20120504Hayes Direct.pdf

Benjamin Otto (ISB No. 8292)
710 N 6th Street
Boise, ID 83701
Ph: [phone] x 12
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
RECEIVED
?OI2 MAY -L4 PM 3:33
ft)AHO PUbL:2
UTIL1 IFS C3M Wi ll SO
Attorney for the Idaho Conservation League
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF PURPA QF
CONTRACT PROVISIONS INCLUDING
THE SURROGATE AVOIDED
RESOURCE (SAR) AND INTEGRATED
RESOURCE PLANNING (IRE)
METHODOLOGIES FOR CALULATING
PUBLISHED AVOIDED COST RATES.
CASE NO. GNR-E-11-03
Direct Testimony
Justin Hayes
May 4, 2012

I Q. Please state your name, affiliation, and qualifications.
2 A. My name is Justin Hayes. I am the Program Director for the Idaho Conservation League. In
3 this role, I supervise all of ICL's programmatic work particularly issues involving water quality
4 standards, permitting, and enforcement. Before this, I worked for American Rivers on water
5 quality and hydropower issues. I hold a Bachelors of Arts in Human Biology, a Bachelor of
6 Science in Earth Systems, and a Masters of Science in Earth Sciences from Stanford University.
7 For more than a decade, I have provided substantive comments to the Environmental Protection
8 Agency (EPA) and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on numerous permits,

9 certifications, state and federal regulations, guidelines and standards related to water quality.
10
11 Q. Please describe the scope of your testimony in this matter.
12 A. I address Idaho Power's assertion that, pursuant to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

13 (FERC) licenses, the Company's "run-of-river" hydroelectric projects provide approximately 450
14 MW of "must run" resources. Idaho Power witness Tessia Park testifies on page 20: "Pursuant to
15 the FERC licenses Idaho Power has for its run-of-river hydroelectric projects, the Company is
16 obligated to take whatever generation flows through them; it does not have the ability to decrease
17 or increase the generation." Based on my review, these "run-of-river" FERC licenses do require
18 water to move downriver, but they allow Idaho Power to accomplish this movement by balancing
19 generation and releasing water from the dams within certain parameters. Also, I explain that
20 releasing water within certain parameters improves water quality, fish habitat, and aesthetics,
21 which are the primary public benefits the FERC licenses, seek to balance with hydropower
22 generation. I take no position on what the appropriate balance between generation and release
23 may be. Rather my testimony explains that pursuant to FERC licenses at certain dams Idaho
24 Power can, within certain parameters, balance generation with releasing water all the while
25 maintaining run-of-river operations.
Hayes, Di 2
Idaho Conservation League
I Q. Please describe how FERC licenses and the Idaho DEQ water quality certifications interact.
2 A. FERC is empowered to regulate the construction and operation of hydroelectric facilities
3 through the issuance and conditioning of licenses. When exercising this power FERC must
4 ensure their actions comply with other federal laws including the Clean Water Act (CWA).
5 Under the CWA, Idaho establishes, and the EPA approves, standards to protect water quality.'
6 Further, the CWA requires any applicant for a federal license to provide a certification from the
7 state the project will comply with all applicable water quality standards - known as a 401
8 certification.' The state can impose conditions on the FERC license to ensure compliance with
9 the water quality standards.' Through this approach, FERC balances the operation of the
10 hydroelectric project with the protection of other public benefits including aesthetics, water
11 quality, and fish habitat.
12
13 Q. Please name the specific hydroelectric projects you will discuss.
14 A. My testimony covers only four projects located along the Mid-Snake River identified as "must
15 run" resources in Exhibit 1701, Idaho Power's Response to Exergy Development Group's Production
16 Request No 19: Milner, Twin Falls, Bliss, and Lower Salmon Falls. These are the four largest of the
17 "run-of-river" projects and combined provide 257.28 MW of capacity.
18
19 Q. Idaho Power alleges they do not have the ability to increase or decrease generation at the
20 Milner project pursuant to FERC license. Do you agree?
21 A. No. A complete reading of the Milner project license, sets a target flow level, but allows for
22 greater flows in order to benefit water quality and fish habitat. The Milner project diverts water
42 U.S.C. §1313.
2 42U.S.C. § 1341.
S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 547 U.S. 370 (2006).
Hayes, Di 3
Idaho Conservation League
from Milner reservoir, sending it along an irrigation canal, and returns a portion of the diversion
2 through the powerhouse 1.6 miles downstream! This creates a "bypass" reach of river 1.6 miles
3 long where the river level is controlled only by releasing water from the dam. Idaho waived their
4 water quality certification authority by failing to submit within their one-year timeline.' The
5 FERC license describes the negative impacts to water quality, specifically reduced dissolved
6 oxygen and increased temperatures, caused by reduced flows in the bypass reach.6 To avoid these
7 negative impacts, the license establishes a "target" flow of water released from Milner into the
8 bypass reach of 200 cubic feet per second (cfs).7 Since the primary reason for the Milner dam is
9 to divert irrigation water, this "target" is primarily applicable during the irrigation season. FERC
10 also imposes a limit on the "ramping rate" in the bypass reach to one foot per hour to protect fish
11 and recreationalists.8 Logically, and scientifically, decreasing generation and releasing more water
12 from Milner dam beyond this "target" flow, but within the ramping rate, further benefits water
13 quality and provides more flexibility for Idaho Power to integrate wind.
14 Maintaining an appropriate level of dissolved oxygen is an important water quality
15 standard for fish habitat. The growth and decay of aquatic plants reduces dissolved oxygen below
16 these levels. Reduced water velocity and warmer waters encourage aquatic plant growth. To
17 maintain adequate water velocity to prohibit plant growth and limit water warming thereby
18 maintaining an appropriate level of dissolved oxygen, FERC established, in Article 407, a target
19 flow in the bypass reach of 200 cfs.9 Importantly in terms of meeting dissolved oxygen standards,
20 this is a minimum level, not a maximum. FERC explains the "DEIS, "the environmental review
21 supporting the license, recommended flows in the bypass reach between 720 to 2190 cfs in order
See Exhibit 1702 at 1, Milner FERC License Project # 2899.
Id., at 3.
6 Id., at 4.
Id.; See Article 407 at p. 19.
8 Id., at 7 - 8; See Article 410 at 20.
Id., at 6 - 7; See Article 407 at p. 19.
Hayes, Di 4
Idaho Conservation League
1 to protect the fishery resource in the bypass reach.'° This recommendation reveals that water
2 quality and fish habitat will benefit if Idaho Power increases flows beyond the "target" in the
3 bypass reach by reducing generation.
4 The FERC license explains that low flows in the bypass reach harms the trout fishery by
5 increasing water temperature and sedimentation." Further, reduced flows prevent fish from
6 moving downstream, which "is probably the primary mechanism by which tiout populate the
7 bypassed reach."" In setting a "target" flow of 200 cfs, FERC balanced fish protection with the
8 need to maintain irrigation flows in the canal, as well as generate electricity. 13 Maintaining
9 irrigation levels is beyond the scope of my testimony. But I do want to make clear that decreasing
10 generation and releasing more than the "target" of 200 cfs will benefit the trout resource FERC
11 was concerned with. Doing so will increase water velocity in the bypassed reach, help maintain
12 cold water, reduce sedimentation, and increase trout recruitment from the reservoir into the
13 downstream fishery.
14 A complete reading of the Milner FERC license reveals that Idaho Power has the flexibility
15 to maintain a run-of-river operation by balancing generation and release from Milner dam
16 within certain parameters. The Company must maintain at least 200 cfs in the bypass reach, but
17 increasing this flow, within the one-foot per hour ramping rate, will benefit the water quality
18 standards that underlay this target while allowing Idaho Power to integrate variable energy
19 resources.
20
21 Q. Idaho Power alleges they do not have the ability to increase or decrease generation at the
22 Twin Falls project pursuant to FERC license. Do you agree?
10 I
"Id.,atl8.
12 Id at 19.
Id at 22.
Hayes, Di 5
Idaho Conservation League
I A. No. Similar to the Milner project, the Twin Falls License establishes imposes license
2 conditions to maintain appropriate dissolved oxygen levels, water temperatures, and protect the
3 aesthetics of allowing water to flow over Twin Falls."' The Twin Falls project diverts water from
4 flowing over the falls and sends it through a powerhouse located near the base." Unlike, the
5 Milner project, at Twin Falls there is no bypass reach into which spill flows; rather spill at Twin
6 Falls means allowing water to cascade over the falls as God intended. This difference in physical
7 layout means that water quality is affected through different mechanisms than Milner. But the

8 result is the same, decreased generation and increased spill will benefit the water quality
9 standards and other benefits that underlie FERC's license conditions.

10 FERC imposes a minimum average of flow 300 cfs over the Twin Falls cataract to protect

11 it's aesthetic value.'6 In doing so FERC recognized that this requirement will reduce generation
12 revenue from the project.'7 Whether this concern holds true for Idaho Power today is beyond the
13 scope of my testimony. However, reducing generation and increasing flows will benefit the
14 aesthetics of Twin Falls while providing the Company additional flexibility to integrate variable
15 energy. While FERC requires a minimum flow over Twin Falls, the license also empowers the
16 Company to increase these levels for operational constrains or by agreement with the Bureau of
17 Land Management, Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Idaho State Historic
18 Preservation Officer." As agencies concerned with protecting the aesthetics of Twin Falls, I
19 imagine they share my position that more spill over the falls is more aesthetic.

20 Diverting water around Twin Falls and through the powerhouse reduces aeration and
21 thus the level of dissolved oxygen in the Snake River.'9 These water quality concerns and license
'' Exhibit 1703, Twin Falls License FERC Project # 18.
15 Id., at 1.
16 Id., at 3; See Article 410 at p. 11.
'7 1d.
'8 Id., See Article 410 at p. 11.
19 Id., at 2.
Hayes, Di 6
Idaho Conservation League
conditions arose from the Idaho water quality certification issued before the FERC license.20 To
2 avoid violating water quality standards Article 404 of the license requires Idaho Power to monitor
3 dissolved oxygen levels and either reinject air at the powerhouse or "release water over the falls
4 rather than through the project turbines" to maintain water quality.21
5
6 Q. Idaho Power alleges they have no ability to increase or decrease generation at the Bliss or
7 Lower Salmon projects. Do you agree?
8 A. Not completely. While the current FERC licenses do impose run-of-river operations, Idaho
9 Power has a request currently pending before FERC to operate both projects as load following
10 resources.22 These projects had traditionally been operated as load following resources.23 When
11 Idaho Power applied for a relicense, state and federal agencies sought to limit these operations to
12 protect a variety of Snake River snails listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) .2' A six-
13 year study of the impacts on the snails appears to show that resuming load following operations,
14 within sideboards, is "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species" - the term
15 of art that triggers ESA based restrictions.25 The US Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Department
16 of Fish and Game and Idaho DEQ support this request.26 Further Idaho DEQ indicates that
17 changing to load following operations complies with their existing water quality certifications.27
18 While I await the final outcome of the consultation process under the ESA and FERC's decision
20
21 Id., See Article 404 at pp. 9— 10.
22 Exhibit 1704, FERC Notice of IPC's Application to Amend the Bliss and Lower Salmon Falls
Licenses and Exhibit B from IPC's FERC Application Containing Support Letters from U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and IPC's FERC Submittal of
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality's Support Letter.
23 Id., at 6.
24
25 Exhibit 1705 at 17, Biological Assessment for the Snake River Physa Submitted by IPC to FERC
for the Bliss and Lower Salmon Falls License Amendments.
26 1704 at 12.
27 Id.
Hayes, Di 7
Idaho Conservation League
1 on Idaho Power's request, but it appears the Company is on a path towards greater flexibility to
2 operate these dams than they have represented to this Commission so far.
3
4 Q. Please summarize your testimony.
5 A. Idaho Power alleges they cannot increase or decrease generation in their run-of-river hydro
6 projects due to environmental constraints to protect water quality, fisheries, and endangered
7 species. This simply is not true. A complete and fair reading of the FERC documents for the four
8 projects described above reveal Idaho Power has far more flexibility while still protecting these
9 other environmental values.
10
11 Q. Does this conclude your testimony as of May 4, 2012?
12 A. Yes.
Hayes, Di 8
Idaho Conservation League
Benjamin Otto (ISB No. 8292)
710 N 6th Street
Boise, ID 83701
Ph: [phone] x 12
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for the Idaho Conservation League
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF PURPA QF
CONTRACT PROVISIONS INCLUDING
THE SURROGATE AVOIDED
RESOURCE (SAR) AND INTEGRATED
RESOURCE PLANNING (IRP)
METHODOLOGIES FOR CALULATING
PUBLISHED AVOIDED COST RATES.
CASE NO. GNR-E-11-03
Direct Testimony
Justin Hayes
EXHIBIT 1701
IDAHO POWER'S RESPONSE TO EXERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP PRODUCTION
REQUEST NO. 19
May 4, 2012
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Reference the Direct Testimony of
Tessia Park, p. 20, stating, "Pursuant to FERC licenses Idaho Power has for its run-of-
river hydro electric projects, the Company is obligated to take whatever generation flows
through them; it does not have the ability to decrease or increase the generation."
(a)Please identify each of the run-of-river hydro plants and provide the
capacity of each.
(b)Please provide the FERC license for each project (in electronic format if
available).
(c)Please identify the provision (page number, section number, as
applicable) in each FERC license that Idaho Power relies on to determine it does not
have the ability to decrease or increase the generation.
(d)For each plant, please explain whether the plant has the operational
capability to spill water without generating electricity, and any restrictions on Idaho
Power's ability to do so.
RESPONSE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
(a) Following are the run-of-river hydro plants and their capacity:
Milner - 59.45 MW
Twin Falls - 52.74 MW
Shoshone Falls - 12.5 MW
Upper Salmon Falls A —18 MW
Upper Salmon Falls B - 16.5 MW
Lower Salmon Falls —60 MW
Upper Malad - 8.27 MW
Lower Malad - 13.5 MW
Bliss —75 MW
Swan Falls —25 MW
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE SECOND PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF EXERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF IDAHO TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -20
(b) Electronic versions of the licenses identified above are provided in the
non-confidential CD.
(c) Mimer. A complete reading of the Milner License shows that the Milner
project is designed to generate with flows that are not used for irrigation as they pass
through the project (run-of-river).
Twin Falls. A complete reading of the Twin Falls license shows that the
Twin Falls project is designed to generate with flows as they pass through the project
(run-of-river).
Shoshone Falls. A complete reading of the Shoshone Falls license shows
that the Shoshone Falls project is designed to generate with flows as they pass through
the project (run-of-river). See Article 401.
Upper Salmon Falls A. A complete reading of the Upper Salmon Falls
license shows that the Upper Salmon Falls project is designed to generate with flows as
they pass through the project (run-of-river). See Article 401.
Upper Salmon Falls B. A complete reading of the Upper Salmon Falls
license shows that the Upper Salmon Falls project is designed to generate with flows as
they pass through the project (run of river). See Article 401.
Lower Salmon Falls. A complete reading of the Lower Salmon Falls
license shows that the Lower Salmon Falls project is designed to generate with flows as
they pass through the project (run-of-river). See Article 401.
Upper Malad. A complete reading of the Malad license shows that the
Malad project is designed to generate with flows as they pass through the project (run-
of-river). See Article 401.
IDAHO POWER COMPANYS RESPONSE TO THE SECOND PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF EXERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF IDAHO TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -21
Lower Maiad. A complete reading of the Malad license shows that the
Malad project is designed to generate with flows as they pass through the project (run of
river). See Article 401.
Bliss. A complete reading of the Bliss license shows that the Bliss project
is designed to generate with flows as they pass through the project (run-of-river). See
Article 401.
Swan Falls. A complete reading of the Swan Falls license shows that the
Swan Falls project is designed to generate with flows as they pass through the project
(run-of-river).
In addition, the non-confidential CD contains a copy of a Settlement Agreement
between Idaho Power and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which contains certain
environmental provisions that place constraints around how the Company operates the
Mid-Snake hydro projects (e.g.), Shoshone Falls, Bliss, Upper Salmon, and Lower
Salmon).
At run-of-river projects, generation increases as flow increases and generation
decreases as flow decreases.
(d) Each licensed facility has the physical capability to spill water without
generating electricity. The proposed operations in the applications for FERC licenses
and state water quality certifications did not include spill except when flows exceeded
plant capacity or when generators tripped off-line in emergency situations. To the
contrary, operations may require an amendment to the FERC licenses and/or state
water quality certifications.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE SECOND PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF EXERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF IDAHO TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -22
The response to this Request was prepared by Lewis Wardle, Senior Biologist,
Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Donovan E. Walker, Lead Counsel, Idaho
Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE SECOND PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF EXERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF IDAHO TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -23
Benjamin Otto (ISB No. 8292)
710 N 6th Street
Boise, ID 83701
Ph: [phone] x 12
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for the Idaho Conservation League
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF PURPA QF
CONTRACT PROVISIONS INCLUDING
THE SURROGATE AVOIDED
RESOURCE (SAR) AND INTEGRATED
RESOURCE PLANNING (IRP)
METHODOLOGIES FOR CALULATING
PUBLISHED AVOIDED COST RATES.
CASE NO. GNR-E-11-03
Direct Testimony
Justin Hayes
EXHIBIT 1702
MILNER PROJECT FERC LICENSE
May 4, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PEERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Before Commissioners: Martha 0. Hesee, Chairs";
Charles C. Stlon, Charles A. Trabandt,
Elizabeth Anne Moler and Jerry J. Langdon
Twin Falls Canal Company Project Ho. 2899-o0i
North Side Canal Company, Ltd.
ORDER ISSUING LICENSE
(Major Projects
(Issued December 15, 1988
On July 23, 1984. the Twin Falls Canal Company and the North
Side Canal Company, Ltd. ICC) filed a joint application for
license under Part I of the Federal Power Act. (FPA) to construct,
operate,. end maintain the hither Hydroelectric Project No. 2899,
to be located at the existing Milner Dam and Twin Falls Main
Canal on the Snake River in Twin Falls, Casaiw, Jerome, sad
Minidoka Counties, Idaho. Parts of the project would occupy
landis of the United States managed by the Bureau of Land
'Management (BL.M of the Department of the Interior. The project
would consist of the hither Dew and Reservoir. modifications to
6,500 feet of the Twin Falls Main Canal to increase its capacity,
a ooptrol structure on the canal that would divert the additional
flow into a forebay, a penstock, a powerhouse located on the
irrigation canal 1.6 wiles downstream of the deim and containing a
single generating unit rated at 43,650 kilowatts. and a 1.4-ale-
ng transmission. line.
Notice of the application, has been published. The Idaho
Department of Fish and Gene (IDFG) and the Idaho Department of
Water Resources heNRI became intervenors in the proceeding. The
motions to intervene and comments filed by agencies and
Individuals have been fully considered in determining whether to
issue this license. The lances raised by the intervenors are
discussed below.
I. Dan Safety and National Enviroruzental Policy Act Compliance
The Commission currently is in the process of preparing an
environmental impact statement (EIS) assessing, inter ails, the
potential cumulative impacts of the Milner Project No. 2899 and
three other proposed hydroelectric projects on the environmental
res,,urcea of the Snake River Basin. A draft EIS (DEIS) was
Project No. 2899-003 -2-
issued in November 1987. 1 Due to new circumstances and new
Irformation received after the GElS was issued, a Notice of
Intent to Prepare a Supplement to the GElS and to hold public
meetings was issued on July 15. 1988; public meetings were held
in Twin Falls, Idahn, on August 19, 1988. At these meetings, CC
informed the Commission that there was a serious concern for the
structural integrity of the 85-year-old hurter Gsa and that
failure of the dam during the irrigation season could result in
near total crop failure on the 440,000 acres served by the
dam. P
Following a meeting with CC and an inspection of Milner Dam,
the Commission' Division of Dan Safety and Inspections concluded
that there is a high risk of failure at the Milner Dan in the
event of a seismic event (earthquake). A complete den failure
could lead to partial or total crop failure, since such a failure
would prevent diversion of water into the irrigation canal,
CC intends to use the revenues from the sale of electric
power to be generated by the project to obtain the funds
necessary to strengthen Miler Dan and upgrade its spillway. CC
states that, absent these revenues, funding repair of the daze
would result in severe economic hardship to many of the 7.500 CC
shareholders who depend on Irrigation water* from Milner Dam for
their iiveliho4. According to CC, having the shareholders bear
the total cost of repairs could cause some shareholders to lose
their farms and would cause significant adverse impacts to a
local economy that is already suffering the effects of the
general economic problems of the farming industry.
The final 51$ (P513) for the four projects on the Snake
River is not expected to be completed until late summer or early
fall of 1989. Thus, waiting for completion of the FEIS before
action an the license application for Project No. 2899 could
cause a delay of up to two years in startingthe repair of Milner
Dam, during which time there would be a risk of dam failure. If
a license for the Milner Project is issued at this time, the
necessary financing and other arrangements could be made so as to
complete the dam repairs in one year or less.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Twin Falls
IFERC No, 38), Milner (FElIC No. 28991, Auger Fells (FERC No,
41971, and Star Falls (MC: No. 57971 Hydroelectric Projects
on the Msinatem Snake River, Idaho, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., November 1987.
2
See the attached Safety and Design Assessment (S&DAP for a
more detailed description of the due, safety concerns
regarding this project.
Project No. 2599-003 -2-
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (hEVAJ state that, where emergency
circumstances make it necessary to take an action with
significant environmental impacts without following CEQ
regulations (e,g., without first preparing an FEIS), the agency
taking the action should consult with CEQ regarding alternative
arrangements. Such arrangements are to be limited to actions
necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. 3
Pursuant to CEQ's regulations, the Commission consulted with CEQ
and requested concurrence with a plan to proceed with the
licensing of the Milner Project prior to completion of the FEIS
on the four projects on the Snake River. 4 Consistent with the
emergency provisions CEQ'e regulations, the CEP approved the
Commission's plan to license the hydroelectric facility at the
Milner Dam prior to completion of the FEIS. 5
II. Comprehensive Water Block
Commission staff haa proposed development of m Comprehensive
Water Block (CWB) for the four projects in the Snake River Basin
included in the DE1S. As described in more detail in the Scoping
Document Supplement (Supplement) prepared for this proceeding in
October 1988, 6 the objective of the CUB is to provide target
flows at the projects when water is available in excess of
irrigation needs. The CWB represent, the combined amount of
water needed to provide target flows for protection and
enhancement of environmental resources associated with the four
projects addressed in the DEIS. Under the CWB proposal, each of
the ft projects, if licensed and constructed, would provide a
sub-block to the Cb'B; the size of the individual sub-blocks would
be different for each project, due to the fact, target flows would
be based on what es needed to mitigate impact* at each specific
project. The else of the CWB would also vary from year to year
depending on the amount of flow in the river and the availability
of water in excess of irrigation needs.
a
See 40 C.F.R. 1106.11 11988).
4
Letter from Martha 0. Hesse, Chairman, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, October 25, 1988).
5
Letter from A. Alan Hill, Chairman, CEQ, October 27, 1988.
S
Information regarding the Supplement was published in the
Federal Register on October 15, 1958. See $3 Fed. Beg.
42,997. Scoping meetings on the Supplement were held in
Boise and Twin Falls, Idaho, on November 2, 1989.
Project No, 2999-009 -4-
The CUB proposal would require the licensees for the four
projects to lease water for the CWS from the Upper Snake Eater
Supply Beck (Water Bank). The State at Idaho established the Water Sank as a convenient means to allow and account for the
rental of water by those irrigators in need of additional water
from those who have excess water, irrigators who estimate that
their water storage rights would be in excess of their require-
ments in any year may place a portion of their storage right in
the Water Bank, to be leased by others, with irrigators receiving
first priority. Any water that is not leased in any year is lost
if all of the upstream storage is refilled in the following year.
ITH1R, by letter dated September 30, 1988, stated that it
appears that structured reliance on the Water Bank through the
CWE mechanism can be successful in meeting prescribed mitigative
flows on the mainstem of the Snake River. Furthermore,
Commission staff discussions with lOWE staff regarding the
operation of the Water Bank revealed that (1) water has been
available for lease from the Water Bank in all years Since its
creation; (2) Idaho Power Company has leased water for power
generation from the Water Bank in every year since its creation;
(3) future water availability likely will increase due to
increased irrigation efficiencies; <4) it is highly probable that
water will be available in the Water Bank in excess of irrigation
demand in the future, except in very bad water years; and (5) the
cost of water from the bank is currently very reasonable, and is
expected to remain ma in the foreseeable future.
Under the CVI proposal, each licensee would be responsible
For providing project-specific target (lows. Target flows to be
not for the projects would recognise the physical limitations of
the river system so that they would not interfere with irrigation
operations and would.not flood low-lying areas. Flows to be
released for project-specific target flows would be accounted For
when the water is released from the upstream American Falls
Reservoir end measured below Milner Dam. Thus, the CVI would be
an a000unting mechanism for licensees to equitably share the
responsibility for mitigative flows, since water which is
released from Aserics,n Falls Reservoir would flow through all of
the four proposed projects.
As discussed below, we believe the OW'S proposal is an
appropriate means to provide mitigative flows while recognizing
the need to protect irrigation needs in the area. Accordingly,
Article 401 of the license requires CC to meet the target flows
specified by Article 407 of the license by renting water from the
Ester Bank when it is available.
Project Na. 2899-003 -6-
Project No. 2899-003 -5-
111. Environmental Impacts
A. Erosion, Sedimentation, and Slope Stability
Rehabilitation of Milner Dam would involve excavation of
rook materials, construction of access roads leading from the
excavations to the dam. associated staging areas, and a cofferdam
to deuatez, a small area in the reservoir when reconstructing the
piulway. These activiLies would cause minor erosion,
sedimentation, localized movement of loose rook materials, and
temporary increases in suspended sediment in Milner Reservoir
during placement and removal of cofferdams. In order to ensure
that impacts on soils and geologic resources are minimized.
Article 402 requires CC to include measures to minimize erosion
and sedimentation and to control slope stability when submitting
final design specifications for rehabilitation of Milner Dam.
During project construction, localized erosion,
sedimentation, and temporary increases in turbidity and suspended
madiments would occur until disturbed, land surfaces are
stabilized. Blasting for the powerhouse and tailrace excavation
and construction of the access road could cause localized
rookfall and mass movement of loose materials, and placement and
removal of cofferdams would temporarily increase susp.ndd
sediments and turbidity within the Snake River.
With implementation of a detailed, site-specific erosion,
sediment, and slope stability control plan that Incorporates CC's
proposed mitigation and the mitigation measures recommended in
the DEIS, the effects on soil and geologic resources would be
minor. 7 Article 402 requires CC to prepare a detailed, site-
specific plan to control erosion, sedimentation, and slope
stability that includes control measures proposed by CC and
recommended in the 0215.
B. hater Quality
1. Water Quality Certification
In a letter dated January 27, 1984, CC requested water
quality certification pursuant to Section 401(A)(1) of the Clean
Water Act from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDEW).
10MW granted water quality certification for the Milner Project 'f'). September 30, 1985. Since lOiN did not act on the
(' / certification request within one year from the date it received
.1 Lthe request, water quality certification was deemed, waived by
7
See Section 4.1.1.1 of the 0215.
der No. 464. 8 However, since we believe the three conditionss
L,pntained in the water quality certificate, which addrass erosion
control, spoil digpoaal, and storage of fuels and chemicals are
neceesary, we are including them as part of Article 402 of the
license.
2. Milner Reservoir and the Snake River below Milner
Dam
The water quality in the Upper Snake River Basin is
generally good, and is categorized as Class A by 111KW, hater
uses to be protected include domestic and industrial water
supply, irrigation, livestock watering, and salmonid fish
spawning and rearing.
In the 1080's, Milner Reservoir had poor Cater quality
conditions resulting from municipal and industrial point source
discharges. During periods of reduced discharges, low dissolved
oxygen concentrations (DO) in Milner Reservoir resulted in asjor
fish kills. Substantial reductions in these point source
discharges in-the 1970's, however, have contributed to better
water quality conditions in the reservoir.
Temperature and DO sampling conducted by CC's consultant in
June to September 1983 and in August to December 1987 indicate
that Milner Reservoir does not thermally or chemically stratify
and that DO and temperature levels in the river below Milner fleet
are similar to theme in Milner Reservoir. These levels met the
state water quality standards at all d.ptha sampled in Milner
Reservoir and in the Snake River below Milner Dam.
The Evjvomment1 Protection Agency (EPA) reports that in
past years the surface waters of Milner Reservoir contained high
concentrations of heavy metals. Since 1979, EPA reports that
concentrations of zinc, cadmium, and copper in Milner Reservoir
and in the Snake River below Milner Darn have ranged from 0 to SO
micrograms per liter (ug/li, from .2 to 2 us/l, and from 1 to 8 ugh, respectively. however, these concentrations are below
levels reported by EPA that adversely affect freshwater aquatic
organisms. 9
S
62 Fed. E.g. 5446 (February 23, 1987), P210 Stats. and Regs.
III, 30,370 (effective May 11, 1987); reh'g denied. 52
Fed. Peg. 13,734 (April 22, 1087), 39 FEEC 61,021 (Order
Ho. 464-A), petitions for reconsideration dismissed, 41 PERC
61,208 (1987) (Order No. 464-81.
9
See generally Section 4.2.1 of the EElS.
Project No. 289-003 -7-
Project N',. 259-003 -8-
Al Project Construction
Construction activities in Milner Reservoir and in the Snake River below Milner Dee would disturb sediments and other
unconsolidated deposits that likely contain heavy metals or other
toxic sbstnaes. Improper removal and disposal of sedime nt s or unconsolidated deposits could disperse heavy metals or other
toxic substances into the water column and would adversely affect
the aquatic resources downstream. Although the entire project
area need not be tested. Article 403 requires CC to test any
sediment or unconsolidated materials within the Snake River and
Milner Reservoir that would be dredged or excavated in
conjunction with project construction for the presence of any
heavy metals or other toxic aubeternees, so that any OonteJnit%ated
materiel, would be identified, safely removed, and disposed of
with minimal adverse effects on water quality and aquatic
organisms.
(8) Project Operation
The propdaed powerhouse would have the capacity to use flows
of from 900 to 4,000 cubic-feet-per-second (c(s). Typically, the
flows that pass Milner Dam in the summer are low, not generally
exceeding 500 ofa, and the proposed powerhouse would not be
expected to operate from approximately mid-June through mid-September. -
r-- Operation of the proposed project would not affect the water
quality in Milner Reservoir; however, CC's propoeed minimum flow
of 58 ci's in mummer during the irrigation season would likely
result in substantial *dverse impacts on water temperature and DO J, within the 1.6-mile-long bypassed reach, The DO and temperature
W of the water released from Milner Des during summer would likely
change as it flows downstream through the bypassed reach. The
magnitude of theme change, would depend on a number of factors,
with the major controlling factor being the rate of stream
disuharga through the bypassed reach.
A reduction in the volume of water flawing through the
bypassed reach would reduce water velocity and depth and increase
the travel time. Consequently, the effect of solar radiation
would be intensified and water temperature would increase in
summer. Much slower velocities in the bypassed reach could also
contribute to the growth of the already abundant aquatic plants.
Increased plant respiration and decomposition would cause DO
reductions.
Based on the cross-sectional and longitudinal profiles of
the river channel below Milner Darn and the available data
relating discharge to DO and water tempez'ature, a flow of 101 to
300 cfe would likely have minimal ispaci on water temperature and
DO in the bypss,d reach. Flows within this range would likely
provide sufficient water velocity and depth, and in turn reduce
the travel time through the bypassed reach, thus minimizing the
effect of solar radiation on water temperature. A target flow
established within this range would likely provide water quality
conditions that are suitable for maintaining a put-and-grow trout
fishery. ID The target flows required by Articles 407 and 415
during project operation for the maintenance of the fish and
recreational resources, respectively, would minimize the impacts
of project operation on water temperature, DO, and sedimentation
in the bypassed reach.
The DEIS recommended that CC implement a water quality
monitoring plan that should include provisions for discharging
sufficient water to the bypassed reach to minimize the effects of
the proposed project on the water quality of the Snake River
during project operation. Water quality impacts would be most
critical during low water years and during comae" month, that
coincide with low flows, high nutrient levels, and elevated water
temperatures. -
CC should implement a water quality monitoring plan along
the bypassed reach. Therefore, Article 404 of the license
requires CC to monitor the water quality of the Snake River to
determine if water temperatures and DO necessary for the survival
of a trout fishery within the bypassed reach are being maintained
by the target flow released from Milner Dam. if the results of
the monitoring required by Articles 404 and 409 show that levels
of DO and temperature in the bypassed reach are not sufficient
for maintaining a put-sad-grow trout fishery, Article 409
requires CC to implement other fishery mitigation.
C. Fishery Resource.
1. Existing Environment
IA Milner Reservoir
Milner reservoir supports both variswater and coldwater
fisheries. The warawater species include ssallsnouth bees.
largemouth base, yellow perch, channel catfish, brown bullhead,
and black crappie. The noldeater species are rainbow trout,
cutthroat trout, brown trout, and mountain whitefish. Also,
numerous nongame species inhabit the reservoir. The coldw&ter
species occur primarily at the headwaters of the reservoir. JDFC
stocks cetchebie rainbow trout ir, the headwaters of Milner
Reservoir near Burley, Idaho.
10
This fishery resource is discussed In Part II C ., mire.
Project No. 2899-003 -9-
Milner reservoir has a sandy substrate and is devoid of
three dimensional structure such as rocks or boulders. The sandy
substrate probably hails the production of aquatic invertebrates
typically fed upon by fish. Further, the lack of structure
limits warmwater fish production because structure is used by
wars.ater fish for spawning and for cover. 11
The Idaho Fisheries Management Plan 12 states that
warawater fish such as emalleouth bass, and channel and blue
catfish will be stocked in the reservoir to meet the demand for
the warewater fishing in Milner Reservoir. The Fisheries
Management Plan states that the management direction for Milner
Reservoir include Improving warCuater fish habitat.
(B) Snake River Bypassed Reach
Cane fish use below Milner 1)m is seasonal and depends on
flow levels. Rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, brown trout,
rainbow-cutthroat trout hybrids, mountain whitefish, channel
catfish, largemouth and asalimouth bass, and yellow perch have
been collected in the Snake River below Milner Dam. Nngaae fish
such as Utah dace, redaide ahiner, and mottled soulpins
dominated the catch during the low flow period. 13
Water diversions for irrigation limits trout use of the
proposed bypassed reach primarily to the non-irrigation season.
Water diwsre ions from April through October for irrigation
deliveries signlftsntly reduce the amount of water flowing
downstream of Miler Dam. These flow reductions during the
irrigation season, along with the likely changes to W$tCT
quality, increased water temperature and decreased DO
concentration, decreases the suitability of the downstream area
for trout.
The Fisheries Management Plan for the Snake River below
Milner Dam calls for a "yield trout fishery with an approximate
catch rate of 0.5 fish per hour. According to the Fisheries
Management Plan, rainbow trout consisting of wild and hatchery
fish would support the yield fishery.
11
See Section 3.3.2.1.1 of the OtIS.
12
Idaho Department of Fish and Gane, 1986, Fisheries
Mensgement Plan 1986 - 1990, Boise, Idaho, 274 pp.
13
See Section 3.3.2.1.2 of the DEIS.
Project No. 2899-003 -10-
2. Impacts
(A)Project Construction
Constructing the Milner Project and upgrading the damn would
cause short-tern increases in suspended and dissolved solids
uhivh would ultimately be deposited in downstream areas. The
siltation could negatively affect mountain whitefish spawning in
the bypsawed reach, but would have actual little effect, due to
the fact that so few fish occur or spawn in the bypassed reach.
Siltation from 000strurtion activities would have little effect
on ether aquatic resources, because the siltation would be
flushed out during the next high flow period. Further,
implementing the erosion control and sedimentation plan required
by Article 402 would limit sources of sediment. The potential
for toxic substances affecting the downstream aquatic resources
would be low because of the sediment testing and sediment removal
requirements of Article 403.
(B)Project Operation
Operating the Milner Project would increase the time period
for diverting water from the reservoir to the Twin Falls Main
Canal. Typically, CC now diverts water during the irrigation
season from April through October. With the project operating,
CC would divert water all year and would reduce the frequency of
spillage over Milner Dan. Fish passing over Milner Dam with the
high spillage flows is probably the primary mechanism by which
trout populate the bypassed ranch. Project operation would
substantially increase the number of fish diverted to the canal,
whore they would enter the project intake and would be killed or
injured by the turbines or would no longer be recruited to the
bypassed reach or,downatreae areas.
CC proposes to mitigate for adverse project impacts by
enhancing the fish habitat in Milner Reservoir instead of
installing a fish screen to mitigate the turbine-induced fish
losses. The OtIS agreed with CC's reservoir enhancement
proposal, but expressed reservations about the probability for
success. 14 In its action to intervene, IDPG stated that
enhancing the habitat in Pilirter Reservoir would partially
mitigate for turbine-induced fish mortality.
Enhancing the warawater fish habitat by providing structures
for holding and rearing habitat, or increasing spawning areas and
stocking warawatar fish in 1ilner Reservoir as described in the
Fishery Management Plan, would adequately mitigate turbine-
induced fish losses. Therefore. CC should finance the
14
See Section 4.2.2.1.2 of the DEIS.
Project No. 2899-003 _1L_
development of the Milner Reservoir warawater fishery as
described in the Fisheries Management Plan. In addition, CC
should fund stocking of wermwe.ter fish species in the reservoir
in cooperation with the IDFG. Stocking warswater fish in the
reservoir In cooperation with the ZOFO and enhancing the reservoir habitat would be 000aiateOt with the Fisheries
Management Plan. Article 405 requires CC, after consultation
with IDFC, to develop, implement, and finance a wsrawat,ar fish
stocking program and a habitat enhancement plan that is
COnSistent with the Fisheries Management Plan for Milner
Reservoir to mitigate the adverse effects of the project on the
fishery resources.
CC should consult with XDPG and develop a plan to monito r
the effectiveness of the reservoir enhancement structures and the
fish stocking program. Specifically, CC should determine if
additional warewatep fish stocking is necessary to meet the
objectives of the Fisheries Msnag,wont Plan for Milner Reservoir.
The monitoring would also assist in determining the length of
time the structures would remain in place and provide fish
habitat. We conclude that a five-year monitoring program would
provide sufficient informati on to determine if the mitigative
seasuree are adequate. The monitoring also allows for correcting
those that are not working. Therefore, Article 406 requIres CC
to conduct a reservoir fish habitat and fishery study for at
least five years to determine if the fish habitat enhancement
structures have remained in place and are functioning as desired
and to determine if additional usrawater fish need to be stocked.
3. Instrees Flow
C

CC proposes to release 58 of& during the irrigation season end 150 cIa during the non-irrigation season, However, CC did not. provide a biological rationale for these flow proposals or
, for the seasonal difference in the flows. The PETS found that 58 elm would prevent fish movement in the bypassed reach and would
degrade fish food production by increasing channel sedimentation. 15
The proposed $0 efs minimum flow would provide slightly improved
instresisi (low conditions, because it would prevent the extreme low flow events that occasionally occur.
Operating the project during the non-irrigation Season with
the proposed ISO cfe minimum flow would significantly reduce the
amount of trout habitat in the 1.6-sil-long bypassed reach
according to conventional instreet flow methodologies, would
severely reduce trout recruitment and use of the bypassed reach
during the non-irrigation season, and would reduce invertebrate
15
See Section 4.2.2.1.1.3.1 of the OEIS.
Project No. 2999-003 -12..-
production. 16 Proposed project operation would reduce the
amount of trout habitat and eliminate spillage over the dam such
of the time and, therefore, preclude trout movement over the dam
to the bypassed reach. Thus, the proposed non-irrigation season
minimum flow would conflict with the management direction of the
yield fishery, because trout recruitment and suitable trout
habitat would not be maintained in the bypassed reach.
The PETS recommended that CC maintain minimum flows of 58
cfs and 1.260 cfh in the irrigation and non-irrigation seasons,
respectSvely, to protect the downstream fishery resources. 17
The DEIS also recommended a minimum flow of 300 cfs in the
irrigation season to partially mitigate the cumulative adverse
impacts to the resident trout and other resources. 19 Since the
0218' 300 cIa recommendation to mitigate cumulative impacts
superceded the 58 cIa minimum flow for fishery resource
protection, the P515 concluded that minimum flows of 300 eta in
the irrigation casino and 1,280 ofa in the non-irrigation season
were needed. Flows derived by the Tennant Methodology, 19 the
stream resource maintenance flow study. 20 and, the minimum flows
recommended in the P815 to protect the fishery resources, in the
bypassed reach during the non-irrigation season range from 720
efa to 2,190 ci's.
Release of the above flows for fishery protection purposes
during the irrigation season would interfere with irrigation and
thus could have a severe impact on the Far-based economy of the
area. Furthermore, the release of the flows recommended for the
non-irrigation season would reduce generation and henna the
revenues necessary to repair Milner Des. We believe that the
16
Id.
17
See Section 4.2.2.1.2 of the DEIS.
18
See Section 5.1.2 of the P815.
19
D.L. Tennant, 1918, Inatreas flow regimes for fish,
wildlife, recreation, and related environmental resources,
Pages 359-373. In Oraborn, J. F., and C. H. Allman, (ed.,
Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Inmireas Flow
Needs, Volume II, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
'leryland.
20
T. Corhnauer, 1976, Stream Flow Investigation. Project F-9-
R-1, Job I, evaluation of applicability of water surface
profile predictive modeling in reference to stream resource
sisintenance flow (SRMF) determinations, Job II, stress
resource maintenance flow determinations on the Snake River,
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 44 pp.
Project No. 2899-003 -13-
need to protect irrigation usage and provide sufficient
generation outweigh the need to protect the fishery resources.
Accordingly, we will not require CC to release the flows
referenced above. However, we are requiring CC, by Article 40
to release a target flow of 200 Ct..
The loss of trout habitat in the non-irrigation season is
offset somewhat by eliminating the extreme 1ow flows that have
occurred during the irrigation season, thus allowing trout to use
the bypassed reach more consistently. A stable flow of 200 ofa
would slightly enhance the fishery resources by continually
maintaining a limited amount of habitat that would occamioflalil,
be eliminated by the low flow event.. Therefore, 200 ole would
probably maintain sufficient water quality to maintain a put-
and-grow trout fishery in the bypassed reach. As just indicated,
Article 407 requires CC to maintain a target flow of 200 cfa
below Milner Dam. 21
The Snake River downstream of the proposed powerhouse would
benefit from the 200 ofa target flow. Releases from Milner Dam
would prevent-the extreme low flow periods. In addition to the
releases from Milner Dam, the Incentive to operate the powerhouse
would provide water to downstream areas that would not typically
have occurred during the irrigation season. Therefore, the
fl.h resources downstream of the bypassed reach would benefit
more then those in the bypassed reach.
4. Trout Fishery Enhancement
The primary source of trout to the bypassed reach is
recruitment from upstream areas. A. mentioned above, proposed
operation would reduce *pill from Milner Dam and eliminate such
of this recruitment..
In order to mitigate for the decreased recruitment to the
downstream Snake River fishery and the lees of trout habitat in
the Snake River in the non-irrigation season. CC should institute
a put-and-grow trout fishery 22 in the 1.8-mile-long bypassed
reach of the Snake River. CC should consult with IDFG to
determine the sizes and numbers of trout to stock and to
determine the area or areas in which to stock the trout. CC
should stock the trout in areas that provide easy and matS access
21
The 200 ofa target flow is not a minimum flow, and CC does
not have to release the flow unless water in available.
22
The Idaho Fisheries Management Plan defines a put-and-grow
fishery as one where the fish are expected to survive and
grow and contribute to the fishery for a extended period of
time,
Project Mo. 2999-003 -14-
for anglers. This would provide a high value recreational
fishery in this area.
Article 409 requires CC to develop and to implement s put-
arm-grow trout fishery in the 1.6-mIle-long bypassed reach of the
Snake River. We conclude that developing this trout fishery
would mitigate the lost trout habitat in the Snake River
resulting from reduced flows and would mitigate the reduced fish
recruitment to the bypassed reach. Enhancing the trout fishery
In the bypassed reach through hatchery supplementation would not
conflict with the management direction for this section of Lite
Snake River as described in the Fisheries Management Plan.
There Is the possibility that the stocked fish would move
downstream with the current where they would no longer be
available to the anglers or whey, they could perish due to
insufficient habitat or poor water quality. Therefore, CC should
conduct a study to determine if the trout move downstream and if
the trout are surviving long enough, depending on water
temperature and DO concentration, to remain available to anglers.
CC should file annual reports about the survival, growth,
and movement of the trout and how the water quality at 200 cfs
affects their survival, growth, and movement. If it is
determined that the trout stocked in the bypassed reach are not
surviving, are not growing sufficiently, or are moving out
immediately, than CC should consider stocking trout in other
areas of the Snake River such as the head of Milner Reservoir
near Burley, Idaho. In conjunction with this study, the results
from the water quality monitoring required by Article 404,
particularly water temperature and DO, will provide valuable
information to determine if 200 efe provides conditions conducive
for establishing e year round trout fishery.
We conclude that a five-year monitoring program would
provide sufficient information to determine if the trout stocking
program is successful. If the results indicate that the trout
stocking program is not successful, the monitoring allows for
changing the stocking rates, the alec and species of trout
stocked, and the stocking location. Article 499 requirem.CC to
conduct a five-year trout monitoring study and to file annual
reports on the results of each years studios.
C. Damping Rate
r Rapid alteration of mtreamflowa during project startup would
I strand fish in the bypassed reach when submerged areas quickly
drain, because of rapid decreases In the amount of water
available to maintain existing habitat. To protect the fish ard
other aquatic resources free rapid, project-induced flow
Project o. 2899-003 -16--
Project icc. 2899-003 -15-
reductions, the OtIS recommended that CC limit the maximum rate
of change in the flow in the Snake River, 23
The ramping rate of one foot per hour r000mmended. to protect
whitewater boaters would also provide a measure of protection for
fish and invertebrates inhabiting the bypassed reach. We believe
that $ One foot per hour reaping rate would adequately protect
the fishery resources of the bypassed reach during project
startup. Article 410 requires CC to implement a reaping rate of
one foot per hour and to determine if this rate would adequately
prevent stranding of fish and would protect the recrestionists
using the bypassed reach and downstream areas based on a site
I specific study. CC should consider structural measures during
the design of the powerhouse(s) to facilitate implementing the
ramping rate.
D. Raptor Protection
Transmission lines, particularly those in open, relatively
treeless areas with few perching sites, may pose an electrocution
hazard to raptors and other large birds. 24 Collisions with the
lines may be on additional source of mortality. The U.S.
Department of the Interior recommends that the project
transmission lime be designed and constructed to minimise these
sources of avian mortality. CC has agreed to use an appropriate
design to prevent electrocution of raptors. To ensure the
protection of raptors and other large birds in the project area,
Article 411 requires CC, after consultation with the fish and
wildlife agencies, to design and construct the transmission line
according to accepted guidelines for raptor protection.
S. flevsg.tmtton of Disturbed Upland Habitat
During construction of the proposed project, approximately
22 acres of upland shrub-grassland habitat would be
disturbed. 25 CC proposes to reseed the disturbed areas with a
mixture of grasses and native sb:uba, but doss not provide a
detailed revegetation plan. As discussed in the 0525, CC should
develop and Implement a detailed plan to revegetate disturbed
upland areas, with the Iosl of establishing high quality wildlife
habitat. 26 The plan, required by Article 412, should be
developed in consultation with the appropriate agencies, and
should contain, at a minimum, a description of plant species to
23
See Section 4.2.2.1.2 of the O2IL
24
See Section 4.3.1.1 of the CEIS.
25
Id.
26
See generally Section 4.3 of the DEIS.
be used, an implementation schedule, a description of planting
methods, fert1ization and irrigation requirements, and a
monitoring program.
F. Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Structures
To enhance the project area for .ildlifs, CC proposes to:
(I) construct two osprey nesting platforms in Milner reservoir;
12) develop artificial burrows for use by burrowing owls; and (3)
construct an unspecified number of nesting structures for Canada
geese in the project vicinity. CC does not, however, provide
final deign, locations, and monitoring plans for these
enhancement measures. The proposed measures, if successfully
implemented, could enhance wildlife use of the project area.
Therefore, Article 413 requires CC to provide a detailed plan for
providing the proposed wildlife enhancement measures, including,
at a minimum: (IC the final design of the goose nesting
structures, osprey-nesting platforms, and burrowing owl burrows;
(2) the iostion of the enhancement features; (3) a echedule for
providing the enhancement features; and (4) a description of a
program to monitor and maintain the enhancement features.
C. Replacement of Riparian Wetlands and Upland Habitat
Approximately 6.1 acres of riparian wetlands will be
eliminated by project development. 27 CC has identified four
Sites totalling 18.2 acres along the project canal where wetlands
could be created. Of those 18.2 acres, CC proposes to Create
10.2 mares to satiety the wildlife agencies' recommended 1.0 to
1.5 ices to replacement ratio for riparian wetlands.
Construction would also result In the permanent loam of 26.6
acres of upland ahrub-grasslsnd, including 2.0 acres of BIM'a
Isolated tract No t 23, The XDFG recommend. that 26.6 acres of
upland habitat, off-site if necessary, be developed and donated
to EDFG as mitigation for upland losses. CC has agreed to
replace lost upland habitat according to accepted IDFG
guidelines.
Rather than develop another mitigative plan using upland
habitat, possibly at an off-site location, we believe that it
would be more beneficial- to wildlife, as well as more practical,
to provide additional riparian habitat in the immediate project
area, Sufficient mitigation for both upland and wetland losses
would be provided by adding 53 acres of riparian wetland habitat
to the 18.2 acres of potential replacement habitat already
identified by CC. This total of 23.5 acres of riparian wetland
replacement habitat would include 13.3 acres for replacing 26.6
acres of lost upland habitat. This 1.0 for 2.0 ratio areas
2?
See Section 4.3.1.1 of the 0510.
Project No. 2899-003
reasonable considering co id.ering the much greater wildlife value of
riparian weUands, the wetlands comparative scarcity in the
project area, and the high priority given to the prot5ct,ori of
wetlands compared to upland hjbitst.
IDFS agrees with this approach for replacing upland habitat
with riparian habitat 23 CC should have little difficulty
providing the additional 5.3 acres by either enlarging the four sites already identified or by developing additional'nearby sites
along the canals or adjacent to Mi.lner Reservoir. Article 414
requires CC to develop and maintain 23.5 acres of riparian
wetland habitat to replace riparian wetlands and upland habitats
lost to project development.
N. Socio-econosio Considerations
The operation of the 85-year-old Milner Dam is essential for
the diversion of Snake River flows to the three gravity canals
that provide water to irritate approximately 440,000 acres of
agricultural land in mouth-central Idaho. 28 11 Milner Dam were
to fail during the yearly irrigation season, from April 1 through
October 31, area farms that rely an the continuous delivery of
water from the three canals would experience a major crop
failure, because they would not be able to develop alternative
irrigation systems in time to save their cultivated acreage.
Based on 1982 data collected by the Census of Agriculture,
irrigated and harvested cropland in Twin Pall, and Jerome
Counties in Idaho produced agricultural sales of $270 per acre.
Thus, the loss of irrigation water for 440,000 acres would result
in 5 1118,800,000 revenue loss for the area's fare sector. Food
processing establishments in south central Idaho, such as
Universal Frozen Feeds, Ore-Ida Fonda, and Amalgamated Sugar
Company, also would be adversely affected, since they would be
unlikely to locate alternative e000mair, sources of potatoes,
beans, and sugar boats. Consequently, these companies would
decrease their production and local employment. Moreover,
employment cutbacks by the area's rcts and food processing
establishments would cause subsequent reductions in spending at
area retail trade and service establishments, with a commensurate
decline in their sales, employment, and profit,.
I. lfliitewater for Boaters
1. Flows
28
Personal communication, Dale Turnipseed, IOFO, Jerome.
Idaho, November 28, 1933.
29 -
Twin Falls Canal Comp"y and North Side Canal Company. Ltd.,
Response to OtIS. March 30. 1938,
Proje.t ho. 2899-003 -
In the the 1.6-mile-long reach of the Snake River immediately
h.rlow Milner Osi, expert whitewater boaters run continuous Class
V rapids during high flows that occur in early spring and late
tall, In 1986, about ZOO visitor days of whitewster boating
occurred in the Milner reach. Much of this use occur. In April
and May when the weather is relatively warm and spring runoff is
at its peek. The vest majority of boating use consists of
kayaking; however, ease rafting does occur. Boaters typically
put in at a bridge Located 0.5 miles downstream of Milner Dam and
take Out either 1.1 miles below the bridge where the Class V
rapids end, or continue 7.0 shea downstream to a take-out point
above Star Fell,. Most boaters, however, choose to take out at
the first location, since the stretch of river below this point
is relatively eel,, with only a few widely-spaced rapids.
Since the Milner reach has only become known to whitewater
boaters within the past few year's, the minimum flaw needed to
maintain the unique Class V experience has not been firmly
established, although boater, generally prefer flows between
5.000 and 15,000 cIa. According to the BLM, at flows below 7,500
cfs, the reach is not runnable by rafts, but can be successfully
run at flows of 3,000 eta, or perhaps below, in a kayak. 30 The
Class V experience is apparently completely changed at flows
below 3,000 of,, because many rocks are exposed, creating a
whitewater run that can be negotiated only by kayskers skilled at
technical maneuvering. 31
Because of the short length of the Milner reach, the
whttewater experience found at certain flows at the Milner
Project can be found is greater amounts on other sections of the
Snake River and other Idaho rivers. For instance, the North Fork
of the Payette River, near Boise, Idaho, provides several *ilea
of continuous Class V rapids. in addition, the 14-mile Murtaragh
reach of the Snake River, between Star Falls and Twin Falls
Reservoir, provides a day-long Class TV-to-V whiteuster run which
has been compared favorably to the Colorado River. The Milner
reach dose not become a unique whitewater resource until very
high flows occur (generally 10,009 eta or above. The large
volume of water at these high flows, concentrated in the narrow
30
Personal communication, Jeff' Jarvis, Outdoor Recreation
Planner, RLM, Boise, Idaho, December 1, 1999; letter from
Todd Graetf, Director, Idaho Department of Parka and
Recreation, Boise, Idaho, October 10. 1985
31
Letter from Delmar U. Vail, State Director, ZL'1. Boise,
Idaho, January 20, 1987; personal ocemunication. Jeff
Jarvis, Outdoor Recreation Planner, BLM, Boise, Idaho,
December 1, 1988.
Project No. 2899-003 -1.9- Project No. 2899-003
gorge below Milner Dam, creates clans 'i waves that are (cfs) of occurrence per year of occurrence per YC&
internationally known among expert kayakere.
The 051$ recommended that bypass flows between 6,000 and
15,000 cfs, when available, be released on as many as 10 weekend
days during May and June for whitews.ter boaters. 32 Such flows
would provide opportunities for expert ksyakere to run the 1.5-
mile-long Class V rapids below Milner Dam. Based on comments
received on the DEOS from the IONS and CC, and information
gathered by the staff during • project site visit and public
meetings held in August 1988, we agree that providing th*e flows
at times when such flows are not made available by normal
regulation of the storage and release patterns governing flows at
Milner Dam would not be feasible.
Between April and October all water at Milner Dam
appropriated for use by CC is diverted for irrigation. Providing
flows between 6,000 and 15,000 cfs in May and June would require
the entire irrigation system for the North Side Canal Company and
Twin Tails Canal Company to be readjusted after each flow
release. This would adversely affect water delivery to crops in
the area. however, when flows exceed syet.em requirements by the
magnitude that would allow customary boating use below Milner
Pan. such flows could be maintained when available to allow
boaters to continue using this unique resource.
Table I below shows the occurrence of various whjtewater
flows both with and without project operation based on IDWR 56-
year flew record for the Milner reach. Assuming that the minimum
flew needed to boat the Milner reach is approximately 2,000 cfe,
whit,water boating opportunities at Milner occur approximately 96
days per year during the boating season. However, project
operation would reduce theme opportunities by 60 percent, leaving
approximately 38 days a year for whitewster boating.
Table 1. Average percent of Occurrence of Flows Below
Milner Dam for March, April. May, June, October, and
November, with average number of days at flow or
greater.
With With
project project
Flow 6-month Number 6-month project number
at let percentage of days percentage of days
32
See Section 4.5,1,2 of the 0315.
15,000 2.9 5.3 0.3 0.9
24,001 4.7 8.6 0.8 0.9
13,000 5.2 913 1.3 2.4
12,000 6.5 1119 1.9 3.5
11,000 8.4 15.4 319 5.3
10,000 9.5 17.4 4.7 8.6
9,000 10.8 29.4 5.1 9.3
8,000 12.9 23.6 6.5 11.9
7,000 17.0 31.7 8.4 16.4
61000 21.0 38.4 9.5 17.4
5,000 24.0 43.9 10.6 19.4
4,000 33.6 61.5 12.9 23.8
3,000 38.4 70.3 17.0 31.1
3,000 62.9 96.6 21.0 38.4
Although -project operation would have an adverse effect on
the total continuum of whitewater boating opportunities offered
at Milner, from low flow technical kayaking to high flow Class V
boating, it is important to note the impacts that project
operation would have on the unique high flows (10,000 cfs and
above). Flows of 10,000 ofa and above occur on the average about
17.4 days. With project operation, the occurrence of these flows
would be reduced by almost halt (49 percent), leaving shout 8.6
days for boating at high flows. This represents a loss to
boaters of approximately eight days (8.8 days).
Sisoft those rare high flows are what make the Milner reach
important to whitewater boaters, these flows should be preserved.
This could be accomplished by requiring CC to- stop operating the
project on eight dye when flows at 10,000 cf's or above are
available. To ensure that these flows are available
when boaters use the reach, they should be released during April
and May for eight hours during daylight hours. Flows below
10,000 sf's, however, would be reduced during project operation.
To help mitigate theme impacts, when flow conditions available
make it impossible for CC to meet their obligation of providing
eight days of flow, of 10,000 cfs or more, they should release
flows between 4,000 and 10,000 cia until their obligation is set.
This would reduce project impacts on aid-range flows and ensure
that whitewater flows would be available during years when high
flows do not occur. -
Article 415 requires CC, upon starting project operation,
and in consultation with the appropriate agencies and whiteweter
boaters, to atop operating the project for eight hours on eight
du-, in April and May when flows of 10,000 cf's or above occur.
Project No. 2899-003 -21-.
Article 415 also requires CC to release flows between 4.000 and
10,000 ers, when available, to meet its eight-day obligation when
eight days of flows of 10,000 cfa or above do not occur during
April and May.
Ceasing project Operation at the shove-mentioned times would
result in a yearly loss to irrigators of $9,400 in revenues
generated by the project. To determine whether a better
arrangement of flow could be provided to more closely match
whitewater beater needs and to reduce the impact on project
generation, Article 418 requires CC to conduct a study in
consultation with the Idaho Whitewster Association 11A), the
National Park Service (NPS), ELM, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
(ER), IDWR, and the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
(IEPR). Since boaters may not spend an entire day an the river.
it is possible that higher whitewater flows could be maintained
in the bypassed reach for less than eight hours according to
boaters needs an long as cc meet their obligation for providing
the equivalent of eight eight-hour days of project shutdown at
flows of 10,000 ofm or above.
To protect downstream recreationists frQm sudden increases
in water level and streamfiew, water levels in the project
bypassed reach should not increase by more than one foot per hour
when providing releases for whitewster boating. In addition, a
warning system Bust be implemented in order to alert
recreationiata of hazardous situation created by increases in
flow. A rasping rate and a warning system would allow fishermen
and other recreationiste below the dam to have enough time to
leave the area before water levels and velocities become unsafe.
Article 410 requires CC to tile for Commission approval a plan
for implementing ramping rates that would ensure the protection
of fish resources and downstream recreationists. Article 416
requires CC to file a plan for Commission approval to warn
recreationists of increases in water level and streasfiow
downstream of the dam.
2. Communication Network for khitewater Boaters
In their March 30, 1988 response to the DEIS, CC proposed to
develop a communication network that would quickly inform
recreationists of anticipated flaw conditions below Milner Des.
Under existing conditions, high flows occur rarely and are
unpredictable for boaters. A communication network would
partially aitigate for the lees of whiteweter boating days caused
by project operation by giving boaters more opportunity to plan
beating trips to coincide with desirable flows. Article 418
requires CC, after consultation with ER, IDWR, IPPII. ELM, tPS,
and IWA, to file for Commission approval * plan to provide a
communication network to infers whitewater noatera of availab_e
wbjtewat.er flow*.
Project No, 2899-003 -22.-
J.Fishing A=Rss to the Bypassed Reach
We believe that CC should study the feasibility of stocking
the project bypassed reach with trout to provide new
opportunities for fishing at the project site. A program to
inform the public of fishing opportunities at the project site
would be needed amos presently the Milner reach receives minimal
fishing use. Also, access to be provided at the powerhouse and
at the bridge below Milner Des could attract additional fishing
use to the project bypassed reach. To ensure that anglers are
adequately informed of fishing opportunities in the bypassed
reach, Article 408 requires CC to file for Commission approval a
plan that includes notification of anglers of fishing
opportunities.
K.Recreation Facilities
CC initially proposed to construct the following recreational
facilities: (I) a parking area to accommodate 10 vehicles at the
powerhouse; (2) kaysker access at the powerhouse; and (3) a boat
dock near the existing boat dock at the ELM's Bicentennial Site
on Milner Reservoir. In their March 30 1 1988 tiling, however, CC
proposed for consideration additional facilities. These include:
(1) an interpretive center with associated picnic facilities at
qr near Milner Dam, or an alternate location; (2) an additional
water ski dock or docks in Milner Reservoir near Milner Dam; (3)
further development of public facilities at the BLN Wildlife
Habitat Management area; or (4) other better suited public
facilities selected am a result of the consultation process.
Since the construction of the project would provide an
opportunity to enhance recreation near Milner Dee, some
additional facilities should be provided to allow access for
uhitewatar boaters and fishermen. Other facilities mentioned
above, however, may not be needed at this time.
Article 419 requires CC to file for Commission approval a
recreation plan prepared in consultation with the 21)PR, ELM. WPS,
and TWA, that include*. but is net limited to: (1) provisions
for a kayaksr put-in area at the bridge below Milner East and a
take-out area below the powerhouse with parking facilities; (2)
tailuater fishing facilities; (3) design drawings of the proposed
facilities; (4) a construction schedule for the facilities; (5) a
plan for monitoring recreational use in the project area to
determine if additional recreational facilities will be needed in
the future; and (6) documentation of agency consultation.
Article 419 also requires that CC, in designing theme facilities,
consider providing the whitewater take-out area below the final
Class V rapid below the powerhouse area and away from tailwater
Project ho. 28q-003 23-
fishing facilities. This would avoid boater interference with
fishermen and allow boaters to run an additional Class V rapid.
L.Visual Resource Mitigation
Milner Dan and its associated proposed Facilities are
visible to visitors to the dam site interpretive area as well as
from water users on the river and reservoir. The proposed dam
and canal modifications would blend with the existing landscape.
The power genCrating facilities would be located in an area
out of view of Milner Dan and in a visually natural setting
within the canyon. The naturalness of the canyonw&lla is a
great asset that should be maintained throughout the installation
and operation at the proposed project. The proposed access road
to the powerhouse site would cross steep canyon side siopea and
its construction would entail earth and rock cuts and fills that
would create a linear element in the natural appearing landscape.
The proposed penstock would cross over the canyon rim and drop
nearly vertical to the powerhouse at the river's edge. This
large pipe, with its smooth surfaces, would reflect light and
Contrast in color, texture, and line, with the existing natural
appearing landscape. The proposed powerhouse, substation,
transmission line, gantry crane, and tailrace would also contrast
with the natural appearing landscape because of their geometric
fares, In particular, the transmission line froa the powerhouse
to the forebay would create a linear element contrasting with the
canyon walls.
CC should study the feasibility of placing the transmission
line either underground or in a conduit attached to the penstock
from the powerhouse to the forebay area. Therefore, to ensure
that the propoaed.faclliti.s are designed to minimise visual
impacts, Article 420 requires CC to submit final construction
plans and specifications prior to the commencement of any
project-related land-disturbing activities.
M.Cultural Resources
Three historic sites listed or considered eligible for
Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places are located
within or near the impact areas of the project. The listed site
Is Milner Dam. The eligible sites are the South Side Main Canal
and Milner Tounsite. Six archeological sites have also been
identified in the project vicinity. Sawed on a review of the
archeological report for the project, and a site visit to the
project area, the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer
(INFO) has stated that the sites either are not eligible for
inclusion in the National Register or lie outside the area of
Project No- 2838-OCI -24-
potential impacts. 33 Project construction and rehabilitation
of the Dan would require modifications to the dam and the canal.
No construction or rehabilitat3on woe,, would occur in the area of
the Townaite.
CC has filed a cultural resources manage-sent plan, prepared
in cooperation with the SHPO, to mitigate the project's effects
on the dam and the canal and to ensure that the townsite would
not be affected by comatructiori or rehabilitation work. The plan
proposes to document in photographs, drawings, and in a report,
according to the standards of the Historic American Engineering
Record (HAIR), the portions of the den and the canal that would
be altered by the project. The plan proposes to fence portions
of the towneite and to prohibit construction activities in the
vicinity of the touristic to ensure that no Impacts to this site
would occur. 34
The SIIPO reviewed the plan and stated the following; (1) the
plan minimizes impacts to the dam and the canal and ensures that
the townaite would not be impacted; (2) rehabilitation work would
not affect the original historical fabric of the dam; (3) this
work would not significantly effect the appearance of the dat,;
and 14) the plan satisfies the historic preservation requirements
for consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic
Preeervatjori, as required by the National historic Preservation
Act. 35
The U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) also reviewed
the cultural resources management plan and the cultural r.souroes
documentation contained in the application for license, and
generally concurs with the plan and the findings of the SBPO.
Interior recommend* certain revisions to the plan and the
cultural resources documentation to ensure that the plan is
implemented in a satisfactory manner and, that the documentation
is complete. Specifically, Interior recommends these actions:
33
Letters from Dr. Thomas Green, State Archeologist, Idaho
State historical Society, Boise, Idaho, May 17, 1984; and
John A. Rosholt, Attorney for Twin Falls Canal Company and
North Side canal Company. Ltd., Nelson, Rosholt, Robertson.
Tolman & Tucker, Twir, Falls, Idaho, February 11, 1986.
34
Letter from John A. Roahclt, Attorney for Twin Falls Canal
Company and North Side Canal Company, Ltd., Nelson, Rcisholt,
Robertson. Tolman & Tucker, Twin Falls, Idaho, February 11,
1986.
35
Letter from Dr. Merle W. wells, State Historic Preservation
Officer, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise, Idaho,
February 4, 1986.
Project. No. 2899-003 -25-
(1) completing documentation of the dam canal, and townsite in
accordance with National Register eligibility criteria before
determining the specific HAIR documentation or avoidance
procedures that should be implemented., to ensure that
documentation and procedures are directed at the significant
hisioricsl attributes of these sites; 12) surveying the tcwnsite
to precisely determine the boundaries of the site, to ensure that
the site is not impacted; 13) avoiding the tree of fencing at the
tewnalte so as not to draw the attention of artifact. collectors
or vandals -. and (4) providing further documentation on one
archeological site (10-TF-841) to clearly establish that the site
is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register. 36
To ensure that the darn, canal, and towneits are documented
and protected in an adequate manner and that the cultural
resources documentation of site 10-TF-461 is complete. CC should
consult with the SIiPO, and also the RAKE in the case of the dam
and canal, to determine the specific procedures that should be
Implemented, and should implement the plan with Interior's
recommended revisions before beginning land-disturbing or land-
clearing activities that would impact these sites. The
doouirintatiorr should be filed in a report or in separate reports,
if the documentation or avoidance procedures are undertaken at
different times, and filed with the Commission for approval. The
reports must contain a letter from the SHPo accepting the
documentation and procedures for avoiding impacts. In the case
of the dam and the canal, letters from the RAKE accepting the
documentation must also be included. No rehabilitation work or
other construction work at the darn or canal or within the
vicinity of the townaite and the archeological site may commence
until CC are notified by the Commission that the filing has been
approved. Article 421 requires implementation of the revised plan.
The project has the potential to impact archeological and
historic site, not previously identified at the project. Buried
sites may be encountered during construction. Also, project
facilities may be relocated or added to the project at some
future date in areas not previously inventoried for sites. Any
such archeological or historic sites should be afforded
protection in accordance with the National Historic Preservation
Act. Article 422 requires the Implementation of cultural
resources protection measures to avoid or minimize impacts to any
such sates that may be impacted by the project. Article 421
36
Letters from Bruce Blanchard, Director, Environmental
Review, Department of the Interior, lCsshingtcrr, D.C..
December 17, 1985; and Helene Dunbar, Acting Chief,
Interagency Archeological Services. National Park Service,
San Francisco, California, February 4, 1986.
Project No. 2899-003 -26-
requires CC to finalize and implement its cultural resources
management plan in a manner acceptable to the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation.
N. Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts of the four proposed projects, including
the Milner Project No. 2899, will be fully assessed in the
Supplement and FEIS to take into consideration any changes thet
occur between the P815 and the FRIS in configuration, operation,
and mitigative measures associated with the other three projects.
Standard ArtiOle8 15 and 17 of the license 37 reserve sufficient
authority for the Commission to order reasonable modifications of
the project structures and operations to take into account
recommendations made in accordance with the NEPA process.
IV.Recommendations of Federal and State Fish and Wildlife
Agennie.
Section 10(j) of the PP?., as amended by the Electric
Consumers Protection Act of 1886 (ECPA), Pub. L. No. 99-495,
requires the Commission to include license conditions, based or,
recommendations of federal and state fish and wildlife agencies,
for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and
wildlife. The concerns raised by the federal and state fish and
wildlife agencies have been fully addressed in the 081$. and the
conditions contained in this license are consistent with the
recommendation, made by these agencies.
V.Comprehensive Plans
Section 10laH2)(A) of the FPA, as amended by ECPA, requires
the Commission to.00nsider the extent to which a project is
consistent with federal or state comprehensive plans (chars they
ernst) for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or
waterway, affected by the project. The Commission's interpreta-
tion of 'coaprehensive plan" under Section 10(a)(2)(A) 38 was
revised or, rehearing by order issued April 27, 1988. 39 On
rehearing, the Commission instructed the Director, Office of
Hydropower Licensing, to request the state and federal agencies
to file plans they believe Seat the revised guidelines.
37
See Ordering Paragraph (DI hereof.
38
Order No. 483, 52 Fed. Ref. 39,905 (October 28, 1987), 111
FERC Stats. 8 Pegs. 30,773 (1987).
39
Order No. 481-A, 43 FEEC 61,120 (April 27, 1888).
Project No. 2899-003 -27-
The Commission reviewed five plans that address various
sapecta of waterwe' management in relation to the proposed
project. 40 With one exception, the propoeed project, as
conditioned herein, in consistent with those plans.
The Idaho State Water Plan ISWP) is a Section 10(e)(2)iM
comprehensive plan. in its September 25, 1986 motion to
intervene in this proceeding, IDWR indcated that the ISWF
specifies that the use of water by hydroelectric projects suet be
subordinated to future upstream depict jonary uses and requested
that such e provision be included in any licence issued for
Project No, 2899. lOWE did not, however, provide any information
regarding the timing and extent of those future depletiOnary uses
or .how such uses would affect the operation of Project No. 2899.
As we explained in Horseshoe Bend Hydroelectric Company, 41
in determining whether, and under whet conditions, a license
should issue, we are required by the comprehensive planning
provision of Section tOt.$)(fl of the PPA, 18 U.S.C.
803a)1). to consider and balance all aspects of the public
interest, including the need to protect environmental and
irrigation interests and the need for the power to be produced by
the project. In so doing, we prescribe oonditions that we
believe will provide the appropriate level of energy generation
and protection for the environment and irrigation and will not
issue a license If the conditions we deem necessary to protect
environmental and other resources would render a project
financially infeasible.
Inclusion in the license of the unsupported open-ended water
subordination clause requested by IVWR would in essence vest in
ICNB, rather than the Comais,Jon, ultimate control over the
operation and continued viability of the project. In other
words, the subordination claw,., which would reserve to IONS the
right to permit unlimited diversion upstx'eaa of the project,
could nullify the balance struck by us under the comprehensive
planning provisions of Section lO(s)(l) of the FFA in issuing the
license. Consequently, inclusion of theopen-ended water
subordination clause in the license as requested by lOWE would
interfere with the exercise of our comprehensive planning
40
Idaho Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1983,
lOPE; Idaho State Water Plan, 1986, I0'R; Idaho Fisheries
Management Plan, 1986, EDFG; and Northwest Conservation and
Electric Power Plan, 1986; and Columbia River Basin Fish and
Wildlife Program, 1987,
41
42 F!RC 61,072 C1988), appeal peod.ng sub floe. Idaho
Power Company v. FE1C, No. 82-1078 (D.C. Cir. filed
Feb. 3. 19861.
Proj* N. 2899-003 -28-
responsibilities under Section 101a)l) of the FT'S and thus would
be inconsistent with the scheme of regulation established by the
EPA, which vents In the Commission the exclusive authority to
determine whether, and under what conditions, a license should
issue. 42
In light of the above, we will not add the requested open-
ended subordination clause to the license for Project No. 2899.
However, as we explained in Horseshoe Bend, should lOWE in the
future determine that it would be desirable for CC to reduce
their use of water for generation to secomodate a specific Future
upstream water use, lONE can petition the Commission to have us
exercise our reserved authority under Standard Article 12 of the
license to require Such a reduction. We will provide CC with
notice of the request and an opportunity to respond and will act
on the request after considering all supporting dccuaents and information submitted by lOWE and CC.
The proposed project is otherwise consistent with the 18W?.
The ISWP provide, for a acre minimum flow below Miner Dan. The
license as conditioned herein is consistent with the zero minimum
flow provision of the ZSWP, mince the license would not require
that minimum flows be provided below Miner Dam. instead, it
requires CC to provide any additional water needed to meet the
enviroosentally-desirable target flows by leasing water that is
in excess of irrigation requirements from the Water Bank, but only if available, and in accordance with the rules of the Water
Bank operation.
The Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
Program), developed by the Northwest Power Planning Council
(Council) to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife
resources associated-with the development and operation of
hydroelectric projects within the Columbia River Ruin is a
Section 10a)(2)(A) comprehensive plan. 43 Responsible federal
agencies are required to provide equitable treatment, for fish and
wildlife resources, consistent with the other purposes for which
hydropower Is developed and to take into account to the fullest
extent practicable the Program.
The Program directs agencies to consult with federal and
state fish and wildlife agencies, appropriate Indian Tribes, and
theCouncil during the study, design, construction, and operation
of any hydroelectric development in the Basin. At the time the
application for Project No. 2989 was filed, the Commission's
42
See First lows Hydro-Electric, Coop. v, FPC, 328 V.S.
152 (1846).
43
See 43 P230 61,120 (1988).
Project No. 2899-003 -29-
regulations required applicants to initiate profiling
consultation with the appropriate federal and State fish and wildlife agencies and the Tribes and provided these groups with
pcstfilng opportunities to review and to ccmaent on the application. This consultation process has occurred,
The Program states that authorization of new hydroelectric projects should include conditions of development that would
mitigate the impacts of the project on fish end wildlife
resources. The relevant federal and State Fish and wildlife
agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. In
addition, this license provides for Citigfttive measures to
protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources and is therefore
consistent with Section 9200 of the Program. Further, Article
423 of this license reserves to the Commission the authority to
require future alterations in project structures and operation in
order to take into account to the fullest extent practicable the
applicable provisions of the Program
VI.Project Economics and Need for Power
Commission studies show that the proposed project, operating
under its proposed mitigation requirements, would produce
Approximately 144,300 Mtr'h of energy annually at a levelized cost
of about 61.5 sills/kWh. When compared to the leveliz.d cost of
alternative energy in the region of about 85 sills/kWh, the
levelized net annual benefits of the project power would be
approximately *3.4 aillion. CC's levelised revenues under the
terms of their power sales contract are expected to be shout
$452,000 annually, which would be a significant contribution to
their projected financing obligation for the Milner Dan
rehabilitation,
The project is financially feasible, because CC have
executed a contract for the sale of the project power which
obligates the power purchaser to pay the total costs plus two
mills/kWh for the project generation, to be escalated by 20
percent every five years.
As discussed in the attached S&DA, a need for power could
exist in the region any time from the early 1990s to late iPPOs,
and that the Milner Project could be useful in meeting a sash
part of that need for power.
VII.Summary of Findings
The design of this project is consistent with the
engineering standards governing dam safety. The project will be
safe it constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance ui(h
the requirements of this license. Analysis of related issues s
provided in the S&DA attached to this order.
Project No. 2899-003 -30--
As discussed previously and in the attached SLDA, the 200
cfs target flow required hr Article 407 would: (9) not
jeopardize the feasibility of the project development; (2)
provide flows below lilner Dam without sacrificing irrigation
water requirements; and (3) reduce CC's annual power revenues,
which will be used to help offset the cost of the Milner Dan
rehabilitation, by only $13,300 (less than four percent). Thus,
the requirement to lease water in excess of irrigation
requirements to meet mitigation flow requirements is reaeoneble,
because water is projected to be available for purchase from the
Water Bank at a reasonable price that would not eliminate the
economic benefits of the project or jeopardise CC's ability to
secure financing for the project. Additionally, the target flow
any be necessary for the maintenance of a marginal cold-water
fishery in the river reach below ('hiRer Des.
Based on our independent analysis, we conclude that the
Milner Project No. 2899 as conditioned herein would not conflict
with any planned or authorized development and would be best
adapted to ocaprehenaive development of the waterway for the
beneficial public uses specified in Sections 4(e) sad 101a(1) of
the FPA.
The Coseis*ior, orders:
(A)This license is issued to the Twin Falls Canal Company
and the North Side Canal Company, Ltd. (licensees), for a period
of 50 years, effective the first day of the month in which this
order is issued, to construct, operate, and maintain the Milner
Hydroelectric Project No. 2899. This license is subject to the
terms and conditions of the FPA, which is incorporated by
reference as part.of-this license, and subject to the regulations
the Commission issues under the provisions of the PPA.
(B)The project consists of:
(1) All lends, to the extent of the licensees' interests in
those lands, enclosed by the project boundary shown by Exhibit 0:
Exhibit 0- FEEC No. 2899- Showing
General Map 1 13
Project Boundary Map 2 14
Project Boundary Map S 15
Project Boundary Map 4 19
Project No. 2809-003 -31-
Project boundary (lap 5 37
121 ProJect works consisting of: ml the existing Milner
Osa, constructed with a trapezedei-shaped rackfill section at
elevation 4,138 feet, the north embankment with a crest length of
480 feet, the middle embankment with a crest length of 404 feet,
and the south embankment with a crest length of 462 feet.
proposed 15-foot-wi4e rockfill hems on the downstream slope of
the don, eleven 12-foot-high, 30-foot-wide radial gates proposed
for the southern island, and an ungeted emergency spillway on the
northern island; (h) the existing 1,100-acre reservoir with a
gross storage capacity of 26.000 more-feet at an elevation of
4,130.0 feet; (C) a canal control structure, consisting of six
manually-operated gates, 12-feet-wide by 15-feet-high, and one
hydraulically operated bascule gate, 24-fret-long by 11-feet-
high; (4) new etoplog slots, replacing the existing headworks;
(c) a 6,500-foot-long. earth and riprap-lined excavated rack
cansi, modified to increase the canal capacity from 3.200 eta to
7,000 ofs; (!) an existing bridge on the Twin Falls lain Canal,
raised to an elevation of 4,137.5 feet and lengthened by 60 feeL;
(t) a new concrete waetewmy, providing a water passageway through
the right canal embankment of the Twin Falls Main Canal, hiving a
39-foot-long, 10.5-foot-bigh, hydraulically operated bascule
gate; (h) a forebsy, having a maximum capacity of 4,000 ole; Li)
an intake structure at the and of the forebay, consisting of
steel traihrechs and a 14-foot-wide, 17-foot-high, cable-
operated, fixed-wheel gate; (j) a 17-foot-dieaeter, 385-foot-
long steel penstock; (kI an 89-foot-long, 55-foot-wide. 83-foot-
deep. .eaI-outdoor, reinforced concrete powerhouse, containing a
single generating unit with a rated capacity of 43.65 megewtta,
operating under a head of 151.6 feet; (1) a 170-foot-long
tailrace,; (a) a 2,300-foot-long access road (c) a 1.4-mile-
long, 138-kilovolt transmission line, tying into the existing
Milner substation; (a) $00 feet of river bottom excavation; and
4p1 appurtenant facilities.
The project works generally described above are more
specifically shown and described by those portions of Exhibits A
and F recommended for approval in the S&DA.
(3) All of the structures, fixtures, equipment, or
facilities used to operate or maintain the project and located
within the project boundary, all portable property that may be
employed in connection with the project and located within or
outside the project boundary, and all riparian or other rights
that are necessary or appropriate in the operation or maintenance
of the project.
(C) The Exhibit C described above and those Sections Of
Exhibits A and F recommended for approval in the 3813?. are
approved and made part of the license.
Project N. 2899-003 -32-
(D) This Licence is subject to the articles act forth in
Form L- (October 1975, entitled Tersa and Conditions of
License forUnconstructed Major Project Affecting Lands of the
United States, except Article 20, and the following additional
articles:
Article 201. The licensees shall pay the United States the
following annual charges, effective the first day of the
month in which this license is issued,
a( for the purpose of reimbursing the United States for
the coat of administration of Part I of the FFA, a reasonable
auouht, as determined in accordance with the provisions of the
Commission's regulations in effect from time to tise. The
authorized installed capacity for that purpose 1* 58,200
horsepower.
(h) Per the purpose of recompensing the United States for
the use, occupancy, and enjoyment of its lands, other than for
transmission line right-of-way, a reasonable amount, as
determined in accordance with the provisions of the Commission's
regulations in effect from time to time.
id For the purpose of recompensing the United States for
the use, occupancy, and enjoyment of its lands for transmission
line right-of-way, a reasonable amount, as determined in
accordance with the provisions of the Commission's regulations in
effect from time to time.
Article 202. Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the PPA, after
the first 20 years of operation of the project under license, a
specified reasonable- rate of return upon the net investment in
the project shall be used for determining surplus earning, of the
project for the establishment and maintenance of amortization
reserves. One-half of the project surplus earnings, if any,
accumulatedafter the first 20 years of operations under the
license, in excess of the specified rate of return per annum on
the net investment, shall be set aside in a project amortization
reserve account at the end of each fiscal year. To the extent
that there is a deficiency of project earnings below the
specified rate of return per annum for any fiscal year after the
first 20 years of operation under the License, the amount of that
deficiency shall be deducted from the amount of any surplus
earnings subsequently accumulated, until absorbed. One-half of
the remaining surplus earnings, it any, cumulatively computed,
shall be set aside in the project amortization reserve account.
Thegsounts established in the project amortization reserve
account ehll be maintained until further order of the
Commi ss ion.
N
Project ho. 2899..003
The annual specified reasonable rate of return shall be the
SUM of the annual weighted cost* of long-tern debt, preferred stock, and camaQi, equity, as defined below. The annual weighted
most for each component of the reasonable rate of return is the
product of its capital ratio and cost rate. The annual capital
ratio for each component of the rate of return shall be
calculated based on an average of 13 monthly balances of esounts
properly includable in the licensees' Long-tern debt and
proprietary capital accounts as listed in the Commission's
Uniform System of Accounts. The coat rates for long-tern debt
and preferred stock shall be their respective weighted average
Costa for the year, and the OOat of common equity shall be the
interest rate on 10-year government bonds (reported as the
Treasury Department's 10-year constant maturity series) computed
on the monthly average for the year in question plus four -
percentage points 1400 basis points).
Article 203. The licensees shall clear and keep clear to an adequate width all lands along open conduits and shall dispose
of all temporary structures, unused timber, brush, refuse, or
other material unnecessary for the purposes of the project which
result from maintenance, operation, or alteration of the project
work,. In addition, all trees along the periphery of project
reservoirs that may die during operations of the project shall be
removed. All clearing of lands and disposal of unnecessary
material shall be done with due diligence to the satisfaction of
the authorited representative of the Commission and in accordance
with appropriate federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations.
Article 301. The licensees shall begin construction of the project works within-two years from the issuance date of the
license and shall complete construction of the project within
four year, from the issuance date at the license.
Article 302. To ensure completion of construction of the
dam astety modifications during the 1189 construction season, the
licensees shall file a plan and schedule for the design and
construction of the dam safety modifications within 30 clays from
the issuance date of the license. The plan shell include
specific items for activities that are necessary before beginning
construction activities.
Article 303. Within 90 days after completion of
construction, the licenses,* shall file for the Commission's
approval, revised Exhibits A, F, and 0, to describe and show the
project am-built, including all facilities determined by the
Commission to be necessary and convenient for transmitting all of
the project power to the interconnected system.
Project ha. 2899-003 -34-
Article 304. Refer, the Start of construction, the
licensees shall re'.'iew and approve the design of contractor-
designed cofferdams and deep excavations and shall ensure that
construction of the cofferdams and deep excavations is consistent
with the approved design. At least 30 days before starting
construction of the cofferdam, the licensees Shall submit to tns
Commission's Regional Director and to the Director, Division of
Daze Safety and Inspections. one copy of the approved uoffez-dam
construction drawings and specifications and a copy of the
latter(s) of approval.
Article 308. The licensees shall retain a board of two or
more qualified, independent, engineering consultants to review
the design, specifications, and construction of the project for
safety and adequacy. The names and qualifications of the board
members shall be submitted for approval to the Director, Division
of Dam Safety. and Inspections, with a copy, to the Coamiaainm's
Regional Director. Among other things, the board shall assess
the following; the geology of the project site and surroundings,
the design, specifications, and construction of the reinforcement
beras, canal embankment., spillway, powerhouse, electrical and
mechanical equipment, and emergency power supply;
instrumentation; and construction procedures and progress.
Before each meeting, allowing sufficient time for review, the
licensees shall furnish to the board, with a copy to the Regional
Director and two copies to the Director, Division of Dam Safety
and Inspections, the following documentation showing details
and analyses of design and construction features to be discussed:
significant events in design and construction that have occurred zinc, the last board of consultants' meeting; drawings; questions
o be asked; a list of items for discussion; an agenda; and a
statement ahowingthe specific level of review to be performed by
the board. Within 30 day, after each board of consultants
seating, the licensees shall submit to the Commission copies of
the board's report, including the board's recommendation, and the
licensee's plans for addressing the recommendations.
Article 306. At least 60 days before the start of
construction of each major component of the project, such as the
dam rehabilitation, spillway reconstruction, all necessary
transmission facilities, powerhouse, and water conveyance
structures, the licensees shall submit for that component, one
COPY to the Commission's Regional Director and two copies to the
Director, Division of Cast Safety and Inspections, of the final
deeign report, contract drawings and specifications. The
Director, Division of Dan Safety and Inspections, may require
Changes in the plans and specifications to assure a safe and
adequate project.
Article 307. The lioeneaes shall develop procedures for the
repair of the esrt.htill sections of Hurter Dam in the event there
Prcjact No. 289-003 -3-
is •)C55Sjve leakage. The licensees shall include procedures for
the fulloirg items: inspection; reservoir drawdewn; cofferias
construction; earth embankment repair methods; and other
pertinent items. The repair procedure shall be reviewed and
approved by the board of consultants required in Article 308.
Within one year of issuance of the license, the licensees shall
submit one copy to the Commission's Regional Director and two
copies to the Director, Division of Dam Safety and Inspections,
of a report detailing the procedures. The Director, Division of
Dam Safety and inspections, say require changes in the procedures
to assure a safe and adequate project.
Article 308. Within one year of issuance of this license,
the licensees shall submit a report evaluating the feasibility of
constructing a power plant at Milner Dam to utilise the power
potential of the flows released to the bypass reach of the river
below the dam and therefore not usable by the proposed power
plant to be located approximately 1.6 miles downstream. If the
feasibility study shows that developing a power plant at the dam
would be econdically beneficial, the licensees shall submit a
Schedule and plans for developing a power plant at the dam in
accordance with Article 301.
Article, 401. The licensees shall acquire at the earliest
possible date each year, by rental on an annual basis from the
Upper Snake Water Supply Bank, stored water, to the extent that
it is available in emcees of irritation demand, to be released as
necessary to meet the target flows specified in Article 407, The
licensee* may, and are encouraged to, formulate an agreement with
any and all of the licensees for projects which, in the future,
are licensed to be constructed and operated an the Snake River
below American Falls-Dma, and which have similar requirements to
meet recommended flows from ahort-t.rm water acquisition.
Article 402, The licensees, after consultation with the
Soil Conservation Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and at least 90 days before
beginning any project-related land-clearing, land-disturbing, or
spoil-producing activities, except for activities specifically
required for safety modifications to Milner Dam, shell prepare
and file for Commission approval a plan to control erosion, slope
stability, and to minimize the quantity of sediment resulting
from project construction and operation, The Commission reserves
the authority to require changes to the plan.
The plan shall be based on actual-site geological, soil, and
groundwater conditions and final project design, and shell
include the following; (1) a description at the actual-site
conditions; (2) oofferdams, perimeter control measures, measures
to divert runoff around disturbed land surfaces and to collect
and filter runoff, provisions for energy dissipation riprap,
Pro.i.ot No. 2898-003 -36-
measures to stabilize rook cuts, and permanent drainage for
access roads; (I) detailed descriptions, funutioos), design
drawings, and specific topographic locations of all control
aesburee; (4) specific details of the rswagetat.ion plan,
inciuding species composition, planting or seeding rates,
fertilizer, and mulch )5( provision; to dispose of spoil
materials above the high water mark and store fuels and chemicals
used in construction away from the river and reservoir; (6) a
specific implementation schedule and details of monitoring and
maintenance programs for proiact construction and Operation; and
e schedule for Periodic review of the plan and for making any
necessary revisions to the plan.
The licensees shall include in the filing documentation of
annult.atian with the agencies, copies of agency comments or
recommendations on the plan, and specific descriptions of bow all
of the agency comments and recommendations are accommodated by
the plan. The licensees shall allow a reasonable time frame, in
no case lea. than 30 days, for agencies to comment and make
recommendations prier to filing the plan,
No project-related land-disturbing, Land-clearing, or spoil-
producing activities shall begin until the licensees are notified
that the plan complies with the requirements of this article,
except for activities specifically required for safety
modifications to Milner Dais. The licensee, shall submit with the
plans and specifications required by Article 306 for safety
modifications to Milner dai, measures to minimize erosion,
sedimentation, and control slop, stability.
Article 403. The ltcana.ea, after consultation with the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Idaho
Department of Fish and flame, and at least 90 days before
commencing any project related land-clearing, land-disturbing, or
spoil-producing activities within the Snake River and Miner
reservoir, shell Lila for Commission approval, it monitoring plan
to conduct tests for heavy metals and other toxic substances in
any sediments or other unconsolidated deposits in the Snake River
and in JUIcer reservoir that would be removed or otherwise
disturbed by dredging, constructing, or operating project
facilities and to safely remove and dispose of any sediment and
unconsolidated deposits containing heavy metals or toxic
substances. The plan also should include an implementation
schedule for the monitoring and comments of the consulted
agencjee on the monitoring plan and implementation schedule. The
filing shell include documentation of agency consultation and any
agency comments and recommendations on the plan. The Commission
reserves the right to require changes to the plan. The licensees
Shull nor. commence any land-clearing or land-disturbing
Project No. 2599-003 -37-
activities within the Snake River and Milner reservoir until the Commission approves the plan.
Article 404. The licensees, after consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Idaho Department of )ealth
and Welfare, the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service, and the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game, and at least 90 days before
beginning project operation, shall file for Commission approval,
a water quality monitoring plan that would characterize levels of
dissolved oxygen 0) and water temperature in the bypassed ta.uh from immediately below Milner dam to immediately above the powerhouse discharge during project operation. The plan shall
describe in detail the methods and shall identify the time periods and locations for collecting water temperature and DO
data, and shall include a schedule for providing the data to the
consulted agencies and to the Commission. Further, the plan shall include a provision to determine if ester temperature and
DO necessary for the survival of a. trout fishery within the bypassed reach are being maintained by the target flow required by Article 40?. The filing shall include documentation of agency
consultation and agency comments on the plan. The Commission
reserves the right to require changes to the plan. The licensee, shall not begin project operation until the Commission approves the plan.
Article 408. The licensees, after consultation with the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, shall develop, implement, and
finance a wareweter fish stocking and habitat enhancement plan
consistent with the Idaho Fisheries Management Plan 1386-1990 for Milner reservoir. The plan shall include the specie, of
warawater flab, numbers end sizes to be stocked, a description of specific anhanceinent. structures, and a asp showing the proposed
locations of these structures in the reservoir. The licensees
shell tile the plan with the Commission for approval at least 90
days before beginning commercial operation. The licensees shall give the Idaho Department of Fish and Gas, at least 30 days to comment on the stocking and habitat enhancement program plan.
The filing shall include documentation of agency consultation and
any agency comments and recommendations. The Commission reserves
the right to require modifications to the plan. The licensees
shall not commence commercial operation until the Commission
approves the plan.
Article 406. The licensees, after OOSCultatjOO with the
Idaho Department of Fish and Gas,, shall develop s acrLitoring
plan to determine it the habitat enhancement structures placed in
Milner reservoir have remained in place and are functioning as
desired and to determine if additional warnwater fish need to be
stocked in Milner reservoir, required by Article 405, to meet the
Fisheries Management Pin goal. The licensees shall conduct the
monitoring plan for at least five years. The monitoring plan
Project 4o. 2899-003 -38-
shall include a schedule for filing the results of the monitoring
and the comments of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game on the
results and shall include recommendations for incorporating
additional enhancement measures or stocking additional wariaweLer
fish if needed. The licensees shall file the plan with the
Commission for approval at least 30 days before beginning
commercial operation. The filing shall include documentation of
agency consultation and any agency comments and recommendations.
The Commission reserves the right to require modifications to the
plan. The licensees shall not commence commercial operation
until the Commission approves the plan.
r
duringiticle 407. The Licensees shall discharge from Milner Dan
et flow of 200 cubic feet per second as measured at the
gage located in the bypass reach. The target flow way be
,arily reduced if required by operating emergencies beycod Y ntrol of the licenseesox' for short periods upon mutual
ent between the licensees and the Idaho Department of Fish
jf me. Further, the target flow may be reduced if necessary
any periods wher, sufficient water is riot available
h lease from the Upper Snake Water Supply Bank in
dance with Article 401, or from water surplus to irrigation
n
no
Article 408. The licensees, after consultation with the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, mhmll develop a plan to stock
trout in the 1.6-mile-long bypassed reach of the Snake River.
The plan must include the following: (1) stocking locstton)s)1
(21 the number, species, and .1*e of trout to be stocked each
year: (3) the estimated annual cost of implementing the program;
(4) a communication network to inform anglers of the stocking
dates and locatioDs;.and 45) the comments of the Idaho Department
of Fish and Omie on the program. The i.loamseea shall tile the
plan with the Commission for approval at least 90 days prior to
commencing commercial operation. The Commission reserves the
right to require modifications to the plan. The licensees shall
not commence commercial operation until the Commission approves
the plan.
Article 409. The licensees, after consultation with the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, shall file a study plan for
Commission approval, at least 90 days prior to commencing
commercial operations, to determine if the put-and-1row trout
fishery in the bypassed reach, required by Article 408, is
successful. The plan shall include previsions for filing annual
reports by December 31 of each year on the put-and-grow trout
stocking program. The annual report shall include information on
the growth, movement, and survival of the trout planted in the
bypassed reach, water temperature and DO data collected pursuant
to Article 404, and an evaluation of the effects of water
temperature and DO on the stacking program and the comments of
Project No. 2899-03
the Idaho Department of Fish and Game on the results. The
licensees shall give the Idaho Department of Flab and Game at
least 30 days to comment on the results of the stocking program
prior to filing the annual report. The licensees shall conduct
the monitoring program for at leant five years and file a final
cozsprmhenaiv, report on the success of the stocking program and
any recommendations for changing the stocking progras. Including
at a minimum stocking new locations or changing the stacking
rate. The Commission reserves the right to require modifications
to the trout program based on the monitoring results. The
licensees shall not begin commercial operation until the
Commission approves the plan.
If the results of the annual monitoring or after the five-
year study period show that changes to the stocking program are
needed, the licensees also shell tile for Commission approval a
schedule for Implementing the changes to the program along with
the ooaLtnts of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game on the
recommended changes. The Commission reserves the right to
require modifications to the recommendations for changing the
stocking program.
frtiole 410. The license,, shall limit the maximum rate of
change in river elevation (ramping rate) to one foot per hour or
lees for the protection of aquatic resources and downstream
reoz'.ationiata. Further, the licensees, after consultation with
the Idaho Department of Fish and flame sod the Idaho Department of
I Parks and Recreation, shell conduct a ramping rate study after
the project is operational. The study shall determine if the one
toot per hour rate of change in the Snake River's elevation
provides adequate protection for the aquatic resources in the
bypassed reach during project Startup and to protect downstream
recrestionists when increasing and decreasing flows. The
Ilicense** shall tile the r'eaulta of the study along with any
recommendations for changing the ramping rate for Commission
approval within one year after the project is operational.
Agency comments on the study and any proposed, changes to the
)ramping rate shall be included with the filing. The Commission
Iremerves the right to require modifications to the proposed
ramping rate.
Article 411. The licensees shall design and construct the
transmission line in accordance with guidelines set forth in
"Suggested Practices for Raptor Proteution on Power Lines--the -
State of the Art in 191." by Raptor Research Foundation, Inc.
The licensee, after consultation with the U.S. Fish and wildlife
Service, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the Bureau of
Land Management in adopting these guidelines shall develop and
implement a design that will provide adequate separation of
energized conductors, gz'oundwires and other natal hardware,
adequate insulation, and any ether measures necessary to protect
Project ho. 2599-003 -40-
raptors from electrocution hazards. within 90 days after
completion of construction of the transmission line, the licensees shall file a*-built drawirige of the transmission line
design with the Commission.
Article 412. The licensees, after consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Idaho Department of Fish and
Game, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Soil Conservation
Service, and at least 90 days prior to commencing any land-
disturbing, land-clearing, or spoil-producing activities not
specifically required for safety modifications to Milner Dam,
shall file for Commission approval a plan to revegetato all
disturbed areas with native plant species beneficial to wildlife,
The plan shall include at a Minimum! (1) a description of the
plant species to be used, an Indication of each species habitat
valueand food value, nd planting densities; (Z( planting
methods; (3) fertilization and irrigation requirements; (4) a
monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of the
planting*; (5) a description of procedures to be followed At
monitoring reveals that the revegetation is not successful; and
461 an implementation schedule that provides for the reveget6tiun
as soon as practicable after completion at a particular site and
the filing of periodic monitoring reports. Agency comments shall
be included on the filing. The Commission reserves the right to
require changes to the plan. The licensees shill not begin any
land-clearing or land-disturbing activities not specifically
required for safety modifications to Milner Dam until the plan is
approved by the Commission.
Article 413. The licensees, after consultationwith the
U.S. Fish end Wildlife Service, the Idaho Department of Fish and
Game, and the Bureau-of Land Management, and at least 90 days
before beginning any project-related land-clearing or land-
disturbing activities not specifically required for safety
modifications to Milner Dam, shall file for Commission approval a
plan for constructing, maintaining, and monitoring osprey nesting
platforms, Canada goose-nesting structures, and artificial
burrows for burrowing owls (wildlife enhancement features) in the
project area. The plan shall Include at a minimum: (1) the final
designs for the wildlife enhancement features: (2) the number and
location of the wildlife enhancement features; (3) a schedule for
providing the wildlife enhancement features; (4) and s program
for maintenance and monitoring. Agency comments on the adequacy
of the plan shall be included in the filing. The Commission
reserves the right to require changes to the plan. The Licensees
shall not commence any land-clearing or land-disturbing
activities not specifically required for safety modifications to
Milner Darn, until the plan is approved by the Commission.
Article 414. The licensees, after consuitatiun with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Idaho iepartment at fish and
Project No, 2899-003 _41-
Game, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Environmental
Protection Agency, and at least 90 days before beginning any
project related land-disturbing or land-clearing activities not
specifically required for safety modifications to Milner Dam,
shall (ii, for Commission approval a plan for developing at least
23.5 acres of riparian wetland habitat to mitigate for the Inca
of 6.8 acres of riparian wetlands and 26.6 acres of upland
habitat. The plan shall include, but shall not be limited to , (L) maps showing the location of all replacement habitat, site
boundaries, size of each cite, and physical and habitat features:
12) a description of planting sethods, fertilization and
irrigation raquireseota, and a planting schedule; (3) a
description of the soil and substrate conditionsat the
replacement sit.ee (4) a monitoring program that includes gods
and criteria for successful establishment of wetljj vegetation,
sampling procedures, and reporting requirements; (5) procedures
to implement if monitoring reveals that establishment of
vegetation is not successful; (6) an implementation schedule that
provides for habitat replaneasni as soon as practicable and 111
a description -of the program for the long-term ownership,
aansgmaent, and maintenance of the replacement habitat. Agency
comments shall be included in the filing. The Commission
reserves the right to require changes to the plan. The licensees
shall not commence any land-clearing or land-disturbing
activities not specifically required for safety modifications to
Milner Dam until the plan is approved by the Commission.
Article 415. The license,., for a total period of eight
days for eight daylight hours each day (64 daylight hours)
between April 2. and May 32, shell not operate the main
powerhouse, to be located 1.6 miles downstream of Milner dam,
when inflow to Milner reservoir, less irrigation withdrawals from
Miler Reservoir, is 10,000 cubic feet per second lots) or sore.
When projections of available flows indicate that the flows in
April and May will not reach 10,000 of., the licensees shall
shut down the main powerhouse for eight daylight hours per day
for up to eight days, when inflow to Milner reservoir, lees
irrigation withdrawals from Milner reservoir is between 4,000 and 10,000 cfs. The licensees do not have to shut down the projeot
in the April-Nay period if the flows do not exceed 4,000 etC in
the period. The timing of the 84-daylight-hour project shutdown
to meet the above obligation may be modified by the Commission, based on the results of the whitewater boating study required by
Article 418.
Article 316. The licensees, after consultation with the
Bureau of Land Management., the National Park Service, the Idaho
Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Idaho Whitevater
Association, and 90 days before starting project operation,
shall file for Commission approval, a plait to warn d.ownstrasm
reLreat)onlata of increases in flow downstream of the deir for
Project No. 2899-003 42
uhitewatet- boating. The plan, at a minimum shell include
provisions for a warning system e.g., lights, alarms, warning
signtt) to alert downstream recreationiats of increases in water
level and streasfiow. Documentation of agency consultation shall
be included in the filing. The Commission reserves the right to
require changes to the plan.
Article 417. The licensees, after consultation with the
Bureau of Acclamation. Bureau of (,and Management, the National
Park Servioe, the Idaho Department of Water Resources, the Idaho
Department of Perks and Recreation, and the Idaho Whitewater
Amaocistiott, and 90 days before starting project operation, shall
file for Commission approval, a plan for a communication network
to inform vhitewatet boaters of available ehitewater flows. The
plan shall include documentation of agency consultation. The
Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan.
Article 418. The licensees, after consultation with the
Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Bureau
of R.oLaaatlo, the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, the
Idaho Department of Water Resources, and the Idaho Whitewate:
Association, shall conduct a study to determine whether flows
required by Article 415 could be modified to more closely match
whitewater boater needs and reduce the affects of whitewater
releases on project .0000aioa. Within sir months from the
issuance date of this license, the liosneess shall file for
Commiasion approval a plan for conducting the whitewater boating
study. The licensees shall conduct the study as approved by the
Commission and, within 90 days before the start of project
operation, the licensee shall file with the Commission, results
of the study. Study results must include: 11) an analysis of
the range of whitewater flows necessary to maintain the Class V
whitewater experience preferred by boaters running the Milner
reach; (2) the time of del and week when boaters put in and take
out of the Milner reach; (3) the averts* number of runs boaters
make in a given day; (4) a prupoced schedule for releasing flows
for whitewater boating that describes the range at flows to be
provided, the duration of the flows, and time of day and week
thees, flows will be provided.; (5) a discussion of r.cotnaendstiona
provided by the consulted agencies and entities; and (61
documentation of consultation with the above-named entities. The
Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan.
Article 419. The licensees, after consultation with the
Bureau of Land Management, the hstiunel Park Service, the Idaho
Department of Park. and Recreation, and the Idaho Whitewater
Association, and 90 days before starting any project-related
land-clearing, land-disturbing, or spoil-producing activities
(except rehabilitation of Milner Dam), shall file for Comsisa ion
approval a recrestion plan that includes, but is not lirnit.d to:
Cl) provisions for a whit.ewater boater put-ill area at the bridge
Project No. 2899-003 -43-
below Milner Dan and a take-out area below the project powerhouse with parking facilities; 421 provisions for a tailwater fishing area below the powerhouse; (8) final design dr awing s chewing the type and location of the proposed facilities; (4) a construction schedule for proposed recreational facilities; (5) a plan for monitoring recreational use in the project area to determine the
for additional recreational facilitie s in the future; and (Si documentation of agency consultati on . In the plan, the licensees shall also consider the feasibility of UI providing the
whitewater take-out area below the final Class V rapid below the powerhouse area and (2) locating the take-cut area in a location
where it do.s not interfere with tailwtter fishing facilities.
The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan.
Article 420. The licensees, at least 90 days before the start of any land-clearing, land-disturbing, or spoil-producing
activities for each segment of the project, shall file for
Commission approval, either separately or in combination, the following plans to blend all project features and project related areas at lend -disturbance with the surrounding landscape;
1.d.etgiled site-grading and reveg,tatjon design plans for
each soil, greel, or rook borrow site, and apedi disposal site;
2.a design for eliminating the visual impact of the transmission line from the powerhouse to the forebay area;
S. detailed design drawings which dsacrsbe the planned
vegetation clearing the specific tower or pole locations and design, and the specifications for the materials to be used in each tramsaission line facility;
4,designs, alignments, profiles, onetructiozt limits,
Planned vegetation clearing, proposed surfacing, and the
construction specifications for all access roads, parking late,
construction isydowa areas, cansla, and surface or buried
penstock routes, including the required rights-of-way; and
5,detailed design drawings which describe the planned
architectural features, colors, surface textures, site grading,
and landscape plantings for each structure.
The licensee shall include with the tiling documentation of
consultation with Bureau of Land Management (21.11) and, copies of
BM coaments and recommendations. The Commission may require
changes to the plans. No land-clearing, land-disturbing, or
spoil-producing activities shall begin until the licensees are
notified that the above plans comply with the requirements of this article.
Project No, 289-003 -44-
Article 421. The liceneeca, after consultation with the
Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer ISHPOI, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (Council). and the Historic
American Engineering Record (RARE) of the Department of the
Interior, shall finalize and implement the cultural resources
management plan as filed by letter dated February Ii, 1985 1 and
shall include the revisions recommended by the National Park
Service by letter dated February 4, 1986. Within one year from
the date of this license, the licensees shall file for Commission
approval a report containing the RARE documentation of Miler Dam
end the South Side Canal, the procedures for avoiding impacts to
Miler Townaite, and the documentation of archeological site 10-
TF-461. The documentation and avoidance procedures at these
sites may be filed in separate reports as the items are
completed. The reports must contain letters from the SIIPO, the
Council, and in the case of the dam and the canal, also from the
HARP, accepting the documentation. No rehabilitation work or
land-disturbing or land-clearing work may begin at the historic
or archeological sites address" in the report until the
licensees are 'notified that the filing or filings have been
approved. The licensees ahall make funds available in a
reasonable amount for implementation of the plan. If the
licensees, the SHPO, the Council, and the HARP cannot agree on
the amount of money to be spent for implementation of the plan,
the Commission reserves the right to require the licensees to
conduct the necessary work at the licensees' own expense.
Article 422. The licensees, before starting any lend-
clearing or land-disturbing totivities within the project
boundaries, other than thóee specifically authorized, in this
license, shall consult with the Idaho State Historic Preservation
Officer )69P0), shall conduct a cultural resources survey of the
area that will be impacted, and shall file for Commission
approval a cultural resources management plan, prepared by a
qualified cultural resources specialist. If the licensees
discover any previously unidentified archeological or historic
sites during the course of construction or developing project
worksor other facilities at the project, the licensees shell
stop all land-clearing and lend-disturbing activities in the
vjcinjy of the sites, shall consult with the SHPO. and shell
file for Commission approval a new cultural resources management
plan, prepared by a qualified cultural resources specialist.
Either management plan shall include the following: lU a
description of each discovered site, indicating whether it I.
listed or eligible to be listed on the National Register of
Historic ?laues (2) a description of the potential effect on
esuli disco'tered site; (3) proposed sessures for avoiding or
mitigating effects; 441 documentation of the nature and extent of
consultation; (5) a schedule for mitigating effects and
conducting additional studies, and di a copy of a letter from
Project .';. 2899-003 -45-
the SlIPO accepting the plan. The Commission any require change,
tu the plan.
The licensees shall not begin land-clearing or Land-
disturbing activities, other then those specifically authorized
in this license, or resuee such activities in the vicinity of a
site discovered during construction, until informed by the
Commission that the requirements of this article have been
fulfilled.
Article 429. The Commission, upon its Own motion or upon
the recommendation of federal or state fish and wildlife agencies
or affected Indian Tribes, reserves the authority to order
alterations of project Structures and operations to take into
account to the fullest extent practicable at each stage of the decigion-ashing process the Columbia River Basin Fish and
Wildlife-Program developed and amended in accordance with the
Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act.
Article 424. (a) In accordanc, with the provisions of this
article, the licensees shall have the authority to grant
permission for certain types of use and occupancy of project
lands and waters and to convey certain interests in project lands
and waters for certain types of use and occupancy, without prior
Commission approval. The licensees may exercise the authority
only if the proposed use and occupancy is consistent with the
purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, recreational,
and other environmental values of the project. For those
purposes, the licensees also shall have continuing responsibility
to supervise and control the use and occupancies for which they
grants permission and to monitor the use of and to ensure
compliance with the covenants of the instrument of conveyance for
any interest, that they convey under this article. If a
permitted use and occupancy violate, any condition of this
article or any other condition imposed by the licensees for the
protection and enhancement of the project's scenic, recreational,
or other environmental values or if a covenant of a conveyance
made under the authority of this article is violated, the
licensees shall ta)a any lawful action necessary to correct the
violation. For a permitted use or occupancy, that action
includes, if necessary, cancelling the permission to use and
occupy the project lands and waters and requiring the removal of
any noncomplying stz-ucture, and facilities.
(h) The types of use and occupancy of project lands and
water for which the licensees may grant permission without prior
Commission approval are these: (1) landscape plantings; (2) non-
commercial pier's, landings, beat docks, or similar structures and
facilities that can acuommodate no more then 10 watercraft at a
time and where the facility is Intended, to serve single-Iaail>
dwellings; and (3) embankments, bulkheads, retaining walls, or
Project No. 2818-099 -46-
similar structures for erosion control to protect the existing
shoreline. To the extent feasible and desirable to protect and
enhance the project's scenic, recreational, and other
eriviz-onsentsl values, the licensees shall require multiple use
and occupancy of facilities for access to project lands or
waters. The licensees also shall ensure to the aatiefaotior, of
the Commission's authorized representative that the use and
occupancies for which they grant permission are maintained in
good repair and comply with applicable state and local health and
safety requirements. Before granting permission for construction
of bulkheads or retaining walls, the licensees shall do the
following: (1) inspect the site of the proposed construction,
(2) consider whether the planting of vegetation or the use of
riprap would be adequate to control erosion at the site, and (3)
determine that the proposed construction is needed and would not
change the basic contour of the reservoir shoreline. To
implement this paragraph (h), the licensees, among ether things,
may establish a program for issuing permits for the specified
types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters that may
be subject toth, payment of a rea,onable tee to cower the
licence..' costs of administering the permit program. The
Commission reserve. the right to require the licensees to tile a
description of their standards, guidelines and procedures for
implementing this paragraph (b) and to require modification of
those standards, guidelines, or procedures.
Ic) The licensees may convey easements or rights-of-way
across or leases of project lands for these purposes: (1)
replacement, expansion, realignment, or maintenance of bridges
and roads for which all necessary state and federal approvals
have been obtained; (2) storm drains and water main.; (3) sewer,
that do not discharge into project water.; (4) minor access
roads; (8) telephone, gas, and electric utility distribution
linos; (5) nonprojeet overhead electric transmission lines that
do not require erection of support structures within the project
boundary; (7) submarine, overhead, or underground major telephone
distribution cablea or major electric distribution lines (98-kV
or less); and (8) water intake or pusping facilities that do not
extract more than I million gallons per day from a project
reservoir. No latex than January 31 of each year, the licensees
shall file three copies of a report that briefly describes for
each conveyance wade under this paragraph Ic) during the prior
calendar year the type of interest conveyed, the location of the
lands subject to the conveyance, and the nature of the use for
which the interest was conveyed.
(d) The licensees may convey fee title to, easements or
rights-of-way CCCOSS, or lenses of project lands for the
following: (11 construction of new bridges or roads tar which
all necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained. 12i
sewer or effluent lines that discharge into project waters, fci
Project No. 9-003 -47-
which all necessary federal and state water quality certificston
or permits have been obtained, (I) other pipelines that cross
project lands or waters but do not discharge into project waters;
(4) nonproject overhead electric transmission lines requiring
erection of support structures within the project boundary for
which all necessary federal and state approvals have been
obtained; (5) private or public marinas that can accommodate no
more than 10 watercraft at a time and are located at least one-
half mile from any other private or public marina: (6)
recreational development consistent with an approved exhibit B or
an approved report on recreational resources of an exhibit E; and
(7) other uses, if these conditions exist; (I) the amount of
land conveyed for a particular use is $ acres or less; (ii) all
of the land conveyed is located at least 75 feet, measured
horizontally, from the edge of the project reservoir at normal
aaxawa surface elevation; and (iii) no more than 50 total acres
of project lands for each project development are conveyed under
this clause (d))7( in any calendar year. At least 45 days before
conveying any interest in project lands under this paragraph idl,
the licenases 'shall submit a letter to the Director, Office of
Hydropower Licensing, stating the licensees 4 intent to convey the
interest and briefly describing the type of interest and the
location of the lands to be conveyed (e marked exhibit C or £ map
may be used), the nature of the proposed use, the identity of any
federal or state agency official consulted, and any federal or state approvals required for the proposed use. Unless the
Director, within 45 d*ys from the tiling date, requires the
license, to file an application for prior approval, the licensees
may convey the intended interest at the and of that period.
(e) The following additional conditions apply to any
intended conveyance under paragraph (c) or (d) of this article:
(1) Before conveying the interest, the licensees shall
consult, with appropriate federal and state fish and wildlife or
recreational agencies and with the State Historic Preservation
Officer.
(2) Before conveying the interest, the licensees shall
determine that the proposed use of -the lands to be conveyed in
not inconsistent with any approved exhibit ft or an approved
report on recreational resources of an exhibit ft or if the
project does not have an approved exhibit ft or an approved report
on recreational resources, that the lands to be conveyed do not
have recreational value.
(3) The instrument of conveyance shall include covenants
running with the land adequate to ensure the following: i) the
use of the lands conveyed shall not endanger health, create u
nuisance, or otherwise be incompatible with overall project
re,rrst.icr,al use; and (Ii) the grantee shall take all reasonable
Project ho. 2591-003 -44-
precautions to ensure that the construction, operation, and
maintenance of structures or facilities on the conveyed lands
occur in a manner that protects the Scenic, recreational, and environmental values of the project.
(4) The Commission reserves the right to require the
licensees to take reasonable remedial action to correct any
violation of the terms and conditions of this article for the
protection and enhancement of the project's scenic, recreational,
and ether environmental values.
(f)The conveyance of en interest in project land, under this article does not in itgelf change the project boundaries, The project boundare, may be changed to exclude land conveyed
under this article only upon approval of revised Exhibit C or ft drawings (project boundary maps) reflecting exclusion of that
land. Lands conveyed under this article shall be excluded from
the project only on a determination that the land, are not
necessary for project purposes, such as operation and maintenance, fiowage, recreation, public mecca., protection of
environmental resources, and shoreline control, including the preservation of shorelin, aesthetic values. Absent extraordinary
airoumetancee, proposal* to exclude lade conveyed under this
article from the project shall be consolidated for consideration
when revised exhibit C or K drawings are filed for approval for
other purposes.
(g)The authority granted to the licensees under this
article shall not apply to any part of the public lands and
reservations of the United States included within the project boundary.
(B) The licensees shall serve copies of any Commission
filing required by this order on any entity specified to this
order to be consulted on matters related to that filing. Proof
of service on these entities must accompany the tiling with the
Commission.
41') Within 60 days of the issuance of this order, the
licensees shall submit the following information for each county
in which federal land,, utilized by the project, are included:
(1)the number of nontranemission line acres of L.$. lands; and
(2)the number of transmission line right-of-way acres of U.S. lands.
)G) this order is final unless an application for rehearing is filed within 30 days from the date of its issuance, or
provided in Section 313 of the FPA. The filing of an applivation
for rehearing does not operate as a stay of the effvctve data' of
its issuance or of any other date specified in this order, except as specifically ordered by the Commission. The liensee
Project No. 2898-003 -49-
failure to file an application for rehearing shall constitute
acceptance of this license,
By the Commission. commissioner Moler concurred with a separate
statement attached.
(SEAL)
Lois C. CaaheL1
Secretary.
Benjamin Otto (ISB No. 8292)
710 N 6th Street
Boise, ID 83701
Ph: [phone] x 12
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for the Idaho Conservation League
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF PURPA QF
CONTRACT PROVISIONS INCLUDING
THE SURROGATE AVOIDED
RESOURCE (SAR) AND INTEGRATED
RESOURCE PLANNING (IRP)
METHODOLOGIES FOR CALULATING
PUBLISHED AVOIDED COST RATES.
CASE NO. GNR-E-11-03
Direct Testimony
Justin Hayes
EXHIBIT 1703
TWIN FAILS LICENSE FERC PROJECT #18
May 4, 2012
O34.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
lIbERAL BNUGT IZOOLATORY COHKI8SION
Idaho Power ceapany Project No. 11-000-I44ho
ORDER ZIEVINO Nil LICENSE
(major)
(Issued January 11, 1991)
Idaho Power Company (licenses) has filed an application for a new license under Part I of the Federal Power Act (Act) to
continue to operate end maintain the Twin Fells Project, and
Install additional capacity. The project is located on the Snake
River in Jerome and Twin Falls counties, Idaho, partially on
lands of the United States administered by the Bureau of Lend
Management (BEN).
The original License expired on June 10, 1984, and
thereafter the project has been operated under an annual license.
11'.6ix"itri,agraph
The existing facilities consist of the Twin Fall. Dan and
ervor, an intake structure, a 136-toot-long penstock, a
erhouae with an installed capacity of 9 megawatts (MW), and a
ile-long transmission line. The proposed additions ate a
ond intake structure, a 213-toot-long peflatock, a powerhouse
a 42-MW generating unit, an interconnection with the
sting transmission line, and an acces. road and bridge.
e detailed degoription of the project is contained in ordering
(B).
Notice of the application has been published. No protests
or objections to lssunce of the license were filed.
The Idaho Department of Water Resources (lOWE) filed a
notion to intervene requesting that any license issued for this
project should suboJinate the licensee's water right to upstream
deplationary uses. The TONE's motion to intervene is discussed
in the attached Safety and Design Assessment (SIDA).
The Idaho Department of Fish and Gene (IOFO) filed a motion
to intervene to ensure that any license issued for this project
be conditioned to "preserve, protect, perpetuate, and maintain
the fish and wildlife resources of the State of Idaho".
This project was examined and included in the draft and
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared on four
proposed projects in the Snake River Basin. ./
I) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Office of Hydropower Licensing, July
1990. Milner (PENC No. 2899), Twin rails (flRC No. 18), Auger
IDPG's notion to intervene, as well as all comments received
from interested agencies and individuals have been fully
considered in the FEIS and in determining whether to issue this
license, as discussed below.
Envirgnmeritel Considerations
The impacts of the Twin Falls Project on important
environmental resources, and the mitigation measures necessary to
protect these resources, are discussed below.
1 .
The PETS concluded that construction and operation of the
new facilities at the project would cause minor increases in
erosion and sedimentation In the Snake River. The licensee has
proposed measures to control erosion and sedimentation and
maintain slope stability including: (1) settling ponds to filter
water pumped from construction sites: (2) rock bolts to stabilize
the rock cliff above the powerhouses (3) stabilizing spoil fills
by compacting the spoil material, using stable slope
configurations, leaving no depressions, and covering the spoil
fills with top soil, and (4) seeding disturbed areas and applying
mulch after the seed has been placed. As part of a final plan to
be prepared by the Licensee, the FEIS recommended additional
measures to minimize impacts on soil and geologic resources.
These additional measures include: (1) not exceeding the natural
angle of repose on slopes of spoil material: (2) using clean
gravels in cofferdams. (3) monitoring the revegetation process on
the slopes above the powerhouse road; and (4) limiting in-river
construction to the low-flow period of the year.
Article 401 requires the license* to prepare and file a plan
(to include the measures proposed by the licensee and those
recommended in the PEts) to control erosion, sedjnentatjon, and
slope stability during construction and operation of the project.
The PEtS concluded that chemical changes in water quality or
the Snake River could result fran construction related
disturbance of sediments containing heavy metals, pesticides, and
other toxic materials. Article 102 requires the licensee to
develop a plan to conduct tests for toxic substances in any
sediments or other unconsolidated deposits in the Snake River that would be removed or otherwise disturbed by dredging,
Falls (FElic No. 4797), and Star Falls (FENC No. 5797). This
document is In the Commission's public file and is available
for inspection at the Commission's Office of Public
Information.
constructing, or operating project facilities, and to safely
remove and dispose of any sediment and unconsolidated deposits
containing heavy metals, pesticides and other toxic materials.
The FEIS concluded that diversion of river flow around Twin
I'elIs would reduce reacrat ion and thus the level of dissolved
oxygen (DO) in the Snake River, Depending an the river's
biological oxygen demand (DOD) loading, a reduced amount of
reseration could reduce the vaste assimilating capacity of the
river. To avoid a reduction in the river's waste assimilating capacity, the FEIS recommended that the licensee sake provisions
for installing air blowers in the penstccke, turbine, or draft
tubet s o provide r.a.x-ation of the diverted water in the event DO
falls below 90 percent saturation.
Upon reevaluation of the recommended saturation level the
staff determined that present DOD levels in the study reach were
not sufficiently high to necessitate 90% saturation in the river
below the project. Analysis indicates that existing DOG levels
would not significantly deplete DO in the river because the rate
of biochemical oxidation is slower that the reaeration rate of
the river. Consequently, either with or without the project DO
levels would be expected to be reduced by less than I sq/i from
existing 9-9 eg/l summer levels. Saturation levels below 90%
would be adequate to process existing levels of DOD. Barring
major increases in DOD, the waste assimilating capacity of the
river, with or without the project, would be protected. The
present state standard of 6 mg/i DO (about 75% saturation in
summer) for waters of the reach would be adequate. The state
standard protects the tub of the reach from direst stress from
low DO.
Article 403 requires the licensee to maintain DO at 6 mg/l,
as iaeaeured in the river immediately downstream of the tailrace,
In the diverted water by making provisions for supplemental
aeration, as discussed above, it needed.
The FRIS recommended that monitoring of DO and water
temperature be done to ensure that the project provides
sufficient aeration. Article 404 requires the licensee, after
consultation with the ID1'G, Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare (101(W), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), to develop end implement a noxiitarirnj program to monitor
the need for, and effectiveness of, supplemental aeration.
The licensee applied for water quality certification I pursuant to Section 401(a(1) at the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
I 1341L (o)(1, from the IDUW with a latter dated April 25, 1983.
I Water quality certification was granted by IUHl on November 7,
L 3 '
The FEIS concluded that the project would result in an
ivreasa in the number of wild, native cutthroat and
I,dRbov-cutthroat hybrids removed from Twin Falls reservoir due
to diversion of water through the project intakes. The MIS
recommended that habitat restoration and enhancement in tributary
springs would constitute the most cost-effective mitigation.
Article 405 requires the licensee to develop and implement, in
consultation with IDPG, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWB), and
a habitat enhancement plan and trout monitoring program.
The FEIS concluded that spoil disposal during project
construction would result in temporary and permanent loss of up
to 9.3 acres of vegetation at the project site. The FEIS
recommended that spoil disposal be limited to certain specific
disposal sites and the licensee develop and implement a detailed
reveget;ation plan, in consultation with the FWS and IOFO.
Article 406 requires the licensee to develop and file for
Commission approval a detailed plan for revegetating areas to be
disturbed by construction or spoil disposal.
5* RaD&SIrs
The FEIS noted the existence of a golden eagle nest near the
project site that, if active, would experience limited, short-
term impacts as a result of blasting during project construction
The P515 recommended the licensee monitor the nest prior to
beginning construction, and if Loud to be active, the licensee
should implement protective measures, including prohibiting
blasting, to protect the nest. Article 407 'requires the licensee
to monitor the golden eagle nest, and implement protective
measures if the nest is found to be active.
6. Land Use and Recreation
The FEIS concluded that the project would have minor,
negative impacts on recreational visitors and local traffic due
to increased congestion and truck traffic during construction.
To minimize traffic congestion during construction, the FEIS
recommended that the licensee develop and implement a plan to
assure vehicular safety during construction and to schedule
construction activities to minimize conflicts with peak
recreation use. Article 408 requires the licensee to develop, in
consultation with Twin Pails County, a vehicular safety plan and
a schedule of construction activities to minimize conflicts with
the public during weekends.
The P516 concurred with the licensee's proposed recreational
improvements, including restroom facility replacement,
IN
inprovie.aients to the scenic viewpoint and parking area, covered picnic tables, and dock improvements at the boat ramp and in the reservoir. Article 409 approves the licensee's recreation report
tiled on April 4, 1989, and specifies that the licensee file as built drawings of the completed recreational facilities.
7. VIsual Resoeçcea
The PEtS concluded that the project significantly impacts
aesthetic quality of Twin Falls by reducing flows over the
Efalls and modifying the natural landscape. The addition of
new facilities would lead to a further reduction in aesthetic
ity by further reducing flow over the falls and adding
tional power generation and transmission facilities.
The PEIS recommended a minimum flow of 300 cubic fSet per
second cfs) over the falls from 8 a.m. to dusk everyday from
April through August and on weekends and holidays during the t'est
of the year (peek viewing times). The PEIS also XSCOemefld.d
reducing the aesthetic impacts of the transmission tower located
adjacent to the fills, matching the exposed Surfaces of the
powerhouse with natural rock at that location, and improving the
overlook facilities.
Requiring the licensee to maintain a minimum flow of 300 Cf a
over the falls as recommended in the FES would, in a typical
operation, cause the release of higher flows to preclude falling
below the required 300-crc minimum flow. Staff believes that a
101 variation (30 oft) from the300-cfs minimum flow, in this
v1uil environment, would not be perceptible. In addition, this
range of flows (210 to 300 eta at the low end) would still provide significantly greater flows in the northern plume than
the 140 eta proposed by the licensee, and still obviates the need for a weir to split the falls.
The practice of providing • higher flow than is absolutely required would, over time, result in significant lost generation nd subsequent revenue, without a similar perceptible benefit to
the aesthetic quality of Twin Falls.
Article 410 requires the licensee to maintain an avirage
Slow of 300 Ofa over Twin Fails during these peak viewing ticss for aesthetic quality, and also requires that these flows not fall below an instantaneous minimum of 210 eta or Inflow, whichever is lees, during these peak viewing times. Requiring the 300-cfs average flow during the peek viewing times allows the licensee to reconcile minor operating atresmf low fluctuations and functional operating limitations without excessive loam in
nanetatfon.
Articte Ill requires the licensee to construct the project facilities as recommended in rEIS and to develop a visual
resources protection plan in consultation with the BLN, Idaho
Department of Parke and Recreation (ZDPR), and the Idaho State
Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO). This plan will document
the following plan components and objectives: (3) painting or
other treatment to reduce the adverse visual impact of the
transmission tower adjacent to the falls; 2) the exposed
surfaces of the new powerhouse shell be rock-faced; (3) existing
chainlink fencing at the overlooks shall be replaced with a stone
and wood rail system; and (4) a means for measuring and reporting
flows required in article 410 shall be provided.
8. cultural Resourca
The PUS concluded that new construction could affect the
existing project facilities, which are eligible for inclusion on
the National Register of Historic Places (Register). The PEtS
recommended that the licensee, In consultation with the SRPO,
design new project facilities that avoid adverse effects to the
characteristics of the existing project structures. Article 412
requires the licensee to preserve the existing facility's unique
characteristics that render the project eligible for the
Register. Article 413 requires the licensee to contact the SI4PO
if cultural resources are discovered during project construction
and develop a cultural resources management plan if needed.
The FEIS evaluated the cumulative effects CL 4 proposed
projects on a 32-mile-long section of the Snake River from Milner
Da. to Auger Falls. The four projects include the Twin Falls
Project, the Milner Project (FERC No. 2899, the auger Falls
Project (FERC No. 4797), and the Star Falls Project (FERC No.
8797). The FEIS identified target resources for the Snake River -
-important resources that could be adversely affected in a
cumulative fashion by the proposed hydropower projects--including
drainage morphology, water quality, resident trout, white
sturgeon,, wintering waterfowl, raptors, riparian-associated
wildlife, riparian vegetation, aesthetic quality, recreation, and
local economy.
The PETS concluded that the proposed modifications at the
Twin Falls Project, with the mitigation and enhancement measures
recommended by the staff, would result in improved trout habitat
In Vinyard Creek which would contribute to cumulative benefits to
resident trout and recreational fishing. While the additional
development at Twin Falls would contribute to cumulative impacts
to visual quality in the Snake River canyon, staff recommended
mitigation would enhance sight seeing conditions at Twin Falls,
which would contribute to cumulative benefits to recreation.
Section 4(e) of the Act states that in deciding whether to
issue a License, the Commission, in addition to the power and
development purposes of the project, shall give equal
consideration to the purposes of energy conservation, the
protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of, fish and
wildlife the protection of recreational opportunities, and the
preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. These
purposes are considered in the staff conclusions section Of the
MIS prepared for this project.
Section 10(a) (1) states that the project adopted shall be
such that in the judgement of the commission will be best adapted
to a comprehensive plan for Improving or developing a waterway
for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the
Improvement and utilization of water power development, for the
adequate protection, utilization and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), and
for other beneficial public uses including irrigation, flood
control, water supply, end recreation and other purposes
discussed in section 4(e).
Further, section 10 (a) (2) of the Act requires the
Commission to consider the extent to which a project Is
consistent with federal or state comprehensive plans for
improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways
affected by the project. Federal and state agencies tiled 26
plans that address various resources in Idaho. Of these, the
staff identified 7 plans that are relevant to this project. 2/
The PEIS concluded that the project, as proposed to be
modified, would be inconsistent with portions of two of the
plans: (1) the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program;
and (2) the Idaho Fisheries Management Plan.
The Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (Program)
was developed by the Northwest Power Planning Council to protect,
mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife resources associated with
2/ (1) columbIa River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, 1987,
Northwest Power Planning Council: (2) Northwest
Conservation and Electric Power Plan, 1986, Northwest Power Planning Council; (3) Idaho State Watei, Plan, 1946,
Idaho Water Resources Board; (4) Idaho Fisheries
Management Plan, 1986-1990, Idaho Department of Fish and
case; (5) Idaho Water Quality Standards, 1985, Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare; (6) Idaho Outdoor
Recreation Plan, 1981, Idaho Department of Perks and
Recreation; (7) Monument Resources Management Plan, 1984,
U.S. Department of interior, Bureau of Land Management.
the development and operation of hydroelectric projects within
the Columbia River Basin and its tributaries. The FEIS
determined that the project would be inconsistent with the
Proraa's requirement for fisheries protection, because the
project lacks facilities to protect against fish entrainment.
The Program, however, while requiring compensation for
unavoidable losses, does not require prevention of entrainment.
As stated earlier, Article 405 requires the license, to develop a
plan to enhance trout habitat, monitor the effectiveness of the
enhancement measures, and develop a supplemental plan if needed.
With this trout habitat enhancement plan the project would be
,iteTit with the Program.
The Twin Falls project is also located In a reach of the
Snake River designated by the Council as a "protected area".
However, the protected area designation does not apply to the
proposed actions at the project because the designation does not
apply to existing dams.
The Idaho Fisheries Management Plan, developed by the IDFS,
provides overall goals and guidance for the management of fishery
resources for the state. The project would be inconsistent with
the specific goal of the plan pertaining to the backwaters of
Twin Falls Cam to surtaugh Bridge, of protecting wild trout, in
particular the population of wild, native cutthroat trout.
Specifically, the project would adversely affect the trout
through entrainment into the project intake. The degree at
inconsistency would be reduced, however, to the extant that
proposed trout habitat improvements lead to an expanded wild
trout population.
The Ff15 concluded that the project would be consistent with
the other five relevant comprehensive plans. The Idaho Water
Resources Board has approved the licensee's petition to exempt
the project from interim protection status under the Idaho State
Water Plan. There are no inconsistencies with the provisions of
the Idaho Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, the
Idaho State Water Quality Standards, or the Department of
Interior, Bureau of Land Management Monument Resource Plan. The
project is exempt under the Northwest Conservation and Electric
Power Plan because it is a modification at an existing facility.
Because the licensee would divert more flow to operate the
new powerhouse, the Ff15 recommended that the licensee should
provide a minimum flow over the falls to mitigate impacts to
visual quality. Impacts to the waterfalls are considered
important because the aesthetic qualities of the fails are
extremely sensitive to change. This sensitivity stems from the
adverse impacts to visual quality of frequently having low or no
flows over the falls in June through September from operation of
the existing project, and also from the falls high visibility and
popularity with visitors. The staff estimates that the 50-year
leveilsed cost of providing 300 cfs from B a.m. to dusk every day
in April through August and on weekends and holidays during the
rest of the year would be about $80,000 annually, The staff
believes that this cost Is justified during periods of high
visitor use of the project area.
The PEtS recommended that the licensee enhance trout habitat
in Vinyard Creek adjacent to Twin Pails reservoir. The licencee
agrees with this and has allocated funds specifically for this
purpose. The TUB recommended that the licensee should also
monitor the effectiveness of the trout habitat enhancement
measures for 5 years and provide a basis for modifying these
measures if needed. The start believes that this monitoring
would increase the Coat of the project by about $27,500 per year
for a total of $138,000. The staff believes that the costa of
the above measures are justified in order to mitigate for
increased removal of wild, native trout due to diversion of water
Into the project intake.
Staff estimates that the project will start producing power
in 1994 and the capital cost of the project to be $44 million.
Staff finds operating the project, with staff environmental
measures would produce net economic benefits of about lO
mills/kilowatthour. Based on a review under sections 4(e) and 10(a), issuing a
new license:for the expanded Twin Falls Project is best adapted
to a comprehensive plan for improving and developing the upper
Snake River basin.
Section 10(j) of the Act requires the Commission to include
license conditions based on the recommendations of federal and
state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation,
and enhancement of fish and wildlife. The PEtS addressed the
concerns of the federal and state fish and wildlife agencies and
this license provides conditions consistent with the
recommendations.
The Department of Interior and the lOTS filed
recommendations for fish and wildlife conditions. The
recommendations, which were determined consistent with the Act
and other applicable lava, are described in detail in the FEIS
and are summarized below.
Trout Habitat Enhancement: The PUS and 2DFG recommend
enhancement of trout habitat to protect the trout population in
Twin Pails Reservoir. specifically, tOPS and PUS recommend
enhancement or trout habitat in Vinyard Creek adjacent to Twin
Falls Reservoir. The TUB concurred with these reconinandatlons
because habitat enhancement appears to be the most coat-effective
measure to protect and potentially enhance the trout population.
10
Article 406 requires the licensee to develop and implement a
trout habitat enhancement plan in consultation with the PUS and
lOTS.
Trout Mofljcrinq Proarem: The PUS recommends a 3-5 year
monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of the proposed
trout habitat enhancement measures, The PUS also recommends the
monitoring plan should include provisions for a backup plan in
the event the proposed measures do not work as intended. Article
406 requires the licensee to develop and implement a monitoring
program with provisions for modifying the plan in the event
measures do not work as intended.
The staff has reviewed licensee's plans to comply with the
conditions of a new license. The licensee's compliance record shows it made a good faith effort to comply with all of its prior
license conditions. It is therefore believed that the licensee
would be able to meet the requirements of a new license.
SectionJfa)(21Bb: Safe Omeratton
The staff reviewed licensee's plans to manage, Operate, and
maintain the project safely and finds them adequate. The
license, proposes no change in project operation adversely
affecting project safety. Used on the licensee's public safety
records, its plans are adequate.
Licensee's project safety record shows we can expect it to
cooperate with the Commission and to fully comply with the terms
and conditions of the new license.
S.ctige 15(a)(21tC): Providing Efficient and Reliable Electric
prvice
The staff reviewed licensee's operating plans and its
ability to provide efficient and reliable electric service. It
In concluded that the licensee is operating the project in an
efficient and reliable manner.
The staff examined licensee's record of forced outages and
find that the outages do not represent a significant number of
occurrences.
The Licensee normally uses the power it generates with the
project in its system. Because the project is located near the
center of the licensee's system, it allows the project to
contribute to reliability and stability of the area. Also, the
licensee is electrically interconnected with all adjoining
systems, so any surplus energy can be made available for use in
those systems.
11
&ectiorp 35(0)t2D1: Need for the Power
The staff considered the short and long-term need for the
power the project would generate, and the cost of alternative
power if the licensee does not get: a new license for the project and has concluded that:
U Power from the Twin Falls project is needed.
I Replacing project power would cost the licensee about
$5.6 million annually.
The project is located in the Northwest Power Planning
Council (Council) area--in the south-central pert of Idaho--near
Twin Pails, Idaho. In March 1989, the licensee published a
resource management report (PM) that identifies the existing unit at the project as a nondeferrable resource now serving part
of the licensee's power requirements.
The licenses plans to expend the project capacity to 51 MW.
The average annual generation from the project will increase to
189,000 meqawattbour. MWh). Completion of the expansion is now
scheduled for 1995.
The RXR shows a need for power on the licensee's system in
2001 under medium loads and median water conditions and in 1995
under high loads and median water conditions. The licensee
projects that deficiencies occurring in some months during low
water conditions will require the liosriase to curtail service to
interruptible customers and to ms)ce purchases from other
utilities to meet its fire loads.
With low loads and median water conditions, the licensee nay
have resources In excess of its system needs through 2008. in
recognition of this possibility, the licensee Is further
developing its ability to participate in the regional power
market.
The Council's 1989 supplement to it's 1986 Power Plan shows
a need for power could exist in the Council area any time from
the early to the late 1990's.
The supplement also shows resource deficits would occur on
the Investor-owned Utility (IOU) systems in the council area
before deficits occur in the area as e whole. The Council
projects IOU deficits by 1992 with medium-high loads and by 3595
with medium-low loads.
In March 1990, the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference
Committee (Committee) issued a revised Northwest Regional
Forecast of Power Loads and Resources. The Committee projects a
need for more power resources in the Council area as a whole in
La
1993. The Committee also projects that individual systems in the
area could experience deficits as early as the 1990-1991 winter.
Hydro resources, such as the Twin Fells Project expansion,
coming on-line in the mid-1920's, could be useful in meeting a
small part of that need for power. Such projects could
contribute to the need as part of the hydro resources In the
Council's proposed resource addition portfolios.
When operational, the projects would be available to
displace thermal generation in the Western Systems Coordinating
Council (WSCC) region until needed to serve load directly in the
Council area or on the licensee system specifically. The WSCC
region encompasses the Council area,
The staff studied the financial impact on the licensee's
ratepayers, considered as a single group, which would result from
the loss of the output of the project. If the Commission denies
a new license or issues a nonpuwer license, it is assumed the
licensee would replace the project's dependable capacity and
energy by generating more with its present coal-fired basis load
units.
Historically, the project produces about 60 gigawattlloure
(CWh) of energy annually and has a dependable capacity of 7.7 MW
But because of the licensee's proposed project changes and the
enhancements the staff, the agencies, and the licensee propose,
the energy output of the project would differ appreciably over
the next license period.
If the licensee must replace the capacity and energy the
project now produces, the staff estimates that the levelized
annual impact on the licensee's ratepayers would be $5.6 million
or about 93.7 milis/kilowatthour.
Section 15a 2Er Transmission Line lerorovements
The licensee does not plan to modify the transmission
network that has been and will be used by project.
SeCtioJ5(a) I2LLF1: Project Mcdifictions
The licensee proposes to increase the installed capacity 42
NW by building a new powerhouse. The project would have a total
installed capacity of $1 MW. Project annual generation would
increase from 60 to 109 Gwh.
5ction15iaU: Comoliance History
The licensee has satisfactorily complied with the terra and
conditions of its existing license. The licensee has made timely
filings and submittals and has maintained the project and its
ME
recreation facilities in a satisfactory canner.
Section 15 of the Act specifies that any license issued
shell be for a term which the Coentasion determines to be in the
public interest, but not less than 30 years, nor more than 50
years. This provision is consistent with the cameission's policy
which establishes 30-year tsr-as for theee projects which propose
no new construction or capacity, 40-year terms for theee projects
that propose a moderate amount of new development, and SO-year
terms for those projects that propose substantial new
development
The existing facilities of the Twin Falls Project consist of
a concrete arch dam. a 115-foot-long penstock, a powerhouse
containing a single generating unit with an installed capacity of
9 MW and a one-mile-long transmission line.
Redevelopment of the project would add an intake structure,
a 213-foot-long penstock, a second powerhouse containing a 42-MW
generating unit, a tailrace, and other appurtenant facilities.
The redevelopment of the project would inerease the
installed capacity from 9 MW to 51 MW and the project generation
from 60 GWh to 169 GWh. We consider these additions substantial
new development, therefore a term of 50 years for the new license is warranted.
based on the conclusions in the FEIS and additional staff
discussions concetning environmental impacts of the project in
this order, it is concluded that issuance of this license is in
the public interest.
The design of the project is consistent with the engineering
standards governing daa safety. The project will be eats if
constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the
requirements of this order. Analysis of related issues is
provided in the SCDA, attached to this order.
The Director, off ice of Hydropower Licensing, concludes that
the Twin Falls Project would not conflict with any planned or
authorized development and would be beat adapted to comprehensive
development of the waterway for beneficial public uses.
(A) This license is issued to the Idaho Power Company, for
a period of 50-years, effective the first day of the month in
which this order is issued, for the redevelopment and continued
34
operation and maintenance of the Twin Falls Project. This
license is subject to the terse and conditions of the Act, which
is incorporated by reference as part of this license, and subject to the regulations the Commission issues under the provisions or the Act.
(8) The project consists of
(1)All lands, to the extend of the licensee's interest in those lada, enclosed by the project boundary shown by exhibit O
39 Project Map
(2)Project works consisting of (a) the Twin Falls Dee
which has three sections, a concrete arch dam across the north
fells with a 174-foot-long overflow crest at elevation 3,508 feat
13,511.4 feet with flashbosrds), a non-overflow concrete gravity
des morose the south falls with a 203-foot-long crest at
elevation 3,520 feet, and a concrete dike across the island between the north and south falls in two sections, one 108 feet long with the crest at elevation 3,516 feet and the other 207 feet long with the crest elevation 3,509 feet (3,512 feet with
flaehbcards); (b) the Twin Falls Reservoir, which has a storage - capacity of about 1,000 acre-feet at normal pool elevation of
3,511.4 feet; (c) a gated intake structure in the non-overflow gravity section; (d) a lO-foot-dieneter-, 136-toot-long stool-lined tunnel penstock; (e) a 40-feet-long, 37-foot-wide concrete powerhouse at the base of south falls containing a generating
unit with a rated capacity of 9 MW; (f) a l-mile-lonq, 138-kV
transmission line connecting the project to the licensee's
distribution system; (g) a second intake structure at the non-
overflow section of the dam; (h) an 18-foot-diameter steel-lined tunnel consisting of a 120-foot-deep vertical shaft and a 93-foot-long horizontal tunnel: (I) a 63-foot-wide, 100-foot-long concrete powerhouse at the toe of the non-overflow section of the dam containing a generating unit with a rated capacity of 42 MW; (j) a tailrace returning all waters to the Seek. River; (k) a short primary line connecting this development with the other powerhouse: (I) a 110-foot-long, 15-toot-wide concrete and steel bridge between the powerhouses: and (m) other appurtenances.
The project works generally described above are more
specifically shown and described by those portions of exhibits A and F recommended for approval in the attached 3601.
(3)All the structures, fixtures, equipuent, and facilities used to operate or maintain the project and located within the project boundary, all portable property that may be employed in
connection with the project and located within or outside the
project boundary, and all riparian or other rights that are
15
necessary or appropriate in the operation or maintenance of the
project.
(C) The exhibit G described above and those sections of
exhibits A and I recommended for approval in the attached S&DA
are approved and made part of the license.
(0) This license in subject to the articles met forth in
Form t.-Z (October 1975), entitled "TERMS AND CONDITIONS Of
LICENSE FOR UNCONSTRUCTED MAJOR PROJECT AFFECT 114(3 LANDS OF THE
UNITED STATES", except article 20, and the following additional
articles.
Article 201. The licensee shall pay the United States the
following annual charge, effective the first day of the
month in which this license is issued
(a)For the purpose of reimbursing the United States
for the cost of administration of Part I of the Act, a
reasonable amount as determined in accordance with the
provisions of the Commission's regulations in effect
from time to time. The authorized installed capacity
for that purpose is 6B 4 O00 horsepower,
(b)For the purpose of recompensing the United States
for the use, occupancy, and enjoyment of 74.1 acres at
its lands, other than for transmission line right-of-
way, a reasonable amount as determined in accordance
with the provisions of the Commission's regulations in
effect from time to time.
(c)For the purpose of recompensing the United States
for the use, occupancy, and enjoyment of 18.4 acres of
its landi for transmission line right-of-way, a
reasonable amount as d.t5rmined in accordance with the
provisions of the Commission's regulations in effect
from time to time.
Article 202. Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Act, s
specified reasonable rate of return upon the net investment in
the project shall be used for determining surplus earnings of the
project for the establishment and maintenance of amortization
reserves. One half of the project surplus earnings, if any,
accumulated under the license, in excess of the specified rate of
return per annum on the net investment, shall be set aside in a
project amortization reserve account at the end of each fiscal
year. To the extent that there is a deficiency Of project
earnings below the specified rate of return per annum for any
fiscal year under the license, the amount at that deficiency
shall be deducted from the amount of any surplus earnings
subsequently accumulated, until absorbed. One-half of the
remaining surplus earnings, if any, cumulatively computed, shall
15
be set aside in the project amortization reserve account. The amounts established in the project amortization reserved account
shall be maintained until further order of the Commission.
The annual specified reasonable rite of return shall be the
sum of the annual weighted costs of long-term debt, preferred
stock, and common equity, as defined below. The annual weighted
cost for each component of the reasonable rate of return is the product of its capital ratio and cost rate. The annual capital
ratio for each component of the rate of return shall be
calculated based on an average of 13 monthly balances of amounts
properly includable in the licensee's long-term debt and
proprietary capital accounts as listed in the Commission's
Uniform System of Accounts. The cost rates for long-term debt and preferred stock shalt be their respective weighted average
costs for the year, and the cost of common equity shall be the interest rate an 10-year government bonda(reportod as the
Treasury Department 'a 10-year constant maturity series) computed
on the monthly average for the year in question plus four
percentage points (400 basis points).
Article-203 . The licensee shall clear and keep clear to an
adaquste width all lands along open conduits and shall dispose of
all temporary structures, unused timber, brush, refuse, or other
material unnecessary for the purposes of the project which result
from maintenance, operation, or alteration of the project works.
In addition, all trees along the periphery of project reservoirs
which may die during operations of the project shall be removed.
All clearing of lands and disposal of unnecessary material shall
be dons with due diligence to the satisfaction of the authorized
representative of the Commission and in accordance with
appropriate federal, state, and local statutes and regulations.
Artlø1 3Dl. The licensee shall begin construction at the
project works within 2 years and shall complete construction of
the project works within 4 years from the issuance date at the
license.
Ariiclm 302. The licensee shall file revised exhibits A, F,
and C for commission approval, to describe and show the project
as built, within 50 days after finishing construction.
Article 203. The licensee shall review and approve the contractor's cofferdams and deep excavations designs before
starting construction, and during the construction shall make
sure that the cofferdams and deep excavations are consistent with
the previously approved designs.
At least 30 days before starting construction of the
cofferdam, the licensee shall submit the approved cofferdam
construction drawings and specifications and the letters of approval, sending one copy to the Director of the Division of Dam
17
Safety and Inspections and one copy to the Director of the
Commission's Portland Regional Office.
Article 3. At least 60 days before starting construction,
the licenses shall submit (1) final contract drawings and
specifications and (2) a supporting design report, sending two
copies of the filings to the Director of the Division of Dan
Safety and Inspections and one copy to the Director of the
Commission's Portland Regional office.
The filings shall cover such pertinent features of the
project as (I) water-retention structures, (2) all necessary
transmission facilities, (3) the powerhouse, and (4) water
conveyance structures.
The Director of the Division of oas Safety and Inspections may require changes in the plans and specifications to assure a
sate and adequate project.
Article 131. The licensee, after consultation with the Soil
Coflservation Service (SCS), shall prepaye and file along with
final plans and sp.ciications required by Article 304, a plan to control erosion, slop, stability, and to minimize the quantity of
sediment resulting frhus project construction and operation. The plan shall he implemented and shall include the following: (l)
settling ponds to filter water pumped from construction sites: (2)rock bolts to etabilise the rock cliff above the pow.rhocset
(3)stabilizing spoil fills by compacting the spoil material in stable slope configurations not exceeding the natural angle of
repose, leaving no depressions in the spoil material and covering
it with top soil: (4) seeding disturbed areas and spoil fills
with a seed mixture approved by Ses and applying mulch after the seed has teen placed: () monitoring rev.qet&tion on elopes above
the powerhouse road and replanting as necessary to ensure
successful revegetetion of this slops: (6) using Clean gravels in
cot terdans; and (7) limiting in-river construction, including
placement and removal of cofferdams, to the low flow period of
the year.
Documentation of consultation with SCS and the seed mix
recommended by Scs shall be included with the plan when it is
filed with the Commission. The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan to ensure adequate protection of the environmental 1 scenic, and cultural values of the project area.
_ The licensee, after consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Idaho Department of Fish and Game and at least 90 days before starting any project
related land-clesring, land-disturbing, or spoil-producing activities within the Snake River shall file for Commission
approval, and shall implement a plan to conduct tests for heavy
11
metals, pesticides, and other toxic substances in any sediments
or other unconsolidated deposits in the Snake River that would be
removed or otherwise disturbed by dredging, constructing, or
operating project facilities and to safely remove and dispose of
any sediment and unconsolidated deposits containing heavy metals,
pesticides, or other toxic materials. The plan also shall
Include an implementation schedule for the monitoring and
comments of the consulted agencies on the monitoring plan and
Implementation schedule. The filing shell include documentation
of agency consultation and any agency comments and
recommendations on the plan.
The licensee shall allow a reasonable time frame, in no case
less than 30 days, for agencies to comment and make
recommendations prior to filing the plan. The license, shall not
commence any land-clearing, land-disturbing, or spoil-producing
activities within the Snake River until the Commission approves
the plan. The Commission reserves the right to require changes
to the plan.
Article 403. The licensee after consultation with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare. Idaho Department of Fish and cam., and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and at least 90 days before starting any land-
clearing • land-disturbing, or spoil-producing activities, shall
tile for Commission approval plans for the potential installation
of air blowers in the penstocks, turbine, or draft tub.., as say
be required by Article 404 to provide reaerction it dissolved
oxygen is below 6 mg/i In as measured in the river immediately
downstream of the tailrace. The project shall be designed such
that installation of an air- injection system is not precluded.
The licensee shall allow a reasonable ttmefrantm, in no case
lees than 30 days, for agencies to comment and sake
recommendations on the plan. The tiling shall include
documentation of agency consultation and any agency consents and
recommendations on the plan. The licensee shall not commence any
land-clearing, land-disturbing, or spoil producing activities
until the Commission approves the plan. The Commission reserves
the right to require changes to the plan.
Article 404. The licensee, after consultation with the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), the Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare (10)1W), and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), shall develop and implement a plan to monitor water
temperature and dissolved oxygen in the river immediately
downstream of the tailrace. The plan shall be filed for
Commission approval at least 90 days prior to commencing
commercial operation of the new powerhouse. The licensee shall
allow a reasonable timeframs, in no case less than 30 days, for
agencies to comment and make recommendations prior to filing the
plan. The filing shall include documentation of agency
19
(consultation and any agency comments or recommendations. Upon
Commission approval the licensee shall implement the plan.
The plan shall include continuous (hourly) monitoring of DO
and water temperature in the river immediately downstream of the
tailrace from June 15 to October 15. violations of the state
water quality standard for DO shell be reported to EPA, IDHW and
IDFO within 24 hours. The plan shall include specific response
measures in the event standards are not met, including, but not
limited to, an air injection system at the powerhouse to *.lntain
I 6 ag/I of DO, in the river immediately iluwnatroas of the
tailrace, or release at water over the fells rather than through
I the project turbines and a schedule for constructing or
I inpl*mentlnq these measures. The licensee shall not begin
loperation of the new powerhouse until the Commission approves the
Iplan. The commission reserves the right to require changes to
the plan. Within 60 days of completion of construction of an air
in ection system the licensee shall fliC as built drawings.
Article 405. The licensee, after consultation with the
Idaho Department of Fish &n4 Game (lDFG, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Bureau. of Land Management (SLM),
shall develop and implement a plan for habitat enhancement,
including but not limited to improvements to Vinyard Creek, the
intake forebay, Twin Falls reservoir, and the Snake River and
adjacent springs upstream to Hansen Bridge and a monitoring
program to determine the response of the cutthroat trout,
rainbow-cutthroat hybtid population to h4bit&t enhancements. The
plan shall be tiled for Commission approval at least 90 days
prier to commencing commercial operation of the new powerhouse.
The licensee shell allow a reasonable timaframe, in no gems less
than 30 days, for agencies to comment and make recommendations
prior to filing the plan. The filing shell include documentation
of agency consultation and any agency comments or
recommendations. Upon Commission approval the licensee shall
implement the plan.
The plan shall include (1) provisions for surveys of all
potential spring habitat upstream to the Hansen Bridge and
assessments of the potential for rehabilitating or enhancing
habitat at each spring location, 2) monitoring of the seasonal
distribution and abundance of trout in cress where habitat
improvement have been constructed, and 3) provisions for filing
annual reports by December 31 of each year on the habitat
enhancement program and the response in the fish population. The
licensee shall conduct the monitoring program for at least 5
years and file a final comprehensive report on the success of the
habitat enhancement program and for approval any recommendations
for changing the program. The final report shall include
agencies comments on Its findings and recommendations.
The Conmiesi.ori reserves the right to require changes to the plan.
20
The licensee shall not begin commercial operation of the new
Powerhouse until the Commission approves the plan.
In the event the specific measures at the habitat enhancement program are deemed inadequate to protect and enhance the population at any time during or immediately following the 5-year monitoring program, the licensee in consultation with IDF,
FWS, and BIM shall file for Commission approval a supplemental plan for implementing changes to the program along with comments
and recommendations of the IDFG, FWS, and SUe. The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan and any subsequent supplemented plan.
Article 4Q. The licensee, after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and at least 90 days before any project related land clearing, land-disturbing, or spoil-producing activities, shall
file for Commission approval, a detailed plan for revegetating
areas to be disturbed by construction or spoil-disposal. Upon
Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan.
The plan shall include at a minimums (1) the exact location
Of the staging area and spoil disposal sites; (2) the planned
contours and depth of topsoil: (3) a description of how the spoil would be compacted and contoured; (4) a description of the plant
species used, their source, and their potential value to
wildlife; (5) planting densities: (5) fertilization and
Irrigation requirements; () provisions to control ewatic species and damage from small nemesis and deer; and (8) a monitoring program. The licensee shall avoid depositing spoil materials at the downstream 10.000-cubic-yard site and at the 500-cubic-yard site, as shown on attachment 10 of the tiling dated April 4, 1989.
The licensee shall allow a reasonable tiineframe, in no case less than 30 days, for agencies to comment and sake recommendations on the plan. The tiling shall include
documentation of agency consultation and any agency comments and
recommendations on the plan. The licensee shall not commence any
land-clearing, land-disturbing, or spoil-producing activities until the Commission approves the plan. The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan.
Article 40?. The licensee, after consultation with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (PWS) and the Idaho Department of Fish
and Game (IDFG) and at least 90 days before starting any land-
clearing, land-disturbing, or spoil-producing activities, shall
file for Commission approval, a plan to monitor the golden eagle
nest near the project site and to prevent project construction
activities from disturbing nesting golden eagles. Upon
Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan.
21
The plan shall include the ro1
low'
ng (1) a schedule for monitoring the golden eagle nest, including the period Over which
the nest would be monitored and how often monitoring would occur;
and (2) measures to protect the nesting golden eagles it the nest
is used, including prohibiting blasting and other specific
construction activities. Agency comments shell be included in
the tiling.
The licensee shall not start any lend-clearing, land-
disturbing, or spoil-producing activities until the Commission
approves the plan.
Articg 408. The licensee, after consultation with the Idaho Department of Transportation and Twin Falls County, and 90 days before starting any project related lend-clearing, land-
disturbing, or spoil-producing activities and before bringing any equipment to the site shall file for Commission approval, a plan to ensure and monitor vehicular safety on roads leading to the project site, and a construction schedule to minimize conflicts
with recreational access and activities an weekends. Upon
Commission approval the licensee shell implement the plan. The
filing shall include documentation of the required consultation
along with and any comments and recommendations. The licensee
shall not commence iandcl.arinq, land-disturbing or spoil.-
producing activities nor bring any equipment to the site until
the Cceusiaslon approves the plan. 'the Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan.
Article 409. The licensee's recreation report, filed on
April 4, 1989, consisting of 14 pages of text and tables and one
drawing, that provides for the improvement of: (1) restroom
facilities, (2) access to scenic viewpoints, (3) parking
facilities, and (4) a boat launch area is approved and wade part
of the license. Within 90 days of completing the recreational
improvements, the licensee shall file with the Commission, as-
built drawings showing the size, type, and location Of the
completed facilities. The licensee shall be responsible for
constructing, operating, and maintaining the proposed recreational facilities.
Article aio. The licensee shall maintain flow, that average 300 cubic feet per second (cfs) over Twin Falls from B a.m. to 30 I minutes after sunset each day, 7 days a week, April 1 through 1 August 11, and 8 a.m. to 30 minutes after sunset every Saturday I and Sunday and on all holidays, September 1 through March 31
I (peak viewing tie). At no time during these peak viewing times shell the flow over Twin Falls fall below 230 ots or inflow. I whichever is less. The average flow Of 300 ofa, required during
peak viewing times, may be temporarily modified if required by
operating emergencies beyond the control of the license, or for
short periods upon utul agreement between the licensee, the
22
treau of Land Management, the Idaho Department of Parks and
creation, and the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer.
Article 411. The licensee shall prepare an aesthetic
resources protection plan in consultation with the Bureau of Land
Management, the Idaho Department of.Parks and Recreation, and the
Idaho State Historical Preservation Officer. The licensee shall
file the plan for Commission approval at least 90 days prier to
any land-clearing, land-disturbing, and spoil-producing
activities. The licensee shall allow a reasonable timeframe, in
no case less than 30 days, for agencies to comment and make
recommendations on the plan. The filing shall include
documentation of agency consultation and any agency comments and
recommendations on the plan. The licensee shall not Commence any
land-clearing land-disturbing, spoil-producing activities until
the Commission approves the plan. The Commission reserves the
right to require changes to the plan. Upon Commission approval
the licensee shall implement the plan.
The plan shall include final siting and design drawings and
specifications and other necessary supporting analyses, including
photographs, that document the following plan components and
objectives: (1) painting or other treatment to reduce the
adverse visual impact of the transmission tower adjacent to the
falls; (3) the exposed surfaces of the new powerhouse shall be
rock-faced to match the cliff location and the adjacent rock
facade of the historic powerhouse; (3) ewistiog chainlink fencing
at the overlooks shall be replaced with a atone and wood rail
system that would be compatible with the site's natural and
historic character while providing for public safety and
unimpeded views of the fails for adults and children; and (1)
providing a means for measuring and reporting flows required in
Article 410.
Article 412. The licenses, at least 90 days before staring
any project-related land-clearing, land-disturbing, or spoil-
producing activities or modifications to existing structures,
shall consult with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer
(OHPO) concerning the measures necessary to maintain the
historical integrity o. the existing project facilities that
render the property eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. Any project modifications shall be undertaken
in a manner satisfactory to the SHPO and in accordance with the
Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology
and Historic Preservation. Prior to starting any project-related
land-clearing, land-disturbing, or spoil-producing activities or
modifications, to existing structures, the licensee shall file for
Commission approval, a cultural resources manag t. ement plan
describing the standards and guidelines tha will be ieplenented
to maintain the historical integrity of the existing project
facilities, and a copy of a letter from the SHPO commenting an
the acceptability of the plan. The Commission reserves the right
to require changes to the plan. Upon Commission approval the
licensee shall implement the plan.
Articla.413. The licensee, before starting any future land-
clearing, land-disturbing, or spoil-producing activities
associated with the project, shall consult with the Idaho State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and shell conduct a cultural
resources survey of the affected areas. Further, the licensee
shall tile a report containing the survey results: for Commission
approval a cultural resources management plan to avoid or
mitigate impacts to any significant archeological or historic
sites identified during the survey: and, the written comments of
the SUPO on the report and the plan. It the licensee diacgv*rs
any previously unidentified archeological or historic sites
during the course of constructing or developing project works or
other facilities at the project, the licensee shell atop all
land-clearing, land-disturbing, or spoil-producing activities in
the vicinity of the sites, shall consult with the SMPO, and shall
file for commission approval a cultural resources management plan
to avoid or mitigate impacts to significant resources, together
with the written comments of the SHPO on the plan. Upon
Commission approval the licensee shall implement the plan. The
survey and the plan shell be based On the recommendations of the
SPQ. shell be conducted and prepared by a qualified cultural
resources specialist, and shalt adhere to the Secretary of the
interior's Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation.
The report and plan shall contain the following: (1) a
description of each discovered site, indicating whether it is
listed or eligible to be listed on the National laister of
Hiatoic Places: (2) a description of the potential effect on
each discovered site: 3) proposed measures for avoiding or
mitigating the effect., (4) documentation of the nature and
extent of consultation with the SHPO: and (5) a schedule for
mitigating effects and conducting additional studies. The
commission may require changes to the plan.
The licensee shall not implement a cultural resources
management plan or begin any land-clearing, land-disturbing, or
spoil-producing activities until informed by the Commission that
the requirements of this article have been fulfilled.
Article 414. (a) In accordance with the provisions of this
article, the licensee shall have the authority to grant
permission for certain types of use and occupancy of project
lands and waters and to Convey certain interests in project lands
and waters for certain types of use and occupancy, without prior
CO5mssion approval. The licensee may exercise the authority
only if the proposed use and occupancy is consistent with the
purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, recreational,
and other environmental values of the project. Pot these
purposes, the licensee shall also have continuing responsibility
to supervise and control the use and occupancies for which it grants permission, and to monitor the use of, and ensure
compliance with the covenants of the instrument of conveyance
for, any interests that it has conveyed under this article. If a
permitted use and occupancy violates any condition of this
article or any other condition imposed by the licensee for the
protection and enhancement of the project's scenic, recreational,
or other environmental values or if a covenant of a conveyance
made under the authority of this article is violated, the
licensee shall take any lawful action necessary to correct the
violation. For a permitted use or occupancy, that action
includes, if necessary, canceling the permission to use and
occupy the project lands and waters and requiring the removal of
any non-complying structures and facilities.
(b)The type of use and occupancy of project lands and water
for which the licenses may grant permission without prior
commission approval are: (I) landscape plantings; (2) non-
commercial piers, landings, boat docks, or similar structures and
facilities that can accommodate no more than 10 watercraft at a time and where the facility is intended to serve single-family type dwellings, and (3) embankments, buljcheads, retaining walls,
or similar structures for erosion control to protect the existing shoreline. To the extent feasible and desirable to protect and
Snhence the project's scenic, recreational, and other
environmental values, the licensee shall require multiple use and
occupancy of facilities for access to project lends or waters.
The licensee also shall ensure to the satisfaction of the Commission's authorized representative that the use and
occupancies for which it grants permission are maintained in good
repair and comply with applicable state and local health and
safety requirements. Before granting permission for construction
of bulkheads or retaining wells, the licensee shall (1) inspect
the site of the proposed construction, (2) consider whether the planting of vegetation or the use of riprap would be adequate to
control erosion at the site, and (3) determine that the proposed
construction is needed and would not change the basic contour of
the reservoir shoreline. To implement this paragraph (b), the
licensee may, among other things, may establish a program for
issuing permits for the specified types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters, that may bS subject to the payment of
a reasonable fee to cover the licensee's costs of administering
the permit program. the Commission reserves the right to require
the licensee to file a description of its standards, guidelines,
and procedures for implementing this paragraph (b) and to require
modification of those standards, guidelines, or procedures.
(c)The licensee may convey easements or rights-of-way
across, or leases of, project lands fort (I) replacement, expansion, realignment, or maintenance of bridges and roads for
which all necessary state and federal approvals have been
obtained; (2) storm drains and water mains-, (3) sewers that do
25
not discharge Into project waters; (4) minor access roads; (5)
telephone, gas, and electric utility distribution lines: (6)
nonproject overhead electric transmission lines that do not
require erection of support structures within the project boundary; (7) submarine, overhead, or underground major telephone
distribution cables or major electric distribution lines (69-kV
or less); and (6) water intake or pumping facilities that do not
extract more than 1 million gallons per day from a project reservoir. No later than January 31 of each year, the licensee
shall file three copies of a report, briefly describing for each
conveyance made under this paragraph (C) during the prior calendar year the type of interest conveyed the location of the
lands subject to the conveyance, and the nature of the use for which the interest was conveyed.
(d) The licensee may convey fee title to, easements or rights-of-way across, or lessee of project lends for: (1)
construction or new bridges or roads for which all necessary
state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) sewer or
effluent lines that discharge into project waters, for which all necessary federal and state water quality certification or
permits have been obtained; (3) other pipelines that cross
project lands or waters but do not discharge into project waters; (4) nonproject overhead electric transmission lines that require erection of support atructures within the project boundary, fur which all necessary federal and state approvals have been
obtained; (5) private or public marinas that can accommodate no
more than 10 watercraft at a time and are located at least one-
halt mu, from any other private or public marina; (6) recreational development consistent with an approved exhibit B or
an approved report on recreational resources of an exhibit E: and
7) other uses, if: (i) the amount of land conveyed for a
particular use is 5 acres or less; (ii) all of the lend conveyed
is located at least 75 feet, measured horizontally, from the edge of the project reservoir at normal maximum surface elevation; and (iii) no more than 50 total acres of project lands for each project development are conveyed under this clause
(d) (7) in any calendar year. At least 45 days before conveying
any interest in project lands under this paragraph (d', the
licensee must submit a letter to the Director of the Office of
Hydropower Licensing, stating its intent to convey the interest
and briefly describing the type of interest and location of the lands to be conveyed (a marked Exhibit S or K map may be used),
the nature of the proposed use, the identify of any federal or
state agency official consulted, and any federal or state
approvals required for the proposed use. Unless the Director, within 45 days from the filing date, requires the licensee to
tile an application for prior approval, the licensee may convey
the intended interest at the end of that period.
(a) The following additional condition, apply to any
intended conveyance under paragraph (c) or (d) of this article:
26
(1) Before conveying the interest, the licensee shall
consult with federal and state fish and wildlife or recreation
agencies, as appropriate, and with the State Historic Preservation Officer.
(2) before conveying the interest, the licensee shall determine that the proposed use of the lands to be conveyed is not i'nsiatent with any approved exhibit B or an approved repu.t an recreational resources of an exhibit 5; or, if the
project des not have an approved exhibit B an or approved report
on recreational resources, that the lands to be conveyed do not
have recreational value.
(3) The instrument of conveyance shell include covenants
running with the land adequate to ensure that: (i) the use of
the lands conveyed shall not endanger health, create a nuisance,
or otherwise be incompatible with overall project recreational
use; and (ii) the grantee shall take all reasonable precautions
to insure that the construction, operation, and maintenance of structures or facilities on the conveyed lands occurs In a manner
that protects the scenic, recreational, and environmental values
of the project.
(4) The Commission reserves the right to require the
license, to take reasonable remedial action to correct any violation of the terms and conditions of this article, for the protection and enhancement of the project's scenic, recreational, and other environmental values,
(f)The conveyance of an interest in project lands under
this article deem not in itself change the project boundaries.
The project boundaries may be Changed to exclude land conveyed under this article only upon approval of revised exhibit 0 or K
drawings (project boundary maps) reflecting exclusion of that
land. Linds conveyed under this article shall be excluded from the project only upon a determination that the lands are not necessary for project purposes, such as operation and
maintenance, flowage, recreation, public access, protection of
environmental resources, and shoreline control, including
shoreline aesthetic values, absent extraordinary circumstances,
proposals to exclude lands conveyed under this article froa the
project shall be consolidated for consideration when revised
exhibit C or K drawings would be filed for approval for other
purposes.
(g)The authority granted to the licensee under this
article shall not apply to any part of the public lands and
reservations of the United States included within the project
boundary.
(5) The licensee shall serve copies of any Commission
filing required by this order on any entity specified in this
27
order to be consulted on matters related to that filing. Proof
of service on theme entities must accompany the filing with the
Con*imsion.
(F) This order to Issued under authority delegated to the
Director and constitutes final agency action. Request for
rehearing by the commission may be filed within 30 days of the
data of this order, pursuant to ii C.P.R. 3 385.713.
-
Fred L Springer
Oirsctcir, oftice of
Hydropower Licensing
Benjamin Otto (ISB No. 8292)
710 N 6th Street
Boise, ID 83701
Ph: [phone] x 12
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for the Idaho Conservation League
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF PURPA QF
CONTRACT PROVISIONS INCLUDING
THE SURROGATE AVOIDED
RESOURCE (SAR) AND INTEGRATED
RESOURCE PLANNING (IRP)
METHODOLOGIES FOR CALULATING
PUBLISHED AVOIDED COST RATES.
CASE NO. GNR-E-11-03
Direct Testimony
Justin Hayes
EXHIBIT 1704
FERC NOTICE OF IPC's APPLICATION TO AMEND THE BLISS AND LOWER SALMON FALLS LICENSES
AND
EXHIBIT B FROM IPC's FERC APPLICATION CONTAINING SUPPORT LETTERS FROM U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE AND IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
AND
IPC's FERC SUBMITTAL OF IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY SUPPORT LETTER
May 4, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Idaho Power Company Project Nos. 1975-102 and
P-2061-086
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF LICENSE AND SOLICITING
COMMENTS, MOTIONS TO INTERVENE, AND PROTESTS
(September 13, 2010)
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.Application Type: Amendment of license to amend project operation from run-of-
river to load-following.
b.Project Nos.: 1975-102 and P-2061-086
c.Date Filed: May 11, 2010 and May 5, 2010
d.Applicant: Idaho Power Company
e.Name of Project: Bliss (P-1975)and Lower Salmon Falls (P-2061)
f.Location: The Bliss Project (P-1975) is located on the Snake River in Gooding, Twin
Falls and Elmore Counties, Idaho. The Lower Salmon Falls Project (P-2061) is located
on the Snake River in Gooding and Twin Falls Counties, Idaho. Both projects occupy
lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The Lower Salmon Falls project
also occupies lands within the Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument managed by
the National Park Service.
g.Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 USC §§ 791a - 825r
h.Applicant Contact: Nathan F. Gardiner, Idaho Power Company, 1221 West Idaho
Street, P.O. Box 70, Boise, Idaho 83707-0070; telephone [phone].
i.FERC Contact: Andrea Claros, telephone: [phone], and e-mail address:
andrea.clarosferc.gov .
j.Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests: October 13, 2010.
Project Nos. 1975-102 and 2061-086 2
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet
in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's website (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-fiIing/efiling.asl2). Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-fiIing/ecomment.asp) and must include
name and contact information at the end of comments. The Commission strongly
encourages electronic filings.
All documents (original and eight copies) filed by paper should be sent to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20426. Please include the project numbers (P-1975-102 and P-2061-086) on any
comments or motions filed.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose
name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files
comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may
affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of
the document on that resource agency. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
k. Description of Request: After the completion of a six-year study on the effects of
load-following operation on the federally threatened Bliss Rapids snail, Idaho Power
Company (licensee) is proposing to amend Article 401 of the licenses for the Bliss and
Lower Salmon Falls Hydroelectric Projects to implement load-following operation rather
than run-of-river operation. For the Bliss Project, the licensee proposes a minimum flow
of 4,500 cubic feet per second (cfs), a hourly tailwater ramp rate of 3 feet per hour, a
daily tailwater ramp rate of 6 feet per day and a headwater fluctuation limit of 2 feet from
full pool. For the Lower Salmon Falls Project, the licensee proposes a minimum flow of
3,500 cf's, a hourly tailwater ramp rate of 2.5 feet per hour, a daily tailwater ramp rate of
5 feet per day and a headwater fluctuation limit of 2 feet from full pool. These limits
were previously proposed by the licensee prior to the issuance of the project licensees in
2004.
1. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and
reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street,
NE, Room 2A, Washington, D.C. 20426, or by calling [phone]. This filing may
also he viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the "eLibrary"
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
fihing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to
Project Nos. 1975-102 and 2061-086 3
this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
FERCOnlineSupport(ferc.goy, for TTY, call [phone]. A copy is also available
for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
m.Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so
indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a
protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2 10, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those
who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a
party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be
received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
o.Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title "COMMENTS", "PROTEST", or
"MOTION TO INTERVENE", as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular
application to which the filing refers.
p.Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on
the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies
directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time
specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
ATTACHMENT B
5
MAR 18 2010
Nathan F. Gardiner
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Subject: Amendments of License for Lower Salmon Falls (FERC 2061) and Bliss (FERC
1975) Hydroelectric Projects —Elniore, Gooding and Jerome Counties, Idaho—
Technical Assistance
Settlement Agreement FERC 1975-2061 14420-2010-TA-0253
Dear Mr. Gardiner:
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received two Draft Am,lications for Amendment
(Amendments) of License for Lower Salmon Falls (FERC 2061) and Bliss (FERC 1975)
hydroelectric projects (Projects) from the Idaho Power Company (Company) for submission to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission). The Amendments were developed
for the Projects based on the 2004 Settlement Agreement (Agreement) and associated snail
monitoring studies for the 2010 Bliss Rapids Snail Protection Plan (Plan). The Bliss Rapids snail
is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The
purpose of the Amendments is to propose resumption of load following operations within the
limits for the Projects allowed in Attachment 2, Table 2 of the 2004 Settlement Agreement
referenced in Appendix B of the Bliss license. The proposed Amendments are consistent with the
results of the studies in the Plan and the input received from the Service.
The results of the studies and development of the Plan constitute updated information for Bliss
Rapids snail and the proposed action. Based on this new information, we request that the
Commission reinitiate consultation for the Projects under section 7 of the Act. In addition, the
Company's Amendments request an interim load following period beginning April 1, 2010, as
per the Plan. This interim strategy is consistent with the Plan developed cooperatively between
the Company and the Service. Pending the Commission's request for formal consultation of the
Plan and our subsequent development of an updated biological opinion, the Company may
choose to operate for an interim period, as outlined in the Agreement, supported by the Plan and
TAKE PRIDE -'
( (
Nathan F. Gardiner
Amendments of License for Lower Salmon Falls (FERC 2061) and Bliss (FERC 1975) Hydroelectric Projects
proposed in the Amendments. If you have any questions please call Michael Morse of my staff at
[phone].
Sincerely,
40% ZA&~
Gary B on, Acting State Supervisor
Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office
cc: FERC (Bose)
2
L
A L 1 7 91
IDMI0 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
600 South Walnut/P.O. Box 25 C.L. "Butch!' Otter / Governor
Boise, Idaho 83707 Cal Groen / Director
April 20, 2010
Mr. Nathan Gardiner
P.O. Box 70
1221 W. Idaho St.
Boise, ID 83702
RE: Lower Salmon Falls and Bliss projects (FERC No. 2061 and 1975) Applications for
Amendment of License
Dear Mr. Gardiner
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (Department) staff has reviewed the draft Applications for
Amendment of License for the Lower Salmon Falls (FERC No. 2061) and Bliss (FERC No. 1975)
projects to allow Idaho Power Company (IPC or Company) to operate the projects to follow load
within the limits of the Snail Protection Plan (Plan) recently filed with the FERC, pursuant to
Article 403 of the licenses. The Plan, developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), addresses the effects of project operations on federally listed snails and contains
proposed measures to address water quality concerns, habitat destruction, alteration of spring
habitat, and control of invasive species. The proposed Plan does not require IPC to operate the
projects in a run-of-river mode.
Specifically, IPC seeks to amend the licenses such that the first paragraph of Article 401 of both
licenses is deleted and replaced with language that states the projects will be Operated within the
limits summarized in Table 2 of Attachment 2 of the "Settlement Agreement Concerning the
Relicensing of Idaho Power's Mid-Snake and C.J. Strike Hydroelectric Projects" filed with the
FERC on February 12, 2004. Because the Snail Protection Plan does not require run-of-river
operation, IPC also seeks to have the second, fourth, and last paragraph of Article 401 of both
licenses deleted. The Company further requests they be authorized to operate the projects to load
follow on an interim basis pending approval of the Plan. The FWS concurs that the projects may be
operated to load follow within the limits of the Plan pending approval by the FERC.
The Department previously commented on the draft Snail Protection Plan and found it acceptable
with minor modifications (letter to Michael Stephenson dated March 8, 2010). The Department
does not disagree with the proposed amendments to allow load following at the Lower Salmon Falls
and Bliss projects within the limits of the Snail Protection Plan, nor do we disagree with the request
to operate the projects to load follow on an interim basis pending FERC approval of the Plan.
Keeping Idahos Hik11,fe Jierilage
Equal Oppartw,ity Employer .208.334-3700 'Fax: [phone]& Idaho Relay (TDD) Service: 1-800-377-3529 aI:Up:I/Ishandame.idaho.gov/
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
C-416~6 RO&J---
Cindy Robertson
Natural Resources Program Coordinator
cc: Mike McDonald, Magic Valley Region
Doug Megargie, Magic Valley Region
Harriet Hensley, Office of the Attorney General
Keeping Idaho 's Wild!jfe Heritage
Equal Opportuni& Employer .208-334-3700 .Fax: [phone] 'Ida/ia Relay (TDD) Service: 1-800-377-3529 .hup:1$,h4ndgam.kiaho.gov1
HO
Ulave
An IDACORP Company
Nathan F. Gardiner, Attorney
Telephone: [phone]
neardiiier@idahoi)ower.com
August 31, 2010
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
Re: Bliss (FERC No. 1975-102)
Application for Amendment of License
Dear Ms. Bose:
Enclosed herewith for filing with the Commission is a copy of the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality's (IDEQ) comments on the draft Application for Amendment of
License sent to IDEQ on March 2, 2010.
If you have any questions concerning this filing, please call me at [phone].
'LF

ithan F. Gardiner
NFG:sh
Enclosures
cc: Patrick J. Regan, FERC-PRO
(00039476.DOC; 1) P.O. Box 70 (83707)
1221 W. Idaho St.
Boise, ID 83702
e STATE or tOM-tO
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
1410 North HNton 'Boise. Idaho 83706 • [phone] CL BoicW Otter, Governor
Toni HardWy, Director
August 30, 2010
Nathan F. Gardiner
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707-0070
RE: Bliss Project - FERC No. 1975 Lower Salmon Falls—FERC No. 2061
Amendment of Licenses
Dear Mr. Gardiner:
Idaho DEQ has received letters dated March 2, 2010 and copies of draft Applications for
Amendment of License for Project FERC No. 1975 (Bliss Project) and for Project FERC No.
2061 (Lower Salmon Falls). DEQ requested additional information from the Idaho Power
Company and received that information via a letter dated July 14, 2010. The information
compared the proposed license operational conditions to the historic mode of operation of these
Projects.
According to the additional information and based on DEQ review of the Applications, the
proposed license amendment operations are consistent and within the historic mode, of operation
as that has been interpreted and previously certified by DEQ. Since the proposed license
amendment operations are within the historic mode of operation, the proposed changes are
addressed by the provisions of DEQ's existing section 401 Water Quality Certification for the
Bliss and Lower Salmon Falls Projects. Therefore, the Application for Amendment of License
for these two Projects as presented in the letters dated March 2, 2010 does not require a new
section 401 certification.
Sincerely,
Barry N. Burnell
Water Quality Division Administrator
c: Doug Conde, AGs Office
Baithasar Buhider, DEQ Twin Falls Regional Office
Michael Morse, USF&WS, Boise Office
Jonathan C. Bowling, P.E., Idaho Power Company
0,
Benjamin Otto (ISB No. 8292)
710 N 6th Street
Boise, ID 83701
Ph: [phone] x 12
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for the Idaho Conservation League
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF PURPA QF
CONTRACT PROVISIONS INCLUDING
THE SURROGATE AVOIDED
RESOURCE (SAR) AND INTEGRATED
RESOURCE PLANNING (IRP)
METHODOLOGIES FOR CALULATING
PUBLISHED AVOIDED COST RATES.
CASE NO. GNR-E-11-03
Direct Testimony
Justin Hayes
EXHIBIT 1705
BIoLoGIcAL. ASSESSMENT FOR THE SNAKE RIVER P1-wsA
SUBMITTED BY IPC TO FERC FOR THE BLISS AND LOWER SALMON FALLS LICENSE AMENDMENTS
May 4, 2012
BMW
An IDACORP Company
Biological Assessment for Bany Bean
the Snake River Physa Aquatic Biologist
Michael Stephenson
Aquatic Biologist
Lower Salmon Falls, FERC Project No. 2061-004 October 2011
Bliss, FERC Project No. 1975.014 0 2011 Idaho Power
Idaho Power Company Snake River Physa Biological Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tableof Contents ............................................................................................................................. I
Listof Tables.................................................................................................................................. ii
Listof Figures................................................................................................................................. ii
Listof Appendices ................................................................ .......................................................... iii
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. i
2. Action Area ................................................................................................................................. 2
2.1. Lower Salmon Falls Reservoir..........................................................................................2
2.2. Lower Salmon Falls Reach...............................................................................................2
2.3. Bliss Reservoir..................................................................................................................3
2.4. Upper Bliss Reach .................................................. . ........................................................... 3
2.5. Lower Bliss Reach ............................................................................................................ 3
3 . Status of the Species...................................................................................................................3
3.1. Snake River Physa Species Description. ........................................................................... 3
3.2. Life History and Population Dynamics of the Snake River Physa ................................... 4
3.3. Documented Observations of Snake River Physa in the Mid-Snake River......................5
4. Environmental Baseline.............................................................................................................. 6
4.1. Water Quality.................................................................................................................... 6
4.2. Occurrence of Associated Invertebrates ...........................................................................6
4.3. Habitat Analysis................................................................................................................ 7
4.3.1. Lower Salmon Falls Reservoir ................................................................................. 7
4.3.2. Lower Salmon Falls Reach ...................................................................................... 7
4.3.3. Bliss Reservoir ......................................................................................................... 8
4.3.4. Upper Bliss Reach .................................................................................................... 8
4.3.5. Lower Bliss Reach................................................................................................... 8
5. Factors Affecting the Species Within the Action Area ............................................................... 9
6. Effects of the Proposed Action................................................................................................. 10
6.1. Direct............................................................................................................................... 10
Lower Saknon Falls Project; Bliss Project Page i
1
Snake River Physa Biological Assessment Idaho Power Company

6.2. Indirect ............................................................................................................................11

6.3. Cumulative......................................................................................................................11
7.Conclusion................................................................................................................................12
8.Acknowledgments.....................................................................................................................12
9.Consultation..............................................................................................................................12
10.Literature Cited.......................................................................................................................12
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Project operational constraints as set forth in Settlement Agreement dated February 12,
2004, between Idaho Power Company and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.........................17
Table 2
List of all Snake River physa specimens that Idaho Power Company (JPC) has collected........18
Table 3
Occurrences in the Action Area of Helobdella stagnalis and Ferrissia sp.,two species
associated with Snake River physa in the Minidoka Reach........................................................19
Table 4
Mollusk fauna (percent abundance) for selected reaches of the Snake River, Idaho.................21
Table 5
Estimated plan area (in 2) inundated in the Lower Bliss Reach for discharge from 4,500-
15,500 cis .................................................................................................................................... 22
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
ActionArea map ................................................................................... . ...................................... 23
Figure 2
Graph of water stage (surface elevation) changes for the Upper and Lower
BlissReaches ..............................................................................................................................25
Page ii Lower Salmon Falls Project; Bliss Project
Idaho Power Company Snake River Physa Bio logical Assessment
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Application for Amendment of License for Lower Salmon Falls Project
Appendix 2
Ecoanalysts Taxonomic Results for Frest and Johannes Samples
Lower Salmon Falls Project; Bliss Project Page iii
Snake River Physa Biological Assessment Idaho Power Company
This page left blank intentionally.
Page iv Lower Salmon Falls Project; Bliss Project
Idaho Power Company Snake River Physa Biological Assessment
1. INTRODUCTION
On February 12, 2004, Idaho Power Company (IPC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) filed a settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement) with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) concerning the relicensiug of IPC's C.J. Strike and 4 Middle Snake River
(Mid-Snake) hydroelectric projects (IPC and FWS 2004). The pwpose of the Settlement
Agreement was to allow for additional studies to assess the effect, if any, that 5 IPC
hydroelectric projects have on 2 of 5 species of snRiIs found in the Snake River or associated
springs and which are listed as endangered or threatened. Five species of Gastropoda found
in the Snake River of Idaho, or its associated springs, have been given special status under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). Pyrgulopsi.r idahoensis Pilsbry,
1933 (Idaho springsnail); Valvata utahensis Call, 1884 (Utah valvata snail); Haitia (Physa)
natricina Taylor, 1988 (Snake River physa); and Lanx sp. (Banbury Springs lanx),
an undescribed limpet, were ruled endangered. Taylorconcha serpenticola Hershier et al.,
1994 (Bliss Rapids snail) (BRS) was ruled threatened under the ESA (FWS 1992). The Idaho
springsnail has since been synonyinized with P. Robusta Walker, 1908 (Jackson Lake
springsnail) by Hershier and Liu (2004). On September 5, 2007, the FWS issued a final rule to
remove the Idaho springsnail from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (FWS 2007),
and JPC was not required to study this taxon past this date. Lysne et al. (2007) provides a review
of the life history, ecology, and distribution of the springsnail. The Utah valvata snail was also
excluded from the proposed studies since project operations of these hydroelectric projects were
anticipated to have minimal effect on the species. The Utah valvata has also been delisted by the
FWS (FWS 2010).
The Snake River physa was not included in the Settlement Agreement studies due to its
extreme rarity and since the proposed operations of the Lower Salmon Falls (FERC Project
No. 2061-004) and Bliss (FERC Project No. 1975-014) projects were not anticipated to directly
affect this species or its deeper-water habitat. Since that time, upstream surveys conducted by
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) near Minidoka Dam have shown that Snake River physa
can inhabit shallower riverine habitats than previously noted.
The Lower Salmon Falls and Bliss projects are not used to store water on a seasonal basis.
Although Lower Salmon Falls and Bliss reservoirs have minimal storage, they are used to follow
electrical energy demand (load following) on a limited, daily basis and to help meet short-term,
unexpected peak-load requirements. Load following at these projects dewaters benthic habitats
downstream of the dams for short durations. Dewatering has the potential to strand and affect
benthic organisms residing in the dewatered zone.
After submitting the final reports pertaining to the Settlement Agreement biological opinion
(BiOP) studies (Clark 2009), License Article 403 required 1PC to file a Snail Protection Plan
(IPC 2010). Developed in cooperation with the FWS, the Snail Protection Plan outlined studies
to monitor BRS in the Snake River and its spring tributaries for the term of the Mid-Snake
licenses. The goal of the Snail Protection Plan is to collect data to monitor the long-term
population trends in the riverine and spring habitats. The information collected will help guide
management decisions regarding BRS and requires protection measures for the species on
IPC-owned properties.
Lower Salmon Falls Project; Bias Project Page 1
Snake River Physa Biological Assessment Idaho Power Company
On May 5, 2010, IPC petitioned FERC to amend the Lower Salmon Falls and Bliss project
licenses to allow for load-following operations at these facilities (Appendix I). The proposed
load-following operations are outlined in detail (Table 1) in the Settlement Agreement.
The proposed load-following operations constitute the action (Action) considered in this
Biological Assessment. This document evaluates the potential impacts of the Action on the
Snake River physa snail.
2. ACTION AREA
The Action Area includes that portion of the Snake River impacted by operations of the Lower
Salmon Falls and Bliss dams. The upstream extent of the Action Area is the upper end of Lower
Salmon Falls Reservoir at river mile (RM) 579, and continues downstream to the headwaters of
C.J. Strike Reservoir at RM 522.5 for a total of 70.45 miles (Figure 1). The upstream extent of
the Action Area is approximately 3 miles southwest of the town of Hagerman in southwest
Idaho, while the downstream end of the Action Area is approximately 14 miles south of the town
of Mountain Home, ID.
The Action Area consists of 5 distinct river reaches due to the 2 impoundments and stream
morphology. These 5 river reaches from upstream to downstream are referred to as the
Lower Salmon Falls Reservoir, Lower Salmon Falls Reach, Bliss Reservoir, Upper Bliss
Reach, and Lower Bliss Reach. Each river reach is described in detail in the following sections.
2.1. Lower Salmon Falls Reservoir
Lower Salmon Falls Reservoir begins immediately downstream of the lower of the
2 Upper Salmon Falls power plants at RM 579 and continues downstream to Lower Salmon
Falls Dam at RM 573 for a total of 6 miles. The reservoir is approximately 750 acres,
or 3,035,119 square meters (m) in size at full pool (FERC 2004a).
The Lower Salmon Falls license (FERC 2004a) requires IPC to operate Lower Salmon Falls
Dam as a run-of-river (ROR) project, maintaining Lower Salmon Falls Reservoir at full-pool
elevation (2,798 feet mean sea level [ft msl]). Exceptions to this mode of operation include
ESA snail studies that occurred in the past and emergency operations outlined in FERC (2004a).
IPC proposes to operate this project in a load-following mode, altering discharge downstream of
the dam to meet electrical demand. Under this proposal, IPC would be allowed to draft Lower
Salmon Falls Reservoir no more than 2 feet from full pool (2,796 ft msl).
2.2. Lower Salmon Falls Reach
This free-flowing reach begins just downstream of Lower Salmon Falls Dam at RM 573
and continues downstream to the headwaters of Bliss Reservoir at RM 566 for a total of 7 miles.
Habitat types in this reach are dominated by glides (5 8%), followed by riffles (201/9),
pools (15%), and rapids (7%) (Welcker, Conner, Butler et al. 2009).
The Lower Salmon Falls license (FERC 2004a) requires IPC to operate Lower Salmon Falls
Dam as a ROR project, passing inflows to the reservoir downstream of the project as closely
Page 2 Lower Salmon Falls Project; Bliss
Idaho Power Company Snake River Physa Biological Assessment
as possible. Under the proposed operations, IPC would be allowed to ramp the discharge
downstream of Lower Salmon Falls Dam by 2.5 feet per hour (ft/hr) and 5 feet per day (ft/day),
subject to a minimum discharge requirement of 3,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) to protect
ESA-listed snails.
2.3. Bliss Reservoir
Bliss Reservoir begins at RM 566, near Shoestring Bridge, and continues downstream to
Bliss Dam at RM 560.3, for a total of 5.7 miles. The reservoir is approximately 255 acres,
or 1,031,940 m 2 in size at hull pool (FERC 2004b).
The Bliss license (FERC 2004b) requires IPC to operate Bliss Dam as a ROR project,
maintaining Bliss Reservoir at full-pool elevation (2,654 ft ins!). Exceptions to this mode of
operation include ESA snail studies that occurred in the past and emergency operations outlined
in FERC (2004b). IPC proposes to operate this project in a load-following mode, altering
discharge downstream of the dam to meet electrical demand. Under this proposal, IPC would be
allowed to draft Bliss Reservoir no more than 2 ft from hull p001(2,652 ft msl).
2.4. Upper Bliss Reach
The Upper Bliss Reach begins just downstream of Bliss Dam at RM 560.3 and continues
downstream to the King Hill Bridge at RM 546.35. Habitat types in this reach are dominated
by glides (68.4 0/-), followed by pools (16 0/9), riffles (60/9) with rapids and bench and chute
making up the remainder (Welcker, Conner, Butler et al. 2009).
The Bliss license (FERC 2004b) requires IPC to operate Bliss Dam as a ROR project,
passing inflows to the reservoir downstream of the project as closely as possible. Under the
proposed operations, IPC would be allowed to ramp the discharge downstream of Bliss Dam by
3 ft/hr and 6 ft/day, subject to a minimum discharge requirement of 4,500 cfs to protect
ESA-listed snails.
2.5. Lower Bliss Reach
The Lower Bliss Reach begins at the King Hill Bridge at RM 546.35 and continues downstream
to the headwaters of C.J. Strike Reservoir at RM 522.5, near Crane Rock. We used ArcMap
version 10 to estimate the surface area of this reach, which is approximately 7,973,763 m 2.
3. STATUS OF THE SPECIES
3.1. Snake River Physa Species Description
The Snake River physa was listed as endangered December14, 1992 (FWS 1992).
Critical habitat for this species has not been designated. Adult snails measure approximately
5-7 millimeters (mm) with 3-3.5 whorls. Shells are described as having a broad aperture
and expanded body whorl (Taylor 2003). The growth lines are oblique to the axis of the coil at
about 40 degrees and relatively distinct (Taylor 2003).
Lower Salmon Falls Project; Bliss Project Page 3
N
ol
Snake River Physa Biological Assessment Idaho Power Company
The taxonomy of the Snake River physa has been debated in recent years. Rogers and
Wethington (2007) synonymized P. natricina with P. acuta. The synonymy was based on
re-examination of all type material of Snake River physa and compared to Taylor's original
description (1988). Rogers and Wethington (2007) determined that the internal and external
morphological features Taylor relied upon to distinguish P. natricina were all within the range of
variability documented for P. acuta.
Physidae can be difficult to identify based on shell morphology alone (Burch 1989); many of the
distinguishing features described by Taylor are based on internal anatomy (Taylor 1988, 2003).
There were no specimens with intact soft tissue available at the time Rogers and Wethington
(2007) made their assessment. Gates and Kerans (2010) examined Physidae specimens collected
by USBR in 2006-2008. They examined shell morphology as well as internal anatomy.
Gates and Kerans (2010) reported 274 live-when-captured specimens that conformed to Taylor's
(1988) description of Snake River physa. Gates and Kerans (2010) also reported that DNA
analysis confirmed these specimens to be genetically distinct and, along with the use of
morphological and anatomical characteristics, identified them as Snake River physa.
3.2. Life History and Population Dynamics of the
Snake River Physa
Very little is known about the life history of the Snake River physa. The Snake River physa was
thought to occupy whitewater habitat with depths greater than 3 feet (Taylor 1982). Gates and
Kerans (20 10) reported that Snake River physa were more common in permanently wetted sites;
they found the species in 28.4% of permanently watered sites, compared to 5.8% of seasonally
dewatered sites. They reported mean depth of occupied sites as 1.74 meters (m). Snake River
physa were positively correlated with gravel substrates and higher water velocities (Gates and
Kerans 2010). The species is thought to be riverme, but 2 specimens tentatively identified as
Snake River physa have been collected in the Bnmeau Arm of C.J. Strike Reservoir (Table 2),
one specimen was collected in Swan Falls Reservoir (Table 2), and USBR has collected
specimens from a lotic wetland area just downstream of Minidoka Dam (Kerans and Gates n.d.).
Little is known about the population dynamics of the Snake River physa as few specimens of the
snail have ever been collected. Gates and Kerans (2010) noted that the species could be found in
the same location from year to year. Taylor (1988) describes its range as "restricted to the
Snake River from the vicinity of Bliss to Hammett, Idaho," although sampling by USBR and
IPC has extended their known range upstream to Minidoka Dam (RM 675) and downstream
to the mouth of the Payette River (RM 367.9).
Gerard et al. (2008) reported that pulmonates are well-adapted to stochastic environments,
such as large water-level variations and seasonal drought episodes, due to their pulmonary
respiration and their greater genetic and phenotypic plasticity. Thomas and McClintock (1996)
observed P. cubensis burrowing into the hyporheic sediments to survive desiccation in
ephemeral ponds. John Keebaugh (pers. comm.) observed Snake River physa burrowing through
small gravel substrate in the laboratory. Snake River physa behavior has not been observed
during dewatering events, so any potential behavioral adaptations to dewatering events are not
known at this time.
Page 4 Lower Salmon Falls Project; Bliss Project
q
tdaho Power Company Snake River Physa BiOlOgiCal Assessment
Water temperature tolerances and preferences of Snake River physa are unknown. FWS (1992)
reported the species requires clean, cold water, yet Gates and Kerans (2010) reported a mean
water temperature of 22.63 degrees Celsius (°C) for sites occupied by the species.
This temperature exceeds the maximum temperature criteria for coidwater biota of 22 °C set
forth under the Clean Water Act of 1972 (formerly known as the Federal Power Act of 1935,
as amended) (CWA). We used a t-test to compare the mean water temperature and standard
errors for sites where Snake River physa were present and absent as reported by Gates and
Kerans (2010, Table 1.3). Water temperatures were significantly higher for sites occupied by
Snake River physa compared to unoccupied, permanently watered sites (p=0.001) by an
estimated 0.6 °C. The mean temperature for the subset of sites where Snake River physa
occurred in the permanently watered zone was higher than the mean temperature for all
permanently watered sites (Gates and Kerans 2010, Table 1.12) (t-test, p=0.007;
estimated difference of 0.5 °C). These results suggest the Snake River physa can tolerate water
temperatures above the coidwater standard of 22°C, and that the species is associated in warmer
water within the temperature range observed by Gates and Kenins (2010).
33. Documented Observations of Snake River Physa in the
Mid-Snake River
Taylor (198 8) describes 12 collections of Snake River physa in the Action Area from
1959-1985. It is unclear from his descriptions which specimens were collected live or dead.
The holotype was collected in 1980 from the Lower Salmon Falls Reach near Frank Lloyd
Wright Rapids (@ RM 570). Taylor (1988) also made collections from the same site in 1959,
1961, and 1981. In addition, Taylor collected 3 specimens "above the Malad Power Plant,"
in 1980.
Taylor (1988) also collected specimens on 3 occasions (twice in 1980 and once in 1959) in the
vicinity of Bancroft Springs in the Upper Bliss Reach. In the Lower Bliss Reach, Taylor made
collections in 1956, 1980, 1981, and 1985 "1 mile above Indian Cove Bridge."
Frest and Johannes (2004) surveyed the sites described above where Taylor reported collecting
Snake River physa. Frest and Johannes subsampled 1,000 mollusks from each of these samples,
but did not find any Snake River physa. IPC contracted with EcoAnalysts, Inc., Moscow, ID,
to sort the remainder of these samples in 2011. EcoAnalysts examined 22 sample jars taken from
15 locations during Frest and Joltanness' 2003 Snaker River physa survey. No Physa natricina
were found during this study (Appendix 2).
Verified specimens of Snake River physa were very rare until recently, when the USBR
discovered them in the upper Snake River (Gates and Kerans 2010). These new collections of
Snake River physa prompted EPIC to re-evaluate specimens identified as Physidae from samples
collected throughout the Middle and Lower Snake River from 1995-2003. John Keebaugh of
the Onus J. Smith Museum of Natural History at the College of Idaho in Caldwell, ID,
identified 51 (live when captured) Snake River physa from 19,426 specimens identified as
Physidae (Keebaugh 2008) (Table 2). These Snake River physa were collected between
Bliss Dam (RM 559.3) downstream to a site near the mouth of the Payette River (RM 367.9).
Lower Salmon Falls Project; Bliss Project Page 5
(0
Snake River Physa Biological Assessment Idaho Power Company
Of the 51 Snake River physa Keebaugh identified from IPC's samples, one was collected in the
Action Area at RM 559.3, just downstream of Bliss Dam.
IPC and the FWS contracted with Montana State University (MSU) to further examine the
morphology of all 51 specimens and the genetics of a subset of these. DNA was successfully
collected from 15 of the specimens and matched Snake River physa genetic characteristics from
specimens collected by USBR upstream in the Minidoka Reach of the Snake River (Gates and
Kerans 2011). Gates and Kerans were unable to collect DNA from the specimen collected in the
Action Area, and the morphological identification was uncertain due to a broken apex. Two other
specimens with broken apexes and uncertain morphologic identification were confirmed as
Snake River physa with the DNA analysis (Gates and Kerans 2011).
4. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
IPC conducted macroinvertebrate surveys in the Action Area in 1995, 1996, 2000, and 2002
for which all invertebrates were sorted and identified to the lowest appropriate taxonomic level.
A total of 1,139 samples were collected. Only one (potential) Snake River physa was collected
during this effort. The species is likely very rare or absent from the Action Area.
4.1. Water Quality
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) listed the study area as water quality
limited, as defined under §303(d) of the federal CWA (33 U.S.0 §1313[d]) (II)EQ 2006).
The Snake River from Milner Dam (RM 639) downstream to King Hill (RM 546.35) was listed
for nutrients, sediment, dissolved oxygen (DO), flow alteration, ammonia, pathogens, and
temperature (IDEQ 1998).The reach from King Hill Bridge (RM 546.35) to Crane Rock
(RM 522.5) was listed for sediment, nutrients, and pesticides (IDEQ 2006). For comparison,
the reach of the Snake River from Minidoka Dam to Milner Dam (where Snake River physa have
been found in densities and abundances greater than in the Action Area (Gates and Kerans 2010)
is listed on the CWA §303(d) list of water-quality limited water bodies for sediment. DO,
nutrients, and oil and grease (IDEQ 2000), as well as temperature, flow alteration, and
Escherichia coil (E. coil) (IDEQ 2010).
4.2. Occurrence of Associated Invertebrates
Kerans and Gates (n.d.) and Ryan Newman (USBR, pers. comm.) noted samples that contained
Snake River physa also had Ferrissia rivularis (a freshwater limpet) and Helobdella stagnalis
(a leech) present each time in their 2006 samples (n=30). We reviewed samples collected by IPC
for the presence of these 2 species in the Action Area (IPC unpublished data) (Table 3).
Helobdella stagnalis occurred in both reservoirs, as well as the Lower Bliss Reach. Ferrissia sp.
occurred in all of the free-flowing reaches. The only section of the Action Area occupied by both
species is the Lower Bliss Reach, suggesting this area may provide the best habitat for Snake
River physa.
We compared the mollusk community of the Action Area to the Minidoka Reach and
Snake River RM 366.9-490.1, where the majority of Snake River physa have been collected
Page 6 Lower Salmon Falls Project; Bliss Project
If
Idaho Power Company Snake River Physa Biological Assessment
In the Mid-Snake (Table 4). BRS and P. Robusta were not included in this species list, as many
of our samples targeted these 2 species without identifying and counting other species.
Mollusk community data for the Minidoka Reach are from Gates and Kerans (2010). The Action
Area mollusk community Is dominated by the Invasive New Zealand mudsnail
(Potamopyrgus antipodarum) (NZMS), compared to 2.5% of the mollusk community in the
Minidoka Reach. Both of the reaches where Snake River physa occurred also had relatively high
numbers of Artemesian rams-horn ( Vortic(fex effisa). This species is also fairly common in the
Upper and Lower Bliss reaches. The 2 reservoir reaches had the lowest diversity with NZMS
comprising over 97% of the mollusk community.
4.3. Habitat Analysis
Taylor (1982) described Snake River physa habitat as "gravel to boulder substratum in steady
current." More recent studies conducted by Gates and Kerans (2010) found that the species
occurred most frequently on gravel substrate. We made use of Welcker, Conner, Wilson et al.
(2009) to describe the substrate in the Lower Salmon Falls Reach and Upper Bliss Reach. For the
other 3 reaches, we reviewed field notes for substrate data dating, back to 1995 (IPC, unpubi.
data).
Welcker, Conner, Wilson et al. (2009) used a one-dimensional hydrodynamic model to predict
substrate size in 2 categories: Cobble or larger (>64 mm) and gravel or smaller (<64 mm).
They verified their predictions using underwater video equipment.
4.3.1. Lower Salmon Falls Reservoir
Substrate data for this reach are sparse, as IPC has conducted limited sampling for
macroinvertebrates in Lower Salmon Falls Reservoir. We collected substrate data for 11 sites in
the reservoir. Four of the 11 sites (36%) had gravel substrate. The surface area of the reservoir
is approximately 3,035,119 m 2. This is a 2-dimensional estimate, so the actual benthic area is
greater by an unknown amount. Combining the estimates for proportion of gravel substrate and
the surface area provided above results in an estimated gravel habitat area of 1,092,643 m 2. It is
unknown what proportion of this habitat would be dewatered during load-following operations;
however, the water depth at the dam during thU-pool conditions is approximately 59 ft; therefore,
the majority of the habitat in this reservoir remains inundated when the reservoir elevation is
reduced by 2 ft.
4.3.2. Lower Salmon Falls Reach
Weicker, Conner, Wilson et at. (2009) found that 17% of this reach consisted of gravel or
smaller substrate. This estimate of small substrate includes gravel as well as smaller substrate
types, such as sand and silt, and thus should be considered a high estimate. Bean and Van Winkle
(2009) estimated the wetted habitat for this reach to be 945,761 m 2 at the minimum discharge
level allowed by the license of 3,500 cfs. This equates to approximately 160,799 m 2 of habitat
in the Lower Salmon Falls Reach that consists of gravel or smaller substrate in the permanently
wetted zone.
Lower Salmon Falls Project; Bliss Project Page 7
Snake River Physa Biological Assessment Idaho Power Company
Load-following operations at the Lower Salmon Falls project dewater 27,094-71,711 m 2 of
benthic habitat in the Lower Salmon Falls Reach, depending upon discharge in the river
upstream of the power plant (Bean et al. 2009). 1117% of this habitat is made up of gravel
or smaller substrate, this results in 4,605-12,191 m2 of substrate that is potential Snake River
physa habitat.
4.3.3. Bliss Reservoir
IPC has noted substrate at 30 sites in Bliss Reservoir. Of the 30 sites, 13 ç43%) were gravel
substrate. The surface area of the reservoir is approximately 1,031,940 in . This is a
2-dimensional estimate, so the actual benthic area is greater by an unknown amount.
Combining the estimates for proportion of gravel substrate and the surface area provided above
results in an estimated gravel habitat area of 469,837 m 2. It is unknown what proportion of this
habitat would be dewatered during load-following operations; however, the water depth at the
dam during full-pool conditions is approximately 70 ft; therefore, the majority of the habitat in
this reservoir remains inundated when the reservoir elevation is reduced by 2 ft.
4.3.4. Upper Bliss Reach
Weicker, Conner, Wilson et al. (2009) found that 44% of this reach consisted of gravel or
smaller substrate. This estimate of small substrate includes gravel as well as smaller substrate
types, such as sand and silt, and thus should be considered a high estimate. Bean and Van Winkle
(2009) estimated the wetted habitat for this reach to be 1,671,782 m 2 at the minimum discharge
level allowed by the license of 4,500 cfs. This equates to approximately 735,584 m 2 of habitat
in the Upper Bliss Reach that consists of gravel or smaller substrate in the permanently
wetted zone.
Load-following operations at the Bliss project dewater 98,890-205,353 m 2 of benthic habitat in
the Lower Salmon Falls Reach, depending upon discharge in the river upstream of the power
plant (Bean et al. 2009). If 44% of this habitat is made up of gravel or smaller substrate,
this results in 43,512-90,355 m2 of substrate that is potential Snake River physa habitat.
4.3.5. Lower Bliss Reach
IPC has noted substrate at 50 sites in the Lower Bliss Reach. Of the 50 sites, 26 (52%) were
gravel substrate. The surface area of the Lower Bliss Reach is approximately 7,973,763 m 2.
This is a 2-dimensional estimate, so the actual benthic area is greater by an unknown amount.
Combining the estimates for proportion of gravel substrate and the surface area provided above
results in an estimated gravel habitat area of 4,146,357 m 2.
We calculated the area inundated by the Lower Bliss Reach for the range of operational flows
(4,500-15,500 cfs) from Bliss Dam (Table 5). The Inundation Analysis report for the Mid-Snake
River, Idaho (Conner et al, 2009) provided inundation results for the reach of the Upper Bliss
Reach, and it contains complete descriptions on how the data were collected, processed and
analyzed. We used similar methods and data to determine the area of inundation for the
Lower Bliss Reach.
Page 8 Lower Salmon Falls Project Bliss Project
/3'
Idaho Power Company Snake River Physa Biological Assessment
To complete the analysis, we used the aerial photography and photograininetry developed for the
previous inundation analysis. The aerial photography was taken on April 13, 2004 when the
flows out of Bliss Dam were between 5,000 and 5,200 cfs. The inundated plan area in the photos
(8,251,968 m2) was taken to represent the area at a flow 5,000 cfs. For the inundation analysis of
the Lower Bliss Reach, all results are presented as plan area, as opposed to slope area that was
used in the inundation analysis upstream (Conner et al, 2009). There is less difference between
slope and plan area in the lower reach because of the flatter bathymetry, and this approach
simplified the analysis. The aerial photographs were interpreted with photogrammetry to create
2 ft contour maps of the Lower Bliss Reach. The incremental increase in inundated area at flows
from 6,000 to 15,500 cfs was calculated using modeled water surface elevations for these flows
compared to the elevations of the continuous topographic surface from the photogrammetry.
To calculate the inundated areas for 4,500 cfs, we extrapolated the observed trend in the graph
using a linear regression of the 5 data points for flows of 5,000 to 9,000 cfk The equation for
this line was found to be inundated area (m) = 57.02*110w (cfs) + 8,218,720. The results of the
analysis are provided in Table 5 below.
These results for inundated area of the Lower Bliss Reach of the Snake River vs. flow for the
operational range of Bliss Dam shows relatively minor changes in area for large changes in flow.
The inundated area increases only 9% through the entire operational range. This is due to the
wide, flat nature of this reach where water surface elevations do not increase as much due to
increases in flow as seen above King Hill Bridge. The results also show a slightly greater
increase in inundated areas between flows 9,000 and 11,000 cfs. The lower reach of the Snake
River below King Hill contains numerous islands and the lower elevation portions of these
islands inundate at flows between 9,000 and 11,000 cf, which explains the slightly steeper slope
of the line at those flows.
Below King Hill Bridge, the Snake River changes shape and transitions to a wider, shallower
river with large islands and above King Hill Bridge the river is narrow and deeper with more
rapids, riffles and glides. Because the river is wider below King FEB Bridge, the water surface
elevation changes less with flow than the river above the bridge. To show how the water surface
varies above and below King Hill Bridge we completed Figure 2, which displays the observed
range of measured water elevation data (stage) from Bliss Dam to Crane Rock for a range of
flows from 4,500 to 28,000 cfs.
During the two ROR years (2004-2005 and 2005-2006), the minimum flows out of Bliss Dam
were approximately 4,900 cfs. During Load Following operations, the minimum flows can be as
low as 4,500 cfs. This lower minimum flow exposes 22,810 m 2 of riverbed more than 4,900 cfs
flow, which represents a 0.3% decrease in total inundated area.
5. FACTORS AFFECTING THE SPECIES WITHIN THE
ACTION AREA
The FWS (1992) listed hydroelectric development, peak-loading effects from existing
hydroelectric project operations, water withdrawal and diversion, water pollution, inadequate
regulatory mechanisms, and the invasive NZMS as factors affecting the Snake River physa at the
time of listing.
Lower Salmon Falls Project; Bliss Project Page 9
N
Snake River Physa Biological Assessment Idaho Power Company
Water quality within the species' range is impacted by return flows from irrigated agriculture,
fish hatchery effluent, hydroelectric development, sewer treatment plant discharge, and spring
flows (IDEQ 1998). The susceptibility of Snake River physa to impaired water conditions is
unknown. The invasive NZMS is the most abundant mollusk in the Action Area (Table 4).
Studies have not been conducted to assess competitive impacts of the NZMS on Snake River
physa. Richards (2004) conducted experiments to assess competition between the NZMS and
the threatened BRS, which is endemic to the Snake River drainage. Richards reported that the
NZMS negatively impacted BRS growth rates. Richards (2004) also found that increasing
NZMS densities in enclosures resulted in lower BRS densities. The high abundance of NZMS in
the Action Area is likely to impact the Snake River physa if resources are limited.
The Action is limited to IPC operations of the Lower Salmon Falls and Bliss projects.
Additional discharge alterations in the Action Area consist of water withdrawal or augmentation,
as well as seasonal and daily water fluctuations. The numerous dams on the Snake River divert
and alter water discharge from its headwaters all the way to the mouth of the Columbia River.
Little is known about the pre-impoundment flow regime of the Snake River within the Action
Area. Seasonal run-off events were certainly larger in magnitude in the absence of flood control
and water storage for irrigation. Reduced peak flows, paired with agricultural activity in the
Snake River Basin, have likely increased sedimentation in the Action Area. There currently are
no plans or proposals to develop any new hydroelectric projects within the species' range.
6. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
6.1. Direct
Direct effects to Snake River physa individuals or eggs are expected to result from individuals
being stranded out of water due to changes in discharge as a result of the Action. Direct effects
of stranding to Snake River physa are desiccation and exposure to temperature extremes.
Desiccation of individual snails of all age classes (including eggs) may result in mortality or
reduced fitness, especially when ambient air temperatures are extreme (i.e., summer heat and
winter freezing events). The Snake River physa lack an operculum, which is used to seal the
shell and could potentially reduce susceptibility to desiccation. The species does have a pallial
lung, which may aid in respiration when dewatered. John Keebaugh (pers. comm.) described
Snake River physa as a relatively mobile species, so adult snails may be able to avoid desiccation
by migrating as the water level drops. Desiccation studies have not been conducted for this
species; therefore, their tolerance to dewatering is unknown.
Gates and Kerans (20 10) reported that Snake River physa occurred more frequently in
permanently watered sites (69) compared to seasonally dewatered sites (9). Furthermore, 809/9 of
sites occupied by Snake River physa were in the middle 50% of the river. Minidoka Dam is used
for seasonal storage, with winter discharge 10-times lower than estimated discharge in the
absence of the dam for many continuous months (Gates and Kerans 2010).The fluctuation zone
in the Action Area is very different in nature, as the Lower Salmon Falls and Bliss projects are
not capable of seasonal storage. Snake River physa typically do not inhabit shallow habitat
(Taylor 1988, Gates and Kerans 2010); therefore, the majority of the population residing in the
Page 10 Lower Salmon Falls Project; Bliss Project
15
Idaho Power Company Snake River Physa Biological Assessment
Action Area is likely to be protected by the minimum discharge guidelines outlined in
FERC 2004a and 2004b.
Very little is known regarding the timing, location, or frequency of Snake River physa
reproduction in the Action Area. Desiccation studies have not been conducted for Snake River
physa eggs. If the species does lay eggs in the fluctuation zone, it is likely that periodic
dewatering events negatively impact survival of the eggs. Impacts to eggs may be greater during
periods of extreme hot or cold weather, but it is not known when the species reproduces.
Hyporheic seepage in the dewatered zone may help to reduce impacts to eggs.
6.2. Indirect
While diet studies have not been conducted for the Snake River physa, Clampitt (1970)
qualitatively analyzed gut contents of P. inregra and P. gyrina. Detritus was the most common
food item, followed by algae. Hydroelectric operations have been shown to reduce periphyton
productivity in rivers (Gislason 1980), but impacts to periphyton in the Action Area have not
been studied. The periphyton community is likely degraded in the dewatered zone of the Action
Area, which could result in reduced fitness and increased competition for the Snake River physa.
The invasive NZMS is abundant in the Action Area. Stress (e.g., reduced food sources,
harassment due to water level fluctuations, etc.) related to the Action may give the NZMS
a competitive advantage over Snake River physa in the Action Area, which could further reduce
fitness and abundance of the Snake River physa.
6.3. Cumulative
Much of the Mid-Snake is water quality limited (IDEQ 1998, 2000, 2006, 2010).
Anthropogenc impacts to water quality and quantity in the Snake River upstream of the
Action Area will likely continue to impact Snake River physa habitat within the Action Area.
Climate change could alter the flow regime of the Snake River over time. For example,
Hamlet and Lettenmaier (1999) predict that wanner winter weather will result in 35-45%
reductions in snowpack in the Columbia River Basin by year 2045. A reduction in snowpack
could result in lower Snake River discharge as water is allocated to irrigators. Water quality may
be impacted as irrigators are forced to use more chemicals (e.g., fertilizer) on their crops
to compensate for reduced water allotments. Reduced discharge may also lead to lower dilution
rates of pollutants, resulting in increased water-quality impairment. In addition to water quality
changes, water temperature could rise with increasing ambient air temperatures, especially as
a greater proportion of water is passed through irrigation systems before reaching the
Snake River. While Snake River physa are known to occur in conditions wanner than the
CWA §303(d) coldwater biota criteria of 22 °C, their thermal tolerance is unknown. Increases in
water temperature could also affect interspecific competition, food resources, and dissolved
oxygen levels, among other factors. Further warming of the water within the Action Area due to
climate change and related factors could negatively impact Snake River physa.
Introduction of additional invasive species to the Action Area could negatively impact the
Snake River physa. The Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) has implemented a boat
Lower Salmon Falls Project; Bliss Project Page 11
(I'
Snake River Physa Biological Assessment Idaho Power Company
inspection program to prevent introduction of aquatic nuisance species, but it is possible that
invasive species will be introduced to the Action Area despite these efforts.
Additional competition from invasive species in a waterway that is already water-quality
limited could have negative impacts on Snake River physa.
7. CONCLUSION
IPC concludes that load-following operations of the Lower Salmon Falls and Bliss projects may
affect the Snake River physa, but are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species. This is based on the fact that the species prefers deep-water habitat that is protected by
minimum-discharge requirements, and the daily fluctuation zone likely represents less than
5% of the habitat within the Action Area. However, Snake River physa eggs, juveniles,
and adults that are stranded in the dewatered zone as a result of operations of the 2 projects
may be negatively impacted.
8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
IPC's Document Resources department provided technical review, formatting, and report
editing. Mike Radko of IPC provided Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping support.
IPC's Mike Butler, Chris Weicker, and Jeff Conner performed the inundation analysis for the
Lower Bliss Reach.
9. CONSULTATION
IPC met with FWS on August 20, 2011, to discuss the impacts of the Action on Snake River
physa. Since that time, IPC has met informally with FWS and shared data from the IPC database
at their request.
10. LITERATURE CITED
Bean, B., and W. Van Winkle. 2009. Appendix 1)—Estimating Bliss Rapids snail habitat units
and abundance in the Mid-Snake River, Idaho. In: Effects of hydropower load-following
operations on the Bliss Rapids -snail in the Mid-Snake River, Idaho. W. H. Clark, editor.
Boise, 1D: Idaho Power Company.
Bean, B., W. Van Winkle, and W. H. Clark. 2009. Appendix E—Impact of load-following
operations on Bliss Rapids snail habitat and abundance in the dewatered zone of the
Mid-Snake River, Idaho. In: Effects of hydropower load-following operations on the
Bliss Rapids snail in the Mid Snake River, Idaho. W. H. Clark, editor. Boise, ID:
Idaho Power Company.
Burch, J. B. 1989. North American freshwater snails. Hamburg, MI: Malacological Publications.
Clampitt, P. T. 1970. Comparative ecology of the snails Physa gyrina and Physa integra.
Malacologia 10:113-51.
Page 12 Lower Salmon Falls Project; Bliss Project
1?
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 4th day of May, 2012 I delivered true and correct
copies of the foregoing DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN HAYES to the following
persons via the method of service noted:
Hand delivery:
Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary (Original, Nine copies, and one CD provided)
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
427 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83702-59
Electronic Mail only:
Rocky Mountain Power
Daniel Solander
PacifiCorp/dba Rocky Mountain Power
201 S. Main St., Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
[e-mail]
NIPPC
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Robert D. Kahn, Executive Director
Northwest and Intermountain Power
Producers Coalition
117 Minor Ave., Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98101
[e-mail]
Simplot
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, ID 83702
PUG
Donald L. Howell, II
Kristine Sasser
Deputy Attorneys General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise ID 83702
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Idaho Power
Donovan E. Walker
Jason B. Williams
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise, Idaho 83707-0070
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
A vista
Michael G. Andrea
Avista Corporation
1411 E. Mission Ave.
Spokane, WA 99202
[e-mail]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 May 4, 2012
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Don Sturtevant, Energy Director
J.R. Simplot Company
P.O. Box 27
Boise, ID 83707
[e-mail]
Grandview Solar II
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Robert A. Paul
Grandview Solar II
1590 Vista Circle
Desert Hot Springs, CA
[e-mail]
Exerv Development
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
James Carkulis
Managing Member
Exergy Development Group of Idaho
802 W. Bannock St., Suite 1200
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
Dr. Don Reading
2070 Hill Road
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
Adams County Board of Commissioners
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Bill Brown, Chair
Board of Commissioners of Adams
County
P.O. Box 48
Council, ID 83612
[e-mail]
Clearwater Paper Corp
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Mary Lewallen
Clearwater Paper Corporation
601 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 1100
Spokane, WA 99201
[e-mail]
Dynamis Energy
Ronald Williams
Williams and Bradbury, P.C.
1015 W, Hays St.
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
Wade Thomas, General Counsel
Dynamis Energy, LLC
776 W. Riverside Dr., Suite 15
Eagle, ID 83616
[e-mail]
Renewable Energy Coalition
Ronald Williams
Williams and Bradbury, P.C.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 May 4, 2012
1015 W, Hays St. Twin Falls Canal Company
Boise, ID 83702 P.O. Box 326
[e-mail] Twin Falls, ID 83303
[e-mail]
John R. Lowe, Consultant
Renewable Energy Coalition Ted Diehl, General Manager
12050 SW Tremont St. North Side Canal Company
Portland, OR 97225 921 N. Lincoln St.
[e-mail] Jerome, ID 83338
[e-mail]
Interconnect Solar Development, LLC
R. Greg Ferney Birch Power Company
Mimura Law Office, PLLC Ted Sorenson, P.E.
2176 E. Franklin Rd., Suite 120 Birch Power Company
Meridian, ID 83642 5203 South 1 1th East
[e-mail] Idaho Falls, ID 83404
[e-mail]
Bill Piske, Manager
Interconnect Solar Development, LLC Idaho Windfarms, LLC
1303 E. Carter Dean J. Miller
Boise, ID 83706 McDevitt & Miller, LLP
[e-mail] P.O. Box 2564
Boise, ID 83701
Intermountain Wind, LLC [e-mail]
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller, LLP Glenn Ikemoto
P.O. Box 2564 Margaret Rueger
Boise, ID 83701 Idaho Windfarms, LLC
[e-mail] 672 Blair Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611
Paul Martin [e-mail]
Intermountain Wind, LLC [e-mail]
P.O. Box 353
Boulder, CO 80306 Blue Ribbon Energy
[e-mail] M.J. Humphries
Blue Ribbon Energy, LLC
Twin Falls and North Side Canal 4515 S. Ammon Road
Companies Ammon, Id 83406
C. Thomas Arkoosh [e-mail]
Capitol Loaw Group, PLLC
205 N. 10th St., 0 Floor Arron F. Jepson
P0 Box 2598 Blue Ribbon Energy LLC
Boise, ID 83701 10660 South 540 East
[e-mail] Sandy UT 84070
[e-mail]
Brian Olmstead, General Manager
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 May 4, 2012
Renewable Northwest Project
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller, LLP
P.O. Box 2564
Boise, ID 83701
[e-mail]
Megan Walseth Decker
Senior Staff Council
Rnewable Northwest project
421 SW 6 th St, Suite 1125
Portland, OR 97204
[e-mail]
Snake River Alliance
Liz woodruff
Ken Miller
Snake River Alliance
P0 Box 1731
Boise, ID 83701
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Energy Integrity Project
Tuana Christensen
Energy Integrity Project
769N 1100E
Shelly, ID 83274
[e-mail]
Idaho Wind Partners I, LLC
Deborah E. Nelson
Kelsey J. Nunez
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
601 Bannock St
P0 Box 2720
Boise, ID 83701
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 4 May 4, 2012