REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF ARROWROCK DAM HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

Transcription

1 REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF ARROWROCK DAM HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT This report provides review findings and recommendations related to the application submitted to the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI) by the Clatskanie Peoples Utility District (PUD) for Low Impact Hydropower Certification for the Arrowrock Dam Hydroelectric Project (hydroelectric project), a set of hydroelectric turbines and associated project works that are colocated at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation s (Reclamation) Arrowrock Dam and placed in service in Although five irrigation districts (licensees) 2 licensed, developed and own the hydroelectric project, the applicant for LIHI certification is not these irrigation districts but the PUD (acting on behalf of the five irrigation district owners), which is the purchaser of hydroelectric power from the hydroelectric project. The LIHI application was deemed complete and publicly noticed on April 29, No comments were received. Background The Arrowrock Dam is a large-scale dam located on the upper Boise River in southwest Idaho about 22 miles upstream of the city of Boise. It is part of the Columbia River network of dams (Figure 1). At the time of its completion in 1915, it was noteworthy as the tallest concrete dam in the world, as is illustrated in Figure 2. Arrowrock Dam is one of four federal dam developments within the upper Boise River watershed. The furthest downriver dam, the Boise River Diversion Dam, was constructed by Reclamation in 1909 and diverts irrigation water into the New York Canal about 14.2 miles downstream of Arrowrock Dam. Next upstream is the Lucky Peak Dam, located 11.7 miles downstream of Arrowrock; it was constructed by the Corps of Engineers in The reservoir created by the Lucky Peak Dam extends up to the base of the Arrowrock Dam. Furthest upstream is the Anderson Ranch Dam, located on the South Fork of the Boise River and completed in 1950 by Reclamation. The Boise River, which is formed by the convergence of the North and Middle forks of the Boise River to the northeast of the project reservoir, is a major tributary of the Snake River. The South Fork of the Boise River also feeds the project reservoir as shown in Figure 3. Arrowrock Reservoir s contributing watershed area is 2,210 square miles, and all inflows are appropriated for irrigation use and flood control. Spring high flows are used to refill the reservoir by late June, the storage providing a flood-control function during the refill period. The reservoir is 1 Through a 1989 license, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) authorized the construction of a 60 MW project at Arrowrock Dam (FERC Project No. 4656). Previously there was no hydroelectric project at the dam. Due to economic infeasibility, the licensees scaled the project down to 15 MW and ultimately completed it and placed it in service in March FERC amended the license on August 1, 2008 to cover the project modifications. 2 These are the Boise-Kuna Irrigation District, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, the New York Irrigation District, the Wilder Irrigation District, and the Big Bend Irrigation District. Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 1 October14, 2011

2 Figure 1. Columbia River Basin dam development. drawn during the irrigation months of July, August, and September. The seasonal drawdown has varied between 100 and 200 feet. Releases are diverted into irrigation canals downstream of Lucky Peak Dam, including the aforementioned New York Canal. Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 2 October14, 2011

3 Figure 2. Viewed from the north side of the Boise River, Arrowrock Dam under construction in 1915, scaled to the 286-foot-high NYC Flatiron Building. (source: WaterArchives.org) Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 3 October14, 2011

4 Figure 3. Map showing Boise River watershed dams. (source: Arrowrock Reservoir 1997 Sedimentation Survey, Reclamation, 1998). Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 4 October14, 2011

5 Arrowrock Dam has a spillway length of 1,150 feet with an upstream depth of 257 feet. The crest elevation is feet msl. When full, the reservoir has a surface area of 3,100 acres and a length of 12.8 miles along the mainstem. Two series of ten outlet conduits extend through Arrowrock Dam to provide irrigation releases at centerline elevations of 3018 feet msl and 3105 feet msl; the project penstocks are tied into two conduits in the lower of the two tiers. Clamshell gates installed on the downstream end of each conduit are used to control water releases through the dam. There is also an overflow side-channel spillway (north end of the dam as shown in Figure 4) on the dam which is used occasionally to release water for flood control using six drum gates that are six feet high with an invert elevation of feet msl. Figure 4. Google Earth image of Arrowrock Dam. Hydroelectric Project. The hydroelectric project is located on the south side of the river directly below the dam as shown in figures 4 and 5. The powerhouse is sited entirely on Reclamation lands, although Arrowrock Reservoir and the upper end of Lucky Peak Reservoir are located within the Boise National Forest (U.S. Forest Service). The primary components of the hydroelectric project are: 1) two 58-inch diameter, 120-foot-long steel penstocks, 2) a 50-foot-wide by 80-foot-long by 70-foot-high powerhouse, 3) two 7.5-MW Francis turbine generating units, 4) a 55-foot-wide, 125-foot-long tailrace discharging into Lucky Peak Lake, 5) and electrical transmission infrastructure. The two penstocks divert flows at bifurcations located at the downstream end of two of the ten dam outlet conduits (No. 1 and No. Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 5 October14, 2011

6 2 conduits). The remaining eight outlet conduits continue to discharge directly into Lucky Peak Reservoir when daily releases beyond those provided by the hydroelectric project are necessary. The station s hydraulic capacity ranges from 350 to 810 cfs per turbine, with a hydraulic head range of feet. Butterfly shutoff valves with flow-through design are installed on the turbine inlets. A control weir (crest elevation of feet msl) is located at the downstream end of the tailrace to ensure draft tube submergence when Lucky Peak Reservoir is drawn. Control of flows from the dam -- The volume of daily flow releases from the reservoir into the turbines is controlled by the Bureau of Reclamation. However, the licensees (the five irrigation districts) also have authority to control flow releases from the turbines (increasing or decreasing instantaneous flows) for the purposes of enhancing the on-peak hydropower production (that is sold to the applicant), as long as the overall volume of water release meets Reclamation s irrigation and flood control requirements. The station has produced an average annual generation of about 83,000 MWh of electricity. Figure 5. View of Project nearing completion in Eight middle-tier conduits visible in dam on left. Lucky Peak Reservoir is drawn down; its normal summer water level is 15 feet above the basaltic bench the project is constructed upon and about 35 feet above the conduits. Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 6 October14, 2011

7 Issues Relevant to LIHI Certification Because the flow releases needed both to produce and optimize hydropower and to meet irrigation and flood control purposes are managed as a single integrated production system by Reclamation and the licensees (the five irrigation districts), this review evaluates whether the entire system that creates these flow releases and that generates hydropower meaning the Arrowrock Dam, the associated federal works, and the hydroelectric project, or collectively the Facility meets LIHI s criteria. The licensee s project was subject to a fairly recent FERC environmental assessment and a state water quality certification process. LIHI Criteria Review Under each of the issue sections that follow, I include a table that contains my analysis and conclusions for each of the applicable LIHI criteria questionnaire sections. Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations: I recommend that the Facility be certified for the standard period of five years with no special conditions. I reviewed documents contained in the application, as well as information that I independently acquired, including FERC elibrary documents and material provided by the PUD during my investigation, and could find no record of significant violations or other issues. The dam is not 303(d) listed as causing non-support of any uses. Any environmental or social issues were created by past basin development, including mining, hydropower, urbanization, and agricultural use; migratory fish no longer access the Boise River and no restoration plans contemplate their return. The hydropower project is relatively new. The only potential impact of significance is possible reduction of dissolved oxygen levels in Lucky Peak Reservoir immediately downstream, and that will be remediated as necessary under the recent hydropower project license and water quality certification. Monitoring did not disclose a problem during the first year of operation (2010). Criterion-by-Criterion Analysis and Conclusions: A. Flows At Arrowrock Dam, the Boise River has an average flow of about 2,500 cfs. As mentioned previously, all flow is appropriated for irrigation use in the plain west of Boise. In conjunction with Lucky Peak Dam and Anderson Ranch Dam, Arrowrock Dam also serves a flood-control function. Anderson Ranch Dam, which is 44 miles upstream of Arrowrock Reservoir (including the 11 miles inundated by the reservoir), creates highly regulated inflow conditions at Arrowrock. Daily flow releases during the summer growing season are predicated on irrigation demands. As licensed, the licensees are allowed to shape flow releases, as termed by the licensees. This enables the licensees to release a higher volume of water during daily peak power demand periods. According to the second FERC environmental assessment (May 9, 2008) (second EA), the licensee expected that the daily peaking would only occur on an average of 7% of the days annually. Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 7 October14, 2011

8 The Reclamation operation is not constrained by conservation flow requirements. Lucky Peak Reservoir is maintained between elevations 3040 feet and 3055 feet msl for recreational purposes from May through August. During drought years when storage in Arrowrock is insufficient to meet demands, Lucky Peak can be drawn starting as early as the end of June. I deduce from the available information that there is no free-flowing reach between Arrowrock Dam and the head of Lucky Peak Reservoir even when the later is fully drawn for flood control; Lucky Peak Reservoir s minimum elevation is 2907 feet msl, which is eight feet above the Arrowrock Dam toe (148-foot drawdown for Lucky Peak Reservoir). Article 414 of the Project license recognizes the vested water right for irrigation and bars any reduction or impairment of the delivery of water from the dam for that purpose. Both Arrowrock and Lucky Peak reservoir support mixed cold- and warmwater fisheries. Article 402 requires the licensees to operate run-of-river during May and June to help protect smallmouth bass and other spring-spawning fishes that utilize the reservoirs littoral zones. The record does not indicate any violation of this water level management requirement. The record does not indicate that any conservation flow issues were raised by resource agencies during the initial licensing or during the license amendment process. A portion of the storage in Lucky Peak Reservoir has been allocated to streamflow maintenance. LIHI Questionnaire: Flows A.1 Is the Facility in Compliance with Resource Agency Recommendations issued after December 31, 1986 regarding flow conditions for fish and wildlife protection, mitigation and enhancement (including in-stream flows, ramping and peaking rate conditions, and seasonal and episodic instream flow variations) for both the reach below the tailrace and all bypassed reaches? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: The flow volume releases are managed by the Bureau of Reclamation for the irrigation allocated water use. While the Facility has some influence as described above to manage hourly flow releases for peaking purposes, the Corps operation at Lucky Peak Dam is responsible for storage management for the streamflow maintenance appropriation in the downstream free-flowing reach of the river. There is no reach of river bypassed by the Facility, due to the Lucky Peak Dam backwatering to Arrowrock Dam. The Facility is constrained by Article 402 of the license to help assure that spring-spawning fishes are protected from peaking impacts within the reservoir; while I note this, the A.1 criterion addresses below-tailrace and bypassed reaches, not reservoirs. YES (N/A) = PASS Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 8 October14, 2011

9 B. Water Quality Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) issued a water quality certification on January 31, 2008 during the license amendment proceeding. The two conditions of the certification address erosion prevention and sediment control during project construction and potential for project-induced reductions in dissolved oxygen concentrations in Lucky Peak Reservoir. Under the original license, Article 404 required the licensees to develop a dissolved oxygen contingency plan that maintains a concentration of no less than 6 mg/l below the Facility. IDEQ s certification provides for IDEQ review and approval prior to filing the plan with FERC for final approval. IDEQ approved the plan by dated May 1, FERC issued its order approving the plan on November 25, Under FERC s order, reports are to be filed annually by March 31. Section 276 of Idaho s water quality standards applies specifically to water discharged from dams, reservoirs and hydroelectric facilities. The minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations for the period June 15 October 15 are 6 mg/l as a 30-day average, 4.7 mg/l as a 7-day average, and 3.5 mg/l as an instantaneous minimum. The 6 mg/l minimum set in the original license was intended to assure that the concentration in Lucky Peak Reservoir does not drop below 5 mg/l, the minimum standard at that time. The current coldwater standard is 6 mg/l (Idaho Water Quality Standards, IDAPA , Section ). The second EA noted that the Project had the potential to slightly reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations during the winter. Under pre-project conditions, the winter releases via the conduits freely discharged into the atmosphere as Lucky Peak Reservoir was drawn below the outlets. During the summer, the middle tier of conduits were normally submerged. The first annual report covered the period April 1 December 31, All 7-day-average dissolved oxygen concentrations were above the license-required minimum of 6 mg/l. (2010 Annual Report: Article 404 Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring Plan For the Period from 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2010, Boise Project Board of Control, March 31, 2011) According to the 2008 Integrated 305(b)/303(d) Report (IDEQ), neither Lucky Peak Reservoir nor Arrowrock Reservoir 4 had had a water quality assessment completed. As such, they are Category 3 waters; however, IDEQ proposes to categorize the reservoirs as Category 2 for its 2010 Integrated Report, which was filed for EPA approval on August 19, Category 2 waters have had at least some level of assessment that shows some beneficial uses are fully supported. In either case, neither reservoir has been 303(d) listed (Category 5). The designated uses for both reservoirs are coldwater aquatic life with salmonid spawning; primary contact recreation; and domestic water supply. Both are special resource waters. 3 IDEQ s response to the plan was, Sounds good to me. I have no further comments. Thanks. As best I can tell after consulting IDEQ (September 8, 2011), this constituted its approval of the plan. The reviewer has retired since sending the . 4 The reservoirs are parts of the Boise-More waterbody, ID Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 9 October14, 2011

10 LIHI Questionnaire: Water Quality B.1 Is the Facility either: a) In Compliance with all conditions issued pursuant to a Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification issued for the Facility after December 31, 1986? Or b) In Compliance with the quantitative water quality standards established by the state that support designated uses pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act in the Facility area and in the downstream reach? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: The dissolved oxygen contingency plan was filed with IDEQ and approved on May 1, YES to (a) = Go to B.2. B.2 Is the Facility area or the downstream reach currently identified by the state as not meeting water quality standards (including narrative and numeric criteria and designated uses) pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: The waters at Arrowrock Dam are not 303(d) listed. NO = PASS C. Fish Passage and Protection Historically, anadromous fish apparently had access up the Columbia and Snake rivers and up the Boise River to the project reach. The PUD application indicates that these were likely to be Chinook salmon. Fish passage and anadromous fish restoration are major issues in the Columbia River basin. Historically, over harvest and pollution and habitat destruction from logging, farming, grazing, road construction, land development, older dams, mining, and urbanization reduced the quantity and quality of fish habitat in much of the basin. 5 Figure 6 shows the succession of dam construction on the Snake River. The Boise River confluence is about 65 miles downstream of Swan Falls Dam, a hydroelectric dam built by the Idaho Power Company in 1901, and the first dam to block salmon runs on the Snake River. In 1967, the Idaho Power Company completed Hells Canyon Dam. With a height of 330 feet, it is now the upper limit for fish passage and anadromous fish restoration efforts in the Snake River basin. The Boise River confluence is well upstream of Hells Canyon; in Figure 6, it is located between the Swans Falls and Brownlee dams. 5 The application also indicates that salmon runs up the Boise River declined with the start of mining in the 1860s in the Mores Creek (a trib of Lucky Peak Reservoir) basin and settlement of the lower Boise River basin, and that dams were built on the lower Boise in the late 1800s. The Idaho Statesman in March 1885 advised anglers that there were plenty of salmon in Boise River above More s Creek where the clear water commences. This indicated the level of impact that placer mining in the watershed was having on spawning runs. (Idaho History: Most pioneers thought Idaho s fish were limitless, Arthur Hart, Idaho Statesman, August 14, 2011) Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 10 October14, 2011

11 Figure 6. Map showing locations of Snake River dams, including year of first operation. (source: NOAA-NMFS. Status Review of Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon). On the Boise River, it is unlikely that salmon could access the Arrowrock reach after construction of the Boise River Diversion Dam in With a hydraulic height of 39 feet, it was later fitted with three 500-kw units in 1912 to serve construction activities at Arrowrock Dam. Both Arrowrock Reservoir and Lucky Peak Reservoir provide habitat for coldwater and warmwater fishes, but space and habitat variability become limiting factors for fish populations as the reservoirs are subject to substantial seasonal drawdowns. These drawdowns also limit fish food production. The reservoirs have abundant rough fish populations, and the sport fisheries are supplemented by hatchery trout stocking on a put-and-take basis. The first EA indicated that approximately half the rainbow trout population in Arrowrock Reservoir consists of wild fish. Lucky Peak Reservoir is more dependent on stocking due to the lack of accessible spawning habitat in tributaries. Two fisheries exist in Lucky Peak Lake: a warmwater inshore fishery dominated by smallmouth bass and a coldwater mid-water fishery dominated by rainbow trout and kokanee. The rainbow and kokanee fisheries in the lake are supplemented by stocking and through fish surviving Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 11 October14, 2011

12 entrainment through Arrowrock Dam upstream. Warmwater fishes spawn successfully along the shoreline. There are also yellow perch and mountain whitefish in the lake, and several species on non-game fish. Arrowrock Reservoir supports a mixed fishery consisting of yellow perch, smallmouth bass, mountain whitefish, rainbow trout, and bull trout. Wild redband trout, considered an interior native subspecies of rainbow trout, are also present, as well as kokanee that drop down from Anderson Ranch Reservoir. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Arrowrock Reservoir are part of a population that is federally listed and protected under the Endangered Species Act. Conduit releases from Arrowrock entrain fish. Routing entrained fish through the turbines increases injury and mortality. Article 406 requires development of a plan to monitor turbineinduced fish injury and mortality for at least five years to assure that no population-level impacts occur. The article provides for annual consultation meetings with resource agencies (Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)) and Reclamation and annual reports to FERC. The USFWS completed a related Biological Opinion on November 9, 2007, further described under Threatened and Endangered Species Protection below. Under the article, the licensees must immediately report incidences of entrainment of bull trout. Prior to the Biological Opinion issued for the hydroelectric proposal, the USFWS completed one in March 2005 that included the Reclamation operation. The USFWS concluded that the greatest entrainment risk occurs when the reservoir level is below elevation 3111 feet msl and the flow release exceeds 695 cfs. The licensees estimated that such conditions only occur in 3% of the time (based on monthly data for the 73-year period of record). Under its operation, the licensees estimated that it would increase entrainment 14 days per year. FERC staff concluded that there would be no population-level effects (second EA, p. 37). LIHI Questionnaire: Fish Passage and Protection C.1 Is the Facility in Compliance with Mandatory Fish Passage Prescriptions for upstream and downstream passage of anadromous and catadromous fish issued by Resource Agencies after December 31, 1986? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: There are no prescriptions as the Boise River watershed is not targeted for restoration of migratory fish. N/A = Go to C.2. C.2 Are there historic records of anadromous and/or catadromous fish movement through the Facility area, but anadromous and/or catadromous fish do not presently move through the Facility area (e.g., because passage is blocked at a downstream dam or the fish no longer have a migratory run)? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: As discussed above, salmon historically had access to the upper Snake River basin, including the Boise River. YES = Go to C.2(a). a) If the fish are extinct or extirpated from the Facility area or downstream reach, has the Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 12 October14, 2011

13 Applicant demonstrated that the extinction or extirpation was not due in whole or part to the Facility? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: As discussed above, fish access to the project reach was likely blocked by the construction of Boise River Diversion Dam. YES = Go to C.2(b). b) If a Resource Agency Recommended adoption of upstream and/or downstream fish passage measures at a specific future date, or when a triggering event occurs (such as completion of passage through a downstream obstruction or the completion of a specified process), has the Facility owner/operator made a legally enforceable commitment to provide such passage? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: As discussed above, Hells Canyon Dam is the upper limit of anadromous fish restoration efforts on the Snake River. N/A = Go to C.3. C.3 If, since December 31, 1986: a) Resource Agencies have had the opportunity to issue, and considered issuing, a Mandatory Fish Passage Prescription for upstream and/or downstream passage of anadromous or catadromous fish (including delayed installation as described in C2a above), and b) The Resource Agencies declined to issue a Mandatory Fish Passage Prescription, c) Was a reason for the Resource Agencies declining to issue a Mandatory Fish Passage Prescription one of the following: (1) the technological infeasibility of passage, (2) the absence of habitat upstream of the Facility due at least in part to inundation by the Facility impoundment, or (3) the anadromous or catadromous fish are no longer present in the Facility area and/or downstream reach due in whole or part to the presence of the Facility? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: The agencies are not targeting the Boise River watershed for restoration of migratory fish. NO = Go to C.5. Related Public Comments: None. C.5 Is the Facility in Compliance with Mandatory Fish Passage Prescriptions for upstream and/or downstream passage of Riverine fish? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: There are no prescriptions for riverine fish. N/A = Go to C.6. C.6 Is the Facility in Compliance with Resource Agency Recommendations for Riverine, anadromous and catadromous fish entrainment protection, such as tailrace barriers? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: There are no Recommendations. N/A = PASS Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 13 October14, 2011

14 D. Watershed Protection This criterion is designed to reward applicants with extended certification terms. The licensees in this case do not manage the shoreline as they have no ownership or control, nor have they created a watershed enhancement fund or a watershed land protection fund. LIHI Questionnaire: Watershed Protection D.1 Is there a buffer zone dedicated for conservation purposes (to protect fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, aesthetics and/or low-impact recreation) extending 200 feet from the average annual high water line for at least 50% of the shoreline, including all of the undeveloped shoreline? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: Although the shoreline is essentially conserved due to ownership and management by the National Park Service, there is no buffer zone created by the licensees and subject to legal restrictions. NO = Go to D.2. D.2 Has the Facility owner/operator established an approved watershed enhancement fund that: 1) could achieve within the project s watershed the ecological and recreational equivalent of land protection in D.1 and 2) has the agreement of appropriate stakeholders and state and federal resource agencies? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: There is no watershed enhancement fund. NO = Go to D.3. D.3 Has the Facility owner/operator established through a settlement agreement with appropriate stakeholders, with state and federal resource agencies agreement an appropriate shoreland buffer or equivalent watershed land protection plan for conservation purposes (to protect fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, aesthetics and/or low impact recreation). Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: There is no settlement agreement. NO = Go to D.4. D.4 Is the facility in compliance with both state and federal resource agencies recommendations in a license approved shoreland management plan regarding protection, mitigation or enhancement of shorelands surrounding the project? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: There are neither recommendations nor a shoreline management plan related to the licensees activities. N/A = PASS E. Threatened and Endangered Species Protection The federally listed bull trout occurs at Lucky Peak and Arrowrock reservoirs and upstream of Arrowrock. Bull trout use both the Arrowrock Reservoir and the regulated stretch of the South Fork downstream of Anderson Ranch Dam for overwintering and foraging activities. Adults and subadults migrate into Arrowrock Reservoir from upstream North Fork and Middle Fork tributaries. Upstream migrations out of the reservoir occur between late March and mid June, although a small number of fish remain over the entire summer. Most bull trout migrate from Arrowrock Reservoir to upstream tributaries from March through June where they presumably find summer refuge habitat and foraging areas prior to the spawning period in late summer. Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 14 October14, 2011

15 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed a draft bull trout recovery plan in 2002 for the Columbia River/Klamath. The Boise River watershed is included in the Southwest Idaho Recovery Unit. Recommended actions in the draft plan include establishment of conservation pools at Arrowrock and Anderson Ranch reservoirs and reduction of entrainment. Arrowrock Reservoir has been designated as a Critical Habitat SubUnit in the final critical habitat rule that became effective November 17, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is now updating and completing the recovery plan. Reclamation is subject to a 2005 Biological Opinion for its operations and maintenance activities in the upper Snake River watershed upstream of Brownlee Reservoir. The Biological Opinion includes terms for mitigating its operational impacts on bull trout, including fish entrainment and drawdown impacts (reduction of reservoir primary productivity and, as a result, the prey base for bull trout). Reclamation is responsible for trapping, and hauling back into Arrowrock Reservoir, bull trout that survive entrainment. Reclamation must also control the total extent and rate of summer drawdowns and reduce dam spillage. The 2005 Biological Opinion exempts incidental take of bull trout by entrainment due to Reclamation operations, including up to 2% of the population during the summer irrigation season and 2-7% from October through April. During the license amendment process, FERC engaged in formal consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act regarding bull trout. In its November 9, 2007 final Biological Opinion, the USFWS determined that implementation of the proposed action, including project construction and operation, is not likely jeopardize the continued existence of bull trout in the Columbia River distinct population segment, and will therefore not jeopardize the listed coterminous population. Further, Article 406 compliance, as related to turbine entrainment, is expected to help ensure that the bull trout population is not jeopardized. The plan approved under Article 406 includes a provision for rescuing fish that become stranded in the Facility tailrace when the station is shut down for longer than 24 hours and the tailrace is not submerged by Lucky Peak Reservoir. Recovered bull trout that survive entrainment are to be moved back to Arrowhead Reservoir. One event occurred in the first year of operation. It was a planned station shutdown in September 2010, and no bull trout were found in the tailrace. 6 A study done under the plan in November 2010 showed that entrained fish have a high mortality rate. Mortality for rainbow trout passed through the conduit was 78%, while those passing through the Turbine No. 1 were subject to 94% mortality and another 47% for passage over the tailrace weir. No resource agencies provided written comments on the first year s effort under the plan (2010 Annual Summary Report, Fish Injury and Mortality Plan, Boise Project Board of Control, May 29, 2011). 6 A total of eight fish were salvaged from the tailrace: seven kokanee and one smallmouth bass. Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 15 October14, 2011

16 LIHI Questionnaire: Threatened and Endangered Species Protection E.1 Are threatened or endangered species listed under state or federal Endangered Species Acts present in the Facility area and/or downstream reach? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: Bull trout are present. YES = Go to E.2. E.2 If a recovery plan has been adopted for the threatened or endangered species pursuant to Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act or similar state provision, is the Facility in Compliance with all recommendations in the plan relevant to the Facility? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: The Boise River basin is not included in the areas designated by the USFWS for bull trout recovery in the Columbia River basin. N/A = Go to E.3. E.3 If the Facility has received authorization to incidentally Take a listed species through: (i) Having a relevant agency complete consultation pursuant to ESA Section 7 resulting in a biological opinion, a habitat recovery plan, and/or (if needed) an incidental Take statement; (ii) Obtaining an incidental Take permit pursuant to ESA Section 10; or (iii) For species listed by a state and not by the federal government, obtaining authorization pursuant to similar state procedures; is the Facility in Compliance with conditions pursuant to that authorization? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: In its Biological Opinion, the USFWS concluded that the hydroelectric project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the bull trout in the Columbia River distinct population segment. Reclamation is subject to the terms of a 2005 Biological Opinion related to its operations and maintenance activities. YES = Go to E.4. E.4 If a biological opinion applicable to the Facility for the threatened or endangered species has been issued, can the Applicant demonstrate that: a) The biological opinion was accompanied by a FERC license or exemption or a habitat conservation plan? Or b) The biological opinion was issued pursuant to or consistent with a recovery plan for the endangered or threatened species? Or c) There is no recovery plan for the threatened or endangered species under active development by the relevant Resource Agency? Or d) The recovery plan under active development will have no material effect on the Facility s operations? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: The hydroelectric project Biological Opinion was accompanied by an amendment of the FERC license. The Recovery Plan for bull trout is under development. It is unlikely that it would result in further restrictions to Reclamation s operations and maintenance, activities that were considered in the 2005 Biological Opinion discussed above. Additional drawdown limits would actually be more likely to enhance hydropower production by increasing the average operating head. YES = PASS Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 16 October14, 2011

17 F. Cultural Resource Protection Article 109 of the original license requires the licensees file with FERC an archeological and cultural resources protection and mitigation plan that has been approved by the U.S. Forest Service. The cultural resources assessment for FERC licensing focused on the impacts of building the powerhouse in an already highly disturbed area adjacent to the dam and the construction of the transmission line, which extends along the north side of Lucky Peak Reservoir. Powerhouse design compatibility with the dam, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, was also a concern. Article 409 contained more specific requirements, including additional consultation, for protection of resources. By order dated September 26, 2008, FERC approved the plan in part. The licensees had stated in the plan filing that they no longer needed to provide a report showing documentation of the dam pursuant to Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards; demonstrating Project design compatibility, and including letters from Reclamation, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Department of Interior, and HAER showing design acceptability. Article 409 requires this filing within two years of the start of construction. FERC disagreed that this report is no longer required. Construction commenced in October After determining that there was no record of a filing in FERC elibrary, I brought this to the attention of the applicant, and the licensees subsequently filed for an extension by letter dated September 16, The HAER documentation is actually being done by Reclamation due to an earlier Reclamation project that involved replacement of the dam s lower set of 10 Ensign Valves with clamshell gates between 2001 and On October 11, 2011, FERC granted a two-year extension. LIHI Questionnaire: Cultural Resource Protection F.1 If FERC-regulated, is the Facility in Compliance with all requirements regarding Cultural Resource protection, mitigation or enhancement included in the FERC license or exemption? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: The hydroelectric project has not raised any apparent significant conflicts with respect to cultural resources. The licensees are not in compliance with the two-year deadline for filing HAER documentation and consultation letters related to powerhouse compatibility with the dam, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Since the powerhouse was designed using a consultation process with interested parties and approved by FERC (Visual Quality Management Plan, approved September 24, 2011), I do not believe there is a material issue. This is primarily an administrative, post-construction exercise. The filing would have been made in a timely manner had Reclamation not experienced delays related to its original documentation contract. There is no reason to believe that the powerhouse as designed and constructed is not compatible with the dam as a historic structure. The powerhouse is actually much smaller in scale than that propose for the originally licensed project. YES = PASS (with respect to the hydroelectric project) F.2 If not FERC-regulated, does the Facility owner/operator have in place (and is in Compliance with) a plan for the protection, mitigation or enhancement of impacts to Cultural Resources approved by the relevant state or federal agency or Native American Tribe, or a letter from a senior officer of the relevant agency or Tribe that no plan is needed because Cultural Resources are not negatively affected by the Facility? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: Since the dam and reservoir are federally owned, activities are subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of There is no indication Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 17 October14, 2011

18 that Reclamation is not complying with the Act. In fact, as mentioned above, Reclamation is in the process of documenting the valve replacement project for HAER. YES = PASS (with respect to the federal property) G. Recreation Most public recreational use for Arrowrock Reservoir occurs at the upper end and in the south arm, areas that are managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Since the reservoir is heavily drawn during the summer recreation season, Lucky Peak Reservoir is more popular for recreational use. Article 411 of the license requires the licensees develop a parking area for anglers at the head of Lucky Peak Reservoir on the north shore and an overlook off the access road below Arrowrock Dam. FERC issued an order on January 19, 2010 approving the licensees plan for the angler parking area, which is to be constructed and operated under an August 21, 2009, cost-share agreement with the Corps of Engineers. The second EA noted that the licensees questioned whether new security provisions at Arrowrock Dam would render the overlook infeasible; however, FERC declined to remove the overlook from Article 411. Despite this, FERC s January 19, 2010 order appears to be considered a final action regarding Article 411. Four parking areas have been improved or constructed. The applicant provided an dated September 27, 2011 from the Corps accepting the work (appended). LIHI Questionnaire: Recreation G.1 If FERC-regulated, is the Facility in Compliance with the recreational access, accommodation (including recreational flow releases) and facilities conditions in its FERC license or exemption? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: Given the ownership circumstances, the FERC license recreational requirements placed on the licensees are limited. The license does not require a recreation plan. The licensees have completed a jointly funded project to enhance angler parking at Lucky Peak Reservoir. YES = Go to G.3. G.2 If not FERC-regulated, does the Facility provide recreational access, accommodation (including recreational flow releases) and facilities, as Recommended by Resource Agencies or other agencies responsible for recreation? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: The Corps of Engineers and the Forest Service manage the reservoirs and shoreline areas in coordination with state agencies to include diverse recreational uses. G.3 Does the Facility allow access to the reservoir and downstream reaches without fees or charges? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: Extensive free access is afforded the public at both reservoirs. YES = PASS Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 18 October14, 2011

19 H. Facilities Recommended for Removal The record did not indicate any interest in dam removal. LIHI Questionnaire: Facilities Recommended for Removal H.1 Is there a Resource Agency Recommendation for removal of the dam associated with the Facility? Reviewer Analysis/Conclusions: No. NO = PASS Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. 19 October14, 2011

20 APPENDIX Contents Correspondence/Documentation... A-1 Contacts... A-6

21 From: Sent: Thursday, September 08, :03 PM To: Subject: RE: Arrowrock Hydroelectric Project Jeff, IDEQ issued a 401 water quality certification to the Arrowrock Hydro Project therefore the FERC Relicense meets our WQS and is in compliance with our water quality certification which included the d.o. plan. Lance From: Jeffrey Cueto [mailto:ompompanoo@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, September 08, :23 AM To: Lance Holloway Subject: RE: Arrowrock Hydroelectric Project Thanks, Lance. Could you also confirm that DEQ approved the D.O. plan as required by the water quality certification? I just need to make sure that the licensees are in compliance with the water quality certification. Jeff From: Lance.Holloway@deq.idaho.gov [mailto:lance.holloway@deq.idaho.gov] Sent: Thursday, September 08, :16 PM To: ompompanoo@aol.com Subject: RE: Arrowrock Hydroelectric Project Jeff, The DO plan seems to fit your needs and since you are meeting the standard which is then that would meet our approval. Lance From: Jeffrey Cueto [mailto:ompompanoo@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, September 08, :37 AM To: Lance Holloway Subject: FW: Arrowrock Hydroelectric Project Lance This came back to me. I understand that you have replaced Craig. Would it be possible for you to provide a response? Thanks. Jeff From: Jeffrey Cueto [mailto:ompompanoo@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, September 08, :37 AM To: 'Craig.Shepard@deq.idaho.gov' Subject: Arrowrock Hydroelectric Project Hi, Craig. A-1

22 I have been retained by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI) to review an application by the Clatskanie PUD for low impact certification of the Arrowrock Hydroelectric Project. I formerly administered Vermont s water quality certification and hydrodam review programs. As you may know, LIHI-certified projects must meet a set of environmental and social criteria, including water quality criteria, one of which is compliance with the state water quality certification. IDEQ s certification includes state approval of the D.O. contingency plan. The plan filed with FERC includes an dated May 1, 2009 (pasted below) from you stating that you had no further comments on the plan. Did that constitute your department s approval of the plan? I looked at the first annual report, and it appears that the Facility had no problem maintaining D.O. at or above 6 mg/l as a 7-day average. Is it correct that the applicable standard is of the WQS? Thanks. Jeff ><{{{ > Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. ><{{{ > (802) ><{{{ > ompompanoo@aol.com From: Craig.Shepard@deq.idaho.gov To: gsense@cableone.net; Subject: RE: Arrowrock Draft DO Monitoring Plan Date: Friday, May 01, :09:28 PM Sounds good to me. I have no further comments. Thanks. From: Nicholas E Josten [mailto:gsense@cableone.net] Sent: Thursday, April 30, :52 PM To: Craig Shepard Subject: RE: Arrowrock Draft DO Monitoring Plan Craig we are proposing this location for the DO sensor for 2 reasons: 1) it will be complicated to maintain a sensor at any other location because of the fluctuating reservoir elevation 2) we can accurately account for the mixing effect by means of the proposed correction for bypass flow Anyway, just wanted to let you know our thinking as we will be sending a final version of the plan for your review and we still have the sensor located on the powerhouse where we can get at it for maintenance & calibration. Nick Nicholas E. Josten GeoSense A-2

23 2742 Saint Charles Avenue Idaho Falls, ID A-3

24 From: Tami Keith Sent: Tuesday, September 27, :56 PM To: Jeffrey Cueto Subject: FW: Acceptance of Work - Arrowrock Hydro and Lucky Peak Enhancements (UNCLASSIFIED) Importance: High Jeff - This is the response I am getting in regards to the fisherman s parking lot and Article 411. Let me know. Tami From: Albert Barker [mailto:apb@idahowaters.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, :53 PM To: tkeith Cc: mkukla@boiseproject.org Subject: FW: Acceptance of Work - Arrowrock Hydro and Lucky Peak Enhancements (UNCLASSIFIED) Here is an from the COE accepting all the work for the fisherman's parking area as complete. We have already certified to FERC by the consulting engineer and the Districts that all work was completed in accordance with plans and specifications. Article 411 of the License requires FERC to approve the parking area plans. The License does not require FERC inspection, approval or acceptance of the final construction. Hope this helps Original Message----- From: Hyde, Keith B NWW [mailto:keith.b.hyde@usace.army.mil] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, :41 PM To: pdeveau@boiseproject.org Cc: Albert Barker; Dunning, Joyce M NWW Subject: Acceptance of Work - Arrowrock Hydro and Lucky Peak Enhancements (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: FOUO Paul, We accept the work required under the Challenge Cost-Share Agreement between the Department of Army and Boise Project Board of Control - for construction of gravel parking areas, a concrete toilet, metal staircase and electrical service all located along the shoreline of Lucky Peak Lake - as successfully completed. Under that Agreement all work performed and materials supplied A-4

25 have become the property of the US Army Corps of Engineers. We are exceedingly happy with the improvements as they are already proving beneficial to our stewardship of these areas and are fulfilling a cherished public need for improved shoreline access and Park Host presence at Lucky Peak Lake. It was a pleasure working with you. Keith Hyde Acting Operations Manager USACE Lucky Peak Lake 9723 E Highway 21 Boise, ID keith.b.hyde@usace.army.mil p x12 bb f A-5

26 CONTACTS Clatskanie Peoples Utility District (applicant) United States Fish and Wildlife Service Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Idaho Department of Water Resources( Idaho Department of Fish and Game Idaho State Historical Preservation Office United States Forest Service Authorized Representatives Tami Keith Power Services Supervisor Jeffery Foss Field Supervisor Lance Holloway Water Quality Div. Administrator Darla Block Technical Records Specialist Craig Wiedmeier License Operations Manager Cindy Robertson Natural Resources Program Coordinator Shelby Day Compliance Officer Contact Information 469 N Nehalem St. Clatskanie, OR (503) x14 tkeith@clatskaniepud.com 1387 South Vinnell Way, Suite 343 Boise, ID (208) jeffery_foss@fws.gov 1410 N. Hilton Boise, ID Lance.Holloway@deq.idaho.gov The Idaho Water Center 322 East Front Street PO Box Boise, Idaho (208) S. Walnut Boise, ID (208) cwiedmeier@idfg.idaho.gov P.O. Box 25 Boise, ID (208) cindy.robertson@idfg.idaho.gov 210 Main Street Boise, ID (208) x109 Shelby.day@ishs.idaho.gov Boise Field Office A-6

27 1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200 Boise, ID (208) ACOE Project Manager Boise Field Office 304 N. 8th St., Room 140 Boise, ID (208) United States Bureau of Reclamation Jerrold Gregg Area Manager Pacific Northwest Regional Office 1150 North Curtis Road, Suite 100 Boise, Idaho (208) A-7