).
Given this background, PacifiCorp proposes to assist with
acquisition of lands to protect and enhance fall chinook habitat
downstream of Merwin dam. Chum will benefit from this action as well.
The primary purpose is to provide juvenile wild fall chinook rearing to
protect the remaining indigenous stock. Coho and steelhead are also
known to utilize extensive rearing areas downstream of Merwin dam.
PacifiCorp proposes to modify its existing ramping rates and also
review the existing license flows downstream of Merwin dam to determine
if the current flow regime is suitable for all anadromous species and
life stages. In addition, PacifiCorp currently funds WDFW to evaluate
hatchery affects on listed salmon and steelhead under a Section 10
permit held by the state and proposes to continue that funding.
Related to the unplanned outage and interruption of flow that
occurred on June 6, 1999, PacifiCorp has been working with WDFW to
identify measures that would provide for the potential adult salmon and
steelhead production that was lost. Elements of the discussion include
possible gravel enhancements downstream of Merwin, rehabilitation of a
chum spawning site that was inundated by a landslide, habitat
improvements on Cedar, Johnson, and Colvin creeks, or purchase of
riparian habitat on Cedar Creek. WDFW and PacifiCorp are currently
evaluating which of these options to pursue but any one of these will
result in benefits to the listed species.
[[Page 27040]]
Habitat Enhancement and Protection
Anadromous salmonids utilize several areas downstream of Merwin dam
for spawning and rearing. The majority of the spawning occurs upstream
of the Lewis River Salmon Hatchery. Juvenile rearing occurs in many
areas between the uppermost spawning sites and the lower river adjacent
to the city of Woodland. The primary rearing site downstream of Merwin
dam is Eagle Island, which is approximately seven miles downstream of
Merwin dam and is considered to be prime fall chinook juvenile rearing
habitat.
Eagle Island is a 259-acre parcel with an associated 20-acre
mainland piece. Over 75 percent of the present day wild fall chinook
rearing habitat is associated with the island. The island also provides
critical habitat for adult and juvenile steelhead, coho, chum and
cutthroat (WDFW 1998). Until this year, a developer owned the island
with plans for residential development. The WDFW has made many attempts
to purchase the island for protection of the habitat. In June 1999,
Clark County obtained monies to match State funding for purchase of the
island. PacifiCorp, through agreement with Clark County, has paid the
county's portion of the funding to purchase the island and deed the
property to the State. The funding obtained by Clark County will be
used to protect and restore salmon and steelhead rearing areas through
their Conservation Futures program to improve the habitat on the island
for wildlife and set up a fund for continued preservation of Eagle
Island.
Ramping Rates--Evaluation/Review/Modify
PacifiCorp proposes to modify the current Merwin down-ramping rates
to meet a new standard of 0.5 feet per three-hour period (with the
intent to meet 2 inch/hour as best as possible). This down-ramping rate
protects juveniles and fry using shallow stream margin habitat. Up-
ramping will be increased from 1 ft/hr to 1.5 ft/hr. The up-ramping
limitations focus on safety for those using the river below the
project. A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) will be developed that
describes how ramping requirements will be accomplished. The SOP will
be subject to NMFS and USFWS approval.
Hatchery Evaluation
PacifiCorp currently funds WDFW to evaluate effects of hatchery
outplanting from Merwin and North Fork Lewis River hatcheries on
Columbia and Snake river listed species. With the addition of listed
species within the basin, PacifiCorp proposes to expand efforts to
evaluate hatchery effects on in-basin species.
5.1.2 Bull Trout and Cutthroat Trout (Upstream From Merwin Dam)
Continue Yale Net and Haul
The USFWS commented on the Yale application for a new license and
suggested that PacifiCorp begin engineering studies concerning fish
passage facilities at the projects. However, since the ALP will address
basin-wide fish passage issues, PacifiCorp believes it is premature to
propose specific passage measures at this time. PacifiCorp proposes to
continue net and haul activities in cooperation with WDFW as directed
by USFWS (letter from N. Gloman--USFWS, dated Nov. 12, 1998) and to
expand efforts to the Swift No. 2 tailrace if needed. PacifiCorp
initiated a pilot net and haul program at Swift No. 2 tailrace in 1999.
According to the bull trout monitoring report (Lesko 2000 page 4), two
bull trout were captured at the Swift 2 tailrace on October 2, 1999.
However, PacifiCorp will continue its involvement in monitoring the
presence of bull trout at the Swift No. 2 tailrace if USFWS and WDFW
determine it to be necessary.
Entrainment Reduction
PacifiCorp proposes to evaluate a strobe light system to prevent
bull trout entrainment at the Yale and Swift No. 1 spill and turbine
intakes (see 6.2 Biological Justification). However, effectiveness for
bull trout is unknown and the system would need to be adequately
evaluated. PacifiCorp believes that available scientific information
suggests that strobes may prove successful in substantially reducing
salmonid entrainment at the projects. Such evaluation will also provide
the Aquatics Workgroup with a scientific basis for determining whether
PacifiCorp should explore other measures to address entrainment
concerns. In terms of the Yale spillway, PacifiCorp proposes to conduct
preliminary engineering design studies to address modifications of the
spillway configuration in order to reduce any potential for fish injury
or mortality.
Habitat Protection
Habitat does not appear to be a limiting factor for cutthroat trout
in the upper basin. In contrast, the primary limiting factor for Yale
and Swift bull trout production is the availability of adequate
spawning and rearing habitat. The fact that only 1\3/4\ miles of
spawning and rearing habitat (Cougar Creek) exists for the Yale
population may explain the chronically low numbers of spawning adults
observed each fall since records have been kept. With the exception of
possible rearing habitat in Ole and Rain creeks, there are limited
opportunities for expanding or improving habitat for the Yale bull
trout population. While Graves (1982) observed bull trout spawning in
the Swift bypass reach in 1981 and 1982, the potential for permanent
spawning areas in this reach is limited. The bypass reach serves as a
spill channel and has passed flows as high as 44,700 cfs in the 1996
flood. Flows of this magnitude completely scour the channel of any
potential spawning gravels and, since flows of this magnitude usually
occur in winter, would potentially eliminate bull trout redds.
For spawning and rearing habitat protection, action could be taken
to protect the existing habitat around Cougar Creek. Therefore,
PacifiCorp has purchased land from Weyerhaeuser Corporation in the
Cougar Creek riparian corridor to protect the bull trout spawning and
rearing habitat and proposes a conservation easement that will be
approximately a 500-foot buffer on Cougar Creek and a 200-foot buffer
on Panamaker Creek. No other known spawning habitat for bull trout
residing in Yale reservoir is known. Therefore, the protection of this
habitat is very desirable. PacifiCorp shall maintain the property
consistent with the conservation easement and BO and incidental take
statement. Such maintenance may include, but is not limited to,
planting of vegetation, removal of non-native or invasive plant
species, other vegetation management and installation of boundary
markers or fences. PacifiCorp will coordinate with USFWS and NMFS on
maintenance and management of lands subject to the conservation
easement. Management of the lands outside the easement will include
road and culvert maintenance in the short term and may eventually be
included in the Lewis River wildlife management plan at the completion
of ALP settlement discussions. PacifiCorp and PUD recognize and intend
that the conservation easement along Cougar and Panamaker creek
riparian corridors are measures under the ESA for the benefit of the
species in the entire range of all four projects.
Water Quality in Tailraces
PacifiCorp has implemented modifications to the Yale turbine
intakes to resolve total dissolved gases (TDG) levels in the Yale
tailrace. Temperature fluctuation in the Yale tailrace is currently
being addressed
[[Page 27041]]
through the Lewis River ALP. Through the ALP, PacifiCorp is studying
temperatures and TDG in the Swift Nos. 1 and 2 tailraces. This may lead
to potential equipment modification, subject to USFWS approval, that
will reduce TDG and temperature effects while providing for continued
operational flexibility.
Protect Swift Bull Trout and Cutthroat Trout Habitat
Information is lacking on bull trout in the Swift Creek arm and the
location and status of known sub-adult rearing habitat in Swift
reservoir. Therefore, PacifiCorp has entered into a contract with
Weyerhaeuser Corporation to purchase lands on the east side of the
Swift Creek arm (Devil's Backbone) for protection of shoreline rearing
habitat and with the intent of placing a conservation easement along
that adjacent riparian zone for the protection of that habitat in
perpetuity. Such an easement will be created to protect and conserve
the habitat for bull trout, cutthroat trout and other aquatic species
and will provide a high level of certainty that long-term benefits will
accrue to these species. PacifiCorp shall maintain the property
consistent with the conservation easement and BO (Attachment C), and
its associated incidental take statement. Such maintenance may include,
but is not limited to, planting of vegetation, removal of nonnative or
invasive plant species, other vegetation management and installation of
boundary markers or fences. PacifiCorp will coordinate with USFWS and
NMFS on maintenance and management of lands subject to the conservation
easement.
This proposed conservation easement will result in increased
protections for the adjacent riparian zone beyond that currently
required by the Washington Forest Practice Act and associated
regulations. For example, NMFS believes these regulations do not
provide properly functioning riparian and instream habitats.
Specifically, NMFS believes the base regulations do not adequately
address LWD recruitment, tree retention to maintain stream bank
integrity and channel networks within floodplains, and chronic and
episodic inputs of coarse and fine sediment that maintain habitats that
are properly functioning for all salmonid life stages. Therefore, the
proposed placement of a conservation easement on these areas will
benefit salmonids by enhancing and protecting the productivity of
aquatic habitat in this area, providing such benefits in perpetuity.
Continue Population Monitoring
PacifiCorp has been funding and participating in a WDFW/USFWS
cooperative Swift bull trout population monitoring project since 1988.
Currently, WDFW is utilizing a visual mark-recapture protocol to
estimate reservoir population size. PacifiCorp proposes to continue
providing partial funding and in-kind services to maintain the Swift
population monitoring database.
5.1.3 Alternatives
Commission staff considered the Proposed Action and No Action
alternatives until collaborative project relicensing is completed.
Commission staff believe the Proposed Action is preferable because the
proposed conservation measures will likely provide beneficial effects
for listed, proposed and candidate fish species in the North Fork Lewis
River project area. Securing essential habitat for listed species is
important because these lands could be sold and developed in the
future.
5.2 Reasonable Alternatives
No alternatives to PacifiCorp's proposed measures were identified.
Commission staff considered the Proposed Action and No Action until a
new project license is issued by the Commission. No other alternatives
were identified that met the purpose of providing near term ESA
compliance. As discussed earlier, the Commission approved the use of
the ALP for the Lewis River projects. A Collaborative Team consisting
of PacifiCorp, PUD, federal, state, county and city agencies, the
Yakama Nation, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and non-governmental
organizations and private citizens are working together to complete the
relicensing process. Through this process, PacifiCorp proposed to
negotiate a comprehensive settlement agreement covering natural and
social resource management measures for the new license terms of its
projects, including long term conservation strategies for ESA
compliance. Thus, the measures in the PacifiCorp's BA (Appendix A)
represent important near-term conservation opportunities that can
provide immediate benefits to aquatic species in the Lewis River Basin
while recognizing that the Collaborative Team would devise a long-term
conservation strategies in the ALP settlement for ESA compliance.
Commission staff believe the Proposed Action is preferable because
the proposed conservation measures will likely provide immediate
benefits for listed, proposed and candidate fish species in the North
Fork Lewis River project area. Securing essential habitat for listed
species is important because these lands could be sold and developed in
the future, subsequently becoming lost opportunities.
5.3 No Action Alternative
The No Action alternative would require denying the inclusion of
ESA compliance measures within the Lewis River Projects' licenses. A
denial would maintain the status quo and result in a lost opportunity
to purchase and protect essential habitat for the species in the near
term prior to settlement or new licenses.
6.0 Consultation
6.1 Motions To Intervene and Comments on the DEA
The Commission publicly noticed the licensee's application on July
6, 2000. Table 6.1-1 lists those who filed motions to intervene.
Table 6.1-1.--List of Intervenors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Action FERC project No. Date filed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDOI.............................. Motion to Intervene... P-935-037, P-2071- Oct. 11, 2000.
015, P-2111-011, P-
2213-002.
NMFS............................... Motion to Intervene... P-935-037, P-2071- Oct. 16, 2000.
015, P-2111-011, P-
2213-002.
State of Washington................ Motion to Intervene... P-2213-002........... Oct. 13, 2000.
PacifiCorp......................... Motion to Intervene... P-2213-002........... Oct. 4, 2000.
Cowlitz PUD........................ Motion to Intervene... P-935-037, P-2071- Oct. 4, 2000.
015, P-2111-011.
American Rivers.................... Motion to Intervene... P-935-037, P-2071- Oct. 16, 2000.
015, P-2111-011, P-
2213-002.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 27042]]
Commission staff included a draft environmental assessment (DEA) in
the Federal Register with a comment closing date of October 15, 2000.
All comments are addressed in Attachment B. Table 6.1-2 lists all of
those who filed comments on the DEA.
Table 6.1-2.--List of Commentors on DEA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Action FERC project No. Date filed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS............................... Comments on DEA....... P-935-037, P-2071- Oct. 16, 2000.
015, P-2111-011, P-
2213-002.
USFS............................... Comments on DEA....... P-935-037, P-2071- Dec. 27, 2000.*
015, P-2111-011, P-
2213-002.
American Rivers.................... Comments on DEA....... P-935-037, P-2071- Oct. 16, 2000.
015, P-2111-011, P-
2213-002.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Late Submission.
6.2 Consultation History
1995--PacifiCorp began working with the USFWS regarding the Yale
Hydroelectric Project.
1998--PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD continued to work with the USFWS
and began working with NMFS when the scope of analysis was expanded to
include the remaining three hydroelectric projects on the North Fork
Lewis River Watershed.
July 1999--PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD met with the USFWS, NMFS, and
Commission staff to discuss habitat protection measures designed to
protect and conserve salmon, steelhead and bull trout with the
objective of obtaining authorization of incidental take under Section 7
of the ESA for the operations of the Lewis River Projects.
July 2000--On July 6th, PacifiCorp filed a draft single-party BA
and application to amend the licenses for Merwin, Yale and Swift No. 1
Hydroelectric Projects.
August 2000--On August 16th, PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD jointly
draft a BA for all four hydroelectric projects. PacifiCorp filed an
amended application for amendment of PacifiCorp licenses and included a
revised Exhibit E, a revised BA, and a revised EA. Cowlitz PUD filed an
application to amend its license for the Swift No. 2 Hydroelectric
Project.
October 2000--On October 4th, the Commission requested formal
Section 7 consultation by letter to the NMFS and USFWS. The NMFS
initiated consultation.
December 2000--On December 15th, the Commission sent additional
information in a letter to the USFWS, per USFWS request. Commission
staff noted that no other additional information was available. The
USFWS initiated formal consultation on 27 December.
June 2002--On June 28th, NMFS and USFWS file their BO and its
associated Incidental take statement. Formal consultation concluded.
Commission staff reviewed all comments received on the DEA
(Attachment B). Below is a summary of and responses to the comments
received.
The NMFS, USFS, and American Rivers submitted comments on the DEA.
The NMFS and American Rivers also filed motions to intervene. All
comments received are generally supportive of the proposed amendments
in this Order. The USFS made numerous comments that extended beyond the
scope of the proposed amendments.
The NMFS and American Rivers expressed concern that the DEA did not
address, comprehensively, the impacts of ongoing operation of the Lewis
River Projects on listed species but limited the scope to the specific
measures contained in the amendment. The BA, which was included in the
FEA, did address the impacts of ongoing operation on listed species to
the extent it was known. However, as indicated earlier, the projects
are undergoing the preparation of relicense applications. This effort
will ultimately result in a comprehensive examination of project
effects on listed species.
In addition, both NMFS and American Rivers expressed concern
regarding the lack of details as to how the lands that are to be
protected will be managed. As stated in the FEA and required in this
order management activities will be consistent with the terms and
conditions of the BO for each target species.
Finally, these entities expressed concern that, in the event that
unforeseen circumstances cause the relicensing effort to become a
protracted affair, the actions approved herein should have some time
limits. Specifically their concern is that the protection measures may
not afford the necessary protection for ongoing operation beyond the
expiration of the existing licenses. Their does exist the possibility,
albeit remote, that information will become available that indicates
additional measures are required to address, as yet, unidentified
effects to listed species associated with the ongoing operation of the
subject projects. The ALP collaborative is in the process of
undertaking studies or reviewing study results pursuant to the
relicensing effort and it is possible that such efforts could reveal
unidentified impacts. If this were to happen, then it is expected that
Commission staff, in concert with the Licensee, NMFS, and USFWS, would
undertake an effort to discuss the situation as appropriate.
7.0 Environmental Analysis
7.1 General Project Location
The North Fork Lewis River Basin (Lewis River Basin) lies on the
flanks of the southern Cascade Mountains of Washington State. The river
flows in a general southwesterly direction from its source on the
slopes of Mount Adams to the Columbia River 19 miles downstream of
Vancouver, Washington. The river is 93 miles long and has a total fall
of 7,900 feet, the greater part of which is in the upper reaches. At
its mouth and up to the Lewis River Hatchery, the river stage is
influenced by tides and subsequent backflow from the Columbia River.
The area of the drainage basin is 1,050 square miles; its mean
elevation is 2,550 ft.-mean sea level (msl). Slopes in the upper
portions of the basin are generally steep, resulting from the incision
of numerous streams and rivers into the geologically young landscape.
Most of the tributaries have natural barrier falls or are too
precipitous for spawning (Chambers 1957; Kray 1957). Areas to the south
of the Merwin Project and downstream along the river are less steep,
represented by rolling hills and flat woodland bottomlands.
The basin has a complex geologic history, having undergone Tertiary
volcanism, several glaciations, and interglacial erosion and
deposition. Bedrock surrounding the project
[[Page 27043]]
reservoirs is predominantly comprised of younger Eocene to older
Oligocene volcanic lava flows, Oligocene volcaniclastic rocks, and
Quaternary volcaniclastic deposits. Alpine glacial deposits overlay
older bedrock but underlay the younger Quaternary volcaniclastic
deposits. The volcanic rocks have undergone regional compressional
deformation; rock strata are folded by a major southeast plunging
anticline and a southeast plunging syncline.
Soils in the basin are predominantly well drained and medium-
textured, and were derived from volcanic ash or were formed in
sediments derived from mixed volcanic rocks and ash. Slopes, which are
variable from gentle to steep, range from flat to more than 70 percent.
Soil erosion hazard is dependent on slope and vegetation cover; the
erosion hazard increases with increasing slope and extent of bare soil.
The climate in the North Fork Lewis River basin is influenced by
the Pacific Ocean to the west and the Cascade Range to the east. The
Pacific Ocean provides a moderating influence on temperatures in the
basin. Storms from the Pacific encounter the Cascade Range, forcing the
air masses to rise, cool, and drop large volumes of precipitation.
Levels of precipitation increase with elevation in this area. Average
annual precipitation varies from 45 inches near Woodland, to over 140
inches on Mount Adams. The majority of the precipitation occurs during
the rainy fall and winter months, with snow falling at higher
elevations of the basin. Summers (July through mid-October) are
generally drier.
The majority of the North Fork Lewis River basin is forested; a
condition typical of the Southern Washington Cascades Province.
However, an area of approximately 30 square miles within the upper
basin was denuded by the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens.
Most of the basin is within the western hemlock vegetation zone
(Franklin and Dyrness 1988).
Basin lands provide winter range for deer and elk; mink and beaver
are common in wetlands. Large numbers of amphibians have been observed
in the basin, primarily in wetland and riparian/riverine habitats. Over
100 species of birds have also been observed, including waterfowl,
raptors, and numerous species of passerines.
A large portion of the North Fork Lewis River basin is managed as
commercial forest, and as such is undeveloped except for logging roads.
In recent years, these lands have experienced increased recreation use
and demand for residential development. Other land uses include farming
in the lower elevation areas, hydropower, parks, and the Mount St.
Helens National Volcanic Monument (Monument). Population densities are
low. The small communities of Cougar, Chelatchie, and Amboy lie in the
upper basin, along with scattered private homes and recreational
properties. The largest town near the project is Woodland.
The Lewis River Hydroelectric Facilities
The following description covers all four hydroelectric projects in
the North Fork Lewis River basin. The projects begin approximately 10
miles east of the small town of Woodland, Washington. The upstream
sequence of the projects from the confluence of the Lewis and Columbia
rivers is as follows: Merwin, Yale, Swift No. 2, and Swift No.1. The
Merwin, Yale, and Swift No.1 projects represent a linked reservoir/
powerhouse system covering over 30 miles of the Lewis River. The Swift
No. 2 project does not include a dam and reservoir. It utilizes water
directly from the tailrace of Swift No.1, which flows into a 3.2 mile-
long canal that discharges through the Swift No. 2 powerhouse into Yale
Reservoir.
The three-reservoir system is operated in a coordinated fashion to
achieve optimum benefits for power production, flood control, and to
provide for natural resources in the basin such as fish, wildlife and
recreation. The four projects utilize the water resources within the
North Fork Lewis River basin from elevation 50 ft msl (Merwin Project
tailwater) to 1,000 ft msl (Swift No. 1 normal pool). The total usable
storage in the reservoirs is 814,000 acre-ft. The total installed
capacity for the four projects is 580 MW.
Merwin Dam and Reservoir
The Merwin Hydroelectric Project is a 136 MW plant owned and
operated by PacifiCorp. The project is the furthermost downstream
project of the four projects on the North Fork Lewis River, and is
located approximately 35 miles northeast of Portland. Construction of
the Merwin Project began in 1929 and was completed with a single unit
in 1931. Two additional units were added to the project in 1949 and
1958.
Merwin Dam is located on the North Fork Lewis River 21 miles
upstream from the confluence with the Columbia River. Merwin Dam is a
concrete arch structure with a total crest length of 1,300 feet and a
maximum height above its lowest foundation of 314 feet. The dam
consists of an arch section 752 feet in crest length, a 75-foot-long
gravity thrust block, a 206-foot-long spillway section, a non-overflow
gravity section 242 feet long, followed by a concrete core wall section
20 feet high and extending 25 feet into the bank. The spillway is
equipped with four taintor gates 39 feet wide and 30 feet high, and one
taintor gate 10 feet wide and 30 feet high. The taintor gates have been
extended to an elevation of 240 ft above msl by the addition of 5-foot
flashboards.
The reservoir formed by Merwin Dam is about 14.5 miles long with a
surface area of approximately 4,000 acres at elevation 239.6 feet above
msl (full pool). At full pool, the reservoir has a gross storage
capacity of approximately 422,800 acre-ft. Of this amount, 182,600
acre-ft are available between elevation 190 and 239.6 ft msl, and an
additional 81,100 acre-ft are available if the reservoir is lowered to
its allowable minimum level of 165 ft msl.
Yale Dam and Reservoir
The Yale Hydroelectric Project is a 134 MW plant owned and operated
by PacifiCorp. The project lies directly upstream of the Merwin Project
on the North Fork Lewis River, approximately 40 miles northeast of
Portland. Construction of the Yale Project began in 1951 and was
complete by 1953. The project consists of a main embankment dam, saddle
dam, reservoir, penstocks, powerhouse, and transmission line. The
project is operated in coordination with the other three hydroelectric
facilities on the North Fork Lewis River.
Yale Dam is located on the North Fork Lewis River approximately 30
miles upstream from the confluence with the Columbia River. Yale Dam is
a rolled earthen fill embankment type dam with a crest length of 1,305
feet and a height of 323 feet above its lowest foundation point. Its
crest elevation is 503-ft msl. The saddle dam is located \1/4\ mile
west of the main dam and it is approximately 1,600 feet long and 40
feet high with a crest elevation of 503 feet msl The main dam has a
chute type spillway, located in the right abutment, with a capacity of
120,000 cfs by utilizing five 30 foot by 39 foot taintor gates with the
reservoir at elevation 490 ft msl.
The reservoir formed by Yale Dam is approximately 10.5 miles long
with a surface area of approximately 3,800 acres at elevation 490-ft
msl (full pool). At full pool, the reservoir has a gross storage
capacity of approximately 401,000 acre-ft. At the minimum pool
elevation of 430-ft msl, the reservoir has a capacity of approximately
190,000 acre-ft.
[[Page 27044]]
Swift No. 1 Dam and Reservoir
The Swift No. 1 Hydroelectric Project is a 240 MW plant owned and
operated by PacifiCorp. The project is the furthermost upstream
hydroelectric facility on the North Fork Lewis River, lying directly
upstream of the Swift No 2 Hydroelectric Project, or approximately 45
miles northeast of Portland. Construction of the Swift No. 1 Project
began in 1956 and was completed in 1958. The project consists of a main
embankment dam, saddle dam, reservoir, penstocks, powerhouse, and
transmission line. It is operated in coordination with the other three
hydroelectric facilities on the North Fork Lewis River.
Swift Dam is located on the North Fork Lewis River approximately 40
miles upstream from the confluence with the Columbia River and 10.5
miles upstream of Yale Dam. Swift Dam is a an earthen fill embankment
type dam with a crest length of 2,100 feet and a height of 512 feet
above its lowest foundation point. At the time of its construction,
Swift dam was the tallest earthen fill dam in the world. Its overflow
spillway, located in the left abutment, has a capacity of 120,000 cfs
by utilizing two 50 foot by 51 foot taintor gates with the reservoir at
elevation 1,000 ft msl. The elevation at the top of the taintor gates
is 1,001.6-ft msl.
The reservoir formed by Swift Dam is approximately 11.5 miles long
with a surface area of approximately 4,680 acres at elevation 1,000-ft
msl (full pool). At maximum pool, the reservoir has a gross storage
capacity of approximately 755,000 acre-ft. At the minimum pool
elevation of 878-ft msl, the reservoir has a capacity of approximately
447,000 acre-ft.
Swift No. 2 Hydroelectric Project
The Swift No. 2 Hydroelectric Project is a 70 MW plant owned by
Cowlitz PUD and, under contract, is operated and maintained by
PacifiCorp. The project lies between the Swift No. 1 and Yale
hydroelectric projects. The Swift No. 2 Powerhouse is located 3.2 miles
downstream of the Swift No. 1 Powerhouse. Construction of the Swift No.
2 Project began in 1956 and was completed in 1958. The project consists
of a power canal, penstocks, powerhouse, and transmission line. It is
operated in coordination with the other three hydroelectric facilities
on the North Fork Lewis River.
7.2 Terrestrial Resources
Basin lands provide winter range for deer and elk; mink and beaver
are common in wetlands. Large numbers of amphibians have been observed
in the basin, primarily in wetland and riparian/riverine habitats. Over
100 species of birds have also been observed, including waterfowl,
raptors, and numerous species of passerines. More information regarding
terrestrial resources may be found in the supporting BA (Attachment A)
and BO (Attachment C).
Affected Environment
Terrestrial resources associated with the four Lewis River Projects
include wildlife comprised of plant communities, unique land forms, and
a compliment of mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles.
Vegetation
Vegetation cover in the Lewis River basin is predominantly managed
second-growth Douglas-fir forests and mixed conifer-hardwood forests
typical of the Cascade region of Washington (Franklin and Dyrness
1988). Forest resource inventories conducted on PacifiCorp-owned lands
for the Yale and Merwin projects identified 7,340 acres of upland
forest and provided information on associated species, volume, site
class, and overstory crown closure (Hildreth 1995). The upland forests
consist of conifer, mixed conifer/hardwood forest, and hardwood forest.
A unique lodgepole pine community occurs in the old lava flow in the
Mount St. Helens area. Non-forest cover types include meadows,
wetlands, transmission line right-of-way (ROW) and other project
facilities, shrub-dominated communities, and a small portion of the
lava flow area. Detailed maps of vegetation cover types were produced
for relicensing the Yale Project; these are included in the license
application and Terrestrial Resource FTR (PacifiCorp 1999). Wetlands in
the project area occur in the vicinity of the Yale Project, Frazier
Creek, the upper end of Lake Merwin and Yale Dam and along the
transmission line ROW (PacifiCorp 1996b). Wetlands have been identified
around Swift Dam (EDAW 2000).
Other sensitive habitats include caves, oak woodlands, old-growth
forest stands, riparian areas, snag-rich forest stands, cliff/talus,
meadows, and deer/elk winter range are present in the project vicinity
(WDFW 1998). Functional riparian habitat in the project vicinity is
present only at the upper end of Swift Reservoir, along the Swift
bypass reach, and Lake Merwin. Other riparian habitat is primarily
associated with the Lewis River downstream of Merwin Dam and with
tributary streams, including Drift, Siouxon, Speelyai, Cougar, Canyon,
Cresap, Rock, and Buncomb Hollow creeks.
A number of threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant
species potentially occur in the vicinity of the projects. Only one TES
plant, the green-fruited sedge, was identified in surveys conducted for
the Yale Project (PacifiCorp 1999).
Wildlife
Wildlife species in the Lewis River basin are representative of
southwest Washington and include a number of TES and state priority
species (WDFW 1991) including nesting osprey and wintering and nesting
bald eagles along the Lewis River and project reservoirs and northern
spotted owls on Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) lands
within 0.5 mile of the Lewis River Projects. No spotted owl nests have
been documented in the old-growth conifer habitat on PacifiCorp lands.
Environmental Impacts
Improving watershed conditions by purchasing conservation easements
will provide direct and substantial benefits for wildlife and
terrestrial species. Riparian areas are very productive biological
areas for such species, providing important areas of food production,
as well as cover areas for resting, watering, and feeding wildlife
(Knutson and Naef 1997). Conservation easements also provide
undisturbed areas where sensitive plant species may colonize and
proliferate. Improving aquatic habitat conditions as proposed will also
provide indirect benefits for various bird species including bald
eagles, osprey, and other birds of prey that rely on aquatic species
for food sources. Further, the Proposed Action will require compliance
with the BO (Attachment C), and its associated incidental take
statement, issued by NMFS and USFWS designed to protect and enhance TES
and their associated habitats resulting in improvements in terrestrial
resources relative to the No Action alternative.
7.3 Aquatic Resources
More information regarding aquatic resources may be found in the
supporting BA (Attachment A) and BO (Attachment C).
Affected Environment
The Lewis River supports a variety of aquatic organisms. Merwin
Dam, located approximately 21 miles upriver from the mouth of the Lewis
River, is a barrier to upstream migration. The river
[[Page 27045]]
downstream of Merwin Dam includes a self-sustaining population of wild
fall Chinook. Hatchery stocks of spring Chinook, early and late coho,
winter and summer steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout also inhabit
the Lewis River. Sturgeon, lamprey, eulachon smelt, northern pikeminnow
(Ptychocheilus oregonensis, formerly known as northern squawfish),
whitefish, and chum, pink, and sockeye salmon are occasionally observed
downstream of Merwin Dam. More information for the selected species
discussed below can be found in the supporting BA.
Existing Fish Species
Numerous fish species are known to occur in Lake Merwin, Yale Lake,
and Swift Reservoir (see supporting BA and BO).
A list of analysis species was developed during planning sessions
conducted for the Lewis River Watershed Studies scoping process.
Contributors to this list include but are not limited to: WDFW, NMFS,
USFWS, and USFS). Analysis species to be included in aquatic studies
are listed in Table 7.3-1 (note this list also includes taxonomic
groups or guilds).
Table 7.3-1--Aquatic Analysis Species To Be Assessed During Aquatic
Resource Studies of the Lewis River Basin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis species Selection criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinook salmon.................... Potential sensitivity to changes in
aquatic and riparian habitat
quality and connectivity. Strong
ecological interactor.
Coho salmon....................... Potential sensitivity to changes in
aquatic and riparian habitat
quality and connectivity. Strong
ecological interactor.
Chum salmon....................... Potential sensitivity to changes in
aquatic and riparian habitat
quality and connectivity. Strong
ecological interactor.
Steelhead trout................... Potential sensitivity to changes in
aquatic and riparian habitat
quality and connectivity. Strong
ecological interactor.
Sea-run cutthroat trout........... Potential sensitivity to changes in
aquatic and riparian habitat
quality and connectivity. Strong
ecological interactor.
Pacific lamprey................... Special habitat requirements during
spawning and rearing stages.
Important ecological species.
White sturgeon.................... Long-lived species which may have
been affected by construction of
dams. May be vulnerable to
overharvest.
Northern pikeminnow............... Top level predator. May have
increased in numbers due to
construction of dams.
Mountain whitefish................ Native species with some habitat
requirements that differ from other
salmonids.
Bull trout........................ Federally listed threatened species.
Unique habitat requirements. Top
level predator.
Kokanee........................... Important introduced sport fish.
Planktivore. Interspecific
interactions with native fishes may
be important.
Sculpins.......................... Require cool water temperatures.
Many species associated with high
stream gradients. Benthic species.
Threespine stickleback............ Present in Yale and Merwin.
Interspecific interactions with
kokanee fry may be important.
Largescale sucker................. Juveniles may constitute important
prey item for bull trout.
Aquatic macroinvertebrates and Changes in these communities may
zooplankton guilds. indicate changes in ecological
conditions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following sections present information on the status of several
key aquatic species in the Lewis River basin.
Chinook Salmon
In the Lewis River, spring Chinook have been supplemented with
Cowlitz and Carson hatchery stocks since 1956 (pers. comm., R. Nicolay,
WDFW, 1999). The bright fall Chinook run is considered a wild run
although the run has experienced intermittent supplementation from 1930
through 1986 (pers. comm., R. Nicolay, WDFW, 1999). This stock is one
of only two self-sustaining, wild fall Chinook salmon populations in
the Columbia River basin. The Lewis River bright fall Chinook salmon is
a designated index stock used for monitoring purposes under the Pacific
Salmon Treaty. The Tule fall Chinook run has also been supplemented
with Kalama stock since 1930.
Chum Salmon
Very little is known about the life history of chum in the Lewis
River. Smoker et al. (1951) confirmed the presence of chum in the Lewis
River downstream of Merwin Dam. Chambers (1957) reported 96 chum
spawning just downstream of Merwin Dam in mid-November of 1955. Chum
were sighted occasionally during 1998 fall Chinook spawning surveys,
and four adult carcasses were observed in Cedar Creek. In addition,
about 45 juvenile chum were captured during seining operations related
to a smolt residual study in 1998 (pers. comm., S. Hawkins, WDFW,
1999). Annually, about three or four adult chum have also been captured
at the Merwin fish trap (pers. comm., R. Nicolay, WDFW, 1999).
Steelhead
The Lewis River supports populations of winter and summer
steelhead. The number of adults returning to the river and run-timing
for each of these species are determined by trapping adult migrants in
the fish ladder at the Lewis River hatchery and the fish trap at Merwin
Dam. In addition, WDFW conducts spawning surveys on the East Fork Lewis
River and Cedar Creek. The primary steelhead spawning and rearing areas
in the Lewis River are located downstream of Merwin Dam in the
mainstem, Cedar and Johnson creeks, and the East Fork Lewis River. WDFW
continues spawning surveys on Cedar Creek and has installed a trap at
the Grist Mill fish ladder to monitor upstream migration and to
segregate hatchery and wild stocks. There are no existing data on the
average annual size of the natural outmigration.
Bull Trout
Currently, bull trout are listed as threatened under the ESA and
are present in all three reservoirs. Self-sustaining bull trout
populations exist in Yale and Swift reservoirs. Bull trout found in
Lake Merwin are thought to be introduced from upstream, either through
spill or turbine operations. There is no known spawning habitat
available to bull trout in the reservoir.
The Columbia River population of bull trout is comprised of 141
subpopulations. The Lewis River basin contains two of the 20
subpopulations in watersheds of nine major tributaries of the lower
Columbia River (63fr111, June 10, 1998). The number of bull trout
inhabiting the Lewis River basin is believed to be low. Spawning and
[[Page 27046]]
juvenile-rearing occur in Cougar, Rush, and Pine creeks. Additionally,
sub-adults have been observed in the Swift bypass reach and Swift Creek
arm of Swift Reservoir (PacifiCorp 1999).
Bull trout populations in the Lewis River basin are found in
Merwin, Yale, and Swift reservoirs. Spawning populations are found only
in Yale and Swift reservoirs. The bull trout populations in the Lewis
River basin are considered as having a ``moderate'' risk of extinction
(WDFW 1998).
Coho Salmon
Both early and late run coho salmon are endemic to the Lewis River
(WDFW and USFWS 1951). Supplementation of the runs has occurred since
the days of the Johnson Creek facility dating back to 1909.
Historically, native stocks were used for supplementation; however, in
1965 early coho were supplemented with eggs taken from Big Creek,
Oregon (pers. comm., Robin Nicolay, WDFW, Lewis River Hatchery Complex
Manager). Late-run coho were supplemented in 1981 with Cowlitz River
stock. Today, the Lewis River hatchery continues to produce 3.3 million
coho for PacifiCorp's obligation under the Merwin license. PacifiCorp
funds about 70 percent of the hatchery operations and maintenance (O&M)
for that facility.
Sea-Run Cutthroat Trout
Contrary to increasing trends in the Toutle River, WDFW states that
its population numbers for sea-run cutthroat trout are still critically
low in the Lewis River (approximately 100 total adults in run). For
example, 1998 sea-run cutthroat creel returns on the Lewis River
numbered only 20 (Hillson and Tipping 1999). Based on this information,
WDFW has elected to discontinue cutthroat trout production at Merwin
Hatchery.
Environmental Impacts
Section 7(a) of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
federally listed threatened and endangered species, or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
NMFS has identified that the following factors have significantly
contributed to the decline of steelhead and other salmonids (NMFS
1996): (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) over-utilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or education purposes; (3)
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
or (5) other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued
existence.
Adoption of the No Action alternative will likely continue to
contribute to the decline of these species per the factors listed above
given that no ESA measures will be in place to protect listed or
candidate species. Under the Proposed Action, measures will be adopted
to benefit listed and proposed species occurring in the project area.
These measures, including acquisition of conservation easements,
modification of project ramping rates, and implementation of
technological measures to reduce entrainment, will help conserve listed
and proposed species during the period of project relicensing.
Maintenance and improvement of water quality, temperature, and
ecological productivity in the project area.
The Proposed Action will adopt measures to modify turbine intakes
to resolve TDG levels in the Yale tailrace, evaluate temperature
fluctuation in the Yale tailrace, and study of temperatures and total
dissolved gases (TDG) in the Swift No. 1 and Swift No. 2 tailraces.
Improvement of water quality conditions will improve conditions for
listed fish species that exist in the Yale and Swift tailraces.
Protection of listed species and their progeny from stranding as a
result of rapid flow fluctuations
The Proposed Action will adopt measures to implement Merwin
redundancy equipment to prevent potential dewatering of riverbed, fish
trap and hatcheries in efforts to protect listed species including
steelhead, chinook, chum, coho, and cutthroat. Collaboration with WDFW
will continue to provide habitat enhancement measures in the Lewis
River and tributaries to benefit salmon populations.
Protection of Listed Species From Entrainment
Entrainment through spill or turbine intakes represents a potential
threat to the Yale and Swift bull trout populations. The Proposed
Action will address entrainment issues, however, measures are not
likely to be in place until after additional studies are complete and
settlement for Lewis River relicensing is achieved. Measures adopted by
the Proposed Action will include a study using the Flash Technology
strobe light system to determine the effectiveness of strobe lighting
as a deterrent for entrainment. This study would take place during the
relicensing process. If strobe lighting proves effective for bull trout
and other resident species, bull trout and cutthroat trout entrainment
should be curtailed resulting in substantial population level benefits
in terms of reduced turbine and spill mortality.
Protection of Juvenile and Adult Habitat
Land has been acquired to protect and enhance fall chinook habitat
downstream of Merwin Dam. Eagle Island is a 259-acre parcel with an
associated 20-acre mainland piece. Over 75% of the present day wild
fall chinook rearing habitat is associated with the island. The island
also provides important habitat for adult and juvenile steelhead, coho,
chum and cutthroat (WDFW 1998). The primary purpose of the acquisition
is to provide juvenile wild fall chinook rearing to protect the
remaining indigenous stock. Further, the Proposed Action will result in
the modification of existing ramping rates and a review of the existing
license flows downstream of Merwin Dam to determine if the current flow
regime is suitable for all anadromous species' life stages.
With the exception of possible rearing habitat in Ole and Rain
creeks, there are limited opportunities for expanding or improving
habitat for the Yale bull trout population. However, the Proposed
Action will adopt measures regarding the acquisition of lands to
protect bull trout and cutthroat trout spawning and rearing habitat in
the Cougar/Panamaker Creek, Swift Creek, and Devil's Backbone areas.
Conservation easements will be established with the express purpose of
conserving and protecting in perpetuity bull trout and cutthroat trout
spawning and rearing habitat. These proposed conservation easements
will result in increased protections for the adjacent riparian zones
beyond that currently required by the Washington Forest Practices Act
and associated regulations.
Failing to adopt measures identified in the Proposed Action would
result, at best, in maintaining the status quo. The No Action
alternative could result in current potential adverse project effects
on anadromous fish resulting from a lack of fish passage, inadequate
instream flows and ramping rates, and spill. Further, opportunities to
purchase and protect important aquatic and riparian habitats would be
lost resulting in increased impacts to listed species. Therefore, the
Proposed Action will likely result in improvements in aquatic resources
relative to the No Action alternative.
[[Page 27047]]
7.4 Recreation Resources
Affected Environment
Recreation Resources and Use in the Project Vicinity
The Lewis River Projects provide many recreation opportunities, one
component of the large number of recreation facilities and
opportunities in the Lewis River basin. Recreation development
intensity and visitation at the three reservoirs range from more
developed active recreation activities at Merwin and Yale, located
closest to the Interstate 5 (I-5) corridor and Portland/Vancouver
population base, to more primitive recreation activities at Swift,
located farthest from the I-5 corridor.
Popular recreation activities at these projects include camping (RV
and tent), picnicking, boat and bank fishing, hunting, hiking, power
boating (including personal watercraft), sailing, wind surfing,
swimming, water skiing, horseback riding, cycling (road and mountain),
relaxing, and sightseeing.
Yale Lake recreation facility occupancy and use were examined
during previous relicensing studies. The occupancy level at the three
campgrounds is at 95 percent on weekends during the peak recreation
period (July and August). From Memorial Day to Labor Day weekend, the
weekly occupancy level ranges from 47-73 percent (PacifiCorp 1999). Day
use site occupancy averages only 8-14 percent season long; however,
overflow conditions do occur approximately five times annually,
particularly on hot days.
Swift Reservoir has two developed recreation facilities at the east
end of the reservoir, Swift Campground and Eagle Cliff Park. Swift
Campground has 93 campsites, a 2-lane boat ramp with parking spaces,
and a day use beach swim area. Eagle Cliff Park is located at the far
eastern tip of the reservoir and has ten picnic sites, a restroom, and
a parking area.
While the Swift No. 2 Project has no developed recreation
facilities, the Swift No. 2 power canal does receive consistent use by
bank anglers. In addition, an annual fishing derby for disabled
recreationists is held at the Swift No. 2 power canal, which is stocked
with fish for the event.
All PacifiCorp recreation sites are open to the public during the
primary recreation season, while Merwin Park and Speelyai Bay Park at
Lake Merwin and Yale Park at Yale Lake are open year-round. Cresap Bay
Campground at Lake Merwin is generally open from Memorial Day weekend
to late September. Saddle Dam, Cougar Park, and Cougar Camp on Yale
Lake are open from Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day weekend. Beaver
Bay on Yale Lake is open from late April until mid-late September to
accommodate spring fishing and fall hunting seasons. The use season at
Swift Campground is also extended to accommodate fall hunter use and
fishing, generally from late April until mid-November. Elk and deer
hunting seasons for all types of hunts extend from September 1 through
December 15 for management units in the immediate area. Peak hunting
occurs during times when modern firearms are allowed; for elk this is
November 6 through 14, and for deer this is October 16 through 31 (WDFW
1999b). Recreation use at Swift Reservoir is limited by low pool
levels, fishing season closure, and road access during winter months.
The projects also provide non-shoreline dispersed recreation
opportunities, such as trail use by hikers, equestrians, and mountain
bikers. Most of this use occurs along a trail running from Saddle Dam
along the southwest shoreline of Yale Lake to the Speelyai Canal and
along the International Paper (IP) Road at Yale Lake. Other smaller
trails also exist.
Numerous examples of dispersed shoreline recreation use exist
around the three reservoirs and along the Swift bypass reach above Yale
Lake. Boat-in dispersed use occurs on all three reservoirs. Shoreline
impacts have occurred because of this activity. As a result, PacifiCorp
is increasing Marine Patrol activities and no longer permits overnight
parking at its day use facility parking areas except at Swift. There is
no fee for dispersed shoreline use; however, there is a fee charged for
day use parking and for each watercraft trailered or hauled into
PacifiCorp recreation sites, except for car-top watercraft.
Other dispersed recreation uses adjacent to the reservoirs include
a number of sites relating to river recreation in the Lewis River
corridor. Canyon Creek, which joins Lake Merwin just below Yale Dam,
receives whitewater boating use primarily in the form of kayaking. This
advanced-level run has been the site of a ``kayak rodeo'' in recent
years. Many paddlers running the creek either take out well above Lake
Merwin or descend to the reservoir and paddle to the nearest takeouts
at the SR 503 bridge or Cresap Bay Park. Upstream of Swift Reservoir,
the upper Lewis River is used for dispersed recreation, hiking,
mountain biking, and non-motorized boating.
Over the last 15 to 20 years, recreation resource managers in the
Lewis River corridor have witnessed increased use levels at Merwin,
Yale, and Swift reservoirs based on day use vehicle counts, campground
occupancy levels, signs of environmental degradation along the
shoreline caused by boat-in dispersed camping and day use activities,
and other indicators. While these higher use levels are usually
contingent upon weather conditions, increased use is generally
attributable to: (1) Increased population growth in the Portland/
Vancouver metropolitan area and proximity to Interstate 5 and Lewis
River Road; (2) increased publicity about Merwin, Yale, and Swift
reservoirs; (3) creation of and increased popularity of the Monument,
including increasing use of the southern scenic loop road (Forest Road
90, SR 503, and Lewis River Road) coupled with few overnight camping
facilities within the Monument and GPNF; (4) increasing urban
development in the Lewis River valley including new custom home
development; and (5) increasing demand for lower cost recreation
activities available at Merwin, Yale, and Swift reservoirs, and within
western Washington State.
Environmental Impacts
Recreation opportunities should be enhanced by measures that
improve watershed conditions in the project area. Areas of the Lewis
River are recognized as providing excellent sportfishing opportunities,
as well as opportunities for boating, swimming, and wildlife
observation. Improving watershed conditions and aquatic productivity
should translate into enhanced recreational fishing opportunities,
which should in turn provide greater recreational opportunities in an
area near several large urban centers. However, greater recreational
fishing opportunities also heighten the potential for anglers to catch
and possibly harvest bull trout from reservoirs and streams. There is
some evidence to suggest that bull trout are targeted and occasionally
harvested by anglers even though fishing for bull trout is prohibited.
Opening day creel surveys conducted by the WDFW on Swift reservoir and
power canal have indicated that some bull trout are harvested in the
Swift power canal (WDFW 2000). Large spoons and plugs are also
sometimes found in the mouths of bull trout during annual bull trout
surveys in the Swift reservoir (WDFW. 1999).
7.5 Aesthetic Resources
Affected Environment
The natural setting of the study area is mountain rural with
sweeping vistas
[[Page 27048]]
of forested hillsides, mountain lakes (project reservoirs), and distant
volcanic peaks. Large numbers of visitors pass through the study area
on Lewis River Road (State Route 503) on their way to the Mount St.
Helens National Volcanic Monument (Monument). Visual resources in the
vicinity include the landscapes visible from State Route 503 and the
reservoir surfaces. The combination of extensive timber management
activities, forested slopes, open meadows, and low-density residential
development in this area creates a rural setting with ever-present
signs of human modification of landscape characteristics. Primary
features of the viewshed include the rolling, forested hills that
encompass the Lewis River valley; Merwin, Yale, and Swift reservoirs;
and Mount St. Helens.
The Clark, Cowlitz, and Skamania county planning departments have
primary jurisdiction over lands in the project vicinity. The USFS and
the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manage
extensive holdings around Yale and Swift reservoirs. Their management
practices affect the reservoir's viewsheds.
Visual resource issues related to the project include:
? Visual character of project features, including
hydroelectric generation, transmission, and recreation facilities;
? Visibility of project features from locations of high
public use such as Lewis River Road, and recreation areas;
? Visual effect of reservoir water level fluctuations,
particularly during periods of high recreation use;
? Visual effect of instream flows in sections of the Lewis
River controlled by the project;
? Consistency of the project with existing and proposed
federal, state, and local plans and policies regarding the visual
resource; and
? Opportunities to enhance the scenic landscape
characteristics of the Lewis River Valley viewshed.
Environmental Impacts
As described above, improving watershed conditions will provide
direct and substantial benefits for aquatic species and terrestrial
species associated with protected riparian communities. These
improvements in the natural setting should result in improved aesthetic
qualities in and around project features, and should result in a more
natural setting in such areas. At this point, no construction or
project alterations are proposed at this time that could result in
construction-related impacts to aesthetic qualities. Therefore, the
Proposed Action should result in enhanced aesthetic qualities relative
to the No Action alternative.
7.6 Land Use
Affected Environment
Existing land uses in the project vicinity include timber
production, agriculture, hydroelectric generation, recreation, small
commercial businesses, and residential housing. Land ownership in the
project vicinity is a combination of large and small holdings by public
and private entities including the USFS, DNR, Weyerhaeuser, Longview
Fibre, Clark County, Cowlitz County, PacifiCorp, and private residents.
The projects are located east (10-40 miles) of the community of
Woodland; in recent years, there has been a considerable increase in
residential development in the Woodland area and in areas adjacent to
the projects along Lewis River Road.
Land use regulations in the project vicinity are under federal,
state, and local jurisdiction. Agencies with land management
responsibilities in the project vicinity include the USFS, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, DNR, WDFW, WDOE, Cowlitz County Planning
Department, Clark County Planning Department, Skamania County Planning
Department, and the City of Woodland.
Environmental Impacts
Proposed watershed improvement measures are consistent with
existing land use regulations. Conservation efforts with regard to the
acquisition of Eagle Island reduces potential for land use conflicts as
Eagle Island will be unavailable for development due to the
conservation easement. Likewise, conservation easements for riparian
habitat will provide long-term benefits for existing landowners,
particularly with regard to aesthetic values as land within an easement
is not likely to be developed. The Proposed Action provides
opportunities to enhance the land use practices and benefit efforts to
protect listed species.
7.7 Socioeconomic
Affected Environment
The Lewis River Projects occupy lands located in three counties:
Clark, Cowlitz, and Skamania. Information presented in this EA is based
on information from the Economic Development Network Web site titled
County Profiles for Washington. (http://www.wa.gov/esd/Imea/pubs/
profiles/profiles.htm). County demographic data are summarized in Table
7.7-1.
Table 7.7-1.--County and Demographic Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population
County Area (square Population density per
miles) square mile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark........................................................... 628 332,000 537
Cowlitz......................................................... 1,139 94,100 83
Skamania........................................................ 1,657 9,900 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark County
For the past decade, Clark County has had one of the most dynamic
economies in the state of Washington. Clark County's demographics and
economy have been shaped by its status as a suburb, by its diverse
industrial base, by a steady flow of high tech investment, and by the
differing tax structures between Washington and Oregon.
Clark County is a suburban county within the Portland-Vancouver
metropolitan area. It shares many of the characteristics of not-yet-
fully-mature suburban counties, such as rapid population growth and an
imbalance in commuting patterns. Close to one-third of the county's
work force commutes across the Columbia River to Portland every day.
The county's role as a bedroom community means that many of the jobs
there cater to consumers, in the form of retail trade, social and
health services, and personal services. Conversely, most of the (high
wage) corporate services such as finance, advertising, law,
engineering, etc., are located in Portland. While the county has strong
economic and cultural ties to Portland, it also has a unique identity
due to the barrier of the state border and the Columbia River.
Transportation
[[Page 27049]]
access between the county and Portland is limited to two interstate
bridges. Communication access is hampered by a different area code and
long distance charges. Politically, Clark County is connected to
Olympia and the rest of the state of Washington.
Historically, Clark County has been a blue-collar community, with a
diverse manufacturing base. The timber industry has always been present
in the county but has not played a dominant role since the turn of the
century. Besides paper and lumber, the county has been the site of food
processing, textiles, apparel, aluminum, and machinery. The Port of
Vancouver has also played a key role, both as a transportation hub and
an industrial landlord. Employment in some of these ``traditional''
manufacturing industries has declined somewhat in the past few years
due to employment reductions and closures, and future closures should
not be ruled out. In general, however, new investment has far outpaced
shutdowns, and manufacturing employment has grown substantially.
Over the past 20 years, there has been a tremendous surge in high
technology investment in the county. It began in the late 1970s when
Tektronix sited a branch plant. Tek's employment peaked at about 2,000
before the company spun off some operations and then closed down its
Vancouver operation in 1990. Other large branch plants were established
during the 1980s, many of them Japanese. High tech employers were lured
by low land and energy costs, plenty of available water, a skilled and
growing work force, excellent K-12 and community college education and
training installations, proximity to the Portland International Airport
(Vancouver and Camas are closer than Hillsboro), a Pacific Rim locale,
and access to recreational opportunities.
The future should bring continued maturation of the county economy
and increased integration with Portland. Among the more prominent
developments, Washington State University moved into a new campus just
north of Vancouver in June. Reclamation of the Columbia River
waterfront for recreational use is well under way. The city of
Vancouver recently bought the former Lucky Brewery and surrounding
blocks downtown; the old brewery will be razed, with mixed-use
development in the offing. Finally, high tech investment and expansion
continue to make the headline. A case in point is the large facility
planned by Taiwan Semiconductor (doing business as WaferTech) in Camas,
which is expected to add 800 manufacturing jobs to the county's
employment base.
Along with Portland, Clark County faces a major challenge in
determining how to handle growth. At this point growth is occurring
faster than local governments can plan and build infrastructure. The
bridges crossing the Columbia are nearing capacity, and Clark County
voters recently soundly rejected funding a light rail connection with
Portland.
Cowlitz County
Cowlitz County historically has had large resource-based economies
that relied on timber. Although the big shakeout of the industry that
occurred in the early-to-mid 1980s had a significant effect, timber
still remains the biggest industry. Its employment fell dramatically
but has since stabilized at new levels, and there has been some
diversification of industry within manufacturing, as well as
significant growth in the trade and services sectors.
Because the economy has stabilized in recent years, the population
is again increasing. During much of the 1980s, out-migration exceeded
in-migration, and the overall population in the county declined. Since
about 1990, that situation has reversed and the population is growing
again. In 1999, the population of Cowlitz was estimated at 94,100.
The labor force has been growing much like the population, and
unemployment is at its lowest level in years. In 1997, the rate was 7.1
percent in Cowlitz, the lowest since 1990. Even so, there are
proportionally more unemployed people in the area than there are
statewide, where the rate is down to 4.8 percent.
There has been good growth in non-farm employment following the
1990-91 national recession. Since 1992, Cowlitz County has added over
3,000 jobs. Looking at the area as a whole, most of the growth has come
in trade, services, and government. This growth in non-manufacturing
activities and the earlier, quite sharp declines in the timber industry
have not sufficed to dislodge manufacturing from its position as the
largest industry sector in the county. Cowlitz County has over one-
fourth of its employment in manufacturing. Statewide, the share is 15
percent.
Cowlitz County has withstood the turbulence of the restructuring
and decline in employment and wages of the timber industry in the
1980s. The area is regaining population--in-migration is up--and timber
remains a large, solid foundation of the economy. Relatively low
unemployment and gains in the number of non-farm jobs make the labor
market picture quite a bit more attractive than it has been for quite
some time. Wages have been stagnant, in real terms, but are no longer
declining. At the moment, the area is doing well. Projections to 2001
indicate that Cowlitz County will have moderate growth overall with
strong growth in non-timber related manufacturing, construction,
services, and the finance, insurance, and real estate sector.
Skamania County
Geography and politics have greatly influenced the Skamania County
economy. Ninety percent of the county is forest land, and 80 percent of
the county is part of the GPNF. For decades, the county economy rested
on timber, directly through logging and milling and indirectly through
USFS employment. Timber-related employment began to decline in the
1980s, dropping from 820 in 1979 to 620 in 1988. At that time, harvest
restrictions were placed on federal lands, limiting local timber supply
and raising log prices. Timber harvest from federal lands dropped from
an average of 250 million board feet to less than five million in 1996.
Scarce timber and competition from chipboard substitutes led to the
closure of Stevenson Co-Ply, the largest mill remaining in the county,
in early 1992. The job loss was accompanied by loss of savings because
the mill was a co-op. By 1993, only 180 timber jobs remained in
Skamania County, and federal employment has fallen from a peak of 420
to only 240 in 1996.
While most of Skamania County is in forested, mountainous terrain,
the bottom strip of the county borders the Columbia River Gorge. The
gorge has influenced the county economy in two major ways. In the 1978-
1982 period, construction of a second powerhouse at Bonneville Dam
boosted county construction employment, chiefly through construction
workers commuting into the county. This had the unfortunate side effect
of skewing county labor force estimates in the 1983-1989 period;
through use of a faulty commuting ratio, the labor force size was
under-estimated and the unemployment rate overestimated.
Second, in 1986, about 15 percent of the county was made part of
the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA). Creation of the
CRGNSA, while placing some restrictions on development in the gorge
area, has helped augment the county's growing tourism industry. Federal
subsidies helped build the Skamania Lodge, a conference center/
destination resort, now the largest private sector
[[Page 27050]]
employer in the county. An interpretive museum is now in operation, and
other retail and service spin-offs have come on line. In addition,
manufacturing jobs related to windsurfing have been created.
The transition from timber to tourism has had a number of effects.
Population growth began picking up in 1990, as did labor force growth.
Because of fewer job opportunities, almost half of the county labor
force commutes to work outside the county. Unemployment rose sharply in
1992 with the mill closure, reaching 18 percent before declining to the
current 10-11 percent.
Only a few years ago, one-third of the jobs in the county were in
manufacturing; by 1996, the number had fallen below 15 percent. With
the advent of the Skamania Lodge, trade and service employment rose
from 19 percent to a 36 percent share, while the public sector
accounted for 43 percent.
Coming years should bring further expansion of tourist-related
business as well as modest growth in population and employment.
Commuting to jobs outside the county by a significant share of the
labor force should be the norm.
Environmental Impacts
The Proposed Action enhances the natural setting of the area and
encourages tourist-related use and development that are consistent with
current and anticipated socioeconomic development. This should more
than offset any effects of habitat protection and conservation
easements on timber-related employment or revenues associated with the
No Action alternative.
7.8 Cultural Resources
Affected Environment
Regulatory Overview
Cultural resource management in the Lewis River basin is under the
auspices of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (OAHP), the GPNF, and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP). Indian Tribes that have an interest in the project
include the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN).
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and
regulations promulgated by the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission
is required to inventory archaeological, historical, and traditional
cultural resources; evaluate their eligibility for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places (National Register); determine
project impacts on them; and consider measures to avoid or mitigate
adverse effects. This work is conducted in consultation with the
cultural resource oversight agencies, responsible federal land
management agencies, and Indian tribes.
Cultural Resources in the Merwin Project Area
Two archaeological sites, one historic-period cemetery, and 6
isolated scatters of flaked stone artifacts have been recorded for the
Merwin Project area. The National Register eligibility of the two
archaeological sites and the cemetery has not been formally considered.
The Federal Power Commission granted the license for the Merwin Project
in late 1929, and the project began commercial operation on January 1,
1932. The current Merwin license, issued in 1983, does not identify any
specific cultural resource enhancement measures. Article 38 of the
Merwin license states:
Prior to commencement of any construction or development of any
project works or other facilities at the project, the licensee shall
consult and cooperate with the State Historic Preservation Officer
to determine the need for * * * any archaeological or historic
resource surveys and any mitigation measures that may be necessary.
In mid-September 1990, a GPNF archaeologist reported to PacifiCorp
the occurrence of unauthorized excavation of archaeological deposits
along the exposed shoreline of Lake Merwin. Subsequently, PacifiCorp
contracted the Oregon State Museum of Anthropology (OSMA) to survey
high probability areas, evaluate the known deposits, and assess the
damage to cultural resources at Lake Merwin (O'Neill 1991). A brief
reconnaissance was conducted by OSMA staff, resulting in the discovery
of 6 isolated scatters of flakes and tools along with excavations in 2
locations. Excavations in one of the sites at Merwin revealed some
flaked stone artifacts but not enough to make a detailed analysis. This
site was found to have some significance but was not evaluated for
National Register eligibility. The location of the historic-period
cemetery near Woodland Park was recorded, but according to O'Neill
(1991), all of the burials were removed prior to inundation. Protection
of the sites through ongoing monitoring was recommended.
Additional surveys in October 1999 examined the Lake Merwin
drawdown zone and all developed and dispersed use areas associated with
the lake. These investigations revealed the following:
? 15 new prehistoric sites were recorded, all of which were
lithic scatters without ground stone.
? 5 historic-period sites were recorded, including a washed-
out bridge, a campsite with a cleared tent platform, a dense scatter of
historic-period refuse, and an abandoned railroad grade.
? 54 isolates were identified, the majority of which were
groupings of flaked cobble tools, occasionally associated with a few
flakes or other prehistoric artifacts.
An evaluation of the Merwin powerhouse conducted by Historical
Research Associates, Inc (HRA). Based on a survey of the powerhouse and
associated facilities and archival research, HRA recommended that the
powerhouse be considered eligible for inclusion on the National
Register (pers. comm., G. Thompson, HRA, Seattle, WA, May 1, 1999).
Additional archaeological sites may exist in the Merwin Project
area, and historical buildings and structures need to be inventoried
and evaluated for National Register eligibility.
Cultural Resources in the Yale Project Area
Construction of the Yale Project began soon after the license was
issued in April 1951, and the project began operation in 1953. A survey
for archaeological resources in the area to be inundated by Yale Lake
was conducted in 1952 and 1953 by the University of Washington (Bryan
1953, 1955). This study resulted in the recording and testing of 6
sites. Three other recent cultural resource investigations have been
conducted at Yale Lake including: a 1993-94 GPNF-sponsored
archaeological survey conducted by Oregon State University at a site
along the margin of Yale Lake; PacifiCorp-sponsored archaeological
testing in 1995 at a heavily vandalized site on company lands near Yale
Dam; and a comprehensive cultural resources inventory and National
Register evaluation of historic, prehistoric, and traditional cultural
resources conducted in 1996-97 as part of the Yale license application
process (PacifiCorp 1999).
The results of this analysis found 8 prehistoric archaeological
sites, 5 historic sites, and 9 prehistoric isolated finds. Of these, 5
of the prehistoric sites were determined to be eligible for listing in
the National Register (letter from Greg Griffith, OAHP to Russ Howison,
PacifiCorp April 3, 1998). The OAHP and affected Indian tribes have
expressed ongoing concern over the illegal collecting of artifacts and
[[Page 27051]]
possible damage from project-related ground-disturbing activities.
The Yale hydroelectric facilities were evaluated for National
Register eligibility and were found to be not eligible for listing.
However, the Yale Project may be eligible for listing in the National
Register as a contributing element to a mufti-property nomination for
the entire Lewis River hydroelectric system.
A Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) for resources
potentially affected by the Yale Project is included as a proposed
enhancement measure in the Yale license application submitted to the
Commission in April 1999. A subsequent agreement was developed in
consultation with Commission staff, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP), and the Lewis River Cultural Resource Work Group
on January 20, 2000. Terms of this agreement include delaying
development of the formal CRMP until the conclusion of relicensing
studies for all four projects. Protection measures, as described in the
Yale application, will be implemented. These include management
guidelines for National Register-eligible sites (5 known currently)
within the 2,500-acre Yale Area of Potential Effects (APE), which will
include: Monitoring of known sites, options for site avoidance, site
protection measures, or mitigation through data recovery. The final
CRMP also will include a protocol for the discovery of previously
unknown sites and a training program for project personnel.
Cultural Resources in the Swift No. 1 and No. 2 Project Areas
The Swift No. 1 and Swift No. 2 projects operate under separate
licenses issued in 1956, with project completion in December 1958. The
current licenses for the Swift projects do not contain any specific
cultural resource enhancement measures, nor are there any sites
officially determined eligible for the National Register. A May 1957
archaeological survey of the areas to be inundated by the Swift No. 1
dam and Swift No. 2 power canal did not find any cultural resources
present (undated letter from Clayton Denman to Dr. Douglas Osborne,
Washington State Museum). However, the study was conducted under the
standards of the day, and it remains a possibility that undiscovered
cultural resources may be present. A 1998 archaeological survey of the
Swift Reservoir drawdown area recorded two archaeological sites and
nine isolated finds; one of the sites was considered not to be National
Register eligible, and testing is needed to determine the eligibility
of the other site (Goetz 1998). Additional surveys performed in October
1999 revealed a single prehistoric isolate. In addition, the project
buildings and structures need to be inventoried and evaluated for
National Register eligibility because they will meet the 50-year age
criterion when the existing license expires.
Environmental Impacts
None of the proposed measures contained in the Proposed Action
involve ground disturbing activities with potential to affect cultural
resources. The Proposed Action should result in reduced adverse impacts
to cultural resources with a conservation easement for riparian habitat
on Cougar Creek and the habitat protection on Eagle Island versus the
No Action alternative.
8.0 Issues and Recommendations
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Measures contained in the Proposed Action were arrived at through
extensive pre-filing discussions with the USFWS and NMFS. Both agencies
support the proposed measures and have issued a BO (Attachment C), and
its associated incidental take statement, which is consistent with and
supports the proposed amendments to the license. Comments and
recommendations have likewise been incorporated from both agencies in
this document and the associated BA (Attachment A).
Environmental Justice--Executive Order 12898
On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order
12898 (``E.O. 12898''), Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations. E.O. 12898 requires
federal executive agencies to identify and address, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-
income populations which may be affected by agency actions.
Environmental justice issues encompass a broad range of issues already
covered by the NEPA, including impacts on the natural or physical
environment and interrelated social, and economic effects.
Environmental justice analysis focused NEPA review on whether the
environmental effects of a proposed federal action has
disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income
populations, including Indian tribes. Although independent agencies
such as the Commission are not subject to E.O. 12898, President Clinton
requested independent agencies to comply with the provisions of E.O.
Order 12898. In the exercise of the Commission's discretion, and
recognizing the E.O. Order 12898 is not by its terms applicable to the
Commission, but that potential environmental justice issues are already
within the scope of NEPA issues that the Commission must evaluate in
connection with proposals for Commission action, this EA analyzes the
effects of the Proposed Action with respect to potential environmental
justice issues.
The Proposed Action is expected to have a positive effect on fish
populations in the project vicinity, compared to existing conditions.
Therefore, the Proposed Action is reasonably expected to have a
beneficial effect on any population which relies on fishery resources
for food or other purposes. Commission staff have not identified any
disproportionate, adverse effect of the Proposed Action on any minority
or low-income population or Indian tribe. Commission staff conclude
therefore that the Proposed Action does not have adverse environmental
justice effects.
Magnuson-Stevens Act
Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and associated
implementing regulations provide that Federal agencies must consult
with NMFS concerning all actions that may adversely affect designated
essential fish habitat (EFH). NMFS EFH guidance documents provide that
EFH consultations should be combined with ESA consultations to
accommodate the substantive requirements of both Acts. As discussed in
the above referenced biological assessment, the Proposed Action will
result in habitat improvements, and will not result in any adverse
effects to EFH. Therefore, EFH consultation is not required at this
time.
9.0 Finding of No Significant Impact
The recommended alternative is approving the amendment of
PacifiCorp's and PUD's licenses to adopt and implement the proposed
conservation measures pursuant to the terms and conditions of the BO,
as appropriate. Incorporating the conservation measures into
PacifiCorp's and PUD's licenses will reduce incidental take of listed
species resulting from operation of the Lewis River Projects. Such
conservation measures likewise represent important near-term
conservation opportunities that may be lost if not secured while the
[[Page 27052]]
parties collaboratively devise long-term conservation strategies.
On the basis of our independent analysis, the proposed amendments
for the Lewis River Projects, with the recommended mitigation measures,
would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
10.0 References
Anderson, D.P. and M.V. Ichisaka. 1986. Wintering ecology of bald
eagles on the Lewis River, Washington. 1985-1986. Pacific Power &
Light Co., Portland, Oregon.
Bryan, A.L. 1953. An appraisal of the archaeological resources of
the Yale Reservoir on the Lewis River, Washington. Reprinted in 1992
in Archaeology in Washington 4:61-69.
Bryan, A.L. 1955. Archaeology of the Yale Reservoir, Lewis River,
Washington. American Antiquity 20(3):281-283.
Chambers, J.S. 1957. Report on the 1956 survey of the North Fork of
the Lewis River above Yale dam. Washington Department of Fisheries,
Olympia, WA.
Dueker, J.K. and A.S. Paz. 1995. Inventory and assessment of, and
management alternatives for wetlands at Yale Resevoir. Prepared for
PacifiCorp. Portland, Oregon. 104 pp.
EDAW 2000. Unpublished data.
Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1978. Natural vegetation of Oregon
and Washington. Pacific Northwest Forest, Range Experiment Station B
USDA Forest Service Biennial Technical Report. PNW-8. Portland, OR.
Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyerness. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon
and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.
452 pp.
Goetz, Linda Naoi. 1998. Results of a cultural resources inventory
of the Swift Reservoir, Skamania County, Washington. Draft report
prepared for PacifiCorp by Historical Research Associates, Inc.,
Seattle, Washington.
Hildreth, J. 1995. Yale Hydroelectric project inventory report.
Forest Resource Management, Inc. Wilsonville, Oregon.
Kray, A. 1957. A survey of resident game fish resources on the North
Fork of the Lewis River with a post-flooding management plan.
Washington Department of Game, Olympia, WA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Factors for decline:
A supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead
under the Endangered Species Act. NMFS Protected Species Branch,
Portland, OR, 82 p. + app.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996a. Documents submitted
to the ESA Administrative Record for west coast chinook salmon by J.
Harmon, January 1996. (Available from Environmental and Technical
Services Division, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., 525 N.E. Oregon St.,
Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232.)
O'Neill, B.L. 1991. Archaeological investigation at Lake Merwin,
Cowlitz and Clark Counties, Washington--OSMA Report 91-3. Oregon
State Museum of Anthropology, University of Oregon. Eugene, Oregon.
37 pp.
PacifiCorp. 1999. License application for the Yale Hydroelectric
Project, FERC Project No. 2071. Includes Final Technical Reports as
Technical Appendices. Portland, Oregon.
PacifiCorp. 1996b. Merwin Wildlife Habitat: 7-year assessment
report, 1989-1995. PacifiCorp, Portland, Oregon.
WDFW. 1998. Integrated landscape management for fish and wildlife--
An integrated plan for managing fish and wildlife. Pilot project in
the Lewis-Kalama River Watershed, WRIA#27. Prepared by the
ILM Core Team, WDFW, Olympia, Washington.
WDFW. 1996. Priority habitats and species list, Habitat Program.
WDFW. Olympia, Washington, 28 pp.
WDFW. 1996b. WDFW hunting guide.
WDFW. 1999. Bull trout netting results at the headwaters of Swift
reservoir: 1990-2000. Unpublished data.
WDFW. 2000. 2000 Opening Day Creel Survey: Swift Reservoir.
Unpublished data.
[FR Doc. 03-12441 Filed 5-16-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}